I'm shocked at the number of conservatives who seem to have forgotten the 1990s.
The Clintons pollute everything they touch. Their sliminess is beyond politics. Surely the goal of every decent American should be to see Hillary off as soon as possible rather than take any unnecessary risk that she and her wretched husband will be allowed to infest the White House again. If that means that the Republicans have an even greater chance of losing the White House, so be it. There are more important things than partisan politics in play here.
The humiliation of the Clintons at the hands of their own party will, of course, be a bonus.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
We definitely should celebrate the demise of the House of Clinton. She's cooked and we will never have to worry about having them and their little corrupt cabal infecting our government.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Some of us would rather the GOP hand her the humiliating defeat, rather than Barak Obama. The reason we'd prefer it that way is that McCain would probably beat Ms. Clinton, but probably will not beat Obama.
Plus, there's a little schadenfreude working here; thanks to the Democrats, the Clintons polluted the entire nation for 8 years, so we're hoping she stays in the running long enough to do a thorough job polluting the Democratic party. It's only just, and serves them right.
Trust me, we've not forgotten the 90s.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
I would much prefer to run against Clinton in the fall, frankly, so I'm sorry the Democrats are behaving somewhat sensibly. And I'd love to see a Democrat food fight in the summer, so I'm sorry it looks like the convention will be pretty tame. However, I'm not sorry to see the last Clinton ushered off the national stage. That could not have come too soon.
Beating Obama with no recent Democratic meltdown will be difficult. I recommend lots and lots of activism at local and state levels, as we're likely to have to live with a near-Marxist President for at least the next four years. The only good news there is that Obama is so very inexperienced, his presidency will likely be a rerun of the Carter years, and the 2012 election will look very different.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
I really don't see Obama losing to McCain, if that's the scenario. This really feels like a "change" election. A lot of people in this country are pissed at the direction it's heading, and when the choice is between Obama and McCain, I think Obama has a big edge.
The line on Obama is that he's an "empty suit" and inexperienced. But he really knows his stuff, and it will show in the general election (if he gets the nomination). He'll be attacked as a "socialist" but that's such a stupid argument that it will only resonate with people who wouldn't vote for in regardless.
But, we'll see. In politics, you never know. But I'd gladly place by bet with Obama.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
I don't disagree with you; as I said, Obama will be a difficult opponent. However, I've already noted on my blog that we should not underestimate McCain. He's already come out firing at Obama, and in a remarkably astute manner, presenting himself as a humble public servant while very gently chiding Obama for messianic delusions. Galynn, below, doesn't realize that McCain's campaign staff understands pretty well what's appealing about Obama, but they do, and they'll keep their distance from President Bush.
I think the key issue will be whether the McCain campaign can goad Obama into defending specific policy suggestions. Obama's inexperience shows up when starts trying to get specific. McCain won't have to say a thing, and he won't; it will be apparent.
galynn
· 1 year ago
",,,McCain's campaign staff understands pretty well what's appealing about Obama, but they do, and they'll keep their distance from President Bush"
Ok. I'm interested and listening. I've voted Republican in all but one Presidential election in my life, and that one time voting Dem was during my idealistic youth. This is the first election in decades where I'm crossing to the other side even though I disagree with much of what Obama believes. So, I'm still convincable.
Help me understand how keeping "their distance from President Bush" is responding to what resonates in Obama's message? I'm not getting that.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Since I don't know precisely what you are responding to, I can only talk in generalities, and only about perceptions. Perhaps you can fill me in on what's prompting you to switch sides this year.
The 21st century so far has been a very unsettling time, containing two very serious economic “bubble bursts,” massive auditing frauds, destruction of the World Trade Center, periodic uncovering of terror cells operating within the country, gasoline and food skyrocketing to unheard-of prices, war heroes exposed as frauds, and a war which we’re told was unnecessary, among a number of other things. A common denominator of all these events is “things are not as good as they seem.”
Given the near-universal distress and uneasiness this has produced, somebody who looks clean, smart, educated, and calm, saying “We’re going to change things and make them better,” has a natural, emotional appeal that most of us have to think to resist. An uncomfortable number of independent voters will not see through the Obama Scrim of Hope, mostly because they very badly don’t want to. Things have been bad. We want them to be better.
The Obama campaign is being smart by being general. No matter what anybody says, they want to run against the Bush administration, which is unpopular. Without actually saying it, Obama is basically saying "Bush ruined things, and we're the Other Guys." You may not be thinking exactly that, but by being unspecific, Obama includes your feelings.
By running as "I'm Not Bush," McCain can avoid a lot of the tar that Obama's trying to smear on him.
Again, I don't know how much President Bush is in your own, specific reasoning (or, if he is, how much you're aware of it), so I don't know if this affects you or not. But please fill me in.
galynn
· 1 year ago
If there is anything emotional in my leaning toward Obama at this point in the election cycle, it is a rabid anti-Hillary framework. The only way the Republicans can be guaranteed to get my vote is if Hillary is on the Dem ticket.
I'll try to clarify what is prompting me to switch sides this year as long as you realize that my thinking is not likely to be very reflective of most other people, and that I am not set in my thinking (I still can be convinced to change my mind). I also want to stress that I am sincerely interested in figuring out what Obama's appeal is beyond simply dismissing it as just 'so much rhetoric.' I have more faith in American voters than to dismiss this current passion for Obama as completely unthinking. To find a way to recapture the interest of voters who are not firmly entrenched in one camp or the other, I think it would be wise to give them more credit. But hey, that's just me.
Anyway, my support for Obama has a couple of different prongs.
PRONG #1: There is not a true Conservative left in the race to support. I started as a Fred Thompson fan. Once he was gone, Romney was the closest thing to a true Conservative left. Now he is gone, and with McCain IMHO we do not have a true Conservative. At best he is a wishy-washy conservative, which IMHO was Bush's (43) greatest fault. And, having Bush (41) stand up to shout that McCain is a conservative is not exactly the kind of endorsement I'd want if I was trying to convince people that I am a true Conservative.
PRONG #2: IMHO Obama is a True Believer with sound moral character. The last President we had who was a moral True Believer was Ronald Reagan. Prior to him -- FDR. True Believers embrace a complete philosophy/rationale that guides decisions and policy choices. In my chosen occupation (psychology), every great advancement was made by the True Believers. And when the True Believers worked with clients, they were effective; it mattered not whether the theories behind their methods were correct. What made the difference was that they Truely Believed in what they advocated. Somehow that made it work. Reagan was a Great President because he not only was the Great Communicator, but also because he was a moral True Believer.
From what I can tell so far, Obama is an effective communicator AND he Truely Believes that the principles guiding his policy positions are correct. They may or may not lead to policies that will bring this country forward. I'm willing to risk it based on what I know at this point. He also comes across as having moral character. Give me additional information, and that risk I'm willing to take today might not look so good.
PRONG #3: Given the hostility of the Hard Left toward Amerika, there is a part of me that wants to let them have what they've been screaming for just so that the rest of the voters can see what failed policies they are. (I know. This contradicts #2 above. But you wanted to know...)
Finally, PRONG #4: I truely believe that if Obama is elected President, that act alone will do incredible things to heal race relations in this country. I think our country desperately needs that. And if #3 above is true, we'll only have to sacrifice 4 years because the next President would be a True Believer Conservative after 4 years of failed Socialist policies.
Are you sorry you asked?
philwynk
· 1 year ago
No, I'm not sorry at all. Thanks for filling me in.
I sympathize with the McCain problem, being a conservative and a Thompson fan myself. I searched my soul rather deeply, finally took a trip to CPAC to hash my ideas out with some other conservatives, and finally decided I would rather pull the lever for McCain than for a liberal Democrat. I invite you to read my wrestlings over the matter here,here,and here on my blog; you can also click on the "John McCain" category and read my misgivings about the man.
Regarding Obama: I'm not convinced he's of completely sound moral character. I think he's a pretty ordinary politician, who's capable of doing what needs to be done in order to get elected. You might want to read some stuff I put on my blog about him, or some things Jeff Berkowitz has said about Obama's track record over at Public Affairs. Berkowitz seems to have the best nitty-gritty information about Obama in action. He (Obama) sounds like a cagey operator who is capable of quietly stabbing an ally in order to please a more powerful constituency. He is not a wholesome, optimistic, straight-shooter at his core like Reagan was.
However, it's pretty clear he's not from the same slime pool the Clintons rose out of. So at least we're spared that.
I can't understand your concern about race relations. If Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Spike Lee, et al aren't sufficient to heal race relations, in your mind, how will a black President do it? The mere fact that the Democrats are nominating a black man for President should help some -- the blacks have been put down by the Democrats long enough, it's about time they got some respect in their party. But let me tell you, I lived in Philadelphia for 13 years, and when John Street got elected Mayor there, it did not help race relations, it hurt them. He was overheard once saying "We've got control now," speaking of the black brothers, and then one of his closest allies got indicted by the FBI for a deeply corrupt "pay for play" scam, shaking down bidders for city jobs. So I'm pretty skeptical about voting for racial reasons. I don't think it addresses much of anything.
The next President is going to appoint 2 Supreme Court justices, replacing two of the most liberal judges on the Court. If even one of them is a strict constructionist, we'll have a majority of judges who vote with the Constitution for the first time in my lifetime. This, above all things, persuades me to vote for McCain, even though he's Democrat lite. Besides that, I'd rather have a President who agrees with me 50% of the time than one who agrees with me 10% of the time.
Have a great evening, and thanks for playing.
galynn
· 1 year ago
I truly believe that the only chance McCain has of winning with Obama on the Dem ticket is to do a thorough analysis of what is appealing to voters in Obama's message. And to immediately jump to his "empty-suit rhetoric" as your answer to my challenge is going to lead to answers that just are not going to lead to an effective rhetorical response with voters. Obama is appealing to a huge cross-section of voters. Republicans had better figure out what the true appeal is or there is no HOPE.
I'll give a speculative guess: Harken back to when Reagan was running (and for all of the years he was in office). One of the most memorable criticisms Dems ran with was that he was just empty-suit rhetoric (hence the nickname The Great Communicator). But his message resonated with a huge cross-section of voters because it was FAR more than empty-suit rhetoric. He had a meaningful message in the rhetorical flourishes, and voters bought it. Likewise, Obama has a meaningful message in his rhetorical flourishes, and voters ARE buying it.
Figure out what the message is and you are one step closer to developing an effective response to it. Start with the section of his (rather lengthy!) speech last night where he talked about telling people what they *need* to hear rather than what he thinks they want to hear. Good luck! Deep down, I'm rooting for ya!
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
That's pretty good analysis galynn - The plain fact seems to be that Americans really need some inspiration right now. We're worried about a lot of things an we don't trust Washington to fix problems or solve impending crisis. A person like Obama provides a fresh perspective.
This is my own dilemma. I've been a Conservative Republican all of my adult life. I've voted nearly straight ticket Republican in every election I could participate. If Obama is the nominee I MIGHT consider voting for him over MCCain.
Now this isn't me swooning over Obama's soaring rhetoric. Its that I thoroughly distrust Washington and the current leadership there. An Obama victory would completely upset the apple cart. I find that an attractive notion. Iconoclastic and Libertarian.
So what do I do? Should I pull the lever for a man I respect but is very entrenched in the Washington politics I distrust or take a chance on an inspiring man from my own generation?
Then I think of the judges...
philwynk
· 1 year ago
An Obama victory would completely upset the apple cart. I find that an attractive notion. Iconoclastic and Libertarian.
Only, it would not. Obama is pure liberalism, the farthest left of the American variety. What you can expect from an Obama presidency is the same, government-solves-all approaches to every problem, just as they've been proposed by Democrats all along.
If you're wondering what that would look like, find something middle-of-the-road about the Carter administration and read about it (I'm assuming you weren't aware during his presidency; if you were, forgiveme). He was elected as an outsider during a time of national distrust of the organs of government, as Obama hopes to be. He was so inept that even with a Congress dominated by his own party, he failed to initiate anything of note, aside from getting a measure passed to require US companies to use the metric system instead of English measure (Reagan repealed it, and we all heaved a sign of relief).
If you want a change in Washington politics, why not invest yourself in local and state elections, which tend to produce the next crop of national candidates? Find local candidates who would favor term limits or earmark and rider reforms, get them elected, and effect real, long-term change. Or, take a look at Newt Gingrich's American Solutions Initiative, which suggests a raft of proposals that would have support from both sides of the aisle? Either one would be better than voting for a hard leftist.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
Interesting remarks.
First, Obama is quite a bit MORE liberal than Carter (near as I can tell). And I don't think this country has elected anyone so Liberal since, well, perhaps never. The point is, I don't think an Obama presidency would mirror Carter's due to the nature of the men themselves. I remember well the carter years as well as his ascension to the presidency. Yes I was a teenager but I've always been a political geek that way.
Carter ran as an 'honest' man from Plains. He was neither charismatic nor inspirational. That he barely beat Ford, another bland guy, is testament to Carter's lack of charisma. Carter was elected, in essence, to REPAIR the relationship between the People and the government. I think Obama stands clear in the iconoclastic mode, to dear down the harsh partisan divisions that have grown increasingly divisive in tone and extra-constitutional in practice.
When Clinton came into office he blew in with change too but his was the 'third way' schtick. The Clinton way was all about triangulation and wedge issues...pleasing everybody and nobody all at once. Pretty weak tea for a change agent. And, as it is Clinton was not transformational. Neither was Carter. Obama, for good or bad will probably be a transformational president (providing he survives a full term, as transformational figures tend to attract dangerous enemies).
As for your advice about investing one's self in local politics...well, always have, probably always will but I must say its been frustrating at times. Not because candidates I've worked for lost but that they generally win and then go to Washington and change. The '94 Republicans did that and GW Bush (whom I worked tirelessly as a precinct captain for two cycles, gave the max money to and supported in every way possible) disappointed me in many ways (though I still love the man and think he's a great president).
In truth I doubt I'd vote for Obama in the end. If i can get the sense that McCain will fight hard against Washington going forward I might actually be happy to pull the lever for him.
okonkolo
· 1 year ago
A very thoughtful post that I suspect reflects the thinking of many voters.
okonkolo
· 1 year ago
A big part of the message is change from George Bush, who remains stuck at 30% approval. That is going to be hard for McCain to embrace, and even if he did it would strike everyone as fake.
Monkei
· 1 year ago
hmm the 4 years of Carter vs the 8 years of Bush ... hard to say which was worse. Bush's legacy will be this economy and his work to fight AIDS in Africa.
So we go from a near-facist president to a near-marxist president?
philwynk
· 1 year ago
"Near-fascist" is the laughably florid rhetoric of revisionists who barely read history, and doesn't deserve a reply. Tell me, which foundational liberties have you, personally, lost?
The current flock of leftist historians do delight in calling the Bush administration one of the nation's worst, but it only displays their bias in bright, flashing neon lights. That assessment will change as the left loses its fact-distorting, free-speech-destroying grip on America's universities.
My own sense is that 35 years down the road, with the international distress that expansive Islam will certainly cause between then and now, a more balanced crop of historians will be noting how courageous Bush's Middle East policy truly was, and how accurately he identified and addressed the problem. They'll probably also wonder why he wasn't similarly prescient about the Mexican migration.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Until his death a year or so ago, the dean of American historians was Arthur Schlesinger, who compared Dubyah's invasion of Iraq to the actions of the Imperial Japanese Navy in December of 1941.
ClydeS
· 1 year ago
Apparently you're not old enough to actually remember the late '70s under Carter. It sucked, big-time. When you have a bunch of Iranian terrorists holding American citizens hostage for 444 days and you don't have the cojones to get them out or kick some butt, of course you're going to get voted out. It was my first election, and I was damn proud to send Mr. Peanut packing. And it wasn't just "America Held Hostage," it was a total and complete economic debacle, the Soviet Union ascendant and advancing on all fronts, etc., etc. Look up the term "misery index"; it actually MEANT something during the Carter years, with high unemployment and high inflation. Nothing that has happened in the past 7 years holds a candle to how bad it was under Carter.
E1701
· 1 year ago
I always find it amusing how people are so quick to leap to "legacy" theories before a politician has even left office, let alone their historical impact examined. I'd be hesitant to speculate on Carter's final legacy, let alone Bush Jr's. For crying out loud, those of us who are into history (and who write the textbooks) are still debating the legacies of Abraham Lincoln and US Grant. In twenty years we can *start* this debate, but the fallout of any Presidential administration can take decades or longer to truly be felt.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Bush's legacy won't be known for at least 30 years, because the only historians qualified to write an unbiased account of his Presidency haven't been born yet. There current crop of "historians" all suffer from BDS.
The same goes for Bil Clinton's legacy-my guess is that Bill will be treated very harshly by history, once the current crop of historians are gone.
It will be interesting to see what Americans tell the public opinion polls next year as Bush leaves office what his Presidency will most be remembered for. In the case of Clinton, Americans by a huge margin in 2001 said his Presidency would only be remembered for a blue dress, not anything he actually accomplished while in office.
JAW
· 1 year ago
IMO, the democratic machine is strong in Ohio. That's the difference between Cheesconsin and Ohio. Hillary can probably bigfoot a victory there, but it won't be enough, again IMHO.
kevino
· 1 year ago
I agree: the DNC machine will work heavily in her favor and give her the win. Besides, even if she loses TX or OH she'll still get the nomination. Nothing will stand in the Clinton's way. If she can't win the nomination, she'll steal it.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
She's ENTITLED to the nomination.
Besides, it's been common knowledge since the 1990s that not all of those purloined FBI files were of Republicans.
Theflyman
· 1 year ago
Now wait a minute. Laura Ingrham said the MSM was favoring McCain because they wanted to have someone that Hillary could beat.The MSM wants Hillary, right ? Isn't Laura one of the Leading Lights of the ever so clairvoyant Right? What's happening? Laura knows everything doesn't she?
keemo
· 1 year ago
Is it simply "impossible" for a Liberal to stay on topic. What does Laura Ingraham have to do with this discussion?
Good for you Tom for staying on topic... I hope we get the opportunity to see what Obama is made of in the general. At least with Obama, I'm uncertain of the kind of integrity he will bring to the WH; I'm uncertain of how Obama will react to the security of our nation once he is receiving the raw data on a daily basis. With Hillary, I already know what to expect, and that picture is really ugly and void of hope & change.
Here's hoping for a McCain vs Obama match-up.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Better the devil you don't know, than the devil you know?
Don't kid yourself about Obama changing much once he sees real data. How much did Carter change?
Barack Obama is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. His wife's rhetoric is already exposing their hard-left beliefs. He may be forced by Congress to moderate some of his stances, but if he's made it to the Senate without reality leaking in anywhere, don't expect the CIA briefings to do the trick. He'll just call them Cold-warrior fossils up his sleeve, and continue to radicalize whatever he can without destroying his re-election chances.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
I listened to a lot of Lara's classic shows in 2005 about how Democrats should be beaten, imprisoned, or deported. Payback sucks baby.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Payback sucks?
Democrats can elect all the politicians they want and they will still be sitting around whining about how bad off they are and how they can't get an even break. Even if they're a Michelle Obama millionaire, the "man" is keeping them down.
Democrats wallow in victimhood and being losers.
Winning an election won't change a thing. And they're too lazy and unorganized to be able to tell the rest of us what to do, so even if Democrats sweep, the more things "change", the more things will stay the same.
Gary_Gross
· 1 year ago
As I said <b>here, it's difficult seeing Team Clinton just walking off the field.
Meet Hillary and her Not Ready for Prime Time campaign staff.
Jeff_from_Mpls
· 1 year ago
Mrs. Clinton -- I think for the 10th time in a row -- failed to congratulate Senator Obama on his victory last night, launching directly instead into a cold, shrill tirade and a list of demands.
In contrast, Senator Obama actually had the decency to congratulate Senator McCain, calling him a great and heroic American! -- followed by genuine, prolonged applause by Obama's youthful audience, I might add.
The Clintons have met their match. They wanted a referendum on their legacy? They got one.
MarkD
· 1 year ago
I couldn't listen to Hillary's speech. Her voice just irritates me so badly I have to leave the room. She is totally unconvincing as a speaker.
I won't count her out until the nomination is over. The superdelegate situation is interesting - many of these people are party loyalists who owe a lot to the Clinton fundraising team. Not all of the names in those FBI files were Republicans. The Clintons will use everything they have to get back into power.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
she has bigger problems in Texas than Ohio.
I say she loses Texas, maybe ekes out Ohio.
which still means she's toast.
BD
· 1 year ago
Don't fall for the hype; McCain can beat Obama.
It's not that Obama is an "empty suit." It's that the guy wearing the suit is a hard-core leftist who also happens to be dangerously ill-prepared to fight America's enemies. Obama can be exposed as a wolf (leftist) in sheep's clothing (inspiring speaker).
Don't be fooled by the hype: Obama only looks like a political messiah because his opponent is the queen of political cynicism. Of course he looks idealistic and inspirational -- compared to HER! McCain won't afford him such a favorable contrast. Johnny Mac may not be much of a speaker, I'll grant you; but he is inspiring, authentic, and beyond reproach in the eyes of the public.
Obama has a lot going for him, but I don't think he can get to finish line solely on the strength of his oratorical skills. Laugh if you will, but we are not a completely unsophisticated people. Issues matter. Qualifications matter.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Not that I disagree with your assessment of Obama, but do you really think McCain is going to take the tack of exposing Obama as a hard leftist? That would be unlike him, and I don't expect him to do it. If he does, it will be through shills, not directly.
I do disagree with you about qualifications, though. If qualifications mattered, neither of the front-runners in the Democratic primaries would even be in the race. Obama is about to prove that Chance, the gardener can be elected President. (If you don't recognize the reference, treat yourself to Jerzy Kosinski's fine little novel, "Being There." Or see the movie starring Peter Sellers, only be forewarned, it literally takes less time to read the book than to watch the movie.)
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
The education levels tend to be lower, which has been where Hillary has performed best.
That says a bit about the morals of the liberal intelligentsia, but it doesn't say much about their smarts. Maybe Barack is about to talk about more than just Change(TM) or Hope(TM). When they hear the bill for these, will they bite?
patrickneid
· 1 year ago
as I said over a month ago
"Like Dracula, until I see wooden stakes pinning them to the ground I don't trust any polls or primaries in regards to predictions about the Clinton's."
I'm at least starting to see the stake!
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
When I see her feet sticking out from underneath the house, I'll believe it.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
She's not quitting without a fight:
Allies of Hillary Clinton plan an expensive, stealth campaign to buttress her standing in the must-win states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
They're canvassing Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000 in the hope of raising at least $10M by the end of next week. The money will be placed in the account of a political committee organized under section 527 of the tax code. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/20...
Any damage she can do to Obama will pay in dividends to the Republicans.
ChenZhen
· 1 year ago
It isn't just the plagiarism, there's been a whole series of desperate straw-grasping going on lately, from her and her loyal blogospheric supporters. That sexism charge from Big Tent Democrat, for example, was absolutely laughable. It's just making it worse it would seem.
Old Texas Turkey
· 1 year ago
I hear the teamsters are endorsing Obama. thats gonna be tough for someone looking to carry OH and PA by a sizable margin.
Game over for the co-presidency, methinks.
To highlight a previous poster, there will be plenty of conservatives like me asking for a democratic ballot here in Texas to keep Will Klinter out of the vicintity of the Oval Office again. Count on it.
sven10077
· 1 year ago
well they are ample legs to be on your last measure on....
Bogey
· 1 year ago
ankles actually. ankles.
those are ankles of Achilles. or Hercules.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
calves too.
keemo
· 1 year ago
She got clobbered in Hawaii also. I think Obama picked up another 20 delegates on her last night. The Clinton assassination of character tactics are not fooling many of the people. The Clinton News Network is not fooling many of the people. Some pieces of the DNC news network (such as NBC) are actually exposing the Clinton's operatives as the scumbags they are.
This is truly fascinating to watch.
keemo
· 1 year ago
I might add; Texas & Ohio Republicans, Independents, and Moderates have the unique opportunity of being the ones that actually drop the house on the wicked witch, by crossing over and voting for Obama in the upcoming primaries.
Monkei
· 1 year ago
it always comes down to independents and moderates, that is why Obama will win this and will sweep through to the general election, carrying democrats with him against McCain. The electorate will take hope (whether real or not) against security and fear every time, this is shaping up to be a Carter vs Reagan race. Reagan was the candidate of hope and Carter the candidate of fear and security as to what might happen if Reagan got elected. We all know how that worked out.
The only question is how many Democracts will Obama's coat tails bring with him, the democratic electorate will have an incredible turnout.
The only think McCain has going for him is he will keep Arizona, NM and maybe Colorado in play for the GOP.
krm
· 1 year ago
Carter was the candidate of fear and weakness - not security. Not to say that the result won't go Obama's way.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
The news reports out of Hawaii were wild-in my old home town of Kailua just across the mountains from Honolulu, "more than 1000 people stood in two separate lines that snaked around the pool, gym and baseball fields. ..." and elsewhere, "The caucus at the Kapaa Neighborhood Center on Kauai was so busy that voters caused a half-mile-long traffic jam.".
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Hillary Clinton is desperate. "Diseases desperate grown, By desperate appliance are relieved, or not at all." Look for fireworks in the upcoming weeks.
All Comments
The Clintons pollute everything they touch. Their sliminess is beyond politics. Surely the goal of every decent American should be to see Hillary off as soon as possible rather than take any unnecessary risk that she and her wretched husband will be allowed to infest the White House again. If that means that the Republicans have an even greater chance of losing the White House, so be it. There are more important things than partisan politics in play here.
The humiliation of the Clintons at the hands of their own party will, of course, be a bonus.
Plus, there's a little schadenfreude working here; thanks to the Democrats, the Clintons polluted the entire nation for 8 years, so we're hoping she stays in the running long enough to do a thorough job polluting the Democratic party. It's only just, and serves them right.
Trust me, we've not forgotten the 90s.
Beating Obama with no recent Democratic meltdown will be difficult. I recommend lots and lots of activism at local and state levels, as we're likely to have to live with a near-Marxist President for at least the next four years. The only good news there is that Obama is so very inexperienced, his presidency will likely be a rerun of the Carter years, and the 2012 election will look very different.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
The line on Obama is that he's an "empty suit" and inexperienced. But he really knows his stuff, and it will show in the general election (if he gets the nomination). He'll be attacked as a "socialist" but that's such a stupid argument that it will only resonate with people who wouldn't vote for in regardless.
But, we'll see. In politics, you never know. But I'd gladly place by bet with Obama.
I think the key issue will be whether the McCain campaign can goad Obama into defending specific policy suggestions. Obama's inexperience shows up when starts trying to get specific. McCain won't have to say a thing, and he won't; it will be apparent.
Ok. I'm interested and listening. I've voted Republican in all but one Presidential election in my life, and that one time voting Dem was during my idealistic youth. This is the first election in decades where I'm crossing to the other side even though I disagree with much of what Obama believes. So, I'm still convincable.
Help me understand how keeping "their distance from President Bush" is responding to what resonates in Obama's message? I'm not getting that.
The 21st century so far has been a very unsettling time, containing two very serious economic “bubble bursts,” massive auditing frauds, destruction of the World Trade Center, periodic uncovering of terror cells operating within the country, gasoline and food skyrocketing to unheard-of prices, war heroes exposed as frauds, and a war which we’re told was unnecessary, among a number of other things. A common denominator of all these events is “things are not as good as they seem.”
Given the near-universal distress and uneasiness this has produced, somebody who looks clean, smart, educated, and calm, saying “We’re going to change things and make them better,” has a natural, emotional appeal that most of us have to think to resist. An uncomfortable number of independent voters will not see through the Obama Scrim of Hope, mostly because they very badly don’t want to. Things have been bad. We want them to be better.
The Obama campaign is being smart by being general. No matter what anybody says, they want to run against the Bush administration, which is unpopular. Without actually saying it, Obama is basically saying "Bush ruined things, and we're the Other Guys." You may not be thinking exactly that, but by being unspecific, Obama includes your feelings.
By running as "I'm Not Bush," McCain can avoid a lot of the tar that Obama's trying to smear on him.
Again, I don't know how much President Bush is in your own, specific reasoning (or, if he is, how much you're aware of it), so I don't know if this affects you or not. But please fill me in.
I'll try to clarify what is prompting me to switch sides this year as long as you realize that my thinking is not likely to be very reflective of most other people, and that I am not set in my thinking (I still can be convinced to change my mind). I also want to stress that I am sincerely interested in figuring out what Obama's appeal is beyond simply dismissing it as just 'so much rhetoric.' I have more faith in American voters than to dismiss this current passion for Obama as completely unthinking. To find a way to recapture the interest of voters who are not firmly entrenched in one camp or the other, I think it would be wise to give them more credit. But hey, that's just me.
Anyway, my support for Obama has a couple of different prongs.
PRONG #1: There is not a true Conservative left in the race to support. I started as a Fred Thompson fan. Once he was gone, Romney was the closest thing to a true Conservative left. Now he is gone, and with McCain IMHO we do not have a true Conservative. At best he is a wishy-washy conservative, which IMHO was Bush's (43) greatest fault. And, having Bush (41) stand up to shout that McCain is a conservative is not exactly the kind of endorsement I'd want if I was trying to convince people that I am a true Conservative.
PRONG #2: IMHO Obama is a True Believer with sound moral character. The last President we had who was a moral True Believer was Ronald Reagan. Prior to him -- FDR. True Believers embrace a complete philosophy/rationale that guides decisions and policy choices. In my chosen occupation (psychology), every great advancement was made by the True Believers. And when the True Believers worked with clients, they were effective; it mattered not whether the theories behind their methods were correct. What made the difference was that they Truely Believed in what they advocated. Somehow that made it work. Reagan was a Great President because he not only was the Great Communicator, but also because he was a moral True Believer.
From what I can tell so far, Obama is an effective communicator AND he Truely Believes that the principles guiding his policy positions are correct. They may or may not lead to policies that will bring this country forward. I'm willing to risk it based on what I know at this point. He also comes across as having moral character. Give me additional information, and that risk I'm willing to take today might not look so good.
PRONG #3: Given the hostility of the Hard Left toward Amerika, there is a part of me that wants to let them have what they've been screaming for just so that the rest of the voters can see what failed policies they are. (I know. This contradicts #2 above. But you wanted to know...)
Finally, PRONG #4: I truely believe that if Obama is elected President, that act alone will do incredible things to heal race relations in this country. I think our country desperately needs that. And if #3 above is true, we'll only have to sacrifice 4 years because the next President would be a True Believer Conservative after 4 years of failed Socialist policies.
Are you sorry you asked?
I sympathize with the McCain problem, being a conservative and a Thompson fan myself. I searched my soul rather deeply, finally took a trip to CPAC to hash my ideas out with some other conservatives, and finally decided I would rather pull the lever for McCain than for a liberal Democrat. I invite you to read my wrestlings over the matter here, here,and here on my blog; you can also click on the "John McCain" category and read my misgivings about the man.
Regarding Obama: I'm not convinced he's of completely sound moral character. I think he's a pretty ordinary politician, who's capable of doing what needs to be done in order to get elected. You might want to read some stuff I put on my blog about him, or some things Jeff Berkowitz has said about Obama's track record over at Public Affairs. Berkowitz seems to have the best nitty-gritty information about Obama in action. He (Obama) sounds like a cagey operator who is capable of quietly stabbing an ally in order to please a more powerful constituency. He is not a wholesome, optimistic, straight-shooter at his core like Reagan was.
However, it's pretty clear he's not from the same slime pool the Clintons rose out of. So at least we're spared that.
I can't understand your concern about race relations. If Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Spike Lee, et al aren't sufficient to heal race relations, in your mind, how will a black President do it? The mere fact that the Democrats are nominating a black man for President should help some -- the blacks have been put down by the Democrats long enough, it's about time they got some respect in their party. But let me tell you, I lived in Philadelphia for 13 years, and when John Street got elected Mayor there, it did not help race relations, it hurt them. He was overheard once saying "We've got control now," speaking of the black brothers, and then one of his closest allies got indicted by the FBI for a deeply corrupt "pay for play" scam, shaking down bidders for city jobs. So I'm pretty skeptical about voting for racial reasons. I don't think it addresses much of anything.
The next President is going to appoint 2 Supreme Court justices, replacing two of the most liberal judges on the Court. If even one of them is a strict constructionist, we'll have a majority of judges who vote with the Constitution for the first time in my lifetime. This, above all things, persuades me to vote for McCain, even though he's Democrat lite. Besides that, I'd rather have a President who agrees with me 50% of the time than one who agrees with me 10% of the time.
Have a great evening, and thanks for playing.
I'll give a speculative guess: Harken back to when Reagan was running (and for all of the years he was in office). One of the most memorable criticisms Dems ran with was that he was just empty-suit rhetoric (hence the nickname The Great Communicator). But his message resonated with a huge cross-section of voters because it was FAR more than empty-suit rhetoric. He had a meaningful message in the rhetorical flourishes, and voters bought it. Likewise, Obama has a meaningful message in his rhetorical flourishes, and voters ARE buying it.
Figure out what the message is and you are one step closer to developing an effective response to it. Start with the section of his (rather lengthy!) speech last night where he talked about telling people what they *need* to hear rather than what he thinks they want to hear. Good luck! Deep down, I'm rooting for ya!
This is my own dilemma. I've been a Conservative Republican all of my adult life. I've voted nearly straight ticket Republican in every election I could participate. If Obama is the nominee I MIGHT consider voting for him over MCCain.
Now this isn't me swooning over Obama's soaring rhetoric. Its that I thoroughly distrust Washington and the current leadership there. An Obama victory would completely upset the apple cart. I find that an attractive notion. Iconoclastic and Libertarian.
So what do I do? Should I pull the lever for a man I respect but is very entrenched in the Washington politics I distrust or take a chance on an inspiring man from my own generation?
Then I think of the judges...
Only, it would not. Obama is pure liberalism, the farthest left of the American variety. What you can expect from an Obama presidency is the same, government-solves-all approaches to every problem, just as they've been proposed by Democrats all along.
If you're wondering what that would look like, find something middle-of-the-road about the Carter administration and read about it (I'm assuming you weren't aware during his presidency; if you were, forgiveme). He was elected as an outsider during a time of national distrust of the organs of government, as Obama hopes to be. He was so inept that even with a Congress dominated by his own party, he failed to initiate anything of note, aside from getting a measure passed to require US companies to use the metric system instead of English measure (Reagan repealed it, and we all heaved a sign of relief).
If you want a change in Washington politics, why not invest yourself in local and state elections, which tend to produce the next crop of national candidates? Find local candidates who would favor term limits or earmark and rider reforms, get them elected, and effect real, long-term change. Or, take a look at Newt Gingrich's American Solutions Initiative, which suggests a raft of proposals that would have support from both sides of the aisle? Either one would be better than voting for a hard leftist.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
First, Obama is quite a bit MORE liberal than Carter (near as I can tell). And I don't think this country has elected anyone so Liberal since, well, perhaps never. The point is, I don't think an Obama presidency would mirror Carter's due to the nature of the men themselves. I remember well the carter years as well as his ascension to the presidency. Yes I was a teenager but I've always been a political geek that way.
Carter ran as an 'honest' man from Plains. He was neither charismatic nor inspirational. That he barely beat Ford, another bland guy, is testament to Carter's lack of charisma. Carter was elected, in essence, to REPAIR the relationship between the People and the government. I think Obama stands clear in the iconoclastic mode, to dear down the harsh partisan divisions that have grown increasingly divisive in tone and extra-constitutional in practice.
When Clinton came into office he blew in with change too but his was the 'third way' schtick. The Clinton way was all about triangulation and wedge issues...pleasing everybody and nobody all at once. Pretty weak tea for a change agent. And, as it is Clinton was not transformational. Neither was Carter. Obama, for good or bad will probably be a transformational president (providing he survives a full term, as transformational figures tend to attract dangerous enemies).
As for your advice about investing one's self in local politics...well, always have, probably always will but I must say its been frustrating at times. Not because candidates I've worked for lost but that they generally win and then go to Washington and change. The '94 Republicans did that and GW Bush (whom I worked tirelessly as a precinct captain for two cycles, gave the max money to and supported in every way possible) disappointed me in many ways (though I still love the man and think he's a great president).
In truth I doubt I'd vote for Obama in the end. If i can get the sense that McCain will fight hard against Washington going forward I might actually be happy to pull the lever for him.
So we go from a near-facist president to a near-marxist president?
The current flock of leftist historians do delight in calling the Bush administration one of the nation's worst, but it only displays their bias in bright, flashing neon lights. That assessment will change as the left loses its fact-distorting, free-speech-destroying grip on America's universities.
My own sense is that 35 years down the road, with the international distress that expansive Islam will certainly cause between then and now, a more balanced crop of historians will be noting how courageous Bush's Middle East policy truly was, and how accurately he identified and addressed the problem. They'll probably also wonder why he wasn't similarly prescient about the Mexican migration.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
The same goes for Bil Clinton's legacy-my guess is that Bill will be treated very harshly by history, once the current crop of historians are gone.
It will be interesting to see what Americans tell the public opinion polls next year as Bush leaves office what his Presidency will most be remembered for. In the case of Clinton, Americans by a huge margin in 2001 said his Presidency would only be remembered for a blue dress, not anything he actually accomplished while in office.
Besides, it's been common knowledge since the 1990s that not all of those purloined FBI files were of Republicans.
Good for you Tom for staying on topic... I hope we get the opportunity to see what Obama is made of in the general. At least with Obama, I'm uncertain of the kind of integrity he will bring to the WH; I'm uncertain of how Obama will react to the security of our nation once he is receiving the raw data on a daily basis. With Hillary, I already know what to expect, and that picture is really ugly and void of hope & change.
Here's hoping for a McCain vs Obama match-up.
Don't kid yourself about Obama changing much once he sees real data. How much did Carter change?
Barack Obama is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. His wife's rhetoric is already exposing their hard-left beliefs. He may be forced by Congress to moderate some of his stances, but if he's made it to the Senate without reality leaking in anywhere, don't expect the CIA briefings to do the trick. He'll just call them Cold-warrior fossils up his sleeve, and continue to radicalize whatever he can without destroying his re-election chances.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Democrats can elect all the politicians they want and they will still be sitting around whining about how bad off they are and how they can't get an even break. Even if they're a Michelle Obama millionaire, the "man" is keeping them down.
Democrats wallow in victimhood and being losers.
Winning an election won't change a thing. And they're too lazy and unorganized to be able to tell the rest of us what to do, so even if Democrats sweep, the more things "change", the more things will stay the same.
In contrast, Senator Obama actually had the decency to congratulate Senator McCain, calling him a great and heroic American! -- followed by genuine, prolonged applause by Obama's youthful audience, I might add.
The Clintons have met their match. They wanted a referendum on their legacy? They got one.
I won't count her out until the nomination is over. The superdelegate situation is interesting - many of these people are party loyalists who owe a lot to the Clinton fundraising team. Not all of the names in those FBI files were Republicans. The Clintons will use everything they have to get back into power.
I say she loses Texas, maybe ekes out Ohio.
which still means she's toast.
It's not that Obama is an "empty suit." It's that the guy wearing the suit is a hard-core leftist who also happens to be dangerously ill-prepared to fight America's enemies. Obama can be exposed as a wolf (leftist) in sheep's clothing (inspiring speaker).
Don't be fooled by the hype: Obama only looks like a political messiah because his opponent is the queen of political cynicism. Of course he looks idealistic and inspirational -- compared to HER! McCain won't afford him such a favorable contrast. Johnny Mac may not be much of a speaker, I'll grant you; but he is inspiring, authentic, and beyond reproach in the eyes of the public.
Obama has a lot going for him, but I don't think he can get to finish line solely on the strength of his oratorical skills. Laugh if you will, but we are not a completely unsophisticated people. Issues matter. Qualifications matter.
I do disagree with you about qualifications, though. If qualifications mattered, neither of the front-runners in the Democratic primaries would even be in the race. Obama is about to prove that Chance, the gardener can be elected President. (If you don't recognize the reference, treat yourself to Jerzy Kosinski's fine little novel, "Being There." Or see the movie starring Peter Sellers, only be forewarned, it literally takes less time to read the book than to watch the movie.)
That says a bit about the morals of the liberal intelligentsia, but it doesn't say much about their smarts. Maybe Barack is about to talk about more than just Change(TM) or Hope(TM). When they hear the bill for these, will they bite?
"Like Dracula, until I see wooden stakes pinning them to the ground I don't trust any polls or primaries in regards to predictions about the Clinton's."
I'm at least starting to see the stake!
Allies of Hillary Clinton plan an expensive, stealth campaign to buttress her standing in the must-win states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
They're canvassing Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000 in the hope of raising at least $10M by the end of next week. The money will be placed in the account of a political committee organized under section 527 of the tax code.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/20...
Any damage she can do to Obama will pay in dividends to the Republicans.
Game over for the co-presidency, methinks.
To highlight a previous poster, there will be plenty of conservatives like me asking for a democratic ballot here in Texas to keep Will Klinter out of the vicintity of the Oval Office again. Count on it.
those are ankles of Achilles.
or Hercules.
This is truly fascinating to watch.
The only question is how many Democracts will Obama's coat tails bring with him, the democratic electorate will have an incredible turnout.
The only think McCain has going for him is he will keep Arizona, NM and maybe Colorado in play for the GOP.