nimh
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 05:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
No doubt, but in the typical town hall meeting you generally have an invited--sometimes a select invited--crowd

I think you're confusing Obama's town halls on the campaign trail with President Bush's past rare forays into the wild.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 05:30 pm
Breaking news: Hillary to suspend campaign and endorse Barack Obama Friday.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 06:20 pm
Came here to say so, you beat me to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/04cnd-campaign.html

(E.G.: "I'll believe it when I see it.")
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 06:22 pm
Quote:
"We pledged to support her to the end," said Representative Charles W. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate. "Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 06:22 pm
Reuters sez that she will officially concede. Feinmann on MSNBC said a bunch of Congresscritters from both houses called her to tell her the gig was up.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 06:49 pm
Obama backs Lieberman against the wall (literally)
Posted June 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

Joe Lieberman, fully embracing his role as a Republican attack dog, took the lead in a GOP conference call this morning to attack Barack Obama's Middle East policy. On the call, organized by far-right Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Lieberman argued, weakly, that Obama holds the U.S. responsible for Iran's strength in the region.

"Senator Obama argued today that American foreign policy in recent years has essentially sort of strengthened Iran," Lieberman said, adding, "If Israel is in danger today, it's not because of American foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way. It's not because of what we've done in Iraq, it's because Iran is a fanatical terrorist expansionist state."

Obama, apparently, didn't care for Lieberman's comments, so much so that the Democratic presidential nominee confronted Lieberman directly on the Senate floor this afternoon. Subscription-only Roll Call reported:

[D]uring a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Now, as far as I know, this wasn't an entirely forceful confrontation, and the two reportedly "patted each other on the back" after their discussion. Reporters apparently peered over the edge of the press gallery wall to watch the disagreement, prompting Obama to smile and point up at the reporters. (I mention this because I don't want to suggest Obama was about to smack Lieberman around.)

But it's also the kind of anecdote that reminds us that Barack Obama is not afraid to push back against those attacking him.

I don't imagine he changed Lieberman's mind, and I seriously doubt Lieberman will think twice before attacking Obama again.

But I'm encouraged anyway. Lieberman needs to be backed up against a wall more often. Besides, as Roll Call reported, "Obama loyalists were quick to express their frustration with Lieberman's decision and warned that if he continues to take a lead role in attacking Obama it could complicate his professional relationship with the Caucus."

As for the substance of Lieberman's criticism, Sam Stein reported:

The crux of Lieberman's argument, however, was that Obama was putting the blame for Iran's rise in the Middle East on America's doorstep, pushing the argument that the Iraq war had strengthened Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's standing in the region and left Israel left secure.

"If Israel is in danger today it is not because of us foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way," he said. "It is not because of what we have done in Iraq. It is because Iran is a fanatical, terrorist, expansionist state and has a leader and a leadership that constantly threatens to extinguish the state of Israel."

The remarks fit into a traditional GOP rallying cry, that the Democrats have a blame-America-first mentality. But there are outstanding factors that could muddle Lieberman's message. For starters, most objective metrics indicate that Iran has, in fact, been strengthened by America's involvement in Iraq. The Persian nation, after all, has increasingly meddled in Iraqi affairs.

But also, McCain, despite tough rhetoric on Iran, has several advisers with deep connections to the country; perhaps the most embarrassing of which is Charlie Black, the campaign's chief strategist. Before leaving his perch as a D.C. lobbyist, Black represented a Chinese oil company that did business with the Iranian government. He and his firm also represented Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who helped churn up support for the war in the United States and has subsequently been accused of selling U.S. secrets to Iran.

I wonder if Obama brought any of this up.
link
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 07:03 pm
ooooooh...scary black man.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 07:05 pm
Lieberman is scarier.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 07:09 pm
Brand X, yeah I think it must be scary for the GOP. No doubt that Bushie's war in Iraq has strengthened Iran's hand in the ME. That's the consensus intel opinion around the world. Lieberman's pretending otherwise is a dumb argument that I hope McCain pushes.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 07:12 pm
Clinton conceding on Saturday, per cnn.

Less people watching TV that day, one 'sposes.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 07:14 pm
I would bet that Clinton will not quit until one more weekend talk show cycle, where her surrogates can put a final spin on her campaign.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 07:36 pm
Quote:
But it's also the kind of anecdote that reminds us that Barack Obama is not afraid to push back against those attacking him.


It reminds me that he might have an anger management issue.

Must check into that ...



Hey, maybe that's his plan for when he talks with Ahmadinejad ... back him into the corner and make him CHANGE.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 07:39 pm
"It reminds me that he might have an anger management issue." hahaha. Projecting McCain's personality disorders onto Obama wont work.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 07:42 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
"It reminds me that he might have an anger management issue." hahaha. Projecting McCain's personality disorders onto Obama wont work.


Spot on! Before we know it, all the weaknesses of McCain will be applied to Obama.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 08:07 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?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt Obama say, on the 19th...

Quote:
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose any serious threat to us"


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64716

So now that he has the nomination Iran has become a threat?
What has changed?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 09:41 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
"It reminds me that he might have an anger management issue." hahaha. Projecting McCain's personality disorders onto Obama wont work.


Spot on! Before we know it, all the weaknesses of McCain will be applied to Obama.


Weakness?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 10:09 pm
Emails were sent out to the GOP talking heads today with the following talking points to be pushed to their media contacts. We're already seeing these points in the press, and now we know where they came from.

Quote:
Democrat Disunity

Following all the uncertainty surrounding Barack Obama's path to becoming the presumptive Democrat nominee, Obama is now faced with two very clear certainties:

First, he will inherit a fractured party that is deeply divided over his role as standard-bearer and his ability to be President.

Second, he will inherit a national party apparatus that has been significantly outraised throughout the cycle.

Here are the facts

Nearly 18 million voters in the Democrat Party's nominating process felt that Obama was not the best candidate to be President.
The number of ballots cast against Obama in 2008 exceeds the number of total ballots cast in each of the last four Democrat Presidential primary cycles.

Obama is not wearing well as a candidate and has lost momentum since his high point in February. The more people learn about him and his views, the less they support him. Since March 4, he has lost a majority of primaries to Senator Clinton, including the all-important states of Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia. He lost Kentucky by 35 points, West Virginia by 41 points, and suffered a 36-point defeat in Puerto Rico. Were it not for the Democratic proportional system of delegate allocation, these devastating defeats might very well have derailed his nomination.

Obama will not be able in the general election to count on many of the states that fueled his primary campaign. Recent public polling shows Obama losing to John McCain in at least half of the states that he won in the Democrat primaries

Obama faces difficulties defending key states that were won by John Kerry and Al Gore in the last two Presidential elections. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are each polling competitively or in favor of McCain, as is New Hampshire, which voted in favor of John Kerry in 2004.

John McCain is attracting large numbers of Democrat voters, which significantly undermines Obama's base. The most recent Newsweek poll (5/23) shows 19% of Democrats favoring McCain over Obama, and 7% undecided. By contrast, Obama only attracts 7% of GOP voters, with only 4% undecided.

Partisan Support for John McCain and Barack Obama

According to May data from Rasmussen Reports, one quarter of Democrats trust McCain more than Obama on the issues of the Economy (25%) and National Security (28%) - as compared to only 13% and 7% of Republicans (respectively) who trust Obama more. Similarly, less than two thirds of Democrats trust Obama more on the issues of the war in Iraq (66%) and Taxes (64%).

A recent poll by Pew in May shows that fewer than half (46%) of Clinton supporters expect the Democrat party to "unite solidly behind" Obama - down from 58% in March.


Obama's primary election coalition of urban voters, young voters, ideologically liberal voters, and elites is far too narrow to sustain him amid a center-right general election electorate. His coalition more resembles the losing coalitions of John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, and George McGovern than it does a supposedly new type of candidate with broad appeal.

Many key constituencies that are necessary for a winning coalition in November have voted overwhelmingly against Obama in the Democrat primaries. Obama has time and time again failed to connect with rural voters, union voters, Catholic voters, senior voters, Hispanic voters, and women.

Despite raising a record amount of money in the primaries, Obama has also spent the most of any candidate to get to this point. Together with the DNC he will begin the next phase of the campaign with less cash on hand than Senator McCain's campaign and the RNC.

The DNC itself faces nearly a 9:1 cash-on-hand disadvantage versus the RNC.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:00 pm
Do you have a source for who said that the GOP sent out emails Butrfly?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:09 pm
More importantly, where have they been seen "in the press"?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:52 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Do you have a source for who said that the GOP sent out emails Butrfly?


That isn't what I said. Go back and reread it.

But, to answer your question, yes.
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 901
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 02:21:24