Captain's Quarters -

Obama Messiah sold out to the Hillary machine... maybe. Also could be that his keepers are tired of spinning the countless open mouth - insert foot moments he's been having.

I smell a deal having been made.

Not that Hillary has a chance to win a general election for President, but it seems Obama has made a truce with Hillary with the expectation of being her VP. Too bad, in the end I fully expect Hillary to stab him in the back and choose another running mate.

I can guarantee you she won't take Obama or Edwards for that matter.

Inexperience indeed. He should know better than to trust Hillary.

Interesting.

On the other hand, with the debate fatigue, he might actually be avoiding the worn out feel amongst Democrat Partisans.

If he promotes the 'special' conception, he may profit from it.

Back in the days of FDR, the average American identified with the Bonkeys. Did it change with Truman? Well, there are lots of people, today, who can recognize how Truman played his presidential cards.

The biggest mistake in 1948 going to the GOP. Who decided that General Douglas MacArthur was "too independent" of the inside-operators; so they ran Dewey. AGAIN. Dewey, you should remember, lost to FDR, when FDR won his 4th term. FDR was so sick he couldn't even campaign. And, this is the turkey the insiders decided to put up against Truman. THEY LOST!

By 1952, a "certain" desperation had set into the GOP clowns. So they went "out" and asked Eisenhower to run at the top of their ticket. (Ike had also been asked by Bonkey insiders. BOTH teams wanted him as their "captain." And, Ike picked the GOP, because he felt the Bonkeys would have tried to steer him like a sock puppet.)

In Israel, the world learned what happens when you take a strong leader (Arik Sharon) and try to steer him "like a sock puppet."

Of course, Ike ran as a conservative. But added chairs to his Cabinet, IMMEDIATELY. And, made nice to LBJ, immediately. And, signed anything LBJ said he could get past the senators, of his time. (By pulling on their short-hairs.)

Today, the Bonkeys are a mere shadow of themselves. Having had the bad luck of putting up candidates that don't get elected on national tickets. Not George McGovern. Not Hubert Humphrey. While Jimmy Carter (when he was unknown) was a fluke. After that? He was a lemming.

Dukakis? Another lemming.

Today's Bonkeys are just an Affirmative Action TEAM, in a world that's past them by.

The GOP?

Remains to be seen if they're willing to be national contendahs. Or if the freaks on the extreme right, keep trying to pull some of their levers. (I think in a lost cause.) Or, if you look at the bottom of the GOP barrel today, you see the contestants who are flinging about the phrase "Jesus loves me more than he loves you." And, even in primary territory, they're still mostly in the single digits.

Can you be a front runner and toss this away? Sure. Look at McCain.

I think Americans are pretty sick of both groups. And, only a few of the "elders" are gonna survive the Internet; because they're way too old to even understand this new mode of traffic.

What can emerge? My guess is that there's gonna be an INDEPENDENT choice (or two. Or 3. Or 4.) Up there in 2008. Heck, Ron Paul may even go for his one percent. Just like Ralph Nader. Where once, in the past, all you had was Harold Stasson. And, Eugene V. Debs. (For the die-hards, of course.)

The one thing I don't see is for the Affirmative Action folks to hang on to much, any longer. Short of their jobs in big government; even their jobs in the tenured professorships of academia has hit some snags.

While an interesting story erupts, again, at Dartmouth. Can the Internet influence? Well, Glenn Reynolds posts this one, today.

On one hand, it's hard to get too critical of Obama. Televised presidential debates contain little debate at all. Instead, they mostly turn into sound-bite contests that pretend to have substance. Who can blame candidates for tiring of that format, especially when this extended primary season has spawned so many of these events?

I agree. This actually raised my opinion of Obama - something I never thought possible.

I can just see Hillary having a VP who towers over her in all the photo shoots.

"a VP who towers over her"

Avoiding that, I guess that means she'll pick either Kucinich or Sharpton as VP.

exactly.

Still, the "debates" tend to be very popular, at least among the casually-interested voters.

That sure wasn't evident in the last Dem debate when it gathered less than half the viewers of Fox News with it's regular programing.

Wow, I thought I was kidding when I said he could be our first black Dan Quayle...

Since the "cut-and-run" terminology is used by Republicans to refer to Democrats who support ending the war-to-take-non-existent weapons-away-from-a-dead-man, it doesn't seem too likely that opponents from his own party will use it in describing any of Obama's decisions.

Obama HAD a shot at the VP slot. But he ruined his chances with his statements, and the growing realization that he is a media-promoted lightweight.

However, after Hillary slapped him down over and over, showing how much of an inexperienced dolt he is when it comes to being Presidential; she'd have an impossible task to turn around and prove he was capable of stepping in as POTUS.

THAT would play right into the GOP's hands.

Hillary will go 'safe' with selecting Biden who comes from a state where his replacement would be a Dem; preserving his party's Senate seat. Her other choice would be an 'Obama-ish' replacement like Ford.

"a VP who towers over her"

Avoiding that, I guess that means she'll pick either Kucinich or Sharpton as VP."

Funny. Obama is also younger, more energetic and more photogenic than Senator Clinton, so yeah I can't see that she'd want him on the ticket with her. Although she probably can't afford to worry too much about any of that, otherwise she'll have a lot of trouble finding someone suitable.

I've never considered Obama anything more than a tomato can - someone to make it look like Hillary's nomination was contested to the disinterest general electorate. I just didn't think the clintonistas would want him to cease being a credible candidate with the media so early

Obama was the Daley machine flunky that Clinton Inc set up to make the Dem primary exciting . I think Obama has proven to be an idiot and the his stupid comments have scared off more independent voters then the Clinton machine planned for . They are slowly shutting down the operation .

Okay. Obama 'plays' to the OJ jurors. But after you leave this 12% minority, what's left?

And, don't say 'Hillary" because her negatives are higher.

Not the first time the Bonkeys have selected a front run who is NOT. I think FDR was their last really popular president.

And, when you compare Adeli Stevenson with this clown, I'm sorry. But your selection process has given up on being serious.

It's like picking a Ms. America for BLIND PEOPLE!

Say what you will.

It's not gonna be a winning ticket.

And, it may be one of the reasons, now, that Bush's numbers are going back up. Because, ya know, Bush's speech giving skills haven't improved ONE IOTA!

What "mysterious hands" are moving the markets? Need you ask? They're invisible.

And, while we're at it; at the end of the run for "affirmative action" so to speak; why not notice that Americans have the where-with-all to handle the long haul wars that are necessary from here on out?

Soft underbelly? BLAME THE NIT WITH DEPT. OF EDUCATION. Not the kids! Some go into the army because so much else, around them, has gone too soft.

I'm somewhat of a political junkie and I haven't watched the first debate yet (Dem or Rep). I enjoyed hearing about them afterwards though.

I have no interest in this race right now. It's much too soon. I am enjoying watching the Dems eat their own.

A small segment of our population seems to be so bored, they're now picking the "veeps" for the "sweeps."

I think, on the other hand, that we haven't yet seen what gels, here. And, what's gonna come out in 2008.

Though, at least Bush won't be tossed off the GOP stage! Thanks, in part, to TNR and their running of their "bull elephant" Beau-chump. Nothing else explains Bush's surging poll numbers.

While breasts are not a floatation device. So how Hillary and Pelosi stay afloat will be "news to me."

Sure seems like the new world of the Net, though, is far more interesting than the OBITS we get from the "lamestream" media.

You have to have some agility and be able to tap dance, politically speaking, to be in those debates. One needs both feet to tap dance; unfortunately, he stuck first his left foot in his mouth (unconditional discussions with dictators, thugs and terrorists) and then his right (nuke Pakistan), and I don't see any prospect of him extracting them very soon. So he really needs to stay out of the debates. For that matter, he needs to get out of the presidential race altogether.

This is almost like vaudeville.

Because the one thing Obama's gained is NAME RECOGNITION. In a Tits and Ass world, sort'a way.

Will he be on board the Bonkey choo-choo to nomination? Gosh. That's hard to tell right now. Given the loser status and the high negatives of Hillary; it's almost a wonder they don't have someone else running strong right now. But it seems the empty suits have "chosen" Obama.

You've got some other explanations for all his "positive press?"

First the dhimmies were too afraid of the VRWC at Fox News, and could not let themselves hear questions from such tainted sources.
Then they are afraid of journalists.
Now Obama, who wants to be Commander in Chief during war, cannot find the guts to actually deal with his fellow candidates.
What a bunch of neverwuzzers.

So when Obama limits himself to a set number of debates it's cowardice, but when Fred "Van Winkle" Thompson limits himself to a set number of debates (not to mention straw polls) it's strategy?

Obama has participated in all - what, five? six? - debates so far and will still make eight more he's already agreed to attend. That hardly makes him afraid, although he sure hasn't helped himself at all in them so far.

He has an excellent point - there are over 20 states who will vote by the second week in February, and you can't just cancel all your events in a region because someone wants to have a debate that day somewhere else.

Until and unless they cut the field to no more than four, there's not enough time to develop any serious discussion anyway - which favors Hillary, who wins by not losing, and less time per speaker is fewer chances to commit a damaging error.

If he were really smart he would start challenging Hillary to one-on-one debates, cutting the others out. That's his ONLY chance to win the nomination: become the one and only "not Hillary" in the race.

Obama has already proven himself to be a lightweight. He's not giving us information we don't already have about his potential as a presidential candidate.

I'd be surprised if Hillary picked him as a running mate. He's far too shallow to be a contender.

I was at a party and the conversation turned to politics for a moment. When I said I was undecided, about three of the women there tried to convert me into a Hillary voter. They said:

1. Obama would be great in 4 years. But not yet.
2. We need someone who can hit the ground running on day one, and Hillary has Bill whispering in her ear. We don’t need a forward thinker.
3. At a personal event, Hillary went out of her way to talk to disabled people first.

My response was that I did not want to return to the politics of the 1990s and all the baggage that the Clintons bring, that anyone elected in 2008 is likely to be Gerald Ford-like one-termer regardless of their experience because Iraq is a thankless mess, and thought but did not say that purposely talking to a disabled person first is just Pandering 101.

When these veiled attacks on Obama’s “hope-mongering” did not work, (no surprise there, “Bring the Clintons Back” does not sound like a solution to Iraq or like the change I would like to see) I was essentially called a misogynist. My reply was that other female candidates would not have the problems that Hillary Clinton is having because she is Hillary Clinton, and that I did not like Hillary Clinton. This met with the admission that people would attack Hillary Clinton mercilessly once she was in office (HINT: this assumes she would win).

In other words, when push came to shove and I did not accept being called a woman-hater simply because I don’t want a Third Term of the Clintons, I was told that Clinton was simply super-duper electable, without any empirical backing for the claim. This is exactly what troubled me about Kerry’s candidacy, which I did not support. Everyone said he sucked, but he was electable, and then he was not elected. Meaning he just sucked.

So let’s analyze how such a sucky candidate won the nomination. Kerry focused on Iowa and New Hampshire extensively with positive commercials and town hall meetings while Dean and Gephardt duked it out in the press and on the airwaves. Edwards went around doing a lot of town hall meetings swayed undecideds and Independents. Both had low national polls and state poll numbers but cleaned Dean’s and Gephardt’s clocks in Iowa and New Hampshire. And they rode the favorable press cascade out of the initial contests.

Obama is not a sucky candidate. People actually like and strongly support him and his candidacy has a theme and a message. Taking the Kerry-Edwards approach to Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina makes far more sense than bickering with Hillary in debate formats that everyone agrees are stifling, especially because, if one takes her supporters’ arguments seriously, there is no actual reason to support her candidacy. Just like there was no reason to support Kerry’s. Of course it makes sense to talk to the people. Frankly, I don’t even understand the nature of the criticism of Obama.

I was at a party and the conversation turned to politics for a moment. When I said I was undecided, about three of the women there tried to convert me into a Hillary voter. They said:

1. Obama would be great in 4 years. But not yet.
2. We need someone who can hit the ground running on day one, and Hillary has Bill whispering in her ear. We don’t need a forward thinker.
3. At a personal event, Hillary went out of her way to talk to disabled people first.

My response was that I did not want to return to the politics of the 1990s and all the baggage that the Clintons bring, that anyone elected in 2008 is likely to be Gerald Ford-like one-termer regardless of their experience because Iraq is a thankless mess, and thought but did not say that purposely talking to a disabled person first is just Pandering 101.

When these veiled attacks on Obama’s “hope-mongering” did not work, (no surprise there, “Bring the Clintons Back” does not sound like a solution to Iraq or like the change I would like to see) I was essentially called a misogynist. My reply was that other female candidates would not have the problems that Hillary Clinton is having because she is Hillary Clinton, and that I did not like Hillary Clinton. This met with the admission that people would attack Hillary Clinton mercilessly once she was in office (HINT: this assumes she would win).

In other words, when push came to shove and I did not accept being called a woman-hater simply because I don’t want a Third Term of the Clintons, I was told that Clinton was simply super-duper electable, without any empirical backing for the claim. This is exactly what troubled me about Kerry’s candidacy, which I did not support. Everyone said he sucked, but he was electable, and then he was not elected. Meaning he just sucked.

So let’s analyze how such a sucky candidate won the nomination. Kerry focused on Iowa and New Hampshire extensively with positive commercials and town hall meetings while Dean and Gephardt duked it out in the press and on the airwaves. Edwards went around doing a lot of town hall meetings swayed undecideds and Independents. Both had low national polls and state poll numbers but cleaned Dean’s and Gephardt’s clocks in Iowa and New Hampshire. And they rode the favorable press cascade out of the initial contests.

Obama is not a sucky candidate. People actually like and strongly support him and his candidacy has a theme and a message. Taking the Kerry-Edwards approach to Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina makes far more sense than bickering with Hillary in debate formats that everyone agrees are stifling, especially because, if one takes her supporters’ arguments seriously, there is no actual reason to support her candidacy. Just like there was no reason to support Kerry’s. Of course it makes sense to talk to the people. Frankly, I don’t even understand the nature of the criticism of Obama.

Actually Obama will be at the CBC debate as it falls AFTER the period in which he says that he is pulling out. I'll bet other Dems use this as cover to also pull out of some of these events as the sheer number of them gets in the way of campaigning.

Why does Fred Thompson keep getting a pass for not getting in the race -- and thereby avoiding debates, scrutiny, etc -- from the Right?

While this thread is about Obama's abysmal performance, the question about Fred is not moot.
Thompson may in fact be dealing himself out of this race as a serious candidate if he even gets in. Only time will tell.
But the issue here is Obama. He has proven himself to be quips and slogans looking for substance. He is more than Edwards, but still far less than a serious leader.
He proves that with his war on Pakistan, his kowtowing to world dictators, and the typical lefty problem of personal great privelege while claiming to represent the poor.

I agree with Senator Obama. As long as the debates include fringe candidates, as opposed to being limited to Clinton, Edwards and him, they are a useless vehicle for him. And only benefit Clinton.

The same goes for the GOP debates. Note how Ron Paul's stupidity in the first one gave Giuliani a win he would not otherwise have deserved.

As long as the debates include the fringe geeks of both parties, the debates will be only geek shows which real candidates, other than front-runners Giuliani and Clinton, should avoid.

By your logic "teresa" - why are you ducking entering the Democrat debates? Something to hide, eh?

Obama has offered nothing except the same failed democrat policies of the last fifty years.