|
|
|
|
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/30/2008 8:41:06 PM | How can anyone want to be President and blatantly display unpatriotic behavior?
If people are placing their choices on the lapel pin issue, I think those people need to have their damn voting rights taken away because those are the people screwing things up. I GET IT! There comes a time where the symbol becomes bigger than the meaning. The lapel pin has become the same caricature as the "I Support Local Law Enforcement" bumper stickers on the dope dealer's car. Not wearing the goofy jewelry as a vain display is more respectful to the flag.
Why doesn't Obama want debate number 1000 to the 4th power? Because one "common citizen" began the lapel pin uproar. Yes, the town gossip down the block. And she happened to be the "common citizen" ABC brought on to ask the "common citizen" question on the debate. So the last debate was the Political Jerry Springer show and what's to keep the next one from being a special edition of Povich. They haven't spoken ISSUES for the last 10 debates anyway. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/30/2008 8:44:27 PM | | ^^^^ Yes, well put. And in any case this isn't Nuremberg in 1934; does everything have to be so flag-draped all the time in order to be "patriotic" ??? | |
|
| |
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/30/2008 9:00:08 PM | Nope, it shouldn't be necessary to salute every time or be a flag drapping patriot to be President. I brought up the issues because it does bother me, as a Voter, to see a candidate not salute the flag that so many died defending...but, that's just me. If I should have my voting rights taken away because I feel that way...well... that's an opinion. We all have one.
Butttt, when it comes to the Wright association... yes, I definitely will not vote for Obama based on that fact alone. Sorry...but, I've had my fill of racism. Make that reverse racism.
My very best friend is half black/half white and he finds Wright repulsive and now learning of Obama's close relationship and shared beliefs with Wright... just as repulsive. And, while I am an Independent Voter, my friend is Dem. He's voting for McCain as it stands now.
All of us might be surprised at how come Nov. McCain get a wide majority simply based on these events leading up to the Democratic Convention. Right or Wrong as that may be, it is life. I seriously don't think McCain has much more against him which is not known. So, if the mud does continue to sling once the Dems. have their Nom., there probably won't be much left to sling. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/30/2008 9:30:30 PM | Oh Jedi, you know I think you're a good egg.
We're being fed Gerber's strained peas in this campaign... I want jobs back, I want fuel prices addressed the right way, I want health care for the underprivileged that is going to actually work, I want education for my kids, I want for other countries to not consider us to be what we considered the Soviet Union to be, I want to not cut back farther and farther on my already measly living expenses to see my bank account next payday still less than it was last payday. What good is saluting our flag going to be... what good is the sacrifice of our children that serve in the military when there's nothing left?
I want people that lost their jobs in Anderson, IN to know what really happened to them before they go and place their votes next Tuesday for the person married to the person that approved their loss while she says that marriage is what qualifies her to "care for them". I'm related to some of these struggling un/under employed people actually believing the spouse of the President that allowed their lives to be ruined has their best interests at heart.
I'm tired of Orcs, Klingons, and Sith neighbors and preachers and campaign staffers. Whether someone stands leaning ominously to one side when they stand. Those things affect neither negatively nor positively anything that already has me staking out the best burn barrel in town beside which to stay warm in the winter. Or my new attention to bandannas to wrap my belongings in and tie to a stick while I stow away in railway cars looking to do any chore I can find to support my kids. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/1/2008 3:59:41 AM | Being an Obama supporter from before this campaign started, I can see how someone who wasn't already 'for him' can think the Wright issue is disgusting enough not to vote for him. I think it's disgusting too. But I haven't read anywhere where Obama shares Wright's views. People can imply that perhaps, but I truly don't feel that's the case. And you can find no evidence that he does.
As far as patriotism goes, if you look at the man's voting record and the bills he's working on for vet's rights, coupled with his desire to get out of Iraq and work toward peace with all nations, I think that shows his patriotism better than a pin or a salute. I know symbolism is important, a 'lest we forget' kind of thing, but the work he does speaks to me more clearly than not saluting a flag on occasion. The only occasion I've really seen evidence of him not saluting the flag was at a steak fry.
I'd just like to throw in here that our current President has not attended one military funeral in eight years in office. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/1/2008 6:50:59 PM | Your right the lapel pin... very stupid reason to not vote for him. Just the other day I felt like everyone at work wanted to hang me up on a cross cause I came to work on "Green Day" with no visible green on my person. By the end of the day I was so defensive about it I was almost crazy. So thinking I could make up for it the next day to smooth over my horrible mistake I wore a nice green sweater. All I did was make it worse. Finally me being me I told them how I really think. I think that wearing green on green day doesn't make the sun shine cooler or the earth healthier or my life longer or even add one more day to the people around me. So why the hell does it matter if I forgot to wear green on this one day. After my quiet but emphatic honesty my target looked at me hurt.. It was then that I realized even if it didn't mean a thing to me it did to them. There is nothing wrong with not only for your own sake but for the sake of others to wear green on a certain day or a lapel pin on your lapel.. If it has meaning for someone you care about someone that means something to you then what the heck is the prob.
Even though His refusing to wear the lapel pin seems harmless to him, there are those others that think is an incredible honor to wear and to refuse to do something so simple that holds so much honor becomes insulting and they wonder why he can't. Thats were you start wondering well maybe there is a bigger reason why doesn't want to wear it. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/1/2008 7:05:32 PM | Here's what gets me. It's almost a joke... if it wasn't that it is in reference to our future President.
There are those who will not vote for H. Clinton based on her association with her hubby.
There are those who will not vote for McClain due to his association with the Republican party.. and specifically Bush.
There are those who will not vote for Obama due to his association with Wright.
Are those people wrong for not voting for someone due to their direct association with said people. I think.... Not.
Reason: In all 3 instances, the associations are not casual, nor have they been just recently established relationships. All are long, involved relationships. This aspect will never be discarded by the Voting public. No matter how much we debate it here. It is what it is.
Personally, I think, in the general election (come Nov.) if Obama is the Dem. choice, he will not fare as well against McCain as Clinton would.
I started out leaning towards Obama... but, that is no longer the case. Based on collective issues. I'm in the McCain camp now. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/1/2008 7:31:35 PM | | I like Clinton for the Dem Nominee also but only because she has to be the most hated woman in the world .... The only reason she is even still in the running is because Republicans are supporting her. I personally find the thought of voting for her almost as revolting as sticking my hand in a hot steamy bucket of cow dung. You could never get that smell off of you afterwards.. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/1/2008 7:34:03 PM |
I'd just like to throw in here that our current President has not attended one military funeral in eight years in office.
Actually, I think this is one of the things that Bush has done right. He knows that his presence would detract from the attention being on the the funeral and the family of the fallen hero. You can blame Bush for many things, and you will I am sure, but for this I admire him. He has met with hundreds of the familys in a setting where the media circus would not take the focus on where it should be. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/2/2008 3:33:58 AM |
He has met with hundreds of the familys in a setting where the media circus would not take the focus on where it should be.
That might be true. However, he never met with Cindy Whatshername, because guess what? She didn't agree with him! She didn't glady sacrifice her son to George's wallet....so he refused time and time again to meet with her, and it drove her to madness. (She wasn't such a kook before he kept refusing to meet her. ) So ok, I see your point that he might be staying away so as not to let a circus ensue. That's a good thing. But he also very smugly rejects attempts to defend to a parent his reason for sending their child into harms way. Mission Accomplished indeed. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/2/2008 6:15:45 AM | ^^^^ Actually Bush did meet with Cindy Shehan originally, away from the media circus, he meet with her and her husband as well as the families of about 15 other families who lost loved ones in the war back in 2004, but she wanted to create a media circus. I am very sorry for this woman, as the mother of two sons, one of who is in the USCG I can only imagine her pain, but I really think the President did the right thing in this instance. Yes, her pain may have unhinged her, and I can understand that, but it was not because the President refused to meet with her, he already had.
| |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/2/2008 7:08:44 AM | "I honestly don't think the Dems are gonna get to the white house. Just wait until the convention happens with all the super delegate crap Clinton is going to pull. It'll be a wreck and the outcome will leave many voters bitter and angry."
All indications are that they are going to get it by a landslide. Of course the right-wing radio propagandists like Rush Limbaugh are going to stay in denial over this to the last minute. It is amazing how effective they have been with their continuous spouting of slander and outright lies. There seem to be a great many lazy people in this country who will not bother to research anything for theirselves. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/2/2008 7:17:43 AM |
All indications are that they are going to get it by a landslide.
They should have cakewalked to that, but nowhere close to a landslide now if at all. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/2/2008 11:14:11 PM | simahdahnnah~
whether or not obama "saluted" the damn flag while saying the pledge of allegiance is really not the point. the point here is that the man has a world view that basically considers the US to be an overall force for evil in the world rather then, warts and all, a force for good in the world. have we made mistakes? sure. are we fricken perfect? uh, NO! however, i do not think this is a bad country, but i do think it can be a better one. however, mr obama is not the man to lead it. he doesn't "like" this country... and THAT is quite clear. and for me THAT is an issue... among many many others... the man has NO experience, is connected to such people that i would liken to timothy mcvieghs of the left... i think his wife says far more then he knows he can as an actual candidate. and honestly.. i don't think i could stand 4 years of being lectured to by her... i mean, talk about bitter!
lara | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/2/2008 11:27:13 PM | Doesn't like our country? And that's clear? There's nowhere that can be said to be clear.
Everything can be better. It only gets better if someone wants it to be better. He thinks he can highlight ways to help us be better. Where would we be if the Caveman that invented the wheel thought that was as good as it gets? A world full of unicyclists? | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/2/2008 11:43:57 PM |
he doesn't "like" this country...
It scares me that there are people who think this way... believe this malarky about Obama that is being dished out...
Bite at any outlandish excuse to dislike the guy... rather than focus on valid stuff with real facts to back it up.
It scares me that there seems to be a LOT more people out there thinking that way than I'm comfortable with... it's like 'Night Of The Living Braindead'... I expect to look out my windows and see them shambling in the fields... | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/3/2008 3:55:13 AM |
the point here is that the man has a world view that basically considers the US to be an overall force for evil in the world rather then, warts and all, a force for good in the world. have we made mistakes? sure. are we fricken perfect? uh, NO! however, i do not think this is a bad country, but i do think it can be a better one. however, mr obama is not the man to lead it. he doesn't "like" this country... and THAT is quite clear. and for me THAT is an issue... among many many others... the man has NO experience, is connected to such people that i would liken to timothy mcvieghs of the left... i think his wife says far more then he knows he can as an actual candidate. and honestly.. i don't think i could stand 4 years of being lectured to by her... i mean, talk about bitter!
You have nothing to back up your statement that Obama does not "like this country". Nothing at all. And as far as Michelle goes, you're focusing on one statement, when she said she was for the first time proud to be an American. Did you watch their most recent interview together? In that, she said they are not doing this for the prestige or power, they are doing this because they do love this country and think we deserve better. I agree. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/3/2008 5:21:44 AM |
You have nothing to back up your statement that Obama does not "like this country". Nothing at all. And as far as Michelle goes, you're focusing on one statement, when she said she was for the first time proud to be an American. Did you watch their most recent interview together? In that, she said they are not doing this for the prestige or power, they are doing this because they do love this country and think we deserve better. I agree.
While I am extremely reluctant to think "Obama does not like this country" is anything but rediculous political smear, there is more of a track record for Michelle being rather angry about the country than the one incident you suggest. Her Princeton thesis (which the school tried to suppress) paints her in the 'America is racist' camp, and I have been troubled by what I have heard her say in the two or three speeches of hers I've caught - not for being anti-america as being condescending towards the country, along the lines of 'thank god somebody like Obama has come along to show the country the error of its ways.'
I don't think they are anti-american, but I am troublingly unconvinced about the depth of their positive convictions.
As for what they said in the most recent interview, c'mon - what politician wouldn't say that when under the microscope? | |
|
| Let's Get Real for a Second, okay?
Posted: 5/3/2008 5:43:44 AM | Why doesn't Obama want debate number 1000 to the 4th power? Because one "common citizen" began the lapel pin uproar.
I'm going to suggest that you don't really believe that. 
Everybody knows, including Obama himself of course, as well as his campaign strategists, that unrehearsed, two-way exchange, is NOT his forte. He shines on the stump, with one-way, prepared and rehearsed, inspirationally-based material, ala JFK and MLK. He doesn't shine when it gets down to the nitty gritty of quick response to the unanticipated. That's just a fact of life. However presidential responsibilities often include the unanticipated, and quick response.
He does NOT shine in a debate format. It is much too impromptu and unplanned. It makes perfect sense for him to avoid that which makes him look bad. Any candidate would do their best to do the same.
I suggest you Mr ItechMan, are very aware of that. You are just not saying so.
As for the lapel pin and saluting the flag, that aligns with Michelle saying she was never proud to be an American until now. I believe that says a lot, and chances are pretty good Barack feels just about the same way she does, thereby denying patriotic symbolism. He did after all, live abroad for many years, not feeling very American, and since then he's been under the wing of Reverend Wright, who he says showed him the way. Is this a problem? Yes, realistically? It probably is.
-Suth'nBoy 
| |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 5/3/2008 6:14:00 AM | Again , here's my logic.
1) Hillary , once she's elected as nominee, is going to suddenly be the target of all those right wingers that are currently aiming at Obama. All the old stories are going to be back in the headlines again, as all of them go after the last target on their list. Right now, she's not been targeted - for a reason.
Politically, she's created a "myth" that she can win this thing - and she can't.
Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in the popular vote, and this is her path to victory.
She will ultimately win the Democratic nomination by convincing the superdelegates that her popular vote lead makes it legitimate for them to support her. It gives them the cover they need to deny Obama a nomination that he otherwise would have won.
What’s wrong with this picture?
First, Clinton does not lead Obama in the popular vote. It is a fantasy.
Second, the people she most needs to convince that this fantasy is true are the people least likely to believe it.
Let’s first deal with Clinton’s fantasy lead in the popular vote.
“I’m very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else,” Clinton said the day after her victory in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary.
But has she really? No. Not really. Not unless you throw out the existing rules of the Democratic Party and invent a new set of Hillary Rules.
Under Hillary Rules, Clinton counts the popular vote in Michigan, where she was the only major candidate on the ballot. The Democratic Party does not recognize those votes.
Under Hillary Rules, Clinton also counts the popular vote in Florida, where candidates were forbidden to campaign. The Democratic Party does not recognize the results of the Florida primary, either.
Under Hillary Rules, Clinton throws out the “votes by the people who have voted” in the states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, because those were caucus states, where popular vote tallies were not officially kept and where, by the way, Obama won three out of the four contests.
Under Hillary Rules, Clinton gets to choose the contests that help her, throw out the contests that do not and declare herself the winner.
Steve Kornacki of The New York Observer did an excellent, detailed story last week on Clinton and the popular vote, going through a number of different scenarios and projections for the contests that remain.
His conclusion: “The point is that under the most basic and probably the fairest criteria — simply counting every state and U.S. possession where there was a legitimate primary or a caucus where popular votes were tallied — Obama will finish the primary season hundreds of thousands of votes ahead of Clinton.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9994.html
The rest of that article explains the reality of the race, the one Hillary will not admit.
Now is this a quality you want in a President ? She's misleading the voters by trying to imply this, and the media seems to have bought into with this "close race".
One of the things that always good in a leader is optimism, true.
So is having a sense of reality.
2) McCain's losing support, slowly. He's got a free ride now, for the time being.
Politically, he is TOTALLY beatable. There's enough to cast some serious doubts on his ability to lead WITHOUT going negative.
In what Zakaria called "the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years," McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia and exclude China from the G8--in effect adopting "a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers" that "would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order... [and] alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war." So much for any moderating effect. "[McCain's] speech reads like it was written by two very different people," wrote Zarkaria, "each one given an allotment of a few paragraphs on every topic."
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/29/
for-mccain-the-devil-is-in-the-details.aspx
That's a stupid idea politically, and I'm surprised a man like McCain proposed it.
There's also another little detail...
The US cannot "kick out" a G 8 member, it has no authority to.
His acceptance of the gas tax holiday ? It saves pocket change, doesn't even last until the election, let alone his potential presidency, and costs the nation ten billion dollars in lost revenue.
Oh yeah, and it solves nothing.
Research his stance on the " S. 22 - Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act "
He's actually against it .
n today's Los Angeles Times, John Soltz, the chair of VoteVets.org, and Gen. Wesley Clark both laid out the argument as to why Webb's bill was a no-brainer for McCain to support. Noting that falling military recruitment numbers were more of a threat to staffing of armed ranks than retention rates, they argued that it was "morally reprehensible to fix the system so that civilian life is unappealing to service members."
"Education assistance is not a handout, it is a sacred promise that we have made for generations in return for service," the others wrote. "McCain has said he hasn't had time to read the bill and isn't sure if he could support it. It's hard to believe that neither he nor anyone on his staff has had time to read such an important bill, which has been around since before he started running for president. But, even if true, McCain must do the right thing now, when his leadership is needed."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/mccain-still-not-on-gi-bi_n_96110.html
There's a lot on McCain that can be used to invalidate him as a candidate, he's flip flopped on many issues, and stumbled and blundered on others. He's far from invincible. In my eyes, he may turn out to be another Bob Dole.
A good man, but one not one to lead the country in the times ahead.
And you people are judging who your President will be based on a lapel pin, or holding their hand over their hearts ?
Now about seeing what their platforms are, and their political record is ?
How about how much good they've done ? | |
|
| Let's Get Real for a Second!
Posted: 5/3/2008 6:50:31 AM | Instead of the Right Wing, Clinton has long been bashed by the Media, who leans strongly in Obama's favor, and has for a very long time. Particularly GE, Gates, MSNBC and NBC, and their network of networks. The fact that she is faring anywhere near as well as she actually is, is a virtual miracle, but speaks loudly to her fortitude and personal strength.
Which is worse? I'd suggest the Media is worse because they are far more visible than is the Right Wing. And they are relentless in their efforts to participate in a feeding frenzy attacking one side and not the other. Clinton is that side.
Obama has largely had a free pass with the Media until very recently.
Oh, and she most definitely CAN win the nomination. Just as easily as can Obama. The belief that she is out of the race is Obama-related fantasy.
Overall, and all things considered, we have something pretty close to a dead heat in the run for the nomination. Some just refuse to admit that.
-Suth'nBoy
| |
|
| Let's Get Real for a Second!
Posted: 5/3/2008 7:30:51 AM |
The belief that she is out of the race is Obama-related fantasy.
I see Superdelegates coming out for Obama and even switching from Clinton every day AFTER Pennsylvania and after the latest high profile Wright blowup. Put the papers away and turn off the TV, this is the most significant indicator to watch. She's losing support even today from the deciders of the nomination in spite of the Rocky Balboa the MSM is reporting. This momentum is the biggest smokescreen clouding what's really happening. If winning the states she's won was a significant factor, if the Wright goofiness mattered, if polls of the candidates versus McCain mattered to the SDs then NONE would be joining with Obama daily let alone the majority.
It's unlikely the counted popular vote will swing in her favor and if you take the undecided Superdelegates she would have to practically sweep all 200+ of them to make up the pledged delegate deficit. | |
|
| Let's Get Real for a Second!
Posted: 5/3/2008 8:04:10 AM | Oh, and she most definitely CAN win the nomination.
If she changes the rules of the game, or kneecaps him beyond repair with things that matter little to the actual future of the country.
One the one hand she says Obama's ok, but not ready yet to be president. On the other hand, she's ruining his political future to get the nomination. That's an incredibly short sighted thing to do. All this Hillary generated smoke is still going to be lingering in another four years.
As for her chances to win ?
Only the superdelegates count now, and this is where Hillary must win.
Which is her real problem. As I have previously pointed out, 56 percent of all superdelegates are members of the Democratic National Committee itself, and the DNC represents the largest bloc of delegates who have not yet committed to a candidate.
Am I saying that the DNC, the ultimate insiders, could decide who the Democratic nominee is? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
Why is this a problem for Clinton?
Because more than anybody, DNC members know that the popular vote doesn’t count, even though Clinton says it does.
The DNC made the current rules. If it had wanted a national primary, a day on which all Democrats across the land would vote and choose the nominee (a legitimate idea), it would have created such a system.
But the DNC created a different system, one in which pledged delegates — selected from legitimate primaries and caucuses — and superdelegates get to select the nominee.
OK, but let’s say you got the DNC members really, really drunk (not an outrageous scenario) and convinced them that the popular vote ought to count. Could you then convince them that counting Michigan and Florida makes sense?
No way.
For starters, the DNC is the group that declared Michigan and Florida rogue states in the first place. Do you really think the DNC is now likely to accept the popular vote count from those states?
Second, to make Clinton’s popular vote fantasy work, you have to throw out the votes in legitimate caucus states such as Iowa. The DNC turns its back on Iowa? As if.
Lastly, there is the big picture: Will the DNC really overturn the choice of the pledged delegates and substitute Clinton as the nominee over Obama?
I doubt it. First and foremost, DNC members care about the party and its future. So ask yourself: Is the DNC going to shatter the party by telling black voters and young voters that their votes in legitimate primaries and caucuses do not count?
Clinton can try to make up her own set of rules, but that doesn’t mean they are going to rule the DNC or the day.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9994_Page2.html
Let's see the current polls...
North Carolina Democratic Primary
RCP Average 04/26 - 05/02 -- 48.8 41.8 Obama +7.0
Zogby 05/01 - 05/02 627 LV 46 37 Obama +9.0
Rasmussen 05/01 - 05/01 831 LV 49 40 Obama +9.0
InsiderAdvantage 05/01 - 05/01 611 LV 49 44 Obama +5.0
Research 2000 04/29 - 04/30 500 LV 51 44 Obama +7.0
Mason-Dixon 04/28 - 04/29 400 LV 49 42 Obama +7.0
SurveyUSA 04/26 - 04/28 727 LV 49 44 Obama +5.0
Indiana Democratic Primary
Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Spread
RCP Average 04/25 - 05/02 -- 47.5 41.5 Clinton +6.0
Zogby 05/01 - 05/02 629 LV 42 43 Obama +1.0
Insider Advantage 04/30 - 05/01 478 LV 47 40 Clinton +7.0
Downs Center 04/28 - 04/30 689 LV 52 45 Clinton +7.0
Rasmussen 04/29 - 04/29 400 LV 46 41 Clinton +5.0
TeleResearch 04/25 - 04/29 943 LV 48 38 Clinton +10.0
PPP (D) 04/27 - 04/28 1347 LV 50 42 Clinton +8.0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html
Obama's ahead by single digits in one, and Clinton's ahead by the same in the other.
Against someone new to the national political scene, and against someone that's under a heavy media blitz right now - she's in a dead tie, while behind.
Popular vote ?
Popular Vote Count
Obama Clinton Spread
Popular Vote Total 14,418,784 49.2% 13,917,318 47.5%
Obama +501,466 +1.7%
Here's CNN's calculator for races and delegates:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html
Let's look at the next three races, and use the best current estimate on delegates.
1) Guam - looks like a split - 2 for each
2) North Carolina - if we use the polls info above, it looks like this
62 Obama , 53 Clinton
3) Indiana - same data ?
Clinton 40, Obama 32.
Obama gains one delgate, in three races, and doesn't lose his lead in the popular vote. 
Do the math. | |
|
| Let's Get Real for a Second!
Posted: 5/3/2008 8:10:04 AM | Despite all indications to the contrary and despite the Pennsylvania primary loss, Obama actually ended up having a pretty good couple of weeks as far as really getting closer to getting the nomination. He's gained more superdelegates and even taken one away from her I believe.
And all this while the talking heads were distracted with the nonsense about what his former pastor said and didn't say. The MSM loves nothing more than a circus; actually scratch that and word it this way -- the people love nothing more than a circus, particularly if there's anything confrontational or controversial involved, so the MSM (naturally going for the ratings) simply offers what sells.
It's (for the most part) a "free market" MSM we have here, and in "the West" in general. If there were no popular interest in tabloid-type of MSM coverage , we wouldn't see it. Wright , IMO, is on about his 13th or 14th minute (out of everyone's potential '15'); like children w/low attention spans, the majority of the "masses" will cease being interested in watching those same old clips of him over and over and the whole thing will either vanish on its own or be swallowed up by the next big thing that goes down.
I'm still predicting Obama (my personal choice anyway) for the Dem nom , after which he'll beat out McCain by sheer numbers in the fall. To me the primary turnout numbers alone spoke volumes. After a primary win (with low overall GOP turnout as compared to Dem turnout), McCain seemed to have a hard time packing a ballroom in a restaurant; Obama was packing auditoriums. Plus too many of the "base" just don't like McCain (amnesty issues, etc) , and in a way I think Ron Paul helped (inadvertently) too by turning more potential GOP voters into more like Independents. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
