<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 13 2008, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In defense of Hillary and all Democrats every where, I kind of look at the way they speak about the economy as pandering necessitated by their political base. The Democrats talk class warfare, the Republicans talk sanctity of marriage amendments. It's the ugly side of politics. And I don't believe, either party is sincere in their appeals. (Actually, to give this crop of Republicans some serious cred, I haven't heard the "gay issue" raised once this election season?)</div> One reason why I don't think I could stand being a politician is that you'd have to cater to certain inflexible, junk ideologies in order to survive. You can't be an electable democrat without painting America as a Dickensian England, and the religous right has more or less anchored the Republican party for the last 25 years, so you're sunk without them. I've never figured most of these guys actually believe most of that.....they're smart people. It also reaffirms my belief that those who are willing to do what it takes to become influential politicians probably shouldn't be allowed to hold office.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bynumite @ Feb 22 2008, 12:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> So today my history teacher told us that Obama is going to win, anybody know what this guy offers?</div> Do you really want to have that debate Bynumite, about who looks uglier? Heh. Obama offers similar views to Clinton, without any of her baggage. The woman wants Michigan delegates to count and no one else was on that ballot, what more can I say? Obama has better views on embargos, and foreign policy as well, among other things. Google the differences.
Fascinating story on the Clinton camp's spin from the night. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/22.../245/116/460587 V. Important moment just now on MSNBC Hotlist by zenbowl [Subscribe] Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:41:22 PM PST Sorry for the quick diary, but this is a really important moment that just happened on MSNBC. Sheila Jackson Lee, getting interviewed by KO right now, just offered the following (warning: rough paraphrase): Well, Hillary, you know, Martin Luther King had a famous quote, about taking the American people to the mountaintop. I think Senator Clinton took America to the mountaintop tonight. In the interest of fairness and goodwill, I'm not going to take issue with the comparison to Dr. King. There's an important follow up to that quote that Rep. Lee has to be conscious of, below the fold. * zenbowl's diary :: :: * Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! That's the Martin Luther King quote. It's a biblical reference to Moses being allowed to see the promised land, but not to get there, after the pilgramage out of Egypt. It was clear as day that Rep. Lee is saying that Hillary has taken women to the mountaintop, and shown them that they can get there, to the promised land of the white house, of breaking the final glass ceiling, but is not going to be able to get there herself. There's no way that anyone as schooled in the rhetoric of the civil rights movement as Rep. Lee would not make that connection. I think that is a gracious and strong argument, and, frankly, I appreciate the sentiment. Hillary took us to the mountaintop, and now it's up to Barack to get us all as Democrats to the promised land. That is something I think all Democrats can live with. If this is the approach of the Clinton campaign, I say, kudos on being gracious, and I think we will get there together in November. Update: As an Obama supporter, I think it's important to note that, in no way does this mean that the fight is over. Hillary is nothing if not a fighter. That said, I think it's worth spending time to reflect on the Democratic party, which had the courage to have a black man and a woman as its frontrunners. I'm hopeful that Hillary will have the class and dignity to realize her place in history, and accept that she helped blaze a trail that someone else will finish in the not-so-distant future. I don't think that stepping back to look at the history here means that I'm getting the wool pulled over my eyes by Mark Penn, or anyone else.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Feb 14 2008, 12:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 13 2008, 08:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm ready to predict Obama is the next president and that he's going to win a HUGE victory over McCain with many republicans crossing over to vote for him. I don't think he's going to have one of the biggest victories in history, but it could be up there in terms of popular vote. I don't see him being dominant in the south, for example.</div> It's a long way till November. I don't see Obama as a sure thing over McCain at all. 1. It's a classic youth vs. experience thing, and there's something to be said for experience and sobriety of judgement. If I'm McCain, I'll play on: Sound judgement on Iraq. No one likes the war and everyone likes the idea of bringing troops home, but the reality is that most folks also don't like to lose and understand that leaving a fucked up mess behind would be a problem down the road. Obama's run on opposition to the war and the promise to bring people home asap. I believe him when he says he wouldn't have taken us there in the first place and that's probably the right move, but that's not saying I believe him when he says he'll pull out in short order. I believe he'll recognize that leaving a fucked up mess is a bad thing. Obama will have a hard time with this in the general election the same way Kerry did last time. The reality is he's going to have to either lie or change his position, and voters tend to notice both of these things. McCain, on the other hand, can pretty credibly say that although he supported the war, he thought it would have been waged competently. But beyond that, he was ahead of the game on the surge, which has largely worked. So he can make a pretty compelling point that, even though maybe we shouldn't have been there in the first place we can't pick up sticks and leave now. If you walk out in the middle of a fight you generally get hit in the back of the head. Not taking the job might have been the best course of action, but quitting in the middle isn't either. So McCain has a bit of an edge there. On immigration, McCain is weak himself, but people are going to forget that when it's pointed out that Obama was up for giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses. That's going to be a really tough sell to Middle America on a matter of principle. Obama's response will be to point out McCain effectively wanted amnesty, which is going to be a tough sell for him. I think this will come out based on who makes the most compelling case of having a "vision" to clean up the system and who's best at talking up the historical benefits of immigration while limiting it, but I'd give the slight edge to McCain because I think amnesty is going to seem palatable to lots of folks compared to tolerating continued lawbreaking. My sense is the Republican base is fairly united in one direction on this while the Democratic base is fairly split. That's a major issue for Obama and an opportunity for McCain. On the economy, I suspect a fair amount of it comes down to a vision of fiscal policy. Both of these guys are fairly sound here, but I tend to think McCain will emphasize balancing the budget through reduced spending and taxes only if necessary. He's got a strong record against earmarks that can help him here. Obama doesn't have quite the record against pork as McCain, although he's not especially week (contra Hillary, who spoke practically lovingly of earmarks... talk about out of touch). But point is, McCain's got a consistent message and record to be selling to folks "I've been wanting to cut spending for a long time. Look at all this wasteful spending! If we do that, we don't have to raise taxes!" Obama's democratic base might not like earmarks, but they tend to want spending on various programs in general, and are willing to pay for it with more taxes (especially on other people!). So even though he's been good on earmarks, his fundamental position is going to have to be something like "let's reduce spending a bit and raise taxes on the 49% of you who don't vote for me". That's gonna be a tougher sell, I think. Not to say it can't be done, but campaigning on a tax increase platform sounds tougher than campaigning on a cut wasteful spending platform. ------------------------- So you put all those things together and I think McCain can make a very solid case that he's the right guy. Obama certainly can too, but my point here was just to call attention to what I think in the best hand McCain can play. Of course we'll probably get some "Obama is an evil, half-Black, crypto-Muslim" stuff from the fringes, but it's my sincere belief and fervent hope that McCain goes out of his way to call that the pile of dogshit it is. Likewise, I hope the word from the other fringe doesn't largely become "we can't have a crazy and especially old man" running the country. </div> I dunno, I see McCain as having a hard time winning. I agree that he has a decisive edge in foreign policy over Obama, which is probably the one area where a president has considerable power, but I think the majority of people would rather rid themselves of the Iraq war, and the fact that he is very much in favor of it while Barack is against it will probably really hurt him a lot in the general election. Also, the fact that he is a relatively uncharismatic republican could be the nail in his coffin. Most people are ready to distance themselves from the Bush administration, and since he's a republican I imagine most apathetic voters will see him as a continuation of the same thing. If he were more charismatic and came off as someone who appeared to be a change of course, I suppose he could overcome that, but I don't think that's his strong suit. And while being old offers some pretty important advantages, I think it will really hurt him in the latter area. And, even though his differences with the Republican party aren't too big of a deal IMO, I think his stance on immigration could kill him in a lot of the southern and midwestern states that traditionally vote red, which will make it that much tougher to overcome a lot of the political inertia that he'll have to fight already at election time.
To add to your comments rosenthal, McCain's position on the war requires a level of nuance that he won't be able to communicate to a substantive fraction of voters who only intermittently follow politics. For some, McCain will be pro Iraq war and Obama/Clinton will be against -- that simple. The whole "I'm for the war, but it wasn't run well. And I'm for the surge now because it is having some marked success, but have criticisms of how the war has been run in the past" requires any number of sylogisms that "I'll bring the troops home" doesn't. I also am astonishingly unimpressed with McCain's campaign's work against Obama. There are so many ways to attack Obama: taxes, immigration, portraying him (correctly or incorrectly) as a pansy on foreign policy. These are any number of issues that would attract broad support for McCain. Instead, what does McCain attack Obama on? Hope and Rhetoric. Never mind the fact that everyone wants to feel good about their country, and that Obama's rhetoric contains all kinds of biblical groundings -- which is going to continue to turn off the Evanglist base that McCain needs to get elected. Even more shocking to me was McCain's attack on Obama's foreign policy: the criticism of the Obama statement that he would bomb Pakistan if he had credible intelligence on Bin Ladin and Pakistan refused to act, (because a leader should never disclose their intentions)? That type of McCain attack on Obama is only remedying a potential Obama weakness in the eyes of the voters. Not only is it not effective, it's actually counterproductive. Up to this point, I'm not sure that McCain wouldn't be in a better position if he hadn't said anything in regards to Obama.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 22 2008, 01:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To add to your comments rosenthal, McCain's position on the war requires a level of nuance that he won't be able to communicate to a substantive fraction of voters who only intermittently follow politics. For some, McCain will be pro Iraq war and Obama/Clinton will be against -- that simple. The whole "I'm for the war, but it wasn't run well. And I'm for the surge now because it is having some marked success, but have criticisms of how the war has been run in the past" requires any number of sylogisms that "I'll bring the troops home" doesn't. I also am astonishingly unimpressed with McCain's campaign's work against Obama. There are so many ways to attack Obama: taxes, immigration, portraying him (correctly or incorrectly) as a pansy on foreign policy. These are any number of issues that would attract broad support for McCain. Instead, what does McCain attack Obama on? Hope and Rhetoric. Never mind the fact that everyone wants to feel good about their country, and that Obama's rhetoric contains all kinds of biblical groundings -- which is going to continue to turn off the Evanglist base that McCain needs to get elected. Even more shocking to me was McCain's attack on Obama's foreign policy: the criticism of the Obama statement that he would bomb Pakistan if he had credible intelligence on Bin Ladin and Pakistan refused to act, because a leader should never disclose their intentions? That type of McCain attack on Obama is only remedying a potential Obama weakness in the eyes of the voters. Not only is it not effective for, it's actually building support for Obama. Up to this point, I'm not sure that McCain wouldn't be in a better position if he hadn't said anything in regards to Obama.</div> I'm curious, let's say you were the GOP candidate, how would you attack Obama? Give me a couple of lines.
I think Obama's immigration policy is substantially outside how most Americans see the issue. That's an easy target -- even if McCain has to flip-flop to make the argument.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 22 2008, 02:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think Obama's immigration policy is substantially outside how most Americans see the issue. That's an easy target -- even if McCain has to flip-flop to make the argument.</div> I was hoping you'd be a little more specific. Obama also said today that he would like preparations made before he talks to other leaders, so I think that might make your case look worse.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rosenthall @ Feb 21 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Feb 13 2008, 12:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't pay much attention to politics but I've been a tentative conservative/republican in the past because of I prefer their economic position (less government, lower taxes) vs that of the Democratic party (more government, higher taxes). I don't see that distinction any more. Bush may have lowered taxes, but the national debt and budget deficits have shot up during his administration. Both parties want to use more money: Republicans for national defense and the military, Democrats for social programs. Given that choice, I'll opt for a Democrat.</div> Yeah. In general, I tend to think small government is better, but if you have to have big government, then I suppose you're better off with liberals, who tend to be better at it. Somewhere around 30 or 40 years ago, I think conservatives lost an ideological battle and basically decided that they would be a party that attempted to cater to societie's problems and act as a gigantic insurance company, but they've just done it in more deceptive ways. There aren't too many Barry Goldwater's left, that's for sure. In the end, I'm not sure there's a huge difference between paying for government with taxes or with deficits, the latter is just less obvious. </div> Interesting. I've been talking for a couple decades now about how the Govt. should simply be an insurance "company." Insurance is a "safety net" which is what people seem to want out of government. It'd eliminate a lot of redundant and mostly useless programs; tax money would be used to subsidize those who can't afford the most basic insurance. A govt. insurance agency would look something like the post office. Not interested in profit, just to break even. That alone would cut rates by 10% or more. If govt. offered medical malpractice insurance, we'd see lawmakers actually addressing why it costs so much - and weeding out the actually bad doctors. I don't see govt. replacing existing insurance, which means the free market can still work. Those who want Blue Cross can still buy it. I do see govt. insurance as being very basic. $30/month or thereabouts for 6 doctor visits/year and castastrophic health. But I bet people really whine about it when govt. starts to do the same things insurance companies do - like refusing to cover certain things due to costs.
As for Obama, I think people really need to listen to his speeches. When he talks about shared sacrifice and shared rewards, it sure sounds like communism or socialism to me. That will be exposed in the general election. As for McCain, Iraq may not be popular, but I see that as a PR issue. McCain served, and he has two sons currently serving. He can talk from the "my family is willing to sacrifice, I'm not just sending your kids to war" position. That he believes we must continue our presence in Iraq says a lot, as he's one of the top guys in govt. or the public/private sector on foreign policy and military issues. I'll offer this bit of analysis, as well. People may well take to McCain's message better than they will to Obama's, once the nominees are set. McCain has always been liked by Democrats, and he is the straight talking and humble sort of fellow. Republicans are not showing up in big numbers during the primaries, which on the surface is scary; if they're crossing over to vote Obama just to defeat Hillary, then the general election may be a lot more even than it appears now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 22 2008, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As for Obama, I think people really need to listen to his speeches. When he talks about shared sacrifice and shared rewards, it sure sounds like communism or socialism to me. That will be exposed in the general election.</div> It sounds like socialism to me too Denny, but Republicans will just waste money on the war instead of these Democratic programs, right? That was rwj's point. And I'm an independent btw, so I do like some of the economic ideas Republicans have put out there. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for McCain, Iraq may not be popular, but I see that as a PR issue. McCain served, and he has two sons currently serving. He can talk from the "my family is willing to sacrifice, I'm not just sending your kids to war" position. That he believes we must continue our presence in Iraq says a lot, as he's one of the top guys in govt. or the public/private sector on foreign policy and military issues. I'll offer this bit of analysis, as well. People may well take to McCain's message better than they will to Obama's, once the nominees are set. McCain has always been liked by Democrats, and he is the straight talking and humble sort of fellow. Republicans are not showing up in big numbers during the primaries, which on the surface is scary; if they're crossing over to vote Obama just to defeat Hillary, then the general election may be a lot more even than it appears now.</div> I don't think anyone cares if McCain's sons are in the war, it was a huge mistake and how much longer are we supposed to stay? McCain can only steal other independent voters, Obama has his side pretty much locked up Denny.
I don't know if it would work in America (I suppose it could), but labelling people communist seems like such a waste of time. Communism's long stopped being a threat to Western democracies.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 22 2008, 10:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 22 2008, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As for Obama, I think people really need to listen to his speeches. When he talks about shared sacrifice and shared rewards, it sure sounds like communism or socialism to me. That will be exposed in the general election.</div> It sounds like socialism to me too Denny, but Republicans will just waste money on the war instead of these Democratic programs, right? That was rwj's point. And I'm an independent btw, so I do like some of the economic ideas Republicans have put out there. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for McCain, Iraq may not be popular, but I see that as a PR issue. McCain served, and he has two sons currently serving. He can talk from the "my family is willing to sacrifice, I'm not just sending your kids to war" position. That he believes we must continue our presence in Iraq says a lot, as he's one of the top guys in govt. or the public/private sector on foreign policy and military issues. I'll offer this bit of analysis, as well. People may well take to McCain's message better than they will to Obama's, once the nominees are set. McCain has always been liked by Democrats, and he is the straight talking and humble sort of fellow. Republicans are not showing up in big numbers during the primaries, which on the surface is scary; if they're crossing over to vote Obama just to defeat Hillary, then the general election may be a lot more even than it appears now.</div> I don't think anyone cares if McCain's sons are in the war, it was a huge mistake and how much longer are we supposed to stay? McCain can only steal other independent voters, Obama has his side pretty much locked up Denny. </div> I happen to be a supporter of sticking it out in Iraq until those people are on their feet proper. It was hugely important, in my eyes, to rid them of Saddam because we propped him up. We should have the moral authority, and obligation, to take out Saddam and put things right there - we're not into conquering other nations and occupying them or assimilating their people and land (at least not in the past 100+ years or so). I am concerned for the people there, not about owning anything that is theirs (like their oil). The thing about Bush and his cronies is that people could rightly call him and Cheney and others "chicken hawks." Can't say that about McCain.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 22 2008, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 22 2008, 10:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 22 2008, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As for Obama, I think people really need to listen to his speeches. When he talks about shared sacrifice and shared rewards, it sure sounds like communism or socialism to me. That will be exposed in the general election.</div> It sounds like socialism to me too Denny, but Republicans will just waste money on the war instead of these Democratic programs, right? That was rwj's point. And I'm an independent btw, so I do like some of the economic ideas Republicans have put out there. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for McCain, Iraq may not be popular, but I see that as a PR issue. McCain served, and he has two sons currently serving. He can talk from the "my family is willing to sacrifice, I'm not just sending your kids to war" position. That he believes we must continue our presence in Iraq says a lot, as he's one of the top guys in govt. or the public/private sector on foreign policy and military issues. I'll offer this bit of analysis, as well. People may well take to McCain's message better than they will to Obama's, once the nominees are set. McCain has always been liked by Democrats, and he is the straight talking and humble sort of fellow. Republicans are not showing up in big numbers during the primaries, which on the surface is scary; if they're crossing over to vote Obama just to defeat Hillary, then the general election may be a lot more even than it appears now.</div> I don't think anyone cares if McCain's sons are in the war, it was a huge mistake and how much longer are we supposed to stay? McCain can only steal other independent voters, Obama has his side pretty much locked up Denny. </div> I happen to be a supporter of sticking it out in Iraq until those people are on their feet proper. It was hugely important, in my eyes, to rid them of Saddam because we propped him up. We should have the moral authority, and obligation, to take out Saddam and put things right there - we're not into conquering other nations and occupying them or assimilating their people and land (at least not in the past 100+ years or so). I am concerned for the people there, not about owning anything that is theirs (like their oil). The thing about Bush and his cronies is that people could rightly call him and Cheney and others "chicken hawks." Can't say that about McCain. </div> It could take decades for those people to get on their feet, and Iraq was not the most powerful country who opposes us. We can't get rid of every bad leader, we can't fix Darfur. We can't solve every problem and we can't engage in multi-fronts in war. Is Afghanistan not more important? We're spreading ourselves too thin and should be concerned with the standard of life in our own country. Maybe when our Economy flourishes to unprecedented levels, we can act like the rent-a-cops we always wanted to be. Obama has this locked, McCain should save his energy, time, and money for his wife or whatever. I'm not a huge Bill Clinton fan but in recent history he's blown out Dole. This year could be a similar case , Electoral-College-wise.
If it takes decades, so be it. Our economy has flourished, and a good deal of it has been from using military might or subversive force to install dictators or other depots like Saddam. Obama talks about change, but undoing the bad things WE did in the past is the real change. We have a lot of work to do in our own hemisphere, too, but military force isn't required. Some sort of reparations are required. We didn't install some dictator in Darfur, so it's not the same sort of problem. If you're into Obama's "shared sacrifice, shared reward" kind of rhetoric, you can't stop at our borders. People who work for $.10 a day to make gym shoes that sell for $200/pair sure are carrying more than their fair share of the work load, but sure aren't getting much of the reward.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 22 2008, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If it takes decades, so be it. Our economy has flourished, and a good deal of it has been from using military might or subversive force to install dictators or other depots like Saddam. Obama talks about change, but undoing the bad things WE did in the past is the real change. We have a lot of work to do in our own hemisphere, too, but military force isn't required. Some sort of reparations are required. We didn't install some dictator in Darfur, so it's not the same sort of problem. If you're into Obama's "shared sacrifice, shared reward" kind of rhetoric, you can't stop at our borders. People who work for $.10 a day to make gym shoes that sell for $200/pair sure are carrying more than their fair share of the work load, but sure aren't getting much of the reward.</div> I don't care if we put Hussein in power or not, I assure you there are countries just as deserving of being liberated. The truth is that we can't help everyone because even Republicans recognize that there is a limit to the amount of funds they can waste on these types of issues. If we stay in Iraq for decades, that will just makes us vulnerable to other attacks if anything. We should have never gone there, as detestable as Saddam is we have other priorities. We tried to fix things in Iraq, but it's a quagmire.
We've had tens of thousands of troops in S. Korea since 1952. That hasn't hurt our ability to do anything else militarily. I don't at all anticipate us fighting in Iraq with 100K+ troops, but we could have 30K there for 50 years, too. I do know that if we leave on Obama's first day in office and hundreds of thousands or millions of people there die in the aftermath, the blood is on our hands, and the people there have every right to hate us for it. Don't think it'd happen? Read about Pol Pot and what he did after we left Vietnam and get back to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 22 2008, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We've had tens of thousands of troops in S. Korea since 1952. That hasn't hurt our ability to do anything else militarily. I don't at all anticipate us fighting in Iraq with 100K+ troops, but we could have 30K there for 50 years, too. I do know that if we leave on Obama's first day in office and hundreds of thousands or millions of people there die in the aftermath, the blood is on our hands, and the people there have every right to hate us for it. Don't think it'd happen? Read about Pol Pot and what he did after we left Vietnam and get back to me.</div> Remember, I'm not a Democrat, so I can understand "a few" troops being left behind, and IIRC, Obama has said that we need to leave behind a few troops to protect our embassy and such. http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama..._pl_1/index.php Read some of his key points, he seems more then reasonable. I doubt another Vietnam occurs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 22 2008, 02:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think Obama's immigration policy is substantially outside how most Americans see the issue. That's an easy target -- even if McCain has to flip-flop to make the argument.</div> More Michelle Obama "it's the first time I've been proud of my country as an adult" sort of comments could torpedo him quick. I thought that line from McCain (who've obviously on very solid ground to make that criticism) was very effective. That comment (coming from a wealthy Harvard-educated attorney) is exactly the sort of thing that plays into independent voters' fears of Democrats as a bunch of self-hating surrender monkeys. My wife, who'd been leaning pretty heavily Obama, saw Michelle Obama saying that on TV, rolled her eyes in disgust, and a couple days later was cheering on McCain when she saw a snip of his "I've always loved my country" response. I think in the grand scheme of things she's still undecided, but I can't stress enough how, as you put it, "substantially outside how most Americans see the issue" her comments sound.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Feb 22 2008, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Feb 22 2008, 02:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think Obama's immigration policy is substantially outside how most Americans see the issue. That's an easy target -- even if McCain has to flip-flop to make the argument.</div> More Michelle Obama "it's the first time I've been proud of my country as an adult" sort of comments could torpedo him quick. I thought that line from McCain (who've obviously on very solid ground to make that criticism) was very effective. That comment (coming from a wealthy Harvard-educated attorney) is exactly the sort of thing that plays into independent voters' fears of Democrats as a bunch of self-hating surrender monkeys. My wife, who'd been leaning pretty heavily Obama, saw Michelle Obama saying that on TV, rolled her eyes in disgust, and a couple days later was cheering on McCain when she saw a snip of his "I've always loved my country" response. I think in the grand scheme of things she's still undecided, but I can't stress enough how, as you put it, "substantially outside how most Americans see the issue" her comments sound. </div> She explained her comments away quite quickly. It was pretty easy to infer what she meant (proud of racial relations nation wide, or have you not ever been to Tennessee?), to suggest she wasn't proud of her country the first 40 or so years of her life is ridiculous. In fact, McCain's recent "Hit job", as Denny put it, is more creditable then anything Michelle said. It may sound like BS, but the Chicago Tribune was talking today about how at least some of the comments made about McCain's closeness to lobbyists were quite valid. I also believe his former aides strongly felt something inappropriate occurred between him and that lady-friend of his. Now I am not saying I know anything, merely that McCain is the more dubious candidate character-wise. Further, Michelle is not running for office. Republicans attacked Hillary in 1992 a bunch of times, and it did nothing for them. I suggest they find something else to do. Obama continues to be spotless as a person in this campaign.
