Obama '08?

-- on the digression re TNR--


Quite. The New Republic, once upon a time the leading light of all that was truly leftwing in the US, has for years now strayed into neoconservative territory, at least where foreign policy is concerned. TNR did indeed support Bush's war with Iraq, unlike many other leftwing journals, and when it comes to anything relating to Israel, it's pretty much to the right of Bush.

With that in mind, even if its heart still beats on the left - overall - when it comes to domestic policy, the journal can indeed at most be called "left-leaning". The time that it was the veritable icon of American liberalism - when it was my father's favourite reading matter - has, alas, long passed.

Hell, the Daily Kos (now you're talking left) recently proclaimed, "TNR's defection to the Right is now complete" - and not for the first time (see here).

If no other proof would do, one thing should demonstrate this point beyond doubt: the TNR's editorial endorsement for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination went to... Joe Lieberman.

Yes, really.

You may be surprised to hear,.Mr. Nimh, that I would welcome Barack as a candidate. Nothing, but absolutely, nothing, would help the Republican candidate, whoever he may be, more than Obama's candidacy.

But, one of your articles (from the hard right wing Washington Post--ha-ha) said:
**********************************************************
The final reason Obama should stay out of the 2008 race can be boiled down to just three words -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. The New York senator is an overwhelming favorite for the nomination in 2008, thanks to a massive fundraising and organizational machine just waiting to be turned on.

If Obama chooses to run, he would need to get around Clinton in the primaries -- a formidable challenge given the preparations she and her campaign team have already made. Putting aside Clinton, there are several other well-known politicians -- Edwards and John Kerry jump to mind -- who have considerable financial and organizational resources that would complicate Obama's effort.

Why not wait four or eight years until he can be the "Hillary" of the presidential field, the odds-on nominee, rather than just one of a handful of candidates given a chance at winning the nomination?

Time is on Obama's side. Another four or eight years will allow him to polish his political skills and build the kind of network that would make him nearly unbeatable in a future primary fight. Should he jump in 2008, he runs the risk of being a has-been by 2012. If he waits, he can work on establishing political juggernaut status.

***********************************************************
Since you are politically tone deaf when it comes to US politics, Mr. Nimh, there are some things you do not know!

First of all, Greenwich Village and San Francisco ARE NOT THE BEDROCK OF THE USA.

The bedrock is flyover country.

The Red States- Mr. Nimh.

Now, I will try to explain to you, A European, why Barack Obama would never ever win the Presidency in your lifetime or mine.

l. There has been a long history and struggle between Caucasians and African-Americans in the USA. If you don' t know that, you don't know anything.

2. Caucasians, especially those in official and quasi-official positions do not and will not ever dare to criticize anything that is in any way allied with African American interests since it would be labelled as racist.

In the USA, Mr. Nimh, you can be called a bast.rd or a son of a bit.h and you can laugh it off, but if you are labled a racist, its all over--your career and your business.

(Please watch how Representative Ford- A light skinned African-American who polls fairly well inTennesse and is running for office of Senator is STEAMROLLERED in the elections and loses by a MUCH HIGHER MARGIN THAN THE POLLS INDICATE( Nov. 2008). This will prove my point.

People will say, Sure I'lll vote for the African-American Candidate in the polls but will VOTE THEIR HEARTS DESIRE IN THE VOTING BOOTH.


3.You must be really disconnected from reality if you think that the HIspanic Community, which, as you probably do not know, have become a larger group than African-Americans in the USA, will vote for a Barack Obama. Only if the opposition is an unknown entity like Keyes, but the Hispanics are vying for power in many American cities and African-Americans are their fiercest rivals.

You probably do not know that Hispanic Parents will do ANYTHING to keep their children from being bussed to Schools which have a large African-American contingent.

You probably do not know that IN THIRD GENERATION of Hispanics, MORE INTERMARRY WITH CAUCASIANS THAN WITH OTHER HISPANICS.

Are you so deluded that you think they will cast their lot with a Barack Obama who will be suspected of giving away the store to his AfricaN-American compatriots?


Please do not respond with articles written by left wing liberals in left wing newspapers. I know what the Washington Post and the New York Times will write---They are NOT America---just as Moscow is not Russia and Peiping is not China.

Oh, for those tired of the to-and-fro between Bernard and me (Soz? ;-)), do skip back to the previous page and check:

- the fourth post (TNR holds a straw poll on whether Obama should run);

- and the last post (the WaPo's Politics blog presents the cases for and against an Obama presidential run).

Trying to remain on-topic - think I've succeeded in all but two posts so far.

Bernie, Your opinion posted above mine makes sense; it can't be both Clinton and Obama, or they'll end up splitting the votes for a net loss.

It makes it better for John McCain.

Are you incapable of responding . Mr.Nihm or are you just trying to dodge questions which you can't answer?

Again- take them one at a time. A genius like you should be able to dispose of them easily.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may be surprised to hear,.Mr. Nimh, that I would welcome Barack as a candidate. Nothing, but absolutely, nothing, would help the Republican candidate, whoever he may be, more than Obama's candidacy.

But, one of your articles (from the hard right wing Washington Post--ha-ha) said:
**********************************************************
The final reason Obama should stay out of the 2008 race can be boiled down to just three words -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. The New York senator is an overwhelming favorite for the nomination in 2008, thanks to a massive fundraising and organizational machine just waiting to be turned on.

If Obama chooses to run, he would need to get around Clinton in the primaries -- a formidable challenge given the preparations she and her campaign team have already made. Putting aside Clinton, there are several other well-known politicians -- Edwards and John Kerry jump to mind -- who have considerable financial and organizational resources that would complicate Obama's effort.

Why not wait four or eight years until he can be the "Hillary" of the presidential field, the odds-on nominee, rather than just one of a handful of candidates given a chance at winning the nomination?

Time is on Obama's side. Another four or eight years will allow him to polish his political skills and build the kind of network that would make him nearly unbeatable in a future primary fight. Should he jump in 2008, he runs the risk of being a has-been by 2012. If he waits, he can work on establishing political juggernaut status.

***********************************************************
Since you are politically tone deaf when it comes to US politics, Mr. Nimh, there are some things you do not know!

First of all, Greenwich Village and San Francisco ARE NOT THE BEDROCK OF THE USA.

The bedrock is flyover country.

The Red States- Mr. Nimh.

Now, I will try to explain to you, A European, why Barack Obama would never ever win the Presidency in your lifetime or mine.

l. There has been a long history and struggle between Caucasians and African-Americans in the USA. If you don' t know that, you don't know anything.

2. Caucasians, especially those in official and quasi-official positions do not and will not ever dare to criticize anything that is in any way allied with African American interests since it would be labelled as racist.

In the USA, Mr. Nimh, you can be called a bast.rd or a son of a bit.h and you can laugh it off, but if you are labled a racist, its all over--your career and your business.

(Please watch how Representative Ford- A light skinned African-American who polls fairly well inTennesse and is running for office of Senator is STEAMROLLERED in the elections and loses by a MUCH HIGHER MARGIN THAN THE POLLS INDICATE( Nov. 2008). This will prove my point.

People will say, Sure I'lll vote for the African-American Candidate in the polls but will VOTE THEIR HEARTS DESIRE IN THE VOTING BOOTH.


3.You must be really disconnected from reality if you think that the HIspanic Community, which, as you probably do not know, have become a larger group than African-Americans in the USA, will vote for a Barack Obama. Only if the opposition is an unknown entity like Keyes, but the Hispanics are vying for power in many American cities and African-Americans are their fiercest rivals.

You probably do not know that Hispanic Parents will do ANYTHING to keep their children from being bussed to Schools which have a large African-American contingent.

You probably do not know that IN THIRD GENERATION of Hispanics, MORE INTERMARRY WITH CAUCASIANS THAN WITH OTHER HISPANICS.

Are you so deluded that you think they will cast their lot with a Barack Obama who will be suspected of giving away the store to his AfricaN-American compatriots?


Please do not respond with articles written by left wing liberals in left wing newspapers. I know what the Washington Post and the New York Times will write---They are NOT America---just as Moscow is not Russia and Peiping is not China.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS POSED, Mr. Nimh. If you are too sick to do so, you can do so tomorrow--unless you have a brain disease that is, and in that case, you are excused!!

Search as I might, in all of your post I find you asking just the one, single actual question - amidst all the assertions. It's this one:


That is rather hard to say. When Obama stood against Keyes, he got 82% of the Latino vote - but that was indeed an extraordinary race. How much would he get standing against a white Republican (assuming the Reps dont nominate Condi)?

Part of the answer is that race will not completely trump partisan preference/loyalty. Although the Republicans gained ground among Hispanics in 2004, an ample majority of them still voted Democrat, and there are certainly many Hispanics who in '08 again will vote Democrat, whoever the candidate is.

As for the others, we have little to go on. Obama's approval rating in Illinois at least suggests that he must enjoy significant support among the state's Hispanics as well (and please dont come up again with the canard of people not daring to say they disapprove of a black politician - lots of them are capable of doing so when it concerns other black politicians.)

As usual, you cherry picked because you are incapable of responding to the other points I made, Mr. Ninh. No Matter because then they STAND UNREBUTTED!

Are all people who live in Hungary so dense?

I explained to you that very few people would have voted for Keyes under any circumstances. Don't you understand that the Latino vote was not for Barack Obama but really against Keyes?

Secondly,it is not a canard. I will prove to you by citing the polls for Rep. Ford( an African-American in Tennessee who is running for Senator. Those polls will be higher than what he gets in the election. What will you say about a canard then, Mr. Nimh.

I guess you can't expect much sensible political data from a person who knows literally nothing about American Politics.

I will not forget to plant the Data on Ford right under your nose to see if you have the integvrity to say you were wrong.

Unless you think that Ford is not an African-American running in a Senate Race who has rather good polling numbers.

But then, you would be wrong--Again---

PS I will repost the parts of my post you did not address. Why? Does it rebut your thesis?

You asked me to "ANSWER THE QUESTIONS POSED", Bernard. But you only ever asked one question in the entire post. I answered it.


We can't really know, at this time, whether the Latinos would or would not have voted for Obama against another candidate. This is just something time will have to tell.


This: Condi Rice. Or better yet: Al Sharpton. How many respondents in opinion polls freely express their disapproval of him? Apparently, your argument that Americans will just not "dare to" tell a pollster that they disapprove of a black politician is nonsense. They certainly dare to do so about other black politicians. (I have made this point four times now, by the way, if you ever feel like addressing it, feel free.)


Am I then to repost all the things I've posted that you did not address? This would become a very long thread if we went down that road...

already seems pretty long...

Again. you write from a European Perspective. You know NOTHING about American Politics.

Here is what you do not know. Many of the African-Americans who are in office have been elected in districts that are mainly African-American. That is not surprising. But a great many, BEACAUSE OF THEIR CULTURAL BAGGAGE AND NOT BECAUSE OF ANY INHERENT CHARACTERISTICS, are a disgrace.

I will give you specific instances of what you, as a left wing European who is obvioulsy envious of the USA, does not know.

Let us look at some of the prominent African-American Legislators.

Barack Obama--I have already documented the fact that he has, in his own autobiography, admitted to a cocaine habit when he was young---admitted that his father, A Kenyan deserted his Caucasian wife when Barack was a young boy and did, in fact, attend two years at a MUSLIM school in his elementary school days.

YOU DID NOT REBUT THIS. THEREFORE IT STANDS. AND IT IS MY OPINION THAT ANYONE WHO HAS THIS KIND OF BACKGROUND WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO HOLD HIGH OFFICE IN THE USA.

(But, of course, that needs to be proven and that is why I really hope that the Democrats make the enormous mistake of putting Obama up for the VP office. I am sure that even in Hungary they are able to discern how many votes a VP costs the person running for president.

IF OBAMA RUNS, WE SHALL SEE!!!





Maxine Waters Democrat-California--one of the worst ever to be elected in the USA. She represents the heavily African-American District in Los Angeles-Watts. Here is her record:

quote

"I don't have time to be polite"-

"Los Angeles is under seige..the violence could spill over to many other cities in this country"(A typical exaggeration by Waters)

She voted against the crime bill proposed by Bill Clinton in 1964 because she "could not vote for a crime bill which would hurt so many African-Americans"

She protested Clinton;s cutoff of Haitian refugees and was ARRESTED at the gates of the White House.

She complained that Clinton's nomination of Terry McAuliffe as Democratic National Chairman was flawed and she urged the nomination of an African-American, Maynard Jackson.

She said that Senator John Ashcroft and Christopher Bond committed an "evil racist act( again, the race card is played) when they blocked the confirmation of Ronnie White( a clearly unqualified African- American) for federal judge.

THERE ARE MANY MORE INSTANCES WHEN WATERS SHOWED HERSELF OF BEING A DISGRACE TO HER POSITION.




Rep. Cynthia McKinney-Democrat- Georgia-

"I am absolutely sick and tired of having to have my apperance at the White House tolerated by White People"

(When White House guards did not reconize her--Indeed she assualted a guard who did not recognize her when he asked her to stop to offer crfedientials)

During the 2000 Campaign, her office issued a statement attacking Gore'slow "Negro Tolerance Level" and accused him of rarely having more than one black agent with him.

AND JUST RECENTLY SHE ASSUALTED A WHITE HOUSE GUARD WHO ASKED HER TO IDENTIFY HERSELF.

Another"sterling"African-American Legislator






John Conyers_ Democrat- Michigan


Responded to the 1967 riots by introducing a bill for a GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME.

1989--Sponsored bills to CONSIDER WHETHER REPARATIONS SHOULD BE PAID TO DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES.( the race card)

1998-Criticized a proposed Louisiana plastics plant as environmental RACISM( there goes the race card again)




Rep. William J. Jefferson- Democrat- Louisiana


He believes in cold money. FBI agents found $90,000 in his freexer. Jefferson is under indictment!




Rep. Bobby Rush- Democrat --Illinois


He founded the BLACK PANTHERS and served six months in prison for possession of weapons.

True to form, he later, as a legislator, attacked Chicago's Anti-gang Ordinance as "police state tactics that make scapegoats and criminals of innocent people"



******************************************************

These are what you don't know about American Politics. You are supremely ingorant of what goes on in American politics and just because you read two or three left wing magazines, you think you are informed.

YOU ARE NOT-MR. NIMH

Now, the African American legislators I listed are the worst of a poor lot. Most of them play the race card repeatedly. I gave you evidence.
You think that the American voting public doesn't know about Waters, McKinney, Conyers, Jefferson and Ruch, BUT THEY DO!!!!

And if Obama attempts to run for higher office, he will have to face the voters to assure them, despite his record so far where he has worked mainly in his past for African-American causes, THAT HE WILL NOT BE LIKE THE RACE CARDERS ABOVE.

The voters won't buy it, Mr. Nimh.

We shall see what happens to Mr. Ford in Tennessee and you can bet that when he is smashed by tens of thousands of Caucasian voters who are suspicious that he will imitate the African-Americans listed above, I WILL LET YOU KNOW ABOUT IT.


I will show you that your ignorance about American Politics is deep and wide!!!!

Let it stand. Perhaps one day you'll learn that everyone doesn't share your prejudices. Do you really think anyone believed Clinton didn't inhale? (Heeere :wink:) What percentage of Americans do you think really can't identify with broken marriage? A young boy attended two years at a school that may or may not have been his choice? Boy, that's pretty damning stuff you got there.

Well, Mr. Occam Bill, it may be damning and it may not be damning.

I guess it all depends on your perspective, doesn't it?

You may be aware that some in the Republican party have all but written Rudy Giuliani off as a potential presidential candidate because of his love affair that led to his divorce and remarriage.

Politicians always try to insulate their candidates from anything that would turn off any segement of the possible voting public.

You may recall, Mr. Occom Bill, that William Jefferson Clinton, went on TV with his wife before the election of 1992 to blunt the charges that he had an affair with Gennifer Flowers. His handlers were concerned that those charges could hurt him electorally(He did, in his deposition in 1998 admit his affair with Flowers).

People are always looking for reasons to vote for a person or against a person. I dare say that anyone who would feel uncomfortable for any reason in having a candidate like Barack Obama in a national office might jump at any of the three items I laid down for use as a rationale.

Thank You, Mr. Occom Bill!!!

Just for the record - believe it or not - I actually agree with Bernard that there will be some slippage between poll numbers and actual outcomes, when it comes to the results of people of colour, perhaps women too.

Mind you, thats not based on any scrupulous examination of past cases. It's purely a gut feeling. (In an earlier cycle of this discussion I was sceptical about any black candidate's chances to be elected US President yet, after all).

I'm sure there is indeed a slice of respondents that gives the socially preferred answer, even if the poll is anonymous. In face-to-face interviews the slice of people to give the socially preferable answer (or refrain from giving a socially less preferable answer) will be slightly bigger still - hence how the initial exit poll data in the presidential elections was off a few points, before they were corrected.

This 'slippage' doesn't amount remotely to the sort of thing Bernard is claiming - that Americans simply don't dare to express disapproval of a black candidate, or preference for his opponent. That is nonsense, as a cursory glance at the significant enough disapproval rates of Rice's job performance, and the overwhelming disapproval rates of Al Sharpton, shows. I'm guessing the slippage would, instead, be a couple of percentage points.

It doesn't, therefore, change much about Obama's impressive job approval numbers. He's got 72% approval. Even if, "in reality" (something we can never check), it is "only" 68% or 69%, it still means he's got tremendous cross-over appeal, appeals to significant numbers of Bush and former Fitzgerald voters in his state, and ranks among the very best liked Senators in the country. His numbers also remain strikingly favourable in comparison with those of other black politicians, whose numbers would suffer from the same slippage.

However, when it comes to a close race, it can make a difference. If Obama ends up the Democratic presidential nominee - still a very small chance indeed, but one that would definitely make me happy - and in the final week of the campaign he is ahead by one or two percentage points, I would be very worried indeed. If he is up by 5 points, fine, but by 2 points - not good. The same, I'm sure, would hold for Ford in Tennessee - though that is a race I know next to nothing about.

nimh, You have expressed some ideas that reflects mine, but even if Obama should run, it would seem that a run by Hillary would split the votes badly for the dems. Just a thought.

Not quite sure what you mean, c.i.

If Obama runs, he faces Hillary and a bunch of other Democrats - in the primaries. Whoever wins those - Hillary, Obama or whoever else - will then be the one single Democratic candidate in the general elections.

There would be no split vote in the general elections.

nimh, You're right ofcoarse that only one can run, but that begs the question; who will be the democrat's pick?

The gang I described was the one posting about BernardR. No wider connections among the members was implied.

My issue is not with direct confrontation with BernardR, or for that matter with anything that anyone has written about him.

I'm sorry you find it so objectionable nimh, but, to me, the practice in question reminds me of a group of teenage girls gossiping about someone at school who is not in their circle.

I have to admit that I find it amazing that the use of such a mild perjorative as "twit," so often seems to strike nerves. By the way, one need not use terms like "twit" to present an ad hominem arguemnt. This post of yours is a perfect example.

I confront those with whom I disagree, as do you. Perhaps we're not so different as you might like to think.

Here's a radical suggestion for you all:

Ignore him.

Don't read his posts. Don't respond to them because you think it's so easy to make a fool of him and then grouse when he keeps coming back for more.

It was impossible to ignore Massagattos on Abuzz, because there was no way to stop a spammer. Fortunately that's not the case here.

Indeedie.