Obama '08?

sozobe wrote:

Yep.

I wonder if you picked up any impressions when you were in Hawaii...?

So, apparently, Hawaii is extremely anti-Monsanto and GM foods; a big Hillary supporter. According to reports from some people there, she's really getting beat over the head with it in local conversation and news.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, there are legions of Obama supporters here, but it's the OBAMA thread, so why is that unexpected or wrong?

It's the terms 'cult-like' and such which are demeaning. Let me do a quick search of your posts for the last two weeks and see what I can come up with...

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, there are legions of Obama supporters here, but it's the OBAMA thread, so why is that unexpected or wrong?

It's the terms 'cult-like' and such which are demeaning. Let me do a quick search of your posts for the last two weeks and see what I can come up with...

Cycloptichorn

Are you going to use the defense that this thread is the special preserve of fawning Obama supporters? That doesn't appear to comport with the many posts by you and others here on the various Bush/Republican threads.

"Cult-like" is an accurate metaphor. I don't doubt that you don't like it, but it hardly qualifies as a rhetorical excess here on A2K.

Sorry, but it isn't an accurate metaphor at all. It implies blind support and a lack of a critical eye. You have no evidence whatsoever that this is true. It is merely a smear designed to belittle supporters of Obama. You have no objective evidence upon which to rest your smear, only you opinion.

I don't think this is a 'special preserve,' but you should be aware that you are going to find a large presence of Obama supporters in this thread; and you seem to be continually bemused by the fact that this is true. I don't understand why.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sorry, but it isn't an accurate metaphor at all. It implies blind support and a lack of a critical eye. You have no evidence whatsoever that this is true. It is merely a smear designed to belittle supporters of Obama. You have no objective evidence upon which to rest your smear, only you opinion.

I don't think that the question is itself subject to objective proof, one way or the other. I expressed my impressions and opinions as just that. Your differing views are, similarly, only your opinions.

Since I addressed my opinions directly to you Obama supporters - and not to third parties - it was no smear. merely friendly advice.

Your excess reaction illustrates the point.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't think this is a 'special preserve,' but you should be aware that you are going to find a large presence of Obama supporters in this thread; and you seem to be continually bemused by the fact that this is true. I don't understand why.

Cycloptichorn

The thread is titled "Obama - 08?", not "Dialogue exclusively among rabid Obama supporters". I would expect it to be populated by people with something to express, pro or con about the Obama campaign; the candidate; and the political promise of the effort. I am bemused only by the exaggerated sense of mission, belief, and sensitivity to criticism of the Obama supporters here. The critics, by and large, have been more restrained.

Again you are reinforcintg this point.

Well the thread is indeed past 1000 pages, and I won't try to either read it all or claim knowledge of it all. I did scan the first 25 pages and found a discussions mostly involving Obama supporters and others, not committed, and mostly addressing the various factors that might affect his candidacy - this was all back in March & April 2007 and before the potential of his candidacy was eveident to everyone.

I haven't seen ANY vitriol here, certainly none of the intensity reserved for President Bush and others in the many other threads that populate the political forum here. My knowledge of this thread strongly suggests to me that the 'Obama 08?' thread is distinguishable for a relative absense of vitriol - compared to most other threads on the political forum.

I agree, I'm not a neutral observer. However I defy you to point out any poster on the thread who might so qualify - certainly you don't. Several commentators here have already noted the uncommon sensitivity of Obama supporters to any criticism of their candidate -- as have numerous media critics and "neutral" commentators. I don't think there is anything outrageous or even particularly original in my making the same point. You can characterize it as vitriolic harassment, and I as friendly advice. Who is right? Consider for a moment some of your own comments about Republicans, conservatives, McCain supporters and the rest.

The rather shrill defense of the true believers here tends to add to the skepticism of those who doubt or oppose their candidate and it could even undermine the political wisdom of the Obama camp itself - particularly if it grows into assuming that a crowd of enthused claques will always be there to shout down their critics.

Still nothing about polls (except confirmation that there don't seem to be any), but more HI info here.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-hawaii_feb19,1,4406250.story

(Inouye has endorsed Clinton [that's big]. Chelsea Clinton is campaigning there; Obama's sister Maya is campaigning on his behalf. Obama is airing ads, Clinton is not. Etc.)

I don't want to further harm the name of The New Republic among Obama supporters, but they have two further stories up analysing Obama's chances, and I think they're interesting.

The current narrative is that Obama will sweep home all the primary states this month, and then face trouble in OH, TX and PA. But was it smart of the Obama campaign to basically reinforce the impression that all of the primaries this month are in Obama country? It's not exactly managing expectations, and these two items preview how the races in Virginia and, yes, Hawaii might be more fraught than is generally accepted:

• Split Dominion, by Josh Patashnik
  
  
• Is Hawaii Really Obama Country?, by Barron YoungSmith

Neither piece is particularly down on Obama; but both are pretty level-headed down to the nitty-gritty analysis of the forces at play.

Key excerpts about Hawaii:

Quote:

Barack Obama will probably win Hawaii on February 19. He does have a "home state" advantage and an organizational edge, since the state has a caucus. But here's something to ponder: almost 60% of Hawaiians are Asian Americans--as Isaac pointed out, by far the most anti-Obama demographic in the United States in the primaries thus far. [N]ot to mention that Hawaii's Democrats are notorious machine politicians, closely tied to the military and to huge unions that are officially in the tank for Clinton. [..]

[A] local expert, Ira Rohter from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, reveals that the Democratic establishment is aggressively working to inoculate the state against Obama--priming their warhorses, the two biggest government unions, for a major turnout effort and bringing professional organizers from the mainland.

During the 2004 primaries, Dennis Kucinich apparently caught them by surprise, coming in second place with the help of left-wing progressive organizers. Now warned, they've vowed to prevent a repeat performance by Obama. [..]

[A]s always, Obama's campaign has focused on community organization in a way that Hillary's doesn't even attempt to do. "They're doing all the right things," Rohter, a campaign-organization junkie, tells me. [But] the Democratic establishment there is powerful, and it's fighting him with everything it has.

<item about VA snipped>

And, for your viewing pleasure, here's Bill Clinton making an extremely effective pitch for... Barack Obama.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/coming-back-to.html

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And, for your viewing pleasure, here's Bill Clinton making an extremely effective pitch for... Barack Obama.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/coming-back-to.html

Cycloptichorn

Ha, Obama should have plagiarized that!

georgeob1 wrote:

The rather shrill defense of the true believers here tends to add to the skepticism of those who doubt or oppose their candidate and it could even undermine the political wisdom of the Obama camp itself - particularly if it grows into assuming that a crowd of enthused claques will always be there to shout down their critics.

Since you are the expert on the decorum necessary for an advocate of a presidential candidate, I was wondering if you would mind holding a mini-seminar for all of us to learn from.

How would you have gone about responding to the accusations of plagarism as it unfolded here on this thread?

Butrflynet wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

The rather shrill defense of the true believers here tends to add to the skepticism of those who doubt or oppose their candidate and it could even undermine the political wisdom of the Obama camp itself - particularly if it grows into assuming that a crowd of enthused claques will always be there to shout down their critics.

Since you are the expert on the decorum necessary for an advocate of a presidential candidate, I was wondering if you would mind holding a mini-seminar for all of us to learn from.

How would you have gone about responding to the accusations of plagarism as it unfolded here on this thread?

Well, the only reasonable response would have been to agree with George that it was plagiarism, of course. Anything else is just being uncommonly oversensitive. Disagreeing with him on this one is just "the hallmark of a fanatic" and proof that one has "drunk the Kool Aid".

So is it going to be Obama v McCain?

georgeob1 wrote:

The rather shrill defense of the true believers here tends to add to the skepticism of those who doubt or oppose their candidate and it could even undermine the political wisdom of the Obama camp itself - particularly if it grows into assuming that a crowd of enthused claques will always be there to shout down their critics.

George,

Since you are the expert on the decorum necessary for an advocate of a presidential candidate, I was wondering if you would mind holding a mini-seminar for all of us to learn from.

How would you have gone about responding to the accusations of plagarism as it unfolded here on this thread?

And, how would you have responded to the people in this thread who are using derogatory labels to describe your responses to those plagarism accusations?

The rather shrill defense of the true believers here tends to add to the skepticism of those who doubt or oppose their candidate and it could even undermine the political wisdom of the Obama camp itself -