Obama's electability

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Cindy McCain's net worth is somewhere around 20+ times that of the Obama's. I think her complaining about being able to afford anything is a little bit of a laugh.

Cycloptichorn

But unless you can show us otherwise, Cindy McCain is not complaining about being able to afford anything, while Millionaire Michele is.

I agree. I was merely responding to this phrase by Fox -

"Can you imagine the bruhaha if Laura Bush or Cindy McCain said something like that?"

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

This is interesting!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_democrats_reagan.html

Who is being talked about here?

Quote:

Question: Name the presidential candidate described below.

An unpopular incumbent president sits in the Oval Office. His party's brand is badly tarnished. The economy is in shambles, unemployment on the rise. The housing market is in crisis. Gasoline has become a major issue.

America is enmeshed in a protracted crisis in the Middle East with no end in sight. We are near war footing with Iran. The reputation of the United States is diminished world wide. In historically high numbers, voters believe the country is on the wrong track.

The opposition party has nominated a charismatic candidate for president whose oratorical skills are compared to JFK, perhaps better. He had been introduced to the majority of Americans by way of a spellbinding keynote speech at a previous national party convention.

He has a fervent core of supporters and has emerged as the leader of his party through an insurgency that challenged and ultimately defeated his party's establishment. He runs against Washington and the special interests that control the Capitol. His message is change and hope.

If ever the public demanded change in Washington, it is in this presidential year. It could not be a better political environment for the party out of power.

Yet with all the stars aligned perfectly for a party change in the White House, national polls show the opposition candidate barely ties, and often trails, his opponent.

There is little doubt about the voter's desire for change, but there is plenty of doubt about this candidate who pledges to deliver it. Who is the candidate?

I've privately made some rather out-there predictions in this race that have turned out pretty well. Publicly (as in, here) I've been a bit more conservative. I've said throughout that I thought getting the nomination would be harder for Obama than winning the general election. I've privately mused about a landslide. I'm not really firm in that one -- it's more a "things that make you go hmmm" than a prediction. Nobody offer to bet me. :-)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Three out of five American voters (61%) say their perception of a presidential candidate's wife is at least somewhat important to how they vote (see video).

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 22% of voters say it is very important. Only 11% say it is not at all important.

First Ladies are often in the media spotlight, but seldom, with the notable exception of Hillary Rodham Clinton, have their activities been viewed through a political lens. So it is unclear how these findings will play out in November.

The current First Lady, Laura Bush, is regarded favorably by 75% of the nation's voters, with only 21% rating her unfavorably.

By contrast, Michelle Obama, whose husband cinched the Democratic presidential nomination last week, is rated favorably by 48% and unfavorably by 42% of voters. That latter figure includes a startling 25% who have Very Unfavorable opinion of the potential First Lady. A statistically comparable 24% view her Very Favorably. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.

Cindy McCain, the wife of the Republican hopeful, earns favorable reviews from 49% while 29% offer an unfavorable assessment. She is viewed Very Unfavorably by only 10% of voters while 17% have a Very Favorable opinion of Mrs. McCain. In her case, 22% remain undecided.

RASMUSSEN LINK

Now considering that almost no media focus has been directed at Cindy McCain or anything that she has been saying, where does the 49% to 29% ratio come from? Based on what criteria?

From those who like her husband and those who hate him.

At some point there will be a greater focus on her, and we will learn or re-learn that she was a drug addict who illegaly obtained drugs through a charity she worked with. Beyond that I have no idea what the Cindy story will be. Do you?

On second thought, there probably will also be references to her having an affair with a married man (McCain).

Neither seem particularly relevant to the valid issue of how might a First Lady influence her husband. I doubt we have to worry about her urging Pres McCain towards drug abuse and infidelity.

If she is used as a McCain attack dog (highly unlikely) a la Teresa Heinz, and she makes disparaging comments about the character of either Barrack or Michelle Obama, then she flings the door wide open to justified comments about her past.

I very much doubt she will, but that won't stop the Democratic Sleaze Machine from going after her.

I haven't heard a peep about "character" issues concerning Mrs Obama, unless you consider a propensity for angry whining to be a character flaw.

Criticism of her, thus far, has been limited to her political positions which if she is going to voice them, makes them fair game.

I can understand a loving husband's irrational attempts to protect his wife, but I certainly don't have to buy them.

When the wife of a presidential candidate limits her involvement in the campaign to supporting and exhorting her husband, as far as I'm concerned she has set herself off limits.

There's no sexism here, just political common sense. Neither campaign should be about the wife, and from a tactical standpoint, the wife needs to adopt the Potential First Lady's Hypocratical Oath: First do no harm.

If the wife can't swallow the Pat Nixon model, or the candidate thinks he will benefit from the political involvement of his wife, then open the flood gates, but don't (with a straight face) try to invoke the Off Limits Status.

This an interesting twist to modern elections.

No candidate, and especially the Democratic one, wants to give the impression that his wife is a dutiful Stepford version, but in order to demonstrate her independence the candidate sort of has to let her be...independent. An "independent" spouse in a political campaign is pretty much a loose canon, particularly to the candidate's handlers. They have a hard enough time keeping the candidate from stepping on his Johnson without worrying about what an Independent Modern Woman might say or do.

So in a political venue that could have been invented by Lewis Carroll, what is the candidate with the mouthy wife to do? Cry "Off Limits!" of course.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Cindy McCain's net worth is somewhere around 20+ times that of the Obama's. I think her complaining about being able to afford anything is a little bit of a laugh.

Cycloptichorn

But unless you can show us otherwise, Cindy McCain is not complaining about being able to afford anything, while Millionaire Michele is.

I agree. I was merely responding to this phrase by Fox -

"Can you imagine the bruhaha if Laura Bush or Cindy McCain said something like that?"

Cycloptichorn

In a peculiar way.

Are you suggesting that it's a "bit laughable" for Mrs McCain to complain about affording something, but not so with Mrs Obama?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Who is being talked about here?

Unfortunately, the URL you point to gives away the riddle's answer. Smile

sozobe wrote:

Nobody offer to bet me. :-)

I'm sure you'll find a confident Republican to take you up on it. Or maybe not. Anyway, be careful what you wish for with those bets!

(Full disclosure: In 2005, the author of this thread has bet Walter Hinteler and Steve 41oo that crude oil would be below $65 per barrel in autumn 2008.)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

This is interesting!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_democrats_reagan.html

Who is being talked about here?

Quote:
Question: Name the presidential candidate described below.

An unpopular incumbent president sits in the Oval Office. His party's brand is badly tarnished. The economy is in shambles, unemployment on the rise. The housing market is in crisis. Gasoline has become a major issue.

America is enmeshed in a protracted crisis in the Middle East with no end in sight. We are near war footing with Iran. The reputation of the United States is diminished world wide. In historically high numbers, voters believe the country is on the wrong track.

The opposition party has nominated a charismatic candidate for president whose oratorical skills are compared to JFK, perhaps better. He had been introduced to the majority of Americans by way of a spellbinding keynote speech at a previous national party convention.

He has a fervent core of supporters and has emerged as the leader of his party through an insurgency that challenged and ultimately defeated his party's establishment. He runs against Washington and the special interests that control the Capitol. His message is change and hope.

If ever the public demanded change in Washington, it is in this presidential year. It could not be a better political environment for the party out of power.

Yet with all the stars aligned perfectly for a party change in the White House, national polls show the opposition candidate barely ties, and often trails, his opponent.

There is little doubt about the voter's desire for change, but there is plenty of doubt about this candidate who pledges to deliver it. Who is the candidate?

I've privately made some rather out-there predictions in this race that have turned out pretty well. Publicly (as in, here) I've been a bit more conservative. I've said throughout that I thought getting the nomination would be harder for Obama than winning the general election. I've privately mused about a landslide. I'm not really firm in that one -- it's more a "things that make you go hmmm" than a prediction. Nobody offer to bet me. :-)

I bet you Obama doesn't win in a landslide.

Lightning doesn't strike twice, and if it did (and of course it can given a near unlimited set of possibilities) the comparison between Reagan and Obama is flawed.

Reagan ran against a first term Democratic incumbant who followed 8 years of Republican control of the executive branch and made an absolute muck-up of his time in office.

Obama is not running against an incumbant, but his opponent is a member of the party that has held the White House for the last 8 years.

The comparison makes for an entertaining piece but it is superficial at best.

If you're happy to place a wager on an Obama landslide because Reagan spanked Carter, then I'm your Huckleberry.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Cindy McCain's net worth is somewhere around 20+ times that of the Obama's. I think her complaining about being able to afford anything is a little bit of a laugh.

Cycloptichorn

But unless you can show us otherwise, Cindy McCain is not complaining about being able to afford anything, while Millionaire Michele is.

I agree. I was merely responding to this phrase by Fox -

"Can you imagine the bruhaha if Laura Bush or Cindy McCain said something like that?"

Cycloptichorn

In a peculiar way.

Are you suggesting that it's a "bit laughable" for Mrs McCain to complain about affording something, but not so with Mrs Obama?

It's a question of degree. I have a hard time seeing how the Obamas would have a tough time affording stuff; but, it's fair to say that their star has risen considerably in the last 4 years. Cindy McCain was uber-rich from day one. Not the same thing at all. One is much harder to believe then the other; Cindy McCain never wanted for a thing in her life...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As the Obama's have not earned less than $200,000/year since they have been married and for the most part have earned considerably more, Michelle's complaints about paying for college loans and piano lessons and summer camp fees still ring hollow. I have always suspected that Obama's Achilles heel would be an arrogance that he can't quite hide. Claiming a phony poverty can be pretty grating on the sensibilities of people who have experienced the real thing.

0 Replies

Oh, no, I wasn't clear evidently.

I didn't mean "you don't want to bet me because I'm soooo right," I meant "these are musings rather than an outright prediction, so I don't want to bet on it."

This particular article just reminded me of some things I've been saying in private -- I didn't start thinking those things because of the article.

I agree that while there are striking similarities, there are a lot of differences, too.

0 Replies

You mean the Obama White House won't be so full of ... manure there must be a pony in there?

0 Replies

OPINION: Who is Barack Obama?
Where are the responsible media?
Tony Blankley
Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Find a candidate without a paper trail on the most controversial issues. For those of us who suspect, but cannot yet prove, that Barack Obama is a genuine radical leftist, his lack of much of a voting record is going to make it difficult to prove what his real values, policies and motives are to be president.
This is particularly the case because the media is so obviously going to give Mr. Obama cover not only for his current revelatory gaffes, but also for embarrassing bits from Mr. Obama's past.

For example, on June 2, National Review Online ran an extraordinary article by Stanley Kurtz. He closely assessed a 1995 article about Mr. Obama by Hank De Zutter titled "What Makes Obama Run?" The essence of his thesis is the following:

"De Zutter's article shows us that the full story of Obama's ties to [Rev. Michael] Pfleger and [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright is more disturbing and more politically relevant than we've realized up to now. On Obama's own account, the rhetoric and vision of Chicago's most politically radical black churches are exactly what he wants to see more of. True, when discussing Louis Farrakhan with De Zutter, Obama makes a point of repudiating anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Asian sermons. Yet having laid down that proviso, Obama seems to relish the radicalism of preachers like [Father] Pfleger and [Rev.] Wright. In 1995, Obama didn't want Trinity's political show to stop. His plan was to spread it to other black churches, and harness its power to an alliance of leftist groups and sympathetic elected officials.

"Obama's political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with [Rev.] Wright and [Father] Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama's ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, Obama's religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism."

Now, given how much the media has covered both issues pertaining to Father Pfleger and Mr. Wright, when a respectable journal such as National Review runs an article by a journalist of established credibility such as Stanley Kurtz that suggests a different and far more disturbing interpretation of Mr. Obama's relationship to Mr. Wright and Father Pfleger, a responsible mainstream media needs to act. It would seek out Mr. Obama and, at the minimum, ask him whether the things the 1995 De Sutter articles quotes him as saying are things he in fact said. They might even ask him to explain himself. If the 1995 article is an accurate reflection of what Mr. Obama said, then most of what he has said in the last few months about the Wright affair and Trinity church could not continue to be viewed as believable.

A much more recent example of the media not even going through the motions of being responsible is their almost complete avoidance of his recent statement that:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Is there absolutely no curiosity at The Washington Post, the Associated Press or even the New York Times about the assertion by the man who is considered likely to become president of the United States at noon on Jan. 20, 2009, that letting Americans eat as much as they want is "not going to happen?" Doesn't that shockingly dictatorial assertion deserve comment and inquiry?

Yes, it is true that Mr. Obama was explicitly saying that what wasn't going to happen was "other countries [saying] OK" to Americans eating as much as we want. But a fair reading of the whole passage suggests that Mr. Obama agrees with those other countries. And as president, what exactly would he try to do regarding Americans who want to eat as much as they want (or drive SUVs or set their own thermostat)?

Dictator or democrat? Radical or liberal? Who in the world is this man? Where in the world is the responsible media? What's going on?

Tony Blankley is a syndicated columnist.

0 Replies

Tony Blankley?

Au, wtf has happened to you? Is there any hack, right-wing source you won't quote, in order to attack Obama?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo
Like it or not what the hell do we know about Obama. Frankly I do not think that electing an individual to the presidency with a virtual blank page as a resume makes sense. It would seem that some take more care when buying a car than they do when voting to elect a president. Going from a right wing conservative administration to a radical left wing one could be a leap from the frying pan into the fire.

I Will ask again what do we realy know about Mr Obama. as you so delicately put it{wtf] happened to me. Not a damned thing. Have voiced those misgivings from the very beginning of the campaign. And will continue to do so up until [hopefully ] Obama gets defeated in the election.

0 Replies

You're no Dem, to be saying that.

You haven't done any research about Obama, yet claim he's a 'blank page.' What dishonesty. What is it you would like to know? His resume is at least as long as that of his opponent; he's put in roughly the same amount of government service relative to his age...

My guess is that his race and the fact he's of muslim descent means more to you then just about everything else, based on a few comments you've made in the last several months. Typical, but disappointing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo.

Put this in your pipe and smoke it.

COMMENTARY: Time to ask tough questions
Linda Chavez
Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama is, finally, the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party - no mean achievement in this most hotly contested primary race in recent history. He deserves a day or two to bask in this glory - and certainly the media have been helping this along with fawning coverage of his "historic" achievement as the first African-American to win a major party nomination.

But at some point, surely, the press will get back to doing its job; namely, asking tough questions of Mr. Obama so the voting public will learn more about the man who could be their next president.

The media should start by focusing on Mr. Obama's proposals in the foreign policy arena. He has offered a pretty radical vision of what his campaign calls "direct presidential diplomacy," offering to sit down, without preconditions, with some of the world's worst tyrants. He first made the offer in the heat of a presidential debate in which he was trying to contrast his approach with the current president.

In July 2007, a YouTube questioner asked him, "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" His answer was simple and direct: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."

Since then, Mr. Obama has been hedging and qualifying his statement, most recently with respect to Iran when he addressed the pro-Israel group AIPAC on Wednesday. He tried to reassure the attendees - understandably worried about a nuclear-armed Iran, as everyone in the world should be - by saying he would engage in "careful preparation" before any talks begin.

But then he did what he often does. He pretended he hadn't said earlier what he clearly had: "I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking," he claimed, blaming the confusion on his adversaries.

There are two issues here. One is foreign policy naivete. His original statement suggests he has no idea how diplomacy actually works. As a well-meaning amateur trying to rewrite the rules to conform to his idea of how the world should be, Mr. Obama could endanger the very security he seeks. But the other issue - and the one the mainstream press has so far largely ignored - is Mr. Obama's truthfulness.

It is one thing for him to say he spoke too rashly in July and wants to amend his position. Political candidates make mistakes, sometimes saying things they don't quite mean. We all do. And the best way to put the episode behind him is to own up to it.

But Mr. Obama can't seem to bring himself to do this because it would shine too bright a light on his inexperience in the foreign policy arena. So, instead, he says, in effect, he never said that.

The media are usually pretty eager to catch a politician in a contradiction. They are usually aggressive whenever a candidate changes his or her story, even when the matter itself is trivial. So why haven't the media been more dogged on Mr. Obama's misrepresentations of his willingness to sit down with dictators?

The point isn't for journalists to take a position on whether Mr. Obama's proposal to engage in direct talks with the likes of Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be a good or a bad idea. But they should be interested in why Mr. Obama said it was the right approach in July and has now backtracked, and in the case of Iran anyway, wants to pretend he never said it was.

Mr. Obama's sleight of hand raises an important issue of character. And the media have traditionally played an important role in helping voters define a candidate's character by asking tough and probing questions. So far, they've been reluctant to do so with Mr. Obama, certainly on substantive matters. It's time they start.

Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal."

0 Replies

Uh, oh.

Looks like Cyc is giving the boot to yet ANOTHER democrat! Before long it will be just a nice circle jerk of like-minded drones huddled around a campfire sing kumbya believing in change.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Uh, oh.

Looks like Cyc is giving the boot to yet ANOTHER democrat! Before long it will be just a nice circle jerk of like-minded drones huddled around a campfire sing kumbya believing in change.

I doubt you'll be laughing during all those months in the wilderness with the other Republicans, wishing that there was a spot around the fire for you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Uh, oh.

Looks like Cyc is giving the boot to yet ANOTHER democrat! Before long it will be just a nice circle jerk of like-minded drones huddled around a campfire sing kumbya believing in change.

What can one expect from a Berkeley liberal. Particularly one who thinks he is smarter than everyone else.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Uh, oh.

Looks like Cyc is giving the boot to yet ANOTHER democrat! Before long it will be just a nice circle jerk of like-minded drones huddled around a campfire sing kumbya believing in change.

What can one expect from a Berkeley liberal. Particularly one who thinks he is smarter than everyone else.

Every now and then one is presented with evidence.

What is your problem with Obama exactly, Au? You are willing to put McCain in office, who you know will continue Bush's policies, which I know you don't support - why?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And back to those Town Hall discussions that McCain wants but Obama so far has not agreed to, I imagine his campaign managers are afraid of many more excerpts like these when Obama is working without a script:

YOU TUBE CUT #1

YOU TUBE CUT #2

Once in awhile anybody can mix up words or stumble over a phrase and these are neither significant nor important. But this is a pattern that seems to be emerging with Obama and does expose the fact that he very often is not familiar with his subject and/or is easily rattled in extemporaneous speaking. And sooner or later that could erode confidence in those who are still wondering if Obama really is for real and who see how much better McCain works without a net.

0 Replies

Obama's electability

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know