View Full Version : The Obama Thread (Merged x6)
\S/JcDc\S/
02-26-2008, 05:12 PM
It is a non issue. Same with the picture. Lol, Clinton squad is getting desperate after Obama winning so many states in a row. Oh well, they have the states they've been counting on for the past months coming up. Maybe they will stop the extremes they have been going to if they win TX/OH.
sinewave
02-26-2008, 05:12 PM
The only time Obama supporters have made a big deal out of it is when people have used his middle name as an obvious attempt to paint him as a Muslim. Hell, that email that was circulating a few months ago trying to portray him as being a closeted Muslim even made a point of capitalizing his middle name. "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama".... no, that's not trying to draw attention to his middle name.
yeah, that i could understand. it's better to take the high road in those cases and not even respond to it, but that doesn't always happen. it reflects far worse on the people using those tactics than the victim of them.
sinewave
02-26-2008, 05:14 PM
But she doesn't have a Muslim-sounding middle name. I'm talking about Barack Hussein Obama, not Hillary Clinton :o
But seriously...I'm not furious over this issue because I think both sides are just as stupid for exploiting it. The Democrats and left-wing press get up in arms whenever Hussein is mentioned. It's like an unofficial rule to say his middle name at all, and if you say it, you must hate Obama/ be a racist agent of fear. On the reverse, the Republicans who think that constantly repeating his middle name will have any kind of effect on the results of the election are equally stupid. They're pissing and moaning over a name. The media has spent over an hour today on his name. It's rather ridiculous.
that and the patriotism tomfoolery. :down
It is a non issue. Same with the picture. Lol, Clinton squad is getting desperate after Obama winning so many states in a row. Oh well, they have the states they've been counting on for the past months coming up. Maybe they will stop the extremes they have been going to if they win TX/OH.
agreed.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 05:15 PM
i haven't seen his supporters freak out over it, myself. are you referring to a specific instance? it sounds like you're generalizing his supporters.
You haven't been watching the news today, have you?
Superman
02-26-2008, 05:16 PM
You honestly can not be muslim or have any middle eastern sounding names in this country without someone making a smart ass remark or raising an eyebrow at you.What kills me is that Obama isn't even a muslim, He's a christain, But the far right has done everything in there power to make it look like he's a muslim. From including his middle name every time they say his name to the E-mails saying that he's a muslim and now they've got this dumb pic that just came out that they show every chance they get. It's disgusting.:whatever:
sinewave
02-26-2008, 05:17 PM
You haven't been watching the news today, have you?
nope. i've been stuck at work all day. i saw the crap about his patriotism yesterday, though. if this is the best the republicans can come up with to smear him, they're not going to stand a chance in the general election.
McCain showed some class with his quick repudiation
:up:
sinewave
02-26-2008, 05:18 PM
What kills me is that Obama isn't even a muslim, He's a christain, But the far right has done everything in there power to make it look like he's a muslim. From including his middle name every time they say his name to the E-mails saying that he's a muslim and now they've got this dumb pic that just came out that they show every chance they get. It's disgusting.:whatever:
come on, you know you're gonna vote republican. :oldrazz:
Raiden
02-26-2008, 05:19 PM
What kills me is that Obama isn't even a muslim, He's a christain, But the far right has done everything in there power to make it look like he's a muslim. From including his middle name every time they say his name to the E-mails saying that he's a muslim and now they've got this dumb pic that just came out that they show every chance they get. It's disgusting.:whatever:
Perhaps Obama can bring his pastor to speak on his behalf. But I guess GOP would then tried to paint his pastor as a closet Muslim or something. :(
people at the store today were going on and on about the pledge of allegiance thing...
when i went to explain that it was during the national anthem, and he was always taught to stand for the anthem and his hand on his heart for the pledge... the guy got defensive and said i was lying.
:huh:
sometimes this stuff sticks
Superman
02-26-2008, 05:31 PM
come on, you know you're gonna vote republican. :oldrazz:Yeah, When hell freezes over.:cmad:
:oldrazz:
souvlaki
02-26-2008, 05:33 PM
But she doesn't have a Muslim-sounding middle name. I'm talking about Barack Hussein Obama, not Hillary Clinton :o
But seriously...I'm not furious over this issue because I think both sides are just as stupid for exploiting it. The Democrats and left-wing press get up in arms whenever Hussein is mentioned. It's like an unofficial rule to say his middle name at all, and if you say it, you must hate Obama/ be a racist agent of fear. On the reverse, the Republicans who think that constantly repeating his middle name will have any kind of effect on the results of the election are equally stupid. They're pissing and moaning over a name. The media has spent over an hour today on his name. It's rather ridiculous.
I don't think his middle name is a big deal, but some people might. When people make an effort to emphasize that his middle name is Hussein, it's obvious that they are doing it as a scare tactic. Have you noticed that the only people that have used his middle name on a consistant basis have been people attacking him? Once again, what point did capitalizing HUSSEIN in that chain letter that was circulating a few months back serve? When a conservative talk show host makes a point to refer to Barack Obama as Barack Hussein Obama over and over again you dont think he has an ulterior motive? You made a point of arguing that the GOP will try and paint Obama as a Muslim in the general election. If you honestly believe this how can you watch that speach and not see it was an obvious scare tactic. Even John McCain saw it for what it was.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 05:47 PM
Perhaps Obama can bring his pastor to speak on his behalf. But I guess GOP would then tried to paint his pastor as a closet Muslim or something. :(
Doesn't his pastor dislike Jews... a lot? :huh:
souvlaki
02-26-2008, 05:57 PM
http://thesartorialsenator.typepad.com/the_sartorial_senator/images/2008/02/25/72502110.jpg
Who is Hillary Clinton? The real deal! Now a U. S. Presidential candidate, Hillary HUSSEIN Clinton was born in Chicago, Illinois, to Hugh HUSSEIN Rodham, a MUSLIM, and Dorothy Howell, an ATHIEST from Chicago, Illonois.
Come on, jmanspice, dont try and tell me this wouldn't piss you off to no end.
kal-el2006
02-26-2008, 06:04 PM
Another good piece..
Clinton, Obama And The Belief In The Magic Power Of Words
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/clinton-obama-and-the-be_b_88349.html
The Senator
02-26-2008, 06:04 PM
http://thesartorialsenator.typepad.com/the_sartorial_senator/images/2008/02/25/72502110.jpg
Who is Hillary Clinton? The real deal! Now a U. S. Presidential candidate, Hillary HUSSEIN Clinton was born in Chicago, Illinois, to Hugh HUSSEIN Rodham, a MUSLIM, and Dorothy Howell, an ATHIEST from Chicago, Illonois.
Come on, jmanspice, dont try and tell me this wouldn't piss you off to no end.
But her mother's not an atheist, nor is her middle name Hussein, nor does her behavior and cultural background indicate she's a Muslim.. so really it has no effect on me.
souvlaki
02-26-2008, 06:06 PM
But her mother's not an atheist, nor is her middle name Hussein... so really it has no effect on me.
I wasn't saying she was, and you know perfectly well that is not my point.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 06:11 PM
I wasn't saying she was, and you know perfectly well that is not my point.
Well, if we're going to speak in hypothetics, then why not ask 'what if Obama had adequate experience?' 'What if Obama actually offered solutions when he speaks?' You know, something like "If Obama had a good idea in the woods and no one was around to hear it..." :o
Seriously, I may not have addressed your point directly, but I made it clear before: I don't care. It doesn't affect how I view this race, nor should it affect how you and others view it.
souvlaki
02-26-2008, 06:12 PM
Here, let me lay this out for you, jmanspice. Just imagine for a second that Hillary had a similar history as Obama. She was born to a Muslim father, and an Atheist mother. She also happens to have a middle name similar to an unpopular dictator from the middle east. What would your reaction be if republicans went out of their way to reference her middle name, or her Muslim descent? What would your reaction to this be? Just put aside your hatred for Obama for one second and look at the situation here.
souvlaki
02-26-2008, 06:13 PM
Well, if we're going to speak in hypothetics, then why not ask 'what if Obama had adequate experience?' 'What if Obama actually offered solutions when he speaks?' You know, something like "If Obama had a good idea in the woods and no one was around to hear it..." :o
Seriously, I may not have addressed your point directly, but I made it clear before: I don't care. It doesn't affect how I view this race, nor should it affect how you and others view it.
You mean like Hillary's "experience"?
The Senator
02-26-2008, 06:15 PM
Here, let me lay this out for you, jmanspice. Just imagine for a second that Hillary had a similar history as Obama. She was born to a Muslim father, and an Atheist mother. She also happens to have a middle name similar to an unpopular dictator from the middle east. What would your reaction be if republicans went out of their way to reference her middle name, or her Muslim descent? What would your reaction to this be? Just put aside your hatred for Obama for one second and look at the situation here.
So I'll say it a third time, because apparently the first two times I said it weren't good enough: I wouldn't care. It doesn't affect how I view this race. It shows just how desperate her opponents are, but it's nothing to get all up in arms about, especially if her history is squeaky clean and her ideas appeal to a wide range of issues voters feel are important to them.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 06:19 PM
You mean like Hillary's "experience"?
Or Obama's "Change?"
comicgirl
02-26-2008, 06:42 PM
You mean like Hillary's "experience"?
People calling for experience act like there's a school that teaches this; Presidentology 101/Advanced course credit. Gerald Ford was veep, but a pretty mediocre Pres. I know regular everyday people that organize, motivate others and accomplish amazing things. Alot of it is seeing the problem and having the will to get things done.
Hopefully, we won't get another Pres. that allows other people to lead them by the nose.
souvlaki
02-26-2008, 06:46 PM
So I'll say it a third time, because apparently the first two times I said it weren't good enough: I wouldn't care. It doesn't affect how I view this race. It shows just how desperate her opponents are, but it's nothing to get all up in arms about, especially if her history is squeaky clean and her ideas appeal to a wide range of issues voters feel are important to them.
Of course you dont care. You have made it clear you dont like Obama. But given your reaction to anything negative directed toward Hillary, justified or otherwise, I find it hard to believe that if the situation was reversed you would be so apathetic.
comicgirl
02-26-2008, 06:52 PM
Of course you dont care. You have made it clear you dont like Obama. But given your reaction to anything negative directed toward Hillary, justified or otherwise, I find it hard to believe that if the situation was reversed you would be so apathetic.:lmao:
BlackLantern
02-26-2008, 07:00 PM
Or Obama's "Change?"
the BlackLantern/jmanspice Mixers For Change ticket owns Obamas' change all day long
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 07:03 PM
Good evening all!
Well, the debate's about to start. Let's recap: Last week's version showed Hillary being nice and sweet and it made no impact on Obama's momentum. Since that Texan debate, she's gone postal in one attack on him after another--a complete 180. In my opinion, it would be hypocritical for her NOT to go for his jugular tonight, but she runs the risk of realing turning off people.
Soooooooo the big question of tonight is: Which Hillary will show up? :cool:
souvlaki
02-26-2008, 07:05 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080213/capt.1ddedaf1d5124b3f89c3b9e28d938904.clinton_2008 _txeg104.jpg
Maybe I should start a chain letter claiming Hillary is a closeted Nazi. See, jmanspice, the problem is not that Obama supporters are pissed off about people making a point of referring to him by his middle name, or that they are spreading pictures of him in traditional Somali clothing, it's that they are doing these things as a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. To paint him as something he is not. It's wrong no matter how you look at it.
BlackLantern
02-26-2008, 07:08 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080213/capt.1ddedaf1d5124b3f89c3b9e28d938904.clinton_2008 _txeg104.jpg
caption : Hey....BEER GUY....over here....!!!
comicgirl
02-26-2008, 07:10 PM
Good evening all!
Well, the debate's about to start. Let's recap: Last week's version showed Hillary being nice and sweet and it made no impact on Obama's momentum. Since that Texan debate, she's gone postal in one attack on him after another--a complete 180. In my opinion, it would be hypocritical for her NOT to go for his jugular tonight, but she runs the risk of realing turning off people.
Soooooooo the big question of tonight is: Which Hillary will show up? :cool:http://worldnetdaily.com/images2/mad%20hillary.jpgrock face Hillary
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 07:10 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080213/capt.1ddedaf1d5124b3f89c3b9e28d938904.clinton_2008 _txeg104.jpg
Maybe I should start a chain letter claiming Hillary is a closeted Nazi. See, jmanspice, the problem is not that Obama supporters are pissed off about people making a point of referring to him by his middle name, or that they are spreading pictures of him in traditional Somali clothing, it's that they are doing these things as a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. To paint him as something he is not. It's wrong no matter how you look at it.
He doesn't get it. You probably should stop trying now. :cool:
jaguarr
02-26-2008, 07:11 PM
http://worldnetdaily.com/images2/mad%20hillary.jpgrock face Hillary
More like Shart Face Hillary. :funny:
jag
The Senator
02-26-2008, 07:33 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080213/capt.1ddedaf1d5124b3f89c3b9e28d938904.clinton_2008 _txeg104.jpg
Maybe I should start a chain letter claiming Hillary is a closeted Nazi. See, jmanspice, the problem is not that Obama supporters are pissed off about people making a point of referring to him by his middle name, or that they are spreading pictures of him in traditional Somali clothing, it's that they are doing these things as a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. To paint him as something he is not. It's wrong no matter how you look at it.
Hahaha! You think a photo of her in an awkward position is going to make me mad? You know how many bad photos there are of her? Whether they capture her waving stiff handedly, or with her eyes bulging out of her head, I've seen 'em all before. It's hardly enough to outrage me.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 07:34 PM
He doesn't get it. You probably should stop trying now. :cool:
I get it, but I think it's stupid and petty.
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 07:36 PM
I get it, but I think it's stupid and petty.
Hopefully you see the stupidity and pettiness of the matter when Hillary engages in it as well--not just other candidates. That's the point 'Laki's trying to make to you.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 07:39 PM
Of course you dont care. You have made it clear you dont like Obama. But given your reaction to anything negative directed toward Hillary, justified or otherwise, I find it hard to believe that if the situation was reversed you would be so apathetic.
I react when people attempt to make legitimate claims. Attacking her experience, her personality, her views on African Americans, or whether she'll destroy the Democratic Party are such claims I defend vigorously. I also attack childish, nonsensical rants about Clinton Media Machines or her being a cold-hearted *****. But beyond that, you will hardly see me doing backflips to argue over someone using her name or an awkward photo against her, unless it's credible. If she was standing with Osama bin Laden, trading suitcase nukes for crack, then I'd be a bit concerned. But if she's got her arm extended outright, or if her eyes bulge out of her head when she smiles, I'm not going to criticize it because you can't change it. You can't change Barack's middle name, you can't change that people are going to piss and moan about it... so you might as well move on. It's a non-issue.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 07:40 PM
Hopefully you see the stupidity and pettiness of the matter when Hillary engages in it as well--not just other candidates. That's the point 'Laki's trying to make to you.
Except she doesn't engage in it so I don't see your point.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 07:41 PM
the BlackLantern/jmanspice Mixers For Change ticket owns Obamas' change all day long
Hellzyeah :cool:
Good evening all!
Well, the debate's about to start. Let's recap: Last week's version showed Hillary being nice and sweet and it made no impact on Obama's momentum. Since that Texan debate, she's gone postal in one attack on him after another--a complete 180. In my opinion, it would be hypocritical for her NOT to go for his jugular tonight, but she runs the risk of realing turning off people.
Soooooooo the big question of tonight is: Which Hillary will show up? :cool:
Hillary is going to come out swinging. She needs Ohio. She is going to throw everything she can at him. Frankly it is a desperate debate for Clinton. She lives or dies on this campaign. She won't hold anything back as she has absolutely nothing to lose. And that makes her very dangerous to Obama as she has made it clear that if she is going down, she is going to get him as bloody as possible for the fight with McCain.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 07:47 PM
Of course you dont care. You have made it clear you dont like Obama. But given your reaction to anything negative directed toward Hillary, justified or otherwise, I find it hard to believe that if the situation was reversed you would be so apathetic.
I've been apathetic throughout most of her rather insignificant gaffes, which the media and this forum have exploited to no end. From her tears in NH to those biographies written about her, I've laid off what I think doesn't need to be addressed because it doesn't merit a response. Why? Because I know that the idiots who call her a ***** will continue to paint her as a manipulative lying thief regardless of what I say or do. It'd be a winless battle for me.
There are some things which don't have to be addressed or analyzed, and Barry-O's middle name is one of them.
Excel
02-26-2008, 07:50 PM
Not really if the debate in Texas in any indication, expect booing at any sort of attack and that will shut her up. Again, Hillary doesnt have the balls to **** tlak Obama to his face; not only would she make fool of herself but he would make one of her.
She'll come out swinging with all shes got that wont make her look bad, and that means shell only have whats shes been using and what isnt working.
She had a legit point of getting pissed this weekend by that brouchure because she never did say she supported NAFTA so its kinda like shooting someone in their sleep; shes down and now they make this crap. BUT at the same time, it wont work against Obama because shes made the stupid mistake of touting her years as first lady as expirience, and all hell say is "ummmmm Hillary, you were first lady when nafta came out were you not?"
and shes backed herself into another corner...because she cant come out and admit the time as first lady shes called expirience was actually time she wasnt doing jack****.
souvlaki
02-26-2008, 07:57 PM
There are some things which don't have to be addressed or analyzed, and Barry-O's middle name is one of them.
Yet you felt that ridiculous photo on the Drudge Report was one of those things that needed to be addressed?
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 08:00 PM
Except she doesn't engage in it so I don't see your point.
I'm sorry but...WHAT???? :eek:
Okay, your boat is sinking with me. Because if you can't clearly see that the woman and her campaign have been rife with petty cattiness of late, there is no object in debating with you.
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 08:01 PM
Hillary is going to come out swinging. She needs Ohio. She is going to throw everything she can at him. Frankly it is a desperate debate for Clinton. She lives or dies on this campaign. She won't hold anything back as she has absolutely nothing to lose. And that makes her very dangerous to Obama as she has made it clear that if she is going down, she is going to get him as bloody as possible for the fight with McCain.
It is also very dangerous for her. Because if he takes the "dignified high road' he's been adopting of late it will make her look utterly stupid and childish. It will also paint him as more mature and sophisticated--and that will destroy her.
She needs to tread just as carefully as him--if not more so tonight.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 08:03 PM
Yet you felt that ridiculous photo on the Drudge Report was one of those things that needed to be addressed?
Because that's a legitimate concern voters have about him. They don't know anything about Obama, and with all this hubbub about him being a Muslim, he should address his faith and colorful background. He's unlike your average American politician. Most Americans don't spend a childhood in the Philippines. Most Americans don't explore their roots in Kenya. Most Americans don't dress up in ethnic garb. They have legitimate concerns about his background, which he needs to address because it can and will be used against him otherwise. His name, though... that's a petty non-issue.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 08:06 PM
I'm sorry but...WHAT???? :eek:
Okay, your boat is sinking with me. Because if you can't clearly see that the woman and her campaign have been rife with petty cattiness of late, there is no object in debating with you.
You're implying that she's going around calling him Barrack HUSSEIN Obama. You're implying that she's distributing information about his "Muslim" background. Neither one of those claims are true, so I don't know why I should be lambasted when you're going around spewing false information.
It is also very dangerous for her. Because if he takes the "dignified high road' he's been adopting of late it will make her look utterly stupid and childish. It will also paint him as more mature and sophisticated--and that will destroy her.
She needs to tread just as carefully as him--if not more so tonight.
Yeah, look at her very first answer. She is trying to attack and take the high road. Gotta admit, like her or hate her, her first answer was masterful. It put Obama on the defense and came off as graceful.
Obama's first comment was interesting. On one hand, it was very eloquent, on the other, it was just saying "WELL SHE DOES IT TOO!" Hmm...
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 08:11 PM
You're implying that she's going around calling him Barrack HUSSEIN Obama. You're implying that she's distributing information about his "Muslim" background. Neither one of those claims are true, so I don't know why I should be lambasted when you're going around spewing false information.
No one is "lamblasting" you...At least I am not. Trust me, I take on an entirely different appearance here. Right now I am merely discussing. :cool:
However, you cannot truthfully claim the above, as ultimately she is responsible for her campaign...as well as the propoganda it releases. It doesn't matter if she comes up with the garbage or not, she signs off on everything at the end of the day until she apologizes for any missteps her people may make.
That hasn't happened yet.
sinewave
02-26-2008, 08:12 PM
Good evening all!
Well, the debate's about to start. Let's recap: Last week's version showed Hillary being nice and sweet and it made no impact on Obama's momentum. Since that Texan debate, she's gone postal in one attack on him after another--a complete 180. In my opinion, it would be hypocritical for her NOT to go for his jugular tonight, but she runs the risk of realing turning off people.
Soooooooo the big question of tonight is: Which Hillary will show up? :cool:
watching hardball and countdown, apparently her campaign has adopted what they refer to as "the kitchen sink approach" for the last debate tonight. i'm sure it will be both be nasty and ineffective. the clinton campaign is basically over in a week, no matter what she does in this debate.
More like Shart Face Hillary. :funny:
jag
:lmao: i think i sharted reading this. :csad:
Hillary is going to come out swinging. She needs Ohio. She is going to throw everything she can at him. Frankly it is a desperate debate for Clinton. She lives or dies on this campaign. She won't hold anything back as she has absolutely nothing to lose. And that makes her very dangerous to Obama as she has made it clear that if she is going down, she is going to get him as bloody as possible for the fight with McCain.
i agree. she's not doing the democratic party any favors by taking stupid swipes at him, though i guess it's good practice for when he faces off against the hateful GOP smear machine. oh well, he's proven he can shrug off petty attacks with class.
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 08:13 PM
Yeah, look at her very first answer. She is trying to attack and take the high road. Gotta admit, like her or hate her, her first answer was masterful. It put Obama on the defense and came off as graceful.
Really? Sounds interesting! (I am not at home yet; over a friends house and he's very non-political. We're watching something else right now, but I will try to catch the highlights if I can on youtube or something).
Keep me up to date here though with anything unusual or stupid that comes up Matt...if it gets ugly I'll make my boy change the channel for awhile. :up:
Clinton is doing really well at putting Obama on the defense, unfortunately for her, he is very well spoken and good at defending himself. :dry:
The Senator
02-26-2008, 08:15 PM
Her health care argument is quite strong...
Really? Sounds interesting! (I am not at home yet; over a friends house and he's very non-political. We're watching something else right now, but I will try to catch the highlights if I can on youtube or something).
Keep me up to date here though with anything unusual or stupid that comes up Matt...if it gets ugly I'll make my boy change the channel for awhile. :up:
So far the only things worth noting is Clinton keeps cutting off the moderators as they try to move on, and Obama seems to be getting kinda frazzled. He has started talking really fast and is trying to cut off Clinton but she is simply not giving him an in. So far she is beating him.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 08:19 PM
SNL FTW :up:
Ooh, Clinton just took a shot at the media bias towards Barack, referencing the SNL skit and the way they keep asking her the questions first.
sinewave
02-26-2008, 08:19 PM
she just mentioned the SNL skit and got booed!
sinewave
02-26-2008, 08:20 PM
Her health care argument is quite strong...
i agree. he's not selling his very well.
Issue 1 - Healthcare
Winner: Clinton. She put Obama on the defensive, cited experts who claimed her plan is better, got Obama frazzled (talking fast, trying to cut her off but failing, etc). She definitely took him on that issue. She is strong out of the gate, lets see if she can keep it up.
she just mentioned the SNL skit and got booed!
It wasn't a very loud booing though, just sounded like a few people.
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 08:22 PM
So far the only things worth noting is Clinton keeps cutting off the moderators as they try to move on, and Obama seems to be getting kinda frazzled. He has started talking really fast and is trying to cut off Clinton but she is simply not giving him an in. So far she is beating him.
Beating him as in winning the battle AND the war, or just winning the battle?
See, when I look at these debates, it gives me a glimpse into how these people would interact with dignitaries from other countries--which also employ moderators in governmental discussions/debates.
In other words, are you beholding a commander-in-chief or a woman who is just yelling to be heard?
souvlaki
02-26-2008, 08:23 PM
Issue 1 - Healthcare:
Winner - Clinton. She put Obama on the defensive, cited experts who claimed her plan is better, got Obama frazzled (talking fast, trying to cut her off but failing, etc). She definitely took him on that issue. She is strong out of the gate, lets see if she can keep it up.
Too bad she had to make that lame reference to SNL, and complain about getting the first question.
Beating him as in winning the battle AND the war, or just winning the battle?
See, when I look at these debates, it gives me a glimpse into how these people would interact with dignitaries from other countries--which also employ moderators in governmental discussions/debates.
In other words, are you beholding a commander-in-chief or a woman who is just yelling to be heard?
On health care alone, she came off as the one who was more commander-in-chief-ish. Obama got frazzled when put on the defensive and if anything was the one yelling to try and cut her off, however, she would not let him and he quietly retreated.
Too bad she had to make that lame reference to SNL, and complain about getting the first question.
I agree, it was a stupid thing to do.
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 08:25 PM
I wonder how quickly snippets of this will be loaded up on Youtube? I wanna see!! :D
Hillary isn't doing too great on NAFTA. Russert is doing Obama's job for him. Don't try and fight with Russert, rookie mistake. The man is the pitbull of political debate.
Well, Clinton just got Obama to agree with her, so that is a good thing. However, he is remaining calm in the face of Russert's questions, where as Clinton got very angry for a few seconds.
sinewave
02-26-2008, 08:29 PM
It wasn't a very loud booing though, just sounded like a few people.
true, but if she thought that would land, she needs to fire her smack-talk writers.
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 08:30 PM
See, this is where being a woman has its advantages. If Obama goes for HER jugular and really gets nasty it will turn off females--which undoubtedly is making up the majority of viewers tonight. Whereas she can get forceful and it's attributed to her being a "strong woman."
souvlaki
02-26-2008, 08:32 PM
It wasn't a very loud booing though, just sounded like a few people.
I get the impression based on the lack of response from the audience that they are not supposed to actually clap, boo, etc. during the debate. That is probably why it was so subdued.
terry78
02-26-2008, 08:32 PM
See, this is where being a woman has its advantages. If Obama goes for HER jugular and really gets nasty it will turn off females--which undoubtedly is making up the majority of viewers tonight. Whereas she can get forceful and it's attributed to her being a "strong woman."
So, like in all facets of life, even when we guys win, we lose.
Issue 2 - NAFTA
Winner: Obama. They essentially said the same things, Obama said it better. Clinton shouldn't have had her little scuffle with Russert. She should've remained calm. Obama was able to pull at the heart strings of middle class workers losing their jobs, which will hit big in Ohio.
Edit: Though it should be noted, despite Russert's attack on her, her final statement on creating jobs was really well done. She laid out a detailed plan.
Clinton is doing well on foreign policy, especially his comments on supporting George W. Bush when it REALLY counts and Obama's playing monday morning quarterback.
sinewave
02-26-2008, 08:39 PM
oooohhh, she just mentioned obama bombing pakistan. he's gonna nail her on that recent secret cia bombing of an al qaeda operative in pakistan.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 08:40 PM
She makes a real good point about his voting record on Iraq. He opposed it when he was an obscure state legislator from Illinois; supported the mission, opposed the execution when he ran for Senate; he voted to keep our troops in Iraq, in addition to continue funding it once he made it into the Senate; and decided to vocally oppose it once he decided to run for President.
sinewave
02-26-2008, 08:41 PM
nailed it!
edit: not you. ^
oooohhh, she just mentioned obama bombing pakistan. he's gonna nail her on that recent secret cia bombing of an al qaeda operative in pakistan.
and so he did... good call
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 08:42 PM
So, like in all facets of life, even when we guys win, we lose.
Eggggggsactly. :csad:
Hillary has got to stay calm, she can hold her own if she could stay calm
comicgirl
02-26-2008, 08:49 PM
Not gonna happen. She'll be pointing her a$$ off.http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/1107/Hillary_****youImage1.jpg
StorminNorman
02-26-2008, 08:51 PM
Issue 2 - NAFTA
Winner: Obama. They essentially said the same things, Obama said it better. Clinton shouldn't have had her little scuffle with Russert. She should've remained calm. Obama was able to pull at the heart strings of middle class workers losing their jobs, which will hit big in Ohio.
Edit: Though it should be noted, despite Russert's attack on her, her final statement on creating jobs was really well done. She laid out a detailed plan.
I honestly thought Clinton won that topic.
comicgirl
02-26-2008, 08:52 PM
We'll see. I think she's going to come out with all negative guns blazing.
Excel
02-26-2008, 08:53 PM
Ill discuss it more later, but can hillary stop being such a *****?
And no, Hillarys lost all 3 topics. It has nothing to do with what she says, Obama and moreso Russert are making her like an abolsute fool and a hypocrit.
Please, Excel. At least try to hide your obvious bias.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 08:55 PM
Ill discuss it more later, but can hillary stop being such a *****?
And no, Hillarys lost all 3 topics. It has nothing to do with what she says, Obama and moreso Russert are making her like an abolsute fool and a hypocrit.
Yeah, this has nothing to do with your Obama Bias at all :whatever:
Hillary won on the topic of health care.
Obama won on NAFTA. The "Gore would have been President" excuse kind of annoyed me on her behalf.
They split defense.
I don't even know what they're debating now...
StorminNorman
02-26-2008, 09:05 PM
Russert should of continued to press Obama about public funding.
i thought they split the healthcare issue...
as for Nafta i thought clinton won that debate, especially since i remember her being against it way back when even though it was her husbands plan. i do not beleive she was ever for it... and any time she talked about it it was as cautiously as she could to not step on her husbands toes.
As for security, Obama won hands down.... President on day one quote, Voting against the war, and the Pakistan/cia element speaking to his judgement. i do not see how clinton had an upper hand on this at all
The Senator
02-26-2008, 09:06 PM
Russert should of continued to press Obama about public funding.
Well, didn't you see? Obama was starting to get uncomfortable. He was starting to stutter a bit. He can't stutter! He can't falter! He's teh hope!
The Senator
02-26-2008, 09:08 PM
i thought they split the healthcare issue...
as for Nafta i thought clinton won that debate, especially since i remember her being against it way back when even though it was her husbands plan. i do not beleive she was ever for it... and any time she talked about it it was as cautiously as she could to not step on her husbands toes.
As for security, Obama won hands down.... President on day one quote, Voting against the war, and the Pakistan/cia element speaking to his judgement. i do not see how clinton had an upper hand on this at all
I wouldn't criticize your opinion on the debate, but the only problem with your support for Obama on security is that he didn't vote against the war in Iraq. He wasn't even in the Senate then, so he couldn't vote at all.
I wouldn't criticize your opinion on the debate, but the only problem with your support for Obama on security is that he didn't vote against the war in Iraq. He wasn't even in the Senate then, so he couldn't vote at all.
your right, he could not have. i worded that poorly.
:up:
his Speech on the war in 2002 however... might well have been an assesment on where it is today. hillary can't tackle that judgement. As for pakistan... criticized about what he said, then the government goes and does the same thing he suggested...and got great results... again his judgement was sound.
talking about the bus into the ditch is a better argument then hillary's that if she knew now what she knew then. which obama shrewdly pointed out and sealed the envelope on the argument.
this flies right in the face of her quote about being ready on day 1.
Excel
02-26-2008, 09:27 PM
Please, Excel. At least try to hide your obvious bias.
I am bias, but shes making herself look bad. Shes calmed down after the 1st commercial, HOWEVER...She made herself look bad.
It has nothing to do with what she says on issues, she just flat out turns off voters and/or makes it hard to attract support. For example, the pillow joke. Flipping out about being asked questions first. Forget being out of line, shes running for president. If she gets flustered or feels threatened by answering first, fine. WHY would you ever say it publicaly?
Her entire attitude the first part was like that and its a major turn off. Now I may biased, but I already told you Im not afraid to disagree with Obama I did it earlier tonight on here. I was even warming up to Hillary after the last debate but once again she just turns on the polarizing button with crap like that. Barack keeps his cool, hes kept his cool the entire time, from when his chance at a nomination was a major longshot to now as the frontrunner. Hillary cant lose it just because shes lost her lead, sorry.
Shes just contradicted herself-she just did. She says she voted for war but than she spoke out against it and disagrees with it. People arent stupid.
Its not how she responds to issues, she WILL NOT gain any support as long as she keeps acting like this.
CaptainStacy
02-26-2008, 09:58 PM
I thought at the start of the debate, Clinton was acting like someone whose back is against the wall and starts lashing out.
I also thought her comment on Obama's SNL thing was kind of a cheap shot. I mean, she didnt seem to have a problem with her husband when he played the sax on The Arsenio Hall show years ago. Pot meet kettle. :whatever:
StorminNorman
02-26-2008, 09:59 PM
I thought at the start of the debate, Clinton was acting like someone whose back is against the wall and starts lashing out.
I also thought her comment on Obama's SNL thing was kind of a cheap shot. I mean, she didnt seem to have a problem with her husband when he played the sax on The Arsenio Hall show years ago. Pot meet kettle. :whatever:
...
How are the two at all related?
hippie_hunter
02-26-2008, 10:04 PM
Personally I think that Clinton did better in this debate. I think she won on the Health Care and NAFTA arguments but Obama did very well in defending himself on foreign policy and defense.
Excel
02-26-2008, 10:05 PM
Look, nobody is gonna dissagree with me when I say that for Hillary to get the nomination, he support has to GROW. Forget Barack, people need to go to HER.
When she acts like she does-whining, complaining, *****ing, whatever you want to call it, its a HUGE turn off. It comes off as immature and unprofessional.
She will not garner any support beyond what she already has when she acts like that.
CaptainStacy
02-26-2008, 10:06 PM
...
How are the two at all related?
They both made appearances on popular prime time entertainment shows, obviously to gain votes. Nothing wrong with that, but i found it a bit hypocritical of Hilary to call Obama out on it, when her husband did basically the same thing years before.
Excel
02-26-2008, 10:07 PM
Cap, Hillary was hypocrtical on just about everything tonight aside from healthcare.
Nafta, Iraq, the media as you mentioned, the smear campaigning...
Dont act surprised.
BlackLantern
02-26-2008, 10:09 PM
Didn't Bill appear on Arsenio after the election as well??
StorminNorman
02-26-2008, 10:09 PM
They both made appearances on popular prime time entertainment shows, obviously to gain votes. Nothing wrong with that, but i found it a bit hypocritical of Hilary to call Obama out on it, when her husband did basically the same thing years before.
She was not COMPLAINING about about the SNL stick - but alluding to it and the message it was making (that the media is sucking up to Obama).
You clearly missed not only her point, but the point of the SNL skit.
Excel
02-26-2008, 10:10 PM
She was not COMPLAINING about about the SNL stick - but alluding to it and the message it was making (that the media is sucking up to Obama).
You clearly missed not only her point, but the point of the SNL skit.
And the same crying got her points only a women can get, *****ING like this only loses points like a women can.
They both made appearances on popular prime time entertainment shows, obviously to gain votes. Nothing wrong with that, but i found it a bit hypocritical of Hilary to call Obama out on it, when her husband did basically the same thing years before.
hillary wasn't referencing Obama's appearance on SNL she was referencing this skit...
JdpPj6UMG6A
CaptainStacy
02-26-2008, 10:11 PM
She was not COMPLAINING about about the SNL stick - but alluding to it and the message it was making (that the media is sucking up to Obama).
You clearly missed not only her point, but the point of the SNL skit.
Oh, ok. So when her husband did it, the media WASN'T sucking up. I gotcha. :whatever:
CaptainStacy
02-26-2008, 10:12 PM
Cap, Hillary was hypocrtical on just about everything tonight aside from healthcare.
Nafta, Iraq, the media as you mentioned, the smear campaigning...
Dont act surprised.
heh.
StorminNorman
02-26-2008, 10:12 PM
And the same crying got her points only a women can get, *****ING like this only loses points like a women can.
...I wasn't speaking in defense of her statement about SNL - only saying that Captain's statement about her mentioning the SNL stick is somehow hypocritical which is completely ridiculous.
StorminNorman
02-26-2008, 10:13 PM
Oh, ok. So when her husband did it, the media WASN'T sucking up. I gotcha. :whatever:
You are completely missing the point. Its amazing.
BlackLantern
02-26-2008, 10:14 PM
can't they just have a fistfight to settle this instead of all this "talking"??
Excel
02-26-2008, 10:14 PM
We get it. Shes upset the media is favoring Obama and helping him. Shes just ignoring how openly she welcomed it for Bill against Bush sr. She didnt mind the media running away with the "comeback kid" and all that crap, but now that Obamas in Bills role and shes in Bushs, she doesnt like it.
Thats hypocritcal, Norm.
StorminNorman
02-26-2008, 10:16 PM
We get it. Shes upset the media is favoring Obama and helping him. Shes just ignoring how openly she welcomed it for Bill against Bush sr.
Bill playing sax on Arsenio is far different from unfair news coverage.
The point being made is ridiculous by Captain.
Obama's appearance on SNL and the SNL skit of the texas Debate are two different things... the Texas debate sketch she was referring to did not actually have Obama in it.
therefor it cannot be compared to clinton on arsenio... Obama was impersonated in that skit. she was not criticizing whether Obama should be on SNL or not... but that the media Fauns over him, which is mostly what that skit was about.
BlackLantern
02-26-2008, 10:17 PM
the CNN debate skit from last week was excellent...I'm surprised they didn't have someone blowing Obama (Fred Armisen) beneath his podium
Excel
02-26-2008, 10:18 PM
Bill playing sax on Arsenio is far different from unfair news coverage.
The point being made is ridiculous by Captain.
He was using an example. The media ate Bill up so he could do that ****. If Hillary did it now it'd be critisized while if Barrack did it, itd be welcomed like Bill and she doesnt like it. SNL was kind to Obama the same way they were to Bill back in 19092, thats the point.
Obama is coming out of this ahead in that he didnt loose because hillary didn't deliver a knock out punch.
He was using an example. The media ate Bill up so he could do that ****. If Hillary did it now it'd be critisized while if Barrack did it, itd be welcomed like Bill and she doesnt like it. SNL was kind to Obama the same way they were to Bill back in 19092, thats the point.
what?
I support obama just for refference.
Excel
02-26-2008, 10:22 PM
In the SNL skit, they say its destiny for Obama to win and ****. Hillarys using it as an example of all the media loves him and not her.
Its hypocritical because in 1992, the same kinda stuff happened with her husband and she welcomed it.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 10:24 PM
We get it. Shes upset the media is favoring Obama and helping him. Shes just ignoring how openly she welcomed it for Bill against Bush sr. She didnt mind the media running away with the "comeback kid" and all that crap, but now that Obamas in Bills role and shes in Bushs, she doesnt like it.
Thats hypocritcal, Norm.
That's not hypocritical. Her insinuation that the media has been favoring Obama lately is completely just, and she has a right to lash out at them for essentially letting him be on the defense the entirety of the debate. My boyfriend and a few of my friends, who are Obama supporters, even mentioned that it appears as though MSNBC were harsher on Clinton than they were Obama. And when Russert and co. started asking Obama the tougher questions, they backed off before they could get any deeper. It's a bit of a bias, if you ask me. His appearance on SNL, by the way, slammed Clinton by basically saying that he didn't need to hide behind masks or appearances, whereas she and Bill did. Bill played sax on Arsenio Hall; he didn't say "I can play the sax, but George H.W. Bush has no talent whatsoever as we've seen by his management of this country."
Of course, let it be said that while I don't think it was hypocritical of her to point this out, I do think it was a bit pathetic that she resorted to two quips about SNL (though the first one at the beginning of the debate raised a very valid point) when she could have spent that time drawing on differences between her and Obama, or talking about what she hoped to accomplish instead.
BlackLantern
02-26-2008, 10:26 PM
I'm surprised they aren't calling each other "doody heads" at this point
Excel
02-26-2008, 10:26 PM
Shes just in it obviously. The problem is they did for her husband and she welcomed it.
She was the first lady for 8 years because of it, so she cant start *****ing about the medias habits of favoring the younger under dog just because the tables turn.
In the SNL skit, they say its destiny for Obama to win and ****. Hillarys using it as an example of all the media loves him and not her.
Its hypocritical because in 1992, the same kinda stuff happened with her husband and she welcomed it.
i dont think the skit is saying anything about who is going to win, just that they faun over Obama... love him.
i dont think Clinton playing the sax on arsenio shows how news anchors are in love with Clinton so as to draw the comparison.
Excel
02-26-2008, 10:28 PM
Yes it does.It shows he was acceppted as was his comedic side; he could do that without being critised and get away with it and Obama can to. Hillary cant because shes so damn established.
i agree with Jman, i dont think it was hipocritical, but it did show desperation
Yes it does.It shows he was acceppted as was his comedic side; he could do that without being critised and get away with it and Obama can to. Hillary cant because shes so damn established.
hillary woudn't get away with playing an instument on a talk show?
look man im with you on the candidate, and maybe im just dense... WHICH IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE! :grin:
but i don't understant what your saying.
BlackLantern
02-26-2008, 10:33 PM
hillary woudn't get away with playing an instument on a talk show?
look man im with you on the candidate, and maybe im just dense... WHICH IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE! :grin:
but i don't understant what your saying.
No, she couldn't.....Obama seems relatable to the average voter...Hilary will always be seen as part of the stiff a$$ establishment
The Senator
02-26-2008, 10:34 PM
It's kind of a dumb argument on both sides. Candidates always use media to get attention. However, when someone plays sax, they're not saying "I'm better than candidate X because I can play an instrument." They're using that to directly pander to anyone and everyone who is watching the show, with no political message attached. Saying Hillary and Bill have hidden behind masks for years, but I don't need one... that's pandering with an agenda, however small it may be. It's a bit jarring.
But for her to say "well, Barack is favored by the media because he appears on all these fancy talk shows," that's a dumb argument too. She's appeared on Letterman, the View, and Ellen just as many times as he has appeared on Leno, SNL and Oprah. It's a completely nonsensical thing to attack, on the basis in which she attacked from.
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 10:57 PM
So.....I want everyone's bottom line: Does anyone think this debate will help Hillary and her "fire-wall"? Did she effectively stop Obama's surge tonight? Weigh in with your thoughts; I'm youtubing for clips now....
StorminNorman
02-26-2008, 11:00 PM
I think this Debate MAY help.
It was not a very exciting debate. It may damper the excitement of the democratic nomination in general - the "experts" on MSNBC seem to agree on that. It was a debate that left you very enthusiastic on either side.
Those conditions favor Clinton.
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 11:02 PM
It was not a very exciting debate. It may damper the excitement of the democratic nomination in general - the "experts" on MSNBC seem to agree on that.
Could it be because of...oh, the sheer volume of it all!??? :whatever: God, I've never seen so many densely scheduled debates. And to think she wanted him to do FIVE televised ones in the span of 2 weeks!! I'm glad he agreed to only two--it's getting old now.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 11:03 PM
So.....I want everyone's bottom line: Does anyone think this debate will help Hillary and her "fire-wall"? Did she effectively stop Obama's surge tonight? Weigh in with your thoughts; I'm youtubing for clips now....
It won't kill her, but it won't skyrocket her into a commanding lead any time soon. If she wins both states, she won't win the 61% she needs to win with to make much of a difference.
Excel
02-26-2008, 11:06 PM
Being uneventful is horribler for Clinton Jman. She needs to stop him NOW because after next Tuesday is may very well be all over. Dont you get it? This was her last shot and she didnt do ANYTHING. Being uneventful does not favor her AT ALL.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 11:13 PM
Being uneventful is horribler for Clinton Jman. She needs to stop him NOW because after next Tuesday is may very well be all over. Dont you get it? This was her last shot and she didnt do ANYTHING. Being uneventful does not favor her AT ALL.
First of all, horribler isn't a word :cwink:
Second, she still leads in Ohio and is tied in Texas. If she does win next Tuesday, it will be pegged as a comeback of sorts for her regardless of the margin of victory.
Excel
02-26-2008, 11:15 PM
Yes, but her leads are vanishing. Hes gaining very quickly and in order to stop them and actually win the states she needed something tonight, and she didnt get it.
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 11:17 PM
First of all, horribler isn't a word :cwink:
Second, she still leads in Ohio and is tied in Texas. If she does win next Tuesday, it will be pegged as a comeback of sorts for her regardless of the margin of victory.
She is barely ahead in Ohio Jman. With a week to go, that gap will narrow and he may even surpass her--as he is now doing nationally according to the AP polls.
BlackLantern
02-26-2008, 11:18 PM
Horribler??? wow thats raping of the english language if I ever saw it
redfirebird2008
02-26-2008, 11:19 PM
Over 996,000 different donors now. :yay:
The Senator
02-26-2008, 11:19 PM
Yes, but her leads are vanishing. Hes gaining very quickly and in order to stop them and actually win the states she needed something tonight, and she didnt get it.
True, but you assume everyone who will vote watched the debate and will base their opinion of her or him solely on the debate performance. She needed to do something amazing to take away some of Obama's support, which she didn't do. However, she didn't do anything to turn her supporters away, which can only be a good sign for her considering she has solid, infallible support in both states.
redfirebird2008
02-26-2008, 11:24 PM
True, but you assume everyone who will vote watched the debate and will base their opinion of her or him solely on the debate performance. She needed to do something amazing to take away some of Obama's support, which she didn't do. However, she didn't do anything to turn her supporters away, which can only be a good sign for her considering she has solid, infallible support in both states.
She needs more than solid. She needs dominating support (15+ percent victory) in those states.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 11:25 PM
She is barely ahead in Ohio Jman. With a week to go, that gap will narrow and he may even surpass her--as he is now doing nationally according to the AP polls.
Her lead has eroded in the past week. But I wouldn't count her out until she's at least ten points behind him, which is the threshold I used for VA and MD a few weeks ago. The margin of error is roughly four points in each poll, and she's five or six points ahead of him in most polls I see for Ohio. The other thing to look out for is the New Hampshire effect, which could resonate more so in these two states than any other state simply because of both states' diverse demography. It's a tough call, and if you asked me to give my honest opinion about both states, I say she'll lose Texas by about five points but will win Ohio by ten. Ask me again next Monday, and it may change drastically.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 11:27 PM
She needs more than solid. She needs dominating support (15+ percent) in those states.
So does Obama. Remember the Massachusetts and California fallacy a few weeks back, when polls showed him leading Clinton by three to ten points? She ended up winning both states with comfortable margins. While time has passed and the game has changed, it's difficult to call either state for either candidate when neither candidate has substantial leads. A week ago, she was leading by 17 points in Ohio and 12 points in Texas. Today, she's up six points in Ohio and down one in Texas. Her lead has erroded, but it hasn't been vanquished, and it doesn't indicate that Obama is a shoe-in for the victory next week.
redfirebird2008
02-26-2008, 11:28 PM
The New Hampshire effect. By that, you mean her sending out divisive, misleading mailers about Barack's stance on abortion within the final days of the campaign?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&e
If she goes the gender-baiting route again, then yeah it will probably work.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 11:33 PM
The New Hampshire effect. By that, you mean her sending out divisive, misleading mailers about Barack's stance on abortion within the final days of the campaign?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&e
If she goes the gender-baiting route again, then yeah it will probably work.
God, you can't go an entire debate without tossing in some sort of attack accompanied by a ridiculous blog post/ YouTube video, can you? Instead of using logic and analyzing the fact that she had a twenty-point lead two weeks before New Hampshire, or the fact that McCain siphoned off more independent voters from Obama, you toss it up to negative campaigning. Not all NH voters are women, so there has to be another explanation-- most likely the reasons I just pointed out.
redfirebird2008
02-26-2008, 11:35 PM
God, you can't go an entire debate without tossing in some sort of attack accompanied by a ridiculous blog post/ YouTube video, can you? Instead of using logic and analyzing the fact that she had a twenty-point lead two weeks before New Hampshire, or the fact that McCain siphoned off more independent voters from Obama, you toss it up to negative campaigning.
No, just sick of her claiming that those recent mailers were the only negative ones of the campaign. But I do think it had an effect. She had a lot of credible women who signed it, some of which admitted that they hadn't even read it before signing it. And there was no attack in that post at all. Her abortion mailer/letter was divisive (that's why the NH Democrats are trying to "heal") and misleading (that's why there are women who signed it that admit they wish they had not). And I agree with you about McCain. He probably did steal some of Obama's independent support there.
The Senator
02-26-2008, 11:44 PM
No, just sick of her claiming that those recent mailers were the only negative ones of the campaign. But I do think it had an effect. She had a lot of credible women who signed it, some of which admitted that they hadn't even read it before signing it.
While it may have helped her win some support, most voters in NH were probably unaware that these fliers even existed. She had a very large lead ahead of Obama's Iowa victory. The media claimed her campaign was over, crumbling, and unable to continue after such a stirring defeat, as they crowned Obama the likely nominee based on one victory. Then she came in and defeated him by a six-point margin (I think), and everyone blamed it on tears or negative campaigning... without looking at her huge leads which had existed throughout the campaign. That's rather incredulous, if you ask me.
And there was no attack in that post at all. Her abortion mailer/letter was divisive (that's why the NH Democrats are trying to "heal") and misleading (that's why there are women who signed it that admit they wish they had not).
NH Democrats have to heal following something which is all-to-common in that state? That's a bunch of phony baloney. Two good friends of mine are very active in NH politics, and this is the second time I've heard of her negative fliers. The first being right after NH, but because it was such a non-issue and expected occurrence, everyone pretty much forgot about it like they would a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.
And I agree with you about McCain. He probably did steal some of Obama's independent support there.
Probably? McCain's votes counted for the majority of the independent vote that day. That was probably the single-most factor which crushed what many assumed was a would-be Obama victory.
redfirebird2008
02-26-2008, 11:51 PM
She didn't win by 6. It was 2.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH
And yeah, McCain was hanging by a thread at that point so his trusty Independents flocked to him to give him the boost he needed to become a contender again.
Lightning Strykez!
02-26-2008, 11:53 PM
It really doesn't matter who wins how many points. It's all about delegates at this point. She is behind big-time and even if she wins the states by a small margin it won't help her tally. It will only help his.
StorminNorman
02-27-2008, 12:15 AM
Could it be because of...oh, the sheer volume of it all!??? :whatever: God, I've never seen so many densely scheduled debates. And to think she wanted him to do FIVE televised ones in the span of 2 weeks!! I'm glad he agreed to only two--it's getting old now.
Regardless of why - a static pitch favors Clinton while an energetic campaign favors Obama.
AndrewGilkison
02-27-2008, 12:23 AM
I thought Clinton hurt herself in the Debate with the whining and crying about always getting asked the first questions by the moderators. That made her look desperate and petty. Obama faired better overall, imo.
Lightning Strykez!
02-27-2008, 12:28 AM
You didn't miss much.
no one dominated tonight?
The Senator
02-27-2008, 12:32 AM
no one dominated tonight?
Well, there was that moment when Hillary and Obama came out in S&M garb. Hillary did this thing with a pole and a whip, while Obama put quite a strangle hold on her before five or six minutes of hot cage action...
redfirebird2008
02-27-2008, 04:22 AM
1+ million unique donors! :woot:
The Senator
02-27-2008, 06:33 AM
1+ million unique donors! :woot:
Wow! He got people to donate to his campaign! :whatever:
redfirebird2008
02-27-2008, 06:37 AM
Wow! He got people to donate to his campaign! :whatever:
How many does Hillary have? Oh that's right, apparently not anywhere near as many -- otherwise she would have a counter on her website. :whatever:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8689.html
In 2004, there were a total of 2.5 million donors to the entire presidential field — Republicans and Democrats. At the rate he’s attracting small donors, Obama alone could surpass that number if his campaign marches on to November.
The Senator
02-27-2008, 06:44 AM
How many does Hillary have? Oh that's right, apparently not anywhere near as many -- otherwise she would have a counter on her website. :whatever:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8689.html
No, she doesn't need to revel in some sort of holier-than-though donor war like a certain self-conceived modern-day prophet. Now he's just being a pompous ass.
redfirebird2008
02-27-2008, 06:48 AM
No, she doesn't need to revel in some sort of holier-than-though donor war like a certain self-conceived modern-day prophet. Now he's just being a pompous ass.
No, he's not. He's letting the people know they are involved in a much bigger campaign than just themselves. He also uses the counter on his site so that when he sets "goals" for the community, it increases the desire to get it done. That means going out and getting more donors, or making more calls. He's trying to get 1 million calls from supporters to other voters by March 4th. It's around 350,000 right now. Probably not gonna make it. The counter on his site is no different than when your girl posted a chart on her homepage telling people to raise $2.2 million in 48 hours. They succeeded. Without putting that chart on there, it likely wouldn't have happened because people wouldn't have been as motivated. That is what a counter does. "Let's get 1 million donors by March 4th" when you only have 900,000 and 2 weeks to go will motivate the people to draw more support.
The Senator
02-27-2008, 06:54 AM
No, he's not. He's letting the people know they are involved in a much bigger campaign than just themselves. He also uses the counter on his site so that when he sets "goals" for the community, it increases the desire to get it done. That means going out and getting more donors, or making more calls. He's trying to get 1 million calls from supporters to other voters by March 4th. It's around 350,000 right now. Probably not gonna make it. The counter on his site is no different than when your girl posted a chart on her homepage telling people to raise $2.2 million in 48 hours. They succeeded. Without putting that chart on there, it likely wouldn't have happened because people wouldn't have been as motivated. That is what a counter does. "Let's get 1 million donors by March 4th" when you only have 900,000 and 2 weeks to go will motivate the people to draw more support.
Or... he could not boast about how many people are donating to his campaign, like a polished politician should. That's like if the Red Cross had a counter on its website to show that it gets more donors and donations than Project Red. It's one thing to count the amount of money coming into your campaign; it's something else entirely to devote space and marketing to brag about how many people are donating $1 to help you win the White House. It's kind of childish, and altogether pompous.
redfirebird2008
02-27-2008, 06:59 AM
Or... he could not boast about how many people are donating to his campaign, like a polished politician should. That's like if the Red Cross had a counter on its website to show that it gets more donors and donations than Project Red. It's one thing to count the amount of money coming into your campaign; it's something else entirely to devote space and marketing to brag about how many people are donating $1 to help you win the White House. It's kind of childish, and altogether pompous.
Call it what you will, but it helps his campaign. It motivates his supporters to draw more donors and supporters. Hillary would be doing the same damn thing if she had the same deal going. The thing is, she just now started taking Internet fundraising seriously so she gave him a big head start on the number of people donating through the Internet. She has 3 "Contribute" buttons on her home page. He has one. Perhaps if she would set similar goals, rather than turning her homepage into a cluttered mess, she would be doing better right now. Those goals make a huge difference in fundraising or calling. A while back she had a call counter on her homepage which claimed to have millions of calls and kept going up by the minute. Is that childish and pompous? It was the exact same type of thing he has been doing. Set a goal for your supporters and see if they can reach it.
terry78
02-27-2008, 08:46 AM
Was watching Fox News this morning and they were basically slamming into Obama because Farrakhan said he would support him. The anchor was like, "Farrakhan...hates Jews, hates white people...and he supports Obama. What does that say?"
kal-el2006
02-27-2008, 09:02 AM
Some people ask what was the big deal bout the obama picture..well anyone with a right mind seen what they were trying to do with that picture...
http://images.politico.com/global/080226_edtoon2-26_600.jpg
BlackLantern
02-27-2008, 09:05 AM
^^^^and that will work with some americans....
Donors aside...
Obama and his constituents are running one hell of a campaign.
organized and effective.
if hillary had run half as good as a campaign as Obama she would have won. i honestly chalk her seemingly impending loss coming up to horrible... absolutely horrible organization that did not see past super Tuesday. im not blaming clinton though, how could she have known anyone would have come out and taken off like Obama has... by the time you organize an effective strategy against the man its pretty much to late.
problem is, will McCain's camp learn from hillary's mistakes, of course they will... but will they be able to capitalize on them? I imagine that Obama's staff is already working on McCain strategies with the emphasis on Clinton slowly diminishing.
Hillary could have handedly won this had she not treated the campaign like a coronation early on.
Kelly
02-27-2008, 09:16 AM
The only difference I see between Clinton and Obama, is the running of their campaigns......
His is running like a well oiled machine......
Hers just sucks oil....
Angry Sentinel
02-27-2008, 09:29 AM
Was watching Fox News this morning and they were basically slamming into Obama because Farrakhan said he would support him. The anchor was like, "Farrakhan...hates Jews, hates white people...and he supports Obama. What does that say?"...
*turns to the anchor* "It says Farrakhan is a dick, and you're an idiot for trying to make an unfounded association."
How do these people get these jobs.
BlackLantern
02-27-2008, 09:34 AM
...
*turns to the anchor* "It says Farrakhan is a dick, and you're an idiot for trying to make an unfounded association."
How do these people get these jobs.
The ability to spin....and that soundbite will carry with those who are ignorant and don't like Farrakhan or colored people....
Angry Sentinel
02-27-2008, 09:41 AM
So true, so sad.
I do think Senator Clinton did well on several issues, one of which was when she tried to pin Obama about healthcare. But as several people already said, she waited too late to take Obama seriously.
CorpusBlack
02-27-2008, 09:43 AM
Well, there was that moment when Hillary and Obama came out in S&M garb. Hillary did this thing with a pole and a whip, while Obama put quite a strangle hold on her before five or six minutes of hot cage action...
I bet that's the hottest video on YouTube right now.
sinewave
02-27-2008, 10:18 AM
...
*turns to the anchor* "It says Farrakhan is a dick, and you're an idiot for trying to make an unfounded association."
How do these people get these jobs.
simple, because they've proven their loyalty to roger ailes and that they're willing to sink a low as he asks them to.
redfirebird2008
02-27-2008, 12:06 PM
Donors aside...
Obama and his constituents are running one hell of a campaign.
organized and effective.
if hillary had run half as good as a campaign as Obama she would have won. i honestly chalk her seemingly impending loss coming up to horrible... absolutely horrible organization that did not see past super Tuesday. im not blaming clinton though, how could she have known anyone would have come out and taken off like Obama has... by the time you organize an effective strategy against the man its pretty much to late.
problem is, will McCain's camp learn from hillary's mistakes, of course they will... but will they be able to capitalize on them? I imagine that Obama's staff is already working on McCain strategies with the emphasis on Clinton slowly diminishing.
Hillary could have handedly won this had she not treated the campaign like a coronation early on.
A lot of what is driving this is the youth voters. I mean people in the 18-35 age range. McCain's core demographic is people 50 and older, who are a lot less likely to get active in this kind of thing outside of voting themselves. Voting is one thing, but getting involved and calling hundreds of people, going door to door to meet people, etc. like the Obama people have been doing? I don't think McCain has the operation in place to do it or the base group of people to pull it off in the first place.
Lightning Strykez!
02-27-2008, 12:45 PM
...
*turns to the anchor* "It says Farrakhan is a dick, and you're an idiot for trying to make an unfounded association."
How do these people get these jobs.
Agreed. But then again, it IS Fox after all...maker of bad headlines, bad news stories and bad comic book movies. :up:
Lightning Strykez!
02-27-2008, 12:48 PM
Was watching Fox News this morning and they were basically slamming into Obama because Farrakhan said he would support him. The anchor was like, "Farrakhan...hates Jews, hates white people...and he supports Obama. What does that say?"
I think it's stupid that some would try to spin this into some partnership with Farrakhan and Obama. Farrakhan hates one of the races that courses through the blood of Obama's veins. What do they possibly have in common?
Besides, it's not like you can *pick* who endorses you--Barrack has no say in that. People have the right to endorse who they want--all they need is a microphone and TV cameras. Obama rejected his endorsement yesterday, yet I have a feeling that won't be enough.
Lightning Strykez!
02-27-2008, 01:33 PM
Soooooo....just looked up the newswires and I must say...this has been a great week for Clinton. :up:
Yesterday, a man stabbed another over his love for all things Billary. And this just in: Radio Talk Show uber rightwing nut Bill Cunningham (the ass from yesterday's McCain's campaign rally fiasco) and Ms Ann Coulter are now on board the Hillary train...you couldn't make this ***** up.
I wonder if the media will make Hillary "denounce" AND "reject" these two nutjobs, the same way she insisted Obama treat Farrakhan's endorsement? :rolleyes:
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 01:48 PM
Bill Cunningham is scum and that he would jump off of a conservative ticket to a liberal one only because he got put in his place for acting WAY out of line and misspeaking by the very person that his presence and words were meant to reflect on is very telling about the kind of person that he is. McCain has my utmost respect for the way he handled this jackass.
jag
Bill Cunningham is scum and that he would jump off of a conservative ticket to a liberal one only because he got put in his place for acting WAY out of line and misspeaking by the very person that his presence and words were meant to reflect on is very telling about the kind of person that he is. McCain has my utmost respect for the way he handled this jackass.
jag
I do give McCain credit for addressing it. One would wonder though why a few months back, a person asked McCain "how do we get rid of the b****" referring to Hillary and he laughed it off and did nothing.
Lightning Strykez!
02-27-2008, 01:54 PM
Aye, McCain handled it well.
But it's not going to win him a lot of votes with the conservative bunch (the far right wing ones I mean).
Aye, McCain handled it well.
But it's not going to win him a lot of votes with the conservative bunch (the far right wing ones I mean).
I said I thought he handled it well. Cunningham is a nutjob! (So is Coulter.) I do think you're completely right about his situation with the religious right and conservative base of the party. He has had a very difficult time trying to court their votes and approval. This will not help him at all.
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 02:01 PM
I said I thought he handled it well. Cunningham is a nutjob! (So is Coulter.) I do think you're completely right about his situation with the religious right and conservative base of the party. He has had a very difficult time trying to court their votes and approval. This will not help him at all.
I hope he scares the uber right wing and religious zealots away from the polls, to be honest. If McCain's only real lasting legacy from this election is that he finally gave the Republican party a chance to break free from the stranglehold these jackasses have had on it for years now, that would be an important and hopefully lasting one.
jag
I hope he scares the uber right wing and religious zealots away from the polls, to be honest. If McCain's only real lasting legacy from this election is that he finally gave the Republican party a chance to break free from the stranglehold these jackasses have had on it for years now, that would be an important and hopefully lasting one.
jag
AMEN!!!
CorpusBlack
02-27-2008, 02:09 PM
I hope he scares the uber right wing and religious zealots away from the polls, to be honest. If McCain's only real lasting legacy from this election is that he finally gave the Republican party a chance to break free from the stranglehold these jackasses have had on it for years now, that would be an important and hopefully lasting one.
jag
:up: :up: :up:
StorminNorman
02-27-2008, 02:11 PM
I hope he scares the uber right wing and religious zealots away from the polls, to be honest. If McCain's only real lasting legacy from this election is that he finally gave the Republican party a chance to break free from the stranglehold these jackasses have had on it for years now, that would be an important and hopefully lasting one.
jag
Sadly there is no Democratic candidate that can scare away the equally despicable far left supporters from the polls. :csad:
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 02:16 PM
Sadly there is no Democratic candidate that can scare away the equally despicable far left supporters from the polls. :csad:
I don't disagree, but when I look at what the Republican party has become it's FAR more overrun by the extremists than the Democrats are, currently. I miss the Republican party of old that was all about fiscal responsibility and small government. The religious right and the neo-con's have hijacked the party and made it a tool to serve their own purposes, much of which involves spending a ****load of money and having the government interfere in everyone's private affairs. I'm tired of that, man. The Dems have their fair share of extremist knuckleheads and I'm not denying that, but I see far more moderates running the show on that side at the moment.
jag
I don't disagree, but when I look at what the Republican party has become it's FAR more overrun by the extremists than the Democrats are, currently. I miss the Republican party of old that was all about fiscal responsibility and small government. The religious right and the neo-con's have hijacked the party and made it a tool to serve their own purposes, much of which involves spending a ****load of money and having the government interfere in everyone's private affairs. I'm tired of that, man. The Dems have their fair share of extremist knuckleheads and I'm not denying that, but I see far more moderates running the show on that side at the moment.
jag
You have such a way with words! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif
Raiden
02-27-2008, 02:21 PM
I don't disagree, but when I look at what the Republican party has become it's FAR more overrun by the extremists than the Democrats are, currently. I miss the Republican party of old that was all about fiscal responsibility and small government. The religious right and the neo-con's have hijacked the party and made it a tool to serve their own purposes, much of which involves spending a ****load of money and having the government interfere in everyone's private affairs. I'm tired of that, man. The Dems have their fair share of extremist knuckleheads and I'm not denying that, but I see far more moderates running the show on that side at the moment.
jag
I agree.
StorminNorman
02-27-2008, 02:22 PM
I don't disagree, but when I look at what the Republican party has become it's FAR more overrun by the extremists than the Democrats are, currently. I miss the Republican party of old that was all about fiscal responsibility and small government. The religious right and the neo-con's have hijacked the party and made it a tool to serve their own purposes, much of which involves spending a ****load of money and having the government interfere in everyone's private affairs. I'm tired of that, man. The Dems have their fair share of extremist knuckleheads and I'm not denying that, but I see far more moderates running the show on that side at the moment.
jag
I disagree entirely.
A moderate democrat could not be elected in todays Democratic party. Look at Obama and Clinton - two very liberal candidates. Edwards may be more to the left than either of them.
Whereas the Republicans nominated McCain. Not only did they nominate McCain - but he beat out a Baptist Minister, a conservative Tennessee Senator AND the candidate dubbed as the "last conservative candidate" in the race in Romney.
If the party was ran by the far right - McCain WOULD NOT BE THE CANDIDATE.
Yes - some of the conservatives most vocal members ARE far right - but did Rush Limbaugh ride Romney to victory? Did Coulter? Did Hannity? No.
So the idea that the Republican party is under the control of the far right, "hijacked" as you stated it, simply does not make sense when you look at this election.
I disagree entirely.
A moderate democrat could not be elected in todays Democratic party. Look at Obama and Clinton - two very liberal candidates. Edwards may be more to the left than either of them.
Whereas the Republicans nominated McCain. Not only did they nominate McCain - but he beat out a Baptist Minister, a conservative Tennessee Senator AND the candidate dubbed as the "last conservative candidate" in the race in Romney.
If the party was ran by the far right - McCain WOULD NOT BE THE CANDIDATE.
Yes - some of the conservatives most vocal members ARE far right - but did Rush Limbaugh ride Romney to victory? Did Coulter? Did Hannity? No.
So the idea that the Republican party is under the control of the far right, "hijacked" as you stated it, simply does not make sense when you look at this election.
McCain draws on alot of independent support.
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 02:28 PM
I disagree entirely.
A moderate democrat could not be elected in todays Democratic party. Look at Obama and Clinton - two very liberal candidates. Edwards may be more to the left than either of them.
Whereas the Republicans nominated McCain. Not only did they nominate McCain - but he beat out a Baptist Minister, a conservative Tennessee Senator AND the candidate dubbed as the "last conservative candidate" in the race in Romney.
If the party was ran by the far right - McCain WOULD NOT BE THE CANDIDATE.
Yes - some of the conservatives most vocal members ARE far right - but did Rush Limbaugh ride Romney to victory? Did Coulter? Did Hannity? No.
So the idea that the Republican party is under the control of the far right, "hijacked" as you stated it, simply does not make sense when you look at this election.
McCain has a rich and storied history of kowtowing to the neo-con masters behind the scenes. I'm not fooled by the moderate side he's flashing around. There's a reason the neo-cons are rallying around him; he's controllable and more electable than the other nutjobs he was running against. And Coulter came out in support of Hillary because she hates McCain because he's not right enough for her (yeah, a choice devoid of logic but, Coulter does whatever will get her TV time and press).
At any rate, Obama is pulling a lot of moderates up off their asses and into the political process, regardless of how left he may be (or be perceived to be). He and McCain are basically competing for that unaccounted for moderate vote that's felt disenfranchised by Washington for awhile, now.
jag
StorminNorman
02-27-2008, 02:28 PM
McCain draws on alot of independent support.
Yes.
And?
sinewave
02-27-2008, 02:28 PM
Soooooo....just looked up the newswires and I must say...this has been a great week for Clinton. :up:
Yesterday, a man stabbed another over his love for all things Billary. And this just in: Radio Talk Show uber rightwing nut Bill Cunningham (the ass from yesterday's McCain's campaign rally fiasco) and Ms Ann Coulter are now on board the Hillary train...you couldn't make this ***** up.
I wonder if the media will make Hillary "denounce" AND "reject" these two nutjobs, the same way she insisted Obama treat Farrakhan's endorsement? :rolleyes:
coulter and a lot of other wing-nuts started saying they were going to vote for hillary as soon as romney dropped out. i don't buy it. as crazy as they are, they have to realize that possibly 2-3 supreme court justices will be chosen by the next president. that'll motivate plenty of the evangelicals and far-right voters to support mccain, despite their rhetoric right now.
Bill Cunningham is scum and that he would jump off of a conservative ticket to a liberal one only because he got put in his place for acting WAY out of line and misspeaking by the very person that his presence and words were meant to reflect on is very telling about the kind of person that he is. McCain has my utmost respect for the way he handled this jackass.
jag
he is scum and he's apparently got a history of making these types of comments and worse about obama. mccain's campaign staff had to know what they were getting into by having that guy speak. i think it was calculated. i appreciate mccain denouncing that type of behavior, but there's a good chance he planned for that to happen so he could use it to his advantage, just like it played out.
I hope he scares the uber right wing and religious zealots away from the polls, to be honest. If McCain's only real lasting legacy from this election is that he finally gave the Republican party a chance to break free from the stranglehold these jackasses have had on it for years now, that would be an important and hopefully lasting one.
jag
sadly, i don't think they're going away that easily.
Sadly there is no Democratic candidate that can scare away the equally despicable far left supporters from the polls. :csad:
:whatever: what exactly is "far left" to you and what specifically have they done that's hurt you or this country?
Yes.
And?
AND McCain hasn't had to rely upon the religious right for the nomination. That's why he is the nominee. The independent support he has had has carried him over the "put off" far right of the party.
sinewave
02-27-2008, 02:33 PM
I don't disagree, but when I look at what the Republican party has become it's FAR more overrun by the extremists than the Democrats are, currently. I miss the Republican party of old that was all about fiscal responsibility and small government. The religious right and the neo-con's have hijacked the party and made it a tool to serve their own purposes, much of which involves spending a ****load of money and having the government interfere in everyone's private affairs. I'm tired of that, man. The Dems have their fair share of extremist knuckleheads and I'm not denying that, but I see far more moderates running the show on that side at the moment.
jag
ditto. not to mention that the far left hasn't exactly had much power in this country outside of maybe being a vocal annoyance from time to time. the same cannot be said for the far right, who are deeply engrained and active in shaping the republican party's policy.
one thing i really liked about last night's debate was obama's brilliant response about his supposed liberal voting record. a lot of the stuff they label as "liberal" or "far left" is actually pretty moderate.
BlackLantern
02-27-2008, 02:35 PM
I saw a commercial about the expiring surveillance legislation....Fear mongering at its finest.
I saw a commercial about the expiring surveillance legislation....Fear mongering at its finest.
I think people are beginning to see through all the scare tactics and fear-mongering. Thank God!
BlackLantern
02-27-2008, 02:37 PM
I'm very split about the whole surveillance issue.....its been quite the discussion in here on and off...
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 02:38 PM
ditto. not to mention that the far left hasn't exactly had much power in this country outside of maybe being a vocal annoyance from time to time. the same cannot be said for the far right, who are deeply engrained and active in shaping the republican party's policy.
That is absolutely true. Eight years of that bull**** and knowing that the likelihood that at least a couple of Supreme Court Justices will likely be chosen during the next Presidency and I'm ready to see the Republicans shown the door.
one thing i really liked about last night's debate was obama's brilliant response about his supposed liberal voting record. a lot of the stuff they label as "liberal" or "far left" is actually pretty moderate.
Yeah, there's some interesting rhetoric about what constitutes being liberal or far left. When your gauge of that is the far right politics and policies we've seen with the Bushie neo-cons, EVERYTHING is going to seem far left and "liberal". The manipulation of rhetoric that has come from that party has been deplorable and misleading to the American people (even though too many people were dumb enough to buy into it of their own accord).
jag
StorminNorman
02-27-2008, 02:43 PM
McCain has a rich and storied history of kowtowing to the neo-con masters behind the scenes. I'm not fooled by the moderate side he's flashing around. There's a reason the neo-cons are rallying around him; he's controllable and more electable than the other nutjobs he was running against. And Coulter came out in support of Hillary because she hates McCain because he's not right enough for her (yeah, a choice devoid of logic but, Coulter does whatever will get her TV time and press).
At any rate, Obama is pulling a lot of moderates up off their asses and into the political process, regardless of how left he may be (or be perceived to be). He and McCain are basically competing for that unaccounted for moderate vote that's felt disenfranchised by Washington for awhile, now.
jag
I hear this "well McCain really ISN'T a moderate, he has become a Neo Con after 2000" but I don't really see how that fits reality.
Yes - he did embrace Bush after 2000, but he certainly didn't become his good little solider. He fought him on Tax Cuts, he fought him on the handling on Iraq, he fought him on Campaign Finance Reform, etc. etc.
If McCain was able to be manipulated by the Neo Cons - McCain-Kennedy would of never been proposed.
Obama is pulling in a lot of moderate support - or at least more than Hillary - but McCain has long been a favorite among moderates -as shown in New Hampshire.
sinewave
02-27-2008, 02:48 PM
I saw a commercial about the expiring surveillance legislation....Fear mongering at its finest.
exactly. this has nothing to do with keeping us safe from terrorists. the bill was about providing security for the telecom companies so they couldn't be sued for invasion or privacy or something similar. not only that, but the last of the telecom companies said they'd still proceed without the protection so there literally was no issue with this. it sums up perfectly why i hate the republican party so much. they're fueled by fear, hatred, blind allegiance and authoritarianism.
Yeah, there's some interesting rhetoric about what constitutes being liberal or far left. When your gauge of that is the far right politics and policies we've seen with the Bushie neo-cons, EVERYTHING is going to seem far left and "liberal". The manipulation of rhetoric that has come from that party has been deplorable and misleading to the American people (even though too many people were dumb enough to buy into it of their own accord).
jag
egg-****ing-sactly!
exactly. this has nothing to do with keeping us safe from terrorists. the bill was about providing security for the telecom companies so they couldn't be sued for invasion or privacy or something similar. not only that, but the last of the telecom companies said they'd still proceed without the protection so there literally was no issue with this. it sums up perfectly why i hate the republican party so much. they're fueled by fear, hatred, blind allegiance and authoritarianism.
My point exactly!
BlackLantern
02-27-2008, 02:54 PM
like i said before.....half of me thinks that as long you aren't doing anything you shouldn't be doing then what's the problem...the other part of me is raging about the invasion of privacy....the government is basically using loopholes to violate peoples' privacy, as there is no bill, amendment, or law directly stating you are entitled to privacy.
kal-el2006
02-27-2008, 02:57 PM
Sometimes i dont understand bill...since obama reached 1 million in donations on his website..we get this?
Clinton said that along with getting a second look from voters, her campaign continues to raise $1 million a day over the internet, a factoid she has been touting since Super Tuesday.
Despite that cheery forecast, her campaign sent out a fundraising e-mail Wednesday from Bill Clinton that accused Obama of trying to drown out his primary opponent with a barrage of TV ads.:huh:
"So let's show the Obama campaign that they can't win this race just by throwing more money at it," the email said, seeking to raise $1.9 million in the next 24 hours.
Sometimes i dont understand bill...since obama reached 1 million in donations on his website..we get this?
Clinton said that along with getting a second look from voters, her campaign continues to raise $1 million a day over the internet, a factoid she has been touting since Super Tuesday.
Despite that cheery forecast, her campaign sent out a fundraising e-mail Wednesday from Bill Clinton that accused Obama of trying to drown out his primary opponent with a barrage of TV ads.:huh:
"So let's show the Obama campaign that they can't win this race just by throwing more money at it," the email said, seeking to raise $1.9 million in the next 24 hours.
I can say that here in Ohio the number of Obama ads vs the number of Clinton ads is staggering. Obama is running about 4-1 it seems.
BlackLantern
02-27-2008, 03:00 PM
I've seen more Clinton ads here in Connecticut
Darkly Dexter
02-27-2008, 03:03 PM
That is absolutely true. Eight years of that bull**** and knowing that the likelihood that at least a couple of Supreme Court Justices will likely be chosen during the next Presidency and I'm ready to see the Republicans shown the door.
Yeah, there's some interesting rhetoric about what constitutes being liberal or far left. When your gauge of that is the far right politics and policies we've seen with the Bushie neo-cons, EVERYTHING is going to seem far left and "liberal". The manipulation of rhetoric that has come from that party has been deplorable and misleading to the American people (even though too many people were dumb enough to buy into it of their own accord).
jag
I always had a feeling that in the U.S. "leftist" is like a bad word. When actually, governments with "leftist" policies are the ones that have the best quality of life in the world (Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,etc). Of course, I'm talking about the social democratic left .
Excel
02-27-2008, 03:08 PM
Sometimes i dont understand bill...since obama reached 1 million in donations on his website..we get this?
Clinton said that along with getting a second look from voters, her campaign continues to raise $1 million a day over the internet, a factoid she has been touting since Super Tuesday.
Despite that cheery forecast, her campaign sent out a fundraising e-mail Wednesday from Bill Clinton that accused Obama of trying to drown out his primary opponent with a barrage of TV ads.:huh:
"So let's show the Obama campaign that they can't win this race just by throwing more money at it," the email said, seeking to raise $1.9 million in the next 24 hours.
Wow, that really is pretty bad. They have been stretching for a while and people are really starting to not buy it anymore.
metr0man
02-27-2008, 03:10 PM
the republicans constant attempts to use anti-muslim prejudice to try and bring Obama down is really disgusting to me (i'm a very liberal muslim). I wasn't really on that side to begin with because of Iraq, but i definately didnt feel the same way about McCain that i did with Bush, but now i dont think i'll even look at a R candidate again.
what's really insulting is when they try to pretend like they aren't, like all "what? its his middle name, why cant we just say his middle name? what's wrong with that?" you know, like pretending they're not doing it deliberatly to try and use make more prejudice out there and win an election.
tho i do think it'd be funny if all the democrats decided to start using everybody's middle name, it would sound so odd if everybody started saying President Walker Bush and so forth, but it would sound so odd and draw attention to the fact that's a deliberate tactic.
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 03:26 PM
I always had a feeling that in the U.S. "leftist" is like a bad word. When actually, governments with "leftist" policies are the ones that have the best quality of life in the world (Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,etc). Of course, I'm talking about the social democratic left .
It's just in the last eight or nine years that's sort of happened, here. A lot of the neo-conservatives have used some pretty underhanded rhetoric to try to equate the words "liberal" and "leftist" with negative connotations as if they were some sort of horrible thing.
jag
terry78
02-27-2008, 03:27 PM
^That's all it is. There is no need to say anyone's middle name unless it's part of their title or whatever.
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 03:28 PM
Sometimes i dont understand bill...since obama reached 1 million in donations on his website..we get this?
Clinton said that along with getting a second look from voters, her campaign continues to raise $1 million a day over the internet, a factoid she has been touting since Super Tuesday.
Despite that cheery forecast, her campaign sent out a fundraising e-mail Wednesday from Bill Clinton that accused Obama of trying to drown out his primary opponent with a barrage of TV ads.:huh:
"So let's show the Obama campaign that they can't win this race just by throwing more money at it," the email said, seeking to raise $1.9 million in the next 24 hours.
Translation: We need more money! Give us more money! It's not fair that Barack has more money than us, so give us your money!
jag
sinewave
02-27-2008, 03:30 PM
I always had a feeling that in the U.S. "leftist" is like a bad word. When actually, governments with "leftist" policies are the ones that have the best quality of life in the world (Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,etc). Of course, I'm talking about the social democratic left .
good point. yes, the left has been extremely demonized by the right over the last 20 years or so in ameirca.
Excel
02-27-2008, 03:33 PM
of the latest 7 polls from Ohio on real clear politcs, clinton has an average of 6.8% lead. In Texas, the 7 latest polls have Obaba with an avergae lead of 1.2%
quinnipac is also saying obamas only 6% down in pennsylvania too...
the republicans constant attempts to use anti-muslim prejudice to try and bring Obama down is really disgusting to me (i'm a very liberal muslim). I wasn't really on that side to begin with because of Iraq, but i definately didnt feel the same way about McCain that i did with Bush, but now i dont think i'll even look at a R candidate again.
what's really insulting is when they try to pretend like they aren't, like all "what? its his middle name, why cant we just say his middle name? what's wrong with that?" you know, like pretending they're not doing it deliberatly to try and use make more prejudice out there and win an election.
tho i do think it'd be funny if all the democrats decided to start using everybody's middle name, it would sound so odd if everybody started saying President Walker Bush and so forth, but it would sound so odd and draw attention to the fact that's a deliberate tactic.
That's pretty much what the Republican party has come to stand for. Fear, prejudice, and hypocrisy.
sinewave
02-27-2008, 04:13 PM
That's pretty much what the Republican party has come to stand for. Fear, prejudice, and hypocrisy.
and yet people continue to make intellectually lazy comments like, "eh, republicans and democrats, they're both the same." :whatever:
and yet people continue to make intellectually lazy comments like, "eh, republicans and democrats, they're both the same." :whatever:
Yeah, it's that kind of ignorance that really frustrates me. :csad:
BlackLantern
02-27-2008, 04:16 PM
Both parties have their issues.....namely extremists on both sides who twist principles and ideals to horrid proportions
sinewave
02-27-2008, 04:18 PM
of course they do, but it doesn't make them the same.
Both parties have their issues.....namely extremists on both sides who twist principles and ideals to horrid proportions
Oh definately! And it's always the extremes that cause the problems for everyone else.
sinewave
02-27-2008, 04:24 PM
the sad thing is, this FISA commercial wasn't a result of the extremists. it was a party message. that speaks volumes.
the sad thing is, this FISA commercial wasn't a result of the extremists. it was a party message. that speaks volumes.
You're right
sinewave
02-27-2008, 04:41 PM
You're right
thanks. it's been known to happen on rare occasions. :cwink:
StorminNorman
02-27-2008, 06:21 PM
the republicans constant attempts to use anti-muslim prejudice to try and bring Obama down is really disgusting to me (i'm a very liberal muslim). I wasn't really on that side to begin with because of Iraq, but i definately didnt feel the same way about McCain that i did with Bush, but now i dont think i'll even look at a R candidate again.
what's really insulting is when they try to pretend like they aren't, like all "what? its his middle name, why cant we just say his middle name? what's wrong with that?" you know, like pretending they're not doing it deliberatly to try and use make more prejudice out there and win an election.
tho i do think it'd be funny if all the democrats decided to start using everybody's middle name, it would sound so odd if everybody started saying President Walker Bush and so forth, but it would sound so odd and draw attention to the fact that's a deliberate tactic.
Hillary Clinton is a Republican?
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 06:56 PM
Rep. Lewis just pulled his support from Clinton and gave it to Obama:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/lewis.switch/
jag
Rep. Lewis just pulled his support from Clinton and gave it to Obama:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/lewis.switch/
jag
Yeah I saw that too. It's very odd that he switches allegiance as soon as the wind blows a different direction. Maybe it isn't all that odd, people do want to be on the "winning" side. I guess it's more sad than anything.
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 07:02 PM
Yeah I saw that too. It's very odd that he switches allegiance as soon as the wind blows a different direction. Maybe it isn't all that odd, people do want to be on the "winning" side. I guess it's more sad than anything.
He gave his support to Obama because the lion's share of his constituents voted, overwhelmingly, in favor or Obama. He's listening to his constituents and doing what they elected him to do; actually represent their will. And he's listening to them and representing them accordingly despite a long-standing friendship with the Clinton's and his own desire to see Hillary win the election. I think that's pretty damn cool to see, myself.
jag
Varient
02-27-2008, 07:06 PM
He gave his support to Obama because the lion's share of his constituents voted, overwhelmingly, in favor or Obama. He's listening to his constituents and doing what they elected him to do; actually represent their will. And he's listening to them and representing them accordingly despite a long-standing friendship with the Clinton's and his own desire to see Hillary win the election. I think that's pretty damn cool to see, myself.
jag
Some folk can't win for losing.
People won't see it like that. They will see it as rats deserting a sinking ship.
Too bad,... It would appear that this one has integrity.
V.
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 07:10 PM
Some folk can't win for losing.
People won't see it like that. They will see it as rats deserting a sinking ship.
Too bad,... It would appear that this one has integrity.
V.
Unfortunately, your more cynical assessment is probably on the money; a lot of people will view it as rats fleeing the ship before it capsizes completely. I'm sure we'll see a lot more "rats" in the coming weeks jumping to the S.S. Obama just because they don't want to be in the losing camp and not because they really want to support him or represent their constituents. That's sad, too, because when I see elected officials actually listening to the people electing them and doing their best to represent the will of those constituents rather than just doing whatever the hell THEY want to do, I find it very refreshing. My current Congressman is a jackass (I didn't vote for him :cmad: ) that does everything BUT what his constituents want him to do. I think he's finally going to get voted out next go around, but good grief...why do we put up with these jokers at all? Truly represent me or get the f**k out of office, even if we have to vote you out or forcibly remove you.
jag
He gave his support to Obama because the lion's share of his constituents voted, overwhelmingly, in favor or Obama. He's listening to his constituents and doing what they elected him to do; actually represent their will. And he's listening to them and representing them accordingly despite a long-standing friendship with the Clinton's and his own desire to see Hillary win the election. I think that's pretty damn cool to see, myself.
jag
Well that's completely respectable then. Unfortunately, I don't think alot of people will see it that way. (i.e. Rats abandoning the ship.) I just do not want to see this thing come down to the SUPER (cue over-zealous heroic theme song) delegates. I never like to see the popular vote overruled. When you overrule the popular vote, it's basically like saying the voters don't matter. And that's just not right.
StorminNorman
02-27-2008, 08:16 PM
He gave his support to Obama because the lion's share of his constituents voted, overwhelmingly, in favor or Obama. He's listening to his constituents and doing what they elected him to do; actually represent their will. And he's listening to them and representing them accordingly despite a long-standing friendship with the Clinton's and his own desire to see Hillary win the election. I think that's pretty damn cool to see, myself.
jag
:whatever:
He did this because he wants to join the winning team - it has nothing to do with following the voice of his constituents. A recommendation of a Presidential candidate has nothing to do with the wishes of your voters - its a personal decision.
Now its possible he did this to improve his own image in the eyes of his constituents - equally self serving - but don't try to act like he did this because it was the right thing to do. You are giving him far too much credit.
jaguarr
02-27-2008, 08:29 PM
:whatever:
He did this because he wants to join the winning team - it has nothing to do with following the voice of his constituents. A recommendation of a Presidential candidate has nothing to do with the wishes of your voters - its a personal decision.
Now its possible he did this to improve his own image in the eyes of his constituents - equally self serving - but don't try to act like he did this because it was the right thing to do. You are giving him far too much credit.
I'm not so sure, Norman. He's a long time Clinton friend and supporter. She's not down and out yet and, in fact, really needs the support of guys like him right now when it counts. I'd think that he'd be giving her that support right now under any other circumstance. The voter data from the primary in Georgia supports the reasons he claims as why he's giving Obama his support. Yes, it's suspect, but there's nothing to suggest that he's flat out lying, either (which isn't to say he's not and is just getting off the ship before it sinks). But, I'm willing to give him the skeptical benefit of the doubt.
jag
I'm not so sure, Norman. He's a long time Clinton friend and supporter. She's not down and out yet and, in fact, really needs the support of guys like him right now when it counts. I'd think that he'd be giving her that support right now under any other circumstance. The voter data from the primary in Georgia supports the reasons he claims as why he's giving Obama his support. Yes, it's suspect, but there's nothing to suggest that he's flat out lying, either (which isn't to say he's not and is just getting off the ship before it sinks). But, I'm willing to give him the skeptical benefit of the doubt.
jag
Skeptical benefit of the doubt indeed.
Excel
02-27-2008, 10:23 PM
:whatever:
He did this because he wants to join the winning team - it has nothing to do with following the voice of his constituents. A recommendation of a Presidential candidate has nothing to do with the wishes of your voters - its a personal decision.
Now its possible he did this to improve his own image in the eyes of his constituents - equally self serving - but don't try to act like he did this because it was the right thing to do. You are giving him far too much credit.
Your assuming too much.
MEh
splitting hairs aside, the slow trickle is turning into a hemmorage.
they are not waiting for the elections...
the debate was enough to answer their questions.
she has no answer and no solution to defeating Barack.
The Senator
02-28-2008, 12:37 AM
Your assuming too much.
Norman makes a very valid point. Super Delegates are accountable only to themselves, and as Rep. Lewis even pointed out, this was a personal decision. There was no indication that he switched his support because of the way his constituents voted, and this isn't an indication that a wave of Hillary supporters are going to jump ship just because the voters in their respective states voted for Obama instead.
StorminNorman
02-28-2008, 01:56 AM
Your assuming too much.
So I shouldn't assume most politicians care more about staying in power than listening to their people.
rdh007
02-28-2008, 06:56 AM
Norman makes a very valid point. Super Delegates are accountable only to themselves, and as Rep. Lewis even pointed out, this was a personal decision. There was no indication that he switched his support because of the way his constituents voted, and this isn't an indication that a wave of Hillary supporters are going to jump ship just because the voters in their respective states voted for Obama instead.
Which is a pretty good argument against this Super Delegate stuff.
redfirebird2008
02-28-2008, 07:27 AM
Norman makes a very valid point. Super Delegates are accountable only to themselves, and as Rep. Lewis even pointed out, this was a personal decision. There was no indication that he switched his support because of the way his constituents voted, and this isn't an indication that a wave of Hillary supporters are going to jump ship just because the voters in their respective states voted for Obama instead.
Apparently some of them are considering it. MSNBC reported that the Clinton campaign is telling some of the superdelegates to hold off and wait till March 4th before deciding because some of them already want to switch.
Apparently some of them are considering it. MSNBC reported that the Clinton campaign is telling some of the superdelegates to hold off and wait till March 4th before deciding because some of them already want to switch.
i beleive the texas debate was the tipping point, and the ohio debate was the final push that now has the ball rolling down the other side of the mountain, because Clinton has failed to find a way to change the momentum.
i think were are going to see a steady stream of Supers aligning with Obama untill Hillary leaves the race... barring any rediculous mistakes by Obama.
bell110
02-28-2008, 10:30 AM
So I shouldn't assume most politicians care more about staying in power than listening to their people.
If they don't listen to their people, they won't stay in power too long.
If they don't listen to their people, they won't stay in power too long.
:lmao: Surely you can't believe that.
jaguarr
02-28-2008, 10:58 AM
Norman makes a very valid point. Super Delegates are accountable only to themselves, and as Rep. Lewis even pointed out, this was a personal decision. There was no indication that he switched his support because of the way his constituents voted, and this isn't an indication that a wave of Hillary supporters are going to jump ship just because the voters in their respective states voted for Obama instead.
Except that the voter record during the primaries supports his claim that he's giving his support to Obama because that's what his constituents wanted. I'm not saying he doesn't have ulterior motives for doing so, but he does at least have that voter record to support his reasoning, regardless of whether he's being completely up front about all of his reasons or not.
jag
Memphis Slim
02-28-2008, 11:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrPkRv3I-IY
This is scary........especially her last comments.
jaguarr
02-28-2008, 11:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrPkRv3I-IY
This is scary........especially her last comments.
I'd hit it! :up:
jag
kal-el2006
02-28-2008, 12:02 PM
My favorite Obama speech..the end very powerful..whats yours?
i8mG5qfDXL4
jaguarr
02-28-2008, 12:51 PM
Barrow just jumped on the Obama Train:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/02/28/Barrow_0229_web.html
jag
souvlaki
02-28-2008, 12:54 PM
My favorite Obama speech..the end very powerful..whats yours?
i8mG5qfDXL4
Probably either his Iowa victory speech, or the speech he gave at the DNC back in 2004.
sinewave
02-28-2008, 01:05 PM
Barrow just jumped on the Obama Train:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/02/28/Barrow_0229_web.html
jag
nice. let's see how jman tries to spin this in clinton's favor. :hyper:
jaguarr
02-28-2008, 01:09 PM
nice. let's see how jman tries to spin this in clinton's favor. :hyper:
He's obviously lying about his reasons for supporting Obama. :)
jag
sinewave
02-28-2008, 01:15 PM
oh, obviously.... :dry:
terry78
02-28-2008, 01:25 PM
Obama has it locked right now, i don't think Hil can come back from this. Now the only problem is getting past the McCainanites, of which there are many.
Obama has it locked right now, i don't think Hil can come back from this. Now the only problem is getting past the McCainanites, of which there are many.
But McCain may have to go into the general election WITHOUT the religious right and conservative base. He's only come this far because of independent support.
jaguarr
02-28-2008, 01:31 PM
Obama has it locked right now, i don't think Hil can come back from this. Now the only problem is getting past the McCainanites, of which there are many.
Obama is going to tie McCain to G.W. Bush and watch him drown. Bush has been popping off about Obama in support of McCain the last couple of days, making it all the easier for Obama to continue associating the two as cut from the same cloth. I'm sure McCain is cringing that the President with a 17% approval rating is taking his side right about now, wishing he'd just shut the hell up and stay out of it.
jag
sinewave
02-28-2008, 01:31 PM
Obama has it locked right now, i don't think Hil can come back from this. Now the only problem is getting past the McCainanites, of which there are many.
that's where i think obama has a clear advantage over hillary in the general election. he's much more appealing to independent voters who might be undecided between the two parties.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.