Are the Re-pukes Pushing for an Obama or Hillary ticket?

[umtalal]

My friend says they are- through the main stream media (they own it.) Racism is still alive and well in this country and Hillary is too polarizing. He thinks that is why Edward is not being discussed much in the MSM.

PLEASE DON'T FLAME. IT IS AN INQUIRY ON MY SIDE.

[Occam Bandage]

1. I think they're more concerned about the fact that they have no idea

which of their sad-sack losers they're going to be pushing for.

[umtalal]

3. You are on the spot on that one.

I am thinking what a bunch of losers. My spouse is a republican, he got a survey today from their party, and he thought the questions were insane and wrote that on the survey. I don't know why he is not switching parties. I don't bring up the subject because it is his decision.

[Truth2Tell]

2. Yes. nt

[aquart]

4. If racism is the factor, the Obama is polarizing.

You really have to stop repeating things without considering what they mean.

[lapfog_1]

5. Hillary

That's the one that energizes their base the most... even if it is unwarranted.

The race thing would get the bigots out to vote for their guy, but they worry that it would also get the minorities out to vote for Obama, so I believe that they consider that more of a wash.

They don't worry about Kucinich because they believe that only the "far left" would vote for him in a general election. IF they thought they could get Kucinich as the candidate, I think they would push for him, but they don't believe that mainstream Dems will go for him.

They are likely very worried about an Edwards run, since populism is back in style, and Edwards is southern and white, both things that wouldn't energize their base against him. I'm pretty sure that's why the MSM has marginalized him to the point of not even talking about him.

[napi21]

6. If you assume the media is controled by the Pubs and they are pushing

for a particular candidate, it sure isn't Clinton! I can't even remember when I saw a positive article or new segment for Hillary. At best, there have been a very few that were neutral. Absolutely the media has completely ignored Edwards, and I suspect it's because they know they would be broken up if John won!

[Diane R]

7. They want to run against Hillary because she's unelectable.

[MethuenProgressive]

16. And yet they couldn't defeat either of her Senate bids.

You do know what "unelectable" means, don't you?

[FrenchieCat]

8. So why didn't Edwards win Iowa.....?

He'd been camped there since 2003.

If he had it going on, the media wouldn't have been able to budge his support in very small state Iowa. In particular via a caucus. just sayin'! :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

9. And if the media were so afraid of Edwards,

and if Edwards has always been a fist-pumping populist, why did he get a media blitz in 2004, propelling him to a strong second nationwide and the Vice Presidency?

[FrenchieCat]

10. You know Obama wasn't supposed to win Iowa, right?

That was a shock to the media too.

They didn't realize what he had been doing in Iowa.

Post from one of my friends!

Donna Zen (1000+ posts) Mon Jan-14-08 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
10. The great ah-ha!
Congratulations on your decision.

About a week ago what Obama was saying finally sunk into my muddled brain. It was when I heard a NH editor talking about the differences between the Obama and Clinton campaigns. He said that when the Clintons entered the state they did the expected: meet with the power brokers and wealthy. In contrast when Obama came in he immediately started seeking out the community organizers and activists. The editor said that all of the seasoned political watchers couldn't understand it. They are used to seeing the candidates wait until late in the game to reach out to the activists when they wanted organize the "ground." To Obama, community organizing is the foundation. Now there's a real change. His idea is also a change I firmly believe in and explains why he is reaching out for indies and disgruntled republicans.

I would love to see Obama gain the bully pulpit. BTW, his environmental creds. are at the top of the field: 96%.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4067659

[Historic NY]

11. Thr Rove strategy is to make Hillary the nominee.........

Repukes talk about all kinds of stuff they will bring out about her.

[Jim Lane]

12. Republicans aren't monolithic

Look at the way DUers are divided about the Republican field. For example, some people here think Huckabee, with his folksy manner and populist appeal, would be the GOP candidate most likely to win. Others think that he'd be a pushover compared to McCain. No, wait, McCain is too old and too closely tied to the Iraq disaster. We have to worry most about Giuliani, who could put New York in play. No, he'd alienate the fundie base. No, he wouldn't, they have nowhere else to go. And on and on.

If you could pump a bunch of Republican strategists full of truth serum and get their honest opinions about each Democratic candidate's chance of winning in November, I suspect you'd find similar divergence.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Your answer...

[OhioChick]

14. You Got It. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

15. Clearly Obama.

Easy pickins in the general.

[Dawgs]

17. No, the voters are pushing for an Obama or Hillary ticket.

The Edwards supporters are pushing that the republican media is pushing Hillary or Obama.

[protect our future]

18. According to the MSM, it is Hillary.

One of the big three cable news channels told me so.

A couple of nights ago while the TV is droning in the background, I was jerked to attention when I heard the pundit say the White House feels very comfortable handing over its legacy to Hillary Clinton.

[blindpig]

19. Either/or

It's a win/win for the Republicans. Either they win or they get policies they favor anyway.