930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: ratioci nation on February 12, 2008, 02:35:00 am
-
Obama supporters, please go out and vote today.
Hillary voters, please entertain yourself for the day with this:
:D
-
Not every female in the country is a Hillary supporter...
<img src="http://www.gretchenpowers.com/ava/images/obamagirl.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
I'll continue to "waste my vote" and not vote in the primary. I despise every single person in the race at the moment, and plan to vote for Nader if he does end up running. Otherwise I'll write in Kucinich as normal.
Just because I am not voting does not make me uninformed. I would prefer not putting a vote to someone I do not like than giving someone support I cannot stand.
-
Would you care to share what is it about the two remaining Republican and two remaining Democrat candidates that make you so strongly despise each of them?
Originally posted by -kat-:
I'll continue to "waste my vote" and not vote in the primary. I despise every single person in the race at the moment, and plan to vote for Nader if he does end up running. Otherwise I'll write in Kucinich as normal.
Just because I am not voting does not make me uninformed. I would prefer not putting a vote to someone I do not like than giving someone support I cannot stand.
-
Originally posted by -kat-:
Otherwise I'll write in Kucinich as normal.
Kucinich was still on the ballot in Virginia. It was tempting.
-
Based on my wife's experience this morning (below), apparently you still can vote for Kucinich if you live in VA....
I wonder why the Dem ballot had all these names on there...Kucinich, Biden, etc. who have already dropped out? I wonder if people vote for them, is that a thrown away vote, then (yes) and I wonder if this will take potential votes away from Obama (or Hillary)... Why don't they just have Hillary and Obama on there?
-
I vote for Kucinich as the cuddliest candidate. Other than that, he has no chance.
Originally posted by -kat-:
... and plan to vote for Nader if he does end up running. Otherwise I'll write in Kucinich as normal.
-
Politics aside, if Dennis Kucinich is "normal", god help us all.
Originally posted by -kat-:
I'll continue to "waste my vote" and not vote in the primary. I despise every single person in the race at the moment, and plan to vote for Nader if he does end up running. Otherwise I'll write in Kucinich as normal.
Just because I am not voting does not make me uninformed. I would prefer not putting a vote to someone I do not like than giving someone support I cannot stand.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Would you care to share what is it about the two remaining Republican and two remaining Democrat candidates that make you so strongly despise each of them?
Ahem. There are 4 republicans that are technically still in it, you forgot Keyes and Paul. I myself will be voting Paul.
Hmm, and I think Gravel technically hasn't "dropped out".
-
no voting for me today
<img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00092ZM7U.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
wow, I would have thought after the last 8 years people would realize the lesser of evils isnt always a bad thing, but rock on
- a former Nader voter
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
wow, I would have thought after the last 8 years people would realize the lesser of evils isnt always a bad thing, but rock on
- a former Nader voter
"
-
<img src="http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b164/digger48/Hillary/aHillary_SenateWebcam.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
As many have said before, if you can't vote for someone then vote against someone.
I too am "indie" so I'm locked out of the Maryland primaries.
-
Voted for McCain this morning. The only person I trust out of all of them.
-
I trust him too. I just don't like what he's asking me to trust him to do.
Originally posted by CookieMonster:
Voted for McCain this morning. The only person I trust out of all of them.
-
Originally posted by CookieMonster:
Voted for McCain this morning. The only person I trust out of all of them.
I also find McCain completely trustworthy. I 100% believe him when he tells me if he's elected we'll never leave Iraq and we'll probably invade Iran, too. That's the sort of thing you just don't lie about.
-
My right-winger in-laws were bragging to me over the weekend about how enlightened they are because they are going to vote for Obama. Turns out that they, along with a lot of Republicans, are just doing anything to keep Hillary out.
This seems like a dumb idea BTW - if I were a Republican and could vote for either party in the primary I'd push to get Hillary in the general election knowing she would get killed there. If one person can unite the divided Republican party, it's Hillary Clinton.
But I digress...anyway, we had a bit of a bonding moment when they finally realized how I have felt for the last 8 years.
-
DISCLAIMER: I voted McCain, but only to bolster my LNS-TV-show application.
-
who needs the element of trust when obama is offering "hope" and "change"...wtf. :roll:
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
DISCLAIMER: I voted McCain, but only to bolster my LNS-TV-show application.
I'm pretty sure they all wrote in Romney.
-
Honestly, after the last 8 years, that's about the extent of my political leanings. Let's hope this shit doesn't get worse and make a change for the better.
Originally posted by manimtired:
who needs the element of trust when obama is offering "hope" and "change"...wtf. :roll:
-
Originally posted by eros:
This seems like a dumb idea BTW - if I were a Republican and could vote for either party in the primary I'd push to get Hillary in the general election knowing she would get killed there. If one person can unite the divided Republican party, it's Hillary Clinton.
You're right, the much more organized RNC (the people who won in 2004 simply by labeling Kerry as a "flip flopper") aren't going to be able to crush the inexperienced junior senator from Illinois who has never accomplished a single thing, nor attached his name to any piece of significant legislation, in his 4 years in office. In "time of war," that's exactly who America's going to vote for.
Hillary is far more electable then Obama. Some people dislike her but those people wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. The hardcore republicans who hate Hillary weren't going to vote for any democrat. I'm seriously amazed repeatedly at how stupid democrats are about these things. They'll all be shocked -- SHOCKED!! -- in November when Obama loses by 10% in the popular vote and whine about the Republicans' dirty tricks, even though they're entirely foreseeable.
-
Originally posted by eros:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
DISCLAIMER: I voted McCain, but only to bolster my LNS-TV-show application.
I'm pretty sure they all wrote in Romney. [/b]
Mormons are SOOOOOOOOOOO turbo.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
DISCLAIMER: I voted McCain, but only to bolster my LNS-TV-show application.
Can't you just whip out your junk and ask them how they like that Republican cock?
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Can't you just whip out your junk and ask them how they like that Republican cock?
If I make it to the interview phase, yes. It seems tacky to affix a polaroid with my application though.
-
but barack is offering hope AND change!!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
but barack is offering hope AND change!!
I call it chopange!
-
I don't think the argument is that the people who dislike Hillary would have bvoted for Obama.
The argument is that a number of disenchanted fatass Republicans who would have otherwise not voted will swarm to the polls just to have the chance of beating down Hillary. With Barack it it, they would have just sat home.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by eros:
This seems like a dumb idea BTW - if I were a Republican and could vote for either party in the primary I'd push to get Hillary in the general election knowing she would get killed there. If one person can unite the divided Republican party, it's Hillary Clinton.
You're right, the much more organized RNC (the people who won in 2004 simply by labeling Kerry as a "flip flopper") aren't going to be able to crush the inexperienced junior senator from Illinois who has never accomplished a single thing, nor attached his name to any piece of significant legislation, in his 4 years in office. In "time of war," that's exactly who America's going to vote for.
Hillary is far more electable then Obama. Some people dislike her but those people wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. The hardcore republicans who hate Hillary weren't going to vote for any democrat. I'm seriously amazed repeatedly at how stupid democrats are about these things. They'll all be shocked -- SHOCKED!! -- in November when Obama loses by 10% in the popular vote and whine about the Republicans' dirty tricks, even though they're entirely foreseeable. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I don't think the argument is that the people who dislike Hillary would have bvoted for Obama.
The argument is that a number of disenchanted fatass Republicans who would have otherwise not voted will swarm to the polls just to have the chance of beating down Hillary. With Barack it it, they would have just sat home.
"fatass" republicans?? micheal moore is about twice the size of rush limbaugh.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by eros:
This seems like a dumb idea BTW - if I were a Republican and could vote for either party in the primary I'd push to get Hillary in the general election knowing she would get killed there. If one person can unite the divided Republican party, it's Hillary Clinton.
You're right, the much more organized RNC (the people who won in 2004 simply by labeling Kerry as a "flip flopper") aren't going to be able to crush the inexperienced junior senator from Illinois who has never accomplished a single thing, nor attached his name to any piece of significant legislation, in his 4 years in office. In "time of war," that's exactly who America's going to vote for.
Hillary is far more electable then Obama. Some people dislike her but those people wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. The hardcore republicans who hate Hillary weren't going to vote for any democrat. I'm seriously amazed repeatedly at how stupid democrats are about these things. They'll all be shocked -- SHOCKED!! -- in November when Obama loses by 10% in the popular vote and whine about the Republicans' dirty tricks, even though they're entirely foreseeable. [/b]
[/b]
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
but barack is offering hope AND change!!
way to buy in to the media soundbites
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
The argument is that a number of disenchanted fatass Republicans who would have otherwise not voted will swarm to the polls just to have the chance of beating down Hillary. With Barack it it, they would have just sat home.
With all due respect, that's possibly an even dumber argument. Give the RNC some credit, they've done a wonderful job of "firing up their base," "getting out the vote," and "vilifying their opponent regardless who it is" over the last 2 decades. This thought that somehow the prospect of Obama v. McCain is going to lull Republicans to inactivity is pretty ludicrous. :roll:
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
You're right, the much more organized RNC (the people who won in 2004 simply by labeling Kerry as a "flip flopper") aren't going to be able to crush the inexperienced junior senator from Illinois who has never accomplished a single thing, nor attached his name to any piece of significant legislation, in his 4 years in office. In "time of war," that's exactly who America's going to vote for.
Hillary is far more electable then Obama. Some people dislike her but those people wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. The hardcore republicans who hate Hillary weren't going to vote for any democrat. I'm seriously amazed repeatedly at how stupid democrats are about these things. They'll all be shocked -- SHOCKED!! -- in November when Obama loses by 10% in the popular vote and whine about the Republicans' dirty tricks, even though they're entirely foreseeable.
47% of people start out knowing they arent going to vote for Hillary, but go ahead and convince yourself she is more electable
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by eros:
This seems like a dumb idea BTW - if I were a Republican and could vote for either party in the primary I'd push to get Hillary in the general election knowing she would get killed there. If one person can unite the divided Republican party, it's Hillary Clinton.
You're right, the much more organized RNC (the people who won in 2004 simply by labeling Kerry as a "flip flopper") aren't going to be able to crush the inexperienced junior senator from Illinois who has never accomplished a single thing, nor attached his name to any piece of significant legislation, in his 4 years in office. In "time of war," that's exactly who America's going to vote for.
Hillary is far more electable then Obama. Some people dislike her but those people wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. The hardcore republicans who hate Hillary weren't going to vote for any democrat. I'm seriously amazed repeatedly at how stupid democrats are about these things. They'll all be shocked -- SHOCKED!! -- in November when Obama loses by 10% in the popular vote and whine about the Republicans' dirty tricks, even though they're entirely foreseeable. [/b]
You're wrong.
As the open primaries have shown, independent voters like both McCain and Obama, but more of them turn out to vote for Obama. Moreover, the "hardcore" GOP voters won't show up for McCain. They'll just sit the election out. Rove's big contribution to 2004 was getting those hardcore fundies to turn out in droves.
-
I don't care who you vote for - just vote today.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
With all due respect, that's possibly an even dumber argument. Give the RNC some credit, they've done a wonderful job of "firing up their base," "getting out the vote," and "vilifying their opponent" over the last 2 decades. This thought that somehow the prospect of Obama v. McCain is going to lull Republicans to inactivity is pretty ludicrous. :roll:
The base isnt going to get up for McCain, there is no doubt that the Republicans will find a way to attack him, but to think that evangelicals and litmus test conservatives will be enthusiastically behind mccain is crazy.
-
Don't believe me, just watch. I still think Hillary's going to get the nomination through backroom bartering with the superdelegates, but if Obama runs, I'll put $5 out there to as many people who want to take the bet that Obama loses by a larger margin in the popular vote then Kerry in 2004.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by manimtired:
but barack is offering hope AND change!!
way to buy in to the media soundbites [/b]
a majority of the drones voting for this clown are motivated by "hope AND change" and have no clue what his positions are...
he's a charismatic guy...
-
McCain is one temper trantrum away from being another of those namvets you see at almost every intersection with the hand written, mispelled signs that read....
"nam vet, hungrey, pleese help, God bless"
Huckabee is just another christian religous fruitloop and I think we've had enough of those for the foreseeable future.
Obama in the whitehouse is like making the mail clerk VP of operations. Can you honestly imagine him in intense negotiations with N. Korea or China? They'd eat the poor chap alive.
Hillary is, well, Hillary, but at least we'd have Bill in the Whitehouse, and I don't know about anyone else, but the last time I felt good about this country was when slick-Bill was running the show. Besides, I get great entertainment listening to the right-wing morons on am radio still pissing and moaning about Clinton and the blokes been gone 8 years. Maybe a few of them would go over the edge if another Clinton got in, and that can only be a good thing.
Nader, if he runs, is basically a vote for the republican, whoever it is, but if it makes you feel all indie and cool to vote for him knock yourself out. It was him and the Supreme Court that put the prick we have in the Whitehouse at the moment.
In a country of over 300 million people these are the best they can come up with for a leader???!!!! :eek:
My mother taught me that if you don't have anything good to say about someone then don't say anything, so with that logic I'd have to skip my visit to the polling station in November. It's like deciding wether you'd like to be kicked squarely in the nuts by a Kansas farm hand wearing steel tipped boots or have a rusty tent peg rammed up your rectum, then hammered home with a rubber mallet. Choices, choices, choices...
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
to think that evangelicals and litmus test conservatives will be enthusiastically behind mccain is crazy.
They'll be enthusiastically against whoever is on the Democratic side of the ticket. Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Nader, if he runs, is basically a vote for the republican, whoever it is, but if it makes you feel all indie and cool to vote for him knock yourself out. It was him and the Supreme Court that put the prick we have in the Whitehouse at the moment.
He was in Richmond Saturday for an environmental film festival. When asked, he said unequivocally that he was not running for elected office ever again.
Other then that, you're spot on in your analysis. Wise man, wise man.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Don't believe me, just watch. I still think Hillary's going to get the nomination through backroom bartering with the superdelegates
This is the scary part. If Hillary goes into the convention with less delegates and pulls this out of her ass, the Democratic party will again have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
a majority of the drones voting for this clown are motivated by "hope AND change" and have no clue what his positions are...
[/b]
His positions, ironically enough, are like a xerox of Clinton's positions other then some rhetoric about "changing the culture in Washington." He likes to hang his hat on the fact he didn't vote for/support the war even though in 2006 he said that had he been in the Senate at the time and had the intelligence they had that he'd have voted for it anyway.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
a majority of the drones voting for this clown are motivated by "hope AND change" and have no clue what his positions are...
he's a charismatic guy...
fine, if that means that the candidate who spoke out against the war gets in over the candidate who voted to allow the war, thats fine by me
do you think any supporters of other candidates really have a clue about the issues
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by manimtired:
but barack is offering hope AND change!!
way to buy in to the media soundbites [/b]
a majority of the drones voting for this clown are motivated by "hope AND change" and have no clue what his positions are...
he's a charismatic guy... [/b]
HOPE!!! Just what we need in a leader. :roll: Mind you, we are just getting rid of 'hopeless' so at least it's a step in the right direction.
-
Originally posted by eros:
This is the scary part. If Hillary goes into the convention with less delegates and pulls this out of her ass, the Democratic party will again have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I think it's hard to imagine a scenario where either candidate is significantly ahead of the other in actual-won delegates going into the convention, much less actually have the amount needed to clinch the nomination. The superdelegates are going to factor in heavily. Obama's hope is that he's 100-150 delegates up so that the superdelegates really have to vote for him or it looks like the DNC ignored the will of the voters.
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Nader, if he runs, is basically a vote for the republican, whoever it is, but if it makes you feel all indie and cool to vote for him knock yourself out. It was him and the Supreme Court that put the prick we have in the Whitehouse at the moment.
I voted for Nader in 2000 because Virginia was solidly for Bush and my vote for Gore wouldn't have made a difference. However, if Nader had recieved a certain percentage of the total popular vote, he would be eligible for federal money the next time around.
Voting for Nader in a "battleground" state is possibly the stupidest thing you could do.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by manimtired:
a majority of the drones voting for this clown are motivated by "hope AND change" and have no clue what his positions are...
he's a charismatic guy...
fine, if that means that the candidate who spoke out against the war gets in over the candidate who voted to allow the war, thats fine by me
do you think any supporters of other candidates really have a clue about the issues [/b]
seeing who we're left with id say probably not. the people dissapointed and disenchanted by the group we have left are the ones that are paying attention.
-
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
if that means that the candidate who spoke out against the war gets in over the candidate who voted to allow the war, thats fine by me
See my post earlier about what Obama said in 2006.
And people who tout this seem to ignore the fact that today, in 2008, Clinton and Obama have carbon copy plans for what to do in Iraq. I guess if we were electing a President and giving them a time machine these "who said what in 2003" scenarios would be meaningful, but I don't select my current presidential candidate based on who has the best hypothetical plan to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
See my post earlier about what Obama said in 2006.
And people who tout this seem to ignore the fact that today, in 2008, Clinton and Obama have carbon copy plans for what to do in Iraq. I guess if we were electing a President and giving them a time machine these "who said what in 2003" scenarios would be meaningful, but I don't select my current presidential candidate based on who has the best hypothetical plan to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I am not ignoring that fact, what I cant just let go is that I have been against the war from day 1 as well, and it pissed me off that so few made any real effort to stop it in the face of fervent nationalism, but Obama made a speech in 2002 that was pretty damn predictive of what would happen. And since the war is pretty much the reason so many problems are here today, it has to be the central issue for me. I have concerns about Obama's health plan and how he plans to handle people who dont opt-in and then seek healthcare but I have the same concerns about Hillarys plans and what she will do with penalties for those who dont acquire their insurance. So since there is so little difference, I look at their past. Hillary could have been a powerful progressive voice in the Senate and she wasted it.
Actually I am not crazy about either health plan, I can only hope one day we have a modified single payer system with free healthcare for all, that EVERYBODY pays for as part of their taxes, and the rich can seek private healthcare on top of that, you know, like other civilized countries have.
-
What does ANY of this have to do with where Radiohead are playing?
I just want to know if Ron Paul is hyptnotizing people. Paul supporters are crazily devoted to him. Of course, Paul's strict interpretation of the Constitution is similar to Star Trek fans strick interpretation of the Star Fleet charter, so maybe that's it.
Brian
P.S. I don't think it would ever happen, but I think a McCain/Bloomberg ticket would be a great ticket if they ran as semi-equals and there was some sort of unsaid agreement that McCain would step aside after one term.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
So since there is so little difference, I look at their past.
I look at who's going to be most effective day one. Obama is inexperienced and has no track record of accomplishing anything. Can he really bring about the changes he prescribes? Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider who came from nowhere to win the Presidency -- how did that work out for America?
Clinton steps in day one with the same team her husband used to lead us to the greatest 8 years in US history.
-
Who cares about policy.... I'm looking forward to the chance of being able to have a mistress and more porno!
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Would you care to share what is it about the two remaining Republican and two remaining Democrat candidates that make you so strongly despise each of them?
Originally posted by -kat-:
I'll continue to "waste my vote" and not vote in the primary. I despise every single person in the race at the moment, and plan to vote for Nader if he does end up running. Otherwise I'll write in Kucinich as normal.
Just because I am not voting does not make me uninformed. I would prefer not putting a vote to someone I do not like than giving someone support I cannot stand.
[/b]
I'm against war (McCain), against the banning of birth control in any form (Huckabee), "and the need for a deeper, more substantive discussion about the role of faith in American life." - fuck no, keep your fucking religion out of my politics (Obama), and don't get me started on Hillary...
again, these are just one example i'm pulling out of my hat. I don't feel like writing a dissertation on it. :)
I've been watching this election since early last year when people started saying they wanted to run, i called Obama and Hillary for the nomination and McCain as the Rep candidate a long time ago. Everyone laughed at me.
And bullshit about a vote for Nader is a vote for the Republican Party. A vote for any candidate other than the Dem or Rep party is a vote to get the fucking flawed outdated electoral college out.
"I voted for Nader in 2000 because Virginia was solidly for Bush and my vote for Gore wouldn't have made a difference. However, if Nader had recieved a certain percentage of the total popular vote, he would be eligible for federal money the next time around."
Precisely the same reason I voted for him in 2000. I lived in Kansas. Nuff said.
I voted for Kucinich in 2004. Lived in NC.
At the moment the only way the Democrats will even remotely get me to vote for them in November would be to put Edwards as a VP candidate. I don't know that I'd vote Obama/Edwards though. Obama having to basically hire celebrities to get him votes annoyed the living shit out of me.
and guess i'm going to vote for Kucinich before my dr appointment today. Thanks for the info :)
the funny part is, I'll live in Maryland by the actual election in a few months legally.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
So since there is so little difference, I look at their past.
I look at who's going to be most effective day one. Obama is inexperienced and has no track record of accomplishing anything. Can he really bring about the changes he prescribes? Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider who came from nowhere to win the Presidency -- how did that work out for America?
Clinton steps in day one with the same team her husband used to lead us to the greatest 8 years in US history. [/b]
No track record of accomplishing anything? Come on now.
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
I just want to know if Ron Paul is hyptnotizing people. Paul supporters are crazily devoted to him. Of course, Paul's strict interpretation of the Constitution is similar to Star Trek fans strick interpretation of the Star Fleet charter, so maybe that's it. Brian
I'm voting Ron Paul because there's actually a guy running that is close to what I find ideal. Getting rid of a whole heck of a lot of the federal government (though not all at once, that's just crazy) and giving over those responsibilities to state and local jurisdiction, drastically cutting back our international military presence, allowing social security to die a nice paced death w/o actually screwing seniors over.
I'll admit that the guy himself is not terribly charismatic or a good speaker. He's a bit shrill when he gets worked up, and is probably a touch old for the job, but just the fact that he exists at all as a candidate is a minor miracle anyway.
Here's why I'm voting for him even though he's a super super super virtually no chance in hell long shot.
First time I was old enough to vote was 2000. I loved McCain. Thought that a renegade centrist would've been the best thing for this country that's so bitterly divided by party line. But he bowed out and I was looking at a choice between Al Gore (waaaaaay to liberal for me and as far as I'm concerned he's gotten worse) and George W. Bush a.k.a. the blithering idiot. I abstained. Didn't want to vote for the lesser of two evils.
2004. Bush turned out to be quite awful and a divisive character. So I took a good look at Kerry. The moment I knew I could never vote for him was when he was answering the question "under what pretext would you send american troops to war?". The first thing out of his mouth was "I'd consult the United Nations" WRONG ANSWER. Global government is an experiment that would go drastically wrong. So get this, I voted for Bush. Every one had derided me for not voting last time, and told me I just had to, so I gave in to peer pressure and voted for what I believed was the lesser of two evils (and yes, by that I mean Bush). I still believe we'd be in worse shape if we had gone with Kerry.
So, now I can finally vote with conscience. Ron Paul.
-
I love the debate, even if most of it simply focusing on sound bites.
But, Dems, let's not out think ourselves here.
If you've followed things smackie thinks you should know, I've made it no secret since October of 2006 that I will be voting for Barack Obama, however that is not an endorsement. I have also been saying from the beginning that no candidate is more important than the Party.
All I want to see come out of this Primary is a united Democratic Party, because we've seen all too well what happens when the party is split and I don't think I could tolerate 8 more years like 2000-2008. Whether it's Hillary or Barack, I just went a Democrat in the White House. Let's not out-think ourselves here (even if that does mean I get to finally write "What's the Matter with San Francisco?"). So yes, be fervent for your candidate, but let's be careful in attacking the other primary candidate - it's certainly better than the alternative, isn't it?
As Julian correctly points out, however, a nasty Superdelegate issue at the convention will put the Dems in spiral that could last nearly as long as the current Republican spiral (and by that I'm thinking 40 years). This is the first year that the majority of eligible voters in America were born after 1968. It would do a great disservice to these younger voters if the party couldn't solve this issue without invoking the Superdelegates, and worse yet if the Superdelegates didn't match up to the national vote.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
So since there is so little difference, I look at their past.
I look at who's going to be most effective day one. Obama is inexperienced and has no track record of accomplishing anything. Can he really bring about the changes he prescribes? Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider who came from nowhere to win the Presidency -- how did that work out for America?
Clinton steps in day one with the same team her husband used to lead us to the greatest 8 years in US history. [/b]
A-MENN BROTHA.
...and I just cast my first official vote, ever! AND it's free pancake day at Ihop! Hooray!!!!
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
So since there is so little difference, I look at their past.
I look at who's going to be most effective day one. Obama is inexperienced and has no track record of accomplishing anything. Can he really bring about the changes he prescribes? Jimmy Carter was a Washington outsider who came from nowhere to win the Presidency -- how did that work out for America?
Clinton steps in day one with the same team her husband used to lead us to the greatest 8 years in US history. [/b]
A-MENN BROTHA.
...and I just cast my first official vote, ever! AND it's free pancake day at Ihop! Hooray!!!! [/b]
and you cast it quite horribly. congrats.
-
if you think concrete foreign policy is horrible, then yes. yes i did.
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
if you think concrete foreign policy is horrible, then yes. yes i did.
I think we were old enough to really appreciate what living under a Bill Clinton presidency was like ;)
-
obama's like arcade fire. sure, itâ??s nice enough, although nowhere near as good as all these over-excited recent college grads think it is, and if i have to choose between either that or, yâ??know, nickelback (sorry for all the canadian band references), itâ??s obvious where iâ??m gonna end up and i will feel totally fine with it. at the same time itâ??s more phenomenon and feeling good about yourself and being around other people that feel good about themselves and being part of something really exciting man, when, in reality, itâ??s not all that exciting. if thatâ??s what works for you, hey, fine, at least you found something that works thatâ??s better than whatâ??s usually out there. but letâ??s not get carried away, yâ??know?
hillary's like, i dunno, yo la tengo. been around forever and hard to really get too excited about and kinda drab but you can always feel pretty confident the results are gonna be there in the end.
although iâ??m pretty sure ylt would back barack in real life. did this sound like something brian walalce would write?
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
if you think concrete foreign policy is horrible, then yes. yes i did.
i hope hillary's is similiar to bills policy "stick your head in the sand and hope nothing bad happens"...that worked out well.
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
...and I just cast my first official vote, ever!
Congratulations!
I distinctly remember my first official vote - for new comer Bill Clinton in the 1992 CA June Primary. It was nice to pick up one of the dozen or so Democratic ballots in my precinct in Orange County.
-
you're old
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
you're old
And all this time you simply thought I was wise beyond my years....
-
I have never voted.
True story.
-
Amen to almost everything you are saying, but are there really more Americans in the 18-39 (born after 1968...thus 1969 and beyond) age range than in the 40-110 age range?
Originally posted by vansmack:
I love the debate, even if most of it simply focusing on sound bites.
But, Dems, let's not out think ourselves here.
If you've followed things smackie thinks you should know, I've made it no secret since October of 2006 that I will be voting for Barack Obama, however that is not an endorsement. I have also been saying from the beginning that no candidate is more important than the Party.
All I want to see come out of this Primary is a united Democratic Party, because we've seen all too well what happens when the party is split and I don't think I could tolerate 8 more years like 2000-2008. Whether it's Hillary or Barack, I just went a Democrat in the White House. Let's not out-think ourselves here (even if that does mean I get to finally write "What's the Matter with San Francisco?"). So yes, be fervent for your candidate, but let's be careful in attacking the other primary candidate - it's certainly better than the alternative, isn't it?
As Julian correctly points out, however, a nasty Superdelegate issue at the convention will put the Dems in spiral that could last nearly as long as the current Republican spiral (and by that I'm thinking 40 years). This is the first year that the majority of eligible voters in America were born after 1968. It would do a great disservice to these younger voters if the party couldn't solve this issue without invoking the Superdelegates, and worse yet if the Superdelegates didn't match up to the national vote.
-
Convicted felon?
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I have never voted.
True story.
-
average 20-25 year old?
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Convicted felon?
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I have never voted.
True story.
[/b]
-
No, he's mid to late 30's if memory serves me correct.
Originally posted by manimtired:
average 20-25 year old?
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Convicted felon?
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I have never voted.
True story.
[/b]
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Amen to almost everything you are saying, but are there really more Americans in the 18-39 (born after 1968...thus 1969 and beyond) age range than in the 40-110 age range?
I have to run to a lunch, but I'll see if I can find you the stat when I return (I'm sure it was in the Economist in early January). I was pretty shocked when I heard it, and I quite possibly could have misunderstood it, but it was about the difference in the Democrats this year as to how they handle what happened in 1968.
EDIT: I got it wrong.
The final reason is that, for all the endless comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq, America has changed greatly since 1968. Students are worried about getting good jobs rather than changing the system. The anti-war demonstrations have been insignificant compared with the draft-fuelled marches of the 1960s. The counter-culture has long ago made its peace with capitalism. Some 150m Americans, half the population, have been born since January 1st 1969. (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430308)
That, to me, does not mean 18 and over, that would include those under the age of 18. My bad and good catch on your part.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
No track record of accomplishing anything? Come on now.
Feel free to refute my claims with, you know, a list of achievements Barack Obama has accumulated during his political career.
-
the longer record a senator has, the less electable they are in presidential elections
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by you be betty:
if you think concrete foreign policy is horrible, then yes. yes i did.
I think we were old enough to really appreciate what living under a Bill Clinton presidency was like ;) [/b]
you are absolutely right that i was too young at the time to fully grasp what was going on, even though my parents made me watch the news every single night and tried to explain everything to me anyway and i was dragged to countless days of house coverage at the capitol with my mom and to countless white house functions and countless dinner parties with Michael Isikoff. still, that does by no way mean that i have not taken time, like many other young voters i know, to understand and interpret what happened then now. i may be a young voter, but i have also taken plenty of time both in and out of school to research this stuff.
and the last time i checked we were looking at Hillary as a candidate, not Bill...
-
Please give me a list of achievements that Bill Clinton had made in his political career prior to election as President.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
No track record of accomplishing anything? Come on now.
Feel free to refute my claims with, you know, a list of achievements Barack Obama has accumulated during his political career. [/b]
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by you be betty:
if you think concrete foreign policy is horrible, then yes. yes i did.
I think we were old enough to really appreciate what living under a Bill Clinton presidency was like ;) [/b]
you are absolutely right that i was too young at the time to fully grasp what was going on, even though my parents made me watch the news every single night and tried to explain everything to me anyway and i was dragged to countless days of house coverage at the capitol with my mom and to countless white house functions and countless dinner parties with Michael Isikoff. still, that does by no way mean that i have not taken time, like many other young voters i know, to understand and interpret what happened then now. i may be a young voter, but i have also taken plenty of time both in and out of school to research this stuff.
and the last time i checked we were looking at Hillary as a candidate, not Bill... [/b]
that was only until recently until hillarys campaign told bill to shut up..
-
Originally posted by BookerT:
obama's like arcade fire. sure, itâ??s nice enough, although nowhere near as good as all these over-excited recent college grads think it is, and if i have to choose between either that or, yâ??know, nickelback (sorry for all the canadian band references), itâ??s obvious where iâ??m gonna end up and i will feel totally fine with it. at the same time itâ??s more phenomenon and feeling good about yourself and being around other people that feel good about themselves and being part of something really exciting man, when, in reality, itâ??s not all that exciting. if thatâ??s what works for you, hey, fine, at least you found something that works thatâ??s better than whatâ??s usually out there. but letâ??s not get carried away, yâ??know?
hillary's like, i dunno, yo la tengo. been around forever and hard to really get too excited about and kinda drab but you can always feel pretty confident the results are gonna be there in the end.
although iâ??m pretty sure ylt would back barack in real life. did this sound like something brian walalce would write?
I think Obama's like anything Radiohead has done after "O.K. Computer." Good in theory, makes you look cool for liking them and inspires amazing devotion but when you really look closely, there isn't much there.
Brian
-
Conor Oberst (and Jeff Tweedy and Win Butler) supports Obama. This is a boy-man who truly has his his finger on the pulse of what's good for America. How could you not believe what Conor Oberst believes? Case closed.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Please give me a list of achievements that Bill Clinton had made in his political career prior to election as President.
Sure, I'd be glad to. He was elected as both Attorney General and Governor of the State of Arkansas. As governor, he gained 12 years of executive branch experience, I believe making him the longest serving governor in the country at the time of his election to the White House (I believe he also chaired the National Governors Association as well). During his tenure, he was credited with vastly improving the state's educational system and achieving astronomic job and economic growth for the state. He also championed better conditions for seniors with cutting sales tax on medicines and raising the property tax exemption for the elderly. He also headed the Democratic Leadership Council for two years where he gained experience in working within his party on the national level.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Please give me a list of achievements that Bill Clinton had made in his political career prior to election as President.
Sure, I'd be glad to. He was elected as both Attorney General and Governor of the State of Arkansas. As governor, he gained 12 years of executive branch experience, I believe making him the longest serving governor in the country at the time of his election to the White House (I believe he also chaired the National Governors Association as well). During his tenure, he was credited with vastly improving the state's educational system and achieving astronomic job and economic growth for the state. He also championed better conditions for seniors with cutting sales tax on medicines and raising the property tax exemption for the elderly. He also headed the Democratic Leadership Council for two years where he gained experience in working within his party on the national level. [/b]
all that while seducing new ladies on a weekly basis.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Conor Oberst (and Jeff Tweedy and Win Butler) supports Obama. This is a boy-man who truly has his his finger on the pulse of what's good for America. How could you not believe what Conor Oberst believes? Case closed.
Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the three whitest, hippest, least-funky white men in the world, known as The Triumvirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.
Tony Giardino: So who's in this Triumvirate?
Stuart Mackenzie: Conor Oberst, Jeff Tweedy and Win Butler.
<img src="http://www.moviecritic.ca/reviews/1993/so_i_married_an_axe_murderer/myers_father_01.jpg" alt=" - " />
Brian
-
You mean they went from being ranked 50th in education to being ranked 48th or 49th?
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Please give me a list of achievements that Bill Clinton had made in his political career prior to election as President.
Sure, I'd be glad to. He was elected as both Attorney General and Governor of the State of Arkansas. As governor, he gained 12 years of executive branch experience, I believe making him the longest serving governor in the country at the time of his election to the White House (I believe he also chaired the National Governors Association as well). During his tenure, he was credited with vastly improving the state's educational system and achieving astronomic job and economic growth for the state. He also championed better conditions for seniors with cutting sales tax on medicines and raising the property tax exemption for the elderly. He also headed the Democratic Leadership Council for two years where he gained experience in working within his party on the national level. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
You mean they went from being ranked 50th in education to being ranked 48th or 49th?
I don't have statistics from 1991 sitting around here at work. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Please give me a list of achievements that Bill Clinton had made in his political career prior to election as President.
The other night on the phone some girl said that Bill Clinton "brought about peace in Ireland." I'm sure Mr. Walrus would have something to say about that. I'm pretty casual but I couldn't let that pass. I think David Trimble, Tony Blair and Gerry Adams would have something to say about Bill Clinton "bringing peace to Ireland." She was blonde, though.
Brian
-
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341_2/bill_clinton.html (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341_2/bill_clinton.html)
Here's a pretty good overview of what Bill Clinton accomplished prior to running for President.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341_2/bill_clinton.html (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341_2/bill_clinton.html)
Here's a pretty good overview of what Bill Clinton accomplished prior to running for President.
if i posted a fox news "encyclopedia" to flaunt dick cheney's record i can only imagine the responses id get..
-
Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
if i posted a fox news "encyclopedia" to flaunt dick cheney's record i can only imagine the responses id get..
This is probably the first time I've ever seen an encyclopedia labeled as being biased. You're right, they're probably making up that he was governor and had leadership roles in several national groups like the Democratic Leadership Council, the National Governor's Association, and the Southern Growth Policies Board. And they probably made up those statistics about Arkansas' educational ranking compared to the national average.
If you're seriously going to question whether Encarta is so biased it can't be cited on educational statistics, matters of public record, and established facts then you're a fucking idiot. The only one you're succeeding in discrediting is yourself for making a statement so laughably divorced from reality.
-
Plus, whatever Oprah is for....I'm against.
She's not voting for Obama because he's black (RIIIIIIIIGHT)
She's voting for him because he's Bwiiiiwent, (whatever bwiiiiwent is)
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.
I'm not saying you should vote for the most experienced candidate, just that the candidate needs to be sufficiently experienced. It's a threshold issue. Barack Obama's experience in national politics consists of winning an election he ran unopposed in and having nothing to hang his hat for his 4 years in the Senate.
The Obama contingency keeps dodging the issue: explain to me why Obama is qualified to be President. What relevant experience does he have? If I -- a fastidious liberal -- can point that out, do you think John McCain and the RNC, aren't going to be able to in the general election?
-
The Democrats weren't able to point out their opponents complete lack of track record and relevant experience eight years ago.
As far as the experience goes, I think it's more about who you surround yourself with. Obama may not have the experience that Clinton or McCain have, but he's got the integrity, character, and good judgement to surround himself with with right people, instead of pulling a GWB and putting the wrong people in charge.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.
I'm not saying you should vote for the most experienced candidate, just that the candidate needs to be sufficiently experienced. It's a threshold issue. Barack Obama's experience in national politics consists of winning an election he ran unopposed in and having nothing to hang his hat for his 4 years in the Senate.
The Obama contingency keeps dodging the issue: explain to me why Obama is qualified to be President. What relevant experience does he have? If I -- a fastidious liberal -- can point that out, do you think John McCain and the RNC, aren't going to be able to in the general election? [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.
hmmmm, getting shot down in vietnam, taken pow and put in solitary confiment for 3 years then tortured for 5 more. That's not the kind of experience I'm looking for a leader who has his finger on the old 'button'!
Besides, how is he going to wave at the media when he gets off Air Force 1 when he can't move his upper arms?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
if i posted a fox news "encyclopedia" to flaunt dick cheney's record i can only imagine the responses id get..
This is probably the first time I've ever seen an encyclopedia labeled as being biased. You're right, they're probably making up that he was governor and had leadership roles in several national groups like the Democratic Leadership Council, the National Governor's Association, and the Southern Growth Policies Board. And they probably made up those statistics about Arkansas' educational ranking compared to the national average.
If you're seriously going to question whether Encarta is so biased it can't be cited on educational statistics, matters of public record, and established facts then you're a fucking idiot. The only one you're succeeding in discrediting is yourself for making a statement so laughably divorced from reality. [/b]
i mean white water and the impeachment got an entire paragraph...seems right.
-
Convicted?
No. Never convicted.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Convicted felon?
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I have never voted.
True story.
[/b]
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i mean white water and the impeachment got an entire paragraph...seems right.
I'm not going to allow you to take us off topic because on topic, you're exposed. Nothing that article had about Clinton's pre-Presidency experience is questionable. Pathetic weaklings try to change the subject every time their ignorance gets exposed badly.
-
Maybe he could have his hot wife flash her titties instead.
With McCain or Obama you'll have the most fetching first lady in a long, long time.
Poor Mrs. Huckabee looks like an offensive tackle for the Razorbacks scrimmage squad.
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.
hmmmm, getting shot down in vietnam, taken pow and put in solitary confiment for 3 years then tortured for 5 more. That's not the kind of experience I'm looking for a leader who has his finger on the old 'button'!
Besides, how is he going to wave at the media when he gets off Air Force 1 when he can't move his upper arms? [/b]
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i mean white water and the impeachment got an entire paragraph...seems right.
I'm not going to allow you to take us off topic because on topic, you're exposed. Nothing that article had about Clinton's pre-Presidency experience is questionable. Pathetic weaklings try to change the subject every time their ignorance gets exposed badly. [/b]
so the pre-presidency is dead on and the latter part just tries to make a little twist on things?? mmmkay...seems like i was right in questioning the "encyclopedia" entry. lol @ you.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
The Democrats weren't able to point out their opponents complete lack of track record and relevant experience eight years ago.
First, I'd argue anyone who was a governor has executive experience already. Track record is still on the table, but still.
Second, the DNC hasn't run an efficient national campaign since 1992. The RNC, on the other hand, have proven themselves masters of spin and framing the entire election around one issue. Do not underestimate what the full resources of the RNC are going to be able to do against a neophyte like Obama.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
No track record of accomplishing anything? Come on now.
Feel free to refute my claims with, you know, a list of achievements Barack Obama has accumulated during his political career. [/b]
First, you didn't specify political accomplishments. You're welcome to look at Wiki if you want a breakdown of some of the political accomplishments. They do a good job of summarizing his work in Illinois, and providing some pointed examples of work in the 109th and 110th.
But you don't think it is important to note successes outside of the political forum? Columbia University undergrad and President of the Harvard Law Review? Work as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and a professor?
Hate to break it to you, but some of our best presidents have had less experience in government than Barack Obama has had.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
so the pre-presidency is dead on and the latter part just tries to make a little twist on things??
Nothing I mentioned from that article wasn't 100% uncontroverted fact and matters of public record. I can easily establish any of those "accomplishments" through a google search with 5 other sources within 2 minutes.
What's LOL is you continuing to muck up the discussion arguing the specific source of the material when you know the material itself is beyond contestation. On the topic of Clinton's pre-White House experience and accomplishments, you lose this argument badly, so you're trying to change the issue. Not buying it, Sally. Next!
-
actually my comment brought up the question that the source you used might possibly be biased...not about what clinton had done pre-presidency. calm down you clinton fan boy!!!
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Well I guess if we're making experience be the criteria, John McCain is clearly the best choice.
I'm not saying you should vote for the most experienced candidate, just that the candidate needs to be sufficiently experienced. It's a threshold issue. Barack Obama's experience in national politics consists of winning an election he ran unopposed in and having nothing to hang his hat for his 4 years in the Senate.
The Obama contingency keeps dodging the issue: explain to me why Obama is qualified to be President. What relevant experience does he have? If I -- a fastidious liberal -- can point that out, do you think John McCain and the RNC, aren't going to be able to in the general election? [/b]
And I'll flip it on you - the people making this argument can't make a convincing argument to me that "relevant experience" can only be composed of working in Washington.
If you want a strong argument that points out some of the reasons the "experience" argument is flawed, read this:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/the-natural.html (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/the-natural.html)
-
Why are we talking about Bill's career, I though we were talking about Hillary and Barack.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
But you don't think it is important to note successes outside of the political forum? Columbia University undergrad and President of the Harvard Law Review? Work as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and a professor?
I've got a bachelor's degree, was elected Most Huggable in high school, and have done volunteer work feeding the homeless and helping children with MS. Perhaps I should run for Emperor.
I think in this day and age, we all agree anyone who's going to be President probably graduated from college, and a good one at that. And a vast many politicians were lawyers and did good work in their community. The fact the Obama camp want to hang their hat on this as his grand qualifications to bring about change and lead the free world only highlights how much of a sitting duck he's going to be when the competition isn't "friendly."
-
I'm not sure which presidents you are talking about, but is it possible that we live in a more complicated world and operate with a more complicated government system in and of itself than when those guys were president?
Originally posted by callat703:
Hate to break it to you, but some of our best presidents have had less experience in government than Barack Obama has had.
-
When the Skins win the Super Bowl next year under Jimmy Zorn, how are you experience whores going to explain that?
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Conor Oberst (and Jeff Tweedy and Win Butler) supports Obama. This is a boy-man who truly has his his finger on the pulse of what's good for America. How could you not believe what Conor Oberst believes? Case closed.
Don't forget Obama's got the Grateful Dead on his side as well:
http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0562976220080205 (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN0562976220080205)
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
When the Skins win the Super Bowl next year under Jimmy Zorn, how are you experience whores going to explain that?
ron paul has a better shot of being president that the skins winning the superbowl under a rookie coach...and im a huge skins fan.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Why are we talking about Bill's career, I though we were talking about Hillary and Barack.
The Obama contingency refuse to list his political accomplishments and decided to argue Bill Clinton wasn't experienced. However, as you've noticed, I've schooled them on that point as well, but good work in reminding the viewers how obstructionist they're being and how badly they want to discuss any issue except the ease at which their chosen candidate will get butchered in a general election.
Have we talked yet about how, despite his supposed magnetism and charisma, when put one-on-one in a debate, Barack has faltered terribly? That's a quality I want in a general election candidate.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Why are we talking about Bill's career, I though we were talking about Hillary and Barack.
Because Julian has a total man-crush on Bill.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
ron paul has a better shot of being president that the skins winning the superbowl under a rookie coach...and im a huge skins fan.
Shit, the Skins got a better chance of winning the Super Bowl under Ron Paul then Jim Zorn.
Smells like 5 and 11.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I'm not sure which presidents you are talking about, but is it possible that we live in a more complicated world and operate with a more complicated government system in and of itself than when those guys were president?
Originally posted by callat703:
Hate to break it to you, but some of our best presidents have had less experience in government than Barack Obama has had.
[/b]
Complicated is relative, wouldn't you say?
One example, top of my head - Dwight Eisenhower.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Why are we talking about Bill's career, I though we were talking about Hillary and Barack.
The Obama contingency refuse to list his political accomplishments and decided to argue Bill Clinton wasn't experienced. However, as you've noticed, I've schooled them on that point as well, but good work in reminding the viewers how obstructionist they're being and how badly they want to discuss any issue except the ease at which their chosen candidate will get butchered in a general election.
Have we talked yet about how, despite his supposed magnetism and charisma, when put one-on-one in a debate, Barack has faltered terribly? That's a quality I want in a general election candidate. [/b]
i hope youre not including me in the barack camp b/c that is FAR from the case..
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Because Julian has a total man-crush on Bill.
If you'll look back, it would be more accurate to say, "Because Charlie Nakatestes can't debate Obama on his merits so he tried to change the issue."
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
But you don't think it is important to note successes outside of the political forum? Columbia University undergrad and President of the Harvard Law Review? Work as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and a professor?
I've got a bachelor's degree, was elected Most Huggable in high school, and have done volunteer work feeding the homeless and helping children with MS. Perhaps I should run for Emperor.
I think in this day and age, we all agree anyone who's going to be President probably graduated from college, and a good one at that. And a vast many politicians were lawyers and did good work in their community. The fact the Obama camp want to hang their hat on this as his grand qualifications to bring about change and lead the free world only highlights how much of a sitting duck he's going to be when the competition isn't "friendly." [/b]
You keep bringing up the fact that the general is going to be more difficult. But if Clinton can't sink Obama, what makes you think she can sink McCain?
And you claim that he's faltered terribly in the debates? What debates are you watching?
-
Why is is that the most highly educated Democratic voters are in Obama's camp, and not Hillary's?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i hope youre not including me in the barack camp b/c that is FAR from the case..
I was not.
-
lack of a legislative record is exactly what i want from a nominee
-
Originally posted by callat703:
And you claim that he's faltered terribly in the debates? What debates are you watching?
I think he's listening to the debating voices in his head.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
The Obama contingency refuse to list his political accomplishments and decided to argue Bill Clinton wasn't experienced. However, as you've noticed, I've schooled them on that point as well, but good work in reminding the viewers how obstructionist they're being and how badly they want to discuss any issue except the ease at which their chosen candidate will get butchered in a general election.
Have we talked yet about how, despite his supposed magnetism and charisma, when put one-on-one in a debate, Barack has faltered terribly? That's a quality I want in a general election candidate.
Go ahead and list Hillarys accomplishments. Not including ones that were actually Bill's accomplishments.
Just a note: I will vote for Hillary if she is nominated but I find the idea that she is more electable to be ridiculous. Just as you find it naive for people to think that Barack will be able to hold up to the Republican attack machine, I find it incredibly naive of you to so underestimate the anti hillary sentiment in the country.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
You keep bringing up the fact that the general is going to be more difficult. But if Clinton can't sink Obama, what makes you think she can sink McCain?
Clinton cannot go "as hard" on Obama as a Republican can for fear of "fracturing the party." They may make occasional rough statements at each other but they're always tempered with hugs and kisses afterwards, whereas McCain will go hard on Obama for 4+ months straight.
In the general election, I think most people have set opinions on McCain and Clinton because they've been in the public eye for so long. If you look, they poll similarly (I think Clinton would lead 46-45 nationally in the most recent poll I saw). Obama is more up in the air. Many are intrigued by him, but not as set in their opinion and I think the Obama Afterglow will wear off when McCain and the RNC trashes for months straight as weak on defense and inexperienced. I see a sea change among "independants" to McCain like we saw them go for Bush the last few.
Against Clinton, McCain can go as hard as he wants but he's probably preaching to the choir. In a McCain/Clinton national race, 45% are set for McCain no matter what, 45% are set for Hillary no matter what, and the other ten percent are in flux. The attacks on Clinton are actually a little ineffective in that all the people who hate Hillary are voting McCain already, regardless of democratic nominee.
A Clinton/Richardson or Clinton/Obama ticket can win the majority of those 10% (who have heard about Hillary for years and are still undecided) over while doing a great get-out-the-vote campaign among minorities and women. I know alot of people hate Hillary but she does poll well against a Republican among real undecided's and independent's.
-
as an evil republican i think mccain will do better vs hillary and i hope she gets the nomination.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why is is that the most highly educated Democratic voters are in Obama's camp, and not Hillary's?
That's not fair. Julian labored countless hours to get that bachelors from the University of Phoenix and you be betty spent a whole summer at RISD designing skinny jeans and polo shirts for fey guys.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Julian labored countless hours to get that bachelors from the University of Phoenix
Our football stadium is better then your school's football stadium!
(Now if only we had a campus. And a football team.)
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
You keep bringing up the fact that the general is going to be more difficult. But if Clinton can't sink Obama, what makes you think she can sink McCain?
Clinton cannot go "as hard" on Obama as a Republican can for fear of "fracturing the party." They may make occasional rough statements at each other but they're always tempered with hugs and kisses afterwards, whereas McCain will go hard on Obama for 4+ months straight.
In the general election, I think most people have set opinions on McCain and Clinton because they've been in the public eye for so long. If you look, they poll similarly (I think Clinton would lead 46-45 nationally in the most recent poll I saw). Obama is more up in the air. Many are intrigued by him, but not as set in their opinion and I think the Obama Afterglow will wear off when McCain and the RNC trashes for months straight as weak on defense and inexperienced. I see a sea change among "independants" to McCain like we saw them go for Bush the last few.
Against Clinton, McCain can go as hard as he wants but he's probably preaching to the choir. In a McCain/Clinton national race, 45% are set for McCain no matter what, 45% are set for Hillary no matter what, and the other ten percent are in flux. The attacks on Clinton are actually a little ineffective in that all the people who hate Hillary are voting McCain already, regardless of nominee.
A Clinton/Richardson or Clinton/Obama ticket can win the majority of those 10% (who have heard about Hillary for years and are still undecided) over while doing a great get-out-the-vote campaign among minorities and women. I know alot of people hate Hillary but she does poll well against a Republican among real undecided's and independent's. [/b]
I think you're kidding yourself. I think Hillary as the nominee mobilizes the GOP base better than any potential GOP nominee. All of those Republicans that would rather sit at home than vote for John McCain are the same Republicans that would go out explicitly to cast a vote against Hillary Clinton.
Let us not forget that if Obama is not in the general election, I'd guess that about 5 million of the Democratic voters that have appeared out of the woodwork for the primary disappear.
I also appreciated your convenient elimination of the statistics that give Obama a more definitive lead over McCain. But you're clearly in the Hillary Clinton school of facts...so I'll forgive you.
OBAMA: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)
CLINTON:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html)
-
Julian wishes he could "go hard" on Bill for 4+ months.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
You keep bringing up the fact that the general is going to be more difficult. But if Clinton can't sink Obama, what makes you think she can sink McCain?
Clinton cannot go "as hard" on Obama as a Republican can for fear of "fracturing the party." They may make occasional rough statements at each other but they're always tempered with hugs and kisses afterwards, whereas McCain will go hard on Obama for 4+ months straight.
In the general election, I think most people have set opinions on McCain and Clinton because they've been in the public eye for so long. If you look, they poll similarly (I think Clinton would lead 46-45 nationally in the most recent poll I saw). Obama is more up in the air. Many are intrigued by him, but not as set in their opinion and I think the Obama Afterglow will wear off when McCain and the RNC trashes for months straight as weak on defense and inexperienced. I see a sea change among "independants" to McCain like we saw them go for Bush the last few.
Against Clinton, McCain can go as hard as he wants but he's probably preaching to the choir. In a McCain/Clinton national race, 45% are set for McCain no matter what, 45% are set for Hillary no matter what, and the other ten percent are in flux. The attacks on Clinton are actually a little ineffective in that all the people who hate Hillary are voting McCain already, regardless of democratic nominee.
A Clinton/Richardson or Clinton/Obama ticket can win the majority of those 10% (who have heard about Hillary for years and are still undecided) over while doing a great get-out-the-vote campaign among minorities and women. I know alot of people hate Hillary but she does poll well against a Republican among real undecided's and independent's. [/b]
-
That's all nice and shit, but how is McCain going to convince Americans that we need to keep fighting in Iraq for the next 100 years? They can deride Obama's inexperience all they want, but how in the fuck are they going to turn public opinion on Iraq back in their favor?
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
You keep bringing up the fact that the general is going to be more difficult. But if Clinton can't sink Obama, what makes you think she can sink McCain?
Clinton cannot go "as hard" on Obama as a Republican can for fear of "fracturing the party." They may make occasional rough statements at each other but they're always tempered with hugs and kisses afterwards, whereas McCain will go hard on Obama for 4+ months straight.
In the general election, I think most people have set opinions on McCain and Clinton because they've been in the public eye for so long. If you look, they poll similarly (I think Clinton would lead 46-45 nationally in the most recent poll I saw). Obama is more up in the air. Many are intrigued by him, but not as set in their opinion and I think the Obama Afterglow will wear off when McCain and the RNC trashes for months straight as weak on defense and inexperienced. I see a sea change among "independants" to McCain like we saw them go for Bush the last few.
Against Clinton, McCain can go as hard as he wants but he's probably preaching to the choir. In a McCain/Clinton national race, 45% are set for McCain no matter what, 45% are set for Hillary no matter what, and the other ten percent are in flux. The attacks on Clinton are actually a little ineffective in that all the people who hate Hillary are voting McCain already, regardless of democratic nominee.
A Clinton/Richardson or Clinton/Obama ticket can win the majority of those 10% (who have heard about Hillary for years and are still undecided) over while doing a great get-out-the-vote campaign among minorities and women. I know alot of people hate Hillary but she does poll well against a Republican among real undecided's and independent's. [/b]
-
Originally posted by callat703:
All of those Republicans that would rather sit at home than vote for John McCain are the same Republicans that would go out explicitly to cast a vote against Hillary Clinton.
This is the point on which you guys are kidding yourselves. The modern Republican party ALWAYS gets behind its candidate. Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. There is not going to be millions of conservatives sitting around completely indifferent willing, to let godless, liberal Obama walk into the Oval Office. You don't think the RNC can villify Obama the way they have Hillary, Kerry, and Gore?
-
your argument sounds like the dems are fucked either way
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
All of those Republicans that would rather sit at home than vote for John McCain are the same Republicans that would go out explicitly to cast a vote against Hillary Clinton.
This is the point on which you guys are kidding yourselves. The modern Republican party ALWAYS gets behind its candidate. Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. There is not going to be millions of conservatives sitting around completely indifferent willing, to let godless, liberal Obama walk into the Oval Office. You don't think the RNC can villify Obama the way they have Hillary, Kerry, and Gore? [/b]
No, frankly. I don't.
Nice job ignoring your refuted "facts" about the polls though.
-
This actually surprises me since his campaign seems to be working from notes taken during the past two bush campaigns...repeat a generic message over and over again. To me, an educated person, I want to hear more and really haven't from him. Every time I hear him speak my BS meter goes off the charts.
Now, he's not as annoying as Edwards was with his "Poverty, Millworker, Change" campaign but all this generic "Ch-Ch-Change" rhetoric is like nails across a blackboard. But I guess repetition like this worked for Bush twice.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why is is that the most highly educated Democratic voters are in Obama's camp, and not Hillary's?
-
Obama is not godless. He loves Allah. He learned all about him when he was growing up in that madrasa in Indonesia.
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
All of those Republicans that would rather sit at home than vote for John McCain are the same Republicans that would go out explicitly to cast a vote against Hillary Clinton.
This is the point on which you guys are kidding yourselves. The modern Republican party ALWAYS gets behind its candidate. Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. There is not going to be millions of conservatives sitting around completely indifferent willing, to let godless, liberal Obama walk into the Oval Office. You don't think the RNC can villify Obama the way they have Hillary, Kerry, and Gore? [/b]
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
your argument sounds like the dems are fucked either way
-
Originally posted by callat703:
No, frankly. I don't.
Then, sir (or madam, I'm not sure), we have nothing further to discuss. I just warn you as I go, that he who underestimates his opposition, opposes truly himself.
-
Originally posted by Chip Chanko:
This actually surprises me since his campaign seems to be working from notes taken during the past two bush campaigns...repeat a generic message over and over again. To me, an educated person, I want to hear more and really haven't from him. Every time I hear him speak my BS meter goes off the charts.
Now, he's not as annoying as Edwards was with his "Poverty, Millworker, Change" campaign but all this generic "Ch-Ch-Change" rhetoric is like nails across a blackboard.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why is is that the most highly educated Democratic voters are in Obama's camp, and not Hillary's?
[/b]
How much have you actually sought out? The man has written two books, and has the bulk of his platform available electronically.
People bitch and moan about not getting a clear message, but then they also don't put any effort into learning for themselves.
Like it not, modern politics is about the sound byte. If you want policy, seek it out. I think both Clinton and Obama have put forth about the same level of substantial policy suggestions - they're not discussing it because they basically think the same thing, minus some small variations.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
your argument sounds like the dems are fucked either way
[/b]
The Republicans are running the one (serious) candidate who can argue he's a change from Bush. I'd put his odds at about 50/50 against Clinton and about 90% against Obama.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
No, frankly. I don't.
Then, sir (or madam, I'm not sure), we have nothing further to discuss. I just warn you as I go, that he who underestimates his opposition, opposes truly himself. [/b]
I don't underestimate the opposition, but perhaps I understand it a bit better than you do.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
your argument sounds like the dems are fucked either way
[/b]
The Republicans are running the one (serious) candidate who can argue he's a change from Bush. I'd put his odds at about 50/50 against Clinton and about 90% against Obama. [/b]
Based on WHAT? All numbers and research I've found contradicts you.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Based on WHAT? All numbers and research I've found contradicts you.
Based on how I foresee the next 7 months going. If Obama's the nominee, I'll be shocked if a week before the election it isn't a foregone certainty McCain's got it. If it's Clinton, we'll all be up to 1am on election night for the third year in a row.
There's no point in discussing it anymore. I've made my thoughts clear. They're in this thread for posterity's sake come November.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Based on WHAT? All numbers and research I've found contradicts you.
Based on how I foresee the next 7 months going. If Obama's the nominee, I'll be shocked if a week before the election it isn't a foregone certainty McCain's got it. If it's Clinton, we'll all be up to 1am on election night for the third year in a row.
There's no point in discussing it anymore. I've made my thoughts clear. They're in this thread for posterity's sake come November. [/b]
Ah, right. Based on your gut. Just making sure.
-
General election matchups poll results:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html)
-
One thing about Obama...no one I know is going ga-ga over Hillary. People seem to be either die hard Obamaphiles or can't decide (basically want to vote for Hillary but worry about how much hatred people have for her). My parents (who have voted republican in the past), my current bosses, 99% of my friends who are Democrats have Obama fever. So I think he stands a great chance in the general election.
McCain's recent ad is kind of scary...walking with Reagan, American flags, and footage of him as a POW.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
General election matchups poll results:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html)
Nice - that's the one I was looking for before.
-
Originally posted by Chip Chanko:
One thing about Obama...no one I know is going ga-ga over Hillary. People seem to be either die hard Obamaphiles or can't decide (basically want to vote for Hillary but worry about how much hatred people have for her). My parents (who have voted republican in the past), my current bosses, 99% of my friends who are Democrats have Obama fever. So I think he stands a great chance in the general election.
McCain's recent ad is kind of scary...walking with Reagan, American flags, and footage of him as a POW.
a US presidential candidate with american flags in a campaign commercial?!?!?!!? fucking frightening maaaaan...
-
Yeah, you're right. Political ads are pretty bad in general.
Originally posted by manimtired:
a US presidential candidate with american flags in a campaign commercial?!?!?!!? fucking frightening maaaaan...
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
your argument sounds like the dems are fucked either way
[/b]
The Republicans are running the one (serious) candidate who can argue he's a change from Bush. I'd put his odds at about 50/50 against Clinton and about 90% against Obama. [/b]
i'd put obama at having a 51% chance of winning and hillary at only 9%
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
lack of a legislative record is exactly what i want from a nominee
Don't forget 'hope' gotta have 'hope'.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by manimtired:
if i posted a fox news "encyclopedia" to flaunt dick cheney's record i can only imagine the responses id get..
. [/b]
i mean white water and the impeachment got an entire paragraph...seems right. [/b]
Just what charges exactly came out of the Whitewater witch hunt? And how did that, ahem, Independant prosecutor, Starr, work out for the republican lynch mob?
If chicken hawk Bush was held to the same standards as Clinton was, Bush would now be in prison for war crimes against humanity, with Cheney in the next cell.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Julian labored countless hours to get that bachelors from the University of Phoenix
Our football stadium is better then your school's football stadium!
(Now if only we had a campus. And a football team.) [/b]
You'll always have Pink Taco Stadium...
-
There's really flashes of brilliance and then moments of utter idiocracy in this thread.
What everybody is forgetting is that this nation still has, as Mankie likes to point out, an electoral college system. Every poll about the electability of one nominee vs. another is utter crap because they are all based on popular vote, and we know that means...absolutely nothing.
Add to that the fact that none of the candidates have had to go up against a nominee from another party, so on what grounds are we taking polls? Would anyone like to point out the poll numbers from this past summer in the primaries and how off base they were when actually determining the nominee? (well, I guess I just did) So everybody relax....
So, all you so-called experts, kindly take a look at the Electoral College Map of 2000 (http://www.sptimes.com/election2000/map.shtml) and tell me which state the Dems won in 2000 that you expect a Democratic Candidate to lose in 2008?
The Republicans are much more worried about several states they won in 2000 that either Obama or Clinton can easily win in 2008.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
So, all you so-called experts, kindly take a look at the Electoral College Map of 2000 (http://www.sptimes.com/election2000/map.shtml) and tell me which state the Dems won in 2000 that you expect a Democratic Candidate to lose in 2008?
Blue states that could conceivably go red: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, Jersey.
Red states that could conceivably go blue: Florida (if Clinton's the nominee), Ohio, New Hampshire, Missou, Arkansas (if Clinton's the nominee).
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Blue states that could conceivably go red: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, Jersey.
I'll give you New Mexico is a small possibility (immigration will be huge!), but it is a huge stretch to think that the others are in any real sense of danger:
Iowa: Ethanol Subsidies. No way McCain back tracks on that and gets the State to believe him. He finished 4th in Iowa, behind Fred Thompson!
Michigan: The Dems have a lot of making up to do here, but McCain is absolutely no friend of labor. When he said that the jobs in the auto industry were gone and weren't coming back, he was right. But he also wrote off Michigan in November.
New Jersey: Seriously. 1.1 Million Dems showed up for the primary. 560K for the Republican primary - and McCain was the favorite. Anything short of Christine Todd Whitman as his running mate and McCain fails miserably in Joyzee.
Pennsylvania: Interesting one here. Until the Primary, I can't say with utter confidence that this one is no longer up for grabs, but the trend in PA has been to the Dems for the past 4 years and I see no reason why John McCain would change this, especially running against either charismatic Dem. I'd like to come back to this one after April 22 however.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Jersey.
Ha ha ha ha.....
February 10, 2008
Ideas & Trends
Hey, Massachusetts, New Jersey Is Passing on the Left (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/weekinreview/10peters.html?_r=1&scp=15&sq=liberal&st=nyt&oref=slogin)
By JEREMY W. PETERS
NEW JERSEYâ??S political hue is not just blue these days. Itâ??s cobalt.
In the last two months, the state has become the first in a generation to abolish the death penalty, the first north of the Mason-Dixon line to apologize for slavery and the second, after Maryland, to pledge its Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
A family-leave measure to give employees paid time off to care for a newborn or sick relative appears headed toward approval by the State Legislature. A state commission is urging lawmakers to raise the minimum wage to $8.25 an hour, which would be the highest in the nation.
And voters recently approved borrowing an additional $200 million to save open space in the nationâ??s most densely populated state â?? the latest in more than $1.5 billion in borrowing to protect farmland and open space since 1981.
It may not be a surprise that New Jersey, which ranks among the states spending the most on education per student and is one of only four states to recognize gay civil unions, is pursuing a course that analysts say is in keeping with the Progressive Era ideals espoused by its former governor, Woodrow Wilson. He described his state as â??a sort of laboratory in which the best blood is prepared for other communities to thrive on.â?
But public policy experts say what is a surprise is how swiftly New Jersey â?? better known for its seemingly endemic corruption and reputation as a onetime welcome mat for industrial waste â?? has moved in this direction.
â??Theyâ??re a new leader,â? said Joel Rogers, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School and the director of the Center for State Innovation, which describes itself as a progressive public-policy research institute.
â??Itâ??s not just California anymore, itâ??s New Jersey,â? Mr. Rogers said. A New Jersey native, he added, with a touch of hyperbole, â??The much-maligned New Jersey, that malarial swamp south of New York, is rising from the ashes as a leader of progressive government.â?
Not everybody sees the stateâ??s tilt as a badge of honor. â??I think itâ??s way out of the mainstream, way farther left than most people want to be,â? said Joseph Pennacchio, a Republican state senator from Morris County, a Republican bastion.
The liberal legacy in New Jersey wonâ??t be abolishing the death penalty and apologizing for slavery, he said. It will be high taxes and deep deficits. â??What weâ??re not doing is talking about reducing property taxes or reducing the flight of people from New Jersey,â? he said.
Why the rush of legislation? And why now?
The underlying reason, political scientists and public policy experts said, is that Democrats in Trenton, the capital, have occupied the Holy Trinity of state government since 2004: both chambers of the Legislature and the governorâ??s office. Their advantage is now considerable â?? 48-32 in the General Assembly and 23-17 in the State Senate.
And then there is Gov. Jon S. Corzine. The son of an Illinois farmer, he made a name for himself in the United States Senate as one of its most liberal members. He once lambasted the centrist Democratic Leadership Council for practicing â??timid progressivism.â?
Joel Barkin, the executive director of the Progressive States Network, said, â??They are in a political environment that is not going to put up a lot of opposition to these areas of reform.â?
New Jersey lawmakers have managed to enact measures that have failed in California and Massachusetts, for instance, states with their own distinctively dark-blue hues.
California enacted the nationâ??s first paid family leave law in 2000, but a bill that would have placed a moratorium on executions stalled. Massachusetts and California both have an $8-an-hour minimum wage, the nationâ??s second highest, behind Washington State. A paid family leave bill in Massachusetts stalled in the face of opposition from the business lobby. Both failed to pass a law to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in presidential races.
Then again, they have had bigger hurdles to overcome. In California, the Democratic-controlled Legislature has to contend with a Republican governor. While both houses are solidly Democratic in Massachusetts, the governor â?? the first Democrat in 16 years â?? has been in office only a year.
Another factor that may explain why New Jersey has been so active lately is that its Legislature was in a lame duck when it approved these recent measures. Legislators who were retiring â?? more than one-third of the General Assembly and two-fifths of the Senate â?? didnâ??t have to worry about constituent reaction.
Will lawmakers who do have to worry about re-election continue down the path of their one-time colleagues? The answer awaits.
But academics who study New Jersey say its increasingly leftward lean also reflects the political evolution of the stateâ??s 8.7 million residents.
Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers University, said polling data suggested that the influx of immigrants in the last decade â?? 20 percent of the stateâ??s residents are now foreign born â?? has made New Jersey residents more socially tolerant. â??A lot of people just mouth arguments for diversity and say, â??Itâ??s good. Itâ??s good,â?? â? he said. â??But people really see here that the quality of life is better because of it.â?
Joseph Marbach, acting dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Seton Hall University, said New Jersey was also skewing left because it is wealthier and better educated than it was a decade ago. â??Those are the demographics that tend to lean more liberal,â? he said.
Of course, there are those who say that the state has betrayed liberal ideals. Mr. Corzineâ??s new school funding plan, approved by the Legislature last month, was criticized by some school advocates as giving short shrift to inner-city schools.
And some liberal activists said they an odd symmetry in New Jerseyâ??s recent progressive streak, pointing out that if it werenâ??t for poor regulation in the past, especially on environmental issues, it wouldnâ??t need such an activist approach.
â??Weâ??re the yin and the yang,â? said Jeffrey Tittle, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. â??We have the strongest laws and the biggest problems.â?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Red states that could conceivably go blue: Florida (if Clinton's the nominee), Ohio, New Hampshire, Missou, Arkansas (if Clinton's the nominee).
I think your list is a little short here, but as you've correctly stated, it does depend on who the nominee is. As since since your clearly in the Clinton camp, I'm not that surprised.
Ohio is definitely up for either Dem. I don't think New Hampshire is up for the Dems. They voted for GWB and they didn't really like him - the LOVE McCain. He's practically the President of New Hampshire. Either way it's 4 Electoral votes...
An Obama nomination opens up the South (save for Florida and Arkansas, where only a Clinton has a real chance). I'm not saying he wins, but a McCain campaign in the South is no sure thing for the Republicans, and Obama forces them to spend a lot more money in the south then they will want to spend - especially if/when the Dems out raise the Republican candidate. All of this hinges on the Republican VP nominee as well.
Obama gives the Dems a real shot at Colorado and Missouri, and maybe even Kansas. If that happens, it could spread right into the Dakotas as well.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
That's all nice and shit, but how is McCain going to convince Americans that we need to keep fighting in Iraq for the next 100 years? They can deride Obama's inexperience all they want, but how in the fuck are they going to turn public opinion on Iraq back in their favor?
by calling the Dems the party of "cut and run"!!!
worked last time. no explanation or even thinking needed. just brandish "C'n'R" and you're good to go. FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!!!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
There's really flashes of brilliance and then moments of utter idiocracy in this thread.
What everybody is forgetting is that this nation still has, as Mankie likes to point out, an electoral college system. Every poll about the electability of one nominee vs. another is utter crap because they are all based on popular vote, and we know that means...absolutely nothing.
WINNER!
-
Regarding Julian's comments that the RNC will rip Obama to shreds....
I think that if the RNC goes negative on Obama, it will backfire. Obama brings such an aura of positivity, that the American people will reject the RNC negativity.
If the RNC goes negative on Hillary, I think the American people are much more willing to accept that.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
That's all nice and shit, but how is McCain going to convince Americans that we need to keep fighting in Iraq for the next 100 years? They can deride Obama's inexperience all they want, but how in the fuck are they going to turn public opinion on Iraq back in their favor?
by calling the Dems the party of "cut and run"!!!
worked last time. no explanation or even thinking needed. just brandish "C'n'R" and you're good to go. FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!!! [/b]
I'm so sick of people saying that McCain has claimed we'll be FIGHTING in Iraq for the next 100 years. He said we will BE IN Iraq for the next 100 years, much like we are in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc. I don't hear all you people screaming to bring our troops home from Okinawa or Ramstein.
It's going to be McCain/Lieberman. Everyone knows that for the general election, candidates run to the center. What would be more popular than a moderate Republican running with a conservative democrat? That's a dream ticket.
-
Originally posted by CookieMonster:
It's going to be McCain/Lieberman. Everyone knows that for the general election, candidates run to the center.
The GOP would NEVER let that happen.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by CookieMonster:
It's going to be McCain/Lieberman. Everyone knows that for the general election, candidates run to the center.
The GOP would NEVER let that happen. [/b]
Maybe...maybe not. Once McCain has the nomination sealed up (aside...Huckabee needs to bail now), he can choose who he wants. McCain/Lieberman would be unstoppable...show that he truly reaches across party lines...and would win perhaps 75% of the independent vote.
Maybe I'm living in dreamland, but that would be ideal!
-
Originally posted by CookieMonster:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by CookieMonster:
It's going to be McCain/Lieberman. Everyone knows that for the general election, candidates run to the center.
The GOP would NEVER let that happen. [/b]
Maybe...maybe not. Once McCain has the nomination sealed up (aside...Huckabee needs to bail now), he can choose who he wants. McCain/Lieberman would be unstoppable...show that he truly reaches across party lines...and would win perhaps 75% of the independent vote.
Maybe I'm living in dreamland, but that would be ideal! [/b]
Yeah, but picking Lieberman would be the final straw for the Limbaugh/Coulter Super Conservative set. He may need at least some of them in the general. If McCain's going to raise his middle finger to the Limbaugh cabal and pick a strong Jewish veep I wish he'd pick Bloomberg. If the economy's issue #1 come November (which it might be) Bloomberg would be unstoppable when it comes to voting for a ticket where the economy will be "fixed." And McCain has admitted that the economy isn't his strong suit.
Brian
-
McCain....yet another doddering old fucker. Did you not learn anything from the Reagan years, apart from lets bury the country in debt almost as much as a Bush would, while insisting everything is great. Then name every fucking bridge, building and aiport after the twat. McCain Dulles Airport has quite a ring to it don't you think?
How about Clinton McCain on the ticket!!!
-
Originally posted by CookieMonster:
Maybe...maybe not. Once McCain has the nomination sealed up (aside...Huckabee needs to bail now), he can choose who he wants. McCain/Lieberman would be unstoppable...show that he truly reaches across party lines...and would win perhaps 75% of the independent vote.
Maybe I'm living in dreamland, but that would be ideal!
I will be shocked if McCain doesn't do one of two things with his choice of running mate:
(1) Cater to the Christian Right and pick an evangelical favorite - there are plenty of Southern Governors on that list (the second option here to please the evangelicals is to promise them judges)
(2) Make a strategic choice based on the Democratic nominee. For example, choosing a woman like Olympia Snowe if it's Hillary.
What should he do?
He should choose a Governor to end the argument about the lack of Executive leadership and he should choose someone from a swing part of the country to not upset those that chose his moderate stance. If I were McCain, I would choose Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and make the upper midwest very competitive.
-
You have to take into consideration how the netroots are affecting this election cycle. For example, Albert Wynn got his ass handed back to him last night. Lieberman lost his primary last time around because he is so unpopular among net-active Democrats. He kept his seat because by running as an independent he took both oldschool Democrats and moderate Republicans. If Clinton loses the nomination it doesn't necessarily mean that her supporters would vote for McCain just because he'd have Lieberman on board. If anything, Lieberman has become even less popular among Democrats since '06.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I will be shocked if McCain doesn't do one of two things with his choice of running mate:
(1) Cater to the Christian Right and pick an evangelical favorite - there are plenty of Southern Governors on that list (the second option here to please the evangelicals is to promise them judges)
(2) Make a strategic choice based on the Democratic nominee. For example, choosing a woman like Olympia Snow if it's Hillary.
What should he do?
He should choose a Governor to end the argument about the lack of Executive leadership and he should choose someone from a swing part of the country to not upset those that chose his moderate stance. If I were McCain, I would choose Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and make the upper midwest very competitive.
He could probably find a woman running mate who would not alienate the base as much as Snowe would, I am not sure who it would be, but I don't see it being Snowe.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
He could probably find a woman running mate who would not alienate the base as much as Snowe would, I am not sure who it would be, but I don't see it being Snowe.
True, but my point being, if he didn't do #1 (which I think he will), it would be a clear sign that the base is of little concern to him.
-
McCain/Bush (Jeb) Gotta keep the bush's in there..
-
Lieberman? No way. He'd get a nice cabinet appointment, at best.
Haley Barbour or Mark Sanford if Mccain wants to regain the conservative base and hold on to the South.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Lieberman? No way. He'd get a nice cabinet appointment, at best.
Haley Barbour or Mark Sanford if Mccain wants to regain the conservative base and hold on to the South.
i would take sanford over barbour. . .however, with the convention being held in minnesota, i would not at all be surprised to see pawlenty standing next to mccain
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
There's really flashes of brilliance and then moments of utter idiocracy in this thread.
What everybody is forgetting is that this nation still has, as Mankie likes to point out, an electoral college system. Every poll about the electability of one nominee vs. another is utter crap because they are all based on popular vote, and we know that means...absolutely nothing.
Add to that the fact that none of the candidates have had to go up against a nominee from another party, so on what grounds are we taking polls? Would anyone like to point out the poll numbers from this past summer in the primaries and how off base they were when actually determining the nominee? (well, I guess I just did) So everybody relax....
So, all you so-called experts, kindly take a look at the Electoral College Map of 2000 (http://www.sptimes.com/election2000/map.shtml) and tell me which state the Dems won in 2000 that you expect a Democratic Candidate to lose in 2008?
The Republicans are much more worried about several states they won in 2000 that either Obama or Clinton can easily win in 2008.
The Electoral College existing is my sound basis (after platforms, etc) for not voting one way or another. I said that. ;)
and the dems are fucked if whomever gets nominated doesn't pick Edwards as a runningmate.
-
I'm no conspiricy theorist but I think the media control the outcome of an election to some degree.....Who's to say their 'polls' aren't just bullshit and a propaganda tool for their chosen candidate? Case in point. I was polled by a Tampa FL television station and the question was, "If the presidential election was today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, who would I vote for?" Like Thompson ever had a prayer of being the republican candidate. That was obviously a poll intended to give Hillary the win.
In mankies world polls would be prohibited 3 months prior to any election, and my reason is so people go out and vote instead of thinking, "My guy/gal doesn't have a prayer so what's the point voting. Or...my guy/gal has it wrapped up so doesn't need my little vote"
Oh yeah...and the electoral college would be thrown out and all the states would pool their votes so the winner would be decided by the popular vote like a democracy is supposed to work.
-
So are you giving your wife a pole for Valentine's Day?
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
I'm no conspiricy theorist but I think the media control the outcome of an election to some degree.....Who's to say their 'polls' aren't just bullshit and a propaganda tool for their chosen candidate? Case in point. I was polled by a Tampa FL television station and the question was, "If the presidential election was today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, who would I vote for?" Like Thompson ever had a prayer of being the republican candidate. That was obviously a poll intended to give Hillary the win.
In mankies world polls would be prohibited 3 months prior to any election, and my reason is so people go out and vote instead of thinking, "My guy/gal doesn't have a prayer so what's the point voting. Or...my guy/gal has it wrapped up so doesn't need my little vote"
Oh yeah...and the electoral college would be thrown out and all the states would pool their votes so the winner would be decided by the popular vote like a democracy is supposed to work.
-
So, is Hillary gonna play the crying card again a day or two before Texas/Ohio primaries? Or is that one spent?
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
So are you giving your wife a pole for Valentine's Day?
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
I'm no conspiricy theorist but I think the media control the outcome of an election to some degree.....Who's to say their 'polls' aren't just bullshit and a propaganda tool for their chosen candidate? Case in point. I was polled by a Tampa FL television station and the question was, "If the presidential election was today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, who would I vote for?" Like Thompson ever had a prayer of being the republican candidate. That was obviously a poll intended to give Hillary the win.
In mankies world polls would be prohibited 3 months prior to any election, and my reason is so people go out and vote instead of thinking, "My guy/gal doesn't have a prayer so what's the point voting. Or...my guy/gal has it wrapped up so doesn't need my little vote"
Oh yeah...and the electoral college would be thrown out and all the states would pool their votes so the winner would be decided by the popular vote like a democracy is supposed to work.
[/b]
We have a pole in the spare room complete with disco ball and windex & paper towels.
-
hillary will find a way to get the nomination...should make for some good news watchin'..
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Who's to say their 'polls' aren't just bullshit and a propaganda tool for their chosen candidate? Case in point. I was polled by a Tampa FL television station and the question was, "If the presidential election was today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson, who would I vote for?" Like Thompson ever had a prayer of being the republican candidate. That was obviously a poll intended to give Hillary the win.
That's called "push polling" and many campaigns are notorious for them. The questions are geared to get a desired result that can be reported as good news for a particular candidate.
-
Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says itâ??s not fair, because theyâ??re being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, thereâ??s no White Bitch Month.
-
Originally posted by edbert:
So, is Hillary gonna play the crying card again a day or two before Texas/Ohio primaries? Or is that one spent?
That one is spent. Her current message is actually very policy based and it's making inroads, at least in Texas and Ohio.
-
Originally posted by -kat-:
and the dems are fucked if whomever gets nominated doesn't pick Edwards as a runningmate.
To steal a quote from my friend Venerable, "Good lord."
I'm going to regret asking this, but on what basis?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by -kat-:
and the dems are fucked if whomever gets nominated doesn't pick Edwards as a runningmate.
To steal a quote from my friend Venerable, "Good lord."
I'm going to regret asking this, but on what basis? [/b]
I agree - I think that's crazy talk.
I've been thinking the past few days about the superdelegate scenario. From the analysis that I've read, it seems virtually certain - minus ENORMOUS gains by Clinton - that Obama is going to go into the convention with a lead in the delegate count, and most likely, the popular vote. I've also seen analysis that indicates that it is virtually impossible for either of them to clinch the nomination before the convention. The question is whether or not Clinton can wrap up enough primaries to make it close, and thus sway the superdelegates to support her as a more surefire candidate.
I don't think that is going to happen - I would estimate that Obama is going to extend his delegate lead and compete in Ohio and Texas. That would mean he is approaching the convention with a definitive lead.
That said - what if the superdelegates give it to Hillary Clinton? There have been a few stories on this of late - but personally? I think it would absolutely destroy the Democratic Party. I don't know that I'd vote for a Democrat again if the superdelegates overturned what appears to be the popular opinion (even if, I'd note, it went in my favor as an Obama supporter and the roles were reversed).
Now here is my hypothetical: let's say that the superdelegates give it to Hillary Clinton, despite Obama's lead in the popular vote and in the delegate count. If that happens, does Obama split from the party and run as an independent? I think there would be an overwhelming push for this coming out of his organization and support base. And if so, does he immediately create a viable third party?
-
If the superdelegates end up overturning the voice of the people, I too will not vote for a Democrat in the general election.
No, I don't think Barack would run as an independent. Though I have nothing to base that on other than my gut.
-
get ready not to vote for a democrat again then...
-
I've voted Dukakis, Clinton, Nader, Nader, and Kerry. I'm accustomed to not having voted for the winner. I think I may have even voted for Jesse Jackson in a primary, but was probably really drunk at the time.
Originally posted by manimtired:
get ready not to vote for a democrat again then...
-
Callat, the scenario you've laid out has been worrying me for some time. I too would feel very disenfranchised by the party if they did this. It would go against everything I've been warning the Dems about this entire Primary season. Right now, I'm going by the assumption that the Dems in charge (not least of which, the Clinton's) wouldn't let that happen.
If it did, I too would leave the party, but I'm still 95% convinced it won't happen. It will make '68 look like a tea party.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Callat, the scenario you've laid out has been worrying me for some time. I too would feel very disenfranchised by the party if they did this. It would go against everything I've been warning the Dems about this entire Primary season. Right now, I'm going by the assumption that the Dems in charge (not least of which, the Clinton's) wouldn't let that happen.
If it did, I too would leave the party, but I'm still 95% convinced it won't happen. It will make '68 look like a tea party.
Agreed. I don't think it is going to happen - the party brass MUST recognize what it would do to them. But I still think it is possible.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says itâ??s not fair, because theyâ??re being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, thereâ??s no White Bitch Month.
Somebody either watches Penn Jilette's stand-up routine or reads Maureen Dowd's column.
-
Originally posted by edbert:
So, is Hillary gonna play the crying card again a day or two before Texas/Ohio primaries? Or is that one spent?
The crying card is shot. Now she is having her lackeys break out the "America won't elect a black man" card.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23134717/?GT1=10856 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23134717/?GT1=10856)
Note that Rendell's statement was released 15 minutes after Obama was declared the big winner of the Virginia primary.
The reemergence of the assassination card can't be far behind.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Now here is my hypothetical: let's say that the superdelegates give it to Hillary Clinton, despite Obama's lead in the popular vote and in the delegate count. If that happens, does Obama split from the party and run as an independent? I think there would be an overwhelming push for this coming out of his organization and support base. And if so, does he immediately create a viable third party?
Obama probably would not jump to a third party because it would burn all his bridges to the Democrat's establishment. He is young enough to take the hit and come back in four or eight years.
There was a movement to create a viable third party in the works. www.Unity08.org (http://www.Unity08.org) It got shut down (for all intents and purposes) by the FEC and the two major parties.
I heard the pitch from a couple of the founders and it was an impressive (and not too unrealistic) idea. It had legs for a while, but the other parties made ballot access impossible and then the FEC cut off their start up money.
Ain't politics grand?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Obama probably would not jump to a third party because it would burn all his bridges to the Democrat's establishment. He is young enough to take the hit and come back in four or eight years.
Take it for what its worth, but Michelle Obama insists that if Barack loses he will not run again.
-
Obama is a new paradigm and his momentum feels (to a DC dem sheltered from 'the real world') like a tidal wave wiping out all that came before it - similar to Clinton in '92 who represented a fresh new paradigm that obliterated the Nixon-Reagan-Bush era (which amazingly returned stronger than ever when he left office). Now, the Clintons (and of course McCain) are the old guard and everything they represent just seems so tired (to me at least).
Meanwhile, Obama really does embody the best of America. Also, its not emphasized that he taught Constitutional Law at Chicago . . . what better experience do we need than a preeminent expert on the foundation of our country?
No matter what happens in the election, its awesome to see his message expressed, because people are listening and getting inspired and that is a very powerful result even if the old guard retains the White House.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by edbert:
So, is Hillary gonna play the crying card again a day or two before Texas/Ohio primaries? Or is that one spent?
The crying card is shot. Now she is having her lackeys break out the "America won't elect a black man" card.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23134717/?GT1=10856 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23134717/?GT1=10856)
Note that Rendell's statement was released 15 minutes after Obama was declared the big winner of the Virginia primary.
The reemergence of the assassination card can't be far behind. [/b]
rendell should just stick to dinner: impossible
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Obama is a new paradigm and his momentum feels (to a DC dem sheltered from 'the real world') like a tidal wave wiping out all that came before it - similar to Clinton in '92 who represented a fresh new paradigm that obliterated the Nixon-Reagan-Bush era (which amazingly returned stronger than ever when he left office). Now, the Clintons (and of course McCain) are the old guard and everything they represent just seems so tired (to me at least).
Meanwhile, Obama really does embody the best of America. Also, its not emphasized that he taught Constitutional Law at Chicago . . . what better experience do we need than a preeminent expert on the foundation of our country?
No matter what happens in the election, its awesome to see his message expressed, because people are listening and getting inspired and that is a very powerful result even if the old guard retains the White House.
god i hope youre joking..the man is a bloated bag of empty rhetoric.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
god i hope youre joking..the man is a bloated bag of empty rhetoric.
I hope the Republicans underestimate him the same way that you are.
If worked well for the Clinton team...
-
no..ross perot worked well for the clinton team.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by edbert:
[qb] Now she is having her lackeys break out the "America won't elect a black man" card.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23134717/?GT1=10856 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23134717/?GT1=10856)
[/b]
I agree with Ed Rendell. There were many Republicans in PA who did not vote for Lynn Swann simply because he's black. That's essentially what he's saying, right?
What an idiot to make a parallel between Swann and Obama. Statements like that will hurt Clinton.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
no..ross perot worked well for the clinton team.
Wrong Clinton team. Try to keep up.
-
you should be more clear..b/c you could say that of bill too. try to be more clear..
-
dammit...now it looks as if im on message with the clintons. this is one wacky primary season.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQ8G3O0&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQ8G3O0&show_article=1)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by manimtired:
god i hope youre joking..the man is a bloated bag of empty rhetoric.
I hope the Republicans underestimate him the same way that you are.
[/b]
i think you mean misunderestimate. . .republicans are still strategerizing
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you should be more clear..b/c you could say that of bill too. try to be more clear..
You're right, I should be more clear because the Bill Clinton team likely underestimated Obama when he was running for head of the Harvard Law Review. Bill likely had someone else in mind.
Maybe you should take a deep breath before posting something negative about the Dem race at every opportunity you get just so you get things a little more clearly.
We get it - you don't like the Dems. How about some thoughtful analysis rather than thoughtless one-off comments? I'm sure my conservative friends (a couple of whom are on this board) will tell you that I'm capable of many thorough conversations about political differences that enlighten them sometimes, at least as much as they enlighten me.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i think you mean misunderestimate. . .republicans are still strategerizing
See manimtired, this is the thoughtful analysis I was talking about...
-
or your ever so smart comment is a perfect analogy to the opinion that republicans underestimated bill and thus lost the election to bush sr....stfu
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
or your ever so smart comment is a perfect analogy to the opinion that republicans underestimated bill and thus lost the election to bush sr.
<img src="http://buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/blogs/files/2007/10/james_carville1.jpg" alt=" - " />
James Carville Knows why...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid)
-
[/qb]
god i hope youre joking..the man is a bloated bag of empty rhetoric. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Not joking. Obviously. I don't find his rhetoric empty at all because it articulates a spirit I see and I think is real in America today. Obama is isn't inventing it, he's personifying it.
That's America baby. What resonates with some, doesn't with others.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Not joking. Obviously. I don't find his rhetoric empty at all because it articulates a spirit I see and I think is real in America today. Obama is isn't inventing it, he's personifying it.
That's America baby. What resonates with some, doesn't with others.
Right. For the most part (there are of course exceptions), the president's policies don't have as much of an effect on your day to day life as the policies of your state and local government.
If Obama can surround himself with the right people and give good speeches that make me feel hopeful about things, then that's good enough for me right now.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The reemergence of the assassination card can't be far behind.
Who needs the Clinton campaign to do that when you can get a Nobel laureate (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/9/235112/9762) to do it for you.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
He could probably find a woman running mate who would not alienate the base as much as Snowe would, I am not sure who it would be, but I don't see it being Snowe.
Whipsers over the weekend of a possible female running mate:
Kay Bailey Hutchinson
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
He could probably find a woman running mate who would not alienate the base as much as Snowe would, I am not sure who it would be, but I don't see it being Snowe.
Whipsers over the weekend of a possible female running mate:
Kay Bailey Hutchinson [/b]
hasn't she been "mentioned" since bush the elder? i know that sarah palin is one that the blogs would like.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i know that sarah palin is one that the blogs would like.
There would be a line of guys waiting to assassinate McCain.
<img src="http://askpang.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/sabine5.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by eros:
There would be a line of guys waiting to assassinate McCain.
That isnt her, this is -
<img src="http://palinforgovernor.com/SarahPalinSm.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
That isnt her, this is -
<img src="http://palinforgovernor.com/SarahPalinSm.jpg" alt=" - " /> [/b]
Dah. Stupid GIS. Still not bad though.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
[/b]
god i hope youre joking..the man is a bloated bag of empty rhetoric. [/QB]
Not joking. Obviously. I don't find his rhetoric empty at all because it articulates a spirit I see and I think is real in America today. Obama is isn't inventing it, he's personifying it.
That's America baby. What resonates with some, doesn't with others. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I'm trying to like Obama so I'm not forced to vote for a 197 year old curmudgeon, but so far he hasn't said a fucking thing of substance, even though he runs his yapper constantly. The only thing that group has said that got my attention was when his wife said "for the first time in her adult life she's proud of America"....I mean what the fuck????!!!!! So the potential 1st lady is ashamed of her country?
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
but so far he hasn't said a fucking thing of substance
here is a 64 page policy document from his website
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
but so far he hasn't said a fucking thing of substance
here is a 64 page policy document from his website
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf) [/b]
reads very close to hillarys policies...with a good helping of hope and change on the side.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
here is a 64 page policy document from his website
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)
You mean his supporters know how to use the interwebs? Shocking. He's finally alluding to this fact in his speeches.
The rest of ya'll keep thinking we're idiots simply following the pied piper. Cracks me up.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
here is a 64 page policy document from his website
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)
You mean his supporters know how to use the interwebs? Shocking. He's finally alluding to this fact in his speeches.
The rest of ya'll keep thinking we're idiots simply following the pied piper. Cracks me up. [/b]
I think it is very telling that Hillary Clinton keeps plugging her website in her speeches. Says a lot about her base.
-
She still has a base?
-
She's still ahead in Texas and Ohio.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
She still has a base?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I think it is very telling that Hillary Clinton keeps plugging her website in her speeches. Says a lot about her base.
This is what's telling to me. Anybody who still says "www" before their web address is out of touch with the masses. Everytime she says go to my web site, she says "www.hillaryclinton.com" when most people who are web saavy would simply say "Hillaryclinton.com"
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
She's still ahead in Texas and Ohio.
She needs a big victory in both states, and I don't see big victories in either.
Texas is a hybrid caucus-primary state which will make it very difficult for her to win a large majority of delegates, which she desperately needs.
And Ohio is a near mirror of Wisconsin, a state she campaigned in for a long time before pulling out as her message was not resonating. He continues to make in roads in women and white blue collored workers. Any possible victory in Ohio is surely not going to be as large as the Clinton campaign was expecting 2-3 weeks ago, if at all.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
She's still ahead in Texas and Ohio.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
She still has a base?
[/b]
That's right. I forgot that Hillary's base is uneducated whites. She ought to do well in Texas and Ohio:
"While about half of whites regardless of education level said the nation is "definitely" ready for a woman president, just a third of whites without college degrees were that sure the country is prepared for a black president and they were almost twice as likely as college educated whites to say the nation is not ready for an African American chief executive."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/02/an_education_gap_among_white_v.html#comments (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/02/an_education_gap_among_white_v.html#comments)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think it is very telling that Hillary Clinton keeps plugging her website in her speeches. Says a lot about her base.
This is what's telling to me. Anybody who still says "www" before their web address is out of touch with the masses. Everytime she says go to my web site, she says "www.hillaryclinton.com" when most people who are web saavy would simply say "Hillaryclinton.com" [/b]
Agreed as well.
-
Do you have statistics to back this up? My mom is a casual web user, and I still have to stick the "www" in front of things for her. Are the "masses" necessarily "web savvy"?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think it is very telling that Hillary Clinton keeps plugging her website in her speeches. Says a lot about her base.
This is what's telling to me. Anybody who still says "www" before their web address is out of touch with the masses. Everytime she says go to my web site, she says "www.hillaryclinton.com" when most people who are web saavy would simply say "Hillaryclinton.com" [/b]
-
Even though no Barack Obama supporter on here has been willing to list Obama's track record of success of yet, a Texas State Senator rose in his defense last night on Chris Matthew's program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o)
I know when I've been put in my place. I stand corrected. HopeChange '08!
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Even though no Barack Obama supporter on here has been willing to list Obama's track record of success of yet, a Texas State Senator rose in his defense last night on Chris Matthew's program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o)
I know when I've been put in my place. I stand corrected. HopeChange '08!
fucking horseshit, you are so full of it, you are playing the same intellectual dishonesty everybody else does
here are some points on his record
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html)
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Even though no Barack Obama supporter on here has been willing to list Obama's track record of success of yet, a Texas State Senator rose in his defense last night on Chris Matthew's program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o)
I know when I've been put in my place. I stand corrected. HopeChange '08!
fucking horseshit, you are so full of it, you are playing the same intellectual dishonesty everybody else does
here are some points on his record
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html) [/b]
was the senator full of fucking horseshit too?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
was the senator full of fucking horseshit too?
the state senator was obviously a poor choice for surrogate, but to say that Obama has no record because that state senator blew it on tv is pure intellectual dishonesty
if thats the case we need to start questioning why hillary is running based solely on the clearly incompetent campaign staff she has (Wolfson and Penn)
-
Why? If your mom simply types in "hillaryclinton.com" you still get to her website. Likewise, if you simply type in "930.com" or any other site, you still get the web page. Perhaps you aren't web savvy?
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Do you have statistics to back this up? My mom is a casual web user, and I still have to stick the "www" in front of things for her. Are the "masses" necessarily "web savvy"?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think it is very telling that Hillary Clinton keeps plugging her website in her speeches. Says a lot about her base.
This is what's telling to me. Anybody who still says "www" before their web address is out of touch with the masses. Everytime she says go to my web site, she says "www.hillaryclinton.com" when most people who are web saavy would simply say "Hillaryclinton.com" [/b]
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Do you have statistics to back this up? My mom is a casual web user, and I still have to stick the "www" in front of things for her. Are the "masses" necessarily "web savvy"?
First off, I don't think there's a web browser left on the market that still makes you put "www" in front of a web address in the address bar to get the correct web site. I just tried hillaryclinton.com (without the www) on three different web browsers and not a single one didn't go directly to her page. I'll have to ask sweetcell to test IE 6 for me.
I will have to find the statistic, but one of the internet giants pointed out the majority of older American's still use web portals as their interface on the web, not the address bar. That means they are more likely to make yahoo, AOL, google or MSN their home page and type whay they are looking for in the search box, and not the complete address in the address bar.
If both of these are the case, why include the www as it is no longer necessary? It shows that you're out of touch.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by manimtired:
was the senator full of fucking horseshit too?
the state senator was obviously a poor choice for surrogate, but to say that Obama has no record because that state senator blew it on tv is pure intellectual dishonesty
if thats the case we need to start questioning why hillary is running based solely on the clearly incompetent campaign staff she has (Wolfson and Penn) [/b]
i dont think people are saying he has NO record...just not a very substantial one for the job he's gunning for.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
you are playing the same intellectual dishonesty everybody else does
It's intellectual dishonesty to pose a serious question to a group of Obama supporters over a week ago, continually receive no attempt at an answer despite repeated requests, and then to point out that one of Obama's biggest supporters in Texas also couldn't answer said question without being laughed at by literally everyone in the studio? Really, that's intellectual dishonesty?
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
here are some points on his record
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html)
What a hilariously shallow, meatless overview, not to mention peppered with the use of the British slang term "wonky," which I'm pretty certain the author doesn't know means "unreliable, not trustworthy."
Then again, touting avian flu reform as Obama's legislative comeuppance is probably the most wonky form of intellectual dishonesty yet.
As Mondale said of Gary Hart, "Where's the beef?"
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i dont think people are saying he has NO record...just not a very substantial one for the job he's gunning for.
well i dont know what Hillarys is because Julian wont tell me and I dont know how else I would find out
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
...peppered with the use of the British slang term "wonky," which I'm pretty certain the author doesn't know means "unreliable, not trustworthy."
Man....That's totally gonna cost him the British vote.
-
I didn't say that I use the "www". I said that I use it for her benefit, since that's what she's used to.
I think it's fitting that she put the "www" in front of her website. Her followers are more about the Democratic status quo, and not about being savvy or embracing change.
That's not to say that my mom is a Hillary follower, as she is not. But lot's of lesser educated, less web savvy folks are.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Why? If your mom simply types in "hillaryclinton.com" you still get to her website. Likewise, if you simply type in "930.com" or any other site, you still get the web page. Perhaps you aren't web savvy?
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Do you have statistics to back this up? My mom is a casual web user, and I still have to stick the "www" in front of things for her. Are the "masses" necessarily "web savvy"?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think it is very telling that Hillary Clinton keeps plugging her website in her speeches. Says a lot about her base.
This is what's telling to me. Anybody who still says "www" before their web address is out of touch with the masses. Everytime she says go to my web site, she says "www.hillaryclinton.com" when most people who are web saavy would simply say "Hillaryclinton.com" [/b]
[/b]
[/b]
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
well i dont know what Hillarys is because Julian wont tell me and I dont know how else I would find out
To make it an apples-to-apples comparison, I'll limit it to her time in the Senate. Off the top of my my head, she sponsored over 150 bills during the current session of Congress and well over 500 during her tenure. There are 21 pieces of legislation (since 2004) that she wrote and was the principle sponsor on that became law. These include increasing benefits for 9/11 families and economic "stimulus" packages extending the availability of unemployment insurance and establishing programs to help caregivers. On the other hand, Obama has exactly 2 such pieces of legislation during the same time: one encouraging the DRC to take up democracy and one naming a post office.
Additionally, Hillary worked in bipartisan fashion with Lindsey Graham to expand health care access to the National Guard and Reservists and passed an amendment starting programs for national teacher training and recruitment.
But hey, Obama was anti-bird flu before everyone else.
-
Anyone can get people to write policy papers on just about any issue.
Fewer people can build consensus to implement that policy.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Fewer people can build concensus to implement that policy.
Obama: Building consensus when it comes to naming post offices and sending shout-outs to the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 2004!
-
Does anyone else think that Hillary looks like a cross between Christopher Walken and Walter Mondale?
<img src="http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/entertainment/07/08/10_walken_lgl.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Mondale_as_Senator.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Well you got to pass a lot of legislation when corporations are counting on you -
Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/10/hillary-clinton-lands-ear_n_76048.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/10/hillary-clinton-lands-ear_n_76048.html)
Hillary Clinton ranked number 9 in Senate earmarkers with $342,403,455 in earmarks
Obama has gotten legislation passed to require a searchable database for earmarks to make government more accountable. (Clinton opposed Obama's proposal to have all earmark requests made public, not just the earmarks that are approved; Obama is one of only two senators who release all of their earmark requests.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/the-political-battle-over_b_86629.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/the-political-battle-over_b_86629.html)
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Does anyone else think that Hillary looks like a cross between Christopher Walken and Walter Mondale?
Yes.
-
Julian, I did point you to a record of his accomplishments (which can be found, incredibly easily, by just looking for yourself).
But, since you're clearly too lazy to do research on BOTH candidates, I'll reprint the text from his website ( Obama Bio (http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_barack.php) ) here:
Political Career
...In the Illinois State Senate, this meant working with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.
In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.
As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he's working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars....
Or, if you want something else, from Wiki (Obama on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#State_legislature) ):
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 from the state's 13th District spanning the south-side Chicago neighborhoods of Hyde Park, South Shore, and Englewood.[31] In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush.[32] He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002, officially resigning in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate.[33] As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[34] He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[35] Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.[35] During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.[36] He was criticized by rival pro-choice candidates in the Democratic primary and by his Republican pro-life opponent in the general election for a series of "present" or "no" votes on late-term abortion and parental notification issues.[37]
109th Congress
Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. In 2005, he co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).[54] He later added three amendments to the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act", which passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the U.S. House of Representatives.[55] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the Mexicoâ??United States border.[56] President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."[57]
Partnering first with Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[58] The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed by the Office of Management and Budget. The site lists all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward and provides breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.[59] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[60]
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In August 2005, he traveled to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks.[61] Following meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006, Obama visited Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. At a meeting with Palestinian students two weeks before Hamas won the legislative election, Obama warned that "the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel."[62] He left for his third official trip in August 2006, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.[63] The speech touched off a public debate among rival leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and improper, others defending his positions.[64]
110th Congress
In the first month of the newly Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, Obama worked with Russ Feingold (Dâ??WI) to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", which was signed into law in September 2007.[65] He joined Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.[66] Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.[67] Obama also introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act", a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008.[68]
Later in 2007, Obama sponsored with Kit Bond (R-MO) an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges, and calling for a review by the Government Accountability Office following reports that the procedure had been used inappropriately to reduce government costs.[69] He sponsored the "Iran Sanctions Enabling Act" supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry,[70] and joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism.[71] A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.[71] Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[72] After passing both houses of Congress with bipartisan majorities, SCHIP was vetoed by President Bush in early October 2007, a move Obama said "shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans."[73]
OR, if you'd like something closer to home, the Washington Post did a nice little piece on him:
Washington Post Online Profile (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/galleries/070208/obamacareer/index.html)
-
Well that's sorted then...Hillary is a gonner because she says 'dubya dubya dubya' before her website address. :roll:
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Well that's sorted then...Hillary is a gonner because she says 'dubya dubya dubya' before her website address. :roll:
regarding your earlier comment here is Michelle Obama's response to the stupid she hates America meme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40S4JAfb00w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40S4JAfb00w)
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Well that's sorted then...Hillary is a gonner because she says 'dubya dubya dubya' before her website address. :roll:
That and how all the meanlingess negative campaigning has backfired everytime they've tried it. Crying was more effective any idea they've had since.
Obama does not need the attacks from both sides - Clinton and McCain. It's time for him to focus on being the President of the United States come Jan. 2009 and assume the nomination is his. After Hillary does not make any inroads on March 4, it's time for her to get out.
-
i'm not sure if this is has been posted yet... but it's great (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid988327350?bclid=1037705321&bctid=1377935786)
-
I'm certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton. At all. But I kind of feel her machine (Penn, Bill, etc.) has sort of pulled the rug out from under her. I think Obama just takes whatever HIllary's positions and policies are and makes them his. He's just more likable.
However, if I needed a quarterback to play in the Super Bowl, I'd take Drew Bledsoe or Jake Plummer over Matt Ryan or Colt Brennan any day.
Brian
-
I'm still waiting for a rebuttal from Julian.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I'm still waiting for a rebuttal from Julian.
A rebuttal to what? I asked you well over a week ago for Obama's trackrecord of political successes and you, first, tried to pass off him having a college degree as such, and then a week later, second, you copy and pasted his bio. I doubt team HopeChangeHope was making up stuff in his bio. What's there to rebut?
It still stands uncontested he's a first-term Senator who passed, wrote, and co-sponsored far, far, far fewer bills then his democratic challenger and has zero executive experience. If you want to argue he has a better track record of bringing about change, even your Team ChangeHopeChange buddies will have to laugh at you.
-
Again, I'm not bashing Obama's ideas or saying anyone in their right mind should vote McCain over him, just that Hillary is a better choice and would be a better President like 15 times over. Hillary would be the next Bill Clinton. McCain would be the next Reagen. Obama, the next Jimmy Carter. Was Jimmy Carter a good President? Heck no, giant ineffectual dark-horse failure. Was Jimmy Carter better then Reagen? Oh God yes.
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
However, if I needed a quarterback to play in the Super Bowl, I'd take Drew Bledsoe or Jake Plummer over Matt Ryan or Colt Brennan any day.
what about super bowl 36
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
what about super bowl 36
Shoeshine, I went to the Orange Bowl with Tommy Brady. I knew Tommy Brady; Tommy Brady was a hero of mine. Shoeshine, Obama's no Tommy Brady.
Alternate response: Obama's got a George F. Will in the McCain camp and taped his debate walkthrough? That's awesome!
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
I'm still waiting for a rebuttal from Julian.
A rebuttal to what? I asked you well over a week ago for Obama's trackrecord of political successes and you, first, tried to pass off him having a college degree as such, and then a week later, second, you copy and pasted his bio. I doubt team HopeChangeHope was making up stuff in his bio. What's there to rebut?
It still stands uncontested he's a first-term Senator who passed, wrote, and co-sponsored far, far, far fewer bills then his democratic challenger and has zero executive experience. If you want to argue he has a better track record of bringing about change, even your Team ChangeHopeChange buddies will have to laugh at you. [/b]
You asked for legislative accomplishments, to which I openly said I wasn't going to direct you to information that is readily available all over the web. After you repeated the same statement and clearly misrepresented the facts, I decided to just copy and paste it for you, as you were obviously too lazy to go and find it yourself. Go get on Wiki - or did you choose to ignore that part of the above post, that includes a bibliography fully explaining his legislative record.
You also were either a) wrong, or b) lying when you tried to represent that the only pieces of legislation that Obama was involved in related to a post office and recognition of the Congo (the quote, if I need remind you: "On the other hand, Obama has exactly 2 such pieces of legislation during the same time: one encouraging the DRC to take up democracy and one naming a post office.") So which is it? Ignorance, or dishonesty?
And now you've changed your argument: fewer bills, as opposed to no bills.
Make up your mind. You're starting to sound like your candidate.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
You also were either a) wrong, or b) lying when you tried to represent that the only pieces of legislation that Obama was involved in related to a post office and recognition of the Congo (the quote, if I need remind you: "On the other hand, Obama has exactly 2 such pieces of legislation during the same time: one encouraging the DRC to take up democracy and one naming a post office.") So which is it? Ignorance, or dishonesty?
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
There are 21 pieces of legislation (since 2004) that she wrote and was the principle sponsor on that became law. ... On the other hand, Obama has exactly 2 such pieces of legislation during the same time: one encouraging the DRC to take up democracy and one naming a post office.
I said Hilary since '04 had 21 pieces of legislation that she wrote that in fact passed and became law. Not bills she co-sponsored. So when I said Obama had "2 such pieces of legislation during the same time period" I was referring to 2 bills that he wrote and in fact passed, which is accurate. I was not counting bills either co-sponsored, but did not author. In that category, Hillary has 150 in this legislative period and 500 in her career. Obama's number is dwarfed by that, obviously.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
You also were either a) wrong, or b) lying when you tried to represent that the only pieces of legislation that Obama was involved in related to a post office and recognition of the Congo (the quote, if I need remind you: "On the other hand, Obama has exactly 2 such pieces of legislation during the same time: one encouraging the DRC to take up democracy and one naming a post office.") So which is it? Ignorance, or dishonesty?
I said Hilary since '04 had 21 pieces of legislation that she wrote that in fact passed and became law. Not bills she co-sponsored. So when I said Obama had "2 such pieces of legislation during the same time period" I was referring to 2 bills that he wrote and in fact passed, which is accurate. I was not counting bills either co-sponsored, but did not author. In that category, Hillary has 150 in this legislative period and 500 in her career. Obama's number is dwarfed by that, obviously. [/b]
You're deliberately distorting the truth. Nobody is questioning whether or not Hillary has authored or sponsored more bills. Nobody is questioning the fact that Hillary has more experience as a legislator and a member of the Washington set. But don't selectively pick and choose what you are going to represent as experience. Look at the big picture.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Nobody is questioning the fact that Hillary has more experience as a legislator and a member of the Washington set. But don't selectively pick and choose what you are going to represent as experience. Look at the big picture.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression the "big picture" should be able to be qualified by actions, stats and facts as opposed to warm fuzz feelings like "HopeChange." When someone claims to be a free-thinker and a consensus builder, I'd like some examples to hang my hat on of their record of building consensus on free-thinking ideas that they came up with, not bird flu reform, renaming post offices, and shoutouts to Africa. Perhaps he should've used his HopeChange consensus building for something a bit more substantive then co-sponsoring bills everyone agreed with to begin with.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Nobody is questioning the fact that Hillary has more experience as a legislator and a member of the Washington set. But don't selectively pick and choose what you are going to represent as experience. Look at the big picture.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression the "big picture" should be able to be qualified by actions, stats and facts as opposed to warm fuzz feelings like "HopeChange." When someone claims to be a free-thinker and a consensus builder, I'd like some examples to hang my hat on of their record of building consensus on free-thinking ideas that they came up with, not bird flu reform, renaming post offices, and shoutouts to Africa. Perhaps he should've used his HopeChange consensus building for something a bit more substantive then co-sponsoring bills everyone agreed with to begin with. [/b]
Again, you don't see this as selectively choosing what you're going to represent as experience?
-
Washington Post, January 4:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html)
People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.
Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters' fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance that they assume is boring, a fascination that despite being ridiculed for years continues to dominate political journalism.)
I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the "heart and soul" bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person's character and ability.
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.
Obama had his work cut out for him.
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.
Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure"). Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.
Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.
I do not think that a candidate's legislative record is the only measure of presidential potential, simply that Obama's is revealing enough to merit far more attention than it has received. Indeed, the media have been equally delinquent in reporting the legislative achievements of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom spent years in the U.S. Senate. The media should compare their legislative records to Obama's, devoting special attention to their heart-and-soul bills and how effective each was in actually making law.
Charles Peters, the founding editor of the Washington Monthly, is president of Understanding Government, a foundation devoted to better government through better reporting.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
what about super bowl 36
Shoeshine, I went to the Orange Bowl with Tommy Brady. I knew Tommy Brady; Tommy Brady was a hero of mine. Shoeshine, Obama's no Tommy Brady.
Alternate response: Obama's got a George F. Will in the McCain camp and taped his debate walkthrough? That's awesome! [/b]
actually i'm hoping barack's more eli manning
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Again, you don't see this as selectively choosing what you're going to represent as experience?
I look at it this way. If I'm a NBA basketball coach or GM and I'm considering new players, what's the best way to decide what players to draft? To ask the players if they're good at basketball? Or, perhaps, seeing the footage of them in college and reviewing stats and seeing how well they did and what skills they have?
If you want to compete at sports at the highest level, you should have a track record of success at lower levels. Obama's legislative experience is small and relatively unimpressive. To say Obama was highly successful at building unity or passing tough legislation is disingenuous. And all this, he was President of Harvard Law Review and a lawyer stuff, is about like drafting a basketball player based on how good a lacrosse player he was. Yeah, both are athletes and some of that skill is going to carry over, but I'd really want a bit more then that to hang my franchise's (or country's) future on.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
actually i'm hoping barack's more eli manning
Eli Manning was in Super Bowl 36? Barack Obama's gawky looking?
-
New York Times, July 30, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html)
In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd
By JANNY SCOTT
Published: July 30, 2007
There was something improbable about the new guy from Chicago via Honolulu and Jakarta, Indonesia, the one with the Harvard law degree and the job teaching constitutional law, turning up in Springfield, Ill., in January 1997 among the housewives, ex-mayors and occasional soybean farmer serving in the State Senate.
The new senator, Barack Obama, was a progressive Democrat in a time of tight Republican control. He was a former community organizer in a place where power is famously held by a few. He was a neophyte promising reform in a culture that a University of Illinois political studies professor describes as â??really tough and, frankly, still quite corrupt.â?
â??One of my first comments to Barack was, â??What the hell are you doing here?â?? â? said Denny Jacobs, a former senator and self-described â??backroom politician, not one of those do-gooders that stands up front and says we got to make changes.â?
Senator Obamaâ??s answer? â??He looked at me sort of strange.â?
Mr. Obama did not bring revolution to Springfield in his eight years in the Senate, the longest chapter in his short public life. But he turned out to be practical and shrewd, a politician capable of playing hardball to win election (he squeezed every opponent out of his first race), a legislator with a sharp eye for an opportunity, a strategist willing to compromise to accomplish things.
He positioned himself early on as a protégé of the powerful Democratic leader, Senator Emil Jones, a beneficiary of the Chicago political machine. He courted collaboration with Republicans. He endured hazing from a few black colleagues, played poker with lobbyists, studiously took up golf. (â??An awful lot happens on the golf course,â? a friend, Jean Rudd, says he told her.)
By the time he left Springfield in 2004, he had built not only the connections necessary to win election to the United States Senate but a record not inconsistent with his lofty rhetoric of consensus building and bipartisanship.
â??He came with a huge dose of practicality,â? said Paul L. Williams, a lobbyist in Springfield and former state representative who is a supporter of Mr. Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Mr. Williams characterized Mr. Obamaâ??s attitude as, â??O.K., that makes sense and sounds great, as Iâ??d like to go to the moon, but right now Iâ??ve only got enough gas to go this far.â?
With the assistance of Senator Jones, Mr. Obama helped deliver what is said to have been the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be taped and helped bring about passage of the stateâ??s first racial-profiling law. He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies.
â??I learned that if youâ??re willing to listen to people, itâ??s possible to bridge a lot of the differences that dominate the national political debate,â? Mr. Obama said in an interview on Friday. â??I pretty quickly got to form relationships with Republicans, with individuals from rural parts of the state, and we had a lot in common.â?
Not everyone was impressed, at least initially. His â??pedigree,â? as Mr. Jones calls it with a chuckle, evoked some skepticism. Two black, Democratic state senators from Chicago, Donne E. Trotter and Rickey R. Hendon, who both now say they are Obama supporters, caricatured him as a privileged, know-it-all greenhorn. At times, they seemed to call into question his black credentials, foreshadowing complaints from some African-Americans today that Mr. Obama is â??not black enoughâ? because of his biracial heritage and his class.
â??We could barely have meetings in caucus because Donne and Rickey would give him hell,â? said State Senator Kimberly A. Lightford, a Democrat and former chairwoman of the Senateâ??s black caucus. â??Donne would be, â??Just because youâ??re from Harvard, you think you know everything.â?? Barack was like the new kid on the block. He was handsome and he was mild mannered and he was well liked. Sometimes there was a little â??Whoâ??s this? He coming here, he donâ??t know anything.â?? â?
In a Hurry?
His critics say Mr. Obama could have accomplished much more if he had been in less of a hurry to leave the Statehouse behind. Steven J. Rauschenberger, a longtime Republican senator who stepped down this year, said: â??He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasnâ??t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.â?
Within three years of his arrival, Mr. Obama ran for Congress, a race he lost. When the Democrats took control of the State Senate in 2003 â?? and Mr. Jones replaced James Philip, known as Pate, a retired Pepperidge Farm district manager who served as president of the Senate â?? Mr. Obama made his next move.
â??He said to me, â??Youâ??re now the Senate president,â?? â? Mr. Jones recalled. â?? â??You have a lot of power.â?? I said, â??I do?â?? He said, â??Yes.â?? I said, â??Tell me what kind of power I have.â?? He said, â??You have the power to make a U.S. senator.â?? I said, â??I do?â?? He said, â??You do.â?? I said, â??If Iâ??ve got that kind of power, do you know of anyone that I can make?â?? He said, â??Yeah. Me.â?? â?
The route that had brought Mr. Obama to Springfield was far from typical. Born in Hawaii and raised for a while in Indonesia, he had worked as a community organizer in Chicago after graduating from Columbia College in 1983. Returning from Harvard to practice law and later teach at the University of Chicago, he had run a voter registration drive in the 1992 election.
Three years later, a congressman from the South Side of Chicago was convicted of having sex with a minor. A Democratic state senator from his district, Alice L. Palmer, decided to run for the seat. Carol Anne Harwell, Mr. Obamaâ??s first campaign manager, said Ms. Palmer invited Mr. Obama, then 35, to run for her seat.
But after losing in the primary, Ms. Palmer had second thoughts. A delegation of her supporters asked Mr. Obama to step aside. He not only declined, but his campaign staff challenged the signatures on Ms. Palmerâ??s campaign petitions and kept her off the ballot. It was nothing personal: They did the same thing to every other Democrat in the race.
â??He knocked off the incumbent, so that right there gave him some notoriety,â? said Ron Davis, who served as Mr. Obamaâ??s precinct coordinator. â??And he ran unopposed â?? which for a rookie is unheard of.â?
He added, â??Barack is a quick learner.â?
At the time, Mr. Obama said he was running to mobilize people to work for change. He wanted to apply techniques of community organizing to elected office. In a 1995 profile in The Chicago Reader, he said, â??What if a politician were to see his job as an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them?â?
But Springfield was not ideally suited for such an approach. Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 37 to 32 in the Senate when Mr. Obama arrived. Power resided almost exclusively with the â??Four Topsâ? â?? the Senate president, the House speaker and the minority leaders in each chamber. They controlled committee assignments, the legislative agenda, the staff. They even disbursed campaign money.
â??Itâ??s power politics, and itâ??s politics as a business, and itâ??s winning and control,â? said Kent Redfield, the political studies professor at the University of Illinois at Springfield. â??The mind-set is, it is not the publicâ??s business. Thatâ??s part of the culture: Itâ??s about the politicians, and the politicians own the company.â?
Asked why he ran for the Senate in a state where rank-and-file lawmakers have been called â??mushroomsâ? (because they are kept in the dark and fed, uh, manure), Mr. Obama said: â??Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done.â?
Forming Relationships
From his days as an organizer, Mr. Obama already knew the Democratic leader, Mr. Jones, who had come up through the Democratic organization in Chicago. He had helped Mr. Obamaâ??s group acquire state money for a dropout prevention program that still operates today.
â??Well, when he came here, first got elected, he came to me,â? Mr. Jones said, ensconced in his corner office in the Statehouse, his head wreathed in a swirl of cigarette smoke. â??And he said to me, â??You know me, you know me quite well.â?? He said: â??You know I like to work hard. So feel free in giving me any tough assignments and everything.â?? I said, â??Good.â?? â?
One of the first was campaign finance reform. Illinois had one of the least regulated campaign finance systems in the country and a history of corruption. Paul Simon, the former United States senator, was running a public policy institute at Southern Illinois University and asked each of the four legislative leaders to name a trusted lawmaker to work on a bipartisan ethics bill.
Mr. Jones recalls receiving a call from Abner J. Mikva, a former Chicago congressman, federal judge and friend of Mr. Simon. Judge Mikva, who had once tried to hire Mr. Obama as a law clerk, suggested him for the job. Mr. Jones says he knew that the new senator was hard-working and bright and that few others would want the assignment.
â??He caught pure hell,â? Mr. Jones said of Mr. Obama. â??I actually felt sorry for him at times.â?
The job required negotiating across party lines to come up with reform proposals, then presenting them to the Democratic caucus. Senator Kirk Dillard, the Republican Senate presidentâ??s appointee, said, â??Barack was literally hooted and catcalled in his caucus.â? On the Senate floor, Mr. Dillard said, â??They would bark their displeasure at me, and then theyâ??d unload on Obama.â?
Mr. Obama entered the discussions favoring contribution limits, said Mike Lawrence, now director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. But he realized they had no chance of passing. So the legislation, passed in 1998, banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislatorsâ?? personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.
â??I know he wanted to limit contributions by corporations or labor unions, and he certainly wanted to stop the transfers of huge amounts of money from the four legislative caucus leaders into rank-and-file membersâ?? campaigns,â? Mr. Dillard said. â??But he knew that would never happen. So he got off that kick and thought disclosure was a more practical way to shine sunlight on what sometimes are unsavory practices.â?
The disclosure requirement â??revolutionized Illinoisâ??s system,â? said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, â??put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown.â?
His role, though, did not endear Mr. Obama to everyone.
Racial Friction Early On
By many accounts, there was already friction between him and Mr. Hendon, whose West Side Chicago district is among the poorest in the state, and Mr. Trotter. When Mr. Trotter and Mr. Obama both ran for Congress two years later â?? unsuccessfully, it turned out â?? Mr. Trotter told a reporter that Mr. Obama was viewed in part as â??the white man in blackface in our community.â?
Mr. Dillard said, â??I remember Rickey chiding Obama that, â??What do you know, Barack? You grew up in Hawaii and you live in Hyde Park. What do you know about the street?â?? To which Obama shot back: â??I know a lot. I didnâ??t exactly have a rosy childhood. Iâ??m a street organizer by profession and a lot of my area, once you get outside the University of Chicago neighborhoods, is just as tough as your West Side, Rickey.â?? â?
In an interview, Mr. Trotter said Mr. Obama had arrived â??wanting to change things immediately,â? as though he intended â??to straighten out all these folks because theyâ??re crooks.â? But Mr. Trotter credited Mr. Obama with later â??trying to make himself more regularâ? and â??taking himself out of his cocoon, his comfort zoneâ? and â??not just pontificating through the press.â?
Mr. Hendon, who says he is writing a book on electoral politics called â??Backstabbers,â? said ethics reform would have passed with or without Mr. Obama because of scandals that preceded it. He said the sponsors of ethics bills tended to be â??wealthy kind of people, the same kind of people who vote against pay raises, who donâ??t need $5,000 a year. Whereas senators like me from poorer communities, we could use that $5,000.â?
Mr. Hendon praised Mr. Obama, however, for later winning passage of what some in Springfield called â??the driving-while-black bill,â? which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor racial profiling. Law enforcement groups had repeatedly blocked earlier versions while the Republicans were in control; when the Democrats took over, Mr. Obama brokered a compromise between the police groups and the A.C.L.U.
Mr. Hendon, sponsor of a previous bill, said Mr. Obama had â??made some compromises that other members of the black caucus just werenâ??t willing to bend onâ? â?? perhaps, he said, because Senator Obama had never been abused by the police. But he added, â??Iâ??m not saying he gave up too much. In hindsight, it was best to go ahead with the weaker version because a lot of police attitudes changed when we passed it.â?
Mr. Obama worked hard at building connections. Aside from taking up golf he joined a weekly poker game. One lobbyist said Mr. Obama played poker well, but â??with more skill than luck,â? adding, â??Itâ??s certainly not instinctive with him; itâ??s cerebral.â?
In Springfield, Mr. Obama said, he learned early â??that forming relationships a lot of times was more important than having all the policy talking points in your arsenal. That most of the time people at the state level â?? and in the U.S. Senate â?? are moved as much by whether or not they trust you and whether or not they think your values are sound as they are by graphs and charts and numbers on a page.â?
Many of those relationships have proved helpful since. As Mr. Jones tells it, when Mr. Obama asked him to support his run for the United States Senate, the younger man had already figured out that the Senate presidentâ??s early backing could â??checkmateâ? the mayor, the governor and organized labor.
Senator Terry Link, a forklift business owner who golfed and played poker with Mr. Obama, also provided assistance. Chairman of the Lake County Democratic organization, he informed the group that it would be backing the long shot, Mr. Obama, in the Senate primary.
â??They all thought Iâ??d lost my marbles,â? said Mr. Link. â?? â??Youâ??re nuts! We canâ??t support him.â?? I said, â??When you know him like I know him, youâ??ll all support him.â?? The largest percentage in the primary came from my county. He carried every precinct.â?
-
Those articles should be enough to answer at least some of your questions about consensus building and past experience.
-
I'm not completely discrediting his Illinois state legislative record, because he clearly was successful there and did alot of good, but his record at the national level is far, far less impressive. To go back to my sports analogy, some awesome high school football players become middling college players and have no business being in the pros. If he's finding it harder to be successful in Congress, what does he think is going to happen if he's President? It doesn't get easier.
Doesn't Hillary's record of being successful at the national level and building cohesion at that level (which the President needs to do) impress you that she might - might! - be better suited for the job then Obama?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
I'm not completely discrediting his Illinois state legislative record, because he clearly was successful there and did alot of good, but his record at the national level is far, far less impressive. To go back to my sports analogy, some awesome high school football players become middling college players and have no business being in the pros. If he's finding it harder to be successful in Congress, what does he think is going to happen if he's President? It doesn't get easier.
Doesn't Hillary's record of being successful at the national level and building cohesion at that level (which the President needs to do) impress you that she might - might! - be better suited for the job then HopeChange?
I'm not arguing that Hillary isn't qualified. I'm saying that Obama brings an element of pragmatism to the table that she doesn't that has the potential to be more impactful and less divisive.
Like it or not, an enduring legacy of the Clinton era (which, for the record, I was an enormous supporter of in the 1990s) is political deadlock and divisiveness. I think it is virtually impossible to expect that a Hillary Clinton presidency would result in anything other than another 4-8 years of extreme partisanship. I think Obama has the potential to change that. Hillary, frankly, does not.
And of course Obama's record in the U.S. Senate is going to be less impressive - he's been there less time and has spent the bulk of that time running for President. I'm not excusing that - he's still a Senator from my home state and part of me is truly irritated that he's not spending more time doing his current job.
But you keep asking for proof of his experience. You want to play with sports analogies? If you're Boston, do you sign Dice-K? After all, the only experience you've seen are in a different league. How about Seattle and Ichiro? Do you take a pass on Yao Ming because he's only played in a different league?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I'm saying that Obama brings an element of pragmatism to the table that she doesn't that has the potential to be more impactful and less divisive.
What makes you feel Obama is more pragmatic? I see him going around saying, if elected, the way we do politics will change and there'll be a spirit of bipartisanship like never before. I guess I don't see that happening no matter who the President is... the Democrats and Republicans are still going to be at each other's throats and not skipping around and having picnics together. I guess, if he actually believes that, he's not very pragmatic -- in my opinion -- at all. If he doesn't believe it, then he's sortof being disingenuous.
I think in the politically divided world we live in, ANYONE is going to have big problems passing serious legislation when it comes to single-payer health care or many other social issues. Hillary's divisive but I don't believe for a second that the Republicans are going to oppose less Barack if he's the President and proposing similar things. To me, I feel Hillary, with the trackrecord, team, and infrastructure already in place, has a better shot at serious changes. Obama has to build that infrastructure and team within his own party, really.
I guess that's why I don't put alot of stock in being an "outsider." The President has to work with alot of people in Congress, etc, to bring about change and Hillary has those relationships already in place. Obama has some, particularly in the Senate, but not nearly as wide of a network.
But in the spirit of open discussion, please do explain why you feel Obama is more pragmatic and impactful.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
actually i'm hoping barack's more eli manning
Eli Manning was in Super Bowl 36? Barack Obama's gawky looking? [/b]
i just hate tom brady, and like barack. you arent really taking the sports analogy seriously are you
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
you arent really taking the sports analogy seriously are you?
It worked on so many levels until you started throwing people who weren't in Super Bowl 36 into it.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
I'm not completely discrediting his Illinois state legislative record, because he clearly was successful there and did alot of good, but his record at the national level is far, far less impressive. To go back to my sports analogy, some awesome high school football players become middling college players and have no business being in the pros. If he's finding it harder to be successful in Congress, what does he think is going to happen if he's President? It doesn't get easier.
Doesn't Hillary's record of being successful at the national level and building cohesion at that level (which the President needs to do) impress you that she might - might! - be better suited for the job then Obama?
I would say Hillary had a lot more influence right away upon entering the Senate given that she already had a political history in Washington, its hard for a freshman Senator to get a lot done unless you are the former first lady. That issue of influence doesnt matter as much when you become president because the influence comes with the office.
-
I guess you've illustrated my point.
If you don't believe that it is possible to work within the system to change it, then I think we all lose out. If it really isn't possible to build true consensus, then our government is broken beyond repair and we should hunker down for the inevitable loss of prestige, stability and power that will come with that.
The trick - ultimately - is compromise. And I think Obama's record working with the GOP in Illinois is indicative of his ability to do just that. Not only that, perhaps Obama's biggest strength is his ability to motivate the public to demand action. Politicians answer to their constituents - and Obama has been able to motivate people to do, say, and believe in more than they have before. Given the national stage to put forth a platform, I really believe he can lead the American people to demand policy changes.
That is the "change" that is talked about - it is a change in attitude; a change in belief that Washington isn't accountable to the people they represent.
I just received an email from the campaign saying that Obama has received donations from 936,000 people over the course of this campaign. That is absolutely incredible - almost 1,000,000 people DONATING MONEY to a presidential campaign? To me, that indicates his ability to call upon the collective will of the American people to demand something different. For now, that message is limited to an election - but give him a platform, and I think he turns that motivation to the issues: health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, responsible energy policy, or whatever else you'd like to point out.
What is more powerful than a movement of American people demanding change on a specific issue? The only way sweeping changes have ever been made in this country were due to a mass movement of people demanding it. Obama can lead that movement on any number of issues. If you can get the American people to stand up and ask for something, eventually, things begin to change. You've seen it with this campaign, and I believe you'll see it in the issues with an Obama presidency. Hillary Clinton just can't do that.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
you arent really taking the sports analogy seriously are you?
It worked on so many levels until you started throwing people who weren't in Super Bowl 36 into it. [/b]
heh, i thought it was silly for walalalalace to want an experienced drew bledsoe of all people. i would have kept it going except i hate brady
i had a whole donovan mcnabb getting cheated analogy in my head though
-
I guess when it comes right down to it, you can have the optimist banner, but I'm claiming the pragmatist one. I believe if Christ himself was elected President, the political party he wasn't part of would oppose him viciously. I think we live in a politically divided country and 50% of America aren't going to "compromise" their beliefs on abortion, taxes, health care, gun control, the death penalty, etc because Barack Obama (or anyone) tells them they need to. When religious beliefs come into play, people get strange. We've seen it in the Muslim part of the world for years but Christendom is just as bad. I have no doubt that 45% of America would rather see another civil war then see gays marry, because in their head, that's what Jesus would want.
I dunno, just my take on it. I think the best we can hope for is small changes over time on social issues and medium changes on financial issues. I don't think anyone in this political climate is going to step in and greatly alter the system we live in.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i had a whole donovan mcnabb getting cheated analogy in my head though
So is Al Gore the mobile African-American QB who never wins anything and Bush, Jr. the Bill Belichek?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i had a whole donovan mcnabb getting cheated analogy in my head though
So is Al Gore the mobile African-American QB who never wins anything and Bush, Jr. the Bill Belichek? [/b]
and t.o. as ralph nader
too bad its soccer season. all of my hillary ones go there
-
Carter better than Reagan? WTF...
two words: misery index
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Carter better than Reagan? WTF...
two words: misery index
Much higher under Reagan.
-
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Carter better than Reagan? WTF...
two words: misery index
Much higher under Reagan. [/b]
Are you confusing misery with bullshit?
HEY HEY HEY Obama is the black Reagan!!! He makes some feel all warm and fuzzy but actually hasn't 'done' anything productive.
-
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Carter better than Reagan? WTF...
two words: misery index
Much higher under Reagan. [/b]
possibly right after he took office after carter. no where near as high when reagan left office. sorry.
-
Does anyone else think Obama looks like the black Carl Edwards?
<img src="http://www.roushcollection.com/i/photo_carl_edwards.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.yoursdaily.com/var/yoursdaily/storage/images/media/images/world_news/united_states/senators/barack_hussein_obama/37683-1-eng-GB/barack_hussein_obama_large.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Does anyone else think Obama looks like the black Carl Edwards?
Not so much. Your Hillary/Walken comparison was more spot on.
-
This is yer white Obama....
<img src="http://adiamondinsunlight.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/464px-joker-ritz.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Does anyone else think Obama looks like the black Carl Edwards?
Well, if you ignore the differences in hair, eyes, ears, chin and nose, then sure.
-
Oh, come on now. They've both got a boring nerdy clean cut boy scout haircut, prominent Romanesque nose, full lips, oval face shape, long gangly limbs and fingers. And if you use Kurt Busch's big ears (especially before he had his ear pinning surgery)...
<img src="http://images.usatoday.com/weather/_photos/2006/03/17/xxxdaytonasaturday383.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.mnworld.com/warriors/messages/9/9439.gif" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Does anyone else think Obama looks like the black Carl Edwards?
Well, if you ignore the differences in hair, eyes, ears, chin and nose, then sure. [/b]
-
<img src="http://www.motheringhut.com/images/art_obamaarenas.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
That's funny.
I was talking to this woman I work with, and referencing Gilbert Arenas but forgetting his name, she says "You know who I'm talking about, that little gay guy who's been injured..."
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
<img src="http://images.usatoday.com/weather/_photos/2006/03/17/xxxdaytonasaturday383.jpg" alt=" - " />
. [/b]
[/QB]
Seperated at birth???
<img src="http://digilander.libero.it/happydays/foto_attori/richie/ron_77.JPG" alt=" - " />
-
thoughts on last nights debate? pretty boring but i thought obama stumbled a bit when pressed by hillary.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
thoughts on last nights debate? pretty boring but i thought obama stumbled a bit when pressed by hillary.
So it was just like all the others then...
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by manimtired:
thoughts on last nights debate? pretty boring but i thought obama stumbled a bit when pressed by hillary.
So it was just like all the others then... [/b]
you could say that. i did find it amusing how the moderators had next to zero control all night.
-
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing....
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing....
he is a persistent man
-
Another election where he gets .3% of the vote?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing....
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing....
No. I don't think he's actually going to run this time.
And to make clear my earlier analogy, I meant I'd rather have an experienced QB with good points AND bad points (Hillary) than a rookie with a lot of "potential" but no experience (Obama) in something important like the Super Bowl (presidency.)
Actually, I should have used JaMarcus Russell instead of Matt Ryan or Colt Brennan as my "rookie" example. I was reading stuff about the combine and stumbled across an article from last year about Russell. The slurping of Russell was amazing. Comments like "throws a much better ball than Marino and Elway" and "more raw talent than Manning or Brady."
Brian
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
I meant I'd rather have an experienced QB with good points AND bad points (Hillary) than a rookie with a lot of "potential" but no experience (Obama) in something important like the Super Bowl (presidency.)Brian
What is Hilary's superior experience? She's been in the senate 4 years longer. Long enough to not object to Iraq. She was a lawyer. Obama was a lawyer, community organizer and law professor. She was married to the president. That has never been considered 'experience' before. Nobody is saying Laura Bush is ready to be president. What am I missing.
Also, Eli had no SB experience and did pretty well.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
What is Hilary's superior experience?
It sure isn't managing a campaign:
The New York Times - February 22, 2008
Donors Worried by Clinton Campaign Spending
By MICHAEL LUO, JO BECKER and PATRICK HEALY
Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonâ??s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clintonâ??s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
â??We didnâ??t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now,â? said a prominent New York donor. â??So much about her campaign needs to change â?? but it may be too late.â?
The high-priced senior consultants to Mrs. Clinton, of New York, have emerged as particular targets of complaints, given that they conceived and executed a political strategy that has thus far proved unsuccessful.
The firm that includes Mark Penn, Mrs. Clintonâ??s chief strategist and pollster, and his team collected $3.8 million for fees and expenses in January; in total, including what the campaign still owes, the firm has billed more than $10 million for consulting, direct mail and other services, an amount other Democratic strategists who are not affiliated with either campaign called stunning.
Howard Wolfson, the communications director and a senior member of the advertising team, earned nearly $267,000 in January. His total, including the campaignâ??s debt to him, tops $730,000.
The advertising firm owned by Mandy Grunwald, the longtime media strategist for both Mrs. Clinton and Bill Clinton, the former president, has collected $2.3 million in fees and expenses, and is still owed another $240,000.
â??Fees and payments are in line with industry standards,â? Mr. Wolfson said. â??Spending priorities have been consistent with overall strategic goals.â?
But some Democrats are now asking if the money spent on a campaign that appears to be sputtering â?? $106 million so far â?? was worth it.
Joe Trippi, who was a senior adviser to John Edwardsâ??s presidential campaign, said he believed that the Clinton team had made two fundamental errors.
First, he argued, Mrs. Clinton built a top-down fund-raising operation that relied on a core group of donors to write checks early on for the maximum amount, $4,600 for the primary and the general election, which left few of them to go back to when money became tight. Mr. Obama, by contrast, focused on building a network of small donors whose continued ability to give has been essential to his success this winter.
And second, Mr. Trippi said, the Clinton campaign spent money as though the race were going to be over after a handful of states had voted and was not prepared for a contest that would stretch for months.
â??The problem is she ran a campaign like they were staying at the Ritz-Carlton,â? Mr. Trippi said. â??Everything was the best. The most expensive draping at events. The biggest charter. It was like, â??Weâ??re going to show you how presidential we are by making our events look presidential.â?? â?
For instance, during the week before the Jan. 19 caucuses in Nevada, the Clinton campaign spent more than $25,000 for rooms at the Bellagio in Las Vegas; nearly $5,000 was spent at the Four Seasons in Las Vegas that week. Some staff members also stayed at Planet Hollywood nearby.
From the start of the campaign, some donors had concerns about the Clinton teamâ??s ability to manage money.
Patti Solis Doyle, Mrs. Clintonâ??s presidential campaign manager until she was replaced on Feb. 10, also ran her Senate re-election bid in 2006. That campaign spent about $30 million even though Mrs. Clinton faced only token Democratic and Republican opposition.
â??The Senate race spending in 2006 was an omen for a lot of us inside the campaign, but Hillary assured us that her presidential bid would be the best run in history,â? said one major Clinton fund-raiser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations within the campaign.
Yet the Clinton campaign at times found itself spending money on items that were not ultimately helpful. As part of their get-out-the-vote effort in Iowa, the campaign came up with a plan to have a local supermarket deliver sandwich platters to pre-caucus parties. It spent more than $95,384 on Jan. 1 at Hy-Vee Inc., a local grocery chain in West Des Moines, Iowa, in addition to buying loads of snow shovels to clear the walks for caucusgoers. Mrs. Clinton came in third in the Jan. 3 caucus. It did not snow.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing....
He's going to annonce who he's endorsing so I know who to vote for??? :roll:
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Another election where he gets .3% of the vote?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing....
[/b]
Just think, without your vote last time round he'd only have got 2.99999999% of the vote.
-
I voted for Kerry last time. I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000.
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Another election where he gets .3% of the vote?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing....
[/b]
Just think, without your vote last time round he'd only have got 2.99999999% of the vote. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I voted for Kerry last time. I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000.
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Another election where he gets .3% of the vote?
Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing....
[/b]
Just think, without your vote last time round he'd only have got 2.99999999% of the vote. [/b]
[/b]
My apologies....
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing....
February 24, 2008
Ralph Nader Starts Presidential Bid
By REUTERS
Filed at 2:39 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, blamed by many Democrats for their loss of the White House in the 2000 election, said on Sunday he is launching another independent campaign for the White House.
Nader, who will turn 74 this week, announced his longshot presidential bid on NBC's "Meet the Press" saying that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans were addressing problems facing Americans.
Nader called Washington "corporate occupied territory" that turns the government against the interests of the people. "In that context, I have decided to run for president," he said.
Democrats said they do not expect Nader, who also ran as an independent in 2004, to have much of an impact.
"When you get into running for your third or fourth time, I don't think people will pay that much attention to it, and I wouldn't see it having any effect on the race," Virginia Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine said on "Fox News Sunday."
In an interview with Reuters, Nader said he will push the candidates on a number of issues including health care and changing the tax system to shift the burden away from wage earners and put it on things like pollution, tobacco and "Wall Street speculation" and reduce taxes on wages.
Nader dismissed Democratic criticism of his latest bid for the White House.
"For anybody who thinks that the third try is something that should be demeaned, it represents persistence, it represents never giving up the struggle for justice," Nader said. "The forces of injustice never take a holiday."
Nader ran for president in 2000, when he got about 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate. Many Democrats blamed Nader for draining votes from Democrat Al Gore and tipping the election in favor of Republican George W. Bush. He also ran as an independent in 2004, but got only a tiny fraction of the vote.
Nader said he expects to do better this time and will work to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states.
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, appearing on CNN's "Late Edition," said he thought Nader could pull votes away from the Democratic nominee.
"Naturally Republicans would welcome his entry into the race and hope that maybe a few more will join in," Huckabee said.
Democratic candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama criticized the independent candidate.
"That's really unfortunate. I remember when he did this before, it didn't turn out to well, for anyone, especially our country," she said. "I hope it's kind of a just a passing fancy that people won't take too seriously."
Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, was asked on Saturday about a Nader candidacy. "My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don't listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you're not substantive," he said.
-
Alright Ron Paul supporters, I'm really hoping you can convince Ron Paul to run as an independent as well.
He's got the money, does he have the ego, I mean balls?
Where's the ground swell?
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Ralph Nader on Meet the Press this Sunday can only mean one thing....
No. I don't think he's actually going to run this time.[/b]
I've just stopped keeping score at this point....
-
Farrakhan loves Obama....
<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44450000/jpg/_44450729_obama_ap_203b.jpg" alt=" - " />
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/ (http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/)
Just a few quotes from the great nation of islam leader....
The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.
They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters
Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community.
The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years
-
Hillary stiffing small businesses:
February 23, 2008
Small Vendors Feel Pinch of Clintonâ??s Money Troubles
By MICHAEL LUO
It was just $2,492.63, a pittance, really, alongside million-dollar television buys and direct mail drops.
But with Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonâ??s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination enduring a rough patch, Peter Semetis, the owner of a deli and catering business in Lower Manhattan, had been following the news and growing increasingly worried that he was not going to be paid for the assorted breakfast trays, coffee, tea and orange juice he had provided the campaign for an event in mid-December.
â??Iâ??m afraid of her dropping out of the campaign and me becoming a casualty,â? Mr. Semetis said.
So on Thursday, he went to small claims court and filed suit. Mr. Semetis, 53, said he was hardly a political pundit but like others across the country, he had become caught up in the election in the last year and was able to offer some analysis. â??There is potential for her to lose Texas,â? he said â?? an assessment not at odds with the polls â?? â??which would pretty much force her to quit.â?
Mr. Semetis catered a Clinton event, a rally she did not attend, at the offices of District Council 37, the public employeesâ?? union, on Dec. 15, charging the campaign $2,300, plus $192.63 in tax. Officials promised him that his business, Sale & Pepe Fine Foods, would be paid by check or credit card in a couple of weeks. After a few weeks passed, he started calling to see about the holdup.
Often he never reached anyone; other times he was told that his bill had been put through to the campaignâ??s headquarters in northern Virginia.
Unbeknownst to Mr. Semetis, Mrs. Clinton was navigating some dire financial straits. She was having a dismal month of fund-raising while spending a million dollars a day to battle Senator Barack Obama. She finished January essentially in the red, with $7.6 million in debts, and she was forced to lend her campaign $5 million.
It was when news broke about Mrs. Clintonâ??s loan earlier this month that Mr. Semetis became positively alarmed and started calling the campaign almost every day. â??The fact sheâ??s lost 10 states in a row has increased the phone calls,â? he said.
After a reporter from The New York Times contacted the Clinton campaign on Friday, Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clintonâ??s communications director, said a check to pay Mr. Semetis had been put through the day before, and he furnished a copy of the check, dated Feb. 21, as proof.
When asked to explain the delay, he said only: â??We do our best to pay our vendors in a timely fashion.â?
Mr. Semetis, however, is not the only one who has been having trouble lately collecting money from the Clinton campaign. The Hotel Ottumwa, a family-owned hotel in Ottumwa, Iowa, played host to an event attended by former President Bill Clinton on New Yearâ??s Eve for several hundred people and had been trying for almost a month and a half to get paid.
The hotel had initially asked for payment of the $9,125 bill up front but kept being put off. But the owners figured that if any political campaign was good for it, Mrs. Clintonâ??s would be.
â??People were a little more comfortable with Clinton because theyâ??ve got money,â? said Kay Whittington, one of the hotel owners.
Last week, the owners heard about an item on the local news about a Des Moines cleaning company, Top Job Services Cleaning, which had been trying unsuccessfully to recoup $7,500 from the Clinton campaign.
Hotel Ottumwaâ??s owners contacted the television station, which broadcast the hotelâ??s story right away. Both businesses were paid last week.
Oddly enough, Mr. Semetis, the deli owner, said he was a longtime Republican who was supportive of Mrs. Clinton, because he believed Mr. Obama was too inexperienced and Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, would be too much like President Bush.
Mr. Semetisâ??s business closed for several weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, forcing him to downsize, and Mr. Semetis said he was still trying to regain his footing.
â??This is not politically motivated, believe me,â? he said. â??This is financially motivated.â?
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Farrakhan loves Obama....
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/ (http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/)
Just a few quotes from the great nation of islam leader....
The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.
They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters
Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community.
The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years
well then, Obama must think all of those things as well
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I guess you've illustrated my point.
If you don't believe that it is possible to work within the system to change it, then I think we all lose out. If it really isn't possible to build true consensus, then our government is broken beyond repair and we should hunker down for the inevitable loss of prestige, stability and power that will come with that.
The trick - ultimately - is compromise. And I think Obama's record working with the GOP in Illinois is indicative of his ability to do just that. Not only that, perhaps Obama's biggest strength is his ability to motivate the public to demand action. Politicians answer to their constituents - and Obama has been able to motivate people to do, say, and believe in more than they have before. Given the national stage to put forth a platform, I really believe he can lead the American people to demand policy changes.
That is the "change" that is talked about - it is a change in attitude; a change in belief that Washington isn't accountable to the people they represent.
I just received an email from the campaign saying that Obama has received donations from 936,000 people over the course of this campaign. That is absolutely incredible - almost 1,000,000 people DONATING MONEY to a presidential campaign? To me, that indicates his ability to call upon the collective will of the American people to demand something different. For now, that message is limited to an election - but give him a platform, and I think he turns that motivation to the issues: health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, responsible energy policy, or whatever else you'd like to point out.
What is more powerful than a movement of American people demanding change on a specific issue? The only way sweeping changes have ever been made in this country were due to a mass movement of people demanding it. Obama can lead that movement on any number of issues. If you can get the American people to stand up and ask for something, eventually, things begin to change. You've seen it with this campaign, and I believe you'll see it in the issues with an Obama presidency. Hillary Clinton just can't do that.
To argue that the number of people donating money to Obama's campaign is indicative of "his ability to call upon the collective will of the American people to demand something different" is absolutely ludicrous. Are the citizens of this country who can afford to donate to a candidate necessarily representative of those citizens who actually need change the most? Representative of the majority of citizens in this country, period? Just a thought, but what if Obama's supporters are proportionally wealthier than those of Hillary?
I agree that any candidate who arouses this level of interest amongst the American people is a powerful and exciting one who certainly demands our consideration. Still, you assume that Obama's mass accumulation of followers is directly representative of the number of people in this country bursting out for change; you cannot assume this of ANY single candidate. I'm not claiming that Obama doesn't have the ability to evoke change in office. But people in this country have a multitude of intelligent and idiodic reasons for supporting a candidate, whomever that candidate may be. And I'm not comparing the two, so please don't jump all over me, but a wealth of loyal voters supported Bush, too, and it obviously didn't ensure positive advances.
I respect and appreciate your reasons for supporting Obama. Please do not turn a blind eye to the fact that there are plenty of people in this country who support him because they enjoy being part of this campaign for somewhat selfish reasons. These supporters are everywhere - supporting Hillary for her vagina, etc. And they will disappear just as quickly as they appeared when the beginning of next year rolls around. But don't think, for even a second, that any one candidate is ever the best choice simply because of their wealth of loyal followers.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Farrakhan loves Obama....
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/ (http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/)
Just a few quotes from the great nation of islam leader....
The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.
They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters
Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community.
The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years
well then, Obama must think all of those things as well [/b]
no, but his little friend Samantha Power has NO problem proclaiming that she would like to go full force at Israel...
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
These supporters are everywhere - supporting Hillary for her vagina, etc.
Obviously you've never seen her vagina.
I have. It's not all that you think it would be given how powerful she is.
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
no, but his little friend Samantha Power has NO problem proclaiming that she would like to go full force at Israel...
Be very wary of single issue politics, my young friend.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by you be betty:
These supporters are everywhere - supporting Hillary for her vagina, etc.
Obviously you've never seen her vagina.
I have. It's not all that you think it would be given how powerful she is. [/b]
I meant that people support her because she's a woman, and it's stupid. But in other news, I really, really, really don't want to know why you have seen Hillary Clinton's vajayjay.
-
Hasn't everyone seen Hill's pussy?
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6157/pressroom.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Farrakhan loves Obama....
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/ (http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/primaries/17984/louis-farrakhan-endorses-obama-at-saviours-day-event-in-chicago-a-tale-of-who-shall-be-king/)
Just a few quotes from the great nation of islam leader....
The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.
They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters
Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community.
The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years
well then, Obama must think all of those things as well [/b]
My point was that if Farrakhan had endorsed Clinton it would be on every news channel from here to Timbuktoo, "FARRAKHAN IN HILLARY'S CAMP!! or, "HILLARY PARTNERS WITH NATION OF ISLAM"but because it's the golden child it's swept under the rug, because the media have already decided Obama will be the candidate for the democrats.
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
To argue that the number of people donating money to Obama's campaign is indicative of "his ability to call upon the collective will of the American people to demand something different" is absolutely ludicrous. Are the citizens of this country who can afford to donate to a candidate necessarily representative of those citizens who actually need change the most? Representative of the majority of citizens in this country, period? Just a thought, but what if Obama's supporters are proportionally wealthier than those of Hillary?
I agree that any candidate who arouses this level of interest amongst the American people is a powerful and exciting one who certainly demands our consideration. Still, you assume that Obama's mass accumulation of followers is directly representative of the number of people in this country bursting out for change; you cannot assume this of ANY single candidate. I'm not claiming that Obama doesn't have the ability to evoke change in office. But people in this country have a multitude of intelligent and idiodic reasons for supporting a candidate, whomever that candidate may be. And I'm not comparing the two, so please don't jump all over me, but a wealth of loyal voters supported Bush, too, and it obviously didn't ensure positive advances.
I respect and appreciate your reasons for supporting Obama. Please do not turn a blind eye to the fact that there are plenty of people in this country who support him because they enjoy being part of this campaign for somewhat selfish reasons. These supporters are everywhere - supporting Hillary for her vagina, etc. And they will disappear just as quickly as they appeared when the beginning of next year rolls around. But don't think, for even a second, that any one candidate is ever the best choice simply because of their wealth of loyal followers.
Sigh. I thought it was clear that I meant this as an example of a larger point (that I stand by as a strong example). I thought it unnecessary to discuss the fact that Obama is receiving larger crowds, more votes, more acclaim as a speaker, more acclaim as being inspiring, etc. etc. etc. The money issue was simply one interesting facet.
But if you look at the numbers: no, Obama supporters are not wealthier proportionally. And importantly - the point is the greater VOLUME of supporters would represent a much larger cross-section of the general populace involved in the election.
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Hasn't everyone seen Hill's pussy?
I'd bet Bill hasn't seen it in 25 years.
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
Just a thought, but what if Obama's supporters are proportionally wealthier than those of Hillary?
The average donation of a Hillary supporter is much higher, which would seem to indicate her donors are wealthier. Most campaigns will take any amount, a lot of Obama donors simply donate $25, you hardly need to be wealthy to donate $25.
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
because the media have already decided Obama will be the candidate for the democrats.
maybe it was the 11 straight losses that tipped them off, any other candidate than Hillary would have been treated far worse and ignored by now after 11 straight losses, not even close losses
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by you be betty:
Just a thought, but what if Obama's supporters are proportionally wealthier than those of Hillary?
The average donation of a Hillary supporter is much higher, which would seem to indicate her donors are wealthier. Most campaigns will take any amount, a lot of Obama donors simply donate $25, you hardly need to be wealthy to donate $25. [/b]
No campaign can take any amount. Seriously? You don't even have to like John McCain to know that.
Anyway, what I meant was not that the individuals who support Obama are wealthier, individually, but as a whole, more wealthy individuals support him.
$25 is also a lot of money to some people, so speak for yourself...though I see no evidence of the majority of said contributors offering up just $25.
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
No campaign can take any amount. Seriously? You don't even have to like John McCain to know that.
This part, she's right.
Campaign Contribution Limits (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml)
Originally posted by you be betty:
Anyway, what I meant was not that the individuals who support Obama are wealthier, individually, but as a whole, more wealthy individuals support him.
This part, probably not, but we won't know for sure until the campaign finance reports are turned in after the primary.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
This part, she's right.
Campaign Contribution Limits (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml)
i misspoke, I obviously know there are limits, what I stumbled in saying was that there is no bottom limit
I have seen analysis that shows Hillary has a much higher percentage of maxed out donors
-
I think pollard is referring to the fact that there is no minimum donation.
"The details of Mr. Obamaâ??s January fund-raising illustrate just how much his campaign has been able to chart a new path for the presidential race. He brought in $28 million online, with 90 percent of those transactions coming from people who donated $100 or less, and 40 percent from donors who gave $25 or less, suggesting that these contributors could be tapped for more."
per the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/politics/20obama.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/politics/20obama.html)
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
because the media have already decided Obama will be the candidate for the democrats.
maybe it was the 11 straight losses that tipped them off, any other candidate than Hillary would have been treated far worse and ignored by now after 11 straight losses, not even close losses [/b]
Obama was the darling of the media a long time before the 11 losses, and no doubt the media played a great part in Obama getting those 11 wins.
I'm no Hillary fan so don't get me wrong. I'm just sick to death of the Obama bandwagon when he's actually achieved nothing and does not have the qualifications or experience to be the next president. It's very unnerving to know our next president is going to be one of McCain, Obama or Hillary. Holy shit!! It's even more scary to see it in black and white. At least with Hillary Bill will be involved, but the other two!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
-
Seriously, if either Obama or McCain selected Bloomberg as their veep and essentially said "he's going to take care of all the money stuff while I'll handle domestic/foreign policy, etc." wouldn't that excite you a little? I'm not even a fan of Bloomberg but I think he'd be outstanding in terms of "fixing" the economy.
Brian
-
Why? Because he's a Jew?
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Seriously, if either Obama or McCain selected Bloomberg as their veep and essentially said "he's going to take care of all the money stuff while I'll handle domestic/foreign policy, etc." wouldn't that excite you a little? I'm not even a fan of Bloomberg but I think he'd be outstanding in terms of "fixing" the economy.
Brian
-
Well if he's a jew and a new yorker why the hell isn't he living in Boca Raton then?
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why? Because he's a Jew?
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Seriously, if either Obama or McCain selected Bloomberg as their veep and essentially said "he's going to take care of all the money stuff while I'll handle domestic/foreign policy, etc." wouldn't that excite you a little? I'm not even a fan of Bloomberg but I think he'd be outstanding in terms of "fixing" the economy.
Brian
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why? Because he's a Jew?
No. I knew someone would say that. That's just a marvelous coincidence.
He'd be great with the economy because:
1.) He founded a company that basically became the leading source for business news and analysis over the past twenty-five years.
2.) Turned NYC's "$6 billion deficit into a $3 billion surplus" (source: Wikipedia)
3.) Last week said the US â??has a balance sheet thatâ??s starting to look more and more like a third-world country" which I tend to agree with.
4.) Got his undergrad at Hopkins.
Brian
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Seriously, if either Obama or McCain selected Bloomberg as their veep and essentially said "he's going to take care of all the money stuff while I'll handle domestic/foreign policy, etc." wouldn't that excite you a little? I'm not even a fan of Bloomberg but I think he'd be outstanding in terms of "fixing" the economy.
Brian
Clinton fixed Reagan/Bush's economic fuck up...why not have him as veep?
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Seriously, if either Obama or McCain selected Bloomberg as their veep and essentially said "he's going to take care of all the money stuff while I'll handle domestic/foreign policy, etc." wouldn't that excite you a little? I'm not even a fan of Bloomberg but I think he'd be outstanding in terms of "fixing" the economy.
Brian
Clinton fixed Reagan/Bush's economic fuck up...why not have him as veep? [/b]
Uhhhhh....No. I'll bet you also think Clinton brought about "peace in Ireland" after listening to "Pop" in his discman? You foreigners have a skewed view of American Politics don't you?
Brian
-
Much as I like Bloomberg, the VP is such an ineffectual position it wouldn't be worth his time.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)
WALL STREET JOURNAL
OPINION
Obama and the Power of Words
By STEPHEN F. HAYES
February 26, 2008; Page A19
These are words that move and uplift, that give hope to the hopeless. These words inspired millions of voters nationwide to join the grand experiment called democracy, casting votes for their candidate, their country, their destiny:
"More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country, to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose. I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values . . . For those who have abandoned hope, we'll restore hope and we'll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!"
So Ronald Reagan proclaimed on July 17, 1980, as he accepted his party's nomination for president at the Republican National Convention in Detroit, Mich.
Earlier that day, the New York Times ran a long profile of Reagan on its front page. The author, Howell Raines, lamented that the news media had been unsuccessful in getting Reagan to speak in anything other than "sweeping generalities about economic and military policy." Mr. Raines further noted: "political critics who characterize him as banal and shallow, a mouther of right-wing platitudes, delight in recalling that he co-starred with a chimpanzee in 'Bedtime for Bonzo.'"
Throughout his campaign, Reagan fought off charges that his candidacy was built more on optimism than policies. The charges came from reporters and opponents. John Anderson, a rival in the Republican primary who ran as an independent in the general election, complained that Reagan offered little more than "old platitudes and old generalities."
Conservatives understood that this Reagan-as-a-simpleton view was a caricature (something made even clearer in several recent books, particularly Reagan's own diaries). That his opponents never got this is what led to their undoing. Those critics who giggled about his turn alongside a chimp were considerably less delighted when Reagan won 44 states and 489 electoral votes in November.
One Reagan adviser had predicted such a win shortly after Reagan had become the de facto nominee the previous spring. In a memo about the coming general election contest with Jimmy Carter, Richard Whalen wrote Reagan's "secret weapon" was that "Democrats fail to take him very seriously."
Are Republicans making the same mistake with Barack Obama?
For months now, Hillary Clinton has suggested that Mr. Obama is all rhetoric, no substance. This claim, or some version of it, has been at the center of her campaign since November. One day after losing to him in Wisconsin and Hawaii -- her ninth and tenth consecutive defeats -- she rather incredibly went back to it again. "It's time we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions," she said -- a formulation that could be mistaken for a sound bite.
As she complained about his lack of substance, tens of thousands of people lined up in city after city, sometimes in subfreezing temperatures, for a chance to get a shot of some Mr. Obama hopemongering. Plainly, her critique is not working.
And yet, Republicans are picking it up. In just the past week, conservative commentators have accused Mr. Obama of speaking in "Sesame Street platitudes," of giving speeches that are "almost content free," of "saying nothing." He has been likened to Chance the Gardner, the clueless mope in Jerzy Koscinski's "Being There," whose banal utterances are taken as brilliant by a gullible political class. Others complain that his campaign is "messianic," too self-aggrandizing and too self-referential.
John McCain has joined the fray. In a speech after he won primaries in Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland, Mr. McCain said: "To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude." After Wisconsin, he sharpened the attack, warning that he would expose Mr. Obama's "eloquent but empty call for change."
The assumption behind much of this criticism is that because Mr. Obama gives a good speech he cannot do substance. This is wrong. Mr. Obama has done well in most of the Democratic debates because he has consistently shown himself able to think on his feet. Even on health care, a complicated national issue that should be Mrs. Clinton's strength, Mr. Obama has regularly fought her to a draw by displaying a grasp of the details that rivals hers, and talking about it in ways Americans can understand.
In Iowa, long before the race became the national campaign it is today, Mr. Obama spent much of his time at town halls in which he took questions from the audience. His answers in such settings were often as good or better than the rhetoric in his stump speech, and usually more substantive. He spoke about issues like immigration and national service in a thoughtful manner -- not wonky, not pedantic, but in a way that suggested he'd spent some time thinking about them before.
More important for the race ahead, Mr. Obama has the unique ability to offer doctrinaire liberal positions in a way that avoids the stridency of many recent Democratic candidates. That he managed to do this in the days before the Iowa caucuses -- at a time when he might have been expected to be at his most liberal -- was quite striking.
His rhetorical gimmick is simple. When he addresses a contentious issue, Mr. Obama almost always begins his answer with a respectful nod in the direction of the view he is rejecting -- a line or two that suggests he understands or perhaps even sympathizes with the concerns of a conservative.
At Cornell College on Dec. 5, for example, a student asked Mr. Obama how his administration would view the Second Amendment. He replied: "There's a Supreme Court case that's going to be decided fairly soon about what the Second Amendment means. I taught Constitutional Law for 10 years, so I've got my opinion. And my opinion is that the Second Amendment is probably -- it is an individual right and not just a right of the militia. That's what I expect the Supreme Court to rule. I think that's a fair reading of the text of the Constitution. And so I respect the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, fish, protect their families."
Then came the pivot:
"Like all rights, though, they are constrained and bound by the needs of the community . . . So when I look at Chicago and 34 Chicago public school students gunned down in a single school year, then I don't think the Second Amendment prohibits us from taking action and making sure that, for example, ATF can share tracing information about illegal handguns that are used on the streets and track them to the gun dealers to find out -- what are you doing?"
In conclusion:
"There is a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected that is not mutually exclusive with making sure that we are shutting down gun traffic that is killing kids on our streets. The argument I have with the NRA is not whether people have the right to bear arms. The problem is they believe any constraint or regulation whatsoever is something that they have to beat back. And I don't think that's how most lawful firearms owners think."
In the end, Mr. Obama is simply campaigning for office in the same way he says he would operate if he were elected. "We're not looking for a chief operating officer when we select a president," he said during a question and answer session at Google headquarters back in December.
"What we're looking for is somebody who will chart a course and say: Here is where America needs to go -- here is how to solve our energy crisis, here's how we need to revamp our education system -- and then gather the talent together and then mobilize that talent to achieve that goal. And to inspire a sense of hope and possibility."
Like Ronald Reagan did.
Mr. Hayes, a senior writer for The Weekly Standard, is the author of "Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President," (HarperCollins, 2007).
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Seriously, if either Obama or McCain selected Bloomberg as their veep and essentially said "he's going to take care of all the money stuff while I'll handle domestic/foreign policy, etc." wouldn't that excite you a little? I'm not even a fan of Bloomberg but I think he'd be outstanding in terms of "fixing" the economy.
Brian
Clinton fixed Reagan/Bush's economic fuck up...why not have him as veep? [/b]
Uhhhhh....No. I'll bet you also think Clinton brought about "peace in Ireland" after listening to "Pop" in his discman? You foreigners have a skewed view of American Politics don't you?
Brian [/b]
There's peace in Ireland??? Just shows how ignorant Americans are on foriegn affairs.
-
bono should focus more of his efforts on saving ireland instead of africa.
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
There's peace in Ireland??? Just shows how ignorant Americans are on foriegn affairs.
Um, dewd?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
bono should focus more of his efforts on saving ireland instead of africa.
Bono should focus more of his efforts on sticking a handgun in his mouth and blowing his brains out the back of his head. And I say this in the most good mannerly way possible.
-
Originally posted by -kat-:
I'll continue to "waste my vote" and not vote in the primary. I despise every single person in the race at the moment, and plan to vote for Nader if he does end up running. Otherwise I'll write in Kucinich as normal.
Just because I am not voting does not make me uninformed. I would prefer not putting a vote to someone I do not like than giving someone support I cannot stand.
-
Well, I hope you like McCain, Huckabee and the like because a vote for Nader is vote for me.
-
Originally posted by Tonorro:
Well, I hope you like McCain, Huckabee and the like because a vote for Nader is a vote for them.
-
"There is no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush." -- Ralph Nader, 2000
-
Directly from the man's mouth - Obama's average donation is $109, FYI :)
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
Directly from the man's mouth - Obama's average donation is $109, FYI :)
yeah, and I guarantee you that Hillarys is higher
-
Hillary's Diminishing Returns (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502422.html)
-
What I really need is a Hillary supporter to explain to me what on earth she was doing referencing a parody show (SNL) after she complained about being asked the first question two times in a row.
I was shocked a Democrat was booed at the last debate. I was doubly shocked she didn't get booed more the second time. Who on earth is coaching her?
-
maybe because they stumped pretty hard for her. it was pretty disgusting, actually
if the last 8 years has taught us anything, its that there was indeed a huge difference between dub and al gore. and i voted for ralphie
-
I respect Ralph Nader a lot. But he's a fool for waiting this late considering he hardly has any money. How's he going to get on the ballots? Now, Bloomberg has the $$$ to get his name on all fifty but Nader doesn't. Which mean write-ins. Which aren't even counted unless it's a REALLY close election. I'm not criticizing Nader for running but if he wanted to run he should have announced about nine months ago.
Brian
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
There's peace in Ireland??? Just shows how ignorant Americans are on foriegn affairs.
Um, dewd?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process) [/b]
Um, DEWD!!
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0213/donegal.html?rss (http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0213/donegal.html?rss)
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
I respect Ralph Nader a lot. But he's a fool for waiting this late considering he hardly has any money. How's he going to get on the ballots? Now, Bloomberg has the $$$ to get his name on all fifty but Nader doesn't. Which mean write-ins. Which aren't even counted unless it's a REALLY close election. I'm not criticizing Nader for running but if he wanted to run he should have announced about nine months ago.
Brian
Respecting Nader is like respecting Mr. Rogers...he's mildly entertaining if you have the maturity of a 5 year old, but other than that every breathe he takes is just a waste of our quickly-dwindling natural resources, and taking the breath out of someone more deserving, like the lizard that lives on our patio.
-
UM DEEEEEWWWWWD!!!!!
RIRA
Subsequent activities
Since McKevitt's imprisonment, the RIRA has regrouped and continues to be active in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The RIRA claimed responsibility for a series of firebomb attacks against premises in Belfast in November 2004,[84] and an attack on a Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) patrol in Ballymena during March 2006 was attributed to the RIRA by the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC).[85] On 9 August 2006 a number of fire bomb attacks by the RIRA hit businesses in Newry, County Down. Buildings belonging to JJB Sports and Carpetright were destroyed, and ones belonging to MFI and TK Maxx were badly damaged.[86] On 27 October 2006, a large amount of explosives were found in Kilbranish, Mount Leinster, County Carlow by police, who believe the RIRA were trying to derail the peace process with a bomb attack.[87] The IMC believe the RIRA was also responsible for a failed mortar attack on Craigavon PSNI Station on 4 December 2006.[88][89] The IMC's October 2006 report stated that the RIRA remains "active and dangerous' and that it seeks to "sustain its position as a terrorist organisation".[85] The RIRA has previously stated it has no intention of calling a ceasefire unless a declaration of intent to withdraw from Northern Ireland is made by the British Government.[7]
On 8 November 2007 two RIRA members shot an off-duty Catholic PSNI officer as he sat in his car on Bishop Street in Derry, causing injuries to his face and arm.[90] On 12 November another PSNI member was shot by RIRA members in Dungannon, County Tyrone.[90][91] On 7 February 2008, the RIRA stated that, after experiencing a three-year period of reorganisation, it intends to "go back to war" by launching a new offensive against "legitimate targets".[92] It also, despite having initially apologised for the Omagh bombing,[93] denied any large scale involvement with the attack and said that their part had only gone as far as their codeword being used.[92]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_IRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_IRA)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
bono should focus more of his efforts on saving ireland instead of africa.
He is too busy tearing down historic buildings and avoiding paying Irish taxes to care much about Ireland or Africa.
-
That's it, elections over. http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks)
-
Ralph Nader has done more good for the people of this country than all of the other candidates combined. Of course, he did almost all of it before ever deciding to run for President.
Please start your education by watching this documentary:
http://www.anunreasonableman.com/ (http://www.anunreasonableman.com/)
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
I respect Ralph Nader a lot. But he's a fool for waiting this late considering he hardly has any money. How's he going to get on the ballots? Now, Bloomberg has the $$$ to get his name on all fifty but Nader doesn't. Which mean write-ins. Which aren't even counted unless it's a REALLY close election. I'm not criticizing Nader for running but if he wanted to run he should have announced about nine months ago.
Brian
Respecting Nader is like respecting Mr. Rogers...he's mildly entertaining if you have the maturity of a 5 year old, but other than that every breathe he takes is just a waste of our quickly-dwindling natural resources, and taking the breath out of someone more deserving, like the lizard that lives on our patio. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
TK Maxx
is this a TJ Maxx copy-cat? my favorite rip-off from my time in Dublin was the Mick Donnell's on O'Connell
EDIT: there was a hilarious blatant rip-off on Johnny Rocket's, can't remember the name though
-
Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
TK Maxx
is this a TJ Maxx copy-cat? my favorite rip-off from my time in Dublin was the Mick Donnell's on O'Connell
EDIT: there was a hilarious blatant rip-off on Johnny Rocket's, can't remember the name though [/b]
TK Maxx is TJ Maxx in Britain/Ireland....not sure why they change the J to a K, but they do.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Ralph Nader has done more good for the people of this country than all of the other candidates combined. Of course, he did almost all of it before ever deciding to run for President.
Please start your education by watching this documentary:
http://www.anunreasonableman.com/ (http://www.anunreasonableman.com/)
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
I respect Ralph Nader a lot. But he's a fool for waiting this late considering he hardly has any money. How's he going to get on the ballots? Now, Bloomberg has the $$$ to get his name on all fifty but Nader doesn't. Which mean write-ins. Which aren't even counted unless it's a REALLY close election. I'm not criticizing Nader for running but if he wanted to run he should have announced about nine months ago.
Brian
Respecting Nader is like respecting Mr. Rogers...he's mildly entertaining if you have the maturity of a 5 year old, but other than that every breathe he takes is just a waste of our quickly-dwindling natural resources, and taking the breath out of someone more deserving, like the lizard that lives on our patio. [/b]
[/b]
Can you give me a condensed version because I have neither the time or interest to read the rambling propoganda of some Naderite.
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Can you give me a condensed version because I have neither the time or interest to read the rambling propoganda of some Naderite.
We have seat belts in cars mainly because of Ralph Nader. More or less.
Brian
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Can you give me a condensed version because I have neither the time or interest to read the rambling propoganda of some Naderite.
We have seat belts in cars mainly because of Ralph Nader. More or less.
[/b]
and we get monetary compensation for being involuntarily bumped from an airplane.
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Can you give me a condensed version because I have neither the time or interest to read the rambling propoganda of some Naderite.
We have seat belts in cars mainly because of Ralph Nader. More or less.
Brian [/b]
So all those who die in fiery car crashes or drown if their car becomes submerged have big-brother Nader to thank.
Great...whatta guy! :roll:
-
Yes, all 10 of them a year Mankie.
Anyhow, Obama Reaches 1 Million Donor Mark (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/obama-reaches-1-million-donor-mark/index.html?ex=1361854800&en=492d299e90224060&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
What I really need is a Hillary supporter to explain to me what on earth she was doing referencing a parody show (SNL) after she complained about being asked the first question two times in a row.
I was shocked a Democrat was booed at the last debate. I was doubly shocked she didn't get booed more the second time. Who on earth is coaching her?
The opening sketch parodied the media's obsession with Obama. Both candidates were made fun of, but the end of the sketch focused especially on news correspondants (it was either for CNN or MSNBC) drooling over Obama. Funny stuff.
Then the opening monologue very subtly parodied Obama's speeches...
And finally, in what I like to think was one of the greatest television moments of all time, Tina Fey (who was hosting their first show back after the strike) essentially endorsed Hillary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DJbUhyhxv8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DJbUhyhxv8)
(Before that, Huckabee actually came on to weekend update too and made fun of himself, and it was pretty awesome...)
-
oh but yeah, what I forgot to say was, it was kind of silly to mention SNL when she was making a valid point without it...I thought the little namedrop there completely weakened her remark
-
So, Nader helped save a few thousand lives in the 60s by advocating for seat belts (which probably would have happened sooner or later anyway).
And he probably has helped a few thousand fuzzy-minded people feel righteous through his "Public Interest Research Groups," (PIRG), even though it is difficult to document even one achievement of these groups other than annoying suburbanites all over greater DC with their door-to-door fund raising.
I figure though, that he has somewhat offset these contributions by his 2000 Presidential bid by helping elect Dubya and spreading the lie that W and Gore were identical. He has played a direct contribution to the deaths of thousands of Americans in Iraq, the wounding of thousands more, the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the bankrupting of our economy through that war.
Heck, he even ruined the Green Party -- thanks to their contribution to 2000 and everything that's followed, they are forever finished as a political force.
Now he seems to want to try to help McCain into office -- no wonder Republicans continue to fund his campaign efforts.
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
The opening sketch parodied the media's obsession with Obama. Both candidates were made fun of, but the end of the sketch focused especially on news correspondants (it was either for CNN or MSNBC) drooling over Obama. Funny stuff.
Then the opening monologue very subtly parodied Obama's speeches...
And finally, in what I like to think was one of the greatest television moments of all time, Tina Fey (who was hosting their first show back after the strike) essentially endorsed Hillary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DJbUhyhxv8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DJbUhyhxv8)
(Before that, Huckabee actually came on to weekend update too and made fun of himself, and it was pretty awesome...)
I think he was looking for an explanation why a presidential candidate would point to a parody show as evidence of anything. Although vansmack may wish to correct me.
-
nevermind, you followed up your original response
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
So, Nader helped save a few thousand lives in the 60s by advocating for seat belts (which probably would have happened sooner or later anyway).
And he probably has helped a few thousand fuzzy-minded people feel righteous through his "Public Interest Research Groups," (PIRG), even though it is difficult to document even one achievement of these groups other than annoying suburbanites all over greater DC with their door-to-door fund raising.
I figure though, that he has somewhat offset these contributions by his 2000 Presidential bid by helping elect Dubya and spreading the lie that W and Gore were identical. He has played a direct contribution to the deaths of thousands of Americans in Iraq, the wounding of thousands more, the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the bankrupting of our economy through that war.
Heck, he even ruined the Green Party -- thanks to their contribution to 2000 and everything that's followed, they are forever finished as a political force.
Now he seems to want to try to help McCain into office -- no wonder Republicans continue to fund his campaign efforts.
you are short changing him a bit, he not only worked on seat belts, he had a major role in the Safe Drinking Water Act; the launching of federal regulatory agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Environment Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Administration; the recall of millions of defective motor vehicles and access to government through the Freedom of Information Act of 1974 just to name a few
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
you are short changing him a bit, he not only worked on seat belts, he had a major role in the Safe Drinking Water Act; the launching of federal regulatory agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Environment Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Administration; the recall of millions of defective motor vehicles and access to government through the Freedom of Information Act of 1974 just to name a few
I would still suggest that all of this will be forgotten compared to his most lasting legacy of getting Dubya elected in 2000.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I think he was looking for an explanation why a presidential candidate would point to a parody show as evidence of anything. Although vansmack may wish to correct me.
Spot on. I saw the skit, I laughed aloud - it was funny.
I cringed when she cried about being asked the question first (which, some in a debate would welcome as the rebuttal usually gets the last word), but my jaw dropped when she referenced SNL as the justification for her complaint.
It reminded me a time in law school when I was arguing a point in my Law on Terrorism class and I couldn't think of a concrete example to share with the class that illustrated my point, so I cited a scene from either In the Name of the Father or Michael Collins (I can't remember which) and afterwards the professor busted my chops for citing such a reliable source as "Hollywood's version of History." I'll never forget it, but that what school's for. To site a parody show in a national debate nearly made my head explode.
I mean, if she was trying to be hip and funny, it flopped, because it came out looking like she really meant it. If she really meant it, it was dead before it came out of her mouth.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
So, Nader helped save a few thousand lives in the 60s by advocating for seat belts (which probably would have happened sooner or later anyway).
And he probably has helped a few thousand fuzzy-minded people feel righteous through his "Public Interest Research Groups," (PIRG), even though it is difficult to document even one achievement of these groups other than annoying suburbanites all over greater DC with their door-to-door fund raising.
I figure though, that he has somewhat offset these contributions by his 2000 Presidential bid by helping elect Dubya and spreading the lie that W and Gore were identical. He has played a direct contribution to the deaths of thousands of Americans in Iraq, the wounding of thousands more, the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the bankrupting of our economy through that war.
Heck, he even ruined the Green Party -- thanks to their contribution to 2000 and everything that's followed, they are forever finished as a political force.
Now he seems to want to try to help McCain into office -- no wonder Republicans continue to fund his campaign efforts.
you are short changing him a bit, he not only worked on seat belts, he had a major role in the Safe Drinking Water Act; the launching of federal regulatory agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Environment Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Administration; the recall of millions of defective motor vehicles and access to government through the Freedom of Information Act of 1974 just to name a few [/b]
OSHA....The organisation that excuses employees from being responsible for their own stupidity in the workplace, and blames the employer instead.
Consumer product safety, aka the department of stating the bleeding obvious.
E.G. Warning on hairdryer "DO NOT SUBMERGE IN WATER" No shit genius!!
Again...whattaguy!!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I think he was looking for an explanation why a presidential candidate would point to a parody show as evidence of anything. Although vansmack may wish to correct me.
Spot on. I saw the skit, I laughed aloud - it was funny.
I cringed when she cried about being asked the question first (which, some in a debate would welcome as the rebuttal usually gets the last word), but my jaw dropped when she referenced SNL as the justification for her complaint.
It reminded me a time in law school when I was arguing a point in my Law on Terrorism class and I couldn't think of a concrete example to share with the class that illustrated my point, so I cited a scene from either In the Name of the Father or Michael Collins (I can't remember which) and afterwards the professor busted my chops for citing such a reliable source as "Hollywood's version of History." I'll never forget it, but that what school's for. To site a parody show in a national debate nearly made my head explode.
I mean, if she was trying to be hip and funny, it flopped, because it came out looking like she really meant it. If she really meant it, it was dead before it came out of her mouth. [/b]
After the debate Tim Russert pointed out that when he asked a "toss-up" question, Hillary jumped in to be the first to answer it.
-
Nader Names a Running mate:
Matt Gonzalez to be Nader's Running mate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/28/BAO5VAQFG.DTL)
I expect every one except Venerable (and maybe xneverewherex) to say "who?"
Exactly. I've owned this guy in many debates here on campus in SF. I can't wait to see him step in it.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I think he was looking for an explanation why a presidential candidate would point to a parody show as evidence of anything. Although vansmack may wish to correct me.
Spot on. I saw the skit, I laughed aloud - it was funny.
I cringed when she cried about being asked the question first (which, some in a debate would welcome as the rebuttal usually gets the last word), but my jaw dropped when she referenced SNL as the justification for her complaint.
It reminded me a time in law school when I was arguing a point in my Law on Terrorism class and I couldn't think of a concrete example to share with the class that illustrated my point, so I cited a scene from either In the Name of the Father or Michael Collins (I can't remember which) and afterwards the professor busted my chops for citing such a reliable source as "Hollywood's version of History." I'll never forget it, but that what school's for. To site a parody show in a national debate nearly made my head explode.
I mean, if she was trying to be hip and funny, it flopped, because it came out looking like she really meant it. If she really meant it, it was dead before it came out of her mouth. [/b]
After the debate Tim Russert pointed out that when he asked a "toss-up" question, Hillary jumped in to be the first to answer it. [/b]
I saw that!
Anyway, I really think she was just trying to be funny and hip and relate to her younger audience, but as we all know it didn't quite work.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Nader Names a Running mate:
Matt Gonzalez to be Nader's Running mate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/28/BAO5VAQFG.DTL)
I expect every one except Venerable (and maybe xneverewherex) to say "who?"
Exactly. I've owned this guy in many debates here on campus in SF. I can't wait to see him step in it.
funny - havent heard his name in quite awhile. :)
-
Nader
"Hello, Hey Gonzo It's Ralph...I've decided to run again and make a total horses ass of myself like I always do. Anyhooo, I was thinking, I need someone who's as big an idiot as me and who's open to ridicule to run as my veep. What do you think?"
Gonzales
"Fuck yeah, I'm in!"
-
Looks like Hillary has a copy of the Karl Rove Playbook also:
"Itâ??s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But thereâ??s a phone in the White House and itâ??s ringing.
Somethingâ??s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether itâ??s someone who already knows the worldâ??s leaders, knows the military â?? someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.
Itâ??s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs)
-
fuck Hillary, she crosses too many lines
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Looks like Hillary has a copy of the Karl Rove Playbook also:
"Itâ??s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But thereâ??s a phone in the White House and itâ??s ringing.
Somethingâ??s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether itâ??s someone who already knows the worldâ??s leaders, knows the military â?? someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.
Itâ??s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs)
I think this resonates with no one.
The 'ready to lead on day one' is a loser - esp since its not clear why she's more ready to lead on day one.
And who the f**k is on the other end of the line? A drunk-dialing world leader who wants to come over or he'll do something drastic? Retarded.
-
I'm also not sure how her "experience" qualifies her for this. Even presuming she was sleeping in the same bed as Bill, the most her experience in a situation like this meant would've been that she would've been woken up by the sound of the phone while Bill took the call.
I very much hope there will be a woman president some day, but it's not going to be Hillary. It's much more likely going to be someone who rose to that stature on her own, rather than on the coattails of a political marriage.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
And who the f**k is on the other end of the line?
It's the terrorists.
-
the electoral college cost the election, Nader didn't.
-
Originally posted by -kat-:
the electoral college cost the election, Nader didn't.
Keep telling yourself that, Greenie.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo)
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
no, but his little friend Samantha Power has NO problem proclaiming that she would like to go full force at Israel...
Let me guess, you got your information from an email that was forwarded at least 1000 times before it reached you? It probably originated from Mark Penn.
Obama on Difficult Path as He Courts Jewish Voters (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/politics/01obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)
"The candidateâ??s Israel advisers are three former staff members to President Bill Clinton: Dennis Ross, a top Mideast adviser; Anthony Lake, national security adviser and Susan Rice, assistant secretary of state. Other advisers on Israeli and Mideast matters are [Representative Robert] Wexler [of Florida]; Dan Shapiro, formerly of the Clinton national security council, and Eric Lynn, a former Congressional aide. (All but Ms. Rice are Jewish.)"
-
If I understand the latest whispering campaign about Obama correctly, being black automatically puts you in bed with Louis Farrakhan and makes you an anti-Semite?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Mobius:
And who the f**k is on the other end of the line?
It's the terrorists. [/b]
gaddam evildoers have no respect for other people's cut-off times.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
I'm also not sure how her "experience" qualifies her for this. Even presuming she was sleeping in the same bed as Bill, the most her experience in a situation like this meant would've been that she would've been woken up by the sound of the phone while Bill took the call.
I very much hope there will be a woman president some day, but it's not going to be Hillary. It's much more likely going to be someone who rose to that stature on her own, rather than on the coattails of a political marriage.
...except that she has served in the Senate since 2000? I agree that it is difficult to pinpoint whether being first lady actually qualifies as legitimate experience or not. But stop omitting her other qualifications.
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
...except that she has served in the Senate since 2000? I agree that it is difficult to pinpoint whether being first lady actually qualifies as legitimate experience or not. But stop omitting her other qualifications.
when she talks about her experience with the phone ringing in the white house at 3am its pretty clear that didnt happen in the senate
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
If I understand the latest whispering campaign about Obama correctly, being black automatically puts you in bed with Louis Farrakhan and makes you an anti-Semite?
the farrakhan link is that the head of the church that obama attends (and is very close with) recently named farrakhan as the churchs' man of the year (or something along those lines) and praised farrakhan for doing so much for black america. i don't need to explain farrakhan's stance on whites and jews, so, the problem becomes whether obama has done enough to distance himself from his church leader? that's my understanding of the farrakhan issue. frankly, i don't really care because for every sharpton and farrakhan on the left, there's a hagee and others on the right; plus, i'm more interested in the anti-NAFTA/free trade positions that obama and hillary have all of sudden taken.
-
And Obama has served in the Senate since 2003. So Hilary has exactly three more years Senate experience than Obama. Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me.
Further, if you count the Illinois legislature, where Obama served seven years, his total time in elective office exceeds Hilary's -- Hilary was never elected to any office prior to her current junior Senate seat.
Actually, legislature experience is no indicator of how someone would be as a President, because it is not an executive role -- it doesn't involve running anything. So one might argue that with any of the candidates -- McCain, Hilary, or Obama -- one has to look for some other indicators as to how they'd be.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by -kat-:
the electoral college cost the election, Nader didn't.
Keep telling yourself that, Greenie. [/b]
No reason to vote for a Dem if it's a state that will go Republican no matter what. It's pissing in the wind. So yes. I wouldn't vote if there weren't third party candidates.
-
Originally posted by -kat-:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by -kat-:
the electoral college cost the election, Nader didn't.
Keep telling yourself that, Greenie. [/b]
No reason to vote for a Dem if it's a state that will go Republican no matter what. It's pissing in the wind. So yes. I wouldn't vote if there weren't third party candidates. [/b]
Florida was not, and is not, a state that will go Republican no matter what.
I know it's easy to cast a vote and walk out of the voting booth feeling righteous, without actually having accomplished anything, but if you've really got issues with the Dems or the Republicans, your best bet would be to work inside one of those parties to change it. In our lifetimes, a third party will never win the Presidency.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by -kat-:
the electoral college cost the election, Nader didn't.
Keep telling yourself that, Greenie. [/b]
You're a retard, Doctor Doom. Put you in the group with all the impotent, Rock Band-playing losers.
I completely have ZERO respect for people who say Nader "cost" Gore the election. Bitter much?
Have you EVER played sports, "Doctor Doom?"
I can't believe I'm responding to someone who calls themselves "They Call Me, Doctor Doom." Grow up! It must be tough being an asthmatic virgin in 2008.
People voted for Ralph Nader. That's it. Asshats like you and Moby and Joel Stein (all three really brilliant people, may I add) bitch and whine and menstruate about how if "Nader wasn't in it, they would have voted for Al Gore." How the f do you know that? What kind of public school, retarded logic is that? If, if, if... Hey, if Ross Perot didn't run do you really think we would have had eight years of Clinton?
People who are angry at Ralph Nader for "stealing" the 2000 election are stupidest, whiny people I know.
Hey, genius. If you ever meet Tom Brady, impress him with this little nugget: "IF you had scored more points in the Super Bowl, you would have won." He may get down on his knees and blow you, "Doctor Doom."
Brian
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by you be betty:
...except that she has served in the Senate since 2000? I agree that it is difficult to pinpoint whether being first lady actually qualifies as legitimate experience or not. But stop omitting her other qualifications.
when she talks about her experience with the phone ringing in the white house at 3am its pretty clear that didnt happen in the senate [/b]
Well I suppose I'm not presidential material, because if the damn phone rings at 3am in my house the fucker is going straight into voicemail....
-
Originally posted by -kat-:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by -kat-:
the electoral college cost the election, Nader didn't.
Keep telling yourself that, Greenie. [/b]
No reason to vote for a Dem if it's a state that will go Republican no matter what. It's pissing in the wind. So yes. I wouldn't vote if there weren't third party candidates. [/b]
I thought it was Florida's 'conveniently dodgy' vote counting and the Supreme Court that stole the election from Gore.
His second term was, well, a case of 'how many fucking morons can there be in a country of 300,000,000 people. Over 150,000,000 evidently.
-
<img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc159/miniminimal/america.gif" alt=" - " />
-
So I was all geared up to make a prediction, because, well, there's nothing better than having the balls to be publicly wrong. And godspeed to the rest of you if I'm correct.
But then I decided that a prediction is not what's needed today. Today requires a plea.
Stop.
Stop lowering expectations (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00046.htm) after calling Super Tuesday your "wrap up" day and today your firewall day. Win and you're welcome to stick around - the public has asked for it. But if you don't, do the right thing for the party.
Stop talking about superdelegates (http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/04/tom-brokaw-says-obama-has-50-more-superdelegates-in-his-back-pocket/) until you lock up the public vote. It didn't work for your opponent, and it won't work for you. If you really believe that you can win the popular vote, then stick with that message.
Stop talking about NAFTA and Health Care when you agree. Save it for the Republicans, who clearly don't agree.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
But then I decided that a prediction is not what's needed today. Today requires a plea.
Stop.
Agreed. I think this just needs to end. The longer it goes on, the worse it is going to get.
-
Its a small sample, but I have talked to several friends who have been motivated in this primary season, when they never have been before, who are becoming more and more disinterested the longer this thing drags out. Yesterday I was really feeling the same way, I just couldnt read any more of the back and forth. Whether it be Hillary praising McCain over Barack or Barack having to talk about Rezko again. Getting to the point where both candidates are hurting dem general election chances.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Its a small sample, but I have talked to several friends who have been motivated in this primary season, when they never have been before, who are becoming more and more disinterested the longer this thing drags out. Yesterday I was really feeling the same way, I just couldnt read any more of the back and forth. Whether it be Hillary praising McCain over Barack or Barack having to talk about Rezko again. Getting to the point where both candidates are hurting dem general election chances.
I completely agree. I've been pretty fascinated with election coverage this year, but I'm starting to feel my interest fade because of the bickering.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by vansmack:
But then I decided that a prediction is not what's needed today. Today requires a plea.
Stop.
Agreed. I think this just needs to end. The longer it goes on, the worse it is going to get. [/b]
You're both wusses. Don't you want to see a brokered convention in your lifetime? How 60's! Maybe you can get the BEATLES to get back together! That would rock! With Misters Cutler and Shanahan putting the finishing touches on the Bronco's 2008/2009 Super Bowl season and a brokered convention, there would be rioting in the streets in late August in Denver!
Whine, whine, whine. Both of you have no poltical balls. I hope Clinton wins Ohio and Texas (she won't win by much) plows through PA and chugs right on to Denver!
"Why negotiate when you can fight?"
BROKERED CONVENTION! BROKERED CONVENTION! BROKERED CONVENTION!
Brian
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by vansmack:
But then I decided that a prediction is not what's needed today. Today requires a plea.
Stop.
Agreed. I think this just needs to end. The longer it goes on, the worse it is going to get. [/b]
You're both wusses. Don't you want to see a brokered convention in your lifetime? How 60's! Maybe you can get the BEATLES to get back together! That would rock! With Misters Cutler and Shanahan putting the finishing touches on the Bronco's 2008/2009 Super Bowl season and a brokered convention, there would be rioting in the streets in late August in Denver!
Whine, whine, whine. Both of you have no poltical balls. I hope Clinton wins Ohio and Texas (she won't win by much) plows through PA and chugs right on to Denver!
"Why negotiate when you can fight?"
BROKERED CONVENTION! BROKERED CONVENTION! BROKERED CONVENTION!
Brian [/b]
The Ballot Brawl of 1924
Relive the Thrilling Days of Yesteryear, at the Democrats' Deadlocked Convention
By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 4, 2008; C01
Those TV yappers are in a tizzy about the upcoming Democratic convention. They keep jibber-jabbering about how neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough delegates to win the presidential nomination and they'll need to woo the high-powered superdelegates. They keep yakking about a deadlocked convention! Or, better yet, a brokered convention !
These young whippersnappers don't know doodley about a deadlocked convention. Most of them weren't even born the last time a convention fight went beyond the first ballot, which was in 1952.
Back in my day, Democrats had real conventions with real nomination fights that went on for dozens of ballots. It took 46 ballots to nominate Woodrow Wilson in 1912, and 44 ballots to nominate James Cox in 1920. Jeez, it took four ballots to nominate Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 -- and he was FDR, for crying out loud!
In those days, people weren't in such a damn hurry. They liked to vote for their state's "favorite son" candidate for a few ballots just to show some local pride. In 1932, FDR's campaign manager asked Sam Rayburn, who was the campaign manager for John Nance Garner of Texas, if he could get the Texas delegation to vote for FDR after the first ballot.
"Hell, no," Rayburn said, "we've got a lot of people up here who've never been to a convention before, and they've got to vote for Garner a few times."
But you didn't come all the way out here to the old folks' home to hear me beat my gums about the good old days. You want to hear about the greatest deadlocked convention of them all, don't you? That would be 1924, when the battle went on for 103 ballots and even governors were getting into fistfights on the convention floor.
Give me a minute to put my teeth in and I'll tell you all about it.
* * *
It was the Roaring Twenties, the days of hot jazz and bathtub gin, and the Democrats met in Madison Square Garden, which was packed to the rafters with New York characters, described in The Washington Post as "Tammany shouters, Yiddish chanters, vaudeville performers, Sagwa Indians, hula dancers, street cleaners, firemen, policemen, movie actors and actresses, bootleggers . . ." Plus 1,098 delegates and 15 presidential candidates.
To win, a candidate needed the votes of two-thirds of the delegates and, as the convention opened on June 24, nobody was even close. But the obvious front-runners were Al Smith, the governor of New York, and William McAdoo, a California lawyer who had been Woodrow Wilson's Treasury secretary and was Wilson's son-in-law.
Smith and McAdoo represented the two sides of America's cultural divide -- what today's TV yappers would call the red states and blue states. Smith's backers tended to be Northern, urban, Catholic and "wet," meaning anti-Prohibition. McAdoo's supporters tended to be Southern or Western, rural, Protestant and dry.
Just to make things more interesting, a lot of McAdoo's rooters were members of the Ku Klux Klan, which was then at the height of its power. The Klan hated Catholics and Smith was a Catholic. (Needless to say, there were exactly zero black delegates.)
It wasn't going to be easy uniting these factions, but the party bosses tried. They managed to finesse the Prohibition issue with a compromise that called for the enforcement of all laws but avoided mentioning the hated law against hooch. They tried to finesse the Klan issue in the same way, writing a platform that denounced violent secret societies but neglected to actually mention the Klan.
That didn't work. The anti-Klan folks balked, demanding a resolution that named the Klan. This sparked an anti-Klan demonstration on the floor that led to fistfights as pro- and anti-Klan delegates fought for possession of various state banners. Believe it or not, the governors of Kentucky and Colorado got into fistfights trying to keep their state banners out of the hands of anti-Klan delegates.
Governors throwing punches -- now, that's the kind of convention high jinks you just don't see anymore!
Ultimately, the anti-Klan resolution that didn't mention the Klan beat the anti-Klan resolution that did mention the Klan by exactly one vote.
And then this seething, angry crowd settled down to try to pick a presidential candidate. First came 15 windy nominating speeches, followed by 15 windy seconding speeches. This torrent of oratory produced only two words that anybody still remembers: FDR calling Smith the "happy warrior."
When FDR ended his speech, the crowd went nuts. Smith's Tammany machine had packed the galleries with thousands of hacks armed with drums, tubas, trumpets and a bunch of ear-piercing electric fire sirens that were so loud that people scooted out of the hall with their fingers in their ears.
"It sounded," The Post reported, "like 10,000 voodoo doctors in a tropical jungle beating 10,000 tom-toms made of resonant washtubs."
The hacks in the galleries weren't so friendly to McAdoo. Anytime a speaker uttered his name, the hacks chanted, "Oil! Oil!" -- a snide reference to the fact that McAdoo had received two mysterious payments from an oil baron implicated in the Teapot Dome scandal. It was as if Obama delegates greeted any mention of Hillary by hollering, "Whitewater! Whitewater!"
Anyway, after all this folderol, they finally called the roll for the first ballot and, needless to say, nobody got the 732 votes needed to win. McAdoo led with 431, followed by Smith with 241, and 13 other guys, mostly favorite sons with delusions of grandeur, each with fewer than 60 votes.
What happens when you get no winner? Those TV yappers probably don't know but the answer's simple: You vote again. That first day, which was June 30, they took 15 roll-call votes and still nobody was anywhere near victory. The next day, they came back and took 15 more roll-call votes and still nobody won.
This was the first convention broadcast on radio, and all over America people listened to the endless roll calls, each of them beginning with an Alabama delegate drawling, "Al-a-ba- ma casts twen-ty fo-ah votes fo-ah Os-cah Dub-ya Unnn-der-wood!" Soon, everybody in America was mimicking that drawl, saying, " Os-cah Dub-ya Unnn-der-wood!"
The voting was weird, even for Democrats: On the 20th ballot, the Missouri delegation switched all 36 votes from McAdoo to John W. Davis, the favorite son from West Virginia, which got everybody all excited, but on the 39th ballot, they all switched back to McAdoo.
On Wednesday, the third day of voting, William Jennings Bryan asked the chairman for permission to explain his vote for McAdoo. Bryan was the grand old man of the Democratic Party, which had nominated him for president three times. He was the "Great Commoner" who'd delivered the legendary "Cross of Gold" speech at the 1896 convention. But when he started orating for McAdoo, he was drowned out by angry boos from the gallery and chants of "Oil! Oil!"
"His voice, which had competed in the past with foghorns and tornadoes, sounded like the hum of a gnat," The Post reported. "For the first time, Bill Bryan's larynx had met its master."
Listening on the radio, Americans were shocked to hear the rabble of evil New York shouting down a good Christian gentleman like Bryan.
On and on the voting went -- 50 ballots, 60 ballots, 70 ballots. The convention was supposed to be over but it still hadn't nominated a candidate, so it went into extra innings, like a tied baseball game. Some delegates gave up and left, others wired home for more money. The McAdoo people complained that rural delegates couldn't afford New York prices and urged the party to pay their hotel bills, which caused the Smith people to accuse the McAdoo people of trying to bribe the delegates by paying their hotel bills.
"This convention," wrote H.L. Mencken, the most famous reporter of the age, is "almost as vain and idiotic as a golf tournament or a disarmament conference."
But still it continued, day after day -- 80 ballots, 90 ballots, 100 ballots. Finally, both Smith and McAdoo gave up and released their delegates and on July 9, after 16 days and 103 ballots, the Democrats nominated John W. Davis of West Virginia for president.
The band played "Glory, Glory Hallelujah" and the delegates limped home, weary and bleary, their self-loathing exceeded only by their loathing of the other Democrats.
In the November election, Davis was creamed by Calvin "Silent Cal" Coolidge, a laid-back dude who didn't let the duties of his office interfere with his afternoon nap.
* * *
What? Speak up, young fella, I don't hear too good. Those Tammany fire sirens ruined my ears.
Fun? You wanna know if the 1924 convention was fun? Well, it was fun for the first 20 or 30 ballots, but after 50 or 60 it got a tad tedious, and by the 80th or 90th even the driest of the dry delegates longed to take a swan dive into a bottle of bootleg bourbon.
People said the 1924 convention was so ugly it would kill the Democratic Party. It didn't, but it did kill the romance of the deadlocked convention. After 1924, Democrats hated deadlocks even more than they hated rival Democrats.
At the 1932 convention, the party leaders started to panic after three ballots and McAdoo got up and urged the convention to avoid "another disastrous contest like that of 1924." FDR's people offered the vice presidency to anybody who controlled enough votes to break the deadlock. John Nance Garner took the deal, delivered the Texas delegation and ended up vice president, a job he later reportedly described as "not worth a bucket of warm spit."
The last time a convention went more than one ballot was 1952, when the Democrats took three ballots to nominate Adlai Stevenson, who was trounced by Dwight Eisenhower. These days, both parties confine their brawling to the primaries and by the time the convention rolls around they're cooing and kissing like newlyweds. Now, conventions are just long infomercials for the candidates. They're so dull they make you pine for a deadlock.
Maybe that's why the TV yappers are jabbering about a deadlocked Democratic convention. If Clinton wins Texas and Ohio today, they say, then neither she nor Obama may have enough delegates to win, so the nomination will be decided by the 796 superdelegates, the people we used to call the party bosses.
Well, I think they're full of baloney, but I hope they're right. A little deadlock livens things up, and the prospect of floor fights, fistfights and backroom wheeling and dealing quickens the blood.
Two ballots, five ballots, 10 ballots -- that would give an old geezer a reason to go on living. But, please, not 103 ballots. Take it from me, young fella, that's a little too much of a good thing.
-
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about, ggw! Backing up all the "talking the talk" with regards to Obama, "change", "Yes, we can", "The Clintons", etc. with "walking the walking" or maybe even "punching those who need punching."
Am I the only when I see news footage of those rallies (or read any of vansmack's sub-politico coverage) that all these people crying and cheering and feeling that Obama is almost Christ-like and Hilary is almost...Mary Magdalene-like that it's the equivalent of asking somebody whether they need help and then being taking a back when they actually say "yes."
Brian
-
I don't watch much of the rallies because quite frankly they make me sick to my stomach...but what's the deal with people fainting at Obama rallies? His rallies remind me of those PTL congregations were some chump slaps some bigger chump on the forehead and his polio is cured....then you send a couple of grand via your credit card.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
[qb] Originally posted by callat703:
[qb] Originally posted by vansmack:
[qb]
. [/b]
TLDR
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
So I was all geared up to make a prediction, because, well, there's nothing better than having the balls to be publicly wrong. And godspeed to the rest of you if I'm correct.
But then I decided that a prediction is not what's needed today. Today requires a plea.
Stop.
Stop lowering expectations (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00046.htm) after calling Super Tuesday your "wrap up" day and today your firewall day. Win and you're welcome to stick around - the public has asked for it. But if you don't, do the right thing for the party.
Stop talking about superdelegates (http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/04/tom-brokaw-says-obama-has-50-more-superdelegates-in-his-back-pocket/) until you lock up the public vote. It didn't work for your opponent, and it won't work for you. If you really believe that you can win the popular vote, then stick with that message.
Stop talking about NAFTA and Health Care when you agree. Save it for the Republicans, who clearly don't agree.
What happened? The voters of Ohio and Texas didn't listen to you! What's wrong with them? Maybe you should start a misguided "Things vansmack thinks voters should know" but would they listen? They didn't last night. You're losing your touch!
Brian
P.S. Now Pennsylvania looms as the Death Star. What's going to kill Obama is that independents (like me) can't vote in the primaries. Only registered Dems will be able to choose between those two.
-
It's been brutal to be a Democrat for most of my lifetime. This is simply just a continuation. That was the worst possible scenario for the Democrats last night.
It was a Pyrrhic Victory at best last night for Hillary. She's going to gain single digit delegates at best against Obama's lead - more than likely less than 5 delegates total. But despite running out of time (and states to win more delegates) she's going to treat this as a mandate to fight on for the next 50 days, despite making little gain in her last big opportunity.
Over the next 50 days the Dems are going to spend somewhere between $50-$100 Million dollars bickering with each other, mostly over issues they agree on. That's money that won't be available to fight the real opponent, John McCain, who will then use the arguments made by the two potential Democratic Party nominees against them in the fall.
Now the Hill and Bill show will take the contenious campaigning that occurred over the weekend as a positive and step it up. Again, this is awful for the party. If that's really the only way she can squeek out victories, then they're really missing the point.
This says nothing about what's going to happen in August. Put this signs up now:
The Democratic Party: snatching defeat from the clutches of victory.
-
I fully agree. Very disheartening result last night.
I'm very torn as to what I think should happen. I don't know that I can realistically expect Hillary Clinton to walk away from this race given the strength of her base, the amount of money that she's raising, and that she can still win the nomination within the rules of the party. All that said, I stand by my assertion that if the superdelegates decide this and reverse the decision of the pledged delegates as decided by the voters, I don't think I could ever support the Democratic Party again.
At this point, my ideal scenario MIGHT be Obama taking the high road and acquiescing to Hillary's experience argument, accepting her nod as Vice President, and unifying the party now so that we don't have to deal with another two months of bitter infighting. Of course, this may alienate the Obama support base, but at the same time, I think they can portray this as a necessary step to display a united front against John McCain. And, of course, you could easily make the argument that this would lock up the White House for the Democrats for the next 16 years. Obama takes over as President of the Senate, and can use that platform to work on the legislative change and shift in politics that he's been advocating.
You could also make the argument that Clinton could take Obama's VP spot - but I see this as undercutting his change message, and obviously undercuts her experience argument against him. I see this as a far more difficult scenario to make happen realistically...
Ultimately, I just don't see a clean solution unless one of them is big enough to step aside for the other. The irony, of course, is that if either of them are willing to do that, it would likely cement their status as a hero in the Democratic Party and virtually ensure their future political success.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
At this point, my ideal scenario MIGHT be Obama taking the high road and acquiescing to Hillary's experience argument, accepting her nod as Vice President, and unifying the party now so that we don't have to deal with another two months of bitter infighting.
Agreed. Barack Obama staying in this race is a farce.
-
good post by callat703, although there's a ton of wishful thinking in there, unfortunately. i did have the same sort of fantasy vision last night of them agreeing to share the ticket with each other no matter what the outcome, but this ain't disney.
i'm still kind of alarmed by obama's lack of wins in states the dems traditionally carry in general elections. he sure has an easy time with caucuses in republican strongholds, but the blue states of the past few decades have largely been hillary victories.
not that it necessarily had any impact, but hillary really should place a thank you call to tina fey, dontcha think?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
At this point, my ideal scenario MIGHT be Obama taking the high road and acquiescing to Hillary's experience argument, accepting her nod as Vice President, and unifying the party now so that we don't have to deal with another two months of bitter infighting.
Agreed. Barack Obama staying in this race is a farce. [/b]
A "farce?" You're crazy if you actually think the person with a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates shouldn't continue on.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
A "farce?" You're crazy if you actually think the person with a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates shouldn't continue on.
It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses (the only system even less democratic then superdelegates) in mostly Republican states. Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count. Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election, Obama would've conceded a while ago.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count.
They knew the rules. Everybody knew and agreed to the rules, including the Clinton campaign (by now I'm sure you've seen the Sept 7 memo). Why should we now consider a redo when they knowingly broke the rules?
That being said, there's no doubt in my mind that the Clintons will file a law suit around the time of the PA primary.
-
The whole primary/caucus season is a farce. Call the whole thing off and take a nationwide populat vote now. It looks pretty even.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm)
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses
Caucauses are not a new conept for any poltical team. The Clinton's have just shown how bad they are at grass roots organizing, that's all. Her only gain from this weekend came from old school negative campainging.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses (the only system even less democratic then superdelegates) in mostly Republican states. Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count. Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election, Obama would've conceded a while ago.
oh ok, so you just want to change the rules to fit how you want them, gotcha
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
A "farce?" You're crazy if you actually think the person with a lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates shouldn't continue on.
It's a farce because its built on winning caucuses (the only system even less democratic then superdelegates) in mostly Republican states. Its a farce because democratically held primaries in Michigan and Florida aren't going to count. Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election, Obama would've conceded a while ago. [/b]
So this is the new Clinton supporter tack?
"The rules that we all agreed upon and never had a problem with until now aren't fair."
Give me a break.
How about the fact that if Obama had lost 12 straight contests, he'd be completely ruled out as a potential candidate, as the superdelegates would have broken for Clinton a long time ago?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Its a farce because if the primaries were actual winner-take-all events (and actual democratic primaries as opposed to caucuses) like the general election,
Why do you insist on changing the rules for everything just to suit your candidate? This is the way the Dems have done it for decades - it's not like the Clinton team didn't know this ahead of time. They just can't admit that a knew guy on the block did it better.
I don't mind Clintonians fighting on the merits, but this rule change argument wreaks of desperation.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
They knew the rules. Everybody knew and agreed to the rules, including the Clinton campaign (by now I'm sure you've seen the Sept 7 memo). Why should we now consider a redo when they knowingly broke the rules?
I'm not proposing a redo. I'm proposing the results count. There's nothing more un-democratic then telling the people in two key states that their votes don't count because idiotic local leaders held their election too early. It's absolutely unconscionable to withhold millions of people's right to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is simply to punish their state. George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
I'm proposing the results count.
Despite there being only one candidate on one of the ballots? Even Hillary isn't arguing for that!
-
Julien, do you actually believe what you're saying? Or are you so wrapped up with your candidate winning that you're willing to compromise whatever integrity or honor there is in having rules in the first place?
I'm not for leaving voters out either, but they knew LONG ago that this was the result of moving their primaries. They had plenty of time to rectify that situation in advance of the vote.
As for a redo...why not redo any other primary that doesn't suit us? Hell, I bet Obama would love a revote in California.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
oh ok, so you just want to change the rules to fit how you want them, gotcha
Originally posted by callat703:
"The rules that we all agreed upon and never had a problem with until now aren't fair."
Originally posted by vansmack:
Why do you insist on changing the rules for everything just to suit your candidate?
Funny, I'd make the same argument about Team HopeChange's desire to keep the superdelegates out of it completely. If Obama goes into the convention with, let's say, a 75 pledged-delegate lead and the superdelegates break by 100 in favor of Clinton, all we'll hear from the HopeChange camp is how the system is unfair and the rules need changed to protect the will of the people. He's laying the seeds for that now.
The entire democratic nominating system needs changed. Caucuses are ridiculous and out-dated and demand people stand around for 3 hours. That's not easy and open electioneering. The party nominating process should mirror the national election process, and I've maintained this since long before Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ever ran for elected office.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Despite there being only one candidate on one of the ballots? Even Hillary isn't arguing for that!
OK, good point, Michigan probably needs re-done out of fairness. But Florida's vote should still count.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
oh ok, so you just want to change the rules to fit how you want them, gotcha
Originally posted by callat703:
"The rules that we all agreed upon and never had a problem with until now aren't fair."
Originally posted by vansmack:
Why do you insist on changing the rules for everything just to suit your candidate?
Funny, I'd make the same argument about Team HopeChange's desire to keep the superdelegates out of it completely. If Obama goes into the convention with, let's say, a 75 pledged-delegate lead and the superdelegates break by 100 in favor of Clinton, all we'll hear from the HopeChange camp is how the system is unfair and the rules need changed to protect the will of the people. He's laying the seeds for that now.
The entire democratic nominating system needs changed. Caucuses are ridiculous and out-dated and demand people stand around for 3 hours. That's not easy and open electioneering. The party nominating process should mirror the national election process, and I've maintained this since long before Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ever ran for elected office. [/b]
The Obama campaign has NOT ONCE argued that the superdelegates shouldn't be included. They've argued that the superdelegates should respect the will of the people in the popular vote and in the pledged delegate count. That is COMPLETELY different than what you are talking about.
If they argued that the superdelegates shouldn't have a say at all, that would be a change of the rules. You're grasping at straws.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
The Obama campaign has NOT ONCE argued that the superdelegates shouldn't be included. They've argued that the superdelegates should respect the will of the people in the popular vote and in the pledged delegate count.
Just like he's willing to let Michigan and Florida seat delegates "as long as it doesn't change the outcome." Hilarious. They had elections like that in Russia -- you can vote, as long as you vote for the right guy.
You know darn well if the superdelegates go for Hillary in mass, the Obama supporters will call for rule changes. There's absolutely no doubt. But if I call for an end to archaic caucuses or, gasp, people in battleground states actually having their votes count, I'm being self-serving?
When was the last time we told an entire state of people their vote didn't count because of something a few politicians in their state did? Reconstruction?
As I said, 703, you hit the nail on the head earlier: Obama needs to bow out and be pleased with a VP spot.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
The Obama campaign has NOT ONCE argued that the superdelegates shouldn't be included. They've argued that the superdelegates should respect the will of the people in the popular vote and in the pledged delegate count.
Just like he's willing to let Michigan and Florida seat delegates "as long as it doesn't change the outcome." Hilarious. They had elections like that in Russia -- you can vote, as long as you vote for the right guy.
You know darn well if the superdelegates go for Hillary in mass, the Obama supporters will call for rule changes. There's absolutely no doubt. But if I call for an end to archaic caucuses or, gasp, people in battleground states actually having their votes count, I'm being self-serving?
When was the last time we told an entire state of people their vote didn't count because of something a few politicians in their state did? Reconstruction? [/b]
I haven't read that quote from the Obama camp - show it to me. Source please?
And no, I think if the superdelegates go for Hillary in mass, it'll destroy the party and everybody loses.
And as I said earlier - you're crazy if you really believe the line of bullshit you're touting now.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I haven't read that quote from the Obama camp - show it to me. Source please?
I heard Obama himself say it on TV upwards of a month ago, that he had no problems seating the Michigan and Florida delegates "at some point during the convention," as long as doing so didn't affect the outcome. No joke.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
And as I said earlier - you're crazy if you really believe the line of bullshit you're touting now.
Yep, I truly believe the bullshit that Michigan and Florida's voters should have their votes count even though their state leaders held the primaries too early. And I truly believe that caucuses are the worst system in this day and age, and patently undemocratic.
-
What continues to surprise me with this debate, which seems to mirror the national debate, is the level of vitriol and anger from the Clinton camp. Julien, you seem SO entitled - that no matter what, Clinton must win, even if it means changing the rules and switching things around.
Not to pat myself on the back - but the same holds true of most of the other Obama supporters on this board - I feel as though our critiques of Clinton have been informed and reasonable, and that most of us would still respect her as a candidate.
You seem hell bent on destroying Obama and denigrating everything that he and his supporters stand for. I just completely fail to understand why.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
I haven't read that quote from the Obama camp - show it to me. Source please?
I heard Obama himself say it on TV upwards of a month ago, that he had no problems seating the Michigan and Florida delegates "at some point during the convention," as long as doing so didn't affect the outcome. No joke. [/b]
Show it to me.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Julien, you seem SO entitled - that no matter what, Clinton must win, even if it means changing the rules and switching things around.
The only "rule" I have proposed changing immediately is the refusal to allow Michigan and Florida access to the democratic process. I've long been a supporter of other changes to the nominating process, but I don't think you can change horses mid-stream. As terrible and undemocratic as caucuses are, that was the system and you have to go with it, at least for 2008.
That said, I absolutely think the superdelegates can (and, in fact, have a responsibility to) take the inequities of the current system into account when voting.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Show it to me.
How am I supposed to "show you" something I saw on TV? I can't show you on command last week's episode of Lost, but that doesn't mean the show doesn't exist. I'm not just making stuff up.
I might have a word in the quote wrong, but the gist of what Obama said was that if Michigan and Florida delegates wouldn't change the result, he didn't think you could disenfranchise their people and not seat anyone from their state at the national convention because Florida and Michigan were key battleground states in November.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
Originally posted by callat703:
Show it to me.
How am I supposed to "show you" something I saw on TV? [/b]
You're an enterprising young internet user, no? Surely you recognize said quotes don't exist in a bubble - if Obama said as much, I'm sure you can find it in another article, or perhaps on this mysterious "YouTube" thing...
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
That being said, there's no doubt in my mind that the Clintons will file a law suit around the time of the PA primary.
Looks like they're calling for it sooner. From today's Mark Penn memo...
11. Florida. There is an additional reality that must be considered â?? the 1.75 million voters in Florida whose votes will not be represented at the Democratic convention. How we handle this swing state will affect our Partyâ??s potential of carrying it in November (Democrats lost Florida in 2004). This is a state where the playing field was level â?? all of the candidates had their names on the ballot and none campaigned in the state.
12. Michigan. Nearly 600,000 Democrats voted in Michigan, but right now their votes are not being counted. Democrats barely carried Michigan in 2004 (by only 3% -- 51 to 48). If our party refuses to let them participate in the convention, we will provide a political opportunity for the Republicans to win both Florida and Michigan. Recognizing their importance to Democratic success in November, Hillary has called for the delegates of both states to be seated at the convention.
Did they forget about This Memo (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134)?
-
I still think there may be a strong possibility that the superdelegates defect to Obama en masse over the next couple of weeks. The pressure to end the race before it gets incredibly negative is only going to mount, and I think it is clear that the only way Hillary has a chance of winning is going far more negative than she has gone before - which will only lead Obama to respond in kind.
-
I think only the US Senate has a shot at getting Hillary to quit, by offering her the top job in the Senate. And even then, I think it's closer to no shot in hell.
-
the clinton machine is going to find a way to win..dont even think for a second she will drop out of this.. especially after yesterday.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
It's absolutely unconscionable to withhold millions of people's right to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is simply to punish their state. George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.
I missed this while I was in transit. Did you site GWB to back your argument? And he has absolutely no outside interests. You're becoming laughable.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
the clinton machine is going to find a way to win..dont even think for a second she will drop out of this.. especially after yesterday.
They will defintiely win a knife fight if it comes down to that.
-
This "debate" illustrates exactly why Rush Limbaugh urged Republicnas to go out and vote for Hillary yesterday. Why try to beat the Democrats in the general election when the Democrats can beat themselves before September.
-
This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).
But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??
im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.
-
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).
But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??
im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.
I wish both parties would splinter and we could have
Huckabee - The Evangelical Party
McCain - Republican
Clinton - The DLC
Obama - Progressive Party (not left enough for me, but better than the options)
I really don't see much to support in the current dem leadership. If I thought that enough people staying home would send a message and be good for the party in the long run I am all for it.
The fact that the Clinton campaign seems so opposed to a 50 state strategy is probably the most frustrating thing about them. They seem to ignore the good it can do down-ballot. If she had wrapped up the nomination early, apparently they were planning on circumventing the DNC and Dean's 50 state strategy by building their own DLC centric party infrastructure. Why should Dems be loyal to her.
-
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).
But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??
im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.
If she gets the nomination, it'll mean the superdelegates upended the pledged delegates and (most likely) the popular vote. If the Democratic Party allows that to happen, as I've said before on here, I'll not support the party again.
However, if Obama were to step down voluntarily, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton...I think.
-
I'm waiting for Doctor Doom to prescribe you to an afterlife in hell for making these comments.
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).
But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??
im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
It's absolutely unconscionable to withhold millions of people's right to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is simply to punish their state. George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.
I missed this while I was in transit. Did you site GWB to back your argument? And he has absolutely no outside interests. You're becoming laughable. [/b]
I think you misunderstood. I was not citing GWB or anything he said. I was exaggerating and using sarcasm to illustrate that the idea of stripping two states of their right to vote because of a minor infraction by state party leaders is so offensive an idea that even GWB, who "won" in 2000 despite getting less overall votes and less votes in Florida, would find it objectionable.
-
Interesting result from a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: If their favored candidate is not the Democratic nominee, a quarter of Hillary Clinton's primary supporters would defect and vote for John McCain in November, while only 10 percent of Barack Obama's supporters would do the same.
from salon (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/03/pew/index.html)
now that doesn't take into account those who would vote for nader or not vote at all, but i thought it was interesting.
-
Hillary is counting on the famously short American attention span. She has more than two months between the time the superdelegates coronate her and the time the voting public goes to the polls. By that time, most people will be like, "Obama who?"
-
The thing that keeps getting left out when the "who is more electable" discussion comes up is the fact that Democrats are outvoting Republicans by 2 to 1 margins in the primaries. If that holds true, then both Clinton and Obama are more electable than McCain.
That's also what annoys me about Clinton's "I've won the battleground states" argument. It is a distortion of reality - she's won the battleground states among Democrats. But if twice as many Democrats turn out than Republicans in the general election in the battleground states, then it doesn't matter which of them gets the nomination - even if the Salon poll (which is interesting) is accurate.
The question to ask would be is if a Democratic candidate can pull a traditionally Republican state away - and Obama has done much, much better in those states. Who is more apt to make Virginia go blue, for example? If the primaries indicate anything, it is that Obama has a greater potential to win both the battleground states (due to overwhelming Democratic turnout) and some of the blue-leaning red states.
-
But doesn't that simply reflect that independents who can vote in either primary are voting in the Democrat primary because that's the one their vote can make a difference in?
Also, many Republicans probably haven't been going to the polls simply because the outcome has been decided for awhile now.
Originally posted by callat703:
The thing that keeps getting left out when the "who is more electable" discussion comes up is the fact that Democrats are outvoting Republicans by 2 to 1 margins in the primaries. If that holds true, then both Clinton and Obama are more electable than McCain.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
But doesn't that simply reflect that independents who can vote in either primary are voting in the Democrat primary because that's the one their vote can make a difference in?
Also, many Republicans probably haven't been going to the polls simply because the outcome has been decided for awhile now.
This is true. If we had a sitting Democratic president and two Republican upstarts battling it out, you'd have much higher Republican turnout (although it'd be slightly lower since I don't believe Republicans allow independents to vote in most states' primaries).
-
Originally posted by callat703:
The question to ask would be is if a Democratic candidate can pull a traditionally Republican state away - and Obama has done much, much better in those states. Who is more apt to make Virginia go blue, for example? If the primaries indicate anything, it is that Obama has a greater potential to win both the battleground states (due to overwhelming Democratic turnout) and some of the blue-leaning red states.
but, hasn't mccain done the same thing on the republican side? why is obama winning "red" states proof that he can get republicans, yet mccain winning "blue" states means nothing? dems talk like they can somehow win midwest and mountain west republican states that obama won in caucuses as proof that he can do well in those states, yet mccain winning new england democrat states (in primaries) is shrugged off.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by callat703:
The question to ask would be is if a Democratic candidate can pull a traditionally Republican state away - and Obama has done much, much better in those states. Who is more apt to make Virginia go blue, for example? If the primaries indicate anything, it is that Obama has a greater potential to win both the battleground states (due to overwhelming Democratic turnout) and some of the blue-leaning red states.
but, hasn't mccain done the same thing on the republican side? why is obama winning "red" states proof that he can get republicans, yet mccain winning "blue" states means nothing? dems talk like they can somehow win midwest and mountain west republican states that obama won in caucuses as proof that he can do well in those states, yet mccain winning new england democrat states (in primaries) is shrugged off. [/b]
What blue states has McCain won with overwhelming majorities in which he had serious competition from a single candidate? This isn't a viable comparison for a lot of reasons - but perhaps most importantly, the Obama camp has proven that they can mobilize members of the electorate that don't typically vote. McCain simply proved that he could appeal to more moderate Republicans and some of the base.
Not only that, name a blue state that McCain is going to put in play that wasn't in play in 2004.
Red states that Obama can put in play that Hillary likely cannot: Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, etc...
-
Originally posted by callat703:
What blue states has McCain won with overwhelming majorities in which he had serious competition from a single candidate? This isn't a viable comparison for a lot of reasons - but perhaps most importantly, the Obama camp has proven that they can mobilize members of the electorate that don't typically vote. McCain simply proved that he could appeal to more moderate Republicans and some of the base.
oh please. . .here are the states in the midwest and mountain west:
iowa- caucus (obama)
nevada- caucus (clinton)
alaska- caucus (obama)
idaho- caucus (obama)
kansas- caucus (obama)
colorado- caucus (obama)
minnesota- caucus (obama)
new mexico- caucus (basically a tie)
north dakota- caucus (obama)
utah- primary (obama)
nebraska- caucus (obama)
washington- caucus (obama)
arizona- primary (clinton)
wyoming- caucus (tbd- presumably obama)
south dakota- primary (tbd- presumably obama)
how does a caucus reveal anything about the state. great, he got people out to a caucus that does not have secret ballots. . .i think julian has already made comments on the usefulness of caucuses, plus, could not the caucus results also show how poor the clinton campaign is at grass roots and on-the-ground organization? the only primary he won was utah, and there's no way he will win utah in the general election. just to help you out, obama also won wisconsin (primary)- by the same amount as utah (17%).
i'm not saying that mccain will carry new england (other than new hampshire), i'm just wondering why the supposed ability to cross-over is treated differently when both have potentially the same ability (see pew report on obama and clinton supporters willing to support mccain in the general).
-
Its time for Obama to fight. Which makes last night's result a potential positive if he eventually goes against McCain b/c he will become a much more seasoned fighter and have a stronger sense of what needs to be done. Ditto for Hilary, although I'm just not a fan.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i think julian has already made comments on the usefulness of caucuses,
But Julian's proven to be an idiot, also. He quoted George W. Bush to prove a Democratic point for Christ's sake - that's one step below SNL.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
plus, could not the caucus results also show how poor the clinton campaign is at grass roots and on-the-ground organization? ,
Oh sure, Julian gets credit for making a point, but I don't? Bollocks.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i'm not saying that mccain will carry new england (other than new hampshire), i'm just wondering why the supposed ability to cross-over is treated differently when both have potentially the same ability
Well, if the Republican's aren't worried about Obama taking red states from the 2000 election away in the 2008 election, than why are the blow hards on the radio so concerned about making sure Hillary's gets the nomination?
You know as well as I do that the Ethanol comment in Iowa and the auto jobs comment in Michigan that McCain made, while factually correct, makes keeping those two states very tough in November. Same for NAFTA - the only debate in Ohio and the rest of the upper mid-west is about one party wanting the status quo and the other wanting to change it. What's McCain going to accuse Obama of, not really wanting to change NAFTA? The first question a reporter will ask him, well, what's wrong with that - isn't that your stance? That's not going to help him there (and you know I support most of NAFTA, but I don't live in a State that percieves NAFTA as a problem).
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
What's McCain going to accuse Obama of, not really wanting to change NAFTA?
Most of this crap has been disproven by now, looks like a politically motivated leak by conservatives in Canada that distorted the original memo. I am sure Hillary will set the record straight as soon as she can. She wouldnt want Republican help would she.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Well, if the Republican's aren't worried about Obama taking red states from the 2000 election away in the 2008 election, than why are the blow hards on the radio so concerned about making sure Hillary's gets the nomination?
You know as well as I do that the Ethanol comment in Iowa and the auto jobs comment in Michigan that McCain made, while factually correct, makes keeping those two states very tough in November. Same for NAFTA - the only debate in Ohio and the rest of the upper mid-west is about one party wanting the status quo and the other wanting to change it. What's McCain going to accuse Obama of, not really wanting to change NAFTA? The first question a reporter will ask him, well, what's wrong with that - isn't that your stance? That's not going to help him there (and you know I support most of NAFTA, but I don't live in a State that percieves NAFTA as a problem).
i think the republican blowhards want hillary because she would be easier to beat (if there's one thing republicans can all agree on, it's that they don't want hillary in the white house).
btw, gore won michigan and iowa in 2000, so if you're looking at that map, then it doesn't really matter if mccain wins them or not. if mccain wins the same states as 2000, he gets 278 electoral votes. from the 2004 map, if mccain loses ohio, but wins new hampshire, keeping the rest of the 04 states, he wins with 270.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, gore won michigan and iowa in 2000, so if you're looking at that map, then it doesn't really matter if mccain wins them or not.
I know - I was making two separate point in different paragraphs, one about the red state/blue state comment and one about the midwest argument, but decided not go back and quote your other (earlier) post. Sorry for the confusion.
EDIT: I also just saw that I used "keeping" instead of "winning" - I'm just too lazy today to go back and fix it. My bad.
-
<img src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Clinton_Plan.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??
I would never, ever vote for Nader. I'd almost vote for McCain over Hillary, but I don't think I can bring myself to do that. I do think he will win, though, if she wins.
-
I can't wait to hear what the Clinton campaign has to say about Oregon's all votes by mail system, I am sure it isn't fair for some reason. I guess the only positive out of this mess is that my Oregon vote may have some tiny bit of significance.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
If she gets the nomination, it'll mean the superdelegates upended the pledged delegates and (most likely) the popular vote. If the Democratic Party allows that to happen, as I've said before on here, I'll not support the party again.
according to abc news (http://abcnews.go.com/politics), this is the current vote total:
obama- 13,567,226
clinton- 13,571,404
i can only assume that these vote totals include michigan and florida, since fox has obama up by 3,355 votes including michigan and florida. i will note that abc's numbers are as of 6:15 PM eastern, whereas fox's numbers are as of 12:15 PM eastern. fox also breaks out the numbers including only florida (obama up by 330,000) and without florida and michigan (obama up 626,000).
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
But Julian's proven to be an idiot, also. He quoted George W. Bush to prove a Democratic point for Christ's sake - that's one step below SNL.
No, I didn't. It's not my fault your reading comprehension is on par with a fourth grader and even when I explain your error to you, you still don't get it.
For the second time, saying, "...even GWB would find that messed up," is not quoting or citing GWB on an issue, only using him as a facetious example to show how ridiculous the issue at question was.
It's like talking about a professional athlete's rape charge and saying, "even Mike Tyson thinks that's messed up." Mike Tyson didn't ever comment on the other athlete's rape charge, nor does he probably think it's "messed up," but joking someone who's done something similar is offended by it highlights how egregious and against the social norms the act in question is.
I'm sorry you're a colossal idiot and can't understand what you fucking read. Even George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.
-
Obama could top Clinton by 3
By Mike Ward | Wednesday, March 5, 2008, 03:55 PM
With all the back-and-forth over the delegates gained by Obama and Clinton in yesterdayâ??s Texas primary, this word is just in from state Democratic officials.
Obama could pick up a net gain of three delegates, after all the dust settles.
Hereâ??s how Dem officials say thatâ??s possible:
Clinton won the popular vote, and could pick up as many as four delegates from that.
Obama appears to be winning the caucus voting on delegates, and could pick up as many as seven delegates there.
If that holds true, Obama would end up with three more Texas delegates than Clinton.
But weâ??re staying tuned for the final results, whenever they come out.
-
The Canadian Press â?? Canada's domestic equivalent of the AP â?? is reporting that the original source of the leak was Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And as it turns out, Brodie's original conversation with reporters focused much more on Hillary as the candidate whose people were reassuring Canada that the anti-trade rhetoric was all just campaign talk.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/report_naftagate_leaker_said_h.php (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/report_naftagate_leaker_said_h.php)
This should put to rest the media isnt fair to Hillary bullshit, they just handed Ohio to her because they didnt do their job.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
the original source of the leak was Ian Brodie...
The dude from the Lightning Seeds?
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
It's absolutely unconscionable to withhold millions of people's right to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is simply to punish their state. George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.
Sure. Just show me in your original argument where the word "even" is and I'll take it all back. I can only comprehend what I read.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Sure. Just show me in your original argument where the word "even" is and I'll take it all back. I can only comprehend what I read.
Look, lets put it to a vote: who understood I was being exaggeratively facetious, and who thought I was actually citing President Bush's opinion on the matter? If more people were confused, I'll gladly apologize.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
I'll gladly apologize.
There's no need to apologize. I shouldn't have called you a name in the first place. I thought what you said was silly and your backtrack even worse. That's all. But there was no need to call you a name so I apologize.
-
Then I also apologize for calling you a name, as well. But I still maintain that 99% of the board understood what I was saying and that I was not citing some secret, completely-unreported-by-the-media comments from GWB on the seating of the Democratic Florida & Michigan delegations.
-
for what its worth, id be less against redoing those primaries than simply counting the votes. ironically, those primaries could have meant more in the traditional cycle than they would have early on
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
for what its worth, id be less against redoing those primaries than simply counting the votes.
I understand why people don't want Michigan's counted since Hillary was the only serious candidate listed, but in Florida, both Obama and Clinton were on there. Why go through the trouble of redo-ing that?
As long as they do PRIMARIES, I'm not opposed to them both being re-done (it's certainly better then disenfranchising 5.5+ million voters to punish state party leaders), I just don't see the need to spend the money in Florida when everyone was on the ballot and no one campaigned in the state.
-
I'm quite certain the DNC won't agree with your logic. I suspect that we will hear from Howard Dean shortly on the issue.
The rules were made for a reason. All the candidates agreed to them. All the states were made aware of them and 48 other states (and a couple of territories) followed them. The states that violated the rules need to find a solution that fits within the rules - it's their problem, they caused it. If that means another primary before the June 10 cutoff date, fine. Who's going to pay for it? Well that's an entirely different question.
-
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
As long as they do PRIMARIES, I'm not opposed to them both being re-done (it's certainly better then disenfranchising 5.5+ million voters to punish state party leaders), I just don't see the need to spend the money in Florida when everyone was on the ballot and no one campaigned in the state.
Clinton visited Florida for two fundraisers the weekend before the primary at which time she also came out saying she would try to get their votes counted. If that's not campaigning, I'm not sure what is.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/28/politics/main3760117.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/28/politics/main3760117.shtml)
-
and if you already know your vote wont count, why bother
again, its the state party leaders with egg on their faces
-
Well, just knowing the rules should be enough, so I wasn't going to get into the details. She also scheduled her rally that night in Florida right after the polls closed, where all the other candidates stayed away.
And the reason why only her name was on the ballot in Michigan is because all the other candidates voluntarily withdrew their names but her. After she refused to take her name off the ballot in Michigan, the rest of the candidates decided to leave their names on the Florida ballot.
Regardless, the rules are the rules and she signed a pledge. That should be enough. Unless her word is not her word?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Well, just knowing the rules should be enough, so I wasn't going to get into the details. She also scheduled her rally that night in Florida right after the polls closed, where all the other candidates stayed away.
And the reason why only her name was on the ballot in Michigan is because all the other candidates voluntarily withdrew their names but her. After she refused to take her name off the ballot in Michigan, the rest of the candidates decided to leave their names on the Florida ballot.
Regardless, the rules are the rules and she signed a pledge. That should be enough. Unless her word is not her word?
They couldn't write in their candidate in MI? I'm sure Obama supporters didn't vote for Hillary just because he wasn't on the ballot, they wouldn't have voted at all, which just makes Hillary smarter than Obama in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
The Canadian Press â?? Canada's domestic equivalent of the AP â?? is reporting that the original source of the leak was Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And as it turns out, Brodie's original conversation with reporters focused much more on Hillary as the candidate whose people were reassuring Canada that the anti-trade rhetoric was all just campaign talk.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/report_naftagate_leaker_said_h.php (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/report_naftagate_leaker_said_h.php)
This should put to rest the media isnt fair to Hillary bullshit, they just handed Ohio to her because they didnt do their job. [/b]
regardless of who leaked what, it showed that the obama campaign was unable to control the narrative effectively- clinton much more quickly was able to shape the story than obama. course, it also didn't help that there was a paper-trail to obama.
btw, how about linking to the original story (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/EmailBNStory/National/home).
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Well, just knowing the rules should be enough, so I wasn't going to get into the details. She also scheduled her rally that night in Florida right after the polls closed, where all the other candidates stayed away.
And the reason why only her name was on the ballot in Michigan is because all the other candidates voluntarily withdrew their names but her. After she refused to take her name off the ballot in Michigan, the rest of the candidates decided to leave their names on the Florida ballot.
Regardless, the rules are the rules and she signed a pledge. That should be enough. Unless her word is not her word?
They couldn't write in their candidate in MI? I'm sure Obama supporters didn't vote for Hillary just because he wasn't on the ballot, they wouldn't have voted at all, which just makes Hillary smarter than Obama in my opinion. [/b]
No, it means she didn't play by the rules as the DNC requested. In fact, 40% of voters turned out and voted "Undeclared" or some variation of that in protest.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
No, it means she didn't play by the rules as the DNC requested. In fact, 40% of voters turned out and voted "Undeclared" or some variation of that in protest.
Try not to confuse Mankie with the facts. It's not nice to pick on old people that way.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, how about linking to the original story (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/EmailBNStory/National/home).
Now I'm really scared. They're putting the Mounties on the case!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, how about linking to the original story (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/EmailBNStory/National/home).
Now I'm really scared. They're putting the Mounties on the case! [/b]
<img src="http://www.melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/stills/D/dudley5.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
regardless of who leaked what, it showed that the obama campaign was unable to control the narrative effectively- clinton much more quickly was able to shape the story than obama. course, it also didn't help that there was a paper-trail to obama.
btw, how about linking to the original story (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/EmailBNStory/National/home).
its a lot easier to control the narrative when the media is reporting based on the work of other reporters and not actually doing any investigation, if reporters had been writing that Hillary's campaign called Candian officials it wouldn't have been very hard for Obama to change the story would it have?
and the link I gave provided the link to the story? is it really a big deal? I read about the story there so I linked there, if American media would actually cover the damn story now that there have been all kinds of other developments perhaps I could link to one of them
-
Originally posted by you be betty:
Directly from the man's mouth - Obama's average donation is $109, FYI :)
info released today, of the $55 million Obama raised in February
* More than $45 million of it raised online
* More than 90% of online donations were $100 or less
* More than 50% of online donations were $25 or less
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by callat703:
No, it means she didn't play by the rules as the DNC requested. In fact, 40% of voters turned out and voted "Undeclared" or some variation of that in protest.
Try not to confuse Mankie with the facts. It's not nice to pick on old people that way. [/b]
I think that should be 'try not to confuse politics with the facts'
...as for FL, wasn't it the republican state legislature who dictated the date of the primaries?
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
...as for FL, wasn't it the republican state legislature who dictated the date of the primaries?
I doubt that every member of the Florida legislature is Republican. The vote on the bill that changed the primary date was 118-0.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
for what its worth, id be less against redoing those primaries than simply counting the votes. ironically, those primaries could have meant more in the traditional cycle than they would have early on
The votes already cast CANNOT be counted. There should be a re-do, paid for BY THE STATE. (Although I agree even that is a bitter pill to swallow because, in the end, these late elections will end being incredibly important -- due to their own flauting of the rules and the process.)
The governor and legislature f*&^ed up. But they were fully aware of what the consequences would be should they move their primary. A conspiracy theorist might even think that the FL Republican Governor and Republican legislature did so with nefarious intent.
Candidates did not campaign there, many folks may have not voted based on the lack of standing. You simply cannot rely on the 'unsanctioned primary' results.
As for the overall rules changing, you know it was after 1968 that the use of primaries became common. Until 1968 there were only 13 - 20 primaries per election (it varied).
And this whole Super Delegate thing -- just created in 1982.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
The governor and legislature f*&^ed up. But they were fully aware of what the consequences would be should they move their primary. A conspiracy theorist might even think that the FL Republican Governor and Republican legislature did so with nefarious intent.
yeah, damn the florida legislature and governor for moving michigan's primary...
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:
The governor and legislature f*&^ed up. But they were fully aware of what the consequences would be should they move their primary. A conspiracy theorist might even think that the FL Republican Governor and Republican legislature did so with nefarious intent.
yeah, damn the florida legislature and governor for moving michigan's primary... [/b]
That would be the REPUBLICAN Governor...and who gives a toss about Michigan, it's FL the republicans look to for dodgy vote counting, as history has taught us.
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:
The governor and legislature f*&^ed up. But they were fully aware of what the consequences would be should they move their primary. A conspiracy theorist might even think that the FL Republican Governor and Republican legislature did so with nefarious intent.
yeah, damn the florida legislature and governor for moving michigan's primary... [/b]
That would be the REPUBLICAN Governor...and who gives a toss about Michigan, it's FL the republicans look to for dodgy vote counting, as history has taught us. [/b]
as GGW pointed out, it was a real partisan split of 118-0 to move the primary. at least in florida everyone was on the ballot. . michigan democrats only had hillary, kucinich and none of the above.
btw, i might add that the RNC took away half of florida and michigan's delegates for this egregious attack on tradition.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, i might add that the RNC took away half of florida and michigan's delegates for this egregious attack on tradition.
In a winner take all format, a possible solution. In a split delegate format based on precinct by precinct voting, that was never a possible solution for the Dems.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, i might add that the RNC took away half of florida and michigan's delegates for this egregious attack on tradition.
In a winner take all format, a possible solution. In a split delegate format based on precinct by precinct voting, that was never a possible solution for the Dems. [/b]
Oh my god, imagine the wrangling over wich precincts get to be part of the 'half.'
I was focusing on FL -- that's were my dad lives so we've been talking about it a lot. Isn't Michigan one of the states that connects the East coast to California??
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
...as for FL, wasn't it the republican state legislature who dictated the date of the primaries?
I doubt that every member of the Florida legislature is Republican. The vote on the bill that changed the primary date was 118-0. [/b]
You got me, I wasn't aware of that. I should have known that everyone in FL is screwy (and I can say that because I grew up there...). :cool:
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
...as for FL, wasn't it the republican state legislature who dictated the date of the primaries?
I doubt that every member of the Florida legislature is Republican. The vote on the bill that changed the primary date was 118-0. [/b]
You got me, I wasn't aware of that. I should have known that everyone in FL is screwy (and I can say that because I grew up there...). :cool: [/b]
..and they're only screwy because they're all transplanted northerners.
-
A few months ago, it would've been hard to imagine any possible way the Democrats could screw up enough to let the Republicans take the White House again -- after this Tuesday, it's no longer difficult to imagine at all.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
A few months ago, it would've been hard to imagine any possible way the Democrats could screw up enough to let the Republicans take the White House again -- after this Tuesday, it's no longer difficult to imagine at all.
You have a much better outlook than I do. I've been convinced since day one that the Democrats will find a way to screw this up. Despite my begging and pleading to the contrary, they are well on their way.
-
Well, it also took the Republicans to not screw themselves up... completely in spite of thesmelves, they picked their only electable nominee, even though that looked impossible a few months ago.
-
http://www.surveyusa.com/ (http://www.surveyusa.com/)
Very interesting survey looking at potential electoral votes in the general election.
-
Hillary demands Samantha Power be fired and she resigns? When is Wolfson going to resign for the Ken Starr comment.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Hillary demands Samantha Power be fired and she resigns?
It was the right call. Samantha is a brilliant woman, as I learned first hand while working with her in the late 90's in Eastern Europe. She "corrected me" on more than one occasion as a young lawyer. I can see how her passion could lead to a mistake like this (then again, I think my passion was to blame for me name calling this week as well), but she's in the public eye. She can't do that. And an Irish girl should know better how to deal with Scottish tabloid journalism.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
It was the right call. Samantha is a brilliant woman, as I learned first hand while working with her in the late 90's in Eastern Europe. She "corrected me" on more than one occasion as a young lawyer. I can see how her passion could lead to a mistake like this (then again, I think my passion was to blame for me name calling this week as well), but she's in the public eye. She can't do that. And an Irish girl should know better how to deal with Scottish tabloid journalism.
I more have a problem with Obama allowing there to be a perception that Hillary had a hand in the resignation. Yet there is little response from Obama on the daily crap coming out of these morning Clinton conference calls. I realize Obama's campaign is trying to give the impression of taking the high road, but it would make me feel better if they hit back once in a while. And thats whats important, keeping me happy.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
When is Wolfson going to resign for the Ken Starr comment.
That would require Hillary to run her campaign with the same dignity as Obama. I don't expect Wolfson to be fired until people start pointing out the differences in how one person runs their campaign agaisnt the other.
Let's not forget, though, she has fired staffers in the past who have made disparaging remarks publicly about Obama's drug use and those that forwarded the now famous Obama "Muslim" email.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I realize Obama's campaign is trying to give the impression of taking the high road, but it would make me feel better if they hit back once in a while. And thats whats important, keeping me happy.
This is the campaigns conumndrum right now - and I don't think there's an easy answer.
When I read yesterday that Obama was going to sharpen his criticism, I was disappointed. But I bet many like you were elated to hear that he's going to fight back. I don't think the campaign fully knows what to do. You can't preach to try to break the Washington Establishment and then get sucked right into it after a weekend that absolutely epitomized the Washington Establishment. Worse yet, the Hill and Bill show was terribly effective in their use Establishment Politics (which to me, tells a lot more about the voters than it does about the Clintons). I don't know if anybody saw the 60 Minutes piece on Ohio voters, but I realized that Obama was in trouble after watching the one guy who was undecided, but was leaning towards Obama after he cleared up the national anthem, muslim and getting sworn in on the Koran questions... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMbgevIuFC8)
I hope he avoids it, but it is looking less and less likely that he can.
EDIT: I didn't actually watch the rest of that video. I have no idea who the Young Turks are and could care less - I only wanted to point out the first minute or so.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
This is the campaigns conumndrum right now - and I don't think there's an easy answer.
When I read yesterday that Obama was going to sharpen his criticism, I was disappointed. But I bet many like you were elated to hear that he's going to fight back. I don't think the campaign fully knows what to do. You can't preach to try to break the Washington Establishment and then get sucked right into it after a weekend that absolutely epitomized the Washington Establishment. Worse yet, the Hill and Bill show was terribly effective in their use Establishment Politics (which to me, tells a lot more about the voters than it does about the Clintons). I don't know if anybody saw the 60 Minutes piece on Ohio voters, but I realized that Obama was in trouble after watching the one guy who was undecided, but was leaning towards Obama after he cleared up the national anthem, muslim and getting sworn in on the Koran questions... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMbgevIuFC8)
I hope he avoids it, but it is looking less and less likely that he can.
I don't need the kitchen sink thrown at Hillary as she is doing to Obama (although I am sure some part of me would get some satisfaction at this point). But Obama has generally been pretty good at responses that demonstrate cool under pressure and I fear now that the Clinton campaign is relentlessly bringing out new crap to throw every day there is no time to respond to one thing before the next shit is hurled. The shit is starting to pile up.
I just find it so disgusting that Hillary supporters like her for this very reason. That she can pile shit just as fast as the Republicans. They are resigned to the idea that there is no other way to campaign. I can't get behind that.
-
This is a fantastic oppurtunity for Obama to step up and knock her out. There are a lot of glaring weaknesses in Hillary that he has politely declined to address. Now's the time to take her out. If he can't do this, he doesn't deserve the nomination (although he may do it and voters/superdelagates may not follow).
The risk is that focusing on Hillary may take his eye off the ball. He can't lose sight of his message and goals.
Also, he needs to fight what will be an instinct by the media and the public to cast him as a cartoon character or celebrity. He can't fall for his own star-power - he needs to put weight behind it and validate it. Now.
-
It's the only way to campaign....it always has been and always will be so don't be so naive.
Osama is just more subtle at it, unfortunately one of his aids wasn't...and not even accurate.
Hillary is not a monster so that was totally innacurate. Had she called her "lard arse" that would've at least been an accurate statement, and I wonder what the media would've made of that??
Do you think Bill and Hillary still do 'it'....with each other?
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
The risk is that focusing on Hillary may take his eye off the ball. He can't lose sight of his message and goals.
.
...and that message would be what exactly?
HOPE....CHANGE.....HOPE....CHANGE....HOPE....CHANGE.
Call me stupid but I need a bit more than that to become and Osama sheeple
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
don't be so naive.
I knew that was coming
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Osama
cute
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
...and that message would be what exactly?
HOPE....CHANGE.....HOPE....CHANGE....HOPE....CHANGE.
Call me stupid but I need a bit more than that to become and Osama sheeple
saying this shit while calling people sheeple, hello irony
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Call me stupid but I need a bit more than that to become and Osama sheeple
I would never call you stupid. But I do question your research skills.
I would start here: The Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/148765.php (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/148765.php)
Let's call it the Republicans' Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics.
It goes something like this.
On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry's military service record and label him a liar. But that's only part of what's going on.
Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really -- a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they're tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.
In a post-9/11 environment, obviously, this question of strength, toughness or resolve is particularly salient. That, of course, is why so much of this debate is about war and military service in the first place.
One way -- perhaps the best way -- to demonstrate someone's lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves -- thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can't or won't defend themselves certainly isn't someone you can depend upon to defend you.
Demonstrating Kerry's unwillingness to defend himself (if Bush can do that) is a far more tangible sign of what he's made of than wartime experiences of thirty years ago.
Hitting someone and not having them hit back hurts the morale of that person's supporters, buoys the confidence of your own backers (particularly if many tend toward an authoritarian mindset) and tends to make the person who's receiving the hits into an object of contempt (even if also possibly also one of sympathy) in the eyes of the uncommitted.
This is certainly what Bush's father did to Michael Dukakis and, sadly, it is what Bush himself did, to a great degree, to Al Gore.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182191.php (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182191.php)
This is the type of phony "controversy" the GOP/Karl Rove uses to their advantage. Josh famously called it the "bitch slap" theory of politics, and Clinton is using the same playbook. Obama needed to send a signal that these types of fake outrages won't play, but by her quick resigntation, the bitch slap is alive and well.
Depressing.
So true, so true.
Now, one thing we get at TPM is a really front seat view of each side's immediate feelings and reactions to the campaign. The notes come in angry or plaintive or descriptive. And sometimes they're hard to read since we're on the receiving end of some of the emotional turmoil the intensity of the campaign churns up. So from that, I have a pretty good sense of where the Obama supporters are at at the moment. And a lot of the more intensely engaged of them are telling each other that what Power said is exactly right. And I can see why they're mad at Hillary after a lot of what's happened over the last couple weeks.
But you know what? Ice cream's fattening and we all die too. Get over it. This is about getting inside Obama's (the collective Obama, let's say) head, psyching him out, forcing mistakes and then going right back on the attack all over again. Getting the Obama folks pissed and gritting their teeth and off their game is precisely the point.
The Obama folks can either withdraw to a world where the 'new politics' reins or focus on the fact that her in the real world there are two 'old politics' practitioners standing between him and the presidency and he needs to decide how he's going to deal with that fact.
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
TLDR
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
It's the only way to campaign....it always has been and always will be so don't be so naive.
Oh, the Audacity.
-
Attacking your opponent means you dictate what they have to speak about. It gets them off their own message. It's American Politics 101. Kudos to Obama for trying to avoid that dirty pool up till now, but he can't play that way forever. There are plenty of shady land deals in Hillary's past, as well as quid pro quo Kazakh oil deals, senior advisors who awarded tens of millions of dollars in compensation to sub-prime mortgage company chairmen, criminal fund raisers, etc..., etc..., etc...
If Obama doesn't want to start playing those cards now, he won't be around in the fall when the GOP interest groups start playing them.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I would start here: The Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)
You're so naive and smug. To quote Michael Strahan (by way of Mike Tyson):
"Everybody's got a plan...until they get punched in the face."
Brian
-
Would someone please explain to me what Hillary's "plan" is and why it is superior to Obama's?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Would someone please explain to me what Hillary's "plan" is and why it is superior to Obama's?
If it's a woman: Start crying and make them empathize.
If it's a man: kick 'em in the balls.
Brian
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
You're so naive and smug.
Me and 13,570,500 other people.
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
Originally posted by Mobius:
The risk is that focusing on Hillary may take his eye off the ball. He can't lose sight of his message and goals.
.
...and that message would be what exactly?
HOPE....CHANGE.....HOPE....CHANGE....HOPE....CHANGE.
Call me stupid but I need a bit more than that to become and Osama sheeple [/b]
This is exactly the 'cartoonization' that Obama has to fight He has expressed a lot of substance behind the 'change' theme, particularly in the Texas and Ohio debates.
Great example is the $4,000 tuition subsidy for students who do community service. Fantastic idea. Exemplifies logical governance and a government focused on helping citizens who are committed to helping themselves and society. That's what people are rallying behind. That's real.
I think Hillary relies on the platitudes. Hillary's "solutions". What are they? What has she ever solved?
And the truth is the ability to inspire is the greatest asset a president can have. Its the characteristic that links all the best remembered presidents. An inspired country solves its problems.
Its ridiculous for a candidate's ability to inspire be used against him/her.
-
I'm a little disappointed in Obama's willingness/ability to broaden his message (and I don't mean indulging in attacks, which I believe is not necessary, and has been one of his strong points so far). He has the substance to back up his style, as anyone who has watched him debate knows -- but he has been too slow to incorporate that into his speeches.
The idiots -- Obamamaniacs -- who are fainting at his rallies don't help either. They ought to find a way to screen people like that out. Reminds me of the lame poseurs who used to cry at Rites of Spring shows here in DC back in the day, because they were supposedly so emotionally overwhelmed.
I still think he'd make a vastly better president than Hillary, whom for all her crowing about "experience," really has none that is significant. Travelled to foreign countries? Been woken up by a phone at 3am? I've done those things too, doesn't mean I'm qualified to be president.
But between his somewhat lame adaptibility, and Hillary's "I'll destroy the Democratic party if that's what it takes to win" attitude, I think McCain must be rubbing his aged hands in glee.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
I'm a little disappointed in Obama's willingness/ability to broaden his message (and I don't mean indulging in attacks, which I believe is not necessary, and has been one of his strong points so far). He has the substance to back up his style, as anyone who has watched him debate knows -- but he has been too slow to incorporate that into his speeches.
The idiots -- Obamamaniacs -- who are fainting at his rallies don't help either. They ought to find a way to screen people like that out. Reminds me of the lame poseurs who used to cry at Rites of Spring shows here in DC back in the day, because they were supposedly so emotionally overwhelmed.
I still think he'd make a vastly better president than Hillary, whom for all her crowing about "experience," really has none that is significant. Travelled to foreign countries? Been woken up by a phone at 3am? I've done those things too, doesn't mean I'm qualified to be president.
But between his somewhat lame adaptibility, and Hillary's "I'll destroy the Democratic party if that's what it takes to win" attitude, I think McCain must be rubbing his aged hands in glee.
I'd probably vote for you over the other three choices...
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
I'd probably vote for you over the other three choices...
Hey Doom - free campaing advice from Smackie.
This is not the endorsement you want from the boardies.
-
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
I'd probably vote for you over the other three choices...
HUGS! <img src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_TcYrDQxh1QI/R1SSM8jhsRI/AAAAAAAAALk/-TYmHcTO6go/s1600-R/TL2_CalvinNHobbsHug.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Would someone please explain to me what Hillary's "plan" is and why it is superior to Obama's?
I'm no Hillary fan, I just haven't bought into Obama's sales pitch. My wife has and we talk about it quite a bit...she tells me he's refreshing so I tell her I'd better vote for a carton of Tropicana because so is chilled orange juice not from concentrate.
I'm like the vast majority of voters and I'm not going to search out Obama's 'manifesto' I'm going to decide who's the better candidate from what I see during debates and what I read on the internet, which seems to be a little less biased than the news media, because they tend to have their own agenda as we all know.
Basically, from what I've seen he's said nothing..and I mean NOTHING. Hillary's no better really but there's so many in awe of this one term senator and I just don't see it.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
I'd probably vote for you over the other three choices...
Hey Doom - free campaing advice from Smackie.
This is not the endorsement you want from the boardies. [/b]
What do you mean...he's already got more votes than Nader will get..
-
pollard. . .you're beloved talking points:
Linda Hershman no longer allowed to post
So. Either the dozen guys who run TPM do not think female voting behavior is worthy of their coverage or, dare I say it, they don't want to run material that might result in readers supporting a candidate other than the one they favor. They do not appear to have deacquisitioned Ruth Rosen, who is one of the Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama!â?¢ which of course only supports my most paranoid thoughts. (http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27194)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
pollard. . .you're beloved talking points:
TPM is just one site of many I read on a daily basis, but just so you know, plenty of Obama supporters give them crap for favoring Hillary by just reciting her campaigns conference call every morning, and I also rarely read TPM cafe or reader posts on there, stick to the 3 main writers they do a pretty good job of reporting
and if you want to talk bias, you dont need to look any further than the site you just linked from, Taylor Marsh is just about the worst when it comes to being in the bag for one candidate at any cost (she lead the effort to tie Obama to The Weather Underground)
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
(she lead the effort to tie Obama to The Weather Underground)
Obama had something to do with shitty mall-punk band AFI's latest aural-abortion? Brutal!
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
and if you want to talk bias, you dont need to look any further than the site you just linked from, Taylor Marsh is just about the worst when it comes to being in the bag for one candidate at any cost (she lead the effort to tie Obama to The Weather Underground)
i wouldn't know anything about that. . the past week or so has been enjoyable reading from my side.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i wouldn't know anything about that. . the past week or so has been enjoyable reading from my side.
the Ron Paul side? I fail to see how you could be on McCain's side
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i wouldn't know anything about that. . the past week or so has been enjoyable reading from my side.
the Ron Paul side? I fail to see how you could be on McCain's side [/b]
definately not a paul supporter, his position on trade is a deal-breaker for me. needless to say, having the nafta issue come up was enjoyable for me to watch.
-
You know, they make a big deal about Obama being black and Clinton being a woman.
But what they seem to forget is that Obama is half white by birth and pretty much all white by upbringing. And for all intentional purposes, Hillary is a man.
-
Hey Obama supporters....even more 'sheepish' than usual right now huh???
-
im interested to see how obama talks his way out of the pastor situation...oof.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Hey Obama supporters....even more 'sheepish' than usual right now huh???
huh, I feel pretty ashamed right now, but not of Obama, head out and read what people say in response to his speech today and to the pastor shit, to try and deny racism isnt a huge problem in this country after reading what people say when they can hide behind the internet is an outright lie
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Hey Obama supporters....even more 'sheepish' than usual right now huh???
Not at all. I feel more proud of my candidate than I have throughout the campaign. His speech from this morning was one of the more inspiring things I've heard from him yet.
-
do you honestly believe obama, after 20 years, had never heard any of the inflamatory stuff this guy said? this is what obama has claimed.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you honestly believe obama, after 20 years, had never heard any of the inflamatory stuff this guy said? this is what obama has claimed.
he said this morning he did hear controversial stuff, what he said before was that he had not heard those specific statements regarding 9/11
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you honestly believe obama, after 20 years, had never heard any of the inflamatory stuff this guy said? this is what obama has claimed.
No, its not. From Obama's speech less than an hour ago:
"On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely, just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."
Go read it:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm)
-
oh AND WHO THE FUCK CARES what he heard in church
-
im sure if mccain or whoever had a pastor who married him, baptized his kids and was his mentor - as he's claimed, spouted off stuff like this you'd say "WHO CARES" ...lol
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
im sure if mccain or whoever had a pastor who married him, baptized his kids and was his mentor - as he's claimed, spouted off stuff like this you'd say "WHO CARES" ...lol
Just go read his speech.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
im sure if mccain or whoever had a pastor who married him, baptized his kids and was his mentor - as he's claimed, spouted off stuff like this you'd say "WHO CARES" ...lol
Just go read his speech. [/b]
i dont need to go read a prepared speech that he gave to backpedal out of the situation. hope change unity...did he mention that we deserved 9/11 and that the government created AIDS to kill black people?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
im sure if mccain or whoever had a pastor who married him, baptized his kids and was his mentor - as he's claimed, spouted off stuff like this you'd say "WHO CARES" ...lol
Just go read his speech. [/b]
i dont need to go read a prepared speech that he gave to backpedal out of the situation. [/b]
Fine, then don't read it. Read what Andrew Sullivan had to say about it:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-speech.html (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-speech.html)
The Speech
18 Mar 2008 11:32 am
Alas, I cannot give a more considered response right now as I have to get on the road. But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.
And it was a reflection of faith - deep, hopeful, transcending faith in the promises of the Gospels. And it was about America - its unique promise, its historic purpose, and our duty to take up the burden to perfect this union - today, in our time, in our way.
I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.
Bill Clinton once said that everything bad in America can be rectified by what is good in America. He was right - and Obama takes that to a new level. And does it with the deepest darkest wound in this country's history.
I love this country. I don't remember loving it or hoping more from it than today.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
im sure if mccain or whoever had a pastor who married him, baptized his kids and was his mentor - as he's claimed, spouted off stuff like this you'd say "WHO CARES" ...lol
Just go read his speech. [/b]
His speech like Bill Clintons I didn't have sexual relations with that woman speech? I think they call that 'back-pedalling' don't they? I don't need to hear his speech, I've heard enough from his pastor, who is someone he obviously looks up to because he's been a member of his church for the last 25 years or so. I won't step foot in an American Catholic church because of what I heard from an American Catholic priest. The church is the preacher, the building is just bricks and mortar.
We all know if this was McCain or Hillary they would both be guilty by association and their campaign would be for all intent and purpose over at this point.
And wasn't this hate monger on Obamas cmapaign staff until recently as the religous advisor or something?
What about his wife who even I saw on TV say "for the first time in my life I am proud to be an American"???? That was when I eliminated Obama as my candidate. We don't need a first lady heading out to state dinners who has spent the vast majority of her life ashamed of her country.
None of the candidates make me want to go out and vote for anyone of them, but it will probably be Hillary by process of elmination...if Obama becomes the democratic candidate I'll probably go for McCain....then go home and take a long hot shower.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
im sure if mccain or whoever had a pastor who married him, baptized his kids and was his mentor - as he's claimed, spouted off stuff like this you'd say "WHO CARES" ...lol
I would, especially if it was the same shit, I would prefer nobody talk about religion, so I am not going to take what they hear in church in to account, only when it affects their policies
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
im sure if mccain or whoever had a pastor who married him, baptized his kids and was his mentor - as he's claimed, spouted off stuff like this you'd say "WHO CARES" ...lol
Just go read his speech. [/b]
His speech like Bill Clintons I didn't have sexual relations with that woman speech? I think they call that 'back-pedalling' don't they?[/b]
I'm not going to respond to you, because I can't do it as well as Obama did in his speech. He didn't back-pedal at all. He addressed exactly what you're talking about head on.
-
do you realize how hard his close relationship with this racist pastor is going to haunt him if he makes it to the general? his sheep supporters seem not to care but i think a lot of americans will.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by manimtired:
im sure if mccain or whoever had a pastor who married him, baptized his kids and was his mentor - as he's claimed, spouted off stuff like this you'd say "WHO CARES" ...lol
I would, especially if it was the same shit, I would prefer nobody talk about religion, so I am not going to take what they hear in church in to account, only when it affects their policies [/b]
<img src="http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/Thumbs/ca/editors/adult/Man%20wearing%20blinkers%20looking%20worried.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
and andrew sullivan? please..
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you realize how hard his close relationship with this racist pastor is going to haunt him if he makes it to the general? his sheep supporters seem not to care but i think a lot of americans will.
I think if he can address it in the way he did in his speech, it won't matter.
And I cite Sullivan because he said it more eloquently than I can. Read his speech and make up your own mind.
-
I think mankie and manimtired are afraid that if they dare set eyes on the speech they may be transformed into Obamazombies.
-
what exactly do i have blinders on from? I gave McCain money in 2000 when he made his statements against the religious right in south carolina, I am an atheist who has never been to church willingly, and I will never go, I would prefer religion not be discussed in politics
when I say WHO THE FUCK CARES I am not implying that people dont care, I am voicing my frustration that it shouldnt matter, I am well aware that people do care and that is the source of my frustration
-
maybe they have their blinders on
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I think mankie and manimtired are afraid that if they dare set eyes on the speech they may be transformed into Obamazombies.
On the contrary...I'm afraid it may transform me into a republican,
<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44497000/jpg/_44497330_obama_wright_ap203b.jpg" alt=" - " />
Cozy huh?
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
On the contrary...I'm afraid it may transform me into a republican,
<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44497000/jpg/_44497330_obama_wright_ap203b.jpg" alt=" - " />
Cozy huh?
what exactly offends you so much about Wrights statements beyond the initial reaction?
-
he can say whatever he wants now..i dont really care. it doesnt make up for his 25 year relationship with this racist idiot.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
On the contrary...I'm afraid it may transform me into a republican,
<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44497000/jpg/_44497330_obama_wright_ap203b.jpg" alt=" - " />
Cozy huh?
what exactly offends you so much about Wrights statements beyond the initial reaction? [/b]
are you being serious? ok.
-
what do you think of the mccain/hagee relationship?
-
enlighten me...even though i hate mccain too.
-
The more I learn about the three remaining candidates, the more I feel if it's Obama/McCain in the general election, I will not only vote for, but contribute money to, McCain. The Democratic Party is going to lose alot of voters for a long time if he somehow steals this nomination.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
On the contrary...I'm afraid it may transform me into a republican,
<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44497000/jpg/_44497330_obama_wright_ap203b.jpg" alt=" - " />
Cozy huh?
what exactly offends you so much about Wrights statements beyond the initial reaction? [/b]
are you being serious? ok. [/b]
I can't believe pollard even asked that question to be honest.
I bet pollard was one of the yo-yo's who fainted at an Obama rally!!!
"We need water, one of my disciples has just fainted down here...oh never mind, I'll just change this wine into water for him"
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
are you being serious? ok.
yes I am, I do happen to think that 9/11 happened as a result of our foreign policy, that doesnt mean the US is to blame for it, but I think its important to recognize the role it played
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
enlighten me...even though i hate mccain too.
hagee heads one of the megachurches. he's thrown his support behind mccain, but has said many anticatholic things in the past. he also said that katrina was punishment from god
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
I bet pollard was one of the yo-yo's who fainted at an Obama rally!!!
"We need water, one of my disciples has just fainted down here...oh never mind, I'll just change this wine into water for him"
oh yeah, you know me so well, why dont you try and fucking go read and come back you ignorant twat
-
Originally posted by Julian, gay agenda ILLUMINATI:
The more I learn about the three remaining candidates, the more I feel if it's Obama/McCain in the general election, I will not only vote for, but contribute money to, McCain. The Democratic Party is going to lose alot of voters for a long time if he somehow steals this nomination.
Stealng it? I don't think he's stealing it at all. I do think there's a lot of gullible people buying into his schtick, but he's not pulling a Bush and stealing an election.
People get the leaders they deserve.....just remember that.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
I bet pollard was one of the yo-yo's who fainted at an Obama rally!!!
"We need water, one of my disciples has just fainted down here...oh never mind, I'll just change this wine into water for him"
oh yeah, you know me so well, why dont you try and fucking go read and come back you ignorant twat [/b]
judging from your posts you have zero right to call anyone ingnorant. STFU.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
People get the leaders they deserve.....just remember that.
That's very true. Perhaps "steal" is the wrong word, in retrospect.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
I bet pollard was one of the yo-yo's who fainted at an Obama rally!!!
"We need water, one of my disciples has just fainted down here...oh never mind, I'll just change this wine into water for him"
oh yeah, you know me so well, why dont you try and fucking go read and come back you ignorant twat [/b]
See, all Obama sheep are full of hate. It just takes a little longer to pull it out of some than others..
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
I bet pollard was one of the yo-yo's who fainted at an Obama rally!!!
"We need water, one of my disciples has just fainted down here...oh never mind, I'll just change this wine into water for him"
oh yeah, you know me so well, why dont you try and fucking go read and come back you ignorant twat [/b]
See, all Obama sheep are full of hate. It just takes a little longer to pull it out of some than others.. [/b]
No, but I do think it is frustrating to try and convince people of something when they steadfastly refuse to educate themselves on what is actually happening here.
-
i am sorry you all need to be pussy footed around and told america is great at all times, cant question that, I tend not to be a big believer in nationalism and patriotism, perhaps because I am only American by birth and did not grow up in the US and lived abroad for much of my childhood, or perhaps I am an ignorant twat, sorry for the outburst, I just get tired of the cutting off of conversation with the sheep shit and cult member shit, I am only a member of one cult and that is GBV
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I am only a member of one cult and that is GBV
<img src="http://compsci.ca/v3/images/smiles/icon_headbang.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
I bet pollard was one of the yo-yo's who fainted at an Obama rally!!!
"We need water, one of my disciples has just fainted down here...oh never mind, I'll just change this wine into water for him"
oh yeah, you know me so well, why dont you try and fucking go read and come back you ignorant twat [/b]
See, all Obama sheep are full of hate. It just takes a little longer to pull it out of some than others.. [/b]
No, but I do think it is frustrating to try and convince people of something when they steadfastly refuse to educate themselves on what is actually happening here. [/b]
so you believe a prepared speech over looking at the mans actions for the last 20 years??? i think you might want to go educate yourself on his relationship with this man and what this man believes.
-
honestly, i read your and mank's arguments as youve come to your conclusion before getting both sides. and you call obama supporters sheep :roll:
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
so you believe a prepared speech over looking at the mans actions for the last 20 years??? i think you might want to go educate yourself on his relationship with this man and what this man believes.
If you think I haven't read just about everything there is to be found on Obama's relationship with the pastor, including Obama's book, then you don't know where I'm coming from. Don't claim that you've got more of a knowledge base here and thus are more qualified to make a judgment, as I'm almost 100% positive that is false.
What do you know about what this pastor believes beyond the 30 second YouTube clip that you've seen? What do you know about why Obama started going to the church in the first place? What do you know about what Obama truly agrees with and disagrees with in this man's politics?
And since when do we have to disavow all friendships or associations with people that we disagree with? Do you not have any friends that have some political views that would appall people?
-
ok...he was the mans "spiritual advisor" on his campaign until this story broke. but ya...the speech. hope. unity.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
ok...he was the mans "spiritual advisor" on his campaign until this story broke. but ya...the speech. hope. unity.
he had an honorary title on a committee of the campaign, do you really think he was calling him everyday in regards to the spiritual issues of a 3am call
-
Even better - go watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU)
-
the fact he was on the campaign is enough for me to call shenanigans...i love that word.
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3947948n (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3947948n)
heres another video
-
whoops
-
fing triple post. yips
-
Speech Reactions:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/03/speech_reax.html (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/03/speech_reax.html)
Marc Ambinder:
I do think that Obama's speech was a marvel of contemporary political rhetoric. Politically, analytically and emotively, it hit many high notes. His acknowledgment of white working class resentments (busing) and about the perception that there's been no racial progress, his willingness to stick by his friends, his grasp of history, his sense that our views of race are cramped and caricatured... all of that is something that even those who disagree with the substance of his speech, can, I think, appreciate.
Ben Smith:
A smart colleague notes that this speech is the polar opposite of this year's other big speech on faith, in which Mitt Romney went to Texas to talk about Mormonism, but made just one reference to his Mormon faith. Obama mentions Wright by name 14 times.
Paul Mirengoff, PowerLine:
Although Obama's speech is not without its evasions, I consider it a courageous one by usual political standards. He has refused to walk away from Wright's black liberation theology when it might well have been expedient to do so. The rest of us now should have the courage to take Obama at his word and decide whether it is acceptable to elect as president of the United States someone who carries Rev. Wright around as part of him, and who takes his ranting seriously.
Andrew Sullivan:
But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.
John Podhoretz, Contentions:
Barack Obama's unusual campaign has just led to one of the most unusual speeches in American political history. The purpose of the speech is to set his own political controversy into the largest possible context to zoom out, as it were, and make it appear as though the disgusting remarks of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, are the merest speck, a mere glancing moment in time in the centuries-long history of American race relations. He begins with the drafting of the Constitution, skips forward in time top Wright's remarks, moves back to the legacy of segregation, and onward into the horrific populist present, with black people and white people suffering horrors untold in what he says is a great country but what he intimates is a giant piece of wreckage.
Kevin Drum, Washington Monthly:
I thing we can safely assume that Barack Obama's supporters will all swoon over his speech today. And why not? It was, as usual for him, a helluva good address: intelligent, sane, sympathetic, and broadly appealing. He didn't, however, sound to me like he was really very eager to keep this conversation about race going, a feeling that's easy to understand if you take a look at what's burbling through the conservative id right about now.
Jim Geraghty, NRO:
I think the speech is wildly uneven; but I suspect that it will be praised far and wide in over-the-top terms. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a commentator on the left who will criticize it. ... The real million-dollar question... will this speech be enough Obama get working-class whites to vote for him?
Ezra Klein, American Prospect:
But this speech was something I didn't expect: Honest. It was honest about Obama's affection for Wright, even as it repudiated Wright's comments. It was honest about the tragic history of race in America, even as it expressed faith in a redemptive future. It was honest about the resentment peddlers and racial charlatans who try and recast the increasing rarity of the American Dream as the consequence of ethnic competition rather than gross power imbalances. It was honest in its recognition that racial memory influences contemporary thought, honest in admitting that there's anger in this country, and it's justified, and that there's fear in this country, and it's real.
David Brody, CBN:
We won't know for awhile how voters view Barack Obama's speech today on race relations but The Brody File saw it as a HUGE positive for Obama and a successful turning point for the future of his campaign.
-
You people are really overcomplicating this isuue. The decision rules for the election are pretty straightforward.
If you hate the Jews, you should support Obama.
If you hate the Blacks, you should support Hillary.
If you hate everyone, you should vote Republican.
-
the man can give a speech. ill give you that. so could hitler.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
honestly, i read your and mank's arguments as youve come to your conclusion before getting both sides. and you call obama supporters sheep :roll:
huh?
I came to my conclusion that Obama wasn't for me a while ago. First of all he doesn't have the experience to be president and I did comment on this board that it's too soon for him imho, but I would consider voting for him in the future.
As I watched what he had to say during speeches and debates..or rather what he 'didn't' have to say actually....I felt even stronger that he wasn't the candidate for me.
Then when I heard his wife's rant about being proud of America for the first time in her life, that just confirmed to me it was the right decision to not vote for him...ever. Then his pastor and campaign advisors racist bigotry came out and that closed the book on him as far as I'm concerned.
Sheep follow. You can agree or disagree with my opinions all day long, but just who am I 'following' exactly?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
You people are really overcomplicating this isuue. The decision rules for the election are pretty straightforward.
If you hate the Jews, you should support Obama.
If you hate the Blacks, you should support Hillary.
If you hate everyone, you should vote Republican.
i guess this means most jews are for obama.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
the man can give a speech. ill give you that. so could hitler.
Now you've killed the thread (http://sunsite.ualberta.ca/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html).
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
the man can give a speech. ill give you that. so could hitler.
Don't forget Saddam Hussein...he could roll em out too.
Do we know who wrote Obama's speech today?
-
but godwins law is just such a good law...
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
]Do we know who wrote Obama's speech today?
We do. Obama did.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
honestly, i read your and mank's arguments as youve come to your conclusion before getting both sides. and you call obama supporters sheep :roll:
huh?
I came to my conclusion that Obama wasn't for me a while ago. First of all he doesn't have the experience to be president and I did comment on this board that it's too soon for him imho, but I would consider voting for him in the future.
As I watched what he had to say during speeches and debates..or rather what he 'didn't' have to say actually....I felt even stronger that he wasn't the candidate for me.
Then when I heard his wife's rant about being proud of America for the first time in her life, that just confirmed to me it was the right decision to not vote for him...ever. Then his pastor and campaign advisors racist bigotry came out and that closed the book on him as far as I'm concerned.
Sheep follow. You can agree or disagree with my opinions all day long, but just who am I 'following' exactly? [/b]
you stated a few weeks back that obama didnt have a plan. another boarder linked you to his plan, and you couldnt be bothered to read it. now this issue arises, and you cant be bothered to hear both sides of the story. just sounds like you've had your blinders on from the get go here. im not sure who youre following, but you sound like a talking point rather than an informed participant in democracy
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
honestly, i read your and mank's arguments as youve come to your conclusion before getting both sides. and you call obama supporters sheep :roll:
huh?
I came to my conclusion that Obama wasn't for me a while ago. First of all he doesn't have the experience to be president and I did comment on this board that it's too soon for him imho, but I would consider voting for him in the future.
As I watched what he had to say during speeches and debates..or rather what he 'didn't' have to say actually....I felt even stronger that he wasn't the candidate for me.
Then when I heard his wife's rant about being proud of America for the first time in her life, that just confirmed to me it was the right decision to not vote for him...ever. Then his pastor and campaign advisors racist bigotry came out and that closed the book on him as far as I'm concerned.
Sheep follow. You can agree or disagree with my opinions all day long, but just who am I 'following' exactly? [/b]
you stated a few weeks back that obama didnt have a plan. another boarder linked you to his plan, and you couldnt be bothered to read it. now this issue arises, and you cant be bothered to hear both sides of the story. just sounds like you've had your blinders on from the get go here. im not sure who youre following, but you sound like a talking point rather than an informed participant in democracy [/b]
and you believe a 20 minute prepared speech over a mans actions for the past 25 years.
-
if you read/watch the speach and arrive at that conclusion, the debate would be much more informed is all i am saying
-
Actually, What I said was I am just like the vast majority of American voters who are going to get their information from mainstream media etc...and Obama has said nothing to me that has given me the desire to go read his manifesto. That's his problem, not mine.
My decision has since been made who I'm not going to vote for, and a prepared speech is completely meaningless for me at this stage. Would he have made this prepared speech had this issue not arisen? A speech most likely prepared by someone else, or someone else most likely had a part in writing it, so it's completely without merit as far as I'm concerned. I don't need to hear it, I've heard enough of politicians spin, and this has just proven that he is no different. He's just a politician trying to get his arse out of the fire.
-
ok, so youre a media sheep. thanks for clearing that up
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
He's just a politician trying to get his arse out of the fire.
If you, you know, read or watched the speech, you might think differently. But can you really argue with willed ignorance?
-
I'm going to pistol whip the next person that says "shenanigans"
-
I don't have time to find it now, but there is an election thread from this time last year where Mankie said he wouldn't vote for Obama because America would never elect a muslim. It doesn't really matter what "the media" says or doesn't say, Mankie made up his mind long ago.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I don't have time to find it now, but there is an election thread from this time last year where Mankie said he wouldn't vote for Obama because America would never elect a muslim. It doesn't really matter what "the media" says or doesn't say, Mankie made up his mind long ago.
MUSLIM??????? The fucker's a terrorist??
:eek: :eek:
Well he does go to pray where they gave Farrakhan a lifetime acvhievement award so I was way ahead of the flock on that one..
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
ok, so youre a media sheep. thanks for clearing that up
Baaaaaaa.
Where did you watch 'the speech'?
-
i dont have speakers at work, so i printed off the web
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i dont have speakers at work, so i printed off the web
What website?
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_more_perfect_union.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_more_perfect_union.html)
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i dont have speakers at work, so i printed off the web
What website? [/b]
Try any of the following:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_more_perfect_union.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_more_perfect_union.html)
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm)
http://www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com)
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i dont have speakers at work, so i printed off the web
What website? [/b]
I got you covered, Mank!!
March 18, 2008
Transcript
Barack Obamaâ??s Speech on Race
The following is the text as prepared for delivery of Senator Barack Obamaâ??s speech on race in Philadelphia, as provided by his presidential campaign.
â??We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.â?
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched Americaâ??s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nationâ??s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution â?? a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part â?? through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign â?? to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together â?? unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction â?? towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Pattonâ??s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. Iâ??ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the worldâ??s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners â?? an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
Itâ??s a story that hasnâ??t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts â?? that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either â??too blackâ? or â??not black enough.â? We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, weâ??ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that itâ??s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, weâ??ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely â?? just as Iâ??m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm werenâ??t simply controversial. They werenâ??t simply a religious leaderâ??s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country â?? a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wrightâ??s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems â?? two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isnâ??t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing Godâ??s work here on Earth â?? by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
â??People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverendâ??s voice up into the raftersâ?¦.And in that single note â?? hope! â?? I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lionâ??s den, Ezekielâ??s field of dry bones. Those stories â?? of survival, and freedom, and hope â?? became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didnâ??t need to feel shame aboutâ?¦memories that all people might study and cherish â?? and with which we could start to rebuild.â?
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety â?? the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinityâ??s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions â?? the good and the bad â?? of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother â?? a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America â?? to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that weâ??ve never really worked through â?? a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, â??The past isnâ??t dead and buried. In fact, it isnâ??t even past.â? We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still havenâ??t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between todayâ??s black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments â?? meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of todayâ??s urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for oneâ??s family, contributed to the erosion of black families â?? a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods â?? parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement â?? all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. Whatâ??s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didnâ??t make it â?? those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations â?? those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wrightâ??s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politicianâ??s own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wrightâ??s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans donâ??t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience â?? as far as theyâ??re concerned, no oneâ??s handed them anything, theyâ??ve built it from scratch. Theyâ??ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when theyâ??re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments arenâ??t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze â?? a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns â?? this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. Itâ??s a racial stalemate weâ??ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy â?? particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction â?? a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people â?? that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances â?? for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives â?? by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Ironically, this quintessentially American â?? and yes, conservative â?? notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wrightâ??s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wrightâ??s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. Itâ??s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country â?? a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen â?? is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope â?? the audacity to hope â?? for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds â?? by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the worldâ??s great religions demand â?? that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brotherâ??s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sisterâ??s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle â?? as we did in the OJ trial â?? or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wrightâ??s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that sheâ??s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, weâ??ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, â??Not this time.â? This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids canâ??t learn; that those kids who donâ??t look like us are somebody elseâ??s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who donâ??t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesnâ??t look like you might take your job; itâ??s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never shouldâ??ve been authorized and never shouldâ??ve been waged, and we want to talk about how weâ??ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didnâ??t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation â?? the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
There is one story in particularly that Iâ??d like to leave you with today â?? a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. Kingâ??s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and thatâ??s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her motherâ??s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didnâ??t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.
Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why theyâ??re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man whoâ??s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why heâ??s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, â??I am here because of Ashley.â?
â??Iâ??m here because of Ashley.â? By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
You people are really overcomplicating this isuue. The decision rules for the election are pretty straightforward.
If you hate the Jews, you should support Obama.
If you hate the Blacks, you should support Hillary.
If you hate everyone, you should vote Republican.
What if you hate classic rock? Is that Ron Paul or Ralph Nader?
Also it should have been:
Originally posted by callat703:
Speech Reactions:
Andrew Sullivan:
I'd totally do him...but only if he has the same kink as Eliot Spitzer.
Which ISN'T a racist or homophobic comment as much as it is a comment about what a hypocrite Andrew Sullivan is.
Brian
-
Originally posted by callat703:
If you think I haven't read just about everything there is to be found on Obama's relationship with the pastor, including Obama's book, then you don't know where I'm coming from. Don't claim that you've got more of a knowledge base here and thus are more qualified to make a judgment, as I'm almost 100% positive that is false.
What do you know about what this pastor believes beyond the 30 second YouTube clip that you've seen? What do you know about why Obama started going to the church in the first place? What do you know about what Obama truly agrees with and disagrees with in this man's politics?
And since when do we have to disavow all friendships or associations with people that we disagree with? Do you not have any friends that have some political views that would appall people?
i think there's a big difference between merely disagreeing with someone, and idly sitting by for several years while a "friend" goes off on how america caused AIDS, purposefully withholds the cure for AIDS, knew in advance about 9/11, gives black america drugs, and so forth.
furthermore, the setting isn't simply a parlor where men sit around and smoke cigars, this is in front of a church, the largest church of that particular denomination, a church that holds a lot of power in black circles and Chicago, a church that even Oprah attend(ed). . .
obama's continued attendance is/was an implicit acceptance of the views espoused by the leader of the church, a leader that he likened to a grumpy uncle. whether or not obama believes what the rev. wright says is not the point, at least for me, it's that obama continued attending the church and supporting the church without any apparent attempt to change the views of the church. if a friend of mine started up with conspiracy theories about AIDS and began to broadcast them loudly in the public, i certainly would not stand in the crowd listening to them for very long.
(btw, have i told y'all about how flu shots are a government conspiracy to test various super-flus and allow the government to monitor our whereabouts?)
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_more_perfect_union.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_more_perfect_union.html)
Well, even if I was considering voting for him before, I'm certainly not after that pile of verbal horse manure.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i dont have speakers at work, so i printed off the web
What website? [/b]
Try any of the following:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_more_perfect_union.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_more_perfect_union.html)
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm)
http://www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com) [/b]
I wasn't looking for the fucking speech, I was trying to find out his news outlet of choice.
-
What if Obama brings racial peace to this great country of ours, heals long festering wounds, allows brother to walk with brother...
...and then it all becomes undone by Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance in "Tropic Thunder?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X6cWO60ErY)
Brian
-
When will Hillary disavow her association with Satan worshippers?
<img src="http://cache.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2006/08/deviltime.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by callat703:
i think there's a big difference between merely disagreeing with someone, and idly sitting by for several years while a "friend" goes off on how america caused AIDS, purposefully withholds the cure for AIDS, knew in advance about 9/11, gives black america drugs, and so forth.
furthermore, the setting isn't simply a parlor where men sit around and smoke cigars, this is in front of a church, the largest church of that particular denomination, a church that holds a lot of power in black circles and Chicago, a church that even Oprah attend(ed). . .
obama's continued attendance is/was an implicit acceptance of the views espoused by the leader of the church, a leader that he likened to a grumpy uncle. whether or not obama believes what the rev. wright says is not the point, at least for me, it's that obama continued attending the church and supporting the church without any apparent attempt to change the views of the church. if a friend of mine started up with conspiracy theories about AIDS and began to broadcast them loudly in the public, i certainly would not stand in the crowd listening to them for very long.
(btw, have i told y'all about how flu shots are a government conspiracy to test various super-flus and allow the government to monitor our whereabouts?)
This is a fair point, though I think it distorts the reality of the situation. I really do think it is important to keep in mind that the statements of Wright that have been displayed the public represent 30 seconds or so of a man's decades long career.
That said, I think Obama's point is that we have to accept that some of these controversial, anger-filled points are held by a sizable proportion of Americans - and happen to be held by Americans that aren't white. He says as much in his speech - that we have to acknowledge a deep seeded anger in the African American community if we're ever going to truly heal it. He then (in my mind, brilliantly) expands this to show how the same anger, disillusionment, and frustration can be reflected in other segments of American society.
EDIT: Do I agree with Wright? Absolutely not. But do I recognize that he represents what a lot of people probably think? Sure do. Do I agree with all of the Christian right who think gays are going to burn in hell? Absolutely not. Do I recognize that there are a lot of them who think as much? Sure do.
Stanley Kurtz of the National Review posted what seems to me to be what the conservative counter-point to Obama's message will be - and he does so in a way that I can both respect and disagree with:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU5ZTZmMDBlNDg2YWUwZjg5ZTM0NDVkY2FlMDBmM2Q= (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU5ZTZmMDBlNDg2YWUwZjg5ZTM0NDVkY2FlMDBmM2Q=)
I think Kurtz ultimately concludes that Obama is truly representative of a more liberal, progressive thinking side of the Democratic Party. He equates it to Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and the "liberal elites." But I think in many respects it is a wider base than that.
I read an editorial not too long ago that said that the major difference between Reagan's movement and Obama's movement was that Reagan embraced his conservatism and made it his platform. I think this speech can essentially be viewed as Obama embracing his liberalism and putting it all on the line for it. He's saying we have to acknowledge a strong dissenting voice in the United States before we can work to change the reason it exists.
-
The American economy is in free fall, and all anyone cares about is what some religious nut says about race. I'll bet Bush's pastor told some crock and bull story about Jesus dying on the cross and rising up to heaven. Why weren't people up in arms about that?
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
What if Obama brings racial peace to this great country of ours, heals long festering wounds, allows brother to walk with brother...
...and then it all becomes undone by Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance in "Tropic Thunder?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X6cWO60ErY)
Brian
Brother already walked with brother...interestingly enough only 37 of them had to take the day off work!
<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40906000/jpg/_40906360_millionman_ap203.jpg" alt=" - " />
Is it just me or does the Washington monument look like a clan member peering down over them?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
When will Hillary disavow her association with Satan worshippers?
<img src="http://cache.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2006/08/deviltime.jpg" alt=" - " />
Call me a NY governor but I'd totally do her.
-
I assume you mean Governor Paterson - the blind one.
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
When will Hillary disavow her association with Satan worshippers?
<img src="http://cache.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2006/08/deviltime.jpg" alt=" - " />
Call me a NY governor but I'd totally do her. [/b]
-
Originally posted by callat703:
This is a fair point, though I think it distorts the reality of the situation. I really do think it is important to keep in mind that the statements of Wright that have been displayed the public represent 30 seconds or so of a man's decades long career.
That said, I think Obama's point is that we have to accept that some of these controversial, anger-filled points are held by a sizable proportion of Americans - and happen to be held by Americans that aren't white. He says as much in his speech - that we have to acknowledge a deep seeded anger in the African American community if we're ever going to truly heal it. He then (in my mind, brilliantly) expands this to show how the same anger, disillusionment, and frustration can be reflected in other segments of American society.
Stanley Kurtz of the National Review posted what seems to me to be what the conservative counter-point to Obama's message will be - and he does so in a way that I can both respect and disagree with:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU5ZTZmMDBlNDg2YWUwZjg5ZTM0NDVkY2FlMDBmM2Q= (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU5ZTZmMDBlNDg2YWUwZjg5ZTM0NDVkY2FlMDBmM2Q=)
I think Kurtz ultimately concludes that Obama is truly representative of a more liberal, progressive thinking side of the Democratic Party. He equates it to Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and the "liberal elites." But I think in many respects it is a wider base than that.
I read an editorial not too long ago that said that the major difference between Reagan's movement and Obama's movement was that Reagan embraced his conservatism and made it his platform. I think this speech can essentially be viewed as Obama embracing his liberalism and putting it all on the line for it. He's saying we have to acknowledge a strong dissenting voice in the United States before we can work to change the reason it exists.
well, i would say that kurtz is saying that obama is a bridge between liberal academic elites and the lesser black populace, and obama allows the liberal elites to finally show how they are supporting the black man. maybe that's too jonah goldberg of me though. :)
anyway. . .i have no doubt that wright has been a boon to the community through various public works activities like counseling and advocating for the poor, and that drew obama there in the first place (not to mention that wright is a king-maker, and if obama wanted to run for office succesfully, he'd have to get in wright's good graces, but that's another discussion). nevertheless, i think kurtz is right in that obama never truly distances himself from wright and his fantasies, but by rationalizing them via white concerns about other races. why should either be rationalized- the fact is there are people who are perfectly happy keeping race in the political discussion and not moving on, that is what obama has to address.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
nevertheless, i think kurtz is right in that obama never truly distances himself from wright and his fantasies, but by rationalizing them via white concerns about other races. why should either be rationalized- the fact is there are people who are perfectly happy keeping race in the political discussion and not moving on, that is what obama has to address.
Well, I think the point - which I happen to agree with - is that these issues can't be solved by ignoring them and keeping them out of the discourse.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
The American economy is in free fall, and all anyone cares about is what some religious nut says about race. I'll bet Bush's pastor told some crock and bull story about Jesus dying on the cross and rising up to heaven. Why weren't people up in arms about that?
edgy
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I assume you mean Governor Paterson - the blind one.
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
When will Hillary disavow her association with Satan worshippers?
<img src="http://cache.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2006/08/deviltime.jpg" alt=" - " />
Call me a NY governor but I'd totally do her. [/b]
[/b]
I take no shame in admitting I have a thing for redheads.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
nevertheless, i think kurtz is right in that obama never truly distances himself from wright and his fantasies, but by rationalizing them via white concerns about other races. why should either be rationalized- the fact is there are people who are perfectly happy keeping race in the political discussion and not moving on, that is what obama has to address.
Well, I think the point - which I happen to agree with - is that these issues can't be solved by ignoring them and keeping them out of the discourse. [/b]
fair enough. my whole point is that someone who represents the black community has to make a stand and say race an outdated construct. . .that people who keeping bringing it up are not being constructive, but are only increasing people's desire to not discuss it. as is evident by bill clinton and geraldine ferraro, even a liberal white man and woman can't make those statements without being called racist.
course, i may be colorblind, but i do see class.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
nevertheless, i think kurtz is right in that obama never truly distances himself from wright and his fantasies, but by rationalizing them via white concerns about other races. why should either be rationalized- the fact is there are people who are perfectly happy keeping race in the political discussion and not moving on, that is what obama has to address.
Well, I think the point - which I happen to agree with - is that these issues can't be solved by ignoring them and keeping them out of the discourse. [/b]
fair enough. my whole point is that someone who represents the black community has to make a stand and say race an outdated construct. . .that people who keeping bringing it up are not being constructive, but are only increasing people's desire to not discuss it. as is evident by bill clinton and geraldine ferraro, even a liberal white man and woman can't make those statements without being called racist.
course, i may be colorblind, but i do see class. [/b]
I think that you're right - but can't we do that while acknowledging that most people still do see race? Obama says as much in his speech - that he isn't foolish enough to think that he can erase race as a construct simply by virtue of his candidacy or presidency, but rather, that he can move us towards that reality.
It is a hard conversation, and that's what makes this such an amazing, brave speech to me.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I think that you're right - but can't we do that while acknowledging that most people still do see race? Obama says as much in his speech - that he isn't foolish enough to think that he can erase race as a construct simply by virtue of his candidacy or presidency, but rather, that he can move us towards that reality.
It is a hard conversation, and that's what makes this such an amazing, brave speech to me.
maybe it's because my perception of the race issue is different that others, but i would have much preferred obama directly taking on those who would rather inject race (and victimization) into every conversation or at least race-based objections, instead of trying to rationalize it across the board. yes, it's a difficult conversation, but i really do wonder the desire of some people to want to move forward- that's what i would have liked him to address.
anyway, i appreciate this discussion- i certainly do not want to belabor this particular nuance, because i think we'll simply end up at agree to disagree.
-
<img src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/618KSVZ8K5L._SS500_.jpg" alt=" - " />
Take a pinch of white man
Wrap him up in black skin
Add a touch of blue blood
And a little bitty bit of red Indian boy
Oh like a Curly Latin kinkies
Oh Lordy, Lordy, mixed with yellow Chinkees, yeah
You know you lump it all together
And you got a recipe for a get along scene
Oh what a beautiful dream
If it could only come true, you know, you know
What we need is a great big melting pot
Big enough enough enough to take
The world and all its got And keep it stirring for a hundred years or more
And turn out coffee coloured people by the score
Rabbis and the friars
Vishnus and the gurus
We got the Beatles or the Sun God
Well it really doesn't matter what religion you choose
And be thankful little Mrs. Graceful
You know that livin' could be tasteful
We should all get together in a lovin machine
I think I'll call up the queen
It' s only fair that she knows, you know, you know
What we need is a great big melting pot
Big enough enough enough to take
The world and all its got And keep it stirring for a hundred years or more
And turn out coffee coloured people by the score
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
nevertheless, i think kurtz is right in that obama never truly distances himself from wright and his fantasies, but by rationalizing them via white concerns about other races. why should either be rationalized- the fact is there are people who are perfectly happy keeping race in the political discussion and not moving on, that is what obama has to address.
Well, I think the point - which I happen to agree with - is that these issues can't be solved by ignoring them and keeping them out of the discourse. [/b]
fair enough. my whole point is that someone who represents the black community has to make a stand and say race an outdated construct. . .that people who keeping bringing it up are not being constructive, but are only increasing people's desire to not discuss it. as is evident by bill clinton and geraldine ferraro, even a liberal white man and woman can't make those statements without being called racist.
course, i may be colorblind, but i do see class. [/b]
I think that you're right - but can't we do that while acknowledging that most people still do see race? Obama says as much in his speech - that he isn't foolish enough to think that he can erase race as a construct simply by virtue of his candidacy or presidency, but rather, that he can move us towards that reality.
It is a hard conversation, and that's what makes this such an amazing, brave speech to me. [/b]
It was an act of political necessity, not bravery.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
[qb] Originally posted by callat703:
[qb] Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
[qb]
It is a hard conversation, and that's what makes this such an amazing, brave speech to me. [/b]
It was an act of political necessity, not bravery. [/b]
Exactly...it wouldn't have been said at all had it not been for recent events regarding his spiritual leader.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
It was an act of political necessity, not bravery.
You really think that it was an act of political necessity for him to speak on this in the way that he did? Most politicians would have thrown the pastor under the bus and moved on despite the backlash that would have resulted. Instead, he took on the bigger issue - and that is a brave move indeed.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think that you're right - but can't we do that while acknowledging that most people still do see race? Obama says as much in his speech - that he isn't foolish enough to think that he can erase race as a construct simply by virtue of his candidacy or presidency, but rather, that he can move us towards that reality.
It is a hard conversation, and that's what makes this such an amazing, brave speech to me.
maybe it's because my perception of the race issue is different that others, but i would have much preferred obama directly taking on those who would rather inject race (and victimization) into every conversation or at least race-based objections, instead of trying to rationalize it across the board. yes, it's a difficult conversation, but i really do wonder the desire of some people to want to move forward- that's what i would have liked him to address.
anyway, i appreciate this discussion- i certainly do not want to belabor this particular nuance, because i think we'll simply end up at agree to disagree. [/b]
Agreed.
-
he has too much of a history with his pastor to simply "throw him overboard" at this point.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
he has too much of a history with his pastor to simply "throw him overboard" at this point.
Besides, that would've made him a Clinton clone.
-
Kind of like Silda Spritzer?
Originally posted by manimtired:
he has too much of a history with his pastor to simply "throw him overboard" at this point.
-
"Incidentally: If you want to talk about contrasts, itâ??s amazing that on the same network featuring Buchanan, Sally Quinn did a great job this morning, as the networks were killing time waiting for Obama to arrive on stage, pointing out all the incendiary and unacceptable statements that preachers from Jesse Jackson to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell to Billy Graham, have made over the yearsâ?¦and the absence of any real expectation that the white politicians who relied on their support give a major speech denouncing them and reflecting on race or religion in American politics."
Tom Schaller
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=we_the_people#105120 (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=we_the_people#105120)
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
]I wasn't looking for the fucking speech, I was trying to find out his news outlet of choice.
glad you read it
i like real clear, but i dont really have a news outlet of choice. i suppose the post if you really made me choose, as i get it on sundays
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Kind of like Silda Spritzer?
Originally posted by manimtired:
he has too much of a history with his pastor to simply "throw him overboard" at this point.
[/b]
No, that's a case of 'it's cheaper to keep her'
But...if you want juicy political scandal, this one is tough to beat, and she's not bad for a politicians wife...better than your usual frumpy lard-arsed old wagon.
http://gawker.com/5003912/new-jersey-governor-threesome-one+ups-spitzer (http://gawker.com/5003912/new-jersey-governor-threesome-one+ups-spitzer)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
The American economy is in free fall, and all anyone cares about is what some religious nut says about race. I'll bet Bush's pastor told some crock and bull story about Jesus dying on the cross and rising up to heaven. Why weren't people up in arms about that?
edgy [/b]
Worse. GW's pastor was telling the story about the dawn of man, 6000 years ago.
But he can't be a crackpot -- there's a museum in Kentucky that shows early man swimming in a lake with dinosaurs!!
-
as with everything, this is blown a bit out of proporation as the never-ending primary continues to devolve into the current game of "find people associated with the candidates who say different levels incedniary things and make it into a story" becomes the norm. this holds more weight because obama's lack of any real record to run on makes his associations all the more relevant, but it's still not something i can get too riled up about and after avoiding it as long as he could avoid it he addressed it pretty well in his usual "these aren't the droids you're looking for" sort of way.
but i'm not your average voter and y'all are crazy if you think this isn't going to be a FUCKING HUGE problem for him in the general election. hillary's mumbo jumbo about her already being vetted and him not being vetted actually looks a bit more prescient right now.
-
Originally posted by BookerT:
as with everything, this is blown a bit out of proporation as the never-ending primary continues to devolve into the current game of "find people associated with the candidates who say different levels incedniary things and make it into a story" becomes the norm. this holds more weight because obama's lack of any real record to run on makes his associations all the more relevant, but it's still not something i can get too riled up about and after avoiding it as long as he could avoid it he addressed it pretty well in his usual "these aren't the droids you're looking for" sort of way.
but i'm not your average voter and y'all are crazy if you think this isn't going to be a FUCKING HUGE problem for him in the general election. hillary's mumbo jumbo about her already being vetted and him not being vetted actually looks a bit more prescient right now.
But this is part of why this speech is so brilliant. He's recast the discussion. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are now both forced to discuss race on this level - and do we honestly think either of them can do that?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by BookerT:
but i'm not your average voter and y'all are crazy if you think this isn't going to be a FUCKING HUGE problem for him in the general election. hillary's mumbo jumbo about her already being vetted and him not being vetted actually looks a bit more prescient right now.
But this is part of why this speech is so brilliant. He's recast the discussion. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are now both forced to discuss race on this level - and do we honestly think either of them can do that? [/b]
If they're smart they won't say a word. What is there to discuss? He didn't say anything earth-shattering or life changing.
and Booker is spot on...if Obama ends up as the democrat candidate then the dems are fucked, because the republicans will crucify him over this issue.
Game, set and match to McCain unless Hillary can pull some miracle between now and November.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by BookerT:
but i'm not your average voter and y'all are crazy if you think this isn't going to be a FUCKING HUGE problem for him in the general election. hillary's mumbo jumbo about her already being vetted and him not being vetted actually looks a bit more prescient right now.
But this is part of why this speech is so brilliant. He's recast the discussion. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are now both forced to discuss race on this level - and do we honestly think either of them can do that? [/b]
If they're smart they won't say a word. What is there to discuss? He didn't say anything earth-shattering or life changing.
and Booker is spot on...if Obama ends up as the democrat candidate then the dems are fucked, because the republicans will crucify him over this issue.
Game, set and match to McCain unless Hillary can pull some miracle between now and November. [/b]
I think you're wrong. It is largely going to depend on the media coverage of today's speech from this point forward, but I think they won't have a choice as to whether or not to talk about it. You don't think this becomes a question in any debate from this point forward? Obama can get on the stump from this point on and incorporate this discussion in his platform.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I think you're wrong. It is largely going to depend on the media coverage of today's speech from this point forward, but I think they won't have a choice as to whether or not to talk about it. You don't think this becomes a question in any debate from this point forward? Obama can get on the stump from this point on and incorporate this discussion in his platform.
i had been trying to avoid this, but. . .i think this is only an issue in the democratic party. because the race-baiters have been so vocal over these past years, republicans either don't say anything or ignore the baiters and call them what they are- then get skewered by black pastors and liberal news media as heartless whiteys. i believe that much of this country wants to move past a race discussion, but the baiters don't want to, since it gets them so much media. it's so much easier to blame someone or something else for your own problems.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think you're wrong. It is largely going to depend on the media coverage of today's speech from this point forward, but I think they won't have a choice as to whether or not to talk about it. You don't think this becomes a question in any debate from this point forward? Obama can get on the stump from this point on and incorporate this discussion in his platform.
i had been trying to avoid this, but. . .i think this is only an issue in the democratic party. because the race-baiters have been so vocal over these past years, republicans either don't say anything or ignore the baiters and call them what they are- then get skewered by black pastors and liberal news media as heartless whiteys. i believe that much of this country wants to move past a race discussion, but the baiters don't want to, since it gets them so much media. it's so much easier to blame someone or something else for your own problems. [/b]
This is the same discussion we just agreed to disagree on :)
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by BookerT:
but i'm not your average voter and y'all are crazy if you think this isn't going to be a FUCKING HUGE problem for him in the general election. hillary's mumbo jumbo about her already being vetted and him not being vetted actually looks a bit more prescient right now.
But this is part of why this speech is so brilliant. He's recast the discussion. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are now both forced to discuss race on this level - and do we honestly think either of them can do that? [/b]
If they're smart they won't say a word. What is there to discuss? He didn't say anything earth-shattering or life changing.
and Booker is spot on...if Obama ends up as the democrat candidate then the dems are fucked, because the republicans will crucify him over this issue.
Game, set and match to McCain unless Hillary can pull some miracle between now and November. [/b]
I think you're wrong. It is largely going to depend on the media coverage of today's speech from this point forward, but I think they won't have a choice as to whether or not to talk about it. You don't think this becomes a question in any debate from this point forward? Obama can get on the stump from this point on and incorporate this discussion in his platform. [/b]
I'm sure the right leaning media will try to put him away becuase he stood by his bigoted pastor, and the liberals compare it to MLK's "I have a dream" so one will cancel out the other as usual.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think you're wrong. It is largely going to depend on the media coverage of today's speech from this point forward, but I think they won't have a choice as to whether or not to talk about it. You don't think this becomes a question in any debate from this point forward? Obama can get on the stump from this point on and incorporate this discussion in his platform.
i had been trying to avoid this, but. . .i think this is only an issue in the democratic party. because the race-baiters have been so vocal over these past years, republicans either don't say anything or ignore the baiters and call them what they are- then get skewered by black pastors and liberal news media as heartless whiteys. i believe that much of this country wants to move past a race discussion, but the baiters don't want to, since it gets them so much media. it's so much easier to blame someone or something else for your own problems. [/b]
This is the same discussion we just agreed to disagree on :) [/b]
i know, i know. . i couldn't help chiming in.
-
jesus, i'm glad i haven't checked in on this thread in a few weeks ... looks like pages and pages of more of the same crap from mankie, the guy really is just one step above from a knuckle-scraping moron
-
i guess he has more time to debate such topics while youre busy organizing your itunes library and listening to backpack rap. hows college?
-
Originally posted by Hoyas Final 4:
jesus, i'm glad i haven't checked in on this thread in a few weeks ... looks like pages and pages of more of the same crap from mankie, the guy really is just one step above from a knuckle-scraping moron
One step above huh....why thank you, I'm flattered.
<img src="http://dukeofprunes.co.uk/picts/random/wanker.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
hows college?
fucking sweet dude, kegger tonight in the special collections room of the law library
-
Originally posted by Hoyas Final 4:
Originally posted by manimtired:
hows college?
kegger tonight in the special collections room of the law library [/b]
...and I'm the knuckle scraper! :roll:
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
...and I'm the knuckle scraper! :roll:
because you don't understand sarcasm? i guess that's one neolithic symptom
-
Originally posted by Hoyas Final 4:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
...and I'm the knuckle scraper! :roll:
because you don't understand sarcasm? i guess that's one neolithic symptom [/b]
...and neither does 'modern man' evidently.
-
<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/328411694_42bb6f497c_o.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
yes, but have we heard from lolcats on the subject
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
the liberals compare it to MLK's "I have a dream" so one will cancel out the other as usual.
Actually, it reminds me much more of this speech:
JFK on Catholicism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDP4qrA8hvg)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
the liberals compare it to MLK's "I have a dream" so one will cancel out the other as usual.
Actually, it reminds me much more of this speech:
JFK on Catholicism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDP4qrA8hvg) [/b]
I was referring to the performance more than the content.
BTW...can someone clear up wether he did hear Wright say these things or wether he didn't, because I'm sensing a contradiction.
-
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change)
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change)
That link could have also went here (http://www.930.com/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=016382).
-
<img src="http://www.stentorian.com/MoveOn/sharpton_obama.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
thanks this is fun
<img src="http://husaria.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/clinton_sharpton.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
<img src="http://pinkdome.com/archives/bush_mccain_400.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
<img src="http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/521/mcfalwellqo5.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
<img src="http://albanysinsanity.wnymedia.net/blogs/files/2007/10/obama-no-patriot.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
obama's shoes dont match his belt
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
obama's shoes dont match his belt
This is the most damning thing yet.
-
Why? They're both leather.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
obama's shoes dont match his belt
-
i always thought brown shoes = brown belt
where's smackie when we need him
-
He has terrible posture too...and the belt should always be the same color as the shoes, even I know that and I'm a neanderthal!
-
Are you saying Smackie only wears white shoes with the white belt? Or just that he SHOULD?
I have terrible posture as well. Yet another reason for me to vote for Obama!
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
He has terrible posture too...and the belt should always be the same color as the shoes, even I know that and I'm a neanderthal!
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Are you saying Smackie only wears white shoes with the white belt? Or just that he SHOULD?
I have terrible posture as well. Yet another reason for me to vote for Obama!
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
He has terrible posture too...and the belt should always be the same color as the shoes, even I know that and I'm a neanderthal!
[/b]
i think you throw the rules out with a white belt, because its just that powerful with the ladies. matching becomes irrelevant
i too have terrible posture. obama all the way
-
<img src="http://www.polichicksonline.com/Obama%20Family%20and%20Cheney.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
is that the koran???
-
HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's married to Omarosa!
:eek:
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
is that the koran???
Not with Cheney in the room it isn't...not the US consitution either for that matter.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
obama's shoes dont match his belt
That's no belt
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
<img src="http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/521/mcfalwellqo5.jpg" alt=" - " />
Jesus Christ... that photo has more chins than the Bejing phone book!!!
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i always thought brown shoes = brown belt
where's smackie when we need him
Watching United.....
And yes, brown belt=brown shoes, black belt=black shoes.
White belt=getting some (and I wear my chuck taylors, or occasionally my Pumas with that belt).
-
There's been 40 minutes of premiership football and 5 goals, looks like we're in for a fun evening.
I thought it was only white belts during summer months. Or is that just down here in the south?
-
It's actually white belts never, unless you want to look like a victim of dated fashion.
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
There's been 40 minutes of premiership football and 5 goals, looks like we're in for a fun evening.
I thought it was only white belts during summer months. Or is that just down here in the south?
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
There's been 40 minutes of premiership football and 5 goals, looks like we're in for a fun evening.
I thought it was only white belts during summer months. Or is that just down here in the south?
I can't watch both matches so if we could refrain from specifics about the Spurs/Chelsea match I'd appreciate it (but my fantasy team is sure to be doing well with Ronaldo, Anelka and Keane).
And it's white pants between memorial day and labor day, not white belts.
-
I thought as much, which is why I only posted total goals not actual scores.
Anyhooo...what's the deal on white shoes?
It seems to be if you're a NY'er snowbird then you wear dress shoes and no socks, yet you still wear your vest under your polo shirt. I mean come one...you're either cold or you're not!!!! And don't get me started on belts with yachts and/or ducks emboidered on them.
-
<img src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_Tnian1ZYw1o/R-CONGmjanI/AAAAAAAABco/ITpF6gxXsf4/s1600-h/ads.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
On the subject of selecting the wrong ass-hole!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339270,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339270,00.html)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
There's been 40 minutes of premiership football and 5 goals, looks like we're in for a fun evening.
I thought it was only white belts during summer months. Or is that just down here in the south?
I can't watch both matches so if we could refrain from specifics about the Spurs/Chelsea match I'd appreciate it (but my fantasy team is sure to be doing well with Ronaldo, Anelka and Keane).
And it's white pants between memorial day and labor day, not white belts. [/b]
8 goal night and still counting!!!
*edit* make that 9!!!
*edit* 10
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
8 goal night and still counting!!!
*edit* make that 9!!!
*edit* 10
Geeezzzzuuzzz
-
Hillary Clinton, liar:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860 (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860)
Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy
What is the proper word for the claim by Hillary Clinton and the more factually disinclined supporters of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- made in speeches, briefings and interviews (including one by this reporter with the candidate) -- that she has always been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
But the White House records confirm that this is not true.
Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
When it comes to the essential test of the trade debate, Clinton has been identified as a liar -- a put-in-boldface-type "L-I-A-R" liar.
Those of us who covered the 1993 NAFTA debate have frequently expressed doubts about the former First Lady's recent statements. We never heard anything at the time about her dissenting from the Clinton Administration line on trade policy. And we knew that she had defended NAFTA in the years following its enactment. But fairness required that we at least entertain that notion--promoted by the lamentable David Gergen, himself a champion of free-trade policies while working in the Clinton White House--that Hillary Clinton had been a behind-the-scenes critic. We had to at least consider the possibility that, at the very least, Clinton had been worried that advancing NAFTA would trip up her advocacy for health care reform, that she had made her concerns known and that she had absented herself from pro-NAFTA lobbying.
This was certainly the impression that Clinton and her supporters sought to create as she campaigned in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana--states where worried workers want to know exactly where the candidates have stood and currently stand with regard to trade issues.
But that impression was a deliberate deception.
And we must all now recognize that when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant--that she's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning"--that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect.
-
blah blah blah...at least she's not a racist wahabi muslim!!!
;)
-
She might not be, but...
;) [/b][/quote]
-
Who here considers themselves to be a "typical white person"?
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Who here considers themselves to be a "typical white person"?
I guess we all are according to Barack Hussein Obama, who obviously is not your typical black person.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Who here considers themselves to be a "typical white person"?
i like 55 of 90 on stuff white people like. pretty average?
-
Richardson endorses Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23740104)
Hispanic governor says presidential hopeful a 'once-in-a-lifetime leader'
The Associated Press
updated 9:02 a.m. ET, Fri., March. 21, 2008
SANTA FE, New Mexico - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a- lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.
Richardson, who dropped out of the Democratic race in January, is to appear with Obama on Friday at a campaign event in Portland, Ore., The Associated Press has learned.
The governor's endorsement comes as Obama leads among delegates selected at primaries and caucuses but with national public opinion polling showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pulling ahead of him amid controversy over statements by his former pastor.
Richardson has been relentlessly wooed by Obama and Clinton for his endorsement. As a Democratic superdelegate, the governor plays a part in the tight race for nominating votes and could bring other superdelegates to Obama's side. He also has been mentioned as a potential running mate for either candidate.
No primaries are scheduled until Pennsylvania's on April 22, a gap in time Obama hopes to use for such announcements to assert that he is the front-runner for the nomination.
'Once-in-a-lifetime leader'
"I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world," Richardson said in a statement obtained by the AP. "As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."
Richardson's endorsement also could help Obama pick up support among Hispanics, who are the nation's largest and fastest-growing minority.
Clinton has been the favorite of Hispanics in primaries and caucuses, according to exit polls. She won the New Mexico caucus in early February with a nearly 2-to-1 advantage among Hispanics.
Richardson backed Obama despite his ties to Clinton and her husband, the former president. He served as ambassador to the U.N. and as secretary of the Energy Department during the Clinton administration. Last month, Richardson and former President Clinton watched the Super Bowl together at the governor's residence in Santa Fe.
Clinton a 'distinguished leader'
Richardson praised Hillary Clinton as a "distinguished leader with vast experience." But the governor said Obama "will be a historic and great president, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad."
Richardson was a roving diplomatic troubleshooter when he was a congressman from New Mexico, negotiating the release of U.S. hostages in several countries and meeting with a rogue's gallery of U.S. adversaries, including Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro.
"There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation's security is on the line. He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has show it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally," Richardson said.
Obama said he was "deeply honored" to have Richardson's support.
"Whether it's fighting to end the Iraq war or stop the genocide in Darfur or prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, Gov. Richardson has been a powerful voice on issues of global security, peace and justice, earning five Nobel Peace Prize nominations," Obama said in a statement.
-
i honestly used to want the repubs to have to take on hillary in the general election. now i want obama...this is coming from a typical white person.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i honestly used to want the repubs to have to take on hillary in the general election. now i want obama...this is coming from a typical white person.
The repubs are with you on that one.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Richardson endorses Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23740104)
Hispanic governor says presidential hopeful a 'once-in-a-lifetime leader'
I think this could be the beginning of a slew of party leaders announcing support, to avoid a total clusterfuck disaster in Michigan and Florida.
-
One thing I don't get is how Hillary supporters think she's somehow above getting totally bitchslapped by Republicans. What does she have (besides 2 years more experience) that insulates her, in your opinion?
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i honestly used to want the repubs to have to take on hillary in the general election. now i want obama...this is coming from a typical white person.
The repubs are with you on that one. [/b]
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i honestly used to want the repubs to have to take on hillary in the general election. now i want obama...this is coming from a typical white person.
The repubs are with you on that one. [/b]
i know..i am one
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i honestly used to want the repubs to have to take on hillary in the general election. now i want obama...this is coming from a typical white person.
The repubs are with you on that one. [/b]
i know..i am one [/b]
I never have been but if Obama becomes the dems candidate I may just have to come to the dark side too!!!
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
One thing I don't get is how Hillary supporters think she's somehow above getting totally bitchslapped by Republicans. What does she have (besides 2 years more experience) that insulates her, in your opinion?
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i honestly used to want the repubs to have to take on hillary in the general election. now i want obama...this is coming from a typical white person.
The repubs are with you on that one. [/b]
[/b]
All Hillary's dirty laundry is already out, thanks to her husbands spell in the Whitehouse for the most part.
The repubs don't really have any crap they can throw at her that hasn't already been thrown, but they'll dig everything up on him, and I just have a feeling his racist preacher is only the tip of the iceberg of Mr. Obama's dirty little secrets.
-
I can see that, but don't things like the release of her White House records (the NAFTA post above and the reports that she was in the WH during some of the trysts) add new fodder to old issues? Seems those are prime targets for attack.
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
All Hillary's dirty laundry is already out, thanks to her husbands spell in the Whitehouse for the most part.
The repubs don't really have any crap they can throw at her that hasn't already been thrown, but they'll dig everything up on him, and I just have a feeling his racist preacher is only the tip of the iceberg of Mr. Obama's dirty little secrets.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Hillary Clinton, liar:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860 (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860)
Depends on what your definition of liar is.
I would say a liar is a person who makes statements that deviate from and perverts the truth. If you were to take the time to read her statements carefully, instead of attacking her, you will see that she did not do this. I would characterize Hillary's statements as "negligently deceptive." Now, over the course of a campaign its only natural that candidates with a proven history of SOLUTIONS and RESULTS would make negligently deceptive statements. This isn't a campaign of baseless hopes and dreams and balloons and lollipops. Maybe in Candlyland everyone's statements are understood perfectly. But here in reality this is just another example of the left wing media victimizing Mrs. Clinton.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Originally posted by callat703:
Hillary Clinton, liar:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860 (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860)
Depends on what your definition of liar is.
I would say a liar is a person who makes statements that deviate from and perverts the truth. If you were to take the time to read her statements carefully, instead of attacking her, you will see that she did not do this. I would characterize Hillary's statements as "negligently deceptive." Now, over the course of a campaign its only natural that candidates with a proven history of SOLUTIONS and RESULTS would make negligently deceptive statements. This isn't a campaign of baseless hopes and dreams and balloons and lollipops. Maybe in Candlyland everyone's statements are understood perfectly. But here in reality this is just another example of the left wing media victimizing Mrs. Clinton. [/b]
Mobius, you're really Mark Penn, aren't you?
-
Ah....context:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/ (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/)
The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wrightâ??s 9/11 sermon
Posted: 10:09 AM ET
As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. Iâ??ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.
I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, â??The Day of Jerusalemâ??s Fall.â? It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.
One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned â??chickens coming home to roost.â? He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reaganâ??s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. Thatâ??s what he told the congregation.
He was quoting Peck as saying that Americaâ??s foreign policy has put the nation in peril:
â??We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.
â??We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.
â??We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.
â??We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.
â??We bombed Qaddafiâ??s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your childrenâ??s head against the rock.
â??We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that theyâ??d never get back home.
â??We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.
â??Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.
â??We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. Americaâ??s chickens are coming home to roost.
â??Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that yâ??all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded donâ??t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.â?
He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.
â??What is the state of your family?â? he asked.
And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.
His sermon thesis:
1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.
2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they wonâ??t put me on PBS or national cable for what Iâ??m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)
â??We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,â? he said.
Wright then said we canâ??t stop messing over people and thinking they canâ??t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.
â??Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nationâ??s healthcare system that leaves the nationâ??s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.â?
3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.
By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said â??God damn America.â? Iâ??m not sure which sermon that came from.
This doesnâ??t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.
The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.
I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.
And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.
So stay tuned.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Ah....context:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/ (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/)
The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wrightâ??s 9/11 sermon
Posted: 10:09 AM ET
As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. Iâ??ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.
I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, â??The Day of Jerusalemâ??s Fall.â? It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.
One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned â??chickens coming home to roost.â? He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reaganâ??s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. Thatâ??s what he told the congregation.
He was quoting Peck as saying that Americaâ??s foreign policy has put the nation in peril:
â??We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.
â??We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.
â??We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.
â??We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.
â??We bombed Qaddafiâ??s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your childrenâ??s head against the rock.
â??We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that theyâ??d never get back home.
â??We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.
â??Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.
â??We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. Americaâ??s chickens are coming home to roost.
â??Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that yâ??all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded donâ??t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.â?
He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.
â??What is the state of your family?â? he asked.
And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.
His sermon thesis:
1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.
2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they wonâ??t put me on PBS or national cable for what Iâ??m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)
â??We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,â? he said.
Wright then said we canâ??t stop messing over people and thinking they canâ??t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.
â??Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nationâ??s healthcare system that leaves the nationâ??s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.â?
3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.
By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said â??God damn America.â? Iâ??m not sure which sermon that came from.
This doesnâ??t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.
The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.
I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.
And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.
So stay tuned.
hahaha...lol. nice try.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Ah....context:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/ (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/)
The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wrightâ??s 9/11 sermon
Posted: 10:09 AM ET
As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. Iâ??ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.
I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, â??The Day of Jerusalemâ??s Fall.â? It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.
One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned â??chickens coming home to roost.â? He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reaganâ??s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. Thatâ??s what he told the congregation.
He was quoting Peck as saying that Americaâ??s foreign policy has put the nation in peril:
â??We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.
â??We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.
â??We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.
â??We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.
â??We bombed Qaddafiâ??s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your childrenâ??s head against the rock.
â??We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that theyâ??d never get back home.
â??We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.
â??Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.
â??We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. Americaâ??s chickens are coming home to roost.
â??Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that yâ??all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded donâ??t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.â?
He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.
â??What is the state of your family?â? he asked.
And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.
His sermon thesis:
1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.
2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they wonâ??t put me on PBS or national cable for what Iâ??m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)
â??We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,â? he said.
Wright then said we canâ??t stop messing over people and thinking they canâ??t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.
â??Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nationâ??s healthcare system that leaves the nationâ??s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.â?
3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.
By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said â??God damn America.â? Iâ??m not sure which sermon that came from.
This doesnâ??t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.
The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.
I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.
And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.
So stay tuned.
hahaha...lol. nice try.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
hahaha...lol. nice try.
Right, I forgot - anything involving reading or an attention span longer than 30 seconds is a bit too much...sorry guys.
-
manimtired and mankie must be so proud to be even denser than chris wallace
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=2f5bbade-1370-4276-8aa5-3544edf0857e (http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=2f5bbade-1370-4276-8aa5-3544edf0857e)
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
manimtired and mankie must be so proud to be even denser than chris wallace
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=2f5bbade-1370-4276-8aa5-3544edf0857e (http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=2f5bbade-1370-4276-8aa5-3544edf0857e)
didnt i tell you that you have no room to insult people's intelligence?
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
manimtired and mankie must be so proud to be even denser than chris wallace
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=2f5bbade-1370-4276-8aa5-3544edf0857e (http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=2f5bbade-1370-4276-8aa5-3544edf0857e)
Good for Wallace.
-
Did anybody see the clip of that OTHER African-American anti-Obama/pro-Clinton insane preacher? It's been all around you tube. I watched about thirty seconds of it before I thought "here comes the crazy."
Plus
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Richardson endorses Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23740104)
Saturday Night Live just hasn't been as funny since he left.
Brian
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
manimtired and mankie must be so proud to be even denser than chris wallace
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=2f5bbade-1370-4276-8aa5-3544edf0857e (http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=2f5bbade-1370-4276-8aa5-3544edf0857e)
didnt i tell you that you have no room to insult people's intelligence? [/b]
So someone with differing opinions that Pollard is basically stupid.....right? That's a pretty stupid attitude to have, not to mention ignorant.
Just because we haven't bought into the Osama scam doesn't make us stupid, quite the opposite actually.
-
I don't have any problems with you holding your opinions, I have a problem with how you come to them
And by the way, McCains spiritual advisor accused the government of Black Genocide more than once, and compared planned parenthood to nazis, I do volunteer work for Planned Parenthood and so does my brother, and yet I still dont feel the outrage you poor slighted souls feel, it doesnt change my opinion of McCain in the least, I know there are crazy religious people all over the place
-
What exactly is the "Osama" scam?
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What exactly is the "Osama" scam?
his candidacy
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I do volunteer work for Planned Parenthood and so does my brother
I hear it's a great place to meet chicks
-
Mankie doesn't really hate Obama, it's just that he's eternally grateful to Hillary for bringing peace to Northern Ireland.
-
So then how does one embark on a legitimate candidacy?
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What exactly is the "Osama" scam?
his candidacy [/b]
-
by not being a terrorist
-
If you're looking to date an aborted fetus.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I do volunteer work for Planned Parenthood and so does my brother
I hear it's a great place to meet chicks [/b]
-
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/20/us/politics/20clintonwrightl.500.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I don't have any problems with you holding your opinions, I have a problem with how you come to them
I can't be bothered to go over the whole story again so you may want to go back a few pages on this thread...but in a nutshell....
My first opinion of Obama was 'not yet' meaning he does not have the experience to be president right now, but with a few years more under his belt as a Senator then maybe...then as I listened to his speeches and comments during debates I felt he had nothing to say other than "hope, change" over and over again.....as time goes on I've realized he's not going to be my candidate ever. The more I get to learn about him the less I like him as a politician.
Unfortunatley, from his own actions and this 'historic speech' this week, he's transformed from a candidate who happens to be black into a black candidate, so I think that will hurt him in certain areas of the country because 'typical white folk' won't vote for him after his recent comments.
Personally I couldn't give a toss what race, creed, color, sexual preference you happen to be. (I did not include religion because that would make a difference to me) If I feel you're going to be a good president and I agree with your policies then I'll vote for you.
Unfortunately, neither Obama or Clinton impress me, and McCain is really a closet democrat so depending on his chosen veep, I might have to go to the dark side, but I'm not completely decided yet....another option is to not vote at all, but part of me says that's the cowards way out.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/20/us/politics/20clintonwrightl.500.gif" alt=" - " />
I have an original Babe Ruth autographed baseball if you're interested.
-
I think its interesting that Wright's statements are considered a priori anti-american. He is a religious leader and the bible is in large part a compilation of stories making cause and effect connections between moral/immoral decisions/actions and either good things or bad things resulting (isn't it?). Exploring that kind of idea in connection with any current event seems understandable from a religious perspective. Mixing church and state on any level sucks.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
I think its interesting that Wright's statements are considered a priori anti-american. He is a religious leader and the bible is in large part a compilation of stories making cause and effect connections between moral/immoral decisions/actions and either good things or bad things resulting (isn't it?). Exploring that kind of idea in connection with any current event seems understandable from a religious perspective. Mixing church and state on any level sucks.
<img src="http://www.justsuppose.com/blog/DiAgnosticMusings_C503/InGodWeTrust_s3.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I do volunteer work for Planned Parenthood and so does my brother
I hear it's a great place to meet chicks [/b]
Well, chicks who put out. From Star magazine regarding Jamie Lynn Spears:
Just days before announcing her pregnancy in December, Jamie Lynn shocked a boy at a party by asking him for sex. "It's cool, I'm pregnant," she said. "I can't get pregnant again!"
Brian
-
I may have to vote for Obama after all....maybe he'll declare ramadam a federal holiday!
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
and McCain is really a closet democrat
It's amazing how many people cling to this remarkable bit of ignorance, both among Democrats and among right-wingers like Rush "Oxycontin" Limbaugh and Ann "I look like a horse" Coulter. If you actually bother to look at the specific positions McCain has held, he is to the right of most Republicans, including Dubya.
He doesn't give much time for the type of religious freaks who have an epileptic fit if the word "Jesus" is mentioned, but beyond that difference, he is very conservative.
Seriously, if you're thinking this way take the time to look at his record.
-
fa·ce·tious
â??adjective 1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2. amusing; humorous.
3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Richardson endorses Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23740104)
Hillary Clinton advisor James Carville told the New York Times that Richardson, a former member of Bill Clinton's Cabinet, had committed "an act of betrayal," adding that it "came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate."
-
Excuse my knuckle scraping ignorance but why is so important for these endorsments? Is it for the benefit of those with no mind of their own so they can be told who to vote for?
Oh, never mind...I probably just answered my own question.
-
Richardson himself is a superdelegate, and it's thought that his endorsement will influence other superdelegates.
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Excuse my knuckle scraping ignorance but why is so important for these endorsments? Is it for the benefit of those with no mind of their own so they can be told who to vote for?
Oh, never mind...I probably just answered my own question.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Richardson himself is a superdelegate, and it's thought that his endorsement will influence other superdelegates.
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Excuse my knuckle scraping ignorance but why is so important for these endorsments? Is it for the benefit of those with no mind of their own so they can be told who to vote for?
Oh, never mind...I probably just answered my own question.
[/b]
Can't be that 'super' he's an Obamalamb
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Excuse my knuckle scraping ignorance but why is so important for these endorsments? Is it for the benefit of those with no mind of their own so they can be told who to vote for?
Oh, never mind...I probably just answered my own question.
It also works as a free national commercial as the more reputable the endorser, the more airtime a candidate will receive.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Excuse my knuckle scraping ignorance but why is so important for these endorsments? Is it for the benefit of those with no mind of their own so they can be told who to vote for?
Oh, never mind...I probably just answered my own question.
It also works as a free national commercial as the more reputable the endorser, the more airtime a candidate will receive. [/b]
Aha!! So that's what it's all about. Thanks.
So do they ask the candidate if they can endorse him/her first? There's certain individuals I can imagine they wouldn't want an endorsement from.
CHARLES MANSON ENDORSES MCCAIN!!
For example.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
So do they ask the candidate if they can endorse him/her first? There's certain individuals I can imagine they wouldn't want an endorsement from.
Generally yes, but you can't stop someone from endorsing you. It's really only a newsworthy event when both the Candidate and the endorser are in the same room, so if you don't want the endorsement, you simply don't show up for the press conference.
-
In addition to bringing peace to Northern Ireland, Hillary also saw military action in Bosnia.
I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia... there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. Thatâ??s where we went.
I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.
-Hillary Clinton, March 17, 2008
Or, maybe not:
Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit Bosnia was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.
Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.
You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c). The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.
According to Sinbad, who accompanied Clinton on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."
-
Make it stop! By "it" I mean the awful Hillary impersonation on SNL. Their Obama is much better
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
In addition to bringing peace to Northern Ireland, Hillary also saw military action in Bosnia.
I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia... there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. Thatâ??s where we went.
I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.
-Hillary Clinton, March 17, 2008
Or, maybe not:
Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit Bosnia was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.
Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.
You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c). The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.
According to Sinbad, who accompanied Clinton on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."
OKAY, WE GET IT...YOU HATE THE CLINTONS you're as annoying as Limbaugh, Buchannan,Ingraham and O'Reilly with this nonesense.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
In addition to bringing peace to Northern Ireland, Hillary also saw military action in Bosnia.
I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia... there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. Thatâ??s where we went.
I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.
-Hillary Clinton, March 17, 2008
Or, maybe not:
Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit Bosnia was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.
Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.
You can see CBS News footage of the arrival ceremony here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c). The footage shows Clinton walking calmly out of the back of the C-17 military transport plane that brought her from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.
According to Sinbad, who accompanied Clinton on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."
OKAY, WE GET IT...YOU HATE THE CLINTONS you're as annoying as Limbaugh, Buchannan,Ingraham and O'Reilly with this nonesense. [/b]
Easy -- gotta watch your blood pressure, old man.
That Clinton experience you admire so much is appearing more and more to be a fabrication.
-
So how much is the Obama camp paying you to put out this misinformation?
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
So how much is the Obama camp paying you to put out this misinformation?
What misinformation?
This has been all over the "mainstream media" that you so proudly declared is the only thing to which you pay attention.
Want some links?
Or, by "mainstream media" did you mean the Jupiter Courier?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
So how much is the Obama camp paying you to put out this misinformation?
What misinformation?
This has been all over the "mainstream media" that you so proudly declared is the only thing to which you pay attention.
Want some links?
Or, by "mainstream media" did you mean the Jupiter Courier? [/b]
Easy - gotcha!
-
I remember Hillary in the Falklands with us back in 82. After she had led us to victory in the now famous Battle of Goose Green she boarded HMS Plymouth on June 14th 1982 and negotiated a peaceful surrender by the Argentine forces.
During this time I think Obama was enrolled in a muslim terrorist academy in Kenya.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
I remember Hillary in the Falklands with us back in 82. After she had led us to victory in the now famous Battle of Goose Green she boarded HMS Plymouth on June 14th 1982 and negotiated a peaceful surrender by the Argentine forces.
She said she had to run for cover when your 4.5" gun went off prematurely.
-
For the past 25 years, John McCain has consistently voted against women's health. From opposing funding for family planning programs to voting against requiring insurance coverage of birth control, McCain has taken extreme positions. He has voted against women's health and has not supported legislation that would help reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. This has earned him a zero rating (http://www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/person-vote.html?person_id=14114), the lowest rating we give in the U.S. Senate.
Just as alarming, Sen. McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, potentially putting the lives and health of women in jeopardy.
Sen. McCain is out of step with America's pro-choice majority: 62 percent of all voters support Roe v. Wade and, by a 20-point margin, voters believe abortion should be legal.
"Sen. McCain believes government has the right to interfere with the most personal and often the most difficult decisions affecting a woman's health. Most Americans believe just the opposite and, as more voters realize Sen. McCain's ardent anti-choice position, this will be an issue for him in the general election."
â?? Cecile Richards, President, Planned Parenthood Action Fund
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
I remember Hillary in the Falklands with us back in 82. After she had led us to victory in the now famous Battle of Goose Green she boarded HMS Plymouth on June 14th 1982 and negotiated a peaceful surrender by the Argentine forces.
She said she had to run for cover when your 4.5" gun went off prematurely. [/b]
Well your mother certainly didn't...
-
this seals the deal
Jay Jay French wants to rock. He also wants Barack.
So the Twisted Sister guitarist has re-recorded the heavy metal bandâ??s anthem, â??I Wanna Rock,â? which has become â??I Want Barack.â?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23695803/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23695803/)
-
this might also sway your vote: Obama related to Pitt, Clinton to Jolie (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_genealogy)
-
Isn't it refreshing when a politician has some consistency?
Chicago Reader - What Makes Obama Run - December 8, 1995 (http://http:/www.chicagoreader.com/obama/951208/)
What Makes Obama Run?
Lawyer, teacher, philanthropist, and author Barack Obama doesn't need another career. But he's entering politics to get back to his true passion--community organization.
By Hank De Zutter
December 8, 1995
When Barack Obama returned to Chicago in 1991 after three brilliant years at Harvard Law School, he didn't like what he saw. The former community activist, then 30, had come fresh from a term as president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, a position he was the first African-American to hold. Now he was ready to continue his battle to organize Chicago's black neighborhoods. But the state of the city muted his exuberance.
"Upon my return to Chicago," he would write in the epilogue to his recently published memoir, Dreams From My Father, "I would find the signs of decay accelerated throughout the South Side--the neighborhoods shabbier, the children edgier and less restrained, more middle-class families heading out to the suburbs, the jails bursting with glowering youth, my brothers without prospects. All too rarely do I hear people asking just what it is that we've done to make so many children's hearts so hard, or what collectively we might do to right their moral compass--what values we must live by. Instead I see us doing what we've always done--pretending that these children are somehow not our own."
Today, after three years of law practice and civic activism, Obama has decided to dive into electoral politics. He is running for the Illinois Senate, he says, because he wants to help create jobs and a decent future for those embittered youth. But when he met with some veteran politicians to tell them of his plans, the only jobs he says they wanted to talk about were theirs and his. Obama got all sorts of advice. Some of it perplexed him; most of it annoyed him. One African-American elected official suggested that Obama change his name, which he'd inherited from his late Kenyan father. Another told him to put a picture of his light-bronze, boyish face on all his campaign materials, "so people don't see your name and think you're some big dark guy."
Obama, running to be the Democratic candidate for the 13th District on the south side, was also told--even by fellow progressives--that he might be too independent, that he should strike a few deals to assure his election. Another well-meaning adviser suggested never posing for photos with a glass in his hand--even if he wasn't drinking alcohol.
"Now all of this may be good political advice," Obama said, "but it's all so superficial. I am surprised at how many elected officials--even the good ones--spend so much time talking about the mechanics of politics and not matters of substance. They have this poker chip mentality, this overriding interest in retaining their seats or in moving their careers forward, and the business and game of politics, the political horse race, is all they talk about. Even those who are on the same page as me on the issues never seem to want to talk about them. Politics is regarded as little more than a career."
Obama doesn't need another career. As a civil rights lawyer, teacher, philanthropist, and author, he already has no trouble working 12-hour days. He says he is drawn to politics, despite its superficialities, as a means to advance his real passion and calling: community organization.
Obama thinks elected officials could do much to overcome the political paralysis of the nation's black communities. He thinks they could lead their communities out of twin culs-de-sac: the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation--which helps a few upwardly mobile blacks to "move up, get rich, and move out"--and the equally impractical politics of black rage and black nationalism--which exhorts but does not organize ordinary folks or create realistic agendas for change.
Obama, whose political vision was nurtured by his work in the 80s as an organizer in the far-south-side communities of Roseland and Altgeld Gardens, proposes a third alternative. Not new to Chicago--which is the birthplace of community organizing--but unusual in electoral politics, his proposal calls for organizing ordinary citizens into bottom-up democracies that create their own strategies, programs, and campaigns and that forge alliances with other disaffected Americans. Obama thinks elected officials--even a state senator--can play a critical catalytic role in this rebuilding.
Obama is certainly not the first candidate to talk about the politics of community empowerment. His views, for instance, are not that different from those of the person he would replace, state senator Alice Palmer, who gave Obama her blessing after deciding to run for the congressional seat vacated by Mel Reynolds. She promised Obama that if she lost--which is what happened on November 28--she wouldn't then run against him to keep her senate seat.
What makes Obama different from other progressive politicians is that he doesn't just want to create and support progressive programs; he wants to mobilize the people to create their own. He wants to stand politics on its head, empowering citizens by bringing together the churches and businesses and banks, scornful grandmothers and angry young. Mostly he's running to fill a political and moral vacuum. He says he's tired of seeing the moral fervor of black folks whipped up--at the speaker's rostrum and from the pulpit--and then allowed to dissipate because there's no agenda, no concrete program for change.
While no political opposition to Obama has arisen yet, many have expressed doubts about the practicality of his ambitions. Obama himself says he's not certain that his experimental plunge into electoral politics can produce the kind of community empowerment and economic change he's after.
"Three major doubts have been raised," he said. The first is whether in today's political environment--with its emphasis on media and money--a grass-roots movement can even be created. Will people still answer the call of participatory politics?
"Second," Obama said, "many believe that the country is too racially polarized to build the kind of multiracial coalitions necessary to bring about massive economic change.
"Third, is it possible for those of us working through the Democratic Party to figure out ways to use the political process to create jobs for our communities?"
Obama's intriguing candidacy is the latest adventure in a fascinating life chronicled in Dreams From My Father, published this summer by Times Books. In Obama's words, the book is "a boy's search for his father, and through that search a workable meaning for his life as a black American." In the book, which reads more like a novel than a memoir, Obama comes to terms with the legacy of the African father who left his mother and him when he was two, dropped by when he was ten, and died in an auto accident when he was finishing college. While doing so, Obama takes readers on a multicultural odyssey through three continents and several political philosophies. He casts a skeptical if sympathetic eye on white liberalism, black nationalism, integration, separatism, small-scale economic development, and the transient effectiveness of charismatic black political leaders like the late mayor Washington. While Obama credits all these political movements with bringing some progress to middle-class blacks, he believes that none have built enduring institutions and none have halted the unraveling of black America.
Obama is the product of a brief early-60s college romance and short-lived marriage between a black African exchange student and a white liberal Kansan who met at the University of Hawaii. His critical boyhood years--from two to ten--were spent neither in white nor black America but in the teeming streets and jungle outskirts of Djakarta. Obama's boyhood experiences in Indonesia--where his mother took him when she married another foreign exchange student--propelled him toward a worldview well beyond his mother's liberalism.
"The poverty, the corruption, the constant scramble for security . . . remained all around me and bred a relentless skepticism. My mother's confidence in needlepoint virtues depended on a faith I didn't possess. . . . In a land where fatalism remained a necessary tool for enduring hard-ship . . . she was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position-paper liberalism."
When Obama moved back to his grandparents' home in Hawaii, to attend the prestigious Punahou School, he encountered race and class prejudice that would darken his politics even more. At first embarrassed by his race and African name, he soon bonded with the few other African-American students. He quickly learned that integration was a one-way street, with blacks expected to assimilate into a white world that never gave ground. He participated in bitter bull sessions with his buddies on the theme of "how white folks will do you." Obama, who had to reconcile these sentiments with the loving support he had at home from his white mother and grandparents, dismissed much of his buddies' analysis as "the same sloppy thinking" used by racist whites, but he found the racism of whites to be particularly stubborn and obnoxious.
Obama objected when his Punahou basketball coach upbraided the team for losing to "a bunch of niggers." Obama writes that the coach "calmly explained the apparently obvious fact that 'there are black people, and there are niggers. Those guys were niggers.'"
"That's just how white folks will do you," Obama writes. "It wasn't merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn't know they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn."
Obama's politics were tinged with nihilism during his undergraduate years at Occidental College outside Los Angeles. There he played it cool and detached, and began to confuse partying and getting high with rebellion. After he and his buddies joked about the Mexican cleaning woman's forlorn reaction to the mess they'd created at a party, Obama was jolted back to reality by the criticism of a fellow black student, a young Chicago woman. "You think that's funny?" she told him. "That could have been my grandmother, you know. She had to clean up behind people for most of her life." Obama later transferred to Columbia University, where he was shocked by the casual tolerance of whites and blacks alike for the wide disparity between New York City's opulence and ghetto poverty. He graduated from Columbia with a double major in English literature and political science, and a determination to "organize black folks. At the grass roots." He wrote scores of letters looking for the right job, and almost a year later got an offer to come to Chicago. He gave up a job as a financial writer with an international consulting firm and became a $1,000-a-month community organizer.
Here in Chicago, Obama worked as lead organizer for the Developing Communities Project, a campaign funded by south-side Catholic churches to counteract the dislocation and massive unemployment caused by the closing and downsizing of southeast Chicago steel plants.
From 1984 to '88 Obama built an organization in Roseland and the nearby Altgeld Gardens public housing complex that mobilized hundreds of citizens. Obama says the campaign experienced "modest successes" in winning residents a place at the table where a job-training facility was launched, asbestos and lead paint were negotiated out of the local schools, and community interests were guarded in the development of the area's landfills.
Obama left for Harvard in 1988, vowing to return. He excelled at Harvard Law and gave up an almost certain Supreme Court clerkship to come back as promised. Here he met and married his wife, Michelle, a fellow lawyer and activist, joined a law firm headed by Judson Miner, Mayor Washington's corporation counsel, moved into a lakefront condominium in Hyde Park, and launched a busy civic life. He sits on the boards of two foundations with long histories of backing social and political reform, including his own community work--the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation. Recently he was appointed president of the board of the Annenberg Challenge Grant, which will distribute some $50 million in grants to public-school reform efforts.
In 1992 Obama took time off to direct Project Vote, the most successful grass-roots voter-registration campaign in recent city history. Credited with helping elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the U.S. Senate, the registration drive, aimed primarily at African-Americans, added an estimated 125,000 voters to the voter rolls--even more than were registered during Harold Washington's mayoral campaigns. "It's a power thing," said the brochures and radio commercials.
Obama's work on the south side has won him the friendship and respect of many activists. One of them, Johnnie Owens, left the citywide advocacy group Friends of the Parks to join Obama at the Developing Communities Project. He later replaced Obama as its executive director.
"What I liked about Barack immediately is that he brought a certain level of sophistication and intelligence to community work," Owens says. "He had a reasonable, focused approach that I hadn't seen much of. A lot of organizers you meet these days are these self-anointed leaders with this strange, way-out approach and unrealistic, eccentric way of pursuing things from the very beginning. Not Barack. He's not about calling attention to himself. He's concerned with the work. It's as if it's his mission in life, his calling, to work for social justice.
"Anyone who knows me knows that I'm one of the most cynical people you want to see, always looking for somebody's angle or personal interest," Owens added. "I've lived in Chicago all my life. I've known some of the most ruthless and biggest bullshitters out there, but I see nothing but integrity in this guy."
Jean Rudd, executive director of the Woods Fund, is another person on guard against self-appointed, self-promoting community leaders. She admires not only Obama's intelligence but his honesty. "He is one of the most articulate people I have ever met, but he doesn't use his gift with language to promote himself. He uses it to clarify the difficult job before him and before all of us. He's not a promoter; from the very beginning, he always makes it clear what his difficulties are. His honesty is refreshing."
Woods was the first foundation to underwrite Obama's work with DCP. Now that he's on the Woods board, Rudd says, "He is among the most hard-nosed board members in wanting to see results. He wants to see our grants make change happen--not just pay salaries."
Another strong supporter of Obama's work--as an organizer, as a lawyer, and now as a candidate--is Madeline Talbott, lead organizer of the feisty ACORN community organization, a group that's a thorn in the side of most elected officials. "I can't repeat what most ACORN members think and say about politicians. But Barack has proven himself among our members. He is committed to organizing, to building a democracy. Above all else, he is a good listener, and we accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."
Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side. Conducting a session in a New Horizons classroom, Obama, tall and thin, looks very much like an Ivy League graduate student. Dressed casually prep, his tie loosened and his top shirt button unfastened, he leads eight black women from the Grand Boulevard community through a discussion of "what folks should know" about who in Chicago has power and why they have it. It's one of his favorite topics, and the class bubbles with suggestions about how "they" got to be high and mighty.
"Slow down now. You're going too fast now," says Obama. "I want to break this down. We talk 'they, they, they' but don't take the time to break it down. We don't analyze. Our thinking is sloppy. And to the degree that it is, we're not going to be able to have the impact we could have. We can't afford to go out there blind, hollering and acting the fool, and get to the table and don't know who it is we're talking to--or what we're going to ask them--whether it's someone with real power or just a third-string flak catcher."
Later Obama gets to another favorite topic--the lack of collective action among black churches. "All these churches and all these pastors are going it alone. And what do we have? These magnificent palatial churches in the midst of the ruins of some of the most run-down neighborhoods we'll ever see. All pastors go on thinking about how they are going to 'build my church,' without joining with others to try to influence the factors or forces that are destroying the neighborhoods. They start food pantries and community-service programs, but until they come together to build something bigger than an effective church all the community-service programs, all the food pantries they start will barely take care of even a fraction of the community's problems."
"In America," Obama says, "we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations."
In an interview after the class, Obama again spoke of the need to organize and mobilize the economic power and moral fervor of black churches. He also argued that as a state senator he might help bring this about faster than as a community organizer or civil rights lawyer.
"What we need in America, especially in the African-American community, is a moral agenda that is tied to a concrete agenda for building and rebuilding our communities," he said. "We have moved beyond the clarion call stage that was needed during the civil rights movement. Now, like Nelson Mandela in South Africa, we must move into a building stage. We must invest our energy and resources in a massive rebuilding effort and invent new mechanisms to strengthen and hasten this community-building effort.
"We have no shortage of moral fervor," said Obama. "We have some wonderful preachers in town--preachers who continue to inspire me--preachers who are magnificent at articulating a vision of the world as it should be. In every church on Sunday in the African-American community we have this moral fervor; we have energy to burn.
"But as soon as church lets out, the energy dissipates. We must find ways to channel all this energy into community building. The biggest failure of the civil rights movement was in failing to translate this energy, this moral fervor, into creating lasting institutions and organizational structures."
Obama added that as important and inspiring as it was, the Washington administration also let an opportunity go by. "Washington was the best of the classic politicians," Obama said. "He knew his constituency; he truly enjoyed people. That can't be said for a lot of politicians. He was not cynical about democracy and the democratic process--as so many of them are. But he, like all politicians, was primarily interested in maintaining his power and working the levers of power.
"He was a classic charismatic leader," Obama said, "and when he died all of that dissipated. This potentially powerful collective spirit that went into supporting him was never translated into clear principles, or into an articulable agenda for community change.
"The only principle that came through was 'getting our fair share,' and this runs itself out rather quickly if you don't make it concrete. How do we rebuild our schools? How do we rebuild our communities? How do we create safer streets? What concretely can we do together to achieve these goals? When Harold died, everyone claimed the mantle of his vision and went off in different directions. All that power dissipated.
"Now an agenda for getting our fair share is vital. But to work, it can't see voters or communities as consumers, as mere recipients or beneficiaries of this change. It's time for politicians and other leaders to take the next step and to see voters, residents, or citizens as producers of this change. The thrust of our organizing must be on how to make them productive, how to make them employable, how to build our human capital, how to create businesses, institutions, banks, safe public spaces--the whole agenda of creating productive communities. That is where our future lies.
"The right wing talks about this but they keep appealing to that old individualistic bootstrap myth: get a job, get rich, and get out. Instead of investing in our neighborhoods, that's what has always happened. Our goal must be to help people get a sense of building something larger.
"The political debate is now so skewed, so limited, so distorted," said Obama. "People are hungry for community; they miss it. They are hungry for change.
"What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer," he wondered, "as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them? As an elected public official, for instance, I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer. We would come together to form concrete economic development strategies, take advantage of existing laws and structures, and create bridges and bonds within all sectors of the community. We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.
"The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.
"Now we have to take this same language--these same values that are encouraged within our families--of looking out for one another, of sharing, of sacrificing for each other--and apply them to a larger society. Let's talk about creating a society, not just individual families, based on these values. Right now we have a society that talks about the irresponsibility of teens getting pregnant, not the irresponsibility of a society that fails to educate them to aspire for more."
Obama said he's not at all comfortable with the political game of getting and staying elected, of raising money in backroom deals and manipulating an electable image.
"I am also finding people equivocating on their support. I'm talking about progressive politicians who are on the same page with me on the issues but who warn me I may be too independent."
Although Obama has built strong relationships with people inside Mayor Daley's administration, he has not asked for their support in his campaign. Nor has he sought the mayor's endorsement.
"I want to do this as much as I can from the grass-roots level, raising as much money for the campaign as possible at coffees, connecting directly with voters," said Obama. "But to organize this district I must get known. And this costs money. I admit that in this transitional period, before I'm known in the district, I'm going to have to rely on some contributions from wealthy people--people who like my ideas but who won't attach strings. This is not ideal, but it is a problem encountered by everyone in their first campaign.
"Once elected, once I'm known, I won't need that kind of money, just as Harold Washington, once he was elected and known, did not need to raise and spend money to get the black vote."
Obama took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October's Million Man March in Washington, D.C. His experiences there only reinforced his reasons for jumping into politics.
"What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society," he said. "There was a profound sense that African-American men were ready to make a commitment to bring about change in our communities and lives.
"But what was lacking among march organizers was a positive agenda, a coherent agenda for change. Without this agenda a lot of this energy is going to dissipate. Just as holding hands and singing 'We shall overcome' is not going to do it, exhorting youth to have pride in their race, give up drugs and crime, is not going to do it if we can't find jobs and futures for the 50 percent of black youth who are unemployed, underemployed, and full of bitterness and rage.
"Exhortations are not enough, nor are the notions that we can create a black economy within America that is hermetically sealed from the rest of the economy and seriously tackle the major issues confronting us," Obama said.
"Any solution to our unemployment catastrophe must arise from us working creatively within a multicultural, interdependent, and international economy. Any African-Americans who are only talking about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if they don't also come to grips with the larger economic forces that are creating economic insecurity for all workers--whites, Latinos, and Asians. We must deal with the forces that are depressing wages, lopping off people's benefits right and left, and creating an earnings gap between CEOs and the lowest-paid worker that has risen in the last 20 years from a ratio of 10 to 1 to one of better than 100 to 1.
"This doesn't suggest that the need to look inward emphasized by the march isn't important, and that these African-American tribal affinities aren't legitimate. These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a 'lock 'em up, take no prisoners' mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress. Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn't care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing."
"But cursing out white folks is not going to get the job done. Anti-Semitic and anti-Asian statements are not going to lift us up. We've got some hard nuts-and-bolts organizing and planning to do. We've got communities to build."
-
TLDR
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
TLDR
You don't read anyway, no matter how long it is.
-
Hillary Clinton's Minister Supports Reverend Wright
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/hillarys-minister-supports-rev.php (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/hillarys-minister-supports-rev.php)
During the Clinton years at the White House, they attended Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, DC. I don't know for sure where she attends now, or even if she does, but in light of her statements that she would have left Wright's church, it is interesting to see that the Minister at Foundry has put out the following statement in support of Rev. Wright.
A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader
whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for
decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society.
He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia
which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic
ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave
injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the
African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a
people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and
violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has
been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions
and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us
who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr.
Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a
critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism.
No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again
to one another and not to distort one another's truth.
Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister
Foundry United Methodist Church
March 19, 2008
http://www.foundryumc.org/pdfs/Statement%20concerning%20Rev.%20Jeremiah%20Wright.pdf (http://www.foundryumc.org/pdfs/Statement%20concerning%20Rev.%20Jeremiah%20Wright.pdf)
-
"You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)"
read more from Christopher Hitchens!!! (http://www.slate.com/id/2187277/)
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
TLDR
You don't read anyway, no matter how long it is. [/b]
I actually read quite a lot, just not most of the pc drivel on this board. I read his bullshit speach after he got caught by the balls for attending a racist church.
All three candidates are absolutely fucking useless imo so I'm completely over this election. I've stooped to watching American Idol to get away from it to be honest. Idol is pretty funny really. Randy Jackson just calls everyone 'dawg', Paula loves everything about everyone and Simon says what we at home are actually thinking.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Christopher Hitchens!!!
didnt see that coming :roll:
-
Just a thought, but what if Obama's supporters are proportionally wealthier than those of Hillary?
The average donation of a Hillary supporter is much higher, which would seem to indicate her donors are wealthier.
Party Donors Warn Pelosi Over Superdelegate Stance (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/26/party-donors-warn-pelosi-over-superdelegate-stance/?mod=WSJBlog)
Susan Davis reports on the presidential race.
A group of wealthy Democratic Party donors who support Sen. Hillary Clinton have sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admonishing her for recent comments on the prerogative of superdelegates in deciding the nomination and suggesting she rethink her position.
Now thatâ??s chutzpah.
-
I had a feeling Chikeze was out.....I called two of the bottom three so getting pretty good at this stuff.
I bet Obama's preacher will be in full voice come Sunday with the consipricy theory regarding the only two black contestants were the bottom two last night!!!
I bet some typical white folk thought Jason was black with those dreadlocks.
-
They need to get rid of the 10 year old who sang the Up With People Song. What a little tool.
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
I had a feeling Chikeze was out.....I called two of the bottom three so getting pretty good at this stuff.
I bet Obama's preacher will be in full voice come Sunday with the consipricy theory regarding the only two black contestants were the bottom two last night!!!
I bet some typical white folk thought Jason was black with those dreadlocks.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
[I read his bullshit speach
hahahahaha
-
And I'm sure Hillary will have plenty of thrilling stories about how tough it was for her to be in the bottom two last night. Oh the humanity! The drama!! The political experience!!!
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
I bet Obama's preacher will be in full voice come Sunday with the consipricy theory regarding the only two black contestants were the bottom two last night!!!
-
The Truth Behind Hillary's Bosnia Trip (http://www.break.com/index/the-truth-behind-hillary-in-bosnia.html)
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
They need to get rid of the 10 year old who sang the Up With People Song. What a little tool.
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
I had a feeling Chikeze was out.....I called two of the bottom three so getting pretty good at this stuff.
I bet Obama's preacher will be in full voice come Sunday with the consipricy theory regarding the only two black contestants were the bottom two last night!!!
I bet some typical white folk thought Jason was black with those dreadlocks.
[/b]
He'll be there right to the end, he's as cute as a cabbage patch doll so the mothers of America will keep him in it. He does have a hell of a voice though.
That Asian looking one needs to go, she sucks and has the personality of a wet mop.
The Aussie one is just a karaoke singer really so I'm not sure why he's still around other than the fact Americas teenage girls will keep voting for the hot guy with a cool accent. :roll:
-
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1807544 (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1807544)
-
Congratulations Loudoun County, you're the people to woo in this years election... (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10881516)
-
i'm taking bribes
however, i'll settle for the silver line
-
Oh, the irony!!
Hillary Rodham Clintonâ??s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months â?? freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.
A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community â?? and anyone else who will listen â?? to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.
Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer, highlight a less-obvious impact of Clintonâ??s inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
Clinton's campaign did not respond to recent, specific questions about its transactions with vendors. But Clinton spokesman Jay Carson pointed on Saturday to an earlier statement the campaign issued to Politico, asserting: "The campaign pays its bills regularly and in the normal course of business, and pays all of its bills."
Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Rodham Clintonâ??s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.
http://www.politico.com/ (http://www.politico.com/)
-
If this doesn't put you off him nothing will.
Ann Curry of the Today Show asked him
"Beatles or Stones"
"Stones" was the reply without hesitation!!
That fucker!!!!!
-
would you really feel safe with a president that can only bowl a 37 (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080331/NEWS07/803310358&imw=Y)???
mccain would at least scream loud and long enough that the reverberations in the alley would knock more pins down. and hillary would just cheat the scoring system and try to claim pins that she didn't really knock down to get a better score.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
If this doesn't put you off him nothing will.
Ann Curry of the Today Show asked him
"Beatles or Stones"
"Stones" was the reply without hesitation!!
That fucker!!!!!
Seriously, he said that? Obama? Well, I may have to consider him then. I'd never trust someone who said "Beatles." It's all kids music. I've never met a Beatles fan who wasn't a naive, blowhard who knows deep down inside they are horribly stupid but feel the need to impress their "education" on you at every opportunity. Beatles fans are the awful mix of being inveterate liars, nostalgic, irrelevant and hopelessly naive.
You like a band whose one member wrote the song "Imagine." That's the worst song ever written. It's worse than Avril Lavgine's "Girlfriend."
Brian
-
Imagine - Hollaback Girl!
You decide America.
-
brian wallace cannot be a real person. he just cant. no way.
-
A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?
We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:
It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.
It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.
It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.
It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.
Analysis
Several alert FactCheck.org readers have passed on the following e-mail, which purports to compare the legislative effectiveness of Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). We reprint it verbatim:
You judge for yourself!
Quite impressive!! It?s unfortunate that this information is not being communicated effectively.
Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.
Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision.
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov (http://www.thomas.loc.gov) , but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.
In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.
He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.
Pass it on....It's impressive!
What impresses us is how misleading the e-mail is. Its anonymous author doesn't apply the same standards to Clinton's record and Obama's, thus leading to false conclusions about their legislative records. For Clinton, the e-mail claims to examine bills that the senator has sponsored and that were passed into law during her Senate career. For Obama, however, it counts both sponsored and cosponsored bills, whether they were passed or not. And â?? something the e-mail doesn't state clearly â?? it counts bills Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, before he was a United States senator.
Just counting bills sponsored by a particular senator is a poor way to gauge legislative clout or effectiveness, in our judgment. For example, one of the accomplishments that Clinton often boasts about â?? expanding health coverage for National Guard and Reserve troops â?? came about as a result of an amendment, not a bill. And Obama claims credit for having helped "lead the Senate to pass" an ethics and lobbying bill that he never sponsored or even cosponsored, on grounds that it "drew key provisions" from a bill that he and two other senators cosponsored in 2007. The e-mail falsely claims that Obama sponsored the ethics legislation that became law, which he did not.
Nevertheless, we dug into the records and produced a true tally of the bills for which Sens. Obama and Clinton were in fact the sole, original sponsors. We take no position on which senator deserves credit for the most or best legislation overall. What we can demonstrate is that the numbers in this e-mail are all wrong.
Here's how FactCheck.org tallies the real breakdown of bills and resolutions sponsored by the candidates in the U.S. Senate.
Obama Clinton
Years in Senate 3 7
Bills sponsored* 129 358
Bills passed by Senate 7 32
Bills signed into law 2 19
Sponsored, per year 43 51.1
Passed by Senate, per year 2.3 4.6
Signed into law, per year 0.7 0.7
*Sole original sponsor
We counted only bills for which Obama or Clinton was the sole, original sponsor. The e-mail inflates Obama's numbers by counting his cosponsored bills, but Sarah Binder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on legislative politics, tells FactCheck.org that often "cosponsorship does not require a commitment of time, energy or resources â?? let alone the political or policy ingenuity that might generate a bill idea in the first place." Tallying sponsored bills, says Binder, is "a better metric of a senator's agenda, efforts and interests."
Clinton has been in the Senate a little more than seven years; Obama, a little more than three. Using the numbers above, we calculate that Clinton has been the sole sponsor of a few more bills and resolutions per year â?? 51, to Obama's 43. And she has steered twice as many through the Senate and almost four times as many into law per year, on average, as Obama has.
Clinton's Real Numbers
Clinton's campaign claims that 22 of the senator's solely sponsored bills have become public law, and the e-mail claims 20. We counted 19, three fewer than the campaign because it included several Clinton-sponsored provisions that were part of other major bills. (The measures were substantive, having to do with such issues as improving treatment for wounded service members, but they didn't fit the rules of this tally.) Nine of her successful bills had to do with naming post offices or courthouses, but others involved building safety, unemployment assistance and support for family caregivers.
The list of her accomplishments in the e-mail, though, is not, as the author claims, a rundown of Clinton-sponsored bills that became law; it is in fact a mishmash of some that became law and others that were only passed by the Senate, without being a complete roster of her bills in either category. She actually sponsored, by herself, 32 bills and resolutions that passed the Senate, including all of those mentioned specifically in the e-mail plus 12 others. The omitted bills include a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah, and a resolution condemning the murder of an American journalist. And she has been sole sponsor of a total of 358 bills in her seven-year Senate career.
Here's our list of bills solely sponsored by Clinton that became law (descriptions of each are verbatim from THOMAS.gov, the Library of Congress' database of legislative information):
110th Congress:
S. 694, A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes.
109th Congress:
S. 272, A bill to designate certain National Forest System land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
S. 1283, A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a program to assist family caregivers in accessing affordable and high-quality respite care, and for other purposes.
S. 2376, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the "Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building."
S. 2722, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the "Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building."
S. 3613, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building."
S. 3716, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Pitcher Street in Utica, New York, as the "Captain George A. Wood Post Office Building."
S. 3910, A bill to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept the donation of a bust depicting Sojourner Truth and to display the bust in a suitable location in the Capitol.
108th Congress:
S. 1241, A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York, and for other purposes.
S. 1266, A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Dr. Dorothy Height, in recognition of her many contributions to the Nation.
S. 1425, A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed Protection Program.
S. 2838, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10 West Prospect Street in Nanuet, New York, as the "Anthony I. Lombardi Memorial Post Office Building."
S. 2839, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New York, as the "Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office."
107th Congress:
S. 584, A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 40 Centre Street in New York, New York, as the "Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse."
S. 1422, A bill to provide for the expedited payment of certain benefits for a public safety officer who was killed or suffered a catastrophic injury as a direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
S. 1622, A bill to extend the period of availability of unemployment assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the case of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
S. 1892, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, New York, as the "Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building."
S. 2496, A bill to provide for the establishment of investigative teams to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life, and for other purposes.
S. 2918, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 380 Main Street in Farmingdale, New York, as the "Peter J. Ganci, Jr. Post Office Building."
A Legislative Powerhouse?
The e-mail claims that Obama "authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427" during "his first year in the U.S. Senate." According to THOMAS.gov, this number is an accurate count of bills and amendments that Obama sponsored during the 109th Congress, which actually covered his first two years in the Senate, not one. (Amendments are changes to bills that were spearheaded by other lawmakers.) Discounting amendments and cosponsorships, Obama sponsored 66 bills during those two years. Clinton sponsored 90 in the same period. In his three years in the Senate, Obama has been the sole original sponsor of 129 bills.
The e-mail says Obama sponsored "over 820 bills" in the first "eight years of his elected service," never mentioning that for most of that time, Obama was in the Illinois Senate. Since the rules and operations of that body are quite different from those of the U.S. Senate, we hardly think it's fair to include the proposed legislation to which his name was attached in Springfield in any tally that's being compared with Clinton's record.
An accurate comparison with the Clinton bills listed in the e-mail would have included only the bills Obama has sponsored that have been signed into law. This comparison favors Clinton heavily, since 19 of her bills in seven years have become law, while Obama has had just two in his three years:
S. 2125, A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
S. 3757, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the "Katherine Dunham Post Office Building."
The Meaning of Fluff
The question of whether a bill is "substantive" is often subjective. But the Clinton bills that the e-mail seems to characterize as frivolous have to do with such goals as recognizing and establishing national observances, honoring individuals' memories, marking important events and congratulating sports teams. Five of the seven Obama-sponsored bills passed by the Senate have similar goals. So do more than 40 percent of all the bills that have been passed by the Senate since the beginning of 2008.
Surely we don't elect senators just to name post offices. But given the contention that meatier bills can prompt, it's much easier to push a seemingly frivolous bill through Congress. Every one of the Clinton and Obama bills that passed the Senate did so by unanimous consent. Bills that generate more opposition, meanwhile, can be struck down or left to languish. According to GovTrack.us, a legislative research site, 308 of 356 bills Clinton has sponsored haven't made it out of committee. In the current (110th) Congress, that includes several bills on foreign policy, nuclear safety, poverty, housing and education, not to mention 19 bills regarding public health and coverage, 13 benefiting the armed forces, and 12 addressing children's care and safety. Likewise, 120 of Obama's 129 sponsored bills haven't made it past the committee level â?? including, in the 110th Congress, nine bills on energy and environmental policy, nine on public health and eight benefiting the military and veterans, as well as multiple bills on education, foreign policy, product safety and voter access. These bills, being more substantive than, for instance, Clinton's regarding the men's lacrosse team or Obama's on National Summer Learning Day, are also more likely to die in committee.
Blog Showdown
Several blogs have picked up and repeated the idea that Obama has sponsored more, or more important, legislation than Clinton has. One writer on the political blog Daily Kos looked at the senator's record in detail but did not evaluate Clinton's legislation. Another went through legislation from each candidate, analyzing the impressiveness of each bill from her perspective. On the other side, noted blogger Ezra Klein wrote, in his blog for the liberal magazine The American Prospect, that the second Kos article was "not anything even approaching a fair comparison of [the candidates'] legislative records" and that Clinton had in fact proposed important bills.
Since the value of a piece of legislation is so often a matter of opinion, that's a blogspat we won't get into. We can say for sure, though, that Clinton has been the sole original sponsor of more bills than Obama at a slightly higher annual rate; that she's been more successful than Obama at passing bills through the Senate and into law; and that, while she has sponsored a number of seemingly frivolous bills that were signed into law, these are comparable to many of Obama's bills and common in the Senate generally.
One final thought: Recently we published a special report warning readers about the high level of inaccuracy in chain e-mails. This one is no exception. In fact, with its anonymous author and grammatical errors, not to mention a redundancy or two, it's a classic of the genre. If you find one of these e-mails in your in-box, our suggested course of action remains the same: Just hit delete.
Republished with permission from factcheck.org .
-
an email being forwarded around was inaccurate? shocking!
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Republished with permission from factcheck.org .
I'd like to see a copy of this "permission" that you have...that was the point of your diatribe right?
-
Not really, I never read it...I was just playing GGW with a long boring irrelevent post.
-
What if the democrats used a winner-take-all primary/caucus method???? (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_wesley_little/what_if_democrats_used_winner_take_all)
-
If only I knew where that Ancient.gif was...
A more informative article would be What if there were no What ifs? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)
-
Holy Shit! Mark Penn quit! (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0642976020080407)
-
okay, back to a much more interesting election....which idol contestant do you think will get the chop this week?
I'm going for Kristy Lee Cook. She played the patriot card very well when she knew she was on the block last time, but I think her time is up.
The other two in the bottom three will probably be Jason Castro and Syesha Mercado. Those two have had poor song choices the last couple of weeks.
The young kids (David Archuleta) cuteness is wearing off so when it comes down to talent I think the top two are David Cook and Carly Smithson.
-
I think Hillary has not even begun to sing yet.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
okay, back to a much more interesting election....which idol contestant do you think will get the chop this week?
I'm a week or two behind because Smackette's been out of the country, but I'm shocked Kristi Lee is still on! I'm actually growing bored of her hotness, let alone her lack of talent.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
okay, back to a much more interesting election....which idol contestant do you think will get the chop this week?
I'm a week or two behind because Smackette's been out of the country, but I'm shocked Kristi Lee is still on! I'm actually growing bored of her hotness, let alone her lack of talent. [/b]
Brooke is hot as balls though, in a Sheryl Crowe kind of way. Even my missus fancies her and she's not into chicks whatsoever.
-
Brook is a drip. I haven't gotten past her drippy personality to actually look at her looks. I'll take Syeshha for looks if I have to take one, but you can have them all.
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
okay, back to a much more interesting election....which idol contestant do you think will get the chop this week?
I'm a week or two behind because Smackette's been out of the country, but I'm shocked Kristi Lee is still on! I'm actually growing bored of her hotness, let alone her lack of talent. [/b]
Brooke is hot as balls though, in a Sheryl Crowe kind of way. Even my missus fancies her and she's not into chicks whatsoever. [/b]
-
Well, well, well...the karaoke singer finally bit the dust.
I hear INXS are looking for a new singer, he'd be perfect for that job.
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
I've never met a Beatles fan who wasn't a naive, blowhard who knows deep down inside they are horribly stupid but feel the need to impress their "education" on you at every opportunity. Beatles fans are the awful mix of being inveterate liars, nostalgic, irrelevant and hopelessly naive.
Brian
So you're a huge Beatles fan, I take it.
-
It is the Brian Wallace dream ticket!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/16/the-boss-backs-obama/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/16/the-boss-backs-obama/)
The Boss backs Obama
Posted: 09:40 AM ET
Bruce Springsteen put his weight behind Obama Wednesday.
(CNN) â?? Rocker Bruce Springsteen has endorsed Barack Obama for president.
â??At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships,â? said the New Jersey native, in a statement posted on his Web site Wednesday. â??While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and visionâ?¦ Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President.â?
In February, Springsteen had resisted making a choice between Obama and Hillary Clinton, telling USA Today that "there are two really good Democratic candidates for president. I admire and respect them both enough to wait and see what happens."
But he praised Obama, who cited Springsteen as the person he would most like to meet in an interview with People magazine.
"I always look at my work as trying to measure the distance between American promise and American reality," he told the paper. "And I think (Obama's) inspired a lot of people with that idea: How do you make that distance shorter? â?¦â?
Springsteen backed Sen. John Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 presidential bid.
-
Anybody else watch the debate last night?
I was very surprised at the questioning from ABC - and I join the chorus of people that are saying it was one of the worst debates yet. I completely understand the point that's been made that you must go after these issues to an extent - but the first 45 minutes of the debate without a single policy question?
Sure, Clinton supporters are going to say that this is a reactionary defense of Obama being attacked. Honestly, I was very surprised at how one sided it seemed to be last night - I don't think there are comparable debates in which Hillary Clinton was attacked as forcefully or as prominently by the moderators, but I could be wrong. I also think it is valid that some of those questions are asked - I just didn't think it made sense to line them all up in a row in a single debate format. Regardless - I'll be the first to say that Obama did not do a great job last night, and he looked exhausted and spent from the campaign trail. That doesn't bode incredibly well for the general election.
That said - I think this is a defining moment of sorts for the campaign. It was pretty clear that ABC News was going to focus on the "old politics" that Obama has been speaking out against. So to me, this is an opportunity to validate (or defeat) the fundamental principle of Obama's message: that American citizens are ready for a new politics that focuses on issues and cooperation as opposed to political distractions and rhetoric. If Obama's message is real, and people are actually ready for it, I think you see a reaction to this debate in the coming days that overwhelmingly favors Obama.
If it is not real, and these issues stick to him, then last night was truly a very bad evening, and probably is an indicator that he'll have a very, very difficult battle with John McCain in November. But if he weathers this and continues to build support in the polls despite the punditry and media coverage saying it is impossible? Then I think he proves that the public is ready for a higher level of political discourse that doesn't focus on these types of distractions.
Those are just some quick thoughts...I'd like to think about it a bit more, but I wanted to see what other folks thought.
-
I think it was time for Kristy Lee Cook to go. The American voter got it right.
-
Baracky: The Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyhIBXNfqMA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyhIBXNfqMA)
This is great.
-
You folks still liking HopeChange's chances over McCain in the general election?
America's starting to realize the emperor has no clothes.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
You folks still liking HopeChange's chances over McCain in the general election?
America's starting to realize the emperor has no clothes.
Yep, absolutely. He'll trounce McCain.
I still don't understand how you think Hillary Clinton has any prayer of a) winning the nomination, and b) if in the exceedingly unlikely event she does win the nomination, coalescing support around her campaign after essentially having all of the rules upended in order to get the nomination.
-
I'd rather be naked than have the chance Hillary has of getting the nomination.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I still don't understand how you think Hillary Clinton has any prayer of a) winning the primary, and b) if in the unlikely event she does win the primary, coalescing support around her campaign after essentially having all of the rules upended.
Because as disliked as the Clinton's have proven to be, their politics always find the center and appeal to lower and middle class voters, which HopeChange doesn't. The most liberal Senator in the country who has proven he can't win rural voters (unless there's a caucus, lol!!) and proven he can't fend off attacks has NO CHANCE in a general election. All the Clinton's politics do is win. I don't think you can see the forest from the trees.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I'd rather be naked than have the chance Hillary has of getting the nomination.
Since you're not running, don't you, by definition, have equal or less chance then Hillary of getting the nomination already? So basically you just want to be naked?
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by callat703:
I still don't understand how you think Hillary Clinton has any prayer of a) winning the primary, and b) if in the unlikely event she does win the primary, coalescing support around her campaign after essentially having all of the rules upended.
Because as disliked as the Clinton's have proven to be, their politics always find the center and appeal to lower and middle class voters, which HopeChange doesn't. The most liberal Senator in the country who has proven he can't win rural voters (unless there's a caucus, lol!!) and proven he can't fend off attacks has NO CHANCE in a general election. All the Clinton's politics do is win. I don't think you can see the forest from the trees. [/b]
You are absolutely delusional if you think Hillary Clinton would be able to keep the party together if the superdelegates upend the pledged delegates, the total state count, and likely, the popular vote in order to give her the nomination.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
You are absolutely delusional if you think Hillary Clinton would be able to keep the party together if the superdelegates upend the pledged delegates, the total state count, and likely, the popular vote in order to give her the nomination.
The only things they'd be upending is the unconstitutional and undemocratic punishment given to the 2.2million democrats in Michigan and Florida who were denied the right to vote through no fault of their own.
How many Obama voters do you think would vote McCain over a Clinton/Obama ticket? How many Clinton voters do you think a Obama/someone else ticket would lose to McCain?
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by callat703:
You are absolutely delusional if you think Hillary Clinton would be able to keep the party together if the superdelegates upend the pledged delegates, the total state count, and likely, the popular vote in order to give her the nomination.
The only things they'd be upending is the unconstitutional and undemocratic punishment given to the 2.2million democrats in Michigan and Florida who were denied the right to vote through fault of their own.
How many Obama voters do you think would vote McCain over a Clinton/Obama ticket? How many Clinton voters do you think a Obama/someone else ticket would lose to McCain? [/b]
First of all, you show me the proof that anything done in Michigan or Florida is "unconstitutional." I could save you the time - it is not unconstitutional. That would require this whole primary process to be regulated by the Constitution. Which it isn't. It is regulated by the Democratic National Committee. The Constitution has guidelines on the general election, but it doesn't tell parties how to pick their nominee. That's why the rules have changed so many times.
Secondly, there is no prayer of a Clinton/Obama ticket at this point, even if Clinton were to somehow steal the nomination. The only way that she would be able to do that is to throw so much mud that she would immediately marginalize her presidential campaign by choosing him as a running mate. The bad press and spin would be deafening.
Finally, I think far more Clinton supporters will ultimately support an Obama ticket than people are allowing for. I simply don't believe the polls right now that indicate high attrition rates from either Democratic candidate to McCain. Those numbers reflect a cursory understanding of McCain's positions as he hasn't been challenged by a Democrat directly at this point. When Democrats actually take a look at his positions carefully, I'm confident that Obama will keep the vast majority of Clinton supports from defecting to McCain. After all - what kind of Clinton supporter are you if you abandon all of her issues when the general election rolls around? What were you supporting, if not the issues she represents?
Like it or not - the fact is that Obama's coalition represents new voters, and new Democrats. I'm not saying it is right, but these are the voters most apt to leave the party and forget the platform if he isn't the nominee. The core constituency Democrats that Clinton has in her pocket will come around to Obama because of the issues - if they don't, then they aren't the Democrats they're representing themselves to be. You're right - maybe Obama can't win without them - but Clinton will never win if Obama's new voters (plus scores of African-Americans who would feel as though the election was stolen from their candidate) abandon the party and the process.
-
LOL
-
operation chaos is in full swing...and working.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
LOL
gosh, i was going to disagree with you but 'lol' IN CAPS has swayed me. should have busted that out before the va primary
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
LOL
gosh, i was going to disagree with you but 'lol' IN CAPS has swayed me. should have busted that out before the va primary [/b]
I figured as a HopeChange supporter, you'd be easily swayed by snappy, substanceless drivel.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
LOL
I'm pretty confident that what I wrote was a fairly accurate description of the facts. If you disagree, by all means, please illustrate where I'm wrong.
-
sounds like EVIL PREACHER talk
-
Come the presidential election this is my voting choice
1, Clinton
2, McCain
3, Don't vote
But more importantly....The American voter got it so wrong last night...two of three best performances from Tuesday were in the bottom two..Idol is now just a popularity contest and not a talent contest so I'll probably lose interest in that too. There's always "The Deadliest Catch" to keep the telly on though. I'm addicted to that show now.
-
So Julian, are you going to vote for John McCain come the general election?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
So Julian, are you going to vote for John McCain come the general election?
I think I've been pretty clear on this point. If th candidates are Obama and McCain, I would vote McCain if the election was at all in doubt. If McCain was up 10 in the polls, I'd write in Hillary.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by callat703:
So Julian, are you going to vote for John McCain come the general election?
I think I've been pretty clear on this point. If th candidates are Obama and McCain, I would vote McCain if the election was at all in doubt. If McCain was up 10 in the polls, I'd write in Hillary. [/b]
I don't want to make this about you, but you have been open about talking your voting preferences and I'm working on a few new ideas. Ignore this post if you don't want to answer.
Does the above hold true if Hillary is Obama's VP?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by callat703:
So Julian, are you going to vote for John McCain come the general election?
I think I've been pretty clear on this point. If th candidates are Obama and McCain, I would vote McCain if the election was at all in doubt. If McCain was up 10 in the polls, I'd write in Hillary. [/b]
I don't want to make this about you, but you have been open about talking your voting preferences and I'm working on a few new ideas. Ignore this post if you don't want to answer.
Does the above hold true if Hillary is Obama's VP? [/b]
will never happen
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Does the above hold true if Hillary is Obama's VP?
It would at least give me pause to consider voting for Obama. I don't want to be crass, but the very real reality is if an African-American is elected President, the odds are over-whelming of an assassination attempt. So, not to be funny, I do like the thought of Hillary being one lone KKK member away from the Presidency. But ultimately, I still think Obama would shit the place so badly that I wouldn't want to be responsible for putting him in office, so I'd probably still go McCain.
That said, I don't see Hillary going for the VP slot. She might, but I'd be suprised.
-
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I don't want to be crass, but the very real reality is if an African-American is elected President, the odds are over-whelming of an assassination attempt.
That's not crass, that's just asinine.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I don't want to be crass, but the very real reality is if an African-American is elected President, the odds are over-whelming of an assassination attempt.
That's not crass, that's just asinine. [/b]
Yes, it is asinine.
I still haven't heard how you justify voting for McCain over Obama. I'd be very curious to hear the reasons, as this would imply that you didn't support Clinton's platform, but rather, her personality.
-
I'm shocked we haven't seen an assassination attempt since when, Reagan?
-
Maybe he prefers his candidates like he prefers his women...loads of wrinkles and years and years of experience.
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I don't want to be crass, but the very real reality is if an African-American is elected President, the odds are over-whelming of an assassination attempt.
That's not crass, that's just asinine. [/b]
Yes, it is asinine.
I still haven't heard how you justify voting for McCain over Obama. I'd be very curious to hear the reasons, as this would imply that you didn't support Clinton's platform, but rather, her personality. [/b]
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I don't want to be crass, but the very real reality is if an African-American is elected President, the odds are over-whelming of an assassination attempt.
That's not crass, that's just asinine. [/b]
The acknowledgment that a small, fringe group of racists would be so upset with a racial minority president that they'd attempt an assassination is asinine? Statistically, Presidents are murdered at an unprecedented rate; you throw the racist factor in there, it has to be an even greater possibility.
I am not, just to be clear, condoning or encouraging an assassination plot against Obama.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I don't want to be crass, but the very real reality is if an African-American is elected President, the odds are over-whelming of an assassination attempt.
That's not crass, that's just asinine. [/b]
The acknowledgment that a small, fringe group of racists would be so upset with a racial minority president that they'd attempt an assassination is asinine? Statistically, Presidents are murdered at an unprecedented rate; you throw the racist factor in there, it has to be an even greater possibility.
I am not, just to be clear, condoning or encouraging an assassination plot against Obama. [/b]
calling secret service now..
-
I still haven't heard how you justify voting for McCain over Obama. I'd be very curious to hear the reasons, as this would imply that you didn't support Clinton's platform, but rather, her personality. [/b]
Cough, cough.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I still haven't heard how you justify voting for McCain over Obama. I'd be very curious to hear the reasons, as this would imply that you didn't support Clinton's platform, but rather, her personality. [/b]
Cough, cough. [/b]
First, you admitted less then a week ago that Obama supporters supported Obama instead of his platform and that was why a sizable percentage of them wouldn't vote if Hillary was the nominee. So back your black pot up there, kettle.
My reason for voting McCain is sort of like gangrene. When gangrene used to get in a leg, you had two choices: lose the leg, or die. When a candidate as terrible, unequipped, and elitistly divisive as Obama comes along you have two choices: lose an election or start the death of the Democratic Party. The damage that would be done if Democrats follow up the 8 years of George Bush with a guy who has zero experience, has proven unable to build consensus among voters who aren't under 30 or black, and has no realistic plan to bring about his "chicken in every pot" ridiculousness would cripple the Democratic Party. I can't see middle America ever giving the Democrats another chance again. Why would we deserve it?
McCain is not terrible, either. Sure, he wants us to go to war for 100 years, but who does that really effect other then dumbasses who join the military. I can assure you, the Iraq War, as terrible and unjust as it is, hasn't affected my day-to-day life. Let McCain slash taxes, keep idiots out of the US and in the Middle East for 4 years, and be his usual self on social issues. It's better then Obama shitting on the carpet and dragging his ass along the floor.
-
Aren't you yourself an elitist in calling people who join the military "dumbasses"?
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
has proven unable to build consensus among voters who aren't under 30
I think you meant to say 60. He's been dominating many factors of the middle aged, especially among educated middle agers.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Aren't you yourself an elitist in calling people who join the military "dumbasses"?
How do you figure?
-
People who sign up for the military are often the same people who Obama disparaged. If he's an elitist, you are as well.
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Aren't you yourself an elitist in calling people who join the military "dumbasses"?
How do you figure? [/b]
-
I think we've found the fundamental problem here. If Julian can't figure out how painting an entire subset of our population as "dumbasses" is elitist, then most of these arguments seems pretty moot to me.
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Aren't you yourself an elitist in calling people who join the military "dumbasses"?
How do you figure? [/b]
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
I think we've found the fundamental problem here. If Julian can't figure out how painting an entire subset of our population as "dumbasses" is elitist, then most of these arguments seems pretty moot to me.
Do you consider people with IQs below 80 to be mentally retarded? If so, you're an "elitist," then. I mean, some people are what you say they are. There's a difference between claiming you are better then someone else and ignoring middle-America because they're bitter. :roll:
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by callat703:
I still haven't heard how you justify voting for McCain over Obama. I'd be very curious to hear the reasons, as this would imply that you didn't support Clinton's platform, but rather, her personality. [/b]
Cough, cough. [/b]
First, you admitted less then a week ago that Obama supporters supported Obama instead of his platform and that was why a sizable percentage of them wouldn't vote if Hillary was the nominee. So back your black pot up there, kettle.
My reason for voting McCain is sort of like gangrene. When gangrene used to get in a leg, you had two choices: lose the leg, or die. When a candidate as terrible, unequipped, and elitistly divisive as Obama comes along you have two choices: lose an election or start the death of the Democratic Party. The damage that would be done if Democrats follow up the 8 years of George Bush with a guy who has zero experience, has proven unable to build consensus among voters who aren't under 30 or black, and has no realistic plan to bring about his "chicken in every pot" ridiculousness would cripple the Democratic Party. I can't see middle America ever giving the Democrats another chance again. Why would we deserve it?
McCain is not terrible, either. Sure, he wants us to go to war for 100 years, but who does that really effect other then dumbasses who join the military. I can assure you, the Iraq War, as terrible and unjust as it is, hasn't affected my day-to-day life. Let McCain slash taxes, keep idiots out of the US and in the Middle East for 4 years, and be his usual self on social issues. It's better then Obama shitting on the carpet and dragging his ass along the floor. [/b]
I'm not saying that Obama supporters wouldn't leave the party. In fact, I said very definitely that they would. I didn't defend that. I personally would vote for Clinton before McCain. So back up yourself. I'm calling you out for abandoning the platform your candidate believes in, as I would any person who abandoned the platform if Obama had lost.
And your response clearly illustrated to me that you really are clueless when it comes to this election. That was just appalling - not only because your critique of Obama isn't grounded in any kind of factual statement, but the absolutely ridiculous belief that the Iraq war has no effect on your life (not to mention your complete and utter disregard for any member of the military). Amazing.
-
You called anyone in the military "dumbasses." So Julian, who's not in the military = Not a dumbass, no? That seems pretty fucking elitist to me.
I'm not quite sure if you're implying that anyone in the armed forces has an IQ below 80 or what with your comment below, but it's just plain idiotic.
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Do you consider people with IQs below 80 to be mentally retarded? If so, you're an "elitist," then. I mean, some people are what you say they are. There's a difference between claiming you are better then someone else and ignoring middle-America because they're bitter. :roll:
-
Originally posted by callat703:
your critique of Obama isn't grounded in any kind of factual statement,
His entire campaign is devoid of factual statements. We call him HopeChange for a reason.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by callat703:
your critique of Obama isn't grounded in any kind of factual statement,
His entire campaign is devoid of factual statements. We call him HopeChange for a reason. [/b]
And....you've made my point.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
You called anyone in the military "dumbasses." So Julian, who's not in the military = Not a dumbass, no?
No, that's a logical fallacy. I didn't say "all dumbasses are in the army," just that people who are in the army are dumbasses. There are all sorts of dumbasses who've stepped nowhere near military 'service.' I could very well be a dumbass myself.
Originally posted by nkotb:
[QB]I'm not quite sure if you're implying that anyone in the armed forces has an IQ below 80 or what with your comment below
I'm not. I'm saying people with an IQ under 80, are legally mentally handicapped. Does calling someone with an IQ under 80 "mentally handicapped" make you an elitist? No, the same way calling someone with full-blown AIDS "sick" isn't elitist. Sometimes some people are, in fact, what we say they are.
-
Exactly...you're calling "people who are in the army are dumbasses." Again, how are you missing that as an elitist statement?
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by nkotb:
You called anyone in the military "dumbasses." So Julian, who's not in the military = Not a dumbass, no?
No, that's a logical fallacy. I didn't say "all dumbasses are in the army," just that people who are in the army are dumbasses. There are all sorts of dumbasses who've stepped nowhere near military 'service.' [/b]
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I could very well be a dumbass myself.
No argument there
:roll:
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
Exactly...you're calling "people who are in the army are dumbasses." Again, how are you missing that as an elitist statement?
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
-
I really think the American voter will speak loud and clear tonight and Jason Castro will be gone.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by nkotb:
Exactly...you're calling "people who are in the army are dumbasses." Again, how are you missing that as an elitist statement?
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. [/b]
please tell me youre a 19 year old trying to obtain a political science degree at american university...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
please tell me youre a 19 year old trying to obtain a political science degree at american university...
No, on every count, my (potential) fellow McCain-iac.
-
ha! hate mccain...probably sit this one out unless obama gets too close...then i guess ill go along party lines.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by nkotb:
No, that's a logical fallacy. I didn't say "all dumbasses are in the army," just that people who are in the army are dumbasses. There are all sorts of dumbasses who've stepped nowhere near military 'service.' I could very well be a dumbass myself.
[/b]
That comment is too elitist even for Obama.
Some 'dumbassaes" join the military as a way to pay for college because they aren't part of Obama's privileged elite...some join as a way to better themselves and others are just courageous and have a sense of duty to serve their country.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
ha! hate mccain...probably sit this one out unless obama gets too close...then i guess ill go along party lines.
I'll probably sit this one out too. I'm a registered independant but leaned more towards the dems than the reps, especially after the last 8 years, but if Obama is the best the dems can come up with then I ain't no dem.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
Originally posted by manimtired:
ha! hate mccain...probably sit this one out unless obama gets too close...then i guess ill go along party lines.
I'll probably sit this one out too. I'm a registered independant but leaned more towards the dems than the reps, especially after the last 8 years, but if Obama is the best the dems can come up with then I ain't no dem. [/b]
guess you aint no dem..
-
Go easy on Julian. I didn't ask him the question so others would/could attack him.
Anyhow, I don't see her sticking this out much longer. I'd be shocked if she were still in for a couple more days let alone two weeks from now. The math is so far against her at the moment that even seating the half delegations in Florida like the Republicans are doing and all of Michigan, she still won't be able to catch up without a Super-Delegate revolt. But with the diminishing numbers of super delegates left, even the revolt is extrememly unlikely.
That being said, she is the most important Democrat in the nation right now. This election will be decided by the candidate that lost the Democratic nomination, not the candidate that won the nomination. Her ability and willingness to convince her supporters to now support Obama will mean all the difference in the November General election.
That's why I was so intrigued by a comment made on CNN late last night that one pundit has it on good authority that Hillary is in it until the Democrats guarantee her the VP slot. At first, I thought no way (as I have from day one from an Obama perspective), but after thinking about it over night, if true it might not be the worst case scenario for the Dems. That's a big if, mind you. I still don't see her wanting it over being in charge of the Senate, but if you're Obama and this is true, wouldn't you rather put up with her in your corner rather than have her tank you for a 2012 run?
I've come all the way around on this and given her decent success in last couple of months, she may be more valuable to him then I once thought.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
people who are in the army are dumbasses. [/QB]
That's a stunning statement. Wow! I assume you mean everyone who has ever served in the armed forces to protect the United States is a "dumbass." World War I. II. Marines. Navy. Everyone. Ever. Dumbasses.
I also don't agree with what Stephen King on April 4th that: "The fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that." I'll bet that those in the armed services have a much higher literacy rate than the general population.
Personally, there is NO ONE I have greater respect for than the men and women who serve in the armed forces. They should all be paid about four to five times what they are paid now. I feel every one of them is extraordinarily intelligent and brave. I personally thank any one of them I see (either active or not) for protecting our country and allowing American citizens to enjoy the freedoms we do.
Someone says "Lou Reed could go on stage, perform two songs and it would be one of the greatest concerts I've ever been to" and everyone in the MILITARY is a "dumbass?"
Stunning. I'm speechless that someone would be so stupid to say something like that.
Brian
-
In 50 words or less would someone please tell me why I should vote for Obama?
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
In 50 words or less would someone please tell me why I should vote for Obama?
ah, american political discourse.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
In 50 words or less would someone please tell me why I should vote for Obama?
you shouldnt. he is going to get pwnd in the general.
-
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
In 50 words or less would someone please tell me why I should vote for Obama?
50 words:
Obamaâ??s platform is to change the nature of political discourse. The current dialogue â?? divisive, partisan â?? prevents the changes that can address the problems facing us. Obama aims to lead an open, honest discussion on the issues that will allow for compromise and progress which are impossible in the current climate.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by 47 YEAR OLD VIRGIN:
In 50 words or less would someone please tell me why I should vote for Obama?
50 words:
Obamaâ??s platform is to change the nature of political discourse. The current dialogue â?? divisive, partisan â?? prevents the changes that can address the problems facing us. Obama aims to lead an open, honest discussion on the issues that will allow for compromise and progress which are impossible in the current climate. [/b]
honest? he knew nothing about his pastors hate speech for 20 years?? very honest.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I can assure you, the Iraq War, as terrible and unjust as it is, hasn't affected my day-to-day life. [/b]
Believe me....the countless billions we are borrowing from China and god knows where else to stay in this war do have an effect on your life and will for many years to come.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I can assure you, the Iraq War, as terrible and unjust as it is, hasn't affected my day-to-day life. [/b]
Believe me....the countless billions we are borrowing from China and god knows where else to stay in this war do have an effect on your life and will for many years to come. [/b]
i can say it has not effected my day to day life as well. explain how it has effected you? minus just bitching about it..
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I can assure you, the Iraq War, as terrible and unjust as it is, hasn't affected my day-to-day life. [/b]
Believe me....the countless billions we are borrowing from China and god knows where else to stay in this war do have an effect on your life and will for many years to come. [/b]
i can say it has not effected my day to day life as well. explain how it has effected you? minus just bitching about it.. [/b]
The money spent on this war has contributed to what is maybe the largest deficit in history (don't know for sure check the facts if you like). In any case, any deficit devalues the dollar, causes inflation. Obviously this effects you, unless you live your life inside the song "Imagine" by John Lennon.
Not to mention the fact that this conflict or war or whatever has destabilized the region where we get most of our oil....no doubt this hasn't helped oil prices, which everyone knows trickle down to everything we buy.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I can assure you, the Iraq War, as terrible and unjust as it is, hasn't affected my day-to-day life. [/b]
Believe me....the countless billions we are borrowing from China and god knows where else to stay in this war do have an effect on your life and will for many years to come. [/b]
i can say it has not effected my day to day life as well. explain how it has effected you? minus just bitching about it.. [/b]
The money spent on this war has contributed to what is maybe the largest deficit in history (don't know for sure check the facts if you like). In any case, any deficit devalues the dollar, causes inflation. Obviously this effects you, unless you live your life inside the song "Imagine" by John Lennon.
Not to mention the fact that this conflict or war or whatever has destabilized the region where we get most of our oil....no doubt this hasn't helped oil prices, which everyone knows trickle down to everything we buy. [/b]
you can borrow some money from me if you need it in these tough times...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I can assure you, the Iraq War, as terrible and unjust as it is, hasn't affected my day-to-day life. [/b]
Believe me....the countless billions we are borrowing from China and god knows where else to stay in this war do have an effect on your life and will for many years to come. [/b]
i can say it has not effected my day to day life as well. explain how it has effected you? minus just bitching about it.. [/b]
The money spent on this war has contributed to what is maybe the largest deficit in history (don't know for sure check the facts if you like). In any case, any deficit devalues the dollar, causes inflation. Obviously this effects you, unless you live your life inside the song "Imagine" by John Lennon.
Not to mention the fact that this conflict or war or whatever has destabilized the region where we get most of our oil....no doubt this hasn't helped oil prices, which everyone knows trickle down to everything we buy. [/b]
you can borrow some money from me if you need it in these tough times... [/b]
Wow impressive response.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I can assure you, the Iraq War, as terrible and unjust as it is, hasn't affected my day-to-day life. [/b]
Believe me....the countless billions we are borrowing from China and god knows where else to stay in this war do have an effect on your life and will for many years to come. [/b]
i can say it has not effected my day to day life as well. explain how it has effected you? minus just bitching about it.. [/b]
The money spent on this war has contributed to what is maybe the largest deficit in history (don't know for sure check the facts if you like). In any case, any deficit devalues the dollar, causes inflation. Obviously this effects you, unless you live your life inside the song "Imagine" by John Lennon.
Not to mention the fact that this conflict or war or whatever has destabilized the region where we get most of our oil....no doubt this hasn't helped oil prices, which everyone knows trickle down to everything we buy. [/b]
Not that the war has not had an effect, but by most accounts the U.S. needs to import ~$800bn in foreign investment each year to maintain our economy. The $100bn/year war bill is just a small part of that. The bigger part is the debt-fueled lifestyle to which most Americans believe they are entitled.
As for oil prices, the war's effect is negligible. This isn't a supply driven price spike, it is a demand driven one. US oil consumption has remained relatively steady for a number of years, the increase in demand is coming from the rest of the world, primarily Asia. China alone accounts for something like 60% of the increase in marginal oil demand.
Additionally, most oil producing nations have recently gotten wise to the fact that they have a limited supply of oil, which is a big driver in their efforts to diversify by purchasing substantial amounts of investment assets such as U.S. debt.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
As for oil prices, the war's effect is negligible. This isn't a supply driven price spike, it is a demand driven one. US oil consumption has remained relatively steady for a number of years, the increase in demand is coming from the rest of the world, primarily Asia. China alone accounts for something like 60% of the increase in marginal oil demand.
Additionally, most oil producing nations have recently gotten wise to the fact that they have a limited supply of oil, which is a big driver in their efforts to diversify by purchasing substantial amounts of investment assets such as U.S. debt.
Additionally, many speculators are now investing in oil as a commodity, since the housing market collapsed. Some of the largest purchasers of oil at this point are large investment funds representing pension plans and the like, which is also inflating the price of oil.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I can assure you, the Iraq War, as terrible and unjust as it is, hasn't affected my day-to-day life. [/b]
Believe me....the countless billions we are borrowing from China and god knows where else to stay in this war do have an effect on your life and will for many years to come. [/b]
i can say it has not effected my day to day life as well. explain how it has effected you? minus just bitching about it.. [/b]
The money spent on this war has contributed to what is maybe the largest deficit in history (don't know for sure check the facts if you like). In any case, any deficit devalues the dollar, causes inflation. Obviously this effects you, unless you live your life inside the song "Imagine" by John Lennon.
Not to mention the fact that this conflict or war or whatever has destabilized the region where we get most of our oil....no doubt this hasn't helped oil prices, which everyone knows trickle down to everything we buy. [/b]
you can borrow some money from me if you need it in these tough times... [/b]
Wow impressive response. [/b]
what i meant was what i said originally...the war has had zero effect with how i lead my life day to day. got it? maybe it has for you..but not me.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I can assure you, the Iraq War, as terrible and unjust as it is, hasn't affected my day-to-day life. [/b]
Believe me....the countless billions we are borrowing from China and god knows where else to stay in this war do have an effect on your life and will for many years to come. [/b]
i can say it has not effected my day to day life as well. explain how it has effected you? minus just bitching about it.. [/b]
The money spent on this war has contributed to what is maybe the largest deficit in history (don't know for sure check the facts if you like). In any case, any deficit devalues the dollar, causes inflation. Obviously this effects you, unless you live your life inside the song "Imagine" by John Lennon.
Not to mention the fact that this conflict or war or whatever has destabilized the region where we get most of our oil....no doubt this hasn't helped oil prices, which everyone knows trickle down to everything we buy. [/b]
you can borrow some money from me if you need it in these tough times... [/b]
Wow impressive response. [/b]
Jeez I should have known GGW would show up with all his facts and proceed to blow up every thing I say.
I see what you're saying, and that's cool and fine. My only point is that this whole thing is having a negative effect on the economy here - I don't think that can be argued. That effects most of us I would think in one way or another, unless your wealthly, which maybe some of us here are. I'm not.
-
In Cartoons there is often a moment when a hapless character, having galloped over a cliff, is still unaware of the fact and hangs suspended in the air, legs pumping wildly, until realisation dawns, gravity intervenes and downfall ensues. Hillary Clinton's campaign looks a bit like that this week. (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11332147)
<img src="http://www.economist.com/images/20080510/20080510issuecovUS400.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc)
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
This isn't a supply driven price spike, it is a demand driven one.
While I agree with most of what you said, I think you may underscore the effect of the supply side just a bit:
Iran rumor pushes oil to new record, gas jumps above $3.73 (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D90KRLCG1.htm)
-
I won't dispute that supply constraints have an effect, but they tend to be shorter term drivers. Next week Brazil will confirm their estimates of the reserves of the newly-discovered third largest oil field in the world and the price of a barrel will drop a few dollars. But as an avid reader of the Economist, I'm sure you are well versed on the huge demand influence of the Asian boom.
<img src="http://media.economist.com/images/20080315/CSR786.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Hillary needs to stay in the race in order to re-pay herself the $11 million she loaned her campaign.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=as5a58KS7ky8 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=as5a58KS7ky8)
<img src="http://www.luckypennyproductions.net/vondada/images/bitch.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
But as an avid reader of the Economist, I'm sure you are well versed on the huge demand influence of the Asian boom.
Don't get me wrong, increase in the demand side between India and China alone are easily 75% (if not more) of the driving force behind the rising cost of fuel, but the way you laid out your argument made it seem as though the supply side was insubstantial, and I don't believe it is.
There's a good debate to be had as to whether or not it should be, but I think there's a hinkering of old time thinkers out there who still think that OPEC is out to get us and jump on these rumors like flies on stink. They shouldn't, but they do, and all I was saying is that is has a substantial effect on the market price. Not the driving force, but a good deal of effect.
-
<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2417/2485200237_c087152189_o.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
I wonder if Hillary sleeps well at night knowing she's made herself into the candidate of racists and slackjaws...
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/johnscady/redneck001.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Yeah, like not a single Obama supporter is racist or slackjawed. You're the biggest stereotyping douche on this board.
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
I wonder if Hillary sleeps well at night knowing she's made herself into the candidate of racists and slackjaws...
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/johnscady/redneck001.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
I wonder if Obama sleeps well at night knowing he's made himself into the candidate of racists and slackjaws...
<img src="http://www.ricenpeas.com/Images/Europe/Lee%20Jasper.jpg" alt=" - " />
I wonder, but I'm sure Reverand Wright counsels him if not....