B. Obama won because ...

[Countertrey]

Greg Palast, says Noam Chomsky, "Upsets all the right people."

All I need. BTW, if Chomsky isn't one of those he upsets, then he's not upseting the right people, and Chomsky, as usual, is fabricating his truth.

[crazyhorse1]

Interesting (and creative) take.

Rahm is an attack dog, and Obama is not likely to turn him loose on his allies.

It really matters not to me... I'm already resolved to having my pockets rifled.

I suspect the rifling will be less thorough than it has been for the last seven years.
Maybe your benefits will go up too and you won't be living in Kansas anymore. I pray for your deliverance from your delusions.

[welch]

Jake had it, when he said,

- He appeals to more people.

- He's articulate.

- He's addressed more IN-HOUSE issues in the United States that McCain failed to discuss.

- Obama is more worried about fixing our country than meddling with other countries. We have needed someone who wants to fix OUR problems as opposed to creating more with others.

- Obama actually answers questions that are asked to him and doesn't tip-toe around the answer.

I will add that the Obama organization was more enthusiastic, and very meticulous. I watched them work in Virginia. They had an office not just in Harisonburg, but in Bridgewater and Staunton (pronounced "Stanton", by the way!).

Obama got votes out of the Shenandoah Valley and Culpeper County, from places where the McCain campaign assumed they would win overwhelmingly.

[crazyhorse1]

Jake had it, when he said,

- He appeals to more people.

- He's articulate.

- He's addressed more IN-HOUSE issues in the United States that McCain failed to discuss.

- Obama is more worried about fixing our country than meddling with other countries. We have needed someone who wants to fix OUR problems as opposed to creating more with others.

- Obama actually answers questions that are asked to him and doesn't tip-toe around the answer.

I will add that the Obama organization was more enthusiastic, and very meticulous. I watched them work in Virginia. They had an office not just in Harisonburg, but in Bridgewater and Staunton (pronounced "Stanton", by the way!).

Obama got votes out of the Shenandoah Valley and Culpeper County, from places where the McCain campaign assumed they would win overwhelmingly.

I'm more impressed by Obama's organizational and political intelligence than his more obvious abilities. He must have learned that ground game as a community organizer. That, combined with his counter punching and other strategic and tactical maneuvers were awesome to behold.

My view is that neither Clinton nor McCain had much chance against his
singular gifts. He would have beaten McCain badly, financial crisis or none.
McCain only briefly contended because of his hail Mary, Palin, which worked, but not well enough. If there had been no financial collapse, Obama would have won on the war, choice, the progressive agenda, and recent crimes and ethical lapses of the GOP (including McCain's), which, as it turned out, he didn't have to touch.

[KazooSkinsFan]

So when Jeb and Katherine Harris hired Choicepoint to incorrectly expunge 90,000 plus black persons from the Florida voting rolls, you were fine with that?

Proof? I mean other then the inherent truth of any statement supporting the Democrats.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/featu ... print.html

Fine, upstanding folks at that company:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024899/

You consider this "proof?"

- The first article by Greg Palast is "Proof?" You have to be kidding me. Have you ever read anything by this guy? He's constantly writing Republicans are the devil articles. It doesn't make him wrong, but that you go to a guy with a clear agenda as your "proof" demonstrates the pathetically weak argument you have.

Palast is an excellent source. It's easy for you to say he has an agenda to try and discredit the link, but I challenge you to show any report he has ever given, in his career as either an investigative reporter or investigator of corporate fraud and racketeering, that contains a single untruth. Yes he has an agenda, and that is to expose corporate and political malfeasance.

The hypocrisy that a right wing "investigative reporter" who wrote only one sided anti-Democratic party stories would be rejected out of hand as an "excellent source" aside, the standard is that he is "proof" of the assertion unless it's proven he's told direct lies? According to the mindless Left, FoxNews, which at least allows liberals on all the time to speak for themselves is completely untrustworthy while MS-NBC, CNN, CBS, NBC who never present either any view but their own or anyone who disagrees with them are completely reputable.

And if the assertion were in fact true, why is a one sided "progressive investigative journalist" the only one who discovered it and then without finding any facts at all counter to his partisan Democratic position in this or any other article that he writes? The Democrats are 100% right on everything. Every fact, every piece of data, every story they are 100% right on. So says Greg and there's the "proof" of the assertion. Liberals may not be easy to laugh with because their humor is as 100% partisan as everything else about them, but they sure are easy to laugh at.

[Fios]

Attack the messenger! Attack the messenger!

[KazooSkinsFan]

Attack the messenger! Attack the messenger!

A one sided partisan "progressive investigative reporter" writes a story and that's the only "proof" offered. I did not say he's not entitled to a view or even that he's wrong. I just said he's not in and of himself "proof." So what I get in return is first an offer for ME to prove the "proof" is a liar and then a claim I'm attacking the messenger by saying a guy who's on one side and the article is awful self serving for that side and who offers no proof himself's word isn't on it's own "proof."

And I say liberalism is a logic-less religion. Where do I get that?

[Countertrey]

Attack the messenger! Attack the messenger!

All right.




Which one of you guys is "the messenger"?

[CanesSkins26]

The main reason for Obama's win was the economy. Up until the economy took a dive in the second week of September, national polls showed a tied race or McCain slightly ahead. When the economy hit McCain's campaign was unable to establish a consistent message on the economy and Obama, who was already favored by most voters on the economy, was the beneficiary of that. It's not that McCain wasn't able to separate himself from all of Bush's policies as he actually did a pretty good job of distancing himself from Bush. Where he wasn't able to distinguish himself from Bush was in the area of economic policy and given the focus on the economy during the last month and a half of the race, he wasn't able to recover. The fact that McCain received as many votes as he did despite Bush's unpopularity and Obama's financial advantage is a testament to McCain.

[crazyhorse1]

The main reason for Obama's win was the economy. Up until the economy took a dive in the second week of September, national polls showed a tied race or McCain slightly ahead. When the economy hit McCain's campaign was unable to establish a consistent message on the economy and Obama, who was already favored by most voters on the economy, was the beneficiary of that. It's not that McCain wasn't able to separate himself from all of Bush's policies as he actually did a pretty good job of distancing himself from Bush. Where he wasn't able to distinguish himself from Bush was in the area of economic policy and given the focus on the economy during the last month and a half of the race, he wasn't able to recover. The fact that McCain received as many votes as he did despite Bush's unpopularity and Obama's financial advantage is a testament to McCain.

McCain's campaign, irrational, pathetic-- it was based on nonsense, deception, and negative charges. Further, it never found a center, not even a stupid one. The Joe the Plumber business was overwhelmingly inane, just as was the McCain as the agent of "change" business, the Obama is a socialist business, and the Obama as a "rock star" business.
Obama knocked aside every circus act McCain came up with, including Palin.

Without the racist and Palin vote, McCain would have picked up maybe 30% of the vote total, 20% of which was the die-hard fascist/pro-torture/anti-gay (Christian) vote put into play by America's oil and munitions cartel and de-regulating gangsters.

Here are the two largest groups of American who did not vote for McCain: 1. Liberals, and 2. True Conservatives (not even George Will, Christopher Hitchens, Buckley, Broder, Andrew Sullivan, General Powell, etc.). Face it, my friends, McCain's supporters were the greedy rich and knuckle draggers and were not so much won by him as inherited.

[Deadskins]

The fact that McCain received as many votes as he did despite Bush's unpopularity and Obama's financial advantage is a testament to McCain.

Or, more likely, a testament to the polarization of the electorate over the past 25 years, and the creation of the yellow dog Republican amongst southern voters.

[Deadskins]

So when Jeb and Katherine Harris hired Choicepoint to incorrectly expunge 90,000 plus black persons from the Florida voting rolls, you were fine with that?

Proof? I mean other then the inherent truth of any statement supporting the Democrats.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/featu ... print.html

Fine, upstanding folks at that company:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024899/

You consider this "proof?"

- The first article by Greg Palast is "Proof?" You have to be kidding me. Have you ever read anything by this guy? He's constantly writing Republicans are the devil articles. It doesn't make him wrong, but that you go to a guy with a clear agenda as your "proof" demonstrates the pathetically weak argument you have.

Palast is an excellent source. It's easy for you to say he has an agenda to try and discredit the link, but I challenge you to show any report he has ever given, in his career as either an investigative reporter or investigator of corporate fraud and racketeering, that contains a single untruth. Yes he has an agenda, and that is to expose corporate and political malfeasance.

The hypocrisy that a right wing "investigative reporter" who wrote only one sided anti-Democratic party stories would be rejected out of hand as an "excellent source" aside, the standard is that he is "proof" of the assertion unless it's proven he's told direct lies? According to the mindless Left, FoxNews, which at least allows liberals on all the time to speak for themselves is completely untrustworthy while MS-NBC, CNN, CBS, NBC who never present either any view but their own or anyone who disagrees with them are completely reputable.

And if the assertion were in fact true, why is a one sided "progressive investigative journalist" the only one who discovered it and then without finding any facts at all counter to his partisan Democratic position in this or any other article that he writes? The Democrats are 100% right on everything. Every fact, every piece of data, every story they are 100% right on. So says Greg and there's the "proof" of the assertion. Liberals may not be easy to laugh with because their humor is as 100% partisan as everything else about them, but they sure are easy to laugh at.

I love how the only fault you can find with him is that he is one sided and only seems to investigate Republicans, as if that somehow discredits his reports. That you also want him to present facts that counter his investigations is simply laughable. But you do ask a great question here. Why is he the only one reporting this stuff? You would think the "liberal media" would be all over these reports. I mean, really, this blatant Democratic hatchet-man is giving them clear evidence of Republican wrong-doing, and yet they don't even parrot the story? They don't seem to mind fabricating other anti-Republican propaganda, so even if they couldn't verify Palast's documentation, why not run with the stories anyway? Very curious.

[Countertrey]

I mean, really, this blatant Democratic hatchet-man is giving them clear evidence of Republican wrong-doing, and yet they don't even parrot the story? They don't seem to mind fabricating other anti-Republican propaganda, so even if they couldn't verify Palast's documentation, why not run with the stories anyway?

Perhaps, because even they have standards of credibility (See Dan Rather).

[Deadskins]

I mean, really, this blatant Democratic hatchet-man is giving them clear evidence of Republican wrong-doing, and yet they don't even parrot the story? They don't seem to mind fabricating other anti-Republican propaganda, so even if they couldn't verify Palast's documentation, why not run with the stories anyway?

Perhaps, because even they have standards of credibility (See Dan Rather).

Not according to Kaz. And the Rather story only proves my point. But I guess you're arguing that the BBC, for whom Palast reports, does not have standards of credibility.

[Countertrey]

What I am arguing is that any "reporter" who's job entails tossing dirt onto one side, and not onto the other is of very questionable veracity.

You may chose to read that as "he has an agenda... he has an investment in his agenda... he will cherry pick information to prove his point." The BBC is at about the same location on the political spectrum as MSNBC, in my opinion.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I love how the only fault you can find with him is that he is one sided and only seems to investigate Republicans, as if that somehow discredits his reports. That you also want him to present facts that counter his investigations is simply laughable. But you do ask a great question here. Why is he the only one reporting this stuff? You would think the "liberal media" would be all over these reports. I mean, really, this blatant Democratic hatchet-man is giving them clear evidence of Republican wrong-doing, and yet they don't even parrot the story? They don't seem to mind fabricating other anti-Republican propaganda, so even if they couldn't verify Palast's documentation, why not run with the stories anyway? Very curious.

Um..OK. This is exactly why I only argue with liberals to amuse myself

[Deadskins]

I love how the only fault you can find with him is that he is one sided and only seems to investigate Republicans, as if that somehow discredits his reports. That you also want him to present facts that counter his investigations is simply laughable. But you do ask a great question here. Why is he the only one reporting this stuff? You would think the "liberal media" would be all over these reports. I mean, really, this blatant Democratic hatchet-man is giving them clear evidence of Republican wrong-doing, and yet they don't even parrot the story? They don't seem to mind fabricating other anti-Republican propaganda, so even if they couldn't verify Palast's documentation, why not run with the stories anyway? Very curious.

Um..OK. This is exactly why I only argue with liberals to amuse myself

Agreed!

[KazooSkinsFan]

dup

[KazooSkinsFan]

I love how the only fault you can find with him is that he is one sided and only seems to investigate Republicans, as if that somehow discredits his reports. That you also want him to present facts that counter his investigations is simply laughable. But you do ask a great question here. Why is he the only one reporting this stuff? You would think the "liberal media" would be all over these reports. I mean, really, this blatant Democratic hatchet-man is giving them clear evidence of Republican wrong-doing, and yet they don't even parrot the story? They don't seem to mind fabricating other anti-Republican propaganda, so even if they couldn't verify Palast's documentation, why not run with the stories anyway? Very curious.

Um..OK. This is exactly why I only argue with liberals to amuse myself

Agreed!

Well you should, I made a great point. I can't decide if my "favorite" liberal argument is:

- The inherent truth of liberalism, or
- All statements insupport of a liberal argument are fact no matter how untrue and all statements against a liberal argument are lie no matter how true.

Of course liberals would accept that liberal arguments are true as long as you can disprove them without violating the basic truisms above.

My favorites are the liberals who will admit to some tiny separation from liberalism, like that Democrats aren't really liberal without ever disagreeing with any specific liberal or Democrat or anything, then they use that overwhelming proof of their open mindedness to become the unrelenting, self richeous hammer of liberals and Democrats. Who better then to speak in their defense then someone who not only agrees with them on every issue but is open minded?

Anyway, which of the two tenents do you think is the strongest argument, JSPB22? Just curious. Anyway, that is exactly what makes arguing with a Right Wing Christian religious zealot the same as arguing with a Left Wing Democrat religious zealot. Actually, that answers my question. Zealots are driven by inherent truth which they JUSTIFY with flawed arguments. That means, the second tenent is derived from the first making the first the greater argument. Wow, you're good. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

[Deadskins]

I love how the only fault you can find with him is that he is one sided and only seems to investigate Republicans, as if that somehow discredits his reports. That you also want him to present facts that counter his investigations is simply laughable. But you do ask a great question here. Why is he the only one reporting this stuff? You would think the "liberal media" would be all over these reports. I mean, really, this blatant Democratic hatchet-man is giving them clear evidence of Republican wrong-doing, and yet they don't even parrot the story? They don't seem to mind fabricating other anti-Republican propaganda, so even if they couldn't verify Palast's documentation, why not run with the stories anyway? Very curious.

Um..OK. This is exactly why I only argue with liberals to amuse myself

Agreed!

Well you should, I made a great point. I can't decide if my "favorite" liberal argument is:

- The inherent truth of liberalism, or
- All statements insupport of a liberal argument are fact no matter how untrue and all statements against a liberal argument are lie no matter how true.

Of course liberals would accept that liberal arguments are true as long as you can disprove them without violating the basic truisms above.

My favorites are the liberals who will admit to some tiny separation from liberalism, like that Democrats aren't really liberal without ever disagreeing with any specific liberal or Democrat or anything, then they use that overwhelming proof of their open mindedness to become the unrelenting, self richeous hammer of liberals and Democrats. Who better then to speak in their defense then someone who not only agrees with them on every issue but is open minded?

Anyway, which of the two tenents do you think is the strongest argument, JSPB22? Just curious. Anyway, that is exactly what makes arguing with a Right Wing Christian religious zealot the same as arguing with a Left Wing Democrat religious zealot. Actually, that answers my question. Zealots are driven by inherent truth which they JUSTIFY with flawed arguments. That means, the second tenent is derived from the first making the first the greater argument. Wow, you're good. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

You got all of that from my agreeing with you, huh?