Advice for Obama

By Booman Tribune
I have a few thing to add to Chris Bowers' advice for Barack Obama. Go after McCain's strengths. Do it now and do it at the convention. Let your surrogates off the leash.

What are McCain's strengths?

1) The media loves him. People hate the media. Show well-known pundits drooling over McCain and make fun of them (and McCain). Make McCain the poster-child for inside-the-Beltway-wankerism and out-of-touchness.
2) He's supposed to be a Maverick. Never lose an opportunity to point out how much of an orthodox right-winger McCain is on the issues. Never praise him for some alleged break with his party or independent stance he may have taken in the past. Don't say that he's changed from the maverick he once was. Say that he never was a maverick in the first place.
3) His military record and experience working on issues related to our national defense gives him an appearance of being qualified for the job. Point out how wrong McCain has been on predicting the future. Point it out over and over and over and over and over again.

Unless McCain's strengths are neutered, he will remain in contention. But his weaknesses need to be exploited as well. Chief among his weaknesses are his bad temperament, his poor relations with his senate colleagues, and his horrible reputation with the base of his party. Drive wedges between McCain and the rest of his party at every opportunity. This is the chief argument in favor of including Republicans and former Republicans in the campaign message machine.

McCain's positions on the issues are a weakness as well, but that should take second place to ripping him down off his pedestal and diving a wedge between him and his party.

When it comes to the national meta-narrative, it should be all about how McCain is the darling of the Beltway elite punditocracy, how he's a far-right winger that is indistinguishable from Bush/Cheney (shows no independence), and that he has no power of prediction (he makes horrible judgments). He's hot-tempered and distrusted by his colleagues, and he's showing age-related mental diminishment.

This is tough stuff, but it's all true. And this election is too important to leave things to chance. McCain needs a fist in his mouth every day so that he has no room to maneuver.

Comments

(118)

Change Your Staff!!!!

Obama,
Your advisors need to be fired.

Look at all the poor advice you have been receiving after moving to the top of the nominee list:

a) Instead of using your so-called great communication skills to convice the political center and right why they are wrong on most issues(if not all), you have caved in and shifted your positions closer to the right at the expense of the democratic base.

b) You could have been a hero standing up to weak bush over FISA; however, you caved in like some school girl because some advisor told you that you would appear weak on terror.

What they didn't tell you is that you validated all the crimes bush commited up until that vote.

Don't hide behind fellow dems that caved on FISA, because if the leader of the democratic party wouldn't stand up to bush, why should they.

Now really, if you didn't stand up to a weak GW Bush over FISA, what makes us believe that if you were in the U.S. Senate in 2002 you would had the backbone to standup to a very strong bush over the war resolution vote!!!!

c) Why did you embarass yourself and your political base by begging for votes in front of a political far right forum that only enhanced your opponent in the eyes of all. You didn't even demand to go last in the debate to prevent McSame from cheating through gaining access to the questions.

The final straw is that after giving up so much to McSame and he right wing nuts, you didn't get McSame to agree to appear infront of your base. That's not smart!!!

d) Finally, who on your team advised you to go against the democratic SuperDelegates. OK, you may have your reasons, I will address that later, but why not wait until you wrap up the nomination.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/20/obama_clinton_look...

Now I will explain why that is a terrible idea in 2012. If you eliminate or reduce the power of the superdelegates, then you give all the power to the corporate media to define and promote democratic candidates through their bias political programs.

Surely, if we did that, then the corporate media will only give access to those democratic candidates that they deem worthly. That worked well for you in the last primary, but do you think the corporate media should have even more control over the democratic candidates.

Maybe Huffery2000 was right. You and your supporters want to change the party and have no respect for those that have servered it for many decades.

Finally, in closing, I am begining to have serious concerns about your judgement. Not as much as I have about McSame, but you surely have to make improvements.
Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407 August 20, 2008 - 8:09pm

That sure is a whole lot of "concern", troll...
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

Hillary Hater Vs Obama Supporter

SJ,
With your many post, I know that you hate hillary.

For your information, I don't hate Obama.

Just because I have questions or concerns about him don't mean that I don't want Obama to succeed.

You are too young to remember, but Obama reminds me of Jimmy Carter.

He was a press favorite in the spring of 76 because he was an independant DC outsider of change unlike those terrible established democrats.

Well, the press turned against him by the fall and he just beat a weak Ford.

Carter is a good man and was far more successful than given credit in the media.

However, he didn't stand a chance against the republicans and their corporate media which was far less bias than it is today.

I am just concerned that Obama is getting poor advice and needs to bring in fresh ideas into his campaign before it's too late.

It will not be the first, Reagan and Clinton did and their adminstration improved.

In closing, the facts are that you are a clinton hater and I am not only looking at winning in the fall but putting Obama in the best position to become a great president for the next eight years.
Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407 August 20, 2008 - 9:15pm

Many of us want the Obama campaign to 'take off the gloves'. Not 'Go Dirty', but just stop being so nicey-nice. There's PLENTY of items/issues that one could go after McCain on....I hope that they're simply holding out until after the convention(s?).

I also believe that I'm not exactly alone in the desire to hear a more populist platform. I want to hear a sincere embrace of John Edwards' 'New Deal' leaning policies. I thought that I heard a sound bite of that notion this morning on the way to work and listening to the Bill Press show, when Obama was describing what he was looking for in a V.P.

I loved Jimmie Carter. I cast my very first vote (at age 18) for him. Had we implemented his energy policy and not allowed it to be dismantled by the newly emerging neocon cabal, imagine how much farther ahead of the curve we would have been. I'd be willing to bet that we wouldn't be trying to play catch-up now. He was too nice a guy to have been able to handle the down and dirty that was directed against him.

Like shooting ducks in a barrel...they are bigger than fish.

"Many of us want the Obama campaign to 'take off the gloves'. Not 'Go Dirty', but just stop being so nicey-nice. There's PLENTY of items/issues that one could go after McCain on....I hope that they're simply holding out until after the convention(s?). "
Road,
He has been hitting back hard but the media just don't cover all of it.

However, after the convention the fun really starts.

For instance,

McCain claims that 20,000 troops of the surge help turn Iraq around, well if you believe that, you must ask yourself how successful we would be in Iraq if we replaced those 100,000 overpriced contrators with 80,000 more troops.

Stay on message with the cost of these contractors in place of U.S. Military personel.

Hit back on contractor failures and how connected people in the adminstration have benefited.

I think Obama should concentrate on bringing those over paid ineffective contractors home long before we bring out fighting girls and boys.

What do you think?
Thanks

Would the contractor issue..

..get any play in the MSM, doubt it, but I think you make a very good point. Obama needs to propose a law that would revent contractors working in war zones( I know, its not a war zone, its an occupation but it looks and hurts like a war zone, as if a war had been declared) and stress to the public losing jobs and houses how much of their money is going to these contractors. $200,000-$360,000 for a single contractor, plus the fees paid to the company doubles that again and the public might get the idea that someone is milking them dry.

Overall, I think we need Obama, he is smart, learns fast and is calm and mature. The type of person who could do well. But his shift to the right has me questioning his wisdom. He had the makings of he perfect storm to drive the neo-cons out of power forever but is now looking as if he wants to be all things to all people. Sad, when he had the perfect opportunity to make a stand for real change. Maybe he just does not have the confidence in the people to appreciate the power of an inspirational speaker to get people behind even tough decisions. The country needs radically tough decisions made to survive.

Very Good!!!

Stanj,
Keep up the good work!
Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407 August 20, 2008 - 10:46pm

Yes, you are correct that "he has been hitting back hard but the media doesn't cover all of it." They won't, either, yet they fawn all over McCain. That's because the owners of the media outlets are still believing that their bread is still buttered on the republican side. Once they truly realize that the majority of the American people are sick to death of the policies that have been implemented during the Reagan era and followed to one degree or another ever since, they will change their tune. Look at MSNBC. They have begun to read the tea leaves. Corporations follow the money.

What Obama needs to do is to get those hard hitting attacks on McCain out there via campaign ads. That's the only way that his message will get any significant air-time. From what I heard today during my breaks (listening to my local liberal talk station), he's starting to do just that. Good!

My hope is that he'll pour it on once he's secured the nomination. Then the media might just stand up and take notice. I'm thinking that he's holding back because until he is actually named the nominee, too many campaign commercials would seem almost inappropriate. (Maybe that's why he isn't running very many at this time?)

By KvnRJohnso407 August 20, 2008 - 9:15pm

With your many post, I know that you hate hillary.
--------------------------
What you know and what you think you know are two entirely different things, with the latter heavily outweighing the former. Hate Hillary? I don';t even know her...

You are too young to remember, but Obama reminds me of Jimmy Carter.
---------------------------
Imagine my surprise that now you've managed to weasel in the "Obama is Carter!" meme.

GOP aiming to link Obama with Carter
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/gop-aiming-to-link-obama-with-carter-20...

Carter is a good man and was far more successful than given credit in the media.
However, he didn't stand a chance against the republicans and their corporate media which was far less bias than it is today

----------------------------
He didn't stand a chance, but he won. Hrm...
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

Carter lost to Reagan in a landslide you idiot

Maybe you kids should not talk about things that happened before 1999.

By hufflarry2000 August 21, 2008 - 10:43am

Carter lost to Reagan in a landslide you idiot
-------------------------
The Carter-Reagan election took place in part during the spring of '76? Who knew?

In your haste to try and take a shot at me, you forgot to pay attention to specifics...
resulting in a missed target, handwringer2000.

Go change your diaper.
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

The Carter-Reagan election was in 1980

you idiot. The Reagan-Ford primary was in 1976. I worked on the Carter campaign in 76.

By anusleaky2000 August 21, 2008 - 11:03am

Now, go back and read the exchange between me and the concern troll, handwringer2000.
Be sure to pay close attention to the election year cited.
You'll get it. Eventually...
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

Let's try this again

Obviously he was talking about both Carter elections. When he said Carter never had a chance, he meant 1980 because Carter lost. Carter won in 1976.

By hufflarry2000 August 21, 2008 - 11:16am

Let's try this again
---------------------
Yes, let's show everyone again how dumb you are.

Obviously he was talking about both Carter elections. When he said Carter never had a chance, he meant 1980 because Carter lost. Carter won in 1976.
---------------------
Really?

You are too young to remember, but Obama reminds me of Jimmy Carter.

He was a press favorite in the spring of 76 because he was an independant DC outsider of change unlike those terrible established democrats.

Well, the press turned against him by the fall and he just beat a weak Ford.
--By KvnRJohnso407August 20, 2008 - 9:15pm

Obviously he was talking solely about the '76 election. I mean, it's right there on the page, anusleaky. Please stop making an ass of yourself. Carter was up for re-election in 1980. Obama is not running for re-election. If he was talking about 1980, his point would be moot, and it would be dumb of him to compare apples to oranges. Not surprising that he would do so, but dumb.
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

You are incapable of reading comprehension

You were educated in the post Reagan years.

By hufflarry2000August 21, 2008 - 11:40am

You are incapable of reading comprehension

LMAO!!

Look at the thread dumb ass.

Yeah But!!!

" I worked on the Carter campaign in 76."
FUB2,
Yeah, but were you one of those reagan - Democrats that abandon Carter in 1980?

Even more importantly, the way you select supportive information out of a post and twist it around to support your position.......I believe you might even be Dick Chenney!!!!

If you have a question about what someone posted, you should ask for clarification before you twist it around to support your position.

Clearly, the media turned on Carter in 1980 and that was the election of point.
Thanks

Who the hell are you talking to?

I was well aware that you were talking about 1980, the Obamacon was not. I am not a Reagan Dem, I have NEVER,EVER voted for a Republican in my life.

I getting out of here as faster than bush should leave Iraq!!!

Huff,
Sorry....I mean like when you go after someone its like posts come out of no where!!!

I thought I responding to SJ.

Boy I am going to just set back and laugh are all those great names like Obamacon and Hillbots...

What are you guys going to call McSamers .....oh that it's terrible...some help here!!!

Again Sorry....keep fighting....They are now talking about Hillary as VP on KO and did you miss the discussion on Verdict.

In short, those talking heads seems to be reading posts at this site that are in support of hillary being selected as VP.

One even said he changed his mind recently considering Obama's current poll slide.

Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407 August 21, 2008 - 11:14am

I worked on the Carter campaign in 76."
FUB2,
Yeah, but were you one of those reagan - Democrats that abandon Carter in 1980?

--------------------------
Yet more evidence that you pay no attention. fubby wasn't the one who typed that, dimwit.
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

Shot the wrong Duck!!!

"With your many post, I know that you hate hillary.
--------------------------
What you know and what you think you know are two entirely different things, with the latter heavily outweighing the former. Hate Hillary? I don';t even know her..."
SJ,
Sorry I really thought you were FUB2...

With that said, you seem to avoid the question like he and Dick Chenney.

Many people Hate Hillary and they don't know her .....I guess you meant personally.

What I am interested in and you can help.

If Obama selected Hillary as a running mate, what is the percentage of Obama supporters in your opinion would vote another candidate or not vote at all?

Just to get things going..... despite the many negative posts in blogs a this site against that selection .....I believe that percentage of Obama supporters that would desert him if he selected Hillary would be less than 5% if that high.

What do you think?
Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407August 21, 2008 - 11:50am

Hillary does not want to be VP and her name isn't even active in discussion except in hypotheticals.

FYI

" her name isn't even active in discussion except in hypotheticals."
FUB2,
Well, if you watched KO last night it was being discussed for the first time.

I know if you watched the Verdict last night you wouldn't be making that same statement.

But your are right, until last night, the main stream media has avoided asking the question what impact Hillary would have with Obama supporters and even more important, the impact in the general election.

Come on, she was really the first serious female candidate for president of the United States and the main stream media is not considering what impact she would have as a running mate?

I have something to say on that point but I want to wait until after the selection.

Just like they avoided including Gore's name in the polls during the primaries.

But good point you made.
Thanks

Great Job!

"Hillary does not want to be VP"
FUB2,
You are smoking today....another good point!!!

On that "smoking" word, it's like a race car at the track!!

For Hillary the VP slot is her best option.

Forget about 2012, white house is over for her if she doesn't take the VP option.

As a matter of fact, I think she accepted the VP slot back in June if not sooner.

The reason is that she is not a raising star like JFK and Ronald Reagan when they lost the nominations in 1956 (thanks HUFF) and 1976, she is now a fading power broker in the party like Kerry.

Did you know up until that media made a big deal about that 2006 Kerry joke, he thought that he was really the front runner in 2008.

She would make a fool of herself if she made a big convention show and Obama lost the fall election.

I was betting that she would fight to open the door for my man Gore...but why risk that with these poor poll numbers for Obama.

Her best option if she wants to return to the white House and later win it out right is to support Obama and follow the Gore VP track.

Again, that is a good and valid question.
Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407 August 21, 2008 - 11:50am

If Obama selected Hillary as a running mate, what is the percentage of Obama supporters in your opinion would vote another candidate or not vote at all?
--------------------------
Such speculation is moot, as Obama will not be selecting Hillary as a running mate. Give it up.
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

Yes it is!!!

"Such speculation is moot"
SJ,
Yes it speculation, but what if you wrong because the main stream corporate media does ask the question.

If I recall, the main stream media claim that Kerry would never select Edwards because he would outshine Kerry.

Edwards would reward for accepting the VP slot, the media ignored the candidate they praise so much in the spring.

Get my to my speculative question, what would you do if indeed Obama selected Hillary.

In your opinion, what would be the reaction of the Obama supporters and how many would not vote for him in the fall because he placed hillary on the ticket.
Thanks

By KvnRJohnso407 August 21, 2008 - 12:47pm

Get my to my speculative question, what would you do if indeed Obama selected Hillary.
------------------------------
I answered this for you on another thread: I'd go ice-skating in hell.

Now, stop repeatedly asking me irrelevant questions, or I will be forced to come up with another comical answer to dismiss your silly attempt at digging to the bottom of the "What If?!" barrel...
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

Yeah your are right about something

"I answered this for you on another thread: I'd go ice-skating in hell."
SJ,
I agree...You would be out there skating on thin ice if you are WRONG!!!

Better to have you there than marching and voting for McSame.

Note...you would be proving something else...you would no longer clutter up this AAR site with your anti-hillary-democratic posts.
Thanks

So much anger, so many--what

So much anger, so many--what are you personally doing besides blowing hot air.

Is that it!!!

bee,
With all that material and you just come with ANGER!!!

Straight out the the republican play book!!!

How many times have you heard cable tv talking heads claim that democrats just hate bush?

Now, in short, I ask my fellow AAR bloggers that hate bush today, would you hate him if he continued the successful policies of Bill Clinton:

Balance budget, peace, surpluses for the next 10 years, and protecting us from terrorist from abroad.

I don't remember any cable talking head asking why 33% the people(republicans hardliners) hated bill clinton even though he was considered a successfull president leaving office with the highest job approval level.

In short, dems don't hate bush the person, as a matter of fact he might be a cool guy to hang out with, we hate bush as a PRESIDENT because his policies are having a direct or indirect negative impact on our lives.

Republicans know how to play the "Hate Card"
Thanks
PS - Me hating Obama is a joke!!!!

Obama is running a terrible campaign.

Today McCain said he wanted to reinstate the draft. Why would he do that? To start more wars of course. McCain is dangerous and a loose cannon. Graduating 5th from the bottom shows he is not bright. Giving him guns and bombs is exactly the wrong thing to do.

McCain wants to go to war against Russia.

McCain wants to stay a hundred years in Iraq.

McCain wants to attack Iran.

McCain's visit to South America was no fluke. Be careful Chavez.

The next think you know, McCain will want to "finish the war" in Viet Nam.

Evangelicals don't care. They only worry about the dangerous gays and abortion. No wonder McCain is against abortion. He needs cannon fodder. Please, use the evangelicals. They deserve it.

So, what was Obama's response to this???? NOTHING. YOU GOT IT. OBAMA HAS SAID NOTHING.

Another military hospital has shown up covered with black mold. McCain has voted over and over against funding Military Hospitals For the military.

McCain received a grade of D from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
McCain received a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America

And what has Obama said about any of this???? NOT A FUCKING THING!!!!

I'm really starting to feel depressed about Obama. Instead of standing up for the troops, Obama stands up with a puffy, quivering lip and says "I love my country, stop talking mean".

WELL SIR, YOU CAN START BY PROTECTING THE TROOPS. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? GROW A PAIR.

"Evangelicals don't care.

"Evangelicals don't care. They only worry about the dangerous gays and abortion. No wonder McCain is against abortion. He needs cannon fodder. Please, use the evangelicals. They deserve it."
Dean,
Love that one so far it the best!
Thanks

Just give him time

"And what has Obama said about any of this???? NOT A FUCKING THING!!!!"
Dean,
Unlike hillary, McSame has a very powerful protective corporate media layer that is very difficult to break through.

Eight years, they successfully protected Bush from impeachment.

I think instead of buying up millions of dollars of 30 second targeted political ads, he needs to bundle that money and pay for 30 minute blocks of cable time.

Yes, we have to feed the beast that we are fighting ....but war is messy...in the end victory is all that counts.

Concentrate that money on supportive cable networks and buy some ads times on other channels.

Remember, you guys laugh at the religious vote, but just look at all the cable access they have to push their conservative adgenda.

Obama should worry more about TBS and ISPN than democratic Superdelegates.
Kevin

He still has to worry about the supers

for another few days. Maybe he could be concentrating more on McCain if he didn't still have to fend off the Hillbots who can't accept her defeat. In a few days, the convention will make it official and Obama can put all his energy into McCain but the distractions from within are troubling.

Be for Real!!

"if he didn't still have to fend off the Hillbots who can't accept her defeat."
gt5,
Just like republicans, they always put their problems on others instead of concentrating on correcting their mistakes.

The real problem is that Obama poll numbers of slipping running against a politician that plans to continue the policies that created a failed costly bloody war and a Titanic dissaster economy.

What about the corporate media that was so fast to turn any statement that was made by the clinton camp in to a racial attack against Obama followed by a display of displeasure with the clintons going so negative.

Now, McSame can imply that Obama is unpatriotic and "doesn't put america first" and where is that same Obama protective corporate media that were all over the clintons.

Well, I guess in the option of cable network talking heads it acceptable to call the leader of a major political party unpatrotic just like was not too long ago it was acceptable to question the race of a candidate.

gt6, I think the above points are doing more damage to the Obama campaign than Hillary or any other democrat.

If I accept your logic that Hillbots(cute) attacking Obama are distracting him from McSame, what would nation think of Obama if he is campaigning to raise money for a former candidate with supporters that are trying to defeat him.

Wow....even GW isn't that dumb!!!!
Thanks

Timing is everything

As someone else pointed out, Obama is being careful not to peak too early. He is still not behind and the convention bump will put him ahead. He was gaining ground earlier after it became clear that he was, in fact, the nominee but as the convention becomes close, the Hillary distraction was bound to resurface.

As to supporting Hillary's funding, it is a tightwire act. He needs the support from her follwers, all but the rabid extremists will come over, but he is not going to do anything stupid, like make her VP.

Over the last monthe, he again raised almost twice as much as McCain, but McCain outspent him in a desperate attempt to close the gap. As November comes near, it would be nice to have that money back. Obama won't have that problem.

By gt6August 21, 2008 - 8:14am

I saw on the news last night a poll showing 10-11% of Hilary supporters say they might actually vote for McCain.

These people are just bitter. They will probably just stay home. How stupid can they be to vote for McCain?

On the other hand the polls showed that 49% of people do not want Hillary to be president.

Did I Miss it???

"I saw on the news last night a poll showing 10-11% of Hilary supporters say they might actually vote for McCain.
"
FUB2,
I know you are a fair man unlike the corporate media, but did you overlook the poll question of how many Obama supporters would vote for McCain or "not vote at all" if Hillary was selected as Obama's running mate?

I think that would be a fair question, right.

Well, unless it was a FoxNoise poll.
Thanks
PS-Be careful where you get your news now days!!

By KvnRJohnso407August 21, 2008 - 10:15am

I know you are a fair man unlike the corporate media, but did you overlook the poll question of how many Obama supporters would vote for McCain or "not vote at all" if Hillary was selected as Obama's running mate?
I think that would be a fair question, right.
Well, unless it was a FoxNoise poll.
Thanks
PS-Be careful where you get your news now days!!

It was an NBC/WSJ poll and I got the numbers wrong. Hillary supports say this:

52% will vote Obama
21 % McCain
27% undecided or will vote for someone else

My thought is that the Hillary fanatics are turning against Obama hoping her name will become a serious consideration at the convention. Once that is over the numbers should change.

"I know you are a fair man

"I know you are a fair man unlike the corporate media, but did you overlook the poll question of how many Obama supporters would vote for McCain or "not vote at all" if Hillary was selected as Obama's running mate?"
FUB2,
Are you on the bush/McSame team, because you ask them a question and they avoid the question and provide only information that support their position.

I don't care if it is an NBC/FOX Noise/Gallup .......poll

they should have also provided information as too how many Obama supporters would vote for someone else if Obama selected Hillary as VP.

Let me ask you,
--- How many Obama Supporters would not for vote him in the fall if he selected Hillary as VP ----

If you don't know, then give my your best guess.

I would like to know!!!

I didn't vote for her in the primaries, but how can you avoid asking the question of what impact would the first serious female candidate for president of the United States would have if she would selected as a running mate?

I just want to know.....why is the corporate media failing to provide this information to the american public?

Thanks

And the polls also show

that much less than 49% want Obama to be prseident.

By hufflarry2000August 21, 2008 - 11:09am

No by 49% I mean 49% never want to see her be president.

So it is over for her. No 2012 or 2016.

By f u bush2 August 21, 2008 - 11:11am

No by 49% I mean 49% never want to see her be president
----------------------------
That would seem to back up the poll which showed that Hillary crossed the 50 Percent Threshold:

Poll: Half of Americans would 'never' vote for Sen. Clinton
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_Half_of_Americans_would_never_1021.ht...

Fifty percent of adults would not vote for Clinton
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/fifty-percent-of-americans-would-not-vo...

...which would mean that, in order to ever win, Hillary would need to get every last one of the other 50%... something Team Clinton has never been able to accomplish in Presidential politics. Some might say it's but one of the many fatal flaws in a Hillary candidacy...
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

And what I mean

is less than 49% want to see Obama ELECTED president.

By hufflarry2000 August 21, 2008 - 11:37am

less than 49% want to see Obama ELECTED president.
------------------------
That's 6% more than the percentage who wanted to see Bubba elected to a first term...
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

I guess you must have forgotten

(not that you are old enough to remember) that 1992 was a three way race where Perot got 19% of the vote. Stick to events after 1999.

By hufflarry2000 August 21, 2008 - 11:52am

I guess you must have forgotten (not that you are old enough to remember) that 1992 was a three way race
--------------------------
Nope. I recalled that at the same time I thought about the fact that this is a FOUR-person race.
____________________
"We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."
"Power to the peaceful..."
--Franti

So what you are saying

is that another candidate besides Obama and McCain will get 19% of the vote. That post Reagan education has left you a babbling moron.

By hufflarry2000August 21, 2008 - 1:25pm

So what you are saying
is that another candidate besides Obama and McCain will get 19% of the vote. That post Reagan education has left you a babbling moron.

AS a matter of fact when the polls include Barr and Nader, McCain drops significantly. You blind devotion to your goddess Hillary has left you feebleminded.

That is a blatant

bald faced lie. You have lost it.

That is a blatant

bald faced lie.

No, huff. It's not.

McSame loses power once you factor Barr and Nader ...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_vs_mccai...

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
George Carlin

Yes it is you airhead.

He said it makes a SIGNIFICANT difference. The truth is, it makes little difference.

LOL - And here I thought the likes of Pappy,

im_such_a_loser, et al were fucking delusional ... you've managed to top the list, huff. Congrats!

Thanks for the compliment - I'll remember to pay back in kind ...

Are you always this defensive??

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
George Carlin

Why did you try to back up

fu bush lie? There was no SIGNIFICANT difference, that is the truth. I know you dont like the truth, but not all of us live in Obamaconbizzarro world.

Are you SERIOUS??!!

Unless you'd like me to come to Cleveland, or whatever bumfuck Ohio town you live in, and beat you over the head with what I posted? The same site YOU use for your 'proof'?

Fuck you and that nag of a whore wife you road in on. Oh, and eat shit and die, douche bag.

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
George Carlin

In other words you mean

hufflarry2000 proved that I was a liar like fubush and I cant handle it and I will act like a silly child. Get a grip, libtard.

Dude, step away from the crack pipe.

I proved f u's point. You choose to ignore it. You lose. Drop dead.

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
George Carlin

In other words you mean

stop ruining my fantasy world. I need to lie so that what is left of my sanity will remain. I dont want to join the real world. It scares me!

Please tell me where I 'lied'.

How is showing you that f u was right in that once one factor's in Barr and Nader, Mad Cow's numbers go down. I gave you the link that clearly shows f u was correct. How is that a lie?

However, it IS common knowledge here that when given the facts that don't fit YOUR fantasy, you call others liars.

Enjoy your willful ignorance, puff-puff-pass.

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
George Carlin

You proved yourself a liar

and a willing liar at that. FUBUSH went off the deep end weeks ago so I expect it. There is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE when Barr and Nader are added to the poll. That is a fact. Nothing you say or spin can change the fact that the poll shows there is no significant difference. Stop embarrassing yourself, libtard.

By hufflarry2000August 21, 2008 - 5:42pm

Huff

Guess who isn't the nominee.

By f u bush2August 21, 2008 - 5:44pm

Is this guy a fucking nudge, or what? He's getting his tighty-whitey's in a bunch because he was proven wrong. The guy's going give himself a stroke.

Well, f u, my "pissing match with puff-puff-pass" shift is over and I'm checking out. Good luck and see ya tomorrow ...

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
George Carlin

By Pookie2112August 21, 2008 - 5:51pm

LOL

Huff is just bitter and he can't let it go.

He's predictable too. He knows Obama has the will of the people. (You know what's coming next.)

By f u bush2August 21, 2008 - 6:09pm

Bitter is a mild understatement with puffy! Is Hillary really worth having a stroke over? Obviously! He probably has an altar and worships her 24/7 ...

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
George Carlin

By hufflarry2000August 21, 2008 - 5:09pm

.

.double post
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
George Carlin

By hufflarry2000August 21, 2008 - 3:29pm

It makes a significant difference Huff. You are a liar.

OBAMA NEEDS TO FIGHT

30-minute blocks of cable time? I suspect no one will watch it.</