Obama to Tenn Republicans: Lay off the Wife

[Henry]

If McCain wins the election in the fall, I think the Democrats should disband and re-organize under another name with a different platform. Seriously. They will have achieved a level of fail never before seen in the political history of this country.

.....

:laugh: It's funny 'cuz it's true.

[Sarge]

Correction - Cut and Pasted

Get it right

Enjoy your timeout?

I'll stick with WMD's. You can stick to the "Cut an Paste" story

[rincewind]

If McCain wins the election in the fall, I think the Democrats should disband and re-organize under another name with a different platform. Seriously. They will have achieved a level of fail never before seen in the political history of this country.

.....

They will officially be the Buffalo Bills of American politics.

[zoony]

They will officially be the Buffalo Bills of American politics.

ouch. I don't think it's that bad

[Henry]

ouch. I don't think it's that bad

To be fair, though, the Dems are expecting huge gains in both houses. If that happens the party may stay intact even if McCain wins.

[Duckus]

If McCain wins the election in the fall, I think the Democrats should disband and re-organize under another name with a different platform. Seriously. They will have achieved a level of fail never before seen in the political history of this country.

.....

I agree that losing the Presidential race would be a failure for the party (HUGE failure). However, I am not sure the party would be in such disarray as you claim. Regardless of what happens in McCain vs Obama, the Democrats will pick up a significant amount of seats in Congress and in the Senate. They will dominate both houses and could cripple the Republican power for a long time. If the sea of change comes that many are predicting, it would take decades for Republicans to get it back IMO.

Again, that is not to make any sort of excuses for Democrats losing, just to say that the Democrats will have a tremendous amount of power with or without the Presidency.

Now, if anything, if the Republicans lose the White House they will need to regroup or disband completely because they will most certainly be in disarray with absolutely no power on the Federal level. There would be a Democratic President, a completely dominating House and a significant majority in the Senate.

While Obama has the pressure of “blowing it” if he loses causing a VERY embarrassing situation, McCain has the pressure that if he loses the Republican will have zero power nationally.

[Larry]

ouch. I don't think it's that bad

Yeah, if they lose this time, it'll only be three in a row.

[Midnight Judges]

whoa. I agree with your first sentence. This entire thing is a bit absurd, and most likely only appeals to those who have already made up their mind. A waste of time and resources.

Your second sentence is a bit fascinating considering that the worst president in US history was elected twice because at worst, he was still better than what the Dems offered up.

.....

More Americans voted for Gore than Dubya. I bring this up because a slim lead (or loss) in the voting booth is hardly a vindication. Kerry was a horrible candidate, totally uninspiring, unlikable, and he lacked leadership. But we will never know if he would have been worse than Dubya.

If McCain wins the election in the fall, I think the Democrats should disband and re-organize under another name with a different platform. Seriously. They will have achieved a level of fail never before seen in the political history of this country.

If anything, I think this could have been said after the 2004 election. But to lose to McCain would not be nearly as bad as losing to dubya. McCain a good candidate, a good leader and I think he would make a good President. I simply think Obama would be better. Either way I'll be ecstatic on 1/20/2009.

Besides, Democrats are going to gain 25 seats in the House and as many as 10 Senate seats. Not exactly a reason to jump out the window. Now if the Republicans lose the white house, can't even filibuster, and have a 60 seat deficit in the House, perhaps they are the party that should disband.

Personally, I think Dubya is doing for the Republican party what Carter did for the Dems. Except the damage may be worse because it was inflicted for two terms.

[zoony]

Either way I'll be ecstatic on 1/20/2009.

.

I would agree with this at least. I'm leaning towards voting for Obama, but I haven't made up my mind. As bad as it sounds I'll probably wait until just before election day to pick a horse

But yes, I would be okay with Obama or McCain. However I think both have quite a few faults. And heck, I would even be okay with Hillary.

...

[Midnight Judges]

And heck, I would even be okay with Hillary.

...

OK that is it! You crossed the line pal! :mad:

[#98QBKiller]

I would agree with this at least. I'm leaning towards voting for Obama, but I haven't made up my mind.

You filthy, filthy liberal.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

You filthy, filthy liberal.

:laugh:

[@DCGoldPants]

More Americans voted for Gore than Dubya. I bring this up because a slim lead (or loss) in the voting booth is hardly a vindication. Kerry was a horrible candidate, totally uninspiring, unlikable, and he lacked leadership. But we will never know if he would have been worse than Dubya.

If anything, I think this could have been said after the 2004 election. But to lose to McCain would not be nearly as bad as losing to dubya. McCain a good candidate, a good leader and I think he would make a good President. I simply think Obama would be better. Either way I'll be ecstatic on 1/20/2009.

Besides, Democrats are going to gain 25 seats in the House and as many as 10 Senate seats. Not exactly a reason to jump out the window. Now if the Republicans lose the white house, can't even filibuster, and have a 60 seat deficit in the House, perhaps they are the party that should disband.

Personally, I think Dubya is doing for the Republican party what Carter did for the Dems. Except the damage may be worse because it was inflicted for two terms.

How about both disband and from the ashes, we get 4 or 5 new oens?

[headexplode]

I think Michelle Obama's words are "fair game," (though, as others have noted, there is not much fairness when it comes to politics.) She has said some things that have been detrimental to her husband's campaign, and I don't see any reason she shouldn't be called out on it.

Personally, I don't see much substance to the attacks, but, then again, I don't see much substance in American politics, so . . .

At any rate, I think Larry is right in that Obama should not be giving any credence to the Tenn. GOP, and should really just joke about it (FDR was fantastic at using humor as a political tool). At the same time, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Obama to stand up for his wife. Still, I think he should just send her ass back to the kitchen until November.

[HogNose]

They will officially be the Buffalo Bills of American politics.

I agree. If Obama and the Democratic machine can't figure out how to beat a 72 year old man after 8 years of a Bush Whitehouse then they are offically the Buffalo Bills and need to cut Scott Norwood.

[Larry]

Actually, as long as I'm giving my expert advice to Mr. Obama, I've got some more.

When they first start out, it's to the advantage of Presidential campaigns to appear to be run by amateur college students. Idealism and enthusiasm are bug pluses. Clear, detailed, policy positions aren't.

That time may well be over. IMO, Obama now has the status of "presumptive nominee". Time to start letting people know what kind of President you intend to be.

You already know some of the things that your opponents are going to attack you with. (No doubt they have more things, in reserve. But they're not going to switch to the next attack until the current one stops working.) It's time to deal with some of them.

For example, your opponents are going to keep hammering at your (correct, IMO) statement that you'll talk to other countries. That attack is going to be effective, because of your perceived lack of gravitas.

My suggestion for how to (at least partially) counter this attack: You should appear on Rush Limbaugh.

You won't convert any dittoheads to vote for you. But you'll at least send the message that you aren't afraid to sit and talk with somebody who's hostile. The fact that you're willing to do it makes you appear more confident and decisive.

It can even be your first line, when he welcomes you to the show: "Well, I can't claim I'm prepared to talk to Iran, if I'm too scared to talk to you." It establishes, off the back, that you're anticipating a hostile interview, and that you're prepared for it. Makes you look less like a kid, more like a Man.

Just a suggestion. (From somebody, frankly, who's leaning towards McCain right now.)

[Larry]

Plus, McCain and Michelle Obama have a love-child of their own.

I thought Obama was McCain's half-black love child.

[81artmonk]

This is Obamas MO. Let's list the things that are off the table of criticism.

1. his wife

2. his ears

3. his friends

4. his pastor

5. his acomplishments, or lack there of

6. his race

Pretty smart if you ask me. If you eliminate everything, there isn't anything to nit pick and thus he becomes immune. Too bad this trick doesn't work when it comes to republican candidates.

[Larry]

Pretty smart if you ask me. If you eliminate everything, there isn't anything to nit pick and thus he becomes immune. Too bad this trick doesn't work when it comes to republican candidates.

Yeah, Republicans become immune to criticism when they become President.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yeah, Republicans become immune to criticism when they become President.

Really? I think the current one has received a bunch of criticism, and 95% of it has been justified.

Of course, I know that he doesn't care what anyone thinks

[ccsl2]

Actually, as long as I'm giving my expert advice to Mr. Obama, I've got some more.

When they first start out, it's to the advantage of Presidential campaigns to appear to be run by amateur college students. Idealism and enthusiasm are bug pluses. Clear, detailed, policy positions aren't.

That time may well be over. IMO, Obama now has the status of "presumptive nominee". Time to start letting people know what kind of President you intend to be.

You already know some of the things that your opponents are going to attack you with. (No doubt they have more things, in reserve. But they're not going to switch to the next attack until the current one stops working.) It's time to deal with some of them.

For example, your opponents are going to keep hammering at your (correct, IMO) statement that you'll talk to other countries. That attack is going to be effective, because of your perceived lack of gravitas.

My suggestion for how to (at least partially) counter this attack: You should appear on Rush Limbaugh.

You won't convert any dittoheads to vote for you. But you'll at least send the message that you aren't afraid to sit and talk with somebody who's hostile. The fact that you're willing to do it makes you appear more confident and decisive.

It can even be your first line, when he welcomes you to the show: "Well, I can't claim I'm prepared to talk to Iran, if I'm too scared to talk to you." It establishes, off the back, that you're anticipating a hostile interview, and that you're prepared for it. Makes you look less like a kid, more like a Man.

Just a suggestion. (From somebody, frankly, who's leaning towards McCain right now.)

Great Post! :applause:

[81artmonk]

Great Post! :applause:

You are correct in some of your points. That is exactly why he won't do any of those though

He refuses to appear on O'Riley. His defenders protect him from FOX news cameras and won't allow them to come near him.

This thread is an example of his lack of toughness. Whenever asked a tough question or is challenged on his mis-steps, he get defensive and let's people know what they are off limits in talking about. Are you kidding me??

His main problem is he hasn't articulated anything to a point that would make people comfortable with him who aren't his supporters already.

He is a feel good speaker without much substance right now. He's kinda like chinese food. Fills you up quick but you're hungry an hour later.

[Larry]

You are correct in some of your points. That is exactly why he won't do any of those though

He refuses to appear on O'Riley. His defenders protect him from FOX news cameras and won't allow them to come near him.

This thread is an example of his lack of toughness. Whenever asked a tough question or is challenged on his mis-steps, he get defensive and let's people know what they are off limits in talking about. Are you kidding me??

His main problem is he hasn't articulated anything to a point that would make people comfortable with him who aren't his supporters already.

He is a feel good speaker without much substance right now. He's kinda like chinese food. Fills you up quick but you're hungry an hour later.

Heck, if elected, he may pull some anti-American stuff like refusing to appear in public unless the audience has been screened for political loyalty. We may even see people attacking any body who says anything bad about his, accusing them of treason, or something.

[jbooma]

probably because she's not out actively campaigning for her husband.

(or at least if she is, she's doing very little. Certainly much less than MO)

Seriously, if she is going to give speeches and throw her hat in the ring, she can't cry foul if people punch back. That is extremely bad form.

....

Agree but that does not give them the right to go digging, such as finding out what she wrote in college.

Talk about the issues and leave it at that. Enough with these cheap political tactics.

[twa]

Agree but that does not give them the right to go digging, such as finding out what she wrote in college.

Talk about the issues and leave it at that. Enough with these cheap political tactics.

If ya can't stand the heat,stay out of the kitchen.

The circus is just getting started.

At least no one's called her a pole dancer .....yet.