Well, right now he may be too good to get elected... while he's playing Gentlemanly Politics, the Clinton campaign is flinging poo at him on a daily basis.

Clinton's recently been floating the idea of there being a combined ticket... with her at the top, of course. Never mind that Obama is the front-runner (both in terms of the popular vote and pledged delegates).

I agree. I'm just saying that if Obama's elected and everyone's back to square one, I would be disappointed, simple because he's portraying himself to be separate from the average politician.

If Clinton or McCain are elected and break their promises, compromise on their principals, etc.... I can accept that. They're both standard politicians. It's what they do. If Obama does it, well it will be disappointing to say the least.

I would also be disappointed. But I'd live.

He is promising a lot, and he's promising the kinds of things a president can't just do. He needs everyone else to get on the Change Train. I'd honestly just be happy with some verifiable amount of effort put towards his campaign promises while in office, even if they didn't come to pass.

Do you think Hillary is every anywhere but on top?

Sorry, it was too easy.

Well I agree 100%
I'd live as well, heck I'm not even in the States. Even if he's playing us all for suckers, it wouldn't really affect me.

And as long as he tries to change things for the better I'll be convinced of his sincerity. I'm just afraid he'll end up like the Democratic congress, all talk, not even the slightest bit of meaningful action. I hope I'm wrong, but the 2006 Democratic congress left me jaded.

The problem with the Democratic-led Congress has been the Democratic leadership, as well as a bunch of Democrats that were elected in red state areas. They're all afraid of what people would think if they appear to be too anti-war.

Presidents only get two terms, and people in both parties get to vote for them. So it is a bit of a different situation in terms of accountability.

The pendulum never falls in the middle because it's not enough to just tell one side to stop pulling in the tug-o'-war. When that happens, your pendulum just swings way over to one side an' stays there. Before you can have it settle in the middle, the extremism needs to be corrected in the first place. Besides, the pendulum fell pretty well in the middle with Bill an' people still made up reasons to dislike him. So what you want really isn't "the middle" but your own interpretation of it.

And if people want change, as they claim they do, how is it any of them see McCain as being preferable to Hillary? Or see McCain as being anything other than Bush III?

Did you miss Clinton's second term?

No sh!t. Now I loved Bil Clinton, and I think his administration was probably one of the best run since Kennedy, BUT dude DID cheat on his wife, commit perjury, and was impeached. I'm pretty sure that means people had good reasons to dislike him.

Yeah, although my point was that his second term had more partisan rancor than this

to partisan rancor.

And your point is valid, as is mine in response to Glue's comments.

Yah, partisan rancor created by his opponents. The term itself was "in the middle" except for those who wanted to do anything to swing the pendulum their own way. My point is that "the pendulum being in the middle" is far from what people really want. They want what benefits them (yes, even those "in the middle"). All the rest is roundabout ways of not really saying it.

IIRC it wasn't Newt Gingrich getting BJs in the Oval Office.

The problem comes from whether or not you think that a BJ in the Oval Office is an inherently bad thing. I think a grown man should be able to have consensual intercourse with another adult without scandal erupting.

That being said, we live in a world where that isn't really possible, and Clinton should've been smarter than to think otherwise. Doesn't make his opponents less lame for spending tax payer money on the issue, but there it is. The whole situation was

As I recall, nowhere in the Constitution does it state the President isn't allowed to get BJs, be it in the Oval Office or anywhere else. Also, what do BJs have to do with the political bent of a politician, or their administration?

I will also add to my previous post that when most people say "We want things more in 'the middle'", they really mean, "I want to believe that my views = the middle and everyone else who says something otherwise is an extremist."

I agree, it was clearly a partisan witch hunt. However, it's definitely the kind of thing that elected officials regularly resign over (watch for Elliot Spitzer to do so shortly...). But Clinton wasn't going to do that, of course. That would require relinquishing power.

re: being in the middle, what is really required is not a centrist political stance, but an ability to *listen* to people who disagree with you. This is why Obama, who is more politically liberal than Clinton (who is a centrist), is seen as a much less polarizing figure. If you treat people with respect, then they will listen to you. If you don't, they will fight you. The Clintons are much more comfortable with fighting.

No argument with that. I'm frankly amazed that so few presidents have devoted that much effort to listening to people at all. If a guy like Obama can actually win this thing (the general election), it will mean.. a world of new possibilities, I'd like to think.

In other news, Geraldine Ferraro continues her quest for irrelevance by claiming that Obama's success is due to the color of his skin:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...ton-backer.html

My favorite part is, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

Seriously, show me one white senator who's ever been in the lead position to get his party's nomination for presidential candidate. That sort of thing just doesn't happen in this day and age.

Me thinks you might be overlooking the history being written here...you can't honestly pretend that Obama's race and Clinton's gender don't define them in general terms, and that people are generally excited that for the first time ever either a black man or a woman will have a 50/50 shot of becoming president. You can put on the color/gender-blind glasses all you want and pretend its all about the issues, but it ain't. People like feeling progressive.

If you transferred all of Obama's policies and speechifying and whatnot intact to Chris Dodd, is he the frontrunner? I say no way.

I think Obama's speechifying and whatnot plays off of his charisma and charm, characteristics which Chris Dodd lacks. So, no, he couldn't pull it off. But other white men are capable of doing what Obama's doing.

I'll say I think that, at this point, Obama's skin color does him more good than harm, but it's ridiculous to boil his success down to that single aspect, as if a man of white, asian, or latin heritage is incapable of doing what he's doing the way he's doing it. Because that's what Ferraro's saying.

Obama is just as white as he is black. Just to point that out.

His race is a leg up, I think is what she's saying.

Half of his race, you mean. Either way:

a) I'd like to know what historical evidence she can point to that would back up that claim.

b) There was a time when people were wondering if Obama was 'black enough'.

I agree. The level of and kind of impact Obama's heritage has on his campaign seems different everyday. It's not a surprise that a Hillary supporter tries to paint his campaign as being the result of a random result of genetics instead of the man himself...

Actually, it is kind of a surprise, because being black (or, anything other than a white, Christian male) has never been a leg up for anyone in the presidential race before. Why, exactly, are we supposed to believe it is now? Didn't Carol Moseley Braun, Jesse Jackson, etc. make people feel progressive enough?

It just feels like their campaign is trying to use every "reason" possible to explain away their trailing position.

*cue Tina Fey*

Colbert rules BTW

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Colbert_...kness_0209.html

I wouldn't term this a straight cause-and-effect (well wouldn't regard anything in modern society as being that). More like...

Well firstly, there are social mechanisms and population segments for which it is beneficial, and others for which it is detrimental. And, for the moment, it seems the net effect of the former is starting to outweigh that of the latter. And that's a good thing.

But it's a feed-forward loop -- his "being black (or half-black)" is now a good thing because "race/gender matters less", but "race gender matters less" because here's a guy who's half-black running. It's not clear that one happens expressly and solely because of the other.

I do think it's a bit optimistic since that entire negative portion of the loop, or more specifically a negative loop trying to counter it, is still around and far from extinguished. This puts the US in an "on the fence" type state. Are we ready to go forward? I think most of us are. But I'm concerned about the magnitude of those who aren't. And those people aren't talking much (at least online or from a high-profile) because they've no reasons to reveal themselves.

To address Hobbes's question more directly, I do think Obama is leveraging his ethnicity much more productively (or preventing it from being an obstacle, if you will) than any of those prior hopefuls.

Which is just a way of saying "you can't boil the success of his campaign down to skin color", right?

Not entirely down to that, no. But that's not the same statement as "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." All the latter states is that race has made a difference, and enough to help him (I disagree with that). The former statement, or rather the meaning behind it, has been to interpret what Ferraro said as it being the only reason.

"And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Which I'd also disagree with. To whatever degree his being half-black has helped him, it's been because he's made it help him. A lot of the country is caught up in.. something, and I understand why she's saying what she is. But he could have just as easily made it a liability through mishandling.

Her logic makes no sense. What exactly is she trying to say about Obama's appeal, aside from "I'm really, really pissed that a woman isn't winning"?

I agree with this absolutely. But to suggest Obama would be incapable of being where he is without that leverag is to suggest that the entirety (or the majority) of his campaign is built upon his race, and it clearly is not.

The man's a politician. And a very, very good one. So it seems ludicrous to me to suggest that a lighter skinned Obama wouldn't be just as good at the game, and have come just as far.

I think she's at a loss to say, "Obama's making his ethnicity work for him so much more effectively than Hillary's making her gender work for her, or any previous candidate mad their race/gender/whatever work for them." But she can't really just say that, so it comes out as what it did.

And I have to figure that when "Hillary has the entire media out to get her" comes filtered through said media, nothing said will sound flattering.

because it isn't true

In other news, Obama wins Mississippi by 18 points, last I saw.

TEH PWNT'D

>.>

*awaits media conference stating that is was always part of their strategy and that they never expected to win Mississippi*

BUT MISSISSIPPI IS A CAUCUS STATE AND...

...oh, wait.

Analysis from the Texas caucus (w00t!), which Obama won, and Mississippi indicates that Clinton's delegate gain on March 4th is gone.

So...that means that Obama technically won Texas, right?

He did indeed win the delegate count. yay me (and my wife, and a bunch of other people)

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/15572743/deta...ml?dl=mainclick

Yes, it is. (Great discussion.)

Look, Obama won Mississippi. There's no way race is playing into his candidacy in a significant way.

I agree with you, Glue, in that I think the "Obama's making his ethnicity work for him so much more effectively..." statement is true, but I think there's a world of difference between "he's making it work for him" and "he wouldn't be anywhere without it".

Yes, but, as stated before, that is not what Ferraro said reading her words. That's just what people heard. And I think that's part of the reason she's upset in that reaction article.

I believe her exact words were, "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." How does such a statement make any sense? I've seen her defend it by saying what that doesn't mean, but she hasn't told me what it does mean.

I personally think too big a deal is being made out of the quote, I don't think it will have any impact on the election. But I stand beside it being a silly illogical statement.

It's not that if Obama were a white candidate, he'd have no success whatsoever. I take her statement to mean that, it's something that affects Obama's campaign that would not affect Kerry's campaign. Obama gets publicity and, due to the character of the man himself, he's made it good publicity, or kept it from being bad. A white candidate wouldn't have that different from any of the other millions of white candidates so wouldn't have that "opportunity".

I don't think the statement is technically incorrect. I do think it's an imprudent and unproductive statement for her purposes, whether or not taken heavily out of context.

See, I disagree with this. I think Obama gets publicity because of what he's saying and doing. A white man saying and doing the same things, with the same demeanor and message, would be getting as much publicity, I think. And I base this on the kind of (or, rather, lack of) success previous black candidates have had with the media and the popular vote. As I see it, that's the best way to demonstrate whether skin color or message is the source of Obama's popularity.

So are you saying that Hillary has been less effective at getting white women to vote for her? Cuz if you are, I'll INTERNET take you down to Chinatown.