What Obama needs to do

Parent Cafe
41

<br>

<br>

<p>I would buy that about some other politician but McCain is a man of his word so I have to believe him. I also know that he boasts of his “100% pro-life” voting record.</p>

42

<p>“Your “center” isn’t my “center.” With his stated positions of “100 years in Iraq”, “overturn Roe v. Wade”, etc. McCain is far to the right of the view of most Americans, whether his positions are just “pandering” or he really believes them.”</p>

<p>Far to the right? That depends on your interpretation of his positions. I could say the same thing about Obama/Clinton being far to the left of the American public. For example, on abortion they are not in favor of additional restrictions and certainly are not in favor of making it illegal always or with few exceptions. Therefore they are at odds with 66% of the country and agree with only the 31% who say that it “should be generally available”.</p>

<p>[Summary</a> of Findings: Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues](<a href=“http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=283]Summary”>http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=283)</p>

<p>With respect to Iraq, despite your inflammatory misrepresentation of McCain’s position, it is also open to interpretation as to where the “center” is. According to the latest polls, the public is starting to come back to the McCain view and it certainly is not appropriate to say that his views are “far to the right”.

[Free</a> Preview - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468439524812515.html?mod=todays_us_page_one]Free”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468439524812515.html?mod=todays_us_page_one)</p>

<p>If this trend continues it will be Clinton/Obama who will be accurately characterized as “far to the left” on Iraq.</p>

43

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s funny how you say my assertion of liberal/moderate demonstrates my own point of view and that I don’t know what others think, yet you claim to know where most Americans stand in reference to my views :)</p>

44

<p>John McCain is a wolf in sheep’s clothing as far as the far right “Republican Base” is concerned. He’ll be a one term President if elected and will govern that way. Look for the Neo-Con grip on the party to be loosened if the “maverick” gets in the White House. His problem now is that to get elected its not the “conservative base” he needs to support him, it’s moderate America. Reagan didn’t get elected because of his conservative base, but because moderate Democrats and Independents pulled the lever for him. Forget all that garbage being spewed by talk show hosts—the worse case scenario for the far right is for McCain to be elected. He might actually get my party back to it’s “roots” of less government, less taxes for ALL Americans (not just the wealthiest), and less intrusion into the private lives of all of us. I figure either McCain, Clinton, or Obama is a step up from where we are now.</p>

<p>The Iraq issue is mischaracterized by both the “left” and the “right”. Both seem to be reluctant to discuss the two primary points:

  1. Poor decision making and “smoke and mirrors” got us there.
  2. We broke it, now we own it.</p>
45

<p>What Obama needs to do? Say he’ll select Hillary for Vice President.</p>

46

<p>Yes, I’m sure Clinton will jump at that chance :rolleyes: </p>

<p>Obama must pray he doesn’t lose the popular vote. He does that and Clinton is your nominee</p>

47

<p>Actually, LaxAttack - I meant exactly what I said - your “center” isn’t my “center.” You’re the one who asserted that your center is “the” center. It’s not. Not outside the right-wing blogosphere. And if you stick around a little longer, you’ll learn not to take FF’s assertions at face value. Go back to his sources and compare what he says against what they said and the actual issues under discussion - repealing Roe v. Wade, and “100 years” in Iraq. Now, just which shell was that pea under, anyway? Lies, Damned lies and statistics, eh FF?</p>

48

<p>Looks like BO’s troops are getting skittish.</p>

<p>[Inside</a> US poll battle as fight turns dirty for Democrats - The Scotsman](<a href=“http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp]Inside”>http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp)</p>

49

<p>Obama needs to keep pushing to get Clinton’ tax returns in the public view. She needs to release then now, not in April, not after the next round of primaries. If there is stuff in the returns that would blow her out of the water in the general, we need to know it now.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

50

<p>

</p>

<p>And saddle himself with her and Bill’s baggage? Not a chance.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>Maybe you should take your own advice and not take the 100 years in Iraq “at face value”</p>

52

<p>This guy has some great, unbiased commentaries. Definitely puts things in perspective and gives a very good idea of what part of Clinton’s argument will be at the convention: [RealClearPolitics</a> - HorseRaceBlog - Are the Chickens Coming Home to Roost?](<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/03/are_the_chickens_coming_home_t.html]RealClearPolitics”>RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - Are the Chickens Coming Home to Roost?)</p>

53

<p>kluge,</p>

<p>So, you can’t argue the facts so you just resort to personal attacks. Very classy.</p>

54

<p>Here’s what Obama needs to do: show some guts and fire some of his Harvard advisers! First the flop with Canada, now another “bright one” calls Clinton “a monster”! If he wants to be Commander in Chief, how about cleaning his own house a little?
And btw, what’s up with this Harvard? First Bush, now all these others…
[Obama</a> aide sorry for ‘monster’ comment - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_el_pr/obama_adviser]Obama”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_el_pr/obama_adviser)</p>

55

<p>unfortunately, if the Clintons have regained their status as the media darlings, the monster story will take on a life of its own. :eek:</p>

<p>(Dr. Frankenstein, I presume…;)</p>

56

<p>the monster calling aid has resigned. Good for him. The same way Clinton fired her staff for calling Obama a dope dealer.</p>

<p>NBC did it faster than even Drudge.</p>

57

<p>“Good for him.”</p>

<p>Her.</p>

58

<p>I meant good for Obama</p>

59

<p>This is the thing about Obama’s candidacy that makes fence sitters and independents nervous: inexperience. </p>

<p>Since he is a relative newcomer on the national political scene, he needs to have around him as advisers very savvy and experienced people. This “monster” comment and the other ill-advised comments made by Obama’s foreign policy adviser (now resigned) about Hillary Clinton are a legitimate matter for concern and I think they are going to reverberate that way. This was his hand-picked adviser headhunted, according to the linked article, in 2005. </p>

<p>What other potential loose cannons are on his staff… are going to be on his staff as president…who is going to have his ear? He and his campaign staff did well to act on this swiftly, but these are the kinds of incidents that sow doubt and can make a lot of people think twice about who they are going to pull the lever for when the time comes.</p>

60

<p>People have very short and selective memories. </p>

<p>Lest not forget that it was Clinton’s national campaign co-chair (who happened to be from NH) who was fired for the Obama drug comment. Was that an “inexperience” mistake on Hillary’s part?</p>

<p>In addition, Hillary has surrounded herself with a campaign staff that has been full of controversy and dissention. Until this past week, her campaign has been very poorly managed, as evidenced by her very long string of losses, and the high turnover in her management staff.</p>

<p>What about all the other ridiculous comments by the Clinton campaign? The most recent analogy comparing Obama to Kenenth Starr is a perfect example.
This was a response to Obama’s simple request for Hillary to expose her tax returns.
That is not a sign of experience. To many, it is a sign of someone who may have mastered the art of deceipt. Unfortunately, I guess that does come from experience. The same old tired political “experience”.</p>