Thread: Why Obama Will Lose The Election?

Yellow makes for easier reading...can't think who it is but the chap who uses green...perfect!

^ Sure. Easier for drivers to see kids at school crossings, but gives me a headache.

It becomes 'normal' when highlighted.

If 23,000 rally for McCain-Palin in the middle of a work day and the media ignores it, did it really happen?

...

It's that conservative media bias.

Team Obama gearing up to take on Palin:
Obama "Mythbusters" vs. McCain "Truth Squad" - From The Road

September 10, 2008, 8:30 AM - This morning the Obama campaign announced the launch of “Alaska Mythbusters” – a group of Obama supporters who have worked with or ran against Palin.

Can someone pretty please tell team Obama that he is running against McCain?

They've lost the plot. Now sit back, grab a cool drink, and watch them implode.

Kerry was "swift boated", if Obama loses will he have been lipsticked? Or Palinated?

Originally Posted by Texpat

...

It's that conservative media bias.

When they are asked they all puff up and stentoriously announce "independent" I certainly believe that, do you?

I think the term is objective. And no, I don't.

Portrayal Of Obama As Elitist Hailed As Step Forward For African Americans | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

^ That's funny. But true. hehe

"John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush more than 90% of the time...that's not a maverick, that's a sidekick." Sen. Bob Casey

Obama's campaign runs and ad where McCain is saying he's voted with Bush 90% of the time. True. What was McCain responding to when he said that? He was responding to the accusation he wasn’t a conservative. What does that 90% say about McCains voting record, not that he voted with Bush since Bush can't vote in the Senate and notably had at the time never used the veto. So all it says is that McCain voted for bills that successfully became Law. That is a negative spin by Obama - again accurate but it completely misstates the situation. You see Bush signs a bill into law after it has been passed by Congress.

Originally Posted by attaboy

"John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush more than 90% of the time...that's not a maverick, that's a sidekick." Sen. Bob Casey

Obama's campaign runs and ad where McCain is saying he's voted with Bush 90% of the time. True. What was McCain responding to when he said that? He was responding to the accusation he wasn’t a conservative. What does that 90% say about McCains voting record, not that he voted with Bush since Bush can't vote in the Senate and notably had at the time never used the veto. So all it says is that McCain voted for bills that successfully became Law. That is a negative spin by Obama - again accurate but it completely misstates the situation. You see Bush signs a bill into law after it has been passed by Congress.

I posted about this in different thread.

Also if you check out Obama's record he has voted with his party 97% of the time. Kind of funny a bloke who has voted party lines 97% of the time talking about change now ain't it?

Well team Obama seems to have been able to gain back a point or two in most national polls - the five point lead McCain had has not been reduced to two points by Gallup. Most polls still seem to have McCain in the lead:

Gallup Daily: Election 2008

But on the electoral map side of things the news continues to improve for McCain - he has moved into a 200-193 vote lead (and now trails by only 11 if leaners are included):
Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

The most recent changes:

ND - moves from leans GOP to likely GOP - move towards McCain
NM - moves from leans Dem to Toss-up - move away from Obama
AK - moves from likely GOP to safe GOP - move towards McCain
MO - moves from leans GOP to likely GOP - move towards McCain

Originally Posted by Bugs

Originally Posted by attaboy

"John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush more than 90% of the time...that's not a maverick, that's a sidekick." Sen. Bob Casey

Obama's campaign runs and ad where McCain is saying he's voted with Bush 90% of the time. True. What was McCain responding to when he said that? He was responding to the accusation he wasn’t a conservative. What does that 90% say about McCains voting record, not that he voted with Bush since Bush can't vote in the Senate and notably had at the time never used the veto. So all it says is that McCain voted for bills that successfully became Law. That is a negative spin by Obama - again accurate but it completely misstates the situation. You see Bush signs a bill into law after it has been passed by Congress.

I posted about this in different thread.

Also if you check out Obama's record he has voted with his party 97% of the time. Kind of funny a bloke who has voted party lines 97% of the time talking about change now ain't it?

Obama is a freshman Senator. As a newbie, he doesn't have any choice but to vote how he is told by leadership. McCain is a liberal Republican. He's being demonized because he's not the Democrat candidate. Before it was clear McCain was the Repub candidate Democrats said they liked McCain and could even vote for him. I wouldn't be surprised if ray was one of them.

Anyways, If McCain wins he can't help being who he is, a liberal Repub. Without a Republican Congress he has no hopes of fulfilling any promise he's made to the conservative wing of the party. He will be a president who will mildly curb a Democrat Congress' ambitions. The question is will the Democrats have any courage to push their agenda? The election will be over, the finger pointing won't work, they're in charge of Congress.

The only conservative effect measure McCain could take as president is change the mission statement of foreign aid and possibly some funding of foreign aid. I can't remember what this executive action is called but he can effect foreign aid programs to a minor extent via his executive powers. Bush did it with the funding and mission statement of birth control measures in African aid.

The scenario I see is the Democrat Congress will submit their purposely overinflated bills. McCain will say there's too much spending. The Democrats will cut some spending for appearances and McCain will sign the bill. Democrats will then go on television declaring victory despite the mean old republican man cutting millions of dollars out of the bill. Some Americans somewhere will be left out because of the mean old man. We're headed back to the pre-Reagan era. We're going backwards. How can Democrats call themselves progressives?

^perhaps line item veto should be put back into plan for McCain's presidency?

Obama playing politics in Iraq - so much for the candidate for change.

Paper: Obama Tried to Stall U.S. Troop Withdrawal

Tells the public that he wants the US troops out ASAP - but asks Iraq to wait until after the elections - so he can get the credit no doubt.

Though he has often publicly called for a speedy withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has quietly pushed the Iraqi government to delay any agreement to withdraw American troops, the New York Post reported Monday.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July, the paper reported.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari told the Post.

Obama had argued that Congress should be involved in any negotiations to withdraw U.S. forces and that it was in everyone's best interest to not have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration because of its "state of weakness and political confusion."

But Zebari said his government did not want to wait.

"As an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open," he told the paper.

The paper said Obama also tried to persuade U.S. commanders, including the top American general in command of all operations in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date," but they would not.

In regard to Iraq if he gets in he can do no wrong, pull the troops out and take the credit, but if it ends up in a maelstrom Bush gets the sharp end...win win...

It's absurd to give him that luxury, and we can only hope the US voter figures that out.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Bugs

Tells the public that he wants the US troops out ASAP - but asks Iraq to wait until after the elections - so he can get the credit no doubt.

You sure bugs. The so called New York Post article came from their opinion section open to anyone. The "article" was written by a "columnists".

The author quotes Zebari

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview."

What interview? With who?

"While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined."

Guess the guy posting this "opinion" must have been told this by Gen. Patreaus.

All a manufactured crock with nothing from the author to substantiate any of his claims.

I would agree at this stage the sources are questionable. But when I posted the articals were only about a couple of hours old. I would image we'll here more about this one way or the other over the next couple of days.

The bit about Petraeus does not really concern me. How that conversation went could probably be read a number of ways. I would imagine that Obama asked Patreaus about a time line - because that is what Obama wants. But I doubt he said it in such a way as to come across as asking Patreaus to push for a timeline.

The exchange between Obama and Zebari is the bit I have concern over. And no doubt that exchange can probably be read a number of different ways. Hopefully more will be disclosed one way or the other over the next few days.

Fox News has since picked up the issue - but they only quote the Post.
Report: Obama Tried to Delay Withdrawal Agreement of U.S. Troops - America’s Election HQ

And this guy also questions the crediability of the claims - but says the ball is now in Obama's court to set the record straight:
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Did Obama try to scotch an Iraqi-US agreement on military forces?

Originally Posted by Norton

All a manufactured crock with nothing from the author to substantiate any of his claims.

exactly.

it's all part of the GOP echo chamber....first give it to murdoch, and then it gets picked up by the blogs, and 'round and 'round we go...to finally posts like this...

Originally Posted by Bugs

Obama playing politics in Iraq - so much for the candidate for change..........Tells the public that he wants the US troops out ASAP - but asks Iraq to wait until after the elections - so he can get the credit no doubt.

take a look at the sourcing we have here...

rupert murdoch's foxnews
rupert murdoch's ny post
something called, 'hot air blog'----incidentally, one of boon mee's favorites
and 'newroom america'---this is the first time i've come across this one. my guess is it got rolled out just for this election.

all highly partisan.
none with any real credibility

try to be a bit more discerning bugs.