Barack Obama Elected President!

[George008]

I figured you would read my reply, because I saw your comment as a way to goad me back into this personal argument. I provided the page numbers for anyone that wants to read the entirety of the conversation for themselves...I copied the posts that related directly to the "moderator" comment that you referenced as your reason for not reading my posts..If you want to have opinions on people's posts instead of the points brought up in their posts, then fine, but I think you are missing the purpose of a meaningful debate..

I put it up exactly as it happened. So you think I was the victim? Thanks I guess..

You have been calling me out by name..several times...lately...proudly displaying the fact that you no longer post replies to me...Who cares? I feel everyone should stick to the issues..But if you want to continue to talk about me...or how you no longer reply to my posts..fine..you do that..

Is that the reason? I lost count...

I was merely trying to make everyone aware of the context of my "moderator" comment. I am tired of going back and forth with you. I have no personal feelings about you either..I was trying to put an end to all of the personal back and forths...

[Roman]

And now, back to the issues:

September 19, 2008

Story of the Day:

A Closer Look at the NY Times/CBS News Poll

Considering many of the staggering results of Thursday's New York Times/CBS News poll, overall media coverage and examination of the findings have been less than thorough. With the seeming sea change that has occurred, when comparing public opinion before both conventions to public opinion now (the period measured in the poll), you might think it would garner at least as much attention as, say, lipstick-on-a-pig palooza.

Taken as a whole, findings of this poll -- some noted in Thursday's national media discourse, some not -- paint the bleakest picture yet for the McCain/Palin ticket. The following compares opinions before the convention to current opinions:

* Independents: 43%-42% for McCain; 48%-41% for Obama. While the Independent vote is constantly touted as the determining factor in this election, this specific figure was one of the least discussed in the media, including The New York Times article that broke down its very own jointly published poll. The closest Times reporters Robin Toner and Adam Nagourney get to noting this switch? "And the New York Times/CBS News poll found no evidence, at least to date, that Ms. Palin has allowed Mr. McCain to expand his appeal to women voters or independent voters." While this figure is in an online graphic snapshot of some of the poll's findings, it's perplexing how Toner and Nagourney managed to omit the fact that Obama is now up by 7 points among Independents.

* Moderates: 48%-36% for Obama; 56%-33% for Obama. Though it's not completely clear what separates a "moderate" from an "Independent," aside an Independent having a specific registered political affiliation, I didn't see this result discussed anywhere yesterday, including in the Toner and Nagourney article; in fact, the category isn't cited once (save in that side graphic). Imagine that: a 23% spread among so-called Moderates isn't worthy of mention. Incidentally, a later question in the poll asks respondents whether they consider themselves liberals, moderates or conservatives. 39% of Americans, the majority, consider themselves moderates; 24% liberal and 33% conservative.

* White women: 44%-37% for McCain; 47%-45% for Obama. This figure was more broadly discussed but -- with rare exception, such as on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show -- not with anywhere near the attention or specificity it deserved. A Lexis/Nexis search came up empty for any mainstream news headlines (as opposed to op-eds) noting Obama's 10-point overall gain among white women. MSNBC's Chris Matthews typified the handling of this rather dramatic shift:

CLARENCE PAGE: What these polls have shown is that Palin helped immensely with Republicans, especially Republican women. Not so much with non-Republicans.

MATTHEWS: Not Hillary people?

PAGE: Definitely not Hillary people.

MATTHEWS: There is a still a problem he faces, Barack, despite these good numbers for him, older white women have a problem. I have to think some of it might be age and ethnicity, put it together nicely. But some people aren't used to this new situation of a candidate like Barack. I'm trying to say it as nice as I can.

It's true: Obama's numbers are lower among white women age 45 or older. Yet even in that category, he jumped six points, from 36%-42%, now trailing McCain 42%-49%. Moreover, among white women under age 45, Obama gained 15 points, going from 39%-54%. Matthews mentions this great disparity between under or over age 45 voters, but fails to note this specific number about white women under age 45 or Obama's overall 10-point bump with white women. Instead, he focuses on Obama's difficulty winning over old white racist women who are still afraid of voting for a black man. He should point that out, but omitting the other two figures heavily skews the reality of this poll's results and further entrenches the media myth that only a small number of white people support Obama.

* 78% of Americans rate the economy "fairly bad" or "very bad" (it's an even split: 39% fairly bad; 39% very bad. 61% think the economy is "getting worse"; 32% think it's "staying the same; a whopping 6% think it's "getting better."

* 53% think the war in Iraq is "not part" of the war on terrorism.

* Sarah Palin's favorable rating, at 40%, has plummeted to only two points higher than that of Joe Biden's, at 38%. (Factor in that Biden has been around forever and people are still just beginning to get to know Palin.) Even more telling, Palin's 30% unfavorable rating is nearly double that of Biden's, with an unfavorable rating of 17%.

* Percentage who think "Obama shares the values most Americans try to live by"? 66%. (You might be surprised to know this hasn't changed much since before the conventions; back then, 63% thought that, which goes to show how widespread the false -- and yes, overtly racist and xenophobic -- "Obama-is-not-one-of-us" meme has been carried in the media. Wouldn't this be an impressive and reassuring figure to call out? 66% of Americans think a black man named Barack Hussein Obama shares their values. Oh, by the way, more Americans think Obama shares their values than does John "Country First" McCain (61% see him sharing their values). Talk about quashing another received media notion. Of course, nary a peep about this figure.

* Is the candidate "someone you can relate to"? Obama: 57% yes; McCain: 47% yes; Obama: 40% no; McCain 51% no. This one continues to dismantle the myth of Obama as "other." Could that be why it got no play?

* If either became President, "will it make the United States' image in the world better, make it worse, or will it have no effect..."? Obama: better 55%; worse 15%; no effect 26%. McCain: better 26%; worse 25%; no effect (aka McSame) 46%. Truly brutal.

* Did McCain and Obama pick their respective Vice Presidential running mates on the basis of them being "well-qualified for the job" or because they would "help win the election"? Biden: 57% well-qualified; 31% help win the election. Palin: 17% well-qualified (yes, more than 10 points lower than President Bush's favorable rating); 75% help win the election.

* "If Barack Obama is elected President and cannot finish his term in office, do you think Joe Biden would be qualified to serve as President, or would you be concerned about him?" 65% qualified; 24% concerned. "If John McCain is elected President and cannot finish his term in office, do you think Sarah Palin would be qualified to serve as President, or would you be concerned about her?" 33% qualified; 62% concerned.

* President Bush's disapproval rating stands at 68%, which, as Toner and Nagourney point out, "was as high as it has been for any sitting president in the history of New York Times polling." Ouch.

Please note: I purposely omitted Obama's high number on "change" and McCain's high but lesser number on "commander-in-chief" because both of these figures received wide focus in the national media. Part of the reason is that these differences are real. They exist. They should receive attention. Unfortunately, however, these two differentiators, tried and true talking points of both campaigns, obscure the myriad other differentiators between these two candidates, as well as their running mates. The mainstream media is famously lazy, the simpler the storyline the better: Obama's the change guy, McCain's the war guy. But as the breakdown of these other numbers show, citizens are regularly fed other storylines that are patently false, such as Obama somehow holding values that are distinctly different from those of most Americans. Or that he's seen as an elitist by any substantial portion of the populace, when, in reality, those who see him as such tend to be insultingly disingenuous media elites with multi-million-dollar contracts who are being paid to stoke the horse race or clownishly dishonest GOP lackeys who are projecting a false attribute onto a candidate who not long ago finally paid off his student loans and lived off of food stamps for part of his childhood.

Note to media: Why don't you ask the 66% of Americans who think Barack Obama shares their values if he's an elitist? And why don't you let Americans know that fewer of them think John McCain shares their values? From now until the election, whenever desperate McCain surrogates and GOP water-carrying members of the media trot out this demonstrably false and racially coded talking point against Obama -- and they will -- responsible members of the media no longer have any excuse to entertain this wholly fabricated smear.

[George008]

, thanks Roman..

[Wales2004]

Murdering a person is morally wrong period and discrimination of any sort is not a justification for it. There is no reason for it outside of self defense as far as I'm concerned. I don't care to throw murder into an already complex subject since it muddies the waters and brings up an altogether separate issue.

Discrimination is wrong in most instances. I don't have a problem discriminating against a pedophile. The word encompasses a lot....people may feel the same degree of pain no matter what the reason for the discrimination is.

I distinguished between the reasons people may have for some specific types of discrimination but I did not condone it nor did I ever say nor will I ever say that it is alright to treat someone as less than a human being based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. If you've come to that conclusion from what I've said, then it's the wrong conclusion.

I generalized in terms of lifestyle attack since that's a common argument and I hope that I made that differentiation in my previous post. I commonly hear that it's lifestyle or an attack on sexuality. The root of the discrimination is not what you look like it's with whom you fall in love/sleep. If I'm mistaken on that then I know you'll let me know. I brought this up in reference to morality in terms of one thing being at issue strictly based on morality whereas I don't think racism is rooted in whether or not being of another race is moral.

Laws in general stem from moral codes. That doesn't change my position on the separation of church and state. Not everyone within the church lives by strict moral codes.

[Wales2004]

Without addressing everything you've written in this post since I don't think it's worth the effort, I will break it down to this. You are certainly exaggerating about going back and forth but we apparently differ on that. The way to end something is to end it. And I do think you're confused about some things.

You have a wonderful ability to twist things.

[George008]

Thanks for ending it wales...Please, for the love of God...STOP!

[George008]

Republicans use morals and Christianity as guidance. Seeing as all other governments in the history of man have used religion in the same purpose, I don't see it as a problem.

I may not agree with every aspect of the Bible (its stances on Gays for example) but there are a number of people that do. Religion is this most important aspect of some people's lives. If you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you should allow religious people to have a party that conveys their beliefs.

[Wales2004]

Uhmmm no. I meant the only way to end it is for you to end it yourself not me. Is that a request for me to stop? Or are you yelling at me?

I don't need to stop because I'm enjoying your bait posting. It's kind of cute....look Wales is a bad person and said all these mean things to and about me and all I ever wanted was peace and not to get personal....so I went out of my way to point out how bad Wales is even though all I wanted to do was talk about the issues......since it would have made too much sense for me stick to the issues instead of baiting Wales to be able to evoke an exchange to demonstrate how horrible Wales really is.....and how very very right I am with all the purest intentions.....

Forget the issues.....please entertain me some more Casey. This is the most fun I've had posting with you.

[George008]

I did go out of my way to try to put a mirror in front of your face, and let you see how far you have deverted from real debate. My intention was to go out of my way to call you out on your constant references to me...Why were they needed? That's what I was trying to bring out...

I will end it myself then...you may continue to make things personal, my intentions have been the oppisite all along, no matter what you want to think.

I will ignore your posts that single me out from now on, and I will not refer to "not reading your posts" or "not replying to your posts" every five minutes. But you have the freedom to keep this going if you would like.

Wales if you want to talk about Obama/Biden, McCain/Palin, Republicans/Democrats, or issues involved with this campaign, I am your man.

[Roman]

McCain proposes to deregulate Health Insurance—just like the Banking industry

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/20/m...nking-industry/

[Wales2004]

We're on two different planes on this topic. I can't seem to take it seriously because it seems highly exaggerated to me. That said, I will take you at your word and we'll see how that goes.

As for this:

Do you mean this as all Republicans or Repbulicans in the generic sense? And I take it that you are not implying the opposite of Democrats as in they don't use morals as guidance?

I am not questioning nor challenging the transparent Christian frame in government otherwise I would say that currency, the national anthem, and the Pledge of Allegiance need to be revised.

I make a distinction between religion and Christianity. I'm not trying to tread on an individual's spiritual beliefs. I am saying that I don't think a religious group ought to conrol or attempt to control a political party. There is a difference between members of a religious group belonging to or supporting a political party and the group itself belonging to a political party.

It is my understanding that Christianity is based on the Bible so I don't really get the idea of filtering a book on which one bases his/her faith. As far as I am concerned, a person either believes it or does not. If one sees it as God's word then to me it's saying I don't agree with God here but I do here and so I won't do this but I will do the other. The issue with some Christians and the Bilbe is not that God has changed but that people have and are in some ways saying, we've outgrown it and we know better and I would imagine that becomes a source of conflict for some people. Christianity should fundamentally be the same as it always was while religious practices change.

[GoldenDogs]

Fascinating article, Ryan... thank you for posting it. I did see this elsewhere on the net, too.

I believe there is a deep-seated racism ever-present in America, particularly in American politics... and it is buried deeper in some than others and pervasive on both sides of the aisle. Bigotry AND sexism have played a role this year. I admit that I'm surprised that attention has been given to Democrats and their racial views... so it isn't just Republicans or conservatives who harbor such feelings. Of course, most of us knew that.

I can't speak for others, but my feelings about Obama have nothing to do with his skin color. I personally don't think he has what it takes to be our Chief Executive. What about Colin Powell? Oh yeah! Heck, Condoleeza Rice would be a great candidate given her foreign policy experience...

Obama? I think he would be a fine candidate in another four or eight years. Hillary should be running. Sorry.

[GoldenDogs]

Nope, I never came to that conclusion. I can see by your statements here that you are a genuine, quality person. We don't agree on many issues, but that doesn't detract from the awesome person you seem to be.

[Greg's GL]

Really? I don't think so. I refuted many here in this thread myself.

Well said.

I believe in the freedom of religion wholeheartedly. The problem I have is when just one religion seems to have hijacked a political party. Saying the Republicans use morals and religion as guidance implies that Democrats do not. And that is completely false. If you have proof that members of one party use "morals" and religion moreso than the other party, then please fill me in.

Racism is still a very real problem in America. And there's only one candidate addressing racial disparities - Barack Obama.

Condi Rice would be a terrible choice IMO. Colin I would be more open to.

[George008]

What evidence do you have of this? Why do you think a religious group is in control of the GOP? If religious groups controlled the Republicans, I think John McCain would have been the last one allowed to be the nominee..

That you have...