FACT: Obama is losing Iowa and New Hampshire among DEMOCRATS

[Herman Munster]

If you look at all the internals, he is losing among democrats. He is losing in Iowa amoing democrats. He is losing in New Hampshire among democrats. He knows the only way to win is to be a Lieberman and suck up to moderate independents and republicans and sell out democrats.

[sonroadera]

1. Funny coming from someone with a Hillary avatar.

[Herman Munster]

3. the polls are what they are

He is losing among democrats and indies/republicans are the only ones keeping him in the game.

[City Lights]

10. What difference does that make?

In the GE, the Dems will need all the indies/repukes they can get. If he's pulling them into the primary, more power to him.

[surfermaw]

15. Sort of means someone is getting republican money

[cali]

55. *snicker*

fantastic example of a logical fallacy. Thanks for such an excellent illustration.

[Cameron27]

29. The problem is that

if they're only coming into our primaries because they support Obama, they're less likely to stay with us if he's not the nominee. Most voters registered as Democrats will.

[mckeown1128]

66. Republicans and Independents will

vote for the Democratic candidate as long as it is Barrack Obama. THANKS you just made the case for people to vote for him. Keep it up!!

[sonroadera]

13. And MSM, Bill Clinton, and big bucks donors are the only ones keeping Hillary in the game.

So what?

If you don't want indies to save Democrats from a Hillary nomination, then make sure they can't vote in the primaries.

[maximusveritas]

12. Seriously. Does he think we're stupid?

It's laughable.

[BenDavid]

54. Excuse me but the key word was "FACT" and there is truth there.

All ya got to do is look at the internals and the FACTS will slap you across the face......

I still say that HRC will have a narrow victory in iowa....I just want obama to be a man of his word and drop out. Even if HRC should lose iowa where after nh and sc does he win again? Other then illinois there is no state obama can win....I still say, by the end of february hrc will have a majority of delegates to be our nominee....

[mckeown1128]

2. but he is winning independents.....

which means he will win them in the general. So what is the problem.

[Herman Munster]

4. he hasn't faced the republican attack machine yet

So that is open to question whether they'll be there 11 months from now.

[laugle]

19. It is amazing how easy the

media has been to him. It's so obvious the rethugs want to go up against him!

He has yet had to face any major attacks on him, and IMO hasn't done well with the few lite attacks he has encountered.

People are so focused on Iowa, they fail to see that his electability numbers are very low.

A national poll I saw today had him coming in 3rd place, of course that could change, but my main concern is that he would not hold-up well to the RW attack machine and all of their lies and deception. We know damn well they would use that muslim fearmongering trash, and a lot worse!

[Thrill]

62. I don't believe that for one second

The Repugs want to go against Hilary. And they want her bad.

[Capn Sunshine]

32. No but he's getting plenty of practice facing the Hillary attack machine

which is arguably the same thing.

[calteacherguy]

5. He's winning among Americans. nt

[DemKR]

6. he needs the R vote lol

[Herman Munster]

7. it's why he's trashing Gore and Kerry

Playing right into the republican play book.

[karynnj]

47. As a Kerry supporter I do not see anything he said as "trashing" Kerry

I do think that HRC saying that Kerry's comments were "inappropriate" meant that she accepted that he had dissed the troops. Had she said he stuck his foot in his mouth, I wouldn't have a big problem. When you criticize a man who has worked for veterans for 4 decades of this - that is "trashing". Especially when Kerry defended BC in 1992.

[annie1]

8. True, but it's the whole nation that decides who becomes president.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. FACT: Democrats make up less than 40% of the American voting public.

[Herman Munster]

11. but it's a DEMOCRATIC primary

unless you think we should nominate liberman's in all 50 states?

[Drunken Irishman]

14. And your point is?

Some states do not have closed primaries. Many Republicans and independents are fed-up with the current administration and want to voice their concern.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. She LOSES to Repub. candidates in the General polls. nt

[karynnj]

49. Obama is not Leiberman

Between his Illinois and US Senate record he is more liberal than HRC or JRE were in their Senate records.

[LordJFT]

16. obama is more liberal than hillary and still does better among republicans and independents

like someone said before he would be more electable and still compromise our principles less

[Herman Munster]

18. really?

where's his universal health care plan?

[LordJFT]

20. forcing people to buy health insurance they can't afford doesn't solve any problems

This has been explained to you millions of times before.

[annie1]

51. how is he more liberal than she is? her K/L vote? that's it?...

please tell me there is much more evidence to back up such a claim. if there is, i am willing to read it.

[AtomicKitten]

17. Which proves his theory that you can stand on principle and not be disagreeable.

That is how Obama is winning.

[Jane Austin]

21. I have several friends who have dropped their Dem registration

because they are so P.O.'ed with the Democratic leadership in Congress.

One from California, one from New York, and one from Kentucky.

[DemKR]

22. how many in iowa? lol

[dugggy]

24. Obama is the only TRUE STATESMAN in the race

Hillary is against drivers licenses for illegals before she was for it.
Edwards sees the world as two parts...the TWO AMERICA division.

How is this country ever to unite as one? By statesmanship, compromise
and putting the interest of country before party.

[redqueen]

57. That's the whole thing though dugggy... if you compromise with the corporate right

then you must by definition act against the interests of the country as a whole.

That's how they do things.

[dugggy]

58. I completely agree SOME corporations have acted

against the interest of this country. So we need to pass laws
so things such as moving manufacturing abroad is not rewarded
with a tax break. But we can't stop corporations to outsource
since that is not freedom. All we should do is make sure they
don't get money from the tax payers for doing it.

I also think we need to set some barriers to CEO's getting
astronomical compensations, not directly related to profits made
by the outfit.

However please note that big and small businesses are the ones who
create the wealth in the country, which makes it possible for the
government to collect taxes and take care of the elderly and the
indigent. It is not a smart idea to kill the goose who lays golden
eggs.

I spent 23 years working for a medium size corporation (500 employees)
and I saw first hand how all employees benefitted from the corporation
even though the owner made a lot more than us. So it is hard for me to
bad mouth all corporations. Surely the Enron types deserve to be prosecuted.

[redqueen]

61. The problem isn't corporations in and of themselves...

but the way they're structured and run. First of all they are not persons and Corporate Personhood should be done away with ASAP.

Second of all they are psychotic entities by definition and should be strictly regulated to keep them in check. (If you're not sure what I mean by 'psychotic' please do yourself a favor and watch The Corporation - great documentary.)

[Gman]

25. Big Rush & Hannity K&R

[Middle finga]

26. Believe it or not there are some working class conservatives

that are facing the same economic problems everyone else is facing, I work around them, I hear them complaining about what's going on. After 8 years of Bush, a good democratic candidate should be able to pull some of those conservatives. If you want to move the country back to the left it's going to take a candidate that can appeal to the other side like Reagan did with democrats. Personally I'd rather see him reach out to working class conservative voters than Big Business Elites.

[Cameron27]

28. On what issues are they conservative?

[Middle finga]

31. I would assume issues like taxes, national security, fighting crime

pro military, I live in upstate New York close to Ft. Drum, I haven't run into the fundies or the bigots at least amongst the ones I work around.

[BootinUp]

27. I think its a valid concern nt

[Sulawesi]

30. This is SUCH a reach....

The fact that Obama reaches out to independents is part of his appeal.

[Cameron27]

33. I don't think it's a reach,

I think it's a real concern in the primaries. I don't believe in open primaries for the reason I posted above. If the indy's or Republicas are coming into the party just because they support Obama, they're not as likely to stick around for anyone else in the general. Registered Democrats will, well most of them will IMO.

The time to go after those votes is in the general.

[Sulawesi]

35. Hillary played to the right as a GE strategy before Obama gave her serious competition...

All the dems are going to move right after the primary. If Obama can win the primary and keep himself where he is, it bodes well for the general.

[Cameron27]

37. Hillary was attacking Republicans

that's where her focus was in the early part of this primary. She wasn't courting their votes, and she was hit hard with charges of inevitability for doing it.

[Sulawesi]

39. She moved the right, slammed the republicans, and ignored the dem opponents...

a very good GE strategy. She assumed she had the nom. locked up...

[Cameron27]

53. She didn't move to the right,

she just focused her attacks on the GOP.

[BootinUp]

34. Some of his arguments against the other

candidates plans will be used by the opposition for the next few years as pointed out by Krugman.

[Sulawesi]

36. When is that not true...that is what people mean when they say that an

incumbent is undamaged by primaries. Bush I coined the term Voodoo economics for Reagan's policy, then went on to be his VP. This stuff happens all the time...

[BootinUp]

38. More accurately, I should have said

he has attacked policy proposals from the right, if he wins, it weakens those policy ideas directly. Whether it happens in other races does not make it untrue nor unimportant to some who think the policies he attacks are already soft enough in terms of bi-partisanship.

[Sulawesi]

40. Those attacks will only help him in the GE, unless

he disenfranchises his base. If the dems put up a charismatic, african american demoncrat that can appeal to independents, some people around here are going to look silly thinking he is a bad thing for this country

[BootinUp]

41. I did not say "bad thing"

nor did I imply it. I simply believe he is a weaker candidate on experience and he is making up for it by moving our goal posts a little in reverse. He would still be far superior to the nutballs in the other party. But I think his GE chances are not as good as HRC besides.

[CoffeeCat]

42. I have verifible proof that you are malarkey on a stick...

The latest Des Moines Register poll has Obama in the lead.

He leads 32. Hillary is at 25. Edwards is at 24.

Those who were polled were ALL DEMOCRATS, WHO ARE LIKELY
TO ATTEND THE CAUCUSES.

You don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

Link to Poll:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080101/NEWS09/301010015/-1/iowapoll07

[Lucinda]

59. No. Thats factoring in the independents. The registered Dem numbers are

33 Clinton
27 Obama
25 Edwards

Thats why the talking heads keep saying it's too close to call. It's tough to predict how independents will actually vote, regardless of how they poll.

Bottom left side of the graphic under party affiliation. Clintons Dem lead is also discussed in the article.

"...Clinton remains the favorite of the party faithful, with support from a third of self-described Democrats. However, Obama is the clear choice of caucusgoers who affiliate with neither the Democrat or Republican parties, with roughly 40 percent of them backing him in the survey..."

[Dawgs]

64. That independant number doesn't mean shit.

Many of those people could be Democrats; they just don't know that they're not registered as Democrats.

And, even if it was, 6% points is pretty insignificant if you're talking about how someone is registered.

[Lucinda]

67. They were polled. And arent Dems. Thats why its labeled the way it is. Doesn't mean they wont caucus

for Obama. But they'll have to register Dem tonight. Indy turnout was up last cycle, and they expect it to be again.

[ripple]

43. Care to post those internals?

I take it that you will be perfectly happy if Hillary squeaks through in the general, even if it costs us Congress- I guarantee you that she can rally the republican base (to vote against her) with greater effectiveness than any republican candidate in the race can.

The fact that Obama is able to appeal to some republican and independent voters is something that should be celebrated, rather than criticized.

[Sulawesi]

44. Kicking this thread until the OP responds to #42

[MalloyLiberal]

45. Yeah, I thought we were supposed to be a site for DEMOCRATS *rolls eyes*

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

48. that means he is going to beat the Republican

when he is nominated?

[annie1]

50. I agree, hil wins among dems. but it doesn't mean he's a suck up, it means...

that indies and repubs don't like hil and established democrats, or they'd BE democrats.

[Czolgosz]

52. really?

[youthere]

56. Herman Munster..

Nearly every day when I see an negative Obama thread, you are the OP. They are often petty, often false or misrepresented. You do not serve your candidate well.

[Czolgosz]

60. kick

[Dawgs]

63. Do you have a link?

[indimuse]

65. Because he's NOT a Democrat!

Obama called hypocrite for wife's Wal-Mart link
By Philip Sherwell in New York, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 11:37pm BST 12/05/2007




As a fluent public speaker, independent-minded wife, devoted mother and professional woman, Michelle Obama has been hailed as an invaluable asset to her husband Barack's mission to capture the Democratic 2008 presidential nomination.

Yet, while her style and performance are winning plaudits on the campaign trail, a little-reported business interest of Mrs Obama's has opened her husband up to one of the criticisms that politicians fear most - the taint of hypocrisy.


Business link: Michelle Obama

She is taking a break from her main job, as a well-remunerated Chicago hospital executive, to campaign for her husband. But she has just been re-elected to the board of an Illinois food-processing company, a position she took up two years ago to gain experience of the private sector.

And the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognise trade unions.

As the Illinois senator prepared to join the presidential fray late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He declared that there was a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" the company and "force them to examine their own corporate values".

According to the couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 (£25,700) for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals.

advertisementShe also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company.

The apparent contradiction between Sen Obama's political calculation to join the Wal-Mart-bashing lobby, and his wife's profitable role with a company that makes money from Wal-Mart, is being closely scrutinised by "opposition" research teams working for rival White House candidates, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are collecting information about Mrs Obama's Treehouse ties, anticipating that - in a country where "going dirty" is a political way of life - the link may provide valuable ammunition in the election campaign.

Such attacks could be particularly damaging for Sen Obama, who has promised a change from politics as usual. Just last week, on her first foray to the crucial first primary state of New Hampshire, Mrs Obama praised her husband's "moral compass", reflecting a key message of his campaign.

Joe Novak, a Chicago political consultant who runs an anti-Obama website, said: "The Obamas would have us believe that, when it comes to money and ethics and compassion, he is a different kind of politician.

"What's different here is that they actually seem to believe it. That's the only way they can justify the contradictions between what they preach and what they practice. Defending Treehouse while attacking Wal-Mart is a blatant example of personal hypocrisy."

Sen Obama's campaign team and Mrs Obama's spokesman did not respond to requests by The Sunday Telegraph for comment. But the senator previously told Crain's Chicago Business magazine that, while his views on corporate reform and social justice remained the same regardless of what happens at Treehouse, "Michelle and I have to live in the world and pay taxes and pay for our kids and save for retirement".

Hillary Clinton, Sen Obama's main rival for the Democratic nomination, can testify to the political dangers in liberal America of being associated with Wal-Mart, even though the company's cost-cutting policy makes its goods more affordable for the low-paid. The New York senator and wife of the former President Bill Clinton still encounters flak for serving on the company's board from 1985 to 1992, before becoming First Lady.

According to Treehouse's financial filings, Wal-Mart accounted for 16.1 per cent of its sales last year, up from 11.7 per cent in 2005 (a 37 per cent increase), comfortably making it the company's biggest customer. Treehouse's annual operating profits rose from $28 million two years ago to $84 million (up 200 per cent) in 2006.

Mrs Obama, 43, was re-elected to the board last month for a further three years, a period that would overlap with her husband's time in the White House if he becomes America's first black president.

Mrs Obama is Treehouse's senior non-executive director and sits on the company's audit and nominating and corporate governance committees. Her Treehouse connection is not the only awkward ethical question that has confronted Sen Obama as his past is dug over.

Earlier this year, in response to a newspaper investigation, he said he was unaware that his broker had bought $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose leading investors included some of his biggest political donors.

He has also apologised for his "boneheaded error" in striking a property deal with Tony Rezko, a Chicago Democrat operative facing a federal indictment.

[Alexander]

68. A pathetic way of spinning his inevitable win.

We'll all remember that when Obama's on the stage in Denver. :eyes: