Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-02-20 at 11.46.30 AM
The greatest.

***

  • ***

********


« They're Not Talking Points: It's Simple Reality | Main | Progressives Are Buying the Well-Circulated Nonsense »

February 06, 2008

Comments

epppie

Obama's message may be a winning one, but it isn't one of unity. It's one of surrender.

quousque

When will the thinking wing of the Democratic Party get a candidate that represents them? I am already feeling pretty glum about America's future in looking at the surviving 'hope-full changeling' contenders. This current nominating process sucks, and we will rue it in November.

me

So Clinton won Red States which will obviously vote GOP in the General.

Any chance of you pointing out that Obama won Idaho which will obviously vote GOP in the General.

Clinton for better or worse is running as the leader of the Dem Party whereas Obama is running for his own personal glory.

If Clinton loses she will fight tooth and nail for the Dem candidate.
If Obama loses he will run as an independent and guarantee GOP victories.

Either way the GOP will steal the rigged election and the Dems will cry again, "we were robbed".

My prediction:
Cheney steps down.
Jeb gets installed as VP.
Jeb/Condi steal the election.
Jeb/Condi order Blackwater into the streets to round-up the Dem crybabies the day after the rigged elections.

Mark

I think you are right on about all this. And our kind other comments to date seem to lack an appreciation for the turning cycles of history.

Before World War II we had one of America's worst presidents. Sound familiar?

We then elected a 'hope-full changling' -- Roosevelt, a man in a wheelchair for gosh sakes.

And look what HE did for the nation. I know, I know, he was awful. He only called us forth as a nation to end the Great Depression, and won World War II. God, what were we thinking when we elected a man in a wheelchair for gosh sakes? We must have been crazy.

We again live in a time when the old ways of doing things must come to an end. Anyone who disagrees with this statement must confront how they think our country and nation plans currently to deal with the collective issues of terrorism, global warming and the destruction of our environment, the cycle of poverty which fuels both problems, and the growing problems of disease and the end of the fossil fuel era.

Anything less than a profound leap forward, and in a way which deals with ALL of these issues collectively, will leave our nation, and our world, in a slowly collapsing spiral of despair.

And the only way out of the mess is is if we can all begin to believe again in the power of change, and the power of ourselves as a people to effect change.

But even more is required this time. Because the biggest issues now confronting us as a people are not national. They are global. And so we must have a president who cannot just reach across the aisle (and Hillary will have major trouble doing just that).

Now, we need one who can reach across oceans. One whose middle name, Hussein, actually inspires a fundamental rethinking of what people in the Middle East think about Americans and what we are capable of. Who are utterly shocked and surprised to find that we might consider such a man to be our President. And who will be open to a new relationship with him and with us, in the years to come.

The kind of change which we all got behind when our nation entered into World War II. The kind of change which we all -- ok, the ones on the right side of history -- got behind when we fought out own civil war and ended up bringing an end to slavery. The kind of change we wanted when we fought King George II and created our very nation.

Clinton is not speaking in a way to elicit this sort of change -- the sort of change which takes a movement. And the republicans certainly are not.

Only Obama holds the key to this.

I must note in conclusion that I find the comment that "Obama is running for his own personal glory" to be lacking in any real awareness of the movement that is growing behind Obama. Movements are rarely led by those who are only seeking their own personal glory.

And believe you me, this is a movement, baby. And thank God. It is just in time.

Elmer

There are alot of us liberal Dems dienfranchised in red states.

Katherine

I saw a lot of "very small" turnout caucus states go w/Obama... Dakota, Idaho, etc. where most everything is extreme so the dems there are pretty extreme too (w/out a lot of national voice... sorry), but the actual caucus #s were only in the hundreds... and were moreso because it was a 'get together to show our voice' than an individual per individual vote -- not as many people show up at these caucuses as do in the elections... I think he wants a voice w/the "lets change the world" younger generation and black minorites... but we "older people" (40s) have to look at his speeches w/distrust -- heard that, been there -- doesn't work because it sounds good but then [we older people] actually look at his own record... nuclear, a statement in 2004 once he was in the actual Senate re his agreement on the iraq war, his voting on funding Iraq, his cozingy up to industries instead of his own constituents in many issues that still aren't "front page" (but just wait: if he gets the nomination, I promise you all of his own indiscretions and inequities will be streamed to all of us until we are dizzy by the GOP...! I guarantee you that!! The GOP wants this man to win, because they have been quietly waiting to attack him for every misstatement he has made of his own record! And there are a lot!) And while I don't really agree w/the GOP's tactics, I believe most Obama supporters have not really studied who they are supporting (not that he is horrible or anything, just that what he is saying -- unchecked -- isn't quite correct -- and I believe Obama supporters aren't taking into consideration what the ramifications are for the rest of us, if he wins the nom...

If you think it's been a tough primary, you haven't seen nothing yet! His sermon type speeches won't work with them! And there are too many dems/independents who aren't that far from the right that will vote mcCain... because they see Obama as eloquent but ineffective and actually inadequate. Pls believe, we dems (the majority) who are desperate for Hillary to win the nomination are not intending to be disrespectful of Obama, but facts are: he cannot win enough votes in the general election even if every black voter in America votes and a larger percentage than the 16% of young voters shows up... (which really hasn't even happened yet --the caucus votes were low even though he won them...

Clinton can do this, it is the truth: she is battle tested -- the GOP has tried feverently to take her down time and time again; she's still standing. Just think about it: Would they really be attacking her (and leaving obama alone) if it wasn't her they are afraid of?

That's why the GOP is so good at elections, they are strategic in their planning... we dems are a little too independent... we need to think together on this one...

They want Obama to win because Clinton can/will win the presidency if/when she becomes the Dem nominee. They can't stop her; they can only stop him.


Mike in Boston

Well written, but Mr. Carpenter is making the same fundamental error as many other pundits -- extrapolating the results of party primaries to the general election. It's the Repugnants who are going to be spit at least three ways in their allegiances. Regardless of whether the nominee is Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama, Democrats will vote for the Democrat so the fact that Obama "crushed" Clinton in one city in the primary is basically meaningless. The only potential fly in the ointment is Michelle Obama's implied threat not to support the Democratic nominee if it's not her husband.

billy

Are you sure about who the Republicans want to run against? Ari Flescher stated on CNN last night that the Republicans pray for Hillary to run against. And if Clinton can't stop Obama do you really thing McCain can? The times they are a'changin. The old models don't work this time because they are based on fighting a political machine, and this is a political movement. Totally different animals.

Will

Remember - the enemy is the Republican party - not Hillary or Barack! Don't confuse the primary with the election. That's what's important for the future. While I'm strongly in favor of Barack I realize that neither Democratic candidate is ideal. Don't let the next several months campaigning destroy our cohesion and chance of winning in November.

Washington State has a caucus on Saturday as well, and our 97 delegates selected on Saturday are more than Maryland and the 'other WA' combined.

me

Obama is not a team player. Nowhere in the Clinton campaign has the idea been mentioned that Clinton would run as an independent. But Obamaholics all state that an independent candidacy "is on the table" should Obama fail to secure the Dem nomination.

Anytime anybody questions Obama about the specifics about any of his grand schemes they are accused of racism.

Crying racism to the GOP echo chamber will accomplish nothing but a shrug because the GOP embrace racism.

What happens when Obama reaches across the table to the Cheney's? In Obamas fairytale world Cheney will see the light and graciously reach back.

We need fighters who will fight the GOP run media echo chamber.

The GOP are team players if only to protect the GOP "brand". The Dems should have rallied around Clinton. He had a girlfriend - big deal. Clinton still ran a reasonably good "centrist" country even with a hostile GOP-controlled congress.

DUHbya handed over the US treasury to his cronies and the GOP still will not take him out. Unlike the Dems who could not stab Clinton in the back enough times.

The Dems could take lessons from the GOP about team-players.

Obama is not a team player and you idealistic Obamaholics who wish to reach across the table obviously have no clue how entrenched the power-brokers within the GOP are to their way or the highway attitudes.

Obama will be crushed by the GOP smear machine.

Stop referring to past historical outcomes. The media plays a much more massive role today in political outcomes because of media-consolidation and the media is totally GOP.

BIll

When Democrats run the competent manager with the best resume (experience), they lose. Think Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, (Hillary) Clinton.

When Democrats run a speaker who can inspire, they win. Think JFK, FDR, and (Bill) Clinton.

It is really that simple, best resumes lose, best speakers win.

Winning a Presidential election is not at all like getting hired for a job, and even that is not based solely on the best resume. Have a great resume and fail to present yourself well at the interview, and you are done.

Hillary is a great candidate. But she does not deliver inspiration. This game is about image, trash it as shallow if you wish, but it is what it is.

tish

Not so fast! Missouri's 49%/48% contest is still basically a draw -- and there may yet be a recount. Besides (as BO's campaign admits) Missouri has been predictive of the winner of the general election (Dems v. Repubs) rather than the national primary winner. Moreover, Hillary won the crown jewels, so to speak, the coastal states (esp. CA, NY, NY, etc.) where democrats win in the general elections.

About Clinton's sweet victory in Massachusettes and California -- it was quite a statement about the Kennedy and Kerry (what a loser!) endorsements. That must have really rattled such uber-establishment politicians.

Mary

Obama only won Missouri with the two metro-cities of Kansas City and St Louis---both of them 83% African American.

All the other states he won, except Illinois, are actually states that will go RED in November.

Clinton won ALL the Democratic base states: California, MIchigan, New Hampshire, Florida, New York , New Jersey, Massachusetts.

Obama's campaign has already admitted she'll also win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

With all due respect, PJ, you twist facts the same way that goofy Chris Matthews does.

Obama's not "favored." He's not the "front-runner."

He'll be lucky if he gets the slot for VP.

The comments to this entry are closed.