• comment on a post Could Clinton or Edwards have beaten Obama in Iowa? over 5 years ago

    I don't think there was anything Edwards could do to improve his standing in Iowa.  And based on the absolute disaster it would have been to nominate him, I think we Democrats should be thankful that was the case.  

    He had campaigned in the state for years, he had a definite following among those who supported him over Kerry in 2004, and his message was known by most Iowans.. but it didn't resonate.  I believe this was primarily due to his authenticity problem; his message was concern for the 'little guy', spoken by the mouth of a lifelong 'big guy'.  

    Hillary, on the other hand, could easily have won Iowa.. upsets happen because the favorite underestimates the underdog.  Once she began taking him seriously, she did win just about every state with a Democratic machine and a low African-American population.  She really had two options..

    1.  She could have started the opposition research on Obama very early, and those sharp drops in his popularity after some of the more interesting associations came to light would have been at a time that would have sent Obama's campaign straight to the bottom of the primary ocean.  In reality, she started this assault at a time when her gains didn't really help her regain the type of commanding lead she was given at the beginning.  If her attacks had been made very close to the start of the Iowa caucus.. he might never have recovered.

    2.  Another option, more Clintonian.. subtly prop up Edwards behind the scenes, helping him win Iowa where he was 'expected' to do well.  In a caucus setting, this would not have been difficult to do.  An Edwards win in Iowa would send Obama in search of a victory without anything resembling momentum.. Edwards would have been eating up the news cycle.  When the primary shifted east.. Clinton would have destroyed Edwards, Obama would be the 'unlikely' candidate, and the coronation would be complete.

  • comment on a post Men Men Men ! over 6 years ago

    It's a simple choice, without bringing gender or age into it at all.

    Vote for Obama, or live with McCain.  

    If that isn't enough of an argument for you, then enjoy your McBlog points!  I understand they are offering a lovely lime-green golf visor with the motto "A changing leader you can believe will work for America's lobbyists."

    Or something like that.

  • on a comment on Kos has Obama Birth Certificate over 6 years ago

    Actually, that would be an inference, not a fact.  

    You may wish to assume that the people responsible for the ad did not intentionally make him look darker.  However, even a reasonable explanation as to how it could have unintentionally happen doesn't prove it was, in fact, unintentional.

  • comment on a post No Wonder They Fear Us! over 6 years ago

    It is telling to me that every attack on the appropriateness of gay marriage either involves circular arguments ("it's wrong because it's wrong") or raving hypotheticals about of all the other things that will somehow have to be legalized, too.

    When no one can actually argue against the specific effects of a bill, it's only a matter of time until it happens.

  • comment on a post Obama VP Vetter Jim Johnson Steps Down over 6 years ago

    Rounding down from .0001% to 0%.. No One Cares.

  • on a comment on Hillaryis44 over 6 years ago

    I think it is time Obama supporters owned up to a tendency to describe Hillary supporters as racists, trolls, haters, liers and etc.

    ..

    In part because of all the hate and vitriol Obama supporters heap on Hill supporters.

    Oh, and this is just classic.  Same paragraph, even.

  • on a comment on Hillaryis44 over 6 years ago

    How would you know whether they were a Republican?  Certainly, all the Operation Chaos folks were supporting Hillary.  You don't think they know how to work one a them typewriters with the TV on it?  

  • Well, then, if the Chimp achieved peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.. what are you going on about?

    I mean, wow.. a resolution!  A few words followed by years of inaction.. that took care of the situation, right?  

  • comment on a post Hillaryis44 over 6 years ago

    P.S.  It's 'Barack'.

  • on a comment on Hillaryis44 over 6 years ago

    It was a great sadness to me that Obama supporters invaded that site and found the most virulent comments they could find to bring back here like cats with mice in their mouths. It was such a violation of our privacy and safety.

    So, virulent attacks on a Democrat were posted to Hillaryis44.org.. and the people who really should be ashamed of themselves are the people who exposed it?  It didn't exactly require catlike cunning to uncover them, either.. the administration of that site approved of such postings, as long as the target was Obama.

    If they wanted wanted privacy and safety.. the site should have been 'by approval' only.  But of course that wouldn't have satisfied the Republican participants desire to cast their net as widely as possible, using a few well-meaning Hillary supporters as their cover.  

  • The site is.. excuse me, at least 'was'.. dedicated to electing Democrats.  The Democratic nominee for President in 2008 is Barack Obama.  Anyone posting diaries that are designed to lessen the chances of an Obama victory in November are.. again, excuse me.. 'were'.. against the purpose of the site, and are therefore unwanted trolls.

    I admit.. Jerome doesn't make it easy to make blanket statements anymore.

  • Excellent conceptualization, since we're nearing the Olympics...

    Obama won the marathon.  Although he won't get the gold medal until the ceremony, the race is over.  

  • comment on a post I propose a truce. An Accord. Amnesty. over 6 years ago

    A good start.  I assume you'll feel the same way if Hillary is not selected for the VP slot?

    It's Obama's choice to make, no one else's.  

  • on a comment on On Kennedy - Goldwater Debates over 6 years ago

    I imagine the Republicans would prefer that every town hall meeting be 'moderated' by George Stephanopolous-Hannity (recently married in California).

    And if they take questions from the audience, why do I get the feeling a certain older Hillary supporter (last seen in D.C.) might get invited to every one..

  • on a comment on On Kennedy - Goldwater Debates over 6 years ago

    If you keep McCain talking long enough without a script, sooner or later he'll pronounce himself a staunch advocate of everything he was against at the beginning of the debate.

    I wonder if McCain will include a requirement that Joe Lieberman be allowed to make official corrections, when needed.  At least we'd know John's bearings would be well-maintained.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads