Change is good. Im just sick of politicians (ie Obama) offering up this cliche campaign change crap which really means nothing..has no teeth,,just some pie in the sky slogan spouted out like some meaningless blather that everyone rallies around like some cultish mantra. I believe people are finally sizing up Obama and finding out he really has no substance,,just fluff,,and thats why he has peaked now and is losing ground
Sick of the Obama Godlike bandwagon
- Thread starter pdxman
- Start date
I am professionally leery of bullshit artists and can relate to some degree to your healthful skepticism.
Bear in mind, neighbor, that the unconditionally pro-Obama threads and their needlessly shrill tone do not represent the general voter base. Grassroot activists on all sides tend to bark much louder than the "mean" population.
No net gains and no "conversions" occur as a result of those threads. If anything, the handful of unconditional Obamaniacs who inhabit those threads may make the object of their hatred a martyr.
All in all, the popular vote is still evenly divided. Since Barack Obama is likely to enter the convention with a lead on pledged delegates, I believe that the only way for Hillary Clinton to sway the Super-Delegates (who were put in place to ADD VALUE to the selection process) is to win the popular vote nationwide.
The caucus system is a quaint relic at best and is statistically not democratic in 2008. The caucus is nothing more than a focus group whose participants more likely are extremists with too much time on their hands.
Suffice it to say the unconditional Obama supporters will dispute that notion and dismiss the very same argument they embrace when it serves the interests of their leader.
I am by no means an unconditional Clinton supporter. My support is more in line with that of the NYT's editorial board, which was circumspect.
I live in a hip, deep blue state and do NOT have to vote for the Democrats. On a purely selfish level, the GOP's agenda serves my interests best.
Bear in mind, neighbor, that the unconditionally pro-Obama threads and their needlessly shrill tone do not represent the general voter base. Grassroot activists on all sides tend to bark much louder than the "mean" population.
No net gains and no "conversions" occur as a result of those threads. If anything, the handful of unconditional Obamaniacs who inhabit those threads may make the object of their hatred a martyr.
All in all, the popular vote is still evenly divided. Since Barack Obama is likely to enter the convention with a lead on pledged delegates, I believe that the only way for Hillary Clinton to sway the Super-Delegates (who were put in place to ADD VALUE to the selection process) is to win the popular vote nationwide.
The caucus system is a quaint relic at best and is statistically not democratic in 2008. The caucus is nothing more than a focus group whose participants more likely are extremists with too much time on their hands.
Suffice it to say the unconditional Obama supporters will dispute that notion and dismiss the very same argument they embrace when it serves the interests of their leader.
I am by no means an unconditional Clinton supporter. My support is more in line with that of the NYT's editorial board, which was circumspect.
I live in a hip, deep blue state and do NOT have to vote for the Democrats. On a purely selfish level, the GOP's agenda serves my interests best.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
Very interesting.
So who would be winning if you had a national "one man one vote" system?
Hopefully, FL and MI will come up with the resources to conduct fresh primaries. We can all agree on one thing: with the race so close, the winner will need maximum legitimacy.
George Bush was the candidate of change or in his case; I think the phrase was doing this differently or something like that. In all fairness, he did bring about change in how the executive functions in the US. So he kept that campaign promise, it is an enitirely different matter that his change is universally despised.
GWB also completely failed to deliver on Social Security's partial privatization and the sorely needed simplification of the tax code, despite a servile Republican Congress.
His promise of doing things differently or whatever the slogan was; turned out to be correct. He has done things differently because none of his predecessors exhibited the obvious disregard for the constitution that he has. I think he had promised to be a uniter and not a divider and by the time the democrats took control of the Houses, he was way too down his chosen path to make that work.
I uniter, IMHO, cannot be bright blue or bright red, he or she has to be bright purple, on the average. Just because Li'l Bush painted us all bloody red does not mean that the American voters want to swing to the other extreme.
Because of Bill's past success as a man of the center, I would be more inclined to believe that Hillary would govern in the middle than for Barack to do so.
Today, their populist demogoguery sounds scary at times. The NAFTA affair was an eye-opener.
Thank you. Let's not forget that the Clinton's are not dividers as so many claim. Neither Bill nor Hillary supported NAFTA but took it up as a middle of the road issue. Same with don't ask don't tell. Bill wanted gays to openly serve but don't ask was a compromise.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,256
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 32,277
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Losing ground?
that's funny, last time I looked he's winning, the popular vote, delegate count and number of states won. As far as Super delegates, since Super Tuesday he has gained 42, his opponent has lost 6.
Please don't dismiss all Obama supporters in such a sweeping generalization.I find it personally insulting. I am very informed, have studied the platforms of both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama and have concluded that Senator Obama will make a better president. If that makes me an Obamamaniac in your mind, so be it.
that's funny, last time I looked he's winning, the popular vote, delegate count and number of states won. As far as Super delegates, since Super Tuesday he has gained 42, his opponent has lost 6.
Please don't dismiss all Obama supporters in such a sweeping generalization.I find it personally insulting. I am very informed, have studied the platforms of both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama and have concluded that Senator Obama will make a better president. If that makes me an Obamamaniac in your mind, so be it.
He's gonna win Mississippi and then what the hell are you all gonna do then, Keep complaining? Hillary is OUT... the only thing that can save her is if she starts getting even DIRTIER and stoops to the blackmailing of the Super delegates like we all know she wants to.
She cannot beat John McCain, it's as simple as that.
She cannot beat John McCain, it's as simple as that.
D_Kaye Throttlebottom
Experimental Member
Losing ground?
He won the majority of Delegate Votes in Texas. There were 2 primaries in Texas, Hillary won ONE primary race, she lost the Texas Caucus primary and Obama got more delegate votes out of Texas than Hillary did, so technically Obama won Texas.
Obama just won Wyoming on Saturday and will likely take Mississippi, today. That doesn't appear to be an indication of losing ground.
Also, several sources have pointed out flaws in what Hillary attributes as her experience. Even you get rid of her campaign tactics and look at her platform, I don't think her idea of Universal healthcare will be a better solution. Healthcare needs a major overhaul, HMOs have done more to harm than help, but a universal healthcare option only looks good because it works for the select few that have it. When it's opened to everyone you have a healthcare system that works on days. Monday is ob/gyn day, Tuesday is respitory/throat day and Wednesday is cardiovascular health day. I've seen in it Europe. Universal, government controlled health care would affect the quality of care and you'd wait a longer time to get an operation as a result. I think it needs to be more affordable for consumers, not more affordable for HMOs to make money off of it as a business.
I'm for Obama, because the one issue that I believe Hillary to have the most insight and expertise, has a solution that I don't agree with. The rest of her claims about foreign policy and how she is better than Obama, I open up for critique, because she is the one making that claim that she is more experienced. I've examined her record, and there is no evidence to support her claims. She's been a supporter, but she did not negotiate and she did not sit in on policy. Support is not POLICY.
Yes,,losing ground. Hillary was Expected tp LOSE to Obama in Texas and was virtually tied in Ohio and she won Texas and had an impressive win in Ohio. Let Obama win these meaningless states like Wyoming. Alaska, Mississippi,,it means nothing. Those states will go Republican in the general election anyway. Hillary has won all the states a democratic candidate traditionally nees to win in the general election to be President, and Barrack has won ONE..Illinois,,wow thats a surprise. Maybe he can get Oprah to broker a deal for Florida and Michigan.
Wow, he's going to win Mississippi!! There is a bellweather state! They always say,,,watch Mississsippi! Yeah the way Mississippi goes is an indication of how the country goes. Its only as republican as God nows what! LOL
There's no denying that. :crying:
Hard to believe, but true. "Is our children learning?"
"Was expected" -- by whom? I only heard commentators saying "Maybe, maybe not." Mrs. Clinton started out with a big lead in Texas, which shrank steadily up till the primary. The fact that Obama did not gain enough ground to beat her in the end does not support your claim that he is losing ground.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,256
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 32,277
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I see you got the "talking points" on which states "count"....Did you know, in all of the "Big" states like california and new york, Senator Obama still received more votes than Senator mcCain did in the republican primary. Do you truly believe that the BIG states like California, New york, New Jersey etc. will actually vote republican if Obama is the candidate?....so why exactly are you supporting Hillary Cinton.....what issue or position of hers do you prefer to senator obama?
Let Stephen Colbert explain it:
Size Matters | The Colbert Report | Comedy Central
and fyi......as little as 2 weeks before Texas and Ohio, Senator clinton was leading by over 20 points in each state......she won the texas Primary by 4% and the Ohio primary by 10%...she Lost the Texas Caucus 61%-38%...sounds like senator Obama is doing just fine for himself
invisibleman
Loved Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Posts
- 9,816
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 513
- Points
- 303
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
