Obama with another gem of a quote

[kapkomet]

I'm not sure how you can say that this early in the race. We already know he can keep up with her financially. Once the Gravels and Kucinichs of the world begin dropping out I think things will get tighter in the polls.

The only reason why I don't think he has too much of a shot is because I think there's going to be some dirt come out on him (from *AHEM* Republicans - but not really) about two weeks before N.H. and Iowa. Then, some more will come out right before super-duper-pooper-super-mega-win it all-you can't possibly lose this- Tuesday... the Clintons aren't stupid. And, I will add that I think this is what's wrong with politics today. It's not substance, it's about keeping your nose cleaner then the other guy (or gal).

[whitesoxfan101]

The only reason why I don't think he has too much of a shot is because I think there's going to be some dirt come out on him (from *AHEM* Republicans - but not really) about two weeks before N.H. and Iowa. Then, some more will come out right before super-duper-pooper-super-mega-win it all-you can't possibly lose this- Tuesday... the Clintons aren't stupid. And, I will add that I think this is what's wrong with politics today. It's not substance, it's about keeping your nose cleaner then the other guy (or gal).

 

I agree 100 percent with all of this, thanks for explaining it better than I could kapkomet (although I question the amount of real substance Obama has too, emphasis on "real").

[Soxy]

The only reason why I don't think he has too much of a shot is because I think there's going to be some dirt come out on him (from *AHEM* Republicans - but not really) about two weeks before N.H. and Iowa. Then, some more will come out right before super-duper-pooper-super-mega-win it all-you can't possibly lose this- Tuesday... the Clintons aren't stupid. And, I will add that I think this is what's wrong with politics today. It's not substance, it's about keeping your nose cleaner then the other guy (or gal).

Even if it was about substance I don't think Obama could win. I think he is all surface and avoids taking hard stands on anything so he can pander to the middle. Plus, there's something about him that I just don't trust. At least with Hillary you know you're getting the HBIC (head b**** in charge), but with Obama, I have no clue what lies beneath the smoke and mirror stuff.

[kapkomet]

Even if it was about substance I don't think Obama could win. I think he is all surface and avoids taking hard stands on anything so he can pander to the middle. Plus, there's something about him that I just don't trust. At least with Hillary you know you're getting the HBIC (head b**** in charge), but with Obama, I have no clue what lies beneath the smoke and mirror stuff.

His (lack of) substance at this point is by design. He will start to veer hard left before the primary and turn back if it looks like he has a chance to win the nomination.

 

I think he has a huge challenge and it will be interesting as this plays out, but I just wish it was 9 months from now, and not now, if that makes sense.

[whitesoxfan101]

His (lack of) substance at this point is by design. He will start to veer hard left before the primary and turn back if it looks like he has a chance to win the nomination.

 

I think he has a huge challenge and it will be interesting as this plays out, but I just wish it was 9 months from now, and not now, if that makes sense.

 

Your 100 percent right on part 1, which is the dominant reason why I dislike him so much. He's using his skilled speechwork (with the exception of quotes like the one that started this thread, lol) to avoid all issues and substance and pander to everybody, which I cannot stand. I would even contest he is using his race to an extent subconsiously, I honestly think people who don't approve of him will be called racist by his supporters, and he likes it that way. And part 2 indeed does make sense.

 

Even if it was about substance I don't think Obama could win. I think he is all surface and avoids taking hard stands on anything so he can pander to the middle. Plus, there's something about him that I just don't trust. At least with Hillary you know you're getting the HBIC (head b**** in charge), but with Obama, I have no clue what lies beneath the smoke and mirror stuff.

 

Of course he is, the guy is a deceitful, well spoken young person who avoids all issues and tries to cater to everybody. That is why the politicians love him so much, he's a taylor made snake who can cause a lot of people to fall into his trap. I don't like Hillary at all, but at least I know what she is, and I can respect the fact she has her opinions, even if I don't like them. I don't have a clue what Obama actually thinks, which is scary if what he thinks is actually nuts (possible) or he has no real thoughts at all (also possible).

[Damen]

I find some of the commetns here hilarious. You've bought into these absurd caricatures of these people absent any real evidence. What proof is there, exactly, of this ruthless Clinton smear machine? How, exactly, did Obama become "deceitful"? How has he pandered?

[kapkomet]

I find some of the commetns here hilarious. You've bought into these absurd caricatures of these people absent any real evidence. What proof is there, exactly, of this ruthless Clinton smear machine? How, exactly, did Obama become "deceitful"? How has he pandered?

That's laughable. How DARE anyone say ANYTHING bad about the Clintons?

 

All I'll say is, where there's smoke, there's fire, and in this case, a raging inferno.

[BigSqwert]

I find some of the commetns here hilarious. You've bought into these absurd caricatures of these people absent any real evidence. What proof is there, exactly, of this ruthless Clinton smear machine? How, exactly, did Obama become "deceitful"? How has he pandered?

I'd have to agree with you on this one.

[whitesoxfan101]

I find some of the commetns here hilarious. You've bought into these absurd caricatures of these people absent any real evidence. What proof is there, exactly, of this ruthless Clinton smear machine? How, exactly, did Obama become "deceitful"? How has he pandered?

 

You really don't follow politics much, do you?

[Rex Kickass]

I'm no fan of the Hillary camp. And yeah, they're pretty dirty. Obama seemed to run a pretty clean campaign three years ago, but then again - he didn't have to do a lot of mudslinging with his opponents being as ridiculous as they were - both of them. I'm sure he's found plenty of friends to sleaze it up over time.

 

Truth is, there is going to be a big problem with these primaries. The DC apparatus is still very much run by a bunch of Bob Shrums. The people responsible for most successful campaigns of McGovern, Carter, Mondale and Dukakis. They aren't fans of people like John Edwards and not so hot on Obama. They may be able to swing enough votes in the party to let someone like Hillary sail through to the nomination - but not enough to actually allow a victory in November of an election year. It's quite sad really.

[whitesoxfan101]

It'll be really difficult for the democrats to not take the highest office in the land come November of 2008, regardless of who their candidate is. Bush has simply done too much for any republican to overcome.

[Damen]

That's laughable. How DARE anyone say ANYTHING bad about the Clintons?

 

All I'll say is, where there's smoke, there's fire, and in this case, a raging inferno.

 

You have terrible reading comprehension, and resort to s***ty sarcasm way too often.

 

All I'm asking for is the evidence behind these claims you guys throw around like fact. Apparently I'm asking too much.

[BigSqwert]

It'll be really difficult for the democrats to not take the highest office in the land come November of 2008, regardless of who their candidate is. Bush has simply done too much for any republican to overcome.

That's exactly how a lot of people felt in 2004 and we saw what happened.

[whitesoxfan101]

That's exactly how a lot of people felt in 2004 and we saw what happened.

 

It'll be far worse backlash in 2008, and I doubt the democrats will throw out as pathetic a candidate as John Kerry.

[kapkomet]

You have terrible reading comprehension, and resort to s***ty sarcasm way too often.

 

All I'm asking for is the evidence behind these claims you guys throw around like fact. Apparently I'm asking too much.

I can read just fine, thank you. I can also read what's not there.

 

All too often, you act like there's some sort of innocent standard in politics, and it's just not the case. About 99.9% of politics is spin. I don't feel like linking 85 sites (or whatever the # is) about the Clinton spin machine. It's happened, and has ALREADY happened in this campaign. Big deal.

[Damen]

I can read just fine, thank you. I can also read what's not there.

 

All too often, you act like there's some sort of innocent standard in politics, and it's just not the case. About 99.9% of politics is spin. I don't feel like linking 85 sites (or whatever the # is) about the Clinton spin machine. It's happened, and has ALREADY happened in this campaign. Big deal.

 

Maybe that's where the problem is. For some reason, you've got this kneejerk reaction to add whatever you think I want to say and respond to that. I'd prefer if you deal with what I say, unless the point is to avoid having a real conversation. If that's the case, I'll stick to talking about why Greg Walker needs to be fired and avoid political conversations here all together.

 

Again, all I'm asking for is proof of the claims you guys are making here. I'm not asking for 85 sites about the Clinton smear machine (which is different than a spin machine). I'm asking for any legitimate evidence you guys have.

[kapkomet]

Maybe that's where the problem is. For some reason, you've got this kneejerk reaction to add whatever you think I want to say and respond to that. I'd prefer if you deal with what I say, unless the point is to avoid having a real conversation. If that's the case, I'll stick to talking about why Greg Walker needs to be fired and avoid political conversations here all together.

 

Again, all I'm asking for is proof of the claims you guys are making here. I'm not asking for 85 sites about the Clinton smear machine (which is different than a spin machine). I'm asking for any legitimate evidence you guys have.

well... go figure out why Greg Walker needs to be fired then.

 

Seriously, you're right in this case - spin and smear are two different terms, good catch. I KNOW the Clinton spin machine works well, and "smears" if it has to so that they come out on top. There's a lot of instances where that's the case, and if I have some time, I'll "link" to some later. The problem with that is, though, you might think it's "spin" and I might call it "smear", and frankly, I don't even want to debate that with you. So maybe I'll just leave it as "spin machine" and I stand corrected.

[Balta1701]

well... go figure out why Greg Walker needs to be fired then.

 

Seriously, you're right in this case - spin and smear are two different terms, good catch. I KNOW the Clinton spin machine works well, and "smears" if it has to so that they come out on top. There's a lot of instances where that's the case, and if I have some time, I'll "link" to some later. The problem with that is, though, you might think it's "spin" and I might call it "smear", and frankly, I don't even want to debate that with you. So maybe I'll just leave it as "spin machine" and I stand corrected.

So here's the question I'm interested in...which is more effective, the Clinton spin machine/smear machine/whatever you want to call it, or the machine the Bush admininstration has turned on anyone who crossed it?

[Balance]

I find some of the commetns here hilarious. You've bought into these absurd caricatures of these people absent any real evidence. What proof is there, exactly, of this ruthless Clinton smear machine? How, exactly, did Obama become "deceitful"? How has he pandered?

When it's your candidate, it's "campaigning."

 

When it's your candidate's opponent, it's "pandering."

 

It's a subtle difference.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here is something to consider. Every candidate has a timebomb or two - something waiting to hurt them. And Obama and Clinton have very, very big ones. Beyond sex and race factors, Obama has huge problems on youth, lack of experience, handlers who are currently strangling him and that surface-only image. Now, let's say he falls apart early, and Clinton takes the lead early. What comes next?

 

Clinton has amazingly high negatives - like 50% territory. And while early polls are not very meaningful competitively, that negative number IS important, and here is why: once a candidate is hated, there is no coming back. People who are ambivalent or semi-OK with a candidate can be coaxed. But a full 45-50% of the country already despises Hillary, and that number will not go down. So if Obama goes out early and Hillary is fully exposed, that will open the door for Edwards, or maybe even Richardson, to sail in as the "other" guy.

 

If Obama deflates early, Clinton loses. Therefore, its likely she tries for a slow deflation of Obama, not a n early destruction.

 

 

It'll be far worse backlash in 2008, and I doubt the democrats will throw out as pathetic a candidate as John Kerry.

Frankly, from what I can see at this point, any of the current Dem contenders would be better than Kerry was in terms of electability. Well, except maybe Gravel.

[kapkomet]

So here's the question I'm interested in...which is more effective, the Clinton spin machine/smear machine/whatever you want to call it, or the machine the Bush admininstration has turned on anyone who crossed it?

I think they're both loathesome, at least that's the first word that comes to mind.

 

Most of you miss my point ... I think George W. Bush is an assmunch. But, I certainly don't think he deserves the negative credit that he gets, if you know what I mean. He's the best assmunch for the job today... WAAAAAAAAAAY better then John Kerry, and probably better then the Goracle. Better then Bill Clinton? That honestly depends. On morality, I'd take GWB any day. On fiscal policy, ditto. On the military policy, again, ditto. On immagration? Probably I would take Clinton's stance, but then again, it's not the same now as it was 7 years ago.

[southsider2k5]

The only reason why I don't think he has too much of a shot is because I think there's going to be some dirt come out on him (from *AHEM* Republicans - but not really) about two weeks before N.H. and Iowa. Then, some more will come out right before super-duper-pooper-super-mega-win it all-you can't possibly lose this- Tuesday... the Clintons aren't stupid. And, I will add that I think this is what's wrong with politics today. It's not substance, it's about keeping your nose cleaner then the other guy (or gal).

 

I think it will be connected his indicted next door neighbor... just a hunch

 

 

Even if it was about substance I don't think Obama could win. I think he is all surface and avoids taking hard stands on anything so he can pander to the middle. Plus, there's something about him that I just don't trust. At least with Hillary you know you're getting the HBIC (head b**** in charge), but with Obama, I have no clue what lies beneath the smoke and mirror stuff.

 

That worked for both eight years of Clinton and Bush. There wasn't too much substance during the campaigns of either of them. Intentionally vague seems to be the most electable trend because then people can apply whatever specific traits they want to the glittering generalities that they hear.

 

You have terrible reading comprehension, and resort to s***ty sarcasm way too often.

 

All I'm asking for is the evidence behind these claims you guys throw around like fact. Apparently I'm asking too much.

 

Seriously? Google it.

 

 

So here's the question I'm interested in...which is more effective, the Clinton spin machine/smear machine/whatever you want to call it, or the machine the Bush admininstration has turned on anyone who crossed it?

 

They both are incredibly effective, but I would say the Clinton machine, because for whatever reason, things seemed to go away quicker when they happened, no matter what they were.

[BigSqwert]

On morality, I'd take GWB any day. On fiscal policy, ditto. On the military policy, again, ditto. On immagration?

I am honestly speechless.

[kapkomet]

Bush is pigheaded and stubborn. But, I do think he tried to do the right thing.

[Texsox]

His (lack of) substance at this point is by design. He will start to veer hard left before the primary and turn back if it looks like he has a chance to win the nomination.

 

I think he has a huge challenge and it will be interesting as this plays out, but I just wish it was 9 months from now, and not now, if that makes sense.

 

By hard left, do you mean to the middle? (He already is right of center)

 

Part II

 

I agree with Kap that Bush tried to do the right thing. I really think he allowed his morality and integrity to guide decisions. I see a lot of parallels with Carter. I also believe that while 9/11 was his brightest moment, it also was the beginning of a long terrible slide. And perhaps any other human would have also slid. Perhaps at that moment he realized that while he was the most powerful person on the planet, he was also just one person and the world is a large and dangerous place, that he would not be able to control.

 

I just went back and read Kap's full post and noticed it was a Clinton v. Bush on personal morality and I have to back Kap even more. I do believe that with Clinton the prosoner abuse issue would have been settled along a much different path. But if I had to leave my kids with Dubya or Slick Willy for a week, I'd rather they be with Dubya.