Comments on: OBAMANIA! IS HE THE LIBERAL REAGAN?

By: Wayne S.

Wayne S. — Mon, 28 May 2007 21:29:12 +0000

The first question JFK was asked when he announced his candidacy was “will you accept the vp spot?” Obama may have a lot of problems, but being non-specific [which might bother us wonks as vagueness] is not going to hurt him with people thirsting for change.

By: Drewsmom

Drewsmom — Sun, 27 May 2007 09:56:36 +0000

obama is no Ronald Regan as was stated in that famous debate. I’m afraid if he comes close to catching up her he will disappear in a most mysterious way. People who cross the clintoons have a habit of doing that.

By: grognard

grognard — Sat, 26 May 2007 18:07:29 +0000

As a [fill in your favorite derogatory term] centrist I donâ€™t see why you people are down. No Democratic candidate is a slam dunk with us and it is the [insert derogatory term ] middle that determines election. If you want to win the first step is to tone down the insults and stick to common sense solutions to problems [with out denigrating the other side]. Reducing the size of government was what I thought I was voting for when I went for Bush in his first election, but obviously the Republicans had another idea in the form of Rove spending his way to election victories. Get back to your roots and this time stick to them and the Republicans can win, but you have got to cut out the partisan shrill to be taken seriously. Worry less about what the left is doing and more about what the right is not doing and the elections will take care of themselves.

By: John

John — Sat, 26 May 2007 16:45:37 +0000

Affability, especially from a candidate seeking to become the nation’s first African American president, is definitely an asset, but being able to present your case well only lasts for so long if there’s nothing there to back it up. That’s what happened in New York back in 1989, when David Dinkins defeated Rudy Giuliani to become the city’s first African-American mayor.

Dinkins wasn’t as polished before the cameras as Obama is, but he had an affable personality that calmed many voters who might have been wary of voting for a more aggressive black candidate (the election came two years after Al Sharpton burst onto the scene with the Tawana Brawley incident). But when it came to actual governance, there wasn’t enough substance there (or, in the end the will) to make the changes that the city needed, and he ended up losing narrowly to Giuliani in his re-election bid.

Obama does seem to be a little quicker on the uptake than Dinkins was to recognize problems, but he also faces a hostile primary race against Hillary and Edwards that is more likely to expose any lack of substance before he has a chance to get the nomination (though it’s hard to picture John Edwards beating out any candidate with a pulse based on him being the candidate of substance).

By: Tom the Redhunter

Tom the Redhunter — Sat, 26 May 2007 15:59:13 +0000

No, Hillary will not necessarily win the nomination and no the Dem candidate will not necessarily win the White House. Remember how the msm had all but nominated Howard Dean and how Gore then Kerry were supposed to beat Bush?

Many Democrats cringe at Hillary’s high negatives. She’s shrill and unpersonable. They know that if they nominate her the right will resurect all the Clinton-era scandals again and again and again and….

Finally, just because the public isn’t happy with Iraq doesn’t mean they want a return to Carterism. Not a single Dem candidate has a credible foreign policy, and Edward’s recent speech on military policy shows how out to lunch he is. Obana is another Carter. Hillary, we all know, would starve the military of funds for her big-government programs.

By: Maggie's Farm

Maggie's Farm — Sat, 26 May 2007 10:49:44 +0000

Saturday Morning Links…

AÂ fine day for the beach, but I am going to Rhode Island this morningÂ for a couple of days of sailing. Duke group mocks Group of 88. Here’s their newspaper piece.Tawfik Hamid on how to end Islamophobia. Exactly.New York’s Bravest lowering standards…

By: Fight4TheRight

Fight4TheRight — Fri, 25 May 2007 23:27:47 +0000

Bottom line is this. Hillary Clinton wins the Dem Nomination. No question about it. If Obama doesn’t concede to her prior to the Dem Convention, he’ll simply end up as another suicide victim in a car in a Virginia park. No note, no reason, no more interference.

You didn’t really think he asked for Secret Service protection because of a threat from a regular citizen, do you?

By: Davebo

Davebo — Fri, 25 May 2007 22:24:24 +0000

I’d give Obama a 1 in 3 shot at the nomination.

And seriously folks, the democrat nomination process is essentially going to decide who the next president is.

By: tHePeOPle

tHePeOPle — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:42:28 +0000

Well said Bowden.

What I don’t understand, is why doesn’t the senate just have a straight up/down vote. Are you FOR the troops, or are you AGAINST the troops. Clearly, the democrats would vote AGAINST, every single time. Might as well have a straight up/down vote for freedom too while we’re at it. I’d like to know where my senators stand so I know who to vote against.

Ah, Senator Obama, you voted not support our troops, AND you voted against freedom? You won’t be getting my vote, that’s for sure. It’s very simple. There will be no “magic negro” running my country anytime soon.

I can tell you one thing for certain. When I talk to my marine friends fighting in Iraq right now, they sure as hell know who is for them and who is against them. They are also looking very forward to their (twice) extended tours.

By: J.H. Bowden

J.H. Bowden — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:02:18 +0000

rick–

I’m not certain what Bush state Obama flips to the Democrats. And now that he is one of 14 Democrats to vote against the troops while they are in harm’s way, he will inherit the same problems Kerry did in explaining this kind of vote in language other than “I wanted to appeal to kooks and moonbats to get nominated.”

Obama has a bigger issue he isn’t looking at, namely, that he doesn’t come off as holier-than-thou. If Barack Obama turns into St. Obama, the “magic negro” kind of attacks will stick.

ed–

I fear you misunderstand someone who compromises their principles, versus those who have opposite principles. The Democrat Congress will not cut the prescription drug program no more than they will scrap Ted Kennedy’s No Child Left Behind bs. Instead– the want to complete government’s takeover of the health care market, raise taxes, appease terrorists, and implement tariffs that will make goods more expensive for Americans.

Despite the mistakes Bush has made, I look a the Dem agenda and say no thanks. The era of Gephardts and Liebermans is over– today’s Dems are owned by leftist anti-American hardliners. Granted, the Republicans have their own crop of hardliners, but they have a few moderates like Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. And Fred Thompson, who while is more conservative, speaks in sensible tones, as opposed to the shrill Ann Coulter-Bill O’Reilly bile we hear every day.