Clothier: Why the Left Doesn't Get Obama

"Apparently there is as so many are showing it by slamming Obama without recognizing just how much worse the alternative is."
Posted by TonyRoma

You know, Roma, enough already... I'm getting really sick of you guys attacking anyone that doesn't support Obama 100% instead of asking yourself why can't he manage to make this a slam dunk for the democrats. Do you honestly believe that you have a snowballs chance in hell of convincing people who are going to vote mccain that Obama is the reasonable alternative if the differences between the two are as stark as you keep saying they are?

50% of the voting age population doesn't vote but Obama's plan is now to appeal to likely GOP voters instead of continuing with the success he had securing the dem nomination in the first place, convincing people who don't vote that he was a different kind of politician worthy of them coming to the polls?

I figured most guys on here would think the other "N" word they never wanted to hear was "No."

The mainstream media doesn't want Nader in the debates. He might, in fact, would, go off the corporate script and say all kinds of truthful things, like pointing out the power of the media monopolies and their role in turning the political process into a farce.

The mainstream media doesn't want Nader in the debates....
Posted by nullifidian

If any pollster asks me I'm for Nader, but getting 10% will be difficult as long as the media continues to ignore him.

Nullifidian

Right now it's a dead heat with Obama/McCain. Any shaving of votes one way or the other could cost one of them the election. McKinney, Barr, Nader -- who's next to be throw into the presidential brew? Should be interesting to watch for the next few months.

"Any shaving of votes one way or the other could cost one of them the election."

Not going to make a difference in solidly blue states like California.

Like I posted earlier, 50% of the voting age population doesn't vote but Obama's plan is now to appeal to likely GOP voters instead of continuing with the success he had securing the dem nomination in the first place, convincing people who don't vote that he was a different kind of politician worthy of them coming to the polls.

If he continues to think that's the route to the presidency, 10% may not be such a difficult number to achieve.

Not going to make a difference in solidly blue states like California.

Posted by nullifidian

Maybe not, but the election will be decided in the battleground states... and if Nader actually gets into some of the debates....?

". and if Nader actually gets into some of the debates....?

Then it gets interesting. Who knows? We might see democracy break out.

Nullifidian

Not going to make a difference in solidly blue states like California.

You are going on old sound bites. California has a lot of red conservative areas -- San Diego, Orange County, many suburbs in Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire.

Also, don't forget the conservative's trump card in this election -- the intitiative on California's ballot to overturn the pro-gay marriage decision made by the courts recently. Many conservatives who don't like McCain and might have just sat this one out, will be there to vote "yes" on that intiative and while in the voting booth also pull the lever for McCain. I think you might be a little too presumptive putting California's 55 electoral votes into Obama's back pocket right away. Just sayin'...

Some of us do not support Nader's presidency bid because: 1) he has never been elected to ANY office in his life; 2) He is incredibly arrogant; 3) He seems willing to throw out the proverbial baby along with the bath water in his zeal to go after corporate America; 4) We do not need another extremist in the WH (- even a left winger. We suffered enough with GWB/Cheney to teach only the most brain dead among us that extremists suck.)

Ralph Nader is not an extremist in any way. He would be a mainstream liberal in almost any European country.

We suffered enough with GWB/Cheney to teach only the most brain dead among us that extremists suck.
Posted by moder8

And the condescension for the Obama camp continues.

Heaven forbid that on nearly every issue, Nader's platform is supported by a majority of Americans. No, "extremists" still suck... even if they happen to be correct.

Condescension good.... arrogance bad. I'll have to remember that.

"2) He is incredibly arrogant; "

Really principled politicians are so rare it's not surprising that principle is mistaken for arrogance.

"...on nearly every issue, Nader's platform is supported by a majority of Americans."

Yet on a few issues, he's really out there, as witnessed by the aforementioned anti-corporate bent.

Yet on a few issues, he's really out there, as witnessed by the aforementioned anti-corporate bent.

Posted by Danforth

Let him participate in the debates and we'll see how many Americans disagree with him on that score.

So HC is a fan of extremism. Okay. That is good to know for future reference.

And no, the majority of Americans do not agree with him on most issues. You sound like a Ron Paul supporter type.

When logical argument doesn't work, resort to the ad hominems.... good to know for future reference.

I just call it as I see it. Sorry if you don't like where that places you on the spectrum.

"Nader's presence will force the dialogue to expand past pointless bickering over lapel pins and ex-wives. "

Do you think people who blindly follow one party or the other really want anything else?

I don't.

BTW, did I mention for the hundredth time how much smarter I am than you party-line voters?

Sincerely,
Sully

I just call it as I see it. Sorry if you don't like where that places you on the spectrum.
Posted by moder8

Riiight... spectrum as your narrow, self-serving interests define it. If you saw it any other way, you'd have admit that your ideology is not respectful of the democratic process outside of the two party monopoly. Call it as you see it my redacted.

I have no problem with Ralphie participating in the debates, his arrogance will highlight Barry's.

You don't get it dude. Ralf Nader took over 73,000 votes from Gore in Flordia alone. It turned out Bush beat Gore by 536 votes in Flordia thus giving him Flordia's 27 electoral votes and the election.
Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq and 4115 soldiers would be alive today. The next time you go place flowers on a cross in a veterens cemetary maybe you'll get it.

Ralf Nader was indirectly responsible for the killing of 4115 US soldiers, and the wounding of over 20,000 and over 15,000 serious and debilitating injuries like losses of limbs and head injuiries. He's an idiot for what he involved himself in knowing he didnt have a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

The mainstream media doesn't want Nader in the debates. He might, in fact, would, go off the corporate script and say all kinds of truthful things, like pointing out the power of the media monopolies and their role in turning the political process into a farce.

Posted by nullifidian

instead we get fools still blaming him for dem's Presidential losses...when they can't seem to remember the Diebold effect before its name change to Premier

If any pollster asks me I'm for Nader, but getting 10% will be difficult as long as the media continues to ignore him.

Perhaps we could have a Ron Paul moment where everyone on the stage, including the moderators, give a good chuckle to Nader's truthful answer to a serious question.

Fact is. Like him or hate him, Ron Paul was the best chance the Republicans had at redeeming themselves.

We all know that he would face tough opposition from the house and senate should he try to close down any of the welfare programs...corporate and social.

We all know that he, himself, would not ban abortion. As he's stated many times, he's against it, but would rather leave it up to the states to decide.

But the media decided he was too scarey. Couldn't have a guy up on the stage pointing the finger at American policy as a reason for the trouble we're in now.

You sound like a Ron Paul supporter type.

Proudly. He's the only one who stood on the stage and point the finger for the issues we see today at the correct target.

Us. We. The United states of America is responsible for the situation she has found herself in. Not some arab in the middle-east who wants to strap bombs to himself to make a point. He is a result of the policy, not a cause.

So yeah. If Ron Paul would have gotten us out of the middle east and all of those other foreign countries we have soldiers station in, I'd happily pull the handle for him.

You say it as if it should be some type of insult to vote for a guy who stands by his own principles. Principles that are not nearly as flexible as saran-wrap Obama.

Obama. McCain. Clinton. 3 Peas in the same pod, as demonstrated over the past few months.

You'll get the government you vote for. No bitching if it turns out the way you don't want it.

1) he has never been elected to ANY office in his life; 2) He is incredibly arrogant; 3) He seems willing to throw out the proverbial baby along with the bath water in his zeal to go after corporate America; 4) We do not need another extremist in the WH

Posted by moder8 at 2008-07-14 03:42 PM | Reply

That pretty well describes Ross Perot, who threw the election and made Clinton president.

And it closely describes George Wallace (who was elected -- gov. of Alabama) who drew enough votes in 1968 to elect Nixon.

You can even go back to 1912 when Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate, splitting the Republican vote with Taft. The result was Woodrow Wilson, probably the 2nd worst president in history (After Carter)

So a strong third party candidate can make difference.

"There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties."

--George Wallace

"You don't get it dude...."
Posted by JoeLabey

It's you who doesn't get it, dude.

Florida was S.T.O.L.E.N. period. More accurately, given away by the democratic party.

The democratic party would rather blame nader for making the election close enough to steal rather than have to acknowledge that simple fact.

Democrats along with Republicans then gave bush authorization to do what came next, and funded them all the way. They were more interested in retaining office than they were in fulfilling their constitutioanlly mandated obligations, obligations they took oaths to their god to uphold.

"The next time you go place flowers on a cross in a veterens cemetary maybe you'll get it."
Posted by JoeLabey

You can go to hell with that argument. We are ALL responsible for that one. We would rather sit home and watch our sports games, go to the movies, do our christmas shopping than do what it would take to be certain that shit never happened in the first place, i.e. hit the streets in protest, and not just on a few token saturdays.

On election day 2000 I went on line, saw Gore leading in California by double digits and indulged in the luxury of voting for Nader. A relative still blames me for the Bush debacle. Now I say go, Bob Barr, go, and forget the Naders and McKinneys. herm

Now I say go, Bob Barr, go, and forget the Naders and McKinneys. herm

Posted by herm

Come on, herm, is this what you're saying?

Freedom of participation = bad..... unless it threatens the other candidate.

Stolen elections = not bad enough to complain about.

Stolen elections = not bad enough to complain about.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

10 hours later and that sentence still echoes in this thread.

A real shame for our democracy.

You know, Roma, enough already... I'm getting really sick of you guys attacking anyone that doesn't support Obama 100% instead of asking yourself why can't he manage to make this a slam dunk for the democrats. Do you honestly believe that you have a snowballs chance in hell of convincing people who are going to vote mccain that Obama is the reasonable alternative if the differences between the two are as stark as you keep saying they are?

Then why drag me into a thread which I've had nothing to do with? No one is attacking anyone except you appear to be attacking me as if I don't have the right to express my own opinion because you feel differently.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on! Now, I've attacked your sorry ass! Keep my name out of it unless I fucking put it in!

"Fuck you and the horse you rode in on! Now, I've attacked your sorry ass! Keep my name out of it unless I fucking put it in!"
Posted by tonyroma

Eh, Roma, I thought the previous post was relevant to this thread as well. Should I have taken out the "roma" part? Maybe, but I was also trying to link the two discussions, so it had its place here in that sense.

"No one is attacking anyone except you appear to be attacking me as if I don't have the right to express my own opinion because you feel differently."
Posted by tonyroma

No, that's not why I mentioned you, but if that's the way you have to look at it to retain your worldview, then I guess there isn't much I can do about it... but don't pretend here... pretending that's true in your head should be sufficient to help you sleep at night.

You need to chill out.

hey Tony o ~ my name gets dragged about, too...hard to keep up though:>)

Its one thing to have your name dragged about completely without cause... but another altogether when its even somewhat pertinent to the point.

Its one thing to have your name dragged about completely without cause... but another altogether when its even somewhat pertinent to the point.

In whose opinion, yours?

Again, DON'T FUCKING BRING UP MY NAME UNLESS I'VE SPOKEN DIRECTLY ON THE TOPIC, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

You have no idea of my "worldview" unless you've asked me to give it, which you haven't! I could give less than two shits about Ralph Nader and wouldn't waste the keystrokes if it hadn't been for your completely out-of-bounds misuse of my words, solely about another topic.

I don't care what you think is relevant, don't take my statements out of their context. If you think Nader is viable so be it. 97+% of American voters disagree with you, but I'm the one who needs a reality check?

And for the record, I don't attack anyone unless they're launching unwarranted attacks with specious arguments full of holes one could drive semi-trucks through. I respect the opinion of everyone when said opinions are underscored by obvious facts and not scurrilous claptrap merely trying to obfuscate the actual points trying to be made.

Leave me out of your drivel for I was never a part of it to begin with!

You know, I never noticed TR keeping any such rule himself.

But DO calm down, mi amigo. We don't want any accidents.

DON'T FUCKING BRING UP MY NAME UNLESS I'VE SPOKEN DIRECTLY ON THE TOPIC, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

You just shattered my eardrums, Tony.

Face it - you are a washed-up Obama-fellater. Notre Dame football has become the laughinstock of all of college football, in 1 year.

The Indiana Pacers went from a contender to a scrimmage in the matter of 1 year.

The Indainapolis500 is NOTHING compared with the Daytona500.

The City of Gary smells.

Obama is a Muslim terrorist.

Your 'Fro' is laced with gray.

You misspelled a word within the last year.

If you and I were to play 1-on-1 hoops, the very first play would result with my Tomahawk-dunk on your sorry-ass with my balls stuffed in your face. That, in itself is bad enough. What is worse is that you'd secretly enjoy it.

Lastly, I'd seriously fuck you up in a Blazing Saddles quote-a-thon.

Other than that...

I hope all is well and...

PS....

Go Obama!

-Your 'Fro' is laced with gray.

You are VERY bad person, Jeffy. Worse than I, even.

Cork,

It was really bad.

Nevertheless, I was really proud of that post.

Look at it this way, the man who is NEVER at a loss for words (TonyR) has yet to respond!

Anyhow, my ultimate aim was to evoke considerable laughter from Tony. Now, he'll "prolly" lie and say that it was the stupidest thing he's ever read.

But you and I certainly know better!

El Corko El Dorko,

You and I have gotten along far too well, as of late.

Fuck that!

I miss the days of animosity.

Let's revive it - I'll start:

Hillary Clinton is not only the most well-hung man in America, 'She's' also the most Communistic and most evil!

Ronald Reagan and George W Bush team-up for the greatest combined leadership in the histroy of mankind!

Your turn.....

How cut, Corky and Jeffy ganging up on Tony.

Reminds me of these guys:

cute dammit not "cut".

-Anyhow, my ultimate aim was to evoke considerable laughter from Tony.

I thought he might get a kick out of Redd Foxx.

I would say something bad about Bush, Jeff, but you'd prolly just agree with me.

(was that insulting enough?)

cute dammit not "cut".

Posted by taxman

Thanks for the clarification, Tax.

I originally thought the ommitted letter was 'N' not 'E'.

PS - I think I cut pretty deep with Tony. I think he is crying into his Obama blow-up doll as I type this.

Damn you jeff now I am going have that gay ass Bryan Adams song "cuts like a knife" stuck in my head all day.

PS I don't Tony could give two shits (much less one) about your attacks. ; )

"Hillary Clinton is not only the most well-hung man in America...."Posted by JeffJ
OMFG!!!
That just came out of nowhere. LOL... if it wasn't so sexist, I'd give it a FF.

"You have no idea of my "worldview" unless you've asked me to give it, which you haven't! I could give less than two shits about Ralph Nader and wouldn't waste the keystrokes if it hadn't been for your completely out-of-bounds misuse of my words, solely about another topic."
Posted by Tonyroma

I've been here a few years (first post some time in 2004), I think I have ample evidence of your worldview.

Completely out-of-bounds? What is the name of this site again? Last I checked it was not HUGS.COM.

Again, I thought it was relevant to the thread and I didn't feel like re-typing the entire point so I cut and pasted it. Big deal. And I provided the link to the original thread for "context".

"If you think Nader is viable so be it. 97+% of American voters disagree with you, but I'm the one who needs a reality check?"

Here we go again with the "viable" argument....
There is more than one reason to cast a vote. One, as is your opinion, is to vote for the candidate you believe can win, regardless of platform.

Another, equally valid reason to cast a vote, is to be sure that certain issues remain in the national discourse.

And, for the record, it's not 97% at this point, more like 94% but I'm not going to get into that right now. But if he makes it to the 10% level, he's in at least some of the debates, and then hold on to your F'ing hat, Roma.

Cuts Like a Knife?

Jesus Tax, I am SO sorry.

I don't care what our mutual worldview disagreements are, invoking THAT song, even if it was unintentional, is unconscionable!

I will gladly mock all or your short-comings, particularly your failed knowledge of BBQ and Cajun cooking. That said, to EVER invoke images of that song is simply beyond cruelty. Please accept my most heart-felt apology.

how many posts are we going to have to endure hashing out the evil of bryan adams?

now i have my damn prom song in my head....

".... Findin' it hard to believe... we're in Hea-ven"

"Hagbard" - I am going to call you "medussa" from now on. It's not derogatory, it just flows better IMO.

Here we go again with the "viable" argument....
There is more than one reason to cast a vote. One, as is your opinion, is to vote for the candidate you believe can win, regardless of platform.

F-ing-A right!!

3rd-Party votes don't chane the party structure per se. Nevertheless, a growth in certain 3rd-Party votes greately affects the 2 major parties. Fact is, early in the 20th Century, the 'Populist' Party nearly fragmented the Democratic Vote to a state of permanent irrelevance.

Eugene Debbs, the tool that he was, influenced the rise of Democratic dominance from FDR - on. Quite the opposite of the usual 3rd party-candidate stealing votes. In FDR's case, he went Leftist, in part, as a comprimise to the more leftist factions of US government.

In short, growing strength among 3rd-Parties forces the 2 major parties to adjust to outside pressures.

"Medussa...."

LOL. I've turned more than one thread to stone here, so it may not be wholly off the mark.

"In short, growing strength among 3rd-Parties forces the 2 major parties to adjust to outside pressures."

Posted by JeffJ

You don't think that's the point when I said,

"Another, equally valid reason to cast a vote, is to be sure that certain issues remain in the national discourse."....?

Like I've said over and over, Obama can have my vote any time he wants it, but he's happy with the usual status quo, where roughly 25% of the voting age population chooses the president for the rest of us, instead of figuring out why 50% of the voting age population chooses to stay home year after year. It can't possibly be because the two major parties never speak to their interests, now, can it?

You guys realize that in other countries where there are multiple parties, the smalller fringe parties end up falling in line with the more centrist parties, right?

"...the smalller fringe parties end up falling in line with the more centrist parties, right?"

Posted by taxman

huh?
But a democrat here is a conservative in most other countries, so that might not be the biggest sin in the world.

HC, the smaller fringe parties are so small that they have no real clout. They have to attach themselves to a larger, more centrist party. Now they do have some power because they can change affiliations and take their vote elsewhere, but where one group has a big enough stake, the smaller groups have less say.

I get it, tax, but that's better than being totally ignored and ridiculed like here.

Well then keep on fighting your fight, we may get there some day. I don't understand why the hell you give a rat's ass about anything anyone says regarding how you vote.

I don't understand why the hell you give a rat's ass about anything anyone says regarding how you vote.

Posted by taxman

Overall I guess I don't... I'd rather defend it from coherent, rationally stated arguments than from ridiculous ad hominems and other illogical, reactionary, not factually based attacks.

Again, Obama can have my vote any time he wants it. He knows where i am, he has my email, my phone number, my address....