Obama '08?

But, since you guys like Rasmussen so much,

Quote:

North Dakota is as safe a Republican state as any in Presidential elections. George W. Bush carried the state by twenty-seven points in Election 2004 and twenty-eight points four years earlier. The state has voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate just once since 1932 and twice since 1916.

Despite that history, John McCain and Barack Obama are tied in the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of North Dakota voters. Both men earn 43% of the vote. When leaners are included, McCain holds a statistically insignificant one-point advantage, 47% to 46%. Last week, a Rasmussen Reports survey showed Obama with a five-point advantage in neighboring Montana. That state, too, has a long history of voting Republican at the Presidential level but both states also have two Democratic U.S. Senators. McCain is returning the favor by running much stronger than recent Republicans in New Jersey.

Ras link

North Dakota is in play? Montana?

If Mccain can't change the narrative somehow - which I know you and he will try and do by trashing Obama constantly for the next 4 months, as there is nothing original or exciting about McCain at all to discuss - then Obama could win well more then 300 EV's on election day.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Gail Collins, again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html

Quote:
Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton
in the first place? Their policies were almost identical ?- except his health
care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he
could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked ?- and talked
and talked ?- about how there were going to be no more red states and blue
states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans
and Democrats.

Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place?
Left field?

Funny. I liked Obama because of the way he championed progressive policies in
a more sincere and principled, less manipulative way than Hillary. Because of
how he seemed to realise that the Clinton years had been years of unfulfilled
potential, and today's political seachange brought the opportunity for
further-reaching change, for something beyond Bill's cynical triangulating.

Funny thing ... The stuff Collins refers to was exactly why I didnt like
Obama at the beginning, and why I preferred Edwards until he quit. All this
"bringing Republicans and Democrats together" rhetorics, I argued, suggested
that he would be too willing to compromise, not willing enough to fight. That
he wasnt prepared for the fight that the Right would put up to preserve the
conservative revolution in policy of the last eight (or 28) years.

This illusion that you could achieve some aisle-crossing harmony in policy-
making, I argued, could easily trap him into steering a milquetoast centrist
course from the start, when what we need after the far right Bush politics is
an active push back to the left. Dont go for the centre point already in
advance; that's what the Dems did in 2000-2004 and see where that led. At
least if you're willing to put up a fight from day one, you stand a chance of
ending up halfway where you want to be.

Well, all that - you remember. To my concerns, at the time, you responded that
I had it all wrong. Obama was a real progressive, and would substantively
defend progressive policies. The coming together part was all about strategy and
political culture. It wasnt that he would abandon progressive causes and become
just another centrist politician; it was that he would create working coalitions
for genuinely progressive policies by treating people, opponents too, with
respect, and be willing to enter any dialogue. It was that with his scrupulous,
consensus-seeking, respectful way of doing politics, he would be able to create
majorities for progressive politics in a way that Hillary's strong-arming
manipulations would never achieve.

Half a year on, and here we are: of course we are in safe, centrist,
triangulating territory, Gail Collins admonishes us; hell, where did us naive
liberals think we would be going with Obama's talk of bringing Democrats
and Republicans together? Left field?

What a difference / a day makes...

0 Replies

http://cagle.com/working/080709/bors.jpg

0 Replies

Apparently I'm not the only one who has observed how many times Obama has had to backtrack or use (or his spokespeople use) the "what I/he meant to say or what he really meant was. . . ." line if he can't pretend that he never said it. And now we have the "regret" syndrome. If few of his accomplishments that are claimed as his credentials can withstand close and/or critical scrutiny, how many times will he say he 'regrets' this or that before his judgment too comes into serious question?

Obama's frequent regrets may make us sorry
By Luke Boggs
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/10/08

Barack Obama just may be the most regretful figure in American politics, no small feat for a freshman senator.

On Wednesday, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said he regretted allowing his young daughters to participate in a family TV interview with "Access Hollywood."

It was an abrupt shift from decision to regret, even for Obama. The family sat down for the interview on July 4, and the first segment ran on July 8. By the next morning, Obama was saying he regretted including his daughters, even before the other two parts of the interview could air.

I'm not sure why. The interview was nothing but happy public relations, revealing that the Obamas enjoy riding bikes together and that the senator isn't a big dessert fan. (Pies are an exception.)

I suppose there may be a handful of humorless activists out there somewhere carping that Obama was "exploiting" his kids for political gain, but that would be an absurd complaint.

The guy is running for president of the United States, for heaven's sake. Family members have been a constant in American politics for a long time. And Obama having his daughters at his side in a puffy little holiday interview should have been no big deal to anyone.

So what jumped out at me was how quickly Obama regretted his decision. And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often. (Googling "Obama" and "regrets" yields more than a million hits.)

In November 2006, Obama said he regretted buying property adjacent to his Chicago home from Tony Rezko, a longtime supporter and big-time fund-raiser who has since been convicted of mail and wire fraud, aiding and abetting bribery and money laundering.

In February 2007, as his presidential campaign was beginning, Obama said he regretted saying that the lives of American soldiers who died fighting in Iraq had been "wasted."

In April 2008, Obama said he regretted his choice of words when he told some well-heeled donors in San Francisco that "bitter" folks in Middle America who have lost economic hope "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

To be sure, these are choices worth regretting. Anyone can understand why Obama would regret his land deal with a convicted felon. And even liberal Democrats like Obama have been careful not to say American lives have been "wasted" in Iraq, even as they imply the same thing when they dismiss the war effort as corrupt, inept, unnecessary and worse.

Obama's most costly regret, however, may well prove to be his condescending shot at those decent, hardworking Americans he said were desperately clinging to God and guns and bigotry. It was a regret-worthy statement that said volumes about Obama's easy contempt for those in what elites call "flyover country."

Perhaps the American people are looking for a regretful guy this time around. After eight years of George W. Bush, whose dogged lack of regrets continues to exasperate his critics, perhaps this sort of intense self-scrutiny and navel-gazing will translate into electoral victory.

But I'm not so sure. After all, a lot of Americans understand that you don't get a bunch of easy do-overs in the Oval Office. You have to make tough calls, even when they may be politically costly.

I can't help wondering what Obama might regret in four years as president. What might he regret doing ?-- or not doing ?-- on the world stage? What might he regret saying ?-- or not saying ?-- to Putin or Kim Jong-il or Ahmadinejad?

Only time will tell. Depending on what happens in November, we may begin to find out next January. When we do, some voters may well have regrets of their own
LINK

0 Replies

Bush's no regrets have most of us Americans sorry he was our president for two terms.

Are you better off today than you were under Clinton?

0 Replies

Me personally? Absolutely. But it doesn't have anything to do with Clinton. Or Bush, for that matter, though the Bush tax cuts have enormously benefitted us in our very modest means and our very modest small business. The point of the article, however, was not in the problem with standing firm on ones stated convictions though this has its own pitfalls. The thesis is the problem inherent in an inability to avoid unfortunate statements or decisions. That is not a good trait for one in the Oval office to have given the extreme difficulty of reversing a decision or taking back a really unfortunate statement uttered as the Head of State.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Me personally? Absolutely. But it doesn't have anything to do with Clinton. Or Bush, for that matter, though the Bush tax cuts have enormously benefitted us and our very modest small business. The point of the article, however, was not in the problem with standing firm on ones stated convictions though this has its own pitfalls. The thesis is the problem inherent in an inability to stand firm on ones stated convictions. That is not a good trait for one in the Oval office to have given the extreme difficulty of reversing a decision or taking back a really unfortunate statement uttered as the Head of State.

That you could say this while supporting McCain beggars belief. McCain has changed his position on dozens of different policies and programs over the last few years, as he has heavily tacked to the right in order to lock up the Republican nomination.

You forgive McCain, but attack Obama, for the exact same thing; even though McCain is a far worse offender. It robs your concerns of any real legitimacy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I don't believe I mentioned McCain or forgiving or not forgiving anybody. Perhaps you can point out where I did in this context? So perhaps you would like to retract an unfortunate statement that has no relevance to what I actually did say? Also the phrase you quoted incorrectly states what I did say.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't believe I mentioned McCain or forgiving or not forgiving anybody. Perhaps you can point out where I did in this context? So perhaps you would like to retract an unfortunate statement that has no relevance to what I actually did say? Also the phrase quoted incorrectly states what I did said.

No, it doesn't. McCain has frequently made unfortunate statements and errors which are now coming back to haunt him; and where is your criticism of him for this? He is shifting his convictions constantly.

He suffers from the same problem you are castigating Obama for; do you agree or disagree with this? McCain has an inability to stand firm on his stated convictions or ideas.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Fox, Isn't it wonderful that you, personally, have improved your standard of living while millions lost their's.

The difference between you and I is that I care what has happened to those millions of families who are worse off today than they were eight years ago. Seven million more Americans are now without health care, and over 400 thousand lost their jobs since January of this year. That really makes me feel bad for our fellow citizens, because many are struggling to make ends meet in an economy where a) fuel and food costs are escalating at double-digit rates, b) many fear for the stability of their jobs, c) less workers are saving for their retirement, and d) our currency has lost against all major currencies around the world - and getting worse.

More of the same from McCain is not the answer to our problems - even though you are doing just dandy.

0 Replies

To Cyclop, I don't believe I castigated Obama. Perhaps you can point out where I did? And even if I did, how does what John McCain has or has not done have any bearing on that whatsoever?

To CI, you don't have a clue as to what I do or do not care about, speaking of unsupportable and unfortunate statements, nor do you have a clue what I personally do to address those issues that I care about, including hands on work with those affected by those issues. I suggest you take counsel from the one commenting on Obama's statements about stuff he knows nothing about.

0 Replies

The assumption can easily be made, foxfyre; when you criticize one opponent and omit criticism from the other opponent for doing the same thing. I think you are operating under the assumption that the rest of us are fools if you expect anyone to believe even a little of what you say. Make of that what you will; I am not going to get into it further knowing in advance how it would go.

I think both have given a little in order to win over the center to their camp. However, all I have to do is follow McCain and I know I don't want that nut in the white house anywhere close to any trigger buttons. I think the guy is a loose screw with his remarks about killing Iranians with cigarettes and "bomb bomb bomb Iran."

0 Replies

On top of all that, those with 401k's, IRAs, and savings lost more during Bush's tenure than comparable years in office.

From CNNMoney (May 2008):

Consumer sentiment lowest since 1980
Index of consumer confidence at its weakest level in nearly 28 years as rising prices and a slumping economy have made Americans more cautious about spending.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Rising food and gas prices dragged down a consumer sentiment measure to its lowest level in nearly 28 years, according to a survey released Friday.

The Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers index of fell to 59.8 in May, down from 62.6 in April. Economists had expected the index to decline to 59.5, according to a consensus compiled by Briefing.com.

The index has plummeted from a reading of 88.3 a year ago, and the current level is the index's lowest since June 1980.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

0 Replies

revel wrote:

The assumption can easily be made, foxfyre; when you criticize one opponent and omit criticism from the other opponent for doing the same thing. I think you are operating under the assumption that the rest of us are fools if you expect anyone to believe even a little of what you say. Make of that what you will; I am not going to get into it further knowing in advance how it would go.

I think both have given a little in order to win over the center to their camp. However, all I have to do is follow McCain and I know I don't want that nut in the white house anywhere close to any trigger buttons. I think the guy is a loose screw with his remarks about killing Iranians with cigarettes and "bomb bomb bomb Iran."

They're not called "neocons" for nut'n. They love war.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

The assumption can easily be made, foxfyre; when you criticize one opponent and omit criticism from the other opponent for doing the same thing. I think you are operating under the assumption that the rest of us are fools if you expect anyone to believe even a little of what you say. Make of that what you will; I am not going to get into it further knowing in advance how it would go.

I think both have given a little in order to win over the center to their camp. However, all I have to do is follow McCain and I know I don't want that nut in the white house anywhere close to any trigger buttons. I think the guy is a loose screw with his remarks about killing Iranians with cigarettes and "bomb bomb bomb Iran."

Only in the addled liberal world, Revel. Many people have the ability to focus on a specific issue and address that issue directly. Many, maybe most liberals, seem unable to do that but instead bring in non sequiturs, red herrings, and ad hominem references as Cyclop and CI just did rather than consider whether the original statement made is accurate or inaccurate. Most of you can't or won't discuss anything that question's Obama's integrity, credentials, or ability without dragging Bush or McCain or somebody else you want to attack into the discussion and/or trying to kill the messenger.

If I say Obama flipflopped, rational people say that 'yes he did' or 'no, he didn't and here's why. . . .' Irrational people say that Bush or McCain is the flipfloppers as if that fact absolves Obama of any criticism whatsoever.

Personally, I think that's pretty dumb. It sure wouldn't make it as legitimate argument in a formal debate.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Me personally? Absolutely. But it doesn't have anything to do with Clinton. Or Bush, for that matter, though the Bush tax cuts have enormously benefitted us and our very modest small business. The point of the article, however, was not in the problem with standing firm on ones stated convictions though this has its own pitfalls. The thesis is the problem inherent in an inability to stand firm on ones stated convictions. That is not a good trait for one in the Oval office to have given the extreme difficulty of reversing a decision or taking back a really unfortunate statement uttered as the Head of State.

That you could say this while supporting McCain beggars belief. McCain has changed his position on dozens of different policies and programs over the last few years, as he has heavily tacked to the right in order to lock up the Republican nomination.

You forgive McCain, but attack Obama, for the exact same thing; even though McCain is a far worse offender. It robs your concerns of any real legitimacy.

Cycloptichorn

Sorry Cyc, you have no base from which to say others lack legitimacy when it comes to being an apoligist for your guy. You're one of the worse offenders on this site.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:
The assumption can easily be made, foxfyre; when you criticize one opponent and omit criticism from the other opponent for doing the same thing. I think you are operating under the assumption that the rest of us are fools if you expect anyone to believe even a little of what you say. Make of that what you will; I am not going to get into it further knowing in advance how it would go.

I think both have given a little in order to win over the center to their camp. However, all I have to do is follow McCain and I know I don't want that nut in the white house anywhere close to any trigger buttons. I think the guy is a loose screw with his remarks about killing Iranians with cigarettes and "bomb bomb bomb Iran."

Only in the addled liberal world, Revel. Many people have the ability to focus on a specific issue and address that issue directly. Many, maybe most liberals, seem unable to do that but instead bring in non sequiturs, red herrings, and ad hominem references as Cyclop and CI just did rather than consider whether the original statement made is accurate or inaccurate. Most of you can't or won't discuss anything that question's Obama's integrity, credentials, or ability without dragging Bush or McCain or somebody else you want to attack into the discussion and/or trying to kill the messenger.

If I say Obama flipflopped, rational people say that 'yes he did' or 'no, he didn't and here's why. . . .' Irrational people say that Bush or McCain is the flipfloppers as if that fact absolves Obama of any criticism whatsoever.

Personally, I think that's pretty dumb. It sure wouldn't make it as legitimate argument in a formal debate.

Woah there; nobody claimed that Obama cannot be criticized, b/c McCain is a flip-flopper. Of course he can, and McCain's status doesn't excuse Obama's changes.

What it DOES do is remove legitimacy from those Concerned Citizens who constantly go after Obama on flip-flops while NEVER going after McCain on them. It weakens your argument to focus your ammo strictly on one side, when the other side is guilty of so many worse violations of the same thing.

If you were intellectually honest, you would admit this...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If that is what I did, I would admit it, Cyclop, but that isn't what I did. Try again. I think non sequitors and red herrings do far more to weaken an argument than focusing on one issue at a time. To focus on a single issue does not dismiss other issues.

0 Replies

Ofcourse in the world of conservatives "addled liberal" is not an ad hominem, and show us the "non-sequiturs" and "red herrings" you mentioned.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know