SC goes to Obama, Clinton loses black supporters...

[DaemonSeid]

ORLANDO, Fla. - In the end, 9/11 wasn't enough.


Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, once the Republican presidential front-runner thanks to his status as "America's Mayor," suffered a debilitating defeat in Tuesday's Florida primary. He prepared Wednesday to quit the race and endorse his friendliest rival, John McCain.

Giuliani stopped short of announcing he was stepping down, but delivered a valedictory speech that was more farewell than fight-on.

The former mayor finished a distant third to the winner, McCain, and close second-place finisher Mitt Romney. Republican officials said Giuliani would endorse McCain on Wednesday in California. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the public announcement.

"I'm proud that we chose to stay positive and to run a campaign of ideas in an era of personal attacks, negative ads and cynical spin," Giuliani said as supporters with tight smiles crowded behind him. "You don't always win, but you can always try to do it right, and you did."

Asked directly whether he was dropping out of the race, Giuliani said only: "I'm going to California."

Republican presidential candidates were scheduled to debate at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley on Wednesday night.

Tuesday's result was a remarkable collapse for Giuliani. Last year, he occupied the top of national polls and seemed destined to turn conventional wisdom on end by running as a moderate Republican who supported abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.

The results seriously decimated Giuliani's unconventional strategy, which relied heavily on Florida to launch him into the coast-to-coast Feb. 5 nominating contests.

But Florida proved to be less than hospitable. His poll numbers dropped and key endorsements went to McCain.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/...el_pr/giuliani

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by scbelle

^^^
Well, if Florida Dems wanted their votes to count so badly, they should have petitioned the state party to play by the rules. Front-loading the primary season is bad for the party, for politics, and for America. That's one of the reasons we've been discussing a lack of defined agendas. The candidates simply don't have the time because states who feel self-important keep moving their primaries up.

CO-SIGN!

I'm from Florida--although I haven't lived there permanently for almost 10 years, I'm still registered there, since after 2000 we learned exactly how important the state was, and, let's face it, NY is hardly a battleground state. I'm not mad at the DNC for shutting out Florida, I'm embarassed by the state party for being stupid. What was wrong with being a Super Tuesday state?

The state party deserves everything it got--including Hillary. If it comes between her and McCain, I'm going McCain all the way.

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

CO-SIGN!

I'm from Florida--although I haven't lived there permanently for almost 10 years, I'm still registered there, since after 2000 we learned exactly how important the state was, and, let's face it, NY is hardly a battleground state. I'm not mad at the DNC for shutting out Florida, I'm embarassed by the state party for being stupid. What was wrong with being a Super Tuesday state?

The state party deserves everything it got--including Hillary. If it comes between her and McCain, I'm going McCain all the way.

You and me both.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

Did anyone see Nightline (i think it was nightline) on ABC tonight? Obama is in Kansas promoting the mid-western roots and values that he got from his grandfather and mother. And I have no problem with that. But wasn't he the ultimate black man no less than three days ago? That's why I hate when race becomes the focus, because now (even though he's not really) it's just funny to see him look as if he's going back on his so called "blackness". The interviewer even had the nerve to ask him something along the lines he's promoting his "white family" to Kansas.

Candidates connect with voters.

If white candidates can predictably show up at black churches to mingle with black voters then black candidates can discuss Kansas roots with Kansas voters. The white candidates are still white and the black candidate is stll black.

And, yes, race matters in elections because it matters everyday in America. Obama didn't make race matter.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Candidates connect with voters.

If white candidates can predictably show up at black churches to mingle with black voters then black candidates can discuss Kansas roots with Kansas voters. The white candidates are still white and the black candidate is stll black.

And, yes, race matters in elections because it matters everyday in America. Obama didn't make race matter.

DSTCHAOS for president!

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Okay this a horrible attempt at pretending you typed that long ass post to make an analogy. I certainly didn't read it because I have no REASON to assume it's anything more than wordier(?) redundancy.

Actually, I didn't type the post thinking that it would be an analogy. I realized the irony afterwards and thought I'd be the first to make light of it and give some people in this thread a reason to laugh.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Again, this argument fails for me, because it completely ignores that Obama burying the details of his message in a book released before his candidacy and then nowhere else is a form of limiting the dissemination of his message, which is exactly what other candidates have done (which was the original assertion).

I don't think that some "buries" details by putting them in a book. The details are there for anyone who is interested enough to look -- and quite frankly not all people are so why should Obama know that one particular detail is going to be of personal interest to a single voter. You're acting like there are only 1000 copies and someone would have to interlibrary loan the book to read it. And while technically the book was released before his candidacy, I'm pretty sure most people knew where the book was eventually going to lead. The fact that it came out before doesn't mean that he wasn't thinking about running for President when he wrote it. And it certainly doesn't mean that people are less likely to pick it up for insight into what he might do as President.

"This argument fails" makes me laugh a little (in a nice way... calm down, man). It reminds me of debate... by any chance were you a debater in HS or college? I ask because you're really committed to a line-by-line refutation style in your posts.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

I don't think that some "buries" details by putting them in a book. The details are there for anyone who is interested enough to look -- and quite frankly not all people are so why should Obama know that one particular detail is going to be of personal interest to a single voter. You're acting like there are only 1000 copies and someone would have to interlibrary loan the book to read it. And while technically the book was released before his candidacy, I'm pretty sure most people knew where the book was eventually going to lead. The fact that it came out before doesn't mean that he wasn't thinking about running for President when he wrote it. And it certainly doesn't mean that people are less likely to pick it up for insight into what he might do as President.

I'd never even heard of his book before you started in on this. I have a degree in English, and I read more than 99% of the USA, I would venture. I read about candidates in a way that most Americans don't even consider. If I didn't realize this avenue existed, it seems like it's not exactly effective or even pushed on any reasonable level, to my mind.

I think you're putting too much emphasis or connotation to "buried" (and maybe I should pick a different word) - it just seems like the book is there, but there is an avalanche of puff-piece material on top, so it sinks to the bottom/back, never to be found except by people who have already read it. Not exactly effective.

Add to this the suspect fact that he profits off book sales, and I'm really just not a fan of saying "read the book, it's there" - and, no offense to you intended, but it kind of creeps me out in a Dianetics sense, too, which is awkward.

Originally Posted by skylark

"This argument fails" makes me laugh a little (in a nice way... calm down, man). It reminds me of debate... by any chance were you a debater in HS or college? I ask because you're really committed to a line-by-line refutation style in your posts.

It's that obvious? It probably is - that's why I put "for me" on there, though . . . I wanted you to know that I meant it in a 'soft' sense, that it just didn't work for me, not that I think you suck or anything.

The line-by-line action is likely a relic, but I would hate to consider a 500-word opus as some sort of summarized whole - I'd rather give the ideas their own merit and attention. I'm also retarded.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

not that I think you suck or anything.

I don't think you suck, either.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

Actually, I didn't type the post thinking that it would be an analogy. I realized the irony afterwards and thought I'd be the first to make light of it and give some people in this thread a reason to laugh.

My point, exactly.

The same after-the-fact reasoning applies to people pretending that a candidate's book should be read.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

My point, exactly.

The same after-the-fact reasoning applies to people pretending that a candidate's book should be read.

But I don't think that I said that someone had to read an entire book. I believe I pointed out this wonderfully useful thing called an index. I don't think that looking something up in a book is an "unnecessary hurdle" to someone who wants something really specific as to a candidates position on something. Just look up "abortion" "gay marriage" "educational system" or "strict constructionist" and go wild.

I'm not "pretending" that a candidate's book should be read by everyone who wants to vote. I only said that if you want to know what specifically a candidate would like to see done on a certain issue and the candidate wrote a book on politics in america about a year or so ago, instead of assuming and representing to others that the candidate doesn't have a plan, why not find out first by looking it up.

[DSTCHAOS]

Circular discussion.

[Drolefille]

Regarding the idea that people in Florida don't want Obama, and that it wasn't about name recognition, what about reports that of people who voted within the last month, Obama won, and of people who voted earlier than that up to a year (?) ago, Clinton won?

There may be a lot of other factors their, it's not a random population sample, but it shows that Obama gained ground in Florida, not lost it. And that's without making useless promises of "fighting" for Florida's delegates. (And let's not get to Michigan. Of course Clinton wants their delegates counted, every other major candidate pulled his name from the ballot.)