Since media pundits and extremely wealthy political candidates decided to tell them they aren't bitter, and should be mortally offended when a condescending politician dares to call them bitter.
"Marriage", as a term, really only has the value it does right now because of religious connotations. FOr most of human history, marriage has been much more about economical factors and a joining of families rather than the "true love" romanticized stuff we have today.
I fully support Obama's plan in that it divests the term marriage from government, giving all citizens equality under civil unions (which, if I've read right, gets bumped to having the same tax credits as the current marriage licesne). That's what the government is for, when it comes to civil rights. Not necessarily giving the oppressed side everything they want, but guaranteeing that the oppressees and the oppressors are equal under the law. That's what Obama's plan does, and if gays still want to be married then they can argue to a church about it. Which, in my opinion, is where they should've been arguing the entire time.
And given you can become a priest in an internet church in 20 minutes it seems I'm sure there's some church they could find out there to give them the "marriage" word.
I've always thought till now that there's no way a Republican can win the Presidency this time around after all they've done to the country. But I'm beginning to wonder: how many Americans would buy in to the notion of a Democratic legislature kept in check by a Republican President? Especially a guy who they see as pretty moderate? One who's rumoured to have almost switched to Democrat?
I think Obama better shape up before the Republicans do manage to paint him as an elitist. And he needs a VP who could never possibly be mistaken for a liberal.
Oh, and I think the argument that 'omg lol Hllry and McSame so much richar than Obamaz, they is elitist!' is pretty dumb. The impression I get is that Americans love rich and successful people and aren't going to hold success and wealth against them. What people all over the world hate, though, is someone who talks like they're better than them, their judgement is better than anyone else's, and know everything there is to know about them.
I've always thought till now that there's no way a Republican can win the Presidency this time around after all they've done to the country. But I'm beginning to wonder: how many Americans would buy in to the notion of a Democratic legislature kept in check by a Republican President? Especially a guy who they see as pretty moderate? One who's rumoured to have almost switched to Democrat?
I think Obama better shape up before the Republicans do manage to paint him as an elitist. And he needs a VP who could never possibly be mistaken for a liberal.
Oh, and I think the argument that 'omg lol Hllry and McSame so much richar than Obamaz, they is elitist!' is pretty dumb. The impression I get is that Americans love rich and successful people and aren't going to hold success and wealth against them. What people all over the world hate, though, is someone who talks like they're better than them, their judgement is better than anyone else's, and know everything there is to know about them.
If you haven't noticed, it's a change election. Obama's whole reason for running is the belief that the liberal position is better and that he can articulate why to the country. Every conventional wisdom thing he's ignored so far has been working for him, so I wouldn't be surprised if he chooses another flaming liberal with the ability to win over moderates (Kathleen Sebelius, come on down!).
As for winning the election sit back and watch as John McCain becomes John McBush with the huge warchest the Obama campaign has put together. And John "100 years" McCain or John McCentury which I liked, and John W McCain. Democrats are gonna tie the Iraq War, George Bush, and his self explained lack of expertise on the economy and tie them around his neck. And if he can't make the argument that picking the dumb common man over the intellectual after the last 8 years, the American people are irredeemable anyway.
And it's not the argument that because they have money they're elitist. It's because they have money and are telling people without jobs what they should think is elitist that means they're condescending.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
McCain has barely faced criticism, not the least of which because during the Republican Primaries, Guliani and Huckabee fawned all over him, and most of Romney's barbs against him just made Romney look like an idiot.
He's a paper tiger. Tear off the 'maverick' mask and he falls apart.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
I've always thought till now that there's no way a Republican can win the Presidency this time around after all they've done to the country. But I'm beginning to wonder: how many Americans would buy in to the notion of a Democratic legislature kept in check by a Republican President? Especially a guy who they see as pretty moderate? One who's rumoured to have almost switched to Democrat?
Well, if it gets out widely that McCain wanted to switch sides in 2001 or 2004, then he's doubly sunk, to be honest. He's having enough trouble with his base as it is.
That said, I don't think there's much to recommend a Republican president and a Democratic congress at this time. We have that now, and people almost couldn't be less happy with any of them. Have you seen the approval ratings?
I think Obama better shape up before the Republicans do manage to paint him as an elitist. And he needs a VP who could never possibly be mistaken for a liberal.
Obama doesn't need to 'shape up,' he needs to prove them wrong. 'Shape up' implies that he's doing something wrong, that he's acting elitist. Dude's never gone hunting for a photo op, he hasn't gone wind surfing, he hasn't sat in a tank: he's out there pressing flesh and talking to the issues that people really have in the really real world.
Oh, and I think the argument that 'omg lol Hllry and McSame so much richar than Obamaz, they is elitist!' is pretty dumb. The impression I get is that Americans love rich and successful people and aren't going to hold success and wealth against them. What people all over the world hate, though, is someone who talks like they're better than them, their judgement is better than anyone else's, and know everything there is to know about them.
Obama's going to bring up McCain's pandering over and over again. He's going to look like a two-faced weasel by the time Obama's done... and since Obama's message has barely changed from the start, the only thing that McCain's side will have is taking Obama's words out of context. If people hate being talked down to, they hate hypocrites more.
To be sure, though, I don't think the issue will affect the polls until Monday or Tuesday, when people start to actually pay attention to the news again.
With that, I'm off to my Minneapolis for Obama meeting. Catch you on the flip side.
I've always thought till now that there's no way a Republican can win the Presidency this time around after all they've done to the country. But I'm beginning to wonder: how many Americans would buy in to the notion of a Democratic legislature kept in check by a Republican President? Especially a guy who they see as pretty moderate? One who's rumoured to have almost switched to Democrat?
I think Obama better shape up before the Republicans do manage to paint him as an elitist. And he needs a VP who could never possibly be mistaken for a liberal.
Oh, and I think the argument that 'omg lol Hllry and McSame so much richar than Obamaz, they is elitist!' is pretty dumb. The impression I get is that Americans love rich and successful people and aren't going to hold success and wealth against them. What people all over the world hate, though, is someone who talks like they're better than them, their judgement is better than anyone else's, and know everything there is to know about them.
If you haven't noticed, it's a change election. Obama's whole reason for running is the belief that the liberal position is better and that he can articulate why to the country. Every conventional wisdom thing he's ignored so far has been working for him, so I wouldn't be surprised if he chooses another flaming liberal with the ability to win over moderates (Kathleen Sebelius, come on down!).
As for winning the election sit back and watch as John McCain becomes John McBush with the huge warchest the Obama campaign has put together. And John "100 years" McCain or John McCentury which I liked, and John W McCain. Democrats are gonna tie the Iraq War, George Bush, and his self explained lack of expertise on the economy and tie them around his neck. And if he can't make the argument that picking the dumb common man over the intellectual after the last 8 years, the American people are irredeemable anyway.
And it's not the argument that because they have money they're elitist. It's because they have money and are telling people without jobs what they should think is elitist that means they're condescending.
All I've seen so far is that it's a change Democratic primary, the general election is still far away, and people can still change their minds about just how much change they really want.
All three candidates are telling people what they should think. You just said, Obama's trying to articulate that the liberal position is better for the country. And whenever he speaks in those professorial tones as he did in SF, it's going to come off as that liberal who thinks he knows all.
I've always thought till now that there's no way a Republican can win the Presidency this time around after all they've done to the country. But I'm beginning to wonder: how many Americans would buy in to the notion of a Democratic legislature kept in check by a Republican President? Especially a guy who they see as pretty moderate? One who's rumoured to have almost switched to Democrat?
I think Obama better shape up before the Republicans do manage to paint him as an elitist. And he needs a VP who could never possibly be mistaken for a liberal.
Oh, and I think the argument that 'omg lol Hllry and McSame so much richar than Obamaz, they is elitist!' is pretty dumb. The impression I get is that Americans love rich and successful people and aren't going to hold success and wealth against them. What people all over the world hate, though, is someone who talks like they're better than them, their judgement is better than anyone else's, and know everything there is to know about them.
I don't think any Americans are going to be voting based off of having a President keep the legislator in check. I think Americans have realized over the last 2 years that Presidential power is the kind that counts nowadays. Democrats took over both houses of congress in 2006 and now we have more troops in Iraq than we did when they were elected. Libby was convicted, Bush pardoned him. People are not going to vote for the President based off of the type of relationship they will share with congress. They are going to vote for President based off how they think he/she will make executive decisions.
Lets face it, Bush has changed the office of the Presidency a lot over the last eight years. Signing statements, disregard for public opinion, blunting congressional investigations. The President is no longer 1/3 of our government held in check by the others. The President is the decider. And that's not going to change right when Bush leaves.
Rufus_Shinra on
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Man, did anyone watch Meet The Press this morning?
Because I'm reading the transcript now, and it's delightful. Bob Shrum is sympathizing with Obama, agreeing with his sentiments (though not the wording), and reaming Mary Matalin up the ass.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
I've always thought till now that there's no way a Republican can win the Presidency this time around after all they've done to the country. But I'm beginning to wonder: how many Americans would buy in to the notion of a Democratic legislature kept in check by a Republican President? Especially a guy who they see as pretty moderate? One who's rumoured to have almost switched to Democrat?
I think Obama better shape up before the Republicans do manage to paint him as an elitist. And he needs a VP who could never possibly be mistaken for a liberal.
Oh, and I think the argument that 'omg lol Hllry and McSame so much richar than Obamaz, they is elitist!' is pretty dumb. The impression I get is that Americans love rich and successful people and aren't going to hold success and wealth against them. What people all over the world hate, though, is someone who talks like they're better than them, their judgement is better than anyone else's, and know everything there is to know about them.
If you haven't noticed, it's a change election. Obama's whole reason for running is the belief that the liberal position is better and that he can articulate why to the country. Every conventional wisdom thing he's ignored so far has been working for him, so I wouldn't be surprised if he chooses another flaming liberal with the ability to win over moderates (Kathleen Sebelius, come on down!).
As for winning the election sit back and watch as John McCain becomes John McBush with the huge warchest the Obama campaign has put together. And John "100 years" McCain or John McCentury which I liked, and John W McCain. Democrats are gonna tie the Iraq War, George Bush, and his self explained lack of expertise on the economy and tie them around his neck. And if he can't make the argument that picking the dumb common man over the intellectual after the last 8 years, the American people are irredeemable anyway.
And it's not the argument that because they have money they're elitist. It's because they have money and are telling people without jobs what they should think is elitist that means they're condescending.
All I've seen so far is that it's a change Democratic primary, the general election is still far away, and people can still change their minds about just how much change they really want.
All three candidates are telling people what they should think. You just said, Obama's trying to articulate that the liberal position is better for the country. And whenever he speaks in those professorial tones as he did in SF, it's going to come off as that liberal who thinks he knows all.
Let's put it this way re: change election. Bush's approval is below 30% and Congress' is even worse. People hate this government and hate Washington. I have some faith that they'll take the smart guy who has been in Washington for 4 years over the ultimate Democratic insiders and a guy who has been in Congress since the early 80s.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Let's put it this way re: change election. Bush's approval is below 30% and Congress' is even worse. People hate this government and hate Washington. I have some faith that they'll take the smart guy who has been in Washington for 4 years over the ultimate Democratic insiders and a guy who has been in Congress since the early 80s.
Let's put it this way re: change election. Bush's approval is below 30% and Congress' is even worse. People hate this government and hate Washington. I have some faith that they'll take the smart guy who has been in Washington for 4 years over the ultimate Democratic insiders and a guy who has been in Congress since the early 80s.
It seems a little early for reruns. Must be because of the writer's strike.
Ever since last fall, we've seen this same cycle repeat itself, with minor variations, over and over again. Some event happens that the Clintonistas fixate on as the THE BIG ONE: the Big Bolt From the Blue (or from Howard Wolfson's Blackberry—same thing as far as the MSM is concerned) that will finally end Obama's upstart attempt to usurp the office to which Hillary is rightfully entitled.
Her surrogates squeal in feigned outrage on the cable shows while Hillary sorrowfully relates Obama's error to her slowly dwindling crowds in her most unctuous tone. And, in the most recent variation, Hillary and McCain will say the exact same things for a few days.
Bill and Harold Ickes will unleash a flood of phone calls and emails to the uncommitted superdelegates warning them of the Terrible Scary Commercials the Republicans will run against Obama in the fall as a result of this Big Awful Thing that happened. (“See? See? Here's some actual Republican scumbag consultants who say they'll destroy him with this one, see? You believe them, right? They have supernatural powers, you know. Only a Clinton can resist them. Oooohhh, scary, scary, be very afraid!”)
The MSM leaps like trained seals to tossed fish at Hillary's emails, breathlessly reporting that Obama's campaign faces THE crisis of his campaign, a potential game changer that could deliver the nomination to Hillary, regardless of that pesky math stuff that silly who don't understand good TV keep trying to talk about. Politico hyperventilates, Fox foams and raves, At ABC, Tapper sneers and Sunlen Miller circles in the sky, waiting for a meal. Halpirin transcribes and engages in vapid pontification and CNN alternates between substance, sensationalism and superficiality in a dizzying cycle.
Across the Intertubes, Hillary's trolls and sockpuppets rub their hands and cackle with glee. “At last! This time we finally have him! He is dooooomed, doooomed, I say! Buahahahahahaha!” In the Hillarite alternate e-universe of Taylormarsh.com, MyDD.com and Hillis44.org, the victory celebration begins with the obligatory bile spitting. In the real blogs, dispirited supporters of Hillry who haven't been seen in days or weeks reappear to express their confident predictions that, at last, all these deluded Obama voters will finally WAKE UP! (TM) and see what a [pick one or more of the following: (fraud) (sexist) (elitist) (empty suit) (racist) (inexperienced naïve incompetent) (snake charmer) (snake oils salesman) (muslim sleeper agent) (bad evil person misogynist of the male gender who is trying to stop America from electing the Only Woman in America Who Will Ever Have a Chance to Become President)] Obama is.
And, most depressingly of all, some of Obama's supporters will do what Democrats are always prone to do when faced with the least adversity in a campaign: they'll run around in little circles, hands in the air, crying out their anguished frightened advice to his campaign: “Ohno ohno ohno! In our heart of hearts we secretly agree with Hillary and the Republicans that the voters are dumber than we enlightened activist Democrats are. We're afraid they won't understand! He needs to make a major speech! He must recant! No, he must must stand firm! Is there somebody we can throw under a bus? Commercials! He must run many, many commercials! Maybe he should abandon state X and concentrate on state Y where they won't care about The Big Terrible Thing! And the Republicans, oh Dear God, here come the Republicans with their supernatural powers!”
And then, as always, Obama will calmly do that Akido thing he does with all these nontroversies. He'll stand his ground, talk about the Thing Which Must Never be Said that he did say, doing so again and again, as many times as it takes to make the MSM realize that he was actually making a point rather than gaffing. And he'll use the point to pivot back onto McHillary, exposing their attacks as yet another example of the petty game playing and point scoring Washington nonsense that has got to change.
The MSM will then feel foolish and some will turn on McHillary for having made them feel foolish. The scandal will die everywhere but on Fox News and the wingnutosphere, where they'll keep ranting and raving about it for weeks on end until the next thing comes along, but no one who'd ever vote for a Democrat will be listening.
Then Hillary and her supporters will sullenly try to keep the thing going long past the point where it does harm to anyone but themselves, in complete denial that, once again, their plan to take back that which is rightfully Hers have failed. Finally, Bill will throw one of his patented tantrums in public which will announce the formal end of the nontroversy cycle.
And all the wavering Obama supporters will find themselves, once again, saying “damn, yeah, that's the reason I'm for him, hey never doubted you for a moment” and calm back down.
So, to those among the Obama contingent in the comments here who are talkin' all jittery, have a little faith in Obama's repeatedly demonstrated ability to turn these things back around on the other side and come out stronger and stop all the moaning. Sheesh, we've still got a ways to go on this trip and getting all panicky every time we hit some turbulence is not productive.
As to the Clintonistas and Republitrolls, hey, keep doing what you're doing. I love watching you get yourselves worked up into the these celebratory frenzies, only to have your hopes (heh!) cruelly dashed once again. It fills me with that same sense of impending comic pathos I feel as Wyle E. Coyote, snickering nastily, opens up yet another shipment of fine Acme Company products and begins implementing his next brilliant plan.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
By the way, small town Pennsylvanians are super offended. So they make statements like this and this.
Oh wait, those are the Allentown and Scranton newspapers endorsing Obama today? Huh.
If only newspaper endorsements translated into victories... Who's to say newspapers are representative of the general public? Newspaper editors are generally highly educated people.
Uniform, myopic and cookie-cutter skepticism coming from someone who doesn't even live in this country, however, might give one cause for a bit of scoffing himself.
Uniform, myopic and cookie-cutter skepticism coming from someone who doesn't even live in this country, however, might give one cause for a bit of scoffing himself.
Ooops, sorry, Obama is a saint and he will Change the World, continue on.
Oh, and by the fucking way, apparently about 47% of the Democrats in the US have some sort of skepticism about Obama, so maybe it would be a good fucking idea to figure out why the fuck that is, you dumb little fuck.
McCain could win, sure, but it's not gonna be because someone wants a Republican president to keep the Democrats in check. The demographic that thinks like that is too small to make a difference about anything.
Oh, and if you only take opinions from Americans here, let me direct you to this
It's not so much non-Americans I take umbrage with as non-Americans who clearly don't have a lick of awareness as to the political or social situation in this country, i.e., you.
You are That Guy. You are the guy who yawns and waves his hands and says all politicians are alike, and fit everything you see into that narrative. You would be voting Nader if it weren't for the unfortunate handicap of being Canadian. I can see it.
One-note discussion like that gets almost as annoying as waterlogged.
Oh, and if you only take opinions from Americans here, let me direct you to this
The reasoning in that article is flawed. It assumes that because Hillary did better among certain groups in certain states, he'll get the same level of support in the General. This, naturally, assumes that everyone that voted Hillary in the Primary will vote McCain in the general, when it's far more likely, by and large, that Democrats will vote Democrat, even if it's not their preferred party nominee.
But that same argument against him has been flying around for months.
I read that article earlier, and I'd love to rip it a new one, but why? Is this nomination, in any way, in doubt? It's not, and I'm not gonna waste my time pretending Clinton has a shot at winning.
Just listening to Hillary makes me want to shove sharpened pencils into my eardrums.
That sanctemonious, winey, arrogant, almost sneering attitude. Yuck...she writes her own attack ads.
Seriously.
If she somehow get the nomination, all McCain needs to do is play clips of her contradicting herself..sorry, lying her ass off, and examples of that attitude.
By the way, small town Pennsylvanians are super offended. So they make statements like this and this.
Oh wait, those are the Allentown and Scranton newspapers endorsing Obama today? Huh.
If only newspaper endorsements translated into victories... Who's to say newspapers are representative of the general public? Newspaper editors are generally highly educated people.
And before you say "it's just two people, and one of them is black!" Think about it, it's Fox, if they could find people who were all "raaaaaaawr I'm angry and hate Obama now," they would have posted those.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Uniform, myopic and cookie-cutter skepticism coming from someone who doesn't even live in this country, however, might give one cause for a bit of scoffing himself.
Ooops, sorry, Obama is a saint and he will Change the World, continue on.
Oh, and by the fucking way, apparently about 47% of the Democrats in the US have some sort of skepticism about Obama, so maybe it would be a good fucking idea to figure out why the fuck that is, you dumb little fuck.
Or maybe 47% of people voting in Democratic primaries genuinely prefer Hillary Clinton as the nominee and a large subsample of them also like Barack Obama. I mean, there are reasons to prefer her. I don't agree with them, but they exist.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Oh, and if you only take opinions from Americans here, let me direct you to this
The reasoning in that article is flawed. It assumes that because Hillary did better among certain groups in certain states, he'll get the same level of support in the General. This, naturally, assumes that everyone that voted Hillary in the Primary will vote McCain in the general, when it's far more likely, by and large, that Democrats will vote Democrat, even if it's not their preferred party nominee.
But that same argument against him has been flying around for months.
And most of the specific points are bullshit. The actual level of jewish support for the candidates (according to every survey I've seen) is almost perfectly split between Obama and Clinton. Blue collar voters hate the immigration support that helps McCain with hispanics, and his full throated support of full bore free trade and permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest, combined with the fact they are disproportionately bearing th burden of the war in Iraq, are going to push the blue collars back to the dems for at least this cycle. Hispanics might like McCain, but considering how much foaming at the mouth there is about brown people in the neocon ranks he has surrounded himself with I don't expect much traction there.
Oh, and if you only take opinions from Americans here, let me direct you to this
It's not so much non-Americans I take umbrage with as non-Americans who clearly don't have a lick of awareness as to the political or social situation in this country, i.e., you.
You are That Guy. You are the guy who yawns and waves his hands and says all politicians are alike, and fit everything you see into that narrative. You would be voting Nader if it weren't for the unfortunate handicap of being Canadian. I can see it.
One-note discussion like that gets almost as annoying as waterlogged.
Umm no, I've said many times I'm an Obama supporter and I've liked his views for a long time (aka DNC 2004) and if I were American, I'd vote for him in less than a nanosecond. However, he is not a fucking saint and every word out of his mouth is not scripture. And 47% percent of the Democratic primary-goer has not voted for him thus far and about that much are still, even after all this exposure, not leaning in his direction (if the polls are to be believed). It's nice that everyone here can discuss how great Obama is and how he'll make Chuck Norris cry and cure cancer, but there is another side that you can't just dismiss.
And that's not the first response from you stressing that I'm not American. It's not like the views I'm expressing haven't been expressed by other people, from the United States. I have to assume you have some sort of issue with precisely that, so you can just go fuck yourself.
Oh, and if you only take opinions from Americans here, let me direct you to this
It's not so much non-Americans I take umbrage with as non-Americans who clearly don't have a lick of awareness as to the political or social situation in this country, i.e., you.
You are That Guy. You are the guy who yawns and waves his hands and says all politicians are alike, and fit everything you see into that narrative. You would be voting Nader if it weren't for the unfortunate handicap of being Canadian. I can see it.
One-note discussion like that gets almost as annoying as waterlogged.
Umm no, I've said many times I'm an Obama supporter and I've liked his views for a long time (aka DNC 2004) and if I were American, I'd vote for him in less than a nanosecond. However, he is not a fucking saint and every word out of his mouth is not scripture. And 47% percent of the Democratic primary-goer has not voted for him thus far and about that much are still, even after all this exposure, not leaning in his direction (if the polls are to be believed). It's nice that everyone here can discuss how great Obama is and how he'll make Chuck Norris cry and cure cancer, but there is another side that you can't just dismiss.
And that's not the first response from you stressing that I'm not American. It's not like the views I'm expressing haven't been expressed by other people, from the United States. I have to assume you have some sort of issue with precisely that, so you can just go fuck yourself.
I think the problem is more that you say you like Obama but convey to us that you think he's an unreasonable, idealist, elitist who the dumbfuck American people would never vote because we're all Texans or Bible thumping rednecks who would never vote for someone smart. And we hear that all the time from foreigners and are sick of it. I'm gonna guess Rust is from "flyover country" and gets this perception as well.
It's the way you're skeptical that's more cynicism than "oh hey, there are these other people we need to persuade." It's "Obama has to do this or that" which is pure conventional wisdom, Newsweek/Time/CNN/Politico bullshit that Obama has thoroughly ignored so far and has won the Democratic nomination on. We tend to trust that guy who's winning more than that cynic on an internet message board.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
Posts
Since media pundits and extremely wealthy political candidates decided to tell them they aren't bitter, and should be mortally offended when a condescending politician dares to call them bitter.
I fully support Obama's plan in that it divests the term marriage from government, giving all citizens equality under civil unions (which, if I've read right, gets bumped to having the same tax credits as the current marriage licesne). That's what the government is for, when it comes to civil rights. Not necessarily giving the oppressed side everything they want, but guaranteeing that the oppressees and the oppressors are equal under the law. That's what Obama's plan does, and if gays still want to be married then they can argue to a church about it. Which, in my opinion, is where they should've been arguing the entire time.
This is fucking amazing. So awesome.
That made my morning.
Glad to be of service. *bow*
I think Obama better shape up before the Republicans do manage to paint him as an elitist. And he needs a VP who could never possibly be mistaken for a liberal.
Oh, and I think the argument that 'omg lol Hllry and McSame so much richar than Obamaz, they is elitist!' is pretty dumb. The impression I get is that Americans love rich and successful people and aren't going to hold success and wealth against them. What people all over the world hate, though, is someone who talks like they're better than them, their judgement is better than anyone else's, and know everything there is to know about them.
If you haven't noticed, it's a change election. Obama's whole reason for running is the belief that the liberal position is better and that he can articulate why to the country. Every conventional wisdom thing he's ignored so far has been working for him, so I wouldn't be surprised if he chooses another flaming liberal with the ability to win over moderates (Kathleen Sebelius, come on down!).
As for winning the election sit back and watch as John McCain becomes John McBush with the huge warchest the Obama campaign has put together. And John "100 years" McCain or John McCentury which I liked, and John W McCain. Democrats are gonna tie the Iraq War, George Bush, and his self explained lack of expertise on the economy and tie them around his neck. And if he can't make the argument that picking the dumb common man over the intellectual after the last 8 years, the American people are irredeemable anyway.
And it's not the argument that because they have money they're elitist. It's because they have money and are telling people without jobs what they should think is elitist that means they're condescending.
He's a paper tiger. Tear off the 'maverick' mask and he falls apart.
Well, if it gets out widely that McCain wanted to switch sides in 2001 or 2004, then he's doubly sunk, to be honest. He's having enough trouble with his base as it is.
That said, I don't think there's much to recommend a Republican president and a Democratic congress at this time. We have that now, and people almost couldn't be less happy with any of them. Have you seen the approval ratings?
Obama doesn't need to 'shape up,' he needs to prove them wrong. 'Shape up' implies that he's doing something wrong, that he's acting elitist. Dude's never gone hunting for a photo op, he hasn't gone wind surfing, he hasn't sat in a tank: he's out there pressing flesh and talking to the issues that people really have in the really real world.
Obama's going to bring up McCain's pandering over and over again. He's going to look like a two-faced weasel by the time Obama's done... and since Obama's message has barely changed from the start, the only thing that McCain's side will have is taking Obama's words out of context. If people hate being talked down to, they hate hypocrites more.
To be sure, though, I don't think the issue will affect the polls until Monday or Tuesday, when people start to actually pay attention to the news again.
With that, I'm off to my Minneapolis for Obama meeting. Catch you on the flip side.
All three candidates are telling people what they should think. You just said, Obama's trying to articulate that the liberal position is better for the country. And whenever he speaks in those professorial tones as he did in SF, it's going to come off as that liberal who thinks he knows all.
Lets face it, Bush has changed the office of the Presidency a lot over the last eight years. Signing statements, disregard for public opinion, blunting congressional investigations. The President is no longer 1/3 of our government held in check by the others. The President is the decider. And that's not going to change right when Bush leaves.
Because I'm reading the transcript now, and it's delightful. Bob Shrum is sympathizing with Obama, agreeing with his sentiments (though not the wording), and reaming Mary Matalin up the ass.
Let's put it this way re: change election. Bush's approval is below 30% and Congress' is even worse. People hate this government and hate Washington. I have some faith that they'll take the smart guy who has been in Washington for 4 years over the ultimate Democratic insiders and a guy who has been in Congress since the early 80s.
That's because your faith is weak.
Oh wait, those are the Allentown and Scranton newspapers endorsing Obama today? Huh.
Uniform, myopic and cookie-cutter skepticism coming from someone who doesn't even live in this country, however, might give one cause for a bit of scoffing himself.
Oh, and by the fucking way, apparently about 47% of the Democrats in the US have some sort of skepticism about Obama, so maybe it would be a good fucking idea to figure out why the fuck that is, you dumb little fuck.
It's not so much non-Americans I take umbrage with as non-Americans who clearly don't have a lick of awareness as to the political or social situation in this country, i.e., you.
You are That Guy. You are the guy who yawns and waves his hands and says all politicians are alike, and fit everything you see into that narrative. You would be voting Nader if it weren't for the unfortunate handicap of being Canadian. I can see it.
One-note discussion like that gets almost as annoying as waterlogged.
The reasoning in that article is flawed. It assumes that because Hillary did better among certain groups in certain states, he'll get the same level of support in the General. This, naturally, assumes that everyone that voted Hillary in the Primary will vote McCain in the general, when it's far more likely, by and large, that Democrats will vote Democrat, even if it's not their preferred party nominee.
But that same argument against him has been flying around for months.
On the black screen
Just listening to Hillary makes me want to shove sharpened pencils into my eardrums.
That sanctemonious, winey, arrogant, almost sneering attitude. Yuck...she writes her own attack ads.
Seriously.
If she somehow get the nomination, all McCain needs to do is play clips of her contradicting herself..sorry, lying her ass off, and examples of that attitude.
Margaret Thatcher
Fine, from fucking Fox:
http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/are-people-bitter-in-pennsylvania/
And before you say "it's just two people, and one of them is black!" Think about it, it's Fox, if they could find people who were all "raaaaaaawr I'm angry and hate Obama now," they would have posted those.
Or maybe 47% of people voting in Democratic primaries genuinely prefer Hillary Clinton as the nominee and a large subsample of them also like Barack Obama. I mean, there are reasons to prefer her. I don't agree with them, but they exist.
And most of the specific points are bullshit. The actual level of jewish support for the candidates (according to every survey I've seen) is almost perfectly split between Obama and Clinton. Blue collar voters hate the immigration support that helps McCain with hispanics, and his full throated support of full bore free trade and permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest, combined with the fact they are disproportionately bearing th burden of the war in Iraq, are going to push the blue collars back to the dems for at least this cycle. Hispanics might like McCain, but considering how much foaming at the mouth there is about brown people in the neocon ranks he has surrounded himself with I don't expect much traction there.
Carville: If [Obama] wins ... how the winner treats the loser is gonna be very important.
And that's not the first response from you stressing that I'm not American. It's not like the views I'm expressing haven't been expressed by other people, from the United States. I have to assume you have some sort of issue with precisely that, so you can just go fuck yourself.
I think the problem is more that you say you like Obama but convey to us that you think he's an unreasonable, idealist, elitist who the dumbfuck American people would never vote because we're all Texans or Bible thumping rednecks who would never vote for someone smart. And we hear that all the time from foreigners and are sick of it. I'm gonna guess Rust is from "flyover country" and gets this perception as well.
It's the way you're skeptical that's more cynicism than "oh hey, there are these other people we need to persuade." It's "Obama has to do this or that" which is pure conventional wisdom, Newsweek/Time/CNN/Politico bullshit that Obama has thoroughly ignored so far and has won the Democratic nomination on. We tend to trust that guy who's winning more than that cynic on an internet message board.