So this all basically comes down to Indiana.

Obama lost by a surprisingly narrow margin in PA today (Obama at 45% and Hillary at 55%). Obama is virtually guaranteed a win in Oregon, South Dakota, and North Carolina. The question is: will Indiana be the next Texas or the next Pennsylvania? Clinton will probably take West Virginia, Kentucky and Montana.

May 6.

Well, I know Obama has visited my town and so has Hillary and Bill. I've received several Hillary campaign brochures in my mailbox, door, and have had Hillary campaign people at my doorstep.

Without knowing the numbers, it doesn't look good for Obama considering this is a conservative state. We do have the Republican nomination locked up after all and there's the whole 'operation chaos' thing going on national and local radio. In Indiana you don't have to choose your party till the day of the primarys :no:

Although I do see far more Obama bumper stickers, it doesn't look good for him as far as I can tell.

It seems the same is happening here in neighboring Kentucky.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/74/chaosml5.jpg

You know, as funny as the whole operation chaos is to me, I do have to wonder the effects.

Today I'm flipping threw the radio and I hear CBS news doing some editorial. The gist was Clinton won PA by 10% and 9% of the voters registered to vote in the democrat primary that day, therefore those must be Republican switch overs for Hilary.

If I were possessing left wing genetics of sorts, and I was in favor of Obama, I could understand this reaction.

But if Obama's message is hope and change and a chicken in every pot, wouldn't you expect first time voters to be going to the polls for him?

In my opinion some voters would have voted for Hilary just because they wanted to see the Democrats continue to assault each other, but to blame the loss solely on that factor would perhaps be underestimating Obama's appeal to new Democrat voters.

I dont think the crossovers had any impact. Clinton won the Republicans who crossed over (per Rush's instructions) and Obama won the Independents who crossed over....it was a basically a wash.

The demographics of PA had more to do with it....it is a state that is older, more blue collar white and less educated and affluent than the national average...and these were Clinton's core constituents in the primary.

Thats not to say that Obama wouldnt win these voters in a general election against McCain.

Obama is certainly looking like the nominee......... but does anyone think anymore he's the perfect candidate? Attractive, yes. Perfect? No. For that you need Josiah Bartlett.

Here's a laugh for you. We were sitting around yesterday during a break in a mediation, talking about how political races always seem to degrade into negativity and hit-and-run tactics. Most of the people there were Obama supporters and were complaining about Hillary. I piped up "You haven't seen anything yet. Just you wait. Next week Hillary is going to leak it to the press that Obama fathered a black child."

The laughs were enough to tide us over for a couple of hours.

He lied about having MS, but I'd still vote for him.

BTW, I reported earlier that there was a 10% difference. There was actually an 8.6% difference in Penn. Most projections had Hillary at a 15% lead in Penn. And in terms of the percentage of remaining delegates needed, Hillary lost ground.

Yes, but what do you think of Obama fathering a black child? And he's never denied it, either! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Actually, most projections that I saw Monday and yesterday had it at 11%, including what was being released by Clinton's campaign. And the difference in the actual vote is 9.2%, not 8.6%. That's with 99.44% of precincts reporting, so it's not official, but pretty close. She gained 13 delegates on him.

Ah, more outdated information. Yes, the current projection is 9.2%, which is still substantially lower then the average 15% she was expected to win by.

Mine or yours?

Mine is the most official possible since it's coming from the state.

Yours? Doesn't have a source.

10% and 12% projections. Unless you're counting the margin of error, then I never saw a 15% win projected by anyone.

Mine. Did you miss me conceding the point?

Yes I did. And this is my concession to your concession. :)

What do I have to do around here to get a laugh?

I'm laughing hysterically on the inside? :expressionless:

And yes, Barak Obama is black, and it can be a scandal to have a black child.

do I have to explain the thing? sheesh........ McCain was subject to a whispering campaign in '00 because he has an adopted child from the Philippines whom some of the more unprincipled political partisans in South Carolina spread the word was a black child he had sired. So Obama, who is himself black.......

got it?

Oh I got it. It just wasn't funny. Sorry.

It would have been better if you remembered that Strom Thurmond was one of the ones behind the rumors, and he actually ended up having a black child.

Then work in the fact that Thurmond is old by mentioning that he beat Jefferson to having malato kids by a decade. Only word it funny.

If it makes you feel better I thought it was funny and that was before you reminded us about the McCain thing. The sarcastic humor was apparent. Perhaps though the delivery may have been improved had you used 'fathered a white child' instead. The absurd nature would have made it stand out even more.

I'm afraid you have fallen victim to one of the truisms I've discovered. People of some political philosophies have no sense of humor when it comes to their politics. Oddly its sort of the same reaction someone would give you for making a joke about their religion, and my guess is the sentiments are the same.

Ustwo, surely you know me well enough to know that I'll laugh at most things that are funny. Your proposed fixes WOULD have gotten a laugh, but as it is, the left side of my mouth only had a small tremor of a smirk.

//waits to see if you pick up on my funny

I love how Hillary is claiming she is now leading in popular votes. Nevermind that she's counting Florida and Michigan, two states where Obama didn't campaign at all (per her agreement) and one of which he wasn't even on the ballot

You mean two states where neither of them campaigned (per their agreement)?

I thought this was an interesting graphic.

http://creativeclass.typepad.com/the...ision_tree.jpg

Here's another interesting poll... It looks like the mud is sticking to Obama.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...UBwebPOLLA.jpg

Wow, that last question on the right really shows just how badly "patriotism" has been warped in the last eight years.

ratbastid, i cringed when i read that last question... i can't believe it is even on there..

dis..gust..ing

God damn America :thumbsup:

i'm 99% sure, ustwo, that anyone could link you to someone with a racist, unpatriotic message and try to say that is your intent as well....

If if was someone who I used for political purposes and then, belatedly threw under the bus, for political purposes, you might have a valid point too.

You may not like peoples response to the question, but thats not what you were referring to. You couldn't believed they asked the question in the first place. Since its a simple survey there is nothing wrong with asking the question.

Patriotism is something openly made fun of by some members of the left, or warped to any action is 'patriotic' as long as there is a political motivation.

I think its a guilty conscious reacting to the question more than a disgust over someone asking the question.

You put that in the proper context, and that's one of the most patriotic things an American can say. Our country was founded on the right to dissent. SOME people have forgotten about that in the last eight years, and COMPLIANCE is now what's equated with patriotism.

ratbastid, that's not true. You only like certain kinds of dissent. Dissent from the orthodoxies you happen to like is not something you'd be so fond of.

Certainly true, but I guarantee you I don't go to "Unpatriotic!!! Possibly Muslim!!!" as a rebuttal. That's just BULLSHIT.

I'm not clear what part of my post you're saying isn't true. You're telling me that patriotism DOESN'T equal compliance these days? Cause I believe I'd take you on about that one.

Dissent does not equal patriotism.

A patriot can be a dissenter, but there is nothing special or magical about dissent.

When members of the left talk about dying US soliders as good for the genepool because only someone stupid would go fight *you DO remember that post don't you?* that is hard to call such dissent patriotic.

I am becoming very amused by all this anymore.

A couple years ago, the Dems were screaming (and I believe rightfully so, BTW I was one at that time screaming) that the GOP was questioning their "patriotism" and their "love of country" because they spoke out against the war.

Now, the Dems are the ones pointing fingers and telling people if they have reasons (whatever the personal choice and belief is) to not like Obama...... they are racist, not patriotic and how dare they question anything he does.... Wrght is a great example "he has the right and damned good reasons to preach that way, hes black and you have no idea what it is to be black..... to .. Oooopsie Wright is a misunderstood crazy uncle.... to.. oooo wait he's full of hate and preaches divisiveness and Obama separated himself and states he never heard any of that...... Or one may not like him because no one truly knows anything about the man...... Or one may not like him because he had land deals with a known criminal.... Or one may not like him because he leans too far left...... Or one may not like him because he refused to wear a flag lapel pin or cover his heart during a national anthem..... Or one may not like him because any number of reasons personal to the one that doesn't like him.

BUT none of those reasons are GOOD enough for the rabid, Obama supporter.... Noooooooo, if you don't like him you are racist, you are unpatriotic, you are a neo con, you do not think for yourself, you do not love your country..... blah blah blah.

So instead of trying to debate what Obama stands for to get your vote they use guilt, shame, threats, name calling and so on to get you to shut up and either vote for him or not vote at all.

Welcome to BushCo the next generation!!!!!!!!!

To all you who want to threaten, call names, guilt, shame and so on.... I say Fuck you I'll vote for whom I choose! And for those who want to debate Obama's stances on the issues..... let's open a thread and do it. But let's do so without the rest of the bullshit...... ok?

are you serious?


ok, first off..it's an absurd question. Has obama or clinton or even bush done anything considered unpatriotic? it's an absurd question, that's all, and one i would THINK would be kind of a moot point to ask someone running for president. I mean, how do you judge it? seriously. am i unpatriotic for thinking the country could be and should be better off? am i unpatriotic for not supporting a war?

it's a question that is just disturbing and disgusting to ask about people who are running for president, that's all.

GOP cannot campaign on the issues, hence 1988 Willie Horton ads and helmeted Dukakis driving a tank instead of discussion of VP Bush's involvement in Iran Contra and his choice of Quayle as his running mate....In 2004, two high level undisclosed Bush/Cheney campaign officials advised NY Times that they intended to portray John Kerry as "French looking" and John Edwards as looking like "the Breck Girl" and the Times published this revelation on it's front page. Sunday's Wapo front page featured an article titled "Obama faces test in asserting his own brand of patriotism". The article describes a young woman at an Obama campaign appearance asking him why he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin....The press will publish the slime the GOP feeds it....the Wapo article jusrified it's new examination of Obama's patriotism because of numerous debates on talk radioand cable shows...a circle jerk of right wing political operatives staged to justify and drive rhe smears cloaked as actual news reporting. The issues won't be discussed because the OP is about driving Obama's unity message and his differentkind of politics far, far, up his.....and there is no actual two sided issues discussion on this forum either.... because they've pointed out in another thread yesterday, that my big fat ego and my narcisism are mucking up the works!!! So now, at least we know why issues are never discussed in any depth in this forum.....

Actually Host, I see nothing in this post that gets me to want to vote for Obama .... all I see is anger and hatred directed at the GOP. (Which .... ummmm despite rumors to the contrary, I'm a Clinton supporter...... there I said it..... wait that's about the 100th time I've had to say it.) And Clinton does have better ideas than Obama... so, get your facts straight, at least where I am concerned, please.

My feeling is either show WHY I should vote for someone because of issues and what is best and not just spew hatred and talk about BS.

You missed the whole point of my post, but that's ok, you'd rather wallow in your anger and hatred.

BTW, issues are discussed here and some even have good debates and positive exchanges of ideas, however, you seem to want everything yur way and will not be happy until everyone agrees with you about how evil Bush is, how rotten the war is, how corrupt and blah blah blah.... be quite honest Host your tune has not changed since the day I saw your first post.... you do have more anger and hatred though.

//threadjack

You've turned what I said upside-down. Which is required, of course, in order for you to disagree with it.

I didn't say dissent equals patriotism. I said dissent doesn't equal a LACK of patriotism. And I said that the way patriotism has been warped, dissent has BEEN MADE TO equal a lack of patriotism.

You're really going to compare one stupid post with the last eight years of flag-draped warmongering? How many people did that post kill? Come ON.

Haha....

The only people using Wright for political purposes are the Hillary and McCain campaigns. Obama has consistently tried to take him out of the political process. It was only after the media decided to give Wright a microphone and tons of airtime that Obama had to say enough. But I guess the hypocrisy of condemning a mans words and them giving him national coverage to say what he wants is lost on some people.

I find it somewhat interesting but not hypocritical when the press gives Rev. Wright a microphone. They follow what will make them money, letting Rev. Wright talk makes them money.

As for how Obama handles this situation, I want to watch how he handles it, right now I truly dislike how he handles it, but that's just me and my opinion. Of course when I say that rabid Obama supporters start beating their racism drum and the names and guilt and hate start coming out, simply because I have an opinion.

Yes, McCain and Hilary are using Rev Wright..... just as any politician uses anything like this to their advantage..... some people use Hagee (or whomever against McCain and people use something against Hilary..... IT'S THE WAY POLITICS IS DONE.... a lot of races you can't tell much difference between the parties so their personal lives become the deal breaker..... some people just think if you aren't moral, honest and so on in your private life you won't be in office.

not this again...

first off, i am not a particularly enthusiastic obama supporter--i simply think he's closest to what i see as a rational choice for president, given how i understand the present states of affairs and what should be done to deal with them. i don't see a huge difference in policy terms between obama and clinton: more a difference in how they present their positions, with obama talking in more general terms and clinton working the policy insider angle.

so this is just to head off at the pass anything in response to what follows.

the problem i have had with the wright thing has NOTHING to do with my support, tepid as it is, for obama, and EVERYTHING to do with fundamental, visceral rejection of the entire way conservative politics frames the issue of racism, it's history and the relation of that history to situations in the present. it also has to do with a kind of repulsion directed toward television-driven politics in america, the politics of repeated superficiality in the place of analysis or even coherent discussion of the huge problems that the united states presently faces--structural problems like the simple fact that the state can no longer decisively control economic activity within its borders, the problems that attend transformations in economic organization, the massive transfers of wealth away from 70% of the population, the dissolution of older forms of political representation on the order of trade unions and the lack of any new alternatives--so the wholesale loss of political power undergone by the vast majority of people over the past 30 years--not coherent discussions about iraq, no coherent discussions about the disastrous policies of the bush administration vis-a-vis israel/palestine, of how they have played out in brutal, stark real-time in the gaza strip--no coherent discussion about any fucking thing--just memes about jeremiah wright and the resurgence of the upside-down conservative-specific mangling of the history of american racism.

we live in a context of busy denial--we substitute business for thinking--we confuse jumpcuts and attending velocity of infotainment with being informed--we do not think much outside the frames that are imposed on us across the jump-cut driven infotainment environment. we swallow the terminology and spit it back wholesale, unthinking, unreflective. THAT is my problem--not obama, not the damage this non-event has done to him, not the "choice" clinton-obama.

the other concern, really, is the horrifying prospect of 4 more years of inept republican control of the white house--but that's another matter.

The press bash him for being anti-American and then goad him into saying even more anti-American comments so that they can have talking points. I hardly think that anyone in the press wanted flowers and sunshine to come out of his mouth when they pointed their cameras at him.

The issue is absolutely legitimate, don't get me wrong. But only insofar as it affects his policy decisions and his moral compass. The entire issue is framed on the speculation that Wright might negatively affect how Obama frames his decisions. Has Obama conducted himself in any way thus far that can be interpreted as being influenced by Wright? The story loses legitimacy one people realize that Wright is not an influence in future decisions; he is figure in the past.

I find the debate surrounding the gas tax much more telling of how the candidates will conduct themselves than anything Wright ever said.

yeah, Borgs, I have to say that I'm with Obama on the gas tax thing. I think HRC and McCain are doing a big-league pander on that one.

On a side note, I am regaining respect for you, friend...

But why not this again, if it influences people's votes and is important to some people, why not let hem talk it out?

To minimize their feelings and to blow them off just closes their minds that much more