|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: Obama debate with Paul from Illinois
Hi Bart. Let's start with what we agree
on.
We both want the Dems to nominate the candidate
with the best chance of winning.
Now we must both admit that non-rational factors
play a significant role in our elections, like it or not.
I think that means you're an Obama fan.
Your view seems to be that Kerry and Gore failed
because they were wimpy and
would not fight back when attacked by the Repugnicans.
They got fewer votes
because a lot of people actually believed the
garbage that was tossed around them.
What else did they have in common? They
were stiff and wooden, not very charismatic.
When I look at Barack Obama, I see a candidate
with positions similar to Kerry and Gore.
But he also has charisma to burn, and is capable
of inspiring a broad variety of people.
That's possible, but we've seen no evidence of that.
When I look at Hillary Clinton, I don't see nearly as much emotional appeal.
So, Obama is a guy we'd like to have a beer with? Didn't we try that twice?
Clinton's negatives are well-known.
Yes, because she's beaten them twice, (four
times if you count Bill)
and she's not an unknown, absorbent entity
that people can project their hopes onto.
You have to give Obama some credit for bringing a lot of new voters into the Democratic fold.
That's possible, but we've seen no evidence of
that. Those extra voters might be
for Obama or
they might be "Get that Monkey out of office"
voters.
A lot of these new Dems are young people; can we afford to disappoint them?
Our goal isn't to make those kids happy. Our goal is getting rid of the Facsist bastards.
You say Barack should be the one to withdraw because
it was "assumed" Hillary would run in '08.
I'm sorry, but that is not the way we do things
in this country.
I never said that, but I can see how people with Obama-glasses might have thought they read that.
Your solution is one way out, but it is not the
only way.
Prolonging this race doesn't mean the Republicans
automatically win in November.
This war has to end soon because financially,
I'm operating on fumes.
People who enjoyed seeing a Democrat fight back
for 12 years now
expect me to lay down now like I'm some damn
senate Democrat.
This is only February, way too early to panic.
...unless one is out of money...
If I went with the crowd, I'd probably be rich
enough to retire by now.
Hillary should gracefully withdraw when it becomes clear Obama has more pledged delegates.
She's way ahead in TX and OH - if she wins those
states, are you going to say
"Obama should withdraw when Hillary has more
pledged delegates?"
If, as you say, she has been such an effective
Senator, think how much more effective she
will be with a Democrat in the White House.
If, on the other hand, she only entered the Senate
as a stepping stone to the highest office she
felt entitled to, well sorry, the best laid plans and all that.
Are you trying to be condescending and
insulting?
In the interests of party unity, I'm going to
let that shit slide.
You blame Obama for causing a rift by daring to challenge the wife of our last good president.
Wrong. Obama was 20-25 points behind and he needed
something BIG to shake up the race.
He found "something BIG" in Carolina and the
press joined in to make the Clintons racists.
I say you do not serve party unity when you paint all of us Obama supporters as mindless cultists.
Can you name something your guy stands for?
I can't.
What would you call walk-on-broken-glass enthusiasm
for a candidate shy on the issues?
I think people have needs and they look for someone
to fill them.
When they need someone to hate, they look for
Paris Hilton.
When they look for someone to love, they find
Obama.
That's OK with me, ...but aren't we picking the leader of the Free World here?
You have to at least admit the possibility the Barack will win this thing, outright
No doubt, that's a possibility.
Don't you think it is also possible that he could beat McCain?
Certainly that's possible, but why send the new
guy into the knife fight?
Wouldn't the math favor someone who'd been in
BIG fights before?
Why tick a whole bunch of us off by saying it
is completely impossible?
(That's how I interpret Barack as pony.)
You interpret wrong. The whole point of "the pony"
was wanting instead of needing.
A teenager WANTS a Mustang convertible with a
big engine, but what he NEEDS is
a four-door Focus so he can avoid paying $400
a month for insurance every month.
The only backing you seem to have for that is
a premonition of how voters will react
to attacks from the other side. This is
not going to be the same as 2004 or 2000,
it's going to be a whole new thing, and there
is good reason to hope it will also be better.
If you have a marginal poker hand, you can always
hope
the other guy has a worse hand, but why risk
it if you don't have to?
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog