An Obamanation

I thought Tennessee was a non registration state. Like it matters who you support in TN. The Republican will win this state.

"I find it insulting that Obama assumes to have a complete worldview understanding based on his experiences as a 6-10 year old boy!"

Given the foreign relations skills of Bush, this would seem to be an improvement. Anyhow, I looks like the Clintonistas are getting scared.

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Nice post, though you obviously haven't read any of his policy or issue stances on his website.

At least most of us will argue against you that Obama is far and away a much better choice than a seasoned liar (i mean, politician) like Hillary.

And by most, I mean most of the populace who voted in the primaries, as well as most of the states.

As Pan2 pointed out, Obama has plenty to say about the issues on his website. I find it refreshing that we finally have a Democratic candidate that understands how to speak to voters. Having yet another candidate that's good on the issues and not good with the media or voters, is not a recipe for a winning election.

Bill Clinton has the same cadence thing that Obama does and Hillary has barely more experience that Obama. Thankfully the media is starting to challenge her on the "vast experience" she claims.

I think Pat Buchanan put it best the other night on Hardball when he said that this is the year of the angry white woman. It looks like their candidate won't get the nomination and the longer this goes on, the uglier the comments get.

Makes you long for the John Edwards candidacy. Oh, wait. He's a white male. It disgusts me to see this conversation taking place. Way to play into the Gooopers hands, kids.

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Damn. You need a course in reading comprehension. Show me where I said either of those three things.

I guess I wasn't clear enough that I was addressing Danovi. You (now I am addressing you Rachel) are working in the opposite direction if you're trying to remove yourself from the "angry white woman" group.

That's great that Obama will have your vote in November should he get the nomination.

The Democratic Party has two perfectly capable candidates to take over improve the office of President. Currently it appears that Barack Obama may become the nominee.

I voted for Hillary but I will be damned if I will bash Obama in a public forum such as this and hand ammunition to that bunch that is currently in power.

These threads by a young Democrat contain enough bile spewed at a good Democrat for the supposed benefit of another good Democrat to merit a job offer from the Republican Party should Hillary lose the nomination.

Is that part of being a Democrat? Is that why Will Rogers said that he did not belong to an organized political party, he was a Democrat? Is that why Democrats are so adept at plucking defeat from the jaws of victory?

Democrats need to be Democrats first and candidate advocates second. If your chosen one does not become the nominee, will you help us get another Judge Alito by voting for John McCain, will you stay home, or will you just hold your breath until your face turns blue?

Either choice is pretty childish.

Visit us at

The Home

I further do not support a candidate who cannot present specific ideas on any issue. This is dangerous to the country. We, the voters, do not know what to hold Obama accountable for when he only stands for "change". Guess what, we will have change no matter who wins the election. What type of change we want, how we want that change, and when we want the change should be the dictating factors of selecting a nominee; not that the nominee will bring about change.

So essentially you are saying that because you are too lazy to find that which is easily available or, because you are too freakin stupid, none of us should like or vote for Obama. Is that about it?

You are an idiot. I make that assessment based not on your support of Hillary, it comes as no surprise to me that many believe Hillary to be the right choice. No, you have willfully and willingly chosen idiocy and ignorance as your weapons in your battle against Obama. You are not the only one. I am quite frankly, tired of having to argue how the appointment of more supremes and other important positions justify voting for Hillary even if she attracts idiots like you. However, I do believe that is true. Your best bet is to shut up around liberals and maybe, go to rethug sites to spout your idiocy. Maybe you will convince some McCain supporters to cross over to the Obama camp to make sure that Hillary doesn't win this and put folks like you in positions of authority.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

I have a book called "Good Women Get Angry," I don't think I've ever even read it, don't need to. I remember a common mantra in 04 was " The question shouldn't be why is Howard Dean angry, it should be why aren't you." The peanut gallery can beat up on Angela or Geraldine or Hillary or whoever, the Rev. can say assinine stuff, but don't let the girls raise their voices, that wouldn't be attractive. I thought Obama did well in his speech this week, but I hate that in this primary that it is so politically un-correct to support a very qualified woman.

The top two threads on this board, in terms of activity, are both Obama-bashing indulgences.

If I weren't so pissed off at Hillary Clinton and her supporters right now, I'd think it was funny that even here, on one of those two Obama-bashing threads, Clinton supporters are bellyaching about their candidate being attacked, barely acknowledging what the purpose of these threads is.

I'm developing a deep, visceral dislike of the Clintons, something that would have astonished me not so long ago.

I believe that the Clintons and their True Believers would sacrifice anything and anyone to get this nomination.

Along those lines Betty, have you read this: Link...

You are right - It is funny to see, again and again, Clinton supporters saying they are disrespected by Obama supporters. I've seen so many Obama bashing articles (most as poorly researched as this one) while I don't see too many Obama supporters tearing down Hillary. Oh, it happens in forums like this, but to purposefully sit down and create a diatribe against a likely Democratic candidate in the general election -- laughable.

Playing right into the hands of the Rush Limbaugh's of the world.

stop talking about how bad superdelegates are in public while viciously "working" them in private(especially the black superdelegates)

Gasp! Those sneaky blacks! They are ganging up on the white candidate.

I think you stating you are a young Democrat in your title is a bit redundant when you keep spelling it out over and over again in you diatribe.

he will never win the presidency. he has made excuses for hate speech. it is a character issue that will not go away. if he gets the nomination, i will have to vote for a republican for the first time in my life.

This thread and Stacey Diamond's thread making fun of Obama's name were at the top last night when I poasted this.

What an epidemic.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

According to Sinbad, Hillary Clinton went to Bosnia. I love Sinbad. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is qualified to be President. And she even mentioned that John McCain is qualified to be President. She is SO SMART!!! Besides. She ran under sniper fire in Bosnia while searching for the next meal. Therefore, she is the most qualified candidate. The End.

Footnote. Sinbad, "Speech at tha troops," Tuzla, Bosnia, 1996.

This commentary is exactly how I feel. I am a lifelong Democrat who comes from three generations of Democrats. However, I will either stay home or vote for Nader or McCain in November. The love affair between the majority of the mainstream media and Obama is disgusting. He is completely unqualified and is bringing our political party to ruin. I know a few Democrats who feel this way. I had to hold my nose when I voted for John Kerry, but I will not do this again.

And i will work hard to defeat him in november. i will go to my nearest swing state and campaign for *gulp* ..mccain. Time to get serious. Do not allow this pop idol, empty suit to turn POTUS into a pop-idol contest.

TROLLS!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

It would seem that the "Young Democrat" is wise. Senator Obama is simply not qualified for the presidency. He is even less qualified that Bush. If the American public wants to suspend disbelief again for another election then go ahead. I have been a liberal democrat for 30 years and simply can't vote for this man. He has yet to take any responsibility for anything he does.If he loses votes, it is because the voters are racists. He even premised his talk with the local Jewish community in Florida, asking them to go beyond his Muslim name and skin color. So I suppose if the voters there don't vote for him, it is simply because they couldn't get past his name or his skin color. He refused to go to the voters in WV or KY. That never stopped JFK, a Roman Catholic. He has demonstrated a total lack of leadership and the ability to take the risks necessary to win an election.

His policies on his website are cut and paste. The proof reading is so bad that it stated that the Great Lakes were in Oregon. Senator Obama has not distinguished himself as a legislator or a leader. He has distinguished himself as being involved in graft and the pay to play politics of Chicago. He let his constituents go through a winter without heat, deteriorating buildings, and no trash removal while his buddy Rezko profited and financed his campaign. To add insult to injury, Senator Obama approached this devil several years later to make a deal to buy a mansion he couldn't afford. This man cares nothing for the poor or anyone else.

I have been a liberal democrat for 30 years...

I really appreciate all of the comments on here. I did what I set out to do on a small level which was to not allow the blinded glorification of Obama to continue. Obama has continued as a divider of our party and I will not be voting for him. In fact, I'm actually going to take a page out of his book and essentially vote "present" in the presidential election, meaning, that I will go to the polls and I'll be working for down ballot Democrats and voting for Democrats down ballot. But, I cannot forsee that there will be a presidential candidate that I can support in this election. So, I'll show up and be "present" for the presidential election day 2008.

If anyone honestly thinks that only Obama people have received abuse during this election, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, during my work in North Carolina I experienced very similar abuse from Obamites as I did from Bushites on Tennessee gameday in 2004.

I have also been called a racist by people of whom I would expect more from. Ironically, I live in one of the most diverse parts of Knoxville, am working on a Masters degree in Geography and face racial, cultural, and national origin differences almost every day. Meanwhile, some of the people who have taken to callng me a racist live in the homogenous caucasion suburbs and work in largely caucasion situations and only like Obama because he's for "change." Personally, I find that insulting and ironically shallow from people who perceive themselves as having this deep and intellectual connection to politics and their political leaders.

Sounds like the familiar sound of a "Uniter not a divider," and I don't mean your intended target. Don't let the door out of the party hit you in the ass. (Or do--who cares.)

Bush-loving whiner.

"I do not support someone whose entire campaign has been based on a speech they made as a state Senator in the comforts of their chambers. A speech is not a vote."

Well I don't either. Fortunately, Obama's campaign is not entirely based on a speech as state senator. It's based on a range of experiences and "perspectives developed over 20 years in Illinois and to a lesser extent the US Senate. The speech in 2002 may have been one piece of evidence of his opposition to the war in 2002, but I assure you that his opposition to the war was well-known as he planned his US Senate primary campaign in 2003...when the war was still popular among much of the population. How do I know this? Because I lived in Illinois in 2000-2006 and I remember Obama's campaign from the beginning. He was so adamant about it that he would clearly have been with Feingold from the start.

"Obama never even cast a vote on the resolution and if he had been in the Senate, his current voting record suggests that he would have voted "present."

In Illinois as a "present" vote is a procedural measure just to keep a parliamentary measure moving. It's like all those 433-0 votes in the US House. They aren't voting for the measure but are voting to continue an arcane procedure. The "present" vote is a myth.

"I DO NOT support a man who talks about race in the most subtle and unsubtle ways in order to drum up votes. He does this when he specifically refers to race in his speeches. "This is not about being black or white" is specifically using race and it makes him the black candidate or "the one" (quote from Oprah) rather than a well grounded candidate reaching out to people. His cadence in his speeches, especially in high minority areas and ESPECIALLY in the South is that of a southern black preacher. It is so pronounced and obvious that he's trying to be the "black" candidate that he goes so far as to mispronounce America! However when he's interviewed this "accent" or cadence completely disappears. I believe this is just more of the facade of Obama."

Please tell me you are kidding here. Did you not hear Hillary Clinton in Kentucky and in Alabama last year? Her attempt to put on a Southern accent was comically awful. Every politician slightly alters their cadence according to the audience. In fact, every person does it. I moved here from the Midwest and I found myself speaking differently - especially after talking to some of my neighbors. To say there's something "racial" about that is pure fantasy.

"I feel it is extremely unfortunate and disgusting that Obama has chosen to sink to these lows especially after we just had a minority candidate emulate how to run for a national office as a real uniter rather than this psuedo uniter that Barack Obama is. The best example of this minority candidate was Harold Ford Jr. His campaign was about platform and ideas. He ran without EVER talking about race and without ever talking about NOT talking about race. Obama has not done this. I find it disgusting and painful that Obama continues to trump around "race" within his speeches. His own actions have caused the divisiveness in the campaign. It's time for him to get over his own racial issues and run as a grounded candidate with a platform rather than the African American political messiah!"

Again, this reads like someone paranoid about racial issues. Ford may not have pandered on race, but he most certainly pandered on religion (an ad in a church?). Since Obama does NOT pander on race this whole distinction is meaningless however.

"I further do not support a candidate who cannot present specific ideas on any issue. This is dangerous to the country. We, the voters, do not know what to hold Obama accountable for when he only stands for "change". Guess what, we will have change no matter who wins the election. What type of change we want, how we want that change, and when we want the change should be the dictating factors of selecting a nominee; not that the nominee will bring about change."

Let me help you out here:

Go to Link.... After you click "skip sign-up" you can click on "Issues." You'll find all policy detail you want. I've seen him speak in smaller audiences and his command of policy is every bit as impressive as Hillary Clinton's. Just because his standard stump speech is less wonky doesn't mean he doesn't have specific ideas.

"I do not support a candidate who uses living in Indonesia for four years as a child as a base for having the best international relations policies. He specifically stated this on November 19, 2007 at a speech in Iowa. Personally, after I traveled over seas to two different countries and hosted international camp counselors from literally all over the world, I find it insulting that Obama assumes to have a complete worldview understanding based on his experiences as a 6-10 year old boy! He would have done better to claim that he has limited international experience or to point to something, anything that he has done as an adult, espeically as an elected officer. But, to reach so far as to insinuate that he had the skills as a baby to internalize his experiences for his future presidency represents the height of arrogance and an arrogant president is NOT what this country needs in the next term!"

He did NOT say that all of his international relations policies come from living in Indonesia. He said that living in Indonesia exposed him to perspectives that few other Americans have, and so has affected his outlook throughout his life. I'd expect as much from someone who LIVED overseas for a while.

But his international relations experience is drawn more from his travels with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) to Russia and elsewhere in the fight to lock down loose nuclear weapons.

"I am not for a candidate who has so little to stand on that they give any progressive ideals away by claiming that they will include all Republicans. This is naive of Obama. Does he actually believe that without a veto-proof legislative majority that the Republicans actually want to work with him? He is not a political god and the Republicans actually have very little motivation to meet his goals because he's already said that he's basically willing to go meet theirs. This is not acceptable out of a candidate who is seeking the Democratic Party nomination."

He's co-sponsored legislation with Lugar and Coburn that actually passed. He worked across the aisle in the Illinois legislature to pass a police video monitoring law. But in no case did he compromise progressive principles. You can disagree with his health care plan, but in no way does his willingness to work with Republicans show his lack of commitment to progressivism.

"Lastly, I, as a registered Young Democrat am sickened and insulted by Obama's comment that "I know that if I get the nomination her people would support me because I'm the Democrat, but I don't think that I can say that my supporters could support her should she be the nominee." That was said on the same day that Michelle Obama said on Good Morning America that she just didn't know if she could support Hillary should she get the nomination. This type of rhetoric and attitude is actually dividing our party and will be the same kind of attitude to divide this country."

Since you wrote this diatribe before the kitchen sink strategy, I'll give you a pass here. Clinton has done everything she can to stir up resentment among white, working class Appalachian voters. Is it any wonder that so many of them won't vote for Obama now?

"It's time to STOP giving Obama a free pass because people either want to feel like they're on a perpetual feel-good honeymoon or because they feel that it's wrong or not politically correct to question the African American candidate. Obama needs to answer questions, take a real stand, stop using the race card, stop trying to channel the cadences of previous black leaders like MLK, stop using the party as his personal vehicle for divisiveness while running for the party's nomination, stop talking about how bad superdelegates are in public while viciously "working" them in private (especially the black superdelegates), and to stop giving away any progressive position by saying that he will work with any and all Republicans anywhere at any time."

Again, much of this is dated, now that Obama leads among superdelegates. And the Jeremiah Wright and "bittergate" controversies should put to rest the notion that the media has gone soft on Obama.

The long hard primary is coming to a close. It all came down to tactics, really. Hillary Clinton made some major blunders early on and never recovered. But Barack Obama is the nominee and will be the best choice in November. He, along with a large Democratic majority in Congress, will pass progressive legislation that Washington hasn't even considered in a very long time.

I will vote for Obama or the Democratic nominee. The blog I posted making jokes comparing Obama to Hannah Montana was a pure joke. There's been group think and silliness from both sides and the media, but for better or for worse Obama will most likely be the nominee next week. Trying to manipulate numbers at this point is silly. Its Obama or McCain, I'll vote for Obama.

For a view of inside the fractured DEM see the responces to this:
Link...

Sorry, wrong blog. I meant to put that at the "Inside the Fractured GOP" spot. Although it works pretty well here too.

If Obama is so popular, why did it take so long to clinch the nomination?
Obama's tactics are actually very similar to Karl Roves tactics suring the 2000 and 2004 nominations.
1.)Make people believe you are working for the "common man".
2.)Real world esperience does not matter.
3.)Pull the guilt trip if THEY mention race, while highlighting race the whole campaign yourself. Call anyone who opposes you or questions you--"traitors". Belittle them and them tell them you are "Uniting" them.
4.)Muffle free speech by telling the press to "Lay off my wife" when she opens her mouth and inserts foot.