Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

Cyli wrote:

I do hope that Hillary will never run for president, nor even vice.
First, I don't think a woman can be elected president any time in the
next decade or two. Second, Hillary has so much baggage that it'd bog
her right down.

The buzz around Barack is happening too early and he realizes this, as
evidenced in his own comments at last week's NH book signing, town-hall
thing. His flame could burn bright and brief, at least for the 08
contest. I do like his message though: amongst other things, the
audacious hope that a campaign can be fought with a respect for the
opponent. I just wonder if he'll still walk on water when he realizes he
has to go negative, either as a first strike, or in retaliation?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

GM wrote:

... I just wonder if he'll still walk on water when he realizes he
has to go negative, either as a first strike, or in retaliation?

Don't worry about Barack Obama's fighting ability. He's won,
and lost, elections for the Illinois legislature and Illinois
politics is anything but genteel.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:16:22 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

GM wrote:

... I just wonder if he'll still walk on water when he realizes he
has to go negative, either as a first strike, or in retaliation?

Don't worry about Barack Obama's fighting ability. He's won,
and lost, elections for the Illinois legislature and Illinois
politics is anything but genteel.

Er, yeah...he's the regular Fightin' Illini of politics...and in his
last "game," the opposition sent the cheerleaders, but forgot to bring
the actual team to the stadium...

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Don't worry about Barack Obama's fighting ability. He's won,
and lost, elections for the Illinois legislature and Illinois
politics is anything but genteel.

Er, yeah...he's the regular Fightin' Illini of politics...and in his
last "game," the opposition sent the cheerleaders, but forgot to bring
the actual team to the stadium...

The general election of the 2004 Senate race wasn't the "game", it
was a foregone conclusion, the knock down drag out happened in the
Democratic primary as anyone who had even a cursory understanding
of Illinois politics would well know.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:49:54 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Don't worry about Barack Obama's fighting ability. He's won,
and lost, elections for the Illinois legislature and Illinois
politics is anything but genteel.

Er, yeah...he's the regular Fightin' Illini of politics...and in his
last "game," the opposition sent the cheerleaders, but forgot to bring
the actual team to the stadium...

The general election of the 2004 Senate race wasn't the "game", it
was a foregone conclusion, the knock down drag out happened in the
Democratic primary

"Knock down drag out," huh? Yeah, it was a real down-to-the-wire
nail-biter...what, 182% of the registered Dems voted for him, compared
to the next-place guy, a Chicago legacycrook, who only got, what,
101%...

as anyone who had even a cursory understanding
of Illinois politics would well know.

IOW, you don't have the slightest idea...and if you think winning some
Chicago ballot-box-stuffing contest is any real prep for a US-wide
Presidential race, you really are, um, way out there in left field...

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Don't worry about Barack Obama's fighting ability. He's won,
and lost, elections for the Illinois legislature and Illinois
politics is anything but genteel.
Er, yeah...he's the regular Fightin' Illini of politics...and in his
last "game," the opposition sent the cheerleaders, but forgot to bring
the actual team to the stadium...
The general election of the 2004 Senate race wasn't the "game", it
was a foregone conclusion, the knock down drag out happened in the
Democratic primary

"Knock down drag out," huh? Yeah, it was a real down-to-the-wire
nail-biter...what, 182% of the registered Dems voted for him, compared
to the next-place guy, a Chicago legacycrook, who only got, what,
101%...

as anyone who had even a cursory understanding
of Illinois politics would well know.

IOW, you don't have the slightest idea...and if you think winning some
Chicago ballot-box-stuffing contest is any real prep for a US-wide
Presidential race, you really are, um, way out there in left field...

The question was, does Obama have enough fight in him to weather
the inevitable Swiftboating by the GOP dirty tricks committee.
The answer is, he had success in Illinois politics and Illinois
politics is not for the faint of heart. As for "real prep" for a
Presidential race, what in the hell would that be ? Trying it
once and getting trounced ? In that case McCain is a shoo-in. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:33:17 -0500, GM wrote:

Cyli wrote:

I do hope that Hillary will never run for president, nor even vice.
First, I don't think a woman can be elected president any time in the
next decade or two. Second, Hillary has so much baggage that it'd bog
her right down.

The buzz around Barack is happening too early and he realizes this, as
evidenced in his own comments at last week's NH book signing, town-hall
thing.

Or his Bears' pregame "announcement"...

His flame could burn bright and brief, at least for the 08
contest. I do like his message though: amongst other things, the
audacious hope that a campaign can be fought with a respect for the
opponent. I just wonder if he'll still walk on water when he realizes he
has to go negative, either as a first strike, or in retaliation?

If he joins up with McCain, they could both ignore whoever the opponents
wind up being. If it does wind up being he and Hillary in a contest for
Dem nominee, he won't need to "go negative" - the GOP and everyone else
to the right of, oh, say, Michael Moore will do it for him. And
speaking of idiots, Hillary and the Clintonistas seem to be right on
schedule to **** up Hillary's chances by continuing to do what they do -
attempting to rat**** _anyone_, including the voters, that they see as
"in the way."

If he's the Dem nominee, his objective negatives (no real experience, no
real record at any level - no "yardstick"), combined with subjective
negatives (he's a Dem, he's too black, he's not black enough, he's not
"liberal"/"conservative" enough, he's too "liberal"/ "conservative,"
he's too young, etc.), will likely combine to get him defeated THIS TIME
if the GOP puts up anyone short of maybe Pat Robertson. If it's McCain,
Obama's done. They are both, as pols go, good men, but McCain has the
name and the record, and if he goes (really) negative on McCain, he's
_really_ done. IMO, though, if they are steering their own ships,
neither would go unduly (and subjectively) negative on the other.

If he's smart, whether he joins McCain or not, he will take a page from
his playbook: don't go (subjectively) negative _against anyone_ and be
thought of as one of the "good guys" by the entire center.

And anyone wanna bet that Hillary (or her campaign) will bring up his
skin color at least once?

R

wrote in message
...

Or his Bears' pregame "announcement"...

Not familiar with political humor, heh?

If he joins up with McCain, they could both ignore whoever the opponents
wind up being.

If he goes with McCain, all this talk about his intellect will have been for
naught.

If it does wind up being he and Hillary in a contest for
Dem nominee,

Well which will be Pres and which will be VP?

he won't need to "go negative" - the GOP and everyone else
to the right of, oh, say, Michael Moore will do it for him.

Well that is to be expected, I mean we are talking Dems. and Repubs., right?

And
speaking of idiots,

This is not about you Rah.

Hillary and the Clintonistas seem to be right on
schedule to **** up Hillary's chances by continuing to do what they do -
attempting to rat**** _anyone_, including the voters, that they see as
"in the way."

You reckon they shoot anyone in the face?

If he's the Dem nominee, his objective negatives (no real experience, no
real record at any level - no "yardstick"),

Pretty much like the last two Ps'OTUS, right. I mean former governors
aren't really qualified to hold the highest office in the land, right. But
of course, politics ain't about qualifications.

combined with subjective
negatives (he's a Dem, he's too black, he's not black enough, he's not
"liberal"/"conservative" enough, he's too "liberal"/ "conservative,"
he's too young, etc.), will likely combine to get him defeated THIS TIME
if the GOP puts up anyone short of maybe Pat Robertson.

Maybe he could get Colin Powell to run with him, he's got it all ya know.

Of course the Republicans are likely to run someone just to the right of
Satan, so they will have the best shot at getting their base vote anyway.

If it's McCain,
Obama's done. They are both, as pols go, good men, but McCain has the
name and the record, and if he goes (really) negative on McCain, he's
_really_ done. IMO, though, if they are steering their own ships,
neither would go unduly (and subjectively) negative on the other.

Yeah, wouldn't want to Swiftboat McCain the way Bush did. And of course
McCains age certainly won't figure in. Remeber, he no Ronny Reagan.

If he's smart, whether he joins McCain or not, he will take a page from
his playbook: don't go (subjectively) negative _against anyone_ and be
thought of as one of the "good guys" by the entire center.

That a great and positive Republican strategy, right.

And anyone wanna bet that Hillary (or her campaign) will bring up his
skin color at least once?

No, because neither will run this time out. Wanna bet on that?

Op

R

wrote in news:3q40o2t03jvo5ku5cohimmh8lp4m3kuodi@
4ax.com:


If he joins up with McCain, they could both ignore whoever the opponents
wind up being.


McCain is a has-been before he even starts. He was bitch-slapped by the
Bush campaign during his run for candidacy, and did nothing about it.
Schoolyard rules say this takes him out of contention, and probably should.

You take a guy who the world knows won't stand up for what's right, and
he'll just be jacked up all over the world, kind of like the Sauds are
jacking up GW today by threatening to support the Sunnis in Iraq.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 13 Dec 2006 18:33:37 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:3q40o2t03jvo5ku5cohimmh8lp4m3kuodi@
4ax.com:


If he joins up with McCain, they could both ignore whoever the opponents
wind up being.


McCain is a has-been before he even starts. He was bitch-slapped by the
Bush campaign during his run for candidacy, and did nothing about it.
Schoolyard rules say this takes him out of contention, and probably should.

You take a guy who the world knows won't stand up for what's right, and
he'll just be jacked up all over the world, kind of like the Sauds are
jacking up GW today by threatening to support the Sunnis in Iraq.

Unless all Sunni, Shi'a, and Saudis suddenly show up at a LA nightclub
with Lindsay Lohan and without panties, and flash some shaved snapper
while climbing out of a Bentley, the average American voter won't know
or care about what they do...