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

[BigSteelThrill]

Considering Bush was up against Gore and Kerry? I think America made the correct choice.

Look around. We couldn't have made a worse choice.

Oh I see, you're a hindsight genius. Now I get it.

Not hindsight. It was foresight for some. It was, however, hindsight for others. And some were, and are still, blind.But none of that matters. It still remains that the choice couldnt have been worse.

But see, you have no way to prove that. So why bark up that tree? This does not help our cause as Americans, it only continues to divide us. Saying I told you so sounds the same at 5 as it does at 25 and 35...

19% approval ratings. Struggling economy. Horrendous debt. Massive fall off of the middle class. Terrible drop off of the american dollar world wide. Home market. Hits to personal freedoms. Sold out American interest to china and saudia arabia. Many childs left behind/education issues. Basic goods (energy sources) increasing. Poverty level increasing.Good choice. Sorry I cant prove any of it. Carry on.

 

[snitwitch]

Considering Bush was up against Gore and Kerry? I think America made the correct choice.

Look around. We couldn't have made a worse choice.

Oh I see, you're a hindsight genius. Now I get it.

Not hindsight. It was foresight for some. It was, however, hindsight for others. And some were, and are still, blind.But none of that matters. It still remains that the choice couldnt have been worse.

But see, you have no way to prove that. So why bark up that tree? This does not help our cause as Americans, it only continues to divide us. Saying I told you so sounds the same at 5 as it does at 25 and 35...

19% approval ratings. Struggling economy. Horrendous debt. Massive fall off of the middle class. Terrible drop off of the american dollar world wide. Home market. Hits to personal freedoms. Sold out American interest to china and saudia arabia. Many childs left behind/education issues. Basic goods (energy sources) increasing. Poverty level increasing.Good choice. Sorry I cant prove any of it. Carry on.

You forgot Poland.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Teamsters to endorse Obama.

Obama was already winning among whites, blacks, men, women, and the young. Now he's nailed down the mafia vote. All the pieces are falling into place.

The mafia doesn't even exist.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Considering Bush was up against Gore and Kerry? I think America made the correct choice.

Look around. We couldn't have made a worse choice.

Oh I see, you're a hindsight genius. Now I get it.

Not hindsight. It was foresight for some. It was, however, hindsight for others. And some were, and are still, blind.But none of that matters. It still remains that the choice couldnt have been worse.

But see, you have no way to prove that. So why bark up that tree? This does not help our cause as Americans, it only continues to divide us. Saying I told you so sounds the same at 5 as it does at 25 and 35...

19% approval ratings. Struggling economy. Horrendous debt. Massive fall off of the middle class. Terrible drop off of the american dollar world wide. Home market. Hits to personal freedoms. Sold out American interest to china and saudia arabia. Many childs left behind/education issues. Basic goods (energy sources) increasing. Poverty level increasing.Good choice. Sorry I cant prove any of it. Carry on.

And how can you prove that Kerry or God forbid Gore would have left the country in better shape?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You forgot Poland.

Damn it, I knew I forgot something! It wasnt AQ or Iraq or Pakistan... it was Poland.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And how can you prove that Kerry or God forbid Gore would have left the country in better shape?

Common sense. But thats the conundrum.

 

[snitwitch]

Considering Bush was up against Gore and Kerry? I think America made the correct choice.

Look around. We couldn't have made a worse choice.

Oh I see, you're a hindsight genius. Now I get it.

Not hindsight. It was foresight for some. It was, however, hindsight for others. And some were, and are still, blind.But none of that matters. It still remains that the choice couldnt have been worse.

But see, you have no way to prove that. So why bark up that tree? This does not help our cause as Americans, it only continues to divide us. Saying I told you so sounds the same at 5 as it does at 25 and 35...

19% approval ratings. Struggling economy. Horrendous debt. Massive fall off of the middle class. Terrible drop off of the american dollar world wide. Home market. Hits to personal freedoms. Sold out American interest to china and saudia arabia. Many childs left behind/education issues. Basic goods (energy sources) increasing. Poverty level increasing.Good choice. Sorry I cant prove any of it. Carry on.

And how can you prove that Kerry or God forbid Gore would have left the country in better shape?

It stands to reason that an inanimate carbon rod, surrounded by competent cabinet members, could have done better.

 

[Marc Levin]

Considering Bush was up against Gore and Kerry? I think America made the correct choice.

Look around. We couldn't have made a worse choice.

Oh I see, you're a hindsight genius. Now I get it.

Not hindsight. It was foresight for some. It was, however, hindsight for others. And some were, and are still, blind.But none of that matters. It still remains that the choice couldnt have been worse.

But see, you have no way to prove that. So why bark up that tree? This does not help our cause as Americans, it only continues to divide us. Saying I told you so sounds the same at 5 as it does at 25 and 35...

19% approval ratings. Struggling economy. Horrendous debt. Massive fall off of the middle class. Terrible drop off of the american dollar world wide. Home market. Hits to personal freedoms. Sold out American interest to china and saudia arabia. Many childs left behind/education issues. Basic goods (energy sources) increasing. Poverty level increasing.Good choice. Sorry I cant prove any of it. Carry on.

And how can you prove that Kerry or God forbid Gore would have left the country in better shape?

It stands to reason that an inanimate carbon rod, surrounded by competent cabinet members, could have done better.

Don't be silly - an nianimate carbon rod can't run the country.It can take guest of honor at a parade, though, over

 

[phthalatemagic]

Considering Bush was up against Gore and Kerry? I think America made the correct choice.

Look around. We couldn't have made a worse choice.

Oh I see, you're a hindsight genius. Now I get it.

Not hindsight. It was foresight for some. It was, however, hindsight for others. And some were, and are still, blind.

But none of that matters. It still remains that the choice couldnt have been worse.

But see, you have no way to prove that. So why bark up that tree? This does not help our cause as Americans, it only continues to divide us. Saying I told you so sounds the same at 5 as it does at 25 and 35...

19% approval ratings. Struggling economy. Horrendous debt. Massive fall off of the middle class. Terrible drop off of the american dollar world wide. Home market. Hits to personal freedoms. Sold out American interest to china and saudia arabia. Many childs left behind/education issues. Basic goods (energy sources) increasing. Poverty level increasing.

Good choice. Sorry I cant prove any of it. Carry on.

You can say that again

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Considering Bush was up against Gore and Kerry? I think America made the correct choice.

Look around. We couldn't have made a worse choice.

Oh I see, you're a hindsight genius. Now I get it.

Not hindsight. It was foresight for some. It was, however, hindsight for others. And some were, and are still, blind.But none of that matters. It still remains that the choice couldnt have been worse.

But see, you have no way to prove that. So why bark up that tree? This does not help our cause as Americans, it only continues to divide us. Saying I told you so sounds the same at 5 as it does at 25 and 35...

19% approval ratings. Struggling economy. Horrendous debt. Massive fall off of the middle class. Terrible drop off of the american dollar world wide. Home market. Hits to personal freedoms. Sold out American interest to china and saudia arabia. Many childs left behind/education issues. Basic goods (energy sources) increasing. Poverty level increasing.Good choice. Sorry I cant prove any of it. Carry on.

And how can you prove that Kerry or God forbid Gore would have left the country in better shape?

It stands to reason that an inanimate carbon rod, surrounded by competent cabinet members, could have done better.

Don't be silly - an nianimate carbon rod can't run the country.It can take guest of honor at a parade, though, over

Well, I was Worker of the Week you know.

 

[dugout]

Considering Bush was up against Gore and Kerry? I think America made the correct choice.

Look around. We couldn't have made a worse choice.

Oh I see, you're a hindsight genius. Now I get it.

Not hindsight. It was foresight for some. It was, however, hindsight for others. And some were, and are still, blind.But none of that matters. It still remains that the choice couldnt have been worse.

But see, you have no way to prove that. So why bark up that tree? This does not help our cause as Americans, it only continues to divide us. Saying I told you so sounds the same at 5 as it does at 25 and 35...

19% approval ratings. Struggling economy. Horrendous debt. Massive fall off of the middle class. Terrible drop off of the american dollar world wide. Home market. Hits to personal freedoms. Sold out American interest to china and saudia arabia. Many childs left behind/education issues. Basic goods (energy sources) increasing. Poverty level increasing.Good choice. Sorry I cant prove any of it. Carry on.

And how can you prove that Kerry or God forbid Gore would have left the country in better shape?

America would have been worse off as Kerry and/or Gore would have tried to tax America into prosperity.

 

[Marc Levin]

America would have been worse off as Kerry and/or Gore would have tried to tax America into prosperity.

Yeah - Bush's decisions have done a bang-up job. The country's rolling in cash.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

America would have been worse off as Kerry and/or Gore would have tried to tax America into prosperity.

Seem to work well for Reagan in '82. You know the Reagan Miracle that began shortly after raising taxes in the summer of '82 (and throughout the rest of his terms.)Oh, and are we on the president gets credit/blame for the economy (Reagan/Carter) again. I can never keep it straight with the president has no effect on the economy (Clinton's prosperity).

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Considering Bush was up against Gore and Kerry? I think America made the correct choice.

Look around. We couldn't have made a worse choice.

Oh I see, you're a hindsight genius. Now I get it.

Not hindsight. It was foresight for some. It was, however, hindsight for others. And some were, and are still, blind.But none of that matters. It still remains that the choice couldnt have been worse.

But see, you have no way to prove that. So why bark up that tree? This does not help our cause as Americans, it only continues to divide us. Saying I told you so sounds the same at 5 as it does at 25 and 35...

19% approval ratings. Struggling economy. Horrendous debt. Massive fall off of the middle class. Terrible drop off of the american dollar world wide. Home market. Hits to personal freedoms. Sold out American interest to china and saudia arabia. Many childs left behind/education issues. Basic goods (energy sources) increasing. Poverty level increasing.Good choice. Sorry I cant prove any of it. Carry on.

And how can you prove that Kerry or God forbid Gore would have left the country in better shape?

It stands to reason that an inanimate carbon rod, surrounded by competent cabinet members, could have done better.

Don't be silly - an nianimate carbon rod can't run the country.It can take guest of honor at a parade, though, over

Well, I was Worker of the Week you know.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Wow. Chris Matthews just stuck it to some Congressman from Texas who is a big Obama supporter.

Who was it?

Texas state senator Kirk Watson.

Here's his statement following the debacle. Funny. Self-effacing.

I love this guy.

 

[Claydon]

Oops?

 

[Sup_Yo]

Oops?

That gave us no information.

 

[Claydon]

Oops?

It was funny?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

For the record, I like a good Riesling.

 

[bigbottom]

Wow. Chris Matthews just stuck it to some Congressman from Texas who is a big Obama supporter.

Who was it?

Texas state senator Kirk Watson.

Here's his statement following the debacle. Funny. Self-effacing.

I love this guy.

That's hilarious. I have to post it in case people don't follow the link.

What's New

MSNBC and Me

February 20, 2008

So . . . That really happened.

On Tuesday night, after an important and historic victory in the Wisconsin Presidential Primary by Senator Barack Obama, I appeared on the MSNBC post-election program. “Hardball” host Chris Matthews (who is, it turns out, as ferocious as they say), began grilling me on Senator Obama’s legislative record.

And my mind went blank. I expected to be asked about the primary that night, or the big one coming up in Texas on March 4, or just about anything else in the news. When the subject changed so emphatically, I reached for information that millions of my fellow Obama supporters could recite by heart, and I couldn’t summon it.

My most unfortunate gaffe is not, in any way, a comment on Senator Obama, his substantial record, or the great opportunity we all share to elect him President of the United States.

Had I not lost my mind, here are the accomplishments I would have mentioned:

Senator Obama’s fight for universal children’s health care in Illinois.

His success bringing Republicans and Democrats together (a huge selling point for me in general) on bills such as the one in Illinois requiring police interrogations and confessions to be videotaped.

His leadership on ethics reform in Washington (the bill that lobbyists and special interests are complaining about right now has his name on it).

His bill to make the federal budget far more transparent and accessible to Americans via the Internet – we could use that openness in Texas.

And his vital work with Republicans to lock down nuclear weapons around the world.

Of course, it would have helped to remember all of this last night. I encourage anyone who wants to know more (especially Mr. Matthews) to log onto texas.barackobama.com.

In the meantime, let’s not lose focus on what’s important in this election. It’s not my stunning televised defeat in “Stump the Chump.” Thankfully, it has nothing at all to do with me.

What’s important is the direction our country is headed. What’s important are the priorities, methods, and, yes, accomplishments of those seeking the highest office in the country.

Senator Obama has a vision for this nation, and we would be fortunate to fulfill it. He has the commitment to work with everyone from across the political and demographic spectrum to achieve it. And he has the strength to defend us, our security, and our values against all who will challenge them.

But most of all, he has the record to prove that all of this is possible. It’s something no one should forget.

. . . Even though I did.

. . . On national television.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

For the record, I like a good Riesling.

I'm a pinot grigio guy.

 

[cosjobs]

For the record, I like a good Riesling.

I'm a pinot grigio guy.

Riesling >>> Pinot Grig

 

[Homer J Simpson]

For the record, I like a good Riesling.

I'm a pinot grigio guy.

Riesling >>> Pinot Grig

Miller Lite>>>>>>Riesling

 

[The Goat]

The latest speech in a nutshell

That comes pretty close, though he does do a great job of delivering it, and people are buying into this.

Which is really sad that people aren't smart enough to realize that.

What's really sad is the people saying other people aren't smart for supporting Obama are usually the same geniuses that voted for Bush twice.

What's more unfortunate are posts like these (and a few after it) that tend to generalize conservative voters as stupid. There are a LOT of us who are paying attention to what's going on, and are genuinely interested in what Obama is saying. But, [generalization] if you're gonna act like a bunch of know-it-alls who are gonna whine 'I told you so in 00 and 04', and, 'good job voting for Bush, you uneducated morons, we'd be living in Utopia if you had paid heed to our vastly superior intellect and voted Kerry.' [/generalization]...then it's going to descend into a mud-slinging contest.Please stop.

 

[Bonzai]

Wow, just came across the first post in this thread.

Great job, dude.

 

[D_House]

The latest speech in a nutshell

That comes pretty close, though he does do a great job of delivering it, and people are buying into this.

Which is really sad that people aren't smart enough to realize that.

What's really sad is the people saying other people aren't smart for supporting Obama are usually the same geniuses that voted for Bush twice.

What's more unfortunate are posts like these (and a few after it) that tend to generalize conservative voters as stupid. There are a LOT of us who are paying attention to what's going on, and are genuinely interested in what Obama is saying. But, [generalization] if you're gonna act like a bunch of know-it-alls who are gonna whine 'I told you so in 00 and 04', and, 'good job voting for Bush, you uneducated morons, we'd be living in Utopia if you had paid heed to our vastly superior intellect and voted Kerry.' [/generalization]...then it's going to descend into a mud-slinging contest.Please stop.

Look at the post that erictspikes was replying to.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Wow, just came across the first post in this thread.Great job, dude.

Thank you for bringing us back to the real reason for this thread: information, education, and legitimate debate. I'm actually surprised it took 65+ pages for it to turn into a whine fest between supporters of the various candidates/parties. So...What is the early word on March 4th? Anyone Homers out there that can give reports from the bullseye's (Tx and Oh)?

 

[timschochet]

Dr. Evil himself regarding Obama:

Obama's New Vulnerability

By KARL ROVE

February 21, 2008; Page A17

In campaigns, there are sometimes moments when candidates shift ground, causing the race to change dramatically. Tuesday night was one of those moments.

Hammered for the 10th contest in a row, Hillary Clinton toughened her attacks on Barack Obama, saying he was unready to be commander in chief and unable to back his inspiring words with a record of action and leadership.

John McCain also took on Mr. Obama, with the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people."

Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.

Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.

Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.

Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.

Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.

Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama's declaration he won't be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama's laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.

The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. He won't break with trial lawyers, even when they demand the ability to sue telecom companies that make it possible for intelligence agencies to intercept communications between terrorists abroad. And he is now going out of his way to proclaim fidelity to the educational unions. This is a disappointment since he'd earlier indicated an openness to education reform. Mr. Obama backs their agenda down the line, even calling for an end to testing, which is the only way parents can know with confidence whether their children are learning and their schools working.

These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama's credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.

Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left.

In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes -- establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world.

The road to the presidency just got steeper for Barack Obama, and all because he pivoted on Tuesday night.

Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

 

[cosjobs]

Wow, just came across the first post in this thread.Great job, dude.

Thank you for bringing us back to the real reason for this thread: information, education, and legitimate debate. I'm actually surprised it took 65+ pages for it to turn into a whine fest between supporters of the various candidates/parties. So...What is the early word on March 4th? Anyone Homers out there that can give reports from the bullseye's (Tx and Oh)?

I'm in Austin. I think Ob sweeps Houston, Dallas and Austin at this point- probably 60/40, which should carry him the majority of delegates at the very least.

 

[cosjobs]

Dr. Evil himself regarding Obama:Obama's New VulnerabilityBy KARL ROVEFebruary 21, 2008; Page A17In campaigns, there are sometimes moments when candidates shift ground, causing the race to change dramatically. Tuesday night was one of those moments.Hammered for the 10th contest in a row, Hillary Clinton toughened her attacks on Barack Obama, saying he was unready to be commander in chief and unable to back his inspiring words with a record of action and leadership.John McCain also took on Mr. Obama, with the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people."Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama's declaration he won't be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama's laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. He won't break with trial lawyers, even when they demand the ability to sue telecom companies that make it possible for intelligence agencies to intercept communications between terrorists abroad. And he is now going out of his way to proclaim fidelity to the educational unions. This is a disappointment since he'd earlier indicated an openness to education reform. Mr. Obama backs their agenda down the line, even calling for an end to testing, which is the only way parents can know with confidence whether their children are learning and their schools working.These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama's credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left.In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes -- establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world.The road to the presidency just got steeper for Barack Obama, and all because he pivoted on Tuesday night.Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

He was always evil.Now he's a moron nutjob.

 

[skol asylum]

Like anyone cares what Bush's Brain has to say in attacking Obama's ideaology after his very own ideaological views have proven to be a massive failure.

 

[juveduke]

Dr. Evil himself regarding Obama:

Obama's New Vulnerability

By KARL ROVE

February 21, 2008; Page A17

Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama's declaration he won't be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama's laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.

The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. He won't break with trial lawyers, even when they demand the ability to sue telecom companies that make it possible for intelligence agencies to intercept communications between terrorists abroad. And he is now going out of his way to proclaim fidelity to the educational unions. This is a disappointment since he'd earlier indicated an openness to education reform. Mr. Obama backs their agenda down the line, even calling for an end to testing, which is the only way parents can know with confidence whether their children are learning and their schools working.

Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Wait...Karl Rove doesn't like Obama?

What the hell?

 

[datonn]

Wait...Karl Rove doesn't like Obama?What the hell?

My guess is that Karl Rove doesn't like ANYBODY in this election...but he'll stump for McCain. Yes though, imagine Karl Rove not being enamoured with a candidate with a voting record that puts him on the FAR left on a wide variety of issues?!

 

[Pai Mei]

Wow, just came across the first post in this thread.Great job, dude.

Thank you for bringing us back to the real reason for this thread: information, education, and legitimate debate. I'm actually surprised it took 65+ pages for it to turn into a whine fest between supporters of the various candidates/parties. So...What is the early word on March 4th? Anyone Homers out there that can give reports from the bullseye's (Tx and Oh)?

I'm in Austin. I think Ob sweeps Houston, Dallas and Austin at this point- probably 60/40, which should carry him the majority of delegates at the very least.

I don't think Hillary needs to win a majority of delegates to get this. She could win a string of states here at the end, and simply close the delegate gap quite a bit. Then she approaches the Obama's superdelegates and tells them that while Obama has a "lead", Hillary has the "momentum" now and the mo by rights should give her the nomination. Then she convinces a number of them to join her side and suddenly she has the nom.

 

[Your Mother]

Then she approaches the Obama's superdelegates and tells them that while Obama has a "lead", Hillary has the "momentum" now and the mo by rights should give her the nomination. Then she convinces a number of them to join her side and suddenly she has the nom.

That'll work.

 

[Your Mother]

BTW:

SEN. OBAMA (IL) -455

SEN. CLINTON (NY) +376

Looks like my book (WSEX) has Obama at about 4:1.

 

[NCCommish]

Wow. Chris Matthews just stuck it to some Congressman from Texas who is a big Obama supporter.

Who was it?

Texas state senator Kirk Watson.

Here's his statement following the debacle. Funny. Self-effacing.

Nice job by Kirk. Seems like a decent sort.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Wow, just came across the first post in this thread.Great job, dude.

Thank you for bringing us back to the real reason for this thread: information, education, and legitimate debate. I'm actually surprised it took 65+ pages for it to turn into a whine fest between supporters of the various candidates/parties. So...What is the early word on March 4th? Anyone Homers out there that can give reports from the bullseye's (Tx and Oh)?

I'm in Austin. I think Ob sweeps Houston, Dallas and Austin at this point- probably 60/40, which should carry him the majority of delegates at the very least.

I don't think Hillary needs to win a majority of delegates to get this. She could win a string of states here at the end, and simply close the delegate gap quite a bit. Then she approaches the Obama's superdelegates and tells them that while Obama has a "lead", Hillary has the "momentum" now and the mo by rights should give her the nomination. Then she convinces a number of them to join her side and suddenly she has the nom.

I suppose that is as possible as Obama winning a few at the end and pulling the same thing. But what if Obama and Clinton are close (i.e. within 150 delegates)? What then? I like the board that King runs on CNN, i'm sure its been beaten to death in this thread. But, it shows that unless Hillary or Obama absolutely runs away with the remaining states, its going to end up very very close in terms of pledged delegates. I dont see a Clinton just giving up and handing over the nomination. I see Hillary fighting this in every way possible and it getting ugly at or before the convention

 

[Kumerica]

I suppose that is as possible as Obama winning a few at the end and pulling the same thing. But what if Obama and Clinton are close (i.e. within 150 delegates)? What then? I like the board that King runs on CNN, i'm sure its been beaten to death in this thread. But, it shows that unless Hillary or Obama absolutely runs away with the remaining states, its going to end up very very close in terms of pledged delegates. I dont see a Clinton just giving up and handing over the nomination. I see Hillary fighting this in every way possible and it getting ugly at or before the convention

Both.

 

[flufhed]

The latest speech in a nutshell

That comes pretty close, though he does do a great job of delivering it, and people are buying into this.

Which is really sad that people aren't smart enough to realize that.

Yep, millions of college-educated people have been completely snowed over. And we have been fooled for weeks and weeks and weeks. I wish we could be as smart as the Hillary supporters.

 

[flufhed]

Considering Bush was up against Gore and Kerry? I think America made the correct choice.

Look around. We couldn't have made a worse choice.

Oh I see, you're a hindsight genius. Now I get it.

Not hindsight. It was foresight for some. It was, however, hindsight for others. And some were, and are still, blind.But none of that matters. It still remains that the choice couldnt have been worse.

But see, you have no way to prove that. So why bark up that tree? This does not help our cause as Americans, it only continues to divide us. Saying I told you so sounds the same at 5 as it does at 25 and 35...

19% approval ratings. Struggling economy. Horrendous debt. Massive fall off of the middle class. Terrible drop off of the american dollar world wide. Home market. Hits to personal freedoms. Sold out American interest to china and saudia arabia. Many childs left behind/education issues. Basic goods (energy sources) increasing. Poverty level increasing.Good choice. Sorry I cant prove any of it. Carry on.

And how can you prove that Kerry or God forbid Gore would have left the country in better shape?

You win. Go back to the McCain thread

Why do these people think they can convert us? They, of all people, should know we are hopelessly under the spell of the Great Obama.

 

[Marc Levin]

Wow, just came across the first post in this thread.

Great job, dude.

Thank you for bringing us back to the real reason for this thread: information, education, and legitimate debate. I'm actually surprised it took 65+ pages for it to turn into a whine fest between supporters of the various candidates/parties. So...What is the early word on March 4th? Anyone Homers out there that can give reports from the bullseye's (Tx and Oh)?

Always check here first.Latest polls show Clinton's lead in Texas down to either 5 or 2 points depending on which poll you look at.

And her lead in Penn has dropped to a very beatable 12 points.

By March 4, Obama will likely be even or leading in Texas and will have Penn under double digits. Clinton is in her death throes and she doesn't even know it.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Why do these people think they can convert us? They, of all people, should know we are hopelessly under the spell of the Great Obama.

Kool-Aid for everyone!

 

[Claydon]

Clinton will pull this out...just watch. The Clinton machine is a very powerful entity.

 

[Marc Levin]

Wow, just came across the first post in this thread.Great job, dude.

Thank you for bringing us back to the real reason for this thread: information, education, and legitimate debate. I'm actually surprised it took 65+ pages for it to turn into a whine fest between supporters of the various candidates/parties. So...What is the early word on March 4th? Anyone Homers out there that can give reports from the bullseye's (Tx and Oh)?

I'm in Austin. I think Ob sweeps Houston, Dallas and Austin at this point- probably 60/40, which should carry him the majority of delegates at the very least.

I don't think Hillary needs to win a majority of delegates to get this. She could win a string of states here at the end, and simply close the delegate gap quite a bit. Then she approaches the Obama's superdelegates and tells them that while Obama has a "lead", Hillary has the "momentum" now and the mo by rights should give her the nomination. Then she convinces a number of them to join her side and suddenly she has the nom.

Yeah, she'll suddenly turn it ALL around after losing 10 states in a row. Even if she ekes out a popular vote victory in Texas, Obama has the pop. centers, meaning he will take more delegates.The "mo" is on Obama and Superdelegates go to the "mo" - as in MONEY. Obama draws it, Hilary doesn't.

 

[Marc Levin]

Clinton will pull this out...just watch. The Clinton machine is a very powerful entity.

Another If it is "so powerful" why are they losing state after state and seeing massive leads a week ago in Tx, Oh, and Penn evaporate on a daily basis? Why is her campaign near broke? Why is she getting no endorsements? Why have all her attack ads and attack speeches backfired and pushed independent and undecided voters to Obama?Seriously thinking here.Now, will she fight and try to steal a nomination she doesn't deserve and won't win? Maybe.

 

[djcolts]

Clinton will pull this out...just watch. The Clinton machine is a very powerful entity.

Another If it is "so powerful" why are they losing state after state and seeing massive leads a week ago in Tx, Oh, and Penn evaporate on a daily basis? Why is her campaign near broke? Why is she getting no endorsements? Why have all her attack ads and attack speeches backfired and pushed independent and undecided voters to Obama?Seriously thinking here.Now, will she fight and try to steal a nomination she doesn't deserve and won't win? Maybe.

The Clinton campaign has been a disaster. They have to come up with a new message every week because none of them are working. They ignored caucus states. When they lose a state, they basically say that state doesn't matter (which would bite them in the butt in the fall if they overcome the current odds and win the nomination). They are basically running a pessimistic-style campaign when people want hope. They are running based on "35 years of experience" when her "experience" is questionable. They were completely unprepared for a campaign past Super Tuesday. They can't control Bill Clinton and what comes out of his mouth. I could keep going - but the Clinton machine has a lot of gears stuck inside.

 

[Punchie]

Homer, prepare your match... Hillary's team has indeed started contacting Obama's pledged delegates.

link

Wolfson is dishonest: They are going after pledged delegates

by LoLoLaLa

Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:42:16 AM PST

I’m in Vegas and last night myself and a dozen or so other Obama supporters were at the Culinary Union calling our Obama delegates. I probably made about 100 calls and about 95 said Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been calling them "all day" or at least once already.

The fact that they're calling them isn't a big deal, NV's Democratic party put out a list of delegates that doesn't include who the individual is a delegate for. However, we crossed their list, with our list of supporters and we're calling OUR delegates.

What gets me heated is, everyone who said Hillary's campaign called them also said they were encouraged to switch their support from Obama to Hillary . One man even said the person who called him "wouldn't let it go" and when he angrily told them he wasn't going to drop his support for Obama, they just hung up the phone on him.

The Clinton campaign has called me three times already since 2pm yesterday.

Any other Obama supporters in the Las Vegas area, please come to the Culinary Union or SEIU and phone bank with us from 5-9pm. Friday register early for the Clark County Democratic Convention in between the times of 4 and 9pm at Bally's Hotel. You can register the day of the convention at Bally's between 8 and 10am. The convention starts at 10am. There is no registration fee.

If you want to volunteer, show up at bally's 3pm on Friday.

 

[Sammy3469]

Clinton will pull this out...just watch. The Clinton machine is a very powerful entity.

Another If it is "so powerful" why are they losing state after state and seeing massive leads a week ago in Tx, Oh, and Penn evaporate on a daily basis? Why is her campaign near broke? Why is she getting no endorsements? Why have all her attack ads and attack speeches backfired and pushed independent and undecided voters to Obama?Seriously thinking here.Now, will she fight and try to steal a nomination she doesn't deserve and won't win? Maybe.

The Clinton campaign has been a disaster. They have to come up with a new message every week because none of them are working. They ignored caucus states. When they lose a state, they basically say that state doesn't matter (which would bite them in the butt in the fall if they overcome the current odds and win the nomination). They are basically running a pessimistic-style campaign when people want hope. They are running based on "35 years of experience" when her "experience" is questionable. They were completely unprepared for a campaign past Super Tuesday. They can't control Bill Clinton and what comes out of his mouth. I could keep going - but the Clinton machine has a lot of gears stuck inside.

Plus they're basically out of money and now out of the news cycles with the McCain feeding frenzy.