Wow, we pick your candidates and y'all think you're going to win. Just one little old caucus and y'all have delusions of grandeur. Well many of you thought the war in Iraq was finished and all our troops would be home after the 2006 Vote. What else should one expect. Maybe that's why Democrats don't win the WH very often. Maybe we'll break the 122.6 million vote record set in 2004. You're going to need to you know.
Posted by peter at January 4, 2008 12:30 AMpeter. um. have you looked at your slate of candidates, lately?
Posted by Turkana at January 4, 2008 12:33 AMSo what! Hillary/Bill do not have to get defensive about their comments, language, remarks on Charlie Rose. There is no parsing required. Obama needs to be brought down from the pedestal. People should not be afraid to attack Obama.
We can not be labeled "racist" for relevant attacks in this election cycle.
Like Obama and Oprah are BARGAINERS and Bill and Hillary Clinton are CHALLENGERS. Thus Obama brought by his white mother and maternal relations is whiter than Clintons in the abstract!
Obama has not struggled like any Black has or has he experienced segregation like any Black in the US has. Thus Obama does not have a single "Black" bone in his body.
Through their politics, positions and staff hiring the CLINTONS are "blacker" than Obama with all his ex-Clinton aides!
Obama may have the press honeymoon for a while but he can not get the nomination without greater scrutiny. And scrutiny we need. Operations Research on Obama is not a racist action but part of legitimate politics and campaigning.
Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/ http://facts.hillaryhub.com/
Barrack Hussein Obama can take his UNITY message to Super Tuesday but he can not win on Super Tuesday. He lacks the passion, organization and the political will of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.
People, polls and pundits have unfairly exaggerated the importance of the IOWA caucuses and early state poll results.
Super Tuesday is all that matters. Why do all the pollsters behave as if 2008 cycle is like any other? It is NOT! Super Tuesday is different this time and organization and money will matter.
Hillary has BOTH on her side and she is doing well nationally so
Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/ http://facts.hillaryhub.com/
Republicans have NOT lost the Family values issue at all. It is the candidates who do not want it front and center. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson have all been divorced and remarried. That is the main reason the democrats should concentrate on Family Values this cycle!
Go Hillary44 08! http://hillaryis44.org/ http://facts.hillaryhub.com/
I think I saw that conservative bigwig Richard Viguerie described Hucksteree as a "Christian Socialist"----I wonder if that's anything like a "National Socialist", ha-ha.
As I expected, the GOoP is telling its brain-dead cogs (like peter) that "they" chose Obama. Tell us how your all powerful Team Conservative did that, little conserva-stooge, we're all ears! How come your corporate leaders who "chose" Obama couldn't engineer a Romney win to boot? Only so much they can accomplish on one night?
Posted by euzoius at January 4, 2008 06:02 AMTurkana,
Funnily enough, the "gold standard" poll just got lucky if you look at the exit polls. DMR correctly projected that Obama will get about 40% of the independent vote. However, in their model, they assumed 40% of Dem primary voters would be independents. Guess what, they were *completely wrong* on this by a whopping factor of 2 (the actual % of independents in the Dem caucus was 20%). So, they dramatically overestimated the % of independents, which was my #1 concern with the DMR poll. So, how did Obama win? Well, unlike the projection of the DMR poll that he trailed Clinton among registered Democrats by 6%, he ended up even or slightly ahead of Clinton among registered Democrats (32-31%). This was a big reason why he won yesterday.
So, the DMR got close to the final numbers, but it was largely a fluke - not because their model was right! I doubt through that this will be made clear and we will go on to the next election with everything thinking DMR is a genius.
Posted by eriposte at January 4, 2008 06:05 AMeriposte- interesting. i didn't notice that, although i did make the point to geek that obama barely won, among dems. zogby was also very good, in his final poll, although i haven't looked at the internals.
ajay- i'm going to put this very simply: there's nothing wrong with the name "hussein." it's a fairly common name. just because one thug shared it, we shouldn't generalize and demonize the name itself. should we demonize "joseph" because of stalin? should we demonize "charles" because of manson? whomever we support, we should win on issues, not on petty appeals to irrationalism.
Posted by Turkana at January 4, 2008 07:21 AMAjay Jain is a GOPper posing as a Hillary Clinton supporter.
Posted by snark at January 4, 2008 07:25 AMsnark is exactly right about the troll Ajay.
His "Hussein" comment betrays him and his posts should be immediately deleted. TLC doesn't exist for such shit.
Posted by euzoius at January 4, 2008 07:35 AMDue to what Ajay said in a couple threads about not being labelled " 'racist' for relevant attacks in this election cycle," I feel the need to respond very directly to what he's saying about race, and I don't necessarily buy that he's a GOP troll. I've heard many of the same things from reliable Dems in real life. Please note, nowhere do I call anyone "racist" for not liking Obama. Disclosure: I'm white as milk, as white as white bread, but some things are screamingly obvious. Feel free to tell me I'm full of crap, but I'm not. I will never know the African-American experience, but you have to have a hole in your head not to recognize some things.
Ajay, here we go again, you basically just trotted out the old canard about Obama -- "He's not black enough." LMAO!
"Obama has not struggled like any Black has or has he experienced segregation like any Black in the US has. Thus Obama does not have a single 'Black' bone in his body."
That's a load of b.s. Has the man ever been called n-----? You know he has. And I don't care what color his grandparents or mother are. He's more than black enough. What Obama does with his true multi-ethnicity is put the old racist truisms, including liberal ones, to bed.
And then there's this old crud, too:
"Through their politics, positions and staff hiring the CLINTONS are 'blacker' than Obama with all his ex-Clinton aides!"
Do you really believe that? Do you? [sarcasm]"Yes, old white massuh loves black folk, they has hired so many servants!"[/sarcasm] That's what you just said, Ajay, whether you realize it or not, and that's absolute crap. Hillary's as big a honkey you're ever likely to meet. She's not "blacker" than Obama in any way, shape or form.
Look, this morning, Hillary is D.O.A.
I'm going to make the math very simple for you doubters and haters.
Do you really believe African-Americans beyond just a single digit or 3 are going to vote for Hillary's white ass after Iowa and Obama's performance there? Do you really think that? Does anybody believe that any large plurality of "The Other" in any form is going to vote for Hillary now?
Now, let's finish that equation. Do you really think any candidate in the Democratic Party can get the presidential nomination without the support of the "minority vote?" What if that "minority vote" is now all going to go to a single candidate, Obama? Do the math. Obama wins.
It is not a negative judgment against Hillary, either, not at all. It's just that Hillary is not Obama. It's a positive FOR Obama, not a negative against Clinton. It's not that people dislike Hillary for being white. It's that for the first time in American history we've got a person of color who is clearly presidential material, whether you choose to see it or not, everybody else and their grandmother, including "independents," see it. And every American of color, particularly African-Americans, are going to vote for it, as are people who are god-damned sick and tired of the subtle and not-so-subtle racism present throughout this whole country, a racism that infects our domestic policies as well as our foreign policies.
On top of all of this, no Democrat ought to be uncomfortable with Obama and whether or not he's "progressive" enough. He's a Dem, through and through. He's no Joe Lieberman. Will he work with members of the other side of the aisle? Sure, but he'll do it as a Democrat. It's time for a "Change we can believe in."
Posted by Brian Bell at January 4, 2008 08:34 AMBrian,
Anyone who refers to Barack Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" is a GOP hack. Just ask Bill Bennett.
I'll gladly vote for Obama should he get the nomination. Any of the Dems running will be better than any of the Republicans running. But he's no more progressive than is Hillary Clinton.
You seem awfully hung up on his race. Why is that?
Posted by snark at January 4, 2008 08:45 AMTurkana, because to me it is screamingly obvious how great a candidate Obama is compared to the rest of the field of both parties, how electable he is, how much appeal he has to everyone, and also it's obvious he's a great electoral fighter. The inexperienced in elections meme is crud; he's Chicago politics which means he'll go at it harder than Karl Rove and win, no matter what. And all the complaints about him not being progressive enough or whatever are so much b.s. We in America haven't seen a candidate so appealing since Reagan the first time around or Carter, at least (and I know he'd work out better than either of those). He may be the fastest rising "youth" candidate since Bobby in '68. To top it all off, his very presence in the race is radically progressive. Quite frankly, I don't get why any Dem could possibly want Hillary riding on Bill's coattails or even a decent guy like Edwards when we can have a superstar like Obama.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 4, 2008 09:06 AMThe more Brian posts, the more I dislike Obama. Last thing we need is another cult in the WH.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 4, 2008 09:21 AMbrian- you do realize that your passion for obama is all based on emotion, right?
when you get into the meat of the facts and issues, as eriposte has, there's a lot less there there than you fans realize. he's brilliant and charismatic, yes; but he is no agent of change. he's following the same model gary hart did, in 1984- talk about being different without actually offering anything different. all he offers that sounds different is that he'll reach across the aisle. big deal. republicans will not work with any progressive democrat.
what's disturbing is the cult aspect. people blushingly echoing his platitudes while ignoring the facts of his record: his hypocrisy on kyl-lieberman, his failure to lead on iraq, his support of the bankruptcy bill, his centrist mediocrity of a health care plan, his republican talking points on social security, and his, at best, embarrassing bungling of the mcclurkin situation.
obama talks about leadership and change, yet he provides no evidence of the former, and the only specifics he offers of the latter are a desire to work with a republican party that should be buried, not appeased.
Posted by Turkana at January 4, 2008 09:38 AMIamcoyote -- LOL!
(By the way, iamcoyote, which did you prefer, the Leihola issues or the Rogers issues? Epic or Eclipse? Or perhaps I totally misunderstand your alias/name?)
Anyway, look, don't think of it in terms of your own blogosphere/progressive/well-thought-out politics.
Elections since Reagan, possibly even JFK vs. Nixon, are settled entirely by likability, not necessarily substance. Luckily, Obama has substance, but his likability is through the roof.
Now, don't anybody kid themself that the Dem nominee is guaranteed to be the president. We as a party need someone who will win. That's Obama, because in addition to being media-genic, he also comes out of that Chicago Machine. He's a monster in an election. He fights to win. If there's a challenge to him during the actual vote like in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004, Obama is not going to lay down. He's going to fight back, hard.
All the Dems seem to think this thing is in the bag and it's all down to whoever we think it should be. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Republicans will stop at practically nothing to win. Due to the aforementioned likability factor, as well as the substance behind what a radical departure he is from ordinary Beltway politics, and part of that departure is the toughness stuck into him by coming through Chicago, Obama ends up as the strongest candidate for the general election. Like I said, he's a superstar, an all-star, not some lady trying to ride her husband's coattails or the guy who spent two years meeting and talking to every single Iowan and still couldn't win.
Watch Obama's speech, again. Listen to the MSM, a bit, remember that they sometimes actually get something right, particularly in the horse-race mechanics of it, in which Obama looks like a winner.
If you want a winner, Obama's it. It isn't directly about what's wrong with Clinton or Edwards. It's about what's right with Obama. Clearly the leader and establishment, party-approved candidate is Hillary, and if she can't even get 30% in Iowa, how is she going to take Ohio in the general election? Obama's the answer to that. He can win in the general election.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 4, 2008 10:04 AMAnyone who refers to Barack Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" is a GOP hack. Just ask Bill Bennett.
How right you are snark. On the same note, the RAM (republi-con attack machine) is going to bring up his middle name constantly if he gets the nomination.
His middle name might be a bigger negative than his race. I hope he's prepared for that.
Interesting to note that the entire bump in GOP turnout can be accounted for by new participants (if the 30% number is accurate). The Ron Paul effect?
Posted by lutton at January 4, 2008 10:35 AMlutton-
paul got only 10%.
Posted by Turkana at January 4, 2008 10:54 AMI'm enjoying Brian B's posts.
When the dust settled in 2004, lots of the citizenry claimed they just "didn't like" Kerry, despite thinking he was better informed, more articulate than Bush, etc. etc. That's unfortunately how most people decide whom they're gonna vote for, apparently. Like it or not.
I'm not convinced about the better "fighter" idea, and tend to think Edwards will be a better fighter based on his actual legal career. But I'd like to think Obama will be a real fighter as well.
Charisma is a massive component in presidential politics. No one is going to deny that, just which candidate it best applies to for us. Edwards has it as well, IMO.
Posted by euzoius at January 4, 2008 10:55 AMSo is The Left Coaster still drinking the Hillary The Inevitable kool-aid?
Just a little self indulgent trolling...
Just a little self indulgent trolling...
Got tired of the self-indulgent masturbating?
Posted by snark at January 4, 2008 12:35 PMLike I said, he's a superstar,
Yeah, well, so's Michael Jackson, and I don't think he'd make a great president, either.
not some lady trying to ride her husband's coattails
Hey, way to demean any professional woman who's married to a famous guy! Sexist much, pal? And way to demean everyone else who's not starstruck like you, Brian. Just because you've fallen for the glamour doesn't mean everyone has done so. But you go on ahead cultifying Obama and discounting everyone else's personal opinions; it's a great way to win friends and influence people!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 4, 2008 12:36 PMYou didn't answer my question, Iamcoyote, which was:
Iamcoyote, which did you prefer, the Leihola issues or the Rogers issues? Epic or Eclipse? Or perhaps I totally misunderstand your alias/name?
Anyway, about Hillary, yeah, she's riding her husband's coattails. She was a lawyer, married to a politician. And now she's a politician, now that her husband really can't go any further with that. I have no issue describing her as riding on her husband's coattails, none whatsoever. She wouldn't be running for president if it wasn't for him.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 4, 2008 01:17 PMNot a fangirl, myself.
And yes, it's obvious you have no problem with sexism, though your mind-reading abilities need work. When, exactly did Hillary confide to you that she never would have run for president without Bill?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 4, 2008 01:27 PMRE: "Not a fangirl, myself."
Just curious, why the name then?
Anyway, I'm not sexist in the least, but Hillary didn't just work her way into the Senate or the race for president. She won because of her husband. Period.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 4, 2008 01:48 PM