ryan1016

The reason there aren't any "defections" from Mr. Obama is that he's only been on the national scene for about 4 years, who exactly is there who could defect? Maybe his grandmother, but few others. posted 05/04/2008 at 17:42:42

No, the other way you can tell if someone is electable in the general or not is by looking at the polling data. Obama has consistently been unable to shore up the white working class vote. His problems with Wright are definitely not making it any more likely that he will be successful with this essential voting bloc in the general election. You're making a big mistake assuming Obama will be able to pull this off in the general election simply because he has captured more delegates in the primaries. The general election electorate (moderate) is much different that the primary electorate (much more left-wing and liberal.) To assume that because he was able to grab the left-wing portion of the party that therefore he will win the moderates to conservative wing as well might be true, but without any evidence to date, is a dangerous assumption. posted 05/01/2008 at 18:21:47

Electable in the general election, I thought that was pretty clear in my post. Hillary already has the popular vote my friend. posted 05/01/2008 at 17:12:04

Well said. Mr. Andrew needs to pipe down, why should we be concerned with what a Richardson-wannabee has to say? It sure would be nice if people would stop coming out of the woodwork to tell us that the process should end. Let's try to let this process play out, make an informed decision and select someone who can actually win in November. If that person ends up being Obama (I don't think it will,) so be it, but he should at least prove he is electable and only time will tell. So far, Obama has not done such a swell job at proving he's the person for the job, all he seems to do is get himself in and out of one scrape after another. How many more do we have to contend with? If so, shouldn't we find out sooner rather than later? posted 05/01/2008 at 16:34:09

"Do you ever wonder why those who were so close to the Clintons now abandon them?

Hmmmmmm."

I guess you might ask why someone who has known Barack for 20 years is now abandoning him and trying to destroy his chances to be President.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. posted 05/01/2008 at 15:28:49

Hey DickTater, I have to agree with your assessment that you're a bad writer, I don't think anyone, even your fellow Obama supporters (with the exception of SamiNJ, he seems to think your commentary is "dead on"), have a clue what you're talking about. I especially enjoyed the non-sequitur of wetting and crapping yourself. Keep on posting, maybe you should write a blog for HP; I know I would enjoy it. posted 04/24/2008 at 18:11:22

He's trying to help avoid a catastrophe while it's still not too late.

Obama's electability is clearly an issue when he's losing as much of the working class vote as he's losing. Also, are you saying that Hillary Clinton is not a true Democrat? If so, that's just ridiculous. I think the Kool-Aid has gone to your head. posted 04/24/2008 at 17:56:18

My, my, my, what a hornet's nest you stirred up with this posting. Please stick to postings such as "Go Obama!", "Obama 08", "Obama kicks Hillary's butt", etc. Don't try to have a rational discussion here, reality has no place in this election, all we want is someone to confirm our preconceived notions. posted 04/22/2008 at 18:04:00

Maddow is annoying as hell. I can't stand her self-important smirk. I thought Joe tried to bring some civility to the show. Telling Joe to wait a moment before dismissing her comment out of hand is just unnecessary (it's also not funny or very clever); she sure as hell is used to other pundits trying to get their comments in while another is talking, otherwise they would all just sit there mute. You can tell she regretted the tiff with her attempt to explain her crappy comment at the end, but to no avail. posted 04/17/2008 at 23:02:34

Ugh, I have to see an anti-Obama posting? Why hasn't the rest of the country just admitted that Obama is our savior, anoint him as such, and get on with letting him running the country? I don't even see the need for a general election, Obama already has it in the bag. I just want to preserve my narrow world view and only have a bunch of other people with the same views comment on this website, it so much more fun to just read a bunch of postings saying "GO Obama!"

Sorry, folks, it doesn't work that way. posted 04/16/2008 at 16:15:14

Obama screws up and all you can do is yell at the Clintons? Can't you even see how silly that makes you (I don't mean to single you out, I'm speaking to all the Obama supporters)? Gosh people, Obama by all accounts did something he wished he hadn't and all you want to say is that the Clintons are evil, what does that have to do with Obama's impolitic statements? Does anyone realize that the Democrats are looking at a real problem here in the general election? Am I just shouting into a windstorm? posted 04/15/2008 at 13:32:50

Even if true, you don't tell a large portion of the electorate that their interest in religion and guns is because they're bitter at the lousy economy. That's just a huge bone-headed maneuver and should tell us much about Barack (and his general election chances.) Come on people, quit trying to justify his statements as words of truth that need to be told; even he admitted they weren't artful. posted 04/15/2008 at 09:18:27

My definition of electability is obtaining a plurality of the the votes in the electoral college and thereby becoming POTUS. I think the fact that Obama has now alienated over a third of the electorate (that's probably conservative) is pretty good evidence that he won't be elected. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:13:17

I agree. Attacking Hillary won't change the fact that Obama is unelectable. Sorry folks, that's just reality. You fought the good fight, really got him far, in fact he will likely win the nomination, but that's as far as it goes. With four more years of Bush policies to contend with, was the fight worth it? posted 04/13/2008 at 12:06:15

Richardson strikes me as the ultimate opportunist. I think he really did himself damage in the eyes of all but the most ardent Obama supporters. If you can't count on your friends, then who can you count on? He's obviously someone who will stab you in the back if it suits his needs. posted 04/13/2008 at 17:44:13

I agree with everything you said except the green cheese part. posted 04/03/2008 at 14:43:15

Well said. I fear, though, you're talking to a brick wall. None of the Obama supporters wants to believe anything other than Hillary is vile and despicable while Obama is beautiful, transcendent and enlightened. These people have closed their minds because they love their guy, maybe that's human nature, but it's dangerous. We may end up nominating someone who can't win the general election. My guess is that if Obama wins the nomination and loses the general there will be a lot of comments from these people about how racist and small-minded the country is, rather than facing some hard facts about their candidate. posted 04/03/2008 at 10:50:29

What a cheap shot. What do you know except your preconceived biases, assumptions, and arrogance? She met Hillary, had a conversation with her; an experience most of us are not fortunate to have with a candidate for President. You simply put the nastiest spin possible on the meeting and believe the truth of everything you write. It's clear that there is nothing Ms. Nelson could have written to satisfy you. Instead of writing nasty, judgmental comments, why don't you tell us why you're voting for Obama? Do you have any special insight or are you basing your decision on Obama's glib comments about hope and "we are the change this country has been waiting for"? Why should anyone listen to you? I think one day you (and your like-minded) will look back on these days and regret these vicious attacks and see how over the top you've become. For shame. posted 04/01/2008 at 16:37:03

some things are really nice;
some things, wow are they nice;
some things, are even nicer than the other things;
some things are nice but other things have more of a niceness to them;
some things are the most nice of all. posted 04/01/2008 at 13:06:38

What's with the constant drumbeat from Obama people that Clinton needs to drop out? Was there a secret meeting where they all agreed to fan out and demand she drop out for the "good of the party"? These kind of articles need to stop. Clinton has a good chance of winning this thing: (1) Obama may make more mistakes and make himself unelectable; (2) Clinton may win North Carolina and really start turning this thing around; and (3) the superdelegates may decide she is the fighter and better equipped to deal with the Republicans. Writing articles about how she can be much more effective in the Senate is poppycock, she can be much more effective if she wins the Presidency. posted 03/28/2008 at 17:09:23

Ms. Rivers is right. If Hillary was in Obama's position right now I am quite certain there would be no articles telling him to quit now and all these Obama people would not be yelling about how unfair it is to allow the superdelegates to go against the delegate count. There is just so much anti-Hillary sentiment in the media. Unfortunately for Hillary, she is never going to be the media's choice because it has already chosen Obama. As for all this anit-Hillary sentiment, remember, Obama is no angel. When Obama's camp sees an opening it goes for it, e.g., turning fairly innocuous comments into racism, comparing Bill Clinton's comments to McCarthyism, trying to highlight Hillary's disingenuousness (i.e., lying), etc. Obama people are upset because they haven't gotten to have their big party and celebrate the coming of the new age of enlightenment, the disappearance of racism, and world peace. Ms. Rivers is saying is that you need to be patient and let this thing play out. posted 03/27/2008 at 17:22:41

You're baffled because you're so in the tank for Obama. The reason the superdelegates are holding out is that they aren't as convinced as you are that Obama will be able to win the general election. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:29:39

Ideologue: "an often blindly partisan advocate." I couldn't describe the Obama fans any better. I'm trying to understand your point, Obama and Wright are not perfect (I agree), you're not voting for Obama (so you must have some sense,) Obama is more genuine than me (I disagree, I would never sell my grandmother out for political gain and pretend I was making some sort of profound statement about race relations.) So I guess you and I agree on more than we disagree, glad you responded. posted 03/25/2008 at 19:20:16

I don't understand what you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure you're being ridiculous. posted 03/25/2008 at 19:01:22

Don't you Obama people have anything better to say than Hitchens is a drunk and an idiot? He wrote a well-reasoned and thoughtful article, you may not agree with it or like it, but I would think you could come up with some sort of refutation other than to personally attack him. Obama revealed that he, as Obama fans are wont to say, "will do anything to get elected," including throwing his own grandmother under the proverbial bus. Obama is a cold, calculating politician, not necessarily a bad thing, but something he and his fans have consistently denied and rejected. posted 03/25/2008 at 18:28:06

Brooks: "Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?"

The problem with Brooks' article is the same problem I see from most post's on this site, he can only see this race from one biased viewpoint, i.e., that Barack is clearly the superior candidate and Hillary is selfish to stand in his way. I've heard some of Brooks' comments about Barack and despite Brooks being a solid Republican, he appears to be in awe of Barack. If you look at this from Hillary's viewpoint (and her supporters), she truly believes she is the best candidate, what this country needs and is waiting for. If you accept the statement in the preceding sentence then you can understand why she will not stop until all the states have voted and the superdelegates have voted. Hillary and her supporters, you may be surprised to learn, do not necessarily view Obama as a good second choice. Giving this nomination to Obama and either losing the general election (and electing McCain) or electing an unproven candidate are not options. There is simply too much at stake to give up at this point. posted 03/25/2008 at 23:25:43

So true, I'm starting to believe all is lost. I used to have such hope and optimism in the Democratic party, but it's clear it's not what I thought it to be. To see such venom spewed at the Clintons, who have done so much for this party and endured so much, is often too much to take. You'd think the Obama people are talking about George W. Bush for crying out loud - this is a Democrat, not some right wing nut job with an agenda to destroy the environment and invade oil rich countries. It seems like every post I read is yelled rather than discussed. I think the problem lies in the fact that Obama people have few concrete reasons to support their candidate and, therefore, must find reasons not to support the other. If all you can do is repeat the words "change" and "hope" over and over without citing to anything concrete, I'd say you should start doing some real soul-searching to discover the true reason for your support of Obama. posted 03/24/2008 at 16:57:14

I agree, I just think Obama people just want to be mad about something. Carville spoke his mind, to him Richardson betrayed two people who have done so much for him. Richardson has been a part of the Clinton's lives and been treated as a friend. What's so surprising to think Richardson's endorsement of Obama is a betrayal? I guess the Obama people are just mad Carville's comment didn't contain an arguably racial or anti-patriotic tinge because then they could really make something of it. I think Richardson made the endorsement because he believes Obama will win the primary nomination and if he wins the Presidency, Richardson's resume will be one of the first placed on Obama's desk. If that's not selling out your friends for a nice job (or a few pieces of silver), I don't know what is. posted 03/24/2008 at 16:09:21

I don't get it. Maybe I'm too in the tank for Hillary, but I don't see the power in this. So what? A young girl whose image of herself was used when she was 8 is now saying she supports Barack. Why is this a Hillary slap? Should every actor in every political video be vetted to insure he or she is that candidate's supporter? All you Barack supporters just get together and agree in unison to your own little world view and seem to lose something, maybe common sense, I don't know. You've really taught Hillary a lesson, next time if she uses an eight year old in her video she'll make sure the kid thinks Hillary should be President or another "disaster" could result. posted 03/23/2008 at 23:29:50

Quit with the vitriol, Hillary endorsements are also insignifcant (unless Obama decides to endorse her, admittedly that one would be beneficial to her candidacy.) You can yell all you want about how Richardson will bring in the Hispanic vote, but since history says that won't happen, yelling that it will is not going to change anything. Mark Penn's statement was simply stating the obvious. posted 03/21/2008 at 15:36:24

Oh really? I guess his "win" in California proves that Oprah was a big help, not to mention Ted Kennedy, (by the way, haven't heard much from him lately.) These endorsements do not move the needle, that's all I'm saying. posted 03/21/2008 at 15:08:22

It is insignificant, how much did Oprah help your guy? posted 03/21/2008 at 14:53:13