*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (3 Viewers)

[Clayton Gray]

Risking a jinx, I'm going to go ahead and say Obama wins Texas by 6-10 points and Ohio by 2-3.

Clinton will drop out that night.

 

[Marc Levin]

Why does Blue Sky support illegals in obtaining drivers licenses? Shouldn't we be making it more difficult for them instead of easier?

If you have a legal driver it is easier to collect from insurers in the case of an accident .

 

[The Juggernaut]

Really Teddy,

 

[BigSteelThrill]

A little historical perspective:

Off the top of my head, I can think of three previous examples:

William Jennings Bryan, 1896.

 

[Marc Levin]

A little historical perspective:I believe that Barack Obama is the latest in a long American tradition of "movement candidates" for President. These men have appeared rarely on the scene, but I would define them by their great charisma, optimism, populism, ability to move crowds with their speeches, demand for change to the current system, and ability to attract people who would normally not vote or at least not vote for that candidate's party.Off the top of my head, I can think of three previous examples:William Jennings Bryan, 1896. (actually ran for President three times and lost all three, but it's only the first election 1896 that this is applicable. His "Cross of Gold" speech energized the nation.)Robert Kennedy, 1968. (I know most people think of JFK, but he only reached this sort of status following his death. Robert Kennedy in 1968 was practically worshipped; people fainted at his speeches just like Obama's. IF he had not been assassinated, the election would have been his.)Ronald Reagan, 1980. (As I have written elsewhere, the parellels to Obama are striking, especially the feel good optimism, "Morning in America" tone of the speeches. )They are probably other examples, but these are the ones who I think provide the best comparison.

Add FDR.

 

[urbanhack]

Rush Limbaugh's primary comment on Obama is that he doesn't feel the emotional reservoir of the public is large enough to sustain this sort of campaign for another 9 months. At some point, the public will just exhaust themselves, which means they will get sick of the sugar-coated platitudes and start looking for real meat.

And if they don't? Then what you will you/Rush say?

 

[The Juggernaut]

Rush Limbaugh's primary comment on Obama is that he doesn't feel the emotional reservoir of the public is large enough to sustain this sort of campaign for another 9 months. At some point, the public will just exhaust themselves, which means they will get sick of the sugar-coated platitudes and start looking for real meat.

And if they don't? Then what you will you/Rush say?

 

[Marc Levin]

Rush Limbaugh's primary comment on Obama is that he doesn't feel the emotional reservoir of the public is large enough to sustain this sort of campaign for another 9 months. At some point, the public will just exhaust themselves, which means they will get sick of the sugar-coated platitudes and start looking for real meat.

And if they don't? Then what you will you/Rush say?

And when they do, theyt can start here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=301396

 

[timschochet]

A little historical perspective:I believe that Barack Obama is the latest in a long American tradition of "movement candidates" for President. These men have appeared rarely on the scene, but I would define them by their great charisma, optimism, populism, ability to move crowds with their speeches, demand for change to the current system, and ability to attract people who would normally not vote or at least not vote for that candidate's party.Off the top of my head, I can think of three previous examples:William Jennings Bryan, 1896. (actually ran for President three times and lost all three, but it's only the first election 1896 that this is applicable. His "Cross of Gold" speech energized the nation.)Robert Kennedy, 1968. (I know most people think of JFK, but he only reached this sort of status following his death. Robert Kennedy in 1968 was practically worshipped; people fainted at his speeches just like Obama's. IF he had not been assassinated, the election would have been his.)Ronald Reagan, 1980. (As I have written elsewhere, the parellels to Obama are striking, especially the feel good optimism, "Morning in America" tone of the speeches. )They are probably other examples, but these are the ones who I think provide the best comparison.

Add FDR.

Of course you're right!

 

[Clayton Gray]

Off the top of my head, I can think of three previous examples:William Jennings Bryan, 1896.

Really? Bryan off the top of your head?

 

[valhallan]

Watching the debate replay on CNN... he's running circles around her.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

 

[skol asylum]

¡Si, Se Puede!

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

He's pandering a little on Cuba now, since he was previously in favor of normalizing relations even with Castro in power. In general though yes. I'm absolutely in favor of "carrot and stick" diplomacy without the ridiculous notion that just talking to the United States is somehow a "carrot" in and of itself.

 

[shining path]

Watching the debate, Hillary seems a lot more on the ball on her answers. A lot of "uhs" and "ahs" from Obama.

 

[timschochet]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Watching the debate, Hillary seems a lot more on the ball on her answers. A lot of "uhs" and "ahs" from Obama.

He always does that in debates, but he has actually gotten better as they have gone on.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

Why? Our policy toward them hasn't done a damn bit of good for 50 years.Time to try a new strategy.

 

[cosjobs]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

He's pandering a little on Cuba now, since he was previously in favor of normalizing relations even with Castro in power. In general though yes. I'm absolutely in favor of "carrot and stick" diplomacy without the ridiculous notion that just talking to the United States is somehow a "carrot" in and of itself.

I think you are confusing pandering with waffling or waivering

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

He's pandering a little on Cuba now, since he was previously in favor of normalizing relations even with Castro in power. In general though yes. I'm absolutely in favor of "carrot and stick" diplomacy without the ridiculous notion that just talking to the United States is somehow a "carrot" in and of itself.

A) What cosjobs said.2) I'm totally for normalizing relations and trade with Cuba, but I don't think you just flip a switch and order a bunch of rum and Cokes. Gotta start somewhere.

 

[Orange Crush]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

Why? Our policy toward them hasn't done a damn bit of good for 50 years.Time to try a new strategy.

We talk and trade with China, another communist country. Why don't we do that with Cuba?

 

[timschochet]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

Why? Our policy toward them hasn't done a damn bit of good for 50 years.Time to try a new strategy.

I wasn't talking about Cuba. I actually agree with Obama about Cuba, and stated so. But it's not that important of an issue. I was talking about Iran, which is vitally important.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

He's pandering a little on Cuba now, since he was previously in favor of normalizing relations even with Castro in power. In general though yes. I'm absolutely in favor of "carrot and stick" diplomacy without the ridiculous notion that just talking to the United States is somehow a "carrot" in and of itself.

I think you are confusing pandering with waffling or waivering

No, I think he's pandering because taking his previous stance would be very problematic if he plans to win Florida in the GE. I think he fully believes that normalization is the best way to go, but there would be a backlash in the Cuban-American community in Florida.I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but I do think he's backing off his position for political reasons.

 

[cosjobs]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

He's pandering a little on Cuba now, since he was previously in favor of normalizing relations even with Castro in power. In general though yes. I'm absolutely in favor of "carrot and stick" diplomacy without the ridiculous notion that just talking to the United States is somehow a "carrot" in and of itself.

A) What cosjobs said.2) I'm totally for normalizing relations and trade with Cuba, but I don't think you just flip a switch and order a bunch of rum and Cokes. Gotta start somewhere.

CUBA LIBRE'

 

[skol asylum]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

You are wrong.

 

[timschochet]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

You are wrong.

No, YOU are wrong.

 

[shining path]

What are they writing on those little pads?

 

[skol asylum]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

You are wrong.

No, YOU are wrong.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.

 

[skol asylum]

What are they writing on those little pads?

Hillary: "I'm melting."Obama: "I will burn *#$@ down."

 

[cosjobs]

What are they writing on those little pads?

And I want one of those fans that was blowing their pads off the desk from the other side of the auditorium.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

What are they writing on those little pads?

Hillary: "I'm melting."Obama: "I will burn *#$@ down."

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

Why? Our policy toward them hasn't done a damn bit of good for 50 years.Time to try a new strategy.

I wasn't talking about Cuba. I actually agree with Obama about Cuba, and stated so. But it's not that important of an issue. I was talking about Iran, which is vitally important.

We'll agree to disagree then.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

He's pandering a little on Cuba now, since he was previously in favor of normalizing relations even with Castro in power. In general though yes. I'm absolutely in favor of "carrot and stick" diplomacy without the ridiculous notion that just talking to the United States is somehow a "carrot" in and of itself.

I think you are confusing pandering with waffling or waivering

No, I think he's pandering because taking his previous stance would be very problematic if he plans to win Florida in the GE. I think he fully believes that normalization is the best way to go, but there would be a backlash in the Cuban-American community in Florida.I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but I do think he's backing off his position for political reasons.

I can agree with that a bit. If FLA was solidly red or blue, I think we'd see a change in Cuba policy in about a heartbeat. But at least he went with the "take the first step" approach.Plus, I think the Cuban vote on this is pretty unimportant, but I guess I'd have to see the numbers on it.

 

[shining path]

What are they writing on those little pads?

And I want one of those fans that was blowing their pads off the desk from the other side of the auditorium.

I want to see Obama produce his PacMan animation by riffling through the corner of his pad.

 

[timschochet]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

You are wrong.

No, YOU are wrong.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.

We have to constantly threaten to do so. Otherwise, they will decide we are weak and challenge us by taking aggressive action, the way they certainly will if Obama is elected, and he actually commits the disgraceful act of meeting with Achmadinejead. Then we will be in a real crisis, and you'll wish we had kept up a bellicose attitude all along. Even more, you'll wish we had McCain as commander in chief.

 

[shining path]

And you know what? Hillary is a really competent, impressive candidate.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

He's pandering a little on Cuba now, since he was previously in favor of normalizing relations even with Castro in power. In general though yes. I'm absolutely in favor of "carrot and stick" diplomacy without the ridiculous notion that just talking to the United States is somehow a "carrot" in and of itself.

I think you are confusing pandering with waffling or waivering

No, I think he's pandering because taking his previous stance would be very problematic if he plans to win Florida in the GE. I think he fully believes that normalization is the best way to go, but there would be a backlash in the Cuban-American community in Florida.I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but I do think he's backing off his position for political reasons.

I can agree with that a bit. If FLA was solidly red or blue, I think we'd see a change in Cuba policy in about a heartbeat. But at least he went with the "take the first step" approach.Plus, I think the Cuban vote on this is pretty unimportant, but I guess I'd have to see the numbers on it.

The issue isn't the Cuban vote so much as it is the Cuban lobby. They have a lot of resources that they can throw into the state, and no one wants to draw that heat. I agree though... if it was solid red or blue it would be easier.

 

[skol asylum]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

You are wrong.

No, YOU are wrong.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.

We have to constantly threaten to do so. Otherwise, they will decide we are weak and challenge us by taking aggressive action, the way they certainly will if Obama is elected, and he actually commits the disgraceful act of meeting with Achmadinejead. Then we will be in a real crisis, and you'll wish we had kept up a bellicose attitude all along. Even more, you'll wish we had McCain as commander in chief.

Question: How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out with someone of John McCain's temperament?

 

[shining path]

Oh, sweet Cambell. I'll get you over those post partum blues, honeybunch.

 

[timschochet]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

You are wrong.

No, YOU are wrong.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.

We have to constantly threaten to do so. Otherwise, they will decide we are weak and challenge us by taking aggressive action, the way they certainly will if Obama is elected, and he actually commits the disgraceful act of meeting with Achmadinejead. Then we will be in a real crisis, and you'll wish we had kept up a bellicose attitude all along. Even more, you'll wish we had McCain as commander in chief.

Question: How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out with someone of John McCain's temperament?

No different at all. According to all reports, JFK had as bad a temper or worse. So did Harry Truman and Bill Clinton. This is completely a non-issue.

 

[skol asylum]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

You are wrong.

No, YOU are wrong.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.

We have to constantly threaten to do so. Otherwise, they will decide we are weak and challenge us by taking aggressive action, the way they certainly will if Obama is elected, and he actually commits the disgraceful act of meeting with Achmadinejead. Then we will be in a real crisis, and you'll wish we had kept up a bellicose attitude all along. Even more, you'll wish we had McCain as commander in chief.

Question: How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out with someone of John McCain's temperament?

No different at all. According to all reports, JFK had as bad a temper or worse. So did Harry Truman and Bill Clinton. This is completely a non-issue.

I still can't get over this pic. Anyone have the context in which it was taken?

 

[NCCommish]

Just stated on CNN's post-debate coverage:1) Obama has pulled even in Texas and is 7 down in Ohio2) Superdelegates will "peel away from Hilary" (exact words) if she losesd EITHER state3) "her husband, Bill Clinton, has said she will withdraw if she does not take both states" (verbatim quote). I think I called all three of these.

I think it would be very cool of the Clintons (if they lose TX or OH), to concede and throw their efforts behind Obama.I think it would do much more for her future political aspirations and his legacy if they got on board with the public to make this election a mandate.

Complete agreement - especially if she gave up aspirations to the V.P. It's hard to imagine who Obama would choose as a V.P. that would be appropriate to his policies and would draw middle america support.

I pray...Lord how I pray...that he selects Ted Kennedy

Never in a million years. I don't think Teddy would accept if asked either.

 

[Kumerica]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

You are wrong.

No, YOU are wrong.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.

We have to constantly threaten to do so. Otherwise, they will decide we are weak and challenge us by taking aggressive action, the way they certainly will if Obama is elected, and he actually commits the disgraceful act of meeting with Achmadinejead. Then we will be in a real crisis, and you'll wish we had kept up a bellicose attitude all along. Even more, you'll wish we had McCain as commander in chief.

Question: How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out with someone of John McCain's temperament?

No different at all. According to all reports, JFK had as bad a temper or worse. So did Harry Truman and Bill Clinton. This is completely a non-issue.

It's a non-issue because his stubborn ### would still be staying the course on the Bay of Pigs.

 

[NCCommish]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

You are wrong.

No, YOU are wrong.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.

We have to constantly threaten to do so. Otherwise, they will decide we are weak and challenge us by taking aggressive action, the way they certainly will if Obama is elected, and he actually commits the disgraceful act of meeting with Achmadinejead. Then we will be in a real crisis, and you'll wish we had kept up a bellicose attitude all along. Even more, you'll wish we had McCain as commander in chief.

This is the silliest foreign policy opinion I have read in some time. When will people look around and see that the best way to change country is to sell them American culture. It worked in Russia and it is slowly working in China. Engagement is almost always the best answer. And I think it is in Irans case. In the Middle East if they were to deal with us after our threats they look weak and that can be fatal. We need to start doing something constructive cause what we're doing ain't working.

 

[Kumerica]

Am I the only one who is uber-excited about Obama's foreign relation policies? I love his answer on Cuba, and the fact that he is sticking to his guns on his pledge to engage other countries instead of ignoring them.

I stated in an earlier post why this is an absolutely terrible plan. I hope McCain tears him apart on this when they debate.

You are wrong.

No, YOU are wrong.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.

We have to constantly threaten to do so. Otherwise, they will decide we are weak and challenge us by taking aggressive action, the way they certainly will if Obama is elected, and he actually commits the disgraceful act of meeting with Achmadinejead. Then we will be in a real crisis, and you'll wish we had kept up a bellicose attitude all along. Even more, you'll wish we had McCain as commander in chief.

What if during this meeting, Obama slapped Ahmadenijad across the face on live television and called him a "world-endangering moron?" Still a bad idea?

 

[skol asylum]

OBAMA: Now, I think that Senator Clinton has a fine record and I don't want to denigrate that record. I do think there is a fundamental difference between us in terms of how change comes about. Senator Clinton of late has said: Let's get real. The implication is that the people who've been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional.

(LAUGHTER)

And that, you know, the 20 million people who've been paying attention to 19 debates and the editorial boards all across the country at newspapers who have given me endorsements, including every major newspaper here in the state of Texas.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: You know, the thinking is that somehow, they're being duped, and eventually they're going to see the reality of things.

Well, I think they perceive reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly. What they see is that if we don't bring the country together, stop the endless bickering, actually focus on solutions and reduce the special interests that have dominated Washington, then we will not get anything done. And the reason that this campaign has done so well...

(APPLAUSE)

The reason that this campaign has done so well is because people understand that it is not just a matter of putting forward policy positions.

OBAMA: Senator Clinton and I share a lot of policy positions. But if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government and if we can't inspire them to go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions that have plagued our politics for so long, then we will continue to see the kind of gridlock and nonperformance in Washington that is resulting in families suffering in very real ways.

I'm running for president to start doing something about that suffering, and so are the people who are behind my campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

 

[TwinTurbo]

What is there to say? People say he has no plan. All you have to do is look at the first post to dispel that lie. People say he hasn't done aything, once again easily dispelled. This is just an attack with no substance when you get right down to it.

A fantastic example of people hoping that if something is repeated over and over and over that it will eventually come true.

Sort of like saying if you are for hope and change over and over again that people will believe it. It's not just that opponents are saying he has no plan or hasn't done anything. You're right, that is easily dispelled, as he's been in politics long enough to demonstrate that he stands for something. It's that his record doesn't support this campaign of cliches for hope and change. Every politician does it, but I have never seen a candidate enjoy so much success by adding a bit of literary flair to catchy little phrases that have no underlying substance or meaning. He seems to have taken it to a new level and averages more cliches per minute than just about anybody I have ever heard. And where most others would fall flat with a Hillary-like wooden delivery, he ends up pulling it off as an iconic message of inspired nonsense and political showmanship that crowds seem to love. I don't really like McCain either, but I fully expect McCain to more successfully expose Obama's record as not in line with his inspired message of all things to all people. This was Hillary's mistake. She was too polarizing to being with and framed it as Change vs. Experience, unintentionally conceding that Obama was the true candidate for Change. But opponents of Obama need to more powerfully attack the premise that he will actually create meaningful changes and stop giving him unintentional credit for his positives. Even the "empty eloquence" jab by McCain was a mistake. It's a criticism that gives him a compliment at the same time, and this is the type of stuff that isn't sticking. They need to take the gloves off and really attempt to paint him as a big talker that doesn't have the game to back it up, the Herm Edwards of politics if you will. Take his 3 most overused buzzwords (change, hope, unity) and systematically breakdown why he doesn't have what it takes to actually achieve any of them. They must effectively contrast the speechifying, perceived Obama with the actual performance and reality of Obama and, in doing so, then separate the die hard Obama supporters from the mainstream undecided voting populace.

 

[skol asylum]

What is there to say? People say he has no plan. All you have to do is look at the first post to dispel that lie. People say he hasn't done aything, once again easily dispelled. This is just an attack with no substance when you get right down to it.

A fantastic example of people hoping that if something is repeated over and over and over that it will eventually come true.

Sort of like saying if you are for hope and change over and over again that people will believe it. It's not just that opponents are saying he has no plan or hasn't done anything. You're right, that is easily dispelled, as he's been in politics long enough to demonstrate that he stands for something. It's that his record doesn't support this campaign of cliches for hope and change. Every politician does it, but I have never seen a candidate enjoy so much success by adding a bit of literary flair to catchy little phrases that have no underlying substance or meaning. He seems to have taken it to a new level and averages more cliches per minute than just about anybody I have ever heard. And where most others would fall flat with a Hillary-like wooden delivery, he ends up pulling it off as an iconic message of inspired nonsense and political showmanship that crowds seem to love. I don't really like McCain either, but I fully expect McCain to more successfully expose Obama's record as not in line with his inspired message of all things to all people. This was Hillary's mistake. She was too polarizing to being with and framed it as Change vs. Experience, unintentionally conceding that Obama was the true candidate for Change. But opponents of Obama need to more powerfully attack the premise that he will actually create meaningful changes and stop giving him unintentional credit for his positives. Even the "empty eloquence" jab by McCain was a mistake. It's a criticism that gives him a compliment at the same time, and this is the type of stuff that isn't sticking. They need to take the gloves off and really attempt to paint him as a big talker that doesn't have the game to back it up, the Herm Edwards of politics if you will. Take his 3 most overused buzzwords (change, hope, unity) and systematically breakdown why he doesn't have what it takes to actually achieve any of them. They must effectively contrast the speechifying, perceived Obama with the actual performance and reality of Obama and, in doing so, then separate the die hard Obama supporters from the mainstream undecided voting populace.

To quote the Decider : Bring it on.

 

[NCCommish]

What is there to say? People say he has no plan. All you have to do is look at the first post to dispel that lie. People say he hasn't done aything, once again easily dispelled. This is just an attack with no substance when you get right down to it.

A fantastic example of people hoping that if something is repeated over and over and over that it will eventually come true.

Sort of like saying if you are for hope and change over and over again that people will believe it. It's not just that opponents are saying he has no plan or hasn't done anything. You're right, that is easily dispelled, as he's been in politics long enough to demonstrate that he stands for something. It's that his record doesn't support this campaign of cliches for hope and change. Every politician does it, but I have never seen a candidate enjoy so much success by adding a bit of literary flair to catchy little phrases that have no underlying substance or meaning. He seems to have taken it to a new level and averages more cliches per minute than just about anybody I have ever heard. And where most others would fall flat with a Hillary-like wooden delivery, he ends up pulling it off as an iconic message of inspired nonsense and political showmanship that crowds seem to love. I don't really like McCain either, but I fully expect McCain to more successfully expose Obama's record as not in line with his inspired message of all things to all people. This was Hillary's mistake. She was too polarizing to being with and framed it as Change vs. Experience, unintentionally conceding that Obama was the true candidate for Change. But opponents of Obama need to more powerfully attack the premise that he will actually create meaningful changes and stop giving him unintentional credit for his positives. Even the "empty eloquence" jab by McCain was a mistake. It's a criticism that gives him a compliment at the same time, and this is the type of stuff that isn't sticking. They need to take the gloves off and really attempt to paint him as a big talker that doesn't have the game to back it up, the Herm Edwards of politics if you will. Take his 3 most overused buzzwords (change, hope, unity) and systematically breakdown why he doesn't have what it takes to actually achieve any of them. They must effectively contrast the speechifying, perceived Obama with the actual performance and reality of Obama and, in doing so, then separate the die hard Obama supporters from the mainstream undecided voting populace.

To quote the Decider : Bring it on.

Yep. I am waiting for someone to really go after him on this and get completely shut down. That should end the general in pretty quick fashion.