Obama '08?

Religious Right Figure Gets Chills: Obama Could Win 40 Percent Of Evangelicals link

0 Replies

Good evening to yall.
Perhaps it was by chance, or perhaps by design, but Mr Obama kicked off his campaign in Virginia after securing the nomination. And in SW Virginia to boot.
Virginia has not voted for a Dem Presidential candidate since LBJ. But I can guarantee that we, this time around, this semi southern state, will go for Obama this year. I guarantee it.
A lot has to do with the demograpics. The urban areas are growing rapidly. They tend to be liberal.
A lot has to do with the surging registration of new voters, young folks and black folks.
And a lot has to do with off year successes the Dems have had. Jim Webb (D) took over a Senate seat. Mark Warner (D), former Gov, is a shoe-in for the open Senate seat from John Warner (R) (no relation), and Tim Kaine (D), the current Gov, is quite popular. All 3 have been mentioned as VP's, but that will not happen for various reasons. They all have supported Obama.
So that is Virginia. Move us into the Blue column. No doubt about it.

0 Replies

Interesting, RJB. I value your insight re: Virginia, and would sure be great if you are right.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

I guarantee it.

Cool.

0 Replies

(I'm running this here even though it is about Clinton and Clnton supporters, because Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee and any discussion about the 2008 presidential election is at least tangentially about Barack Obama.)

I'm fed up to here with frickin clinton and those of her supporters who seem to have abandoned all reason. I've always believed that she was someone who was inordinately self-absorbed, even for a politician. Some would say that's beneficial for a politician, but I still think that when it trumps reason and decency, ambition is not a positive thing.

This '4 days to not concede before I have a big rally in my own name to concede to what's-his-name' takes the frickin cake. How can her or her more rabid supporters make the argument now that they are still doing what they think is best for the country?

Clinton and Obama's stances on the major issues and their policies are so alike that no one can make the argument that voting for McCain would be anything but a pure act of cut-off-your-nose spite.

Lola posted a snippet from an article in which the author was saying that supporters of the two Dems should try to put themselves in the other's shoes; imagine a reversed outcome of the primaries and what they would be wishing the other candidate and their supporters would be doing. Do any of the Clintonites honestly believe that they could take it in stride if the Obama followers had lost and were now going over to McCain?

What kind of insanity can justify a level of hatefulness that would willingly concede yet another 4 years to Republicans, after the devastation of George Bush? All I've heard is "clinton had a better chance of achieving her goals", or " I don't quite trust Obama". Okay, fine - but are those solid enough reasons to make a 180 degree turn and back someone whose goals run diametrically opposed? What about Obama is so repelling that they can't now back him? Would it be easier if he was a white man? What is it?

Clinton needed 4 days to not concede before she has a big rally in her own name to concede tha she lost and will now back the other candidate. Some of her followers are so filled with... something, that they see this as somehow fitting, and they will continue to fly Hillary flags or now even back the Republican to prove... something.

This is bullshyt.

Here's a blog about a new website for Clinton supporters who now back MCain. I hope none of them ever try to claim belief in Democratic priciples - or any principles for that matter - ever again.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html

0 Replies

snood, I can really understand your indignation towards Hillary, because I'm not a supporter of either Obama or McCain, but the Clinton bullshyte takes the cake; four days to say she lost. Is this a new record for stubborness or what? What is she trying to prove except she'll remain in the media for another four days?

What is more surprising is the backlash this thing is taking; they'll vote for McCain instead. Another bullshyte.

Elections are messy, but this one belongs in the history books for sure.

It's about me, me, me, and me; what an ego-maniac.

0 Replies

just think.... your scapegoat for if Obama loses is already in place... so you won't have to spend anytime spinning anything or worry yourself about it. It's done. Why aren't you happy?

0 Replies

(since BPB has invited me not to talk to him and has expressed that he has no interest in addressing me, I'll take that last post as addressed to cicerone.)

and good luck with that, cicerone.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

What kind of insanity can justify a level of hatefulness that would willingly concede yet another 4 years to Republicans, after the devastation of George Bush? All I've heard is "clinton had a better chance of achieving her goals", or " I don't quite trust Obama". Okay, fine - but are those solid enough reasons to make a 180 degree turn and back someone whose goals run diametrically opposed? What about Obama is so repelling that they can't now back him? Would it be easier if he was a white man? What is it?

Apparently they are good enough reasons for some. I listened to 4 women talk over lunch today. 3 of the 4 have been Clinton (Hillary) supporters and all 4 of the women were pretty adamant that they'll be voting for McCain. The "I don't trust Obama." comment was thrown out several times but seemd to be directed more at the people that support him than at Obama himself.

Oh, the best part - all 4 of these women are (or were - on is a widow) married to city to state level politicans that are Democrats.

0 Replies

You are dead right, Snood. Other than the 2012 theory, her behavior has been completely inexplicable for more than a month now (I don't want to give the Bobby Kennedy theory any credence). Tuesday through Saturday with her 18 million BS after losing is undeniably doing harm to her Party's chances of winning in the General. Reasons to support her actions are:

If you're a Republican. If you're a Bigot. If you're an idiot. If [i]anyone [/i]can provide another reason(s); I'd love to hear it.

0 Replies

You know I don't give a dam what Snood or Cyclo say Obama is going to do because their opinion docent mean squat. What i've been trying to tell you is I want to know what Obama says and how he is going to go about "changing washington". Just chanting change isn't going to change a thing. I want to hear specific answers to how.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You are dead right, Snood. Other than the 2012 theory, her behavior has been completely inexplicable for more than a month now (I don't want to give the Bobby Kennedy theory any credence). Tuesday through Saturday with her 18 million BS after losing is undeniably doing harm to her Party's chances of winning in the General. Reasons to support her actions are:

#1 If you're a Republican.
#2 If you're a Bigot.
#3 If you're an idiot.

If anyone can provide another reason(s); I'd love to hear it.

#4: She really wants to be president.
#5: You really want her to be president
#6: You really don't want Obama to be president

Do you think the NY woman who has recently enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame thanks to an emotional outburst on video is a bigot? An idiot? (This is not to argue that she is neither, but to pose honest questions)

I would find it more illogical for a Hillary supporter to vote for McCain rather than Obama if McCain did not hold so many "liberal" positions.

It is certainly more illogical for a Republican opponent of McCain to vote vote for Clinton or Obama, than for a Clinton supporter to vote for McCain, but it's not difficult to see how someone might consider the latter a purely emotional response.

Considering that the appeal of Obama is so deeply based in personality, and the contemptuous regard so many Obama supporters have had for Clinton, it's a bit disingenuous for Obama supporters to now scold the Clinton faithful for taking this competition somewhat personally.

The Winner and his or her supporters always want the losers to shrug off losing and get with the program. Clinton's supporters would feel the same way if she had won and Obama supporters vowed to either vote for McCain or stay home.

In any case, the Winners are likely to have a better chance of getting want they want if they exhibit some grace and avoid insulting demands of the Losers and their candidate.

I hope you don't of course, but it's a thought you may want to consider.

0 Replies

I can't speak for anyone else. As for how I would act if the roles were reversed and Hillary was the nominee, I just had that conversation with my wife - she is of the opinion that she would just stay home rather than vote for Hillary.

I said that if I was ever about any kind of principles - if I ever really wanted tax cuts for the middle, universal healthcare, protection of right to choose, sensible gun regulation, etc. - then I would have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

I don't see how I can say I was ever for anything I say I'm for, and then do some kind of "statement" vote for McCain.

So that's the yardstick I'm using to measure the behavior I'm seeing.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

You know I don't give a dam what Snood or Cyclo say Obama is going to do because their opinion docent mean squat. What i've been trying to tell you is I want to know what Obama says and how he is going to go about "changing washington". Just chanting change isn't going to change a thing. I want to hear specific answers to how.

I've seen people ask you several times to pick a topic, and they will find or describe what Obama's plan is.

I don't think that Obama has been any less descriptive than any other candidate. This is just a passive way to attack his experience. Nothing else.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Further...

I just saw McCain's response about the economy. He said that

"It's really painful."
"It's very serious."

Yet no details.

Obama is right on par, so singling out his political strategies is dishonest.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You are dead right, Snood. Other than the 2012 theory, her behavior has been completely inexplicable for more than a month now (I don't want to give the Bobby Kennedy theory any credence). Tuesday through Saturday with her 18 million BS after losing is undeniably doing harm to her Party's chances of winning in the General. Reasons to support her actions are:

#1 If you're a Republican.
#2 If you're a Bigot.
#3 If you're an idiot.

If anyone can provide another reason(s); I'd love to hear it.

#4: She really wants to be president.

And the Cowboys wanted to win the Superbowl. So what? (Doesn't fit the list anyway)

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

#5: You really want her to be president

But she already lost, so that's not logical.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

#6: You really don't want Obama to be president

But why? I listed 3 legitimate reasonable reasons a Democrat might feel that way. You listed none.

Now I suppose Rezko could make a reasonable number 4... but when you consider everything from Whitewater to to the Rich Pardon that's pretty thin.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Do you think the NY woman who has recently enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame thanks to an emotional outburst on video is a bigot? An idiot? (This is not to argue that she is neither, but to pose honest questions)

I don't know who or what you're talking about; but if she's a Democrat and supports Hillary's lack of concession to and for the Democratic Nominee and the party itself; then yes, I think she's probably a bigot or an idiot.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I would find it more illogical for a Hillary supporter to vote for McCain rather than Obama if McCain did not hold so many "liberal" positions.

It would indeed be more illogical were that not the case, but McCain still holds considerably less liberal positions than Obama. This is obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot and should be compelling to any liberal who's neither an idiot nor a bigot.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It is certainly more illogical for a Republican opponent of McCain to vote vote for Clinton or Obama, than for a Clinton supporter to vote for McCain, but it's not difficult to see how someone might consider the latter a purely emotional response.

An emotional response is irrelevant to the question. Anyone paying attention knew she was toast a month ago... seemingly everyone but Hillary herself, really. A conclusion to a result that has become increasingly predictable for over a month is not exactly a knee-jerk. Emotional? Obviously... but that doesn't answer the question for Democrats.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Considering that the appeal of Obama is so deeply based in personality, and the contemptuous regard so many Obama supporters have had for Clinton, it's a bit disingenuous for Obama supporters to now scold the Clinton faithful for taking this competition somewhat personally.

We won't be voting for Obama's supporters in November. Any Democrat who holds the words of Obama's supporters against Obama, and vows to vote against their own interests as a result is displaying idiocy, pure and simple.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The Winner and his or her supporters always want the losers to shrug off losing and get with the program. Clinton's supporters would feel the same way if she had won and Obama supporters vowed to either vote for McCain or stay home.

Of course they would. It would be equally idiotic and/or bigoted for a Democrat to do so.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

In any case, the Winners are likely to have a better chance of getting want they want if they exhibit some grace and avoid insulting demands of the Losers and their candidate.

This is probably true for truly emotional fools in denial... but more logical folks may recognize the truth however it's packaged. Besides; sometimes it's fun to call a spade a spade. Twisted Evil

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I hope you don't of course, but it's a thought you may want to consider.

I may soften up a little as the election draws nearer in recognition of the adage "no man is an island"... but I'm no Democrat anyway. I prefer Obama to McCain, but like them both. I would be very much in favor of scrapping the 2 party system... or at least leveling the playing field for 3rd parties so in some ways my interests are served regardless. Bush and Clinton have done marvelous jobs of increasing the number of Independents. I'd say recognition of this is the reason the Republicans put their weight behind John McCain in the first place.

Revisiting your suggestion that McCain holds some liberal positions: He is now Pro-Life, supports Bush's Tax Cuts, plans to continue our Iraq policy and opposes National Healthcare. No self respecting liberal could honestly believe McCain is more representative of liberal policy than Obama... An idiotic liberal could believe that. Or a bigoted one could pretend to. Idea

Oh, and partisans sitting out or voting 3rd parties are effectively giving half a vote to the supposed opposition, whether said partisans are Democrats or Republicans. Now if you consider McCain too much of a Maverick, and not truly a Republican, then an argument could be made that there is no need for loyalty because the Party failed to field a Party member. Weak, but possible. On the other hand; is Obama not very, very clearly a Democrat? Snood's right. A Democrat can't fail to vote for him without cutting off his nose to spite his face which is idiotic, no?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else. As for how I would act if the roles were reversed and Hillary was the nominee, I just had that conversation with my wife - she is of the opinion that she would just stay home rather than vote for Hillary.

I said that if I was ever about any kind of principles - if I ever really wanted tax cuts for the middle, universal healthcare, protection of right to choose, sensible gun regulation, etc. - then I would have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

I don't see how I can say I was ever for anything I say I'm for, and then do some kind of "statement" vote for McCain.

So that's the yardstick I'm using to measure the behavior I'm seeing.

Disclaimer: I'm hardly unbiased, so this may not be completely accurate, but I think it will be. I don't think an accurate parallel can be drawn between the two possible results. Where Clinton deliberately exploited Obama's blackness; Obama never went after her femaleness. Granted, the opportunity for backfire would have made that the much dumber move; the fact is that she did it and he didn't. More importantly; she continued trying to diminish his appeal LONG AFTER it was clear that she wasn't going to win. This helped to fortify people's distaste for her and no doubt dramatically increased the number of people who decided they'd stay home if she won. The only way the parallel works is if Obama had behaved like a demented narcissist in denial long after it was clear that Hillary would be the nominee. There is no reason to believe he would have.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

You know I don't give a dam what Snood or Cyclo say Obama is going to do because their opinion docent mean squat. What i've been trying to tell you is I want to know what Obama says and how he is going to go about "changing washington". Just chanting change isn't going to change a thing. I want to hear specific answers to how.

Instead of repeating this dribble over and over; if you want to know what the man says: Why not simply google up some of his speeches and listen, or go to his website and read? Or read some of the thousands of quotes captured right here on A2K? Your ignorance is your own problem and it's up to you to correct it if you see fit. The information you seek is everywhere.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

rabel22 wrote:
You know I don't give a dam what Snood or Cyclo say Obama is going to do because their opinion docent mean squat. What i've been trying to tell you is I want to know what Obama says and how he is going to go about "changing washington". Just chanting change isn't going to change a thing. I want to hear specific answers to how.
Instead of repeating this dribble over and over; if you want to know what the man says: Why not simply google up some of his speeches and listen, or go to his website and read? Or read some of the thousands of quotes captured right here on A2K? Your ignorance is your own problem and it's up to you to correct it if you see fit. The information you seek is everywhere.

I think rabel22 is content leaving that information not found. Not just rabel22. It's a great false talking point.

We don't EVEN have to put the effort into talking against his points if we don't acknowledge they exist.

T
K
O

0 Replies

The idea that enough Dems will vote for McCain to give him the victory is silly. Of course there are a few people out of control out there saying all sorts of things.

What's really hard to believe is that any Democrat that wants to win in November would be doing anything other than working together to win. I think most will. And I think they will even if the sore winners and losers keep flinging insults at each other.

Why spend time repeating outrageous things over heard at lunch or on talk shows? The more we keep fighting, the more likely it is that we will lose. No one likes to be insulted. Stop rubbing it in and let's move on with the campaign. To continue to fight is unconscionable at this point in the game.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know