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

[Orange Crush]

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.

The defining issue between Obama and McCain is going to be Iraq. It's already started. McCain is saying "the Democrats were wrong on Iraq. The Surge is working. We need to stay there to keep up the pressure against the terrorists." Obama is going to respond with "Iraq is the biggest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history. We need to change our mission by refocusing it on al-Qaeda. And only a change in the party controlling the White House can make the changes our country needs."The election will primarily be based on Iraq, with experience vs. reform being a secondary issue.And McCain will lose the general election by at least 7 points.

 

[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.

To quote the Decider : Bring it on.

Sure every candidate has fluff pieces like that. But Obama can and will be attacked here more agressively than he was in the Democratic primary. He has a history of inaction on some issues and many of his bills can be framed as "more of the same" instead of a roadmap for meaningful change. And the truth is that most of Obama's 1000+ votes in the Senate lined up very similarly to Hillary. Of course Obama has plenty he can go after McCain with too. Ultimately, I don't think McCain has what it takes to defeat Obama, but I think he will be much more successful as framing Obama as "just another Democratic senator" as opposed to a mythical maverick for Change.

 

[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.

The defining issue between Obama and McCain is going to be Iraq. It's already started. McCain is saying "the Democrats were wrong on Iraq. The Surge is working. We need to stay there to keep up the pressure against the terrorists." Obama is going to respond with "Iraq is the biggest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history. We need to change our mission by refocusing it on al-Qaeda. And only a change in the party controlling the White House can make the changes our country needs."The election will primarily be based on Iraq, with experience vs. reform being a secondary issue.And McCain will lose the general election by at least 7 points.

I agree that Iraq will be one of the defining issues and I think McCain is better positioned here now with the situation improving there recently. But I also agree that I think McCain will lose the general election and that his experience will be outshined by Obama's charisma.

 

[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.

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.

We'll see in the general. Obama's record is no slam dunk and is more pedestrian than paradisaical. There take that Obama speechwriters! Yeah I broke out paradisaical.

 

[Kumerica]

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.

We'll see in the general. Obama's record is no slam dunk and is more pedestrian than paradisaical. There take that Obama speechwriters! Yeah I broke out paradisaical.

Well done, TT.

 

[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.

We'll see in the general. Obama's record is no slam dunk and is more pedestrian than paradisaical. There take that Obama speechwriters! Yeah I broke out paradisaical.

Yeah you broke it out but I am not sure your usage was a slam dunk. Is there anyone who thinks Obamas record is the Garden of Eden?

 

[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.

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.

We'll see in the general. Obama's record is no slam dunk and is more pedestrian than paradisaical. There take that Obama speechwriters! Yeah I broke out paradisaical.

Yeah you broke it out but I am not sure your usage was a slam dunk. Is there anyone who thinks Obamas record is the Garden of Eden?

It's an adjective that means relating to or befitting Paradise. Heavenly, supernatural, or godlike if you will. Not sure about the Garden of Eden.

 

[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.

We'll see in the general. Obama's record is no slam dunk and is more pedestrian than paradisaical. There take that Obama speechwriters! Yeah I broke out paradisaical.

Yeah you broke it out but I am not sure your usage was a slam dunk. Is there anyone who thinks Obamas record is the Garden of Eden?

It's an adjective that means relating to or befitting Paradise. Heavenly, supernatural, or godlike if you will. Not sure about the Garden of Eden.

Well I wanted to check to be sure when I saw you break it out. And the first definition was paradise usually Eden. From there the next entry was Heaven. I mean I can see where you were going, this is just a slight artistic disagreement. It showed nice vocab skills.

 

[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.

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.

We'll see in the general. Obama's record is no slam dunk and is more pedestrian than paradisaical. There take that Obama speechwriters! Yeah I broke out paradisaical.

Yeah you broke it out but I am not sure your usage was a slam dunk. Is there anyone who thinks Obamas record is the Garden of Eden?

It's an adjective that means relating to or befitting Paradise. Heavenly, supernatural, or godlike if you will. Not sure about the Garden of Eden.

Well I wanted to check to be sure when I saw you break it out. And the first definition was paradise usually Eden. From there the next entry was Heaven. I mean I can see where you were going, this is just a slight artistic disagreement. It showed nice vocab skills.

Yes it could also be used to describe a sublime place or state of being that is so heavenly and blissful that it could cause one to faint, like an Obama rally for example. What made me think of that word was this blog which may have already been posted in this thread: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When will people look around and see that the best way to change country is to sell them American culture.

Cultural imperialism is a good thing. We should take advantage of it wherever feasible.

 

[flufhed]

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

This is campaign lingo that I am not familiar with. Anyone here speak Republican?

 

[djcolts]

According to First Read, what is interesting about the latest poll numbers in Texas (dead heat) and Ohio (Clinton up by only 7) is that the results were taken BEFORE the Wisconsin primary.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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...

 

[adonis]

I know I'm one of the biggest obama supporters around these parts, but I think he won the debate last night. In previous debates, I thought most of them were at best for him a wash, although I think he did well.

But last night, he was on his game. If Hillary didn't have her very good answer to that last question, there would be no doubt who won. Even with the last answer, it wasn't much of a debate answer, and doesn't have to do with the issues, but I'll give her credit, it was a very good answer and saved her from clear defeat.

Regardless, Obama came across as the most presidential in any of the debates. Really did a good job, especially with the answer about people implying his supporters are delusional.

 

[djcolts]

I know I'm one of the biggest obama supporters around these parts, but I think he won the debate last night. In previous debates, I thought most of them were at best for him a wash, although I think he did well.

But last night, he was on his game. If Hillary didn't have her very good answer to that last question, there would be no doubt who won. Even with the last answer, it wasn't much of a debate answer, and doesn't have to do with the issues, but I'll give her credit, it was a very good answer and saved her from clear defeat.

Regardless, Obama came across as the most presidential in any of the debates. Really did a good job, especially with the answer about people implying his supporters are delusional.

This was the key point of the debate. It really neutralized her - she didn't have an answer for that.

 

[flufhed]

I know I'm one of the biggest obama supporters around these parts, but I think he won the debate last night. In previous debates, I thought most of them were at best for him a wash, although I think he did well.

But last night, he was on his game. If Hillary didn't have her very good answer to that last question, there would be no doubt who won. Even with the last answer, it wasn't much of a debate answer, and doesn't have to do with the issues, but I'll give her credit, it was a very good answer and saved her from clear defeat.

Regardless, Obama came across as the most presidential in any of the debates. Really did a good job, especially with the answer about people implying his supporters are delusional.

This was the key point of the debate. It really neutralized her - she didn't have an answer for that.

It was at that point I thought to myself - this race really is over.I really liked last night how Obama wasn't just playing prevent, or running out the clock. He took a couple of chances last night, really kind of let it fly a bit, which is great. Shows he is running confident. I think he can feel it, and Hillary can, too.

 

[Jeremy]

"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."

I love how he went for the cheap pop here.

 

[Fear The Turtle]

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.

The defining issue between Obama and McCain is going to be Iraq. It's already started. McCain is saying "the Democrats were wrong on Iraq. The Surge is working. We need to stay there to keep up the pressure against the terrorists." Obama is going to respond with "Iraq is the biggest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history. We need to change our mission by refocusing it on al-Qaeda. And only a change in the party controlling the White House can make the changes our country needs."The election will primarily be based on Iraq, with experience vs. reform being a secondary issue.And McCain will lose the general election by at least 7 points.

I agree with this, especially because the opposition, terrorists, etc. in Iraq will have enough sense to ratchet up the violence in the weeks preceding the election.

 

[timschochet]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs.

Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

Sorry you're so scared of Obama. I'm confident that he and the people around him will be more competent than Bush and the people around him.

 

[timschochet]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

Sorry you're so scared of Obama. I'm confident that he and the people around him will be more competent than Bush and the people around him.

I agree with you, he will be more competent than Bush (like that would be difficult!) And I'm not scared of him, per se. I think you misunderstand my point. I'm scared of the system Obama represents. Bush was certainly a buffoon, and his hiring of cronies doesn't help things, but the real issue here is that big government typically creates more problems than it solves. Bureacracy creates ineptitude; you can look well beyond Bush's administration to dozens of others, Republican and Democrat, to find numerous examples of this truth. Republicans are absolutely right when they say that limited government works better, even if they don't practice what they preach. Obama will move this country in the absolute wrong direction.

 

[saintfool]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

He's trading on reform, Tims. Reform is appealing for those of us that actually believe in the positive power of gov't. Rather than ##### and moan about how bad the gov't and creating more disillusioned, disenfranchised Americans, let' actually try to fix the damn thing. Healthcare, education, the environment and much more really warrant some attention.As for Iraq, whether you like it or not troops are coming home next year. Troop deployments are up and we're going to have to throttle down. The questions now are: how quickly? how many will remain? and what will their mission be? It's a non-issue at this point. No one is staging a walkout. As for Iran, if Obama met with Achmadinejead it wouldn't be a "meet and greet" for tea and cookies. There would be an agenda. There would be a point to it all.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation?

Ill vote his ### out in 4 years and change the senate/house while Im at it, if I need to. Im certainly not wanting any John "more of the same as the past 8 years" McCain.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Republicans are absolutely right when they say that limited government works better, even if they don't practice what they preach.

So your advice is to keep voting for them anyway?

Obama will move this country in the absolute wrong direction.

:bigredx:

 

[adonis]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

Where were you staging walkouts and protests when THIS president disgraced our country? When we go to war in iraq and do a piss-poor job of managing the war that the people there are worse off than when we went in. What about how piss poor a job the administration did with Katrina? What about making a case to the world that we knew there were WMD's when there weren't? Where were you protesting then? Did you protest the Patriot Act? Detaining people in america without due process or even the ability to see a lawyer? Domestic wiretapping? What about waterboarding? The america you say you strongly believe in and want to protect has been put through the ringer the past 8 years, and much has been done to damage our perception, and freedoms, domestically and internationally. Why only now do you seem to care, when a new person comes in with ideas you obviously disagree with? Where was your outrage or your concern? What about the republican's in office who supposedly will stage "walkouts". Where were they on these issues? Give me a break with the "socialist" propaganda and the righteous indignation about a democratic candidate disgracing the country by actually talking to our enemies.Obama will not be the golden bullet for all of our problems, but he present a fresh approach that is welcomed by millions, yourself excluded. He offers a new and open way to approach politics domestically and abroad. He wants to open the government to the people, to open lines of communication to the world, to start to fix what was wrong in Iraq. If you somehow think that opening up lines of communication as well as the government will be a polarizing action, then I'm sorry, but you're wrong. People are tired of the way things have been done, closed doors, policies towards other countries where we are the MIGHTY UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS MUST BOW AT OUR FEET, where we play the ignore game with people we don't like, and invade countries on the possibility that they might posses, and might at some point in the future give the weapons they might possess to terrorists who may or may not have ever been in their country. Cmon.It's not hard for me to understand why you're so resistant to the change Obama offers, and that's because you're tied in dogmatically to the ways of the past, the ways things have been done, and how has that worked out for you? Maybe you, well, but for millions of americans, we're sick of it. The rich have benefited immensely recently while education has gone down the tubes for many americans, health care costs have skyrocketed, incomes have stagnated, college costs are soaring, and more. People have to work harder and longer than ever before just to maintain their standard of living. Jobs are being sent overseas and our school systems aren't equipping our students for competition on a global scale.So maybe what we do need is more attention applied to those who need it. Not the rich, not the iraqi's, but to our under-privileged here at home. To the poor, to the kids who need health care, to the people who'd like to go to college but can't afford it, to those who want health care but can't afford it, to the kids who deserve a good education but whose schools have been failing them. The time for focusing on the businesses and the rich people in our country is coming to an end. What people want now is a focus on the common persons problems, and that's EXACTLY why democrats are getting voters out in record numbers...because both Hillary and Obama are speaking to the common persons problems, and offering new solutions, and new hope, to people who have been short on both for a long time now.So feel free to suggest that maintaining the status quo is a good idea, by cutting back government programs, by continuing to pump in billions monthly to iraq while people at home are neglected. Let's let the "free market" dictate who gets what, because that's worked so well in the past for those who are born into poor families, in bad neighborhoods, go to bad schools. Yes, let's keep up what has worked for the upper middle class and the rich for years, and ignore the problems of our working class and poor neighbors.

 

[timschochet]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

He's trading on reform, Tims. Reform is appealing for those of us that actually believe in the positive power of gov't. Rather than ##### and moan about how bad the gov't and creating more disillusioned, disenfranchised Americans, let' actually try to fix the damn thing. Healthcare, education, the environment and much more really warrant some attention.As for Iraq, whether you like it or not troops are coming home next year. Troop deployments are up and we're going to have to throttle down. The questions now are: how quickly? how many will remain? and what will their mission be? It's a non-issue at this point. No one is staging a walkout. As for Iran, if Obama met with Achmadinejead it wouldn't be a "meet and greet" for tea and cookies. There would be an agenda. There would be a point to it all.

Thank you for using the phrase, "those of us that actually believe in the positive power of gov't", Good, now we can define ourselves. I am not an extremist, I believe in this too, just not anything close to the extent that Mr. Obama is promoting. I don't bash the government to disillusion Americans but to argue for giving the free market a chance. We haven't done so nearly enough. I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world. Environment and energy issues, however, may call for more government involvement, but that's something both our candidates agree with.I disagree with you about Iraq and Iran, but I can't explain in a few simple sentences why that is so; that would be unworthy of your attention. At some point, we may need to start a separate thread that specifically deals with the candidates and their views on these particular issues.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

It seems somewhat backwards to use the failings of past administrations as evidence that future ones won't succeed

If you're going to go that route, why bother voting or caring at all?

 

[bigbottom]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

 

[Sammy3469]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs.

Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

He's trading on reform, Tims. Reform is appealing for those of us that actually believe in the positive power of gov't. Rather than ##### and moan about how bad the gov't and creating more disillusioned, disenfranchised Americans, let' actually try to fix the damn thing. Healthcare, education, the environment and much more really warrant some attention.As for Iraq, whether you like it or not troops are coming home next year. Troop deployments are up and we're going to have to throttle down. The questions now are: how quickly? how many will remain? and what will their mission be? It's a non-issue at this point. No one is staging a walkout. As for Iran, if Obama met with Achmadinejead it wouldn't be a "meet and greet" for tea and cookies. There would be an agenda. There would be a point to it all.

Thank you for using the phrase, "those of us that actually believe in the positive power of gov't", Good, now we can define ourselves. I am not an extremist, I believe in this too, just not anything close to the extent that Mr. Obama is promoting. I don't bash the government to disillusion Americans but to argue for giving the free market a chance. We haven't done so nearly enough. I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world. Environment and energy issues, however, may call for more government involvement, but that's something both our candidates agree with.I disagree with you about Iraq and Iran, but I can't explain in a few simple sentences why that is so; that would be unworthy of your attention. At some point, we may need to start a separate thread that specifically deals with the candidates and their views on these particular issues.

you're joking right?

 

[timschochet]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

Where were you staging walkouts and protests when THIS president disgraced our country? When we go to war in iraq and do a piss-poor job of managing the war that the people there are worse off than when we went in. What about how piss poor a job the administration did with Katrina? What about making a case to the world that we knew there were WMD's when there weren't? Where were you protesting then? Did you protest the Patriot Act? Detaining people in america without due process or even the ability to see a lawyer? Domestic wiretapping? What about waterboarding? The america you say you strongly believe in and want to protect has been put through the ringer the past 8 years, and much has been done to damage our perception, and freedoms, domestically and internationally. Why only now do you seem to care, when a new person comes in with ideas you obviously disagree with? Where was your outrage or your concern? What about the republican's in office who supposedly will stage "walkouts". Where were they on these issues? Give me a break with the "socialist" propaganda and the righteous indignation about a democratic candidate disgracing the country by actually talking to our enemies.Obama will not be the golden bullet for all of our problems, but he present a fresh approach that is welcomed by millions, yourself excluded. He offers a new and open way to approach politics domestically and abroad. He wants to open the government to the people, to open lines of communication to the world, to start to fix what was wrong in Iraq. If you somehow think that opening up lines of communication as well as the government will be a polarizing action, then I'm sorry, but you're wrong. People are tired of the way things have been done, closed doors, policies towards other countries where we are the MIGHTY UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS MUST BOW AT OUR FEET, where we play the ignore game with people we don't like, and invade countries on the possibility that they might posses, and might at some point in the future give the weapons they might possess to terrorists who may or may not have ever been in their country. Cmon.It's not hard for me to understand why you're so resistant to the change Obama offers, and that's because you're tied in dogmatically to the ways of the past, the ways things have been done, and how has that worked out for you? Maybe you, well, but for millions of americans, we're sick of it. The rich have benefited immensely recently while education has gone down the tubes for many americans, health care costs have skyrocketed, incomes have stagnated, college costs are soaring, and more. People have to work harder and longer than ever before just to maintain their standard of living. Jobs are being sent overseas and our school systems aren't equipping our students for competition on a global scale.So maybe what we do need is more attention applied to those who need it. Not the rich, not the iraqi's, but to our under-privileged here at home. To the poor, to the kids who need health care, to the people who'd like to go to college but can't afford it, to those who want health care but can't afford it, to the kids who deserve a good education but whose schools have been failing them. The time for focusing on the businesses and the rich people in our country is coming to an end. What people want now is a focus on the common persons problems, and that's EXACTLY why democrats are getting voters out in record numbers...because both Hillary and Obama are speaking to the common persons problems, and offering new solutions, and new hope, to people who have been short on both for a long time now.So feel free to suggest that maintaining the status quo is a good idea, by cutting back government programs, by continuing to pump in billions monthly to iraq while people at home are neglected. Let's let the "free market" dictate who gets what, because that's worked so well in the past for those who are born into poor families, in bad neighborhoods, go to bad schools. Yes, let's keep up what has worked for the upper middle class and the rich for years, and ignore the problems of our working class and poor neighbors.

Adonis,I very much appreciate your enthusiam and passion for your candidate, and your response is eloquent and sounds much like the man you're supporting. In answer to your question about me, I absolutely protested everything you're talking about. I attended an anti-Iraq war rally in Santa Monica. I was livid about Katrina. And I will be livid if Obama meets with the current president of Iraq. Please don't try to pigeonhole me, and I promise not to pigeonhole you.I want to add that I think you're wrong regarding what is motivating people to vote for Obama. I wrote it before: he's much like Reagan. People want something new, and he's optimistic and a great speaker. His politics have little to do with it, same with Reagan. If Obama wins, 30 years from now people like you will be arguing that Democrats are "not enough like Obama" and "Obama proved that progressive ideas, if delivered firmly and with passion, will always win." This is the same flaw conservatives have now, and you'll be wrong like they are now. Reagan won because he was Reagan. Obama is winning because he's Obama.

 

[Abraham]

I wrote it before: he's much like Reagan. People want something new, and he's optimistic and a great speaker. His politics have little to do with it, same with Reagan. If Obama wins, 30 years from now people like you will be arguing that Democrats are "not enough like Obama" and "Obama proved that progressive ideas, if delivered firmly and with passion, will always win." This is the same flaw conservatives have now, and you'll be wrong like they are now. Reagan won because he was Reagan. Obama is winning because he's Obama.

I agree completely. What's so wrong with that?

 

[timschochet]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

What's to unpack? Except in rare instances where it can't be helped, I generally believe in free market capitalism. You can agree with me or not, but we all have heard these arguments all our lives; I don't need to rehash them here. It would do a disservice to people much more knowledgeable than me on these issues to argue them with you. If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

 

[Horses Mouth]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Hi Tim,is their an online resource providing this info?

 

[timschochet]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Hi Tim,is their an online resource providing this info?

I'm sure there is, but I don't know it. There are dozens of websites that comprise libertarian thought. I will look it up later, when I have some more time. But if you google "free market solutions to health care", something should turn up.

 

[adonis]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

Where were you staging walkouts and protests when THIS president disgraced our country? When we go to war in iraq and do a piss-poor job of managing the war that the people there are worse off than when we went in. What about how piss poor a job the administration did with Katrina? What about making a case to the world that we knew there were WMD's when there weren't? Where were you protesting then? Did you protest the Patriot Act? Detaining people in america without due process or even the ability to see a lawyer? Domestic wiretapping? What about waterboarding? The america you say you strongly believe in and want to protect has been put through the ringer the past 8 years, and much has been done to damage our perception, and freedoms, domestically and internationally. Why only now do you seem to care, when a new person comes in with ideas you obviously disagree with? Where was your outrage or your concern? What about the republican's in office who supposedly will stage "walkouts". Where were they on these issues? Give me a break with the "socialist" propaganda and the righteous indignation about a democratic candidate disgracing the country by actually talking to our enemies.Obama will not be the golden bullet for all of our problems, but he present a fresh approach that is welcomed by millions, yourself excluded. He offers a new and open way to approach politics domestically and abroad. He wants to open the government to the people, to open lines of communication to the world, to start to fix what was wrong in Iraq. If you somehow think that opening up lines of communication as well as the government will be a polarizing action, then I'm sorry, but you're wrong. People are tired of the way things have been done, closed doors, policies towards other countries where we are the MIGHTY UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS MUST BOW AT OUR FEET, where we play the ignore game with people we don't like, and invade countries on the possibility that they might posses, and might at some point in the future give the weapons they might possess to terrorists who may or may not have ever been in their country. Cmon.It's not hard for me to understand why you're so resistant to the change Obama offers, and that's because you're tied in dogmatically to the ways of the past, the ways things have been done, and how has that worked out for you? Maybe you, well, but for millions of americans, we're sick of it. The rich have benefited immensely recently while education has gone down the tubes for many americans, health care costs have skyrocketed, incomes have stagnated, college costs are soaring, and more. People have to work harder and longer than ever before just to maintain their standard of living. Jobs are being sent overseas and our school systems aren't equipping our students for competition on a global scale.So maybe what we do need is more attention applied to those who need it. Not the rich, not the iraqi's, but to our under-privileged here at home. To the poor, to the kids who need health care, to the people who'd like to go to college but can't afford it, to those who want health care but can't afford it, to the kids who deserve a good education but whose schools have been failing them. The time for focusing on the businesses and the rich people in our country is coming to an end. What people want now is a focus on the common persons problems, and that's EXACTLY why democrats are getting voters out in record numbers...because both Hillary and Obama are speaking to the common persons problems, and offering new solutions, and new hope, to people who have been short on both for a long time now.So feel free to suggest that maintaining the status quo is a good idea, by cutting back government programs, by continuing to pump in billions monthly to iraq while people at home are neglected. Let's let the "free market" dictate who gets what, because that's worked so well in the past for those who are born into poor families, in bad neighborhoods, go to bad schools. Yes, let's keep up what has worked for the upper middle class and the rich for years, and ignore the problems of our working class and poor neighbors.

Adonis,I very much appreciate your enthusiam and passion for your candidate, and your response is eloquent and sounds much like the man you're supporting. In answer to your question about me, I absolutely protested everything you're talking about. I attended an anti-Iraq war rally in Santa Monica. I was livid about Katrina. And I will be livid if Obama meets with the current president of Iraq. Please don't try to pigeonhole me, and I promise not to pigeonhole you.

I'm glad to hear that and although it sounds accusatory, I was really hoping you'd answer the "where were you" talk. But what about the republican senators who you say will "walk out", where were they on these issues?

I want to add that I think you're wrong regarding what is motivating people to vote for Obama. I wrote it before: he's much like Reagan. People want something new, and he's optimistic and a great speaker. His politics have little to do with it, same with Reagan. If Obama wins, 30 years from now people like you will be arguing that Democrats are "not enough like Obama" and "Obama proved that progressive ideas, if delivered firmly and with passion, will always win." This is the same flaw conservatives have now, and you'll be wrong like they are now. Reagan won because he was Reagan. Obama is winning because he's Obama.

Obama is no reagan. Obama's scholastic career is exceptionally strong. By all accounts he is a great intellect. He taught constitutional law, first black editor of harvard law review, harvard graduate, civil rights attorney, etc. He's a brilliant man. Was reagon that exceptional in studies? Maybe, if so I didn't hear it.Also, Obama has shown he has sound judgement, from Iraq, to pakistan, to choosing leaders and directions for his campaign to go in to take on the powerful clinton machine, and beat them. To many people, he's just all talk, but when you strip off that meaningless label, you'll find that there is a lot of substance to him as an intellect, as a professional, as someone who has worked for the people, as a man growing up in challenging circumstances...etc.Those who dismiss him as being all talk and no game are really doing him a disservice, but none of that really matters. He is qualified, he has specific plans, and he's a competent leader.What matters is whether the direction he wants to take the country is the RIGHT direction at our current time. I believe it is. I gave reasons above on what that is, and in a post in another thread, on how I'll vote conservatively when the nation is going well, when our ship is in order, and when I'll vote liberally when I feel that much change is needed. Much change is needed now, and I believe Obama is the person to bring NOT ONLY change, but the right kind of change.

 

[bigbottom]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

What's to unpack? Except in rare instances where it can't be helped, I generally believe in free market capitalism. You can agree with me or not, but we all have heard these arguments all our lives; I don't need to rehash them here. It would do a disservice to people much more knowledgeable than me on these issues to argue them with you. If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Why does it have to be an argument? I just asked for you to provide an explanation for your belief. If you don't care to provide one, that's fine, but I'm not going to go subscribe to and read a bunch of magazines to find an explanation for your statement.

 

[saintfool]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

What's to unpack? Except in rare instances where it can't be helped, I generally believe in free market capitalism. You can agree with me or not, but we all have heard these arguments all our lives; I don't need to rehash them here. It would do a disservice to people much more knowledgeable than me on these issues to argue them with you. If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

I'd argue that there are some services that should be focused on quality rather than profit motive. Market constraints put pressure on corporations to ask the question "how cheap?" rather than "how good?". That's fine for some industries but shouldn't we have higher expectations than a governing principle of "how little do i have to do in order for you to buy this?"

 

[timschochet]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

What's to unpack? Except in rare instances where it can't be helped, I generally believe in free market capitalism. You can agree with me or not, but we all have heard these arguments all our lives; I don't need to rehash them here. It would do a disservice to people much more knowledgeable than me on these issues to argue them with you. If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Why does it have to be an argument? I just asked for you to provide an explanation for your belief. If you don't care to provide one, that's fine, but I'm not going to go subscribe to and read a bunch of magazines to find an explanation for your statement.

OK, later I will look for a concise and succint explanation and paste it here.

 

[goonsquad]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

Where were you staging walkouts and protests when THIS president disgraced our country? When we go to war in iraq and do a piss-poor job of managing the war that the people there are worse off than when we went in. What about how piss poor a job the administration did with Katrina? What about making a case to the world that we knew there were WMD's when there weren't? Where were you protesting then? Did you protest the Patriot Act? Detaining people in america without due process or even the ability to see a lawyer? Domestic wiretapping? What about waterboarding? The america you say you strongly believe in and want to protect has been put through the ringer the past 8 years, and much has been done to damage our perception, and freedoms, domestically and internationally. Why only now do you seem to care, when a new person comes in with ideas you obviously disagree with? Where was your outrage or your concern? What about the republican's in office who supposedly will stage "walkouts". Where were they on these issues? Give me a break with the "socialist" propaganda and the righteous indignation about a democratic candidate disgracing the country by actually talking to our enemies.Obama will not be the golden bullet for all of our problems, but he present a fresh approach that is welcomed by millions, yourself excluded. He offers a new and open way to approach politics domestically and abroad. He wants to open the government to the people, to open lines of communication to the world, to start to fix what was wrong in Iraq. If you somehow think that opening up lines of communication as well as the government will be a polarizing action, then I'm sorry, but you're wrong. People are tired of the way things have been done, closed doors, policies towards other countries where we are the MIGHTY UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS MUST BOW AT OUR FEET, where we play the ignore game with people we don't like, and invade countries on the possibility that they might posses, and might at some point in the future give the weapons they might possess to terrorists who may or may not have ever been in their country. Cmon.It's not hard for me to understand why you're so resistant to the change Obama offers, and that's because you're tied in dogmatically to the ways of the past, the ways things have been done, and how has that worked out for you? Maybe you, well, but for millions of americans, we're sick of it. The rich have benefited immensely recently while education has gone down the tubes for many americans, health care costs have skyrocketed, incomes have stagnated, college costs are soaring, and more. People have to work harder and longer than ever before just to maintain their standard of living. Jobs are being sent overseas and our school systems aren't equipping our students for competition on a global scale.So maybe what we do need is more attention applied to those who need it. Not the rich, not the iraqi's, but to our under-privileged here at home. To the poor, to the kids who need health care, to the people who'd like to go to college but can't afford it, to those who want health care but can't afford it, to the kids who deserve a good education but whose schools have been failing them. The time for focusing on the businesses and the rich people in our country is coming to an end. What people want now is a focus on the common persons problems, and that's EXACTLY why democrats are getting voters out in record numbers...because both Hillary and Obama are speaking to the common persons problems, and offering new solutions, and new hope, to people who have been short on both for a long time now.So feel free to suggest that maintaining the status quo is a good idea, by cutting back government programs, by continuing to pump in billions monthly to iraq while people at home are neglected. Let's let the "free market" dictate who gets what, because that's worked so well in the past for those who are born into poor families, in bad neighborhoods, go to bad schools. Yes, let's keep up what has worked for the upper middle class and the rich for years, and ignore the problems of our working class and poor neighbors.

HOLY CRAP I Adonis!

 

[Gopher State]

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

By MIKE McINTIRE

Published: February 3, 2008

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.

The Obama campaign said in written responses to questions that Mr. Obama “never discussed this issue or this bill” with Mr. Axelrod. The campaign acknowledged that Exelon executives had met with Mr. Obama’s staff about the bill, as had concerned residents, environmentalists and regulators. It said the revisions resulted not from any influence by Exelon, but as a necessary response to a legislative roadblock put up by Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time.

“If Senator Obama had listened to industry demands, he wouldn’t have repeatedly criticized Exelon in the press, introduced the bill and then fought for months to get action on it,” the campaign said. “Since he has over a decade of legislative experience, Senator Obama knows that it’s very difficult to pass a perfect bill.”

Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.

Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama’s efforts yielded any lasting benefits. David A. Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists agreed that “it took the introduction of the bill in the first place to get a reaction from the industry.”

“But of course because it is all voluntary,” Mr. Lochbaum said, “who’s to say where things will be a few years from now?”

New York Times

 

[saintfool]

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

this has been talked about already within the thread, i believe. complete non-story.

 

[Abraham]

New York Times

Say no more.

 

[saintfool]

New York Times

Say no more.

they've been on a roll of late, haven't they?

 

[Abraham]

New York Times

Say no more.

they've been on a roll of late, haven't they?

My friend who is the media director of an MLB team won't take their calls anymore due to a variety of run-ins wherein they made up quotes by players and then published that he was a liar when he called to ask for a retraction. TERRIBLE newsrag.

 

[ericttspikes]

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.

Sure every candidate has fluff pieces like that. But Obama can and will be attacked here more agressively than he was in the Democratic primary. He has a history of inaction on some issues and many of his bills can be framed as "more of the same" instead of a roadmap for meaningful change. And the truth is that most of Obama's 1000+ votes in the Senate lined up very similarly to Hillary. Of course Obama has plenty he can go after McCain with too. Ultimately, I don't think McCain has what it takes to defeat Obama, but I think he will be much more successful as framing Obama as "just another Democratic senator" as opposed to a mythical maverick for Change.

This is why I think LESS Senate experience is a positive, and why this is probably the first time in a long time, if not ever, that 2 Senators will be the nominees. The Senate forces bad votes and sometimes no votes, that is the nature of the political beast. I'm sure we'll see some of McCain's votes in the general that can be painted negatively to both conservatives and liberals, that's a problem. For liberals, no votes on Lobbying and Donation Regulations or no vote on the Price-Gouging During Emergencies Amendment are examples. Both voted yes by Obama. On the flip side I applaud McCain for breaking with the GOP to ban waterboarding, a bill neither Clinton or Obama voted on.I think it is a net positive that Obama or Clinton will run against a fellow Senator, as McCain's 22 year old record is there to view and compare and he is in a tough spot. He is entire 22 year record is more liberal than most of the GOP but he will go into the general trying to court conservative support, something he has been setting up for the past two sessions. Before the 108th Senate, only 4 GOP caucus members were LESS conservative than McCain. With an eye on the presidency in the 108th Senate, he did an about face (flip flop?) and moved to the right, hard. Only 3 members more conservative. By the 109th, he was firmly to the right, only one more conservative. Who is the real McCain? Does 2 years of a 22 year career make him a conservative? Do the indpendents and liberals who liked him in 2000 like his recent voting shift? Does this shift show political calculation or true conviction?

If Obama doesn't win, I really hope he leaves the Senate and goes for a governorship if he plans to run again.

 

[Clayton Gray]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

What's to unpack? Except in rare instances where it can't be helped, I generally believe in free market capitalism. You can agree with me or not, but we all have heard these arguments all our lives; I don't need to rehash them here. It would do a disservice to people much more knowledgeable than me on these issues to argue them with you. If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Why does it have to be an argument? I just asked for you to provide an explanation for your belief. If you don't care to provide one, that's fine, but I'm not going to go subscribe to and read a bunch of magazines to find an explanation for your statement.

OK, later I will look for a concise and succint explanation and paste it here.

 

[whitem0nkey]

does anyone have a link to listen to yesterdays debate?

I don't care if its video or just audio.

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

Exactly - attack Obama as disingenuous when McCain has 25 years of Senate voting to pour over? McCain is the last one wanting to get into a debate on compromising policy standards in favor of getting a vote passed. It is how Washington politicians live and breathe - you scratch my bill and I'll scratch yours.

 

[flufhed]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

What's to unpack? Except in rare instances where it can't be helped, I generally believe in free market capitalism. You can agree with me or not, but we all have heard these arguments all our lives; I don't need to rehash them here. It would do a disservice to people much more knowledgeable than me on these issues to argue them with you. If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Why does it have to be an argument? I just asked for you to provide an explanation for your belief. If you don't care to provide one, that's fine, but I'm not going to go subscribe to and read a bunch of magazines to find an explanation for your statement.

OK, later I will look for a concise and succint explanation and paste it here.

Wait . . . really?

 

[Marc Levin]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Hi Tim,is their an online resource providing this info?

I'm sure there is, but I don't know it. There are dozens of websites that comprise libertarian thought. I will look it up later, when I have some more time. But if you google "free market solutions to health care", something should turn up.

So let me get this straight - you would abolish Medicare and Medicaid, you would abolish Bush's prescription drug subsidy, and you believe the people who rely on those programs would be better off going a free market route?That is the implication of this statemet you made above:

if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world