Clinton to Richardson: 'Barack Obama Can't Win'

[Notmuchlonger]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

Don't underestimate OWG (Old White Guy). He's got plenty of game. Obama looked uncomfortable last night, Hillary got her claws and fangs into him. McCain was probably watching with a cigar and a snifter of good Scotch next to him, smiling...........

Im just looking at the way he wants to raise taxes 28% on cap gains? At least Clinton will only raise it to 20%.

[mickeyd]

During the debate last night in Philadelphia, Sen. Clinton said that if Sen. Obama was the Democrat nominee for president that he would win the presidency in November. Obama probably agrees with her on that one, but McCain has yet to respond directly to the Q.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Notmuchlonger

Clinton and McCain at least try. Obama is all about blame.

There does seem to be a bit of that with Obama and I find that troubling. I want the next pres to at least start his/her term full of piss and vinegar and saying that they're fully accepting responsibility to go make the policies and initiatives they promised happen and will accept blame if they don't.

However, the jury is still out for me. Watching and listening and waiting to see what happens between now and November.

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Notmuchlonger

Clinton and McCain at least try. Obama is all about blame.

Originally Posted by youbet

There does seem to be a bit of that with Obama and I find that troubling.

Curious about why you feel that way. My impression was that his pastor seemed to be playing the 'blame game', but I don't get a strong feeling of that from Obama himself.

Not really disagreeing - I just can't think of anything offhand to support it. Can you site an example or three?

Or is it just his general approach of 'we need change' - do you read that as 'blaming' everything on past politics?

-ERD50

[youbet]

Originally Posted by ERD50

Curious about why you feel that way. My impression was that his pastor seemed to be playing the 'blame game', but I don't get a strong feeling of that from Obama himself.

And I don't get a "strong feeling" about that from Obama either. Rather, as I said, my feeling is that there seems to be a bit of it. Because I got interested in Obama as a candidate, I have been doing a bit of a deep dive into trying to understand him, his background, personality and key drivers. I want to hear him propose more specific objectives and commit himself to the responsibility of making those objectives happen while accepting full responsibility despite the fact that there will be significant road blocks. My overall evaluation of him as a candidate for me would improve significantly if he would strengthen this area.

I struggle to support candidates whose main platform is blasting the status quo. I like candidates who specifically and agressively say what they stand for, what they propose as positions on issues going forward and that they are committed and accept responsibility for making those things happen despite opposition.

For example, as much as I agreed with the Dems that a change from Bush was desirable in 2004, I thought their platform of "Anybody but Bush" was lame. Why not state their policies and objectives, accepting responsibility to make them happen if elected, and let the voters decide? I feel that policy helped them find a way to lose an election they should have easily won given the state of the country in 2004.

Moaning and whining about the status quo is for the voters. Proposing specific change is for the candidates. Assuming responsibility for implementing change is for the victors.

[JB]

Originally Posted by youbet

I want to hear him propose more specific objectives and commit himself to the responsibility of making those objectives happen while accepting full responsibility despite the fact that there will be significant road blocks. My overall evaluation of him as a candidate for me would improve significantly if he would strengthen this area.

Both Obama and Clinton are proposing specific meaningful changes in two important areas: health care reform, and redeployment of troops now in Iraq. Is there anything that McCain is proposing that's specific?

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by youbet

I struggle to support candidates whose main platform is blasting the status quo. I like candidates who specifically and agressively say what they stand for, ...

Makes sense. It is easy for a candidate to criticize the status quo, much harder to present a workable plan to bring about significant change.

At this point, the main thing I know is that I vastly prefer Obama over Clinton. I'm hoping that issue is behind us after Tuesday. At that point, I'll start putting a little effort into studying Obama versus McCain.

-ERD50

[Wags]

Mr. Obama's campaign is about hope and change and if I recall correctly that was basically the same platform that Mr. Clinton ran on.

Right now Mr. Obama has the edge but that could change. Ms. Clinton would have to win BIG in PA and hope for some more victories in order to win the nomination. The super delegates appear to be leaning to Mr. Obama.

GOD BLESS US ALL

[youbet]

Originally Posted by JB

Is there anything that McCain is proposing that's specific?

For purposes of this discussion, who cares? I'm interested in understanding Obama. Not interested in just determining that he is the least of three evils.

[Texarkandy]

Originally Posted by JB

Both Obama and Clinton are proposing specific meaningful changes in two important areas: health care reform, and redeployment of troops now in Iraq. Is there anything that McCain is proposing that's specific?

Neither of which are actually likely to get accomplished - maybe a few baby steps taken on health care. I don't see those two happening as promised - So what else ya got Dems?

MCain has definitively stated he's not gonna raise taxes. Well - that's certainly important to me. Sure, we've all heard that one before - but I tend to believe McCain on it.

[JB]

Originally Posted by youbet

For purposes of this discussion, who cares? I'm interested in understanding Obama. Not interested in just determining that he is the least of three evils.

Me and other voters. 'Meaningful changes' have to be relative to something.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by JB

Me and other voters. 'Meaningful changes' have to be relative to something.

I used to think that way. My party's candidate needed to be cheered for, defended and worshipped. The other party's candidate needed to be villified at all costs. Got over that.

Despite the fact he's my senator I know surprisingly little about Obama, especially in terms of how much I can trust him to accept full responsibility for accomplishing what he says he will accomplish. So, that's what I'm focusing on. If he wins the Dem nomination (primary is already past in Illinois so I can only watch and see what happens), I can always do a quick compare between him and McCain and consider if I want an all Dem govt or a split party govt and go vote. But at this stage, I need/want to know more about what makes Obama tick. I'm interested in him as a candidate but feel I understand him the least of the three.

[JB]

Originally Posted by youbet

I used to think that way. My party's candidate needed to be cheered for, defended and worshipped. The other party's candidate needed to be villified at all costs. Got over that.

I pointed out two very significant proposals that Obama has made. I didn't cheer or vilify anyone.

Originally Posted by youbet

Despite the fact he's my senator I know surprisingly little about Obama, especially in terms of how much I can trust him to accept full responsibility for accomplishing what he says he will accomplish. So, that's what I'm focusing on. If he wins the Dem nomination (primary is already past in Illinois so I can only watch and see what happens), I can always do a quick compare between him and McCain and consider if I want an all Dem govt or a split party govt and go vote. But at this stage, I need/want to know more about what makes Obama tick. I'm interested in him as a candidate but feel I understand him the least of the three.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'take full responsibility'. The voters are responsible for holding elected leaders accountable.

I agree with many of Obama's proposals but disagree with his recent rhetoric on free trade and tax fairness. In the recent debate Clinton was much more articulate in explaining tax policy. Obama has recently lost much of what makes him so appealing. When asked how he would use Bush as an ex-president, Obama should have talked about Bush's work on AIDS and other diseases in Africa. He missed a good opportunity because his reflexes have changed for the worse. David Brooks has it right in his recent column How Obama Fell to Earth.

[Wags]

Originally Posted by JB

I pointed out two very significant proposals that Obama has made. I didn't cheer or vilify anyone.




I'm not sure what you mean by 'take full responsibility'. The voters are responsible for holding elected leaders accountable.

I agree with many of Obama's proposals but disagree with his recent rhetoric on free trade and tax fairness. In the recent debate Clinton was much more articulate in explaining tax policy. Obama has recently lost much of what makes him so appealing. When asked how he would use Bush as an ex-president, Obama should have talked about Bush's work on AIDS and other diseases in Africa. He missed a good opportunity because his reflexes have changed for the worse. David Brooks has it right in his recent column How Obama Fell to Earth.

Do you think that Mr. Obama's recent to fall to earth might have to do more with how the media has portrayed him and how they along with the Clinton political machine have made the Pastor Wright remarks and the bitter remarks front and center issues?

The news media has a way to shape what people think and how they look at different issues. Just look at the NY times article - Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - A PENTAGON CAMPAIGN Retired officers have been used to shape terrorism coverage from inside the TV and radio networks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/wa...hp&oref=slogin

Like all things the truth usually comes out as was the case when the American public and the opinion polls turned on Mr. Bush and the Iraq War.

GOD BLESS US ALL

[JB]

Originally Posted by Wags

Do you think that Mr. Obama's recent to fall to earth might have to do more with how the media has portrayed him and how they along with the Clinton political machine have made the Pastor Wright remarks and the bitter remarks front and center issues?

No I don't. Some of the questions were ridiculous, even bordering on absurd, but the questions were easy, and Obama's answers poor. He could have answered each directly and succinctly forcing the moderators to move on, but he didn't.

What do you think Wags?

[Wags]

Originally Posted by JB

No I don't. Some of the questions were ridiculous, even bordering on absurd, but the questions were easy, and Obama's answers poor. He could have answered each directly and succinctly forcing the moderators to move on, but he didn't.

What do you think Wags?

If you are referring to the ABC debate I think that the moderators could have moved on but they chose to continue this line of questioning in the hopes of getting a ratings bump. On this particular night ABC was looking for Mr. Obama to slip and thus they would get that much needed "I got you" moment.

Mr. Obama has explained the issues with Pastor Wright and the bitter remarks but it is the media that smells blood in the water and they will not let it go.

GOD BLESS US ALL

[TromboneAl]

Like all things the truth usually comes out as was the case when the American public and the opinion polls turned on Mr. Bush and the Iraq War.

Yeah, but it came out too late to make a difference.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by mickeyd

During the debate last night in Philadelphia, Sen. Clinton said that if Sen. Obama was the Democrat nominee for president that he would win the presidency in November. Obama probably agrees with her on that one, but McCain has yet to respond directly to the Q.

McCain doesn't need to respond until he knows WHO he's running against. He's not that dumb to get "baited" into an early fight.