The Hot Blog

"Clinton's campaign is literally trying to drag the Obama campaign down to their level."

Not literally, no, unless there was some actual physical contact between the two groups that went unreported.

Is it too late for SPITZER FOR PRESIDENT?

That dude is a KING.

Dave, it's just politics. Don't let your support for Obama influence the way you're looking at things. Because what you wrote is completely slanted, yet convinced that it's objective.

Look, I know you buy into the hope thing that Obama is selling, but, yeah... grow up Obama. Four years ago, we had a Vietnam vet with a long history of liberal politics in the Senate, who tried to take the high ground in a presidential election. Welcome to the phrase Swiftboating. Eight years ago we had an intelligent and passionate ecologically-minded politician try to take the high ground. Even on the Republican side, McCain ran into the same problem in South Carolina in 2000.

While it's all very noble, I'm sick and tired of supporting candidates who take the high road, but don't win. If Obama wants to be the Democratic nominee, but hasn't learned the lessons of recent history, I don't have much use for him. However, if he's finally willing to step up and start fighting back, then yay Obama! If not, yay Hillary!

Exactly. Dems seem to confuse political strategy with political positions. They always reason that if the position is moral, then it's hypocritical to use an amoral strategy to implement it. And they always lose. Why is Clinton the only 2-term elected Dem president in the past 60 years?...

I'll have no respect for Obama until he stops acting like such a pussy and clocks Hillary in the jaw. Why is it that he's failed miserably to put her away with 2 opportunities already? Pussy. AKA: Not Commander In Chief material. Hope and belief doesn't accomplish anything -- hard work and hard fighting does.

How very silly. Did someone speak about NOT working hard and not fighting hard?

There is a difference between fighting and working and being scumbag.

But it is fascinating when someone who is so relentlessly goes against the grain - presumably on principal - becomes such an old granny when it comes to politics.

My "bias" was initially based exclusively on the abilitiy of a Democrat to win the presidency. It is, increasingly, about how desperate and hateful one side is willing to be. It takes a village to raise a child... and just one idiot with a match to burn it to the ground.

Please. If a movie featured a candidate with all that hope and change sloganeering, it would be considered ridiculous satire. Yet somehow, when somebody actually does something like that in reality, intelligent educated people actually buy into it.

And yes, Hillary is burning it to the ground. And just as stupidly, Obama shouldn't have been running in this cycle -- not for another 4-8 years. The resulting battle is based on his incompetent inability to knock her out, just as much as the fact that she's determined to win at all costs. Miscalculations on both sides.

Me; you just do not get it. Obama is not Gore or Kerry. He's someone else all together. He's the future in bright letters and neon light pipping. He's the better tomorrow. He does not have to be tough because many of us already know he's the fucking man. We are just waiting for the rest of you motherfuckers to realize that the FUTURE has finally arrived, and it is represented in a brother too cool to deal with this pity pity bullshit.

Anarchy is a little desperate and easy for me. (not "Me," but me.)

And "everyone is equally guilty" is just silly.

Not a question of guilt. Just function and strategy.

Understand, I don't support Hillary so much as Obama just hasn't done anything yet to win my support. Still waiting...

Mutiny; what does Obama have to prove to you? Seriously... what does he need to do to get you on board because if you a BETTER TOMORROW FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR CHILDREN IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU. There is nothing the brother can do for you.

Drop a "you" in there, and it makes all sorts of sense. Honest. Nevertheless; I am at a continued loss as to how anyone on the democratic side of things, can vote for Hillary. The party of progression and change electing the female incarnation of Bush politics and possible DECIDER antics? This makes sense to some people?

Because Obama isn't going to give us a better tomorrow. I'm not 20 years old and naive enough to believe that. Our economy is still set up to crash in the next decade or so. We're not getting out of Iraq anytime soon. Corporations will continue to exert their control over everything. And so on...

What I want to see from him is that he knows how to fight. I want to see some pre-prostitute Spitzer in him. Hillary has given him so many opportunities to deck her, and he never takes his shot. She's not just still in the race because she refuses to quit -- but also because he's shown himself incapable of taking her out.

'taking her out' how, exactly?
It sounds like you're setting up a bar too high for any politician to live up to.

Well, considering this is headed toward the first brokered convention in a while...

...my point is that usually the front-runner has this sewn up by now. Obviously, he's had his chances.

Yeah, but she was the front-runner until Iowa. You could just as easily say that she's failed by not getting rid of him by now. And I don't think that the race lasting until the convention (which it pretty much seems like it will) is necessarily the end of the world. Not knowing who the nominee would be until the convention is how we used to do things for a hundred years.

Jeff, we're not that far off on this. Not everything I argue is my position -- sometimes it helps to shift around a bit and play a little devil's advocate.

I know the feeling.

i've been watching the primaries from afar, as a duel nz/us citizen, and i keep thinking of something my grandad said to me: you have to be a hard-ass to be a successful politician, and you have to be a double hard-ass to be a female politician (he was a great admirerer of thatcher and reagan and a die-hard republican, pretty much the opposite of me), and i think he's right. with all the double-standards and institutionalised sexism in society, you have to be tough as nail to get anywhere in politics as a woman; we have a female prime minister in nz, and she's tough as nails. i watch hillary, and she's tough as nails, don't you doubt it. and to be honest, i'm glad. because although you need to be an inspirational leader to lead a country, let's be honest, you also have to be tough as nails, and though i really like obama, i've yet to see the 'tough' and it actually worries me a little

Being tough only gets you so far. Look at Elliott Spitzer, who was tough as nails as well. I'm not saying a similar fate will befell Hillary, but I'm saying that because he was not exactly eager to reach across the aisle, there weren't a lot of people that wanted to help him out when he needed it. Similarly, because Obama is willing to reach across that aisle and try to engender support, he will be able to do a lot more in this country than Hillary, who is willing to burn bridges and talk tough. Tough talk only pisses off people that don't like you. Inspiring people is a lot more valuable.

Why is it impossible to have a political thread without a "Corporations will continue to exert their control over everything" comment?

We don't live in a Star Trek utopia, hate to shat on the village thread idiot.

Hillary sat on the Wal-Mart board for years and panders to this day to corporations for millions. Obama had a sugar daddy in Tony Rezko. Bill Clinton has made a LITERAL FORTUNE as a consultant to Sultans.

I could go on and on about communist and socialist billionaires. Welcome to the real world.

being tough has nothing to do with talk, it's an internal 'pit-bull' quality, intestinal fortitude. i'd like to see more of it from obama. men hate hillary, that much is clear, so her presidency would appear to be most unlikely. i hope obama's ass is hard enough to be pres.

If it has nothing to do with talk, then how do you know Obama isn't tough? And how can he show that to you? We've seen how "tough" Hillary is and how much she ostracized politicians when she pushed for universal health care in 93. Maybe we need to see less "tough talk" and vote for somebody who can sway people with his words. Maybe it's time we vote for somebody who wants to make people nod their heads instead of quivering with fear. Bush was a "tough" president too and we've seen how far that has gotten us.

yeah, but bush is an idiot who surrounded himself with like-minded oil tycoons and war-mongers, that was his problem, nothing to do with being tough, all to do with being a moron.

toughness is not all that's required of a president, but it's an important quality, and i don't see it yet in obama, perhaps time will tell. i hope so.

so hillary alienated politicians when she pushed for universal healthcare? that bitch! the nerve of the woman! how dare she want to help poor people, many of whom are minimum wage earners who work full time and still can't get ahead, who get sick or whose children get sick a few times and they end up homeless... no wonder men hate her!

universal healthcare is one of the single biggest issues facing the US today, as more and more of the population slides toward poverty. enough already

I guess ABC News and Fox News are in Hillary's pocket for reporting on Obama's preacher.

Taking this personally is a sure way for a campaing to lose. Although the Democrats sure seem intent on losing. Same as it ever was.

Um, kidkosmic... You just appeared to criticize what I wrote, then spent the remainder of your post backing up what I said.

mutinyco, sorry to let you in on the "sad" news...corporations and economics play a part in all elections (all would include UN postings).

Corporations and economics also play, er, something of a key role in what movies get made, the coffee you buy, the jeans you wear, the carbon credits you purchase, the blogs you visit, etc. It's a rude shock, I know.... Sucks to be alive in this hell of a world controlled by corporations.

Exactly. THAT was my point. Go back and reread what I wrote. You're taking one sentence completely out of context. You have the reading comprehension of a 5th grader.

My entire comment was a reality check to somebody who believed Obama would bring real change. I then explained that he would not, and listed several real world things that he would not change.

leahnz, the argument is not that she went for universal health care at all, it's that she went about it in a way that reduced cooperation on the legislative level, pushed away people that would have otherwise been eager to support the idea, and generally made such a botch of it that it set the cause back. Her rep doesn't come from the causes she champions. It's the methods she has a history of using.

What L.B. said.

Basically, it doesn't matter if you're on the right side of a cause (Obama and Hillary are eerily similar in their platforms), it's about what you feel is the best way to make your case. I feel Obama's interest in being inclusive and his desire to get rid of the lobbyists is a lot more palatable than Hillary's "toughness."

"And so on..."

I read and comprehended what you posted, even if you did not.

If you're waiting for Obama to be something different, you will be waiting for a long time.

It's incredibly naive to babble about corporate control of the world. It's not control, it's life. Incentive is a part of production, creation, innovation, and yes, power.

I'm fine with the reading comprehension of a 5th grader. I just don't want to be stuck there in my comprehension of the world....

Apparently, however, you are...

Awesome! Ad hominem. That killed.

Um, no. That would require you to have made a valid point which I was avoiding response to.

Unfortunately, not only did you fail to do that in the first place -- as you seem to basically be arguing with yourself, since my initial argument wasn't exactly at odds with what you're trying to say -- but you set yourself up for my remark with your final sentence.

Honestly, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

I'm probably just an executive at Exxon attempting to mess with your head--it's all part of controlling the world, you know.

An Exxon exec who's into movies, of course.

Okay, I was attacking what I perceived as a core belief in your world view (obvious, but only from my elementary perspective, of course). So, moving the discussion on to something more constructive...who is your candidate IF the election were held tomorrow, mutinyco?

Back to Poland's post--Dave the Olbermann video was like a South Park parody of Olbermann. The guy is a bloody bastard. Watching him lecturing Hillary in such a high-handed fashion is rich, indeed. Entertaining, though....

Any one else see 10,000 BC as an Obama allegory?

Once again... LET'S DO THIS MCWEENEY STYLE!

"Because Obama isn't going to give us a better tomorrow." Are you motherfucking Kyle Reece? Do you know what tomorrow holds? If not.. then... you are just being the average cynical American. The rest of the world believes in this country being a beacon for something, but motherfuckers (again... it's not a swear as much as it's a Colloquialism) like you love to act as if we are dead and buried. Unlike you -- it would seem -- I happen to know about the history of this great nation. If you know anything about this nation, this country, it's the fact that we have the unique ability to overcome SHIT. It may take a decade or two, or maybe a few years, but AMERICA AND AMERICANS OVERCOME. Once again I ask you in all sincerity at the top of my figurative lungs; "WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH WANTING A BETTER TOMORROW?"

"I'm not 20 years old and naive enough to believe that." You earned a "fuck you" on that statement because it belittles the desire of countless Americans to WANT SOMETHING BETTER THAN WE HAVE HAD FOR EIGHT MISERABLE SOUL-SUCKING YEARS. If you are so smart and in-tune with the real REALITIES of this country. Please point out to me what's wrong with WANTING SOMETHING BETTER THAN WE HAVE HAD? Please: I am beggin you.

"Our economy is still set up to crash in the next decade or so." The only way it crashes is if Hillary and McCain get into the White House. If you could step outside of your Xenophobic Bubble (operated by KBR) for a moment. You may want to read about who the world wants to lead this country. The world -- those BILLIONS OF PEOPLE that look to us to not fuck the world up -- want Obama as the man. He has excited most of the western world to know end, and may be able to get some co-operation out of people who normally want nothing to do with us. He may... get those whacky OPEC members... to lower those over-inflated oil prices. Prices that only a president -- with presidential PRESSURE -- could lower. Too bad Heart-Trick Dick went over to Saudi this week and the price of that gas continued to rise. Again; a dude that people love world-wide could put pressures on these men that they have not felt for years.

Also, dude, BUSH's economic strategies have crippled this country. It would take all of one fiscal year -- maybe two -- to turn this country around. We simply need a strong leader to do so. Not a leader that acts tough, but a leader who is tough where it counts in terms of making our government work for us not against us. Go watch West Wing. It's not like Aaron and Tommy were idiots when they were putting that show together. They pretty much nailed how a president like Obama -- could be -- could run this country.

"We're not getting out of Iraq anytime soon. Corporations will continue to exert their control over everything. And so on..."

Uh bull. A shit. Iraq is fucked no matter who gets in there. Unless we just say FUCK IT and leave. There may come a day where we will the Arab world; "Sorry for putting Military bases on your sacred sites. We will be over here in Qatar... if anyone needs us."

That aside; the rest of the western world pretty much exerts 100 times more control over their corporations than the US. If you would ever talk to a European. You would see how their countries seem to realize that BIG CORPORATIONS look out for themselves more than people.

You know those big corporations like GM. Who got rid of an awesome mass transit system in LA in order to bring HIGHWAYS to the SOUTHLAND. Unfortunately in places like Sweden for a company like GM; they make it so ridiculously hard for people to get a car. They just use that awesome public transportation system that they have to get everywhere.

Oh. That's right: WE ARE AMERICANS! We must FREE ENTERPRISE EVERYTHING! Yeah. Our health care sucks. Our public transport sucks. Conglomerates have made most of our media suck and so on and so forth.

Our corporations only exert control because we have let them get away with too much for too long. If you go back a 100 years. You may get a history lesson as to what our government can do for us when it takes on BIG BUSINESS.

They can only exert so much control. They do not have armies. They do not have navies. They may have money, but they can only exert so much influence on our congress. Before someone with some integrity says; Uh bull. A shit."

"What I want to see from him is that he knows how to fight. I want to see some pre-prostitute Spitzer in him."

Oh... you one of those daft buggers who thought ELLIOT was doing a good job. Once again: uh bull... a shit. All he did in his 18 months in office was fuck a 22 year-old with some problems, and demonstrate an ability to piss off everyone whose co-operation he needed to help run NEW YORK STATE. PEOPLE LIKE ELLIOT SPITZER MAKE GREAT ATTORNEYS AND PROSECUTORS... THEY DO NOT MAKE GREAT LEADERS.

Once again you fail to see how this country needs a GREAT LEADER. We need A NEW HOPE. Obama is our new hope to lead us out of the fucking wasteland that was GEORGE BUSH'S AMERICA.

Also; you might want to consider that a president who extends an olive-branch to the Republicans, is better than one who wants to act tough around them. We need to co-operate to make this a better country, and to get government to work on important issues that effect each and every 300 million of us.

The only way that happens... co-operation. Co-operation Hillary Clinton would never receive because she would have to act tough. If you act tough. You cannot exactly work it out with the other side of the isle.

"Hillary has given him so many opportunities to deck her, and he never takes his shot."

Much like Han Solo; he's so pimp, that he know she's going to miss. What does he have to deck her on? She's doing a good job -- with her minions -- of doing it herself. When Keith Olberman and other LIBERAL commentators start calling you out on your BULLSHIT. You know you are doing something wrong. Some times it is better to let your opponent swing wildly and wait for the right opportunity to ponce.

"She's not just still in the race because she refuses to quit -- but also because he's shown himself incapable of taking her out."

Nope. She did not win Texas. She lost it. She won Ohio and Rhode Island by scare tactics that working class people believe. Seriously; working class people continue to vote for Republicans year end and year out. They get scared easily.

She also has been eliminated, but refuses to think of the party. She stays in -- in this futile attempt -- to STEAL THIS ELECTION AWAY FROM OBAMA. She wants to steal an election. How can Obama hit back someone, whose so low, that it would require Obama being RAY PALMER to take a shot at her.

Kidkosmic... uh bull... a shit. If you are siting SOUTH PARK as being some sort of high-level of comedy writing. You are most likely in your 20s, unbelievably cynical, and most likely some sort of twisted Republican.

If you do not get that Keith was telling two people that meant a lot to him (and he says as much in the preface to that SPECIAL COMMENT dunderhead), to chill the fuck out. You are apparently watching the other election where the cockhold wife is not trying to act all BADASS and not throwing every PIECE OF SHIT at a person whose simply a better human being than she has ever been. How is your election going by the way? Romney get the nomination or what?

bloody hell, io, are you and lexg roomies at the assylum? ask the nurse for a chill pill

mutinyco wrote "[Democrats] always reason that if the position is moral, then it's hypocritical to use an amoral strategy to implement it. And they always lose. Why is Clinton the only 2-term elected Dem president in the past 60 years?..."

I would say that it is hypocritical to use an amoral strategy to implement a moral position. There are some who are so convinced of their morals that they figure it's okay to lie to the electorate to advance their cause. Like feminists who inflate the numbers of girls dying of anorexia, because they are so convinced they are moral.

Or they figure it's okay to lie because everybody lies, and the other side has been doing it. They argue that Bush lies (not true) so they are justified in keeping up.

Maybe Dems don't get elected because the majority of voters disagrees with them. (insert 2000 election comment here.)

I know there are other factors than just politics -- who is the tallest, who has the best hair, who is the most charming -- but it is undemocratic to assume that it's okay to lie and manipulate the voter into voting for your "moral" position.

Yes the Bush administration has never lied and manipulated voters. Never. Wow that was the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. Thanks for the good belly laugh R Scott R, and keep smoking that good shit. It's working.

ioio wrote, "Seriously; working class people continue to vote for Republicans year [in] and year out."

Yes, that's right. Half the country votes Rebublican and you act like that's a shock. Maybe we generally agree with their ideas. Sometimes we're let down by specifics, or individual candidates.

"it would require Obama being RAY PALMER to take a shot at her."

I love the comicbook reference. Ray Palmer is 'The Atom' for any who missed that.

Damn!
This is all very interesting, guys, and it's nice to see your fire ignited by something other than the latest fanboy franchise phenom.
But seriously. I get my fill of politics from CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times and lots of other sources. I log onto Movie City News for the movie-industry news/blogging/etc.

I think he meant that despite the fact Republicans don't do a fucking thing for them, working class people continue to vote for them because of Republican pandering on certain issues (war, abortion, gay marriage).

Wow! Anybody wanna help me count the veins bulging from IO's forehead?...

What is Obama going to do about Jeremiah Wright?

Same thing McCain did with John Hagee (and others). State that they don't share the same views about everything without totally shunning him.

I thought I'd share this.

"Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties"

" [it] found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups."

"The report concludes . . . Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market."
-- http://www.nysun.com/article/72906?page_no=3

So, Iraq was a state sponser of terror. It would have been foolish to ignore this after September 11, 2001.

So we were lied to by the Bush administration when they said that Iraq was directly tied to 9/11. What a shock! One of the 935 lies told to the American people by this administration in the lead up to the Iraq war.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

Stella's boy, that link is itself a lie.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda."
-- so, they had ties to Al Qaeda, just not 'meaningful' ties. And Iraq did have some weapons of mass destruction, so it is a lie to say they did not possess any weapons of mass destruction.

"In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." "
-- Rumsfeld was correct with his answer; there were some relationships.

"On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
-- Pres. Bush was stating what the British government had learned. This was not a lie.

Pres. Bush said, "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
-- Even though the inteligence turned out to be faulty, America is safer for having Saddam Hussein removed from power.

Only 931 more lies to go R Scott R. Good luck disproving all of them. You don't really disprove those either, so much as you either get into semantics or disagree with the conclusion in general. Personally, I feel no safer at all with Saddam out of power. If you truly believe that Bush has never lied, you are one naive and delusional person.

R Scott R, nobody disagrees that Saddam wasn't an uncouth fellow who did some nasty stuff, but (a) that isn't how the war was sold in 2002/2003, and (b) it sets an unclear precedent for the use of military power. By the logic of attacking 'state sponsors of terror' we should also be invading Cuba, Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Myanmar, but I think to do all of those would stretch our military resources a little.

"Same thing McCain did with John Hagee (and others). State that they don't share the same views about everything without totally shunning him."

Not going to work in this case. They can't blow this one off. He'll be a serious liability unless Obama comes out against him forcefully. Even that might not work, considering how closely they've been associated over the past decade.

I say all this as a confirmed Obama supporter. My nervousness isn't glee; it's fear that the campaign will be derailed come November.

Listen (figuratively) here you knuckleheads: If you are going to post some trash. Be prepared for the hounds to be unleashed upon you. It has nothing to do with anger of needing to chill. It has to do with my intolerance to nonsense. Now carry on with your shenanigans and half the country only votes Republican... when they are scared.

I half-agree with Wrecktum. Obama has previously described Wright as a "sounding board", which pretty much makes him sound like an advisor. Also, the guy has a history of incredibly controversial statements and actions plenty of which are just simply NUTS (America created AIDS?!?!).

Obama has recently compared Wright to a crazy uncle. That's bullshit. A crazy uncle is a blood relative and a helluva lot harder to disown. Ya know, strike that. I have a legitimately crazy uncle and I NEVER talk to him! The fact that Obama's been going to this guy's church most sundays for the past twenty years -- certainly does call his judgment into question. Why did Obama not simply switch churches ages ago? Loyalty, some might say. If so, sounds like misguided loyalty to me...

From Slate today:

The Nutjob Conundrum

Here’s a question: Who doesn’t have a crazy, wingnut, off-message preacher supporting their campaign?

Right now, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is getting the most attention for, among other things, his statements that the U.S. government caused the AIDS virus; a speech in which he said, “God damn America”; and his less-than-kind words about Hillary Clinton. Obama has distanced himself from Wright in general terms but hasn’t denounced specific statements.

But Obama’s not the only one. Clinton has her own spiritual adviser in the Rev. Bill Graham, who, while generally respected, has made remarks about Jews and the media that wouldn’t endear Clinton to voters. (Their connection hasn’t been an issue on the campaign trail so far.)

Even McCain has embarrassing pastors in his life—more than one, in fact. Earlier this week, McCain “condemned” the words that John Hagee “apparently wrote”—Hagee has said some ugly things about gays, Jews, and Catholics. But McCain said his remarks may have been “taken out of context.” Meanwhile, the Rev. Rod Parsly, an Ohio televangelist whom McCain has called a “spiritual guide,” wrote in one of his books that Islam is a “false religion” predicated on “deception,” David Corn reports. Not exactly part of McCain’s campaign platform.

So, given that each candidate has an embarrassing pastor, shouldn’t there be a stalemate? As Ambinder points out, the McCain campaign can’t ding Obama for Wright’s words—as it implicitly did in an e-mail today—without expecting to be repaid in kind.

My guess is that for McCain, it’s worth it. The Arizona senator has had a bumpy relationship with evangelical leaders—don’t forget his “agents of intolerance” quip—and he probably calculates that it’s better to have these guys on his side, controversy and all, than to lose them and their supporters. Plus, there’s a big difference between his evangelical endorsements and Wright’s proximity to Obama. (Wright married Barack and Michelle, and gave Obama the title of his second book.) If it comes down to a guilt-by-association competition, McCain probably thinks he would come out on top. Clinton should feel somewhat more comfortable denouncing Wright—Billy Graham, whatever his past statements, isn’t exactly controversy incarnate. Still, her campaign is so far withholding judgment.

Obama finds this Wright controversy substantially worrisome enough to not only a) write a long statement forcefully condemning Wright's hate-speech and b) going on MSNBC, CNN and (heaven forbid) Fox News to discuss. Clearly the campaign is very, very concerned. As they should be.

So why hasn't McCain been similarly grilled about his association with Parsly and especially Hagee?

Yeah, and where's Nicol now that we have a full-on Catholic-basher in the political mix?

Is there any evidence Parsley or Hagee officiated at McCain's marriage or baptized his children, or that he attended one of their churches for 20 years? I think McCain will not get as much flak because no one really believes that his relationship with them is anything but political. He's cozying up to them because he needs them; no one's going to mistake him for an evangelical. Indeed, I think you can make a strong case that McCain is the least spiritual of the three candidates remaining. Obama, on the other hand, has a long-standing, genuine relationship with Wright. You also have to wonder how he could have avoided at least hearing about what he said, even if he was not there. Moreover, it feeds into that image of his crowd as bien-pensant, left-wing America haters that burbled up when his wife made that comment about this being the first time she's ever been proud of America. It plays into a very damaging narrative for him. Same as his ties, however, tenuous, with that Weather Underground terrorist guy. He'll have to address that sooner or later, too, along with Rezko, which he did today and will have to do again with the national media at some point. Let me add as a post-script that I find this whole tit-for-tat pawn sacrificing (Powers, Ferraro, Wright) unseemly. The Democrats seem intent on using the six weeks between now and PA to sabotage themselves.

Interestingly, Obama said today in his meeting with the Trib and Sun Times that Ferraro and Wright are products of the '60s and their rhetoric is evidence of them still being stuck in that radical mindset which the rest of America has passed by. I think he said they're trapped in a time warp. I think he really should play up that post-60s angle as much as he does the post-racial one. To me, that is a major advantage he has over Hillary.

Be that as it may, I think McCain is all but getting a free pass when it comes to his relationship with people like Hagee and Parsly. They have said some heinous shit and McCain seems to have very little problem with it. Now McCain is making claims that al Queda will stage attacks before the election to help the Democratic candidate. He's a real sack of shit. I hope he picks Romney as his running mate. A McCain/Romney ticket won't have a chance in hell.

Stella's Boy, I agree that McCain's being treated differently, but am not sure I'd go so far as to categorize it as a "free ride". Blackcloud summed it up perfectly - no one out there is worried about McCain sharing the beliefs of Hagee. And that's because over the twenty plus years that McCain's been in national politics, he's earned a reputation for being a pretty non-religious guy who's only real interaction with the religious right has been to enrage them (circa 2000) or pander to them while "winking" to the left (2004 on). Like it or not, democrats simply aren't afraid of this guy on hardcore religious issues.

With Obama, fair or not, it's likely to be more of a concern. He doesn't have the same familiarity that McCain does. Furthermore, Wright isn't some kook that Obama needed to make nice with to get votes. He baptized his children. He presided over his wedding. He preached to him for twenty years.

I flat out don't buy Obama's claim that he wasn't aware of Wright's more controversial leanings until just recently. After twenty years of going to his church? Bullshit.

Do I believe Obama shares his views? Absolutely not. But that's not the only issue. The issue is why he'd stick with a guy who's so obviously wrong.

John McCain's foreign policy views, his statement to the Wall Street Journal editorial board that he "doesn't understand economics" and his pandering to the religious right concern me a whole hell of a lot more than Obama's crazy pastor.

Obama's pastor comes under the same rule as all reporting... why is it turning up now?

It hasn't been a secret. They sell the damned videotapes of the comments, the most offensive of which are years old. And the guy is about to retire. And they suddenly landed the day after Mississippi.

Basically, it works for teh Clinton campaign to be talking about anything but issues during these weeks before Penn. Maintaining their lead is the key and every time Obama's ideas and passion are on the table, she loses votes... every time... including Ohio and Texas, which in a very underreported story, CNN took out of the Hillary's Win list because with a win in the caucuses, Obama apparently won more delegates in the state.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: