Obama '08?

blatham wrote:

cyclo

Fair enough on your reply. We're not so far apart and where we are it can be damned difficult to say anything with certainty.

Let me add two peripheral thoughts. First, though our little crowd here is experiencing a level of contentiousness I've never seen before, along with that comes the participation of a bunch of folks who were previously leaving all this loud and unruly axe-murderous terrain to the junkies. I like the interest level a lot, if not the other part.

Second, a couple of weeks past I was watching an ex Clinton cabinet chap (can't remember his name though I knew it well enough) speaking. A very careful and intelligent fellow he was. He didn't entertain even slightly any aspect of the Dem contest but rather just spoke on what has gone on over the last few decades (the last seven years most acutely) and he forwarded his view that this election was the most important in American history, sitting as we are upon the cusp of many significant possibilities. Even if that is merely close to being an accurate estimation (say its the third most important) then, along with the race, gender and generational components here, that might help to understand why this race and election are proving as volatile as they are.

Sure. I think that the advent of the internet age has also allowed many, many more regular folks to up their level of interest and involvement; it's easier to get multiple viewpoints and in-depth info now then it used to be by an order of magnitude. So it's hard for me to see how old voting patterns and reliable ways of doing things are going to continue in the next decade or so.

The fact that Obama is strongly appealing to people of all races, when under the age of 30, is hopefully evidence of some movement on the racial relations front. It's hard for me to even understand why someone WOULDN'T vote for someone based on their race alone...

Cycloptichorn

Butrflynet wrote:

Since we are talking about doing things right, what's wrong with postponing the Florida Democratic vote for several months to give ALL the candidates time to campaign there before a vote is counted?

If we are going to be fair and allow the delegates to the DNC then let's be completely fair and allow all the candidates the time to campaign there.

Whether they all campaign there or none of them campaign there would be equally fair right?

If none of them campaign there, it's hard to see how there could be a vote in the traditional American sense.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If none of them campaign there, it's hard to see how there could be a vote in the traditional American sense.

It's hard to see how denying them the right to have their votes count is voting the traditional American sense either, but you seem to be in favor of that.

But like Edwards was saying during the last debate, if you you don't mandate that coverage be bought then you will have people who don't pay into the system by choice, but we'll still provide them care at a great expense to the taxpayers.

And you enforce it the same way you enforce people to pay taxes, or follow any of the other laws we've put on the books. You make the penalty for not obeying the law greater then obeying the law.

How many here support Obama's health care plan, and it's lack of universal coverage?

I would much prefer Edward's or Clinton's plan, both of which are more in line with my beliefs in what our nation should have. I'm curious if most of his supporters are giving him a pass on this bill or if they really don't prefer a universal coverage system.

Butrflynet wrote:

Since we are talking about doing things right, what's wrong with postponing the Florida Democratic vote for several months to give ALL the candidates time to campaign there before a vote is counted?

If we are going to be fair and allow the delegates to the DNC then let's be completely fair and allow all the candidates the time to campaign there.

Whether they all campaign there or none of them campaign there would be equally fair right?

BREAKING: Jesus Christ to return to Earth to endorse Obama
The King of Kings to endorse Obama on Tuesday at a rally in Branson.

Critics play down the value of the endorsement.
By Sniffa
Published: January 27, 2008

Branson, MO - Stunning news from the Kingdom of Heaven, as Jesus has announced his long awaited return to Earth; though not to begin the Revelations, but to throw his considerable weight behind the candidacy of Barrack Obama, the Junior Senator from Illinois in his hard fought battle against Hillary Clinton for the Presidency.
The endorsement is a major coup for the Obama campaign, as the Huckabee camp had been actively seeking the Lord's backing. Reached for comment, Governor Huckabee congratulated the Senator on the endorsement, but then went on to question whether this was the one and true, Jesus, further ratcheting up the vitriol in an already, increasingly negative campaign.
"If one takes a look at where the endorsement is going to take place - Branson - one has to seriously question whether this is really the true Jesus, or is it the Mormon Jesus" said Huckabee. "And as I'm sure I don't need to remind you, Mormon Jesus is the brother of Satan. That's not a potato sack I wish to climb into.
"The Clinton campaign was also quick to dismiss the endorsement. In a conference call with reporters, Chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn questioned whether the endorsement would make much of a difference.
"Look, when you take a step back and look at the big picture, this endorsement doesn't mean that much," opined Penn. "Polling trends have shown that church attendance have been on the wane for decades. And I'd also like to point out that Barrack Hussein Obama has claimed that this race is about the past versus the future. Well you can't get more in the past than 33 A.D.
"Mark Penn went on to compare the Son of God unfavorably to Senator John Kerry's unsuccessful bid for the White House in 2004.
"Look, it doesn't surprise me that Jesus and Kerry have both decided to join the Obama camp," said Penn. "In 2004, Kerry didn't fight back against the swift boating, and Jesus didn't fight back against the Romans when they crucified him. You can expect the same response from Obama when the right wing smear machine gets going. Senator Clinton is the only candidate with the proven track record of fighting back.

"The Obama campaign plans to release a statement later today.

Yes, if he'd just stayed in his place instead of having the impertinence to challenge Hillary, she wouldn't have had to go negative! You're so right, it's all his fault... how could I have missed it?




Ahem.



There's stuff here I want to respond to more seriously, but later, when I have some time.

sozobe wrote:

Yes, if he'd just stayed in his place instead of having the impertinence to challenge Hillary, she wouldn't have had to go negative! You're so right, it's all his fault... how could I have missed it?




Ahem.



There's stuff here I want to respond to more seriously, but later, when I have some time.

yes apparently someone forgot to tell Obama that being a vessel for civility means being civil even if others are perceived as being uncivil to you

Now, here's a coup:

http://maruthecrankpot.blogspot.com/2008/01/another-huge-endorsement-fot-mittster.html

1. Like auto insurance, Clinton's plan legislates a guarantee to the insurance companies and health care providers that they will have a constant revenue source no matter the quality, quantity or responsiveness of their service.

It does not guarantee affordability to the health care consumer nor does it aim at cost containment for the health care provider.

2. Unlike auto insurance that is tied into state auto registration fees, Clinton's health plan has no vehicle for enforcement.

3. Clinton's plan does nothing to address uninsured Americans who have been denied coverage by insurance companies due to pre-existing health problems.

4. Clinton's plan does nothing to address uninsured Americans who can not afford current health care coverage rates and doesn't assure them a sliding-scale fee based on income.

• Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Yes, if he'd just stayed in his place instead of having the impertinence to challenge Hillary, she wouldn't have had to go negative! You're so right, it's all his fault... how could I have missed it?




Ahem.



There's stuff here I want to respond to more seriously, but later, when I have some time.

yes apparently someone forgot to tell Obama that being a vessel for civility means being civil even if others are perceived as being uncivil to you

Obama has remained civil.

Putting a laughing face at the end of every post tends to remove the effect after a while - though I'd love to see you keep doing it.

Cycloptichorn

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Yes, if he'd just stayed in his place instead of having the impertinence to challenge Hillary, she wouldn't have had to go negative! You're so right, it's all his fault... how could I have missed it?




Ahem.



There's stuff here I want to respond to more seriously, but later, when I have some time.

yes apparently someone forgot to tell Obama that being a vessel for civility means being civil even if others are perceived as being uncivil to you

Obama has remained civil.

Putting a laughing face at the end of every post tends to remove the effect after a while - though I'd love to see you keep doing it.

Cycloptichorn

Butrflynet --

Apologies if this is just my cynicism showing again. But your criticism of the Clinton plan sounds suspiciously like a cut & paste of prefabricated campaign talking points. Could you please expand on your statements?

Thomas wrote:

Butrflynet --

Apologies if this is just my cynicism showing again. But your criticism of the Clinton plan sounds suspiciously like a cut & paste of prefabricated campaign talking points. Could you please expand on your statements?

Actually, it was all my own typing and my own opinions. Much of the points I previously stated in my blog on the Obama website several months ago when discussing the plans for health coverage.

I don't have time at the moment to download and re-read Hillary's plan to find page and paragraph numbers for you. I'll address your points as soon as I have done that.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Yes, if he'd just stayed in his place instead of having the impertinence to challenge Hillary, she wouldn't have had to go negative! You're so right, it's all his fault... how could I have missed it?




Ahem.



There's stuff here I want to respond to more seriously, but later, when I have some time.

yes apparently someone forgot to tell Obama that being a vessel for civility means being civil even if others are perceived as being uncivil to you

Obama has remained civil.

Putting a laughing face at the end of every post tends to remove the effect after a while - though I'd love to see you keep doing it.

Cycloptichorn

the laughing emoticons are to show how absolutely hilarious it is that you folks swallow all of this guys passive agreesive holier than thou bullshit....

Will the Kennedy Endorsement Help?

Contra Jon Cohn, I don't see how Ted Kennedy's endorsement will actually help Barack Obama win votes. Sure, it's a dramatic rebuke to the Clintons, and the media loves this sort of stuff, but as far as actual electoral traction goes, it's difficult to see how this endorsement will, say, put a dent in Hillary's 37% lead in Massachusetts, the state where a Kennedy endorsement would most make a difference [..]. Whatever the Kennedys' virtues, endorsements do not play the sort of role in convincing voters that the media portrays.

One tends to agree with this. Something to consider, however, is that since we are heading into something close to a national primary, what matters is the news cycle. A candidate in Sen. Obama's position must gain lots of ground in a hurry in delegate rich states or delegate rich sections of states--and therefore he must control the news cycle in a favorable way for as many of the coming few days as possible. So if you think of it in that way, Sen. Obama controls the news cycle Sunday and Monday.

Can Sen. Clinton gain some ground in the news with Florida? Sen. Obama must maintain momentum on many fronts at once in order to be able to compete between now and next Tuesday in all the places he has to compete. Because the next few days are unprecedented in American politics, you cannot look at what is about to unfold in conventional terms. There are no past examples of anything to compare.

On the whole such an endorsement should not matter--but it occupies vital media space in a positive way.