The New Jimmy Carter

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Those people who are pursaded about associations between Obama and Jimmy Carter are never going to vote for Obama in the first place.

As for everybody else, we don't care.

Yep. The Republican pundits know that what they are facing is closer in reality to the 2000 election - Al Gore represented the incumbant party and in spite of a strong economy and a time of piece, lost (or won depending on who you ask). The incumbant party always is at a disadvantage no matter what two candidates are running. Add to that the lowest approval rating of a sitting President in over 60 years, and economy that's tanking, and an endless war that is costing the American taxpayers trillians of dollars. Regardless of what anybody's political ideology is - the cards are stacked against the incumbant Party - the Republicans.

This is their election to lose and they know it. They've had 8 years to show the American voters what kind of direction they envisioned for this country (Tax cuts for the wealthy, pre-emptive war, Patriot Act, torture, an Energy Policy that puts money in the pockets of Big Oil) and the American voters have already responded overwhelmingly in the polls that they want a change in course.

This is true - but only if the opposition candidate is able to sway the independents. This is kind of why Clinton had a pretty good chance because her political credentials are quite well established. What we saw in 2004 was essentially "better the devil you know". In all honesty I think Obama has a lot to prove to convince the public that he can deliver more than the status quo.

What I'm inclined to think at this point is that McCain will probably win - albeit with a very small margin.

Not really. Dubbya ran on 'change' in 2000 and it worked. He won in spite of being a hack of a CEO who rose to governorship at the right time. He had little experience and definitely zero foreign experience, but he stuck on message and that message was - "The American people are tired of the shenanigans inside the Oval Office. They want a leader with a strong moral compass and a strong sense of family values." The Clintons were regarded as some kind of Bohemian couple where Hillary seemingly puts up with her husband's continous infidelity because they have no moral compass. The message was clear and simple - change, which makes it ironic that so many are critical of the same basic message Obama is making. They both represented change - just two very different directions of change for this country.

Edited June 7, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Those people who are pursaded about associations between Obama and Jimmy Carter are never going to vote for Obama in the first place.

As for everybody else, we don't care.

Yep. The Republican pundits know that what they are facing is closer in reality to the 2000 election - Al Gore represented the incumbant party and in spite of a strong economy and a time of piece, lost (or won depending on who you ask). The incumbant party always is at a disadvantage no matter what two candidates are running. Add to that the lowest approval rating of a sitting President in over 60 years, and economy that's tanking, and an endless war that is costing the American taxpayers trillians of dollars. Regardless of what anybody's political ideology is - the cards are stacked against the incumbant Party - the Republicans.

This is their election to lose and they know it. They've had 8 years to show the American voters what kind of direction they envisioned for this country (Tax cuts for the wealthy, pre-emptive war, Patriot Act, torture, an Energy Policy that puts money in the pockets of Big Oil) and the American voters have already responded overwhelmingly in the polls that they want a change in course.

This is true - but only if the opposition candidate is able to sway the independents. This is kind of why Clinton had a pretty good chance because her political credentials are quite well established. What we saw in 2004 was essentially "better the devil you know". In all honesty I think Obama has a lot to prove to convince the public that he can deliver more than the status quo.

What I'm inclined to think at this point is that McCain will probably win - albeit with a very small margin.

Not really. Dubbya ran on 'change' in 2000 and it worked. He won in spite of being a hack of a CEO who rose to governorship at the right time. He had little experience and definitely zero foreign experience, but he stuck on message and that message was - "The American people are tired of the shenanigans inside the Oval Office. They want a leader with a strong moral compass and a strong sense of family values." The Clintons were regarded as some kind of Bohemian couple where Hillary seemingly puts up with her husband's continous infidelity because they have no moral compass. The message was clear and simple - change, which makes it ironic that so many are critical of the same basic message Obama is making. They both represented change - just two very different directions of change for this country.

Right but Bush barely won in 2000 - they had to take it to the Supreme Court for a decision. If the consensus against Clinton was so across the board negative Bush would have won with a wider margin. Image will only get you so far - there are a lot of people out there who will vote on what they think the candidate can realistically deliver.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Right but Bush barely won in 2000 - they had to take it to the Supreme Court for a decision. If the consensus against Clinton was so across the board negative Bush would have won with a wider margin. Image will only get you so far - there are a lot of people out there who will vote on what they think the candidate can realistically deliver.

Which goes back to my earlier post - there are certain variables that help predict fairly accurately which Party will win the White House - incumbancy (neg), President's approval rating, economy, unemployment, etc. Whether it is fair to tack those onto either candidate, that's the reality of how fickle voters can be. In spite of all the ideological demogoguery that gets plastered in here in OT by a select few ideologues, most American voters are not that one dimensional. It's easy to become cynical to the process, but people are flexible in their views and are willing to ditch one view for another when the other one appears to have failed them...at least most people are that way.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Right but Bush barely won in 2000 - they had to take it to the Supreme Court for a decision. If the consensus against Clinton was so across the board negative Bush would have won with a wider margin. Image will only get you so far - there are a lot of people out there who will vote on what they think the candidate can realistically deliver.

Which goes back to my earlier post - there are certain variables that help predict fairly accurately which Party will win the White House - incumbancy (neg), President's approval rating, economy, unemployment, etc. Whether it is fair to tack those onto either candidate, that's the reality of how fickle voters can be. In spite of all the ideological demogoguery that gets plastered in here in OT by a select few ideologues, most American voters are not that one dimensional. It's easy to become cynical to the process, but people are flexible in their views and are willing to ditch one view for another when the other one appears to have failed them...at least most people are that way.

Right - but as I say image manipulation will only get you so far. There's got to be some substance to hold people's interest beyond the guy's charisma.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Right but Bush barely won in 2000 - they had to take it to the Supreme Court for a decision. If the consensus against Clinton was so across the board negative Bush would have won with a wider margin. Image will only get you so far - there are a lot of people out there who will vote on what they think the candidate can realistically deliver.

Which goes back to my earlier post - there are certain variables that help predict fairly accurately which Party will win the White House - incumbancy (neg), President's approval rating, economy, unemployment, etc. Whether it is fair to tack those onto either candidate, that's the reality of how fickle voters can be. In spite of all the ideological demogoguery that gets plastered in here in OT by a select few ideologues, most American voters are not that one dimensional. It's easy to become cynical to the process, but people are flexible in their views and are willing to ditch one view for another when the other one appears to have failed them...at least most people are that way.

Right - but as I say image manipulation will only get you so far. There's got to be some substance to hold people's interest beyond the guy's charisma.

Imagine my Obama's supporter hat is off in this conversation. I wasn't suggesting that the outside party's candidate could rest on their laurels and just glide in. Obama's got a lot of obstacles to deal with - some which became apparent in the Primaries. For better or worse, we have a two party system which narrows the selection down to not only two candidates, but their respective party and that party's platform. I've been a voter since 1984 and in terms of candidates - the Democrats have one of the strongest candidates ever, whereas, McCain (whom I like in many ways), is one of the weakest Republican candidates....even his own Party begrudgingly accepted him as their nominee.

Edited June 7, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But what is it specifically that makes Obama such a strong candidate?

What is it that sets him above other candidates (past and present)?

Edited June 7, 2008 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But what is it specifically that makes Obama such a strong candidate?

What is it that sets him above other candidates (past and present)?

While people try to trivialize his oratory skills, historically, all the great Presidents in the past were great orators - Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK. As far as his views on issues - he's really no different from John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Also, while he is relatively new and some think of it as a liability, that was Dubbya's asset when he won in 2000...he ran as a Washington Outsider...which is kind of funny when look back at his tenure in office. Obama is running now as the outsider and one who is set to change the way things have been going in Washington. He wants to end the secrecy and bring about a government that is transparent and accountable. Just that alone will be a remarkable change for this country - an end to Cronyism and 'heckuva job, Brownie' appointees.

Edited June 7, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But what is it specifically that makes Obama such a strong candidate?

What is it that sets him above other candidates (past and present)?

While people try to trivialize his oratory skills, historically, all the great Presidents in the past were great orators - Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK. As far as his views on issues - he's really no different from John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Also, while he is relatively new and some think of it as a liability, that was Dubbya's asset when he won in 2000...he ran as a Washington Outsider...which is kind of funny when look back at his tenure in office. Obama is running now as the outsider and one who is set to change the way things have been going in Washington. He wants to end the secrecy and bring about a government that is transparent and accountable. Just that alone will be a remarkable change for this country - an end to Cronyism and 'heckuva job, Brownie' appointees.

But doesn't that go to what PH was saying elsewhere? - that for all the rhetoric about needing to take back Washington for the people - he doesn't seem to be offering a specific plan for achieving that. I get that he's presenting this as a selling point for his campaign, to not take lobbyist money - but that's not really transformative long term policy.

I get that he's a good orator, but so was Kerry - and his policy mandate wasn't significantly different to Obama. Minus the "change" of course.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But what is it specifically that makes Obama such a strong candidate?

What is it that sets him above other candidates (past and present)?

While people try to trivialize his oratory skills, historically, all the great Presidents in the past were great orators - Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK. As far as his views on issues - he's really no different from John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Also, while he is relatively new and some think of it as a liability, that was Dubbya's asset when he won in 2000...he ran as a Washington Outsider...which is kind of funny when look back at his tenure in office. Obama is running now as the outsider and one who is set to change the way things have been going in Washington. He wants to end the secrecy and bring about a government that is transparent and accountable. Just that alone will be a remarkable change for this country - an end to Cronyism and 'heckuva job, Brownie' appointees.

But doesn't that go to what PH was saying elsewhere? - that for all the rhetoric about needing to take back Washington for the people - he doesn't seem to be offering a specific plan for achieving that. I get that he's presenting this as a selling point for his campaign, to not take lobbyist money - but that's not really transformative long term policy.

I get that he's a good orator, but so was Kerry - and his policy mandate wasn't significantly different to Obama. Minus the "change" of course.

I'm not sure I follow you. I'm saying that we could swap out Obama for Hillary or Edwards, and we'd have the same essential candidate in terms of where he stands on the issues. The difference, particularly with Obama and Hillary was that his central message is change and hers was experience...which ultimately failed her. When it comes to political rhetoric, a message can be lost in the details - but that doesn't lessen or negate the sincerety behind that message. People will either believe he means to change things for the better or not, but the way our government is structured, the Executive Branch doesn't have unlimited powers - there is only so much that a President can or can't do. One major hurdle for the Democratic majority in Congress right now is Bush's veto power. The Democrats have put forward some very progressive legislation that would make big changes, but Bush has vetoed them down. With a Democrat in the White House, they will no longer have that legislation blocked.

Edited June 7, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But what is it specifically that makes Obama such a strong candidate?

What is it that sets him above other candidates (past and present)?

While people try to trivialize his oratory skills, historically, all the great Presidents in the past were great orators - Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK. As far as his views on issues - he's really no different from John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Also, while he is relatively new and some think of it as a liability, that was Dubbya's asset when he won in 2000...he ran as a Washington Outsider...which is kind of funny when look back at his tenure in office. Obama is running now as the outsider and one who is set to change the way things have been going in Washington. He wants to end the secrecy and bring about a government that is transparent and accountable. Just that alone will be a remarkable change for this country - an end to Cronyism and 'heckuva job, Brownie' appointees.

But doesn't that go to what PH was saying elsewhere? - that for all the rhetoric about needing to take back Washington for the people - he doesn't seem to be offering a specific plan for achieving that. I get that he's presenting this as a selling point for his campaign, to not take lobbyist money - but that's not really transformative long term policy.

I get that he's a good orator, but so was Kerry - and his policy mandate wasn't significantly different to Obama. Minus the "change" of course.

I'm not sure I follow you. I'm saying that we could swap out Obama for Hillary or Edwards, and we'd have the same essential candidate in terms of where he stands on the issues. The difference, particularly with Obama and Hillary was that his central message is change and hers was experience...which ultimately failed her. When it comes to political rhetoric, a message can be lost in the details - but that doesn't lessen or negate the sincerety behind that message. People will either believe he means to change things for the better or not, but the way our government is structured, the Executive Branch doesn't have unlimited powers - there is only so much that a President can or can't do. One major hurdle for the Democratic majority in Congress right now is Bush's veto power. The Democrats have put forward some very progressive legislation that would make big changes, but Bush has vetoed them down. With a Democrat in the White House, they will no longer have that legislation blocked.

What I mean is - if change is the focus of Obama's campaign, what exactly is the focus of that change and what is his plan to bring it about?

[alienlovechild 75]

This to be one of the better threads I've read that had more than just cut and paste wars with one sentence responses about the other guy's mother. You guys aren't dumb as I thought.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This to be one of the better threads I've read that had more than just cut and paste wars with one sentence responses about the other guy's mother. You guys aren't dumb as I thought.

Glad you're impressed Would you care to weigh-in?

[zqt3344 21]

Ahhhh, Seek the truth and it shall set you free! Finally someone is starting to ask and ponder just what is all this change Mr Ovomit is talking about. It is time we all stop giving this guy a free pass and start investigating and asking some real hard serious questions of him and his minions and demanding serious straight truth answers, instead of general buzz words he uses which are nothing more than any other previous Washington DC politician!

But what is it specifically that makes Obama such a strong candidate?

What is it that sets him above other candidates (past and present)?

While people try to trivialize his oratory skills, historically, all the great Presidents in the past were great orators - Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK. As far as his views on issues - he's really no different from John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Also, while he is relatively new and some think of it as a liability, that was Dubbya's asset when he won in 2000...he ran as a Washington Outsider...which is kind of funny when look back at his tenure in office. Obama is running now as the outsider and one who is set to change the way things have been going in Washington. He wants to end the secrecy and bring about a government that is transparent and accountable. Just that alone will be a remarkable change for this country - an end to Cronyism and 'heckuva job, Brownie' appointees.

But doesn't that go to what PH was saying elsewhere? - that for all the rhetoric about needing to take back Washington for the people - he doesn't seem to be offering a specific plan for achieving that. I get that he's presenting this as a selling point for his campaign, to not take lobbyist money - but that's not really transformative long term policy.

I get that he's a good orator, but so was Kerry - and his policy mandate wasn't significantly different to Obama. Minus the "change" of course.

I'm not sure I follow you. I'm saying that we could swap out Obama for Hillary or Edwards, and we'd have the same essential candidate in terms of where he stands on the issues. The difference, particularly with Obama and Hillary was that his central message is change and hers was experience...which ultimately failed her. When it comes to political rhetoric, a message can be lost in the details - but that doesn't lessen or negate the sincerety behind that message. People will either believe he means to change things for the better or not, but the way our government is structured, the Executive Branch doesn't have unlimited powers - there is only so much that a President can or can't do. One major hurdle for the Democratic majority in Congress right now is Bush's veto power. The Democrats have put forward some very progressive legislation that would make big changes, but Bush has vetoed them down. With a Democrat in the White House, they will no longer have that legislation blocked.

What I mean is - if change is the focus of Obama's campaign, what exactly is the focus of that change and what is his plan to bring it about?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ahhhh, Seek the truth and it shall set you free! Finally someone is starting to ask and ponder just what is all this change Mr Ovomit is talking about. It is time we all stop giving this guy a free pass and start investigating and asking some real hard serious questions of him and his minions and demanding serious straight truth answers, instead of general buzz words he uses which are nothing more than any other previous Washington DC politician!

"Finally" eh?

Guess you haven't been around very long have you

The irony here is that you don't want to ask any questions either as much as trot out unsubstantiated diatribes about what an a$$hole you think Obama is. But never mind eh - I'm sure if you say Ovomit enough times, it might catch on.

I can't see it myself. Unfortunately.

[zqt3344 21]

The truth shall set you free! Admit you cannot handle the truth, you choose to bury your head in the sand and look past glaring problems with Ovamit. That is the true irony here.

Ahhhh, Seek the truth and it shall set you free! Finally someone is starting to ask and ponder just what is all this change Mr Ovomit is talking about. It is time we all stop giving this guy a free pass and start investigating and asking some real hard serious questions of him and his minions and demanding serious straight truth answers, instead of general buzz words he uses which are nothing more than any other previous Washington DC politician!

"Finally" eh?

Guess you haven't been around very long have you

The irony here is that you don't want to ask any questions either as much as trot out unsubstantiated diatribes about what an a$$hole you think Obama is. But never mind eh - I'm sure if you say Ovomit enough times, it might catch on.

I can't see it myself. Unfortunately.