I think Obama is the more beatable of the two because of Wright, his thin record and Rezko. That being said, I’d still perfer to see Hillary get the Dem nod.
I think that the long term impact on the Democratic party of having Hillary be the “come from behind” candidate will stir up a lot more dissent among those who use race as thier key lever in identity politics. Hopefully, the black community will take a step back and look at the democratic party critically enough to see that they’re interest are aligned with the gay community, the enviromental community and the anti-capitalistic community. Those 3 groups are not aligned all that well with thier ideals.
Rob B. - 10:05am on 05/05/2008
I don’t like Hillary any more than I like Obama, but from the Democrat perspective if they want their party in the White House they’re kidding themselves if they think Obama’s the guy to do it.
Yeah, but you were saying that while his numbers were up as well.
You would have some credibility here if you were at least half way honest in this whole thing.
Quit pretending that you are merely giving your take on the matter based on current events. No matter what the reality, you would be making the same prediction.
Hannitized - 11:05am on 05/05/2008
“Now it’s our party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”
- Eli Pariser, Executive Director, MoveOn.org
Barack Obama isn’t just the “black” candidate in this race. He is the “progressive” candidate, the candidate of those on the Left who view a restoration of the Clinton Dynasty with the same alarm and disgust as they did the Bush incumbency in 2004.
That Barack Obama is an inexperienced rookie with no record of substantive accomplishment, no executive or managerial experience, and a growing list of alarming philosophical and associational negatives means nothing to the self-styled “progressive” Left. All that matters are ideological purity and an ever-tightening grasp on the reins of power.
If the Democrats were to give the nomination to Hillary now, no matter how practical a move that might be, the Democrat Party would be rent asunder for at least another generation.
Bat One - 11:05am on 05/05/2008
Quit pretending that you are merely giving your take on the matter based on current events. No matter what the reality, you would be making the same prediction.
Yeah, but you were saying that while his numbers were up as well.
H,
That’s what is known as consistency. And as it happens, Rob’s analysis is correct. Obama, given his lack of experience, and his questionable judgement, has always been the weaker of the two candidates.
You would have some credibility here if you were at least half way honest in this whole thing.
In your eyes, H, perhaps, but the fact remains there are far more people who share Rob’s judgment of Obama’s weakness as a “not-ready-for-prime-time” national candidate than agreed with the messianism of the “progressive” Left.
Quit pretending that you are merely giving your take on the matter based on current events.
This statement makes absolutely no sense. Rob’s original post did not suggest that his view of Obama is based merely “on current event.” In fact, your very first sentence makes clear that Rob was “saying that when (Obama’s) numbers were up.”
Are you seriously accusing Rob of trying to refute the very consistency that you’ve accused him of? No wonder you have difficulty getting people to take your comments seriously!
Bat One - 11:05am on 05/05/2008
Radio announcers are starting to talk about the rumors that Hillary is gay. Last night one was talking about the DC Madam and one of her hookers committing suicide and also mentioned the large number of people who have died mysterious deaths after being involved with the Clintons.
Obama will win this unless the neocons steal it somehow. 2/3 of the people voting are Democrat and a good chunk of the remaining Republican voters are Ron Paul people who plan to vote 3rd party after they get their say at the convention.
ews48 - 03:05pm on 05/05/2008
This statement makes absolutely no sense. Rob’s original post did not suggest that his view of Obama is based merely “on current event.” In fact, your very first sentence makes clear that Rob was “saying that when (Obama’s) numbers were up.”
Well, if you want to pretend that Rob isn’t pretending to postulate for the first time, that is your choice. But may I remind you of his comment;
I think the more important question here isn’t so much “Can Hillary still win?” but “Is Obama mortally wounded?”
Because right now I’m beginning to think that even if the guy pulls it out and gets the Democrat nomination he’s still too dinged up to pull off a national victory.
Did you miss that the first time you read it Bat?
Are you seriously accusing Rob of trying to refute the very consistency that you’ve accused him of? No wonder you have difficulty getting people to take your comments seriously
Robs words choice doesn’t match up with your argument Bat. The words “Because RIGHT NOW, he is BEGINNING TO THINK???
So as you can see. Rob is trying to pretend that he is weighing in, fairly, on the facts on the ground....at the moment. But why would he bother asking the question if he already has made up his mind?
I mean, cmon BAT, how could you even make this argument?
Hannitized - 11:05am on 05/06/2008
Oh, and by the way Bat. This proves the reason people don’t take me seriously is because they really can’t read the words in front of their face correctly and walk away with the proper understanding of what they just read. Yourself included.
I don’t expect an apology or an admission that I was right. But it would go a long way in restoring your credibility.
Hannitized - 11:05am on 05/06/2008
Eunichized,
Who (besides “blackwater"boob, our other short bus riders, and possibly your mother) does take you seriously?
Anyone?
Rodney Graves - 12:05pm on 05/06/2008
I don’t expect an apology or an admission that I was right. But it would go a long way in restoring your credibility.
And a good thing it is, too!
In the first place, there is nothing for me to apologize for here (although you should take note of my instant apology to Rodney earlier for being unaware that he had put up a similar post before mine). And I have certainly gone to great pains to point out those few previous instances when I believed you to be correct (NB - you are not entitled to the word “right”!)
As for credibility, I am quite proud of that particularly sturdy appendage, and to be honest the very last thing it needs is “restoration.” Despite my advancing age, I exercise it vigorously and often, and if it were any more sizable I believe my partners would find the experience not nearly so pleasing, but instead almost too painful to endure.
I think Obama is the more beatable of the two because of Wright, his thin record and Rezko. That being said, I’d still perfer to see Hillary get the Dem nod.
I think that the long term impact on the Democratic party of having Hillary be the “come from behind” candidate will stir up a lot more dissent among those who use race as thier key lever in identity politics. Hopefully, the black community will take a step back and look at the democratic party critically enough to see that they’re interest are aligned with the gay community, the enviromental community and the anti-capitalistic community. Those 3 groups are not aligned all that well with thier ideals.
Yeah, but you were saying that while his numbers were up as well.
You would have some credibility here if you were at least half way honest in this whole thing.
Quit pretending that you are merely giving your take on the matter based on current events. No matter what the reality, you would be making the same prediction.
Barack Obama isn’t just the “black” candidate in this race. He is the “progressive” candidate, the candidate of those on the Left who view a restoration of the Clinton Dynasty with the same alarm and disgust as they did the Bush incumbency in 2004.
That Barack Obama is an inexperienced rookie with no record of substantive accomplishment, no executive or managerial experience, and a growing list of alarming philosophical and associational negatives means nothing to the self-styled “progressive” Left. All that matters are ideological purity and an ever-tightening grasp on the reins of power.
If the Democrats were to give the nomination to Hillary now, no matter how practical a move that might be, the Democrat Party would be rent asunder for at least another generation.
RPDS strikes again!
H,
That’s what is known as consistency. And as it happens, Rob’s analysis is correct. Obama, given his lack of experience, and his questionable judgement, has always been the weaker of the two candidates.
In your eyes, H, perhaps, but the fact remains there are far more people who share Rob’s judgment of Obama’s weakness as a “not-ready-for-prime-time” national candidate than agreed with the messianism of the “progressive” Left.
This statement makes absolutely no sense. Rob’s original post did not suggest that his view of Obama is based merely “on current event.” In fact, your very first sentence makes clear that Rob was “saying that when (Obama’s) numbers were up.”
Are you seriously accusing Rob of trying to refute the very consistency that you’ve accused him of? No wonder you have difficulty getting people to take your comments seriously!
Radio announcers are starting to talk about the rumors that Hillary is gay. Last night one was talking about the DC Madam and one of her hookers committing suicide and also mentioned the large number of people who have died mysterious deaths after being involved with the Clintons.
Obama will win this unless the neocons steal it somehow. 2/3 of the people voting are Democrat and a good chunk of the remaining Republican voters are Ron Paul people who plan to vote 3rd party after they get their say at the convention.
Well, if you want to pretend that Rob isn’t pretending to postulate for the first time, that is your choice. But may I remind you of his comment;
Did you miss that the first time you read it Bat?
Robs words choice doesn’t match up with your argument Bat. The words “Because RIGHT NOW, he is BEGINNING TO THINK???
So as you can see. Rob is trying to pretend that he is weighing in, fairly, on the facts on the ground....at the moment. But why would he bother asking the question if he already has made up his mind?
I mean, cmon BAT, how could you even make this argument?
Oh, and by the way Bat. This proves the reason people don’t take me seriously is because they really can’t read the words in front of their face correctly and walk away with the proper understanding of what they just read. Yourself included.
I don’t expect an apology or an admission that I was right. But it would go a long way in restoring your credibility.
Eunichized,
Who (besides “blackwater"boob, our other short bus riders, and possibly your mother) does take you seriously?
Anyone?
And a good thing it is, too!
In the first place, there is nothing for me to apologize for here (although you should take note of my instant apology to Rodney earlier for being unaware that he had put up a similar post before mine). And I have certainly gone to great pains to point out those few previous instances when I believed you to be correct (NB - you are not entitled to the word “right”!)
As for credibility, I am quite proud of that particularly sturdy appendage, and to be honest the very last thing it needs is “restoration.” Despite my advancing age, I exercise it vigorously and often, and if it were any more sizable I believe my partners would find the experience not nearly so pleasing, but instead almost too painful to endure.