Who still supports Obama?

That's when I first regretted donating to the Obama campaign.

Anything worth posting at DU, is worth posting 1,000 times. :)

I would think the McClurkin thing would've made you a stronger Obama supporter.

be more obvious if it was lit up in neon. Just a tad crude, don't ya think?

a person who has been undecided, like myself, is being drawn toward the person being attacked by these shameless push polls. :-)

I am slowly converting to Obama. I was actually hoping Clinton would win NH but her campaign has been turning me off since. I'm sure I am not alone.

I've been on the fence, slightly favoring Edwards. Recently went firmly into Clinton's camp. However, I have to say that I am pretty fervently against Obama now. If he were elected president it would be fine, but I don't think he can get there.

Lord knows, when given several opportunities, Barak didn't give it any discernible meaning last night, despite using it 130 times in his short Senate career.

explaining it per individual vote instead of the general explanation.

There is one. Matthews is on TV this morning and worded it simply and well. I don't recall the words he used but they were way better than Obama's! It really is a tactic long used there, not a wanting to be vague vote.

NY times investigated it in December. All but about 30 were done as part of strategic agreement with his party or both parties. Then there were several where he was the only one or one of few raising some legal issue or unconstitutional part of bills even ones that passed almost unanimously.
There was one they thought was iffy and politically motivated a few months before he was going to run for congress. (Not this Senate run)

I don't get the why or how of it but they've been using that as strategy there for ages.

question.

Obama never explained himself. I don't think he's capable of thinking on his feet, and doesn't really know what he's talking about or how to defend his words and actions. He seems like a made-for-TV speechmaker. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, it is better to vote Present to signal an objection than to have to apologize for vote after vote for a short career as a US Senator.

...so when the Reagan statement came, made to get a conservative endorsement, it was just TOO MUCH.

Obama is a talented guy with the ability to inspire people, but he talks unity and walks something else when it comes to our party ~ I want to see less arrogance and hear a heartfelt apology and show of respect toward members of his own party, including President Clinton. Then I might look his way again.

I'm glad I'm still for Kucinich.

I kiked him Iowa time, reagan and all the whining the un-Bush instead of anti-Bush did it for me.

:evilgrin:

Here are my 3 biggest doubts about Hillary:
- Seems to be comfortable around corporations and lobbyists.
- Hawkish approach to foreign policy in general and supporting Israel in particular.
- I am afraid her aggressive tone and image would turn-off a lot of swing voters.

Here are my 3 biggest doubts about Edwards:
- He has the least amount of political public service experience in the current field.
- When he was actually in the US Senate, he didn't show the sound judgement I am looking for.
- I think he tries to disrespect* other candidates positions (like Obama's remark about Reagan).

Here is what I like most about Obama:
- He does not make false claims about what the other candidates have said.
- He has laid out a fresh approach to foreign policy that will make the world a safer place.
- He seems to connect with independent and swing voters, as well as younger voters (under 40).


* PS - on edit I have changed the charge from misrepresent to disrespect

Obama sounded like a closet Repuke with his commentary about Ronald Reagan, which also included utterly empty-headed ignorant remarks about Bill Clinton, JFK, and my generation from the sixties. I was appalled at every phrase he used. I still have trouble believing any Democrat could ever mouth any of the phrases he used in that meandering nonsense about Reagan.

Edwards went on CNN and said that Obama had "used Reagan as an example of change".

The implication being that Reagan is an example that Obama would like to follow.

A deliberate disrespecting* of what Obama actually said.


* on edit I have changed the charge from misrespresentation to disrespecting

Obama DID use Reagan as an example of change.

Here's what Obama said:

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

When Obama said Reagan "put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it", that by definition is using Reagan as an example of change. And when Obama said "He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that has been missing" he's heaping historically ignorant praise on a man who did enormous damage to this country. Anyone ascribing the words "clarity", "optimism", or "dynamism" to Reagan ("He tapped into what people were already feeling"?????) is heaping inappropriate praise on that cretin.

Anyone capable of making those statements must either be a Republican, or a closet Republican, or if a Democrat, needs to have his head examined.

And Edwards saying he would "never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change" is neither a misrepresentation nor, to me, a form of disrespecting. It's a legitimate and critical distinction that needed to be made.

If he ends up as our nominee, you'd better believe the Repukes will never stop making hay out of those comments. They'll have him on the defensive, trying to explain away his words in a way that will make Hillary's and Edwards' criticisms last night look like praise.

Just like what John Edwards said about Barack Obama's position on Iraq back in 2002.

"He was right. I was wrong."

However, I don't think it is politically smart to say that some working people and middle-class Americans voted for Reagan back in 1980 and 1984 because they were just plain dumb.

If we really want to win elections, we should have a close look at how people have managed to win elections in the past, and try to analyze and understand their victories.

Some were, of course.

Most were simply ignorant about politics/what Reagan represented. This was again the MSM's fault.

Others were the corrupt right-wing think-tanks and the Corporate cronies who profited from Reagan's policies.

Others were the precursers to the Limbaugh dittohead types.

It's fine to look at how people in the past may have won or lost elections, but, of course, it's virtually entirely an exercise in speculation. That's what the MSM bobbleheads feed the airwaves with every day.

But I thought Obama's comments about Reagan were so far out there that I still have trouble believing he mouthed those words.

That was what spurred America to change for Reagan at that time.
It doesn't mean that I agree or agreed with the sentiment of that time,
but those were the reasons that Reagan won.

as if they're calling on someone in an audience?

Are they trying to look like a President at a press conference? Muhammed Ali?

above "PRESENT".

camp though.

I think Edwards or Obama destroys McCain in the GE.

I no longer think she'll win all 50 states, but still have faith she'd win 47 or so.

found this: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=however.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8