How Obama lost in November

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

And Cali- what exactly is the "element of truth" in the claim that people cling to religion or guns because of the economy?

If you mean that SOME people get more into religion when things get rough economically, then sure, there's a little slice of truth in that. But that doesn't mean that they're bitter. The whole thing is an unmasking of a dude who's out of touch and come November will prove unelectable.

You answered your own question. And the bitterness aspect is from them losing their jobs in a rough economy, many of them overseas, and/or watching their CEO collect a giant paycheck in the process. If you don't think people are bitter about that, I would suggest you are the one who is out of touch.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Way to go and prove Lingo right, Cali.

Tex, as an Obama supporter, I have to say your sig is hillarious.

[Oxcoug]

You're stretching Cali, and I'm sure you know it. You've failed to show that there is any link bt guns and bitterness. And the linkage bt religion and bitterness is hardly direct - it might be that people default more to the traditions they know when times are hard, but that's not because of "bitterness." Stretchy stretch.

As for Obama adviser Austain Goolsbee - dude is a highly respected U of Chicago economist with no incentive to lie about the content of his conversations with the consulate. If you can't see through the public protocols and ass-covering going on when the Obama campaign scrambles to disavow the posturing claim and the Canadian consulate (whose role is DIPLOMACY after all) does the same, then you're more than a touch naive.

There are several problems for Obama here. One is his first reaction - to deny that a senior adviser had met with the Canadian consulate. Goolsbee is, in fact, a senior adviser. So, oops. Then there's the problem of the notes taken by one of the consulate's staffers. Now is it more credible that a respected professor of economics at one of the best universities in the land had this meeting and did in fact say what a memo written by a responsible party at the Canadian consulate say he did? Or more credible that the publicity machine of a presidential campaign which initially misrepresented that the meeting didn't happen at all and then defaulted to a diplomatic understanding with the consulate and the necessary opaqueness of what went on in the meeting - w/o ever credibly saying what actually DID transpire (which would have been awkward since it initially said NOTHING happened at all) is giving an accurate accounting?

Here's your hint: consulates, esp Canadian ones, don't make stuff up.

That said, here's a few links:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...ma_advise.html
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com
/post/?q=ZmViMjk1ZDQxNmM1ZDU5OTRmOTQ3MjMwODIyMjE5NTM=
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../02/019916.php
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...l-meeting.aspx

[Oxcoug]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...l-meeting.aspx

And worth a look. It simply is not a credible claim that this is not an accurate reporting of the meeting.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Tex, as an Obama supporter, I have to say your sig is hillarious.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Go ahead and provide some links.

Just don't provide them from the Financial Times of London, the Wall Street Journal, or the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, oxcoug.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

You're stretching Cali, and I'm sure you know it. You've failed to show that there is any link bt guns and bitterness. And the linkage bt religion and bitterness is hardly direct - it might be that people default more to the traditions they know when times are hard, but that's not because of "bitterness." Stretchy stretch.

As for Obama adviser Austain Goolsbee - dude is a highly respected U of Chicago economist with no incentive to lie about the content of his conversations with the consulate. If you can't see through the public protocols and ass-covering going on when the Obama campaign scrambles to disavow the posturing claim and the Canadian consulate (whose role is DIPLOMACY after all) does the same, then you're more than a touch naive.

There are several problems for Obama here. One is his first reaction - to deny that a senior adviser had met with the Canadian consulate. Goolsbee is, in fact, a senior adviser. So, oops. Then there's the problem of the notes taken by one of the consulate's staffers. Now is it more credible that a respected professor of economics at one of the best universities in the land had this meeting and did in fact say what a memo written by a responsible party at the Canadian consulate say he did? Or more credible that the publicity machine of a presidential campaign which initially misrepresented that the meeting didn't happen at all and then defaulted to a diplomatic understanding with the consulate and the necessary opaqueness of what went on in the meeting - w/o ever credibly saying what actually DID transpire (which would have been awkward since it initially said NOTHING happened at all) is giving an accurate accounting?

Here's your hint: consulates, esp Canadian ones, don't make stuff up.

That said, here's a few links:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...ma_advise.html
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com
/post/?q=ZmViMjk1ZDQxNmM1ZDU5OTRmOTQ3MjMwODIyMjE5NTM=
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../02/019916.php
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...l-meeting.aspx

I appreciate your statement that consulates, especially Canadian ones, don't make stuff up. As such, you may find their following statement helpful (issued after any of your links above were published, which makes me wonder if you stopped following the story or just wanted to portray a very slanted version of events):

Statement by the Canadian Embassy: The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.

Source: Statement by the Canadian Embassy, 3 March 2008.


Here is a good summary of what actually happened.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle19469.htm

Also, what the Canadian media reported:

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/vsu/wmv-...memo080303.wmv


You may want to update your links so they are actually, I don't know, accurate.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

For all who value the truth over perception, this should be a non-issue.

Judging by his distortion of McCain's 100-year remark, it appears Obama is not one of your truth-over-perception folks.

----

This was a great article on the Politico about "What Clinton Wishes She Could Say":

Rip off the duct tape and here is what they would say: Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working-class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico).

Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton — in the genteel confines of an intraparty contest — never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style.

This view has been an article of faith among Clinton advisers for months, but it got powerful new affirmation last week with Obama’s clumsy ruminations about why “bitter” small-town voters turn to guns and God.

Cue the Obama apologists.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9564.html

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I would suggest you go back and read what actually happened with Canada and Obama's campaign, because it isn't remotely how you described it. I would also point out that the "bitter" comment is being hugely overplayed (in part because what he said has a large element of truth to it). Republicans are trying to talk themselves into comfort by saying Obama can't win in November, when, in reality, they know he can and are praying Clinton finds a way to beat him in the primaries (because she may not be able to win).

I think oxcoug is correctly stating how things have been perceived.

I have no idea what will happen this fall. You would think that any Democrat should cake walk this fall. On the other hand, I think that Obama and Clinton both have glaring weaknesses. Hillary is interesting, isn't she? At this point she is doing nothing but keeping herself in it hoping that sometime between now and the convention Obama will blow his foot off.
I think he might do it. Who knows.

I have never been a McCain fan, he bothers me on a number of levels. But I think oxcoug makes a great point that Dems may be overreaching if they nominate the most liberal Senator in the bunch. This will be particularly tough because the counter-charge can't be made against McCain. He is as centrist as you get without crossing party lines. In some ways Obama is a much better match up for McCain than Clinton. On the other hand, it may be that no Republican can win this fall.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think oxcoug is correctly stating how things have been perceived.

I have no idea what will happen this fall. You would think that any Democrat should cake walk this fall. On the other hand, I think that Obama and Clinton both have glaring weaknesses. Hillary is interesting, isn't she? At this point she is doing nothing but keeping herself in it hoping that sometime between now and the convention Obama will blow his foot off.
I think he might do it. Who knows.

I have never been a McCain fan, he bothers me on a number of levels. But I think oxcoug makes a great point that Dems may be overreaching if they nominate the most liberal Senator in the bunch. This will be particularly tough because the counter-charge can't be made against McCain. He is as centrist as you get without crossing party lines. In some ways Obama is a much better match up for McCain than Clinton. On the other hand, it may be that no Republican can win this fall.

Clinton is doing Obama a favor by staying in, I have decided. If she wasn't in, the preacher issue wouldn't have been raised until the general election, at which point it may have been too late to do anything about it. Imagine if that story broke in late October. Game over. This latest comment is just an instance of the press wanting to grab hold of an issue for ratings. I don't think it is a huge deal, and it certainly won't be by the general election. Maybe it will hurt Obama in Pennsylvania, a state he would lose with or without that comment, but it won't do more than that.

The label of "most liberal" isn't hurting Obama either, and it won't in the general. He comes across as reasonable and moderate, much like Bill Clinton did in his elections. The common theme for all politicians is to make themselves slant much more to the extremes in the primaries, and much more to the center in the general. Just look at McCain's campaign for a textbook example.

Obama will win this thing, of that I have no doubt (barring some crazy development, like another terrorist attack which makes everything unpredictable).

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The label of "most liberal" isn't hurting Obama either, and it won't in the general. He comes across as reasonable and moderate, much like Bill Clinton did in his elections.

Its not hurting him yet. That is because Hillary can't play that card and McCain has no reason to at this point. It will get played and it will hurt him, of that I have little doubt. Whether it will hurt him enough to cause him to lose is a question that involves too many variables. McCain is going to spend a fair amount of time on the defensive as well in ways that he has not yet.