Obama '08?

Lola wrote:

CalamityJane wrote:
Lola, you wrote : "Obama will be much harder to defeat because of his skin color. Sexism is more acceptable to more Americans than racism......."

It's a cheap shot as you make it a "skin color" and "sexism" issue only.

Ont "only" but a factor to be taken seriously. I didn't think it up. I saw this last night in one of those articles I wasa reading. I thought it was a good reason to consider voting for Obama. Obama is an African American. It's a factor in the race as much as gender is for Hillary. It would be unwise to try to ignore it.

When I worked for the New York Urban League, in 1972, I was often part of a group in which I was a minority of one. I regularly heard discussions about "crazy white liberals" who couldn't recognize their own racism. The general consensus was that unless a white person could admit that they had residues of racism, they were vulnerable to acting on their racial feelings without knowing it. And the same was true for blacks who didn't mention skin color in referring to "honkies." There was little double standard. One of the criteria that was used is whether someone tried to talk about a person of color without mentioning that they were black. If you could talk about a black man and call him exactly what he was, black, it was experienced, at that time, as an indication of unacknowledged racism.

I know that members of my children's (ages 21 - 25) generation truly don't see skin color. They've come up in a very different environment than older Americans. So it may not mean that to younger generations, but there are large numbers of black Americans who still look for this.

Are we to not mention race when we're considering electability?

I read the article too, so I know Lola isn't making it up. The premise of the article was that if Obama were president, the white establishment would have to walk on eggshells when criticizing him or his administration.

I found it a little humorous to think that Obama is more electable because none of his opponents will be able to be as overtly critical of him. I don't think people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh let anything or anyone limit the depths they'll go to criticize anyone if it will get them ratings. If they should falter, I'm sure someone somewhere will be able to trot out another couragous Black person to do the job for them. In fact, I think that would be a good day in American politics if that were to occur.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If Hillary was a man, her legs would not be an issue.

It is an issue nowadays, tho' I wish it were not, that people picked for public office have to be telegenic and this factor can and does trump some qualities which might seem more desirable attributes for the office in question.

I cite Dan Quale, Tony Blair and George W.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:
As for the question itself -- will he be assassinated? -- we've talked about that here before. I think there will always be kooks, period, but that there are security measures in place and that I don't think that Obama is necessarily in MORE danger than any other president. Certainly not a reason not to vote for him anyway.

I totally agree that it's not a reason to refrain from voting for him; if anything, electing him would be a way to defeat the demons of the past. But do you honestly think Obama is not in more danger of assassination "than any other president"?

Senator Obama was provided Secret Service protection very early on and Hillary already had it from her days as First Lady. There are no absolute guarantees for any candidate. That makes all our candidates couragous and voters need to rise above these fears with them. It's the only way to diminish the ugly act and preserve our form of government not only from the past, but for the future.

0 Replies

Just heard that Hillary has replaced her campaign manager...

http://thepage.time.com/solis-doyles-outgoing-message-to-staff/

Quote:

From: Patti Solis Doyle
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 3:44 PM
To: AllStaff
Subject:Over a year ago Hillary launched her campaign for President.

Her announcement began a historic effort that has inspired millions and brought hundreds of thousands to their feet all across this nation.

I have been proud to manage this campaign, and prouder still to call Hillary my friend for more than sixteen years. I know that she will make a great President.

This has already been the longest Presidential campaign in the history of our nation, and one that has required enormous sacrifices from all of us and our families.

During the last month I have been working closely with my longtime friend, Maggie Williams.

This week Maggie will begin to assume the duties of campaign manager. I will serve as a senior adviser to Hillary and the campaign and travel with Hillary from time to time on the road. Maggie is a remarkable person and I am confident that she will do a fabulous job.

Although I will continue to see you all at headquarters, I would be remiss if I didn't thank each of you for your dedication, excellence, and passion over the last year.

You are the best campaign staff in the history of Presidential politics and I am grateful to each of you for your hard work and friendship.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Has anyone ever seen her legs in public?

Didn't you wear a pair of shorts in NY?

0 Replies

Found an interesting old article from the NY Times about Patti Doyle. She's quite an impressive person.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/nyregion/13patti.html?ex=1323666000&en=3d3b2d6d5a728f77&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

And an even older one on Clinton's new campaign manager, Maggie Williams. Ms. Williams was Hillary's Chief of Staff in the White House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803378.html

0 Replies

I don't understand this. On the CNN politics site this morning Obama had 1,100 delegate and Clinton 1039. Now it says Clinton has 1,139 and Obama has 1,106. Where did this change come from? Does anyone know?

0 Replies

I haven't yet seen any two independent sources with the same numbers. Everyone seems to have a different method of counting the delegates.

I have no idea who is the final authority on the numbers. Would that be the DNC of each state or the national DNC or each of the candidate's campaigns?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

CalamityJane wrote:
Lola, you wrote : "Obama will be much harder to defeat because of his skin color. Sexism is more acceptable to more Americans than racism......."

It's a cheap shot as you make it a "skin color" and "sexism" issue only.

Ont "only" but a factor to be taken seriously. I didn't think it up. I saw this last night in one of those articles I wasa reading. I thought it was a good reason to consider voting for Obama. Obama is an African American. It's a factor in the race as much as gender is for Hillary. It would be unwise to try to ignore it.

Are we to not mention race when we're considering electability?

I understand the desire to see an African-American president in the White House as a sign that America has overcome its race related issues, but that, of course, would not be the case. It would be a sign that we have made incredible progress, and, I believe, in and of itself it would be of considerable help in resolving ongoing issues and making even more progress. This latter effect might be reason to vote for an African-American simply because he or she is black, but to do so would require the voter to see the issue of race as the number one problem in America. Some do and to that extent, unless they believe Obama will make a horrible president, its rational that they vote for him specifically because he is black.

It is also rational to consider this effect within the aggregate of considerations applied to one's decison making.

I suppose someone, who claims to not be racist, might be able to articulate an argument why it is rational not to vote for Obama simply because he is black, but it would be highly fragile and dependent upon a much broader sense of racism in the general public than I believe exists.

I also understand the thinking of those who believe that to discuss race in terms of electibility is to give power to the idea that it actually matters, and that for his opponents to bring it up as a possible reason not to nominate him is, itself, veiled racism.

However, it would be disingenuous to deny that Obama's race has not already been a factor in this race, and whether or not he was forced to by people playing the race card, he himself has addressed it. To try and stuff the genie back in the bottle and stop mentioning it seems silly.

I have for quite sometime understood that charges of racism against anyone expressing conservative views are par for the course, but here's some truly friendly advice to all of you folks who claim to be friends, but who now find yourselves currently at odds. Calling someone a racist, calling their opinions racist, implying someone is a racist or implying their opinions are racist, while a favorite tactic to be used against the Right, is going to cause some serious bad feelings among you all. And if you take my advice and seriously consider whether a charge of racism is truly warranted, perhaps you will develop the habit and use it when debating conservatives.

0 Replies

CNN combines pledged delegates and unpledged delegates (superdelegates). The superdelegates are considered in one column or another just by endorsing a given candidate. For example, when Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama, Obama gained a superdelegate.

However superdelegates are unpledged, which means they can change their minds at any point. If Hillary suddenly surges and ends up with a big lead over Obama, Kennedy can change his mind and go over to her column. (I'm not saying it's likely, just by way of example.)

So I'm annoyed at how often delegates and superdelegates are combined in delegate totals. Very different creatures.

ADDITIONALLY, though, and separately, the processes by which regular pledged delegates are apportioned are positively byzantine. It's not obvious how many delegates go where once a primary/ caucus is over.

And in addition to that, there are still undecided votes, like in New Mexico.

Here are the CNN numbers for plain old pledged delegates -- the ones that have been won in primaries or caucuses thus far:

Obama: 971
Clinton: 915

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

0 Replies

Interesting Op-Ed in today's NYT about how superdelegates are not even really supposed to be part of the picture at this point. They're supposed to be hanging back and seeing what the voters think, and then nudging along the leader if need be once the convention nears:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Lola wrote:
CalamityJane wrote:
Lola, you wrote : "Obama will be much harder to defeat because of his skin color. Sexism is more acceptable to more Americans than racism......."

It's a cheap shot as you make it a "skin color" and "sexism" issue only.

Ont "only" but a factor to be taken seriously. I didn't think it up. I saw this last night in one of those articles I wasa reading. I thought it was a good reason to consider voting for Obama. Obama is an African American. It's a factor in the race as much as gender is for Hillary. It would be unwise to try to ignore it.

When I worked for the New York Urban League, in 1972, I was often part of a group in which I was a minority of one. I regularly heard discussions about "crazy white liberals" who couldn't recognize their own racism. The general consensus was that unless a white person could admit that they had residues of racism, they were vulnerable to acting on their racial feelings without knowing it. And the same was true for blacks who didn't mention skin color in referring to "honkies." There was little double standard. One of the criteria that was used is whether someone tried to talk about a person of color without mentioning that they were black. If you could talk about a black man and call him exactly what he was, black, it was experienced, at that time, as an indication of unacknowledged racism.

I know that members of my children's (ages 21 - 25) generation truly don't see skin color. They've come up in a very different environment than older Americans. So it may not mean that to younger generations, but there are large numbers of black Americans who still look for this.

Are we to not mention race when we're considering electability?

I read the article too, so I know Lola isn't making it up. The premise of the article was that if Obama were president, the white establishment would have to walk on eggshells when criticizing him or his administration.

I found it a little humorous to think that Obama is more electable because none of his opponents will be able to be as overtly critical of him. I don't think people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh let anything or anyone limit the depths they'll go to criticize anyone if it will get them ratings. If they should falter, I'm sure someone somewhere will be able to trot out another couragous Black person to do the job for them. In fact, I think that would be a good day in American politics if that were to occur.

Butrflynet,

I've looked for that article today. It was there this morning. Do you know where to find it or who wrote it?

0 Replies

Here are the latest delegate numbers, including break-down, from CNN

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/3563/picxl0.png

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Interesting Op-Ed in today's NYT about how superdelegates are not even really supposed to be part of the picture at this point. They're supposed to be hanging back and seeing what the voters think, and then nudging along the leader if need be once the convention nears:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html

That is an extremely favorable explanation of the super delegate process. He may be right about how the the candidates should interact with the super delegates and how the super delegates should comport themselves, but this isn't what is happening.

Either the candidates are trying to lock down the support of the super delgates because they don't trust them to follow the script, or they are trying to obtain yet another advantage over their opponent. Probably a mixture of both.

0 Replies

A few things to consider for those here that are arguing that super-delegates should just vote along with the people.

1) The rules are not set up this way, and like FL/MI the candidates all agreed to the rules before running. If you're going to force FL and MI out of the race for breaking the rules, then criticize Clinton for trying to change the rules mid-stream.....well then, it seems a little strange to try to change the rules for SD also mid-stream just becuase it would seem to help your candidate.

2) Should the SD vote along the lines of the delegate count, or should they vote along the lines of the popular vote totals? And why? I mean we're talking about changing the rules here so there'd have to be some justification for picking one over the other.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

I don't understand this. On the CNN politics site this morning Obama had 1,100 delegate and Clinton 1039. Now it says Clinton has 1,139 and Obama has 1,106. Where did this change come from? Does anyone know?

I didn't research this question, so I don't actually know the answer. But here is a guess: I suspect the differences and instabilities come from the super-delegates. These are delegates who will vote at the convention, but aren't pledged to any candidate. They can wait for the convention to make up their minds, then vote as they please. Accordingly, the prediction for the convention must change every time a super-delegate has a change of mind. Also, since delegates have an incentive to appear uncommitted so both camps court them, I would imagine that forecasters must guess delegates' current preferences from their conduct. Every time this guess changes, the prediction changes, too.

Assuming my guess is correct, and as long as the race is close enough for super-delegates to matter, I expect to see predictions continue to diverge and bounce around.

0 Replies

Oops ... I've been beaten to it -- four times!

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I have for quite sometime understood that charges of racism against anyone expressing conservative views are par for the course, but here's some truly friendly advice to all of you folks who claim to be friends, but who now find yourselves currently at odds. Calling someone a racist, calling their opinions racist, implying someone is a racist or implying their opinions are racist, while a favorite tactic to be used against the Right, is going to cause some serious bad feelings among you all. And if you take my advice and seriously consider whether a charge of racism is truly warranted, perhaps you will develop the habit and use it when debating conservatives.

I'm getting very confused again. Does anyone think I've called anyone a racist? What I wrote or meant to convey is that I think it's a good reason to vote for Obama because I was thinking functionally that it will be harder for the press to criticize Obama than it would be Clinton. Because they will be more afraid of being called a racist than a woman hater. That's all I meant. The argument in the article I read was that the Republicans won't be able to use some of their most effective tactics with Obama. Therefore it would be a reason for me or any of us (in addition to all the other reasons we may have) to vote for him in the primary.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

A few things to consider for those here that are arguing that super-delegates should just vote along with the people.

1) The rules are not set up this way,

That's actually the point of the Op-Ed. Evidently the rules WERE set up this way, and the current gun-jumping is the subversion.

Quote:

2) Should the SD vote along the lines of the delegate count, or should they vote along the lines of the popular vote totals?

I'm not making that distinction. I think the idea is simply that if someone is slightly but not hugely ahead -- in both pledged delegate count and popular vote totals, which are unlikely to be too different -- the superdelegates are intended to nudge things along in the direction of what voters are showing they want.

All of this is about intention rather than how it's playing out, of course.

:-) Thomas...

0 Replies

Will New Mexico report before the June 2008?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know