• on a comment on Obama's Army Reports For Duty over 5 years ago

    The GOP is salivating at the idea of a bunch of kids in birkenstocks showing up in suburbia, just scaring people more than they already are....Mrs.Obama, with her many grim and depressing speeches, has already turned people off and made them uneasy. The "Obama Army" will complete the task.

    What middle America wants--and will vote for--is people who look and think like us.

  • on a comment on Obama's Army Reports For Duty over 5 years ago

    once the GOP goes to work on Obama, and "Michelle"? Four years ago, I was told by Kerry partisans that the Swift Boat stuff was old news, and that America had moved beyond that! It would make no difference...Bob Shrum decided that it would be best to "stay above the fray".

    The sight of a black minister shrieking "God Damn America"....which then pans to a picture of the Democratic nominee with his arm around said minister....is what GOP consultants describe as a "Gold Mine". Kerry slinging his medals over the White House fence happened 30 years ago...this Rev.Wright stuff is current.

    So...to use the author's words...be afraid.

  • comment on a post Obama's Army Reports For Duty over 5 years ago

    The "Barack Bounce" is about 6-8 points, in most polls. If I were an Obama supporter, that's what I would be afraid about. Folks, think about it:

    --I grew up in the '70's, and can barely remember the Watergate Scandal. But most people would agree--based on special elections in LA, MS, and IL--that the GOP this year is in worse shape today than they were then. Between Iraq and the economy, this should be their worst nightmare.

    --The Republican nominee is a cross between Wilford Brimley and Colonel Sanders.

    --In years past (try 2004 and 1988), the Democratic nominee was up +15 points at this point in the cycle. With gas at $4 per gallon, this race shouldn't even be close.

    So instead of making silly remarks like "be afraid", ask why the presumptive Democratic nominee isn't showing signs of a blowout.

    In other words, maybe it's our Democratic Party that should "be afraid"....this is beginning to feel like the years when we had McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry as our nominees. If President Reagan were here today, he would just smile, shake his head, and then scold us, "there you go again".

  • That will limit the choices substantially...you've got quantity, but no real quality and/or heavy hitters:

    Claire McCaskill
    Sebelius
    Klobocahar
    Napolitano
    Tom Dashle (did a great job in the SD Primary!)
    Tim Johnson
    Bill Bradley
    Bob Casey (two wusses on the same ticket)
    Pat Leahy
    Bill Richardson
    Tim Kaine
    Jim Doyle (Governor of Wisconisn)
    John Kerry (OK, yes I AM kidding)

    Well, good luck.

  • You're missing the point, which is largely historical. Just because the nominee taps someone, doesn't mean they'll accept. In the example cited, McGovern asked Ed Muskie, HHH, Sarge Shriver, Ted Kennedy,Gaylord Nelson, and many others, to be his running mate. All declined...even more remarkable since they were fellow Senators. Frustrated, the McGovern campaign just dug up Eagleton--and the rest is history.

    Worth noting that once it came out that Eagleton had other problems (which he wasn't forthcoming about), Shriver stepped up to the plate--saving McGovern and the Democratic Party further embarrassment. And probably torpedoing his own political career for good.

  • because he has already told his fellow Senator that he has no interest in the spot. Honestly,it was a decent, and gentile way of telling Obama to get lost. While I have little regard for Senator Obama, I didn't appreciate Gov.Strickland dissing him in public, either. I believe gentlemen should show each other respect and civility, especially when they're involved in public service...and Senator Webb is clearly a gentleman.

  • 1) McCain favors ending this country's insane ethanol policy--a giveaway to Ag giants like Monsanto and ADM--which is contributing to world famine and the hyper-inflation in basic food commodities. And he did it BEFORE the Iowa Primary, as the talking heads questioned the sanity of a man who would risk his political future by offending the good people of Iowa. Somehow, the picture of food riots in countries like Indonesia and Haiti is something which bothers most people of conscience.

    2) McCain favors free trade, including the Colombia Trade Pact. This is a country which has done everything we've asked, in terms of tackling drug cartels and reducing its own tariffs. The response of Nancy Pelosi--doing the bidding of labor unions--was to scuttle the pact. Barack followed in lockstep, voted against the Pact, and was endorsed by the Teamsters the following day. Short-term political gain, long term damage to our country. Very few reputable economists argue against free trade--just people like Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan. Nice going, Barack.

    3) While the concept of "bringing us together" is a worthy objective, the actual practice is something different. Any man who would take two small children to Trinity United Church, which preaches a vitriolic "separatist" theology should have his head examined. At the very least, he is a hypocrite when he presents himself as one who will be a "uniter". Just as bad as the current fool who brags about being "the decider"!

    Is that enough?

  • If he caves to the pressure to put Hillary on the ticket, he'll be seen for the wuss that he is.

    If he doesn't, the Clintonistas (thank you, Senators Schumer and Feinstein) are going to riot, and Obama will be taken out and beaten like a rented mule.

    Barak is in a no-win position on this one, just as he is for the general election.

  • Starting with his wife. And then Jeremiah, and Father Phleger, and Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko...and suggesting that our flag was a "symbol of oppression".

    You have a lot of nerve suggesting the Clintons have baggage.

  • comment on a post Clinton Supporters Comes Out In Support of Obama over 5 years ago

    Ted Strickland couldn't have been more blunt about not joining this ill-fated effort. Jim Webb has privately told Obama the same thing, which I think was a more civilized way to go about it.

    This is starting to remind me of 1972: there was a reason why some obscure Senator from Missouri (with a known penchant for boozing and womanizing) ended up on McGovern's ticket. Nobody else wanted the job. And a cast of thousands had already turned him down.

  • "other" shoe to drop...it's more like following a centipede. I share your concern.

  • comment on a post Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? over 5 years ago

    Many of us who consider ourselves centrist Democrats were ready at one point to bolt, and vote for McCain. And it wasn't because Hillary Clinton lost; it was more about policy issues, like free trade. At this point, it looks like Obama is starting to see reason and tack towards the center:

    --In an interview with John Harwood of CNBC earlier this week, he said that he would consider shelving tax increases, should the economy still be in a slowdown come January 2009. That's a start, and a step in the right direction.
    --He's started wearing the American Flag lapel pin, which he once called a symbol of oppression. So again, he's starting to come around.
    --Word has it that the campaign is slapping a muzzle on Mrs. Obama, which is good. Life is depressing enough without having to hear her many grim speeches.

    The pragmatic center is a good place to be...Barack, welcome aboard. Now if he comes out in favor of increased exploration and drilling for energy, I'm there!

  • on a comment on The media is jonesing. over 5 years ago

  • comment on a post The media is jonesing. over 5 years ago

    I think he's still the best of political writers, and is a true journalist--whereas people like Olberman, Russert (now 400 lbs. and sporting five or six chins), and Chris Mathews are just mindless talking heads, no better than Lou Dobbs or Bill O'Reilly. When I'm watching TV, I'll usually turn to either Bloomberg or CNBC if I want something unbiased--even though the content is primarily financial.

    Broder had a great column which appeared in most places last Thurs. (6/5). He noted that essentially, Obama backed into the nomination, and suggested that this was a combination of laziness and gutlessness. In a separate column which appeared roughly 3 weeks earlier, he knocked down comparisons of BO to JFK, noting that Kennedy took the 1960 nomination battle to West Virginia, even though he was a heavy underdog to Hubert Humphrey. This enabled him to actually meet and talk with working people--something Obama refuses to do. And Kennedy won there, ensuring general election success in the state.

    To your question, the media is in for a bigger commupeance that Barack. They've refused to discuss in any real depth stories such as Obama's "underperforming" the polls--fairly dramatic in NH and CA. In NH, he was up by 13 points on election eve. In CA, Zogby had him up 49-36% on primary election eve; he lost the next day by double digits.

    "Pretend" pollsters like this guy Bill Schneider on CNN repeatedly tell us that this phenomenon doesn't really exist. Come November, it will be fun to watch these fools explain away Obama's loss: the question the public can then legitimately ask them is, "How did you miss this story?"  There won't be as many excuses as existed when Truman upset Dewey. It will be fun to watch them squirm. After that, I expect that public viewership of these so-called "news outlets" will decline even more, and the movement to online news sources will continue to accelerate.

  • on a comment on Those who supported Hill... over 5 years ago

    I made that much trading AAPL call options last year before they launched the i-phone. And you bring it up because.......

    People of breeding don't talk salaries, people who've accomplished things don't have to.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads