Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No, Democrats, Obama Really Was Your Best Option. Pathetic, Isn’t It?
North Star Writers Group ^ | September 15, 2008 | Dan Calabrese

Posted on 09/15/2008 5:31:42 AM PDT by Invisigoth

Buyer’s remorse is afflicting the Democratic Party. Many are wondering how they could have nominated an empty suit like Barack Obama when they could have had Hillary Clinton.

Ah the recriminations that inevitably accompany frustration and increasingly likely defeat.

Someone needs to save the Democrats the trouble of hitting themselves in the head with hammers. They did not make the wrong choice. Their problem is that no choice available to them was much good.

Democrats do not nominate good presidential candidates because Democrats do not make good presidential candidates. The problem starts with Democrats’ complete lack of understanding of what the nation desires in a leader. It is compounded by the fact that, for a Democrat, the building of a successful political career requires a litany of actions that will make you unattractive as a candidate for president.

(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: democrats; election; obama; obamabiden; president

1 posted on 09/15/2008 5:34:09 AM PDT by Invisigoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Invisigoth

This article is off. Hilary was a much better candidate than Obama because she wasn’t nearly as arrogant, at least when the chips were down. Both she and her husband may be slimey but they are successful and know that moving to the center is the only way for Democrats to win in this country.

I seriously do not think Hilary would’ve lost. Hillary would’ve been competitive in many more states than Obama, Florida being the most notable. The democrats simply got greedy and wanted a far left candidate because they thought they had this one in the bag.

Thats the thing about echo chambers. You start to believe your own bull.


2 posted on 09/15/2008 5:42:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLaertius (Lets Act like True Conservatives Here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Invisigoth

Excellent article. either the Democrat is honest about being a leftist and the public rejects his policies, or the candidate tries to dissemble and the public sniffs out the insincerity.

But it’s still possible Obama could win (ugh!). So we have to keep working hard!


3 posted on 09/15/2008 5:43:06 AM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842
Blame it on the Iowegians. The Hawkeye Cauki gave BO the power past Hillary. These voters had not seen the Messiah’s hometown minister however. If they had, the vote might have been different.
4 posted on 09/15/2008 5:48:53 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cvq3842

bttt


5 posted on 09/15/2008 5:52:46 AM PDT by petercooper (IQ tests for all voters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLaertius

Obama just advertised better. Some wanted to beieve so badly this man was their hope. Still do listed to what Whooopi Goldberg said “Do you want me to be a slave”? She thinks without Obama no African American has any FUTURE. To a leftist the political party does eveything for you. Not why is Clinton a better person to run this country or Obama who can make OUR dreams come true?? As long as he met basic qualifications it could be a brutal dictator, they wouldn’t care. Could be Robert Mugabee or Idi Amin he is the man that will finnally allow a black man to succeed.(No not comparing Obama to either). How dare you you insult the glorius leader you Imperialist Swine. Well in the words of Rusty Griswold(European Vacation) Oink, Oink my good man!!


6 posted on 09/15/2008 5:52:51 AM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Invisigoth

“This is the problem Democrats face in every presidential campaign. So they try to couch what they really believe with carefully chosen words and phrases. Unless the candidate is a master triangulator, and has help from a third-party independent of questionable sanity, this doesn’t work and the Democrat loses. They make matters worse for themselves when their opponents call them on all this, and they whine that they’re being smeared. Because people can see that they’re not.

Hillary Clinton would have had the same problems, plus more. No one has based a political career on pretending more completely than she has. No one has more problems with the truth than she has.”

Ain’t it the truth!


7 posted on 09/15/2008 5:58:33 AM PDT by SMARTY ('At some point you get tired of swatting flies, and you have to go for the manure heap' Gen. LeMay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Invisigoth

The Left’s strategy this time around, one they have used before, was to demonize Bush and the Republicans for eight years and then run on a campaign of change. Any change is better than what we have, right? (Their words not mine.)

They have to lie and they do it often. The media is their handmaiden without whom they could not succeed.

Most politicians mistakenly run to the center to attract the mushy middle rather than giving the mm a choice between liberal and conservative. That was Hillary’s downfall. The extreme left pulled the rug from under her and handed it to a Muslim Communist.


8 posted on 09/15/2008 8:13:30 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson