Why Obama should withdraw (Chicago Tribune)

[Odysseus]

The Tribune has been a conservative newspaper for a long time, its just the openly biased blogosphere has moved the goalposts.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The Tribune is the more conservative of Chicago's papers (the Sun-Times is the liberal paper), but it isn't as conservative as, say, the NY Post. Regardless, it's still one of two of Obama's hometown papers, and this has to sting.

BTW, if the blogosphere is "openly biased", what does that make the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC?

[KhrushchevsShoe]

You just lumped a lot of names into one category. The NY Times is nowhere near as biased as MSNBC.

[Starbuck]

Well, now, the article wasn't all that conservative; it suggested replacing Obama with Hillary.

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover.

All that is true, but it is also true that Mr Bill never got 50% of the popular vote. She's popular for the moment, but she won't run, and she has said so. It is easy to be popular when there is no one throwing stones at you.

[Sonnabend]

Colonel, could you look at my post on page one and give me an assessment? Am I wrong?

If so, what's your view?

[Odysseus]

I don't think he has a choice. He can run and possibly lose by a small margin, lose by a landslide...or scrape in a win. With his numbers as they are,. and his support diminishing every day, to run for re election may be a gamble that will backfire badly.

Obama is not a gambler, he plays it safe and hides behind the Dems skirts..but even they have had enough of his idiocy.

My guess is he will see if the situation improves and run, or step back and be a one term president. The issue then is :

Can the Republicans field a viable and valid candidate, and one that has a chance of winning.

Romney: a non starter..he doesnt have what it takes and the fact he lost in the last primary runoffs means even if he tries, he wont have broad enough support to maintain that impetus.

Huckabee is finished.

Thompson bowed out early, and his campaign was halfassed to start with. Another non starter.

McCain lost the last one, and i can't see him running again,. His shenanigans with Governor Palin screwed him bigtime, the issue is his potential VP running mate cant trust him and his staff to not bury the hatchet..in them. The abuse meted out to Governor Palin is a clear warning that McCains staff will scapegoat them if they lose.His credibility is shot.

Ron Paul is a sick joke, his son is a nutter, both are morons, and neither commands enough support to even consider running again. We can expect more RonDroids to come out of the woodwork..he appeals to the lunatic fringe only.

No one will vote for the village idiot and his apprentice.

Nader is a wedge issue only, and has no clear majority, nor does he have the support of anyone worth mentioning.

Perry is the possible front runner..and so far the only one. But if he is to run he better get started and soon, he will be running against an incumbent and that will make it harder for him to gain a foothold.

So this is the nub of it: The GOP had better get started and field a valid candidate soon..otherwise expect another four years of that golfaholic absentee in the Oval.

It says a lot that in the one crowning moment, the one where he could have solidified support and be seen as a good President, all that has been heard about his "decisions" is that he didn't have the guts to make one. He dithered and ummed and aahed, others made the call he was too much of a coward to make himself.

Then he tried to take credit, and people laughed.

On top of all of that, Obama is a Muslim apologist, and an appeaser. He has kissed up to America's enemies, and the First Sasquatch has proved she doesnt give a shit about anyone but herself.

Obama may gamble and run again, my best guess is he won't...or he will withdraw at the last moment. The emperor has no clothes and no brains.

And even those who voted for him now ask themselves why they did it.

I think that he will, if for no other reason than no other Democrat will take the chance. There are three possible scenarios to this: Obama defeats a primary challenger, but is so damaged that he limps into the general election and gets clobbered. Obama is defeated by a primary challenger, who then has to explain to black voters why he/she took the nomination away from the first black president, and why they should still vote Democratic, which would mean that the Dems would go into the general election with about 20% of their base absent, which would translate to an epic defeat. The third, and least likely, is that a leftward challenge makes it possible for Obama to tack to the center and BS enough voters into thinking that he's not as far left as his rivals, and he manages to eke out a win, but that's highly unlikely. Obama can't win the primaries as a centrist, as the Democratic base is too radicalized. Perry, Bachmann or pretty much any other conservative could beat Obama in the general election. The tricky part is when you get a RINO like Romney or Huntsman who turns off the base getting the nomination. If that happens, it's a much tougher road to the White House, and much less good will come of a Republican victory.

You just lumped a lot of names into one category. The NY Times is nowhere near as biased as MSNBC.

You're kidding, right? The NY Times OPED pages features Frank Rich, Paul Krugman and a host of other loons who are just as far to the left as the MSNBC talking heads, and the news reported by the Times is so slanted that if you don't brace yourself to the right when you read it, you'll fall over. It's hard to find a paper that is more biased, and less willing to admit it, than the Times.

[Sonnabend]

I left out Pawlenty. The guy seems to be a cipher, a non entity.

Would he run ? Yes? No?

[fettpett]

You just lumped a lot of names into one category. The NY Times is nowhere near as biased as MSNBC.

:eek: you're joking right? NYT is probably worse than PMSNBC, only cuz they've done it longer


As for Chicago media, the Tribune is MORE conservative than the Sun-Times, but not by much. About the only big media outlet that IS Conservative is 890AM WLS, very little liberal talk on there.

[KhrushchevsShoe]

You're kidding, right? The NY Times OPED

Stopped reading there. Its one thing to complain about opinion pages, but the paper itself is quite a different entity.

[KhrushchevsShoe]

:eek: you're joking right? NYT is probably worse than PMSNBC, only cuz they've done it longer


As for Chicago media, the Tribune is MORE conservative than the Sun-Times, but not by much. About the only big media outlet that IS Conservative is 890AM WLS, very little liberal talk on there.

890 just parrots talk radio opinion shows, I think it straight rebroadcasts most of the big ones. I wouldn't call it a big media outlet either, most people listen to 780 or no radio at all.

[AmPat]

I left out Pawlenty. The guy seems to be a cipher, a non entity.

Would he run ? Yes? No?

I see Ron Paul as a nutter but Rand Paul seems pretty solid to me. Why do you classify him as a nutter?