Obama blasts Bush, McCain over 'attacks' - CNN

Obama takes direct aim at Bush - Cleveland Plain Dealer

Barack Obama blasts back at President Bush, John McCain - Los Angeles Times

Obama links McCain to Bush policies - Philadelphia Inquirer

Obama attacks Bush over "appeasement" remarks - Reuters

Obama hits back over Bush claims - Sydney Morning Herald

Analysis: Obama reacts fast to Bush on diplomacy - AP

Obama lashes McCain, Bush in foreign policy row - AFP

http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=obama+bush&c=

What a great way to set the framework.

Yeah, I think he's tough enough . . .

Kerry, like Hillary, was a war flip flopper who was for it before he was against it.

Obama can have a backbone because he had a backbone when it counted.

Hillary was weak.

can we NOT just support Obama without slamming every other dem since the beginning of time?

... because of their vote FOR the Iraq war. Obama can attack the Republican position wholesale, rather than having to parse exactly where the invasion might have gone awry, like Kerry and Clinton. It failed as soon as it began.

must be galling for her and her supporters

artificially, by the media, until very recently..

McGovern never had a chance to "kick ass" against Nixon because Humphrey and Muskie dragged out the nomination fight to the convention by trying to change the agreed-upon delegate-allocation rules after the primaries were over (sound familiar?). That fight only got resolved on the first night of the convention, meaning that McGovern had zero time to concentrate on the general election as the "presumptive nominee." Unless the Clintonistas really try to sink the party's chances the way Humphrey and Muskie did, that scenario won't play this time. Not to mention that Obama won't be running against a popular incumbent who just scored big diplomatic breakthroughs with the Chinese and Soviets that year -- and who announced (falsely, as it turned out), just before the election, that the unpopular overseas war would be over within days.

--were on an upswing that only peaked in 1973.

which is that McGovern would have lost badly even with
100% party backing. The country as a whole viewed McGovern
as too far to the left.

JFK, LBJ, BJC, were all centrist democrats. Which is why they won.
McGovern, Dukakis, and to some extent Kerry & Gore were also viewed
as left of center and they ALL lost.

And Kerry and Dukakis lost because they didn't fight back against smears, not because they were "left of center".

And even if that was correct, the Nineties proved that electing a "centrist" wasn't worth a damn thing.

We'd be wasting our time to lower ourselves to settling for that again.

The country is moving left. All the polls on the issues show it. We can show leadership by making an unapologetic case for progressive governance.

Face it, it's not DLC or nothing. If it was, the polls

And McGovern didn't lose because he "kicked ass". McGovern lost because the party regulars cut him loose to punish him for daring to beat them fair and square in the primaries.

really "kick ass" when you look at the overall picture
between him and Hillary.

When the Dems unite behind their candidate, they are competitive. In this GE, the Dems have recent history on their side and public opinion. Kerry was looking pretty good until he tried to "rise above" the Swift Boating. Then some in his own party joined the RW in piling on after he mangled a joke. Kerry's image as a stiff patrician was most likely the slim margin that the Wingers needed to get close enough to steal it.

The way Obama has reacted to the opposition (he has saved his fire for the GE) is quick, focused, and effective. Am looking forward to the GE.

Dems did not unite behind Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, & Kerry in the same
large numbers. Do you see a pattern here?

If it can't be your candidate then the alternative is ruinous defeat. Hope you have slept well for the last 7-8 years.

Instead of looking for the worst case scenario, how about working your ass off for a Nov victory?

Do we really need to be writing the RW talking points for them?

who have shown a pattern of voting for centrist/moderate
democrats. Every time we nominate one, we win. Personally,
I will be pulling the lever for whoever is our nominee.
I will be very sad on night of November 4th if the past
pattern of voting again holds true.

Whoever said, those who ignore history are doomed to
repeat it's consequences.

For Obama to be in this position now IS kicking ass.

HRC was supposed to have it locked up on Super Tuesday.

There's no way it would be just for Obama to be shoved aside now.

And there's no way HRC could govern as a non-conservative if she did shove him aside now and win by saying "I can get more white votes". You can't campaign ugly and govern good.

He really understands how important it is to respond in this news cycle to such attacks.

:thumbsup:

:applause: :woohoo:

:)

this is not going to be like 2004.

What was kerry's campaign doing about revealing what a bunch of scumbags the swiftboat guys were, and to link them to bush? This fellow who made the willie horton ad seems to have made a statement about how great it will be to make an ad against obama. I say we play that willie horton ad over and over again, today its way more obvious what a piece of filth it is, and link that ad man to mccain. You lie with dogs, you get fleas.

Sink it the very moment it comes sliding
out the "factory" door.
Obama has been very good at responding quickly.
Don't let it go unchallenged more than 1 news cycle
before we sink it.

it would not have been close enough for Ohio to matter.

At least get your facts straight.

Excuse the fuck out of me, Mr. Perfect.

they stole votes--that's the facts...
Ohio is the home of Diebold.
POS Kenneth Blackwell was the Secretary of State--a little about him:
Blackwell gained national prominence for his dual roles as Chief Elections Official of Ohio and honorary co-chair of the "Committee to re-elect George W. Bush" during the 2004 election. Allegations of conflict of interest and voter disenfranchisement led to the filing of at least sixteen related lawsuits naming Blackwell. Regarding voter disenfranchisement, the US Court of Appeals ruled, in agreement with Blackwell, that provisional ballots cast in the wrong polling location should not be counted in the election. Blackwell was also named in a 2006 lawsuit related to his office's public disclosure of the Social Security numbers of Ohio residents.
A conservative, Blackwell successfully campaigned for the 2004 State Constitutional Amendment banning state recognition of same sex marriage, is a staunch proponent of gun ownership rights, and has stated that he is against abortion except in order to protect the life of the mother. He was defeated in the 2006 Ohio gubernatorial election, winning only 37% of the vote.


http://ohioelection2004.com/

win by more than 10% this time....factor in the votes they will steal

The Obama camp looked at '04 and took away the right lessons. It's common sense and good strategy, and it's what will put him over the top in Nov.

nor wil PA, or FL or even MI (although MI will be blue)


If Barr & Paul are in the mix this will be his map:


If he chooses Napolitano as veep: oops I forgot NC

...

VERY impressive the speed and force of his responses. I hope he keeps THAT up and stays FIRED up!

:thumbsup:

the line that comes up that announces someone got killed in unreal tournament or quake or something. I dunno if anyone else finds that kind of amusing/annoying.

I'm waiting on the day for headlines like:

Obama fragged Bush

Obama gave bush a taste of his boomstick.

We dems never learn do we? The Clintons are proven winners.
Bill is the ONLY TWO time winner of WH since FDR!!!

And who do we pick this time? Another candidate with the most
liberal record in senate. Have we not learned from McGovern,
Kerry, Dukakis et all? I guess not. We deserve to get butt-kicking again in 2008.

Obama is obviously THE candidate of change this cycle. He has a clean record on Iraq, which the majority of america right now wants to forget ASAP. He is a democratic candidate in an election where the economy will be BIG. And quite simply he's less easier person to hate than hillary, who gets republicans all worked up for some reason. The message to the GOP leadership this cycle is clear: drop your pants , bend over, think happy thoughts, and just get it over with, because change is coming this year.

of winning in GE. Do not under-estimate the bias against
African-Americans in US. Many people won't admit to their
prejudice, but in the secrecy of voting booth they will
NOT vote for a even a HALF black person. You will see the
results on 4th of November evening.

Fear and bias will be talked about this cycle, it will be out there. And FDR's words will ring truer than ever. America, the country that took two of the worlds worst villains (nazi germany and imperialist japan) and turned them into two of the worlds most upright of citizens, is coming back, and im happy that im not going to look down on you anymore with shame.

I agree that we're better than that. Of course there are still some people who are racist, that, unfortunately, will never change. Maybe I'm an optimist but I think that those people are the minority and the majority of America is able to see beyond the color of Obama's skin.

I supported Edwards too, but he dropped out. Deal with it.

Never ran a state, a county or even a village.
Never had to balance a budget.
Never ran a business.
Not known for a single meaningful bill sponsor in senate,
basically a back bencher.
Minimum political resume of any candidate running in recent
memory.

Hillary OTOH has a husband with 8 years of White House experience
as THE most popular president in recent memory and presided over
the biggest job growth in recent memory and the only president to
have abolished the budget deficits. We get two for the price of one.
This will be 3rd term for Billary.

The so called backlash from Republicans to Hillary is a myth. I know
of many republican women in my private golf club who would vote for
Hillary as the first woman president, but never for Obama.

and working in a public interest law firm than your fancy friends at your private golf club will do in their entire lives.

Never ran a state, a county or even a village.
Neither has Hillary

Never had to balance a budget.
Unless you count his campaign. In which case he is doing much better than Hillary

Never ran a business.
He worked for many. What business did Hillary run?

Not known for a single meaningful bill sponsor in senate, basically a back bencher.
You are kidding me right? Not known to you maybe...

http://hill6.thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-mccaskill-sponsor-bill-on-care-for-veterans-2007-02-21.html
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/01/20070108.html
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060908-senate_passes_c/
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=269479
http://obama.senate.gov/press/061211-lugar-obama_bil_1/

And that is just for starters. You can do a search for Senate Bills here as well:
http://thomas.loc.gov/

Minimum political resume of any candidate running in recent
memory.

12 years as an elected official and at least three as a community organizer is much more than Hillary's 8 years.

Hillary OTOH has a husband with 8 years of White House experience

My dad worked on the Mercury and Apollo programs. Does that qualify me to be an Astronaut?

I know of many republican women in my private golf club who would vote for Hillary as the first woman president

Anecdotes are nice, but not particularly based on a good statistical sample.

but Bill will be there every day when his advice
is needed in running the country. I would rather go
with a known successful presidency than an unknown
such as Obama.

As for the senate bills, is there anything as well known
as Kennedy-McCain, McCain-Feingold, Gramm-Rudman, Civil
rights Bill of 1964, etc? I am not saying all these bills
were good or bad, just that they all made an impact on the
country. Obama is NOT known for any such bills that I have
heard of. But then I am not claiming to know it all.

Kennedy-McCain, McCain Feingold, Gramm-Rudman, Civil Rights at of 1964, etc?

By your standards, McCain should be president because some of his bills made the news when you were watching?

with hillarys name on them?
seems like you are pro mccain not anti obama

Not even 20% of voters want Bush43 redux.

Talk about delusional ...

"I know of many republican women in my private golf club who would vote for Hillary as the first woman president, but never for Obama."

I have to admit that makes sense. Obama isn't running as the first woman president.

experience than mr. empty suit Obama.

That was during his 1992 campaign. Hillary has been the
real inspiration behind Bill. Ever since the Arkansas days
of running for Governor. Every successful man has a smart
woman behind him.

Hillary spent 8 years living in the White House and was
actively involved in policy decisions.

behind me? How f*cking broad brushed, patronizing, sexist, ignorant and rude.

... to beat an "empty suit".

Just another amusing take on things from the Hillary camp - where logic never comes into play.

which proves she is stronger in blue states than Obama.

McCain is less likely to win blue states from Hillary.
Obama has won mostly all red states. He won't win those
in GE.

... to get her the nomination.

And "this proves she is stronger in the blue states" is right up there with "the GOP backlash against Hillary is a myth".

political suicide by nominating Obama. We have not
learned by nominating likes of McGovern. Centrist
democrats have a much better record at winning the
White House than the most liberal ones.

... and I've always been a stickler for democratic rule and all that jazz.

The political past is no longer relevant. History is now about to be not repeated, but made.

we will know night of November 4th.

congress. May be Obama is centrist in your mind,
but the country as a whole does not think so.

Would they admit Michelle Obama? If they would, would she play golf while the troops are under fire? If so, would she play par?

Who cares?

Groucho Marx said - I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member.

other than that he has more legislative experience than her
all the others you cite apply equally to both

people who weren't trying to "impress" anybody would say, "I know many republican women." period. but no, not you, you gotta make sure we all know you're a DLCer who is in a private golf club -- oooh, I am sooo impressed! NOT.

and I could give a rat's ass about your many repuke friends and their twisted, greed-head, reactionary, ostentatious consumption, status-quo-approving, name-dropping values. don't you have an insider trader meeting to go to or something?

and working my butt of, with 2 jobs for 7 years, I
deserve to play on a course where you don't have to fight
crowds and slow play. You will be surprised
at least 30% members are democrats here. One of my
golfing partners was a democratic congressman from Washington
state.

pointing to Hillary's HUSBAND'S record as proof of her "experience"?

BZZZT

EPIC FAIL!

So you admit, then, that Hillary has no experience personally nor any gravitas beyond your private golf club?

prominent democrats members in my club including
a former US congressman (democrat-WA).

miraculously there it is. The headline was about a woman's fitness for office because she has a husband. Then we are magically transported to the fairy tale of the golf course. :rofl:

Hmmm.

and the country was at peace with prosperity.
I want Bill Clinton's 3rd term. Only way to get
there is via Hillary.

Keep looking back - I prefer to look forward.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x3353

No meaningfull bills, huh? :eyes:

And what are you doing in a private golf club? Are you some kind of elitist?

You sure sound like a Republican to me.

He has the sense to hire organizers instead of manipulative shitstains like Mark Penn. He can think farther ahead than two weeks, which Clinton is incapapble of.

Most of his foreign policy advisers were against the war; most of Clinton's were for it.

You are making false arguments and expecting a logical answer. Me pointing that out is not snide.

and that plays well at her PRIVATE GOLF CLUB. What part of this elitist argument aren't you understanding?

We. Earthlings. Must. Comply.

You're just here to waste time.

In addition, Hillary is now despised by 2/3 of the country -- all the conservatives and 1/3 of the liberals.

Just another Math problem with the Clintons.

including CA, NY, MI, etc and more Purple states such as
OH, FL, etc.

Most of Obama's wins are red states which he can't win in GE.

The dem voters have spoken...Hillary is more likely to win
blue states than Obama. McCain is more likely to win a few
blue states from Obama than Hillary. The facts don't lie.

as 'actual' wins and you know it.

What a bunch of hype. Taylor Marsh is proud of you though for trying.

How is that justifiable?

Assuming a blue state is a state carried in 2004:

Hillary
CA
PA
NY
NJ
RI
MA
NH

Obama
ME
VT
CT
MD
DE
DC
MN
WI
IL
OR
HI

So your premise is demonstrably wrong.

Only Bill won the WH

Kerry's problem was that he tried to deny and stand back from his liberal record.

As for the Clintons being big winners... I'm sorry, but Bill ran against Bush and Dole, and had Perot splitting the Republican vote both times. Not exactly the hardest fights a Democrat has ever faced.

... except for the fact they've lost the nomination.

Obama isn't even close to being the most liberal. And a right wing rag saying he is, doesn't make it true. Don't be so gullible. Obama is no McGovern or Dukakis or Kerry. Unlike Clinton, he has serious teflon and charisma. Plus, unlike Hillary the guy actually knows how to fight without shooting himself in the foot. Hill ain't Bill. She couldn't defeat Obama with all her advantages walking in. She's proved she's a loser.

Gore: The most liberal record in the senate.
Kerry: Them most liberal record in the senate.
Obama: The most liberal record in the senate.


Hmmm. It's almost as if the RW decides to tar ANY nominee as "THE. MOST. LIBERAL. RECORD. IN. THE. SENATE!"

Here's a notion. Let's pick someone the majority of us believe in, and shove all the "electability" crap out the window. If you'll recall, Kerry got the nod in 2004 over Dean and the rest because he was the most electable. Then, when he became the nominee, he magically acquired "THE. MOST. LIBERAL. RECORD. IN. THE. SENATE!"

Weird, huh?

especially compared to Obama.

--of either Clinton or Obama.

that the nominee is chosen according to the actual votes rather than based completely on your crystal-ball theories as to who is more likely to win the GE.

Except this time.

Yeah, the Clinton's were the shiznit in the 90's. I was a huge Bill C. supporter. When my brother went on his rants about Bill, I would defend and support.

But Hillary is losing. And she has very few options left to change that.

The Clintons are proven winners - but not this time.

I'm sorry for you that your candidate isn't in the lead. But I'm pretty pleased with whom I presume to be the Democratic nominee. I hope in time, you will be as well.

again, you are comparing apples to oranges

if he's/she's a Republican?

"liberal" has been a bad word for a long time--but "conservative" ranks right up there these days.
people are tired of our leadership.....

are you proposing we should have picked a more conservative, republican-like candidate?

and Kerry won in 04.

...Who pulled millions of GOP votes away from Poppy. In '96 the combined votes of Perot and Dole exceeded those of Clinton. In 2008 there's no indication that a third party candidate will siphon 18% or 20% of the vote away from the GOP. Better to go with a REAL winner (Obama!), and not last century's brand name. Also, that's interesting how you've co-opted wingnut Sean Hannity's favorite recycled talking point "most liberal record", which ultimately gets handed off by him to whoever the Democratic nominee is. Obama will win and win big, with or without your help.

Please, enlighten me as to why this is a bad thing.

Since they're apparently the same person, maybe she can borrow his charisma.

Clinton's unfavorablity ratings are vastly higher than Obama's, and the wingnuts would be out in force to vote against him. With Obama, the likelihood is that they'll stay home.

Besides which Obama knows how to organize and manage a campaign, and Clinton doesn't.

Handling the rhetoric, the issue and the attack.

Thanks EffieBlack!

Life is getting better by the day. Let's see how long a run Obama and his response teams can make this.

Earl

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

:thumbsup:

a sight to behold.

And it appears that it generated strength to others in the Democratic party as well.

That's what leaders do.

learned how to drive the news cycle
or maybe hes just finally applying the knowledge
whichever it must really squash hillarys grapes that she has become irrelevant

hi frenchie
:toast:
the end is near

the media didn't air any response by Hillary to the medical emergency.

Is she becoming irrelevant?

She already is.

:evilgrin:

Haven't seen anything like it since Bill Clinton.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

and wear it. :patriot:

:dem::yourock::woohoo::applause::patriot:

"as one commentator said, 'bush et al handed Obama a bag full of stones to throw at them"!

Thanks Effie for all these headlines showing Obama means business and, of course, he was always tough enough.

babylonsister (1000+ posts) Fri May-02-08 02:00 AM
Original message

"I have to share this, about a skinny black dude:

indie_ana_500 (68. You think a skinny black man who had all the bricks stacked against him, but who is winning...isn't a fighter?

You think a skinny black dude who was an unknown a few years ago but who just made history (repeatedly) in fund raising during a presidential primary....is milquetoast?

You think someone who has been impliedly called too black to win, not black enough to win, unqualified, then elitist, vague, naive, too young, a "kid" (Bill Clinton called him that), a "boy" (some KY politician called him that), a liar (his own former pastor called him that)....well, you get the idea.

After all that...HE....IS.....WINNING. He's not winning because he's failing to fight back. He's fighting back in a different way than you are used to. Voters aren't throwing him votes just 'cause he's a good guy. OBAMA HAS ANSWERED ALL THE INSULTS, ALL THE ACCUSATIONS. And he's still standing. He has come farther than Clinton can ever dream of going.

If you think a biracial kid from Chicago who ended up practically being the Democratic nominee, against all odds, hasn't had to learn how to defend himself along the way, then you don't know much about life.

He doesn't stand on a stump, raise his hand in the air, and shrilly yell, "I'm a fighter!" That's not his style. But his style apparently works. He's winning."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5776631

how to play the media.

One of my knocks against Kerry was that he wasn't as effective at the RW attacks as he could've been in 2004.

:hi:

I honestly think that it's easier to fight someone that has such opposite views on things, than to fight someone that has almost the same positions as you. Like Hillary. I think that Hillary is the toughest thing that he has faced. Even if the Republicans start throwing things like Reverend Wright out again it's going to look less harsh because it's going to becoming from the Republicans. The ones that we're trying to get away from.

I can't wait til Obama and McCain get to debate one on one. It's going to be a beautiful thing.

he had to fight Hillary with his hands tied behind his back, because he could not afford to be "harsh" with her, or she would whine & complain and the last thing he wanted was to have those "hardworking, ..um..hardworking white men" to feel as if "the big black man is beating up on the poor little older white woman"....Hillary's camp "knew" this, and they felt free to beat the hell out of him, knowing he could not fight back "in kind".. then when he did not, they accused him of being "too meek".:grr:

Now that he's fighting back against Bush & McCain, the GLOVES ARE OFF!! and he's got more smarts in his pinkie finger, than both of them combined...

and he's got some smart people working with/for him, who will not let things slide..

And, thanks to 2004, the Party is wiser and better prepared to (assist) attack the GOP and defend Obama.

but I know of 2 moderate republicans who would have voted for Hillary but will never vote in a million years for Obama. The guy from NH adored McCain and now hates him for his no-longer-so-straight (read totally twisted) talk.

I'm playing my cards much, much more carefully with them this time round. Instead of trying to bring them over to Obama, I'm just playing along with them, beating down all 3, especially McCain (so easy to do every time he opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it, lol), playing up what a shame the lesser of 3 evils (Hillary) won't be in the general.

And I've told them I plan to write-in for Joe Biden or John Edwards. At the time I wasn't lying, but now I'm convinced we can't risk having McCain there, even with a veto-proof majority. I already convinced one to write-in. I'm gently working on the other, only when she raises the topic. She's a much tougher nut to crack, lol. But it's fun to try and after the names she called me when her "facts" turned out to be made up, I have absolutely no qualms about lying to her.

Remember what happens to most bullies? You pop 'em in the fucking mouth and they get all docile and offended.

I promise you if Obama calls these jerks out on the same news cycle, they'll be on the defensive and stupid about it for the next 6 months.

Obama got OWNED, big time.

His hypocritical response (saying he would meet with leaders under no preconditions* yet dogging Jimmy Carter for meeting with ELECTED Hamas leaders) was not exactly on the cutting edge of clever political replies.

His name wasn't even mentioned and he jumped like a trained attack dog.

These repubs are going to do this alot...what is Obama going to do, jump at ALL attacks? Great way of fitting the stereotype of "the angry black man" and hurling mud...not exactly something the "candidate of change" should be portrayed as.



NYT: "Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions..." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/01cnd-obama.html?_r=2&ei=5088&en=6e53bced62b78a88&ex=1351656000&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

I saw obama push back hard in a clear but calm manner against an arguement that was CLEARLY directed against the democratic party. I'm sorry if you have a hard time differentiating when a black man makes a sound counter arguement ripping his opponents reasoning to shreds , and when a black man fits some sort of stereotype.

Hamas being elected does not bestow upon them some right to be met with. Their policies remain the same. The problem is with people who believe a democratic election will bring about a pro-american govt. Democracy is good, but it does not mark a finish line, it just makes a good start to a marathon.

The democratic party was the clear target in bush's remarks, obama being the nominee defended his party. Wheres the problem?

The republicans are clearly weak on this issue, because of bush's talks with libya and north korea, as well as past american talks with hostile powers. Obama is wise to hammer the republicans with this arguement over and over again.

"...them some right to be met with. Their policies remain the same."

Does that policy include the terrorist regime in Iran, who Obama promised to meet without preconditions?

If iran is a terrorist regime, so are the majority of govts in the world, including the united states. The bush regime can call canada the home of the amazon, that doesnt make it so, as a democrat you should know that. Is ahmadinajad? a little screwy? most definitely, in fact id compare him with an evangelical who cant wait for the rapture. But he's not crazy, nor are those clerics who control ultimate power in iran.

Iran is the ideal ally of the united states, because shiites can never control the middle east, nor do they tend to strap explosives to themselves and explode. To quote a canadian author, the united states has given iran a free lesson on why trying to control a sunni population is doomed to failure.The only reason for this iranian american animosity is because iranians kicked out the last great american stooge and held americans hostage. Time to get over it and move on.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that
the centrist democrats win more often than left
of center democrats.

Humphrey would've gone down in flames too. So would Scoop. There's no way voters in '72 would have bought a "we can do it better" argument from Dems on Vietnam.

This is proof.