१३ ऑक्टोबर, २००७
"Now is the time where we're going to be laying a very clear contrast between myself and Senator Clinton."
Barack Obama seems to be planning to go after Hillary Clinton some time in the near future. Unless he's referring to 2012, it's too late.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५३ टिप्पण्या:
Tell that to Howard Dean.
I agree. Too late. Obama's been running on his personal qualities, taking the BIll Bradley above-it-all pose, relying, like so many others, on Hillary's supposed negatives. Well, Hillary's negatives are dropping and Obama is edging past his sell-by date. If he lays into Hillary it'll drive his own numbers down more than hers, I suspect.
People need to realize that Hillary's negatives are a form of armor for her: she has 100% name recognition and everyone who was going to be incited to hate Hillary already does. Hillary hatred is at saturation. It can only drop.
Obama on he other hand is drifting along with no negatives worth mentioning and yet gaining no traction. If he goes medieval suddenly it will just hurt him, not Hillary. And yet, he has no real choice. The Democratic Consultants (Axelrod in this case) strike again. There's only one really smart Dem consulatant, and he's married to Hillary.
Obama would do best to run as a loveable Lothario, displacing the Bill advantage. That's what people are voting for, when they vote for Hillary.
A series of outstand bimbo eruptions and a winsome response, is what I suggest.
What if Obama starts saying nasty things about Bill Clinton, instead of going negative on Hillary? Something like, "do we really want someone in the oval office splashing his sperm all over the place, again?" How would that play? I think Obama isn't going anywhere.
Something like, "do we really want someone in the oval office splashing his sperm all over the place, again?"
I don't think that will resonate with anyone who doesn't already have the Clinton-hatin' thing going.
"Too late" would imply he had a chance, and I don't think he ever did, absent a meltdown by HRC, and we know she's all about control.
Nothing will stop the Democrats from nominating Hill and Bill again. They love them, no matter what.
Doesn't anyone have a memory? In the winter of 1991 Bill Clinton was in single digits. Paul Tsongas was atop the leader board and everyone thought that Cuomo would walk away with the nomination if he decided to step in. Mario stayed out because Bush 41 was so popular. Tsongas faded. And with a little 3rd party help, Bill became president.
When the serious spending starts, we'll see the numbers change. I'm betting by January we will be reading stories about how Hillary is "fading".
-mca
Obama's main problem, one that neither he nor his supporters even seem to realize that he has, is that he's very little more than an empty suit. Being a good-looking charismatic black man who was president of the Harvard Law Review are good solid credentials with which a novice can launch a political career. It's telling about the state of things in their party these days that there are so many Democrats out there who think that those credentials qualify him to be POTUS right out of the shooter.
Clinton was a dark horse polling in the single digits only because he was a governor far away from the Center of the Media Owner's universe - NYC and LA - and the media was in its traditional "Next Senator who could become JFK" obsession.
Obama also had the "Magic Negro" hope that wealthy liberal media owners leading spiritually empty lives crave. The black man with the power to forgive them, to show them the pure moral authority they need and want to follow..
So the media and the big bucks donors went nuts for the platitude-spouting symbol of liberal hope.
All a wonderful little fantasy, but fantasies almost by definition are intense, but only last a short while. Barack Hussein Obama who had the "superior judgement" not to vote for Iraq basically because Jane Schadowsky told her underlings in Illinois not to support the War - is past his past due date, as one poster said.
Now the fantasy is over, Obama has to tread a fine line. Show he is independent and not a pile of just hot air, substantive and competitive - but not piss off the Clintonistas so much that he loses their favor. Because Prez Hillary can greatly help his career, get him out of being spotlighted for the inevitable bad decisions he will make now that he is in the big leagues. If not, Hill&Bill have plenty of other Magic Negros waiting in the wings they could elevate instead of Obama, that liberals would wildly love and support.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12— In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top American commander called the Bush administration’s handling of the war incompetent and warned that the United States was “living a nightmare with no end in sight.”
In one of his first major public speeches since leaving the Army in late 2006, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez blamed the administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current “surge” strategy as a “desperate” move that will not achieve long-term stability.
“After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism,” Mr. Sanchez said, at a gathering here of military reporters and editors.
Zeb wrote:
Obama's main problem, one that neither he nor his supporters even seem to realize that he has, is that he's very little more than an empty suit.
I have to say, this is very funny stuff coming from a Bush supporter.
...the former top American commander called the Bush administration’s handling of the war incompetent and warned that the United States was “living a nightmare with no end in sight.”
Lucky, to be fair, "incompetent" is an accurate description of the way Team Bush has handled almost everything.
To his credit, Bush has done a passable job with ceremonial first pitches.
I agree, it may be too late for Obama. His campaign's problem is that he lacks a passion and ferocity that Americans expect from politicians.
He has a fine message and he seems like the kind of guy I'd want to be friends with.. but where is the fire? The only real passion I see in him is an 'anti-Hillary' passion and that is pointless because Republicans will do a much better job of ripping her apart than Obama ever will.
Also, I disagree that the strategy that Obama needs is one that pits him vs. Hillary. His entire campaign has revolved around an "I'm not Hillary, I didn't vote for the war and therefore, I'm not a hypocrit" theme. It's weak, his message isn't loud enough. I know he is a passionate man with great ambition and intelligence, but it just isn't coming across to the public.
Maybe it's an Obama problem, maybe it is a 'media' problem, but either way it is a problem that he needs to overcome if he wants a chance to knock off Hillary.
Oh, and on the issue of "credentials". Stop kidding yourself guys, the President of the United States has rarely been about "qualified" candidates. President Bush is a complete idiot and he made it to the top, you can't use the credentials bit to scratch Obama off the Democratic threat list.
The fact is that the American Presidency has become a farce. I'll give you that much, but not for the same reasons you argue. Our Presidency is a joke because it is so easily influenced by money and the media. President Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, (?) Just look at the trends. It's all about the big bucks, it is all about the corporate interests, and it is all about rhetoric and what the media decides to do with it.
Propaganda is the way to the White House, not a Harvard Law degree with 'law review' credentials that you presents a 'good to start for a novice politician'. Please. Because Propaganda is the way to the White House, the Democrats have this one wrapped up. It's not "inevitability" or even "qualification", it's the money, stupid... and all Republicans combined during the last quarter brought in less money than the "unqualified" second place Democrat.
Republican's only hope now are attack ads on whoever comes out on top for the Democrats. The merits aren't getting the party anywhere, because public perception of the GOP is that it is stuck on the Iraq War and has nothing else to offer in the forms of solutions. Criticizing everything Democratic as "socialized policy" doesn't present solutions to any of America's domestic problems. Asserting that Democrats love Terrorists and want to make babies with them is cute but again doesn't do jack shit to solve the Iraq problem.
Lucky, you left out the following:
"America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their sovereignty in achieving a solution."
And some rather brutal criticism of the media. I like this quote:
"As I understand it, your [the media] measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed."
And then:
"All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war."
Joe...“living a nightmare with no end in sight.”
Joe...Questioned by reporters after his speech, he included the military and himself among those who made mistakes in Iraq, citing the failure to insist on a better post-invasion stabilization plan.
But his main criticism was leveled at the Bush administration, which he said he said has failed to mobilize the entire United States government, other than the military, to contribute meaningfully to reconstructing and stabilizing Iraq.
“National leadership continues to believe that victory can be achieved by military power alone,” he said. “Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat.”
Asked after his remarks what strategy he favored, General Sanchez ticked off a series of steps — from promoting reconciliation among Iraq’s warring sectarian factions to building effective Iraqi army and police units — that closely paralleled the list of tasks frequently cited by the Bush administration.
Obama himself, according to a pair of widely circulated anonymous e-mails, is a Muslim.
“Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background,” warns an e-mail titled “Who Is Barack Obama,” that was circulating in South Carolina political circles this summer and sent to Politico by a South Carolina Democrat.
“The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out; what better way to start than at the highest level?”
“Please forward to everyone you know,” it ended.
The other widely forwarded e-mail is titled “Can a good Muslim become a good American” and answers that question in the negative, before concluding: “And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our president!!!”
The misinformation is buttressed by occasional winks from conservative pundits like Ed Rogers, who referred to the candidate as “Barack Hussein Obama” and radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, who regularly includes the senator's otherwise little-used middle name.
(Shock jock Michael Savage did him one better, calling the senator “Hussein Barack Obama.”)
Obama, in fact, is not a Muslim.
But there are at least two indications that the whispers are being heard.
First, “barack obama muslim” is the third most popular Google search for the presidential candidate's name, behind “barack obama” and “barack obama biography,” according to Google Suggest, which tracks the frequency of word searches.
Second, a CBS News poll in August found that, in response to an open-ended question about Obama’s faith, 7 percent of Americans identified him as a Muslim — more than any other response. The right answer, Protestant, was second at 6 percent. (Most didn’t know or wouldn’t say.)
http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=422&cid=2591
Saw a wonderful episode of Bloggingheads last night that highlighted some of Obama's weaknesses. Namely, his meandering but substantial replies during debates, amongst others. The sad thing is Ms. Clinton is doing well because Obama and Edwards do not attack her(too much). Once, the primaries are done, the republicans will tear into her. Other democrat candidates do not disagree with her positions on a number of issues such as healthcare, and various other social programs. But the republicans will and the race post primary will be a different ballgame.
WASHINGTON — Larry who?
Now that scandal-tinged Idaho Sen. Larry Craig has reneged on a pledge to resign this fall, his fellow Republican senators act as though they hardly know him. They want voters to forget him, too.
But they privately acknowledge that an earlier strategy to drive Craig from office has backfired, sticking them with an open-ended ethics investigation likely to keep the issue before the public for months.
And I do not think it is too late for Obama. He needs to fine tune his campaign not make any drastic changes. The primary is in January not next week.
hrishi said..."Once, the primaries are done, the republicans will tear into her." AllenS said..."do we really want someone in the oval office splashing his sperm all over the place, again?" Luckyoldson said...“living a nightmare with no end in sight.”
hrishi said.."And I do not think it is too late for Obama." ...............????
The richest one percent of Americans earned a postwar record of 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent a year earlier, reflecting a widening income disparity among different classes in the nation, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing new Internal Revenue Service data.
The data showed that the fortunes of the bottom 50 percent of Americans are worsening, with that group earning 12.8 percent of all income in 2005, down from 13.4 percent the year before, the paper said.
Luckyoldson wrote:
The data showed ...
Yeah? What do Althouse readers care about data? If it doesn't agree with what they already "know," they simply dismiss it.
Lucky, you should know by now that Althouse readers don't trust liberal MSM sources like the WSJ. If you can't read about it on Michelle Malkin's website, it probably just ain't true!
The colonel was furious. “Can you believe it? They actually drew their weapons on U.S. soldiers.” He was describing a 2006 car accident, in which an SUV full of Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee on a street in Baghdad’s Green Zone. The colonel, who was involved in a follow-up investigation and spoke on the condition he not be named, said the Blackwater guards disarmed the U.S. Army soldiers and made them lie on the ground at gunpoint until they could disentangle the SUV. His account was confirmed by the head of another private security company. Asked to address this and other allegations in this story, Blackwater spokesperson Anne Tyrrell said, “This type of gossip has led to many soap operas in the press.”
cyrus pinkerton said..."Lucky, you should know by now that Althouse readers don't trust liberal MSM sources like the WSJ".......liberal MSM sources?
The WSJ is liberal in the news pages, conservative on the editorial page.
People need to realize that Hillary's negatives are a form of armor for her: she has 100% name recognition and everyone who was going to be incited to hate Hillary already does. Hillary hatred is at saturation. It can only drop.
There's no more reason for them to drop than there is for them to rise.
But I don't think it is true that Hillary's negatives are universally known. Hillary was irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans until she decided to run for President. First she was the President's wife (a position of no significance to the average American), then a Senator from New York. Most people, I suspect, are only really aware of her as the wife that Bill Clinton cheated on. They don't really know about her ethical and political baggage; they just know that Republicans bitch about her a lot.
It is always worth remembering that most Americans pay little attention to politics until the time to vote draws near. To name just one example of a juicy scandal that few Americans bothered paying attention to at the time: Hillary's brothers pocketed six-figure bribes in exchange for her husband pardoning various felons, including a child molester, a drug dealer, and a guy who took oil kickbacks from Saddam Hussein. What's Hillary going to do -- argue that her brothers and her husband cooked up the whole scheme behind her back and she had nothing to do with it?
the fortunes of the bottom 50 percent of Americans are worsening
Relatively. They're getting a slightly smaller percentage of a much bigger pie. The growing pie helps everyone, including government revenues and those dependent on them. The few at the top are also paying a larger share of the higher tax revenues, as they should.
Revenant .........LIAR
Ralph.........dumb
The richest one percent of Americans earned a postwar record of 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent a year earlier...
Lucky didn't reveal all the facts. The richest 1% also paid 39.4% of all federal taxes in 2005, a record amount. Moreover, the richest 1% paid the same amount as the bottom 95% of all individual taxpayers.
Lucky and his ilk should rejoice at how extensively our nation taxes the rich.
2005 Federal Taxes Paid
Lucky, that was a funny post on the Edwards thread.
Sanchez and/or his boss Abizaid had a deliberate policy of trying to keep a low "footprint" so as not to offend Iraqis by a constant presence, thereby allowing much of the violence to rage. It didn't work for Westmoreland, either. Petraeus had better luck in Kurdistan several years ago, doing what he's doing now in Sunnistan. We can tamp down the violence in the short term--the big question is can the Iraqis get their act together militarily and politically and begin to build their country(ies) instead of tearing it down further? I assume from his speech that Sanchez thought the State Dept would do that part, the fool.
Gedaliya.........dumb
Genitalia says: "39.4% of all federal taxes in 2005..."
Well, first of all, that number encompasses ONLY taxes PAID.
It doesn't take into consideration, the 10% below the poverty line who pay no taxes...because they barely have enough money to stay alive?
Or those who have expenses that cancel out tax liability?
Or the wealthiest corporations on the planet, who pay little if any taxes...and shelter much of the 1" you refer to in long term investments, 401K's, etc.?
Throw everybody into the mix and the wealthiest pay a much smaller PERCENTAGE of their incomes than what is collected via usage taxes, sales taxes, etc. of the income of those who are not wealthy. (another reason a flat tax would be unfair to those who spend a much bigger percentage because they HAVE TO...to live.)
I hate to say it, but maybe if you were to actually READ something before you cut and paste?
Revenant.........attackmachine.com?
Nice try, Licky.
My post was in direct response to your post, which described how much the richest 1% earned in 2005. You failed to mention how much the richest 1% paid in taxes. I corrected your ommission, Licky, and you should be thankful.
Just remember chum, that statistics always cut both ways, and as Thomas Carlyle said, they are the greatest liars of them all.
Gedaliya.........dumber.
Rev said: "Hillary's brothers pocketed six-figure bribes in exchange for her husband pardoning various felons, including a child molester, a drug dealer, and a guy who took oil kickbacks from Saddam Hussein. What's Hillary going to do -- argue that her brothers and her husband cooked up the whole scheme behind her back and she had nothing to do with it?"
That my friends, is how it's done.
"What's Hillary going to do -- argue that her brothers and her husband cooked up the whole scheme behind her back and she had nothing to do with it?"
That my friends, is how it's done.
Actually, it turns out that Hillary already used the "it is just an amazing coincidence that my brother was getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the people my husband pardoned" routine back in 2000. I guess we'll see if people buy that line in 2008.
Fred.........Revenant.........Duh
Hillary Clinton, of course, is not the first public figure to be embarrassed by the antics of siblings. Husband Bill, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and even George W. Bush have brothers who've made negative news over the years.
Bush Jr.'s Skeleton Closet
George Bush likes to present himself as a straight-talking, regular guy. But it's an act -- regular guys don't go to Andover Prep, Yale and Harvard Business School, and straight-talking guys don't pretend to be regular guys after growing up in one of the most privileged homes in world history. Not only was Bush's dad president, his grandpa was a U.S. Senator and wealthy Wall Street banker, and his mom's blueblood family owned (among other things) the estate in Maine that Bush still hangs out at.
Now, as Bush's regular guy act is wearing thin, some of his other deceptions are becoming more obvious.
Click on the allegation of your choice:
-- His top aides exposed an undercover CIA agent to silence critics
-- Lies, deception and coverups to push the war in Iraq
-- Convicted of drunk driving. Lied repeatedly to cover up his arrest.
-- Lying under oath. Bush & staff stop investigation of contributor's huge funeral home company.
-- Avoided Vietnam and Skipped Out on his National Guard Service
-- Texas government corruption: State $$ for campaign funders & business cronies
-- Cocaine: felony drug use, vile hypocrisy, and a hushed up arrest?
-- His "young and irresponsible" behavior: sex, drugs and (gasp!) rock and roll?
-- Thin skinned: censors his critics with police, lawyers, $$$
-- Character: Spoiled rich kid living off his family's name and reputation
-- Made millions on insider business deals, for little work
-- -- Deal #1. Personal Profits from Failing Oil Companies
-- -- -- -- Easy Money From Odd Sources
-- -- -- -- A Surprise Deal From Bahrain
-- -- -- -- Access to the President and National Security Adviser for his foreign business partner
-- -- Deal #2. Selling Oil Stocks Just Before Iraq Invaded: lucky guess or illegal insider trading?
-- -- Deal #3. A Big Slice of a Baseball Team
-- -- -- -- Hypocrisy: using government coercion to make his private fortune
"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce."--George Bush, Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001
LuckyOldSon,
You are not dumb. Yet everything you say is dumb. Please explain.
Sincerely,
John Fitzgerald Nucleo
Joe said...
"Lucky, you left out the following:
Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future."
Ohhh daddy stop the car. I see a Whopper. It's a Whopper daddy, I just know it...a really big whopper, stop daddy please....OHHHHH its the "coalition"....never mind daddy..there's no meat on that bun.
Ohhhh and Lucky...it doesn't pay to argue with the cons on this board. They don't get it and won't.
I do find it interesting that never do you hear a con talk positively if at all about their "field of dreams". Their entire discourse is negative "observations" about democrats, Hillary in particular...lol of course if they took some time to discuss Rudy's ethics, Romney's "janus image", and Thompson's hillbilly bon bons..well that would reduce them to just a few "ohmygods" and "woe is me's", so they have to attack and try and manage the democrats because at least this party has people of interest.
"Lucky, you should know by now that Althouse readers don't trust liberal MSM sources like the WSJ".......liberal MSM sources?
Lucky, it was sarcasm.
I guess the rightwing talking points are so ridiculously dumb nowadays that sarcasm isn't always obvious.
Hey, Johnny Nucleo came back!
Yes, I am back. I have been working on my memoir, "Nucleo On Nucleo As Told To Alex Haley." Here is an excerpt from Chapter XCII, "The Second Time I Accidentally Destroyed Space Patrol Headquarters."
"Space Patrol Chief McManus was really pissed. This was the second time I had accidentally destroyed Space Patrol Headquarters. I told him it was not my fault, but he would not listen. He told me that if I destroyed Space Patrol Headquarters one more time I would be suspended. What an asshole!"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा