Sure. Did you think that in this day and age that it is not an issue? Baseless speculation?
- spidey
I think that there are people that would like to see a president or credible presidential candidate assassinated because he is Black--sure. I also think that any individual seeking the presidency of the United States faces the possibility of assassination--if he is elected, there are plenty of people who would like to assassinate him solely because he will be president, regardless of his race.
I don't think this is a good argument for not running.
Iraq Speech by Barack Obama Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don???t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton???s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don???t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration???s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don???t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income ??? to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That???s what I???m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear ??? I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He???s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I???m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn???t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not ??? we will not ??? travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Iraq Speech by Barack Obama Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don???t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton???s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don???t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration???s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don???t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income ??? to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That???s what I???m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear ??? I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He???s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I???m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn???t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not ??? we will not ??? travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Iraq Speech by Barack Obama Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don???t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton???s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don???t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration???s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don???t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income ??? to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That???s what I???m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear ??? I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He???s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I???m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn???t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not ??? we will not ??? travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
True and a lot of people hated Bush. Yet he got re-elected. I'm rolling for Obama, personally, but I'm not counting out Hillary in this fight, regardless of how much dissension she attracts.
True and a lot of people hated Bush. Yet he got re-elected. I'm rolling for Obama, personally, but I'm not counting out Hillary in this fight, regardless of how much dissension she attracts.
More significantly, though, a lot of WOMEN hate Hillary. I think that makes her situation unique from Bush's. Having said that, though, I am 100% with you about a) not rolling for her, while b) not counting her out. I think she is in many ways still the most feared candidate in the running in either party right now.
True and a lot of people hated Bush. Yet he got re-elected. I'm rolling for Obama, personally, but I'm not counting out Hillary in this fight, regardless of how much dissension she attracts.
More significantly, though, a lot of WOMEN hate Hillary. I think that makes her situation unique from Bush's. Having said that, though, I am 100% with you about a) not rolling for her, while b) not counting her out. I think she is in many ways still the most feared candidate in the running in either party right now.
I thought this was notable:
Female caucusers in Iowa: Obama: 35% Clinton: 30 Edwards: 23
KVH rides Hillary's dick harder than anyone I've met.
ha. i'd be more than happy to see Obama as prez, or Edwards, or Hillary, or Kucinech, or Richardson (Biden and Dodd just dropped out). i watched a fair portion of the 16 debates and thought Hillary was far and away the most persuasive. there is also no doubt, imo, that she will do just as well against the GOP. if i voted just on policies, my pick would be edwards or kucinech. if i seem anti-obama its because i think his whole "change" campaign is misleading at best, considering his polices and his record. No doubt he is for change when compared to the Bush administration, but everything is relative, and he is certainly not the democratic "change" candidate anymore than Hillary is.
if i seem anti-obama its because i think his whole "change" campaign is misleading at best, considering his polices and his record. No doubt he is for change when compared to the Bush administration, but everything is relative, and he is certainly not the democratic "change" candidate anymore than Hillary is.
That's probably (partially) fair. But I think you'd agree: him and Clinton are not mirrors of one another, politically speaking. I do think people tend to respond to Clinton more on the basis of her being her vs. her actual positions and views...but how is that different from how most people pick their political horse to run with?
True and a lot of people hated Bush. Yet he got re-elected. I'm rolling for Obama, personally, but I'm not counting out Hillary in this fight, regardless of how much dissension she attracts.
count her out? she is still, far and away, the leading national democratic candidate. iowa is one state...the same state that picked Pat Robertson in the gop primary, and last night chose Huckabee! even in iowa, she only lost by 1% among democrats.
take a look at her polling numbers in places like NY and CALI.
True and a lot of people hated Bush. Yet he got re-elected. I'm rolling for Obama, personally, but I'm not counting out Hillary in this fight, regardless of how much dissension she attracts.
Here's my take.....
Obama winning in Iowa, a very "white" state, will hurt Hillary more than anyone could have imagined. The rest of the country will look at these results and will now feel more comfortable voting for Barack because folks in Iowa did. I'd say most folks torn between Hillary & Barack will now tend to vote for the latter.
Bush is/was intensely hated by a very vocal segment of our society. Hillary appears to be hated by a much lower key group that may not be as visible until Primary/Election Day.
True and a lot of people hated Bush. Yet he got re-elected. I'm rolling for Obama, personally, but I'm not counting out Hillary in this fight, regardless of how much dissension she attracts.
Here's my take.....
Obama winning in Iowa, a very "white" state, will hurt Hillary more than anyone could have imagined. The rest of the country will look at these results and will now feel more comfortable voting for Barack because folks in Iowa did. I'd say most folks torn between Hillary & Barack will now tend to vote for the latter.
Bush is/was intensely hated by a very vocal segment of our society. Hillary appears to be hated by a much lower key group that may not be as visible until Primary/Election Day.
I agree with this.
I don't think Billary is safe even in NY.
A lot of the people that will come out for Obama (now, moreso) are under the radar of these polling groups.
True and a lot of people hated Bush. Yet he got re-elected. I'm rolling for Obama, personally, but I'm not counting out Hillary in this fight, regardless of how much dissension she attracts.
count her out? she is still, far and away, the leading national democratic candidate. iowa is one state...the same state that picked Pat Robertson in the gop primary, and last night chose Huckabee! even in iowa, she only lost by 1% among democrats.
take a look at her polling numbers in places like NY and CALI.
Keith: Yeah dude, I was responding to Rock's suggestion that Hillary in somehow unelectable, an assertion I don't agree with. She's a gamer.
But dude, I'm not saying Obama has a mandate but at least acknowledge that Clinton's lead has been slipping over the last few and that she's more vulnerable now than she seemed, say, even just three months ago.
i think she is unelectable, her negatives are too high, and the idea that she is somehow a symbol of "change," standing at the podium with Bill, Madeleine Halfbright, and Wesley Clark is laughable. Its just one more instance of her focus group mentality, its like some advisor polled the word "change" and so they adopted it as a tagline.
But dude, I'm not saying Obama has a mandate but at least acknowledge that Clinton's lead has been slipping over the last few and that she's more vulnerable now than she seemed, say, even just three months ago.
yea, of course. but what happened in that time span? 80% of the debates had already taken place. she made a comment about the policy of the governor of NY on immigration that was poorly misinterpreted as a flip flop. so after mowing down 12 straight debates (give or take), the media finally had a story to knock her down. since that time its been a Hillary bashing free for all. That is why her numbers have declined. You cannot point to one speech or vote from Obama that propelled him into higher numbers. Either she did this to herself through a poorly worded answer, or the media wanted to make this a race. That is the reality.
Comments
- spidey
The amount of time candidates spend on the road, a traffic or air accident is far more likely to take his life. Again, I cite Paul Wellstone.
I think that there are people that would like to see a president or credible presidential candidate assassinated because he is Black--sure. I also think that any individual seeking the presidency of the United States faces the possibility of assassination--if he is elected, there are plenty of people who would like to assassinate him solely because he will be president, regardless of his race.
I don't think this is a good argument for not running.
by Barack Obama
Delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don???t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton???s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don???t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration???s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don???t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income ??? to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That???s what I???m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear ??? I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He???s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I???m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let???s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn???t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not ??? we will not ??? travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
My dude!
Please God let there be a video of this.
Among many...
On point to the fucking letter.
wow. some real gems in this one!
For the record...that was not MY statement, it was from an article I posted.
Recap of this thread....
KVH rides Hillary's dick harder than anyone I've met.
Dude named Huckabee was never mentioned 10 months ago
Al Gore will NOT effect the upcoming election
Lot's of people hate Hillary
True and a lot of people hated Bush. Yet he got re-elected. I'm rolling for Obama, personally, but I'm not counting out Hillary in this fight, regardless of how much dissension she attracts.
More significantly, though, a lot of WOMEN hate Hillary. I think that makes her situation unique from Bush's. Having said that, though, I am 100% with you about a) not rolling for her, while b) not counting her out. I think she is in many ways still the most feared candidate in the running in either party right now.
I thought this was notable:
Female caucusers in Iowa:
Obama: 35%
Clinton: 30
Edwards: 23
ha. i'd be more than happy to see Obama as prez, or Edwards, or Hillary, or Kucinech, or Richardson (Biden and Dodd just dropped out). i watched a fair portion of the 16 debates and thought Hillary was far and away the most persuasive. there is also no doubt, imo, that she will do just as well against the GOP. if i voted just on policies, my pick would be edwards or kucinech. if i seem anti-obama its because i think his whole "change" campaign is misleading at best, considering his polices and his record. No doubt he is for change when compared to the Bush administration, but everything is relative, and he is certainly not the democratic "change" candidate anymore than Hillary is.
That's probably (partially) fair. But I think you'd agree: him and Clinton are not mirrors of one another, politically speaking. I do think people tend to respond to Clinton more on the basis of her being her vs. her actual positions and views...but how is that different from how most people pick their political horse to run with?
Charisma >>> policies.
count her out? she is still, far and away, the leading national democratic candidate. iowa is one state...the same state that picked Pat Robertson in the gop primary, and last night chose Huckabee! even in iowa, she only lost by 1% among democrats.
take a look at her polling numbers in places like NY and CALI.
Here's my take.....
Obama winning in Iowa, a very "white" state, will hurt Hillary more than anyone could have imagined. The rest of the country will look at these results and will now feel more comfortable voting for Barack because folks in Iowa did. I'd say most folks torn between Hillary & Barack will now tend to vote for the latter.
Bush is/was intensely hated by a very vocal segment of our society. Hillary appears to be hated by a much lower key group that may not be as visible until Primary/Election Day.
This is EXACTLY what folks on the left don't seem to get.
NY & Cali do NOT represent this country as a whole.
I agree with this.
I don't think Billary is safe even in NY.
A lot of the people that will come out for Obama (now, moreso) are under the radar of these polling groups.
Keith: Yeah dude, I was responding to Rock's suggestion that Hillary in somehow unelectable, an assertion I don't agree with. She's a gamer.
But dude, I'm not saying Obama has a mandate but at least acknowledge that Clinton's lead has been slipping over the last few and that she's more vulnerable now than she seemed, say, even just three months ago.
Exactly. If you want a real snapshot of America, you need to look to Massachusetts.
Also, can we change this to a picture of Obama?
Huh?
Bridgeport Connecticut.
yea, of course. but what happened in that time span? 80% of the debates had already taken place. she made a comment about the policy of the governor of NY on immigration that was poorly misinterpreted as a flip flop. so after mowing down 12 straight debates (give or take), the media finally had a story to knock her down. since that time its been a Hillary bashing free for all. That is why her numbers have declined. You cannot point to one speech or vote from Obama that propelled him into higher numbers. Either she did this to herself through a poorly worded answer, or the media wanted to make this a race. That is the reality.
pfffft.
I keed. Hell, we were the only state that didn't vote for Nixon in ???72. We're so far left, we're outside the margins.