In new ad Obama calls for Americans to end conventional thinking
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, launched his third television ad in the Granite state Monday, in which he calls for an end to "conventional thinking" and pledges to restore "American leadership in the world."
Obama returns to New Hampshire Monday for three days of campaigning and will officially file his paperwork for the state's primary.
– CNN New Hampshire producer Sareena Dalla
So... I'm a Republican. I voted for Bush twice. (Maybe mistakenly the second time...) (I know, I know... all you left wing people are saying, "maybe mistakenly both times.") At any rate, if Obama gets the nomination, I'll probably vote for him. (I still like McCain.) I don't think that's throwing my vote away. If he doesn't get it, I'll write his name in. I don't think I'm throwing my vote away. I would hate it if Hillary or Rudy got in. It's not "costing us the white house." You lost it by not getting Obama on the ticket in the first place.
To Fred from VA,
Nader supporters!?! Hillary is the super partisan one. Obama is way more electable than she is and has plenty more legislative experience than she does. Obama supporters are in no way Nader supporters, they are true democrats probably more likely to have voted for Gore. And to put some more of that in your face, I read in Time magazine Gore might be considering endorsing Obama.
The conventional thinking–spoonfed to us by the media–is that Obama is an exciting and inspiring candidate. The new wisdom, which comes from actually observing him during this campaign, is that its all fluff and he's an empty suit. So, by all means, let's dispense with this conventional thinking in favor of what our own eyes and ears are telling us.
"Here is a man that has devoted his life to bettering the lives of others at the expense of his own monetary advancement."
my problem with obama and the other socialist candidates is that they want to force you to give at the expence of monotary gain, not give you the choice to do it like Obama did. Philanthropy will increase when the socialists learn that taking peoples money doesnt do anything for anyone except increase the power of the nanny state. We have a bunch of people with a victim mindset. Grow up and take care of yourself. By the way good for Obama for giving at the expense of his monotary gain, im sure he didnt write any of it off on his tax returns.
Fear is a crazy emotion and it will lead to our great country spinning downward even faster than it is now if we don't make a drastic change. The resistance to Barack Obama is made up of fear – fear of the unknown. All of the other candidates are very well established in the Washington way and we are all very familiar with them. Where have they gotten us in the past? Well, look at where we are today and that will answer your question.
Take a serious look at Barack Obama – without the fear, without the rhetoric and with an open mind. Go to youtube and check out his SF Women for Obama speech – absoutely amazing. Check out his 2004 Democratic convention speech. These are Barack Obama – I have met him on multiple occasions and fancy myself quite cynical on the subject of politicians and their "honesty". Barack Obama is as sincere of a politicians as you will ever find – I take him at his word. It is time to step out of our comfort zone and take on the responsibility of doing the greater good – that is voting for real change, ending "conventional thinking" in Washington and voting for Barack Obama as the next President of the United States.
You're comparing Nader to Obama? Say what?! Obama has more money than any other candidate in history, which he's raised completely outside the washington beltway corporate establishment. He is not the candidate of partisan division, HILLARY IS. Hillary says stuff like, "if you want someone to take on the right, I'm your girl." whilst Obama continually calls to unite the country.
I have canvassed for Barack. I can tell you I've never encountered a single Democratic voter that had ill feelings toward him, while meanwhile Hillary evokes a viceral dislike even from many Dems that are fed up with the division that started not under Bush but under Clinton.
Anyone that thinks the inspiration and voter outreach that has happened due to Obama will simply transfer over to Clinton is misguided. If she's the nominee, she will find a democratic electorate that is largely apathetic and she'll find a Republican base that is as fired up as they can be for no other reason than to make sure she's out.
I have stood in rooms with a hundred or more people so fired up to support Obama they'd drive 400 miles to Vegas just to canvass for him. I've seen people with walkers get out and knock on doors for him. I've seen high school kids canvass for him. I've seen people never involved in politics before taking an interest.
To compare him to Ralph Nader and to say that he's an unelectable candidate is simply niave and shows you're not paying attention.
Hillary had a rally in her home state of NY. 2400 people attended. Mostly older women.
A few weeks later, Obama had a rally there at the same place. 24,000 people attended, of every race, age, gender, background. You name it, they came out for Obama.
You tell me, who is truly unelectable?
Is it the establishment candidate that is well funded by corporate lobbys and titans of industry, or is it the candidate that has garnered more money that thought possible from the largest donor base of individuals, mostly under 200 dollars from half a million people, in the history of this country.
I ask you, who is really the underdog here?
Go to Hillary Clinton's site and go to events and type in your zip code within a hundred miles. I did that with my zip code and maybe a dozen events came up, mostly a few training classes for volunteers.
I did the same on barackobama.com, and I got over a hundred events in the area alone.
She's got 360 blog pages. He's got 3680 pages of blogs.
You know what the most populated site on the web is? It's on Facebook. Until recently it was "1 Million Strong For Barack." with 350,000 members. But it's been supplanted by "1 Million Strong TO STOP HILLARY CLINTON" with almost 500,000 members.
Really think before you talk. Don't go throwing around Ralph Nader's name and the idea that someone is unelectable until you actually figure out who the really, REALLY unelectable candidate is.
As the right wing nuts know, that person would be Hillary Roddam Clinton.
Sophomoric ads about "...an end to conventional thinking" aren't going to get this guy elected. If he gets even close to the nomination, Hillary's army of goosesteppers will dig up all the dirt they can find on Obama, including his shady real estate deals with Chicago's infamous Tony Rezko. (Not that Hillary hasn't been involved in her own shady real estate deals!)
From my perspective, conventional thinking means what made this nation great: free-market capitalism, a strong defense, and the liberties guaranteed us by the Constitution. If Obama has something else in mind, I think he'd better start getting specific. Oh, wait, maybe being non-specific is the only thing keeping him in the race. This guy might win a sappy bromide contest with Maya Angelou, but start asking him some tough questions and he'll wilt like the 1969 Cubs.
And as far as "...pledging to restore American leadership in the world," if that means turning to European socialism just to get the French elites to swoon over Obama, I'll gladly pass on that. If freedom and prosperity means being envied and hated by those whose main achievement has been destroying Europe's wealth and culture, I'll take a second helping.
Hey Philip from Elkhart, IN: You are the most honest person that I have come across on the ticker. I will not bash you for the Bush vote(s); instead, I praise you for your courage to seek a leader of a different party, and admitting your mistakes. You are a stand up guy.
OUR NEXT PRESIDENT MR. BARACK OBAMA NEED TO COME COLORADO SPRINGS, CO HE CAN RESTORE AMERICA PLACE IN THE WORLD AS A LEADER. JUST LISTEN TO THE WORDS FROM HIM
I am Republican, but BARACK HAS MY VOTE, I VOTE NO TO ANY MORE WARS WAGED BY GEORGE BUSH, PERIOD!!!
Obama is in denial; he forgets that he doesn't have any executive experience.
Obama is the best thing that could and will happen to this country I say will because I believe that american's will countuine to vote the for the right people after bush is gone as they have before. Bush was and is a great president. He will go down in history as the president that had to deal with the most while he was president but I don't think anyone could have handle it better.
Karen in NJ:
As a woman and a mother, I cannot begin to understand how you could support Hillary.
With great sincerity, I would like to know how you can support someone who voted for this war which has killed thousands, and injured tens of thousands of American's finest?
Even if you can let that go, how can you be OK with her voting against limiting power to execute the war?
And most recently, she voted to identify the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization, fueling the fires of war with Iran. A conflict of this nature would make it necessary to reinstate the draft, because we do not have the forces to cover all of the conflicts that she has supported.
Today, she sent a 3 page letter to Iowans trying to explain this vote. It was a terrible vote, and now she is trying to reassure Iowans that she has the judgement to be president.
What evidence do you have to show me that she has the judgement to be president?
You can't possibly be OK with this.
It is specious to suggest that Obama supporters were Nader supporters. Although Obama has brought many people into the process who had not supported any candidate in the past - most of his support comes from the mainstream of the democratic party. We see an inspired new leader as the best anticeptic to seven years of bad luck.
Gore, for example, is an independent thinker even though he has been part of the Washington scene for decades. The test is whether a candidate thinks about and expresses fresh ideas and will approach problems that way.
The problem with Clinton is that she was for the War as recently as two years ago, has failed to be bold and independent since she lost on health care, and is not independent of Washington insiders.
It is not "pragmatic" to keep supporting the same established machine politicians. We have not had so rare an opportunity to create change since 1968. Imagine if Bobby Kennedy had lived and been nominated. He would have won - and he would have changed history.
I'm really wondering how Lance and the other Obama groupies will cope with Barack Hussein losing the Dem nomination.
There is no way that the American public will elect Barack Hussein Obama.
Fred in Reston,
You are not a pragmatic democrat. You are a sad, sorry and disillusioned man.
Obama is not Nadar...not even close. How dare you say anyone can waste their vote if they vote their heart? You have not followed Obamas' path or you would be singing a different tune. Everything Obama says warrents our passion, hope and conviction to a better US.
Who else would you consider Fred? Hillary??? It must be her or you would have not been afraid to say who you support. Would you choose the most divisive, corrupt, unelectable person running over HOPE? Look at her negatives Fred. Hillary will guanantee a republican victory just so people can vote against her. People HATE her. So many say "anyone BUT HRC". Please Fred, rethink your position. Obama supporters are not full of hate and rage and we are not rude. We have hope and faith in a new way.
Phillip, IN, you said you voted Bush twice, this time you may vote Obama, it means you made mistake twice, what did you learn from your lesson? Obama will be same as Bush because he is naive, inexperenced and capricious in political view. Not smart judgment again.
I sure can tell ya that he isnt running on his own merits,he uses hillary words shes been around longer than him and she makes complete and total sense. he did not vote for that k/l act he was in hiding,you dont say you wouldn't of supported it,your supposed to be going to vote so i dont think that answer is sufficient enough.but goes after Hillary for voting on it,and she explained her answer with that vote,and its sensible. you have missed every senate vote almost 100 votes,How can you run for President,irresponsible, chicago is talking you have not been there you deserted your job, Your preaching at rallys,about religion that is nonsense your views on America are goofy,you used cocaine so that would be a concern to me....you would never get my vote,you are inelectable ,politics is what are you going to do for the Anerican people you have not said so.What Hold rallys and your thinking more like in cloud.your ideas bring nothing.same ole same ole crap.running a rude campaign,your supporters are all crazy for donating to you,you are a thrifty spender like a republican, seriously think Hillary has it and wins it. hands down.her intellect is way over your head ,your speeches are umm umms uhh's , I dont trust him on foreign policy,i dont trust his judgement on his religious background,he holds rallys and thinks and preaches like Islam,you can see it in him,and he was raised on it you dont loose that,go to the islamic websites and there leaders are just like OBomba,but you know Islamic you could be at home reading the koran be a Islamic in Hiding.How would we know,and he also join a church 3 months before he decided to run.This is very serious issues with BHusseinO,that is a Islamic name.