Does Obama prefer the 90% "unity" after 9/11 to Gore's "divisiveness" when he won in 2000?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Just wondering whether Obama said Gore alienated half the voters because Obama thinks it would be better if we could go back to September 12 2001 when 47% weren't "alienated" by Bush because 90% were unified behind him. I thought that was a FUCKED UP moment in history but what do I know.

"Making an argument for his electability, Obama said, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000," according to a person at the event (rush transcript)."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Certain other candidates who were Senators sure weren't alienated back then

They voted for Bush's war, didn't they? :eyes:

[jefferson_dem]

2. Toss over a link where Obama specifically said Gore was "divisive."

Thanks in advance.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

3. here

"Making an argument for his electability, Obama said, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000," according to a person at the event"

[sandnsea]

5. That does not say Gore is divisive or alienates people n/t

[Proud2BAmurkin]

7. What does it say

?

[sandnsea]

9. Half the country is predisposed against Democrats

They're willing to listen to him, and that's just a fact. You can't say Edwards is the one to appeal to the south, and then get pissed off because Obama is doing it.

[dogishboy]

11. And that half a country is NOT predisposed against Obama?

repukes are "willing to listen to him, and that's just a fact"? A fact?

[sandnsea]

18. That's what the DMR hysteria is about

Republicans and Indies are coming out in droves.

[dogishboy]

20. Not it's not. Is there anything you won't say?

[sandnsea]

21. lol, denial isn't a good character attribute n/t

[dogishboy]

23. So why do you deny that Obama leaves 15 million uninsured?

[sandnsea]

24. Clinton's plan leaves out 20 million n/t

[dogishboy]

32. More of your denial

Just post the link, and I'll explain to you (again) that your link is based on Rommney's plan and not Clintons

[sandnsea]

34. Mandates don't work, her plan leaves out 20 million n/t

[dogishboy]

37. Let's see the link

You know, the link you posted that discusses ROMNEY'S plan

LOL

[sandnsea]

39. Auto insurance mandates don't work either, she leaves out 20 mil n/t

[dogishboy]

44. Still no link?

I guess you're smart enough to know how embarrassed you'd be if you posted the ROMNEY link AGAIN

[sandnsea]

50. In case others missed all this n/t

"The truth is that neither the Obama plan, nor the Clinton plan, guarantees 'universal coverage' for all Americans, although they both aspire to this goal. Let's look at the Clinton plan first. MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Clinton's health care advisers, describes her plan as a 'universal coverage' plan, in contrast to the Obama plan, which he terms a 'universal access' plan. But he also acknowledges that the Clinton plan will not include everybody. 'Any system that does not have a single payer will not have 100 per cent coverage,' he told me, when I reached him after the Las Vegas debate. 'But you can come very close.' ... The system proposed by Clinton is more analagous to the government-subsidized private insurance system in the Netherlands, where roughly one and a half per cent of the population is estimated to fall through the cracks.'

'Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, estimates Obama's plan would end up covering 5 percent to 10 percent fewer individuals than Clinton's. But that's assuming that it's possible for Clinton to require everyone to purchase insurance. Blendon suspects that it isn't. 'At the end of the day,' he tells FactCheck.org, 'it's not going to be everybody. We have no idea what the actual falloff would be.' ... Preliminary data from Massachusetts, which implemented a sweeping health insurance plan last year, is showing that many people would rather remain uninsured than purchase a stripped-down plan. 'People always say having some insurance is better than no insurance,' Blendon says. 'It turns out, in some of the focus groups in Massachusetts, people don't believe that.''

John Holohan, the author of a study conducted at the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank, that gamed out various different models for health care reform in Massachusetts several years ago, does not believe that either the Clinton or the Obama plan will eliminate the problem of the uninsured altogether. 'We would all be very happy if we got down to one and a half per cent,' he said.

Speech to the Group Health Association of America, February 15, 1994.

Dembner, Alice, "Health Plan May Exempt 20% of the Uninsured"

"There's good evidence," Mr. Kingsdale said, "whether it's buying auto insurance or wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets, that mandates don't work 100 percent."

The state reports that 200,000+ additional people have acquired health insurance in Massachusetts in the last year. http://www.mahealthconnector.org. There are several different estimates of the number of uninsured individuals in Massachusetts in 2006 (prior to implementation of the mandate. The most commonly used estimate comes from researchers from the Urban Institute who concluded that the number of uninsured was around 500,000. The Census Bureau says there are 650,000 uninsured in Massachusetts. A different team of Urban Institute researchers estimated a number that was roughly 15 percent higher than the Census Bureau number.

[dogishboy]

52. Funny but your quote says nothing about 20 million uninsured

but it does say that Clinton's plan will cover more than Obama's plan

You have an odd way of defending Obama

[sandnsea]

54. Not even 50% have complied with the mandate

That's with monthly subsidies which Hillary doesn't even offer. That's over 20 million right there.

[dogishboy]

55. Umm, how can 50% comply with a health insurance mandate that doesn't exist yet?

I'm beginning to understand why you're so incoherent. You think Obama is offering auto insurance. No wonder you don't care about the uninsured

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

14. A nation divided, virtually in two.

2000
George W. Bush (R)
Electoral 271
Popular 50,456,062

Albert Gore, Jr. (D)
Electoral 266
Popular 50,996,582

****

2004
George W. Bush (R)
Electoral 286
Popular 62,039,073

John F. Kerry (D)
Electoral 251
Popular 59,027,478

[dogishboy]

29. So why say "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country....."??

What's the point?

[jefferson_dem]

8. Nice try. The country was divided. That's a truism and beyond any debate.

The only place Obama said Gore or Kerry was divisive is in the mind of some folks, burdened with agendas.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. Obama is trying to reverse that by trashing trial lawyers and baby boomers.

Nice

[sandnsea]

12. He trashed George Bush in one boomer comment

and was referring to his own decision to become a civil rights lawyer instead of a lawyer who gets the big money, like a trial lawyer.

[dogishboy]

13. The country WAS divided? WAS divided? Obama must be pretty dumb

What's with the past tense?

Does Obama really believe that the country is no longer divided?

[H2O Man]

16. No.

There is no need to make things up.

[dogishboy]

22. Here's what Obama said

Obama said, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000,"

So if Obama thinks the country is still divided, why is he complaining about how other candidates will "start off with half the country" against them when half the country will be against HIM if he gets the nom?

I don't see how this could be interpreted as anything but Obama contrasting himself with the previous dem candidates. He is obviously saying that if he's nominated, half the country won't be against him.

If there's some other way to interpret this, I'm all ears. So far, all I've heard is that the interpretation is correct, but it's not about Kerry and Gore because he doesn't actually speak their names.

[sandnsea]

26. He's already drawing in Repubs and Indies in Iowa n/t

[H2O Man]

27. I know what he said.

And I know what you wrote in post #13. What Senator Obama said was honest and accurate. It was not an attack on either Al Gore or John Kerry. What you wrote was not accurate; it was a cheap attack on Senator Obama.

[dogishboy]

33. What does it mean?

I would hope that someone who agrees with the words could explain what they actually mean. I guess it's much easier to label something a "cheap attack", than it is to explain yourself. Particularly when you have no way of explaining it.

Obama spoke about the dem candidates for the 2000 and 2004 elections. How can anyone believe the comments had nothing to do with Gore and Kerry?

[jefferson_dem]

17. Ughhh...

The comment was made about 2000 and 2004.

If you wish to talk about those two historical periods in the present tense...have at it.

[dogishboy]

25. Yes, it was about 2000 and 2004. Does Obama think it's changed since then?

Does Obama think the country is no longer divided?

If no, then why bring up how "divisive" Gore and Kerry were? If it wasn't about Gore and Kerry, then what does it mean?

[H2O Man]

31. Again, you are

making up something and applying it to Senator Obama. No matter if you support him or not, that is a weak and unnecessary tactic. Any person with even a limited ability to apply logic recognizes that Senator Obama is saying the country has divisions -- which is exactly why he is saying he can unite people. It is impossible to unite that which is not divided.

[dogishboy]

36. BO mentioned the dem candidates in 2000 and 2004

and I'm supposed to believe that the comment had nothing to do with Gore and Kerry, who were the democratic candidates in 2000 and 2004?

"Any person with even a limited ability to apply logic recognizes that Senator Obama is saying the country has divisions "

Then why bring up how so many people "started off" being against Gore and Kerry and ONLY Gore and Kerry? It makes no sense. I find it incredulous that you would argue that BO's comments have nothing to do with Gore and Kerry.

"is exactly why he is saying he can unite people."

And exactly WHERE did he say that? I don't see it in the quote.

And he's an idiot (or thinks his supporters are idiots) if he thinks it's going to be any different for him. The repukes will throw everything they have regardless of who gets the nom? Do you think the repukes are going to go easy on Obama?

[jefferson_dem]

38. I stopped reading after your subject line. Check your facts, dude.

n/t

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

35. I think he would acknowledge that the country is still far too divided.

That's why he's running.

Chimpy's "divide and conquer" politics have obviously exacerbated the condition. Obama would probably argue that the other "top tier" Dems in the race would have difficulty avoiding the continuation of this legacy.

Obama's attack on divisiveness is rooted more in his political philosophy rather than electoral gamesmanship of how he believes he can be a more competitive nominee than, say, Hillary. Consider the guiding campaign theme -- "I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America, I want to be the President of the United States of America." That's all. It's a message of unity.

Nowhere did he even imply Gore or Kerry were "divisive." That's been demonstrated in this thread and elsewhere.

[dogishboy]

42. Finally, a sliver of honesty

"Obama would probably argue that the other "top tier" Dems in the race would have difficulty avoiding the continuation of this legacy. "

And this shows how stupid Obama and his supporters are when it comes to this UNITY scam. Does Obama, or you, really believe that the repukes are going to hold back when attacking Obama?

You said you want a discussion. Please explain how Obama is going to get the repukes to hold back on their divisive tactics, and please provide some specifics. Please avoid "reaching across the aisle" or "invite them to the table" or other meaningless blather. Please explain how Obama will get the repukes to abandon the only campaign tactic they have been succesful using?

"Obama's attack on divisiveness is rooted more in his political philosophy rather than electoral gamesmanship of how he believes he can be a more competitive nominee than, say, Hillary. Consider the guiding campaign theme -- "I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America, I want to be the President of the United States of America." That's all. It's a message of unity. "

More blather. Regardless of what BO "wants", Red America is going to go all out to defeat the dem candidate, no matter who it is. Please explain how this "political philosophy" of his is going to keep the repukes from getting nasty.

"Nowhere did he even imply Gore or Kerry were "divisive." That's been demonstrated in this thread and elsewhere. "

No, it hasn't. It's been claimed, but it hasnt been demonstrated. All I've seen is "He didn't actually say their names". I haven't seen anyone explain why he would pick those two examples while ignoring all the others.

[jefferson_dem]

45. "...how stupid Obama and his supporters are..."

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay...and lighten up.

[dogishboy]

46. They always flee when the rubber meets the road

Ask how Obama will stop the inevitable onslaught, and suddenly the poster with a tendency to call others trolls and sockpuppets gets all dainty on us.

[sandnsea]

4. He never said Gore alienated voters

He said he can move past the divisiveness of the past better than Hillary and let's not start another election with half the country against the Democrats, the way we have in the past. He didn't say a word about Gore or Kerry.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. you're right he didn't call them Gore and Kerry he called them "we" and "in 2000 and 2004"

sorry

[dogishboy]

15. Maybe "we" means "Obama and bush*"

Obama seems to think his mere nomination is enough to unite us all.

[jefferson_dem]

19. Where do you come up with this crazy shit?

Seriously. If you want to discuss the issues, fine. But let's at least deal with reality, eh.

[dogishboy]

30. Let me know when you want a discussion

but as long as you want to deny the obvious intent of Obama's words, you're going to have to deal with the snark.

Obama said, "I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000,"

If Obama was merely making the point that the nation is divided, then why mention the 2000 and 2004 elections ONLY, and why mention those who "started off" not wanting to vote for DEMOCRATS?

[dogishboy]

47. *crickets*

I guess some think calling other posters trolls is the kind of "discussion" we should be having

[tom_paine]

28. Not only is the irony of that statement staggering, though not of Obama's making,

it is a frightening message to all who would listen that he is again preparing to make nice with "Hitler's Little Cousins", which they view as laughable, pathetic Liberal Weakness.

You DON'T make nice with "Hitler's Little Cousins", you FIGHT them will all your might!

[NashVegas]

41. Exactamundo

If nothing else, it's incredibly naive ... 20-35% of the country doesn't want to vote Dem - those are the hardcore Republicans. There are another 12% who have been conditioned via propaganda to go along with them to keep peace.

For Obama to go around saying that? He's repeating a Republican meme! WTF?

[sandnsea]

43. And where do they go when they wake up

and realize they've been bamboozled?

[dogishboy]

49. When they wake up?

You mean "when hell freezes over"?

We've been lied into war, the economy is in shambles, the constitution is in worse shape, bush* has completely subverted the checks and balances of our govt, made torture an official US policy, and they still think * is great.

And you think they're going to wake up anytime soon?

[sandnsea]

51. Pay attention to the Repub primary

It's not going so well. Sorry you're missing all the fun.

[dogishboy]

53. Incoherent much?

[DemKR]

48. obama hearts repukes n/t