Organizing for America | Posts with the tag dukakis

Posts with the tag dukakis

Barack Should Respond to Sex Smear with Controlled Outrage

By Ken Stark - Sep 12th, 2008 at 9:12 pm EDT

Quoting John Neffinger on the Huffington Post: "This is Obama's Dukakis-and-the-death-penalty moment... if Obama wants Americans to respect him, they must be allowed to see him react with the kind of anger - controlled, but still palpable - that they would feel if somebody did that to them." Indeed. If Barack does not call out McCain in the strongest terms for the worst kind of campaign filth -- insinuating pedophelia of the Democratic candidate for President of the United States! -- then is he tough enough to be president???

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Swift Boat 2008

By Robert from Ossining, NY - Sep 9th, 2008 at 12:46 pm EDT

Yogi Berra is in the house and it's deja vu all over again. The Democratic ticket is being Swift Boated again and it seems they don't realize it. In 2004 the tactic was to directly attack Kerry's strongest suit: his very impressive miitary record. Here was a guy who volunteered for dangerous duty, earned 3 Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and Bronze Star. Returned home and became a successful prosecutor and then a Senator as contrasted to Bush's feeble history. And they stripped Kerry naked.

And that is what they are doing now. They swiped Obama's change creed, attacked his excellent work in the community and are completely diminishing his ample accomplishments. Where is the quick response teams to point by point refute their slanderous statements and outright lies? In Denver, the most noise was made by Republicans running around. I saw nothing like that from Democrats at the Republican convention.

When Palin and Giuliani were belittling Obama's work in Chicago where was the response? People across the country now think that he sat in a small store front handing out pamphlets. Obama grew up with a single mother of modest means and they have painted him as a rich privileged pantywaist. While McCain, the real son of privilege paints himself as the guy you want a beer with. Where have I seen this tactic before?

McCain's camp, the so called change agents is littered with Bush/Rove people. Why did no one point out that Palin's big speech was written by Bush speechwriters. She's a former newsreader. She reads what's put in front of her.

Plouffe and the other folks running this campaign better get their heads out of their ass. Or come November 5th they will be looking at the biggest election collapse in history. We have the worst president in history, a tanking economy, a fiasco of a war, more crimes and failures that can be recounted, a candidate joined at the hip with this administration and you guys have let him redefine who he is without a fight.

If you are going to campaign not to lose YOU WILL LOSE! I cannot imagine a worse scenario than giving this president the ultimate victory by electing another Republican to be president. This is what you are staring at. Don't count on the country not being stupid. We are.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Joe Lieberman: Traitor or Mole? Or Dupe? And John McCain’s Ambition.

By mathpol - Sep 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am EDT

Frank Rich had a great column in Sunday's New York Times, "Palin and McCain's Shotgun Marriage". In it he states

[McCain] wanted to choose the pro-abortion-rights Joe Lieberman as his vice president. If he were still a true maverick, he would have done so. But instead he chose partisanship and politics over country. “God only made one John McCain, and he is his own man,” said the shafted Lieberman in his own tedious convention speech last week. What a pathetic dupe.

Here is the comment I posted.

“I felt that his speech was very intriguing, rather than tedious, as you described it. Quite a balancing act! I still feel that his super-sized ego has more to do with this than anything else. Given the way McCain has tacked to the right, much of what Lieberman said about him doesn't apply anymore.

However, Lieberman's comments about partisanship were straight out of Obama’s playbook.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

60 Days and Counting

By Oblogama from San Francisco, CA - Sep 8th, 2008 at 3:00 am EDT

I am tired of losing. Though I consider myself an independent, I have voted for a Democratic Presidential Candidate in every single election since 1984 (Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry – pretty slim pickings when you see it in print). Unfortunately, the Obama campaign is heading towards a train wreck unless it initiates a drastic change in its approach. It’s quite possible they will be the biggest losers of all time – and so will we. Here is why:

Mild-Mannered, Nattering Nabobs, Do Not Win Elections: Bill Clinton didn’t win simply because he had a bluntly effective Economy Stupid message – he won because he had aggressive political pit bulls able to get that point across to the Average Joe. The fast evaporating Change message, easily co-opted by the Republicans, and coupled with Robert Gibbs as overly domesticated poodle, does not cut it (there is no doubt that he means well; however, his bland, uninspiring television appearances gives me cause, without pause, to tune out and change the channel to seek out Karl Rove discussing his tactics – I learn more from Rove than I could ever learn from Gibbs). I have yet to see an Obama campaign spokesman who talks like people do in Peoria, let alone rough and tumble Chicago where during cold winter scotch drinking nights, they speak their minds. I cringe every time I see a highly intelligent surrogate miss a highly important moment – it occurred throughout the Republican Convention to the point of embarrassment. Just one instance – though there are many – in a response to Wolf Blitzer, about Senator Lieberman's appearance at the convention, Gibbs said, "You know, Wolf, let me take a big whack at that. I think Joe Lieberman ought to be ashamed of himself. He looked into the camera and he was speaking to the American public about cynicism in politics. And then walks out on the very stage behind me and just makes something up, and lies about Barack Obama. I wish I could say something softer, but that's actually what it was." Something softer? Are you %*&%$^ kidding me? Lieberman took a swing at your buddy and that’s all you got? Have you heard of clout – the thing that the Obama campaign has a little bit of these days? For starters, a kindergartner could have mustered enough rightful indignation to say that Lieberman was a pig who spit on the face of 51 MILLION American voters in 2000. This election needs a memorable, talented James Carvillesque character that can counter the toxic crap that comes out of McCain’s henchmen (Graham, Lieberman, Giuliani, Ridge, Romney, and a greater list than I have time to recite). Who do we have that doesn’t sound like Charlie Brown’s school teacher? As progressive-minded folks, who do we really respect and admire as Obama’s right hand man, the kind of guy who will bury the dead prostitute (Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Richardson)? Who will eviscerate our opponent with a smile on their face? Don’t dare tell me this is a different kind of election and that it is about change – that is nonsense – that is why the only thing that folks remember about Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry is a landslide, a tank helmet, the internet and a swift boat (forgive me President Gore – you more than redeemed yourself in the years that followed);
It’s Gender Stupid: On Saturday, June 7, 2008 the day that Hillary Clinton quit the race, I predicted that McCain would select a woman as his vice-president. Certainly no stroke of genius on my part – just plain old common sense and a little bit of math. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned X 18M/Republican’s have women that vote too X a divided country = let’s try this Hail Mary pass and see what happens (oh, and Palin can help with the base that has never really liked me). Great theater, great idea, great poke in the eye to the progressive movement. Now don’t get me wrong, and don’t dare charge me as sexist – I am not bitter about Hillary’s loss and I know women will not blindly flock to McCain, but I do know a smart political chess move when I see one. Obama needs to do three things: (1) Give as good a speech on Gender as he did on Race (include choice, wages and most importantly, announce a powerhouse woman who will serve in an Obama administration); (2) Find another woman besides Hillary Clinton to shore up your gender credentials – not because she isn’t loyal or willing, but because she won the silver medal, losing by less than 1/100th of a second – that’s like asking the guys who lost to Phelps to help him sell Wheaties; and (3) pray;
The War: You are being swift-boated and I have yet to see anyone from the Obama Campaign make this very clear statement – "You guys have blood on your hands!" It is time to be bold and tough. Those that will take that as fighting words ain’t going to vote for you anyway. If you want to have a subtle segue than say this, "I can understand why you voted for George Bush in 2000 – Compassionate Conservatism had a nice ring to it; Believe it or not, I can even give you a pass on voting for him in 2004, still shaken up by 911 and wanting consistency for our troops; but if you vote for McCain/Bush in 2008, you have blood on your hands!" The fact that Obama gave a speech in 2002 is wearing very, very, very thin. Better go on the offense in a way none of us could ever have imagined. Hell, get one of the generals who lined up to endorse you to make this statement. Obama will have plenty of time to unite the country when he is in office – for now it’s divided and your supporters need to be fired up before some of them head to the nearest Starbucks for a super-dooper, extra latte, after an inspiring speech;
Race: Obama comes from Chicago, long known as the most segregated city in the United States. He knows race in a way that only Chicagoans can really understand. It is painstaking work to transcend the negative perceptions and stereotypes. It takes more time and sweat than anyone can imagine. All too often, it fails. When Harold Washington became Mayor, there was an enormous segment, yes a so-called Democratic segment, that was up in arms. Fact – there is a significant population that will not tolerate the idea of a black man in the White House – I apparently do not live in the same post-racial world as others would have me believe in. Fact – there are just as many folks in urban areas as there are in rural areas that are bigoted and incapable of accepting a positive message over their own ignorant hang-ups. For whoever is the Obama demographic expert, in those areas stick to whatever progressive oases exist and/or where enlightenment can occur. Let your supporters know where those places are. We will come. Hit every single university and community college hard – direct as many Obama campaign workers as possible to get to the campuses and live there for the next 60 days;
Celebrities and Elites: How can the Obama campaign not come up with a simple effective ad to throw it back in the face of the REAL, celebrity-ridden, Republican party. Short and simple – Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono and Fred "Gopher from the Love Boat" Grandy (the last two always mystified me). Then turn it up a notch – the other side skewers Obama as being elitist, but what about their own well-known entourage – Jon Voight, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, Robert Duvall, and sheesh the damn list is so damn long, but of all the talent in the Obama campaign they can’t seem to shove it back so hard and so fast to make McCain wish he never entered the race. I just don’t get it;
Religion: Let’s just stick with Ohio because it’s significant; the same scenario that exists there exists everywhere else in the United States; and most importantly, Ohio was the 2004 equivalent of Florida in 2000. They won and we wimped out. Two ugly words – Kenneth Blackwell. Three ugly words – His Despicable Cadre. There is an article that I keep close at hand to remind me just how sinister this pandering political mafia can be. In the words of Pastor Rod Parsley, it describes their efforts to create, "the largest evangelical campaign ever attempted in any state in America." His Reformation Ohio movement is about politics, sheer and simple. The conservatives can say that – loud and proud, but the progressives do not have a rallying reply. The closest we ever get is a weak rejoinder – we are pro-choice, so take that bully. In this day and age, that is so meager as to be less than insignificant. I do not deny anyone’s right to practice religion – in fact, I support it wholeheartedly. What I do deny them is to mix it with the state. Obama has a religious constituency (the sane component) – someone get them out there for a sixty day vigil. Choose the place(s), but arm them with the correct platform and let them do their thing;
The Debates: Role play with Hillary Clinton. Really. There is no doubt, despite the drama and the punishing primaries, she made Obama a better candidate. She takes on the persona of McCain and Obama takes his licks in private, learning from the experience instead of on national television. Come up with a top ten list of great one liners that we will remember for generations (e.g., Where’s The Beef, I knew JFK and you’re no JFK, etc). Find out what makes McCain angry and let the viewers experience first-hand what his temperament is truly like. Define the term "maverick" then define the term "lemming" – then define McCain as a guy that wants to throw the United States off of a cliff. Most importantly, attach a small, relatively harmless battery to Biden and zap him when he starts talking too much (in no way do I condone torture, but at the same time, I do not want to be tortured by his inability to get to the point). The list is long. In the end, don’t screw it up. PS My own personal pet peeve – though Obama hasn’t said it for a long time, remove the phrase "carrot and stick" from his lexicon – the world is not our mule;
Only One Color Matters: This election has absolutely nothing to do with the way a state’s hue is flashed ad nauseam on our television screens. The only color that matters are the paths that stretch from New York to Los Angeles, and yes, all the way up to Alaska – they are called blue highways – roads that run through some of the most beautiful, genuine places on earth. They also connect the myriad small, forgotten towns where so many voiceless people live; however every four years they have a chance to be heard – this year they plan to be especially loud. If you believe that the endless array of urban Change signs and trendy bumper stickers are signs that we will win this election than you do not know your country in the way that someone like Bill Clinton knows it. The only winning Democrat since 1992 knows that giving a sincere speech, a damn good, intelligent, caring speech, sometimes on the back of a pickup truck, is the only way to win. The question is whether that has really sunk in this year and whether there is enough time to really let the Obama message be heard by the people that need to hear it – good hard working people, often disparaged as living in "fly over country" by progressive people that just don’t get it. The most important text message that the Obama campaign could send out now is where their supporters, living in large metropolitan areas can go, within an hour or two from their homes, and where a meaningful grassroots effort would have the highest impact. Otherwise, in these isolated patches of America, the only message they will be hearing for summer’s duration is a catchy Raising McCain song that does nothing to improve their lives or this nation.

I am tired of losing – get this damn thing on track!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Worthwhile Critique of McCain's Acceptance Speech

By BestAmyEver - Sep 7th, 2008 at 9:43 pm EDT

I thought some good points were addressed here- particulary in terms of Obama's tax plan vs. McCain's tax plan. And although I've never really thought all that much about Michael Dukakis, but I was very impressed by his feedback. And I appreciate him pointing out McCain's tempermant and change over the last 10-15 years.

And he makes a fantastic point about how Obama has more time in elected office than Reagan, Bush, Sr. or Jimmy Carter had before they were elected.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2008/09/05/lkl.dems.reaction.mccain.speech.cnn

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

FactCheck Disproves McCain Assertion that Obama Raised Gas Prices, McCain in a Golf Cart

By jgabriel - Jul 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 am EDT

Also listed in: 7 groups

FactCheck.org blows out of the water the McCain assertion that Obama is responsible for our high gas prices:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_full_tank_of_nonsense.html

Here are some more NYTimes articles on Obama's overseas trip:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/opinion/23dowd.html?th&emc=th

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/politics/23watch.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Meanwhile, back home...John McCain was photographed riding in a golf cart with George H.W. Bush (the current president's father). Could this be his "Dukakis-in-a-Tank" moment? Spread this photo around!

http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/07/caption_contest_mccain_in_a_go.html

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Why Barack is the next President

By jordarundt - Apr 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 am EDT

A photo of Barack speaking

With 9 races to go, and a 150 delegate lead, the race for the democratic nomination is all but decided.

Despite their desperate spin, the Clinton camapign have no plausible way of getting first to the finish line. In the next weeks, maybe months, they will do everything they can to sow doubts about Barack chances of winning in November, hoping to make him unelectable, and hence move to superdelegates over to her. There is nothing to suggest such a strategy would work. Even though they won't say it out loud, the undecided superdelegates, and the DNC, know that they can not overturn the primary results.

This year is made for the democratic party. Bush has a record low approval rating, only 28 % which is the lowest approval rating of any President since the depression. Richard Nixon, who comitted a crime while in office, didn't reach as low numbers as Bush has. The war in Iraq, an economic recession and a moral possible engagement in torture are just some of the issues that are troubling to American voters. And no matter how much Senator McCain will try to distance himself from President Bush, these issues will stick to him. In fact, the democrats could probably run a three, and still win, if they decided to unite behind it.

There is only one thing that can ruin this for the democratic party, a brokered convention. With an african american man and a woman as the two frontrunners, this primary have led to record turnouts. Undubtedly there are voters among both candidates votergroups that will stay home, or vote for a different candidate should their candidate lose. However the size of that group can not be determined by polls. There is still over 6 months until the general election, and todays primary will be forgotten by then. Still, because of the hostile fronts between the two candidates, it is crucial to solve this as soon as possible. If this goes to the convention, there will be even more hostility between the two votergroups, and not enough time to heal the wound. And should the superdelegates overturn the primary result, and vote for HRC, there is no doubt that a many Barack voters will refrain from voting, or vote for McCain in the general election.

The Clintons have in recent weeks sought to cast doubt about Baracks electability. Comparing him to George McGovern and Michael Dukakis. This is a dubious comparison. In the last 107 years, only three elected Presidents have served just 4 years. History tells us that a sitting President almost always wins his re-election bid. That is why most establishments candidates with presidential ambitions usually don't run for President in second term elections. That is the reason why Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and that is the reason why George McGovern was the nominee in 72. But McGovern was far to liberal to ever have a real chance at getting elected. His own VP candidate said he wanted to legalize pot. That compared with the same VP candidates history of mental illness made it impossible to get elected. It didn't help that Presiden Nixon actually was quite popular either.

Michael Dukakis faced some of the same problems. He was running against Reagans VP, people had been satisfied with Reagans presidency, and hoped that George Bush sr. could build on that. When voters are satisfied, they turn to other issues then policy when they decide who to vote for. The republicans smear campaign, together with his very weak answers on capital punishment, was enough to create doubt among voters. If Dukakis should have any chance at getting elected, he would have to do everything right. Which he didn't.

Barack does not have this problem. He has a trumph card, that can neutralize almost all republican smear attacks. Whatever they come up with, he essentially only has to say two words, "Iraq war". If he adds some words about the economy they will be on defence.

Barack have run against one of the best political machines in history this primary season. His road to the nomination have been tough and challenging. There is no doubt that the long fight have left him more prepared to meet the republican in the fall. Only a very strong candidate can go up against the Clintons and win.

These comparisons to Dukakis and McGovern, is only a smear attack from a united front of Clinton people and republicans hoping to undermine his candidacy. They know he is nothing like any of them, but they are hoping to create a impression that he is, in an attempt to damage his electability argument. Do not fall for this. Unless this nomination fight keeps on going to the election, Barack will be sworn in as President in january 2009.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

7,000 vote lead in Missouri... Could it be?

By George E - Feb 6th, 2008 at 1:28 am EST

Also listed in: Texas Action Team | Woodlanders for Obama

12:26am CST.

Barack has pulled ahead in Missouri with 99% of the vote counted...estimated that the rest of the votes are coming in from one of the cities.

Could Missouri be to Barack what California was to Clinton?

How will it be spun???

My spin -- Clinton won the coasts and Barack won middle America. I think Dukakis won the coasts...

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.