Obama will lose..look at the map

[MichiganRico]

Senator obama won in 2 of the "whitest" states in the union, Iowa and michigan, against a Formidable Challenger in Senator Clinton.

Oooops...Obama didn't win Michigan. And don't forget Iowa is a caucus state and last time I checked, we all use some type of secret ballot in the Presidential Election. I'm hoping that Obama makes it to the finsh, too, but I'm just saying we shouldn't be too overconfident. George Bush winning a second term with a "stay the course" campaign slogan doesn't speak highly of us as an electorate. Never underestimate our collective supidity

 

[Guy-jin]

To the OP: Stop abusing commas that way.

You trying to talk down to people while separating everything you type with ",,," is hilarious though, I'll give you that.

 

[Guy-jin]

frankly, neither one of these two is offering any thing remotely new in terms of policies.

Obama's "change" is back to good old fashioned far left policies.
McCain, although he is thankfully not Bush, is still unclear only except that he is not Bush.


Neither of these choices is palpable for anyone who wants to see "true change".


Anyone that votes for either of these men is still voting for politics as usual, be it politics of the center-right or far left.

Vote for independents, Greens, Libertarians etc. and you will see things have a chance to change, vote for McCain or Obama, and you vote for the status quo.

Obama for all his charismatic flowery talk, offers nothing new in terms of change. He offers far left liberalism, which is no more a solution than is far right conservatism.

Obama has stated himself as a "unifier"...who is one a unifier when one is essentially the the furthest left voting senator in the senate?

and McCain is just sort of brain dead. Nothing new


so the choice is between nothing new and failing, or nothing new going back to the old and failed, packaged as "change".

not a very appetizing choice.


Frankly, as much as i dislike either being in the White House, one of them will, and just so one party does not have the chance to ram its agenda through congress it has to be McCain. When one party controls everything, bad things usually tend to happen...i'd rather nothing happened and there was gridlock than either the conservatives or liberals had virtual carte blanche.

Frankly, i wish a giant spaceship would just blow up congress and the white house like in independence day.

Things could not be much worse with Bill Pullman as president.

Those of us who've read enough of your posts know your actual reasons for saying it "has to be McCain", and it has a lot more do with his "bomb bomb bomb Iran" song than anything else. Just throwing that out there.

 

[b.c.]

...i'd rather nothing happened and there was gridlock than either the conservatives or liberals had virtual carte blanche.

You know, you hit the nail right on the head with that one. Most voters (though they'd never admit it) are afraid of words like "change" because there's a level of uncertainty in it.

Over the years I've become increasingly convinced that the majority of voters (especially those who are quite satisfied with the status quo) want someone in office who is least likely to do anything, because they prefer the bumbling incompetence of do-nothingness (even revel in) to the vast wasteland of uncertainty in someone inclined to do... something.

As long as nothing happens, most are satisfied.

 

[Flashy]

Those of us who've read enough of your posts know your actual reasons for saying it "has to be McCain", and it has a lot more do with his "bomb bomb bomb Iran" song than anything else. Just throwing that out there.

yeah that's exactly why...not that i don't want my taxes going up, or increases on estate taxes, or the far left having the chance to do as much damage to the country as the far right had with Bush.

Giving any one party carte blanche is a massive error. Iran included or excluded.

I haven't voted for either party in the 19 years i have been eligible to vote. Even if voted for McCAin, it still would not matter, since i am in an overwhelmingly blue state and my vote has no impact.

Iran aside, both Obama and McCain are just as bad for the future of this country. You can believe otherwise if you wish.

 

[Flashy]

You know, you hit the nail right on the head with that one. Most voters (though they'd never admit it) are afraid of words like "change" because there's a level of uncertainty in it.

Over the years I've become increasingly convinced that the majority of voters (especially those who are quite satisfied with the status quo) want someone in office who is least likely to do anything, because they prefer the bumbling incompetence of do-nothingness (even revel in) to the vast wasteland of uncertainty in someone inclined to do... something.

As long as nothing happens, most are satisfied.

thank you. i agree completely :smile:

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Obama's "change" is back to good old fashioned far left policies.
*snip*
He offers far left liberalism, which is no more a solution than is far right conservatism.

Sorry - I have to take a moment and have a bit of a giggle at that - even in a US context that's exaggerating - but in the greater scheme of political philosophy the idea of Obama / US Democrats being 'far left' made me snort my rather average Graves through my nose...

*wipes tear and keyboard*

Sorry - Do continue. :smile:

 

[D_Geffarde Phartsmeller]

...Trinity is that you?

He hasn't even announced his running mate yet. No telling how that could turn the tide. Wait until October before making bold claims like this. Much could happen between now and the big day.

 

[Flashy]

Sorry - I have to take a moment and have a bit of a giggle at that - even in a US context that's exaggerating - but in the greater scheme of political philosophy the idea of Obama / US Democrats being 'far left' made me snort my rather average Graves through my nose...

*wipes tear and keyboard*

Sorry - Do continue. :smile:

sorry...Far Left in American terms...not in far left socialist european terms...better? :smile:

 

[simcha]

Updates to Electoral Map Polling.

Newsflash: Obama is way ahead!

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Dewey defeats Truman!

 

[mindseye]

Obama's "change" is back to good old fashioned far left policies.

ManlyBanisters beat me to the snort, but this statement is even more ignorant than the OP.

In a primary where we had some real left-wing progressives running (Kucinich notably, but also Chris Dodd), Obama was not the leftist among the bunch. He let progressives down by his capitulation on FISA, his refusal to use the power of the purse to accelerate an Iraq withdrawal timetable, his namby-pamby Plessy vs. Ferguson approach to same-sex partnership rights, among other issues. He speaks like a progressive on economic issues -- talking about hope and opportunity and the like, but he's not known for strong environmentalist stances, truly universal health care, feminism, or other pillars of the courageous left.

 

[Trinity]

So if Obama loses the election then once again the better man would've lost, and it wouldn't have been the first time, would it? Ultimately, we get in our leadership exactly what we deserve.

The Better Woman could not claim victory, first...rather a selected presumptive nominee was propped up. So, indeed it won't be the first time and we will get in our leadership exactly what we deserve.

"A true Presidential leader would have visited the wounded troops." says Trinity

Ooops, did you read that the Defense Dept. refused to let him visit the hospital in Germany? It was on his agenda, but he had sent his Senate Staff home and so he could only go with his campaign staff--a NO, NO!! And when did the Dept. of Defense tell him? One day before the planned visit. BTW: He did not plan to take along photographers as that would have politicized it too much.

What a bunch of garbage. Obama and his campaign have changed their story repeatedly on this matter. And finally blamed the Pentagon to which the Pentagon responded that his campaign was not being truthful. Obama simply did not wish to go to Landstuhl to visit wounded soldiers if it could not be a photo op and if it could not be completely managed by his campaign with his entourage of courting media. Obama should have taken the time to do the right thing, but instead he chose to work out. The following sums it up best:

The varying explanations for the cancellation of Barack Obama's planned visit today to the U.S. military's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany are leaving campaign-watchers puzzled.

Obama had been scheduled to greet U.S. troops at the hospital just before leaving Germany this afternoon for Paris, where he met French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace.
Then he found out that there wouldn't be any cameras ...But first, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement Thursday night saying the senator had decided "out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign."

The campaign amended that explanation this morning. Obama wanted to thank the troops for their service, but "we learned from the Pentagon last night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event.," Obama advisor Scott Gration, a retired Air Force major general, said in a statement.

The Senator could have walked in without campaign aides. He could have spent an hour there. He could have had a military escort to guide him around -- he would have been perfectly safe. He could have had some quiet words with various wounded soldiers and their families. Perhaps shook the hands of some of the staff that make all the great medical care possible. He could have quietly thanked people for their hard work and their sacrifice.

He didn't. On Obama's flight from Berlin to Paris, Gibbs offered more details. Around July 15, the Pentagon approved Obama's visit. But military officials later invoked a rule on political activity at military bases and questioned whether it would cover Obama's visit, Gibbs said. Obama spokesmen said they were seeking clarification on what the rule is. Gibbs also declined to speculate on why the Pentagon did not cite the rule until Wednesday.

That account, however, didn't square with the Defense Department's explanation. The Pentagon said it informed the Obama campaign on Monday that he and his Senate staff could visit Landstuhl, where wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan are treated, but that no press would be allowed. "Sen. Obama is more than welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital around the world," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. "But he has to do so, just as any other senator has to do so, in his official capacity. It is not acceptable to do so as a candidate."

"In an election year," Morrell said, "I don't believe that any candidate is allowed to visit a DOD facility with press."
The Messiah did find time to thank the German police, even though he couldn't visit our wounded soldiers.

​

IndustrialSize

There you go again........this load of crap about Senator Obama NOT visiting the Troops has been thoroughly de-bunked and discussed...

Discussed yes, debunked no. Most agree that Obama's decision not to go was a bad one.

"Senator Obama met with and Visited the troops in both iraq and Afghanistan where he was warmly received by the troops in both places. He visited them as part of Congressional Delegation. He had intended, and was given permission, to visit the troops in Landstuhl Germany, but the day before his arrival was DENIED access to them by the same Pentagon.

Umm, no. He was given permission and reminded on Monday of the political rules that he already should have been aware of since he visited Troops before.

"The Military said he was no longer traveling as a "congressional delegation" and denied him access to the troops in germany.

Umm, again no. The Pentagon reminded him of the rules he was already privy to. Obama was not denied access. He was told he must visit under his official capacity as a United States Senator...that he could bring his secret service and he would be escorted by Military Security and media corp. And that he could bring his Senate Staff if chose to.

"Senator Obama did not want to have the appearance of "Politicizing" his visit with the troops and acquiesed to the military's denial without complaint.

What a load garbage. Obama politicized it by not going when He could not turn the trip into a photo op. Obama did not give into a denial...Obama chose not to do what he should have done for the Wounded Soldiers. And he got a lot of negative press for doing the wrong thing, his campaign looked ridiculou giving conflicting stories and Obama looked like less like a Commander in Chief and more like a politician.

" The only people still saying that Senator Obama did not visit the troops on his successful trip abroad are Senator mcCain, who made it into a lame attack ad that has been ridiculed by anyone with a brain, and the right wing "wingnuts"!

That's Obamanite Spin...and not very good spin either.

Wrong Indy. You always believe whatever the campaign says hook, line and sinker.

DOD spokesman says Obama camp was reminded of political rules
Politico - excerpt

"Sen. Obama is welcome to visit Landstuhl or any military hospital in his official capacity as a United States senator," Morrell said in a brief interview. "But there is a DOD policy which governs campaigning and electioneering at military facilities that would have to be respected if he were to visit. That distinction was relayed and made clear to campaign, and they made a decision on their own based on that guidance."

Morrell, in a subsequent interview, added that military officials told Obama he could only visit the military facility with his Secret Service detail and Senate staff.

"We made it clear to him that campaign staff and press would not be permitted to accompany him," Morrell said of Obama. "We relayed those ground rules. They made a choice based upon the information we relayed to them. It was their choice. We had nothing to do with it."

Military personnel at Ramstein Air Force Base, where the senator was to fly into, had already made arrangements to accommodate Obama's traveling press pack and campaign staff while he visited the wounded troops, Morrell said.

Obama's campaign tells a different story.

Obama adviser David Axelrod told the Chicago Sun-Times that the Pentagon "viewed this as a campaign event, and therefore they said he should not come."

 

[mindseye]

The Better Woman could not claim victory, first...rather a selected presumptive nominee was propped up. So, indeed it won't be the first time and we will get in our leadership exactly what we deserve.

So sayeth Donna Quixote-Haversham.

 

[Flashy]

ManlyBanisters beat me to the snort, but this statement is even more ignorant than the OP.

In a primary where we had some real left-wing progressives running (Kucinich notably, but also Chris Dodd), Obama was not the leftist among the bunch. He let progressives down by his capitulation on FISA, his refusal to use the power of the purse to accelerate an Iraq withdrawal timetable, his namby-pamby Plessy vs. Ferguson approach to same-sex partnership rights, among other issues. He speaks like a progressive on economic issues -- talking about hope and opportunity and the like, but he's not known for strong environmentalist stances, truly universal health care, feminism, or other pillars of the courageous left.

1. More ignorant? How so? I said it would be a return to good old fashioned far left policies...I never stated he was the FURTHEST of the far left candidates, but he is most assuredly, far left.

2. Obama was indeed the most liberal senator in terms of voting record in 2007.

3. I am a strong environmentalist, and i am also an independent. Does my strong environmentalist stance make me more liberal than Obama? I am also for Universal health care, except i have different ways of accomplishing it, like hiking taxes on alcohol through the roof, hiking taxes on fast food, legalizing marijuana and taxing it heavily. That does not make more liberal than Obama, it simply means on a pair of issues i consider myself to be far more pragmatic.

4. "Speaking like a progressive" on economic issues, does not make one a progressive does it? Since when does talking about "hope and opportunity" constitute economic dynamism? It sounds to me like he is just going to soak the rich, and soak small businesses, to take their money to give "hope and opportunity to others". That is not progressive, that is traditional old school soak the rich, throw money at problems, tax and spend policy. It fails as much as the "sink or swim" approach to economics.

5. What strong stance should he take on "feminism"? He's pro-choice. He supported legislation to allow women to sue for pay discrimination and other women's issues... What else should he do, wear a dress?


Pillars of the "Courageous Left"?

what exactly is courageous about the left? they are no more courageous than the right. Both are rather dogmatic in their myopic approach to believing they are the only ones who are right and despite evidence to the contrary that proves both radical approaches are indeed, wrong and divisive and don't work, still cling to them desperately.

 

[mindseye]

2. Obama was indeed the most liberal senator in terms of voting record in 2007.

Source? By whose measure?

Not by the ACLU: Obama scored only an 88%; 18 senators scored higher.
Not by the Americans for Democratic Action: Obama scored only a 75%; 43 senators scored higher.
Not by the Children's Defense Fund: Obama scored only a 60%; 56 senators scored higher.
Not by the League of Conservation Voters: Obama scored only a 67%; 42 senators scored higher.
Not by the SEIU: Obama scored a 90%; 29 senators scored higher.
By NARAL Pro-Choice America? Okay, they gave Obama a 100% and their endorsement. Is that your measure of "most liberal"?
Or are you basing your assertion on the National Journal's curiously-timed pronouncement? The same National Journal which ranked him 10th and 16th in previous years? The same National Journal that somehow found John Kerry the most liberal senator four years earlier?

Really, where are you getting your 'facts' from?

(Source for 2007 ratings)

 

[deleted15807]

There's more to it than just policies; demeanor, respect, patience, and other intangible personal qualities all come into play as well, and McCain far exceeds Bush in these respects.

Even if McCain's policies are "almost indistinguishable from Bush's", I believe McCain could implement them better. Except for a few unfortunate moments (like the "Bomb iran" improv), McCain carries himself better than Bush and has the better judgment not to piss off (and piss on) our allies at every turn. I don't support McCain, but I'll concede that he could restore some dignity to the White House that Bush has squandered.

I just don't know about that. I would have believed it 10 years ago but not today. He's sold his soul to get elected. Who is he today? He can't claim 'The Maverick' title anymore. Will a McCain Republican administration appoint the same industry hacks to government oversight positions in which they are charged with overseeing the very industry they once represented and will return to represent once their term is over, corrupting the entire government. There's little evidence he won't. We already know he intends to turn the Supreme Court over to the Scalia's and Thomas's of the world. That alone ought to scare the living shit out of everyone.


YouTube - Absolute Disgust

 

[b.c.]

There's always those die hards who continue to spin the facts in a way that discredits Obama. Now all this shit over whether he did or didn't visit troops in Germany.

If someone told ME as a person running for the presidency that visiting them while campaigning was prohibited, I'd probably be inclined to remain on the side of caution too.

The alternative would have been to make the visit and then have the same bitchin whiners complain that I campaigned by visiting troops in Germany, in violation of U.S. policy.

I think he was smart not to allow himself to fall victim to such charges and giving someone the opportunity of interpreting his visit as campaigning.

The whiners are just angry he didn't get caught up in the bullshit. Fuck em. They'll whine about something (anything) anyway.

Here's what Rep. Senator Hagel (and friend of McCain) says of whining and more specifically of McCain listening to his campaign strategists (we know that's who's really calling the shots - which is why McCain can't remember from one moment to the next what his position on issues is supposed to be):

The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME

 

[Deno]

are there any pink states.

 

[Flashy]

Source? By whose measure?

Not by the ACLU: Obama scored only an 88%; 18 senators scored higher.
Not by the Americans for Democratic Action: Obama scored only a 75%; 43 senators scored higher.
Not by the Children's Defense Fund: Obama scored only a 60%; 56 senators scored higher.
Not by the League of Conservation Voters: Obama scored only a 67%; 42 senators scored higher.
Not by the SEIU: Obama scored a 90%; 29 senators scored higher.
By NARAL Pro-Choice America? Okay, they gave Obama a 100% and their endorsement. Is that your measure of "most liberal"?
Or are you basing your assertion on the National Journal's curiously-timed pronouncement? The same National Journal which ranked him 10th and 16th in previous years? The same National Journal that somehow found John Kerry the most liberal senator four years earlier?

Really, where are you getting your 'facts' from?

(Source for 2007 ratings)

Yes, the national journal report. I find it difficult to take issue with the ranking, even if the republicans misused it for their political terms. They even came out against the Republicans using it.

They graded on 99 votes...Obama missed 33 of them due to his campaigning. With the remaining 66 votes that he actually showed up for, he voted the "liberal way" 65 times. Perhaps there would be a more accurate portrayal if he had bothered to have actually been doing his job for the one/third of votes he missed. however, if he had been there for the other 33, considering he voted 65 of 66 the "liberal" way, is there any doubt on the remaining 33 he'd be up around the 90th percentile?

Even if he only voted the "liberal way" in 22 of those (very generous to him being more "progressive"), it would still grade him out as voting "liberal" 87 times out of 99, which is still VERY high...and somehow, i have a feeling on those remaining votes, it was not only 22 of 33 had he been there.

Same as McCain who scored only a 59 on the conservative scale, while missing half the votes.

Either way, Obama was the 10th most liberal senator in 2006, when he was actually there for the vast majority of the votes.

I would say being in the top 10% paints you as a far left liberal. same as one would paint someone as the 10th most conservative senator being in the top 10% and being a far right conservative.



Just because the Republicans seized on using that info improperly against Kerry or Obama, does not make it less true.

If Kerry missed half his votes, and the others showed him as being the most liberal, maybe he should have stayed for the votes to make sure the record reflected his beliefs.

Same with Obama, same with McCain.

There is no excuse for missing votes. This is their job. If Obama truly believed in certain things, same as McCain, they'd be there for votes.

Yet they are not. Their salary is not being paid so they can campaign, and when you miss votes, you misrepresent your constituents, republican or democrat.

You can't complain about your record being misstated, if you do not in fact go on the record in the most obvious way...by putting up your vote.

You want to run for President, you should resign your post in the senate or the house, since you are not doing your job. Be you Obama, McCain, Clinton, or whoever.

Either way, it changes nothing. Obama is a far left-liberal


MORE IMPORTANTLY



The numbers you stated only described how Obama voted when compared by those organizations with issues in each of their own fields of lobby, NOT overall. Not to mention you completely neglected to mention that those lower scores were due to absenteeism, and he had consistently high praise and high marks from all those organizations, as i will point out below.

1.
as for some of your assertions, you neglected to mention the most important missing votes in each one...

of the ADA votes that they gauged Obama on (where you stated he only had a 75% rating) that rating was in fact calculated because he *MISSED* votes #14, 16,17,18, and 20!!!!!!!! Just like Hillary, who received the same 75% score. see pages 22 and 26 below...look at votes #14, 16,17,18, and 20....how would Obama have voted on those? The answer is he would have voted assuredly in lockstep with the ADA on at least 4 of them, putting him at 95% and highly likely all 5 of them, putting him at 100%.

http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2007.pdf


2. I don't know where you got your ACLU number but it is off, at least according to the ACLU which has him lifetime at 82%

American Civil Liberties Union:



The ACLU was similar. in the 109th congress, he was 10 for 12 with them.

American Civil Liberties Union:

in the 110th, he only voted in 10 of 14 senate votes, but going 8 of 10.

18 of 22 with th ACLU, with 4 missed votes is hardly not liberal. It is hard to imagine him voting against the ACLU on the 4 he missed,

namely
FISA Amendments Act of 2007
Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act
Lifting the Global Gag Rule
Voter ID Requirements

22 of 26 is nearly 85%.

---

3. The Children's defense fund senate vote record had him at 60% ??!?!!?

You are off the reservation...yes...60% 6 out of 10 votes...that was A PERFECT SCORE...they graded on 10 votes!!!! He missed four votes and only voted on 6!!!! He was 6 for 6!!!!!!!!!!

In 06 and 05 he was at 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you are totally offbase.

Clinton, Obama Score Well on Children's Issues, McCain Worst In Senate

http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/2007_Scorecard_votes.pdf?docID=6421


4. The League of conservation voters? Total nonsense on your part again. Yes, he scored a 67% in 2007. because he missed 4 out of 15 votes!!! which count as a negative!!!! But he scored a 96% in 2006!!!!

in other words, his 67% was effectively voting with them 10 out of 15 times...but since he missed 4 votes, 4 of the "against" was because he was not there!!!!!!!!!!! so all of a sudden he is 96% in 06 then stops supporting those policies completely in 07? Totally wrong. He was absent.

That 67% rating is another completely bogus canard that you have inaccurately reported, due to absenteeism, not POLICY.


League of Conservation Voters - The Independent Political Voice for the Environment


5. SEIU numbers are bogus too....he missed 5 votes.

he voted with them 40 times and against them twice in his whole career. 40 of 42 is 95%.


SEIU.org | Action Center








Sorry, Obama is in fact in virtual lockstep with all those organizations you mentioned, and the only reason showing him as anything else is because of ABSENTEEISM, which is a bit different.

Your figures are totally off and your attempt to browbeat me over incorrect facts is not only unfair, but simply wrong, and does not take into account his true voting records.

Don't take my word for it...look at the facts as presented.

I hope you will.