Obama '08?

Gala wrote:

The beloved (Obama) wants Mz. Clinton to make her tax returns public-- A bad move, it's going to hurt him. He ought to be sticking with his message of hope and not getting sidetracked with this petty crap.

Why is it a bad move? Full disclousure...where di the 5M come from?

I also think his claim that he will "change politics as usual" is likely either naive or a misrepresentation. Because he has so far been using the same "politics as usual" as Hillary has. I don't' think he's done it any more or less that Hillary. It seems a warp in perception that Hillary's camp can see Obama do it and Obama supporters can see Hillary do it. But very few seem to be able to see that it's true of both. It's my opinion that there is some of politics as usual that is both inevitable and necessary when running for office. If he really tried to run without it, he'd lose. I'm not sure if I'm observing a double standard on his part, if he's naive or if he's simply failed to tell us and to demonstrate exactly what it is he wants to change and how he will go about doing it. I think he should tell us something more specific. Unless he does that, I can't feel confident to vote for him.

*** Dictating the pace of the game: Is Obama the front-runner? Maybe not, but the fact that he's dictating the terms of when the candidates debate and he is the fundraising leader, he's on the verge. The only thing missing: an overall delegate lead and a national primary poll lead. Clinton needs to stop him from that because if his momentum ever gets to the point where he looks like the national front-runner in the polls, everything else will only cement him. Another example of Obama dictating the race: his semi-call yesterday for the Clintons to release their tax returns after the $5 million loan, which led to a slew of stories today examining their wealth. But the Clinton folks had to know this would be the result of their decision to spend their own money. After all, the Clintons have only accumulated their wealth since Bill Clinton left the presidency. By the way, can the Clinton campaign get away with their promise to wait to release their tax returns after the primary season?

woiyo wrote:

Gala wrote:

The beloved (Obama) wants Mz. Clinton to make her tax returns public-- A bad move, it's going to hurt him. He ought to be sticking with his message of hope and not getting sidetracked with this petty crap.

Why is it a bad move? Full disclousure...where di the 5M come from?

Full disclosure is fine. But, it's an attack and the public, me included, wants him to stick to his message of hope. Also, the Clinton's don't heed to requests such as this-- remember Whitewater, or the demands on Bill to turn over his medical records during his first election, or Bill smoking pot? None of the goods were forthcoming.

It doesn't work. It makes him look desperate.

When you break down the white voters by gender you find that Hillary's lead amongst whites is with women - not men.

Men: 52% Obama, 34% Clinton
Wiomen: 55% Clinton, 34% Obama

Review the states that held a primary and those results hold up pretty well.

I think the polling numbers bear out my contention. There is no generational split amongst black or Latinos. Blacks have consistantly gone Obama's way in very high numbers abnd Latinos have gone Hillaryt's way in very high numbers - both across all age groups and across the country.

"Mom, Obama, and Me"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-munoz2feb02,0,1138667.story

The CLINTONS are criminals and should not be trusted. I applaud Obama for challenging them. When they refuse, then OBAMA will be right on message...Voting for CLINTON is more of the same old same old.

Sorry for my diversion.
As a pathetic observer of this funny Drama in the name of selecting a candidate to ushapr the power i beg to submit this as my views.
Your political system is not perfect nor will it be in the near future.
Money should not play the major role to pick up a candidate who after winning the final election will send those boys and girls in a far off desert to fight against the invisible, unknown enimies.

Change and hope are epithets to enthuse the mobs.

There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen

But my point about the age thing is only part of why I don't support Obama now. I am a person who is highly suspicious of charismatic speakers who energize a crowd in the way Obama can. It's fine, it I know I can trust the person, but I don't know enough about him to know that now. I've sat through many a revival meeting with that type of oratory and crowds who seem mesmerized.

The fact that is so often being repeated over and over the last few ways that if Obama can get in front of a crowd, he wins supporters. That is, a crowd of people who contain many people who otherwise had some reason to not be for him and be won over by his oratorical style alone. It strikes an alarm for me because I've seen it abused too many times. I don't suspect Obama of potential evil, I haven't had a chance to evaluate whether or not he can handle the job.

I also think his claim that he will "change politics as usual" is likely either naive or a misrepresentation. Because he has so far been using the same "politics as usual" as Hillary has. I don't' think he's done it any more or less that Hillary. It seems a warp in perception that Hillary's camp can see Obama do it and Obama supporters can see Hillary do it. But very few seem to be able to see that it's true of both. It's my opinion that there is some of politics as usual that is both inevitable and necessary when running for office. If he really tried to run without it, he'd lose. I'm not sure if I'm observing a double standard on his part, if he's naive or if he's simply failed to tell us and to demonstrate exactly what it is he wants to change and how he will go about doing it. I think he should tell us something more specific. Unless he does that, I can't feel confident to vote for him.

Hillary's not a perfect candidate. But she is excellent at what she does. She does know how to get things done, or at least she's proved that to me over a long period of time. I feel confident in Hillary's democratic values. I've seen her fight for those values with consistency. I don't doubt Obama's values either. He seems committed to the values most Democrats hold dear. But he hasn't proven to me that he can do what needs to be done. And what I consider to be his poor judgement about entering the race at a time when he couldn't avoid causing a major rift in the party is one very large reason I want to see more before I vote for him.

As it is now, as for me, if he is nominated, I'll vote for him. But I will not work for his campaign nor will I donate money. I think those who voted for him can take that responsibility. I've had to spend all I am willing to spend on the nominating process. It's been way too expensive. I think there are lots of people who will do the same.

woiyo wrote:

The CLINTONS are criminals and should not be trusted. I applaud Obama for challenging them. When they refuse, then OBAMA will be right on message...Voting for CLINTON is more of the same old same old.

Oh fer crying out loud, get a grip. I want Obama to win. His best chance is to stick to the message.

Quote:

Voters tend to ask four questions that determine who they will vote for, which provide a hierarchy of influences on the decisions about whether and how to vote: "How do I feel about the candidate's party and its principles?" "How does this candidate make me feel?" "How do I feel about this candidate's personal characteristics, particularly his or her integrity, leadership, and compassion?" and "How do I feel about the candidate's stand on issue that matter to me?"

Candidates who focus their campaigns toward the top of this hierarchy and work their way down generally win. They drink from the wellsprings of partisan feelings. They tell emotionally compelling stories about who they are and what they believe in.... They run on who they are and what they genuinely care about, and they know their constituents well enough to know where they share their values and where they don't.... They speak at the level of principled stands. They provide emotionally compelling examples of the ways they would govern, signature issues that illustrate their principles and foster identification.

Quote:

Anyone who believes this should read the Declaration of Independence.

woiyo wrote:

The CLINTONS are criminals and should not be trusted. I applaud Obama for challenging them. When they refuse, then OBAMA will be right on message...Voting for CLINTON is more of the same old same old.

Oh fer crying out loud, get a grip. I want Obama to win. His best chance is to stick to the message.

Lola wrote:

I also think his claim that he will "change politics as usual" is likely either naive or a misrepresentation. Because he has so far been using the same "politics as usual" as Hillary has. I don't' think he's done it any more or less that Hillary. It seems a warp in perception that Hillary's camp can see Obama do it and Obama supporters can see Hillary do it. But very few seem to be able to see that it's true of both. It's my opinion that there is some of politics as usual that is both inevitable and necessary when running for office. If he really tried to run without it, he'd lose. I'm not sure if I'm observing a double standard on his part, if he's naive or if he's simply failed to tell us and to demonstrate exactly what it is he wants to change and how he will go about doing it. I think he should tell us something more specific. Unless he does that, I can't feel confident to vote for him.

I certainly agree that he would have lost by now if he hadn't been engaging in some politics as usual with regard to campaigning. But the politics as usual that he speaks about changing has more to do with how government is run -- without transparency or much popular involvement and with special interests overriding the interests of the people. And he has given many specifics about how he would go about changing this. To me, that's pretty much the thing that gets me off the fence and into his yard and that's not something Hillary is even paying lip service to. To someone like me, it sounds like she's saying that changing the people in charge of an f-ed up system is good enough, while he's saying we have to change the f-ed up system. Since we all know how easy it is to put the wrong people in places of power, I'll go with him.

If we just pretend that both candidates are white men for a second, what we're really upset about is having to choose between two good candidates. O woe is us to have two good candidates. Those lucky bastard Republicans don't have a single one.

Pretending they are white men would be a mistake, imo. They aren't white men and denying the effects, both emtionally and politically, of the long term effects of racial and gender discrimination is unwise if not a form or racial and gender bias itself.

Lola wrote

Quote:

Pretending they are white men would be a mistake, imo. They aren't white men and denying the effects, both emtionally and politically, of the long term effects of racial and gender discrimination is unwise if not a form or racial and gender bias itself.

I don't think that's what Freeduck meant though, though she is certainly capable of speaking for herself. What I took from her post is that if we take race and gender out of it, the Dems are left with two candidates that everybody likes or at least would consider on merit rather than emotional appeal. Race and gender can actually obscure the facts that should be considered.

Btw Lola: I think the Obama Vs. McCain campaigns would pretty much guarantee a healing of the Democrat-divide you fear so much.

I don't think that's entirely true. It surely needs to be his focal point... but increasing transparency is part of his message. Evicting corruption is part of the promise. Bill Clinton left office in debt up to his eyeballs. He now makes about 10 million a year, with his renowned ability to give speeches... which is all fine and good... just so long as it's true.

Now consider that Hillary has pretty much been strategizing for the Presidency since before Bill's term was up. During this same time; Bill's been picking up windfalls of personal wealth, much of it from foreign sources. Should the American people really be expected to just assume these phenomena are unrelated? Why? We do know that two of Hillary's biggest contributors are, indeed, contributors to Bill's personal wealth as well (CitiCorp, Goldman & Sachs). This already smells more than a little like foul play; but it becomes VERY important if Hillary is actually using this same money to get elected.

The request is more than reasonable enough, in lieu of the circumstances. A refusal to comply should, rightly, be frowned upon by the American people... at the very least.