woiyo
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:36 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
and wouldn't talk like a middle school boy about kicking John's grandpa teeth in... why would he?

He has an army of people to talk that kind of nonsense for him while he keeps his hands clean... surrogates, lackeys, people who believe he has some personal interest in them...


Your bitterness is showing, Bear.

It's not nonsense. We're going to clobber McCain. Just listening to the two competing speeches last night was enough to show that...

Cycloptichorn


Show what? All the handsome young man said was IT IS OUR TIME. While the wise man told us WHY it is his time.


Funny thing is; presentation matters. And likability matters. McCain's presentation is horrible and won't attract anyone who isn't already ideologically in his camp.

Both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses...

Cycloptichorn


Well maybe presentation matters to the ill-informed, but to the educated taxpayers and voters (who can smell Obamas BS miles away) who matter, it is the ability to execute and deliver on the proposals made. Obama, to date, has shown he does not have the ability to get his "words" into action, in my view.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:50 am
woiyo wrote:
Well maybe presentation matters to the ill-informed, but to the educated taxpayers and voters (who can smell Obamas BS miles away) who matter

The "voters who matter" being the ones that agree with you, I suppose.

If McCain was leading Obama in the polls, or even specifically in the swing states, you might have a point. As it is, both seem to attract a roughly equal number of "voters who matter".
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:56 am
blueflame1 wrote:
Obama open to McCain's townhall proposalRAW STORY
Published: Wednesday June 4, 2008

Barack Obama indicated Wednesday that he would be open to appearing in a series of joint town-hall meetings proposed by presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.

"As Barack Obama has said before, the idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country. We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. But, having just secured our party's nomination, this is one of the many items we will be addressing in the coming days and look forward to discussing it with the McCain campaign," Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe said in an e-mail after McCain broached the idea in a letter to the presumptive Democratic nominee.

McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting, sent his Democratic rival a letter Wednesday outlining the offer. He suggested the first town hall be held June 12 in New York.

He said President Kennedy had made such an agreement with former Senator Barry Goldwater for the 1964 election before Kennedy's assassination.

"I don't think we need any big media-run production, no process question from reporters, no spin rooms," McCain said. "Just two Americans running for office in the greatest nation on earth, responding to the questions of the people whose trust we must earn."


I think this would rock. I saw analysis somewhere (forget where, sorry) that says that Obama does better in scripted situations while McCain does badly in those situations, and vice versa, so Obama should say no. I disagree. Obama does really well in town-hall-type situations, even though the conventional wisdom is that he's a big-rally guy. He hasn't done that well in debates (that include Hillary Clinton anyway), but I've read lots of accounts of really good to excellent town hall performances. And I think the contrasts between Obama and McCain would really be played up to Obama's advantage.

Downside is that Obama would probably be a bigger draw, thereby giving McCain more ears and eyeballs than he would have access to otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 01:09 pm
sozobe wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
Obama open to McCain's townhall proposalRAW STORY
Published: Wednesday June 4, 2008

Barack Obama indicated Wednesday that he would be open to appearing in a series of joint town-hall meetings proposed by presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.

"As Barack Obama has said before, the idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country. We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. But, having just secured our party's nomination, this is one of the many items we will be addressing in the coming days and look forward to discussing it with the McCain campaign," Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe said in an e-mail after McCain broached the idea in a letter to the presumptive Democratic nominee.

McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting, sent his Democratic rival a letter Wednesday outlining the offer. He suggested the first town hall be held June 12 in New York.

He said President Kennedy had made such an agreement with former Senator Barry Goldwater for the 1964 election before Kennedy's assassination.

"I don't think we need any big media-run production, no process question from reporters, no spin rooms," McCain said. "Just two Americans running for office in the greatest nation on earth, responding to the questions of the people whose trust we must earn."


I think this would rock. I saw analysis somewhere (forget where, sorry) that says that Obama does better in scripted situations while McCain does badly in those situations, and vice versa, so Obama should say no. I disagree. Obama does really well in town-hall-type situations, even though the conventional wisdom is that he's a big-rally guy. He hasn't done that well in debates (that include Hillary Clinton anyway), but I've read lots of accounts of really good to excellent town hall performances. And I think the contrasts between Obama and McCain would really be played up to Obama's advantage.

Downside is that Obama would probably be a bigger draw, thereby giving McCain more ears and eyeballs than he would have access to otherwise.


You may be right though those caucuses were all Democrats and therefore not hostile or confrontational to the candidates participating. Obama is untested where an equal number of participants could be philosophically on the right side of the ledger and who would be confrontational. It will be interesting to observe.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 01:26 pm
Caucuses?

Do you mean town halls?

They've been a mixed bag -- some supporters, some people who just want to learn more about him. Certainly not all softballs, and certainly not all Democrats. (Republicans and independents frequently have questions in accounts I've read.)

(Town halls = spending some time talking to a relatively small group, than a roughly equal amount of time taking questions from that group.)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 01:28 pm
Compared to a party which makes a practice of requiring Loyalty Oaths before admission to their town-hall style events, this is a pretty funny line of attack Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 01:31 pm
Quick search for "Obama town hall tough questions" yields:


Quote:
Obama Faces Tough Questions in New Hampshire

By: Carrie Budoff
February 13, 2007 09:09 AM EST


DURHAM, N.H. - Sen. Barack Obama hosted his first town hall meeting in New Hampshire Monday as a presidential candidate, fielding almost a dozen questions - but not one about the Iraq war.

The absence of any substantial focus on Iraq stood in contrast to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's weekend visit to the state, when voters repeatedly asked her to explain - or apologize for - her 2002 vote authorizing the U.S. invasion.

A different set of concerns emerged from the crowd of more than 2,500 people: What makes you qualified for the job after only two years in the U.S. Senate? And give specifics, not generalities, about what you will do if you get to the White House.

If Iraq is Clinton's Achilles heel, skepticism about Obama's electability might be his question mark with primary election voters.

Among the skeptical was Sally Struble, a 43-year-old Portsmouth lawyer who said she wanted to figure out why her politically active friends were "so gaga over someone who has not actively stated what he believed in other than hope."

"I want to hear if he has anything solid to say," said Struble, who says she is undecided. "What is he going to do to change our lives?"

Obama laid out his vision in broad strokes, offering more detailed responses when pressed by the audience about how he would increase energy independence, rebuild New Orleans and deal with Iran.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2735.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 01:41 pm
sozobe wrote:
Caucuses?

Do you mean town halls?

They've been a mixed bag -- some supporters, some people who just want to learn more about him. Certainly not all softballs, and certainly not all Democrats. (Republicans and independents frequently have questions in accounts I've read.)

(Town halls = spending some time talking to a relatively small group, than a roughly equal amount of time taking questions from that group.)


No doubt, but in the typical town hall meeting you generally have an invited--sometimes a select invited--crowd that is going to be mostly friendly or at least non confrontational. Very often the questions are planted so that it is known quantities who get to ask them and the candidate knows what is coming. (Yes, I am quite jaded and quite cynical when it comes to politics these days.) All candidates look good in these kinds of settings, however.

I've seen a number of clips of Obama fielding unexpected confrontational questions, however, and he doesn't do as well. In scripted oratory, Obama can be unsurpassed. Certainly McCain can't hold a candle to him. But when it comes to extemporaneous speech where the candidate has to think on his feet, I think generally McCain does much better than Obama does.

Again, if it is truly an honest setting so that the candidates can't dictate or be informed in advance of what can be asked, I do think it will be interesting to watch.

(I did incorrectly say caucus. I was thinking caucuses because Obama usually did much better against Hillary in that kind of forum.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 01:45 pm
Here's another, with video, from Fox:

http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/11/19/obama-takes-the-tough-questions/

Quote:
Obama takes the tough questions
by Bonney Kapp

No one could accuse the Obama campaign of planting questions at town hall meetings after hearing a 63-year-old Iowa farmer drill Obama at a Grundy Center event Sunday.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 01:50 pm
Anyway, if McCain and Obama do the joint town halls, it'll be proven soon enough. And if people are surprised by how well Obama handles these sorts of situations, all the better I guess.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 01:52 pm
This is why he can not win.

Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama vowed Wednesday he would work to "eliminate" the threat posed by Iran to security in the Middle East and around the globe.

"There's no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran," he told the powerful pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).

"The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he said, adding loudly to add emphasis that he would "everything" to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

"The Iranian regime supports violent extremes. And challenges across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race," he told AIPAC's annual meeting in Washington.

Calling for "aggressive, principled diplomacy" to tackle the problem of the Islamic regime in Tehran, he also warned he would never take the military option off the table in guaranteeing US and Israeli security.

"As president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing -- if, and only if -- it can advance the interests of the United States."

What incentive do the Iranians have to speak to the US?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 02:41 pm
woiyo wrote:
This is why he can not win.

Democratic presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama vowed Wednesday he would work to "eliminate" the threat posed by Iran to security in the Middle East and around the globe.

"There's no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran," he told the powerful pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).

"The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he said, adding loudly to add emphasis that he would "everything" to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

"The Iranian regime supports violent extremes. And challenges across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race," he told AIPAC's annual meeting in Washington.

Calling for "aggressive, principled diplomacy" to tackle the problem of the Islamic regime in Tehran, he also warned he would never take the military option off the table in guaranteeing US and Israeli security.

"As president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing -- if, and only if -- it can advance the interests of the United States."

What incentive do the Iranians have to speak to the US?
Self preservation can be a pretty strong incentive. Depends on how their relationship with Israel goes if they continue on their present collision course.

And what does any of that have to do with "This is why he can not win"?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 03:14 pm
Obama specifically proposed 'economic incentives' for the Iranians to stop supporting terrorism and their nuke program.

And that's the exact correct move. Conservative warmongers will moan about us 'buying them off' or some such. But it's far cheaper then the alternative. Military action costs money, lives, and goodwill.

Get them into the system. Their people WANT to be in the system. Give them the opportunity and they will moderate themselves.

And if not - it isn't like our stick ever goes away. We could swoop in pretty much whenever we want and kick their asses if that's what things come to. So why not keep that aside for when it's actually needed?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 04:16 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Obama specifically proposed 'economic incentives' for the Iranians to stop supporting terrorism and their nuke program.

And that's the exact correct move. Conservative warmongers will moan about us 'buying them off' or some such. But it's far cheaper then the alternative. Military action costs money, lives, and goodwill.

Get them into the system. Their people WANT to be in the system. Give them the opportunity and they will moderate themselves.

And if not - it isn't like our stick ever goes away. We could swoop in pretty much whenever we want and kick their asses if that's what things come to. So why not keep that aside for when it's actually needed?

Cycloptichorn


Cyclo, I met an American professor who's the only American to run tours in Iran. National Geographic uses him to develop tours, and he speaks Persian. He told me that Iranians like Americans, and he runs two or three trips into Iran every year. He lives in San Francisco and also has an apartment in Tehran.

Most Americans have a misconception of Iranians, because we only see newsprint about their government, and not the people.

Over and beyond that, my recent trip to Central Asia - where most people are Muslim, have shown affinity to us American tourists with smiles and picture-taking with some adults and high school children - who were celebrating the last day of school before summer vacation. The American University in Sammarkand is very popular in Central Asia, and many students apply there for their degrees programs.

In the five-stans we visited, there was not one negative incident against us; just the apposite. Many asked where we were from, and we told them "from America." Many smiled and shook our hands - some even conversed with us for several minutes - complete strangers on the street.

American media about the Middle East and Central Asia are doing more harm than good by reporting only negative reports from this part of the world.

Although their tourism infrastructure is still in the development stages, I believe more Amerians will begin to visit this part of the world and learn for themselves that they are our friends.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 04:32 pm
Interesting.

Obama speaks to AIPAC and lo and behold he is a bigger hawk(or is it war-monger?) than McCain.

McCain, quite noticibly, did not talk about "leaving military options on the table" when he spoke before AIPAC.

Obama did.

Who pandered?

He also once talked about invading Pakistan to get Obama.

Bold talk for a dove.

It would be nice to see his dove supporters react to his muscle flexing the way they reacted to Hillary's voting for the resolution to label the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist group, but I guess that sort of intellectual honesty is too much to expect.

I would like to believe his hawkish sentiments, but I don't.

Yes, as president he probably would authorize military action against Iran if it nuked Israel, but I'm not certain he would, and I would have that certainty for president Hillary. As for him authorizing a military strike to take out Iranian nuclear weapon factories? Never.

Of course I could be wrong, but if my vote is a bet on it, I'm not taking that bet.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 04:33 pm
Quote:

He also once talked about invading Pakistan to get Obama.

Bold talk for a dove.


I would think this was a slip if you weren't such a consistent jerk.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 04:58 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

He also once talked about invading Pakistan to get Obama.

Bold talk for a dove.


I would think this was a slip if you weren't such a consistent jerk.

Cycloptichorn


Oooh...I guess you told me!

BTW - Did you have to apply for the position of A2K captain of Obama's Praetorion Guard?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 05:02 pm
sozobe, town hall meetings would rock. 10 would be boring after awhile. But 3, 4, 5 would be great. It gets citizens involved. Obama would be in his element and McCain maybe could do a version of bomb, bomb, bomb Iran for his constituants.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 05:02 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

He also once talked about invading Pakistan to get Obama.

Bold talk for a dove.


I would think this was a slip if you weren't such a consistent jerk.

Cycloptichorn


Oooh...I guess you told me!

BTW - Did you have to apply for the position of A2K captain of Obama's Praetorion Guard?


I took it by force, in the grand tradition.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 05:20 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
He also once talked about invading Pakistan to get Obama.

Bold talk for a dove.

It would be nice to see his dove supporters react to his muscle flexing the way they reacted to Hillary's voting for the resolution to label the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist group, but I guess that sort of intellectual honesty is too much to expect.

Um...

Obama talked about intervening militarily on Pakistani territory to get Osama even without the Pakistani government's approval months ago. Dont you remember? That's not pandering, that's consistency.

And seeing how one of the major complaints from the Democrats against Bush's push for war with Iraq has been from the very start that it has made the government drop the ball on going after the people who were actually behind 9/11 (Al Qaeda, not Saddam), why should there be wide disapproval of Obama's reiteration?

Iraq was a ridiculously costly distraction from the fight against Al-Qaeda in its heartland, Afghanistan. Thats where the focus should jave been on, on AQ and the Taliban, and the Iraq war was the foolishest squandering of time and capital possible. You're familiar with that argument, no? Its been repeated enough by Dems and libs the last five years. Obama's out-of-Iraq/tough-on-Osama line is completely consistent with that.

It may not be consistent with your charicatured image of Democrats, but thats another subject altogether.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 900
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.91 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:27:37