Obama takes Iowa

[Brainster]

So many voted for that idiot Huckabee.

sigh

This is so depressing.

Cheer up! It was 40,000 people, and at InTrade's political prediction market the guys who have gotten the boost were McCain and Giuliani.

 

[latent aaaack]

Does he want to ban gay marriage and abortion, and teach creationism in school? No? Then I really don't care what his religion is, just so long as he doesn't impose it on me.

And lol at the megalomaniac BS. I heard he was planning on being president since kindergarten too. Really, why should I care if he compared his "humble beginnings" to Lincoln's or whatever he said. Republicans like to compare themselves to Reagan, who they regard as the best president evar. All politicians do that claptrap.

I really don't see anything spectacular enough on Dodd's or Richardson's policies to warrant me wasting my vote on them. Oh, and Richardson failed the gay debate.

What do you mean by "anything spectacular?" What constitutes that?

Here's one of the times Obama says in effect that voting for him means voting for someone with the same positive qualities as Lincoln. This has got to be the weirdest freaking thing I've ever read by a mainstream politician ever. Note this part: 'But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible' - going so far as to compare the physical attributes of himself and Lincoln.

The only reason candidates this extreme get this far, as was the case with Bush, is that the public is simply too nice and themselves too sane and intelligent for them to take the bold step of accusing someone of being mentally incapable of being president without conclusive evidence, as opposed to reading the signs and admitting no conclusive evidence will be forthcoming until it's too late in this case. The election of Bush twice shows that to be too dangerous a habit. If they walk like it, talk like it, and look like it while running for president even just a little through their managed facade, they are it. There are plenty of democrat candidates that aren't stark raving mad like this sounds:

By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail.

But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible.

He tells us that there is power in words.

He tells us that there is power in conviction.

That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people.

He tells us that there is power in hope.

As Lincoln organized the forces arrayed against slavery, he was heard to say: "Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought to battle through."

That is our purpose here today.

That's why I'm in this race.

Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.

I want to win that next battle - for justice and opportunity.

I want to win that next battle - for better schools, and better jobs, and health care for all.

I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.

And if you will join me in this improbable quest, if you feel destiny calling, and see as I see, a future of endless possibility stretching before us; if you sense, as I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber, and slough off our fear, and make good on the debt we owe past and future generations, then I'm ready to take up the cause, and march with you, and work with you. Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Compare the Obama and Hillary speech to Edward’s speech last night.

Edward’s speech had content.

Edward's speech was distasteful, Hillary's hilariously mishandled. And neither were victory speeches.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I wouldn't put too much stock in Iowa. It's a strange system, there is no secret ballot. I think most people really don't want everyone to know who they voted for, and these people certainly didn't vote in Iowa. Or they did but just went along with the popular crowd.

New Hampshire is also suspect as a harbinger of things to come, Super Tuesday will be the big one.

That, Cat, is where it's at.

And California is now in Super Tuesday, we used to generally bring up the rear on the primaries. But it's now just a month away.

And now I've got to decide betwixt Hillary and Edwards. Obama's out of the picture, for me, in the primaries. If he manages to get the nomination? Well then I'll end up voting for him in November. It's what Oprah would want (holy friggin' Toledo).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What do you mean by "anything spectacular?" What constitutes that?

Anything that is subtantially different enough from the rest of the field, and something that I stand for, of course.

tHere's one of the times Obama says in effect that voting for him means voting for someone with the same positive qualities as Lincoln. This has got to be the weirdest freaking thing I've ever read by a mainstream politician ever. Note this part: 'But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible' - going so far as to compare the physical attributes of himself and Lincoln.

The only reason candidates this extreme get this far, as was the case with Bush, is that the public is simply too nice and themselves too sane and intelligent for them to take the bold step of accusing someone of being mentally incapable of being president without conclusive evidence, as opposed to reading the signs and admitting no conclusive evidence will be forthcoming until it's too late in this case. The election of Bush twice shows that to be too dangerous a habit. If they walk like it, talk like it, and look like it while running for president even just a little through their managed facade, they are it. There are plenty of democrat candidates that aren't stark raving mad like this sounds:

OMG this is so hilarious. You really think it is so mental to say that you stand for the same things that Lincoln stood for?

He's not saying that he is going play as huge of a role in history as Lincoln, or accomplish the same grand things. He is saying that he stands for some of the same values. And the talk about Lincoln's history was to try to show that he isn't unelectable.

Yes, it is so raving to to say that you have the same values as an American hero .

And LOL at your bias, Ron Paul has made numerous claims of having the values and ideas of the founding fathers. Is he a raving lunatic?

 

[TriskettheKid]

And LOL at your bias, Ron Paul has made numerous claims of having the values and ideas of the founding fathers. Is he a raving lunatic?

Yes.

 

[MaGZ]

Anything that is subtantially different enough from the rest of the field, and something that I stand for, of course.



OMG this is so hilarious. You really think it is so mental to say that you stand for the same things that Lincoln stood for?

He's not saying that he is going play as huge of a role in history as Lincoln, or accomplish the same grand things. He is saying that he stands for some of the same values. And the talk about Lincoln's history was to try to show that he isn't unelectable.

Yes, it is so raving to to say that you have the same values as an American hero .

And LOL at your bias, Ron Paul has made numerous claims of having the values and ideas of the founding fathers. Is he a raving lunatic?

So if Obama gets elected he is going to have half the South burned to the Atlantic coast.

 

[ConspiRaider]

So if Obama gets elected he is going to have half the South burned to the Atlantic coast.

No. You must have been goose-stepping during his speech and didn't hear it right. He is going to have half the South bermed to the Atlantic coast. Gonna dam up the Old Man, the Mississippi River so's we don't run outta water because of global warming and California wildfires.

 

[latent aaaack]

Anything that is subtantially different enough from the rest of the field, and something that I stand for, of course.

I'm not asking cynically - what is this piece of "spectacular" policy that Obama had that other candidates didn't? I could've missed it, though I know about the Iraq war vote.

OMG this is so hilarious. You really think it is so mental to say that you stand for the same things that Lincoln stood for?

He's not saying that he is going play as huge of a role in history as Lincoln, or accomplish the same grand things. He is saying that he stands for some of the same values. And the talk about Lincoln's history was to try to show that he isn't unelectable.

Yes, it is so raving to to say that you have the same values as an American hero .

And LOL at your bias, Ron Paul has made numerous claims of having the values and ideas of the founding fathers. Is he a raving lunatic?

In what ways does Obama have the same values as republican Lincoln? No, Obama didn't list values associated with Lincoln that he shares in that speech, his self-comparison to Lincoln appealed to presidential greatness alone and a promise to "transform the nation" and "usher in a new birth of freedom on earth." That makes Obama too insanse to be president.

And what's your explanation for Obama comparing his physical traits and occupation to Lincoln's, if you think he's saying he holds the same values and that's all?

Since no one here believes he "represents change" or likes his ability to pump up crowds I'm asking supporters here different questions instead. I'm not trying to make a comprehensive case of why he shouldn't be voted for.

I've never heard Ron Paul compare himself to the founding fathers aside from specific issues (not, like Obama, greatness or that they caused 'change') but yes he's too much of a lunatic to be president too and Paul was this extreme before the constitution was under attack which is suspicious.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm not asking cynically - what is this piece of "spectacular" policy that Obama had that other candidates didn't? I could've missed it, though I know about the Iraq war vote.

Yes . Also, I prefer his healthcare plan because it doesn't include a mandate.

In what ways does Obama have the same values as republican Lincoln? No, Obama didn't list values associated with Lincoln that he shares in that speech, his self-comparison to Lincoln appealed to presidential greatness alone and a promise to "transform the nation" and "usher in a new birth of freedom on earth." That makes Obama too insanse to be president.

Yes, it's in your own quote:

He tells us that there is power in words.

He tells us that there is power in conviction.

That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people.

He tells us that there is power in hope.

That's what Obama's campaign believes in. That is the main jist of the speech.

And what's your explanation for Obama comparing his physical traits and occupation to Lincoln's, if you think he's saying he holds the same values and that's all?

I already said, talking about Lincoln's looks and junk was to establish electability, in that even people as "unelectable" as Lincoln could win.

Since no one here believes he "represents change"

... Do you actually read what other people write?

or likes his ability to pump up crowds I'm asking supporters here different questions instead. I'm not trying to make a comprehensive case of why he shouldn't be voted for.

BS. You aren't asking questions you are calling him a raving lunatic.

I've never heard Ron Paul compare himself to the founding fathers aside from specific issues (not, like Obama, greatness or that they caused 'change') but yes he's too much of a lunatic to be president too and Paul was this extreme before the constitution was under attack which is suspicious.

Ah, I was under the impression you were a RP supporter, sorry.

 

[WildCat]

So many voted for that idiot Huckabee.

sigh

This is so depressing.

Lots of fundies in Iowa. Only 14% of Huckabee's votes came from non-fundies.

 

[corplinx]

I may think Obama is a paper tiger, but I applaud him on beating Hillary in Iowa. Anytime someone beats the "anointed" candidate I have to give them props.

 

[latent aaaack]

Yes . Also, I prefer his healthcare plan because it doesn't include a mandate.



Yes, it's in your own quote:



That's what Obama's campaign believes in. That is the main jist of the speech.

Those aren't values and Lincoln didn't even tell us those things. Obama is just talking about how great Lincoln was, those things had nothing to do with Lincoln's values. Lincoln didn't want the country to be split - that's not comparable to anything Obama stands for in any way, it's Obama being another loony or imbecile like Bush.

I already said, talking about Lincoln's looks and junk was to establish electability, in that even people as "unelectable" as Lincoln could win.

Obama is seen as unelectable because of his inexperience, race, and youth and Lincoln wasn't seen as unelectable because he was lanky or tall or a lawyer. Being tall is one of the traits that is in fact most positively correlated with winning the presidency. Many presidents were lawyers. There wasn't even the strongly visual media back then, so it's another 'this man might not be all there' kind of statement.

... Do you actually read what other people write?

Neither you or Hokulele answered in this thread how exactly he represents change or why it's good to have a leader that can pump up crowds with charisma and triumphantalism. If you think Obama, as you hear so often, represents change and hope please say why you think that. I don't see it at all. Many candidates in US history did not inherit wealth or position. Edwards' parents were much, much poorer than Obama's.

BS. You aren't asking questions you are calling him a raving lunatic.



Ah, I was under the impression you were a RP supporter, sorry.

Calling him a raving lunatic is hardly a comprehensive reason why he should not be president and certainly people vote for raving lunatics all the time anyway I just want to know what the thought process is.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Those aren't values and Lincoln didn't even tell us those things. Obama is just talking about how great Lincoln was, those things had nothing to do with Lincoln's values. Lincoln didn't want the country to be split - that's not comparable to anything Obama stands for in any way, it's Obama being another loony or imbecile like Bush.

Really? "That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people," isn't a value that Lincoln had?

And LOL at more Bush comparisons, you don't tire of that fallacy do you?

Obama is seen as unelectable because of his inexperience, race, and youth and Lincoln wasn't seen as unelectable because he was lanky or tall or a lawyer. Being tall is one of the traits that is in fact most positively correlated with winning the presidency. Many presidents were lawyers. There wasn't even the strongly visual media back then, so it's another 'this man might not be all there' kind of statement.

Is every response "Obama is crazy"? Lincoln was an ugly junior Senator from Illinois who wasn't part of the establishment (i.e. self-made). That's what the Lincoln comparison is about. Lincoln could win and do well for his country despite those setbacks.

Neither you or Hokulele answered in this thread how exactly he represents change or why it's good to have a leader that can pump up crowds with charisma and triumphantalism. If you think Obama, as you hear so often, represents change and hope please say why you think that. I don't see it at all. Many candidates in US history did not inherit wealth or position. Edwards' parents were much, much poorer than Obama's.

Both he and Edwards represent a change from corruption (See background and compaign financing). But Obama isn't as divisive and isn't about beating down the other side. Edwards says there are two Americas, and he represents the poor. Obama says that there is one United States, and he wants to listen to everyone. He gets independant and Republican voters.

Calling him a raving lunatic is hardly a comprehensive reason why he should not be president and certainly people vote for raving lunatics all the time anyway I just want to know what the thought process is.

It is pointlessly insulting, and stupid. Along with the Bush comparisons.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Lincoln didn't want the country to be split - that's not comparable to anything Obama stands for in any way.

Actually, I think Obama would also be against the secession of the confederate states, but for some reason the issue doesn't come up as often as it used to back in 1861.

 

[latent aaaack]

By 'one people' he meant 'one country' - Lincoln was for the US being 'one contry' when faced with secession. Of course Obama is against secession that makes no sense as a value both of them share, you're reaching too far to support Obama's self-comparison to the presidential greatness of Lincoln. You know Obama can make a mistake without him being a bad candidate, I just want to know if you have some self deluding though process that makes you think he's perfect or a great historical figure because he's charismatic and a triumphant self-lover.

I don't think the "he represent change" meme is about him being anti-corruption but that would be a valid reason he represents change if I can verify it. He hasn't been a politician long enough to believe he's not corrupt however.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Actually, I think Obama would also be against the secession of the confederate states, but for some reason the issue doesn't come up as often as it used to back in 1861.

True. Although all of the major candidates, both Democratic and Republican, strongly favor and in fact encourage the secession of Tennessee. Who doesn't? That Graceland thing. Hideous place.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Is every response "Obama is crazy"? Lincoln was an ugly junior Senator from Illinois who wasn't part of the establishment (i.e. self-made). That's what the Lincoln comparison is about. Lincoln could win and do well for his country despite those setbacks.

Obama does not have the Old School Convention methods to help him come out of the convention as the surprise candidate for his party. (Catton did a nice treatment of that in "The Coming Fury" )

Also, leftysergeant, I am tickled by your following tidbit:

. . . and he {RP}still couldn't beat Fred Thompsoin, one of the most lack-luster, zombie-like wastes of a ballot slot to ever run for president,

I tend to agree.

"Vote for me, I was on TV" is hardly a platform for a presidency.

DR

 

[joobz]

So if Obama gets elected he is going to have half the South burned to the Atlantic coast.

Thank you.
This is by far the dumbest thing I've read this year.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

By 'one people' he meant 'one country' - Lincoln was for the US being 'one contry' when faced with secession. Of course Obama is against secession that makes no sense as a value both of them share, you're reaching too far to support Obama's self-comparison to the presidential greatness of Lincoln. You know Obama can make a mistake without him being a bad candidate, I just want to know if you have some self deluding though process that makes you think he's perfect or a great historical figure because he's charismatic and a triumphant self-lover.

I don't think the "he represent change" meme is about him being anti-corruption but that would be a valid reason he represents change if I can verify it. He hasn't been a politician long enough to believe he's not corrupt however.

No, you are reaching too far to claim that Obama is a megalomaniacal Bush II.

He isn't claiming he is as great a historical figure as Lincoln, he is saying he believes in the same things as the great person Lincoln. That is clearly the message of his speech.

No, I don't think he is perfect or a great historical figure. But that doesn't mean the BS you've been spewing is true.

And I find it hilarious that you think he is self-loving. The thing that the analysts found interesting about his victory speech was that it was all about "we" and "you", unlike Clinton's which was all about "I".

And did you miss the part where I said that part of the change is being against partisanship and division?