Darn! The only one who understood how to fight the reactionary forces of the GOP.
It will be really difficult to make the decision now. Hope that Obama is not as naive as he appears?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
When I first heard that McCain had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running partner, I expected there to be a revolt from the intellectual wing of the GOP party, the same thinkers who rebelled against Bush's choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Yet as it turns out people like David Brooks and…
A follow-up on last week's repost (originally from April 06, 2005)...
-----------------------------------------------
I've been wavering in how to call the Right Wing. When I say "conservatives" I get attacked for equating conservatism with GOP (with implication that conservatism is good but GOP…
A follow-up on last night's repost (originally from April 06, 2005)...
-----------------------------------------------
I've been wavering in how to call the Right Wing. When I say "conservatives" I get attacked for equating conservatism with GOP (with implication that conservatism is good but GOP…
For those who object I only bash McCain and never say anything nice about Obama:
- I bash conservatism and GOP. It is irrelevant who is their candidate. This time they are serving up a real doozy, but all the others they had in the primaries are just as bad.
- I want to stop them, and since the…
Hey, hope is what Obama's all about...
Anybody who could force the police unions to agree to videotape suspects' confessions is not naive.
Anyone who thinks that Republicans can be asked/pleaded/forced to cooperate, can be trusted on their word, and can be trusted not to slide a knife in your back as soon as you turn - is very naive. They are hyenas, not people, and need to be treated as such. The only language they understand is force. Hopeful preaching makes them cackle with glee as they get to do what they want.
It's just a darned good thing that none of your regular bloggers are so crude and crass as to remind you that they told you so... last year. :)
Too bad Edwards dropped out. Next week I'll be voting in a competitive presidential primary for the first time, but my favorite candidate is gone. Oh well.
Well (and accurately) said, Coturnix.
I think Obama's style of speaking isn't naive but strategic. Using divisive rhetoric in a primary campaign isn't going to gain advantage. I think there is much more to Obama's talents than the media displays. Don't get me wrong. I loved Edwards rants against corrupt corporations out of control. But I don't think wearing that opinion on your sleeve is going to accomplish much from a strategic POV. (ex. Nader, Kucinich, etc.) It didn't earn him enough votes or delegates. I wish it had...
He isn't naive. His strategy of drawing people in across party lines has worked, and in 2009 he'd only need a couple of Republicans to beat a filibuster. Do you think Hillary or Obama would have an easier time getting a few moderate Republicans to break ranks?
I really have to agree that Obama is not niave, he's trying to create a message based on hope, positive outlook, etc. This seems to be purely an electoral strategy, the type of thing that will win votes from Independents and even a few Republicans.
If it's between Obama and Hillary, that's an easy choice. Obama is more electable than Hillary. He's more inclusive and less polarizing.
Did you watch the debate tonight? Hillary can't give a straight answer on Iraq, refuses to admit that voting for the war was wrong, won't set a deadline for when she's going to end the war, etc. She's a joke.
Obama may be niave, but at least he's not as corrupt and mainstream as Hillary.