NationStates Jolt Archive

Obama has apparently swept the Wisconsin primaries, dealing yet another blow to the Clinton campaign. We have now reached the endgame. Either Clinton will find some way to hold her ground in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, or she will succumb to the tidal wave that is Barack Obama.

I have stated repeatedly my opinions regarding Sen. Obama. I do not think he is the right person for the job. I now throw out some additional criticism, to those who are voting for him.

Momentum and star power are never good rationales for choosing a Presidential candidate, but that seems to be the authority from which Obama is speaking. As it stands now, there is a stampede in both the media and the Democratic Party to nominate him. It's breathtaking. Some of his supporters both in my local area and on this forum have been insufferably arrogant about the whole situation.

Make no mistake. I do not care if Barack Obama is the more electable candidate either now or in the general election. Such things can be argued about all day. The fact remains that for the man who supposedly brings "change" to the table, Obama runs his political machine very much like the President who has been sitting in office the past seven years. Some of his followers sound very much like the followers of the man currently sitting in the Oval Office. He offers grand promises and glittering generalities without substance. It is all well and good to speak of change, but you don't get change before you get results. Clinton gets results.

I say now that nominating Obama, should we go through with it, would be a major mistake, even if he wins the election. It is most especially a mistake to sweep him to victory just because he's put together a string of wins since Super Tuesday. Yet tonight that seems to be precisely the mood of the Party...and it is absolutely maddening.

I have always considered myself to be fairly liberal in my politics, but when the Obama freight train comes to Ohio in about two weeks, I will cast my vote against him. I feel in my heart that he is the wrong person for the job....I feel it just as readily as I felt it when I cast votes against George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Nobody listened to me then, and nobody appears to be listening to me now. But dammit, we are making a mistake by rushing to judgment on this, and even if Obama wins we may end up losing.

The words of a desperate man.


He runs a campaign like Bush did? Really? Bush's political machine ran a very effcetive smear campaign. Obama runs such a thing? I havent seen a smear campaign yet.

Hilarious. The less recognizable candidate has more "star power". Obama=Bush. No reason given. Whatever, dude or dudette.

I've said it before, but Obama is the best man for the job, if only because those he are running against are worse. Hiliary is a Clinton, anti-video gaming, and just too damn polarizing to be elected, so she (hopefully) won't get the nomination. If McCain begins to show some of his old spunk again I'd support him, but right now he's busy sucking up to the Religious Right. No one else is really in the race, so that leaves Obama.

And for winning Wisconsin, that doesn't matter, as the GOP will carry Wisconsin in the real election.

Dear OP:

Arguements are much more effective when reasons for one's position are given and one does not make sweeping generalizations of one's opponents such as that they are all voting for "star power".

Thank you, and have a nice day.

I am not the only one who thinks such. Take a moment to read this article on Rasmussen:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/vaporous_obama_turns_off_many_centrists

Call it desperation. In a way, it is. I am absolutely frantic that Obama is about to slam the last nail shut in our political coffin. I am frantic that the electorate seems bent on selecting the "winner" of the moment. I am angry that a double standard is being enforced in media and politics. I am beside myself that Clinton has won almost every debate she's had with Obama on substance, yet the electorate seems to be eager to embrace Obama.

This is the same type of politics that elected George W. Bush. Glitz, pizzaz, and not much more than that. This is Jell-O politics...it looks fantastic, but there's little behind it.

If Obama wins, I am among those Democrats who will be severely restrained in their enthusiasm. I cannot see myself voting easily for John McCain, because I also seem him as a loose cannon. Perhaps I would simply withhold my vote entirely. As I live in a swing state, that should trouble Obama supporters. I am living in a swing state....no Republican has ever won the Presidency without Ohio. I am moderately liberal, and I am a dedicated, lifelong Democrat. For me to even consider withholding my support in the general election ought to at least give you pause. How many others are as worried as I??

I'm going to call for a boycott of this thread in the hopes that the usual suspects will join me. There is nothing said here that couldn't have been said in the number of active threads on the subject. We can, ourselves, keep this election stuff tidy if we try.


Please boycott this thread as unnecessary and take any responses to an already active thread. If you must you can 'multi-quote' the OP and respond to it in an active thread.

And I'm not only calling for a boycott on all of your threads, I'm asking for a moderator to remove your provocative comment from this one at once.

I'm going to call for a boycott of this thread in the hopes that the usual suspects will join me. There is nothing said here that couldn't have been said in the number of active threads on the subject. We can, ourselves, keep this election stuff tidy if we try.


Please boycott this thread as unnecessary and take any responses to an already active thread. If you must you can 'multi-quote' the OP and respond to it in an active thread.

I suggest you go to Obama's website to see why people vote for him.

Star power?

Clinton - the majority of her voters are voting for her because she is a) Bill's spouse (they want 4 more years of Bill which isn't what's going to happen) and/or b) she's a woman

Obama - after Oprah endorsed him a couple of months back, over 70% of the crowd said that they weren't sure whether they'd vote for Obama obviously proving that star power has nothing to do with it - his policies do.

Matt Lauer was talking to Obama about him giving the people the "frosting" in his speeches instead of the "meat and potatoes". I.E., he was asking Obama if he would change his speeches to incorporate his policies instead of just his charisma. If you've listened closely to Obama's recent speeches, you'll see that he is incorporating his policies very clearly into his speeches and he still has the same charisma.

IN FACT, just to illustrate my point:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows John McCain holding a six-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton and an even larger lead—sixteen percentage points—over Barack Obama. It’s McCain 49% Clinton 43% and McCain 53% Obama 37%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/florida_2008_presidential_election


There are a considerable and growing number of centrists out there who see Obama as a bad choice. If confronted with a moderate Republican like McCain, do you really think Obama's appeal will hold? Clinton already HAS opinions on herself set in stone. Her support is unlikely to rise or fall very much. She's the safer bet.

IN FACT, just to illustrate my point:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows John McCain holding a six-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton and an even larger lead—sixteen percentage points—over Barack Obama. It’s McCain 49% Clinton 43% and McCain 53% Obama 37%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/florida_2008_presidential_election


There are a considerable and growing number of centrists out there who see Obama as a bad choice. If confronted with a moderate Republican like McCain, do you really think Obama's appeal will hold? Clinton already HAS opinions on herself set in stone. Her support is unlikely to rise or fall very much. She's the safer bet.



Your forgetting that Obama can win people over. Clinton cant. In fact, during this primary, shes shown just how effective she is at losing her supporters. Remember at the begining of the primaries? No one thought Obama had a chance in hell. Now, hes gonna be our nominee.

Barrack has shown that with campaigning and time he can win people over to is side. Clinthullu has shown the opposite.

And I'm not only calling for a boycott on all of your threads, I'm asking for a moderator to remove your provocative comment from this one at once.

My threads go over like lead balloons, how would anyone notice they were boycotted or not?

I do not care if Barack Obama is the more electable candidate either now or in the general election.
...
I say now that nominating Obama, should we go through with it, would be a major mistake, even if he wins the election. You do sound like a desperate woman

If Obama is the nominee, I will be sorely tempted to simply not vote at all. And I've been voting straight Democratic Party tickets since I became old enough to vote in 2000. If a Democratic Party loyalist such as myself in a major swing state like Ohio is pissed, then someone had better hit the breaks before we commit ourselves on this and ask, "Why?".

It ain't because I'm a vindicative, petty person. I've gotten to the point where an Obama candidacy genuinely worries me. I think he's a bad choice. Go ahead and vote for him if you wish, but I am telling you I have a bad feeling about this whole situation.

Clinton gets results.
What results? She didn't even manage to bone the president.

If confronted with a moderate Republican like McCain, do you really think Obama's appeal will hold?
Considering soon as we hit general election, the moderate Republican will realize 2008 McCain isn't 2000 McCain, I think he will surge ahead.

IN FACT, just to illustrate my point:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows John McCain holding a six-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton and an even larger lead—sixteen percentage points—over Barack Obama. It’s McCain 49% Clinton 43% and McCain 53% Obama 37%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/florida_2008_presidential_election


There are a considerable and growing number of centrists out there who see Obama as a bad choice. If confronted with a moderate Republican like McCain, do you really think Obama's appeal will hold? Clinton already HAS opinions on herself set in stone. Her support is unlikely to rise or fall very much. She's the safer bet.

You're basing an entire election just on Florida? Nationally McCain is beating Clinton and Obama is beating him. Would you like to compare results in the rest of the country? Texas is deadlocked, and Ohio is close as well. I think Obama wins Texas, and will keep it close in the other two states. Overall Obama will wind up even farther ahead in pledged delgates than the 112 he is up by now. Further, I will discontinue posting in this thread due to the multitude of posts on this issue. This thread should be merged with the Obama Obama, Obama! thread. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

The experience argument bandied about by the Clinton camp is just pure, 100 Percent Grade A bullshit.

The President has access to the most brilliant minds in every field of research in the entire world. So long as he has the competency of the average college debate judge, I think Obama will do just fine, thank you. All he has to do is listen, because I guaruntee you no one is smart enough or prepared enough to wield that kind of power.

The experience argument bandied about by the Clinton camp is just pure, 100 Percent Grade A bullshit.

The President has access to the most brilliant minds in every field of research in the entire world. So long as he has the competency of the average college debate judge, I think Obama will do just fine, thank you. All he has to do is listen, because I guaruntee you no one is smart enough or prepared enough to wield that kind of power.

If that were the case, then how do you explain the last seven years?

If that were the case, then how do you explain the last seven years?

That wasn't a lack of experience. That was a lack of intelligence, judgment, competence, and actually giving a damn. Also surrounding himself with neocon cronies.

<snips massive ranting>

You still haven't provided any proof that Clinton's the better person for the job. All you've offered is attacks on Obama (much like your favored candidate). You've also failed to account for the fact that Clinton has less political experience.

I swear, at this point, it has to be a troll. People have been calling your weak 'arguments' for how many threads now? Please, man. I'm all for good debate, but you've offered no real evidence at all that Clinton will do anything worthwhile in the White House that would justify her nomination over Obama. Other than begging and pleading with NSG, and flaming Obama, could you PLEASE offer some cogent points?

I would sooner vote Ralph Nader into office than have Clinton run our nation. And I'm not a Republican, either.

I swear, at this point, it has to be a troll.

I knew it.

I knew it.

I'm glad I'm not going crazy here. Or maybe I am.

If that were the case, then how do you explain the last seven years?

George Bush was very effective in leading the country in the direction he wanted to leave the country. I do not agree with him on many things, but he was effective in moving his platform forward. I can explain the lats 7 years in that Bush listened to the wrong "experts." He chose to listen to ultraconservatives going back to the Nixon days. He chose to insulate himself and only listen to a select few. This is where things went wrong. Barack Obama, in his past and proposed futures, has state unequivocally that he is willing to listen to all sides of the argument. He doesn't isolate himself by listening only to the voices who agree with him as GWB does. This is the clear difference between the two of them.

I'm not even dignifying your bullshit with a response. I'd rather argue with Fass.

If Obama is the nominee, I will be sorely tempted to simply not vote at all. And I've been voting straight Democratic Party tickets since I became old enough to vote in 2000. If a Democratic Party loyalist such as myself in a major swing state like Ohio is pissed, then someone had better hit the breaks before we commit ourselves on this and ask, "Why?".

It ain't because I'm a vindicative, petty person. I've gotten to the point where an Obama candidacy genuinely worries me. I think he's a bad choice. Go ahead and vote for him if you wish, but I am telling you I have a bad feeling about this whole situation.

So your best argument is a gut feeling?

Seriously? Your best argument is you've just "got a bad feeling about this?" Nice one, Mr. Jedi.

So your best argument is a gut feeling?

Seriously? Your best argument is you've just "got a bad feeling about this?" Nice one, Mr. Jedi.

It is worrying when Obama claims he will bring "peace and stability to the galaxy," and claims that Hilary Clinton "has paid the price for her lack of vision."

It is worrying when Obama claims he will bring "peace and stability to the galaxy," and claims that Hilary Clinton "has paid the price for her lack of vision."

Obama finds your lack of faith disturbing.

Obama finds your lack of faith disturbing.

Lol. I'd sig it if it made any sense out of context.

Can we say "sore loser?" (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&referrer=welcome&id=20080219/47ba6250_3ca6_1552620080219-1760923212)

Can we say "sore loser?" (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&referrer=welcome&id=20080219/47ba6250_3ca6_1552620080219-1760923212)

Clinton says Obama "relies on words."
How else is he going to communicate? Use his magic powers to control the thoughts of the weak-minded?
Obama finds your lack of faith disturbing.


Wait a minute...

Lol. I'd sig it if it made any sense out of context.
It was honestly the only reply I could think of as soon as I read it.

Clinton says Obama "relies on words."
How else is he going to communicate? Use his magic powers to control the thoughts of the weak-minded?

Then Obama came back with an excellent point - some of the most famous and, for lack of a better word, historic events in history were just words - the Gettysburg Address, the I Have a Dream speech, the Declaration of Independence, etc.

Clinton says Obama "relies on words."
How else is he going to communicate? Use his magic powers to control the thoughts of the weak-minded?


An excellent YouTube video on that (http://youtube.com/watch?v=8JscK9wXgpY)

Hey I'm going to be voting Libertarian, but I would rather have Obama than Clinton. Obama wouldn't be as big of a disaster as Clinton. :p

I'm not even dignifying your bullshit with a response. I'd rather argue with Fass.

Oh ouch.

Can we say "sore loser?" (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&referrer=welcome&id=20080219/47ba6250_3ca6_1552620080219-1760923212)

Funny, because along with all of that speaking, he's actually done work in the government, unlike Hillary.

Rolling squid;13466424']And for winning Wisconsin, that doesn't matter, as the GOP will carry Wisconsin in the real election.

LMAO!

Both of our Senators and five of our eight Representatives are Democrats, as is our Governor.

Our state has also gone for the Democratic candidate in every Presidential election since 1988.

What are you smoking?

What results? She didn't even manage to bone the president.

I lol'ed :)

The President has access to the most brilliant minds in every field of research in the entire world. So long as he has the competency of the average college debate judge, I think Obama will do just fine, thank you. All he has to do is listen, because I guaruntee you no one is smart enough or prepared enough to wield that kind of power.

Exactly, and if McCain or Clinton win the Presidency, we'll see the same people in the same positions that we've seen for the last 20 years.

When Obama speaks of "change", this is the first thing that comes to my mind. He'll have to cater a little to the Democratic party when appointing people, but this is the FIRST opportunity to bring fresh minds into policy making positions in D.C. in my lifetime, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to back the candidate who is making that a possibility.

Can we say "sore loser?" (http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=TopStories&referrer=welcome&id=20080219/47ba6250_3ca6_1552620080219-1760923212)

Waffling on NAFTA now along with the Iraq war?

Can't say I'm surprised. She'll support any idea until it's unpopular, then say that she's been "working against poor implementation" or "critical of it's shortcomings".

...and people say Obama's campaign is just empty words. :rolleyes:

Seems to me like a President ought to be capable of identifying a bad idea before it's implemented.

How many bad ideas will she "initially" support as President??

If you've listened closely to Obama's recent speeches, you'll see that he is incorporating his policies very clearly into his speeches and he still has the same charisma.

Obama's Potomac Primary Victory Speech - Madison WI, Feb 12th

Today, the change we seek swept through the Chesapeake and over the Potomac.

We won the state of Maryland. We won the Commonwealth of Virginia. And though we won in Washington D.C., this movement won't stop until there's change in Washington. And tonight, we're on our way.

But we know how much farther we have to go.

We know it takes more than one night – or even one election – to overcome decades of money and the influence; bitter partisanship and petty bickering that's shut you out, let you down and told you to settle.

We know our road will not be easy.

But we also know that at this moment the cynics can no longer say our hope is false.

We have now won east and west, north and south, and across the heartland of this country we love. We have given young people a reason to believe, and brought folks back to the polls who want to believe again. And we are bringing together Democrats and Independents and Republicans; blacks and whites; Latinos and Asians; small states and big states; Red States and Blue States into a United States of America.

This is the new American majority. This is what change looks like when it happens from the bottom up. And in this election, your voices will be heard.

Because at a time when so many people are struggling to keep up with soaring costs in a sluggish economy, we know that the status quo in Washington just won't do. Not this time. Not this year. We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing.

It's a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk. That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America

It's a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That's what happens when the American worker doesn't have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that's why we need a President who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a President who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard.

It's a game where Democrats and Republicans fail to come together year after year after year, while another mother goes without health care for her sick child. That's why we have to put an end to the division and distraction in Washington, so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose, a higher purpose.

It's a game where the only way for Democrats to look tough on national security is by talking, and acting and voting like Bush-McCain Republicans, while our troops are sent to fight tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and should've never been waged. That's what happens when we use 9/11 to scare up votes, and that's why we need to do more than end a war – we need to end the mindset that got us into war.

That's the choice in this primary. It's about whether we choose to play the game, or whether we choose to end it; it's change that polls well, or change we can believe in; it's the past versus the future. And when I'm the Democratic nominee for President – that will be the choice in November.

John McCain is an American hero. We honor his service to our nation. But his priorities don't address the real problems of the American people, because they are bound to the failed policies of the past.

George Bush won't be on the ballot this November, but his war and his tax cuts for the wealthy will.

When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice. John McCain won't be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning. Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for a hundred years in Iraq, which is reason enough to not give him four years in the White House.

If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan, and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden; and instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and hospitals, our road and bridges – and that's what the American people need us to do right now.

And I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his "conscience" to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war; that he couldn't support a tax cut where "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate." But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he's all for them.

Well I'm not. We can't keep spending money that we don't have in a war that we shouldn't have fought. We can't keep mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt. We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. It's time to turn the page.

We need a new direction in this country. Everywhere I go, I meet Americans who can't wait another day for change. They're not just showing up to hear a speech – they need to know that politics can make a difference in their lives, that it's not too late to reclaim the American Dream.

It's a dream shared in big cities and small towns; across races, regions and religions – that if you work hard, you can support a family; that if you get sick, there will be health care you can afford; that you can retire with the dignity and security and respect that you have earned; that your kids can get a good education, and young people can go to college even if they're not rich. That is our common hope. That is the American Dream.

It's the dream of the father who goes to work before dawn and lies awake at night wondering how he's going to pay the bills. He needs us to restore fairness to our economy by putting a tax cut into the pockets of working people, and seniors, and struggling homeowners.

It's the dream of the woman who told me she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister who's ill. She needs us to finally come together to make health care affordable and available for every American.

It's the dream of the senior I met who lost his pension when the company he gave his life to went bankrupt. He doesn't need bankruptcy laws that protect banks and big lenders. He needs us to protect pensions, not CEO bonuses; and to do what it takes to make sure that the American people can count on Social Security today, tomorrow and forever.

It's the dream of the teacher who works at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet. She needs better pay, and more support, and the freedom to do more than just teach to the test. And if her students want to go on to college, they shouldn't fear decades of debt. That's why I'll make college affordable with an annual $4,000 tax credit if you're willing to do community service, or national service. We will invest in you, but we'll ask you to invest in your country.

That is our calling in this campaign. To reaffirm that fundamental belief – I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper – that makes us one people, and one nation. It's time to stand up and reach for what's possible, because together, people who love their country can change it.

Now when I start talking like this, some folks tell me that I've got my head in the clouds. That I need a reality check. That we're still offering false hope. But my own story tells me that in the United States of America, there has never been anything false about hope.

I should not be here today. I was not born into money or status. I was born to a teenage mom in Hawaii, and my dad left us when I was two. But my family gave me love, they gave me education, and most of all they gave me hope – hope that in America, no dream is beyond our grasp if we reach for it, and fight for it, and work for it.

Because hope is not blind optimism. I know how hard it will be to make these changes. I know this because I fought on the streets of Chicago as a community organizer to bring jobs to the jobless in the shadow of a shuttered steel plant. I've fought in the courts as a civil rights lawyer to make sure people weren't denied their rights because of what they looked like or where they came from. I've fought in the legislature to take power away from lobbyists. I've won some of those fights, but I've lost some of them too. I've seen good legislation die because good intentions weren't backed by a mandate for change.

The politics of hope does not mean hoping things come easy. Because nothing worthwhile in this country has ever happened unless somebody, somewhere stood up when it was hard; stood up when they were told – no you can't, and said yes we can.

And where better to affirm our ideals than here in Wisconsin, where a century ago the progressive movement was born. It was rooted in the principle that the voices of the people can speak louder than special interests; that citizens can be connected to their government and to one another; and that all of us share a common destiny, an American Dream.

Yes we can reclaim that dream.

Yes we can heal this nation.

The voices of the American people have carried us a great distance on this improbable journey, but we have much further to go. Now we carry our message to farms and factories across this state, and to the cities and small towns of Ohio, to the open plains deep in the heart of Texas, and all the way to Democratic National Convention in Denver; it's the same message we had when we were up, and when were down; that out of many, we are one; that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; and that we can cast off our doubts and fears and cynicism because our dream will not be deferred; our future will not be denied; and our time for change has come.
---

...yet people still say there's no substance to his speeches?

I say that those people are only catching 30 second soundbites on CNN.

I say that those people are only catching 30 second soundbites on CNN.

And I say that even if those people heard the speech in its entirety, they're either so daft or so insecure in their own mindsets that they would never admit to being wrong about him.

And I say that even if those people heard the speech in its entirety, they're either so daft or so insecure in their own mindsets that they would never admit to being wrong about him.

Well, there's that aspect of it as well. :p

Rolling squid;13466424']

And for winning Wisconsin, that doesn't matter, as the GOP will carry Wisconsin in the real election.

Currently (currently, November is still pretty far away) that appears to be true...if the nominee is Clinton (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html).

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

IN FACT, just to illustrate my point:

It’s McCain 49% Clinton 43% and McCain 53% Obama 37%.

[

Opinion Polls are not really to be trusted this year........

And if Clinton is elected, we are in a disaster.