<p>Obama was not on the national level, he got it because he was/is a great orator…that the avg American had no idea who this guy was, but his speech was so eloquent and beautiful everyone took notice. I personally would feel comfortable for voting for Obama in 12, b/c than I would have more to review in voting records. I think he fell in the same trap as Edwards, he was the star of the DNC in 04, like Edwards in 00 and everyone was just giving him glowing reviews, he should have taken a note from Edwards history and realize that his inexperience on a national level could be a problem.</p>
<p>Edwards got it because of his background…raised in a lower-middle class family to beat the odds and become an attorney that fought mal-practice big companies and won. He was young, handsome, and a dynamic motivational speaker. He was the future of America…with an amazing history, married his college sweetheart, lost their son, had adorable twins, started a foundation, etc. Every speech he ever gave always reminded us that his father was a mill worker.</p>
<p>Let’s be real, remember the Republicans had Powell as a key note also…why? Because he has an amazing history, born to Jamaican parents went to a small college on a ROTC scholarship and became the Joint Chief of Staff. He also realized that it had to due with race…that is why in his speech he went against 1 of the platforms…affirmative action. He stood there and said what will it hurt to give a hand up!</p>
<p>“If I had lived in LA, I wouldn’t have voted for Jindal (he has Indian heritage).”</p>
<p>Simba, do you mean by this that you are of Indian heritage, but due to your political beliefs you would not have voted for Jindal, despite common heritage? I assume that’s what you meant.</p>
<p>Anyway, you might be interested to know that my cousins in New Orleans told me that Jindal is going to be on the Jay Leno show this Monday night and that NBC is touting his appearance as him being “a possible McCain VP”.</p>
<p>“Not really. I live in TX. I live in a precinct that votes 97% republican. I worked for an oil company - not known for democrat employees.”</p>
<p>This post from Simba confirms what I have suspected: Simba is a Republican, not a Democrat who supports Clinton over Obama. No Democrat would refer to “democrat employees.” It’s only Republicans and conservative talkers who refuse to use “Democratic” as an adjective to describe the Democratic party or Democratic voters. It’s obvious to me that the Republicans would like to torpedo Obama, because they think if Hillary gets the nomination, black and young voters will stay home, the Republicans will unite and come out because of their hatred for Hillary, and a lot of those older voters she has gotten might be persuaded to vote for McCain.</p>
<p>I have been watching the news lately, and they keep bringing him up as **the dark horse<a href=“no%20slam%20on%20his%20skin,%20I%20mean%20it%20rhetorically”>/B</a></p>
<p>I have started to look into him, and again as in Obama there isn’t alot to delve into. </p>
<p>I bet the RNC has already selected him to be a keynote for the convention…goes back to my theory that speaking at the convention is a jump start to a national platform.</p>
<p>My guess for McCains VEEP is Bill hrist. Found it funny this morning that on the news he announced PA was his birthplace. With him McCain gets an in road to FL (Crist has an amazing approval rating), and then he gets PA on the heart string that he was born there. Get Romney to stand up and campaign actively (maybe McCain will give him Sec of Treasury) he gets in roads for MA and MI. Now bring out Joe from CT (and leak that he might be up for Sec of Def) you get swing and CT…i.e Clinton and SOD Cohen.</p>
<p>Hunt, Simba participated in the Democratic caucus in Texas and was elected as a Hillary Clinton delegate for Texas. Hard to do I would think if he was really a republican.</p>
<p>B&P, you might be right about Jindal getting the keynote speech at the convention as a launch pad. Still, I think I’ll tune in to Leno Mon. night and check him out.</p>
<p>“Hunt, Simba participated in the Democratic caucus in Texas and was elected as a Hillary Clinton delegate for Texas. Hard to do I would think if he was really a republican.”</p>
<p>Well, that just shows you how insidious Republicans can be.</p>
<p>Texans had to vote during the day and show up later for the caucus! Plus, you believe that she fought hard enough against everybody else to be selected?</p>
<p>You would have to be so vehemently against the dems, to switch your registration, go out and vote for her, convince the caucus that you should go to the DNC in Colorado, and then go and switch back your registration to republican…if you believe that you probably also believe we never landed on the moon, or you have nothing better to do in your life. I do not have enough time in my life to clean my house let alone plot a plan to undo HRC</p>
<p>Yes, I did know that for scientific purposes, “anecdotal evidence” is not considered valid, and for good reason. But we aren’t talking science. We’re talking politics, and personal insight. An ear to the ground, whereby one might hear the distant rumble of political discord, or sea change, or growing approval can’t be entirely discounted. Statistics don’t always tell the whole story—what’s that old cannard?—“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics”.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>In a court of law, the testimony of witnesses is often considered compelling evidence, especially if there are multiple corroborating witnesses. I’m saying there is compelling reason to take seriously the testimony of eye witnesses within a community concerning the prevailing social and political zeitgeist of that community.</p>
<p>I am kidding, of course, although I still say it’s suspicious for a supposed Democrat to use “democrat” as an adjective instead of “Democratic.”</p>
<p>bulletandpima – It’s not an indication of paranoia when Rush Limbaugh, the Grand Poohbah of Noise, plots out that exact scenario for his most fanatical listeners to follow. His March 27th broadcast, the transcript of which is still up on his website, encourages something he’s calling ‘Operation Chaos’ which outlines the whole idea of becoming a delegate to the Democratic national convention where he’ll send you ‘secret signals’ on how to vote. </p>
<p>Now maybe this is just a joke by ‘The Comedian Rush Limbaugh’ (as K. Olbermann refers to him), because R.L. and Ann Coulter always say they are ‘just joking’. But it’s an interesting coincidence, isn’t it?</p>
<p>I think Clinton would have a polarizing effect. Obama appeals to a wider group and corsses party lines better. I think should Obama be running for president, Clinton would potentially jeoperdize his overall appeal. On the other hand, should Clinto be running for president, I think Obama could attract additional voters who would otherwise not vote for Clinton.</p>
<p>If your theory is right that these people followed Limbaugh to do damage, then they need to do 2 things:
Get a life —sorry I will say again I do not have enough time in my day to go and vote, come back for the caucas later that day…convince every stranger in the room that I ADORE HILLARY
See a therapist —if you follow Rush’s direction that much, than you are drinking the Kool-Aid and need an intervention.</p>
<p>I am not saying that listening to Rush is wrong, I am just saying that by taking it to that level is not mentally right. I can understand that there are activists out there that want the dems to lose, but that would be wrong, and I question their moral beliefs.</p>
<p>I have heard Rush tell voters to go and switch their voting preference, vote for Hillary to continue the dem fight and then switch back. I personally feel that it is wrong morally, but it is legal and the states should address this in the future that has a system which allows this to occur. </p>
<p>Again I must not care enough about the dems to do this. I do believe it is occurring, since I have heard many people on talk radio state that they have done this.</p>
<p>What I find interesting is many dem supporters willl say hey look XXX amt of dems voted compared to republicans, thus the nation wants a dem, only for them to say in the next breath that the republicans are messing with the nom process by voting dem in the primary. Which is it, are more dems coming out in droves or are the republicans messing with the dems? You can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>Obama does not cross party lines, as of right now Hillary gets more swing voters than Obama does. If you watch the news they are showing that Obama has a very big problem with a large voting block…over 55. Most people over 55 will definetely show up and you can’t win the presidency without them.</p>
<p>According to topix, Obama’s negative rating is at 49%…this does not bode well for him. According to the National Review in Mar his negative rating was 32 up from 28 pre-Wright. His positive rating was 49 down from 51. So by any std., he is below 50% in approval from voters…this does not help him in the future…even if he becomes president, since he has yet to win Hillary voters…they actually seem more entrenched</p>
<p>Edit: Just found this from a Business Review article: “Clinton’s favorable/unfavorable rating is 48-46 percent – a low mark. Obama’s favorable/unfavorable rating is 54-34 percent while McCain’s is 54-35 percent.”</p>
<p>This shows Obama to be still more favorable and less unfavorable than Hillary.</p>
<p>The Washington Post also reports, “In the new poll, 54 percent said they have an unfavorable view of Sen. Clinton, up from 40 percent a few days after she won the New Hampshire primary in early January. Her favorability rating has dropped among both Democrats and independents over the past three months, although her overall such rating among Democrats remains high. Nearly six in 10 independents now view her unfavorably.” (ABC survey)</p>
<p>The Independents will be a pick factor in this election !</p>
<p>(In addition, even though we all know that polling data may be skewed, Real Clear Politics shows Obama leading in the National Nomination by 10 points by averaging all the other polls.)</p>
<p>In my opinion, the only way Democrats can take WH and keep it there possibly for 16 years is either Clinton/Obama or Gore/Obama. </p>
<p>Obama/Clinton won’t work. She will not go for it. She probably had more power and influence as a First Lady than a VP.</p>
<p>Clinton/XXXX may work but will be tough without Black and Ultra liberal support.</p>
<p>Obama/XXXX will not work. His core support is blacks and Ultra liberals. Many of the neo-libs live in redder than red states. By not winning a single large blue state, he does not have the core Hillary support - almost quarter of them said, they would not vote for him.</p>