View Story | 1004 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
That's why she lost. Plain and simple.
Every once in awhile someone comes along with charisma, intelligence, looks, and the ability to speak. And when that happens, if you have any sense you'll just go along with it instead of trying to beat it.
"But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4130+ dead Americans. Bring them home.
by Miss Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:12:43 PM PDT
history. Even without him delivering them, they are powerful.
John McCain: Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam?
by organicdemocrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I see enough diary like yours to make me wonder, how you know - what makes you so sure. It is encouraging that at least some people think they know for sure.
...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean
by dkmich on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:21:51 PM PDT
direction. The economy is in deep trouble. The war at the very least proves Obama's good judgment.
And McCain is not a good candidate. He won the nomination because strong candidates did not run in a bad year for Republicans.
We will win.
by organicdemocrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:24:23 PM PDT
another centrist politician. I really, really, really hope this guy is different. With the landslide he is going to get in the House and Senate, I don't want any excuses or song and dance about 60 votes. The Republicans ran the show as the majority and the minority. I am expecting BIG change. I am expecting the return of the Democratic Party. Too optimistic?
by dkmich on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:30:25 PM PDT
Obama's nomination effectively extinguishes the remaining influence the DLC elements had on the Democratic Party levers of power and policy.
And that's a critical first step. We can take it from there.
I'm not naive; there are times Obama will frustrate us. But Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller and their ilk will no longer speak for Democrats in ANY capacity.
"Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."
by Buzzer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:34:41 PM PDT
If nothing else, the DLC lost and that makes me happy. No McSame and no DLC.
by dkmich on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:40:30 PM PDT
It will now be here to stay -- finally the failed consultants who have led the Democrats to defeat in 2000 and 2004 will be permanently unemployed.
McKinney/Clemente 2008: Parties that sell out the Constitution don't get my support or my vote.
by simca on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:13:02 PM PDT
There are many of us that started with the Dean run and haven't looked back, to wrest our party from the centrist, corporatist, top-down, DLC and return the party and the country to "we the people."
There was a movement to build upon, so I also thank Dr. Dean, who not only showed us WHY, he showed us HOW.
by revgerry on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM PDT
he has the guts.
by organicdemocrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:43:11 PM PDT
Those of us who are behind him expect results.
There will be a hell of a lot of ticked off Dems if we don't see bother the executive and the legislative branches working hard to fix BushCo's messes.
They may not succeed, but we damn well expect them to try their damndest.
Got a problem with my posts? Quit reading them. They're usually opinions, and I don't come here to get in arguments.
by drbloodaxe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:13:34 PM PDT
Obama is not the messiah. He is just another human being that will do the very best he can, and that I don't doubt for a moment. Will he make everyone happy. No. Will he make mistakes? Yes. Will he be held to higher standards than other Presidents? Probably. Will he lead us with a vision, with purpose, with courage, with inspiration? Yes. Will he surround himself with the most brilliant experts and practitioners in the world? Yes. Will he have a difficult time passing important legislation that the Republicans will not agree with. Yes. Will people pull him down off of his pedestal, only to find out that he is as human as the rest of us? Yes.
Meanwhile, we as Americans, must do our part to let him know on a daily basis, that we do not expect him to do it alone, and that we will watch his back, support his initiatives, be ready for compromises when they are necessary, and do all that we can do to help him make the changes that are so important right now in our country.
We shall not fail or falter, we shall not weaken or tire..give us the tools and we will finish the job. Winston Churchill
by Badabing on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:39:17 PM PDT
is so palpable because of the crap we have endured.
by heartsandflowers on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:06:01 PM PDT
Will we have to lean on him from time to time to get him to enact our policy? Of course.
by Robobagpiper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:23:33 AM PDT
....people like you and I come in. If Obama wins in November, we have to keep the pressure on him to be the progressive that he wants to be.
by metal prophet on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:05:10 PM PDT
i'm not naming names here, but that was NOT an HR'able comment, even if you completely disagree with it.
by drbloodaxe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:11:34 PM PDT
.
by Buzzer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:11:38 PM PDT
McCain says overturn Roe v. Wade.
by peraspera on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:21:01 PM PDT
we are alot more of us are paying alot more attention this time.
Speaking only for myself, I have read and listened to everything the guy has ever said, and have done so for nearly 2 years now.
I haven't believed in anybody this strongly since MLK and RFK.
And your question is quite reasonable - not even worth of HR.
by ATLSandlapper on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:53:33 PM PDT
that remark please remove it. A complete misuse of the privilege.
Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.
by Jim P on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:05:12 PM PDT
He calls it as he see's it. He's got good judgement and he'll surround himself with truth tellers. He likes to hear all sides of any issue before he rushes to any judgement.
"lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed"
by yuriwho on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:13:46 PM PDT
In your diary, you said that in October of 2002, the war was not a controversial issue, but I think you meant that voting FOR the war was not controversial. That was because most people who mentioned opposition to the war got shut down. This happened to me with members of my own family.
I also remember Faux News, reporting on fledgling antiwar protests in New York: Their "take" was that the protesters were hurting NYC businesses that were still recovering from 9/11 by keeping tourists away. That was my first clue that Fox had an axe to grind.
So that Obama was willing to take this stand in the midst of such an atmosphere blew me away--the man has principles--and a spine--and he knows how to use them!
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
by MizC on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:30:11 PM PDT
was bought by the entire establishment. If you thought for a moment you would have seen through the Bull Shit. Many of us did, but not the elite who ran the country at the time. It was not controversial with them.
by organicdemocrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:44:41 PM PDT
....twenty-three Democratic Senators DID see through the bullshit.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton was not one of them.
by Buzzer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:56:59 PM PDT
The war vote is why I could not vote for her.
Many of us know the war in Iraq was a stupid idea from the beginning, and the fact that 23 senators did "see through the bullshit" says that they weren't all duped. The vote for the war, for most Democrats was as pure political calculation.
Don't believe everything you think.
by EJP in Maine on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:10:01 PM PDT
primary season has been those Clinton supporters who have tried to argue that we have to understand what the times were like, what the country was like, and that Clinton was facing re-election. What the hell are these people thinking? Could they possibly make a worse argument that speaks to the very thing that people dislike about Clinton?
by Philoguy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:52:23 PM PDT
Foresight was not that complicated.
I'm no genius, but it was clear that as much of a dick as Saddam was, he had nothing to do with 9/11 (secular Baathist dictator's do not make nice with Wahabist Sunni crazies bent on bringing the wrath of the U.S down on the Middle East (Afghanistan in particular)).
The no-fly zone and sanctions were keeping Saddam in check.
Not to give Dick Cheney credit for anything, but even he said at the end of the first Gulf War, that Baghdad wasn't worth the blood of a single American soldier. The first and only time I will ever agree with that cacodemon.
Hmm, getting involved in the occupation of an Arab country, anyone think that is ever a good idea?
I was bewildered and afraid as I had never been in my life by the hysteria gripping the Nation. Could we really be so stupid as to invade Iraq? Of course, I knew we could.
And then we did.
I praise anyone who had the courage to say what was right, instead of what was expedient. I'd never read our next president's speech on the matter until now. Had I read it sooner, I would have been for Obama all along, instead of for JRE first.
"Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism." Tommy J.
by Dissentinator on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:21:07 PM PDT
cacodemon.
Not a word that is easy to work into a conversation!
by ssgbryan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:33:30 PM PDT
... Americans can be fooled ... but they can also discern levels of foolhardiness.
Clinton plays the role of Hillary in order to be a politician. Obama plays the role of politician in order to be Obama. Democrats prefer Obama in politician's clothes to a politician in Hillary's clothes.
It's a judgement thing.
Two war crimes make 'the right', not 'a right'. Defeat the liar John McCain.
by Yellow Canary on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM PDT
Bill ran his campaign, and presidency like Ronald Reagan, he hijacked all the strategies that kept Reagan popular.
Hillary copied Bush, which was a fatally flawed strategy since Bush's manipulations eventually collapsed around him.
by lgcap on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:22:51 PM PDT
as opposed to John Edwards who was flat out losing against her?
Plus, he knows what crapped out means, which will help him explain his condition on the morning of November 5 - PBCliberal
by Nulwee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM PDT
I think for the majority of the electorate, elections are primarily a popularity contest. Not much different than running for class president in high school.
It's clearly obvious to any informed voter who was the better presidential candidate in 2000 and 2004. Unfortunately the better candidate was less charismatic, and wound up losing. Ie, while certain issues like gay marriage swayed some people, the concept of "having a beer" with their candidate of choice mattered more for some reason.
I do think that roughly 90% of the people voting in the primaries would have trouble identifying significant policy differences between Obama and Clinton. Obama has the charisma, Hillary doesn't.
Will be interesting to see how Obama's charisma holds up as the Repubs start aiming their big guns at him in the next 6 months.
by Bush B Gone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:26:02 PM PDT
Like the slogan says, people are hungry for change and they see a viable alternative to the same old crap in an Obama administration. If you think his supporters are all just star-struck, you're wrong.
"They're telling us something we don't understand"General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68
by subtropolis on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:47:14 PM PDT
except for incumbents.
Obama is nothing new in that regard. He's just a better marketer of the same message.
Hell, Bush did the exact same thing in 2000. Enough people were "hungry for change" that Bush was able to get into the WH.
by Bush B Gone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:29:15 PM PDT
and substantive difference in the change Obama is talking about, and most people see it, certainly here.
There is a change in how to run a campaign, a change in how to play politics, and a change in how to govern that is real with Obama.
I don't buy that "it's just politicians being politicians" routine. In over 40 years of observing campaigns, this is the first time I've actually seen a politician actually live up to his promise to campaign in a new manner. For that reason, I expect him to govern in a new manner.
This is truly a new century with a new paradigm in politics.
"It's no wonder more people call themselves Democrats; it's easy to identify with a party that identifies with you." --srmjjg
by Dragon5616 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:41:43 PM PDT
in how he's getting funded.
THAT changes everything. It's probably scaring the crap out of the old guys/girls.
by eltee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:45:50 PM PDT
Obama has the charisma, Hillary doesn't.
Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago. Warren Buffett (1930-, American Investment Entrepreneur)
by Amber6541 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:23:40 PM PDT
on the differences between these two candidates, and I couldn't disagree more. Obama does indeed have more charisma than Hilary Clinton, but he also has about 100 other talents and characteristics that Hilary Clinton will never have. One of these is that Obama is the real deal, Hilary Clinton will never be able to manifest this attribute because she as phony as a 3 dollar bill. Always was, always will be.
by Badabing on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:51:46 PM PDT
That is what happened. Her campaign should be best remembered for its entrance, an entrance that was a mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
"You mean California isn't 'winner-take-all'? My God!
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16
by Setrak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:53:51 PM PDT
So I take exception to such dismissive analysis.
He started off doing what he thought was the right thing.
He didn't always win, either. But by persisting and using the gifts he had -- while ignoring the naysayers that said his race, he funny name, and his upbringing would make it impossible -- he got noticed. He spoke from his heart and our hearts listened.
Hillary started out with waaaaaay more "rockstar" power and squandered it by always doing the politically expedient thing, including bald-faced lying about sniper fire and NAFTA. There's no telling what she really thought about the Iraq War. I only know that THAT was precisely when she lost my admiration...way before I even heard of Obama.
by eltee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:01:48 PM PDT
because of the courage to do the right thing. Much like Dean was, and still is, to me.
Anyway, people are free to disagree.
Barack Obama for President
by Chi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:14:13 PM PDT
charisma, intelligence, looks, and the ability to speak.
This is how you summarize Obama????
Man, you're missing all the best parts.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! - President Merkin Muffley
by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:46:30 PM PDT
If she hadn't voted for the Iraq war. If she hadn't voted for Kyl-Lieberman. If she hadn't taken the nomination for granted. If she hadn't gone negative. If, if, if.
I get the feeling that Hillary would be a great politician, if she had access to a "do-over" button. Obama, while far from perfect, has done pretty good the first time around.
by Uberbah on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:32:38 PM PDT
I think we're all smart enough to value what he is saying, how he is saying it, what his strategy is, and how we are seeing that he really is a grass-roots organizer by how he is running his campaign. I wouldn't vote for a rock star.
by Virginian in Spain on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:12:06 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 1004 comments