During NH debate, co-moderator Spradling "revved up the Republican attack machine" on Obama
SUMMARY: During the ABC News-Facebook debate, co-moderator Scott Spradling invited the Republican presidential candidates to openly criticize a Democratic candidate, asking them, "[W]hy not vote for [Sen.] Barack Obama" if he were the Democratic presidential nominee. However, neither he nor ABC News' Charlie Gibson offered a similar opportunity to the Democratic candidates.
During the January 5 ABC News-Facebook Republican presidential debate, Scott Spradling, a news anchor for Manchester, New Hampshire-based television station WMUR, asked each of the Republican presidential candidates, "[W]hy not vote for [Sen.] Barack Obama [IL]" if he were the Democratic presidential nominee. But while Spradling invited the Republican candidates to openly criticize a Democratic candidate, neither he nor debate moderator Charlie Gibson offered a similar opportunity to the Democratic candidates. Indeed, rather than ask such a question, during the Democratic debate later that evening, Spradling asked Obama to respond "to what the Republican candidates for president laid out in arguments for you not being elected president." Spradling added, "I revved up the Republican attack machine. Please respond."
Further, in answering Spradling's question, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney falsely asserted that Obama "wants the government to take over health care." Spradling had asked Romney for "specifics" on why voters should not choose Obama over him:
SPRADLING: Governor Romney, I'm going to stay with you. In Charlie's health care dialogue in the first half, you mentioned "Hillarycare." This group has aimed a lot of partisan firepower at Hillary Clinton, but I'd like, if you don't mind, to adjust the outcome for a minute and walk down this road with me.
Let's say that Barack Obama is the nominee -- he won the Iowa caucus. We have a WMUR poll out just tonight that shows it's tied here in New Hampshire, 33 to 33 -- and I'd like to know from you, why, against you as the nominee down the line, why not vote for Barack Obama? And not just because he's a Democrat -- you're not allowed to say that. I'd like to hear some specifics on why not him.
ROMNEY: Well, we have very different views on a whole series of issues, and I could take you through them one by one. One would be health care, for instance. He wants the government to take over health care, spend hundreds of billions of dollars of new money for health insurance for everyone. That'll be -- that'll break the bank.
"If you think," as the comedian said -- P.J. O'Rourke -- "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait 'til it's free." All right. So that's not the right direction.
In fact, Obama's health care plan does not mandate that the government "take over health care" as Romney asserted. His plan allows individuals to keep their private health insurance if they so choose, while it also "addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 47 million Americans uninsured." From Sen. Obama's "Plan for a Healthy America":
Under the Obama plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage if they choose to, and will see the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 47 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan ; (4) mandate all children have health care coverage; (5) expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allow flexibility for state health reform plans.
While live-blogging the Republican debate on The New York Times political blog The Caucus, reporter Katharine Q. Seelye described Spradling's question to the Republican candidates regarding Obama as a "[g]reat question." She went on to briefly sum up each of the GOP candidates' responses, including Romney's claim that "Obama wants the government to take over health care," without noting that Romney's claim was false. In her live blog of the Democratic debate, Seelye did not note that the Democratic candidates were not given a similar opportunity to criticize one of their Republican counterparts.
From ABC News' January 5 broadcast of the ABC News-Facebook Republican debate:
SPRADLING: Governor Romney, I'm going to stay with you. In Charlie's health care dialogue in the first half, you mentioned "Hillarycare." This group has aimed a lot of partisan firepower at Hillary Clinton, but I'd like, if you don't mind, to adjust the outcome for a minute and walk down this road with me.
Let's say that Barack Obama is the nominee -- he won the Iowa caucus. We have a WMUR poll out just tonight that shows it's tied here in New Hampshire, 33 to 33 -- and I'd like to know from you, why, against you as the nominee down the line, why not vote for Barack Obama? And not just because he's a Democrat -- you're not allowed to say that. I'd like to hear some specifics on why not him.
ROMNEY: Well, we have very different views on a whole series of issues, and I could take you through them one by one. One would be health care, for instance. He wants the government to take over health care, spend hundreds of billions of dollars of new money for health insurance for everyone. That'll be -- that'll break the bank.
"If you think," as the comedian said -- P.J. O'Rourke -- "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait 'til it's free." All right. So that's not the right direction.
But there -- so we could talk about issues, but the biggest difference, I think -- and it's going to be true for me and others who talk about it -- is that this is a time where America wants change. Washington is broken. That was the message coming out of Iowa. I've heard it across the country. Washington is broken. Not just the White House, not just Congress -- Washington can't get the job done on immigration, on lowering taxes, on fixing schools, on getting health care, on overcoming radical jihad. They want change.
Barack Obama looked at several senators steeped in long history in the Senate and completely blew them away in the Iowa caucus. It's a message of change.
And when we sit down and talk about change -- Barack Obama and myself, in that final debate, as you're positing -- I can say, "Not only can I talk change with you, I've lived it. In the private sector for 25 years, I brought change to company after company. In the Olympics -- it was in trouble -- I brought change. In Massachusetts, I brought change. I have done it."
GIBSON: I'm --
ROMNEY: "I have changed things, and that experience is what America is looking for." You look at that debate --
GIBSON: I'm just going to try to keep us on time.
ROMNEY: -- with Barack Obama; I'm looking forward to head-to-head.
ROMNEY: "I have changed things
Mitt my dear you certainly aren't lying, you change your thoughts and opinions any and every time the wind blows.
PERELENE,
It is true that for the most part, conservative politicians change their minds as the wind blows (from their ass) but could it be possible for us to give Mitt the benefit of the doubt that he could just be changing his mind based on new information as he receives it?
oh....... nevermind!
FOSTER:
"New Information" OFTEN makes Republicans "change their minds". For example, the biggest "new information" is that there is an ELECTION COMING. This calls for special rhetoric, to get elected.
Bush "changed his mind" about a lot of things, back in 2000. In campaign rhetoric, he was very much opposed to "nation building". He touted he was a "compassionate conservative" who was a "uniter, not a divider". He hated deficit spending, and lauded balanced budgets. He demanded open and accountable government. He said something had to be done to close our borders. etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
So, there is a grand tradition of Republicans "changing their minds" upon the "new information" of a coming election. It's the cue to start lying their asses off, regardless of what their words or actions of the past might show.
Republicans: don't worry, my party is about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating the one person among the frontrunners who has absolutely no chance of winning in November. So go ahead, nominate McCain, Romney, Thompson, whoever you like- don't bother with Giuliani, because his only rationale is "electability" and they are ALL "electable" come this summer, when the Democrats give their nomination, and the election, to Barack Obama.
This is going to be the ugliest campaign in US History. And it's going to end with another Republican win, as all those "energized" young people who are flipping out over Obama forget to vote in November because they are too busy standing in line for the updated I-Phone.
"Obama?" one will remark. "Ohmigod, that was SO last winter! How did that whole election thing turn out, anyway? Oh sorry out of time, my BFF is texting me from LA! TTYL!"
JJ, you certainly have raised a few valid points. I agree completely that the young voters in the past have broken the hearts of everyone who courted them. And, it scares me that it could happen again.
However, perhaps Obama can deliver the needed message that will bring young voters to the polls for the first time. If he doesn't, it's not a bad strategy to let them vote him into the nomination, afterwhich, it's a whole new ballgame.
He'll do fine against anyone currently running except McCain, who will be tough for him to beat. I'm not certain yet, who I want. I'd love Bill Clinton's economy again, and if Hillary could guarantee that, I'd sell her door to door.
And to The Strangler--yes, give me higher taxes, and a good economy any day.
I hope to god you are right- I'll be sending Obama a contribution if he is the nominee, and praying for a victory by him, but it's so easy to see the GOP smear machine taking him down. And I have NO faith in people aged 18-30 putting any candidate over-- they are so earnest early in the process, then they lose interest and they never seem to show up on election day.
And I agree with your take on taxes- yes, if my generation choses to spend money, I'd rather get the bill now, rather than do what is apparently the "Patriotic" thing and hand it to my grandchildren, which by the way I won't even have because I'm not married. Idiots like "The Stranger" think there is something morally wrong with paying for what you buy. It's totally incomprehensible to me, but it's become a permanent plank in the Republican Party platform, apparently.
I hope I'm right too. Here's how I see it: If Obama gets the nod, and if McCain wins his nomination, it will be a tight race in the polls because of the perception of McCain being "Liberal." Obama has to beat McCain to death with his alignment with GWBush. That should be enough to minimumly keep things pretty even in the polls, forcing 2 or 3 debates.
Obama has the potential to mop the floor with McCain during those debates, but, he has to be at his top game. His best tops McCain's best any day, and if McCain has a 5 point lead, he won't debate. Obama has to go into these debates giving the aura of actually being the President, while not appearing arrogent. And if he pulls that off, McCain will get to spend more time with his family.
I hope any of the Democratic candidates landslide those iced teas servers.
Well JJ,
My wife and I have already told our daughter (who is 17 now but will be 18 long before Nov) that we will be dragging her by her feet into the voting booth if we must.....
She will be one of hopefully, millions of the 18-30 crowd that will be voting this time around?
Note of interest:
My 13 year old daughter made me so proud..... she watched the debates the other night with me and asked questions and is very opinionated as it pertains to politics and the world around us.....
Note of interest #2:
Did anyone else notice that Huckabee attributed the line "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the many signitures of our founding fathers to the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence?
And this guy wants to be president? Then again, Bush has lowered the bar so low in what it takes to be president that I'm not all that suprised by it!
Sounds like Huck has been watching too much of The Factor.
That's a common error, especially among Conservatives. That way, they get to delude themselves that God actually IS mentioned in the Constitution.
What I found telling is that when GW Numbnuts asked his video question about "guiding principles", Fred Thompson was the only one who said his would be the Constitution. I find that rather sad.
I am a staunch believer in church / state separation, however it is incorrect to say God is not mentioned in the Constitution.
The document was signed "in the Year of our Lord . . "
That was just a common method of dating documents at the time, a social convention, if you will. No more significant than adding A.D. or B.C., or saying "bless you" when someone sneezes. The point remains... God is not mentioned in the text of the Constitution... the part that counts.
Exactly, in fact it is the same as saying A.D. Anno Domini, latin for "Year of our Lord". It's sort of hard to get around mentioning "the Lord" when the Gregorian calendar is centered around that phrase.
There are two references to a deity in the DOI and one in the Constitution. It is just as incorrect to act as if there is no mention as there is to act as if reference to "Creator", "Nature's God", or "Lord" have some hidden meaning beyond the plain and clear intent of the 1st amendment.
"A deity" is not the same as "God", as we refer to Him. A generalized belief in a higher power does not sanction Christianity specifically.
Brab,
He obviously doesn't know that the author of the Delcaration of Independence was a deist. The fact is that neither the Declaration or the Constitution is a religious document. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams, and on and on have made this clear in their writings. Perhaps TBONE should read the Treaty of Tripoli which may provide some insight into how the founders felt about the founding principles of this nation. It is such a crushing blow to those on the far right to find out that the founders were not folks like James Dobson or Falwell. So crushing that they invent arguments such as TBONE presented here with the "year of our lord" stuff.
You both wrongly impart motives to my post, I know Jefferson was a deist and his position on the subject. You are attempting however to establish an untruth - that there was not a generally accepted acknowlegement of God among the founding fathers.
Stick to what I wrote please.
Yes, the founders did acknowledge God, and most were religious. However, they did not incorporate God or the Bible or Jesus into our Constitution, even though they easily could have. That's one fact that drives the Troglodytes crazy....that's why they are so fond of quoting the "creator" phrase from the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The founders acknowledgment of God was not conventional. The other posters have explained to you the euphemistic usage of "year of our Lord" yet you choose to negate that with a rationale you have not presented nor supported. You wrote "It is just as incorrect to act as if there is no mention as there is to act as if reference to "Creator", "Nature's God", or "Lord" have some hidden meaning beyond the plain and clear intent of the 1st amendment." Well, it is known that John Adams wrote to Jefferson concerning the meaning of "Natures God" in which he equated it with a "revelation from nature". The reality is that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and his appeal was to the God of the Deist. Your assertion that the founders used "year of our lord" as a clear mention of God is an assertion of a mention of the Christian God.
That leads us to one important question: If not a euphemism, what was the founders purpose of putting "year of our lord" in the Constitution?
You seem spun up. I was only pointing out the words are there. It is undoubtedly a colloquialism and the no "religious test" Article VI is pretty clear on its intent. It is still interesting however that even Article VI has a duality to it by requiring an Oath or Affirmation. To whom do you "swear" if not one with the supposed omniscience to know you were lying and would could subsequently punish you?
I only point out that many were believers: James Madison, Federalist No. 37: "It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."
The "year of our Lord" is as much a sign of those times as "In God We Trust" or "Under God" are of present (both of which I consider unconstitutional by the way).
Good post Chris!
"...however it is incorrect to say God is not mentioned in the Constitution."
I don't see where I assumed any motives anywhere. All I said is that "deity" or "creator" are not the same as "God".
I was not sanctioning a Christian God. As Chris pointed out accurately however, who else would you be referring to when "our Lord" is used? Clearly, Jefferson purposefully avoided Jehovah: "created", "Creator", "Nature's God", "Supreme Judge of the World", "divine providence".
No offense taken, hopefully non-imparted.
"I was not sanctioning a Christian God."
I was talking about the Founding Fathers. It doesn't say anything about you at all.
A generalized deity or higher power doesn't specify identity or nature of character. It's not the same as mentioning "God", which is the Christian designation for their higher power. Even if the Founding Fathers interpreted it as "God" for their own personal view, the terms are still vague so that others can believe the "creator" is Mohammed or Jehovah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Sorry, T, but the "Year of Our Lord" tacked onto the date hardly counts as a mention of God "in" the Constitution. It's like referring to a wheel tax window sticker as part of a car's design.
JJamelle-I couldn't disagree with you more.
I find the opinion that Obama is not electable in a National election to be flat-out ludicrous.
While I do admit that there is a percentage of the population that is so small-minded that they will not vote for someone based on their gender or skin color, I don't think most of those geniuses would be voting for Obama anyway based on political philosophy. He doesn't need those votes.
Democrats are energized, Republicans are not. If Obama is the candidate of choice on the Democratic side, how can he possibly be unelectable on the National stage? This is 2008, not 1958 or even 1978. The only way your theory holds up is if YOUR OWN PARTY is a hell of a lot more racist then you would ever admit. Democrats are going to turn out in HUGE numbers in November. Obama, at this moment, has people engaged and excited. I have many Republican friends who are looking at him as a viable alternative to the Republican candidate.
This is all predicated on him defeating Hillary Clinton for the nomination and I believe there is a long way to go on that front.
I believe America, with it's checkered history on race, has moved to a position where Obama's candidacy is not only viable, but he would be the strong favorite against any Republican challenger. How can Republicans hold the White House under the current conditions? It seems very unlikely to me.
Obama wouldn't be taken seriously or even a viable candidate if he were White. This is someone with a lot of charm and pretty rhetoric but little experience. Were he White, he would have been laughed out of the race by now, or at best be considered a longshot second tier candidate. White guilt is the only thing driving his campaign and the media is lapping it up because they see "a big story".
So I guess you sat out the last two presidential elections since you'd never vote for a Democrat and the Republican candidate for president in 2000 and 2004 was a soulless, charmless, empty suit with absolutely no experience who couldn't string a simple sentence together.
My thinking exactly. Without daddies money, name and connections, Junior wouldn't have amounted to very much.
What a sad example our country has set for future generations. How exactly would someone explain this to their children? You can be a dismal failure in everything you try, but the almighty $ and family connections can make you the president of the United States.
Worrier and MHK--F.Y.I., I didn't vote for Bush either time.
So let's see if I'm reading this correctly, Bush was inexperienced and wouldn't have gotten as far as he did if it weren't for daddy's money and influence, but we shouldn't learn a thing from that mistake and instead go and elect a man who has less experience than Bush and wouldn't have gotten a second look if he weren't Black. Is that your argument? Sounds kind of stupid.
I'm not so sure Obama has less exerience now than Bush had in 2000. Obama was elected to a national post, while Bush was only governor of Texas. I don't know, maybe that's being nit-picky...
What I do know is Obama won't spend 40% of his first 8 months in office on vacation.
Obama was elected to represent ONE state, Illinois. It was not a national election that put him there.
It is ridiculous to compare Obama to Bush. Obama has intelligence, experience as a community activist, thinks on his feet, is eloquent and charismatic. He rose out of poverty and despair.
He would rise to leadership roles no matter what his skin color.
I think what Obama retractors are missing is that what the man is lacking in experience he makes up for - in spades - in his public vision for the heart and political direction for this country. I took notice of Obama years ago before presidential considerations were ever hinted to because I had the chance to read speeches from him given to college graduates. The speeches were overflowing with vision, charisma, intelligence, and heart - I cannot say that for ANY speech given by the current occupier of the Oval Office.
At some level, I find experience to be overrated if lack thereof can be balanced by a smart approach to politics. The President has a legion of men and women at his beck and call if he or she needs a question answered, something researched, or just to get some learned opinions on a matter. George Bush is not proof that lack of experience is deadly - he is proof that lack of experience does not make you unelectable, and that lack of intelligence (putting it kindly) is what is deadly in that position.
Well put BLR. Some of our nations greatest Presidents came to us with little "experience". What it boils down to is that some question others "experience" as a cop out. How much experience did Lincoln or Kennedy have in executive roles? The old adage that you can be judged by who you surround yourself with has some validity. God knows it rings true with Bush.
I have remained on the fence as to whom I will support for President. I know I will not support Hillary. My worst nightmare would be for Hillary to face Romney. I would have no choice. I would support McCain against Hillary and would hold my nose when pulling the lever for Guliani against Hillary. I will admit that I have been somewhat caught up in the Obama movement. He is certainly inspirational and I believe he would bring the ability to unite most of us under a common banner for a progressive change in direction for this nation. If nominated I will support him and freely contribute to his campaign. Time will tell, but our best hope to win is with Obama or maybe even Edwards. Richardson is sticking around for a VP slot so he really doesn't matter. Anyway, speculating about this stuff is fun. In the end I find your analysis to be on point.
Obama is qualified, you're claiming that he is not. My point is that in comparision to our sitting president there is no contest between the two.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930136.html
Maybe you should read up on Obama before you dismiss him out of hand.
Great point. Since when was this country all about your own abilities anyway? Affirmative Action has told us for years that your own abilities and hard work aren't really what matters.
I am normally not on the Democratic side of things, but I were looking at Obama I would be very impressed. Why? Because I see a black man in the spot light who is out there talking about his own vision for the future instead of what society owes him because of the past. He is standing on his own- whether good or bad. I would take him over Hillary in a heartbeat.
KennyG,
You are going to hear it from the choir here about that statement. It is sinful here to make a statement about personal responsibility along with an indication that people are not owed anything, especially concerning race.
Well, I was going to respond to that statement because I felt that was a blatent mischaracterization of Affirmative Action, but I honestly don't feel like going there today. The fact that people think blacks -- by and large -- are lazy and expect handouts and sympathy, rather than working hard for achievement is a belief that's old as slice bread here in America. Folks won't let go of those stereotypes, no matter how one presents valid arguments that say otherwise.
So, no, you won’t hear from this choir member today because I’m honestly very tired of debating such arguments with bias, close-minded people that take in no consideration of other facts as why is Affirmative Action is needed. One must ask themselves if all it takes is hardwork, then why are Barack Obama, Colin Powell and Condi Rice supporters of the initiative?
Actually, mark out Condi Rice. I had her confused with her Civil Rights attorney cousin Connie Rice.
Preston, If I offended you I apologize. I realize the thread was intended to be about Obama. Although I mentioned Affirmative Action, my real intent was to say that what has impressed me about Obama (and I'm not a Dem by nature) is that he has NOT played that card. I have two guys I work with who are upset by that, they feel he SHOULD be pointing out his race. They are supporters of his for no other reason than they share skin color. The fact that Obama is not following the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton approach to politics is very refreshing.
By the way, what IS the purpose of Affirmative Action? Blacks were no doubt slighted in the past, but I remember my mom teaching me that "two wrongs don't make a right."
The point of AA is to try and level the playing field. No one is claiming that it's a perfect system, but what is the alternative? Should we all pretend that discrimination doesn't exist and continue with the status quo?
I hope you would be willing to acknowledge that who you know and what your back ground is plays a huge role into how well you do in your career and society in general.
What I find refreshing is that Giuliani and McCain aren't following in the political footsteps of Pat Robertson and James Dobson. It's very refreshing to see white folks think independently of their white community leaders.
But he was white, so he deserved the support he got, of course.
Funny how the "white guilt" thing didn't help out Carol Moseley Braun. I'd think "male guilt" would have made her double trouble in that field.
That's pretty sad, Taz.
Keep telling yourself whatever you need to get yourself through the day. I know you can't handle the facts all at once, but the facts are that the country has taken a big left turn and this is just the start of a long journey back to political sanity.
Obama's message is compelling. His success has nothing to do with your old timey conservative fears, it has everything to do with the optimism infecting the country at this moment.
Only in your fantasy world has the country taken a turn to the left. Obama's success being hyped by the media has everything to do with his being Black and little else. Obama's message is empty rhetoric. You might call it compelling, I call it eloquent, but superficial oratory.
You poor victim.
You poor sucker.
Republicans wanted to knock Hillary Clinton out of the race because she would have beaten any Republican candidate. They got what they wanted and the media is driving the final stake in.
Obama will not be able to defeat McCain or any other Republican in the general election once the fickle media and Republicans starts picking his nothing record apart.
The Democrats are just shooting themselves in the foot again.
Republicans win because, why? Because they offer something different from the last 25 years of failed conservative governance? Please dont make me laugh.
The internal fractures in your shell of a Party are too deep to propel any of the GOP slugs to the Presidency. The evangelicals want their props and the corporatists want their compliant candidate. And the tween shall meet. The evangelical candidate does not truck with the corporatists.
Meanwhile, the Progressive, Libs and Dems are energized. Our message of mutual responsibility, broad prosperity, smarter defense and better future is taking hold.
...and never shall the tween meet...
Carry on.
You're out of your mind. Why is it that Hillary wouldn't have been turned on by the "fickle" media and had her "nothing record" torn apart? If those are the circumstances you want to dictate, then there's no way you can assure she would beat anyone.
I should have written they were afraid she'd beat any Republican. Can you come up with a better explanation for so many Republicans, including neocons like Bill Kristol, talking up Obama's for months now?
Hey it's fine with me if you'd rather avoid reality.
You just got "Roved" again.
They want to tear down every Dem candidate. If it was just about Hillary we wouldn't be hearing about the madrassa or Obama's "segregationist" church or any other nonsense. Hillary was the perceived favorite from the start, so some people may have taken that more seriously than others.
I don't see how the distinction of them being "afraid" changes anything, unless I thought you meant they had a crystal ball that foretold the future. Of course it's about fear, not any certainty. Kristol may think that Obama has no chance of winning, which is why he's supporting him. Of course, Kristol thought it was a great idea to invade Iraq, so that should tell you what his opinion is worth.
If what you say is true, the Repubs are in more trouble than I thought. Their strategy is to run negative and tear down the opponent instead of the accomplishments of their own conservative record.
Oh my. You're in for a long, long. long election year Taz.
It's been my experience that records don't matter that much to the average American voter. Otherwise, Bush would have never made it to the governor of Texas, much less the Presidency.
I agree. Obama will not beat any Republican candidate.
The Republican candidates have already defeated themselves by adhering to failed war policies and continuing the status quo of fear.
America needs a new direction. America needs hope.
TAZ,
That is ridiculous. For your theory to have any validity you would need to assume that Hillary is not a polarizing candidate. The fact that she is leads one to logically assume that she would be unable to sway the independent vote which is needed to win the White House. You are the one who has been "Roved".
They are not afraid of Hillary because they know, even despite polling, that she can not carry the independent vote, the "Reagan Democrats". It's an end around strategy and has been from the start from the GOP. Build her up by talking about how strong she will be only to tear her down, knowing all the while that her polarizing presence will disallow her from carrying a single southernstate as well as putting purple states into the red column. The GOP is petrified of a candidate who can ignite the emotion and enthusiasm that Obama has done. I would agree that McCain is the only viable opponent the GOP could offer to have a chance against Obama. Why? The independent vote. That in and of itself blows your previous theory out of the water as Hillary would not be able to carry the independent vote.
Rasmussen Reports has taken a look at the public's impression of Illinois Senator Barack Obama and what his chances would be if he were to become the Democratic Presidential Nominee.The new survey shows Obama leading former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 46 to 41% and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson 47 to 41%
A separate survey shows Obama tied with Arizona Senator John McCain. But, that survey also shows the Illinois Senator enjoying a nine-point lead over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
Obama wouldn't be taken seriously or even a viable candidate if he were White.
I am glad some had finally stated the facts. I would like for someone who is willing to put our country first please tell me what all these so called qualifications this man is supposed to have are. I keep hearing everyone talk a good talk and claim about the substance but have yet to see any
This is someone who rose to rock star status because he won an election that any idiot could have won. If all you Obama supporers would be honest with yourselves you would admit that the only reason he won his senate seat by such a huge margin was because his the oringal REP dropped out in a HUGE scandal and the johnny come lately challanger moved in from out of the state so the GOP would nor forfiet the seat and was the same idiot that that had called Hillary a carpet bagger in her first NY race. A dog could have faired as well in that race. His rock star status was a myth created by the media. He could have been a wonderful future presidnet with some experience behind him but he got caught up in his own press clippings and developed an ego the size of Texas. If he really cared about our country he would understand that he is not ready to be president. We do not need anthor greenhorn in the white house who needs on the job training. DID KNOW ONW CATCH the GOP debate. They already pointed he has limited foriegn policy experience and in this day and age we need a leader who has experience working we other leaders if we hope to stabalise the mess GW has made. No green Horn can tackle this mess. IF the Dems nominate this greenhorm this diehart libereal loves her country to much to intrust it to the likes of him. In that case I pray that the GOP Gives Me an alternative I can live with.
If you would consider one of the republican candidates then you are certainly not a liberal in any sense of the word...
Although I support Edwards based upon his policy positions, Obama has experience and intelligence and would be a fine president IF he governed as a progressive. But it's not clear that he would.
If you would consider one of the republican candidates then you are certainly not a liberal in any sense of the word...
I am if you consider the REAL sense of the word you. Sorry to disappiont you but unlike some liberal I chose not to be a liberal minded stooge. By the way you just did what evry one for months has been doing you keep mentioning all thiese qualifications but you didn't say what they were. I am telling you I have looked at this guy. Backwards and forwards. I have a masters degree in PUBLIC ADMINS I KNOW WHAT is evolved in exececutive decisions and it would only be magified several times over As POUS. Our country can not take putting anohter green horn at the healm. I have actually looked at Obama's repcord and honestly I a more qualified than him to be preisdent. If he his qualifies then his supporters are looking at something I am not and they need to stop the rhetoric and point me in that direcion if they hope to change my mind and Mary I am a liberal but I am a inteligent free thinking and foremost an american who has watch many of family serve in the uinform and have serveral there now, I will not risk my counry just to put an ego and a token in the white house. Haven said that I look forward to seeing that day when black president swears into office but i think that they deserve one that wil make a great president not just best possible chance they have. All this talk about a movement and about inspiration is fine for congress but the executive field is a whole different lot. It requires more than just speaches and inspiration. Beyound the rhetioric we need substance and sadly obama has none. IF you see stop saying that he has it and SHOW IT.
That's nice that you have a Public Admin degree, but that doesn't make you qualified to run a city, state or local government. You need additional qualities to be in a leadership role... I've taken Public Admin classes as well and the majority of them have stressed that the majority of decisions you will make are going be of a political nature i.e. how well your decisions are received is largely based on how well you can sell the message.
I would also add that our country is little more complicated then running county government or a corporation. The president has expert advisors, many of which have a Phd in their field, to work on the implementation, details and planning portion of any program or initiative. Do you think that Bush designed and implemented No Child Left Behind?
I've reviewed Obama's resume as well and he does have qualifications that would make him a good leader in the domestic and foreign relations front. We also know that he can reach out to a diverse group of people and can communicate well.
And if your contemplating voting Republican then I would consider you be more of a moderate then liberal..... there is nothing wrong with that.
Where on his resume are these, A couple years on couple a committes and a few fact findings committes. By the way I work in local gov. I know exactly what goes on as I am one of those policy advisors. So you do not have to get snotty with me. I worked my a-- to get that master degress wile taking care of my family and advocating for adult education in rural Ky working to improve oportunities for young girls in our area. Don;t think I do not know how things hapend. I can tell you that Living in one of the most poorest areas of our country Talk is cheap. I am also old enough to have it before. The problem is that you do have to have expereince and qualifications to effect change. I have been working for years here and it is only recently that the hours of voleenteer work, the education, the fluky work, and all the EXPERINCE has finally landed me in a position that I can finally put all that to work to effect the changes in some of these young girls lives. Obama can want to change things all to he blue in the face but i have delt with that path before. You can give all the pretty speeches you want and you may inspire a few along the way but in order to change the institutions that entrenched in our society we have to put in the hard work and effort to do so and many of the Obama supporters are like I was 20 years-- totally clueless about those systems. And Obama has no clue about Foriegn Policy you can tell it in his speeches. If anyone really wants an eye opener find some old tapes about on the IRAN Contra Hearings from the Reagan years-- this whole thing is ticking time bond and any liberal who thinks that our national sucurity issues can be solved by simply getting out of IRAK they are delusional. The whole middle east mess is more complicated than 20 second sound bites. Our National Gaurd units serve heavly there and we keep a pretty good watch on what we can-- there is no easily solution and we need someone that has some experience dealing with this group . Our best solution is Bill Richardson if not as President then as SOS.
I can tell you I am not Moderate But neither I wacked out liberal who thinks that if we all just stop eating meat and using fossil fuels all our problems would end. I find it funny that liberals that criticize bush for the either you with us or against us but hear they are doing the same to me. No here is my problem. By the time the Ky has a say in this the canidate will already be chosen and I am sick of having no say in who may canidiate is. A select group of our party gets to control the rest the party because of some stupid tradition. Hey how about a National Primary-- because then we can get a canidate that a majority of democrats supported not just the elites of the party.
You write about leadership and that's well and good in the top down corparate world I guess, but in our bottom up democracy we elect representatives. Just about the greatest qualification for office in our government is the ability to inspire people to action.
Obama has the ability to inspire Progressive change. But will he do it? I'm not convinced yet. He takes some disturbing neo-liberal market based positions on healthcare and global trade.
And as to your question about where his substance is? Just remember it's early in the election season. There will be specifics forthwith. At this moment all of the candidates are sketching the bigger picture, they're setting the scene in which to place the details.
Have a little patience.
P.S.
Go Big Blue! What do you think of coach Gillespie? Do you miss Tubby yet?
And and as far as leadership my under grad was in Organ Comm and leadership but hey that is just ed how about the 8 orgs I hold or have held high positions in two of which were President. Three if you want to go back to my youth. I work with teens in helping them develop their own leaderhip skills and public speaking-- my minor which is why I also know that a great deal of obama's great Inspirational prose is not original--oh!!! LIKE I SAID WHERE IS THE SUBSTANCE. Sorry but I am a strong believer in education as at he door to oportunity and for you to put it down ticks me off. Yes, Leadership is important but is worth jacksh1t if you cant back it up with up the substance of education and experience.
I meant to write "when the Democrats give their nomination to Barack Obama, and the election to the Republicans," of course.
I was wondering how PJ Orourke liked being referred to as a comedian. I found he is listed as such on a website. I've always thought of him as a saterist, and more interesting to read than most conservatives.
Spradling to Obama,"I revved up the Republican Attack Machine. Please respond."
I suppose since he said please that its not as bald and ugly a statement as it might appear, somehow.
"I was wondering how PJ Orourke liked being referred to as a comedian..."
Hi Eweston. P.J. used to be much funnier (Nat'l Lampoon, Holidays in Hell, Parliament of Whores), but I think the last few Republican administrations have been tough on honest conservatives.
I agree Beach, PJ is a loney voice in the conservative crowd. Don't know how he feels about our health system currently.
I think its Beck who may be talking about a recent trip thought he medical system. Now that its personal, he has concerns. Referrence was a Young Turks item this morning which I may not have heard clearly.
You heard it clearly. Beck actually makes a fairly passionate speech from his home about his ordeal. You can watch the video here.
Whatever you think about Beck, after watching that, you can't help but feel for what he went through. And who knows, maybe he has actually had a few realizations about the health care in this country.
I noticed this one too. He added to my scorn when, in his first question to Democrats offered up that absurd softball to Hillary Clinton so she could get that ridiculous soundbyte in. There were a couple moments in that debate where I sensed a bit of a bias toward Clinton and away from Obama. Both the guy who presented this question--and from Gibson. I wonder if anybody else sensed anything like that or if it was just me.
I saw this as a sorta brush back pitch to make sure the new guy understands the power of the neocons to make or break a candidate via the media.
And we are surprised why? The US press piles on immediately when any Democratic candidate begins to look like a threat. Remember 2000 and 2006, and the incessant attacks on Democrats by the likes of the New York Times, supposedly "bending over backward" to be "fair?" It's a sport.
ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE KISS UP JOB THAT FOX NEWS IS GIVING HILLARY NOW THAT IT LOOK LIKE SHE MIGHT LOSE? I LOVE IT. I SEE THE RNC AND KARL ROVE SENT OUT THE MEMO TOO FOX TO ATTACK OBAMA AND PUSH UP MCCAIN AND HILLAY. THEY KNOW IN THE RNC THAT IF OBAMA WIN IT WILL BE HARDER FOR A REPUBLICAN TOO WIN. THEY ARE KISSING UP TOO MCCAIN NOW BECAUSE THEY THINK HILLARY MIGHT NOT WIN AND THEY NO MCCAIN WILL WIN IF IT'S HIM AND OBAMA. LOOK OUT OBAMA THOSE AT CNN, FOX NEWS, MSNBC, NBC, AND ABC DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY ARE SEEING AND THEY ARE GOING TO KNOCK YOU DOWN NOW JUST LIKE I SAID THEY WOULD. JUST LOOK AT MSNBC ALSO KISSING UP TOO HILLARY NOW. MSNBC FORGOT TO SEND THE MEMO TO CHRIS.
I don't think Obama is any less electable than Hillary. The Republican Big Lie machine will dump a world of crap on either one. They will lie, cheat, and steal to beat whomever the Democratic candidate happens to be. The South is lost to the Democratic party anyway, no matter who their candidate is.