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

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:38 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: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:46 PM

When's the PA primary?

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: akenaton
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:05 AM

Going from past results, "wit" is not a requirement in a US presidential candidate.

Why do you accept this charade?..........Its almost unbelievable.
The people who contribute to this forum appear to be intelligent and sincere....in general.
Why are you not all demanding a REAL alternative?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:27 AM

BWL, terrific analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:04 AM

Well, the media would like to have a brawl, instead of just a floor fight, which wasn't all that uncommon in the 20th century, but thanks to brainwashing of the electorate, people seem to now view as an impossibility because it isn't 'nice' to criticize one's opponent.

The process the Obamamaniacs keep whining about is a process set up by the party. Don't like it? Well then, make a few billion and buy some change--the way it REALLY gets done. Obama has more than enough chump change to buy his way in. What he won't have when he gets to Denver is enough delegates. And neither will Clinton.

So let's say it is a stalemate when they reach Denver. Obama wins everything except PA, and enough delegates to put him over the top.

Clinton wins all the big states, is within 100-200 delegates of Obama, and doesn't have enough delegates to put her over the top.

Who should get the nod then?

What is everyone proposing to broker this deal, because it is NOT going to come down to the number of states won, or the popular vote this year.

So instead of being a bunch of prissy whiners--what is your solution to the Dem conundrum people?

Give it to Obama, because he is nicer than Clinton (you say) and makes people in red states the Dems won't win in November feel good?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:54 AM

Several alternatives come to mind.

One is to count total popular votes.

One is to take as candidate whoever has the most delegates plus superdelegates.

I suppose you could resort to applauseometers in a pinch.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:58 AM

Obama is gonna be the next president. Hope y'all can find something you like about him before he's in.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:18 AM

If Obama goes into the convention with more than a hundred pledged delegates than Mrs. Bill Clinton and the "superdelegates" over turn that, then the Democrats will lose the election.

The superdelegates have to think of the party. If they are going to use their votes to overturn the will of the people, they had better have a damned good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:35 PM

After the "Beltway Primaries", Obama finally took a definitive lead, and it looked like it was all over for Hilary--but he couldn't knock her out, and that says as much about him as it does about her.

As a person, for good or ill, Hilary is aggressive, persistent, and tenacious. She doesn't let up, and she doesn't lose her focus.

Obama isn't as tough--but he needs to be if he's going up against McCain--

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:45 PM

He's tough enough, Ted; he just doesn't take people into the guttersniping arena on trivial, or knee-jerk political, grounds. Why not? Doesn't he want to, you know, win?

Well, he does, but he wants to win at a better game. That's the difference between them in some respects; Hil's claws come out unnecessarily, and it makes her look as though it is winning first with her, and the quality of the game an afterthought.

When you lie down with pigs, you stand up smelling of slops; and when you scrap with rabid badgers at their own level, you look pretty rabid. But the mission of that office is not street fighting. We do not need a President who can jump into any battle that comes along; rather, we need one who tries and succeeds at making battles sublimate into diplomatic evolution and a quest for better solutions, even though willing to put on the gloves when the case is unavoidable.

This is the difference between Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Iraq.
I suspect it is also the difference between HRC and BHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:57 PM

Amos, if you are a Democrat why in god's name are you so clueless as to what the Democratic party rules are for a brokered convention?

It is going to be a brokered convention, like it or not.

Why?

Neither candidate has enough delegates to win outright.

The superdelegates WILL decide it, and some of their rationale will be what is best for the party. But for the most part, the superdelegates will decide who is the best candidate to go forward against their Republican opponent in November.

That decision will be made based upon who won what.

A large part of that what will include who won the states that Dems can count on, who won the states that could go either way but are a must have for Dems to win in November.

At the bottom of the list will be states the Republicans are expected to carry, regardless of who Democratic nominee is.

That's how they do it. Will there be a floor fight? If one or the other candidate doesn't drop out, yes.

What will the floor fight be about?

It will be about whether to seat the delegates from Florida or Michigan, or how the votes from those states will be factored in.

Will there be a backroom deal to choose the next Democratic presidential candidate. If neither of them withdraws, yes.

End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:06 PM

Your clarity is most entertaining, Gigi, and your overweening certainty is quite impressive, if not wholly persuasive. If you look at my remarks in context you will see I was responding to a question earlier int he thread, not projecting the actual methods that will be used. So you were just a hair quick on the ole trigger there. But hell, it's an easy error to make, I've done it scores of times, so no hard feelings.

Did you ever read that old Dale Carnegie classic about "How to Win Friends and Influence People", BTW? An oldy but a goody.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:23 PM

Guest, guest, you seem to be buying Mrs. Clinton's alternate to reality hook line and sinker.

Obama is leading in primary delegates, in caucus delegates, in popular vote and most importantly in pledged delegates. His lead in democratically elected, pledged delegates is all but mathematically insurmountable. Mrs. Clinton cannot win without a miracle or without pulling a fast one.

Mrs. Clinton squeaking out a victory over Obama in Ohio is not an indicator of how either would do against McCain. The primary election was fought over NAFTA. McCain totally supports NAFTA. There will be a completely different dynamic in the general election. If she ahd won real victories in Texas and Ohio, she would have come away with more than 11 delegates. The Democrats have had record turnouts in virtually every primary contest. The super delegates need to look at that and harness it for the general campaign.

If there is a "brokered deal" at the convention that overturns the wishes of the majority of voters and especially if it disenfranchises all of those young voters and African American voters who have turned out in droved for Obama, then the general election is going to come down to McCain and Mrs. Clinton duking it out in purple states over who can garner the most votes from middle aged and old white women.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:31 PM

I remember that book Amos. I did the course too. I especially remember the part where if you go into a man's office and see a picture of a sailboat you are supposed to talk about the sea.

My problem is that when I see a picture of a horse I remember my experience with horses and tend to talk about manure. It doesn't work! What am I doing wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 03:30 PM

LOL!!! Sounds like you got the rule down but missed the concept there, brother Jack!!! :D

(My question about Carnegie was addressed to Gigi. I think she would really enjoy the book.)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 03:38 PM

Votes and delegates have to be in the right places for a candidate to be valid if there is no outright winner.
Votes in places like Mississippi are worrying- Clinton got 70% of the white vote (60% female), Obama got 90% of the black vote. The state has 26% African Americans.
Can the white male vote be salvaged when they voted in low numbers in the Demo primary (40%) or had voted in the Republican primary?

In how many states do women prefer Clinton over Obama, and how will this translate into votes in the election- if Obama is selected as the candidate, will these women vote for him or stay home?

The superdelegates will be faced with many such questions if neither candidate has sufficient votes to carry the Convention. They may stand aside to let a floor vote or two take place.
A floor fight can change many things. Delegates are not held to their pledge on later votes- the leaders of the delegations may argue for a vote change.

It would then be up to the superdelegates to direct the Convention delegates to the best candidate to oppose McCain. Voting so far in the primaries indicate that he will be strong in many states and not easy to derail.

I don't always agree with G-G, but his conclusion is hard to argue with.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Voice Of Truth
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 03:55 PM

Once again I stand by my assetion that Obama will lose the election for the Democrats if he receives the nomination- which is not yet determined, so Hillary bashers may not want to lick their chops just yet.


I fear that the Democrats will consider their losing streak ad infinitum in Presidential elections for two main reasons:

The Democratic Party is just in a shambles. They don't know how to win; often seems as if they don't care anymore. When you watch the process of the Republicans picking their candidate, you get a feeling that they are TALKING to each other..and they are talking about how to get ELECTED. The Democrats seem to consistently pick and back weak candidates, like Obama, who as another poster said, may be a good candidate in 8 years but not now- Demcrats exhibit a great lack of wisdom and cohesion when it comes to trying to have any success at
winning this national office.   After 40 years of being the underdog in National Elections, it seems the spirit, and even the true character, of the Democratic Party is on the wane, if not totally beaten. One wonders if it will even survive or be replaced by a one party system; or perhaps a two party system of Republicans and an even further to the right alternative party.

2. The Republicans and right wing seems to have taken a choke hold on this nation. Some of it is dirty tricks, fixing elections and forcing Dems out of office for the same (or lesser) offenses that their own politicos indulge in. The media also seems to be at the command of the right wing; once the ideas of JFK and FDR, even Jimmy Carter, seemed to have resonance in this nation- an American dream that INCLUDED the poor, the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, a country that, like the Statue of Libery, was willing to embrace and support many different types of people. Now the "Greed is Good" mentality that festered during the Nixon and Reagan years seems to have become a new, albiet grotesque Bible of how to run a country. Not only are the ideas of former great Democratic statesmen considered a liberal anethema to the general media and populace, at this point even the thoughts of an man like Eisehower (who was aghast at the disgraceful treatment of Native Americans, and warned about the power of military industrial complex) would sound like a left wing stark raving socialist to the people who control the airwaves.

Perhaps someday the better instincts of this nation will resound again, but I fear it is not in this election. And I suspect, not even in our lifetimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:00 PM

And, I suspect, the GOP paid you to post this kind of defeatist crap ad nauseum throughout the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Voice Of Truth
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM

You couldn't be more wrong. But whose payroll are you on?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:30 PM

40 years of being the underdog in National Elections? In the last 40 years (since 1968), the US has had 28 years of Republican presidents and 12 years of Democratic presidents, 22 years of a Democratic majority in the Senate with 14 years of Republican control and 4 years of tie, and 28 years of Democratic control of the House to 12 years of Republican control.   Please tell us what you mean by "underdog"?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Slag
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 05:43 PM

Not to worry. You Dems will do what you always do and the Republicans are learning, s-l-o-w-l-y leaning from you. You will vote Party above everything. It matters not the banner bearer, only the banner. Keep you doubts and your misgivings INHOUSE! Chin up and keep the chant going!

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:04 PM

From Slag
>>You will vote Party above everything. It matters not the banner bearer, only the banner. <<

You Republicans gave 14% of the vote in Mississippi to Mike Huckabee a week after he had given up the race. Considering that Romney and Huckabee togrther got about 70 % of the vote in the Red States they contested, you will be lucky to get half your members out to vote in November, if you don't have Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton to run against.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:15 PM

Can't remember what the predictions were for the last ten elections (40 years), but win or lose the Democrats have proven ineffective in promoting their objectives in the Congress. Unfortunately they end up cutting their own throats.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:35 PM

Reguardless, come November, the country well be well into a depression over the resession, the housing free fall, the cost of the war even if in it's short sighted memory it's forgotten about the war itself. Add to that the declinning employment & the Repubs will this time shoulder all the blame & rightfully so. So they can do whatever they want but come November they'll be kissing either a black ass or a female's ass. As far as I'm concerned they can kiss both, preferably the female's ass first & then get out of town so that the counrty can get back to breathing.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:43 PM

What matters, as far as I am concerned, is finding and supporting an individual who retains a percentage of sanity, equability, and emotional stability, and a sense of human judgement, historical perspective, and constitutional values. Barack Obama has all of these. In respect of his character, his learning, and his sense of correct priorities and importances, he is far better a proposition for pulling the nation out of Mister Bush's depression than either John McCain or Hillary, and orders of magnitude better than the cretinous incumbent.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 06:49 PM

Well
   The thread was about the Dems winning not which dem is best suited for the job.

That's a thread in it's self

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:10 PM

No, you have that wrong Barry. Amos believes every thread is a thread to tell you why you should agree with him, and vote for his man. Note his use of the term 'correct principles' rather than 'principles I agree with' and you get the gist of it.

Amos knows what is correct. If you don't agree with him, according to his logic, then you must be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:32 PM

Oh, and I thought that was YOUR gig, gg.

While all of you naysayers, handwringers, and dire predictors are looking backwards, the rest of us are looking ahead, with Obama and hope, we are looking at something other than what is in the past and believing in something better than that past. Where you put your energy is what you create...think about it.