TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:That appeal does not extend to the union guys drinking a shot and a beer. You know, those who cling to God 'n' Guns. Once you get 10 miles west of the White Dog Cafe, there's lots more of them than you.

Like David Shuster, the danger for you and the Dem machine is to see Obama thru your eyes only. To assume that the only folks who don't like Obama are racists who vote GOP anyhow.

your desolation over the impending conclusion of the Democrats' eleventy-five state White Noise Tour is beginning to sully your reasoning capacity.

Let's take the lazy way, and build on your Defoe-ian cartoon of those who occupy Obama's 'danger zone'. Surely, one might draw from your portrait, they're so dullwitted that a few months of soaking in a relatively consistent set of slogans from 'the new coach of their favorite political ball club' will be sufficient to lull a winning margin of them to pull the Obama lever come November?

I don't know what that means, but it was fun to read!

I really never pictured you as a thin man.

TomatoPie wrote:Like all elections, this one will turn on how much of the base turns out, and how the middle gets divided.

The Dems have a huge leg up in terms of a motivated base.

The fight for the middle is where I think Hillary really tops Obama. She ran toward the middle, thinking the primary process was really just a coronation.

Obama, once you past the slogans, is awfully far left to win a general election.

It's all how he is packaged. He's no Ted Kennedy in perception. And he speaks to the younger demographic who might actually get up and vote. It's a dogfight for sure, and the propoganda machine that is our national TV media, radio, internet will try to much with things a lot -- but Obama has a shot as good as Hilary.

You may be right about whites not voting for the Black man with a Muslim sur-name, but I don't think you are right that Obama can't appeal to those who have not benefitted under Bush and are struggling. That his message will somehow be too liberal. Stated the right way, it could be a populist message that says, "respect the working man", not business-as-usual for the big business big boy phat cats.

Philly the Kid wrote:I was close to right -- maybe the unexpected Obama-factor can change my pessimistic view of it all?!

I really think he can win. But even if not -- it'll be nice to go down swinging for a change.

Fossella is going to resign this weekend. Another special election that we're going to lose.

Jesus fucking christ. Keep it in your goddamn pants. And don't drink and drive. Fucking selfish asshole.

Grotewold wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:I was close to right -- maybe the unexpected Obama-factor can change my pessimistic view of it all?!

I really think he can win. But even if not -- it'll be nice to go down swinging for a change.

Unlike the last time you nominated the most liberal member of the US Senate...four years ago. From hearing Democrats talk, you'd forget that Al Gore's campaign slogan was "The people vs. the powerful" and think that John Kerry was some Joe Lieberman-DLC squish.

I don't mean not liberal. I mean not a pussy.

You can't say pu ssy?

bah

jerseyhoya wrote:Keep it in your goddamn pants. And don't drink and drive. $#@! selfish asshat.

It's like you're channeling angry-supporter criticisms of both Clinton (Bill) and Bush (obv).

Also, Fossella was a dick. Be happy: the odds are that he'll be replaced by a more competent/less churlish Republican.

I think it would be quite gracious of Clinton to offer Obama the vice-presidency. That's about all we can hope for from her front.

I think the criticisms of "Obama's too much of a big libburl"--made, note, by our righties here--probably bear an echo from not quite thirty years ago of the evidently widely held view that Reagan was too far right to win in 1980.

The political and media culture have changed a lot since then--if someone today did what Reagan did at Philadelphia, MS in 1980, he wouldn't be remotely viable--but the common thread is that when a politician is sufficiently charismatic, s/he can change those perceptions. Reagan didn't come off as a wild-eyed or particularly angry right-winger; I don't think Obama, with his midwestern accent and modest policy agenda, comes off as a Kucinich/Barbara Lee type.

Maybe it's tougher when the candidate is <whisper>black</whisper>, but Obama has a lot else going for him. Particularly the record of the last eight years.

Think about this. Obama and Clinton have fairly similar ideas on domestic policy and differ on international policy.

McCain and Obama/Clinton differ on most everything (except Clinton and McCain are clueless on Iran).

Then what is the reason that someone would actually jump from Democrat to Republican in this election if they were planning on voting for Clinton and the nominee is Obama? What is their big reason? HMMMM?

pacino wrote:Think about this. Obama and Clinton have fairly similar ideas on domestic policy and differ on international policy.

McCain and Obama/Clinton differ on most everything (except Clinton and McCain are clueless on Iran).

Then what is the reason that someone would actually jump from Democrat to Republican in this election if they were planning on voting for Clinton and the nominee is Obama? What is their big reason? HMMMM?

youre implying racism, but honestly, there's just as many stupid reasons why people vote for someone anyways. I knew someone who voted against Kerry because he was "ugly".

The Red Tornado wrote:

pacino wrote:Think about this. Obama and Clinton have fairly similar ideas on domestic policy and differ on international policy.

McCain and Obama/Clinton differ on most everything (except Clinton and McCain are clueless on Iran).

Then what is the reason that someone would actually jump from Democrat to Republican in this election if they were planning on voting for Clinton and the nominee is Obama? What is their big reason? HMMMM?

youre implying racism, but honestly, there's just as many stupid reasons why people vote for someone anyways. I knew someone who voted against Kerry because he was "ugly".

I didn't imply anything. That is a question genius. What's the reason they will jump from D to R if Obama's the nominee?

pacino wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:

pacino wrote:Think about this. Obama and Clinton have fairly similar ideas on domestic policy and differ on international policy.

McCain and Obama/Clinton differ on most everything (except Clinton and McCain are clueless on Iran).

Then what is the reason that someone would actually jump from Democrat to Republican in this election if they were planning on voting for Clinton and the nominee is Obama? What is their big reason? HMMMM?

youre implying racism, but honestly, there's just as many stupid reasons why people vote for someone anyways. I knew someone who voted against Kerry because he was "ugly".

I didn't imply anything. That is a question genius. What's the reason they will jump from D to R if Obama's the nominee?

Im just saying that there's a whole slew of stupid reasons as to why someone makes their decision.

that settles it

pat Buchanan settled it and said that hillary's voters were better and they should go with her

I'll bet a very low percentage of people could tell you where their candidate stood on all the issues, besides the relatively unimportant but salacious ones like abortion or immigration

^ or lapel pins!

<embed FlashVars="videoId=168061" src='http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

Fantastic