The Obamas and the Buffetts

Obama's going nowhere. He can't appeal to anyone outside of celebrities, CEOs of giant corporations and a handful of bloggers and college students.

Joe and Mary Lunchbucket see him for what he is: a well dressed smooth talking operator, doing politics the same old way.

And I don't get why this Buffett guy is a Bazillionaire anyway. All he's ever done is that "Marguerita" song.

If politicians have to pick their friends, why not select a gazillionaire? And who said the Republicans were the party of the rich?

Will the folks at the Swamp here give us a report on how Obama says the U.S. military is indiscriminantly bombing Afghan villages and just killing innocent Afghan people for the fun of it? Because killing innocents is what the U.S. military is all about, especially under evil Chimpy and Darth, right Loony Leftists?

Obama is raising more money BY FAR than any other candidate. Which of course indicates his wide appeal. His poll numbers are artifically low due to the fact that a lot of his supporters are younger and don't have land lines.

The reason the far-right wingers are talking about him is that they know he can beat them next years election.

The other long term is that a majority of new voters are voting Democratic.

Posted by: John D | August 16, 2007 8:24 AM
: "killing innocents is what the U.S. military is all about, especially under evil Chimpy and Darth, right Loony Leftists?"

Yes! John D. has gotten it right twice today! There is hope in the world.

Zook raises a good point about younger voters not having land lines which the pollsters use for their contacts. Maybe the Tribune can research how flawed the polls are because of this basic fact. Could be the polls are more meaningless than previously thought.

Doug, whether it's Hillary, Barack or the Breck Girl, you folks will lose come 2008. None are presidential, none are capable and none will win.

Will the folks at the Swamp here give us a report on how Obama says the U.S. military is indiscriminantly bombing Afghan villages and just killing innocent Afghan people for the fun of it?

Posted by: John D | August 16, 2007 8:24 AM

I agree with Johnny D, only if Johnny D quotes verbatim what Obama actually said and only after that is compared side by side with statements by Afghan President Karzai.

John D.,

How does this prediction compare to the ones you made prior to the '06 general election?

Will the results be the same?

"Doug Zook" asserts that Obama's support in the polls doesn't reflect his "real" support, because the pollsters don't poll people who have only phones, a group Doug alleges to be pro-Obama.

Actually, Doug (and Rodriquez), you're wrong again. If you kept up with current polling scholarship, you'd find that the Pew Polling people, for one, have examined this question and concluded that with national polls the potential "cell phone only" distortion is minimal to nonexistent. See http://pewresearch.org/pubs/515/polling-cell-only-problem
for the details.

Everybody like the idea of a new young multiracial Kennedyesque type running the country. A modern day return to Camelot.

But when they get to the polls, security and the economy will the on their minds. Obama, with his minimal experience, minimal accomplishment and marginal ethics won't be able to compete.

We want to put the country's economy in the hands of somebody who couldn't even buy a house without making serious mistakes including serious ethical mistakes (the Rezko affair). And then dragged his feet about getting the Rezkos off the famous land parcel next door. Puh-leez.

Warren Buffett = Insurance Lobby. I don't know who is advising him on foreign policy issues and the statements he has recently made re Pakistan, our troops and the like. But what does one expect from a "rookie" south side state senator who probably thinks the island of Rock, Stony and Blue are part of the Aleutians.

RNC Bruce,

Tell me again how pollsters get non-published cell phone numbers?

(You need to take a remedial grammar course in the use of quotation marks.)

Janet, dear, here for your reading is Barack's full quote:

"We've got to get the job done there," he said of Afghanistan. "And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

I'm sure your "agreement" wiht me about the Hapless Obama will continue, huh?

"Obama, with his minimal experience, minimal accomplishment and marginal ethics won't be able to compete."
This is the best description of Barrack Obama I hav ever seen. He has never really done anything of substance, and is part of the most corrupt political organization in the country. EMIL JONES WAS HIS MENTOR. That should tell you all you need to know about his fake stance on ethics. All you people quoting the effect of people w/out land lines are just looking for excuses as to why Obama is getting trounced by Clinton in the polls.

Here you go Johnny D,
Weekend Edition, NPR June 23,2007:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai Saturday said "careless operations" by U.S. and NATO troops had killed more than 90 civilians in the last 10 days.

Pakistan's army said a rocket fired during the battle hit a house on its territory, killing nine civilians. It denied any insurgents had crossed the frontier.

Karzai did not comment on the border battle, but called for foreign troops to improve coordination with Afghan forces.

"We do not want any more military operations without coordinating them with the Afghan government," Karzai said.

"From now onwards, they have to work the way we ask them to work in here," he added.

Oakland Tribune July 24,2007:
President Hamid Karzai accused NATO and U.S.-led troops Saturday of carelessly killing scores of Afghan civilians and warned that the fight against resurgent Taliban militants could fail unless foreign forces show more restraint.

"Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such", Karzai said in an angry rebuke that drew a contrite acknowledgment from NATO that it must do better.

In the past 10 days, more than 90 civilians have been killed by airstrikes and artillery fire targeting Taliban insurgents, Karzai said.

"You do not fight terrorists by firing a field gun 20 miles into a target", Karzai said. "That is definitely surely bound to cause civilian casualties.

We want to cooperate with the international community. We are thankful for their help to Afghanistan, Karzai said. But that does not mean that Afghan lives have no value."

"We've got to get the job done there," he said of Afghanistan. "And that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

lil' Johnny Chickenhawk,

I'm having a hard time seeing how there is anything controversial whatsoever in this statement, especially when it corroborates what the leader of Afghanistan says. Are you truly incapable of acknowledging that maybe just maybe American bombs sometimes hit the wrong targets?

I mean we invaded a whole freakin' country based on faulty intelligence and blew the occupation in a way that only a Bush could do, but you think its IMPOSSIBLE that American bombs sometimes attack the wrong target or miss their target?

Truly a delsional, braindead chickenhawk.

Loony Lefties, Karzai was wrong too. But you see Karzai more than likely has to make comments like to cover his rear flank from the fanatics in Afghanistan.
For Barack to say it is quite another.
The reality is that many of those so-called "innocents" are not. The other reality is that the terrorists like to embed themselves among innocent people.
But you Lefty Loons keep blaming the U.S. military all you want. Just improves the GOP's chances of winning in 2008 each and every time!