The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[Spider-Bite]

Wright has lives a life of luxury in America - he has reached the American dream. He is first hand proof that the America he lives in now gives blacks a chance to succeed - the same goes for Sharpton and Jackson. However instead of spreading THIS message, they rage about how America isn't fair, how the man keeps the black man down, etc.

Are there members of society (including cops) who are racist? Sure. Most of the institutional racism, however, is a thing of the past.


Can you point to an example where Sharpton unjustly cried racism? I'm no expert on Sharpton but I'm yet to hear of even one case. I hear him being called a race baiter, but can anybody give an actual example of him finding racism where racism didn't exist?

[Spider-Bite]

Respect and courtesy go a long way in this forum Spider. Sarcasm and insults do not.


Neither does patting people on the back for the sake of forming alliances. He didn't say anything deserving of well put. He's trying to tell me what is not an excuse for Wright, as if I agreed with Wright, when he knows I don't. And then your patting him on the back. It was an attempt to degrade me.

[ForestAflame]

Wright has lives a life of luxury in America - he has reached the American dream. He is first hand proof that the America he lives in now gives blacks a chance to succeed - the same goes for Sharpton and Jackson. However instead of spreading THIS message, they rage about how America isn't fair, how the man keeps the black man down, etc.

Are there members of society (including cops) who are racist? Sure. Most of the institutional racism, however, is a thing of the past.

Just because a few individuals were able to rise above the damn near insurmountable hurdles thrown at them, it doesn't mean that the rest of the black community is capable of doing the same. Most of humanity wouldn't be in such circumstances, black or white. So even though Wright and his ilk are living "the American dream", it doesn't make their beliefs about race relations invalid.

[StorminNorman]

Can you point to an example where Sharpton unjustly cried racism? I'm no expert on Sharpton but I'm yet to hear of even one case. I hear him being called a race baiter, but can anybody give an actual example of him finding racism where racism didn't exist?

An easy one that I know personally - his outrage at the Florida Boot Camp.

[BlackLantern]

Can you point to an example where Sharpton unjustly cried racism? I'm no expert on Sharpton but I'm yet to hear of even one case. I hear him being called a race baiter, but can anybody give an actual example of him finding racism where racism didn't exist?

Him and jesse jackson were at the forefront of the Duke rape case, claiming white academia was protecting its own....Jesse Jackson even referred to them as barbaric....and when physical evidence exonerated them...neither Jackson or Sharpton had anything to say...nor were anywhere to be found....

[ForestAflame]

Neither does patting people on the back for the sake of forming alliances. He didn't say anything deserving of well put. He's trying to tell me what is not an excuse for Wright, as if I agreed with Wright, when he knows I don't. And then your patting him on the back. It was an attempt to degrade me.

Well said Spider.

[redfirebird2008]

Can you point to an example where Sharpton unjustly cried racism? I'm no expert on Sharpton but I'm yet to hear of even one case. I hear him being called a race baiter, but can anybody give an actual example of him finding racism where racism didn't exist?

Sure. The Golf Channel "lynch" comment about Tiger Woods. Tiger is good friends with the woman who said it and she did NOT mean it in a racist manner. The word lynch, as she intended it, was actually a compliment to Tiger's greatness. Her commentating partner said that the other players on Tour should gang up on Tiger because they cannot beat him on the golf course individually. She chimed in, jokingly saying that they should lynch him in a back alley, implying that it's the only chance they have against him. She has been friends with him for over a decade, he accepted her apology and labeled it a NON-ISSUE. But what does Sharpton do? He goes on TV the day after Tiger called it a non-issue and turned it into an issue.

[StorminNorman]

Just because a few individuals were able to rise above the damn near insurmountable hurdles thrown at them, it doesn't mean that the rest of the black community is capable of doing the same. Most of humanity wouldn't be in such circumstances, black or white. So even though Wright and his ilk are living "the American dream", it doesn't make their beliefs about race relations invalid.

It does show that blacks are not nearly as screwed as Wright makes them believe they are. He is all about damning as system he has THRIVED in. He tells his black constituency that they can't succeed in the white man's America - in spite of his own history. In spite of Barrack's story.

He is a hypocrite and as such his beliefs ARE invalid.

[ForestAflame]

"The teenager, Martin Lee Anderson, died Jan. 6 after guards at a Panama City juvenile boot camp repeatedly kicked, kneed and choked him, in an incident caught by a security camera."

How dare Sharpton be outraged.

[Spider-Bite]

Him and jesse jackson were at the forefront of the Duke rape case, claiming white academia was protecting its own....Jesse Jackson even referred to them as barbaric....and when physical evidence exonerated them...neither Jackson or Sharpton had anything to say...nor were anywhere to be found....

Yeah that is a good example. I'll admit that. I forgot about that, but I remember thinking that at the time. They should apologize to the accused for getting the media to hunt them down like a salem witch trial.

[Spider-Bite]

An easy one that I know personally - his outrage at the Florida Boot Camp.

could you elaborate or provide a link? I'm not doubting the merit, just curious, and would like to know more.

[ForestAflame]

It does show that blacks are not nearly as screwed as Wright makes them believe they are. He is all about damning as system he has THRIVED in. He tells his black constituency that they can't succeed in the white man's America - in spite of his own history. In spite of Barrack's story.

He is a hypocrite and as such his beliefs ARE invalid.

Where has he ever said that a black man can't succeed in "the white man's America"? :o

[Marx]

Neither does patting people on the back for the sake of forming alliances. He didn't say anything deserving of well put. He's trying to tell me what is not an excuse for Wright, as if I agreed with Wright, when he knows I don't. And then your patting him on the back. It was an attempt to degrade me.

Well said Spider.

I think you both need to step back and actually look at this thread. I do not need to form an alliance with Norm. We respect one another. He said something that I appreciate and whole-heartedly agree with. It is in no way attempting to "team up and degrade you." If anything, I am still trying to understand your extreme sensitivity to issues of race and racism. None of us in this thread are racists. And it is certainly not racist to discuss issues of racism in a civil, calm, and adult manner.

[BlackLantern]

Sharpton and Jackson getting involved in the Yale-New Haven hospital union issue, here in Connecticut, when it was clearly not about race, but about a budget problem....

[redfirebird2008]

It does show that blacks are not nearly as screwed as Wright makes them believe they are. He is all about damning as system he has THRIVED in. He tells his black constituency that they can't succeed in the white man's America - in spite of his own history. In spite of Barrack's story.

He is a hypocrite and as such his beliefs ARE invalid.

Pet peeve of mine, but please spell Barack's name right. Thanks.

[Spider-Bite]

It does show that blacks are not nearly as screwed as Wright makes them believe they are. He is all about damning as system he has THRIVED in. He tells his black constituency that they can't succeed in the white man's America - in spite of his own history. In spite of Barrack's story.

He is a hypocrite and as such his beliefs ARE invalid.

I can't argue against this. My first thoughts about Wright after his rescent speech, were do you not see how millions of whites have voted for Obama? I also wanted to say "I'm white. i didn't make you a slave, I didn't put you in chains, and even though I didn't make you black either, there isn't anything wrong with being black." He fails to notice that whites played a role in ending slavery and segregation.

[BlackLantern]

I can't argue against this. My first thoughts about Wright after his rescent speech, were do you not see how millions of whites have voted for Obama? I also wanted to say "I'm white. i didn't make you a slave, I didn't put you in chains, and even though I didn't make you black either, there isn't anything wrong with being black." He fails to notice that whites played a role in ending slavery and segregation.

he wants people to believe that they still are in chains.....

[StorminNorman]

"The teenager, Martin Lee Anderson, died Jan. 6 after guards at a Panama City juvenile boot camp repeatedly kicked, kneed and choked him, in an incident caught by a security camera."

How dare Sharpton be outraged.

Thats a horrible biased statement. The boot camp guards practiced standard protocol on a teen that ended up dying (due to sickle cell) - and Sharpton played the race card.

[Spider-Bite]

I think you both need to step back and actually look at this thread. I do not need to form an alliance with Norm. We respect one another. He said something that I appreciate and whole-heartedly agree with. It is in no way attempting to "team up and degrade you." If anything, I am still trying to understand your extreme sensitivity to issues of race and racism. None of us in this thread are racists. And it is certainly not racist to discuss issues of racism in a civil, calm, and adult manner.


I merely feel that Obama's association with Wright is being used against him an unfair amount of severity, because him and Wright are black. I know Wright is wrong and he's not just hurting Obama. He's hurting race relations, and turning whites against blacks by making them afraid of them, and then when blacks see whites getting upset about it, they think "oh Wright as correct, and I now see it by the way whites are now looking at me."

he's hurt both races, and all he cares about are his 15 minutes of fame. it's clear he doesn't care about Obama or his goal of running for President, or he'd have kept his mouth shut. many memebers of the black trinity church are upset with Wright because of this, but unfortanately, a lot of Americans think that every member of that church is like Wright, as we've seen right here in this thread. People comparing Obama's attendance to that church, to attending a KKK church.

Honestly I only know one black person who agrees with Wright, and I know of at least 10 who disagree. I'm talking about in my personal life here.

[StorminNorman]

could you elaborate or provide a link? I'm not doubting the merit, just curious, and would like to know more.

A 14 year old black male passed out during a typical Correctional Boot Camp activity. The guards tried to have the kid get up, and then tried to physically force him to get up when he did not - acting under boot camp protocol.

The boy went into shock and later died. One medical examiner said the cause was sickle cell - another, far after the fact, reexamined the body and said it was not a natural death.

Sharpton and Jackson made it a race issue.

[Marx]

I merely feel that Obama's association with Wright is being used against him an unfair amount of severity, because him and Wright are black. I know Wright is wrong and he's not just hurting Obama. He's hurting race relations, and turning whites against blacks by making them afraid of them, and then when blacks see whites getting upset about it, they think "oh Wright as correct, and I now see it by the way whites are now looking at me."

he's hurt both races, and all he cares about are his 15 minutes of fame. it's clear he doesn't care about Obama or his goal of running for President, or he'd have kept his mouth shut. many memebers of the black trinity church are upset with Wright because of this, but unfortanately, a lot of Americans think that every member of that church is like Wright, as we've seen right here in this thread. People comparing Obama's attendance to that church, to attending a KKK church.

Honestly I only know one black person who agrees with Wright, and I know of at least 10 who disagree. I'm talking about in my personal life here.

The issue with Wright and Obama is an issue because of the fact that Reverend Wright is a man who preaches hatred and divisiveness. Obama chose to continue associating with this man for 20 years, having a very strong relationship with him. (Marrying he and his wife, baptizing their children, etc.) Obama placed this man in the position of spiritual advisor to his presidential campaign and saw nothing wrong with it.

I really don't have the energy to get into a full blown Wright Scandal debate yet again.

[Spider-Bite]

Well I have to admit, you guys did give adequate examples and arguments to show how Sharpton has wrongly used racism to stay relevant, and even promoted racism. I haven't really commented on Jesse Jackson, because I already knew that he has made bigoted comments towards jews in the past.

I'm going to put aside my biased here for a second and go on the record as saying that Obama's associating Wright with his campaign, was not good. I think Wright was a friend, and his friend wanted to be included in the process, and Obama did not want to hurt his feelings, so he probably figured it would be harmelss. I think he was unaware of the extra fiery sermons Wright had given, but still aware of his racist attittude.

Obama should have realized than when your running for President, running for President come sfirst, and friends come second, as running for President is much more important. it impacts millions. It was an error in judgement.

This is a flaw on Obama's part. I still believe him to be the best candidate out of the three running, and by far I might add. I truly believe him to be world's better than the two alternatives. But he did make a mistake. And I am truly confident that Obama does not share Wright's racist beliefs. I would be very surprised if he did.

Edit....


If I was Obama's advisor I would have told him to handle this situation differently, when the time came to distance himself from Wright's views. I'd have told him to say something along the lines of, I care about him, but he is stuck in the past. I've tried to change him, but he's a stubborn old man, and sometimes it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, but what can I do? I've known him for decades, he baptized my children. He cares about me, and I can't disown him anymore than I can cut off my right hand. he's like a crazy uncle.

[Marx]

IN OTHER NEWS :whatever:

Karl Rove launched a wide-ranging attack on Barack Obama during a speech at the National Rifle Association Convention Friday, blasting him for his recent comments calling some small town American's "bitter," and suggesting the Illinois senator is an effete politician unable to connect with a broad swath of Americans.

The comments, received enthusiastically by the large crowd in Louisville, Kentucky, are a likely sign Obama's words at a San Francisco fundraiser last month may be a major Republican talking-point should he capture the Democratic Party's nomination.

“You know in the age of Barack Obama I don’t know exactly what to call you, because after all, as he said, because we’re bitter and economically anxious, we ‘cling to our guns and we cling to our faith," Rove told the crowd to laughter and cheers.

"You probably didn't know you hunted out of economic anxiety, and if gas was a $1.50 a gallon, you probably wouldn't be hunting," he continued.

“You probably thought you hunted because you enjoyed the outdoors and companionship with family and friends.”

Rove, largely credited with orchestrating campaign strategies that painted former Democratic nominees Al Gore and John Kerry as out of touch with small town Americans, also cited Obama's recent primary losses in Pennsylvania and West Virginia as evidence a large demographic is unwilling to vote for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

"We here have news for Barack Obama," Rove said. "The values of those people you diminished are the values of America. And those people don't like getting patronized, or viewed as an alien species, by a fellow who pretends to embody a new kind of politics, and especially by someone who wants to be president not of red states or blue states, but the United States."


For the full article, click below.
Rove slam Obama over "bitter" comments, flag pin
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/16/rove-slams-obama-over-bitter-comments-flag-pin/

[StorminNorman]

IN OTHER NEWS :whatever:

Karl Rove launched a wide-ranging attack on Barack Obama during a speech at the National Rifle Association Convention Friday, blasting him for his recent comments calling some small town American's "bitter," and suggesting the Illinois senator is an effete politician unable to connect with a broad swath of Americans.

The comments, received enthusiastically by the large crowd in Louisville, Kentucky, are a likely sign Obama's words at a San Francisco fundraiser last month may be a major Republican talking-point should he capture the Democratic Party's nomination.

“You know in the age of Barack Obama I don’t know exactly what to call you, because after all, as he said, because we’re bitter and economically anxious, we ‘cling to our guns and we cling to our faith," Rove told the crowd to laughter and cheers.

"You probably didn't know you hunted out of economic anxiety, and if gas was a $1.50 a gallon, you probably wouldn't be hunting," he continued.

“You probably thought you hunted because you enjoyed the outdoors and companionship with family and friends.”

Rove, largely credited with orchestrating campaign strategies that painted former Democratic nominees Al Gore and John Kerry as out of touch with small town Americans, also cited Obama's recent primary losses in Pennsylvania and West Virginia as evidence a large demographic is unwilling to vote for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

"We here have news for Barack Obama," Rove said. "The values of those people you diminished are the values of America. And those people don't like getting patronized, or viewed as an alien species, by a fellow who pretends to embody a new kind of politics, and especially by someone who wants to be president not of red states or blue states, but the United States."


For the full article, click below.
Rove slam Obama over "bitter" comments, flag pin
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/16/rove-slams-obama-over-bitter-comments-flag-pin/


I don't like Rove - but can anyone say he is wrong here?

[Spider-Bite]

The issue with Wright and Obama is an issue because of the fact that Reverend Wright is a man who preaches hatred and divisiveness. Obama chose to continue associating with this man for 20 years, having a very strong relationship with him. (Marrying he and his wife, baptizing their children, etc.) Obama placed this man in the position of spiritual advisor to his presidential campaign and saw nothing wrong with it.

I really don't have the energy to get into a full blown Wright Scandal debate yet again.


Well I'll admit that my close firend's mother is kind of sort of a semi pastur if you will. she's not racist, but she is bigoted towards people who aren't christain, and she is bigoted towards gays. She knows I am an agnostic and she still loves me as if I was part of her family. She believes it's immoral, but she says were all sinners anyways. Now if she was ever in the business of baptizing, and I had kids and wanted them baptized, she would feel stabbed in the heart if I did not let her baptize them, so I probably would let her, just because it's not worth hurting people's feelings over.

but I assure I do not agree with her bigotry, and I have to admit if I was running for President she would have no role in it.

[hippie_hunter]

Rove kinda has a point there in showing how absurd Obama's comments were, but damn, that guy is such a douche and even when making a valid point he comes off as a douche.

[Marx]

I don't like Rove - but can anyone say he is wrong here?

I just find it ironic that Bush starts making ridiculous comments at a celebration gala for Israel and now Rove is up to his old antics again. How many more times must we see the same old song and dance?

[BlackLantern]

In Americas' future....douchebags will be known as Rovers

[StorminNorman]

I just find it ironic that Bush starts making ridiculous comments at a celebration gala for Israel and now Rove is up to his old antics again. How many more times must we see the same old song and dance?

It may be familiar, but it is successful.

[BlackLantern]

It may be familiar, but it is successful.

Red staters do love their rhetoric....

[Marx]

In Americas' future....douchebags will be known as Rovers

:hehe:

It may be familiar, but it is successful.

Hopefully not anymore.

[redfirebird2008]

I don't like Rove - but can anyone say he is wrong here?

Yes. Barack Obama is not a friggin' elitist. His life history proves he's less of an elitist than rich a-holes like Bush and McCain. The fact that Bush has gotten away with attacking others as being elitist is pretty amazing considering his life history. BTW, I consider Bush and Rove to be two sides to the same coin.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-young-obama,0,5550247.story?page=1

[hippie_hunter]

In Americas' future....douchebags will be known as Rovers

I approve

[StorminNorman]

Yes. Barack Obama is not a friggin' elitist. His life history proves he's less of an elitist than rich a-holes like Bush and McCain. The fact that Bush has gotten away with attacking others as being elitist is pretty amazing considering his life history.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-young-obama,0,5550247.story?page=1


You can be elitist and come from a traditional background. Barack's comment about guns and religion is pretty elitist.

Alas, I am not trying to make the argument that he IS elitist- simply that he is perceived that way and it is hurting him.

[Marx]

Yes. Barack Obama is not a friggin' elitist. His life history proves he's less of an elitist than rich a-holes like Bush and McCain. The fact that Bush has gotten away with attacking others as being elitist is pretty amazing considering his life history.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-young-obama,0,5550247.story?page=1


Barack Obama's backstory has nothing to do with the mentality he has now. It's not so much where you have come from as where you are now. And now, he's arrogant and snobbish.


(Nice to see you again Firebird :yay:.)

[hippie_hunter]

Yes. Barack Obama is not a friggin' elitist. His life history proves he's less of an elitist than rich a-holes like Bush and McCain. The fact that Bush has gotten away with attacking others as being elitist is pretty amazing considering his life history. BTW, I consider Bush and Rove to be two sides to the same coin.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-young-obama,0,5550247.story?page=1

His more recent history with talking down to voters at San Fransisco describing rural voters as bitter people who cling to guns, the Bible, and xenophobia, his support among the elitist demographic, and how he doesn't connect with average joe voters (the blue collar vote) makes him look like an elitist liberal.

[BlackLantern]

I wouldn't call myself an elitist....but I came from a humble background and I have done well for myself and really don't care for my background all that much....I strive every day to be better than my parents......so what does that make me??

[redfirebird2008]

and how he doesn't connect with average joe voters (the blue collar vote)

And what exactly is holding him back from "connecting" with those voters when he's saying the same damn thing as Hillary?

[redfirebird2008]

Nice to see you again Firebird :yay:.

Nice to see you too Marx! Man oh man, does it ever suck that we have to wait 2 more months for TDK or what????!!!! :wow:

[hippie_hunter]

And what exactly is holding him back from "connecting" with those voters when he's saying the same damn thing as Hillary?

I'm not saying that he is an elitist, but recent events have made him look like an elitist liberal. He's doing a poor job in trying to get rid of that image. That's why he isn't connecting with them.

Hillary is connecting with them because she took up the "populist" persona. The funny thing is that she found something that works but it's too late now. If she took up the fake populist, blue-collar persona that she has been lately in the begining of the race instead of the *****y "I'm ready to lead from day one" bullcrap she probably would have won the nomination.

[redfirebird2008]

I'm not saying that he is an elitist, but recent events have made him look like an elitist liberal. He's doing a poor job in trying to get rid of that image. That's why he isn't connecting with them.

Hillary is connecting with them because she took up the "populist" persona. The funny thing is that she found something that works but it's too late now. If she took up the fake populist, blue-collar persona that she has been lately in the begining of the race instead of the *****y "I'm ready to lead from day one" bullcrap she probably would have won the nomination.

That was certainly a mistake and her biggest mistake was under-estimating Obama. She hired Mark Penn and paid him way too much money, along with the other advisers in her campaign. They sat on their laurels and assumed it was inevitable. Obama basically took Dean's model from '04 and made it even stronger.

[BlackLantern]

That was certainly a mistake and her biggest mistake was under-estimating Obama. She hired Mark Penn and paid him way too much money, along with the other advisers in her campaign. They sat on their laurels and assumed it was inevitable. Obama basically took Dean's model from '04 and made it even stronger.

minus the crazy werewolf yell....

[hippie_hunter]

That was certainly a mistake and her biggest mistake was under-estimating Obama. She hired Mark Penn and paid him way too much money, along with the other advisers in her campaign. They sat on their laurels and assumed it was inevitable. Obama basically took Dean's model from '04 and made it even stronger.

Can't argue with you there. Not only that but Obama didn't make himself look like an idiot like Dean did at the very begining of the election.

I think Dean would have won the nomination if he didn't scream like a banshee after losing Iowa.

[redfirebird2008]

Can't argue with you there. Not only that but Obama didn't make himself look like an idiot like Dean did at the very begining of the election.

I think Dean would have won the nomination if he didn't scream like a banshee after losing Iowa.

Yeah that was something I was about to say. Obama's had some gaffes, but nothing that made him PERSONALLY look bat***** crazy like Dean did to himself in '04. Wright = guilt by association and a lot of people are willing to take Obama at his word. Bittergate = poorly worded and perhaps a little out of touch but not bat***** crazy. "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW" = bat***** crazy. :hehe:

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah that was something I was about to say. Obama's had some gaffes, but nothing that made him PERSONALLY look bat***** crazy like Dean did to himself in '04. Wright = guilt by association and a lot of people are willing to take Obama at his word. Bittergate = poorly worded and perhaps a little out of touch but not bat***** crazy. "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW" = bat***** crazy. :hehe:

Yup :o

[StorminNorman]

Can't argue with you there. Not only that but Obama didn't make himself look like an idiot like Dean did at the very begining of the election. I think Dean would have won the nomination if he didn't scream like a banshee after losing Iowa. I am not sure. He came in third in Iowa before his scream hurt him at all.

[hippie_hunter]

I am not sure. He came in third in Iowa before his scream hurt him at all.

John McCain came in at fourth in Iowa and won the nomination. I think he would have won most of the other states with the exception of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Massachusetts if he didn't go crazy.

[Addendum]

He appeared crazy because the mike he was using filtered out the cheers of those he was speaking to.

Though I did like it since the Stern show used it for plenty of song parodies.

[StorminNorman]

John McCain came in at fourth in Iowa and won the nomination. I think he would have won most of the other states with the exception of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Massachusetts if he didn't go crazy. Yes - but McCain didn't go from front runner to forth in Iowa. Clinton did, however. I believe Kerry was winning New Hampshire before Iowa as well.

[rdh007]

I am not sure. He came in third in Iowa before his scream hurt him at all.

But he would probably have done reasonably well in New Hampshire. I realize Kerry was a New Englander as well, but Dean really seemed inevitable for a while.

[Joker]

I just got back from seeing him in Sioux Falls. The guy's a really good speaker.

[Spider-Bite]

I wouldn't call myself an elitist....but I came from a humble background and I have done well for myself and really don't care for my background all that much....I strive every day to be better than my parents......so what does that make me??


A man with an Audacity of Hope.

[StorminNorman]

But he would probably have done reasonably well in New Hampshire. I realize Kerry was a New Englander as well, but Dean really seemed inevitable for a while. So did Clinton. So did Rudy.

[redfirebird2008]

Rudy. :hehe:

[Marx]

Nice to see you too Marx! Man oh man, does it ever suck that we have to wait 2 more months for TDK or what????!!!! :wow:

But it's going to be that much MORE worth when we finally get to see it! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Then we can all start speculating on the third! :funny:

[BlackLantern]

But it's going to be that much MORE worth when we finally get to see it! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Then we can all start speculating on the third! :funny:

Take the TDK stuff to the Bat Forums....land of nerd rage and bad fan fiction

[The Senator]

the vast majority of advisors started out in journalism. I decided my career path with the help of my caseworker, I have a casworker because I get diability services due to my General Anxiety Disorder, my academic advisors, and my Political Professor.

They want people with experience in communicating with the public, and influencing the views of the public.

I just find that strange because I've worked on many campaigns, and I've never met a political adviser who has a background in journalism.

[The Senator]

I had assumed that a major in political science was the way to go, but that's not the case. Majors in Political Science go on to become Judges and Attorneys.

Laugh all you want, but this is reality.

Interesting, because every legislative assistant I've ever worked with on Capitol Hill were political science majors, unless they worked in trade and economics, in which case they were business or economics majors.

Same thing with campaigns. Unless they were media consultants, these folks were all political science majors.

[Marx]

Take the TDK stuff to the Bat Forums....land of nerd rage and bad fan fiction

Excuse me BL, I'm pretty sure that's the only TDK-related comment that I have made in this forum. (Aside from this one.)

[The Senator]

Obviously, but before you can get experienced in politics in the first place, outside of running for office, you need journalism experience. That might be the opinion of your father, but numbers and math do not lie. The vast majority of Political Science majors are judges and attorneys. In fact once you get far enough up in political science classes, it's all about law. the eariler classes which I have taken and continue to take, are all about ideaology, comapring government levels and processes in this country to other countries, the media, sufferage, history and so on.

Funny... I've only taken one law-based political science course... everything else outside of theory or history has been policy based :huh:

[Marx]

I was very late for a work function....and it was a Statie too....

And getting pulled over by the police got you there quicker? :oldrazz:

I sure hope that it was a nomination ceremony for you to become head of the company for you to go 40 over man!

[Spider-Bite]

Hillary threw in the towel today. She admitted she will not be the nominee, but said there was no harm in finishing out the contests.

[The Senator]

Hillary threw in the towel today. She admitted she will not be the nominee, but said there was no harm in finishing out the contests.

I thought officials from her campaign ruled out winning the nomination. She hasn't made a statement, to the best of my knowledge.

[Marx]

I thought officials from her campaign ruled out winning the nomination. She hasn't made a statement, to the best of my knowledge.

I've not heard any kind of statement from her either. She is still doing campaign appearances...still collecting campaign donations too.

[BlackLantern]

so is Hilary going to provide a refund to all those hard-working Americans who donated to her campaign? we know Ron Paul sure as hell isn't....he's going to Bali on your dime America!!!

[hippie_hunter]

Rudy. :hehe:

Worst. Campaign. EVER!!!

[BlackLantern]

I remember a piece on the Daily Show about Rudy where they had a 9 and an 11 screwing on a red,white, and blue bed....it was quite funny

[Memphis Slim]

Man....Hillary would have been better than Obama. But she's just not as charming. The masses go for slick every time.

Obama is not gonna do well in November.

If the Rev Wright/ william ayers/ bittergate/ Michelle Obama thing had happened before Iowa, Hillary would be the nominee. A lot of those white votes he got, before that crap came out, will not be there in the fall.

[Excel]

The only thing you mentioned that hurt him was Wright. I dont nobody gives a **** if his wife says she's proud or he says people are bitter. That kinda stuff just goes over peoples heads, the same way calling someone "sweetie" does.

[BlackLantern]

Obamas' wife is kinda weird looking....wheres Elizabeth Kucinich???

[Darthphere]

The only thing you mentioned that hurt him was Wright. I dont nobody gives a **** if his wife says she's proud or he says people are bitter. That kinda stuff just goes over peoples heads, the same way calling someone "sweetie" does.

Wow, no offense, but you're really stupid. Equating what Reverend Wright said, to the whole Sweetie-Gate situation is just idiotic. I'm sorry for the rough language but it's the only way I can get my point across. People care about what Michelle Obama says, if not we wouldn't be talking about it.

[Matt]

I'm with Phere.

Bitter-gate clearly hurt him in PA. It at the very least stopped his momentum in building in PA.

The rest really won't show effects until the general election when PAC groups are playing commercials of Michelle Obama's comments or David Ayers on a daily basis.

[Matt]

Man....Hillary would have been better than Obama. But she's just not as charming. The masses go for slick every time.

Obama is not gonna do well in November.

If the Rev Wright/ william ayers/ bittergate/ Michelle Obama thing had happened before Iowa, Hillary would be the nominee. A lot of those white votes he got, before that crap came out, will not be there in the fall.

His campaign would've been over in Iowa if they had actual elections and not the ridiculously undemocratic caucus system. If they had an election in Iowa, John Edwards would've won Iowa, used the momentum to springboard to a win South Carolina, and Obama would've been forced to drop out. This would've become a two way race between Edwards and Clinton.

[BlackLantern]

isn't Edwards gay though....that's what Ann Coulter says and she is always a voice of sound logic and reason....

[Memphis Slim]

Wow, no offense, but you're really stupid. Equating what Reverend Wright said, to the whole Sweetie-Gate situation is just idiotic. I'm sorry for the rough language but it's the only way I can get my point across. People care about what Michelle Obama says, if not we wouldn't be talking about it.

Fair or not, you are right. She has his ear day and night.

[Darthphere]

Never agree with me again.

[Memphis Slim]

Never agree with me again.

I feel dirty. I need soap.....NOW!!!

[Excel]

Wow, no offense, but you're really stupid. Equating what Reverend Wright said, to the whole Sweetie-Gate situation is just idiotic.

I am the stupid one? Due can you read-I didnt say that all...Wright hurt him, but none of the other **** said had any sort of big effect.

[Addendum]

No he didn't

[Addendum]

Though the issues are just recycled from the past several months.

A politician says something, then others agree or disagree with it, then a few people go on and on and on about punctuation, grammar, or what was said in the spaces between the words, then another person comes in and says something snarky and then others get all shocked about it, one of the mod comes in and sends out infractions or probation, then it dies down.

Then the following day, the other politician says something in response and the entire thing starts up again

[souvlaki]

Wait, I am completely lost. What does this have to do with Obama? There is nearly three pages of this stuff, and I'm not about to sift through all of it to figure out why this argument started.

[SentinelMind]

Now...back to Obama....

Clinton and Obama fundraisers are working together to
campaign against McCain.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080518/wl_afp/usvote_080518174506

[kainedamo]

I'm still right, of course, but yes! Back to Obama!

Has Obama said anything in regards to investment in poorer urban areas?

[BlackLantern]

I'm still right, of course, but yes! Back to Obama!

Has Obama said anything in regards to investment in poorer urban areas?

Why...you can just tear everything down and build strip malls and Starbucks'??:oldrazz:...seriously I think the fact that the Dems are not united yet sends a bad signal to voters....it has to me

[kainedamo]

I agree. The sooner Hillary throws her support behind Obama the better.

[souvlaki]

I agree. The sooner Hillary throws her support behind Obama the better.

She's making a push in that direction... slowly, but she's getting there.

[Marx]

I agree. The sooner Hillary throws her support behind Obama the better.

Just because a candidate throws their support behind another doesn't mean that their supporters will do the same.

[kal-el2006]

IN Portland Today...

http://images.politico.com/global/portland.jpg

[kainedamo]

Just because a candidate throws their support behind another doesn't mean that their supporters will do the same.

But what is that? That wouldn't even be the average Hilary supporter. If Hilary drops out and states that she backs Obama, most democrats would vote Obama.

[Marx]

But what is that? That wouldn't even be the average Hilary supporter. If Hilary drops out and states that she backs Obama, most democrats would vote Obama.

It means that it is going to be quite interesting to see if one of the largest most consistent voting blocs in a general election (whom Barack Obama has had severe problems with) will actually decide to vote for him in the fall or not.

[Matt]

It means that it is going to be quite interesting to see if one of the largest most consistent voting blocs in a general election (whom Barack Obama has had severe problems with) will actually decide to vote for him in the fall or not.

Especially when the one time this voting bloc has gone Democrat in the past 30 years was for Clinton's husband. I doubt they will go for Barack Obama. They were supporting Clinton for her last name.

[Marx]

Especially when the one time this voting bloc has gone Democrat in the past 30 years was for Clinton's husband. I doubt they will go for Barack Obama. They were supporting Clinton for her last name.

I just think that it is a bit ridiculous to assume that a candidate's supporters will automatically support another candidate just because their candidate decides to throw their support behind the other.

[Matt]

I just think that it is a bit ridiculous to assume that a candidate's supporters will automatically support another candidate just because their candidate decides to throw their support behind the other.

I tend to agree. Clinton is winning blue collar and senior voters predominantly because they remember who her husband was, how the economy was under him, how they all had jobs during his tenurse, etc. These voting blocs are the ones who have kept her competitive in this race. Oddly enough however, these are both swing demographics in the general election who usually decide the election and for the past 30 years have gone Republican all but twice. To assume that because Hillary Clinton says "Yeah, I support Barack Obama" (ignoring the fact that they have been tearing one another new *******s for the past five months), these voters are just going to jump in his ship, is incredibly naive.

[Marx]

I tend to agree. Clinton is winning blue collar and senior voters predominantly because they remember who her husband was, how the economy was under him, how they all had jobs during his tenurse, etc. These voting blocs are the ones who have kept her competitive in this race. Oddly enough however, these are both swing demographics in the general election who usually decide the election and for the past 30 years have gone Republican all but twice. To assume that because Hillary Clinton says "Yeah, I support Barack Obama" (ignoring the fact that they have been tearing one another new *******s for the past five months), these voters are just going to jump in his ship, is incredibly naive.

My thoughts exactly Matt.

[kainedamo]

If they consider themselves democrats, more than likely you'll see many Hilary voters vote Obama if he's the candidate.

[BlackLantern]

My thoughts exactly Matt.

agreed....as for the voters, most of them just see that their candidate is out of the race and in some cases will not bother to vote at all.....

[Matt]

If they consider themselves democrats, more than likely you'll see many Hilary voters vote Obama if he's the candidate.

You seem to have a very limited understanding of the political system in America. Just because you are affiliated with a party, does not mean you have to vote party. See, people are individuals and can do what they please. They don't just follow the party's every whim.

These people are called "Reagan Democrats," because even though they are regisitered Democrats, they are swing voters and only one Democrat has won them since Reagan...Bill Clinton.

[The Senator]

I think most of Clinton's supporters will back Obama in the end. Look at how the Republican primary ended. Many conservatives flat out despised John McCain, but many of them have flocked to him because he's their only option. I don't think Obama will have to worry about gaining most of Clinton's supporters.

[BlackLantern]

the Republicans are willing to do what they need to do to hold on to the White House

[The Senator]

And I think Democrats are willing to do what they need to do in order to take it back.

[BlackLantern]

When it comes to power, you'll see more desperation in those trying to keep it than those trying to get to it....

[Marx]

When it comes to power, you'll see more desperation in those trying to keep it than those trying to get to it....

That's very thought-provoking BL. :cwink:







(In all seriousness, in many ways...you're right.)

[Matt]

I think most of Clinton's supporters will back Obama in the end. Look at how the Republican primary ended. Many conservatives flat out despised John McCain, but many of them have flocked to him because he's their only option. I don't think Obama will have to worry about gaining most of Clinton's supporters.

It depends who these supporters are. The elderly and blue collar democrats are notorious for jumping ship. Its not going to be as simple as McCain basically telling the religious right "Well, its me or a baby killing, gay marrying Democrat." At the end of the day, the religious nuts aren't going to go blue. Hillary's base of blue collar and elderly voters can really go either way. That is why they are unique.

[Doomed_hero]

All the democrats really need is for bush to come out and say something offensive about there party. Bush is the greatest at bring the democrats together.

[Trainwreck2100]

IN Portland Today...

http://images.politico.com/global/portland.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3257/2503239643_7e443c2c87_o.jpg
me>them
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/Trainwreck2100/tony.jpg

[Memphis Slim]

the Republicans are willing to do what they need to do to hold on to the White House


They will need the evangelical vote. And McCain has lost that.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_dobson_evangelical/2008/05/18/97063.html?s=al&promo_code=6293-1

[StorminNorman]

They will need the evangelical vote. And McCain has lost that.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_dobson_evangelical/2008/05/18/97063.html?s=al&promo_code=6293-1

Which could be best in the long run for the GOP. If a Republican can with without the Evangelical vote, the GOP can stop being a slave to it.

Also, I found it interesting that Obama - who, in the past, has made comments about Bill Clinton - now thinks the GOP should not talk about his own spouse. :huh:

[rdh007]

It depends who these supporters are. The elderly and blue collar democrats are notorious for jumping ship. Its not going to be as simple as McCain basically telling the religious right "Well, its me or a baby killing, gay marrying Democrat." At the end of the day, the religious nuts aren't going to go blue. Hillary's base of blue collar and elderly voters can really go either way. That is why they are unique.

If Obama makes the case to the blue collar people that he may not be one of them, but that he represents their interests and (this is the really tough part) shares their values; he gets them. The elderly? Who knows.

[Raiden]

If Obama makes the case to the blue collar people that he may not be one of them, but that he represents their interests and (this is the really tough part) shares their values; he gets them. The elderly? Who knows.

I think Obama would talk to them about his humble upbringings, and that he empathize with their sufferings and concerns. I think having more labor unions endorsing you would also help.

[BlackLantern]

I, from a personal prespective, hate unions....I could never be a politician and accept a union endorsement.

[terry78]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wife

Obama tells the GOP to lay off the wife.

[jaguarr]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wife

Obama tells the GOP to lay off the wife.

There's arguably more dirt on Cindy McCain than there is on Michelle Obama, so if the Republicans and PAC's know what's good for them, they'll heed his warning. Besides, if they're really going to make this a clean campaign and focus on the issues as McCain has said he wants to do as has Obama, then they need to leave the wives out of it other than having them there smiling and being supportive.

jag

[BlackLantern]

Michelle Obama is weird looking....I wonder if Barack likes to hit it from the back

[kane9321]

Damnit terry..ya beat me to it. Thats kinda hitting below the belt though!

[Matt]

If Obama makes the case to the blue collar people that he may not be one of them, but that he represents their interests and (this is the really tough part) shares their values; he gets them. The elderly? Who knows.

I dunno about that. You would've thought that the case with John Kerry in 2004...and yet...Ohio went red.

I think Obama would talk to them about his humble upbringings, and that he empathize with their sufferings and concerns. I think having more labor unions endorsing you would also help.

Labor union endorsments mean jack except to the people who are really active in them (which is a handful of the total memberships). Hell, most people I know in unions resent paying dues because their union does jack for them. Its not like the old days. Unions are nothing more than crooks, it would seem and most members are aware of it.

[rdh007]

I dunno about that. You would've thought that the case with John Kerry in 2004...and yet...Ohio went red.



Labor union endorsments mean jack except to the people who are really active in them (which is a handful of the total memberships). Hell, most people I know in unions resent paying dues because their union does jack for them. Its not like the old days. Unions are nothing more than crooks, it would seem and most members are aware of it.

Obama is more charismatic than Kerry. Only Gore was less charismatic, though. I think he can win them over, but it remains to be seen if he will. Though I honestly would call that a tossup between him and McCain at this point. McCain's done such a great job of branding himself as a maverick, that'll be hard to overcome.

You're right about unions. They have to spend as much time selling themselves to the membership as they do fighting for them.

[Marx]

There's arguably more dirt on Cindy McCain than there is on Michelle Obama, so if the Republicans and PAC's know what's good for them, they'll heed his warning. Besides, if they're really going to make this a clean campaign and focus on the issues as McCain has said he wants to do as has Obama, then they need to leave the wives out of it other than having them there smiling and being supportive.

jag

The "clean campaign" ship has already set sail on McCain. He's already gotten a little dirty.

I dunno about that. You would've thought that the case with John Kerry in 2004...and yet...Ohio went red.


Don't remind me... :csad:


Labor union endorsments mean jack except to the people who are really active in them (which is a handful of the total memberships). Hell, most people I know in unions resent paying dues because their union does jack for them. Its not like the old days. Unions are nothing more than crooks, it would seem and most members are aware of it.

The only endorsements that matter are the votes of the American people.

[BlackLantern]

The only endorsements that matter are the votes of the American people.

I feel like the national anthem should be playing right now

[Marx]

I feel like the national anthem should be playing right now

:cwink:

I know it may sound corny, but it is true. A candidate could have every single endorsement that could possibly be gotten...that doesn't mean that the voters will vote for them though.

[The Senator]

This is interesting.


Obama Starting to Win Over Clinton's Base

(CNN) – A day after Sen. Hillary Clinton declared that the Democratic nomination fight was “nowhere near over,” polling data released Tuesday suggest Clinton is losing ground with key demographic groups that have powered her campaign so far.

Sen. Barack Obama’s 16-point lead over Clinton in the latest Gallup daily tracking poll of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters comes from even higher support among groups that have been supporting him throughout the primary race, and from newfound support among several groups that have backed Clinton.

Obama leads or ties Clinton among women, Easterners, whites, adults with no college education, and Hispanics, with the New York senator’s support now below 50 percent in each group, according to Gallup. Both are backed by 47 percent of white voters surveyed, and Obama is essentially tied with Clinton – 47 percent to 46 percent – among Democrats whose education level is a high school diploma or less.

Clinton’s advantage among women overall seems to have evaporated, with Obama now holding a lead within the survey’s three point margin of error, 49 percent to 46 percent. Hispanics favor Obama over Clinton by 7 percentage points, 51 percent to 44 percent. And Obama now leads among voters in Eastern states by 9 percentage points over Clinton – 52 percent to 43 percent.

Clinton’s standing with whites has fallen by five percentage points during the month of May. With Hispanics, Clinton has lost eight percentage points in the same time period. Clinton’s support with Easterners has fallen by seven percentage points and with women, Clinton has last four percentage points in May. Women age 50 or older is the only major demographic group where a majority, 52 percent, still support the New York senator.

Obama’s support among voters with postgraduate education, voters with monthly incomes of at least $5000, and men – has grown to the point that, he now leads Clinton by a margin of 2-to-1. Among voters 29 or younger, Obama leads Clinton by a margin of nearly 3-to-1.

Gallup’s results released Tuesday are based on a survey of 1,261 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters using combined data from May 16-18, 2008. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Gallup’s May 1-13 daily tracking poll results are based on a survey of 5,474 Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters. The May 1-13 survey results have a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point.

[RockSP]

There's arguably more dirt on Cindy McCain than there is on Michelle Obama, so if the Republicans and PAC's know what's good for them, they'll heed his warning. Besides, if they're really going to make this a clean campaign and focus on the issues as McCain has said he wants to do as has Obama, then they need to leave the wives out of it other than having them there smiling and being supportive.

If Michelle and Cindy IM'd each other (http://www.236.com/news/2008/05/14/if_they_imd_michelle_obama_and_6493.php)

[Matt]

This is interesting.

Interesting polls. Never the less, I am curious what percentage of Reagan-Crats and elderly voters will go over to McCain when the time comes.

[Mr Sparkle]

If Michelle and Cindy IM'd each other (http://www.236.com/news/2008/05/14/if_they_imd_michelle_obama_and_6493.php)

to be fair she has involved herself ( Cindy McCain that is) in a bunch of good causes.
to be unfair McCain and her were having an affair while McCain's crippled wife (who waited for the dude while he came back from Vietnam) suffered like some soap opera character from the 70's ....wait, this WAS during the seventies.

Irony you cruel mistress you.

[The Senator]

to be fair she has involved herself ( Cindy McCain that is) in a bunch of good causes.
to be unfair McCain and her were having an affair while McCain's crippled wife (who waited for the dude while he came back from Vietnam) suffered like some soap opera character from the 70's ....wait, this WAS during the seventies.

Irony you cruel mistress you.

From Newsweek:





The phone rang and it was Ross Perot, who hasn't given an interview in years. Perot, who won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election, making him one of the strongest third-party candidates in American history, got straight to the point.

"Remember what you wrote about John McCain in the March 13, 2000, NEWSWEEK?"

"Sure," I lied.

"When McCain called Perot 'nuttier than a fruitcake'?"

The Texas billionaire, now 77, still has some scores to settle from the Vietnam era, and his timing is exquisite. Just days before the South Carolina GOP primary, he wants me to know that McCain "is the classic opportunist--he's always reaching for attention and glory. Other POWs won't even sit at the same table with him."

Mark Salter, McCain's longtime top aide, says the Arizona senator has plenty of veteran support and many close friendships among other former POWs.

The Perot-McCain relationship goes back to McCain's five and a half years of captivity in Hanoi. When McCain's then-wife Carol was in a serious car accident, McCain's mother called Perot for help. "She asked me to send my people to Philadelphia to take care of the family," Perot says. Afterwards, McCain was grateful. "We loved him [Perot] for it," McCain told me in 2000.

Perot doesn't remember it that way. "After he came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."

Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."

The rest of the story can be found here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827

But I'm sure Ross Perot is just a crazy-pants, and McCain has an excuse for leaving his wife because he was a war hero/ member of the Republican Party and all.

[BlackLantern]

we have a 54 percent divorce rate in this country.....mccain left his wife....big f'n deal...clinton screwed an intern in the oval office....

[The Senator]

we have a 54 percent divorce rate in this country.....mccain left his wife....big f'n deal...clinton screwed an intern in the oval office....

That's not really my point.

Republicans are total hypocrites when it comes to marriage fidelity and plain old adultery.

Ronald Reagan was the first and only divorced President of the United States. Yet the Republicans were willing to overlook that, even though they raised a fuss about Bill Clinton having oral sex with an intern in the White House. Despite what the reasons were, the Clintons managed to stay together.

The Republicans are making a stink about Obama not wearing a flag pin. Some are even saying it is a "character issue." Well, why isn't McCain's decision to up and leave his crippled wife for a rich trophy gal considered a major "character issue" then?

If the GOP wants to make a big deal out of bull **** issues such as a flag lapel, then I think the Democrats should make a big deal out of how McCain left his first wife. It's only fair.

[hippie_hunter]

The Republicans are making a stink about Obama not wearing a flag pin. Some are even saying it is a "character issue." Well, why isn't McCain's decision to up and leave his crippled wife for a rich trophy gal considered a major "character issue" then?

Actually McCain's first marriage was pretty much over before he met his second wife. He had several other affairs beforehand. They just officially ended his first marriage so he could marry his second wife.

[Darthphere]

The Republicans are making a stink about Obama not wearing a flag pin. Some are even saying it is a "character issue." Well, why isn't McCain's decision to up and leave his crippled wife for a rich trophy gal considered a major "character issue" then?

Devil's advocate here, as I agree with you. But, the McCain thing is a character issue which relates to his personal morals and character, while the Obama flag pin debacle is about his character towards America and his feelings about America. Sure, we say "It's just a dumb pin!" the argument can be made why if it's so dumb why doesn't he just wear it! I can see the argument, but I still disagree.

[The Senator]

Actually McCain's first marriage was pretty much over before he met his second wife. He had several other affairs beforehand. They just officially ended his first marriage so he could marry his second wife.

How nice of her to let him go :huh:

[Marx]

Actually McCain's first marriage was pretty much over before he met his second wife. He had several other affairs beforehand. They just officially ended his first marriage so he could marry his second wife.

And that somehow makes it more acceptable? :huh:

[The Senator]

Devil's advocate here, as I agree with you. But, the McCain thing is a character issue which relates to his personal morals and character, while the Obama flag pin debacle is about his character towards America and his feelings about America. Sure, we say "It's just a dumb pin!" the argument can be made why if it's so dumb why doesn't he just wear it! I can see the argument, but I still disagree.

I understand your argument.

But can't the argument be made that since McCain is willing to give up on his marriage, he may be willing to give up on his country?

He's been willing to "give up" in the past. It's rumored that in 2001, he approached Tom Daschle about becoming an Independent and caucusing with the Democrats. In 2004, he considered becoming Kerry's running mate. So far, he's been willing to give up on his first marriage and has considered giving up on his party. What's to say he won't do the same for his country?

I think certain questions pertaining to the flag pin are appropriate, but I think it's disgraceful for anyone to ask if a politician hates his country because he refuses to wear a piece of metal no bigger than my thumb nail on his lapel. I also think it's disgraceful to attack someone because of personal, family problems-- but if the Republicans want to call into question "character issues" relating to a stupid pin, then maybe someone should question McCain's willpower.

[hippie_hunter]

And that somehow makes it more acceptable? :huh:

It doesn't at all. But to say that he left his first wife for his second wife is technically false because their marriage was already over for the most part. They also go into other reasons than his first wife's disabilities but instead McCain's immaturity.

[Marx]

I understand your argument.

But can't the argument be made that since McCain is willing to give up on his marriage, he may be willing to give up on his country?

He's been willing to "give up" in the past. It's rumored that in 2001, he approached Tom Daschle about becoming an Independent and caucusing with the Democrats. In 2004, he considered becoming Kerry's running mate. So far, he's been willing to give up on his first marriage and has considered giving up on his party. What's to say he won't do the same for his country?

I think certain questions pertaining to the flag pin are appropriate, but I think it's disgraceful for anyone to ask if a politician hates his country because he refuses to wear a piece of metal no bigger than my thumb nail on his lapel. I also think it's disgraceful to attack someone because of personal, family problems-- but if the Republicans want to call into question "character issues" relating to a stupid pin, then maybe someone should question McCain's willpower.

Now you're thinking like a Republican strategist! :cwink:

[Marx]

It doesn't at all. But to say that he left his first wife for his second wife is technically false because their marriage was already over for the most part. They also go into other reasons than his first wife's disabilities but instead McCain's immaturity.

If this were a Democratic candidate you had better believe the RSM would be all over something like that!

[The Senator]

Now you're thinking like a Republican strategist! :cwink:

Democratic strategists need to start thinking like the Republicans if they want to manipula-- er, win voters.

[Marx]

Democratic strategists need to start thinking like the Republicans if they want to manipula-- er, win voters.

I would agree Jman. For some reason though, I don't think the Dems would be as successful at it. It's pretty hard to beat them at their own game.

[hippie_hunter]

If this were a Democratic candidate you had better believe the RSM would be all over something like that!

Can't argue with you there.

[Arkady Rossovich]

Obama has the nomination. Where are the numbers,I hear he just needs 61 more.

[BlackLantern]

well if he needs 61 more, than he doesn't have the nom now does he??

[Darthphere]

LAWL! Logic.

[rdh007]

Democratic strategists need to start thinking like the Republicans if they want to manipula-- er, win voters.

I wholeheartedly agree. They attacked Kerry on his war record--I see no reason not to point out McCain's faults. Perhaps even including his inability to keep planes in the air and whether or not he is an arsonist...

[The Senator]

I wholeheartedly agree. They attacked Kerry on his war record--I see no reason not to point out McCain's faults. Perhaps even including his inability to keep planes in the air and whether or not he is an arsonist...

Also, if McCain is such a war hero, why did he allow himself to get tortured for five years? He easily could have escaped captivity, saved a few of his comrades, and he damn well could have single-handedly defeated those "gooks" (as he calls them), bringing America to victory in Vietnam.

But alas, he gave up on winning 'nam, like he gave up on his marriage and almost gave up on his party. :o

[StorminNorman]

Also, if McCain is such a war hero, why did he allow himself to get tortured for five years? He easily could have escaped captivity, saved a few of his comrades, and he damn well could have single-handedly defeated those "gooks" (as he calls them), bringing America to victory in Vietnam.

But alas, he gave up on winning 'nam, like he gave up on his marriage and almost gave up on his party. :o

I'm not going to lie - that is brilliant.

[jaguarr]

Also, if McCain is such a war hero, why did he allow himself to get tortured for five years? He easily could have escaped captivity, saved a few of his comrades, and he damn well could have single-handedly defeated those "gooks" (as he calls them), bringing America to victory in Vietnam.

But alas, he gave up on winning 'nam, like he gave up on his marriage and almost gave up on his party. :o

Damn! *slow clap*

jag

[Marx]

Also, if McCain is such a war hero, why did he allow himself to get tortured for five years? He easily could have escaped captivity, saved a few of his comrades, and he damn well could have single-handedly defeated those "gooks" (as he calls them), bringing America to victory in Vietnam.

But alas, he gave up on winning 'nam, like he gave up on his marriage and almost gave up on his party. :o

Now that truly IS out of the Republican playbook. Well done sir!

[Matt]

Also, if McCain is such a war hero, why did he allow himself to get tortured for five years? He easily could have escaped captivity, saved a few of his comrades, and he damn well could have single-handedly defeated those "gooks" (as he calls them), bringing America to victory in Vietnam.

But alas, he gave up on winning 'nam, like he gave up on his marriage and almost gave up on his party. :o

That is so wrong...and yet as Norman said, so brilliant.

Alas though, never gonna happen. Why? The last two Democrats with a set of balls were Lyndon Johnson and Eugene McCarthy.

[Marx]

That is so wrong...and yet as Norman said, so brilliant.

Alas though, never gonna happen. Why? The last two Democrats with a set of balls were Lyndon Johnson and Eugene McCarthy.

I'd say the current Democratic candidates can and WILL handle anything that is thrown at them. They are not push-overs. I recently saw an interview with Barack Obama and his wife - he was asked about the attacks on his wife. Let me tell you...I would not cross he OR Michelle.

As for the Dems launching Republican-style attacks, I do not see that happening at all.

[Matt]

I'd say the current Democratic candidates can and WILL handle anything that is thrown at them. They are not push-overs. I recently saw an interview with Barack Obama and his wife - he was asked about the attacks on his wife. Let me tell you...I would not cross he OR Michelle.

As for the Dems launching Republican-style attacks, I do not see that happening at all.

They'll defend themselves just as John Kerry defended himself from the swift vets. Some times though, and I can't believe I am doing this in intellectual discussion, to quote X3: "The best defense is a good offense." Obama renouncing attacks against his wife is going to do as much good as his attitude about questions regarding Wright and Ayers in the PA debate. A television ad playing 10 times a day on various channels will speak much louder than Obama renouncing it in a stump speech or press conference. Meanwhile, throwing a punch of their own may tell the Republicans "they're serious, we best keep this about the issues." Frankly, I do not think Obama has that in him though.

[The Senator]

They'll defend themselves just as John Kerry defended himself from the swift vets.

I don't think that's true. We've already seen that Obama is not willing to go the route of Kerry when it comes to defending himself. Look at how he responded to Bush's "appeasement" remarks. Look at how he responded to McCain's remarks on Obama's "naiveté."

If Obama was like John Kerry, he'd ignore the comments for about a week, and then say something like "Well I think they're wrong. I'm right when it comes to foreign policy." No, Obama not only explained why the comments were wrong, but what he'd do in regards to speaking with Iran and other nations. And he even used the Republicans' own record of "appeasement" with countries such as the Soviet Union and North Korea against them. It was quite the slap in the face to the Republicans, if you ask me, and a good indication of how the Obama campaign will respond to future attacks-- not only on his record or views, but on his personal life as well.

[Marx]

They'll defend themselves just as John Kerry defended himself from the swift vets. Some times though, and I can't believe I am doing this in intellectual discussion, to quote X3: "The best defense is a good offense." Obama renouncing attacks against his wife is going to do as much good as his attitude about questions regarding Wright and Ayers in the PA debate. A television ad playing 10 times a day on various channels will speak much louder than Obama renouncing it in a stump speech or press conference. Meanwhile, throwing a punch of their own may tell the Republicans "they're serious, we best keep this about the issues." Frankly, I do not think Obama has that in him though.

I'm not denying the Republicans will launch all the same tactics they have in the past. What I'm saying is that these Democratic candidates, I believe, won't stand idly by and let the Republicans fling their crap.

[Matt]

I don't think that's true. We've already seen that Obama is not willing to go the route of Kerry when it comes to defending himself. Look at how he responded to Bush's "appeasement" remarks. Look at how he responded to McCain's remarks on Obama's "naiveté."

If Obama was like John Kerry, he'd ignore the comments for about a week, and then say something like "Well I think they're wrong. I'm right when it comes to foreign policy." No, Obama not only explained why the comments were wrong, but what he'd do in regards to speaking with Iran and other nations. And he even used the Republicans' own record of "appeasement" with countries such as the Soviet Union and North Korea against them. It was quite the slap in the face to the Republicans, if you ask me, and a good indication of how the Obama campaign will respond to future attacks-- not only on his record or views, but on his personal life as well.

It was a slap in the face for people who sit around and watch CNN 24/7. The general public likely did not hear it. They will see the attack commercials however. Obama being on the defense is not going to work. He is going to need to throw a punch of his own to make them back off.

[Darth Elektra]

I'd say the current Democratic candidates can and WILL handle anything that is thrown at them. They are not push-overs. I recently saw an interview with Barack Obama and his wife - he was asked about the attacks on his wife. Let me tell you...I would not cross he OR Michelle.

As for the Dems launching Republican-style attacks, I do not see that happening at all.

I agree!

[kane9321]

Democratic strategists need to start thinking like the Republicans if they want to manipula-- er, win voters.

Yes they should.Fight fire with fire

[kane9321]

Also, if McCain is such a war hero, why did he allow himself to get tortured for five years? He easily could have escaped captivity, saved a few of his comrades, and he damn well could have single-handedly defeated those "gooks" (as he calls them), bringing America to victory in Vietnam.

But alas, he gave up on winning 'nam, like he gave up on his marriage and almost gave up on his party. :o

Well Mccain isnt "bob sanders" ya know:csad:

[BlackLantern]

I want candidates to fight dirty and go negative....it shows me that a candidate is willing to do something uncomfortable to gain an advantage....

[kainedamo]

I want candidates to fight dirty and go negative....it shows me that a candidate is willing to do something uncomfortable to gain an advantage....

:whatever:

So you think it's a good thing for candidates lower themselves and sling mud and basically play dirty politics in order to further their own careers?

[BlackLantern]

:whatever:

So you think it's a good thing for candidates lower themselves and sing mud and basically play dirty politics in order to further their own careers?

well being the President means you are going to have to make decisions that are going to divide and alienate people.....I don't see anything wrong with it and I don't consider it "lowering"....To me, it shows you've got some sack....I'm getting tired of this "taking the high road" crap

[kainedamo]

I think it takes more balls, more intelligence, and a heck of a lot more integrity for a candidate to decide they're going to try to stick to the issues as much as possible instead of playing petty playground politics.

[SuBe]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but did anyone see the video of Hussein Obama flip/flopping on Iran. On May 18 he said Iran was a Dangerous Threat, then later said Iran was just a "tiny, tiny" threat. Which is it?

[BlackLantern]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but did anyone see the video of Hussein Obama flip/flopping on Iran. On May 18 he said Iran was a Dangerous Threat, then later said Iran was just a "tiny, tiny" threat. Which is it?

maybe the FairTax can fix it....:oldrazz:

[RockSP]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but did anyone see the video of Hussein Obama flip/flopping on Iran. On May 18 he said Iran was a Dangerous Threat, then later said Iran was just a "tiny, tiny" threat. Which is it?

A tiny, tiny dangerous threat.

[SuBe]

maybe the FairTax can fix it....:oldrazz:
I think you are on to something...

[moraldeficiency]

Also, if McCain is such a war hero, why did he allow himself to get tortured for five years? He easily could have escaped captivity, saved a few of his comrades, and he damn well could have single-handedly defeated those "gooks" (as he calls them), bringing America to victory in Vietnam.

But alas, he gave up on winning 'nam, like he gave up on his marriage and almost gave up on his party. :o

That's a pretty low and ****ty thing to say. But it does show dems can be just as bad as republicans but without the originality. The marriage is fair game, he's always been a womanizer, not on Kennedy's level but pretty high up there.




Did anyone pick up on the clatter that obama might ask his supporters to help pay for clinton's debt to get her out of the race?

http://www.slate.com/id/2191797/

The race for the Democratic nomination—"race" is hardly the right word, is it?—now feels like a quantum physics problem: How long can a body exist in a state approximating motionlessness without actually stopping? Tuesday night, Barack Obama took the majority of delegates selected through primaries and caucuses, meaning that a race that was already all but over is now a little more so. Superdelegates are not likely to deny him the nomination by reversing the pledged delegates. They have been moving steadily in his direction despite recent losses. Obama needs to win fewer than 30 percent of the remaining delegates to reach the finish line.

The math is relentless, yet Obama hasn't won yet, and Hillary Clinton shows no sign of stopping. She will travel to Florida on Wednesday to argue that he wants to win the nomination by disenfranchising the state's Democratic primary voters, a visit that can only damage him in a swing state crucial to Obama's chances in November.

For the last week, Obama has been debating John McCain and President George Bush over how America should engage with its adversaries. A similar dilemma faces his campaign: How does he diplomatically handle Hillary Clinton's exit from the race? What leverage does he have? If he doesn't pressure her to get out, he risks looking weak, unable to win the nomination decisively. On the other hand, if he doesn't let Clinton leave the race with dignity and grace, he risks alienating some of the women voters who have supported her so stoutly throughout the primaries and whom he needs in the fall. If he moves too aggressively to start his general-election bid, he risks looking like he's disrespecting Clinton and her voters. You could see Obama wrestling with his dilemma Tuesday night in Iowa, the state that started his march to victory. Though he was there to celebrate taking the majority of pledged delegates, his campaign had been working all week to beat back the idea that he was taking a premature victory lap. Still, some Clinton allies saw it that way. One senior aide called it "an unnecessary towel snap." In his victory remarks, Obama glorified his adversary. "In her 35 years of public service, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has never given up on her fight for the American people," he said. "We have had our disagreements during this campaign, but we all admire her courage, her commitment, and her perseverance. No matter how this primary ends, Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age." (Nice touch with the daughters.)

So, is Clinton really still in it or not? Rumors have been circulating through Democratic circles for days about discussions between Clinton and Obama fundraisers and advisers about how she'll get out of the race. Will Obama help her retire her $31 million campaign debt? Not if she keeps pounding on him, say some. Obama fundraisers have already revolted at the idea of raising money for the vastly wealthy Clintons. But another Democratic veteran says that only by continuing the fight will she force Obama to send that e-mail to his supporters asking them to help her pay down her debts.

Most signs from inside the Clinton campaign suggest she's still thoroughly in the race. After the pundits declared Clinton dead last week, her campaign manager, Maggie Williams, told the Clinton staff on several occasions, "We're in this, and we're in this 'till the end." Die-hard supporter Lanny Davis e-mailed around a letter he'd received from a voter in Pennsylvania arguing that Clinton was the better candidate against John McCain. Aides and allies were arguing that if Clinton thought she could make a plausible case that she was ahead in the popular vote, she'd perhaps continue arguing her case after the last primary on June 3.

In Clinton's Tuesday night speech, there was no sign that she was giving in. After winning Kentucky by a whopping 35 points, she laid out an extensive and assertive case for giving her the nomination. She is the most experienced and best-positioned candidate for the fall; she's winning swing states; she's ahead in the popular vote if you count Florida and Michigan. "Keep working. Keep fighting," Clinton told her supporters.

As Clinton presses her case, she's also making it more painful for Obama if he tries to push her out. She told the Washington Post that the way she's been treated in the race has been "deeply offensive to millions of women." Her husband echoed this misogyny charge on Tuesday. The Clintons have now recharged the gender question, which has been a rallying cry for her supporters this campaign. Obama needs support from Clinton's female supporters in the fall and now must tread even more carefully or risk alienating them.

If Obama can't push Clinton directly, he can continue to get superdelegates to do his work for him. Several have said they will vote with the candidate who has won the majority of pledged delegates. He can encourage them to make good on that promise tomorrow. Obama could also argue to superdelegates that he would be in a stronger position to continue his foreign-policy battle with McCain if he had the full weight of the party behind him. If he can get enough superdelegates to move in a bunch, perhaps it would hasten Clinton's departure.

The results in Kentucky and Oregon didn't signal the end, but they did signal more than the beginning of the end. It's the intermission in the middle of the beginning of the end.

[kainedamo]

Have you guys seen this Hilary vs Obama clip?

jB9mb6XhD28&feature=related

[BlackLantern]

I think it takes more balls, more intelligence, and a heck of a lot more integrity for a candidate to decide they're going to try to stick to the issues as much as possible instead of playing petty playground politics.

Are you saying that both can't be done...?

[Marx]

maybe the FairTax can fix it....:oldrazz:

I think you are on to something...

I knew I couldn't go a couple of days without hearing that term! :whatever:

[kainedamo]

Are you saying that both can't be done...?

One is legitamite and good, the other is immoral.

It's like, would you put your faith behind a cop that plants evidence to get a quick arrest?

[SuBe]

I knew I couldn't go a couple of days without hearing that term! :whatever:
I didn't say it! I swear, I haven't said that yet today on the hype.

[Mr Sparkle]

Devil's advocate here, as I agree with you. But, the McCain thing is a character issue which relates to his personal morals and character, while the Obama flag pin debacle is about his character towards America and his feelings about America. Sure, we say "It's just a dumb pin!" the argument can be made why if it's so dumb why doesn't he just wear it! I can see the argument, but I still disagree.

well, he doesn't wear it because it's dumb.
and because maybe elitist that he is, he maybe believes that the American people would be less superficial about this, and of course he was proven wrong, so much so he has to wear a flag pin now.:o
it's weird because these people go out of their way to show everyone that they are " one of them" bowling, pumping gas.
I really don't want joe sixpack in the oval office thank you, I want someone much, much better.

but maybe that's just me

[Marx]

I didn't say it! I swear, I haven't said that yet today on the hype.

And I thank you for that! :cwink:

[Marx]

Obama opens up 8 point lead on McCain
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/pl_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc

[BlackLantern]

eedit

[BlackLantern]

One is legitamite and good, the other is immoral.

Depends on your definition of immoral....

[The Senator]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but did anyone see the video of Hussein Obama flip/flopping on Iran. On May 18 he said Iran was a Dangerous Threat, then later said Iran was just a "tiny, tiny" threat. Which is it?

OMG! HUSSEIN! HE BE A TERRORIST!!!!!!1!1!!

:whatever: :whatever: :whatever: :whatever:

[Mr Sparkle]

HAHAHAHAHA! his named is all "middle eastern" he is probably beholden to Al quaeda.

[SuBe]

OMG! HUSSEIN! HE BE A TERRORIST!!!!!!1!1!!

:whatever: :whatever: :whatever: :whatever:
I decided as long as I keep seeing people say "McBush" I'm going to say Hussein.

[Marx]

OMG! HUSSEIN! HE BE A TERRORIST!!!!!!1!1!!

:whatever: :whatever: :whatever: :whatever:

I don't believe you added enough ":whatever:" to your post! :cwink:

[terry78]

I'm sure the GOP will put up a Youtube video cobbled together with media of Obama talking and the terrorists from Team America going, "derka derka derka Mohammad Jihad!" before this is all over.

[Marx]

I'm sure the GOP will put up a Youtube video cobbled together with media of Obama talking and the terrorists from Team America going, "derka derka derka Mohammad Jihad!" before this is all over.

Oh my... :funny:

[The Senator]

I decided as long as I keep seeing people say "McBush" I'm going to say Hussein.

So your going to act just as childish as those posters? The only reason why they feel the need to refer to McCain as "McBush" is because they don't know how to hold up a debate on their own. You know you're better than that.

And besides, I've only really seen one or two posters refer to McCain as "McBush" or "McSame," and those posters are so incredibly one-sided that all you're going to accomplish with the "Hussein" rap is a long, endless, retarded debate over why McCain deserves to be called "McBush" but "Hussein" is untouchable.

You've got credibility; these posters don't have all that much.

[Lightning Strykez!]

This just in: The National Journal's Linda Douglass has officially joined the Obama Campaign as a senior strategist and his official spokesperson. It's quite an interesting development considering that the National Journal is the media source that labeled the senator the most liberal out there. When the Republicans try to throw that at him in November they'll have to deal with her directly now.

He's definitely lining up quite an army for the fall.

[SuBe]

So your going to act just as childish as those posters? The only reason why they feel the need to refer to McCain as "McBush" is because they don't know how to hold up a debate on their own. You know you're better than that.

And besides, I've only really seen one or two posters refer to McCain as "McBush" or "McSame," and those posters are so incredibly one-sided that all you're going to accomplish with the "Hussein" rap is a long, endless, retarded debate over why McCain deserves to be called "McBush" but "Hussein" is untouchable.

You've got credibility; these posters don't have all that much.
Fair enough Jman, you are always a beacon of truth, I take back my stand on the thing with the thing and will not do it again.

[Excel]

Obama opens up 8 point lead on McCain
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/pl_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc

Word like I said,...soon as he become the clear cut nominee for the party he would pull away...

[Marx]

This just in: The National Journal's Linda Douglass has officially joined the Obama Campaign as a senior strategist and his official spokesperson. It's quite an interesting development considering that the National Journal is the media source that labeled the senator the most liberal out there. When the Republicans try to throw that at him in November they'll have to deal with her directly now.

He's definitely lining up quite an army for the fall.

He's going to need it. This was a wise decision.

[Varient]

One is legitamite and good, the other is immoral.

It's like, would you put your faith behind a cop that plants evidence to get a quick arrest?

Very Good point.

Very sad that this very human trait to prefer "bad Boy" behavior to what I could Coin "Paladinistic" behavior exists at all levels.

We have too many who will vote for who's exciting,... or stirs up the most mud over someone who may be boring but a much better leader because of the stability they have cultivated thru experience.

Meh.

(Woman to girlfriend) "I can't go out with George,... He's nice enough,.. but He's boring."

(Girlfriend to Woman) "Yes, I prefer Bad Boys myself,... Frank rides a Hog, and you know he's doing all our friends,... But I can change him."

I'm feeling the folk who want Obama to act out have the same mindset,...

[kainedamo]

Depends on your definition of immoral....

Slandering another persons character just to get ahead is immoral.

[kainedamo]

I decided as long as I keep seeing people say "McBush" I'm going to say Hussein.

McBush? I've never even heard of that before.

[BlackLantern]

Slandering another persons character just to get ahead is immoral.

How is it slander if it's the truth??(for the sake of argument)

[The Senator]

Slandering another persons character just to get ahead is immoral.

I don't know, I think cheating on your wife and leaving her because she's "crippled" is immoral as well.

[StorminNorman]

McBush? I've never even heard of that before.

You haven't read a post by Superman, then. :csad:

[TheComicbookKid]

This just in: The National Journal's Linda Douglass has officially joined the Obama Campaign as a senior strategist and his official spokesperson. It's quite an interesting development considering that the National Journal is the media source that labeled the senator the most liberal out there. When the Republicans try to throw that at him in November they'll have to deal with her directly now.

He's definitely lining up quite an army for the fall.

This is going to be interesting. And why is it that whenever a democrat runs for office, they immediately become the most liberal. Wasn't Kerry the most liberal in 04?

[The Senator]

This is going to be interesting. And why is it that whenever a democrat runs for office, they immediately become the most liberal. Wasn't Kerry the most liberal in 04?

Considering Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate (even more liberal than socialist-independent Bernie Sanders), it's quite factual to say that Obama is "most liberal."

[kainedamo]

How is it slander if it's the truth??(for the sake of argument)

Because it reduces the political field to childish insults rather than issues.

[BlackLantern]

I don't know, I think cheating on your wife and leaving her because she's "crippled" is immoral as well.

Jman....some would say you are an "immoral" person:yay:

[BlackLantern]

Because it reduces the political field to childish insults rather than issues.

Who says you can't do both??....I can spend 15 minutes talking about your personal life and/or your hookers and the other 15 on economics, the war, and the energy crisis.

[The Senator]

Jman....some would say you are an "immoral" person:yay:

Correct. But I fight fire with fire. A party which was willing to attack a President for "immoral" behavior should be able to deal with its nominee being attacked for "immoral" behavior, per the GOP's definitions.

[kainedamo]

Who says you can't do both??....I can spend 15 minutes talking about your personal life and/or your hookers and the other 15 on economics, the war, and the energy crisis.

I already answered this.

[Marx]

Correct. But I fight fire with fire. A party which was willing to attack a President for "immoral" behavior should be able to deal with its nominee being attacked for "immoral" behavior, per the GOP's definitions.

But the "GOP Rules of Game Play" can only be executed by those in the GOP ranks. Anyone else trying to pull GOP tactics who is not a member of the GOP shall have hell unleashed upon them and will be painted with the utmost disdain and humiliation in the eyes of the public.

That's also per the GOP's definitions. :cwink:

[jaguarr]

I think it takes more balls, more intelligence, and a heck of a lot more integrity for a candidate to decide they're going to try to stick to the issues as much as possible instead of playing petty playground politics.

Are you saying that both can't be done...?

Conceptually speaking, sticking to the issues as much of possible instead of playing petty playground politics sort of means you are not going to get into mudslinging and nasty tactics and focus on the issues at hand and the proposed solutions for them from each side. So, no, you really can't do both and say you are above it all. Even if you are addressing the issues but still flinging poo at your opponent and engaging in character defamation and all the other nastiness that goes on with that type of campaign, then you are not rising above typical politics to focus solely on the issues. I've watched Obama try to stay "above it all" but even he's faltered in his quest to keep it focused on the issues, though I'd say he does a better job than most of trying to stick to the issues and attacking the positions and policies of his candidates rather than attacks on his opponents at a personal level.

You may like someone who fights dirty, but I view that as someone who either has nothing to say about the issues because they are uninformed about them, don't have a stance or know that their stance is unpopular and they cannot win based on those things so they're looking for distractions away from the real issues. I am looking for leaders in our society and government that have solutions, can inspire people and bring them together, not power-hungry jackasses who don't have solutions or care about unity but are willing to tear people down to win anyway. That is not admirable. That is not a leader. That is someone in it purely for their own gain and for no other reasons.

jag

[Memphis Slim]

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of "potatoe." The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush's questions about new scanner technology at a grocers' convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy's a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/enlarge_tab.gif
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Reu/b/2008/140/2008-05-19T230151Z_01_CRY10_RTRIDSP_0_USA-POLITICS-OBAMA.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:launchSlideShowWindow('/Photos/SlideShow.aspx?issue=12&ContentGuid=37b0f6a6-f157-444c-9b77-5f08268f869e'))
US Democratic presidential candidate and US Senator Barack Obama, (D-IL), reacts as he is introduced for a campaign rally in Crow Agency, Montana May 19, 2008. REUTERS/Rick Wilking (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)
Related Media:http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/homeicon_audio.gif (http://560wind.townhall.com/content.aspx?ContentGuid=7807eae9-f422-4107-825c-4774210b10e7) Obama audio (http://560wind.townhall.com/content.aspx?ContentGuid=7807eae9-f422-4107-825c-4774210b10e7) http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/homeicon_audio.gif (http://560wind.townhall.com/content.aspx?ContentGuid=7940896e-26b9-42b2-b2ef-a370c1874cd0) America and Debt (http://560wind.townhall.com/content.aspx?ContentGuid=7940896e-26b9-42b2-b2ef-a370c1874cd0)

-- Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12.

-- Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

-- Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."

-- Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

-- Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:
"There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."
Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was "speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole."

-- Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." The real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.
-- Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste cleanup:
"Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don't know exactly what's going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I'll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport."
I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he's voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the "costs, schedules, and technical issues" dealing with the nation's most contaminated nuclear waste site.

-- Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama's "Dreams from My Father":
"Then, there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians."

-- And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us" -- cluelessly arguing that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets can't do us harm -- and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Barack Obama -- promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah -- is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?

[BlackLantern]

I'm not saying someone "needs" to fight dirty all the time....I just like someone who is willing to go there if needs be.

[jaguarr]

I'm not saying someone "needs" to fight dirty all the time....I just like someone who is willing to go there if needs be.

All I can say to that is that anyone who can handle the dirty fighting by using their intelligence to stay above it but turn it around on their opponent and use their own dirty fighting against them will always get more respect from me than the person who felt the need to go dirty.

jag

[Marx]

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of "potatoe." The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush's questions about new scanner technology at a grocers' convention to brand him permanently as out of touch...

...Barack Obama -- promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah -- is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?

Be prepared for the "Obama-maniac" backlash for posting that Slim. :ninja:

[The Senator]

-- Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12.

Not important. He corrected himself later.


-- Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

Not important. He's ridden that off as a joke.


-- Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."

Not important. He corrected himself afterwards.


-- Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

Not important. I'm pretty sure he was referring to "southern" states, and he's probably quite aware that Kentucky doesn't border Arkansas.


-- Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:
"There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."
Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was "speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole."

Simple gaffe. No worse than Mitt Romney falsely saying that his dad marched next to Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights movement.


-- Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." The real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.

Not really a gaffe, but a misunderstanding. Something tells me many Americans can't even name the language they speak over there-- they probably think it's "Afghani" or "derkanese." At least he didn't say anything stupid.


-- Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste cleanup:
"Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don't know exactly what's going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I'll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport."
I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he's voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the "costs, schedules, and technical issues" dealing with the nation's most contaminated nuclear waste site.

Matter of opinion on behalf of the writer, not a gaffe.


-- Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama's "Dreams from My Father":
"Then, there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians."

That's a gaffe.


-- And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us" -- cluelessly arguing that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets can't do us harm -- and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Again, this is a matter of opinion, not a gaffe. A gaffe is when you say something which you think is undeniably true, but can be disputed with factual evidence. Obama represented one argument which has an argument against it. He was expressing an opinion, just like Bush was expressing his opinion that talking to radical leaders represents "appeasement."

Seriously Slim, you're not even trying to hide your biases.

[Varient]

All I can say to that is that anyone who can handle the dirty fighting by using their intelligence to stay above it but turn it around on their opponent and use their own dirty fighting against them will always get more respect from me than the person who felt the need to go dirty.

jag


Hear hear properly said.


Wait,... I think the term in this case is: QFT.

V.

[The Senator]

Is Bill Richardson Obama's Best Choice for VP?

Quick look at why an Obama/Richardson ticket would have a very good chance at winning...

In my column about who Obama should pick as his VP, I put over the idea of Bill Richardson filling the spot. The main reason for that was because Obama's weakest groups by far in the primaries were Hispanics and seniors. McCain has a built in advantage among seniors (that being, he is one) and no matter what Obama does, he isn't going to win over that group by the type of margin that could swing a state. Ultimately, the only state he will have to do significantly better in among seniors is in Pennsylvania, which will be a key state and one he will have to win.

Now, for the sake of this argument, let's assume Obama carries every state Kerry won in 2004, because if he doesn't, he'll probably lose anyway. Kerry got 251 electoral votes in 2004 (Bush got 286). Now, Obama is currently polling ahead of McCain in Iowa, so let's give those seven electoral votes to Obama, giving him 258. So to win, Obama will need 12 more electoral votes. And remember, so far, he has not won Ohio OR Florida. All he has done is kept the states Kerry has won and added Iowa. If he adds Richardson to his ticket, and we assume that Richardson is able to get Hispanics to vote for he and Obama at a 65% rate (which might even be low considering African Americans vote for Obama at a 90% clip), it automatically makes them the favorite to win New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas. How? Look at the populations of the states...

Nevada: 58% White, 23% Hispanic, 9% Black, 10% Other
New Mexico: 42% White, 42% Hispanic, 3% Black, 13% Other
Texas: 47% White, 36% Hispanic, 12% Black, 5% Other

If Obama/Richardson get 87% of Blacks, 65% of Hispanics, 39% of Whites, and 50% of Other in these states, they win with 50.3% of the vote in Nevada, 52% of the vote in New Mexico, and 54.6% of the vote in Texas. These three states combine for 44 electoral votes. Even if you take Texas out, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada are enough to win the election for Obama if he holds the Kerry states. And this doesn't even include Colorado which is another state with a large African American population and a state where Obama did VERY well among whites in the primary (Colorado has nine electoral votes).

It wouldn't surprise me if Obama's plan to an electoral college win focuses more on Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado than it does on the "traditional battlegrounds" of Ohio and Florida. But you add Richardson to the mix, and suddenly New Mexico and Nevada look like wins even if they get the absolute bottom of what a Democratic ticket would get among white voters, and even Texas is very much in play. And keep in mind that we only assumed that Hispanics would vote at a 65% rate for the first potential Hispanic Vice President. It could easily be higher.

I believe Obama needs to do something groundbreaking with his VP choice. If he picks Richardson, and puts Texas in play, this could be one of the most exciting elections in American history. Hell, forget the midwest-- if Richardson is Obama's running mate, he can secure Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, and would put Texas and Florida in play. Very interesting.

[Matt]

Because it reduces the political field to childish insults rather than issues.

Define the "issues." Issues of character are very important to many voters. How is the issue they are voting based on any less valid than what you would call an "issue?"

[Marx]

I believe Obama needs to do something groundbreaking with his VP choice. If he picks Richardson, and puts Texas in play, this could be one of the most exciting elections in American history. Hell, forget the midwest-- if Richardson is Obama's running mate, he can secure Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, and would put Texas and Florida in play. Very interesting.

I don't see him picking Richardson.

[The Senator]

I don't see him picking Richardson.

Why not? His strategists have to know that picking Richardson would pretty much guarantee him the Southwest (with the exception of AZ), and would put Texas in play. It would also make Florida much more competitive than it once was. That's a total of 80 electoral votes up for grabs. Add that on to Kerry's total in 2004, and you're talking about a huge victory.

Either way, I think he has to pick someone who will help him with demographics other than rural, white, blue-collar voters. Kathleen Sebelius would be a good choice, as she had to win those demographics to become governor of Kansas. Plus, she's Catholic, and she's a woman.

Another choice-- and a much more interesting choice at that-- would be Sen. Chuck Hagel from Nebraska. He's a Republican from a rural state, and would certainly appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. Hagel's reluctance to endorse McCain, as well as his statements where he said he wouldn't be against endorsing Obama, make him an interesting possibility.

[Marx]

Why not? His strategists have to know that picking Richardson would pretty much guarantee him the Southwest (with the exception of AZ), and would put Texas in play. It would also make Florida much more competitive than it once was. That's a total of 80 electoral votes up for grabs. Add that on to Kerry's total in 2004, and you're talking about a huge victory.

But can Richardson actually deliver?


Either way, I think he has to pick someone who will help him with demographics other than rural, white, blue-collar voters. Kathleen Sebelius would be a good choice, as she had to win those demographics to become governor of Kansas. Plus, she's Catholic, and she's a woman.


Sebelious would be interesting.


Another choice-- and a much more interesting choice at that-- would be Sen. Chuck Hagel from Nebraska. He's a Republican from a rural state, and would certainly appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. Hagel's reluctance to endorse McCain, as well as his statements where he said he wouldn't be against endorsing Obama, make him an interesting possibility.

I'm not too familiar with Hagel's stance on the issues.

[The Senator]

But can Richardson actually deliver?

Can any VP deliver?


I'm not too familiar with Hagel's stance on the issues.

I'm personally against the selection. If he wants to win Nebraska, he should pick Bob Kerrey.

[Marx]

Can any VP deliver?



I'm personally against the selection. If he wants to win Nebraska, he should pick Bob Kerrey.

I just read more into Hagel...yeah I don't like him at all. I definately could not bring myself to vote for an Obama ticket with Hagel as a VP.

[Tag279]

Richardson would be an interesting Choice IMO; he brings credibility in regards to foreign policy; but on the other hand states like Ohio Pennsylvania, West Verginia, Kentucky, and the deep south would come out to vote against a black candidate and a hispanic candidate.

[The Senator]

Richardson would be an interesting Choice IMO; he brings credibility in regards to foreign policy; but on the other hand states like Ohio Pennsylvania, West Verginia, Kentucky, and the deep south would come out to vote against a black candidate and a hispanic candidate.

Chances are, if these folks aren't voting for Richardson because of his race, they aren't voting for Obama anyway.

But again, I think you're getting away from the point: With Richardson on the ticket, Obama wouldn't have to worry about Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky (he wouldn't win the latter two anyway). He's got upwards of a ten point lead in PA already, so he probably wouldn't have to worry about that state either. No, Obama could focus solely on Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Florida. That's a total of 80 electoral votes up for grabs. Plus, strategically, it makes McCain campaign in Texas and Florida, while Obama can focus on other swing states if he so wishes. The Senate races in NM, CO and TX will also help the Obama/ Richardson ticket as well, and vice versa.

[Marx]

Richardson would be an interesting Choice IMO; he brings credibility in regards to foreign policy; but on the other hand states like Ohio Pennsylvania, West Verginia, Kentucky, and the deep south would come out to vote against a black candidate and a hispanic candidate.

We're not a bunch of "racist midwestern hicks" up here. Thanks for the ridiculous generalization though! :whatever:http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Arkady Rossovich]

I can't believe that people would vote against Obama simply because of his skin color. Let's look at this seriously,Obama has the nomination. It's the General American election,the people are given the choice to vote. Some would vote against Obama simply because he is a minority? Smarter than some white people?

When America is in the gutter,they won't want to elect change? Just stay the same with McCain? Because he's as someone once said. "The comfort zone. A old white man." It's serious,vote for who will do the best. Not for some outdated thinking.

[BlackLantern]

We're not a bunch of midwestern hicks up here. Thanks for the ridiculous generalization though! :whatever:http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

I think jman has a point....this country has not come as far, in terms of race relations, as we'd like to think....

[BlackLantern]

I can't believe that people would vote against Obama simply because of his skin color. Let's look at this seriously,Obama has the nomination. It's the General American election,the people are given the choice to vote. Some would vote against Obama simply because he is a minority? Smarter than some white people?

When America is in the gutter,they won't want to elect change? Just stay the same with McCain? Because he's as someone once said. "The comfort zone. A old white man." It's serious,vote for who will do the best. Not for some outdated thinking.

Ignorant people hate change....there is an ingrained sub-culture in this country that think people of color are inferior...it is a long standing and deeply held belief in A LOT of people here in the States...

[The Senator]

I can't believe that people would vote against Obama simply because of his skin color. Let's look at this seriously,Obama has the nomination. It's the General American election,the people are given the choice to vote. Some would vote against Obama simply because he is a minority? Smarter than some white people?

When America is in the gutter,they won't want to elect change? Just stay the same with McCain? Because he's as someone once said. "The comfort zone. A old white man." It's serious,vote for who will do the best. Not for some outdated thinking.

Sorry, but in some parts of this country, we haven't come far in terms of race relations.

Granted, I think much has improved over the past fifty years. But when you see footage of folks in West Virginia saying things like "I don't want to vote for a colored fella," or if you hear people say "He's a Muslim terrorist," it proves that much needs to be improved upon.

[souvlaki]

Edit- Ack, posted in the wrong thread.

[Memphis Slim]

Not important. He corrected himself later.



Not important. He's ridden that off as a joke.



Not important. He corrected himself afterwards.



Not important. I'm pretty sure he was referring to "southern" states, and he's probably quite aware that Kentucky doesn't border Arkansas.



Simple gaffe. No worse than Mitt Romney falsely saying that his dad marched next to Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights movement.



Not really a gaffe, but a misunderstanding. Something tells me many Americans can't even name the language they speak over there-- they probably think it's "Afghani" or "derkanese." At least he didn't say anything stupid.



Matter of opinion on behalf of the writer, not a gaffe.



That's a gaffe.



Again, this is a matter of opinion, not a gaffe. A gaffe is when you say something which you think is undeniably true, but can be disputed with factual evidence. Obama represented one argument which has an argument against it. He was expressing an opinion, just like Bush was expressing his opinion that talking to radical leaders represents "appeasement."

Seriously Slim, you're not even trying to hide your biases.


You ignore all of those, and "I'm" the biased one???? LOL:lmao:

Now that's funny!!

Like Malkin said....People still dog Quale for the "potato" mistake.

And unlike you, I admit my bias. No....I do not like the idea of an inexperienced, wet behind the ears rookie, running this country.

[The Senator]

[/B]


You ignore all of those, and "I'm" the biased one???? LOL:lmao:

Now that's funny!!

Like Malkin said....People still dog Quale for the "potato" mistake.

And unlike you, I admit my bias. No....I do not like the idea of an inexperienced, wet behind the ears rookie, running this country.

I've admitted by bias-- It's in my damn signature :whatever:

And I didn't ignore those. I gave a rundown of what they really were, because your conservative commentator was making an issue out of nothing. I also admitted which ones were REAL gaffes.

Let me spell it out for you:

Making a joke about there being 57 states... not a gaffe, a j.o.k.e. It's a n.o.n.--i.s.s.u.e.

If I was on the campaign trail, and had to go through this many contests, I'd probably say "what, we're on state number 32,837, correct?" That doesn't make it a gaffe if it's meant to be a j.o.k.e.

When he says he believes Iran is a "tiny country" which doesn't represent a "real" threat, you can't call it a gaffe. It's a matter of O.P.I.N.I.O.N. on P.O.L.I.C.Y.

If he said "Iran is a country in North America," that would be a gaffe. If he said the president of Iran is Kevin Rudd, that would be a gaffe. Saying he disagrees with the Bush administration is not a gaffe, it's an opinion.

It's also not a gaffe if he corrects himself immediately afterwards. Like when he said Sioux City when he was in Sioux Falls. It's right in the flippin' article-- he corrected himself on the spot!

Also, no one gives a **** about what Dan Quayle did 17 years ago. He's totally irrelevant and no one ever says in an argument "well, Dan Quayle can't spell" to back up their point. Way to address this a decade and a half too late.

Sheesh :whatever:

[Chris B]

Recently, I've started to think that Jim Webb may be Obama's best choice as far as a running mate is concerned. Yeah, experience wise, the two of them only add to one Senate term, but he brings those national security gravitas and the toughness that an Obama ticket is going to need. And I think he would help make the ticket look more appealing to those blue-collar workers.

[The Senator]

Recently, I've started to think that Jim Webb may be Obama's best choice as far as a running mate is concerned. Yeah, experience wise, the two of them only add to one Senate term, but he brings those national security gravitas and the toughness that an Obama ticket is going to need. And I think he would help make the ticket look more appealing to those blue-collar workers.

But would it help secure the female vote, or the Catholic vote, or the Hispanic vote?

I think Richardson and Sebelius are the best bets, at this point, because they may put several states in play which aren't typically in play for the Democrats. They also secure either the female or Hispanic demographic, Catholic voters, and even blue collar voters. Virginia will be in play no matter what, but I wonder if Webb will secure that for Obama. And if Obama wants Virginia, why not go for Kaine, who has more experience under his belt? Or-- better yet-- why not go for Mike Easley, who is a Clinton supporter, someone who appeals to blue collar voters, a Catholic, and from an all-important swing state?

Obama has several worthwhile choices. But he needs someone with experience. who also appeals to multiple swing states, if he wants to be taken seriously.

[Memphis Slim]

Obama: Iran threatens all of us

Won't rule out force in speech in Chicago to pro-Israel group
March 3, 2007
Recommend (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article#none)




BY DAVE NEWBART (dnewbart@suntimes.com) Staff Reporter

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."

Speaking before a pro-Israel crowd at a downtown hotel, Obama also repeated his call for a phased pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq and strongly backed a strong U.S. relationship with Israel.
Earlier in the day, the Republican National Committee took aim at Obama, issuing a research memo aimed at highlighting the Illinois freshman senator's lack of experience on foreign affairs. That the gloves-are-off memo was even generated at this time is a testament to Obama's growing strength in the Democratic primary field.
» Click to enlarge image
http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/030307obama.jpg_20070302_18_39_17_308-116-165.imageContent (javascript:dc_popup_win('http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281096,030307obama.fullimage', 'fullimage', 'toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,m enubar=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,width=650,hei ght=650'))Senator Barack Obama makes a major policy speech on Israel before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
(Rich Hein/Sun-Times)


Obama campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer dismissed the Republican memo as an "example of the type of politics Barack Obama is hoping to change." He said Obama has spoken out against the war for years. He called the

Iranian leader 'reckless'.

While he was being attacked in Washington, Obama was in friendly territory in Chicago as he appeared at a forum attended by 800 members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobby. He received a standing ovation from the crowd and a hug from one of the group's leaders.

Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive" to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people.

The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said. While Obama wouldn't rule out force, he said the United States should engage in "aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions" to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.


But now this.............:woot::ikyn
watch this clip!!!!!!!:lmao::funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ

[Memphis Slim]

Jmanspice:
I've admitted by bias-- It's in my damn signature :whatever:



So why do I have to hide mine?? Why even bring up my bias as an issue?

[Chris B]

But would it help secure the female vote, or the Catholic vote, or the Hispanic vote?

I think Richardson and Sebelius are the best bets, at this point, because they may put several states in play which aren't typically in play for the Democrats. They also secure either the female or Hispanic demographic, Catholic voters, and even blue collar voters. Virginia will be in play no matter what, but I wonder if Webb will secure that for Obama. And if Obama wants Virginia, why not go for Kaine, who has more experience under his belt? Or-- better yet-- why not go for Mike Easley, who is a Clinton supporter, someone who appeals to blue collar voters, a Catholic, and from an all-important swing state?

Obama has several worthwhile choices. But he needs someone with experience. who also appeals to multiple swing states, if he wants to be taken seriously.

Women voters who usually vote Democratic are probably still going to vote for Obama and he'll have a hard time with Catholics given their general conservative nature. But I would agree that appealing to Hispanics should probably be an important factor.

And with his problems regarding working-class voters, I don't think Obama going with a woman or minority would be a good idea. I think that he has to go with a white man at this point.

[The Senator]

So why do I have to hide mine?? Why even bring up my bias as an issue?

Because the article you posted had serious flaws to it. It didn't raise a single valid point. I counted two REAL gaffes out of that list, and two of the other "gaffes" listed were disagreements on policy.

Had you listed true gaffes which needed to be examined, I would consider your argument as non-biased. I would look at whatever argument you were trying to make, and I'd debate you on it.

But you can't debate one-sided bull ****. There's no rationale for it.

And when I post articles and stories on these boards, I make sure they aren't "commentary," that they are as objective as possible. When someone starts off their article by saying "Well you know, that Dan Quayle got a lot of flack for misspelling a word," it's quite obvious that it's going to be one sided trash.

When I debate, my biases are quite evident. When I present a topic to be debated, I try to be as objective as possible. That's the difference.

If I posted an article on Mitt Romney's gaffes by Keith Olbermann, you'd laugh it off and say it was biased dribble. You'd even use your fancy multi-colored fonts and smilees :yay: to make some sort of point about how biased I am.

If you made a post and said "I saw Obama say this on TV, isn't that a gaffe?" I would take you more seriously. But you posted an article where someone went through several non-gaffes and policy positions and ignorantly asserted them as "gaffes."

Funny how that man didn't bring up all of Mitt Romney's gaffes, either. The best part is, Mitt Romney said close to the same thing Obama said about the civil rights march, but there was no mention of that, was there? :huh:

Your biases, Slim, transcend your ability to debate. That's why you need to hide them when you present information to be debated.

[Memphis Slim]

Because the article you posted had serious flaws to it. It didn't raise a single valid point. I counted two REAL gaffes out of that list, and two of the other "gaffes" listed were disagreements on policy.

Had you listed true gaffes which needed to be examined, I would consider your argument as non-biased. I would look at whatever argument you were trying to make, and I'd debate you on it.

But you can't debate one-sided bull ****. There's no rationale for it.

And when I post articles and stories on these boards, I make sure they aren't "commentary," that they are as objective as possible. When someone starts off their article by saying "Well you know, that Dan Quayle got a lot of flack for misspelling a word," it's quite obvious that it's going to be one sided trash.

When I debate, my biases are quite evident. When I present a topic to be debated, I try to be as objective as possible. That's the difference.

If I posted an article on Mitt Romney's gaffes by Keith Olbermann, you'd laugh it off and say it was biased dribble. You'd even use your fancy multi-colored fonts and smilees :yay: to make some sort of point about how biased I am.

If you made a post and said "I saw Obama say this on TV, isn't that a gaffe?" I would take you more seriously. But you posted an article where someone went through several non-gaffes and policy positions and ignorantly asserted them as "gaffes."

Funny how that man didn't bring up all of Mitt Romney's gaffes, either. The best part is, Mitt Romney said close to the same thing Obama said about the civil rights march, but there was no mention of that, was there? :huh:

Your biases, Slim, transcend your ability to debate. That's why you need to hide them when you present information to be debated.


THEY WERE ALL GAFFES. He's your guy. So you defend him. simple.

Mitt ain't in the race and I didn't like him either.

You think you're being "objective". But your "subjectiveness" keeps getting in the way. LOL

[The Senator]

Women voters who usually vote Democratic are probably still going to vote for Obama and he'll have a hard time with Catholics given their general conservative nature. But I would agree that appealing to Hispanics should probably be an important factor.

And with his problems regarding working-class voters, I don't think Obama going with a woman or minority would be a good idea. I think that he has to go with a white man at this point.

But why shouldn't he go with Richardson?

If he puts Texas in play and would help secure NV, NM and CO, wouldn't it be worth it?

Those who won't vote for two minorities on the ticket probably won't be voting for Obama anyway. Isn't it worth taking the risk? TX, NV, NM, CO and FL are 80 electoral votes. And they'd almost be handed to him.

Hell, replacing Richardson with Sebelius, that puts Kansas and Missouri in play. And since Sebelius's father was the former governor of Ohio, that would give her an edge there, too. Not to mention she has appealed to blue-collar voters, she's a woman, and she's Catholic-- three demographics Obama is having trouble with.

If many women feel Hillary is robbed of the nomination, they probably won't vote at all, or would vote for McCain out of protest. Giving Hillary the VP nod is a stupid move, but Sebelius might be crafty enough to work.

He's got to do something bold to reach out to these demographics.

[The Senator]

THEY WERE ALL GAFFES. He's your guy. So you defend him. simple.

They weren't all gaffes.

If someone says "I think Iran is a tiny threat"-- that's an OPINION, not a gaffe!

But I've already spelled this out for you, it's up there, if you took the time to read maybe you'd be able to understand.

:whatever:

HERE, HERE IT IS, SPELLED OUT FOR YOU!


I've admitted by bias-- It's in my damn signature

And I didn't ignore those. I gave a rundown of what they really were, because your conservative commentator was making an issue out of nothing. I also admitted which ones were REAL gaffes.

Let me spell it out for you:

Making a joke about there being 57 states... not a gaffe, a j.o.k.e. It's a n.o.n.--i.s.s.u.e.

If I was on the campaign trail, and had to go through this many contests, I'd probably say "what, we're on state number 32,837, correct?" That doesn't make it a gaffe if it's meant to be a j.o.k.e.

When he says he believes Iran is a "tiny country" which doesn't represent a "real" threat, you can't call it a gaffe. It's a matter of O.P.I.N.I.O.N. on P.O.L.I.C.Y.

If he said "Iran is a country in North America," that would be a gaffe. If he said the president of Iran is Kevin Rudd, that would be a gaffe. Saying he disagrees with the Bush administration is not a gaffe, it's an opinion.

It's also not a gaffe if he corrects himself immediately afterwards. Like when he said Sioux City when he was in Sioux Falls. It's right in the flippin' article-- he corrected himself on the spot!

Also, no one gives a **** about what Dan Quayle did 17 years ago. He's totally irrelevant and no one ever says in an argument "well, Dan Quayle can't spell" to back up their point. Way to address this a decade and a half too late.

Sheesh

[Memphis Slim]

No response on his flip flop on Iran's threat?? How will you explain that away?

Not a gaffe either???:hehe:

[Tag279]

We're not a bunch of "racist midwestern hicks" up here. Thanks for the ridiculous generalization though! :whatever:http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

Marx I meant no offense, but with all the talk about how whites in the rust belt won't support Obama I don't think that Richardson will help with that demographic.

And Also I have lived in the midwest for almost seven years in Chicago I have been to Indiana, West Verginia, Ohio, and Kentucky. And I have to tell you that I have been in parts of Kentucky that would make Mississippi nervous.

I now live in Mississippi; I have been sinc 89, and I have to tell you the level of contempt some people have for him around here is incredible and it is not based on fact.

I actually heard more than one person say that if Obama wins the Presidency they would be willing to shoot him and suffer the consequences.

Again I apologize for my generalization.

[Marx]

Marx I meant no offense, but with all the talk about how whites in the rust belt won't support Obama I don't think that Richardson will help with that demographic.

And Also I have lived in the midwest for almost seven years in Chicago I have been to Indiana, West Verginia, Ohio, and Kentucky. And I have to tell you that I have been in parts of Kentucky that would make Mississippi nervous.

I now live in Mississippi; I have been sinc 89, and I have to tell you the level of contempt some people have for him around here is incredible and it is not based on fact.

I actually heard more than one person say that if Obama wins the Presidency they would be willing to shoot him and suffer the consequences.

Again I apologize for my generalization.

Apology accepted Tag. I'm not denying that there are small parts of those states that are like that. There are parts all across the country that feel that way, not just here in the "Rust Belt."

[The Senator]

No response on his flip flop on Iran's threat?? How will you explain that away?

Not a gaffe either???:hehe:

How is it a gaffe? How is it flip-flopping? He's always said force should remain an option, and that force shouldn't be taken off the table. But he's also said they should meet with the leaders of Iran to discuss their nuclear energy policy.

I've disagreed with his stance on Iran. But I've also disagreed with this "let's invade every country because we don't like their policies" bull **** we've been all too accustomed to.

Personally, it has to be both ways. You have to meet with these leaders if you expect to get anything accomplished. Even if they laugh in your face, it's worth it. At least you know negotiations are off the table. Then you use force as the next resort.

Whatever happened to Teddy Roosevelt's policy of "Speak softly and carry a big stick?" When did the United States foreign policy become "Don't speak at all and beat the **** out of your enemies?"

It's ridiculous to assume that talking to Iran isn't a good idea. Reagan talked to the Soviet Union, Bush talked to the North Koreans, Nixon talked to the Chinese. We need to talk to the Iranians, but keep force on the table. That's what needs to be done if we expect to get anywhere. That's what we need to do if we want to avoid a full-fledged nuclear war. The last thing which needs to happen, at this point in time, is a full-scale invasion of a country which is years away from having the ability to destroy its neighbors.

Sitting around and saying "The Iranians are evil!" isn't going to get anything done. Sitting around crying about the evil Ahmadinejad and his nuclear arsenal won't stop him and the Ayatollahs from being able to destroy Israel. And going in and removing a Democratically elected leader because we disagree with him is the worst thing we can do if we hope to retain a shred of dignity in the eyes of those in the Middle East, and if we want to avoid another crippling, senseless war.

[The Senator]

Surprise, surprise:

In PA, Rendell Strong VP Candidate
http://www.nbc10.com/news/16338855/detail.html

[Chris B]

But why shouldn't he go with Richardson?

If he puts Texas in play and would help secure NV, NM and CO, wouldn't it be worth it?

Those who won't vote for two minorities on the ticket probably won't be voting for Obama anyway. Isn't it worth taking the risk? TX, NV, NM, CO and FL are 80 electoral votes. And they'd almost be handed to him.

I have a hard time seeing TX going to Obama even with Richardson on the ticket, and I think the same applies to FL to a lesser extent. And NM, NV, and CO are all states that Obama can win if he plays his cards right.

[souvlaki]

Surprise, surprise:

In PA, Rendell Strong VP Candidate
http://www.nbc10.com/news/16338855/detail.html

I'd be shocked if PA voters didn't want Rendell as his VP. Obama looks pretty strong with any of those VP choices in PA except for Sebelius, and Hagel. No shocker either that Edwards polls pretty well as his VP choice too. Surprised they didn't include either Richardson or Clinton in those polls (not that the latter has a chance).

[Marx]

I'd be shocked if PA voters didn't want Rendell as his VP. Obama looks pretty strong with any of those VP choices in PA except for Sebelius, and Hagel. No shocker either that Edwards polls pretty well as his VP choice too. Surprised they didn't include either Richardson or Clinton in those polls (not that the latter has a chance).

Edwards has adamantly said "no" as well to an Obama VP run.

[The Senator]

I have a hard time seeing TX going to Obama even with Richardson on the ticket, and I think the same applies to FL to a lesser extent. And NM, NV, and CO are all states that Obama can win if he plays his cards right.

Polls have shown Obama three to eight points behind in Texas. He would have a greater shot at winning the state if Hispanics had a reason to turn out. He's one point down in Florida right now. Again, if Hispanics had someone to vote for, they'd turn out in favor of that candidate and could flip the state.

I feel Richardson would secure the Hispanic vote for Obama. He might not win Texas, but he'd put it in play and would make McCain campaign there. That means putting a lot of money in a state which Republicans typically don't put money into. Then, Obama could easily focus on other states such as Ohio, Indiana and Michigan, while McCain is forced to defend himself in Texas. All you need is one poll showing McCain is in danger in that state, and he'll spend money there. That's 34 electoral votes. Texas is the GOP's California. If they lose that state, it's over.

But Richardson isn't just someone who appeals to demographics. He's got loads of experience. He is a popular two-term governor of a swing state. He was in the Clinton administration, he was a Congressman... he's got everything you'd want in a candidate and more. He appeals to Hispanics and Catholics. He's an ideal candidate. The only problem is, his skin's the wrong color. But as I've said before, those who won't vote for Richardson because he's Hispanic won't vote for Obama anyway. It's a risky ticket, but when have elections been won without taking a risk?

[souvlaki]

Edwards has adamantly said "no" as well to an Obama VP run.

Has he? He mentioned a few months ago he wasn't interested in a VP slot, but people change their minds all the time. I wasn't aware he had said anything regarding that since he endorsed Obama. I wouldn't be shocked if he said that he wasn't thinking about it, but I hadn't heard he'd downright said "no".

[The Senator]

I'd be shocked if PA voters didn't want Rendell as his VP. Obama looks pretty strong with any of those VP choices in PA except for Sebelius, and Hagel. No shocker either that Edwards polls pretty well as his VP choice too. Surprised they didn't include either Richardson or Clinton in those polls (not that the latter has a chance).

Hagel shouldn't be the VP. That would be a stupid choice. He's far more conservative than McCain on social issues, and I would probably have to think twice before voting for an Obama-Hagel ticket.

Sebelius lacks name recognition. I think that's her biggest problem in the state. But if Obama has problems winning certain states with her on the ticket, then perhaps she's a no go.

I would have liked to see a poll with Richardson as the VP, as well as Hillary Clinton.

[The Senator]

Has he? He mentioned a few months ago he wasn't interested in a VP slot, but people change their minds all the time. I wasn't aware he had said anything regarding that since he endorsed Obama.

In politics, nothing is off the table.

If you say "I'm not interested," that doesn't mean you wouldn't accept the offer. You would simply have to be convinced that its worth it.

Unless he made a Shermanesque statement, I think Edwards is still in the running, though I doubt he's at the top of the list.

[Marx]

Has he? He mentioned a few months ago he wasn't interested in a VP slot, but people change their minds all the time. I wasn't aware he had said anything regarding that since he endorsed Obama.


ABC News' Raelyn Johnson reports: One day after endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, the presumtive Democratic nominee, former Sen. John Edwards says he is not angling to become a vice presidential candidate.

"I have no interest in running for VP," said Edwards, arriving at an event in New York City Thursday evening.

For some, Obama and Edwards standing Wednesday on a Michigan stage with their arms raised looked like a possible Democratic convention scenario -- with the pair standing on stage as the Democratic ticket.
Edwards aides also said the former senator was not eyeing a vice presidential bid, and that no deal was cut for his heavily courted endorsement.

On the possibility of being picked as an attorney general nominee, Edwards told reporters, "I don't have any thoughts about any of that."


Edwards not interested in VP; not thinking about AG
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/edwards-not-int.html

[souvlaki]

ABC News' Raelyn Johnson reports: One day after endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, the presumtive Democratic nominee, former Sen. John Edwards says he is not angling to become a vice presidential candidate.

"I have no interest in running for VP," said Edwards, arriving at an event in New York City Thursday evening.

For some, Obama and Edwards standing Wednesday on a Michigan stage with their arms raised looked like a possible Democratic convention scenario -- with the pair standing on stage as the Democratic ticket.
Edwards aides also said the former senator was not eyeing a vice presidential bid, and that no deal was cut for his heavily courted endorsement.

On the possibility of being picked as an attorney general nominee, Edwards told reporters, "I don't have any thoughts about any of that."


Edwards not interested in VP; not thinking about AG
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/edwards-not-int.html

That sounds to me then like he's possibly in the running for Attorney General, or is at least shooting for it then, and just didn't want to say anything. His answer regarding the VP slot sounded pretty adamant, but the answer regarding the AG spot sounded a little more evasive.

[Matt]

Surprise, surprise:

In PA, Rendell Strong VP Candidate
http://www.nbc10.com/news/16338855/detail.html

I'd be shocked if PA voters didn't want Rendell as his VP. Obama looks pretty strong with any of those VP choices in PA except for Sebelius, and Hagel. No shocker either that Edwards polls pretty well as his VP choice too. Surprised they didn't include either Richardson or Clinton in those polls (not that the latter has a chance).

Thats going to change if Rendell doesn't quit trying to lease out the turnpike. It is overwhelmingly unpopular in PA yet he persists in trying to push this through the state legislature. His popularity is dropping by the day because of it and Rendell as VP could honestly cost Obama PA if he doesn't let this notion of leasing the turnpike to a foreign company go.

[Varient]

I can't believe that people would vote against Obama simply because of his skin color. Let's look at this seriously,Obama has the nomination. It's the General American election,the people are given the choice to vote. Some would vote against Obama simply because he is a minority? Smarter than some white people?

When America is in the gutter,they won't want to elect change? Just stay the same with McCain? Because he's as someone once said. "The comfort zone. A old white man." It's serious,vote for who will do the best. Not for some outdated thinking.

(is it possible to laugh sadly @ something that continues to depress the heck out of you?)

1. Please Believe it. It sits in the same area of the Psyke as "Hey yeah he's okay, We can be buds,... but he better not date my sister."

I maintain we are at least ten years away from America being mature enough to judge on merit and character and not color.

Baby steps,... If you had told me ten years ago that a black ANYONE would be the dem or repub Canidate,.. I would have said ten years ago that the country wasn't ready.

Now we are ready to have one be a canidate,...... JUST BARELY. But President?

PFffft,..... I have NO FAITH in America on that score based on history.

Listen to someone like Smiley to hear the same things,... he's all for it,... but he has folk on his show regular that keep saying that there are scads of white folk declaring in advance that if Obama becomes the canidate it's an auto vote for McCain - BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR.

You can't be more blunt than that.

V.

[kainedamo]

Before this election I thought the same thing as Varient, that the US isn't ready.

But people HAVE been coming out for Obama in big numbers and he is now the sure thing for the democratic candidate to the presidency.

I think the people that want something new, a lot of people think another republican would be a mistake, and these people far outnumber the people that won't vote for him because of his color.

[Memphis Slim]

[quote=jmanspice;14857733]How is it a gaffe? How is it flip-flopping? He's always said force should remain an option, and that force shouldn't be taken off the table. But he's also said they should meet with the leaders of Iran to discuss their nuclear energy policy.



One one hand (when he wants that Jewish vote) he says Iran is dangerous...........a serious threat he says....

Then he turns around and says they are not a threat because of their size????

Are you kidding me????:huh:

This guy doesn't know what the heck he's doing! He fresh off the streets of chicago and you want him in the White House???

That was a serious gaffe!!! :woot:

But you spun that one too.....

You outta be his manager...

[terry78]

It's Obama's world, we just live in it.