To The Supposed Obama Faithful Who Continue To Hype Up Hillary's Comments As So Damaging,I Say This:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

Could you POSSIBLY have less faith in your candidate in the GE? You all supposedly support him so much, and hold him up on such a pedestal, yet you have such LITTLE faith in his ability to defend himself in the general election? How does that possibly mesh with the perception of greatness you put forth about him?

So many of you keep squawking out how much Hillary has hurt his chances in the GE due to her McCain comments. Are you for real? Do you really believe your candidate to be so weak, so inept, so unable to defend himself against RW attack, that he couldn't so easily deflect their attempts at spinning her words quite readily? Do you really sit there, claiming to be Obama supporters, yet not realizing how easy it would be for him to turn that strategy right around on McCain, and make McCain look like an utter fool in the process? Can you really stand there with a straight face, shouting how much you admire him, yet in the same breath make him out to be so weak and incompetent that he couldn't readily overcome that?

Such contradiction. All I can say is that if you truly believe your candidate of choice to be so weak, so unable to defend, so unable to overcome attack, that you're consumed with such fear, hatred and belief that these little comments could torpedo his chances in November, then is it really that smart for you to consider him battle ready and able to win in the first place? If you do believe in him enough that he WOULD in fact easily be able to overcome such a 2 on a scale of 10 attack against him, then can you POSSIBLY continue to act genuine in your feigned outrage over Hillary having said what she said and declaring she's so significantly damaging his chances?

See, y'all can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. You either believe in your candidate and know he's ready, and would be able to easily overcome such an attack and use it to his advantage, or you have NO faith in your candidate and find him weak, incapable, and not competent enough to handle the heat that will come his way in the GE. It really is that simple. So pick one. Either admit she didn't damage him whatsoever and you're wildly exaggerating the impact of her comments, or instead admit that you consider Obama to be too weak to overcome a 2 on a scale of 10 attack, thereby making you look silly for supporting him as that which should be the nominee.

So which will it be?

Try and think sometimes. Try and think about what image you're portraying. Cause all of you touting the whole 'sky is falling! They're gonna use this to slaughter him in the GE!' meme, are making your candidate look extremely weak by saying so. There's some reality for ya.

Peace.

[Patsy Stone]

1. No

I don't believe he's weak. But I do see a nice, juicy commercial coming from the McCain camp in the Fall where they play HRC's comments over and over with a tag line something like "even his own party doesn't think he's ready."

You can't really think this ad campaign isn't coming, can you?

[saracat]

3. You really think they won't do that anyway? Do you seriously think Hillary is the only prominent Dem

to say this?

[Patsy Stone]

17. Why give them ammo?

Why do that your own party?

She's the one from whom it will carry the most weight, considering she was his opponent and a leader in the Democratic party. Add Wes Clark's comments to the mix, and it's hello President McCain and goodbye SCOTUS.

If she hadn't said it, yes, they would have implied it, but they might not have had so many sound-bites to choose from to play over and over.

It's just really bad form, and I wish she would have though about the greater impact before she took this bad advice.

[SIMPLYB1980]

84. Why did Obama give them a Regan is better than Clinton commercial?

[Patsy Stone]

86. He said Reagan had an ability for getting an agenda passed

He didn't say Reagan would be a better choice than Hillary, and Bill isn't running for president.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. I Hope They Do:

Obama's return ad:

A quick snip video of Hillary's comments play. Big red words "FAILED POLICY" stamp over it. Cut to video of McCain using her words. Cut to new video of Bush talking about Iraq. Big red words "FAILED POLICY" stamp over it. Cut to video of McCain supporting Bush.

End with a commentary of "Isn't it time we elect someone who isn't so bound to the failed policies of the past?" or something of the like.

See how easy that was? Took me 10 seconds to think of that.

Over dramatization to the max.

[Sparkly]

12. Yes

Images of the Iraq war, tied with the word "experience." (I like the idea of the red stamp thing.) That's another way to go.

Edit: I'm trying to think of a slogan like, "With experience like this, who needs ____?" What goes in the blank?

[Whisp]

35. With experience like this, who needs it? nt

[Patsy Stone]

21. It is not overly dramatic to disagree with you

Sorry.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. No One Inferred Otherwise.

But it absolutely IS overly dramatic to act like her comments are just oh so damaging to his chances in the GE. It's absurd in fact.

[Patsy Stone]

25. Because everyone knows

the words of some old guys from a boat in Vietnam had nothing to do with the outcome in 2004? :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. Oh Undoubtedly There Are Things That Can Be Severely Damaging. This Ain't One Of Them.

The attacks waged on Kerry were at least an 8 on a scale of 10. These are a 2 on a scale of 10. If you want to compare them as equals, then I question your judgment.

[Patsy Stone]

38. You said ads don't matter

I say they do. It's a fact. There is no reason to question my judgement, and no reason to help out the other side, even if it was unintentional.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Again With The Misrepresentation. I Never Said Ads Don't Matter. What I Did Do, Was Show How

easily that ad could be refuted and used to OUR advantage. Get a grip, will ya?

[Patsy Stone]

50. Why is it

you have to get so snippy? What is this "get a grip" stuff anyway? Do you want to talk or not?

You can't tell me there won't be an ad, and you can't tell me it won't have an effect. Whether or not there is a counter-ad, there will still be an ad. An ad they might not have had if she hadn't said that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. Why Is It, That We're Going Around In Circles?

I'm not sure why this still isn't clear to you: Who gives a fuck if there's an ad (which in different yet close enough ways would've existed anyway) if it could EASILY be overcome and READILY used to be turned back AGAINST them, thereby working to OUR advantage?

Having an ad isn't what matters. It's the end result of the ad that matters. In this case, the end result would likely be to our advantage, not theirs. For some to keep crying out that she hurt him some how, or damaged his chances in the GE somehow, shows they have little to no faith in his ability to respond back to the ad. Either that, or they are purposely lying to sake of slandering Hillary.

[Patsy Stone]

56. I'm going in a straight line.

Your premise was faulty to begin with. Your post claimed the reason Obama supporters were upset about what was said was due to our "lack of faith" in his abilities to act as CiC.

Speaking as one Obama supporter, I not only reject that premise, I told you what my belief was regarding why it was damaging.

And you're going around in circles because, apparently, you mistook this thread for the door to The Argument Clinic.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. My Premise Wasn't Faulty, Your Perception Was.

"Your post claimed the reason Obama supporters were upset about what was said was due to our "lack of faith" in his abilities to act as CiC."

I did no such thing. I made no claims as to why they were upset at all, in fact. Maybe you should try reading the OP again, in hopes of this time not screwing up the context so badly. You can start with the title:

"To The Supposed Obama Faithful Who Continue To Hype Up Hillary's Comments As So Damaging"

Obviously, the OP is ONLY addressing those who are claiming those comments could be so damaging in the GE, which is a crock of shit. Now if you're not one of those types, then this OP isn't about you. Maybe next time, you'll try and discern context and intent prior to offering knee jerk reply. :hi:

[Patsy Stone]

62. I believe there will be some damage

How much, at this time, neither of us can say with any certainty. You think it will be a 2, I think it will be higher.

The fact that she said it helps no one but herself and McCain. It was a bad move on her part.

Even if Obama does turn it around and throw it back at McCain (unlike Kerry did with the swiftboaters), it now exists to be used against the Dems, and not even five ad hominems (over dramatization to the max, questionable judgment, needing to "get a grip", and poster of "knee jerk reactions" and "misrepresentations") can change that fact.

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. Well Then I'm Amazed You Support A Candidate You Have Such Little Faith In, As Per The OP.

Because as per my post way above (response ad), it would be EASY to avoid damage and actually turn it around to OUR advantage.

So for you to actually have concerns that it will do damage to him, shows you have little faith in his ability to deflect such attack and view him as weak and unable to handle the heat of the GE, since the attacks will be FAR harsher than something like this. If you don't regard him that way, then your position is contradictory. It really is that simple.

[Patsy Stone]

64. The fact that I believe it will be higher than two

doesn't mean I have "little faith". What if higher means three?

Please, go take a walk outside and try not to worry about me so much.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. First Off, You're Misinterpreting What 2 Out Of 10 Meant. Second Of All, You Said It Would Do

damage.

To address the first point, 2 on a scale of 10 meant the substance of the attack itself. In terms of the level the damaging substance of an attack can fall, there's no way this ranks more than a 2. As for your second point, you said you think it will do him damage. I say I have MORE than enough support in his ability that I don't think it will do ANY damage to him, and in fact he's competent enough to turn it around and do damage to THEM. The face that you think this quite small scale attack could stick to him at all, and cause voters to turn away from him in any significant numbers AT ALL, shows a lack of faith in his ability to defend on your part. You may not realize it, but that's what you're saying.

In contrast, I'm saying he's competent enough that these attacks will not damage him whatsoever.

[Patsy Stone]

76. You have no way of knowing whether it will stick or not.

And it has nothing to do with his competence in refuting it, or my faith in him. You do not have a crystal ball, and you have no idea if, or how much, damage it will do. To deny the very possibility of damage being done is short-sighted and naive.

I didn't think the "Obama is a Muslim" thing would stick, especially since he refutes it in every interview, the MSM has discussed it the e-mail and debunked it, the existing dichotomy that some of those believers also worry he's part of a anti-White church, and, of course, the fact that it's not true, but it's sure stuck around. How many people didn't vote for him because of this? That's a number we will never know. I still have to correct Democrats when I hear it, so I'm sure there are a few Independents and moderate Republicans who still believe it.

The substance of the attack... Kind of like "he doesn't put his hand over his heart when he says the pledge, proven by a photo of him during the national anthem?

Please, every attack has a possibility of damage. Yes, the Repubs are quite capable of this themselves, which is why we don't have to help by handing it to them on a B-Roll.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. That's Why I Talk About Level Of Having Faith.

The fact is, I have enough faith in him that this attack could easily be used to HIS advantage. You, and others, however, have less faith in his ability to do so. So in the end of it all, I'm probably more of a real supporter of his than you or they are. Just sayin...

[Patsy Stone]

78. If it that unfounded assumption makes you feel better

by all means, go ahead. We all deserve to be happy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. You Keep Dismissing, Yet You Offer No Counter.

There is logic to my arguments. Where is it in yours? :shrug:

[Patsy Stone]

85. Yes, you've finally caught on to my cunning plan

to dismiss you over a twenty post, three hour period. :eyes:

I have met you point for point, explained my concerns with the situation, and offered no ad hominems in place of arguments in the process, unlike someone I know.

Obama will win over McCain. Hillary's actions (no matter what number we assign their severity in a thread on a message board) will have an effect in the hands of the Republicans if he is the nominee, but neither you nor I know what that will be. This has already been proven by the examples I listed above, which I took a lot of time to type out, because I was dismissing your opinion.

If you have a crystal ball and know for sure this will have no effect, please look into it and tell me the lottery numbers for next week while you're looking. Tell me how many down ticket and local races will swing because an Independent chooses McCain over Obama due to them.

If you say you believe you are bigger supporter of Obama than others because you choose to think this will have no effect that's your prerogative, and I am free to disagree with your assumption. My disagreement with you on this has no direct correlation to whether or not I support my candidate as much as the next person, but goes to the fact that I am realistic and take nothing for granted.

Was that clear enough for you? Because I have to go out to dinner now (I guess this would be where I'm actually dismissing you) and end this delightful conversation.

[Voice for Peace]

73. I haven't often agreed with you but you are making a lot of sense

and Obama supporters need to remain fired up, ready to go,
understand what "Yes we can" means.

[Voice for Peace]

71. But don't forget, Obama is not Kerry. nt

[Patsy Stone]

79. No, he's not

And I couldn't be happier when I see him giving it right back. Had Kerry been more like Obama, the world would probably look a lot different right now.

[Sparkly]

10. Always happens in primaries.

You could also see ads against Clinton showing Obama saying negative things about her. (Deceitful, failed policies of the past, divisive, lacking judgment, etc.)

I think they'd go with much more powerful images to show the supposed dangers of his supposed inexperience -- at that point, HRC would be irrelevant. Her words would be nothing compared to what else they can come up with.

[Patsy Stone]

31. If that's true

Why would we want to make that job any easier?

Please answer this question: Who benefits the most from what she said?

[Sparkly]

39. Good question.

First, I don't think it has any big impact on the RNC's job. I really don't.

"Who benefits?" I'm not sure. I think the Clinton campaign believes they benefit, or else she wouldn't have said it, several times over. From the backlash here, it's quite possible Obama benefits. I don't think it impacts McCain one way or the other.

[Patsy Stone]

46. DU is an anomaly.

You can't use it as a barometer of much in relation to real life. I don't see HRC and BO supporters having poo flinging fights on the streets.

And yes, that is the right answer. Clinton benefits, and the cost to the party (if she loses the nomination) will be higher than it was worth because it will also benefit McCain and, possibly, hurt our chances. It was a risky thing to do for a low ROI.

[cottonseed]

2. I've just got a problem with her stabbing a teamate in the back.

I for one don't really have a problem with the dirt, it will come out and 10 times worse during a GE. I guess my only problem with the situation is that we're Democrats and supposedly on the same team. She should be campaigning on issues (which she was and lost) instead of attacking a fellow Democrat on nothing more than siding with McCain and things like "Monster". She's taking down the strongest candidate from the inside and that's what's frustrating.

[saracat]

Well, I had a real problem with those who took Edwards down and had him step aside for their friggen

"history".Their problem wasn't that he couldn't win but that he might.And he was a threat to Obama.

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. So did I and still do in fact!

:grr: Which is why I dislike Obama so much. Well one of the reason anyway. The biggest reason in fact.

[democrattotheend]

45. Shouldn't you dislike Clinton just as much for the same reasons?

Or was she somehow more entitled to run again Edwards than Obama?

[democrattotheend]

67. Do you have a problem with him stabbing Kerry in the back?

Supposedly he promised Kerry when he took the VP slot that he wouldn't run again if Kerry did. But he declared his candidacy a month before Kerry said he wasn't running.

And yet his supporters were whining when Kerry endorsed Obama.

[cottonseed]

69. I have a problem with them too.

What happened to Edwards should not be brought all the way back around and aimed at Obama. I was hoping Edwards would garner votes, get press and move on towards the nomination. I really liked the guy and was backing him before I moved towards Obama. He was trashed on way before the primaries even started. Ignoring his 2nd place finish to talk about Hillary was the nail in the coffin. I was as incensed as anyone that even before the primaries they called him a false populist, haircut, girlie man etc, etc.. Hell I was even pissed when the crappy press was talking about Hillary's cleavage.

[JoFerret]

19. Such nonsense.

Is he milquetoast?

He too engages in hardball. And his supporters do too.

And Saracat is right. The best of these three candidates had to step aside because of these juggernauts.

[cali]

4. LOL!!

Way to mischaracterize. I can't speak for others, but I think Obama's done a great job of dealing with attacks. And the primary reason that I object to her statements about McCain has jackshit to do with that, dear.

Now, c'mon OMC, time for you to be a big brave guy and step out of the closet. You write post after post bashing either Obama or Obama supporters and then swear that you support both Obama and Clinton equally. It's funny as hell, but you're not fooling anyone. Have courage! Stop faking it, hon.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. I Do Support Them Both. Part Of That Entails Not Allowing Bullshit To Be Spread About Them.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

I'm with cali, come out of the closet. nt

[Catherine Vincent]

14. I'm in the same boat as you, I support both of them.

But I defend Hillary a lot here from zealous Obama supporters, Clinton haters and trolls. I don't need to defend Obama because he doesn't get attacked as much here. And if he does, there are plenty of staunch Obama supporters here to defend him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. EXACTLY!!!!!

:toast:

[leftofcool]

18. But, the BS is coming

and it is going to be uglier than you can imagine. Karl Rove is a vile, nasty human being but he is also a damn good Republican strategist and is going to kill Obama in the GE. You better pray that your candidate has very thick skin. They will go after his wife and everything she has ever said in public or in private or written on a piece of paper and it is going to come out........example "I'd like to scratch Bill Clinton's eyes out." The Republicans will make Bill Clinton look like the hero of the ages, and your candidate's wife look like dirt. They will rattle on and on about "how someone so low in character could say this about one of our best presidents." Do you see what I mean?

[Sparkly]

20. You're either with 'em or against 'em!!

:rofl:

[cali]

27. No you don't. You've written post after post bashing Obama and

or his supporters in the starkest of terms and not a single one critical of Hillary. Just stop faking it, and support Hillary, as that's obviously who you favor.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Where Have I Bashed Obama?

And Hillary is under a critical eye enough here already. Nothing wrong with trying to balance it out a bit. But I have never come anywhere near close to bashing Obama in the ways some do to Hillary.

As far as his supporters go, I'm fine with them. The knee jerk closed minded rabid supporter zealots that there are handfuls of here? Not so much.

[bettyellen]

41. then who's been posting whiningly that Hil's going to ruin Obama's chances in November?

oh, that would be you (among many others) OMC is talking about.
all having a crises of faith, it would seem?

[ProSense]

6. Hillary's shame: embracing McCain

Hillary's shame: embracing McCain

[JoFerret]

23. So silly.

.

[ProSense]

30. No, despicable! n/t

[JoFerret]

48. Your outrage threshold is very low indeed

...it must be exhausting.

[ProSense]

49. Yeah, I'm the only one outraged by this.

You're in denial!

[JoFerret]

87. Not the only one. There are so many wilting violets around.

Poor things.

[rodeodance]

72. you have a reading comprehension problem--once again!!

[Sulawesi]

7. ramble much?

[Catherine Vincent]

9. That's a great post. OMC.

Get ready to be flamed. But you know his supporters. :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Thanks CG!

And hey, this is me we're talking about here. I'm perpetually in 'ready to get flamed' mode lol.

[grantcart]

11. It has nothing to do with Obama

it has everything to do with Clinton.

It is a major turning point for activists in the campaign. Just look around at the other major Clinton supporters that have reconsidered their position.

One question.

Are you trying to persuade us or yourself?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. What I'm Doing, Is Showing Them The Hypocrisy And Conflict Of Their Positions.

And I did so quite handily, I might add.

[gristy]

15. Who are you talking to? Obama is going to wipe the floor with McCain

Regardless of that fact, it is still going to be a close election, and Clinton's attacks will indeed have a not insigificant effect in the GE. If you think clips of her praising McCain and trashing Obama aren't going to be used to maximum advantage, you ought to think again.

Oh, and I don't refer to myself as an "Obama faithful", thank you. Nor are you going to without being called on it. You people who take your tiny knives to supporters of candidates who aren't your candidate drive me crazy. You people who think... You people... Your candidate. OMG how tiresome.

[dchill]

24. self-delete

[hisownpetard]

26. Your premise is fallacious. I find it despicable that Hillary has sunk to the point where,

in order to promote her own candidacy, she's given praise to John McCain and tried to belittle the other Democratic candidate.

However, in no way do I think that Obama is weak or will not stand up to anyone else in the GE. One does not follow the other. In no way do I think that her
remarks have weakened his candidacy: they've weakened *hers.*
What she has said, and said repeatedly, is just plain wrong, and I find it incredible that her supporters are making an effort to normalize
this kind of ridiculous disloyalty and say that it's 'just politics.'

The kind of politics that Obama, thankfully, stands against.

My outrage is not "feigned," it's real, as is my admiration for him as a candidate and as a human being. All Hillary's done is succeed in lowering herself
and showing those who disliked her before that, if you scratch a Hillary in the middle of the night, you get Zell Miller.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. "In no way do I think that her remarks have weakened his candidacy"

Then this OP isn't towards you, with all due respect.

[hisownpetard]

75. OK, good.

:hi:

[NanceGreggs]

33. You seem to be missing the point ...

... and deliberately so.

This is not about Obama's ability to defend himself. It is the fact that the Democratic Party should not have to defend itself against one of its own, being Ms Clinton.

Campaign politics between two members of the same party are a boxing match, and each side can throw punches at each other as they see fit. The problem here was that Hillary brought McCain, the GOP nominee, into the ring, held up his hand and said, in essence, This man is as good a choice as I am, whereas my fellow Democrat falls far short of what is necessary to be president.

You can spin this all you like - but she's done herself great harm here, and that is obvious from the reaction of not only her opponent's supporters, but many of her own.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. I Disagree With That As Well.

I don't find for a second that she said McCain is as good as she is. Instead, I find that she was trying to make the distinction that in the GE, McCain will tout that, and she's the only one of the two in the Primaries that can bring that as well.

[NanceGreggs]

43. Keep spinnin' ...

If that is what she was trying to say, why didn't she say it?

I didn't hear a single word about, "This is what McCain will say ..."

I don't think anybody did.

That's the problem.

And the problem is now hers to deal with.

[Avalux]

36. It's not about Obama. I'd be angry at her no matter who her opposition was.

It's the party loyalty line she's crossed and in doing so, has completely turned off a great many Democrats. The reality is that in order to win, she feels she must cut off her opponent at the knees instead of touting herself and believing she can win on her own merits. I wish she didn't feel a need to do this.

[democrattotheend]

42. If the election centers around National Security, ANY Dem will lose

John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam vet and he lost to a draft-dodger on the national security issue. There is no way in hell Clinton or Obama will beat McCain if national security is the big issue.

Even in 2006, people who stated that national security was their most important issue voted for the Republicans, though by smaller margins than in 2004.

It's looking like the economy could be more pressing in this election, which is a much better issue for the Democrats. Of course McCain will try to make it about security, but the last thing we need is either Democrat to help with that. If it's McCain v. Obama, he will try to make it about national security and question Obama's readiness, but does it really help us to have a high profile Democrat backing up his claim?

[totodeinhere]

44. You are missing the point.

Senator Obama is saying that he wants to do away with the old style of politics. He has come to believe that the American people are sick of such politics. They don't want any more gotcha style gutter politics such as the type of politics being practiced by Hillary Clinton. It's not that Obama can't take it or that he is too weak to take it. It's because this is the type of politics that does not serve the American people well. As an alternative to this old style gutter politics Obama is offering something refreshing and new. He wants a type of politics that will actually facilitate getting things done for the American people, and God knows there is a lot to get done. Clinton = old politics and partisan gridlock. Obama = hope and action for the American people.

[Inuca]

51. Logic does not seem to be your strong point n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. Hmmmm. Easy To Say For Someone Who Offered NONE.

[mtnsnake]

53. Excellent point, although half of the Obamawhiners couldn't give a rats ass about Obama

All they're concerned with is bringing down Hillary.

You are absolutely right, though, that they have zero confidence in Obama's chances against McCain, the way they throw their little hissy fits every time Hillary pastes him.

[BeyondGeography]

55. Forget the impact on Obama; she wants to get into an experience contest with John McCain?

How smart is that?

Of course, it's the Clintons, so what they'll do is use experience as the cudgel with which to beat Obama and then pivot to judgment and who's the most likely candidate to get us out of Iraq against McCain.

Two entirely different narratives around a core issue in the space of a few months and no one will notice, right?

This is why people despise the Clintons: They stand for absolutely nothing apart from the tactics that they think they need on any given day. Hillary's cynical cozying up to McCain is a good example why she's electoral poison for this party, not because of the damage she does to Obama but to the wound she inflicts on herself.

Obama, on the other hand, knows he can't compete on experience against either Clinton or McCain, so he has made the entire race about his judgment as opposed to theirs. He'll be the same candidate in the fall that he has been all along.

[Patsy Stone]

57. The same reason

they believed that bringing up Rezko wouldn't lead people to question their own finances.

One of the most astounding things about this campaign is the amount of things they bring up which can be thrown right back at them.

Ken Starr, anyone?

[BeyondGeography]

66. Here she is with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow on one of her high-stakes missions to Kosovo

[RazBerryBeret]

59. I do have faith

in his ability to defend himself. but I WON'T sit idly by when a Dem crosses the line. that's the thing about obama's supporters, see. we will call a foul a foul whether it's in the primary or the GE. get used to it. As much as you'd like us to sit back and let you run your dirty tricks, it's not gonna happen.

As Barack said in his SC speech: "Nothing can stand in the ways of millions of voices calling for change"....

[Jamastiene]

60. I find myself agreeing with you more and more lately, OM.

It IS rather cowardly for them to tell Hillary supporters to knock off the campaign for the "good of the party" when they claim to be sooo sure that Obama is a shoe-in for the general election. Between Obama's Reagan praise, nasty comments about liberalism, and anti-gay pandering and his supporters' nasty comments toward Hillary supporters from the very beginning, they have already alienated most of those of us who support Hillary and put our backs up against the wall. Yet, they continue to tell us to give up on what we believe in.

They seem to think their charismatic leader (charisma is something he DOES have, if not much else) should just be coronated king of America without a fight. If they don't have the goods to fight us, then they sure as hell won't be ready for the Republicans in November. Either it's time for a Democrat in the White House or it's not.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of the fear tactics and the constant disbelief in the Democratic Party. "WE have to do this, or else, we'll lose." I'm so sick of sentences like that. It's bullshit. Either we got the goods to get one of them in the White House or we don't. Either it's time or it's not. The politics of all or nothing based on a popularity tide that may turn and may turn nasty need to stop. It makes no sense to throw in the towel when we really do need to find out which one of the candidates has the chops to fight the Republicans in the general election. Personally, I think Hillary actually has the intestinal fortitude to do it and Obama doesn't. He's a golden boy, silver spoon type who doesn't know how to fight. The high road hasn't gotten the Democratic Party anywhere. It's do or die. Either he has the goods to fight Hillary AND win the GE or he doesn't. His supporters need to quit being so wishy washy. Damn, grow a pair. Hillary and her supporters have. It's about time some of the more candy assed of the Obama supporters grew a pair too.

[tekisui]

61. One point: the money.

The RNC has far outraised the DNC. All the Dem money is going to the prolonged primary. It is hurting our House and Senate candidates.

I am not worried about Obama being hurt by the long primary. I am concerned when Hillary makes McSame's arguments for him, though.

[OzarkDem]

65. They have such unrealistic expectations

Obama supporters have been floating along in a fantasy campaign where the news media hasn't touched or criticized him. Sadly, they think Clinton is the only person who will criticize Obama on his magic carpet ride to his inevitable coronation.

Get real folks. The GOP and news media are holding onto a bargeload of mud they're going to heave at him if he wins the primary. If he's lucky, his campaign will make it 3 or 4 weeks after the GE, before his approval hits the 30's or lower.

Dems need to get a Dem elected. If you think Obama can do it, then he has to be fully vetted now, before the GE, not after.

[Voice for Peace]

70. I have to agree, as an Obama supporter

that we shouldn't be afraid of what Hillary's attacks may be doing to the
public perception of Obama and his chances to win in the GE.

As the OP suggests -- if he is what his supporters believe, then he has the
ability to win, because this country really is ready for change.

I posted this point elsewhere, but it occurred to me that his real strength
is US, as much as it is him.

It's never a good idea to be discouraged by doubts and fears. These are not
happy companions under any circumstances.

[BenDavid]

74. DAMN! HRC said "that McCain had a lifetime of experience",

Well he has. He is 71 years old for goodness sakes. HRC did not say it was GOOD EXPERIENCE....

I seem to remember an Obama saying that a Republican was the only President in the last 25 years who had ideas. Later he explained that he hadn't meant GOOD ideas.

[bigtree]

81. KICK! KICK! KICK! KICK!

REC! REC! REC! REC!

[HeraldSquare212]

82. He'll win, and McCain will use Hillary's comments against him,

which will make his win in the GE that much harder. Try and think sometimes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Why?

Why would it make it harder?

Like I said way upthread, he could turn this into something that works to HIS advantage in a heartbeat. A fucking heartbeat. Why would that make things harder? Do you have that little faith that he can be competent enough to turn the attack on its head? I have more than enough faith in him that he can.