Who's Afriad Afraid* of Obama?

This WSJ article is worth looking at:

For Republican strategists and leaders, facing divisions over presumptive nominee John McCain, the Arizona senator, and demoralized over President Bush's and the party's unpopularity, the potency of both Democrats' candidacies is both fearsome and impressive.

"The Obama wave is unlike anything I have seen during my career. It would have totally swamped any traditional candidate," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducts The Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls with Democratic pollster Peter Hart. "The fact that Clinton is still standing and breaking even is actually a remarkable statement about how unique a candidate she is and what an exceptionally strong candidate."

Ana, while its an interesting alternative take, McCain's only hope with independents is if the war turned for the lot better. Considering recent news that the troop reductions might be placed on hold, and that the situation in Iraq is still deteriorating and Afghanistan failing as well. His Go War Go is going to drag him down.

In terms of policies, what else does he have? Immigration, yeah, but his view isn't much different from Dems, so than what does he have? Economy, we saw that Mitt was able to hold that better, and the GOP overall is going to take a beating on that. Health care? Seriously, from a Republican? What exactly does a GOP candidate have to win over independents? War and Security, the same lame play book that one them the 2004 election.

This analyst may have an interesting viewpoint, but it is just an 'alternate reality.'

I have never been as optimistic as some of my fellow lefties about this election. The American electorate is not a rational animal, especially with McCain at the top of the GOP ticket. I think this election is all about how McCain is perceived. As the witty War Hero who takes national security seriously, and "is really a moderate in spite of his right wing voting record because Rush Limbaugh hates him" (Richard Cohen has an embarrassing love letter to this McCain today), or the embittered militarist who has no idea how to effectively address the threats posed by modern phenomena like transnational terrorist groups and loose nukes. His "Bomb, Iran" song may have been a joke, but it was also a concise yet thorough expose of his foreign policy.
It is precisely because of his antiquated understading of geopolitics and national security that McCain would be a disaster as president.

"What has Obama done? Show me a single issue or piece of legislation where Obama has done something politically unpopular in order to move forward toward a greater goal."

OK.

Barack Obama kept popping up, doing really good substantive things. There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles. There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet" -- though not as strong as Obama would have liked. Look -- he's over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn't even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation. And there he was again, introducing a tech plan ...

See also.

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.

This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it. ...

He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."

The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.

Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.

See also. (pdf).

It's correct to say that the media has not discussed Obama's record, preferring instead to psychoanalyze the Clintons.

It is incorrect to say that Obama does not have substantive proposals and legislative accomplishments.

By the way, what I argued above is not an argument for complacency. I expect the full use of the Noise Machine's novelty bag of tricks, which includes candidate whoopi cushions, media-grabbing "expert" disguise kits, "swiftboat" stage blood, "Chuck Norris" rubber imitation veteran service knives, "latte-drinking, body-piercing, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show" action figures from Vermont,

Etc.

Oh yeah of course Elvis, how can we forget that Obama took THE politically unpopular position of not voting for the war. Imagine that.

Ana, seriously, this analyst is grasping for straws because the GOP can't imagine that they won't win this election.

I absolutely agree with the analysis. I can just hear people talking about "the most liberal senator in the Senate" and what a disaster that would be for the country if he were elected. It doesn't matter if it is true or not.

McCain could start to position himself a little bit closer to the center, pointing out that he has been critical of the war before and maybe it isn't being run as well lately as it was a couple of months ago(wink, wink.) This would leave Obama well away from the vast majority of voters.

That republican advisory is smoking crack.

They may hate dems, but we HATE THEM MORE.

And if republicans think Americans are going to vote for an old guy who supports everything this administration stands for, they're insane.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

Independents are NOT going to go for McCain and his 1000 years of Iraq.

Sheesh. That was the most lunatic analysis I've seen in a while.

"McCain will be out there, holding court on his bus or his plane, providing unfettered access to both reporters and voters, and journalists will no longer be able to ignore Obama's lack of access and lack of interaction with real people. In fact, it'll be the only thing they talk about."

Will a certain bambi-eyed vixen be lapping up his every father-substitute utterance? Will Tweety be sniffing his man musk?

Overall, I agree with the notion that all the energy on the left could be expelled like air in an poorly tied balloon. Let the super Ds decide. See how the pejorative "activist" left responds to a Hill nod. Destroy the salvation of our beloved youth. Oh, god help us without our "one." Frame the debate and the decision between two cynical mandarins.

Elvis,

I'm really trying to stay out of this. But come on. The "analyst" was talking about unpopular positions on high-profile, contentious issues. "Homeless veterans need help"? "Nuclear non-proliferation is scary"? "Police brutality = bad"? How is it a profile in courage that he took these position? The point was not that the guy has no policy positions, it's that they are no more "maverick" or "principled in the face of controversy" than any of Clinton's positions. Not to mention that they are all equally susceptible to the standard Republican attacks.

Yeah, yeah, the war. We disagree, I think, about the extent of their divergence on this issue and the extent to which Obama's position represented courage in a tight place. I expect that we also disagree about the extent to which it is wise for the Democrats to make this election be about the war. But I concede that could be the basis of a counterargument.

My point here, though, is that neither AMC nor the "analyst" said that Obama has done nothing of substance in office. I know other people have, but you do your side of the argument a disservice by hammering the same arguments, again and again, regardless what is actually being said to provoke you.

The gulf between the McCain and the Dem candidate is too wide and too deep for anyone to stay home on either side. The Dems saying they'll vote for McCain rather than __________ are also not facing reality. Between the convention and the election, there will plenty of time to convince the voters on either side that their interests are not served by staying home*.

But this ridiculous narrative that the only good politician is one who fights his party's policies is ridiculous, and that McCain is one of those, has gotta stop. It's unfortunate for McCain that this false narrative has hurt him among Republicans. You got two issues. 1) Immigration. His sin there was supporting the president and the corporatecons. He wasn't some kind of maverick off the reservation. 2) McCain-Feingold. He's done as much as anybody to gut the provisions of that bill in practice. Just this week it's turning out that he didn't really accept public financing, even though he said he did.

Moreover, when these people actually do show up--Ron Paul, Joe Lieberman--they are immediately marginalized. It is Broderism of the worst kind to claim that defecting on issues is somehow noble and right. The people who get nominated and elected are those who toe the party line. The most compelling counterexample to this argument is, of course, Bill Clinton, who for some reason is not praised by Broder as the most courageous president since Lincoln, crossing the aisle to serve the nation's interests on tough issues like NAFTA and welfare reform. This narrative is crap; it's just a way to rationalize the beltway media's love for McCain.

But that's it. Romney and Huckabee have at least as many deviations from CNAC orthodoxy as McCain. And he has been reliably conservative.

Now it may be that the Village narrative of maverick St John may carry the day, but he has never yet had that narrative challenged.

You will see many, many pictures of the Bush-McCain hug, hear many, many times how he has voted in lockstep with Bush to hurt ordinary Americans. And you will hear 100 years of occupation over and over again.

The only danger the democrats face is failing to define themselves as clearly against continuing the occupation, out of fear that the Village will do them as "weak on security." It's time to pull a Rove and start defining the Republicans as weak on security. Not hard to do......

One last thing. Yes, a republican strategist insists that it is about character and personality because that is what it has to be about for the Republicans to win a race for dog catcher. To repeat this as if it is simply true is to advance a core republican campaign strategy, one nearly as important as systematic voter suppression. It's really past time to explore these tactics as tactics, and not as weird parts of the American zeitgeist.

---------------
*It is important to recall that one of Rove's acheivements was to bring the evangelicals out of their houses to vote, convincing them that their apolitical views were not soundly based. The US is just as godless now as it was in 2000 (that is, not very) and McCain is pretty clearly a godless type, what with the horndog past and the glammed up second wife. That group may stay home.

I'd encourage anyone to take this Repub version of conventional wisdom with a grain of salt...Don't believe the anti-hype.

"What has Obama done? Show me a single issue or piece of legislation where Obama has done something politically unpopular in order to move forward toward a greater goal."

Well, in addition to what Elvis quoted above, I'll add this, from July of last year:

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama today endorsed the idea of merit pay for teachers before an audience hostile to the idea, the giant National Education Association, but he softened the blow by telling the union's national assembly that he would not use "arbitrary tests" to link pay to performance...Obama's endorsement of merit pay for teachers was the first note deviating from the promise-anything tenor of visits by several presidential candidates to the union this week.

Anyway, thanks for the preview of the Republican campaign against Barack Obama.

And, jeez, can't someone be in charge of fixing headline typos. I guess it's not important, but it just doesn't look good.

Your analyst is spinning. McCain will fail in the general not because he won't have the support of divided Republicans but because he will have eight years of Republican mismanagement tied to his neck like an anchor that will sink him with all but the Republican diehards. Don't look at 1980 and 1988. Look at 1974 - that's how bad the Republicans have been, and how bad they'll be punished.
Sure, if Hillary is the nominee she might be divisive enough that McCain can eke out a win. More likely she just hurts the Democratic party down ticket and has no way to govern effectively because she can't make deals across the aisle (and we get President Romney in 2012 for our sins).
Even if McCain somehow wins, a similar fate awaits him, although he might have a better chance than her of success, but the cost will be any vestiges of his own party's support (see Schwarzenegger, Arnold).
I underestimated Obama when he first announced - I thought he'd wither in the spotlight of a national campaign. I obviously was wrong. He's not going to sit there while St. McCain walks away with the general election. I'm not saying it's a lock for the Democrats, but your Republican optimist is smoking the same crack that had us getting hearts and flowers in Baghdad.

We've just entered the recession. Who knows whether it will last two quarters, three, or more. The dollar is still plummeting, which makes every foreign product more expensive. The deficit is going to be more than $400 billion this year, adding to the $9.6 trillion the Republicans have rung up. We're still going to have 130,000 troops in Iraq at a cost of $6 billion a month. And every drop of blood and red ink will be on their hands.

Yeah the typos in the stories are less obvious.
"debating actually issues"
Maybe for a while you could read your writings out loud to yourself before posting.
That helps.

It's an interesting argument but, in my opinion, Clinton is a sure loser against McCain. At least Obama has a fighting chance.

There are real risks in cockiness amongst Obama supporters. I like this piece from an Obama supporter at Kos urging a radical hubrisectomy

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/11/91158/5807

There are any number of ways Obama can blow this. The press are a fickle beast and they will behave much differently in the general.

The simple fact that AMC felt obliged to pass on these Republican thoughts tells us that the MSM may already feel they have overcommitted to Obama.

Anna,

Did your republican friend happen to mention any oppo research that might have on Mr. Obama?
No? Is it because they haven't done any? Highly unlikely. So why not get it out there now if it's Hillary they really want? Maybe because they want Obama to win the primary? And why would they want that? Because they know they can destroy this "Movement" facade and turn the guy into another Democratic lamb ready for the slaughterhouse. I will be voting for whoever wins the Democratic primary but Obama's hero worshipping supporters frighten me.
They are fast approaching cult status. Reasoned arguments and policy choices stand no chance of getting through to them. They believe and their faith is all that matters. Republicans will do everything they can to remind voters that Obama is not the messiah. Anna, you seem to think the press will not turn on Obama. What's the basis for that thinking? Because he's a man of color? I sure hope you're right but I doubt you are. Once the Clintons are gone, who will play the villian? McCain? Not very likely. Republicans know how to access you guys. They send you secret blackberry messages and offer you deep background conversations that you don't get from Democrats. Trust me, those blackberry messages will not be trashing John McCain.

on typos, I have a browser toolbar with a spellcheck feature. (But not on this machine, so no telling what will happen here.)

grape_crush--

It is really bizarre to single out Obama for a lack of legislative accomplishments in a senate where democrats were not allowed to attendee committee hearings where bills were debated, or introduce meaningful bills.

This is yet another story covered in a weird, pro-Republican narrative. They destroyed regular order in both houses, abused every device available to prevent Democratic participation, and otherwise made the Congress into a presidential rubberstamp. And the narrative was about Republican unity.

A unity, by the way, that went unbroken by Maverick St John McCain.

I like Obama, but I worry about how naive his supporters are. (Not to mention how dumb the ones in Houston are who are flying a Che Guevero flag in his headquarters.) Obama supporters think that their hero will somehow avoid having the GOP throw dirt at him. STOP KIDDING YOURSELVES!
The original "Obama as Muslim" emails were tracked back to a conservative group -- not Hillary Clinton. If you read conservative blogs you see him referred to as "B. Hussein Obama" all the time. They talk about his black separtist church. They talk about his thin resume. And, evil little trolls like Bob Novak, gleefully chortle about the fact that the Democrats are going to run a black man for president. Can those allegations be defended? Sure. Have we seen any evidence that Obama knows how to do that? No. He has had easy races against poor candidates in his past. The one tough race he has ever run (for state senate), he lost.

John Derbyshire on Obama this morning:

"All this emoting over Barack Obama's wonderful, wonderful personality is starting to trigger my gag reflex.

What are we electing here, a faith healer? What is Obama's view of the executive power? How, exactly, does he propose to "bring us together"? Just by being half-black? What if I don't want to be "brought together" with radical socialists who want to jack up my taxes and shut down my freedoms of speech, property, and association? What will Obama do? Steve Sailer has been documenting the astonishing — for a guy with Obama's résumé — absence of any paper trail for Obama's thoughts, ideas, and opinions. There's just his autobiography, which is unreadable (I tried), and The Audacity of Hope which I guess (I didn't try — you can only ask so much of a guy) urges us all to be really audacious and hope a lot.

Is Obama just an empty suit, who never had a thought about anything, other than his own amazing wonderfulness, in his entire life?"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/

Just because Obama doesn't want to engage in dirty politics, doesn't mean the GOP will take a pass. There is a reason the GOP hates the Clintons: because the CLintons know how to beat them. Maybe Obama can find a way too also, but what evidence do we have of that?

Democrats need to hear this kind of Republican PR every month or so until November, just to keep on their toes. We keep asking "When is McCain going to be vetted by the media?" But it should be obvious by now what the answer is: Never. It doesn't matter that he has an 85% rating by conservative watchdogs. Broder says he is a maverick, so John King and Wolfie and Candy Crowley must also say he is a maverick.

AMC's Republican adviser didn't even mention the trump card that Republicans always play: Taxes. They will say Dems will raise your taxes, Reps will cut your taxes. It is how Reps win elections.

Have no delusions that this will be easy.

I would rather the Rezco stuff come out now than during the general...

I thought Krugman's piece yesterday was a bit harsh on Obama, but the "Clinton Rules" part was true.

Ana - What he didn't talk about "THE math?"

Ana, thanks so much for printing this piece.

I'm a supporter of HRC but living in the real world I know there is at least a 50-50 chance Obama will be the Democratic nominee. So, being an old hand at campaigns I've already begun thinking up talking points to use against any Rethug swiftboating attempts.

Americans think they know John McCain personally, that they have a sense of his character. One reason they have a positive view of him is because the press adores the man and is loath to print stuff that damages his "maverick" image. There is every chance he will be able to tack to the center in the general election, despite bleating from the far right crowd, and retain his appeal among moderate independents.

Right now, Obama is more an exicting movement to the majority of the public instead of a real human being. He needs to start tilting to the center NOW. He can't let himself be painted as "anti-war" but make it clear he is a hawk who is against this particular war because it weakens America. He has to be ready for attacks against his heritage.

I honestly believe HRC has a better chance in the general election because for better or worse the American people know her, too. Her biggest problem is that she's a woman. The Clinton "scandals" will be easy to make a positive out of because she can paint herself as a survivor, someone who has been attacked relentlessly but didn't collapse. There is even a chance the media might even begin to grudgingly respect her resillience.

But I'm hedging my bets and getting ready to defend Obama against all takers.

Obama has run his campaign mainly on style and prose and this will be very difficult to keep doing through a general election race. He will have to have more substance and issues and right now he does not. The insane part is that more people are supporting him based on change and hope while more people are supporting Hillary on experience and the ability to be commander in chief. In today's world which should be more important?

TeresaKopec, it doesn't matter what the Dems do, Steve Sailer, Bob Novak, and John Derbyshire are going to say mean things about him. They're never going to acknowledge his record, much less give it a fair hearing, because the narrative they're hoping for is that he's young. Low on the list of reasons why I support Obama is that he didn't come of age in the 1980s, as did the Clintons and Harry Reid, who instinctively flinch whenever the GOP says "boo." I don't see any reason to believe that he can't weather their attacks. The GOP has never been less trusted, less supported than it is now in at least 30 years. Maybe it's time to stop running scared of Steve Sailer, of all people.

pme, please re-read that Post excerpt I posted above. It wasn't "police brutality is bad, OMG!" It was a specific legislative response to the problem, that he passed unanimously in the IL senate, by bringing people on board despite early opposition from the Dem governor, police groups, and others. And how much political benefit is there in supporting the rights of the accused?

In fairness, Clinton, too, has worked well across party lines in the Senate.

>

How about reporters actually reporting on Obama's record instead of his rallies?

more people are supporting Hillary on experience and the ability to be commander in chief. In today's world which should be more important?

Actually, the tipping point for me in going for Obama was that I think he will take a more sophisticated and effective approach to foreign policy than Hillary "Kyl-Lieberman" Clinton. Intelligence, in both sense of the word, is now more important than military force in defending this country. I think Obama gets that, I am not at all sure Clinton does, and I'm positive McCain doesn't.

AMC:

I think there is more to it than that, because in reality, it isn't ALL about personality, and nothing else - so take your new information with a grain of salt. Sometimes pundits pay too much to image and forget the content.

The independants WON'T be flocking to McCain because the Republicans have nothing to offer of relevance on the economy, health care, and Iraq other than "Business As Usual".

AMC, that Republican operative misses the point that people are TIRED of mean spirited, corrupt, divisive, and angry politics. People want something better than that and no one, except - potentially - Obama is offering it.

I might point out that he is, so far, the ONLY candidate that has spoken out repeatedly against outsourcing and has clearly stated his intention to get out of Iraq. There's two of the three issues, and on health care, his plan, though deficient in workabilty, will likely change when tested in office.

Shorter Republican adviser:

"Racist blue collar Reagan Democrats and 'independents' will 'come home' to McCain if it's Obama."

That's the only way McCain wins. There's a reason why he has Bob Corker's campaign manager on his staff.

Conventional wisdom has been wrong for the MSM throughout this election mostly because:

1. These days you guys have no idea what the hell your talking about, including all those boneheaded, partisan pundits.

2. You're too often trying to create the reality rather than, you know, report it.

3. You take heed from "insiders" like this guy who have nothing but spin to say.

For God's sake, your analyst tried to claim that HILLARY has been the underdog to Obama since the beginning. There are so many things obviously wrong with that, as in "water-is-wet" obviousness.

The reality is, the Rethugs are used to pitching a true conservative against some wretched librul elitist, crushing their lily-livered hypocritical butts with a horrendous attack machine and the logic of "Strong and Wrong". You know, status quo. Slick Willie was the exception for obvious reasons.

This time they have McAmnesty running against the politcal equivalent of Jeebus. This AFTER what obviously was the worst administration since Hoover and the worst generation of Americans since the first Gilded Age.

Obama is not only a incredible pol and an uplifting presence, he's carrying what looks like a giant club made of pure zeitgeist in his hands, ready to bash the old failed institutions away. The Rethug attack machine will look like Wil E. Coyote dressed in Nazi uniform in comparision; just cartoonishly perverse and counterproductive. Robbed of their standard path to victory and saddled with a gaffe-prone RINO, it just gets worse.

Right-leaning non-partisans will not want to try rallying around McAmnesty, especially when the Dems expose him for the confrontational flip-flopper he really is.

We're talking about a guy who publicly snapped when John Cornyn simply suggested making sure his shamnesty bill didn't include criminals. Now all of the sudden he's "secure the border first!" guy?

This didn't work even for The Incredibly Pandering Romney. They'd rather vote for a guy who'd, at worst, would be another Carter. Hell, even Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 (with 250,000 of them the real reason why they lost Florida).

Many indies have long abandoned McCain, including me. He's been positively disgusting since 2000. These days he's a corporate whore who wishes to recklessly terminate Net Neutrality and create amnesty/guest worker bills to keep Big Agro fueled with slave labor. He's stridently anti-abortion and literally sings about blowing up Iran.

There's no amount of MSM pimping that can change this, and why do the Rethugs any favors anyway? Unless Billary wins by superdelegates, the independent vote in the general will play out like it did in New Hampshire:
http://stoopider.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/did-the-independent-vote-really-help-john-mccain/

Obama stands a far better chance against McCain, than does Hillary -- IF he doesn't put her on the ticket.

If the dems put Hillary on the ticket (either slot) they'll get creamed in November.

People have had enough of the Clixon games, in both parties.

Even if Iraq continues to go badly (and the surge has not done what it was supposed to do, bring Iraqis closer to forming a functioning government) and the economy remains headed for the toilet, McCain could win by dint of "experience". What that means is that he's basically the devil people know. And when truly frightened folks tend to stick with the familiar.

That's why Obama has to start courting the press and meeting with people one-on-one, instead of staging massive rallies. He needs to really introduce himself to America, let the people who have tuned out really get to know him.

Elvis -- I know the GOP is going to say mean things about Obama. I have yet to see any evidence of him defending himself.

I've lived long enough to see how these elections go. The media puts together panels of "conservatives" and so-called "liberals" to talk about the candidates. The "conservatives" feel free to repeat any lie they like (Obama won't wear a flag pin, he doesn't put his hand over his heart during the pledge, he belongs to a crazy church) while the "liberal" sits there and nods. Obama keeps giving speeches about how he is "above" all this nastiness. By the time November rolls around Obama will look like the most pinko commie to ever come down the pike.

Tell me ONE state that Obama flips from red to blue based on his constituency of rich white people and African-Americans? Just one.

Maybe working class Democrats aren't very sexy or hip or have great videos, but they are the ones most likely to be swayed by this kind of nonsense and vote for St. John of the Wonderful Story in the fall. And there goes Ohio, Florida, etc...

"Even if Iraq continues to go badly..."

Same old lib lies.

Their stock in trade, sadly.

Oh well.

ABBIE HOFFMAN HAPPENS.

Shouldn't you Code Pinko types be back in Berzerkley today, getting your Birkenstocks smashed by the Move America Forward patriots?

2 Americas, indeed.

I'm going to through this out there, but whenever I see some posters describe Obama's style and eloquence to Clinton's substance, and that her substance will win the election...I can't think...umm, since when do voters vote on substance. In two general elections we had Bush win. Can anyone really claim in 2000, he had a great deal of substance? oh right, compassionate conservatism...

The point is, issues are important, but its amazing how much people vote with emotion rather than logic. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but the negative emotion across the country will certainly affect the outcome against the GOP.

TeresaKopec: Maybe Obama can find a way too also, but what evidence do we have of that?

Again with the idea that somehow, Hillary Clinton has been 'tested' against the GOP slime machine and come out on top...what makes people think that, besides spin from her supporters?

..Whoever the Dem candidate is, they're gonna get hit hard by the right-wing noise machine; doesn't matter if they've been a previous target or not, what their voting record is, how moderate they really are, whatever. The difference is that we know the attack is coming, we can see what memes are being spread into the minds of the public (like the right-wing NRO blurb TeresaKopec posted above), and we have counters to those memes (Steve Sailer is a racist, for example).

I can't use the idea of 'who can the right wing smear the worse' as the criteria in choosing a candidate.

jayackroyd: It is really bizarre to single out Obama for a lack of legislative accomplishments in a senate where democrats were not allowed to attendee committee hearings where bills were debated, or introduce meaningful bills.

Well, up until the Senate of 2006 was installed, anyways...Then Dubya found his veto pen, Senate Repubs decided that filibustering wasn't obstruction that deserved a 'nuclear option'.

Yeah, the idea that Dems haven't done anything in the better part of a decade has to be refuted. Hard.

Obama has run his campaign mainly on style and prose and this will be very difficult to keep doing through a general election race. He will have to have more substance and issues and right now he does not.

Pardon me, but what are you smoking? There is absolutely no way that the Republicans are going to allow the general to be about substance or issues. They've never done it before. They're not gonna do it now. They lose overwhelmingly on the issues. And, given what's happening now, even if they start talking about tax cuts, the obvious response involves running up huge credit card bills as not being an actual income increase.

It would be a tremendous success for Obama if he could find a way to get the media off the "character" and "personality" narrative and onto the substance.

Teresa, yes!

What's so frustrating is how the media is tilted toward Republicans. While most "management" (that is, the owners of media outlets) are conservative, many reporters themselves vote Democrat. Which means they will always give the Republican the benefit of the doubt and be harder on the Democrat!

But conservative reporters and pundits, such as David Brooks and the Faux crew, have no problem basically being nothing more than Republican apologists at best, rightwing shills at worst.

I beg the press to unleash on Obama now, or forever hold your peace and treat him the way you will McCain. Now is the time to examine Obama's character under the microscope, not after he locks up the nomination.

his constituency of rich white people and African-Americans

Obama won Washington, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Maine. He's apparently leading in Wisconsin.

I respectfully submit that there is zero basis in reality for the belief that he's only pulling black people and rich white people.

As to fighting back, he pressed back pretty convincingly against Clinton's claim that he had praised Reagan's ideas. That was pretty easy because the claim was demonstrably false, but it's something. I really don't think there's any need to be running scared at GOP propaganda at this point. I think you are too afraid of them.

Grape-Crush -- Hillary has "won" against the GOP slime machine by still standing. She has been called a liar, a murderer, a whore, a lesbian, a ball buster, etc... by them for YEARS. I frankly don't know how she gets out of bed in the morning. I do think that there has been so much crap thrown at her that there is nothing more they can do. Once you have decided that she murdered Vince Foster on her way over to Kathleen Wiley's house to run over her cat, what else can you say?

Obama on the other hand is completely undefined. And -- believe me -- the GOP will be happy to do that. You say you know the memes that are out there against him. Have you heard Obama address them once? Heck, even my pretty alert, college grad stepson was telling me how great it was that Obama was a Muslim and what a good thing that was for America. If good folks like him think Obama is a muslim, how much convincing do you think it will take for a bunch of right wing yahoos to get that to stick?

jayackroid: "The gulf between the McCain and the Dem candidate is too wide and too deep for anyone to stay home on either side."

Wider than between Kennedy and Nixon? Johnson and Goldwater? McGovern and Nixon? Check out the turnouts for those elections. Face it - the average voter, left or right, is lazy and irresponsible, and will cheerfully stay home if voting means missing a favorite rerun of "Gilligan's Island". Motivating the "base" - those voters that can be counted on to mindlessly vote the "right" way IF they bother to vote - has been a major campaign objective for both parties for decades now.

Elvis -- you need to check out the exit polls and look at the data about who Obama voters are. They are highly educated, wealthy white folks and African-Americans. Hillary's base are the working class, the undereducated and older women.

Now rich, white liberals and African-Americans are enough to win in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. They are not enough to win in a general election, esp against someone like McCain who will appeal to what we use to call "Reagan Democrats": the working class in swing states like Ohio. That is why Obama has had success in caucus states -- people with good jobs can get off at a specific time to caucus. The working class or people with kids can not.

Southern Bell: [Obama] can't let himself be painted as "anti-war" but make it clear he is a hawk who is against this particular war because it weakens America.

Like that 2002 speech Obama gave?

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

Something like that, Southern?

(Hmmm..that's such an easy set-up, I'm almost thinking it's intentional, Southern...)

He has to be ready for attacks against his heritage.

I'm sure the Clinton campaign has helped him to become fully prepped...besides, I don't think much more is necessary than saying that race is an issue only in the minds of people who care what color of skin a person is wearing.

Her [Clinton's] biggest problem is that she's a woman.

Nope. Her biggest problem is that she doesn't come across as an honest, likable person that offers more than a repeat of the divisiveness of the Clinton years and few of those years' successes.

Which is, for the record, what the image is, not the reality.

Grape-Crush -- Hillary has "won" against the GOP slime machine by still standing. She has been called a liar, a murderer, a whore, a lesbian, a ball buster, etc...

She won in New York, against two non-entities. Bill Clinton won three-way elections about domestic issues.
I'm not saying HRC is hopeless against McCain, but let's stop pretending that just because Bill Clinton wasn't convicted in the impeachment farce that the Clintons are infallible dragon-slayers.

Hello, Ana, commenters-

I found Ana's conversation w/ her friend the Republican advisor to be particularly interesting, as a way to push back against that very CW - since I have a McCain-focused site.

However, I'll be the contrarian and push back against the argument on the turnout issue:

My view would be that primary/caucus participation depends most heavily on whether the campaigns are *competitive* - not which side has more enthusiasm or more attractive candidates. In 1988, to use the example Freddoso uses - I speculate that the reason more Democrats voted than Republicans, was that the first President Bush took the nomination over Bob Dole relatively quickly (he had it effectively won by Super Tuesday). In contrast, it took longer for Dukakis to drive out all of his opponents - and thus more Democrats voted...

Reactions are welcome...

My post on Ana's post...

http://blog.electionnighthq.com/2008/02/12/ana-marie-coxswampland-whos-afraid-of-obama-or-the-huge-democratic-turnout-in-primaries-and-caucuses-thus-far/

Wider than between Kennedy and Nixon? Johnson and Goldwater? McGovern and Nixon? Check out the turnouts for those elections. Face it - the boomer voter, left or right, is lazy and irresponsible, and will cheerfully stay home if voting means missing a favorite rerun of "Gilligan's Island". Motivating the boomers - those voters that can be counted on to mindlessly vote the "right" way IF they bother to vote - has been a major campaign objective for both parties for decades now.

Fixed and another good point as to why McFossil will lose the general against Obama.

Southern Bell: "What's so frustrating is how the media is tilted toward Republicans. While most 'management' (that is, the owners of media outlets) are conservative, many reporters themselves vote Democrat. Which means they will always give the Republican the benefit of the doubt and be harder on the Democrat!"

The logic of that argument somehow escapes me. Could you please elaborate?

Southern Bell: "What's so frustrating is how the media is tilted toward Republicans. While most 'management' (that is, the owners of media outlets) are conservative, many reporters themselves vote Democrat. Which means they will always give the Republican the benefit of the doubt and be harder on the Democrat!"

The logic of that argument somehow escapes me. Could you please elaborate?

Admiral Obama will lead us to victory in Pakistan and Detroit, based on his keen understanding of military science...

1. Thinks Pensacola probably tastes a lot like Pepsi, only with half the calories.

2. Overheard recent House armed services committee discussion about Fort Lewis, immediately started humming "Heart of Rock & Roll".

3. During first eight months of initial Senate term he kept referring to DOD HQ as the "Pentangle".

4. Still can't find Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, or Pakistan on John Kerry's waterproofed map of Greater Cambodia.

5. Thinks a flag officer is an elevated school crossing guard in select East Coast suburbs.

6. Saw war hero John McCain on CNN talking from the Fort Bragg O-Club, automatically assumed chat location had something to do with Oprah.

7. General Powell asked him to visit the Gitmo BX some time. He said "Great, I love those cool California dirt bikes."

8. Demands our troops withdraw now from Philadelphia, NOLA, and Compton, since the civil wars there are most certainly lost, and those people really don't want us there anyway.

9. Never visited Pearl Harbor while in Hawaii, since he already owned enough Miki Moto and Maui Wowee.

10. Thinks Hitler, Stalin, Ho, and Castro were just misunderstood, and a lot of sensitive smiling would have made things all better at Yalta, Hanoi, Buchenwald, and the Bay of Pigs.

11. Whenever he's scheduled to meet someone about the 1st Cav, brings a tooth brush and a tube of Crest.

12. Told in no uncertain terms by Joe Biden that "NTC" stands for Nightly Talent Club. Believed it. Later blamed the evil Reagan years.

13. Convinced the Apollo space mission was named after a theater in Harlem, and has half a moon walk to prove it.

14. Believes the venerable Old Guard is comprised of Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez, and Jane Fonda, plus Ted Kennedy's liver.

15. Just another half-baked, half imported also-ran at the 2008 Senate Democrat Party Spelin Bee.

vicious maniac -

Cute, but you might want to check out the turnouts by age group in recent elections. Fossils vote. Kids don't.

TeresaKopec: Hillary has "won" against the GOP slime machine by still standing.

The ability to weather an attack is not the same as beating it back, Teresa. That's like me saying I can't die just because I woke up this morning; I can only say that I'm not dead yet.

I frankly don't know how she gets out of bed in the morning.

One leg on the floor, then another...just like everyone else.

I do think that there has been so much crap thrown at her that there is nothing more they can do.

Maybe there is an advantage to having a pre-smeared candidate, maybe not.

Obama on the other hand is completely undefined. And..the GOP will be happy to do that.

Yup. Unless the Dems, the Obama campaign, and good people like you and me do something about it, Teresa. Very few people deserve the treatment that, say, Max Cleland got.

..even my pretty alert, college grad stepson was telling me how great it was that Obama was a Muslim and what a good thing that was for America.

Hopefully you corrected him, Teresa. See, it's letting crap like that go unchallenged which is part of the problem, no matter who the candidate that's being talked about is.

TeresaKopec, I don't believe that your college grad stepson fits into the pretty alert category. He sounds a bit more like he may belong to the American Idol group. I have met not one person, and I deal with the public in my work, who thinks that Obama is muslim. If they do, I am not thinking that they will be in the voting crowd anyway... there may be NASCAR on that day...
I am not terribly concerned about Obama matching up with McCain. My gut tells me that more of the independets out there are left leaning. I can not imagine any body truly sitting on the fence between a man who opposes the war, and one who glories in it.
I do believe that Hillary would drive the independents toward McCain however. The Clintons had 8 years to change H.W. Bush's policy on Iraq, but did nothing, and Hillary voted for the current war, so the line is not so clear.
Regarding past primary turnouts, I feel that there is little relevence. This is a unique time... double wars, horrible sitting president, lame congress, failing economy, terrible world image, global terrorism, sky high energy prices,etc. People (especially young) are more informed, thanks mostly to the internet, and they are concerned, and Obama represents the only viable alternative to the politcs of the past which got us where we are now.

Grape-Crush -- Of course I corrected my stepson. He said he thought since Obama's middle name was Hussein he was a Muslim. (He's a good kid and thought that is was fine if Obama WAS Muslim.) I also corrected many, many people about Max Cleland and John Kerry's records during the last election. ANd I will support Obama to the hilt this election.

But it will not matter what we do if Obama doesn't do some of the heavy lifting himself. That is what killed John Kerry in 2004. And I'm afraid what will kill Obama this year.

jco73: "Regarding past primary turnouts, I feel that there is little relevence. This is a unique time..."

I hope you're right. Most of us that were around in 1968 would tell you that times were worse then - and the turnout was still very low.

I concurr with nick, not on the Republican strategy argument (or the refusal to acknowledge that Obama's lack of press access will naturally lead to less positive coverage without any Republican scheming required), but with regards to Obama fans "fast approaching cult status" and "reasoned arguments and policy choices stand no chance of getting through to them." This is a balloon that is easy to deflate. Obama is a FRESHMAN SENATOR WITH NO PREVIOUS NATIONAL EXPERIENCE. With George W. Bush we tried the "let's elect someone with minimal experience and see how they do" experiment. Are we supposed to believe that simply because Obama is a liberal the experiment will go better? Certainly he won't make the same kinds of mistakes as a conservative, but major mistakes he will certainly make.

Elvis Elvisberg: You attempted to point to "where Obama has done something politically unpopular in order to move forward toward a greater goal" by citing a bill that "passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0." That doesn't seem very politically unpopular to me.

To Robert Sullivan Robert Sullivan-

What Southern Bell meant was reporters will try to hide their bias by being harder on the Democrat, methinks. Don't know if it is true or not, but that is the argument she is putting forth.

Question Hillary-

Thanks for the projection!

smedley -

I thought it might be something like that - but it's a bit of a stretch.

(Sorry about the double post. It said "denied" the first time, but apparently posted anyway. Is there a way to "unpost" one of them?)

smedley -
I thought it might be something like that - but it's a bit of a stretch.

Not much of a stretch. Pretty basic human nature, to say nothing of the "working the refs" theory (a phrase coined by Bill Kristol). I don't think anyone would argue that Maureen Dowd is a liberal, I'd bet the farm she never voted for George W. Bush, but she won a Pulitzer for bashing Bill Clinton, and if she didn't hate Al Gore and John Kerry, she did one hell of an impersonation of it in her columns.

Robert Sullivan What I should have said was that I feel good about the turnout if and only if Obama is our candidate. If its Hillary all these newly energized voters will be very upset, and many will not participate in yet another election in which they like none of the candidates. Many people I have spoken with have told me that this is the first time in thier life that they actually want to vote for someone.
After the murder of Kennedy in 1968 there must have been a feeling of hoplessness. Lets bank on our hope staying with us this time, and if so I believe that you will see the turnout.

E Elvisberg writes:

"As to fighting back, he pressed back pretty convincingly against Clinton's claim that he had praised Reagan's ideas. That was pretty easy because the claim was demonstrably false..."

Why exactly was that claim "demonstrably false"? I watched that interview and I came away with the impression that he was praising Reagan and praising Republican ideas. I know the press didn't play it that way but that was when we were in the criticism = racism phase. Anything said about Obama that wasn't nice meant you were a Klansmen.

Cute, but you might want to check out the turnouts by age group in recent elections. Fossils vote. Kids don't.

Being that, until now, there wasn't a single frontrunner candidate in those recent elections that didn't stop warbling about the needs of the richest age group of Americans, old-fashioned partisan garbage, and blatant special interest pandering (you know, things boomers care about) there wasn't really a need for anyone else, let alone the young, to get involved. Why go to McDonalds, if the food will make you ill and Ronald personally promises to fart in your face afterwards?

You are right about me being cute though.

Jim, Foolish Literalist -

So all those idiots at Fox News are actually liberals criticizing liberals, and the idiots at "The Nation" are actually conservatives? Or does this formula hold only when convenient? Sorry, I don't but it.

jco73 -

I hope you're right.

vicious maniac -

Despite your rather crude turn of phrase, I agree with most of what you have to say. I just haven't seen much to convince me that younger voters are any better.

So all those idiots at Fox News are actually liberals criticizing liberals, and the idiots at "The Nation" are actually conservatives? Or does this formula hold only when convenient? Sorry, I don't but it.

Fox and the Nation are both ideologically dedicated outlets. I'm talking about a straight reporter, at ABC or the Washington Post, who get 200 emails a day screaming about liberal bias, and whose editor is going to ask if his/her story on the Pro-Life march is influenced by personal views. That person is going to be very careful not step over the line and might err on the side of caution. I think most reporters are college-educated, upper-middle class (sub)urbanites, and I suspect they think and vote like that demo (socially liberal, fiscal conservatives). But they are also herd creatures who repeat conventional wisdom, and the Beltway CW, for the last decade at least, has followed Republican thinking (George Bush is "resolute", John McCain is a "maverick", Al Gore exaggerates, John Kerry is a flip-flopper). Not one of those nuggets stands up to two minutes of reflection or examination, but how many times have you heard each one of them since 1999.

Robert Sullivan: "Most of us that were around in 1968 would tell you that times were worse then - and the turnout was still very low."

True, but 1968 was a HORRIBLE year, Robert Kennedy was murdered and McCarthy lost the nomination to Humphrey. A lot of very, very stupid liberal Democrats couldn't lower themselves to vote for poor old Humphrey, whom they'd demonized the way today's lot demonizes HRC, and they stayed home and sulked while Nixon squeaked out a victory.

What I meant is that the so-called "liberal" media, if it indeed tilts Democratic, is no advantage to Democratic candidates because part of being liberal is trying to be fair! Watch David Brooks and Mark Shields on NewsHour. Both are very intellegent talking heads but Shields honestly tries to take a non-partisan view when discussing politics and Brooks almost always uses his airtime to defend the Republican position. On the Newshour Shields sees himself as a reporter called to analyze politics in a fair way and Brooks sees himself as a conservative whose mission is to spread the gospel.

So, no one should assume Obama will keep getting such glowing praise from the media. You can tell by reading recent Howard Fineman and Jonathan Alter columns that they find Obama exciting. But by the time September rolls around I'm sure they both will have picked Obama apart and not be so enthralled.

As for Obama's being more hawkish, I meant his ads. If he wins the nomination he has to beef up his ads and appear more strong on security issues.

gyrfalcon-

The differences between Humphrey and McCarthy were huge regarding the Vietnam war. There is not that big of a gulf between HRC and Obama.

The media is partially to blame with what is going on within the Democratic party. I’m disappointed at the overwhelmingly biased approach most news organizations have taken in regards to the current democratic Presidential race. It is obvious they are pushing Obama no matter what. Isn't the media supposed to be somewhat objective? Aren’t we (the public) supposed to make up our minds by ourselves as to who is the best candidate? Why aren’t they reporting information such like:
http://thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://obamatruth.org/
They throw trash at every other candidate while painting Obama as a saint. Well saints shouldn’t be in politics. All I’m asking is for unbiased news….not partisan opinions.

BTW check out “Beating a Dead Donkey” on http://www.savagepolitics.com

Ana - unlike others, I will be brief.

In 1980 and 1988, Hillary won. No wonder turnout for Dems dropped off!

Joe Klein.

Next question.

Wider than between Kennedy and Nixon?

No. Very little difference there.

Johnson and Goldwater?

Wider in that race

McGovern and Nixon?

About the same.

What's your point? That the Stevenson voters failure to turnout cost Kennedy a landslide?

If you want to look at relevant races, consider 1980.

But there is no way that Dem voters are staying home so that McCain can keep the republican authoritarian project going.

Jim foolish literalist writes:

"Actually, the tipping point for me in going for Obama was that I think he will take a more sophisticated and effective approach to foreign policy than Hillary "Kyl-Lieberman" Clinton."

Since you mentioned the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, Hillary voted yea, but Obama didn't vote at all. I agree with you that I think it's a bad idea to give Bush any wiggle room at all but if Obama thought is was such a bad idea, the least he could have done was register his vote.

"PDATE: Headline typo fixed. Yipes. "

you put the AFRI
can't

where it don't belong.

obama will bury the ole' GoP.

Two observations: Obama in his recent speeches talks about education and the need for parents to help out by turning off the TV and the video games....that seems to me to be a reach out to moderate conservatives and independents. Secondly, did you see who was on the stage with McCain last night in his victory speech - a whole stage-full of white guys (and a few white gals), most of them old and tired looking. As Chris Matthews said afterwards: McCain should plan on speaking BEFORE Obama next time because the comparison wa stark, not only in oratory but also in energy.

McCain will be out there, holding court on his bus or his plane, providing unfettered access to both reporters and voters,

Translation:

Since McCain treats us real nice like, we in the media will never actually expose him for the fraud that he is because it's like high school all over again and we finally -- FINALLY! -- have the attention of the kewl kids.

So we'll never mention how he screams and insults those who disagree with him, even fellow Republicans ... we won't mention how he dumped his wife -- the one who stayed loyal while he was in a POW camp -- as soon as a new hottie came along ... we won't mention that his foreign policy philosophy is "Bomb them. Then bomb then again, even if it takes 1,000,000 years." ... we won't share the fact McCain admitted he knows nothing about the economy or economics ... we won't point out all his missed votes ... we won't point out his flip-flopping on key issues, including bills he sponsored.

Nope. He's nice to us. So we'll just keep calling him a "maverick" and keep performing typographical fellatio on him.

Because he's nice to us.

**sigh**

Once we get some effective governance, can we PLEASE get an effective media?

العاب ،
دليل ،
منتديات ،
منتدى ،
مسجات ،
افلام ،
العاب سيارات ،
بيجامات ،
اكسسورات للموبايل ،
اكسسورات للجوال ،
فساتين اطفال ،
العاب طبخ ،
العاب الطبخ ،
القران الكريم ،
رسول الله ،
محاضرات ،
خطب ،
فيديو ،
صور ،
بلوتوث ،
برامج ،
برامج جوال ،
باربي ،
العاب تلبيس ،
نغمات ،
ازياء ،
أزياء ،
موضه ،
موضة ،
طبخ ،
مكياج ،
اناشيد ،
اناشيد مشاري العفاسي ،
عبايات ،
زهير مراد ،
احذيه ،
بدلات ،
ازياء روعه ،
مريم الحمادي ،
نقوش حنه ،
مكياج 2008 ،
مناكير ،
اقنعة للوجه ،
احمر شفاه ،
فتوح الفهد ،
اذان مكة ،
اناشيد طيور الجنة ،
اناشيد اطفال ،
اناشيد جديدة ،
أناشيد ،
تحميل اناشيد ،
دعاء ،
وظائف ،
توظيف ،
طب ،
صحه ،
شعر ،
شعر صوتي ،
خواطر ،
خواطر قصيرة ،
قصص ،
قصص قصيرة ،
قصص مرعبة ،
قصص حقيقية ،
قصص رومنسية ،
قصص اطفال ،
قصص واقعية ،
فساتين سهرة ،
فساتين ،
فساتين اعراس ،
جلابيات ،
جلابيات اليشمك ،
ديكور ،
الطفل ،
المرأة ،
مسجات ،
ديكورالمنزل ،
ديكور الحديقة ،
تصاميم ديكور ،
ديكور المطبخ ،
ستائر ،
مفارش ،
زفة العروس ،
زفات عروس ،
موديلات عروس ،
العروس ،
مسكات عروس ،
صور مكياج ،
مكياج جديد ،
العاب بنا ت ،
العاب للبنات فقط ،
العاب بنات ،
العاب اطفال ،
العاب زوارق ،
العاب بحرية ،
العاب كمبيوتر ،
العاب قتال ،
العاب حرب ،
العاب رياضية ،
العاب دراجات ،
العاب دراجات نارية ،
العاب السيارات ،
العاب اكشن ،
العا ب ،
ألعاب ،
نكت ،
مسجات حب ،
مسجات رومنسية ،
مسجات عراقية ،
مسجات مصرية ،
مسجات فراق ،
مسجات عتب ،
مسجات زعل ،
مسجات غرام ،
مسجات هيام ،
العاب كمبيوتر ،
تحميل العاب ،
مسجات جديدة ،
احلى المسجات ،
مسجات 2008 ،
مسجات غزل ،
نكت محششين ،
نكت 2008 ،
نكت جديدة ،
العاب فلاش ،
كورة ،
كرة قدم ،
اخبار الرياضة ،
رياضة ،
تحميل برامج ،
برامج كمبيوتر ،
تحميل برامج ،
كراك ،
سيريل ،
برامج جديدة