For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Peggy Noonan's fabulous piece at WSJ (some paragraph breaks removed for space):
If Hillary Clinton loses, does she know how to lose? What will that be, if she loses? Will she just say, "I concede" and go on vacation at a friend's house on an island, and then go back to the Senate and wait? [...]
Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof. The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it. The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.
Thoughts?
Comments Policy
What political party is
February 8, 2008 - 11:21 ET by riff_raffWhat political party is this perp associated with?
http://www.palmbeach...
→ riff raff
February 8, 2008 - 11:33 ET by Cool ArrowThis "perp" was Ronald Reagan's best speech writer. She's got credentials.
♣ a seal
I don't think that is what
February 8, 2008 - 11:56 ET by Hero SquadI don't think that is what riff raff was referring to. At least, I would hope Ronald Reagan's best speech writer isn't doing that.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
→ Sorry riff raff
February 8, 2008 - 12:46 ET by Cool ArrowI thought you were referring to Peggy Noonan when you were referring to the pedophile in the link you provided.
Sorry for my confusion.
♣ a seal
What political party is
February 8, 2008 - 13:28 ET by motherbeltWhat political party is this perp associated with?
Gee....dunno.......the article doesn't say.
Wanna take a guess?
Deval Patrick
February 8, 2008 - 16:49 ET by Scout FinchDemocrat governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Carl McGee, a staffer, would also be a Democrat. That's why you didn't see the "D" in the news article.
No offense, scout, but as
February 8, 2008 - 16:50 ET by motherbeltNo offense, scout, but as my daughter would say "Thank you, Captain Obvious!!" LOL
If the idiotic GOP would
February 8, 2008 - 11:27 ET by mattmIf the idiotic GOP would simply have governed as Republicans; reducing government bureaucracy, securing the borders, education finance reform and privatization, social security and health care privatization, and the rest of the Contract With America (which they turned away from), they wouldn't have to worry about stupid superficial things like whether the Dems have an advantage because their candidate is either a woman or a black man.
This Party is in trouble precisely because it has spent too much time worrying about superficialities and not enough time promoting the Republican principles of freedom, national security and self-determination that our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.
We are at such a low state of decay in this country that we have a choice between a Socialist, another Socialist and a Socialist, for President... Zeig Heil, People.
Let's remember
February 8, 2008 - 11:29 ET by Cape Conservativethe fat lady has not sung yet! Who knows what the next few months will bring our way.
Shes been warming up
February 8, 2008 - 11:32 ET by Dan The Man 2Shes been warming up forever and is about to.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
How about this question:
February 8, 2008 - 13:37 ET by motherbeltHow about this question: If Hillary loses, does anyone really care HOW she reacts?
I know I won't lose any sleep over her angst. What can she do? Pout in the Senate and vote against everything? Sabotage whatever she can?
One: she can't; not if she wants to get re-elected; and trust me, she will want that. If for nothing else, for one more shot at the top spot (Golda Meir was no spring chicken). Either that or she will settle for being the female Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy.
Two: Her Senate colleagues wouldn't let her, because it would reflect on all of them.
My thoughts on this
February 8, 2008 - 11:27 ET by Cape Conservativesubject are that all 3 current Senators who are going to be spending the next several months busily pursuing the presidency should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY. I believe Bob Dole did that, as did John Edwards more recently.
I find it totally irresponsible that these people are being paid to represent their constituents and are not giving 100% to their jobs. What other job would allow someone to neglect their duties in such a manner?
That way, when the loser has to face his/her future, they will NOT be returning to the Senate...a PLUS for our country!
I agree, CC. NONE OF THEM
February 8, 2008 - 11:31 ET by motherbeltI agree, CC. NONE OF THEM are doing the job they were elected to do anyway. McCain recently missed a vote because he didn't want to take a stand on an important issue. Barcak Obama has voted "present" way too many times (political calculation?). I don't know how many votes HRC has missed...but they are all spending way too much time away from their "day jobs."
I just had an argument
February 8, 2008 - 13:24 ET by goldboughI just had an argument with my co-worker about this. She says that they should still be paid because they're representing the democratic party. I can't follow that logic. I made an analogy that if I was campaigning around my company to be a supervisor, should I be paid for taking calls when I'm not on the phone?
My co-worker is gung-ho for Obama. She's fallen for this "change" business. Change to what? She went off on the drug companies making too much money. Probably learned from a recent rally. I like my co-worker, but we disagree fully on politics.
Resign
February 8, 2008 - 13:58 ET by GothampcI live in New York and I've been saying for a long time that Hillary should resign. She's had this POTUS run on her mind since 2000 or before. Also in NYC, we are stuck with a mayor that has no interest in being mayor. Bloomberg should resign as well.
I have said from Day 1
February 8, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Cape Conservativethat the big fuss over Bill's post-presidency office location was all just a huge diversion as Hillary set herself up in the 2nd fanciest (I believe I read that) Senate office in the country. The large staff she assembled was more for her presidency run than for her NY constituents, even in 2000. These two are a team that knows no boundaries and follows no rules...America had better watch out!
Why New Yorkers ever elected / re-elected her is beyond my comprehension!!!
Disagree with Peggy. Republican proffessionals don't know
February 8, 2008 - 11:29 ET by Dee Bunkif they did they wouldn't have supported McCain.
Dee, to tell the truth, I
February 8, 2008 - 11:39 ET by motherbeltDee, to tell the truth, I don't think it matters. I think Noonan is right.
I'm afraid we might as well make up our minds, Barack Obama is going to be our next President. The Democrats will see that he is unbeatable...not because of HRC's negatives, but simply because of his skin color. I read this today by Ban Shapiro...a ridiculously young guy (21? 22?) that is wise WAY beyond his years. Obama, the Friendly Black Guy.
I agree with Noonan: she said today Obama would be bulletproof. I commented the other day that he would not be Teflon, he would be Kevlar. No one can oppose him in any way without being tagged a racist. His lack of substance not withstanding, there is simply no way to fight against him.
MB - I agree - Obama is in for 8 years. I have little doubt
February 8, 2008 - 11:44 ET by Dee Bunkabout that. He'll probably also have congress. I still will vote against him but that is how it's going to be.
There are actually Republicans and Libertarians who support him and it's completely illogical. He's the most liberal candidate (with a chance) and he'll be the most liberal President ever.
He WON'T have
February 8, 2008 - 15:12 ET by Cape ConservativeCongress if the genuine Republican voter goes to the polls in November and elects Republican senators & representatives!!!
We may end up losing the big one, but we MUST not sit home! As we are witnessing, the majority can do a lot to halt any ideas the president may have.
VOTE IN NOVEMBER - ELECT THOSE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL REPS & SENATORS!!!!
Very well said. We have to
February 8, 2008 - 15:43 ET by Gary P JacksonVery well said. We have to makes sure as many Republicans as possible win their House and Senate elections. If we just stay at home, it will give the dims a big win and the ability to do whatever they want!
GaryP... I do think the
February 8, 2008 - 15:49 ET by bigtimerGaryP...
I do think the majority of us all here are going to vote, not sit home.
We have to do whatever we are able to not let us be completely trounced in the House and Senate..it is an uphill battle as it is now with the vacancies or those needing reelected...or for that matter defeated.
Interesting article -- he
February 8, 2008 - 13:53 ET by lotrInteresting article -- he makes a very good point, one I really hadn't even considered. Of course, these same points might also apply to Hillary with the gender card...
→ Noonan
February 8, 2008 - 11:31 ET by Cool ArrowPeggy sees deeper into the political picture than anyone. And she has an uncanny ability to cut through the BS.
♣ a seal
And now, today's Shrub
February 8, 2008 - 11:32 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's Shrub Report®:
Paulbot math: No money + No delegates = Victory! It is shocking that Paul only has 16 delegates, isn't it?
John McCain redeemed himself a bit by making it back to the Senate to vote on the stimulus package. Meanwhile, Fox News shows some Conservative Media Bias.
Classy Freddie Blassie would have been 90 today… Meanwhile, Gary Coleman turns 40.
Like good Liberals, Bhutto's followers are in major denial of the truth because it does fit into their template.
Biofuels are bad for the environment. Distraught envirotards are weaving hemp nooses as we speak.
While we are on the topic, here is today's Global Warming Update!
Luckily, DasBlimp was unable to leave the hanger (because of a mild breeze), thus a Black Sunday was avoided.
It looks like Pennsylvania might be the deciding Presidential battleground for the Democrat(ic)s. Last time this happened was 1976, and we all remember how well Jimmy Carter worked out.
The Time-Waster of the Day.
Uh-oh, Crazy Eyes' presidential campaign is in trouble.
Has anybody brought up the Racist Hate Crime angle to the ass who murdered 5 in Missouri? After all, it was a black-on-white crime.
Read this, and then wonder why many people like me think NO money should be given to the Palestinians. They are terrorist scum. Another black eye for the President.
Partner with Islam!
And, finally, a President Tom Update!
was something wrong with that screen shot?
February 8, 2008 - 13:21 ET by SouthJersey1953Fox bias....That screen shot of McCain on FOX News looked alright to me....
Right: How about Freudian
February 8, 2008 - 14:03 ET by motherbeltRight: How about Freudian slip????
And now for today’s
February 8, 2008 - 13:39 ET by TruthMongerAnd now for today’s Anti-defamation™ re-report:)…
Partner with Islam…
http://progressivemuslims.org/
hatred and ignorance live on
wont you help prevent bigotry fires?
How about this for
February 8, 2008 - 14:02 ET by motherbeltHow about this for "Partnering with Islam" ???
The Archbishop of Canterbury wants to allow Shari'a law in England.
Is that not the worst
February 8, 2008 - 15:13 ET by Cape Conservativething an English citizen could hear!! I just read about it, too. DISGUSTING!!!
Yeah,
February 8, 2008 - 17:00 ET by Scout FinchThat Fox News screen shot with John McCain (D-AZ) looks about correct to me. Nothing wrong there.
/s
How do you counter the Obama free pass?
February 8, 2008 - 11:36 ET by KC MulvilleMcCain has to pick a VP who can go after Obama aggressively, but fairly. It can't be anyone who can be accused of racism. Naturally, my choice would be Condoleezza Rice. (Of course, I would favor Rice at the top of the ticket, but that's water under the bridge.) Obama wants to paint in broad strokes, but Condi is a master of the details to bring him back down to earth. Let's not kid each other, the same people who call Obama a milestone will call her a mere token, but we take their hypocrisy for granted.
The Obama free pass is based on more than just his race. He's also very calm and smooth-talking. No matter what else you say, you simply can't lose your cool. That's why McCain is really not the best person to lead the attack. He's too volatile and prickly. If he comes off in the same way he came off in the Reagan Library debate, we're all doomed. So you have to find a VP who can do what McCain can't -- stay cool. Condi has been cool, and about much more pressurized opponents than this.
The conventional wisdom has always been that you pick a VP to clinch an important but "iffy" state. I doubt that works anymore. Besides, Condi would make a worthy president on her own merits, and that's nothing to sneeze at.
Let's not kid each other,
February 8, 2008 - 11:45 ET by motherbeltLet's not kid each other, the same people who call Obama a milestone
will call her a mere token, but we take their hypocrisy for granted.
But, KC, if they were to do that, their blatant hypocrisy would be on display before the entire country. And not to put too fine a point on it...Condi Rice isn't half caucasian. What could they say: Republicans tried to go one better by picking someone 100% black, but that doesn't work, she's still white on the inside?
Check out the link to Ben Shapiro's column in my comment above. He makes a lot of very good points.
→ motherbelt
February 8, 2008 - 11:51 ET by Cool ArrowThe difference is that the old school Democrat blacks have already put Condi and all Black Republicans in the "Uncle Tom" category. They, unlike Obama, are fair game.
♣ a seal
I don't think that would
February 8, 2008 - 12:07 ET by Hero SquadI don't think that would happen. Selecting an African American VP would be hammered as pandering to a constituency that will not be swayed.
He will either go for someone with (perceived) stronger conservative creds, or someone that skews younger. I'd like it to be Fred Thompson, of course; but I think he's probably going to pick someone who hasn't been in the limelight of late. Romney, Huckabee... they come in with perceived negatives simply because they were hot in the GOP nomination fray.
The VP will likely be someone we haven't given much thought to.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Condi as VP? Forget the
February 8, 2008 - 13:35 ET by LeonCondi as VP?
Forget the racial implications, how could you possibly fail that high upwards?
Can anyone name a single accomplishment she's had while in office? A single goal set that she has reached?
For a start
February 8, 2008 - 13:38 ET by KC MulvilleGetting China and Russia to help with North Korea by joining the six-party talks.
KC, So North Korea won't
February 8, 2008 - 13:47 ET by LeonKC,
So North Korea won't still have nuclear weapons at the start of the next presidency?
Wasn't the ultimate goal, nuclear disarmament?
Without that, where's the success?
of course condi has
February 8, 2008 - 13:58 ET by TruthMongerof course condi has absolutely 100% no interest in VP or Presidency - minor detail that it is
No that was not the goal
February 8, 2008 - 14:26 ET by KC MulvilleNuclear weapons are a bell that can't be unrung. Disarmament is always going to be the dream, but containment is the real goal.
China wants North Korea to be a thorn in everyone else's side, without having to pay for it. The whole game is not North Korea alone, but in getting the Chinese (and to a lesser extent, Russia) to understand that North Korea is a regional problem that they must address.
The fact that North Korea and China are at the table is a triumph. For all the talk about Iran or Iraq cowboy diplomacy, the reality is that North Korea is a terrific example of professional diplomacy. Does that mean that everything is happy and calm? No, we still have the two steps forward, two steps backward rhythm. But at least we get a full two steps forward, instead of the constant backsliding we've had on Korea for the last fifty years.
Cool Arrow
February 8, 2008 - 13:29 ET by motherbeltIsn't that what I said?????
→ yes mb (he said sheepishly)
February 8, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Cool Arrowthat's exactly what you said.
Sorry.
♣ a seal
Obama is more than race
February 8, 2008 - 12:56 ET by KC MulvilleNah, MB, I think Obama has a magic formula. I think Shapiro's wrong. If it was race alone, he'd be just another asterisk. The formula is that he's black, with a soothing personality, but what makes the difference is that he's an extreme liberal.
Look at what Obama's supporters are responding to: it's the emotion. Extreme liberalism is all passion. The nutroots are all passion. The media is all passion. That's why those people are flocking to Obama, because he represents the passion of pure liberalism. But in Obama, their passion is protected by his race and personality.
Where does liberalism fail? In the details. In reality. Liberalism's emotion crashes when faced with practical reality. So long as Obama avoids reality, and stays in the air, liberals pump all their emotion into him. Don't kid yourself, Obama's fire is all fueled by liberalism, but his race and calm demeanor shield him from criticism. Obama is a distraction.
Condi could counter Obama, not because she's black, but because she can cut through that distraction.
I disagree, KC... I think
February 8, 2008 - 14:10 ET by motherbeltI disagree, KC... I think the problem is not liberalism, but one of "charisma." Harold Ford doesn't have it. No matter how you slice it, Obama's got it. In spades. And don't take that racially, anyone. I refuse to stop using a well-known saying because of some suddenly trumped up sensitivity.
(M-W online defines it as to an unusually great degree : in the extreme)
Charisma
February 8, 2008 - 15:43 ET by KC MulvilleJust one man's opinion, MB ... Charisma says as much about the sheep as the shepherd. A charismatic person ignites something already there. The charisma is only a spark. The fire comes from within the audience, who only needed someone to ignite it.
I'm basing that strictly on my own experience. I've never gotten excited about someone for no reason. Reagan lit fires all the time, because he said things that were deep in the heart, and yet no one else was saying. In Reagan's heyday, he was the only one talking about standing up to the Soviets, and that touched a nerve in guys like me, because backing down never worked. Give an inch, and they'll take a mile. When Reagan declared that we ain't backing up no more, that's what sparked my excitement. It wasn't his delivery or cadence. It's what he was saying that made the difference.
On the other hand, I freely admit, Obama does nothing for me. I admire his ability to give a stump speech, or when he "Oprahs" the crowd, but it's merely an appreciation of skill, not excitement for what he's saying. I see pundits swoon, and my reaction is contempt. He's not saying anything! I used to judge forensics (public speaking) tournaments. Their motto is "leadership through speech." It bugged me that they taught that true leadership came from making an attractive speech, not through careful thought or decisive actions. It's all posture, tone, cadence, etc, but thought comes last, if at all.
Again, just my opinion ... fewer and fewer Americans know how to deliver an effective speech. Rhetoric is an art we're losing rapidly. That's why Obama can be a star just because he can look comfortable delivering boilerplate rhetoric. It ain't magic in him. It does, however, say something about us!
KC, it doesn't matter what
February 8, 2008 - 17:15 ET by motherbeltKC, it doesn't matter what it says about who...or how it ignites. You're trying to make it into an explainable phenomenon, and, by its very nature, it's not.
You can define it any way you want. Whatever the reason, whether it's timing, placement, skill, or whatever, Ford didn't have "it" and Obama does. Who was the long ago movie star they called "the it girl." Noone could say exactly what it was that she had, but it was tehre and it was palpable.
I'm not impressed by Obama either. But it's obvious that he has "something"...because people are flocking to him. I called it charisma, you may disagree. It doesn't really matter what you or I think...or what we call it. it's a movement all of its own.
It does matter
February 8, 2008 - 19:47 ET by KC MulvilleWe'll have to agree to disagree here, MB. I'll tell you why I think is the difference. Obama is not unbeatable. When you get him out of his comfortable environment, he'll have to explain how he intends to deal with real problems. (He hasn't been forced so far, because Hillary doesn't want to be forced there either.) When Obama is forced into specifics, he'll turn to his liberalism. When he does, he'll collapse.
Why? To resolve issues that rise to the level of national politics, you're almost always forced to rob Peter to pay Paul. Somebody's going to get the short end of the stick. Up until now, Obama hasn't had to disappoint anyone. But liberalism means taxes, regulations, and loss of jobs for most people, but more pay for teachers unions, lawyers, and government. When people see that they're going to get robbed to pay Paul, all the Peters won't think he's so charming. And when he promises to slow down the economy to address global warming, the thrill will be gone.
The movement will stall.
Yeah, we'll probably have
February 8, 2008 - 20:41 ET by motherbeltYeah, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on parts of this. I was talking mostly about "charisma" here, but in other posts I have opined that he very well might be unbeatable. I agree that it will be tough for him out of his comfort zone, but his "fans" might not care that he doesn't have "policies" and might not be turned off by that. Hero worship isn't logical. We'll have to wait and see.
I also agree that he's not saying anything. "Hope and change" is not policy; hell, it's not even a platform unless it's defined by something other than "a new kind of politics" or "Yes we can!" We can what? Provide hope and change? Yeah, whatever.
Anyway, I'm glad we can have a disagreement and remain civil about it. :-)
PS I just noticed you said "I'll tell you what the difference is."
The difference in what? You lost me there.
The difference
February 8, 2008 - 21:50 ET by KC MulvilleHave you ever written a piece, erased the first few sentences upon reflection, and then forgot to adjust the rest? I do that all too often, and the grammar-checker doesn't check for logic, so I often miss it. I did that here. I wrote one point, went away to live real life, and when I returned, I lost my train of thought, so I erased most of it ... except that sentence.
I erased all that, but then forgot to erase the part about "the difference."
As for civil disagreements, they're my favorite kind!
Thanks, KC, for clearing
February 9, 2008 - 13:47 ET by motherbeltThanks, KC, for clearing that up. Yeah, I've done that...sometimes I edit and then find out later when someone replies, that I cut out something I didn't mean to, and it changed the meaning of what was left.
LOL
motherbelt is abolutely
February 8, 2008 - 22:51 ET by lotrmotherbelt is abolutely correct. Charisma, by it's definition, is about the messenger, not the message -- some have it, others don't. Obama has charisma, if he has anything. He comes over as genuine and sincere, concerned about the well-being of others. But of course, because he is so far to the left, it won't be enough to swing my vote. While I may despise his politics, I find he is otherwise likeable, whereas I have much more aversion for Hillary, even though they are pretty much liberal clones.
KC...of course that would work..Condi
February 8, 2008 - 11:58 ET by JayTeeIf Condi chews him up and spits him out on foreign details, or Knowledge and Experience, then he would be embarrassed...but how do you get Condi and him on the Same Stage ?
AND. . because he's Black would Condi vote for him ?
Learn the lesson
February 8, 2008 - 12:25 ET by KC MulvilleLearn the Bill and Hillary lesson. Obama didn't like it when he had to answer Bill as well as Hillary.
This only works because Condi has substance, and Obama doesn't. Take away the superficial rhetoric and skin color, and what do you have left? With Condi, you have an experienced and clever statesman (pardon the gender). With Obama, you have a feel-good puppy. I'll live with that contrast.
McCain will never pick Condoleezza Rice
February 8, 2008 - 12:33 ET by Dee BunkHe hates Rumsfield and he probably hates her also.
→ Excellent point Dee
February 8, 2008 - 12:38 ET by Cool ArrowI think he'd more likely pick Richard Simmons.
♣ a seal
LOL - that's hysterical Cool.
February 8, 2008 - 12:49 ET by Dee BunkLOL - that's hysterical Cool. Richard Simmons would be the type he'd pick. It won't be anyone with backbone.
ROFL!!!
February 8, 2008 - 13:31 ET by motherbeltROFL!!
Probably right
February 8, 2008 - 13:04 ET by KC MulvilleI don't know how he feels about her, DB, but you're probably right. Then again, I was only putting forth my hope, not my prediction. I'm afraid that if I had to bet real money on it, I'd bet that McCain would more likely pick Lindsay Graham than Condi Rice.
McCain might be a pistol aiming for his own foot.
KC I agree with you... I
February 8, 2008 - 15:58 ET by bigtimerKC I agree with you...
I hope he picks a real conservative but I think you have it exactly right....
McCain might be a pistol aiming for his own foot.
We are in a sad state of
February 8, 2008 - 11:44 ET by Chris NormanWe are in a sad state of affairs, if a political opponent can't compare himself with a rival because it may be spun as racist, no matter how fair a point is being made. The question should be, then, shall we give the presidency to Obama just because he is black? By the way, if this point were completely accurate, how have Caucasians run successfully against African Americans in other races?
=
February 8, 2008 - 11:49 ET by motherbeltdouble
how will McCain be able to
February 8, 2008 - 13:49 ET by TruthMongerhow will McCain be able to differentiate himself to voters?
- they are virtually identical in terms of political ideology
- Mc's an old and wrinkled worn-out politician whereas Obama is a young and un-wrinkled "ROCK STAR"
- Mc's a grumpy, severely traumatized ex-POW with multiple infirmities whereas Obama is pleasant and healthy
- McCain has been tainted by the inside of the beltway, whereas Obama has not
- Everyone "loves and adores" Oprah, and Oprah loves Obama - who loves McCain? Ummmmm - well, Arnold and Rudy i guess - but everyone "loves and adores" Oprah, and Oprah loves Obama!
Good luck, John - drink lots of ensure if you can:)
The question should be,
February 8, 2008 - 11:47 ET by motherbeltThe question should be, then, shall we give the presidency to Obama just because he is black?- Chris Norman
I think we are about to.
And the beauty of it (from his standpoint) is that he will never utter the racial words; plenty of others will do it for him, and he will remain "above questions of race."
I find the whole situation
February 8, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Chris NormanI find the whole situation with Obama almost eerie. He is being treated like the memory of John F Kennedy - a saint.
You got that right: look
February 8, 2008 - 11:54 ET by motherbeltYou got that right: look at the big to-do about the Kennedys proclaiming him the "heir to Camelot."
Obamamania is rapidly becoming a "cult."
And it's amazing how much of JFK's presidency has gone down the memory hole...but it's always that way with charismatic figures...did you see the article a few days ago that actually detailed how many failures JFK presided over?
Perhaps the response to
February 8, 2008 - 11:57 ET by Chris NormanPerhaps the response to charges of a "racist" attack should be, "I respect Senator Obama so much, that I think he can be criticized for his record and inexperience" - or something along those lines.
Peggy is right, Obama will
February 8, 2008 - 11:44 ET by dscottPeggy is right, Obama will be a very tough nut to crack if nominated. Hillary is definitely easier due to her vicious nature and numerous shady issues, I believe there is another Hsu(s) to drop on the illegal campaign contributions being bundled.
As far as Obama is concerned I will hold back on that strategy, no point in telling him what to defend himself against. For the moment Obama has two problems to overcome 1. the Clinton operatives in the MSM spinning the storyline and 2. the superdelegates who have pretty much already decided to go with Hillary.
The more important issue to me is the Clinton MSM operatives, if they can choose to side with a party, they can also choose to side with a candidate. Both Obama and us have the same concern over the activities of the Clinton operatives in the MSM, they hurt both of us. They helped fan the viciousness of the last 15 years for the benefit of the Clintons, neutralize them and we can have a civil political campaign.
Clinton Operatives List
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Obama is Easy
February 8, 2008 - 11:55 ET by JayTeeObama has lots of weaknesses, Take his blunder on removing his Senate Flag Pin from his Lapel, and the speech he made about it.
WE were attacked on 9/11 and he voted NO on the War.
The reason he hasn't made more representations of his Off the beaten path of mainstream America is the Kid gloves the MSM uses on him and Hillary.
Hillary was asked if the People on her Campain-Staff had MEDICAL COVERAGE ?
Ask Obama some hard Questions, and you'll find an Empty Suit....He's so far Left in Left Field, he's standing on the Foul line.
Why is the RNC so scared of him ? He just needs some Exposure. He's a Rookie for Allah's Sake, don't be Scared of him.
→ Here's one Jay Tee
February 8, 2008 - 12:02 ET by Cool ArrowWE were attacked on 9/11 and he voted NO on the War.
Obama's response: First, I did not vote for war for two reasons:
I was not a member of the Senate at the time.
You're telling me 17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian so you decided to attack Iraq? Or do they all look alike to you? (adding a nice touch to the Republicans as racist label)
There are plenty of comebacks Obama can use to thwart his attackers, and some of them aren't particularly weak given an adoring, chanting crowd.
♣ a seal
CA,The most important thing
February 8, 2008 - 12:18 ET by Chris NormanCA,
The most important thing for the Republican nominee not to do, if he is attacked as making "racist" attacks is be defensive about it. Once on the defensive, it's all over - just ask George Allen.
You're telling me 17 of the
February 8, 2008 - 12:16 ET by bassndudeYou're telling me 17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian so you decided to attack Iraq?
Thats when you smack him down, tell him "Anyone that dosent understand the strategic nedessity for the attack in Iraq, has no business being Comander and Chief."
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
→ Too late bass
February 8, 2008 - 12:24 ET by Cool Arrowby then he's already got the best of the argument that "they all look alike"
When you hear hoofbeats, why think "zebras"?
When Saudi's attack . . . ?
♣ a seal
No, just ask him if he can
February 8, 2008 - 12:35 ET by bassndudeNo, just ask him if he can tell the differance between arab and pursian, standing side by side. When he sayes no, hit him with his own "do they all look alike?".
Saudi hijackers, from Saudi, by way of the Afgan and Iraqi training, by way of Hamburg, Germany. Who do you hit? Germany? England?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
→ bass
February 8, 2008 - 12:42 ET by Cool ArrowYou are supposing extended logic into something so small as a soundbite. Where do you think the MSM would truncate the discussion to create the soundbite? Logic? or Gotcha?
Cool, depends on how heated
February 8, 2008 - 12:45 ET by bassndudeCool, depends on how heated the exchange. Get ole Mc fired up and it might be pretty good...:-)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
→ Bambi wins that one too.
February 8, 2008 - 12:50 ET by Cool ArrowThe MSM would have a field day with the picture of the angry old white man telling the young innocent black man he's lacking in smarts.
♣ a seal
Saudi Arabia, Germany and
February 8, 2008 - 13:14 ET by dscottSaudi Arabia, Germany and England cooperated, Afghanistan and Iraq did not. Following the Bush dictum, if you aren't cooperating with us you are against us. This is why Pakistan did not get invaded or turned into a parking lot.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Well that and they have
February 8, 2008 - 15:37 ET by Dan The Man 2Well that and they have nukes and a military dictator. You don't need to stir up any ant nest you don't have to.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
It's about 'Process' issues...
February 8, 2008 - 12:37 ET by SyriusHonestly, it seems everyone is overlooking and ignoring process issues. Obama is about the moment, the emotion of the electorate, and the inability and impotence of his opponents. His inexperience of process issues should be attacked. His ability to inspire and to create a sense of hope overwhelms any attack he may receive from any opponent. If his opponents don't look beyond his charisma, race and his youth, they will lose. At the very least, McCain knows process and how to work within the Government. For that matter, I'll give Hillary a nod, too. Obama's weakness is in the 'boring' stuff of government which will be overlooked by the masses.
I always question the people who want to clean up and change Washington. They always want to get rid of the old faces and insert themselves as the new faces. Of course, they tend to stay in town for a long time and then become lobbyists. It seems they never want to go back home and live with their poor suffering constituents. Look at Trent, Newt, Al, Delay...they all love DC and the riches to be gained. Just a thought.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Lobbying in DC is most
February 8, 2008 - 12:58 ET by Roger the ShrubberLobbying in DC is most definitely a BI-PARTISAN affair...
An idea for Hillary
February 8, 2008 - 12:39 ET by GothampcCurrently Iran has no gays because the state allows them to get sex change operations.
A vote for Hillary, is a vote for tax payer sex change operations. You've been warned.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aKyg7EZs.8hA&refer=home
A sure sign that the
February 8, 2008 - 13:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberA sure sign that the apocalypse shall soon be upon us:
Lepers invade Arkansas town while Cruella runs for mayor.
New Open Thread Subject
February 8, 2008 - 13:20 ET by OldSailor88My favorite.....AGW. McCain would be wise to drop his AGW views. I just read this article on Drudge. Another group of scientists who disagree with AGW and attribute it to the sun. The best part of the article is as follows....emphasis mine...
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balanc