Obama Clinches Nomination

[FLALAX]

It has been widely reported on the campaign trail that Obama was not given the liberty to speak to the press freely and that impromptu conversations were held to an extreme minimum. At one time the press actually complained about access to Obama.

Dick Morris, political strategist, got Bill Clinton elected twice and said the Republicans would do exactly what has been done. Call Obama out. Strip away the teleprompters ( which were used again at his speech in Minn ) and force him to speak off the cuff. Answer questions outside a debate ( they are overly scripted ) and see if the polish is just skin deep.

My guess is the Obama camp will avoid these encounters are work to debate three times all structured and all standard ( review questions etc well before hand to prepare ).

If that is the case I wonder if the college kids, and "intellectuals" start to question the brilliance of this man.

[Dan Wishengrad]

It has been widely reported on the campaign trail that Obama was not given the liberty to speak to the press freely and that impromptu conversations were held to an extreme minimum. At one time the press actually complained about access to Obama.

Dick Morris, political strategist, got Bill Clinton elected twice and said the Republicans would do exactly what has been done. Call Obama out. Strip away the teleprompters ( which were used again at his speech in Minn ) and force him to speak off the cuff. Answer questions outside a debate ( they are overly scripted ) and see if the polish is just skin deep.

My guess is the Obama camp will avoid these encounters are work to debate three times all structured and all standard ( review questions etc well before hand to prepare ).

If that is the case I wonder if the college kids, and "intellectuals" start to question the brilliance of this man.

Please and by all means, DO underestimate Senator Obama. Plan your whole campaign around his lack of brilliance, his immaturity and his inability to speak plainly and clearly about important issues, and "call him out" as often as you like.

I realize that in desperation many on the Right have deluded themselves into the belief that Obama is a light-weight who will fall apart under the harsh spotlight. Maybe this is born from wishful thinking, or perhaps it is just the oozy stench of desperation? In any case...

Bring it on!

[KnoxVegas]

Amy Holmes wrote:

McCain's speech was creaky, ungracious, and unnecessary. I never understand why politicians don't take the opportunity, when so easily presented, to simply be gracious and hold their fire. Watching McCain, I couldn't help but think of the astonishing contrast Barack's triumphant speech to a massive and adoring crowd will be. It was not a comparison McCain should have invited.

Liberal apologist? Nope. Ms. Holmes is a former Frisk staffer and this was posted on The National Review Online last night.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDlhZjRhMjJjNzE4MmM1NDg2OGQwMDQyZjEzYzkzZDg=

What brilliant PR person signed off on McCain's offer. Do you really want to have a 71 year-old man on stage with a 46 year-old man? That contrast will be fun to see. Don't forget that McCain is not a gifted orator when left to his own devices.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I[/youtube]

[laxfan25]

It has been widely reported on the campaign trail that Obama was not given the liberty to speak to the press freely and that impromptu conversations were held to an extreme minimum. At one time the press actually complained about access to Obama.

Dick Morris, political strategist, got Bill Clinton elected twice and said the Republicans would do exactly what has been done. Call Obama out. Strip away the teleprompters ( which were used again at his speech in Minn ) and force him to speak off the cuff. Answer questions outside a debate ( they are overly scripted ) and see if the polish is just skin deep.

My guess is the Obama camp will avoid these encounters are work to debate three times all structured and all standard ( review questions etc well before hand to prepare ).

If that is the case I wonder if the college kids, and "intellectuals" start to question the brilliance of this man.

Hmmm..."widely reported"? I guess I must be getting news from different sources - haven't heard that. I have heard that Obama and Clinton did not have a traveling dialog in the back of the bus as McCain did (which was refreshing in a way, but could be problematic in maintaining the proper perspective by the reporters that became part of that inner circle). Definitley sounds like wishful thinking that could be added to the list of "widely circulated" falsehoods about Obama that can be found on snopes.com.

My friends, I don't think Barack will be cowering at the thought of speaking off the cuff before an audience. I think his abilities in that arena have something to do with his "widely reported" charisma and eloquence.

I assume the polish being skin-deep reference wasn't an attempt at witticism, Mr. Jolson?

As for college kids and "intellectuals" - why is it that those with brains seem to be attracted to a well-spoken candidate? Could it be that they've tired of eight years of witlessness?

[Zeuslax]

As a quick side note......I love how McCain puts the hanky in his left pocket, then realizes that's not the pocket he typically puts it in and then puts it in his right pocket.

I really like Adam's response on page one regarding Obama. As someone who has voted for the 1% guy that last 2 times it felt great to see someone with this level of eloquence regarding policy (quite frankly, probably second to Hillary and Biden on many occasions) emerge. The manner in which policy and positions are laid out is something that many could aspire to follow. He invites discourse and debate.

I'm not quite sure that Obama is Kennedy and McCain is Nixon, but man the similarities are somewhat scary. Especially when thinking about upcoming debates.

[Dan Wishengrad]

It is likely that both McCain and Obama will stick to the high road themselves, attacking each other's policy positions vigorously but refusing to launch personal assaults on the other. This has been the long-professed style of each man throughout their political careers.

But the special interest groups -- on both sides -- are sure to go nuclear-negative without the approval of either campaign. The right-wing was terrified in '04 to have Bush run against a true war hero, and the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" was born to create an entirely false campaign to discredit Senator Kerry's military record. Those who actually served in 'Nam with Kerry denounced the Swift Boaters lies, as did Senator McCain himself and to his credit. Kerry was too slow to go after the swift Boaters and too mild in response when he finally did. The campaign apparently worked, as folks became doubtful that JK ever really served with distinction and was distracted from focusing on Bush being slid into the reserves the day before he was to be drafted to avoid service in Nam and then failing to even show up for duty and finish his safe state-side stint.

McCain himself was the victim of the same kind of lying smear campaign in advance of the South Carolina primary, after trouncing Bush in New Hampshire. The Rove attack machine started a "push-polling" telephone campaign, claiming that McCain had fathered a child with a black prostitute, that Cindy McCain was back on drugs and legally insane, and even that McCain had traitorously "turned" in prison in North Viet Nam by cooperating with his captors and revealing U.S. military secrets.

That these type of smear campaigns are completely false is beside the point, they worked in both cases because they planted enough doubt and distracted the voters. The right-wing will attack Obama relentlessly. They will stoke the false rumors that he is a Muslim, they will attack his patriotism for refusing to always wear a flag pin, and much, much more. Some on the left-wing will surely attack McCain with innuendo and falsehoods also.

But I actually believe that none of this "third-party" smearing will decide the election in '08. The electorate is better educated and remembers this shameful recent past, and the candidates and their campaigns will be prepared and more effective in countering the lies. The election should actually come down to a choice between two honorable, decent and competent U.S. Senators and the positions on the issues that they represent. Bravo.

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

Pretty interesting that Hillary won the popular vote, won huge states like California, New York, Texas and Florida. . .but still couldn't get it done. I would have never thought that was possible.

Rubbing Will Moss' head was the kiss of death for the Clintons. . .

[OAKS]

Pretty interesting that Hillary won the popular vote

It's actually impossible to count the actual popular vote because of caucus states. People are still trying though - here are 6 ways of counting the popular vote, and Obama is leading in 3 of them. 2 of Hillary's leads include some sort of counting of Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. No matter which way you try to count Michigan (or Florida for that matter), it will never be accurate as to how people would have actually voted if both candidates names were on the polls and both conducted campaigns as they would have in other states.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... count.html

I'm not saying this in support of Obama, as Hillary may have convincingly won the popular vote if Michigan & Florida were counted - just trying to spread some edumacation.

[Gvlax]

Pretty interesting that Hillary won the popular vote

It's actually impossible to count the actual popular vote because of caucus states. People are still trying though - here are 6 ways of counting the popular vote, and Obama is leading in 3 of them. 2 of Hillary's leads include some sort of counting of Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. No matter which way you try to count Michigan (or Florida for that matter), it will never be accurate as to how people would have actually voted if both candidates names were on the polls and both conducted campaigns as they would have in other states.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... count.html

I'm not saying this in support of Obama, as Hillary may have convincingly won the popular vote if Michigan & Florida were counted - just trying to spread some edumacation.

I know many obama voters here in michigan that didnt vote during the primary because he wasnt actually on there. I voted undeclared or what ever the word was on the ballot. I hate hearing people saying how clinton won by so much because only the hillary supporters went out and voted. I really believe the numbers would have been a lot closer if obama would have been on the ballot and the votes were to actually count for something.

[laxfan25]

I think it is a sign of how intelligent Obama is that he was able to set up his campaign to take advantage of the Democratic primary rules. He did have a 50-state strategy and pulled a lot of delegate advantage out of wins in states that Clinton ignored. Obama picked up 10 delegates in Montana while Clinton only netted 9 in Ohio. She believed, as did almost all others last year, that the race would be over quickly and she'd be the nominee. I do think many people were scared of her high negatives and were looking for a legitimate alternative, but Barack won this race more than Hillary lost it.

[Adam G]

I think it is a sign of how intelligent Obama is that he was able to set up his campaign to take advantage of the Democratic primary rules. He did have a 50-state strategy and pulled a lot of delegate advantage out of wins in states that Clinton ignored. Obama picked up 10 delegates in Montana while Clinton only netted 9 in Ohio. She believed, as did almost all others last year, that the race would be over quickly and she'd be the nominee. I do think many people were scared of her high negatives and were looking for a legitimate alternative, but Barack won this race more than Hillary lost it.

Truer words couldn't be written.

[Chris Larson]

She believed, as did almost all others last year, that the race would be over quickly and she'd be the nominee. I do think many people were scared of her high negatives and were looking for a legitimate alternative, but Barack won this race more than Hillary lost it.

I might offer that her hubis significantly contributed to her failure to win the nomination.

[StrykerFSU]

I just a pretty harsh indictment of Obama's economic plans. I'm no economist but the evidence laid out in report in the most recent Newsmax magazine is scary. It will be interesting to see how the general public reacts when they realize that Sen. Obama intends to raise taxes for most Americans while increasing the number of people who pay no income taxes at all. He also plans on stifling saving and investment by doubling the capital gains tax, even though approximately half of all Americans have some amount of money invested in stocks. Except for Sen. Obama and his wife who make no investments or have any savings for their retirement...no 401(k) plans or IRA's. He also wants to nearly double the federal minimum wage which will force significant layoffs and hurt small business. Welcome to class warfare in the 21st Century.

Obama '08...Can we build an America with a higher tax rate than Sweden...yes we can!

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/jun08/ Sorry, it's not a free article.

[LaxTV_Admin]

Obama '08...Can we build an America with a higher tax rate than Sweden...yes we can!

Haha, that made me laugh (whether I support Obama or not).

[Tim Whitehead]

I would take anything you read on NewsMax with a grain of salt. It clearly has a right-wing bias. I'm sure he came up with some great statistics to back up his point, but people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.