| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: It's Over - Obama Closes the Deal |
Topic: It's Over - Obama Closes the Deal
| Author | Message |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/7/2008 9:09:38 AM | show profile Can we start talking about how to beat McCain now? Please? *** It's over: Obama closes the deal Commentary: Strong showing on Tuesday makes nomination inevitable ...Soon, in a few weeks or early next month, Obama will have the endorsements of a majority of Democrats to the Denver convention. And then it will be time for Clinton to step aside and step behind the man who has beat her under every conceivable standard: most delegates, most votes and most states. It's no secret that Obama has had a very tough couple of weeks, as he's been dogged by intemperate statements made by the candidate and by his former pastor. But his victory in North Carolina shows that he's survived the worst, perhaps, that can be thrown at him. If she is a fighter, then what is he? A respected member of his own party has essentially campaigned against him as a Republican would -- questioning his patriotism, his aloofness, his manhood, and his judgment - and has failed in a key, big, swing state. North Carolina proves that Obama isn't a loser, that he can still connect with a majority of Democrats, and that he can win a big state. Clinton campaigned as the economic populist, but Obama won a majority of the votes in North Carolina cast by those most concerned about the economy, according to exit polls for the networks. He won a majority of voters with less than a high school education, and won among all white voters under 65. ...Clinton, of the hundred-million-dollar income and the Ivy League education, put on a corn-pone accent and accused Obama of being one of the "elite." But strong majorities in both North Carolina and Indiana said they believed Obama reflected their values and cared for them. ...And for their part, the Tuesday vote show that enough Democrats trust Obama to beat McCain in the fall. MarketWatch |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/7/2008 9:53:04 AM | show profile On Obama's style (which is a large measure of why I have preferred him over Clinton): ****** Combat and Composure By David Brooks ...When Stephanopoulos pointed out that Paul Krugman, a Times columnist, has raised doubts about the plan, Clinton lumped Krugman in with the Bush administration and said she wasn?t going to listen to the people responsible for the last seven years. This wasn?t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn?t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn?t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader ? helping one?s own. Barack Obama gave off an entirely different vibe on ?Meet the Press.? His campaign has been in the doldrums for the past few months. He?s never come up with an explanation about how he would actually transform politics, and his conventional substance is beginning to overshadow his unconventional style. But, as Sunday?s contrast made clear, Obama still seems like a human being. He still seems to return each night to some zone of normalcy where personal reflection lives. He wasn?t fully candid when answering questions about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but there are some inner guardrails that prevent the spin from drifting too far from the truth. Thoughtful and conversational, he doesn?t seem to possess the trait that Clinton has: automatically assuming that critics are always wrong. Obama still possesses his talent for homeostasis, the ability to return to emotional balance and calm, even amid hysteria. His astounding composure has come across as weakness in the midst of combat with Clinton, but it?s also at the core of his promise to change politics. He vows to calm hatred and heal division. This contrast between combat and composure defines the Democratic race. ...They are imperfect messengers for their creeds. Clinton rails against ?Wall Street money-grubbers,? but her policies are often drawn from the Wall Street wing of the party. Obama talks about postpartisan compromise in the abstract, but rarely in the particular.... |
| beachbum | Posted – 5/7/2008 4:23:05 PM | show profile Go Hillary! It's not over til it's over!!!! |
| JackieRo | Posted – 5/7/2008 4:56:27 PM | show profile I'm beyond sick of politics this primary season and normally I would ignore a post like this. But I do have an admiration for Clinton because she really has shown that she is a true contender. She still IS winning states. The gap between the GOP candidates was much much broader and the winner was fairly clear from the beginning. That is not the case with Obama or Clinton. If Clinton didn't have broad appeal to so many, and if she weren't winning states, I would say that her time is up. But it's very clear to me that she is still a favorite for a good deal of the voters. I hope that after this election the rules for the delegates will be uniform and very clear-cut. I truly think that all states should either give all delegates to the winner or all states should divide between districts and allot delegates based on winner in the district?just not both ways. One more thing, I like that the race goes on and on, not for my sanity, but because my state, which doesn't traditionally matter to candidates or really have an effect on the primary because it's so late, actually gets a voice this year. Why should the swing states get all the national attention every year? |
| veraworld | Posted – 5/7/2008 5:55:10 PM | show profile | email poster Makes no sense Why would the Democratic Party set up a voting process if it doesn't want to respect it? Just because timing is not as they had expected...they want to change the rules now? Hillary Clinton can and should stay in the process until the end. Why? Because the large number of people who may still want to vote for her (or already voted and aren't being counted) deserve respect. They can't be dismiss just because some people are already "bored". If this is hurting the Party, they should think about changing the process for the NEXT time. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/7/2008 10:03:29 PM | show profile I just hope that when Clinton decides its over, she graciously gives her full, unambiguous and enthusiastic support to Obama. I really do think she will. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 5/8/2008 12:55:42 AM | show profile Plenty of Dem candidates bowed out after Iowa rejected them, for Chrissakes. If I were a Democrat (I'm Indy), I would have preferred the democratic notion of getting to choose from ALL the candidates, not just two. But that's not how it worked out. Nothing undemocratic about suggesting Hillary bow out for the good of the party. She's close to mathematically eliminated short of some superdelegate shenanigans which would wreck the party for years to come and hand the White House to the GOP. Yes, she gave it a good run. Yes, she's tenacious, stubborn, not a quitter. But so's George Bush, and look where that's gotten us. Those qualities are not always a good thing, particularly when it's more about ego and less about what's best for the people. |
| Village Gal | Posted – 5/8/2008 1:19:39 PM | show profile I'm a Democrat, voted for Hillary, my senator. because I think she's more qualified I'll be stunned if Obama can beat McCain. Just wait until the Republicans come at him full tilt. I never got the excitement over Obama except that he is a new face. At this point Obama will have to do more than talk about vision to get my vote. But I'd never vote for Mc Cain. Does anyone think the Hillary voters will go for Obama? |
| beenthere | Posted – 5/8/2008 1:54:34 PM | show profile I second that. There have already been reports--and this was awhile ago-- that if Hillary got the nod, Obama voters would vote for her. If Obama got the nod, some Hillary voters would, indeed, vote for McCain. I will vote for Obama, but if I were to bet money, I'd bet on McCain. I highly doubt that Obama will survive. Hillary is a much better contender. He will be chum among republican sharks. But, oh well, I've already resigned myself to the "Bush continuation." I'm actually curious how many additional votes--outside the primary votes--Obama would receive. A part of me feels like that is his complete base. On another note, a few states ago, and even before Ohio or Pennsylvania, I calculated by electoral votes--not primary delegates--whether Obama or Hillary was in the lead. It was Hillary. She's taken just about every big state. |
| JackieRo | Posted – 5/8/2008 1:58:27 PM | show profile Keltoi, I'm not suggesting that her tenacity is why she should stay on. I think that it's too close to say that she should drop and concede wholly to Obama. Statistically, yes, she will not win the delegate count without MI and FL, but she's still winning states. And since the popular vote doesn't mean jack, I'll wait to hear from the super-delegates. Comparing her to GWB...that's not an accurate assessment. GWB is stubborn and childish and a complete fool who was put in that office to accomplish the goals of the dream team. His stubbornness didn't get him elected to office, his architect did. GWB is stubborn in the foot-stomping-I-am-a-real-Texan way. He is a classic recovering alcoholic personality with that all-knowing smug grin that is supposed to make you think he is smarter than everyone else in the room by making you think he knows something you don't. No comparison to Clinton's tenacity. |
| writermum | Posted – 5/8/2008 2:28:03 PM | show profile It doesn't hurt for her to stay in until primaries are over in June. I think if they can stay on the issues (which they seemed to turn to with the gas tax hoopla) it's good free advertising about the Dem's agenda. And, new voters are registering every day, who will hopefully vote come November. People who are too pigheaded to vote for a U.S. senator who has taught constitutional law (albeit young) after the absolute global embarrassment of the last 8 years have some serious soul searching to do. We were fortunate to have two quality candidates who could out-class and out-smart Bush under the table. One of them had to lose. Maybe to those who can't vote for this impostor (just because he's not Clinton) Obama, Bush wasn't so bad after all. |
| cori | Posted – 5/8/2008 4:07:34 PM | show profile Obama -- just another politician Even though he has claimed he will always stay above the political fray, Obama has caved in. I guess he figures he has no other choice. During his entire campaign, he has not waved the flag -- not even worn a flag pin --not such a big deal, I know, but he has made a point of making sure we all know that you don't need to wave the flag to be an American. Ok, so now, he is not only waving the flag, but wrapping himself up in it, too. As he tries to reach out to the blue-collar Hillary crowd, he has suddenly found his love of country and he can't wait to express it loudly and clearly. Now, be honest, had you heard him say how proud he was to be an American before his NC victory speech? He even God Blessed America in his final line. I get a kick out of everyone who thinks he is so different from any other pol. He is just very slick about presenting himself that way. When he talks about the "changes," he will make in D.C. -- and believe me, I think many of his so-called changes should be made, he never says how he will do it. I really wonder if he can, or will even try. I never got on board the Obama Express. Won't even if he becomes the nominee. He's too liberal for me. I'm just sorry that is the only choice we have against McCain. Hillary has more experience. Hillary is the one I think can best clean up the Bush mess. I hope she still has a chance to do so. Obama! Enough already! Ugh. |
| JackieRo | Posted – 5/8/2008 4:56:27 PM | show profile ANovel, I thought the same thing when I read writermum's post. But--and correct me if I am wrong, writermum--I don't think she was saying that all those who don't support Obama are pigheaded, just those who use the inexperience as a reason not to support him. I'm not pigheaded for not being an Obama supporter. I'm black, but I'm not going to support someone simply because they are black. He doesn't talk about or hit upon the things I find important, so he's not my candidate. |
| Village Gal | Posted – 5/8/2008 5:09:46 PM | show profile If I don't vote for Obama, it will not be because my candidate lost. It will be because I am not impressed with Obama. If he wins, the nomination, he will have to do something to convince me. |
| writermum | Posted – 5/8/2008 5:15:42 PM | show profile I am open-eyed about Obama being a politician and think most mature Obama supporters are as well. Hillary is a great candidate, but she is not winning. I believe that even considering the MI and FL vote, she doesn't win. And I take offense that she was fine with punishing these states for breaking the rules until it favored her to get those votes counted. (I do wonder why she didn't take her high-profile name off the ballot, though, when none of the never-heard-of candidates were able to campaign there.) Please do publish some proof that Obama is much more liberal than the real Hillary, not the NASCAR, obliterate Iran Hillary of late. By the way, there was an interesting NPR report recently about how it wasn't until Reagan started using the words God Bless America at the end of every speech that these were commonly heard from presidents. Only since then, the report said, have presidents continued the tradition. I don't care that he just started saying it, would have thought it a little premature and pandering for him to say it sooner and can't figure out how this has to do in the least with fixing any of the problems we face in the next 8 years. I'm sure there are a few non-believers and separation of church/state supporters who would prefer it not be said. They vote (and matter) too. |
| JackieRo | Posted – 5/8/2008 7:40:51 PM | show profile Me too, ANovel. I will be destroyed for saying that, but I don't think anyone should be made to feel ashamed for their political views. Welcome back, NP. |
| JackieRo | Posted – 5/8/2008 7:45:05 PM | show profile Sorry for the second post NP, there was a great interview with Gore on the NPR program Fresh Air this past week. I respect him immensely as a speaker. He is a smart man. I think he is also a fair man. He's a nice guy, too. He's not, however, presidential material by my standards. I like my presidents with a touch of pitbull and a healthy dose of common sense. |
| Queen Kong | Posted – 5/9/2008 3:41:22 AM | show profile If I may, I'd like to add one more item to NP's list: Obama has surrounded himself with former members of Team Bill Clinton -- advisors from his presidential campaign years and members of the Clinton Administration. He has used them to get to where he is today and where he wants to go tomorrow. Which begs the question, "How does Obama represent a new and different game formula when he's playing with the same cards from the old set of rules?" |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/9/2008 10:37:20 AM | show profile Clinton its time to back off In my opinion, any Clinton supporter who thinks McCain might not be a bad second choice is seriously misinformed. I was in that place backin 2000 when although I voted for Gore and supported him, I thought Bush might not be too bad and certainly better than his father!!! Unbelieve how wrong I was. Here's a good snippet of why Democrats should support Obama from a NY Times editorial (please remember that the NYTimes endorsed Clinton!): **** Editorial Sen. Clinton and the Campaign ...But we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake - for herself, her party and for the nation - if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. ...The United States needs a clean break from eight catastrophic years of George W. Bush. And so far, Senator John McCain is shaping up as Bush the Sequel - neverending war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich while the middle class struggles, courts packed with right-wing activists intent on undoing decades of progress in civil rights, civil liberties and other vital areas. ...In addition to abandoning the attack ads, Mrs. Clinton must drop her plans to fight to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, which defied the Democratic Party and moved up the dates of their primaries. ...We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again." She added: "There's a pattern emerging here." Yes, there is a pattern - a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses. |
| writermum | Posted – 5/9/2008 6:22:20 PM | show profile Right now, she really loves all those "hardworking white Americans" the most. and right after she realized she'd underestimated Super Tuesday it was those Florida voters she loved and flew in to see, after she'd said (pledged really) that she wouldn't bother with them. Funny isn't it that her argument that she should be the nominee now is that Obama can't possibly get this hardworking white vote. Hmmm, I wonder if these hardworking whites really won't vote Democrat in November unless she's on the ballot. Well, couldn't the same be said of all the groups Obama has managed to get that Hillary can't touch? The youth vote, the college educated vote, the black vote... nope it's all going to come down to the whites who vote for Hillary, who by the way are the hard workers in this country. Hillary supporters, we get it. She'd make a good president. But, she ran a lousy campaign. "She really loves America and all people." |
| catlondon | Posted – 5/9/2008 6:39:21 PM | show profile Not to bash Obama, because I think he'll be a fine a president even if he's not my first choice, but he was actually the first of the two to go to Florida after the pledge was made not to campaign there. See Tampa Bay Online for reference: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking |
| writermum | Posted – 5/9/2008 6:59:50 PM | show profile catlondon, that's a good point. |
| davidkay | Posted – 6/2/2008 2:41:50 PM | show profile How to beat the Republicans Novel question at the beginning of this post. Let me give you the answer: Do not noiminate an unelectable candidate, aka: Barack Hussein Obama. If the democrats would have nominated Joseph Lieberman, they would have enjoyed the biggest landslide since President Reagan's victories. Oops, that's right, they can't nominate him, they kicked him out of their party in favor of nominating the most liberal member of Congress, again. Didn't learn from Kerry I guess. |
| chucho | Posted – 6/2/2008 2:53:55 PM | show profile If any Democrat is going to cross the aisle after eight years of a Republican domination (they OWN all the problems that have emerged in the past eight years, especially the enormous deficit and trade imbalance) then the Democratic party might as well dissolve. Not that I care, since I'm not a Dem, but any Dem that would vote for McCain right now might as well switch parties, too. |
