Ex-Rep. Tim Roemer endorses Barack Obama....
« Absentee Explosion In Florida | Main | Thad Cochran Endorses Romney » Obama Vice Presidential Ticket Watch23 Jan 2008 11:54 am Comments (16)
Obama is a repug light, and has connections to slum lord Rezko and Chicago politics and politicians. We all know how corrupt Chicago politicians are. I think that Obama is as much status quo as Hillary. I don't think Obma is much different when it comes to special interest big money and ties to corrupt politicians.
Look, Obama has a had a clear strategy of getting Republicans to come to open primaries and caucuses to support him. There is nothing wrong with that. He ran an ad in predominantly Republican Northern Nevada targeting Republicans and letting them know they could switch their registration for a day to participate. Again, I have no problem with that. The issue I have with Obama is the way he did it. In the Reno Editorial Board Meeting, he basically said that people were ready for Reagan because they grew tired of the excesses of the 60's and 70's and the overgrowth of government that was stifling the entreprenurial spirit. I think this is a poor choice of words because it basically appropriates Right-wing talking points. While that might attract Republicans to vote you for a day, it does not attract Republicans to the Democratic Party over the long term. The correct way to attract Republicans would have been to talk about accountability and balanced budgets, and how there was no transparency or accountability with our foreign policy because both the Iraqi Government and the Musharraf Dictatorship had been given a blank check to restore Democracy and fight Al-Qaeda. There is ample evidence that establishes that our tax dollars have been wasted in both Iraq and Pakistan, which bothers all Americans, not just Republicans. However, when you start talking about overgrowth of government, stifling entreprenurial spirit, and the excesses of the 60's and 70's, you are not making an effective progressive case for Republicans to vote for a Democrat. You are making a case for your own personal gain at expense of the party because you are appropriating right-wing talking points.
So I believe Obama is wrong because the country wasn't necessarily ready for Reagan and tired of the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s. If that was the case, Reagan would have led by wide margins throughout the campaign. It was President Carter's poor debate performance days before the election that led to the landslide.
Why would Obama ever consider being on a ticket with the "witch". So she pulls out of SC I guess she doesn't need the AA vote. Better not need it in the GE if she wins the nomination. We plan to sit this one out if she wins. Its time the democratic party stop taking the AA vote for granted. Say hail to the chief to Republican President----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_J._Roemer I don't think everyone is familiar with Roemer. In case you were interested, here's the wiki entry link. I think this is an interesting development and follows many of the Obama endorsements from Red Staters, as well as from people who have national security credibility and cross-over appeal to independents and moderate republicans. Watch the party hacks tie themselves up in knots over this -- like they went nuts over the Reagan comment, but this democrat thinks Obama is brilliant. HERE IS MORE EVIDENCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012202614.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 OBAMA STIMULUS PLAN EARNS HIGHEST MARKS
He gets the nom if he keeps her off the first ballot at the convention. If you extrapolate current poll numbers across all the states he actually does this (i.e. if he gets 34% and she gets 41% she does not have enough delegates to get nom). BUT, admittedly, he REALLY needs endorsements from people who actually can influence superdelegates. Hopefully he is really campaigning hard in districts that traditionally have low turnout or independent turnout--look at the map in NV and NH and you see this is what they did, he took more delegates from both these states than Hillary. He needs to do what he has been doing and keep pace of delegates in Feb 5 states that allow for proportional rep. His strongholds (Oakland, Chicago, Austin, etc.) also need to come out in record numbers. It is not impossible.
Tyler, This is far from over.
As a life-long Democrat that voted for Bill Clinton twice, I can say for certain I will NEVER vote for them again. And to those of you supporting Hillary because she could be the first Female President...THINK AGAIN. This is, and always has been, about getting Bill back in the White House for a third term. And to do so they will do anything. They lie, smear, and pull every slimy trick possible. Talk about the politics of personal destruction. I'm sick of it.
Matt G, I'm well aware that this is a race for delegates not states, but some of those big states are winner-take-all, such as NY and NJ. Also Clinton has an enormous lead in superdelegates, and is already up by 84 delegates. So Obama's one delegate "victory" in Nevada means nothing in the scheme of things. I hate Hillary with a viscious passion, and as a Republican wouldn't mind an Obama presidency, but I just don't seen any viable path to the nomination for him anymore. As for a brokered convention, Edwards could swing her way, since after all he was on her side the last debate and then had her over to his green room post-debate. He could probably swing an AG spot or something similar out of it. Because at the end of the day for Edwards it's not about the poor or middle class. It's all about him. So, please explain to me a scenario where Obama gets the needed delegates. By the way, as a Republican--THANK YOU DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS!!!! The one and ONLY thing that would truly excite the Republican base is a Clinton nomination.
Tyler, no Democratic contests are winner-take-all. However, some Republican contests are.
In a colorblind society where merit should hold ultimate sway, OBAMA isn't even qualified to be assistant majority whip. He's missed a 1/3 of his votes during the 2005-2006 session, and he hasn't held a hearing as member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His policies are also awful for the nation. He believes in granting drivers licenses to illegals, he wants to ease burdens on employers when it comes to checking the status of workers, he wants to raise taxes on the middle class by trillions of dollars by eliminating the cap on social security contributions, he fails to protect our troops from the iranian revolutionary guard and then attacks his opponents for doing so EVEN WHEN HE MISSED THE VOTE, he was the only person to vote "present" instead of yes or no on bills banning adult shops near schools, and sealing court records of victims of sexual assault. Obama is little substance, all hype. The key to his success: a freshness, a lack of record to run on, the constant repetition of simple feel-good platitudes that lull listeners into a sense of trust and induce in them a yearning to believe. No wonder Barack Obama is so popular among denizens of Hollywood like Oprah: they certainly have an eye for those who can create an image, can generate a buzz that compels others to suspend their disbelief, and who can induce a trance-like stargazing. But the fact is that Barack Obama does have a record to run on and its a record of vote dodging and triangulation. Barack Obama talks about the audacity of hope... but how about the audacity to show up and vote.. and not criticize others over resolutions you conveniently missed while campaigning
If you attack him for his inexperience, you're labeled a race hustler.
The candidate Obama may want to consider as a VP, if he succeeds in defeating the two Clintons, is Bloomberg.
Folks, the upstart NEVER wins in the primary process. Never! But I will say this, he did better than most all the rest and if he doesn't get the VP slot then Hillary is dead.
Ryno, My mistake about the winner-take-all. It seems to me that even without winner-take-all that Clinton's sizable leads in the big Feb. 5 states will help her amass enough delegates to make it virtually if not literally impossible for Obama to get the nomination. No one here has been able to offer a credible scenario wherein Obama gets the nomination. Can anyone offer up such a scenario?
Bajsa,
Former Congressman Tim Roemer served on the 9/11 Commission, and his most famous moment came when questioning Norman Mineta with regard to his testimony placing VP Dick Cheney in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) at 9:20 a.m. on the morning of 9/11. Roemer attacked and tried to shake Mineta from his testimony that Cheney was aware of Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon, and that Cheney told an aide that "the orders still stand" in response to knowledge of the approaching plane. NO shoot down orders were issued until after the Pentagon attack. If Cheney's "orders" were not shoot down orders, what were they? Roemer made NO effort to get the answer to this question. By voting to accept VP Cheney's lie that he entered the PEOC at 9:58 a.m., Roemer not only discarded Mineta's truthful testimony, but served as a shill for the Bush Administration's whitewash of the events of 9/11. Now Roemer endorses Barack Obama, and in doing stated that "Obama had 'rightly warned' that the war in Iraq would divert attention from waging the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan." Mr. Roemer is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Roemer voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in House JR 214 on October 10, 2002. Mr. Roemer has flip-flopped like a fish on the beach. His views should not be taken seriously.
|

The Dem nomination is over. Obama will win SC, but it will be seen as a hollow victory since (Hillary)Clinton has all but pulled out and Obama will win due to a huge plurality of the black vote-not something that will help on Feb. 5. Clinton leads in all the major states by a sizable margin. How possibly can Obama win? Please someone--give me a reasonable scenario where this happens now.
Posted by Tyler | January 23, 2008 12:24 PM