How Obama lost in November

[Oxcoug]

The man - for all of his gifts for rhetoric and public diplomacy - is just starting to look more like the Amazing Unelectable Howard Dean.

He's already spooked the Jewish vote (wave buh bye to Florida, kids!) by not being more penitent about his 20-year friendship with Jeremiah Wright, the man who inspired the title of his autobiography, and a man who proudly flaunts his man-love for Louis Farrakhan.

Now he's gone and in one sentence managed to write off gun-owners, religionists and small towns as "bitter." Obviously Obama didn't mean to group them all so sweepingly, but that's beside the point. The fact that he links gun ownership and religion at all on ANY level to some economic malaise indicts his judgment. (What idiotic logic - people buy guns and go to church because they're bitter? Really? My varmint-hunting devout Mormon cousins in Arizona are the least bitter people I've ever met.)

Now the irony in all of this, is, of course, that Obama has been publicly lying about his own opposition to free trade through the course of his entire campaign. We now know he's lying when he stands up and vents against NAFTA or other agreements because (a) one of his own advisers told the Canadian government as much and (b) he (thinking he was off the record) told some wealthy donors in San Fran that such thinking was characteristic of the "bitter" (and as we know, Obama's all about hope, not bitterness).

If I were a Republican strategist - one of the ones that's been crossing fingers that somehow Hillary will win the nomination for the Dems - I'd shift my thinking. Obama looks sooo takeable right now. Jewish vote? Gone. Veteran vote? Long gone. Working class whites? Slipping away. Reagan Democrats? Very nervous. Hispanics? No guarantees given that McCain has developed a base there.

Who's the fat lady over there any way? Is she getting ready to sing?

No, the end is still a long way off. But it amazes me that this year - of all years, a year that Dems could have taken in a walk with just a sensible centrist white guy like Mark Warner or Tom Vilsack - the Democrats find themselves yet again on the verge of overreaching, of picking a candidate that Americans simply will not allow to be president.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

The man - for all of his gifts for rhetoric and public diplomacy - is just starting to look more like the Amazing Unelectable Howard Dean.

He's already spooked the Jewish vote (wave buh bye to Florida, kids!) by not being more penitent about his 20-year friendship with Jeremiah Wright, the man who inspired the title of his autobiography, and a man who proudly flaunts his man-love for Louis Farrakhan.

Now he's gone and in one sentence managed to write off gun-owners, religionists and small towns as "bitter." Obviously Obama didn't mean to group them all so sweepingly, but that's beside the point. The fact that he links gun ownership and religion at all on ANY level to some economic malaise indicts his judgment. (What idiotic logic - people buy guns and go to church because they're bitter? Really? My varmint-hunting devout Mormon cousins in Arizona are the least bitter people I've ever met.)

Now the irony in all of this, is, of course, that Obama has been publicly lying about his own opposition to free trade through the course of his entire campaign. We now know he's lying when he stands up and vents against NAFTA or other agreements because (a) one of his own advisers told the Canadian government as much and (b) he (thinking he was off the record) told some wealthy donors in San Fran that such thinking was characteristic of the "bitter" (and as we know, Obama's all about hope, not bitterness).

If I were a Republican strategist - one of the ones that's been crossing fingers that somehow Hillary will win the nomination for the Dems - I'd shift my thinking. Obama looks sooo takeable right now. Jewish vote? Gone. Veteran vote? Long gone. Working class whites? Slipping away. Reagan Democrats? Very nervous. Hispanics? No guarantees given that McCain has developed a base there.

Who's the fat lady over there any way? Is she getting ready to sing?

No, the end is still a long way off. But it amazes me that this year - of all years, a year that Dems could have taken in a walk with just a sensible centrist white guy like Mark Warner or Tom Vilsack - the Democrats find themselves yet again on the verge of overreaching, of picking a candidate that Americans simply will not allow to be president.

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).

[JohnnyLingo]

I guarantee Cali wouldn't think the "bitter" comment was overplayed if it came from Romney and was directed at liberals.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Now the irony in all of this, is, of course, that Obama has been publicly lying about his own opposition to free trade through the course of his entire campaign. We now know he's lying when he stands up and vents against NAFTA or other agreements because (a) one of his own advisers told the Canadian government as much and (b) he (thinking he was off the record) told some wealthy donors in San Fran that such thinking was characteristic of the "bitter" (and as we know, Obama's all about hope, not bitterness).

Lying about his opposition to free trade? All over his book he says CAFTA is good for the USA. Created more jobs than it destroyed. He's said that trade is here and it's not going to go away.

This NAFTA-bashing is the same blue-collar baiting, economic nonsense Republicans do with immigration.

I disagree with Cali; there's good reason to believe Obama's adviser said what was alleged. The following is an excerpt from Romney's adviser:

When reports surfaced recently of an Obama economic adviser telling the Canadian government to ignore his candidate’s anti-Nafta rhetoric, some people were appalled, but many Democratic economists I know were secretly relieved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/bu...ll&oref=slogin

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I guarantee Cali wouldn't think the "bitter" comment was overplayed if it came from Romney and was directed at liberals.

I guarantee I would.

There are some "scandalous comments" that are media contrived and some that actually are relevant. This is most certainly one of the media contrived versions, and it isn't going to gain any traction with voters, particularly those voters in November.

Given the problem of having said Pennsylvanians are "bitter" v McCain reportedly having called his wife the c-word in front of 3 Arizona journalists, I go with bitter.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Given the problem of having said Pennsylvanians are "bitter" v McCain reportedly having called his wife the c-word in front of 3 Arizona journalists, I go with bitter.

Way to go and prove Lingo right, Cali.

[Oxcoug]

Chino - on Obama and his anti-trade posturing read this and tell me he's not trying to sell himself as a protectionist warrior http://www.barackobama.com/2008/04/0..._obama_vow.php

Cali - you should stop getting all your info from the Daily Kos and read around. Like me. I read The New Republic, Slate, Salon, National Review, WashPo, The Spectator, The Times Online and the NYT every day. It's sort of part of my job. I can assure you that the communication bt Obama's adviser and the Canadian consulate is fully substantiated.

[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.

[YOhio]

Interesting take oxcoug, though you may be overstating the case somewhat. Eventually the Dems will circle the wagons and the hispanic, Jewish and working-class white vote will be offered some serious love. The Dems just need to get their well-spoken candidate and his wife to stick to script.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Oxcoug

Chino - on Obama and his anti-trade posturing read this and tell me he's not trying to sell himself as a protectionist warrior http://www.barackobama.com/2008/04/0..._obama_vow.php

Cali - you should stop getting all your info from the Daily Kos and read around. Like me. I read The New Republic, Slate, Salon, National Review, WashPo, The Spectator, The Times Online and the NYT every day. It's sort of part of my job. I can assure you that the communication bt Obama's adviser and the Canadian consulate is fully substantiated.

You "assure me?" Go ahead and provide some links. The fact that the adviser met with the Canadian consulate is fully substantiated. The statement that he said Obama was just engaging in political posturing has been fully refuted (including by the Canadian consulate). If you are reading all of the news sources you listed, I can only assume you need to next work on comprehending them.