Newbies... Oprahbama Supporters Naive?

[DaLittle Kitty]

Yes, there is a very youthful and politically inexperienced/naive group of supporters out there who have gravitated to the personally charismatic Obama. It is because of this naivete' that they miss crucial aspects not only of his policies but his less than standout performance when he is jousting with his opponents on stage. As far as Obama/Oprah goes this will bring some more likely "naive" people out... Hopefully before they caucus or vote they'll compare this guy and his prospects regarding his electability as compared to sayyyy... John Edwards?

There is really very little negative to attack with John Edwards. So he is wealthy. All of the candidates save Dennis Kucinich are clearly outside the poor house as well. Obama does not earn much directly, however little mention is given to his wife being quite financially successful?

As for John Edwards, I’m really tired of hearing about John Edwards’ big house. FDR came from wealth, JFK and RFK came from wealth.

John Edwards came from the lower working middle class and earned his wealth. It’s what you do with your wealth and opportunity, not that you have it.

How much does Hillary spend (daily) on her hair/makeup/botox? etc.? I'll bet that Hillary has a staff plastic surgeon administering "touch-up" as necessary.:shrug:

John Edwards has been on the front line with working people and unions for years now. Paul Krugman’s column a couple days ago again made it clear why Obama is NOT ready for prime time. Obama's health care plan not only does NOT reach ALL Americans, but his arguments against those being promoted by Edwards and Clinton are based on flawed Republican talking points. He’s starting his efforts to win a battle for health care while putting his own team back in their own end zone. He did this as well by referring to Social Security as being in “crisis.” (of course Hillary returned the favor by saying that a plan to extend the payroll social security tax (FICA), to those earning income above 97,000 dollars was a “trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class.” :wtf:

Columnist Ellen Goodman penned a great piece recently entitled “Obama Can Unite, But Can He Fight?” that asks the basic question “Did Democrats go down in the last two Presidential elections because they were locked in a stale old fight, or because they lost that fight?” Ms. Goodman goes on to say that “Obama is a notoriously uneven performer. (Double clutching on the drivers licenses for illegal immigrants after having over two weeks to prepare is a PRIME EXAMPLE). He often commits the MOST AMATEURISH of candidate mistakes... NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION IN THE TIME ALLOTTED even going beyond the sometimes additional time given and STILL NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION!

Plainly and simply Obama is in addition to his questionable and easily assailable policy/issue positions, totally inexperienced to compete at this level mano y mano! He has now demonstrated his less than adequate Presidential candidate knowledge base AND skill set numerous times in the debates. Alone on a stage, he is often eloquent and inspirational, as Oprah has said, however on the debate platform with his opponents, he is, well, considerably less impressive.

Temperamentally he prefers to be above the fray. :eyes:

Eleen Goodman goes on to say that the 2008 general election campaign against ANY Republican will take place IN the "fray” and closes noting that,

“There’s still a difference between being an ICON of Change and an AGENT of CHANGE!"

There IS a difference as well between being a fine philosopher king and a strong presidential challenger. :think:

From an Illinois voter ”I reiterate, I supported Obama for senate in my home state, but if you want to see the FIGHTER that the Democratic Party needs in the coming general election campaign see John Edwards’ speech at the recent DNC meeting (available through his website). You will see what a committed and passionate campaigner looks like, one who will make no apologies for core democratic beliefs and programs. :kick:

www.johnedwards.com I'll post the link to the DNC speech. THIS SPEECH IS THAT GOOD! It IS a general election speech by John Edwards! :woohoo: :applause:

[Progress And Change]

1. adherents to Obamaism rail against mandates when their candidate supports mandates himself

Reach your own conclusion about how well-informed Obamaists are...

[cali]

3. Obamists?

Almost as obnoxious as Hillbots.

[cali]

2. If I was a repuke I'd be salivating to run against Edwards.

Don't get me wrong- I think he can beat them. But so can Obama, Clinton and Biden. The repukes will have a blast with JE's flip flopping on... nearly everything. They'll play up comments he made about working for a sleazy hedge fund to learn more about how they impact poverty. They'll paint him as a phony ambulance chasing, opportunistic man. And they'll go for the house and contrast it with JE asking Americans to make sacrifices for the environment. Can you spell hypocrisy? That's how the'll paint him.

As for your characterization of Obama as inexperienced- he's got more experience in public service and gov't than Edwards.

And you know what? I bet Edwards has a plastic surgeon on staff to touch him up. And how about those capped teeth and the Elvis hair? And that hokey cornpone accent?

(See, it's easy to throw that kind of bullshit out. Hmm. I could really start a good internet rumor)

[DaLittle Kitty]

6. John Edwards will Thank you for your vote.

Thank you for your comments.

No BS here just a little plain insightful analysis. Edwards does not need any touch up. I see you are a supporter of the beskirted candidate. Clinton is the # 1 choice of the Corporatists, Obama #2 for a variety of reasons. Remember Geraldine Ferraro?

BTW when America has Universal health care, ALL Americans will be able to take care of their teeth, not just those who have money. AS far as experience, gotta like Obama's non vote on the Kyle Amendment. Now he's backtracking there.

I'll take a guy that has learned from his experience and a candidate who is not beholden to the"Corporation" any day before I'll take a candidate who has taken more from Wall street than anyone else from either party.

Also you mention Biden... I have met Joe and I've met Edwards several times. Biden is a BullShitter if I've ever met one... Can we say Roberts and Alito? Lots of tough talk there by Joe but when the time came to put up or shut up what happened? Joe caved in.

If John Edwards is elected, and God help America if he is not... then if he fails to fulfill his very strong and forthright rhetoric against the "Corporation" unlike anyone else , even Dennis, (and I am acquainted w/ Dennis as well), then I'll eat my hat.

But if I'm that poor a judge of distinguishing ly'in, triangulating Bullshitters from those whom I believe are truthful and can in fact be trusted, then we are all totally fucked! BTW Dodd is a total BS'er as well. and who btw is Richardson running for or against/ Oh he's supporting Hillary! :wtf:

[cali]

8. looks like you're completely incapable of addressing

HOW the repukes will frame JE. Fortress and making millions off one of the sleaziest players on wall street. Do you even know what a hedge fund is? And not just investing with the scuzz balls, but "consulting for them". And this isn't ancient history: it was 2 years ago. His asking Americans to make sacrifices while living in a 28,000 sq ft home that gobbles energy. His Senate record. His being an attorney. His relatively thin experience. The repukes have plenty of material to work with. Just as much as they with any of the others.

How do you know he's learned from his very, very long list of mistakes? You don't. He hasn't had to prove shit. He can just talk.

And so what if you've shaken Biden's hand? You think that makes you an authority? :rofl:

And I still think JE has a plastic surgeon on call and has had work done. I mean I have just as much reason to believe that as you do about Clinton.

I've shredded your "most electable/immune from attacks" argument. And you know it.

[DaLittle Kitty]

13. Sorry the Facts ARE as I say they are ... Please Do your Homework. Then comment, Thanks!

:nuke:

[cali]

33. even funnier

you evidently wouldn't know a fact from a hole in the ground. You haven't posted one yet.

[AtomicKitten]

45. "just a little plain insightful analysis"

only in your own mind ...

[maximusveritas]

54. It's so obvious

I think these Edwards supporters have deluded themselves with these polls into thinking he is the most electable. They don't realize that those are based on the voter's impressions of Edwards circa 2004. If Edwards 2008 is nominated, he'll have to face a barrage of attacks and he is very vulnerable on that front. More so than anyone else. Phoniness is a word that has become attached to him already and you can you bet the Republicans will continue to hit it hard. Whenever you can use one word to summarize multiple attacks, it's effective. I'd rather see anyone other than Edwards win at this point.Well, maybe not Gravel.

[DaLittle Kitty]

4. Links to Edwards DNC Fall Meeting Speech November 30, 2007

Parts 1,2 and 3 below



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6_RBXw6NSw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB4CVHTzzvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpxMHcqqxgg


:woohoo:

[cali]

5. Can you address the negatives I laid out in my

post? Edward's 180 from his Senate record, his stint with Fortress, his apparent hypocrisy re asking for sacrifices, etc.

[DaLittle Kitty]

12. Edwards was the First to Lay Out a Tax Reform Plan

That addresses the inequities in tax policy regarding Hedge Fund Managers ... who benefit from taking income that should be taxed at the top marginal rate as earned income but are under current law taxed as capitol gains at 15%. That is the hedge fund manager's secretary pays taxes on her income at the top marginal rate while the manager earns millions and is taxed at only the long term capitol gains rate of 15% rather than 35%.

Edwards plan would correct this by insuring that hedge fund managers income could not be characterized as capitol gains when it most certainly is not and would as a result of his policy would instead be taxed a the maximum marginal rate. Remember John Edwards also as part of his domestic agenda will roll back the Bush tax cuts on those earning in excess of $200,000 to pre-Bush levels, using those revenues to finance his health care agenda/plan that will provide a pathway to Universal health care. I think this pretty well covers it.

There was a nationally syndicated columnist who wrote an editorial on Edwards and his Hedge fund experience and these false accusations such as you have insinuated here which as you can see are quite easily refuted when the facts are brought into the discourse. :think:

[Adelante]

7. Oh, please, I'm sixty years old

I'm for Obama.

I have news for you if you think Edwards can stand up to the scrutiny and attack machine drumbeat of the GE any better than any of the other candidates. It's a dream you're having, wake up quick.

[cali]

10. it's a mass delusion suffered by every Edwards supporter

I've run across.

[ellisonz]

38. I think the subliminal thought often goes like this:

"John Edwards is a Christian White Male and therefore cannot be impugned or shot."

[elizm]

23. 55 year old Obama supporter here...

:toast:

[Zueda]

40. For what it's worth...37 yo supporter here. nt

[cuke]

9. It is naive to think that

"There is really very little negative to attack with John Edwards"

[elizm]

11. Oh great. Another newbie throwing hate at Obama supporters.

There are enough of you around here already. If you want people to support your guy, then post positives on him rather than hurl attacks at others first. You might get more people to 'listen' with a different approach.

[DaLittle Kitty]

14. Are You Calling Ellen Goodman and Paul Krugman Newbies?

You have got to be kidding me! :puke:

[DaLittle Kitty]

15. Final Word...

John Edwards is the LAST HOPE FOR AMERICA! :think: :woohoo: :applause: :nuke:

[cali]

36. people who "think" in such a limited manner

are apt to "think" in meaningless absolutes. It's absurd of course, but far too common. JE is not the last hope for America. And for some of us, he's not even the best hope. JE is a shape shifter. And the Fortress story has been repeatedly confirmed- even by Edwards.

[NYCGirl]

16. So which are you? Goodman or Krugman?

:rofl:

[Adelante]

17. It's a little propaganda machine!

Beep beep.

[DaLittle Kitty]

20. Both, and Then Some!

[NYCGirl]

22. That's created a really creepy mental picture.

:scared:

[elizm]

18. You are the newbie throwing the hate. nt

[DaLittle Kitty]

19. You Sound Just Like Hillary... Or Perhaps A Republican?

Facts Are Hate when the facts do not place you in the most advantageous position. :nuke:

[elizm]

21. As a newbie here you might want to read the rules...

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[DaLittle Kitty]

39. Thanks...

I am optimistic that the rules are evenly applied, interpreted and enforced. Thank you again.:D

[DaLittle Kitty]

46. Paul Krugman: On Obama's Health Care Plan, Is This the Health Care Plan America Needs?

Here is the Krugman Piece...

AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications �

Go to Original

The Mandate Muddle
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Friday 07 December 2007

Imagine this: It's the summer of 2009, and President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. But his health policy experts have done the math, and they've concluded that the plan really needs to include a requirement that everyone have health insurance - a so-called mandate.

Without a mandate, they find, the plan will fall far short of universal coverage. Worse yet, without a mandate health insurance will be much more expensive than it should be for those who do choose to buy it.

But Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he'll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form. And he'll have trouble responding - because he made the very same misleading attacks on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the race for the Democratic nomination. (and how well does Barack respond when under pressure on stage? He doesn't. :think: Once again!)

O.K., before I go any further, let's be clear: there is a huge divide between Republicans and Democrats on health care, and the Obama plan - although weaker than the Edwards or Clinton plans - is very much on the Democratic side of that divide.

But lately Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right - which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.

First is the claim that a mandate is unenforceable. Mr. Obama's advisers have seized on the widely cited statistic that 15 percent of drivers are uninsured, even though insurance is legally required.

But this statistic is known to be seriously overstated - and some states have managed to get the number of uninsured drivers down to as little as 2 percent. Besides, while the enforcement of car insurance mandates isn't perfect, it does greatly increase the number of insured drivers.

Anyway, why talk about car insurance rather than looking at direct evidence on how health care mandates perform? Other countries - notably Switzerland and the Netherlands - already have such mandates. And guess what? They work. :toast:

The second FALSE claim is that people won't be able to afford the insurance they're required to have - a claim usually supported with data about how expensive insurance is. But all the Democratic plans include subsidies to lower-income families to help them pay for insurance, plus a promise to increase the subsidies if they prove insufficient.

In fact, the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies than the Obama plan. If low-income families find insurance un-affordable under these plans, they'll find it even LESS affordable under the Obama plan.

By the way, the limitations of the Massachusetts plan to cover all the state's uninsured - which is actually doing much better than most reports suggest - come not from the difficulty of enforcing mandates, but from the fact that the state hasn't yet allocated enough money for subsidies.

Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that "force every American to buy health care."

Look, the point of a mandate isn't to dictate how people should live their lives - it's to prevent some people from GAMING the SYSTEM. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy. :think: Once again...

Here's an analogy. Suppose someone proposed making the Medicare payroll tax optional: you could choose not to pay the tax during your working years if you didn't think you'd actually need Medicare when you got older - except that you could change your mind and opt back in if you started to develop health problems.

Can we all agree that this would fatally undermine Medicare's finances? Yet Mr. Obama is proposing basically the same rules for his "allegedly" universal... health care plan.

So how much does all this matter?

:think: Mr. Obama's health plan is "weaker" than those of his Democratic rivals, but it's infinitely superior to, say, what Rudy Giuliani has been proposing. My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama's rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he's making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult. :think: (Do we really want to have to vote for the LESSER OF TWO EVILS... AGAIN?)



I'd add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn't that serious about achieving universal care - that "he introduced a plan because he had to", but that every time there's a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing... :think:


LESS

:nuke:

(These are the words of Paul Krugman, with emphasis!) :nuke:

[DaLittle Kitty]

52. I see. No Comments when Krugman is Cited...

Rest my case.:think:

[Cameron27]

24. This is laughable,

all the RWer's have to do is pull an Edwards' on Edwards (the same tactic he used against Clinton) You know, split screen videos of Edwards "before" vs Edwards 2 years later.

[elizm]

25. self delete

[elizm]

26. Sorry, I meant that comment to the OP

[Adelante]

30. I can see it before my very eyes nt

[elizm]

27. I've yet to counter with an attack on YOUR candidate...but darn you make it tempting. nt

[Adelante]

28. No kidding!

Hold me back :D

[Colobo]

29. Thanks for calling all of us Obama supporters naive.

[rucky]

31. Winning people over by calling them naive...

good luck with that.

[geek tragedy]

32. Another moron added to my ignore list. n/t

[Progress And Change]

34. listen to Oprah and the OP's question is answered...

[DaLittle Kitty]

41. Anyone Who Blindly Follows Oprah Will Conclusively Document the Argument Made in This Post

:think: Pleaseeeee... Before you caucus or vote people. :think:

[Califooyah Operative]

35. newbies?

please...

[DaLittle Kitty]

42. The Speech to be Reckoned With...

Parts 1,2 and 3 below



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6_RBXw6NSw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB4CVHTzzvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpxMHcqqxgg


:woohoo:

www.johnedwards.com

[readmoreoften]

37. Agreed. Except Obama is no philosopher king. /nt

[Forkboy]

43. They're coming out of the woodwork around here.

[AtomicKitten]

47. *

[Forkboy]

50. Heh...I didn't want to say it.

But I'm glad you did. :)

[MadBadger]

44. Ahh this extremely offensive post rears its ugly head

surprising it comes from an Edwards supporter.

[Cha]

48. Not really...there's a lot

of really sweet Edwards supporters on DU..just like their candidate.

I think we know who attack dogs are..actually this OP was kinda of surprise coming from an Edwards supporter.

[MadBadger]

49. For the most part, Edwards' supporters dont get negative and only post pos. things about him

But this post is just downright offensive.

[Cha]

51. I know..it's trying to

say there's no negatives on Edwards while getting all gratuitiously negative on say.. Obama!

There's "negatives" on all the candidates..it's just what negatives can we tolerate and which ones are our defining issue to take a stand against?

[zulchzulu]

53. Obama has 11+years of legislative experience...Edwards has 6

If you think Edwards is not vulnerable as a candidate, good for you. You don't see the whole picture though.

If you want to put down Obama supporters as "naive" or "inexperienced" or paint Obama as "inexperienced", then you are completely misinformed.

[blm]

55. They are ALL uneven performers. It's the Dem PARTY that needs to perform and

secure the election process.

It amazes me that so many forget that EVERY CAMPAIGN has uneven performances - and that Bill was as uneven as anyone till he got a few years of experience as president under his belt.