Obama '08?

In other words if your not for Obama your not very smart so do as I tell you and don't think for yourself.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
so, occom smug... if I don't support Obama I don't care about these important issues.... thanks for defining me.

You know, this may be true from a logic point of view. If this statement is true [If A, then B] then the contrapositive is also true [If not B then not A]. If you care about Senator Clinton's positions on healthcare, the war in Iraq, abortion rights, etc, then you should support Obama in the fall since he supports those positions the way Clinton did. From a logic point of view, if you don't support Obama in the fall, you must not support Clinton's positions.

Bear, we don't want you to join a Barak love fest, just vote your beliefs on the issues.

engineer you're a very nice and reasonable guy I'm sure spending an afternoon over the table with a couple of drinks and discussing most any subject with you would be pleasant.... but jeezum f*cking pleezum.... I DON'T HAVE FAITH THAT OBAMA CAN DELIVER.......I mean really how many times do I have to say it?

0 Replies

And then there are those of us who, immodestly perhaps, do not consider ourselves to be stupid, but who think Obama's views of what government should be about, what government can accomplish, and/or the policies/methodology proposed are deeply flawed.

0 Replies

MSNBC pushed the McCain/Hagee issue at least four nights I tuned in last week..and every time they mentioned Hagee they also mention Wright.

Suspiciously Wright has been very quiet....I don't think his ego will let him lay low throughout the general....especially if the MSM are going to honk it along.

0 Replies

It won't matter, just as Hagee won't matter much to McCain.

McCain is going to lose on his merits, not his associations. He doesn't have what it takes to beat Obama. And I think most Republicans know that's true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If the Dems can't win this should be slam-dunk...they may as well hang it up.

I don't see it happening though.

0 Replies

Pay To Attention To Obama's Voter Registration Drive
08 May 2008 04:32 pm

The Obama campaign calls its "Vote for Change" voter registration drive a mere voter registration drive. Nothing to see here, folks, except for ordinary people helping ordinary people gain the franchise.

But it's more than that. The Vote For Change program will lay the foundation for Obama's general election get-out-the-vote efforts. Obama aides won't say much more, but I gather that the campaign is constructing an incredibly elaborate online interface to allow its more than a million donors and volunteers to directly persuade their neighbors through a variety of media. Names gathered from the voter registration effort will be merged with names gathered through Obama's primary efforts and the names off of the Democratic Party's integrated voter file as well as lists purchased from outside vendors.

On election day, Obama might have more than a million individuals volunteering on his behalf. That should scare the beejeesus out of the McCain campaign and the RNC.

The latest Obama campaign release is after the jump.
link

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Hey edgar. Hope Obama pleasantly surprises you...

Obama was always my next choice, of the candidates in the running. I would have gone all out for Gore, but, he is not a factor. We can't afford four more years of the people who are responsible for Bush.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

If the Dems can't win this should be slam-dunk...they may as well hang it up.

I don't see it happening though.

Obama hasn't really been challenged yet on his Iraq policy, his economic theories, his views on health care, his energy policy, his views on corporate profits, etc., all of which have already been exposed as vulnerable. In the general campaign it will no longer be as much as who is the more appealing between him and Hillary. Unless the media somehow manages to extend him a huge bye, he will have to address those things in much more detail than he has done so far and he will have to defend those vulnerabilities.

Based on history and tested realities, McCain will have an advantage on several of those issues for people who are paying attention or even care.

McCain's also has some vulnerabilities but again it will come down to whether enough people are paying attention or even care.

So we'll see, but I think Obama won't be able to get by as easily with a pleasant speaking voice and big smile and ability to make the ladies' hearts go pitter pat.

0 Replies

Quote:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.

The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

A footnote: Support is growing in Democratic ranks for Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland as vice president. He would bring to the ticket maturity (66 years old), experience (six terms in Congress) and moderation (rated "A" by the National Rifle Association). He is very popular in Ohio, a state Republicans must carry to elect a president.
NOVAK

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

engineer you're a very nice and reasonable guy I'm sure spending an afternoon over the table with a couple of drinks and discussing most any subject with you would be pleasant.... but jeezum f*cking pleezum.... I DON'T HAVE FAITH THAT OBAMA CAN DELIVER.......I mean really how many times do I have to say it?

I hope to make it up there for that chat sometime. You've posed the question, what to do this election? You want to be involved in the process, but you don't like the candidates. Do you abstain from voting (therefore violating your belief that you should be politically active) or vote for one of the undesirable candidates (therefore stamping your endorsement on someone you don't like.) Tough call. I've been voting the lesser of two evils for a while now and it's never a pleasure (though I'm voting for Obama rather than against McCain this year and it's great.) My worst case for an Obama administration is that it will resemble the first two Clinton years. He will surround himself with smart people who share his core beliefs and try to ram through radical change. Congress will rebel and the Republicans will take over one or both houses of Congress in the 2010 elections. He will not have the guts to pull the troops out and Iraq will linger on. That is my worse case. My best case is substantially better, but I can't sell you on that vision, so I'll not waste your time. My worst case for McCain involves economic stagnation, wide-spread war in the Middle East and a military draft. My best case for McCain is not very different. It makes my voting choice clear.

0 Replies

Interesting to oserve that the Clinton-Obama dialogue has almost vanished, and the chat is now focused on candidate running mates for Obama.

I believe Wesley Clark would be a great choice - but only from a from a Republican perspective. Clark was generally despised in the Clinton Defense department while he was on active duty - mostly as a result of his, even then, obvious political ambitions and his insubordination & backbiting over a number of policy matters during the conflict with Serbia and its proxies in Bosnia. More to the point of this discussion, Clark appeared to have no legs as a politician during the last Campaign in his efforts to court and later support various Democrat leaders. I doubt that he would be able to actually provide the "cover" that some here suggest is needed.

Snood's suggestion of Jim Webb makes more sense to me (though personally I think Webb is a loonie egomaniac). He has the superficial credentials, including brief service as the Secretary of the Navy. His books and his image compliment Obama well, and he couold conceivably provide the reassurance about the patriotism and national security matters that some believe Obama lacks.

Interesting factoid - In the 1967 boxing finals at the naval Academy the welterweight match was between Jim Webb and Ollie North. Ollie won.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Interesting to oserve that the Clinton-Obama dialogue has almost vanished, and the chat is now focused on candidate running mates for Obama.

Not really that remarkable, since most of the Clinton-focused discussion was being perpetuated by vestiges of hope that she might slime her way to the nomination - such vestiges all but gone now.

I believe Wesley Clark would be a great choice - but only from a from a Republican perspective. Clark was generally despised in the Clinton Defense department while he was on active duty - mostly as a result of his, even then, obvious political ambitions and his insubordination & backbiting over a number of policy matters during the conflict with Serbia and its proxies in Bosnia. More to the point of this discussion, Clark appeared to have no legs as a politician during the last Campaign in his efforts to court and later support various Democrat leaders. I doubt that he would be able to actually provide the "cover" that some here suggest is needed.

Snood's suggestion of Jim Webb makes more sense to me (though personally I think Webb is a loonie egomaniac).

Really? Why "loonie", specifically?

He has the superficial credentials

His combat decorations were earned when he was a Marine Infantryman, and they are not "superficial". His Navy Cross, Silver Star, Bronze stars, and Purple Hearts would endear him to anyone who likes that patriotism stuff, I would think. I mean, McCain's touters seem to hold that kind of thing in high regard - or is that just for republicans?

including brief service as the Secretary of the Navy. His books and his image compliment Obama well, and he couold conceivably provide the reassurance about the patriotism and national security matters that some believe Obama lacks.

Interesting factoid - In the 1967 boxing finals at the naval Academy the welterweight match was between Jim Webb and Ollie North. Ollie won.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Snood's suggestion of Jim Webb makes more sense to me (though personally I think Webb is a loonie egomaniac).

Really? Why "loonie", specifically?

He has the superficial credentials

His combat decorations were earned when he was a Marine Infantryman, and they are not "superficial". His Navy Cross, Silver Star, Bronze stars, and Purple Hearts would endear him to anyone who likes that patriotism stuff, I would think. I mean, McCain's touters seem to hold that kind of thing in high regard - or is that just for republicans?

including brief service as the Secretary of the Navy. His books and his image compliment Obama well, and he couold conceivably provide the reassurance about the patriotism and national security matters that some believe Obama lacks.

Interesting factoid - In the 1967 boxing finals at the naval Academy the welterweight match was between Jim Webb and Ollie North. Ollie won.

Evidently we agree about Webb's potential to be a beneficial addition to Obama's campaign.

I acknowledged that Webb has the superficial credentials needed. You followed up by merely listing them. The fact is these are the things most loved and valued by Democrats who have little affinity, understanding, or experience with the military. They are not the things I most value - after all John Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star while he was on active duty (he later, while he was in the senate, successfully lobbied the Administration to upgrade it to a Silver Star) - and even the basis for the original award was, charitably speaking, suspect.

I have known Webb for a long time and my impressions are based on many things. In my view he is exceedingly interested in and focused on --- Jim Webb, and is a bit nuts besides. I'm not trying to persuade you to accept that conclusion - merely stating my own.

0 Replies

S'okay. Just wanted clarification to validate the "loony" term. Not an unreasonable desire I think, since its so easy to hurl perjoratives, and we are talking about a potentially pretty high office.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you're going to toss off insults about a high profile person, someone just might ask you your reasoning.

By the way, you said "I have known Webb..." Do you mean personally? Generally one would use the phrasing "known about" or "heard about".

0 Replies

Personally & professionally - through fairly numerous meetings, shared experiences at several conferences and in the military, including Annapolis. I believe that if you were to take the trouble to research his career and the published comments of several media and professional observers, you would find similar things frequently repeated. The same would be true among military folks as well.

I don't think I was in any way violating the standards of most Democrats, yourself included, for "tossing off perjoratives" involving people in "high office" without accompanying justification. Moreover, I carefully noted that the "perjorative" in question was merely a personal opinion, and made no effort at all to persuade anyone of the truth of it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And then there are those of us who, immodestly perhaps, do not consider ourselves to be stupid, but who think Obama's views of what government should be about, what government can accomplish, and/or the policies/methodology proposed are deeply flawed.

You've missed the point entirely. No one is accusing those who disagree with Obama's policies of being stupid. Well, no one worth paying attention to anyway. I disagree with many of them myself.

For that matter; I don't think the Bear is stupid at all (hard headed, angry and stubborn, but not stupid). His position on Obama, however, does strike me as stupid. Both Obama and Hillary's politics match the Bear's very well so it would defy reason for someone with Bear's fierce opposition to military action in Iraq to abandon his party's designated representative to reverse it. While it is reasonable to doubt Obama's ability or even conviction to carry out his proclaimed plans; soon the only other viable alternative Presidential candidate will be a near certainty that his desired ends will not be served. Logic mandates that some chance of success is better than no chance of success.

Maybe Bear will come to his senses, maybe he won't, but he isn't stupid. Emotions can be powerful things and I think it's inevitable that Obama will have to go without the votes of more than a few bitter old women. Razz

Like engineer (whose insight I do like), I am quite happy with this cycle. I like Obama AND John McCain which beats the snot out of trying to figure out whose worse, Bush or Kerry.

0 Replies

I found Clark impressive during his time on CNN. I don't know too much about him, so I won't try to defend him today. Let's just say not: Murtha, Hillary, for God's sake not Kennedy, Kerry or Edwards. Biden is better, but he's too fond of his own voice and he defines old school. F*ck Washington experience. That is largely what I'm voting against.

0 Replies

I think my very first choice for Obama's perfect VP won't be available until after the election. His name is John McCain. It is also a shame that Al Gore isn't interested in the job... for he would all but guarantee a landslide... even if he didn't invent the internet.

0 Replies

just looking across the fence again .

imo the biggest problem for any new U.S. president (and government - congress & senate) will be to find the money to do anything . with the debt clock ticking and the price of oil rising almost daily now , it's going to be tough to do anything without angereing a large group of the american citizens . i'm sure it's not going to be easy to be the next president .

do any of you you have any "immediate priorities" that you think the next U.S. president should tackle ?
i'll keep checking in , but will be careful with unwarranted comments .
hbg

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know