How Voters Think

[Joemailman]

Obama is not a Muslim. He has belonged to the same Christian church for years. There is more talk of the religious leanings of Republicans because some Republicans bring it up more. Huckabee talks about his religious faith a lot, and therefore the media covers it. I don't hear anybody talking about McCain's religious faith much.

[LL2]

Obama is a Christian? That's news to me. What church did he go to?

[MJZiggy]

Trinity United Church of Christ, somewhere in the Chicago area.

[LL2]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asphttps://<br /> <br /> Yes, your ri...rinity church.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I dislike Obama's race-based church. I find it deeply offensive.

Ya, I know there is the Greek Orthodox Church, and a Chinese Christian Church, but they don't close their doors to people of other ethnicities.

[Joemailman]

I don't find it offensive, but I don't think it's a good idea. Hard to spread the gospel if you cut yourself off from most of society. http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

[Harlan Huckleby]

How would a candidate from a segregated, whites-only church fair? It's hypocritical to say that a blacks-only church is cool.

edit: OK, it is a little bit different. And I do admire Obama for staying true to this community when it would be politically advantageous to bail.

Alright, this is gonna hurt you much worse than its gonna hurt me, but I've been reading the leading black columnists on the Clinton-Obama spats, and boy are they mad as hell. I will put them here, in a fit of spam fury, and you can sensibly choose to ignore them if you wish. On third thought, I'll put them in another thread so they can be ignored en masse.

[Kiwon]

The MSM is racist, sexist, and bigoted against fat people. Here's proof from the South Carolina election coverage:

Heavy black & female turnouts

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/heavy-black-fem.html

Of course, they can't stop themselves from mentioning race and sex, but why do they have to refer to the size of a person's body? I thought America was more "evolved" than that.

[Joemailman]

Just saw a new poll on MSNBC.

Barak Obama is getting 10% support among white democrat voters in South Carolina.

That's 10 percent. Ten.

Well, he got 24% running against 2 white candidates. It would not appear that the Clinton campaign has succeeded in making him just the black candidate. It will be interesting to see if Obama gets a bump from this in the polls. Edwards actually beat Clinton among white voters, so the 3-way campaign continues. Is this the year a nomination finally goes to the convention?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Clinton is in some trouble. The problem is not her or Bubba's quarrels with Obama that the voters see directly. The damage is that the media is operating as a giant echo chamber that is painting a picture of the Clintons as dirty politicians. And the media largely ignores the spitfire from the Obama camp. Criticizing Obama has become off limits. Most journalists seem to like Obama. If you analyze the criticisms of the black columnists that I posted, the sins of the Clintons boil-down to rather generic campaign criticisms.

Obama got 25% of the white vote, but is this impressive when he got 56% of the total vote?

Edwards: His campaign now operates with a dubious agenda. Taking a paltry 18% in this, his strongest state, means his race for the Presidency is dead, if it wasn't already expired. What is the purpose for him to continue? Why so he might collect enough delegates to put him in a position to barter for power at the convention. He might be in position to influence whether Clinton or Obama get the nomination. In return for his support, he can extract a plum position in the new administration.

Edward's campaign is no longer honorable. A person may give him a vote for honorable reasons - as a statement of support for Edward's positions - but Edwards is then going to leverage that vote for his own purposes. Why would ANYBODY empower Edwards to choose between Clinton and Obama on their behalf? Maybe EDwards will choose the person that the Edwards supporter does not prefer.

[Joemailman]

I don't think it's likely Edwards can win, but I don't see a problem with him continuing the campaign. Only a very small percentage of the delegates need to win have been won. In 1992 Clinton didn't win until the 8th primary. If Edwards finishers 3rd in all the contests on Feb. 5,, then he may need to drop out. Right now though he trails Obama by 40 delegates. It would be unfair to the people who have supported his campaign for him to drop out this early as long as he has the money to continue.

[Harlan Huckleby]

OK, if you believe he has even a slendor chance of pulling-out the presidency, then sure, campaign on.

I don't for a second believe that Edwards believes he has any prospects left, so I see it differently. He will continue the campaign because he can.

[RashanGary]

HH, what is the liberal core? What do they believe in? Why should we vote for any of them?

[hoosier]

Edwards: His campaign now operates with a dubious agenda. Taking a paltry 18% in this, his strongest state, means his race for the Presidency is dead, if it wasn't already expired. What is the purpose for him to continue? Why so he might collect enough delegates to put him in a position to barter for power at the convention. He might be in position to influence whether Clinton or Obama get the nomination. In return for his support, he can extract a plum position in the new administration.

Edward's campaign is no longer honorable.

Hopeless candidates have been playing the spoiler since electoral politics began. What makes Edwards so different from his umpteengazillion precedesors?

In Edwards's defense, there is another possible motive for staying in the race that you don't mention--above and beyond mere power brokering: by staying in the running he can in principle force the candidates who do have a serious chance to face issues they would prefer to avoid. A hopeless candidacy is sometimes the only hope for giving voice to problems that the status quo wants nothing to do with.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hopeless candidates have been playing the spoiler since electoral politics began. What makes Edwards so different from his umpteengazillion precedesors?

I never admire any spoiler. Edwards is a little worse than most because not only is he fuzzying-up the will of the people on the central decision of the campaign (Clinton vrs Obama), he is seeking to later leverage his thin slice of the pie to play the system.

And it's not being done honestly. He is pretending that he still trying to win the Presidency, and some supporters believe him. Even an observor as keen as Postal Joe just argued that Edwards has a slight chance to win because few delegates have been allocated at this point. Well, on closer inspection this is nonsense: to actually win the presidency, Edwards would have to win first place in several February 5 primaries. Edwards doesn't have a realistic shot to win a single state. South Carolina was his strongest state and he was creamed.

In Edwards's defense, there is another possible motive for staying in the race that you don't mention--above and beyond mere power brokering: by staying in the running he can in principle force the candidates who do have a serious chance to face issues they would prefer to avoid.

Name a single issue where Edwards has a position substantially different from Obama or Clinton. There are none.