[QUOTE=casieispretty]
So, he could ruin foreign policy, drive the economy even lower and appoint inept Supreme Court judges, but you wouldn’t care so long as he did so openly and honestly? Personally, I don’t give a damn about a President’s integrity, so long as they run the country in a way that is prosperous and fruitful for its people.
[/QUOTE]
The difference being that you have spoken about what we have now, and what I have hoped for is at the very least an improvement upon that. We need fewer divisive politicians who consider only the “prosperity and fruitfulness” of the people on their side and fewer politicians who continue to drive a stake into the heart of America’s trust in their government. Again, we aren’t likely to see any drastic change in America with a new President, but we can hope for baby steps forwards, at least.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
He talks about how he’ll tackle these issues in his speeches and he’s been questioned about them in every single debate.
[/quote]
I can’t be bothered to watch every speech by every primary candidate. I know that in the Obama speeches I have seen, I’ve heard very few/no specific policy plans. I’ve never said Obama has no specific policy plans, just that he isn’t being significantly challenged on them. So your following links and quotes were entirely a waste of your time I’ve read them before, if you had fully read my post you would realize I not only had read them, but I was well aware of them. I’m not making the claim Obama has no ideas, I’m making the claim that his ideas are firmly in the back seat and his campaign is being ran on empty platitudes–that is what worries me.
If Obama was actually elected, and he stuck to his platform, I wouldn’t be that worried. His political positions are a bit too left for me, but they will be moderated because every President has to moderate their ideas somewhat once in office, that is what is so great about our system. You have to moderate your views to get things done.
As for his “open, honest, integrity” “bullshit”, all I can do is yawn. Pretty much every President in my lifetime has made promises like that. I’ve never seen a President campaign on, “continuing corruption” a single time in my life. The truth of the matter is this is the kind of stuff politicians can say to score easy points, and then never really have to act on them once in office.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
It was great fun, while driving back and forth between precincts, listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity go into meltdown over the success of McCain. Hee hee. All day long they were urging Southern Democrats to abandon Huckabee and vote for Romney. To no effect, it seems. By the end of the day, Limbaugh/Hannity had become so shrill that only dogs could hear them.
[/QUOTE]
Southern Republicans, I meant. (In case that weren’t obvious.)
One other observation:
All the pundits who were saying the withdrawal of Edwards would accrue to Hillary’s benefit in the South were dead wrong. Edwards supporters (apparently) turned to Obama.
Obama won more states and (apparently) more delegates than Hillary last night. He also (it is projected) will have a slight lead in total pledged delegates, but the media is playing it like Hillary was a big winner. I also keep hearing commentators on CNN and Fox throwing out the same bogus claim that Massachusetts represents a “failure” for the Kennedys and Kerry because Obama didn’t win it. They never mention that Obama was never expected to win Mass even after the endorsements, that Hillary’s had a ginormous lead in that very pro-Clinton state for months and that Obama did well to close the gap there as much as he did. If anything, the Kennedy endorsement (Caroline’s at least) probbly won him a few more delegates in Mass as well as the rest of the country. It’s possible that the Kennedy blessing played into his ability to take the overall lead.
Anyway, Obama is now the marginal frontrunner in delegates and he has a money advantage in the remaining states as well as the ability to campaign more in those states and milk that charisma for all its worth.
There’s still a chance they could go to the convention with Obama leading in delegates only to have the supers hand the nomination over to Hillary. I hope that doesn’t happen. That would really piss off the base.
[/QUOTE]
CNN is still showing Clinton with more total delegates, 811 to 720.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
CNN is still showing Clinton with more total delegates, 811 to 720.
[/QUOTE]
RealClearPolitics shows Hillary with 900 and Obama with 824, but that includes super delegates.
Counting only delegates earned in the primaries, Obama leads, 696 to 689.
Edwards may yet be the kingmaker.
(What’s up with Hillary getting more delegates from Alabama despite Obama’s 14-point victory there? I know the delegate allocation system is quirky, but that’s pretty ridiculous.)
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That’s what’s been counted already, not what’s being projected. By the end of the day, Obama will have the lead in pledged delegates.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I can’t be bothered to watch every speech by every primary candidate. I know that in the Obama speeches I have seen, I’ve heard very few/no specific policy plans. I’ve never said Obama has no specific policy plans, just that he isn’t being significantly challenged on them. So your following links and quotes were entirely a waste of your time I’ve read them before, if you had fully read my post you would realize I not only had read them, but I was well aware of them. I’m not making the claim Obama has no ideas, I’m making the claim that his ideas are firmly in the back seat and his campaign is being ran on empty platitudes–that is what worries me.
[/quote]
I did read your posts and I’m telling you that you are wrong to assert that Obama isn’t running on issues. I cannot imagine what speeches you have been listening to, if you haven’t heard him talk about what his plans are.
Tell that to the people of Illinois, who now, thanks in large part to Barack Obama, have a law that requires all interrogations in capital crimes to be video or audio taped.
Barack Obama feels, and I wholeheartedly agree, that the work of our public officials and representatives should be transparent to the public they work for, and he has a proven history of working to enact legislation to make that happen. There is no “bullshit” about it.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
Teh bottom line is that it is still up for grabs.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a virtual tie, yes. Obama will have an overall lead of probably less than 10 delegates. That’s nothing in a contest where more than 2000 are needed. As I said, his lead will be marginal. I think the significance is not that Obama is dominating or runnung away with anything, but that he’s still got a nose ahead of Hillary after Super Tuesday when 6 months ago it was assumed she would have it wrapped up by now. It’s going to be a meatgrinder, no matter who wins and it might even go into overtime. It’s like Obama is the Giants and Hillary is the Patriots and Obama has a one point lead at half time. It’s not that the lead is big which is significant, but that he has a lead at all
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That’s what’s been counted already, not what’s being projected. By the end of the day, Obama will have the lead in pledged delegates.
[/QUOTE]
Dio, can you give me a cite on that? I’m trying to find the unpledged count and projections but can’t seem to find it.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
It really worries me that all I hear about Obama, repeatedly, is his charisma. He’s supposed to be running for President of the United States, candidacies built on pure charisma are more common in countries like Venezuela than they are in a democratic society like the United States where we’re supposed to be voting based on the issues.
[/QUOTE]
Obama has plenty of positions (there is very little daylight between Obama and Clinton). But issues are not going to win this for Obama. Issues is not what is driving record voter turnout, it is message.
It’s a little odd that CNN and MSNBC are each reporting different numbers of regular delegates for each candidate. Does MSNBC have information CNN doesn’t?
[QUOTE=unconventional]
Maybe – Obama speaks to the heart of Americans. He has managed to inspire an increasingly hopeless populous and create a movement for fundamental change in government. He is different and fresh. He is symbolic of a new beginning and the end to the corporate politics of corruption.
Voters need to believe that our government is still of the people, by the people, for the people. Government isn’t a business. It is a philosophy. His message is important and should not be underestimated because it actually reflects the widely held beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. If HRC wins the nomination, I hope she continues Obama’s message, or she just might lose this election to a war president.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the problem… she can’t… she takes too much money from special interests.
And don’t undersell personal charm as a job requirement. The job requires a lot of diplomacy, consensus building, schmoozing and deal making. That’s easier to do if people like you. Bush, for instance, has no charm and that’s part of why he’s such a shitty President.
[/QUOTE]
That’s one of the most ignorant statements I’ve ever heard. Bush is ALL charm. It’s the fact that he doesn’t know jack about the issues himself and lets a cabal of handlers spoonfeed him info that’s his problem. Every person I’ve heard of who has met him personally says he’s incredibly charming.
How else do you think they pushed through so much of the godawful shite they did?
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
That’s the problem… she can’t… she takes too much money from special interests.
[/QUOTE]
And as was reported earlier today, she also is starting to self-finance. $5 million loan to her campaign. No wonder she was pimping her website last night. I wonder if Bill regrets saying this in Iowa :
[QUOTE=Bill Clinton]
They say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Obama has plenty of positions (there is very little daylight between Obama and Clinton). But issues are not going to win this for Obama. Issues is not what is driving record voter turnout, it is message.
[/QUOTE]
Obama is not arguing on positions precisely because there is so little difference between himself and Clinton. Since they’re so similar, voters can’t help but make a decision based on matters of personal qualifications, personality, etc. Charisma, in other words.
[QUOTE=Jas09]
And as was reported earlier today, she also is starting to self-finance. $5 million loan to her campaign. No wonder she was pimping her website last night. I wonder if Bill regrets saying this in Iowa :
[/QUOTE]
Hillary is making the point of saying “I spent MY money on the campaign…”