Comments for Poll: Pastor Controversy Hasn't Hurt Obama »
Posted By Aidenag 1 year, 8 months ago in NewsThe racially charged debate over Barack Obama's relationship with his longtime pastor hasn't much changed his close contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
Read Full Story at online.wsj.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 308 of 309 Comments
-
-
-
Neutral
bobo-in-texas1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Other polls tell a different story.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/03/27/...
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It happens to be true. Scott Rasmussen is "...an independent leaning Republican public opinion pollster, is the founder and CEO of Rasmussen Reports. He also co-founded the sports network ESPN, and is currently president of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association." He's also a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian. He's famed for using techniques in polling to find just what he is looking for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Rasmussen
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So does this:
http://dev.artvoice.com/blogs/2008/03/27/revere...
Turns out while Obama has been distancing himself from Reverend Wright, McCain has been pursuing Reverend Hagee, a right-wing nutter and pulpit hate-monger.
This on top of McCain`s 2000 philandering with the lobbyist story that won`t go away, doesn`t look good for McCain.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let's see in the last week we've had Hillary telling us about her World Experience both Real and Imaginary.
Obama making it absolutely clear that never heard, did hear, never heard, did hear his pastor's racist sermons.
And McCain's trip to Europe and the Middle East meeting with World leaders.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
injest wrote: "Obama making it absolutely clear that never heard, did hear, never heard, did hear his pastor's racist sermons."
Gotta give you a neg. on that because that's not what he said. He said he had heard Wright say controversial things, but had never heard anything the like of those 30 second sound bytes.
Unless someone shows that's not true, I'm willing to take him at his word.
Reply -
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama making it absolutely clear that never heard, did hear, never heard, did hear his pastor's racist sermons.
Imagine this is a guy who is running for president.
If he said he didn't know about the basic themes of Wrights sermons he's a liar but what is much worse being around someone for 20 years and not getting a feel for whats going on
kinda proves he can be fooled easily. I wouldn't want a president who gets fooled by the Muslim fanatics or worse Russia or China.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Aidenag1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly, it really didnt do much damage. the only people making a big deal out of it are people who would never vote for him in the first place. We all know the types, they are the ones getting a kick out of calling him a racist, anti-american, muslim plant who will sell america to osama. And a good chunk of them are using these as excuses to hide their real agenda, which is hatred of him for the color of his, and his pastors skin.
And i know, ill get yelled at for saying that, but look at those people making these attacks. They sure don't have a problem with the racist, anti american pastors that Reagan,Bush Sr.,Bush Jr., and now McCain follow. Pastors who go and create colleges that the GOP hire from almost exclusivly now. pastors who have 1000 times the reach Wright does with their tv networks, and radio shows.. In fact they defend them daily as 'good wholesome christians' for spouting out many of the same things rev wright is being attacked over.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps Reverend Hagee then?
My Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee beat your Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright.
In case you did not understand the message...
This is just more game-playing by the wingnuts and the right-wing media to divert attention from the real issues. the 4,000th GI was killed in Iraq and McCain calls for a stay-the-course strategy of perpetuation war against human nature. (people tend to fight invaders who kill, rape, and torture their people for the invaders` profit)
How about that McCain not knowing the diff between Shiite and Sunnis after five years and saying its ok with him if our GIs keep dying there in Iraq for 100 years.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The PDF of the poll that is highlighted in this story is very revealing. It shows that only 4% of the respondents think favorably of Reverend Wright. Bush scored 33% for that question. Hillary scored 37%. Also, the really telling facts that should be considered: 1) 63% of repondents are closely (either very or somewhat) following the Wright story. 2) 55% of the respondents who saw Obama's speech think that Obama has more explaining to do. Yet they say the controversy hasn't hurt him. Very curious.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Aidenag:
"We all know the types, they are the ones getting a kick out of calling him a racist, anti-american, muslim plant who will sell america to osama. And a good chunk of them are using these as excuses to hide their real agenda, which is hatred of him for the color of his, and his pastors skin."
Do you think that the 55% of people cited in this poll who say that Obama has more explaining to do are all hiding their agenda? I think your agenda was to paint with too broad a brush on this point. Since you are a scout, you should be more careful as to how many people you call racist. I am not a racist. Please don't generalize your racist remarks my way just because I am showing a different point of view on this thread.
Reply-
Neutral
Aidenag1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you misread my comment joeeddie...
I said "A good chunk of" people who are going on these obama is an anti-american, racist muslim rants are racists using it as an excuse...... Never did i say that every single one of them is.. And i never singled ANYONE out, unlike you just did by calling me one....
No hard feelings though, im getting used to it from the conservative crowd, from cherev calling me a nazi, to now you and bobo calling me a racist.. Im starting to take it as a badge of honor..
Reply-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think you understood my comment, Aidenag. You wrote that a "good chunk" of people who are highlighting this issue are racists using it as an excuse. A "good chunk" is nebulous, I agree, but it tends to denote a majority. I said that I thought that was a very large brush you were painting with. Especially when it comes to calling a group of people racists. That's a charge not to be levied lightly. Looking at the comment posts on this thread, I find it hard to connect a "good chunk" of people to the hate of racism.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
oldgringo1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Aidenag...This is a race for the POTUS. Reverend Wright was a member of Obama's Campaign staff. Remember, "Obama's campaign announced that the minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., had left its spiritual advisory committee". You may excuse this type of inflammatory racist rhetoric...that is your right. But to insinuate that those who question Obama's judgement and motives are themselves racists is absolutely asinine.
Reply -
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a Rasmussen poll that says differently:
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/03/27/p...
The key statistic is that from March 13th to March 24th Obama's favorable rating went down and his unfavorable rating went up. The same thing happened to Clinton's numbers. McCain, on the other hand, had his favorable rating go up and his unfavorable rating rating go up.
This controversy has not only hurt Obama, it has hurt the Democratic ratings as a whole.
Reply-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
okay...
on march 13 Obama had a 52% approval rating.
on March 24 Obama had a 46% approval rating.
the margin of error for the samplings is plus or minus 4%.
which means Obama's apprval rating went down 2 pts AT MOST due to the whole Rev. Wright thing.
sorry, but thats nothin. specially since his approval rating has fluxed more than 2 pts across greater periods of time before.
then add to it the fact that you took the highest and lowest numbers you could find as your poles, and your theory falls apart even further.
on march 12, for instance, his approval rating was 51%. which means his approval rating went up between march 12 and march 13 (the day you designated).
does that mean the Wright thing helped him initially? (for the record, I don't think it does mean that, but you're the one who chose that date to start with).
AND...Hill's numbers also dipped slightly during the time frame you gave. which all points to dem in-fighting as the overall problem. NOT the Rev. Wright thing.
Reply-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually the 2 points would be the least, not the most (although the 2 would be a negative 2). The MOST, using your 4% margin of error, would be a 14% difference. You can't skew the margin of error in different ways and call it the most. It is statistically incongruent. I didn't pick the March 13th date, it was done by the polling company. The Wright story came out on March 13th. The polls from the 13th were pre-Wright, most probably, since the news was just hitting the airwaves which counters the argument that Wright initially helped Obama. Hillary's numbers dipped, IMO, because people thought she was involved in the expose'. The in-fighting was over Wright so there you have it again.
Reply-
-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Either way the numbers have moved which is in direct opposition to the claims of this story. Hillary's drop in approval is proof that Wright didn't hurt Obama? You'll have to explain that one in detail to help me understand that statement. You aren't thinking this is a zero sum game, are you?
Reply-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what aren't you getting here?
the numbers haven't moved at all, and that's the point. the claim that you and the obama haters on these boards are trying to make is that the rev. wright thing has hurt obama.
and that's simply not true. if it was true, the numbers would have moved. but they haven't. (sorry, but a 6 point difference between obama and hillary is NOT a significant change if you go back and look at their match-up history)
if the margin of error worked completely in your favor, then maybe the numbers would look worse for Obama. if they worked the other way, then you'd be totally wrong.
But since neither of those assumptions can be made, well then, you're up the creek without a paddle. because that also means that your conclusion (that the rev. wright thing hurt Obama) makes no sense.
AND...
the new Pew Poll just came out today. and guess what? it says the rev. wright thing has had no effect on obama.
Reply -
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
also, you wrote: Hillary's drop in approval is proof that Wright didn't hurt Obama? You'll have to explain that one in detail to help me understand that statement.
hillary's numbers have dropped slightly, just like Obama's. so, why did both of their numbers take a slight dip and not just obama's?
the answer points more to in-fighting between the dems rather than anything that has to do with rev. wright. otherwise their slight dips wouldn't look so identical.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a Gallup poll that shows differently:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23725259/
I've covered Rasmussen & Gallup. Are there any other polling companies that "say the same thing", NoWayMan?
Reply-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
go to pollingreport.com
click on the Obama button.
scroll down to the Gallup poll and you'll clearly see that Obama's approval rating for March 14-16 (which is after the Rev. Wright thing broke according to you) is 62%.
which is UP from the February poll.
the NBC poll on the same page has a similar result. Obama's March 24-25 approval rating is unchanged from the feb numbers.
same with the CBS poll (same page).
also, the poll in your article has Hillary up 49-42. problem for you is, that's the exact same score that was found way back on feb 7. (49-42 in hill's favor)
so it looks like your theory has some huge problems.
Reply-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why try to complicate things, NoWayMan? Why leave out the statistical data from between Feb 7th to March 13th? That's the meat of the data.
Go to my link.
Read this paragraph (talking about Clinton's lead over Obama):
"First significant lead in a month
Gallup said the poll lead was the first statistically significant one for Clinton since a tracking poll conducted Feb. 7-9, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. The two candidates had largely been locked in a statistical tie since then, with Obama last holding a lead over Clinton in a March 11-13 poll."
FIRST SIGNIFICANT LEAD in over a month!!!!
That kind of supports my theory, don't you think?
Reply-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I read your link and it doesn't prove out what you're saying.
FIRST SIGNIFICANT LEAD in over a month!!!!
which means she had a significant lead over a month ago (she did, as I posted above). duh.
and that lead didn't have anything to do with rev. wright. which disproves your theory as to why she has a lead now. becasue, as the numbers from a month ago prove, it could be for any number of reasons. so to try and conclude that's its because of rev. wright is just ridiculous.
do you simply not get that?
and I notced how you're trying to ignore all the other proof I threw at you by claiming I'm complicating things.
what complete rubbish.
because the reality is, you can't explain how Obama's approval rating is higher now than in feb. can you?
and AGAIN, the new Pew Poll just came out today, and it says exactly what I'm saying: rev. wright has had no negative effect on Obama's campaign for president.
deal with it.
Reply -
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
go to the pew site: http://people-press.org/
under "featured survey" the headlines read:
Obama Weathers the Wright Storm,
Clinton Faces Credibility Problem,
National Discontent Approaches 20-Year High,
Bush Approval at 28%
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
None of it is good for the Democratic party though. I mean so many are saying they will vote for MCain if either Hillary or Obama is the candidate. The Republicans must be laughing their as*es off over the stupidity of the two campaign managers.
Instead of building each other up and saying either way America wins with one of us. They tear each other down and say negative things that will be used against them by the Republicans.
McCain doesn't have to campaign against them they are doing it for him.
Stupid is what it is. No wonder we can't get a president in the Whitehouse of a Democratic persuasion for very long. The Republicans just sit back and wait for their Democratic rivals to start tearing each other down.
Reply-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nailed it in one, CBGP. I agree with Bill, as usual--I am thrilled to have a choice between a black (sorta) man and a woman that I actually can vote for for President. I have said for a few months now to my friends that a lot can happen between now and November, and it is unwise to act like we have the Republicans beat. They are both acting like they are just running against eachother.
Reply-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right now, they sort of are! However, I do believe Hillary and company opened that can of worms, and then, in order to keep people from questioning his ability to fight back, Obama and his folks felt obliged to follow suit. But clearly, Obama tries to get back to the issues and take the high road, but, invariably, desparate Hillary or the repulsive repugs will start a new smear campaign that he eventually has to address. Such a shame!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, since whites RULED WITH DEATH AND FEAR DURING SLAVERY, AND AFTER, IN ALL THE SUNDOWN TOWNS. Your relatives ever hung for staying in town after sunset? We all seriously doubt it. MANY BLACK FAMILIES HAVE HAD TO WATCH THEIR OWN MURDERED BY WHITES for the last 225 YEARS. Thousands and thousands.
Hundreds of thousands if you count all the "sheriffs" who never reported the lynchings THEY WERE A PART OF.
So, yes, siding WITH THE OPPRESSORS of 225 years WOULD make you a racist.
Reply-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
However, Crespi, I did not do that. Nor did any of my ancestors. Are you invoking the concept of "original sin" for which I, and all American persons of pallor, must pay penance for some unspecified time into the future?
BTW, I am not "siding with" anyone. How very tendentious of you to suggest that I am. You, and yours, clearly are "siding with" someone. I would posit that your clear double standard only serves to perpetuate racism.
Reply-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Crespi and Jimdoze,
I do not want this post to evolve into an argument on racism. Can we please NOT do this? Let's leave the race baiting and squabbling to the opposition, shall we?
I am hoping that Obama will have a fireside chat or roundtable discussion on the issue of race when he becomes our next president. It is a dilemna in dire need of resolving for all our sakes! It is as dangerous and deletorious to our society than any form of terrorist activity, and it's already on our doorsteps!
Reply-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I take very strong exception to the notion that highlighting a double standard is race baiting. I fully agree that racism is deleterious to the body politic. Given Barack Obama's long association with Reverend Wright, he has lost any gravitas he might have previously been able to bring to bear on the issue.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"we put Japanese behind barbed wire. They have moved on."
what weird fantasy world do you live in? The prisoners who were held at Tule Lake still make a yearly pilgrimage back to the prison to this day in an attempt to exorcise the demons.
we cleansed our guilt by paying them reparations. but they haven't moved on you idiot. pick up a book once in a while.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 8 months ago
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know Obama never said that, so why make a big issue about it if someone else said it?
Oh, you didn't mean the Obama/Wright thing?
you and Wolfie were talking about somebody else that said something and isn't running for president?
oops, my bad
Reply-
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, yeah he did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onHkywYc_1M
Reply-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oooh, tough break Scott. Better luck next time.
Huckabee said the we should ***AMEND*** the Constitution. And if you actually look at the whole speech you would see that he was talking about *2* things. Abortion, and same sex marriage. Not the entire thing.
Futhermore, what tkyrchncs said was "except I could never vote for a candidate who would actually say that the Constitution needs to be rewritten to reflect his faith."
Which is not what Huckabee said. He said we should ***AMEND*** it, not rewrite it. Big difference there.
Reply-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well the ONLY "re-writing" of the U.S. Constitution has been through amendments. Speaking of which, let's go to the core of this, the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
Pretty straightforward. What part of separation of church and State do you NOT understand?
"...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
IF ONLY most of you guys on the right would respect the rest the U.S. Constitution with the same fervor than you hold up the 2nd Amendment...
And, for me, this is NOT about ideology Tang. I may be a liberal and you may be a conservative, but we SHOULD be able to both live in this country and breath the same air and treat each other with more than a modicum of respect. This is America and we have a right to agree to disagree.
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scott, even you should be able to see the difference between saying the Constitution needs to be amended and saying it needs to be re written. Even if the reason for Huckabee wanting to ban same sex marriage and abortion was because it goes against his religious beliefs that does not mean he is violating the 1st amendment. To add to the discussion, he said in that speech that we should Amend the Constitution to give the states the power to decide on legalizing or banning these two issues. Which makes tk's post even more inaccurate. For that matter, who does not want these issues to be left up to the people to decide on? Why should nine people on a bench get to legislate these matters for us?
Scott, I do respect you, and I do think that you have a right to say whatever you want. However, in a nation of rights, your rights end where my rights begin. And vice versa.
Reply-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If I were married to another man, what difference would it make in your life? And you still have the right to worship God as teach your children as you see fit...nothing's changed there. And SO WHAT if I'm with another man? What difference should it make to you?
I will say this... in my experience, those who are secure in their sexuality have absolutely no problem with gay people. Heck, most of my friends are liberal people who happen to be heterosexual! SO WHAT???
We are in a pluralistic society. A melting pot of cultures and ideas. That is what makes America ...America. I think that, in 2008, most thinking people understand that. And most people understand that freedom really isn't freedom when a far too deregulated economy is about to collapse and we are at endless war.
Those are the things my friends talk about when we hang out. Most people do not weed gay people out of their friendships. Many love and respect us. And it's called acting like an adult...
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Scott I see no problem in having civil unions. For both gay people and straight people. I think we should make that the norm. And only let Christians/Jews commit to Holy Matrimony. I'm cool with that.
For the record, I will be attending a homosexual civil union next fall.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
quiescence1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The republicans cannot win if they campaign on real issues, because a large majority of Americans believes that the republican party is on the wrong side of nearly every substantive issue on the table. Their only viable strategy is to use swift boat tactics to deflect attention away from their utter and nearly complete failure as a party to have done anything that serves the interests of the nation.
Many of today's republicans would have a hard time getting elected as assistant dog catcher of the smallest town in America if they had to campaign on real issues.
Reply-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer17 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
kboy1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is part of the whole candidate. The same way you should look at voting records, past political alliances and overall social actions. If you blindly support someone because they are a good speaker and never look at the person, you are asking for trouble.
You should look at where the country will be in four years of the candidate's leadership. that where you want to be?
Remember Jimmy Carter!
Reply-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Remember Jimmy Carter
the Jimmy Carter who left a comprehensive plan to reduce and eliminated our dependence on foreign oil.. put solar panels on the White House.. put in tax credits as incentives for renewable energy....
only to have Reagan remove the panels and incentives within the first year in office..
that Jimmy Carter...
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jeeeesus H Chryst Will, next you'll be saying that all the hatefull propaganda directed a President Carter is because his plans would have stifled the multi-national oil companies and auto makers. How do you think they could reap record profits if we had effiecent cars and houses.
Until Bush I thought the saintly Raygun was the worst thing to ever happen to America. Boy was I wrong. GW makes Ronnie look like a saint.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That may be true in the national polls but it does seem to be making a difference in PA
Real Clear Politics:
"Just how bad is documented by some key findings from a series of recent polls. Almost none of the results bode well for Obama. Clinton is winning and winning big. She has decisively stopped Obama's earlier momentum in PA."
"Obama has actually slipped slightly with blacks and more substantially with young voters--2 demographics that are critical for him in the contest. He has lost support with other key constituencies - white males and evangelicals."
"Equally important in understanding Obama's problems is the week or so of rough patch he endured during the controversy over his pastor. That period probably produced a greater increase in his polling "negatives" than any other in the campaign. From just mid-February to mid-March, he sustained a 10 point decline in his favorable ratings according to the Franklin & Marshall College Poll."
Reply-
-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NOSTALGIA:
"That may be true in the national polls but it does seem to be making a difference in PA. Real Clear Politics."
Your OWN RealClearPolitics.com website has Obama AHEAD of McCain. Did you miss this detail?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/pr...
Obama: 45.1% McCain: 44.9%
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No but I thought we were discussing if Obama had been hurt by Wright. That is why I stated "That may be true in the national polls but it does seem to be making a difference in PA"
The race in PA is a primary between Clinton and Obama
However, the latest National polls show something different and are more like the PA polls:
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
March 27, 2008 from the Rasmussen site
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday continues to show a very close competition in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It's Clinton 46%, Obama 44%.
Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 51% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 51% to 41%
McCain is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 41%. Obama's reviews are 46% favorable and 52% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 44% favorable, 54% unfavorable
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NOSTALGIA:
"No but I thought we were discussing if Obama had been hurt by Wright. The race in PA is a primary between Clinton and Obama."
Then why mention McCain's name if you were limiting your response solely to the primary race in PA?
The fact is Obama has always trailed Hillary in PA. There has been little change in either direction.
NOSTALGIA:
"Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents."
RealClearPolitics.com calculates the average of 6 national head-to-head polls, including the Rasmussen poll you cited. The average of these polls has Obama ahead of McCain.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/pr...
Obama: 45.0% McCain: 44.3%
The apparent outlier within the 6 head-to-head polls is the same Rasmussen poll which you cite exclusively, while ignoring the results of the other head-to-head polls, which have Obama in the lead or have the race in a statistical tie.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
motivator9111 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
anyone who's inspiration on sunday comes from a spiritual advisor that spue's hate such as this so called man of god is not qualified to run as school board member of your local high school let alone leader of the greatest nation in the world .......you know the nation with the stars and stripes he desires to be commander and chief of yet has to be coached to even face our flag . remember we are as sucessfull as those we surround ourselves with, and although in his own way I guess you could say this so called reverend is succesfull, it is not the kind of success I want my commander and chief to adhere to.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
bek4231 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am a middle-aged white woman who fails to see what all the fuss is about. What exactly did the pastor say that isn't true? I love my country, but lots of things have been done by our political leaders and those with money and power that are pretty outrageous. Why is it such a big deal to say so?
And by the way, in my opinion there is NOTHING that any president can do which would be worse than getting the country involved in an unnecessary and unwarranted war. So I don't care if a farm animal runs on the democratic ticket in November, I will vote for it over any Republican right now.
Reply-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you think a 40 something year old black guy, without military service, without being the founder of some way successful business, who admitted to doing coke and smoking weed, with the middle name Hussein and a first name Obama and now his pastor is in the books as making some far out statements and less then 10 years experience in government...
is going to win the presidency I want some of what you got.
The attack machine hasn't even gotten going yet. This is wiffleball.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you think a 40 something year old black guy, without military service, without being the founder of some way successful business, who admitted to doing coke and smoking weed,
---
change black to white.. you got George W Bush...
and what's even sadder.. HE WAS RE-ELECTED...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you offer no proof that it isn't true.....
we have a history.. gave Indians smallpox infested blankets....
gave black men syphllis..
exposing people to nuclear detonations..
i could go on and on.. but I'm sure you get the point..
you cannot offer 100% proof that we did not create the AIDS virus.. and test it on Africans....
just point a finger and calling it lunacy.. THE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE MANY STRANGE THINGS..
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you're right, but by the same token the Rev Wright doesn't have any proof either, and therefore shouldn't have said the AIDS statement
now the rest of his recently oft-quoted statements? they have some meat backing them up, whether they suffer from poetic license or not
in the end it remains; you can't hold one man responsible for the words of another, and you can't call one man racist because of another's words
then there's the fact his mama is white-oops, I promised I wouldn't run thru all that stuff again
so stupid its funny
I personally think Obama is white and am worried about him being too hard on black people if elected...
Reply-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you're right, but by the same token the Rev Wright doesn't have any proof either, and therefore shouldn't have said the AIDS statement
---
we don't know he doesn't ... no one from the government has stepped forward with any denial..
believe me I would like to believe that to be a stretch.. but I DON'T TRUST GOVERNMENT IN THE LEAST..
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What the Rev said that can't quite be overlooked, diminished, or forgiven is "God Damn America." He said it, it's on tape. He didn't say "God damn those POLITICIANS who did this." or "God Damn those terrorist killers." - nope, he claimed we SHOULD be damning America. I can't find an argument against the idea that some of the people (Politicians) in Washington are culpable, and should perhaps be damned, but not America. The COUNTRY is still great, we just need better leaders to put us back on a proper path. Doesn't look like it's going to happen in 2008 unless McCain quits and Ron Paul somehow gets elected. And - no - this is NOT the sort of sentiment that I figure the LEADER of our country should be subscribing to.
Reply-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No - I don't think so. It's just some of what the U.S. DOES that ain't so hot. And - you might agree - a LOT of that damnable STUFF gets done contrary to what A) The Constitution allows and B) what the citizens want. It's certain of the politicians (well -- OK -- MOST of them) that should be damned. Not the entire country at large.
I -suppose- you could expand that notion to include EVERYONE as we all seem to PUT UP WITH IT, but really - as long as the elected leaders don't do anything impeachable (OK, let's rephrase - do something for which congress is WILLING to impeach) there isn't much we citizens CAN do except petition for redress. In other words, write letters, make phone calls, and meet with representatives to bend their ears. The only thing left after that is to take up arms and storm the capital. That would be bad. Or, wait for the next election and throw the bums out - probably in favor of NEW bums.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Things feel different to me. The country feels different. What the people will put up with is different. I'm not sure that we're that shining city on a hill any longer. We seem distracted by all of our personal electronics.
You seem like you've walked the dog a few times, doesn't it seem like it's different now? Maybe people facing Vietnam and WWI and WWII felt the same way.
Reply -
Neutral
cushi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is a cop out! We ARE America! Every single one of us... crooked politicians, warmongers, greedy corporate officers, bigots and bullies, liars, sociopaths, manipulators, hypocrites, criminals...American has a lot of good people BUT she also has a LOT of bad. You cannot embrace one and ignore the other! She deserves to be rewarded for the good she's done AND she deserves to be condemned for the bad. But only God has the authority to judge and decide whether to damn or show mercy to America, which is all of us!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not sure I follow you here... I have lately taken the position that it's time to GET OUT of Iraq. And I've taken the position that we seem to have been TRICKED into attacking Iraq. But, I've also taken the position that Saddam was a BAD guy and - in the long run - Iraq will probably be better off without him. I don't recall ever "damning" America or it's ordinary citizens. Have I?
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
call it poetic license
If I remember the Wright speech, he condemned the actions of the US government, and then as a speaking and rhetorical device he said 'God damn America'
In the context it makes sense and is hardly shocking [kind of expected actually]
by itself it's shocking-- understanding speeches and context, not as
as for you saying the exact words 'G D A', I'm quite sure you didn't, but you objected to US policies the same way Wright has
I won't defend other things Wright has said, but I'll defend that one because of the context and the rhetorical device of a play of antonyms 'bless' and 'damn'
I don't know if you or anyone here's ever attended one of those fundamentalist type sermons, but a lot of what is said is for effect
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My guess is Obama wasn't offended ever, and took such excesses with a grain of salt and saw them as not appalling because of the pulpit context.
What he did when this fuss started, was what he said he wasn't going to do, play traditional politics.
He shoulda just explained it like I did, instead of pretending to be offended and leaving the church and the subsequent speeches
in short, he and his political camp f***ed up
a general statement like 'God Damn America' is meaningless anyway, and should be especially meaningless to agnostics and atheists[I think you fall in one of those camps if I remember correctly]
Reply-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'd have to play back Rev. Wrongs speech again as I can't claim to have memorized it, but it think it was something close to "We shouldn't be saying God Bless America, we should be saying God Damn America." I don't think that has anything to do with political leaders or policies. I think it indicates a hatred of the country he lives in. A bit of artistic license, sure. But! I think he crossed over the line, the other lane, went into the ditch an ran up a tree. For normal, everyday purposes someone in the Rev. Wrights position can get away with a lot. You'll notice this didn't come up for YEARS - until Barry became a candidate for President. EVERYTHING is now subject to intense scrutiny. If Barry had ANY intention of an ongoing career in politics he really ought to have bailed out of that church a long time ago. If he had, this would never have been an issue. It's the failed strategy I'm noting, not the religious aspects.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why is it such a big deal to say so?"
I don't thinks it a big deal to people who can honestly look at the reality of what our interventions overseas have cost not only for the people in the countries we intervene in but also for our own people.
Now when you talk about the Republican neo-cons, well I think they are making a fuss because they want more than anything to run McCain against Hillary because they think McCain has a better chance against her that against Barak.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think Hillary or Obama have an ice cube's chance in the sun, hence McCain wins by default.
The upside is we already know all of Hillary's negatives. Think about what the "vast right wing conspiracy" hasn't even found out about Obama yet. I don't even want to get into it.
Then on the other side you have Saint McCain.
I can't believe that the Democrats are going to lose this election. It's like the perfect storm for the Dems to win back the presidency.
Reply-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What happens if there's a terrorist incident in the next six months. You think soccer moms, middle-America and white men are going to turn the reins over to Hillary or Obama? Grow up. I mean, hope is wonderful thing, but hope don't win elections.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A terrorist incident in the next six months would definitely change the priority people give to foreign policy. But it won't be quite the same as it was after 9/11. In general, Americans have learned to be slightly less reactionary--especially when it comes to shady characters operating in secrecy...and by that, I mean Bush, Cheney, and other PNAC types behind the scenes.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Remember how that stupid terror alert in 2004 went up and down like Monica Lewinsky and not a peep since that election. A couple of news stories, maybe an incident overseas, the alert level going up and down, the Media loves terrorism, and we got , "president elect McCain, please place your one hand on the bible and raise the other hand and repeat after me, I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Of course if Iraq goes to hell then the landscape shifts too.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Leading up to the election in 2004, Bush's approval rating was declining, and still at least 50% above what it is today.
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
There were more suckers around in those days who'd fall for that. And there'll always be die-hards who'd vote for any Republican. But the administration's prosecution of the "war on terror" has lost almost almost all credibility with the public, and any Republican (McCain) who wants to continue the current policies has little more than Bush and Cheney.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess that's one way to look at it when people don't shop at my store, they wouldn't have shopped here anyways. It has nothing to do with location, parking, pricing or product.
Come on man, every vote counts. It's a bigger deal then you think. How do you think "garlic breath" and "jewish bomb" and white supremacists running the country are going to go over in the general election?
How do you think Obama's going to be Swiftboated after labor Day?
Look what happened to John Kerry, a war hero, a prosecutor and someone that's dedicated his life to public service.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Reignman1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bottom line is this, the Democrats are in complete chaos!! Obama's " Racist" preacher has hurt him nationally, nice try at spinning but you liberal secular loons know the facts its already evident and trying to deny it just makes you even more ignorant then you already are.. You democrats should be ashamed and disgusted for how your party is acting.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rasmussen doesn't agree with the WSJ, check it out.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/03/27/...
Reply -
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ani:
Yes crime is terrible especially gang violence. The same thing is happening thru out the country. You can thank the stupidity of all politicians including your beloved party.
This should have been stopped long ago. Oh btw when the Italians or Irish do it is it OK? Or how about the Mexican Mafia? I'm just wondering if all that is Ok as long as it isn't African American On African American?
Here's a thought, lets just continue to push more people into poverty and see what happens next. Soon it won't be poor against poor for there will be nothing to gain from it.
That is why the GOP financial plan is a complete failure and pipe dream. They expect people to accept being treated like dumb cattle. Just continue along into the slaughter with no thought of fighting back.
What we are seeing is sadly just a warm up of what will happen if we continue on this path of foolishness.
Reply -
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe I'm too jaded by ridiculous American politics and equally ridiculous American elections, but all of these starry-eyed, hopelessly hopeful Obama supporters are in outer space.
Don't get me wrong Obama would probably make a fine president, definitely better then the pooh throwing chimp that's in office now.
Do you think if it came out that McCain's pastor said Jews controlled the banks or that black people are lazy, do you think it would affect McCain's chances?
Wake up!
Reply-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just an observation (not an attack) but you seem really disillusioned (to put it mildly) with the process. I've never seen you this negative before. I know during the hight of the Rev. Wright sermon debacle I was really depressed and was starting to get down right nasty in my responses, so I took a break.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Man, after the election of 2000 (Palm Beach and Bush v. Gore) and 2004 I watched the returns come in. I went to bed and Kerry had won. I wake up and the world is different.
Disillusioned? Yeah, that is mild.
Oh I can't stand the political system. Political parties are terrible. I don't like any of the candidates running. The country is on the downturn in many ways. Our civil liberties are under attack. Our family members our overseas. Americans are losing their houses, losing their jobs and losing their medical insurance. Parties serve the special interests. The media is absent. Obama offers hope, but I see him as unelectable. I am depressed. There is no way that the democrats should lose this election and I believe they are going to. I don't know if I've ever felt so disenfranchised politically.
I mean really this is the best we can do - Obama, Hillary and McCain.
Anyone that seeks power is undeserving of it.
We need a greater change then I see happening.
Reply-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hate to say it Walden, but if you are at a point that you can't even bring yourself to hope anymore, you might as well as pack it in! NOTHING can be accomplished once hope is lost! You keep dissing the people that dare to hope, when that is our only saving grace! A world without hope is hell on earth!
Why not take a chance on hope? At this point, what do you have to lose?
One of the most frustrating things about the human psyche is that it tends to be its own worst enemy! There are so many people with so much potential who never get a chance to demonstrate what they can do, because people are too skeptical and narrow minded to give them a chance!
Nothing beats a failure (which is what we currently have) but a try (which is what Barack Obama is willing and able to do!)
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm just done voting for Democrats. I still want to be active in politics and still vote in every election.
Are you happy the way the Democrats have handled the last three elections? The last eight years? The last year while they've controlled congress?
And you want to give them another bite at the apple?
Reply-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hear you. I was really depressed when Kerry had lost also. It took about a month for me to recover. I sat down and taught myself to play the redemption song by Bob Marley on the guitar and that seemed to help.
I'm giving the Democrats this chance, if they manage to blow it this time I think I'm with you. It'll be time for a new party.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pilosi don't impress me at all either. They are like a couple of wet blankets.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I thought you WERE a Bush supporter.
No president in HISTORY has spent as much as Dumby.
Course you must like him because he's asking your descendents to pay. Well, unless you consider the mass declaration of bankruptcy throughout the nation as a result of foreclosures and bank failures.
Not to mention the devaluation of the dollar as a result of stagflation.
Money (like freedom) aint free!
Heckuva job Dumby!!!!
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user15 Replies
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll try typing very slowly for you to follow. I am a conservative. Bush isn't. He's strong on defense but when it comes to taxes, illegal aliens and the like, we differ greatly.
As to the devaluation of the dollar, we're seeing a correction caused by many things. First, the US dollar is in about the same place as it was 100 years ago when compared to the British Pound. The good thing, we're seeing manufacturing return to the mid-west. Machine tool, heavy industries and the like can't hire people fast enough. Now these are not the over paid factory assembly line type jobs. These are the skilled jobs. Machinists, welders, tool & die, engineering and the like. You want to keep those jobs here, help with the over protection of the EPA.
Better yet, start drilling for oil and build new refineries. Convert coal to oil products. Keep the money you were spending on foreign oil here. Oh, and stop growing your fuel. It takes 5 gal of gasoline to make 1 gal of ethanol.
Reply-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know where you see manufacturing returning to the Midwest. More and more seem to be going to other countries like China. They used to covert coal to gas but I believe that it is much more costly than oil and can't be done cleanly, that is why it isn't done anymore. I agree about the ethanol. Unless a way is found to greatly increase the output it will never make a difference. You are also right about Bush, he is not a conservative.
Good ideas come from both sides of the isle. No one side has all the answers. That is why I like Obama, he is willing to listen to both sides of the argument. The other candidates in this race only care about what's good for their side.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, the firm I work with is a large multinational organization out of Switzerland. We're building 9 plants in China for converting coal to gasoline. It can and will be done for about $ 40-50/barrel. We offered this to the USA first but the lefties stopped it. As to clean air and water, we support that big time and can do it within reason. The big advantage with coal is that we're able to utilize almost 100% of the byproducts.
Skilled labor, folks like P&H Mining, Bucyrus International and Rockwell can't hire skilled workers fast enough. All are paying people to attended tech schools for machinists, tool&die, welders, industrial electricians and the like. Export trade is way up for them and us.
As to Obama, I've never found him to actually listen to what the other person says. His voting record when he doesn't vote present, is a rubber stamp for the DNC. There is no evidence of him ever crossing the isle. McCain, Liberman, all of the time. Obama, never.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sounds like you are another of those that just loves killing americans in the mideast for zionist crimes against humanity.
Why we should fear a McCain presidency
Financial Times, March 24, 2008
It may seem incredible to say this, given past experience, but a few years from now Europe and the world could be looking back at the Bush administration with nostalgia. This possibility will arise if the US elects Senator John McCain as president in November.
Over the years the US has inserted itself into potential flashpoints in different parts of the world. The GOP is now about to put forward a natural incendiary to deal with those flashpoints.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem that Mr McCain poses stems from his ideology, his policies and above all his personality. His ideology, like that of his chief advisers, is neo-conservative. In the past, Mr McCain was considered to be an old-style conservative realist. Today, the role of the realists on his team is merely decorative....
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1a47e1ac-f9b0-11dc-9b7c...
Why is it that you Likud types hate America so much?
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dude, put the pipe down. McCain isn't a conservative unless you're comparing him to Obama. 4 years ago, I was one of the GOP members suggesting we dump John because he'd make a better Democrat than a Republican. In his entire history, he's a very liberal Republican or a moderate Democrat. He's actually the best candidate the Dems have at this point.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64, do you want to know where the voting present thing came from? It was from Obama's time in the Illinois legislature, not his U.S. Senate service. The Right-to-Lifers were attacking democrats who voted pro-choice in some swing districts. So when a new anti-abortion initiative was introduced, democrats voted present if it wasn't going to pass anyway. It was a tactic, not evidence of lack of interest.
For the time he's been in the Senate, I think Obama has actually voted on a greater percentage of bills presented than McCain has. This will be the kind of thing coming out after the primary is decided. It's one of the reasons I'm less worried about the attacks that Hillary and the Republicans are making on Obama now.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BUSH is strong of DEFENSE???
Dont leak that to the families in the twin towers!
What has he done to defend this country?
Help to foster the growth of Al Qaeda as a result of bungled foreign policy and invading a soverign country and spending a trillion on a wasted effort?
Heckuva job Dumby!
Energy policy?
Pay attention BB....the rest of the world has all but abandoned R&D on fossil fuels.
Oil & new refineries....ha! The folks at Exxon didnt get rich by spending their resources on obsolete technology - yep fossil fuels. Go to their website...they're investing their time and money on ALTERNATIVE energy sources.
You're thinking like an extinct dinosaur....just like Dumby & Darth Cheney want. By all means, dig for more oil & keep them old tyme oil folks subsidized.
The world is moving ahead....why do you want the US to stagnate?
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush is strong on defense. You can't blame him alone for the mistakes of 9-11. The DoD, Congress and the CIA all are equally to blame.
On Iraq, even I can see what a democracy in Iraq is a good thing. Syria and Iran have been exporting terrorists across the world. Destabilize them and change can happen.
Fossil fuels? What's your solution? Wind? Solar? Geothermal? Magic? I work in the power industry designing and building plants. Conventional and nuclear. Wind is terribly expensive and solar isn't reliable. Coal is our largest potential source of power outside of nukes.
As to Exxon and the others pitching alternative, that's the politically correct ad today. That research is also heavily subsidized by you, the taxpayer. Ethanol is also another scam, you're paying for. That's why your fuel and food costs are now out of control.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''On Iraq, even I can see what a democracy in Iraq is a good thing. Syria and Iran have been exporting terrorists across the world. Destabilize them and change can happen.''
A democracy in Iraq would be a good thing, but if someone invaded and conquered Canada, someone the US had long harbored hostilities toward, and changed their style of government, how do you think we'd react to it? Hey that looks like a good idea, we want to try that too?
Did you know that Iran was one of the only if not the only muslim country to hold vigils in sympathy after 9/11?
So we invade their neighbor[who we supported in a war against them, supplying weapons to kill them with] and destabilize the region and periodically threaten them with a similar fate
Is this really an intelligent way to get the ME to embrace our way of life?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well BB, you don't sound like an american conservative.
March 24, 2008 Issue
The American Conservative
The Right Choice?
The conservative case for Barack Obama
... the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservativesâ;;especially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empireâ;;have prospered. But conservatism as such has not...
.. For conservatives to hope election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
... The essential point is this: conservatives intent on voting in November for a candidate who shares their views might as well plan on spending Election Day at home. The Republican Party of Bush, Cheney, and McCain no longer accommodates such a candidate...
... But this much we can say for certain: electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war. The nation's heedless march toward empire will continue. So, too, inevitably, will its embrace of Leviathan. Whether snoozing in front of their TVs or cheering on the troops, the American people will remain oblivious to the fate that awaits them.
For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one.
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article...
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well duh! You haven't been reading many of my comments over the last 6 months. I'm not a Bush or McCain fan. However, I won't be sitting home either. Clinton and Obama are terrible candidates. Both have been and continue playing games with this war in Iraq. We need to win this thing or we will have another Jimmy Carter presidency. Again, you might not be able to remember but Iran took our embassy and held it for about 400 days. during that time, Jimmy wouldn't or couldn't do much, rather a shining example of his whole leadership style. We pull out of Iraq before they can take care of themselves and we'll have a disaster as bad as Saigon.
Oh, God I just read your article. To quote another conservative and brother, over my dead body. Conservatives will not flock to the divisive anti-American socialist lefty. They might sit home, but they won't vote for him
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama has been hurt badly by his association with the so called reverend. If he were white and associated with David Duke it would be bad for the white guy too. Don't just judge him on that though. Don't forget how Obama voted against the law that protects infants from being killed after they are delivered if they have a birth defect. That means crippled kids, downs syndrome, ect. To be for abortion is bad enough but this is a baby out of the mother with a heartbeat that went full term. Opps... it's not perfect. Lets kill it.
How sick is that?
Reply -
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama also has a history of not even voting on a large number of occasions on issues in the Senate. Like he wasn't doing his job right in the Senate either. Geraldine Ferraro was right. The only reason he is there is because he is black.
I'll bet that you all would vote for Edie Amin if he was running instead.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user7 Replies
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Check it out for yourself. Obama's voting record is lousy. Check the second page where he didn't even vote on lots of issues.
He was a slacker then and he will be a lousy President too.
http://obama.senate.gov/votes/
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I never said liking or loving America was exclusively a Republican thing. There are Dems that certainly do. JFK comes to mind. Joe Lieberman certainly does too. As does Zell Miller.
Hillary and Barack strike me as people who don't. They're the wine and cheese crowd that sit around all day complaining how bad America is. I was there in Milwaukee when Michelle claimed this was the first time she was ever proud of being an American. Go figure. We're not supposed to judge someone by their skin color yet because Barack is half black, his wife is proud of America.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Joe Liebermann is one of the israel-first traitors to america that just loves killing americans in the mideast for zionist crimes against humanity. We should ban ALL dual citizen israel-firsters from our government.
Dual Citizenship -- Loyal to Whom?
Do No Evil â;; So, you might ask, are there any other dual Israel-American citizens who hold US government positions that could compromise American security? Yes....
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/03/05/...
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you're claiming Joe has dual citizenship? You're kidding right? Is your hatred of the Jews so strong it blinds you to our enemies? The only democracy in the entire middle east outside of Iraq is Israel. From the Med to India, the rest are dictatorships and corrupt monarchies.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Auto, well said. When he first showed up in Milwaukee for a rally, my fiancee and I attended. He said nothing about anything of substance. I tried learning about his voting record but found he voted present more often than anything else.
As to his church, I don't get why people aren't asking why he stayed for over 23 years in a racist congregation. If he isn't a racist, I'm confused why he stayed. If you choose to associate with racists, you're probably one of them.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I live in a country that permits you to say and do just about anything, when it comes to free speech and I'll defend anyones right to do that. Be it a skin head moron or a black antisemitic racist.
That being said, I've chosen a church that doesn't preach hate or racism, Barack did and does. My church preaches tolerance and peace, his is anything but. Even after evidence is presented that the sermons preached were racist, Barack chose to stay. Rather than selecting the correct path, he's chosen to stay in the racist church.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually I read the sermons and considered them more of a balanced report on reality in America than anything else.
Sounds like you don't know much about that reality. I assume that your "church" bitterly opposed the Bush war crimes in Iraq?
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have about a dozen of his sermons. None of them is fair nor balanced.
As to the war, our synod is very much against the War in Iraq but in the next breath wants us to invade Darfur. My congregation has a very high number serving. My home town of Ladysmith has lost 2. My fiancee lost her first husband about 4 years ago and is currently deployed to Qatar. So I guess you could say my congregation is just slightly supportive of our troops. As it should be.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
motivator9111 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BEK423...SAID... I am a middle-aged white woman who fails to see what all the fuss is about. What exactly did the pastor say that isn't true? I love my country, but lots of things have been done by our political leaders and those with money and power that are pretty outrageous. Why is it such a big deal to say so?
roflmao you are either a black racist trying to be white or a lost white woman trying not to be racist either way when this so called reverend claimed aids was invented by our government he did in fact mean white people if not who was he talking about colin powel, condelezza rice c'mon wake up it is ok to call a spade a spade and it is ok to call a racist a racist no pun intended.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Punctuation Pete says you need more than one comma in that last paragraph
but you can't go around playing semantics and what people meant
you have to deal with what was said, what's on the page
or you may start projecting thoughts into people's heads that aren't there
and start smacking people for looking cross-eyed at you and saying ambiguous things
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would like to think that this controversy hasn't hurt Obama, but I think that it has. I hope that it is something that he can overcome, his speech in Philadelphia was awesome in my opinion but many didn't hear the whole thing. And it's going to take more than a speech to overcome this. I'm sure we havn't heard the last of this.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let me get this straight. Obama attends a church for 23 years. Wright preaches hate, targeting whites. Blaming them for every problem the world faces. For good measure he attacked Israel and last week Italians are now on his hate list.
Barack claims he didn't hear this ever while in church, was he sleeping? Did he drink too much ice tea and hid in the rest room? For 23 years? I think if you spend that long in a church that preaches hate and division, you support that type of church. If he wasn't a bigoted racist, he wouldn't be in that church.
And he's the bringer of change? How? He's against 85% of the population that isn't black.
Reply-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really don't believe that the Rev. Wright stood up there for 23 years and preached hate every sunday. If he did that church wouldn't have grown from under 100 members to over 8000. I haven't had time to research the sermons yet, but I believe that something happened just before the sermons in question that set him off.
As far as Obama is concerned I have never heard of him uttering anything that reflects this type of hatred. The reason that I like him is that if anything he has the ability to look at the issue from both sides in stead of just one. His speech in Philadelphia showed that.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
cushi1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The fact that it is still being discussed here is proof of that! Some of his detractors have been salivating at the bit for a long time to find something, ANYTHING they could try to throw at him and get it to stick, and now they think they have. But the bottom line is, Obama is NOT responsible for his pastor's words. Those words can NOT be legitimately attributed to him. There is NO evidence WHATSOEVER in his actions, or words to affirm that he believes any of the things contained in those cherry picked clips. People who are capable of thinking beyond the superficial recognize the bogusness of the attempt to label Barack Obama a racist.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So we are now deciding elections based on what someones pastor says in a sermon? After all the religious BS we got from this Administration we let THAT affect how we vote and lookat a candidate? Obama has done a great job for Illinois and depsite the "racial" tone of his pastors sermons he hasn;t supported that in any of his legislation. We have a President and political party (Yep REPUBLICANS) who believe the bible takes precedent over the Constitution and we're rating a candidate becuase his preacher said things we didnt like? (Odd thos I havent heard the REPUBLICANS show how any of it was false tho) How about a party who wants to make that into a reality because its in the bible?
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why not it seems as relevant as who you'd rather have a beer with, Dean yelling at a campaign rally, Gary Hart getting a little monkey business or admitting that you lusted in your heart.
The whole country is bananas. Now I know why the founders were smart enough to make us a representative democracy and the later electoral college. We can't be trusted to make the right decision.
I can't remember the writer, but he's from the 30's, he wrote something like, 'americans will continue to elect presidents that reflect their makeup more and more until finally americans get their wish and elect a moron for president.'
We have the government we deserve.
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dunkirk, you didn't hear his sermons, they've taken their website down. The amount of hate and anti-American crap he spouted was shocking.
Rather than attacking the GOP, let me ask you a couple of questions. Why is it ok for Wright to attack whites but when that old guy, Imus insulted a few basket ball players you had near riots. Why is is when a candidate spoke at Bob Jones university, a "bible" college, it was terrible, yet Wright can advocate the elimination of Israel? If you took Wright's speech and reversed the white and black, you'd think it was written by David Duke, the KKK or a bunch of skin heads. That's why people are concerned with Obama's clear support of this racist.
You are judged by the company you keep. Hang out with drug dealers, you're probably a dealer or user. Hang out with hookers, well you get the idea. Obama was a follower of the racist Rev. Wright, by his staying 23 years, he's a racist.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well then you are a murdering war criminal that has abetted mass murder of millions around the world by americans over the past 40 years? After all chenye, wolfowitz and Rumsfeld started out by helping ki8ll over a million Indonesians already in the Ford administration.
As for Israel, you support the ethnic cleansing of over 7 million christians and moslems for a racist totalitarian sect from eastern europe?
You are judged by the company you keep.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where do you guys come up with this "information", Islamic TV? How did Ford, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest accomplish this?
7 million? Where? I've been to Israel and one funny thing your anti-Israel/anti-Bush forces seem to forget to mention are the Jews, Muslims and Christians all living is Israel as full citizens. Living together with the same rights. Free speech, religion, and the rest. Funny, that isn't the way it is in Syria or Jordan. That's not the way it is in the Jordanian occupied areas you call Palestine. BTW, there is no such thing as a Palastine or Palestinians. They're are through away Jordanians. The name Palestine came from a Roman governor and I call them through away because the Jordanian government doesn't want them back either.
I've been to many nations in the middle east. Where the Muslims are, it's dirty and brown. Where Israel is, regardless of religion, it's green and lush. All that oil money and they live like animals.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"but when that old guy, Imus insulted a few basket ball players you had near riots"
because REPUBLICANS saw an opportunity to discredit someone. or have you forgotten who was leading the "riots"?
"If you took Wright's speech and reversed the white and black, you'd think it was written by David Duke, the KKK or a bunch of skin heads"
No I would have thought it was a speech presented to die hard REPUBLICANS who usually are against anything helping anyone with less money then themselves.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Huh? Al Sharpton is a republican? Jessie "I really need to get a real job" Jackson is a republican? The left threw one of their own under the bus before they realized he was one of them. It was a typical liberal knee jerk reaction. Why do you think he's back on the air.
Your last sentence better describes the Dems in congress. You will find the GOP will more often than not listen to someone else's ideas. That rarely happens from the other side of the isle.
Reply-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Your last sentence better describes the Dems in congress. You will find the GOP will more often than not listen to someone else's ideas"
ROFLMAO, yeah thats why they have set a record for the most filibusters in history. Seems they may listen but compromise isnt one of their traits. They seem to do exactly as I said above, if it isnt helping the rich they wont do anything.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually one has to ask why our media construct such obvious drivel and propagandize us with it repeatedly. Here is an article you ought to read and think about.
Words in context
.... When news isn't new then this issue of timing means that newsmaking is taking place inside the newsroom. The media has become manufacturer. Might we be allowed to become privy to the process?
For instance, it's obvious why the ABC News editors would deem a line such as "America's chickens are coming home to roost" as newsworthy. But how did they decide that most of what came immediately after that line was irrelevant. Would most Americans not have responded in a different way if they had then heard Wright say:
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador [Edward Peck] said that y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On October 8, 2001, on CNN, Peck was asked: "Wouldn't this war against terrorism be a mistake if we stop at Osama bin Laden and don't take out Saddam Hussein as well?"
Peck said it would not be a mistake because, "when you take out Saddam Hussein, the key question you have to ask then is, what happens after that? And we don't have a clue. Nobody knows, but it's probably going to be bad. And a lot of people are going to be very upset about that, because that really is not written into our role in this world is to decide who rules Iraq."
Rev Wright suggested that "in the wake of the American tragedy" of 9/11, in a process of self-examination, it would really be in America's interests to listen to people such as Edward Peck. ABC News and much of the rest of the media would rather that we pay attention to a few ill-chosen phrases.
http://warincontext.org/2008/03/21/campaign-08-...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I work with a bunch of hard asses.
Monday thru Friday 6:00 till 4:30, 8 hours on Saturday, on an easy week.
Sometime more than 100 people on the floor.
Construction and the N-word is spoken like an adjective.
Two observations:
The man who seemed to use the word the most, took it upon himself to buy a big bottle of Goof-Off and clean the racist slang off the walls of the Porta-Potty's.
If you have never used a construction site outdoor toilet, then you have no idea what an endeavor it was.
He did not want Eddie to see the hate.
Eddie is a black drywall finisher, a minister, and a great guy, who happened to vote for George Bush twice.
Yesterday the man who keeps his hair cut in a perfect flat-top and a bumper sticker that say's "Redneck Proud", asked me who I would vote for.
I said Obama.
He said "Me too, since Huckabee is out".
We live in Pennsylvania.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So are you saying your minister friend is voting for Obama because he's a racist or because he's black. I ask because as a minister, Obama isn't really a friend to most of the main line Christians. He's Pro death, I mean pro choice. He's against parental notification. He doesn't support most crime bills or refused to vote on gang violence enhancement laws. When he has voted, he's a rubber stamp for the DNC. So I'd be surprised if a minister voted for him because of his lack supporting Christian ideas.
But that is your choice and I would always defend that right.
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps I was not clear:
The Minister friend who is black voted for Bush: Abortion and gay marriage where the things that he said guided his hand.
The Flat-top Redneck friend who lives in the country with his chickens, and speaks the word Ni$$er as if it means nothing: Just may vote for Obama.
I have not worked with Eddie recently, so I do not know who he would vote for now.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My bad. My day started at about 3:30 a.m. my time. The glories of management.
Obama supports gay marriage and abortion. As to living with chickens, I grew up on a farm in Northern Wisconsin. I can take a pass on the chickens. Didn't like chicken then, don't like it today.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmm, I'm still for Obama and everything, but I do wonder this... how skewed are these polls regarding the primaries? Sure, they may be good for determining the nation, but I'd like to see a poll that concentrates on the states that still haven't voted in the Democratic primaries. That will give a more accurate portrayal of what it did or didn't do. A 2% loss can equate to a 15% loss in all the remaining states, if all that 2% is concentrated there. Of course that's very doubtful, just playing Devil's Advocate I suppose ;)
Reply -
-
Neutral
RNR521 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It certainly has changed my view of Obama, but wait I'm an Italian looking down on others through my "garlic nose" or so Rev. Wright says. Oh, and I have been mistaken for Jewish and he has said hateful things about Jews along with his buddy Farrakhan. Oh, and I'm gay and Rev. White has said hateful things about gays too. But maybe I haven't been oppressed enough and the Holocaust really is a myth. Ya think!! He sure is my fantasy of a spiritual advisor for over 20 years.
Reply -
HanymanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
ningyo1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
we dont have to get this from rush or fox--this racist marxist diatribe is all paid homage to in hussein's book--and the late news tonight is this church has bought the rev wrong a 10,000 sq ft gated mansion in chicago along with a 10 million dollar line of credit--i guess race hustling hateful black congregations pays pretty well--and this IS obama's guy--and it will put mccain and a bunch of good GOP candidates in office-- the show with hillary is just starting--what fun
Reply -
Neutral
jmoplease1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I did plan on voting for Obama but after pastor speechs have changed mind and after he said I wasnt there that day I think was BS you dont go to a church for 20 years and not feel the same way the church does. Hate Hate Hate!!! I dont want a racist as the head of this country!! If Clinton does not get nomination I WILL vote republican anyone would be better then a RACIST !!!
Reply -
-
Neutral
mythhycca11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We should be pointing fingers at who picked these clowns as presidential material? They are all making America look like crap and it's probably not by accident! What is this the year we bring down the American Pride to zero along with the worth of our dollar? Who's behind the scenes pulling the strings? Hey at least Ron Paul's still running and he hasn't done anything idiotic. Maybe people ought to start looking at the candidates that aren't in the moronic spotlight!
Reply -
anioklyComment removed: Spammer
-
HanymanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
mythhycca11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I never liked Obama from the beginning. It had nothing to do with color or anything like that. He reminded me of a shyster when I heard him speak it sounded like he was trying to sell snake oil telling you everything he wants to do without revealing the ingredients. So I went and I read about all the candidates and I read where Obama said women would not be allowed to have rank if they were drafted and that sounded sexist to me. I could never understand why so many people voted for him in the first place, except that they hated Hillary that much. I never understood why the democratic ticket supported these two to run and was really confused about the race/sex thing. I don't care if our President is black, white, hispanic, male or female as long as they are a good president. What on Earth makes any of these candidates worth voting for? Their sex? Their color?
Or should we be voting on integrity, values, objectives and in strengthening America?
Reply -
Neutral
mythhycca11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I keep reading all the posts defending these candidates actions, which are deplorable! Submitting my children to sermons by a fool, oh wait his wife hates America as well, but these aren't his views? Yeah right. And where's the snipers Hillary? Did a bullet wing you and make you forget? And John are the sunni's and Shi'ites all the same to you or are they Russians? Let's find new candidates for president people! How embarrassing for us American's!!!!
Reply -
Neutral
mythhycca11 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So sad. Voting my comments as negative because they are the truth is even sadder. I guess we are supposed to hand America over to liars and cheaters and America haters. Why don't we ask for people to run for office that our children might look up to? Why don't we aim to improve our presidential gene pool? Let's elect someone who's worthy of the title President!
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.