Yay it's the American Idol winner - who talks about change so much people wonder when he's going to get to the details already. I guess his shindigs wouldn't be that great if he only said, in that great baritone voice, booming loud, "We're gonna force you to pay for all this change in America....We need to make America like Europe...Yes Eurosocialism is my model...No mind that that part of the world is crashing down, and they are running like mad trying to get away from it, no, we need that kind of change here in America." And just so as to not kill all the vibe in the room, he'll throw in a classic cheeseball line that he's famous for...something like, "We're the kind of people we've been waiting for."
I guess listening to him is kind of like going to Church for liberals. It's pretty much the closest thing they've ever experienced. Or its some kind of twisted Tony Robbins seminar for everyone else.
Doesn't anyone ever find it odd that the man never gets into the specifics? Of all the speeches I've heard, he's usually saying "we should do this," and "we need to take care of that," and then it's "so we can do this and that for future generations holding hands like shining happy people, yes we can!"
HOW OBAMA? HOW, for crying out loud! Your good intentions don't mean squat. His plan is to raise taxes, increase burdens, penalize, and make government bigger.
WOW. Sounds like Hillary. Or McCain even. YAY for America.
He does get into specifics but one would have to listen to them to know that they exist...obviously many have chosen to either ignore them or they lack the ability to read.
oe and jasoncross - I've read his statements and speaches. And do you know what they call for? He's going to KEEP entitlements the way they are, and ADD more people into the system. The only change he's going to make is to make the welfare state bigger.
Don't be blind. Anyone can see that he skips over the specifics and sells hope in a bottle. More than half of his backers are stupid white freshman on college campuses that couldn't tell you if he were a freshman senator or not.
All he is a black guy (who goes to a black-centrist, hate group of a church) getting his 15 mins of fame because he's a minority with some bravado in his voice.
His platform is nothing drastically different from what we already struggle with now. Its just more illegal aliens (and a worse economy), more welfare checks, more taxing of corporations (and more red negatives with China), and more attacks on American soil because we will have run away with our tails between our legs like Bill did with Osama in Somalia.
Billary and Obama (with the militant Islamic brother of his) are such great choices! And then there is the closet liberal McCain...don't get me started.
Futurist, there's no point in arguing intelligently with people like you, because people like you are pathologically incapable of the critical thinking skills required for intelligent discussion.
So, barring that, the only other option is to A) mock and ridicule you, or B) ignore you. Mocking and ridicule is more fun for now. When I get bored with that, I'll ignore you.
Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.
That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.
City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly — and unofficially — on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.
Would you really want to risk the election by having the candidate say he wants to put big business in its place, or that he intends to correct the mis-direction of the Supreme Court, or that he intends to take away all preferential treatment of the rich ? Isn't it better to let him make those decisions once he is in office ?
If it worked for Clarence Thomas, it can work for our guy. There's just too much to lose, at the center of the spectrum (the infamous "undecided" voter). . .
Look at what those declarations did to Kucinich and Edwards, at the hands of the fear-mongering, inflammatory and irresponsible media.
Agreed.... Haven't we been over this before? The substance is there for those who wish to see it.
It sounds like some people would rather have Obama stand in the middle of a 20,000-seat arena and give a 2-hour PowerPoint presentation about what he's going to do with the Federal Reserve. That's the approach Al Gore, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney tried (and what Hillary is trying now), and Obama is smart enough to realize that's a sure-fire way to lose the election. The purpose of a campaign speech is a sales pitch, and nothing more. The detailed policy stuff happens during conferences and committee meetings, and makes for incredibly boring C-SPAN footage. That's not how one leads a grassroots movement.
Besides that, nobody knows what sort of congress will be in session beginning in January 2009, and nobody knows what sort of cabinet and senior advisors Obama would have in his administration, so any talk about detailed policy at this point is nothing more than wishful thinking. Whatever he proposes now will no doubt go through about a thousand changes before it actually becomes law.
Put in architectural terms, Obama is in a design competition, and he won't win it by submitting dozens of roof details or spec sections, no matter how impeccable they might be. He'll win it with a lot of fancy graphics and a kick-ass presentation in front of the jury (us). And we should be smart enough to realize that whatever design is shown in those his renderings will likely bear little resemblance to what actually gets built. But his supporters recognize that he has a strong and unique vision, and we like the direction it leads.
I would like health insurance and I don't think Hillary can produce anything. She is too divisive and won't get the Republican votes to do it. This affects every single sole proprietor/small shop here.
Most bills in Congress start with a general idea and then get the details as they move along. There's enough meat on his health care proposal to get it started.
Dems are gonna need a charismatic president like Reagan or FDR who can get things done across the political divide. Opposing Obama will be political suicide for many Republicans. Opposing Hillary will be a uniting battle call that will give unite the opponents of progress.
We need a movement to get our country out of the sh_thole that Bush II has put us into. Obama has the potential to unite us and change things for the better. He has the potential one of the great American presidents. Hillary is more of the same. Go Obama!
Sadly, you have to appeal to the people who are going to make up the majority of your vote. Who was it who said something like "it's impossible to underestimate the intelligence of public. " ? Look at how people were swept up by Reagan's "persona." Are the mass of Democratic voters any smarter than a similar number of Republicans ? No -- they just see things differently -- I think they're just the same when it comes to wanting their needs, both tangible and intangible, met by government (or lack thereof).
i hate to say it, but the cross-section of archinecters is a little above the median when it comes to education, I suspect. It isn't us that the campaign managers are worried about. (Or is that "we" ?)
For crafting his counterinsurgency strategy, Mr. Obama has Harvard University's Sarah Sewall, who worked in the Pentagon under President Clinton. For overall security issues he leans on Mr. Clinton's former national security adviser, Anthony Lake. What about fighting AIDS or boosting U.S. trade in Africa? For that and more, he has former Clinton administration diplomat Susan Rice.
I am reading Obama's book right now. I am AMAZED at how smart this guy is, in the book he lays out the political systems that we face today. He knows exactly what is needed today both politically and financially. Read The Audacity of Hope, it is a great read.
elect Obama, America needs someone of his understanding of the issues we face.
I understand the "get to the issues", "bring out the al gore powerpoint slide presentation" outcry, there is a point to that...
But I think there are different kinds of "substance". There's substance that is data, and then there is substance that is value-driven and human. The data is necessary, but that isn't what wins elections and that isn't what actually gets things done in washington. Nor are the technical details the heart of the value and logic based rationale which debates are really about in elections... Because for all the talk about "substance", anybody can say what they will do, etc... But I think there's still real meat I think in the election is also "values"... What do these candidates stand for? Good or bad, I think that's actually a big part of how most Americans vote...
I think it's a mistake to discount the kind of positive energy that Obama's campaign and message seems to be generating among the average American, especially the younger generation... Honestly, I feel sort of excited about the kind of positive energy he has brought to the electorate, the large masses of people he's gotten engaged and involve, the optimism that this injects into the economy, the level of involvement of people from diverse demographics in politics and the ability of campaign speeches to unify and generate optimism in the country and abroad that things are changing for the better.
These things, being able to garner support for a cause, and inspire people to believe in a common purpose... It's not just fluff... Any president that isn't able to win a working majority, if they aren't able to bring people together to get things done, and if they are working in a polarized congress and senate, is basically imputent, no matter how good their intentions and plans are...
Substance sometimes also needs some style to be effective... I'm tired of Presidents without charisma... Who recitte off their lame stump speaches that change and pander to whatever vote is in front of it... What ever happened to leadership that actually inspires people, unifies people?
To be honest, I think, policy plans aside, what America's economy needs is optimism. I don't think economy is driven primarily by monetary and fiscal policy, it's driven by people. Cutting rates, tax cuts or credits, these things help... Government spending policies putting money in the right place, incentive programs. These are all things that help the economy, but ultimately the economy is driven by people. Consumer optimism is good for markets, consumer spending, productivity of the labor force, engagement of people in social activism. Politicians so often are imputent because quite often, they forget that part of the value of leadership, is in what you say to instill your people with optimism and purpose.
Increasing demands of a global marketplace demand a positive, almost monumental change in foreign policy in order to shift foreign opinion of America... Because business and foreign relations is built on human relations, not just contracts... After GWB's bullshit, Americans are pretty much hated everywhere you go in the world, and it's hard to imagine Americans being able to lead global business without a *both symbolic and real* change in the way things are done...
Economy isn't just numbers, it's human. Markets rise and fall with the mood of the people... That's why inspiring people matters. And especially shifting culture towards the kinds of intelligent production that are needed inorder to compete, and encouraging education, inspiration and values in the younger generations of Americans. Because it's not just about right now... Ultimately, it's our kids and college students, these generations who will decide how competitive our country is in the global marketplace with countries like China and India...
February 16, 2008 -- Barack Obama's primary-night results were strikingly under recorded in several congressional districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said today
Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the Board of Elections confirmed.
When HRC said almost literally (I cannot remember her exact quote) that "the republicans are going to throw their weight against whomever the dems select, and that she was a trench fighter who could fight back." essentially made me realize the two main reasons she would be a significantly worse choice for president (even perhaps worse than McCain, depending on how indebted or pissed off he feels about the right/nutjob wing of his party)
1. The republicans already have her number, and have shown through her health-care initiative as well as her time in congress, on how to triangulate the ground right out from under her. The presidential campaign will be one long negative attack on Billary/McCain.
2. The (non-gender specific) guy in the trenches should be the soldiers of the campaign, not the generals. Either on can hire the same trench-warfare-wonks from the democratic (and even independent) ranks that the other would. While the general needs to understand what goes on in the trenches, that should not be his day-to-day address. Obama has been in politics long enough to realize the inadequacies of trench warfare (I've never seen anyone knowledgeable about Chicago and its politics say Obama has no substance) and that a general has to see the whole field and how to advance the agenda via the best method possible. True, sometimes that's trench warfare, but if you stick to one method too much, your enemy adapts and will always know what you are going to do. HRC will fight via trench warfare, just like congress for the last two years. Is that what we want for th next four years? Obama will not do that. If McCain wins by denouncing the fear-mongering religious zealots of his party, he might be able to do that. But Hillary won't, because she's stuck in the trenches.
Brink, nice two cents.
Also, I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think McCain & Obama are one and the same. I am pointing out that its more that if McCain can win by garnering independents by denouncing the "agents of intolerance" in the Republican party, he will have the freedom to operate without their influence. He may get to push moderate items through similar to Nixon, and implement some much needed change in this country not because he was "liberal" but because he was "conservative" and so those who were conservative could trust him and not fight it as they would were a democrat at the helm.
Remember he signed the EPA into law with teeth.
But if McCain wins by pandering to the zealous right, he will become their paper tiger, defeated inside if not outside. The tone of his voice after Jon Stewart got him to admit he was going to "crazy-base-land" made that abundantly clear.
It should be remembered that promises -- and threats -- made during election campaigns are often forgotten once office is achieved. And, such changes of course, or at least emphasis, are not always noted or criticised -- perhaps until another election cycle ?
beta, that has to be the stupidest thing I have seen the Clinton's do. However I feel it will work (like the SC racism worked among Latinos), the Clinton's are good at this game..
...But perhaps people in Texas are calling them on their shit:
In the survey, out Monday, 50 percent of likely Democratic primary voters support Clinton as their choice for the party's nominee, with 48 percent backing Obama.
My only complaint of Obama's statement is ". . .and to ease the embargo of the last five decades." Why not "eliminate the embargo" ?
He is a politician and wants to have some of the republicans on his side...tact. Sometimes you can't just out and say what you would want to do...or you kill the possibility without getting a chance.
Makes sense. Jasoncross's comment is actually the point I was trying to make earlier, about the downside of debate and media questions, and insistence on specifics. Well said. Guess I'm guilty too. . .
Hillary accuses Obama of plagiarism, ISNT SHE PLAGIARIZING HER ENTIRE CAMPAIGN FROM BILL? I hope the Obama campaign hits her for this, somehow every time she attacks it backfires.
I dont think it helps either of them to get bogged down in that kind of nitpicky crap. Hopefully in the next debate we can seriously talk about foreign policy and stuff that fucking matters.
VOTE OBAMA
Yay it's the American Idol winner - who talks about change so much people wonder when he's going to get to the details already. I guess his shindigs wouldn't be that great if he only said, in that great baritone voice, booming loud, "We're gonna force you to pay for all this change in America....We need to make America like Europe...Yes Eurosocialism is my model...No mind that that part of the world is crashing down, and they are running like mad trying to get away from it, no, we need that kind of change here in America." And just so as to not kill all the vibe in the room, he'll throw in a classic cheeseball line that he's famous for...something like, "We're the kind of people we've been waiting for."
I guess listening to him is kind of like going to Church for liberals. It's pretty much the closest thing they've ever experienced. Or its some kind of twisted Tony Robbins seminar for everyone else.
Doesn't anyone ever find it odd that the man never gets into the specifics? Of all the speeches I've heard, he's usually saying "we should do this," and "we need to take care of that," and then it's "so we can do this and that for future generations holding hands like shining happy people, yes we can!"
HOW OBAMA? HOW, for crying out loud! Your good intentions don't mean squat. His plan is to raise taxes, increase burdens, penalize, and make government bigger.
WOW. Sounds like Hillary. Or McCain even. YAY for America.
Not to be a stickler for details but he actually he plans to lower taxes for everyone under 200gs a year...
Again yknow if youre gonna form opinions before you [i]actually read what someones positions are...[i]
He does get into specifics but one would have to listen to them to know that they exist...obviously many have chosen to either ignore them or they lack the ability to read.
Oh look, somebody pulled the cork out of futurist's sphincter again.
Oh look, "Living in Gin" doesn't have the balls to make an intelligent statement again. Guess he just has to make a stupid one.
"Futurist" ? Don't reactionaries mostly live in the past ?
oe and jasoncross - I've read his statements and speaches. And do you know what they call for? He's going to KEEP entitlements the way they are, and ADD more people into the system. The only change he's going to make is to make the welfare state bigger.
Don't be blind. Anyone can see that he skips over the specifics and sells hope in a bottle. More than half of his backers are stupid white freshman on college campuses that couldn't tell you if he were a freshman senator or not.
All he is a black guy (who goes to a black-centrist, hate group of a church) getting his 15 mins of fame because he's a minority with some bravado in his voice.
His platform is nothing drastically different from what we already struggle with now. Its just more illegal aliens (and a worse economy), more welfare checks, more taxing of corporations (and more red negatives with China), and more attacks on American soil because we will have run away with our tails between our legs like Bill did with Osama in Somalia.
Billary and Obama (with the militant Islamic brother of his) are such great choices! And then there is the closet liberal McCain...don't get me started.
SDR - conservatives are more progressive and innovative than liberals any day of the week.
Futurist, there's no point in arguing intelligently with people like you, because people like you are pathologically incapable of the critical thinking skills required for intelligent discussion.
So, barring that, the only other option is to A) mock and ridicule you, or B) ignore you. Mocking and ridicule is more fun for now. When I get bored with that, I'll ignore you.
Isn't it past your bedtime? Someone's getting cranky....
ni shiang gao goa ma?
lol
Looks like Obama may get more delegates from NY.
Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.
That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.
City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly — and unofficially — on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?ex=1360904400&en=13603b6cca046ae8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
bump
MYBAMA
YOURBAMA
Vice President Clinton. . .as it should have been in 1992 (Gore/Clinton) ?
Again, In know it is hard for some...you actually have to read...but he has tons of information on his stance on all sorts of issues:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
much more detailed than what I see or hear coming from McClinton
Would you really want to risk the election by having the candidate say he wants to put big business in its place, or that he intends to correct the mis-direction of the Supreme Court, or that he intends to take away all preferential treatment of the rich ? Isn't it better to let him make those decisions once he is in office ?
If it worked for Clarence Thomas, it can work for our guy. There's just too much to lose, at the center of the spectrum (the infamous "undecided" voter). . .
Look at what those declarations did to Kucinich and Edwards, at the hands of the fear-mongering, inflammatory and irresponsible media.
Agreed.... Haven't we been over this before? The substance is there for those who wish to see it.
It sounds like some people would rather have Obama stand in the middle of a 20,000-seat arena and give a 2-hour PowerPoint presentation about what he's going to do with the Federal Reserve. That's the approach Al Gore, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney tried (and what Hillary is trying now), and Obama is smart enough to realize that's a sure-fire way to lose the election. The purpose of a campaign speech is a sales pitch, and nothing more. The detailed policy stuff happens during conferences and committee meetings, and makes for incredibly boring C-SPAN footage. That's not how one leads a grassroots movement.
Besides that, nobody knows what sort of congress will be in session beginning in January 2009, and nobody knows what sort of cabinet and senior advisors Obama would have in his administration, so any talk about detailed policy at this point is nothing more than wishful thinking. Whatever he proposes now will no doubt go through about a thousand changes before it actually becomes law.
Put in architectural terms, Obama is in a design competition, and he won't win it by submitting dozens of roof details or spec sections, no matter how impeccable they might be. He'll win it with a lot of fancy graphics and a kick-ass presentation in front of the jury (us). And we should be smart enough to realize that whatever design is shown in those his renderings will likely bear little resemblance to what actually gets built. But his supporters recognize that he has a strong and unique vision, and we like the direction it leads.
Great analogy, LIG!
I would like health insurance and I don't think Hillary can produce anything. She is too divisive and won't get the Republican votes to do it. This affects every single sole proprietor/small shop here.
Most bills in Congress start with a general idea and then get the details as they move along. There's enough meat on his health care proposal to get it started.
Dems are gonna need a charismatic president like Reagan or FDR who can get things done across the political divide. Opposing Obama will be political suicide for many Republicans. Opposing Hillary will be a uniting battle call that will give unite the opponents of progress.
We need a movement to get our country out of the sh_thole that Bush II has put us into. Obama has the potential to unite us and change things for the better. He has the potential one of the great American presidents. Hillary is more of the same. Go Obama!
That's not true. Watch the Charlie Rose episode on counterinsurgency with the Obama advisors.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/12/24/2/a-discussion-about-counterinsurgency
Sadly, you have to appeal to the people who are going to make up the majority of your vote. Who was it who said something like "it's impossible to underestimate the intelligence of public. " ? Look at how people were swept up by Reagan's "persona." Are the mass of Democratic voters any smarter than a similar number of Republicans ? No -- they just see things differently -- I think they're just the same when it comes to wanting their needs, both tangible and intangible, met by government (or lack thereof).
i hate to say it, but the cross-section of archinecters is a little above the median when it comes to education, I suspect. It isn't us that the campaign managers are worried about. (Or is that "we" ?)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118895877299317784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Here's her CV
http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/sarah_sewall
I agree completely, Patrick. Sarah Sewall's work is the first honest discussion (that I have seen) of the events in Iraq.
There's a lot of substance to Obama. Read his book and check out his advisors and their work.
some news:
Congressman John Lewis Switches Vote from Clinton to Obama
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/nyt-reporter-ke.html
Congressman David Scott Switches from Clinton to Obama
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1713596,00.html
Superdelegate Christine Samuels Leaves Clinton Camp
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-ussuper0209,0,1066015.story
UFCW endorses Obama, service employees union may be next
http://kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=7877655
Obama Likely to Get SEIU Endorsement
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvzT8keHzVS3YjP8BJDDrf64A_AwD8UQG9B80
Jim Hightower of Texas Endorses Obama
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=285141
Obama Up By 11 Points In Wisconsin Primary
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/poll_obama_up_by_11_points_in.php
Obama can win 6 more delegates and still lose by 8% in Texas:
Clinton Up 49-41 in Texas Poll; Obama May Win More Delegates
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4972
27 Reasons I'm Divorcing The Clintons Today - Great List
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/15/73629/1395/809/456851
This is a pretty conservative but reasonable assessment:
It's Obama: Do the Math!
http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/its-obama-do-the-math775/
Substantial AND nuanced. . .? Would you like whipped cream with that ?
I am reading Obama's book right now. I am AMAZED at how smart this guy is, in the book he lays out the political systems that we face today. He knows exactly what is needed today both politically and financially. Read The Audacity of Hope, it is a great read.
elect Obama, America needs someone of his understanding of the issues we face.
Here's my 2 cents...
I understand the "get to the issues", "bring out the al gore powerpoint slide presentation" outcry, there is a point to that...
But I think there are different kinds of "substance". There's substance that is data, and then there is substance that is value-driven and human. The data is necessary, but that isn't what wins elections and that isn't what actually gets things done in washington. Nor are the technical details the heart of the value and logic based rationale which debates are really about in elections... Because for all the talk about "substance", anybody can say what they will do, etc... But I think there's still real meat I think in the election is also "values"... What do these candidates stand for? Good or bad, I think that's actually a big part of how most Americans vote...
I think it's a mistake to discount the kind of positive energy that Obama's campaign and message seems to be generating among the average American, especially the younger generation... Honestly, I feel sort of excited about the kind of positive energy he has brought to the electorate, the large masses of people he's gotten engaged and involve, the optimism that this injects into the economy, the level of involvement of people from diverse demographics in politics and the ability of campaign speeches to unify and generate optimism in the country and abroad that things are changing for the better.
These things, being able to garner support for a cause, and inspire people to believe in a common purpose... It's not just fluff... Any president that isn't able to win a working majority, if they aren't able to bring people together to get things done, and if they are working in a polarized congress and senate, is basically imputent, no matter how good their intentions and plans are...
Substance sometimes also needs some style to be effective... I'm tired of Presidents without charisma... Who recitte off their lame stump speaches that change and pander to whatever vote is in front of it... What ever happened to leadership that actually inspires people, unifies people?
To be honest, I think, policy plans aside, what America's economy needs is optimism. I don't think economy is driven primarily by monetary and fiscal policy, it's driven by people. Cutting rates, tax cuts or credits, these things help... Government spending policies putting money in the right place, incentive programs. These are all things that help the economy, but ultimately the economy is driven by people. Consumer optimism is good for markets, consumer spending, productivity of the labor force, engagement of people in social activism. Politicians so often are imputent because quite often, they forget that part of the value of leadership, is in what you say to instill your people with optimism and purpose.
Increasing demands of a global marketplace demand a positive, almost monumental change in foreign policy in order to shift foreign opinion of America... Because business and foreign relations is built on human relations, not just contracts... After GWB's bullshit, Americans are pretty much hated everywhere you go in the world, and it's hard to imagine Americans being able to lead global business without a *both symbolic and real* change in the way things are done...
Economy isn't just numbers, it's human. Markets rise and fall with the mood of the people... That's why inspiring people matters. And especially shifting culture towards the kinds of intelligent production that are needed inorder to compete, and encouraging education, inspiration and values in the younger generations of Americans. Because it's not just about right now... Ultimately, it's our kids and college students, these generations who will decide how competitive our country is in the global marketplace with countries like China and India...
nice post, brink. worth at least 10 cents!
ask and you shall receive
obama adding detail to his oratory
On the lighter side, this is funny:
http://www.challengeofthesuperduperfriends.com/cast_bo.asp
OBAMA ROBBED IN NY
February 16, 2008 -- Barack Obama's primary-night results were strikingly under recorded in several congressional districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said today
Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the Board of Elections confirmed.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/news/regionalnews/obama_robbed_in_ny_97932.htm
When HRC said almost literally (I cannot remember her exact quote) that "the republicans are going to throw their weight against whomever the dems select, and that she was a trench fighter who could fight back." essentially made me realize the two main reasons she would be a significantly worse choice for president (even perhaps worse than McCain, depending on how indebted or pissed off he feels about the right/nutjob wing of his party)
1. The republicans already have her number, and have shown through her health-care initiative as well as her time in congress, on how to triangulate the ground right out from under her. The presidential campaign will be one long negative attack on Billary/McCain.
2. The (non-gender specific) guy in the trenches should be the soldiers of the campaign, not the generals. Either on can hire the same trench-warfare-wonks from the democratic (and even independent) ranks that the other would. While the general needs to understand what goes on in the trenches, that should not be his day-to-day address. Obama has been in politics long enough to realize the inadequacies of trench warfare (I've never seen anyone knowledgeable about Chicago and its politics say Obama has no substance) and that a general has to see the whole field and how to advance the agenda via the best method possible. True, sometimes that's trench warfare, but if you stick to one method too much, your enemy adapts and will always know what you are going to do. HRC will fight via trench warfare, just like congress for the last two years. Is that what we want for th next four years? Obama will not do that. If McCain wins by denouncing the fear-mongering religious zealots of his party, he might be able to do that. But Hillary won't, because she's stuck in the trenches.
Brink, nice two cents.
Also, I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think McCain & Obama are one and the same. I am pointing out that its more that if McCain can win by garnering independents by denouncing the "agents of intolerance" in the Republican party, he will have the freedom to operate without their influence. He may get to push moderate items through similar to Nixon, and implement some much needed change in this country not because he was "liberal" but because he was "conservative" and so those who were conservative could trust him and not fight it as they would were a democrat at the helm.
Remember he signed the EPA into law with teeth.
But if McCain wins by pandering to the zealous right, he will become their paper tiger, defeated inside if not outside. The tone of his voice after Jon Stewart got him to admit he was going to "crazy-base-land" made that abundantly clear.
It should be remembered that promises -- and threats -- made during election campaigns are often forgotten once office is achieved. And, such changes of course, or at least emphasis, are not always noted or criticised -- perhaps until another election cycle ?
Barack and John meet, hopefully and endorsement will follow:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/17/edwards-and-obama-meet/
Also, Obama is stronger in the general;
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton
Rasmussen McCain 44, Clinton 42, Und 14
McCain +2
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama
Rasmussen McCain 39, Obama 49, Und 12
Obama +10
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton
Rasmussen McCain 45, Clinton 42, Und 13
McCain +3
Oregon: McCain vs. Obama
Rasmussen McCain 40, Obama 49, Undecided 11
Obama +9
Polls show that Obama beats both Hillary and McDaddy :
Democratic Presidential Nomination Gallup Tracking
Obama 49, Clinton 42
Obama +7
Democratic Presidential Nomination Rasmussen Tracking
Obama 47, Clinton 43
Obama +4
General Election: Rasmussen (Mon) McCain 49, Clinton 42, Und 9
McCain +7
General Election: Rasmussen (Mon) McCain 43, Obama 46, Und 11
Obama +3
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 49, Clinton 42, Und 9 McCain +7
Wisconsin: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 42, Obama 52, Und 6 Obama +10
The Clintonistas prove that no snake pit, shithole, or other slim covered sty is beneath them...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/more-on-the-war-over-words/
Bury her sorry ass tomorrow and we can all move on.
beta, that has to be the stupidest thing I have seen the Clinton's do. However I feel it will work (like the SC racism worked among Latinos), the Clinton's are good at this game..
...But perhaps people in Texas are calling them on their shit:
In the survey, out Monday, 50 percent of likely Democratic primary voters support Clinton as their choice for the party's nominee, with 48 percent backing Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/poll.texas/index.html
Hmm. Well, it ain't over untii the fat lady gives up gracefully and accepts the will of the people. . .
as they say in the world of opera.
Or she is dragged out kicking and screaming. Her politics are disgusting.
On positive (Obama-like) news, he just got a good endorsement:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGgMWr
Obama is a MAC, Hillary a PC
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/technology/04link.html?ex=1218517200&en=f4c25b765e9aade7&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=TE-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M033-ROS-0108-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click&mkt=TE-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M033-ROS-0108-HDR
Hispanics and the Middle-Aged move towards Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54GCFfuT4aw
My only complaint of Obama's statement is ". . .and to ease the embargo of the last five decades." Why not "eliminate the embargo" ?
My only complaint of Obama's statement is ". . .and to ease the embargo of the last five decades." Why not "eliminate the embargo" ?
He is a politician and wants to have some of the republicans on his side...tact. Sometimes you can't just out and say what you would want to do...or you kill the possibility without getting a chance.
I would guess its more of an opener to a genuine negotiation. First you meet and agree to ease tensions and then you move from there.
Makes sense. Jasoncross's comment is actually the point I was trying to make earlier, about the downside of debate and media questions, and insistence on specifics. Well said. Guess I'm guilty too. . .
beta, on the news item you posted up there,
Hillary accuses Obama of plagiarism, ISNT SHE PLAGIARIZING HER ENTIRE CAMPAIGN FROM BILL? I hope the Obama campaign hits her for this, somehow every time she attacks it backfires.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/plagiarism-clinton-bor_n_87361.html
I dont think it helps either of them to get bogged down in that kind of nitpicky crap. Hopefully in the next debate we can seriously talk about foreign policy and stuff that fucking matters.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.