Democrats & Liberals Archives

Cool Obama

After hearing so much about her “throwing the kitchen sink” at Obama, I was amazed to see Senator Clinton wilt not from Obama’s attacks but from his cool, calm, and complimentary rhetoric. At the Democratic Debate last night, he answered all her charges in an even, confident voice and where possible he complimented Clinton.

Clinton started where she had previously left off dressing down Obama on his "shameful" ad about her healthcare plan. She went after him hammer and tong. To every charge, Obama responded in a clear, measured tone. And each time Clinton atacked Obama's response, and then Obama retorted. They kept at it for several cycles until moderator Brian Williams stopped it and declared that they had taken up 16 minutes on healthcare. Clinton did not let go; she claimed that the subject was important.

After this first exchange Clinton attacked again and again, but with less vehemence. With his cool and reasonable responses, Obama had calmed her down. When Obama denounced Farrakhan but failed to reject Farrakhan's support, Clinton made a big to-do about the difference between "denounce" and "reject." So Obama smoothly replied that he "denounces" AND "rejects" Farrakhan's support.

Much discussion had taken place before the debate about photos of Obama dressed in Somali garb in Africa. So this came up and Clinton claimed she was against this sort of thing and that she would fire anybody in her campaign who distributed such photos. Obama immediately said he takes her at her word. No more was said about this. You could see Clinton relax somewhat at this point.

At another point, Obama took the opportunity to praise Senator Clinton:

Senator Clinton has campaigned magnificently. She is an outstanding public servant and I'm very proud to have campaigned with her.

Slowly you could see how Obama softened Clinton up. At the end she finished graciously.

I have read several assessments of the debate. Some dwell on the conflict, others dwell on moderator Russert's nastiness, still others on who won. I came away marveling how Obama turned an angry attacker into a more relaxed person.

Cool Obama. We need such coolnes in the Whitehouse.

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 27, 2008 5:36 PM
Comments
Comment #246589

Paul, as a conservative I watched the debate with great interest. Obama was cool and collected and parried well with Clinton. I believe he has the nomination wrapped up but that won’t happen until the August convention. Still, strange things happen in politics and I just can’t count her out until I hear the words from her mouth.

I found the substance of the debate a little thin. I do have senior moments at age 67 but I don’t recall much about our economy. I did hear something about creating “green jobs”. I guess if one believes in man-made global warming then it makes a little sense. We’re building thousands of wind generators in Texas which is great for our economy and state. Sure could use a few nuclear plants and more oil refineries to go along with the wind power. When the price is attractive I’ll install solar panels on my house.

Some may find it strange for a conservative to advocate green power, but we’re not stupid or uncaring. Hell, I don’t want any more pollution than necessary either. Just don’t give us the global warming crap and carbon tax bullshit.

Off subject, what is all this fuss over the warm-up guy for McCain using Obama’s entire name? When and if he is sworn in as president will he not use his full name? And what’s the big deal about the photo of him in some African costume. Was the photo real? Was he forced to pose for it? American presidents used to routinely post in native Indian costumes.

Posted by: Jim M at February 27, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #246595

Personally I’d like to wait and see how cool he will be after the nominations,if he gets nominated,when all the real mud slinging gets started.

Posted by: KAP at February 27, 2008 7:28 PM
Comment #246596

I did not see the debate that way at all. I don’t think Obama softened Clinton up. Maybe he stayed calm and cool because as usual the moderators were much harder on clinton and and gave him a pass. In other debates, I have heard Clinton be gracious with Obama. I don’t think he does that well in debates and has a harder time articulating clearly what he is trying to say.

I can appreciate how frustrated Clinton must be to continually be criticized for every word that comes from her mouth and the media just does the Obama lovefest thing.

Any woman who had similar credentials as Obama would not be considered qualified enough to run for president.

As I have stated before, I was not a Clinton supporter but after seeing how she has been treated, I feel I must defend her. This has been a real eye opener for me and I am angry at the treatment she has received because she is a woman and our society deems it ok to treat her with such disrespect. If Barack had been treated anywhere near as badly as Clinton has there would have been a major outcry. So in my book if Clinton is a little testy and angry it is understandable.

In november I will vote for Barack because he is better than McCain but my first choice would have been John Edwards.

Posted by: Carolina at February 27, 2008 7:36 PM
Comment #246605

KAP-
Exactly what is the GOP planning at this point, driving a car around with dead hookers in the trunk, ready to be thrown in front of the Obama motorcade as it passes by?

But of course, having suggested that, somebody in the GOP might actually say “Well that’s a great idea!”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 27, 2008 9:35 PM
Comment #246606

Carolina-
Obama lovefest? The thing is, Obama’s not trying to convince the world he’s the number one tough guy. Hillary’s apparently thinking that insulting the moderators at the start and fixating on her topic of choice, even after the moderators obviously try to move on to the next subject is an expression of toughness.

I think it’s just being obnoxious. This shouldn’t be defended. A woman can be tough and assertive without having to be constantly belligerent. Obama doesn’t get a free pass; he minds his manners, acts and speaks graciously. Because he does that, he leaves these people without something obnoxious to pile onto him about. The best way to avoid trouble is to not get yourself into it in the first place.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 27, 2008 9:43 PM
Comment #246614

Stephen
How should I know what the GOP is planning? I just mentioned about after we know which candidates are going to run and the real fun starts from both sides. Personnally I probably would have voted for edwards if he would have gotten nominated. I don’t like Obama or Hilliary, On the GOP side I liked Rudy or Mit. I hope a good independent runs, You think Liberman might throw his hat in?

Posted by: KAP at February 28, 2008 4:34 AM
Comment #246615

Obama treats Clinton like a crazy aunt. He did of puts her down, then gives her a little and in the end makes her seem shrill.

I am no friend of Hilary Clinton, but I do feel a little of her pain. She is much more qualified (among the two neophytes at least) but she cannot get any traction against this good looking smooth talker.

I think it IS a bit of a gender issue (and this is not a subject I am particularly sensitive about). It is kind of the cool guy “let her talk” attitude I have seen on some occasions.

Obama is the cool kid. Hilary is the smart nerdy girl who finds that her intelligence is just trumped by Obama’s cool.

Actually, if you want a fictional analogy we can all understand, it is like Bart and Lisa Simpson interacting.

I really don’t have a dog in the internal Dem bickering. I just hope it goes on for a while. The latest opinion polls show that my man John McCain beats either of these junior varsity contenders. Both Clinton and Obama understand this. They are like a couple of little kids deciding which gets to take on the big boy. Bart and Lisa deciding who gets to fight Nelson.

Posted by: Jack at February 28, 2008 5:24 AM
Comment #246626

Cute, Jack. Referring to Obama (age 45) and Hillary (age 61) as kids just because your nominee-elect is a septugenarian and would be our oldest president.

And to burst the bubble of everyone on the Right: Yahoo News poll: Who is your choice for president?

Obama 31%
Clinton 26%
McCain 23%

L

Posted by: leatherankh at February 28, 2008 9:59 AM
Comment #246631

Stephen

You are right Hillary is not perfect and has not always approached everything in a perfect manner and tone as perfectly as Obama has done.

If Obama had been treated as Hillary has and would then have reacted the way Hilllary has toward the moderators my guess is he would be praised for holding his own, standing his ground, giving as good as he gets.

I am not even suggesting that people vote for Hillary all I am saying is treat her the way Barack is being treated, show her the same respect as is shown Barack, and then if she continues to act the same way I will concede that she has personality issues.

Also, women have to be twice as tough, twice as smart, and work twice as hard to prove themselves so if she is coming across to you as trying to be too tough maybe that is your issue not hers.

I thought Tim Russert came out of the box attacking and being forceful with Hillary. I felt his first question to Barack was softer and gentler. His body language, tone, and presentation was not nearly as provoting with Barack as it was with Hillary.

I hope that as time goes on Barack can hold up and maintain this cool persona that people seem to so admire. Once the repubs really get started it won’t be pretty. All it will take is for them to find one skeleton in his closet because most of white America will not be tolerant of one skeleton in an African American’s closet as they would be of 20 or more skeletons in a middle aged or senior white man’s closet. I think if you ask Hillary she can attest to the fact that the goal is farther and higher for her and will be for Barack once the media tires of him.

Posted by: Carolina at February 28, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #246632

Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, leatherankh, but the more trustworthy source of Rasmussen Reports (who was one of the few who are right abour their polling data) has a different story, from yesterday:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows John McCain leading both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in general election match-ups. McCain now leads Obama 46% to 43% and Clinton 48% to 43%. McCain has consistently held a modest lead over Clinton but he moved ahead of Obama only after publication of the controversial New York Times article last week
Nationwide, Obama is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 46%. McCain’s numbers are 55% favorable, 42% unfavorable. Clinton earns positive reviews from 47% of Likely Voters nationwide and negative assessments from 52%. McCain is trusted more than Obama when it comes to National Security, the War in Iraq, and the Economy. Obama is trusted more on the issue of Reducing Government Corruption.

About Rasmussen Reports:

Rasmussen Reports’ Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, “One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com.” And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, “In election campaigns, I’ve learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.”

Rasmussen Reports was also the nation’s most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry’s vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 11:06 AM
Comment #246634

Howard Wolfson has not given up on his job yet. There is not much that Hillary can do. When she is aggresive, people just call her a b word. If she does not win Ohio, she should concede.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 28, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #246640
the more trustworthy source of Rasmussen Reports

Rasmussen is run by the Republican party…

they may have gotten one poll correct, but even a stopped clock is correct twice a day…

Posted by: Rachel at February 28, 2008 1:07 PM
Comment #246643

Rachel,

Completely bullshit accusation, have anything at all to back that up? No?

It’s idiotic statements like this that makes me wonder if partisanship is more of a sickness than a simple political viewpoint…

Reports by Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal found that Rasumussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections, respectively.

Rasmussen Reports conducts the polls featured on the CBS game show Power of 10.

I didn’t realize Slate Magazine was a conservative mouthpiece, lol!

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 1:16 PM
Comment #246644

This entire shift of Hillary suddenly doing well against McCain has the fingerprints of the Republican agenda all over it.

It’s merely a ploy to get the Democrat party voters to back who the R’s think they have a better shot at defeating.

Just listen to Rush’s tune lately. He’s all about how stupid any Obama supporter is, because he’s scared out of his wits about how much of a landslide it will be if Obama goes up against McCain.

Also, people comment on how the Democrat party is eating itself while there is still McCain flesh stuck in Rush and other ‘conservative’ talk show hosts teeth.

I’m really enjoying this.

Posted by: bandman at February 28, 2008 1:24 PM
Comment #246647

It’s true. Barack Obama is as cool as a cucumber. This will make for a wonderful contrast against McCain, who as we all know is a cranky old man with an extremely volatile temper.

Carolina:

You are right Hillary is not perfect and has not always approached everything in a perfect manner and tone as perfectly as Obama has done.

The thing about Obama is that despite his faultlessly polite manner and tone, he has stated plainly that he is not perfect, and readily admits when he’s made mistakes. This is why he has been gaining the trust of so many people.
Hillary seems entirely incapable of admitting when she’s made mistakes - even very serious ones. Her vote on the Iraq war for example. She says her mistake was in believing that the Bush administration wouldn’t lie about going to war, but that only pins the blame elsewhere rather than on herself. Instead, she should have said that it was wrong not to have taken the time to read the NIE before she voted to go to war.

If Obama had been treated as Hillary has and would then have reacted the way Hilllary has toward the moderators my guess is he would be praised for holding his own, standing his ground, giving as good as he gets.

What crap. Russert actually tried to pin the despicable Farrakhan on Obama the other night, but you didn’t hear Obama complaining that Russert was making an unfair accusation (WHICH IT WAS), did you? No, instead Obama, true to form, stayed as cool as a cucumber and calmly answered that he denounced Farrakhan and all he stands for.

I am not even suggesting that people vote for Hillary all I am saying is treat her the way Barack is being treated, show her the same respect as is shown Barack, and then if she continues to act the same way I will concede that she has personality issues.

Sorry Carolina, but during this campaign Hillary has broken several cardinal rules of feminism. Women entering into what are traditionally male occupations never whine and complain if they want to garner respect from other women, and more importantly, the respect of men. But Hillary has done quite a lot of whining and complaining, and therefore is not going to be respected.
Feminists also don’t get their man to work as an attack dog for them. Hillary has done this by using her husband to smear and distort Obama’s record on the campaign trail. This has had the opposite effect than was intended, because rather than hurt Obama, Bill’s comments only damaged her. Hillary no longer appeared as a woman in control who could speak for herself the way a commanding leader naturally would, but made her look like a weak woman who was alternately standing behind her husband, or getting him to do her dirty work.
If Bill had done nothing but sing her praises, she would have been much better off.

Additionally, if Hillary had been getting huge crowds to show up to hear her speak, as Obama has, she would have gained the kind of media exposure that no one could deny - even if those same people in the media are carrying a grudge against her for shutting them out during her husbands tenure as president.


Also, women have to be twice as tough, twice as smart, and work twice as hard to prove themselves so if she is coming across to you as trying to be too tough maybe that is your issue not hers.

No, the problem is not toughness, intelligence, or the ability to work hard. Her biggest mistake was being a whiner.

I thought Tim Russert came out of the box attacking and being forceful with Hillary. I felt his first question to Barack was softer and gentler. His body language, tone, and presentation was not nearly as provoting with Barack as it was with Hillary.

Russert is a rightwinger who continually lobs softballs to those on the right, and goes on the attack with those on the left. The other night both Hillary and Obama were the beneficiaries of this treatment, and naturally both should have been anticipating it. To me it appeared that Obama was fully prepared for the expected Russert-ing he received, and Hillary wasn’t.

I hope that as time goes on Barack can hold up and maintain this cool persona that people seem to so admire.

I think he will, because I get the distinct impression it’s just part of who he is.

Once the repubs really get started it won’t be pretty. All it will take is for them to find one skeleton in his closet because most of white America will not be tolerant of one skeleton in an African American’s closet

Well, people already know about Rezko, but Obama has already dealt with it, and it isn’t hurting him.

as they would be of 20 or more skeletons in a middle aged or senior white man’s closet.

“Campaign Finance Reform McCain” currently has 59 skeletons in the form of lobbyists who are working for his campaign! Or 60 if some choose to count the special relationship he’s had with Vicki Iseman.

I think if you ask Hillary she can attest to the fact that the goal is farther and higher for her and will be for Barack once the media tires of him.

I predict there will be nothing tiring about Obama if he wins the nomination of our party. I think there will be an even greater burst of joyous energy and dedication coming from the Democratic grassroots than we’ve already seen. People truly LIKE what Obama’s got going for him, and that isn’t likely to simply dissipate into thin air. And that isn’t even counting what is going to be the stark comparison of seeing Obama and McCain side by side!
:^)

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 28, 2008 1:47 PM
Comment #246648
Completely bullshit accusation, have anything at all to back that up? No?

Check it out…are there any polling companies which are absolutely independent? And it’s long been general knowledge that Rasmussen leans right and is run by and for the Republican establishment…other polling institutions lean left…polls are polls…too much room for error in the way questions are asked and of whom they are asked…

Polls are like “fun” stuff…just something to speculate about, but not put one’s faith in…

Posted by: Rachel at February 28, 2008 1:49 PM
Comment #246649

Rachel:

Polls are like “fun” stuff…just something to speculate about, but not put one’s faith in…

I agree completely Rachel, although I do put a bit more weight on exit polling.
Btw, and speaking of fun, several polls currently have Obama beating Clinton in Texas!

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 28, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #246656

Sorry, Rachel, but I still call bullshit.

Can you provide me one legitimate link that even suggests such a thing? If I am going to be subjected to a conspiracy theory I could at least be presented with the circumstantial evidence to back it up. The 911 truthers at least TRY to appear legitimate when presenting their bullshit theories…

What’s next, factcheck.org another mouthpiece for the Republicans too?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 2:36 PM
Comment #246657
too much room for error in the way questions are asked and of whom they are asked…

Except Rasmussen gets their to within a half of a percentage point right consistently…

Sounds pretty dead on to me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 2:38 PM
Comment #246667

Rhinehold:

Except Rasmussen gets their to within a half of a percentage point right consistently…

Sounds pretty dead on to me.

Rhinehold has the “audacity to hope” that Rasmussen’s randomly sampled four day poll means that McCain and his century of war(s) is going to have wide appeal to the 8 in 10 Americans who want us to get out of Iraq. It’s an obvious “surge” in his popularity, we might say. On the other hand, Obama, who came out from the beginning against this mistaken war and occupation, isn’t likely to stand a chance.
Me? I think that McCain’s message is going to sound pretty DOA, no matter what Rasmussen’s current little sampling presently says.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 28, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #246668

VV, you might want to look before assigning anything to anyone. I merely stated factual evidence and made no, repeat NO, opinion about it other than I believe it to be accurate at this point time.

The reality is that we do not know who will be the president in 2009. It is simply not as one sided as some would have you believe. At least not at this point, there is a lot of time left in the campaign, with several other candidates yet to be announced, to make that prediction with any certainty.

As for it now being 80% that want us out of Iraq NOW (wasn’t it 60% earlier today?), if those people really wanted us out of Iraq they would be supporting the one party (and person in another party) who are actually talking about doing just that. If I remember right, isn’t Obama talking about a phased withdrawl over a period of months or possibly years?

The funny thing about McCain though… I remember when we were being told years ago about how bad Bush was, most Democrats stated “you know if the Republicans had just nominated McCain instead, we would have supported that candidate, he was moderate and principled, we could get behind him”. Flash forward a few years… LOL

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 3:41 PM
Comment #246676

Rhinehold:

The funny thing about McCain though… I remember when we were being told years ago about how bad Bush was, most Democrats stated “you know if the Republicans had just nominated McCain instead, we would have supported that candidate, he was moderate and principled, we could get behind him”. Flash forward a few years… LOL

Go ahead and laugh Rhinehold. As we’ve flashed forward a few years everyone has come to see McCain is only Bush’s lapdog. He’s talking about us staying a century in Iraq - as our troops go on their fifth tours of duty and we’re aware they will keep being made to do so at least until after the election in November. We’ve seen that McCain thinks it’s funny to sing “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.” We hear him say:

“It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars. I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.”

And just yesterday McCain actually accepted John Hagee’s endorsement:

“All I can tell you is I’m very proud to have pastor Hagee’s support.”

Very Proud, eh? Hagee is one among several of the Christian Right’s insane spokesmen for the Apocalypse. Hagee claims that the Bible prophesied the current War On Terror, and that the US and Israel must engage in preemptive warfare against Iran and all other middle eastern countries who might possibly pose a threat. According to Hagee the reason that’s necessary is so that it will bring on the Second Coming of Jesus.

Hagee is nuts, and quite obviously, so is McCain. While you’re busy laughing, those of us who follow the news are fully aware that McCain is no longer moderate OR principled, and that’s no laughing matter.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 28, 2008 4:22 PM
Comment #246678

Carolina, I think Hillary is just trying to stick it out for the women that come after, to prove what she can do. What happened this year is pretty dismal for the future of women in presidential politics.

“there will be an even greater burst of joyous energy and dedication coming from the Democratic grassroots than we’ve already seen”

This absolutely sounds like a propaganda announcement from Cuba or N.Korea. The Obamites can get pretty weird. There is a lot of fuzzy electoral math involved there too. I’m not going to go into it state by state, since you can’t convince the Obamites of anything about their cult leader. “What Obama has going for him” is BS and he backpedals when confronted on anything real. Also, on Iraq, it will take almost 2 years just to get out while covering the backs of our own people over there.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 28, 2008 4:25 PM
Comment #246682

ohrealy, your comments towards Obama’s supporters are unfailingly puckered with the scent of sour grapes. I think it’s become embarrassingly obvious that the Cult of Hillary is having a lot of trouble with how far short her campaign has fallen after starting out sporting that high gloss of inevitability.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 28, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #246687

Obama is pro-nuclear and will be helping Exelon out a lot if he is elected? You are pro nuclear if you support Obama, right?

Also, the Rezko thing hasn’t even started yet. It starts when he goes on trial.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 28, 2008 4:54 PM
Comment #246689
that’s no laughing matter

Oh yes it is. You see, Democrats never really liked McCain in the first place, after all, he is a Republican. BUT, they wanted to make it LOOK like they were all about the bi-partisanship, etc. So they picked a guy who was least like the one they hated and decidedly more ‘moderate’ and also a victim of the ‘dirty tricks’ that they liked to claim only the Republicans used and held him up as a standard that Bush could never hope to attain.

Now that they are faced with running against him their true colors come out. I find it most hilarious indeed. :)

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #246690
Cult of Hillary

LOL, if any of the candidates appear as cult leader like, it wouldn’t be Hillary or McCain…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 28, 2008 4:59 PM
Comment #246691

Obama, nuclear, Exelon, backpedaling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY

Posted by: ohrealy at February 28, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #246692

This stuff isn’t my cup of tea, but if you live by internet sources, this one is more real than the sourcy, truthy, wikiality crap that usually gets posted here:

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/

Rezko is currently scheduled for trial March 3, but that might change again.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 28, 2008 5:18 PM
Comment #246694

Rhinehold,
The left actually did once have respect for McCain, because we thought he was different. At this point however, he’s given too many of us too many reasons to withdraw that respect.

Ohrealy,
You should know better than to try to use Exelon to beat Obama with. First of all, Hillary’s vote on that legislation was yes, just like Obama’s was. Secondly, Mark Penn who is Hillary’s chief campaign strategist owns a huge consulting agency that was paid more than $230,000 by Exelon to help renew it’s nuclear energy license in New Jersey in February. So, it seems that the Clinton campaign’s ties to Exelon have been more lucretive, even though they’re trying to use that as ammunition against Obama.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 28, 2008 5:24 PM
Comment #246695

Sure, He’ll get asked these questions. As most regular posters here know, bills get changed and voted on, then changed on then voted on again. It’s rare to see the votes of only the final bill posted. Too much picking and choosing of the voting records during a {cough} legislative {cough}(key word here) PROCESS/

Someday Barack will make each vote count, and hold everyone accountable for changing the language in a bill. Unfortunately, that won’t happen until he has GWB’s bully pulpit.

Posted by: bandman at February 28, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #246697

Why wouldn’t I use Exelon? I live in Illinois and am in favor of more nuclear power. My electric bill this month is $25.90, and I want it to stay that way. Why are you still picking on Hillary? I am talking about what will be used against him by the Rpblcns.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 28, 2008 5:34 PM
Comment #246700

Sorry to burst EVERYONE’S bubble, but it you look at polling results across highly respected polls you see about half of them say McCain will win, and half of them say Obama. However, the ones stating Obama will win predict a win by a higher margin. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Posted by: Max at February 28, 2008 6:41 PM
Comment #246701

My two cents;
I am a rabid liberal, and yet McCain has a definite appeal. I liked his denuciation of that moron who introduced McCain and was so low-rent toward Obama as he did so. And his demeanor so far toward Obama has been largely devoid of that acid tone that so many conservatives have displayed for the last 15 or 20 years. Isn’t it time to put an end to that kind of shit? I was flabbergasted at McCain’s support of the chimp-in-chief after the Bush campaign smeared him SO thoroughly.

Maybe it’s because I am a Barackophile, but I thought he trounced Hillary in the debate. It seemed to me that he was the “grownup”. His calm rebuttal of her attacks made it very easy for me to see him as our president. I too, am joyful at the prospect of a leader with the ability to bring a majority of the country together. Make no mistake, Obama is that leader. The more I see and hear of him, the more I am convinced of it. Get used to the joyous energy and dedication, it’s only gonna grow!

Posted by: steve miller at February 28, 2008 7:09 PM
Comment #246704

steve miller:

I liked his denuciation of that moron who introduced McCain and was so low-rent toward Obama as he did so.

I’m a lot more cynical than this, having studied the Neocon playbook for too long. I viewed this incident as a Rovian tactic, and one I’m sure we’ll see a whole lot more of as we move towards the general election. The Repugs have long used their loud, rude and hate-filled mouthpieces to do the heavy lifting as far as the smearing and lying goes, and this time was no different. Then of course the campaign came out and “officially denounced” this treatment thus appearing as though fair minded and respectful of our candidate.

According to Cunningham on his radio show, McCain’s campaign absolutely loves him, and they and the RNC are the ones who hired him to ““to throw some red meat to the crowd… To get the crowd on their feet and get them happy.”
Well, that is exactly what he did by using the racist, xenophobic “Barack Hussein Obama” troll that most of us have already seen is being used in a cyborg-like fashion in the blogs.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo weighed in with these comments:

Don’t insult your intelligence or mine by pretending that John McCain’s plan for this race doesn’t rely on hundreds of Cunninghams — large and small — across the country, and the RNC and all the GOP third party groups, to be peddling this stuff nonstop for the next eight months because it’s the only way John McCain have a real shot at contesting this race.

If McCain really wants to repudiate this stuff, he can start with the Tennessee Republican party which dished all the slurs and smears about Obama being a Nation of Islam-loving anti-Semite, just today. And once he’s done talking to the people who will be running his Tennessee campaign, we’ll have a number of others he can talk to, like the head of his Ohio campaign, former Sen. Mike DeWine, who gave that Cunningham guy his marching orders.

Let’s just not fool ourselves, not lie to ourselves about what’s happening here and who’s in charge.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 28, 2008 8:05 PM
Comment #246705

Btw, McCain wasn’t just “very proud to have pastor Hagee’s support” it’s even worse, he actually had him come up on the stage with him in Texas!
This might well lose McCain the Catholic vote all over the country since Nutcase Hagee has called the Catholic Church the “great whore” and the “anti-christ”.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 28, 2008 8:29 PM
Comment #246706

I’ve looked at the state by state results for the primaries so far, and found Obama’s performance pretty dismal. No wonder Hillary stays in the race. In states likely to be in the Democratic column, Obama’s base consists of the states in the upper Missisippi valley, specifically MN, WI, IL, and MO. He also did well in CT and MD, and a number of very small states.

The “joyous energy and dedication” still sounds like it comes with little red books and blue pajamas, like “the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best”.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 28, 2008 9:03 PM
Comment #246708
Obama is pro-nuclear and will be helping Exelon out a lot if he is elected

Cool! I own a bunch of Exelon stock. Maybe here’s something to this Obama thing after all…

Posted by: American Pundit at February 28, 2008 9:25 PM
Comment #246732

veritas vincit

I don’t know how to respond to such open hate and hostility toward Hillary. I guess it unnerves me to see such bashing of a fellow democrat. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

Posted by: Carolina at February 29, 2008 8:37 AM
Comment #246765

Carolina:

I don’t know how to respond to such open hate and hostility toward Hillary.

Well, I’ve been honest. I realize that can often be considered a vicious thing to do.

Look Carolina, this has nothing to do with hatred of Hillary, though it does have something to do with my being personally fed up with corrupt, entrenched politicians in general, and more specifically, the Clintons.

I guess it unnerves me to see such bashing of a fellow democrat.

Bashing? Because I’m not going along with the opinion that she’s been treated any worse, or differently than Obama has by the rightwing pundits in the media?
You know what unnerves me? Women on the left who are acting as though Obama’s female supporters can’t be feminists, simply because they don’t believe that Hillary could lead this nation better than he could. Or people on the left who insist that Hillary has strong leadership abilities, even as she whines and complains over rough treatment, and sheds crocodile tears during the primary season.
The truth is, women who want to get ahead and fill positions that have been traditionally held by men, have to be tough, level-headed broads who don’t expect, or ask for, any special treatment.

You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

Indeed. The only difference is, I haven’t been accusing Hillary’s supporters of displaying hatred and hostility, simply because you’d really rather not vote for Obama.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 29, 2008 3:21 PM
Comment #246788

You would think that the Obamites would realise that they will need the over 2 million votes in CA and the over 1 million votes in NY that Hillary received, besides the 700k in MA and 600K in NJ, and many others in states that will be necessary for them to actually elect their candidate. Obamites might think that media hype can get a person elected POTUS, but I hope that is not true for all of our sakes. One funny thing, is that the newspapers are apparently having trouble finding pictures of Obama with his mouth shut to put on their front pages.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 29, 2008 5:20 PM
Comment #246798

ohrealy

Obamites might think that media hype can get a person elected POTUS, but I hope that is not true for all of our sakes.

Can we really call it hype when Obama’s ahead by 150 pledged delegates, and won 24 out of the 35 primary contests to date, and when the past bunch of wins have been one right after another in a row? Do you think they should act as though it is likely that she’s going to pull off miracle landslides in all of the remaining states? Is it really so wrong of the media to think that this nomination can’t be won without Hillary pulling a fast one at the convention by buying off super delegates with a lot of promises?
I’m not trying to be nasty here. I’m asking sincerely.

One funny thing, is that the newspapers are apparently having trouble finding pictures of Obama with his mouth shut to put on their front pages.

Huh, that’s strange, because this one took all of 5 seconds to find. Nice photo, too. It was taken by Annie Leibovitz.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at February 29, 2008 7:41 PM
Comment #246809

I don’t know why anyone is scared of Hillary tricking Obama out of the nomination. If she doesn’t win in OH, it’s over for her. I am sure that the sheep will follow along with the media hype and Oprah’s instructions to nominate Obama. The superdelegates are as influenced by the hype as the other voters.

McCain could continue to be a problematic candidate for the Rpblcns, but this is the first election after the death of Jerry Falwell. The lesser preachers from the Church of I Hate You don’t seem to have inherited his mailing list. Huckabee, as their VP choice, would neutralize them and provide a unifying team.

Posted by: ohrelay at February 29, 2008 10:55 PM
Comment #246863

In my opinion, Obama has the momentum. So Obama didn’t need to win the debate, he just had to keep Hillary from delivering to him a staggering knock-out blow.

Hillary, in my opinion, did modestly better than Obama but failed to deliver a killer blow. So by default, by her inability to really massively outperform him, she lost. And that most likely will translate to his momentum continues to build.

Hillary really lost when she voted for the war and the progressive left wing of the party decided to abandon her and support a long-shot named Obama. For the first time in nearly 16 years it was open season on Hillary in the democratic party.

The progressive redefined political correctness to go from “You can never speak Ill of Bill or Hillary” to read “Take Hillary down, bring out her dirty laundry”. And this was really the beginning of the end. It was ok to hate the Clintons, to not like their corruption, to talk about their crimes, to talk about their lust for power.

Hillary should have waged war on the far left instead of seeking to appease them. Only her utter defeat will appease them.

Posted by: Stephen at March 1, 2008 3:02 PM
Post a comment