Ugh.  Just.  Ugh.

I'm going to crawl back into my hole now and pretend the stupid parts of the world no longer exist...

Are these hypothetical matchups vs McCain really meaningful at this point?

First, I doubt that most voters surveyed have really, seriously considered the head-to-head matchup; they're more likely just signalling a generalized preference for D vs R in the general.

Second, the issues that dominate voter choices in the primaries may well have next to nothing to do with the issues that will dominate voter choices in the general election. HRC and BHO haven't even said a word about the dollar's collapse or the financial meltdown that continues apace. (Speaking of which, I see Carlyle's funding arm is now toast. No one will lend to an arm of one of the most powerful and well-connected hedge funds in the world. Uh-oh.) Neither have HRC and BHO been forced to justify their calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a position that hasn't been a winner nationally for our party and almost certainly will not be a winner in November in the presidential race.

Third, it's _way_ too early to get any meaningful sense of how voters will come down in the polling booth in November.

I have a feeling the superdelegates' decisions will have very little to do with "electability." Call me cynical but favors, pork, good old-fashioned graft are more likely influences on the supers IMHO.

Yeah right, white blue collar guys from the rust belt have always been known to adore - oh, excuse me "prefer" Hillary Clinton.  

I think Survey USA's poll is more reflective of popular opinion (and they've been much better than StrategicVision this election season.  AND SurveyUSA has cross-tabs.)

Report Card:

www.surveyusa.com/.../surveyusa-report-cards

PA Poll:

www.surveyusa.com/.../PollReport.aspx

Double standard time?  If Hillary's pastor made statements this hateful ("God damn America"?!  Isn't that what Fred Phelps says?) and this repeatedly, and she had him on some advisory panel to boot, would the likes of Marty Peretz and Andrew Sullivan accept the "loveable but crazy uncle" line?  

Does anyone think Trinity Baptist Church's tax-exempt status will be revoked?

lymon, give it a rest. I am Catholic, am I responsible for my priests actions? The church is in his neighborhood, it is his denomination. How the f. is he responsible for the loony toons rambling of the pastor. As a Catholic I am not going to drive halfway across town because the Pastor, whose Mass I don't even have to attend since there are other priests and other masses, says something I don't like would be stupid. You bring up these non-issues and breathlessly report it. My Pastor does not speak for me. Why should I think Obama's speaks for him. You are honestly getting shameful at this point. And I would say this same thing if Hillary's reverend said anything stupid, but as we all know, nobody pays attention to Hillary's church.

Scottlooper -- its not a Baptist church, its United Church of Christ.

Y'all -- why does it bother us so much when someone preaches the truth?  Have we become so habituated to lies that we seem true to us?

--My Pastor does not speak for me. Why should I think Obama's speaks for him.--  I agree totally.

There is one and only one issue in this election: To select a nominee who can win in the general election.

Both candidates should be giving the voters something real to chew on. Not this he-said-she-said crap.

Blackton, of course it matters. Ask Mitt Romney. If you are presenting yourself as a Christian Democrat (which Obama has done, and the Dems disconnect on faith--our very secular mindset--has been a source of constant hand-wringing the past few years) it's only natural to ask what kind of Christian a person might be. And since we lack a way to peer into Obama's mind, the next best thing is to ask from whom he is listening to as a spiritual advisor. John Kennedy had to prove that the Pope wouldn't have influence in the White House. Mitt Romney was never able to alay concerns about his faith. And Obama's pastor--from whom he took the title "Audacity of Hope"--is certainly going to be an issue. So once again Obama supporters think that the rules don't apply--that a matter taken seriously by many voters (but certainly not me) is somehow off limits because it would reflect negatively on Obama. Typical.

I was tempted to say that Wright is playing some kind of weird game in which he messes up Obama's campaign and then says, see, they wouldn't let you become president -- I tried to tell you that but you wouldn't listen!"

Actually, unlike Michelle's ambiguous comment about being "proud" or not of being an American, Wright's assertions about the U.S. being controlled by a bunch of rich white folk don't seem that controversial.

blackton:

nice try at setting up a straw-man argument.  The question wasn't that the pastor speaks for Obama -- nobody seriously thinks Obama hates America, but I won't stoop to name-calling for you making that argument.  Obama has *kept* this man on an advisory committee, was that shoved down Obama's throat too?  And had Obama joined the UCC prior to joining this church/pastor (I forgot -- I've otherwise been wholly unconcerned with Obama's religion).  Nor was the analogy if Hillary's pastor said "anything stupid" but repeatedly said things that were hateful (see the Fred Phelps analogy).  But hey, if there's nothing so offensive that you can't be bothered to drive halfway across town for, ok, duly noted (see, two can play at that game).  

"God damn America" doesn't seem controversial? Saying we deserved 9-11 doesn't seem controversial?

Look, it is fair to judge Obama for this; the man has been his pastor for 20 years, officiated at his wedding, and baptized his daughters. Obama says he's his spiritual mentor and took the title of his book from him. This is a pretty close connection.

Seriously, just try to ask yourselves for a minute: how would this look if it were John McCain and Pat Robertson?

umm I don't get it.  What's controversial about saying this country is run by rich white people?  Isn't that just  fact?  And yes, Hillary is not a black person, and hasn't experienced being a black person.  I guess someone like Guiliani could say that they're not a wasp and are therefor  not responsible for the way things are, but that just seems like dancing around reality.   I'm actually curious why this whole line of thought pisses people off so much because it just seems like calling a duck a duck.

god damn America is just hyperbole responding to miscarriages of justice like this:

www6.comcast.net/.../Woman.Tortured

blackton,

Yes, you do have to take some responsibility for the positions of the Catholic Church.  Your membership in that Church is a voluntary association.  It receives its funding from its members, and its power to influence elections and the actions of government are dependent on the number of its membership.  When the Church covers up child abuse or urges its members to vote for war and torture, and its members sit silently in the pews, there is no doubt about the membership's culpability.  Why should believers get a pass?  One might expect that believers would be willing to accept some accountability for their joint ethical failures, no?

As for Obama, whom I support for President, isn't this pastor more than just the local representative of a denomination Obama belongs to?  Isn't this specifically the church and pastor that figured in Obama's conversion experience (from rationalist to goddie?)  This is more than a bus-stop on a long spiritual quest - this is his home.  Given how close this man's preaching seems to be to Obama's soul, maybe it isn't ridiculous to ponder its significance?

I'm far less concerned about Louis Farrakhan, or Geraldine Ferraro, than I am with this adopted spiritual advisor of our next President.  Reject and denounce.  Reject and denounce.

Neil  

Is the bigger issue the fact that Obama's church of choice has a pastor that sermonizes from a very black-centric POV or the fact that this happens to reinforce general voter's perception that all black churches have pastors that preach a "soft-side" of the black panther afro-centric POV ergo no sane white person can vote for them? I really think it says a lot when Fox perpetuates the notion that Obama's church is "dangerous" compared to the crap that Falwell, Robertson or James Dobson spew in the name of white church goers.

Hey, I've said "God Damn America" a few times and mostly out of frustration for our lack of understanding. And Wright isn't the first Christian preacher to say that 9/11 wasn't deserved. Hell Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson spout that crap everyday.

I wish it were so that in America it didn't matter what your denomination is or the fact that you have to have one at all! Be that as it may, Southern Baptists, fundamentalists, Catholics, Evangelicals and most other Christians trust Mormons spiritually about as far as they can throw them. The irony of it all is that most Christians, despite Obama's pastor saying these things in church, they still trust him as a Christian than they would if he were Muslim or gasp....atheist or agnostic. I guess that's why regardless of some of the good that religion plays in many peoples lives, it appears to hamper critical thought when it comes to seeing that person in front of you as different and unique and not different and dangerous.

I guess the last wall of presidential barriers for America to break down is when the majority of Americans can comfortably vote for a single, Gay, agnostic and trust him/her as the best choice. But until that day comes, we've still got a long way to go if the Democrats go through this vetting process between Clinton and Obama.

Notice that Obama is gaining in Pennsylvania, while Clinton is losing, look for this trend to continue over the next five weeks, just as we've seen in the past. The delegate split will be almost even in Pennsylvania, and Clinton will have made virtually no gains against Obama's delegate lead.

It's sad because Clinton's campaign is statistically dead, and she's giving her supporters false hope with the belief that she can somehow steal this election with the superdelegates, and that's not going to happen.  Simply put Clinton is a dead duck, she just doesn't have the courage or good graces to face her inevitable defeat.

Ivanova said: "Seriously, just try to ask yourselves for a minute: how would this look if it were John McCain and Pat Robertson?"

Actually, Ivanova, Jerry Falwell said this about 9/11: "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."

After Falwell said America deserved 9/11, McCain actively sought Falwell's endorsement, appearing with him and praising him.

Which raises the question, What do you mean by _if_ it were John McCain?

Am I just missing something, or is there this odd eye-twisting thing to these results?  He does better than Hillary in the hypothetical contest with McCain.  But Hillary is prefered to Obama in the primary.  I couldn't get the link to bring up the desired page, so maybe I'm missing something about who's being surveyed in each question.  But I can't make this make sense in any fashion.

And at this point Obama needs to have a Sister Souljah moment with preacherman.

Question: how will Jeremiah Wright affect Barack Obama's governing as president? Will it? Or is this just another rhetorical dead end?

Give me at least a plausible explanation why it matters and I'll stop not caring.

Let's cut the bullshit about people being responsible for their priests, ministers, and rabbis.

How many Catholics are held accountable for the dozens and dozens of pedophiles in the church? Zero. I haven't heard of any Catholic politicians taking the fall for those monsters in the Catholic hierarchy who have been convicted. But Obama should be tarred and feathered because of the things his minister says?

And regarding PA: Aaron's right - a lot of patterns are emerging, and one of them is that Obama gains when he goes into a state, campaigns, and people get to meet him. That's the trend. And he's getting smarter and stronger, and better-funded as he goes. She's done.

The Clintons are spoilers, that's all there is to it.

governorjohn, but I sure as hell didn't hold Mitts mormonism against him, and the idea that we should somehow use a persons faith as a litmus test strikes me as anti-American. I hated Mitt because he was a phony flip flopper, and not for his mormonism. Shame on all of us to expect someone to have to disavow our religion for higher office. And do you honestly think a Catholic needs to make a Kennedyesque speech now. If someone asked me to, I would tell them to f off after I punched them in the face. The fact that Kennedy had to bow to bigotry is no excuse to bow to it now. And it is tragic if Romney himself lost because of his religion. If anyone held it against him as the sole criteria against him, then they are assholes pure and simple. Harry Reid is a Mormon and I would vote for him.

Lymon, this is what I am referring to when I say shame on you. And no, he is under no obligation to drive across town. It is the United Church of Christ for Christ sakes not the Church of Satan. So what if the Pastor is an idiot. I have had idiot Pastors in my church. As to his being an "advisor" you know that was just an honorific.

And Neil, I am not responsible for the sins of anyone but myself thank you very much. I think you actually reinforced my point most of all. Guilt by association, it is much safer for our future candidates to know nobody so as not to let that happen. Where the hell does it stop?

As to religion, believing in Jesus has f all to do with UHC (although I would like to think it should). Anything the Pastor says that falls out of religion has nothing to do with Obama unless he specifically endorses it. He hasn't so end of story.

All this parsing of polls is laughable.  I'm sort of with tep, none of this will have the slightest influence on superdelegates, though I suspect that the overall popular vote totals will be somewhat more influential than deal-making and graft.

The problem for you guys obsessively covering the '08 race, is that there really isn't anything to cover at the moment.  It's all the superds.  Make your bets and pipe down until the vote is in, I say.

James Carville himself said it best, when he managed Harris Wofford's campaign for the Senate in Pennsylvania about 20 years ago: "Pennsylvania consists of Philadelphia on one end and Pittsburgh on the other; everything in between is Alabama."

Of course, that makes it Hillary country; especially given the way she has chosen to conduct her campaign lately, she should poll well among voters who would also take a liking to George Wallace back in the 1960s.

But for all the Clinton campaign's protests that "We aren't the ones who are bringing up the politics of personal attacks. We just want to get the focus back on issues, like the economy," all you ever hear from Clinton supporters these days is race, religion, race, religion, race, religion, race and religion.

The old style politics of cynicism an personal destruction may yet prevail in the Democratic Party and Hillary may succeed in her strategy to make Obama "unelectable," but if that is the case it will not succeed in November where so many young people and independents will have become so jaded by the whole process that they'll sit this one out and allow the superdelegates and party bosses try to score a victory on their own.

Even Pittsburg bears some demographic similarity to Alabama.  Lest we forget, Birmingham was once known as 'the Pittsburg of the South.'

Isn't Wright stepping down in May? I feel like that kind of makes this whole thing moot. Sure, he's still be a pal of Obama's but he'll no longer be his "pastor."

Memo to my fellow Democrats:

Dump the Clinton’s-- NOW!

Every Democratic Party platform embraces tolerance and embraces diversity and eschews racism and bigotry. Senator Barack Obama has been the victim of vicious, hateful, racist, religiously bigoted email and whisper campaigns. Senator Clinton’s campaign has on multiple occasions aided and abetted this attack. Several Clinton campaign officials, including Bill Clinton, have attempted to malign Obama’s reputation. When given a chance to 'reject and denounce' the hateful email campaign, Senator Clinton qualified her response (“not that I know of”) just enough to stoke the suspicions of those who stand gullibly ready to believe the email slander.

Senator Clinton compounded the insult and injury by effectively endorsing John McCain over Barack Obama. Beyond making a great attack ad for the GOP, she has eliminated her own ability to campaign for Senator Obama when he becomes the Democratic nominee.

While it is clear that Republicans have voted for both Clinton and Obama, it is also clear that the Republicans who votedfor Obama will return to vote for him in November. Those who voted for Clinton will not.

So, is there any principle the Democratic Party loves more than it loves the Clintons? What does the Democratic Party stand for?

Decision time Democrats: Hope for Change with Obama or keep rolling in the mud with the Clintons.    

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

A petition made by Obama supporters to be sent to the DNC

       stating that if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Nominee for

       the presidential election, you will either:

           a) abstain from voting in the general election

                                            or

           b) a third-party-candidate during the general election.

     Here's the link: www.petitiononline.com/.../petition.html

Everything in context, folks.  If Clinton wins the nomination because of garbage like this, she'll have worse than egg on her face, and she'll be truly hard to vote for in November.

blackton

This pastor of Obama's took over in 1972, before Obama walked into that same church and decided to join up.  He's been a member ever since.  Let him disavow what the pastor has to say, and I'll accept that.  However, it isn't "guilt by association" to assume his continued membership, in the absence of such a disavowal, is an endorsement of the man's preaching.  How could it be otherwise?  

Clearly, Obama thinks he gains some political benefit by claiming to be a Christian.  Don't any responsibilities attach to such claims?  When religion is politicized - and in this country, make no mistake, Christians have politicized religion - then it is fair to ask Obama to clarify his position on Pastor Wright's lovelier teachings.

Neil

lol, areomonas -- there is a lot of truth to what you have said about the Pittsburgh-Birmingham connection (please, though -- we take pride in spelling Pittsburg with an "h" at the end). Lots of Pittsburghers actually migrated from Birmingham back in the 1920s, 30s, 40s and 50s. And George Wallace actually came in 2nd place (behind Humbert Humphrey) in Pittsburgh during the Democratic primary in 1972. It's not to great a leap to get from "Yunz" to "Y'all."

Clinton will never reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro because she is too busy trying to put other people on the spot to do those things.

Hillary does not live in a world of principle and consistency; in her world (Hillary's world) everything is politics.

I can tell you for sure (because this is where I live) the Clinton-Ferraro remarks are having the desired effect in Pennsylvania, a state which James Carville himself described as being Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other and Alabama in between.

Hillary is going after the votes of working class over 40 year olds with limited exposure and limited education. This describes much of Pennsylvania perfectly

It also describes much of Ohio, which opposed NAFTA for destroying their jobs – 80% saying it was their greatest concern – but voted for the wife of the man who moved the treaty from concept to reality in 1993 because the could not bring themselves to vote for an African American.

There is a lot of resentment among this group this group, that I know all too well, toward upwardly mobile blacks and anyone who seems like a "foreigner."

Our governor, Ed Rendell, said “regrettably many Pennsylvanians simply will not vote for a black candidate,” so he’s a Hillary supporter. How’s that for moral leadership?

So, you get a sense of the Clinton strategy for Pennsylvania and Indiana, and it aint pretty.

I guess I should add, in order to be a bit more accurate about what is going on here, there is pretty much a pitch battle between young Pittsburgh and old Pittsburgh, so it will be interesting to see which way Pittsburgh ultimately goes during the primary.

Young Pittsburgh seems to be leaning toward Obama. This group mostly consists of out-of-town transplants into the city, transient college students and young professionals who haven't lived in the city longer than 20 years.

Old Pittsburgh is for Hillary. They tend to be parochial, generally haven't traveled much and Western Pennsylvania is the universe as far as they are concerned.

If it is any indication as to how this will translate in terms of election outcomes; young Pittsburgh supported city councilman Bill Peduto twice to become mayor of the city. Peduto lost the first time to Old Pittsburgh's Bob O'Connor, who tragically died soon after from brain tumors. The second time Peduto didn't even make it to the primary -- Old Pittsburgh was emotionally overwhelmed by the sudden loss of their mayor and polled heavily for his successor, ironically a young Pittsburgher (from an old Pittsburgh family) Luke Ravenstahl. Ravenstahl is only about 26 years old or thereabouts. He is best known for crashing parties and jet setting off to New York during city crises.

So, if, that's any indication, Hillary should do well here despite the city's slowly changing demographics and slow infusion of new blood. The "New Pittsburgh" will not come soon enough or in strong enough volume to be helpful for Obama.

More joy from baby boomers.

blackton, what's shameful is to compare a pure religious bigotry (here anti-mormonism) with Obama's putting and keeping this specific hatemonger on his own adivsory committees and being associated with a specific church (who, by your responses, could stand for anything - anti-gay like PHelps, anti-Jew like Farrakhan, fill in the blank) and be free from all judgment.  In any event, our positions are clear and I stand by mine.  

lymon, it is not like I don't understand how it might play out, but compare Obama to Huckabee and his religion and what he has said. Objectively the religion that Huckabee belongs to has a very long tradition of hate and bigotry. Huckabee himself has said a woman should be subservient to her husband, yet though I disagree with his take on the faith I also believe if it in no way will be public policy then it is not my business. Can you point to one area where the same can be said about Obama? Where he has taken something negative this pastor said and advocated a policy based on it?

You are also ignoring the central role the black churches have provided to the black community in the face of overwhelming racial prejudice in America. Is it really so shocking that a lot of older blacks are still tied into the rhetoric and the bitterness of the past? And how do you know the reasons why Obama joined that church. Maybe as a young man of mixed ethnicity, treated as black by society and as white by his family having found friendship and fellowship with people that he is reluctant to throw them overboard. I have very conservative friends, I will disagree with them, but won't disavow them. Besides, what kind of religion states love the sinner, but not if he will cost you votes?

The United Church of Christ is a mainline Protestant religion, its doctrine is pretty white bread. I presume Obama believes in the religion and there is far less suspect in that religion than Mormonism or Southern Baptism, neither of which I consider a believer in to be disqualified from office either.

As far as I recall Wright was talking about the Italians oppressing the Jews in the Roman Empire.  This getting to be a kind of Monty Python & the Holy Grail thing, whereby Obama has to keep telling people what the real stakes are.

Obama:  We've got to keep our mind on the struggle against the main enemy.

Wright:  You mean Hillary and Ferraro?

Obama (gritting his teeth):  No, the Republicans, the Republicans!

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  "Nuff said.

blackton, I don't know how many times in this thread I've cited Obama's putting this individual -- not the UCC, not Obama's theology -- on one of his advisory committees and has kept him there.  In all your bombast and/or inapositte analogies, I don't believe you've addressed this, probably because it's something Obama can control and doesn't fit in your "how can an individual control his pastor, thus he has no responsibility for the pastor" argument.  

As to this last missive, does the horrific racial history of the U.S. make Wright's comments more understandable?  Yes.  More forgiveable?  No.  And please don't conflate "very conservative" (I have very conservative friends too, both social conservatives and libertarian-types) with Wright's promotion of bigotry, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.  I resigned from Amnesty International because their double-standard, particularly on Israel, was too much to take regardless of the good work they do.  If my pastor said 1/10 the things Wright did, I'd leave -- that's not the same as converting religions.  Everyone has their limits -- prior to these comments of Wrights I said at least twice here on TNR that I thought Obama's "crazy uncle" line was sufficient.  But it's clear that Wright is infused with this stuff -- even rabid Obama supporters like Andrew Sullivan are calling on him to say more now.  

I don't mind that you disagree but I'm offended that you call the disagreement "shameful," let alone not worth raising.

But of course Hillary's voters will vote for Obama, despite everything happening in the campaign. (They already know that they are in a coalition with Sharpton, so Orlando Patterson would not add much more to it (or much less)). It is Obama's voters that are not really willing to vote for Clinton. Now, that may be because Obama is a great candidate running against a racist lying witch/bitch. But it reminds me of a Persian philologist saying to his Russian colleague: of course our culture is superior, you translate our authors and we do not translate yours.

What I find shameful is that we are getting to the point that everyone any candidate knows the candidate is now somehow responsible for their every action and deed. The guy is his pastor, it is a complicated relationship, a quasi family type deal. And I like to think I am consistent, if you go back and read it I never criticized Hillary at all for what Geraldine Ferraro said, why would I? Hillary didn't say it, and as it was hurting her campaign I could not possibly see the logic that Hillary was somehow setting Geraldine up to say it. And who the hell is Ferraro, certainly not a spiritual adviser? Far easier to cut her lose.

This endless harping on each other about bullshit issues, Obama's neighbor said Hillary is a bitch, Obama should move. Hillary's second cousin said America is too racist to vote for a black man, she should expel her from the family.

Beyond this, I don't read you talking about the innumerable Clinton lapses but instead focus only on a few minor areas and conflate them to a house burning down. Listen, you are a partisan Hillary supporter, I get that. You want to focus on Obama's shortcomings, I get that, but lets focus on real issues, not he said she said boring shit. I don't care about Ferraro, and I don't care about Obama's Pastor. Shame on America for acting like either matter, not in a time of war and economic meltdown.

It's more about the pattern (pandering to Blue Dog Democrats) than any one person (e.g., Ferraro).

There's now a pattern that, as it gains traction, will hand McCain the election. It will matter much less whether who's right or wrong,  than will the "question" of Obama's race have, in branding jargon, stickiness.

It's probably reaching the tipping point for stickiness. Nice job, Hillary. Traitor.

As with many things, you "get that" wrong.  I voted for Obama and I've said that a few times -- do you think I'm lying?  And I said why I voted for Obama -- an unforgiveable "Clinton lapse" (the post-SC shout out to whites to keep the blacks from chosing the nominee).  I've also, more times than I can remember, said that I don't argue that it's typically easy to find counter-examples for Hillary, but 1) Hilllary has pleanty of rabid detractors here on TNR to write about those and 2) it matters more for Obama because he's based his campaign on cleanliness/"new tone"/responsibility/etc.  And I've also repeatedly harped on The Plank for obsessing about the politics of the primaries and talk more about substantive issues.  I try to raise Darfur and energy independence every chance I get.  I re-posted some substantive debate questions proposed in the NY Times by a variety of experts that never seem to get asked and I've emailed the various TNR bloggers to take up some of these issues.  But that doesn't mean character issues are irrelevant and this one, I feel, is relevant given Obama has praised the guy in his book and appointed him to an advisory position on his campaign -- that's symbolic and symbols matter.  At the risk of being called racist, he's starting to feel like the old "okey-dokey" (renounce, renounce, but wink-wink, I'm really quite the Hyde Park pol you'd have every reason to suspect from my background and voting record).   Again, when an Obama-maniac / Clinton hater like Andrew Sullivan says "we need to hear more" I think that's saying something.

With a six-week lull between now and the next contest, during which I hope to spend more time focusing on...

lymon, ok, you "voted" for him so that gives you license to bring up every picayune issue that most people don't care about, or shouldn't care about. As I said we are getting to a real silly time now where every person every candidate knows must also be completely vetted. Oh, shocker, a black preacher at a black inner city revival type church has said some stupid things. Please. Do you ever read the shit Opus Dei writes, and one of the priests in my parish is in Opus Dei. I must disavow my priest, should I also make public my confessions as well?

I disagree that obama is running as the "pearly white" candidate. I simply think he presents the argument that not everything has to be personal between the parties, that the politics of personal destruction are destroying America. The fact that Hillary is attempting to use the politics of personal destruction and his being forced to respond doesn't nullify the central argument. This is all such tiresome bullshit. McCain doesn't engage in it, and the Republicans managed to nominate their candidate without doing so.

His Pastor is an idiot, fine. He said he disagrees with the things his pastor said. That is not fine. He has to publicly spurn him, and essentially turn against the Christian ethos love the man, hate the sinner.

You know, if Geraldine has simply said herself that she was sorry, that she let her frustration get the better of her I would have forgiven her. And I see no reason why Hillary had to apologize for Geraldine.

You are holding Obama up to ridiculous standards IMHO, far more than Hillary herself has been held up to.

And I am sorry Lymon, no offense but bringing up Darfur on these threads signifies nothing. I stood with the striking teachers in Oaxaca 2 years ago, marched with them as the city went up in flames. I didn't discuss it on TNR's talkback as a solution. Granted I had to go on strike since I am a teacher, but I could have left and gone on vacation to the states while it lasted. I stayed here. Talking about Darfur is meaningless because nobody is going to do anything about it.

And as to the environment, 10 years ago I and a group of other westerners and chinese started up an environmental ngo in China. Under Jiang Zemin these things were allowed but it was still dangerous grounds. I (we) had a meeting with the party director in Chuansha about it, but because my rationale was to keep China clean and improve the lives of the people he was unsure how to respond. Unfortunately, Hu Jintao shut down most NGO's including that one. Nobody was thrown in jail, just told to go through government channels, ie. do nothing.

I am not saying I am a hero or anything like that, shit no. I saw the Chinese crack down on a demonstration by Falun Gong members but I did nothing, I didn't even take pictures because I knew taking pictures would have gotten me expelled from the country. It was a terrible thing to witness. The funny thing was, I was known as being a person who criticized the Falun Gong beforehand because I think they are nuts, so I had the mispleasure of some local danwei telling me how right I was. I don't really want to go into the whole history of it, but at first Falun Gong was tacitly accepted as being just another tai chi type exercise.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are the quintessential baby boomers. They are so narcissistic and self-absorbed that they will stop at nothing to meet their insatiable needs. They will destroy the Democratic Party. They will destroy the nation. They will destroy their own legacy and our once fond memories of the Clinton administration of the 1990s. They know no limits when it comes to self-gratification. This what is happening as we watch the Democratic Party disintegrate before our eyes.

Well blackton, you want to email me and I'll send you a CV of my activism - the best I can say about China is I demonstrated with some expats in Tokyo while I was visiting in 1989 and Tiennamen Square broke loose during my stay -- nothing dangerous -- and I gave money to Nancy Pelosi and others when they were fighting against MFN status for China in the 1990's.  On Darfur, I'm part of a local Chicago group and I demonstrated in D.C. but a lot of the wind has gone out of the sails, especially after our Illinois sanctions were overturned by a federal judge and local schools balked on divesting.  

What's with you?  You complain that we talk too much minutia here and I agree.  Then I say when I've tried to talk issues and you say "talk is cheap."  I'm tired of this chip you have on your shoulders.  As I think Clinton is the victim of a double standard in the media (not so much lately) and here on TNR, I comment more on Obama.  You think it's an unfair standard, fine, so be it -- the second he starts talking some real hard truths (like he approached with teacher unions) I'll be the first to propogate the message.  

lymon, you are right in this case. what bothered me is nobody talks about Health care, or the people who talk about China don't know shit, and immigration is such a disaster too. And we talk about stupid shit over and over. Ferraro or Wright, such a waste of space. What I see is the Democrats essentially destroying themselves.

I don't care if people destroy Obama because of his policy on health care mandates, or because of his inexperience, that shit I can deal with...but Rezco? Or Wright? Don't forget Harry Truman was called the Senator from Pendergast. If it had been nowadays he never would have gotten to be VP, and who knows where we would be now.

And I just don't like guilt by association, especially being Catholic. We are guilty of our own sins, not of others.

I think the PA agrument is not going to help Hilrary if she wins it. I think Obama runs well in the general election matchup with McCain because of Independents. PA i s a close primary only Democrats vote and so that favors HIlary because she has the establishment this stuff about PA being racist and not voting for a black guy coming from the governor I think is BS and a strategy for Hilary. Yes I'm sure racism is in PA like its is in other states but what hurts Obama is PA more is that his broad base of Independents and some republicans is not available to him in the PA primary.

Carol