Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
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 -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

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?

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .