UPDATE: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Is Barack Obama or any democrat for that matter allowed to lay claim to being more electable than the others?  No one truly knows and I have argued in a recent diary why this ambiguous measure of general election potential has historically proven to be an inaccurate predictor of future success.  More importantly, the issue regarding the democratic nomination is not so much about electability, since most polls reveal that all of the top tier would fare pretty well in any republican match up, but about who seems to best represent change and unity for the democratic party and ultimately the country.

I have no doubts that all of the top contenders would serve their country positively and push a progressive agenda that has been sorely lacking since 2000.  As an Obama supporter, I cannot deny John Edwards bold focus on poverty and initial lead on domestic plans.  As an Obama supporter, I cannot deny that Hillary, at least to date, has the best presence in the debates and has been running a very effective campaign hence her frontrunner status, to date, has consistently remained unchanged.  As an Obama supporter, I cannot deny that John Edwards has held steadfast to frontrunner polling in Iowa.  As an Obama supporter, I cannot deny that Hillary has been very effective in downplaying her original Iraq war vote.  With that said, as an Obama supporter, there is a case to be made why Barack Obama would be unquestionably the best candidate to lead the democratic ticket and ultimately the country.

1.  Could he win?

No doubt and as I indicated previously, he along with the rest of the top tier democrats beat every republican candidate in the national polls. However, there are some things I am sure potential voters take into consideration when the question of Obama as the nominee comes to mind.

First is his bi-racial heritage or more succinctly to the point is the fact that he is a black candidate running for an office that has never elected anyone other than a white male.  No one honestly knows for sure but polls strongly indicate that the country is very receptive to the idea.  Obama has shown the potential to ease voters fears of racial tensions and has a crossover appeal that has not been seen since the likes of RFK.

I would argue that those who are most concerned about his race tend to be extremely conservative and would have never been a potential voter of any of the democratic candidates in the first place.

2. Experience

The experience question I find ironic considering all the frontrunners on both sides of the aisle, other than McCain, cannot lay claim to being much more experience than any of the other candidates in the race.  Furthermore, those with the most experience have a hard time gaining or holding traction (i.e. McCain, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden).  With that said, Obama has more elected political experience than either Hillary or Edwards.

Obama has eight years in the state legislature of Illinois and a little over 2 years in the US Senate. His combined ten year political resume equates to more experience than Hillary's eight years in the US Senate as well as John Edwards one term as a US Senator (six years).  Furthermore, history has shown time and again that the American electorate tends to select the candidate with the least experience of the two in the general election (i.e. W. Bush [one term governor] vs. Gore [vice president, senator, and congressman]; Clinton [two term governor] vs. H. W. Bush [vice president, congressman, ambassador, director of the CIA]; and on and on).  We are in a great time of change and the electorate seems to be growing around judgment and inspiration and no other candidate fits that bill better than Obama.

3.  Substance:  Is Obama an "empty suit"?

Well if you call the following:

Universal Healthcare Plan
Foreign Policy Agenda
Energy and Fuel Efficiency Agenda
Documented consistent opposition to the Iraq war
Obama's Iraq Bill
Ethics Reform Agenda
Faith and Religion Agenda

If you consider all of this a lack of substance then you are kidding yourself.  An admission of simply not liking the guy is a better reason than claiming he is an empty suit.  A good summary of what Obama is about can be viewed in the following video.

4.  We Need Someone Bold, Willing To Stand Up For Progressives, And Have The Ability To Fight Back The Attacks From The Right

A great deal of MyDD and DailyKos progressives have been promoting John Edwards as the candidate that fits the bill.  There is no doubt that John Edwards has made some bold moves in his campaign, however, Barack Obama, overall, has proven that he is clearly better in this department than any other candidate.  Obviously, this is a highly opinionated topic and I hope everyone will treat it as such.

1.  Obama's whole career has been built on a solid progressive foundation.  However, his approach to politics is in itself bold.  His approach consists of consensus building and unity around progressive values.  There have been many that have argued that the only way to build unity is by being a centrist.  Obama explains in the following video that the best approach to building a progressive majority and not just a centrist majority is through concensus politics.  The idea that concensus politics is mutually exclusive to having a fighting mentality is erroneous as Obama pointed out at the recent AFSCME presidential forum:

I like a good fight but the question is how can we create a majority concensus in this country to win some of these fights?  What I've argued is that we are going to have to win some independents.  We've got a lot of disaffected republicans after six years.  George Bush has actually been a good advertisment for the democratic party [applause].

. . . How do we unify instead of divide?

. . . That means we are going to have to reach out to some folks that may not seem like natural allies to us but are actually hungry for something new.

. . . But what we can't comprimise on:  We can't compromise on a progressive vision that says if you are able and willing to work then you should be able to find a job that pays a living wage.  We should not compromise on retirement security for our senior citizens.  We should not compromise on issues of racial equality and gender equality.  We should not compromise on workers to unionize and collectively bargain to improve their standing in life.  We shouldn't compromise that every child should get a decent education and it shouldn't just be a slogan.  There are some things worth fighting for and if people disagree and we can't persuade them then we just got to beat them.

2.  Barack Obama is one of the most effective counter punchers of all the candidates.  John Edwards learned this the hard way at the last democratic debate.  Hillary Clinton witness his sharp counter skills during the Geffen debacle.  John McCain and John Howard has been silenced by Obama's counter attacks.  Obama believes in unity and rising above the fray, however, he has the capacity to deliver a serious blow to your campaign if you attack him or his party.  The following video is a compilation highlighting his effective counter punching skills.

Conclusion

As the primaries wind down their are going to continue to be differing opinions and analyzations.  However, their can be no doubt that Barack Obama has been the secret weapon the democratic party has been waiting for and I hope you'll agree by showing your support here.

UPDATE:

I would like to give a special thanks to MyDD member Jenifer Fernandez Ancona. She is the communications director at Votehope2008.org. This organization is made up of a group of activists whose goal is to "get 500,000 early votes pledged [in California] and banked for Obama – starting Jan. 9 and leading up to the state’s Feb. 5, 2008 primary." They are accepting donations to help with this effort here. They were kind enough to promote this diary on their front page and Jenifer wrote some very positive words about Obama's candidacy and this diary:

There is a terrific diary today on MyDD laying out some of the key arguments for Obama, complete with pictures and links to videos. It would be a great diary to send to people who want to get an overview of the case for Obama. A discussion on the question of “electability” has come up recently, and this diarist makes the point that this question is not very useful for us as a progressive movement. The blogosphere is still having a fierce debate over the 2008 primary, and unfortunately it has gotten rancorous and nasty at times, given the high level of passion and enthusiasm for various candidates that exists online. But this diary is a good example of the kind of reasoned arguments that I hope will continue to occur in the blogs as we move forward with this long primary season.

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Comments

120 Comments

great job with this diary

dems have a chance at a historic victory and a real mandate for change, why waste that all hoping Hillary can overcome her negatives?.

by nevadadem 2007-06-26 06:38PM | 0 recs
Thanks.

by lovingj 2007-06-26 07:01PM | 0 recs
You should cross post

this at Daily Kos. I promise to recommend it.

by Populism2008 2007-06-27 01:42AM | 0 recs
loving j

Congrats. You've come a long ways since the days just a few months ago when you were spreading lies about Edwards and accusing his supporters of racism. This is much better, a substantive addition to the debate. Even your writing has improved, with only the occasional unreadable sentence. I rec'd it.

I agree that electability is hard to judge, especially 16 months before the election. There's too much time still, too many variables, too many of Rummy's unknown unknowns. Still, I think I can say something with some certainty. The election in 2008 will come down to the swing states, especially those in the industrial Midwest. Edwards's populist message would likely play better there than Obama's "new politics, post-everything" message. Indeed, the early polls suggest Edwards would fare better against the Republican candidate in the key states. One could make the case, though, that Obama would do better in Florida, with its high percentage of African-American voters.

In any case, while this electability argument is fun, most people who support Edwards do so not because we know he'd win big, though we do, but because of his policies, which are so much better's than Obama's, especially on climate change, poverty, and health care. Me, I don't care, at least at this point, whether Obama would have a tough time winning a state that Gore didn't, but I do care that his health care plan would leave 15 million Americans uninsured.

Which is another way of saying that Obama is trying to enhance his electability by running as a moderate progressive, whereas Edwards, certain of his electability, is running as a proud progressive. If both of them are electable, as appears to be the case, why not pick the proud progressive?

by david mizner 2007-06-27 03:06AM | 0 recs
Re: loving j

The themes are taking shape:

Post-modernist Obama

Populist Edwards

Centrist Clinton

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-27 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: loving j
Right.
by horizonr 2007-06-27 07:17PM | 0 recs
why couldn't you have posted this

as a stand alone comment instead of hijacking the diary by sticking it up here?

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-27 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Not just win a slender victory, either, but a landslide mandate to set the nation back on a rational footing in a compassionate framework and re-establish our role as pioneer and world leader on a whole range of issues, not least of which global security, economic stability, human rights and the environment.  These issues are mutually interdependent and our current policies are irreconcilable.

Oh... and restore faith in the rule of law, the Bill of Rights and our responsibilities, not privileges, as citizens.  All core values of our great nation and, dare I say it, the American Dream.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-06-26 06:48PM | 0 recs
WOAH!

Excellent Presentation!

You covered every single argument in this post. This is the best work I have ever seen on this site. That's no joke. You are truly a professional.

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-26 06:48PM | 0 recs
Beautiful job.

Is that last picture Oakland? I agree with everything stated above - the comments as well as the diary.

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-26 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Beautiful job.

I was blown away by that photo.

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-26 06:56PM | 0 recs
Umm

it was either Oakland or Austin.  Which one did he draw the 20,000 crowd?

by lovingj 2007-06-26 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Umm

Austin then, Oakland was only 15,000...only 15,000.

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-26 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Beautiful job.

I'm pretty sure it is Oakland- March 17.  O'Bama day.

by mboehm 2007-06-26 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Beautiful job.

It's definitely Oakland -- I was there volunteering for the event and ended up behind that tree without being able to see.  I'd seen him before, though, so I was happy to let others squeeze in ahead of me.

Sarah

by Sarah R Carter 2007-06-26 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Great Job...good pics.  good arguments...I'm excited

by gb1437a 2007-06-26 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Great presentation, and I concur.  Wow... the crowd is phenomenal especially from an aerial view.  Too bad he had to limit the crowd size due to security.  It was these kind of events that concerned Senator Durbin, prompting him to request that Obama receive Secret Service.  

by Jalenth 2007-06-26 06:59PM | 0 recs
I Just Halted My Vacation For This

John,

I am speechless! This is awesome. Totally recommended!

As always, you rock. Not just with the Vids either, you rock in the blogosphere!

Keep up the great work.

TTYL.........

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-06-26 07:08PM | 0 recs
You got so many acronyms.

What is TTYL?  I've learned quite a few from you.

And thanks for the compliments.

by lovingj 2007-06-26 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: You got so many acronyms.

Talk To You Later

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-26 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I Just Halted My Vacation For This

The Obama Campaign should scoop this guy up, like yesterday.

Seriously.

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-26 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Very nice diary with a good overview of Obama. Good work.

I have two significant quibbles. Obama does not have a universal health care plan.  It is much better than Hillary's but it is not universal.  Also his opposition to the Iraq war is not consistently documented since he voted to keep funding it.

That said they diary does deserve a rec. for the hard work and excellent layout.

by pioneer111 2007-06-26 07:21PM | 0 recs
Quibbles

Obama's Health care Plan leaves NO ONE out. It does the exact same thing as Edwards only Edwards forces you to purchase while Obama gives you the option of keeping what you have or crossing over to the government plan. The only thing Obama forces is Mandatory Coverage for Children.

Obama has been consistent in his opposition to the war. He stated before that if we did make the mistake of going, we would have to fund the troops. So, yes. He has been consistent. I found this while checking out the authors videos. Look at the whole thing. Obama explains it perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWED js

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-26 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Quibbles

As long as a system is not mandatory it will not be universal and will likely devolve again.  This seems to be something that many just do not understand.  When people choose no insurance but end up in emergency the costs are spread out to those who pay insurance.  No country that provides universal health care allows it to be optional.  It cannot work if that happens.  Edwards plan also allows you to keep your current coveraage or purchase a government plan.  

In my view Obama has not been consistent in his rhetoric and actions on the war.  There are major difference in opinion on that and it is not my intention to convince you of my point of view here.  

And I still liked the diary.

by pioneer111 2007-06-26 08:49PM | 0 recs
One problem.

How do you enforce mandatory insurance?  I'd argue that it is was affordable to a homeless man then there is no need for a mandate.  However, if it is not affordable then a mandate solves nothing.  Either way, affordability, which both John and Obama addresses is the ultimate concern in establishing universalness in healthcare.

by lovingj 2007-06-26 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: One problem.

Everyone is covered so has to register just like with social security.  The plan pays for or provides for the homeless and those below a certain income level.  However the issue is the young adults who are healthy and may choose to not sign up, yet if they have a need it is costly.  Insurance rates tend to drop when everyone participates.  It is a win/win in the long run.  The details in a mixed plan like Edwards and Obama's need to be worked out, but no other universal health care system in the world allows opting out, because you only opt out of paying your fair share, not out of services, since we do take care of people in emergencies.  Some countries solve the issue by rolling in premiums with income taxes.  The devil is in the details that congress will have to decide on.

by pioneer111 2007-06-26 10:02PM | 0 recs
Still disagree with the mandate.

However, I am sure you will at least agree with me that both of these plans are going to go through some mangling should either one become president.  Unless there is an overwhelming democratic majority there is going to be a serious fight on this issue during the next term.

There are even a lot of our very own democrats accepting lobbying and money from the pharmeceutical and insurance industries.  This is going to be tough no matter the plan.

But I still believe that Obama and Edwards end goal is the same:  deal with 47 million uninsured Americans.

by lovingj 2007-06-26 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Still disagree with the mandate.

I agree that it will be a fight and a vicious one.  I think over time people including Obama would understand why mandatory participation is needed, but the process will take a while to implement anyway.  And yes I do think both want to see everyone covered.

by pioneer111 2007-06-26 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Still disagree with the mandate.

Declaring a mandate certainly doesn't equate to being universal.

Though the two things are FAR from analogous, compulsory health insurance has been compared to compulsory auto liability insurance (without ever explaining how an obligation attached to a VOLUNTARY and licensed activity is at all like an automatic obligation of simply existing).

But those whether you hold to that comparison or not, it's simply a FACT that mandatory is FAR from universal:
Uninsured Drivers Increasing

Across the United States, if someone is injured in an auto accident, the chances are about one in seven that the at-fault driver is uninsured. According to a recent Insurance Research Council (IRC) study, the estimated percentage of uninsured motorists increased nationally from 12.7 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2004.

And coverage rates are at or ABOVE the national average in those states which DON'T mandate coverage:

Estimated Percentage of Uninsured Motorists by State in 2004 -
New Hampshire 9%
South Carolina 10%
Virginia 10%
Wisconsin 14%

So, not only do mandates NOT give universal coverage, they don't even ead to higher coverage rates.

So, show me ANY piece of actual evidence that indicates that some kind of magic will occur to make mandates works better for health insurance than it does in auto insurance.

by jacortina 2007-07-01 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: One problem.

Obama's plan is about affordable, comprehensive and portable coverage and about changing the market structure to increase competiton in the insurance and drug markets, since the pharmacuetical companies have a monopoly on the cost of available drugs and because the insurance companies continue to incease their costs even though they continue to make millions of dollars. His plan(s) would cover the homeless, poor and children and would allow individuals and businesses to purchase private coverage or buy into a sysytem like Congress has currently. He says very clearly in his health care proposal that "no one will be turned away or charged more due to illness, and everyone who needs it will receive a subsidy for their premiums." The bottom line is that ALL Americans will be able to choose from or be eligible for health coverage according to their income and ablility to pay or not. There are options available including not buying any insurance at all if that is what you choose.

by sideliner07 2007-06-27 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Quibbles

No I come from the UK and I know that Obama falls short in his plan.  It's got to be madated and out of everyones pockets. Don't say he's something he's not. It lacks cred.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-27 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

His opposition to the War is well documented as is his belief that we need to be a careful getting out as we were reckless going in.  It's easy to pick out individual votes while not looking at the total picture, like Sen. Feingold reminded us when he said Barack has been one of the most helpful Senators in pushing forward the agenda to get us out of Iraq.

Barack, and Hillary, were roundly criticized for the way they handled their stance on the last funding bill, and candidate Obama made a point in the last debate to not criticize anyone in the Senate for their stance and give respect for those who chose to vote alongside Biden.  He could have grandstanded but instead took a different path and now we are beginning to see those results.  From Think Progress:

"Republican senators expressed support today for Indiana Sen. Richard G. Lugar's call for an immediate change of course in Iraq," CQ reports.

"I hail what he did," said Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., former chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "It shows the strength that each of us individually must bring to this debate." Warner said that he too feels the September reporting date is too long to wait to revise U.S. war policy. [...]

There is a growing feeling among senators that the U.S. presence in Iraq needs review, [Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)] said, adding that he agrees that troops levels should be reduced "as soon as it is realistic to do it." [...]

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said that it is important to find out if the administration is listening to differing views on Iraq. "If they're not, I think that many of us are going to look at legislation that will limit the number of troops," he said. Voinovich intends to submit a letter to the administration detailing an exit plan that would include engagement with the Arab League and the United Nations, he said.

The shift is beginning.  Maybe those reports of the Dems having no spine were greatly exaggerated.  After all, the spine leads to the brain.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-26 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Maybe the Democrats in congress found it was necessary to get a spine given the reaction of the electorate to their caving in.  I think what Edwards did was helpful to the process and it was smart politically.  I totally agree with BTD on the fact that Obama has lost the anti-war candidate status he once had.  And I was surprised by that development.  I do hope that he convinces Democrats in congress to hold firm against giving Bush anymore funding without  a withdrawal timetable. He is needed to provide that leadership in the senate along with Feingold and others.  

I don't give that much credit to Obama's approach with Republican Senators.  I think fear of losses in 2008 is making more of an impact.  Snakes and scorpions keep their characteristics even when you are nice.  In addition, we need many more Republicans in the House to come along.  The Republicans outmaneuvered the Democrats when in the majority and when in the minority.  They respond much better to fear and pressure than to a gentle approach.  In my view they need to be crushed before they will co-operate.  Notice how well they hung together this week with no intention of getting along with Democrats.  finally Democrats held together too but they lost which is my point.  The Repubs only cooperate if they get their own way. But I will give Obama credit if I ever see it really working.

Obama supporters need to study the whole idea of univeral health care more fully to really understand why there still is criticism for his approach.  As I said, it is better than just tinkering, but it still is propping up the Health Care for profit industry without covering everyone.  It is a topic I have researched and considered quite extensively.  There is no question in the mind of experts other than big insurance lobbyists that Edwards plan is the best so far.

These two areas we will probably have to agree to differ on interpretations.

by pioneer111 2007-06-26 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Can you make or answer a single argument without using the words "I think" ? You are attempting to rebut facts with your own thoughts and opinions rather than just stating counter facts. Why?

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-26 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

My conclusions based on observations are my thoughts and I am clear on that.  Facts are what happened and so don't normally change unless someone has made an error and needs new information.  Most debates are about how we interpret facts.  Also it may be my style of writing.  Are there particular facts that you want to dispute?  

I am not rebutting facts with my thoughts.  I am rebutting others' opinions with mine and explaining how I interpret the same facts.  These are the counter arguments.  Does that help?  

by pioneer111 2007-06-26 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

No.

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-26 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Not much I can do then.  I post because I have something I want to say, not to conform to what you think is appropriate.

by pioneer111 2007-06-26 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I see that.

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-26 11:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

There's lots of conformity to come.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-27 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Being a Lugar constiuent I can tell you his recent speech means little.

His office has been consistant in telling me that Lugar will not vote for "surrender" proposals from Democrats.

This is Lugar speaking out for Lugar and to maybe save his sinking party.  he could care less about Obama or any other Democrat.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-27 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Obama's supporters are using a hell of a lot of testimony from the Republican party.  It un-nerves me. Really un-nerves me.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-27 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I have a question then about universal health care.  Should we use tax dollars to pay for people who refuse health treatment - like Christian Scientists.  I believe Obama's plan offers health care to anybody who wants it, but you do not have to take it...

by gb1437a 2007-06-27 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

At times the state has intervened for treatment of children in Christian Science or Jehovah witness families.  Also some of these people do use some health care treatments - e.g. setting broken bones, etc.  

by pioneer111 2007-06-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Obama's plan covers all children.  And, I do not think it is appropriate, nor does it make financial since to, force healthcare upon adults who refuse it.

by gb1437a 2007-06-27 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

You then don't understand how universal health care works.  There is plenty of research and information on the net if you choose to explore it.  nyceve on Dkos has numerous diaries that can help if you want to understand.  

If somebody doesn't want car insurance should they still be allowed on the road without it?  Should we have to use seat belts if we don't want to?  The principle is similar.

by pioneer111 2007-06-27 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

No I undestand... but I also thing a person has a right to refuse health care.

by gb1437a 2007-06-27 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I do understand the theory of choice and agree when it has little impact on others or society.  People still pay taxes for schools even if they have no children.  They benefit from an educated society.  Also it can be argued that costs for their own education and their children's education have been spread out over the years.  So it is with health care.  If you pay when you are young and healthy, it helps to defray the costs when you are older and need far more care from the system.

There are two competing principles in play here.  I don't think I will convince you of what most people who advocate for universal health care say is necessary.  You certainly won't convince me since it took a while for me to understand this point and now I agree with it.  The debate on it will be down the road.  It will impact on the success of any universal health care plan.  But we don't have to settle it today.  ;-)

by pioneer111 2007-06-27 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Sounds good - yeah, I think I'm more libertarian in this area.  I also support physician assisted suicide.  I think it is why the Obama plan doesn't insist on coverage for all, yet offers it... later it will be an important point of debate.  Because young people, like me, will try to get away without any healthcare cost or healthcare - which isn't good.  But also, there are probably a couple million people in the U.S. who, for religious reasons, reject modern medicine - so if we gave them healthcare it would wast billions of dollars.

by gb1437a 2007-06-27 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

In California, you have to have MADATORY insurance, but guess what? 25% of the drivers in California, do NOT have it because they cannot afford it.

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-27 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

And those who don't buy insurance raise the costs for those who are insured.  The whole car insurance industry needs review as well but that is done state by state.  The principles remain the same.

The insurance industry in general needs to be regulated.  The costs are spiraling upward for less benefits.

by pioneer111 2007-06-27 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

You don't get it do you?

IT'S NOT THEIR FAULTS! THEY HAVE NO MONEY!

Jeeezus!

You cannot be reasoned with. I'm done with this conversation.

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-27 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

but does voluntarily refusing healthcare push the cost onto anybody else?  Not having car insurance does - the other driver has to pay.  But, if somebody wants to refuse healthcare it is their body and their decisison.  

by gb1437a 2007-06-27 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

In some cases yes it only affects them for example refusing blood transfusions.  They are allowed to refuse treatment.  On the other hand if they are in an accident - say falling off the roof of the house when cleaning the gutters.  They will be taken to emergency.  No one in this society will leave them on the lawn to decide for themselves.  I suspect that they would want the bones to be set by professionals.  I know of a young man whose bicycle hit a bump and he went flying.  He was lucky in that his injuries were not life threatening or permanent.  However he had no health insurance.  He has over $70,000 in debts and will be paying them off for a long time.

It just isn't as clearcut as it first appears.  That is why the debate is important.  There are grey areas and choices will be made.  The way other countries resolved it is that basic health care covers everyone.  Sliding scale fees apply and those like students or below a certain income don't pay but are covered.  If you want more extensive health services like private rooms and other features you can purchase extra insurance.  It is what I think is a good approach.  

by pioneer111 2007-06-27 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

So it isn't universal.  That should be scrubbed from the diary.   Everyone must pay into it for it to work. EVERYONE.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-27 01:48PM | 0 recs
Everyone pays in Obama's proposal

but if you don't want to use it you will not be forced.

And that's why Obama's plan is better than Edwards'.

by Populism2008 2007-06-27 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

I'll not that Edwards plan allows people to opt out for religious reasons and that as it mandates everyone have coverage it's universal whereas Obama's is not and for those that cannot afford coverage there are credits given on a sliding scale to make it very affordable and I believe even free for those in poverty.

by Quinton 2007-06-27 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

So you think that mandated auto insurance means that auto insurance is acutally universal?

Despite the fact that some states with compulsory coverage laws have 25%-plus rates of uninsured drivers? And states WITHOUT mandated coverage have coverage rates at least as good (most better) than the national average?

by jacortina 2007-07-01 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

I do not agree with all of your points but you did a great job in presenting a positive diary about Obama.

by robliberal 2007-06-26 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Funny thing.  I just got home from having dinner with a friend of mine and we were talking about our futures.  My friend asked me what I thought was important in the coming years and I named several things.  One of the thing I mentioned was that I felt alot of things depend on who becomes our President.

We discussed Hillary.  I said that the problem with Hillary, if she makes it to the general, is that there will be a very ugly fight and that I didn't know if our nation would benefit from such a fight at this time.  We've already been through too much.  Besides, she won't get any swing voters.  People's minds are already made up about her.  In order to win, really win, we need a candidate who can get those votes.  In addition, I said that, personally, I just see Hillary and Bill being the Dem equivalent of the Republican corporate interest groups.  I said that, yeah, they'll through us a bone or two but i don't really see them changing much of the status quo.

Then I said that I didn't trust Congress after I watched their behavior leading up to the Iraq invasion so I was leary of beltway democrats.  With that said, I said that I though Edwards would be "OK" but that he seems too hungry and angry.  I think he'd have a hard time getting things passed in Congress.

Obama was our only hope.  She said that he is the face of America's future, an international American.

I said that I admired him, slogging away down there on the south side of Chicago, going to Harvard, President of the Law Review, but where does he go after graduation?  Right back down to the south side.  Hitting the streets again.

I said that I felt he could get things done - maybe it would be little by little but Congress is constipated and I believe that, of all the candidates, Obama has the best chance of getting things moving again.

The point is - he's a gentlemen.  He truly has class and he's grown up as a citizen of the world.  Most of all, he's a smart humanitarian.  

by noquacks 2007-06-26 07:34PM | 0 recs
credibility

What a load of laughable 'noble' cause.

Do you have any credibility left after recommending a diary smearing Hillary by dragging quotes from freerepublic.

Yes, I do count hypocrites like you.

by kostner 2007-06-26 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: credibility

Your delusional.  I don't even read free republic.  Never have.

by noquacks 2007-06-26 08:10PM | 0 recs
Credibility...

Give him a break, he recommended the diary long before it was clear that it was a troll invasion.  It happens to all of us sooner of later.  There have been plenty of equally dubious diaries around here lately, recommended by many.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-06-26 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

I agree with your reasoning about Edwards and Hillary. I also looked at the candidates as to whether or not they live by their principles and values and this is the one area where I believe that Obama has been an excellent example. He lives what he talks.

by sideliner07 2007-06-27 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

It's kinda funny, but I think he will have to run a guantlet of International testing. Europeans, Russia, China, South Americans will all be circling like vultures. Not to disparage them but it'll happen.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-27 01:51PM | 0 recs
Many thanks for this
by horizonr 2007-06-26 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Great post, thanks.

by Socks The Cat 2007-06-26 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Nice diary.  

I don't agree with your points about "experience" and "willing to stand up and fight back against the right" but agree that he is not an "empty suit" and could also win in the GE.    

by georgep 2007-06-26 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

George...  I'm impressed.  Not an empty suit and could win the general.  Sigh.  

by Shaun Appleby 2007-06-26 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Well, to flesh it out some, I have never stated that Obama could not win the GE.  ALL of our top-tier candidates would probably do well there.  It is just that Obama is a bit weaker with Democrats, which is important for the primaries, the initial contest.  

His proposals and programs are there.  He has hired people who are putting various programs together for him, just like Clinton and Edwards.  No surprise.  Neither is an empty suit.  All 3 will have programs that are well-reasoned, well-thought-out, poll- or focus-group tested, the whole enchilada.  

You know how I feel about the "stand up and give em hell" thing, and the experience factor has also been discussed in other settings.  I see where lovingj went with the experience angle, but I believe that it does not reach the level of Clinton's experience, even though it was not all legislative.    

by georgep 2007-06-26 09:32PM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton is not Hillary Rodham

He's not running against Bill, he's running against Hillary. I know, you guys keep confusing the two. Being married to the president is not experience.

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-26 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton is not Hillary Rodham

You can hardly argue that Hillary Clinton was the wifey, a la Babs Bush.   Try as you might, the voters aren't buying that one.   Hence, the gigantic experience advantage in every poll.  Not even close.  

by georgep 2007-06-26 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton is not Hillary Rodham

It's the 1st Lady Hillary that I don't like, the divisive, secretive Hillary.  I think being in the Senate is good for her, and despite her War vote and a lot of the DLC, same old money game politics, I do like her better now than I did before.  I just think Obama is someone extremely special and it would be crazy to pass that up in favor of someone who might have found really the best venue for her talents.

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-26 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton is not Hillary Rodham

I like Obama.  He will be a strong voice for the Democrats for a long time to come.  I don't like his bipartisan tones for this cycle (wrong time and place) and he certainly seems to have jumped at this a bit too early, a bit of seasoning at the national level would have been better, but I have no doubt that he will be a strong presence for the party for some time, and at some point (after the clean-up and reversal/erasure of many of the Bush bungles) we can use the bipartisan tone in our political discourse again.

Obama will be one of our stronger voices.   If he does not make it because Clinton's appeal may be stronger to Democrats (or somehow Edwards achieves the incredible,) I am looking forward to seeing him prosper in the Senate.   There is also the possibility that he may be pegged for the VP position.

by georgep 2007-06-26 10:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton is not Hillary Rodham

Not likely, George.  But he will be one of our greatest presidents very soon.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-06-26 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton is not Hillary Rodham

Nice post, George. It's good to see Clinton supporters acknowledging Obama's strengths even if they support someone else.

by Populism2008 2007-06-27 01:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton is not Hillary Rodham

yes, she has great experience from the clinton administration -- the hillarycare debacle!  most candidates would be embarrassed to refer to this, but it's the only advantage she has over obama (especially given her inspirational and likeability deficits), so we'll just gloss over that and try to make people think it's a positive.

you know who this makes me think of?  george bush.  yet hillary supporters get upset when i mention the natural comparisons between the two...

by bored now 2007-06-27 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton is not Hillary Rodham

I second that!

by sideliner07 2007-06-27 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Yeah, and you know how I feel about the Hillary experience theme, too.  No need to waste any bytes on that.

I am glad to see a collegial atmosphere still prevails, though, mostly.  Thanks for your help with that troll the other day, too.  That was horrid.  If you want a laugh he and I are still duking it out in that dead diary, like two wounded bulls in an elephant's graveyard.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-06-26 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

"If you want a laugh he and I are still duking it out in that dead diary, like two wounded bulls in an elephant's graveyard."

Really?  I've only done that once in a dead diary, with "bored now," until I saw the light that is was not "woith" it.  

What is the discussion about?  What school each of you will send your kids to next?  :-)

by georgep 2007-06-26 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

It's headed that way.  We are researching new and creative ways to insult each other and have challenged each other to various repulsive violences.  It's kind of fun, he is a really loathsome Orc with a long and inglorious career, his crap is splattered all over the Web.  I haven't had a chance to get my frustrations out like this for quite some time.  

I was very surprised the administrators didn't kill that diary, you know.  Or ban him, either, apparently.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-06-26 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

I support Edward so I disagree, but this was a nice diary and a good read.

by RDemocrat 2007-06-26 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

This is a great diary and as a supporter of Obama, I want to see him go all the way to the white house.

by BDM 2007-06-26 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

I respect Obama and I think he would make a great President.  I just think Hillary would make a better one- but if he beats Hillary, he will have earned it.  If he gets the nomination, I will be disappointed that Hillary did not get it, but  I will congratulate the Obama supporters, and then I will join them.

by reasonwarrior 2007-06-26 10:07PM | 0 recs
Outstanding diary!

Especially on the "experience issue". Does anyone seriously believe that Obama's experience would be an issue against either Romney, Guiliani or Thompson (McCain is dead in the water)? He will have 8 + 4 years of experience come 2008.

The reason why the experience issue is arising even though he doesn't lack it is because he looks so young.

In any case experience has never mattered much to the voting public. The most charismatic candidate always wins, at least according to history. And no one has more charisma than Barack Hussein Obama.

by Populism2008 2007-06-27 01:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Outstanding diary!

I agree - he will have more experience than Edwards at that point...more time in public office than Thompson and Romney.  And, Gules experience wasn't all that great until 9/11

by gb1437a 2007-06-27 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Why_is_it_that_Obama_and_clinton_support ers_can't
face_reality

John_Edwards_is_WAY_more_electable

This_is_the_supporters_of_two_losing_can didates
_watching_each_others_backs

This_they_can_all_win_crap_is_a_clever_e xcuse

but_it's_not_true

name_1_red_state_except_for_NM_that_eith er_turns
_blue?

by EdwardsSupporterCentral 2007-06-27 01:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Your not an Edwards supporter, your just trying to be divisive.

by parahammer 2007-06-27 01:54AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

SOUTH CAROLINA!

by BlueDiamond 2007-06-27 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

i don't find any evidence nor (as yet) any argument as to why edwards is more electable than any other democrat.  i'm not personally drawn to the economic populism argument because i haven't seen it successful as a message in an election (i'm not speaking of polls).

having met edwards, both in iowa and at the convention, i don't personally find him as engaging as others have.  but that could be because i've met lots of politicians, including charismatic ones, and he's nothing exceptional.  everyone in boston thought obama stole the show, even the edwards supporters.

the one state that edwards seems to be able to turn blue would be iowa, which (like new mexico) should have been blue last time.  i don't see him doing exceptionally better in ohio or florida, or arizona, colorado or montana (where democrats should do better now).

i would expect obama to outperform edwards and clinton in all these states, and add virginia to it.  the fact that obama is black will energize this neglected element of the democratic coalition and boost black turnout in a number of states.  this should be decisive in florida and virginia.  he will do very well in the heartland.

the reason that obama should outperform edwards (or clinton) in the western states is not only because he is inspirational and people connect easily with him (granted, not with the hillary supporters, but they would come around), but also because he has an optimistic message, one of hope and building a better future, that resonates with voters in the west.

the one state that i would imagine obama would do worse than clinton (who still can't win it) would be ohio.  obama has yet to prove that he can organize an effective and efficient field operation, and this has long been the weak spot of axelrod campaigns.  until they prove capable of this, ohio is out of reach to democrats in a national election.  ohio is a ground state, and since tully has died (i hate hearing this), democrats have basically sucked at the ground game...

by bored now 2007-06-27 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

I think Obama is easily the most plausible "landslide" candidate.  People hear him speak, and they like him and are comfortable with him.  It is this transformational potential that appeals to me the most.  I could easily see him being a huge net positive in the 2010 midterms, and winning re-election with 55+ percent of the vote.  This would put Republicans (and particularly movement conservatives) on defense, maybe for an entire generation.

I think Clinton could be a solid President, but a poor candidate and someone who will never be much more than a 51 percenter (and a drag on downticket candidates in the South and other traditionally red districts).

I think Edwards could do fairly well in a general election (but don't buy that he wins in the South, even NC - ou can find 2004 polls where Kerry was pulling 43-45% in my home state, too).  However, of the "Big Three", I think he'd be the worst President.  He's better at running for office than serving his office (Larry Sabato recently summarized this well), and there would likely be a 2010 backlash.

by NC State Dem 2007-06-27 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

I applaud your analysis.  It is the most logical I've heard.  The only thing I'd add is that a Hillary run would cause even more devisiveness in a country that has taken more than it ever should between its own citizens.  We are on the brink of disaster with each side pushing against the other and then withdrawing into their isolated worlds.  I believe a Hillary presidency will only lead to more of this and I fear that the country cannot weather 4 to 8 more years of this.  Even if she was the best candidate (and she might be, although I don't think so), the long range effects of her run for President and her Presidency, itself, is not good for the country.

Did I make myself clear about your analysis?  You looked into the long range effects of each candidate.  This was extremely important, IMO.

by noquacks 2007-06-27 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

I agree with your analysis... I have talked to so many people who say they'd vote for Obama who haven't voted or have voted republican in the past - he is perceived by the average American as really something special

by gb1437a 2007-06-27 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Nice diary.
Thoughtful, informative,answering questions that may arise as you continue to read.

Well put together.
Like to see more of these on other candidates instead of poll numbers and hit pieces.

by g1967 2007-06-27 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

re: Health Care.

Even Obama would acknowledge his Health Care Plan doesn't represent the ideal.  It is a practical achievable Plan within the first term, it is the starting point.  Probably Kucinich's single-payer is the ideal but there's not a chance in hell it would happen, not until we get an Obama-type plan first.  Clinton ran on reforming Health care in his first term and here we are 16 years later having the same discussion.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-27 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Is that why she is now running on reforming health care in her second?

by gb1437a 2007-06-27 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

I think you misunderstand the intent of my sentence.  It's not a knock on either of the Clintons, it was meant to highlight the difficulty of getting some reform in this area passed.  There is a whole generation of new voters who may not realize this isn't a new debate.  We have a better chance now than then in part due to some Ethics reform bills the Dems have been instituting, which is why people shouldn't cherry pick issues.  Health care reform won't come unless we reduce the influence of lobbyists, which is why the Ethics reform proposals Obama made this week are so crucial.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-27 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Yeah, gotcha, I didn't intend to contradict you...just to suggest that Hillary's Health Care proposal is too conservative - by not existing and when it is birthed not taking place until her second term.  I agree the political climate today is much better for passing a Health Care bill - and, I think the Obama bill is a good compromise between business and the nation's needs.

by gb1437a 2007-06-27 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

Unfortunately your guy has a few major problems you don't seem to notice.

Obama talks the talk but hasn't backed it up in his very very brief political career.  I see red flags all over place.

Big Problem #1.  And it's getting worse by the minute, is Joe Lieberman.  Joe's big suction cup of a mouth seems to have jumped off the McCain body and is avidly trying to latch onto Obama. With Obama's consent.  Every time I look at the Senate floor there's old Joe and Barack with lots of touch feely action.
They go way back.
I'll remind you that at a critical time in the Lamont/Lieberman race, Obama was a no-show at a key Lamont rally.  
Barack showed where his priorities were in that election, and who he really works for.
Not for a desperately needed extra and 'real (D) Democratic' voice to bring the troops home, and not for the people's 2007 election mandate, but for a horrible war mongering little (I) who now holds up progressive actions and insults and demeans the entire party at every opportunity.

If that isn't the best reason to not vote for him  here's another, and it's worse:

Big reason #2 to not vote for Obama:

Senator Feinstein tried to pass a key piece of legislation last summer to ban the use of cluster bombs, only in civilian areas. She had the  vast majority of the world behind her in support of this long overdue bill.

Your buddy, your Mr. Humanitarian Barack Obama, voted against her.  He joined with all of the Republicans, and a handful of other Dems, including Clinton and Lieberman.

We don't have enough of arsenal for your friend?  He just has to have those child maiming cluster bombs, too?
Obama shows pity for African children, but has anyone seen his ass in Lebanon holding a depleted uranium or cluster bombed baby??

Neither Clinton nor Obama will receive the base party vote for President.  I will work actively to keep them both out of the oval office.

They both speak with forked-tongues. And I think we've had just about enough of that.

Don't you?

If not let me know and I'll send you a picture of a 2 year old girl who picked up one of your friends toy-like bomblets.

 

by hazmaq 2007-06-27 01:14PM | 0 recs
Another Lie!!!

Obama voted FOR the Ammendment, one of only 30 who did.  Here's the role call.  Check your facts next time before the next intentional slur:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=109&session=2&vote=00232

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-27 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Another Lie!!!

WELL!!!
You can add all the emphasis you want but I do agree ---that I was dead wrong on last years vote.
I do apologize, but only for that little bit of what I said.
His name is on a different cluster bomb target list

But to call it a 'lie' or a 'slur' is disrespectful and over the top.

Barack is still only a locally qualified candidate, not yet ready for the world's stage.

Clinton did vote for those bombs and has the experience-- but I don't trust her farther than I can spit.
So I'm still not voting for either of them-as Prez.

But if Gore is the Prez, I can see Obama being a V.P.--kind of a future Prez in training.

AND FINALLY!!!!!

Your guy actually HAS REFUSED to sign on to Senator Feinstein's new attempt at passing another ban on cluster bombs.  (Press reports indicate the U.S. is finally coming around to agreeing on the ban.)

"Senate Presidential Candidates Failing on
Cluster Bombs"

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/arch ives/2007/03/08/07-disappoint-clusters/  
Obama hasn't signed on as a co-sponsor.
I'm sure he will though, RIGHT!!!!!!!!

by hazmaq 2007-06-27 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Another Lie!!!

I'm sorry for calling it a lie, I had assumed you had checked your facts before saying he voted that way.  I read that website.  Let me get this straight, you are criticizing him for not co-sponsoring the bill and because he hasn't co-sponsored this one you expect him to change his vote?  This, like the criticism on Lamont, seems to be patently unfair.  He does the right thing but doesn't do everything you want of him so it's the same as if he did the wrong thing.

I don't know what is involved in co-sponsoring bills, but if every Senator co-sponsored every bill they completely are supportive of you would have 50 or 60 co-sponsors on every bill.  With all due  respect, I think you are really searching for things to be critical of here.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-27 04:11PM | 0 recs
Lie #2!!!!!

I don't know what the big Lamont rally was or why Barack didn't appear, but he stated on the day after the Primary that he would support Lamont and sent him a $5,000.  He also sent out a letter of endorsement just before the election.  Here's an AP report of that from October 27th:


(AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, a vocal defender of Sen. Joe Lieberman earlier this year, is urging Connecticut voters to rally behind his rival, Ned Lamont.

The Illinois senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate sent an e-mail message Thursday praising Lamont.

"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass-roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."

The Lamont campaign said Obama's e-mail went to about 5,000 Connecticut residents.

Lamont aides said they welcomed the support of Obama, who has enjoyed a surge in popularity in recent weeks as speculation about his national ambitions mounts. Obama has also given $5,000 to Lamont's campaign through a political committee.

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-27 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Lie #2!!!!!

I trust the words of Tim.  He was there:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/14 /122820/27

Clinton and Obama both sent Lamont a few bucks --to appear supportive.  But all kept their distance so as not to offend those they pander to and, because they both just plain fought to get that useless (I) beast back in.

by hazmaq 2007-06-27 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Lie #2!!!!!

Having read that I can hardly blame Obama.  They don't give him much credit for his speech at the CT Democratic Dinner where he was the invited guest, invited long before Lamont was a factor, and had to give a speech about the man the Senate leadership paired him with during his first year, how when placed in that difficult position he still spoke clearly and passionately about his opposition to the War in Iraq, going so far to even mention coffins, and whipped up the room into an anti-Joe momentum while Lamont and his supporters ran around the room handing out buttons.  This clearly helped Lamont in the Primary, but that is not mentioned, is it?  Perhaps, Obama just didn't dig Lamont personally.  He endorsed the man and he gave him money, and he did nothing for Lieberman.  If Lamont cared so much about winning, why did he take off on vacation immediately after the Primary?  The guy ran a bad campaign.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-27 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Lie #2!!!!!

Bad campaign my ass!

#1 You keep skirting over the fact that Lieberman was NOT THE(D)DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

And besides it's...Lieberman!
Everyone vommitted at the thought of Bush naming Joe to replace Rumsfeld.  
Now we have to worry about Obama naming Joe Lieberman to HIS cabinet???   Double YucHHH!

#2 Obama reneged on a commitment.

#3. Lamont won the majority of the Democratic vote.

Obama reneged on a commitment!!!!!!!!

by hazmaq 2007-06-27 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Lie #2!!!!!

What commitment was that?  The article says they wanted Obama to come for an appearance during two off days when he was on the East Coast for his book tour.  He declined.  They really wanted him.  He said no.  

How is that reneging on a commitment?  It's kind of like that cliched phrase: what part of no don't you understand?

To win the general election you've got to do more than just win a majority of your party.  If it was okay for Lamont to take off on vacation immediately after winning the primary, why can't Barack have a few personal days when he's touring the country.  The criticism is a classic case of putting blame everywhere but where it belongs.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-27 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Lie #1!!!!!

I noticed you didn't even mention getting it wrong about the Cluster Bomb vote.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-27 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Lie #1!!!!!

".....You can add all the emphasis you want but I do agree ---that I was dead wrong on last years vote.
I do apologize, ...."

If you'll open your eyes just a little wider and scroll back a bit -I did apologize.

by hazmaq 2007-06-27 04:13PM | 0 recs
Retract your lie or be troll rated. n/t

by Populism2008 2007-06-27 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obama Factor

I see alot of holes in your argument, hazmaq.  Like ignoring facts or being misinformed.  Back to the woodshed before you offer such baseless opinions.

by noquacks 2007-06-27 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: UPDATE: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obam

"but has anyone seen his ass in Lebanon holding a depleted uranium or cluster bombed baby??"

Has any politician running for president today met this standard??

by joachim 2007-06-27 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: UPDATE: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obam

Perhaps this question should be addressed to Clinton, Dodd, or Biden who voted against the amendment.  Obama was one of the 30 Senators who voted for it.

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-27 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: UPDATE: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obam

Nope.  Kucinich and Hagel are the only two in Congress who publicly 'dare' to speak on their behalf.

Gore does too.

by hazmaq 2007-06-27 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: UPDATE: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obam

Hagel?  He voted against the Feinstein amendment.

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-27 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: UPDATE: The Democrats'

It looks like Obama is going to add 10,000 new donors since June 26th - wow

by gb1437a 2007-06-27 06:57PM | 0 recs
lovingj, a fine diary

I offer to crosspost it for you at DK with direct attribution to you. If you're interested, please send me html (as an attachment) at my email found in my DK profile.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-27 11:14PM | 0 recs
Re: lovingj, a fine diary

Thanks.  Will do.

by lovingj 2007-06-28 12:57AM | 0 recs
Re: UPDATE: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obam

10,000 donors? TRY approx 250,000 donors! Check out the front page on www.barackobama.com. Looks like the campaign's added 150,000 new donors this quarter, or do you think they mean 250,000 donors for Q2

by rapcetera 2007-06-28 01:57AM | 0 recs
Man that is great news.

by lovingj 2007-06-28 02:47AM | 0 recs
Re: UPDATE: The Democrats' Best Weapon: The Obam

One of your better diaries.

by benny06 2007-06-28 09:46AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------