Politico.com had an interesting article last week about how frustrated the Clintons were at not being able to attack obama publicly and how they were telling superdelegates that the republicnas would destroy obama. The article made the observation that the last two democrat candidates for president lost control of their public images, and the republicans successfully painted them in a negative light. If they could do that with two experienced politicians who had 20+years in public life, how much easier would it be to do it to Obama?
Perhaps there should be an age limit for those who post this kind of garbage here... How old are you scriabinop? A totally biased and incomplete analysis from two liberal authors, clearly supporting Obama. For example, no allowance is made for the fact that tax cuts spur investment and increased business activity, therefore higher tax receipts. People don't want to accept the simple fact that money multiplies faster the moment you take it out of the government's clutches and hand it back to those who know how to make it grow better and in the right direction. Same BS arguments were made when Reagan cut taxes and created a major business boom that lasted for many years, and Bush in 2002/2003 with similarly spectacular results - until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007... Funny thing, the authors also quote the U of Michigan professor (from that well known bastion of liberal thinking or lack thereof) as if he were an unbiased observer, and then, to top it off, they mention that a Democrat President (probably the worst of them all) failed at doing something intelligent about the budget... Well, isn't that what we are talking about in this election? The truth is that, when faced with the choice between a $14T tax increase (Obama's proposal; that's the number these two characters were fighting against with this piece of propaganda) or a limited tax decrease, I'll take the tax reduction, any time, it'll be much better for the country!
I don't deny i may vote for Ron Paul. like i said previously, some odd things may happen.. who knows who might be on the ballot come Nov?
Yes, little rat, you belong with Ron Paul, it is evident that you both dance to your own drummers - and I mean this as a compliment
LMAOOOOOOO... oh no, the weathermen!!! LOL LOL ummm... hello... bill clinton pardoned members of the weathermen !!!! next
Yes, true, however Obama is being slowly painted as an unamerican opportunist. First we have his "muslim" background, then we have his wife's unamerican comments about not being proud of her country until Barrack was a candidate (which I think is pretty shitty for a Ivy Law Grad to say), then the Rev. Wright, who may as well be Farrakahn, and now he was associated with a Weather underground member. Clinton may have pardoned them, Obama interacted with the guy, and there may be more to it. And all these politicans have the flag on the lapel, except Obama, and of course the famous picture of Hillary and others pledging allegiance, and Obama just standing there. This guy is doomed lol.
Oh I think the Repubs will try, and do a good job at it. But the thing is, a very large portion of the voter are not âopenâ to be able to hear the message. People âwantâ to hear another message, as Hil is finding out. Bush has caused too much shame for the attack machine to be effective enough to win this time around.