Will Barack Obama be our next President?

Thread jack alert.



<a href="http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid53355.asp">Not voting for McCain</a>



'<em>I am pro-life and an advocate for the rights of man everywhere in the world,'' McCain told the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. ''Because to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator.''



?Gay rights. McCain opposes gay marriage. True, he does not support a federal ban on gay marriage on grounds the issue traditionally has been decided by states. But McCain worked to ban gay marriage in Arizona. He also supports the military's ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy, and he opposed legislation to protect gay people from job discrimination or hate crimes.



''I'm proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman,'' he told CNN in March. ''I will continue to advocate for those fundamental principals of our party and our faith.'</em>



Anyone else see the irony in the statements, "....and an advocate for the rights of man everywhere in the world" and "Because to be denied liberty is an offense....etc."



Sidebar: Barney Frank has called for the "lesser" opponent to bow out of the race by June 3. I'm guessing that will be Hillary.....
 
[quote author="skek" date=1209001356]Yesterday's Pennsylvania primary could have been the knock-out blow that Senator Obama needed, but instead, Senator Clinton lives to fight another day. The roundup, from the WSJ Online:



<em>Hillary Clinton got the Pennsylvania primary victory she needed to keep her campaign alive but not enough of a triumph to significantly improve her chances of prevailing over Barack Obama, even if exit polls portrayed a populace more divided than Mr. Obama likes to describe it.



With 99% of the votes tallied, Sen. Clinton was ahead 55% to 45%, earning her at least 66 of the state's 158 delegates to the Democratic convention, and Sen. Obama 57, by the Associated Press's count. That still leaves Mr. Obama far ahead in the delegate race, with 1,705 to Mrs. Clinton's 1,575, according to the AP. But it gave Mrs. Clinton another chance to persuade the party superdelegates needed to decide the nomination that she's an underdog who can somehow overcome the numbers.</em>



Barring an unforeseen collapse, Obama will be the Democratic nominee. However, are there any Obama supporters out there who want to explain how their candidate outspent Clinton 3-to-1 and still lost by double digits in a critical battleground state? He seems incapable of attracting votes from the working class demographic that is so important to Clinton, and to the Democratic Party's chances in November. Comments about bitter people who cling to guns and religion certainly didn't help his cause. Is it possible that the Democrats have not learned the lessons of John Kerry and are about to nominate another candidate who is out of touch with his constituency?</blockquote>
Let's keep this in context; this is a fight between Democrats, not a fight for independents and disaffected Republicans. The primary may go to Obama, but regardless who wins, the Democrat base is going to vote for the Democrat nominee, not McCain. That Obama outspent Clinton 3-1 will not be an issue in the general election because the votes he was fighting for will be his by default, regardless of any in-fighting that has occured. The same goes for the blue-collar voters, the 45 & older women, and the hispanics. She is fighting an uphill battle to pull a win out of nowhere, while Obama only needs 320 (by the WSJ count) delegates to win. At this point he would have to die or drop out to lose this nomination, even assuming the 55/45 split carries out through the final 7 primaries. She's resorted to claiming a higher popular vote total to bootstrap her argument to the undecided Super delegates, but she's including Florida and Michigan which is a bit of a stretch considering the DNC still hasn't resolved their fate. But unless you are actively supporting one or the other, it's just entertainment because the base is going to support whomever wins, no matter how bloody the fight.



I disagree that Kerry was out-of-touch, as you put it, because it ignores the larger truth: Kerry was less likable than Bush. He came across as a know-it-all, like Gore before him, and as someone who wouldn't deign to consider anyone other than himself as the logical choice. That kind of arrogance turns people off. Given a choice between a likeable monkey and a irritating asshat, the monkey won... twice. This will work in Obama's favor come November because he is more likable than McCain, who is in turn more likeable than Clinton. This, more than anything, is going to be what sways the Super Delegates of the DNC.
 
Snarky! <a href="http://www.236.com/blog/w/katie_halper/top_10_outrageous_quotes_from_6125.php">Top 10 Outrageous Quotes from McCain's Spiritual Advisers</a>
 
I can just see it now: Obama loses the nomination to Hillary, who then loses the election to McCain and the liberal blogosphere spends the next year talking about how unfair it was that the Republicans used Reverend Wright to win the election because they are racists.



I like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">Krugman's take</a> on the whole thing...

<blockquote>The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?



That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks ? and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.



They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.



But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn?t mesh well with claims to be bringing a ?new politics? and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.



And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there?s a very good chance that they?ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.

</blockquote>
 
T!m, Thanks for linking the Hagee comments.



Do you see what I have to contend with every day of my life ? These idiots. Sigh.
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1209211141]T!m, Thanks for linking the Hagee comments.



Do you see what I have to contend with every day of my life ? These idiots. Sigh.</blockquote>


I don't know how you and others do it. It would get to me. Heck, it gets to me and I'm not even one they have the problem with. One of my all-time favorite songs gives it a mention: <a href="http://www.gregbrown.org/gbpoetg1.html#poetgame">The Poet Game by Greg Brown</a> - verse 5.
 
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin">Obama and Iraq</a>



Seems like a good plan.
 
Obama lost my vote because of his complete flip-flop on the FISA issue. I won't be donating and I won't be supporting him. If I was in a contested state I might be a little hesitant to go that far, but since I'm in California, I won't feel guilty at all.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1216095665]<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin">Obama and Iraq</a>



Seems like a good plan.</blockquote>


Seem like a terrible plan......



Obama scares the crap out of me with his plans and ideas.
 
[quote author="4walls4me" date=1216098589][quote author="T!m" date=1216095665]<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin">Obama and Iraq</a>



Seems like a good plan.</blockquote>


Seem like a terrible plan......



Obama scares the crap out of me with his plans and ideas.</blockquote>


Is that because you are pro-Taliban? ;-P
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1209211141]T!m, Thanks for linking the Hagee comments.



Do you see what I have to contend with every day of my life ? These idiots. Sigh.</blockquote>


You only have to contend with it until you're 45 :)
 
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1221102034-SZGL7R3ozCSKpbEYNuRCww&oref=slogin">Is the Bush admin now stealing ideas from Obama?</a> Didn't Obama propose doing this? And didn't he get criticized by Republicans for it?
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221184971]<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1221102034-SZGL7R3ozCSKpbEYNuRCww&oref=slogin">Is the Bush admin now stealing ideas from Obama?</a> Didn't Obama propose doing this? And didn't he get criticized by Republicans for it?</blockquote>
Yes, and yes. The criticism was based on supporting Pervez Musharraf's tenuous hold on his Presidency, not on the idea of limited strikes inside Pakistan. As long as he was in power and our ally, any invasion of Pakistan would have been seen as undermining his authority. As it became clear nothing could save his job, trying to support an ally was no longer an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top