[Big Mac]

Now Obama really figured out how to offend average Christian voters. Is his campaign toast yet?

[Ghoser777]

Not toast yet, but his wording was awful. I don't even see the point in bringing it up. I think it is understood that there are issue voters out there - they vote on one issue, even if the person they are voting for will have no real impact on that issue. It's a validation of the importance of that issue, so they vote that way. So if you had a candidate with a good economic plan but wasn't a strong gun advocate, and another candidate with a weaker economic plan but was a strong gun advocate, some voters will vote based on the gun position even though gun control isn't a major issue in the election (although some would justifiably argue that it is always an important part). I don't really follow the bitterness part of it - nothing good can come out of the language.

As a sidenote, this is another reason why I wouldn't want to be a politician. I'm sure we've all had thoughts that come to us that sound really good until we say them out loud. It's hard to distinguish between deep seeded ideology and spur of the moment rambling, but the more you talk, the more likely you're going to same something stupid. I'm not trying to make an excuse, as "words matter" - everyone is accountable for what they say. But if you say a lot, there's a good chance you're going to say something dumb.

Congrats to Hillary - if things keep going this way, not only will the Democratic convention be a total mess, but it looks like McCain's path to the white house keeps getting easier.

[Eug]

You don't see the point of bringing it up? Of course there's a point. The point is he made a humungous PR faux pas that will hurt him, for good reason.

“So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” he concluded.

The stupidity of his statement boggles the mind. WTF was he thinking? This will most definitely negatively impact his campaign. The question is not if, but how much. I betcha Hillary broke out the Champagne yesterday. This is the best news yet for her in recent times.

[Chongo]

I wouldn't break out the bubbly just yet. Remember, she has Bill working against her

[Big Mac]

You think Bill is sabotaging her campaign? That he doesn't want to experience the indignity of being a First Gentleman?

[Eug]

Recent Pennsylvania polls

If the 2008 Democratic presidential preference primary were being held today between (names rotated) Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for whom would you vote - Clinton, Obama, or someone else?

April 5-6 poll: Obama and Clinton - both at 45%
April 11-13 poll: Clinton 57%, Obama 37%

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You think Bill is sabotaging her campaign? That he doesn't want to experience the indignity of being a First Gentleman?

One would think he'd be immunized for indignity by now.

I don't think anything Obama said was wrong, actually. Sad, yes, but not wrong. The fact that Hillary can relate better with uneducated views is hardly a vote of confidence by my reckoning. And every time she talks religiously I scream "DOES ANYBODY REALLY BUY THIS BULLSH*T?!" Then I see poll that the uneducated, religious, gun-toting Pennsylvanians do.

[Big Mac]

It was a bigoted statement. Yes for all those wondering, a black man can be a bigot too.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

One would think he'd be immunized for indignity by now.

I don't think anything Obama said was wrong, actually. Sad, yes, but not wrong. The fact that Hillary can relate better with uneducated views is hardly a vote of confidence by my reckoning. And every time she talks religiously I scream "DOES ANYBODY REALLY BUY THIS BULLSH*T?!" Then I see poll that the uneducated, religious, gun-toting Pennsylvanians do.

It's a matter of stupid vs. not stupid. Whether or not his bigotry has a shade a truth to it or not doesn't matter. Even if he feels that way, it was just extremely dumb to say it. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary shares some of those feelings but she didn't say it, which is the point. Hence, she is now enjoying a little surge of popularity in Pennsylvania, at the time she needs it the most.

[wolfen]

So now we're upset because a politician said something unpopular and truthful, instead of being upset because a politician told us what we wanted to hear.

I think it's clear: The Terrorists Have Already Won.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

So now we're upset because a politician said something unpopular and truthful, instead of being upset because a politician told us what we wanted to hear.

The point is he made a really stupid public relations gaff, and one that will affect his campaign. Surely you must see that. If you don't, just take a look as his recent Pennsylvania poll.

It's not surprising that he may feel this way. That doesn't shock me in the least. What shocks me is that he was stupid enough to say what he did. That's a serious rookie "ooops" on his part. It's no surprise his campaign is damage control mode over this. Just about any political analyst could have predicted this reaction.

He should have just stuck with his previous game plan of being vague but positive. It seemed to be working for him.

I think it's clear: The Terrorists Have Already Won.

Yes, it's clear. The politically correct subversives are all members of Al Qaeda.

[wolfen]

I'm not disagreeing with you, Eug. I'm saying something like this highlights what a farcical circus politics is. Here we are upset over something said that was 1) sincere 2) truthful 3) relevant. Think how bizarre our political world is when we wish a politician was more banal, and disingenuous. So they could "win."

Regardless of our views on effective political marketing, the point is that the entire process is worthless, the system is doomed, and the aliens are coming. WHAT WILL YOU DO, THEN EUG! ZOMG ALIENS!

(I just used the Chewbacca Defense on you. You lose.)

[Eug]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I'm not disagreeing with you, Eug. I'm saying something like this highlights what a farcical circus politics is. Here we are upset over something said that was 1) sincere 2) truthful 3) relevant. Think how bizarre our political world is when we wish a politician was more banal, and disingenuous. So they could "win."

Actually, I personally am not upset. I'm rather amused. This is the type of statement I'd expect from someone who fails to win a seat in a race for City Councillor. It's not what I expect for the Democratic frontrunner for prez of the US of A. Nobody's perfect, but this mistake is really, really bad. I can almost see the collective cringe of his entire staff when the news hit the wires.

Regardless of our views on effective political marketing, the point is that the entire process is worthless, the system is doomed, and the aliens are coming. WHAT WILL YOU DO, THEN EUG! ZOMG ALIENS!

Well, I wouldn't say it's completely worthless. However, events such as this most definitely add a lot to the jadedness of the average voter methinks.

(I just used the Chewbacca Defense on you. You lose.)

I had to look that up. I learned something today.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Eug 

He should have just stuck with his previous game plan of being vague but positive. It seemed to be working for him.

Yes you wouldn't expect this from someone so intelligent, and running for president... the thing is, he just couldn't hold back his hatred any longer; because it's soooooooooo strong and deep seated.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I don't think anything Obama said was wrong, actually. Sad, yes, but not wrong.

Oh, and you think wrong by the way.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I'm not disagreeing with you, Eug. I'm saying something like this highlights what a farcical circus politics is. Here we are upset over something said that was 1) sincere 2) truthful 3) relevant.

You might know this point is debatable on a bunch of counts.
1) It may be sincere for some, not sincere for others.
2) truthful for some, untruthful for others.
3) relevant to some, irrelevant to others.

The slip-up is the sweeping generalization around the context of "embittered". Many people own guns and you simply cannot connect this with bitterness. Many people are religious, etc... and it has absolutely nothing to do with a negative disposition. This may be the outlet for Obama's religious experience, but there's no reason to pin that on the rest of this country. It was an absolutely moronic (and IMO telling) statement. Obama has speakidus. I thought this was going to be Hillary's undoing, but it seems Obama is striving for #1. Maybe too hard.

Think how bizarre our political world is when we wish a politician was more banal, and disingenuous. So they could "win."

Our political world is bizarre, but I'm certain we'd disagree on the symptoms.

Regardless of our views on effective political marketing, the point is that the entire process is worthless, the system is doomed, and the aliens are coming. WHAT WILL YOU DO, THEN EUG! ZOMG ALIENS!

(I just used the Chewbacca Defense on you. You lose.)

I always like it when people can make friends on the 'NN. Very cute.

[wolfen]

Nevermind...I remembered that the political lounge is all about polemic. I forgot to check my critical thinking skills at the door.

I'm leaving. Thanks for the reminder. Have a nice day.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Oh, and you think wrong by the way.

I'm not ignoring you just this one time. To tell you I ignore you.

[Eug]

Interesting. The person who published the comments originally wanted to hush it up, as she's an Obama supporter and actually has contributed the max $2300 to his campaign.

Katharine Q. Seelye - On Line - The New York Times - Politics - Election 2008 - New York Times

Ms. Fowler told me in an interview Sunday night that she was initially reluctant to write about what Mr. Obama had said because she actually supports him -- which partly explains why she was at the fund-raiser in the first place and why there was a four-day delay between the event and the publication of her post. Ultimately, she said, she decided that if she didn’t write about it, she wouldn’t be worth her salt as a journalist.

Ms. Fowler has spent a lot of time (and her own money) following the presidential campaign-- and participating in it. She has maxed out at $2,300 to Mr. Obama, starting in increments last fall. She said she has also given money ($100) to Mrs. Clinton, because she is roughly Mrs. Clinton’s age and liked the idea of a woman president and she attended two Clinton fund-raisers with her sister, a devoted Clinton supporter. And she also gave $500 to Fred Thompson, of Tennessee, even though he is a Republican, because that’s where she is from and her family has been steeped in Tennessee politics since the 1790s (that’s not a typo).

Marc Cooper, who is the editorial coordinator of O.T.B., is writing on his own blog about the development of Ms. Fowler’s story and he acknowledged that the campaign did not want the event covered. “It was indeed a fund-raiser to which the press was not invited,” he wrote. “Or if you wish, it was closed to press. Therefore it wasn’t on or off the record. Off the record is when journalists consensually agree to witness or hear something on the condition they not report it.”

Still, he wrote, “Most if not all press was kept out of the room but Mayhill was invited in. She was under no obligation not to report. Obama was indeed more loose-lipped than usual. He should be more careful in his choice of words when he is staring into so many video cams, no matter who is holding them.”

[besson3c]

The whole so-called "bittergate" is a retarded and meaningless issue. Attempting to spin an incorrect interpretation of what was originally said void of its context is almost always a fruitless venture, and in this case even this particular interpretation does not bring to the fore anything particularly meaningful or relevant anyway.

[Dakar the Fourth]

What is the correct interpretation besson?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The whole so-called "bittergate" is a retarded and meaningless issue. Attempting to spin an incorrect interpretation of what was originally said void of its context is almost always a fruitless venture, and in this case even this particular interpretation does not bring to the fore anything particularly meaningful or relevant anyway.

Ah, but it's been quite fruitful for the Clinton campaign, as is evidenced by the polls. It also seems to have buoyed McCain as well. And the context was just as depicted. It's easy to verify this, considering the complete audio is available on the net:

Mayhill Fowler: Obama Exclusive (Audio): On V.P And Foreign Policy, Courting the Working Class, and Hard-Pressed Pennsylvanians - Off The Bus on The Huffington Post

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

[Chongo]

Penn race unchanged by Obama remark - Yahoo! News

you know the Clintons also believe the same things as the Obamas, they just don't voice them.

The Hillary in a duck blind will be the Dukakis in a tank.

[BRussell]

Of course this isn't going to change anyone's mind. This is exactly the kind of "issue" that media people - eiltes, if you will - love to wring their hands about and say the real people, the non-elites, will be terribly offended. But in the end, the real people don't care about these things. So you end up with this situation where the elites accuse a candidate of offending the real people, but the real people don't care, only the elites do.

[Shaddim]

Honestly, this is a tempest in a teapot, there's nothing he said that made me raise an eyebrow even a fraction of an inch.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Penn race unchanged by Obama remark - Yahoo! News

Well, I guess it depends on how things are interpreted:

The Quinnipiac University poll found that Hillary Clinton leads Obama 50 to 44 percent, a margin unchanged since the organization's last statewide poll at the beginning of the month.

It's of note that the weekly polls suggested something a little different. Clinton initially was leading in March, but by the first week of April Obama had caught up. Now Obama is trailing her again.

So, it was a setback for Obama no question. The question is how much. This new poll suggests it might not be a big setback, but it certainly hasn't helped him.

you know the Clintons also believe the same things as the Obamas, they just don't voice them.

Yes of course. However, that is how the candidates play the game. You just don't go around telling your voting public they're rednecks. I was truly surprised he made such an obvious gaffe, even if it was a private fundraising dinner.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Honestly, this is a tempest in a teapot, there's nothing he said that made me raise an eyebrow even a fraction of an inch.

It definitely made me raise an eyebrow. It was an uncharacteristically bad slipup on Obama's part.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So, it was a setback for Obama no question. The question is how much. This new poll suggests it might not be a big setback, but it certainly hasn't helped him.

No, there isn't a question, there was no setback. Polls vary of course, but the averages across all the polls before and after show a net zero movement. It very clearly hasn't hurt him at all in the polls. Either did the Jeremiah Wright thing.

Only people who think the media elites really know how the non-elites see these things believe these were real issues. They weren't, and of course shouldn't be, unless you think the minutiae of the back-and-forth of campaigning gaffes and gotchas really matter to democracy. Only the media elites think such things are important. Real people look at the qualities of the candidates and their positions, not these irrelevant dust-ups. Probably only a few % of people even heard about it.

Stop believing the media, Eug. They'll sucker you every time.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The whole so-called "bittergate" is a retarded and meaningless issue. Attempting to spin an incorrect interpretation of what was originally said void of its context is almost always a fruitless venture, and in this case even this particular interpretation does not bring to the fore anything particularly meaningful or relevant anyway.

Denial, on display.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

No, there isn't a question, there was no setback. Polls vary of course, but the averages across all the polls before and after show a net zero movement. It very clearly hasn't hurt him at all in the polls. Either did the Jeremiah Wright thing.

Only people who think the media elites really know how the non-elites see these things believe these were real issues. They weren't, and of course shouldn't be, unless you think the minutiae of the back-and-forth of campaigning gaffes and gotchas really matter to democracy. Only the media elites think such things are important. Real people look at the qualities of the candidates and their positions, not these irrelevant dust-ups. Probably only a few % of people even heard about it.

Stop believing the media, Eug. They'll sucker you every time.

If you only wish to pick and choose, you might want to believe that. However, when offered finer grained polls, you choose to ignore them.

Basically, Penn was Clinton's to lose... and she was on the verge of losing it. Like the campaign in general, Obama had trailed initially but then picked up steam, enough to surpass her. In Penn, he had already caught up to her in popularity by last week, with a few wondering if he could pull ahead by the vote next week. Then he made that stupid statement and now he's back trailing her again.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

In the latest "poll of polls," the New York senator holds a 6-point lead over Sen. Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, 49 percent to 43 percent. Eight percent of likely Democratic voters there remain unsure.

Clinton's margin over Obama is two points higher than it was in a poll of polls conducted late last week, though is still half of what it was two weeks ago.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ah, but it's been quite fruitful for the Clinton campaign, as is evidenced by the polls. It also seems to have buoyed McCain as well. And the context was just as depicted. It's easy to verify this, considering the complete audio is available on the net:

Mayhill Fowler: Obama Exclusive (Audio): On V.P And Foreign Policy, Courting the Working Class, and Hard-Pressed Pennsylvanians - Off The Bus on The Huffington Post

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Like most other retarded issues and distractions such as this one and many others, within a week or so everybody will have forgotten about this.

Really, there are far far far more important things for us to be talking about as a nation than this crap. We are facing an overwhelming list of problems that do not justify us wringing our hands about whether or not Obama is elitest (the son of a single Mom that was on food stamps at a point, BTW).

People with power are almost always elitist. What we have now is a near aristrocracy that favors the rich and powerful, economic policies that favor the rich, and decisions that are affected by lobbyists. None of this is terribly new, but all of this is far more important than whether or not this thing was a gaffe or not.

At the end of the day, all we can base our judgement about any candidate are on what they say not having any guarantee that they will deliver on what they say, but both Hillary and Obama have spoken at great length about funding this better, supporting this better, helping the little guy pull him/herself up, etc. Really, this is the essence of the so-called Democrat core values. Doesn't it seem a little silly to go on about the so-called most Liberal senator being against the little guy in spite of all of this?

Dakar, I could tell you how I interpreted Obama's comments, but frankly I really don't want to perpetuate this brainless and meaningless noise, which all of this is.

By the way, I have said the same thing about all of these other so-called gaffes and retarded distractions that CNN has aired to, whether they are associated with Obama, Clinton, or McCain. Virtually all of these are just utter wastes of our collective time, and complete and total drivel.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Honestly, this is a tempest in a teapot, there's nothing he said that made me raise an eyebrow even a fraction of an inch.

No, but the fact that he was dumb enough to actually say it, did. Then I saw the context of where he said and the eyebrow went back down.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Dakar, I could tell you how I interpreted Obama's comments, but frankly I really don't want to perpetuate this brainless and meaningless noise, which all of this is.

God, what a dodge. Humor us besson, I beg you. I don't see how to interpret it other than for what it says.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Like most other retarded issues and distractions such as this one and many others, within a week or so everybody will have forgotten about this.

I agree a lot of people will have forgotten about this. However, some people won't. It's all about the percentages.

Really, there are far far far more important things for us to be talking about as a nation than this crap. We are facing an overwhelming list of problems that do not justify us wringing our hands about whether or not Obama is elitest (the son of a single Mom that was on food stamps at a point, BTW).

Err... They're all bloody elitist. There's no argument here about that. It would be stupid to think any of them weren't. Most are hypocrites too (and that includes both Clinton and Obama). However, that's not the point on this particular news point. The point here is how they've played the game and Obama failed on this one. It may not derail his campaign, but it has most certainly has harmed his reputation.

After all this, do I suddenly think Clinton is a down home girl and Obama is some prissy Harvard lawyer. Uh no. Of course not. However, I'm not the Pennsylvanian voting public. Now I suspect most in Penn won't buy into this either, but a few might just think again about going Obama, even though they might have a week ago.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

God, what a dodge. Humor us besson, I beg you. I don't see how to interpret it other than for what it says.

Are you serious?? Really...

Fine, I'll humor you.

Many politicians have not delivered on their promises to create jobs or do x or y or z in a particular area of the country while campaigning, and simply made these sorts of promises to ensure votes.

With me? Agreed? Sensible?

So, when people see that politicians do not follow through on these sorts of promises, the next time around they feel bitter and cynical about the whole process and basically ignore economic promises in thinking that a similar outcome is inevitable regardless of who they vote for. So, in doing they turn to other issues they care deeply about such as gun issues, gays, abortion, issues involving their faith, etc.

What sorts of issues do people care about in general? War (if there is one going on)/foreign policy, the economy, and a random assortment of other issues such as the ones listed. This is true for any election, this is nothing new nor profound.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I agree a lot of people will have forgotten about this. However, some people won't. It's all about the percentages.


Err... They're all bloody elitist. There's no argument here about that. It would be stupid to think any of them weren't. Most are hypocrites too (and that includes both Clinton and Obama). However, that's not the point on this particular news point. The point here is how they've played the game and Obama failed on this one. It may not derail his campaign, but it has most certainly has harmed his reputation.

After all this, do I suddenly think Clinton is a down home girl and Obama is some prissy Harvard lawyer. Uh no. Of course not. However, some out there will be annoyed by Obama statements and think again about who to vote for.

And what I'm saying is that you're right, this is a game, but a retarded one that bright people such as all of us should avoid taking part in. This is not productive, and again for the record, this goes for no matter who the candidate is, and no matter what election we are talking about.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And what I'm saying is that you're right, this is a game, but a retarded one that bright people such as all of us should avoid taking part in. This is not productive, and again for the record, this goes for no matter who the candidate is, and no matter what election we are talking about.

You're always free to abstain from voting.

Or you could run for public office yourself.

P.S. I don't even live in the US. I'm looking at this as an outside observer. As an outside observer (of this admittedly strange process), I'm just telling you what I see. And what I see is a mild setback in Obama's image after those statements were made, and that perception does seem to be supported by the polls.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

You're always free to abstain from voting.

Or you could run for public office yourself.

P.S. I don't even live in the US. I'm looking at this as an outside observer. As an outside observer (of this admittedly retarded process), I'm just telling you what I see. Whether or not this is important in the greater scheme of things is beside the point, when the point of this thread is about Obama's and Hillary's (retarded) campaigns.

I'm a Canadian citizen living in America, and I'm just so utterly fed up with this sort of crap. There is simply far far too much at stake here for this process to turn into your typical celebrity gossip/Entertainment Tonight/supermarket checkout magazine sort of affair. I'll leave this sort of deconstruction to the bottom feeders at CNN and Fox Noise and encourage people with enough intellect to seek discourse on issues of far greater importance.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you serious?? Really...

Fine, I'll humor you.

Many politicians have not delivered on their promises to create jobs or do x or y or z in a particular area of the country while campaigning, and simply made these sorts of promises to ensure votes.

With me? Agreed? Sensible?

So, when people see that politicians do not follow through on these sorts of promises, the next time around they feel bitter and cynical about the whole process and basically ignore economic promises in thinking that a similar outcome is inevitable regardless of who they vote for. So, in doing they turn to other issues they care deeply about such as gun issues, gays, abortion, issues involving their faith, etc.

What sorts of issues do people care about in general? War (if there is one going on)/foreign policy, the economy, and a random assortment of other issues such as the ones listed. This is true for any election, this is nothing new nor profound.

Hmmm... I'm not sure we differ greatly on what we're reading here. It's just that if you boil it down he's basically saying they're gun-loving jesus-freaks. Not particularly inaccurate, but less than complimentary, in tone or description.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm a Canadian citizen living in America, and I'm just so utterly fed up with this sort of crap. There is simply far far too much at stake here for this process to turn into your typical celebrity gossip/Entertainment Tonight/supermarket checkout magazine sort of affair. I'll leave this sort of deconstruction to the bottom feeders at CNN and Fox Noise and encourage people with enough intellect to seek discourse on issues of far greater importance.

Well, as a Canadian, I can assure you that if Stephane Dion called small-town Albertans a bunch of god-fearing gun-totin' rednecks there'd be a pretty significant media frenzy here too.

Mind you, Dion is so low in the polls anyway, it'd be hard for him to sink lower.

[besson3c]

Don't you guys feel like you're being played? Is it a bit much to refer to this as "bittergate"? Wasn't the Wright story supposed to be the story that resulted in people flocking to McCain or Clinton in droves? Wasn't the Michelle Obama story before that supposed to do the same? Maybe the lapelle pin story? Don't you guys feel sort of manipulated letting CNN and Fox dictate what sorts of things we ought to care about? Do you ever notice how airtime and attention between the candidates gets played like a seesaw between them when issues like this break?

It's no wonder this country is as fiercely partisan as it is given the kinds of idiotic political discourse that takes place. I feel like gouging my eyes out whenever I accidentally read a reader comment to the CNN Political Ticker thing.

I've found great solace in some of the blogs out there. They are admittedly biased and make no secret about it, they simply choose a side. However, at least the discussion and discourse is based moreso on stuff that actually matters. Isn't there something wrong when you have to turn away from the mass media and look to the blogs for substantive information?

Even if all you are interested in is the polls and the who is up/who is down aspect to this race, you can still get far more information at these blog sites. Does CNN cover the complexities of add-on delegates? On states that hold secondary caucuses? On why mathematically Hillary Clinton cannot recover in pledged delegates based on the system of proportional allocation and in various districts rounding off the delegate allocation to the nearest whole number? Of course not, you wouldn't want people to think that the Democratic primaries are over!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Hmmm... I'm not sure we differ greatly on what we're reading here. It's just that if you boil it down he's basically saying they're gun-loving jesus-freaks. Not particularly inaccurate, but less than complimentary, in tone or description.

Who is they? If he used different issues such as abortion or any of the other highly contentious issues of the day, would this no longer be a so-called gaffe? Even though the meaning to the point he was making was identical?

Pffttt, this is a non-issue.

[Big Mac]

Besson, you apparently don't even understand what's being argued. You can change the terms of an argument, and then you've got a different argument. That's neither here nor there.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who is they?

Rural folk, such as that make up small towns in PA and the Midwest.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Pffttt, this is a non-issue.

As far as substance is concerned, true. However if he said "Atheists cling to science, anti-traditionalism and internationalism as a way to explain their frustrations," I'd be a little irked.

He's a politician. You should pretend to respect all citizens and their views, even when we know this is not the case. Stupid, but true.

[besson3c]

Folks, the bottom line is that Obama has about an equal number of Superdelegates that Clinton has now when you include the add-ons, Pelosi Club Democrats, etc., and he is pretty far ahead in pledged delegates too. If you do the math, overall he is ahead by 6 percentage points. In virtually any election, a 6% point lead is enough to project a winner.

Still don't believe me? Sit down and do the math: even if Clinton were to win by more than 20 or even 30 points in each remaining contest, without Michigan and Florida (the former which Obama could very well win), she still comes up short.

It's over folks, and this silly little gaffe will be forgotten about like all the others in just a short matter of time.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's over folks, and this silly little gaffe will be forgotten about like all the others in just a short matter of time.

This will be run in campaign ads. I guarantee it.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Folks, the bottom line is that Obama has about an equal number of Superdelegates that Clinton has now when you include the add-ons, Pelosi Club Democrats, etc., and he is pretty far ahead in pledged delegates too. If you do the math, overall he is ahead by 6 percentage points. In virtually any election, a 6% point lead is enough to project a winner.

Still don't believe me? Sit down and do the math: even if Clinton were to win by more than 20 or even 30 points in each remaining contest, without Michigan and Florida (the former which Obama could very well win), she still comes up short.

It's over folks, and this silly little gaffe will be forgotten about like all the others in just a short matter of time.

Well, I think the interesting part was the hope by a few out there until last week that Obama actually had a chance of taking Pennsylvania too. That definitely ain't gonna happen now. If Obama had taken Pennsylvania, it probably would have been effectively game over for Clinton.

Well, it may effectively be game over for Clinton anyway already, but if she wins Pennsylvania you can be sure she'll continue to slug it out.

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

This will be run in campaign ads. I guarantee it.

Yeah maybe, depending on how well it can be translated to other states.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Rural folk, such as that make up small towns in PA and the Midwest.

As far as substance is concerned, true. However if he said "Atheists cling to science, anti-traditionalism and internationalism as a way to explain their frustrations," I'd be a little irked.

He's a politician. You should pretend to respect all citizens and their views, even when we know this is not the case. Stupid, but true.

People in PA cling to guns and Jesus moreso than they do in the deep south?

There is little here to be irked about. If you want to be irked, you should be irked about something far more important such as how a candidate voted or represented an issue you care deeply about, or about whether your candidate betrayed your trust on something that actually matters (getting a blowjob not qualifying).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

This will be run in campaign ads. I guarantee it.

It doesn't matter, it won't undo votes that have taken place, and it definitely isn't big enough to cause superdelegates to flock to either candidate in droves (and Clinton would need a a very significant percentage of superdelegate support to catch up - over 63%, I believe)...

[Big Mac]

Just be prepared for your party to lose BIG in November, Besson.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

People in PA cling to guns and Jesus moreso than they do in the deep south?

Nope. But as a swing state, you probably want to be a little more careful about insulting it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, I think the interesting part was the hope by a few out there until last week that Obama actually had a chance of taking Pennsylvania too. That definitely ain't gonna happen now. If Obama had taken Pennsylvania, it probably would have been effectively game over for Clinton.

Moving to within striking distance in this particular state is actually a victory for Obama, whether people realize it yet or not...