Quote:
Originally Posted by floorpotato  You might not like it, but angry is good for Obama. For most of the campaign, Obama expressed his positions in a measured and logical fashion as if writing a legal essay for his old Harvard Law Review. That helped him gain a fanatical following among elites and students. But Obama needs to tap into the anger of the beleaguered American worker to win. America's workers are among the most productive in the world, but are now watching their jobs go offshore, their real wages shrink and wealth flow upwards only to the richest Americans. In brief, the average American worker is angry. If Obama doesn't tap into that anger, the faux-populist McCain will end up with many of those voters so that they can get stiffed for another four years. | I would agree that the blue team needs to tap into that anger. But I think it would be better to have Biden being the one appearing to the the angry man. Obama does better with the opportunities and possibilities type stuff. Maybe I am reading too much into how race factors into things but the "angry black man" doesn't do Obama any good IMHO. That's why I think Biden should be the one doing the angry man stuff. Everyone is used to hearing from the old angry white men of the US.
__________________
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" - Steven Weinberg |