*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[IvanKaramazov]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Florida might not re-vote: LINK

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - The head of Florida's Democratic Party said Thursday the proposed vote-by-mail presidential primary is unlikely to go forward because of strong opposition and concerns about conducting the vote.

Karen Thurman said she is asking Democratic leaders, the national party and presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to consider the option as the best way to resolve the delegate dispute. Florida had all 210 of its delegates to the national convention stripped after it violated national party rules by moving up its primary to January.

When asked if the alternative will be implemented, knowing what she knows about potential problems executing the plan and widespread concerns, Thurman said, "I have a feeling that this is probably closer to not, than yes."

Thurman will review comments from Democratic leaders and make a decision by Monday on whether to proceed with the re-vote. But she acknowledged that Obama has had concerns and the Democratic National Committee won't support a proposal unless both candidates also back it. She said there's a serious question over whether the state could legally verify the signatures of a privately run election.

"If this becomes something that we can't do, then we can't do it," Thurman said.

The party sent the campaigns and state and national party leaders an outline of the proposal on Wednesday. All of Florida's 4.1 million Democrats would be mailed a ballot. They could send it back, or cast a ballot in one of 50 regional voting centers that would be set up. The election would end June 3, a week before a Democratic National Committee deadline to name delegates. The estimated cost is $10 million to $12 million.

"When you change the rules in the middle of the game, which is what's being proposed here, you've got to do it in a way that both campaigns agree is fair," he said. "The best option is whatever we can get the candidates to agree with, which puts a vote back in the hands of the people of Florida and Michigan. And that's going to be not so easy to do."

All nine Democratic House members from Florida oppose the idea, including Clinton backers.

Obama told reporters traveling on his campaign plan Thursday that although he has concerns about mail-in voting, "we're going to abide by whatever the DNC decides."

"We're not gonna make the final decision on it, and I'll abide by whatever rules the DNC lays out," he said.

The Clinton campaign made it clear that it strongly prefers a state-run primary to mail-in voting during a meeting with Michigan Democrats Thursday, according to a campaign official speaking anonymously about the private talks. People involved in the private meeting said the Clinton advisers favor the state-run primary because there would be less likelihood of problems such as fraud and ballot counting than with a mail-in vote.

 

[adonis]

Have you seen the video? Again, I don't really buy the hype on this one, but it's really the way she delivers the "as far as I know" line that raised some eyebrows. Michelle Malkin (my most favoritest person in the world) discusses this in the clip I linked.

I did see it, and raised eyebrows makes sense, heck, it raised mine, but it's just the being convinced that something negative was intended that strikes me as wrong and presenting that confidently as what she intended to do, I believe, is manipulation.

 

[Sammy3469]

So the new FL/MI "solution" being floated is splitting the MI delegates and halfing the FL delegates and allowing all superdelegates to be seated. That's more or less "fair", right?

Can you please explain what you mean by "splitting" and "halfing"?

By splitting I mean whatever the total pledged number is, each would get 50% of them (ie if the total delegates in MI were 100 each would get 50)...while halfing would mean that whatever the delegate totals from the previous election were, each would get 50% of their total (ie if Clinton's total was 100, she'd get to seat 50)

 

[NCCommish]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

This is what I don't get. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, just like those who disagree with her are entitled to theirs. To label her a racist, is there something from her past voting record or political action that would justify this? She gave her opinion, and some of the politically correct crowd didn't agree. I admit I'm no expert on her voting record from the past, so evidence may be there. But from everything I've read of her past and her stances on issues she was a supporter of civil rights and had no record of anything that could be construed as racist.

Do you think advisors who "give their opinion" that Clinton is a monster should be removed?

No I don't, it's merely their opinion. If the campaign chose freely to remove them so be it. I believe the same thing about Ferraro. If the Clinton campaign chose to remove her, that's their right. I think it's ridiculous that everyone is so sensitive about Ferraro's comments or the "monster" comments about Clinton.

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

I didn't say I agreed with her opinion so don't try and paint me into that corner. I do believe she has the right to her opinion. Not that it matters at all, but as far as my beliefs, I believe if he wasn't black he wouldn't be carrying the black vote by the margins he is. However, I also believe if he were white he would be doing much better among whites. I'm not sure what the net of the two is so it's my opinion that she's wrong in her assumption. That's only an opinion though and just like her's I don't see what it matters to anyone else what people's individual opinions are about why he is where he is.

It isn't me or you or the redneck down the street. It is a former Vice Presidential candidate and Congressman saying it. That's why what she says means more. And she continues to say it. It is something she has said about black candidates in the past. There is a pattern here.

 

[adonis]

We're just a little more than a month past Super Tuesday, and things are getting all Lord of the Flies-y already. Come on people. Keep it together.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.

Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"

Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."

Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."

Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."

Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"

Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?

J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

If by "the muslim thing was wrong" you meant that there was more to the story? Yes.If you meant it wasn't a qualified response, then it was absolutely accurate.

I mean by "wrong" in that it's one of the things people are citing as this no holds barred / scorched earth strategy but when you ask even the most devoted Obama supporters like Adonis, he is honest enough to say it wasn't really anything.I just asked the question of I wondered how much more like that was out there. Frankly, it makes one wonder which side is doing more spinning.

J

How about this little nugget?Rachel Maddow: "This is what you say if you want to be McCain's choice for Vice President. It is not what you say if you are running for the Democratic nomination."

 

[Sammy3469]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

No...I think any candidate with his story and speaking abilities would be equally effective (ie much like Bill Clinton...both had similar poor backgrounds, both rose through the ranks, and both can give a hell of a speech).

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

If by "the muslim thing was wrong" you meant that there was more to the story? Yes.If you meant it wasn't a qualified response, then it was absolutely accurate.

I mean by "wrong" in that it's one of the things people are citing as this no holds barred / scorched earth strategy but when you ask even the most devoted Obama supporters like Adonis, he is honest enough to say it wasn't really anything.I just asked the question of I wondered how much more like that was out there. Frankly, it makes one wonder which side is doing more spinning.J

Sorry Joe, no one is being dishonest. It was a qualified response. And part of a pattern. If you can't see it then we just disagree.

 

[NCCommish]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

No I wouldn't. In fact I think it is pretty clear just how negative it can be. IMO if he were white and everything else stayed the same the party would be dragging Hillary kicking and screaming from the public stage. The supers would have already ended this. But they still aren't sure a black man can win so they are hedging. Again IMO.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

No I wouldn't. In fact I think it is pretty clear just how negative it can be. IMO if he were white and everything else stayed the same the party would be dragging Hillary kicking and screaming from the public stage. The supers would have already ended this. But they still aren't sure a black man can win so they are hedging. Again IMO.

Okay, I guess I see this in a radically different way than you do. To me, it's undeniable that part of Obama's appeal lies in his racial identity, but you disagree. Whatever. Am I a racist for thinking that Obama's race pulls a little extra support in his direction? Or am I just honestly mistaken?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

No I wouldn't. In fact I think it is pretty clear just how negative it can be. IMO if he were white and everything else stayed the same the party would be dragging Hillary kicking and screaming from the public stage. The supers would have already ended this. But they still aren't sure a black man can win so they are hedging. Again IMO.

Okay, I guess I see this in a radically different way than you do. To me, it's undeniable that part of Obama's appeal lies in his racial identity, but you disagree. Whatever. Am I a racist for thinking that Obama's race pulls a little extra support in his direction? Or am I just honestly mistaken?

I think it's a valid opinion. But that's not what Ferraro said, hence the problem with it.

 

[Mark Davis]

Also on Ferraro, she's demanding an apology:Link

"If anybody is going to apologize, they should apologize to me for calling me a racist," she said.

Honest question. Has anyone from the Clinton campaign called Ferraro a racist?

Not that I am aware of. However if one doesn't want to be called a racist one should stop making the same racially charged statement over and over. 20 years ago she said the same thing about Jackson.

This is what I don't get. It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, just like those who disagree with her are entitled to theirs. To label her a racist, is there something from her past voting record or political action that would justify this? She gave her opinion, and some of the politically correct crowd didn't agree. I admit I'm no expert on her voting record from the past, so evidence may be there. But from everything I've read of her past and her stances on issues she was a supporter of civil rights and had no record of anything that could be construed as racist.

Do you think advisors who "give their opinion" that Clinton is a monster should be removed?

No I don't, it's merely their opinion. If the campaign chose freely to remove them so be it. I believe the same thing about Ferraro. If the Clinton campaign chose to remove her, that's their right. I think it's ridiculous that everyone is so sensitive about Ferraro's comments or the "monster" comments about Clinton.

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

I didn't say I agreed with her opinion so don't try and paint me into that corner. I do believe she has the right to her opinion. Not that it matters at all, but as far as my beliefs, I believe if he wasn't black he wouldn't be carrying the black vote by the margins he is. However, I also believe if he were white he would be doing much better among whites. I'm not sure what the net of the two is so it's my opinion that she's wrong in her assumption. That's only an opinion though and just like her's I don't see what it matters to anyone else what people's individual opinions are about why he is where he is.

It isn't me or you or the redneck down the street. It is a former Vice Presidential candidate and Congressman saying it. That's why what she says means more. And she continues to say it. It is something she has said about black candidates in the past. There is a pattern here.

Then you're free to disagree with her. Can you totally disprove what she said? I don't think she's accurate with it either, but it's an opinion she stated. There's no way to prove or disprove it. Because her opinion doesn't agree with yours, mine, whoever we may be discussing here, that doesn't make her racist.

 

[bigbottom]

So the new FL/MI "solution" being floated is splitting the MI delegates and halfing the FL delegates and allowing all superdelegates to be seated. That's more or less "fair", right?

Can you please explain what you mean by "splitting" and "halfing"?

By splitting I mean whatever the total pledged number is, each would get 50% of them (ie if the total delegates in MI were 100 each would get 50)...while halfing would mean that whatever the delegate totals from the previous election were, each would get 50% of their total (ie if Clinton's total was 100, she'd get to seat 50)

Thanks. So Obama and Clinton would get the same number of delegates in Michigan. Florida has 185 pledged delegates. Hillary got 49.7% of the vote, so she would get 185 x 49.7% x 50% or around 46 delegates. Obama got 33% of the vote, so he would get 185 x 33% x 50% or around 31 delegates. So Hillary would net a total of 15 delegates from both Florida and Michigan. I can't imagine that she would agree to that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

No I wouldn't. In fact I think it is pretty clear just how negative it can be. IMO if he were white and everything else stayed the same the party would be dragging Hillary kicking and screaming from the public stage. The supers would have already ended this. But they still aren't sure a black man can win so they are hedging. Again IMO.

Okay, I guess I see this in a radically different way than you do. To me, it's undeniable that part of Obama's appeal lies in his racial identity, but you disagree. Whatever. Am I a racist for thinking that Obama's race pulls a little extra support in his direction? Or am I just honestly mistaken?

I think it's a valid opinion. But that's not what Ferraro said, hence the problem with it.

But what Ferraro said is only a different to a degree. I think Obama's race is a definite plus for him. It's not the only reason why he's gotten this far IMO, but it helps.

Ferraro just goes a little further in arguing that it's such a big plus that it's carried him to the nomination (essentially). It seems like either both sentiments are racist or neither are. Unless you think Ferraro's assessment is so obviously wrong that it's impossible for her to have made a good faith mistake, in which case I guess you could fall back on racism as an explanation, but I don't think one should go that far.

 

[Sammy3469]

So the new FL/MI "solution" being floated is splitting the MI delegates and halfing the FL delegates and allowing all superdelegates to be seated. That's more or less "fair", right?

Can you please explain what you mean by "splitting" and "halfing"?

By splitting I mean whatever the total pledged number is, each would get 50% of them (ie if the total delegates in MI were 100 each would get 50)...while halfing would mean that whatever the delegate totals from the previous election were, each would get 50% of their total (ie if Clinton's total was 100, she'd get to seat 50)

Thanks. So Obama and Clinton would get the same number of delegates in Michigan. Florida has 185 pledged delegates. Hillary got 49.7% of the vote, so she would get 185 x 49.7 x 50% or around 46 delegates. Obama got 33% of the vote, so he would get around 31 delegates. So Hillary would net a total of 15 delegates from both Florida and Michigan. I can't imagine that she would agree to that.

It would also get a bunch of superdelegates from FL seated for her. For all her bluster, she doesn't really have much say in the matter.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

There was slavery around when Hamilton wrote what he did, women couldn't vote, there was no car, and no airplanes. Things have changed, thoughts have changed, public awareness has changed, many things have changed, yet we still can't get the ridiculous out of politics. Surely there were many who said blacks would never have equal rights with whites. Surely there were many who said women would never vote because they never had since the beginning of our country. But what kind of argument is that? Just because things have been the same don't mean they have to continue to be the same.

That's policy, not politics. There is a difference. And the manner in which much of that changed was throgh negative campaigning.

If you think there is no desire in america for a different type of politics, I believe you're mistaken. Obama is tapping into that feeling, and he's feeding us who pay attention a fresher type of politics. I believe McCain represents a higher standard of politics as well than what we're used to seeing.

I disagree strongly, based on my experience working in the field.

Racism has been around forever, and while it's not gone, it's shamed out of the public limelight. So is bigotry. Those are pretty basic parts of humanity as well. If we as a culture can get sick enough with the way politics has been done, maybe we can shame out negative campaigning.

Doubt it.

In debates, Clinton made some particularly bad comments and was booed for it. People don't "need" negative campaigns, the press does. Why condone a baseness of our nature and say we can never change? It's like embracing backwardness.

It's acknowledging reality.

Let me ask you this: Do you think the public dialogue would be improved, that we would have better public servants, that people would be able to make better decisions on who to support if negative campaigning was greatly reduced?

No.

Can you find any benefit at all to a reduction in negativity in our political landscape?

You mean, if debates and political discourse actually required the listening audience to understand the full measure of the topic at hand and not just a 10 secnod clip or 10 word sentence? Sure. Less dumb people controlling the government.Problem is, we seem to desire more people having a say, not less.

 

[ericttspikes]

On the other hand, I don't really want to try to hard to defend Geraldine Ferraro. Her subsequent "They're only attacking me because I'm white" argument is beyond ludicrous.

This defense is exactly why I think it was orchestrated from the Clinton campaign. It follows exactly how they've executed the various smears followed by a retreat to the victim card.Regardless of the subject, it plays out the same the same way: Get the topic out there and if you're called out for dirty tactics then compain about being "attacked".

Absolutely. This is politics. Leak and deny is one of the oldest tricks in the book. They've thrown a nice "victim" twist on it. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about it. People are either o.k. about this kind of politics or they are not. A lot of people didn't see too much wrong with the tactics of Nixon and Bush II for that matter, so I completely believe that people don't think any of this Clinton garbage is a big deal either. To each their own.

 

[aardball44]

Ferraro's statement implies that America was simply ripe for an African-American candidate and Barack Obama merely filled that need. That implication ignores his uniqueness, his transcendence, and in fact could imply that -- had not Obama been in the right place at the right time -- any other generic black male Democratic candidate would've garnered this wave of unprecedented national support over these past three months.

 

[Sammy3469]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

No I wouldn't. In fact I think it is pretty clear just how negative it can be. IMO if he were white and everything else stayed the same the party would be dragging Hillary kicking and screaming from the public stage. The supers would have already ended this. But they still aren't sure a black man can win so they are hedging. Again IMO.

Okay, I guess I see this in a radically different way than you do. To me, it's undeniable that part of Obama's appeal lies in his racial identity, but you disagree. Whatever. Am I a racist for thinking that Obama's race pulls a little extra support in his direction? Or am I just honestly mistaken?

I think it's a valid opinion. But that's not what Ferraro said, hence the problem with it.

But what Ferraro said is only a different to a degree. I think Obama's race is a definite plus for him. It's not the only reason why he's gotten this far IMO, but it helps.

Ferraro just goes a little further in arguing that it's such a big plus that it's carried him to the nomination (essentially). It seems like either both sentiments are racist or neither are. Unless you think Ferraro's assessment is so obviously wrong that it's impossible for her to have made a good faith mistake, in which case I guess you could fall back on racism as an explanation, but I don't think one should go that far.

Really....how has it helped. The last Democratic President came from a similar childhood background, took advantage of the educational opportunities presented to him, and provided generally the same "hopeful" message (he was the man from Hope). Placing Obama's race in this is a relatively easy copout for those that don't really want to figure out why he's been successful from an organizational and message standpoint.

 

[NCCommish]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

No I wouldn't. In fact I think it is pretty clear just how negative it can be. IMO if he were white and everything else stayed the same the party would be dragging Hillary kicking and screaming from the public stage. The supers would have already ended this. But they still aren't sure a black man can win so they are hedging. Again IMO.

Okay, I guess I see this in a radically different way than you do. To me, it's undeniable that part of Obama's appeal lies in his racial identity, but you disagree. Whatever. Am I a racist for thinking that Obama's race pulls a little extra support in his direction? Or am I just honestly mistaken?

I think it's a valid opinion. But that's not what Ferraro said, hence the problem with it.

But what Ferraro said is only a different to a degree. I think Obama's race is a definite plus for him. It's not the only reason why he's gotten this far IMO, but it helps.

Ferraro just goes a little further in arguing that it's such a big plus that it's carried him to the nomination (essentially). It seems like either both sentiments are racist or neither are. Unless you think Ferraro's assessment is so obviously wrong that it's impossible for her to have made a good faith mistake, in which case I guess you could fall back on racism as an explanation, but I don't think one should go that far.

Not at all. I agree that being black helped him outpoll Ckinton amongst blacks. I don't know that any white candidate could have done that. However a white candidate who is oterwise just like Obama is winning so many demographics anyway it probably wouldn't be a deciding factor in Hillarys favor. That is far different than the only reason he is here is he is black. Far different.

 

[Joe Bryant]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

If by "the muslim thing was wrong" you meant that there was more to the story? Yes.If you meant it wasn't a qualified response, then it was absolutely accurate.

I mean by "wrong" in that it's one of the things people are citing as this no holds barred / scorched earth strategy but when you ask even the most devoted Obama supporters like Adonis, he is honest enough to say it wasn't really anything.I just asked the question of I wondered how much more like that was out there. Frankly, it makes one wonder which side is doing more spinning.J

Sorry Joe, no one is being dishonest. It was a qualified response. And part of a pattern. If you can't see it then we just disagree.

Do you think what she said was a horrible / scorched earth type tactic?J

 

[adonis]

Sorry Joe, no one is being dishonest. It was a qualified response. And part of a pattern. If you can't see it then we just disagree.

Does it matter that earlier in that same interview she gave a non-qualified response, and when pressed further, she still said "No" but added, as far as I know? And she closed by saying she knows what it's like to have false rumors spread about a person?Taking those three things as a total, doesn't it seem very likely that the qualification that she absolutely made, was not intended to be as dubious as one might think? Her initial answer could've been the end of it, and there she said no, without qualifications, but only when the person pressed her, did she say no again and add the qualification. I dunno, I just dont see a huge deal. I think perhaps at that one point in time she was suggesting that maybe there's something she doesn't know, but that'd be like you asking me if my grandpa was insane or not, me saying no, of course not, he's very sane and I have no reason to believe he's insane. Then you asking me again, so you believe that your grandpa is in fact sane and ii say, Yes, as far as I know, he is sane. I'm not backtracking, just saying with all the knowledge i have, there's no reason to believe that's the case.ETA: I don't think you're being dishonest by believing it's part of a pattern, but to say that in and of itself it was definitely intended to be a swipe at obama, I believe, would certainly be a wrong, if not dishonest, thing to say because the evidence doesn't support the claim. Especially reading the comments in context, and with subsequent comments that said much the same thing, no change in tone or message, that weren't at all questionable on the matter.

 

[Joe Bryant]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

I try to look into and be fair on what I criticize her for, but if you have any specific requests, I can take a look. This is the first one I've seen that blatantly misrepresents the truth.

Are you saying I've blatantly misrepresented the truth? She qualified her statement that there was nothing on which to base the rumor that Obama is a muslim. The qualified statement is fact. Personally, I don't read anything into the qualification, but some do. Now you can conclude that there was no insidious intent behind the qualification and that people are overreacting or reaching an unfair or unjustified conclusion. But my statement doesn't misrepresent the truth.

I wasn't saying that you blatantly misrepresnted the truth, but that the claim itself and its implication blatantly misrepresents the truth. While it's a qualified statement, in context it's obvious that she did not mean it to be open ended. She said earlier that she gave him the benefit of the doubt and that she didn't believe he was a muslim, pressed further, she said she still held that position as there was no reason to believe otherwise, as far as she knew. Then she said she feels for him because stuff like that happens to her all the time.I don't understand how anyone can read the quote in context and come away convinced that she meant him harm by it. She further clarified in another comment that said basically the same thing, that I posted above.I know all you were trying to do was list claims commonly made against clinton, and you rightly posted that one, but I was saying that the claim itself is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, which in that case was that clinton pretty confidently said that she dind't believe Obama was a muslim...yet it's being portrayed like she denied answering confidently, and tagged on "as far as i know" to leave room for doubt. In proper context, it's hard to come to that conclusion.

Thank you Adonis. Quality post.J

 

[Jeremy]

On the other hand, I don't really want to try to hard to defend Geraldine Ferraro. Her subsequent "They're only attacking me because I'm white" argument is beyond ludicrous.

This defense is exactly why I think it was orchestrated from the Clinton campaign. It follows exactly how they've executed the various smears followed by a retreat to the victim card.Regardless of the subject, it plays out the same the same way: Get the topic out there and if you're called out for dirty tactics then compain about being "attacked".

I don't think it's any coincindence that it was Geraldine Ferarro, of all people, who made these statements. This statement by Olbermann last night sums it up nicely:

"She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism and dismissing Sen. Obama’s candidacy as nothing more than an Equal Opportunity stunt."

Gee, who's the authority on that? She was trying to draw a comparison between her VP Candidacy, which was in fact a stunt, to Obama's candidacy, which is most certainly not. Very "wrongheaded" to say the least. I think it's very likely she was handpicked to say those words, and if she wasn't Hillary needed to be just as immediate and firm as McCain was when that radio wackjob came out on one of his rallies and started smearing Barack "Hussein" Obama. And it wasn't even close to adequate. With that went every last chance that I would ever vote for her.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Do you think what she said was a horrible / scorched earth type tactic?J

Well that wasn't your original question to which Biggie responded.But certainly giving a qualified response to such a divisive topic is an example (one of very many) that can be described as negative. Especially when you consider them in total.I'd say the scorched earth tactics are those that are so damaging that the impact goes beyond the primary season and into the general election. And yes, I do think she's engaging in that, but not in this one example you chose.

 

[ericttspikes]

I think Obama's race is a definite plus for him. It's not the only reason why he's gotten this far IMO, but it helps.

Serious question. If race is one of the big positives going for Obama, what happened to Richardson? There are more Hispanics in the US than African Americans. Richardson has a ton of experience and connections. He would of been the first Hispanic President, which is just as historic. I also always hear of how valuable the Hispanic vote is for Hillary, where were they for Richardson?

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her `effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

I try to look into and be fair on what I criticize her for, but if you have any specific requests, I can take a look. This is the first one I've seen that blatantly misrepresents the truth.

Are you saying I've blatantly misrepresented the truth? She qualified her statement that there was nothing on which to base the rumor that Obama is a muslim. The qualified statement is fact. Personally, I don't read anything into the qualification, but some do. Now you can conclude that there was no insidious intent behind the qualification and that people are overreacting or reaching an unfair or unjustified conclusion. But my statement doesn't misrepresent the truth.

I wasn't saying that you blatantly misrepresnted the truth, but that the claim itself and its implication blatantly misrepresents the truth. While it's a qualified statement, in context it's obvious that she did not mean it to be open ended. She said earlier that she gave him the benefit of the doubt and that she didn't believe he was a muslim, pressed further, she said she still held that position as there was no reason to believe otherwise, as far as she knew. Then she said she feels for him because stuff like that happens to her all the time.I don't understand how anyone can read the quote in context and come away convinced that she meant him harm by it. She further clarified in another comment that said basically the same thing, that I posted above.I know all you were trying to do was list claims commonly made against clinton, and you rightly posted that one, but I was saying that the claim itself is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, which in that case was that clinton pretty confidently said that she dind't believe Obama was a muslim...yet it's being portrayed like she denied answering confidently, and tagged on "as far as i know" to leave room for doubt. In proper context, it's hard to come to that conclusion.

Thank you Adonis. Quality post.J

(original) point being that there are enough instances of mud slinging, manipulation, "moving of the goalposts", schizophrenic turns, and detrimental quotes/speeches to view HRC's tactics as more damaging to the party than helpful to her campaign. Thus the letter to the DNCETA: Someone mentioned it previously., and i think Sweet J posted a transcript of it, but Olberman's special comment last night touched on why the games HRC are playing are so dangerous.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Do you think what she said was a horrible / scorched earth type tactic?J

Well that wasn't your original question to which Biggie responded.But certainly giving a qualified response to such a divisive topic is an example (one of very many) that can be described as negative. Especially when you consider them in total.I'd say the scorched earth tactics are those that are so damaging that the impact goes beyond the primary season and into the general election. And yes, I do think she's engaging in that, but not in this one example you chose.

Ok. Thanks. What are the examples of the scorched earth tactics you do think she's engaging in? The other ones on bigbottom's list?J

 

[Sweet J]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

If you've been paying attention, most of them are. At least all the ones Biggie listed off the top of his head are.

But you knew the one about the muslim thing was wrong?J

It wasn't wrong. "As far as I know" is a qualification. Now whether the qualification reveals intent to keep the rumors going is debatable. Frankly, I don't really think much about it. But you should check out the video I linked. I think it's the way she delivers the qualification that has raised suspicions for some.

Also, if you actually see the video, you will see that it was a hard stop before "as far as I know." She said "there is nothing to base it on." Stop, ominous pause, then "as far as I know."

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Sorry Joe, no one is being dishonest. It was a qualified response. And part of a pattern. If you can't see it then we just disagree.

Does it matter that earlier in that same interview she gave a non-qualified response, and when pressed further, she still said "No" but added, as far as I know? And she closed by saying she knows what it's like to have false rumors spread about a person?

That's also part of the pattern I've observed.

 

[Pooch]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

No I wouldn't. In fact I think it is pretty clear just how negative it can be. IMO if he were white and everything else stayed the same the party would be dragging Hillary kicking and screaming from the public stage. The supers would have already ended this. But they still aren't sure a black man can win so they are hedging. Again IMO.

Okay, I guess I see this in a radically different way than you do. To me, it's undeniable that part of Obama's appeal lies in his racial identity, but you disagree. Whatever. Am I a racist for thinking that Obama's race pulls a little extra support in his direction? Or am I just honestly mistaken?

Personally, I think it does too. But only to some. There's probably an equal number of people out there that won't pull the lever for a black man just out of principle. I think electing a minority, especially a racial minority, sends a strong message that racial divides can be eased, albeit slowly. It won't end racism or inequality but it's sure a long way away from where we were a few decades ago.

 

[Joe Bryant]

5) Hillary's qualified response on the assertion that Obama is a muslim.

Just to pick this one out as it's a hot one - what exactly did she say? J

This one was blown out of proportion, if the quote I have is right, and Clinton got a raw deal on it:

The entire "60 Minutes" exchange -- showing her `effort to answer interrogator Steve Kroft's persistent questions -- would have been more instructive. Because, as in so many interrogations, an emphatic no -- when the investigator is looking for another answer -- is never enough.Mr. Kroft: "You don't believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim?"Mrs. Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. You know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not. . . . You don't believe that he's. . . ."Clinton: "No, no. There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know."Kroft: "It's just scurrilous . . .?"Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Thanks Adonis.How many other accusations are accurate I wonder?J

I try to look into and be fair on what I criticize her for, but if you have any specific requests, I can take a look. This is the first one I've seen that blatantly misrepresents the truth.

Are you saying I've blatantly misrepresented the truth? She qualified her statement that there was nothing on which to base the rumor that Obama is a muslim. The qualified statement is fact. Personally, I don't read anything into the qualification, but some do. Now you can conclude that there was no insidious intent behind the qualification and that people are overreacting or reaching an unfair or unjustified conclusion. But my statement doesn't misrepresent the truth.

I wasn't saying that you blatantly misrepresnted the truth, but that the claim itself and its implication blatantly misrepresents the truth. While it's a qualified statement, in context it's obvious that she did not mean it to be open ended. She said earlier that she gave him the benefit of the doubt and that she didn't believe he was a muslim, pressed further, she said she still held that position as there was no reason to believe otherwise, as far as she knew. Then she said she feels for him because stuff like that happens to her all the time.I don't understand how anyone can read the quote in context and come away convinced that she meant him harm by it. She further clarified in another comment that said basically the same thing, that I posted above.I know all you were trying to do was list claims commonly made against clinton, and you rightly posted that one, but I was saying that the claim itself is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, which in that case was that clinton pretty confidently said that she dind't believe Obama was a muslim...yet it's being portrayed like she denied answering confidently, and tagged on "as far as i know" to leave room for doubt. In proper context, it's hard to come to that conclusion.

Thank you Adonis. Quality post.J

(original) point being that there are enough instances of mud slinging, manipulation, "moving of the goalposts", schizophrenic turns, and detrimental quotes/speeches to view HRC's tactics as more damaging to the party than helpful to her campaign. Thus the letter to the DNCETA: Someone mentioned it previously., and i think Sweet J posted a transcript of it, but Olberman's special comment last night touched on why the games HRC are playing are so dangerous.

But you realize of course that one's view of "damaging to the party" is closely tied to which campaign they're supporting.J

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

So the new FL/MI "solution" being floated is splitting the MI delegates and halfing the FL delegates and allowing all superdelegates to be seated. That's more or less "fair", right?

Can you please explain what you mean by "splitting" and "halfing"?

By splitting I mean whatever the total pledged number is, each would get 50% of them (ie if the total delegates in MI were 100 each would get 50)...while halfing would mean that whatever the delegate totals from the previous election were, each would get 50% of their total (ie if Clinton's total was 100, she'd get to seat 50)

Thanks. So Obama and Clinton would get the same number of delegates in Michigan. Florida has 185 pledged delegates. Hillary got 49.7% of the vote, so she would get 185 x 49.7 x 50% or around 46 delegates. Obama got 33% of the vote, so he would get around 31 delegates. So Hillary would net a total of 15 delegates from both Florida and Michigan. I can't imagine that she would agree to that.

It would also get a bunch of superdelegates from FL seated for her. For all her bluster, she doesn't really have much say in the matter.

FWIW, i mailed in my party affiliation change form today from Independent to Dem...just in case this June 3rd date actually happens in FL. Clinton may win FL, but i'll do my part to help keep her in the 55-45 range

 

[adonis]

Sorry Joe, no one is being dishonest. It was a qualified response. And part of a pattern. If you can't see it then we just disagree.

Does it matter that earlier in that same interview she gave a non-qualified response, and when pressed further, she still said "No" but added, as far as I know? And she closed by saying she knows what it's like to have false rumors spread about a person?

That's also part of the pattern I've observed.

Really? I'm truly curious. Do you have any more examples of where she's done this. Nothing comes to my mind immediately, but I'd be interested in hearing them.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

(original) point being that there are enough instances of mud slinging, manipulation, "moving of the goalposts", schizophrenic turns, and detrimental quotes/speeches to view HRC's tactics as more damaging to the party than helpful to her campaign. Thus the letter to the DNCETA: Someone mentioned it previously., and i think Sweet J posted a transcript of it, but Olberman's special comment last night touched on why the games HRC are playing are so dangerous.

But you realize of course that one's view of "damaging to the party" is closely tied to which campaign they're supporting.J

Of course. But, i think most informed political activists (and passive followers for that matter) can agree that saying the GOP candidate is more qualified than the potential Dem candidate is damaging to the party.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think Obama's race is a definite plus for him. It's not the only reason why he's gotten this far IMO, but it helps.

Serious question. If race is one of the big positives going for Obama, what happened to Richardson? There are more Hispanics in the US than African Americans. Richardson has a ton of experience and connections. He would of been the first Hispanic President, which is just as historic. I also always hear of how valuable the Hispanic vote is for Hillary, where were they for Richardson?

Richardson just isn't a very good candidate. I'm not saying he's a bad person or that he'd be inept in somebody's administration, just that he isn't very good on the trail. He's a bumbler.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Do you think what she said was a horrible / scorched earth type tactic?J

Well that wasn't your original question to which Biggie responded.But certainly giving a qualified response to such a divisive topic is an example (one of very many) that can be described as negative. Especially when you consider them in total.I'd say the scorched earth tactics are those that are so damaging that the impact goes beyond the primary season and into the general election. And yes, I do think she's engaging in that, but not in this one example you chose.

Ok. Thanks. What are the examples of the scorched earth tactics you do think she's engaging in? The other ones on bigbottom's list?J

In my opinion if a candidate says "We're both qualified and here's why I think I'm the better choice" then that's a positive fight.If she says "I'm qualified and John McCain is qualified but Obama is not" then that's scorched earth. Granted, it's oversimplified and not her exact words. But it's been her message and it hurts Obama in the general if he's the Dem nominee.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Do you think what she said was a horrible / scorched earth type tactic?

J

Well that wasn't your original question to which Biggie responded.But certainly giving a qualified response to such a divisive topic is an example (one of very many) that can be described as negative. Especially when you consider them in total.

I'd say the scorched earth tactics are those that are so damaging that the impact goes beyond the primary season and into the general election. And yes, I do think she's engaging in that, but not in this one example you chose.

Ok. Thanks. What are the examples of the scorched earth tactics you do think she's engaging in? The other ones on bigbottom's list?J

Pretty f'n big one in this post.Will also help out your confusion on being damaging to the party.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

(original) point being that there are enough instances of mud slinging, manipulation, "moving of the goalposts", schizophrenic turns, and detrimental quotes/speeches to view HRC's tactics as more damaging to the party than helpful to her campaign. Thus the letter to the DNCETA: Someone mentioned it previously., and i think Sweet J posted a transcript of it, but Olberman's special comment last night touched on why the games HRC are playing are so dangerous.

But you realize of course that one's view of "damaging to the party" is closely tied to which campaign they're supporting.J

Of course. But, i think most informed political activists (and passive followers for that matter) can agree that saying the GOP candidate is more qualified than the potential Dem candidate is damaging to the party.

It's certainly an interesting point of debate. I'm thinking of trying it in my next motion hearing.Adversay: [finishing argument] thank you your honor.Judge: Mr. Yankeefan.Me: Judge, everything that guy just said is more relevent and important then anything I can say, but my client really wants to win this one. Thank you.Goldmine argument right there.

 

[adonis]

(original) point being that there are enough instances of mud slinging, manipulation, "moving of the goalposts", schizophrenic turns, and detrimental quotes/speeches to view HRC's tactics as more damaging to the party than helpful to her campaign. Thus the letter to the DNC

I think there's a lot of validity to the constantly changing public persona of clinton, her tactics, her stances (at times) and her emotions. Lots of people see that as switching gears, depending on what is most politically expedient. Obama doesn't have that same characterization.Which is why I really liked what the general called Obama yesterday, when they were all gathered to support him as commander-in-chief:No Shock Barack and No Drama Obama - "It's a matter of temperament, whether it was good news or bad, he was the same barack obama on one day as the other, steady, reliable. Whenever the phone rights at 3am, you want a guy with this kind of temperament to answer the phone.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

But you realize of course that one's view of "damaging to the party" is closely tied to which campaign they're supporting.J

Joe, Obama supporters are hardly alone in thinking that Hillary's tactics are damaging both Obama and the party. Not only uncommitted Democrats, but plenty of Republicans have expressed their pleasure over the turn this has taken. Personally, I don't think it matters much and Obama's ideals and refusal to allow himself to be pulled into the gutter will prevail regardless of what Clinton does. I think Obama said it best himself when talking about what American politicians go through in his second book (paraphrasing); people think it rough, but I think about Nelson Mandella and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and I think we can get through it.

 

[cobalt_27]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

Hardly.

 

[Sweet J]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

Whether a person thinks being a black man is a plus for Obama is an interesting and colorful discussion for a couple of dudes to have at a bar, and in my oppinion, there is nothing inappropriate about having that discussion (as long as it stays civil and reasonable).But for a public figure to throw out with confidence, repeatedly, that it is a "fact" that "he only got their because he is black" and it is a "fact" that he is "lucky" to be black, is irresponsible and ruthless.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Do you think what she said was a horrible / scorched earth type tactic?

J

Well that wasn't your original question to which Biggie responded.But certainly giving a qualified response to such a divisive topic is an example (one of very many) that can be described as negative. Especially when you consider them in total.

I'd say the scorched earth tactics are those that are so damaging that the impact goes beyond the primary season and into the general election. And yes, I do think she's engaging in that, but not in this one example you chose.

Ok. Thanks. What are the examples of the scorched earth tactics you do think she's engaging in? The other ones on bigbottom's list?J

Pretty f'n big one in this post.Will also help out your confusion on being damaging to the party.

Don't mistake "confusion" for "disagreement". Sure that was a dumb thing to say for the Democratic party. But there's some truth there that stings. Still I can't imagine anyone at the DNC did much but But I see lots of people throwing their hands up in the air and complaining about a systematic scorched earth strategy. I just don't see it to that level. .

J

 

[cobalt_27]

But you realize of course that one's view of "damaging to the party" is closely tied to which campaign they're supporting.

J

This doesn't mean she isn't damaging to the party. It only means that Hillary's people will get defensive and say she isn't, while the Obama folks will contend that she is damaging. What affiliation you're from does nothing to validate or invalidate the statement.

But, I can't imagine any objective outsider peering into her tactics and conclude that she's not hurting the (D) chances this election. Doesn't mean that Obama can't still win despite her. She is, however, doing her best to undermine his chances.

 

[cobalt_27]

Do you think what she said was a horrible / scorched earth type tactic?

J

Well that wasn't your original question to which Biggie responded.But certainly giving a qualified response to such a divisive topic is an example (one of very many) that can be described as negative. Especially when you consider them in total.

I'd say the scorched earth tactics are those that are so damaging that the impact goes beyond the primary season and into the general election. And yes, I do think she's engaging in that, but not in this one example you chose.

Ok. Thanks. What are the examples of the scorched earth tactics you do think she's engaging in? The other ones on bigbottom's list?J

Pretty f'n big one in this post.Will also help out your confusion on being damaging to the party.

Don't mistake "confusion" for "disagreement". Sure that was a dumb thing to say for the Democratic party. But there's some truth there that stings. Still I can't imagine anyone at the DNC did much but But I see lots of people throwing their hands up in the air and complaining about a systematic scorched earth strategy. I just don't see it to that level. .

J

You're supporting McCain, right?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

From Ann Coulter:

Hillary's "likability" quotient is soaring! According to the latest CNN/CBS News poll, she's just been upgraded from "Utterly Loathsome" to "Execrable."

 

[Sweet J]

Really? He's only here because he is black? And that's an honest and frank look at the race? Or is that what all the people, not named Ferraro of course because she is just an misunderstood innocent, who are racists are thinking?

Would you be willing to concede that being black is a plus for Obama? Not that that's the only reason why he's here, but just that it's a helpful wrinkle in his candidacy?

No I wouldn't. In fact I think it is pretty clear just how negative it can be. IMO if he were white and everything else stayed the same the party would be dragging Hillary kicking and screaming from the public stage. The supers would have already ended this. But they still aren't sure a black man can win so they are hedging. Again IMO.

Okay, I guess I see this in a radically different way than you do. To me, it's undeniable that part of Obama's appeal lies in his racial identity, but you disagree. Whatever. Am I a racist for thinking that Obama's race pulls a little extra support in his direction? Or am I just honestly mistaken?

If you have some reasoning behind it, and can maybe back it up with some examples, even anecdotal ones. Or hell, not even examples, just some analysis of what you know about Obama and what he has accomplished and how he accomplished it, and you STILL think his race/color helped him, than no, you are not a racist.But if you say "of course Obama's race helped him. Everybody knows that the laws in this country benefit blacks. Everybody knows that reverse-racism is acceptable. So of course he has benefitted from his race, and he wouldn't be the nominee if he weren't black." If you said that, then yeah, I'd probably think that you had some underlying prejudice. That wouldn't make me correct, that would just be my personal opinion.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But you realize of course that one's view of "damaging to the party" is closely tied to which campaign they're supporting.

J

This doesn't mean she isn't damaging to the party. It only means that Hillary's people will get defensive and say she isn't, while the Obama folks will contend that she is damaging. What affiliation you're from does nothing to validate or invalidate the statement.

But, I can't imagine any objective outsider peering into her tactics and conclude that she's not hurting the (D) chances this election. Doesn't mean that Obama can't still win despite her. She is, however, doing her best to undermine his chances.

Of course she is. She's doing what she can to make sure he doesn't get the chance to face McCain in the General Election.But trying to beat the guy now is different than trying to harm the guy with the intent of setting him so the next guy can beat him. Are you saying that she's intentionally doing things now to ensure that if she isn't the nominee then McCain will win?

J