|
|
Post by anonymousperson on Jul 13, 2008 23:42:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 14, 2008 10:29:57 GMT -5
things will change come november. ever hear of the "wilder effect?"
google it. people who claim to be for obama in public will vote their conscious and pull the handle for mccain when it counts.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jul 14, 2008 16:19:57 GMT -5
There's only one poll that counts. All the rest are guesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jul 14, 2008 16:38:24 GMT -5
I'm actually surprised that the LA Times couldn't manufacture at least a double digit lead for Obama in California. I'm certain that McCain has no chance at even coming close to winning the Golden State, but the slim (and getting slimmer) numbers in Obama's favor indicate (to me anyway) that there is a good deal of unease out in the real world (the one outside of the Bay Area) with Obama.
And maybe a good deal of buyer's remorse.
At this point, it's Obama's election to lose. Now we just have to sit back and see how he accomplishes that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 14, 2008 21:18:21 GMT -5
Yes, the reality will hit home when people must remember where we are now and if we still want to stay the same route. It is just hype right now regarding the run to the election in November.
Frankly, I don't see how Mccain can even come close.....
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jul 15, 2008 13:00:58 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't see how Mccain can even come close..... Mink, you missed what Big Dog said: the election is Obama's to lose. As more and more of the general population get a look at where this candidate really stands, if he really stands for anything, they are starting to think that McCain can't be that bad. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 15, 2008 13:21:35 GMT -5
I don't think you're correct jgaffney. What's happening is that the Republicans smear tactics (as illustrated by the New Yorker cover) are beginning to have an effect on the many naive voters across our country who also fell for the "swiftboating" of John Kerry in 2004. I'm actually happy to see this because I think it will force Obama to work and earn the election through debates rather than sit back and play it safe. I'm confident he will wipe the floor with McCain in the debates.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jul 15, 2008 13:29:59 GMT -5
I don't think you're correct jgaffney. What's happening is that the Republicans smear tactics (as illustrated by the New Yorker cover) are beginning to have an effect on the many naive voters across our country who also fell for the "swiftboating" of John Kerry in 2004. AH HAHAHAHAHAHA! Saunterelle, you are truely amazing. No wonder you get smited (smote?) so often. Did you miss the part where the liberal editors of the New Yorker backpeddaled furiously, trying to explain away the cover? While the rest of us are trying to discuss issues, the Democrats, as personified by you, focus on the smears, instead of answering the issues. Should we instead resond to the attempted smears from the Left, where McCain's prisoner of war time is questioned, or his wife is attacked? The "many naive voters" who read the New Yorker must be concentrated on the Left. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jul 15, 2008 14:45:14 GMT -5
Yes, the reality will hit home when people must remember where we are now and if we still want to stay the same route. It is just hype right now regarding the run to the election in November. Frankly, I don't see how Mccain can even come close..... Back in 1972, when Nixon beat George McGovern in a 49 state to 1 landslide the eminent film critic (and die hard leftist) Pauline Kael opined... Now while I don't necessarily expect a massive McCain landslide, I still think that, given the current polling, that it is Obama's race to lose and that McCain is most certainly within striking distance. If the Obama campaign, and the candidate himself, continues to mis-step and mis-speak as much as they have so far... and the Democrats continue to offer nothing more than viturperative attacks on a termed out President as their platform, I think it quite possible that we could look in here on the morning of November 5th and find Mink writing the same thing that Ms. Kael did all those years ago.  |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 15, 2008 14:54:51 GMT -5
I think you missed my point. The New Yorker cover was intended to be satire but it wasn't received as such. The reason it was so infuriating to liberals is because many Americans believe these lies that are spewed forth by the Right. 1 in 10 Americans still believe Obama is Muslim, even after the Rev. Wright controversy! Fox News just perpetuates the problem. And you think "the rest of us are trying to discuss issues?" Have you looked at the Obama thread lately? It continuously attacks his middle name. How are you trying to discuss the issues with that kind of childish character assassination?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jul 15, 2008 14:56:01 GMT -5
As to the New Yorker cover... Mr. Obama should be careful not to protest too much. One must remember that at the core of every bit of satire there must be an element of truth. Mr. Obama's early education in an out of country madrassa, his wife's emminently clear record of radical left activities and writings, not to mention their associations with the likes of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. But taken in context, the cover is a lovely bit of very hard edged satire. Something I'd expect more from the National Lampoon than from the New Yorker.
As to Saunterelle's assertion of a "Republican smear tactic"... are you bleeping kidding me? The New Yorker is one of the most left leaning publications in the mainstream employing such committed leftists as Seymour Hersh, who has at times not been averse to making it up out of whole cloth if it fit his agenda.
If anything I'd have suspected the Clinton hand in that cover, given that one would have to expect her "home town" magazine would be carrying her water, even at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 15, 2008 15:56:52 GMT -5
You're proving my point bigdog:
"Mr. Obama's early education in an out of country madrassa, his wife's emminently clear record of radical left activities and writings, not to mention their associations with the likes of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. "
You're obviously getting your information from Republican sources that are continuing the smear campaign against Obama.
Regarding a "madrassa:" All of the claims about Senator Obama’s faith and education that were raised in an Insight Magazine story and repeated on Fox News are false. Obama was raised in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother. Obama’s stepfather worked for a U.S. oil company, and sent his stepson to two years of Catholic school, as well as two years of public school.
To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa.
Regarding Michelle Obama's "radical writings:" As for the content of Michelle Obama's thesis, the Daily Princetonian summarized it thusly:
Obama, who concentrated in sociology and received a certificate in African-American studies, examined how the attitudes of black alumni have changed over the course of their time at the University. "Will they become more or less motivated to benefit the Black community?" Obama wrote in her thesis.
After surveying 89 black graduates, Obama concluded that attending the University as an undergraduate decreased the extent to which black alumni identified with the black community as a whole.
Obama drew on her personal experiences as an example.
"As I enter my final year at Princeton, I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates — acceptance to a prestigious graduate school or a high-paying position in a successful corporation," she wrote, citing the University’s conservative values as a likely cause.
"Predominately White universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the White students comprising the bulk of their enrollments," she said, noting the small size of the African-American studies department and that there were only five black tenured professors at the University across all departments.
Obama studied the attitudes of black Princeton alumni to determine what effect their time at Princeton had on their identification with the black community. "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before," she wrote in her introduction. "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."
Much scrutiny and discussion has been focused on a single phrase contained within the thesis, the statement that "blacks must join in solidarity to combat a white oppressor." This phrase has repeatedly been quoted out of context and presented as if it reflected Michelle Obama's own philosophy, but in its full context it is clearly her speculation about what she thought some of the respondents she surveyed for her thesis (i.e., students who had attended Princeton in earlier years) might have been feeling:
As discussed earlier, most respondents were attending Princeton during the 70's, at a time when the Black Power Movement was still influencing the attitudes of many Blacks.
It is possible that Black individuals either chose to or felt pressure to come together with other Blacks on campus because of the belief that Blacks must join in solidarity to combat a White oppressor. As the few blacks in a white environment it is understandable that respondents might have felt a need to look out for one another.
And you've clearly missed my point about the New Yorker cover. I know it is a liberal magazine and that's why it was meant as satire. They felt comfortable printing it because of the ridiculousness of the accusations against the Obamas. It didn't go over well because so many people, like you, actually believe that these are legitimate concerns about Obama even though the truth is evident for all to see.
|
|
