Why Obama Can't Close the Sale

An interesting opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal wondering why Obama can't seal the deal. I asked the same question one week ago. The other problem is the more he sounds like the Democratic controlled Congress with the lowest approval ratings in American history, the less people will flock to him. For the positive coverage he haws recieved, it is amazing where he is in the polls.

The authors of this article have their own thoughts.

A few of their ideas:

Mr. Obama has proposed a massive tax increase on investors, business owners, and the "wealthy." At a time when the American people rate the economy as the central issue of the campaign, a tax hike doesn't make a lot of political sense. Voters know that a tax hike won't help the economy.

Mr. Obama claims to offer a tax cut to moderate-income families, but a significant portion of Mr. Obama's tax plan is a welfare giveaway costing more than $648 billion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

About 38% of U.S. households pay no income tax today. Under a President Obama (whose policies would shave 15.3 million households off the tax rolls) that share would grow to nearly half of all American households.

We have been repeatedly told that everyone should pay their fair share. So this sounds grossly unfair and like a return of tax-and-spend liberal economics. No wonder there is a lot of doubt about the wisdom of the junior senator from Illinois.

Read the rest at:


No votes yet

At a time when the American people rate the economy as the central issue of the campaign, a tax hike doesn't make a lot of political sense. Voters know that a tax hike won't help the economy

If you consider the fact the Obama's plan would restore rates to what they were in the Clinton era, and the economy was humming back then---then it makes more sense to do so than the author lets on.

Pink Slip

if Obama proposed to cut taxes or raise taxes, if he proposed to keep the war going for 10 more years or ending it tomorrow, if he proposed a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage or hog head cheese on bread and a pair of walking shoes, if he was the Republican nominee or the Democratic nominee, if he is pro life or pro choice, anti gay or pro gay rights, of he is catholic, muslim, hindu, evangelical or anti-denominational. He can't close the deal because America is NOT READY for a black president. What does that say to his children?

Shame on US!

Why do you try and make everything racial?

This guy is not fit to be President because he is a Socialist. PERIOD.

I was praying that Dr. Condoleezza Rice would run for the Republican nomination since she is intelligent, well spoken, and a conservative.

"Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004."

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

gee Libs, I just looked all over the web and can't find squat about Condi Rice being nominated for President.

prayers afforded nothing.

we're stuck with what you politicos nominated.

and with the offerings you present, I've made my choice

I'm voting Obama.

and you can research all you want and post everything to think you're distracting from the point.

The three options have been selected and nothing you can do to change that..

may the best man win.

I would have LOVED to see Colin Powell run! At first, he was 'bambozzled' into siding with Bush for the start of the war in Iraq, but the man had morals and decided he'd had enough of that sh*t and bailed!

Almost everyone I have talked to thought the same thing about Powell running. Why didn't he? (Other than the fact he's probably WAY too smart to run!)

He's one of few men I'd ask to shake hands with!

Colin Powell supports Obama

Pink Slip

I hear people talking about it but I don't see Powell coming out and saying it. Do you have a credible source that says this?

And before you say he is advising Obama, Bush was advising Clinton almost a year ago, so I don't thing advising means an endorsement.

Well according to Robert Novak and William Kristol, they expected Powell to endorse Obama. They even reported he was going to speak at the convention. No official endorsement, but it say a lot.

Pink Slip

So by your logic America is going to be unready for either:
1. A black president
2. A female vice president

It's kind of a ridiculous argument to make when you look at it like that.

by many others - you are the bigot here, purnhrt. YOU are the one that keeps bringing up the racial implications. You are the one that promotes prejudice. For Christ's sake, QUIT CRYING POOR ME, I'M A VICTIM!

In a different subject, you had made some statements, and I respectfully asked for some supporting facts so that I might see for myself whether or not these facts were true. You ignored those requests or haven't had the decency to answer. It is my perception that you perceive me as 'your enemy' - a white (I'm not) and so you feel that I do not deserve an answer to my questions.

Your right, purnhrt: Not a single white voted for Obama over Clinton in the Dem race. The news media is giving him WAY more media exposure only 'cause he's black. They're also picking on Palin just for appearances - so it's not so obvious the whites are against a black man being in high office - just to kind of make things look more 'even'.

Did I miss anything? Oh yea....the whites don't care that Obama is is going to raise taxes. No! Hell, they'd rather go broke paying taxes than have a black president!

Now that should make you happy and justify your racist views.

Like LibCanBlowMe asked "Why do you try and make everything racial?"

(You really should change your name from 'purnhrt' to 'racist2thecore'

I made this presidential election racial? You have got to be on something!

You, who have acknowledged in an earlier post that you are black and a rabid Democrat, said "America is NOT READY for a black president."

And I, a white, middle-aged, rabid Republican, am ARGUING WITH YOU that America IS ready for a black president. All I said was that America is not ready for a socialist, which is what Obama is.

Think about this for one second.

Maybe you should take another look at the Republican party. Because, since you are a Democrat, you have come to the conclusion that "America is NOT READY for a black president". Looks like you are less open minded and accepting than THIS Republican and I suspect many more average Republicans.

I think the Republican party is way more tolorant than you have been led to believe.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

How is Obama anymore a socialist than these supply-siders that have been running the gov't for 30 years?

Pink Slip

Condaleesa Rice is so great and good to be the presidential nominee, why was she not picked for the VP spot?

With a resume like she has, hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

While Obama and Hillary were still duking it out for the Democratic nomination, I thought Condi Rice would be a very smart choice for the Republican VP candidate. She obviously has solid credentials, and both her race and gender could have intrigued Hillary and/or Obama supporters.

But if memory serves me correctly, I think she went on record way back then stating that she had no interest in the spot. (I'll have to Google and see if I can find some documentation for that.)

P.S. Libs...let's not be unrealistic. There are people who won't vote for Obama because of his race. Yes, I'm sure that there are also some people who are primarily voting for Obama because of his race too...but which group do you think has bigger numbers?

(Whether he wins or loses though, it can still be considered a milestone and a sign of progress that he received a major party nomination and is quite a popular candidate.)

It's hard to elect someone if they do not run for the office.

And the LOOSERS who did run turned me off totally.

I want a Conservative as President. Not a RINO like McCain.

I want to throw out the Republican bums who spent my money like drunken Democrats at a Frat Party.
I want to know what Sandy Burgher STOLE FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES. I want to see a witch-hunt for William Jefferson (D) Louisana, and see subpoenas for WHY he had 100's of thousands of dollars in his freezer and why HE IS STILL IN CONGRESS.

I wanted to see Congressional Inquiries into WHO LEAKED CLASSIFIED INFO to the press.

I wanted to see the Republicans in Congress TEAR THE HELL OUT OF DEMOCRATS the same way Dems have torn up Republicans for years. I wanted to see a blood-bath and less spending.

Instead, Republicans had their spines surgically removed by trying to "get along" with Democrats.

And Republicans in Congress still don't get it.

Why are people excited by Sara Palin? Because she embodies all the qualities I wanted to see. She is a Conservative. She has a reputation as a ball-buster. She EARNED her nick-name, "Sarah barracuda" and I want to see ANY Republican go after Dems the same way Dems have been tearing into Republicans for years.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

by admitting she smoked the 'erb.

Ask Gonzales;

"Gonzales 'Couldn't Remember' Combo for His Safe

Former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales failed to keep classified documents in a secure location in his Alexandria home, claiming that he simply "couldn't remember the combination" on an in-home safe three years ago.

Instead, the documents, which contained "top secret" information about the now much-discussed warrantless wiretapping program and detainee interrogations, according to a report released yesterday, were placed in his briefcase or elsewhere in his home."


First and foremost I am not arguing with you. I don't argue with my family and people that I know and love so why should I be arguing with some one who I don't even know?

I sure would like to know when I said that I was a rabid Democrat. I have stated here and on others posts, blogs and threads that I am an Independent, that I vote for the person (platform) not the party.

Maybe I was not clear on the statement “America is not ready for a black president.” I maybe should have said that white America is not ready for a black president. Think about that for a second.

I am open minded in accepting any person for president regardless of their color, race or creed. I really am not led to believe too much of anything. I form my own opinions. The Republican party is not my party of choice and from what we have had in the Top Job for 8 years is good reason for me to be distrustful of the Republican party with a president who uses lies to institute his policies.

I have voted for Republicans, ask Chris Myers, although he was not in the voting booth with me when I pulled the lever, I have voted for him twice over Democrats, white and black. male and female.

Are you ok? I don’t know if you are male or female, black white or other but your paternalistic attitude with the words “as you’ve been told many times before by many others” towards me is reprehensible. I am not a victim, have never been a victim and don’t intend to be a victim. How can you tell me to change my name to anything? If you don’t like me or my name hit the ignore button! Otherwise, stop getting your underwear in a bunch because I am not obligated to answer anything for you.

Oh and for the record, how could I perceive you as my enemy, when I don’t know you?

did not run for president because his wife said "H" no. She knows the climate in America and refused to "allow" her husband to participate in what the Obama family is going through now. I think they were interview in either Ebony Magazine or Essence.

for the American public he didn't run. He was smart - or his wife was - in not campaigning!

He struck me as a very intelligent and level-headed man. Thoughtful and reserved but with a very subtle sense of humor. My wife called him "dynamic" and "very personable". She was surprised by how he was able to hold the crowds attention.

I would have voted for him in a heartbeat and still would.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

It is amazing how many of you will vote for Colin Powell and Condalezza Rice. Except they aren't running for anything.

An African proverb states, "The ruin of a nation begins in the homes of it's people."
When mothers abdicate their duties of being a mother, it does not bode well for the children or a nation.

Because you are obviously a sexist.

Let me quote your post again.
"When mothers abdicate their duties of being a mother, it does not bode well for the children or a nation."

Yet apparently it is OK for you if men abdicate their duties of being a father? And "white America is not ready for a black President" right? At least according to you and your apparent bigotry towards women and whites.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

McCain can't read a teleprompter.

...The Republicans did exactly what they wished. George Bush has spent money that he did not raise in taxes, and now these "deficits" must be financed through bonds sold on the world market. There are a number of options, though. We could do away with Medicare. Those who could afford to buy private insurance could continue to live while the rest would see a shortened life expectancy of a few years. This would also lower the incomes of doctors who now depend on Medicare payments for the majority of their incomes.

If we as a society are going to pay for health care we should consider the future consumers and taxpayers. Money for health care should go to the young rather than the old. But it is political suicide for anyone to suggest this until the right to vote is removed from those who accept Social Security.

Old South End Broadway

The only reason that the public opinion polls are as close as they are is racism, pure and simple. I do not, however, believe that "white America" will not vote for an African-American as President. I do believe that many white Americans will not vote for an African-American as President. But, then again, the majority of white Americans seldom vote for any Democratic candidate for President. Without the vote of racial minorities, Democratic candidates for President would have no chance to win. Therfore, I don't think that Obama's race loses him very many white votes that, say, Hillary Clinton would have won instead.

But Obama may lose enough white votes another Democrat would have won this year to cost him the victory. After the total debacle of eight years of the economic disaster that has been the borrow and spend Republican fiscal folly, and the fighting of an unnecessary and very costly war, any Democratic nominee should be running away with the presidential race, unless the candidate was black or the candidate was a woman. I truly believe that the Democratic primary season brought to the top, the two people in Clinton and Obama who would make the best President of the United States from among the declared candidates. Sometimes choosing the best possible person to actually serve as President is, however, not the best move to win the presidential election.

It will be another close election. May the best person to run this country for the next four years win! Every four years, when the presidential election winner is declared, I pray that the winner is the best President our nation has ever had. I will do so again this November no matter who wins. America needs nothing less than the best.

There's something wrong with your math. In a "normal" turnout, a Democrat can't win the White House without a majority of the white vote (at least until we grant amnesty to 20 million illegals). But math's not the main issue I'd take with your post. It's the ISM's, particularly the assumption of racISM.

BO's not objectionable to me (or I'd guess most white people, since I happen to be one and know a few)because of racISM. He's objectionable to me because of MarxISM -- or if that makes y'all too uncomfortable, let's call it progessivISM, or socialISM.

Further, he's got nothing on his resume to suggest anything other than his political opportunISM and leftist radicalISM.

Give me Condi Rice (who may be too smart to ever run) or Gen Powell (who's too left-leaning for my liking, but who's judgement, service and personal honor I greatly admire) at the top or #2 spot on a ticket, and they've probably got my vote.

By comparison to these leaders, BO's a lightweight with a really fuzzy, somewhat troubling, biography -- and it's only the soft racISM of lowered expectations about this particular man that has even put him in this position. In large measure, he's gotten a pass b/c of what he is, not what he's done. Even BO's VP choice said as much in the primaries.

Apparently the accusation of racISM works (at least with Dem voters anyway), or they'd have Sen Clinton as their nominee today. But please take that "racism pure and simple" canard and use it somewhere it works (like the D party) and don't paint "white America" with that brush.

Hari "Raven" Seldon
"Putting the psycho in history since 0 F.E."

Hari "Raven" Seldon
"Putting the psycho in history since 0 F.E."


Don't misinterpret what I wrote. I clearly stated that most of white America could vote for and accept an African-American as President. You imply that I am stating that most whites are racist. I stated clearly that there are SOME whites who would never vote for any African-American candidate for President, whether that be Obama, Condi Rice, or Colin Powell. And those racist votes are the difference between where Obama stands in the current polls, and where an exciting white Democrat would now stand in the polls. If you cannot accept that analysis, you are either extremely naive or living in denial of the very existence of racism.

As far as Democratic presidential candidates NOT needing a majority of white votes to win the presidency, I'm afraid that you have to do some math work. In many of our largest states, whites comprise 80-85% of the eligible voters. Democrats, obviously, must get a good chunk of that 80%, but they don't need a majority. Why? Because a typical Democratic candidate will get 80% or more of the minority (primarily black and Hispanic) vote. This would give that average Democratic candidate a percentage margin of about 12% of the total vote over his/her Republican opponent BEFORE counting the white votes. In this quite common scenario, the Democrat needs only to get somewhat less than 45% of the white vote to win that state and its electoral votes.

Back in the early 1990s, when racism in this nation was worse than it is now, a former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, won the Republican nomination to be Governor of Louisiana. All national Republican leaders denounced him and his candidacy; however, Duke garnered 55% of the white vote. Duke lost the race because his Democratic opponent, garnered 95% of the African-American vote that year.(I've often wondered what the other 5% were thinking when they voted for David Duke.)

Equating Marxism with Socialism or Progressiveism is often done by Fascists masquerading as "conservatives". I'll just bet that you think Hitler and Mussolini weren't such bad guys. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize ahead of time.

So, I guess, in summation, it has little or nothing to do with his tax increase on investors and business owners; his proposed welfare giveaway costing $648 billion over 10 years; cutting 15.3 million households off the tax which leaves a smaller proportion of the populace to pick up the money lost or some of the other economy related issues is he proposing. The current economic situation is not entering into the voters decisions.

And you're also saying that his associations with a terrorist in addition to his close ties to a so-called 'minister' - an avowed racist who holds the U.S.A. in contempt isn't the sole motivator for his "not closing the sale."

That the 'main' reason is that he is black and the whites (or non-blacks) are using the other reasons as an excuse - "the white 'code words'" as someone else has said.


I guess we can agree on some things. Today's headlines in the Blade should "close the deal" for anyone living in Toledo!

I truly believe that our social and political views are, generally, closely aligned.

For you to say that I am bigoted towards women is just plain stupid.

I marched, fought, burned a bra or two for the rights of women during the feminist women’s lib movement, when black women (my sisters) did not need liberating.

My female ancestors were liberated into the job market as field hands right along the side of men with the same pay, long before white women wanted to get out of the kitchen. My mother and other black women of her era always were liberated to work. These women cleaned white women’s houses and took care of the children of the house. Then they had to go home and take care of their families.

I have daughters, nieces, granddaughters, cousins, friends, neighbors and women that I don’t even know that I have the highest respect and admiration for simply because of the glass ceiling that they have to hit their heads on every day, women who don’t have all of the resources available to them to be what they want to be simply because they are women.

What I am bigoted towards are women (with all resources available to them) who birth children and then instead of holding, hugging, feeding, changing, teaching, talking to and nurturing them, choose instead to hand that baby over to others to raise because of their own self centered, egotistical and political wants and needs.

"What I am bigoted towards are women (with all resources available to them) who birth children and then instead of holding, hugging, feeding, changing, teaching, talking to and nurturing them, choose instead to hand that baby over to others to raise because of their own self centered, egotistical and political wants and needs."

Yet you do not mention men/fathers anywhere. Is it OK then for men/fathers to abdicate their responsibilities and pursue careers because of their own self centered, egotistical and political wants and needs?

Why can't people, men and women, do both? Because, according to your answer, I am led to believe that you either want women to stay home and raise kids OR you don't think men have any bearing on raising a child.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

I have written about fathers, my own included. You must have missed it and I don't remember which thread it was on.

As I have stated before, the roles of male and female have become increasingly blurred. I will even say that the "traditional" roles of male and female have become blurred. If God wanted men to take care of babies, he would have had them come out of a man's body. Babies develop and come out of a woman's body. The first years in the life of a baby should be spent closely bonded with the mother. Fathers should be involved but not to the extent mothers are. Fathers should provide the financial and emotional aid that the mothers need.

If men want to stay home with the baby after the baby becomes three years old then I would have no problem with that. Then the mother can advance her career and the father can be a "stay at home dad."

Women are endowed with attributes that men don't have to take care of babies, such as smaller and more graceful hands. There are many more but I don't feel the need to expound on this issue any longer.

Sarah needs to be home with her baby, not traipsing across the country with her "soul mate" John McCain who is George Bush's soul mate.



Your silence increases my curiosity. What do you think of old Adolph and Benito??? And what do you have to say about my math?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.