Republicans feel good about Obama match-up... wow..

[Tellurian]

We are in a world of trouble. As we predicted all along, Obama 's candidacy, to Republicans, is like taking candy from a baby and why they prefer running against him instead of Clinton! They have a preliminary strategy all mapped out ready to go.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton may be the Democrat who Republicans love to hate, but some Republican strategists say they have no fear of a match-up with her rival Barack Obama in November's presidential election. Many Republicans have long believed Clinton, the polarizing New York senator and former first lady with the high negative ratings, would make an easier White House foe by energizing conservatives and alienating independents.

But Republicans say the relentless Democratic nominating battle has given them new hope for November and exposed weaknesses in Obama that will play a central role in any general election campaign against the Illinois senator. "I believe he has a glass jaw -- and he is going to get hit hard," said Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio.

Obama's voting record in the U.S. Senate --

one magazine ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007 -- and during his years in the Illinois state Senate will get a more thorough examination in a campaign against Republican John McCain than it has so far, he said. "He portrays himself as a centrist and a moderate, but if you look at his votes it's tough to see anything but a liberal. He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton," Fabrizio said. The questions raised by Clinton about Obama's lack of experience and suitability as commander in chief will be revitalized, Republicans say, as will the controversy about inflammatory comments by Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Coupling that with Obama's weakness among blue-collar Democrats and Hispanics, and the possibility of a prolonged nominating fight that turns off Clinton backers and independents, Republicans are gaining confidence about a November race against Obama.

Good article:

Continued...

I am solidly in Senator Clinton's corner and refuse to be duped by this snake oil salesman..if we intend to see a Democrat in the White House next November. He's a loser and cannot WIN the General Election. After all, he barely won his Senate Race!

[tekisui]

1. And they will be as surprised as Hillary.

[polpilot]

85. They WON'T REALLY be surprised. They KNOW Obama will 'kill' them. McCain & Obama in a debate?

OVER>>>OVER>>>OVER!

[polichick]

2. Keep saying that over and over like a mantra...

:rofl:

[Tellurian]

86. Obama is an unvetted candidate. He won't be when they are done wit

This will be interesting. No one here is capable of defending Obama, no one..

You do realize pointing to Clinton will have no effect in the real world when the RW exposes him publicly.

[polpilot]

89. Obama will repeat the Hillary 'slap down' with McCain. 'McCain...The Sequel.'.

[AZBlue]

129. You do realize of course that if Obama had any skeletons in his closet, Clinton would have

found them by now? You're her supporter and yet you think she's stupid enough not to have gone looking deep and wide? Come on now.

[Bicoastal]

3. Given that he's going to win the nomination, you really think they would say any differently?

Yeesh....

[ProSense]

4. "snake oil salesman"? Here:

read this.

[Tellurian]

87. Are you selling "Dr.O's snake oil".. or is it just plain "O"live Oil?

[polpilot]

90. The 'seasoned' Clinton machine shredded by Obama like cole slaw.

It's just what happened.

[Tellurian]

103. Don't be ridiculous..

with all the mess ups of her campaign, they are still in a (guffaw) "Dead Heat"!

Just an indication how weak Obama is, where he should have closed on her a long time ago!

[polpilot]

104. Great to hear Hillary diehards admit defeat.

[rodeodance]

113. you obviously have a reading comprehension problem as that poster did NOT admit defeat.

[polpilot]

116. poster stated 'he (Obama) should have closed on her a long time ago'

clear indication of her defeat.

[Bicoastal]

5. By the way, does it really offend you so much that Obama is more liberal that HRC?

I'm sure not.

[MonkeyFunk]

76. except he's not

they're close to identical, idealogically speaking.

[Atman]

6. "I refuse to be duped by this snake oil salesman."

But you gladly accept being duped by the snake oil saleswoman. To each his own.

Did you stop to think for a moment why the Republicans would even release a statement like that? Hmm? A bit of the ol' switcheroo, perhaps, because their fawning over Clinton isn't working to get her nominated? Maybe? It makes as much sense as any of the other nonsense in that post.

.

[Tellurian]

9. yeah, a switchero based in fact... there are three pgs in the OP

"He's ideologically well to the left of Hillary Clinton, for all his rhetorical gifts, and I also think he's got a national security deficit," Cole said.

"I think she's a plausible commander in chief, and I don't think he is. It may not matter. But those two areas are where we would fight the election, and with McCain, I think we contrast with him very well," he said.

Republicans have been successful at painting Democratic candidates like Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 as too liberal and out of step with everyday voters.

[americanstranger]

17. My God. No wonder you have a problem with facts.

You say that that this Republican spin is based in fact. A simple reading of your post reveals that as completely wrong! I'll quote 'em back with emphasis:

"He's ideologically well to the left of Hillary Clinton, for all his rhetorical gifts, and I also think he's got a national security deficit," Cole said.

"I think she's a plausible commander in chief, and I don't think he is. It may not matter. But those two areas are where we would fight the election, and with McCain, I think we contrast with him very well," he said.

Republicans have been successful at painting Democratic candidates like Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 as too liberal and out of step with everyday voters.

So, two of your 'facts' are actually opinions, as evidenced by the continued use of the words 'I think' or 'I don't think'

One-for-three. Nice average you got there.

- as

[charlie]

20. "I think she's a plausible commander in chief..."

he said, while snickering up his sleeve. No Republican operative would say that and mean it.

[Tellurian]

57. Usually..

They don't name names..in an article when it's for wholesale value. In this case there is a named source. The statement is sourced and plausible. At the same time, they feel confident they can easily best Obama.

[charlie]

62. Karl Rove dragged his pasty ass

to a Dean rally and cheered him on, telling anyone who would listen that Dean was his boy. You don't get any more "sourced and plausible" than that. If you want to give credence to Republican ploys to bumfuzzle their opponents, that's your watch, it's still foolish.

[goclark]

99. And Tery McAliffe just posed with an Obama supporter

as they were holding up a huge OBAMA sign together.

Same play book.

See the PO in another thread here this morning.

[Zhade]

52. Nice call-out, AS. Thanks for your vigilance!

NT!

[americanstranger]

59. Thanks! You'd think people would be able to tell the difference

between fact and opinion.

Go figure.

- as

[Tellurian]

117. You think you would know the difference between an opinion and an

"Expert" opinion...

[americanstranger]

122. 'Expert opinions' still are not facts.

You'd think people could figure that ut for themselves.

Or at least not try to present opinions as fact.

- as

[Patchuli]

51. If you are going to take advice from Repubs

then you might as well wave a white flag now. You don't think they tell the truth out loud, do you? LOL! You're being told what they want y ou to hear, not what is really going on. They are TERRIFIED of Obama.

I can't wait 'til this primary is OVER...

[Th1onein]

93. I'll tell you their plan for winning: WAR

They are going to start a war with Iran. Then, they'll hype McCain's military experience. Brave leader and all of that shit.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. OMG! HE IS A LIBRUL! FUCK!

[americanstranger]

8. Oh, noes!

They'd smear Clinton, too - if she had a chance of winning, that is.

Bring. It. On.

- as

[NJmaverick]

10. Well if a republican says it, then it must be true

NOT!

[Nickster]

100. Exactly.

There are WMDS in Iraq.
Iraq funded Al-Qaeda.
The Clintons killed Vince Foster.

[rhombus]

11. Let them underestimate Obama

Someone on the Democratic side regrets that now...:applause:

[stevietheman]

128. Reagan was underestimated by Dems in 1980; Obama is the Progressive version of Reagan. n/t

n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

12. Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio! Oh NOESSSSS!!!

Already played this game a week or two ago. Why are you repeating the same OP?

[Zhade]

53. Can OP haz deelooshun medz nao?

NT!

[Forkboy]

13. Even worse, Obama is a "Dumocrat"!

[Zhade]

54. I'm confused, is the OP actually complaining that Obama is "too liberal"?

NT!

[Forkboy]

58. Considering the OP, take a guess.

:)

[Texas Hill Country]

120. the point of that is that he is unlikely to get as many crossover votes once that is stressed...

it has nothing to do with the Dem base

[Perry Logan]

14. Now if they can just get everyone to forget the last eight years...

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. They got enough people to forget 8 yrs of peace and prosperity, enough so they could steal the

'00 election. Don't think they can do that again? I bet they can.

[Perry Logan]

81. Ruh-uh! Maybe they'll remember the economic depression or the war.

[Yael]

15. From the 'last to know' file.

She won't be the nominee.

Democrats know this, Republicans know this. The only people who don't see it is her glorified echo chamber.

[book_worm]

16. of course they have to say that now because he is going to be the nominee.

They don't want everybody to know they are afraid of running against Obama.

[loveangelc]

18. so what? They would much more love to go up against Hillary than Obama.

gallup:

[DerekJ]

79. loveangelc, please stop hurling facts at the OP.

He is allergic.

:rofl:

[DarienComp]

19. We also can't leave Iraq because Al-Qaeda will feel good about it.

[Auntie Bush]

21. "he barely won his Senate Race!"

Yeah. He beat wild eyed conservative Allen Keyes...who wasn't even from IL.
He really had to work hard to win that race! If he can beat Allen...he can beat McCain. Tell me about it!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. Yeah, he only won by 43%. What a loser.

:eyes:

[Auntie Bush]

56. I didn't say that...Didn't you notice the quotation marks?

It was a great win...so he didn't get the experience of having to fight for a seat. It was practically handed to him on a silver platter. Who couldn't beat sour puss Keyes?

[Forkboy]

28. Only it wasn't "just barely".

Unless you consider a 43% point win "just barely".

70% to 27%...whew, what a nailbiter that race was.

Tell me about it!

I just did. The question is, will the facts matter to you at all, or will you still believe a Republican?

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. You mean like Hillary beat Rick Lazio, right?

Hillary has never faced formidable Republican opposition in an election either, and, when faced with formidable opposition in this primary in the person of Barack Obama, is LOSING. Explain, exactly, what makes her 'more electable'? She has solid negative ratings in the 45-55% range (closer to 60%, lately), is widely disliked not just by Republicans, not just by independents, but by Democrats; even many people who liked Bill are not at al enthusiastic about her candidacy. I fal to see how she is a more electable candidate, given these unavoidable facts. I also fail to see why her campaign inspires any confidence that she could actualy win; she squandered a massive advantage in fundraising, blowing through $130 MILLION dollars by Super Tuesday; she failed to secure the nomination despite tremendous advantages in name recognition and in her personal association with a popular former President. So...what actually makes you think she can win in November?

[merh]

69. Oh, don't you know, she has faced opposition

you forgot Bill's campaigns - what's his is hers - all of his experiences belong to her - except the bad ones of course. :sarcasm:

[Bensthename]

22. This will be a shock to Limbaugh and Co. who would love to run against the Clintons

and all of the skeletons that have been pulled out of thier closet.
Being nice dems as we are here, we won't talk about them here and now..

[Rebellious Republican]

23. Well that settles it, Obama is a fuckin liberal, guess we should all

vote for a conservative like Hillary or John! Amazing, simply amazing, the absurdities I see on this board sometimes.

So you are saying that if its in print we should believe it. You post an article on a liberal web site that infers that Hillary is a conservative, and Obama is a liberal, that we should vote for the conservative and not the liberal. If you come back and say the article is not correct when it infers that Hillary is a conservative. Then I would have to say it is not much a stretch that you can not believe the rest of the article either. I dunno, but somethings really messed up here and I am totally confused.

Besides I know a few conservatives, I used to be one myself (hence the Pseudonym RR),and they say they would vote for Obama. They are blue collar, f150 pick up truck driven, middle aged, white southern males on top of that. I think I will go with what I know to be true as opposed to some insightful article by a so called journalist. Remember the MSM still says we are not in a recession!

:crazy:

[Zhade]

55. The OP and reality are not on speaking terms.

Reality is dead to her!

[Vinca]

24. And I suppose there is no chance Tony made this statement with the thought

Obama is winning, we want Hillary, time to scare the Democrats.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. Obama won 70% to 27%! WTF are you talking about "barely won" his senate race?

It was the largest margin of victory in Illinois senate history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2004

[goldcanyonaz]

29. One must be fair, he did run against Alan Keyes...

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. Alan Keyes was shit. Doesn't change the fact he in no way "barely won".

[Forkboy]

32. One must be fair and point out the "just barely" RW talking point is bullshit.

[americanstranger]

34. Still, the question wasn't WHO he ran against.

The question was whether or not he 'barely' won his Senate seat.

I'd say that's a settled question.

Let's also remember that Hillary won her first Senate race against an opponent who could barely spell his own name.

- as

[BlueIdaho]

36. Keyes was a sacrificial lamb

The pubbies knew they were going to take a pasting against Obama so they sent in the clown.

[americanstranger]

37. So was Little Ricky Lazio.

After Ghouliani dropped out, there wasn't a Republican in SE New York who wanted to run against Clinton, so they gave it to Puppy Boy Lazio.

- as

[WonderGrunion]

84. Hillary ran unopposed in Michigan

and still only won by single digits against "Uncommitted"

[ecdab]

30. LOL, you're like the energizer bunny of BS - you keep going and going

and by going and going I'm not talking about moving forward - you know the other kind of going that involves crap.

[Faygo Kid]

41. Notice that Tellurian posts few replies. We're all on his/her ignore list.

Gender is "undeclared," and no other info available. Which is typical, and to be expected.

Anyway, Tellurian posts outrageous things, but rarely replies to other posts, or to responses to his/her own posts. We're all on ignore, I think. Oh well, in case I'm wrong, here's a pic for you, Tellurian:

[NDambi]

102. LMAOOOOOO!!!!!~ FUNNY and on point

[anonymous171]

33. Wasn't Hillary's campaign saying this about Obama before he kicked their ass?

[GarbagemanLB]

35. Is this an admission from the biggest Hillary troll that Obama is indeed more progressive than Clint

on?

[Arugula Latte]

38. Hillary is the one who is like cement boots on our feet.

And that is why she is being rejected by the voters.

[undeterred]

39. load of steaming crap

:nuke:

[Blaukraut]

40. How about we Dems stop playing defense for once?

Why is it that we seem to want to choose our candidate according to how vulnerable he/she may be to republican attacks? I don't see the other side using the same yardstick in their candidate selection. Do you think they give a rat's ass how the Democratic attack machine might or might not decimate McCain?

[MarjorieG]

73. Yes! How about not gloating and working to prevent loss. Any candidate vulnerable to attack.

[Justice Is Comin]

42. String bean would be a

laughing stock by November 7th.

It will be like watching the Sopranos to see him get taken apart.

I sure hope the super deciders will have enough sense to know that.

[Window]

43. Tellurian...same shit, different day.

Give it a rest!

[AX10]

44. K & R!

The Whitehouse put a statement out a month back that they believed they will now hold onto the Whitehouse in 08'.

[merh]

72. Was that before or after Bush endorsed Hillary?

n/t

[lob1]

45. "He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton."

That is the BEST reason to vote for Obama. What is a OP that basically says "We don't want no stinking Libruls around here!" doing on DU? Liberal is not a dirty word, Neocon is.

[girl gone mad]

46. Obama will be a great candidate..

and I have no doubt he will beat McCain. Not one.

I correctly predicted Gore would have it rough against Bush, that the Dean campaign would implode and that Kerry would be a weak candidate.

Look at what listening to Republicans these last few years got Hillary. Look what it got our congress. Look where it got our country. Why would Democrats want to keep repeating that mistake?

[quakerboy]

47. Yeah, but certain Hillary supporters were looking forward to Mississippi.

And we already know they don't live in a reality based world. Why would they be concerned about Obama? They aren't worried about the Iraq Occupation, the Afgan occupation, they think the proposed war with Iran will be no big deal, they feel good about the economy because its been so strong the past 7 years, and they don't want to do anything about Health Care, because we already have the best system in the world?


shall I go on?

(edit spelling)

[Divine Discontent]

48. they'll be shocked then when he wins, won't they because...

it may come as a shock to you, but #1 you're on a progressive liberal board and we love his views - and he is more liberal than Hillary as you like to point out - and #2 - America is sick to death of taking it up the ass from the neocons who love warfare and giving our money to the oil and military industrial complex - and I EXPECT people like you to make sure the friends and family you have to know the difference - as I would do for Hillary over McSame, even though I don't like her at all.

[Zhade]

49. I'm fairly sure they'd express such confidence no matter the candidate.

I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out, since clinton isn't getting the nom no matter how hard you wish for it.

[Nedsdag]

50. Then sit your butt home on Election Day!

Who cares what you think?

When you do say something, it doesn't make any sense.

[terrell9584]

60. i saw someone say that Obama puts Louisiana on the table

I'd like to know from what universe that idea came. Louisiana has actually proved that it is receptive to society women, and in the end, Hillary was a Little Rock society woman for more than a decade. Louisiana has also proven that when given a choice of electing the first black governor, they always opted for Mike Foster. And I don't think I need to bring up how those at-large city council seats turned in NOLA.

Hillary can win it, her husband actually did better than 50% in 1996. McCain would be a tough opponent, but Bill Clinton is worshipped in North Louisiana (probably because he is related to much of it). It would be tough, but it is actually within realm of reality. Obama winning Louisiana is a fantasy.

Every black vote that Obama draws in the South to come out of the woodwork to vote for him, there will be another white voter who normally doesn't vote, who will come out of the woodwork to vote against him. Many normal Democratic fundraisers in the region will just not donate to his campaign, they will divert their money to down the ticket races, which would actually be good for down the ticket. The problem is, it will be a liability for many of these down the ticket races to be associated with him. Race is still a big problem, and Obama is just not the kind of African American candidate who will speak to the average Southern voter. To be blunt, to get a black candidate elected statewide in the South, they are going to have to have a purple heart, and a history of taking on controversial black figures that white people don't like. That Jeremiah Wright thing matters in the South, and to be blunt, not everyone in the region is evangelical. The majority of whites aren't evangelical and there is a tension between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. Non-evangelical whites (who might actually be more inclined to vote for a Democratic candidate) are not going to buy his "caught up in the moment of preaching" line. More staid worshippers, who go to services that are ritualistic as opposed to charismatic, are not going to be as forgiving as the former president of the Arkansas Baptist Association (Huckabee)

I'll concede that Obama might be stronger in Colorado, Iowa, and in one of the Dakotas. However, he seems to be showing a propensity for a general election massacre in the Rust Belt, no way to win Florida, no way to win Tennessee (Hillary actually puts it in contention, and if Gore had just won it, Florida wouldn't have mattered), she'd probably eke out Arkansas. I just can buy into the fact that when Americans are feeling at their most down that they will do something that is totally out of our national character, because the theory is that an Obama general election victory changes America forever. I just don't see it happening in 2008. If this was the year for it to happen, Obama would have won in the Mahoning Valley, he would be polling ahead in West Virginia (another state that Clinton easily wins in a general that he just can't) and he would have had a 75-25% massacre in the part of the state that actually voted for Bill in 1996


That being said we need to let this play out and I will support the eventual winner, but I get the feeling that a huge gamble is being made it what should have been a sure year.

[jonestonesusa]

115. So does that mean that no black candidate should ever get the nomination?

There is always a risk that the Democratic candidate will lose. Some have lost in the recent past (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter the 2nd time). Bill Clinton did not get 50% in either one of his races, even when he was running against the barely-there Bob Dole. There is no certainty about a Democrat winning - any candidate has to fight hard to win the presidency, whether African American or not.

Some of the favored liberal candidates (Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd) weren't even able to win in the primaries. Obama outpaced them all. I'm not saying he's a guaranteed winner in the GE - he may well lose. But why so much detraction from what he has done so far?

[terrell9584]

125. No, I'm saying that when America elects a black President

it is going to happen because that black candidate has managed to win over the toughest audiences that black candidates usually have and Southern whites are among these audiences. Harold Ford proved that he could win a Democratic primary in Tennessee and he would have won the general if not for a blatant racially based ad. I still believe that Ford is a really good candidate for the job, as is Artur Davis, who won the primary for his seat (tantamount to election) by combining a coalition of white and black voters, even as the black incumbent he was running against openly ran on anti-Semitism and even brought Al Sharpton down to campaign for him.

Georgia has a black attorney general. In 2006, he led the Democratic ticket. I should also point out at this time that said attorney general has an image of being tough on crime, a bit of a cowboy image. If Georgia is to elect a black governor in our lifetime, it will be him. Baker has won over white southerners, (including rural ones, and this is what is really remarkable)and is one of the most Georgia political figures in recent history. He does very well in rural areas.

And I am not detracting, I am pointing out what I see to be obvious weaknesses in an election that I believe we need to win.

I would like to thank you for at least rationally discussing this rather than using an ad hominem, as seems to be happening here often these days

[Chulanowa]

61. I just want to understand...

"He portrays himself as a centrist and a moderate, but if you look at his votes it's tough to see anything but a liberal. He is more liberal than Hillary Clinton,"

How is it that the Republicans consider this a good thing for their chances? And why do Hillary supporters agree with them? When did "liberal" become bad?

[abbyg8r]

63. It's reverse psychology.

They don't want to run against Obama in the general so they're trying to make him look like the weaker candidate in the primary so the Dems will vote for Hillary. They know they can beat Hillary. This strategy has become quite obvious after watching Morning Joe who has suddenly professed his undying love for Hills.

[The Ghost]

65. HILLARY IS 0

[samsingh]

66. huh

[BlooInBloo]

67. Oh NOEESSSS!!! Republicans are talking shit and DUers go all to pieces like WATBs!!!

THAT'S never happened before.

Sheesh.

Or else they're concern trolls. But that would never happen on DU.

[Mooney]

68. I said this in the previous duplicate of this post:

If Obama is such a weak candidate, then Hillary Clinton --- who has been unable to beat him --- must be a REALLY weak candidate.

[bhikkhu]

70. Like in Carlito's Way - "here come's the pain!"

as he makes his way out, gun empty. Who is selling snake oil?

[goletian]

71. lol, pretty pathetic for hillary to lose to a loser.

what does that say about you? not much! hahahahahaha.

[still_one]

74. If he's such a loser, how come Hillary is behind?

The only way we lose in November is if the losers supporters do not vote for the Democratic nominee

I certainly hope that doesn't apply to you, because as far as I am concerned I will gladly vote for WHOEVER the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IS, especially against mccain

[Jed Dilligan]

75. Seriously, let this one SINK!

I'm sick of it sitting in the middle of my damned screen.

[cliffordu]

77. Since when do the Republicans run the Democratic party??

I don't give a SHIT


:hurts:

ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK.

WHAT'S IS WRONG WITH YOU???

[GoldieAZ49]

78. never- after all look how many presidential elections

the Dems have won in the past 40-50 years

[OzarkDem]

88. Since they've won the last two presidential elections

and are well on their way to stealing this one from the Dems, I'd say its time to pay attention to what they're up to.

[cliffordu]

105. Maybe it would be better to pay attention to what WE'RE up to.

Running around in circles and flapping your arms because the Repubs are going to try to skewer our candidate is the worst kind of defeatism there is. They are going to do that no matter who our nominee is.

Trying to prevent this from happening or thinking we can get a free pass because we choose the "more electable" candidate is really fucking weak, and speaks to NONE of the issues at hand, does it??

Why don't we look at the issues, choose our candidate and THEN work on all those mythical independent voters and "Reagan Republicans" or "Reagan Democrats" or "Reagan Dimwits" or whoever the hell are supposed to be the swing voters this time around.....

'Member the soccer moms?? The Nascar dads?? We need to work on whatever group the media says are this elections' "swing voters" because that vast group of people have no sense of self. They simply consume a role defined by the media to feel like they are on a team. They need to be led. They will vote any way that will make them feel like they are on the winning side, as they stand for nothing. The media calls that shot, we need to shape it.

Republicants know this very well and have manipulated these media-labeled, role-consumers almost perfectly, getting voters to actually vote against their interests for the last 8 years.

.

[OzarkDem]

109. Welcome to DU

[TLM]

80. So was hillary....

She thought she'd win too.... look what overconfidence has done for her?

[AtomicKitten]

82. Since Hillary can't win the nomination, your flailing about is moot.

[Tellurian]

118. Flailing? Hillary could be in a wheelchair and a neck brace and Obama would still be tied w/her!

:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

124. Since SuperTuesday, Obama +56 superdelegates, Hillary -5.

;)

[Tellurian]

126. Last I heard, their feet aren't nailed to the floor!

[Perry Logan]

83. NB: Republicans always predict a rosy future for themselves, no matter how screwed they are.

[DeeDeeNY]

91. If Obama's liberal, isn't that good? We're DEMOCRATS.

Aren't we Democrats who believe liberal is better than conservative, or are we just a spineless group that continues to allow Republicans to get away with making "liberal" a bad word?

Here is JFK's definition of liberal, from which he did not run away --

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

[leaningprog]

92. Republicans should feel good about Obama

Perhaps not because they feel they have discovered the tools to
deny him victory from a divisive and unnecessarily nasty rather
than respectful primary between two strong Democrats. But for
another reason. President Obama is going to make them better
Republicans. He is going to lift the politics to where they have
to go back to their core principles and drop the game of gotcha
and smear that our party is wracked with as well right now.
They are going to be able to bring the best of what they have
to offer with their talent and integrity that has been under
the Neocon boot just as much as our best and most promising
people have. We are going to have a President who has the people
with him and who is truly for them. We are going to see a nation
that blinks it's eyes and pinches itself and says in effect:

Damn, I think this system still works and is alive and growing.

We are stuck in a system of purposely divided people and parties
that is locked in a roten race for the bottom. Everyone in America
is not going to be Democrat, but they are going to be included
and their voices are going to heard and their talents are going
to be added to the pool and put to work for America. And almost
everyone is going to respect the Democrat party for what it has
brought forward for this nation.

It is time to heal ourselves and blunt our sharp tongues and
show Hillary the respect for the great talent and person that
she is, and to recognize our own faults and our candidates fault
and to not behave in the old way that discards humans like trash
by doting on their flaws instead of recognizing their talents
and desire to do something positive.

It's time to make our behavior match our lofty ideals and to
recognize that we are not perfect people and we are not perfected
by denying other people because they are not perfect. This is the
exact failed nonsense that has allowed our country to install
a president who has acted in way that is hard to distinguish
from a dictator. He divided his way to the top and ruled with
an iron hand, and it has torn our country to shreds.
It is time to stop pointing fingers and to repair this damage
and to get to work on the huge stalled body of issues that
has remained untouched while we played gotcha with each other.

[myrna minx]

130. Welcome to DU, leaningprog.

:hi:

[zulchzulu]

94. I welcome Obama running against Grandpa McSame in the GE

The economy is in the shitter. McSame has flip flopped on Bush tax cuts and has admitted he doesn't know about the economy.

The Iraq War is in the shitter. Tying a nice big weight of the war and its effect on the economy will be fatal to the McCain campaign.

It will be nasty, but Obama will prevail.

[Tellurian]

106. I don't! I want a candidate who can win the WH. Obama is NOT it!

http://www.taylormarsh.com/images2/hillaryclinton_wideweb__470x308,02.jpg

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

95. now that's comedy! tell us the one about the nun in the bar again.

[clevbot]

96. After all, he barely won his Senate Race! LOLLOL If he's beating Hillary, what does that say about

her chances. ROFL

[GoldieAZ49]

107. what does it say about the Dems chances in Nov?

[fifthoffive]

97. Yeah - I really expect

Republican pollsters to be promoting the idea that their candidate will lose to ANY Democrat.

Please - we should nominate our candidate based on what a Republican pollster says? Seems to me Republicans know they can beat Clinton - they are just now hoping they can beat Obama.

[Joe the Revelator]

98. Oh my god!!! They might call him a LIBERAL!!!!

Lock the doors!!!!

[Orsino]

101. Is there a Democrat they'll admit to fearing?

Not yet--they're still in denial. Seems that every other week I see the GOP making brave noises about which one they want to run against.

I don't believe they can handle either one, and I think they know it. It's still smart for the better Democratic vote-getter, organizer and charmer to take on McCain, and IMO that's Obama.

[JBoy]

108. Of course the GOP are starting to say this. They will be facing Obama.

Game on.

[redqueen]

111. "Game on." Hell yes!

And bring on the smears and Pastor Wright. Obama has shown how to handle BS smears, and his surrogates will trot out McCain's pastor... McCain certainly won't want that.

With Obama's fundraising skillz and inspirational know-how and calm ability to handle a crisis... oh HAYELL yes!

:bounce:

[Tellurian]

119. TILT! Game Over... if it's BO

[redqueen]

110. Oh noes!

:rofl:

:crazy:

[damonm]

112. Not any rethugs I know...

...'Cuz at Hannity's board (where I lurk for oppo research purposes), They salivate over running against Clinton. Obama has had them wetting their pants since at LEAST Super Tuesday (once he started looking like the real deal).

Get off the Kool-aid, Tellurian - reality doesn't support your assertions.

[kitfalbo]

114. Cookie

"Snake oil Salesman", "loser" why throw insults. Can't you just feel the love, all democrats need to unite to attack McCain not each other. I think you need a group hug and a cookie.

[Tellurian]

121. Has Obama likened himself to Moses yet?

Maybe he'll prove it by parting the Mississippi!

[JBoy]

132. No, but I heard Carville liken Hillary to Jesus - when he called Richardson "Judas"

[madrchsod]

123. "After all, he barely won his Senate Race!"

..."After all, he barely won his Senate Race!":rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

wait... i have to catch my breath...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[stevietheman]

127. Obama is the nominee and next President. Get used to it.

And kiss his ring!

[cliffordu]

131. Republicans feel good about the Bush years too. What the fuck is your point?