Obama's big mistake?

Discalimer: I do not agree with the website itself as an entity but i think it sums up very well what a lot of us thought about that Debate. Yes it is a shit site but hey if people want to throw Obama bias shit, we can do it too.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59828

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., may have finally blown his chance at the Democratic nomination during Monday night's debate in South Carolina. For the first time, Obama got testy on national television – and he didn't look good doing it.........................

What Obama cannot afford – and what he did in South Carolina – is to look angry or mean. By attacking Hillary Clinton, Obama looked angry and mean. He seemed petulant in New Hampshire when he sneered that Hillary was "likable enough." He seemed unpleasant in South Carolina when he blasted Hillary's legal career. And he seemed downright nasty when he blasted Bill's involvement in her campaign.

Hillary Clinton can afford to look mean on occasion – the American public is used to it. And Hillary is keeping that meanness to a minimum by deploying Bill as her campaign attack dog.

Obama, by contrast, cannot afford to look mean. The moment the smile comes off his face, Obama becomes just another negative candidate, overshadowed by Clinton star power and political prowess.

"We're just getting warmed up," Hillary chuckled as Obama's ire began to rise. Hillary may be getting warmed up, but as Obama's temper heats up, his campaign cools down.

you folks are getting desperate!

Going to World Nut Daily for your opinion pieces!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yup, he sure NAILED it!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

if attempted voter suppression and swift boating her opponents is her idea of warming up... then a hit piece on her opponent from World Nut Daily has to be getting her supporters all hot and bothered.

Pretty soon you all can tune in every day to Rush to see what new racist attacks he has on Obama!

I've never watched Limbaugh's show in my life. I'm not a Republican, how about you?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But you knew that already, no?

debates.

disgusts me how superficial all this has gotten. The right clothes, hair, personality, body, can't stutter on an answer, etc. We've completely lost sight of what's important in electing officials. (And I'm not an Obama supporter -- in fact, he's third or fourth on my list.)

right wing nut job sites on the entire internet. I must say, I'd be ashamed to do that. I don't post stories from such dubious sources, and I can't for the life of me understand why any DUer would. Perhaps you simply don't know what kind of shit that site is?

I wish all questionable sources would be avoided on DU.
But to me, the interesting thing anout this read was that
THIS IS THE FIRST RW SOURCE THAT ATTACKS OBAMA INSTEAD OF HILLARY!

Which should give you guys pause...Not this one, the rest of 99%

to see a site that is absolutely anti-democratic party being used as a resource on DU. It would be one thing if you used it to show the level of hatred that infects the extreme right wing. Instead, you use it to try to divide democrats. It is worth noting that the site pushes an anti-Hillary Clinton video.

My candidate, Sen Clinton is staying on message.. She continues to move forward getting her policies and proposals out to the Public. People are not really interested in intra-Party squabbles. People are interested in:
"what can you do for me? How can you help me?" Hillary is getting her work done and staying on message.Obama should be doing the same rather than rehashing Tuesday night's debate squabbles when the US Economy is crashing around our ears Obama had the chance to grab everyones attention this morning. He should be offering solutions to the housing crisis, pushing his stimulus package..He touched lightly on those topics and spent the majority of the interview focused on the dismal and unfair treatment by the Clintons...

Then as Obama is complaining about how the Clinton's wrongly portray his inconsistencies..short of saying he's being "swiftboated" by the Clintons..

Meredith Viera takes him to a Video Clip where he can't explain HIS inconsistency! I'll post the video when it's up..for now, you can read about it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4167042

of the strengths and weaknesses of the three democratic candidates. I believe that they are the three strongest candidates that our party has had at this point in a primary in my life time. I have donated to each of the three, and will be sending another contribution to each of their campaigns in early February. I would not contribute my money to any candidate who I was not convinced would make a good President of the United States.

The film that I made reference to is found on the link the OP cites. It is a vicious attack on Senator Clinton, and suggests it might "end her political career." It refers to Senator Clinton as having engaged in "felonious behavior."

Having such a trashy site linked to as a "resource" for information about either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama seems to be in remarkably poor taste. The site, which sells "Imagine No Liberals!" T-shirts, should be shunned by thinking people. It should not matter if one supports Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Dennis Kucinich -- a right-wing hate site should be rejected.

I've been inoculated against such things. Rarely, has anyone here ever posted a site, when posting information about Hillary that would not be considered a RW. site I've learned to discount the site reference and disseminate the content...then go to work debunking whatever is said if it isn't true. If I did nothing but complain about every site posting negatives about Hillary or take a stand arguing it's a RW site..How would that help my candidate? I'd get nothing accomplished.

I look at the content for accuracy and intent.If the site doesn't meet that criteria..I will stay and debunk and provide links or transcripts whatever it takes to reveal the Truth proving the accusations are untrue.

The content of the OP is an opinion piece concerning Obama..has anyone of Obama's supporters debunked it with proof that the information contained in the article is inaccurate or any evidence the claims are patently false?

I don't know if you saw the Today show interviewing Obama this morning. He was complaining basically about the message in this OP..and he ended up getting blindsided by Meridith Viera. He really damaged himself this morning..So, much so, I don't believe he is going to win SC..That is how badly his credibility was damaged this morning. If you get a chance to see the video later on, I'd highly recommend it.

Here is the video that damaged Obama's credibility this morning:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAkIidChxic


We go back a very long time.. H2O Man. When the Plame Scandal first broke, we all dug-in writing volumes of support for Joe Wilson and Val. We sort of got to know them and cared very much for how their lives were almost ruined by the vindictive behavior of the Bush/Cheney clan..I could go on.. happily so, commending the team work well done especially by you, H2O...another time.. for now.. we're still on the same side and we will be fighting together again against GOP attacks..Looking forward to the day!

Peace..

which ever candidate the democratic party nominates will need the supporters of the other candidates from this primary to support them. That is equally true for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.

If during the course of this contest, anyone who has posted in support of an article from a right-wing hate site will find their ability to appeal to others on DU greatly reduced. If there is an article on a KKK site, it makes no difference -- none -- if the article is accurate on facts, because its interpretation is only hateful.

The common ground that our party needs to find surely must include rejecting the hateful messages from sites like the one linked to in the OP. We should not give in to the urge to find a momentary advantage or a debating point, and excuse it by saying that "politics is a tough business," or that "everyone does it." Rather, we need to be the party of the Scout Finches, and appeal to individuals' sense of decency. It's always the right time to do that.

and well said.

Obama is my candidate. But I'm not about to go out and find articles critical of Hillary on sites like WND and then post them here.

And if any Obama or Edwards supporter DOES do that, I will jump in their shit. And I have done so when someone started posting that crap about Hillary's sex life and other assorted nonsense.

Make no mistake, I don't like Hillary one little bit, and I am super critical of her campaign tactics like filing a lawsuit to suppress the vote in Nevada, but I won't resort to finding crap OPINION articles about her from the many conservative hate site that infest the internets (it's a series of TUBES I tell ya!)

in teling the Truth.

Hillary NEVER filed ANY LAWSUIT to SUPRESS the VOTE in NEVADA!

This is how your candidate, Obama got himself into the jackpot he's in..

You people think nothing of playing fast and loose with your words which do not represent the TRUTH and then you

begin to believe your own Bull Shit analysis.

When you speak or write, pretend you're in front of a Judge.. and if you get caught in a lie you go to Jail for perjury.

let's see, how did that lawsuit happen???

Oh yeah, plan for the At-Large caucus events adopted in March 2007. Final version published Sept 24, 2007. Two days AFTER the culinary union (whose workers would largely be the ones able to caucus in the At-Large locations) endorses Obama and one WEEK before the caucus, the teachers union (the leadership of which were big Hillary supporters) used a law firm (same law firm with long ties to the Clintons) to file a lawsuit to kill the At-Large locations.

And you want me to believe that Hillary had NOTHING to do with it.

Sure thing there pardner. :sarcasm:

Right... you people are FUNNY! :sarcasm:

And if Obama is in the "jackpot"... good for him!

You KNOW she either did it or let it be done by her supporters.

If the reason behind the lawsuit was SIMPLY because teachers felt disadvantaged (and you should read the lawsuit carefully, not to mention the motion for a TRO)... why wait until 1 week before the caucus? WHY? You know what... you can't answer that one because you don't have an answer. Four of the individual parties in the list of plaintiffs WERE ON THE COMMITTEE that adopted the plan. If they didn't like the outcome, why didn't they file suit in September or October or December?

Hillary used the tactics of KKKarl Rove, and tried not to leave any fingerprints. But somehow Bill Clinton, in talking to reporters, used the exact same FLAWED facts as the lawsuit to argue the At-Large caucus was tilted in favor of the Culinary union and other strip workers. But you want me to believe they weren't behind it.

Sure thing.


Here is the motion for the TRO... and the analysis.

=========================================================================================================

10 to 1 disproportionate weight argument comes in.

It's from the lawyers FLAWED (and I mean FLAWED) apples to oranges comparison in their motion to obtain a TRO.

Here:
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2008/01/plainti...

end of page 3, top of page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
extraordinary scenario, likely to occur on January 19:

John and Jane Voter, each registered Party voters living in the same home in the Clark County Precinct 1001, are shift workers as a casino located on the Las Vegas Strip. John is scheduled to work at his place of employment on January 19, 2008, with his work schedule including the time of the caucus. He make the necessary arrangements to attend his assigned At-Large caucus. Two hundred-sixty other eligible shift workers also attend this At-Large caucus. The At-Large caucus participants choose 52 delegates to the Clark County Convention. John's voice in the At-Large caucus could be assigned a value of 0.19%.

Jane, by seeming good fortune, is not scheduled to work on the day of the caucus, so she is able to attend her home precinct caucus. Because Precinct 1001 has 261 registered delegates, she and the other participants at this precinct caucus choose 5 delegates to the Clark County Convention. Jane's influence in her home caucus could be assigned a value of 0.019%

Thus, pursuant to the Plan, this couple, both of whom live in the same house and work for the same employer, would have their caucus votes treated in vastly different manners. Jane's voice would be ONE-TENTH the value of her husband's, for no other reason than that her employer did not schedule her to work during the time of the caucus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, let's take this apart one thing at a time. First off, there is an incorrect word choice in this example. Precinct 1001 (the example home Precinct) does not have 261 registered DELEGATES, it has 261 registered VOTERS... it's a small thing, but motions should be correct. According to the Plan rules, 261 registered voters in a Clark County Precinct would get delegates at a ratio of 50 - 1, that is, 50 registered democratic voters to 1 delegate. So 261 / 50 = 5.2 or 5 as the example states. And her voice is the stated 0.019%. Here is where the apples to oranges comes in. The example of John voting in the At-Large Precinct at the casino states that 260 eligible voters SHOWED UP to select delegates. The example never states how many SHOWED UP to vote in Precinct 1001 where Jane voted. The Plan states that an At-Large Precinct needs 4000 or more workers to qualify, so the fair comparison is number of workers or 4000+ / 50 equals number of delegates. Not the 260 that the example states "showed up" to caucus. After all, perhaps out of the 261 registered voters in Precinct 1001, lets say only 40 showed up to caucus. Jane would then have a weight given to her vote of 2.5%, a much HIGHER representation than John's.

You see why the plaintiff's lawyers had 260 showing up at the At-Large V. the 261 registered voters in Precinct 1001... because both of the groups have the SAME REPRESENTATION of 50 to 1 of registered voters... but they want to distort it by claiming that ALL VOTERS in the example precinct 1001 showed up but only got 5 delegates, whereas 260 showed up (out of 4000 potential voters) at the At-Large caucus and got 52 delegates. A convenient way to come up with the 10 to 1 ratio in the claims. But it's totally bogus.

Edit to add

Ohh, I just thought of something ELSE...

Jane's vote in her home precinct actually will count MORE (very slightly) than John's vote.
Follow me here... John and Jane both vote in precincts that award 50 to 1 delegates to eligible voters as has been demonstrated. However, John can't be in two places at one time, and in the example, John is a registered voter in the HOME PRECINCT (where Jane is voting), which means that the number of delegates awarded to that precinct is higher than it should be... because John (and all union members that are using the At-Large and who live in Precinct 1001) is not there to vote... so those who DO show up to vote in Precinct 1001 get the benefit of having MORE delegates to represent them.

To see this mathematically, use the same example the the lawyers wrote, only this time put in numbers that show EVERYONE caucusing (all 261 registered voters MINUS John and other working union members) and all 4000 At-Large eligible caucus voters. Jane actually gets a slightly LARGER voice than John (he is stuck at 50 to 1) because the number of delegates in her home caucus will include John and his co-workers (at the same 50 to 1 ratio).

another trick you people like to do...broken links..

Have at it!

you see, if Hillary (or her husband, a former President) slings some shit at Obama, and he fights back, then its "he should stay on message!" and if he doesn't fight back then its "he's just like Kerry, no backbone!"...

No matter what Obama does, they will continue to find articles, even in the worst corners of the internet, written by our mutual avowed enemy, that slam anyone that might be an alternative to THEIR CANDIDATE.

They will never understand that I, as a recent Obama supporter, or someone who is an Edwards supporter, or a Kucinich supporter, would never, ever go trolling through World Nut Daily or similar sites just so I can post a hit piece on Hillary here. I know those sites have them, I'm sure that I could find out about Hillary's sex life, her drug usage, and how the Clintons had various people killed. But I don't. And when others here DO post that crap, I jump on them too. Even though Hillary isn't my choice for President. but her supporters can't understand that.

because Obama couldn't explain it away..Can You?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAkIidChxic

january 13, 2008 Meet the Press

------
Moderator Tim Russert pointed out that the title of the resolution was the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Clinton responded saying, "We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. But when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution said, 'It was not a vote for war,' What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job,' I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. "
------

1. Much like the earlier Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the United States" the title of this bill was what Russert said it was. People should really read these things before they vote.

2. She didn't vote for the Hagel version, she voted for the White House version. Hagel did NOT draft the one she voted for. She is lying.

3. Even if she did not think it was a vote for what was on the title, that she BELIEVED the WhiteHouse, even then, shows a complete lack of judgment. A error in judgment that should prevent her from ever being the President.

One of my concerns about him was how he would react to attacks. I had visions of Democrats nominating yet another attractive (to us) policy wonk who had no ability whatsoever to get down and play in the dirt.

Obama has shown another dimension to his character and that is a plus for me.

and show them to be petty "win at any cost" liars we knew them to be. And don't let up.

If Obama can slay the Hydra, I think he can take down one grumpy old white guy in the fall.

The first test is the Primary. The survivor of the strongest and smartest of the Dem candidates becomes the nominee.
Then it gets nasty. This is a pre-quel to the Big Show!

and lie about what the other candidate said, and try to suppress the vote when you think it might be for your opponent.

And ALL THE OTHER CRAP FROM KKKARL ROVE.

Because they are going to do it to us in the fall.

That's your excuse to act like the worst of the republicans NOW. Because they are going to do it to us in the fall!

Find a moral compass.

I will not become my enemy just to fight my enemy. I will NOT torture people, arrest and detain them for years without charges or trial because they do not value innocent human life. I will NOT bomb a country because I BELIEVE they might have weapons that I posses, but I do not want them to posses.

If you don't understand this... and how it applies to the tactics used in this campaign for the nomination, well...

Find a moral compass and USE IT.

And if you are the messenger... fish meet barrel.

I heard a replay of that sound byte on radio yesterday too. I hope it's genuine and not something just being used as a tool. This class warfare thing really seems kinda refreshing

More than the site reference here, after reading it, I didn't find anything in the article to be inaccurate.

I think Obama is in over his head and never realized what he was in for running for the presidency. It seems Obama thought after he won Iowa, it was going to be a cakewalk for him, everyone would give up and go home.

Obama seems to be impervious to the understanding, he is a neophyte running a World Class race in a World of PRO's...

"more than the site reference here"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

It's World Nut Daily. And it's an opinion piece, completely devoid of any facts. One person's opinion.

You didn't find anything "inaccurate" because there isn't anything there! It's all opinion.

And now you are going to defend the OPINIONS of the wing nut freepers? Here on DU? Because they happen to attack your candidates opponent?

This is why I will never, ever vote for Hillary.

You see, even though *I* am an Obama supporter, if World Net Daily had an opinion piece about how Hillary was too emotional or too hysterical or too "womanly" to be President, I would never use it here... and would, in fact, exclaim what a piece of shit the article is and the author.

But that's the difference between me (and most Edwards / Obama supporters) and what I've observed so far from the Hillary supporters.

You're all talk because you love reading you're own words. Debunk the OP with a factual analysis or linked proof.

Otherwise don't waste our time blowing smoke or cartoon entertainment.

OK,

It's the authors OPINION that Obama looks "mean" when he was defending himself. It's the author's opinion that he can't afford to look mean.

It's all opinion. Totally "fact" free.

Here, it's my opinion that Obama didn't look mean in the debate. See... debunked.

You see, it's my OPINION that Hillary is too NNNN to be President.
Please debunk.

You can't, because it's an opinion.

And in the case of the article referenced in the OP, it's a nasty hit job OPINION piece. full of loaded language like "Obama mean nasty etc etc".

Actually, I'm happy that the repukes are sending out email campaigns saying Obama took the oath of office on a Koran and junk like this WND hit job. It means that they are finally waking up to the fact that THEIR CHOSEN OPPONENT for the fall might fail and not be there so they can rally the troops to take her down. So now they are scrambling to start the smear campaign on Obama, which means they think it's possible that he might win the nomination.

The script writers all went on strike you see... so the scripted selection of the next president (hillary wins dem nomination in a cake walk, McCain makes a huge comeback based on the surge working and goes on to win the election because the base turned out to defeat the evil Clinton... war and war profits go on for another 4 to 8 years) might not come about.

Obama reached a point where he absolutely HAD to stand up for himself. If one is campaigning to become POTUS, he or she cannot be in a position that paints him or her as a wimp. That's a big NO SALE to the American public.

I heard one of the talking heads discussing this last night. (Might have been Craig Crawford.) His observance was that part of Obama's appeal is that "mystic" that he has been carrying over him for some time - I am civil, I am dignified, I am taking the high road, I do not have to get down and wallow in the mud because I have charisma. That mystic is gone, a deliberate result of the Clintons' baiting to knock him off his game. That is why Obama's campaign has gone downhill since Iowa. Thus went the reasoning.

Barama is dignified, yes, and he has constantly expressed an overwhelming desire to unite the American people. And, yes, that was one of his most attractive pitches. But when one finds oneself in a literal dog fight with two, count 'em, two pitbulls, charisma and dignity are not the operative words. Maintaining one's self-esteem in purely rotten situations is an investment one offers to those whose support he or she seeks. Yes, Barack stood up to Hillary in a ferocious manner, but it was long overdue.

Hillary was not "hurt" by his words; she was simply playing a role. Acting. I looked closely at her face to see signs of anger or hurt as she responded to some his accusations. She was very deliberate, calm and collected at some points, seizing him up and looking for another spot to hit. After he offered an explanation to her charge, she pretended not to understand his explanation, as if it was fuzzy. As I watched her perform, I felt real disgust. This is an ugly side of the woman I really don't want to spend the next 8 years observing. A "win at all cost" approach to winning an election might result in a desirable outcome for the candidate; but over the ensuing period of time that follows, there is indeed a price to pay. Just ask George Bush*.

Obama made a mistake? I don't think so, he made a course correction. There is no dignity or appeal in continually talking a pummeling from a political street gang without taking whatever steps are necessary to protect one's self-respect.

... maybe you should reexamine your agreement.

Linking to WND. Jesus H Christ.

Or those enjoying Weekly Standard, Drudge, Paglia - and many, many other shity sources deluging DU lately - approved enthusiastically because they attacked Hillary.

Dudes, the enemy of your enemy ain't your friend.

as I did when someone started numerous posts the other day talking about Hillary's sex life.

It was crap. I posted that it was crap. And it's crap when it's done to Edwards or Kucinich too.

No candidate looks good when they look agitated, and Clinton had Obama agitated Monday night. Of course, he's in a position where he had to respond to the attacks, and if Clinton is going to keep slinging the mud around like a childish petulant princess, then he is going to have to throw some back.

Just another example of how Obama is disadvantaged in this race. He has to fight off a mega-star candidate, an ex-president, the Clinton machine, all while keeping a smile on his face and trying not to look like he's fighting back "too hard" lest he look like he's "picking on a girl."

I completely disagree, even Barnacle said today that the biggest liability Hillary has is her likeability. If she wins the nom and McCain is in it, she will be seen as shrill and unlikeable and McCain will win. Hes more likeable, its her biggest flaw, if ppl don't like you, they will not vote for you. Also considering the fact taht she offended a huge portion of her base, she is DONE. She may win the nom, but she will not win the GE, considering these factors: bloomberg/nader will split her vote/ she offended a huge chunk of her base: the black vote/ she is not likeable, not seen as trustworthy. Bookmark this and trust, it will happen.

I did not notice Obama's temper heating up.

Barack kept his cool the whole time. B-)

Even when Hillary went into attack mode.

That's what I remember from Monday night.

bite him in the ass, what has obama got against people shopping at wal mart? He is to be the champion of the little guy and gal and he all but went ape shit cause hrc was on the board of wal mart.....wow...what tis happening with obama is bill clinton has got into his psyche and this became clearer yesterday when he got mad, angry at an abc reporter.Much more so then when Bill was talking with the reporter last week...

Lying about his record. Obama decried the Clintons, stating they were lying about him being inconsistent with his policies. Then Meredith Viera played this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAkIidChxic

This was the most devastating thing I've ever seen...Obama was speechless, stumbling, I thought he was going to faint on the spot. It was awful. I really felt bad for the guy.

Meredith.

What I found was a slime job by Hillary. Taking snippets of speeches out of context and trying to make it look like Obama has different opinions on single payer health care. BTW, he doesn't, he said both times that it's the goal, and if you were starting with no entrenched health care system, it would be the way to go. And whatever he comes up with, it sounds a lot better to me than mandatory insurance (let's make sure we pay off the insurance industry! yeah! :sarcasm:)

And when did it become a crime to change an opinion about something anyway. Are we all now locked in to what we said EVER in our adult lives? To me that's a flaw, that's someone who is hidebound and can't admit to making an error... sort of like who is in the white house now... or Hillary on her IWR vote.

a lot of them (like my sister and brother-in-law) know how destructive it is. They tell me all the time how it's killed off the little downtown area of the small city they live near. Saw it for myself, most of the downtown area store fronts are now "for rent" and abandoned... while Wally World on the outskirts of town has a full parking lot and is open 24 hours.

They also tell me that that people they know that now work at Wally world hate it and they don't make any money.

But then, they still shop there.

It's a love / hate thing. Love the low prices, hate everything else.

I'm not worried that the general population (the little guys and gals as you call them) is going to dislike Obama about his stand on Wally world. They are smart enough to figure it all out.

That's telling.

This is pathetic. Obama looked no angrier than HRC, and nowhere near the finger wagging, red faced Bill Cinton.

Of course, if he simply gracefully refuted the points, without looking obviously angry - we know what people would say. As it was, he did keep his cool more under pressure than HRC did after Philly.

and then cooled off. Yelling at a woman creates bad optics. Ask Rick Lazio what happens when you look sexist on a debate stage.