He said that "the more educated people are, the more they favor Obama." That is a far cry from saying that Obama does better with more educated people than with less educated people. Perhaps I read something into it that wasn't there. Perhaps it was poorly worded. But it came across as saying that those without education are those who do not support Obama.
Hi Ref, First off, I do think you've read more into my comments than I intended. I'm not sure I see the difference in the two statements you mention, but I subscribe more to the 2nd version. Also, your opinion matters to me quite a bit, even as we commonly disagree. So ... 1. I was referring to the demographic data I've seen. People with a college education have been favoring Obama slightly over Clinton. Then, when you get to masters and doctorates, the data break strongly for Obama over Clinton. I can look that up if it matters. I think in Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama beat Clinton 43% to 31% in "post-graduate" educated voters, while it was the opposite for those who stopped at a high school diploma. He's doing better with both groups after the first couple of primaries I believe. That's all I meant, as a datum. It would be naive for me to then suggest (which my words actually did, in retrospect) that Obama would get the same break versus McCain. We don't know yet. 2. So that you really understand how I feel: PhD's and the like do not make people smarter about choosing leaders or politics in general, in my view. I have a stupid PhD and work with other overeducated people. In general, for practical and political concerns, these degrees make people too tunnel-visioned. I honestly do not (or try to not) have this classist, intellectual superiority complex with a blah-blah-blah nascar-rednecks-Bush-voters blah blah blah. A lot of dear friends and family vote opposite me, and they are no dumber or smarter than me, at the end of the day. I'd just say we have different priorities and different ways of analyzing things. Hope that makes sense.
This was a really good post, and seems a lot more like the B-Bob I enjoy debating with. I really appreciate the clarification. I personally think a McCain/Obama campaign would be between two very intelligent people. Not that Hillary is not intelligent, I just think that Obama is smarter than Hillary when it comes to dealing with people and with conflict. I agree completely with your analysis of the hyper-educated. If you get a PhD in a certain area, it increases the probability that you will become a single issue voter should there be an issue that touches upon your field directly. Oh, and having an advanced degree does not make you smarter. Getting an advanced degree has a lot to do with having a life plan at an early age...and having a bit of luck along the way.
Amen. A good friend of mine (she dropped out of college) said that PhD types tend to just be slow to mature, emotion wise. That's not a half bad analysis. At the end of the day, there are so many types of smarts that we're not good at describing or understanding. (e.g. the "brilliant" electrical engineer I know, with dozens of patents, keeps electrocuting himself doing home electrical work well, I should only laugh so much b/c I hope he doesn't hurt himself.) Anyway, thanks Ref. Look forward to our next rounds. And if we get McCain v Obama, we could, just maybe, be in for the kind of debates as a country that we really need. As in, more respectful and substantive. We'll see.
From your keyboard to God's inbox. Substantive debate lacking bravado, coupled with a desire to do what is really best for the country is the only thing that will restore our nation to the strength and world position we used to enjoy. I look forward to it. Maybe then, even the D&D will be truly civil.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dHDWo2LNIaM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dHDWo2LNIaM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
I went to the Mike Huckabee rally today at Texas A&M, they estimated more than 2000 people showed up. Chuck Norris was there too. I know Huck winning Texas is a longshot but if he wins Brazos County, I'll at least be happy about that. .
Ok question...shortly after those string of successes Obama had following Super Tuesday, analysts were saying that Clinton not only had to win Texas and Ohio, but had to win big. In fact she needed to win big in every remaining contest just to pull even with Obama. Now I would expect her camp to downplay that stuff, but all I hear from the media these days is how these are must wins for Clinton. But even if she wins Texas and Ohio on Tuesday, if she doesn't win big then she doesn't really cut into Obama's lead in delegates. Her campaign (obivously) and the media are making it seem like all she needs to do is just win those states. But that isn't gonna be enough right? Both Ohio and Texas seem to be pretty close...so unless something drastic changes...hasn't she already failed? It makes me wonder if she'll actually continue her campaign if she technically wins those states but only gains a few delegates on him.
This isn't the same situation McCain has, where he's got an overwhelming lead. Ms. Clinton is still very close to Obama. What Mr. Obama has going for him is momentum and a very long string of victories. Many in the party are talking up the possibility (read: desirability) of her dropping out even if she has narrow victories in Ohio and Texas. The two candidates are busy beating each other up while McCain can take shots at them without looking behind at a rival. If this goes on for several weeks, or even months (possible), it gives McCain a big advantage. Here's an interesting graphic from the Times. I was surprised to see Ms. Clinton leveling out in Texas, while Obama's numbers drift down. Do the increased number of "undecideds" favor her or Obama? Ohio looks pretty solid for Hillary. A good article in the link. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/politics/02cnd-campaign.html?hp Impeach Bush.
IMO, there is close to a 100% chance Hillary pulls out after Tuesday. Nobody expects her to have the blowout win necessary to gain enough delegates to put the nomination in serious doubt. There will be enormous pressure on her to bow out even if she wins both states by slim margins. If Hillary continues until Pennsylvania, the contest will erupt into another level of bitterness we haven't seen. That won't be allowed to happen.
Junkyard: Hillary does need to win and win big in both places to have any chance at all of catching up in pledged delegates. But since her campaign knows she won't, she's moving the goalposts (again) and hoping for a miracle. In fact, even after both Bill Clinton and James Carville said that she needed wins in both states or she was out they've reneged on that as well. The math goes like this: Hillary needs 60-70% wins in every remaining state to catch Obama on pledged delegates. Everyone knows that, short of Obama dropping out of the race or dropping dead, there is no way that will happen. She has one, two-step path to victory then: Try to convince the DNC to change the rules after the fact on FL and MI AND try to convince the super delegates to subvert the will of the voters. If she wins Texas AND Ohio by more than 10 percent on Tuesday, and if the apportioned delegates reflect that, she has a credible case for continuing. In that scenario, even though she still faces incredibly long odds, it could be argued that that sort of unforeseen momentum could propel her to the 75% or so victories she'd need in every remaining contest. If not, she should drop out or risk a permanent legacy as a sore loser that will do more than Nader to damage her own party. I'm not ruling out the possibility of her having an incredibly good night on Tuesday (not one win, not a win and a tie, not two close wins, not one big win and one small one -- but two large wins), but if she doesn't it's over for her -- whether she agrees to it or not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-handler/i-cant-believe-im-stand_b_89448.html I Can't Believe I'm Standing Up for Obama... But I Am Posted March 2, 2008 | 03:47 PM (EST) I am not a devotee or disciple. I am a skeptic, and remain somewhat skeptical. Still, over the past few weeks I have become convinced that Barack Obama is the better choice for the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. And, well... God help us all if that's not enough to make him president. My conclusion is based on several components, but coheres around one theme. Besides what I have experienced as his superior demonstrations of strength, composure, restraint, and reasoning during their last two one-on-one debates, Senator Obama has structured his campaign around what I feel is an irrefutable truth: the United States government will never again function efficiently unless United States citizens force it to do so. His insistence that the U.S. government must serve its citizenry, and his acknowledgment that it will do so only if the citizenry once again holds its government accountable is a statement so simplistic that it is, for some, dismissible. It also happens to be a truism so profound that it might, I have come to hope, be unstoppable. I don't agree with everything he says, and even find some of Senator Clinton's policy positions to be superior. (I'm sorry, but "If you make healthcare affordable enough, no one will choose not to buy it" doesn't hold water in my world. That's like saying if you made auto insurance cheap enough, no one would drive without it. They would. They do.) Still, I find his positions, and his explanations of those positions, to be equal to or superior to hers on nearly all other counts. Furthermore -- and it's an important furthermore, since I defy anyone to be able to accurately decipher and predict whose "plans" are actually going to prove more effective in the real time of the real world -- I find him to be a more sincere proponent of his positions. I do not doubt Senator Clinton's heartfelt desire to do well for the American people. The crucial difference is she continues to insist she knows what's best for those people even as they reject her insistence, while Senator Obama states over and over that what he wants is to assist the American people in doing well for themselves. The most crucial way they can help themselves, he stresses, is to create a government that works for them in the ways they want it to, and to exercise oversight to ensure it achieves its missions. There must be accountability in order to have success, he says. To have accountability, there must be transparency. He encourages us to insist upon both, and once the view has been cleared, to keep our eyes peeled. Some insist that's all he's saying, though I don't see that to be the case. What he is doing that might make it appear that way is repeatedly relating every idea and policy position back to that central theme. But he doesn't seem to be doing that solely out of a desire to stay "on message." He seems to be doing it as a result of his understanding that without those conditions of transparency and accountability being met, nothing else is possible. At least nothing other than what we've seen for the past seven, fifteen, twenty-three, or forty-odd years. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not a revolutionary thought -- at least not like it was when the notion was first conceived. It is, however, a stunningly unusual platform for a contemporary presidential candidate. With increasing consistency, each of our more recent candidates has stressed what he is going to provide to the populace, either as an entitlement program, or as a tax break. Concurrently, we've recently endured a nearly decade-long period of previously unthinkable power grabbing and consolidation by the executive branch of our government. Of even greater concern than the power grabbing has been the purposeful erosion of the divisions between the executive, the judicial, and the legislative braches. Attorneys General refusing not only to indict, but even to testify truthfully; Justice Department employees enforcing executive branch vendettas, then refusing to appear in answer to subpoenas; Supreme Court justices ordering an end to the counting of votes. Senator Obama is not raising his flagship position out of the ether, or, as far as I can see, out of excessive opportunism or ambition. He's speaking out about a very real crisis -- one of existential proportions -- in the history, health, and wellbeing of our republic. And he's doing so without histrionics, with tremendous grace and understatement. He seems increasingly to me to be a man of vast insight, both in terms of what he's trying to accomplish, and in terms of his methods of attempting to accomplish it. Contrast that with Senator Clinton's more recent methods. I took a great deal from the moment during their last debate when Senator Obama questioned Senator Clinton's belief that the best way to accomplish things was to be willing to fight for them. A combative stance, he suggested, is not necessarily the strongest position from which to maneuver. His point is absolutely correct. And the increasing emergence recently of her anger toward him, toward the press, and toward those who've voted against her -- and the ways it has backfired on her -- seems to bear Senator Obama's truth out. But those are my more minor qualms with her recent behavior. We've now come to the most cynical stage of this particular campaign, with Senator Clinton participating in an advertisement that calls into question the safety of children sleeping in their homes in the Unites States. The ad suggests that of the two candidates, one can provide protection from unnamed threats in superior fashion to the other. It's an absurd argument. Not because, as her campaign suggests, anyone who questions it is questioning the legitimacy of a debate about national security. It's an absurd and ugly advertisement because it says nothing whatsoever about national security. It discusses no policy, and makes no comparisons other than one: I am to be trusted, he is not. I'd suggest the ad indicates just the opposite. Not merely because it is repulsive, but because it is destructive -- knowingly so and purposefully so -- in pursuit of personal ambition. I make the charge because I do not believe Senator Clinton herself believes that children, or any other U.S. citizens, will actually be safer under an administration headed by herself, as opposed to Senator Obama. That's why I find the defense of the ads, and the pretense that they illustrate any kind of personally held belief, to be terribly sad. Because the choice Senator Clinton has now made with her advertising campaign has the potential, should she succeed in damaging Senator Obama's standing, to prove tragic for the nation come November. As I've said, I have had no doubts as to the sincerity of Senator Clinton's wish to do well for the American people and their interests. I just no longer believe she has the wisdom or good judgment to know when her own private wishes have come into conflict with the interests of the rest of us. One doesn't have to look far or remember hard to know we've seen too much of that syndrome over the past seven years already. Senators Clinton and Obama were asked during their most recent debate whether they'd come to regret any votes they've cast while holding public office. I have a regret to confess to. When I voted in the California primary less than four weeks ago, I pulled the lever for Senator Clinton. I now believe I was wrong. If Senator Obama had carried California the contest might be over by now. I hope the people of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont will make better choices than I did last month, and settle the race decisively -- before Senator Clinton has the chance to do more damage in her quest to protect us while we sleep. I've come to trust the candidate who's encouraging us to wake up, and to protect ourselves - even, if need be, from our own government. I hope I get the chance to vote for Senator Obama again. I am not a devotee or disciple. I am a skeptic, and remain somewhat skeptical. Still, over the past few weeks I have become convinced that Barack Obama is the better choice for the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. And, well...God help us all if that's not enough to make him president.
It usually takes a while for you guys to catch up to me. Not a surprise, given your access to information as compared to mine... Here is some more color on the issue to help you out: 'BARACK'-LASH BY JEWS: DOV March 3, 2008 -- BROOKLYN Assemblyman Dov Hikind yesterday predicted that Jewish voters would make "a mass movement toward Sen. McCain" if Barack Obama knocks Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the race in tomorrow's critical Democratic primaries. Hikind, an Orthodox Jew whose Borough Park district includes the largest Hasidic bloc in the United States, blasted Obama for what he called his half-hearted support of Israel and his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who has repeatedly praised anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has endorsed Obama. Hikind, a Democrat who has yet to endorse a candidate for president, said Obama had not satisfactorily distanced himself from Wright, his Chicago-based personal pastor, noting, "This is a man who thinks Farrakhan is a great guy and God's gift to the world." Hikind went on, "Obama has said that you can be a supporter of Israel even if you're for giving up land to the Arabs, which is true - but for a guy running for president to take a position like this in advance of getting into office, combined with everything else going on in the Middle East, that scares the hell out of me. "There are a hell of a lot of Jews who are concerned about these issues, and they go way beyond Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, people I describe as conservative Reagan/Giuliani Democrats," said Hikind, who backed Ronald Reagan's presidential campaigns in 1980 and 1984. Hikind's warning about Jewish concerns over Obama are being widely but privately voiced among top New York Democrats. "There is anxiety, there is concern, on the part of a lot of important Jewish Democrats in New York," one of the state's most influential Democratic activists told The Post. Hikind, meanwhile, said he believed last week's controversy over Obama appearing in Somali garb during a visit to his father's native Kenya would have no impact on Jewish voters. "Something like that by itself doesn't mean anything," he said. Obama, who has repeatedly condemned Farrakhan for making anti-Semitic remarks, rejected his endorsement under pressure from rival Hillary Rodham Clinton during a debate last week. But while Obama has pushed Wright into the background of his campaign, Obama remains a member of his church. http://www.nypost.com/seven/03032008/news/columnists/barack_lash__by_jews__dov_100265.htm
The commercial with the kids sleeping in bed had the same effect on me. Hillary wants to talk about shame but, my goodness, that commercial was horrible! The way she has run her campaign I wouldn't trust her judgment over anyone's. In fact, that commercial has ticked me off so much I might vote in the Dem primary against her because of it. I have NEVER voted in a Dem or GOP primary. I always allow them to choose their candidates and decide in November. If I'm out on sales calls I'll leave work early and stop by the high school. Hillary makes it impossible to stay neutral. She is pathetic.
Interesting… I happen to live in a very orthodox neighborhood in Queens and have been to several rallies where Obama is clearly the favorite of the district. My assemblyman is Jewish and just yesterday; when we had our neighborhood St. Patrick’s Day parade he was right up front leading the parade carrying an Obama sign. Hum….
mcmark, are you telling me that you went to an Obama rally where Obama was the favorite? Color me amazed. Thanks for that insight. Who is Joe Lieberman backing in this race, by the way? That's an important question to ask yourself...
It's gonna be a close one tomorrow. A new Zogby poll out this morning... Ohio: Obama 47% (+1) Clinton 45% (-2) Texas: Obama 47% (+0) Clinton 44% (+1) First time Obama has taken a lead in OH.
