One more reason to vote for Obama

[DesertPirate]

Obama is unelectable in the general. Mark my words.


I'm frustrated with what all politicians are doing to me. Glad to hang onto my guns. My Religion keeps me from using them!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Bwah-ha-ha-ha.....

Here's a question for my Democratic brethren (although I know most of you here are Obama supporters).....It was stated before the last primary state that if the Dems used the same 'winner take all' procedures as the Republicans use for the most part (which is what's used in the General Election), Hillary would already be the winner. Does this make anyone uncomfortable? Is there any concern that when the rules change, the electoral math could make things very difficult for him? Last night she spanked him by 10% (215,000 votes) in the 6th biggest state in the nation, and won a whopping 12 delegates.

Yes, Des, that's always made me uncomfortable. The problem is, Obama consistantly looses the big states - Texas, Ohio, Florida, California, New York - and picks up delegates in the caucuses. I tend to trust the judgement of a million voters far more than 100 Obama supporters voting behind closed doors out of sight of the public.

Last night again showed that Obama can't close the deal and Hillary pulled up, essentially neck in neck in the popular vote. After Indiana she will hold a substantial lead in that too.

The most insightful remark I heard last night was from Tom Brokaw, "[Obama] is much like Adeli Stevenson was. He gives great speeches, but can't get the votes."

Personally, I see the man slowly self-disintigrating. The news networks are beginning to ask the fatal question, "Who the fuck is he?"

 

[DesertPirate]

Personally, I see the man slowly self-disintigrating. The news networks are beginning to ask the fatal question, "Who the fuck is he?"

The answer appears to be "not someone to vote for"!

Someday the Dems will run a moderate and get votes, instead of the extremists and loose.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The answer appears to be "not someone to vote for"!

Someday the Dems will run a moderate and get votes, instead of the extremists and loose.

Well... one day the Democrats will have a Party Chairman with the balls to take the pretenders aside and tell them to get the fuck off the stage. Hillary is a liberal moderate.

What do the Dems have now? A divided party. That wasn't true a year ago before Obama (who bills himself as the guy who pulls people together) chopped the party in half. Sorry, but that line of Obama's is right out of the GW Bush play book. Remember the quote, "I bring people togeter, see? I'm not a divider." He said that just about the time he chopped the country in half.

 

[DesertPirate]

Well... one day the Democrats will have a Party Chairman with the balls to take the pretenders aside and tell them to get the fuck off the stage. Hillary is a liberal moderate.

What do the Dems have now? A divided party. That wasn't true a year ago before Obama (who bills himself as the guy who pulls people together) chopped the party in half. Sorry, but that line of Obama's is right out of the GW Bush play book. Remember the quote, "I bring people togeter, see? I'm not a divider." He said that just about the time he chopped the country in half.

What do you expect when they put the worst candidate from the last election in charge of the party?
Mr. rant with no plan

 

[rgraham666]

Obama is unelectable in the general. Mark my words.


I'm frustrated with what all politicians are doing to me. Glad to hang onto my guns. My Religion keeps me from using them!

For now.

 

[DesertPirate]

For now.

There are 4 boxes to use when dealing with goverment: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo! Use in that order.

 

[Pure]

for desert pirate:

desert said: //There are 4 boxes to use when dealing with goverment: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo! Use in that order.//

right on, bro.

as the esteemed chairman mao said,

"Power comes from the barrel of a gun".

nice to see another leftie here!!

 

[cantdog]

Actually, Obama's cautious statement ignores the nature of impeachment.

You won't see the US Congress using international law against any US officials, or ex-officials, because the congress critters are pretty sure their base doesn't believe in international law. So war crimes, as such, are not going to be a good tool.

Regular old crimes? Yep. And we have some of them. Condi told us all she chaired the meetings that authorized torture techniques, one by one and in detail, in contravention of US law, for instance, this very month, and Bush stated for the cameras that he approved. There are other regular old crimes, too.

But impeachment is not a legal process; it is a political process. The Founders mention how impeachment is to go no less than eight places in the constitution. It does not involve the courts at any point. Correspondence with Madison, Adams, Jefferson, and so on, among each other, show that they saw it as a check on the executive. It's to be used the way veto is to be used to check the legislative branch.

Real criminal proceedings, something's at stake. There are sentences, jail time or fines. Many times the convicted person becomes a felon. On the other hand, nothing happens to a person convicted in an impeachment proceeding. He just gets kicked out of the saddle. He gets to keep everything. He gets his pension and all. It just removes him.

The proper course is impeachment, and people love impeachment. They need a little time to get into the idea, but then they see that it's the way for the little guy to bring low the dick in the big power center, despite all his arrogance. This process has already begun. City councils and state legislatures and town meetings all over the country, red states and blue, have brought the matter up and voted to impeach the President and the veep, and usually cabinet people too.

Historically, the impeaching party always makes gains, politically, and the party of the impeached official experiences losses. The people continue to approve. The extraordinary ascendency of the republicans after the Clinton affair, and the era of Dem hegemony after the Nixon thing have their parallels back through the centuries.

Pelosi and the rest of the spineless jellyfish who keep it off the table make a big mistake. If this crowd of doodahs get away with it, it sets a precedent.

 

[Pure]

good points, cant.

----
on a related topic.

i don't think obama is "unelectable". it's simply that if the "un-american" and "traitor" labels stick, a person goes down.

it's an old right wing method that works much of the time.

 

[rgraham666]

It's a technique used by all sides, Pure.

In my opinion, the people that use those labels are simply peeling it off themselves and sticking it on someone else.

 

[Pure]

some exit data

race and age:

white 18-29 53-47 clinton
white 30-44 53-47 clinton
white 45-59 59-41 clinton
blacks 92-8 obama

education:
high school 65-35 clinton
some college 50-49 obama
college grad 55-45 obama
postgrad 54-46 obama

family income
under 15K 51-49 obama
15-30k 56-44 clinton
30-50 57-43 clinton
50-75 53-47 clinton
75-100 54-46 obama
100-150 59-39 obama
200 plus 68-32 obama

==

note to rg.

i can't think of the label "un american" being applied by any on the american left, to their opponents. further being a secret ally of communists or alqaeda [or strong sympathizer] is not something the american left, so far as remember has employed.

mudslinging has, of course, occurred in lots of politicians campaigns, politicians of all stripes.

 

[sr71plt]

Well... one day the Democrats will have a Party Chairman with the balls to take the pretenders aside and tell them to get the fuck off the stage. Hillary is a liberal moderate.

What do the Dems have now? A divided party. That wasn't true a year ago before Obama (who bills himself as the guy who pulls people together) chopped the party in half. Sorry, but that line of Obama's is right out of the GW Bush play book. Remember the quote, "I bring people togeter, see? I'm not a divider." He said that just about the time he chopped the country in half.

I think Dean does have the balls and has done just that--there is evidence of that in what he says publicly. I think they just don't pay attention to him, because it's so easy for them both to show angles where they are the winners--going back to the earlier note that if the Dem primaries were "winner take all" Hillary would already be the winner there. I think the divided vote award approach is the best, however. We already have the winner take all on state votes in the general election and posters here have yammered about the unfairness/unrepresentativeness of that.

I still have hope that the Democrats will come together by the party convention (and I am amused at the "we're all going to drown" outlooks on the present political machinations--I must have lived too long and remembered too much history to think this means the country is collapsing). McCain seems to be doing well to level the playing field. It's a pity, though, that the voters are so fickle that they've forgotten that the continuing mindless, resource-sucking war is the major factor in the current ills and that McCain offers scant relief there--at least on the surface. I have to think that, once in office, McCain would be more intelligent about the war than the present dummies are.

 

[jeninflorida]

so? where do you think that will go? only cost money and really resolve nothing....so lets waste more freaking money, oh hey lets also chase down some baseball players for taking steriods

He says he will investigate Bush's war crimes.

 

[Boxlicker101]

==

note to rg.

i can't think of the label "un american" being applied by any on the american left, to their opponents. further being a secret ally of communists or alqaeda [or strong sympathizer] is not something the american left, so far as remember has employed.

Here is an example:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/racial_profiling_is_unamerican.html

You could probably find hundreds, even thousands more, if you tried.

ETA: I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiments being expressed. I am just saying this is a member of the left using the term "Unamerican".

 

[S-Des]

It's a technique used by all sides, Pure.

In my opinion, the people that use those labels are simply peeling it off themselves and sticking it on someone else.

It certainly is. I don't get the whole, "We're helpless vicitms," routine that certain people try to employ. The Dems have already raised more money than the Republicans will for the rest of the election season. Obama (assuming he comes out of this) will outspend McCain 2 - 1 or 3 - 1, and that doesn't count the financial imbalance that will show itself in 527 ads. Anyone trying to pretend that the Democrats are weak and at the mercy of the Republicans are either completely uninformed, or intentionally dishonest.

Republicans have pulled back from the whole patriotism thing, but it's still there on the fringe. You won't hear it at all if Hillary is the nominee, but Obama has made himself vulnerable with some really dumb mistakes (flag pin, William Ayers, Pastor Wright, Tony Rezko, etc...), when he should be practically bullet-proof. McCain on the other hand, will be an easy target. He's taken a strong stance on a very unpopular war, he had a large scandal in his past (Keating 5), and he rarely watches what he says, so there's a litany of things to attack him on. I like Hillary more than Obama (when she's not in front of Liberal audiences, she is quite Moderate), and think she'd make a tougher opponent in the General. Since she's probably not going to make it, and Obama doesn't have any legislative experience to lean on, I'm predicting the ugliest election in history as far as attack ads (always coming from mysterious sources, not attached to the candidates).

 

[Boxlicker101]

It certainly is. I don't get the whole, "We're helpless vicitms," routine that certain people try to employ. The Dems have already raised more money than the Republicans will for the rest of the election season. Obama (assuming he comes out of this) will outspend McCain 2 - 1 or 3 - 1, and that doesn't count the financial imbalance that will show itself in 527 ads. Anyone trying to pretend that the Democrats are weak and at the mercy of the Republicans are either completely uninformed, or intentionally dishonest.

Republicans have pulled back from the whole patriotism thing, but it's still there on the fringe. You won't hear it at all if Hillary is the nominee, but Obama has made himself vulnerable with some really dumb mistakes (flag pin, William Ayers, Pastor Wright, Tony Rezko, etc...), when he should be practically bullet-proof. McCain on the other hand, will be an easy target. He's taken a strong stance on a very unpopular war, he had a large scandal in his past (Keating 5), and he rarely watches what he says, so there's a litany of things to attack him on. I like Hillary more than Obama (when she's not in front of Liberal audiences, she is quite Moderate), and think she'd make a tougher opponent in the General. Since she's probably not going to make it, and Obama doesn't have any legislative experience to lean on, I'm predicting the ugliest election in history as far as attack ads (always coming from mysterious sources, not attached to the candidates).

I disagree. I think McCain and Obama are both too honorable to employ mudslinging or to tolerate others doing it for them. As for Hillary, that is a diffferent matter.

I also want to make a distinction between "mudslinging" and "attack ads". If a candidate has consistently voted to raise taxes for people in the middle class, or increase welfare payments or do other things, there is nothing wrong with an opponent pointing those things out. They are a matter of public record, and they would very likely reflect what that candidate would do if elected to higher office. Those are attack ads, but I consider them to be perfectly valid.

A good example of mudslinging is the front page article the NY Times published a while ago about McCain. It was an unproven rumor, promoted by unidentified persons, that he had an affair with a female lobbyist, exchanging his votes for sex with her. It could never be proven or disproven, and should have never been published, especially on Page one, above the fold. Pointing out the Keating 5 scandal is also fair, because it really did happen.

I don't know how I would characterize Obama's relationship with his racist, America-hating pastor. It is a matter of public record, but it's not connected to him that closely. At the same time, if he identifies the man as his "spiritual advisor" what does that say about him. The associations with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn might be another matter. Everybody in public life sometimes has to associate with unsavory characters such as them.

 

[jeninflorida]

for the past 20 years, clinton's have been surrounded by Bush....if she gets in office what will we do?

Al gave us the internet
Bill gave us internet porn!

He says he will investigate Bush's war crimes.

 

[sr71plt]

for the past 20 years, clinton's have been surrounded by Bush....if she gets in office what will we do?

Start clipping the bushes, we can hope.

 

[S-Des]

I disagree. I think McCain and Obama are both too honorable to employ mudslinging or to tolerate others doing it for them. As for Hillary, that is a diffferent matter.

I didn't say either candidate would be using them (or endorsing them). There have already been some widely published investigations by Democratic organizations into McCain's records. I agree that both try to be honorable publicly. The fact is that neither of them can stop the zealots on either side from mud slinging. No matter how many times Obama says, "We respect McCain's service," you'll hear from multiple sources about how much of a "warmonger" he is, or how he "wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years" or how he "doesn't know anything about the economy." There's no room for civil disagreements in society today. If someone doesn't think like you, they're automatically biased, stupid, or evil. Just look through the posts on this thread, then multiply that by about a million, and you'll have an idea of what it's going to be like.

 

[DesertPirate]

desert said: //There are 4 boxes to use when dealing with goverment: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo! Use in that order.//

right on, bro.

as the esteemed chairman mao said,

"Power comes from the barrel of a gun".

nice to see another leftie here!!

That is simply stating the "real" meaning behind the Second Amendment. I'm a Vet and an NRA member, try to convince me to vote for anyone but McCain!
Once again the Dems off no choice worth voting for.

 

[S-Des]

That is simply stating the "real" meaning behind the Second Amendment. I'm a Vet and an NRA member, try to convince me to vote for anyone but McCain!
Once again the Dems off no choice worth voting for.

Trust me, you're hearing exactly the same thing on the far-Right. I've had week-long arguments with Conservatives, trying to explain the truth about McCain. They pick a phony argument, then refuse to be shaken off of it. It's not a Liberal/Conservative thing, it's an ideologue thing. When people start treating their politics like a religion, all reasonable discussion is halted. I am a strong supporter of McCain, but freely admit he has faults. I don't hate Obama or Clinton and won't be threatening to move out of America if they win. A president only affects so much, so even if the next one is a complete disaster, 4 years later we can fix the mistake.

BTW, watch out for Heath Shuler (the former NFL quarterback, now North Carolina Congressman). In 8 years, this guy is going to be the real deal. A Conservative Democrat who will appeal to almost everyone on some level. There is a whole crop of up and coming politicians who have a whole lot more on the ball then the ones currently in place.

 

[DesertPirate]

Trust me, you're hearing exactly the same thing on the far-Right. I've had week-long arguments with Conservatives, trying to explain the truth about McCain. They pick a phony argument, then refuse to be shaken off of it. It's not a Liberal/Conservative thing, it's an ideologue thing. When people start treating their politics like a religion, all reasonable discussion is halted. I am a strong supporter of McCain, but freely admit he has faults. I don't hate Obama or Clinton and won't be threatening to move out of America if they win. A president only affects so much, so even if the next one is a complete disaster, 4 years later we can fix the mistake.

BTW, watch out for Heath Shuler (the former NFL quarterback, now North Carolina Congressman). In 8 years, this guy is going to be the real deal. A Conservative Democrat who will appeal to almost everyone on some level. There is a whole crop of up and coming politicians who have a whole lot more on the ball then the ones currently in place.

It's a wonderful thought but I fear in 8 years he will be just like the thundering herd of dumbass we have now.
I won't threaten to move either, but there is no way I could vote for either of the Dems. Hillry I trust as far as I can throw my house., and Obama seems too we "packaged" read phoney.

 

[DeeZire]

....and Obama seems too we "packaged" read phoney.

If Obama is phony, he's been working at it his whole life. Look at his record. This guy's got credentials up the wazoo. Unfortunately, as GW Bush has proven, credentials have nothing to do with electability. Too bad the litmus test for a candidate isn't 'who would you rather have a glass of wine with?' If it was, Obama would be a shoe-in.

 

[Belegon]

If Obama is phony, he's been working at it his whole life. Look at his record. This guy's got credentials up the wazoo. Unfortunately, as GW Bush has proven, credentials have nothing to do with electability. Too bad the litmus test for a candidate isn't 'who would you rather have a glass of wine with?' If it was, Obama would be a shoe-in.

People see what they want to see, use what they want to use.

For example, they say Obama is a poor choice re: foreign policy because he doesn't have "global experience".

McCain's initial global experience is horrifying at best. He suffered, and I don't want to devalue that. But how does killing from a plane and then being tortured equal real experience with all the countries we AREN'T at war with?

Hilary can't seem to be trusted to remember what really happened in her global experiences.

And supposedly Obama has none.

Oh wait. Now we need to cast doubt on his "american-ness".

Yeah, that's right. He lived in Indonesia as a kid! And his dad is from a foreign country! And he traveled in that country, not as a representative of the US government, but as a young man looking for info about his father! He even wrote a book about it all!

(Hey, but if we tell all that, won't they see he has more experience in the reality of what the rest of the world is like on a daily basis than the other two?)

Fuck no! We ignore it the rest of the time. I mean, this is america. Those fuckers are going to listen to us, not read a fucking book! Why bother, when we can tell them what to think so they can get on with punching in that phone number to vote on American Idol?


*sigh*