Obama really has to stop talking out of his ass.

His latest:

In a speech this afternoon in central Iowa, Barack Obama seems to have widened his criticism of the politics of the past to encompass not only Hillary Clinton but John Kerry and Nobel Laureate Al Gore.

Making an argument for his electability, Obama said, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000," according to a person at the event (rush transcript).
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2007/12/obama_gore_kerry_alienated_hal.html

Um--- Gore got about 544,000 more votes than Bush in 2000.

then come to DU that evening and read the same things those two said regurgitated.

I really, really don't trust the guy.

rethugs who decided they'd prefer to down a brew with the dim one.

Otherwise Democrats would have won both of those elections.

The statement does scare me, as it may presage his pulling a Clinton - moving far to the right to pander to that crowd. I suspect he won't, but who knows?

and if not for a rethug Supreme Court, would have won the whole shebang.

It wasn't exactly a romp.

behind during most of the campaign season, only overtaking Bush in the last two weeks?

I see Obamas statement as a criticism of Gore.... but it's a naive criticism. For Gore to win that election with the dirty repugs making shit up about him and the compliant MSM printing it.... I see that as a phenomenal achievement.

He was clearly referring to the polarized electorate...which we still had up until the country started waking up to Bush and his failed policies.

We have a chance now to get more then 51%.... much more. that is what he was referring to.

1/2 the country didn't WANT to vote Dem. NOT 1/2 the country voted Dem. There were other candidates, AND, some who voted Dem didn't really want to but did since it was a vote against bush.

Meanwhile, it could alienate the base, but the base would probably vote for him anyway.

Early in the morning!

Now I have nothing to do.

and just ran 3 miles.... My mind's clear as a bell.

gore won in 00 -- and probably by a much wider margin than 544 thousand votes.

same with kerry.

The guy's a walking political disaster scene.

I think he is right on the mark

...he let Bush define him and let Bush take the middle. I think it is totally reasonable to want to appeal to more than 49% of the people, and if you think you can, to say it. The reactions on this board to every little thing are amazing.

BTW, Gore is not criticized here, the system of "you fire up your base, I fire up mine, and use our wedge issues to fight out the 3-5% in the middle" is what is being attacked...and I agree!

You make it sound like it should have been a cakewalk for Gore in 2000.

Check your history on that.

Popular vice president coming off 8 years of economic expansion running against an inexperienced inarticulate texas governor. Every model before the election had it as Gore's to lose, until the republicans started defining him as a liar, who exaggerates (inventing the internet, etc).

and may I add, that even if you disagree, if you want to engage a discussion, then beginning with "you obviously have no idea what you're talking about." is not the way to start things off. I am new to this forum, and I like it but it lacks civility sometimes.

and though Gore "should have" won in 2000 Gore was not nearly as aggressive as he should have been and failed to capitalize on many intrinsic advantages which would have made the win indisputable.

Welcome to DU

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

Gore was down 30 before the race even started.

A concise overview, and to summarize succinctly "In winning, Bush defied the predictions of most academics. Seven of seven models presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting in early September 2000 predicted a Gore win by anywhere from 52.8 to 60.3 percent of the two-party vote. The Florida post-election debacle will be studied and debated for generations to come, but an understanding of the campaign itself and some of the factors that led to the closer than expect outcome is equally important. Here follows a brief overview."

How?

just about any other way -- saying that bush in ANY WAY won -- critisizes gore. who did not lose.

neither did kerry.

now, do we have political parity? -- yes.
but not for ONE DAMN REASON obama is talikng about.

political parity. A "leader" who with broad appeal can accomplish that. Reagan did not win landslides because there were more republicans back then...he won because the democrats voted for him...that can happen, it does not have to be war war war, and wedge issues to fight for the middle 5% of the electorate all the time.

the politcal history of the modern republican machine.

reagan did things like broadly appeal to racists -- negotiate with iran behind the scenes -- lie about taxes -- form an alliance with christian conservatives and corporations.

if you ask me -- obama is making a greater appeal to republicans and their concerns than to democrats and the things we believe in.

we are the party of the LEFT -- we only fail when we try to be liberals in conservatives clothes.

and this is EXACTLY what obama is trying to do with antics like appearing with donnie -- the weakest healthcare plan of ALL the democrats.

and lastly -- he is being truly reaganesque in the UGLIEST way by appealing to voters the way he is in this speech.

but don't suggest that you, and the people you vote for, are the only legitimate democrats. This is a primary, and Obama is doing just fine among democrats. I hazard to guess that he would be doing even better in a head-to-head with either Hillary or Edwards. I would suggest that we need a bigger tent. Everyone on this page seems to think that the way ahead to convince other people that they need to finally see the light, and concede their views. There is another way, move ahead on some things that we agree on. In this political climate, that latter approach is impossible...

and again, "you have no idea about..." is just rude, so if you want to make a point without insulting me, do it, otherwise I can move on...

please -- :eyes:

to greed, racism, and xenophobia.

...now you would disagree with them on many levels, but that is what a happened. Bill Clinton once remarked that Reagan "personified the indomitable optimism of the American people", though I am sure he is no political ally of Ronnie's

he was an ACTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a bad actor, but an actor. it was all an ACT. the amiable front guy for iran contra, voodo economics, and the backlash against civil rights, feminism and all the real progress this country made. a lot of people were FOOLS, and many of them admit it now. like many others, i never bought the ACT, and saw him for exactly what he was...a liar and a manipulator. god i hope americans have learned from that experience. the person who gives you "hope" and makes you "feel good" is probably acting too.

but despite the rough treatment he got in the media, despite a slowing economy and rising gas prices that made it impossible to run on the economic record of the previous 8 years, despite the Elan Gonzales fiasco that outraged conservatives, despite Bush outspending him (in some states by 2 to 1) and despite votes being siphoned by Nader; Gore still came back to win the popular vote.

Al Gore WON the popular vote?

More and more each day, Obama gives me reasons not to support him.

If he's the nominee, I'll definitely vote for the Republican in November.

Primaries are not about which party you will vote for in November. If you are here, that should be decided. There is bickering here because people differ in what they want the dem party to be about, and that is reasonable and should be discussed. In November, I will be on board...I can lose a vote

stated, if Obama is the nominee, I will vote for the GOP candidate. I do not find his brand of "hope" inspiring at all, and he is NOT the kind of 'leader,' (and I use that term loosely in Obama's case) that I want in the White House.

...i am not being arrogant, I just find it lacking it credibility that you find Obama's "hope" so "uninspiring" that you would vote for, say, Romney, or for that matter anyone they nominate. But whatever, I guess I am wrong and to you, Obama is just that bad that you know you'd vote Republican in November.

So you'd actually vote for Huckabee or Romney over Obama? That's the kind of leader you'd like in the White House?

I've preferred Obama to Edwards and Clinton in general, but I still feel a little bitter about his statement before the Senate when Boxer alone challenged the Ohio electors: "And while I am absolutely convinced that Bush was legitimately elected in Ohio..." (paraphrasing). Then he gave a long speech about how nice it is to be able to vote, instead of exploring the questions of why there was a "terror alert" at an Ohio Board of Elections on election night, why raw election data is not available for scrutiny, how impossible late-night changes took place in tallies, why 99.9% of the electronic "glitches" favored Bush, and many more. What sort of asshat is absolutely certain of something like this when a senior colleague expresses reason for concern? Maybe an asshat with political ambition.
Still, Obama's freshness and charisma strike me as valuable qualities, especially if the Post-Bush era is to be a time of healing our reputation abroad and a time of shared power in government. This kind of talk from him is troubling. If there's evidence of fraud in the 2008 general election, what will he say then?

The truth is Bill didn't do Al any favors. The country was pretty divided.

It's the simple truth.

and I believe it hurt the party, lets be honest now.

I don't agree with the repub witch hunt, but Clinton did provide the bullets in the end. I am not saying it is his fault the election was "lost" ...but his actions did hurt the party.

Sorry to make you confront the truth. :shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you think that's a sound strategy after the experiences of 2000 and 2004, then you need your head examined.

His wife hasn't really told him which end is up yet. He's too busy taking orders from Ophrah.

The Obama's are NOTHING more than Opportunist exploiting "The Emotional Vote!!!" Enough hype.

you just said fuck it, and went nuclear :nuke:


I have to say I disagree with you. :rofl:

:wtf:

Does anyone need any more proof that Obama is just another DINO corporatist who is willing to tote water for the rethuglicans?!!!

Wow-I really didn't think I could get any more disgusted by traitorous Dems like Obama & Hillary!

I was wrong.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

whos your guy ? .. Alan Keyes :loveya:

:crazy:

Goldenrule was saying Obama didn't do anything about two stolen elections, I was wondering if "his guy" was all over the issue ?

Is that valid ? :shrug:

NT

Obama hitting 'em where it hurts.

Thank you.

I wish you didn't post things like this. Oh, well.

Happy New Year to you and yours!

Shit my next post might be about his Union Bashing.

Happy New Year to you as well.

I think that he has stepped up to a new and higher level in the past three weeks.

He is also on good terms with Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

And he especially needs to watch people who take that incorrect paraphrasing and infer something completely absurd.

Where is his mind control ray? Doesn't he have one?

It makes me a little sad to see you posting the same thing that DemKR would (and did) post.

You have an odd way of demonstrating respect

:kick:

I agree that half the country didn't want to vote for Democrats in 2000 and 2004, including me. I did vote Dem, but didn't want to. Someday I want to be able to vote for whom I want, not against who I don't want.

huge numbers of people who simply do not vote. Obviously, this is not the "fault" of one party, much less any individual. But there are too many Americans who are turned off by the system, or who do not have the proper understanding of what the ability to vote can mean. I'd like to see the democratic party, no matter who is the candidate for president, work towards reaching a larger number of those people.

But NOT thanks to Democrats, asshole!

shame on obama. what kind of a leader is he?

But don't let that stop you.

Remember how America took to the streets to ensure that Gore would not be gypped?