What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

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

CNN projects Washington and Nebraska to Obama by wiiide margins. Louisiana should follow suit I imagine.

"In Nebraska, Obama led rival Hillary Clinton 69-31 percent, with 74 percent of precincts reporting.

He held a similar edge in Washington, where he was ahead 67-32 percent with 37 percent of precincts reporting."

link

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CNN projects Washington and Nebraska to Obama by wiiide margins. Louisiana should follow suit I imagine.

"In Nebraska, Obama led rival Hillary Clinton 69-31 percent, with 74 percent of precincts reporting.

He held a similar edge in Washington, where he was ahead 67-32 percent with 37 percent of precincts reporting."

link
There is no question that everyone thought he would win easily tonight, but these margins are impressive. More record turnouts in Washington and Nebraska as well.
 
Are people suffering from Hillary fatigue, or do they really like Obama more? If Hillary Clinton weren't the former First Lady, would this be closer?

 
So I've been trying to convince my mother-in-law to vote for Obama. She was a Biden supporter before. She votes this Tuesday. So I just got this email today:

[fatguy],

I went to Obama's webb site. I read about him and some of his thoughts. I felt taken back to the 70's.

Obama DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE, in my opinion, to handle the problems that the next president will face. WE HAVE "WORLD PROBLEMS"! He focuses on domestic problems and is not complete in his explanation of them, in my opinion, therefore he even falls short domestically.

I am not willing to take a chance on Obama at this time from what I have read or seen so far.

If there is a site that you think would change my opinion, please send it to me.

Thanks.

love,

mom
Any ideas here?
From a week ago or so, but may be helpful:Obamania

Though skeptics contend that Obama lacks "experience," this concern makes sense only if you think you have to be a Washington insider to be qualified to run for president. Obama began his career as a community organizer and civil rights attorney in Chicago -- relevant background for someone who will have to deal with tough economic and social justice issues as president. He was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 and the U.S. Senate in 2004; in all, he's spent 11 years being directly accountable to voters (that's four more than Clinton).

Is that "enough" experience? Remember that if you never develop good judgment, racking up "experience" just tends to make you older, not necessarily smarter. **** Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were "experienced," and they brought us the Iraq war. Clinton, who's billing herself as the "experienced" candidate, voted for that war.

Meanwhile, Obama, as a D.C. outsider, said in 2002 that a war in Iraq would be "a dumb war. ... A war based not on principle but on politics." He predicted, accurately, that the Iraq war would distract the U.S. from domestic priorities (such as the economy) and from our more pressing national security priorities (going after Al Qaeda, nuclear nonproliferation, forging a better energy policy).

Obama has good judgment, which trumps mere experience every time. On Iran, he called for engagement and a toning down of bellicose rhetoric. Clinton was instead fanning the flames by voting for an amendment favored by the Bush administration that called the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama's judgment was vindicated when the National Intelligence Estimate asserted that Iran had already stopped its nuclear weapons program. On Pakistan, Obama consistently raised questions about the unqualified U.S. support for Pervez Musharraf -- and was vindicated again as it became increasingly clear that Musharraf was neither a democrat nor a reliable U.S. ally against extremism.

Obama has solid legislative accomplishments under his belt too. In the sink-or-swim Illinois statehouse, he brokered compromises on politically sensitive issues such as children's health coverage, racial profiling and tax credits for the working poor. In the U.S. Senate, Obama sponsored ethics reform legislation, legislation to ensure accountability of private military contractors and -- with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar -- a successful bill on securing global stocks of conventional weapons. That wasn't glamorous, but it was important. Conventional weapons, not WMD, kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Equally important, Obama's background and message are enabling him to reach beyond any narrow demographic slice of the electorate, and this bodes well -- both for his ability to beat a GOP rival and for his ability to lead effectively and without divisiveness once elected.
 
More good stuff about Obama's ability to reach across party lines for votes:

In Virginia, a Longtime Republican Votes for Change

By Krissah Williams

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, February 10, 2008; A10

GLEN ALLEN, Va. -- Laura Barchi DeBusk threw on her boots and sunglasses as the school bus rounded the corner. Clutching her preschooler's hand, she crossed the street along with half a dozen other stay-at-home moms. DeBusk and her neighbors -- Republicans all -- rarely discuss politics, but days before a primary election here she decided to send a little shock through her subdivision.

"You'll be surprised to know I'm voting for Barack Obama," DeBusk, 37, announced as the school bus pulled up.

"Really?" her friend Sherry Tierney, 36, said as their first-graders hopped off the bus. "Why?"

"I feel like we need to get out of the Bush black-and-white way of thinking," DeBusk said. "I feel like McCain would also say, 'It's my way or the highway.' . . . Obama's message of inclusion and working together is what we need."

"But he's so young," Tierney replied. "I like McCain."

"He's soooo old," DeBusk fired back. "What will he be, 80, when he finishes his term?"

In the well-to-do western suburbs of Richmond, most mothers in the Twin Hickory subdivision agreed with Tierney. The Republican front-runner's military service, his moderate streak and his history of working with Democrats were attractive to the mothers. In a state where voters are allowed to participate in either primary, they planned to vote Republican on Tuesday.

DeBusk likes a lot about Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), too, but it's not enough to overcome her disenchantment with a Republican Party she thinks is adrift and uninspired, both in Virginia and nationally. She voted for President Bush twice and regrets where he has taken the country and what she thinks he has done to the good name of the United States of America. She's tired of what she sees as a lackluster string of Republicans that have run and, lately, lost in a Virginia that seems more liberal by the day. And she watched with particular dismay as Republican Sen. George Allen's 2006 reelection campaign went up in flames after he uttered a remark perceived by many as racist.

"You get so disappointed, like, these are the people we are putting up?" DeBusk said. "Like, are you kidding me? This is who we have to choose from?"

The Laura DeBusks of the country are just the kind of voters that Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) has courted -- sick of what they've been offered, tired of where things are headed and willing to try something, anything, new. Exit polls from elections across the country last week showed that Obama won the majority of independent voters. DeBusk, like many voters, worries about Obama's lack of experience, and she disagrees with him on a handful of issues, particularly his tax policies. But her desire for change is so great, she's willing to take the chance.

"Even if he doesn't do everything the way I'd like, I really feel like he can move us forward," she said.

DeBusk was raised in a conservative military family where discipline, love of country and voting Republican were shared values. She respects McCain's military service, but she'll consider him only if Hillary Rodham Clinton is the Democratic nominee. She thinks Clinton is smart and capable but fears that Republicans so dislike the New York senator that the country will be polarized.

"If it's between McCain and Clinton in the general election, then I'm voting for McCain," DeBusk said. "I can't imagine what it must have been like to be raising a preteen when Bill Clinton was in the White House."

DeBusk's daughters, Claire, 4, and Kathryn, 6, ran off to play in a creek a few feet away while the moms continued to talk politics.

Caroline Walters, 40, who has lined up behind McCain, said, "I'm worried about whether [Obama] has enough experience. He's not even a full-term senator."

Before DeBusk could tell Walters that she thinks leadership, vision and the ability to inspire the nation the way she thinks Ronald Reagan did are more important than experience, Claire started crying. DeBusk recognized the shout for "Mama."

Inside their two-story house, DeBusk gave her daughters a snack, and while the girls watched an episode of "The Berenstain Bears," she logged on to the computer for a quick news update.

Walters had mentioned that Mitt Romney had dropped out of the Republican race, so DeBusk pulled up a video of Romney and heard him say: "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

"I don't get his logic," DeBusk said, and she shut down the computer.

She had never seriously considered voting for the former Massachusetts governor and business executive, although her husband, Chris, 38, who is also a registered Republican, often says: "Why can't they run the government more like a business? Be more efficient?"

Romney would have been an efficient manager, she thinks. But still, DeBusk felt he would have been "the same older white man."

"It kind of makes you wonder: Why can't the Republicans put up somebody different? We've had women and minorities serving as governors, senators and businesspeople," she said. "We keep churning out the same people over and over."

DeBusk, a petite white woman whose mother stayed home for several years to raise her and whose father was a Navy officer, said her background and social circle is probably more similar to McCain's and Romney's than to that of Obama, the son of a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, and who was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia.

"I haven't had the most diverse life experience," said DeBusk, who grew up mostly in Annandale and went to William and Mary, where she met her husband. "I just think we need people in the presidency whose paths haven't been as greased. I think it does bring a different perspective. It makes you more empathetic."

But Mike Huckabee, the Southern preacher-turned-politician whom no one has accused of having had a "greased path," didn't appeal to DeBusk, either. She thinks the former Arkansas governor is charming, but she would not vote for a Christian conservative. "The whole religious-right part of him scares me," she said. "A lot of the religious right labels people. America is too diverse for that to be a big part of your message."

With that, DeBusk had crossed out every Republican candidate. She has been a member of the party all her adult life and longs for the old days, when her parents talked about Ronald Reagan and how he restored a sense of pride to the military after the antiwar protests of the '60s and '70s.

"That was a time when we felt really good about being Americans," DeBusk said, her feet folded onto the couch in her spacious living room. "He made you feel proud to be an American. He was very patriotic, and he was able to express that in a way that people felt it. I would love that for my children, because I think we feel badly about ourselves. Every day, you're hearing they [people in the rest of the world] hate the Americans. These people hate the Americans."

She thought Bush was wrong to invade Iraq but trusted him more than she did the Democrats to fight terrorism. Now she's among the nearly 70 percent of Americans who don't think highly of him. In the past few years, she said, the administration has given the world the impression that Americans are unyielding and undiplomatic. All that pushed her toward Obama.

She was first intrigued when he said he would meet with world leaders, even unfriendly ones. "I know we don't like Syria, and I'm sure that they are doing some things that are not nice, but we should talk to them," she said.

It was after Obama won Iowa that DeBusk started searching out his policies online. They mostly appealed to her, but "all campaign Web sites make everything sound great," she said.

Obama really won her over after his decisive victory in South Carolina, when he said, "It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old, and it is not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

Right on, she thought.

Her mother and stepfather, also Republicans, became supporters of Obama in Delaware for many of the same reasons and mailed her an Obama bumper sticker.

There are no yard signs on the manicured lawns of Twin Hickory and no campaign placards in the windows of homes, but DeBusk was feeling bold the other day, inspired by a politician for the first time in who knows how long. She took the bumper sticker outside, walked to the back of her 2004 white GMC Yukon and slapped it on.

"Obama '08," it said.
Link
 
To: Damon <cosjobs@cosjobs.com>

From: "Barack Obama" <info@barackobama.com>

Subject: Results

Damon --

We just learned that we won all three contests today -- in Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington State.

We've now won 18 out of 28 states, with New Mexico still in the balance.

What's more, we also estimate that we at least doubled our delegate lead today.

Our momentum is strong, but another round of tough contests is about to begin.

Tomorrow, Democrats will caucus in Maine. And on Tuesday, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia will have their turn.

To win, we need to bring as many people into the process as possible. We're pushing towards 500,000 donors this year by March 4th, when Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont vote.

You can bring someone new into our campaign by promising to match their first donation. Make a matching donation of $25 now and double someone's impact:

https://donate.barackobama.com/match

This race is still extremely close, and we need your support to remain competitive.

Thank you for making this possible.

Barack
As much as I like the guy, I wish he'd write some time just to say "hi" or something.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/02/...a_mc.html#obama

Ohio's largest newspaper endorses Senator Obama... :thumbup:

Ohio Democrats have to ask themselves which candidate is more likely, first, to win the White House, and, then, to persuade a closely divided country to embrace his or her vision of change. Put even more pointedly: Who is more likely to change the world of a child born in 2008?

The answer, we think, is Barack Obama.

 
This is going to come down to Ohio & Texas. Obama will need one of those states to get the nom..
I don't think it's going to be Texas.
I'm not sure he needs either, as long as he can stay close in both races. He has a 31 delegate lead right now in pledged delegates, and it looks like he will increase that lead next week. If he can maintain a lead in pledged delegates until the end of the primary season, he has an excellent argument to convince superdelegates to change their mind. This is a fascinating race, and there are all kinds of things that could happen.
 
This is going to come down to Ohio & Texas. Obama will need one of those states to get the nom..
I don't think it's going to be Texas.
I'm not sure he needs either, as long as he can stay close in both races. He has a 31 delegate lead right now in pledged delegates, and it looks like he will increase that lead next week. If he can maintain a lead in pledged delegates until the end of the primary season, he has an excellent argument to convince superdelegates to change their mind. This is a fascinating race, and there are all kinds of things that could happen.
I agree that it's fascinating. Here are two nightmare scenarios for the Democrats.1) The final pledged delegate count is close enough that seating the Florida delegation would change the outcome. Clinton can argue that the party is disenfranchising the nearly two million Democrats who voted in the Florida primary. Can Obama really put himself in the position of telling people that their votes shouldn't count? If Clinton does manage to get them seated, it would be an enormous boost for her. She won 48 of the 67 counties; Obama won 8. The total number of Florida's pledged delegates is 185.2) Obama wins the pledged delegate race, while Clinton wins the popular vote. I don't see a way that either of these scenarios play out that wouldn't alienate or even outrage (tens of) millions of Clinton or Obama supporters. Would it be enough for them to stay home in November? Would the fear of this happening encourage some sort of deal "for the good of the Party" before the Convention even started?
 
This is going to come down to Ohio & Texas. Obama will need one of those states to get the nom..
I don't think it's going to be Texas.
I'm not sure he needs either, as long as he can stay close in both races. He has a 31 delegate lead right now in pledged delegates, and it looks like he will increase that lead next week. If he can maintain a lead in pledged delegates until the end of the primary season, he has an excellent argument to convince superdelegates to change their mind. This is a fascinating race, and there are all kinds of things that could happen.
I agree that it's fascinating. Here are two nightmare scenarios for the Democrats.1) The final pledged delegate count is close enough that seating the Florida delegation would change the outcome. Clinton can argue that the party is disenfranchising the nearly two million Democrats who voted in the Florida primary. Can Obama really put himself in the position of telling people that their votes shouldn't count? If Clinton does manage to get them seated, it would be an enormous boost for her. She won 48 of the 67 counties; Obama won 8. The total number of Florida's pledged delegates is 185.2) Obama wins the pledged delegate race, while Clinton wins the popular vote. I don't see a way that either of these scenarios play out that wouldn't alienate or even outrage (tens of) millions of Clinton or Obama supporters. Would it be enough for them to stay home in November? Would the fear of this happening encourage some sort of deal "for the good of the Party" before the Convention even started?
The Clinton women are still going to vote Dem in November. Regardless. I think more people will rally to Obamas side if Hillary loses to him than the other way around.
 
Obama did what a good team does. He won contests he should win and he grabbed a toss up. There was some discussion on his viability in Washington as it seems to favor female legislators and he even won that one. Great night.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...dynamic/?page=1

Article in the Globe today that points out strategy could change to focus on superdelegates.

It would be interesting exercise to get a list of superdelegates by state, and then divide them up according to how their state voted (or is projected to vote) in the primary. (e.g., since Hilary beat Obama 52% to 42% in Cal, give her that proportion of superdelegates from Cal).

I wonder who would come out ahead in that scenario. It might be a way for either candidate to "rationalize" getting the nomination if they are trailing slightly going into the convention.

 
Can I get a list of newspapers that didn't endorse Obama?
NY Post, WSJ, Washington TImes
I thought the Post endorsed Obama but the NYTimes didn't.
Correct. Post (Rupert Murdoch) endorsed Obama...Times for Clinton.
I confess. I had no idea and did not look it up. I just assumed the Murdoch rags and the Washington Times would be against anything as progressive and hopeful as an Obama candidacy.
 
"I'm a big fan of Senator Clinton and I thought long and hard about my decision, but ultimately I think Senator Obama is going to unify and govern in a way that will be very positive for the nation," said caucus-goer Paul Steven-Miller, a former White House policy adviser to ex-president Bill Clinton.
 
I think the real nightmare scenario is this:

Obama wins the pledged delegates, the popular votes and the number of states. But Clinton ends up winning the nomination due to back room deals with superdelegates. One commentator said "We're talking about the Clintons. They'll start giving away cabinet postion before they lose an election."

 
I think the real nightmare scenario is this:Obama wins the pledged delegates, the popular votes and the number of states. But Clinton ends up winning the nomination due to back room deals with superdelegates. One commentator said "We're talking about the Clintons. They'll start giving away cabinet postion before they lose an election."
If that scenario played out, I think Clinton would need something to hang her hat on to get super delegates to vote for her. If she could say "I simply want the super delegates in that states I won to vote for me", and those votes would be enough to win, I could see that happening. But if she doesn't even have that going for her, there's no way she gets the nomination. It'd be complete suicide for the Dems in November.
 
According to CNN today:

Clinton 1108

Obama 1049

Edwards 26

Total delegates to date and includes pledged delegates and superdelegates.

Unsure if this includes NM

edit to add: includes NM: Clinton 18 and Obama 13

also includes 2 for Clinton from Maine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Pledged: 885

Superdelegates: 223

Total: 1,108

Obama

Barack Obama

Pledged: 918

Superdelegates: 131

Total: 1,049

 
I think the real nightmare scenario is this:Obama wins the pledged delegates, the popular votes and the number of states. But Clinton ends up winning the nomination due to back room deals with superdelegates. One commentator said "We're talking about the Clintons. They'll start giving away cabinet postion before they lose an election."
Obama doesn't know how to do this? Seems to me that a man that needs to work with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will have to pass this simple entry level test himself. The real nightmare scenario is electing another Jimmy Carter that is just too decent to stand up for his country's ideals.
 
I agree with everyone that is saying this is going to be an absolutely fascinating race to watch from here on out...

Obama is going to win more states. Clinton is going to win the biggest states.

What happens if Clinton takes PA, OH, TX but still falls a bit shy on pledged delegates? What happens if Obama takes 1 of the 3 but the supers don't fall in line?

This election should be a wake-up call that the primary process is very very broken but alas it won't be.

 
I think the real nightmare scenario is this:Obama wins the pledged delegates, the popular votes and the number of states. But Clinton ends up winning the nomination due to back room deals with superdelegates. One commentator said "We're talking about the Clintons. They'll start giving away cabinet postion before they lose an election."
Obama doesn't know how to do this? Seems to me that a man that needs to work with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will have to pass this simple entry level test himself. The real nightmare scenario is electing another Jimmy Carter that is just too decent to stand up for his country's ideals.
I don't think he's as underhanded as the Clintons. For some people, that's part of his appeal. I don't think "another Jimmy Carter" is even running so you should be able to sleep nightmare-free.Plus, I disagree with your assumption that a decent person is unable to stand up fir his country's ideals.
 
From a week ago or so, but may be helpful:

Obamania

Though skeptics contend that Obama lacks "experience," this concern makes sense only if you think you have to be a Washington insider to be qualified to run for president.
That is incorrect. Experience in any avenue of leadership, public or private, is acceptable. If Obama owned a business in the past, or perhaps held a position of leadership in the military, that is good leadership experience. But in the end, you see the elders of society are quite skeptical of Obama and for good reason. I think their judgement is best here.

 
I think the real nightmare scenario is this:Obama wins the pledged delegates, the popular votes and the number of states. But Clinton ends up winning the nomination due to back room deals with superdelegates. One commentator said "We're talking about the Clintons. They'll start giving away cabinet postion before they lose an election."
Obama doesn't know how to do this? Seems to me that a man that needs to work with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will have to pass this simple entry level test himself. The real nightmare scenario is electing another Jimmy Carter that is just too decent to stand up for his country's ideals.
I don't think he's as underhanded as the Clintons. For some people, that's part of his appeal. I don't think "another Jimmy Carter" is even running so you should be able to sleep nightmare-free.Plus, I disagree with your assumption that a decent person is unable to stand up fir his country's ideals.
I definitely believe Obama would be Carter II. Carter ran a completely disorganized white house and at one point fired his entire cabinet because he couldn't figure out how to lead. And Carter actually had prior leadership experience. To ask Obama, who has no leadership experience, to handle DC is too much.
 
I will be at a central Maine caucus in 20-30 minutes. This is my first time voting in Maine for a presidential election, and I am interested in the process here.

 
So I've been trying to convince my mother-in-law to vote for Obama. She was a Biden supporter before. She votes this Tuesday. So I just got this email today:

[fatguy],I went to Obama's webb site. I read about him and some of his thoughts. I felt taken back to the 70's. Obama DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE, in my opinion, to handle the problems that the next president will face. WE HAVE "WORLD PROBLEMS"! He focuses on domestic problems and is not complete in his explanation of them, in my opinion, therefore he even falls short domestically. I am not willing to take a chance on Obama at this time from what I have read or seen so far. If there is a site that you think would change my opinion, please send it to me. Thanks. love,mom
Any ideas here?
Sounds like you emailed my mom. She has the same opinion. This "experience" thing is really obnoxious. Hillary's "experience" isn't terribly extensive, and when she had the chance to vote no to the authorization for war, she sided with Bush. Now that she's being confronted on it, she says that her vote was to reinstate inspections. If that's "experience," I'll pass, thanks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top