Rodham is not Clinton's middle name. What is her middle name? What is McCain's middle name.
Diane and Sidney.
"Well Sidney, when it comes to staying in Iraq for 100 years, you and I have different opinions."
My point is that those who will excessively use Hussein will point to George Walker Bush, etc., etc. to rationalize what is obviously a ploy to use Barack's middle name as a negative.
My point is that Sidney is just as bad as Hussein.
Rodham is not Clinton's middle name. What is her middle name? What is McCain's middle name.
Diane and Sidney.
"Well Sidney, when it comes to staying in Iraq for 100 years, you and I have different opinions."
My point is that those who will excessively use Hussein will point to George Walker Bush, etc., etc. to rationalize what is obviously a ploy to use Barack's middle name as a negative.
My point is that Sidney is just as bad as Hussein.
Rodham is not Clinton's middle name. What is her middle name? What is McCain's middle name.
Diane and Sidney.
"Well Sidney, when it comes to staying in Iraq for 100 years, you and I have different opinions."
My point is that those who will excessively use Hussein will point to George Walker Bush, etc., etc. to rationalize what is obviously a ploy to use Barack's middle name as a negative.
1) Once Barack wins the nomination the word you will hear more than any other is Hussein. Even if McCain himself doesn't use this , the Conservatives will. They will rationalize it by pointing out that we ALWAYS refer to politicians with their middle names (Hillary Rodham Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, etc.) This will play on the fears of the ignorant and will be used successfully.
pre-PLAYED.
b/w, here's a good article in today's L.A. Times about this very subject and the kid gloves Repbulicans feel they will have to handle Obama with because of race:
Race a wild-card factor[/b] It's unclear if Obama's minority status will help or hinder him. But it has changed the rules of engagement. By Maria L. La Ganga and Mark Z. Barabak Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
February 28, 2008
COLUMBUS, OHIO ??? When John McCain apologized to Barack Obama this week for the comments of his warm-up act at a rally, it was not the first time -- and probably won't be the last -- that the most competitive black presidential candidate in U.S. history has heard the words, "I'm sorry."
In his yearlong quest to win the White House, the Democratic senator from Illinois has changed the rules of political engagement, forcing his rivals to step delicately in a normally no-holds-barred arena.
As the possibility grows that voters may bestow the nation's highest public office on an African American, serial public apologies -- largely by Democrats -- show just how sensitive race remains. What is less clear is how race could help or hinder Obama, who has struggled to keep it in the background.
If current or future opponents focus on Obama's race, it could help them by playing on some voters' racial prejudice, or it could help Obama if he is seen as a sympathetic victim of his rivals' insensitivity.
"Democrats have to be careful in navigating the way they deal with Obama," said David Doak, a Democratic campaign consultant who has advised Hillary Rodham Clinton. "They don't want to get too rough with him in the primary, because they don't want to alienate blacks and have them stay at home in the general."
In addition, "white liberals are going to go south if you play unfair," said Doak, who helped David N. Dinkins, an African American, topple New York Mayor Ed Koch in 1989.
For his part, McCain felt duty-bound Tuesday to apologize immediately and take full responsibility for the remarks of conservative radio host Bill Cunningham at a Cincinnati rally.
While introducing the Republican senator from Arizona, Cunningham ridiculed Obama for his intention to "meet with world leaders who want to kill us" and pointedly used the Democrat's full name over and over: "Barack Hussein Obama."
Throughout Obama's campaign, foes have invoked his middle name as a kind of dual-use code word to remind voters of his African ancestry and call into question his Christian faith.
McCain had not arrived at the rally in time to hear Cunningham's remarks. Asked whether Obama's middle name -- a family name of Arab descent -- was appropriate fodder for political discourse, McCain said, "No, it is not. . . . I absolutely repudiate such comments."[/b]
The Cunningham incident could be a harbinger of the pitfalls McCain faces in the fall if Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee.
As conservative columnist Peggy Noonan wrote this month, "Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. . . . There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them."
Here are my well thought out reasons why come November this will be a very close race. These are ONLY based on my thoughts and experiences.....if you think they're bogus....cool.
8) The "It's in the bag" mentality can have very negative effects on an election. People for the most part are lazy and need motivation to get their asses to the polls. If the feeling is that Obama has the election won ahead of time, a percentage of people who would have voted for him in a tight race may just stay home.
Lest we forget, this is exactly the mentality that got us into a second term with Bush. As I said in 2004, the problem with many "liberals" is that they love to talk big and go to fundraisers and rallies, and then not bother to vote. Conservatives seem to be much more reliable about following thru and getting the vote out for their candidates, which will swing close elections every time.
As conservative columnist Peggy Noonan wrote this month, "Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. . . . There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them."
oh Noonan you tired old bag. this woman never ceases to disgust me. as if Republicans are overly deferential to race issues?!? "oh the poor Republicans, they won't be able to attack Obama because they have too much respect for race..." or, alternatively, "the poor Republicans, they won't be able to go after his race because the evil PC American electorate would never allow it...." GTFOHWTBS.
plus I think this LA Times piece is on some bullshit. Since when is refraining from attacking a candidate's family name tantamount to "changing the rules of engagement"? I can't really remember a time when it was OK to attack a candidate on the basis of his family name.
As far as the middle name bullshit...I think, more than anything, it speaks to the overall weakness of your policy platform when you have to get into those kind of tactics. At the same time, I like how McCain unequivocally separated himself from that nonsense. Bush never definitively distanced his campaign from that kind of shit that was going on in 2000 and 2004. Which was, at minimum, very suspect IMO.
Bush never definitively distanced his campaign from that kind of shit that was going on in 2000 and 2004. Which was, at minimum, very suspect IMO.
Rove: Don't "Hussein" Obama[/b] 27 Feb 2008 08:40 am
No less an authority figure than Karl Rove has warned Republican operatives from demagoguing Barack Obama's middle name.
At a closed door meeting of GOP state executive directors in late January, Rove said the safest way to refer to Obama would be to use his honorific, "Sen. Obama."
"The context was, you're not going to stimatize this guy. You shouldn't underestimate him," one of the executive directors said. Rove said that the use of "Barack Hussein Obama" would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.
Rove also said that Republicans should refer to Hillary Clinton as "Sen. Clinton," rather than "Hillary."
Right wing figures are set to ignore Rove's advice. Rush Limbaugh used Obama's middle name more than a year ago, and Ann Coulter regularly uses the middle name, once calling him "President Hussein." So does Michael Savage, who once asked whether Obama was a "so-called friendly Muslim" or one more "radical."
Bush never definitively distanced his campaign from that kind of shit that was going on in 2000 and 2004. Which was, at minimum, very suspect IMO.
Rove: Don't "Hussein" Obama[/b] 27 Feb 2008 08:40 am
No less an authority figure than Karl Rove has warned Republican operatives from demagoguing Barack Obama's middle name.
At a closed door meeting of GOP state executive directors in late January, Rove said the safest way to refer to Obama would be to use his honorific, "Sen. Obama."
"The context was, you're not going to stimatize this guy. You shouldn't underestimate him," one of the executive directors said. Rove said that the use of "Barack Hussein Obama" would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.
Rove also said that Republicans should refer to Hillary Clinton as "Sen. Clinton," rather than "Hillary."
Right wing figures are set to ignore Rove's advice. Rush Limbaugh used Obama's middle name more than a year ago, and Ann Coulter regularly uses the middle name, once calling him "President Hussein." So does Michael Savage, who once asked whether Obama was a "so-called friendly Muslim" or one more "radical."
I agree 100%....it won't be the Republican Party using this tactic, it will be all the De Facto mouthpieces ala Rush who are ultimately more interested in ratings than anything else.
Bush never definitively distanced his campaign from that kind of shit that was going on in 2000 and 2004. Which was, at minimum, very suspect IMO.
Rove: Don't "Hussein" Obama[/b] 27 Feb 2008 08:40 am
No less an authority figure than Karl Rove has warned Republican operatives from demagoguing Barack Obama's middle name.
At a closed door meeting of GOP state executive directors in late January, Rove said the safest way to refer to Obama would be to use his honorific, "Sen. Obama."
"The context was, you're not going to stimatize this guy. You shouldn't underestimate him," one of the executive directors said. Rove said that the use of "Barack Hussein Obama" would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.
Rove also said that Republicans should refer to Hillary Clinton as "Sen. Clinton," rather than "Hillary."
Right wing figures are set to ignore Rove's advice. Rush Limbaugh used Obama's middle name more than a year ago, and Ann Coulter regularly uses the middle name, once calling him "President Hussein." So does Michael Savage, who once asked whether Obama was a "so-called friendly Muslim" or one more "radical."
I agree 100%....it won't be the Republican Party using this tactic, it will be all the De Facto mouthpieces ala Rush who are ultimately more interested in ratings than anything else.
Controversy = Ratings
Sayin' I never detected an ounce of authenticity behind any of these people.
As an interested-spectator now, to-be-greatly-affected party come election time - what is folks' take on the Obama-Osama mix-ups? Is it even worth talking about?
From Toronto Star - also the McCain french fry comment is based on the McCain frozen foods company up here.
_______________________________________
Feb 21, 2008 04:30 AM Vinay Menon
It's time to start a pool: Which celebrity, politician or news organization will be the next to mix up Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden?
On Monday, if you were watching the East Coast feed of MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews, you probably noticed something bizarre. While discussing the American primaries, Matthews asked, "What did Barack Obama say and why is it causing controversy?"
Here's a better question, Chris, and one that's equally controversial: in this discussion about Obama, why did your graphics department flash a picture of Osama? And not just any picture, the one where he's smirking and holding up a finger, as if to say: "Hey, media infidels! I am the world's most wanted terrorist! I am not that eloquent American politician with presidential aspirations! I know our names are separated by just one consonant but enough already! These gaffes are confusing my fellow jihadists!"
On Tuesday, NBC News reprimanded the unidentified employee responsible for the headshot switcheroo. For the record, Matthews apologized on air moments after the incident. But as an MSNBC spokesperson told The Associated Press: "This mistake was inexcusable."
Inexcusable, perhaps, but hardly the first instance of what might be termed the Osama-Obama-Blunderama. Last year, a contrite Wolf Blitzer apologized after a report on CNN's The Situation Room ??? about the search for bin Laden ??? included an opening graphic that read, "Where's Obama?"
(My guess: somewhere kicking a television set.)
The following day, Blitzer blamed the incident on a "typographical error." As he said during a chat with colleague Soledad O'Brien, "I will be making a call to (Obama) later this morning to offer my personal apology."
Let's just hope he didn't ask the CNN switchboard to get him the dialling code for Tora Bora.
Meanwhile, about a month later, as the gals of The View gabbed about the menace of paparazzi, panelist Joy Behar suddenly said: "She needs to go wherever Obama bin Laden is hiding ???"
A puzzled Barbara Walters interjected: " ??? Obama bin Laden?"
The slip of the tongue led to this tongue-in-cheek quip from Rosie O'Donnell: "We would like to apologize to all the Obamas in America ..."
Other victims of the Osama-Obama-Blunderama include broadcasters Alina Cho and Glenn Beck, Republican politician Mitt Romney, the New York Post and, one suspects, countless everyday folk.
So can we simply attribute this confusion to a spoonerism or phonological malapropism? After all, "Obama" and "Osama" share the same opening and closing vowel, syllable count and stress pattern. The only distinguishing feature between those names is, well, "B" "S."
Both have also been in heavy news rotation this decade. Sometimes an accidental linguistic transposition is just an accidental linguistic transposition and not a Freudian slip that hints at racial, cultural or political biases, right?
Right?
Then again, why doesn't anybody ever blurt out "Hilary of Chichester" when actually referring to Hillary Clinton? And why have we yet to see a report on John McCain in which his smiling mug was accidentally replaced with a bag of frozen french fries?
Who knows, now that Obama is flexing his political muscles and (possibly) storming into the history books, maybe he finds this stuff amusing. When your middle name is widely associated with a dictator (Hussein) and your first and last initials spell B.O., inadvertent confusion with a terrorist mastermind is probably the least of it.
Me, I'm hoping Obama goes all the way to the White House. Because then we may hear a newscaster utter the crown jewel in the Osama-Obama-Blunderama: "American president Barack Osama confirms U.S. forces have just captured Obama bin Laden!"
well the name "Osama" was probably uttered in news media more than any other single name between the years 2001 and 2006 and the name "Obama" has probably been uttered in news media more than any other single name from 2006 through the present. so I'd say these slip-ups are inevitable. combine that with the fact that many of these talking head "journalists" on TV are not very bright.
nader announced former sf supervisor matt gonzalez as his running mate. weird, i used to intern for gonzalez. we found a nug on the stoop outside his city hall office after one of his art openings.
Here are my well thought out reasons why come November this will be a very close race. These are ONLY based on my thoughts and experiences.....if you think they're bogus....cool.
1) Once Barack wins the nomination the word you will hear more than any other is Hussein. Even if McCain himself doesn't use this , the Conservatives will. They will rationalize it by pointing out that we ALWAYS refer to politicians with their middle names (Hillary Rodham Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, etc.) This will play on the fears of the ignorant and will be used successfully.
2) The folks on the far right who are protesting loudly today, will eventually shut up and vote for McCain. If there were a third party candidate that would appeal to this segment I could see them voting for that candidate but Ralph Nader doesn't fit that bill. There may be a small segment of these folks who choose not to vote at all.
3) If McCain chooses a VP that appeals to the far right like Mike Huckabee, all of the far right will get behind McCain. If for no other reason than his age holds promise for the VP to take over between now and 2012.
4) The 35+ female voter will likely see McCain as the more experienced, more mature choice and view Obama as a "GQ" candidate with good looks and less experience.
5) Obama has used a great strategy in the Dem Primaries of turning the other cheek when directly attacked by Hillary. Like some have mentioned here, there were times when he should have had more "teeth" and stood toe to toe with his attacker/detractor. The Republicans will use this as a sign of weakness and will ask if Barack has the balls to stand up to our enemies vs. turning the other cheek. Republicans will continue to use the ever present threat of terrorism to win the scare vote.
6) The voters in the South and Midwest have a history of saying one thing and doing another. In the 50's and 60's there was a pattern of candidates that were running on a Civil Rights platform and were way ahead in the Polls right up to Election Day, ultimately losing the election. Republicans have always been more tight lipped about who they were voting for while Democrats tend to be more vocal. All of that goes away when they close that curtain and pull the lever.
7) Like in Sports, momentum is very important in an election. Barack has more momentum today than any Presidential candidate in recent memory. Maintaining that momentum over a 8 month period is very difficult. A poll today that shows Barack leading McCain nationally by 3.7% is nothing to hang a November victory on.
8) The "It's in the bag" mentality can have very negative effects on an election. People for the most part are lazy and need motivation to get their asses to the polls. If the feeling is that Obama has the election won ahead of time, a percentage of people who would have voted for him in a tight race may just stay home.
9) The Hispanic vote.
These are the pitfalls I believe that Barack will have to overcome. Each one by themselves can not dictate an outcome but in combination they certainly could. I admittedly do tend to focus on what a worst case scenario can be so I'm not disappointed if it comes to fruition. I will be voting for Obama, but will continue to cringe when I see folks counting their chickens before they hatch.
My question to those who think Barack being President is a done deal is, god forbid he does lose, who are you going to point a finger at??
I think these are all reasonable arguments Rich. The so-called Bradley effect has been less of a factor in recent elections. I read an interesting article about this recently.
I think the "GQ" factor is going to help Obama with women much more than McCain's "experience"
McCain is going to have trouble with the immigration issue because he is flip flopping now saying that it's all about security first.
I really believe the way to run against Obama is to go positive. The conservatives I have been talking with are very turned of by people talking negatively about Obama. McCain doesn't do negative well.
It is a long road to November and any number of interceding events could totally change the nature of the campaign. If the issues remain the same as they are today. Economy and the war, I think Obama will win and could win very big.
I really don't see the conservative wing getting fired up about McCain anymore than they did for Dole. He's old and perceived as not a true believer. That usually equals a smaller turnout.
I really don't see the conservative wing getting fired up about McCain anymore than they did for Dole. He's old and perceived as not a true believer. That usually equals a smaller turnout.
On a related note, I was just reading that in a couple of the states voting Tuesday, Huckabee is still polling 40%. Shows how far people are willing to go to voice their disapproval of McCain....
Comments
Bill Richardson is Spanish/Mexican.
My point is that Sidney is just as bad as Hussein.
Jim Webb would be a great VP selection. Would get a big bump with Independents and siphon off some swing-McCain people.
Huh????
he is not even on the radar - it would only help mccain's "experience" argument.
pre-PLAYED.
b/w, here's a good article in today's L.A. Times about this very subject and the kid gloves Repbulicans feel they will have to handle Obama with because of race:
Race a wild-card factor[/b]
It's unclear if Obama's minority status will help or hinder him. But it has changed the rules of engagement.
By Maria L. La Ganga and Mark Z. Barabak
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
February 28, 2008
COLUMBUS, OHIO ??? When John McCain apologized to Barack Obama this week for the comments of his warm-up act at a rally, it was not the first time -- and probably won't be the last -- that the most competitive black presidential candidate in U.S. history has heard the words, "I'm sorry."
In his yearlong quest to win the White House, the Democratic senator from Illinois has changed the rules of political engagement, forcing his rivals to step delicately in a normally no-holds-barred arena.
As the possibility grows that voters may bestow the nation's highest public office on an African American, serial public apologies -- largely by Democrats -- show just how sensitive race remains. What is less clear is how race could help or hinder Obama, who has struggled to keep it in the background.
If current or future opponents focus on Obama's race, it could help them by playing on some voters' racial prejudice, or it could help Obama if he is seen as a sympathetic victim of his rivals' insensitivity.
"Democrats have to be careful in navigating the way they deal with Obama," said David Doak, a Democratic campaign consultant who has advised Hillary Rodham Clinton. "They don't want to get too rough with him in the primary, because they don't want to alienate blacks and have them stay at home in the general."
In addition, "white liberals are going to go south if you play unfair," said Doak, who helped David N. Dinkins, an African American, topple New York Mayor Ed Koch in 1989.
For his part, McCain felt duty-bound Tuesday to apologize immediately and take full responsibility for the remarks of conservative radio host Bill Cunningham at a Cincinnati rally.
While introducing the Republican senator from Arizona, Cunningham ridiculed Obama for his intention to "meet with world leaders who want to kill us" and pointedly used the Democrat's full name over and over: "Barack Hussein Obama."
Throughout Obama's campaign, foes have invoked his middle name as a kind of dual-use code word to remind voters of his African ancestry and call into question his Christian faith.
McCain had not arrived at the rally in time to hear Cunningham's remarks. Asked whether Obama's middle name -- a family name of Arab descent -- was appropriate fodder for political discourse, McCain said, "No, it is not. . . . I absolutely repudiate such comments."[/b]
The Cunningham incident could be a harbinger of the pitfalls McCain faces in the fall if Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee.
As conservative columnist Peggy Noonan wrote this month, "Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. . . . There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them."
(read more)
I have heard him mentioned in several on-air discussions, so he is on the radar. How likely I have no idea.
Lest we forget, this is exactly the mentality that got us into a second term with Bush. As I said in 2004, the problem with many "liberals" is that they love to talk big and go to fundraisers and rallies, and then not bother to vote. Conservatives seem to be much more reliable about following thru and getting the vote out for their candidates, which will swing close elections every time.
oh Noonan you tired old bag. this woman never ceases to disgust me. as if Republicans are overly deferential to race issues?!? "oh the poor Republicans, they won't be able to attack Obama because they have too much respect for race..." or, alternatively, "the poor Republicans, they won't be able to go after his race because the evil PC American electorate would never allow it...." GTFOHWTBS.
plus I think this LA Times piece is on some bullshit. Since when is refraining from attacking a candidate's family name tantamount to "changing the rules of engagement"? I can't really remember a time when it was OK to attack a candidate on the basis of his family name.
Rove: Don't "Hussein" Obama[/b]
27 Feb 2008 08:40 am
No less an authority figure than Karl Rove has warned Republican operatives from demagoguing Barack Obama's middle name.
At a closed door meeting of GOP state executive directors in late January, Rove said the safest way to refer to Obama would be to use his honorific, "Sen. Obama."
"The context was, you're not going to stimatize this guy. You shouldn't underestimate him," one of the executive directors said. Rove said that the use of "Barack Hussein Obama" would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.
Rove also said that Republicans should refer to Hillary Clinton as "Sen. Clinton," rather than "Hillary."
Right wing figures are set to ignore Rove's advice. Rush Limbaugh used Obama's middle name more than a year ago, and Ann Coulter regularly uses the middle name, once calling him "President Hussein." So does Michael Savage, who once asked whether Obama was a "so-called friendly Muslim" or one more "radical."
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/19584
I agree 100%....it won't be the Republican Party using this tactic, it will be all the De Facto mouthpieces ala Rush who are ultimately more interested in ratings than anything else.
Controversy = Ratings
Interesting. But haven't Rove's strategies been universally assessed failures? So why would they listen to him?
Haven't his strategies won the last 2 elections??
Sayin' I never detected an ounce of authenticity behind any of these people.
Several, but ruined the party in the process or, at the very least, set them back to pre-Reagan.
what are those?
_______________________________________
Feb 21, 2008 04:30 AM
Vinay Menon
It's time to start a pool: Which celebrity, politician or news organization will be the next to mix up Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden?
On Monday, if you were watching the East Coast feed of MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews, you probably noticed something bizarre. While discussing the American primaries, Matthews asked, "What did Barack Obama say and why is it causing controversy?"
Here's a better question, Chris, and one that's equally controversial: in this discussion about Obama, why did your graphics department flash a picture of Osama? And not just any picture, the one where he's smirking and holding up a finger, as if to say: "Hey, media infidels! I am the world's most wanted terrorist! I am not that eloquent American politician with presidential aspirations! I know our names are separated by just one consonant but enough already! These gaffes are confusing my fellow jihadists!"
On Tuesday, NBC News reprimanded the unidentified employee responsible for the headshot switcheroo. For the record, Matthews apologized on air moments after the incident. But as an MSNBC spokesperson told The Associated Press: "This mistake was inexcusable."
Inexcusable, perhaps, but hardly the first instance of what might be termed the Osama-Obama-Blunderama. Last year, a contrite Wolf Blitzer apologized after a report on CNN's The Situation Room ??? about the search for bin Laden ??? included an opening graphic that read, "Where's Obama?"
(My guess: somewhere kicking a television set.)
The following day, Blitzer blamed the incident on a "typographical error." As he said during a chat with colleague Soledad O'Brien, "I will be making a call to (Obama) later this morning to offer my personal apology."
Let's just hope he didn't ask the CNN switchboard to get him the dialling code for Tora Bora.
Meanwhile, about a month later, as the gals of The View gabbed about the menace of paparazzi, panelist Joy Behar suddenly said: "She needs to go wherever Obama bin Laden is hiding ???"
A puzzled Barbara Walters interjected: " ??? Obama bin Laden?"
The slip of the tongue led to this tongue-in-cheek quip from Rosie O'Donnell: "We would like to apologize to all the Obamas in America ..."
Other victims of the Osama-Obama-Blunderama include broadcasters Alina Cho and Glenn Beck, Republican politician Mitt Romney, the New York Post and, one suspects, countless everyday folk.
So can we simply attribute this confusion to a spoonerism or phonological malapropism? After all, "Obama" and "Osama" share the same opening and closing vowel, syllable count and stress pattern. The only distinguishing feature between those names is, well, "B" "S."
Both have also been in heavy news rotation this decade. Sometimes an accidental linguistic transposition is just an accidental linguistic transposition and not a Freudian slip that hints at racial, cultural or political biases, right?
Right?
Then again, why doesn't anybody ever blurt out "Hilary of Chichester" when actually referring to Hillary Clinton? And why have we yet to see a report on John McCain in which his smiling mug was accidentally replaced with a bag of frozen french fries?
Who knows, now that Obama is flexing his political muscles and (possibly) storming into the history books, maybe he finds this stuff amusing. When your middle name is widely associated with a dictator (Hussein) and your first and last initials spell B.O., inadvertent confusion with a terrorist mastermind is probably the least of it.
Me, I'm hoping Obama goes all the way to the White House. Because then we may hear a newscaster utter the crown jewel in the Osama-Obama-Blunderama: "American president Barack Osama confirms U.S. forces have just captured Obama bin Laden!"
I think these are all reasonable arguments Rich. The so-called Bradley effect has been less of a factor in recent elections. I read an interesting article about this recently.
I think the "GQ" factor is going to help Obama with women much more than McCain's "experience"
McCain is going to have trouble with the immigration issue because he is flip flopping now saying that it's all about security first.
I really believe the way to run against Obama is to go positive. The conservatives I have been talking with are very turned of by people talking negatively about Obama. McCain doesn't do negative well.
It is a long road to November and any number of interceding events could totally change the nature of the campaign. If the issues remain the same as they are today. Economy and the war, I think Obama will win and could win very big.
I really don't see the conservative wing getting fired up about McCain anymore than they did for Dole. He's old and perceived as not a true believer. That usually equals a smaller turnout.
On a related note, I was just reading that in a couple of the states voting Tuesday, Huckabee is still polling 40%. Shows how far people are willing to go to voice their disapproval of McCain....