The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[Addendum]

And they wouldn't be there if we weren't

[Kelly]

And they wouldn't be there if we weren't


I certainly believe we are the main reason why they built up in Iraq, but I don't believe that they WOULD NOT be there at this time. I have a feeling that Iraq was next on their list of countries to build their ranks in.

[jaguarr]

Yes, but that doesn't in any way remove them for being the cause of the violence in Iraq.

THE cause? Al-Queda is THE cause of violence in Iraq? Really have to disagree. Hundreds of years of religious animosity, deep resentment of being a country occupied by foreign forces, and a lot of civil turmoil in a country that's had decades of battle thanks to Western influence probably have a greater role in that. Is Al-Queda a contributing factor and agitator to that violence? Absolutely. However, they are hardly the cause.

I certainly believe we are the main reason why they built up in Iraq, but I don't believe that they WOULD NOT be there at this time. I have a feeling that Iraq was next on their list of countries to build their ranks in.

Yes, they would have gotten into Iraq sooner or later. Our actions there simply made their cause more sympathetic to disgruntled Iraqi's which has helped in their recruiting.

jag

[Kelly]

Yes, they would have gotten into Iraq sooner or later. Our actions there simply made their cause more sympathetic to disgruntled Iraqi's which has helped in their recruiting.

jag

Definitely, very much in the same way that Communism was able to diffuse so quickly after WWII.

[Marx]

Sorry Matt, I dont usually like to get involved in other peopls stuff but c'mon, you gotta practice what you preach. You've mocked my reasons-one reason in particular- for voting for Obama dozens of times here on these boards.

I believe that you said that was the ONLY reason you were voting for him.

[Marx]

I certainly believe we are the main reason why they built up in Iraq, but I don't believe that they WOULD NOT be there at this time. I have a feeling that Iraq was next on their list of countries to build their ranks in.

I still have a hard time seeing Hussein bowing to anyone though.

[Matt]

In complete theory maybe but in harsh reality No its because he is black i cant beleive they would change thier political ideals just for a sore loss Politics is like your favourute football team whoever the manager is you will support them. I dont know your political stance so ill assume your a republican would you ever really vote democrat? and vice versa if your a democrat.:woot:


When you assume you make an ass of u and me.

I believe that you said that was the ONLY reason you were voting for him.

Nail on the head. Excel, you came here and claimed that you knew nothing about politics and were only voting because you wanted to see a black man in the white house. Those were your words. Once you said that, it was an automatic way to invalidate any point you make, because no matter what you've learned since, it all has the inherrant bias of that first comment. Barack Obama could've said "I want to reform America in the image of Nazi Germany," and it wouldn't have mattered as you were already devoted to him. That was my point with you.

[Matt]

Saddam if nothing else was a very very competent dictator. He would've never allowed Al-Queda to form in his country because power was everything to him. He wouldn't have wanted any element he couldn't control in his country.

[jaguarr]

Saddam if nothing else was a very very competent dictator. He would've never allowed Al-Queda to form in his country because power was everything to him. He wouldn't have wanted any element he couldn't control in his country.

Very true. He also kept all of the warring religious factions in check. He really stabilized that region, even if his methods were deplorable, and the U.S. underestimated that role that he played when they took him out.

jag

[Matt]

That was the biggest mistake of the United States. The social contract of the Iraqi people and Saddam was not taken into account prior to invasion. Saddam may have been a ruthless dictator, but he kept the people safe and secure. It was a trade-off, and I wonder if the Iraqi people would prefer being under Saddam again to not being able to walk down the street without risking being blown up.

[Marx]

That was the biggest mistake of the United States. The social contract of the Iraqi people and Saddam was not taken into account prior to invasion. Saddam may have been a ruthless dictator, but he kept the people safe and secure. It was a trade-off, and I wonder if the Iraqi people would prefer being under Saddam again to not being able to walk down the street without risking being blown up.

I would sooner think the first option...

[Kelly]

It depends on who you ask.

Kurds are probably much happier.
*****tes are probably happier.
Sunni's are probably not too happy.

[Excel]

I believe that you said that was the ONLY reason you were voting for him.

And? According to Matts theory "You can't judge a person's reason for voting" and no matter what he says his point was, he's openly mocked me for it many times. Invalidating a point or reeking of bias or not, you yourself have said you cant judge peoples reasons for voting, therefore you using it against me for anything is hypocritical and nothing more. Just practice what you preach. He even says "Who are we to judge whatever reason they are voting for?" :hehe:

After all the **** hes given me for on comment I made a while ago, I thought that was cute. :up:

Nothing else to take from the situation. I say why I want to vote for Obama and Matt mocks me for it. Tag now mocks peoples reasoning for voting for McCain over Obama and you get upset.

:rolleyes:

[Kelly]

*sighs*


*walks out of thread*

[Marx]

And? According to Matts theory "You can't judge a person's reason for voting" and no matter what he says his point was, he's openly mocked me for it many times. Invalidating a point or reeking of bias or not, you yourself have said you cant judge peoples reasons for voting, therefore you using it against me for anything is hypocritical and nothing more. Just practice what you preach. He even says "Who are we to judge whatever reason they are voting for?" :hehe:

After all the **** hes given me for on comment I made a while ago, I thought that was cute. :up:

Nothing else to take from the situation. I say why I want to vote for Obama and Matt mocks me for it. Tag now mocks peoples reasoning for voting for McCain over Obama and you get upset.

:rolleyes:

I see your point Ex, and I meant no disrespect. I guess to me, voting for someone solely on the basis of gender or skin color isn't a very informed way to cast your vote. I don't believe you knew anything about what Obama stood for other than his race, and that was good enough for you to cast your vote. I mean, to each their own, but it makes it hard to debate someone who would cast their vote so blindly.

Again, I mean absolutely no disrespect to you. I do enjoy our conversations.

[Excel]

I guess to me, voting for someone solely on the basis of gender or skin color isn't a very informed way to cast your vote. I don't believe you knew anything about what Obama stood for other than his race, and that was good enough for you to cast your vote. I mean, to each their own, but it makes it hard to debate someone who would cast their vote so blindly.

I see what you saying; I didnt even really care until I saw Matt say he was gonna "bounce his ass tonight" over things like that which I gotta say are about as bad as me having aninfraction for posting pics inthe NFL thread :hehe:

But than again, w/e :yay:

Again, I mean absolutely no disrespect to you. I do enjoy our conversations.[/quote]

Word :up:

[Matt]

Once again, Marx hits the nail on the head. Its not a matter of why you vote Excel. It is a matter of you trying to debate and tell other people they were wrong, when you admitted to supporting a candidate simply because of their race. I don't see anyone on this board who is trying to debate who has said, "I won't vote for Obama out of spite," or "Because he's black." YOu on the other hand, were running around trying to shove your opinion down other people's throats when the only thing you had to back it up is "I want a black president."

On a side note, are you going to run for Hype President, cause otherwise, Norman wins.

[Excel]

I droped out a while ago, so...congrats Norm (?)

[Matt]

I droped out a while ago, so...congrats Norm (?)

But now that Jman's dropped out without a successor, you could be considered the persumptive nominee, what say you?

[Matt]

I see what you saying; I didnt even really care until I saw Matt say he was gonna "bounce his ass tonight" over things like that which I gotta say are about as bad as me having aninfraction for posting pics inthe NFL thread :hehe:

But than again, w/e :yay:

Again, I mean absolutely no disrespect to you. I do enjoy our conversations.

Word :up:[/QUOTE]

I was threatening to bounce Tag because he has on numerous occassions accused other posters (not just myself) of being racist, something that will not be tolerated.

As for your infraction, that was just to stay consistent because Slim was ruining it for the rest of you guys and something had to be done. I can get it reversed if you'd like.

[nathaniel]

[quote=Matt;15386405]When you assume you make an ass of u and me.



But im probably right though.:woot:

[Kelly]

But im probably right though.:woot:

Actually you're wrong, he's not a Republican. :yay:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Kaine and Bayh seem like safe, solid choices. Part of me wants to see him go Norm and pick Hagel, but I think Hagel's more likely to end up Sec-Def material with Biden as Sec-State as the proposal going into November.

Am I the ONLY person here that thinks he'd be better matched with Kathleen Sebellius? :csad:

But the majority of Americans also do not want to lose the war. For McCain's campaign to be successful, McCain must convince Americans that the surge can end the war. It is a stretch, but its do-able (making Americans believe it, that is).

Honestly Matt? I really don't think a lot of people care about this war enough to "win" it. Polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans think the entire concept behind this war was stupid from the very beginning. And I won't even talk about the way people in the international community feel about it. :dry:

Americans want the war to END, and so does...well, everyone else. I never hear others saying "We must win this war". Most I talk to can't even name the reasons why the country went to war in the first place.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I am becoming increasingly annoyed with McCain by the day. I thought he was a very respectable man and looked forward to civil, dignified debates between the two senators. But he's starting to get ugly, and behaving in an almost reactionary stance to everything Obama does. "The Audacity of Hopelessness"? :rolleyes: And all this talk about Obama ignoring the troops in favor of playing basketball is sooooooooo lame and under the belt. We have clear evidence that Barack spent tons of time with the troops and only canceled one visit out of several due to political advisement.

McCain's going to have the same problem Hillary did methinks. The question is, will Obama stoop to his level and get down in the mud too? By and large he avoided smear campaign tactics by taking the higher road throughout the primaries, but the general election is an entirely different ball game--and with much more desperate players.

Thoughts?

[Matt]

I dunno, I'd like to see the US win the war and Iraq stabilize. No matter how ridiculous the reason behind the war, no matter what lies Bush used...I think, good work was done in Iraq. Freedom is preferable to living under a dictator, right? Now if we can stabilize the country, at least some good will come of it, and the soldiers who died, won't have died in vain.

[jaguarr]

Americans want the war to END, and so does...well, everyone else. I never hear others saying "We must win this war". Most I talk to can't even name the reasons why the country went to war in the first place.

Most of the people in our own government can't even agree on what would constitute "winning" in Iraq.

jag

[Matt]

I am becoming increasingly annoyed with McCain by the day. I thought he was a very respectable man and looked forward to civil, dignified debates between the two senators. But he's starting to get ugly, and behaving in an almost reactionary stance to everything Obama does. "The Audacity of Hopelessness"? :rolleyes: And all this talk about Obama ignoring the troops in favor of playing basketball is sooooooooo lame and under the belt. We have clear evidence that Barack spent tons of time with the troops and only canceled one visit out of several due to political advisement.

McCain's going to have the same problem Hillary did methinks. The question is, will Obama stoop to his level and get down in the mud too? By and large he avoided smear campaign tactics by taking the higher road throughout the primaries, but the general election is an entirely different ball game--and with much more desperate players.

Thoughts?

I think that is exactly what McCain is aiming for, to get Obama down to his level. If Obama sacrifices his moral high ground, his entire message falls apart and his base becomes disillusioned. I think that is what McCain wants, thus the non-stop attacking.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Most of the people in our own government can't even agree on what would constitute "winning" in Iraq.

jag


That's a good point, and I agree. I mean, what exactly are the measurables? Bush really didn't have a respectable goal going in there to begin with, so how do we know he reached it?

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'll tell you something else that's been on my mind (and Kel hinted at this a couple of pages back): the missing Hillary.

Why hasn't she released her delegates to Barack already? Something tells me she's got some sort of surprise planned for the convention and it won't be pretty. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I think it's odd that she refuses to let go of her delegates--everyone else has. :dry:

[jaguarr]

I dunno, I'd like to see the US win the war and Iraq stabilize.

Iraq WAS stable before we went in there and FUBAR'd it. Yeah, yeah, yeah....we didn't like Saddam. He at least kept that place from descending into the cesspool of civil war and religious zealotry. And what would constitute us "winning" in Iraq. I haven't ever seen a clear definition of what that is comprised of.


No matter how ridiculous the reason behind the war, no matter what lies Bush used...I think, good work was done in Iraq.

Seriously? Falsifying evidence and just making stuff up to justify going in there is okay with you? Have we done good work in Iraq? The place is in infinitely more turmoil than it ever was before, Al-Queda's now using it as a prime recruiting ground, it kept us from properly finishing things in Afghanistan AND from finding and capturing bin Laden, and severely weakened our position in the Middle East by using up all of our available resources, dollars and troops to the point of being too overcommitted to really do anything about Iran if they really decided to push their luck.


Freedom is preferable to living under a dictator, right?

I'd say it depends on whether the people under that dictator really wanted freedom to begin with and whether or not that dictator maintained a completely secular government in a part of the world that is rife with thousands of years of warring religious factions or not. Everyone forgets that Hussein was practically a product of the U.S. government, backed by us as an ally for many, many moons. We went into Iraq without understanding the role he really played in that region. It was stupid. We Americans are so annoyingly arrogant to think that our ideas of "democracy" (ironic since we don't even have a true democracy ourselves) are superior to everyone else's way of living and that they should not only have it at any cost, but they should love and embrace it as well. It shows a complete lack of understanding of other cultures and no desire to change that understanding one bit.


Now if we can stabilize the country, at least some good will come of it, and the soldiers who died, won't have died in vain.

Maybe some good will come of it, but the impact to our national deficit and our economy, the loss of American lives on Iraqi soil, the mockery it made of our Martial Law processes and our foreign relations will take decades to repair. Epic fail.

jag

[Lightning Strykez!]

I think the fact that Obama--a virtual unknown--has come out of NOWHERE, created this phenomenal organization from grassroot levels, beaten the entire Clinton dynasty AND is now thrashing the uber war-hero McCain already worldwide hardly suggests he's running the "worst campaign ever". :dry:

I know you abhor Obama with a passion, but Matt, come on already. :rolleyes: If anyone has run a terrible campaign this year it was Hillary, who--like McCain--could never figure out what her message was going to be.

[Matt]

You are giving far too much credit to Obama. He has been being pedigreed since he made his speech at the Convention in 2004. The media fell inlove with him almost instantly and wouldn't quit hounding him about the presidency following Kerry's loss. He hasn't been an unknown in 4 years.

[Varient]

Am I the ONLY person here that thinks he'd be better matched with Kathleen Sebellius? :csad:




Americans want the war to END, and so does...well, everyone else. I never hear others saying "We must win this war". Most I talk to can't even name the reasons why the country went to war in the first place.
1. No u r not.
2. Everyone I talk to have the attitude of doing things at this point for the right reasons,... this means for most of us to "resolve" the "war" and leave the place acting peacefully without fear of terrorist activity.

The BIGGEST mistake to be made is to even infer that the terrorist activity in the area is part of the reason why we pull out.

V.

[Lightning Strykez!]

You are giving far too much credit to Obama. He has been being pedigreed since he made his speech at the Convention in 2004. The media fell inlove with him almost instantly and wouldn't quit hounding him about the presidency following Kerry's loss. He hasn't been an unknown in 4 years.


No, I am not. And I am not talking about the media. I am talking about American citizens. To THEM he is most certainly an unknown, and that is the main reason his poll numbers are not higher than they are right now. In addition to his skin color and obviously controversial name, people view him as a risk because they have all of these unknown factors and curiosities about him. He is an unfamiliar face on the NATIONAL political scene. The same cannot be said of McCain is well-known around the world and already ran for POTUS once before. Ditto for Hillary & Co...she too, is an extremely familiar face that people are comfortable with.

My point is the fact he has beaten/beating these two mainstays in many regards is remarkable and is a testament to his charisma and excellent campaign strategizing. Not sure why you are trying to take away credit from where it is due, but...it is what it is.

[Kelly]

I was against the US going into Iraq, I think we screwed up back in the 90's by not finishing the business we started with Saddam, but I don't think we should have gone in this time. But I WILL BE DAMNED......if I'm going to say that the government in Iraq was nothing more than a tyrannical dictatorship. Stable my ****in ass......that's ********. His peace was built on fear, and sorry, that's not peace.

I never wanted us there, BUT the UN, should have done much more than they did. Leadership of the UN, and sons were in Saddam's pocket, THAT is why he got away with all that he did. Food for oil my ass. He was a son of ***** that should have been taken out of power long before we got there. We are not the ones that should be there, but he is where he belongs....in hell.

Let me also say, that in reality, we were a major part of the oil for food **** up as well, considering the majority of the "Multinational Interception Force" that was supposed to be overseeing alot of this was majority US navy. *sighs*........

[Superman]

Iraq WAS stable before we went in there and FUBAR'd it. Yeah, yeah, yeah....we didn't like Saddam. He at least kept that place from descending into the cesspool of civil war and religious zealotry. And what would constitute us "winning" in Iraq. I haven't ever seen a clear definition of what that is comprised of.



Seriously? Falsifying evidence and just making stuff up to justify going in there is okay with you? Have we done good work in Iraq? The place is in infinitely more turmoil than it ever was before, Al-Queda's now using it as a prime recruiting ground, it kept us from properly finishing things in Afghanistan AND from finding and capturing bin Laden, and severely weakened our position in the Middle East by using up all of our available resources, dollars and troops to the point of being too overcommitted to really do anything about Iran if they really decided to push their luck.



I'd say it depends on whether the people under that dictator really wanted freedom to begin with and whether or not that dictator maintained a completely secular government in a part of the world that is rife with thousands of years of warring religious factions or not. Everyone forgets that Hussein was practically a product of the U.S. government, backed by us as an ally for many, many moons. We went into Iraq without understanding the role he really played in that region. It was stupid. We Americans are so annoyingly arrogant to think that our ideas of "democracy" (ironic since we don't even have a true democracy ourselves) are superior to everyone else's way of living and that they should not only have it at any cost, but they should love and embrace it as well. It shows a complete lack of understanding of other cultures and no desire to change that understanding one bit.



Maybe some good will come of it, but the impact to our national deficit and our economy, the loss of American lives on Iraqi soil, the mockery it made of our Martial Law processes and our foreign relations will take decades to repair. Epic fail.

jagAs always, Well said. :up: :yay:

[Lightning Strykez!]

I was against the US going into Iraq, I think we screwed up back in the 90's by not finishing the business we started with Saddam, but I don't think we should have gone in this time. But I WILL BE DAMNED......if I'm going to say that the government in Iraq was nothing more than a tyrannical dictatorship. Stable my ****in ass......that's ********. His peace was built on fear, and sorry, that's not peace.

I never wanted us there, BUT the UN, should have done much more than they did. Leadership of the UN, and sons were in Saddam's pocket, THAT is why he got away with all that he did. Food for oil my ass. He was a son of ***** that should have been taken out of power long before we got there. We are not the ones that should be there, but he is where he belongs....in hell.

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaang! :eek::up:

[jaguarr]

I was against the US going into Iraq, I think we screwed up back in the 90's by not finishing the business we started with Saddam, but I don't think we should have gone in this time. But I WILL BE DAMNED......if I'm going to say that the government in Iraq was nothing more than a tyrannical dictatorship. Stable my ****in ass......that's ********. His peace was built on fear, and sorry, that's not peace.

I never wanted us there, BUT the UN, should have done much more than they did. Leadership of the UN, and sons were in Saddam's pocket, THAT is why he got away with all that he did. Food for oil my ass. He was a son of ***** that should have been taken out of power long before we got there. We are not the ones that should be there, but he is where he belongs....in hell.

Don't mistake my comments as condoning Hussein or his methods by any stretch of the imagination. He was a complete tyrant and did a lot of damage to his own people. He ruled with an iron fist and used fear and force as his primary tools; not admirable in any way shape or form. All I was pointing out was the role he played in that region in the way he kept the religious zealots from turning that country into a perpetual war zone as it is now, and the fact that the U.S. truly did not understand this. Compared to what's going on in Iraq today, it was much more stable under Hussein.

And I agree with you about the U.N. f***ing up royally where Iraq was concerned. I also agree that we were not the ones to go charging in there without the full support of the U.N. and the rest of the international community. If Daddy Bush would have finished what he started the first time around, we wouldn't have this mess.
jag

[jaguarr]

Double post.

jag

[Kelly]

Don't mistake my comments as condoning Hussein or his methods by any stretch of the imagination. He was a complete tyrant and did a lot of damage to his own people. He ruled with an iron fist and used fear and force as his primary tools; not admirable in any way shape or form. All I was pointing out was the role he played in that region in the way he kept the religious zealots from turning that country into a perpetual war zone as it is now, and the fact that the U.S. truly did not understand this. Compared to what's going on in Iraq today, it was much more stable under Hussein.

And I agree with you about the U.N. f***ing up royally where Iraq was concerned. I also agree that we were not the ones to go charging in there without the full support of the U.N. and the rest of the international community. If Daddy Bush would have finished what he started the first time around, we wouldn't have this mess.
jag


I watched a roundtable years ago, with 4 former Secretaries of State. Did you know that we were within 5 minutes of capturing Saddam. 5 ****ING MINUTES........had the group that went into Baghdad continued into the city instead of pulling back as mandated, they would have caught Saddam as he was boarding his helicopter. I got sick when I heard that.....

[Mr Sparkle]

His peace was built on fear, and sorry, that's not peace.



so, then...no real military victory in Iraq for the US right? since peace there would be built on fear as well.:cwink:

[BlackestNight]

I see your point Ex, and I meant no disrespect. I guess to me, voting for someone solely on the basis of gender or skin color isn't a very informed way to cast your vote. I don't believe you knew anything about what Obama stood for other than his race, and that was good enough for you to cast your vote. I mean, to each their own, but it makes it hard to debate someone who would cast their vote so blindly.

Again, I mean absolutely no disrespect to you. I do enjoy our conversations.


Acually after i found out who Obama was i did my research on him and got to know what he believed. I was so spread we word to my family members and people in my neighborhood. Im the one that convince my Mother and all of the Older people in my family to Vote for Obama over hillary.

[souvlaki]

How exactly is Obama supposed to have a commanding lead when the last two elections have shown for the most part our country is split down the middle? I'd say, given the fact that Obama is fairly liberal, he probably has a ceiling of about a 10% lead anyhow. Same goes for McCain. Given how divided the country is right now, neither party was going to win in a landslide no matter how incompetent our current President is, or who they chose for a candidate.

[Mr Sparkle]

I was threatening to bounce Tag because he has on numerous occassions accused other posters (not just myself) of being racist, something that will not be tolerated.


so, even if he believes that you ARE racist he can't say it because "it will not be tolerated" my guess is because it isn't true.
well, I have been called, naive, misguided, partisan...a whole bunch of things that aren't true as well.
do I get to threaten people as well when they voice opinions about me I don't like or agree with?
:huh:

because it's getting all confusing.

[Tag279]

I think that is exactly what McCain is aiming for, to get Obama down to his level. If Obama sacrifices his moral high ground, his entire message falls apart and his base becomes disillusioned. I think that is what McCain wants, thus the non-stop attacking.

Although Matt dislikes me grandly :cwink: I have to say he makes a very good point :up:

That is exactly IMO what McCain is trying to do.

[Zen]

i think its a shrewd political move that could very well work.

[Tag279]

First off let me start by saying that If I have offended or slighted anyone on this forum I apologize. If I did it was not my intent.

I know that I am sensitive to racial issues for the simple fact it is thrown in my face daily.

I do not know where I have called someone racist if I said something that has been viewd that way I was unaware I try to not offend but apparently my efforts have not been effective.

I know that I have been party to some intense exchanges. The only way for me to ensure that I do not call some one racist is for hype members, if they can recall , specific instances where I have. My E-Mail is available to forum participants.

I ask this with all sincerity because I do enjoy discussing politics on the SHH boards because for the most part the exchanges are civil and usually based on real issues with the facts to support them.

[J. J. Jameson]

I'll tell you something else that's been on my mind (and Kel hinted at this a couple of pages back): the missing Hillary.

Why hasn't she released her delegates to Barack already? Something tells me she's got some sort of surprise planned for the convention and it won't be pretty. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I think it's odd that she refuses to let go of her delegates--everyone else has. :dry:

Because she's a Clinton. They don't like conceding to the truth.







"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

[Spider-Bite]

From the article



While a small aspect of the vote may be concerned with Obama's race, McCain's age is more of an issue.

Yes it is more of an issue, but that's not really prejudice or unjustified. It's relevant. Most people over 70 don't want a president over 70. The mind starts to go. I used to be a waiter, and I can tell you, that an awful lot of people that old can't even manage ordering their meal, and remember what they ordered, let alone manage the country.

So really McCain's age which is relevant, verses Obama's color which is irrelevant. The two shouldn't be compared. It's like comparing McCain's support for the Iraq war to Obama's color.

Obama's race will not be the deciding factor in this race, but it will effect enough votes to be signifigant.

I believe that on the bright side, many racists, are not so racist that they will not vote for a black man. I know whites who are racist against blacks but are still voting for Obama. I also believe that Obama has the potential to promote acceptance, because a lot of whites who are racist can't help but like him, which can open the door and pave the way for them to like other black people. And vice versa, if Obama becomes President it will send a message to blacks, that not all white people want to hold the black man down. In fact we lifted one up to the status of Commander in Chief.

Obama has me slightly nervous lately on flip flopping. I feel that the media has exagerated it unfairly and severely as of lately, but I'm worried, that what if after Obama is elected he changes his position on Iraq withdrawl and Iranian negotiations.

[Tag279]

"I believe that on the bright side, many racists, are not so racist that they will not vote for a black man. I know whites who are racist against blacks but are still voting for Obama. I also believe that Obama has the potential to promote acceptance, because a lot of whites who are racist can't help but like him, which can open the door and pave the way for them to like other black people. And vice versa, if Obama becomes President it will send a message to blacks, that not all white people want to hold the black man down. In fact we lifted one up to the status of Commander in Chief." (Spider-Bite)

That is nice to know it offers some hope.

[Marx]

Acually after i found out who Obama was i did my research on him and got to know what he believed. I was so spread we word to my family members and people in my neighborhood. Im the one that convince my Mother and all of the Older people in my family to Vote for Obama over hillary.

Then I commend you on your research.

How exactly is Obama supposed to have a commanding lead when the last two elections have shown for the most part our country is split down the middle? I'd say, given the fact that Obama is fairly liberal, he probably has a ceiling of about a 10% lead anyhow. Same goes for McCain. Given how divided the country is right now, neither party was going to win in a landslide no matter how incompetent our current President is, or who they chose for a candidate.

Glad to see you made it through the earthquake Souv! :yay:

[Marx]

Kaine stays mum on VP buzz
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/29/kaine-stays-mum-on-veep-buzz/

[The Senator]

Kaine is not Obama's best choice for VP, solely due to his lack of experience in state government. His best choice, all along, has been Evan Bayh. Disregarding the Hillary-surrogate factor, he has the most to offer for an Obama administration. He was a former governor for six years, and he's currently in his second term in the Senate-- serving in a red state Obama has a chance of turning blue, according to most opinion polls. Bayh isn't extraordinarily charismatic, but neither are Kaine or Sebelius, to put it bluntly. Neither of Obama's top VP choices would overshadow him, with the exception of Biden, but that's only because Biden suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome and various scandals which would draw much negative attention to the ticket.

After much thought, though, if Obama were to go for someone outside of that circle, I do think Jack Reed would be his best choice. If he was from any a different state (he's from Rhode Island), he'd probably be the frontrunner for the position. His military credentials and foreign policy experience make him an excellent choice. At this point, there are few choices I am absolutely opposed to (Hagel, Nunn, Clinton and Ann Venneman being the only ones I can think of), so it wouldn't really bother me as to who he picked. I just hope he doesn't choose someone who will overshadow him or risks bringing a slew of negativity towards his campaign.

[Tag279]

Kaine is not Obama's best choice for VP, solely due to his lack of experience in state government. His best choice, all along, has been Evan Bayh. Disregarding the Hillary-surrogate factor, he has the most to offer for an Obama administration. He was a former governor for six years, and he's currently in his second term in the Senate-- serving in a red state Obama has a chance of turning blue, according to most opinion polls. Bayh isn't extraordinarily charismatic, but neither are Kaine or Sebelius, to put it bluntly. Neither of Obama's top VP choices would overshadow him, with the exception of Biden, but that's only because Biden suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome and various scandals which would draw much negative attention to the ticket.

After much thought, though, if Obama were to go for someone outside of that circle, I do think Jack Reed would be his best choice. If he was from any a different state (he's from Rhode Island), he'd probably be the frontrunner for the position. His military credentials and foreign policy experience make him an excellent choice. At this point, there are few choices I am absolutely opposed to (Hagel, Nunn, Clinton and Ann Venneman being the only ones I can think of), so it wouldn't really bother me as to who he picked. I just hope he doesn't choose someone who will overshadow him or risks bringing a slew of negativity towards his campaign.

I like Kaine but he highlights Obama's percived weakness in experience. They would look good sharing a stage but we all know it takes more than that.

I still like John Edwards but I am not sure he could dump that looser tag.

Obama's VP has to be someone that has not lost a Presidential or Vice Presidential bid IMV.

Reed is looking more and more attractive to me.

[Marx]

I like Kaine but he highlights Obama's percived weakness in experience. They would look good sharing a stage but we all know it takes more than that.

I still like John Edwards but I am not sure he could dump that looser tag.

Obama's VP has to be someone that has not lost a Presidential or Vice Presidential bid IMV.

Reed is looking more and more attractive to me.

Edwards is currently caught up in a nasty 'affair' tabloid scandal. :csad:

[Kelly]

Yeah, I think John Edwards is about to get caught in the middle of a major problem. It's not looking good for him at the moment. I'll wait for all the facts, but damn this last hotel fiasco doesn't look good.

[Tag279]

Edwards is currently caught up in a nasty 'affair' tabloid scandal. :csad:

WHAT? :huh::huh: I MUST HAVE MISSED SOMETHING. WTF happened?

[Marx]

WHAT? :huh::huh: I MUST HAVE MISSED SOMETHING. WTF happened?

Apparently, he was having some kind of affair at a hotel. I'll see if I can find an article. It's like Kel said - not looking good at all.

[Marx]

John Edwards cheating scandal
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_cheating_scandal/celebrity/64271

John Edwards love child
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_love_child/celebrity/64426

[Tag279]

Apparently, he was having some kind of affair at a hotel. I'll see if I can find an article. It's like Kel said - not looking good at all.

Dude that sucks... If it's true his wife is cleaning him out considering her health status.:csad:

[The Senator]

I find it interesting that an article published nine months ago is making so much headway now. It's a lot like the Larry Craig scandal, which first broke last June but didn't become 'big news' until August. Apparently the media only seems to follow these stories at their convenience.

[Marx]

I find it interesting that an article published nine months ago is making so much headway now. It's a lot like the Larry Craig scandal, which first broke last June but didn't become 'big news' until August. Apparently the media only seems to follow these stories at their convenience.

I was quite confused by the timing as well.

[Tag279]

Well he has a shot to come out of this since it's the Enquirer. The Enquirer is the same tabloid that said that we were going to be invaded by Aliens and that super-intelligent talking gorillias were being bred by a lab in LA.:oldrazz:

[Marx]

Well he has a shot to come out of this since it's the Enquirer. The Enquirer is the same tabloid that said that we were going to be invaded by Aliens and that super-intelligent talking gorillias were being bred by a lab in LA.:oldrazz:

Now Tag, you should know by now to watch out for uber-gorillas! :cwink:

[Tag279]

Marx I have been looking for Uber-Gorillias for years now and all I have seen is a chick named Bertha bo-da-da:woot: :hehe:

[jaguarr]

Uber-gorillas are working in my local grocery. It's true.

jag

[The Senator]

Well he has a shot to come out of this since it's the Enquirer. The Enquirer is the same tabloid that said that we were going to be invaded by Aliens and that super-intelligent talking gorillias were being bred by a lab in LA.:oldrazz:

Well, not exactly. The Enquirer is a bit more respectable, in the sense that many of their stories actually are true. The problem is, it is a magazine rooted in gossip with very little investigation into the stories they pursue. More importantly, a paper in the UK has published an expose of sorts on this story, and I can only imagine that picking Edwards as his running mate would cause this story to surface in the United States. The foreign papers are calling this the scandal the United States media doesn't dare touch, but I'm willing to bet that if Obama picks Edwards as running mate (a very unlikely event, regardless of the scandal), it will become front page news everywhere.

[Marx]

Uber-gorillas are working in my local grocery. It's true.

jag

I would suggest you stop shopping at that store then! They could turn on you at any minute!




(Just a bit of friendly advice. :cwink:)

[Tag279]

Uber-gorillas are working in my local grocery. It's true.

jag

Jag that's just wrong. :nono: ...But it's funny as hell :hehe: :hehe: :hehe:

Well, not exactly. The Enquirer is a bit more respectable, in the sense that many of their stories actually are true. The problem is, it is a magazine rooted in gossip with very little investigation into the stories they pursue. More importantly, a paper in the UK has published an expose of sorts on this story, and I can only imagine that picking Edwards as his running mate would cause this story to surface in the United States. The foreign papers are calling this the scandal the United States media doesn't dare touch, but I'm willing to bet that if Obama picks Edwards as running mate (a very unlikely event, regardless of the scandal), it will become front page news everywhere.

Now I see why I have not seen it on the news shows. But I tell you what if Obama picked Edwards it would be some crap, for real for his campaign to deal with.

[Kelly]

Uber-gorillas are working in my local grocery. It's true.

jag

http://www.hellomynameisscott.com/photos/4rob.bananas.jpg

[Kelly]

dp...

[Marx]

http://www.hellomynameisscott.com/photos/4rob.bananas.jpg

:lmao:

[Matt]

Well, Edwards can kiss goodbye any chance of being Obama's attorney general.

[jaguarr]

http://www.hellomynameisscott.com/photos/4rob.bananas.jpg

Haha! See? Kel knows what I'm talking about!

jag

[Spider-Bite]

You are giving far too much credit to Obama. He has been being pedigreed since he made his speech at the Convention in 2004. The media fell inlove with him almost instantly and wouldn't quit hounding him about the presidency following Kerry's loss. He hasn't been an unknown in 4 years.

Isn't that alone evidence enough of how well this guy has presented himself? He won over the media and stole their hearts, which itself is one of the most crucial aspects of a campaign.

All politicians have to calculate every move and every word, and the media is factored into those calculations. "How will this play over with the media?" That is one of their biggest concerns, if not the biggest concern of every politician. You have to play the media, just as much as you have to play the voters.

You say people give Obama too much credit, but you are ironically denying Obama credit, with your reasoning.

[Marx]

Isn't that alone evidence enough of how well this guy has presented himself? He won over the media and stole their hearts, which itself is one of the most crucial aspects of a campaign.

All politicians have to calculate every move and every word, and the media is factored into those calculations. "How will this play over with the media?" That is one of their biggest concerns, if not the biggest concern of every politician. You have to play the media, just as much as you have to play the voters.

You say people give Obama too much credit, but you are ironically denying Obama credit, with your reasoning.

No.

[Spider-Bite]

No.

couldn't you give a more well thought out response? That is a very weak rebuttal, against a very strong argument.

[The Senator]

couldn't you give a more well thought out response? That is a very weak rebuttal, against a very strong argument.

It's not all that strong of an argument, really, saying that the media's love affair with a presidential candidate is a strong reflection of how he presents himself as a candidate. If that was the case, George Clooney or Angelina Jolie could be President. I think the media's love affair with a candidate should be one of the least important things voters should look for in a prospective president.

[Matt]

He "stole the media's hearts," no more than Clinton did. The media built him up because he is a black man just as they built her up because she is the former first lady. The notion of the first black president sells newspapers and gets ratings. It had nothing to do with his charisma or ability to "win hearts." It has to do with the mass media machine, being the patronizing bastards they are seeing a viable black candidate and building him up because of that.

[Marx]

couldn't you give a more well thought out response? That is a very weak rebuttal, against a very strong argument.

That was a little short. My apologies.

The point is that from the minute Barack Obama stepped before the crowd at the Democratic Convention, the media already had him pegged as the next big thing in the Democratic Party. A successor to the throne. It had nothing to do with Obama, in my eyes.

He was, and still is, one of the most inexperienced people on the national stage. (Not to mention that John Edwards was in almost the same exact position as Obama is now, and was raked over the coals.)

Please explain to me why you think that is SB?

[Spider-Bite]

It's not all that strong of an argument, really, saying that the media's love affair with a presidential candidate is a strong reflection of how he presents himself as a candidate. If that was the case, George Clooney or Angelina Jolie could be President. I think the media's love affair with a candidate should be one of the least important things voters should look for in a prospective president.

I agree, but that is not the issue of the current discussion. We were talking about how effective of a campain he is running, which is not the same thing as how good of a President he would be. Politicians have to show themselves through the media to the voters just right, and choose their words and actions carefully based on how they think the media will cover it.

And perhaps media coverage of Angelina Jolie and George Clooney is a reflection of the image they have portrayed and crafted, and of the live they have lived. Basically what I am saying is Michael Jackson has nobody to blame for the media coverage he gets, but himself. When you have weird relationships with little boys, dangle kids off balconies, and destroy your face with plastic surgery, you can't exactly expect the media to portray you as normal. Thats just how it works.

So really what I have said is true.

[Spider-Bite]

That was a little short. My apologies.

The point is that from the minute Barack Obama stepped before the crowd at the Democratic Convention, the media already had him pegged as the next big thing in the Democratic Party.

Are you suggesting that they pulled a name out of the hat, read the name Obama, and decided to fight for him for no reason? If not, then why did they help him? You can't say it's because he's black, because he's not the only black person in the country.

A successor to the throne. It had nothing to do with Obama, in my eyes.
It was all about Obama.

He was, and still is, one of the most inexperienced people on the national stage. True


(Not to mention that John Edwards was in almost the same exact position as Obama is now, and was raked over the coals.)

Please explain to me why you think that is SB?

Unfortunately John Edwards voted for the Iraq war, when it was the popular thing to do. Part of how Obama became the change candidate was the fact that he opposed it from the beginning. It was a big difference between him and the rest of the field.

I believe that the biggest factor was, the fact that Obama is an amazing speech giver, who is young, articulate, and good looking. All of the necessary ingredients for a successful run at the white house. Therefore the media paid attention to him.

Plus many liberals in the media, along with many members of the DNC did not want Hillary as the nominee. Many inside the business felt that if Hillary and Bill had come out vocally against the war prior to the invasion, it would have effected the political landscape in a way that would have prevented the war.

Many liberals simply wanted a new face for the democratic party. We wanted someobody whom republicans couldn't make out to look like a hypocrite for opposing a war they voted for.

[The Senator]

I agree, but that is not the issue of the current discussion. We were talking about how effective of a campain he is running, which is not the same thing as how good of a President he would be. Politicians have to show themselves through the media to the voters just right, and choose their words and actions carefully based on how they think the media will cover it.

And perhaps media coverage of Angelina Jolie and George Clooney is a reflection of the image they have portrayed and crafted, and of the live they have lived. Basically what I am saying is Michael Jackson has nobody to blame for the media coverage he gets, but himself. When you have weird relationships with little boys, dangle kids off balconies, and destroy your face with plastic surgery, you can't exactly expect the media to portray you as normal. Thats just how it works.

So really what I have said is true.

Yes, we are all aware that as long as the all-knowing Spider-Bite says something, it must be true.

[Spider-Bite]

He "stole the media's hearts," no more than Clinton did. The media built him up because he is a black man just as they built her up because she is the former first lady. The notion of the first black president sells newspapers and gets ratings. It had nothing to do with his charisma or ability to "win hearts." It has to do with the mass media machine, being the patronizing bastards they are seeing a viable black candidate and building him up because of that.


So Obama can't take his race into account when planning his bid for the white house? I'm sorry but Obama is not the only black person in the country.

If you think Obama's charisma or ability to win hearts had nothing to do with this, then you got strong blinders on. Obama is an extremely charismatic politician, and he has made people feel hopeful. This is very true and very relevant.

[Marx]

Are you suggesting that they pulled a name out of the hat, read the name Obama, and decided to fight for him for no reason? If not, then why did they help him? You can't say it's because he's black, because he's not the only black person in the country.

I said 'from the moment he stepped onto the stage' they pegged him as the next great thing. I can say that the media is savvy enough to know what brings in ratings, and what doesn't.



It was all about Obama.

True


That is a matter of opinion.


Unfortunately John Edwards voted for the Iraq war, when it was the popular thing to do. Part of how Obama became the change candidate was the fact that he opposed it from the beginning. It was a big difference between him and the rest of the field.

I believe that the biggest factor was, the fact that Obama is an amazing speech giver, who is young, articulate, and good looking. All of the necessary ingredients for a successful run at the white house. Therefore the media paid attention to him.

Plus many liberals in the media, along with many members of the DNC did not want Hillary as the nominee. Many inside the business felt that if Hillary and Bill had come out vocally against the war prior to the invasion, it would have effected the political landscape in a way that would have prevented the war.

Many liberals simply wanted a new face for the democratic party.

It's one thing to oppose the war before you are able to cast a vote for it. It's quite another to see the evidence (at the time) and cast an intelligent vote that does count.

It's also one thing to oppose funding and proclaim how vehemently ANTI-WAR you are before you get voted into the US Senate, and then change that position once you are there.

[Spider-Bite]

Yes, we are all aware that as long as the all-knowing Spider-Bite says something, it must be true.

so what exactly in this post is not true? I'm sure you agree that is true.

Originally Posted by Spider-Bite http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=15390894#post15390894)
I agree, but that is not the issue of the current discussion. We were talking about how effective of a campain he is running, which is not the same thing as how good of a President he would be. Politicians have to show themselves through the media to the voters just right, and choose their words and actions carefully based on how they think the media will cover it.

And perhaps media coverage of Angelina Jolie and George Clooney is a reflection of the image they have portrayed and crafted, and of the live they have lived. Basically what I am saying is Michael Jackson has nobody to blame for the media coverage he gets, but himself. When you have weird relationships with little boys, dangle kids off balconies, and destroy your face with plastic surgery, you can't exactly expect the media to portray you as normal. Thats just how it works.

So really what I have said is true.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=Marx;15390965]I said 'from the moment he stepped onto the stage' they pegged him as the next great thing. I can say that the media is savvy enough to know what brings in ratings, and what doesn't.

All politicians know that and take it into account.



It's one thing to oppose the war before you are able to cast a vote for it. It's quite another to see the evidence (at the time) and cast an intelligent vote that does count.

It's also one thing to oppose funding and proclaim how vehemently ANTI-WAR you are before you get voted into the US Senate, and then change that position once you are there.
You may feel unimpressed, but the fact remains. It brought attention, spotlight, and helpful coverage.

Did it not?

[Marx]

All politicians know that and take it into account.



You may feel unimpressed, but the fact remains. It brought attention, spotlight, and helpful coverage.

Did it not?

Did you even read anything that I said? It's one thing to oppose it all when you don't have to commit yourself to an actual vote on it. He proved that once he got elected to the US Senate. He changed his position when he reached national office.

[Spider-Bite]

Did you even read anything that I said? It's one thing to oppose it all when you don't have to commit yourself to an actual vote on it. He proved that once he got elected to the US Senate. He changed his position when he reached national office.

Did you read what I said? I wasn't debating whether or not he deserves mine or your vote based on it. We were talking about how he got media coverage because of it. Whether or not that message and image would bring attention or ratings.

[The Senator]

so what exactly in this post is not true? I'm sure you agree that is true.

No, I strongly disagree with what you have said. You believe that Obama's presence has made him a strong candidate in the eyes of the media, and therefore that is a reflection of what kind of campaign he is running. I do not think you could be farther from the truth.

The Democratic candidate, regardless of who it could have been out of the top three contenders, would have immediately received warm responses from the media. Clinton, Obama and Edwards received generally positive media coverage throughout the primaries. Obama, the great underdog and transcendental African American candidate, was put on a shiny pedestal by all liberal-leaning news networks which felt the need to promote the Horatio Hornblower tale which underlined his political and professional career. The media paved the way for Obama from the very beginning of this election-- even before he publicly acknowledged that he was considering a bid for the presidency. It wasn't the other way around. The media has given him considerable, positive press coverage, even in cases where it really shouldn't have, and as a result, Obama has received an upper hand. When you combine the hype surrounding his candidacy to strong feelings of contempt towards the current administration, it is quite obvious that Obama is a product of the media's biases, and that his campaign style and methods really had very little to do with what coverage he received.

[Marx]

No, I strongly disagree with what you have said. You believe that Obama's presence has made him a strong candidate in the eyes of the media, and therefore that is a reflection of what kind of campaign he is running. I do not think you could be farther from the truth.

The Democratic candidate, regardless of who it could have been out of the top three contenders, would have immediately received warm responses from the media. Clinton, Obama and Edwards received generally positive media coverage throughout the primaries. Obama, the great underdog and transcendental African American candidate, was put on a shiny pedestal by all liberal-leaning news networks which felt the need to promote the Horatio Hornblower tale which underlined his political and professional career. The media paved the way for Obama from the very beginning of this election-- even before he publicly acknowledged that he was considering a bid for the presidency. It wasn't the other way around. The media has given him considerable, positive press coverage, even in cases where it really shouldn't have, and as a result, Obama has received an upper hand. When you combine the hype surrounding his candidacy to strong feelings of contempt towards the current administration, it is quite obvious that Obama is a product of the media's biases, and that his campaign style and methods really had very little to do with what coverage he received.

Well said Jman. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Spider-Bite]

No, I strongly disagree with what you have said. You believe that Obama's presence has made him a strong candidate in the eyes of the media, and therefore that is a reflection of what kind of campaign he is running. I do not think you could be farther from the truth.

The Democratic candidate, regardless of who it could have been out of the top three contenders, would have immediately received warm responses from the media. Clinton, Obama and Edwards received generally positive media coverage throughout the primaries. Obama, the great underdog and transcendental African American candidate, was put on a shiny pedestal by all liberal-leaning news networks which felt the need to promote the Horatio Hornblower tale which underlined his political and professional career. The media paved the way for Obama from the very beginning of this election-- even before he publicly acknowledged that he was considering a bid for the presidency. It wasn't the other way around. The media has given him considerable, positive press coverage, even in cases where it really shouldn't have, and as a result, Obama has received an upper hand. When you combine the hype surrounding his candidacy to strong feelings of contempt towards the current administration, it is quite obvious that Obama is a product of the media's biases, and that his campaign style and methods really had very little to do with what coverage he received.

Didn't you say previously in this thread that Obama was running an excellent campaign?

Do you not believe that Obama's speeches, and the words of those speeches had an effect on Obama being one of the top three contenders to begin with? yeah the top three got coverage, but first you had to be in the top three.


it is quite obvious that Obama is a product of the media's biases,


Name one politician or celebrity who isn't.

[The Senator]

Didn't you say previously in this thread that Obama was running an excellent campaign?

Do you not believe that Obama's speeches, and the words of those speeches had an effect on Obama being one of the top three contenders to begin with? yeah the top three got coverage, but first you had to be in the top three.

Where, in that post, did I refute my original argument?

My argument against you is that Obama's campaign style does not coincide with the media attention he has received. Any presidential contender on the Democratic side would be receiving similar coverage at this point in time, based on the national mood. Granted, it is difficult to say exactly how things would have turned out, given Hillary Clinton's fall towards the end of the primary and Edwards's sex scandal, but assuming these events had not fallen into fruition, Obama would not be the sole beneficiary of the media's undeniable bias.

Moreover, I made no references to his speeches, or any other superficial aspect of his campaign. Obama has done a damn fine job running his campaign, from his fundraising efforts to his ability to brush off petty attacks by his opponents as soon as the attacks are made. But that has nothing to with media perception or reflection; that aspect has solely to do with his campaign.


Name one politician or celebrity who isn't.

Amy Winehouse.

[terry78]

IvpknYgk8aU

Ludacris' new Obama theme song. That beat is sick. :o

[ForestAflame]

"Paint the white house black and I'm sure that's got them terrified
McCain don't belong in any chair unless he's paralyzed.":hehe:

[kainedamo]

Better than the "Don't vote for a democrat" song.

[jaguarr]

Better than the "Don't vote for a democrat" song.

The one written by the Canadian who put up the billboard to promote his song and sell copies of it?

jag

[kainedamo]

The one written by the Canadian who put up the billboard to promote his song and sell copies of it?

jag

He's Canadian?

Wow :( And yeah that guy, the one with the stupid billboard.

[jaguarr]

He's Canadian?

Wow :( And yeah that guy, the one with the stupid billboard.

Yes, he's a Canadian so he can't even vote in this country. Even the RNC denounced him and his billboard and song as nothing more than opportunistic actions that he was engaging in so he could sell more copies of his crappy album.

jag

[Marx]

Has anyone heard the reports that Obama actually authorized the publication of his prayer at the Western Wall? I cannot find a link, but I'm looking for one.

[Kelly]

Has anyone heard the reports that Obama actually authorized the publication of his prayer at the Western Wall? I cannot find a link, but I'm looking for one.

That's what the pope did.....but I haven't heard or read that Obama did.

[jaguarr]

Has anyone heard the reports that Obama actually authorized the publication of his prayer at the Western Wall? I cannot find a link, but I'm looking for one.

Smells like:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/jaguarr/shh/BullSht.jpg

jag

[Marx]

That's what the pope did.....but I haven't heard or read that Obama did.

I haven't come across an actual story yet, but I heard it in passing on a news channel. Isn't it against the religion to place a private prayer in the wall and then release the prayer? Or am I mistaken?

[Kelly]

I haven't come across an actual story yet, but I heard it in passing on a news channel. Isn't it against the religion to place a private prayer in the wall and then release the prayer? Or am I mistaken?
I think its wrong if someone takes the praryer and makes it public WITHOUT the consent of the prayer giver.

[Marx]

I think its wrong if someone takes the praryer and makes it public WITHOUT the consent of the prayer giver.

As do I.

[kainedamo]

I think its wrong if someone takes the praryer and makes it public WITHOUT the consent of the prayer giver.

I was disgusted when I originally heard about it. Shame on the student (thats what I read) who picked it up after Obama put it in, shame on the newspapers and media for showing it.

[Marx]

Obama's Western Wall prayer plot thickens
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-western-wall-prayer-plot.html

[Kelly]

I was disgusted when I originally heard about it. Shame on the student (thats what I read) who picked it up after Obama put it in, shame on the newspapers and media for showing it.


Not all media showed it. I heard about it on Fox news, and they said they were not going to report the prayer until Obama had given permission.

[Varient]

Has anyone heard the reports that Obama actually authorized the publication of his prayer at the Western Wall? I cannot find a link, but I'm looking for one.

I'm waiting for the flock of "What's the big deal?" folk who always defend poor behavior,...

[Marx]

I'm waiting for the flock of "What's the big deal?" folk who always defend poor behavior,...

They're coming Varient...just wait. :oldrazz:

[kainedamo]

Not all media showed it. I heard about it on Fox news, and they said they were not going to report the prayer until Obama had given permission.

I'm gonna need more verification before I believe that.

[Marx]

I'm gonna need more verification before I believe that.

I did post a link above.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I told you all McCain was gonna get dirty this week! Now he's comparing Barack to Britney Spears...:mad:


"New McCain ad portrays Obama as celeb not leader"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/New_McCain_ad_portrays_Obama_as_celeb_not_leader.h tml


As a man of color that has worked hard to always articulate himself intelligently, this irks me to no end. They just can't say, "He's a well-liked,Intelligent, attractive, politician, who is changing they way politics is viewed,and breaking records in this historial Presidential election campaign. That's just too easy.

[kainedamo]

Obama's Western Wall prayer plot thickens
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-western-wall-prayer-plot.html

Plot thickens indeed.

It seems to me at the moment, that the newspaper is full of crap.

The note, it was of a very personal nature... basically just Obama asking God to watch over his family... why would he intentionally release that to the Israeli press? Seems very fishy. Seems like the newspaper is trying to cover its tracks.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I told you all McCain was gonna get dirty this week! Now he's comparing Barack to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. :rolleyes:


"New McCain ad portrays Obama as celeb not leader"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/New_McCain_ad_portrays_Obama_as_celeb_not_leader.h tml

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oHXYsw_ZDXg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oHXYsw_ZDXg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


As a man of color that has worked hard to always articulate himself intelligently, this new "attack" ad irks me to no end. They just can't say, "He's a well-liked, intelligent, attractive politician, who is changing the way politics are viewed--and breaking records in this historial Presidential election campaign." Nooooo...they have to compare him to some teeny bopper now.

Does this mean that every well-spoken, well-loved polititian has little value in this country simply because of these strengths? Were JFK, Martin Luther King, and so many other powerful leaders inept because of their talents?????

McCain & Co. need to tread carefully here, because acknowledging Obama's worldwide appeal could backfire. Last time another polititian tried this tactic it didn't work out so well for her.

By the way, I hate the smirky way McCain looks like the old Emperor from Star Wars at the end of this ad. LOL Not to mention, the ad itself is very misleading--Obama is not raising taxes on the middle or lower class at all, and what's up with "more foreign drilling????"


*sigh* I really expected class from this guy. :dry:

[jaguarr]

The negative, especially coming directly from McCain, is going to backfire on him. People are tired of this s**t out of the GOP (and politics in general) and he's just demonstrating with every breath why he's just another part of the same-old same-old and not the "maverick" he pretends to be.

jag

[Marx]

Plot thickens indeed.

It seems to me at the moment, that the newspaper is full of crap.

The note, it was of a very personal nature... basically just Obama asking God to watch over his family... why would he intentionally release that to the Israeli press? Seems very fishy. Seems like the newspaper is trying to cover its tracks.

That's what I thought too Kaine.

[kainedamo]

I told you all McCain was gonna get dirty this week! Now he's comparing Barack to Britney Spears...:mad:


"New McCain ad portrays Obama as celeb not leader"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/New_McCain_ad_portrays_Obama_as_celeb_not_leader.h tml


As a man of color that has worked hard to always articulate himself intelligently, this irks me to no end. They just can't say, "He's a well-liked,Intelligent, attractive, politician, who is changing they way politics is viewed,and breaking records in this historial Presidential election campaign. That's just too easy.

Haha, another negative campaign ad. I wonder if Obama will respond with one of his own? I hope not.

I'm reminded of GTA IV. The hilarious campaign ads on the radio.

[StorminNorman]

I told you all McCain was gonna get dirty this week! Now he's comparing Barack to Britney Spears...:mad:


"New McCain ad portrays Obama as celeb not leader"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/New_McCain_ad_portrays_Obama_as_celeb_not_leader.h tml


As a man of color that has worked hard to always articulate himself intelligently, this irks me to no end. They just can't say, "He's a well-liked,Intelligent, attractive, politician, who is changing they way politics is viewed,and breaking records in this historial Presidential election campaign. That's just too easy.

But it does have a valid point. Obama has no record as a politician - his campaign is based purely on his charisma, on his looks, on his style.

Obama IS more of a celebrity than a proven leader.

[Marx]

The negative, especially coming directly from McCain, is going to backfire on him. People are tired of this s**t out of the GOP (and politics in general) and he's just demonstrating with every breath why he's just another part of the same-old same-old and not the "maverick" he pretends to be.

jag

The negative attacks were just a matter of time. (And with every one that airs, McCain's message will erode.)

[StorminNorman]

The negative, especially coming directly from McCain, is going to backfire on him. People are tired of this s**t out of the GOP (and politics in general) and he's just demonstrating with every breath why he's just another part of the same-old same-old and not the "maverick" he pretends to be.

jag

:whatever:

These tactics are not GOP tactics, there political tactics. Utilizing a good campaign does not make McCain any less of a "maverick". That status was given to him because he is a political moderate who is willing to work across party lines - not because he is a politician afraid to participate in politics.

[Marx]

But it does have a valid point. Obama has no record as a politician - his campaign is based purely on his charisma, on his looks, on his style.

Obama IS more of a celebrity than a proven leader.

But comparing him to Britney Spears is a tad bit ridiculous. Wouldn't you say Norm?

[StorminNorman]

But comparing him to Britney Spears is a tad bit ridiculous. Wouldn't you say Norm?

Is it hyperbole? Of course.

Is it effective? Probably.

*After viewing the ad, I believe it will be a very effective one.

[jaguarr]

:whatever:

These tactics are not GOP tactics, there political tactics. Utilizing a good campaign does not make McCain any less of a "maverick". That status was given to him because he is a political moderate who is willing to work across party lines - not because he is a politician afraid to participate in politics.

Smells like:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/jaguarr/shh/BullSht.jpg

jag

[kainedamo]

C'mon Norman, you're intelligent enough to NOT defend that campaign ad.

That's two campaign ads that focus on demonizing McCain. Like Marx said, these negative ads will only erode McCain's own message. If McCain wants people to believe that he really isn't the same-old same-old, these negative attack ads are NOT going to put forward that message. McCain needs to tell the people what he's all about. Instead of "oh, you don't wanna vote for the other guy!"

[StorminNorman]

Smells like:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/jaguarr/shh/BullSht.jpg

jag

:lmao: Which part? The fact that Democrats run campaigns just like Republicans do? The fact that McCain's reputation has everything to do with his long, successful Senatorial career and not how he runs campaigns? Unless the meaning of bovine feces has changed implication, your picture is utterly incorrect.

[Lightning Strykez!]

But it does have a valid point. Obama has no record as a politician - his campaign is based purely on his charisma, on his looks, on his style.

Obama IS more of a celebrity than a proven leader.

That's bull.

He certainly has a record Stormin--perhaps not as extensive as some of his peers, but's it's not like he hasn't done anything for his constituents as a Senator. And you forget one important element of his campaign platform: he has a vision. Have you stopped to consider that Obama is proving himself as a leader right before your very eyes? Or do you think that 200,000 foreigners just show to random rallies on a whim???? :whatever:

Another question: If someone's virtually ignored by the media, unpopular and perpetually tongue-tied in front of a camera does that qualify him as a better candidate???? What has history shown us?

No offense, but your reasoning here is flawed--big time. This ad is designed to appeal to the most racist, myopic minds among us. :down Call a spade a spade and stop defending what is clearly lame and disrespectful.

[StorminNorman]

C'mon Norman, you're intelligent enough to NOT defend that campaign ad.

That's two campaign ads that focus on demonizing McCain. Like Marx said, these negative ads will only erode McCain's own message. If McCain wants people to believe that he really isn't the same-old same-old, these negative attack ads are NOT going to put forward that message. McCain needs to tell the people what he's all about. Instead of "oh, you don't wanna vote for the other guy!"

Initially when I thought the spot was ONLY about Obama's celebrity status, I feared Marx's analysis was correct; after watching it, however I don't believe the ad erodes at McCain's message at all. In fact I think it is one of the better ads McCain has run this election.

The ad's focus is not about Obama's celebrity, but more about how out of touch his policies are and how his celebrity doesn't change that. There is a huge difference there.

The ad is effective, it uses images that every American can relate to and it hammers Obama on his hugest weakness: drilling.

[Superman]

I told you all McCain was gonna get dirty this week! Now he's comparing Barack to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. :rolleyes:


"New McCain ad portrays Obama as celeb not leader"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/New_McCain_ad_portrays_Obama_as_celeb_not_leader.h tml

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oHXYsw_ZDXg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oHXYsw_ZDXg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


As a man of color that has worked hard to always articulate himself intelligently, this new "attack" ad irks me to no end. They just can't say, "He's a well-liked, intelligent, attractive politician, who is changing the way politics are viewed--and breaking records in this historial Presidential election campaign." Nooooo...they have to compare him to some teeny bopper now.

Does this mean that every well-spoken, well-loved polititian has little value in this country simply because of these strengths? Were JFK, Martin Luther King, and so many other powerful leaders inept because of their talents?????

McCain & Co. need to tread carefully here, because acknowledging Obama's worldwide appeal could backfire. Last time another polititian tried this tactic it didn't work out so well for her.

By the way, I hate the smirky way McCain looks like the old Emperor from Star Wars at the end of this ad. LOL Not to mention, the ad itself is very misleading--Obama is not raising taxes on the middle or lower class at all, and what's up with "more foreign drilling????"


*sigh* I really expected class from this guy. :dry:Ah yes, McBush strikes again.:whatever:

[Marx]

Initially when I thought the spot was ONLY about Obama's celebrity status, I feared Marx's analysis was correct; after watching it, however I don't believe the ad erodes at McCain's message at all. In fact I think it is one of the better ads McCain has run this election.

The ad's focus is not about Obama's celebrity, but more about how out of touch his policies are and how his celebrity doesn't change that. There is a huge difference there.

The ad is effective, it uses images that every American can relate to and it hammers Obama on his hugest weakness: drilling.

For John McCain to call Barack Obama "out of touch" on policy...I would like to borrow one of your graphics. :cwink:


http://jcnot4me.com/images/pot_calls_kettle_black.bmp

[Lightning Strykez!]

Haha, another negative campaign ad. I wonder if Obama will respond with one of his own? I hope not.


I hope he doesn't. I hope he stays above the fray and sticks to the higher road, just like he did with Hillary. But after seeing how things turned out with Kerry, he may not have a choice, but to get down in the mud with McCain...


...which is exactly what McCain wants him to do: to get off the pedastel that others have placed Obama on.

[jaguarr]

:lmao: Which part? The fact that Democrats run campaigns just like Republicans do? The fact that McCain's reputation has everything to do with his long, successful Senatorial career and not how he runs campaigns? Unless the meaning of bovine feces has changed implication, your picture is utterly incorrect.

Do all politicians use negative tactics at least to a certain extent? Absolutely. However, the GOP is almost synonymous with dirty politics and negative campaigns (you can thank Rove for that). And now McCain and the GOP are the first one's to go full-on ridiculously negative (McCain's latest ads, Barackbook, the Britney Spears comparison) thereby reinforcing that stigma that the GOP relies on negativity for their campaigns and engage in disinformation and undesirable association of opposing candidates to public figures. It allows them to avoid addressing the issues while attacking their opponents all at the same time. It's just one more instance of McCain showing me that he's pretty much just like every other person in the GOP that believes in this approach to politics and that he will continue the Bush legacy proudly if he's elected (and I'm seeing that in his policies as well, btw). So, yeah.....smells like B.S.

jag

[StorminNorman]

That's bull.

He certainly has an extensive record Stormin--perhaps not as extensive as some of his peers, but's it's not like he hasn't done anything for his constituents as a Senator. And you forget one important element of his campaign platform: he has a vision. Have you stopped to consider that Obama is proving himself as a leader right before your very eyes? Or do you think that 200,000 foreigners just show to random rallies on a whim???? :whatever:

4 years of national experience as a senator is NOT an extensive record. It qualifies him as one of the most inexperienced candidates to ever run for President.

Obama's Vision is worthless at this point - especially when he has shown a knack for changing his position on several issues.

I don't care who foreigners support in the Presidential election - Obama's policies reek of European socialism, his reception in Europe is no more a surprise than Kainedamo being one of Obama's biggest advocates here.

Another question: If someone's virtually ignored by the media, unpopular and perpetually tongue-tied in front of a camera does that qualify him as a better candidate???? What has history shown us?

McCain's unpopular? He also has not been ignored by the media - for years he was the media's darling. In this election, yes, he has been greatly overshadowed by Obama, but you can not imply that he is not a fully vetted candidate.

No offense, but your reasoning here is flawed--big time. This ad is designed to appeal to the most racist, myopic minds among us. :down

Racist? Show me how comparing Obama to white, rich, celebrities is racist in the least? Obama is being slammed for being just a celebrity not because he is black, but because he has virtually little experience and is a product of a fantastic marketing campaign.

[Lightning Strykez!]

The ad's focus is not about Obama's celebrity, but more about how out of touch his policies are and how his celebrity doesn't change that. There is a huge difference there.

Obama's policies are grossly misrepresented in the ad. So what are you talking about??


The ad is effective, it uses images that every American can relate to and it hammers Obama on his hugest weakness: drilling.

Yeah, okay. *washes hands*

[Marx]

I hope he doesn't. I hope he stays above the fray and sticks to the higher road, just like he did with Hillary. But after seeing how things turned out with Kerry, he may not have a choice, but to get down in the mud with McCain...


...which is exactly what McCain wants him to do: to get off the pedastel that others have placed Obama on.

Obama did not take the higher road with Hillary Clinton. He played just as dirty as she did.

[StorminNorman]

Do all politicians use negative tactics at least to a certain extent? Absolutely. However, the GOP is almost synonymous with dirty politics and negative campaigns (you can thank Rove for that).

The GOP is synonymous with dirty politics because that is the way the party has been painted by the far left - it has been very effective. In reality, however, the GOP is no more negative than the DNC.

And now McCain and the GOP are the first one's to go full-on ridiculously negative (McCain's latest ads, Barackbook, the Britney Spears comparison) thereby reinforcing that stigma that the GOP relies on negativity for their campaigns and engage in disinformation and undesirable association of opposing candidates to public figures. It allows them to avoid addressing the issues while attacking their opponents all at the same time.

Did you actually watch the ad? It did DEAL with issues - the ad had everything to do with Obama's platform of higher taxes and no drilling, issues that are far out of the American mainstream.

McCain has been the one trying to get Obama to debate him - Obama is the one that has refused to.

It's just one more instance of McCain showing me that he's pretty much just like every other person in the GOP that believes in this approach to politics and that he will continue the Bush legacy proudly if he's elected (and I'm seeing that in his policies as well, btw). So, yeah.....smells like B.S.

jag

Again, if you believe this is a GOP approach to politics then you are blinded by party politics.

[StorminNorman]

Obama's policies are grossly misrepresented in the ad. So what are you talking about??

So Obama doesn't oppose drilling?

Obama hasn't proposed tax increases?

Obama misrepresents McCain's policies - like him stating McCain would continue the war in Iraq for 100 years. Its simple politics.

[StorminNorman]

For John McCain to call Barack Obama "out of touch" on policy...I would like to borrow one of your graphics. :cwink:


http://jcnot4me.com/images/pot_calls_kettle_black.bmp

They both hold positions that are out of touch with America, and its the job of Obama to effective use that against McCain just as its McCain's job to use it against Obama.

[Lightning Strykez!]

4 years of national experience as a senator is NOT an extensive record. It qualifies him as one of the most inexperienced candidates to ever run for President.

One of the most.. But we are hardly in unprecedented territory in that regard, and it doesn't mean he doesn't have "a record" at all which is what you said. I'm pointing this out to you that you're exaggerating the facts--which is effectively what this ad does.


Obama's Vision is worthless at this point - especially when he has shown a knack for changing his position on several issues.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. And pray tell me, what is McCain's vision? Does he even have a motto yet?

Obama has adjusted his views on certain elements of certain issues, but as a WHOLE his position has not wavered at all. And he is nowhere near the flip-flopping, gaffe-spitting machine that McCain has become in recent weeks.


I don't care who foreigners support in the Presidential election - Obama's policies reek of European socialism, his reception in Europe is no more a surprise than Kainedamo being one of Obama's biggest advocates here.


Are you a republican?


McCain's unpopular? He also has not been ignored by the media - for years he was the media's darling. In this election, yes, he has been greatly overshadowed by Obama, but you can not imply that he is not a fully vetted candidate.

I didn't say specifically that McCain was unpopular. I made a correlation between an unpopular polititian (i.e. GWB for example) and one that is. The polls don't exactly scream that McCain is well-loved...even by his own party.

As far as fully vetted, I hope you are not counting his POW experiences towards being vetted. McCain has just as much to prove to the American public as any other candidate, and he has a host of ghosts in his closet that Obama so far has chosen not to drag out.


Racist? Show me how comparing Obama to white, rich, celebrities is racist in the least? Obama is being slammed for being just a celebrity not because he is black, but because he has virtually little experience and is a product of a fantastic marketing campaign.

Before I answer this question, tell me: Are you African American? Your response will dictate how I frame mine.

[Marx]

The GOP is synonymous with dirty politics because that is the way the party has been painted by the far left - it has been very effective. In reality, however, the GOP is no more negative than the DNC.

Both parties use dirty politics, but the GOP is far better at it.



McCain has been the one trying to get Obama to debate him - Obama is the one that has refused to.


Turning down a "debate" that would have taken place days after Obama officially gained the nomination isn't something that I would be bragging about.


Again, if you believe this is a GOP approach to politics then you are blinded by party politics.

As I said, it's become pretty obvious in recent years of the tactics that the GOP uses. Scaring people into voting for you is something that needs to be ended.

[kainedamo]

I don't care who foreigners support in the Presidential election - Obama's policies reek of European socialism, his reception in Europe is no more a surprise than Kainedamo being one of Obama's biggest advocates here.

European socialism?? Could you expand on what 'european socialism' is, and why Obama's policies 'reek' of it?

[Lightning Strykez!]

Obama did not take the higher road with Hillary Clinton. He played just as dirty as she did.

Just as dirty as she did? I'm sorry, but he did not.

There is a LOT of garbage in Hillary's closet that Obama could have used to effectively destroy her early on. I'm talking stuff about her past, her marriage to Bill/Monica and a host of other issues that only folks like the GOP would use to demonize a candidate. Obama NEVER "went there." He never got nasty in attacking her character as a woman. He never said that he and McCain were better choices than someone from his own party. He didn't play on racial fears by pushing pics of her in foreign garb. And he never threw any "kitchen sinks" at anyone.

Compared to Hillary, Barack stayed above the fray. Most of all, he was respectful of her, always acknowledging her and her supporters whether he won or lost a contest. Hillary did not return that same honor.

Not saying that he didn't roll up his sleeves sometimes to set the record straight, but to say Barack and Hillary were on the same level of nastiness is absurd--even the polled perceptions of voters disagree with that assessment.

Oh, and :)

[jaguarr]

The GOP is synonymous with dirty politics because that is the way the party has been painted by the far left - it has been very effective. In reality, however, the GOP is no more negative than the DNC.

Well, that explains why the GOP has the kinds of ads they do and why the DNC doesn't have ads that match their level of negativity or disinformation. :dry:


Did you actually watch the ad? It did DEAL with issues - the ad had everything to do with Obama's platform of higher taxes and no drilling, issues that are far out of the American mainstream.

And yet they don't really speak to MCCAIN'S position on the issues, mostly just Obama's. :dry:


McCain has been the one trying to get Obama to debate him - Obama is the one that has refused to.

Yeah, "debates" that would have been held days after Obama's official nomination in a location of McCain's choosing with McCain picking all the questions. :dry:


Again, if you believe this is a GOP approach to politics then you are blinded by party politics.

It is their approach to politics. You only have to look at their current campaign approach and ads to see that. I'm not absolving any other groups, including the DNC, of it. I'm just saying that the GOP engages in it more readily and eagerly than the others. And, look...they're the first ones to really go fully negative in this campaign.

Still smells like B.S., Norman.

jag

[Marx]

Just as dirty as she did? I'm sorry, but he did not.

There is a LOT of garbage in Hillary's closet that Obama could have used to effectively destroy her early on. I'm talking stuff about her past, her marriage to Bill/Monica and a host of other issues that only folks like the GOP would use to demonize a candidate. Obama NEVER "went there." He never got nasty in attacking her character as a woman. He never said that he and McCain were better choices than someone from his own party. He didn't play on racial fears by pushing pics of her in foreign garb. And he never threw any "kitchen sinks" at anyone.

Compared to Hillary, Barack stayed above the fray. Most of all, he was respectful of her, always acknowledging her and her supporters whether he won or lost a contest. Hillary did not return that same honor.

Not saying that he didn't roll up his sleeves sometimes to set the record straight, but to say Barack and Hillary were on the same level of nastiness is absurd--even the polled perceptions of voters disagree with that assessment.

Oh, and :)

I will give you that much. He didn't go into her past, but he did grossly misstate her positions on more than one occasion. In my book, that's no better.

Oh, and :oldrazz:

[Lightning Strykez!]

So Obama doesn't oppose drilling?

Obama hasn't proposed tax increases?

Obama misrepresents McCain's policies - like him stating McCain would continue the war in Iraq for 100 years. Its simple politics.

*sigh*

Take the tax increase element for a moment. Yes, Obama plans to raise taxes on the wealthy. But it is inclusive to that class. The ad reads as if he's gonna raise them on everyone, and people who are not well-versed in his positions will take that statement, misunderstand it and run with it.

And I'm sorry Stormin, but that ad was all about Obama's celebrity status--they just threw in the policy blips for good measure. The REAL focus of the ad was to demean Obama's popular appeal as a negative.

Surely you can see that.

[StorminNorman]

One of the most.. But we are hardly in unprecedented territory in that regard, and it doesn't mean he doesn't have "a record" at all which is what you said. I'm pointing this out to you that you're exaggerating the facts--which is effectively what this ad does.

He is the most inexperienced of any candidate to make it this far in the process.

I am using hyperbole to stress one of Obama's biggest problems - experience, but it doesn't make it any less real.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. And pray tell me, what is McCain's vision? Does he even have a motto yet?

Does he need a motto?

Obama has adjusted his views on certain elements of certain issues, but as a WHOLE his position has not wavered at all. And he is nowhere near the flip-flopping, gaffe-spitting machine that McCain has become in recent weeks.

FISA bill? Gun Control? Campaign Finance?

Are you a republican?

I am a registered Republican but I do not vote a party line. Hell, I supported Obama at one point. For a while I truly believed he was a real different politician and I was ready to accept a candidate I disagreed with politically to see that change. Obama, however, is not anything new. He is not a different politician - he is the same politician in a new suit and fantastic marketing.

I didn't say specifically that McCain was unpopular. I made a correlation between an unpopular polititian (i.e. GWB for example) and one that is. The polls don't exactly scream that McCain is well-loved...even by his own party.

He is not liked by his own policy for the same reason he has support from independents and democrats - his willingness to work across the isle. Something Obama has not proven to be able to do.

As far as fully vetted, I hope you are not counting his POW experiences towards being vetted. McCain has just as much to prove to the American public as any other candidate, and he has a host of ghosts in his closet that Obama so far has chosen not to drag out.

Surely you are not implying about the Keating Five where he was cleared of any wrong doing.

Before I answer this question, tell me: Are you African American? Your response will dictate how I frame mine.

No, though I have grew up in an African American community and have many black friends. The idea of a Black President was one of the reasons I originally considered supporting Obama.

[Lightning Strykez!]

It is their approach to politics. You only have to look at their current campaign approach and ads to see that. I'm not absolving any other groups, including the DNC, of it. I'm just saying that the GOP engages in it more readily and eagerly than the others. And, look...they're the first ones to really go fully negative in this campaign.

Still smells like B.S., Norman.

jag

Agreed.

It's funny how some knock Obama about his rejection of public financing, yet it's becoming clear that he will need all the $$$ he can get to combat misinformation and certain fears/perceptions that no other Presidential candidate has had to face in American history.

The RNC are going to go all out on him--and these two ads are just the tip of the ice berg.

[StorminNorman]

Both parties use dirty politics, but the GOP is far better at it.

The GOP is far more EFFECTIVE, that doesn't mean they do it more.

Turning down a "debate" that would have taken place days after Obama officially gained the nomination isn't something that I would be bragging about.

Obama has not yet agreed upon any debate and has rejected the Town Meeting format.

As I said, it's become pretty obvious in recent years of the tactics that the GOP uses. Scaring people into voting for you is something that needs to be ended.

I agree absolutely - however its not going to change here. Obama's campaign is just as negative as McCain's - the difference is Obama's doesn't uses commercials, yet.

[Marx]

Agreed.

It's funny how some knock Obama about his rejection of public financing, yet it's becoming clear that he will need all the $$$ he can get to combat misinformation and certain fears/perceptions that no other Presidential candidate has had to face in American history.

The RNC are going to go all out on him--and these two ads are just the tip of the ice berg.

People knock Obama for his rejection of public financing because he has long been an advocate FOR public financing. Had that not been his position up until he realized he could make more money without it, people wouldn't be taking issue with him. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'll be back. This debate is making me hungry. :dry:

[Lightning Strykez!]

People knock Obama for his rejection of public financing because he has long been an advocate FOR public financing. Had that not been his position up until he realized he could make more money without it, people wouldn't be taking issue with him. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Obama has certain "ceilings" over his head that McCain does not. He will need the extra money--and that's the only reason he decided to not adopt it.

[Marx]

Obama has certain "ceilings" over his head that McCain will not. He will need the extra money--and that's the only reason he decided to not adopt it.

Keep telling yourself that Lightning. :cwink:

[StorminNorman]

European socialism?? Could you expand on what 'european socialism' is, and why Obama's policies 'reek' of it?

Government health care, massive government benefits and entitlements, implying heavy taxes on businesses and the wealthy, etc.

[StorminNorman]

Agreed.

It's funny how some knock Obama about his rejection of public financing, yet it's becoming clear that he will need all the $$$ he can get to combat misinformation and certain fears/perceptions that no other Presidential candidate has had to face in American history.

The RNC are going to go all out on him--and these two ads are just the tip of the ice berg.

Please. The RNC IS going to go all out on Obama - and they SHOULD! The DNC is going to go all out on McCain - and they SHOULD!

Obama knew that he was going to be in a political campaign when he made his statements about taking public financing - nothing changed. If he didn't make that statement then, there would of been no problem when he went back on his word.

[Lightning Strykez!]

People knock Obama for his rejection of public financing because he has long been an advocate FOR public financing. Had that not been his position up until he realized he could make more money without it, people wouldn't be taking issue with him. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Keep telling yourself that Marx. ;)

[StorminNorman]

Obama has certain "ceilings" over his head that McCain does not. He will need the extra money--and that's the only reason he decided to not adopt it.
McCain has similar ceilings, just in completely different ways.

When people paint McCain as a third term of George W. Bush, that is just as damning as calling Obama a Muslim.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Please. The RNC IS going to go all out on Obama - and they SHOULD! The DNC is going to go all out on McCain - and they SHOULD!

And that is fair enough. However, I have a feeling that Obama is not going to stoop to that level of ugliness because he has stated that he wants to run a classier, more civil campaign. Which will have him at a disadvantage.

McCain already threw in his towel. :whatever:

[kainedamo]

Government health care, massive government benefits and entitlements, implying heavy taxes on businesses and the wealthy, etc.

Is there any specific government benefits or entitlements Obama is pushing that you are against?

[Lightning Strykez!]

McCain has similar ceilings, just in completely different ways.

When people paint McCain as a third term of George W. Bush, that is just as damning as calling Obama a Muslim.

I disagree. One speaks to a man's policies. The other speaks to man's character, his religion, his skin-color and many other "isms" that some in this country still need to get over in the first place. We've lived with 8 years of Bushism; it's not like Americans won't vote in a 3rd term.

But electing an African American with an exotic name? Now THAT'S treading new waters. And the GOP will play on that fear in a way that the DNC cannot return fire to their candidate.

[Marx]

And that is fair enough. However, I have a feeling that Obama is not going to stoop to that level of ugliness because he has stated that he wants to run a classier, more civil campaign. Which will have him at a disadvantage.

McCain already threw in his towel. :whatever:

Obama is playing the game Lightning. When the situation requires him to get as dirty as his opponent, he will.

Or he will suffer the same fate as John Kerry.

[kainedamo]

McCain has similar ceilings, just in completely different ways.

When people paint McCain as a third term of George W. Bush, that is just as damning as calling Obama a Muslim.

Well, one of those views is not fueled by bigotry.

[Excel]

:hehe:

Comparing Obama to PARIS HILTON or BRITNEY SPEARS? :hehe:

Im sick of seeing John McCain ads that just tell me not to vote for Obama when they should be telling why I should vote McCain. Ok, we get your message: Obama is really famous. Just showing McCain's picture is not going to make you vote for him :hehe:

For real; Schwarzenegger was the GOP's only real shot in 2008 because he could get you guys Cali.

[StorminNorman]

I disagree. One speaks to a man's policies. The other speaks to man's character, his religion, his skin-color and many other "isms" that some in this country still need to get over in the first place. We've lived with 8 years of Bushism; it's not like Americans won't vote in a 3rd term.

One inaccurately speaks to a man's policies and butchers his reputation, the other plays on ignorant, despicable people. I consider them both wrong and both equally damning.

But electing an African American with an exotic name? Now THAT'S treading new waters. And the GOP will play on that fear in a way that the DNC cannot return fire to their candidate.

The GOP will not act on that at all.

Will disgusting conservative groups? Yes. However the far left has there own share of those too.

[Marx]

One inaccurately speaks to a man's policies and butchers his reputation, the other plays on ignorant, despicable people. I consider them both wrong and both equally damning.



The GOP will not act on that at all.

Will disgusting conservative groups? Yes. However the far left has there own share of those too.

MoveOn.org to be more specific. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Kelly]

When the candidates do not want to get their hands dirty, their surrogates will do it for them, as they already have.

[StorminNorman]

Well, one of those views is not fueled by bigotry.

Of course, and the other is based on lies and misdirection. When I said "damning" I meant to the candidates them.

[Lightning Strykez!]

One inaccurately speaks to a man's policies and butchers his reputation, the other plays on ignorant, despicable people. I consider them both wrong and both equally damning.

McCain supplied the "100 years" gaffe himself, Stormin. What do you expect?

There is nothing that Barack can do about his name, skin tone and other features.



The GOP will not act on that at all.



How much you wanna bet? They've already shown an interest in going after his wife.

[StorminNorman]

MoveOn.org to be more specific. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

Exactly. I am not trying to champion the cause of the right - I am simply stating that for people to say that one side of the isle is any more noble or better than the other displays ignorance.

Both are equals in playing politics, both positive and negative.

[Kelly]

That 100 years quote has been misrepresented for so long, I doubt most have any clue what he was talking about.

[Marx]

How much you wanna bet? They've already shown an interest in going after his wife.

As Kel said, surrogates will do the majority of the attacking. (And 527's)

[StorminNorman]

McCain supplied the "100 years" gaffe himself, Stormin. What do you expect?

There is nothing that Barack can do about his name, skin tone and other features.

It wasn't a gaffe. It was quote that has been manipulated by those opposing McCain.

How much you wanna bet? They've already shown an interest in going after his wife.

I would bet quite a lot actually.

Going after his wife had nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with her stating that she has never been proud of her country before 2008. Thats something that would be used against any wife - be she white, black, blue, Republican or Democrat. It was an utterly stupid and offensive statement.

[Lightning Strykez!]

He was, and still is, one of the most inexperienced people on the national stage. (Not to mention that John Edwards was in almost the same exact position as Obama is now, and was raked over the coals.)


You know, that is a good point. Interesting correlation.

[Marx]

Exactly. I am not trying to champion the cause of the right - I am simply stating that for people to say that one side of the isle is any more noble or better than the other displays ignorance.

Both are equals in playing politics, both positive and negative.

It's like I said in my echoing announcement of our joint HYPE ticket. The extremes have hijacked both parties. For anyone to suggest otherwise would tell me that they're not paying attention. That, or they're too far invested in partisan warfare to care.

Both sides have positive and negative aspects.

[Marx]

You know, that is a good point. Interesting correlation.

To be quite honest with you, I think that is where alot of my dislike for Obama comes from. John Edwards was raked over the coals for everything that Barack Obama should be, but isn't.

[Kelly]

To be quite honest with you, I think that is where alot of my dislike for Obama comes from. John Edwards was raked over the coals for everything that Barack Obama should be, but isn't.


IMO, one of the most intelligent statements on the hype this month.


You just hit the nail on the head, and if McCain's campaign would just figure this out, (but it may be too late at this point), he would be ahead in the polls.

Instead, the McCain camp is simply throwing mud, and getting themselves dirty in the process.

[kainedamo]

Is there any specific government benefits or entitlements Obama is pushing that you are against?, Norman?

[kainedamo]

So how far is it into the presidential canditacy that a candidate reveals his VP choice? 'Cause it seems both Obama and McCain are holding off.

Is it because both of them are being extremely careful about who they pick, and how it would play with the media and the voters?

Is Obama probably afraid that no matter who he picks, that choice could come under very intense scrutiny, and the guy's life examined as closely as Obama's? So, the guy's gotta be very squeeky clean. The slightest hint of controversy either in personal life or their history or their policies, the media could be all over it.

And if Obama picks anyone other than Hillary, the media could be all over that. I'm sure Fox would have a few Hillary supporters on talking about what a horrible snub to Hillary it is.

[StorminNorman]

Is there any specific government benefits or entitlements Obama is pushing that you are against?, Norman?

I don't support Obama's great increases to pay for pre schooling, I dont' support his dramatic increases to Family and Medical Leave and I strongly oppose his plan to increase the minimal wage every year.

I don't believe this is what our government should be funding.

[kainedamo]

For reasons beyond my comprehension, the minimum wage is something of a touchy subject in the US. It's raised very rarely. And yet, the cost of oil is way up, the cost of food is up, the dollar gets you a lot less, in every way imaginable the cost of living is up. And yet, the minimum wage stays the same.

What have you got against pre-school education?

[kainedamo]

Looking at his website...

Create a Living Wage: Obama will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing.

It doesn't say he's going to raise the minimum wage every year.


Expand Paid Sick Days: Today, three-out-of-four low-wage workers have no paid sick days. Obama supports guaranteeing workers seven paid sick days per year.


That seems to be something very basic and I'm surprised something like that isn't in place already.

[StorminNorman]

Looking at his website...



It doesn't say he's going to raise the minimum wage every year.




That seems to be something very basic and I'm surprised something like that isn't in place already.

From a speech 6/23/08:

“I won't leave any working people behind. That's why, unlike Senator McCain, I'll index the minimum wage to inflation so that it goes up each year to keep pace with rising costs.”

[kainedamo]

If the cost of living goes up, the minimum wage should go up. If it stabalizes, then the wage stabalizes.

[StorminNorman]

If the cost of living goes up, the minimum wage should go up. If it stabalizes, then the wage stabalizes.

That will increase operating costs of businesses and hurt small business owners. Increasing the minimal wage every year will lead to small businesses having to fire employers.

[StorminNorman]

If the cost of living goes up, the minimum wage should go up. If it stabalizes, then the wage stabalizes.

That will increase operating costs of businesses and hurt small business owners. Increasing the minimal wage every year will lead to small businesses having to fire employers.

[Marx]

Obama camp launches response ad
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/obama-camp-launches-response-ad/

[jaguarr]

Obama camp launches response ad
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/30/obama-camp-launches-response-ad/


"He’s practicing the politics of the past," the ad's narrator says as headlines from various medial outlets stating McCain has gone negative flash across the screen.
"John McCain. Same old politics, same failed policies," the ad's narrator also says.


Damn. That's just cold, straight to the point and a full-on punch in the mouth to McCain for acting like an ass. I love it.


jag

[Marx]

Damn. That's just cold, straight to the point and a full-on punch in the mouth to McCain for acting like an ass. I love it.


jag

That's one thing I have to give Obama credit for, he doesn't wait to push back against attacks or accusations.

[Kelly]

It's about damn time....

[terry78]

Obama said, we can handle this like gentlemen, or we can get into some old gangsta ****.

[Superman]

Nevermind, I found it. :)

zPPLSHKH0h4

:up:

[kainedamo]

I'd have preferred it if the ad didn't mention McCain at all. But I suppose he needed to respond to the things McCain had been saying in his ads, so Obama's ad responded well.

Quoting a number of sources that say McCain's claims are false, as well as providing information that directly condradicts McCain's claims about Obama. Good job.

Unfortunately, the hypocrites will come out of the wood work to say how Obama is now playing dirty politics and "oh how dare he" and blablabla.

[Tron5000]

For reasons beyond my comprehension, the minimum wage is something of a touchy subject in the US. It's raised very rarely. And yet, the cost of oil is way up, the cost of food is up, the dollar gets you a lot less, in every way imaginable the cost of living is up. And yet, the minimum wage stays the same.

What have you got against pre-school education?

My boss owns two restaurants, with a third coming soon. If they keep raising the minimum wage, he will either have to pass that cost on to his customers or cut his expenses. Guess what that means? Letting people go and not hiring as many new employees. So your wage gets raised from $7 to $8, which is great and all, but then you get laid off in order to save money. That's not so great.

Employees are all business expenses. Once your expenses get too high, you have to start cutting them. That means people losing jobs, people not being hired, and retardation of business expansion. But raising the minimum wage sure looks good on paper.

If you're trying to live on the minimum wage, you're doing something wrong. If you get hired at the minimum wage and can not earn a salary increase within a few months, you should not be allowed to leave your house without a helmet on.

[kainedamo]

Why do I have Tron5000 on ignore. Hm, I must have had a good reason.

[Tron5000]

Why do I have Tron5000 on ignore. Hm, I must have had a good reason.

Yes! I made another Ignore list! I should start keeping track. Can we have a contest or something?

[Arc-Light]

Why do I have Tron5000 on ignore. Hm, I must have had a good reason.

Who doesn't, he is probably spouting of that if anyone is on the wage, that you are a moron and don't deserve a better life.

[terry78]

Haha, the poverty stricken are at fault for being poverty stricken. You gotta love the mindset...they have balls, I'll give 'em that.

[Tron5000]

Who doesn't, he is probably spouting of that if anyone is on the wage, that you are a moron and don't deserve a better life.

People don't "deserve a better life." People do deserve, however, the right to work hard and strive to make a better life for themselves.

[Arc-Light]

People don't "deserve a better life." People do deserve, however, the right to work hard and strive to make a better life for themselves.

And if working hard= the minimum wage...........

[Marx]

Yes! I made another Ignore list! I should start keeping track. Can we have a contest or something?

I'm not sure that's the kind of contest you should try to win. :oldrazz:

[Tron5000]

And if working hard= the minimum wage...........

If you work hard at the minimum wage level, you will likely earn a pay increase. Then, you keep working hard in that capacity, and you get promoted. Everyone has to start somewhere. The minimum wage is the jumping-off point. Not the ending point.

[Marx]

If you work hard at the minimum wage level, you will likely earn a pay increase. Then, you keep working hard in that capacity, and you get promoted. Everyone has to start somewhere. The minimum wage is the jumping-off point. Not the ending point.

I agree with that.

[Tron5000]

I'm not sure that's the kind of contest you should try to win. :oldrazz:

I wear it as a badge of honor. I attempt to debate issues as responsibly and logically as possible. I try not to talk down to or berate others. So if I made someone's Ignore list, I would think it would be because of my beliefs, rather than my delivery. As such, if my beliefs (of which I am very fond) are so at odds with yours that you just can't stand to listen to them, then that makes me proud. I stand up for my ideals, and ignoring, rather than discussing, them makes me feel as though I've touched a nerve. Hopefully someone knows I'm right about something, but they just can't stand to hear it because it doesn't mesh with their own beliefs, so they just have to ignore me.

I try not to be an ass, and if I ever am, I realize it later and feel bad about it. But if my beliefs are the sole reason I am being ignored, right on.

[jaguarr]

That's one thing I have to give Obama credit for, he doesn't wait to push back against attacks or accusations.

Not only did he lay the smack down quickly, he did it without stooping to the childish levels that prompted him to respond in the first place. He just very matter of factly used McCain's approach against him and pointed out that it's silly political games that are childish and an example of the problems politics have had for many years now. Simple but effective.

jag

[Tag279]

To be quite honest with you, I think that is where alot of my dislike for Obama comes from. John Edwards was raked over the coals for everything that Barack Obama should be, but isn't.

So you don't like Obama essentially because he is doing better than John Edwards did.

IMO, one of the most intelligent statements on the hype this month.

You just hit the nail on the head, and if McCain's campaign would just figure this out, (but it may be too late at this point), he would be ahead in the polls.

Instead, the McCain camp is simply throwing mud, and getting themselves dirty in the process.

Why do you think Obama is a worse choice for President than McCain what makes McCain better?

[The Senator]

Tag, I don't think Kel cares for either candidate.

[The Senator]

I wear it as a badge of honor. I attempt to debate issues as responsibly and logically as possible. I try not to talk down to or berate others. So if I made someone's Ignore list, I would think it would be because of my beliefs, rather than my delivery. As such, if my beliefs (of which I am very fond) are so at odds with yours that you just can't stand to listen to them, then that makes me proud. I stand up for my ideals, and ignoring, rather than discussing, them makes me feel as though I've touched a nerve. Hopefully someone knows I'm right about something, but they just can't stand to hear it because it doesn't mesh with their own beliefs, so they just have to ignore me.

I try not to be an ass, and if I ever am, I realize it later and feel bad about it. But if my beliefs are the sole reason I am being ignored, right on.

The only people on my ignore list are total whack jobs who make the most absurd accusations in the world, have no leg to stand on regardless of the topic at hand, and are essentially too disgusting to even poke fun of.

But since Slim has been banned, my ignore list is empty.

[Marx]

So you don't like Obama essentially because he is doing better than John Edwards did?

Ok Tag, let's play this game for a minute. Why do you think that Barack Obama has skated by on the same credentials that John Edwards was crucified for?

[Tron5000]

The only people on my ignore list are total whack jobs who make the most absurd accusations in the world, have no leg to stand on regardless of the topic at hand, and are essentially too disgusting to even poke fun of.

But since Slim has been banned, my ignore list is empty.

I didn't know he was. See what happens when you take a couple months off? You miss all the fun.

Sparkle is the only one on my List.

[BlackestNight]

Ok Tag, let's play this game for a minute. Why do you think that Barack Obama has skated by on the same credentials that John Edwards was crucified for?


Because John Edwards was an annoying pandering Machine that wore out his welcome 4 years ago.

No offence I like Edwards but all I can remember is Son of a Mill worker this and Son of a Mill worker that. Edwards got really Cheesy after a while and started to feel like a superficial Politician.

Edwards just has less Charisma than Obama. Edwards apeal was limited to Working class whites(nothing worng with that) its jsut that Obama reaches more people.

[Tag279]

Ok Tag, let's play this game for a minute. Why do you think that Barack Obama has skated by on the same credentials that John Edwards was crucified for?

How has he skated by? Obama has to walk a very fine line. He is articulate and smart and he is branded as arrogant by some and uppity by others.

If he is too down to earth he would be dismissed as an angry black man. (consider the common view held about Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton)

Alan Keyes would not be doing as well as Obama either he is viewed as a joke while at the same time his views are in lockstep with Republican Ideology.

The Rev. Wright statements, Father Phlager, his given name, parentage, and bittergate have put Obama through his paces he has not had an easy go of it it has been a fight.

Obama has done more than he is given credit for.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm)

Yes, Obama is doing well due to a confluence of events and his own ability and charisma but that is nothing to begrudge him about.

[Kelly]

Why do you think Obama is a worse choice for President than McCain what makes McCain better?


What? :huh::huh::huh: Where have I said that I think Obama is a worst choice than McCain? Where are you getting this stuff? You are having to read a hell of alot into my posts to get what you are getting....:o


My post was to say that McCain should be hitting Obama in different areas, not slinging mud. How do you translate that into "I think Obama is a worst choice than McCain."?

I'm talking about their campaigns and how they are running them, NOT who I like more than the other.

Sorry, but I'm not going to get into a debate over who I like more than the other, that is my personal choice. But I will debate and discuss who is running a better campaign, and what I think they should do to win.

And as Jman has said, I'm not really excited about either candidate, and I'm certainly not excited about how they are running their campaigns.

[Marx]

How has he skated by? Obama has to walk a very fine line. He is articulate and smart and he is branded as arrogant by some and uppity by others.

If he is too down to earth he would be dismissed as an angry black man. (consider the common view held about Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton)

Alan Keyes would not be doing as well as Obama either he is viewed as a joke while at the same time his views are in lockstep with Republican Ideology.

The Rev. Wright statements, Father Phlager, his given name, parentage, and bittergate have put Obama through his paces he has not had an easy go of it it has been a fight.

Obama has done more than he is given credit for.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm)

Yes, Obama is doing well due to a confluence of events and his own ability and charisma but that is nothing to begrudge him about.

I am not talking about personal scandals and idiotic surrogates. I am talking about actual credentials. How long was he in the Senate when he announced his bid to run for the White House? What platform was he running on?

[Tag279]

What? :huh::huh::huh: Where have I said that I think Obama is a worst choice than McCain? Where are you getting this stuff? You are having to read a hell of alot into my posts to get what you are getting....:o


My post was to say that McCain should be hitting Obama in different areas, not slinging mud. How do you translate that into "I think Obama is a worst choice than McCain."?

I'm talking about their campaigns and how they are running them, NOT who I like more than the other.


Kel, 1st Off I intended no malice toward you.

When you said that you thought that Marx's post was a very good one and he said that he thinks he dislikes Obama because of Edwards not doing well I incorrectly thought that you were saying that you disliked him.

With that being said:
Obama staying out of the mud and swiftly countering Mcain's, the RNC's, and Republican 527s negative assertions is his best bet at winning.

If McCain would run a positive on the issues campaign IMV he would have a better chance of winning.

This mud stuff is not going to work in the long run. Mud-slinging impacts tracking polls but when they are debunked or contested they won't work in the long run in this political climate.

[Kelly]

Kel, 1st Off I intended no malice toward you.

When you said that you thought that Marx's post was a very good one and he said that he thinks he dislikes Obama because of Edwards not doing well I incorrectly thought that you were saying that you disliked him.

With that being said:
Obama staying out of the mud and swiftly countering Mcain's, the RNC's, and Republican 527s negative assertions is his best bet at winning.

If McCain would run a positive on the issues campaign IMV he would have a better chance of winning.

This mud stuff is not going to work in the long run. Mud-slinging impacts tracking polls but when they are debunked or contested they won't work in the long run in this political climate.


No malice taken, just confusion....lol

Yes, McCain needs to get out of the mud, push his energy plan, and continue on the "getting out of Iraq will happen" thinking and he would pull closer. He will never go far or even past Obama in the polls. But the polls will mean absolutely nothing on election day, and IMO, mean very little right now except to show us the direction the campaigns need to move. McCain's surrogates need to get out of the mud, and begin really taking a closer look at some of Obama's judgment calls. As in, his choice in advisors, etc. McCain needs to get out of the mud. McCain needs to choose a running mate that is out of the box.

Yes, Obama needs to stay out of the mudslinging, but he needs to not look like a victim. He needs to continue giving pretty speeches, but there will come a time when people will want to see a more detailed plan. They know McCain by his voting records in the Senate, but Obama has too many NV's to be able to stand by his voting record in the Senate to show where he really stands on issues. He has to tell us where he stands, because his voting record has too many holes in it. Obama needs to stay out of the mud. Obama needs to choose a running mate that is in the box.

[Tag279]

I am not talking about personal scandals and idiotic surrogates. I am talking about actual credentials. How long was he in the Senate when he announced his bid to run for the White House? What platform was he running on?

Where can one go to get a Bachelors of Science in being President?

Doesn't this count for anything?==>
==> Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles%2C_California), where he studied at Occidental College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_College) for two years.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-7) He then transferred to Columbia University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_College_of_Columbia_University) in New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City), where he majored in political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science) with a specialization in international relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-8) Obama graduated with a B.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts) from Columbia in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_International_Corporation) and New York Public Interest Research Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Public_Interest_Research_Group).

How about this, does this help?==>
==> Obama entered Harvard Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School) in late 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review) based on his grades and a writing competition.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-Harvard_Law_2007-15) In his second year he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff of 80 editors.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-Harvard_Law_1990-16) Obama's election in February 1990 as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-Harvard_Law_1990-16) He graduated with a J.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Doctor) magna cum laude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_honors) from Harvard in 1991

Why is experience so important? What about having a vision, intellegence, ability, and the charisma to get people to buy into one's vision?

If you can build a better mousetrap why can't it be done without credentials.

Here is his platform btw
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)

[Marx]

Where can one go to get a Bachelors of Science in being President?

Doesn't this count for anything?==>
==> Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles%2C_California), where he studied at Occidental College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occidental_College) for two years.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-7) He then transferred to Columbia University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_College_of_Columbia_University) in New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City), where he majored in political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science) with a specialization in international relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-8) Obama graduated with a B.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts) from Columbia in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_International_Corporation) and New York Public Interest Research Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Public_Interest_Research_Group).

How about this, does this help?==>
==> Obama entered Harvard Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School) in late 1988 and at the end of his first year was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review) based on his grades and a writing competition.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-Harvard_Law_2007-15) In his second year he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff of 80 editors.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-Harvard_Law_1990-16) Obama's election in February 1990 as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#cite_note-Harvard_Law_1990-16) He graduated with a J.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Doctor) magna cum laude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_honors) from Harvard in 1991

Why is experience so important? What about having a vision, intellegence, ability, and the charisma to get people to buy into one's vision?

If you can build a better mousetrap why can't it be done without credentials.

Here is his platform btw
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)

You are completely missing my point.

[Kelly]

I have the same amount of college as he does, but I certainly don't think that it qualifies me as president.

Neither of these men are going to be able to fall back on executive leadership qualifications.

McCain has public service experience miles and miles past Obama.

Obama really should not, and doesn't really need to push to hard on this aspect. Apparently people do not care about his lack of experience, so he really doesn't need to harp on that. The trip to Europe was good to show that he is popular in other parts of the world. That was fine, but he needs to move on from that as well. You have a huge percentage of people in the US that don't give a crap what Europe thinks (maybe they should care, but they don't).......so I would not use alot of the photo and video ops in commercials from this point on.

McCain has got to show himself as calm, collected leadership and right now he is totally moving away from that. It will bite him in the ass in the voting booth. He has GOT TO WORK ON HIS SPEECHES. They suck beyond suckage. He has GOT TO LEARN to read more than one line before looking down at his speeches. McCain could actually use the Europe trip against Obama, in using it to show how close Obama is to Socialistic thinking. This will shore up his 50+ voters. His campaign also needs to find out why Obama is having problems with the female voting block. Something has got to be going on there, maybe its Hillary and lack of her on the campaign trail or something, I'm not sure. Possibly McCain could choose a female running mate would take care of this, or more from his wife and daughters, I don't know.

Obama needs to continue doing what he is doing, but begin choosing some centrist, older democrats in advising positions. He has the young vote hands down, no matter what he does from this point on. He needs to work on the other demographics. Hispanic, women, 50+ voters.

[Tag279]

Obama is doing much better with women under 50 than McCain is

A new Quinnipiac poll shows Obama leading McCain nationally by nine points, 50%-41%. Per a release, “Independent voters split 44%-44%… Sen. McCain has a slight 47%-44% edge among men voters and a larger 49%-42% lead among white voters. But black voters back Sen. Obama 94%-1%, while women support him 55%-36%. Obama leads 63-%-31% percent among voters 18 to 34 years old and 48%-44% among voters 35 to 54, while voters over 55 split with 45% for McCain and 44% for Obama.”

[Marx]

Obama's trip abroad doesn't move poll numbers
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/campaign.poll/index.html





(...but neither does McCain's attack ads)

[Matt]

So how far is it into the presidential canditacy that a candidate reveals his VP choice? 'Cause it seems both Obama and McCain are holding off.

Is it because both of them are being extremely careful about who they pick, and how it would play with the media and the voters?

Is Obama probably afraid that no matter who he picks, that choice could come under very intense scrutiny, and the guy's life examined as closely as Obama's? So, the guy's gotta be very squeeky clean. The slightest hint of controversy either in personal life or their history or their policies, the media could be all over it.

Usually they are announced by now. It seems like both are waiting for the other to make the move so they can proceed to trump their opponent, so to speak. Obama will have to act first as his convention is first and McCain is apparently going to announce his running mate the day after Obama's acceptance speech.


And if Obama picks anyone other than Hillary, the media could be all over that. I'm sure Fox would have a few Hillary supporters on talking about what a horrible snub to Hillary it is.

Hillary is not even on the short list anymore. No one is expecting her.

[Mr Sparkle]

I didn't know he was. See what happens when you take a couple months off? You miss all the fun.

Sparkle is the only one on my List.

hey, if some guy made me feel like an ignorant buffoon every single time I spoke, hell, I'd ignore him too.

[Mr Sparkle]

They both hold positions that are out of touch with America, and its the job of Obama to effective use that against McCain just as its McCain's job to use it against Obama.

actually, their Jobs are actually to modify their positions in order to better suit the American public, as they are "public servants" not to simply point out flaws in others they themselves have, if we are going to be strict about what "their Jobs" are.

[Kelly]

Obama is doing much better with women under 50 than McCain is

A new Quinnipiac poll shows Obama leading McCain nationally by nine points, 50%-41%. Per a release, “Independent voters split 44%-44%… Sen. McCain has a slight 47%-44% edge among men voters and a larger 49%-42% lead among white voters. But black voters back Sen. Obama 94%-1%, while women support him 55%-36%. Obama leads 63-%-31% percent among voters 18 to 34 years old and 48%-44% among voters 35 to 54, while voters over 55 split with 45% for McCain and 44% for Obama.”

True, but it is the 50+ that are the regular voters both men and women. All of these other demographics are up in the air until the day. As I said he has the young vote hands down, and that poll shows it, but that 35 to 54 percent that is only 4% difference should scare the hell out of Obama.

[StrainedEyes]

"He doesn't seem to have anything positive to say about me, does he?" Obama said. "You need to ask John McCain what he's for, not just what he's against."

[Tron5000]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080731/D928PB3O0.html


Obama says Republicans trying to scare voters
By MIKE GLOVER

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama, the first black candidate with a shot at winning the White House, says John McCain and his Republican allies will try to scare them by saying Obama "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Stumping in an economically challenged battleground state, Obama argued Wednesday that President Bush and McCain will resort to scare tactics to maintain their hold on the White House because they have little else to offer voters.

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D928TUL01&show_article=1



McCain campaign accuses Obama of playing race card
Jul 31 11:47 AM US/Eastern
By MIKE GLOVER
Associated Press Writer

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) - John McCain's campaign accused Barack Obama on Thursday of playing racial politics a day after the Democratic candidate predicted Republicans would try to scare voters by pointing out "he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Obama "played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck," McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement. He called Obama's remarks "divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

[StrainedEyes]

Uh oh... McCain's camp brought up race.

[Marx]

I think John McCain accusing Barack Obama of playing the race card is laughable.

[jaguarr]

I think John McCain accusing Barack Obama of playing the race card is laughable.

He must want another b**chslap from Papa Obama. :hehe:

jag

[Tron5000]

Uh oh... McCain's camp brought up race.

Obama brought it up first when he said that McCain and the Republicans were going to attempt to make people scared of him because he doesn't look like the other presidents (white men) on our currency. That was a low blow from Obama, and I've seen no evidence of the McCain campaign attempting to do any such thing.

[Marx]

Obama brought it up first when he said that McCain and the Republicans were going to attempt to make people scared of him because he doesn't look like the other presidents (white men) on our currency. That was a low blow from Obama, and I've seen no evidence of the McCain campaign attempting to do any such thing.

To be fair though, the hard right are playing off of Obama's race in the south. While John McCain might not be directly involved, the extremes of the Republican party are.

[Tron5000]

To be fair though, the hard right are playing off of Obama's race in the south. While John McCain might not be directly involved, the extremes of the Republican party are.

I live in Georgia. I haven't scene a single political ad mentioning anything about Obama's race. I also listen to a lot of talk radio and I don't hear anyone but Obama supporters mentioning race at all. It's not a topic of discussion amongst my friends, family, co-workers or customers.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Obama brought it up first when he said that McCain and the Republicans were going to attempt to make people scared of him because he doesn't look like the other presidents (white men) on our currency. That was a low blow from Obama, and I've seen no evidence of the McCain campaign attempting to do any such thing.

Meh.

Please keep in mind Obama's comments doesn't mean he was specifically referring to skin color. One significant characteristic all the presidents on the bills have in common is THEY ALL LOOK OLD. In other words, even JFK didn't "look" like George, Abe or etc., either. :whatever:

Obama is young Tron, and he'd be one of the youngest elected if he gets the job. I think some are looking for opportunities to use that condemned card, and I'm not denying McCain to "interpret" this any way he fits, but for me, it's a bit of a stretch. The S. Carolina primary situation had more relevance than this.

[Kelly]

Meh.

Please keep in mind Obama's comments doesn't mean he was specifically referring to skin color. One significant characteristic all the presidents on the bills have in common is THEY ALL LOOK OLD. In other words, even JFK didn't "look" like George, Abe or etc., either. :whatever:

Obama is young Tron, and he'd be one of the youngest elected if he gets the job. I think some are looking for opportunities to use that condemned card, and I'm not denying McCain to "interpret" this any way he fits, but for me, it's a bit of a stretch. The S. Carolina primary situation had more relevance than this.


I think Obama showed bad judgment, yet again. IMO, he should have simply spoke to the issues that were brought up in the ad, and left it at that. His comments off the cuff like that were not helpful.

*sighs* these candidates disappoint me at every freaking turn. I keep thinking one is going to start pulling me their direction, and I'll be damned if they totally turn me off with something. This and his comments from yesterday that were extremely presumptive have totally turned me off of him.

McCain's stupid ad with the basketball crap and the "he would rather go to the gym than visit the troops." has totally turned me off of him.

I feel like I'm back in the 2004 election again. I'm tired of this ****.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I think Obama showed bad judgment, yet again. IMO, he should have simply spoke to the issues that were brought up in the ad, and left it at that. His comments off the cuff like that were not helpful.



Okay, but if he does not return fire--and quickly--he will suffer the same fate as Kerry did a few years ago. So he really has no choice but to respond and deal with this negativity. Personally, I think he was tactful, yet firm with his rebuttal. I also don't believe he strayed from the high road either--which is not easy to do in politics.

[jaguarr]

I feel like I'm back in the 2004 election again. I'm tired of this ****.

I'm tired of all these mutha-f***in' snakes on this mutha-f***in' election!!!

jag

[Kelly]

exactly.....they are just making me tired......



I'm going to take a nap......

[jaguarr]

exactly.....they are just making me tired......



I'm going to take a nap......

Be sure you finish your apple juice and graham crackers first. :oldrazz:

jag

[Lightning Strykez!]

I am going on record now: Evan Bayh will be Obama's VP selection. :up:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/116/291160241_6206554bd4_m.jpghttp://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2006/08/08/image1876807g.jpg

He's got 95% of the total package: extensive foreign policy experience, intelligence, former governor, youth, looks, etc. He just doesn't have much charisma, but Obama makes up for that. Evan is the "safe" choice that will balance out Obama's deficiencies.

I didn't know he was 52 years old though. He looks younger than that to me.

[Superman]

Obama says Republicans trying to scare voters
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080731/D928PB3O0.html



McCain campaign accuses Obama of playing race card
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D928TUL01&show_article=1I hate to say it but McCain might have a point on this one. That dollar bills bit was a little racial IMO.


But then again considering how McCainCo has gone over the line so many times already I think Obama is just fighting fire with fire. Good for him. It's about time he fought back. :up:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Maybe McCain's message has gained traction among the press -- his "base" -- but the rest of America isn't buying it.

In the latest CNN/Opinion Research poll, they asked voters if they think Obama and McCain are arrogant. The tally came up with equal numbers for the men: a third of voters think they're arrogant, but 66% think that they're not. So obviously, the media wants to see something that the rest of America doesn't.

Also, McCain has the much greater risk here with this "new approach" he's adopted lately. His "maverick" image was based on the perception that he is tough, but also fair and respectful to opponents, even when he disagrees with them. The McCain of 2000 would have soundly rejected any type of character attacks, because Bush used them so viciously against him in the Republican primary that year. In contrast, the McCain of 2008 is a different breed. He promised a high-minded, fair, issues-based campaign, but that's certainly not what he's giving voters so far.

In my opinion, he's no longer the fair and respectful "maverick." That is the image that is starting to set in voters' minds. By a 2-to-1 margin, voters in that CNN poll think that McCain is unfairly attacking Obama. To me, that says that McCain has already severely damaged his brand, and if those negative numbers continue to grow, McCain will be turning off those swing voters who are purportedly turned off by negative attacks.

The irony in all this is that McCain may end up being his own worst enemy in this race.

[Marx]

I still don't fully understand how John McCain could ever be considered a maverick. :huh:

[jaguarr]

I still don't fully understand how John McCain could ever be considered a maverick. :huh:

I've never been able to figure that out, either.

jag

[Marx]

Obama campaign launches 'Low Road Express' website
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/31/obama-campaign-launches-low-road-express-web-site/

[Marx]

Obama camp says McCain tactics worse than Rove's
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/31/obama-camp-says-mccain-tactics-worse-than-roves/

[terry78]

Do people still use the term maverick? They may as well bring out Hoss and Little Joe while they're at it.

[Marx]

Do people still use the term maverick? They may as well bring out Hoss and Little Joe while they're at it.

John McCain and FOX News do.

[SentinelMind]

Obama seems to be losing support because he opposes drilling for oil.....By a margin of 20 to 30 percent, the American public prefer's McCain's position to Obama's.

McCain was a maverick in 2000...he's pandering a bit now, but they both are...and I think McCain is a little bit more independent of his party's fanatic base/lobby than Obama is.

[kainedamo]

Basically the whole "drill for oil on our own soil" debate makes the whole situation too simplistic. It WON'T solve the problem, like people think it will. But it has a nice ring to it - "why the hell we buying foriegn oil when we can drill here!"

[Kelly]

Basically the whole "drill for oil on our own soil" debate makes the whole situation too simplistic. It WON'T solve the problem, like people think it will. But it has a nice ring to it - "why the hell we buying foriegn oil when we can drill here!"


I think most have figured out that it won't "solve" the problem, but it will move us in the right direction. Majority of US citizens want this, they want to move away from foreign oil. Whether you agree with it or not, doesn't mean that a good majority of US citizens want us to move away from foreign energy sources, and this is definitely a strong move in that direction. Also, many who know what they are talking about, not Pelosi and others, but actual experts in the field of energy say that it will not take 10 years, and even if it does, hey had we done this back in 1995 when it came up at that time, we would have 3 years of less foreign energy at the moment.

I would like for the US to also make a major push toward alternative fuels as well, I think we have made some headway in that area, but we definitely need to move quicker.

I think every chance we have to get away from foreign energy, we need to.

[DACrowe]

It has a nice ring to it like "gas tax holiday." And like the gas tax holiday it will do no good for us economically and is an environmental hazard (especially in areas "PROTECTED" by the federal government). Oil is inelastic, and the more supply will not curb demand and as OPEC controls oil prices; oil companies getting it from the US (which by no means they have to sell it only to the US if at all, as Europe will pay more) will simply try to match the prices of OPEC and increase their profit. And this solution does not work in the long-term as there is only enough estimated oil to last about a year or two and it will not work in the short-term as he we cannot use it for roughly 5-10 years OR MORE.

It is a mindless piece of pandering that actually continues our dependence on foreign oil as we are investing money that looks into preserving the status quo as opposed to spending money on subsidies or tax breaks on research and production of alternative energy avenues. When T. "Swift Boat Veterans" Boone Pickens is coming on and saying we need to look beyond drilling our way out, it is obviously a problem. And again, never mind the damage it will do to local ecosystems and fishing industries.

Obama's policy is actually less crippled into relying on foreign oil. But in between McCain's "Obama is a socialist" and "Obama is no better than Britney Spears and Paris Hilton" attack ads, McCain gives the image that he is for helping us instead of oil companies, which currently would appear to be a lie.

But any man who succumbs to the Karl Rove playbook has lost my respect on that alone.