Marsupialized wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:

Skronk wrote:I'm genuinely curious, what about Obama says "real change"?

dude, says it right here

Is the "O" a plug for Oprah's magazine?

I assumed it was a halo

A brown halo? I think it's a symbol for where he's putting that thumb.

Yippie, that sure shows us who's boss

Rick Reuben wrote:Good analysis of Obama's Not-so-super Tuesday by Webster Tarpley:

tarpley 2-8-08 wrote:With David Swanson, Michael Moore, and David Lindorff (who should know better) all joining the swoon of the controlled corporate media for Obama, it is time to re-assert reality. The Super-Tuesday results show conclusively that Obama could never win the general election in November. He would be yet another losing Democratic candidate, acceptable to wealthy elitists but not to the voters from working families of the middle class and lower middle class, doomed to go the way of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry. He appeals to two groups:­ well-off suburbanites and blacks, and these will never be enough to carry the general election.

Tarpley forgot to mention that white indie rockers also love Obama.

tarpley wrote:Any Democratic candidate who cannot win California and New York should probably call it a day. That applies to Obama, but his situation is even worse. The voter pool for the Democratic primaries is notoriously not typical of the broader US population. The Democratic primaries have been skewed for decades by the presence of large numbers of upper-middle class elitists concerned about environmentalism, race and gender quotas, balanced budgets, good government, corruption, gridlock, excessive partisanship, and related issues. They are not interested in the minimum wage, trade union rights, stopping home foreclosures, and other kitchen table concerns of the less well off. In this year's Super Tuesday, it was estimated that about 56% of the voters on the Democratic Party side had been to college­ about twice the level for the population as a whole. Yet, even with this voter pool, Obama could not win a single Electoral College megastate vital for any Democratic candidate, with the sole exception of his own home base of Illinois.

Too bad Edwards got pushed into the shadows when the media went to push the 'young black vs. the woman' battle. Edwards might have had broader appeal than either.

tarpley wrote:To win an election, a Democrat must win the Electoral College megastates to get to the 270 plus electoral votes needed to eject the GOP from the White House. Mrs. Clinton carried these states convincingly, starting with California, where all of Obama's money could not save him. California is so huge, so crucial, and so much a symbol of America's future in the Pacific century, that the argument could well end here. A Democrat who cannot win California has no hope of entering the White House.

I personally think that the fact that Obama could not beat Hillary in California does not mean that he could not beat McCain in California.

This analysis is incredible bullshit. California would never go for John McCain. Of COURSE Hillary won New York. An Obama candidacy puts into play states that would almost certainly go Republican.

John McCain is an old man who has claimed to know nothing about the economy and wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it takes to "win." Put that up against Barack Obama and we'll see who wins. If Obama can take on the well-established Clinton political bulldozer/spanking machine, I think he can take John McCain and a Republican Party that doesn't even support his candidacy. Fucking aye.

And yes, Edwards obviously would have had the broader appeal than either of them...another rich white waspy southerner!

Actually, early polls show Obama having more of a chance to beat McCain than Hillary. Of course, this is way before the national campaigns start, but still shows that Minotaur is more right than Rick.

I'll be ducking while heads explode.

You wanna just hand our country over to the Galactic federation?
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/ron.htm

I just voted for Obama in the WA caucus.

Obama is poised to gain 30 delegates over Clinton from this state alone. All of Seattle knew exactly what was going on today and everyone was out and PSYCHED.

Dayamn!

Rick Reuben wrote:Obama would lose to McCain nationally, because he's too young and too half-black.

Right. This is why Obama just crushed Hillary in yet another state that might as well be called "White People: The State" (a.k.a.-Nebraska).

Rick Reuben wrote:I've said all along that Hillary's support is not deep and that Obama has more potential to connect with voters if he were to win the nomination. But to even entertain that scenario means retaining belief in honest elections. The question is not, "Who will give McCain a better fight?" because there is no fight. The globalists and the controlled media have selected Hillary and have chosen McCain as her Bob Dole, as Bob Dole was selected for Clinton in 1996.

Sigh. Stay with me on this one, people.

Okay...so RR says that Obama's ceiling (ceiling = potential vote getters [in case you didn't know]) is substantially higher than Hillary's, yet he can't win because he's young and black? Or is it that the "globalists" don't want Obama to win?

So which is the reason Obama would lose the general election to McCain? Globalist conspiracy or racism?...stay with me now...

Even if you discount the fact that Rick Reuben "realizes" far into today's posts that Obama is going to be the victim of a globalist conspiracy, he admits (as cited in bold) that Hillary is a weaker candidate than Obama, despite claiming that he's too young and black. Keep in mind that RR has picked Hillary to win the Presidency of the United States in November.

So, if you further discount the fact that Rick Reuben originally picked McCain to win the general election, his cynical dependence on racist America makes no sense.

Hillary < Obama (in terms of general election voter ceilings)
Hillary > McCain
Obama < McCain (?!)

OKAY! So if everything is not a conspiracy, how does McCain beat Obama?

And if everything is a conspiracy, isn't EVERYONE a globalist candidate according to Rick Reuben? Doesn't Rick Reuben claim that Obama is just as enslaved to the powers that be as McCain and Hillary all over the message board? If Obama ISN'T enslaved to these powers, then he IS a non-corrupt, future political victim?? Which is it? (Let's live in Rick Reuben land for a moment) If they are both "globalist candidates," then why wouldn't Obama kick the crap out of John McCain for being a geezer warlord who openly claims to be ignorant of the economy?

If he's too young and too black, then how is he a stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton who is old and white?

Does Rick Reuben's logic make any sense???


In absence of a conspiracy (read: reality), Obama obviously beats John McCain in the general election (if you know anything about 2000 and 2004 numbers). You don't need a fucking weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

omg the CNN reporter did not just say "They are raising the roof here for Barack Obama."

They are letting the dogs out, 24/7 in full effect for sheezy, blood!

Wait, hold on: is Rick Reuben clockerbob? Is that the deal?

Rick Reuben wrote:Because you're a rich kid, you might be able to live your whole life without seriously confronting the fact that you live in an oligarchy ruled by a banking cartel that robs interest from the workers to buy castles and yachts and blah blah blah blah blah...

I'm talking about a horse race...you're avoiding pwnage.

Clocker Bob wrote:Hillary, CFR, McCain, CFR, Obama, CFR. We are headed for a second orchestrated depression followed by an asset consolidation phase followed by a merging into a regional government/economic zone. This is what the bankers have ruled, without any input from the Minotaurs of the world whatsoever. All you need to do is look at the debt and the unfunded obligations to the swelling population of baby boomer retirees and the dismantled manufacturing base and the insane perpetual war and the destroyed unions and the middle class squeeze to see exactly where America will be in 2010, 2020, and 2030. It's history. It repeats itself.

More blah blah blah. I'm talking about a horse race...you're completely ignoring what I was actually talking about in an effort to appear to have an actual rebuttal.

Turn off the computer, read Machiavelli again, masturbate, cry.