Obama '08?

Blatham's wanton

Quote:

I won't be voting for Obama, not because he is untrustworthy, but because he is the most liberal member of the Senate.

This actually isn't true.

Cycloptichorn

nimh wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

If it was racism that motivated white male voters in the South recently to vote for Hillary (as was alleged here and on other threads, almost without comment or objection)

I am only on page 995 now -- and this thread has meanwhile passed the 1000 mark! -- but I see George has already assailed this straw man at least three times.

I know that I have, for one, repeatedly discussed the role of race in the election outcomes by demographic group, analysed it to death in fact. But if all George took from it was that it was purely and only "racism that motivated white male voters in the South recently to vote for Hillary" and that this assertion was made "almost without comment or objection", he must have had either skipped or conveniently forgotten about half the posts that were written about the topic, in this thread, the Polls etc thread, and the Old Times There Are Not Forgotten thread.

As in: something can play an undeniable role, without it being the only explanation and without it being right to pass on without reservations.

Georgeob1 has asserted, the way I read it (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are many other reasons why Southern whites may have voted for Hillary and/or Edwards, and so there's little sense in talking about race as determinator. So it suits his argument to pretend that the people he argued with asserted that it must just all have been racism - that's a silly proposition, can easily be brushed off, and then we can all continue like there's nothing to see here.

The real argument here of course was more complicated. Quite specific regional deviations from statistical trends have shown that whites in the South demonstrated a relatively pronounced unwillingness to vote for Obama. Ergo: just like in any other state, there are many who voted for Hillary and Edwards for all the substantive and superficial reasons that have motivated people elsewhere to do so; but there is a deviation from the trend that becomes specifically more pronounced the further a state is in the South, Deep South. An attendant trend is that John Edwards, who programatically profiled himself consistently as the progressive, populist, leftist candidate, enpoyed a pronounced and consistent support among a larger-than-average minority of white voters who described themselves as conservative or very conservative, and who listed such things as immigration and terrorism as a prime issues -- in short, who had little affinity at all with anything that Edwards the candidate actually said.

Based on such data, the observation has been made that among specific demographic subgroups, there has been a greater than average/usual unwillingness to vote Obama, and a surprising tendency to veer towards the white, male candidate even when the man was a strident liberal, and that these deviations from the overall trend probably point to racial motivations. .

The real argument here of course was more complicated. Quite specific regional deviations from statistical trends have shown that whites in the South demonstrated a relatively pronounced unwillingness to vote for Obama. Ergo: just like in any other state, there are many who voted for Hillary and Edwards for all the substantive and superficial reasons that have motivated people elsewhere to do so; but there is a deviation from the trend that becomes specifically more pronounced the further a state is in the South, Deep South.

Out of respect to Soz (and irregardless of Blatham's wanton whining), I've answered you here George.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Out of respect to Soz (and irregardless of Blatham's wanton whining), I've answered you here George.

I don't respect the "directives" of self-appointed bullies of any sex or stripe. I''l respond here or not at all.

I presume that blatham is referring to this: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2JCSH5p9r2GBkQWS9TWAMzmuvQD8URCDHG0

So now, McCain is Obama's advisor? Are REpublicans that, boring?

Feb. 15, 2008, 11:54PM
CAMPAIGN 2008
Clinton, Obama address Houston hot topics
Views contrast on space, energy and Latino vote


By ALAN BERNSTEIN


On space exploration, the energy industry and the Latino vote, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton dispelled any impression Friday that they are policy twins inside different outer shells.

Clinton was more enthusiastic than Obama about human space travel and domestic oil production when the Democratic presidential candidates conducted separate telephone conferences with the Houston Chronicle editorial board.

The candidates, who campaigned in the Midwest Friday, were closer on immigration issues as they tackled political topics of particular interest to the Houston area. But they described having contrasting relationships with Texas' growing share of Hispanic voters.

The senators are courting votes in Texas' March 4 primary, which could tilt the balance in a close race for the nomination for the White House.

"I intend to pursue an ambitious agenda in both space exploration and earth sciences," Clinton said. "I want to support the next generation of spacecraft for a robust human spaceflight program."

Obama agreed that NASA, which employs thousands of Houston-area voters who work at or with the Johnson Space Center, should be a tool for inspiring the nation.

But, he said, the next president needs to have "a practical sense of what investments deliver the most scientific and technological spinoffs ?- and not just assume that human space exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always the best investment."

Clinton said her White House agenda would include environmentally friendly policies that would create millions of jobs. But she said the plan "also recognizes the continuing vital role of the oil and gas industry," another huge Houston-area employer.

She said she voted for legislation to expand oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because she backs such projects that have local support and are environmentally sound. Obama voted against, she added.

"I think on that issue alone, I should be able to make a strong case to the energy community" for support, the New York senator said.


Push for conservation

Clinton added that energy companies have to be part of a national push for conservation and cleaner energy sources.

"They have to realize that ... if we don't change our energy mix our economy will become weaker and people's real income will decrease," she remarked.

Obama said he is unlikely to garner substantial political support from the oil and gas industry at large.

The Illinois senator said he would eliminate tax breaks for the industry and push for less dependence on foreign oil.

"That's not something that the oil companies will probably champion," he told the editorial board. "I would argue that these companies should be thinking of ways that they can make money in clean energy."

Clinton cited her voter registration work in South Texas in the 1970s and work in Washington to improve education opportunities for Hispanics, as reasons that she has strong political ties to Latino voters in the state.

"I'm very glad to have that depth and breadth of support," she said.

Obama acknowledged that he is not yet well known to many Hispanic voters.

Hispanics, he said, will likely gravitate toward his campaign when they learn that he organized Chicago's Hispanic neighborhoods to be politically effective, voted in the Illinois Legislature to grant in-state tuition to students brought into the country illegally by their parents and that he supports citizenship opportunities for illegal immigrants willing to learn English, pay a fine and meet other requirements.

Both candidates said the federal government needs to try to solve the illegal immigration problem with stepped-up security at the U.S.-Mexico border, penalties against employers of such immigrants and a chance for undocumented workers to earn legal status.

Clinton, citing the unsuccessful bipartisan bill that would have made such "comprehensive" policies into law, commented, "The only people that I think our stalemate helps are people who exploit our undocumented workers; who are perfectly happy for the status quo to continue."


Path to citizenship

Obama said, in addition, the nation needs to streamline the processes for turning legal immigrants into citizens and helping businesses employ foreign workers with expertise that is unavailable in the U.S.

"A combination of measures I think can solve the problem in a way that allows our nation of laws and a nation of immigrants," he said.

Editorial

Feb. 16, 2008, 2:09AM
For Obama
The Chronicle endorses the senator from Illinois for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The presidency of the United States is a powerful bully pulpit. The occupant of the White House must not only issue orders, but also inspire and advocate for all Americans.

Of the two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Chronicle believes Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party. In a conference call, Obama told the Chronicle editorial board that "more than any other candidate, I can bridge some of the partisan as well as racial and religious divides that have developed in this country that prevent us from getting things done."

Those who have viewed the numerous campaign debates know there's not much to separate Obama from his opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. Either could ably represent the Democratic Party. Both candidates favor ending the war in Iraq by withdrawing combat troops and initiating regional negotiations to stabilize the country. Both would press for dramatic strides toward providing all Americans with health insurance.

Both support a cap and trade system to begin reducing America's carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Each promises to initiate multibillion-dollar efforts to promote conversion of the economy to clean energy technologies. They favor securing our borders, initiating comprehensive immigration reform and creating a path to earned legal status for those already here who are working and contributing to their communities.

However, there is a decisive difference. Obama vows to reach out to independents and Republicans with a message of inclusion and cooperation. He offers a historic opportunity to elevate national political dialogue to a higher ground. Those who insist on vitriol and obstructionism would be marginalized.

On several issues vital to Houstonians, Obama's positions need elaboration. He recognizes the need to maintain U.S. pre-eminence in space but said he wanted to study the costs and benefits of human space exploration ?- an exercise that should convince him of the space program's long history of indispensable contributions.

Obama said he did not expect the leaders of the energy sector to vote for him. He needs to realize that the energy sector must be a large part of a cooperative effort to develop alternative fuels and avoid an energy crunch.

The 46-year-old Obama has expanded his base of support, winning new legions of supporters. The more people see and hear him, the more they like him. As the Hawaiian-born son of a Muslim Kenyan father and an Anglo Midwesterner, the devoutly Christian Obama transcends race and religion. His life has been one of involvement with disadvantaged Chicago residents, excellence at Harvard Law School and eight years as an Illinois state senator. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, only the third African-American to serve there since Reconstruction.

Obama is both the epitome of the American Dream and well-positioned to reach out to an international community alienated by recent U.S. go-it-alone policies.

The passion and excitement that Obama has brought to the race can only stimulate more citizens to participate in the electoral process. The Chronicle urges Texas Democrats to cast what could be decisive ballots for his presidential nomination.

There is a troublesome story coming out of New York. The report is that Obama received ZERO votes in 80 districts in New York, and no one knows why. No small matter, since this could mean more pledged delegates he does or does not get.


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

According to the paper:

"Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem's 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city's 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.



http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=286025


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


Seems awful fishy to me. Comments?