“I am shocked, without knowing the reason that it is happening, that none of the allegations with the respect of Wright, his former pastor, have had any impact on his polling,” said Koch.

Norm, do you really believe this crap? Koch is a Hillary supporter, and no intuitive than any of the other politicians who support Barack or Hillary. I've been reading this blog on and off for years, but the anti-Barack posts are getting very tired. The fact that he brought up Reverend Wright just shows that he's playing politics as much as anyone else. Reverend Wright is a small stain compared to 7 years of war from McCain and Hillary. And yes, his one speech back then does matter.

I'll admit I don't read OGM every day, but I haven't seen much substantive posts supporting Hillary's policies, only posts attacking Barack as unelectable or opportunistic. Either way, Barack has won and he will win in November.

Also, I didn't read the posts below about this topic before I commented on this one. Regardless, it appears the attempts to undermine Obama will continue.

Also, I'd like to put it out there that I personally think both candidates are great, and they would both beat John McCain easily. I personally prefer Obama because he has the high ground on the probably the biggest issue, the war. He's also said a few things about improving public transit that I liked.

God 1 or God 2?

The problem I have with most people is the human 'oversimplification issue'. It destroys everything.

Civil discorse becomes soundbites. Complicated scientific ideas become discounted by 'beleivers' with little evidence.

There are recent observations that the world is not so neutonian as we once thought. It seems electrons can go through two holes at once and that the observer has a role in that process. This makes no sense and at the same time is my version of "God". That which seems to have an effect but is currently undescribable.

I personally dislike the idea of God being either "1 or 2". It limits the actual possibilities and assigns a solution that predates human history. This is lame.

It is very possible (though still needs study) that groups of Observers can help the universe 'make final decisions' on things as small as an atom. Who knows what this idea could mean about the rest of our world. One thing we do know, is that we don't know much of anything yet. And that is why we have Science, and Science is rarely about choosing 1 or 2.

[note: if xtians persist in anti-science remarks, just mention that science merely observes, measures and names the Creation, which is dictated by God in Genesis.] ;)

Re: Lemos' post of Koch's speculations

It is possible that the Wright bullshit will have some effect in November, but - despite the media incessantly beating on this issue - there isn't much evidence for it now. Indeed, in North Carolina, Obama racked up a margin that was almost exactly what he had been polling for a month (3/28 - 4/28). In Indiana, Obama lost by less than 2 points, a smaller margin than he polled from 4/03 to 4/23, and Indiana might have been slightly skewed by dittoheads.

If Charles Lemos wants to echo the speculations of Mayor Koch - who is obviously a Clinton partisan - then I suggest he present some hard evidence to bolster his position. Lemos' own record in predicting the electoral outcomes is poor.

Re: Lemos' post of Koch's speculations

It is possible that the Wright bullshit will have some effect in November, but - despite the media incessantly beating on this issue - there isn't much evidence for it now. Indeed, in North Carolina, Obama racked up a margin that was almost exactly what he had been polling for a month (3/28 - 4/28). In Indiana, Obama lost by less than 2 points, a smaller margin than he polled from 4/03 to 4/23, and Indiana might have been slightly skewed by dittoheads.

If Charles Lemos wants to echo the speculations of Mayor Koch - who is obviously a Clinton partisan - then I suggest he present some hard evidence to bolster his position. Lemos' own record in predicting the electoral outcomes is poor.

Voicing concern over Barack's electability, given that he is the likely Democratic nominee, is not necessarily anti Barack it is simply a concern. I'm aware of the seemingly small effect of the Pastor on voters who are Democrats but what of national polls of all likely voters. If someone has a reassuring link please post it. I didn't post the link to argue that Barack shouldn't be the nominee though I still think on most issues he is weaker than Clinton, and I do think she would be the stronger candidate against McCain. Further, I believe it true that recent polls supported that view. But since a Clinton candidacy is wishful thinking discussions of Obama's strengths and weaknesses should be viewed as just that and not as some remote hope that he will not be our nominee.

I still live in the hope that someone on this blog will one day educate me as to exactly what issues Obama is weaker on, than Clinton. (Or for that matter, why Clinton would have a better chance against McCain.)

I'm not being sarcastic; I'm being entirely sincere: Please, will someone tell me?

God 1 or God 2?

I actively participated in that CFI thread which is referred to in that article.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3985/P75/#37674

I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that the "God 1" concept is conceptually incompatible with the "God 1" concept. You can't claim that there exists something that interacts with nature, but at the same time is in principle un-detectible by natural means.

Anyone Stupid enough to think Obama agrees with Wright is Stupid enough to think Clintons have threatened people with dead cats, Bill is the one REALLY running for President again, and every woman who says they were assaulted by Bill Clinton is telling the truth .. etc.

I don't see how Wright is more of an issue than anything in Hillary's past, and the conflation of half truths and lies about the clintons.

I meant to write ... "I don't think it's an oversimplification to say that the "God 1" concept is conceptually incompatible with the "God 2" concept."

I still live in the hope that someone on this blog will one day educate me as to exactly what issues Obama is weaker on, than Clinton.

HEALTHCARE

By a margin that would be erased by congress in the blink of an eye.

Stronger on...

IRAQ

IRAN/OBLITERATION

PAKISTAN/GETTING ACTUAL TERRORISTS

GAS TAX/MASS TRANSIT /INFRASTRUCTURE

DIPLOMACY/Goodbye Cowboy diplomacy

Then there are all those positions on gay rights and closing Guantanamo that they have the same position, but she avoids talking about at all costs and he includes in his stump speeches. So once again he is Stronger.

John Edwards on MSNBC:

http://cliffschecter.firedoglake.com/2008/05/09/breaking-john-edwards-voted-for-obama/

John Edwards on MSNBC

Yeah, he voted Obama.

RE:By The Fault » Blog Archive » Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch on Barack Obama

Quote Ed Koch:

But the fact that the Democratic constituency doesn’t seem to care is a shock to me, but I’m certain that the overall constituency voting in November will care and that it will make the difference in the adverse way to his candidacy.

The fact that he thinks the Democratic constituency doesn't care is a shock to me. Every Democrat is worried about how electable their candidate will be and how the (non)issues will effect their chances. But I think it's a matter of what fight do you think will be easier to win...

A. Hillary - convince people that she's not as bad as they think.

B. Obama - convince people that he's as good as they hope.

For having a country in such turmoil, a world in such peril, and a party in such disarray, we came down to two candidates with the most risky chances of victory. So not only have we chose to challenge the failed conservative agenda of the last 8 years, we have thrown race, gender into the mix.

For Obama to be the lesser option he has to have a negative that out weighs the biggest negative that Hillary has... she is a CLINTON! You want to know why her "trust" polling is so low? She's a CLINTON.

But the fact that (many in) the Democratic constituency don’t seem to care is a shock to me, but I’m certain that the overall constituency voting in November will care (that she is a CLINTON) and that it will make the difference in the adverse way to her candidacy.

My support for Obama has been the closest I've come to a purely practical decision in presidential politics.

I for LIKE that she is associated with the CLINTONS, but I'm not the general population.

The question has been answered numerous times. Just because you don't like the answer or disagree isn't a good reason to keep repeating yourself. HEALTHCARE

And we still don't have policy from her about what she'll do to people who don't get the Mandated healthcare.. Fines? Jail? Shipped to Canada?

If HEALTHCARE is the only reason she's better, Nader is your guy with his Single Payer system.

So if that's true it means that Elizabeth Edwards voted for Hillary.

Seems so

So Red you disagree that Hillary is the stronger candidate, that is not the same as Dzwonka's apparent point that no one had ever given him any arguments as to why she was the better candidate. To be charitable what he must have meant was arguments that he found persuasive.

And no MEC there are a number of reasons that I think she is the better candidate most relate to the fact that she is more progressive on social issues. Healthcare, mortgage crisis relief, etc. I see little point in a further discussion on specific topics given the reality of the race, and that we are unlikely to change our views.

Most important - what did you write to win the bookmarks?

she is more progressive on social issues. Healthcare, mortgage crisis relief, etc.

One thing that Edwards was in the race for was to influence the policy of the other candidates, probably his biggest contribution to this race. Why can't policy discussion continue?

To be charitable what he must have meant was arguments that he found persuasive.

I think you are right, but it certainly is true that the pro argument has been made less often.

Nor have I seen a discussion of her real ties to the conservative wing of the party. And how much we should believe her new progressive ideas after 2 decades of developing "centrist" economic policy.

The DLC works under the strategy, that if we nominate more pro-business, more religios democrats we will overtake the republicans and attain a solid sustainable majority.

A theory widely disproved in 2006.

I think we do well by progressives of every Ilk by concluding the debate on internal differences and focus on those with the republicans, whom have come to believe their own spin in the last 8 years and just lost touch with the reality of good policy.

Ed Koch and Hillary Clinton's remarks in the last two days have done nothing of the sort.

They repeat the unelectable argument without any reasoning.

Why does Hillary believe Obama won't get her white voters? Why Does Koch Believe Wright will be more important in this election then Bush or Hagee or perhaps any number of Clinton associates? Do they have a poll or something we should all see?

Such substance less arguments deserve either explanation or ridicule.

Okay, healthcare — thanks, Norm. I am seriously not trying to be flippant or pretending to be obtuse. This is the first, concrete statement I've seen here (obviously, this might have been mentioned before, and I just missed it).

I'm not an Obama supporter as such, I've just been perplexed by the anti-Obama slant, and wanted to learn why. (In fairness, of course, I've been pretty appalled by some of the tactics used by the Clinton camp, so while I don't think it fair to consider me pro-Obama, it would be fair to consider me anti-Clinton.)

I don't expect anyone to spell out what the differences are in the candidates' stances on health care, but maybe you could point me towards a URL that does so?

but maybe you could point me towards a URL that does so?

Look in the 1GM Archives. Norm did some issue posts around one debate and a couple of other occasions early in the year. I think the bulk of them would be in the weeks after Edwards dropped out.

Norm has listed substantive policy differences in the past, but right around the time where things started turning ugly in the media, and Lemos started "guest" entries here, Norm got roped into the bullshit. Norm, I think from time to time you still get very much roped into the bullshit, and rationalize it later. There's a difference between not liking Barack's stances and not liking Barack because of whatever Clinton subordinate talking point.

Anyway, as to Koch's comments:

I think for the most part he's just distastefully reiterating an "electability" talking point. However, he may be partly right about the Wright stuff, but two rebuttals:

1. If McCain's folks are every trotted out, then this will go away. As for reassuring polls, Norm: how about the one that more than 43% of voters are worried about McCain's relationship with Bush, versus somewhere in the mid-30's for Wright? (And this is with the media exposure of the Wright issue recently, whereas most Americans probably still think McCain's that "maverick" guy from back in 2000.)

2. On the issues, if people stay focused on the issues, they will vote Dem despite Wright, even if they're offended. This isn't 2000 or 2004, where despite serious problems, the electorate was overall optimistic. Things are much different at every level now, and I think they'll be less brought down by the bullshit issues.

All that said, I agree with you that it's still a concern, nonetheless. We'll see.

I hate it when I click 'post' instead of 'preview'...any way to get an "Are you sure you want to post?" dialog box to pop up Norm?

god 1 = hillary god 2 = barack

oh damn, or is it the other way around? Ah, what the hell, all we know for sure is that the devil is a flip-flopping old man from Arizona. That much is metaphysically certain.