2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Paul McEnery]

I dunno about autism, but I'd be quite happy if someone came up with a pill to remove my dyspraxia - there's nothing special about being unable to grasp simple body language or personal space, thereby making it a slog to not come off as a twat in social situations with strangers, at job interviews et al.

That's true.

That would be why the Autistic Spectrum thing is offensive; dyspraxia's in the same box as being born with a limb missing; but Autistic Spectrum just means you've got specialized cognition -- as indeed everyone does. True enough, some of it is so bad that it becomes a real problem, but the Spectrum smears all the way into "normal".

[TCJohnson]

But the rules are the rules.

Seriously.

And it's certainly nothing new for Chicago politics to question the signatures.

Perhaps, but Obama is the one who is talking about a change in polotics.

[Nick Soapdish]

I think you're being very...optimistic? Trusting?

There's no indication that Obama even considered it a political problem until Wright's speech hit the fan. He's been trumpeting his book as a blueprint for how people should go forward and he took that phrase from Wright. I hardly think that means he was giving right the benefit of the doubt, as you put it.

It looks to me like Obama was a member of the congregation in good standing, realized that Wright could go a little overboard but, given the history of treatment in this country of African-Americans, that Wright had good cause. And that, anyway, whatever Wright said in his sermons, Wright's actions as the pastor of a church that did so much for the poor and black community in Chicago more than overrode any speeches that some whites might find a little too much. (And, btw, I don't have any problems with Wright at all.)

But when Wright video hit the fan, Obama tried to explain. And he did a good job.


I agree with all of this part.


But apparently, he and his advisers think that didn't go far enough and they had some evidence that this was true--witness Clinton beating him in Pennsylvania. And then Wright refused to play sacrifice and fall on his sword, so the hue and cry went up for Obama to completely and utterly disassociate himself from them.

Then Obama looked at the political landscape, decided it was better for his political future in the long term to throw his old church under the bus, and did so.

Audacity of Hope, indeed.

But here's where I start seeing things differently. To me, it looks like Wright was trying to push him. I'm almost tempted to say that Wright did fall on his sword by giving Obama an easy choice to leave the church.

Wright wouldn't have had to play sacrifice and could've just stuck with saying that he believed what he said, etc. But he took shots at Obama instead.

I'm not sure if leaving the church is best for Obama because it does look like a political decision (which it may be). But I think it's the best for the church because it removes them from the magnifying glass.

[KevinTBrown]

Perhaps, but Obama is the one who is talking about a change in polotics.
Which would mean playing by the rules.

Something Clinton is trying hard to not do........

:biggrin:

[Crowley]

Then Obama looked at the political landscape, decided it was better for his political future in the long term to throw his old church under the bus, and did so.

Audacity of Hope, indeed.
I don't agree.
I think he stuck by that church and defended that church ALOT.

But I think he realized the news cycle would keep selling the same bullshit around that church and the campaign would become about that church and not the issues and he decided to leave.

I think that's a perfectly logical decision. He didn't throw the church under the bus... the church dove under the bus.

[KevinTBrown]

I rather like this pic:

http://images.cafepress.com/image/19391508_400x400.jpg

[Corrina]

I think that's exactly the kind of logo that the Republicans will point to and say "he's out of touch, he's got some stupid liberal elitist idea of the world and you'll be back to President Carter."

The peace sign isn't universally loved, sadly. And it tends to represent a ton of anti-establishment stuff that I think Obama doesn't want to emphasize right now.

Btw, big article in the paper this morning about Clinton looking like she'll concede today or later this week. I'm glad she ran.

[Stressfactor]

I'm glad she ran.

Like I said, no matter what, the American people made a win this year by having a woman and a black man as contenders.

And, while I know there were some sexist remarks made about Clinton during the run I don't think things ever reached the kind of levels things reached with Geraldine Ferraro. My parents listed to a lot of AM Talk Radio when I was a kid (because our car only had an AM radio) and I remember some IDIOT seriously saying 'Well, what if Mondale dies and Ferraro takes over the Presidency? Do you really want a person who gets PMS having her finger on the button?'

I may have only been about 12 but even I understood how offensive something like that was... and that guy on the radio wasn't the ONLY person I heard stuff like that from. At least Hillary didn't have to put up with THAT level of crap.

[jesse_custer]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/election.democrats/index.html

Looks like this contest will be over.

[KevinTBrown]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/election.democrats/index.html

Looks like this contest will be over.

Of course she's not going to concede, even once Obama has the required 2,118. She'll be looking for an angle of some sort.

Hell, I wonder if she'll ever officially concede. Even after the general election.

[the4thpip]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/election.democrats/index.html

Looks like this contest will be over.

Her people issued a denial.

[Ninja Kris]

Her people issued a denial.

Hillary has been in denial for so long.

Suppose that is fitting.

[KevinTBrown]

Well, no denying this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp

NOW it's officially over.

[OzBat!]

At least Hillary didn't have to put up with THAT level of crap.Of course not... she'd have to be menopausal by now, wouldn't she??

DUCK AND COVER!! RUN AWAY!! :biggrin:

[Sabrinaset]

Of course not... she'd have to be menopausal by now, wouldn't she??

DUCK AND COVER!! RUN AWAY!! :biggrin:

Oh, I think the last train left the station a looooong time ago ... http://www.msnpro.com/emoticons/hellokitty/giggle.gif

[Cam63]

Obie... John, we want a good, clean fight and may the best man win.

[kingdom2000]

Here is a sentence thought wouldn't see just a few months ago:

Barack Obama is the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States.

Welcome to history. Drink it in for a moment. Then the battle begins anew.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Here is a sentence thought wouldn't see just a few months ago:

Barack Obama is the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States.

Welcome to history. Drink it in for a moment. Then the battle begins anew.

I've been watching CNN all night. Awesome, inspiring, bullshit-free speech, and I haven't been happier with a presidential candidate since--well, ever.

[section 8]

and so It begins what ever happens happens

[Paul McEnery]

Here is a sentence thought wouldn't see just a few months ago:

Barack Obama is the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States.

Welcome to history. Drink it in for a moment. Then the battle begins anew.

Speak for yourself. I called this one right from the second state.

Although more along the lines of: oh my God, Hillary has already lost.

[KevinTBrown]

Speak for yourself. I called this one right from the second state.

Although more along the lines of: oh my God, Hillary has already lost.

I say from this point forward we just ignore Hillary and just focus on the 2 candidates running for President now.

[Crowley]

I've been watching CNN all night. Awesome, inspiring, bullshit-free speech, and I haven't been happier with a presidential candidate since--well, ever.

agreed.

in related news... that nut Harriet Christian was on Fox News.

[Sabrinaset]

agreed.

in related news... that nut Harriet Christian was on Fox News.

Here it is! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5unWHvq9ysI)

Ah, the entertainment value this woman has is priceless! I mean sure, I don't know how Geraldine Ferraro made herself over like that, but still ...

[KevinTBrown]

Here it is! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5unWHvq9ysI)

Ah, the entertainment value this woman has is priceless! I mean sure, I don't know how Geraldine Ferraro made herself over like that, but still ...

Oh yeah, she's a racist..... :rolleyes:

[Sabrinaset]

Oh yeah, she's a racist..... :rolleyes:

Tell you what, Kevin ... you go out there and call Obama an "Inadequate Black man," and we'll see how long you last, kay?

[KevinTBrown]

Tell you what, Kevin ... you go out there and call Obama an "Inadequate Black man," and we'll see how long you last, kay?

You misinterpreted what I said, Bree.

I was calling her a racist.

[Paul McEnery]

You misinterpreted what I said, Bree.

I was calling her a racist.

I am racist against the blue faces. They sow dissent.

[Sabrinaset]

You misinterpreted what I said, Bree.

I was calling her a racist.

The rolling eyes at the end made it kinda unclear what your intent was there ...

I am racist against the blue faces. They sow dissent.

What do you have against Blue Man Group?

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2007/09/16-22/Blue-Man-Group.jpg

[Infra-Man]

agreed.

in related news... that nut Harriet Christian was on Fox News.

For some reason, her myopic view of the election and utter silliness reminds me of this...

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/4130/news198vh7.jpg

[Sabrinaset]

http://www.cagle.com/working/080603/crowe.jpg

[Briareos]

John McCain exposes the stupidity of Obama's foreign policy:

The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program. And the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history. In reality, a series of administrations have tried to talk to Iran, and none tried harder than the Clinton administration. In 1998, the secretary of state made a public overture to the Iranians, laid out a roadmap to normal relations, and for two years tried to engage. The Clinton administration even lifted some sanctions, and Secretary Albright apologized for American actions going back to the 1950s. But even under President Khatami -- a man by all accounts less radical than the current president -- Iran rejected these overtures.
Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it's hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.

[Adam C]

The Clinton administration even lifted some sanctions, and Secretary Albright apologized for American actions going back to the 1950s. But even under President Khatami -- a man by all accounts less radical than the current president -- Iran rejected these overtures.
Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it's hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust...

Still labouring under the delusion that Iranian president actually controls foreign policy or the nuclear program are we John? And after your gaffe was corrected during a television interview no less.

[rick]

John McCain exposes the stupidity of Obama's foreign policy:


So this weeks smear on Obama is about foreign policy eh?

Can I assume that you all will be back to pushing the “Crazy Nigger” meme next week?

Since Sen. Obama has not called for open talks with Iran, and the suggestion that he has is in fact a Republican talking point based on a great deal of supposition on their part expanded from the Senators stated willingness to use diplomacy including face to face meetings as called for, there really isn’t too much to your statement other then your normal pile of hooey.

It must be just galling the hell out of you that the chubby little weasels at the RNC can’t manage to come up with anything real on Obama.

Still, the lies are at least colorful, even if unbelievable.

[PatrickG]

John McCain exposes the stupidity of Obama's foreign policy:

Do you honestly think there's ANY sense in not meeting with the leaders of a hostile regime, Bri?

I'm not even sure it's diplomacy if it isn't the enemy that you're meeting with.

And if we don't meet with our enemies before fighting them, then we're saying we oppose the very idea of diplomacy.

[Paul McEnery]

John McCain exposes the stupidity of his own foreign policy:

Fixed it for you.

[the4thpip]

John McCain exposes the stupidity of Obama's foreign policy:

Actually, my own foreign minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank-Walter_Steinmeier), who I'm sure has been right about more global issues than McCain, had a long phone conversation with Obama recently and was very impressed by his knowledge and attitudes.

[Tages]

Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.

No, you stupid shit, saber-rattling foreign governments strengthens the hardliners' position to crack down on moderates and dissidents.

I'd ask if McCrazypants gets his foreign policy ideas from watching John Wayne movies, but I like John Wayne too much. Instead, I'll ask if he gets them from Joe Don Baker movies.

[Charles RB]

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7434791.stm) is reporting that Hilary has still refused to concede defeat.

He also may give her a role in his government, or so he's hinted - I presume this is to calm the "RARRR I VOTE MCCAIN NOW!" hardcore Hillary supporters.

[KevinTBrown]

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama currently has 2,151 delegates. So Clinton just lost any hope of an argument about the MI delegates. She can have those 29.5 delegates if she wants, Obama would still be past the 2,118.

[Corrina]

Look, I don't think she's being very gracious (not gracious at all...), but she's earned the right to have some say in what the Democrats do next by gathering as many votes as she did.

And you can be damn sure if the positions were reversed, Obama would be asking for something for his supporters/voters/backers.

The race was won by a razor thin margin. Won fair & square but it was so close that surely, at least, Clinton's supporters should have some say in the party platform and other policy positions and, yes, maybe some of them should get some cabinet slots. Don't know if Hillary or Bill would work, though I think sticking him as U.N. Ambassador might work. He'd be good at it. But the potential for Bill to cause controversy is pretty damn high. And I think H. Clinton wouldn't take a cabinet post.

Though I think Obama would be a lot more gracious and smooth about leverage his support.

Btw, I am very wary of the Vanity Fair article about Bill Clinton. Why? Because the defense by the journalist is "well, we just wrote down what people said, we're not saying it actually happened."

That ain't a proper defense. A proper defense is "we heard rumors from staffers and we did some checking with other sources, and we found enough smoke (i.e. substantiation) to include it in the article."

The defense, though, is that 'well, we just wrote it down, it's not like we double-checked it our tried to substantiate it or anything, and we're not saying he *is* angry or cheating, just that some people say he is..."

I spit on your journalism, Vanity Fair.

[Charles RB]

it was so close that surely, at least, Clinton's supporters should have some say in the party platform and other policy positions and, yes, maybe some of them should get some cabinet slots. Don't know if Hillary or Bill would work

I would've thought Hillary would be a bad choice simply because, based on the race, I can't see her working well in a position under him. Hiring some of her team into his cabinet would make sense though.

[Cam63]

I'm sorry for you Hill, but your tribe has spoken.

[Cam63]

PS. I've always had an uneasy feeling about her.

[CutterMike]

http://www.cagle.com/working/080603/crowe.jpg
Y'know, that was roughly MY thought when folks started mentioning Hillary for VP, particularly after the "Robert Kennedy in June" hoohah. I realize that I'm (probably) being unfair, but I would never trust her enough to put her in a position where "over my dead body" becomes an option.

But maybe that's just me.


Actually, my own foreign minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank-Walter_Steinmeier), who I'm sure has been right about more global issues than McCain, had a long phone conversation with Obama recently and was very impressed by his knowledge and attitudes.
Oh, man... I've always wanted one of those, but I've always rented an apartment and I've been told that they need a lot of room,

Do they cost a lot to feed? :biggrin:

[the4thpip]

Oh, man... I've always wanted one of those, but I've always rented an apartment and I've been told that they need a lot of room,

Do they cost a lot to feed? :biggrin:

Never, ever feed them after midnight. It won't be pretty.

http://www.needlenose.com/images/MeanCondi.jpg

[Cam63]

Never, ever feed them after midnight. It won't be pretty.

http://www.needlenose.com/images/MeanCondi.jpg

No one can do the stink eye quite like the Condi.

[Infra-Man]

John McCain exposes the stupidity of Obama's foreign policy:

Recent Gallup poll shows a majority of Americans (at least in this poll) are fine with the so-called "stupidity of Obama's foreign policy"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/02/poll-majority-of-americans-agree-with-obamas-iran-approach/

Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, targeted Sen. Barack Obama again Monday over the Illinois senator’s approach to Iran and the Middle East.

But a new poll released by Gallup Monday suggests McCain may be out of step with the majority of Americans when it comes to U.S.-Iranian relations. Fifty-nine percent of Americans surveyed thought it was a good idea for the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran. When Iran is taken out of the equation, an even higher percentage – 67 percent – responded that they thought it would be a good idea for the president to meet with leaders of countries considered enemies of the United States.

Of the three remaining major presidential candidates, only Sen. Barack Obama has said he would meet personally with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leaders of other countries regarded as enemies of the United States by the Bush administration.

The Gallup survey was conducted May 19-21 and based on telephone interviews of 1,013 adults nationally. It has an overall margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

[Buzz Dixon]

Found this by way of Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0hV-_c42y8

[darkhanamaru]

And you can be damn sure if the positions were reversed, Obama would be asking for something for his supporters/voters/backers.

The race was won by a razor thin margin. Won fair & square but it was so close that surely, at least, Clinton's supporters should have some say in the party platform and other policy positions and, yes, maybe some of them should get some cabinet slots.

To an extent yes I agree with you except that she has lost a lot of her early support in the mean time because of her and in some cases, Bill's actions. He doesn't have to listen to her as much because she screwed up/


Btw, I am very wary of the Vanity Fair article about Bill Clinton. Why? Because the defense by the journalist is "well, we just wrote down what people said, we're not saying it actually happened."

That ain't a proper defense. A proper defense is "we heard rumors from staffers and we did some checking with other sources, and we found enough smoke (i.e. substantiation) to include it in the article."

The defense, though, is that 'well, we just wrote it down, it's not like we double-checked it our tried to substantiate it or anything, and we're not saying he *is* angry or cheating, just that some people say he is..."

I spit on your journalism, Vanity Fair.

Vanity fair is journalism? People still think of it as such? I have never thought of it as more than a glossy gossip girl but I think the article was interesting nonetheless because, let's face it, something has gone wrong with Bill.

[Buzz Dixon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcNRP-y48vQ&feature=related

Oh What a Circus

Oh what a circus, oh what a show
Argentina has gone to town
Over the death of an actress called Eva Peron
We've all gone crazy
Mourning all day and mourning all night
Falling over ourselves to get all of the misery right

Oh what an exit, that's how to go
When they're ringing your curtain down
Demand to be buried like Eva Peron
It's quite a sunset
And good for the country in a roundabout way
We've made the front page of all the world's papers today

But who is this Santa Evita?
Why all this howling, hysterical sorrow?
What kind of goddess has lived among us?
How will we ever get by without her?

She had her moments, she had some style
The best show in town was the crowd
Outside the Casa Rosada crying, "Eva Peron"
But that's all gone now
As soon as the smoke from the funeral clears
We're all gonna see and how, she did nothing for years

You let down your people Evita
You were supposed to have been immortal
That's all they wanted, not much to ask for
But in the end you could not deliver

Sing you fools, but you got it wrong
Enjoy your prayers because you haven't got long
Your queen is dead, your king is through
And she's not coming back to you

Show business kept us all alive
Since seventeen October 1945
But the star has gone, the glamour's worn thin
That's a pretty bad state for a state to be in

Instead of government we had a stage
Instead of ideas, a prima donna's rage
Instead of help we were given a crowd
She didn't say much, but she said it loud

Sing you fools, but you got it wrong
Enjoy your prayers because you haven't got long
Your queen is dead, your king is through
She's not coming back to you

-- by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber

[Corrina]

Nothing's wrong will Bill except that he hates losing.

[Paul McEnery]

Nothing's wrong will Bill except that he hates losing.

A statement that is substantially less supported than the Vanity Fair one.

[K-DoG7p7]

Never, ever feed them after midnight. It won't be pretty.

http://www.needlenose.com/images/MeanCondi.jpg

if you do... she will turn into.... THIS!!

http://www.reachingtruth.com/images/CRoiltanker.jpg

[Corrina]

Oh, I think there's plenty of evidence that Bill hates losing.

And even if there weren't, I'm not getting paid to be a journalist and write an article. None of us here, are. It's not like I hold opinions here to any journalistic standard. (well, what used to be a standard and is now practically non-existent but still....)

[Paul McEnery]

Oh, I think there's plenty of evidence that Bill hates losing.

And even if there weren't, I'm not getting paid to be a journalist and write an article. None of us here, are. It's not like I hold opinions here to any journalistic standard. (well, what used to be a standard and is now practically non-existent but still....)

No, but seriously.

You've got no basis for your opinion at all, but the journos do. And for that matter, I'm pretty much down with the idea that major surgery can have an affect on your personality. And if that's what's being reported -- okay, gossiped about -- in good faith, I've got no good reason to doubt it.

[LtMarvel]

John McCain exposes the stupidity of Obama's foreign policy:
I guess we need to help John McCain out.

Once upon a time a President named three countries "evil." He even called them the "Axis of Evil." To show what the president thought of this Axis, he took the weakest one and invaded and overthrough the government.

What could the other two countries do? They started a nuclear weapons program in order to defend themselves. Fortunately, getting nuclear weapons is a long and difficult process. Also, whatever the US President's original plans, it has also become clear that the US could not invade and overthrow the other two countries without exceptional cost to the US.

[Corrina]

No basis is going a little far.

There's plenty of objective evidence that both Clintons hate to lose elections.

First, he ran for governor of Arkansas while very young and won. Then they kicked him out after his first term. A lot of that had to do with his 'newfangled, feminist' wife.

A lot of people would have chucked it at that point and gone for some big corporate job or something. They didn't.

He ran again & won. This time, she wasn't Hilary Rodham, she was Hilary Clinton and she made the effort to look like a political wife. And Bill changed a bit too, because he wanted back in.

And when their campaign was going down the toilet because of Gennifer Flowers, Clinton didn't fold, he went on national television and gave an interview defending himself. Other men might have saved themselves & their families the embarrassment. Not Bill. He wanted to stay in the race, to win.

There's a long list of things that Bill's done that points to the fact that he hates to lose. Hell, there's a long list of things that most politicians have done to win. It's no great stretch to say he hates to lose and extrapolate his anger about his wife's campaign going to that lifelong trait.

No doubt that the operation changed him, as it would change any person. But it's as much as stretch to say his anger is from it as what I'm saying. From what I can read of the Vanity Fair article, they're just saying that he's angrier. But he always showed flashes on temper on campaign. Hilary was known as the one who calmed him and kept him on task and on schedule.

As for the women, they've got nothing more than maybe Clinton liked being around them and no evidence of anything else. One of the actresses, Gina Gershon, was already calling for a retraction for the implication that she was involved with him.

And I'm shocked, shocked! that Bill Clinton might like to flirt with attractive women in public.Wow. There's a headline.

[KevinTBrown]

So who are the strong VP choices for each candidate?

For Obama I think it's either Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius or Ohio Governor Ted Strickland.

For McCain, Mitt Romney keeps popping up.... but what about Condoleeza Rice?

[Corrina]

There's also talk of Virginia's Jim Webb, who has military credentials. He might be a bit too hot-headed for a national campaign. But maybe not. Maybe he's the real Straight Talk Express.

[Briareos]

I guess we need to help John McCain out.

Once upon a time a President named three countries "evil." He even called them the "Axis of Evil." To show what the president thought of this Axis, he took the weakest one and invaded and overthrough the government.

What could the other two countries do? They started a nuclear weapons program in order to defend themselves. Fortunately, getting nuclear weapons is a long and difficult process. Also, whatever the US President's original plans, it has also become clear that the US could not invade and overthrow the other two countries without exceptional cost to the US.

That's a lie. North Korea and Iran both had nuke programs going well before Bush became president. There is no possible way that North Korea could have progressed as far as it had when we found out about it unless it started in the mid 90's.

[LtMarvel]

The Kansas govenor would be a terrible choice. She from a state that will likely go GOP no matter who is on the ticket. And there just isn't enough electoral votes in Kansas...

The Ohio govenor makes sense.

Rice has too much Bush baggage. If he chooses her, McCain is conceding that his is a candacy for a third Bush term.

[LtMarvel]

Whatever North Korea and Iran had going was definitely stepped up after we invaded Iraq. And if you try to look at it from their perspective: did either country have a better option to deter the US?

[Briareos]

No, you stupid shit, saber-rattling foreign governments strengthens the hardliners' position to crack down on moderates and dissidents.

I'd ask if McCrazypants gets his foreign policy ideas from watching John Wayne movies, but I like John Wayne too much. Instead, I'll ask if he gets them from Joe Don Baker movies.

You obviously didn't read it did you?

[KevinTBrown]

The Kansas govenor would be a terrible choice. She from a state that will likely go GOP no matter who is on the ticket. And there just isn't enough electoral votes in Kansas...

The Ohio govenor makes sense.

Rice has too much Bush baggage. If he chooses her, McCain is conceding that his is a candacy for a third Bush term.

Perhaps.... But her father is a former governor of Ohio and is much beloved there as well as by the surrounding states.

[KevinTBrown]

This is cool:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/frontpages.jpg

[Briareos]

Ok for everyone who is still dumb enough to believe that North Korea got nukes because of something Bush said or did:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04EFDF153DF934A25753C1A9649C8B 63

Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear-weapons development program for the past several years

the government of Kim Jong Il began in the mid- or late-1990's a secret, parallel program to produce weapons-grade material from highly enriched uranium.

[Briareos]

Perhaps.... But her father is a former governor of Ohio and is much beloved there as well as by the surrounding states.

She's also invovled in a scandel to cover up crimes commited by Planned Parenthood.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

And I'm shocked, shocked! that Bill Clinton might like to flirt with attractive women in public.Wow. There's a headline.

That pissed Dazz the hell off.

Mostly, 'cause he wants Bill to flirt with him.

[Dazzler]

That pissed Dazz the hell off.

Mostly, 'cause he wants Bill to flirt with him.

Yes, I spent YEARS hating Monica Lewinski for going places I have never been, and I don't mean Lincoln's bedroom.

Well, actually, maybe I DO.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

This is cool:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/frontpages.jpg

That IS cool!

That the coolest toilet paper I've ever SEEN!

--Dazz

[Briareos]

Of course the left want us to believe the man too scared to face Brit Hume can somehow stand up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...

[Paul McEnery]

That pissed Dazz the hell off.

Mostly, 'cause he wants Bill to flirt with him.

Me too.

But because I want Gina Gershon.

And don't we all?

[Paul McEnery]

Of course the left want us to believe the man too scared to face Brit Hume can somehow stand up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...

So tell us, Bri. You've banged out the standard old nonsense on all the issues, so now that's off your chest, what's your real problem with Obama?

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, I spent YEARS hating Monica Lewinski for going places I have never been, and I don't mean Lincoln's bedroom.

Well, actually, maybe I DO.

--Dazz

And for me, after compromising her dignity in absolutely every other way imaginable, you'd have thought she could have at least done a Playboy spread for us peasants.

[Sabrinaset]

And for me, after compromising her dignity in absolutely every other way imaginable, you'd have thought she could have at least done a Playboy spread for us peasants.

It's hard to tell which was the bigger embarrassment ... helping turn the White House into the Red-Light District, or being a spokeswoman for Jenny Craig.

[Paul McEnery]

It's hard to tell which was the bigger embarrassment ... helping turn the White House into the Red-Light District, or being a spokeswoman for Jenny Craig.

No, that's pretty easy, I think.

BTW, what did you reckon to the big speech last night? I'm curious to see how moving it was if people aren't so on team, or whether the powerpoint presentation was implausible, or whether the "take the fight to the enemy" strategy worked.

[Sabrinaset]

I'm curious to see how moving it was if people aren't so on team, .


Paul, when I've said multiple times I'm voting for Obama, and the only thing that will throw me off is anything we learn that comes as a surprise at the debates, then just what exactly IS your definition of being on team...? Does on team = true believing blind follower here...?

[Paul McEnery]

Paul, when I've said multiple times I'm voting for Obama, and the only thing that will throw me off is anything we learn that comes as a surprise at the debates, then just what exactly IS your definition of being on team...? Does on team = true believing blind follower here...?

That's what I meant, yeah.

Unless you're all Road to Damascus about the man and want to have his babies all of a sudden.

[darkhanamaru]

And for me, after compromising her dignity in absolutely every other way imaginable, you'd have thought she could have at least done a Playboy spread for us peasants.

she did Vanity Fair nude. close enough.

[Sabrinaset]

That's what I meant, yeah.

Unless you're all Road to Damascus about the man and want to have his babies all of a sudden.

I'm NOT a fanatical true believing blind follower (there's a few of those at work, though) , nor do I want to have his kids. Right now, he just seems better than McCain is all to me. Although, if he makes Hillary his veep ... *shudder*

[Tages]

You obviously didn't read it did you?

Read what?

"Talking to the President of Iran (who of course occupies a ceremonial position with little actual power, but nevermind, I'm assuming you're too stupid to know that) will only give him a podium to talk crazily and that will, somehow, disenfranchise Iranian moderates and dissidents, moreso than they presumably already have been over the past few years of him saying the exact same things over and over."

Basically, the unsaid implication is that treating Iran like a threat will somehow reduce the threat and embolden those dissidents and moderates, despite that just about every historical example you'd care to name shows that acting this way just means the hardliners dig in their heels and take it out on said ds and ms by accusing them of being in league with the hated enemy. So McCain is Marge Simpson and Iran is Nelson Muntz:

"Nelson's a troubled, lonely, sad little boy. He needs to be isolated and shunned by everyone."

There's also the cretinous "Holocaust" comment. I can shout that Iran has a prosperous Jewish community that Ahmedinejad has expressed no desire to exterminate, one that in fact has a representative in their national legislative body (which also, you should note, has Christian and Zoroastrian representatives), until I'm blue in the face, and tribalists like yourself will continue to plug your ears and sing.

[Michael P]

Doesn't *everyone* hate to lose?

[Corrina]

Well, sure, everybody probably hates to lose.

It's what they're willing to do to win that's the key.

[Paul McEnery]

she did Vanity Fair nude. close enough.

Nowhere near nude enough.

And beside, we expect our political strumpets to take Hefner's money. It's traditional!

[Corrina]

Me too.

But because I want Gina Gershon.

And don't we all?

I'm on board with that. It *is* Gina Gershon, after all.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm NOT a fanatical true believing blind follower (there's a few of those at work, though) , nor do I want to have his kids. Right now, he just seems better than McCain is all to me. Although, if he makes Hillary his veep ... *shudder*

This is all the position of sanity. Which is why I'm interested as to how you felt the speech worked for him. Because there were a couple of areas of doubt in my mind, but I want to see what everyone else thinks first before I open my big flapping gob.

[KevinTBrown]

I'm NOT a fanatical true believing blind follower (there's a few of those at work, though) , nor do I want to have his kids. Right now, he just seems better than McCain is all to me. Although, if he makes Hillary his veep ... *shudder*

I don't think that'll happen. Bill Clinton would need to stop giving speeches for money if his wife becomes VP....... The same thing if she became President, but I don't think he would have minded much then.

So you see that happening? :wink:

[Paul McEnery]

I don't think that'll happen. Bill Clinton would need to stop giving speeches for money if his wife becomes VP....... The same thing if she became President, but I don't think he would have minded much then.

So you see that happening? :wink:

It's just occured to me that there's one more reason Hillary's digging her heels in.

For decades, she's had to play the good wife role, second banana to the real political brains, and all because women aren't taken as seriously as men. And now she's got her own career, and people still think Bill when they hear Clinton. And finally she might have been able to step out of the shadow, and say, yeah, I'm his equal, dammit.

It's the political equivalent of demanding the car keys, "I can drive as good as you, I can drive better!", and then putting the car in the ditch.

[kingdom2000]

She is digging in her heels because she could. She wanted one last grasp at the Presidency..by becoming VP. Typically, a party honors the VP when he/she chooses to run by not allowing anyone else to compete for the nomination. So in 4-8 years she would have had a chance to make an uncontested run at the Presidency, for a year plus head start on the Republicans. That is not a small thing to sneeze at and not something you just toss away to please the press and public that will forget about it in a few weeks.

The other reason more is simplistic, the victory for Obama was unofficial. The various networks where doing some behind the scenes hoops and calls to see who the superdelegates where voting for and none of them had a consistent number. I guarantee she and her staff spent the last day verifying that she would not have the delegate count and could not convert any to her side to reduce Obama's. Probably a lost cause (since the press pretty much annoited Obama the winner) but again something to do just in case.

Personally I like that never say die attitude. The republicans have it (ironic since they keep attacking Clinton for displaying it). To bad the Dems didn't have it back in 2000.

[rick]

Of course the left want us to believe the man too scared to face Brit Hume can somehow stand up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...


I guess that maybe he finds Ahmadinejad to be somewhat less of a dogmatic asshole than he does Hume. :rolleyes:

[rick]

That IS cool!

That the coolest toilet paper I've ever SEEN!

--Dazz


Not taking the loss that well now are you?

[KevinTBrown]

She's also invovled in a scandel to cover up crimes commited by Planned Parenthood.
Lies.

Former Attorney General Paul Morrison is the one involved, and he's since resigned.

Blaming Sebelius for that is like blaming Hillary for Bill's getting blowjobs in the oval office.

[Michael P]

Lies.

Former Attorney General Paul Morrison is the one involved, and he's since resigned.

Blaming Sebelius for that is like blaming Hillary for Bill's getting blowjobs in the oval office.

Of course, some people did just that.

[Briareos]

Lies.

Former Attorney General Paul Morrison is the one involved, and he's since resigned.

Blaming Sebelius for that is like blaming Hillary for Bill's getting blowjobs in the oval office.

I'm not just refering to that. She also has been shown to be deeply connected to infamous abortion provider Tiller. She also is connected to laundering money from abortion providers to the campiagn coffers of state Democrats.

[Briareos]

So tell us, Bri. You've banged out the standard old nonsense on all the issues, so now that's off your chest, what's your real problem with Obama?

He's completely unqualified for the position. He's stated policies that would destroy our economy and put our country at risk. He's a walking gaffe machine. Let's face it if he were white his running for president would be considered a running joke. The only reason he's in the senate in the first place is because of seven of nine for gods sakes....

[Adam C]

He's completely unqualified for the position. He's stated policies that would destroy our economy and put our country at risk. He's a walking gaffe machine.

Soooo...why do you want to vote for John McCain again?

[Dazzler]

Not taking the loss that well now are you?

Nope. I wouldn't vote for him if someone paid me.

The thought of voting third party makes it a little better, though.

--Dazz

[Michael P]

He's completely unqualified for the position. He's stated policies that would destroy our economy and put our country at risk. He's a walking gaffe machine.

He said "Obama," not "Ron Paul."

[LtMarvel]

He's completely unqualified for the position. He's stated policies that would destroy our economy and put our country at risk. He's a walking gaffe machine. Let's face it if he were white his running for president would be considered a running joke.
Obama 2008 is no Bush of 2000, sir.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

I'm curious--besides that Harriet nutter, are the moderate Dems who supported Hillary, and say there is no way they'll vote for Obama (arguably overrepresented by the cable news media) honestly stupid enough to vote for McCain? It's like some racist 'lowest common denominator' revolution in the Democratic Party...If you actually listen to Obama's talking points, they're not substantially different than Hillary's--but perhaps leaning more towards Nader on social/economic issues, and slightly towards Jimmy Carter on common-sense diplomacy--besides being vociferously open about his disdain of the lobby culture/entrenched corporatism in Washington..

'Experience (the opposition's catchword)' in Washington has become a euphemism for 'Sell-Out', IMO.

They've already got a political party for status quo-loving, mildly retarded racists.:tongue:

I hope Obama picks a woman as VP--just not that woman.

[OzBat!]

I hope Obama picks a woman as VP--just not that woman.I didn't realise Monica was running as a candidate?

[Dazzler]

Ah yes, can't dislike Obama without being a racist. :rolleyes:

But that IS just something a misogynist would say, now isn't it?

--Dazz

[kingdom2000]

He's completely unqualified for the position. He's stated policies that would destroy our economy and put our country at risk. He's a walking gaffe machine. Let's face it if he were white his running for president would be considered a running joke. The only reason he's in the senate in the first place is because of seven of nine for gods sakes....

LMAO! When I read that I was thinking "Why is Bri talking about Bush like that?"

[Kevinroc]

Ah yes, can't dislike Obama without being a racist. :rolleyes:

But that IS just something a misogynist would say, now isn't it?

--Dazz

I went back and forth on Clinton many times over the primary. Part of me felt sorry for her and recognized the rampant sexism that came out. And the other part of me absolutely hated her for the things that she did and for her trying to scare white people away from the "scary" black man.

And it is that polarizing reaction that is a big reason as to why she lost the nomination. When this campaign began, this thing practically belonged to her. In the end she lost to a first term senator.

The question is: Why?

And the simple answer is she ran a crappy campaign.

(Getting back to what pissed me off about her...

Nobody that voted to authorize the Iraq War should have pulled anything like that 3:00 AM ad.)

[rick]

Nope. I wouldn't vote for him if someone paid me.

The thought of voting third party makes it a little better, though.

--Dazz


Daz, I know you’re smart, so why in the world would you vote to hurt your own self-interest like that?

I have to say that it is fascinating to me, in that bird looking into the eyes of a cobra sense, that so many people would rather vote against their own best political interests, because one highly worthwhile candidate beat their highly worthwhile candidate in a political primary.

I’ve got news for you my friend, national political campaigns are rough business, and all you have to do is look at how George W Bush ran his campaign for the nomination in 2000 to see what mean-spirited attack politics really is. Because I’ve got to tell you that despite a tough and extremely close campaign, in my own opinion both the Clinton and Obama camps deserve real credit for keeping the attacks on each other to a minimum and to more or less base them on political issues and not personal attacks.

Of course there have been slips, gaffes and bad moments from both sides, but nothing along the lines of say the Swift Boat Veterans or that ilk. On the whole both camps acted like adults.

But in the end one side had to win it, and in this case it just wasn’t Senator Clinton.

So now you have a choice, a decision to make.

Do you do swallow the bile and support a candidate with a real chance of getting the office that believes in and supports almost every single thing that your candidate does? Or do you throw away your vote on some nonsensical third party run that on one extreme counts for absolutely nothing or on the other extreme helps to keep in office the people who have ruled this nation for the last eight years and who have done more to straight out destroy this country then any other administration in history?


Forgive my rudeness, but at a time when the constitution is in tatters, the nation is under a neo-dictatorship where you can be taken from your home without any due process and thrown into a military prison, where your most personal conversations can be recorded without even the benefit of a warrant, where in some cases you can be sentenced to death in front of a secret court, where civil rights are routinely trampled and our children are daily being led to slaughter in a foreign nation that we invaded, who the Hell are you to be that selfish with your vote?

It’s time to grow up Daz and recognize that politics is about compromise.

And I would say the same thing to an Obama supporter if Sen. Clinton had won.

Yep Hillary lost and isn’t even likely to get the VP nod, but that’s the way the people voted. It was damm close, but she just did not win it. Now it’s time to reconcile and unite behind the ticket, and it is certainly something you would want from Obama supporters if Clinton won.

In the end, you can go third party if it makes you feel better, but the truth is that in this election, if you don’t vote for the Democrats, then you might as well just cut out the middle man and vote for McCain, because if you don’t support the Democrat, McCain and the rest of the Republican Party is who you are voting for anyway.

[Michael P]

Daz, I know you’re smart, so why in the world would you vote to hurt your own self-interest like that?

He just hates his face so much, that nose has gotta go.

[Dazzler]

I went back and forth on Clinton many times over the primary. Part of me felt sorry for her and recognized the rampant sexism that came out. And the other part of me absolutely hated her for the things that she did and for her trying to scare white people away from the "scary" black man.
She did what now? And how do you figure that?
Even if it were the case, is it better than scaring white voters into voting for the black man or being branded a racist retard with a gun fetish and religious delusions? Boy, I can't imagine that NOT scaring a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals by pandering to exactly what they DON'T want to be.
I'm sorry, but everytime I've read anything about Hillary lately, the press and Obama have made a big deal out of Hillary's support base being "poor, white, older, and undereducated."
Well, I'm only one of those things out of four and I support her. Plus, after the Kentucky primary, I sat there and watched the newsperson on CNN say that the Appalachian people had unsurprisingly not voted for Obama "because they typically don't support minorities." Well, screw that. That's just a shitty thing to say. it couldn't POSSIBLY be because Hillary actually listened (or at the very least pretended to listen) to what the blue-collar mining families had to say, what their concerns were, and treated them like they mattered. Something Obama didn't even bother with because they were supposedly unimportant.


And it is that polarizing reaction that is a big reason as to why she lost the nomination. When this campaign began, this thing practically belonged to her. In the end she lost to a first term senator.

The question is: Why?
Easy. Liberal guilt and the promise of a dick in the white house.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

Daz, I know you’re smart, so why in the world would you vote to hurt your own self-interest like that?

Because I don't think he has my self-interests at heart? Because I think he's skeevy and basically doing a whole lot of empty promising? hell, it could be because I'm sick of his smug supporters.

It’s time to grow up Daz and recognize that politics is about compromise.
Oh please, rick. :rolleyes:

In the end, you can go third party if it makes you feel better, but the truth is that in this election, if you don’t vote for the Democrats, then you might as well just cut out the middle man and vote for McCain, because if you don’t support the Democrat, McCain and the rest of the Republican Party is who you are voting for anyway.
Well, if it weren't for his support of the continuation of the Iraq War, i WOULD vote McCain. I'm more on the conservative side of the spectrum anyway, at least economically if not socially.
Since I refuse to vote for Obama OR McCain, I'd just rather vote for someone who doesn't have a shot (and hey, they never WILL if people never voted for them out of fear and pressure) on the basis of principles than vote for someone who I think is bad just because everyone else says "do it or else."

--Dazz

[Kevinroc]

She did what now? And how do you figure that?
Even if it were the case, is it better than scaring white voters into voting for the black man or being branded a racist retard with a gun fetish and religious delusions? Boy, I can't imagine that NOT scaring a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals by pandering to exactly what they DON'T want to be.

Come on, Dazz, you're smarter than this and you know exactly what Obama was trying to say.

I'm sorry, but everytime I've read anything about Hillary lately, the press and Obama have made a big deal out of Hillary's support base being "poor, white, older, and undereducated."

Because that's essentially what Hillary said. "hard-working Americans, white Americans." Remember that?


Well, I'm only one of those things out of four and I support her. Plus, after the Kentucky primary, I sat there and watched the newsperson on CNN say that the Appalachian people had unsurprisingly not voted for Obama "because they typically don't support minorities." Well, screw that. That's just a shitty thing to say. it couldn't POSSIBLY be because Hillary actually listened (or at the very least pretended to listen) to what the blue-collar mining families had to say, what their concerns were, and treated them like they mattered. Something Obama didn't even bother with because they were supposedly unimportant.

Pretended to listen. Hillary pandered to the Appalachian people.

Easy. Liberal guilt and the promise of a dick in the white house.

--Dazz

Why is Obama a dick? Because he ran for president and won his party's nomination? Wait, I think I know. Dickipedia has an article about Obama.

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Barack_Obama

"It is important to note that Obama is not so much a dick by virtue of who he is, but rather by what he has chosen to involve himself in (e.g. presidential politics) and the resulting crowd it forces him to deal with (e.g. Joe Biden)."

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Ah yes, can't dislike Obama without being a racist. :rolleyes:

But that IS just something a misogynist would say, now isn't it?

--Dazz

I guess it would be, if I hated women...but I've never understood hatred at all.

I'm just grasping at straws here, but it seems like the new retard base of the Dems just don't want a black, secret muslim as president, and would rather have a white person who shares their status quo-affirming ideas. If there's another reason besides preferring corrupt, corporate lobby-owned, entrenched Sell-Outs, I'd love to know it!

[Crowley]

Daz, I know you’re smart, so why in the world would you vote to hurt your own self-interest like that?

I have to say that it is fascinating to me, in that bird looking into the eyes of a cobra sense, that so many people would rather vote against their own best political interests, because one highly worthwhile candidate beat their highly worthwhile candidate in a political primary.

I’ve got news for you my friend, national political campaigns are rough business, and all you have to do is look at how George W Bush ran his campaign for the nomination in 2000 to see what mean-spirited attack politics really is. Because I’ve got to tell you that despite a tough and extremely close campaign, in my own opinion both the Clinton and Obama camps deserve real credit for keeping the attacks on each other to a minimum and to more or less base them on political issues and not personal attacks.

Of course there have been slips, gaffes and bad moments from both sides, but nothing along the lines of say the Swift Boat Veterans or that ilk. On the whole both camps acted like adults.

But in the end one side had to win it, and in this case it just wasn’t Senator Clinton.

So now you have a choice, a decision to make.

Do you do swallow the bile and support a candidate with a real chance of getting the office that believes in and supports almost every single thing that your candidate does? Or do you throw away your vote on some nonsensical third party run that on one extreme counts for absolutely nothing or on the other extreme helps to keep in office the people who have ruled this nation for the last eight years and who have done more to straight out destroy this country then any other administration in history?


Forgive my rudeness, but at a time when the constitution is in tatters, the nation is under a neo-dictatorship where you can be taken from your home without any due process and thrown into a military prison, where your most personal conversations can be recorded without even the benefit of a warrant, where in some cases you can be sentenced to death in front of a secret court, where civil rights are routinely trampled and our children are daily being led to slaughter in a foreign nation that we invaded, who the Hell are you to be that selfish with your vote?

It’s time to grow up Daz and recognize that politics is about compromise.

And I would say the same thing to an Obama supporter if Sen. Clinton had won.

Yep Hillary lost and isn’t even likely to get the VP nod, but that’s the way the people voted. It was damm close, but she just did not win it. Now it’s time to reconcile and unite behind the ticket, and it is certainly something you would want from Obama supporters if Clinton won.

In the end, you can go third party if it makes you feel better, but the truth is that in this election, if you don’t vote for the Democrats, then you might as well just cut out the middle man and vote for McCain, because if you don’t support the Democrat, McCain and the rest of the Republican Party is who you are voting for anyway.

I agree. Voting McCain or third party is basically voting for:

bad economic policies
a war with Iran
dead soldiers and civilians
reversing Roe VS. Wade
vetoing gay marriage

Grow up indeed.

[Infra-Man]

Nope. I wouldn't vote for him if someone paid me.

The thought of voting third party makes it a little better, though.

--Dazz

How prevalent is this opinion at the moment? Do other Clinton supporters you know hold similar sentiments? I'm wondering what the polling will be like in the coming weeks.

I ask only because I'm trying to get some perspective.

As far as I know, all of my friends have said that they'd vote for either candidate if they got the nomination, and I know we aren't really representative of the nation as a whole. I know the "won't vote for Obama" sentiment is quite strong on a site like Hillaryis44 and with my dad and a handful of my friends' parents, but I know those views aren't representative of the nation as a whole either.

[Michael P]

Why is Obama a dick?

Dick as in penis.

You see, the real reason people vote for Obama is because they hate women and want to cheat Hillary out of her God-intended historical place as America's first woman president. I'm surprised you didn't get the memo.

[Dazzler]

Come on, Dazz, you're smarter than this and you know exactly what Obama was trying to say.

Uh-huh. I do know what he was trying to say. He was quite clear about it.


Because that's essentially what Hillary said. "hard-working Americans, white Americans." Remember that?
Come on, you know what Hillary was trying to say.

Pretended to listen. Hillary pandered to the Appalachian people.
Even if that's true, it's more than Obama did. He didn't even pay them lip service because they were unimportant to his campaign. Supposedly.
I don't what I'd like more, the person who may be just pandering, but still manages to give face time (as well as her husband on a separate occasion) or the person who just flat out ignores a entire section of hard-working voters.


Why is Obama a dick? Because he ran for president and won his party's nomination? Wait, I think I know. Dickipedia has an article about Obama.

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Barack_Obama

"It is important to note that Obama is not so much a dick by virtue of who he is, but rather by what he has chosen to involve himself in (e.g. presidential politics) and the resulting crowd it forces him to deal with (e.g. Joe Biden)."
It was a double entendre. I think he's a dick, but mostly I just meant "penis."

Which could still function nicely as a double entendre.

--Dazz

[Crowley]

Because I don't think he has my self-interests at heart? Because I think he's skeevy and basically doing a whole lot of empty promising? hell, it could be because I'm sick of his smug supporters.


:rolleyes:

You're smarter than this. You know Hillary is going to endorse Obama on Saturday right? She could be his VP?

One of them had to lose... why be a sore loser about it and vote against your own interests?

[Michael P]

As far as I know, all of my friends have said that they'd vote for either candidate if they got the nomination, and I know we aren't really representative of the nation as a whole. I know the "won't vote for Obama" sentiment is quite strong on a site like Hillaryis44 and with my dad and a handful of my friends' parents, but I know those views aren't representative of the nation as a whole either.

My guess would be "Hillaryis44:the general voting public::Newsarama:the general comic buying public."

Remember, Ron Paul got a lot of very vocal support on the Internet, too.

[Major Comma]

I have voted third party twice .
Some may consider it a wasted vote but its MY vote.
I didnt vote for bush or gore in 2000 because I didnt trust either candidate .
and i think thats a perfectly valid position to take.
whatever your reasons Dazz,
I support your decision 100%.

[rick]

Because I don't think he has my self-interests at heart? Because I think he's skeevy and basically doing a whole lot of empty promising? hell, it could be because I'm sick of his smug supporters.

By the way, before I go on, keep in mind that I actually remained neutral during the primaries and in fact skipped them simply because I considered both candidates to be highly worthwhile. So I am not talking here as an Obama supporter, although I will not lie and pretend that in the end my preference had not edged in his direction.

But you are making it pretty clear that your opinion is more based on your anger and disappointment at losing then any actual reality based on anything in the Senators record or statements.

His supporters pissed you off by being as dedicated to his election as you were to Senator Clintons and now you would rather be angry then support the candidate that shares the same views as the candidate you so strongly supported.

If you think about it dispassionately, then it is pretty obvious that your plan to vote against the Democratic candidate is counter productive to your own stated goals.


Oh please, rick. :rolleyes:

Yeah?

So if you understand the concept of compromise in politics, then why vote against your own best-interest just to keep from compromising?




Well, if it weren't for his support of the continuation of the Iraq War, i WOULD vote McCain. I'm more on the conservative side of the spectrum anyway, at least economically if not socially.
Since I refuse to vote for Obama OR McCain, I'd just rather vote for someone who doesn't have a shot (and hey, they never WILL if people never voted for them out of fear and pressure) on the basis of principles than vote for someone who I think is bad just because everyone else says "do it or else."

--Dazz


Daz, you missed the most important part of my post and I have to think that you skipped it on purpose.

The Republicans have spent the last eight years pissing on your rights and mine, and I have to seriously ask, why are you willing to allow them to continue to do that?

[Dazzler]

:rolleyes:

You're smarter than this. You know Hillary is going to endorse Obama on Saturday right? She could be his VP?

One of them had to lose... why be a sore loser about it and vote against your own interests?
She is going to endorse Obama because that's the thing she's expected to do and it will maneuver her into a position of political clout.

Fortunately, I'm not in a position where I have to play patty-cake with Obama.

Well, I'm certainly not surprised that not supporting Obama is classified as "being a sore loser" and "voting against my interests."

I don't happen to think he HAS my interests at heart. I don't think he's for the working class or rural people, which, above all else, is what I'm concerned for.

If I'm going to vote for someone who I do think has my interests truly at heart, I'll vote Green. If I were still able to vote for someone who could actually handle the shitty mess that they're inheriting politically, I'd vote for Hillary. Since Option B is out of the question now, I'll go with Option A.

--Dazz

[Crowley]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/04/uselections2008
Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.

"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: "If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."

I disagree with former President Carter... The only problem I see strategically is that McCain could use their comments in the primary against one another, but then I think that would happen anyway.

[Kevinroc]

Uh-huh. I do know what he was trying to say. He was quite clear about it.

Come on, you know what Hillary was trying to say.

I see you're trying to turn this back on me but you know it doesn't work. Obama, in terms of what he was trying to say, really wasn't wrong. And the pandering Hillary did, and trying to make that statement into a huge deal with incredibly short-sighted from another Democrat.

Even if that's true, it's more than Obama did. He didn't even pay them lip service because they were unimportant to his campaign. Supposedly.
I don't what I'd like more, the person who may be just pandering, but still manages to give face time (as well as her husband on a separate occasion) or the person who just flat out ignores a entire section of hard-working voters.

Which is why he plans on going to these areas now that he is campaigning for the general election, right?


It was a double entendre. I think he's a dick, but mostly I just meant "penis."

Which could still function nicely as a double entendre.

--Dazz

So essentially you're upset that a man won in an election with a woman. Totally ignoring the fact that a black man (yes, I know he has a white mother but race relations in this country as so skewed that basically having one ancestor of African descent instantly makes you black) also breaks down some of those barriers that exist in America.

Dailykos put it pretty well when they said that people have died for racial barriers to be broken and for things like Obama's nomination to happen. People within Obama's lifetime.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/4/101052/7121

All of this is not to say that women haven't struggled constantly to break barriers but it seems incredibly disingenuous to not be happy that we've managed to open things up for more than just white males. The fact that Obama will officially be nominated on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech should say it all.

[Infra-Man]

My guess would be "Hillaryis44:the general voting public::Newsarama:the general comic buying public."

Remember, Ron Paul got a lot of very vocal support on the Internet, too.

Sounds about right, especially after being a Fark political-thread junkie for awhile--the Internet is not the real world. That's why I'm trying to find out what other people are seeing in their areas and with their friends/family.

[Kevinroc]

My guess would be "Hillaryis44:the general voting public::Newsarama:the general comic buying public."

Remember, Ron Paul got a lot of very vocal support on the Internet, too.

No, that is not a valid comparison. There are actually some reasonable posters on newsarama. The same can't be said for the Hillaryis44 people.

[Crowley]

She is going to endorse Obama because that's the thing she's expected to do and it will maneuver her into a position of political clout.

Fortunately, I'm not in a position where I have to play patty-cake with Obama.

Well, I'm certainly not surprised that not supporting Obama is classified as "being a sore loser" and "voting against my interests."

Not voting for Obama is "being a sore loser" and "voting against your interests."
Hillary and Obama have 90% of their issues in common.

Look, Hillary didn't have the votes. If she had beaten Obama by votes and delegates I would have voted for her. I might have bitched about her as the nom on day 2 or 3, but I still would have voted for her and supported her all the way along.

And as soon as Obama gets into the White House... the day after I'll be a very vocal critic if and when he fucks up.

But hey... toss your vote out. If McCain decides he wants to veto Gay Marriage, Invade Iran and keep troops in Iraq for 1,000 years... you enabled it.

[rick]

I don't happen to think he HAS my interests at heart. I don't think he's for the working class or rural people, which, above all else, is what I'm concerned for.



Your view is illogical, it simply doesn’t make sense.

You supported Senator Clinton because she has views, opinions and policies that you agree will make a better country for you and those you are concerned about.

Senator Obama through his voting record as well as his public statements agrees with Senator Clinton on almost every one of those views, opinions and policies.

Because of her views, opinions and policies, you believe Senator Clinton has your best interest at heart, but at the same time, despite having the same exact views, opinions and policies you believe that Senator Obama does not have your best interest at heart.

You have two people clearly showing that they believe the same things, but you “feel’ that one is on your side and the other isn’t.

Like I said, illogical.

[Dazzler]

Oh, well.

I'll just have to be a gay-rights hating, racist, Republican enabling, war-monger-supporting-by-proxy vote waster.

He's not getting it.

--Dazz

[rick]

Oh, well.

I'll just have to be a gay-rights hating, racist, Republican enabling, war-monger-supporting-by-proxy vote waster.

He's not getting it.

--Dazz


That's fine, just as long as you're clear about what you are doing. :smile:

[Crowley]

Oh, well.

I'll just have to be a gay-rights hating, racist, Republican enabling, war-monger-supporting-by-proxy vote waster.

He's not getting it.

--Dazz

why?

Supporters who you hate aside... WHY?

What if Hillary's his VP?

[FalconX2000]

She is going to endorse Obama because that's the thing she's expected to do and it will maneuver her into a position of political clout.

Fortunately, I'm not in a position where I have to play patty-cake with Obama.

Well, I'm certainly not surprised that not supporting Obama is classified as "being a sore loser" and "voting against my interests."

I don't happen to think he HAS my interests at heart. I don't think he's for the working class or rural people, which, above all else, is what I'm concerned for.

If I'm going to vote for someone who I do think has my interests truly at heart, I'll vote Green. If I were still able to vote for someone who could actually handle the shitty mess that they're inheriting politically, I'd vote for Hillary. Since Option B is out of the question now, I'll go with Option A.

--Dazz

You know, doubting rural I can understand since Obama has been living in cities since he had a say in the matter, but doubting his commitment to the working class? Bullshit.

This is the guy who gave up his consulting job and worked for 3 years in the poorest districts of Chicago with church groups as a community organiser for an initial salary of $12000 a year getting job training programs and budget for cleaning out asbestos and repairing crumbling buildings.. After going to Harvard and becoming the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, he went back to Chicago and taught constitutional law, worked as a civil rights lawyer, pushed through healthcare reform to extend coverage to 150000 children, reformed capital punishment and achieved ethics reform in the toughest place of politics in America.

[Paul McEnery]

Uh-huh. I do know what he was trying to say. He was quite clear about it.

So he was.

Which leads me to think that either you're an appallingly bad reader -- which you don't seem to be -- or you have some reason to have it in for the guy.

And since you've railed against him on Hillary's behalf before while revealing no particular reason, which was before the deliberate misreading of the guns and god thing, I'm wondering what that thing is.

[Paul McEnery]

why?

Supporters who you hate aside... WHY?

What if Hillary's his VP?

What if I could get three dozen monkeys to play all the instruments of the orchestra? Wouldn't that be neat?

[Tages]

I agree. Voting McCain or third party is basically voting for:

bad economic policies
a war with Iran
dead soldiers and civilians
vetoing gay marriage

Grow up indeed.

All of which are terrible things, but this...

reversing Roe VS. Wade
...will never happen.

McCain is such a conniving opportunist there's no way he's letting the proverbial horse get that carrot.

Just be glad that Huckabee isn't their nominee.

[Tages]

What if Hillary's his VP?

Combining Hillary's "Bobby" blunder with an old Dave Chapelle routine...

I think Obama should pick a socialist, Jewish Latina lesbian for his veep. Just so, you know, "nothing happens." :biggrin:

[the4thpip]

That IS cool!

That the coolest toilet paper I've ever SEEN!

--Dazz

Light up a fag, you're sounding bitter.

[the4thpip]

Ah yes, can't dislike Obama without being a racist. :rolleyes:

But that IS just something a misogynist would say, now isn't it?

--Dazz

Well, you suggested desire to wipe your ass with a picture of his face. If somebody had suggested using Hillary's photo as a tampon, wouldn't you have found that misogynist?

When you talk like that about a black man, people are bound to look for a root for your completely irrational anger.

[Charles RB]

He's completely unqualified for the position.

He's been in government for years now, and done alright in it. That's a qualification. You are factually wrong.

He's stated policies that would destroy our economy

How?

and put our country at risk.

Talking to foreign states will put America at risk? (What do you think the job involves?)

He's a walking gaffe machine.

The big ones he's made being...?

He said "Obama," not "Ron Paul."

Oh burn!

[Charles RB]

Easy. Liberal guilt and the promise of a dick in the white house.


No, it's because her campaign was shit. Which is what turned me from neutral to anti-Hillary (that and her Northern Ireland & Bosnia bullshitting).

If I'm going to vote for someone who I do think has my interests truly at heart, I'll vote Green.

...you said earlier you were on the conservative spectrum at least economically. I don't normally think of the Green Party when I think of conservatives (nor when I think of parties with similar views & policies to McCain except on Iraq).

Not that I'm that bothered about you harming the Democrat vote, as it's up to the Democrat Party to convince people to vote for them if they want said votes - and hey, based on who they've now got and how the Republicans have got, they probably will.

[KevinTBrown]

And McCain can't even think up his own slogan, he needs to rip off Obama:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_slogans

[Agent Helix]

Thaaaaat's kinda pushing it. A <blank> We Can Believe In! is about as generic a slogan as you can get.

[Infra-Man]

The next few weeks will be critical for unifying the party, particularly if the article below encapsulates the feelings of a sizable chunk Clinton supporters.

Angry Clinton Supporters Start Rallying for McCain Online (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html?fark)

full article from the Wired blog in quoted text.

They're mad as hell, and Hillary Clinton's supporters aren't going to take it anymore.

Some Clintonites are so mad about Barack Obama's Tuesday victory that they've launched a web site to build support to launch a lobbying group to support Republican John McCain.

"We're going to run campaign ads to defeat Obama," says Ed Hale, a 63-year-old rancher and a Clinton supporter from Wellington, Texas. "We have doctors, lawyers, CPAs, the blue bloods, and then we have rednecks like me. It's a very diversified organization."

The split illustrates the difficult task the Democratic party now faces in rallying the troops behind Obama. Open dissent within party ranks provides Republicans with openings to exploit.

Hale launched the "Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain" group last Saturday. The campaign claims to have 5,000 supporters, and its website visitor counter says that it has already attracted 37,8071 visitors.

"Last night, when they crowned Obama king, that's when I sent my e-mails out to people, and since then, we've gotten thousands of hits," he says.

Hale, a Vietnam veteran and a long-time Democrat, says that many of the group's supporters are Reagan Democrats, and their primary concern is foreign policy and defense. A call to the Texas Democratic Party confirmed that he was supposed to have been a delegate to the state convention this week.

He says that he wouldn't vote for Obama even if Clinton were vice president.

In addition, he says that he will not sign an online petition that former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis sent out on the web Tuesday night -- calling for Obama to choose Clinton as vice president.

Rickie Banning, president of "Hillary Clinton Supporters Count Too," a website, says that she's received hundreds of e-mails from Clinton supporters who are angry at the Democratic National Committee, and who are registering as independent. Some of them say that they will vote for John McCain.

A sampling the e-mails that she sent along show that many of the supporters feel cheated.

"If you ask me, I feel sad in my heart, and I think a lot of people do, but some people are really angry," Banning says. "People feel upset, and not listened to, and a lot of people feel like they're being thrown under the bus. "

Statistics compiled by Real Clear Politics show that in terms of the popular vote, Democratic voters split evenly between Clinton and Obama, though Obama reached the delegate count necessary to win the nomination on Tuesday.

For its part, the Republican National Committee is capitalizing on Democratic party leaders' criticisms of Obama in a new web video posted to its site Wednesday.

And Matt Burns, a spokesman for the Republican National Convention, says that he's received voice mail from Clinton supporters offering to help him.

He says he sent them to McCain's website.

What's with the shoddy site design and page layout on these sites (i.e., Hillaryis44 and those cited in the article)? Did these people just crawl out of 1998?

[the4thpip]

Thaaaaat's kinda pushing it. A <blank> We Can Believe In! is about as generic a slogan as you can get.
How many other presidential campaigns have used it then?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well, you suggested desire to wipe your ass with a picture of his face. If somebody had suggested using Hillary's photo as a tampon, wouldn't you have found that misogynist?

When you talk like that about a black man, people are bound to look for a root for your completely irrational anger.

If someone had said that about Hillary or McCain, or any president or presidental candidate in the history of the united States, they wouldn't have seen it as racist.

Just sayin'.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well, you suggested desire to wipe your ass with a picture of his face. If somebody had suggested using Hillary's photo as a tampon, wouldn't you have found that misogynist?

When you talk like that about a black man, people are bound to look for a root for your completely irrational anger.

If someone had said that about Hillary or McCain, or any president or presidental candidate in the history of the United States, they wouldn't have seen it as racist.

Just sayin'.

[KevinTBrown]

If someone had said that about Hillary or McCain, or any president or presidental candidate in the history of the United States, they wouldn't have seen it as racist.

Just sayin'.

But they didn't....

Oh, IMO, I didn't take it as racist. I did think it was a bit classless though. Dazz is usually above such things. I understand why he's not happy, and I'm not going to tell him what he should do. All I will say is that if things were reversed and Clinton won, I wouldn't be happy either, but I'd still vote for her. If only to make sure McCain did not win.

[Charles RB]

president of "Hillary Clinton Supporters Count Too,"

No you don't you pillocks, you just switched sides to the other party, have said you won't vote for Obama at all, and were talking about this before the race ended. Obama's got no logical reason to count you or listen to you, you've jumped ship.

Plus, you're concerned about foreign policy and want to vote McCain? As Tages eloquently pointed out, you be dumb.

[Stressfactor]

This is not an Obama thing or a Hilary thing... I thought that either candidate had good qualifications out of the gate. BUT......

I was looking at the "What Crazy Thing Do You Want to Believe Thread" and I realized that I want to believe in this election... and that seems crazy.

I want to believe that my vote will matter

I want to believe that the person I elect really will turn things around for America.

I want to believe that our next President will restore our good name to the rest of the world and prove that we are a country engaged in 'playing well with others' and not just a 'it's our way or the highway' mentality.

I want to believe that things will get at least a little better, if not for everyone then at least for the poorest and most disenfranchised among us.

I want to believe that politics is not just some self-perpetuating Rube Golderberg device designed to simply chew us all up and spit us out.

I want to believe that our next President will at least TRY to do something about pollution and the environment.

I want to believe that a handful of elected men and women CAN make a difference.......

And yet.........

I do not believe.

But I want.

[Crowley]

Really insightful article about the Obama campaign strategy:
How Did Obama Do It?
Posted 6/5/2008 7:50 AM CDT

With Barack Obama winning the Democratic nomination for president, one question has been answered and now there is another one to ask. What is going to happen is no longer an issue, that has been settled, the question in the aftermath of Obama’s victory is how did it happen.

How did an unknown Senator from Illinois pull off what may be one of the biggest upsets in American political history? How did the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, the candidate with the name recognition, the big Party donors, and the vast majority of the Party movers and shakers in her corner manage to lose a nomination that was considered a lock before the primaries began.

An article in the Washington Post breaks down the reasons Obama won to two major points–strategy and organization.

What the Obama campaign did was to emphasize their strengths, the caucus states, which were virtually ceded to them by the Clinton campaign, and minimize their weaknesses, by targeting specific districts in the big states where Hillary had the advantage due mostly to name recognition and party loyalty. In doing so they kept their losses manageable.

From the article:

"It's the story that hasn't been written yet, how Obama did everything right, targeting caucuses, targeting small states, avoiding the showdowns in the big states where he could," said Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, who watched the strategy play out in microcosm in his own state, "and how in the end Clinton did so much so wrong."

It was by focusing on the smaller states and the caucus states following Super Tuesday that Obama was able to win 11 contests in a row and amass a lead of 125 delegates that Hillary was never able to overcome. From then on it was not a matter of if but when. In sports terminology, getting a big lead and running out the clock.

One thing not covered in the article, but which was equally a large part of Obama’s victory, was their fund-raising strategy. While Hillary counted on big donors who quickly maxed-out their contribution limit of $2,300, Obama’s team built a network of about 1.5 million donors who gave smaller amounts, but who the campaign could go back to time and time again for more money. This meant a constant flow of cash for Obama while Hillary had to dip into her own personal bank account to keep her campaign afloat.

This strategy not only served Obama well in the primaries, but gives him a decided edge over John McCain going into the general election in November.

What the Obama team pulled off was both brilliantly conceived and well-executed, and a model for future candidates who may be faced with an opponent considered "inevitable." What the Clintons learned was that there is no such thing as a sure thing, no matter what your last name is.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

But they didn't....

Oh, IMO, I didn't take it as racist. I did think it was a bit classless though. Dazz is usually above such things.

Not really. That's pretty typical Dazz.

[Adam C]

"If you ask me, I feel sad in my heart, and I think a lot of people do, but some people are really angry," Banning says. "People feel upset, and not listened to, and a lot of people feel like they're being thrown under the bus. "

I can understand being disappointed or upset that their candidate lost, but 'thrown under the bus'? Did I miss the Obama campaign declaring it would ignore any and all of Hilary's supporters and then sacrifice them to Cuthulhu or something?

[Charles RB]

Really insightful article about the Obama campaign strategy:

Really impressive stuff.

I also saw a transcript of part of a speech he just did - and it's a very impressive bit of propaganda, using lots of tricks to sell the idea of change and unity among a diverse America, and it seems to have totally sold the bloggers talking about it.

And people think he's inexperienced for the top job?! Between that and his record of bipartisan deals, he seems pretty good for it right now. I'm cautiously optimistic and hoping this won't end up being a 1997 New Labour all over again.

[rick]

Really impressive stuff.

I also saw a transcript of part of a speech he just did - and it's a very impressive bit of propaganda, using lots of tricks to sell the idea of change and unity among a diverse America, and it seems to have totally sold the bloggers talking about it.

And people think he's inexperienced for the top job?! Between that and his record of bipartisan deals, he seems pretty good for it right now. I'm cautiously optimistic and hoping this won't end up being a 1997 New Labour all over again.


Hey Charles.

I know that you are just being analytical about the political process, but “propaganda” and “tricks” are a couple of pretty loaded terms. When you write about “tricks” Obama used to sell his ideas, are you talking about rhetorical flourishes, or specific language or are you saying something else that I’m just reading wrong?

No snark intended, I just don’t quite get what you’re saying.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

You know, doubting rural I can understand since Obama has been living in cities since he had a say in the matter, but doubting his commitment to the working class? Bullshit.

This is the guy who gave up his consulting job and worked for 3 years in the poorest districts of Chicago with church groups as a community organiser for an initial salary of $12000 a year getting job training programs and budget for cleaning out asbestos and repairing crumbling buildings.. After going to Harvard and becoming the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, he went back to Chicago and taught constitutional law, worked as a civil rights lawyer, pushed through healthcare reform to extend coverage to 150000 children, reformed capital punishment and achieved ethics reform in the toughest place of politics in America.

What an elitist bastard! :biggrin:

'Elitist' has been a catchword by Republicans regarding Liberals since Rush Limbaugh introduced it that way in the early nineties. After decades of wealthy douchebags like William F. Buckley calling people like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela Communists--for simply wanting the same liberties as their white fellow citizens. Calling something like telling the factual truth--that, when in fear, people use 'crutches' to get by, rather than think for themselves tells you how far to the Right the Hillary moderates have swung, while the Republicans are practically (and functionally) Fascists. Fuck the Reagan Democrats!

I was unaware about Dazzler's attitude about this when I posted before, but it's been a real eye-opener, confirming what I thought about Hillary supporters who said they'd switch sides--no logical argument, just general statements about finding him unsuitable, and racist catchphrases flying, afterward. Here's another catch-phrase racists like--Liberal Guilt. Never had it, never had reason to. i treat people the way I expect to be treated, and don't believe in stereotypes. If someone is fucking we me, or someone I love, I don't care if they're blue--I'll knock them out. It's been known to happen. Hating or loving large groups of people based on their race, sex or ethnicity is for unenlightened morons.

I'm a white man in and from the south (raised by racists), a registered Independent (albeit left-leaning) who believes unbridled corporate freedom is slavery. With McCain, we'll have even greater restriction on civil liberties, bending over for the 'Military-Industrial Complex' and more corporate handouts, while the economy goes farther down the shitter.. The kind of person you just described, factually, does not strike me as someone who isn't Populist and supportive of 'The Underdog'..

[Charles RB]

I know that you are just being analytical about the political process, but “propaganda” and “tricks” are a couple of pretty loaded terms. When you write about “tricks” Obama used to sell his ideas, are you talking about rhetorical flourishes, or specific language or are you saying something else that I’m just reading wrong?

Rhetorical flourishes, use of language, raising national mythologies and all that stuff to get people pumped up and sold on his ideas.

I really should've clarified that earlier, whoops.

[Paul McEnery]

Well, you suggested desire to wipe your ass with a picture of his face. If somebody had suggested using Hillary's photo as a tampon, wouldn't you have found that misogynist?

When you talk like that about a black man, people are bound to look for a root for your completely irrational anger.

We have achieved mind meld.

[Paul McEnery]

Hey Charles.

I know that you are just being analytical about the political process, but “propaganda” and “tricks” are a couple of pretty loaded terms. When you write about “tricks” Obama used to sell his ideas, are you talking about rhetorical flourishes, or specific language or are you saying something else that I’m just reading wrong?

No snark intended, I just don’t quite get what you’re saying.

That it was an impressive piece of marketing.

[Paul McEnery]

I can understand being disappointed or upset that their candidate lost, but 'thrown under the bus'? Did I miss the Obama campaign declaring it would ignore any and all of Hilary's supporters and then sacrifice them to Cuthulhu or something?

That would get my vote, yes.

[rick]

Rhetorical flourishes, use of language, raising national mythologies and all that stuff to get people pumped up and sold on his ideas.

I really should've clarified that earlier, whoops.



Naw, it's what I thought you meant.

But thanks for clarifying.

[rick]

That would get my vote, yes.



You've got to admit that human sacrifice would liven up the convention.

[Buzz Dixon]

Former Attorney General Paul Morrison is the one involved, and he's since resigned.

Blaming Sebelius for that is like blaming Hillary for Bill's getting blowjobs in the oval office.If Hillary hadn't enabled him all those many years, wherever he was getting his oral sex, it wouldn't have been in the Oval Office!

[Paul McEnery]

The next few weeks will be critical for unifying the party, particularly if the article below encapsulates the feelings of a sizable chunk Clinton supporters.

Angry Clinton Supporters Start Rallying for McCain Online (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html?fark)

full article from the Wired blog in quoted text.



What's with the shoddy site design and page layout on these sites (i.e., Hillaryis44 and those cited in the article)? Did these people just crawl out of 1998?

Whatever the hell is the date before the Civil War -- that one.

[Paul McEnery]

Not that I'm that bothered about you harming the Democrat vote

Especially when that vote is in San Francisco.

[rick]

If Hillary hadn't enabled him all those many years, wherever he was getting his oral sex, it wouldn't have been in the Oval Office!


I don't know about that Buzz.

Back in my first marriage, those carefree days when I used to totally screw around on my wife, I went to pretty great lengths to make sure she had no idea what I was up to and with whom.

I know that you are no fan of the Senator, but of all her faults, I don’t think it’s fair to blame her for Bill being a Swinging Dick.

[Buzz Dixon]

I can understand being disappointed or upset that their candidate lost, but 'thrown under the bus'? Did I miss the Obama campaign declaring it would ignore any and all of Hilary's supporters and then sacrifice them to Cuthulhu or something?I don't know if this is the best new idea of the 21st century, but it sure should get entered in the competition!:grin:

[Buzz Dixon]

I don't know about that Buzz.

Back in my first marriage, those carefree days when I used to totally screw around on my wife, I went to pretty great lengths to make sure she had no idea what I was up to and with whom.

I know that you are no fan of the Senator, but of all her faults, I don’t think it’s fair to blame her for Bill being a Swinging Dick.It's in the public record that she knew, she defended him, and she applied pressure to those who threatened to go public. That's enabling.

[Buzz Dixon]

I think what many die hard Hillary supporters are trying to say is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw

[Corrina]

I get what Obama was saying in San Francisco.

He was saying that the GOP targeted mostly white voters in rural areas and played on their fears: of gays, of being attacked again, of the world being beyond their control, of the rise of immorality in society that's contrary to their teachings at church.

Hence, the gay marriage amendment really got these voters to the polls. And the rising fears of gun control that would take away weapons that these people need. They've been sold a bill of goods that any gun control will take away their hunting rights.

And that Obama didn't want that, he wanted to show those voters a different way, of how they're being used.

The thing it, it was poor phrasing because I really don't think Obama has spent enough time in white (or even rural) areas to get quite how badly the "cling to" comments were taken.

Church isn't something one clings to, it's part of the social fabric in many of these areas. Whatever its faults (and there are many) many of those churches do as much good in these areas as Wright's church does in Chicago.

Obama initially pointed out that because of his struggles, Wright could be frustrated with society at large and that he understood where Wright was coming from, even if he was misguided.

In many ways, the rural poor are the same as the urban poor that Obama knows in Chicago. A lot of them live just above or below the poverty line. Those mobile homes that get destroyed in tornadoes are so common for a reason. They can't afford more.

And they're not so much stupid or clinging to something as it's all they know, just like the people in the projects in Chicago, that's all they know. I know people who grew up without oil heat or electricity much of the time, who grew up in one-room houses still. The rural poor that Bobby Kennedy visited is still out there.

Some of them are stupid or racist but a lot of them are just limited because of their situation. They don't know any more than what's around them.

I think Obama doesn't understand this because of those comments, and it hurts him because the people he could have gotten on his side, he just insulted or they certainly perceive they've been insulted.

The Clintons do understand these voters, and that's why she did well with them.

[Paul McEnery]

“Let us cling to Jesus and never stop trusting Him.” Hebrews 4:14-16

Now will everyone STFU about this?

[Paul McEnery]

It's in the public record that she knew, she defended him, and she applied pressure to those who threatened to go public. That's enabling.

Disentangling this from all the bullshit:

Who cares if the Clintons have or had an open relationship? BFD, and none of our beeswax.

OTOH, who cares if the Republicans used something that was none of their beeswax to play silly buggers? When most of them were playing the field or down at the whorehouse, or fucking men in airport toilets or...

That's the real issue here.

[Corrina]

On the subject of McCain...

1. Stupid, borrowing a slogan. It just reminds people of the original.

2. Didn't he just offer to debate Obama or have public discussions or something. Dumb. The only edge McCain has is to claim he's got more experience and he can handle things Obama can't.

The better Obama does in those debates, the more McCain loses, because his argument that this guy can't cut it vanished.

And, if I didn't make it clear, I'm voting Obama. I hope he's all his most fervent supporters say he is. That would be nice. But if not, a better than average president is still going to be a damn fine improvement.

[Paul McEnery]

On the subject of McCain...

1. Stupid, borrowing a slogan. It just reminds people of the original.

2. Didn't he just offer to debate Obama or have public discussions or something. Dumb. The only edge McCain has is to claim he's got more experience and he can handle things Obama can't.

The better Obama does in those debates, the more McCain loses, because his argument that this guy can't cut it vanished.

And, if I didn't make it clear, I'm voting Obama. I hope he's all his most fervent supporters say he is. That would be nice. But if not, a better than average president is still going to be a damn fine improvement.

QFT.

Obama has a simple strategy in debates: make McCain lose his temper.

And then we're done.

[Dreadstar]

On the subject of McCain...

1. Stupid, borrowing a slogan. It just reminds people of the original.

2. Didn't he just offer to debate Obama or have public discussions or something. Dumb. The only edge McCain has is to claim he's got more experience and he can handle things Obama can't.

The better Obama does in those debates, the more McCain loses, because his argument that this guy can't cut it vanished.

And, if I didn't make it clear, I'm voting Obama. I hope he's all his most fervent supporters say he is. That would be nice. But if not, a better than average president is still going to be a damn fine improvement.

QFT.

Obama has a simple strategy in debates: make McCain lose his temper.

And then we're done.

I love how it's a foregone conclusion that Obama would outclass McCain in a debate.

[Corrina]

He doesn't have to outclass McCain. He just have to stay with him.

If you look at the Kennedy/Nixon debates, what you'll see is two very smart men, answering questions with alacrity and in-depth. They were both on their game.

The thing is, Nixon's big selling point was his experience against Kennedy's youth.

The minute people looked at them together, saw that Kennedy looked as Presidential as he sounded and thought "hey, he can hold his own and I can see him as president," Nixon lost that edge.

All Obama has to do is not screw up and be what he's been in the democratic debates. Even if it ends evenly, Obama is the one who's going to benefit.

And unless you're a racist, Obama looks and sounds a helluva lot more Presidential on camera than McCain. Sad to say looks count for so much, but they do.

[Dreadstar]

I disagree that Obama "looks" more "presidential" and it has nothing to do with racism, thank you very much.

[FalconX2000]

It's in the public record that she knew, she defended him, and she applied pressure to those who threatened to go public. That's enabling.

If my spouse had been cheating on me but I didn't wish to seperate, then I wouldn't want that info to become public info either.

[FalconX2000]

On the subject of McCain...

1. Stupid, borrowing a slogan. It just reminds people of the original.

2. Didn't he just offer to debate Obama or have public discussions or something. Dumb. The only edge McCain has is to claim he's got more experience and he can handle things Obama can't.

The better Obama does in those debates, the more McCain loses, because his argument that this guy can't cut it vanished.

And, if I didn't make it clear, I'm voting Obama. I hope he's all his most fervent supporters say he is. That would be nice. But if not, a better than average president is still going to be a damn fine improvement.

No politician is ever as good as his most fervant supporters says he or she is. I'm pretty sure his 'unequivocal' position on Isreal is more out of political necessity than a true hardline belief, as is his refusal to consider talking with Hamas.

I personally think he tends to prioritise welfare a bit too highly. An Obama presidency will mean at least a year or two of hard work before the fruits really begin to pay off domestically, unless Obama's name and face is so effective in the Middle-East he actually brings down oil prices by a few dollars.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

I disagree that Obama "looks" more "presidential" and it has nothing to do with racism, thank you very much.

I see your point, in my Futurevision Scope screen capture of the September Town Hall Meeting, in Anchorage, Alaska.:

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m231/jamesritcheyiii/droopy_2.jpg

Looks like McCain has the black guy on the run!

[Paul McEnery]

I love how it's a foregone conclusion that Obama would outclass McCain in a debate.

Yes. It's not like I've had the opportunity to hear both of them speak, or have the opportunity to compare their speeches on Tuesday night or anything.

Whether or not you agree with his policies -- and I don't -- Obama is a natural orator and McCain isn't. Obama hasn't done great in debates when he's not allowed to just pull a Nuremberg Rally (and there was more than a little bit of that Tuesday night), but I imagine he's taking coaching right this second.

It also helps that he's identified the right issues -- Tuesday night again -- and found the right spin. All he has to do is stay on message and grampa will look old and in the way. Pretty much the same way Dole did against Clinton.

[Dreadstar]

Yes. It's not like I've had the opportunity to hear both of them speak, or have the opportunity to compare their speeches on Tuesday night or anything.

If you say so. Call me skeptical.

But enough. Both this thread and the other one serve to punctuate the point I made there. I have no business participating when the rubber meets the mob mentality... errrr... road. I meant road.

Ciao!

[Buzz Dixon]

Disentangling this from all the bullshit:

Who cares if the Clintons have or had an open relationship? BFD, and none of our beeswax.

OTOH, who cares if the Republicans used something that was none of their beeswax to play silly buggers? When most of them were playing the field or down at the whorehouse, or fucking men in airport toilets or...

That's the real issue here.Having an open relationship, no problem.

Putting pressure on women who were sexually harassed by Bill Clinton, problem.

[Briareos]

Soooo...why do you want to vote for John McCain again?

Hey you know I'm supporting Michael Wilson!

[JamesRitcheyIII]

If you say so. Call me skeptical.

But enough. Both this thread and the other one serve to punctuate the point I made there. I have no business participating when the rubber meets the mob mentality... errrr... road. I meant road.

Ciao!

Even the Republican pundits at Fox News were saying that Obama's speech was infinitely better pointed and more inspiring than McCain's--talk about hell freezing over!

[Briareos]

LMAO! When I read that I was thinking "Why is Bri talking about Bush like that?"

I'm still trying to figure out exactly how Bush destroyed this country? His economic policies have produced higher rate of economic growth and lower unemployment then then Clinton and this was after 9/11 which by historical perspective should have tanked our economy (Massive disasters have always been followed by recessions or depressions which we have not had). And say what you will about Iraq at least he didn't allow a rouge state to get it's hands on nukes like Clinton allowed with North Korea.

[Buzz Dixon]

If my spouse had been cheating on me but I didn't wish to seperate, then I wouldn't want that info to become public info either.Are you the governor or married to the governor of a state who with a few phones calls can throw various problems at the woman in question? How about the president or spouse of the president of the United States?

It's one thing when Mrs. Smith asks Miss Jones not to go public for fear of disrupting her family; it's another entirely when the most powerful woman in the U.S. does it.

[Paul McEnery]

Are you the governor or married to the governor of a state who with a few phones calls can throw various problems at the woman in question? How about the president or spouse of the president of the United States?

It's one thing when Mrs. Smith asks Miss Jones not to go public for fear of disrupting her family; it's another entirely when the most powerful woman in the U.S. does it.

It's a moot point. But still. The fault is in the people who go public. The other fault is with the hypocritical stupidity of the people who give a damn about it.

I don't blame anyone for trying to suppress a scandal that in any sane country wouldn't be a scandal.

Not that there is any evidence that this is the case anyway.

So never mind whether or not it'll run, that horse doesn't even exist.

[Briareos]

John Bolton shows how awful Obama is on foreign policy
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story

[Charles RB]

Especially when that vote is in San Francisco.

That's another thing - a whole bunch of states keep falling to the same part each time. Is a third-party vote really going to make much difference to the Dem/Repub opposition in the short term?

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Are you the governor or married to the governor of a state who with a few phones calls can throw various problems at the woman in question? How about the president or spouse of the president of the United States?

It's one thing when Mrs. Smith asks Miss Jones not to go public for fear of disrupting her family; it's another entirely when the most powerful woman in the U.S. does it.

Nothin' personal, Buzz--but I wish the fooking bedroom police would start hatin' on Clinton for the right reasons--namely, serious damage to constitutional protections regarding search and seizure, and capricious property seizure in drug arrests (like the many instances of unknowing parents having their houses seized in drug raids--because junior was cooking Meth in the basement)--that render every American vulnerable. His constitutional/civil rights record was worse only second to Dubya's.That's besides the rumors of executions (as with the two former National Guard ATF guy's who did security for Bill--who were gunned down by other agents at Waco) of those who could compromise the Clinton Camp.

Hunter Thompson talked about it at length...

[darkhanamaru]

Are you the governor or married to the governor of a state who with a few phones calls can throw various problems at the woman in question? How about the president or spouse of the president of the United States?

It's one thing when Mrs. Smith asks Miss Jones not to go public for fear of disrupting her family; it's another entirely when the most powerful woman in the U.S. does it.

Yes, it's even more important that the person going public understands what they are doing. Women having affairs with public men need to know that there is even more at stake then the small circle of people involved when the do.

Please note the assumption that I am assuming harassment hasn't taking place. That is a whole 'nother discussion.

[ShaunN]

Dear Briareos,

As I understand it, the US is now in a major recession and more people are losing their homes or defaulting than ever before, leading to the "credit crunch". This was made possible by massive deregulation, which occurred, I believe, under Bush.

There was never any danger of Iraq getting nuclear weapons. So many books have been written on how the intelligence on this was perverted that this should no longer be a talking point. Moreover, as the CIA pointed out, even if Iraq had nukes, it would hardly have mattered - the only scenario under which it would used them were if it were attacked.

Finally, Bush has run up an unbelievable deficit (after Clinton left him with a surplus) both through irresponsible tax breaks then an accelerated militarization and two stupid, pointless and losing wars, which he has fought without asking for tax increases or any sacrifices from Americans.

So, yes, overall, the US is much worse off - by almost any measure - than it has been in a very long time. Bush and the people around him have proven to be an unmitigated disaster.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Charles RB]

Obama is a natural orator

Actually, if you remember the article Crowley posted a few pages back, Obama used to be naff at it and trained himself to be good.


As I understand it, the US is now in a major recession and more people are losing their homes or defaulting than ever before, leading to the "credit crunch". This was made possible by massive deregulation, which occurred, I believe, under Bush.

That was my understand too (also that Brown's policies here helped cause problems for us too).

I'd say "my understanding" in regards to nukes and the deficit, except it's outright fact there's a deficit and that Iraq didn't have a working nuke program & couldn't have managed it due to crippling sanctions and being constantly watched. (Someone once told me Iraq hid their WMDs in Syria - I dunno why Syria, or why Syria wouldn't then wave them around saying "ha ha, look what WE got!")

[Buzz Dixon]

It's a moot point. But still. The fault is in the people who go public. The other fault is with the hypocritical stupidity of the people who give a damn about it.

I don't blame anyone for trying to suppress a scandal that in any sane country wouldn't be a scandal.

Not that there is any evidence that this is the case anyway.

So never mind whether or not it'll run, that horse doesn't even exist.It's not a moot point to people who have been convicted, jailed, fined, and/or found in judgment by a jury for sexual harassment.

Remember, not all the women who were harassed by Clinton were willing participants in the events. Several women with nothing to gain by going public have reported Clinton making unwanted sexual advances on them.

Look, if the CEO of a Fortune 500 company acted this way, he would have been clobbered in public and in court. Any attempt to excuse him by saying, "Well, that was his private life, he was really good for business", would spark an enormous backlash against the company.

Forcing unwanted sexual advances on a person is unacceptable; depending on the exact circumstances it can legally actionable both as a civil offense and as a crime. A sexual harasser who does so repeatedly to a number of victims should be hidden but rather made public as a warning to those who do not wish to be harassed. Helping helping conceal such harassment by a public official not once, not twice, but several times only makes one an enabler and an accomplice.

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, it's even more important that the person going public understands what they are doing. Women having affairs with public men need to know that there is even more at stake then the small circle of people involved when the do.

Please note the assumption that I am assuming harassment hasn't taking place. That is a whole 'nother discussion.

That is very true.

Then again, we're also assuming Clinton never wrote a bad run of Spiderman.

Because there's no substantive reason to think either of them. Except that nobody thought to smear Clinton for the Clone Saga.

[Paul McEnery]

Several women with nothing to gain by going public have reported Clinton making unwanted sexual advances on them.

Forcing unwanted sexual advances on a person is unacceptable; .

See, I hate this kind of fucked-up innuendo.

If you've got a real argument to make, man up and make it, instead of slipping stuff like this in here.

If there's a genuine sexual harrassment charge to be made against Clinton, let's see it. And let's see it in a court of law, where whoever makes the charge can be held accountable.

Otherwise it's just a buncha Grima Wormtongue.

[Dreadstar]

See, I hate this kind of fucked-up innuendo.

Jesus god I almost had an aneurysm laughing so hard at that coming out of the mouth of the King of CBR innuendo.


Sorry, sorry, sorry, I said I was leaving and I intend to.

[Paul McEnery]

Jesus god I almost had an aneurysm laughing so hard at that coming out of the mouth of the King of CBR innuendo.


Sorry, sorry, sorry, I said I was leaving and I intend to.

Lazy-ass ad hominem attacks are second on my list.

[Dreadstar]

Lazy-ass ad hominem attacks are second on my list.

I'll own up to the ad hominem.

Will you own up to the innuendo?

[Paul McEnery]

I'll own up to the ad hominem.

Will you own up to the innuendo?

Hell no.

Which one do you want. That I take everything way too personally and chew up vast chunks of bandwidth aggressively pursuing an absurdly perfectionist point of view in painfully unneccesary and irrelevant detail.

Or that I have a seeeeecret agenda, that I wanna kind slip by you when you're not looking because I'm scared of speaking my mind because then I might lose the popularity contest.





On the other hand, if you're talking about double entendre, that's me all over the place.



Honestly, I don't think that's a fair criticism; and if it is, I'm blind to it; so feel free to call my attention to it if you catch me at it.

[Dreadstar]

Which one do you want. That I take everything way too personally and chew up vast chunks of bandwidth aggressively pursuing an absurdly perfectionist point of view in painfully unneccesary and irrelevant detail.

Or that I have a seeeeecret agenda, that I wanna kind slip by you when you're not looking because I'm scared of speaking my mind because then I might lose the popularity contest.


Neither one.

You do exactly what you're accusing Buzz of. Period. You slip in spin and leading words and innuendo all the time. We've gone through this all before, Paul. And most of the time your only defense is "Well, it's obvious to me."

I'm embarrassed by the fact that I even had to type this post.

[ / ad hominem ]

[Paul McEnery]

Neither one.

You do exactly what you're accusing Buzz of. Period. You slip in spin and leading words and innuendo all the time. We've gone through this all before, Paul. And most of the time your only defense is "Well, it's obvious to me."

I'm embarrassed by the fact that I even had to type this post.

[ / ad hominem ]

Bullshit. I am now going for the lame tactic of using Wiki, because it came up first:

An innuendo is a remark or question, typically disparaging, that works obliquely by allusion. The intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent.

No way in hell do I ever do that. I get in people's faces directly.

And for that matter, stuff that is obvious to me actually is obvious to me. I've usually studied at the damn thing to find its inner structure -- like the whole Judenhass thing -- and that's what I'm trying (and obviously failing) to communicate.

I'll cop to frequently making a simple point obscure by getting carried away and bringing in everything but the kitchen sink, but it's not my fault if people take things at face value when I'm more interested in the skull beneath the skin.

[Dreadstar]

No way in hell do I ever do that. .

...and now I'm embarrassed for you.

[Buzz Dixon]

Okay, Paul, pure facts:

Bill Clinton lied under oath, and conspired with others to commit perjury in a civil case involving him. For this he was put through an impeachment trial, lost a default judgment, and surrendered his law license. He has confessed to committing this crime, a felony in most states.

Nixon was driven from the White House by Democrats and Republicans who accused him of lying. He resigned rather than face the charges.

Clinton faced the charges and was excused by the Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate.

Do ya suppose that maybe, just maybe if he had either resigned or been removed from office there might have been some traction among the American public with various charges that Bush lied?

Or do ya suppose the American people just said, well, they all do it and they all protect one another and it's all just partisan politics so who cares?

[Michael P]

What does any of that have to do with sexual harassment?

[Paul McEnery]

...and now I'm embarrassed for you.

Oh, that's okay. Don't feel you have to blush on my account.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Oh, please, with this 'Dazzler's Attitude' bullshit. You don't know the man, so let's not conjecture. I know him very well, and it's complete nonsense to say that 'using those papers as TP' is racist. What does that have to do with race? At all? In any way? What's the link?

He supported Hillary. He dislikes Obama for a few reasons. His supporters out here are strident. When West Virginia had it's primaries, Hillary campaigned in the state and Obama said West Virginia was 'not important'. Dazz is a damn proud son of West Virginia, and the son of a coal miner. Who's he supposed to support... the candidate who came and talked with the coal miners and rural folk of West Virginia, or the one who dismissed the state? And the people of the state (Sorry: 'clinging to guns and religion' is plain old condescending.) The people who he grew up with and who he loves.

So, are we now saying that you're either voting for Obama or a racist? Isn't it possible not to support the man for..... I don't know..... his campaigning and politics rather than his race? Is it more racist to reduce his candidacy to a 'yea or nay' on racism, or to actually, like, treat him by the same yardstick as any other candidate and coming to conclusions based on their words and record? What the fuck?

Yeah, lots of y'all disagree with Dazz on Obama. Yeah, Dazz is a guy who uses vulgarity to express disappointment. But y'all are reaching really far there, and I think it plain 'ol sucks.

[Paul McEnery]

Okay, Paul, pure facts:

Bill Clinton lied under oath, and conspired with others to commit perjury in a civil case involving him. For this he was put through an impeachment trial, lost a default judgment, and surrendered his law license. He has confessed to committing this crime, a felony in most states.

Nixon was driven from the White House by Democrats and Republicans who accused him of lying. He resigned rather than face the charges.

Clinton faced the charges and was excused by the Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate.

Do ya suppose that maybe, just maybe if he had either resigned or been removed from office there might have been some traction among the American public with various charges that Bush lied?

Or do ya suppose the American people just said, well, they all do it and they all protect one another and it's all just partisan politics so who cares?

I am fascinated by your complete lack of proportion here. And your harping on something that has no relevance so as to pursue something of a vendetta against Senator Clinton.

I mean, god knows I can't stand her myself, but I think I'd rather take potshots at her for what she does do rather than some old hooey.

And if you think there's even the remotest comparison between someone stretching the truth to spare his blushes and somebody falsifying information to send us to war and cost upwards of a million lives, you're out of your tree.

[Paul McEnery]

(Sorry: 'clinging to guns and religion' is plain old condescending.) .

No it isn't, don't be silly.

Again: "Let us cling to Jesus and never stop trusting Him.” Hebrews 4:14-16.


And while we're at it, stop ducking the issue. Nobody's saying you're racist.

We are saying that you and Dazzler both have a bee in your bonnet about Obama that has absolutely no rational basis.

We would like to know what real basis you do have.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

No it isn't, don't be silly.

Again: "Let us cling to Jesus and never stop trusting Him.” Hebrews 4:14-16.

Right. And 'projecting nobility' isn't subjective. 'Cause it's just not.

[Dazzler]

And while we're at it, stop ducking the issue. Nobody's saying you're racist.
Well, actually, yes they did. But that's neither here nor there since I really couldn't give a crap.

We are saying that you and Dazzler both have a bee in your bonnet about Obama that has absolutely no rational basis.

We would like to know what real basis you do have.
First, I don't ever recall PBM having a reaction strong enough to elicit her having a "bee in her bonnet" about Obama. As a matter of fact, when the whole primaries started, she actually tried to temper my anti-Obama stances. Just because she disagrees with YOUR personal take that Barack Obama's nobility is without question, doesn't mean that she's out to get him. She simply looks at him with the same questioning eye as every other candidate rather than assiging him the role of New Messiah. I think that's admirable and realistic, and definitely not worthy of giving her down the road for.

Secondly, I have stated why I dislike Obama, not as much in this thread as that other thing. I get the feeling that you aren't happy because my reasons for disliking him aren't the reasons you WANT them to be. Namely, that I just flat out say that it's because I haven't seen the light that you, Paul McEnery, shed on all of us caught in the Dark Ages. Screw that.

--Dazz

[Kevinroc]

(Sorry: 'clinging to guns and religion' is plain old condescending.)

Which is not what he actually said.

"The places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. . . . Everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna vote for the black guy.' . . . But the truth is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Which is not what he actually said.

"The places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. . . . Everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna vote for the black guy.' . . . But the truth is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

Wrong quote. This one:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

You may or may not see that as condescending, but let's at least get on the same page about the quote in question. :wink:

[Kevinroc]

Wrong quote. This one:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

You may or may not see that as condescending, but let's at least get on the same page about the quote in question. :wink:

My quote was what he was actually trying to say. It most certainly is not this major condescending thing that Hillary made it out to be. And really, I was blown away that Hillary tried to exploit that for all it was worth against someone in the same party as she was who was already ahead and was already assumed to be the nominee.

[Dazzler]

Which is not what he actually said.

"The places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. . . . Everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna vote for the black guy.' . . . But the truth is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

That actually isn't a bad quote from him.

However, he contradicts himself in the same speech by suggesting that rural people wouldn't listen to him because he's black:

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

Well, great. Not only are the working class racist automatically (no stereotyping or race politics there...), but apparently, that's funny. Oh, you Hillbillies! You're so backward compared to us!

--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

My quote was what he was actually trying to say.

And my quote was what he actually said.

So...... you know.

[Kevinroc]

That actually isn't a bad quote from him.

However, he contradicts himself in the same speech by suggesting that rural people wouldn't listen to him because he's black:

You know he didn't it like that. It's right there.

And my quote was what he actually said.

So...... you know.

And it was taken completely out of context and used by Hillary in a despicable manner.

[Paul McEnery]

Right. And 'projecting nobility' isn't subjective. 'Cause it's just not.

Well, it isn't. And if you didn't have a bug up your bum about the guy, you wouldn't be quibbling about it.

The guy does a good dog and pony show, and he projects nobility. That's his schtick, just like Bill Clinton and George Bush projected folksiness.

If you want to argue that, then you're arguing the meaning of the word, not what he actually does.

[Paul McEnery]

Well, actually, yes they did. But that's neither here nor there since I really couldn't give a crap.

No they didn't. So stop ducking the issue.

First, I don't ever recall PBM having a reaction strong enough to elicit her having a "bee in her bonnet" about Obama.

Nonsense. And she's doing it just two posts above this one, too.


As a matter of fact, when the whole primaries started, she actually tried to temper my anti-Obama stances. Just because she disagrees with YOUR personal take that Barack Obama's nobility is without question,

I'm beginning to think the reading disability idea has more value. But see above for my reiteration and clarification of what my words are before they go through the filter of your hatred for the man.


Secondly, I have stated why I dislike Obama, not as much in this thread as that other thing. I get the feeling that you aren't happy because my reasons for disliking him aren't the reasons you WANT them to be.

Well, no.

They actually have to be reasons.

[Corrina]

Okay, Paul, pure facts:

Bill Clinton lied under oath, and conspired with others to commit perjury in a civil case involving him. For this he was put through an impeachment trial, lost a default judgment, and surrendered his law license. He has confessed to committing this crime, a felony in most states.

Nixon was driven from the White House by Democrats and Republicans who accused him of lying. He resigned rather than face the charges.


Lying about a blow job, lying about fixing an election.

I'm not seeing those as the same.

[Corrina]

My quote was what he was actually trying to say. It most certainly is not this major condescending thing that Hillary made it out to be. And really, I was blown away that Hillary tried to exploit that for all it was worth against someone in the same party as she was who was already ahead and was already assumed to be the nominee.

Not to you, it wasn't condescending.

And we're talking about what he said, not what he was trying to say.

And I only had to take one look at that statement and think "Barack Obama, you just stepped in it." I don't need either Clinton, nor any pundit, to tell me that.

ETA: Look, it's like this. If Hilary Clinton goes to the South Side of Chicago and talks some hard truths, and maybe phrases them badly, it's not going to go down well. It's going to go down a lot better if Obama says it. Because they know where he's coming from and what he's talking about. Obama has that problem with the voters we're talking about.

[KevinTBrown]

Lying about a blow job, lying about fixing an election.

I'm not seeing those as the same.
It's not WHAT he lied about, it's the fact that Clinton lied under oath..... The blow job was the least of his concerns then.

[Sabrinaset]

Catch-up post!

This is all the position of sanity. Which is why I'm interested as to how you felt the speech worked for him. Because there were a couple of areas of doubt in my mind, but I want to see what everyone else thinks first before I open my big flapping gob.

I don't even remember the speech anymore ... anyone have a YouTube link? I mean, I just got back from work, and yesterday is like forever to me ...

I think Obama should pick a socialist, Jewish Latina lesbian for his veep. Just so, you know, "nothing happens." :biggrin:

You want Kris to be his veep? :eek:

Light up a fag, you're sounding bitter.

I got really worried here until I remembered you're from Europe!

Well, you suggested desire to wipe your ass with a picture of his face. If somebody had suggested using Hillary's photo as a tampon, wouldn't you have found that misogynist?

When you vote for Hillary, you help stop the bloodshed! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACfVGmF5eTU)


I can understand being disappointed or upset that their candidate lost, but 'thrown under the bus'? Did I miss the Obama campaign declaring it would ignore any and all of Hilary's supporters and then sacrifice them to Cuthulhu or something?

Isn't supporting Hillary the same thing as supporting Cthulhu? :confused:

And unless you're a racist, Obama looks and sounds a helluva lot more Presidential on camera than McCain. Sad to say looks count for so much, but they do.

See, now THIS I have a problem with. To you, Obama appears more presidential, but you know, there are different people out there with different perceptions and different standards of what a president should act and sound like, and here you go saying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a racist. You've just said it's not at all possible someone could come up with their own opinion using their own standards and opinions and not be bigoted if it differs from your own opinion. Well, here's where Dreadstar and (I think) PBM and Dazz are correct. It is entirely possible that people can disagree with where he stands on something or how he acts and not be racist. Geez, what's next? "Vote for Obama or you're a racist"?

[KevinTBrown]

When West Virginia had it's primaries, Hillary campaigned in the state and Obama said West Virginia was 'not important'. Dazz is a damn proud son of West Virginia, and the son of a coal miner. Who's he supposed to support... the candidate who came and talked with the coal miners and rural folk of West Virginia, or the one who dismissed the state?

When, and show me a link please, did Obama actually say the words "West Virginia is not important"? I can't find it....

I know when WV held their primary, Obama had already turned his focus on to the General Election. He knew then that he was going to be the nominee, regardless of the outcome of WV. The fact is, he did campaign in the state 3 different times, the last time being the day before the primary. He thanks his supporters and was essentially "conceding defeat" of the state to Clinton. He was a realist in that respect. He knew he was going to lose there. Now then he could have spent millions of dollars there or focus on the big prize.

Focusing on the bigger prize doesn't make WV "not important" to him.

[KevinTBrown]

See, now THIS I have a problem with. To you, Obama appears more presidential, but you know, there are different people out there with different perceptions and different standards of what a president should act and sound like, and here you go saying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a racist. You've just said it's not at all possible someone could come up with their own opinion using their own standards and opinions and not be bigoted if it differs from your own opinion. Well, here's where Dreadstar and (I think) PBM and Dazz are correct. It is entirely possible that people can disagree with where he stands on something or how he acts and not be racist. Geez, what's next? "Vote for Obama or you're a racist"?
I will say this: I may wholeheartedly disagree with Dazz, Maxine and Dreadstar in their dislike of Obama, but what they're saying is not racist nor would I say they are racist. One or two others who are more pro-McCain on here, on the other hand, I'd definitely say their white sheet and pointy hood is being exposed...

[Paul McEnery]

Geez, what's next? "Vote for Obama or you're a racist"?

I'd really like to see this one nipped in the bud.

"You're being irrational about Obama."
"Are you calling me a racist?"
"No I said you were irrational."
"You did, you just called me a racist!"
"No, I said irrational. I guess they kind of sound the same..."
"You did it again! I'm not a racist!"

We're going to here a lot of people duck substantive issues this way, I reckon.

[Buzz Dixon]

I am fascinated by your complete lack of proportion here. And your harping on something that has no relevance so as to pursue something of a vendetta against Senator Clinton.

I mean, god knows I can't stand her myself, but I think I'd rather take potshots at her for what she does do rather than some old hooey.

And if you think there's even the remotest comparison between someone stretching the truth to spare his blushes and somebody falsifying information to send us to war and cost upwards of a million lives, you're out of your tree.There's a verse in the Bible where the prophet Nathan confronts King David over his adultery with Bathsheba and subsequent engineering of her husband Uriah's death: "Thou art the man."

Here is the context: When the mightiest person in the country can act with impunity against the weakest, it is an abomination. Bill Clinton private citizen ceased to exist the moment he was elected president; the President of the United States perverted justice so that the most powerful man in the world would not have to answer to the wholly justified charges of one of the weakest citizens.

That is what both Clintons need to be justifiably despised for; boffing interns in the Oval Office is tacky, tasteless, stupid, and juvenile but no crime. Lying under oath to pervert justice is; there is no legal excuse or justification simply because the truth would be embarrassing.

(And let's recall what Paula Jones was suing about, shall we? She had been reported to have engaged in sexual relations with Bill Clinton and asked Clinton to testify they had not, although she did recount a somewhat colorful meeting between her and Clinton. Clinton could have easily said, "I don't recall out meeting occurring the way Ms Jones recounts, but I do know we did not have sex, so you go, girl, sue the people who said you did." But Clinton refused to say this and testified he had never met her. When her lawyers learned of Lewinsky, they asked about the intern with the strategy of proving in court that Clinton had a pattern of engaging in sexual relations with political employees and appointees. Clinton asked Lewinsky and his secretary at the White House to lie under oath about their meetings and appointments. It was the fact he lied under oath and suborned perjury, both felonies, that led to hs impeachment trial, not his relationship with Lewinsky.)

In fact, let's flip this, shall we. If you're saying it's okay to lie about unimportant stuff, why won't you say it's also okay to lie about something if one believes it's for a good cause?

And let's try this alternate history on for size: Bill Clinton resigns in 1998; Al Gore becomes president. The country and the media give Gore a grace period, same as they did Gerald For following Nixon's resignation. Gore, as a seated president, probably wins his own election in 2000 and re-election in 2004.

See what could have happened if Bill Clinton had as much honor and dignity as Richard Nixon?

[Sabrinaset]

I will say this: I may wholeheartedly disagree with Dazz, Maxine and Dreadstar in their dislike of Obama, but what they're saying is not racist nor would I say they are racist. One or two others who are more pro-McCain on here, on the other hand, I'd definitely say their white sheet and pointy hood is being exposed...

See, I agree with you ...but the problem is ...

I'd really like to see this one nipped in the bud.

"You're being irrational about Obama."
"Are you calling me a racist?"
"No I said you were irrational."
"You did, you just called me a racist!"
"No, I said irrational. I guess they kind of sound the same..."
"You did it again! I'm not a racist!"

...Corrina SPECIFICALLY said "And unless you're a racist, Obama looks and sounds a helluva lot more Presidential on camera than McCain." ... so this wasn't a case such as yours of someone misinterpreting a disagreement as racism, it's a case where someone is flat-out, no doubt about it, written in stone or at least pixelatted letters on a monitor saying you either think Obama appears more presidential than McCain ... OR you are a bigot. Talk about playing the race card!

[Charles RB]

And it was taken completely out of context and used by Hillary in a despicable manner.

Ahhh, politics!

Right. And 'projecting nobility' isn't subjective.

Well, in this case it's not subjective, no - Obama's trying to project a specific image, as all political leaders try to do, of what he is. I'd say he does seem to be projecting nobility and being above some of the seamier parts of politics.

This isn't the same as him inherently being noble or naturally giving it off - Gordon Brown cultivated an image of being stoic, hard-working and a competent helmsman who Got Things Done, which he actually hasn't proven himself to be.

[Paul McEnery]

See, I agree with you ...but the problem is ...



...Corrina SPECIFICALLY said "And unless you're a racist, Obama looks and sounds a helluva lot more Presidential on camera than McCain." ... so this wasn't a case such as yours of someone misinterpreting a disagreement as racism, it's a case where someone is flat-out, no doubt about it, written in stone or at least pixelatted letters on a monitor saying you either think Obama appears more presidential than McCain ... OR you are a bigot. Talk about playing the race card!

Well all right, that is a fair call. Slap on wrist for Corrina.

Here's a better way to put it: You can't fail to notice that Obama seems more presidential than McCain unless you've got a bug up your arse about the man.

The same was true with Hillary, I think. I have nothing against having a woman as my Representative, nor as my Senator, and whatever else I had against Thatcher, being a woman wasn't it. But Hillary came across as mumsy to me; not kickass Ripley or Sarah Conner mum, but lunchtime talkshow mum. I've no doubt that she'd have done the job well if it had come to that, just as I know she's a fine Senator, but the image wasn't as strong as Obama's.

[Briareos]

I will say this: I may wholeheartedly disagree with Dazz, Maxine and Dreadstar in their dislike of Obama, but what they're saying is not racist nor would I say they are racist. One or two others who are more pro-McCain on here, on the other hand, I'd definitely say their white sheet and pointy hood is being exposed...

You'll forgive me to think your talking about me in that. You do know I supported Michael Steele for his senate campaign in Maryland. He was the one who your side did racist caricatures of and threw oreo cookies at him during a speach...

[Corrina]

See, I agree with you ...but the problem is ...



...Corrina SPECIFICALLY said "And unless you're a racist, Obama looks and sounds a helluva lot more Presidential on camera than McCain." ... so this wasn't a case such as yours of someone misinterpreting a disagreement as racism, it's a case where someone is flat-out, no doubt about it, written in stone or at least pixelatted letters on a monitor saying you either think Obama appears more presidential than McCain ... OR you are a bigot. Talk about playing the race card!

Okay, I will clarify.

McCain looks like your cranky Grandpa. He's compact, he tends to spit out words, he gives you the evil eye. So is my impression.

Obama is taller, more dignified-looking, younger, and gives off more energy.

It's like George H.W. Bush versus an older Mike Dukakis. Did anyone look at Dukakis and think "well, clearly, there's our next president."

I really don't see how you can think McCain's looks are more presidential than Obama. One of the reasons a person might not is that they can't see a person of color as Presidential.

However, I should not have said what I said and implied if you didn't, you (collective you) were a racist. And it was wrong to imply what I implied and I deeply apologize for that.

Note: This doesn't mean McCain wouldn't be a good president because he doesn't look the part. Plenty of other reasons why he wouldn't be a good president, to my mind. I'm just saying, he doesn't look the part. And that has an effect on the voter.

[Dazzler]

No they didn't. So stop ducking the issue.
Do I REALLY have to do that tacky "quoting the post where it happened" thing internet debaters are so dang fond of?
Well, okay.
!
I was unaware about Dazzler's attitude about this when I posted before, but it's been a real eye-opener, confirming what I thought about Hillary supporters who said they'd switch sides--no logical argument, just general statements about finding him unsuitable, and racist catchphrases flying, afterward. Here's another catch-phrase racists like--Liberal Guilt. Never had it, never had reason to. i treat people the way I expect to be treated, and don't believe in stereotypes. If someone is fucking we me, or someone I love, I don't care if they're blue--I'll knock them out. It's been known to happen. Hating or loving large groups of people based on their race, sex or ethnicity is for unenlightened morons.

So, apparently I'm a racist who likes to use racist catch phrases. Gee. Now, honestly, I don't know who this guy is, nor do I care. But clearly he's an alcoholic drug addict or something. You know, as long as we're throwing around baseless claims and whatnot.

Nonsense. And she's doing it just two posts above this one, too.
Riiiight. Clarifying between perceived intent and a literal quote. That's facist!


I'm beginning to think the reading disability idea has more value. But see above for my reiteration and clarification of what my words are before they go through the filter of your hatred for the man.
Oh Paul. Reading disability barbs? What is this, fifth grade? You never clarify yourself, Paul. Ever. It's just a one up game with you to win the war of semantics. I don't feel like playing it, thanks.


--Dazz

[Dazzler]

I will say this: I may wholeheartedly disagree with Dazz, Maxine and Dreadstar in their dislike of Obama, but what they're saying is not racist nor would I say they are racist.
Well, thanks Kevin. That's appreciated.

At any rate, I'm done. And out. Dreadstar definitely had the right idea bowing out. This is a kerfuffle waiting to happen. Or rather, happening.

--Dazz

[Sabrinaset]

Okay, I will clarify.

McCain looks like your cranky Grandpa. He's compact, he tends to spit out words, he gives you the evil eye. So is my impression.

Obama is taller, more dignified-looking, younger, and gives off more energy.

It's like George H.W. Bush versus an older Mike Dukakis. Did anyone look at Dukakis and think "well, clearly, there's our next president."

I really don't see how you can think McCain's looks are more presidential than Obama. One of the reasons a person might not is that they can't see a person of color as Presidential.

However, I should not have said what I said and implied if you didn't, you (collective you) were a racist. And it was wrong to imply what I implied and I deeply apologize for that.

Note: This doesn't mean McCain wouldn't be a good president because he doesn't look the part. Plenty of other reasons why he wouldn't be a good president, to my mind. I'm just saying, he doesn't look the part. And that has an effect on the voter.


Okay, that's fair enough and is pretty much correct there.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Well, in this case it's not subjective, no - Obama's trying to project a specific image, as all political leaders try to do, of what he is.

If one is to presume that the original intent was merely to state what he's trying to project, then it's more precice to say "Obama is trying to project nobility." That is something that can be confirmed, and would therefore be objective. To say he IS projecting it is still a subjective statement.

I can attempt to project a joie de vivre, or animal sexiness. That doesn't mean I'm actually doing so.

Still, I suspect that this is all spin, and is certainly nonsense.

[Briareos]

Dear Briareos,

As I understand it, the US is now in a major recession and more people are losing their homes or defaulting than ever before, leading to the "credit crunch". This was made possible by massive deregulation, which occurred, I believe, under Bush.

There was never any danger of Iraq getting nuclear weapons. So many books have been written on how the intelligence on this was perverted that this should no longer be a talking point. Moreover, as the CIA pointed out, even if Iraq had nukes, it would hardly have mattered - the only scenario under which it would used them were if it were attacked.

Finally, Bush has run up an unbelievable deficit (after Clinton left him with a surplus) both through irresponsible tax breaks then an accelerated militarization and two stupid, pointless and losing wars, which he has fought without asking for tax increases or any sacrifices from Americans.

So, yes, overall, the US is much worse off - by almost any measure - than it has been in a very long time. Bush and the people around him have proven to be an unmitigated disaster.

Sincerely,

Shaun

That is incorrect. We are definitly not in a recession. A recession is two quarters of negative economic growth. We have not even had one yet.

Also two stupid wars? So we should have never entered Afghanistan?

[KevinTBrown]

You'll forgive me to think your talking about me in that. You do know I supported Michael Steele for his senate campaign in Maryland. He was the one who your side did racist caricatures of and threw oreo cookies at him during a speach...

I purposely pointed no fingers at anyone.









However, if anyone feels it was directed at them, what does that say..?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

See, now THIS I have a problem with. To you, Obama appears more presidential, but you know, there are different people out there with different perceptions and different standards of what a president should act and sound like, and here you go saying that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a racist. You've just said it's not at all possible someone could come up with their own opinion using their own standards and opinions and not be bigoted if it differs from your own opinion. Well, here's where Dreadstar and (I think) PBM and Dazz are correct. It is entirely possible that people can disagree with where he stands on something or how he acts and not be racist. Geez, what's next? "Vote for Obama or you're a racist"?

Thank you for this, Sabrina. You're right, this is what I'm trying to say.

[KevinTBrown]

This is directed mainly at Dazz (who I hope sees this...), but anyone can obviously answer: How do you feel about Obama possibly offering to pay Clinton's $20 million campaign debt?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080605/pl_bloomberg/apktsglzmhzm

[Paul McEnery]

This is directed mainly at Dazz (who I hope sees this...), but anyone can obviously answer: How do you feel about Obama possibly offering to pay Clinton's $20 million campaign debt?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080605/pl_bloomberg/apktsglzmhzm

I know that I'd rather he spent it on his own campaign.

Can he really get 20 million bucks worth of value out of that?

[Dazzler]

This is directed mainly at Dazz (who I hope sees this...), but anyone can obviously answer: How do you feel about Obama possibly offering to pay Clinton's $20 million campaign debt?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080605/pl_bloomberg/apktsglzmhzm

Well, that's awfully nice of him.

But also exactly what I would do if I were trying to show hardline Hillary supporters that I'm a really nice guy, no really! See? No hard feelings between me and Hills.

Or he could just be really, really nice.

But I have a hard time believing anyone is 20 million dollars nice.

Sorry, just had to respond since it was a legit question.

--Dazz

[Briareos]

I purposely pointed no fingers at anyone.







However, if anyone feels it was directed at them, what does that say..?

Like conservatives don't have the race card played against them all the time... :rolleyes:

[Briareos]

I purposely pointed no fingers at anyone.









However, if anyone feels it was directed at them, what does that say..?

Also how many McCain supporters (not sure if you know about my support for Michael Williams or not) are on this thread...

[Sabrinaset]

I know that I'd rather he spent it on his own campaign.

Can he really get 20 million bucks worth of value out of that?

If part of the deal is that Bill Clinton keeps his big fat mouth shut, it's a bargain at TWICE the price!!!

[Infra-Man]

The debt relief thing is pretty interesting. Don't know if there's a precedent for this.

Given that the Clinton campaign is in debt as is the DNC (I heard they're $15 million behind on their goal and may have to scale down their convention as a result), I'm wondering how much Obama's warchest can be tapped to help both parties while still keeping enough to run his own campaign.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

This is directed mainly at Dazz (who I hope sees this...), but anyone can obviously answer: How do you feel about Obama possibly offering to pay Clinton's $20 million campaign debt?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080605/pl_bloomberg/apktsglzmhzm

Seems pretty decent to me.

A political move to be sure, as all are, but a decent one.

[Samurai]

Do I REALLY have to do that tacky "quoting the post where it happened" thing internet debaters are so dang fond of?
Well, okay.

So, apparently I'm a racist who likes to use racist catch phrases. Gee. Now, honestly, I don't know who this guy is, nor do I care. But clearly he's an alcoholic drug addict or something. You know, as long as we're throwing around baseless claims and whatnot.


Riiiight. Clarifying between perceived intent and a literal quote. That's facist!



Oh Paul. Reading disability barbs? What is this, fifth grade? You never clarify yourself, Paul. Ever. It's just a one up game with you to win the war of semantics. I don't feel like playing it, thanks.


--Dazz

Surely you must be mistaken, because Paul has stated many times how he can disagree with everyone besides me and never hurl an insult or attack them personally... :rolleyes:

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Like conservatives don't have the race card played against them all the time... :rolleyes: ...and don't the leadership of such movements use the 'poor, downtrodden white man' card every chance they get, from English Colonization, The Trail of Tears, The Inquisition, Stalin (no friend to the Jewish People--or the unique culture of the Ukraine), Hitler to George Wallace, to David Duke--to convince their base that they are oppressed by immigrants and other races...it's the fodder of National Socialist political movements, both Fascist AND Communist Totalitarianism and an historically-proven track record of potential genocide.

[Crowley]

That actually isn't a bad quote from him.

However, he contradicts himself in the same speech by suggesting that rural people wouldn't listen to him because he's black:



Well, great. Not only are the working class racist automatically (no stereotyping or race politics there...), but apparently, that's funny. Oh, you Hillbillies! You're so backward compared to us!

--Dazz

didn't you not like Obama LONG before the "bitter" bullshit?

[Buzz Dixon]

I know that I'd rather he spent it on his own campaign.

Can he really get 20 million bucks worth of value out of that?If paying the debt requires Hillary to drop from sight until after November, a bargain at twice the price...

[Pink Bat Maxine]

When, and show me a link please, did Obama actually say the words "West Virginia is not important"? I can't find it....

You got me on this one. I didn't hear it firsthand.

[Buzz Dixon]

If part of the deal is that Bill Clinton keeps his big fat mouth shut, it's a bargain at TWICE the price!!!Drat -- ya beat me to the punchline!:wink: