More Active Posts
Front Page
Losing momentum
 |
 19 Comments |
AUSTIN–At the conclusion of the Democratic Primary Debate at the University of Texas, an air of “Now what?” fell over the press room. Prior to this debate, pundits couldn’t get enough of waxing about Obama’s momentum, but his lackadaisical performance didn’t seem to match his recent slew of victories.
The reason Obama keeps winning seems to be an enigma as large as his policy platform. Rarely does he itemize specifics on the issues. Outside of the debate hall, Obama supporters tripped over each other to tell reporters why Obama should be the next President:
“We’re tired of rich, old, white men running things.”
“He’s reached across the aisle.”
“He represents change.”
“He’s for change.”
“He wants change.”
This “change” that he wants has yet to materialize. During the debate, on two different occasions, he mentioned a two-point plan, but never discussed those two points.
And while on the subject of change, who doesn’t want it? Is Obama suggesting that not voting for him is voting for stagnation? Constant innocuous references like that are examples of “feel-good rhetoric” that Obama said should be “toned down” in this campaign.
Hillary Clinton definitely polarizes people. Yet, love or hate her, in this debate, she was clear and concise about her message. She stayed on point and, by doing so, made it all the more glaring that, aside from being an inspirational figure, Obama really hasn’t offered much else.
After winning ten straight primaries, this was Obama’s debate to lose. Frankly, it’s possible he that he not only lost the debate, but also the momentum he had going into the Texas primaries on March 4. Will Texans think he has enough substance to stay ahead? It will be interesting to see how mainstream press covers the next ten days.
 |
Topic: Campaign 2008, Editor's Choice, Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: Austin presidential debate, barack-obama, Hillary-Clinton |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
A matter of life
So, after 13 debates he had no position on anything? Get real.
A couple of kids said to me they were thinking of voting for Obama so I asked them what specifically impressed them, what issues, what plan. They had the same reaction as that Obama support on the Chris Matthews show. Blank stare. It’s like signing a blank check.
I’ll take the bait RDean..
What substantive position has Obama taken on any issue? ANY issue. Name one.
Put up or shut up.
Democrats seem to come in three categories:
1. Young and naive
2. Older and dumb
3. Don’t care about personal responsibility
They just want to vote themselves benefits ($$)
Obama is young, black, attractive and promises the moon. HRC is older, not as attractive and promises the moon specifically. Which will they choose? It’s really interesting to watch, isn’t it!!
Make It Man: Obama’s campaign site lists a lot of specific proposals and positions.
Click the “issues” tab and choose your topic areas of interest.
The man has a great deal of substance. This “all hat and no cattle” image is just the HRC campaign’s best shot at trying to slow him down.
And personally, I think we could use an inspiring speaker in the White House. At least half the president’s job is to make a good impression. Obama has both style and substance. Clinton has substance but no style. McCain has … well, I’m not sure what.
The only issue I am sure Obama has said he stands for is getting out of Iraq. The other day he told us some of what he plans to do, and all I can say is: hide your wallet!
This sounds like wishful thinking to me. Look what the other choice is. If you don’t pay close attention to the issues–and even if you do–the Republican choice is not much better.
Sigh, it all falls to who will chose the judges. A marginally better shot with McCain, but at what cost? This is a very discouraging election for me.
There was an interesting article in Business Week last week about Obama’s approach to business/economic policy. It’s encouraging to me that former Fed Chair Paul Volcker is part of his economic circle. I need to do a little more research on Goolsbee, his chief economic adviser.
Obama is the most socialist of any near Marxist Lefty candidate to come down the pike in a very long time. His meeting Wolf in Soros’ offices tells the tale. His policies before he got Volker to come on board to teach him some economics that wouldn’t choke America, would have made him easy fodder for business and the right to chew him into little ‘Che Chips.’ Obama style business is a joke and oxymoron. They hate business nearly as much as they hate Bush.
I wonder if he is really going to make it mandatory for every business to withhold 3% of each paycheck to save as he says? This is crazy to say the least. I guess freedom and choice don’t mean much to near Marxists like Obama but it should to you even if you are one.
Gosh, you mean I can save some money and they will pay me less in interest than inflation so that I go broke lickity split? Idiotic. No one should have more than 3 months of expenses in savings. Even Paul Volker knows that.
Invest your money in your and America’s future and you will be fine. Don’t put it in another mandated Socialist Ponzi Scheme like SS and Medicare. I wonder why Obama hasn’t talked about fixing them. They are two biggest financial socialistic time bombs facing very American and will cost about $70 to $100 Trillion to fix the same old socialist way. Just donlt expect to retire before 80 or get much moneyu out of them. Where is that hope and change when you really need it. They of course shot down real change when Bush wanted to privatize them. So much for change when folks actually try to do it - rather than just talk about it.
Lefties always think that you are too stupid to even make the basic decisions about your lives. Out of their all controlling compassion they feel they must make every decision for you, so you don’t injure yourselves inadvertently of colurse. They claim to always have your best interest at heart because, sadly, you are just too stupid to know what these best interests are in the first place, you can never be taught them adn will always pick the worst options if you had any.
I can guarantee you that Obama won’t propose a mandated law stating that all Americans must donate 3% of what they make to their church or favorite charity though. Seems socialsits don’t do much donating to churches and charities.
I particularly loves his bill to automatically spend, by law, .7% of the USA’S GDP every year on poor blacks in Africa that live on $1 a day. I feel compassion for them too but if I was black I would be asking, is there something wrong with spending that money on poor blacks in the USA first? It is a reasonable question that he could only answer by saying he had another plan to steal from the rich and give to the poor and do just that too. There is nothing he can’t hope to change and promise to accomplish for you in the future.
Poor? Here is some money - remember it didn’t come from the evil rich it came from us, after we stole it from them. You don’t have to be stealing anymore - we will do that for you too. Out of work? Here is a job. Uneducated? Here’s some money for you to go to Harvard like my wife did - hopefully you will as proud of America as my wife is. Sick? We will make you well at no cost to you. Need a baby sitter for them kids? No problem. Them kids of yours hungry? We will feed them 3 squares every day at school no problem and we will take care of them shoes while we are at it too. No place to live? How about you move right in here? Can’t pay the electricity and gas bill? No worry, we will make sure the evil companies that supply these services never even send you a bill. Can’t afford transportation? Just call this number and we will pick you up and take you where ever you want to go. No money for gasoline, no problem here is a free fill up and we will have to nationalize these oil companies like our buddy Chavez did.
So far Obama has promised $900 Billion, up another $50 billion this week in new yearly government expenditures on top of a $3 trillion budget that is already $400 billion in deficit. He says he will pay for it all by taxing the evil rich just like every near Marxist socialist on the planet would do - only in spades of course.
It is take from the rich who earned it and give to the poor who didn’t - classic socialist weath transfer, class warfare and nothing more. Keep them masses of little piggies happy and you will be elected to office long enough to confiscate all the wealth of this nation eventually. Not enough piggies to slave master over - well they will make every Mexican a US citizen if they have to no matter where they live - if that what it takes for them to stay in power. They didn’t tell you about that change did they - immigration reform and change for them is quite different that what you might hope for if you had a brain of course.
Jimmy Carter wasn’t quite able to do it but I must admit I remember I was on my knees begging God for deliverance back then. He sent Ronald Reagan out of pity and grace. You can’t count on God’s generosity all the time though. But Jimmy wasn’t no Obama Phenomena either. This man makes Slick Willy a white president again.
If he is elected and the socialists get 60 senate votes, Peter L is half right in that you should hide your wallet. You should really empty it out and invest it in any democratic country on the opposite side of the world like Australia and then follow your money there to live.
Just the thought of these whack jobs taking over the presidency with congress in their pocket again, has put the entire world into a near recession. Well, you ain’t seen nothing yet but how do you like that little change they didn’t even try to make for you?
Be careful what changes you hope for. The change they have in mind is complete government control (read them) and socialism for all. Sadly, this country was not founded on socialism and changing to it one before from 1930 to 1980 nearly killed is all. But you have to hope that change just won’t kill you like it nearly did once before.
I think the consensus of the punditocracy is substantively there is little difference between Obama and Clinton. Who’s to say that a President Obama wouldnt call upon Bill Clinton? I think lotsa folks are merely determined that we not have Bush Clinton Bush Clinton presidencies.
If the Clinton’s return to the WH we will get only more sleeze, slime scandal and corruption. Even liberal erstwhile supporters realize this and thus they are quietly pulling for Obama to win the nomination.
No thank you Mrs Clinton.
I have to believe that many R’s privately pray for a Clinton nomination. Bill will be the dead albatross hung around her neck by the GOP Rove machine.
Make It Man post 3,
it is probably simpler to give you the detailed web site:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
And of course the same comment you raised regarding Obama can be raised regarding McCain (staying in Iraq for 100 years is a policy?
).
My suspicion is that we are watching a political phenomenon on both the Republican and Democratic sides which is very different than the recent presidential campaigns, and I sense that it is not running on the traditional models of division and dissension on which so many who are traditionally politically active have invested their intellect, emotion, and effort.
And it is often frustrating for the entrenched to realize that their particular paradigm no longer appears to be relevant!
testing of posting: posts being eaten.
Make It Man post 3,
it is probably simpler to give you the detailed web site with complete details:
(see issues tab on Barak Obama web site: link causing post to be swallowed)
And of course the same comment you raised regarding Obama can be raised regarding McCain (staying in Iraq for 100 years is a policy?
).
My suspicion is that we are watching a political phenomenon on both the Republican and Democratic sides which is very different than the recent presidential campaigns, and I sense that it is not running on the traditional models of division and dissension on which so many who are traditionally politically active have invested their intellect, emotion, and effort.
And it is often frustrating for the entrenched to realize that their particular paradigm no longer appears to be relevant!
When will the Dems learn that without free enterprise there is no real economy. There is no wealth or future in collecting taxes from a socialistic society to pay government employees and provide for the lazy. I heard today that the promises of the Democrat (intentional) candidates each add up to nearly a trillion in new spending. Where is it coming from. Tax the rich- they say. Tax them until there are no jobs.
mtcon post 13,
when will the conservatives learn that without government intervention in the economy, there is no economy?
And I do believe that bad early strategy (admitted by Bush) has led us into a protracted Iraq war which will cost upwards of $1 trillion when we are done.
Will conservatives ever understand that wars are not free?
ntcon post 13,
but what is your support for:
“I heard today that the promises of the Democrat (intentional) candidates each add up to nearly a trillion in new spending.”
Where explicitly are the Democrats adding a trillion dollars in new spending?
Arguably by reducing the war in Iraq, and arguably focusing on Afphanistan, the Democrats would appear to be directly reducing known expenditures on the part of Republicans.
You seem to be arguing that they would replace it with some vague unspecified “additional trillion dollars in spending”. So what are these explicit spending plans?
Musing # 15 #16 If the government would keep their grubby paws out of legitimate private business the economy would be a heck of a lot better. As soon as they intervene then chaos ensues. Open your eyes.
The plan of the Dems is to socialize all they can and make as many people as possible wards of the government or make their businesses dependent on government spending. It is done in the name of humanitarianism but in effect makes people dependants of the government instead of independent citizens with a goal to improve their lives through better lifestyle management. Once they get enough to exist through the social programs the existence becomes good enough.
The only place Government spending is defendable is in Defense and infrastructure (roads, etc.); because wars are Government sponsored and financed to protect the sovereignty of the nation and good roads are needed to move troops. In regard to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the right thing to do and it will be successful, but only if we can ride it to the end. From the beginning we knew it wasn’t going to be over in a minute. President Bush made it very clear that we are not fighting a conventional enemy and it is better to fight them there than having them blowing themselves up in our streets.
#17: In regard to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the right thing to do and it will be successful,
Iraq already wrote Islam into their consitution as the “national religion”. It sounds like they put the suc into success. Was that our “plan” all along? Create another Islamic fundamentalist government? They already drove out nearly every Christian from Iraq. Was that the second part of the plan?
#17: but only if we can ride it to the end
You mean for the next 100 years? Isn’t that McCain’s timeline?
#17: President Bush made it very clear that we are not fighting a conventional enemy and it is better to fight them there than having them blowing themselves up in our streets
Who is them? Even Bush, yes Bush, President Bush said there was NO CONNECTION between Iraq and 9/11. Bush said that. He was VERY CLEAR. No connection between Sadam and 9/11. None, zip, zero. Bush said that!!!!
McCain, “If I can’t convince the American people tnat Iraq is a success, I will lose the election”. Oops, too late.
MTCON post 17,
hmm and where would the economy be if the government did not:
1) issue currency
2) insure the banks
3) provide minimal oversight of securities (remember Enron?)
I could go on.
In short, the economy is an artifact of the government and in general, at the levels we now expect it to operate, does not exist without the oversight and intervention of government.
If you insist that the Democrats merely want to make all people wards of the government, it would seem you need to develop your hypothesis further and provide supporting evidence.
What does seem to occur is that Republican administrations would appear to cater to and subsidize corporations. Or perhaps you don’t sense the Federal bail out in slow motion of the credit industry which got in over its head in risky mortgages. We could also consider the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 80s.