Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Questions begin about Obama’s chances
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, August 19, 2008

David Gergen, of all people, notes one outcome of the Saddleback forum which must have the Obama campaign concerned:
Heading into the candidates’ appearances on Saturday night at Saddleback Church, the conventional wisdom in politics was Barack Obama should have a clear upper hand in any joint appearance with John McCain — one the young, eloquent, cool, charismatic dude who can charm birds from the trees, the other the meandering, sometimes bumbling, old fellow who can barely distinguish Sunnis from Shiias.

Well, kiss that myth goodbye.
Now some will pass it off to a rusty Obama. But that had nothing to do with McCain's performance which proved, as Gergen points out, he "is no old fuddy-duddy who isn’t sure where he is going".

Obama in front of a teleprompter delivering a practiced speech is, indeed awesome. Obama freelancing is less impressive. And I believe that the Obama campaign has realized that, leading to their decision to nix townhall meetings with McCain (at which, btw, McCain excels).

Observing this as an obviously interested observer it seems to me that McCain is picking up steam while Obama seems to be losing it. That is also Gergen's conclusion as well.

So how does Obama regain his mojo? Here are Gergen's thoughts:
* Obama must select a running mate who gives a lift to his campaign and can also hammer home a message in the convention and in the vice presidential debate this fall. He definitely needs a fighter by his side. (For my money, Hillary Clinton looks better and better; if not her, Joe Biden is probably the best fighter — perhaps Evan Bayh, or a surprise choice.)

* The Democratic convention in Denver has to be a roaring success, not only uniting the party but sending a much clearer, crisper message about why 4 more years will be 4 more years of tears.

* Obama himself must find his voice again, not only in his acceptance address but in the debates. He needs to bring passion as well as inspiration, a clear sense of what the choice is, and a compelling sense of why he is strong enough as well as wise enough to lead the country through tough times.
A) the VP isn't going to be enough to elect Obama, this is a referendum on Obama B) I think the Democratic convention has the possibility of being a disaster and C) passion and inspiration don't provide answers to specific questions, and Obama hasn't provided many of those to this point - he'll be asked for them again and again in the debates.

One last passing thought - the polls are close and I think the reason can be found in the Democratic primary. Obama got his biggest wins with the most delegates in primaries which were caucuses. They are normally driven by activists. I have begun to wonder if Obama really represents the electoral power his campaign tries to portray.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
In his races for state senate, U. S. Senate, and the primaries Sen. Obama has never faced a legitimate Republican opponent. Winning Democratic primaries is a different breed of cat than winning in the general election.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
A) the VP isn’t going to be enough to elect Obama
I’m not so sure about that. In a race as tight as this (and which I have predicted will only get tighter), every little bit counts. People have looked to VP candidates when choosing whom they’ll vote for in the past, so I’m not sure why this time would be any different.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Two words for you McQ, "October Surprise".

Anyway, October Surprise or not, Obama has been playing stall. The vacation was a stall tactic to bleed into the Democrat Convention which will bleed into the Repubican Convention. Next thing you know, its Mid September.

The Debates are: Sept. 26, Oct. 7, Oct. 15.

Its an unwritten law that most people make up their mind for the President, almost irreversibly, by first week of October.

That devalues all three debates, but especially the last two. The last two happen to be the most dangerous to Obama, a townhall format debate and a debate on foreign affairs. The one that has the most potentially effect is the Sept. 26 debate on domestic issues.

With Obama slipping in the polls, and for quite some time, I’m surprised they have taken the stall approach.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
One last passing thought - the polls are close and I think the reason can be found in the Democratic primary. Obama got his biggest wins with the most delegates in primaries which were caucuses. They are normally driven by activists. I have begun to wonder if Obama really represents the electoral power his campaign tries to portray.
Gawd.

First, "that were caucuses"- not "which were caucuses."

Second, "primaries which were caucuses" reflects another variety of wingnut ignorance. A primary is by definition not a caucus, and vice versa. It’s like saying an "apple which is an orange."

Third, they are "usually" driven by activists, not "normally."

Finally, of course, Obama beat Clinton because he had a better ground game. Think McCain has a better ground game than McCain?


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Than Obama that is?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Wow, mk, snark much? What’s with the Grammar Nazi thing? Or was that "humor"?
 
Written By: Amy
URL: http://
Hey MK - jump back a few days and catch up on the other threads you disappeared from. You’re a sad, sad caricature of yourself.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Than Obama that is?
You know, if you are going to denigrate someone based on grammar, you better not make any mistakes yourself otherwise you look like a tool. Tool
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Its an unwritten law that most people make up their mind for the President, almost irreversibly, by first week of October.
It is? What about the people who make up their minds in the final week, sometimes over the final weekend, who decide close elections like the last two?

As for ultra, that sounds like a very sore pu*sy, to me. Might said inflamation be caused by McCain stepping inside on Obama and punching the crap out of him the past few weeks?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
First, "that were caucuses"- not "which were caucuses."

Second, "primaries which were caucuses" reflects another variety of wingnut ignorance. A primary is by definition not a caucus, and vice versa. It’s like saying an "apple which is an orange."

Third, they are "usually" driven by activists, not "normally."
That’s it?

That’s all you’ve got?

Yeesh.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Think McCain has a better ground game than McCain?
Hehehehehehehe!

Nice going, ass. When you spend a whole post nit-picking grammar, it makes you look like a huge, ol’, yellow DeWalt power tool to fvck up your last sentence.

All that effort, wasted. Woot! I loved it!

Oh, and coming back immediately in the next post to issue a correction doesn’t make you look like less of a tool. It just points out to everyone that you realize you look like a tool, and are making a desperate, attempt at face-saving.

Which makes it even funnier!

So, for you, I have:

Snark attempt...FAIL!
You win nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I was really surprised with the Saturday night at Saddleback Church. Many were suggesting that this being a "right of center" church, McCain was in for a ambush. To have it devolve into a whispering campaign by Team Obama that McCain cheated was ... a priceless adventure into "negative campaigning" (or was that whining) by the "first post-partisan politician."

Just a few weeks ago, this campaign was Obama’s to win. Now it is Obama’s to lose.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
mkultra reminds me of a guy with a really bad comb-over: everyone can see he looks like an idiot, and yet he thinks he’s the snappiest man in town.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
One thing I know for sure about this election—if Obama starts taking advice from David Gergen, McCain will be the next president.
 
Written By: Steven Donegal
URL: http://
I caught a bit of Obama’s appearance at the VFW convention.

Wow. It looked like Obama was trying out his Harry Reid impersonation. What a scowl. I expect to see some of those "wonderful" images show up in future commercials.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Hehehehehehehe!

Nice going, ass. When you spend a whole post nit-picking grammar, it makes you look like a huge, ol’, yellow DeWalt power tool to fvck up your last sentence.

All that effort, wasted. Woot! I loved it!

Oh, and coming back immediately in the next post to issue a correction doesn’t make you look like less of a tool. It just points out to everyone that you realize you look like a tool, and are making a desperate, attempt at face-saving.

Which makes it even funnier!

So, for you, I have:

Snark attempt...FAIL!
The difference between a primary and a caucus is a matter of grammar? Who’s the ass here? Again, what wingnuts don’t understand about Amercian democracy could fill a truck.

Look, I don’t host a blog that purports to be about politics. But if I did, I would be so embarassed if I didn’t know the difference between a primary and a caucus that I would probably shut down.

But like Obama said - you guys seem to revel in your ignorance. I didn’t see McQ jump back and correct his mistake - because after a first read, he didn’t realize he had made one.

It is of course not surprising that Mr. Franks finds no embarassment in sharing a site with a guy who wouldn’t know the difference between a caucus and a primary if it bit him in the ass. But then my guess is Mr. Franks is still pondering the difference himself.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Kathleen Sebelius for Democrat VP ?

Didn’t she given that incredibly boring response to the State of The Union ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Oh, and coming back immediately in the next post to issue a correction doesn’t make you look like less of a tool. It just points out to everyone that you realize you look like a tool, and are making a desperate, attempt at face-saving.
Oh - and not to nitpick (not "nit-pick"), Mr. Franks, but because "face-saving" is not being used as an adjective or adverb here, it does not need a hyphen.

You don’t write for a living, I hope.

And please don’t attempt to engage in face saving. Or some kind of face-saving attempt. Desperation isn’t pretty.

Hilarious.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
heya, Mkultra, for someone who’s really huge on semantics, care to tell us all about how appropriate it is to fall back on ad hominem while debating?

I’ll let you google it first before you respond.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Who’s the ass here?
You are.

The thing is, it doesn’t matter what Bruce’s error was. What matters is that you came in all snarkier than thou, then fvcked up the last sentence of your post.

Here’s why you’re a tool:

1) Since Bruce has written many, many posts on the election, and we’ve done hours of podcasts, it’s pretty clear that Bruce knows—and more to the point, as a regular reader, you know he knows—what the difference is between a primary and a caucus. So, you dishonestly write up an imprecise turn of phrase to make it look like Bruce is ignorant of something that you, in fact, know he is not. That makes you a liar, hence, a tool.

2) You appear not to understand that the terms "normally" and "usually" synonymous in common parlance. "Correcting" the use of one term, by the substitution of a synonymous term, makes you look like a fool, and that rhymes with tool, which is what you are.

3) After snarkily correcting Bruce’s incorrect phrasing, with malicious glee, you are too incompetent to proofread your correction properly, leaving a wonderful error in the last sentence. So, after taking the time to carefully correct Bruce’s error, you ironically make a similar error, and post it, like the tool you are.

To sum up, you’re intellectually dishonest, part of your correction was erroneous,and you proceeded to make the same type of writing error you were criticizing.

Tool.

I laugh at your foolishness.

You do know, by the way, why we don’t permanently ban you, don’t you? It’s because your stupidity provides constant and hilarious self-caricature.

And then, rather than having the good manners to apologize for writing your silly correction and fvcking it up, and acknowledging that writing several pieces of commentary a day might mean you occasionally make mistakes—like the one you made—you have to continue the lame attempts at snark when I spank you for it, coming after me, forcing me to detail even more stupidity in your correction than I originally did.

And now, you look even stupider.

You forgot the first rule of holes, my friend...
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Oh - and not to nitpick (not "nit-pick"), Mr. Franks, but because "face-saving" is not being used as an adjective or adverb here, it does not need a hyphen.
*shrug*

So what? I’m not the guy who came barging in here with my vast fund of grammatical wisdom.

I’m just the guy who’s pointing out that you fvcked it all up when you did.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Wow. It looked like Obama was trying out his Harry Reid impersonation. What a scowl.
I’ve done some Kos cruising to take the temperature over there. They sense the loss of momentum, and they are a wee bit upset. They have come up with their usual response — it’s the nefarious, lying, dirt-dealing Republicans sandbagging the Democratic candidate because the Democrat, as usual, is too maddeningly decent and high-minded to stoop to such low tactics.

So the solution is for Obama to go negative and put the hurt on McCain.

I don’t think it will work because it contradicts the New Politician image that is at the core of Obama’s appeal, and because Obama really isn’t the New Politician and that will become all the more obvious if Obama starts slinging mud in earnest. Plus McCain has nailed some of Obama’s genuine weaknesses and deceits.

But I don’t think Obama has a choice. Obama’s hope/change narrative is exhausted. Obama’s policies—complain about Iraq, tax the rich, equivocate on everything—aren’t all that popular. And his base is howling for blood.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
I watched Obama at the VFW conference and one thing I noted very early in his presentation was how angry he was getting. With each pause for applause - he got nothing from the crowd. The adoration that he had become used to and was not getting from the VFW folks began to make him angry. And with each passing moment, you could tell on his face that his anger was growing.

How dare these gun-clutching, flag-draping goobers not recognize him for the Messiah that he is! Don’t they know who they are not applauding?

As the speech continued, he began to not pause for the accustomed applause. He bagan to plow through the speech as if he couldn’t get out of there quick enough. Some applause began but it seemed to me not to be the applause he wanted - applause not celebrating THE ONE but applause celebrating his discomfort. I found myself ignoring his words and just watching the anger welling up inside the man.

I must say I was enjoying the spectacle!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Face saving?
1) Since Bruce has written many, many posts on the election, and we’ve done hours of podcasts, it’s pretty clear that Bruce knows—and more to the point, as a regular reader, you know he knows—what the difference is between a primary and a caucus. So, you dishonestly write up an imprecise turn of phrase to make it look like Bruce is ignorant of something that you, in fact, know he is not. That makes you a liar, hence, a tool.
If I say an apple grows on a treee, I have made an oversight that does not reflect on my thinking skills. In other words, if it is clear that one letter or word was inadvertently inserted, I have merely failed to proofread. If, on the other hand, I say apples are a species of oranges, I have made a thinking error.

That you do not see the difference doesn’t surprise me.

But it’s the little thinking errors that speak to larger thinking errors.

Here is what McQ said:
One last passing thought - the polls are close and I think the reason can be found in the Democratic primary. Obama got his biggest wins with the most delegates in primaries which were caucuses. They are normally driven by activists. I have begun to wonder if Obama really represents the electoral power his campaign tries to portray.
This passage is ridiculous. And misleading. And disingenuous. And reflects thinking errors. So what if Obama got his biggest wins in the caucuses. Even assuming that’s true, it’s a meaningless point, and reflects back on McQ’s previously mentioned smaller thinking error. Let’s say a candidate gets 95% of the delegates available in the caucuses, and 90% of those available in the primaries? So what? Would that explain why the polls were close between in the general election?

Of course not - it would have nothing to do with it. Being very popular within ones own party does not translate necessarily into national popularity. Moreover, as it stands, if you discount Michigan, where his name did not appear on a ballot, Obama got more primary votes than Clinton. But again, so what?

It’s these kind of thinking errors that I point out - the bigs ones and the small ones. I know that does not go over well here. After all, this is the site that continues to believe invading Iraq was a good idea.
So what? I’m not the guy who came barging in here with my vast fund of grammatical wisdom.

I’m just the guy who’s pointing out that you fvcked it all up when you did.
It wasn’t a grammatical error. Gramatically speaking, there was nothing wrong.

Again, not to nitpick or face save.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
equivocate on everything
It killed John Kerry.
I’ve run into lots of people who felt the guy just didn’t stand for anything.

This time around most folks (about 45%) would like the choice of "none of the above".
It will turn into the lesser of two evils.

And that "negative campaigning" .. Obama has tried to stick to the "negative by surrogates" technique, which seems to be part of the definition of "post-partisan politics", but frankly there is enough stuff out there (and I don’t mean anything as potentially destructive as the mythical "whitey tape") that most potential voters haven’t seen yet (that most of us think of as yesterday) that can make the onset of a truly negative campaign awfully painful for the LightWorker.

On a scale of 1 to 10 to measure the level of negative campaigning, I’d put the McCain stuff to date at about 1.3, with Obama close to that. That leaves lots of room for ugly.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I watched Obama at the VFW conference and one thing I noted very early in his presentation was how angry he was getting. With each pause for applause - he got nothing from the crowd. The adoration that he had become used to and was not getting from the VFW folks began to make him angry
SShiell - Fascinating observation! Obama is finally being tested by people who don’t love him or feel the need to suck up to him. It’s not going to be pretty.

Aside from all my disagreements with Obama, I find it disturbing that the guy has essentially skated through his adult life from one victory to another without ever hitting a rough patch. He and his wife seemed to feel entitled to the presidency by divine right. I want a leader like Churchill or McCain who knows the sting of defeat and the rigors of fighting on anyway.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
...there is enough stuff out there (and I don’t mean anything as potentially destructive as the mythical "whitey tape") that most potential voters haven’t seen yet (that most of us think of as yesterday) that can make the onset of a truly negative campaign awfully painful for the LightWorker.
Neo - Touche! Yes, that’s another reason why going negative is dangerous for Obama. If McCain and his supporters really start pulling out the big guns on Obama, it will be very ugly for Obama. It won’t deter his hardcore supporters, but it will be serious for the undecideds and swing voters. Deep down Obama must know this.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Gramatically speaking, there was nothing wrong.
Except the missing comma before the word "which."

Honestly, you read the entire posting, and the only thing you care to debate are four sentences at the end — four sentences that still manage to clearly convey the author’s intent despite a couple of rather minor errors?

Is this the best you can do? Do you care to dispute the premise, or argue the point at all?

You can’t even spell "grammatically".
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
There has been a fundamental change in the dynamics of this race.

It previously had been, as you said, a referendum on Obama. I don’t think this is true any longer. He had the opportunity to seal the deal without McCain being able to do much of anything, but that opportunity was not open-ended. He did not flub it so badly that he is out of it, but he did to the extent that people are now looking at McCain again.

It no longer is all about the O.
 
Written By: Gerry
URL: http://
jpm100— "Its an unwritten law that most people make up their mind for the President, almost irreversibly, by first week of October. "

It is a more accurate unwritten law that most people make up their mind for President, almost irreversibly, by the first week of October 2 years prior to the election. There are well over 30% who will vote Democrat, period, and well over 30% who will vote Republican, period.

In actuality, it is probably closer to 40% for each, locked up, signed sealed and delivered before the candidates are chosen, with only the most catastrophic of circumstances or the most successful of third-party candidacies (Ross Perot) to change that.

Given that we see swings of 5-6 points in the last week of a campaign with some regularity, it is pretty safe to say that of the people who can be swayed, a substantial portion can be reached right up until the end.
 
Written By: Gerry
URL: http://
Given that we see swings of 5-6 points in the last week of a campaign with some regularity, it is pretty safe to say that of the people who can be swayed, a substantial portion can be reached right up until the end.
I would tender that’s a flaw in the polling process and also derived from comparing polls from different polling agencies. And of course, the media who loves the ratings from a relatively low cost event, never tried to give the impression there was a horse race where there was none. Never.

But hey, believe what you want. If you think the candidates can be pennywise (October) and pound foolish (pre-October), you should join the Obama campaign. They’re ignoring their slide in this, the pre-October phase so far. At their current rate, Obama will likely be behind McCain by 5 (probably more) pts before October.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I would tender that’s a flaw in the polling process and also derived from comparing polls from different polling agencies.

Which would have the effect of making your hypothesis unfalsefiable— any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed.

But hey, believe what you want. If you think the candidates can be pennywise (October) and pound foolish (pre-October), you should join the Obama campaign. They’re ignoring their slide in this, the pre-October phase so far.

Why would I join the Obama campaign? And my point is not that any and all effort before the last week is foolish. In fact, I cannot see how you inferred that from my point (which is that the vast majority of voters make up their minds before the campaign even starts, and of the rest a non-trivial portion remains in play to the end).

At their current rate, Obama will likely be behind McCain by 5 (probably more) pts before October.

If one believes Zogby (I don’t) that has already happened.
 
Written By: Gerry
URL: http://
If I say an apple grows on a treee,
Do apples grow on trees or treees on your planet?
Gramatically speaking, there was nothing wrong.
you mean Grammatically or is this some neologism that obamabots use?

keep digging
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
SShiel:
I watched Obama at the VFW conference and one thing I noted very early in his presentation was how angry he was getting.
1. He believed his own press clippings. Now it’s "where’s the rest of me."

2. Anger is the Leftist modus vivendi. (For instance, look at how efficiently ultra turns into an enraged school marm over some misconstructed sentences. Not just anger at Obama’s failure to part the electoral sea, but no doubt an even deeper fury about success in Iraq.)


Gerry:
There has been a fundamental change in the dynamics of this race.
Well, the "fundamental change" is being acknowledged. It actually occurred back in March, which was when Obama reached his high point in national politics and when the Obama train stopped. March is a bad time to hit your peak in a presidential race. Especially when you’re a thrill running up the leg of Chris Matthews.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Mkultra....you’re ignoring valid points here. or should you just change your name to Ad Hominem? Or perhaps ’Intellectually Dishonest.’ Either one would, at least, be accurate.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
FYI:

I think it was here at the McQ ranch and etiquette society where I commented quite a while back that Obama was an extremely weak and vulnerable candidate and that if McCain wanted to win that he would defeat Obama by 10 points.

McCain appears to want to win.

My formula for arriving at the 10-point margin was based on Nixon’s defeat of the Leftist McGovern in ’72 by ~20 points.

The middle of the electorate is more susceptible to the Left’s jive than it was 36 years ago. (Greater proseperity and more "higher education" inexorably soften both brain and gut.)

Yet, Obama is twice as extreme as McGovern. He is what has come out the other end of the McGovernist era in the Democratic Party.

Still, losing by only five points doesn’t seem quite enough for someone who just wrapped up his twenty years as a member of a racist and black supremacist church cloaked in the ultra-divine (in the Leftist sense) ruse-term "liberation theology." Throw in Rezko, Ayers, Chicago politics and pretty soon even the Arkansas Long March looks rather Campfire Girl by comparison.

Has the mainstream media done itself a disservice by not actually taking an interest in who this buffoon mentalist actually is? Now, everything that comes after Labor Day will be same-day bakery fresh.

So, I set that margin at 10 points because I believe that there will be a natural and strong migration away from Obama as the season progresses, even in this era of the divided electorate and razor-thin margins in presidential contests.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
"And then, rather than having the good manners to apologize for writing your silly correction and fvcking it up..."

Ain’t gonna happen:

"Another commonality of non-normies is the importance of an apology. They are willing to forgive the most heinous criminal acts, whether rape, murder or robbery, if only the accused will sincerely apologize. Probation is the usual non-normie recommendation if this criminal just confesses, apologizes for what he or she did, and seeks therapy. (Once again it’s based on the belief that people can change and that therapy can cure dysfunction.)

You’ll see them become incensed, however, if the convicted person sneers at them or gives them the finger because this indicates that his evil is unrepentant, unlike theirs. This characteristic comes from a deep seated non-normie desire to be forgiven themselves. If society can forgive a horrible repentant criminal, then surely (he or she thinks), "I can be forgiven."

The dysfunctional part of this, though, is that non-normies hate to apologize themselves. They’ll use any tactic to avoid it, including blaming normies for what they did, because an admission of guilt strikes fear in their hearts. It’s like an alcoholic finally admitting that he or she has a drinking problem. And, especially, non-normies can never truly forgive the person, or people, that hurt them growing up (and who supposedly caused their non-normieness). They’ll always hold them accountable through their internalized anger - which, therefore, can never be fully released since they can’t grieve it out."

http://www.nonnormie.com/what_causes.php
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
Obama got his biggest wins with the most delegates in primaries which were caucuses. They are normally driven by activists. I have begun to wonder if Obama really represents the electoral power his campaign tries to portray.
With "The O" slipping in the polls and the tightness of a race that for all intents should not even be close, there may be thoughts of rebellion among the superdelegates. According the Dems own rules, their votes are not "counted" until voiced at the convention - committed or not. And if the Clinton folks were to pry the nomination away from "The O", this weakness and "The O’s" dependence upon Caucus primaries could be the cracks in the foundation that could bring down his house.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
SShiell:
According the Dems own rules, [superdelegates] votes are not "counted" until voiced at the convention - committed or not. And if the Clinton folks were to pry the nomination away from "The O",
I believe that the superdelegates would need a jolt to get them to jilt Obama.

It would have to be the kind of jolt that would leave even jaded political junkies’ jaws hanging open.

Something like a National Enquirer headline along the lines of: ’That Man Is Not Barack,’ Michelle Screams, ’What Have They Done With My Husband’.

Well, maybe not that much of a jolt. But how about that "holy grail" video of Obama jumping to his feet when Jeremiah Wright blames AIDS on the government? Hell, he doesn’t even have to jump to his feet. He could just nod thoughtfully.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Martin,

You may be right about when it happened. I think originally this was going to be an election all about Obama, and I don’t think it is anymore. It is just as much about McCain.
 
Written By: Gerry
URL: http://
Martin’s right, the supers can’t go back on this without a MAJOR disaster on O’s part. If they trash the nomination of the first "serious" AA major party Presidential candidate, the AA community may well start to seriously reconsider their support for the party of slavery and racism. The Democrats can live without the Presidency, but they need the down-ticket votes for Congress.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
Regarding the story about Obama’s half brother living in squalor in Kenya:

a) Is it true?
b) Is it old news?
c) Will the story further sour the American public on Obama, as they look closer at this candidate?

/story is up on Drudge right now
 
Written By: JasperPants
URL: http://
Martin — On paper Obama certainly is a weak presidential candidate. In practice he defied gravity for so long — greatly abetted by the media — that I was worried.

The 2000 and 2004 elections were darn close but in 2008, with an unpopular two-term president, an unpopular war, and a wheezing economy, the stars are aligned for a Democratic victory. The Generic Democrat has been outpolling the Generic Republican by 10-15 points for most of a year now.

Fortunately, the Democrats did not pick a generic candidate, but the most bizarre and inexperienced candidate ever. Finally, that is catching up with the Democrats, as the voters catch on to Obama. I also agree that the media’s protection of Obama will hurt him in the long run.

I’m still not as optimistic as you are. I think McCain will win but only by 1-3 points.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
I’m still not as optimistic as you are. I think McCain will win but only by 1-3 points.
Time will tell, but Obama’s favorables have fallen like a brick down an airshaft.

McCain is up by 5 with likelies in Zogby today.

And the shadows chasing the lad from Trinity Church haven’t quite caught up with him yet.

Obama way overplayed his hand with the antiwar base, way overplayed it. Now he looks not just like someone who wanted to lose when the going got tough, he looks like someone who wishes we were losing as the going gets good.

And, remarkably, McCain seems capable of erasing the age difference and making Obama’s stark inexperience the issue.

Plus, it’s the Republicans who have the public’s ear on the energy issue, which is the first issue they have about the economy.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Plus, Obama is talking like a man with a paper as**ole.

He’s telling John McCain that he doesn’t know what he’s up against?

He’s telling a guy was in the hole in a North Vietnamese prison that he doesn’t know what he’s up against?

Well, I guess those hard days at Columbia U. and Harvard really have prepped the "community organizer" for hard combat. After all, he’s been right there beside Michelle struggling to pay for dance lessons.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
It seems like the closer people look at Obama, the less they like what they see.

Which, of course, is why Obama wants to make the next 70 something days about McCain.

But I think, the more people honestly look at McCain, the less disagreeable he is.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Wasn’t I saying here that charging him with being a typical liberal Chicago politician would be a good strategy? Or was it somewhere else?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121918996082755013.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Democrats don’t like it when you say that Barack Obama won his first election in 1996 by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot on technicalities.

...

In real life, it did not matter what Mr. Obama said on the stump or whether South Side voters were impressed. What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.

...

The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.

But Mr. Obama’s offenses against the idea of a "new politics" are many, and go well beyond hardball election tactics. It is telling that, when asked at the Saddleback Forum last weekend to name an instance in which he had worked against his own party or his own political interests, he didn’t have a good answer. He claimed to have worked with his current opponent, John McCain, on ethics reform. In fact, no such thing happened. The two men had agreed to work together, for all of one day, in February 2006, and then promptly had a well-documented falling-out. They even exchanged angry letters over this incident.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/20/video-obamas-invesco-sell-out-an-underground-fundraiser/
Since welching on his promise to remain in the public financing system, Obama has repeatedly proven that he’s nothing more than a Chicago machine pol with no particular qualifications to run a state, let alone a nation.

This massive attempt to cash in on his acceptance speech not only goes against everything he supposedly represented in the primaries, it stems from that singular betrayal on reform in June. Without that, he wouldn’t need the cash, and Obama could have appeared to be an agent of change. Instead, he now looks like someone who’s going after every last bit of cash he can find, and from anyone willing to cough it up. Obama has become the Sell-out In Chief in 60 short days.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
charging him with being a typical liberal Chicago politician would be a good strategy?
It’s got to be in the mix, but the real trick with Obama is to deflate his hypnotic presentation. His style is to sound deeply thoughtful, and use that to distract attention from the paucity of actual thoughts.

He goes straight into the core feelings of people. It’s completely lost on me, but I’ve seen plenty of ordinary, experienced people become mesmerized by it. He arouses what I’d describe as a very emotional and compulsive, but illusory, sense of justice. It’s a good act, and those who are immune to it don’t get how effectively he works it.

This is why McCain’s "Celebrity" and "The One" ads were so effective, because with just a little humor they jabbed a hole in and let the air out of his act.

I sensed a very shaken Obama in the weeks after his European tour. He wasn’t prepared to be so widely disliked for the very act that got him to the nomination. But, be clear, he will never give up on that act.

Obama has put people in his thrall with his presentation. I’d guess that presentation is a mixture of natural and learned skills and techniques. And again I pass along Spengler’s recommendation to rent the film Nightmare Alley for as good a portrait of Obama’s technique as you’ll find.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
This is unclear:
I’d guess that presentation is a mixture of natural and learned skills and techniques.
What I mean to say is that it seems to be a mixture as opposed to predominantly natural or predominantly learned.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
huxley:
Fortunately, the Democrats did not pick a generic candidate, but the most bizarre and inexperienced candidate ever.
They had three to choose from.

Martin McPhillips:
He’s telling a guy was in the hole in a North Vietnamese prison that he doesn’t know what he’s up against?
What does it take to do that? Certainly lots of gall.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
What does it take to do that? Certainly lots of gall.
I once had a younger friend who played pool at the same bar I played at. He was an immigrant from Greece, who had originally come on a student visa, I believe. One of his fantasies was that he wanted to date Jackie Onassis (she was still alive at the time, or I would be telling this story in another context).

He was about 25 at the time and believed that all women had been born to want him.

I used to call him "the man with four balls."

Obama strikes me politically as a man with four balls, which circles nicely back into my story because he’s brought in Jackie’s daughter to help him make his first big decision, selecting a running mate.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Gerry:
Which would have the effect of making your hypothesis unfalsefiable— any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed.
1) Can easily be proven with different approach to polling.
- Poll the same individuals throughout the campaign up until they vote. Then correct your polling makeup’s demographics by matching the actual voters demographics if you want to be more precise.
2) And even if it wasn’t provable, doesn’t make it not true.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider