You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
Re: NY Post endorses Obama
January 30, 2008 -- Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.
Obama represents a fresh start.
His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.
Does America really want to go through all that once again?
It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president.
That much has become painfully apparent.
Bill Clinton's thuggishly self-centered campaign antics conjure so many bad, sad memories that it's hard to know where to begin.
Suffice it to say that his Peck's-Bad-Boy smirk - the Clinton trademark - wore thin a very long time ago.
Far more to the point, Sen. Clinton could have reined him in at any time. But she chose not to - which tells the nation all it needs to know about what a Clinton II presidency would be like.
Now, Obama is not without flaws.
For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.
His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator.
And, again, he is not Team Clinton.
That counts for a very great deal.
A return to Sen. Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate - and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess?
No, thank you.
And don't forget the Clintons' trademark political cynicism. How else to explain Sen. Clinton's oft-contradictory policy stands: She voted for the war in Iraq, but now says it was a bad idea. She'd end it yesterday - but refuses to say how.
It's called "triangulation" - the Clintonian tactic by which the ends are played against the middle.
Once, it was effective - almost brilliant. Today, it is tired and tattered - and it reeks of cynicism and opportunism.
Finally, Sen. Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband, and is much more disciplined in pursuit of her agenda.
At least Obama has the ability to inspire.
Again, we don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues.
But many Democrats will.
He should be their choice on Tuesday.
Re: NY Post endorses Obama
Hillary better hope for landslide victories on Super Tuesday, because it looks like more and more of the dems are turning on her. If Hillary and Obama win an even amount of races Tuesday, this campaign might get ugly.
As I'm sure Flagg will tell you, this will benefit the republicans. Everyone thought the republican primaries would be the bloodbath while the dems would be a cakewalk. Its turning out the opposite. Republicans quickly sided with a war monger while the dems seem evenly split at the moment.
The votes that would have went for Edwards are going to be the key factor for the rest of this race.
Re: NY Post endorses Obama
The votes that would have went for Edwards are going to be the key factor for the rest of this race.
Absolutely, with more & more Obama support it's possible they will sway towards him. This endorsement is huge. If Obama wins NY & CA it's over. If I recall New York City'ers were never big on Hillary, they looked at her as a bit of a farce moving to NY to run for Senate, but she managed to win. Also, I imagine Unions are huge in NYC, and with new stories coming out about Hillary's Walmart board of directors (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1 ) and Walmart being very Anti-Union it'll be interesting to see where they vote. They might end up speaking with their Chicago counterparts to see how Obama worked with them (I don't know much about his union stance there).
Tuesday's going to be a big day. I'm going to make a prediction (albeit a not so bold prediction), NY & CA have to be split. If either candidate wins BOTH it's over. They're going to get the Democratic nod. HUGE debate tonight. The longer format might benefit Obama, he likes to talk very long, drawn out responses. Hopefully he talks alot about ideas & plans he will implement, he needs to start talking more about that rather than continuing the motivational speeches he's been giving. He's great at it, but he needs to start giving substance. If he doesn't, Clinton might be ready to attack him for that.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: NY Post endorses Obama
Last time I checked, Hillary had a huge lead in New York and double digits in California. While I can see her lead dropping in California slightly, Obama stands no chance of winning New York and I doubt he'll be able to take California. An endorsement from the Post means nothing; the post is a conservative paper. The New York Times endorsed Clinton and McCain. Romney attacked McCain on this because The Times is the "liberal" paper. How convienient that people are neglecting to mention the Time's endorsement of Clinton - quite a feat considering it's the largest paper in America. I'm interested in who the LA Times has endorsed? I honestly don't know, thus why I'm asking, but I bet they endorse Clinton.
Edit:
Look here for the California Polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … y-259.html
James mentioned the one poll where Obama closed the gap, objective observers should notice every other poll where she leads him by 10 points or more. Currently she leads him by 11 points.
Re: NY Post endorses Obama
An endorsement from the Post means nothing; the post is a conservative paper. The New York Times endorsed Clinton and McCain. .
Oh yeah, I got the two confused. The Post is secondary. Although new polls do show Obama only 3% behind in CA. The RCP Average is using polls ending Sunday and some prior, barely after his S Carolina win & Kennedy endorsement.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: NY Post endorses Obama
While Clinton may have gotten no delegates in Florida, Florida is certainly more indicative of who is polling better than South Carolina. As Bill pointed out, South Carolina chose Jackson in 84 and 88; they also almost chose Huckabee this year. Just food for thought. But the point will be moot come Tuesday. Both parties will have effectively chosen their nominees.
Pages: 1
