Obama '08?

In 1988, [after three cycles managing the debates] the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter".

During the 2000 election, the CPD stipulated that candidates would only be invited to debate if they had a 15 percent support level across five national polls. Ralph Nader, a presidential candidate who was not allowed to debate because of this rule, believed that the regulation was created to stifle the views of third party candidates by keeping them off the televised debates. Nader brought a lawsuit against them in a federal court, on that basis that corporate contributions violate the Federal Election Campaign Act.

In 2004, the CPD faced harsh criticism of their debate structure and technique. Citing the CPD's 32 page debate contract, citizen groups and an NPR journalist called the CPD debates "news conferences," and "a reckless endangerment of democracy."[1]

ebrown_p wrote:

maporsche wrote:

maporsche wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:

Could you clarify what you are referring to here? Is there a 'white-only' social program out there that I'm not aware of?

You mean... other than the presidency (as Clinton supporters don't think that a non-white can win)?

The presidency is not a social program that targets whites specifically.

And I don't recall any Clinton supporter saying that only whites can win the presidency. I'm sure you'll be able to back up that statement though, you're usually quite thorough.

So you agree that Obama can win in the general election?

That kind of scuttles the "superdelegates should overturn the results of the primaries" argument the Clintons and their supporters are making.

Yes I agree that Obama could win in the general election.

I won't be voting for him, but the rest of the country seems to not have a problem with the guy (at least compared to McCain or Nader).

I disagree that it scuttles Clinton's arguments regarding SD's though. Clinton would be a much better president than Obama IMO, so of course I think they should overturn the primary results, for the good of the country.

Former Vice President Al Gore has seen a recent wave of support on the Betfair market to be the Democratic Nominee with more money coming in to back him over the last month.

Quote:

Former Vice President Al Gore has seen a recent wave of support on the Betfair market to be the Democratic Nominee with more money coming in to back him over the last month.

spendi rubs his hands with glee.

SHOULD HAVE HAVE BEEN AUDACIOUS

Mark Schmitt is right to argue that Obama would be well-served to develop a more thoroughgoing critique of not only the Bush years, but the past few decades of bond market-focused neoliberalism, of which Clinton was a decided part. It's a tricky strategy because, as Paul Krugman rightly points out, Clinton's economic record was quite good. Growth was high and distribution improved. What Clinton failed at was public investment. Health care. Infrastructure reconstruction. Reinvigorating unions. He managed the economy with an adept progressive hand, but he left little in the way of institutions, programs, or reforms that pushed in a more progressive direction. It was a curiously transient presidency.

The problem is that Obama really doesn't have such a program either. He's got a health care plan, but Clinton's is a bit better. He's for green jobs and infrastructure reinvestment, but those are insufficient. Mark says, "to give voters like those in rural Pennsylvania a real reason to believe that their economic circumstances could be different, he will have to couple the critique of Clintonism that was implicit in his San Francisco remarks with a much bigger vision, a kind of new New Deal, tied to his communitarian appreciation of the significance of rebuilding all the bonds of a community." But it's getting a bit late in the game for that.

One of the real weaknesses of the Obama campaign has been its inability to distinguish itself on substantive domestic issues. His foreign policy is genuinely forward looking, and his personal magnetism and political talents are once-in-a-generation gifts. But he never tied them to a domestic policy platform that he could use to lope past Hillary. One of the reasons the race has descended into trivialities is that the two campaigns disagree on very little, and so can't get traction by attacking each other on substantive differences. Obama could, of course, bring out a New Deal style vision tomorrow, but the problem is that he has no good answer for why he didn't do it a year ago. He can't say "because though I called for audacity, I remained timid," and he can't say "because I need to beat Hillary Clinton." It's a problem.

THE CHOICE in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary is not only the one between a white woman and a black man. It's a choice between the past and the future.

More specifically, the nation must decide how to face the future racing toward us in the form of slumping home sales, unstable financial markets and increased joblessness - and staring at us from the Green Zone in Iraq and the beds at veterans hospitals.

Should Democrats choose someone who will employ hard-won - even bitter - experiences gained in a past Democratic administration, or reach beyond political truisms toward a new (and untried) model of governing?

Neither choice is obvious. Perhaps that's why the race has gone on for so long.

But the long slog through 44 primaries and caucuses has confirmed for us that Sen. Barack Obama's vision of change - and the way he plans to pursue it - is what we need right now. Badly.

This is a campaign that really began six years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001. Not only was the U.S. attacked and seriously wounded, it did not bounce back the way "the land of the free and home of the brave" should have. In fact, it still suffers from post-traumatic stress.

That day and its aftermath cried out for a revolution of values: a clear-eyed shared vision, a cooperative effort, a unified purpose. It cried out for a recognition that conventional warfare and conventional responses to domestic challenges in an era of globalization were not enough.

That cry was not answered.

Instead, the Bush administration embarked on an unconscionable plan to exploit the fear we all felt that day for political gain. It lied us into a disastrous war in Iraq, a staggering, record deficit at home, a weakening of the constitutional structure on which the country rests, and poisonous lines of division among Americans. It led us to a place where 81 percent of Americans say we're on the wrong track.

Contrary to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan, we believe Barack Obama is more likely to be "ready on Day One" to lead us in a new direction. Because of his experience.

Sure, Clinton has more "experience" of a sort. For one thing, she has 14 more years on earth. How much of this experience is directly applicable to the job of president is, at best, debatable.

We are frankly troubled by her assumption that her husband's administration and accomplishments were her own. And if her equation holds, that the first spouse is an equal partner in the administration, then the reappearance of Bill Clinton in the White House is a prospect we have a hard time reconciling with the work that needs to be done.

THERE IS a way to match Clinton's and Obama's performances on a relatively equal playing field: their campaigns.

A candidate's campaign may be the best indicator of how she or he will govern. If so, an Obama administration would be well-managed, inclusive and astonishingly broad-based. It would make good use of technology and communicate a message of unity and, yes, hope.

It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future - and that they have the power to change things.

It would motivate them to hold their representatives accountable for making it happen. That is, after all, the only way to get us out of Iraq, to address global warming, to make us energy-independent. It's the only way to resist the forces arrayed against providing universal health care, rebuilding our infrastructure and returning our schools to world-class status. It's the only way to give our children the means to compete with children in other parts of the world who are healthier, better-educated and have more opportunities than many of our own.

An Obama administration would be freer of the the corrupting influence of big-money donors and corporate interests. Obama has raised $240 million overall, with half coming in contributions of less than $200. People who contribute to political campaigns can feel they "own" a candidate and so Obama would owe allegiance to the wide swath of America that has financed his campaign.

Based on his experience in running a quarter-billion-dollar enterprise with thousands upon thousands of volunteers, we could expect an Obama administration to be well-managed and cost-effective, with the president choosing forward-thinking advisers committed to his program, demanding that they work as a team and pay attention to details.

He would be steady and calm, given neither to irrational exuberance or outbursts of anger. He would make mistakes, that's for sure, but he could be expected to recognize them, adjust, and move forward.

He would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views.

Obama's unprecedented appeal to younger voters is significant not only because it expands the electorate, which is vital. It's also a validation of his promise as a president to be free of the baby-boomer/Vietnam/segregation-era hangups.

Younger people are more egalitarian, more accepting of diversity, and more comfortable with rapid change. They also are less confined by old resentments or regrets.

AND AN OBAMA administration would lower the tone of the rhetoric that separates us.

As New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has said, Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who has the skill and eloquence to help us raise our eyes and our aspirations beyond individual, personal concerns, beyond religion or region or race or gender, beyond our well-founded fears to a shared destiny.

Most candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington. Barack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can.

There's a silver living in all of this: expectations. It would seem that the combination of Sen. Obama's fundraiser comments and his debate performance would convince the punditariot that Hillary Clinton ought to win Pennsylvania by a larger margin than before. So the burden of effort is transferred off of Obama and onto Clinton. If she doesn't win by whatever margin is deemed sufficient -- seven points? ten points? -- then what?

Ind. crowd not fazed by Obama comments

Sounds like some heavy duty maintenance you had there, Teeny. Glad to hear you're OK. Take good care of yourself now! (Or better still, have others take good care of you )

Hunter at kos

Sex-Crazed Pundit Class Associates With White Supremacists; McCain Embraces America Haters
by Hunter
Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:11:01 PM PDT

Here's a thought. Or three thoughts, anyway.

Sean Hannity, one of the pundits most obsessed with the fact that Obama was once on the same 10-person nonprofit board as a 1960's radical-now-turned-college-professor -- scary stuff -- is himself connected with notorious white supremacist Hal Turner, a man who regularly makes terroristic threats -- such as his threat to "liberate" Terri Schiavo from her doctors at gunpoint, until he aborted his supposed plan upon learning that Schiavo was "a Jew". Hannity gave regular airtime to the white supremacist, supported his bid for office... and yet now remains steadfastly silent about his past relationship with Turner.

Bill O'Reilly, one of the pundits most glibly distainful of the supposed moral failings of Democrats, was accused of ongoing sexual harassment by one of his female Fox producers, who complained of, among other things, sexually explicit calls to her home by a drunken, masturbating O'Reilly. O'Reilly settled the case for an undisclosed multimillion dollar sum, but continues to be employed by Fox News, which has never offered explanation or rebuke of O'Reilly's alarming and psychologically bizarre behavior towards a fellow Fox employee.

John McCain, who is so desperate to avoid substantive talk on Iraq, the economy, his own legislative history, and his wholehearted endorsement of all of the nuttiest of ultraconservative and Bush administration policies, himself has a substantial "preacher problem". After initially claiming to distance himself from the far right, McCain now associates with, appears with and seeks the endorsement of religious figures who blamed America for 9/11, and who asserted that the people of New Orleans deserved the destruction of their city by Hurricane Katrina because of their sinful ways. Despite their apparently anti-American statements, McCain continues to this day to seek the approval and endorsement of those religious figures.

Hey, big-time national journalism is fun -- much more fun than talking about dead soldiers or middle class families losing their homes! Hey ABC, got any job openings?

As New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has said, Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who has the skill and eloquence to help us raise our eyes and our aspirations beyond individual, personal concerns, beyond religion or region or race or gender, beyond our well-founded fears to a shared destiny.

nimh quoted-

Quote:

As New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has said, Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who has the skill and eloquence to help us raise our eyes and our aspirations beyond individual, personal concerns, beyond religion or region or race or gender, beyond our well-founded fears to a shared destiny.

That sounds like we are all going to be ascending into heaven to the accompianment of a celestial choir in long white shirts with halos twinkling.

real life wrote:

Obama full well knows Ayers history as a bomber.

And he knew Ayers had changed course.

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

Quote:

Obama did not clarify whether Wright volunteered to leave his African American Religious Leadership Committee, a loose group of supporters associated with the campaign,

"Associated," OK. This still isn't exactly analogous to a cabinet position, though.

Barack Obama 11/10
John Mc Cain 5/4
Hillary Clinton 5/1
Al Gore 20/1

It says a lot about what Obama thinks and the type of person he's likely to have in his administration.

real life wrote:

It says a lot about what Obama thinks and the type of person he's likely to have in his administration.

That's precisely the point, though.

It says a lot about whether Obama thought it was worth it to bar Wright from a "loose group of supporters associated with the campaign." (Was Wright "appointed" to anything?)

Far cry from that to appointing cabinet members,

not least because Obama has made it clear that he believes in a separation of church and state.

GREENVILLE, South Carolina (CNN) -- Republicans no longer have a firm grip on religion in political discourse, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama told Sunday worshippers.

The senator from Illinois delivered his campaign message to a multiracial evangelical congregation in traditionally conservative Greenville, South Carolina. "I think it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party," Obama told reporters outside the Redemption World Outreach Center where he attended services.

"I think that what you're seeing is a breaking down of the sharp divisions that existed maybe during the '90s," said Obama. "At least in politics, the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that oftentimes seemed intolerant or pushed people away."

Obama said he was pleased that leaders in the evangelical community such as T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren were beginning to discuss social justice issues like AIDS and poverty in ways evangelicals were not doing before.

"I think that's a healthy thing, that we're not putting people in boxes, that everybody is out there trying to figure out how do we live right and how do we create a stronger America," Obama said.

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."