Yeah, it's OBAMA who keeps playing the race card, sure... | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)
2 way street (none / 0)
You have no idea how much of an issue he (rev wright) really is, especially to the people who will decide this election come Nov. but I digress.

Who exactly ever said that she should be NOT be attacked?  Especially over lying and exaggeration?

Overturn the will of the people, are we really back to that? Practice what you preach. Show me some rage over Texas or the rest of the caucus states. I forgot those are the rules, except when it comes to Superdelegates
(her vicious attack about Wright was, OMG, I would have left my church?)

Fact: Bush didn't swiftboat Kerry and McCain won't swiftboat Obama HaHaHaHa. It is really funny how the Dems keep getting hit by the same truck but never get the license plate. Didn't you learn from the last time? A 527 will run the ad, McCain will disavow it. The MSM will run with it (repeat cycle)

NOTE: Actually the Swiftboat ads didn't do Kerry in, it was the windsurfing flip flop ads that did him in. (remember: he was for it before he was against it.)

My friends, I have warned you repeatedly, what is coming. Remember that those ads aren't meant for you or the rest of the faithful. They are meant for those white, blue-collar, nascar moms and dads. You know the ones, the ones who consistently vote against their own interest. The ones who bought into the welfare queen ads and Willie Horton ads. These are the same people who voted for Bush because they could see themselves having a Beer with him. These are the people who will determine who our next president is. Isn't that reassuring?

by LORD FOUL on 04/02/2008 03:55:51 PM EST

stop with the generic arguments (none / 0)
I agreed with you the LAST time we exchanged in a thread about caucuses.

Yes caucuses are far from perfect, but at least the person who gets the most votes wins, unlike the delegate system. 

My personal preference would be a national popular vote held on one day.  We can't expect the DNC to bend to our will though. 

Besides the "them's the rules" argument isn't what the post was about.  It was about the Clinton campaign and their questionable tactics.

And yes, there will be 527 ads, surely.  You think there won't be Vince Foster ads everywhere if Clinton is the nominee.  Not to mention the 35,321 other Clinton scandals. 

I am tired of this "Clinton is more electable" crap.  Little will fire up the right wing rednecks more than a potential Clinton presidency.  Obama would have to make a speech in Farsi while using the American flag as a rag to wipe up an abortion he just performed to beat Clinton in the category of right wing hatred.

by richardshort2001 on 04/03/2008 02:21:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Can we agree (none / 0)
On this

Clintons wins in NY & CA are meaningless (no matter who wins the Dems will carry those states.)

Obamas wins in AL,MIS,WYO etc are meaningless (no matter who wins the Pubs will win those states.)

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost to the election over a "swing state" that was lost due to Ralph Nader.

The swing states, as usual, will decide the presidency.

In particular the Reagan Dems will decide this election. As they have since 1980. 
 
Up to this point, which of the Dem candidates win Reagan Dems? Who has the stregnth in the white, blue collar world? Be honest, say it.

Who are really important swing states PA,OH,IN,KY,TN,MO,KN,MI & FL if the Dem candidate doesn't win the majority of these states the Dem loses.

This isn't about liking or disliking a candidate, what this is about is winning the White House. If you don't win the reagan Dems you lose the swing states. If you lose the swing states you lose the election, period.

So should Obama win the nomination and he loses the majority of the swing states (hence loses the election) don't blame Hillary or the moderate wing of the party, we tried to warn you.

by LORD FOUL on 04/03/2008 09:19:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, Regan Democrats prefer Clinton (none / 0)
Woohoo.

Do these Reagan Dems not vote in the primaries then?  No fair blaming the caucuses, Obama would be ahead in popular vote just counting primary states. 

The biggest problem voters have with Obama is his inexperience.  If people are voting based on experience only, McCain wins.  Also, Obama has about as much experience as Lincon, FDR and JFK.  I think they did ok.  (Oh and Reagan)

To beleive that the Reagan Democrats will cost the party the election if Obama is nominated both of the following must be true:

Reagan Democrats would normally vote in line with their interest, unless the nominee in line with their interests is black.

They hate blacks that much, yet can't get motivated enough to defeat him in the primaries when he is leading in delegates.

DOES NOT COMPUTE...

by richardshort2001 on 04/03/2008 09:57:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Also (none / 0)
Already covered the swing state argument, again in the last thread we chatted.

by richardshort2001 on 04/03/2008 10:02:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Progress (none / 0)
Most people don't vote in primaries. I believe the percentage overall is 30% of usual voters. Just check out the popular vote. Look at Illinois. Notice something? The difference in the popular vote.

It is not so much in experience they simply do not know the man. That is why I thought VP was the way for him to go in this election. Do you want the "get to know Obama tour" durring a heated Presidential race? (Please let's not compare Obama to FDR or JFK and I won't compare him to less than favorable Presidents.)

Race doesn't matter? Obama is winning the black vote at about 85% (honestly if Obama were a candidate of any other skin color would he be winning a demographic with that type of margin? especially with no real policy differences with their opponent.) I forgot (in Liberal circles) whites only vote over race.

Did the Welfare Quenn ads compute for you, how about Willie Horton. Rev. Wright just gave a face to those fears and prejudices. Combine that with some of his wife's own comments and a sprinkle of the flag pin/cross your heart issue and yes you have a major problem with that particular demographic (the most important demographic in every presidential election)

Look Clinton was not my first choice or even my second, yes she has issues. Most of them old and extensively vetted. But of the remaining candidates she carries the Demographic need to win this election, this also would give him a time to distance himself from Wright.

Seriously let us be honest, if this were Hillary or any other Candidate would you really ignore the Wright issue? No! I know you believe his explaination but would you believe it from another candidate?

Personally I don't. Wright was "known" for his controversial sermons, that is how he built his church. I do not believe that Obama spent 20 years in the church and never heard him utter something stupid or offensive, it simply defies belief. He knew about this that is why Wright was excluded when Obama announced his candidacy. (but still carried in the campaign) His calling his Grandmother a racist didn't help either. A Republican friend of mine pointed out how Obama didn't give his "race" speech in response to a "racial" crisis like the Jenna 6 or the Duke rape case, he gave it to save his candidacy. I never thought of it that way but he has a point. Especially when Obama stated he could not disavow the man, then stated a week later on the"View" that he would have left the church if Wright were not retiring. Simply put he is just another politician, a good one, but a politician never the less

by LORD FOUL on 04/03/2008 04:19:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
smaller turnout = easier to change outcome (none / 0)
not harder.  So the point still stands they aren't motivated enough to stop him from being "their" nominee, but come Nov. they will vote against all their principles save their racism.  Still not buying it.

That aside, I would have cared more about the Wright deal if he hadn't handled it so well with the "Race Speech".  It was about as unpolitical an answer as any major candidate has ever given.  With one exception, yes I do not believe him when he says he never heard any of it.

Like you with Clinton, Obama was not my first choice.  In fact, I was close to backing Clinton.  Bill killed that for me in SC, and its gone downhill from there IMO. 

The speech though hit our racial divide nail right on the head.  Like Jon Stewart put it (paraphrasing from memory) "And a major candidate for President of the United States spoke to America about race, as if they were adults."  His probable lie about never hearing Wright say those thing directly was just so he wouldn't have to throw his friend under the bus.  Understandable, really...

Does it bug me? A little.  Not enough to want to elect another establishment candidate to the White House though.  I think most agree, I guess we will see who's right, since(let's be honest as you put it) we are almost certain to see whether Obama can beat McCain or not.

Till then...

by richardshort2001 on 04/04/2008 02:22:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0)
I wouldn't bury her just yet, she seems to have nine lives, like a cat. but it is going to be difficult. Obama has run an excellent campaign but I still have concerns

thanks for the refreshing discussion

until next time

by LORD FOUL on 04/04/2008 09:01:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I respectfully disagree (none / 0)

IF this is another close election, and I suspect it won't be, I think the most important region in the country might be the Southwest.  I believe the GOP will lose serious ground in the Hispanic vote and be in serious danger of losing NM, NV and CO.  If so, the GOP can win OH and FL and still lose. 

IN, KY, KS and TN aren't in play unless its a Dem landslide and  therefore don't matter.

I consider Florida reasonably GOP and should not be a big part of the Dem strategy. 

Michigan is very important but is both a labor and a black state and does not seem to give either Clinton or Obama an advantage.  Michigan has also been comfortably anti-Bush and is historically more Dem than the national average. 

Missouri is a swing state but also has a large black population. 

PA has gone Dem every election since 92 and has been more Dem than the rest of the country every election since at least 1952 (haven't gone back farther than that yet).  Since it has become more urban and blacker in the last 10 years I don't see it as a deciding state.  If the Dems lost PA they will have lost other states they couldn't afford first.

Of course saying the latin vote is more important than the blue collar vote isn't an argument for Obam per se, just a different way of looking at this.

I do think there is evidence that Obama is stronger among Repubs and Independents which makes a strong argument for him. 

The question is can the GOP win enough Hispanics with thier immigration nonsense or can they keep enough of the base if they abandon it.  There is some chance they are between scylla and charbdys here 

by ProfRich on 04/03/2008 02:30:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
our inerests (none / 0)
We don't vote against our own interest, We vote agianst your so called Progressive interest. which are no more than  a far left in the ditch dem interest. Come back to the center it is much better there.

by tuna on 04/03/2008 06:22:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, it's OBAMA who keeps playing the race card, sure... | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)