BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: mg
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:36 AM

One thing I like about Obama is his sense of humor..I think he has a very sharp wit. I have only seen flashes of it but I like it. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:15 AM

I think he actually came out ahead, net net, in Texas, despite the media thrash.

But there is a certain endlessly recycled nasty-minded cynicism that keeps showing up in these threads that just makes me wonder. I guess there's a natural reaction in certain mindsets to put out a heavy effort to stop, nulllify, and eradicate someone who looks a little too strong. I am just saying howit loks to me. You could call it an opinion, I guess.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:43 AM

What voter revolt? Seriously? I have seen Dems come out in droves, here, in the West, which has been dominated by red for so long. If there is any vote revolt what I see is people in general getting out and being excited and actually taking part in the whole process for a change. The numbers have been phenomenal.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:37 AM

>>If Obama loses PA, he should withdraw. That might help stop the voter revolt in the Democratic Party. <<<

Obama is winning by 110 delegates. You are saying that if Hillary has a huge percentage victory and gains say 15 delegates he should quit with a 95 delegate lead?

The voter revolt in the Democratic Party IS Hillary Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:31 AM

>>>Obama doesn't have much sense of humor, he pretty much speaks from a script to handpicked audiences, and his handlers keep him away from "the people"--does that remind you of anyone?<<<

I like Obama's sense of humor. In the debate, he seemed to actually be enjoying the clip of Mrs. Clinton mocking him.

He speaks to audiences of 20,000 kids, who line up in the rain to see him. Hand picked?

George W. Bush's handlers say that he has a good sense of humor.

Obama not only can construct coherent sentences on the fly. I've seen him string several paragraphs together without once giving a reporter a nickname or mocking their hair.

Obama is not where he is today, like some politicians, because of his name, In fact he is there in spite of his name.

I would go so far as to say that, in my opinion the person in politics least like George W. Bush is Barrack H. Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:28 AM

If Obama loses PA, he should withdraw. That might help stop the voter revolt in the Democratic Party. Otherwise it is clear sailing for McCain in the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:25 AM

What news filter do you use, M. Ted? Can you cite any real examples of that? Do you ever watch CSPAN? What I have seen of him was definitely not scripted and it is an insult to insinuate that he is somehow "handled" like that smarmy little bastard that's in there now.

BeeDubyaEll, well said.

Obama's voice is the only one in this whole melee of politicians and the media that is positive and gives people hope. His words of positivity are more powerful than most people realise, but they are feeling it in their hearts and they are crossing lines they've never crossed before to support him. While the rest malpractice against our mass consiousness with dire predictions, worst-case scenarios, and much hand-wringing, Obama stands out and will prevail if enough people will self-discipline themselves enough to say NO! to the negative rhetoric, etc. and really believe and work to help our country become healthy, again.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:16 AM

I am so sick of that nonsense about Hillary being able to win the big states.
Hillary is TYING the big states.
Hillary is TYING in the big states.
Hillary is squeaking out tiny victories in popular vote and Obama is matching her on delegates. Supposedly Hillary had a huge victory last weak. Obama just made up all of the delegates he lost in that defeat in tiny Wyoming and Mississippi.

In a fair process, She has been all but mathematically eliminated. So now she is clinging to hope and working every angle to make the process unfair.

The media is throwing away any sense of reality in this race because they are trying to keep it close. The big news out of Texas and Ohio was not that she won the primaries. The real news was that she ONLY won 10 delegates. Republicans voted for her in the primaries in Texas, and Ohio in order to prolong the race. I know a guy in Dallas who considered just that. Why do you think Hillary won among rural rednecks? Not exactly her base. I don't guess she can count on those votes in the general election eh?

Here is what a strategic Democratic voter needs to think about. In 2000, Gore would have won with one southern state. He wouldn't have needed Florida. With young voters and African Americans supporting him in droves, with the Bush "values" voters unenthusiastic about McCain, Obama has a good chance to win Southern States. Based on primary results He may even take a western Red State or two.

Hillary will be saying the same old thing in the same old red and purple states. Can she beat McCain on defense? He could use the same ad on her that she used on Obama.

If Hillary wins this nomination she will have to do something shady to do so.
A lot of people who want change are looking at this campaign and seeing Bill and Hillary using the same tactics as Karl and George. To me it looks like more of the same.
Looking at their respective records the best candidates to vote for if we really want change would be Obama, McCain and Mrs. Clinton in that order.

Yes I do think the Democrats can lose the election. Michigan and Florida are also a wound Mrs. Clinton is cheerfully picking at. It is obvious she care nothing about the party except as a vehicle to get her elected. I don't think that the Republican Party can do anything to win the election. This is not 1968, and the "Surge" is not having any long term effect other than bringing the Army and Marines closer to the breaking point. I heard on Countdown that 78,000 may now be casualties due to hearing loss.

But Republican voters can help their chances by continuing to vote for Hillary to make it close enough so that her scheming tears the Democrats apart.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: M.Ted
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:38 PM

Obama doesn't have much sense of humor, he pretty much speaks from a script to handpicked audiences, and his handlers keep him away from "the people"--does that remind you of anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:02 PM

My bad, he did win Illinois.

Ferraro sounded like an idiot, and she could end up doing Clinton far more harm than good. It was stupid to trot her out.

She was an idiot when she ran for VP w/Mondale, who was also an idiot at the time he ran, but has aged quite well. He was really something to see when he stepped into Wellstone's shoes. A real class act.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:31 PM

"Hillary has a chance against McCain, but the hell-for-leather youth group might derail her."


                  Q - It looks like we agree again. I think this is where Geraldine Ferraro was coming from when she made the comments she made today. It looks to me like she was literally throwing herself under the bus in an attempt to save the presidency for the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:24 PM

No it doesn't Amos. But he hasn't won a single big state. Sure he is taking small states, especially those with large, conservative African American communities. And I do mean conservative. These folks don't support a lot of things on the Democratic party platform. They are some of the most religious & social values conservatives in the party.

But he can't win Detroit, NY, LA, etc. And if he can't carry a single one of those states beyond his home state of IL, the party elite will be extremely cautious about handing him the baton, I assure you.

And don't kid yourself--if he loses PA & decides to take it to the convention, it will be the party elite calling the shots, nobody else.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:01 PM

He's won 12 of the last fifteen races.

The bizarre twist that keeps occluding this fact is kind of mind boggling.

The simple fact on the ground is that he is the leading candidate, not someone coming up from behind. Hillary is the one who has that still to do.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:47 PM

Sorry. April 22, 2008.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:46 PM

When's the PA primary?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:38 PM

Remember though, the media loves a horse race. Horse trading? Not so much. Hence their dire predictions. It is all for the ratings and revenue.

The train wreck this guy is alluding to is the blasphemous (to the MSM, not the rest of us) idea that bamboozled by the dysfunctional duopoly voters aren't just rolling over and playing dead this year.                                                                                             

I still think there is a very good chance it will all be decided after PA. There is one reality Obama can't skip beyond: he has yet to win a big one. If he can win in PA, he has it locked up. If he loses PA, he may be on his way back to Chi Town.

If he can't win a big one, you will see the party support begin to wilt over summer, for sure. And if it comes down to the convention, I'm guessing the bets will be on Clinton to win it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:10 PM

1) Comparing this year's election to 1972 makes little sense. I'd say a better comparison would be to 1976. In 1972 Nixon and his fellow Republicans had yet to show their true colors, but by 1976 enough people were sufficiently sick of Republicanism to toss Gerald Ford out on his ear. I think Mr. Bush has poisoned the Republican Party's well almost as completely as Nixon did.

2) "His plan, McCain will say, is to win. The Democrats' is to surrender...." Surrender to whom? There's no "enemy" in Iraq. If there ever was one it was Saddam Hussein and he's dead. Other than that, there's just a bunch of pissed off Iraqis who are trying to get an invading army to leave their country. They're not the enemy, they're the people the invasion was supposed to make free. They're free now, so get out. If they don't like each other and want to fight among themselves, get out of the way and let 'em do it.

3) Saying that the closeness of the race for the Democratic nomination is leading to a trainwreck in Denver is BS. That's the way nominating contests should be run. I personally find the fact that both parties' candidates are usually decided upon by the end of February to be appalling. The Democratic nominee will be decided at the convention. So what? That's what the convention is for. We've gotten so accustomed to conventions being little more than ceremonial rubber stamps that we've forgotten what their true purpose is.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:07 PM

Well, it wasn't possible to foresee the exact circumstances from the now distant past, but it was easy beans predicting the Dems would find a way to defeat the country by putting forth yet ANOTHER corporate Dem loser.

And that is now a certainty, regardless of whose name is on the ballot come November.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:04 PM

I think that an Obama/Clinton ticket would do quite well, and Senator Obama could demonstrate his graciousness by extending that offer to Senator Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:53 PM

Oh, ye jaded, broken, and bitter pieces.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:49 PM

If your 3 year old makes a mess in the kitchen, would you dare give him the task of cleaning up?

Maybe the Repubs oughta...but....

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:40 PM

I wish whole heartedly for a Democratic victory but there is a part of me that thinks that the Republicans have earned the responsibility of cleaning up the horrific mess they have made of ever' dam thang.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:30 PM

A lot to that.
Screamer Dean is doing his best to kill his party's chances. Obama is making a run eight years too soon. Hillary has a chance against McCain, but the hell-for-leather youth group might derail her.
The country is still divided, and it could easily be McCain for the next four years.
We will see after Pennsylvania if the Dems can put the wheels back on the wagon and get back in the race.

Subject: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 07:45 PM

the jaws of victory?

Washington Post

How the Democrats Could Lose

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 11, 2008; Page A19

By official count, The Post's 10th most e-mailed column of 2007 was published last June under the headline "How the GOP Could Win." It said that the Republican Party would promote national security as the salient issue of the campaign, making a silk purse (victory in November) out of a sow's ear (the quagmire in Iraq), and keep the White House for four more years. Increasingly, I think I might have been right.

It was Mitt Romney, the Harvard MBA, who left John McCain with what could be the winning business plan. In his campaign swan song, Romney used the two words you will hear repeatedly in the fall: retreat and defeat. Referring to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Romney said, "They would retreat, declare defeat, and the consequence of that would be devastating."

In my 2007 column, I compared this presidential campaign to that of 1972, when George McGovern lost 49 states to Richard Nixon. The parallels are in some ways obvious -- the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq, above all. What I could not have foreseen a year ago was how much more obvious the parallels would become. Back in '72, the Democratic Party was split between doves and hawks, reformers and stogie smokers -- even between men and women. The result was a national convention that was boisterous, unruly and ugly to look at. That convention might, however, look like a tea party compared with what could happen in Denver this August.

At the moment, no one can figure out how the Democrats are going to get a nominee. What the party needs is someone like George Mitchell, a senior figure of trusted wisdom who might be able to do what Howard Dean, the party chairman, clearly cannot -- avoid the train wreck everyone can see coming. But barring either Mitchell or a miracle, neither Clinton nor Obama alone can garner enough delegates. It might take a combination of superdelegates and a revote in Michigan and Florida -- punished for holding unauthorized primaries -- to come up with a nominee. By the time that happens, the Democratic Party will be one huge, dysfunctional family.

In that 2007 column, I did not take the surge into account. Putting an additional 30,000 troops into Iraq has indeed made a difference. It has not won the war and it has not enabled American soldiers to come home, but it has dampened the violence there -- notwithstanding the carnage yesterday. Overall, civilian deaths are down. Overall, military deaths are down. To that (limited but important) extent, the surge has worked.

When I mentioned 1972 and Vietnam to an important Clinton adviser, he pointed out that Nixon initially won in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war. That nonexistent plan was still apparently unfolding four years later. In addition, Nixon made opposition to war seem unpatriotic and defeatist. He exploited the war, exacerbating cultural divisions.

John McCain lacks Nixon's raw talent for hypocrisy, so I don't think he'll go that far. But he will make his stand on the surge, and it will be, for him, the functional equivalent of Nixon's secret plan. His plan, McCain will say, is to win. The Democrats' is to surrender, he will say. The issue, if he frames it right, will not be the wisdom of the war but how to get out with pride.

McCain, of course, owns the surge. He advocated putting additional troops in Iraq way back when President Bush, deep in denial, was proclaiming ultimate faith in Rummy and his merry band of incompetents. McCain, in fact, oozes national security. His weakness is that he has too often advocated using -- or bluffing about using -- force (North Korea, Iran, the former Yugoslavia). With the deft application of just a little demagoguery, he can be made to look like Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), the deranged Air Force commander in Stanley Kubrick's always instructional "Dr. Strangelove."

You can see it all happening again: a Republican charging that the Democrats are defeatist, soft on national security and not to be trusted with the White House. And you can see the Democratic Party heading toward Denver for yet another crackup. This time, instead of McGovern, a genuine war hero (the Distinguished Flying Cross) caricatured as a sissy, the party will put up either a candidate who has been inconsistent on the war or one with almost no foreign policy or military experience.

A year ago, it looked like the party could not lose. This year, it seems determined to try.