[jstizzle]

that sign is great.

maybe I should vote for romney

[Rithlilky]

I'm not serious

[Seisyvose]

He should have claimed he thought the sign was making fun of Ted Kennedy.

[EbrsaRynleot]

The "King of Fear and Oil" favors Romney over McKain? What's up with that?

[BariGrootrego]

He's voting least likely to succeed.

[MaugleeRobins]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
He's voting least likely to succeed. Yep... most likely to fall on his face during the general election.

[YonkFiorc]

Seeing as Obama and Chelseas momma arent even ideologically equivalent The difference is likely to be pretty small compared either of them and whoever held up the sign. Among Republicans, Chelsea's momma is generally considered to be the more liberal of the two.

Republicans overwhelmingly view Clinton as politically liberal—76% say that’s a fair description of the former First Lady. Only 62% of Republicans see Edwards as a political conservative while 58% of the GOP faithful see Obama in that light. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ically_liberal


yeah, its all Bushitler's fault. I forget. Was it Obama or Edwards who said that?

Its just a list of folks the sign holder dislikes. Regardless of what she meant (and I don't think it was that), it was a rather dumb thing for Romney to hold up that poster...

[oemcheapdownload]

Originally posted by Ramo


The difference is likely to be pretty small compared either of them and whoever held up the sign. Among Republicans, Chelsea's momma is generally considered to be the more liberal of the two.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ically_liberal


yeah, folks project whatever they want onto Obama, you can get away with that when you avoid substance. Wont last though.

[Haibundadam]

yeah, folks project whatever they want onto Obama, you can get away with that when you avoid substance. Wont last though. Seeing as how Obama has probably put out at least as many policy proposals as Clinton (as an example, we still haven't gotten her health care plan yet), I'm at a lost at what exactly "avoiding substance" means. He's a little behind Edwards, but so is everyone else...

His stump speeches emphasize narrative over laundry list, but I don't really see why that's a bad thing. It's not like laundry lists have worked for the Dems lately.

[Agrisalia]

Originally posted by Ramo


Seeing as how Obama has probably put out at least as many policy proposals as Clinton (as an example, we still haven't gotten her health care plan yet), I'm at a lost at what exactly "avoiding substance" means. He's a little behind Edwards, but so is everyone else... Obama can get away with a plan othat on the one hand doesnt guarantee universal coverage, and OTOH doesnt show how it will be paid for, cause folks arent looking that closely. When Hillary of all people proposes a health care plan, it will be gone over with a fine tooth comb, so she really does need to be careful in putting it together.

[Nidsstese]

Obama can get away with a plan othat on the one hand doesnt guarantee universal coverage, It does. It just doesn't have an individual mandate so that if the program doesn't initially work out - i.e. the subsidy is too small, people aren't screwed. MA, for example, had to revise their subsidy. I think it's a good idea to phase in the individual mandate after everything's working right.

and OTOH doesnt show how it will be paid for, It does. He said he wanted to roll back the Bush tax cuts on those making over $200,000.

[tousuarshatly]

Originally posted by Ramo


It does. It just doesn't have an individual mandate so that if the program doesn't initially work out - i.e. the subsidy is too small, people aren't screwed. MA, for example, had to revise their subsidy. I think it's a good idea to phase in the individual mandate after everything's working right.



It does. He said he wanted to roll back the Bush tax cuts on those making over $200,000. If theres no mandate, theres no universal care.

So hes not going to use the roll back of the Bush tax cuts to reduce the budget deficit? Interesting.

[dserbokim]

Again, I'm talking about selling ideas, NOT biographical background. Obama does that with a story, while most other Dems have their laundry lists (including Clinton from what I've heard).

[accelieda]

right now Obama doesnt do much better than Hillary in one on one match ups, despite Hillary having been subject to the GOP attack machine for over 15 years, while theyve mainly held their fire against Obama. At the same time ~40-45% of the electorate already hates her and won't vote for her. They'll try to smear Obama, but I think he'll hold up fine. Frankly, I'm pretty sure the Dems will win regardless of who's nominated. In any other year it's likely that the difference between an Obama and a Hillary would by relatively small, but 2008 looks like another wave year, and I want to maximize Dem gains down ticket. Maybe get a filibuster-proof Senate by 2010 so we can actually see universal health care.

[cigsstorenick]

Originally posted by Ramo


It's universal to anyone who wants it. Are you saying that people should be forced into buying a plan that doesn't have its kinks worked out?
If you dont have lots of problems. On the one hand the folks who do buy insurance guaranteed to everyone are going to be the least healthy and some folks may decide simply not to buy insurance till they get sick (moral hazard). I doubt very much that Obamas cost estimates reflect that fact. Second, you dont get the full benefits in terms of reduced ER visits, etc if folks dont all buy. So yeah, theres a very strong reason to force people to buy, especially if youre not discriminating on the basis of health. As for working out the kinks, thats why you have to do it BEFORE you pass the thing. One reason Hilary may not have announced hers yet.

[violetgorman]

As for working out the kinks, thats why you have to do it BEFORE you pass the thing. One reason Hilary may not have announced hers yet. The idea that everything is going to work out fine immediately is unrealistic. Any health care plan for a country with nearly 300 million people is bound to have problems, regardless of how many months you spend writing it.

But if his numbers have sloppy accounting, I'm sure we'll hear it soon enough...

About 40-45% of the electorate is likely to vote GOP anyway. But probably not exactly the same 40-45% that hates Hillary. It's also about energizing the opposition with a lackluster candidate - Clinton could play the same role Bush did in the '04.

I would also suggest that a substance focused campaign is more likely to have coattails than one focused heavily on personality. I would argue that having an appealing personality isn't detrimental to a Presidential campaign or its coat-tails. I still don't know what you base his "lack of substance" on...