You don’t think I’ve read what Mr. Obama said? I read it.

With Ralph Nader in the race, that’s Ralph Nader, Mr. Gore nonetheless defeated BushCo. and, decidedly came up with more than 50% of the vote… Between the two major candidates.

I’m looking for the way Obama appeals to those people, I don’t see it and it’s not what he said, either.

He’s talking nonsense.

And his Social Security pose is just another rap.

The Truth sucks, eh Kos.

Gore was a terrible candidate. Yeah, I get it, he got more votes. But after the Clinton years, it should have been a cakewalk.

Hey, personally I loved Gore and Kerry, but personality was not their strong suit. And John Edwards is a snore, you think he got any voters excited as a VP. Nah.

So thank you, Oliver Willis for your fair and balanced coverage of Obama. You raised issues, but also saw both sides.

Kos is a lying sack of crap. Says he is undecided, BS. He has Edwards campaign blog site on his blogroll twenty times to Obama’s once.

Obama is my Senator and I worked locally on his Senate run and people couldn’t wait to vote for him. He is as liberal as any candidate out there, but how would I know, I only watch him, unlike the liars club, DailyKos.

Four instead of three: it’s even worse that I initially said.

Gore didn’t garner fifty percent of the votes cast. He got more votes than Bush, but he only got about 48.4 % of the votes cast (Bush got about 47.9 %). More than Bush, yes, but not a majority– a plurality.

Sad fact: Who was the last Demcratic Candidate for President that got more than 50 percent of the vote?

Jimmy Carter in 1976. Over 30 years ago. Over Thirty Years Ago!

Since then, Republicans have won 3 elections with more than 50 percent of the popular vote (Reagan twice, and Bush Sr.). Clinton’s “landslide” in 1996 was the result of 49.2 % of the vote — again, not a majority! In 1992, Clinton won with only 43 %, thanks to Perot. I’m glad Clinton won both elections, but he never won a majority of the votes cast.

I happen to think that, in a 2 party system, not getting a majority of the vote for over 30 years is a problem for Democrats. Others may not find it a problem, but I do.

How we address it is a different matter, but stating that it’s an important issue is not bashing Democrats. It’s a fact.

What does Joe Trippi know?

It’s not like Obama said that the last Democrat to win was Al Gore. He was entirely truthful, Al Gore merely won the election.

Sheesh, and people would listen to Joe? C’mon! We can win on Repoublican issues, Even if they don’t have any.

Sheesh. It’s not like Obama wants to put Social Security away.

He wants to expand the number of people who will vote for Democrats to more than fifty-one percent (Even those bloggers who say “Gore won!” don’t say “Gore won a landslide”… because he didn’t.)

He’s also making a perfectly valid point that a huge percentage of the populaion say they won’t consider voting for Hillary. Some of them may end up doing so but I’m pretty sure that most people who say that indeed won’t vote for her .. while they may end up voting for another Democrat.

I’m pretty disgusted with the piling on by the big blogs about this quote. If you can’t make a gloss on the true nature of the elctorate without being called essentially a traitor, then what do these people want?

Again, here’s what Obama said, according to ABC “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 and 2000. 47 percent of the country on one side, 47 percent of the country on the other . . . We don’t need another one of those elections.”

There’s no slam against Gore or Kerry in that.

I’ve already seen the outrage machine crank up over this so I presume it’s too late for the big bloggers to back down. But it’s pretty pathetic of them to get all hot and bothered over that gloss of the real state of electoral politics.