PDA

View Full Version : Elections HuffingtonPost Story..not good for Obama


HonestChieffan
08-05-2008, 10:54 AM
The Molten Core of Barack: Why Obama Can't Win
Posted August 4, 2008 | 09:11 PM (EST)




In which science-fiction movie do aliens visit the people of earth and insist, "Take me to your leader"? If they landed today, America's news media would direct them to Barack Obama, the first American to run a global campaign for President. Like Coca-Cola and Nike, brand Obama has gone global. His web-site retails a Wall-Mart sized inventory of candidate-themed winter and summer gear, though the well-dressed Obama enthusiast is advised he may have to wait one to two weeks to slip on the candidate-for-all seasons.


Obama returned from Europe triumphant. An America that yearns to regain the world's respect saw one foreign leader after another throw open their arms to the American President-in-waiting who arrived on his own Air Force One. Obama was not only treated with respect, he was received enthusiastically, a public affront to an administration, lest we forget, still in power. One way for the Illinois Senator to overcome doubts about his experience is to let Americans see him doing the job. That he did, making the world his stage, fitting the role of President comfortably and demonstrating presidential stature. Yet Obama's international success is only one wave of the storm that has been pounding John McCain's campaign.


McCain took another blow when Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki stamped the Good Housekeeping seal of approval on Obama's Iraq exit strategy. A real "mission accomplished" in Iraq is a political minus for McCain: If the war is done, why do we need a warrior President? It would be one of the great ironies of the election for McCain to be defeated by his own success in Iraq, the triumph of the surge strategy that he singly and doggedly championed. Yet John McCain may soon find himself in the position of buying the voters the tie they just got for Christmas: In the latest NBC/WSJ survey, the war in Iraq is no longer the most important election issue, plunging 14%. It is a success that allows the economy, not security, to take center stage, recalling the theme with which Labour deposed Churchill in July of 1945, "Victory In War Must Be Followed By A Prosperous Peace". That is not necessarily a plus for the candidate who declared "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." Perhaps Senator McCain is trying to lower our expectations.


Add the steepest drop in home prices in 20 years, the weakest auto sales in 15 years, gas prices that have tripled since the Bush Administration took office, the "lets-stay-in-bed" lack of enthusiasm among McCain's own voters who support him as "the lesser of two evils", and a president whose approval ratings have rocketed to one point above his all-time low, and this election should be slam dunk for the gangly, three-point jump shot artist once known as "Barry O'Bomber."


Could Barack Obama possibly get any luckier? It turns out, yes, he can. The caricature of everything wrong with the Republican party, the longest-serving, biggest-spending, pork-devouring Republican in Washington, Senator Ted Stevens, has been indicted on seven felony charges. A timely poster-boy for Republican corruption, he will be cooked publicly on his own clandestinely secured Viking grill.


Barack Obama should not have to hit a three-pointer to win this election. It should be a lay-up. Yet if Senator Obama is doing so well, why is he doing so poorly? And if John McCain is doing so poorly, why is he doing so well?


The Rasmussen Reports Daily Tracking has McCain down only 1%, 43% to Obama's 44%. Real Clear Politics National Average of surveys pegs McCain less than 3% behind, with Gallup showing it tied, and USA Today actually placing McCain ahead of Obama, 49% to 45%. CNN reports McCain is in a better position in Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin than he was a month ago and they have moved Minnesota toward McCain into the toss-up category. Give them credit, despite the occasional criticism from this McCain supporter and others, John McCain's maverick band of campaign warriors are keeping this race competitive and, yes, even winning a hand or two, in the face of the worst political environment Republicans could have envisioned and the best global media exposure any Democratic presidential candidate has managed. McCain's recent attacks have worked. McCain's attacks on Obama's tax increases, his elitism and celebrity, his canceled visit to wounded troops, as well as McCain's sharp response to Obama's imagined Republican racial attacks, all dumped cold-water on the Obama campaign, stunting momentum from his European swing and creating a Berlin backlash.


Despite the McCain campaign's effectiveness, however, the best campaign against Barack Obama is not being run by his opponent, but by Barack Obama. It is Obama's campaign that presents their candidate as an ever-changing work-in-progress. It is his own campaign that occludes our ability to know this man, depicting him as authentic as a pair of designer jeans.


To earn the Democratic nomination, as Fred Thompson points out, Obama ran as George McGovern without the experience, a left-of-center politician who would meet unconditionally with Iran, pull us precipitously out of Iraq, prohibit new drilling for oil, and grow big government in Washington by all but a trillion dollars. In his general election TV ad debut, however, Obama pirouetted like Baryshnikov. With a commercial Mike Huckabee could have run in a Republican primary, Obama now emphasizes his commitment to strong families and heartland values, "Accountability and self-reliance. Love of country. Working hard without making excuses." In this yet unwritten chapter of his next autobiography, Obama tells us he is the candidate of "welfare to work" who supports our troops and "cut taxes for working families." The shift in his political personae has been startling. Obama has moved right so far and so fast, he could end up McCain's Vice-Presidential pick.


General-election Obama now billboards his doubts about affirmative action. He has embraced the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption saying, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon...everything." He tells his party "Democrats are not for a bigger government." Oil drilling is a consideration. His FISA vote and abandonment of public campaign finance introduce us to an Obama of recent invention. And as he abandons his old identity for the new, breeding disenchantment among his formerly passionate left-of-center supporters and, equally, doubts among the center he courts, he risks becoming nothing at all, a candidate who is everything and nothing in the same moment. In one of the most powerful marketing books of the past few years, Authenticity, an exploration of our demand for what's real in an increasingly contrived world, authors Gilmore and Pine quote philosophy professor Crispin Sartwell about Al Gore. "Every attempt to regain authenticity," Crispin says, "only casts a new, infinitely repeated image through the hall of mirrors that is his political life and our media experience of that life." Those reflections set the authenticity of John McCain in high-relief. McCain has revealed himself to his core.

In the defining moment of his life, McCain was willing to give everything for one thing, and that one thing was his country. Contrast that with Obama, who has told America that he is "a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world." Obama is the talented salesman who seduced one state after another saying "Iowa, this is our moment," "Virginia, this is our moment," "Texas, this is our moment," and then tells Europe, "people of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment." How many times can Barack Obama sell the same moment to everyone, before he becomes Mel Brooks in "The Producers"? Who is Barack Obama? His campaign, as it reupholsters him before our eyes, says we can never know -- perhaps because Barack Obama does not know himself.


Dreams from My Father is a staggeringly beautiful book, lyrical, powerful and poetic. It is also the story of a man who has been many men, all named Barack Obama. In his own eyes, he is one race, but also another. He is an American, but also a Kenyan. He is from Hawaii and also the Kansas heartland. He is Harvard elite, then the Chicago streets. At times he decries the very clay from which he was made, only to remake himself again.


At each place and stage, as Barack Obama chronicles the chapters of his life, he tells us how he has re-invented himself, becoming the role he inhabits, though not falsely or in-authentically, like Bill Clinton. He actually seems to transform himself, becoming what must be next. He has been called distant, aloof and somewhat unapproachable, perhaps because we cannot approach what he does not have, a solid core. His soul seems to be molten and made up of dreams, which is at once breathtakingly inspiring and forbiddingly indeterminate. When this young man with the flowing, passionate core, when this candidate without the solid-center changes positions and transforms himself as we watch, it leaves Americans much more in doubt about who he is and how he would lead us. It also reveals an Obama of unapproachable arrogance and inestimable self-regard: He appears confident voters will appreciate his superiority regardless of where he journeys or what he becomes to meet his political ambitions.


John McCain is a complete and well-formed man. Barack Obama is completing himself. As he moves to fit what he perceives to be a right-of-center country, he distances himself from the simple and authentic passion of a young candidate who once pledged "Change We Can Believe In."


This is the trap Barack Obama has made for himself, the one he cannot escape, the one Hillary Clinton foresaw, the one that may doom him. The Obama campaign knows it too. In fear the dream is being lost drop-by-drop, they are going negative on John McCain. Maybe the aliens should ask to meet McCain, as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-castellanos/the-molten-core-of-barack_b_116904.html

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 10:59 AM
Uh oh, HUPO readers are probably lighting their torches as I write...

markk
08-05-2008, 11:03 AM
It also reveals an Obama of unapproachable arrogance [who] appears confident voters will appreciate his superiority regardless of where he journeys or what he becomes to meet his political ambitions.

well this place is a petri dish full of that

StcChief
08-05-2008, 11:04 AM
wow.. what's the term Peaked early?

jAZ
08-05-2008, 11:07 AM
Alex Castellanos is a Republican strategist and now a McCain media advisor, IIRC (was Romney's).

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 11:10 AM
Alex Castellanos is a Republican strategist.

Yes, that would explain his opinion based on the data he's analyzed. How does that change the data itself?

Ultra Peanut
08-05-2008, 11:17 AM
I love how the HuffPo is worthless garbage until a Republican strategist posts an article on there.

jAZ
08-05-2008, 11:21 AM
Yes, that would explain his opinion based on the data he's analyzed. How does that change the data itself?
You should just say "doh! I bit... my bad" and move on.

The "data" (ROFL at your intentional overselling of it) is two snapshot polls taken a the current moment. Taken a month ago, it would have carried identical weight and would have supported a completely opposite opinion.

Which means that this article, written by a Republican strategist advising the McCain campaign on media relations is entirely opinion. And any substance (or "data"... heh) has no greater value than anything rexcjake ever posted on Rudy's road to victory.

Like I said, just own up to being had and move on.

HC_Chief
08-05-2008, 11:36 AM
I love how the HuffPo is worthless garbage until a Republican strategist posts an article on there.

Nah, it's always worthless garbage. This flowery piece of drivel is no exception.

"which is at once breathtakingly inspiring and forbiddingly indeterminate"

JFC :rolleyes:

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 11:42 AM
Like I said, just own up to being had and move on.

Jaz, you are a smart person. I know you support NObama and have for months. I don't and so for me this is a matter of glass half full or half empty.

The fact that NObama has the second least popular POTUS, an economy on the brink, a war that is a questionable success after all of the resources invested, not to mention a media very receptive to HIM and he still hasn't carved out and kept more than a few point lead is VERY DANGEROUS for the Democrats.

You may not want to admit it but the race is close and if it's close in November it's going to McCain. Between the undecideds who previously chose late and chose Clinton and the corruption of the CONS fixin elections...

NObama is toast if he does not get a lead and GROW it. I don't think he can do it. Now you may say it's because I'm Republican strategist now but you would be mistaken. I don't have a horse in this race. I do have one that I felt would lose and cost the Dems the election though.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 01:51 PM
The fact that NObama has the second least popular POTUS, an economy on the brink, a war that is a questionable success after all of the resources invested, not to mention a media very receptive to HIM and he still hasn't carved out and kept more than a few point lead is VERY DANGEROUS for the Democrats.


You're a f*cking retard. The reason he doesn't have a huge lead is because of your ilk. You've made a concerted attempt to not debate the issues, mainly because your attacks on Obama are just as, if not more, fitting of two candidates you have supported this year. If the whackjobs on the left(far and middle) cared about voting on the issues as much as Republicans do, Obama would be up comfortably. So don't use that line of attack when you're actually part of the problem.

NewChief
08-05-2008, 01:56 PM
You're a f*cking retard. The reason he doesn't have a huge lead is because of your ilk. You've made a concerted attempt to not debate the issues, mainly because your attacks on Obama are just as, if not more, fitting of two candidates you have supported this year. If the whackjobs on the left(far and middle) cared about voting on the issues as much as Republicans do, Obama would be up comfortably. So don't use that line of attack when you're actually part of the problem.

:clap:

ROYC75
08-05-2008, 02:20 PM
You're a f*cking retard. The reason he doesn't have a huge lead is because of your ilk. You've made a concerted attempt to not debate the issues, mainly because your attacks on Obama are just as, if not more, fitting of two candidates you have supported this year. If the whackjobs on the left(far and middle) cared about voting on the issues as much as Republicans do, Obama would be up comfortably. So don't use that line of attack when you're actually part of the problem.

Last I seen there was not a written rule that says one must a president to elect . If your candidate is no longer in the race, you can either vote or pass on your vote.

Obama is loosing his lead, can he right the ship is unknown. The so called change he has in store is going to cost the taxpayers plenty of money, no other way to fund it.

Plus his move to the center and shifting his approach on ideas and plans have the conservative dems scratching their heads. The diehard mainstream dems will stand put, no matter how far off the wall his plan is or far fetched.

Again, I am disappointed in the choices we have ....... from what I see, we are screwed either way, which of the 2 is the lessor evil ? So far, I say McCain is, but I am not trilled about all of his plans as well.

No one president will get us out of this downward spiral the USA is in right now. 2 terms will not do it, nor 3 terms, it will take at least 15 years of change to get where we need to be.

markk
08-05-2008, 02:23 PM
I love how the HuffPo is worthless garbage until a Republican strategist posts an article on there.

they're columns. they are all judged on their worth individually. if one is well reasoned it's good. if another is not, it isn't.

it's not like this is a single media outlet creating all its own content under one banner that has proven it should be distrusted, like say the AP

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 02:50 PM
Last I seen there was not a written rule that says one must a president to elect . If your candidate is no longer in the race, you can either vote or pass on your vote.

She can do whatever she wants. There's just no passing off any of her criticisms as legitimate when there's little to no policy differences between Obama, Edwards, and Clinton AND the attacks she's leveled against Obama are just as, if not more, applicable to the other two candidates she would have no problem supporting.

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 04:27 PM
You're a f*cking retard. The reason he doesn't have a huge lead is because of your ilk. You've made a concerted attempt to not debate the issues, mainly because your attacks on Obama are just as, if not more, fitting of two candidates you have supported this year. If the whackjobs on the left(far and middle) cared about voting on the issues as much as Republicans do, Obama would be up comfortably. So don't use that line of attack when you're actually part of the problem.

I'm part of the problem that HE can't close the deal because I refuse to drink the Koolade?

And because I refuse to go along with the possible destruction of the Democatic party?

OK. I guess I'm doing something right then. :clap:

Garcia Bronco
08-05-2008, 04:30 PM
She can do whatever she wants. There's just no passing off any of her criticisms as legitimate when there's little to no policy differences between Obama, Edwards, and Clinton AND the attacks she's leveled against Obama are just as, if not more, applicable to the other two candidates she would have no problem supporting.


She just wanted a woman in the mix, just like certain people want a black man in the mix. Rotten people all of them.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 04:54 PM
She just wanted a woman in the mix.

No, she actually wanted John Edwards. Then she wanted Hillary(someone who she had previously said she'd never support).

She acts as if there's integrity behind the stands she takes, like they're principled in nature. If she had ever gone about laying out her reasoning in an intelligent fashion, I don't think anyone would really give her a hard time. The fact is she's never done that and when pressed about her criticisms, she tucks her tail between her legs and runs. In her time here she's done nothing but prove that issues come second to her stroking her own ego and being able to say "I told you so". I think that's part of what pisses her off about Obama. She contemplated hitching herself to his wagon early, but she thought it'd be pointless because he wasn't going to win the nomination(apparently Obama's time in the senate didn't matter then, though nor did Edwards, go figure). Now, instead of wanting to admit SHE was wrong about Obama, she's gone about trying to convince everyone else that THEY are wrong about Obama.

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 05:00 PM
She just wanted a woman in the mix, just like certain people want a black man in the mix. Rotten people all of them.

Actually, I was hoping Hillary wouldn't run and was rather convinced she shouldn't. Then when she did she ended up being the candidate that could beat McCain because she was the middle ground between he and NObama.

She was middle in age, in experience, and in political ideology. People might not have liked her but they knew what they were getting. That is where I ended up feeling she was the better option than NObama.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 05:07 PM
She was middle in age, in experience, and in political ideology. People might not have liked her but they knew what they were getting.

LMAO Yeah, Obama's just too liberal for you.

So you would've voted for Hillary over John Edwards?

Do you want me to bother digging up all your posts saying Obama was going to be too moderate as President and not liberal enough for your tastes? I already know you remember saying it countless times.

jAZ
08-05-2008, 05:13 PM
Jaz, you are a smart person. I know you support NObama and have for months. I don't and so for me this is a matter of glass half full or half empty.

The fact that NObama has the second least popular POTUS, an economy on the brink, a war that is a questionable success after all of the resources invested, not to mention a media very receptive to HIM and he still hasn't carved out and kept more than a few point lead is VERY DANGEROUS for the Democrats.

You may not want to admit it but the race is close and if it's close in November it's going to McCain. Between the undecideds who previously chose late and chose Clinton and the corruption of the CONS fixin elections...

NObama is toast if he does not get a lead and GROW it. I don't think he can do it. Now you may say it's because I'm Republican strategist now but you would be mistaken. I don't have a horse in this race. I do have one that I felt would lose and cost the Dems the election though.

1) None of that even challenges anything I've said. He's a Republican strategist, citing fleeting, volitile stats. You are taking it as gospel because you are cheerleading the Republcians this year, for whatever unimaginable reason you have.

2) I've supported Obama for far more than a few months, I started back when you supported him. Before he took it to Hillary in the primaries and pissed you off.

3) Despite your poor recollection, I've said repeatedly from day 1, even when Obama was at his peak... that this election will be close, just like every recent election. Your claims that I don't accept this is just utter garbage. I've been saying it longer than anyone on this board.

4) You do have a horse in this race. You are actively rooting against Obama. That's entirely your right. I defend that right. But that's a horse. You've become what you despise. With no real discernable explanation. Today it's "because I knew he'd lose". Before it's that he was too conservative. Before that he was a guy you championed. I don't know if you have any idea why you feel the way you do. But you have done a terrible job of explaining what

ChiefaRoo
08-05-2008, 05:54 PM
You're a f*cking retard. The reason he doesn't have a huge lead is because of your ilk. You've made a concerted attempt to not debate the issues, mainly because your attacks on Obama are just as, if not more, fitting of two candidates you have supported this year. If the whackjobs on the left(far and middle) cared about voting on the issues as much as Republicans do, Obama would be up comfortably. So don't use that line of attack when you're actually part of the problem.

You know what Holmezz your personal attack on MMI is completely uncalled for. If you have any manners at all you should apologize. She's entitled to her opinion and voice just as much as you are, afterall this is a free country and she can support anyone she wants. Who the f**k do you think you are anyway to say she should fall in line like a sheep just because she is a Democrat and Obama is a Democrat? You arrogant ass.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 06:07 PM
You know what Holmezz your personal attack on MMI is completely uncalled for. If you have any manners at all you should apologize. She's entitled to her opinion and voice just as much as you are, afterall this is a free country and she can support anyone she wants. Who the f**k do you think you are anyway to say she should fall in line like a sheep just because she is a Democrat and Obama is a Democrat? You arrogant ass.

CCW brought any and all personal attacks upon herself when she began and then continued posting her garbage anti-Obama threads, most of which were personal attacks against his supporters. She had been given ample opportunities to defend her stances and when she failed to, that's when it turned to personal bickering. And until she starts being intellectually honest, that's likely what it will continue to be.

ChiefaRoo
08-05-2008, 06:18 PM
Listen, MMI pisses me off with regularity and has political views that are nearly opposite of mine. That being said (and to paraphrase a famous American patriot and founder) I fully support and will defend her right to disagree with me. This country will certainly have lost its way if we insist that people vote a certain way just because the candidate nominated is from the same party as the one we generally support.

Lock step thinking is lazy and I would even go so far as to say it's Un-American. She wanted Hillary and if she wants to point out Obama's faults then power to her.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 06:30 PM
Listen, MMI pisses me off with regularity and has political views that are nearly opposite of mine. That being said (and to paraphrase a famous American patriot and founder) I fully support and will defend her right to disagree with me. This country will certainly have lost its way if we insist that people vote a certain way just because the candidate nominated is from the same party as the one we generally support.

I never f*cking said she had to vote for Obama and I'd rather she didn't. She can feel any way she wants. And just like she has every right to state her opinion, I have every right to point out the flaws in her opinion.

Lock step thinking is lazy and I would even go so far as to say it's Un-American. She wanted Hillary and if she wants to point out Obama's faults then power to her.

She didn't want Hillary. She said Hillary was the one candidate she COULDN'T support originally. So she supported John Edwards. Then Edwards gets bounced and as it's looking more and more like Obama is going to win, she starts backing Hillary. When pressed about what why can support Edwards and Clinton, but not Obama, she never points to policy differences(cause there are none) and the criticisms she does make(like time in the senate/liberalness) never bothered her in her support of the other candidates.

ChiefaRoo
08-05-2008, 06:38 PM
I never f*cking said she had to vote for Obama and I'd rather she didn't. She can feel any way she wants. And just like she has every right to state her opinion, I have every right to point out the flaws in her opinion.



She didn't want Hillary. She said Hillary was the one candidate she COULDN'T support originally. So she supported John Edwards. Then Edwards gets bounced and as it's looking more and more like Obama is going to win, she starts backing Hillary. When pressed about what why can support Edwards and Clinton, but not Obama, she never points to policy differences(cause there are none) and the criticisms she does make(like time in the senate/liberalness) never bothered her in her support of the other candidates.


"I never f*cking said she had to vote for Obama and I'd rather she didn't."

Ok good. Freedom of speech enthusiasts everywhere accept your apology.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 06:53 PM
Ok good. Freedom of speech enthusiasts everywhere accept your apology.

Perhaps you should take your beef up with CCW. She was all about "group-think" back in early February after Edwards dropped out:

Regardless of who he endorses if you are a Democrat you should support the nominee. That is what wins elections

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=179539&page=2

Now she's criticizing Obama for not being up enough in the polls when Democrats like her aren't supporting the nominee.

tiptap
08-05-2008, 10:03 PM
I'm part of the problem that HE can't close the deal because I refuse to drink the Koolade?

And because I refuse to go along with the possible destruction of the Democatic party?

OK. I guess I'm doing something right then. :clap:

I am with the rest of the left on line here. Your insistence upon the stated focus of electibility rather than issues makes your attacks at this point most suspect. Don't expect any other discussion from me with that being your focus.

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 10:30 PM
Perhaps you should take your beef up with CCW. She was all about "group-think" back in early February after Edwards dropped out:



http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=179539&page=2

Now she's criticizing Obama for not being up enough in the polls when Democrats like her aren't supporting the nominee.

Yes, and because I could not support him as the nominee and because I felt the Democrats have become a stinking pile of shit, I quit the party

If I were to have stayed a Democrat then I would have been compelled to support NOBama. I can't support him and/or the party anymore in it's current state.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 10:58 PM
Yes, and because I could not support him as the nominee and because I felt the Democrats have become a stinking pile of shit, I quit the party

If I were to have stayed a Democrat then I would have been compelled to support NOBama. I can't support him and/or the party anymore in it's current state.

LMAO

You would've supported the party if they had nominated Hillary. You were all for "supporting the nominee regardless of who it is" before Super Tuesday, when it looked like Hillary was still going to win. Then that changed and you flip-flopped.

SBK
08-05-2008, 11:03 PM
I don't think she means to but Denise really brings out the tolerant, enlightened and peace loving left doesn't she?

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 11:07 PM
I don't think she means to but Denise really brings out the tolerant, enlightened and peace loving left doesn't she?

It is quite amusing to see the left resorting to the exact same fuggin crap that they decried coming from the 'right' isn't it?

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 11:08 PM
LMAO

You would've supported the party if they had nominated Hillary. You were all for "supporting the nominee regardless of who it is" before Super Tuesday, when it looked like Hillary was still going to win. Then that changed and you flip-flopped.

You are right. That goes to show how much I do not and will not support NObama and how far I feel the party has fallen. I quit a party I had actively supported with my time and money for TWENTY SIX YEARS.

If that does not tell you how much I do not believe he should be POTUS then I do not know what will.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 11:12 PM
It is quite amusing to see the left resorting to the exact same fuggin crap that they decried coming from the 'right' isn't it?

And what fuggin crap is that exactly? Calling you an idiot?

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 11:13 PM
You are right. That goes to show how much I do not and will not support NObama and how far I feel the party has fallen. I quit a party I had actively supported with my time and money for TWENTY SIX YEARS.

If that does not tell you how much I do not believe he should be POTUS then I do not know what will.

So what happened between February and March/April?

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 11:15 PM
So what happened between February and March/April?

An epiphany that NObama predicted would occur except that it didn't tell me to vote for HIM. Quite the opposite.

Ultra Peanut
08-05-2008, 11:15 PM
So what happened between February and March/April?Obama won 19 straight primaries?

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 11:16 PM
An epiphany that NObama predicted would occur except that it didn't tell me to vote for HIM. Quite the opposite.

This is precisely why no one takes you seriously. Instead of dodging, please answer the question.

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 11:18 PM
This is precisely why no one takes you seriously. Instead of dodging, please answer the question.

I could care less what people think. I have my view and you share it or you don't. Your respect it or you don't. You pay attention or you don't. Regardless, your choice of how you take my view means nothing to me.

I am a lifelong Democrat who quit the party because I believe the party nominated a losing candidate for a gimme election and it was the final straw. That means something to me. If it doesn't to you so fugging what. I've lived a little too long to worry about what someone twenty years younger than myself thinks about me or the world.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 11:21 PM
I am a lifelong Democrat who quit the party because I believe the party nominated a losing candidate for a gimme election. That means something to me. If it doesn't to you so fugging what.

1) You have zero right to whine about the possibility of Obama losing the election when you yourself are not supporting him. That would make you a part of the problem you're bitching about.

2) How is Obama less electable NOW than he was in February, when you said you would support him?(mind you that was way before anybody was sure he'd be the nominee)

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 11:24 PM
1) You have zero right to whine about the possibility of Obama losing the election when you yourself are not supporting him. That would make you a part of the problem you're bitching about.

2) How is Obama less electable NOW than he was in February, when you said you would support him?(mind you that was before anybody was sure he'd be the nominee)

I was open to supporting him based on his antiwar view only. Then I learned more about his position and how it was mostly a speech from 2002 and since then he'd supported W on just about everything he asked for regarding the war. That was enough for me.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 11:27 PM
I was open to supporting him based on his antiwar view only. Then I learned more about his position and how it was mostly a speech from 2002 and since then he'd supported W on just about everything he asked for regarding the war. That was enough for me.

I don't even know where to begin.

What exact FP position of W's did he support that Clinton and Edwards didn't?

memyselfI
08-05-2008, 11:30 PM
I don't even know where to begin.

What exact position of W's did he support that Clinton and Edwards didn't?

I am not going here with you because 1. you are not worth my time even if you were not an Obot and 2. it's irrelevant because the two you mentioned are no longer factors in the race.

jAZ
08-05-2008, 11:34 PM
Yes, and because I could not support him as the nominee and because I felt the Democrats have become a stinking pile of shit, I quit the party

If I were to have stayed a Democrat then I would have been compelled to support NOBama. I can't support him and/or the party anymore in it's current state.
You've become a cartoon of all that you despise.

Obama isn't winning by enough because you won't support him, and you won't support him because you say he can't win. Not because you don't support his policies. He agreed with your prefered choice 99.9% of the time.

No, once again, your lastest nonsense is that you don't support him because he can't win.

How. ****ing. Stupid.

Seriously.

You've taken a massive dump on any logical integrity that you might have ever had.

You can't support him, not because you disagree with him, but because you don't think he can win and you are going to do your best to prove that to be true.

What a clown.

ROFL

jAZ
08-05-2008, 11:36 PM
I am not going here with you because 1. you are not worth my time even if you were not an Obot and 2. it's irrelevant because the two you mentioned are no longer factors in the race.

ROFL

Just admit, you just had your ass split into 25 pieces and you can't even bring yourself to apologize.

Denise, you've become rexcjake.

What a shame.

HolmeZz
08-05-2008, 11:37 PM
I am not going here with you because 1. you are not worth my time even if you were not an Obot and 2. it's irrelevant because the two you mentioned are no longer factors in the race.

Yeah, I think I'm gonna have to chalk this discussion up as a loss for you.

jAZ
08-05-2008, 11:39 PM
1) You have zero right to whine about the possibility of Obama losing the election when you yourself are not supporting him. That would make you a part of the problem you're bitching about.

2) How is Obama less electable NOW than he was in February, when you said you would support him?(mind you that was way before anybody was sure he'd be the nominee)

She's studied under rexcjake and reality, logical consistency make no difference. She has no shame. She doesn't need to defend anything because she doesn't even belive the stuff she's saying.

The fact of the matter is that she will vote for Obama. And all of this is just her way of keeping the drama going.

jAZ
08-05-2008, 11:42 PM
Yeah, I'm gonna have to chalk that up as a Loss for you.

You just placed a brutal ass crushing on her in only a few words. There is no recovering from that. Ever.

jAZ
08-06-2008, 01:09 AM
You just placed a brutal ass crushing on her in only a few words. There is no recovering from that. Ever.

In a word: "Kaboom". :p

memyselfI
08-06-2008, 07:00 AM
ROFL

Just admit, you just had your ass split into 25 pieces and you can't even bring yourself to apologize.

Denise, you've become rexcjake.

What a shame.

Apologize for what?

Quitting the party instead of staying to support someone I choose not to support? I did it with Kerry and Dukakis and was not going to do it a third time.

Apologize to an Obot for quitting a party that I belonged to as long as he's been alive? Uh, don't think so.

Apologize for not supporting NObama even if he chooses Hillary as VP? No chance.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, he was a fine option when the Democratic field was first announced and he was a relative unknown but the more I got to know NObama the more I got to dislike him. The deeper I dug the less substance I found. The more he was promoted as the ONE the less trusting I became. I DO NOT LIKE OR TRUST THE MAN AND DO NOT FIND HIM A SUITABLE PERSON TO BE POTUS. MANY people are in that boat and that is why he has been unable to crack the 50% level for ANY sustainable time. That is why his negatives are increasing and that is why inspite of all the advantages he has on his side which should lead to a BLOWOUT he will win BARELY if at all.

No apologies from me. I'll await the mea culpas from the Democratic leaders after the election is over.

***SPRAYER
08-06-2008, 07:10 AM
the more I got to know NObama the more I got to dislike him. The deeper I dug the less substance I found. The more he was promoted as the ONE the less trusting I became. I DO NOT LIKE OR TRUST THE MAN AND DO NOT FIND HIM A SUITABLE PERSON TO BE POTUS.

Look at his track record---

He's stabbed everybody in the back that helped him from Alice Palmer to Hillary Clinton--- and then stole all their ideas and their agenda!

He's no good.

jAZ
08-06-2008, 11:03 AM
Apologize for what?

Quitting the party instead of staying to support someone I choose not to support? I did it with Kerry and Dukakis and was not going to do it a third time.

Apologize to an Obot for quitting a party that I belonged to as long as he's been alive? Uh, don't think so.

Apologize for not supporting NObama even if he chooses Hillary as VP? No chance.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, he was a fine option when the Democratic field was first announced and he was a relative unknown but the more I got to know NObama the more I got to dislike him. The deeper I dug the less substance I found. The more he was promoted as the ONE the less trusting I became. I DO NOT LIKE OR TRUST THE MAN AND DO NOT FIND HIM A SUITABLE PERSON TO BE POTUS. MANY people are in that boat and that is why he has been unable to crack the 50% level for ANY sustainable time. That is why his negatives are increasing and that is why inspite of all the advantages he has on his side which should lead to a BLOWOUT he will win BARELY if at all.

No apologies from me. I'll await the mea culpas from the Democratic leaders after the election is over.
No, aplogize for lying about your justification for objecting to Obama.

As I said, I defend your right refuse to support him, and if you could put forward a consistant, logical explanation for your position I'd defend your position (even if I disagree).

But the reality is that you've raced all over the place in your efforts to justify your position on Obama. And ultimately, you've chosen to throw away just about every issue you've ever fought loudly to defend over the last 10 years.

It leads everyone to recognize that what say you believe now, makes zero sense. And when someone like HolmeZz exposes your audacity of dishonest, illogical, shifting, justifications in such a simple, clear post... it just brings to and end any chance you will ever find a way to justify your position.

Like I said, I defend your right to hold any view you choose in this election. But I reserve the right to point out how you destroy your credibility every time you try to defend your position. Every post you make on the topic isoluates you alongside rexcjake as a cartoonish shill.