The Young Turks

excluding the painfully undereducated blue collar whites, (what's left of them).

In my view, the problem, or delusion, if you prefer, is that both parties view voters as monolithic blocs of people divided by some trait or concern and given a moniker of somekind, like for example,  Reagan Democrats. That's the old thinking.

There is a new dynamic here,  we aren't talking wedge issues, or some special interest politics, we are talking survival of the Republic.  The fact that Obama has pickled up on it and he happens to be 1/2 black is incidental to what appears to be a shift in the mood of the electorate.

The Republican exploited the "me" issues, since 1980 fooling at least 51% of the voters, convincing them that tthe Republicans had their best interests in mind. We all know how that turned out. The core rich white Republicans are significantly richer..every one else is going down the toilet.

But Hillary is gonna catch them totally by surprise.

Let me see if I got this.

First part of post: Hillary is so well prepared.  She has been positioning herself since 2002.  Obama just came out of nowhere.

Second part of post: We have to run Hillary, they are really prepared for Obama.  They have no plan for Hillary!

Hmmmm, curious logic.
  

and I'll look for an "argument".

In the mean time heres some "facts" for you, I missed it by year...sorry my memory is not as good as it used to be. From Carl Bersteins book, A Woman In Charge, Clinton had been preparing for a potential candidacy for United States President since at least early 2003. Considering she had a 5 year head start the kid is doing pretty good, and she is a formidable candidate regardless.

Where did those affirmative action programs come from? Courts, those peskly activist judges , Democrats, and yes many are white. Your point? The fact that an individual takes advantage of an opportunity somehow demeans his ability?

I'm not going for the conspiracy spin on what the economists predict...they will predict anything depending on there politcal persuasion. Trust me, the consumer knows bullshit when he hears it.

No, the forces set in motion are well beyond any one groups control, a 3 or 4 cent per gallon dip isn't going to persuade many people after enduring a summer of oil and gas price scares based on hurricanes, whatever.

McCain plan today is to return to pre-surge levels, hardly a reduction. There is way to much "100 year" footage and flips flops for him to be much of anything else. He's married to Iraq. One burp in Iraq and down he goes, hard.

We'll see. 

Hillary makes a gaffe (a real bona fide one): One news cycle=coverage of the gaffe, + 1 week of faux outrage about the coverage of the gaffe.

Barack makes a gaffe (a minor one that sounds worse taken out of context): Cover it for a full month. Use it as the justification to encourage voters to vote for the white candidate.

Bonus round: since idiotic shit doesn't issue from Obama very often, let's hold him responsible for every perceived "gaffe" by everyone around him, including people (past and present) who lived in his neighborhood--or as this shit-eating horsepile of a thread suggests--who preached at the pulpit in a church he attended. I would soooooo loooooooove to apply this standard to HRC. Fortunately for her, most of us can't do this and hold a straight face. 

Thanks for outlining your complaints. I'll try to address them.

 "The story wasn't about her dues", no, but your post raised this issue, showing adherence to a ridiculous myth that you ascribe to (see my previous post).

 "Do you really believe that Obama would be where he is today", they are treating him that way, taking comments out of context and painting him as an "elite" as they have done to every front-runner of the democratic party since Hillary's intellectual forefather, Dan Quayle, brought it up. And yes I do believe he'd still be around.

 "Why is there such a double standard". This is just absurd. You're example shows how wrong your thinking is. It deserves quotation:

 "for example: One of the great things about Obama is his judgement (like being against the war) when it was popular."

It was popular to speak out against the war in '02? Which of KenTX's multiverse dimensions are you hailing from. Welcome to planet earth, 2008, the internets. It's hardly disingenuous to note, as a state senator, that you haven't seen the intel while opposing the war. Its called listing a major caveat, one that should lead everyone to interpret your views in light of available evidence. As it happens, Hillary, who had seen the intelligence, which we know in retrospect was cooked, drew the wrong conclusion. She drew the wrong conclusion again on Kyl-Lieberman. That's what judgement is about.

 "Nobody wants to talk about judgement when it comes to Wright." I talk about it all the time. Wright was his pastor. What does judgement have to do with it? I grew up in Church and attend semi-regularly. I don't agree with everything that goes on there, and would be appalled if people impugned my judgement for associating with religious people. The issue of race came up because it was obvious that a white candidate (see McCain, John) with similar associations gets a pass. Nobody wondered aloud at the time why Obama made a race speech. Nobody.

Finally  "What were those 'present' votes": this is a myth that has been debunked so many times I'm not going to bother. If someone wants to pick it up for me, be my guest. Yes Obama is a politician. Thanks for pointing that out as you do in nearly every exchange that you and I have. Do I need to remind you about whether I am duly skeptical of Obama's publicly stated motives. Can we get past it? And "What has he done to deserve to be president"?

He has expressed the right views about the direction our country should take, at the right time, and he consequently earned the most delegates in the Democratic Primary.