What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

Pennsylvania governor: Some whites won't vote for Obama

Rendell endorsed Hillary Clinton for president

Spokesman: Rendell was being realistic, not criticizing or accusing

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.

Gov. Ed Rendell: "...there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American...."

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper.

To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 re-election campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of more than 60 percent to less than 40 percent.

"I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was -- well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so," he said. "And that (attitude) exists. But on the other hand, that is counterbalanced by Obama's ability to bring new voters into the electoral pool."

Rendell, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and previously Philadelphia's mayor, endorsed Clinton on January 23.

Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.

Several figures in Clinton's campaign, including her husband, the former president, have been criticized in recent weeks for raising Obama's race. In response, Bill Clinton has said he will stick to promoting his wife, rather than defending her.

Later Tuesday, Rendell's spokesman said the governor did not mean to offend anyone.

"He was simply making an observation about the unfortunate nature of some parts of American society," said spokesman Chuck Ardo. "He wasn't being critical, he wasn't making accusations, but just being realistic." E-mail to a friend

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

 
Pennsylvania governor: Some whites won't vote for ObamaRendell endorsed Hillary Clinton for presidentSpokesman: Rendell was being realistic, not criticizing or accusing HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.Gov. Ed Rendell: "...there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American...." "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper.To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 re-election campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of more than 60 percent to less than 40 percent."I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was -- well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so," he said. "And that (attitude) exists. But on the other hand, that is counterbalanced by Obama's ability to bring new voters into the electoral pool."Rendell, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and previously Philadelphia's mayor, endorsed Clinton on January 23.Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.Several figures in Clinton's campaign, including her husband, the former president, have been criticized in recent weeks for raising Obama's race. In response, Bill Clinton has said he will stick to promoting his wife, rather than defending her.Later Tuesday, Rendell's spokesman said the governor did not mean to offend anyone."He was simply making an observation about the unfortunate nature of some parts of American society," said spokesman Chuck Ardo. "He wasn't being critical, he wasn't making accusations, but just being realistic." E-mail to a friend Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
If your point is to raise doubt that Obama can get elected because a supporter of Clinton claims there are racists it only reinforces why I hold Clinton and her surrogates in such low regard. I'll take my chances voting for the best candidate and that isn't Clinton.
 
Homer J Simpson said:
Homer J Simpson said:
Joe Kidd said:
Can someone point me to the post in this thread, of the video of a reporter, going through a crowd of Obama supporters looking for another "sheep following the heard of Obamania" and asks something to the effect of can you give me one reason to support Barack other than he is a great speaker for hope and the young African-American basically owns the reporter with his knowledge of the issues regarding Barack. The young man states in the interview that his father is a pediatrician. If that helps.
I've got that somewhere...hold a moment.
Linky. Smart cat. :goodposting:
His response for emotional reasons was sweet too. This guy is good.
Wow.
 
Homer J Simpson said:
Can someone point me to the post in this thread, of the video of a reporter, going through a crowd of Obama supporters looking for another "sheep following the heard of Obamania" and asks something to the effect of can you give me one reason to support Barack other than he is a great speaker for hope and the young African-American basically owns the reporter with his knowledge of the issues regarding Barack. The young man states in the interview that his father is a pediatrician. If that helps.
I've got that somewhere...hold a moment.
Linky. Smart cat. :rolleyes:
His response for emotional reasons was sweet too. This guy is good.
"...Don't sleep." ;)
 
Homer J Simpson said:
Homer J Simpson said:
Can someone point me to the post in this thread, of the video of a reporter, going through a crowd of Obama supporters looking for another "sheep following the heard of Obamania" and asks something to the effect of can you give me one reason to support Barack other than he is a great speaker for hope and the young African-American basically owns the reporter with his knowledge of the issues regarding Barack. The young man states in the interview that his father is a pediatrician. If that helps.
I've got that somewhere...hold a moment.
Linky. Smart cat. :rolleyes:
His response for emotional reasons was sweet too. This guy is good.
Well said.
 
Homer J Simpson said:
Can someone point me to the post in this thread, of the video of a reporter, going through a crowd of Obama supporters looking for another "sheep following the heard of Obamania" and asks something to the effect of can you give me one reason to support Barack other than he is a great speaker for hope and the young African-American basically owns the reporter with his knowledge of the issues regarding Barack. The young man states in the interview that his father is a pediatrician. If that helps.
I've got that somewhere...hold a moment.
Linky. Smart cat. :thumbup:
His response for emotional reasons was sweet too. This guy is good.
I'm not quite as verbal as Derrick. :lmao:
 
Can someone point me to the post in this thread, of the video of a reporter, going through a crowd of Obama supporters looking for another "sheep following the heard of Obamania" and asks something to the effect of can you give me one reason to support Barack other than he is a great speaker for hope and the young African-American basically owns the reporter with his knowledge of the issues regarding Barack. The young man states in the interview that his father is a pediatrician. If that helps.
I've got that somewhere...hold a moment.
Linky. Smart cat. :thumbup:
His response for emotional reasons was sweet too. This guy is good.
Sometimes less is more.
 
Also in the McCain criticism category, can someone please get this guy to the dentist for a teeth-whitening treatment? :mellow: I saw him give a big grin the other day and I think he might be a British spy.
Umm... 7 years in Hanoi Hilton will do that to your teeth, too. This is also the reason why he can't really raise his arms. Post-ejection trauma exacerbated by no medical treatment... and other kinds of treatment. Anyway, Obama...

WONDER LAND

By DANIEL HENNINGER

Obama at the Top

February 14, 2008; Page A16

Hillary Clinton probably didn't watch the stem-winder speech that Barack Obama delivered Tuesday night after cleaning her clock in the Potomac primaries. If not, she should.

It was tiresome.

The speech was classic Obama. Beautifully written and beautifully delivered, the words soaring to the rafters of a Madison, Wis., auditorium filled mostly with 17,000 cheering students. The rookie senator had just come off blowouts of Hillary in Virginia and Maryland.

The senator's charisma and appeal has been undeniable. He is almost insanely eloquent. Still, about halfway into this (very long) speech, the feeling was hard to shake: This is getting hard to listen to. Again and again.

[barack Obama]

Is Sen. Obama peaking? Probably not. The across-the-board growth in his Potomac numbers was impressive. The more appropriate question would be, is the Obama wave cresting?

Barack Obama has ridden these primaries like a skilled surfer, catching big emotional waves and riding them spectacularly, letting this new force carry him forward. Even the biggest waves, however, eventually break on the shore.

The conventional critique of Sen. Obama has held that his pitch is perfect but at some point he'll need to make the appeal more concrete.

I think the potential vulnerability runs deeper. Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar. It's a downer.

Up to now, the force of Sen. Obama's physical presentation has so dazzled audiences that it has been hard to focus on precisely what he is saying. "Yes, we can! Yes, we can!" Can what?

Listen closely to that Tuesday night Wisconsin speech. Unhinge yourself from the mesmerizing voice. What one hears is a message that is largely negative, illustrated with anecdotes of unremitting bleakness. Heavy with class warfare, it is a speech that could have been delivered by a Democrat in 1968, or even 1928.

Here is the edited version, stripped of the flying surfboard:

"Our road will not be easy . . . the cynics. . . where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits . . . That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda. . . 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 . . . It's a game . . . CEO bonuses . . . while another mother goes without health care for her sick child . . . We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace . . . even if they're not rich . . ."

Here's his America: "lies awake at night wondering how he's going to pay the bills . . . she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister who's ill . . . the senior I met who lost his pension when the company he gave his life to went bankrupt . . . the teacher who works at Dunkin' Donuts after school just to make ends meet . . . I was not born into money or status . . . I've fought to bring jobs to the jobless in the shadow of a shuttered steel plant . . . to make sure people weren't denied their rights because of what they looked like or where they came from . . . Now we carry our message to farms and factories."

It ends: "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."

Wonder Land columnist Daniel Henninger discusses how Barack Obama's sometimes bleak image of America will square with Independent voters in the November elections.

I am not saying all of this is false. But it is a depressing message to ride all the way to the White House.

Presumably this is a preview of what he intends to run with against John McCain, who was mentioned several times. (Straw in the wind: This audience cheered when he called Sen. McCain an American hero.) Presidential elections now are settled by about 30% of the electorate that occupies the independent center. In late December, Gallup released a poll in which 84% of respondents said they were satisfied with their own lives. At some point in the next 10 months, people will have to square Sen. Obama's Grapes of Wrath message with the reality of their lives.

Unease about the economy is real, but Sen. Obama is selling more than that. He is selling deep grievance over the structure of American society. That's the same message as John Edwards, or Dennis Kucinich for that matter. Hillary Clinton's mistake may have been to think this is 2008, not 1938, with the solution lying in leveraging votes in a Democratic Congress. Instead of Hillary's wonkish geniuses, Barack is selling the revolution -- change "from the bottom up."

Right after the Wisconsin speech, TV broadcast another -- by victorious John McCain. The contrast with Sen. Obama's is stark. The arc of the McCain speech is upward, positive. Pointedly, he says we are not history's "victims." Barack relentlessly pushes victimology.

For Sen. Obama the military and national security is a world of catastrophe welded to Iraq and filled with maimed soldiers. Mr. McCain locates these same difficult subjects inside the whole of American military achievement. It nets out as a more positive message. Recall that Ronald Reagan's signature optimism, when it first appeared, was laughed at by political pros. Optimism won elections.

Whatever else, Barack Obama isn't talking sunshine in America. He's talking fast and furious. People not yet baptized into Obamamania may start to look past the dazzling theatrics to see a vision of the United States that is quite grim and could wear thin in the general election.

There may indeed be a Message B for the fall in the Obama drawer. This week's speech, like a televangelist's, may be designed to drive small contributions. The Web-site version ends with an appeal to donate to "this historic moment." I suspect, though, that it is the core of the Obama campaign, now or later.

Odds are that he will ride it to the nomination among Democrats for whom America can never quite escape the Depression. Hillary Clinton can only offer what she's got -- a clear-eyed ambition to get, and use, Democratic power.

Everything in life has a top -- stocks, football teams and political phenoms, as she well knows. Though down, Hillary ought to suck it up for Ohio and Texas and hope the Obama wave starts to break. On current course, it will.

Write to henninger@wsj.com1.

URL for this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120295124554366927.html

 
From firstread.msnbc.com:

DAYTON, OH, Feb. 14 -- Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Clinton backer, said the senator would win big in this delegate-rich state. Winning by big margins here and in Texas will be key if she is to remain comptetive after a string of big post-Super Tuesday wins by Barack Obama.

Strickland also lamented the "triple" and "quadruple" standard he believes Clinton faces as a woman running for president.

"We are not going to let up for the next few days and weeks," he said after a roundtable on the home foreclosure crisis here Thursday. "I believe that Ohio will speak loudly and clearly. That she will have an impressive victory in Ohio and that that will send a message across America."

Recent polls show the New York senator leading Obama in the state. Unprompted, Strickland spoke about the difficulty Clinton faces as a female candidate.

"You know it's tough for a woman to seek the presidency. It's also tough for an African-American to seek the presidency and I understand that, but it seems as if, you know, there's not a double standard when it comes to Sen. Clinton seeking this office, but there's a triple and a quadruple standard and I think she's dealing with all of this with great dignity and courage," he said.

When asked what he meant by triple and quadruple standards, Strickland gave a few examples. "Well, you know, you gotta be strong. You gotta be appropriately emotional. You can't be too critical of your opponent, but you've got to be critical enough. It goes on and on and on. There are assessments made of Sen. Clinton that would never be even considered for a male candidate," he said.
So he's whining about the "unfair media," and he's predicting a ROUT in Ohio.
 
So 3 superdelegates switched from Clinton to Obama yeasterday including John Lewis (which is being portrayed as a pretty big deal) and 2 more decommitted from Clinton giving Obama a +8 in the superdelegate count. I don't think Clinton's had a day where she was ever +8 on him.

Oh and Henninger is a moron.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy crap this is a funny article

We come from three generations of steelworkers. Bethlehem Steel. You may have heard of it. It will soon be a casino. Our grandfather cast his first vote for FDR in 1932. Our dad shook JFK's hand and wished him luck in 1960. In November, there has never been another option but the name at the top of the ticket. Not this time.

We've read and heard all the bull#### about how excited, unified and supportive Democrats will be regardless of the nominee. How the stakes are too high, the positions so indistinguishable that Obama voters will put aside their grievances and rally to the cause. Forget it.

Let's get one thing straight...all we expect from Obama is all you can truly hope from any President, that he or she will do less evil. That's it. And no, our refusal to vote for Hillary has nothing to do with her being a woman. She happens to be a woman who is not worth voting for. A shocking concept to those Gloria Steinems of the land who discern only sisterhood between Margaret Thatcher, Helen Keller, Eva Braun, Rosa Parks and Paris Hilton.

And from a purely political perspective, it would be an act of transcendent madness for the Democrats to nominate her. As if in 1932, despite having a charismatic leader in their midst, the smoke filled room went for Edith Bolling Galt Wilson so she could defend The League Of Nations.

The bottom line, despite Hillary's phantom 35 years of experience, is that the Clintons can never be vetted. They are always knee deep in ####. It may be #### that will surface after the convention, when and if her tax returns are ever released. It may be #### lying dormant in sealed White House records. It may be #### from how they are financing her campaign right now. It may be #### from the myriad shady deals Bill has cut as a former President. But it is there.

And when she is the nominee and the #### surfaces what then? If she's President and Bill decides he misses spewing his seed in the Oval Office sink, what then? Why then all the forces of progressivism must rally. We must link arms with Lanny Davis and Ann Lewis and fight the Clintons battles yet again. No thanks.

You don't have to read Kevin Phillips to know that the 90's were not such halcyon days. They were an opportunity squandered. They were fleeting DLC accomplishments in triangulated sand, blown to the four winds by a punk from Texas who actually stood behind his demented convictions.

For whatever their personal psychodrama, the Clintons need to return to the White House. To achieve power they will fight dirty, and to the political death. But we don't need them.

Yes the Republicans will attack Obama. He will counterpunch and the rest of us will go to the mattresses. But at least with Obama there's a chance the fight will be worth it.

Somewhere deep down, this country has to know that it deserves better than Bushs and Clintons. And if it doesn't, then count us in the Green Party column come November.
:unsure: :bag: Love the swipe at bush: They were an opportunity squandered. They were fleeting DLC accomplishments in triangulated sand, blown to the four winds by a punk from Texas who actually stood behind his demented convictions

 
*** Delegate update: The official NBC News hard count of pledged delegates is Obama 1,116 and Clinton 985. Conservatively allocating the outstanding 44 pledged delegates, toss in an additional 24 for Obama and 20 for Clinton. Then adding our superdelegate count (257 for Clinton, 182 for Obama), the GRAND TOTAL is Obama 1322, Clinton 1,262.
 
I love stuff like this. "Obama is too positive, he can't win." "Ohio is Hillary country, he can't win."

Three words:

Yes.

We.

Can.

 
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.

 
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.

 
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.
:( :banned: Game On!

 
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.
If I had to guess, I'd day the poll probably underreports her support among Latino men, but at least this poll gets closer to his true AA support. In primary after primary he's gotten 80+% of the AA vote, yet all these polls out today (besides thise one) have it pegged in the 60s.
 
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.
If I had to guess, I'd day the poll probably underreports her support among Latino men, but at least this poll gets closer to his true AA support. In primary after primary he's gotten 80+% of the AA vote, yet all these polls out today (besides thise one) have it pegged in the 60s.
For some reason the projections of how many Latino voters there will be in Texas has been all over the map as well; I've heard everything from 25-50% of the primary voters. Assuming Hillary is going to carry those voters, even if is relatvely close the percentage they make up is going to be huge.
 
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.
Especially considering the way she's been spending so much time in Texas, to the detriment of her Wisconsin efffort. What's up with Ohio, though? I still see huge Hillary margins there. She is basically the Huckabee of the Democratic party at this point, picking up votes from uneducated, white, rural voters. If you overlay a Virginia map of the counties that Hillary won and that Huckabee won, they're virtually the same.
 
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.
If I had to guess, I'd day the poll probably underreports her support among Latino men, but at least this poll gets closer to his true AA support. In primary after primary he's gotten 80+% of the AA vote, yet all these polls out today (besides thise one) have it pegged in the 60s.
For some reason the projections of how many Latino voters there will be in Texas has been all over the map as well; I've heard everything from 25-50% of the primary voters. Assuming Hillary is going to carry those voters, even if is relatvely close the percentage they make up is going to be huge.
I believe its pretty much 20-25% for both AA and Latinos.
 
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.
Especially considering the way she's been spending so much time in Texas, to the detriment of her Wisconsin efffort. What's up with Ohio, though? I still see huge Hillary margins there. She is basically the Huckabee of the Democratic party at this point, picking up votes from uneducated, white, rural voters. If you overlay a Virginia map of the counties that Hillary won and that Huckabee won, they're virtually the same.
One of this things that I think is happening with the polls is that they typically reflect "likely" primary voters. The actual turnouts have been in many cases double what states have seen in previous years, and I think it's safe to assume at this point that Obama is getting a huge percentage of those new votes.
 
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.
If I had to guess, I'd day the poll probably underreports her support among Latino men, but at least this poll gets closer to his true AA support. In primary after primary he's gotten 80+% of the AA vote, yet all these polls out today (besides thise one) have it pegged in the 60s.
For some reason the projections of how many Latino voters there will be in Texas has been all over the map as well; I've heard everything from 25-50% of the primary voters. Assuming Hillary is going to carry those voters, even if is relatvely close the percentage they make up is going to be huge.
I believe its pretty much 20-25% for both AA and Latinos.
Wow, I didn't think the AA percentage was that high. If that is the case I feel much better about Texas.
 
Just got a call from my mom. She's going to a Obama rally tomorrow where he's supposed to speak (in Wisconsin, Eau Claire I think). She's jacked up about it and wanted to throw it in my face (she knows I'm a pretty die hard Repub) so imagine her surprise when I told her that I'd vote Obama in the general if he wins the Dem nod.

Nice to know I can still say stuff that just shuts her up. :thumbdown:

 
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.
Especially considering the way she's been spending so much time in Texas, to the detriment of her Wisconsin efffort. What's up with Ohio, though? I still see huge Hillary margins there. She is basically the Huckabee of the Democratic party at this point, picking up votes from uneducated, white, rural voters. If you overlay a Virginia map of the counties that Hillary won and that Huckabee won, they're virtually the same.
Geez, most of my friends unfortunately support Hillary and most are professional, educated white women. It could be the "feminist" part of them supporting her -- I don't know. With one friend, I got into a detailed discussion and she is supporting Clinton because she thinks Clinton has more foreign policy experience (??), and remembers the 90's and the booming economy. She just wants Bill back into the White House even if he's the first lady. Clinton has the brand name in Ohio and that's why she's got the numbers here.IMO, I don't know why feminist would not support Obama because of Michelle and her juggling work and family.

ETA: Columbus is far from rural and Hillary has a strong presence here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The polls haven't been reliable this year, but Obama leading in TX: http://americanresearchgroup.com/

February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences

Democrats TX

Clinton 42%

Obama 48%

Someone else 3%

Undecided 7%

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 42%. Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 24% to 71%. Obama leads among men 55% to 29% (47% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 54% to 42%. Clinton leads Obama among white voters 51% to 40% (53% of likely Democratic primary voters), Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 76% to 17% (22% of likely Democratic primary voters), and Clinton leads Obama among Latino voters 44% to 42%.

22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary. 30% of men say they would never vote for Clinton in the primary.
Reliable or not, that is fan-freaking-tastic. If there is a poll showing him in the lead, then at the very least he must be within striking distance, which is remarkable this early in the game.Yes we can.
If I had to guess, I'd day the poll probably underreports her support among Latino men, but at least this poll gets closer to his true AA support. In primary after primary he's gotten 80+% of the AA vote, yet all these polls out today (besides thise one) have it pegged in the 60s.
For some reason the projections of how many Latino voters there will be in Texas has been all over the map as well; I've heard everything from 25-50% of the primary voters. Assuming Hillary is going to carry those voters, even if is relatvely close the percentage they make up is going to be huge.
I believe its pretty much 20-25% for both AA and Latinos.
Wow, I didn't think the AA percentage was that high. If that is the case I feel much better about Texas.
I personally think he's in much better position in Texas than any of these polls show. Assuming he gets 85% of the AA vote, Hillary, basically needs 65% of the Latino vote and 55% of the white vote just to be even and bigger margins to beat him. Call me crazy, but I don't see both happening.
 
Obama likely to get big union endorsement today with 69,000 members in Ohio and another 26,000 in Texas and also 19,000 members in Wisconsin

Obama poised to get big union nod

Barack Obama is expected to get a key union endorsement this afternoon, several news organizations are reporting.



The support of the 1.8-million-member Service Employees International Union could boost his efforts to overtake Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Texas, which vote March 4, and Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22. Those three states are looking more and more as the last stand for Clinton, who trails Obama in delegates, popular votes, states won, and campaign cash.

Clinton is moving to a more economic populist message as she appeals to blue-collar workers, so the union endorsements could help Obama rebut that argument.

One SEIU official, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, told the Associated Press that Obama was "99 percent" likely to get the endorsement. John Edwards, before he suspended his campaign, coveted the national SEIU endorsement, but never received it. State SEIU chapters, however, became active in key states, including Iowa and New Hampshire.

Thursday, Obama won the support of the United Food and Commercial Workers, a politically active union with significant membership in the upcoming Democratic battlegrounds.

According to the Associated Press, the 1.3-million member UFCW has 69,000 members in Ohio and another 26,000 in Texas and also has 19,000 members in Wisconsin, which holds a primary Tuesday. The union is made up of supermarket workers and meatpackers, with 40 percent of the membership under 30 years old. Obama has been doing especially well among young voters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing that concerns me a bit about potential "end game" shenanigans, is this: Obama is claiming (and rightfully so, IMO) that FL and MI votes should not stand, due to the rules that were set forth at the beginning. Can't change the rules in midstream. But, at the same time, Obama's campaign seems to be pressing this idea about the superdelegates, and how they should vote with "the people." The problem is, that isn't the rule. The rule is, supers can vote their conscience, for the person they want to be the nominee. I think it is disengenuous to put this idea forward, and still advance the argument on FL and MI.

IMO, the right solution is that there should either be a re-vote in FL and MI, or they don't count, and the supers should be left to do what they want. That's not to say their shouldn't be pressure on the supers to go with the people voting, but I think the Obama campaign needs to b e very careful in the rhetoric on this, less they be portrayed as hypocritical.

 
One thing that concerns me a bit about potential "end game" shenanigans, is this: Obama is claiming (and rightfully so, IMO) that FL and MI votes should not stand, due to the rules that were set forth at the beginning. Can't change the rules in midstream. But, at the same time, Obama's campaign seems to be pressing this idea about the superdelegates, and how they should vote with "the people." The problem is, that isn't the rule. The rule is, supers can vote their conscience, for the person they want to be the nominee. I think it is disengenuous to put this idea forward, and still advance the argument on FL and MI.
Welcome to politics.
 
One thing that concerns me a bit about potential "end game" shenanigans, is this: Obama is claiming (and rightfully so, IMO) that FL and MI votes should not stand, due to the rules that were set forth at the beginning. Can't change the rules in midstream. But, at the same time, Obama's campaign seems to be pressing this idea about the superdelegates, and how they should vote with "the people." The problem is, that isn't the rule. The rule is, supers can vote their conscience, for the person they want to be the nominee. I think it is disengenuous to put this idea forward, and still advance the argument on FL and MI. IMO, the right solution is that there should either be a re-vote in FL and MI, or they don't count, and the supers should be left to do what they want. That's not to say their shouldn't be pressure on the supers to go with the people voting, but I think the Obama campaign needs to b e very careful in the rhetoric on this, less they be portrayed as hypocritical.
Obama is not changing the rules in regards to super delegates. He is asking that they vote with the people...a big difference from pushing for them to be required to vote with the people.
 
One thing that concerns me a bit about potential "end game" shenanigans, is this: Obama is claiming (and rightfully so, IMO) that FL and MI votes should not stand, due to the rules that were set forth at the beginning. Can't change the rules in midstream. But, at the same time, Obama's campaign seems to be pressing this idea about the superdelegates, and how they should vote with "the people." The problem is, that isn't the rule. The rule is, supers can vote their conscience, for the person they want to be the nominee. I think it is disengenuous to put this idea forward, and still advance the argument on FL and MI.

IMO, the right solution is that there should either be a re-vote in FL and MI, or they don't count, and the supers should be left to do what they want. That's not to say their shouldn't be pressure on the supers to go with the people voting, but I think the Obama campaign needs to b e very careful in the rhetoric on this, less they be portrayed as hypocritical.
Of course they are. And they aren't the only ones. Rank and file are saying the same thing. Anything that appears to a be a hijacking of this primary by superdelegates will tear the party apart.
 
One thing that concerns me a bit about potential "end game" shenanigans, is this: Obama is claiming (and rightfully so, IMO) that FL and MI votes should not stand, due to the rules that were set forth at the beginning. Can't change the rules in midstream. But, at the same time, Obama's campaign seems to be pressing this idea about the superdelegates, and how they should vote with "the people." The problem is, that isn't the rule. The rule is, supers can vote their conscience, for the person they want to be the nominee. I think it is disengenuous to put this idea forward, and still advance the argument on FL and MI. IMO, the right solution is that there should either be a re-vote in FL and MI, or they don't count, and the supers should be left to do what they want. That's not to say their shouldn't be pressure on the supers to go with the people voting, but I think the Obama campaign needs to b e very careful in the rhetoric on this, less they be portrayed as hypocritical.
It's not even approaching hypocritical. The rules state that the delegates in Florida and Michigan shouldn't be seated. That's easy enough. The rules also state that these delegates can have their say and vote as they please. Obama isn't contesting this. What he is saying is that they should, when considering how to vote, think long and hard about voting for someone who didn't win the most votes, who doesn't have the most delegates, who doesn't have the most states, and who doesn't have the most money. Democrats lost the election in 2000 after winning the popular vote. That didn't sit well with them, in addition to all the other crap. I think Obama is saying now, that the super delegates shouldn't override the will of the people here. It's not about rules, it's about what's right and wrong.It was my understanding that the super delegates weren't intended to be king makers, but instead were to be used if a third party or some other subvertive candidate came up so that if they somehow ended up winning a lot of delegates in the popular election, the party could still have control. It's about controlling whether or not you have a viable candidate being elected, and one that represents the democratic party. Obama is both viable and a true democrat, so for the super delegates to vote against the pledged delegate leader would be a problem, in Obama's and many people's eyes. That's all he's saying, so far as I can tell.
 
Great article from huffingtonpost

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seit...er_b_86745.html

Speeches Do Matter

Michael Seitzman

Posted February 14, 2008 | 06:18 PM (EST)

Hillary said she found her voice in New Hampshire because she cried in public. Her audience applauded. But now it seems to the senator that having a voice is irrelevant because somehow having a voice is now the subject of ridicule in the new Clinton campaign.

The Clintons seem to have nothing left to add to the national conversation other than to tell us that the conversation itself is beneath them. It's ironic for so many reasons, not the least of which being that Bill Clinton himself has been known as much for his stunning ability to inspire an audience and an electorate as he is known for his other considerable political skills. Yet now the ability of a leader to communicate with those he or she intends to lead is simply childish.

First of all, don't the Clintons realize that when they're both saying the exact same thing (especially when that thing is so ludicrous) that it puts us in the room with their handlers and so-called experts. We're suddenly aware of the "strategy" and we stop being aware of the candidate and the woman. So much for finding her own voice.

Second, there is the assertion that speechmaking is irrelevant. I'm wondering where this country would be without great oratory, without great communicators, without those who have been able to articulate a vision and move a nation.

Where would we be without Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech? Is there a single piece of oratory that defined a moment more than that speech did for the civil rights movement? That speech is a cry for freedom and equality that changed the world. Yes, the marches and the political wrangling with various presidents (yes, including Johnson) mattered. But, it was that speech which encapsulated the simple humanity that was at stake. That speech galvanized a movement, electrified a nation, and embarrassed a government into action.

What about Robert Kennedy's, "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

Or JFK's, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Churchill's, "Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so much to so few."

Roosevelt's, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Lincoln's, "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

And, now we have Senator Clinton's, "Talk is cheap." Boy, she really knows how a move a nation.

We've had seven years of bully politics and of awkward and embarrassing communication by our president. We've had seven years of lying, condescension, parsing words and a staggering inability to use language and authenticity to call a nation to action. Now we finally have a candidate in Barack Obama who uses the word "We" while others use "I." He empowers us with words and the authentic emotion behind them and people are rushing into the tent to drink that magic water.

Candor, inclusiveness, poetry, and inspiration. We don't only deserve those things, we long for them. We want to be led and we want to be lifted and anyone who doesn't understand that simply doesn't understand us.
:thumbup: :boxing:
 
One thing that concerns me a bit about potential "end game" shenanigans, is this: Obama is claiming (and rightfully so, IMO) that FL and MI votes should not stand, due to the rules that were set forth at the beginning. Can't change the rules in midstream. But, at the same time, Obama's campaign seems to be pressing this idea about the superdelegates, and how they should vote with "the people." The problem is, that isn't the rule. The rule is, supers can vote their conscience, for the person they want to be the nominee. I think it is disengenuous to put this idea forward, and still advance the argument on FL and MI. IMO, the right solution is that there should either be a re-vote in FL and MI, or they don't count, and the supers should be left to do what they want. That's not to say their shouldn't be pressure on the supers to go with the people voting, but I think the Obama campaign needs to b e very careful in the rhetoric on this, less they be portrayed as hypocritical.
There's no good answer. If they re-vote in MI and FL it will almost certainly have to be caucuses due to time and money constraints, which plays to Obama's strengths. I'm not sure it wouldn't make things more convoluted if they re-vote and Obama wins both by solid margins, but on significantly fewer overall votes. I'm still hopeful that none of this will matter. If he just wins one of TX, OH, or PA, I think this is done and the superdelegates are going to flock to Obama.
 
If you guys want to help out, there is a very easy and free way to do so by phonebanking. Go to this link, and click on the state where you want to phonebank. It is very easy to do - they give you a script to follow, and everything. Of course, you will want to be conversant on his positions, etc. Also, keep in mind the state - folks in Wisconsin and Ohio, for example, will have questions about the economy, etc. The site gives you the numbers, gives you the script, and makes it easy as pie. This is really effective, and is about the best way, other than donating money, to help out the cause.

Yes we can.

 
If you guys want to help out, there is a very easy and free way to do so by phonebanking. Go to this link, and click on the state where you want to phonebank. It is very easy to do - they give you a script to follow, and everything. Of course, you will want to be conversant on his positions, etc. Also, keep in mind the state - folks in Wisconsin and Ohio, for example, will have questions about the economy, etc. The site gives you the numbers, gives you the script, and makes it easy as pie. This is really effective, and is about the best way, other than donating money, to help out the cause.

Yes we can.
:excited: :lol:
 
It's bad enough with Hillary trying to claim "victory" and seat the delegates from Florida. But that she can even counteance discussion of seating the Michigan delegates -- where SHE WAS THE ONLY PERSON ON THE BALLOT -- is disgusting.

This is a far cry from Obama exerting pressure on elected officials to cast their votes the same way their constituents did. For example, he's not arguing that any superdelegate who votes contrary to his constituents should not be seated.

I've begun to daydream about what the rallies will be like if it looks like superdelegates will make the difference and they're waffling about who to back despite Obama having a significant lead in pledged delegates. For example, in Maryland the Governor and one of the Senators have currently pledged their support for Hillary despite representing a state that went 60-36 for Obama. I can easily envision a pre-convention rally where 50,000+ people would fill the Inner Harbor to rally for those superdelegates to back Obama -- after all, he drew 12,000 people downtown at 2 p.m. on a frigid Monday afternoon. How many could he get on a nice early summer Saturday afternoon?

In the end, I tihnk people like Maryland's Governor and Senator Mikulski are going to realize it would be political suicide - both in the 08 presidential race, and in their own subsequent statewide re-election bids - to thwart the will of the electorate that way.

 
Yeah, no super delegate wants to be on the wrong side here. They will almost all wait until after the last elections are through, and I believe at that time, they will support the delegate leader, which hopefully will be Obama.

But if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't want to over commit right now. There's no reason for them to declare allegiance as of yet, no reason to talk about "switching" votes, because their votes don't matter right now.

It's better for them to wait and make sure Obama doesn't make a huge mistake that will propel Hillary back into the frontrunner slot. They'd then be in the unenviable position of being for hillary, then obama, and back to hillary. That'd suck for them.

I have faith in the politicians who are super delegates to know a good opportunity when it comes. If Obama is still the leader, throwing support behind him is a good political decision on many levels.

 
Great article from huffingtonpost

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seit...er_b_86745.html

Speeches Do Matter

Michael Seitzman

Posted February 14, 2008 | 06:18 PM (EST)

Hillary said she found her voice in New Hampshire because she cried in public. Her audience applauded. But now it seems to the senator that having a voice is irrelevant because somehow having a voice is now the subject of ridicule in the new Clinton campaign.

The Clintons seem to have nothing left to add to the national conversation other than to tell us that the conversation itself is beneath them. It's ironic for so many reasons, not the least of which being that Bill Clinton himself has been known as much for his stunning ability to inspire an audience and an electorate as he is known for his other considerable political skills. Yet now the ability of a leader to communicate with those he or she intends to lead is simply childish.

First of all, don't the Clintons realize that when they're both saying the exact same thing (especially when that thing is so ludicrous) that it puts us in the room with their handlers and so-called experts. We're suddenly aware of the "strategy" and we stop being aware of the candidate and the woman. So much for finding her own voice.

Second, there is the assertion that speechmaking is irrelevant. I'm wondering where this country would be without great oratory, without great communicators, without those who have been able to articulate a vision and move a nation.

Where would we be without Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech? Is there a single piece of oratory that defined a moment more than that speech did for the civil rights movement? That speech is a cry for freedom and equality that changed the world. Yes, the marches and the political wrangling with various presidents (yes, including Johnson) mattered. But, it was that speech which encapsulated the simple humanity that was at stake. That speech galvanized a movement, electrified a nation, and embarrassed a government into action.

What about Robert Kennedy's, "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

Or JFK's, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Churchill's, "Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so much to so few."

Roosevelt's, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Lincoln's, "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

And, now we have Senator Clinton's, "Talk is cheap." Boy, she really knows how a move a nation.

We've had seven years of bully politics and of awkward and embarrassing communication by our president. We've had seven years of lying, condescension, parsing words and a staggering inability to use language and authenticity to call a nation to action. Now we finally have a candidate in Barack Obama who uses the word "We" while others use "I." He empowers us with words and the authentic emotion behind them and people are rushing into the tent to drink that magic water.

Candor, inclusiveness, poetry, and inspiration. We don't only deserve those things, we long for them. We want to be led and we want to be lifted and anyone who doesn't understand that simply doesn't understand us.
:bag: ;)
Of course, another great comeback line is pointing out that people are paying Bill 150-500,000 per speech.
 
*** Are we understanding John Lewis? The New York Times is front-paging that Rep. John Lewis, who has endorsed Clinton, will cast his superdelegate vote for Obama, since his congressional district overwhelmingly voted for the Illinois senator. However, Lewis’ office is adamant that Lewis isn’t endorsing Obama. So is that the distinction? That he isn’t changing his endorsement, but will cast his superdelegate vote for Obama? Pardon us if we’re a bit confused… And Georgia Rep. David Scott -- another Clinton backer -- has apparently endorsed Obama. Not counting Lewis (because the situation is confusing), Obama has gained 12 superdelegates since February 5, while Clinton has lost a net of three.
link
 
7 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

6 Members: flufhed, Clayton Gray, Sammy3469, Gopher State, Arsenal of Doom, Homer J Simpson

:P

 
Obama faces fire from Clinton, McCainStory Highlights

McCain says Obama is "lacking in specifics"

Clinton says Obama is in "the promises business"

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, moving into front-runner status following a week of eight straight wins, is facing a new rival, exchanging fire with John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee.

Sen. Barack Obama speaks to a rally at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Tuesday.

1 of 3 In what could be a preview of the general election, the two exchanged jabs over Iraq and the economy, sure to be key issues in November.

McCain criticized the Democrats for speaking in "platitudes" about Iraq.

"The Democrats wanted to leave and set a date for withdrawal and said we could never succeed militarily. Look at the record ... not the rhetoric, not the platitudes, but the principles and the philosophy," he said.

McCain later took aim directly at Obama for lacking specifics.

"I respect him and the campaign he has run," McCain said.

"But there is going to be time when we have to get into specifics, and I have heard not every speech he has given obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics, and that's when as the campaign moves forward, we will be portraying very stark differences."

Those comments are among McCain's most pointed attack at Obama to date, a clear sign the Republican nominee apparent is increasingly viewing the Illinois senator as the Democratic front-runner.

With a sweep in the Potomac primaries on Tuesday, Obama moved into the lead in the race for Democratic delegates on the strength of eight straight primary and caucus wins. Watch how Obama is going after Clinton and McCain »

Obama faced criticism from Clinton, who stepped up her campaigning Wednesday with fresh attacks of her own, directly challenging Obama's ability to deliver on his rhetoric.

"I am in the solutions business. My opponent is in the promises business," the senator said in McAllen, Texas. "It's not the questions. It's the answers. And the answers get right to the heart of who is ready on Day One to be the president and commander-in-chief of the United States."

CNNN

This my issue with Obama whenever he speaks he is so vague. I agree Obama will the one for the Dems, but McCain will eat him up when theydebate, sure you can go to Obama's web site and see what he says he claims he stands for. But you never know it when you listen to him talk. More people will listen to the debates then they will go to his web site. Come November the traditional dems will go to McCain if this doesn't change.

 
This my issue with Obama whenever he speaks he is so vague. I agree Obama will the one for the Dems, but McCain will eat him up when theydebate, sure you can go to Obama's web site and see what he says he claims he stands for. But you never know it when you listen to him talk. More people will listen to the debates then they will go to his web site. Come November the traditional dems will go to McCain if this doesn't change.
You must have been asleep when Obama gave a very detailed economic speech on Tuesday.
 
This my issue with Obama whenever he speaks he is so vague. I agree Obama will the one for the Dems, but McCain will eat him up when theydebate, sure you can go to Obama's web site and see what he says he claims he stands for. But you never know it when you listen to him talk. More people will listen to the debates then they will go to his web site. Come November the traditional dems will go to McCain if this doesn't change.
Go to his page, read. Come back if you still think he is "vague" There are a lot of things you can attack him for being, but this isn't one of them and I don't get why people keep using it.
 
Obama faces fire from Clinton, McCainStory HighlightsMcCain says Obama is "lacking in specifics"Clinton says Obama is in "the promises business" (CNN) -- Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, moving into front-runner status following a week of eight straight wins, is facing a new rival, exchanging fire with John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee. Sen. Barack Obama speaks to a rally at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Tuesday. 1 of 3 In what could be a preview of the general election, the two exchanged jabs over Iraq and the economy, sure to be key issues in November. McCain criticized the Democrats for speaking in "platitudes" about Iraq."The Democrats wanted to leave and set a date for withdrawal and said we could never succeed militarily. Look at the record ... not the rhetoric, not the platitudes, but the principles and the philosophy," he said.McCain later took aim directly at Obama for lacking specifics. "I respect him and the campaign he has run," McCain said. "But there is going to be time when we have to get into specifics, and I have heard not every speech he has given obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics, and that's when as the campaign moves forward, we will be portraying very stark differences." Those comments are among McCain's most pointed attack at Obama to date, a clear sign the Republican nominee apparent is increasingly viewing the Illinois senator as the Democratic front-runner. With a sweep in the Potomac primaries on Tuesday, Obama moved into the lead in the race for Democratic delegates on the strength of eight straight primary and caucus wins. Watch how Obama is going after Clinton and McCain »Obama faced criticism from Clinton, who stepped up her campaigning Wednesday with fresh attacks of her own, directly challenging Obama's ability to deliver on his rhetoric."I am in the solutions business. My opponent is in the promises business," the senator said in McAllen, Texas. "It's not the questions. It's the answers. And the answers get right to the heart of who is ready on Day One to be the president and commander-in-chief of the United States."CNNNThis my issue with Obama whenever he speaks he is so vague. I agree Obama will the one for the Dems, but McCain will eat him up when theydebate, sure you can go to Obama's web site and see what he says he claims he stands for. But you never know it when you listen to him talk. More people will listen to the debates then they will go to his web site. Come November the traditional dems will go to McCain if this doesn't change.
You've obviously never listened to any of his policy speeches then. This is a completely empty, and itself rhetorical, challenge to Obama. Clinton and McCain don't offer any more specifics than he does in a typical stump speech; he just does it in a way that has inspired millions of people. If the best they can do is attack him for being a better public speaker, well, you can see why he pulling away from both of them in national polls.
 
This my issue with Obama whenever he speaks he is so vague. I agree Obama will the one for the Dems, but McCain will eat him up when theydebate, sure you can go to Obama's web site and see what he says he claims he stands for. But you never know it when you listen to him talk. More people will listen to the debates then they will go to his web site. Come November the traditional dems will go to McCain if this doesn't change.
It's my belief that the average debate viewer will lean to the person that makes them feel better and gives better sound bites.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This my issue with Obama whenever he speaks he is so vague. I agree Obama will the one for the Dems, but McCain will eat him up when theydebate, sure you can go to Obama's web site and see what he says he claims he stands for. But you never know it when you listen to him talk. More people will listen to the debates then they will go to his web site. Come November the traditional dems will go to McCain if this doesn't change.
What don't you know when you listen to him talk? Do you not know he's for supplying affordable health care for all americans? Do you not know he's for pulling troops out of iraq as soon as possible? Do you not know he's for immigration reform, preserving social security, stimulating the economy, reforming our educations system? You don't know these things only if you don't listen to his speeches...not just one speech, but multiple speeches.The argument used to go that Obama didn't have any specific policies, they were all just pie in the sky promises that he could never deliver. Then, when he gave specifics, made them generally available, and people started to realize that he does have specifics and plans to pay for and structure things he's promising, they've moved to attacking him for not being more specific in his speeches, and people don't know what he stands for. It's just silly.People know what Obama is proposing. The information is there, he talks about it in his speeches, and the main people who don't know are those who don't pay much attention. I suggest going to the first page of this thread and reading through some of the speeches that are linked.
 
http://wcbstv.com/campaign08/bloomberg.fed...t.2.654315.html

NYC Mayor: U.S. Resembling A 'Third-World Country'

NEW YORK (CBS/AP) ― Mayor Michael Bloomberg has unleashed another flurry of jabs on Washington, ridiculing the federal government's rebate checks as being "like giving a drink to an alcoholic" on Thursday, and said the presidential candidates are looking for easy solutions to complex economic problems.

The billionaire and potential independent presidential candidate also said the nation "has a balance sheet that's starting to look more and more like a third-world country."

President Bush signed legislation Wednesday that will result in cash rebates ranging from $300 to $1,200 for more than 130 million people.

The federal checks are the centerpiece of the government's emergency effort to stimulate the economy, under the theory that most people will spend the money right away.

But Bloomberg does not believe it will do much good. And his harsh words at a news conference Thursday reflect the view among some of his associates that the country's economic woes present a unique opportunity for him to launch a third-party bid for the White House.

The theory among those urging him to run for president is that a businessman who rose from Wall Street to build his own financial information empire might be particularly appealing as the fiscal crisis worsens.

Publicly, Bloomberg says he is "not a candidate," and explained recently he is speaking out on national issues as part of an "experiment" to influence the dialogue in the race.

His tirade against the candidates and the economic stimulus package on Thursday began when he was asked how that experiment is going.

In his answer, he praised Democrat Barack Obama for the plan the Illinois senator outlined on Wednesday that would create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama projects it could generate nearly 2 million jobs.

Last month, Bloomberg and Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania announced a coalition that would urge more investment in infrastructure.

"I don't know whether Senator Obama looked to see what I've been advocating, or not -- you'll have to ask him -- but he's doing the right thing," Bloomberg said.

But then the mayor went on to say that while the presidential candidates appear to be talking more about the economy now, they are looking for quick fixes to please voters instead of focusing on the roots of the problem.

"Nobody wants to sit there and say, 'Well there's no easy solution,"' Bloomberg said. "They want to send out a check to everybody to stimulate the economy. I suppose it won't hurt the economy but it's in many senses like giving a drink to an alcoholic."

A spokesman for the mayor said later that Bloomberg was trying to say Washington can't stop itself from spending, and was not insinuating that Americans who receive checks are part of the problem.

The mayor last month said the economic stimulus package was shortsighted, and presented his own views on where the federal government should be focusing its attention. Specifically, he said the government should adopt a capital budget to oversee long-term infrastructure spending, instead of the current year-to-year spending.

It should also offer financial counseling, modified loans, and in some cases, subsidized loans to homeowners who find themselves unable to afford their mortgages.

He says that the government should also think differently about immigration, and that bringing more workers in rather than keeping them out is the key to long term economic stability.

More good news for Obama.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top