Reply With QuoteI thought you said "backlash" and I read your post 3 times in increasing confusion until I looked at the title again.
Let me summarize the liberal blogs:
1. Best field organization in 30 years.
2. Huge number of new self-identified Democrats showed up.
3. Unbelievable turnout numbers, and very young caucus goers.
4. Charles Peters on Obama's amazing legislative success in Iowa getting confessions videotaped, going from no support to near unamity.
5. Maybe Obama really does know what he's doing.
In all my dealings with Obama people, as well as the man himself, there's always been this sense that they're constantly telling people, "Trust us. We've thought this through. We know what we're doing. It'll work. Yes we understand that you're uncomfortable with this, or that you think it's wrong, but really we know what we're doing."
And then those of us in the cheap seats think that there's no way all of those new/young voters show up to vote in Iowa, that Obama's inclusive rhetoric doesn't have the appeal he imagines, etc.. etc... And then he pulls it off. Maybe he does know what he's doing.
I thought you said "backlash" and I read your post 3 times in increasing confusion until I looked at the title again.
Exact same experience here. Except I read through his post once in confusion, then read your response.Originally Posted by Lizard_King
I read that he got the highest youth vote turnout since JFK. Listening to his Iowa victory speech, I think he's the greatest antidote to cynicism that I've seen in my lifetime. It's kind of funny to watch Clinton's popularity contest bandwagon get caught like a deer in the headlights.
He actually inspires hope in me. You know, that corny old thing?
I didn't even spot it until I'd read the post and the reply twice each.
I move we start a new thread with a better-chosen title.
He's got going for him what I liked most about Edwards.
I don't care which front-runner wins the Democratic nomination this year -- just as long as it's not Hillary.
On the Republican side, however, there's a lot not to like, I find. Which is unusual for me.
Motion seconded.
I like Obama but don't get too carried away with the Iowa results. One stat I heard last night was that he barely beat Hillary among registered dem's, which means his margin was in attracting independents. There are a lot of primary's where the independent impact is much less than in Iowa.
That said, he should do well in Vermont with it's independents and South Carolina because of it's ethnic makeup (not my observation, but that of several pundits last night).
In the general election, get your party out to vote and then get a lot of independents, and the holy grail of crossover votes (remember Reagan Democrats?) and you sweep the board.
Hillary is the presumed party favorite, so even "barely" beating her with the registered Dems (in an all white state) is pretty impressive. She flew in 1000 "friends" to help her in this campaign, outside of the inside the state workers, and spent $400 Billion dollars (ok, I made that last dollar figure up, but the 1000 is real) and came in 3rd. The joy in my heart is overflowing, even if it only lasts the next 5 days. ;)
I asked in this forum some weeks ago - is there any candidate you could passionately support? The answer was crickets chirping (other than the Ron Paul fans.) I think Obama could be that candidate.
I don't disagree. My point is that Hillary still has a good shot of winning a number of key states as long as the core of the party is behind her, that's all. Obviously, Obama does look like a much better general election candidate than she does at this point.
What's wrong with the title? The liberal blogs' heads (and mine) are snapping around fast enough to give them whiplash. There's no backlash.
Oh, you were talking about your personal whiplash. Got it.
I think the problem is being so used to backlash threads about games. The moment something becomes a breakout hit, we have a backlash thread. The same just happened with Obama, so it's natural to expect a similar effect.
I did find it confusing, but I was mostly kidding about starting a new thread.
Never count the Clintons out. They still have a tremendous amount of power, a huge machine, and a lot of strings they can pull. They still worry me.
Obama - The New Bioshock?
And is that really a good thing? The republicans are dead set against universal healthcare, rolling back tax cuts to balance the budget, corprate reform, and doing anything else I think should be done. What we need is a cynical, coniving bastard who will exploit republican weaknesses, welcome their hatred, and actually get stuff done. Thats why I'm an Edwards man. That time as a lawyer has to have been good for something.
Nothing. I've just been conditioned to expect a different word, there, that's all.
You differentiate between those two entities? Interesting.The liberal blogs' heads (and mine) are snapping around fast enough to give them whiplash.
....yet. And I hope he's ready for it.There's no backlash.
They remain the dragon that he needs to slay. Unless the GOP gets their shit together and nominates McCain - which ironically Huckabee's victory might scare them into doing.
So when does Obama get Codex'd?
I don't know -- the turnout in Iowa was roughly 240,000 Democrats to 115,000 Republicans. I don't think the blue team has to work too hard to get into the Whitehouse this year. And Obama has the ability to shame people for not working together towards a common cause. He can effectively embarrass you in front of your own constituency, without slinging an ounce of mud.
And as it turns out, Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review, then got his juris doctorate, magna cum laude. Then he worked as an associate at a Chicago law firm for three years, and he also taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago for eleven years, until he was elected to the Illinois Senate. However, he wasn't a trial lawyer, as far as I know.
The only thing I was confused by was why Obama needed to have confessions videotaped in Iowa. Reading the link helped (interesting article, too).
I think even Republicans are ready for a change. Yeah, not the Rove/Cheney cabal, but I'm betting you'll find a lot of Republicans in Congress who would be more willing than you'd expect to do some compromising to get some things done if the environment in Washington, among both parties, was back to let's get some things done and make the country happy with us again.
Thanks for the link, Jason. Perhaps there's finally light at the end of 8 years.
Those same pundits were predicting that Hillary would have an advantage in South Carolina because of its ethnic makeup and higher support amongst blacks due to Clinton era reforms not so long ago.
I'd vote to shoot the pundits, personally.
Obama has me excited. Should he win, I think he'll be the best thing to happen to this country in a very, very long time.
Vermont?
Vermont is not New Hampshire. You move back three spaces and miss a turn.
Sorry, my mistake. I keep getting those two mixed up.
Ah, you wacky Oregonians. :p
Meanwhile, in a fit of political optimism which I assume will subside back into bitterness and loathing soon enough, I made an online contribution to the Obama campaign today. He should be able to buy a fancy coffee drink and a muffin with it.
I recently met a girl and we hit it off incredibly well and things were going great until I found out that she likes Hillary Clinton.
By the time she told me, she knew enough about me to say it apologetically, but still.
I want to see her again, but not until she agrees to learn about (and therefore support) Ron Paul, or at the very least Barack Obama.
Posting Permissions