At the very least, c.i., it would be a start.
I guess, small incremental steps for improvement is better than continuing on with the present modus operandi.
That's what we need Eva. A fresh start. You are dead right.
Where's your base line?
Stray though:
I've now read a boatload of stuff about Iowa, about Obama, about how he's likely to do in NH, etc. News stories, analysis, blogs... I just realized that I don't think I've seen one that has laid the win at the feet of Oprah. That was something I was worried about when she was campaigning for him and getting big crowds, and there was a lot of chatter about how big of an impact her endorsement slash campaigning for him would have. I was concerned that if it did have a good effect, that it'd be about her, not him. That would be a net negative -- it's weak, or something, to have Oprah hand him the win.
I think she's being seen as more part of the big picture, if that -- that he's an extraordinary candidate, so extraordinary that he got the apolitical Queen of All Media on his side. That's good.
soz, I wouldn't worry too much about Oprah's impact; I remember reading many decades ago how most voted based on a) name recognition, b) looks, c) party affiliation, and d) who their family and friends are voting for.
I think we've grown a bit more from that time. It helps that we have tv, the debates, the media, and the polls. (and Oprah.
)
If I was running I would hope Oprah slagged me off goodstyle.
Might Mr Obama owe her some favours?
I suspect Oprah turn off as many people as she may have attracted to Obama. In the end, I think it's a wash.
Did you see the article ablout Hillary in the NYT?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/politics/07cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
She's starting to show the strain. I think it's funny that most of the media is focusing on Hillary and Edwards and how they are handling their defeat rather than on Obama.
I think they all want Mr Obama to win because they think he's unelectable.
Does Hillary showing her emotion help or hinder her campaign?
cicerone imposter wrote:Does Hillary showing her emotion help or hinder her campaign?
I thought she came off, a little phony, just a little. Being a female, is alright, considering Muskie cried in NH, I think. I think Obama floored them all, with his big win in Iowa and I think, he'll ace this one! :wink: :wink: :wink:
Swimpy wrote:I suspect Oprah turn off as many people as she may have attracted to Obama. In the end, I think it's a wash.
It certainly did turn off several people I know... not people that thought much of Obama anyway, though.
cyphercat wrote:Swimpy wrote:I suspect Oprah turn off as many people as she may have attracted to Obama. In the end, I think it's a wash.
It certainly did turn off several people I know... not people that thought much of Obama anyway, though.
Oprah helped Obama immensely by helping to bring out crowds and getting normally apolitical people involved in the process. I can't understand why a celebrity endorsement whether from Chuck Norris or Oprah would turn anyone off. That is bizarre.
Swimpy wrote:I suspect Oprah turn off as many people as she may have attracted to Obama. In the end, I think it's a wash.
I've been seeing more articles and blogs referring to the Oprahma campaign. Definitely pros and cons to her coming out publicly for him.
It seems there are only two things on the minds of San Franciscans, sympathy for Tatiana being put down because of the punks who taunted her and the stunning rise of Barack Obama.
Obama right now is exactly what this country needs. It's almost Messianic.
ehBeth wrote:Swimpy wrote:I suspect Oprah turn off as many people as she may have attracted to Obama. In the end, I think it's a wash.
I've been seeing more articles and blogs referring to the Oprahma campaign. Definitely pros and cons to her coming out publicly for him.
That makes no sense. An Oprah backlash? Oprah is one of the least controversial public figures in America. Is there a Chuck Norris and/or Ted Nugent backlash too?
Could someone document this allegation (Oprah backlash) with hard facts please? In recent days, there has been all sorts of nonsense posted on these threads without any demand for fact checking. It is really getting out of hand. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Oh yes. That was a shame that they felt they had to put her down.
The one who killed someone, and maimed a couple others?
Well, it's sort of automatic in my opinion. Like, if I had a dog who turned on and badly hurt or killed a child of mine; even if the child had been pulling on the dog's tail, even if I hadn't properly restrained the dog in order to keep the child safer - no matter what the extenuating circumstance. A human had been maimed or killed by an animal. The dog would die. Tatiana had to die. It's a basic, very primal thing, in my opinion. No avoiding that.
