The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[comicgirl]

Originally Posted by jmanspice
People change their minds.


Yeah, when they fall behind in the polls.



http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/blackeye/lol.gifCan I get an amen.





Why do the Hillary people haunt the Obama thread? You'd think they'd be on her thread talking up her strengths and such..................hmmmmm?

[The Senator]

These are the ones I read...it does not say Obama said no to anything. All they say is he asked questions about the plan to make sure the conditions would have been as they were on Feb 5th.

His campaign did raise questions and concerns. And because the Michigan state legislature refused to address his concerns, his campaign did not endorse a re-vote. Without his campaign's endorsement, the re-vote was effectively killed.

[The Senator]

http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/blackeye/lol.gifCan I get an amen.





Why do the Hillary people haunt the Obama thread? You'd think they'd be on her thread talking up her strengths and such..................hmmmmm?

I don't know what you're talking about. I've revoked my support for Clinton. But at the same time, I don't want to see an inexperienced, know-nothing elitist super-liberal take over the White House so he can hand it back to the Republicans in four years.

This is the "Obama Thread," not the "Pucker Up and Slobber All Over Obama's Ass Thread." Anyone can post here as long as they're talking about the subject at hand... Barack Obama...

[BlackLantern]

I don't know what you're talking about. I've revoked my support for Clinton. But at the same time, I don't want to see an inexperienced, know-nothing elitist super-liberal take over the White House so he can hand it back to the Republicans in four years.

This is the "Obama Thread," not the "Pucker Up and Slobber All Over Obama's Ass Thread." Anyone can post here as long as they're talking about the subject at hand... Barack Obama...

I think thats' illegal in Michigan....

[comicgirl]

I think thats' illegal in Michigan....
don't worry...Hillary coming to save us

[Excel]

His campaign did raise questions and concerns. And because the Michigan state legislature refused to address his concerns, his campaign did not endorse a re-vote. Without his campaign's endorsement, the re-vote was effectively killed.

well i dont see how no endorsement means "no", but i guess thats just me.

[Marx]

I don't know what you're talking about. I've revoked my support for Clinton. But at the same time, I don't want to see an inexperienced, know-nothing elitist super-liberal take over the White House so he can hand it back to the Republicans in four years.

This is the "Obama Thread," not the "Pucker Up and Slobber All Over Obama's Ass Thread." Anyone can post here as long as they're talking about the subject at hand... Barack Obama...

NOW...can I get an amen!?!?!


Just to let you in on a little secret comic-girl...not everyone who is anti-Obama is pro-Hillary. I think that's a pretty ridiculous overstatement.

[That'ssuper!]

I'm afraid he may go ahead with his announced plan to liberate Cuba using military force if they did not make a democratic reform by 2010. I don't think the world wants to see another illegal war in the name of freeing an oppressed people from their government.

[That'ssuper!]

I'm afraid he may go ahead with his announced plan to liberate Cuba using military force if they did not make a democratic reform by 2010. I don't think the world wants to see another illegal war in the name of freeing an oppressed people from their government.

[The Senator]

NOW...can I get an amen!?!?!



http://www.cagle.com/news/WrightRants/images/cole.jpg

[Marx]

These are the ones I read...it does not say Obama said no to anything. All they say is he asked questions about the plan to make sure the conditions would have been as they were on Feb 5th.

well i dont see how no endorsement means "no", but i guess thats just me.

You asked for links or sources where Obama "killed" the revote. I provided those to you...several actually, but I knew you would dismiss them. While I can appreciate your dedication to a candidate that you support, it's never wise to look at anything that goes against your candidate of choice with blinders on. When you refuse to support something because it doesn't go along with the biased suggestions that you present, when a proposal NEEDS your endorsement to continue and you refuse, you are killing that proposal. I'm not going to argue semantics with you Ex, but I am growing tired of the "well he didn't verbally say no, so he didn't actually kill it as you all say" crap. Look beyond your undying support for your candidate and see it for what it is. He refused to support any version that wasn't his, regardless of if it was actually fair or unfair to the voters in the state.

[Marx]

I'm afraid he may go ahead with his announced plan to liberate Cuba using military force if they did not make a democratic reform by 2010. I don't think the world wants to see another illegal war in the name of freeing an oppressed people from their government.

How many threads does this comment really need to be posted in!?!?!?! Geez. I've seen it in three now, at least. :huh:

[Excel]

You asked for links or sources where Obama "killed" the revote. I provided those to you...several actually, but I knew you would dismiss them. While I can appreciate your dedication to a candidate that you support, it's never wise to look at anything that goes against your candidate of choice with blinders on. When you refuse to support something because it doesn't go along with the biased suggestions that you present, when a proposal NEEDS your endorsement to continue and you refuse, you are killing that proposal. I'm not going to argue semantics with you Ex, but I am growing tired of the "well he didn't verbally say no, so he didn't actually kill it as you all say" crap. Look beyond your undying support for your candidate and see it for what it is. He refused to support any version that wasn't his, regardless of if it was actually fair or unfair to the voters in the state.

While that may unfortunatly be true, all it does is make a think a bit less of the guy. I still totally dont see why you should give Hilldog all the delegates.

[The Senator]

While that may unfortunatly be true, all it does is make a think a bit less of the guy. I still totally dont see why you should give Hilldog all the delegates.

Because the voters of Michigan deserve to have their voices heard. They shouldn't be denied a say in the Democratic nominating contest because Obama withdrew his name from the ballot.

[Marx]

While that may unfortunatly be true, all it does is make a think a bit less of the guy. I still totally dont see why you should give Hilldog all the delegates.

I've never said that Hillary should get all the delegates, but for Obama to b**** and moan about it not being fair because he didn't get his way is ridiculous. In my eyes, he forfeited the state when he refused to allow a revote. He claims that the "uncommitted" votes all went for him and that he should get them, but there is no way of knowing that. And there's no way of having a revote when one of the parties refuses to accept any terms unless they're favorable to him. He knows that he would lose Michigan again if a revote were held, so of course he wouldn't agree. He's incredibly cunning.

[Marx]

http://www.cagle.com/news/WrightRants/images/cole.jpg

That's hilarious! :lmao:

[Excel]

Because the voters of Michigan deserve to have their voices heard. They shouldn't be denied a say in the Democratic nominating contest because Obama withdrew his name from the ballot.

yeah but you forgetting about all the michigan folks whose voices say "Obama" :up:

[The Senator]

yeah but you forgetting about all the michigan folks whose voices say "Obama" :up:

Obama withdrew his name from the ballot. Therefore, he forfeited the contest. Kucinich and Dodd kept their names on the ballot; why didn't Obama? His decision not to keep his name on the ballot should be seen as a forfeit on his campaign's behalf. There were no voices which said "Obama," they only said "uncommitted."

[Marx]

Obama withdrew his name from the ballot. Therefore, he forfeited the contest. Kucinich and Dodd kept their names on the ballot; why didn't Obama? His decision not to keep his name on the ballot should be seen as a forfeit on his campaign's behalf. There were no voices which said "Obama," they only said "uncommitted."

An "uncommitted" option that also contained the "Edwards option" as well. Let's not forget that either Ex. For anyone to suggest that all of the "uncommitted" vote when to Obama is ridiculous. But then again, we'll never know who really voted for who, because there will not be a revote.

Thank you Barack Obama. :whatever:

[That'ssuper!]

I'm afraid he may go ahead with his announced plan to liberate Cuba using military force if they did not make a democratic reform by 2010. I don't think the world wants to see another illegal war in the name of freeing an oppressed people from their government.

[The Senator]

I'm afraid he may go ahead with his announced plan to liberate Cuba using military force if they did not make a democratic reform by 2010. I don't think the world wants to see another illegal war in the name of freeing an oppressed people from their government.

WTF?!

Explain what this means, or stop posting it! :cmad:

[Marx]

I'm afraid he may go ahead with his announced plan to liberate Cuba using military force if they did not make a democratic reform by 2010. I don't think the world wants to see another illegal war in the name of freeing an oppressed people from their government.

Ok seriously, you really need to quit spamming threads! This comment has now appeared in FOUR threads that I've been in! :cmad:

[The Senator]

Ok seriously, you really need to quit spamming threads! This comment has now appeared in FOUR threads that I've been in! :cmad:

And Twice in this one!

[Marx]

And Twice in this one!

I know! I'm becoming quite annoyed!









Where's Matt, Kel, or Hippie when you need them! :cwink:

[Excel]

An "uncommitted" option that also contained the "Edwards option" as well. Let's not forget that either Ex. For anyone to suggest that all of the "uncommitted" vote when to Obama is ridiculous. But then again, we'll never know who really voted for who, because there will not be a revote.

Thank you Barack Obama. :whatever:

I am aware of that, but again, Obama was only respecting the parties wishes. The DNC will factor that in. They will not punish Obama or his candiacy for following the party rules. I am in no way suggesting all the uncomitted's were Obama's...but logically I would say the bulk defiently were. Hillarys on the ballot. If you supported her, you voted for her. Obv there are some in between, I am just saying.

Obama withdrew his name from the ballot. Therefore, he forfeited the contest. Kucinich and Dodd kept their names on the ballot; why didn't Obama? His decision not to keep his name on the ballot should be seen as a forfeit on his campaign's behalf. There were no voices which said "Obama," they only said "uncommitted."

The DNC did not want this name on the ballot. They are the ones who decide wither the delegates get seated or not, and I doubt theyll punish Obama by giving asll the delegates to Hillary because Obama did what the DNC asked him to do. That does not make a damn bit of a sense.

Imo I think Dean and co. are just waiting and praying something happens by August. I think the reasons Deans been pushing hard -and itll grow even harder as the contest wages on- for supers to come out he wants one of the candidates to break 2,025 (or what was the # with Mich included, 2,080?) and force the other candidate to simply drop out. Than at the convention when the appoint the nominee, the delegates are seated there and just go to that person. It sounds dumb but so will every option. The bloody states shoulda just ****in waited and we woudnt have any of these revote or delegate seat problems.

[Marx]

I am aware of that, but again, Obama was only respecting the parties wishes. The DNC will factor that in. They will not punish Obama or his candiacy for following the party rules. I am in no way suggesting all the uncomitted's were Obama's...but logically I would say the bulk defiently were. Hillarys on the ballot. If you supported her, you voted for her. Obv there are some in between, I am just saying.

The point remains that these two states must BOTH be seated at the convention. If they're not, you run the risk of further disenfranchising voters of states that you cannot afford to lose in a general election.

[Matt]

I know! I'm becoming quite annoyed!









Where's Matt, Kel, or Hippie when you need them! :cwink:

Sorry, guys, taken care of.

[Excel]

The point remains that these two states must BOTH be seated at the convention. If they're not, you run the risk of further disenfranchising voters of states that you cannot afford to lose in a general election.

Yeah, but I am just saying it might be in a way that has no effect on who wins as the other candidate would be long gone.

[The Senator]

The DNC did not want this name on the ballot. They are the ones who decide wither the delegates get seated or not, and I doubt theyll punish Obama by giving asll the delegates to Hillary because Obama did what the DNC asked him to do. That does not make a damn bit of a sense.


They don't have to give all the delegates to Hillary. They should just give her the ones she would have won, had Michigan counted. Then they can just toss the uncommitted delegates out, considering they didn't represent one person.

[Excel]

They could but I dont think thatll happen; the bottom line would be Hillary being rewarded for going against the party and Obama wouldbe being punished for listening to them. I doubt they would do someting like that.

[The Senator]

They could but I dont think thatll happen; the bottom line would be Hillary being rewarded for going against the party and Obama wouldbe being punished for listening to them. I doubt they would do someting like that.

I don't know if the party would look at it that way. They might look at it as if she was thinking ahead. As if she knew these states would count, which is why she kept her name on the ballot. She could be rewarded for thinking ahead, strategically. And if it comes down to Michigan and Florida, she may be able to use that argument to her advantage.

[Marx]

Sorry, guys, taken care of.

Thank you :yay:

[Excel]

I don't know if the party would look at it that way. They might look at it as if she was thinking ahead. As if she knew these states would count, which is why she kept her name on the ballot. She could be rewarded for thinking ahead, strategically. And if it comes down to Michigan and Florida, she may be able to use that argument to her advantage.

I dont see any reason why theyd do that. What it would boil down to would be is theyd be punishing the man who followed the rules and rewarding the women who broke their rules. Thinking ahead or not shouldnt come into play.

I honestly dont think theyre about to do that.

[The Senator]

I dont see any reason why theyd do that. What it would boil down to would be is theyd be punishing the man who followed the rules and rewarding the women who broke their rules. Thinking ahead or not shouldnt come into play.

I honestly dont think theyre about to do that.

Except he didn't want to follow the rules after the DNC said that Michigan and Florida could both hold re-votes. Instead of letting Michigan re-vote, his campaign lobbied against it, thereby disenfranchising millions of voters. As a result, he should be punished for playing politics. As far as I'm concerned, his campaign didn't want Michigan to re-vote because he thought he'd lose. It shouldn't matter what the outcome might be; what should matter is letting millions of voters have their voices heard.

[Excel]

Except he didn't want to follow the rules after the DNC said that Michigan and Florida could both hold re-votes. Instead of letting Michigan re-vote, his campaign lobbied against it, thereby disenfranchising millions of voters. As a result, he should be punished for playing politics.

Except it was not up to Obama to make revotes happen. His campaign wasnt for or against it, in between. Theres a difference. You just eplained why a revote didnt happen, you have yet to explain why the results from the January election should count now. Dean has said they wont, you dont change the rules in the middle of the game.

[Marx]

Except he didn't want to follow the rules after the DNC said that Michigan and Florida could both hold re-votes. Instead of letting Michigan re-vote, his campaign lobbied against it, thereby disenfranchising millions of voters. As a result, he should be punished for playing politics. As far as I'm concerned, his campaign didn't want Michigan to re-vote because he thought he'd lose. It shouldn't matter what the outcome might be; what should matter is letting millions of voters have their voices heard.

I agree. He chose to play politics because he wasn't going to get his way. The only ones who suffer in this mess are the voters. Obama proved that he wasn't concerned about that. If he truly cared about the voters, he would have allowed the revote, regardless of what the outcome may have been.

[Marx]

Except it was not up to Obama to make revotes happen. His campaign wasnt for or against it, in between. Theres a difference. You just eplained why a revote didnt happen, you have yet to explain why the results from the January election should count now. Dean has said they wont, you dont change the rules in the middle of the game.

His campaign lobbied against the revote because he wasn't going to get his way. Jman and I both have provided sources for that claim. (Just because you choose to play semantics and not want to believe it, doesn't make it any less true.)

[The Senator]

Except it was not up to Obama to make revotes happen. His campaign wasnt for or against it, in between. Theres a difference. You just eplained why a revote didnt happen, you have yet to explain why the results from the January election should count now. Dean has said they wont, you dont change the rules in the middle of the game.

The rules have always been that states can hold re-votes under certain circumstances, as long as the previously cast votes are null and void. That's the whole reason why the DNC agreed to let those two states hold a re-vote. Because Obama played politics and ultimately prevented a re-vote from happening, the DNC should do what's in the party's best interest. And the party's best interest is letting the voters of two crucial swing states have their voices heard. If they don't do that, then they risk losing a solidly Democratic state like Michigan, and totally screw their chances in Florida in November. The Democrats cannot win if they lose Michigan. If Obama loses Michigan and another big swing state like Pennsylvania, that's a net loss of 38 electoral votes. That puts him in a worse position than Kerry. I think the party will ultimately look at what the best decision is in the end, and I feel that seating Michigan and Florida's delegates works in the best interest of the party.

[The Senator]

I agree. He chose to play politics because he wasn't going to get his way. The only ones who suffer in this mess are the voters. Obama proved that he wasn't concerned about that. If he truly cared about the voters, he would have allowed the revote, regardless of what the outcome may have been.

I worked for a Clinton Super Delegate this past spring, and almost every day we'd get calls from people in Michigan who have said that they will vote for McCain if their votes aren't counted. We can't lose Michigan, and silencing the voices of Michigan's voters will severely harm the Democrat in that state come November.

[Excel]

Guys I get what Obama did was wrong, but it is not up to Obama to run the revote.

[The Senator]

Guys I get what Obama did was wrong, but it is not up to Obama to run the revote.

But it is up to him to ensure that all voters have their voices heard. How can he be an effective president if he wants to silence the voters in one state?

[hippie_hunter]

While that may unfortunatly be true, all it does is make a think a bit less of the guy. I still totally dont see why you should give Hilldog all the delegates.

And Hillary won't get all of the delegates. The uncommitted delegates (55 of them) are free to vote for whomever they want and they're not tied to Clinton. That said, most of them appear to be leaning towards Clinton because the Democratic establishment there for the most part seems to be bitter towards Obama.

[rdh007]

Because the voters of Michigan deserve to have their voices heard. They shouldn't be denied a say in the Democratic nominating contest because Obama withdrew his name from the ballot.
Maybe. But she should have been a team player and removed her name at the beginning. Unfortunately, her last name doesn't allow her to be a team player.

[Matt]

Guys I get what Obama did was wrong, but it is not up to Obama to run the revote.

But it was up to him to sign off on it. Being as he did not, the only option is to assume that he forfeits the state.

[kainedamo]

Can we change the title of the thread to "Matt hates Obama" ? :huh:

[Matt]

Can we change the title of the thread to "Matt hates Obama" ? :huh:

You should read this post:

This is the "Obama Thread," not the "Pucker Up and Slobber All Over Obama's Ass Thread." Anyone can post here as long as they're talking about the subject at hand... Barack Obama...

[moraldeficiency]

Maybe. But she should have been a team player and removed her name at the beginning. Unfortunately, her last name doesn't allow her to be a team player.

Exactely, you can't say obama's wrong not playing by the rules now when hillary started by breaking those same rules. At the very most he's guilty of trying to just shore up the party and stop with this desperate grab the clinton's are trying. Hillary would be guilty of breaking the party rules from the very beginning then trying to profit from her cheating.

Revotes aren't happening, it's time to get over that and I really doubt all these hillary supporters are jumping ship to mccain come election time. They might say that out of spite but we all know that's not gonna happen. Some might but more because they prefer mccain over obama.

[The Senator]

Maybe. But she should have been a team player and removed her name at the beginning. Unfortunately, her last name doesn't allow her to be a team player.

It doesn't matter what her name is. At the end of the day, this proves that Obama is an ineffective leader. He would rather silence the voices of millions of voters than lose a state to his opponent. It also proves that he's not above the "Washington politics" he so adamantly speaks out against. He refused to accept the terms and conditions as set by the Michigan legislature because they didn't benefit his campaign in the end.

So, regardless of Clinton's tactics, she represents democracy better than Obama does.

[The Senator]

Exactely, you can't say obama's wrong not playing by the rules now when hillary started by breaking those same rules. At the very most he's guilty of trying to just shore up the party and stop with this desperate grab the clinton's are trying. Hillary would be guilty of breaking the party rules from the very beginning then trying to profit from her cheating.

Revotes aren't happening, it's time to get over that and I really doubt all these hillary supporters are jumping ship to mccain come election time. They might say that out of spite but we all know that's not gonna happen. Some might but more because they prefer mccain over obama.

How is it cheating to include one's name on the ballot? And how is it cheating to play by the rules as set forth by the DNC? You know, the rules which say states can hold re-votes as long as that state's results are declared null and void? aka the rules Obama doesn't want to abide by?

There were no rules which said candidates couldn't place their names on the ballot in Michigan and Florida. I guess that means Obama cheated because he was on the Florida ballot?

I personally have no desire to see Obama win the White House. I have no desire to see McCain win the White House either. But if it comes down to Obama vs. McCain... that will be a tough decision... do I want four years with an out of control, flip-flopping war monger, or four years with an out of touch, know-nothing, inexperienced leftist elitist?

[Memphis Slim]

How is it cheating to include one's name on the ballot? And how is it cheating to play by the rules as set forth by the DNC? You know, the rules which say states can hold re-votes as long as that state's results are declared null and void? aka the rules Obama doesn't want to abide by?

There were no rules which said candidates couldn't place their names on the ballot in Michigan and Florida. I guess that means Obama cheated because he was on the Florida ballot?

I personally have no desire to see Obama win the White House. I have no desire to see McCain win the White House either. But if it comes down to Obama vs. McCain... that will be a tough decision... do I want four years with an out of control, flip-flopping war monger, or four years with an out of touch, know-nothing, inexperienced leftist elitist?


It's simple.....
Who do want driving your car?

See.....at least he's an "experienced" war-monger.

[kainedamo]

Leftist? :huh: Stop pigeon holing people. Ridiculous.

[The Senator]

Leftist? :huh: Stop pigeon holing people. Ridiculous.

Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate. His voting record from 2007 proves he's even more left than socialist senator Bernie Sanders. I do not want someone from the far left representing this country. We are a centrist nation. We need a moderate progressive Democrat representing us in the White House, not an elitist liberal who has no experience with building bipartisan coalitions and whose policies are the stuff conservative jokes are made of. If Obama becomes President, I feel he will screw up worse than Carter did, and our nation will be plunged back into conservative rule for several years.

This man is a walking disaster waiting to happen.

[Marx]

Can we change the title of the thread to "Matt hates Obama" ? :huh:

The title of this thread is more than sufficient. People can post whatever they feel like so long as it is on subject...and that subject is Barack Obama.

[Marx]

Leftist? :huh: Stop pigeon holing people. Ridiculous.

Jman's description is pretty accurate. He is the most liberal member of the Senate...whether you want to admit it or not.

[moraldeficiency]

How is it cheating to include one's name on the ballot? And how is it cheating to play by the rules as set forth by the DNC? You know, the rules which say states can hold re-votes as long as that state's results are declared null and void? aka the rules Obama doesn't want to abide by?

There were no rules which said candidates couldn't place their names on the ballot in Michigan and Florida. I guess that means Obama cheated because he was on the Florida ballot?

I personally have no desire to see Obama win the White House. I have no desire to see McCain win the White House either. But if it comes down to Obama vs. McCain... that will be a tough decision... do I want four years with an out of control, flip-flopping war monger, or four years with an out of touch, know-nothing, inexperienced leftist elitist?

If you weren't supposed to put your name on the ballot and you did you cheated? How isn't that apparent. I agree the revotes could potentially be held, in the same way meteors could potentially destroy the earth tomorrow. Obama lobbied against a revote that's not the same as going against the party in the first place. You get to oppose things you don't like whether it's fair or not. You get to lobby for all sorts of stuff, it's not the same as actively cheating.

Yes, obama cheated by putting his name on the florida ballot just like hillary. I live in florida, we were all told our vote would not count in this. We were also told we were screwing up the system by voting when we did. We did it anyway and now our votes don't count. That seems fair to me. I don't see any reason to revote because we purposely did this to ourselves and you have to live with the decisions you make. Revotes were designed for when something happens to unbalance the thing that was out of control, not for when someone desperately needs to clutch at straws.

I have no desire to see another clinton in office. I in fact have no desire for any "old school" politician to win any office as all they seem to do is make pointless promises they never keep. Remember congress getting elected to "bring our boys home"? What a joke. I'd rather have someone inexperienced with ****ing this country over than someone I know is supremely capable. Personally though I don't see hillary as having much experience besides that experience she magically imagines she has, much like the sniper fire she courageously fought through.

[Marx]

If you weren't supposed to put your name on the ballot and you did you cheated? How isn't that apparent. I agree the revotes could potentially be held, in the same way meteors could potentially destroy the earth tomorrow. Obama lobbied against a revote that's not the same as going against the party in the first place. You get to oppose things you don't like whether it's fair or not. You get to lobby for all sorts of stuff, it's not the same as actively cheating.

Yes, obama cheated by putting his name on the florida ballot just like hillary. I live in florida, we were all told our vote would not count in this. We were also told we were screwing up the system by voting when we did. We did it anyway and now our votes don't count. That seems fair to me. I don't see any reason to revote because we purposely did this to ourselves and you have to live with the decisions you make. Revotes were designed for when something happens to unbalance the thing that was out of control, not for when someone desperately needs to clutch at straws.

I have no desire to see another clinton in office. I in fact have no desire for any "old school" politician to win any office as all they seem to do is make pointless promises they never keep. Remember congress getting elected to "bring our boys home"? What a joke. I'd rather have someone inexperienced with ****ing this country over than someone I know is supremely capable. Personally though I don't see hillary as having much experience besides that experience she magically imagines she has, much like the sniper fire she courageously fought through.

I hate to break this to you, but Obama is no different than any "old school" politician. He's just as cunning, just as manipulative, and just as full of hot air and empty promises as all the rest. I don't care how much he preaches otherwise.

[The Senator]

If you weren't supposed to put your name on the ballot and you did you cheated?

The rules did not say that a candidate could not include his or her name on the ballot. The rules stated that the results from the contests wouldn't count. Clinton, Dodd and Kucinich included their names on the ballot. Obama, Richardson, Biden and Edwards did not. That's their loss.


How isn't that apparent. I agree the revotes could potentially be held, in the same way meteors could potentially destroy the earth tomorrow. Obama lobbied against a revote that's not the same as going against the party in the first place. You get to oppose things you don't like whether it's fair or not. You get to lobby for all sorts of stuff, it's not the same as actively cheating.

You can't cheat if the rules don't say that you can't include your name on the ballot.

Also, you're right, Obama didn't go against the party, he did something worse: He silenced the voices of millions of voters so his opponent would be at a disadvantage.


Yes, obama cheated by putting his name on the florida ballot just like hillary.

Again, party rules did not state that a candidate could not include his or her name on the ballot. Neither candidate cheated.


I live in florida, we were all told our vote would not count in this. We were also told we were screwing up the system by voting when we did. We did it anyway and now our votes don't count. That seems fair to me. I don't see any reason to revote because we purposely did this to ourselves and you have to live with the decisions you make. Revotes were designed for when something happens to unbalance the thing that was out of control, not for when someone desperately needs to clutch at straws.

It may seem fair to you, but there are many other voters who feel as if their voices have been silenced. Regardless of Clinton's true motives, at least she fights in the name of democracy. Obama fights in the name of politics, the same dirty politics he has been lobbying against.


I have no desire to see another clinton in office. I in fact have no desire for any "old school" politician to win any office as all they seem to do is make pointless promises they never keep. Remember congress getting elected to "bring our boys home"? What a joke. I'd rather have someone inexperienced with ****ing this country over than someone I know is supremely capable. Personally though I don't see hillary as having much experience besides that experience she magically imagines she has, much like the sniper fire she courageously fought through.

Well, that's your opinion. I personally could do without either of them. I just don't want an inexperienced, less-than-one term Senator who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to sit down and chat with terrorists and dictators, who thinks it's fine and dandy to let NGO's tax our citizens, and who thinks that rural voters are bitter, over-zealous gun-toting racists, to be president. Obama has presented himself as a smug arrogant elitist; Clinton is a hypocritical liar. I say McCain should be president, so that in four years our party might get its act together and nominate someone worthy of the presidency, rather than some "rock star" the media fell in love with.

[moraldeficiency]

I hate to break this to you, but Obama is no different than any "old school" politician. He's just as cunning, just as manipulative, and just as full of hot air and empty promises as all the rest. I don't care how much he preaches otherwise.

I hate to break this to you, but I disagree.

[Matt]

I hate to break this to you, but I disagree.

What makes him different, outside of skin color, I mean?

[moraldeficiency]

The rules did not say that a candidate could not include his or her name on the ballot. The rules stated that the results from the contests wouldn't count. Clinton, Dodd and Kucinich included their names on the ballot. Obama, Richardson, Biden and Edwards did not. That's their loss.

Now you're just splitting technical hairs. Do you really think they all left their names off the ballot just because? This is like the kid that programs answers into his calculator then cries foul cause technically it's not a cheat sheet and there's no direct rule against it. He knew it was wrong, he just wanted to do it.

You can't cheat if the rules don't say that you can't include your name on the ballot.

Also, you're right, Obama didn't go against the party, he did something worse: He silenced the voices of millions of voters so his opponent would be at a disadvantage.

Oh heaven, obama came to those houses and ***** slapped those people right out of the ballot box. obama pushed for it not to be counted the DNC makes the decisions. You're giving him too much credit. The state's broke the rules and got punished. It's their own fault.

Again, party rules did not state that a candidate could not include his or her name on the ballot. Neither candidate cheated.

Why did you ask the question if you already had the answer? Just to show me up or something? That's crass and petty. Besides you're technicalling me to death here. You'd make a fine lawyer.

It may seem fair to you, but there are many other voters who feel as if their voices have been silenced. Regardless of Clinton's true motives, at least she fights in the name of democracy. Obama fights in the name of politics, the same dirty politics he has been lobbying against.

Yes, because the states screwed up. Do you feel convicts voices have been silenced unfairly?

BTW, motives might not mean much to you, but to some like myself their pretty important. And I really don't see any evidence she "fights in the name of democracy" (cue captian america) other than you see her as doing this.

Well, that's your opinion. I personally could do without either of them. I just don't want an inexperienced, less-than-one term Senator who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to sit down and chat with terrorists and dictators, who thinks it's fine and dandy to let NGO's tax our citizens, and who thinks that rural voters are bitter, over-zealous gun-toting racists, to be president. Obama has presented himself as a smug arrogant elitist; Clinton is a hypocritical liar. I say McCain should be president, so that in four years our party might get its act together and nominate someone worthy of the presidency, rather than some "rock star" the media fell in love with.

Yes it's my opinon, just like you're giving me yours. It doesn't make either of us any more right.

That statement about a "Senator who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to sit down and chat with terrorists and dictators" could have been a direct bush quote. If you don't talk then you fight. Do you want to keep fighting or maybe try and talk it out?

Oh, YOUR party, not mine. I'm very happily an independent.

[hippie_hunter]

I hate to break this to you, but I disagree.
The #1 reason why I can't stand Obama is because of the image he has. He makes this iconic image of himself that he doesn't uphold at all. He says that he's an outsider, but he's made his career in the Senate, he's not an outsider. He condemns lobbyists, yet he has ties to lobbyists and has them running his campaign. He says he doesn't take money from oil corporations, but he takes it from people who run the oil corporations. He says that he's going to do one thing (pull out of Iraq, change NAFTA, etc.) but points out to doing the exact opposite. He says he'll run a clean campaign but he twists McCain's words (the only candidate running a clean campaign) and is in a dirty mudslinging campaign with Clinton. He says he's a uniter but his views are out of touch with most of the American people and he's never worked with Republicans on important issues, he's a partisan hack like all the others.

But the worst part is that people are falling for this obviously fake image that Obama gives off.

As for reason #2 on why I'll never vote for Obama, I chalk that up to Excel.

[kainedamo]

Ridiculous mentality, jmanspice. It's exactly what's wrong with your country.

There is no left wing or right wing, only what a person thinks is the right choice. To suggest someone is "far left" or "far right" is to suggest that they make a decision before they know what the issue is because they're just a mindless label.

It's like, if someone says "maybe we should have free healthcare", if you're gonna label that person "far left" there is seriously something wrong with your brain.

What's "far left" about Obama?

[moraldeficiency]

What makes him different, outside of skin color, I mean?

Yeah I'm going to pass on the obvious baiting, thanks. I know where you're coming from, seen you're previous posts, so I could just conduct that conversation easier inside my head.

I get so tired on mapped out responses sometimes, if I thought you were asking a legit question that you would read and think about I would answer, but I get plenty of irrational obama hate right at home (my girl supports hillary).

[Matt]

Yeah I'm going to pass on the obvious baiting, thanks. I know where you're coming from, seen you're previous posts, so I could just conduct that conversation easier inside my head.

I get so tired on mapped out responses sometimes, if I thought you were asking a legit question that you would read and think about I would answer, but I get plenty of irrational obama hate right at home (my girl supports hillary).

So in other words you have no reason that he is not your "typical politican" outside of buzz words and skin color?

[kainedamo]

So in other words you have no reason that he is not your "typical politican" outside of buzz words and skin color?

No, he's not responding to you 'cause you're baiting him.

[hippie_hunter]

Ridiculous mentality, jmanspice. It's exactly what's wrong with your country.

There is no left wing or right wing, only what a person thinks is the right choice. To suggest someone is "far left" or "far right" is to suggest that they make a decision before they know what the issue is because they're just a mindless label.

It's like, if someone says "maybe we should have free healthcare", if you're gonna label that person "far left" there is seriously something wrong with your brain.

What's "far left" about Obama?

There are such things as far left and far right. Obama represents the far left just like the asstard we have for a President represents the far right. Although I do agree with you that when people vote they tend to not think of their political views but they vote for who they think is the right choice.

And Obama is far left because his voting record towards abortion, his views on gun control, supports granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, he supports increasing taxes, deliver socialized health care, etc. Those are considered to be leftist views in the United States.

The Almanac of American Politics state that his economic record is 87% liberal, 0% conservative. His foreign policy record is 85% liberal, 12% conservative. NARAL and Planned Parenthood give him a 100% rating in support of abortion rights, the NRA gives him an F in support of gun rights, 88% in support of civil liberties by the ACLU (don't get me wrong I support the ACLU but they tend to see almost anything as a civil rights violation). All these ratings point to him being very liberal in American terms.

[The Senator]

Now you're just splitting technical hairs. Do you really think they all left their names off the ballot just because? This is like the kid that programs answers into his calculator then cries foul cause technically it's not a cheat sheet and there's no direct rule against it. He knew it was wrong, he just wanted to do it.

It's not cheating. Obama could have put his name on the ballot, and he wouldn't be in this mess. The fact is, he didn't. He therefore forfeited the contest.


Oh heaven, obama came to those houses and ***** slapped those people right out of the ballot box. obama pushed for it not to be counted the DNC makes the decisions. You're giving him too much credit. The state's broke the rules and got punished. It's their own fault.

Nope, the state legislature didn't approve of a re-vote because Obama wouldn't agree to the conditions the state set forth. He effectively killed that legislation when he could have simply signed off on it. Therefore, he disenfranchised millions of voters.


Why did you ask the question if you already had the answer? Just to show me up or something? That's crass and petty. Besides you're technicalling me to death here. You'd make a fine lawyer.

You claimed they cheated. Neither candidate cheated. They were within their own rights to put their names on the ballot. Also, I wanted to see if you would refer to Obama as a cheater as well. You did, but you were also wrong in doing so.


Yes, because the states screwed up. Do you feel convicts voices have been silenced unfairly?

Convicts are not legally permitted to vote. The citizens in Michigan and Florida are not convicts, they are not breaking the law. The DNC rules prevented those states from counting; however, the same rules stated that those states could hold re-votes as long as the votes from the previous contests were declared null and void. Obama's campaign didn't agree to a re-vote, and therefore, those states were silenced.


BTW, motives might not mean much to you, but to some like myself their pretty important. And I really don't see any evidence she "fights in the name of democracy" (cue captian america) other than you see her as doing this.

She's fighting to have voters' voices heard, while he's effectively silenced them. She's doing a better job fighting for Democracy than he is.


That statement about a "Senator who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to sit down and chat with terrorists and dictators" could have been a direct bush quote. If you don't talk then you fight. Do you want to keep fighting or maybe try and talk it out?

I think its idiotic to sit down with nutjobs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose country is taking the necessary precautions to develop nuclear weapons. They are enriching the element needed for nuclear weapons production; they are enriching it at the capacity needed to make nuclear weapons; and Ahmadinejad has acted in a manner which indicates he is a threat to Israel and other Middle Eastern nations.

Sitting down and chatting with him isn't going to change his radical views, nor will it eliminate Iran's nuclear program.

If he wants to sit down with Chavez or Castro, fine. But Ahmadinejad should be out of the question.


Oh, YOUR party, not mine. I'm very happily an independent.

I was really referring to Democrats as a whole, whether you were one or not. I apologize if you thought otherwise.

[Matt]

No, he's not responding to you 'cause you're baiting him.

Is asking a question in a forum meant for debate baiting?

[hippie_hunter]

No, he's not responding to you 'cause you're baiting him.

No he brings up a valid point because most of the Obama supporters I've seen keep saying the same damn thing that he's not your average politician and he'll bring great change without actually backing it up.

I'm voting for McCain in November but I don't go off acting like a McCainiac and I back up my reasons on why I'm voting Republican in 2008.

[moraldeficiency]

So in other words you have no reason that he is not your "typical politican" outside of buzz words and skin color?

No, in other words I already have read your reponse to any possible position by many news outlets. I know what you think cause you've been rather gregarous on the matter and I know you bait people on here then respond with a preformulated and strategized statement like most politicians and I know that there's nothing I'd say that you'd even think about so why bother?

If you wanted to debate or have a dialogue that's great but I can just read a hillary press statement if I wanted to hear more about how the clinton's are great and save both of us some time.

I'm not taking your obvious bait, but perhaps I can offer you this wriggly worm: How can you stand behind Mrs. Combat Experience after obviously lying and lying then confirming the lie, then having her husband confirm the lie wrongly about being under fire? As someone that has been underfire I promise you, you never "forget or misinterpret" what happened. That said it wasn't just hillary's fault but all her advisors never stopped her or attempted to correct that gross and insulting lie. So her entire team took you for a moron that would believe anything they told you even when there was countless people to back up what actually happened. So with all that how can anyone, anyone, vote for her as anything other than a rather foolish liar that will say anything to get into office?

[hippie_hunter]

No, in other words I already have read your reponse to any possible position by many news outlets. I know what you think cause you've been rather gregarous on the matter and I know you bait people on here then respond with a preformulated and strategized statement like most politicians and I know that there's nothing I'd say that you'd even think about so why bother?

If you wanted to debate or have a dialogue that's great but I can just read a hillary press statement if I wanted to hear more about how the clinton's are great and save both of us some time.

I'm not taking your obvious bait, but perhaps I can offer you this wriggly worm: How can you stand behind Mrs. Combat Experience after obviously lying and lying then confirming the lie, then having her husband confirm the lie wrongly about being under fire? As someone that has been underfire I promise you, you never "forget or misinterpret" what happened. That said it wasn't just hillary's fault but all her advisors never stopped her or attempted to correct that gross and insulting lie. So her entire team took you for a moron that would believe anything they told you even when there was countless people to back up what actually happened. So with all that how can anyone, anyone, vote for her as anything other than a rather foolish liar that will say anything to get into office?

Last time I checked, Matt's not voting for Clinton in the general election and isn't a Clinton supporter.

[The Senator]

Ridiculous mentality, jmanspice. It's exactly what's wrong with your country.

No, what's wrong with this country is the idea that inexperienced rock star candidates are more qualified to be president than people who have spent thirty years in politics (Biden, Dodd, Richardson), or those who have a true vision for this country and have actually been out in the field working to achieve it (Edwards). Instead of nominating a worthy candidate, the Democratic Party is about to elect one of two inexperienced, left-wing know-nothings who are ill equipped to serve as President of the United States. And then, this country will have the choice between one of those two candidates and an old, ghastly war monger who has flip flopped on all the issues-- but he has more credibility when it comes to specific legislation and issues he supports or opposes.

What's wrong with this country is the mentality that people are qualified to be president because they were the spouse of a former president, or because they gave a speech condemning the war in Iraq. Experience is considered too taboo in American politics, while inexperience is considered the new fad. Didn't people argue that Bush was too inexperienced when he became president? At least he had six years under his belt as governor of Texas. Obama has three years under his belt as Senator-- and that's not including the year he's taken off to run for president.


There is no left wing or right wing, only what a person thinks is the right choice. To suggest someone is "far left" or "far right" is to suggest that they make a decision before they know what the issue is because they're just a mindless label.

His voting record proves that he's the most liberal senator in the United States Senate. That's really all that's necessary to assume he's a super-liberal.


It's like, if someone says "maybe we should have free healthcare", if you're gonna label that person "far left" there is seriously something wrong with your brain.

It depends what the health care policy is. Obama's health care policy is not far left. It's idiotic and exclusive, but it's not far left.


What's "far left" about Obama?

He wants to let NGOs tax American citizens, he supports handing out drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, he considers rural voters to be gun-toting, ultra-religious, racist zealots... he's far left in American politics.

[moraldeficiency]

It's not cheating. Obama could have put his name on the ballot, and he wouldn't be in this mess. The fact is, he didn't. He therefore forfeited the contest.

We disagree on this. No point further discussion.

Nope, the state legislature didn't approve of a re-vote because Obama wouldn't agree to the conditions the state set forth. He effectively killed that legislation when he could have simply signed off on it. Therefore, he disenfranchised millions of voters.

Same as above. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right but it's a POV.

You claimed they cheated. Neither candidate cheated. They were within their own rights to put their names on the ballot. Also, I wanted to see if you would refer to Obama as a cheater as well. You did, but you were also wrong in doing so.

Sanctimonious much? We disagree on what cheating is. You're letter of the law man, and I believe if something is commonly understood as wrong then it is.

Convicts are not legally permitted to vote. The citizens in Michigan and Florida are not convicts, they are not breaking the law. The DNC rules prevented those states from counting; however, the same rules stated that those states could hold re-votes as long as the votes from the previous contests were declared null and void. Obama's campaign didn't agree to a re-vote, and therefore, those states were silenced.

Yes, but you miss what I'm saying. If someone does something wrong and they're punished for it then they should suck it up. The states screwed themselves and they're votes didn't count. Maybe next time they won't try and buck the process. It sucks but that's life.

She's fighting to have voters' voices heard, while he's effectively silenced them. She's doing a better job fighting for Democracy than he is.

Are these the same voters hillary has been saying the superdelegates shouldn't listen to? Those voters?

I think its idiotic to sit down with nutjobs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose country is taking the necessary precautions to develop nuclear weapons. They are enriching the element needed for nuclear weapons production; they are enriching it at the capacity needed to make nuclear weapons; and Ahmadinejad has acted in a manner which indicates he is a threat to Israel and other Middle Eastern nations.

Yeah, let's isolate ourselves and then just attack when they go to far. I remember when China was our enemy, but then because of talks we defused another cold war into a strategic trading partner.

Sitting down and chatting with him isn't going to change his radical views, nor will it eliminate Iran's nuclear program.

If he wants to sit down with Chavez or Castro, fine. But Ahmadinejad should be out of the question.

I guess you never know what talks and respect might do until you try. But I'm definately in the camp of trying any possible solution before violence. If talks are shot down at least the US isn't painted as some country just supplanting our will on someone else again.

I was really referring to Democrats as a whole, whether you were one or not. I apologize if you thought otherwise.

Gotcha, I apologize as well then. Personally I think too many people put trust into their "party" and not who would be best for the country. I wish I could program all voting booths to electocute anyone touching either "all vote" levers. I think that would solve most of the countries problems right there. From overpopulation, to lack of schooling, to the rampant ******* outbreak we're currently facing.

[moraldeficiency]

Last time I checked, Matt's not voting for Clinton in the general election and isn't a Clinton supporter.

I never said as much, but his reasonings line up with clinton's as to why obama isn't so cool.

[Marx]

I hate to break this to you, but I disagree.

You can disagree all you want, but it is the truth.

[Excel]

four years with an out of touch, know-nothing, inexperienced leftist elitist?

Excuse me? Who are you to say that?

1. Out of touch? He is the one bringing in millions of new voters-he is ver yclearly i ntouch with quite a few people.

2. know nothing...thats your own opinion.

3. elitist? Explain how Obama is more of an elitist than McCain or Clinton. This should be good :hehe:

[Excel]

You can disagree all you want, but it is the truth.

No it is not Marx, that is your opinion. You guys cannot say Obama isnt expirienced enough to be president while saying hes a typical same old washington politicon without contradicting yourself.

[moraldeficiency]

You can disagree all you want, but it is the truth.

Well that just sold me. That's the equivalent of "is not" for an argument. No facts, just the assumption you know more than everyone else because you say so.

[Marx]

No it is not Marx, that is your opinion. You guys cannot say Obama isnt expirienced enough to be president while saying hes a typical same old washington politicon without contradicting yourself.

The comment that I made was in respose to MD disputing the fact that Obama is one of the most liberal senators in the senate. It had nothing to do with what you think it did.

Well that just sold me. That's the equivalent of "is not" for an argument. No facts, just the assumption you know more than everyone else because you say so.

All of you Obama people drive me crazy! Are you even familiar with his senate voting record? Have you looked at it AT ALL??? I have never said that I know more than anyone else. I have never pretended to, nor will I. I think you need to go and research Obama. You need to look a little bit more below surface value. Then we can talk.

[The Senator]

Excuse me? Who are you to say that?

I don't know, who are you to say that Hillary Clinton thinks all voters are retarded?


1. Out of touch? He is the one bringing in millions of new voters-he is ver yclearly i ntouch with quite a few people.

Anyone who refers to an entire voting demographic as "bitter," and then claims that they only like guns and are religious because of that bitterness, is clearly out of touch with the American voter. Also, he wants to let NGOs tax the American worker. Isn't that out of touch with America-- wanting to let foreign, non-governmental institutions tax the American people so they can pay for problems abroad which the American people have no desire to help out with?

Also, he hired a racist, hate-filled bigot to lead his spiritual outreach program on his campaign, then refused to denounce him even though that's what the American people want. Going against what the American people want is a clear example of how one can be out of touch. Obama represents that quite well.



3. elitist? Explain how Obama is more of an elitist than McCain or Clinton. This should be good :hehe:

I'm not talking about Clinton or McCain. They have other problems, besides elitism.

Obama's comments about guns and religion are really all that need to be looked at in order to determine what constitutes him as an "elitist." It's the same thing which killed Dukakis and Kerry. He is underestimating certain voters and is willing to brush them off with one sweeping generalization. The fact that he can brush these voters aside as "bitter" because of the things they like and live by means that he thinks his way of life, or plan for America, is better than how those people live and think. Because of that, he represents an elitist mentality.

[moraldeficiency]

All of you Obama people drive me crazy! Are you even familiar with his senate voting record? Have you looked at it AT ALL??? I have never said that I know more than anyone else. I have never pretended to, nor will I. I think you need to go and research Obama. You need to look a little bit more below surface value. Then we can talk.

Hey I've got the entire senate voting record tatooed on my ass and if you look very closely at my right asscheek you'd see that you're completely wrong. After you check my ass out carefully then we can talk.

Oh, "the obama people" remark is distinctly racist. You obviously harbor a great level of hatred for Irish Immigrants of low social standing and as such I refuse listen to your diatribe.

BTW, saying, "I think you need to go and research Obama. You need to look a little bit more below surface value. Then we can talk." distinctly implies that you do know more than others and they need to research to catch up with you.

Actually in seriousness you responded to a personal opinion stating that the opposite was fact. After you look up what the word disagree means and carefully think it over we'll continue.

Oh, the comment I originally disagreed with had nothing to do with "whose more liberal" it was in response to a comment by jman (I believe) saying the obama was just as systematic as all the other "old school" politicians.

[Matt]

Hey I've got the entire senate voting record tatooed on my ass and if you look very closely at my right asscheck you'd see that you're completely wrong. After you check my ass out carefully then we can talk.
Oh, "the obama people" remark is distinctly racist. You obviously harbor a great level of hatred for Irish Immigrants of low social standing and as such I refuse listen to your diatribe.

BTW, saying, "I think you need to go and research Obama. You need to look a little bit more below surface value. Then we can talk." distinctly implies that you do know more than others and they need to research to catch up with you.

Actually in seriousness you responded to a personal opinion stating that the opposite was fact. After you look up what the word disagree means and carefully think it over we'll continue.

Ease up or you can take a couple days off.

[Excel]

The comment that I made was in respose to MD disputing the fact that Obama is one of the most liberal senators in the senate. It had nothing to do with what you think it did.

oh i see; i thought you were talking about the "same old washington poltician" part ;)

[Marx]

Hey I've got the entire senate voting record tatooed on my ass and if you look very closely at my right asscheck you'd see that you're completely wrong. After you check my ass out carefully then we can talk.

If that's true, then you would actually know that he IS one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate.


Oh, "the obama people" remark is distinctly racist. You obviously harbor a great level of hatred for Irish Immigrants of low social standing and as such I refuse listen to your diatribe.


That's just ignorant, and something I'm not going to dignify with an answer.


BTW, saying, "I think you need to go and research Obama. You need to look a little bit more below surface value. Then we can talk." distinctly implies that you do know more than others and they need to research to catch up with you.

Actually in seriousness you responded to a personal opinion stating that the opposite was fact. After you look up what the word disagree means and carefully think it over we'll continue.

No, it implies that I am familiar with his voting record. It implies that I have grown sick and tired of people embracing Barack Obama and refusing to look beyond surface value. Refusing to look beyond the pretty speeches and rockstar appeal.

[moraldeficiency]

Ease up or you can take a couple days off.

I sincerely apologize to TheMarx, I meant that statement as a joke and in no way want you to look at my ass. I was trying to lighten a mood that seemed to take itself too seriously and I hope I haven't offended anyone.

[Marx]

oh i see; i thought you were talking about the "same old washington poltician" part ;)

Not at all Ex. MD is disputing that Obama is one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate. That's what I was referring to. :cwink:

[moraldeficiency]

If that's true, then you would actually know that he IS one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate.

There's a joke about not having enough mirrors here, but I'll let it go.

The question was whether obama was the same "old school politican" (look it up) as hillary and mccain, not how liberal he is.

That's just ignorant, and something I'm not going to dignify with an answer.

That kinda sounds arrogant too. Not that that's a bad thing.

No, it implies that I am familiar with his voting record. It implies that I have grown sick and tired of people embracing Barack Obama and refusing to look beyond surface value. Refusing to look beyond the pretty speeches and rockstar appeal.

Again you're saying I said something I never did. I was talking about how little experience he has in ****ing the country over and how that's a good thing in comparison to seasoned veterans like the clintons and mccain (to a much lesser extent) not to which side of the aisle he leans.

[Marx]

There's a joke about not having enough mirrors here, but I'll let it go.

The question was whether obama was the same "old school politican" (look it up) as hillary and mccain, not how liberal he is.


He is no different that any other politician out there. As I've now said several times. He's just as underhanded and cunning as the rest of them.


That kinda sounds arrogant too. Not that that's a bad thing.


When you accuse me of having problems with irish immigrants because I have a problem with Obama, that is ignorant. And doesn't sit well with me, to be honest. I don't go around lobbing ridiculous statements and insults. I would suggest you have the same courtesy.


Again you're saying I said something I never did. I was talking about how little experience he has in ****ing the country over and how that's a good thing in comparison to seasoned veterans like the clintons and mccain (to a much lesser extent) not to which side of the aisle he leans.

And George W. Bush had very little experience in f***ing over the country before he took office as well. Throwing yet another inexperienced candidate into the presidency for yet another "on the job learning experience" isn't something that I'm exactly thrilled with the idea of.

[moraldeficiency]

He is no different that any other politician out there. As I've now said several times. He's just as underhanded and cunning as the rest of them.

And to that I say as before, I disagree.

When you accuse me of having problems with irish immigrants because I have a problem with Obama, that is ignorant. And doesn't sit well with me, to be honest. I don't go around lobbing ridiculous statements and insults. I would suggest you have the same courtesy.

Yeah that wasn't serious. How could you possibly know I was an Irish immigrant and then for me to assume you term "obama people" as such? It was ridiculous on purpose. I'm sorry that wasn't more obvious. Did anyone else not understand that?

And George W. Bush had very little experience in f***ing over the country before he took office as well. Throwing yet another inexperienced candidate into the presidency for another "on the job learning experience" isn't something that I'm exactly thrilled with the idea of.

One he's from a political dynasty family (like the clintons are becoming) so he had a pretty good idea of what he was doing.

Two he was gov. of texas for six years.

Three his advisors sure did. In the same way the clinton's advisors failed to stop her stupid "I've been under fire remarks" and that reflects badly on them as well. The presidency isn't just the man or woman but more whom they appoint to cabinet and such.

All and all I think Bush had plenty of experience ****ing over the citizens before office and that really shined through, but maybe you disagree.

[Marx]

And to that I say as before, I disagree.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.


Yeah that wasn't serious. How could you possibly know I was an Irish immigrant and then for me to assume you term "obama people" as such? It was ridiculous on purpose. I'm sorry that wasn't more obvious. Did anyone else not understand that?


It seemed pretty serious to me. I saw your apology, and I accept it.


One he's from a political dynasty family (like the clintons are becoming) so he had a pretty good idea of what he was doing.

Two he was gov. of texas for six years.

Three his advisors sure did. In the same way the clinton's advisors failed to stop her stupid "I've been under fire remarks" and that reflects badly on them as well. The presidency isn't just the man or woman but more whom they appoint to cabinet and such.

All and all I think Bush had plenty of experience ****ing over the citizens before office and that really shined through, but maybe you disagree.

I don't know if I would go as far as to say that he had plenty of experience.

[moraldeficiency]

Looking back on this thread, at least as far as I can sanely do, I'm seeing some negative obama stuff which appears to be (but I could be wrong) from a pro hillary side. If so how does the problems obama has even closely equate with hillary's "I've been under sniper fire remarks"?

Did those actually bother any hillary supporters, or is that allowable? Because if they are then I can't see anyone with that argument having anything negative to say about obama if they try to stay in the realm of objectivity.

[Marx]

Looking back on this thread, at least as far as I can sanely do, I'm seeing some negative obama stuff which appears to be (but I could be wrong) from a pro hillary side. If so how does the problems obama has even closely equate with hillary's "I've been under sniper fire remarks"?

Did those actually bother any hillary supporters, or is that allowable? Because if they are then I can't see anyone with that argument having anything negative to say about obama if they try to stay in the realm of objectivity.

Several posters in here have a problem with those comments from Hillary.

[The Senator]

I don't really think there are any Hillary posters on the forums. I used to be a Hillary supporter before the sniper remarks and insulting efforts to portray herself as a "hometown girl" from Pennsylvania.

I simply don't care anymore. Let McCain win, then in four years, we can put someone credible at the top of our ticket.

[rdh007]

Looking back on this thread, at least as far as I can sanely do, I'm seeing some negative obama stuff which appears to be (but I could be wrong) from a pro hillary side. If so how does the problems obama has even closely equate with hillary's "I've been under sniper fire remarks"?

Did those actually bother any hillary supporters, or is that allowable? Because if they are then I can't see anyone with that argument having anything negative to say about obama if they try to stay in the realm of objectivity.

This thread has taken the tact it has because this is the internet, where being contrary is almost required to log in. "Such and such movie may have made $1 billion, but everyone could clearly see that the cgi was off in two scenes and it didn't follow the source material to the letter."

[moraldeficiency]

Several posters in here have a problem with those comments from Hillary.

Yeah but that's not really answering anything. What I'm asking is are hillary supporters upset by this or is this a forgivable lie? If it is, then with even a moderate level of objectivity, those same people can't really find fault with obama, who has nothing on that level or repetition.

What I'm asking I guess is was that repeated lie alright and acceptable enough that people would still consider hillary worthy of being the next president?

[rdh007]

I don't really think there are any Hillary posters on the forums. I used to be a Hillary supporter before the sniper remarks and insulting efforts to portray herself as a "hometown girl" from Pennsylvania.

I simply don't care anymore. Let McCain win, then in four years, we can put someone credible at the top of our ticket.
I'd be alright with McCain, if a) he hadn't made political man-love to the guy that "black baby"-ed him in South Carolina in 2000 and b) I didn't think he was a little nuts. By that, I mean I'd be alright with your statement; I can't see myself (for what it's worth) ever being truly "okay" with McCain.

[Marx]

Yeah but that's not really answering anything. What I'm asking is are hillary supporters upset by this or is this a forgivable lie? If it is, then with even a moderate level of objectivity, those same people can't really find fault with obama, who has nothing on that level or repetition.

What I'm asking I guess is was that repeated lie alright and acceptable enough that people would still consider hillary worthy of being the next president?

See Jman's post. Alot of the Hillary supporters that I know do not approve of the repeated lie about "sniper fire."

[moraldeficiency]

This thread has taken the tact it has because this is the internet, where being contrary is almost required to log in. "Such and such movie may have made $1 billion, but everyone could clearly see that the cgi was off in two scenes and it didn't follow the source material to the letter."

Ha, I like that. And I'd have to agree a lot of people only seem to want to disagree just to disagree. Kinda sucks though, I generally hold comic fans to a higher standard of reasoning and objectivity. My illusions are shattered, now I will take my anger out on my liver and drink heavily until this all seems very funny.

[moraldeficiency]

See Jman's post. Alot of the Hillary supporters that I know do not approve of the repeated lie about "sniper fire."

but they still support hillary?

Jman - you assume that in four years there will be a decent politican to elect? I need to buy mushrooms from you.

[The Senator]

This thread has taken the tact it has because this is the internet, where being contrary is almost required to log in. "Such and such movie may have made $1 billion, but everyone could clearly see that the cgi was off in two scenes and it didn't follow the source material to the letter."

I've always been on the fence about Obama. I think this board has given me a lot of insight into the type of questions "normal" folks are asking about him. These arguments aren't just confined to these boards, though, and I think that needs to be addressed. I've heard these arguments from total strangers on a daily basis, people who are concerned that he lacks the moral authority to lead this country, as well as the experience. I am truly concerned that a win for Obama is a loss for the Democratic Party.

Politics is my work and my life. I don't disagree with everything this man stands for, and I will most likely bite my tongue and vote for him if he's the Democratic nominee in the fall. But I really don't care if he wins or loses. If he wins, I'll live with it. If he loses, I'll live with it. But I'd rather see him lose, so the Republicans can **** themselves over indefinitely.

That's just me.

[rdh007]

Ha, I like that. And I'd have to agree a lot of people only seem to want to disagree just to disagree. Kinda sucks though, I generally hold comic fans to a higher standard of reasoning and objectivity. My illusions are shattered, now I will take my anger out on my liver and drink heavily until this all seems very funny.
Good for you, bad for your liver. Or as I like to call it, the only organ I truly need.

[moraldeficiency]

Good for you, bad for your liver. Or as I like to call it, the only organ I truly need.

way I figure between cloning processes and motocycle riders I should have a new one ready when I need it.

[The Senator]

but they still support hillary?

Jman - you assume that in four years there will be a decent politican to elect? I need to buy mushrooms from you.

Mark Warner
Evan Bayh
Kathleen Sebelius
Sherrod Brown
Jim Webb
Bob Casey, Jr.
Ed Rendell
Janet Napolitano
Bill Richardson
Bill Ritter
Chet Culver
Mike Easley
Phil Bredesen
Brian Schweitzer
Brad Henry

If they all run for President in 2012, they will have more experience than Obama had. Not only that, but all of those potential candidates come from either red states or swing states, giving them a major electoral advantage in 2012.

Need I add more?

[Marx]

but they still support hillary?

Jman - you assume that in four years there will be a decent politican to elect? I need to buy mushrooms from you.

You can condemn a candidate for certain comments or stances and still support them. But there are alot of people who support Barack Obama who absolutely refuse to look at him objectively. No matter the comments, no matter the scandal. It's quite annoying.

[The Senator]

Yeah but that's not really answering anything. What I'm asking is are hillary supporters upset by this or is this a forgivable lie? If it is, then with even a moderate level of objectivity, those same people can't really find fault with obama, who has nothing on that level or repetition.

What I'm asking I guess is was that repeated lie alright and acceptable enough that people would still consider hillary worthy of being the next president?

In order for people to answer this question, don't there have to be Hillary supporters on the forum? :huh:

[moraldeficiency]

Mark Warner
Evan Bayh
Kathleen Sebelius
Sherrod Brown
Jim Webb
Bob Casey, Jr.
Ed Rendell
Janet Napolitano
Bill Richardson
Bill Ritter
Chet Culver
Mike Easley
Phil Bredesen
Brian Schweitzer
Brad Henry

If they all run for President in 2012, they will have more experience than Obama had. Not only that, but all of those potential candidates come from either red states or swing states, giving them a major electoral advantage in 2012.

Need I add more?

I'll confess I know very few of those people. I'll have to check out this warner guy since you seem to think he's the cat's meow.

Jim Webb's cool but most of those nightingale's song guys were stand up. (mccain was one)

Adding more couldn't hurt. If you give any useful information and even if only one person looks it up it's worth it in my eyes. (and I would look them up, so there's one right now)

Finally you completely got off the actual point: CAN I BUY MUSHROOMS FROM YOU? (god I miss mushrooms, freaky phish stops touring and it's like hippie drugs just dried up)

[Marx]

I'll confess I know very few of those people. I'll have to check out this warner guy since you seem to think he's the cat's meow.

Jim Webb's cool but most of those nightingale's song guys were stand up. (mccain was one)

Adding more couldn't hurt. If you give any useful information and even if only one person looks it up it's worth it in my eyes. (and I would look them up, so there's one right now)

Finally you completely got off the actual point: CAN I BUY MUSHROOMS FROM YOU? (god I miss mushrooms, freaky phish stops touring and it's like hippie drugs just dried up)

I'm not exactly sure your sense of humor is appropriate. Just a bit of friendly advice.

[moraldeficiency]

You can condemn a candidate for certain comments or stances and still support them. But there are alot of people who support Barack Obama who absolutely refuse to look at him objectively. No matter the comments, no matter the scandal. It's quite annoying.

I agree, and I'm not entirely sold on him. But I can't stand hillary supporters that don't acknowledge such a blantent and intentional lie or play it off but then tell me how obama isn't too trustworthy. I just can't see myself voting for hillary against mccain (an actual war hero).

The thing I like most about Obama is he's capable of admitting he makes mistakes. Hillary never does and it reminds me so much of bush it's frightening. At least Obama says I screwed up but here's where I'm at now. That's actually the main reason I lean towards him.

And yeah, Jman, there would have to be hillary supporters but there have to be some in here, right? I mean law of averages at the very least...

[Lightning Strykez!]

Sorry I'm late for Primary Day Watch here--I landed amidst sniper fire and you know how that goes. :cool:

Anyway, so what's the news? How close are they in Indiana?

[hippie_hunter]

Clinton's leading by a rather substantial margin so far. They projected North Carolina for Obama before a single vote was released.

[Lightning Strykez!]

They projected North Carolina for Obama before a single vote was released.

I saw that. Am I the only one that sees that as a direct slap in the face to Black voters? Is that to say that since 1/3 of N.C. is African American then that means he automatically has it in the bag because Obama's black?? I mean, why even bother counting them, eh? :mad:

Meanwhile they sure are taking their time counting Indiana's votes carefully for accuracy. Perhaps that's because the white people are involved and their votes carry more gravity in the general election, huh? :whatever:

Fricking disgusting. :down

[BlackLantern]

This thread has taken the tact it has because this is the internet, where being contrary is almost required to log in. "Such and such movie may have made $1 billion, but everyone could clearly see that the cgi was off in two scenes and it didn't follow the source material to the letter."

ahh....visiting the 'Transformers and Michael Bay raped my childhood' thread recently have we? It's like an train trip to Whineytown on the Crybaby Express

[Arkady Rossovich]

I saw that. Am I the only one that sees that as a direct slap in the face to Black voters? Is that to say that since 1/3 of N.C. is African American then that means he automatically has it in the bag because Obama's black?? I mean, why even bother counting them, eh? :mad:

Meanwhile they sure are taking their time counting Indiana's votes carefully for accuracy. Perhaps that's because the white people are involved and their votes carry more gravity in the general election, huh? :whatever:

Fricking disgusting. :down

It is,I think that Clinton is appealing to white women and voters simply because she is one of them. It's like saying "I may not have your best interests at heart. But vote for me,because I'm one of you." that's what I keep thinking with this.

I think in NC many can understand Obama.

[hippie_hunter]

It is,I think that Clinton is appealing to white women and voters simply because she is one of them. It's like saying "I may not have your best interests at heart. But vote for me,because I'm one of you." that's what I keep thinking with this.
With that logic, Obama is getting black voters because he is one of them. Have you considered that people support a particular candidate because they like them and they don't support one because they don't like that candidate.

I think in NC many can understand Obama.
Obama won North Carolina because of his base of elitist, African-American, and younger voters. In North Carolina they sorta outweigh Clinton's base of blue collar voters. That's what happened in Indiana, Clinton's base outweighed Obama's. It all relies on demographics now.

[rdh007]

Does it matter that Obama provides a little bit more of a contrast to McCain than Hillary?

I mean, if I were a completely independent voter (I'm not a declared member of anything other than the Finer Things Club); I'd wonder why I'd vote for Hillary over McCain.

Also, I think SNL now has to be considered as powerful as Jon Stewart in politics. Just because they said there was a bias didn't make it so.

[Venom'sDad]

Obama won North Carolina because of his base of elitist, African-American, and younger voters. In North Carolina they sorta outweigh Clinton's base of blue collar voters. That's what happened in Indiana, Clinton's base outweighed Obama's. It all relies on demographics now.

LOL... and you think the Clintons are not Elitists. You people see things in only Black & White, and fail to see the whole Color Spectrum. :whatever:

[Matt]

This is a REALLY bad night for Clinton. She is going to have to start pushing extra hard for Florida and Michigan. If she doesn't get those delegates (and in turn, up the ammount of delegates needed for the nomination), she is done.

[Matt]

I saw that. Am I the only one that sees that as a direct slap in the face to Black voters? Is that to say that since 1/3 of N.C. is African American then that means he automatically has it in the bag because Obama's black?? I mean, why even bother counting them, eh? :mad:

I think a good portion has to do with exit polling and the fact that the African American vote has normally gone for Obama by upwards of 90 %


Meanwhile they sure are taking their time counting Indiana's votes carefully for accuracy. Perhaps that's because the white people are involved and their votes carry more gravity in the general election, huh? :whatever:

Fricking disgusting. :down

Or because there is a county in Indiana that is a suburb of Chicago that has yet to be counted.

Bit paranoid, LS, ol' buddy.

[Matt]

LOL... and you think the Clintons are not Elitists. You people see things in only Black & White, and fail to see the whole Color Spectrum. :whatever:

Calm down VD, he wasn't calling Clinton or Obama elitist, he was saying Obama wins with elitist voters. He was talking about a demographic, not a candidate.

[Marx]

It is,I think that Clinton is appealing to white women and voters simply because she is one of them. It's like saying "I may not have your best interests at heart. But vote for me,because I'm one of you." that's what I keep thinking with this.

I think in NC many can understand Obama.

And by that logic, that would mean that Barack Obama is getting the African-American vote because "he is one of them." Give me a break. While a small percentage of the overall support may be that, the larger support comes from people who genuinely like and agree their respective candidates.

[Venom'sDad]

Calm down VD, he wasn't calling Clinton or Obama elitist, he was saying Obama wins with elitist voters. He was talking about a demographic, not a candidate.

Who's overly excited? :confused:

Anyway, that's exactly what he is implying.

I have never seen a politician who didn't have an Elitist persona or following. Get real.

[Matt]

Who's overly excited? :confused:

Anyway, that's exactly what he is implying.

I have never seen a politician who didn't have an Elitist persona or following. Get real.

No, he is not implying that Obama is elite and Clinton is not. If anything he is implying that Obama does not resonate with blue collar voters, which is a fact right now.

[Venom'sDad]

Well Matt... I don't know what other implication he could be referring to when he said, "his base of elitist"

:whatever:

[Matt]

He is referring to a base of voters Obama secures. I'm not sure how you can take it outside of a base of voters.

[BlackLantern]

I hate stupid people and wal-mart, but I don't think that makes me elitist...

[hippie_hunter]

Well Matt... I don't know what other implication he could be referring to when he said, "his base of elitist"

:whatever:

I'm refering to the demographic of elitist voters. Clinton may be one of them (afterall she and Bill made over $100 million in 5 years) but Obama has the elitist demographic in the bag.

[Matt]

Also, Venom's Dad...enough of the condescending attitude and eye rolls. Keep it up and you will be disciplined.

[Nivek]

Obama has shown Limbaugh endorsed "Operation Chaos" and Wright being force fed down the medias throat can not bring him down. If your talking about the guy not being put through the wringer to see if that will whittle away his base, well, this shows he can rise above any b.s. thrown at him. He's the guy.

Hillary needs to make amends and drop the attitude and step aside to save her party, or be like her buddy Lieberman and be an Independent and run. In which case, it will just show what many of us have said about her already, she does not hold country and party first before ego.

But we will see, personally, I see her and Bill having to be pushed out. I dont think the Democratic Party will put up with this much longer, but then again, this is the same Democratic party that has half the people thinking Hillary stands a chance with the Cemetery in her and Bill's closet, and the women in Bill's. But people are gullible, whether they be Democrats or Republican's...:whatever:

[rdh007]

I hate stupid people and wal-mart, but I don't think that makes me elitist...

As long as you drink boilermakers, you're "in touch" with the "common man". Drink a boilermaker, some draft beer, and spend some time with "The Poors", and...*voila!* You're a populist!

[Matt]

Obama has shown Limbaugh endorsed "Operation Chaos" and Wright being force fed down the medias throat can not bring him down. If your talking about the guy not being put through the wringer to see if that will whittle away his base, well, this shows he can rise above any b.s. thrown at him. He's the guy.

Hillary needs to make amends and drop the attitude and step aside to save her party, or be like her buddy Lieberman and be an Independent and run. In which case, it will just show what many of us have said about her already, she does not hold country and party first before ego.

But we will see, personally, I see her and Bill having to be pushed out. I dont think the Democratic Party will put up with this much longer, but then again, this is the same Democratic party that has half the people thinking Hillary stands a chance with the Cemetery in her and Bill's closet, and the women in Bill's. But people are gullible, whether they be Democrats or Republican's...:whatever:

You're so very wrong, my dear Nivek. At least in regards to him showing he can take the hit. He is cut pretty deep, he just hasn't started to bleed yet. The Wright scandal is going to have a much more lasting effect than anyone could imagine. Of course it did not hurt him in the primary, where most voters will vote Democrat no matter what and therefore really didn't care. However, it has shown that he is still unable to resonate with blue collar, working class, middle American voters. If he cannot win that demographic, or at least keep it competitive, he will lose the general election, and this entire primary season has made it very hard for him to take that demographic. Not only has he been unable to win it in a primary, due to this primary, people have had Wright, the bitter comments, etc shoved down their throats. If you believe for a second, that is not going to come back to bite him, when "Reagan Democrats," (who will ultimately decide the election) are on the fence between him (who they see as an elitist) and McCain (whom they see as a maverick senator and war hero) you are very very wrong.

[Nivek]

Concidering people are now pointing out and mentioning support from the wack-pack evangelicals like Graham, Robertson, and Falwel for most Republican nominees and presidents, I really dont think it will be wise for Republicans to bring up this Rev. Wright discussion in debate. Kind of opens themselves up for being torn down for all the stupid comments those hate mongers have word vomited on screen in the last couple years.

[moraldeficiency]

Concidering people are now pointing out and mentioning support from the wack-pack evangelicals like Graham, Robertson, and Falwel for most Republican nominees and presidents, I really dont think it will be wise for Republicans to bring up this Rev. Wright discussion in debate. Kind of opens themselves up for being torn down for all the stupid comments those hate mongers have word vomited on screen in the last couple years.

That's a pretty good point I hadn't thought of. There is some backlash to be had there if and when the right opens up the Wright "let me take the cause of african americans back 30 years" book tour.

[Matt]

The Republican Party won't. PACs will. Just as Kerry couldn't attack Bush's national guard record because the swift vets were "unaffiliated," the Obama camp will not be able to attack McCain's endorsements (who mind you, aren't his preacher and were never campaign staffers, unlike Wright) for what a PAC says. Besides, Obama has put himself in a bad position...he really can't attack McCain or he will run the risk of contradicting his entire message of being "different" and bringing "change."

But again, McCain won't do it, PACs will and that will hurt Obama. To assume the primary is over and therefore the Wright scandal is done is entirely naive. Not to mention, it is not only the Wright scandal that kept Obama from winning the blue collar vote. There are a lot more factors in play that have been brought to the forefront by this ugly primary. It is like a handicapped wrestling match. Hillary has Obama beaten and bloodied and now she has tagged in McCain to deliver the final blow.

Anyone who says with a straight face that Obama is "stronger" after this primary is either entirely naive or lying to themselves.

[rdh007]

Doesn't the mere fact that he survived it say something? That he beat back a candidate with the pre-eminent brand name in Democratic politics?

I agree that the Wright thing isn't over and that he may very well get swift-boated over it. Buuuuuuut, it's important to remind everyone that Wright isn't running for political office and is no longer part of Obama's campaign. It would help if the party coalesced and did this in a comprehensive manner, but we'll see what her majesty is made of in the next few weeks.

[Matt]

Not really. Obama has been a brand name in the Democratic Party since 2004. It is not like he is some under dog that came out of no where. If Dennis Kucinich won the nomination, you may have a point, but it doesn't really apply with Obama. The media and party built him up as their new demi-god for 4 years now. Hell, his name was being built up by pundits for a 2008 presidential run before he even served a day in the Senate. When it comes down to it, he got through the primary because no one in the party was really willing to tear into him (Clinton included). He will not get the same kind of leeway from McCain or Republican PACs. This is a senator with 3 years of experience under his belt, an incredibly liberal record, and basically no platform (at least not a practical one). The real fight is just beginning for Obama and if he got beat up so badly in primaries, to the point where he is no longer a viable candidate to blue collar, middle class voters (Who once again will decide the election), he is quickly going to become the new Mike Dukakis.

[kal-el2006]

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Former Sen. George McGovern, who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton, is urging her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race.

McGovern said Wednesday he has decided to endorse Barack Obama.

After watching the returns from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries Tuesday night, McGovern says it's virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination.

McGovern says he is calling former President Clinton to tell him of the decision and adds that he remains close friends with the Clintons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/07/mcgovern-former-clinton-b_n_100593.html

[Marx]

The Republican Party won't. PACs will. Just as Kerry couldn't attack Bush's national guard record because the swift vets were "unaffiliated," the Obama camp will not be able to attack McCain's endorsements (who mind you, aren't his preacher and were never campaign staffers, unlike Wright) for what a PAC says. Besides, Obama has put himself in a bad position...he really can't attack McCain or he will run the risk of contradicting his entire message of being "different" and bringing "change."

But again, McCain won't do it, PACs will and that will hurt Obama. To assume the primary is over and therefore the Wright scandal is done is entirely naive. Not to mention, it is not only the Wright scandal that kept Obama from winning the blue collar vote. There are a lot more factors in play that have been brought to the forefront by this ugly primary. It is like a handicapped wrestling match. Hillary has Obama beaten and bloodied and now she has tagged in McCain to deliver the final blow.

Anyone who says with a straight face that Obama is "stronger" after this primary is either entirely naive or lying to themselves.

And we all know how Democratic candidates not standing up for themselves have fair as of late. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Nivek]

For whom the bell tolls...

[Doomed_hero]

Not really. Obama has been a brand name in the Democratic Party since 2004. It is not like he is some under dog that came out of no where. If Dennis Kucinich won the nomination, you may have a point, but it doesn't really apply with Obama. The media and party built him up as their new demi-god for 4 years now. Hell, his name was being built up by pundits for a 2008 presidential run before he even served a day in the Senate. When it comes down to it, he got through the primary because no one in the party was really willing to tear into him (Clinton included). He will not get the same kind of leeway from McCain or Republican PACs. This is a senator with 3 years of experience under his belt, an incredibly liberal record, and basically no platform (at least not a practical one). The real fight is just beginning for Obama and if he got beat up so badly in primaries, to the point where he is no longer a viable candidate to blue collar, middle class voters (Who once again will decide the election), he is quickly going to become the new Mike Dukakis.

I would like to se the impossible happen. A debate on issues. Obama can't attack McCain,you are right, cause it would go against his motto. I am sure some strong statements will be made to defend himself and be called attacks, but we will see. But McCain also will have a hard time running against hope. Also he said he would run a clean bid as well and so far has been mostly correct. I belive the race will run as a clean one till someone falls behind. Then comes the mud from outside sources. My OWN PERSONAL VIEW is the Republicans will make the first move with there well polished attack machine. They can attack Obama, get the idea or fear out there and then McCain can condemn it. That way its out there in the voters mind, and McCain looks like he took the upper ground.

[Marx]

I would like to se the impossible happen. A debate on issues. Obama can't attack McCain,you are right, cause it would go against his motto. I am sure some strong statements will be made to defend himself and be called attacks, but we will see. But McCain also will have a hard time running against hope. Also he said he would run a clean bid as well and so far has been mostly correct. I belive the race will run as a clean one till someone falls behind. Then comes the mud from outside sources. My OWN PERSONAL VIEW is the Republicans will make the first move with there well polished attack machine. They can attack Obama, get the idea or fear out there and then McCain can condemn it. That way its out there in the voters mind, and McCain looks like he took the upper ground.

Both of their campaigns will take this contest into the gutter in the fall. While they may not personally be doing it, their surogates will. They can condemn it publicly all they want, but I would think people could see through it. It's kind of like motioning away with one hand while motioning in with the other at the same time.

[Venom'sDad]

Also, Venom's Dad...enough of the condescending attitude and eye rolls. Keep it up and you will be disciplined.

What? Get a life matt... :whatever:

...and thanks for closing a good thread that has it's own meaning.

[Marx]

What? Get a life matt... :whatever:

...and thank for closing a good thread that has it's own meaning.

You might want to be a little more respectful VD.

[Matt]

What? Get a life matt... :whatever:

...and thanks for closing a good thread that has it's own meaning.

It could've easily fit in the NC/Indy primary thread or the Clinton thread.

[rdh007]

Not really. Obama has been a brand name in the Democratic Party since 2004. It is not like he is some under dog that came out of no where. If Dennis Kucinich won the nomination, you may have a point, but it doesn't really apply with Obama. The media and party built him up as their new demi-god for 4 years now. Hell, his name was being built up by pundits for a 2008 presidential run before he even served a day in the Senate. When it comes down to it, he got through the primary because no one in the party was really willing to tear into him (Clinton included). He will not get the same kind of leeway from McCain or Republican PACs. This is a senator with 3 years of experience under his belt, an incredibly liberal record, and basically no platform (at least not a practical one). The real fight is just beginning for Obama and if he got beat up so badly in primaries, to the point where he is no longer a viable candidate to blue collar, middle class voters (Who once again will decide the election), he is quickly going to become the new Mike Dukakis.

This was her race to lose and she has just about lost it. While he wasn't an underdog, he certainly wasn't the favorite going into this. Some folks even counted Edwards, based on his VP nom I must assume, as being more of a favorite or at least an equal to Obama heading into this process.

So, one post I read says that no one really tore into him. Then, when we talk about the "dream ticket", it's gotten too ugly and personal for that to work. :confused:

The whole thing with blue collar voters comes down to what Bill Clinton said once, "When people think; we win." If people vote their self-interest, Obama will win. If they vote for Warren Buffet's self-interest, Obama loses.

[Matt]

This was her race to lose and she has just about lost it. While he wasn't an underdog, he certainly wasn't the favorite going into this. Some folks even counted Edwards, based on his VP nom I must assume, as being more of a favorite or at least an equal to Obama heading into this process.


Please, Edwards was written out by the media from day one. This was always a 2 way race.

pquote]
So, one post I read says that no one really tore into him. Then, when we talk about the "dream ticket", it's gotten too ugly and personal for that to work. :confused:[/quote]

Its gotten dirty, but not to the sense that it has really tried him. Hillary wouldn't touch any of the issues the Republicans will throw at him (things like Wright). However, Hillary wouldn't be good on the dream ticket as it has gotten personal on another level (imagine 6 months of Republican commercials playing the sound bite where Clinton says she thinks McCain would be a better president than Obama).


The whole thing with blue collar voters comes down to what Bill Clinton said once, "When people think; we win." If people vote their self-interest, Obama will win. If they vote for Warren Buffet's self-interest, Obama loses.

Key word is "if." All we know right now is that blue collar voters do not like Obama.

[comicgirl]

It could've easily fit in the NC/Indy primary thread or the Clinton thread.
Matt the thread ninja.................Haaa-ya!

[Memphis Slim]

Obama gets the nod. He asks Hillary to be V.P. Since they are so close in delgates and she did pull the large ones, she is talked into going along for the sake of the party! YAY!

They win in November. Somewhere in Obama's 2nd year.....he mysteriously dies of food poisoning.

Hillary is sworn in as President of the United States.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Uuhm72mBelAm1M:http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%2520Hillary%2520Clinton.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%2520Hillary%2520Clinton.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.freedomtalks.org/2007/09/21/democrats-continue-their-pandering-tour/&h=381&w=460&sz=20&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=Uuhm72mBelAm1M:&tbnh=106&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhillary%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T 4RNWN_enUS210US211%26sa%3DG)

[Marx]

Obama gets the nod. He asks Hillary to be V.P. Since they are so close in delgates and she did pull the large ones, she is talked into going along for the sake of the party! YAY!

They win in November. Somewhere in Obama's 2nd year.....he mysteriously dies of food poisoning.

Hillary is sworn in as President of the United States.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Uuhm72mBelAm1M:http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%2520Hillary%2520Clinton.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%2520Hillary%2520Clinton.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.freedomtalks.org/2007/09/21/democrats-continue-their-pandering-tour/&h=381&w=460&sz=20&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=Uuhm72mBelAm1M:&tbnh=106&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhillary%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T 4RNWN_enUS210US211%26sa%3DG)

Wow...conspiracy theories are already abound! (And he hasn't even been elected President yet!)

[The Senator]

What? Get a life matt... :whatever:

...and thanks for closing a good thread that has it's own meaning.

Funny, all I got out of it was rant rant rant, Hillary's a *****, insult here, insult there, rant rant rant...

[Marx]

Funny, all I got out of it was rant rant rant, Hillary's a *****, insult here, insult there, rant rant rant...

That's about all I took from it too Jman. :hehe:

[Arkady Rossovich]

Obama has it in the bag,he's all but the nomination now.

[The Senator]

Obama has it in the bag,he's all but the nomination now.

:slaps head:

[Marx]

:slaps head:

I think we need a broader range of smileys. What do you think Jman? :cwink:

[Matt]

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each took a state Tuesday. But the result was a damaging loss for the woman who was once the overwhelming front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Here are some observations on the race:

- Mr. Obama is now the prohibitive favorite. Tuesday night, he took at least 94 delegates to Mrs. Clinton's 75 and leads the former First Lady by 176 delegates in the AP tabulation. He has 1,840 of the 2,025 delegates needed to win. Mr. Obama needs only 185 – or 38% – of the 486 outstanding delegates (217 to be elected in the six remaining contests, and 269 superdelegates yet to endorse a candidate). Mrs. Clinton needs 341, or 70% of those left to be awarded.


Mr. Obama understands this. On Tuesday night, he added a big dollop of general election themes and pre-emptive defenses against coming attacks to his stump speech.

- Mrs. Clinton may battle until June and possibly until the convention in August. There's nothing Mr. Obama can or should do about it. After a long, bitter struggle, losing candidates often look for reasons to feel aggrieved. There is no reason to give her one. No pressure from Mr. Obama or party Chairman Howard Dean is better than pushing her out of the race.

- The Democrats' refusal to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations at their convention is an unresolved problem. If they insist on not seating these delegations, Democrats risk alienating voters in states with 44 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. And here Mr. Obama is at greater risk than Mrs. Clinton, especially in Florida. He trails John McCain badly in Sunshine State polls today, while Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. McCain there.

- The length of the Democratic contest has been – in some ways – a plus for the party. The AP estimates that more than 3.5 million new voters registered during the competitive primary season. And the hundreds of millions of dollars spent energizing Democratic turnout will leave organization and energy in place for November. Mr. Obama is a better candidate for having been battle tested. And Mr. McCain has to fight hard for attention. He's mentioned in less than 20% of the coverage in recent months, while Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are talked about in 60% to 70% of the coverage.

- The length of the Democratic contest has been – in some ways – a minus. It has revealed weaknesses in Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton came across as calculating, contrived, stiff and self-concerned. Mr. Obama is increasingly seen not as the Second Coming, but as a typical liberal Chicago pol with a thin record, little experience, an array of troubling relationships and, to top it off, elitist sensibilities. Nominating him will now test the thesis that only a Democrat running as a moderate can win the White House.

The primary has created a deep fissure in Democratic ranks: blue collar, less affluent, less educated voters versus the white wine crowd of academics and upscale professionals (along with blacks and young people). Mr. Obama runs behind Mrs. Clinton's numbers when matched against Mr. McCain in key industrial battleground states. Less than half of Mrs. Clinton's backers in Indiana and North Carolina say they would support Mr. Obama if he were the nominee. In the most recent Fox News poll, two-and-a-half times as many Democrats break for Mr. McCain (15%) as Republicans defect to Mrs. Clinton (6%) and nearly twice as many Democrats support Mr. McCain (22%) as Republicans back Mr. Obama (13%). These "McCainocrat" defections could hurt badly.

State and local Democrats are realizing the toxicity of their probable national ticket. Democrats running in special congressional races recently in Louisiana and Mississippi positioned themselves as pro-life, pro-gun social conservatives and disavowed Mr. Obama. The Louisiana Democrat won his race on Saturday and said he "has not endorsed any national politician." The Mississippi Democrat is facing a runoff on May 13 and specifically denied that Mr. Obama had endorsed his campaign. Not exactly profiles in unity.

- As much as Mr. Obama's cheerleaders in the media hate it, Rev. Jeremiah Wright remains a large general-election challenge for Mr. Obama. Not only did Mr. Obama admit on "Fox News Sunday" that Mr. Wright was a legitimate issue, voters agree. Mr. Obama's favorable ratings have dropped since Mr. Wright emerged as an issue. More than half of Mrs. Clinton's supporters say it is a meaningful reflection on Mr. Obama's character and judgment.

- This will be a very difficult year for Republicans. The economy's shaky state, an unpopular war, and the natural desire for partisan change after eight years of one party in the White House have helped tilt the balance to the Democrats.

Mr. Obama is significantly weaker today than he was three months ago, but Democrats have the upper hand in November. They're beatable. But it's nonsense to think this year is going to be a replay of George H.W. Bush versus Michael Dukakis or Richard Nixon versus George McGovern.

- Mr. McCain is very competitive. He is the best candidate Republicans could have picked in this environment. With the GOP brand low, his appeal to moderates and independents becomes even more crucial.

My analysis of individual state polls shows that today Mr. McCain would win 241 Electoral College votes to Mr. Obama's 217, with 80 votes in toss-up states where neither candidate has more than a 3% lead. Ironically, Mrs. Clinton now leads Mr. McCain with 251 electoral votes to his 203 with 84 in toss-up states. This is the first time she's led Mr. McCain since I began tracking state-by-state results in early March.

Mr. McCain is realistic enough to know he will fall behind Mr. Obama once the Democratic nomination is settled. He's steeled himself and his team for that moment. And he's comforted by a belief that there will be plenty of time to recapture the lead. Mr. McCain saw Gerald Ford come from 30 points down to lose narrowly to Jimmy Carter in 1976, and watched George H.W. Bush overcome a 17-point deficit in the summer to hammer Michael Dukakis in the fall of 1988.

- The battlegrounds will look familiar. It will be the industrial heartland from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, minus Indiana (Republican) and Illinois (Democrat); the western edge of the Midwest from Minnesota south to Missouri; Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada in the Rocky Mountains; Florida; and New Hampshire.

Mr. Obama will argue he puts Virginia and North Carolina into play (doubtful), and may make an attempt at winning one or two of Nebraska's electoral votes (it awards its electoral votes by congressional district). Mr. McCain will say he can put New Jersey and Delaware and part of Maine (it splits its vote like Nebraska) in play. But it's doubtful he'll win in Oregon or Washington State, although he believes he can.

- Almost everything we think we know right now will be revised and even overturned during the next six months. This has been a race in which conventional wisdom has often been proven wrong. The improbable or thought-to-be impossible has happened with regularity. It has created a boom market for punditry and opinion offering, and one of the grandest possible spectacles for political junkies in decades. Hold on to your hat. It's going to be one heck of a ride through Nov. 4.

Y'know, he may be a total jackass, but he knows his ****.

[Matt]

Also, according to George Stephanopolous, a close Clinton friend, Hillary is staying in the race to obtain the VP spot.

[rdh007]

George Stephanopolous, a close Clinton friend,

This is why his debate moderation could never be taken seriously. Though taking him seriously with those boyish good looks is difficult anyway. Though I really enjoyed Michael J Fox's take on him in The American President.

[Matt]

This is why his debate moderation could never be taken seriously. Though taking him seriously with those boyish good looks is difficult anyway. Though I really enjoyed Michael J Fox's take on him in The American President.

I agree, it was conceptually flawed, but I do applaud him for having the balls to ask Obama the questions he did. Basically no other pundit would have the cojones to ask him about Wright or Ayers and they ARE questions that need to be addressed (despite Obama's thinking that he is above answering such questions that will, y'know...play a crucial role in the general election). No matter what his motives were (and they obviously were to help Hilldog)...it was still ballsy to ask him questions the rest of the media was afraid to ask.

On a side note, I too enjoyed Michael J. Fox's take on him, though I perfer Rob Lowe's....and am kind of suprised he has never run for office. Not Rob Lowe, Stephanopolus. He has the connections, he has the recognition, he has as you mentioned "Boyish good looks" and charisma. I guess when it comes down to it, the name Stephanopolus isn't really electable though.

[kane9321]

Obama gets the nod. He asks Hillary to be V.P. Since they are so close in delgates and she did pull the large ones, she is talked into going along for the sake of the party! YAY!

They win in November. Somewhere in Obama's 2nd year.....he mysteriously dies of food poisoning.

Hillary is sworn in as President of the United States.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Uuhm72mBelAm1M:http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%2520Hillary%2520Clinton.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%2520Hillary%2520Clinton.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.freedomtalks.org/2007/09/21/democrats-continue-their-pandering-tour/&h=381&w=460&sz=20&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=Uuhm72mBelAm1M:&tbnh=106&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhillary%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T 4RNWN_enUS210US211%26sa%3DG)


YA never know:wow:

It should go down like this.. Obama wins the nomination then asks hillary to join him as a running mate...everybody is happy, everybody wins..yeah democrats:)

[Matt]

The only ones who win in that scenario are the Republicans.

[moraldeficiency]

The only ones who win in that scenario are the Republicans.

I'm actually hard pressed to think of a less helpful viable running mate for him. That senario has to be limbaugh's wet dream.

[Matt]

I'm actually hard pressed to think of a less helpful viable running mate for him. That senario has to be limbaugh's wet dream.

Yeah, especially since he will be playing every day for 6 months the sound bite of Hillary saying McCain would make a better president than her running mate.

I'd say Ed Rendell is the best possible choice for Obama.

[moraldeficiency]

Yeah, especially since he will be playing every day for 6 months the sound bite of Hillary saying McCain would make a better president than her running mate.

I'd say Ed Rendell is the best possible choice for Obama.

That would work for me, he'd play well against obama's weaknesses.

[KSD]

Karl Rove is still working for the Wall Street Journal, but I heard yesterday that he has been part of the McCain campaign for almost 9 months as an adviser. Isn't this a major problem???

[KSD]

Oh, and Obama will not ask Hillary to be his running mate. No way. He needs Richardson or someone with real foreign policy experience.

[hippie_hunter]

Y'know, he may be a total jackass, but he knows his ****.

I know. I'm actually surprised that he is actually making a good accessment instead of making it sound like Republican fanwank.

[The Senator]

Clinton: I Win "White Americans"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-support-from-white-americans/

Someone's getting a bit desperate...

[rdh007]

"There's a pattern emerging here."
Yeah, Hill, the pattern emerging is that simple minded people are voting for your last name. Since you can't win and can only help divide the party more, please step aside because it's going to take longer than August-November to get this right. When you lost eleven states in a row, that pattern seemed to elude you.

[kal-el2006]

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img186/291/obamanv9.png



http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...738026,00.html

[Excel]

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img186/291/obamanv9.png



http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...738026,00.html

broked link

[Matt]

http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/img186/291/obamanv9.png



http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...738026,00.html

That is literally the worst picture of a Presidential candidate, ever. It should be on the front of Tiger Beat, not Time.

[souvlaki]

Wow...conspiracy theories are already abound! (And he hasn't even been elected President yet!)

Keep in mind who you are quoting here.

[souvlaki]

Clinton: I Win "White Americans"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-support-from-white-americans/

Someone's getting a bit desperate...

Yeah, I saw that. Personally I find that more than a little offensive. She could've chosen her words a little bit better.

[Erzengel]

Ha, if Clinton becomes his running mate, guess I'll vote for McCain.

[Matt]

Yeah, I saw that. Personally I find that more than a little offensive. She could've chosen her words a little bit better.

Why is it offensive exactly? Any more offense than say, Obama claiming he wins 90 % of black voters? It is a valid point being as blue collar and senior citizen white voters do vote in higher numbers than any other demographic. It is not offensive, it is simply, as Excel would say "the numbers." If a comment of that nature truly does offend, we really need to re-think our entire society to get out of this ridiculously over-ly PC mind set.

[The Senator]

I'm hoping Obama picks either Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Ed Rendell, Janet Napolitano or Jim Webb as his running mate. But Clark and Rendell are the only ones who I think might actually be in consideration at this point.

[The Senator]

Why is it offensive exactly? Any more offense than say, Obama claiming he wins 90 % of black voters? It is a valid point being as blue collar and senior citizen white voters do vote in higher numbers than any other demographic. It is not offensive, it is simply, as Excel would say "the numbers." If a comment of that nature truly does offend, we really need to re-think our entire society to get out of this ridiculously over-ly PC mind set.

While I agree with most of what you're saying, I also agree it is a bit offensive and definitely desperate at this point. She's saying that she wins white voters in one of the whitest states in the country, which she hopes to win and play off as a "victory" next week. It seems like she's pandering to those voters and that she's throwing anything she can against the wall in an effort to scare voters in West Virginia from voting for Obama. And while she may win white voters, she should get it through her thick skull that white voters aren't the only people who vote in the election. The Democrats cannot win without the black vote. In 2004, the black vote represented 9% of Kerry's voting bloc, and the case can be made that it was the black vote which pushed him over the edge in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Comments like these aren't appreciated by African Americans and other minorities, so if she keeps this rhetoric up and somehow magically wins the nomination, she's going to lose a significant chunk of the black vote in November, and that could cause her to lose the election.

She's already down 10+ points in Michigan, so I don't know if these comments will be appreciated by African Americans and other minorities in Detroit and its suburbs... and that would be a bit ironic if she fights to have Michigan seated at the convention, becomes the nominee, and loses that state in the fall...

[Matt]

I'm hoping Obama picks either Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Ed Rendell, Janet Napolitano or Jim Webb as his running mate. But Clark and Rendell are the only ones who I think might actually be in consideration at this point.



I'm not sure how much of an assett Clark is to Obama at this point. Obama's military stance seems to be "I'm ending the war, plain and simple, regardless of what the generals say," (though I doubt he'll actually go through with it). Having a general on his staff really doesn't matter that much as with a stance like that, all the military experience in the world won't gain him "military credibility."

On the other hand, he does need to win some of the blue collar, working class, white vote...in which case, Rendell is perfect. Unless of course he actually follows that nut job Donna Brazile's new outtake on the Democratic Party of "Blue collar voters being expendable," in which case he may as well not even bother picking a running mate as we can just prepare for years and years of Republican control over every branch.

The blue collar vote is expendable...what a ****ing joke. That kind of mindset is the reason the Democrats have lost all but 2 of the last 7 elections.

[Matt]

While I agree with most of what you're saying, I also agree it is a bit offensive and definitely desperate at this point. She's saying that she wins white voters in one of the whitest states in the country, which she hopes to win and play off as a "victory" next week. It seems like she's pandering to those voters and that she's throwing anything she can against the wall in an effort to scare voters in West Virginia from voting for Obama. And while she may win white voters, she should get it through her thick skull that white voters aren't the only people who vote in the election. The Democrats cannot win without the black vote. In 2004, the black vote represented 9% of Kerry's voting bloc, and the case can be made that it was the black vote which pushed him over the edge in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Comments like these aren't appreciated by African Americans and other minorities, so if she keeps this rhetoric up and somehow magically wins the nomination, she's going to lose a significant chunk of the black vote in November, and that could cause her to lose the election.

She's already down 10+ points in Michigan, so I don't know if these comments will be appreciated by African Americans and other minorities in Detroit and its suburbs... and that would be a bit ironic if she fights to have Michigan seated at the convention, becomes the nominee, and loses that state in the fall...

As harsh and blunt as it sounds, black voters will vote Democrat. Sure, some may stay home, but in the end, most black voters who intended to vote to begin with will vote Clinton or Obama. Why? Because their choices are a party that just doesn't give a **** about them and will screw them or a party that will simply take them for granted and help them a little bit (but not much). It sounds wrong, but it is honest and true. The white blue collar voters on the other hand can go either way and will ultimately decide this election. Clinton being able to win them is a valid point. Her husband is the only Democrat in 30 years to be able to win that demographic, and guess what, he is the only Democrat in 30 years to sit in the Oval Office. What Clinton said may have been a foolish thing to say, but it was the one honest thing she has said in this campaign.

[The Senator]

I'm not sure how much of an assett Clark is to Obama at this point. Obama's military stance seems to be "I'm ending the war, plain and simple, regardless of what the generals say," (though I doubt he'll actually go through with it). Having a general on his staff really doesn't matter that much as with a stance like that, all the military experience in the world won't gain him "military credibility."

On the other hand, he does need to win some of the blue collar, working class, white vote...in which case, Rendell is perfect. Unless of course he actually follows that nut job Donna Brazile's new outtake on the Democratic Party of "Blue collar voters being expendable," in which case he may as well not even bother picking a running mate as we can just prepare for years and years of Republican control over every branch.

The blue collar vote is expendable...what a ****ing joke. That kind of mindset is the reason the Democrats have lost all but 2 of the last 7 elections.

Rendell would be an excellent choice for VP, but is Rendell his best choice at this point? Obama currently has a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania, and I don't know if Rendell will play well in the South and the West. I think Gov. Brian Schweitzer would be the best choice for VP. He's a folksy, moderate populist from one of the most rough-neck states in the country. He would really appeal to every day, blue collar workers... I mean, he had to in order to become governor of Montana... the only problems with Schweitzer are that he's just completing his first term as governor and will also be running for re-election this year, and that he comes from a state only worth three electoral votes... so I don't really see him in the running this time around...

[Matt]

Rendell would be an excellent choice for VP, but is Rendell his best choice at this point? Obama currently has a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania, and I don't know if Rendell will play well in the South and the West. I think Gov. Brian Schweitzer would be the best choice for VP. He's a folksy, moderate populist from one of the most rough-neck states in the country. He would really appeal to every day, blue collar workers... I mean, he had to in order to become governor of Montana... the only problems with Schweitzer are that he's just completing his first term as governor and will also be running for re-election this year, and that he comes from a state only worth three electoral votes... so I don't really see him in the running this time around...

I'd argue Rendell could not only bring PA to Obama, but also Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and the other rust belt states. He may not bring the south, but I can't really think of a viable running mate who will.

[Chris B]

I'm thinking that if Obama goes with a Clinton supporter to be his running mate, than he'll go with Mike Easley. A moderate, Southern Governor who can appeal to blue-collar voters and doesn't contradict Obama's message of change.

[The Senator]

As harsh and blunt as it sounds, black voters will vote Democrat. Sure, some may stay home, but in the end, most black voters who intended to vote to begin with will vote Clinton or Obama. Why? Because their choices are a party that just doesn't give a **** about them and will screw them or a party that will simply take them for granted and help them a little bit (but not much). It sounds wrong, but it is honest and true. The white blue collar voters on the other hand can go either way and will ultimately decide this election. Clinton being able to win them is a valid point. Her husband is the only Democrat in 30 years to be able to win that demographic, and guess what, he is the only Democrat in 30 years to sit in the Oval Office. What Clinton said may have been a foolish thing to say, but it was the one honest thing she has said in this campaign.

I think you're going to see a major campaign overhaul once Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. He's going to start campaigning in North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio and Colorado. He's going to pander to blue collar workers. Hell, he might even pull a Clinton and start claiming that he was born in raised in those states. I think his campaign knows he's not doing well with blue collar voters, but they also know that he needs to focus on certain demographics instead to help him win the primary.

The general election is a whole different ball park, and know that he has the nomination in the bag, his advisers are going to formulate a strategy targeting all of his weaknesses this summer. While I think David Axelrod is a douche, I also think he's smart enough to know where Obama's weaknesses are and how to approach them.

Will it work? Beats me. But if the elitist, left-wing former first lady can convince voters that she's a gun-totin', whiskey drinkin', truck drivin' gal, then I'm sure Obama is capable of doing the same.

[Matt]

I'm thinking that if Obama goes with a Clinton supporter to be his running mate, than he'll go with Mike Easley. A moderate, Southern Governor who can appeal to blue-collar voters and doesn't contradict Obama's message of change.

Obama pretty much has to go with a Clinton supporter as all his supporters are horrible choices for VP. The thing about Easley is, and it is kind of a bad thing to bring up, but will almost definitely come up in the campaign, his father was a tobacco barron. He is not a common man, he was born with a silver spoon. Voters see through those type of people trying to come off as "common" (look at John Kerry and all his attempts to appeal to the common man such as playing foot ball, going hunting, climbing through the tube in the condom costume :cwink:, etc)

[The Senator]

I'd argue Rendell could not only bring PA to Obama, but also Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and the other rust belt states. He may not bring the south, but I can't really think of a viable running mate who will.

I previously said Easley was capable of bringing Obama the South (or at least North Carolina and South Carolina), but then he endorsed Hillary instead. Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen would be an interesting choice, but there's really no way he's going to win Tennessee.

It seriously depends on where Obama's strengths and weaknesses are. If Obama is close in the West but strong in Pennsylvania and Michigan, I'd make the case for Janet Napolitano, who could win him New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. All those western governors work together and have very good reputations in each of the bordering states. If he's doing weak in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, then I'd say he should pick someone like Rendell, Brown, Casey or Bayh.

I'm also thinking about geographical balance, but the last Democrat to win in the past thirty years selected a running mate from a bordering state, so it probably isn't that much of a big deal if they're from the same region (also Bush's running mate was technically from his home state, before he moved back to Wyoming).

[Matt]

I think you're going to see a major campaign overhaul once Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. He's going to start campaigning in North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio and Colorado. He's going to pander to blue collar workers. Hell, he might even pull a Clinton and start claiming that he was born in raised in those states. I think his campaign knows he's not doing well with blue collar voters, but they also know that he needs to focus on certain demographics instead to help him win the primary.

The general election is a whole different ball park, and know that he has the nomination in the bag, his advisers are going to formulate a strategy targeting all of his weaknesses this summer. While I think David Axelrod is a douche, I also think he's smart enough to know where Obama's weaknesses are and how to approach them.

Will it work? Beats me. But if the elitist, left-wing former first lady can convince voters that she's a gun-totin', whiskey drinkin', truck drivin' gal, then I'm sure Obama is capable of doing the same.

I don't know that he can.

Firstly, he has a major disadvantage working against him....skin color. A lot of these people will say they will vote for Obama when being asked by pollsters, but when they are behind the curtain and its just between them and God...well, I'm not going to call a demographic racist...but...it'll cross their mind. Also, if he goes at it too hard, suddenly all of these urban black voters will see him as nothing more than the white man's *****. It is a particularly delicate situation to be in.

Second, I dunno, Obama just seems to come off as though he considers himself above such pandering. Does that make sense? It has to do with that arrogance he has about him.

Third, voters do tend to see through that, in my opinion. Look at John Kerry's numerous attempts to court the "working man," vote and how horribly they all failed.

[Chris B]

Obama pretty much has to go with an Obama supporter as all his supporters are horrible choices for VP. The thing about Easley is, and it is kind of a bad thing to bring up, but will almost definitely come up in the campaign, his father was a tobacco barron. He is not a common man, he was born with a silver spoon.

Really? I didn't know that. After Easley, I not really sure which other Clintonite Obama could go with. Evan Bayh seems like VP material , but he has his own negatives that include IN probably not turning blue and the high risk of losing his seat. I think you have a point about Clark. What about Ted Strickland?

[The Senator]

I don't know that he can.

Firstly, he has a major disadvantage working against him....skin color. A lot of these people will say they will vote for Obama when being asked by pollsters, but when they are behind the curtain and its just between them and God...well, I'm not going to call a demographic racist...but...it'll cross their mind. Also, if he goes at it too hard, suddenly all of these urban black voters will see him as nothing more than the white man's *****. It is a particularly delicate situation to be in.

Second, I dunno, Obama just seems to come off as though he considers himself above such pandering. Does that make sense? It has to do with that arrogance he has about him.

Third, voters do tend to see through that, in my opinion. Look at John Kerry's numerous attempts to court the "working man," vote and how horribly they all failed.

Yeah, but voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio bought Clinton's masquerade as an average ho-hum housewife with a GED and a drinking problem. Moreover, if Obama plays it smart, all he really has to do is don a flannel shirt and a bolo tie and spend a few weekends in North Carolina, Indiana and South Carolina. Those are a huge states, and he's ahead in Indiana, tied in North Carolina, and only three points behind McCain in South Carolina. I think the fact that he's campaigning in those states will do two things: 1) It will convince voters that he may actually care about their vote, and 2) it will keep black voters on his side in those vital states. If he gets a huge black turnout in North Carolina and South Carolina, on top of a moderate working class turnout (and from what I've read, working class voters favored Obama over Clinton in both states) that could get him 23 electoral votes right there. Indiana's eleven would bring him up to 34. So it's worth a shot, at least.

John Kerry also went about the "working man" vote like a total retard. He went hunting and had no idea what he was doing... all Obama has to do is stand near a tractor and take a few photographs to convince some of these folks that he's on his side.

But who knows, **** ups seem to be the only thing Democrats are good at... we'll see in good time...

[The Senator]

Really? I didn't know that. After Easley, I not really sure which other Clintonite Obama could go with. Evan Bayh seems like VP material , but he has his own negatives that include IN probably not turning blue and the high risk of losing his seat. I think you have a point about Clark. What about Ted Strickland?

Strickland is old, and he's only been in office for fifteen months.

[Raiden]

I'm hoping Obama picks either Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Ed Rendell, Janet Napolitano or Jim Webb as his running mate. But Clark and Rendell are the only ones who I think might actually be in consideration at this point.

I like your VP choices.

[Excel]

Theres nothing wrong with Hillary saying she wins white americans, unless she means it like thats better than obama winning blacks.

[hippie_hunter]

Theres nothing wrong with Hillary saying she wins white americans, unless she means it like thats better than obama winning blacks.

LMAO :woot:

[Excel]

thats kind of how it comes off...

"Hes winning blacks, but I am winning whites, therefore you should vote for me"


:hehe:

[Matt]

Theres nothing wrong with Hillary saying she wins white americans, unless she means it like thats better than obama winning blacks.

Well, to an extent it is better than winning black voters. Blue collared white voters vote in bigger numbers, they are more consistent in voting historically, and are basically the swing demographic that will decide this election.

[DACrowe]

Hillary Clinton will not become the running mate. She would not take the VP slot and after all the bad press this has generated the "dream team" would look very artificial and desperate.

I voted for Senator Obama on Tuesday and believe he will be an excellent president (for more reasons than "hope" and "change"). I have grown tired of seeing him pegged as elitist while running on a populist message and as naive and foolish when if you've read his books, listened to his stances, read his biography, etc. he obviously is not. Inexperience does not equate to obliviousness.

With that said I believe this is winding down and the party is now going to start rallying around Obama and Clinton will not make it past early June (hopefully she'll leave sooner). AS for the general election I watched the propoganda that is known as Fox News for a little bit on Tuesday night and am well aware that the right is going to run on a campaign centered around Rev. Wright (whether sponsored by McCain or not). That may cost the rust belt, but I think Obama has the potential to open up areas in November to Democrats that they haven't seen since LBJ signed Civil Rights legislation. I personally think Tuesday is a good example as to why Obama shall win. Baring a campaign explosion on the Democratic side, which I will not rule out, I have a feeling Obama standing next to McCain will look like JFK next to Richard Nixon, except the GOP is in a very negative light this time.

Just my two cents.

[BlackLantern]

Well, to an extent it is better than winning black voters. Blue collared white voters vote in bigger numbers, they are more consistent in voting historically, and are basically the swing demographic that will decide this election.

Yea...what he said....Black voters and young voters (under 28) are historically the most inconsistent of voters...

[Matt]

I just heard a very interesting perspective on Fox News, she is staying in order to force Obama to pay her debts in exchange for dropping out. Apparently it is not the first time it has happened. Wouldn't suprise me, she has taken a **** load of personal loans to remain in the race and Obama's campaign can certainly afford it.

[jaguarr]

I just heard a very interesting perspective on Fox News, she is staying in order to force Obama to pay her debts in exchange for dropping out. Apparently it is not the first time it has happened. Wouldn't suprise me, she has taken a **** load of personal loans to remain in the race and Obama's campaign can certainly afford it.

That's what I suspect is the case at this point as well and, if it's really true in the end, perfectly highlights what a poor choice she was for the office in the first place.

jag

[BlackLantern]

I think if Hilary loses or exits the race, every bank she took a loan out from demand payment within 7 business days

[Matt]

That's what I suspect is the case at this point as well and, if it's really true in the end, perfectly highlights what a poor choice she was for the office in the first place.

jag

Another analyst expects her to pull an LBJ '68 and do the shock withdrawl. Win Kentucky by a huge, 15 point margin or more, then quit at the very end of her speech. Kind of to go out with an air of defiance and triumph about her. That might not be a bad way to go if she wants to salvage a 2012 run. Quit with a sense of defiance and in a way that is almost critical of Obama (but not overtly), then keep quiet. Don't publicly support Obama but do not publicly criticize him either. Let your silence keep the party as divided as possible. Then, when he loses, she can automatically play the "I told you so," card.

[The Senator]

I just heard a very interesting perspective on Fox News, she is staying in order to force Obama to pay her debts in exchange for dropping out. Apparently it is not the first time it has happened. Wouldn't suprise me, she has taken a **** load of personal loans to remain in the race and Obama's campaign can certainly afford it.

If I was Obama, I'd tell her to stay in if that was the case :down:

Let her drown in all her personal debts. Maybe she'll learn a thing or two about math in the process.

[jaguarr]

Another analyst expects her to pull an LBJ '68 and do the shock withdrawl. Win Kentucky by a huge, 15 point margin or more, then quit at the very end of her speech. Kind of to go out with an air of defiance and triumph about her.

To quote Motley Crue, "Don't go away mad, just go away." :D

jag

[jaguarr]

If I was Obama, I'd tell her to stay in if that was the case :down:

Let her drown in all her personal debts. Maybe she'll learn a thing or two about math in the process.

That's probably exactly what he's doing to her, too.

jag

[Matt]

If I was Obama, I'd tell her to stay in if that was the case :down:

Let her drown in all her personal debts. Maybe she'll learn a thing or two about math in the process.

Well, as the analyst said, every second she is in the race, is one second more that she is an annoyance to Barack Obama, one second more she is a thorn in his side, one second more the Democratic Party is divided and one second more that he cannot focus on McCain. Buying her out may be easier.

[Matt]

To quote Motley Crue, "Don't go away mad, just go away." :D

jag

Winning Kentucky and quitting in a manner that is critical of Obama may be the best way to position herself for 2012.

[Marx]

Well, as the analyst said, every second she is in the race, is one second more that she is an annoyance to Barack Obama, one second more she is a thorn in his side, one second more the Democratic Party is divided and one second more that he cannot focus on McCain. Buying her out may be easier.

Hillary Clinton isn't the only divisive politician in this Democratic race. I highly doubt the party will magicly come back together and all sing songs around a campfire when she decides to exit this race. She still holds a very stubborn 50/50 bloc of support within the party. :cwink:

[The Senator]

Hillary Clinton isn't the only divisive politician in this Democratic race. I highly doubt the party will magicly come back together and all sing songs around a campfire when she decides to exit this race. She still holds a very stubborn 50/50 bloc of support within the party. :cwink:

Most Democrats will come back... tempers are currently flared, everyone wants their candidate to win... but I doubt fifty-percent of the Democratic Party will vote for McCain in November...

[Marx]

Most Democrats will come back... tempers are currently flared, everyone wants their candidate to win... but I doubt fifty-percent of the Democratic Party will vote for McCain in November...

Matt was just giving off the impression that once she dropped out everyone would be singing koombaya or something. Which won't be the case :cwink:

I don't believe that half of the party will vote McCain either. But not everyone is going to hop aboard the Obama train just because Clinton drops out.

[Mr Sparkle]

so...um, Obama "pay dearly" for his lapse in judgment yet?

[Matt]

Matt was just giving off the impression that once she dropped out everyone would be singing koombaya or something. Which won't be the case :cwink:

I don't believe that half of the party will vote McCain either. But not everyone is going to hop aboard the Obama train just because Clinton drops out.

Oh, I definitely agree that is noit the case and I think it is an assumption many are foolishly making. I don't think blue collared voters will jump on the Obama train unless he picks a hell of a running mate.

[Matt]

so...um, Obama "pay dearly" for his lapse in judgment yet?

Actually, yes. Look at the exit polls to see how much Wright is effecting voters. Now imagine when that is being played by PACs on a daily basis for 2 months leading up to the GE.

[Mr Sparkle]

Actually, yes. Look at the exit polls to see how much Wright is effecting voters. Now imagine when that is being played by PACs on a daily basis for 2 months leading up to the GE.

:huh: wow, then if not for that, he would've been anointed king.
I mean, he ran against the wife of the best president you guys had in the last 30 years.
and still sort of won.
I mean, short of running puppies with a vp nom of "cute babies" I wouldn't have seen that coming in a million years.
I never thought he would get through the primaries.

color me surprised.

[Memphis Slim]

Hillary Clinton will not become the running mate. She would not take the VP slot and after all the bad press this has generated the "dream team" would look very artificial and desperate.

I voted for Senator Obama on Tuesday and believe he will be an excellent president (for more reasons than "hope" and "change"). I have grown tired of seeing him pegged as elitist while running on a populist message and as naive and foolish when if you've read his books, listened to his stances, read his biography, etc. he obviously is not. Inexperience does not equate to obliviousness.

With that said I believe this is winding down and the party is now going to start rallying around Obama and Clinton will not make it past early June (hopefully she'll leave sooner). AS for the general election I watched the propoganda that is known as Fox News for a little bit on Tuesday night and am well aware that the right is going to run on a campaign centered around Rev. Wright (whether sponsored by McCain or not). That may cost the rust belt, but I think Obama has the potential to open up areas in November to Democrats that they haven't seen since LBJ signed Civil Rights legislation. I personally think Tuesday is a good example as to why Obama shall win. Baring a campaign explosion on the Democratic side, which I will not rule out, I have a feeling Obama standing next to McCain will look like JFK next to Richard Nixon, except the GOP is in a very negative light this time.

Just my two cents.


What reasons has he given besides hope and change?

[Marx]

What reasons has he given besides hope and change?

What??? You mean that isn't enough Slim? :hehe:

[Mr Sparkle]

uh...what reasons do ANY politicians give?
seriously? none.

republican, democrat or independent, the guys that run NEVER outline any real plans.
the guys that outline plans are completely ignored by the MEDIA thus the people.

you guys have been around for previous elections right?

[Matt]

uh...what reasons do ANY politicians give?
seriously? none.

republican, democrat or independent, the guys that run NEVER outline any real plans.
the guys that outline plans are completely ignored by the MEDIA thus the people.

you guys have been around for previous elections right?

Edwards and Richardson both had pretty detailed platforms. Hell, G.Dub had a pretty detailed platform, granted, he completely strayed for it, but at least it was there. You can try and say it is common for presidential candidates to run without a detailed platform all you want, but the fact is, its not.

[BlackLantern]

jmanspice and I are running on a 'Mixers For Change' platform. The plan is as follows...we have mixers and then there is Change....our campaign slogan is "....and now WE MAKE PARTY!!!"

[Memphis Slim]

What??? You mean that isn't enough Slim? :hehe:

Nope. Surprising isn't it?

This guy has a learners permit and might soon get the keys to the Porche? That's a problem.

and what's his plan? We still haven't heard one.

[Marx]

uh...what reasons do ANY politicians give?
seriously? none.

republican, democrat or independent, the guys that run NEVER outline any real plans.
the guys that outline plans are completely ignored by the MEDIA thus the people.

you guys have been around for previous elections right?

I'm fairly sure that the majority of us know what goes on inside our own country.

[Marx]

Nope. Surprising isn't it?

This guy has a learners permit and might soon get the keys to the Porche? That's a problem.

and what's his plan? We still haven't heard one.

I completely agree Slim.

[The Senator]

Nope. Surprising isn't it?

This guy has a learners permit and might soon get the keys to the Porche? That's a problem.

and what's his plan? We still haven't heard one.

I had a learner's permit and I was allowed to drive an H2........

[Marx]

I had a learner's permit and I was allowed to drive an H2........

Well then the rest of us common folk aren't so lucky! :cwink:

[Memphis Slim]

I had a learner's permit and I was allowed to drive an H2........


doesn't mean you "should" have.

[Memphis Slim]

uh...what reasons do ANY politicians give?
seriously? none.

republican, democrat or independent, the guys that run NEVER outline any real plans.
the guys that outline plans are completely ignored by the MEDIA thus the people.

you guys have been around for previous elections right?


Were you? :woot:

[The Senator]

doesn't mean you "should" have.

Well I didn't crash it. In fact, I never had an accident in the six months I had my learner's permit. So I guess Obama will be fine as long as he reduces his speed and uses extra caution (i.e. talks slowly and drinks a few shots of whiskey).

Well then the rest of us common folk aren't so lucky! :cwink:

I had a wealthy uncle :csad:

If it helps, I spent the rest of my time driving a Chevy Cavalier.

[Marx]

Well I didn't crash it. In fact, I never had an accident in the six months I had my learner's permit. So I guess Obama will be fine as long as he reduces his speed and uses extra caution (i.e. talks slowly and drinks a few shots of whiskey).


So because you didn't have an accident, Obama will be fine. Now I've heard it all! :oldrazz:


I had a wealthy uncle :csad:

If it helps, I spent the rest of my time driving a Chevy Cavalier.

My very first car was a cavalier. That thing was one of the most reliable I've ever seen!

[Memphis Slim]

Well I didn't crash it. In fact, I never had an accident in the six months I had my learner's permit. So I guess Obama will be fine as long as he reduces his speed and uses extra caution (i.e. talks slowly and drinks a few shots of whiskey).

He won't have time to "go slow" and he's not ready to drive fast.

I had a wealthy uncle :csad:

If it helps, I spent the rest of my time driving a Chevy Cavalier.


:woot:

[souvlaki]

Don't think anyone has posted this yet...

On who John Edwards will endorse:

"I just voted for him on Tuesday."

I don't know if that was an intentional slip or not, but I guess there is the answer to that question.

[Matt]

Don't think anyone has posted this yet...

On who John Edwards will endorse:

"I just voted for him on Tuesday."

I don't know if that was an intentional slip or not, but I guess there is the answer to that question.

Tsk, if that is a real quote, he is just shamelessly pandering while trying to maintain the neutral "above it all" attitude.

[souvlaki]

Tsk, if that is a real quote, he is just shamelessly pandering while trying to maintain the neutral "above it all" attitude.

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=3b356d3c-c94c-4063-a5ec-79a206133113

I don't think it was an intentional slip, honestly. It sounds like he just didn't watch the way he worded what he said.

[Matt]

One could argue that he used the masculine as a general term (Which is acceptable in the English language), being as all of his actions imply supporting Clinton. Still, I think he likes keeping it up in the air. Says one thing, does another, keeps people confused, guarantees him Attorney General spot in either candidate's administration.

[rdh007]

Or he used the term 'em. (Go get 'em! I voted for 'em! If they don't like it, screw 'em.)

I just watched that video, and I thought he meant "them". It's not proper English, but it is sexless enough to be neutral, and I've used it on several occasions.

[Excel]

Him = boy. If its not Barack, he said "Them" and they misquoted him.

[Matt]

Him = boy. If its not Barack, he said "Them" and they misquoted him.

I'm not at a computer with audio, at the moment, so I can't listen to it but him can be used as just a general term, though I wouldn't expect someone who says "ain't," in basically every post to have that strong of a grasp on the English language :cwink:

[souvlaki]

One could argue that he used the masculine as a general term (Which is acceptable in the English language), being as all of his actions imply supporting Clinton. Still, I think he likes keeping it up in the air. Says one thing, does another, keeps people confused, guarantees him Attorney General spot in either candidate's administration.

While masculine as a general term is accepted in the English language, most people would choose the term "them" in a situation like that. Nonetheless, his actions don't necessarily imply him supporting Clinton. At the time of him dropping out I think most people assumed he was going to support Obama. Not that my opinion means a damn thing, but I always got the impression he leaned more toward Obama, whereas his wife leaned very heavily toward Clinton, and that may have had some influence on him not coming out earlier and outright endorsing a candidate.

[souvlaki]

Him = boy. If its not Barack, he said "Them" and they misquoted him.

Nah, definitely sounds like "him" to me... but admittedly my hearing is not amazing. Someone else want to take a listen and give an opinion?

[souvlaki]

Or he used the term 'em. (Go get 'em! I voted for 'em! If they don't like it, screw 'em.)

I just watched that video, and I thought he meant "them". It's not proper English, but it is sexless enough to be neutral, and I've used it on several occasions.

I hear a very distinct "h" in there, but I suppose I could be wrong.

[Mr Sparkle]

Were you? :woot:

uh...it's pretty obvious I was there, captain depends. :up:

[Mr Sparkle]

Edwards and Richardson both had pretty detailed platforms. Hell, G.Dub had a pretty detailed platform, granted, he completely strayed for it, but at least it was there. You can try and say it is common for presidential candidates to run without a detailed platform all you want, but the fact is, its not.

:huh: :up: wow, I missed the Edwards and Richardson run for the white house :huh: my bad, was that in some alternate universe/5th dimension type place?
and then, to...uh...support your claim about the importance of "detailed platforms" you cite how someone completely ignored their "detailed platform" well, their "pretty detailed" platforms (whatev):o

uh...ok Matt, you're completely right, utterly. don't go giving me an infraction, or closing the thread or giving me probation.

please.

[Marx]

:huh: :up: wow, I missed the Edwards and Richardson run for the white house :huh: my bad, was that in some alternate universe/5th dimension type place?
and then, to...uh...support your claim about the importance of "detailed platforms" you cite how someone completely ignored their "detailed platform" well, their "pretty detailed" platforms (whatev):o

uh...ok Matt, you're completely right, utterly. don't go giving me an infraction, or closing the thread or giving me probation.

please.

It's all about respect Sparkle.

[Mr Sparkle]

I'm fairly sure that the majority of us know what goes on inside our own country.

I'm sorry. but not even the majority of people on this website know what happens inside their own country.

how you can be "fairly sure" of something so false....well, that's up to you.

[Mr Sparkle]

It's all about respect Sparkle.

no. not really.
if it was my sarcasm wouldn't be necessary.
it is about maturity and being able to discuss issues without resorting to abuse of power.
it is about having someone disagree with you adamantly and you being able to discuss with them the issue without ever being " done " with them (because if you indeed are done why announce it?)
it's about that, respect is just implicit in that.

[Matt]

Abuse of power? Please. You were debating other people (not me) and were being overly aggressive and lobbing insults at them so I asked you to cool off. You proceeded to go on a tirade so I infracted you.

[Excel]

5 more supers to Obama. Clintons lead has shrunk from 11 on Tuesday to 3 and his total is now 268 with 9 coming since Wednesday. If he can add 57 to get 325 by the June 3rd, there is a *chance* he gets to 2,025 reguardless of wether Hillarys in the race.

[Matt]

She can stay in the race, even if he reaches the total through supers as supers are not official until they vote at the convention and if she does, she will have the opportunity to grandstand at the convention and make a final argument. Plus if Michigan and Florida get into play, the total rises.

That said, she is done. Indiana killed her. I am expecting her to pull an LBJ '68 after winning Kentucky and WV big.

[Marx]

I'm sorry. but not even the majority of people on this website know what happens inside their own country.

how you can be "fairly sure" of something so false....well, that's up to you.

I can be fairly sure because I apparently must have more faith in the people of this country than you do. People are not as blind or ignorant as you want to believe.


no. not really.
if it was my sarcasm wouldn't be necessary.
it is about maturity and being able to discuss issues without resorting to abuse of power.
it is about having someone disagree with you adamantly and you being able to discuss with them the issue without ever being " done " with them (because if you indeed are done why announce it?)
it's about that, respect is just implicit in that.

With all due respect to you Sparkle, you are guilty of the accusations that you are lobbing at everyone else.

[Marx]

5 more supers to Obama. Clintons lead has shrunk from 11 on Tuesday to 3 and his total is now 268 with 9 coming since Wednesday. If he can add 57 to get 325 by the June 3rd, there is a *chance* he gets to 2,025 reguardless of wether Hillarys in the race.

I thought I saw somewhere today that Obama actually had a 2 Superdelegate lead over Clinton, as of today. :huh:

[Marx]

She can stay in the race, even if he reaches the total through supers as supers are not official until they vote at the convention and if she does, she will have the opportunity to grandstand at the convention and make a final argument. Plus if Michigan and Florida get into play, the total rises.

That said, she is done. Indiana killed her. I am expecting her to pull an LBJ '68 after winning Kentucky and WV big.

I wouldn't be surprised by this outcome at all.

[Excel]

She can stay in the race, even if he reaches the total through supers as supers are not official until they vote at the convention and if she does, she will have the opportunity to grandstand at the convention and make a final argument. Plus if Michigan and Florida get into play, the total rises.

That said, she is done. Indiana killed her. I am expecting her to pull an LBJ '68 after winning Kentucky and WV big.

I know, but the media will tread him as the presumptive nominee and the calls for her to get out will be defeaning.

[Raiden]

I wouldn't be surprised by this outcome at all.

Yeah, at this time I can see that Hillary could care less about Dems winning in November; she's in the race no matter what, even if she is mathematically eliminated and everyone around her asked her to quit.

[Excel]

I thought I saw somewhere today that Obama actually had a 2 Superdelegate lead over Clinton, as of today. :huh:

Associated press has it at 269-271.5 in favor of Hill; though shes been at 271.5 for about week while he started off at 259.