Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Motel #2: In A New Location (A... | The Best Art Show. Ever. (Part... »

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Seattle Loves Obama

posted by on September 19 at 9:17 AM

But Obama is tanking in the national polls—he trails Hillary Clinton by 20 points. Slate offers the former phenom some advice. Go after Clinton, don’t panic, keep raising money. Uh… gee. I’m thinking Obama could’ve worked that out on his own.

RSS icon Comments



Posted by Mr. Poe | September 19, 2007 9:23 AM

Obama better pull his shit together fast! We can not survive a Hillary Clinton Presidency!! Do we want a President who was fooled by George W. Bush????

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 19, 2007 9:26 AM

Jesus. Please, Democrats everywhere, don't make me vote for Hillary. Please don't make me vote for 28 full years of this country being ruled by either a Bush or a Clinton. Just once, I'd like my presidential vote to be for a candidate I actually have some faith in, and not a mere defensive maneuver.

Posted by tsm | September 19, 2007 9:33 AM

Mr Poe, is your mood anything other than aggravated on your Myspace page? Gee, you need a high colonic!

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 19, 2007 9:40 AM

No. But I try not to make it a daily task to update my mood for all to see.

If you should know, I'm super happy.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 19, 2007 9:43 AM

Obama is a C.F.R. candidate.
What is the C.F.R.?
Was Cheney a former director of the C.F.R.?
Why should you be concerned?

These people pose as "liberals" & "conservatives" in order to control all aspects of the debate.

Democrat CFR Candidates:
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

Republican CFR Candidates:
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Fred Thompson

Posted by Bald Face Lie | September 19, 2007 9:59 AM

c.f.r., @6? you pose question, give no answer. enlighten us.

Posted by ellarosa | September 19, 2007 10:06 AM

Council on Foreign Relations, I believe. It's on Wikipedia. Get ready for kooky conspiracy theories.

Seattle is fucking stupid if it loves Obama.

Posted by mjg | September 19, 2007 10:10 AM

Those of you who have already made up your mind this early in the race please give your reasons as to why Obama is the right choice compared to HRC. I am having trouble contrasting the 2 due to lack of literature on the web. Thank you.

Posted by mongo like slog | September 19, 2007 10:30 AM

@ all
C.F.R. formed 1921
The goal is to put an end to the United States of America.

"The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established."

Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor), Professor of History at Georgetown University, member of the CFR, stated in his book, "Tragedy & Hope":

If we vote for candidates who openly publish papers like
We can expect policy

I pose questions here for those who are seeing the transparency of candidates and the false left/right paradigm.

You will have to do research and come to your own conclusion on it's members and influence.

Posted by Bald Face Lie | September 19, 2007 10:38 AM

I believe the word you're looking for is "phenomenon."

Posted by Catman | September 19, 2007 10:42 AM

I also hear CFR has a plan to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.


Obama is the right choice only because his rhetoric is the fluffiest and most vague. Apparently that plays really well in the northwest.

Posted by mjg | September 19, 2007 11:08 AM


English is my second language, but I beleive Dan's use of "phenom" is appropriate. It's frequently used slang meaning a remarkable or outstanding person.

The Slate article uses it as well.

Posted by SeMe | September 19, 2007 11:09 AM

Obama's doing fine. So fine that Hillary had to show up here in Seattle, cause she's worried.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 19, 2007 11:23 AM

@12 - please source "plan to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

C.F.R. - task force reports

I am kookoo for presenting real information?

You ignore evidence and HOPE that this organization, members and it's influence on policy is either not true or does not exist.

Posted by Bald Face Lie | September 19, 2007 11:32 AM


It's a reference to Dr. Strangelove. Just a joke.

CFR is a powerful and influential thinktank, to be sure. But if you're going to paint them as a shadowy cabal, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate what smacks, to me, of blatant conspiracy theory (i.e., "kookery").

The claim that they are attempting to control the debate also comes off disingenuous to me. The fact that there's so many dissenting views within the CFR indicates to me that you're being painfully reductive.

The links to their website that you have provided do not appear to be evidence of your claims. I've looked over the task force report very briefly, and it's not clear to me that they are attempting to bring about some New World Order. Unless of course you are characterizing any and all multi-national initiatives as evidence.

Sorry, dude, but if you're the one making claims out of the left field, it's your job -- not mine -- to PPOSTFU.

Posted by mjg | September 19, 2007 11:46 AM

Hmmm... I find myself discouraged and unmotivated by the fact that it may be too late. That people have given up and are looking for a candidate with 'electability'. It didn't work with Kerry and it will not work with H. Clinton. People, it seems, deep down want more of the same. Obama not being in Washington that long is a good thing. His track record, for anyone who cares to learn anything about his time as a community organizer (much harder work than being a 1st lady or senator), a state senator and finally elected to congress, tells us something about his integrity, motivation and potential. America needs to stop being lazy and scared because it just leads to more misery for everyone (such as the disastrous results of the Iraq war and its long-term effects everywhere). Democrats should take responsibility for choosing 'electability' over vision which resulted in Bush winning in '04.

Posted by lsk3ster | September 19, 2007 2:03 PM

Can't help but remember Howard Dean, Seattle loved him too...

Posted by poor obama | September 19, 2007 3:56 PM

Obama is all style and no substance. His stated policies are blandly middle of the road, not progressive. Compared to Bush, that makes him FDR, but compared to Bush any of the Democrats including Mike Gravel are FDR.

On the war, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich are superior to both Obama and Clinton. Even bumbling Richards is more antiwar, and Gravel would be better too if he wasn't such a flake. Obama can say that he didn't vote for the war in the first place (easy to say for someone who was running for the state senate at the time), but if he's so farsighted then why do his current foreign policy statements seem so mundane and ineffective?

Obama's health plan is bested by Edwards and Kucinich, and on par with Clinton's recently announced muddle. His tax fairness plan is stale and half-hearted, hardly visionary. His economic policies in general are outmatched by Edwards and Kucinich.

If Obama doesn't start talking and acting like a real progressive, and coming up with real proposals to change the country, he doesn't deserve to be the Democratic nominee.

Posted by Cascadian | September 19, 2007 4:59 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).