*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[SofaKings]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

 

[ericttspikes]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Yes, he's certainly winning states like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Minnesota based on race.

He's making progress with the Hispanic vote, and has consistently shown that he will get the Independent vote. That is the real key. He is generating interest not just from Democrats but from Republicans and Independents as well. He has the ability to change the political climate just like Reagan did, by building a coalition and moving the country towards his positions.

Republicans will say he has no ability to build a coalition, will brand him as the nations "most liberal senator" just like they did Kerry. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ator-last-year/

And he will rise above brandings, just like he has risen above the race issue even though people like Bill Clinton have tried to apply that to him. He's risen above the naive label. The inexperienced label.He's becoming the figurehead for a movement, not just a political campaign about one person like we're used to seeing. It's bigger than him.

When Obama talks about change, I guess I'm not understanding what he's referring to when his political records shows that he's going to vote down the party line. So, when he says "we need change", isn't he saying that we need Democratic philosophies guiding the country ?

Partly. He's also talking though about limiting the influence of lobbyists and changing the tone of political debate by building a coalition that includes the majority of Independents and some Republicans.

 

[suspected]

Yes, he's certainly winning states like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Minnesota based on race.

He's making progress with the Hispanic vote, and has consistently shown that he will get the Independent vote. That is the real key. He is generating interest not just from Democrats but from Republicans and Independents as well. He has the ability to change the political climate just like Reagan did, by building a coalition and moving the country towards his positions.

Republicans will say he has no ability to build a coalition, will brand him as the nations "most liberal senator" just like they did Kerry. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ator-last-year/

And yet, Republicans and Independents will still vote for him. A friend and I were having a conversation this weekend about the Republican strategy of labeling everything just half a degree to the left of you as "liberal." The problem is they have diluted their own attack; and when "conservative" has lead us into massive deficits, unpopular wars, and teetering on the brink of recession, all of a sudden the alternative doesn't look so bad.

Republicans and independents vote for him when looking at a democratic primary ballot and the choice is Hillary or Obama. Let's see how they vote when the choice is McCain vs Obama. In the general election his voting record and his experience would become huge issues.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I'd say it would be more of sham and a mockery... perhaps a traveshamockery

 

[SofaKings]

Yes, he's certainly winning states like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Minnesota based on race.

He's making progress with the Hispanic vote, and has consistently shown that he will get the Independent vote. That is the real key. He is generating interest not just from Democrats but from Republicans and Independents as well. He has the ability to change the political climate just like Reagan did, by building a coalition and moving the country towards his positions.

Republicans will say he has no ability to build a coalition, will brand him as the nations "most liberal senator" just like they did Kerry. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ator-last-year/

And he will rise above brandings, just like he has risen above the race issue even though people like Bill Clinton have tried to apply that to him. He's risen above the naive label. The inexperienced label.He's becoming the figurehead for a movement, not just a political campaign about one person like we're used to seeing. It's bigger than him.

When Obama talks about change, I guess I'm not understanding what he's referring to when his political records shows that he's going to vote down the party line. So, when he says "we need change", isn't he saying that we need Democratic philosophies guiding the country ?

Correct!

 

[Spiderman]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I think it would be ridiculous. Last night on "Hardball", Howard Dean refused to enforce his own party's rules about the penalites for Florida and Michigan when given the chance to disagree with Hillary's contention that these delgates would/should be handed out. He says some committe would make the decision, but it sounds like the decision was already made, they could just change it....

 

[SofaKings]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

 

[Spiderman]

Yes, he's certainly winning states like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Minnesota based on race.

He's making progress with the Hispanic vote, and has consistently shown that he will get the Independent vote. That is the real key. He is generating interest not just from Democrats but from Republicans and Independents as well. He has the ability to change the political climate just like Reagan did, by building a coalition and moving the country towards his positions.

Republicans will say he has no ability to build a coalition, will brand him as the nations "most liberal senator" just like they did Kerry. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ator-last-year/

And he will rise above brandings, just like he has risen above the race issue even though people like Bill Clinton have tried to apply that to him. He's risen above the naive label. The inexperienced label.He's becoming the figurehead for a movement, not just a political campaign about one person like we're used to seeing. It's bigger than him.

When Obama talks about change, I guess I'm not understanding what he's referring to when his political records shows that he's going to vote down the party line. So, when he says "we need change", isn't he saying that we need Democratic philosophies guiding the country ?

Partly. He's also talking though about limiting the influence of lobbyists and changing the tone of political debate by building a coalition that includes the majority of Independents and some Republicans.

I can see him being able to build a coalition amongst Democrats and Independents, but I think it would be an extremely unlikely sell to have Republicans, who don't agree with his political philosophies, to get on board.

 

[SofaKings]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I'd say it would be more of sham and a mockery... perhaps a traveshamockery

So what would the DNC gauge Michigan's views on other than the primary vote? Hillary wins the primary vote but they should send all the delegates to Obama? The delegates will go to whomever the AFL-CIO and UAW want them to go to.

 

[adonis]

So which is it on the other side? Romney stealing votes from Huckabee or Huckabee stealing votes from Romney? I might actually tune into rush today if I can figure out where he is on the dial. Should be fun.

I think that McCain's supporters, like in WV, went to Huckabee in the southern states, knowing that McCain didn't have much of a shot, so they threw their support to Huck to knock Romney out of contention.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Yes, he's certainly winning states like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Minnesota based on race.

He's making progress with the Hispanic vote, and has consistently shown that he will get the Independent vote. That is the real key. He is generating interest not just from Democrats but from Republicans and Independents as well. He has the ability to change the political climate just like Reagan did, by building a coalition and moving the country towards his positions.

Republicans will say he has no ability to build a coalition, will brand him as the nations "most liberal senator" just like they did Kerry. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ator-last-year/

And yet, Republicans and Independents will still vote for him. A friend and I were having a conversation this weekend about the Republican strategy of labeling everything just half a degree to the left of you as "liberal." The problem is they have diluted their own attack; and when "conservative" has lead us into massive deficits, unpopular wars, and teetering on the brink of recession, all of a sudden the alternative doesn't look so bad.

Republicans and independents vote for him when looking at a democratic primary ballot and the choice is Hillary or Obama. Let's see how they vote when the choice is McCain vs Obama. In the general election his voting record and his experience would become huge issues.

We personally know quite a few conservative (particularly fiscal conservative) Independents on this board who are supporting him over McCain. They aren't alone. Every candidate is going to have issues in the election. If the worst they can throw at Obama is his voting record in the Senate and some "present" votes in Illinois, I'll take that over Hillary's closet full of skeletons and vote for the War in Iraq.

 

[adonis]

Yes, he's certainly winning states like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Minnesota based on race.

He's making progress with the Hispanic vote, and has consistently shown that he will get the Independent vote. That is the real key. He is generating interest not just from Democrats but from Republicans and Independents as well. He has the ability to change the political climate just like Reagan did, by building a coalition and moving the country towards his positions.

Republicans will say he has no ability to build a coalition, will brand him as the nations "most liberal senator" just like they did Kerry. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ator-last-year/

And he will rise above brandings, just like he has risen above the race issue even though people like Bill Clinton have tried to apply that to him. He's risen above the naive label. The inexperienced label.He's becoming the figurehead for a movement, not just a political campaign about one person like we're used to seeing. It's bigger than him.

When Obama talks about change, I guess I'm not understanding what he's referring to when his political records shows that he's going to vote down the party line. So, when he says "we need change", isn't he saying that we need Democratic philosophies guiding the country ?

Partly. He's also talking though about limiting the influence of lobbyists and changing the tone of political debate by building a coalition that includes the majority of Independents and some Republicans.

I can see him being able to build a coalition amongst Democrats and Independents, but I think it would be an extremely unlikely sell to have Republicans, who don't agree with his political philosophies, to get on board.

There is a spectrum when it comes to republicans. Those uber conservative ones, you're probably right, but the ones who lean more towards the center, who are rather upset with how the republicans have been doing these past 8 years, are more likely to give him a look. That's what we're seeing.

 

[adonis]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

Oh please. He's been out campaigning for others. Hillary was widely known to have been the presidential frontrunner longer than obama has been on the scene. Obama wasn't even considered to be likely to run this election cycle, as many said he should wait till he had more experience. To put him and hillary on any sort of playing field together with respect to how long each has been running is an exercise in blindness.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I'd say it would be more of sham and a mockery... perhaps a traveshamockery

So what would the DNC gauge Michigan's views on other than the primary vote? Hillary wins the primary vote but they should send all the delegates to Obama? The delegates will go to whomever the AFL-CIO and UAW want them to go to.

Their delegates don't count towards the outcome. Both Obama and Clinton have said that if they have the outright win without them that the Michigan delegates will be seated, but it was the DNC that said they wouldn't count to begin with.

 

[snitwitch]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

Oh please. He's been out campaigning for others. Hillary was widely known to have been the presidential frontrunner longer than obama has been on the scene. Obama wasn't even considered to be likely to run this election cycle, as many said he should wait till he had more experience. To put him and hillary on any sort of playing field together with respect to how long each has been running is an exercise in blindness.

He has in some sense been running since 2004. That was the time he leapt onto the national stage. But I don't think his decision to actually run for president in 2008 was made back then, I think it was made more recently. There was likely some talk of him putting it off until 2012 or 2016.

 

[adonis]

Yes, he's certainly winning states like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Minnesota based on race.

He's making progress with the Hispanic vote, and has consistently shown that he will get the Independent vote. That is the real key. He is generating interest not just from Democrats but from Republicans and Independents as well. He has the ability to change the political climate just like Reagan did, by building a coalition and moving the country towards his positions.

Republicans will say he has no ability to build a coalition, will brand him as the nations "most liberal senator" just like they did Kerry. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ator-last-year/

And yet, Republicans and Independents will still vote for him. A friend and I were having a conversation this weekend about the Republican strategy of labeling everything just half a degree to the left of you as "liberal." The problem is they have diluted their own attack; and when "conservative" has lead us into massive deficits, unpopular wars, and teetering on the brink of recession, all of a sudden the alternative doesn't look so bad.

Republicans and independents vote for him when looking at a democratic primary ballot and the choice is Hillary or Obama. Let's see how they vote when the choice is McCain vs Obama. In the general election his voting record and his experience would become huge issues.

Vote for someone who has said we may be in iraq for 100 years, vs someone who said we shouldn't have gone into iraq in the first place and will take the first chance to get us out? Yeah, I'd love to see this debate.Plenty of republicans are dissatisfied with the war in Iraq and feel that we need to change course and get out, responsible. They'd be on board with obama's "We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless going in." That will resonate and provide stark contrast to McCain.

 

[adonis]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

Oh please. He's been out campaigning for others. Hillary was widely known to have been the presidential frontrunner longer than obama has been on the scene. Obama wasn't even considered to be likely to run this election cycle, as many said he should wait till he had more experience. To put him and hillary on any sort of playing field together with respect to how long each has been running is an exercise in blindness.

He has in some sense been running since 2004. That was the time he leapt onto the national stage. But I don't think his decision to actually run for president in 2008 was made back then, I think it was made more recently. There was likely some talk of him putting it off until 2012 or 2016.

I guess my point is that he was only beginning to establish connections that could benefit him later on. Sure, he's been doing that over the past few years, but Clinton already had established ties from back in the early 90's. To compare the two in terms of background leading up to this election is just silly.

 

[SofaKings]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

Oh please. He's been out campaigning for others. Hillary was widely known to have been the presidential frontrunner longer than obama has been on the scene. Obama wasn't even considered to be likely to run this election cycle, as many said he should wait till he had more experience. To put him and hillary on any sort of playing field together with respect to how long each has been running is an exercise in blindness.

I'm not putting him on the same playing field as Hillary. The OP said that he's only been running for one year. I remember the day after he spoke at the convention somebody started a thread here about him running for prez.

 

[adonis]

On a side note, I think we begin to have the very real possiblity of hearing endorsements from either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, or both.

Neither wanted to back a losing horse, but now that some of the dust is settling and more chips are on the table, I have a feeling that we'll hear from at least one of them in the next week or two on who they'll endorse, and I hope it's Bill Richardson endorsing Obama. :fingerscrossed:

 

[ttiger72]

Quick question since I have no idea where to find this. In Obama's speech last night he said that he has taken 0 money from Lobbyists, is this true?

 

[snitwitch]

On a side note, I think we begin to have the very real possiblity of hearing endorsements from either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, or both.Neither wanted to back a losing horse, but now that some of the dust is settling and more chips are on the table, I have a feeling that we'll hear from at least one of them in the next week or two on who they'll endorse, and I hope it's Bill Richardson endorsing Obama. :fingerscrossed:

Al Gore is another big endorsement that hasn't happened yet. My bet is he goes for Obama.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Quick question since I have no idea where to find this. In Obama's speech last night he said that he has taken 0 money from Lobbyists, is this true?

According to this:http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

It's a pretty low # (about 10% of Hillary's total)

 

[SofaKings]

On a side note, I think we begin to have the very real possiblity of hearing endorsements from either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, or both.Neither wanted to back a losing horse, but now that some of the dust is settling and more chips are on the table, I have a feeling that we'll hear from at least one of them in the next week or two on who they'll endorse, and I hope it's Bill Richardson endorsing Obama. :fingerscrossed:

I have a gut feeling that neither will want to endorse Hillary and one or both may stay "neutral" until after the convention.

 

[ttiger72]

Quick question since I have no idea where to find this. In Obama's speech last night he said that he has taken 0 money from Lobbyists, is this true?

According to this:http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

It's a pretty low # (about 10% of Hillary's total)

Thanks for the link, appreciate it.

 

[adonis]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

Oh please. He's been out campaigning for others. Hillary was widely known to have been the presidential frontrunner longer than obama has been on the scene. Obama wasn't even considered to be likely to run this election cycle, as many said he should wait till he had more experience. To put him and hillary on any sort of playing field together with respect to how long each has been running is an exercise in blindness.

I'm not putting him on the same playing field as Hillary. The OP said that he's only been running for one year. I remember the day after he spoke at the convention somebody started a thread here about him running for prez.

The point of the original post was that hillary has been positioning herself for this for over a decade. Obama just burst onto the scene in 2004, and I imagine he was building contacts and connections over the past few years, but again, the point of the OP was to compare how long Hillary has been positioning herself for this to how long Obama has been positioning himself for this. Even if it was just 3 years vs 15, that's still pretty significant.My point in the OP was also that the main reason Clinton even became the senator from New York was for this reason. She moved to a place she wasn't a resident to shore up the delegates she won last night. She stayed with bill through all of his problems to use his machine and connections. She's been running for this for over a decade, imo, and her nearly breaking even with Obama is a huge success for him.

I don't really want to argue over exactly how long someone has been running or not, or having to define what "running" really means, but it's clear that by whatever realistic standards one uses, Hillary was dealt a pretty big blow last night by someone much more new on the scene than herself.

 

[ericttspikes]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

Oh please. He's been out campaigning for others. Hillary was widely known to have been the presidential frontrunner longer than obama has been on the scene. Obama wasn't even considered to be likely to run this election cycle, as many said he should wait till he had more experience. To put him and hillary on any sort of playing field together with respect to how long each has been running is an exercise in blindness.

I'm not putting him on the same playing field as Hillary. The OP said that he's only been running for one year. I remember the day after he spoke at the convention somebody started a thread here about him running for prez.

He started running because some shlub on FBG started a thread about it? That makes perfect sense.

 

[adonis]

On a side note, I think we begin to have the very real possiblity of hearing endorsements from either John Edwards or Bill Richardson, or both.Neither wanted to back a losing horse, but now that some of the dust is settling and more chips are on the table, I have a feeling that we'll hear from at least one of them in the next week or two on who they'll endorse, and I hope it's Bill Richardson endorsing Obama. :fingerscrossed:

I have a gut feeling that neither will want to endorse Hillary and one or both may stay "neutral" until after the convention.

I think they're waiting for a point where it'll be safe, and beneficial, to endorse Obama. They need to be sure he won't implode, that he has a great shot at winning, and I think they'll do it.But yeah, Gore is a major player here too and I can't imagine him supporting Clinton after their years together in the white house. From what I heard, it wasn't too pretty. But who knows. Maybe he'd get a high level position in the clinton whitehouse. I just don't think the country will allow a clinton white house again, so they should back the horse that has a shot...obama.

 

[Death Bytes]

I'm surprised all these Obama supporters refuse to vote Hillary. Is that even if he is VP? How big of a supporter are you if you wouldn't support him for VP?

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Obama was her VP. I don't like her, I don't think she'll take the country in a new direction, I think she'll just perpetuate the division that existed during the bush and clinton years, and usher in more of the same in washington. Why would I vote for someone who while being a very capable person, would not change the political climate in washington one iota?

How is Obama going to change the political climate? His Senate record is about as party line as they come.

First, admit that Hillary won't change the political climate. Her style of politics is embedded in the politics of the past few administrations. Slash and burn, do whatever it takes politics where the other side is demonized and you forcefully push on with your goals. She'll bring Bill back to the white house, which will be a point of contention for republicans who will be just waiting for him to slip up. All of the clinton's baggage will be the stuff of talk shows again, newspaper articles, and animosity that has remained largeley dormant for a decade will seep back out into the public again.Obama offers a fresh new face. He offers the ability to bring people from all walks of life together, and inspire them to a greater cause. This isn't just mushy, pie in the sky crap, it has real ramifications. He brings in more independents and republicans than Hillary ever could. He brings over reasonable minded people and doesn't demonize the other side. He's basically galvanized a new form of politics, where cordiality reigns supreme. The past debate was played on HIS home ground, not clintons, as if it were her home turf, many more allegations and swipes would've been delivered, just like her Rezko comments in the previous debate.

Obama has shown on the campaign trail that he can elevate the dialogue. He's a black man but his campaign isn't about race, it's about a movement. He gets a lot of the black vote but he doesn't focus on that. He gets a lot of the youth vote but doesn't focus on that. He focuses on the idea that he's leading a movement, a fresh movement, a movement that is bringing in people from all walks of life, and he's got the charm to pull it off.

When he gets into office, he will bring his excellent judgement abilities, as shown by his opposition to the war from the start IN ADDITION TO his ability to select excellent people for positions, as evidenced by how amazingly run his campaign has been. Imagine, this is a guy that put together a campaign organization that is competing with Hillary clinton's..the most entrenched political family outside of the kennedy's. I mean, this shows excellent judgement and ability to choose capable people to surround himself with. He has shown ability to bridge gaps between people on issues, and he doesn't enter the white house on day one with a decades worth of animosity in his overnight bag.

So the difference between how they would be as presidents is huge to me. Fresh start, Obama, more of the same, Clinton.

Awesome post.I think you nailed how I feel about the "experience" thing. It's all about judgement, and ability to surround oneself with talented people. His campaign has proven this. I like his Mitt Romney dig the other night when someone believed the country needed a "CEO President" like Romeny, and Obama offered he didn't think Romney has gotten a good return on his investment and that he'd gladly compare his campaign to his. Obama has built this campaign from the ground up in about a year and has more cash than Billary and is in a dead heat with them. That in itself speaks volumes about his ability and in my mind that trumps longevity in Washington argument. The dude has skillz.

The dude has people skills. I know his political ideology is even farther left than Hillary (as his voting record is evidence of that), but his people skills massively trump Hillary's. This country is so divided today that the last thing we need is someone in the White House who would cause even more division. It isn't political ideology that will fix the division. It's people skills. We need a president that can show us that when we respectfully disagree we can still accomplish positive results overall, because we've pretty much proven that when we disrespectfully disagree we accomplish nothing. His political ideology isn't why I will vote for him. It's his people skills. And he will be the first democrat I will have ever voted for. No one that the republicans nominate is going to make me change that plan. The only thing that can change that is if Hillary gets the dem nomination.

 

[Sammy3469]

rumors going around that Hillary is self-funding now.

 

[snitwitch]

rumors going around that Hillary is self-funding now.

Crazy. 3:1 advantage in Jan for Obama. I wonder if Feb will be more of the same? I think this gives him a huge advantage in the upcoming contests, many of which already favor him.

 

[SofaKings]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

Oh please. He's been out campaigning for others. Hillary was widely known to have been the presidential frontrunner longer than obama has been on the scene. Obama wasn't even considered to be likely to run this election cycle, as many said he should wait till he had more experience. To put him and hillary on any sort of playing field together with respect to how long each has been running is an exercise in blindness.

I'm not putting him on the same playing field as Hillary. The OP said that he's only been running for one year. I remember the day after he spoke at the convention somebody started a thread here about him running for prez.

He started running because some shlub on FBG started a thread about it? That makes perfect sense.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. You have as much common sense as your user name.

 

[Sammy3469]

rumors going around that Hillary is self-funding now.

Crazy. 3:1 advantage in Jan for Obama. I wonder if Feb will be more of the same? I think this gives him a huge advantage in the upcoming contests, many of which already favor him.

it fits with her wanting god knows how many debates.

 

[SofaKings]

Penn. should be interesting as well.

 

[flufhed]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

Yes. At least that's what I call it when an election is handed to one person without giving anyone else a chance. Seems fairly un-democratic.

 

[flufhed]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I'd say it would be more of sham and a mockery... perhaps a traveshamockery

So what would the DNC gauge Michigan's views on other than the primary vote? Hillary wins the primary vote but they should send all the delegates to Obama? The delegates will go to whomever the AFL-CIO and UAW want them to go to.

Link to where Hillary "won" anything (unless you believe Castro "wins" his elections in Cuba while running unopposed), and link to anyone saying delegates from MI should be awarded to Obama?

 

[adonis]

From Obama's website:

By winning a majority of delegates and a majority of the states, Barack Obama won an important Super Tuesday victory over Senator Clinton in the closest thing we have to a national primary. From Colorado and Utah in the west to Georgia and Alabama in the south to Senator Clinton’s backyard in Connecticut, Obama showed that he can win the support of Americans of every race, gender, and political party in every region of the country. That’s why he’s on track to win Democratic nomination, and that’s why he’s the best candidate to defeat John McCain in November.

 

[flufhed]

From Obama's website:

By winning a majority of delegates and a majority of the states, Barack Obama won an important Super Tuesday victory over Senator Clinton in the closest thing we have to a national primary. From Colorado and Utah in the west to Georgia and Alabama in the south to Senator Clinton’s backyard in Connecticut, Obama showed that he can win the support of Americans of every race, gender, and political party in every region of the country. That’s why he’s on track to win Democratic nomination, and that’s why he’s the best candidate to defeat John McCain in November.

 

[SofaKings]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I'd say it would be more of sham and a mockery... perhaps a traveshamockery

So what would the DNC gauge Michigan's views on other than the primary vote? Hillary wins the primary vote but they should send all the delegates to Obama? The delegates will go to whomever the AFL-CIO and UAW want them to go to.

Link to where Hillary "won" anything (unless you believe Castro "wins" his elections in Cuba while running unopposed), and link to anyone saying delegates from MI should be awarded to Obama?

Hillary's name was on the ballot(among others). She received the most votes. Why would you disenfranchise those voters who cast ballots for her?

 

[Bonzai]

 

[flufhed]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I'd say it would be more of sham and a mockery... perhaps a traveshamockery

So what would the DNC gauge Michigan's views on other than the primary vote? Hillary wins the primary vote but they should send all the delegates to Obama? The delegates will go to whomever the AFL-CIO and UAW want them to go to.

Link to where Hillary "won" anything (unless you believe Castro "wins" his elections in Cuba while running unopposed), and link to anyone saying delegates from MI should be awarded to Obama?

Hillary's name was on the ballot(among others). She received the most votes. Why would you disenfranchise those voters who cast ballots for her?

Because she agreed beforehand that it wouldn't count, as did the other candidates, who in good faith and according to the agreement removed their names . . .Nevermind. Spin it however you want. I'm sure we will hear all of these arguments from camp Hillary shortly, anyway.

 

[jonessed]

I'm surprised all these Obama supporters refuse to vote Hillary. Is that even if he is VP? How big of a supporter are you if you wouldn't support him for VP?

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Obama was her VP. I don't like her, I don't think she'll take the country in a new direction, I think she'll just perpetuate the division that existed during the bush and clinton years, and usher in more of the same in washington. Why would I vote for someone who while being a very capable person, would not change the political climate in washington one iota?

How is Obama going to change the political climate? His Senate record is about as party line as they come.

First, admit that Hillary won't change the political climate. Her style of politics is embedded in the politics of the past few administrations. Slash and burn, do whatever it takes politics where the other side is demonized and you forcefully push on with your goals. She'll bring Bill back to the white house, which will be a point of contention for republicans who will be just waiting for him to slip up. All of the clinton's baggage will be the stuff of talk shows again, newspaper articles, and animosity that has remained largeley dormant for a decade will seep back out into the public again.Obama offers a fresh new face. He offers the ability to bring people from all walks of life together, and inspire them to a greater cause. This isn't just mushy, pie in the sky crap, it has real ramifications. He brings in more independents and republicans than Hillary ever could. He brings over reasonable minded people and doesn't demonize the other side. He's basically galvanized a new form of politics, where cordiality reigns supreme. The past debate was played on HIS home ground, not clintons, as if it were her home turf, many more allegations and swipes would've been delivered, just like her Rezko comments in the previous debate.

Obama has shown on the campaign trail that he can elevate the dialogue. He's a black man but his campaign isn't about race, it's about a movement. He gets a lot of the black vote but he doesn't focus on that. He gets a lot of the youth vote but doesn't focus on that. He focuses on the idea that he's leading a movement, a fresh movement, a movement that is bringing in people from all walks of life, and he's got the charm to pull it off.

When he gets into office, he will bring his excellent judgement abilities, as shown by his opposition to the war from the start IN ADDITION TO his ability to select excellent people for positions, as evidenced by how amazingly run his campaign has been. Imagine, this is a guy that put together a campaign organization that is competing with Hillary clinton's..the most entrenched political family outside of the kennedy's. I mean, this shows excellent judgement and ability to choose capable people to surround himself with. He has shown ability to bridge gaps between people on issues, and he doesn't enter the white house on day one with a decades worth of animosity in his overnight bag.

So the difference between how they would be as presidents is huge to me. Fresh start, Obama, more of the same, Clinton.

If he was energizing all walks of life he would be winning. He isn't getting female voters, hispanic voters, or AARP voters. A lot of his big ones are based solely on race and his voting record is more polarizing than Hillary's. I understand you have drunk the kool-aid, but that's all it is. You like him because he has charisma, which is understandable. The rest is rhetoric.

How silly to dismiss what I say as rhetoric. Hispanic voters don't even really know who he is, and honestly, they don't know much about HIllary either. She's getting their votes almost entirely because of name recognition, and because she's associated, for whatever distorted and messed up reasons, with the prosperity that was around when her husband was president.

And regarding women, AARP members, and anyone else who are typical democratic voters, if Obama was the candidate, HE would be getting their votes too. Can Hillary say the same thing for the youth, for the indpendents and the republicans? She certainly cannot.

So yes, Obama is mobilizing and enthusing a segment of the population which typically doesn't vote democratic, or vote at all. And he has shown good judgement, not only on the Iraq war issue, which Clinton still refuses to admit was a mistake or to apologize for, but also on the Iran vote, and has most recently shown his ability to lead by putting together an amazing campaign and changing the tone of the entire election, i'd even argue, on both sides.

So I'm sorry to that you see it as rhetoric, but when it's all said and done, Obama can bring out more people to vote democrat than Hillary can, and he can change the tone of the country just like he can change the tone of an election.

Think about who has endorsed him. He's bringing the fringe left side of the party, like Moveon.org, Teddy kennedy, to the SAME PERSON that independents and republicans are voting for. That's pretty amazing, if you ask me. Who would've thought that the moveon people would ever vote for the same person that repubs and independents are voting for?

This is all complete BS . Seriously. Let's see some evidence that all of the Hispanic voters are just somehow in the dark

I've read multiple articles that refer to Obama as the "como se llama" candidate, as in they don't know his name. On NPR this morning, interviews with hispanics after voting said that they remembered Bill and associate those years with Hillary, they know her name whereas they don't know Obama's. I'd look up references for you, but I doubt it'd matter. If you really care, just do some searching yourself.

The most liberal elements of the party putting their force behind the most liberal candidate isn't amazing.

That's not what I said. What's amazing is that the liberal candidate is attracting NOT ONLY the most liberal elements of his own party, but also independent and republicans as well. THAT is what is amazing. That is how Obama is able to unify, not only the split democratic party, but also will go a long way towards getting over the polarization that has pervaded our country for over a decade.

No, they said they felt Hillary represented them the best. At least the ones I heard. I don't know why you are trying to discount them.

 

[jonessed]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I'd say it would be more of sham and a mockery... perhaps a traveshamockery

So what would the DNC gauge Michigan's views on other than the primary vote? Hillary wins the primary vote but they should send all the delegates to Obama? The delegates will go to whomever the AFL-CIO and UAW want them to go to.

Link to where Hillary "won" anything (unless you believe Castro "wins" his elections in Cuba while running unopposed), and link to anyone saying delegates from MI should be awarded to Obama?

Hillary's name was on the ballot(among others). She received the most votes. Why would you disenfranchise those voters who cast ballots for her?

Because she agreed beforehand that it wouldn't count, as did the other candidates, who in good faith and according to the agreement removed their names . . .Nevermind. Spin it however you want. I'm sure we will hear all of these arguments from camp Hillary shortly, anyway.

Hillary never agreed that Florida wouldn't count.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I'd say it would be more of sham and a mockery... perhaps a traveshamockery

So what would the DNC gauge Michigan's views on other than the primary vote? Hillary wins the primary vote but they should send all the delegates to Obama? The delegates will go to whomever the AFL-CIO and UAW want them to go to.

Link to where Hillary "won" anything (unless you believe Castro "wins" his elections in Cuba while running unopposed), and link to anyone saying delegates from MI should be awarded to Obama?

Hillary's name was on the ballot(among others). She received the most votes. Why would you disenfranchise those voters who cast ballots for her?

Because she agreed beforehand that it wouldn't count, as did the other candidates, who in good faith and according to the agreement removed their names . . .Nevermind. Spin it however you want. I'm sure we will hear all of these arguments from camp Hillary shortly, anyway.

Hillary never agreed that Florida wouldn't count.

Then why didn't she campaign there?

 

[jonessed]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I'd say it would be more of sham and a mockery... perhaps a traveshamockery

So what would the DNC gauge Michigan's views on other than the primary vote? Hillary wins the primary vote but they should send all the delegates to Obama? The delegates will go to whomever the AFL-CIO and UAW want them to go to.

Link to where Hillary "won" anything (unless you believe Castro "wins" his elections in Cuba while running unopposed), and link to anyone saying delegates from MI should be awarded to Obama?

Hillary's name was on the ballot(among others). She received the most votes. Why would you disenfranchise those voters who cast ballots for her?

Because she agreed beforehand that it wouldn't count, as did the other candidates, who in good faith and according to the agreement removed their names . . .Nevermind. Spin it however you want. I'm sure we will hear all of these arguments from camp Hillary shortly, anyway.

Hillary never agreed that Florida wouldn't count.

Then why didn't she campaign there?

Because they weren't allowed to.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Yes, he's certainly winning states like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Minnesota based on race.

He's making progress with the Hispanic vote, and has consistently shown that he will get the Independent vote. That is the real key. He is generating interest not just from Democrats but from Republicans and Independents as well. He has the ability to change the political climate just like Reagan did, by building a coalition and moving the country towards his positions.

Republicans will say he has no ability to build a coalition, will brand him as the nations "most liberal senator" just like they did Kerry. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ator-last-year/

And he will rise above brandings, just like he has risen above the race issue even though people like Bill Clinton have tried to apply that to him. He's risen above the naive label. The inexperienced label.He's becoming the figurehead for a movement, not just a political campaign about one person like we're used to seeing. It's bigger than him.

When Obama talks about change, I guess I'm not understanding what he's referring to when his political records shows that he's going to vote down the party line. So, when he says "we need change", isn't he saying that we need Democratic philosophies guiding the country ?

Correct!

Well of course he thinks "that we need Democratic philosophies guiding the country"...he's a Democrat!

 

[Homer J Simpson]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I'd say it would be more of sham and a mockery... perhaps a traveshamockery

So what would the DNC gauge Michigan's views on other than the primary vote? Hillary wins the primary vote but they should send all the delegates to Obama? The delegates will go to whomever the AFL-CIO and UAW want them to go to.

Link to where Hillary "won" anything (unless you believe Castro "wins" his elections in Cuba while running unopposed), and link to anyone saying delegates from MI should be awarded to Obama?

Hillary's name was on the ballot(among others). She received the most votes. Why would you disenfranchise those voters who cast ballots for her?

Because she agreed beforehand that it wouldn't count, as did the other candidates, who in good faith and according to the agreement removed their names . . .Nevermind. Spin it however you want. I'm sure we will hear all of these arguments from camp Hillary shortly, anyway.

Hillary never agreed that Florida wouldn't count.

Then why didn't she campaign there?

Because they weren't allowed to.

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

 

[adonis]

I'm surprised all these Obama supporters refuse to vote Hillary. Is that even if he is VP? How big of a supporter are you if you wouldn't support him for VP?

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Obama was her VP. I don't like her, I don't think she'll take the country in a new direction, I think she'll just perpetuate the division that existed during the bush and clinton years, and usher in more of the same in washington. Why would I vote for someone who while being a very capable person, would not change the political climate in washington one iota?

How is Obama going to change the political climate? His Senate record is about as party line as they come.

First, admit that Hillary won't change the political climate. Her style of politics is embedded in the politics of the past few administrations. Slash and burn, do whatever it takes politics where the other side is demonized and you forcefully push on with your goals. She'll bring Bill back to the white house, which will be a point of contention for republicans who will be just waiting for him to slip up. All of the clinton's baggage will be the stuff of talk shows again, newspaper articles, and animosity that has remained largeley dormant for a decade will seep back out into the public again.Obama offers a fresh new face. He offers the ability to bring people from all walks of life together, and inspire them to a greater cause. This isn't just mushy, pie in the sky crap, it has real ramifications. He brings in more independents and republicans than Hillary ever could. He brings over reasonable minded people and doesn't demonize the other side. He's basically galvanized a new form of politics, where cordiality reigns supreme. The past debate was played on HIS home ground, not clintons, as if it were her home turf, many more allegations and swipes would've been delivered, just like her Rezko comments in the previous debate.

Obama has shown on the campaign trail that he can elevate the dialogue. He's a black man but his campaign isn't about race, it's about a movement. He gets a lot of the black vote but he doesn't focus on that. He gets a lot of the youth vote but doesn't focus on that. He focuses on the idea that he's leading a movement, a fresh movement, a movement that is bringing in people from all walks of life, and he's got the charm to pull it off.

When he gets into office, he will bring his excellent judgement abilities, as shown by his opposition to the war from the start IN ADDITION TO his ability to select excellent people for positions, as evidenced by how amazingly run his campaign has been. Imagine, this is a guy that put together a campaign organization that is competing with Hillary clinton's..the most entrenched political family outside of the kennedy's. I mean, this shows excellent judgement and ability to choose capable people to surround himself with. He has shown ability to bridge gaps between people on issues, and he doesn't enter the white house on day one with a decades worth of animosity in his overnight bag.

So the difference between how they would be as presidents is huge to me. Fresh start, Obama, more of the same, Clinton.

If he was energizing all walks of life he would be winning. He isn't getting female voters, hispanic voters, or AARP voters. A lot of his big ones are based solely on race and his voting record is more polarizing than Hillary's. I understand you have drunk the kool-aid, but that's all it is. You like him because he has charisma, which is understandable. The rest is rhetoric.

How silly to dismiss what I say as rhetoric. Hispanic voters don't even really know who he is, and honestly, they don't know much about HIllary either. She's getting their votes almost entirely because of name recognition, and because she's associated, for whatever distorted and messed up reasons, with the prosperity that was around when her husband was president.

And regarding women, AARP members, and anyone else who are typical democratic voters, if Obama was the candidate, HE would be getting their votes too. Can Hillary say the same thing for the youth, for the indpendents and the republicans? She certainly cannot.

So yes, Obama is mobilizing and enthusing a segment of the population which typically doesn't vote democratic, or vote at all. And he has shown good judgement, not only on the Iraq war issue, which Clinton still refuses to admit was a mistake or to apologize for, but also on the Iran vote, and has most recently shown his ability to lead by putting together an amazing campaign and changing the tone of the entire election, i'd even argue, on both sides.

So I'm sorry to that you see it as rhetoric, but when it's all said and done, Obama can bring out more people to vote democrat than Hillary can, and he can change the tone of the country just like he can change the tone of an election.

Think about who has endorsed him. He's bringing the fringe left side of the party, like Moveon.org, Teddy kennedy, to the SAME PERSON that independents and republicans are voting for. That's pretty amazing, if you ask me. Who would've thought that the moveon people would ever vote for the same person that repubs and independents are voting for?

This is all complete BS . Seriously. Let's see some evidence that all of the Hispanic voters are just somehow in the dark

I've read multiple articles that refer to Obama as the "como se llama" candidate, as in they don't know his name. On NPR this morning, interviews with hispanics after voting said that they remembered Bill and associate those years with Hillary, they know her name whereas they don't know Obama's. I'd look up references for you, but I doubt it'd matter. If you really care, just do some searching yourself.

The most liberal elements of the party putting their force behind the most liberal candidate isn't amazing.

That's not what I said. What's amazing is that the liberal candidate is attracting NOT ONLY the most liberal elements of his own party, but also independent and republicans as well. THAT is what is amazing. That is how Obama is able to unify, not only the split democratic party, but also will go a long way towards getting over the polarization that has pervaded our country for over a decade.

No, they said they felt Hillary represented them the best. At least the ones I heard. I don't know why you are trying to discount them.

I'm not discounting them, I'm saying that they voted for who they knew, and that was hillary. I'm saying that Obama was not so much rejected by the latino vote as he was relatively unknown by them.So far from discounting them, I'm saying that in the future, as Obama is able to spread his message around more, more latino's will hear him and give him a chance and he'll gain in support.

 

[ericttspikes]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

Oh please. He's been out campaigning for others. Hillary was widely known to have been the presidential frontrunner longer than obama has been on the scene. Obama wasn't even considered to be likely to run this election cycle, as many said he should wait till he had more experience. To put him and hillary on any sort of playing field together with respect to how long each has been running is an exercise in blindness.

I'm not putting him on the same playing field as Hillary. The OP said that he's only been running for one year. I remember the day after he spoke at the convention somebody started a thread here about him running for prez.

He started running because some shlub on FBG started a thread about it? That makes perfect sense.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. You have as much common sense as your user name.

o.k. there goofball.

 

[adonis]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I agree that they shouldn't count, and it'd be horrible if they did, but I fear that the dems won't want to be remembered for "disenfranchising" the entire state of florida, especially after the 2000 vote.I don't know what will happen, but it's certainly a dicey issue.