The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[Malice]

......and why michelle seems to be even more outwardly militant than Barack. Notice how she's been put on lock down lately??

Obamas campaign guys probably after all the crap came out of her mouth are investigating having her vocal cords removed.

[Captain Planet!]

Obama can not distance himself from this guy because he has willingless accepted this rhetoric in the past. His relationship with Wright extends far beyond a simple pastor-member relationship. They are friends. They are very close. Wright is Obama's personal spirtual advisor. Obama knew exactly what type of radical positions this man has taken and believes and instead of pulling away from such devisive, anti-American rhetoric - he embraces it.

That shows a good deal about him personally and his own views.

It should be noted that the church he is affiliated with has a by law that its member must have a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. That bothers me.
You've taken the words out of my mouth.... Now give them back! :o

[StorminNorman]

(Sad Smile)
Man has a pastor who probably,... Nay,... DEFINETELY did more good than harm over 36 years,... But like the smoking,.. and his middle name,.. and wearing robes while in another country and having been born into a Muslim family,... Poor Obama has to take heat for the "greatest hits" of tepid negativity his Pastor ever uttered.

TSK.

From the outside looking in it all remains pathetic.

So because he was more or less good, we should ignore racist and anti-American comments? Please.

[jaguarr]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/15/2008-03-15_obama_denounces_pastors_inflammatory_rem.html

jag

[Darthphere]

Also, it appears that Tony Rezko played a bigger fundraising role in his campaign than Obama first admitted:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9049.html

This Rezko thing really has the potential of destroying Obama's presidential run and if it comes out to be really bad, his political career.

[The Senator]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/15/2008-03-15_obama_denounces_pastors_inflammatory_rem.html

jag

And if Wright hadn't received the level of scrutiny he's been receiving these past few days, Obama wouldn't have kicked him off his campaign or denounced him. This is obviously true since his 9/11 comments occurred in 2003... two years before Obama was even in the Senate... the two have a long-standing relationship which Obama wouldn't have sacrificed unless his pastor's comments became such a big deal... which shows poor judgment on Obama's part.

[StorminNorman]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/15/2008-03-15_obama_denounces_pastors_inflammatory_rem.html

jag

You don't believe the sincerity, do you?

He is denouncing the pastor's comments not because he disagrees - but because he got caught with them.

Again - that makes him just like any other politician, right? Where is that CHANGE?

[jaguarr]

All I posted was the story, guys. Nowhere did I write that I believed what he wrote or didn't. Just stumbled across the relevant story and posted it here. Settle down.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

You don't believe the sincerity, do you?

He is denouncing the pastor's comments not because he disagrees - but because he got caught with them.

Again - that makes him just like any other politician, right? Where is that CHANGE?

yeah, in order to bring change a politician must be perfect!:cmad:
there is no room for people with differing viewpoints!!! he must control each of his friends minds a-la puppet master!:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

[BlackLantern]

No, I only finger my butthole to him. I masturbate to his wife. :up:

jag


was that really necessary? raise your hand if you just went to a scary mental place after reading that post?

[The Senator]

yeah, in order to bring change a politician must be perfect!:cmad:
there is no room for people with differing viewpoints!!! he must control each of his friends minds a-la puppet master!:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

Obama admitted to taking personal advice from Jeremiah Wright. The man thinks that attacks on U.S. soil are justified because the U.S has killed foreigners in their wars abroad. The man also thinks African Americans should overthrow the white man, and that Obama should be President because Hillary Clinton never had to suffer like he did. Those are two pretty radical beliefs. Obama's patriotism has been questioned time and time again. This campaign has chipped away at racial tensions recently. Why Obama would want to continue to fan the flames is beyond me-- especially if he doesn't agree with what Wright has been saying all these years.

If someone was to say, "yeah, I think Hitler's a pretty wise man, if you take away all the stuff he said about Jews, gays and non-white folks," you'd question that person's sanity. It's the same situation with Obama. It was a total judgment **** up on his part.

[StorminNorman]

yeah, in order to bring change a politician must be perfect!:cmad:
there is no room for people with differing viewpoints!!! he must control each of his friends minds a-la puppet master!:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

That is the way Obama was depicted. He was ABOVE the other politicians because he was an outsider, he was different, he was change.

Obama continue to proves time and time again that the only thing different from him and any other politician in Washington is the fact he is more inexperienced than almost any of them.

Also, lets say George Bush had a close friend who was openly racist as hell. If the guy was caught screaming such rhetoric, you wouldn't have the argument would not be "well he can't control his friends".

[jaguarr]

was that really necessary? raise your hand if you just went to a scary mental place after reading that post?

:hehe:

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

Obama admitted to taking personal advice from Jeremiah Wright. The man thinks that attacks on U.S. soil are justified because the U.S has killed foreigners in their wars abroad. The man also thinks African Americans should overthrow the white man, and that Obama should be President because Hillary Clinton never had to suffer like he did. Those are two pretty radical beliefs. Obama's patriotism has been questioned time and time again. This campaign has chipped away at racial tensions recently. Why Obama would want to continue to fan the flames is beyond me-- especially if he doesn't agree with what Wright has been saying all these years.

If someone was to say, "yeah, I think Hitler's a pretty wise man, if you take away all the stuff he said about Jews, gays and non-white folks," you'd question that person's sanity. It's the same situation with Obama. It was a total judgment **** up on his part.

I have tons of friends I disagree with. I have a friend that totally told me how to fix the carburetor on my old car, and he thinks women are playthings for his amusement.
I mean, the Bush family were Nazi collaborators, and despite my utter hate for W. I don't think he is a "nazi"
this is NOISE unimportant noise.
if you disagree with Obama on policy, I can respect that, but this?
ridiculous.

That is the way Obama was depicted. He was ABOVE the other politicians because he was an outsider, he was different, he was change.

Obama continue to proves time and time again that the only thing different from him and any other politician in Washington is the fact he is more inexperienced than almost any of them.

:huh: by proving he knows people with views different than yourself?

OK.

I guess......

[Malice]

I personally dont believe in Guilty by Association in most things.

But when someone is running for the Presidential position, I cant give it up.
What impact has this racist bastard had on Obama? I am sure the pastor has done some wonderful things in his life. I am sure the last few sermons I have heard are NOT the only ones that are causing me to puke.

The question in my mind is this.

He knowingly attended this church for 20 years. He admits he is a close personal friend and advisor. What negative attitudes has this pastor passed onto Obama is the question here.

We all have had some aquantences that were less then perfect. How many of you have CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS and ADVISORS that are open racists and promote hate speech.

Lets cut to the chase, we all can excuse some associations, as we are human...but some we cant give up and want to dig further because of the possible impact.

[The Senator]

I have tons of friends I disagree with. I have a friend that totally told me how to fix the carburetor on my old car, and he thinks women are playthings for his amusement.
I mean, the Bush family were Nazi collaborators, and despite my utter hate for W. I don't think he is a "nazi"
this is NOISE unimportant noise.
if you disagree with Obama on policy, I can respect that, but this?
ridiculous.

This isn't simply a matter of disagreeing with Jeremiah Wright. It's a matter of hyprocrisy on his campaign's behalf.

Geraldine Ferraro said that Obama is where he is because he's black. His campaign was immediately up in arms over the comments, and they demanded that she leave the Clinton campaign. His supporters said her comments were racist and bigoted and that they reflected what Hillary Clinton secretly believed. They said Hillary was guilty of trying to start some race war, subtly, so she can win the states with strong white populations like PA and NC. They say Hillary should have known better because Ferraro said similar comments about Jesse Jackson in 1988.

Then this comes out, and the bulk of his supporters-- the same supporters who completely trashed Hillary Clinton for Ferraro's remarks-- brush it aside and say, "well, I don't see how this guy's beliefs reflects what Obama believes."

Even though that isn't the case, since Obama has been taking political and religious advice from this man for roughly twenty years. He made him a top adviser on his campaign, knowing full well what this guy thought. Wright made his 9/11 remarks in 2003, and they were certainly controversial then. But Obama still hired the guy, knowing full well that the man is trying to pit blacks against whites and that he believes 9/11 wasn't much of a tragedy.

Talk about a huge double standard. It's okay for Obama to hire people who say these things, because he represents change and hope and all that is good in the world... but no, Hillary can't have people who say similar, toned down statements because she's evil and hates black people:cmad:... yeah, tell me this doesn't reek of hypocrisy and bias.

Regardless of whether Obama agrees with the man or not... he works in politics. There are some things you realize when you work on a political campaign, and one of the first things you do is disassociate yourself from idiots who have a tendency to say stupid, offensive things on a regular basis. Obama made Wright a top campaign adviser... that's the opposite of what he should have done.

He should have seen this coming, he never should have hired Wright in the first place... but he did, and now he has to deal with whatever backlash this causes.

[BlackLantern]

if you're running for the highest office in the land, you do have to conduct yourself differently from normal folks.

[Mr Sparkle]

if you're running for the highest office in the land, you do have to conduct yourself differently from normal folks.

and he did, as none of us must denounce friends and family we disagree with.
for the most part it's a given that we do, and when there's a family reunion I never have to say " uncle Leo?...yeah, I totally denounce his points of view"
:woot:

This isn't simply a matter of disagreeing with Jeremiah Wright. It's a matter of hyprocrisy on his campaign's behalf.

Geraldine Ferraro said that Obama is where he is because he's black. His campaign was immediately up in arms over the comments, and they demanded that she leave the Clinton campaign. His supporters said her comments were racist and bigoted and that they reflected what Hillary Clinton secretly believed. They said Hillary was guilty of trying to start some race war, subtly, so she can win the states with strong white populations like PA and NC. They say Hillary should have known better because Ferraro said similar comments about Jesse Jackson in 1988.

Then this comes out, and the bulk of his supporters-- the same supporters who completely trashed Hillary Clinton for Ferraro's remarks-- brush it aside and say, "well, I don't see how this guy's beliefs reflects what Obama believes."

Even though that isn't the case, since Obama has been taking political and religious advice from this man for roughly twenty years. He made him a top adviser on his campaign, knowing full well what this guy thought. Wright made his 9/11 remarks in 2003, and they were certainly controversial then. But Obama still hired the guy, knowing full well that the man is trying to pit blacks against whites and that he believes 9/11 wasn't much of a tragedy.

Talk about a huge double standard. It's okay for Obama to hire people who say these things, because he represents change and hope and all that is good in the world... but no, Hillary can't have people who say similar, toned down statements because she's evil and hates black people:cmad:... yeah, tell me this doesn't reek of hypocrisy and bias.

Regardless of whether Obama agrees with the man or not... he works in politics. There are some things you realize when you work on a political campaign, and one of the first things you do is disassociate yourself from idiots who have a tendency to say stupid, offensive things on a regular basis. Obama made Wright a top campaign adviser... that's the opposite of what he should have done.

He should have seen this coming, he never should have hired Wright in the first place... but he did, and now he has to deal with whatever backlash this causes.

wasn't Ferraro actually involved in the campaign as opposed to Wright?
let me assure you that casual acquaintances of the Clinton family are not without their racism.
the question is, do you think Obama is a black separatist, and do you think it's legitimate to claim that black separatists are part of his campaign.
about the 9-11 comments?
I've met several people that agree that 9-11 was the consequence of US foreign intervention.
meh, I don't really care, like I said, It's noise.
if it was up to me, Ferraro shouldn't have left anyway, but why did Ferraro leave?
who made her leave?
and who is really at fault?

[StorminNorman]

:huh: by proving he knows people with views different than yourself?

OK.

I guess......

If he finds the views presented by Rev. Wright to be okay - which he has demonstrated given his embracing of him and his preachings - then this is a very important issue.

[BlackLantern]

all of this is making John McCain seem like a very appealing choice....the day that retard introduced McCain and slammed Obama, McCain was on TV that afternoon denouncing the guy....what he did is exactly how that kind of situation should be handled.

[Mr Sparkle]

If he finds the views presented by Rev. Wright to be okay - which he has demonstrated given his embracing of him and his preachings - then this is a very important issue.

so, basically you think Obama IS a racist?

[Mr Sparkle]

all of this is making John McCain seem like a very appealing choice....the day that retard introduced McCain and slammed Obama, McCain was on TV that afternoon denouncing the guy....what he did is exactly how that kind of situation should be handled.

didn't McCain switch positions in order to align himself with GOP making his nomination a given?
McCain is a politician, an extremely old politician.
I don't know about you, but before my dad died at 60 ( he was 40 years my senior) I often thought " gee the generation gap is a strong thing".
sure his wife must've been hot at one time, but aside from that? his time was in 2000, it's 8 years too late.

[StorminNorman]

so, basically you think Obama IS a racist?

No, but he has demonstrated that he has no problem with racism and anti-American rhetoric.

I have a problem with that for a potential Commander and Chief.

Obama's church also requires a non-negotiable commitment to Africa - I have a problem with that too.

[StorminNorman]

didn't McCain switch positions in order to align himself with GOP making his nomination a given?
McCain is a politician, an extremely old politician.
I don't know about you, but before my dad died at 60 ( he was 40 years my senior) I often thought " gee the generation gap is a strong thing".
sure his wife must've been hot at one time, but aside from that? his time was in 2000, it's 8 years too late.

What issues have McCain switched on?

[BlackLantern]

I'm a registered independent...have been since 18 and to be totally honest, considering what I have seen out of all 3 candidates so far, if I had to vote today...I'd vote for McCain.....though I still assert that none of these three make me believe they can be President.

[BlackLantern]

No, but he has demonstrated that he has no problem with racism and anti-American rhetoric.

I have a problem with that for a potential Commander and Chief.

Obama's church also requires a non-negotiable commitment to Africa - I have a problem with that too.

what sort of commitment?

[The Senator]

wasn't Ferraro actually involved in the campaign as opposed to Wright?

Wright was Obama's top spiritual adviser, while Ferraro was chief fundraiser. Wright actually played a closer role to Obama than Ferraro did to Clinton.


let me assure you that casual acquaintances of the Clinton family are not without their racism.

There are Clinton supporters who only support her because she's the white candidate, as there are Obama supporters who support him because he's black. It's sad, but that's how a certain fraction of our society works. However, the point is that Ferraro and Wright are paid officials working on both campaigns. They actually represented the campaigns they worked for, and their stupid statements essentially come off to some people as a representation of what the candidate thinks... even though that may not be the case. Regardless, these candidates have a responsibility to disassociate themselves from these guys' beliefs, however silly or extreme they are.

the question is, do you think Obama is a black separatist, and do you think it's legitimate to claim that black separatists are part of his campaign.
about the 9-11 comments?

I don't think Obama is a black separatist, but I think his campaign is making race a huge issue in this campaign. He completely misconstrued what Clinton said about LBJ and MLK earlier in this campaign, infuriating African Americans in South Carolina and eventually most of the primary and caucus states which followed. His campaign has gone after her time and time again for comments advisers and staff members made about his race and heritage, demanding that those people be removed from the campaign (which they were), and then making it a national non-issue in the process.

Do you think Geraldine Ferraro is an adamant racist who thinks black people can't make it to high society on their own merits? Because that's how many posters on this forum alone feel about her.

Ferraro did not represent Clinton's beliefs, but Clinton was the one who was criticized for hiring her in the first place. Wright has said these things over and over again in his sermons, yet for some reason, these very same Obama supporters who cite what Ferraro said about Jackson as evidence that she was a bitter racist say "Oh, well, it isn't Obama's fault. He doesn't actually believe what Wright is saying."

That's where it becomes hypocritical.


I've met several people that agree that 9-11 was the consequence of US foreign intervention.

US Foreign policy in some ways gave the Taliban the resources to come into power and fund Al Qaeda. I think many people can agree with that on some level.

But that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about a guy who thinks that the attacks on U.S. soil were justified. That the three thousand people who died that day deserved to die because of mistakes the U.S made during WWII, Vietnam and other wars abroad.

Not only that, but Wright made those comments in 2003... before Obama was elected a Senator. Obama should have known that hiring this guy would be a mistake, but he didn't. And that makes me question Obama's judgment, as well as what it is he may believe at heart.

[Mr Sparkle]

What issues have McCain switched on?

you really didn't see him switch stance on issues in the last 8 years, something that seemed like a break in his older philosophy?
I did and I wasn't even paying close attention, I have just always liked the guy and what he had to say.
that's why I saw him break his maverick-like resolve more than once in the last .....4 years I'd say and closely align with the GOP on issues he used to, well, not.

[StorminNorman]

what sort of commitment?

A spiritual commitment. And while I have no problem with a congregation that has such a relationship with the land of their ancestors - I do have a problem with a President with that sort of relationship to a foreign country (or continent).

[StorminNorman]

you really didn't see him switch stance on issues in the last 8 years, something that seemed like a break in his older philosophy?
I did and I wasn't even paying close attention, I have just always liked the guy and what he had to say.
that's why I saw him break his maverick-like resolve more than once in the last .....4 years I'd say and closely align with the GOP on issues he used to, well, not.

I have heard a lot of people CLAIM McCain has switched positions - but I have yet to see this massive change in philosophy.

[Mr Sparkle]

Wright was Obama's top spiritual adviser, while Ferraro was chief fundraiser. Wright actually played a closer role to Obama than Ferraro did to Clinton.

:huh: all I said was that Ferraro was part of the campaign, there's a way to penalize her, there's a tangible position to be removed from.
what can you to with Wright?
denounce him.
he, did, it's done.
it's NOISE.

There are Clinton supporters who only support her because she's the white candidate, as there are Obama supporters who support him because he's black. It's sad, but that's how a certain fraction of our society works. However, the point is that Ferraro and Wright are paid officials working on both campaigns. They actually represented the campaigns they worked for, and their stupid statements essentially come off to some people as a representation of what the candidate thinks... even though that may not be the case. Regardless, these candidates have a responsibility to disassociate themselves from these guys' beliefs, however silly or extreme they are.

well, there you GO.
I already knew this, and now I know that you also, so, is it really important then?
seems like It wouldn't be.
also I didn't know that Wright was a paid official.
if they remove his pay and position in the campaign, isn't the problem solved?
I mean, I don't see what Obama is doing wrong here, I don't see why this is being discussed. it's drivel.


I don't think Obama is a black separatist, but I think his campaign is making race a huge issue in this campaign. He completely misconstrued what Clinton said about LBJ and MLK earlier in this campaign, infuriating African Americans in South Carolina and eventually most of the primary and caucus states which followed. His campaign has gone after her time and time again for comments advisers and staff members made about his race and heritage, demanding that those people be removed from the campaign (which they were), and then making it a national non-issue in the process.

really? you actually think that Obama made race an Issue?
campaigns have made issues out of totally stupid ideas like "inexperience" and other trivial ********.
at first Obama ran a campaign that was focussed on his message ( agree or disagree with it) and I have seen his campaign REACT to the campaign around him ( who forgot about the " change you can xerox" deal) I mean, as long as people keep high fiving themselves for trivial ******** like that, issues will be made of it.


Do you think Geraldine Ferraro is an adamant racist who thinks black people can't make it to high society on their own merits? Because that's how many posters on this forum alone feel about her.

no, I think Ferraro is simply a woman that believes, like many believe, that the only reason Obama is where he is right now is because he is black.
I think she is stupid, not racist.
what other posters on the forum believe is none of my concern, I am concerned about people that are smart enough to know better, like you or Norman.

Ferraro did not represent Clinton's beliefs, but Clinton was the one who was criticized for hiring her in the first place. Wright has said these things over and over again in his sermons, yet for some reason, these very same Obama supporters who cite what Ferraro said about Jackson as evidence that she was a bitter racist say "Oh, well, it isn't Obama's fault. He doesn't actually believe what Wright is saying."

That's where it becomes hypocritical.

on the part of the supporters, not Obama, you're acting like this is somehow reflecting upon Obama, and if you thought it had no bearing on Clinton, you should be here supporting Obama, talking about this being a non-issue like you thought it was with Clinton.


US Foreign policy in some ways gave the Taliban the resources to come into power and fund Al Qaeda. I think many people can agree with that on some level.

But that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about a guy who thinks that the attacks on U.S. soil were justified. That the three thousand people who died that day deserved to die because of mistakes the U.S made during WWII, Vietnam and other wars abroad.

Not only that, but Wright made those comments in 2003... before Obama was elected a Senator. Obama should have known that hiring this guy would be a mistake, but he didn't. And that makes me question Obama's judgment, as well as what it is he may believe at heart.

so, then In the end, Wright's comments make you question Obama's beliefs ( I highly doubt that) but Ferraro's don't make you question Hillary's?
I mean, do you really think that this was the only racial comment Ferraro made, do you think she didn't make stronger comments in private, possibly WITH Clinton?
seems like it's almost the same situation, but understanding is only extended to the preferred candidate.

[StorminNorman]

no, I think Ferraro is simply a woman that believes, like many believe, that the only reason Obama is where he is right now is because he is black.
I think she is stupid, not racist.
what other posters on the forum believe is none of my concern, I am concerned about people that are smart enough to know better, like you or Norman.
I am amazed that so many are dismissing the truth of Ferraro's comments. Its not offensive to Obama, he is a great politician and being black alone is not enough to be where he is - however to ignore the role his race has on him, positively, is silly.

Obama's has become a symbol of change. He would not be that symbol if he looked like every other President.

[BlackLantern]

I happen to agree with Ferraro...I have even posted as much in here before. Obama is a novelty act to most people. People are like "ooooo a well-spoken black man...he must be one of the "good ones"...maybe we should vote for him"

[Mr Sparkle]

I have heard a lot of people CLAIM McCain has switched positions - but I have yet to see this massive change in philosophy.

I'm not claiming anything, drop the defensiveness for a minute.
I said I saw a shift in philosophy, you didn't? good for you, but many people did.
if you think mccain DIDN'T change on some of his views to more closely align himself with the GOP securing a nomination, then, you're welcome to your views, I did see a shift.

[Mr Sparkle]

I am amazed that so many are dismissing the truth of Ferraro's comments. Its not offensive to Obama, he is a great politician and being black alone is not enough to be where he is - however to ignore the role his race has on him, positively, is silly.

Obama's has become a symbol of change. He would not be that symbol if he looked like every other President.

well, I don't see it that way, maybe because in the 2004 campaign I just saw him as a good politician, with great things to say.
I never saw him as the " black" politician, meh.
I guess I just don't feel comfortable diminishing him like that, I don't see Hillary as the " white " or " woman" candidate.
maybe if more people could muster that intellectual capacity we could get past a lot of this trivial ********.

[StorminNorman]

I'm not claiming anything, drop the defensiveness for a minute.
I said I saw a shift in philosophy, you didn't? good for you, but many people did.
if you think mccain DIDN'T change on some of his views to more closely align himself with the GOP securing a nomination, then, you're welcome to your views, I did see a shift.

I actually had the same impression of McCain (becoming a normal GOP candidate) until I looked at his record and his ideas. Everyone is so quick to say "well, McCain use to be an outside in the GOP, but now he is like everyone else" and I just don't see that. He is more liberal on the environment, he voted against the Bush tax cuts, he went against the right on campaign finance, he argued against judges, he was critical of the handling of the Iraq war when the GOP was pleased, McCain-Kennedy, etc.

I am asking you to give me some evidence to support your view in his shifting beliefs.

[BlackLantern]

I guess I just don't feel comfortable diminishing him like that, I don't see Hillary as the " white " or " woman" candidate.
maybe if more people could muster that intellectual capacity we could get past a lot of this trivial ********.

well most Americans are not as enlightened....we aren't as civil and as advanced as we would like to think. I was having a conversation with some co-workers about Obama and I asked someone how they felt about Obama as President. The response was, and I'm paraphrasing "He can be President but I wouldn't let him **** my sister"

[StorminNorman]

well, I don't see it that way, maybe because in the 2004 campaign I just saw him as a good politician, with great things to say.
I never saw him as the " black" politician, meh.
I guess I just don't feel comfortable diminishing him like that, I don't see Hillary as the " white " or " woman" candidate.
maybe if more people could muster that intellectual capacity we could get past a lot of this trivial ********.

I know that I am personally more drawn to him as a candidate because of his race. I WANT a black president - I don't think America will be fully healed until that happens. Obama is charismatic, charming and is black - and that is very tempting for me considering I am not sold on McCain. I hate his policies though.

If I vote for Obama, his race will have played apart. I have friends who like Obama - in part - because of his race. Excel has stated he is voting for Obama because he is black. The African American Community and the Youth have really propelled Obama - his race is an important part to it.

The only problem I have his Ferraro really mentioning it. It didn't need to be brought up, because its obvious.

[Mr Sparkle]

I actually had the same impression of McCain (becoming a normal GOP candidate) until I looked at his record and his ideas. Everyone is so quick to say "well, McCain use to be an outside in the GOP, but now he is like everyone else" and I just don't see that. He is more liberal on the environment, he voted against the Bush tax cuts, he went against the right on campaign finance, he argued against judges, he was critical of the handling of the Iraq war when the GOP was pleased, McCain-Kennedy, etc.

I am asking you to give me some evidence to support your view in his shifting beliefs.

I can't produce evidence, as it was mostly gleamed in programs like Meet the press and stuff I don't have readily available to me, I don't tape Fox News Sunday or Meet the press.
but I did see McCain dial down the criticism of the republican party's handling of several issues, most notably, Iraq.
it was a shift in several issues that use to separate him from all the other republican talking heads to me, and he was sounding like another one of them all of a sudden, I DON'T have transcripts, however I do know the language he used in the 90's and early 00's and the shift he made post the 2004 election.

well most Americans are not as enlightened....we aren't as civil and as advanced as we would like to think. I was having a conversation with some co-workers about Obama and I asked someone how they felt about Obama as President. The response was, and I'm paraphrasing "He can be President but I wouldn't let him **** my sister"

isn't that sad though?
I mean, what do we care about race?
isn't that saying that we really believe some races better than others?:huh:
I don't believe that's true.
why does anyone in this day and age believe that's true?

[The Senator]

really? you actually think that Obama made race an Issue?

Yeah, he did. Hillary Clinton said that while MLK was able to ignite the civil rights movement, it took a President (LBJ) to sign his goals into law. Obama's campaign denounced the comments and said that Clinton was trying to belittle Dr. King as being insignificant... which certainly wasn't the case. It was that exact moment which ignited the African American community against her. He used her words to his advantage, and in part caused him to win South Carolina by the margins he did. He manipulated African American voters by implying that Clinton had no respect for them... which certainly wasn't the case. Since then, every single word which comes out of Clinton or a surrogate's mouth which deals with race has been scrutinized by Obama or his campaign. Bill Clinton referred to Obama as articulate, and everyone was up in arms over it. So even praise has been misinterpreted as racist babbling... and for a candidate such as Obama--who is suppose to be beyond race, who is suppose to represent everyone-- to use race as a way to motivate voters to vote for him and turn against Clinton is incredibly annoying to watch.

Hillary and her husband have never done anything to hurt the African American community. Now, because Obama has manipulated her statements against her, she is perceived as "the great white devil" who will divide the Democratic Party. She isn't dividing the Democratic Party-- he is by using race as a political tool. It's frustrating for someone like myself who is so rooted in this party to see it frayed over nonsense such as this.

There are issues we should be debating... like the fiasco in Iraq, health care, creating jobs and fixing the economy... which these candidates should be focusing on. Not racial issues which, when you boil it down, aren't as big a deal as the campaigns and media have made them out to be.

campaigns have made issues out of totally stupid ideas like "inexperience" and other trivial ********.

That is true. Experience, hope and change have been the three things which have sunk this campaign into an utter laughing stock.

"Hope" and "Change" have become buzz words which have lost all meaning to me.

"Experience" is a funny word which Hillary likes to use... and while she has more than Obama... she doesn't have significant legislative experience... just attendance and a longer resume. What she did 35 years ago doesn't have anything to do with what she's doing now.

But it doesn't really get ridiculous there... what makes "Experience" so ridiculous is when Obama's campaign claims he has relevant experience from time spent as a "community organizer" and state senator... both of which have no effect on Presidential politics.

So this campaign has become a perpetual aneurysm to those of us who know a thing or two about politics and feel that this has turned into the political version of "American Idol" versus how presidential primaries/ elections ought to work...

at first Obama ran a campaign that was focussed on his message ( agree or disagree with it) and I have seen his campaign REACT to the campaign around him ( who forgot about the " change you can xerox" deal) I mean, as long as people keep high fiving themselves for trivial ******** like that, issues will be made of it.

Again, you are correct on that.

Obama's message was fine and dandy at the very beginning. In fact, he was originally my number one choice.

Then I volunteered for Clinton's campaign, heard her speak a few times... and I switched my support to her.

I don't know who to support now... I lean towards Clinton most of the time... but on some days I lean towards Obama. It's a tough call.

But when these candidates are forced to take a week and debate trivial nonsense... such as the merits of using Obama's middle name, or Clinton's 'hidden' tax records... the issues these two stand on become completely irrelevant. Both campaigns can be accused of acting like screaming little children fighting in a school yard... the only difference is, these two use bitter issues to separate each other and each others' supporters. It's disgusting.


no, I think Ferraro is simply a woman that believes, like many believe, that the only reason Obama is where he is right now is because he is black.
I think she is stupid, not racist.
what other posters on the forum believe is none of my concern, I am concerned about people that are smart enough to know better, like you or Norman.

I think it is a part of my concern. These people are looking for anything to attack Hillary on because they hate her and don't want to vote for her. Meanwhile they let Obama get away with just about anything... which holds a ridiculous double standard in my book.

I've denounced Ferraro's comments, as someone who predominantly favors Clinton. But some of these Obama extremists refuse to denounce what Wright said... which is mind boggling... and I feel that hypocrisy deserves to be noted.


on the part of the supporters, not Obama, you're acting like this is somehow reflecting upon Obama, and if you thought it had no bearing on Clinton, you should be here supporting Obama, talking about this being a non-issue like you thought it was with Clinton.

It does reflect Obama, though. Afterall, aren't his supporters the ones voting for him? Aren't they the ones he supposedly speaks to?

Not only that, but Obama took personal advice from Wright and later brushed off his comments as being something "a crazy old uncle would say" in a Q&A a few days ago. That isn't taking responsibility for what he said, and he knew full well that Wright said some pretty hateful, divisive things in his lifetime. For someone running a campaign based on unity, Obama sure doesn't mind using divisive politics when it works for him.




so, then In the end, Wright's comments make you question Obama's beliefs ( I highly doubt that) but Ferraro's don't make you question Hillary's?
I mean, do you really think that this was the only racial comment Ferraro made, do you think she didn't make stronger comments in private, possibly WITH Clinton?

That's a good point. But the difference is that Wright was Obama's pastor, while Ferraro was a consultant. Wright is Obama's spiritual connection with God. Wright tells Obama what to believe, essentially, and there's no doubt in my mind that Obama-- being the intellectual he is-- has taken Wright's words and reflected on them throughout this campaign. Not to mention that Wright said worse things than Ferraro did in public. That's where the line should be drawn. Wright received widespread public scrutiny for his hate-filled rhetoric already... and Obama went ahead and hired him anyway.

What Ferraro has said to Clinton in private is simply that: Private. What Wright has said about blacks, Jews, 9/11... that's on public record, and Obama is the candidate Wright adamantly supports.

[BlackLantern]

isn't that sad though?
I mean, what do we care about race?
isn't that saying that we really believe some races better than others?:huh:
I don't believe that's true.
why does anyone in this day and age believe that's true?

Racism does exist in this country....more prevalent in some places than others. There definitely are different degrees of it. we have white supremacist groups based around the country. People of different races basically segregate themselves in various cities and towns. sometimes its racism, sometimes its just mistrust of anyone who looks different.

[redfirebird2008]

JMan, Clinton sent out a very misleading letter to women in New Hampshire on Obama's abortion record when he has an outstanding record on abortion. She basically made him look like an evil Republican on the issue and some of the women that signed the letter have denounced it and admitted that they didn't even read it before they endorsed it. I don't think blacks are voting AGAINST Hillary. 93% of black Democrats have said they would vote for her against McCain. They are voting for something symbolic, much like women are voting for Hillary at least partially for the symbolism involved and not against Obama. Are there some blacks who might think she's bad because of Bill's remarks or the MLK thing? Maybe, but not all of them like you are portraying it. Many of them still like the Clintons a lot. I think once Obama won a few white states, blacks realized he might actually be able to win the presidency so they flocked to him. And you can bet if he is the nominee the numbers will be even more in his favor because they DO like the Clintons and they DON'T like the GOP.

[The Senator]

JMan, Clinton sent out a very misleading letter to women in New Hampshire on Obama's abortion record when he has an outstanding record on abortion. She basically made him look like an evil Republican on the issue and some of the women that signed the letter have denounced it and admitted that they didn't even read it before they endorsed it. I don't think blacks are voting AGAINST Hillary. 93% of black Democrats have said they would vote for her against McCain. They are voting for something symbolic, much like women are voting for Hillary and not against Obama. Are there some blacks who might think she's bad because of Bill's remarks or the MLK thing? Maybe, but not all of them like you are portraying it. Many of them still like the Clintons a lot. I think once Obama won a few white states, blacks realized he might actually be able to win the presidency so they flocked to him. And you can bet if he is the nominee the numbers will be even more in his favor because they DO like the Clintons and they DON'T like the GOP.

The abortion letters were divisive... but they didn't say that Obama hates women and insinuate that he's a sexist pig. That was debating an issue relevant to the campaign. However dirty it was, she kept it to the issues facing New Hampshire voters.

Before South Carolina, Hillary Clinton had overwhelming support from the African American community. But once her remarks were implied as racist, she lost the majority of her support from African Americans there and everywhere else. Before South Carolina, Hillary led Georgia, Alabama, Maryland and Mississippi by significant margins. Afterwards, she lost by significant margins, undoubtedly due to the overwhelming amount of African American support Obama picked up.

I believe that the real reason why Obama has as much African American support as he has now is because he successfully manipulated race to his advantage. He basically said that Clinton was undermining the words of an African American icon. And that worked to his advantage.

Certainly, there are a lot of African Americans who will still support Hillary if she is the nominee. But there are many who won't support her at all because she has been pegged as a racist. I've had calls on the issue at work... I've seen it in the African American community in DC... this has caused more harm nationally, as opposed to Hillary's abortion mailers which I believe were only confined to one or two states at the beginning of the campaign.

I'm not chalking Obama's success as simply the result of playing the race card... I don't think that's the case. But I think he has divided the African American community, and I find that rather upsetting.

[redfirebird2008]

And I think she has deeply divided the college vote by having surrogates call us latte-sipping trust fund babies or cultists and then not even a hint of regret out of her mouth on the issue. In fact, she pissed me off even further with her "the skies will open up" mockery. Like it or not, it's being divided by both and if you can't see the other side of it, then I'm sorry. But I've been pretty damn offended by how her campaign has treated young voters with such contempt.

[BlackLantern]

I agree partially with Red....I'm 29 now, but have always felt that during elections, the under 30 voting block is blatantly ignored.

[redfirebird2008]

Not just ignored, but treated as if we don't matter. Bill Clinton tried to change it and so did Al Gore, but Hillary Clinton is playing old-time politics and treating us just like George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole would. Eff that. And people wonder why young people don't want to get involved? It's because you have surrogates going around blatantly offending college students on the campaign trail. What's ironic about this is that Hillary was once a young person herself. Everyone was at some point. She was a politically active young person, yet she seems fine to try to keep young people out of the process instead of welcoming them.

[Kelly]

I agree partially with Red....I'm 29 now, but have always felt that during elections, the under 30 voting block is blatantly ignored.


They are sporadic voters, if they vote at all. I'm not saying that's an excuse for ignoring them, but it is the biggest reason why most campaigns ignore them. Until MTV's big push to vote, they had never been a major voting block, and even with that push, the % was pretty low in comparison to other voting blocks.

IMO, the biggest voting block being ignored at this moment is the Hispanic voting block, and I will bet money that IT will be the difference in this Presidential Election.....

[redfirebird2008]

McCain and the Dems have similar positions on illegal immigration. None of the 3 candidates really have a position that Hispanics are happy with. Should be very interesting to see how they vote. Of course, if any of the candidates choose a Hispanic running mate, that could give them a boost but it would cancel out if both sides have Hispanic running mates.

[BlackLantern]

They are sporadic voters, if they vote at all. I'm not saying that's an excuse for ignoring them, but it is the biggest reason why most campaigns ignore them. Until MTV's big push to vote, they had never been a major voting block, and even with that push, the % was pretty low in comparison to other voting blocks.

That was why I said I only partially agree. Young voters usually are involved with the primaries, caucases, rallies, and all that...but then they seem to vanish come Election Day....I bet if you looked at turnout between primaries/caucases vs. Election day it would be a huge gap.

[Marx]

JMan, Clinton sent out a very misleading letter to women in New Hampshire on Obama's abortion record when he has an outstanding record on abortion. She basically made him look like an evil Republican on the issue and some of the women that signed the letter have denounced it and admitted that they didn't even read it before they endorsed it. I don't think blacks are voting AGAINST Hillary. 93% of black Democrats have said they would vote for her against McCain. They are voting for something symbolic, much like women are voting for Hillary at least partially for the symbolism involved and not against Obama. Are there some blacks who might think she's bad because of Bill's remarks or the MLK thing? Maybe, but not all of them like you are portraying it. Many of them still like the Clintons a lot. I think once Obama won a few white states, blacks realized he might actually be able to win the presidency so they flocked to him. And you can bet if he is the nominee the numbers will be even more in his favor because they DO like the Clintons and they DON'T like the GOP.

And Barack has sent out mailers that have deliberately distorted her views on heathcare and NAFTA. Let's be fair here.

[The Senator]

Not just ignored, but treated as if we don't matter. Bill Clinton tried to change it and so did Al Gore, but Hillary Clinton is playing old-time politics and treating us just like George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole would. Eff that. And people wonder why young people don't want to get involved? It's because you have surrogates going around blatantly offending college students on the campaign trail. What's ironic about this is that Hillary was once a young person herself. Everyone was at some point. She was a politically active young person, yet she seems fine to try to keep young people out of the process instead of welcoming them.

I find that funny, and insulting at the same time. I'm under thirty. As are most of my Clinton-supporting friends. I've been to rallies where she's sold out entire arenas... mostly filled with young people, on college campuses... so to say that she's blatantly ignoring the youth vote or riding it off is completely false. Hell, I was at a rally at GWU a few weeks ago which sold out two days after tickets went on sale.

Besides, what Hillary was saying with the Prius driving, latte-sipping line was that some candidates don't cater to middle America. So while she may not explicitly cater to the youth vote... which is always touted as a pivotal voting bloc but never, ever shows up to vote... she is catering to the middle class, center-of-the-road Americans who don't want to go from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism overnight.

[Memphis Slim]

yeah, in order to bring change a politician must be perfect!:cmad:
there is no room for people with differing viewpoints!!! he must control each of his friends minds a-la puppet master!:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:


What are you so worked up about? this isn't even your country! :lmao: You sure have a lot of opinions about how we should do things up here. Hey, how's Mexico doing on elections and politicians?

[redfirebird2008]

And Barack has sent out mailers that have deliberately distorted her views on heathcare and NAFTA. Let's be fair here.

Funny that you didn't bold the part where I said BOTH were dividing the party. When I say both, I include the negative ads run by both campaigns, including the NAFTA thing. Read the entire thing before you cherry-pick.

[Franklin Richards]

They are sporadic voters, if they vote at all. I'm not saying that's an excuse for ignoring them, but it is the biggest reason why most campaigns ignore them. Until MTV's big push to vote, they had never been a major voting block, and even with that push, the % was pretty low in comparison to other voting blocks.

IMO, the biggest voting block being ignored at this moment is the Hispanic voting block, and I will bet money that IT will be the difference in this Presidential Election.....

Plus the Youth Vote is so egocentric. Just like alot of the youth on this site. Mention that you want Hal Jordan or Alan Scott instead of John Stewart of Kyle Rayner and you'll see what I mean. They think that their audience... be it for voting, casting, or movie watching is the most important demographic.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[The Senator]

Looks like Obama is being forced to play damage control:

The Politico, recapping and sharing details from the 'scandal'
Good Saturday morning. Birthday boys include the White House bubble's Greg North and alumnus Chris Edwards. Bush-Cheney alumnus Matt McDonald is now dad to John Thomas "Jack" McDonald, born yesterday morning.

CONSUMING THE CONVERSATION: Senator Obama's pastor, an old story to reporters covering the campaign, exploded as an issue in Middle America after "Good Morning America" aired video Thursday morning of some of his more inflammatory statements — "God [expletive] America," "U.S. of KKK-A." The cable channels piled on with endless airings.

This story - not so good with the Obamacans — has broken through like no other in this cycle, with friends and relatives barraging campaign reporters and editors with questions about Rev. Wright and why everyone wasn't giving it saturation coverage.

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News on "The Factor" last night: "On the press front, the corrupt left-wing media hates this story. The Chicago Sun-Times ignored it completely. The New York Times barely mentioned it. CBS and NBC news didn't report it last night on their nightly programs."

After Senator Obama distanced himself, the WashPost fronted it in the lower right corner "Outspoken Minister Out Of Obama Campaign" and the N.Y. Times did 900 words on A13 ("Obama Denounces Statements of His Pastor as 'Inflammatory' ").

Last evening, per Politico's Ben Smith, the campaign e-mailed: "Rev. Wright is no longer serving on the African American Religious Leadership Committee."

Senator Obama, after issuing a blog post to The Huffington Post yesterday afternoon ("On My Faith and My Church"), gave lengthy damage-control interviews last night to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, CNN's Anderson Cooper and Fox News's Major Garrett. The senator, who looked unruffled, sat between an American flag and one of his "Change We Can Believe In" campaign posters.

To Cooper, who devoted his entire hour to the show, with a break for a storm that shattered windows at CNN Center (talking about breaking through): "I strongly condemn the statements that have been shown on the tape. I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church. This is a church that I have been a member of for 20 years. This is a well-established, typical, historically African-American church in the South Side of Chicago, with a wonderful set of ministries. And what I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor."

To Olbermann: "No, I would do not repudiate the man. … But I have to say that the comments that have been played are ones that are contrary to what I believe, what I think of this country, the love that I have for this country and, you know, are ones that anger and distress me."

To Major: "I have been a member since 1991 or '92, and — but I have known Trinity even before then, when I was a community organizer on the South Side helping steelworkers find jobs. … I won't say that I was a perfect attendee. I was regular in spurts because there were times where — you know, for example, you know, our child had just been born, our first child, and so we didn't go as regularly then."

NYPost.com checks in with, "BAM PULPIT BULLY IS OUT."

Jay Leno last night: "McCain was running so fast from President Bush , he ran into Barack Obama, who was running from his minister. And Hillary, who was running from Geraldine Ferraro."

[redfirebird2008]

That Leno joke is a good one. Can't wait till he's done and Conan gets in there though. Leno's stuff doesn't seem as creative as Conan's. My dad says that Conan will likely be told by the network to tone down his antics. LOL.

[BlackLantern]

Plus the Youth Vote is so egocentric. Just like alot of the youth on this site. Mention that you want Hal Jordan or Alan Scott instead of John Stewart of Kyle Rayner and you'll see what I mean. They think that their audience... be it for voting, casting, or movie watching is the most important demographic.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

Those should be reversed....Kyle is the proverbial red-headed stepchild of the GL's....he is tolerated at best. I haven't decided where my vote is going yet...Hilary scares me, Obama doesn't inspire me, and I think McCain is going to croak any second.

[Franklin Richards]

Those should be reversed....Kyle is the proverbial red-headed stepchild of the GL's....he is tolerated at best. I haven't decided where my vote is going yet...Hilary scares me, Obama doesn't inspire me, and I think McCain is going to croak any second.

Case in point. :D


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[The Senator]

That Leno joke is a good one. Can't wait till he's done and Conan gets in there though. Leno's stuff doesn't seem as creative as Conan's. My dad says that Conan will likely be told by the network to tone down his antics. LOL.

I've given up on late night comedy... I was done with Letterman when he had Oprah on her show and we had to basically relive the whole Oprah-Uma fiasco, and I was done with Leno three words into the first monologue I saw of his... when I was 9... hopefully Conan will make things better.

[redfirebird2008]

What's the Oprah-Uma fiasco? I honestly don't watch the late night shows very often, but everything I've seen of Conan is pretty damn funny.

[The Senator]

What's the Oprah-Uma fiasco? I honestly don't watch the late night shows very often, but everything I've seen of Conan is pretty damn funny.

In 1994, David Letterman hosted the Oscars and ruined the broadcast by repeatedly saying "Oprah, Uma; Uma, Oprah" because he thought that salutation was hysterical somehow :huh:... then Letterman went on to make fun of Oprah for a few years, and Oprah felt very uncomfortable with him and refused to appear on his show... then two years ago, Oprah and Letterman publicly ended their feud, and they went on each others' shows and schmoozed and all that stuff... it was pretty stupid...

[BlackLantern]

I don't watch Late Night tv period...Leno is mediocre at best and Letterman just isn't funny. The most entertaining thing concerning those two was the HBO movie about what happened when Johnny was retiring and Dave going to CBS...it's called "The Late Shift" and its very good.

[redfirebird2008]

LOL, that's the first I've heard of that stuff. Shows how little I do pay attention to late night shows I guess haha.

[kal-el2006]

Barack in indiana today
"After denouncing controversial remarks at an event in Plainsfield, Indiana, Barack speaks further on the matter of bringing America together to actually address fundamental problems that face us all"


O0srV-ZxSYg

[The Senator]

Barack in indiana today
"After denouncing controversial remarks at an event in Plainsfield, Indiana, Barack speaks further on the matter of bringing America together to actually address fundamental problems that face us all"


O0srV-ZxSYg

Aww... media bias is so *cute* these days...

[MadeManifest]

Aww... media bias is so *cute* these days...

People criticizing Obama are so *cute* these days...

http://phillips.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/26/44_black_man_white_baby.jpg

[The Senator]

People criticizing Obama are so *cute* these days...

http://phillips.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/26/44_black_man_white_baby.jpg

Awwww... no... doesn't make sense to me :huh:

[StorminNorman]

People criticizing Obama are so *cute* these days...


So if we criticize Obama we should be spoken to condescendingly?

And to be fair - I was criticizing Obama far before it was cool. :boba:

[BlackLantern]

^^^same here....Norman and I agree on something....this is weird.

[comicgirl]

Marched today in my city's St. Pat's parade...............Hillary supporters, about 50........................Obama supporters, over 145......hell, people just walked up before we started and asked if they could march. Old, young...white, black, tan.........four brothers from Ireland and one from Wales. Every cool

[StorminNorman]

Obama's statement about never knowing Wright's attitudes on race, 9/11, America in general is going to bite him in the ass.

I just know something is going to come up.

[The Senator]

Marched today in my city's St. Pat's parade...............Hillary supporters, about 50........................Obama supporters, over 145......hell, people just walked up before we started and asked if they could march. Old, young...white, black, tan.........four brothers from Ireland and one from Wales. Every cool

That doesn't really say much... Hillary had hundreds of supporters at the parade she was at...black, white, tan, old and young... plus she still sells out rallies on a regular basis...

I don't know where the St. Patrick's Day Parade became the deciding factor as to who has the most supporters :huh:

[Franklin Richards]

All I saw at the St. Paddy's Day parade in Chicago were the L. Ron Hubbard Bashers.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[The Senator]

Obama's statement about never knowing Wright's attitudes on race, 9/11, America in general is going to bite him in the ass.

I just know something is going to come up.

As unfortunate as it may be, Obama's pastor's comments will offend far more people than Geraldine Ferraro's. I don't think it has a lot to do with race, so much as the fact that Wright thinks 9/11 was justified due to U.S. foreign policy 'failures.' That's going to turn off a lot of those middle-of-the-road voters in places like Ohio, Virginia and Missouri, where polls show the Democrats either tied with or ahead of McCain.

[The Senator]

All I saw at the St. Paddy's Day parade in Chicago were the L. Ron Hubbard Bashers.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

I forgot that nonsense was going on today...

[BlackLantern]

All I saw at the St. Paddy's Day parade in Chicago were the L. Ron Hubbard Bashers.


:thing: :doom: :thing:


Heretics!!!! Xenu will return one day and you must donate all you can to the Church for your protection.

[The Senator]

Heretics!!!! Xenu will return one day and you must donate all you can to the Church for your protection.

Back to Obama please...

I've already gotten enough heat for defending Hillary... I don't want to defend Scientologists... again...

[BlackLantern]

... I don't want to defend Scientologists... again...

Why would you? but yes back to our "historic" candidate...

[redfirebird2008]

As unfortunate as it may be, Obama's comments will offend far more people than Geraldine Ferraro's. I don't think it has a lot to do with race, so much as the fact that Wright thinks 9/11 was justified due to U.S. foreign policy 'failures.' That's going to turn off a lot of those middle-of-the-road voters in places like Ohio, Virginia and Missouri, where polls show the Democrats either tied with or ahead of McCain.

Can you explain the bolded part?

[comicgirl]

All I saw at the St. Paddy's Day parade in Chicago were the L. Ron Hubbard Bashers.


:thing: :doom: :thing:
:csad::csad:That's messed up...I liked talking to the Hillary folks in the parade with us...we were all wondering where the McCain people were.

[comicgirl]

That doesn't really say much... Hillary had hundreds of supporters at the parade she was at...black, white, tan, old and young... plus she still sells out rallies on a regular basis...

I don't know where the St. Patrick's Day Parade became the deciding factor as to who has the most supporters :huh:that's just my hometown experience today....let's not turn an inkblot into a Picaso.

[The Senator]

Can you explain the bolded part?

Oops... I meant Wright's... a little too many drinks this evening...

But in case you understood what I meant... Wright's comments will offend those white, blue-collar patriots in those crucial swing states...

[BlackLantern]

But in case you understood what I meant... Wright's comments will offend those white, blue-collar patriots in those crucial swing states...

exactly....and those types vote without fail every election.

[redfirebird2008]

Oops... I meant Wright's... a little too many drinks this evening...

But in case you understood what I meant... Wright's comments will offend those white, blue-collar patriots in those crucial swing states...

OK I figured that's what you meant. BTW, here's Obama's new minister since February:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/02/reverand_otis_m.php

[The Senator]

OK I figured that's what you meant. BTW, here's Obama's new minister since February:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/02/reverand_otis_m.php

Hahahahaha... well, the name 'Otis' alone will certainly convince some of those white voters...

[redfirebird2008]

Did you watch the video? That guy knows what the hell is going on.

[redfirebird2008]

McCain's spiritual adviser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFr59VC50tY&NR=1

[The Senator]

Did you watch the video? That guy knows what the hell is going on.

No... but...come on... Otis? Otis?!

This immediately came to mind:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/features/img/Artsblog/milo_otis_orig.jpg

[Franklin Richards]

I thought of Otisburg.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/AuntPetunia/Otis_Lex_newpaper1.jpg

:thing: :doom: :thing:

[redfirebird2008]

No... but...come on... Otis? Otis?!

This immediately came to mind:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/features/img/Artsblog/milo_otis_orig.jpg

LOL I thought of that too when you mentioned it in your other post! You should really watch the video. It's pretty long, but that guy knows what's up.

[Mr Sparkle]

What are you so worked up about? this isn't even your country! :lmao: You sure have a lot of opinions about how we should do things up here. Hey, how's Mexico doing on elections and politicians?

you don't know?
oh, that's right, you're an uninformed buffoon and would be unable to discuss the politics in Mexico with me.
which means I know about politics in two countries and two languages.

which makes me smarter, much smarter than you doesn't it?:cwink:
that must really get you.

[The Senator]

you don't know?
oh, that's right, you're an uninformed buffoon and would be unable to discuss the politics in Mexico with me.
which means I know about politics in two countries and two languages.

which makes me smarter, much smarter than you doesn't it?:cwink:
that must really get you.

But you're a liberal by America's standards... so you be no smartez as MemphDogSlimCell...

[Mr Sparkle]

which is weird, as I have said before, I used to be really right leaning in my youth.
I just realized the world, and people were really complex.

[Memphis Slim]

which is weird, as I have said before, I used to be really right leaning in my youth.
I just realized the world, and people were really complex.



Still.....why are you so worked up?? It's not your concern really. :woot:

[Superman4ever]

He's upfront, tells the truth, and doesn't seem to be running away from the issue. He has all the qualities that I would want in a president. He surprises the Tribune's staff with his honesty and promise to answer all their questions.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story



U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.

The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.

Along the way he confronted the starkest innuendo that has dogged him and his campaign for the presidency: the suggestion that the purchase of an adjacent lot by Rezko's wife subtly subsidized the Obamas' purchase of their home on Chicago's South Side. "This notion that somehow I got a discount and Rezko overpaid is simply not true ... simply, factually, incorrect," Obama said Friday, adding that he didn't need any intervention from Rezko to grease the purchase of the house.


Having said that, Obama also admitted, "You can back up and say the red light should have gone off."

No argument here. The red light would have warned Obama that Rezko might want to own property adjoining his in order to tighten their relationship -- or that Rezko might be prepping to ask Obama for a favor at some later date. Instead, Obama now acknowledges that he was drawing too close to a campaign contributor and political player whose name was cropping up in articles about the Illinois culture of political sleaze.

***

Obama said he hadn't suspected Rezko of wrongdoing, or of scheming to exploit their friendship: They were friends who occasionally socialized; Rezko had been a loyal supporter; and, Obama says, Rezko had never asked him for anything in the many years they'd known one another. Rezko always had been above board with him, Obama explained, so "my instinct was to believe him" when Rezko said the talk of illicit dealings on his part was untrue.

For those who follow news about Obama's Rezko connection in granular detail: Obama said Friday that his "smaller lapse of judgment" was inviting Rezko to help him evaluate the house before he purchased it. Obama insists, though, that the Rezkos' simultaneous purchase of the abutting lot was entirely independent of his house purchase -- not a choreography of transactions, but a blur of dealings among the sellers' and buyers' real estate brokers and attorneys.

Obama's "bigger lapse of judgment," he said, came later when he bought a strip of the Rezko lot to expand his own yard. That embroiled the two men in negotiations over fencing and other issues at a time when Rezko was under increasing suspicion. That involvement with Rezko in the land deal, Obama said Friday, was the "boneheaded move" to which he's previously confessed. "In retrospect," he said Friday, "this was an error."

To be precise about that: Obama contends that all of his Rezko-related transactions were lawful and above reproach, but he didn't keep a prudent distance from Rezko.

***

So what really happened Friday when Obama detailed his Obama connection? And will his attempt to exorcise Rezko keep U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign from exploiting that connection?

Obama fleshed out his relationship with Rezko -- including the disclosure that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought. But Obama's explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.

We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama's bumper.

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.

***

We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we've been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 -- shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama's house purchase -- that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him -- and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.

Friday's session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama's critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn't happened.

Obama said Friday that voters who don't know what to make of his Rezko connection should, in the wake of his discussion with the Tribune, "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing ... and who they can trust." Yes, he said, he comes from Chicago. But he has risen in this corrupt Illinois environment without getting entangled in it.

Obama tries to live by "high ethical standards," he said. Although "that doesn't excuse the mistake I made here."

Obama should have had Friday's discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn't, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it's like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information -- too eager to "control the narrative."

Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.

[Tron5000]

Wow, when you combine Rezko, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (racist and anti-American leader of Obama's church) and William Ayers (terrorist and friend and financial contributor to Obama), it seems Obama has some questionable (read: ridiculous) judgment when it comes to the people with whom he chooses to associate.

Surrounding yourself with shady businessmen, racist, anti-American preachers and admitted and unrepentant terrorists is not exactly a quality "that I would want in a president." But to each his own, I guess.

[Matt]

I don't buy any of this. This is ridiculous as his preacher excuse. "Well, I knew him and went to his church for 20 years but did not know he made those kind of comments." :whatever: Same with this guy. "Well, he was a friend for years, but I didn't know he did anything corrupt." Please. Obama keeps some really shady company and then tries to act innocent and lie his way out of it. So much for him being a "new politican who doesn't lie."

[The Senator]

Their close friends until they do something newsworthy. Once that happens, he barely knew 'em. Funny.

[Superman4ever]

Surrounding yourself with shady businessmen, racist, anti-American preachers and admitted and unrepentant terrorists is not exactly a quality "that I would want in a president." But to each his own, I guess.

http://nixonisinhell.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/bushsaudiprinceabdullah430x268.jpg

To each his own!

[StorminNorman]

Again - do you really want to put Obama on Bush's level? I thought Obama was a candidate for change.

[The Senator]

Again - do you really want to put Obama on Bush's level? I thought Obama was a candidate for friends.

Yeah, seriously. I thought Obama was suppose to be above Bush. He wasn't suppose to have the same corruption scandals or business associates as Bush or any other president had. He was suppose to represent a change in that sort of behavior.

Obviously, that isn't the case.

[Matt]

Ah, see, that is the catch 22. Obama is the candidate for "change" until someone questions his experience and then it is "Well, Bush only had..." or if someone questions his decisions, then it becomes "Well, Bush did..." I'm still baffled as to how they think one man's short comings justify those of another.

[Matt]

Their close friends until they do something newsworthy. Once that happens, he barely knew 'em. Funny.

He has been caught in so many lies over the past few days. I'm just waiting for ONE Obama supporter to call him on it. I mean, obviously someone like Excel who is just blind by partisan will not do so (After all, he was politcally apathetic until he saw a guy with his skin color was running. Then he is an "expert" on the topic. It is hard to take someone seriously when the entire foundation of their support is his skin color. Everything else came after and was therefore built on it.), however, there are smart Obama supporters on the Hype. Jag, Superman, Zen, Comicgirl, Souvalki. The list goes on. This man's supporters for the most part are not stupid. I wonder if they will simply turn a blind eye to this or actually dig deeper and see just how much is wrong with their candidate.

[C.F. Kane]

When there's only one superpower in the world, with an ever shrinking global village, the nature of that superpower is everybody's concern.

[Kelly]

Still.....why are you so worked up?? It's not your concern really. :woot:


Memphis get over it, move on.....he has a right to his opinion as much as you do......he doesn't have to explain himself. You've asked several times.....move on to another subject.



Mr Sparkle, you could have simply answered Memphis, or ignored him.....the bufoon comment was uncalled for.....

[Matt]

Y'all better listen or she will bust out Tweety and if she does that, then God help you. :wow:

[MST3K 4ever]

If I am Hillary & company I am not bringing up Rezko because she isn't exactly an innocent babe either.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm
Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT
Filed Under: Politics
By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."

Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.

Allegations:
Adrienne Slick, who worked at IPA for seven months in 2000 and 2001 as a business coordinator and is now part of the EEOC suit, told NBC News in an interview that the sexual harassment was oppressive. “I had multiple managers come at me, press themselves up against me ... ask me to go home with them, and to a hotel room so they could fulfill their fantasies," she said.

The EEOC lawyers say the man at the top of the firm - IPA founder and Managing Director John R. Burgess - was among the worst offenders. The EEOC lawsuit claims, “The harassment emanated from the top: the owner and Managing Director, John Burgess, is accused of sexual harassment by at least 10 different women.”

Burgess has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to “patronizing a prostitute” in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records.

Still, none of that has stopped powerful politicians in both parties from being courted by Burgess and IPA. Since 2000, IPA officials and their family members have given Sen. Clinton at least $170,000 for her Senate and presidential campaigns, federal campaign records show. Senator Clinton also spoke at a company event and rode on an IPA jet in 2004.

In May 2006, the New York Times brought Burgess's criminal history, and the allegations against IPA, to Sen. Clinton's attention. The May 7, 2006, article was titled “Rubbing Shoulders with Trouble, and Presidents.” In the article, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton was quoted as saying the Senator was not aware of Burgess’s criminal past and "will be reviewing" the contributions.

Almost two years later, federal records indicate that Sen. Clinton still has not returned the IPA money. Howard Wolfson, her communications director, did not dispute the $170,000 figure in an email to NBC News. He said Senator Clinton was not aware of Burgess’s past legal problems when she first accepted the donations. "In 2000 and 2003 when Sen. Clinton's campaign accepted money from Burgess, it was not aware of his legal problems from the 1980s," he said.

However, there were public reports of allegations against Burgess as early as 2000. That’s the year that Inc. Magazine first reported that Burgess had patronized a prostitute and had pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny. And Senator Clinton’s campaign has accepted other contributions from other senior IPA officials as recently as last year, the campaign records show.

Many other politicians have been quick to distance themselves from IPA, and have returned donations. In 2002 in New York, Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time, returned $20,000 from Burgess. Cuomo’s office said the donations were returned after a New York newspaper reported on Burgess’s past legal problems and on the EEOC sexual-harassment allegations.

Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA's donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms.

Some political analysts say it is surprising that the first viable female candidate for president would not be more sensitive to allegations of sexual harassment.

"The fact that Hillary Clinton at this point is holding onto money from a contributor who has been charged with sexual harassment can only be perceived as insensitive to women's issues and women," says Sherry Be***** Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California. "I don't think that fits the definition of feminism, at least the last time I looked."

Adrienne Slick, the former IPA employee, says she's disappointed in any politician who would take or keep money from IPA. "This is not something that should be taken lightly, and to accept those funds makes a statement," she told NBC.

The EEOC lawyers would not comment on any aspect of the political donations, and confined their remarks solely to the lawsuit.

Clinton Campaign Response:
Wolfson dismissed the notion that keeping IPA money reflected a lack of concern about sexual harassment. "Sen. Clinton is proud of her long record of championing women's causes," he said. "When the EEOC rules on the allegations involving Burgess, we will consider that outcome in assessing if there is any reason to return his contribution." Of the $170,000 total in donations from all IPA officials and employees, Burgess and his family members personally contributed $16,000 to Sen. Clinton, campaign records show.

IPA Reaction:
For its part, IPA vigorously denies any wrongdoing and said it has been fighting the EEOC lawsuit for more than six years. "Since a lawsuit was filed in June 2001, IPA has continually and consistently denied the allegations," IPA spokeswoman Jennifer Cumbee wrote in an email to NBC News. "At IPA, we have zero tolerance approach when it comes to sexual harassment."

Cumbee added: "This involves primarily claims by persons who worked a short time in the mid- to late 90s (although there are some persons who worked after that). Immediately after the lawsuit was filed and by early 2001, IPA in an abundance of caution had its sexual harassment policy completely revised by competent outside professionals."

She says, "IPA has had no unresolved claim of harassment for several years now and any one of its 2,000 employees who violate the policy, after investigation, is dealt with swiftly." She would not comment directly on Slick’s claims, citing employee confidentiality. She said that the EEOC already has dropped some claimants from the suit. “All employee claims have been contested as many have no witnesses or records or current complaints,” Cumbee said.

The IPA spokeswoman did not dispute that Burgess had a criminal record from his days in New York. "All that you have asked, in regards to John Burgess, is a matter of public record," she wrote. “Mr. Burgess is not a felon and was never convicted or pled to a felony.” She said that it would be unfair to judge Burgess on two-decade-old crimes, and pointed out that Burgess and IPA are solid employers who donate generously to charities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


For sometime I have been reading the many different political threads on this message boards

I gotta admit this is some of the most intellegent (and for the most part) respectful stuff I have read anywhere...including the Mass-Media. Yes you all have your opinions, you defend them and you always give each other a chance to say your peace.

I admit I am an Obama supporter however he has proven something that I have always felt about all Politicians (being a former employee of the Mass-Media I can say this with certain degree of knowledge)...and that is everyone has shaken hands with The Devil at some point whether they know it or not bottom line: they did it! It's how this country has worked for hundreds of years and it will continue to work that way for the next hunderd years at least. I support Obama because yes he has his share of skeletons, but Hillary has not only her skeletons but Bill's as well to deal with. For so long her speeches were peppered with "I can" a lot of "me" oriented language...only recently has she started to change her language (too little too late)...Obama talked about everyone working together from the start...McCain is too much like our current President for my liking.

The only time someone tried to do things with a conscience and morals was Jimmy Carter and his own party turned against him as a result.

I realize that this was a long 1st post for me here but hey if you sit around long enough you find a lot of things to say.

[Matt]

Welcome to the political forum. It will be great to have you around as you seem to have a really good feel on the situation. :up: Things are pretty friendly at the moment. I imagine that will change when this becomes a 2-way, Democrat vs. Republican election. When that happens, God help us. :wow: :cwink:

I definitely agree that Clinton is in no position to bring up Rezko as she is just as guilty.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/uploads/hillary_slumlord.jpg

Obama should be more worried about that from McCain. It seems like his interview now is an attempt to keep the ball in his court before it becomes an Obama vs. McCain election and McCain decides to run with it.

[The Senator]

If I am Hillary & company I am not bringing up Rezko because she isn't exactly an innocent babe either.



See, that's the best part. She hasn't painted herself as a holier-than-thou politician, like Sen. Obama has. Her supporters (I included, for the most part) don't act as if she's our savior and that she can't do any wrong. We know what politicians do. We can admit when they or members of her campaign do or say stupid things. We understand how the political system works in this country. But many of Obama's supporters have transformed him into someone who is above the fray, as if he can't do any wrong and that everything in the free world will be immediately healed the moment he takes office. It's complete insanity. It's one thing to hope that he'll do these things; it's another to think that he'll fix everything with the wave of a finger, which is the vibe I seem to get from many of them.

[The Senator]

Welcome to the political forum. It will be great to have you around as you seem to have a really good feel on the situation. :up: Things are pretty friendly at the moment. I imagine that will change when this becomes a 2-way, Democrat vs. Republican election. When that happens, God help us. :wow: :cwink:

I definitely agree that Clinton is in no position to bring up Rezko as she is just as guilty.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/uploads/hillary_slumlord.jpg

Obama should be more worried about that from McCain. It seems like his interview now is an attempt to keep the ball in his court before it becomes an Obama vs. McCain election and McCain decides to run with it.

Clinton's partially guilty. As First Lady, you take pictures with tons of local and state politicians, as well as assorted businessmen, party donors and respected individuals. Obviously, there's photographic evidence of her at one time kavitzing with Mr. Rezko; but she certainly didn't help him lie to or steal from many of Chicago's lower-class citizens.

[MST3K 4ever]

Originally Posted by Matt
Welcome to the political forum. It will be great to have you around as you seem to have a really good feel on the situation. Things are pretty friendly at the moment. I imagine that will change when this becomes a 2-way, Democrat vs. Republican election. When that happens, God help us.

I definitely agree that Clinton is in no position to bring up Rezko as she is just as guilty.



Obama should be more worried about that from McCain. It seems like his interview now is an attempt to keep the ball in his court before it becomes an Obama vs. McCain election and McCain decides to run with it.

Thank you...I agree that the General Election will get nasty. The thing that worries me the most about it all...is that there will be so much finger-pointing by both sides that what will be lost is unity as a nation and we are going to be set on proving the other side wrong that we will lose sight of any and all common ground.


See, that's the best part. She hasn't painted herself as a holier-than-thou politician, like Sen. Obama has. Her supporters (I included, for the most part) don't act as if she's our savior and that she can't do any wrong. We know what politicians do. We can admit when they or members of her campaign do or say stupid things. We understand how the political system works in this country. But many of Obama's supporters have transformed him into someone who is above the fray, as if he can't do any wrong and that everything in the free world will be immediately healed the moment he takes office. It's complete insanity. It's one thing to hope that he'll do these things; it's another to think that he'll fix everything with the wave of a finger, which is the vibe I seem to get from many of them.

Oh I will not argue with you on that point at all...I know though that Obama is far from perfect and (IMO) the real litmus test will be in these weeks leading up to Pennsylvania when a lot more things will come out (because my former Media Brethern will be getting bored and the campagins are going to get restless as well)...whether they are true or not and how he responds will be the real test for him.

[Superman4ever]

Again - do you really want to put Obama on Bush's level? I thought Obama was a candidate for change.

People are grasping at straws here, so it seems. They really can't attack the man so they attack the people that surround him. I'm not comparing him to Bush just alluding the absolute audacity that some people have when criticizing a man for what others have said or have done yet accepting and/or ignoring what Bush, and his administration, has done or said in the past decade or so.

The man is NOT infallible, who is? However, the situation is NOT what it's made out to be, it's being inflated to silly proportions. He's NOT hiding from the issue, he's not covering his tracks. In the interview above he answered ALL questions directly, there was no screening process. Just a man who in all honesty said that Rezko's "friendship" was an oversight.

He admits that in hindsight he should have been a little more weary of Rezko's "friendship" but that Rezko never abused their friendship or did anything that crossed any lines.

Obama hasn't dodged anything, he hasn't lied and in a time where the actual president (and a host of other minions) lie to us on a daily basis you'd think that this man's candor would be a little more appreciated.

And have some of you even read what the Priest said? Some of it is stupid as hell, like the US created HIV. However, some of his points are valid, like the Bush administration LIED about Iraq and Al Queda (http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/15/come-saturday-morning-while-our-newsreaders-drooled-over-pictures-of-call-girls/); he said that Bill Clinton wasn't this "great" president that many are claiming he is (but when compared to what we have now he seems like a ****ing demigod!); he speaks against the 3 strike laws, the record incarceration rates (1 out of 100) in the US. He talks about legitimate concerns that most people are talking about, especially among the "minority" community.

[Memphis Slim]

http://i-love-cartoons.com/snags/clipart/Valentines-Day/looney-toons/LT-Valentine-Tweety.jpg

Oh no!! Not Tweety!!!

[Kelly]

Lol.....

[Matt]

People are grasping at straws here, so it seems. They really can't attack the man so they attack the people that surround him. I'm not comparing him to Bush just alluding the absolute audacity that some people have when criticizing a man for what others have said or have done yet accepting and/or ignoring what Bush, and his administration, has done or said in the past decade or so.

The man is NOT infallible, who is? However, the situation is NOT what it's made out to be, it's being inflated to silly proportions. He's NOT hiding from the issue, he's not covering his tracks. In the interview above he answered ALL questions directly, there was no screening process. Just a man who in all honesty said that Rezko's "friendship" was an oversight.

He admits that in hindsight he should have been a little more weary of Rezko's "friendship" but that Rezko never abused their friendship or did anything that crossed any lines.

Obama hasn't dodged anything, he hasn't lied and in a time where the actual president (and a host of other minions) lie to us on a daily basis you'd think that this man's candor would be a little more appreciated.

And have some of you even read what the Priest said? Some of it is stupid as hell, like the US created HIV. However, some of his points are valid, like the Bush administration LIED about Iraq and Al Queda (http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/15/come-saturday-morning-while-our-newsreaders-drooled-over-pictures-of-call-girls/); he said that Bill Clinton wasn't this "great" president that many are claiming he is (but when compared to what we have now he seems like a ****ing demigod!); he speaks against the 3 strike laws, the record incarceration rates (1 out of 100) in the US. He talks about legitimate concerns that most people are talking about, especially among the "minority" community.

Claiming that you have no knowledge of a man who you were a close friend of for 20 years and whose sermons you attended for just as long making crazed, racist rants is a lie. Especially when you have people in the congregation coming out about the preacher talking like this in every other sermon. Obama has either lied by claiming he regularly attends mass with this man (as he has done when defending his religion and in his book) or has lied about not knowing his views and the kind of things he says in his sermon.

[Memphis Slim]

Lol.....
:woot:

Check these out.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr0MLl-fxuo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKe1gUgX5do

[Tron5000]

http://nixonisinhell.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/bushsaudiprinceabdullah430x268.jpg

To each his own!

So I thought this was a thread about Barack Obama. Why do you feel the need to inject George Bush into a discussion about Obama (as I knew for an almost certainty you would do when I made that post)?

If you don't want to discuss Obama's connections to shady characters, fine. Then you shouldn't have started this thread.

If you want to start a thread to discuss George Bush, feel free. But you're using apples in a discussion about oranges.

[Superman4ever]

Claiming that you have no knowledge of a man who you were a close friend of for 20 years and whose sermons you attended for just as long making crazed, racist rants is a lie. Especially when you have people in the congregation coming out about the preacher talking like this in every other sermon. Obama has either lied by claiming he regularly attends mass with this man (as he has done when defending his religion and in his book) or has lied about not knowing his views and the kind of things he says in his sermon.

I was talking about Rezko. Moreover, Obama's denounced the statements by the reverend that were seen as anti-American. What do you want him to do?

You've never had a disagreement with a friend? You've ALWAYS agreed with the people who surround you? There can NEVER be any disagreements among friends? So, it's either "YES" men or you won't associate with them?

I know MANY religious scholars (mainly Rabbis and Sheikh's) who I'd call friends and mentors, and have listened to MANY a sermons, yet I don't agree with them 100% about anything.

I get the feeling that if Obama marched across Washington starch naked as the day his mama gave him, save for an American flag shoved up his ass, while singing the stars-spangled banner crucified on a cross people would still denounce him as an un-American Moozie!

[Superman4ever]

So I thought this was a thread about Barack Obama. Why do you feel the need to inject George Bush into a discussion about Obama (as I knew for an almost certainty you would do when I made that post)?

If you don't want to discuss Obama's connections to shady characters, fine. Then you shouldn't have started this thread.

If you want to start a thread to discuss George Bush, feel free. But you're using apples in a discussion about oranges.

You made a ridiculous comment about a man who associates with un-American friends (who are not a micron as evil as the Sauds), however when I do the same you get all defensive and *****y!

You should have saw it coming because it's blatantly obvious.

[Matt]

I was talking about Rezko. Moreover, Obama's denounced the statements by the reverend that were seen as anti-American. What do you want him to do?

Does a "denouncment" really matter that much in light of him sitting through 20 years of his sermons? If he really denounced it he wouldn't have gone. Its like the people who sit around here and bash Smallville all day but every time it is on (I don't know what day its on or I would be more specific :csad:), you can bet your ass they are not only sitting infront of the TV but also have their TiVos set to record so they can go through it frame by frame afterwards.


You've never had a disagreement with a friend? You've ALWAYS agreed with the people who surround you? There can NEVER be any disagreements among friends? So, it's either "YES" men or you won't associate with them?

I know MANY religious scholars (mainly Rabbis and Sheikh's) who I'd call friends and mentors, and have listened to MANY a sermons, yet I don't agree with them 100% about anything.

You're making this seem like a little disagreement. By all accounts, the backbone of this man's sermons for the past 36 years of his career has been, "America is evil. The white man is the devil. America SHOULD be attacked. America created AIDS." etc. That is not the type of stuff you just shrug off and say "Oh, old Wright-y is at it again." Those are serious, serious allegations and serious, horrible, racist things to say. And yet Obama has spent 20 years listening to them. Either that or he has lied.

Also, is it fair to say you are not a Jew or a Muslim? You say you disagree with Rabbis and Sheikhs but of course you would if you are not of their religion. Obama is in this guy's congregation. This is HIS pastor. So he clearly believes what he is preaching. Otherwise, why go to a church you do not believe in?


I get the feeling that if Obama marched across Washington starch naked as the day his mama gave him, save for an American flag shoved up his ass, while singing the stars-spangled banner crucified on a cross people would still denounce him as an un-American Moozie!

Its not a matter of being un-American, it is a matter of associating with people like Wright and Rezko and then LYING about it.

[Arc-Light]

Question.........did Obama say these things..............

[Tron5000]

You made a ridiculous comment about a man who associates with un-American friends (who are not a micron as evil as the Sauds), however when I do the same you get all defensive and *****y!

You should have saw it coming because it's blatantly obvious.

Dude, I'm not defensive about anything. I just don't see what in the world George Bush has to do with Barack Obama.

My point was that Barack Obama, the man who is the subject of this thread, not only associates with the 3 people I mentioned, but also lies about his associations with them. And you said that this man has the qualities that you look for in a president; I said that I happen to disagree with this statement.

Like I said, I don't care the least bit what you may say about George Bush. You don't see me defending him here, do you?

You know that Obama's associations with these people are shady at best, and that's why you have to resort to comparing him to George Bush in order to defend him. It's blatantly obvious why you feel that you can't defend Obama on this matter.

[chaseter]

Hillary has a lot more experience than Obama...period. Coupled with her husband, Hillary is the better candidate for the dems. Oback is just a good speaker and has better public image.

[Superman4ever]

Also, is it fair to say you are not a Jew or a Muslim? You say you disagree with Rabbis and Sheikhs but of course you would if you are not of their religion. Obama is in this guy's congregation. This is HIS pastor. So he clearly believes what he is preaching. Otherwise, why go to a church you do not believe in?


My religion teaches me to think for myself; I'm a Muslim, very devout to be in fact. I don't understand this mentality that states since you listen to these leaders speak you must sheep yourself to them.

I've listened to MANY sermons, from all religious backgrounds, but the idea that I have to accept EVERYTHING a Shiekh says is foreign to me. If a Shiekh were to tell me to do something that was against my religion, or against G-d's will, I'd stand up and protest that request. If he said anything that I found contradictory to what holy scripture states I'd call him out. I fear that I'm going off into tangents, but I think this is important to explore for a moment. That's what is SO tragic about our extremist sect...wolves leading the blind.

We can disagree on certain religious interpretation, aside from the universal accepted like praying, charity, the oneness of G-d, so on. The point of a religious leader is to guide you, but in the end YOU have to make up your own mind.

[Matt]

And it took him 20 years to condemn the man who was saying things like "God damn America?" How convenient that after those 20 years of undoubtedly "studying" this man so he could make up his own mind, he only decides to condemn what he said when it comes to the national spotlight during his presidential run. And after he decides to give the man a job on his campaign as the spiritual advisor. Very curious indeed.

[SentinelMind]

Wow, when you combine Rezko, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (racist and anti-American leader of Obama's church) and William Ayers (terrorist and friend and financial contributor to Obama), it seems Obama has some questionable (read: ridiculous) judgment when it comes to the people with whom he chooses to associate.

Surrounding yourself with shady businessmen, racist, anti-American preachers and admitted and unrepentant terrorists is not exactly a quality "that I would want in a president." But to each his own, I guess.

I fell out of my chair laughing at this post.

[Tron5000]

I fell out of my chair laughing at this post.

I probably would've laughed as I was typing it if it wasn't so damn scary.

[comicgirl]

I fell out of my chair laughing at this post.:pal::pal::pal:I love the salivating that goes on with any neg. about Obama. You can almost see them rubbing their hands together and cackling with glee.

[Tron5000]

:pal::pal::pal:I love the salivating that goes on with any neg. about Obama. You can almost see them rubbing their hands together and cackling with glee.

Who are these "them" of whom you speak?

Edit: I don't really consider consorting with criminals, racist, anti-American "spiritual advisers" and terrorists who attack our country and claim they wished they "could've done more" to be a "neg. about Obama."

I call it, "Holy f***ing s***, man, what the hell are you doing hanging around with these people?"

[SentinelMind]

^comicgirl, you seem to be far more personally defensive about Obama than I am "salivating for anything negative for Obama" .Tron wrote a funny, but fair post. that is all.

[comicgirl]

^comicgirl, you seem to be far more personally defensive about Obama than I am "salivating for anything negative for Obama" .Tron wrote a funny, but fair post. that is all.Calm down...not referring to one individual........the tone of the boards right now as a whole.

The Obama threads are hopping; Hillary's lies at the bottom of the page....hmmmm.

[SentinelMind]

Hmm...a major hometown newspaper who endorsed said candidate goes in a flurry to praise Obama's candidness and transparency for having waited 16 months to discuss topics about Rezko......no conflicts of interest going on here....

[The Senator]

Calm down...not referring to one individual........the tone of the boards right now as a whole.

The Obama threads are hopping; Hillary's lies at the bottom of the page....hmmmm.

There is a very vocal minority who sees Obama for what he is and has been trying to point out that he is just like every other politician who runs for public office. He makes deals and alliances with the people who can get him places, then he feigns ignorance and cuts off ties with them once they say or do something inexcusable. Whether its a deal with Tony Rezko or something his pastor said, Obama should be held accountable for his actions like every other candidate is and has been. Hillary Clinton has her share of scandals and problems, and everyone has had their chance to rip her apart over what's gone on in her campaign. Most Obama supporters hold her to a very high standard. Some of us who don't support him wish to see Mr. Obama held to the same standards everyone has held those other politicians to. Now that Obama has faltered, we have decided to lay it out in the open and have a discussion on this. I'm sorry you see this as a silly attack on him... but for those of us who support other candidates, we've seen many other conversations as silly attacks as well. It's Obama's turn to have his motives questioned and his psyche ripped apart and analyzed.

[Varient]

Sorry Varient. You can't boil this down to something so simplistic. Not this one.

With respect:
Yes You can.

I grew up With Scores of White folk who have run for political office with ties to the KKK,... or who Are on record for saying poor things PERSONALLY vice having a spirital advisor say them and the media and people in general shrugging their shoulders and STILL voting FOR THEM BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO.

I see it as a double standard.

Peace.

V.

[bell110]

This White guy is awesome.

[Memphis Slim]

With respect:
Yes You can.

I grew up With Scores of White folk who have run for political office with ties to the KKK,... or who Are on record for saying poor things PERSONALLY vice having a spirital advisor say them and the media and people in general shrugging their shoulders and STILL voting FOR THEM BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO.

I see it as a double standard.

Peace.

V.


We'll agree to disagree.

Peace.

[Kelly]

All discussion on the Wright issue needs to be taken to this thread.....

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=298141&page=17

There is no need to discuss it in all Obama threads....

[Varient]

All discussion on the Wright issue needs to be taken to this thread.....

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=298141&page=17

There is no need to discuss it in all Obama threads....

SMH.:whatever:

[Spider-Bite]

I vote for Edwards.

[Matt]

Too much inexperience for one ticket. Edwards will be Attorney General. Tim Kaine, will get the nomination, I believe. He is southern, white, and moderate. Plus he has been backing Obama since before it was trendy to do so. He is the ideal balance to Obama's ticket.

[Showtime]

I think Edwards was a terrible choice by Kerry, he got schooled by Cheney during the VP debates, and I don't think much has changed. He looks presidential, but acts inexperienced.

The others I am lukewarm on, who else can we throw in to the ring?

[Chris B]

I agree with Matt: Tim Kaine would be the best choice.

To make a quick point, I don't experience is going to be much of a factor for Obama because it would contradict his message of change and being a Washington outsider. I think it would be harder for him to make that case if his running mate is someone like Joe Biden whose been in the Senate for over 35 years.

[Matt]

I agree with Matt: Tim Kaine would be the best choice.

To make a quick point, I don't experience is going to be much of a factor for Obama because it would contradict his message of change and being a Washington outsider. I think it would be harder for him to make that case if his running mate is someone like Joe Biden whose been in the Senate for over 35 years.

That is a great point and that is what makes Kaine a good choice for Obama. He is experienced but he is not an insider. He will have run a state for nearly a full term by the time he takes office, served a full term as lieutenant governor of Virginia, and a full term as mayor of Richmond (A major, metropolitian city). But he has never been a Washington insider. Therefore he can play the experience card, but also not have it turned on him either. Obama can have his cake and eat it too with Kaine as his VP candidate.

[Chris B]

That is a great point and that is what makes Kaine a good choice for Obama. He is experienced but he is not an insider. He will have run a state for nearly a full term by the time he takes office, served a full term as lieutenant governor of Virginia, and a full term as mayor of Richmond (A major, metropolitian city). But he has never been a Washington insider. Therefore he can play the experience card, but also not have it turned on him either. Obama can have his cake and eat it too with Kaine as his VP candidate.

Exactly.

[Excel]

The guy from Virginia; I forget his name. But guys like Richardson, Edwards and co. need to be in his Obamas white house; thats for sure.

[The Senator]

Sigh... I like how the only choices were high-profile politicians who ran for president...

It will not be any of the people listed above. Obama is going to go for either the white Washington outsiders like Gen. Zinni, Gov. Kaine or Gov. Schweitzer... or else he's going to pick someone who will win him a state or two he wouldn't have had otherwise... like Tom Daschle or Byron Dorgan, who could win him the Dakotas, Dick Gephardt (who could win him Missouri), Bob Kerrey (who could win him most, if not all, of Nebraska), or Kathleen Sebelius (a long shot, but she might pull Kansas his way).

[Venom'sDad]

To make a quick point, I don't experience is going to be much of a factor for Obama because it would contradict his message of change and being a Washington outsider. I think it would be harder for him to make that case if his running mate is someone like Joe Biden whose been in the Senate for over 35 years.

I disagree, this is Obama's Platform, Obama's Administration, Obama's WhiteHouse.... someone of Biden, Dodd, or Richardson qualification will only enhance Obama's credentials in accomplishing what he seeks to accomplish.

I'm not sure who Obama should pick nor speculate who he should pick as a runningmate; however, Edwards would be a terrible pick and I suspect Obama will never go that route.

[Excel]

What about Baracks buddy Devel Patrick??? I heard their pretty good friends :o

[StorminNorman]

What about that Republican who co-signed Obama's Global Tax Bill?

[Matt]

What about Baracks buddy Devel Patrick??? I heard their pretty good friends :o

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/uploaded_images/carnac-756908.jpg

People who would guarantee an Obama loss.

[The Senator]

What about Baracks buddy Devel Patrick??? I heard their pretty good friends :o

Nah, if he wants to put one of his good friends on the ticket, it would definitely have to be Jeremiah Wright.

[Excel]

Seriously; why would he not offer it to Hillary first?

[Matt]

The worst part about suggesting Deval Patrick is that he does not balance the ticket in the least. His beliefs are essentially the same as Obama's. He doesn't bring in any new demographics. And Massachusettes is not going to be a swing state under any circumstances. I doubt McCain will even bother campaigning there.

[Matt]

Seriously; why would he not offer it to Hillary first?

Because what does she bring to his ticket? Her voters talk tough now, but they will fall in behind him when faced with the choice of a Republican or Obama. Their beliefs are identical, so she doesn't balance the ticket in the way a moderate would. Their geographical difference (mid-east vs. north east) are not relevant enough that she balances the ticket in that way (now if she were a southerner, maybe). All she does is turn off independents and fire up Republicans. Not to mention Rush, Savage, O'Reilly, and practically every other conservative commentator would spend 6 months playing nothing but soundbites of the two running mates criticizing every aspect of their opponent from their political views, to their value as a human being, to the way they do their hair. This election has gotten too damn dirty for it to work.

[The Senator]

Seriously; why would he not offer it to Hillary first?

I think the so-called 'dream ticket' is difficult to peg. If neither candidate has an edge in delegates or super delegates, and if the popular vote is extremely close, I almost think Clinton-Obama will be inevitable. And you can bet your ass that both sides are looking at the poll which shows 20% of Democrats will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nominee.

Now, if it does come down to the 'dream ticket' scenario... I see Clinton being the Presidential nominee, and Obama being VP. Simply because that may guarantee the Dems the Presidency for a long, long time... if they were to win.

[Matt]

I think the so-called 'dream ticket' is difficult to peg. If neither candidate has an edge in delegates or super delegates, and if the popular vote is extremely close, I almost think Clinton-Obama will be inevitable. And you can bet your ass that both sides are looking at the poll which shows 20% of Democrats will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nominee.

Now, if it does come down to the 'dream ticket' scenario... I see Clinton being the Presidential nominee, and Obama being VP. Simply because that may guarantee the Dems the Presidency for a long, long time... if they were to win.

I don't think the so called dream ticket is as "dreamy" as people think. I think it is quite the opposite, a sure fired way to lose.

[comicgirl]

I vote for Edwards. ABH (anybody but Hillary).

[rdh007]

Gen. Zinni, if he'd do it. Clark, McCain.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I think since both Obama AND Hillary lack experience, the "dream" ticket probably wouldn't be best for either of them. They both should get someone with a lot of experience for VP.

[StorminNorman]

Obama/Bill Clinton :lmao:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Obama/Bill Clinton :lmao:

Not possible, but if you can change the constitution go for it ;)

[StorminNorman]

Not possible, but if you can change the constitution go for it ;)

There is nothing that forbids a former 2 term President to run as a VP.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

There is nothing that forbids a former 2 term President to run as a VP.

The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
"...no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President..."

So, he is not eligible to run for President again under the 22nd Amendment, which makes him ineligible to be Vice President under the 12th Amendment.

[StorminNorman]

The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
"...no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President..."

So, he is not eligible to run for President again under the 22nd Amendment, which makes him ineligible to be Vice President under the 12th Amendment.

The key word in the 22nd Amendment is ELECTED to the office of the President. There is nothing restricting a former President serving as President though - thus the 12 Amendment is not an issue either.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I voted Kerry,but from reading some of these posts..I should have voted for someone else...

[comicgirl]

I voted Kerry,but from reading some of these posts..I should have voted for someone else...don't be silly...choose who you think is best.

[Matt]

Why the hell are John Kerry and Howard Dean even on this list? It is a near impossibility that they will be offered.

[The Senator]

Why the hell are John Kerry and Howard Dean even on this list? It is a near impossibility that they will be offered.

Because some people are only aware of politics at the presidential level...

[sithgoblin]

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Democratic hopeful Barack Obama says the publication of top secret government information during the election campaign has harmed the nation.

Police say five people will be charged under the Electoral Act over the publication of documents that alleged the US Government has been in contact with Extra-Terrestrial since the 1940s.

The documents were distributed on the website www.serpo.org.

Senator Obama says the publication was unacceptable.

"Unauthorised material like this has no place in any election campaign; local, state and federal," he said.

"If they believe they were doing the country a favour, they are badly mistaken. These are unacceptable tactics from people who dodn't have the nation's best interests at heart."

"However, we must now consider who is best able to handle this monumental responsibility. This information completely changes everything we have thought we knew for the past sixty years. A new approach is needed."

Rival Senator Clinton has responded by calling on the Democratic Party to rid itself of right wing extremists.

"It's quite clear that there is a cancer operating in the Party" she said.

Those charged can be fined a maximum of $1,000 if found guilty.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[Matt]

:huh: Sithgoblin has had too much to drink.

[sithgoblin]

I was going to make a thread on 'if alien's made contact, who would you want as president', but it turned into a fake news report instead. :csad:

[Matt]

In that case...I'd say none of the above. Richardson's diplomacy would have been best but he is no longer a candidate. I'm going to write in President Whitmore!

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/Pictures/independence_day_prez.jpg

[Lobo]

In that case...I'd say none of the above. Richardson's diplomacy would have been best but he is no longer a candidate. I'm going to write in President Whitmore!

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/Pictures/independence_day_prez.jpg


Hmm I'd prefer President Luthor

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/7/7e/Lex_Luthor_003.jpg/200px-Lex_Luthor_003.jpg

[Matt]

Hmm I'd prefer President Luthor

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/7/7e/Lex_Luthor_003.jpg/200px-Lex_Luthor_003.jpg

I dare say, the best presidential candidate equipped to deal with aliens, is an alien himself.

http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/zod/zod-4-prez-small.jpg

[Lightning Strykez!]

Two beloved mods here and the thread is still open? LOL :p

[Arc-Light]

Fools you cant run agaisnt......A GOD...............

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd45/INBuckeye/cthulhu4Prez-preview-5.png

[hippie_hunter]

Hmm I'd prefer President Luthor

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/7/7e/Lex_Luthor_003.jpg/200px-Lex_Luthor_003.jpg

Luthor had illegal diplomatic relations with Apokolips, had an unreasonable vendetta against Superman, and fought against the Martian Manhunter. I don't think he'd be properly equipped for such extraterrestrial relations.

Though he did manage to have a shaky alliance with Apokolips to fight Brainaic 13, Imperiex, and Warworld and gave very good leadership during that conflict to give him credit.

[redfirebird2008]

lol, cool thread.

[rdh007]

Luthor had illegal diplomatic relations with Apokolips, had an unreasonable vendetta against Superman, and fought against the Martian Manhunter. I don't think he'd be properly equipped for such extraterrestrial relations.

Though he did manage to have a shaky alliance with Apokolips to fight Brainaic 13, Imperiex, and Warworld and gave very good leadership during that conflict to give him credit.
I believe if you ask JJ Abrams, he was an extra-terrestrial. Or was he an FBI agent? Or both?

[StorminNorman]

I believe if you ask JJ Abrams, he was an extra-terrestrial. Or was he an FBI agent? Or both?

Thats why I believe we shouldn't ask JJ Abrams.

[Excel]

poll says obama down only 10 percent in penn n with a 21 lead in nc

[comicgirl]

poll says obama down only 10 percent in penn n with a 21 lead in ncWooooha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Arkady Rossovich]

I believe in the power of Obama.

[Captain Planet!]

Obama is related to Brad Pitt and Hillary Clinton is related to Angelina Jolie. Lawz.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

poll says obama down only 10 percent in penn n with a 21 lead in nc

Link?

Nice

[Matt]

poll says obama down only 10 percent in penn n with a 21 lead in nc

Quit spinning things Excel. Only one poll is claiming that. The average poll number has Clinton with a 16 point lead.

The average NC poll only has Obama with a 12 point lead.

[Excel]

Pennsylvania: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

NC: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

Quit spinning things Excel. Only one poll is claiming that. The average poll number has Clinton with a 16 point lead.

The average NC poll only has Obama with a 12 point lead.

Point remains, a win in NC means its all over for Hillary pretty much but a 21% defeat would get just about everybody to say "ok, gtfo".

[Darkdd]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
Obama seems to have weathered the Wright issue.

[Kelly]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
Obama seems to have weathered the Wright issue.


You'll only know that he has weathered it when he becomes President........wait till he gets to the general election....you ain't seen nothing yet....:o:csad:

[redfirebird2008]

Pennsylvania: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

NC: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary



Point remains, a win in NC means its all over for Hillary pretty much but a 21% defeat would get just about everybody to say "ok, gtfo".

No, it wouldn't. She can keep going if she wants. It's her right as a candidate in a close race.

[Excel]

Yes it would. A NC win for Obama means Hillary chances at overtaking him in popular vote, delegates or pledged delegates are done. She could stay in if she wants obviously, but it would be so over in most peoples minds that it wouldnt matter. It wouldbe like Huckabee sticking around even when McCain was clearly going to win.

[Marx]

Yes it would. A NC win for Obama means Hillary chances at overtaking him in popular vote, delegates or pledged delegates are done. She could stay in if she wants obviously, but it would be so over in most peoples minds that it wouldnt matter. It wouldbe like Huckabee sticking around even when McCain was clearly going to win.

Mike Huckabee never had a chance in **** of winning. The situation with Hillary Clinton is a little bit differen Ex and you know it...

[redfirebird2008]

I personally would love it if they had a superdelegate primary. Have them all vote on one day in May or early June like a national election. Get this crap over with.

[Excel]

Mike Huckabee never had a chance in **** of winning. The situation with Hillary Clinton is a little bit differen Ex and you know it...

Not really Obviously, Hillary is much higher profile and it would be closer, but the big difference is time. For Huck ity was Feb...by the time mid May rolls around the democrats will be under pressure to get a candidate chosen. An NC win means itll undenieably be Obama.

[Matt]

When will you realize Excel? She doesn't not have to win the popular vote. So long as she keeps it relatively close and can force a deadlock at the convention she is still in the race. A second ballot at the convention would give her a very good shot for the win. It may not be Democratic, but it is the way the system works. Clinton isn't trying to overtake the popular vote or win the election at this point. She is trying to force a deadlock at the convention which will lead to it being brokered..

[Memphis Slim]

http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V2021230&s=al&promo_code=4808-1

[Matt]

Obama should probably ask Wright to shut the hell up. I get that he doesn't want to throw him under the bus, but pulling him to the side and saying "Hey, Jer. Kinda hurting my campaign by acting like a dick. Can you please quit?" isn't inappropriate.

[Excel]

When will you realize Excel? She doesn't not have to win the popular vote. So long as she keeps it relatively close and can force a deadlock at the convention she is still in the race. A second ballot at the convention would give her a very good shot for the win. It may not be Democratic, but it is the way the system works. Clinton isn't trying to overtake the popular vote or win the election at this point. She is trying to force a deadlock at the convention which will lead to it being brokered..

I know; when will you realize the super delegates wont go against the voters??? Even if it goes to Denver, hell still win. Different route, same destination: Obama will be the nominee.

[Marx]

I know; when will you realize the super delegates wont go against the voters??? Even if it goes to Denver, hell still win. Different route, same destination: Obama will be the nominee.

It's happened before. Don't count out the possibility Ex.

[Excel]

Its possible, but I would give 100/1 odds.

[Mr Sparkle]

http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V2021230&s=al&promo_code=4808-1

grrr. I have Italian ancestry.
this makes me hate Obama sooooo much!:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

[Matt]

I know; when will you realize the super delegates wont go against the voters??? Even if it goes to Denver, hell still win. Different route, same destination: Obama will be the nominee.

The. entire. point. of. super. delegates. is. to. overturn. the. public. vote. if. they. feel. they. got. it. wrong. How thick are you to not get this simple concept? Super delegates will go against the popular vote if they feel it will benefit them. They have done it the past. Its not a 1/100 chance. Whoever does a better job bartering at the convention will get the nomination. Plain and simple.

[Excel]

Im not thick at all, I get it. I just do not see them doing it, you do. We disagree. It doesnt mean I'm "thick" :huh:

[Marx]

Im not thick at all, I get it. I just do not see them doing it, you do. We disagree. It doesnt mean I'm "thick" :huh:

Honestly, I could easily see them doing it.

[Excel]

It is very funny, including news, interviews with actual delegates, ect...the only people saying the superdelegates will overturn the popular vote are you guys and Clinton supporters. Now, I know Matt is smarter than the actual super delegates themselves who I have seen seen on numerous occasions saying the super delegates will support the voters....but gimme a break.

"EASILY"?? They'll easily alienate the majority of the people who have voted for their party?

[Marx]

It is very funny, including news, interviews with actual delegates, ect...the only people saying the superdelegates will overturn the popular vote are you guys and Clinton supporters. Now, I know Matt is smarter than the actual super delegates themselves who I have seen seen on numerous occasions saying the super delegates will support the voters....but gimme a break.

"EASILY"?? They'll easily alienate the majority of the people who have voted for their party?

I'm not saying that it's going to happen, I'm just saying that I could easily see them doing it. The Supers aren't held to anything, they can vote for whoever they please. (Regardless of popular opinion.)

[Excel]

Dude, I know that. But the realistic math shows Obama will need far less of them than Hillary will. He'll find enough, even if she gets more.

[Marx]

Dude, I know that. But the realistic math shows Obama will need far less of them than Hillary will. He'll find enough, even if she gets more.

We'll just have to wait and see. After all of this, I don't see how this WON'T go to the convention.

[Mr Sparkle]

The. entire. point. of. super. delegates. is. to. overturn. the. public. vote. if. they. feel. they. got. it. wrong. How thick are you to not get this simple concept? Super delegates will go against the popular vote if they feel it will benefit them. They have done it the past. Its not a 1/100 chance. Whoever does a better job bartering at the convention will get the nomination. Plain and simple.

the question is, what exactly do they have to barter with anymore?
they are both now publicly weak.
one with the " landing under fire" the other with the " crazy preacher "
the democratic party shoots itself in the foot again in the race for candidacy, THIS is why I hate the primaries.

[Matt]

the question is, what exactly do they have to barter with anymore?
they are both now publicly weak.
one with the " landing under fire" the other with the " crazy preacher "
the democratic party shoots itself in the foot again in the race for candidacy, THIS is why I hate the primaries.

Even if they lose the race for the presidency, they are still senators. Both of whom are fairly influential. They can promise a lot to the super delegates.

[redfirebird2008]

We'll just have to wait and see. After all of this, I don't see how this WON'T go to the convention.

If they had a national superdelegate primary as the Tennessee governor has suggested, then we'd know who won going into the convention.

[Marx]

If they had a national superdelegate primary as the Tennessee governor has suggested, then we'd know who won going into the convention.

That is true Firebird, I think I did hear some rumblings of that. I'm not sure that it will happen though. It's all going to depend on how quickly they want this over with.

[Excel]

If she fails to take Pennsylvania by more than 105 and he takes NC by 20%, theres gonna be a hugeee call for her to get out or become VP.

[Mr Sparkle]

Even if they lose the race for the presidency, they are still senators. Both of whom are fairly influential. They can promise a lot to the super delegates.

if it came down to that, perhaps then Hillary has it locked. or is it pretty level playing field? I've always thought Hillary had way more pull than Obama when it came down to brass tacks.

[Marx]

if it came down to that, perhaps then Hillary has it locked. or is it pretty level playing field? I've always thought Hillary had way more pull than Obama when it came down to brass tacks.

She does.

[Matt]

If they had a national superdelegate primary as the Tennessee governor has suggested, then we'd know who won going into the convention.

That is true Firebird, I think I did hear some rumblings of that. I'm not sure that it will happen though. It's all going to depend on how quickly they want this over with.

I personally don't like the notion of them changing the rules half way through the game (though I'm admittedly holding out for a dark horse like Al Gore or John Edwards to throw their name in on the second ballot if it comes down to that).

[Matt]

If she fails to take Pennsylvania by more than 105 and he takes NC by 20%, theres gonna be a hugeee call for her to get out or become VP.

One poll has him up by 20 % most polls have it between 9 and 12 %. You'll simply throw as much stock as possible into the ones that paint him in a favorable light. Though there is admittedly a long time between both states.

When are you going to learn though? There has been a huge call for Clinton to drop out since Super Tuesday. She is not going to. If she goes down, she is going to make sure it is at the convention so she can take him down with her. That way she will still have a chance in 2012. She can go into the 2012 primary saying "Told you so, he lost to John McCain, I would've beat him and I will now."

[Bill]

One poll has him up by 20 % most polls have it between 9 and 12 %. You'll simply throw as much stock as possible into the ones that paint him in a favorable light. Though there is admittedly a long time between both states.

When are you going to learn though? There has been a huge call for Clinton to drop out since Super Tuesday. She is not going to. If she goes down, she is going to make sure it is at the convention so she can take him down with her. That way she will still have a chance in 2012. She can go into the 2012 primary saying "Told you so, he lost to John McCain, I would've beat him and I will now."

Hopefully, we'll have a better candidate by 2012 that will keep her out of any effective chance at getting this far.

[The Senator]

I'm hoping for a Clinton-Obama ticket so it will ruin both their chances of being able to squabble for the nomination in 2012. If they join together, they'd better just inaugurate McCain at the convention.

[jaguarr]

if it came down to that, perhaps then Hillary has it locked. or is it pretty level playing field? I've always thought Hillary had way more pull than Obama when it came down to brass tacks.

She does.

Ehhhh....BILL has way more pull than Obama, but I'm not sure I'd say Hillary does.

jag

[Varient]

LOL

I just heard on the news that If Brad Pitt and Angelique Jolie get married,... Obama and Clinton become related,...

[Zen]

I'm hoping for a Clinton-Obama ticket so it will ruin both their chances of being able to squabble for the nomination in 2012. If they join together, they'd better just inaugurate McCain at the convention.

Hopefully Obama will stick to the families claim that he will not run again if he loses.

Hillary cannot win after this, she has polarized half of the democratic party now. she has already signed her death warrant.

told you so's are the same vein of discord that keep her from getting this nomination in the first place.

[Marx]

I personally don't like the notion of them changing the rules half way through the game (though I'm admittedly holding out for a dark horse like Al Gore or John Edwards to throw their name in on the second ballot if it comes down to that).

I would have a freakin' fit if Al Gore somehow came out of the convention as the nominee. Words could not express how happy I would be! :yay:

[The Senator]

Hopefully Obama will stick to the families claim that he will not run again if he loses.

Hillary cannot win after this, she has polarized half of the democratic party now. she has already signed her death warrant.

told you so's are the same vein of discord that keep her from getting this nomination in the first place.

How has Hillary Clinton polarized half of the Democratic Party? An article in the Washington Post today said that 25% of Hillary's supporters will not support Barack Obama in the election, whereas 19% of Obama's supporters say they will not support Hillary Clinton in the general election if either candidate becomes the nominee. Obama is dividing Democrats more than Hillary is. If Obama becomes the nominee, and McCain wins the election with 55% or more of the popular vote, Obama will never be able to run for President again. Not if the election isn't even close.

[Excel]

^Thats because those Hillary supporters are all old feminists who will do anything to see their candidate win. Come Novemeber itll be different. Obamas people however, wont vote altogether.

[Marx]

^Thats because those Hillary supporters are all old feminists who will do anything to see their candidate win. Come Novemeber itll be different. Obamas people however, wont vote altogether.

Both have significant voting blocs that are questionable. It all comes down to the fact that the large majority of the party will still vote for either candidate.

[The Senator]

So, what does everything think about Rev. Wright's anti-semitic beliefs, in addition to his bigoted statements against Italians?

[The Senator]

^Thats because those Hillary supporters are all old feminists who will do anything to see their candidate win. Come Novemeber itll be different. Obamas people however, wont vote altogether.

So, you're saying that Hillary's voters are old feminists who are voting for Hillary to become the first woman President? Yet you complained when Geraldine Ferraro and some posters on this board said many people are voting for Obama because he's black and they want him to become the first black President (yourself included)?

Welcome to the land of double standards, eh?

[Mr Sparkle]

So, what does everything think about Rev. Wright's anti-semitic beliefs, in addition to his bigoted statements against Italians?


they are impossibly important and should cripple any run at the white house the reverend makes.:huh: :up:

[Darkdd]

So, what does everything think about Rev. Wright's anti-semitic beliefs, in addition to his bigoted statements against Italians?

I'm now convinced. I wont be voting for Reverend Wright in November.:o

[jaguarr]

So, what does everything think about Rev. Wright's anti-semitic beliefs, in addition to his bigoted statements against Italians?

they are impossibly important and should cripple any run at the white house the reverend makes.:huh: :up:

I'm now convinced. I wont be voting for Reverend Wright in November.:o

:funny:

jag

[Zen]

How has Hillary Clinton polarized half of the Democratic Party? An article in the Washington Post today said that 25% of Hillary's supporters will not support Barack Obama in the election, whereas 19% of Obama's supporters say they will not support Hillary Clinton in the general election if either candidate becomes the nominee. Obama is dividing Democrats more than Hillary is. If Obama becomes the nominee, and McCain wins the election with 55% or more of the popular vote, Obama will never be able to run for President again. Not if the election isn't even close.

i dont think Obama would be able to run either. which is why i said i hope he sticks to the claim that he wont run again, that this is it.

those polls don't include how many will simply not vote at all... which Obama has the lionshare of.

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/27/obama.bloomberg/index.html

[Matt]

Hmm, Bloomberg is a pretty close friend of McCain, isn't he? I'm suprised he'd speak with Obama. Oh well, he certainly won't be his running mate. A mayor and someone who has 3 years in the senate. The GOP will tear them apart on the experience card.

[BlackLantern]

I hate how politics tears anyone done with extensive private sector experience....Romney, Bloomberg...as if running a successful business doesn't count for anything....

[Matt]

I hate how politics tears anyone done with extensive private sector experience....Romney, Bloomberg...as if running a successful business doesn't count for anything....

It counts. It just won't matter. The media and Republicans will criticize Bloomberg for a lack of experience.

[The Senator]

I hate how politics tears anyone done with extensive private sector experience....Romney, Bloomberg...as if running a successful business doesn't count for anything....

I think it would matter more if Bloomberg had additional executive experience, perhaps served a term as Governor or something. Bloomberg is a great manager, but he's had a rather iffy tenure as mayor of New York City. If he could prove his effectiveness as the manager of an entire state, one with multiple economies and a wide variety of political cultures, he would probably be a solid choice as anyone's VP. It's one thing to manage a business; it's another thing to manage a city; and it's a completely different thing all its own to manage a state.

As much as I hate Romney, I think he proved he was a fairly decent manager at the statewide level, political beliefs aside.

[Rated-X]

Obama leads Clinton by Ten, still trails McCain by Three.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx

[rdh007]

As much as I hate Romney, I think he proved he was a fairly decent manager at the statewide level, political beliefs aside.

Which is exactly why I found him to be the most palatable Republican in the race.
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/Cthulhu4Prez-Preview.png

[Chris B]

If she goes down, she is going to make sure it is at the convention so she can take him down with her. That way she will still have a chance in 2012. She can go into the 2012 primary saying "Told you so, he lost to John McCain, I would've beat him and I will now."

You have to admit though, if that is truly her rationale, then that is a bit dumb on her part. If Obama wins the nomination, but loses in the general, a lot of the blame is going to be laid on her. Which will of course hurt her viability as a candidate. Regardless, I could still see her running again in four years.

[The Senator]

You have to admit though, if that is truly her rationale at the moment, then that is a bit dumb on her part. If Obama wins the nomination, but loses in the general, a lot of the blame is going to be laid on her. So she would no longer be a viable candidate. Regardless, I could still see Hillary running.

How would the blame be laid on her? Obama would be the nominee. Everything which happens after the convention will be his doing, not hers.

[Marx]

How would the blame be laid on her? Obama would be the nominee. Everything which happens after the convention will be his doing, not hers.

That's what the rest of us will believe. To the Obama die-hards though, Hillary Clinton is the be-all-end-all scapegoat for everything which goes wrong for Barack.

And that's just sad...http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Chris B]

How would the blame be laid on her? Obama would be the nominee. Everything which happens after the convention will be his doing, not hers.

The protacted primary season. A time when Obama could've been focusing on McCain when instead he had to focus on finishing off Hillary instead.

Either way, regardless of the outcome, Hillary and Obama will both be too tainted to run in 2012 should the Dem's go down in defeat this year.

[Chris B]

That's what the rest of us will believe. To the Obama die-hards though, Hillary Clinton is the be-all-end-all scapegoat for everything which goes wrong for Barack.

And that's just sad...http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of either Obama or Hillary.

[hippie_hunter]

How would the blame be laid on her? Obama would be the nominee. Everything which happens after the convention will be his doing, not hers.

I read an article that said that if Clinton loses, the Democratic consensus is that she will absolutely not get a second chance because she really tainted Obama's perfect image during the primary race and pretty much did the Republicans work for them by digging up so much dirt on him such as the NAFTAGate scandal and the Wright Controversy.

[BlackLantern]

Im very curious to see voter turnout during this election...

[Excel]

I read an article that said that if Clinton loses, the Democratic consensus is that she will absolutely not get a second chance because she really tainted Obama's perfect image during the primary race and pretty much did the Republicans work for them by digging up so much dirt on him such as the NAFTAGate scandal and the Wright Controversy.

:up:

[Matt]

:up:

Do you believe the same logic applies to Obama should Hillary win the nomination and lose, Excel? How exactly is it a bad thing that Clinton brought his flaws to the public eye. I mean, should Clinton have just dropped out because the demi-god Obama was running?

It's not Clinton's fault if Obama loses in November. Lying about NAFTA, lying about his association with Wright, are his actions, not hers. He is responsible for them.

[CorpusBlack]

Which is exactly why I found him to be the most palatable Republican in the race.
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/Cthulhu4Prez-Preview.png

That's awesome. :up:

[Marx]

Do you believe the same logic applies to Obama should Hillary win the nomination and lose, Excel? How exactly is it a bad thing that Clinton brought his flaws to the public eye. I mean, should Clinton have just dropped out because the demi-god Obama was running?

It's not Clinton's fault if Obama loses in November. Lying about NAFTA, lying about his association with Wright, are his actions, not hers. He is responsible for them.

But he can do no wrong Matt...haven't you figured out by now that all of his problems are caused by everyone else? :whatever: