Can Obama Win in November?

I agree with the Recess Supervisor on this one. 

Barack Obama outspent Hillary Clinton 3-to-1 in Pennsylvania and lost by ten. Shouldn’t that be story? Why can’t the uber-charismatic guy with all the money win important states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, states Democrats need to pick up in November to have a shot at winning?

1. We talked about this on the PA thread last night. 

   Start the primary season over…..Iowa on forward….include MI and FL…..and Hillary wins.  She wins more delegates and more popular vote.  No one had a chance to vet Obama three months ago when all those primaries took place. 

   This is the perfect storm for McCain right now.  Another month of chaos and in the end the weaker candidate (Obama) gets the nomination.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 0751 hrs




2. I agree that Obama is the weaker of the two candidates, especially against a moderate like McCain. 

   That said, he scares me much more were he to win than Clinton, so I don’t know who to root for.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 0833 hrs




3. Obama definitely scares me more - but I don’t think that anybody should count out the Clinton machine, yet. It will be scary if Hill makes it through the primaries because she definitely has a better chance at beating McCain come Nov.

   Posted by Fuzz on April 23, 2008 at 0950 hrs




4. Except that Florida wasn’t a real contest, and we currently have no way of knowing who would have won the state in an actual, contested primary.

   I love how Obama “scares” some of you, but McCain is somehow a moderate.  The guy who wants a hundred years of war in Iraq, thinks Iran is training al Qaeda, calls his wife a “cunt,” and voted no on a provision outlawing waterboarding even though he himself is a torture survivor, somehow doesn’t scare you?  I don’t get it.

   Posted by Emily on April 23, 2008 at 0958 hrs




5. It’s all in how you phrase it, Emily…

   I prefer to think McCain’s the guy who doesn’t want to just pull out of Iraq and allow it to digress into a even more violent nation (we didn’t leave Japan till a few years ago). A guy who isn’t afraid to confront a nation that is threatening us (Hillary said she’d nuke Iran), and a guy who knows that war isn’t pretty and we shouldn’t pretend as though it should be.

   McCain uses a lot of bad words - but at least we can’t accuse him of simply saying anything to please anybody… unlike the other side.

   Posted by Fuzz on April 23, 2008 at 1011 hrs




6. We can’t accuse McCain of “simply saying anything to please anybody,” can’t we?  Huh, weird about his stance on torture, the war, abortion, tax cuts, campaign finance reform, etc. etc.

   Which isn’t to say that neither Clinton (especially) and (to a lesser degree) Obama haven’t done some flip-flopping of their own.  I just don’t get the starry-eyed view of McCain as some sort of moderate maverick, when, especially since running for president, he’s shown himself to be very much willing to cowtow to the party line to get the nod.

   Posted by Emily on April 23, 2008 at 1032 hrs




7. The guy who wants a hundred years of war in Iraq

   Do a little “fact-checking”, first, instead of quoting Obama.

   http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/ mccains_100year_war.html

   Take a look at what McCain actually said in Derry, N.H., back in January. Cutting off a questioner who talked about the Bush administration’s willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, McCain said “Make it a hundred.” He then mentioned that U.S. troops had been in Germany for 60 years and in Korea for 50 years, and added, “That’s fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

   .............................................

   The Pinocchio Test
   A more honest line of attack for the Democrats against McCain would be his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whether or not he has a clear strategy for winning the war, and the feasibility of a long-term occupation of a Muslim country by the United States. Instead of attacking him on these grounds, they have twisted his words, by claiming that he “wants” to fight a 100-year war.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 1245 hrs




8. Scare-o-meter.
   1. Obama! Lier, Rev Wright,  Bill Ayers, PLO fundraising connections and more.  No credentials.

   2. Hillary.  Lier, past scandels, not enough credentials.  Too many ties to people/events like the Sandy Burger deal.

   3.  McCain.  I hated his immagration plan, a couple misspeaks [senior momments]

   McCain wins me bigtime.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 1320 hrs




9. This is the perfect storm for McCain right now.  Another month of chaos and in the end the weaker candidate (Obama) gets the nomination.

   I use to think a republican would beat Hillary but lose to Obama.

   After watching them duke it out the past few months. I think McCain would beat both of them.  (and i think the national polls have even reflected this)

   Still nothing I’ll cheer about.  I was a Ron Paul guy…  But I’ll take McCain over either, and I can’t see either Hillary or Obama getting elected.  Not worried at all…

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 1320 hrs




10. I believe either of the two Democratic candidates can beat McCain in November, but I also believe that Obama would beat him by a more comfortable margin. 

    National polls which show McCain running about even with either of them are a distorted picture, an artifact of the primary contest.  When Obama emerges ad the candidate you’ll start seeing a 10 point lead nationally over McCain.  That lead will never be erased and he’ll win.

    Posted by scott on April 23, 2008 at 1414 hrs




11. and, scott, that will be the beginning of the end for this once great nation.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 1456 hrs




12. McCain’s polling numbers right now are as good as they are going to get.  After Obama and McCain have their first debate there is going to be big point spread.  McCain lost this election the day he started to talk about his economic plan.  The deal will be sealed once the American public compares the differences between the McSame economic policies we have had during Bush to Democratic policies.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 1513 hrs




13. A continuation of the policies of George W. Bush, which John McCain has promised he would do, now that would the beginning of the end of this once great nation. And gimlet, you got the “once great” part right, because Bush has driven this country right off a cliff. Luckily, the things that have made this a great nation—the Constitution and its great animating ideas, and the will of the people not to knuckle under to tyranny, are still strong and can survive even the likes of George W. Bush. All we need is a couple of Democratic administrations in the White House to put this country back on its feet after the malfeasance and incompetence of the last seven years.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 1513 hrs




14. All we need is a couple of Democratic administrations in the White House to put this country back on its feet after the malfeasance and incompetence of the last seven years

    Theres this indulgent little part of me that would love to see a democrat elected… Cause I think it would be entertaining to hear what excuses y’all come up with when you realize that you can’t wave a magic wand and make oil cheaper, and you can’t wave a magic wand and fix the housing crisis and you can’t wave a magic wand and be safer from global threats.

    Whatever will you do when it ain’t all bushy-boys fault?

    Oh wait, we’ve already seen this playbook.  Doyle uses it too…  You say you “didn’t realize how bad things were” and how it will take “longer than you thought to fix all the big bad voodoo that double-U did.

    rotf

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 1606 hrs




15. Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks that a Democratic president is going to “come in and wave a magic wand” and instantly clean up the gigantic mess left behind by this capering, overgrown frat boy in the White House. The mess is far too large for that.

    Everybody knows all too well how messed up things are, and everybody knows who was driving the bus when it went off the cliff.

    Like a lot of people, I’m willing to start with someone who at least tells the truth to us and whose foreign policy doesn’t consist of telling the rest of the world to go *** itself. For that matter, whose domestic policy doesn’t consist of telling large numbers of Americans to go *** themselves.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 1948 hrs




16. I think it is just fine that the US foreign policy does consist of telling the world to go **** itself. Who else is going to do it, the French, Italians, Germans, Brits, get real. We are the worlds police force so deal with it. I dont see any of these enlightened US hating countries going to stop the genocide in Africa, hell the Chinese are shipping them arms by the tanker full and we are the ones the world complains about when we do not stop it. Let the Hollywood libs who support Obama and Clinton hold a fund raiser or two and send Paris Hilton for the photo op. The Democrats have never been able to figure out what it takes to be the worlds super power, they hate the fact that we use our military and then complain that the Republicans are so cold that we dont stop the genocide.  Cant have it both ways folks. So when you win we will all see what total foreign policy screwups you really are. I vote for Jimmy Carter as Secretary of State.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 2252 hrs




17. I know Scott thinks that Obama will immediately open up a ten point lead, never to trail again. 

    I remember well the week after the democratic covention in August of 1988.  Michael Dukakis roared out to a 17 point lead in the polls over George Bush.  Of course the entire country wanted to put the painful eight years of the Reagan administration behind them and not continue it with Bush (sarcasm alert).

    Dukakis was a great President.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 0501 hrs




18. APC let me get this right, Its GWB fault that the baby boom generation, the love and peace folks, are now closing in on retirement and finding that they are screwed?
    The baby boomers are nothing more than the biggest bunch of narcissistic spoiled brats to walk the planet. Its all about me is their mantra and now that they are approaching retirement in houses they cannot afford, driving Hummers that are worth less than the loan on them and having maxed out their home equity and credit cards, now its governments responsibilty to keep them in the lifestlye they have become accustomed to? Give me a break! I want a president who is going to open a can of whoop ass reality and tell these folks you have to grow up and take responsibility for your lives, not just spend every dime and wait for the inheritance from their parents.
    So if you can blame GWB for that then go ahead. But dont start backing away from the rhetoric of Obama and Clinton that they can fix it, because they are the ones who are making all the promises that they can.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 0806 hrs




19. The second world war ended in 1945 and we are still in Germany. I suspect we will be in Iraq for a very long time.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1037 hrs




20. Irwin, nobody said it’s Bush’s fault that baby boomers are closing in on retirement age. I’m no expert on aging, but I’m pretty sure that would be happening no matter who was president. And I’m not going to say that we baby boomers aren’t a fairly narcissistic bunch. But if you’re going to start talking about responsibility, your buddy Bush (a baby boomer, by the way) hasn’t yet taken responsibility for a single solitary mistake. If you want to talk about whoop ass reality, how about the surplus he found that’s now the biggest deficit in history? Talk about dodging responsibility—he’s not willing to pay for anything. Not the war, not the tax cuts, just borrow it all from China and let future generations pay for it.

    Oh, and Bill, Germany stopped shooting at us after WWII. So did Japan, and so did Korea after the Korean War. I’m tired of hearing that comparison, because it doesn’t make any sense. There’s no sign that the Iraqis are going to stop shooting any time in the foreseeable future.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1148 hrs




21. I’ll bet the Iraqi’s lose their desire for shooting long before the Boomer’s lose their sense of entitlement.

    GWB has been a spending nightmare, but according to both democratic candidates, he hasn’t spent enough.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1201 hrs




22. Hey APC, lets see here. 3000+ americans are killed in NY, by a group of terrorists that want to kill American because we are not radical extremesits like they are. Why did the they do it? Because the last Democrat that sat in the Oval Office did nothing as they blew up our embassies in Africa, our ships in the Meditteranian and attacked our troops through out the world. Yes it is so unfortunate that we had to spend some of your presious surplus to protect our country from people who want to KILL US. How totally rude. If Billy Boy would have paid attention to our servicemen instead of who was servicing him maybe this would not have happened and maybe we would still have the surplus. The fact that you put the failings of the Clinton presidentcy on GWB is bs. Clinton failed GWB cleaned up his mess and now we are stuck with deficits that will be around for a lot longer than if Clinton had taken care of it in the first place. And you want to put his wife in the oval office. Nothing more than the same old same old.
    Lets all chant happy thoughts, smoke a doobie or two, play our bongo drums and the world will like us again. Better yet lets turn it all over to the UN. With Carter as Secretary of State and the UN to protect us we will all be better served. 

    Maybe then we will have some money left over to fund the Social Security benefits of highly educated lazy ass baby boomers who feel they are entitled to a lifestyle that they cannot afford and havent saved for.

    Have a great day.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1235 hrs




23. Oh, that’s right, I forgot. All of Bush’s mistakes are Clinton’s fault. There’s some responsibility for you.

    You have a nice day, too.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1308 hrs




24. Oh, I forgot, Clinton took care of Bin Laden when he had the chance after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. I’m glad Clinton removed the threat and didn’t resort to politics in fear of ruffling some feathers globally. His action saved at least 3,000 lives.

    Posted by Fuzz on April 24, 2008 at 1317 hrs