Words are scary.
Printable View
Words are scary.
The next JFK. The youth vote will turn out for this man and win him the election.
I've set a sleeper thread to claim omniscience if Edwards ends up as the "king/queen maker" in a close fight... :eek: Carry on...Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
Will do, I wasn't too happy with the tactic, but the decision was made up top.Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
But on another note, you should thank Bill, if Obama wins the nomination, you better believe that the attacks that are unleashed against him will be much nastier than the rhetoric we see today. Barack desperately needs to learn how to go on the offensive, as he has shown an inability to do so effectively (take for instance the wal-mart attack, he opened himself to the Rezcko question, which has been what the talking heads have talked about all week, also, he needs to remember that a majority of the people who vote D actually like the place).
Very much so. Particularly now that he got Caroline Kennedy's endorsement.Quote:
Originally Posted by lifts4turns
Camelot II, the sequel.
Only (slight) difference is that JFK was an old school democrat and Obama is a socialist.
I do like Obama and his inspiriing message of change.
I greatly fear his policies. If he gets everything he wants, he will be even more big government growth than Shrub was.
the clinton bitch is already the dem nominee. obama is just a shill to help her look more towards the center of the far left wing
I thought he played that Revko attack brilliantly. One of your opposite numbers had that pic of hillary and revko in his/her pocket, and they snared hillary. Doing it with out appearing to be a lowlife as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
I'm voting for non lawyer though, if i get one.
But the picture was a one time thing, not like a fifteen year relationship that the talking heads were chatting about all week.
The main point was that Obama spent the week on the defensive, which was alright in SC where he got to play the victim card, but that card doesn't play well in the general. He needs to be able to draw sharp contrasts and push them so that his opponent is on the defensive. As of yet, he has been unable to do so.
I agree. Im not that in tune with what happened. But I think this is an election that is veering itself as far from the traditional DC politician, legacy, institutional type politician that Hillary and Bill revealed themselves to be recently. This election more than ever people want something very different. Obama may not be on the offensive yet, but i believe doing so would backfire as it has for Hillary. When nomination process is over, I'll expect alot from him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
It backfired in SC. I'm not too sure if it did in the Feb 5th States. While Obama was campaigning hard in SC. Hillary was shoring up support in CA, MA, NY, OK, MO, NJ, and has held her lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
A lot of democrats are weary of the change argument. Especially those that are struggling economically. Those people lost hope a long time ago, and have no tolerance for people who promise major reform, as they have rarely seen anyone deliver on campaign pledges. Individuals who are making the choice between eating and buying medicine, do not buy the argument of hope.
I for one find Obama's rhetoric appealing, and would be curious to see what he could do in washington. My worry is that the corrupting force of politics will change him into the what he despises most, a DC power politician. The same way that outsiders such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or George W Bush were changed.
George W Bush is an outsider? No, he was a gravy fed on a silver spoon and pushed into power by the ultra-rich and powerful to be their fucking lapdog.
Mission = accomplished.
edit: Masslib, I gotta say, I have a lot of respect for the fact that you can be gracious even though you are working for the evil side. ;)
There's no bigger myth than "the youth vote".Quote:
Originally Posted by lifts4turns
How was he changed? Look at his time in Texas - what changed? He is as he has always been - and that sure isn't any kind of brush-clearing good ol' boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
See my numbers above. RECORD turnout in the democratic primaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable
Obama got more votes yesterday than the TOTAL NUMBER OF DEMOCRATIC VOTES in the SC primary in 2004.
Obama received more SC primary votes that McCain and Huckabee COMBINED.They were the #1 and #2 finishers in the Republican party last week.
Obama is doing more for the Democratic party than the Clintons can ever dream of.
Theres no greater myth than the idea of change as a result of either of the two party's getting elected. :rolleyes:
ding ding ding...we have a winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by the Mad
Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
Glad to hear you are so excited about the Democratic turnout in the SC primary. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no Democrat is carrying SC in the general election, but surely you already knew this.
Just like the above posters said even if Obama does win the election it will be four more years of the same old tax and spend bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatback
I wouldn't be too sure. While there are lots of right-wing born-agains in the north, there is also a lot of African Americans in the middle part of the state. Would depend on who the candidate is on the republican side, assuming Obama gets the dem. nomination.
Automatic Post Preservation Service engaged... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by fatback
Well, I meant in the sense that he came in promising reform and compromise. He would be the great uniter whom would change the way washington worked. Instead he became the ultimate insider.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable
I agree, but wouldn't you say that he got the GOP nomination (back in 2000) based on his anticipated...uhm...devotion to the Republican norm? My perspective is that the GOP elite preferred him to McCain, as he was viewed as more predictable and controllable - McCain could go either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
What I'm saying is that he was viewed as a way to maintain the status quo.
I agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumper Bones
But Bush went far beyond representing the status quo for the Republican Party. People expected him to be a more folksy (if thats possible) version of Reagan who could brings folds of Yellow Dog Democrats onto his side to achieve policy goals. That's no where near what he turned out to be.
Obama had to win SC, but the way he nuked Hilary will have a carry over effect going in to 2/5. Further, look at how the polls moved when Obama won Iowa - sue that didn't lock up NH for him, but it chipped away a hell of a lot of her lead. Now he's back on momentum and that putts those states you listed back in play. Hilary's boat is sinking, the only question is if she can keep bailing fast enough to survive to the nomination she had locked up months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
People without hope don't vote. These people who are choosing between food and medicine are poor, and thus less likely to vote. The biggest number of people who are struggling economically are the middle class and most of us are either suckers for the best slogan or ready to vote on fear. Obama wins as a pitchman for hope, McCain beats everyone on fear (especially if there is a serious terror issue in the lead up to the Nov. election).Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
Sounds like it changes everyone so you may as well vote for the least corrupt and factor in that the dude's gonna get burnt by the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
Sorta fixed....Quote:
Originally Posted by Platinum Pete
Is anyone else troubled by Senator Obama's long association with the slimy Rezko guy?