Deval ran the exact same campaign if that's what you meant by change. The same "clean campaign", "above the fray", "not mud slinging" were all part of Deval's campaign. And those were big reasons why he won against both Dem/Rep candidates. One difference is Obama will be in the campaign spotlight a lot longer than Deval before the general election. People here in Mass (big blue state) loved Deval's message of change, and he promised a bunch of stuff he can't deliver. The problem is once elected, you actually have to get things done. So far he has been terrible, though he did manage to sign a 1.5mil book deal in NYC on the day his biggest bill got voted down in Boston. So far I see no difference between the two, all sizzle, no steak.
Your man did say this... Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said, "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years." And I'd say that was twisting McCain's words. Because McCain never said we'd be at war for 100 years. We have troops in other post war situations and they are not at war in those places.
its not on obama to interpet the old man's words, if he wants to clarify what he meant go ahead. but he was stupid to make the comment in the first place.
It's on Obama to have some common sense and think about what he says before he lets it fly out his mouth. He'd stop getting clowned about the remarks he makes. Obama's too dumb to figure out what McCain said, there wasn't a real need to interpret what McCain said. It wasn't that hard to figure out.
and lets examine further the stupidity of the comparison. mccain said, paraphrasing, as long as al quaeda is in iraq we should be there, as long as service men aren't dying, we're still in korea, etc. a) there is no al qaeda equivalent in these world war II enemy countries so the comparison falls apart there b) if we were there because of al qaeda, it would be reasonable to assume that the troops would be under attack because the whole freakin reason to be there because of al qaeda according to the war proponents is because they want to harm us. so how could we not be at war if we were to remain there because of an enemy
I don't live in Mass, so I'm not sure what the campaign was like, and the day to day life after his election, but if Patrick was successful in changing the tone, and people's expectations along with their willingness to do something about their heightened expectations then at least it was a start. I'm sorry if there was no follow up. I don't know the future, but I have seen already that at least Obama has started delivering on his message of change. In addition I agree with most of his policy positions, and have been impressed with what he's done in the Senate.
that's why he keeps closing the lead after he's supposedly "owned" he's owning this whole election process, that's why your idioic posts are so full of anger towards him
I'm not angry at Obama. I just find it funny that he came off as a simpleton on the issues last night and that doesn't seem to bother you. Obama also got flustered having to answer for some stupid choices he made and stupid comments he has uttered. He's not the first political candidate to have dirt dug up on him. Reverand Wrong told Obama not to hang around him because it would cause Obama political problems and Obama did it anyway. Quit making excuses for him and let Obama deal with the aftermath of that stupid decision.
no one's making excuses. did you even watch the debate, he answered the reverend wright questions just as he's always answered, he got stumbled on one question, capital gains taxes. and it turns out that its not even true what they tried to press him on. but that's another topic.
So far he has been dealing with it very nicely. He made a landmark speech addressing racial issues and concerns, and has refused to respond in kind with jumping on other trivial issues about his opponent. So far so good.
He's running against the most polarizing figure in politics, Hillaroid, and can't even close the deal on THAT. He's losing the battle over who is best prepared to handle the 3:00am phone call to a woman who was having coffee and cake with foreign dignitaries and claims that as her foreign policy experience! Stop and think about that for a moment. He's losing the Commander-in-Chief argument to a former first lady. Wow. WOW. Can you say McSteamroll?
Depends on which Mcflipflopper shows up. The one who was against Bush's tax cuts or the one that is in favor of them. The McCain that was against torture, or the one that signed off on it? The McCain that supports the troops, or the one that opposes the GI bill?
now he was supposed to beat hillary, the person everyone had penciled in for the nomination since 06.
ROSE ABOVE IT...HMMM "Senator Clinton looked in her element. She was taking every opportunity to get a dig in there. That's her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit ... that's the lesson she learned when Republicans did it to her in the 1990s."
PA Governor Rendell (Clinton supporter): "I Was Very Disappointed in ABC" http://www.breitbart.tv/html/80183.html
I really liked how Obama responded to the debate. Mentioning hilary's negative attacks and explaining that he understands that it's part of the politics of washington and what she has learned. And his response - just brush it off. I am really hoping Obama can beat McCain, I think he can. Obama has the potential to be one of the greatest presidents ever, and I think the republicans fear him much more so than hilary which is why they focus their attacks on him. I'm thinking of volunteering for his campaign, i can't believe i just wrote that.
