• on a comment on Deadlock is Obama's Fault over 6 years ago

    as a wedge issue in an attempt to drive supportes away from Clinton.

    He also knew it would be the perfect distraction to keep voters from questioning his experience and engaging him in serious discussion of the issues.

    In the end, its brought so much animosity into the campaign that it no longer benefits him.

  • No, Clinton has the most support of Dem women voters.

  • comment on a post Obama can't have it both ways over 6 years ago

    Its the term that lobbyists on The Hill use to describe Obama.  He tells anyone he talks to exactly what they want to hear.  He stands for nothing more than the advancement of his own career.

    One of the more puzzling aspects of his campaign is the way in which some of his supporters label him as a "liberal".  There's absolutely nothing in his past record, thin as it is, to support that claim.  

    His policy agenda is ephemeral at best, happy sounding yet vague promises.  Conservatives and liberals alike can read what they wish into them. Great for attracting voters who are political impulse buyers and not experienced enough to look deeper.  

    His use of race is simply a tool for driving a wedge between Dem voters and distracting them from asking him hard questions about his policies and experience.  Clever marketing and salesmanship are not enough to make one a good president, especially in times of crisis.

    Clinton supporters are reluctant to voice support for Obama in the event he wins the nomination not because they dislike him, but because they don't trust him.  They don't know who he really is or what he really stands for.  They know his priorities have no strong foundation or core values, but instead are sands that shift according to who he wants to please, who he wants to control to enrich himself or advance his personal agenda.  In that respect, he is no more trustworthy than Bush.

  • Perhaps the difference is in having been around in those days.  Dem women who have a long history with Democratic politics and public policy have a more in-depth understanding of how to read candidates and their positions on the issues.  That's why most of us don't support Obama, he's too inexperienced and has a fairly weak agenda when it comes to issues most women care about.

    It takes a little experience to tell the real candidates from the used car salesmen.  Obama is the latter.

  • It seems the all testosterone, no substance Obama gang is taking over.

    Remember the old days when we debated fellow Democrats during the primaries?

  • Given the growing negative ratings of both candidates, I don't think the average voter is that emotionally invested in either Obama or Clinton.  

    A Gore candidacy might come as a big relief.

  • Agree, experience should be the top priority.  Many Clinton supporters are saying they won't support Obama, not because of personal identification but because he is not ready to serve due to lack of experience.  Even more bothersome is his inability to address it.   Ego alone does not make a good president.

  • Agree, Obama is not ready to be POTUS.  Eight years of Bush/GOP rule has left so much of our government in disarray, its going to take someone with experience and connections to fix it.

    Obama is not even close to being ready.

  • comment on a post Reagan Legal Council Endorses Obama over 6 years ago

    Obama is not a liberal, there is nothing in his policies or record to substantiate that claim.

    As for gaining support from Reagan acolytes, most would see that as a negative, not a positive endorsement.

  • His remarks make it evident he harbors a great deal of resentment against his own mother and the grandmother who raised him and paid for his education.  

    No doubt he grew up in a difficult environment as a half-black child raised by upper middle class white grandparents. His resentment and anger have been covered over, but not resolved.

    His comments reveal he is filled with latent hostility towards women, not the kind of leader we need.  We already have one POTUS with psychological problems, we don't need another.

  • Imagine how bad it will be if he uses it in the White House.  No thanks.

  • Sadly, you are still taking her comments out of context and mischaracterizing them as racist, which they obviously are not.

    What kind of Democrat vilifies a fellow Democrat by falsely accusing them of racism?  Not a very good one.

    It appears the Obama "racism" bandwagon is still going full speed ahead throwing good Dems under its wheels and remaining in denial about its own unfair exploitation of the issue.  

    Be careful, the bandwagon is headed for a cliff.

  • Ferraro already did as you suggest - restating the context of her remarks - many, many times.  But the "racism" bandwagon was already speeding ahead and no one would listen.  It was far too easy and advantageous for Obama and his supporters to keep calling her remarks "racist" even after she had given full explanation.

    His speech today continues in that same vein, lumping her into the same category as Rev. Wright.  Inexcusable.

    Obama apparently feels that attacking Ferraro is the most effective means of diverting attention away from the issue, while allowing him to fall back on the same, tired tactic of labeling anyone who challenges or questions him as a racist.

    What a disturbing prospect to consider - if Obama were to be elected president, no one would be able to question any decision he makes for fear his surrogates would find a way to label them as racists.  It would play as well as labeling someone "unpatriotic" or "helping the terrorists".  

  • Again, Obama's message is that white women are flawed and racist.  Sorry, but the subtle message he's sending there is wrong.  Sexism is as bad as racism, and Obama needs to either realize he's guilty of it or apologize to women voters for making that inference.

  • Agree, the problem exists, not just in the campaigns but in the news media covering them.

    And the problem is exacerbated when one campaign seeks to equate the racist rantings of a pastor with legitimate concerns expressed by Clinton supporters re unfair media coverage.  


Advertise Blogads