BrendanLoy.com: Homepage | Photoblog | Weatherblog | Photos | Old blog archives

About me


I'm Brendan Loy, a 26-year-old graduate of USC and Notre Dame now living and working in Knoxville, Tennessee. My wife Becky and I are brand-new parents of a beautiful baby girl, born on New Year's Eve.

I'm a big-time sports fan, a politics, media & law junkie, an astronomy buff, a weather nerd, an Apple aficionado, a Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter fanatic, and an all-around dork. My blog is best-known for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina, but I blog about anything and everything that interests me.

You can contact me at irishtrojan [at] gmail.com, or donate to my "tip jar" by clicking the link below:

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member

« Dem debate open thread | Main | A very Republican Democratic debate »

Will there be a backlash?

That, I think, is the only question* that matters now, in terms of Tuesday's result in Pennsylvania. Will the Keystone State's Democratic voters -- remember, these are Democrats, not general-election voters -- rebel against the negativity, the "gotcha"-ism, the endless drumbeat of cynical word-twisting and opportunistic gaffe-pouncing, that has become the central operating principle of the Clinton campaign, and vote instead for the man whose message of "hope" and "change" and a "new kind of politics" so inspired voters in the early stages of this nomination contest? If there's ever a moment for that message to gain new traction, it would be now.

The conventional wisdom holds, and the polling suggests, that undecided voters will break for Hillary, as they did in New Hampshire, and in various big Super Tuesday states, and in Texas and Ohio. But in the last week, Hillary's campaign has gone almost entirely negative, and her inner attack dog been unmasked as never before. Pennsylvanians, remember, have rarely if ever been the center of the political universe like this before -- they're not used to being New Hampshire on steroids -- and the negativity must be absolutely overwhelming at this point. I imagine a lot of voters are getting awfully tired of it all.

If I'm right, tonight's debate, while superficially helpful to Hillary (Sullivan calls it Obama's "worst performance yet on national television," and I don't disagree), may actually have damaged her -- precisely because it seemed, in some ways, almost like an extension of the last week of her campaign. It wasn't really a "debate" so much as an endless series of "gotcha" moments, an ongoing riff on "electability" and side-issues and distractions. The lefty blogosphere is in an uproar; Ed Rendell is mad as hell; commenters on ABC's site are livid. But what will Pennsylvania's voters think? And if they were turned off the debate, will that turn them on to Obama's message, and turn them off to Clinton's transparent Rovianism? I think it just might.

One of the night's most popular answers, according to WPVI's undecided voter reaction tracker thingy, was this response by Obama to a question about his relationship to former Weather Underground bomber William Ayers:

George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. ...

[T]his kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

Hillary's response? "Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position." The undecided-voter meter plummeted.

Perhaps I'm being a pollyanna-ish member of the Cult of Obama here, but I think there is a real chance the voters of Pennsylvania will rise up and, once and for all, reject the endless, party-destroying "gotcha" tactics of Hillary Clinton, and choose the candidate of "change." It would be the backlash to end all backlashes. I'm not predicting it. But I think it could happen.

And it would be so sweet if it did.

*Check that: "Will there be a backlash?" is one of two questions that matter. The other one is, "What constitutes 'victory' for Hillary Clinton?" I still maintain she must win by double digits, but I worry, in keeping with the yea theory, that a late rush of pro-Obama polls -- or even leaked, unweighted, pro-Obama exit polls on election night -- could lower the bar and allow her to claim "victory" with a mere narrow win.

UPDATE: Welcome, Andrew Sullivan readers!

P.S. Full disclosure for my new readers: before you put too much stock in my quasi-prediction here, you should be aware of my track record. In October 2005, I made a friendly bet that Giuliani, not McCain, would win the GOP nomination. In November 2007, I bragged that Rudy's strong showing in national polls proved my long-held belief that the GOP isn't as monolithically closed-minded as many liberals think it is. (I actually still think this point is correct, but my use of Giuliani as an exemplar was obviously woefully premature.) In January 2008, one day before New Hampshire, I predicted that Hillary Clinton, after being crushed in the Granite State, would quickly fade and "will not win a single primary." I implied she'd drop out after Super Tuesday. The next day, I picked not just Obama, but Romney, as New Hampshire winners. Later that month, in a reversal of wrongness, I picked McCain to win Michigan. I subsequently opined about a possible "Rudy surprise" in Florida. I could go on, but you get the idea. I've repeatedly been spectacularly wrong this election season. :)

But hey, here's hoping this is the time I'm right!

UPDATE, 7:45 AM: I've been Digged! Also Kossed and DU'd. Already more than 5,000 hits today, and it isn't even 8:00 AM yet. Craziness!

Meanwhile, in comments, Jim Hu writes, "Maybe there will be a backlash, but basing it on the uproar in blogs and comments sections strikes me as wishful thinking. If these were reliable indicators, Ron Paul would be the GOP nominee."

Heh. Touche. But actually, I'm not "basing it on" those things. I'm basing it on my own sense of voters' likely reactions, which the online uproar has only confirmed. My sense is simply this: Democratic voters (not to be confused with general election voters) seem generally unmoved by Bittergate and these other "gotcha" issues. That sense seems to be generally confirmed by polls, "man on the street" interviews, and so forth. So, given that voters are generally unmoved by those issues; and given that Hillary has run an unceasingly negative campaign in the last week or so, based primarily on those issues; and given that last night's debate seemed like an extension of that negative campaign; and given that Pennsylvania has really never been saturated like this with a sustained, PA-centric, negative campaign; I think a backlash is possible. I may well be wrong, but if I am, it won't be because I'm putting too much stock in online commentary. It'll be because my internal predictive sense of how voters are likely to react is wrong. As demonstrated above, it wouldn't be the first time!

UPDATE: The ever-insightful FlyOnTheWall writes in comments:

There may be a backlash provoked by the debate, Brendan, but I suspect that the narrative of a backlash will be far more important. Scanning the coverage this morning, there seems to be an emerging consensus among the talking heads that Clinton hurt herself through her unrelenting negativity last night. I'm not sure that's entirely fair - it strikes me that she's mostly guilty of sinking to the level of the moderators, and taking their bait. But it may not matter.

Consider, for example, this gem from Halperin: "The Obama campaign tells Stephanopoulos that 'prominent Pennsylvania supporters' will switch their support from Clinton to Obama Thursday morning due to Clinton’s negativity." Now, I'd be willing to wager that if they actually exist, these supporters came around before last night. But Axelrod and Plouffe aren't stupid - they recognize the value of reinforcing perceptions. So they'll roll them out this morning, and the day-after cycle will be dominated by the news that Hillary even turned off some of her own supporters. (Assuming Stephanopolous is correct - can you trust the guy after last night?)

I doubt that the debate itself changed many minds. But far more people will see coverage of the debate and its aftermath than tuned in to watch the event itself last night. And if Obama can make Hillary's negativity the crucial issue, he can turn a truly dismal performance to his advantage.

Well, hey, Hillary won New Hampshire on the basis of a ridiculous, trumped-up "sympathy card." If Obama can do the same in Pennsylvania, they'll be even. Oh, and Obama will be the nominee.

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: Upon reflection, it occurs to me that the "narrative of a backlash" could be bad for Obama, because it could have the effect of resetting the expectations game -- again! -- so as to lower the bar for Clinton -- again! -- thus allowing her to claim a "win" on the basis of a narrow margin that should really be seen as a moral victory for Obama -- again!

As commenter "yea" pointed out two weeks ago, and as I alluded earlier in this post, this late-in-the-game resetting of expectations has been a major Achilles' heel for Obama throughout the campaign. (Think New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, Texas & Ohio.) And it could happen again, with the "backlash narrative" being the launching point.

Think about it: there are still six whole days before the primary. That's a lot of time. And polls are already showing a tightening race, as they always seem to do when primary day nears. That in itself will start to reset expectations, but what's worse, the "backlash narrative" may convince the commentariat that Obama will pick up a big chunk of the undecided vote. Throw in a couple more polls that, by random variation, show Obama with a slight lead -- which will, in keeping with the conflation of correlation and causation, be attributed to the "backlash," thus strengthening the meme -- and, by Tuesday, the MSM could be well-nigh convinced that Obama has a chance to win Pennsylvania outright.

And then think about what will happen when the first wave of leaked, unweighted exit polls -- which always seem to favor Obama -- appear on the media's and blogosphere's radar. If those numbers show a dead heat or an Obama victory, and if the first round of published, issue-based exit polls show the voters saying by wide margins that they hate all the negative campaigning, and that it was important to their vote -- which voters always say, whether it's true or not -- the narrative of a "possible Obama upset" will become conventional wisdom by the time the polls close.

All of which will mean that, when Hillary wins by 5 or 6 points, she'll be able to claim a "comeback" victory, and the narrative will abruptly shift back to: "Well, I guess that 'bitter' stuff, and the Wright stuff, and the Rezko stuff, and the Ayers stuff, and the flag stuff, really hurt Obama after all! Why, look, he lost the working-class white male vote by a 2-to-1 margin! Obama is in trouble!" The superdelegates go back to being alarmed; Hillary again vows to stay in the race until the convention; the thumb-suckers suck their thumbs vigorously; and, basically, we're back to square one. All because of a narrative that I played some small role in starting. Dammit. :)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38891/28192872

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will there be a backlash?:

Comments

This is a really great post.

Just got Sullylanched too.

Thank you for writing something sane. I found this site through Andrew Sullivan's blog, and I think his take on the debate is on crack. CLEARLY Obama was the only sensible human being in the room (aside from the poor audience, who kept trying to clap quietly whenever he made sense).

I tried watching and felt sick. I think the ABC News debate and cause cancer--it's so aggravating. If I were Pennsylvanians, I'd end all this BS now and vote Obama.

Excellent post. It's a while since I had been here, I dig the new design. Thank Sullivan for directing me here.

I am DMX, the rapper. I have one thing to say. Obama's hope and change malarchy is a bunch of empty sugar starchy. Wake up fools !

I disagree with Sullivan, too. It wasn't Obama's best performance, but what politician could come out of that hazing ritual looking good?

I agree that there will be a backlash against both Clinton and ABC. It took 50 whole minutes to get to substance. And that 50 minutes was practically 3 vs 1 against Obama.

Have you guys seen the ABC News comments section on the debate tonight? All I can saw is WOW!!!!! People are very upset about how this debate was setup against Obama, and the Hillary folks are telling the Obama folks that he is getting a taste of what she had to go through with NBC, CNN, etc. I know this is a big win for McCain because he has two options....Obama option - Obama will be hurt with some core Clinton voters and his experience level and McCain is going to hammer that and his 527s will hammer the more character related stuff (tho the character stuff like Wright is a very dangerous ground McCain doesn't want to trend on). Clinton option - he will take advantage of the weakness she will have in the groups Obama has the youth and African-Americans and he will try to hit at her within those groups like an infection to a bad sore. Dems are starting to break...and people are saying "O this is good for the party" HA HA HA HA if this type of campaigning is good for the party, why is it that you have two factions (Clinton Supporters vs Obama Supporters) insulting each other and degrading each on on the blogs? I would have expected this from a dem vs repub match but this is dems degrading dems. I just think McCain wins in the longer term if crap like this continues.

I've linked to you through Sullivan. Good post. I certainly hope something positive comes out of this for Obama from this wretched farce of a 'debate'.

This is my first time on your site and I must admit that you may have just found yourself a new fan. I live in PA and here's to hoping that there is indeed a backlash here. I can't stand HRC and I can't believe what she is doing to the Democratic party. I am praying that Obama can eke out a win in PA so this nightmare can end. She is THE.worst.ever.

I have to add something else as well. I am reading in other blogs from Hillary Supporters that Obama Supporters shouldn't whine about tonight, and that Hillary "owned" Obama in the sense that she was the dominate to his subordinate. I have to say that I am an independent voter who has voted both repub and dem and I have started looking at McCain more favorably compared to the dems, but I have to say this in fairness...in the New Hampshire debates the Hillary Supporters were bashing Edwards and Obama for what they saw as tag teaming against her...and she won New Hampshire on a sympathy vote!!!! So tonight when you see how the tag team of ABC moderators and Hillary against Obama and her supporters are saying don't whine? I can't wait to see her go against McCain and pull that crap on him (that's if she becomes the dems nom).

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Brendan,
Where you at in K-Town? I'm in Maryville! Nice to know East Tennesseans have some sense. This debate was an atrocity and I would not be surprised if voters rally to him.

The ABC phone lines are busy, I've already called and left a scolding message for Gibson- the backlash has already started and it will work in Obama's favor. There is no excusing the debate format tonight, or Hillary's enthusiasm to take advantage of it. I typically agree with Sullivan, but tonight I beg to differ. Maybe this wasn't Obama's best night- but he emerged from that first hour looking dignified and honest- I found the his performance was lacking in the second half. At the end of the day, he pulled off stellar debates in TX and OH, so here's to hoping that a crummy debate leads to a PA victory!

Goofy and Jiminy Crickett tm

I've been supporting Obama for months now. He's the first politician I've ever donated money to. I've never registered in a political party, however, because they both seem phony to me. I believe that, if main line, old guard Democrats don't start rejecting the Clinton-machine politics of personal destruction, they don't deserve to win in November. It pains me to say this, because we DESPERATELY need a change from these neocon thugs who've stolen our country. But the Democrats are headed for a train wreck if they don't wake up.

If my response is any indication at all, there will be a backlash.

I have made a series of small donations to Obama over the past months but have imposed a moratorium on further donations due to shortage of funds. However, I have dipped once more into my credit card well on his behalf.

Judging by the insane assault he was under tonight by the inane network press, he is going to need every last dime from all of us out here who care about restoring some modicum of sanity to the political process.

Democrats all worship Satan, to a man. God will not allow the Evil One to take control of his country. Obama is a Muslim. Hilary is a lesbian. You will all burn in flames.

you obama peple are just fucking nuts- MY GANDMOTHER HAD ME GIVING OUT truman stuff in 1948 - HILLERY IS LIFE TRUMAM - THEYSAID HE COULD NOT WIN BUT HE DID AND SHE WILL TOO- SO GET USE TO IT YOUR BOY WILL HVE TO MAKE DECISION AFTER TUSDAY AFTER SHE KICK HIS ASS OR GO AND LOSE IN IND AND NC - DOING THE SAME TING AND EXCEPTING A DIFFERENT RESULT IS CALL INSANITY- BUT MAYBE THE REV wright can lay his hnds on obama and HEAL HIM- THERE IS NO WAY THUS gay JEW WOULD EVER VOTE FOT THIS BLACK RACEEEST

Gosh, and here i thought it was getting too rational in here...

HI I SUPPORT OBAMA AND IM A STUPID IDIOT AS WELL.

I WILL REACH FOR ANYTHING IN ORDER TO SLEEP BETTER AT NIGHT WHEN DEEP DOWN INSIDE I KNOW THAT I REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT HILLARY BUT ITS TOO LATE BECAUSE IM AFRAID THAT I WILL LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT.

IM GONNA GO SMELL GLUE NOW.

IDIOTS.

WAKE THE FUCK UP, JESUS CHRIST

YES IM YELLING.

Maybe there will be a backlash, but basing it on the uproar in blogs and comments sections strikes me as wishful thinking. If these were reliable indicators, Ron Paul would be the GOP nominee.

Disclaimer: I missed the debate.

I found myself thinking this same thing throughout the night. It's clear that there is a widespread sense of disappointment with this debate, and that much of this disappointment stems from a perceived bias against Senator Obama. Whether you believe this or not, it seems unlikely his campaign will be hurt by it. In fact, the end result will more likely be a wave of sympathy from a reinvigorated base of supporters, now more hell-bent than ever on seeing him win the nomination. Great timing for him, with less than a week until Pennsylvania votes. Undecideds who are tiring of negativity in politics may swing his way, while his own folks will have their outrage to rally around. So for those who believe this was nothing more than a Hillary-commercial-in-debate's-clothing: don't be concerned. ABC's condescension toward the American electorate may just prove that we are in fact as intelligent and savvy as Barack Obama gives us credit for.

DMX sucks. Fuck dat nigga.

I turned it off once I heard George Snuffaluffagus ask "Do you think Rev. Wright loves America?"

WHAT?!?

What the F*** does that have to do with ANYTHING?!?!?!

There may be a backlash provoked by the debate, Brendan, but I suspect that the narrative of a backlash will be far more important. Scanning the coverage this morning, there seems to be an emerging consensus among the talking heads that Clinton hurt herself through her unrelenting negativity last night. I'm not sure that's entirely fair - it strikes me that she's mostly guilty of sinking to the level of the moderators, and taking their bait. But it may not matter.

Consider, for example, this gem from Halperin: "The Obama campaign tells Stephanopoulos that “prominent Pennsylvania supporters” will switch their support from Clinton to Obama Thursday morning due to Clinton’s negativity." Now, I'd be willing to wager that if they actually exist, these supporters came around before last night. But Axelrod and Plouffe aren't stupid - they recognize the value of reinforcing perceptions. So they'll roll them out this morning, and the day-after cycle will be dominated by the news that Hillary even turned off some of her own supporters. (Assuming Stephanopolous is correct - can you trust they guy after last night?)

I doubt that the debate itself changed many minds. But far more people will see coverage of the debate and its aftermath than tuned in to watch the event itself last night. And if Obama can make Hillary's negativity the crucial issue, he can turn a truly dismal performance to his advantage.

Nice post, John Bowman, really nice. How many of your original teeth do you still have? Baby teeth don't count!

I have no idea whether or not there will be a backlash that helps Obama, but I do know this...he was indeed the only adult in the room last night. G. Snuffalupagus should be fired immediately...he's a whore for Hilly, for one, and should have never been named as one of the moderators, and he asked questions fed to him directly by Sean Hannity, which if nothing else compromises whatever journalistic integrity he might have pretended to possess. Gibson should go back to doing the puff stuff on GMA that the nation loves *so* much. Moron.

In the end PA won't matter much. She may win, but it will be close enough for the delegate split to be more or less even. Given his delegate lead, that's simply not good enough for her. He's going to beat her in NC by at least 15 points -- I guarantee that -- and IN will be another close one that basically keeps the spread the same. So, at the end of these three primaries, we're likely to see Obama with a wider delegate lead than before.

Also found you via Andrew Sullivan. Nice post. I'm a Pennsylvania who has always planned to vote for Obama, but I'm hoping my fellow Pennsylvanians feel as angry about last night's debate as I did. I also think that Obama is going to win PA. It could be the folks I know and where I live (Pittsburgh) but no one I know can stomach Hillary, and the informal, walking the dog around my basically blue-collar city neighborhood poll shows that the yard sign indicators are tilted heavily in Obama's favor.

I'm surprised the media (and more bloggers) aren't jumping on Hillary's frank admission that she lied about Bosnia. I haven't watched a re-play of the debate video yet, but I'll find it later this morning and capture her exact words. I think she said something like, "I gave a version of events that I knew not to be true."

I recall last autumn Hillary getting a fairly hostile set of questions with the other candidates piling on, and then when she tried to say "3 against 1 and Hillary still held her own" she got trampled for playing the "gender card".

Poor Barry. I guess his followers will resurrect his image no matter how poorly he performs. Funny, after the last 7 years I'm a bit tired of that approach.

No she didn't get trampled. She won New Hampshire precisely for this same reason, perceived piling on. It's also when she started getting insane levels of female support. Which is okay, but it happened.

Some of us are saying now why should it be any different for Obama? Those people who thought Hillary was getting picked on unfairly, and swing voters, we believe will see what's really happening. Now you might not think that, and you might be right. But some of us think there's going to be a deserved and ugly backlash against this same old, tired game of "gotcha" politics that has nothing to do with real issues.

If anyone in this race is Truman it's Barack Obama. Look at their stories, they're much closer to each other, Midwestern Senators, who started with very little money and strong mothers, than Hillary and Truman. Sorry but some Clinton supporters are just not attached to reality.

Hillary Clinton kissed Mrs. Arafat. I guess by Hillary's own logic she is a terrorist.

"Upon reflection, it occurs to me that the "narrative of a backlash" could be bad for Obama, because it could have the effect of resetting the expectations game"

I think the original point in this post was a good one. But now a prediction on what would happen if another prediction came true. That's a bit too much for me.

I've never seen someone living in a glass house throwing as many rocks as Hillary. When she said, "You can't choose your family, but you can choose who you associate with" Obama could've easily leveled her with, "you do choose your husband, don't you? To stay in a faithless marriage, don't you?". But, quite frankly, there's no reason for him to lower himself to her level because he's got the nomination won already. This weak nonsense going on right now is just prologue for his presidential landslide win.

After all the digging and smear tactics all the hitmen can come up with is Obama's passionate pastor-- an "unpatriotic" ex-marine who's done more charity work for the citizens of this nation than everybody in elected office combined. Obama's pretty damn squeaky clean if that's the best they can do.

a prediction on what would happen if another prediction came true. That's a bit too much for me.

Heh. The Irish Trojan goes meta!

That's a dangerous hypothetical hypothetical. Heh.

im such a sucker. everytime i see a poll showing obama close or ahead i get excited and think he might win penn even though my brain knows that hes going to very likely lose by 7-8 pts. i really tired of the clinton garbage and can't wait to see her go away. i honestly think mccain/obama will run a much more dignified campaign focused on the issues than we are seeing with the democrats right now.

This has to be one of the worst blog posts in a long time, and it totally smacks of currying favor with the emotive Obamafanatics of the blogosphere.

Face it folks, negative tactics work -- it's why politicians do it over and over and over again. They always pledge to stay clean, and when clean stops working, they go to what they know actually works. Yeah sure, the super politically aware fanatics like many on this blog are totally repulsed by this negativity, but wake up: you're not the norm. Those of us who took poli sci classes and follow this stuff closely are effectively a cult, closed off from the rest of the real world. The average Joe watched that debate for two minutes, got bored, and switched over to Sportscenter. That is your demographic, people.

I should add that the Pennsylvania voters know HRC quite well. There is nothing in the recent ads or debates that is going to change more than .1% of people's minds because HRC is an extremely well-known commodity, and if you didn't hate her already, it's highly unlikely last night's performance is going to push you over the edge now.

You guys are like Neo refusing to believe Morpheus when he shows him "the real world". I'm sorry buddy, the revolution will not be televised, because the revolution ain't gonna happen. Obama may win or lose the nomination, and he may win or lose the presidency, but it's going to be the same ol' politics as usual, with the Dems getting a few more of their pet policies implemented, until eventually they lose to the Republicans, who will then enact their policies. And around and around it goes.

Obama is not going to change politics as we know it; everything you and I love and hate about politics and campaigns is here to stay for a long, long, long time.

According to Andrew we should still be living in caves and hunting mastadons, because, well thats the way it works and trying to change things is crazy!

You don't understand, David. Mastadons are freakin' tasty.

Andrew, this is a family friendly blog, quit telling us about your Mastadoneating habits.

Not much more to be said about the awfulness of the moderators. But one last thought: of all the "regular people" who I presume were available and eager to ask real questions, how is it possible that they chose to use the idiotic woman asking, "Senator Obama, do you revere the American flag?"

Oh, wait....

I'm fascinated, yet again, by the seeming acceptance that hard questions asked equates to a Bad Thing ...

Andrew - it'll bear some watching, but I suspect that fewer folk watched for a couple of minutes then switched to reality TV than usual ...

Alasdair-

For argument's sake, why don't we just say that the debate moderators could have saved about 45 minutes of time by just presuming both candidates are Americans who love their country, hence they are making the personal sacrifices (time away from family, slings and arrows) that come with running for POTUS. Throwing out questions about lapel pins or whether or not Reverend Wright loves his country has nothing to do with the issues facing the country and how these two individuals would deal with them.

Alasdair, clearly you didn't actually watch the debate or read up about the debate. The questions being asked weren't hard questions, they were STUPID questions.

Hmm, looks like Obama and his supporters will be attending church and gun shows judging by their reaction to Wednesday's debate.

Hillary Clinton to blue collar Democrats in 1995...

"Screw Them!"

www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/6268


So much for the "Obama is an elitist and I'm not" argument.

"I am DMX, the rapper. I have one thing to say. Obama's hope and change malarchy is a bunch of empty sugar starchy. Wake up fools !"

If you haven't read this interview with DMX about Obama, you must do so immediately. It includes such quotes as "Barack? What the f*ck's a Barack?"
http://www.xxlmag.com/online/?p=20332

David - you elitist, you !

Those were not "stupid" questions - they were pretty standard level of questions for US political candidates in a modern Presidential Primary ... not at all what one of the political elite would like answered ... but pretty much what the MSM considers to be important ...

And, from what I can see, the viewing populations seems to have expressed approval by staying and watching longer ... (grin) ... which doth imply that *you*, elitist David, consider yourself better/smarter than the majority of folk who watched the debate ...

I'm happy that I didn't hear any of the candidates asked "Do you believe literally in Creation ?" ... now *that* is an irrelevant (possibly stupid) question to ask ... with the US separation of Church and State, the religious beliefs of the President-to-be should not matter ...

Alasdair, there is literally no point in trying to have a discussion with you when you make up stuff out of thin air. Elitist? Right, whatever.

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS

Here is Pastor Wright's 'Black Value System'
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends & family