Obama '08?

1) He will end the war. The war needs to end soon. We can't afford it. It's not meeting our objective of getting the Iraqi government to make decisions. And our fighting men are stretched too thin.

McCain isn't saying that he'll end the war, but my belief is that he'll have to. He's saying that he won't because it is a wedge issue seperating Republicans and Democrats. He's smart enough, honest enough, to recognize that we can't stay forever.

This differs from Obama and Clinton in that they are saying that they will end the war. I believe them too, and I believe they'd do it somewhat quicker than McCain will, but not much.

Antiwar activist David Tiffany, 60, repeatedly challenged McCain about his "open-ended commitment" to Iraq. As the men engaged in a tit-for-tat that lasted several minutes, McCain said he would keep troops in the divided country for 100 years if needed to provide stability." [..]

"I was one of the strongest and earliest supporters of the change that has taken place that has allowed us to succeed in Iraq," McCain told reporters on his bus late in the day, referring to the buildup of troops that he said had helped reduce violence.

Here's Clarence Page, on "the fear of the possible":


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1212pagedec12,0,2944
25.column

I understand there is a full video of it on the CSPAN website. I haven't seen one on the Obama site yet.

Butrflynet wrote:

I understand there is a full video of it on the CSPAN website. I haven't seen one on the Obama site yet.

You can also find it on Obama's youtube site....

Some clarity on those NV delegates

From NBC's Mark Murray

After the Obama campaign pointed out it had won more pledged delegates than Clinton did -- which the AP and NBC News later backed up -- the Nevada Democratic Party issued this statement: "Just like in Iowa what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008."

The Clinton campaign then issued something similar, saying: "The Obama campaign is wrong. Delegates for the national convention will not be determined until April 19."

But hold on, folks. The Nevada Democratic Party just issued this clarification (emphasis is ours): "No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

What does this mean? It looks like the Obama camp's math (as well as the AP's and NBC's) is correct.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

In any case, my prediction (which you characterize as my "hope") does not contemplate the structural damage in the party clearly manifesting itself any earlier than the end of the primaries, and possibly not until after the general election. It is also predicated upon the current rancor continuing or growing.[..]

I can understand why admirers and the faithful of the Democratic party wish to dismiss this fissure as nothing more than a hairline crack caused by overzealous campaign workers and kept in the news by a blogosphere hungry for controversy. I think, though, that you're whistling past the graveyard.

Hm. We shall see. Personally, I've seen predictions by conservatives here that blacks will now surely soon see the light and understand how they are just being used by the Democrats, and that they're better off without them, for about as long as this forum exists, and for years on Abuzz before that. Anyone remember the boisterous predictions from Lash c.s. that Bush would make significant inroads in the black vote in '04? And what, he got 10% instead of 8% of them in the end? Count me sceptical...

But I am not predicting that the structural damage to the Democratic Coalition will result in the Republican Party increasing its support among blacks. I suppose that could happen if the GOP is transformed by this election, but I frankly don't see that as likely. As it stands now, the Republican party will not be anymore attractive to defecting blacks than the Democratic party they are leaving. Instead I can imagine a combination of increased apathy and disengagement and a movement to a third party, but only after a period of rancor and dispute.

Debunking the Reagan Myth

Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.

Analysts say black women never have held such power in determining the Democratic nominee for president. Black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days. These women face a unique dilemma: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?

CNN.com top story:

Quote:

Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.

Analysts say black women never have held such power in determining the Democratic nominee for president. Black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days. These women face a unique dilemma: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?

Maybe they should vote for the best candidate?

Asinine.

Ticomaya wrote:

CNN.com top story:

Quote:

Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.

Analysts say black women never have held such power in determining the Democratic nominee for president. Black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days. These women face a unique dilemma: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?

Maybe they should vote for the best candidate?

Asinine.

Yea, but what if the best candidate is a white man?? Then what do we do??