+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Archives (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Trash Can (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=20)
+--- Thread: US Elections 2008 - II (/showthread.php?tid=349)
US Elections 2008 - II - dhu - 03-24-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Fire and Damnation Awaits Those Who Transgress Against White Americaâs Civic Religion</b>
..
Wright questioned white America's civic religion, its fraudulent self-image as benevolent conqueror and justified leader of the planet. Heretics of this kind are speedily cast from the public American public discourse, despite the fact most of the planet agrees with them.
..
..itâs time to let the secret out: the Unnamed Coast is actually the entrance to the Land of Official and Inviolable American Religion. The entire region is off-limits to all but those designated as Learned Reconcilers â that is, double-talking Sages whose job it is to explain how the United States has no national religion when it is patently clear that the totality of the national mythology amounts to a comprehensive body of faith, packed with superpower potency and globe-consuming threat.
..
The American Pantheon of gods and demigods is drawn entirely from the âheroesâ in the great White/European conquest of North America, the god-sanctioned murder of the vast majority of the original inhabitants, and the kidnapping of millions of Africans to act as âbeasts of burdenâ for the Chosen Whites. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Andrew Jackson - all mass murderers, organized rapists, perpetual violators of solemn treaties. To the American school girl and boy, these military butchers are the European equivalent of Saints, Holy personages.
..
..Should Dr. Wrightâs sermons be listed under âraceâ or âreligion?â
Itâs a ridiculous question. The real American religion is all about race: the glorification in the conquest of two darker races by the favored white race. It was Godâs will, and Heavenâs sign that the growth and prosperity of the United States is Godâs design for the future.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 03-28-2008
We say in India Yadav and group played with poll. Check how American media is trying to manupulate polls just to change public opnion or trying instal their own weak candidate. Here is biggest fraud. Read this article and check ethics of Wall Street and MSNBC/GE
http://www.taylormarsh.com/
<b>NBC/Wall Street Journal Embarrassed on Oversampling</b>
<b>As you know, the sample for the March 24-25 poll on race included an âoversampleâ of 100 African American voters</b>
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 03-28-2008
<b>Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early</b> <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> McCain won 48.5%
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 03-29-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Campaign 2008: Pundits Versus Reality</b>
by Peter Daou3/28/2008 11:18:45 AMTHE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton will lose New Hampshire and the race will be over
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton wins New Hampshire, defying the predictions and the polls
THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton will lose the big states on Super Tuesday and the race will be over
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton wins the big states on Super Tuesday â and wins them by double digits
THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton will lose Texas and possibly Ohio on March 4th and the race will be over
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio on March 4th â and she wins Ohio by double digits
THE PUNDITS
Despite Hillary Clinton's big victories on March 4th, "the math" works decisively against her and the race is essentially over
THE REALITY
The math is simple: neither candidate has reached the number of delegates required to
secure the nomination and either candidate can win
THE PUNDITS
Barack Obama is substantially ahead in the pledged delegate count; pledged delegates are the only measure of success; therefore the race is essentially over
THE REALITYÂ
The candidates are within fractions of one another on delegates; Barack Obama needs super delegates to win; and a marginal pledged delegate lead does not determine the outcome
THE PUNDITS
Barack Obama is substantially ahead in the popular vote; Florida and Michigan donât count; therefore the race is essentially over
THE REALITY
The popular vote is virtually tied; half of Barack Obama's narrow vote advantage is from his home state; and his lead excludes Florida and Michigan
THE PUNDITS
Once the remaining states vote, Barack Obama will be substantially ahead in delegates and votes and the race will be over
THE REALITY
The race is a dead heat now and no one knows where things will end up after millions of remaining voters in the upcoming states make their choice
THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton's situation is dire; her campaign is struggling; her supporters are disillusioned and desperateÂ
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are calm, confident, and focused heading into the key
state of PA, where she is running strong
THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clintonâs campaign lacks significant grassroots energy; only one candidate has mobilized supporters to take action for the campaign
THE REALITY
Hillary Clintonâs supporters across America have written letters, blogged, donated tens of millions of dollars, volunteered millions of hours and made millions of calls
THE PUNDITS
There is a loud and growing chorus of voices asking Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race
THE REALITY
Precisely the same number of voters (22%) think Barack Obama should drop out of the
race as Hillary Clinton
THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton is the candidate running a negative, divisive campaign; she is throwing the "kitchen sink" at Barack Obama
THE REALITY
Barack Obama has been throwing the sink, the stove, the plates and the garbage can at Hillary Clinton, attacking her integrity and character every day
THE PUNDITS
For Hillary to win the nomination, super delegates will have to "overturn the will of the
people"
THE REALITY
The will of the people is split and both candidates need - and are making their case to -
super delegates
THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton is threatening to poach pledged delegates from Barack Obama
THE REALITY
Barack Obama is reportedly already trying to poach pledged delegates from Hillary Clinton
THE PUNDITS
Florida and Michiganâs voters won't be heard and their delegates wonât be seated all
because of complicated procedural roadblocks
THE REALITY
Barack Obama is intentionally disenfranchising voters in two critical states for purely political reasons, namely, that he'll lose his small advantage if they count
THE PUNDITS
Every single word or action from Hillary Clinton, her campaign, her surrogates and her supporters is part of a calculated and cynical political strategy
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton is a loyal Democrat, a lifelong public servant, a tireless and
tenacious candidate, and is fighting hard - and fair - to win with the help of millions of dedicated supporters
http://hillaryclinton.com/
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 03-29-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dick Morris (fired by the Clinton's before the 1996 election for letting a prostitute listen in to conversation he was having with Bill Clinton.) Dickie boy (Dick Morris) went to Kenya with Barak back in 2007 - this is important We all know how Dick Morris HATES Hillary. Could be she had him fired.
"Obama is not responsible for the killings in Kenya. But he has shown shocking naivete in supporting his cousin, who in turn has been quite eager to exploit the familial/tribal tie with Obama. Worse, members of Obamaâs foreign policy team have helped fan the flames of this mess. How? Are you sitting down? They got Dick Morris involved in the election.
"Former Clinton aides currently working for Obama were the âmutual acquaintancesâ who directed Dick Morris to Kenya to advise the Odinga campaign in November of 2007, shortly after Odinga visited with Obama in America. Morris was an extremely divisive factor in the Kenyan elections, as a foreigner, a white man, and the creator of an antagonistic âhave vs. have notsâ campaign platform for Odingaâs ODM. He also suggested the current campaign of civil disobedience to protest the election result, including a âMillion Person Marchâ, a la Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01...ican-hubris-2/
AND
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/200...porter-in.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 03-31-2008
Evanjehadi perspective ..
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/specia...mpaign2008.html
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-01-2008
In Democratic race it is fight between far-left and centrist force.
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-01-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Mar 31 2008, 04:07 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Mar 31 2008, 04:07 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Democratic race it is fight between far-left and centrist force.
[right][snapback]80199[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. Nice quote by Sen Lieberman below that points to that:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Lieberman Democrats
31 Mar 2008 01:46 pm
lieberman.jpg
Michael Scherer doesn't think much of Joe Lieberman's <b>"I didn't leave the Democrats; the Democrats left me"</b> remarks on "The Week" over the weekend. Here's the quote:
 <b> Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. Itâs not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. Itâs been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will âand very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.</b>
But as Reihan notes, Lieberman is factually correct: The Democratic Party has shifted leftward over the last decade, on the fronts he mentions as well as others. Moreover, among many of Lieberman's left-liberal foes, this leftward shift is viewed as a great achievement, which suggests that they would be better served treating his comments as a compliment than as a calumny. It's fair to pillory Lieberman for failing to change with the times; it's a little strange to pillory him for merely pointing out that times have changed.
<b>
The only truly questionable portion of Lieberman's remarks is his suggestion that the change agents responsible for the Democratic Party's progressive turn represent "a small group on the left of the party."It's too soon to tell if the the new-model Democrats are headed for a long-term majority or just a short-term, post-Bush bounce, and maybe Lieberman's right that the the Dems' leftward shift will eventually drive the party into a political ditch.</b> But given how the landscape looks right now, Lieberman sounds an awful lot like the Rockefeller Republicans of yore, who would complain about how a "small group of extremists" in the conservative movement were hijacking their party and dooming it to defeat, even as those same extremists were leading the GOP to national successes that the Jacob Javitses and Christine Todd Whitmans and Lowell Weickers could only dream about.
There's an important lesson here: Namely, that the American "center" moves around a lot (and varies wildly on an issue-by-issue basis), and thus a party that moves leftward or rightward on the hot-button issues of the day can sometimes find a new center that nobody realized was there. This tends to leave the inhabitants of the old middle - the Rockefeller Republicans in the '70s and '80s, and perhaps the Lieberman Democrats of today - flummoxed and out-of-step, unable to figure out that just because they've always considered themselves "centrists" doesn't mean the American people will always agree with them.
Photo by Flickr user Lieberman_2006 used under a Creative Commons license.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-01-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. Itâs not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. Itâs been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will âand very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Moveon.org asked far-left Dean (Gov Vermont) to fight President election, he lost. Moveon.org decided to support Kerry only if they appoint Dean to be chairman of DNC. Kerry did. Now Moveon.org, Kennedy, Kerry, Brazile, Peolsi are destroying Democratic party. Pelosi represents US most far-left district, Marine county/8th district after ofcourse Vermont.
They are same people who had hands in Narmada, Orissa and Coca Cola.
Moveon guys don't care about wining they care most about pushing their agenda.
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-01-2008
a Good article on how race came into picture during primaries. More blacks in a state means more polarization. In democrats primary, there is a sort of U-curve on obama margin of victories. Very less % means more whites vote for obama, but as blacks % increases the white vote goes down with obama losing until the black % is so high obama can win on black votes alone. But this higher black % will work only in primaries as in general election non-democrats also vote who are whites who will vote against obama and democrat nominee. this would have worked in the less black % states, but that is where Rev Wright played spoiler. (The logic is somewhat similar to muslim concentration in constituencies in indian elections. Lesser the number of muslims, more secular the hindus and higher concentration makes hindus more "communal")
My Webpage
<img src='http://www.inthesetimes.com/images/32/05/racegraph.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The New York Senatorâs last-ditch efforts to win the Democratic nomination could rely on the âRace Chasmâ and the trampling of democracy.
By David Sirota
Click to zoom.
Share Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine
Google the phrase âClinton firewallâ and you will come up with an ever-lengthening list of scenarios that Hillary Clintonâs presidential campaign has said will stop Barack Obamaâs candidacy. The New Hampshire primary, said her campaign, would be the firewall to end Obamamania. Then Super Tuesday was supposed to be the firewall. Then Texas. Now Pennsylvania and Indiana.
For four months, the political world has been hypnotized by this string-along game, not bothering to ask what this Clinton tactic really is. The âjust wait until the next statesâ mantra has diverted our attention from the firewallâs grounding in race and democracy. But now, with only a few months until the Democratic National Convention in Denver, the firewallâs true composition is coming into focus. Whether Obama can overcome this barrier will likely decide who becomes the Democratsâ presidential nominee.
The Race Chasm
Since at least the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaignâs message has been stripped of its poll-tested nuance and become a rather crass drumbeat aimed at reminding voters that Obama is black. Whether it is former President Clinton likening Obamaâs campaign to Jesse Jacksonâs; Clinton aides telling the Associated Press that Obama is âthe black candidate,â or Geraldine Ferraro tapping into anti-affirmative action anger by claiming Obamaâs success is a product of his skin color, barely a week goes by without a white Clinton surrogate injecting race into the nominating contest.
That is one of the twin pillars of the Clinton firewallâa well-honed strategy aimed at maximizing âthe Race Chasm.â The Race Chasm may sound like a conventional discussion of the black-white divide, but it is one of the least-discussed geographic, demographic and political dynamics driving the contest between Clinton and Obama. I call it the Race Chasm because of what it looks like on a graph. Hereâs how it works.
To date, 42 states and the District of Columbia have voted in primaries or caucuses. Factor out the two senatorsâ home states (Illinois, New York and Arkansas), the two states where Edwards was a major factor (New Hampshire and Iowa) and the one state where only Clinton was on the ballot (Michigan) and you are left with 37 elections where the head-to-head Clinton-Obama matchup has been most clear. Subtract the Latino factor (a hugely important but wholly separate influence on the election) by removing the four states whose Hispanic population is over 25 percent (California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona), and you are left with 33 elections that best represent how the black-white split has impacted the campaign.
As the Race Chasm graph shows, when you chart Obamaâs margin of victory or defeat against the percentage of African-Americans living in that state, a striking U trend emerges. That precipitous dip in Obamaâs performance in states with a big-but-not-huge African-American population is the Race Chasmâand that chasm is no coincidence.
On the left of the graph, among the states with the smallest black population, Obama has destroyed Clinton. With the candidates differing little on issues, this trend is likely due, in part, to the fact that black-white racial politics are all but non-existent in nearly totally white states. Thus, Clinton has less built-in advantages. Though some of these states like Idaho or Wyoming have reputations for intolerance thanks to the occasional militia headlines, black-white interaction in these places is not a part of peopleâs daily lives, nor their political decisions. Put another way, the dialect of racismâthe hints of the Ferraro comment and codes of Bill Clintonâs Jesse Jackson reference, for instanceâis not politically effective because such language has not historically been a significant part of the local political discussion. Thatâs especially true in the liberal-skewed Democratic primary.
On the right of the graph among the states with the largest black populations, Obama has also crushed Clinton. Unlike the super-white states, these statesâmany in the Deep Southâhave a long and sordid history of day-to-day, black-white racial politics, with Richard Nixon famously pioneering Republicanâs âsouthern strategyâ to maximize the racist segregationist vote in general elections. âBut in the Democratic primary the black vote is so huge [in these states], it can overwhelm the white vote,â says Thomas Schaller, a political science professor at the University of MarylandâBaltimore. That black vote has gone primarily to Obama, helping him win these states by big margins.
It is in the chasm where Clinton has consistently defeated Obama. These are geographically diverse states from Ohio to Oklahoma to Massachusetts where racial politics is very much a part of the political culture, but where the black vote is too small to offset a white vote racially motivated by the Clinton campaignâs coded messages and tactics. The chasm exists in the cluster of states whose population is above 6 percent and below 17 percent black, and Clinton has won most of them by beating Obama handily among white working-class voters.
In sum, Obama has only been able to eke out victories in three states with Race Chasm demographics, where African-American populations make up more than 6 percent but less than 17 percent of the total population. And those three states provided him extra advantages: He won Illinois, his home state; Missouri, an Illinois border state; and Connecticut, a state whose Democratic electorate just two years before supported Ned Lamontâs insurgent candidacy against Joe Lieberman, and therefore had uniquely developed infrastructure and political cultures inclined to support an outsider candidacy. Meanwhile, three-quarters of all the states Clinton has won are those with Race Chasm demographics.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), a Clinton supporter, publicly acknowledged this dynamic in February. He suggested to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board that Obamaâs ethnicity could prevent him from winning the state, which, at 10.6 percent black, falls squarely in the Race Chasm.
âYouâve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,â Rendell said.
That was echoed by Obama supported David K. Levdansky, a state representative from western Pennsylvania. âFor all our wanting to believe that race is less of an issue than ever before, the reality of racism still exists,â he told the New York Times. âItâs not that [Pennsylvanians] donât think heâs qualified, but some people fear that it might be empowering the black community by electing Obama.â
Primaries are now looming in a critical group of Race Chasm statesâPennsylvania, Indiana (8.8 percent black), Kentucky (7.5 percent black) and West Virginia (only 3 percent black, but a place influenced by the Ohio, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania media markets, which undoubtedly makes race politics more customary than in other mostly white states).
Clinton, knowing the Race Chasm can fortify her firewall, has subsequently intensified her efforts to put race front and center in the campaign, most recently attacking Jeremiah Wright, Obamaâs former pastor who has delivered fiery speeches indicting white racism. She is so determined to raise race issues in advance of these Race Chasm contests that she gave an in-person interview to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review specifically to criticize Wright. For reference, the Tribune-Review is a conservative newspaper in western Pennsylvania owned by the same Richard Mellon Scaife who funded the anti-Clinton witchhunts of the â90s.
Clearly, each primary and caucus contest has its own unique politics, and race is not the only factor moving votes. Despite the oversimplified punditry that comes with presidential campaigns, demographic groupsâwhite, black or any otherâdo not vote as monoliths. That said, a phenomenon as stark as the Race Chasm over 33 elections is obviously affecting the campaignâparticularly considering the regional and red-blue diversity of each state cluster on the graph.
âWhen the black population is really small, racial polarization is small enough that Obama can win, and when the black population is large, any polarization is drowned out by the overwhelming size of the Democratic black vote,â says Schaller, who recently authored the book Whistling Past Dixie analyzing demographic voting trends. âBut in the middle range, polarization is sizeable enough that black voters cannot overcome it, and these are the states where she wins.â
The Superdelegates
Clinton has two reasons to try to highlight race and maximize the Race Chasm, both related to the second pillar of her firewall: the superdelegates. These are the senators, congress people, governors and party officials who control roughly 40 percent of the Democratic National Convention votes needed to secure the nomination.
First and most obvious, she wants to win as many of the remaining states as possible to keep her tally of âpledgedâ delegates (i.e., delegates won in primaries and caucuses) as large as possible. The Politico.com correctly reported in March that âClinton has virtually no chance of winningâ the race for pledged delegates. But winning some remaining states and keeping the count close will make it easier for her to argue the race was almost a tie, and thus theoretically easier to convince superdelegates to throw their support to her, even if she loses the popular vote and the pledged delegate count.
Clinton, in fact, is already making the argument that she is only narrowly behind. âWeâre separated by, you know, a little more than a hundred delegates,â she told Time, not bothering to note that a hundred delegates is more than the entire delegate count from major states like Missouri or Wisconsin.
Additionally, in trying to maximize the Race Chasm by focusing on race-tinged issues, Clinton is tacitly making an âelectabilityâ argument to superdelegates. (This is not a stupid strategy in courting officials who are all, in one way or another, election-focused political operatives.) Part of that âelectabilityâ argument hinges on portraying Obama as âunelectableââand what better way to do that than stoke as many race-focused controversies as possible? It is a standard primary tactic: Launch a line of attackâin this case, the âWright controversyââand then claim the attack will be used by Republicans to defeat an opponentâin this case Obamaâshould he become the general election candidate. Of course, it doesnât hurt Clintonâs cause that, close to half of the superdelegates are white, according to The Politico.
Ruthless, but probably useless
As ugly as it is, the Clinton firewall strategy is stunning in its ruthlessness. It has been half a century since the major triumphs of the civil rights and party reform movements, yet a major Democratic candidate is attempting to secure a presidential nomination by exploiting racial divides and negotiating backroom superdelegate deals.
But success is not likely.
Even if Clinton wins big in the remaining Race Chasm states, Obama has advantages in Montana, Oregon, North Carolina and South Dakotaâsmaller states, to be sure, but probably enough for him to avoid losing his pledged delegate lead.
That leaves the âelectabilityâ argument with the superdelegatesâand the problem for Clinton there is that polls show Obama is at least as âelectableâ as Clinton, if not more so.
A state-by-state SurveyUSA poll in March found both Obama and Clinton defeating Republican nominee John McCain in a hypothetical general election matchupâand Obama actually getting four more Electoral College votes than Clinton. In Colorado, a key swing state, a March Rasmussen Reports poll found Obama tying McCain, but McCain clobbering Clinton by 14 percentage points. A February Rasmussen poll reported a similar phenomenon in Pennsylvania, with McCain beating Clinton by two points, but Obama beating McCain by 10.
And then there is the Pew poll taken immediately after the major wave of media surrounding the Wright controversy. The survey showed both Obama and Clinton defeating McCain, but more significantly, Obama actually performing slightly better among white voters than Clintonâa blow to those Clinton backers hoping that superdelegates may begin to fear a white voter backlash against the Illinois senator.
If her turn to more hardball tactics is any indication, Clinton may be trying to preempt the firewall strategyâs failure. In two bold moves at the end of March, her campaign launched a two-pronged initiative to intimidate Democratic leaders and to strongarm pledged delegates who are already committed to Obama through primaries and caucuses.
First, the Clinton campaign organized 20 major Democratic Party financiers to release a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi upbraiding her for appearing on ABC News and saying, âIf the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party.â According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the contributors who signed the letter have given a combined $23.6 million to Democrats since 1999. These mega-donors, clearly wielding their financial heft as an implied threat, claimed that Pelosi had taken an âuntenable positionâ by merely suggesting superdelegates should avoid overturning the results of democratic primaries and caucuses.
At the same time, Clinton told Time that technically, even pledged delegates who are supposed to represent the will of voters are permitted to change their vote at the Democratic National Convention. âEvery delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose,â she said, introducing the possibility of a new, more brass-knuckled kind of delegate campaign. âWe talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment.â
A late March NBC News poll reports that if a candidate âloses among delegates selected by voters but still wins the nomination,â a plurality (41 percent) of Democratic voters believe that candidate would be ânot legitimate.â Many of those surveyed probably remember both the recent episodes of stolen elections, and the past eras of brokered conventions and corrupt, often racist political machines stuffing ballot boxes.
The latter, in fact, was precisely how the epithet âDemocrat Partyââas opposed to âDemocratic Partyââwas coined. As the language-obsessed William Safire documented 24 years ago in a New York Times column, the term âDemocrat Partyâ was created by Republican leaders in the mid-20th century to imply that their opponentsâmany bigoted segregationists and machine polsâwere, in fact, undemocratic.
After the Florida and Ohio debacles in the 2000 and 2004 election, Republican lamentations about democracy are, of course, absurd. Additionally, many machines have long ago decayed ⦠except for the one inside the Democratic Party itselfâthe Clinton machine. If that machineâs firewall strategy continues to exploit the Race Chasm and threaten to trample the will of voters, Clinton will be asking the Democratic Party, one that has come to champion racial tolerance and democracy, to truly become the Democrat Partyâone that ignores those ideals in favor of a single Democrat.
David Sirota is a senior editor at In These Times and a bestselling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," will be released in June of 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-01-2008
Another great article from Karl Rove. This guy is so smart, no wonder he got Bush re-elected in 2004.
Rove list 5 things to do to win this nomination at the convention... surprise surprise! obama is already doing all these even before this article was published. Makes you wonder where if this entire obama-thing is staged by Karl Rove. Starting with Ryan withdrawing from 2004 senate election when sealed divorce documents were leaked, this seems to be too well planned to be a coincidence. Of course the idea being to get a republican elected in 2008.
My Webpage
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How to Win in a Knife Fight
The Democratic race could well come down to the first contested convention in years. Lessons on how to prevail.
Karl Rove
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:47 PM ET Mar 29, 2008
After the last Democratic Primary is held in early June, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will have enough votes from delegates elected in caucuses or primaries to be declared the nominee. Obama would have to win 76 percent and Clinton 98 percent of the 535 delegates that are at stake in the final eight contests. Neither will happen.
Both sides are frantically wooing the 330 uncommitted superdelegates, who will decide the race. Obama supporters emphasize that he's ahead in the popular vote and argue that superdelegates should respect the wishes of the primary voters (except in the states he lost, of course). They suggest Obama would do better with independents and Republicans in the fall; they argue Hillary Clinton is a flawed, secretive candidate who was wrong on Iraq and dissembles about her experience. Clinton partisans point to her victories in big battleground states and say superdelegates should act in the best interests of the party. They paint Barack Obama as an inexperienced, untested, overly ambitious candidate with a thin résumé who will fall to the Republican attack machine.
It's highly unlikely that these undecided superdelegates will tilt one way or the other before June, unless one candidate reels off a string of strong, unexpected victories. There has been talk of a "superdelegate primary" that month, whereby they'd be forced to make a decision and bring the increasingly vitriolic race to a close. But the Clinton camp in particular is talking about the "months" to come until a decision is reached, and it's even possible the Democratic nominee won't be decided until the Denver convention in late August.
It's been a while since the last contested convention. So, drawing on the 180-year history of presidential nominating conventions, let me suggest a few rules for winning in Denver.
<b>Rule #1: Control the Convention Mechanism.</b> If you set the rules, decide who votes, organize the event and control what is said, it's almost impossible to lose. So while Democratic National Committee chief Howard Dean is ostensibly in charge, both candidates would be well advised to gain control of the levers of the convention.
Three committees are key. The Rules Committee is where trouble can begin. Someone will come up with a smooth-sounding rules change that will give one candidate the advantage or the appearance of having a majority of the delegates. There will be an early test vote: the key is to pick what it is and win it. It's likely to be obscureâthe election of a temporary chairman, sayâor contrived. But it will establish who's in charge.
The Credentials Committee inevitably becomes the arena where the nominee is settled. This time, the issue will be Michigan and Florida. Democratic Party rules say they can't be seated at the convention because their primaries were held too early. If Democrats don't find a way to seat Michigan and Florida that's acceptable to both Clinton and Obama, the Credentials Committee will become a war zone and the states' 44 electoral votes put at risk. And don't forget the Arrangements Committee. Being able to decide what delegation sits where, who stays in which hotel, and who's able to get a pass to the gallery can help set the mood and tone of the delegates. Put your best delegations where they can hoot and holler for the cameras. Friends? Nice hotel near the convention center. Unfriendly delegation? How about that comfy Motel 6 near the airport?
Be wary of overkill, though. Remember, the losers and their supporters are looking to play the victim. In 1912 the heavy-handed rule of the Taft forces gave the loser the excuse he needed to walk out with his delegates to lead a third-party bid. And while Theodore Roosevelt didn't win, he doomed Taft's re-election.
<b>
Rule #2: Watch the Platform.</b> Party platforms were once the most important statement of the presidential campaign. No more. But they can still get you in trouble with your own party, or with the public. Put your best policy nerds on thisâbut make certain they have some charming pols and crafty negotiators along as well. You'll need to make compromisesâsometimes to smooth hurt feelings, as Carter did in the negotiations with the Kennedy forces in 1980, feeling certain changes wouldn't make a real difference but would help heal deep wounds. Other times, nominees agree to make platform changes because they've sewn up the nomination but can't prevail in this particular fight. This was the case for President Ford in the 1976 GOP battles over the foreign-policy plank.
And sometimes a platform battle is useful for a candidate and his party. At the 1948 Democratic convention, for example, Southern Dixiecrats were already angry with Harry Truman, who was on his way to winning the nomination. Then the young mayor of Minneapolis, Hubert Humphrey, staged a floor fight to pass a plank on civil rights rejected by the Platform Committee. By winning this battle, Humphrey gave the Dixiecrats the excuse they were looking for to bolt the party and nominate Strom Thurmond. But it also gave Truman an issue that allowed him to win Northern blacks and moderates who might otherwise have voted for Dewey. The platform fight changed and modernized the Democratic Party while retaining the loyalty of the Solid South for another 16 years.
<b>Rule #3: It's All About Delegates.</b> Delegates are political junkies. This is their moment in the spotlight. Don't take them for granted. Make every effort to attend to their every legitimate (and legal) need. By now your campaign should have a massive set of binders with information on every delegateâtheir birthday, pet peeves, hobbies and interests. If not, get them started.
Have whips for state delegations and deputy whips for groups within each delegation. Have them live, eat, drink and socialize with their charges. And have a fast, nimble system in place to report any concerns, because in a close contest, small groups of delegates matter. In the 1952 GOP contest, Eisenhower received critical support from the 19 delegates pledged to Minnesota's Harold Stassen, then in his second of ultimately nine presidential bids. The 26 delegates committed to John Edwards may be critical to this year's outcome.
Also, make certain your convention team can communicate instantly and make rapid decisions. At the 1976 GOP convention, the Ford teams covering the floor felt tremors from the Mississippi delegates, who were dissatisfied over Reagan's VP choice. Ford's people persuaded Mississippi to drop its winner-takes-all rule, giving Ford a healthy minority of the state's votes and a big dollop of momentum.
<b>Rule #4: Have a Strategy to Win.</b> Whatever combination of endorsements, announcements, policy statements and stagecraft you can engineer to create a sense of momentum going into the convention, do it. Nelson Polsby, one of the great scholars of conventions, wrote that delegates "behave in a way that will maximize their political power ⦠Delegates will trade their votes for access to the candidate they think most likely to win nomination." So create the appearance of a bandwagon for your candidate and invite uncommitted superdelegates to climb aboard.
But don't do things that make it more difficult for your candidate. Behind and looking for a way to shake things up in 1976, Ronald Reagan took a gamble and named his running mate a few weeks before the convention. Sen. Richard Schweicker, a Pennsylvania moderate, did give Reagan a few more votes in the Keystone State delegation. But his selection unsettled conservative delegates (hence his Mississippi setback).
In addition, save some surprisesâand hold back some votes. You want to have positive news each day of the convention, especially the day of the vote. In 1940, Sam Pryor, a master operator and supporter of Wendell Willkie, carefully salted away supporters in the camps of other candidates, including his principal opponents. Then he carefully moved just enough of them into the Willkie column so he rose on each ballot while his competitors fell. It helped that the delegates were hidden in states well down the roll call like Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New York. And it especially helped Willkie that he appeared to pull votes from his principal competitors. Since this year's convention is likely to take only one ballot, keep some superdelegates ready to pop out just before and during the convention.
<b>Rule #5: Focus on Staging. </b>Conventions are elaborate made-for-TV productions. We live in a culture of the visual. Every moment and every event should be scripted. The media will complain about it, but think through what messages you want and when you want them. This script must be visually powerful and interesting enough to keep the cameras on your candidate and not somewhere else. Make the spectacle personal. The Al and Tipper Gore kiss, for instance, did him a lot of good. And be sure to provide fresh content all the time. In the era of cable TV, talk radio, the blogosphere and YouTube, someone is watching and talking all the time. If you're not pressing content into all available channels, someone else will.
National political conventions are equal parts carnival, prime-time soap opera, policy lecture and weeklong party. They are easy to caricature and increasingly anachronistic. But they have been an important element of the liturgy of democracy. And while in recent decades conventions have become antiseptic, predictable and largely ignored by the national press, this year, for the Democrats, could be different.
Of course, after June, one candidate could blink and step aside. But if only a few delegates separate the two candidates and there are enough uncommitted superdelegates and Michigan and Florida are not resolved, well, to the dismay of Democrats, Denver could be the scene of real drama, horse trading and arm-twisting. For political junkies, conventions are always worth watching. It could be doubly so this year.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/129586<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-01-2008
I still feel establishment candidate will get nomination that is Hillary Clinton.
In red states those who had endrosed Obama may lose their own seat on Wright issue.
Liberal media is trying to project Obama even ignoring Wright issue is a big mistake, I think PA will give clear picture.
Karl Rove and Bill Clinton are pretty smart guys. Currently Hillary and Bill are visiting small towns, so they are not making big news, but on ground they are very effective as that happened in Texas and Ohio. Like yesterday Hillary joined striking truckers in truckers stop and invited them in her Diner round table. This had made no news on Media but Obama balling try made news. At the end truckers will be talking on road about Hillary and that will count.
I think Hillary will deliver summer surprise to Obama, just watch. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-01-2008
Obamaâs Story About Dadâs Kennedy Link is âConfused,â Fact Checker Writes
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Barack Obama credits a Kennedy administration program for bringing his father to the United States, an event which eventually led to Obamaâs conception.
Not quite, says The Washington Postâs Fact Checker.
Calling Obamaâs chronology âextremely confused,â the Postâs Michael Dobbs attempts to set the record straight.
Dobbs writes that Kenyan leader Tom Mboya â not Kennedy â organized the 1959 and 1960 airlifts that supposedly brought Obamaâs father to the United States. Dobbs also writes that the airlifts were in response to Kenyan political situation, not â as Obama has suggested â a Kennedy program to improve the U.S. image abroad (Kennedy didnât take office anyhow until 1961).
<b>Obama made the claim last year in a speech commemorating the historic civil rights march in Selma, Ala. He also said that when Obama Sr. found himself at the march in Selma, he met the Democratic presidential contenderâs mother, and the rest â as Obama tells it â is history.</b>
âSo the Kennedys decided weâre going to do an air lift. Weâre going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is,â Obama said March 4, 2007.
âThis young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child.
âThere was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So donât tell me I donât have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Donât tell me Iâm not coming home to Selma, Alabama.â
And as far as Obamaâs claim that he apparently was a result of his parentsâ union at the 1965 march: That, too, isnât possible â without a time machine, Dobbs says. Obama was born in 1961.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-02-2008
Enjoy this !!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23902765#23902765
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-02-2008
from other fora
city Santa Cruz, CA - Obama supporters
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hillary has not had her tires slashed yet. We have had them slashed, one set per month since Nov. We live in Obama territory. Since the Police have been involved, and we have been talking to the neighbors about the tire slashings, we are getting our first month slash free--Seven Tires total.
I never mentioned that because I do not want to scare people. But we have a methemphedamine problem in our town. Medical Marijuana is the main reason that people here voted for Obama. They believe that he is going to free the legal system for them. Their drug gangs are not fun to play with and we had to start a local neighborhood watch group to deal with getting the neighborhood involved. So, far we found out that the drug problem and car slashings are all over the county and city. They are ultimately gang related. We had a drive by some months ago with people in a car yelling out he window, "Hilllary s...s"
We did research about Hate Crimes and followed some of instructions. Talk to the neighbors, do not hide, call the police, etc... We now let people know. We heard of a college student who had "F.... Hillary" notes placed on her car on her college campus. The first thing to realize is that there is real harassment going on. The second is to address it by discussing it so that people can become aware and watch out for each other.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-02-2008
Interesting interview. Talks about Wright, African American Theology and its decline. I am wondering what would have happened or can still happen
- if Obama, Wright, african-american christianity get derided like it does in this interview
- if Obama had not delivered his speech
- if saudis invest enough money in the black ghettos
Anyways to the interview
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/m...y/112-44.0.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jeremiah Wright, longtime pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, is a leading proponent of black liberation theology. On the church's website, Wright says that Trinity's vision statement is based on the systematized liberation theology found in James Cone's 1969 book, Black Power and Black Theology.
Black liberation theology has its origins in the Black Power movement of the 1960s. Its founder, James Cone, was looking for a theological orientation to explain the aims, ethos, and anger of the 1960s revolution. So, not surprisingly, black liberation theology concerns itself with the political aspirations of African Americans from a fairly radical bent by most standards. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is the link to James Cones' book
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Theology-Power...e/dp/1570751579
Havent read it myself but one 5star rating review states the following..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->James Cone put forth Black Theology and Black Power as an explanation of the change required for black men to survive in this society. Cone defines black power as, "complete emancipation of black people by whatever means black people deem necessary." This emancipation call means, "black people no longer see themselves as without human dignity but as men." Cone explains that black people see themselves without human dignity because white society has objectified them. As an object they are not relational beings, but objects of exploit for the privilege and the empowerment of whites. For Cone this went back to the beginning of the African experience in America. The suffering of the black experience was real, and "black people cannot live according to what ought to be, but according to what is."
This book is without the luxury of time to come to grips with black meaning in a society which incessantly indoctrinated him with a message that he was less then human, less then whole. <b>Cone did not have the luxury of education in the seminary in theologies other then those made by white men talking to other white men as the church made even Augustine and Jesus white in his time. </b>He did not write in a vacuum and neither can his book be read in a vacuum.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back to the interview..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Are Wright's views mainstream among African Americans?
It depends on what you mean by "Wright's views." Do most African Americans feel like they've gotten a fair shake in the American experience? Certainly not. Do most African Americans think that racism is alive and well? Yes. Do most African Americans feel that there will be some judgment against America for its hypocrisy and duplicity along racial lines? I think so
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You conclude in The Decline of African American Theology, "As a consequence of theological drift and erosion, the black church now stands in danger of losing its relevance and power to effectively address both the spiritual needs of its communicants and the social and political aspirations of its community." Does this current incident with Wright fit that conclusion?
<b>I think so.</b> In his effort to perhaps address American injustice from a black perspective, the clips make it appear as though he's left behind anything resembling biblical soundness. Trinity United boasts a statement of values and faith that make it clear that they intend to be "unashamedly black." Well, who would begrudge them that if what is meant is security in who God has made you to be? <b>But if what that statement means, as black theology puts it, we're black before we're Christian, then it's easy to see that culture and ethnic identity have eclipsed the Cross and our identity in Christ</b>.
It's easy to see how the thing most needed â the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ â is neglected, and in neglecting the gospel other important but secondary needs also go unmet, or are temporarily met in the most superficial and impermanent ways. If you lose the gospel, you lose everything. But if you have the gospel, even if everything else seems to be going to hell in a hand basket, you still gain everything. As Jesus says, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" <b>I fear that many have sanded off the sharp points of the Lord's questions by assuming that gaining the world in an economic or political sense is the same as keeping your soul. And it's that basic confusion that ends up making the church irrelevant spiritually and temporally.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-02-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->- if Obama had not delivered his speech<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Media would have done same what they done after speech. He is great, just dropped from sky to save earth.
Yesterday, Obama asked a girl in coffee shop who was wearing Hillary button to carry his button and he will kiss her.
âWhat do I need to do? Do you want me on my knees?â he asked.
He then conceded, keeping with his flirty trend of the day, âIâll give you a kiss.â
Media had given him pass on this, had it Clinton or McCain that would have caused media against them.
Liberal media is hell bent to promote Obama even after Wrightgate, Rezkogate, Ayersgate, Jewsgate, hamasgate, garlicnosegate, kissgate ..............
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-03-2008
Rajesh,
check this - even after all this media is gaga about this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP-YoB5mnZs
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-03-2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->check this - even after all this media is gaga about this guy<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reminds me about 2000 when Bush/Chenney called a journalist a**hole and was caught on tape/camera. But entire country was fixated with who invented the internet.
McCain's looking for VPs. If at one time Kerry-McCain ticket was a possiblity what's the chances of say a McCain-Hillary ticket?
US Elections 2008 - II - Guest - 04-03-2008
Mudy
I have a slow internet connection so will watch the link later. Meantime its not important what he does and how scandal-ridden he/she is. One cannot deny that it was a major speech in terms of race relations in the US. It was carried by major media outlets. It has received a wide publicity. In other words, it defines contemporary-race-relations-in-US.
What I was alluding to (and I should have been more clear) was that these kinds of major statements by public figures must have some impact on how these things are perceived - both within the US and outside.
Given all that I was wondering how these things impact the "African American Theology" and its decline (as the interviewee claims). The interviewee (is that the right word) is
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->CT editor-at-large Collin Hansen <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont know how popular Christianity-Today is with evangelicals nor do I know this guy but he seems to have written a book on this - decline of african-american-theology - so must know what he is talking about.
Anyways, given that there is this gloomy scenario of decline in black-christianity, how does BHO's campaign impact the future of black christianity ? How does his speech impact it ? How does Wrights coverage impact it ? What is to replace black christianity in its present form if it really is on the decline ? Who are the players there ? Why do we have a concept of black-christianity in religion-of-love ? How do non-black evangelicals react to the Wright episode ? How do non-black-evangelicals deal destroy Wright's theology and replace it with their own ?
I feel somehow BHO's candidacy and his presidency if it comes to that (or even his failure) will shape race+religion discourse for years and years to come. Hence this interest.
Sorry for the ramble..