The Clinton Thread

[The Senator]

Ferraro was irrelevant then.......remains so now

Um, she was quite relevant in 1984. She was the first woman selected as a major party's Vice Presidential nominee. Though she didn't win, and was quite an awful candidate, the fact that it was her who broke that so-called "glass ceiling" in politics first makes her a very important political figure, stupid comments aside...

[comicgirl]

I just think it is disgusting that Clinton will not condemn Ferraro for her racist comments. Ferraro was just on Fox News claiming that she was the victim!! :rolleyes:

What's funny is that the HRC camp demanded that Samantha Powers resign, and then demanded that we ignore what Ferraro says. Hillary demands that Obama "reject and denounce" the statements of Louis Farrakhan--a person who isn't even connected to his campaign--but then she refuses to "reject" and/or "denounce" the statements of someone on her campaign.

If these are not double-standards, I don't know what is.
'course. But, god forbid that Hillary bites the hand raising $$ for her. sickening.

[The Senator]

I just think it is disgusting that Clinton will not condemn Ferraro for her racist comments. Ferraro was just on Fox News claiming that she was the victim!! :rolleyes:


Her comments aren't racist. She didn't say "Obama will be an awful President because he's black." She said she didn't think he'd be where he is because he's black. And her statement had a lot of truth to it, as idiotic as it was for her to say it.

Should she have said it? Absolutely not. Should Clinton condemn it? Yes. Is it racist? Hardly.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Is it racist? Hardly.

Um...no offense but...aren't you white? If so, how can you determine what is offensive to people of color?

It seems easy for some white people to brush off such comments as inconsequential...perhaps too easy. But such ones seem to be forgetting that the only major difference between this man and any other major contender for the White House bid is his skin color. :whatever:

And Ms. Ferarro "denounced" him based on that difference, basically stating that his intelligence and ability to run an organization are rendered moot because of his skin color. Do you realize how stupid that line of reasoning is?

[The Senator]

Um...no offense but...aren't you white? If so, how can you determine what is offensive to people of color?

It seems easy for some white people to brush off such comments as inconsequential...perhaps too easy. But such ones seem to be forgetting that the only major difference between this man and any other major contender for the White House bid is his skin color. :whatever:

And Ms. Ferarro "denounced" him based on that difference, basically stating that his intelligence and ability to run an organization are rendered moot because of his skin color. Do you realize how stupid that line of reasoning is?

I really want to know where the line is suppose to get drawn in this race. The way Ferraro said her comments was disgusting, and very stupid on her behalf. But seriously, she raises a valid point. A lot of Obama's support is drawn on racial lines. It isn't that hard to see-- take a look at the exit polls from Mississippi and point out where the majority of African-American voters chose Clinton. There are a lot of people who are voting for Obama because he's black, and a lot of people who are voting for Clinton because she is a woman. But it seems like there's a huge double standard when it comes to pointing out some of these facts. Everyone can say "oh, well, Hillary only has this base of support because she's a woman." But as soon as someone even mentions that a voter may like Obama because he's an African American, that person is a 'racist.'

Now, the majority of Obama's support does come from organization and some of it probably even comes from message. Same thing with Clinton. But I think a lot of people identify with Obama based on skin color or heritage, just as a lot of people won't vote for Obama because he's black. I think there are two extremes there, and I think Ferraro in all her stupidity said something which had a lot of depth, but she said it in a way which was really, really wrong.

Bottom line: Geraldine Ferraro shouldn't have said what she had said. Clinton should denounce her. And people should stop trying to peg this old lady as the next David Duke.

[Marx]

Um...no offense but...aren't you white? If so, how can you determine what is offensive to people of color?

It seems easy for some white people to brush off such comments as inconsequential...perhaps too easy. But such ones seem to be forgetting that the only major difference between this man and any other major contender for the White House bid is his skin color. :whatever:

And Ms. Ferarro "denounced" him based on that difference, basically stating that his intelligence and ability to run an organization are rendered moot because of his skin color. Do you realize how stupid that line of reasoning is?

To Jman's defense, he said that she shouldn't have said it. And with all due respect, it's not like actual voters aren't talking like this. There is such a thing as "saying what the people are thinking." Do I think she should have said it? No. Clinton has already come out as said that she does not agree with the comments and thinks that they were ridiculous.

[Marx]

I really want to know where the line is suppose to get drawn in this race. The way Ferraro said her comments was disgusting, and very stupid on her behalf. But seriously, she raises a valid point. A lot of Obama's support is drawn on racial lines. It isn't that hard to see-- take a look at the exit polls from Mississippi and point out where the majority of African-American voters chose Clinton. There are a lot of people who are voting for Obama because he's black, and a lot of people who are voting for Clinton because she is a woman. But it seems like there's a huge double standard when it comes to pointing out some of these facts. Everyone can say "oh, well, Hillary only has this base of support because she's a woman." But as soon as someone even mentions that a voter may like Obama because he's an African American, that person is a 'racist.'

Now, the majority of Obama's support does come from organization and some of it probably even comes from message. Same thing with Clinton. But I think a lot of people identify with Obama based on skin color or heritage, just as a lot of people won't vote for Obama because he's black. I think there are two extremes there, and I think Ferraro in all her stupidity said something which had a lot of depth, but she said it in a way which was really, really wrong.

Bottom line: Geraldine Ferraro shouldn't have said what she had said. Clinton should denounce her. And people should stop trying to peg this old lady as the next David Duke.

Exactly. I see a double standard too. I've raised this topic a couple of times. It seems to be more ok to be sexist than racist.

[Lightning Strykez!]

To me, the way Geraldine said it, reeked of disdain. In my opinion--as a man of mixed heritage--I seem to sense racial overtones in it.

And I think the TIMING of such comments cannot be denied. They are going into Penn., a state that is known for having serious gripes with affirmative action, etc. What better way to taint the minds of already-wary white voters than with comments like this?

I'm telling you: There is a method to this madness.

[Marx]

To me, the way Geraldine said it, reeked of disdain. In my opinion--as a man of mixed heritage--I seem to sense racial overtones in it.

And I think the TIMING of such comments cannot be denied. They are going into Penn., a state that is known for having serious gripes with affirmative action, etc. What better way to taint the minds of already-wary white voters than with comments like this?

I'm telling you: There is a method to this madness.

Are you suggesting that Clinton was behind it? Or this is just another one of those supporters that BOTH candidates have that speak their minds?

[Excel]

I am black and I don't care if it was racism or not (in actually it was more of a compliment to blacks, but w/e) but shes an idiot to even bring it up. Just because hes black doesnt give him some unfair advantage, we're all equal you know. So try and discredit what obama and his people have done and dismiss it as people liking his skin color, well thats just ********.

[Excel]

Are you suggesting that Clinton was behind it? Or this is just another one of those supporters that BOTH candidates have that speak their minds?

I no for a fact Hillarys not behind...she might agree but shed never publically accept it...I am sure she was PISSED when she heard because remember the last time a powerful ally of hers-bill-made remarks the media deemed racist and ran with it?

this is a horrible way for her to start off the pennsylvania campaign.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Are you suggesting that Clinton was behind it?

The way how Hillary deals with her going forward will tell the tale.

But I don't think the timing of this in conjunction with the primaries for Mississippi and Pennsylvania is coincidental.

[Marx]

I no for a fact Hillarys not behind...she might agree but shed never publically accept it...I am sure she was PISSED when she heard because remember the last time a powerful ally of hers-bill-made remarks the media deemed racist and ran with it?

this is a horrible way for her to start off the pennsylvania campaign.

I don't believe Clinton was behind it at all. I think Ferraro is just another one of those supporters that both campaigns have. The longer this goes, the tighter the race is, the more and more tensions will arise. I truthfully don't see her comments being racist. (But I'm not African-American.) I just think there are far worse things she could have said.

[Excel]

As I said, in reality her comments were more a of a compliment, saying our skin color is very powerful, which in fact would be the opposite of racism. But again, she is trying to make Obama out to be less than what he is and take credit for what he and his camapign have done.

[Excel]

The way how Hillary deals with her going forward will tell the tale.

But I don't think the timing of this in conjunction with the primaries for Mississippi and Pennsylvania is coincidental.

Gotta dissagree, after the effect the MLK crap had in SC, theres no way shed want to start her Pennsylvania campaign out like this.

[comicgirl]

As I said, in reality her comments were more a of a compliment, saying our skin color is very powerful, which in fact would be the opposite of racism. But again, she is trying to make Obama out to be less than what he is and take credit for what he and his camapign have done.The sad thing is that this is the only way the Clintons can win. By further dividing and separating the US.

How about seperate drinking fountains and toilets. Water hoses and attack dogs, all for Hillary! YES SHE CAN! YES SHE CAN

[redfirebird2008]

I don't believe Clinton was behind it at all. I think Ferraro is just another one of those supporters that both campaigns have. The longer this goes, the tighter the race is, the more and more tensions will arise. I truthfully don't see her comments being racist. (But I'm not African-American.) I just think there are far worse things she could have said.

She said the exact same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988. It's a pattern and I do believe there's racial junk in there. I'm a white person and I'm sick of whites using the whole affirmative action thing to try to demean someone like Obama who is a brilliant man that has worked his ass off to get where he is. There's nothing "lucky" about being born as a black male in this country, not with all the ridiculous profiling that goes on. I had a friend get kicked out of the Air Force Academy because a drunk white girl fell down some stairs at a party and blamed it on him and some other black football players. Every one of them was kicked out of the Academy, no questions asked. This is a guy that was in AP classes in high school, worked his tail off both on the football field and in the classroom to make it to the Air Force Academy, and then something like that happens and typical racial junk comes up.

[Zen]

I really want to know where the line is suppose to get drawn in this race. The way Ferraro said her comments was disgusting, and very stupid on her behalf. But seriously, she raises a valid point. A lot of Obama's support is drawn on racial lines. It isn't that hard to see-- take a look at the exit polls from Mississippi and point out where the majority of African-American voters chose Clinton. There are a lot of people who are voting for Obama because he's black, and a lot of people who are voting for Clinton because she is a woman. But it seems like there's a huge double standard when it comes to pointing out some of these facts. Everyone can say "oh, well, Hillary only has this base of support because she's a woman." But as soon as someone even mentions that a voter may like Obama because he's an African American, that person is a 'racist.'

Now, the majority of Obama's support does come from organization and some of it probably even comes from message. Same thing with Clinton. But I think a lot of people identify with Obama based on skin color or heritage, just as a lot of people won't vote for Obama because he's black. I think there are two extremes there, and I think Ferraro in all her stupidity said something which had a lot of depth, but she said it in a way which was really, really wrong.

Bottom line: Geraldine Ferraro shouldn't have said what she had said. Clinton should denounce her. And people should stop trying to peg this old lady as the next David Duke.

Racial Lines are you serious?

everything else you've said, as many or your points, has plenty of merit but racial lines?

look at Iowa... where were the black folk giving him that state?

the facts are hes getting a serious amount of the white vote... and among white men, i believe he has a national majority.

and prior to South Carolina... national polls had blacks split on Obama because many of them didnt see him as electable, they were not fired up.

Obama's support was founded on White Voters... he has Momentum now... which has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with his speaking skills and his organization.

thats the way i see it anyway.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I just think it is disgusting that Clinton will not condemn Ferraro for her racist comments. Ferraro was just on Fox News claiming that she was the victim!! :rolleyes:

she refuses to "reject" and/or "denounce" the statements of someone on her campaign.

I edited the quote to reply to what i thought was most important. I think Clinton isn't demanding an apology or to say she's sorry because if she does..some might think she's soft and will vote for Obama. That's why i think she is just ignoring the comments by Ferraro,Clinton needs all the support she can get..and alienating even more isn't the way to go.

[Zen]

I edited the quote to reply to what i thought was most important. I think Clinton isn't demanding an apology or to say she's sorry because if she does..some might think she's soft and will vote for Obama. That's why i think she is just ignoring the comments by Ferraro,Clinton needs all the support she can get..and alienating even more isn't the way to go.

in the vein of Bush staying the course and never admitting wrongs...

do you think this is a good strategy risking a parrallel?

[comicgirl]

Racial Lines are you serious?

everything else you've said, as many or your points, has plenty of merit but racial lines?

look at Iowa... where were the black folk giving him that state?

the facts are hes getting a serious amount of the white vote... and among white men, i believe he has a national majority.

and prior to South Carolina... national polls had blacks split on Obama because many of them didnt see him as electable, they were not fired up.

Obama's support was founded on White Voters... he has Momentum now... which has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with his speaking skills and his organization.

thats the way i see it anyway.supposedly, that was all just a fluke.



NO MORE DRAMA - VOTE OBAMA

[Demon Within]

Would and/or could Obama run as an indepedant like Lieberman did for the seat in Conn? If he did, what are the chances he would win?

[Malice]

he absolutely could, and he would be damaging to the Democratic ticket.

If he would run, you could basically give McCain the presidency

[Demon Within]

he absolutely could, and he would be damaging to the Democratic ticket.

If he would run, you could basically give McCain the presidency

hmmmm. I dont think McCain has enough support from his own party to win no matter what happens. Im a Republican and I refuse to vote for him and iv heard many others say the same. I plan on voting Obama but if he doesnt get the nod im screwed. Heres hoping he deflies the dems if they screw him and goes indy.

[Malice]

hmmmm. I dont think McCain has enough support from his own party to win no matter what happens. Im a Republican and I refuse to vote for him and iv heard many others say the same. I plan on voting Obama but if he doesnt get the nod im screwed. Heres hoping he deflies the dems if they screw him and goes indy.

I have some probs with McCain myself, but I hate ALL the policies of Hillary and Obama.

But I think Obama would siphon off so much from Hillary, that McCain would easilly have the election. He doesnt have to get 51%, he just needs to get more then both Hillary and Obama.

If Obama does split and run Independent....the Dem party will implode.

[lazur]

All of the candidates completely SUCK. We need to organize a write-in vote for someone else ... who has suggestions?

[StorminNorman]

It won't happen. For the reasons Malice correctly stated.

[StorminNorman]

All of the candidates completely SUCK. We need to organize a write-in vote for someone else ... who has suggestions?

Romney :cmad:

[lazur]

Romney :cmad:

Of all of them, he was the one who seemed the most 'Presidential' in appearance and presentation. I'm skeptical about his 'religious' views and how they would play out in a Presidency.

[hippie_hunter]

Ron Paul :cmad:

[lazur]

I think I'm going to write in Colin Powell... who's with me?

[hippie_hunter]

I'd rather have Powell be the Secretary of Defense.

[Malice]

Of all of them, he was the one who seemed the most 'Presidential' in appearance and presentation. I'm skeptical about his 'religious' views and how they would play out in a Presidency.

I was for Romney, and his religious views have no bearing in my vote.

[lazur]

I was for Romney, and his religious views have no bearing in my vote.

Yeah, I never viewed them as a 'show stopper', but I'm naturally skeptical of anyone who appears to be that 'socially conservative', as I am not. Fiscally, yes, but socially, stay the heck out of my business.

[Malice]

Yeah, I never viewed them as a 'show stopper', but I'm naturally skeptical of anyone who appears to be that 'socially conservative', as I am not. Fiscally, yes, but socially, stay the heck out of my business.

For the most part I agree...

Fiscally Conservative...
Socially...dont do much that requires spending too much money...

[StorminNorman]

Of all of them, he was the one who seemed the most 'Presidential' in appearance and presentation. I'm skeptical about his 'religious' views and how they would play out in a Presidency.

Honestly, the way Mormonism is practiced - a Mormon President MAY be the best.

You have to constantly prepare for the future, you care strongly about families and good morals. I don't agree on the mythology - but the practices are great.

I am hoping Romney gets the VP spot, simply because I don't think McCain will last 4, much less 8 years.

[Malice]

Honestly, the way Mormonism is practiced - a Mormon President MAY be the best.

You have to constantly prepare for the future, you care strongly about families and good morals. I don't agree on the mythology - but the practices are great.

I am hoping Romney gets the VP spot, simply because I don't think McCain will last 4, much less 8 years.

I was thinking the same thing...

Plus Romney is DAMN good with money.
He might be able to really influence McCain

[Demon Within]

Honestly, the way Mormonism is practiced - a Mormon President MAY be the best.

You have to constantly prepare for the future, you care strongly about families and good morals. I don't agree on the mythology - but the practices are great.

I am hoping Romney gets the VP spot, simply because I don't think McCain will last 4, much less 8 years.

Thats the ONLY wa I vote McCain as president because in effect its a romney for president.

[lazur]

Thats the ONLY wa I vote McCain as president because in effect its a romney for president.

Hmm, that IS a very interesting point ...

[Matt]

Would and/or could Obama run as an indepedant like Lieberman did for the seat in Conn? If he did, what are the chances he would win?

Zero. All he would do is split the Democratic vote giving McCain the win with 48-50 % of the vote compared to the other two in the 20-25 % range.

[Matt]

Ron Paul :cmad:

I'm just gonna throw this out there...you can throw it right back. We revive Richard Nixon's head, give him a robot body and let him run!

[rdh007]

This is as close to happening as Gore is to being VP again.

[StorminNorman]

I'm just gonna throw this out there...you can throw it right back. We revive Richard Nixon's head, give him a robot body and let him run!

He'll meet you half way, you smelly hippies :cmad:

[Manosman]

All of the candidates completely SUCK. We need to organize a write-in vote for someone else ... who has suggestions?


Harvey Dent :woot:

[Demon Within]

Zero. All he would do is split the Democratic vote giving McCain the win with 48-50 % of the vote compared to the other two in the 20-25 % range.


No i think thats what you EXPECT to happen because it seems logical but figure Obama getting his votes swinging some indy votes if not most and reps who hate McCain and Clinton.

[ObakeTora]

he absolutely could, and he would be damaging to the Democratic ticket.

If he would run, you could basically give McCain the presidency

I hope he does do that!

[Matt]

No i think thats what you EXPECT to happen because it seems logical but figure Obama getting his votes swinging some indy votes if not most and reps who hate McCain and Clinton.

The majority of Republicans who are against McCain are against him because he is not conservative enough. Because he is percieved as liberal. They certainly will not vote for Obama, considering that. Most of these Republicans have already rallied behind McCain and will continue to do so especially if the option is John McCain or Hillary Clinton.

Obama will take some of the indy vote. But indy votes put candidates over the top. They do not carry a candidate to the White House.

Even if Obama gets a good majority of independents (and a lot of them still like McCain as their perception of him has not changed since 2000), he will still only get about half of the Democrat vote (probably less, as many Democrats who voted for him in the primary will now see him as a Nader-like figure who will lead to 4 more years of Republican rule). He will take about 15-20 % of the popular vote. Hillary will take 30-25, and McCain will ultimately win with about 55 % (the in-fighting among Democrats will piss off a lot of indys and send them to McCain).

[Demon Within]

The majority of Republicans who are against McCain are against him because he is not conservative enough. Because he is percieved as liberal. They certainly will not vote for Obama, considering that. Most of these Republicans have already rallied behind McCain and will continue to do so especially if the option is John McCain or Hillary Clinton.

Obama will take some of the indy vote. But indy votes put candidates over the top. They do not carry a candidate to the White House.

Even if Obama gets a good majority of independents (and a lot of them still like McCain as their perception of him has not changed since 2000), he will still only get about half of the Democrat vote (probably less, as many Democrats who voted for him in the primary will now see him as a Nader-like figure who will lead to 4 more years of Republican rule). He will take about 15-20 % of the popular vote. Hillary will take 30-25, and McCain will ultimately win with about 55 % (the in-fighting among Democrats will piss off a lot of indys and send them to McCain).


Lot of half truths and and guesswork thrown in there. McCain is to liberal so if im going to have to vote for a liberal its not going to be a woman or a guy whos going to die getting a hard on looking at the secretaries. McCain isnt the contender your making him out to be in the above post. Hes a long shot to win against either one of the dems and is the weakest republican candidate in a very long time.

[Matt]

Lot of half truths and and guesswork thrown in there. McCain is to liberal so if im going to have to vote for a liberal its not going to be a woman or a guy whos going to die getting a hard on looking at the secretaries. McCain isnt the contender your making him out to be in the above post. Hes a long shot to win against either one of the dems and is the weakest republican candidate in a very long time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now McCain is up over either of them in national polls.

[StorminNorman]

Lot of half truths and and guesswork thrown in there. McCain is to liberal so if im going to have to vote for a liberal its not going to be a woman or a guy whos going to die getting a hard on looking at the secretaries. McCain isnt the contender your making him out to be in the above post. Hes a long shot to win against either one of the dems and is the weakest republican candidate in a very long time.

He has a double digit lead against Hillary and a significant lead against Obama in the polls...

[Demon Within]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now McCain is up over either of them in national polls.


True. For the moment.

[Demon Within]

He has a double digit lead against Hillary and a significant lead against Obama in the polls...


7%.

[The Senator]

He has a double digit lead against Hillary and a significant lead against Obama in the polls...

I don't know where you're getting your information from, considering a CBS news poll issued today has Hillary ahead by two points and Obama ahead by five against McCain. Meanwhile, a USA Today/ Gallup poll issued on Tuesday had Clinton five points ahead of McCain, and a CNN poll released yesterday had her two points ahead of him.

So the polls, at least, show that the candidates are virtually tied...

[The Senator]

I think it goes without saying, but an independent bid by Barack Obama will destroy the Democratic Party and will hand the election to John McCain. Obama certainly has the organization and the money raising abilities to be a top contender. I think he may even come in second place. But it certainly won't be a close second.

If Obama runs, he will not win a single state. Neither will Hillary Clinton. It will be a 535-3 electoral victory for McCain (since DC always votes 90% Democratic, I feel that one of the Dems will come out on top), which would be the largest victory in Presidential politics ever.

[StorminNorman]

I don't know where you're getting your information from, considering a CBS news poll issued today has Hillary ahead by two points and Obama ahead by five against McCain. Meanwhile, a USA Today/ Gallup poll issued on Tuesday had Clinton five points ahead of McCain, and a CNN poll released yesterday had her two points ahead of him.

So the polls, at least, show that the candidates are virtually tied...

Rasmussen is consider among the elite polls. It shows McCain with a double digit lead over Hillary, 7 points over Obama.

But, again, this polling is fairly irrelevant.

[comicgirl]

hmmmm. I dont think McCain has enough support from his own party to win no matter what happens. Im a Republican and I refuse to vote for him and iv heard many others say the same. I plan on voting Obama but if he doesnt get the nod im screwed. Heres hoping he deflies the dems if they screw him and goes indy.:word::word:If Obama doesn't get the nod, I'll stay home. After all this, I can't stand the thought of the Hill/Bill show for 4 years. McCain? Maybe in '00; not now.

[comicgirl]

There’s a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she’s a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that “through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as “The “Fellowship,” also known as The Family. Sean Hannity has called Obama’s church a “cult.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/20/7798/

WTF? :twisted:

[redfirebird2008]

Interview with the guy who infiltrated The Family:

http://www.alternet.org/story/16167/?page=entire

[Excel]

You guys who cares about someones religion??

[Kelly]

Are any of them a part of her campaign now?

[Marx]

There’s a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she’s a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that “through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as “The “Fellowship,” also known as The Family. Sean Hannity has called Obama’s church a “cult.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/20/7798/

WTF? :twisted:

The main reason why Hillary Clinton has been silent on this issue is because if she opens her mouth people will pounce and accuse her of nothing short of damning the world to hell! She could no sooner utter a single word on this subject and someone will spin it in every which way they can. And that's the truth. She's been wise keeping tight-lipped.

[Memphis Slim]

oh please!!!! :whatever::woot:

[Kelly]

Are any of them a part of her campaign now?

Anyone?

[The Senator]

Do you know how many religious groups have cult-sounding names?

I attended a Congregational church simply referred to as "The Congregation."

On campus, I have a non-denominational protestant church group called "The Gathering."

Just because they sound like a 'cult,' that doesn't make them one. And besides that, I don't believe Hillary's minister serves in a top position on her campaign.

So this isn't really a concern of mine.

[redfirebird2008]

Do you know how many religious groups have cult-sounding names?

I attended a Congregational church simply referred to as "The Congregation."

On campus, I have a non-denominational protestant church group called "The Gathering."

Just because they sound like a 'cult,' that doesn't make them one. And besides that, I don't believe Hillary's minister serves in a top position on her campaign.

So this isn't really a concern of mine.

It's not the name that's the issue, it's their behavior that's scary. And it's not a church, it's an organization of politicians. They believe they're ordained by God to rule the country.

[The Senator]

It's not the name that's the issue, it's their behavior that's scary. And it's not a church, it's an organization of politicians. They believe they're ordained by God to rule the country.

So? These guys believe that God has set them on a path to lead the country. It makes sense, doesn't it? Aren't Christians told that they're put here for a purpose? Don't they think God put them in their current career track or lifestyle for a reason?

I've attended several churches, and I know that the one message I got out of those meetings were that our lives have a specific purpose at the discretion of God. They're politicians. Therefore, it makes sense that they think God put them here to lead the country.

[redfirebird2008]

No, the guy that's reporting on it said it sounds like a monarchist, elitist attitude. Divine right. More about preserving their own power than actually doing good for the people of the country. We'll see what happens when he releases his book on it in May. It will likely continue to get ignored.

[The Senator]

No, the guy that's reporting on it said it sounds like a monarchist, elitist attitude. Divine right. More about preserving their own power than actually doing good for the people of the country. We'll see what happens when he releases his book on it in May. It will likely continue to get ignored.

Well, if Hillary is a monarch, then Obama is a racist. Hillary's church preaches divine right; and Obama's church preaches hatred towards white folks. Looks like they both have their religious issues.

[Darthphere]

Are any of them a part of her campaign now?

Bingo!

[Lightning Strykez!]

Are any of them a part of her campaign now?

Or better yet, are any of them funding her campaign? Her tax returns might tell the tale.

[The Senator]

Or better yet, are any of them funding her campaign? Her tax returns might tell the tale.

I'm loving how people think there's some sort of huge secret hidden in Clinton's personal documents.

News networks overanalyzed her schedule as First Lady a few days ago, because she was in the White House six times when Bill met with Monica Lewinsky.

They think that the papers she wrote when she was First Lady will reveal something 'shocking' about her politics.

They think that the thesis she wrote in college will tell us something we didn't already know about her.

And now, they think her tax returns are going to give us something downright juicy which will destroy her campaign.

These are all personal documents which shouldn't matter one way or another. Because Obama released his tax returns, doesn't mean Hillary is withholding vital information. It's just another chance for Obama to attack her for something that doesn't matter.

[Darthphere]

That info wouldn't show up on her tax return anyway. Now her bank records are a different story. :o

[Lightning Strykez!]

News networks overanalyzed her schedule as First Lady a few days ago, because she was in the White House six times when Bill met with Monica Lewinsky.


Overanalyzing? Hmph. There wasn't much to analyze at all Jman. From what I've read and heard it sounds like she hasn't done anything remarkable as a First Lady. At least not remarkable enough to pick up any red phones. :o

[Darthphere]

Hmph. From what I've read and heard it sounds like she hasn't done anything remarkable as a First Lady. At least not remarkable enough to pick up any red phones. :o

Dude, she doesn't sleep, she'll be there at 3 am.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Dude, she doesn't sleep, she'll be there at 3 am.

LOL

Well, most vampires don't, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. :p

[The Senator]

Overanalyzing? Hmph. There wasn't much to analyze at all Jman. From what I've read and heard it sounds like she hasn't done anything remarkable as a First Lady. At least not remarkable enough to pick up any red phones. :o

They were here public schedule... obviously there wasn't much to analyze! They were documents showing who she met with and where she traveled publicly. Her private schedule may say otherwise... but there's no need to release that stuff anyway, since it doesn't tell us much about her. It just tells us where she went and who she met with, if that.

Besides, she didn't release her schedule... the National Archives did... so it's not like her campaign was using this as a way to tout her 'experience' as first lady...

[Lightning Strykez!]

Besides, she didn't release her schedule... the National Archives did... so it's not like her campaign was using this as a way to tout her 'experience' as first lady...

Well her campaign better release something soon because her so-called "experience" platform will crumble if she becomes the party's nom later. McCain will trounce her 10 ways to Sunday on the topic of political longevity and national service alone.

She has yet to prove why she is more experienced than anyone else vying for the Oval Office.

[The Senator]

Well her campaign better release something soon because her so-called "experience" platform will crumble if she becomes the party's nom later. McCain will trounce her 10 ways to Sunday on the topic of political longevity and national service alone.

She has yet to prove why she is more experienced than anyone else vying for the Oval Office.

Hey, I never said I was voting for her on the so-called 35 years of 'experience' she claims to have. She did a lot for upstate New York when I lived there, and she matches my political ideology almost perfectly. I'm voting for her because I like her politics. The only 'experience' argument she has is resume length... which, in some ways, is important... though she didn't do much on a national level in the Senate.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Honestly? I don't think Obama has the ruthlessness to do something like that. He has shown class and dignity whenever he's lost a contest to Hillary--no one can take that away from him. If he loses, I believe he'll concede and get in line with the rest of the party and support her.

However, I don't put it past Hillary to run third party. In fact, I've read several places that suggest she'd consider it--just to so-call "vet" him into the ground. Her chances at running again in 2012 are slim so it's not like she'd have any future political aspirations to protect.

[The Senator]

Honestly? I don't think Obama has the ruthlessness to do something like that. He has shown class and dignity whenever he's lost a contest to Hillary--no one can take that away from him. If he loses, I believe he'll concede and get in line with the rest of the party and support her.

However, I don't put it past Hillary to run third party. In fact, I've read several places that suggest she'd consider it--just to so-call "vet" him into the ground. Her chances at running again in 2012 are slim so it's not like she'd have any future political aspirations to protect.

I don't think either one of them will run an independent bid. Obviously, all this tension leads people to discuss all possibilities... no one wants to just give up the presidency, after they've gone so far. But I think Hillary knows that she can get away with going to the convention... but that her political career and legacy will be destroyed if she does something as malicious as this.

Doesn't mean I won't vote for her if she runs... but I don't endorse the idea in the least bit, and I think the party will do everything in its power to ensure that she's 'rewarded' in the end (most likely, they'll give her a top leadership post in the Senate or something to sway her).

[hippie_hunter]

Honestly? I don't think Obama has the ruthlessness to do something like that. He has shown class and dignity whenever he's lost a contest to Hillary--no one can take that away from him. If he loses, I believe he'll concede and get in line with the rest of the party and support her.
I wouldn't say that he shows class and dignity everytime. He played rather dirty with Michigan because it didn't go his way.

But over all, he has shown a lot more grace than her. By far. If he does lose I really don't see him going third party but go behind it for the sake of party unity like you said.

However, I don't put it past Hillary to run third party. In fact, I've read several places that suggest she'd consider it--just to so-call "vet" him into the ground. Her chances at running again in 2012 are slim so it's not like she'd have any future political aspirations to protect.
I can't see a Clinton running third party. The Clintons are like a Democratic establishment for crying out loud like the Kennedys.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I think there might possibly be one foregone conclusion though: If she is *given* the nomination under some silly strange circumstances, she can kiss the African American vote buh-bye. I have a feeling that all of this drama has really disenfranchised that particular segment of the Democratic voters...I just sense that her popularity is falling fast with that group.

[The Senator]

I think there might possibly be one foregone conclusion though: If she is *given* the nomination under some silly strange circumstances, she can kiss the African American vote buh-bye. I have a feeling that all of this drama has really disenfranchised that particular segment of the Democratic voters...I just sense that her popularity is falling fast with that group.

That's difficult to peg, really. I know a lot of African Americans who love Obama and Hillary, but want to see 'someone like them' in the White House. I know a few who love Obama and hate Hillary too. I think the African American vote will be split if she wins without winning either the popular vote, the delegate vote (if it comes down to super delegates, this may be a disaster), or both.

I've said that I think she has every reason to go to the convention... but even I must admit that if she isn't the true winner, she probably shouldn't be the nominee...

[hippie_hunter]

Meh, I think the African-American vote will end up voting for Clinton if she ends up getting the nomination.

The Republicans aren't going to take the time and effort to sway them to vote Republican and the Democrats will still use it as a group to take advantage of for votes and ignore them afterwards. Sorta like what the Republicans do with the evangelicals.

[Marx]

I'm loving how people think there's some sort of huge secret hidden in Clinton's personal documents.

News networks overanalyzed her schedule as First Lady a few days ago, because she was in the White House six times when Bill met with Monica Lewinsky.

They think that the papers she wrote when she was First Lady will reveal something 'shocking' about her politics.

They think that the thesis she wrote in college will tell us something we didn't already know about her.

And now, they think her tax returns are going to give us something downright juicy which will destroy her campaign.

These are all personal documents which shouldn't matter one way or another. Because Obama released his tax returns, doesn't mean Hillary is withholding vital information. It's just another chance for Obama to attack her for something that doesn't matter.

You hit the nail on the head Jman. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[comicgirl]

Well, if Hillary is a monarch, then Obama is a racist. Hillary's church preaches divine right; and Obama's church preaches hatred towards white folks. Looks like they both have their religious issues.incorrect............show sermons, every Sunday, that state kill all the white folks. Make sure you include '98 and prior to that.


It's just another chance for Obama to attack her for something that doesn't matter.:pal::pal:oh, yeah...poor Hillary. Because, god forbid, she did not initiate snape and nape tactics in the Primary. Heavens, no. It's that evil media, always beating up on her...sniff!

[The Senator]

incorrect............show me sermons, every Sunday, that state kill all the white folks. Make sure you include '98 and prior to that.

Here are some racist quotes by Rev. Wright:


And they will not only attack you if you try to point out what's going on in white America, the U.S. of KKK A!


Why they be callin' the president's home the "White House" if they didn't intend for Whitey always livin' there? It be time we done deconstructed all the language of the White Man and see that it was all created just to keep the Black Man down.


Obama knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people; Hillary would never know that, Hillary ain’t never been called a ******!



Obama’s soul is with black people & God. And that’s easy to say because the rich white people aren't with the people or God.

And it doesn't matter when Rev. Wright said his racist comments. He said them. And if Hillary is a monarch for attending her church, then Obama is a racist for attending his.

EDIT: The first part of the last quote (about white people causing global warming) was commentary from someone else. The second part is from Wright.

[The Senator]

:pal::pal:oh, yeah...poor Hillary. Because, god forbid, she did not initiate snape and nape tactics in the Primary. Heavens, no. It's that evil media, always beating up on her...sniff!

I certainly did not say that she hasn't done anything dirty in this campaign.

But Obama's just as guilty of stooping to her level.

He complained about her campaign sending out mailings in NH and other super Tuesday states. So what did he do to prove he was better than her? He sent out mailings in Ohio and Texas. He complained that Hillary was running negative attacks on his experience and the organization of his campaign. So what did he do to prove he had just as much experience as she did? He demanded that she release her private documents to the public.... you know, tax returns, which say nothing about experience or campaign organization.

He keeps complaining that no one wants to focus on the issues, but he's doing just as poor a job of focusing on the issues as she has.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Wright said some crazy things but he was "right" about 911 comments imo. America sticks its nose where it doesn't belong, Palestinians being killed without merit, then we get hit... Now we are upset? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[The Senator]

Wright said some crazy things but he was "right" about 911 comments imo. America sticks its nose where it doesn't belong, Palestinians being killed without merit, then we get hit... Now we are upset? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Yeah, God forbid we feel bad because three thousand people were obliterated by terrorists.

Anyone who thinks that the U.S. deserved to be attacked are on equal footing with the terrorists, in my opinion.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I don't remember him saying the "US deserved to be attacked"

Link?

I saw a clip where he basically made a point about the innocent Palestinians being killed for years and nobody gave a crap about their situation. Americans cared about 911 lives lost, but what about all the lives lost from America interfering and being alligned with Israel?

That is equally terrible.

[The Senator]

I don't remember him saying the "US deserved to be attacked"

Link?

So.... people have to say these things outright in order for it to be true?

He didn't directly say that the U.S. deserve to be attacked.

But he ran through every single U.S. foreign policy disaster and then said 9/11 was the result of those policies. Hereby heavily implying that the United States deserved to be attacked.


I saw a clip where he basically made a point about the innocent Palestinians being killed for years and nobody gave a crap about their situation. Americans cared about 911 lives lost, but what about all the lives lost from America interfering and being alligned with Israel?

That is equally terrible.

The Palestinians didn't deserved to be kicked out of their homeland.

But, they've proven just how innocent they are... you know, by sending rockets into Jewish neighborhoods, by bombing marketplaces and buses. By sponsoring state terrorism and killing innocent Jewish men, women & children.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't black and white. The Palestinians are just as whole-heartedly terroristic as the Israelis or the U.S.

But to go beyond the conflict itself.... every U.S. President since Carter has worked to try and reach a settlement in that region, with the end goal being a permanent Palestinian state. But the Palestinians and the Israelis have yet to reach an agreement. We've started the process; it's up to them to carry it out. We don't deserve to die because they can't get their act together.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

The U.S. sides with Israel who kicked them out furthering the conflict imo...But anyways:

But he ran through every single U.S. foreign policy disaster and then said 9/11 was the result of those policies.
And...? Wright=right on something. (wrong on 90% else lol)

Hereby heavily implying that the United States deserved to be attacked.

That doesn't imply "deserved" imo. I suppose it is how you interpret it. I never once thought he meant "deserved" as much as part of the "cause" of attack.

To me it is reprehensible actions from the U.S. to continually support Israel, killing innocent Palestinians and then acting surprised when they strike back. The U.S. in part did deliver 911 to us.

[comicgirl]

I certainly did not say that she hasn't done anything dirty in this campaign.

But Obama's just as guilty of stooping to her level.

He complained about her campaign sending out mailings in NH and other super Tuesday states. So what did he do to prove he was better than her? He sent out mailings in Ohio and Texas. He complained that Hillary was running negative attacks on his experience and the organization of his campaign. So what did he do to prove he had just as much experience as she did? He demanded that she release her private documents to the public.... you know, tax returns, which say nothing about experience or campaign organization.

He keeps complaining that no one wants to focus on the issues, but he's doing just as poor a job of focusing on the issues as she has.Dude, how long was he to suffer "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". Better to "take arms against a sea of troubles (Hillary's trash talk,et al)".

And, I think we can agree that Hill has never been called a n*****.

[StorminNorman]

And, I think we can agree that Hill has never been called a n*****.

But how many times has she been called a b****, c***, etc. etc.

[The Senator]

And, I think we can agree that Hill has never been called a n*****.

No, but she's been called b****, c***, t*** and other hateful things... sometimes by members of this forum...

Additionally, Wright implied that Hillary never had to 'suffer' like Obama has.

Which is interesting to me, considering the two came from the same social class, received practically the same college education... and they both worked their way to get where they are now. The only difference is how they became Presidential candidates, really (Hillary was the wife of the former President, Obama gave a speech watched and liked by millions).

[comicgirl]

No, but she's been called b****, c***, t*** and other hateful things... sometimes by members of this forum...

Additionally, Wright implied that Hillary never had to 'suffer' like Obama has.

Which is interesting to me, considering the two came from the same social class, received practically the same college education... and they both worked their way to get where they are now. The only difference is how they became Presidential candidates, really (Hillary was the wife of the former President, Obama gave a speech watched and liked by millions).Wright's a jerk........period. The man was speaking from his gut, from his experiences. But, one, two three wrongs don't make it right (no pun intended).


That's why I say, we should be better than all this #$%#!

[\S/JcDc\S/]

You come across as a feminist sometimes for some reason, lol.

Come on, there is definitely a difference at least in terms of getting into the race and how they got this far.

Hillary is only as far as she is in politics from association to her husband by name Bill Clinton. If it wasn't for that, she would not have attained senator and furthermore would not even be in the race for President.

With Obama, he certainly had a lot bigger mountain to climb. It wasn't that long ago that she was favored by double digits over him. He has come a long way and was not placed in the priveledged position that Hillary carried in. It's amazing we are now talking about Hillary catching up to him, when technically he was out of the race before it began :o

[The Senator]

You come across as a feminist sometimes for some reason, lol.

I believe that all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation, should be treated fairly and equally. There is no reason, under any circumstances, for people to refer to Hillary Clinton as a ***** or a **** or a **** simply because they disagree with her.


Come on, there is definitely a difference at least in terms of getting into the race and how they got this far.

Hillary is only as far as she is in politics from association to her husband by name Bill Clinton. If it wasn't for that, she would not have attained senator and furthermore would not even be in the race for President.

With Obama, he certainly had a lot bigger mountain to climb. It wasn't that long ago that she was favored by double digits over him. He has come a long way and was not placed in the priveledged position that Hillary carried in. It's amazing we are now talking about Hillary catching up to him, when technically he was out of the race before it began :o

Barack Obama went to Harvard Law. Hillary Clinton went to Yale Law.

They both came from the same class, and eventually spent their teenage years in the same city.

Upon graduation, Obama worked as a 'community organizer,' representing low-income persons in inner city Chicago. Hillary Clinton went on to represent children and served on the board at Wal-Mart.

Here's where the paths split:

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in one of the most heavily-Democratic districts in Illinois. He had a primary challenge... if I remember correctly... but once he won the nomination, it was smooth sailing for him into the state legislature.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, married Bill. Bill ran for governor of Arkansas. You wanna know something interesting? Bill wasn't re-elected to a second term because Hillary refused to take his last name. That was the biggest issue in voters' minds during that election season, despite Clinton's accomplishments in education and tax reform.

So she had to 'submit to her husband' and take his last name in order for Bill to win another term two years later.

During Bill's presidency, Hillary wanted a far more active role than previous first ladies. Even then, she was criticized for refusing to 'submit to her husband.' She focused on health care reform as her major stepping stone... and was not only criticized over the policy itself, but was lampooned and viciously attacked by the right-wing media because she was so noticeable during her husband's campaign. That's when she gained her reputation as being a *****-- because she took an active role in her husband's administration, and Rush Limbaugh told everyone that she was evil and maniacal.

Then, the Clinton impeachment scandal hit... and Hillary continued to be slammed because she refused to leave Bill. They psychoanalyzed her for over a year and a half...

Then she runs for the Senate in New York, where she's referred to as a carpetbagger... nevermind the fact that New York's Democratic Party sought her out and asked her to run. She's still referred to as a carpetbagger there... despite the fact that she's accomplished a lot for the state.

Meanwhile, Obama was re-elected to the state legislature... ran for Congress, but lost his primary... but immediately returned to the state legislature. Mind you, when he ran for Senate, he had a tough primary... but after he won the nomination and the Republican candidate fell apart, Obama sailed smoothly into the United States Senate.

But before he became a Senator, he gave a stirring keynote address at the 2004 convention. Which was where the media instantly fell in love with him. I remember watching MSNBC's coverage of the keynote address, and Chris Matthews said that he felt 'Obama could be the first black president of the United States.' Even then... the media was talking about the first black president held within Obama...

And after Obama was elected to the Senate, he was followed more by the media than any other freshman senator that year! He went to Kenya, and the media followed it. He tacked his name on to ethics reform, and the media followed it. He wrote a book, and the media followed it. Then he floated around the idea of running for President... and the media jumped on his bandwagon almost instantaneously.

So I don't see where Obama has had it exceptionally hard in his life because he's black. Because when I look on his career, I see where Obama ran in predominantly African American districts when he ran for the State Senate. Four years ago, the media fell in love with him because he gave a good speech. They began floating around the idea of the 'first black president.' They got caught up in the concept, as Ferraro put it, of an African American candidate who transcends race.

Obama has been given a free pass this whole election cycle. If he was any other candidate, questions about his past drug use, his pastor, and his 'strange heritage' would have derailed him long ago.

Meanwhile, Clinton has been scrutinized over and over again, sometimes directly because of her gender. Sometimes it's for things which shouldn't have been criticized in the first place.... such as her MLK/ LBJ comments, or Bill's remarks that Obama is "articulate."

Let's not start the 'who had it worse' game, because Obama has had it quite easy, not only in this election campaign, but throughout his life since college.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I believe that all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation, should be treated fairly and equally. There is no reason, under any circumstances, for people to refer to Hillary Clinton as a ***** or a **** or a **** simply because they disagree with her.



Barack Obama went to Harvard Law. Hillary Clinton went to Yale Law.

They both came from the same class, and eventually spent their teenage years in the same city.

Upon graduation, Obama worked as a 'community organizer,' representing low-income persons in inner city Chicago. Hillary Clinton went on to represent children and served on the board at Wal-Mart.

Here's where the paths split:

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in one of the most heavily-Democratic districts in Illinois. He had a primary challenge... if I remember correctly... but once he won the nomination, it was smooth sailing for him into the state legislature.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, married Bill. Bill ran for governor of Arkansas. You wanna know something interesting? Bill wasn't re-elected to a second term because Hillary refused to take his last name. That was the biggest issue in voters' minds during that election season, despite Clinton's accomplishments in education and tax reform.

So she had to 'submit to her husband' and take his last name in order for Bill to win another term two years later.

During Bill's presidency, Hillary wanted a far more active role than previous first ladies. Even then, she was criticized for refusing to 'submit to her husband.' She focused on health care reform as her major stepping stone... and was not only criticized over the policy itself, but was lampooned and viciously attacked by the right-wing media because she was so noticeable during her husband's campaign. That's when she gained her reputation as being a *****-- because she took an active role in her husband's administration, and Rush Limbaugh told everyone that she was evil and maniacal.

Then, the Clinton impeachment scandal hit... and Hillary continued to be slammed because she refused to leave Bill. They psychoanalyzed her for over a year and a half...

Then she runs for the Senate in New York, where she's referred to as a carpetbagger... nevermind the fact that New York's Democratic Party sought her out and asked her to run. She's still referred to as a carpetbagger there... despite the fact that she's accomplished a lot for the state.

Meanwhile, Obama was re-elected to the state legislature... ran for Congress, but lost his primary... but immediately returned to the state legislature. Mind you, when he ran for Senate, he had a tough primary... but after he won the nomination and the Republican candidate fell apart, Obama sailed smoothly into the United States Senate.

But before he became a Senator, he gave a stirring keynote address at the 2004 convention. Which was where the media instantly fell in love with him. I remember watching MSNBC's coverage of the keynote address, and Chris Matthews said that he felt 'Obama could be the first black president of the United States.' Even then... the media was talking about the first black president held within Obama...

And after Obama was elected to the Senate, he was followed more by the media than any other freshman senator that year! He went to Kenya, and the media followed it. He tacked his name on to ethics reform, and the media followed it. He wrote a book, and the media followed it. Then he floated around the idea of running for President... and the media jumped on his bandwagon almost instantaneously.

So I don't see where Obama has had it exceptionally hard in his life because he's black. Because when I look on his career, I see where Obama ran in predominantly African American districts when he ran for the State Senate. Four years ago, the media fell in love with him because he gave a good speech. They began floating around the idea of the 'first black president.' They got caught up in the concept, as Ferraro put it, of an African American candidate who transcends race.

Obama has been given a free pass this whole election cycle. If he was any other candidate, questions about his past drug use, his pastor, and his 'strange heritage' would have derailed him long ago.

Meanwhile, Clinton has been scrutinized over and over again, sometimes directly because of her gender. Sometimes it's for things which shouldn't have been criticized in the first place.... such as her MLK/ LBJ comments, or Bill's remarks that Obama is "articulate."

Let's not start the 'who had it worse' game, because Obama has had it quite easy, not only in this election campaign, but throughout his life since college.

I wasn't really commenting in regards to those words being used for women, I agree that is wrong when it happens. It is also wrong when people drop the N word on Obama of course.

Otherwise-

Clinton "earned" her spot as a candidate through her name. If she was not married into it with the Clinton name, she wouldn't be where she is.

Obama got to where he is by gaining support on his own merit.

That to me says a lot.

Clinton was having it HANDED to her. SHE was projected to be the easy front runner and Obama wasn't even considered a contender. People simply smiled and overlooked Obama at first. He then goes on to win 12 states in a ROW. Now he is ahead.

To me even if there was a way for Hillary to gain the nomination without winning popular/delegate votes... What Obama has done to get where he is, simply remarkable and what Hillary has done, forgettable.

[comicgirl]

You come across as a feminist sometimes for some reason, lol.

Come on, there is definitely a difference at least in terms of getting into the race and how they got this far.

Hillary is only as far as she is in politics from association to her husband by name Bill Clinton. If it wasn't for that, she would not have attained senator and furthermore would not even be in the race for President.

With Obama, he certainly had a lot bigger mountain to climb. It wasn't that long ago that she was favored by double digits over him. He has come a long way and was not placed in the priveledged position that Hillary carried in. It's amazing we are now talking about Hillary catching up to him, when technically he was out of the race before it began :o
Well, it was "pre-ordained" that she win.:oldrazz: She is where she is because of her name.

Obama had to work to get where he is today and it eats some people up. Why is he so popular? How did he get this far? Why do "those" people think he's inspiring? Why? Why? He's just a random negative(hopefully not racial) blurb here.

[The Senator]

Well, it was "pre-ordained" that she win.:oldrazz: She is where she is because of her name.

Obama had to work to get where he is today and it eats some people up. Why is he so popular? How did he get this far? Why do "those" people think he's inspiring? Why? Why? He's just a random negative(hopefully not racial) blurb here.

Oh, I will give you this. He certainly has to work hard.

Considering this is the first election where he himself hasn't been pre-ordained to win.

[comicgirl]

Actually, his original opponent in the IL Senate race was favored until the sex scandal hit (whoooooooooooo, sex'll kill ya!).

[The Senator]

Actually, his original opponent in the IL Senate race was favored until the sex scandal hit (whoooooooooooo, sex'll kill ya!).

You're wrong there. Obama actually had a 22-point lead against his opponent, Jack Ryan, after he won the Democratic primary-- which was a few weeks before the sex scandal destroyed Ryan's campaign.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E1D81231F937A35755C0A9629C8B 63

[redfirebird2008]

Well, if Hillary is a monarch, then Obama is a racist. Hillary's church preaches divine right; and Obama's church preaches hatred towards white folks. Looks like they both have their religious issues.

It's not Hillary's church. It includes Senators, House members, governors, and other politicians all across the country. It's a secret organization, not a church.

[comicgirl]

edit

[comicgirl]

Really? Well, sex is usually a killer with politics. How Bill (I did not have sex with that woman/I did not inhale, etc.) Clinton wriggled out I'll never know.

[redfirebird2008]

Here are some racist quotes by Rev. Wright:









And it doesn't matter when Rev. Wright said his racist comments. He said them. And if Hillary is a monarch for attending her church, then Obama is a racist for attending his.

EDIT: The first part of the last quote (about white people causing global warming) was commentary from someone else. The second part is from Wright.

You need to check your definition of racist because those comments aren't racist. They are separatist and full of hatred, but not racist. Racist is believing your race is superior to the other. Wright preaches against WHITE racism that he himself has felt in his life in this country. Hell, it was sponsored by the damn government.

Also, regarding 9/11, I've already corrected you on this and you keep spouting the same *****. In the same sermon, Wright called the 9/11 attacks "an unthinkable act" and the referred to the victims as "unarmed innocents." Later in the same sermon, he spoke with sadness in his voice when talking about how difficult it was to watch fellow Americans jumping to their deaths from the burning buildings. And you apparently didn't even read the stuff about Hillary's organization. It is NOT a church. It is an organization that is spread across the country and even refers to groups of members as "cells." It's made up of Senators, House members, governors, and all kinds of politicians across the entire country. It's quite a bit different from a church. It's also a secret organization that no one knows much about.

[blackcobra]

As Hillary recently revealed, her trip to Bosina was a memorable one. This is where she was under attack as she landed at the airport. This video is quite chilling. If you have any kids around please cover their eye's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2rtBUfc6YA

[Yurka]

Wow, how did she make it out alive?!?!?

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

She should have used the child as a shield.

[comicgirl]

Wow, how did she make it out alive?!?!?
Level 10 makeup shield was bulletproof.

[The Senator]

You need to check your definition of racist because those comments aren't racist. They are separatist and full of hatred, but not racist. Racist is believing your race is superior to the other. Wright preaches against WHITE racism that he himself has felt in his life in this country. Hell, it was sponsored by the damn government.

I'm sorry, but if the tables were turned and it was a white preacher who spoke out against racism experienced from the black community against white folks, they'd be considered racist. Especially if he said "Hillary's soul is with white people and God. And that's easy to say because black people aren't with the people or God."

Then again, if that preacher said "Obama ain't ever been called a b****!," people would laugh it off and say, 'poor Hillary!!1! She's teh sexistz!"


Also, regarding 9/11, I've already corrected you on this and you keep spouting the same *****. In the same sermon, Wright called the 9/11 attacks "an unthinkable act" and the referred to the victims as "unarmed innocents." Later in the same sermon, he spoke with sadness in his voice when talking about how difficult it was to watch fellow Americans jumping to their deaths from the burning buildings.

And I've said it repeatedly that it doesn't matter that he called 9/11 an unthinkable act. What matters is that he rode it off as something which the U.S. had coming to it. And that, in my opinion, implies that we as a nation deserved to be attacked by the terrorists.

(Last time, I used Hitler in my defense, but because people blasted me for it, I'll use another analogy)

It's like if someone said "those Jews are a nice people. I was sad to watch the Holocaust unfold," and then they said "The Jews complained too much about being persecuted from Egypt! The Jews took over banking institutions around the world! They had it coming to them!"

It doesn't matter how much sadness he felt. He implied we deserved to be attacked, and that's what the controversy is over. And rightfully so.

And you apparently didn't even read the stuff about Hillary's organization. It is NOT a church. It is an organization that is spread across the country and even refers to groups of members as "cells." It's made up of Senators, House members, governors, and all kinds of politicians across the entire country. It's quite a bit different from a church. It's also a secret organization that no one knows much about.

Then it's a religious organization. Big deal.

I've said that I don't really care which faith Obama follows. The Trinity church isn't a religion, either. It's a sect of the United Church of Christ. Same thing with 'The Family.' It's a sect rooted in the Methodist Church, and has an outreach program for other denominations. She believes she's put here to lead? Big deal. I don't care all that much, really.

What I do care about is whether the pastor preaches hatred towards a certain group of people. Does her church do that? Because from my own independent research on 'The Family,' there's no hate being spewed in those sermons.

[comicgirl]

For weeks, the Barack Obama campaign has warned that Hillary Clinton would try to use her ties to the Democratic establishment to muscle 'super delegates' into backing her presidential bid, overriding a popular vote majority and Obama's plurality of pledged delegates elected in primaries and caucuses.

Now, however, as Obama has gained steadily in the polls, the Clinton campaign has reversed field. Top Clinton aides are pleading with uncommitted super delegates to hold off making any commitments, fearful that any commitments they make would be to back Obama, not Clinton.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/27/clinton-camp-presses-supe_n_88640.html



sure, that's fair........................http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

[The Senator]

Eh. Politics as usual.

[comicgirl]

Eh. Politics as usual.yup.......................it certainly is.

[Bill]

Then she runs for the Senate in New York, where she's referred to as a carpetbagger... nevermind the fact that New York's Democratic Party sought her out and asked her to run. She's still referred to as a carpetbagger there... despite the fact that she's accomplished a lot for the state.

Could I see a list of those accomplishments? Because I live here IN New York, and I have yet to see anything here get better during her tenure. I dunno, maybe something in NYC has been accomplished.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well of course they are putting pressure on now. They actually do want the Superdelegates to take sides--but not before they've drudged up enough dirt to destroy Obama. After they feel they've halted his momentum with some silly, tabloidish scandal (that essentially will have nothing to do with his presidential bid) they'll turn to the superdelegates and say, "See, he's not electable afterall. Come, we'll lead you to the Promised Land...Hillaryland."

:rolleyes:

[Marx]

I believe that all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation, should be treated fairly and equally. There is no reason, under any circumstances, for people to refer to Hillary Clinton as a ***** or a **** or a **** simply because they disagree with her.

I couldn't agree with you more. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Mr Sparkle]

Are any of them a part of her campaign now?

why is that important?
:huh: I thought this was about association with someone of rather unsavory ideals and religious stances, how these permeated an individual and corrupted the soul.
also, about judgment.
the fact that at one point for extended periods of time she associated with these fellows ( fellowship, was there a dwarf involved?:huh: if so ...kinky!) shows " poor judgment " does it not? and surely casts doubt upon her character, does it not?
I mean....it should you know?

[Gilpesh]

Wow, how did she make it out alive?!?!?

Sinbad was her bodyguard.

[Excel]

Whoaaa....thats pretty rough

[Matt]

Why does everyone act like its such a horrible thing that Clinton plays the game but when Obama does it is "Hillary forcing him to her level?" I mean, goddamn, this is what politics is about. Especially the super delegates. It is their job to ensure that the electorate does not pick a candidate who is unelectable, and believe it or not, scandals do effect that. How exactly is she doing anything wrong by saying "Wait until the rest of the states are done,"?

Certain posters act as if Obama should just be crowned not only the nominee, but the president as well. Someone opposing the great prodigal candidate is not unethical, against the rules, "strong arming" or anything else.

[Matt]

Of course, if you guys have so many problems with Clinton actually playing the game and courting and making her case to super delegates as is part of the primary process, perhaps you would be more comfortable if the Democrats got rid of this ridiculous delegate sharing and super delegate system all together and simply made it winner takes all. In which case Clinton would have nearly 500 more delegates than Obama and once she wins PA it would be statistically impossible for Obama to catch up.

But then I'm sure you'd be *****ing that Clinton is winning without the popular vote. :whatever:

[comicgirl]

Of course, if you guys have so many problems with Clinton actually playing the game and courting and making her case to super delegates as is part of the primary process, perhaps you would be more comfortable if the Democrats got rid of this ridiculous delegate sharing and super delegate system all together and simply made it winner takes all. In which case Clinton would have nearly 500 more delegates than Obama and once she wins PA it would be statistically impossible for Obama to catch up.

But then I'm sure you'd be *****ing that Clinton is winning without the popular vote. :whatever:Because Clinton's game is too simular to what the Reps have been doing (and she has complained about) for years. She'll do anything to win.

[The Senator]

Because Clinton's game is too simular to what the Reps have been doing (and she has complained about) for years. She'll do anything to win.

Yep, that's right.

Because Hillary isn't going around speaking about hope and change and all of America's problems being sucked out of an open window the moment she becomes elected, she's a Republican.

I keep forgetting how these things work :whatever:

[Matt]

Because Clinton's game is too simular to what the Reps have been doing (and she has complained about) for years. She'll do anything to win.

What the hell do you think Obama is doing? Obama has personally known Geraldine Ferarro for 10 years, however, when she made her comments, did he call her and say "Hey, what's that all about?" No. His campaign goes to the media and plays the race card. What do you call blocking the Democratic process in two states? ****, that is far more Rove-esque than anything Hillary has done.

[comicgirl]

What the hell do you think Obama is doing? Obama has personally known Geraldine Ferarro for 10 years, however, when she made her comments, did he call her and say "Hey, what's that all about?" No. His campaign goes to the media and plays the race card. What do you call blocking the Democratic process in two states? ****, that is far more Rove-esque than anything Hillary has done.
Geraldine drew her battlelines complete with patented whining a la Hillary about everyone attacking her. So, he calls her and says what....

I have a problem with Hillary acting like this election was supposed to be hers from the start.

[Matt]

Geraldine drew her battlelines complete with patented whining a la Hillary about everyone attacking her. So, he calls her and says what....

I have a problem with Hillary acting like this election was supposed to be hers from the start.

And Obama hasn't been acting like the persumed candidate since Super Tuesday?

[comicgirl]

Why should he not (Hillary, cue the tears!!). At least he didn't offer Hillary the vp, while he was in 2nd place. Tacky.

She could've stopped fanning the flames over MI. and FL. which neither candidate is to blame for; but she hasn't and I don't think she will. I'll be interested to see how this all pans out.

[The Senator]

Why should he not (Hillary, cue the tears!!). At least he didn't offer Hillary the vp, while he was in 2nd place. Tacky.

She could've stopped fanning the flames over MI. and FL. which neither candidate is to blame for; but she hasn't and I don't think she will. I'll be interested to see how this all pans out.

He shouldn't have been acting like the nominee since Super Tuesday because he didn't even exceed Clinton at the end of that night's events. Beyond that, he shouldn't be acting like the Democratic nominee because he isn't yet. There are six more states left to get through, hundreds of delegates left to be rewarded, and hundreds of Super Delegates to be decided. And with polls showing Clinton with upwards of a 30-point lead against Obama in PA, and Obama falling behind her in NC and IN, she may have a shot at this yet.

While you're on the subject of FL and MI, the reason why Obama deserves to be lambasted for this is because the man wants to silent two states because they want to abide by party rules. Florida and Michigan certainly didn't abide by the rules by holding their contests before Super Tuesday. But because the results of their contests didn't count, they are allowed to hold a re-vote in the form of an election or a caucus under the DNC's terms. The DNC said "fine, but we don't want to pay for it." People in Florida and Michigan want to have a primary. They want their voices heard. We even have members on this forum who want their voices heard. But Obama's camp doesn't want to agree to a re-vote. Why? Is it because he's un-democratic? Is it because he knows he may very well lose both states? I don't know why Obama wants to disenfranchise millions and millions of voters so he can prove a point which doesn't even exist.

This man claims to be a uniter. But wait until he finds out how much he's divided MI and FL. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't enjoy losing elections. And it looks like we better get ready, because after election day, we'll be kicking ourselves real hard when the results come down to Michigan and we lose by 10% of the vote.

I can't wait.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Of course, if you guys have so many problems with Clinton actually playing the game and courting and making her case to super delegates as is part of the primary process, perhaps you would be more comfortable if the Democrats got rid of this ridiculous delegate sharing and super delegate system all together and simply made it winner takes all. In which case Clinton would have nearly 500 more delegates than Obama and once she wins PA it would be statistically impossible for Obama to catch up.

But then I'm sure you'd be *****ing that Clinton is winning without the popular vote. :whatever:

You're suggesting that Hillary Clinton is playing by the rules? Seriously? You're saying that somehow this whole Michigan/Florida thing is an example of her being obedient to party stipulations?

You dissapointed me today. :csad:

[Lightning Strykez!]

While you're on the subject of FL and MI, the reason why Obama deserves to be lambasted for this is because the man wants to silent two states because they want to abide by party rules.

Um, no. Correction: "They want to abide by the party rules" NOW. They flipped the rules off before when it was convenient for them, got reprimanded for it, and now want to make amends by escaping the consequences.

Say what you want about him, but Obama followed party rules from jump; you cannot dispute that.

[Matt]

You're suggesting that Hillary Clinton is playing by the rules? Seriously? You're saying that somehow this whole Michigan/Florida thing is an example of her being obedient to party stipulations?

You dissapointed me today. :csad:

It has already been explained (numerous times for that matter) how allowing Michigan and Florida to vote IS within the party rules.

Regardless of the motive, Clinton's end is far more Democratic and noble than Obama's attempt to keep 26 million Americans from having their voices heard because he knows he will lose the states. I'd say the same thing about Clinton if the roles were reversed and she was blocking the states. After the 2000 primary, the Democrats should know better.

[Matt]

Um, no. Correction: "They want to abide by the party rules" NOW. They flipped the rules off before when it was convenient for them, got reprimanded for it, and now want to make amends by escaping the consequences.

Say what you want about him, but Obama followed party rules from jump; you cannot dispute that.

I give Clinton credit for putting her name on the Michigan ballot. At least it gave her supporters a chance to have their voices heard, even if it would not count. I doubt that was her intention, but never the less, I give her credit for it.

And again, the Democratic Party rules do not prevent Florida and Michigan from revoting. The only one blocking that is Barack Obama.

[Lightning Strykez!]

*sigh*

There are a LOT more variables involved with the preventions of the do-overs Matt--not simply Obama's "silence". Many of the other factors have nothing to do with him and are unique to the states' financial and ecomomic situations.

Come on now. :o

[Matt]

Not really. Florida, I will concede, is being stubborn.

Michigan however had a plan agreed upon. The legislature was prepared to allocate funding. The national party was fine with it. They simply wanted both candidates to sign off. Clinton agreed. Obama would not do so because it would require confirmation that you did not vote in the Republican primary (as many independents have) and it was all but guaranteed he would lose.

How can you really defend his actions in regards to Michigan LS? You know as well as I do that he blocked it.

[comicgirl]

Not really. Florida, I will concede, is being stubborn.

Michigan however had a plan agreed upon. The legislature was prepared to allocate funding. The national party was fine with it. They simply wanted both candidates to sign off. Clinton agreed. Obama would not do so because it would require confirmation that you did not vote in the Republican primary (as many independents have) and it was all but guaranteed he would lose.

How can you really defend his actions in regards to Michigan LS? You know as well as I do that he blocked it.please quote your source re: MI.

[comicgirl]

Sinbad was her bodyguard.:pal::pal: Anyone want to guess why Lou Dobbs et. al. isn't talking about this?

[The Senator]

please quote your source re: MI.

This article talks in detail about the Democrats' plan for a re-vote, including the date which had been set:

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

And this article talks about how the Republicans may be at an advantage because there won't be a re-vote:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5639458.html

And this article discusses why a do-over would hurt Obama, which I'm sure his campaign already knew and was the reason why it campaigned against it.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080312_591049.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

[The Senator]

Um, no. Correction: "They want to abide by the party rules" NOW. They flipped the rules off before when it was convenient for them, got reprimanded for it, and now want to make amends by escaping the consequences.

Say what you want about him, but Obama followed party rules from jump; you cannot dispute that.

Consequences? What consequences are they escaping? :huh:

Party rules state that states have the ability to hold re-votes as long as the votes from the original election were not counted. The ballots cast in Michigan in January weren't counted. Therefore, the state totally reserves the right to hold a re-vote if it wanted to.

The DNC approved of Michigan's plan, and Michigan said it was waiting on Obama's go ahead before it went ahead with it.

But, because Obama knew he would lose, he disagreed to it, and now it's off the table.

Rules are rules and those who break the rules deserve to be punished for them. But FL and MI didn't break any rules by holding a revote, as the re-vote falls within the stipulations set forth by the Democratic Party.

But, hey, if Obama is cool with throwing away 17 electoral votes, I'm cool with that. Maybe we can get a good president in office in four years.

[comicgirl]

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
--Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."

There are numerous problems with Clinton's version of events.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html

sniff-sniff..........man, what is that smell. Kinda smells like bull****

[Varient]

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
--Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."

There are numerous problems with Clinton's version of events.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html

sniff-sniff..........man, what is that smell. Kinda smells like bull****


SMH.

Too dangerous for the president,... so send his wife???

[StorminNorman]

For weeks, the Barack Obama campaign has warned that Hillary Clinton would try to use her ties to the Democratic establishment to muscle 'super delegates' into backing her presidential bid, overriding a popular vote majority and Obama's plurality of pledged delegates elected in primaries and caucuses.

Now, however, as Obama has gained steadily in the polls, the Clinton campaign has reversed field. Top Clinton aides are pleading with uncommitted super delegates to hold off making any commitments, fearful that any commitments they make would be to back Obama, not Clinton.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/27/clinton-camp-presses-supe_n_88640.html



sure, that's fair........................http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

You do realize that Obama has spent more money on Super Delegats than Hillary has, yes?

Obama has payed many delegates almost a million dollars each. Yes - thats really fair :up:

The way the Democrat Party chooses its candidates is fundamentally corrupt.

[rdh007]

:pal::pal: Anyone want to guess why Lou Dobbs et. al. isn't talking about this?
A) Because they work for the Clinton Media Machine?
B) Because it's irrelevant?
C) Because she's talking about a trip that wasn't videotaped? A different trip altogether?
D) Because SNL told them to pick on Obama for a while instead?

[comicgirl]

A) Because they work for the Clinton Media Machine?
B) Because it's irrelevant?
C) Because she's talking about a trip that wasn't videotaped? A different trip altogether?
D) Because SNL told them to pick on Obama for a while instead?How lame is it to be blown out of the water by Sinbad:pal:

[Rated-X]

:whatever: Please you all are just "Hillary Bashers". A CBS reporter confirms Hillary's sniper-fire account.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4









:meanie:

[comicgirl]

It's Hill vs. The Electorial College!

Hillary Calls For End To Electoral College
New York Senator-Elect Made Comments During Upstate Victory Tour
ALBANY, New York, Nov. 20, 2000

Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton began a victory tour of upstate New York Friday by calling for elimination of the Electoral College.

"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248645.shtml


Or is it??

Clinton Backer Points to Electoral College Votes as New Measure
Published: March 24, 2008

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

In a primary, of course, electoral votes are not relevant, but the Clinton campaign is trying to use them as an unofficial measure of strength.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?em&ex=1206504000&en=8acccf15af9d0f06&ei=5087%0A


Ok, let's all share this WTF moment. Away with the electorial college....unless it helps me.


They want what they want, and as for the rest of it: They don't care. - Bill Richardson

[Matt]

The Electoral College is a neccessary evil.

[comicgirl]

:whatever: Please you all are just "Hillary Bashers". A CBS reporter confirms Hillary's sniper-fire account.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4









:meanie:I believe Sinbad!:word:

[comicgirl]

So, it's ok for her to feel "strongly" against the E. College......unless her a$$ is hanging by a thread. OK...http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/laugh.gif.

Flash!......Clinton camp says Hillary can out dance Obama! Shows electability.

[Matt]

So, it's ok for her to feel "strongly" against the E. College......unless her a$$ is hanging by a thread. OK...http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/laugh.gif.

Where did I say that? I was commenting on the issue in general. Clinton is as big of a tool as Obama. Of course, this is really no different than him saying he wants to represent the people but refusing to allow the voices of Michigan to be heard. They are both total jack asses and that is why I will not vote for either.

[comicgirl]

Where did I say that? I was commenting on the issue in general. Clinton is as big of a tool as Obama. Of course, this is really no different than him saying he wants to represent the people but refusing to allow the voices of Michigan to be heard. They are both total jack asses and that is why I will not vote for either.
That wasn't directed at you; just my own personal ha-ha moment at all this crap. Minimal perspiration, dude.

[Shifty]

I just liked how Lewis Black was on Larry King slagging the 1996 story and the legitimacy of blogging and then Anderson Cooper has to go on for an hour presenting this as a serious story and then blog during the breaks.

[The Senator]

So, it's ok for her to feel "strongly" against the E. College......unless her a$$ is hanging by a thread. OK...http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/laugh.gif.

Flash!......Clinton camp says Hillary can out dance Obama! Shows electability.

Obama loses the electoral college, too.... so any idea that Obama is leading is completely false....

[Matt]

Neither of them will or could do anything about the electoral college. It is just something they say now to get Democrats who were pissed about 2000 to rally behind them.

[redfirebird2008]

JMan, here's the raw numbers for you including Michigan and Florida, one of which provides an extra 328,000 votes for Hillary.

Clinton: 13,833,671; 47.2%

Obama: 13,921,532; 47.5%

Even with an extra 328,000 votes padding her total, she's still losing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Now for the pledged delegate and total delegate counts even with Michigan and Florida included.

Clinton pledged delegates: 1425 (73 from Michigan, 105 from Florida)
Obama pledged delegates: 1481 (0 from Michigan, 67 from Florida)

Clinton total delegates: 1675 (250 superdelegates)
Obama total delegates: 1695 (214 superdelegates)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

So with an extra 73 delegates tacked on to her count, she still trails by 20 delegates.

Keep spinning though. It's pretty amusing.

[The Senator]

JMan, here's the raw numbers for you including Michigan and Florida, one of which provides an extra 328,000 votes for Hillary.

Clinton: 13,833,671; 47.2%

Obama: 13,921,532; 47.5%

Even with an extra 328,000 votes padding her total, she's still losing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Keep spinning though. It's pretty amusing.

First, I'm not spinning anything.

Second, this isn't a thread about Michigan and Florida. And had you paid attention in those threads, you would have seen where I said that I don't care who wins Michigan and Florida or the primary in general. I care that we hold a re-vote so that the Democratic Party does not risk disenfranchising millions of voters.

Thirdly, that poll doesn't reflect crucial swing states which Obama loses, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. You can't win the Presidency without at least two of those states.

So I don't know where you're accusing me of 'spinning' :huh:

[redfirebird2008]

You said "any idea that Obama is leading is completely false." That is spin.

[redfirebird2008]

Also, Obama won Missouri. And losing a primary doesn't necessarily mean you can't beat the other party in a particular state.

[The Senator]

You said "any idea that Obama is leading is completely false." That is spin.

ANY IDEA THAT OBAMA IS LEADING IN THE GENERAL ELECTION IS FALSE.

It's not spin; it's truth. He can't win in November if he doesn't win PA, MO or OH. He's also statistically tied in NJ and only one point ahead in WI. He has an uphill battle to climb.

[The Senator]

Also, Obama won Missouri. And losing a primary doesn't necessarily mean you can't beat the other party in a particular state.

Um... I'm not looking at primary results... I'm looking at opinion polling for individual states as to who voters plan to vote for in November...

[redfirebird2008]

And Hillary faces just as much of an uphill battle against McCain, so what's your point?

[The Senator]

And Hillary faces just as much of an uphill battle against McCain, so what's your point?

Actually Hillary fares better.

According to interior polling by Cook Political Report, Clinton would win Ohio, West Virginia and Arkansas against McCain, while she'd be statistically tied with McCain in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky and Virginia.

Meanwhile, Obama loses Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri.

While they would both lose... it can be concluded that Hillary fares better against McCain. If she turned any of the states she tied with McCain in her favor, she'd win.

I'm just pointing out that the electoral college works for everyone's disadvantage.

[redfirebird2008]

She fares better RIGHT NOW. And what just went on with Obama? Pretty big controversy. It might stay with him or it might go away, but right now is not the time to completely judge how he'd do in November.

[The Senator]

She fares better RIGHT NOW. And what just went on with Obama? Pretty big controversy. It might stay with him or it might go away, but right now is not the time to completely judge how he'd do in November.

It is if you're selecting your party's nominee...

[redfirebird2008]

It is if you're selecting your party's nominee...

By right now I mean literally a few days after the controversy hit its peak. There's still a damn month till Pennsylvania and a month and a half until Indiana and North Carolina. She has demographic advantages in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania so she would naturally do better there to begin with but before the controversy he was beating McCain in Ohio. It'll be interesting to see if he can recover from it. Perhaps he can, perhaps he can't.

[Marx]

There are arguments FOR and AGAINST the Electoral College. There always have been. With all due respect to Clinton, this debate began long before she ever entered the picture. So let's all not act like she's the first one to suggest abolishing it.

[Excel]

Poor Hillary, things just never seem to go her way :csad:

[redfirebird2008]

There are arguments FOR and AGAINST the Electoral College. There always have been. With all due respect to Clinton, this debate began long before she ever entered the picture. So let's all not act like she's the first one to suggest abolishing it.

I agree.

[Lightning Strykez!]

She's a liar. Plain and simple. This has already been debunked.

[The Senator]

Several states have already approved measures which would cast their electoral votes in favor of the national popular vote winner. Once enough states sign on (to equal 270 or more electoral votes), these provisions would go into effect, thereby making the electoral college irrelevant.

[gap5ewl]

Umm.. so is she the biggest hypocrite in American politics? seriously everyday she says something that overrides her previous stance.

[hippie_hunter]

ANY IDEA THAT OBAMA IS LEADING IN THE GENERAL ELECTION IS FALSE.

It's not spin; it's truth. He can't win in November if he doesn't win PA, MO or OH. He's also statistically tied in NJ and only one point ahead in WI. He has an uphill battle to climb.

Come to think about it, the vast majority of states that Obama won in the primaries and caucuses are going to end up voting McCain also (the Southern and Midwestern states).

Not only that but it looks like Michigan might end up voting Republican as well thanks to the DNC and Obama ****ing them over. While Iowa and New Mexico would probably end up defecting to the Democrats, they won't make up for the loss of Michigan and maybe even Pennsylvania.

It's really looking like McCain will end up winning this thing at the moment.

[hippie_hunter]

Several states have already approved measures which would cast their electoral votes in favor of the national popular vote winner. Once enough states sign on (to equal 270 or more electoral votes), these provisions would go into effect, thereby making the electoral college irrelevant.

As much as I hate the Electorial College. I personally feel that an interstate compact does not have the right to do something like that.

An amendment to the Constitution is what needs to be done to get rid of it.

[Malice]

She is evil, pure evil

[Memphis Slim]

They both are liars.

One didn't know what his pastor/mentor/friend believed in for 20 years
and this one was ducking gunfire while on a dangerous mission.
:pal:

[The Senator]

As much as I hate the Electorial College. I personally feel that an interstate compact does not have the right to do something like that.

An amendment to the Constitution is what needs to be done to get rid of it.

Why don't states have the right to do that?

They aren't getting rid of the electoral college. They're casting their votes in favor of the national popular vote winner. There's nothing in the constitution which says electors have to cast their ballot for whoever wins their state. And if enough states were to work that way, the electoral college would be considered irrelevant, and we wouldn't have to put up with all the ******** it takes to get an amendment tacked on to the Constitution.

[Excel]

I think it is stupid. Sorry Rhode Island.

[The Senator]

Come to think about it, the vast majority of states that Obama won in the primaries and caucuses are going to end up voting McCain also (the Southern and Midwestern states).

Not only that but it looks like Michigan might end up voting Republican as well thanks to the DNC and Obama ****ing them over. While Iowa and New Mexico would probably end up defecting to the Democrats, they won't make up for the loss of Michigan and maybe even Pennsylvania.

It's really looking like McCain will end up winning this thing at the moment.

Oh, that's absolutely true. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to win Michigan and Pennsylvania easily are naive. That's why the Dems need a candidate who can win big swing states. That's why, in all fairness, neither Hillary or Obama should be running for President. Aside from the fact that Clinton is divisive and Obama has as much political experience as the lamp sitting on my desk, neither candidate has an edge in states traditionally won by Republicans.

If Mark Warner was the nominee, he'd definitely pull in Virginia and West Virginia. He'd have a strong edge in Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado and Missouri because he is a moderate, and voters in those states traditionally elect moderate Democrats to statewide offices. He'd have a slight edge in North Carolina because he's a Southern governor, and the South loves people of their own kind. If Warner was the nominee, we could forgo Michigan and Pennsylvania and still come out on top. But if Warner was the nominee, we'd win those states, on top of a slew of others.

Thank you, Democratic Party, for picking demagogues over leaders.

[Matt]

Oh, that's absolutely true. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to win Michigan and Pennsylvania easily are naive. That's why the Dems need a candidate who can win big swing states. That's why, in all fairness, neither Hillary or Obama should be running for President. Aside from the fact that Clinton is divisive and Obama has as much political experience as the lamp sitting on my desk, neither candidate has an edge in states traditionally won by Republicans.

If Mark Warner was the nominee, he'd definitely pull in Virginia and West Virginia. He'd have a strong edge in Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado and Missouri because he is a moderate, and voters in those states traditionally elect moderate Democrats to statewide offices. He'd have a slight edge in North Carolina because he's a Southern governor, and the South loves people of their own kind. If Warner was the nominee, we could forgo Michigan and Pennsylvania and still come out on top. But if Warner was the nominee, we'd win those states, on top of a slew of others.

Thank you, Democratic Party, for picking demagogues over leaders.

:applaud

I personally am pulling for a Democrat loss this year so we can get someone like Warner or Brown or some form of a Warner/Brown ticket in 2012.

Warner knew he did not have a chance this year with the media creating rockstar candidates, so he played it smart and ran for Senate. Come 2012 he will still be politically active and nationally relevant. It was a smart move.

[The Senator]

:applaud

I personally am pulling for a Democrat loss this year so we can get someone like Warner or Brown or some form of a Warner/Brown ticket in 2012.

Warner knew he did not have a chance this year with the media creating rockstar candidates, so he played it smart and ran for Senate. Come 2012 he will still be politically active and nationally relevant. It was a smart move.

Warner/ Brown would be perfect.

But if the election was Warner vs. McCain this year, do the Dems realize that they could have been groundbreaking even without a woman or a minority at the top of the ticket? Think of the VP spot:

Warner/ Obama (most obvious)

Warner/ Sebelius (female Governor who would put Kansas in play)

Warner/ Napolitano (female Governor who would put Arizona and the west in play)

Warner/ Ford (former African American Congressman who would put Tennessee in play)

Warner/ Richardson (Hispanic Governor who would win New Mexico and would make the west more competitive)

All of these combinations are possible in four years, mind you, but I'm going to be rather upset if we lose the election this year, when we could have crushed the competition and been groundbreaking all the same.

[Matt]

Warner would've not only beat McCain, he would've embarrassed the hell out of McCain. A Warner/Obama ticket is something I could've gotten behind.

[The Senator]

Warner would've not only beat McCain, he would've embarrassed the hell out of McCain. A Warner/Obama ticket is something I could've gotten behind.

That would've been a dream ticket. Christ, we'd be almost certain to hold on to the presidency for sixteen years, barring any incident which would hinder our chances.

[Matt]

That would've been a dream ticket. Christ, we'd be almost certain to hold on to the presidency for sixteen years, barring any incident which would hinder our chances.

Warner has proven he knows how to work across the aisle (and by proven, I mean he actually has a long record of doing it and doesn't just talk about it like a certain candidate who shall remain nameless...Barack Obama). He has executive experience. He turned around the Viriginia economy and created a surplus while cutting taxes. He has experience in foreign policy (he serves on the board of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and the national security taskforce of the Bipartisan Policy Council. This man has everything we need in a president. As it is, we are stuck with two pseudo-Democrats who have no business running for president and a grumpy old man who has proven that he will pander to any demographic that will get him elected no matter how much it goes against his beliefs.

[hippie_hunter]

Oh, that's absolutely true. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to win Michigan and Pennsylvania easily are naive. That's why the Dems need a candidate who can win big swing states. That's why, in all fairness, neither Hillary or Obama should be running for President. Aside from the fact that Clinton is divisive and Obama has as much political experience as the lamp sitting on my desk, neither candidate has an edge in states traditionally won by Republicans.

If Mark Warner was the nominee, he'd definitely pull in Virginia and West Virginia. He'd have a strong edge in Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado and Missouri because he is a moderate, and voters in those states traditionally elect moderate Democrats to statewide offices. He'd have a slight edge in North Carolina because he's a Southern governor, and the South loves people of their own kind. If Warner was the nominee, we could forgo Michigan and Pennsylvania and still come out on top. But if Warner was the nominee, we'd win those states, on top of a slew of others.

Thank you, Democratic Party, for picking demagogues over leaders.

I'd be down for voting Warner in a heartbeat.

[The Senator]

Warner has proven he knows how to work across the aisle (and by proven, I mean he actually has a long record of doing it and doesn't just talk about it like a certain candidate who shall remain nameless...Barack Obama). He has executive experience. He turned around the Viriginia economy and created a surplus while cutting taxes. He has experience in foreign policy (he serves on the board of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and the national security taskforce of the Bipartisan Policy Council. This man has everything we need in a president. As it is, we are stuck with two pseudo-Democrats who have no business running for president and a grumpy old man who has proven that he will pander to any demographic that will get him elected no matter how much it goes against his beliefs.

Imagine how much Warner's resume will be improved upon, though, after four years in the Senate. Only two other mainstream prospective candidates would have the same amount of experience as Warner: Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson. And all three would make outstanding Presidents, in my book.

[rdh007]

Stop talking about Warner. We'll all agree and this won't be any fun anymore.

[Matt]

Imagine how much Warner's resume will be improved upon, though, after four years in the Senate. Only two other mainstream prospective candidates would have the same amount of experience as Warner: Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson. And all three would make outstanding Presidents, in my book.

Yep, and the best part is, the worst choice we may be looking at in 2012 is who to vote for, Bayh, Warner, or Brown and that is a decision I will gladly make. :up: Brown could very well be the dark horse who comes out of no where to win the primary, but if that is the case, Warner makes the perfect running mate for him (his moderate policies balance Brown's liberal policies well). Or vice-versa. And god knows they both balance each other geographically, perfectly. Brown is from the ever swinging Ohio and Warner is from the North. I'll glady endure 4 years of McCain to see Warner/Brown or Brown/Warner or Warner/Bayh or Bayh/Warner. :up:

[Matt]

Stop talking about Warner. We'll all agree and this won't be any fun anymore.

:lmao: That's how sad this is, though. We had the perfect candidate knocking on our doors and the party told him "Maybe next time."

[The Senator]

Yep, and the best part is, the worst choice we may be looking at in 2012 is who to vote for, Bayh, Warner, or Brown and that is a decision I will gladly make. :up: Brown could very well be the dark horse who comes out of no where to win the primary, but if that is the case, Warner makes the perfect running mate for him (his moderate policies balance Brown's liberal policies well). Or vice-versa. And god knows they both balance each other geographically, perfectly. Brown is from the ever swinging Ohio and Warner is from the North. I'll glady endure 4 years of McCain to see Warner/Brown or Brown/Warner or Warner/Bayh or Bayh/Warner. :up:

Virginians consider themselves a part of the South :o

(well, half of Virginia should technically be considered the south. No one speaks with a Southern dialect in Northern VA, but once you hit South of Richmond, it's hard to separate South VA from South Carolina).

[The Senator]

Here's a working list of folks who would be knock-out candidates for the Dems in 2012:

Mark Warner: Governor of VA (2001-2005); United States Senator (VA) (2008-?)
Evan Bayh: Governor of Indiana (1988-1998); United States Senator (IN) (1998-?)
Sherrod Brown: United States Representative from Ohio (1992-2006); United States Senator (OH) (2006-?)
Bill Richardson: United States Representative from New Mexico (1983-1997); UN Ambassador (1997-1998); Secretary of Energy (1997-2000); Governor of New Mexico (2002-2010)
Kathlene Sebelius: Governor of Kansas (2002-2010)
Janet Napolitano: Governor of Arizona (2002-2010) (might appoint herself Senator in 2008 if McCain retires or wins the Presidency)
Brian Schweitzer: Governor of Montana (2004-2012)

All these guys are moderates from swing states who would most likely crush McCain if he ran for re-election in 2012.

[hippie_hunter]

Here's a working list of folks who would be knock-out candidates for the Dems in 2012:

Mark Warner: Governor of VA (2001-2005); United States Senator (VA) (2008-?)
Evan Bayh: Governor of Indiana (1988-1998); United States Senator (IN) (1998-?)
Sherrod Brown: United States Representative from Ohio (1992-2006); United States Senator (OH) (2006-?)
Bill Richardson: United States Representative from New Mexico (1983-1997); UN Ambassador (1997-1998); Secretary of Energy (1997-2000); Governor of New Mexico (2002-2010)
Kathlene Sebelius: Governor of Kansas (2002-2010)
Janet Napolitano: Governor of Arizona (2002-2010) (might appoint herself Senator in 2008 if McCain retires or wins the Presidency)
Brian Schweitzer: Governor of Montana (2004-2012)

All these guys are moderates from swing states who would most likely crush McCain if he ran for re-election in 2012.

I'd rather wait for Warner to run in 2016. Because if McCain does a good job in his first term, he'll easily win re-election.

And if Warner lost, he'll never run again because the Democratic Party tends to reject its losers (look at Kerry and Dukakis). :csad:

[The Senator]

I'd rather wait for Warner to run in 2016. Because if McCain does a good job in his first term, he'll easily win re-election.


Didn't Bush, for the most part, do good in his first term before he was kicked out of office?

Also, if McCain is in a position like Reagan where re-election is almost guaranteed, the Dems would probably run the loser of this primary instead, and Warner probably wouldn't run in the first place.

[Super_Ludacris]

lol@ waiting another 4-8 years.

[The Senator]

lol@ waiting another 4-8 years.

I'd rather wait 4-8 years and be guaranteed the Presidency for 8-16 years than elect an inexperienced demagogue who will be defeated in four and make it exceptionally hard for Democrats to run strong candidates in the future.

I have a gut feeling that Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, and that we'll be swearing in President Romney in 2013.

[Super_Ludacris]

I'd rather wait 4-8 years, losing this election with a flimsy inexperienced demagogue as our candidate, and be guaranteed the Presidency for 8-16 years than elect someone who will be defeated in four and make it exceptionally hard for Democrats to run strong candidates in the future.

I have a gut feeling that Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, and that we'll be swearing in President Romney in 2013.

Dont worry cause if people think of Obama and Carter as that, then regardless, the democrats are never getting a guaruntee of 8-16 years unless we have a Liberman type democratic......who's not jewish, lol.

[Matt]

Didn't Bush, for the most part, do good in his first term before he was kicked out of office?

Also, if McCain is in a position like Reagan where re-election is almost guaranteed, the Dems would probably run the loser of this primary instead, and Warner probably wouldn't run in the first place.

Bush Sr. was passable...but two things killed him.

1) "No new taxes." He should've never said it. Breaking that promise hurt him a lot with fiscal conservatives and led to the reason number...

2) Ross Perot. He ate up nearly 20 % of the vote. Votes that likely would've gone to Bush. People talk about Nader killing the Democrats in 2000? Perot was ruining elections for Republicans while Nader was still in diapers. Bush probably would've won in a landslide were it not for Perot.

[Matt]

Dont worry cause if people think of Obama and Carter as that, then regardless, the democrats are never getting a guaruntee of 8-16 years unless we have a Liberman type democratic......who's not jewish, lol.

There is a good chance Obama could turn out like Carter.

A young, well intentioned, Washington outsider who really isn't qualified to be President, but captures it in the midst of controversy (for Carter it was the pardoning of Nixon, for Obama it will be the Bush administration in general). They take office during troubling times and their tenure in office reflects that they had no business being president, especially in such complicated times. This allows for a charasmatic, conservative Republican (in Carter's case, Reagan, Bobby Jindal could possibly be this to Barack Obama) to come out of no where and beat them and lead to several years of Republican control (1981 - 2006)

[Matt]

I'd rather wait for Warner to run in 2016. Because if McCain does a good job in his first term, he'll easily win re-election.

And if Warner lost, he'll never run again because the Democratic Party tends to reject its losers (look at Kerry and Dukakis). :csad:


My prediction:

McCain will pick a really conservative running mate (Rick Santorum-style) so he can start to drift back to the middle and win independents. But I doubt McCain will survive his first term. That will allow a Democrat like Warner to take the White House with relative ease in 2012.

[Super_Ludacris]

There is a good chance Obama could turn out like Carter.

A young, well intentioned, Washington outsider who really isn't qualified to be President, but captures it in the midst of controversy (for Carter it was the pardoning of Nixon, for Obama it will be the Bush administration in general). They take office during troubling times and their tenure in office reflects that they had no business being president, especially in such complicated times. This allows for a charasmatic, conservative Republican (in Carter's case, Reagan, Bobby Jindal could possibly be this to Barack Obama) to come out of no where and beat them and lead to several years of Republican control (1981 - 2006)


Given how much different political landscape is in 2008 and people's perceptions about the world (including the Middle East), I dont neccessairly see how this is 1980 all over again either though.

[The Senator]

Dont worry cause if people think of Obama and Carter as that, then regardless, the democrats are never getting a guaruntee of 8-16 years unless we have a Liberman type democratic......who's not jewish, lol.

We have plenty of those. Only thing is, their names aren't Hillary or Obama, so no one knows who they are.

All of the candidates I listed above are moderates. Neither too liberal, nor too conservative, which is exactly where 2/3 of the electorate lies politically. They'd all make excellent VPs as well, and if they ran for President, they would be able to get elected barring a scandal or outside circumstances such as a Perot-like figure.

[The Senator]

Given how much different political landscape is in 2008 and people's perceptions about the world (including the Middle East), I dont neccessairly see how this is 1980 all over again either though.

The political landscape isn't much different.

Instead of the Cold War and communism, we have the Iraq war and terrorism.

The economy is in the ****ter, oil prices are skyrocketing, and Americans are disenchanted with their government.

What's better is that the candidates mirror those who ran in the 1976 election, when Carter was first elected. Instead of an outsider like Carter, we're running an 'outsider' like Obama. Gerald Ford was well established and respected within his own party and nationally. He was also detested by many inside the GOP and out as well-- much like McCain.

This is becoming a remake of the 1976 election. I only hope the sequel isn't as bad as the original's-- or that the same situation plays out, except under McCain.

[Mr Sparkle]

I'd rather wait 4-8 years and be guaranteed the Presidency for 8-16 years than elect an inexperienced demagogue who will be defeated in four and make it exceptionally hard for Democrats to run strong candidates in the future.

I have a gut feeling that Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, and that we'll be swearing in President Romney in 2013.

yeah, it's not like anything could fantistically wrong in 4 years.:o
and yeah, Obama totally exudes a Jimmy carter vibe.

[The Senator]

yeah, it's not like anything could fantistically wrong in 4 years.:o

Anything can go fantastically wrong under any president, so the idea that Barack Obama's presidency would be a cakewalk while McCain would harbor nuclear war or mass disaster is entirely laughable.

[Mr Sparkle]

Anything can go fantastically wrong under any president, so the idea that Barack Obama's presidency would be a cakewalk while McCain would harbor nuclear war or mass disaster is entirely laughable.

it's good nobody presented that idea then isn't it? :up:

[Lightning Strykez!]

This is going to be delicious, mouthwatering fodder for the Republicans if Hillary becomes the nominee. Her so-called "experience" platform is crumbling by the day. And her "I lied once in 12 years and even I'm human occasionally" statement speaks volumes about the way she views herself--and the rest of us...who are "human" full-time. :rolleyes:

Also, if I can be totally shallow for a moment: I am sick and tired of the Bumblebee yellow pants suit jacket she keeps wearing. Hillary, there is more to life, babe. Wardrobe!!

[kainedamo]

Are people really going to vote in this liar?

It's funny how people are over here. Before the Iraq war, we were like "going into Iraq would totally be the wrong thing to do but they're gonna do it".

And now it's like, "Obama is totally the right guy to change America's image, but they're gonna elect that liar ass Hilary".

[rdh007]

They both are liars.

One didn't know what his pastor/mentor/friend believed in for 20 years
and this one was ducking gunfire while on a dangerous mission.
:pal:

In fairness, all three are. McCain lied about Romney throughout the primary.

[Chris B]

I'd go a step further in that I feel that if John McCain is elected President this year, Mark Warner will be the Democratic nominee come 2012 with someone like Russ Feingold or Sherrod Brown as his running mate.

After losing three elections in a row (all of which should've been easy victories) I think the party would nominate a genuine moderate. Warner would have to f**k up royally not to get it, IMO. But he would need to find someone to ideologically balance the ticket and there is where Feingold or Brown comes in.

[lazur]

It's Hill vs. The Electorial College!



I would like to think that any person running for any elected office, much more so for the Presidency, understands that the United States is *not* a 'democracy', and was never intended to be one. The United States is a 'representative REPUBLIC'.

This should (but won't) disqualify her for the Presidency.

[The Senator]

I would like to think that any person running for any elected office, much more so for the Presidency, understands that the United States is *not* a 'democracy', and was never intended to be one. The United States is a 'representative REPUBLIC'.

This should (but won't) disqualify her for the Presidency.

Obama should be disqualified from the Presidency as well, considering he thinks he'll be able to accomplish anything he wants simply because he'll be president :o

[comicgirl]

Obama loses the electoral college, too.... so any idea that Obama is leading is completely false....
Hillary can spin all she wants............she's not leading...period.

[Super_Ludacris]

The political landscape isn't much different.

Instead of the Cold War and communism, we have the Iraq war and terrorism.

The economy is in the ****ter, oil prices are skyrocketing, and Americans are disenchanted with their government.

What's better is that the candidates mirror those who ran in the 1976 election, when Carter was first elected. Instead of an outsider like Carter, we're running an 'outsider' like Obama. Gerald Ford was well established and respected within his own party and nationally. He was also detested by many inside the GOP and out as well-- much like McCain.

This is becoming a remake of the 1976 election. I only hope the sequel isn't as bad as the original's-- or that the same situation plays out, except under McCain.



One thing Iraq and the whole war on terrorisim has done is have the international policies. Some people were even saying this of 9/11. So I welcome any change. Most people internationally are looking at Obama anyway. So I can roll with the new rather than anything old.

The main thing is mending international relations and someone and the growing feeling even with our allies that our policies havent been working is why I think Obama can do a good job. Added to the fact that we are seeing new changes key international Governments (Pakistan's recently newly elected PM is a big factor) , means we are seeing a change.

[Super_Ludacris]

Obama should be disqualified from the Presidency as well, considering he thinks he'll be able to accomplish anything he wants simply because he'll be president :o

Hilary thinks she can do the same even when not being President. When it comes to getting this nomination, shes on some Daffy Duck "Its Miiiine, all Mine. I want it!" type flex:woot::woot:

[comicgirl]

Hilary thinks she can do the same even when not being President. When it comes to getting this nomination, shes on some Daffy Duck "Its Miiiine, all Mine. I want it!" type flex:woot::woot:It's pre-ordained:wow::huh:


They want what they want, and as for the rest of it: They don't care. - Bill Richardson
You go, Richardson!!

[Super_Ludacris]

CNN is killing Clinton right now for this lol

[The Senator]

Hilary thinks she can do the same even when not being President. When it comes to getting this nomination, shes on some Daffy Duck "Its Miiiine, all Mine. I want it!" type flex:woot::woot:

Hillary Clinton has at least acknowledged that she would face an uphill battle in the Senate, considering the Republicans have blocking power. Obama is the most liberal member in the Senate, yet he thinks he will be able to pass everything he wants to because a handful of Republicans have voted for him this primary season. Clinton has a few policies she seems to be adamantly for, such as healthcare, which she thinks will be passed overnight. Obviously that's false. But Obama and his supporters think the moment this man is elected, he'll change the world the moment he puts his hand on the Bible and says "I, Barack Obama..."

[The Senator]

One thing Iraq and the whole war on terrorisim has done is have the international policies. Some people were even saying this of 9/11. So I welcome any change. Most people internationally are looking at Obama anyway. So I can roll with the new rather than anything old.

People internationally are looking at all three candidates. If you want to talk about the person who has an edge with the international community, that would be John McCain, considering he's the only one of the three who has taken the time to meet with international leaders and discuss his foreign policy agenda. From what I've read in the media, he has been received warmly.



The main thing is mending international relations and someone and the growing feeling even with our allies that our policies havent been working is why I think Obama can do a good job. Added to the fact that we are seeing new changes key international Governments (Pakistan's recently newly elected PM is a big factor) , means we are seeing a change.

What has Obama done to prove that he can work with the international community? What has he done as evidence that the international community loves him? There's no evidence to suggest that Obama or Clinton or McCain will bring any change overseas, neither is there evidence against it.

[Super_Ludacris]

People internationally are looking at all three candidates. If you want to talk about the person who has an edge with the international community, that would be John McCain, considering he's the only one of the three who has taken the time to meet with international leaders and discuss his foreign policy agenda. From what I've read in the media, he has been received warmly.

I was just in London on a business trip, Its Barack, theres a lotta popularity and talk for him in the papers the last few months.No one is checking for McCain like that I think Europeans and most of the international community still have some issues with that party...

[Super_Ludacris]

Hillary Clinton has at least acknowledged that she would face an uphill battle in the Senate, considering the Republicans have blocking power. Obama is the most liberal member in the Senate, yet he thinks he will be able to pass everything he wants to because a handful of Republicans have voted for him this primary season. Clinton has a few policies she seems to be adamantly for, such as healthcare, which she thinks will be passed overnight. Obviously that's false. But Obama and his supporters think the moment this man is elected, he'll change the world the moment he puts his hand on the Bible and says "I, Barack Obama..."

And you wanna vote for her anyway? Just vote for McCain then lol

[The Senator]

And you wanna vote for her anyway? Just vote for McCain then lol

So, you want to vote for Obama because he outright lies to you, saying that he'll be able to work on bi-partisan legislation when most, if not all, Republicans will work to block his agenda? :huh:

[The Senator]

I was just in London on a business trip, Its Barack, theres a lotta popularity and talk for him in the papers the last few months.No one is checking for McCain like that I think Europeans and most of the international community still have some issues with that party...

Can you name the two main parties in the British Parliament? Probably not. I don't think the international community gives one damn or another about which party the candidate belongs to, when they probably can't name the top two political parties in the U.S.. Or at least, I know people in France don't care.

[Super_Ludacris]

So, you want to vote for Obama because he outright lies to you, saying that he'll be able to work on bi-partisan legislation when most, if not all, Republicans will work to block his agenda? :huh:

I mean Hilary just did about Bosinia and your still hot for her lol

[The Senator]

I mean Hilary just did about Bosinia and your still hot for her lol

First, I didn't know about the Bosnia incident until this came out a few days ago.

Second, I don't care what she said about some trip to Bosnia, versus what actually happened. I'm voting for President, not judging someone because they tailored a story about being under gunfire. Besides, it was when she was First Lady... and from what I understand, her experience as First Lady doesn't matter at all (or at least, that's what Obama supporters have said).

Third, I'm voting for someone based on what he or she will do in the future. When Obama says something such as 'we're going to pass bipartisan legislation' when he's not only the most liberal member in the Senate, but has no record whatsoever of working on a major bipartisan bill, he's flat out lying in voters' faces. He can't be that much of an outsider to not know how his own workplace works. He's just as guilty of being a fraud as Hillary Clinton is.

[Super_Ludacris]

Can you name the two main parties in the British Parliament? Probably not. I don't think the international community gives one damn or another about which party the candidate belongs to, when they probably can't name the top two political parties in the U.S.. Or at least, I know people in France don't care.

Labour and Conservative and then the Lib-Dems in a distance third (Oh Charles Kennedy :( )

There is a lot of intruge on Obama because he is an idealist and is different. Its like I said earlier, the public opinion on America's politics is low, so of course right or wrong there intruiged by Obama. They know the deal with Clinton and McCain. Lotta people seem to have an issue with 2 ruling familes holding the US office for damn near 28 years (Bush under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush) and they wanna see something different. I will say this though, I dont see the issue with Clinton in this but her potryal on some of the news programmes there is similar to her. (Oh Channel 4 and your crazy award winning Liberal news reporting :) )

[Super_Ludacris]

First, I didn't know about the Bosnia incident until this came out a few days ago.

Second, I don't care what she said about some trip to Bosnia, versus what actually happened. I'm voting for President, not judging someone because they tailored a story about being under gunfire. Besides, it was when she was First Lady... and from what I understand, her experience as First Lady doesn't matter at all (or at least, that's what Obama supporters have said).

Third, I'm voting for someone based on what he or she will do in the future. When Obama says something such as 'we're going to pass bipartisan legislation' when he's not only the most liberal member in the Senate, but has no record whatsoever of working on a major bipartisan bill, he's flat out lying in voters' faces. He can't be that much of an outsider to not know how his own workplace works. He's just as guilty of being a fraud as Hillary Clinton is.

So you agree Hilary is a fraud.

[The Senator]

Labour and Conservative and then the Lib-Dems in a distance third (Oh Charles Kennedy :( )

Good job. But minus one point for not mentioning the Scottish National Party :o


There is a lot of intruge on Obama because he is an idealist and is different. Its like I said earlier, the public opinion on America's politics is low, so of course right or wrong there intruiged by Obama. They know the deal with Clinton and McCain. Lotta people seem to have an issue with 2 ruling familes holding the US office for damn near 28 years (Bush under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush) and they wanna see something different. I will say this though, I dont see the issue with Clinton in this but her potryal on some of the news programmes there is similar to her. (Oh Channel 4 and your crazy award winning Liberal news reporting :) )

Hmm. Well, in France, they seem to like all three of them. So I guess it's different wherever you go in Europe these days.

[Super_Ludacris]

Good job. But minus one point for not mentioning the Scottish National Party :o

Labour and Conservative are the two main parties. Scottish Parliment is a seperative legislative body not a party.

Hmm. Well, in France, they seem to like all three of them. So I guess it's different wherever you go in Europe these days.

France dont care either way, but if any country supports idealists, its them.

[The Senator]

So you agree Hilary is a fraud.

Didn't mean it that way. Obama is just as guilty of being a fraud as any politician is.

[Super_Ludacris]

Even Hilary? You want a fraud for President? damn son....

[The Senator]

Even Hilary? You want a fraud for President? damn son....

I would rather there not be any frauds running for President. But because there are very few frauds in U.S. government, and the only one who wasn't a fraud was a complete crackpot (Kucinich), I had to choose who I felt was less fraudulent. So I chose Clinton, because while she has undoubtedly lied about her past and accomplishments, I feel Obama has lied more about his (in)experience and has painted a picture of a world he knows he will never live in to woo millions of supporters who consider him the purveyor of change in America. Clinton has never promised the type of liberal utopia Obama has promised, and that's because anyone in this country who thinks the type of change Obama wants will be implemented over night just because he's president are delusional. Barring some kind of national disaster, Obama will be lucky if he gets a quarter of what he wants done in his first term. And I think voters will take a good hard look at that in four years, where it'll be a choice between the man who offered us change but couldn't bring it versus the new guy offering change and who might bring it.

[The Senator]

Labour and Conservative are the two main parties. Scottish Parliment is a seperative legislative body not a party.

The Parliament of the UK holds political power over all of the legislative bodies in the United Kingdom. While the Scottish Parliament is separate, the British Parliament holds sovereignty over it. As a result, anyone who is a member of the SNP is a member of the UK Parliament, which ultimately has its power granted to it by the British parliament, even though the SNP is a party within the Scottish Parliament.

But this doesn't really have much to do with anything...

[Darkdd]

She did it at least three times too. I just saw footage of her on CNN(Larry King) doing it in December in Iowa and another time(i can't recall where though).

[Matt]

So Clinton and Obama are liars. Color me suprised.

[EdRyder]

I loved her "Millions of words a week" response, made me laugh.
Qualifications ; Bad at maths, Check. Easy to exaggerate, Check.

[The Senator]

So Clinton and Obama are liars. Color me suprised.

Studies show 100% of politicians lie or exaggerate at one point or another in their careers.

Source: Common f***ing sense.

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie5X4fWtHiQ&e

Towards the end of this video, she digs a deeper hole by talking about how she remembers leaving immediately after talking to the little girl when she actually went around talking to soldiers. She shoulda just not even explained it at all and just said her memory was off on the initial claim about the sniper fire thing.

[Malice]

This just proves she is a compulsive liar.

[Matt]

Studies show 100% of politicians lie or exaggerate at one point or another in their careers.

Source: Common f***ing sense.

:lmao:

[Matt]

This just proves she is a compulsive liar.

I think being a compulsive liar is a pre-requisit to being a politician.

[redfirebird2008]

LOL, totally agreed Matt and JMan.

[Tron5000]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03262008/news/nationalnews/now_bunko_hill_is_under_fire_103582.htm?page=0


NOW BUNKO HILL IS UNDER FIRE
INSULTED MILITARY BLASTS HER SERIAL 'SNIPER' LIES


March 26, 2008 --

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's lies about risking her life under sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia as first lady have infuriated the US military brass and troops.

"She has no sense of what a statement like that does to soldiers," fumed retired Maj. Gen. Walter Stewart, the former head of the Pennsylvania National Guard.

"She is insulting the command in its entirety," he said yesterday.

Clinton came under fire after saying she "misspoke" about what happened during the trip and claimed it was the first time she erred in describing her visit - an assertion Barack Obama's campaign quickly disproved by finding at least three prior occasions over the last few months where she's claimed there was sniper fire.

Stewart, who was assigned to the Army's European headquarters at the time of Clinton's visit in 1996, called her statements "really astonishing."

"Believe me, heads would have rolled all over" if the military put the then-first lady at "unacceptable risk," added Stewart, who is supporting Barack Obama.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson, a John McCain supporter who ran the air attack in the first Gulf War, said, "It bothers me any time anyone running for the highest office in the land fabricates a story.

"That should bother any American, whether you're military or nonmilitary."

Another source, a former Army analyst who was stationed abroad when dignitaries visited, said, "You know, we have soldiers overseas now who are getting shot at by real bullets from real enemies who really want to kill them.

"Getting shot at by snipers is not something you forget - or make light of," he added.

"If getting shot at by sniper fire qualifies you to be president, then there are thousands of guys in the military right now who are way more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be our next president."

Clinton insisted yesterday she "misspoke" for the first time in a dozen years when describing the trip in a recent speech.

But Obama's camp immediately sent out three additional instances where Clinton made claims of dangers faced during her Bosnia visit that have been contradicted by videos of a tranquil arrival ceremony for her goodwill mission.

Clinton yesterday tried to backpedal.

"The military took great care of us," she told Pittsburgh's KDKA radio station.

"I have written about it in my book and talked about it on many other occasions and last week, you know, for the first time in 12 or so years, I misspoke."

Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of US troops in Bosnia, told The Washington Post he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla.

During an Iraq speech last Monday, Clinton's version of the trip sounded more like a Sylvester Stallone thriller: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead, we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

In December, campaigning in Dubuque, Iowa, Clinton said, "We landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don't remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac when that was happening."

Video taken by CBS News on the trip reveals a quaint greeting ceremony with a local schoolgirl who read a poem to Clinton, along with a group of other children.

"It goes without saying that they don't arrange a ceremony with little girls, with bouquets and poems and stuff, if there's a serious risk of taking sniper fire said, ex-Sgt. Peter Cachion, who served in Bosnia.

Comedian Sinbad, who was also on the trip, told The Washington Post his biggest worry was where he was going to get his next meal.

[Darthphere]

What I want to know is how this makes her experience claims irrelevant. Regardless if she was under fire or if a tank didn't blow up next to her as she ran into an armored vehicle, um, SHE STILL WENT TO BOSNIA!

[Tron5000]

What I want to know is how this makes her experience claims irrelevant. Regardless if she was under fire or if a tank didn't blow up next to her as she ran into an armored vehicle, um, SHE STILL WENT TO BOSNIA!

Her claims are irrelevant because she falsifies them. Basically, in my opinion, any word that comes out of her mouth is irrelevant because it's likely not true.

And going to Bosnia doesn't mean you are qualified to lead this great nation. I'll bet lots of people have been to Bosnia. Hell, some actually live there! Does that qualify them for the big chair in the Oval Office? Methinks not.

[Darthphere]

Her claims are irrelevant because she falsifies them. Basically, in my opinion, any word that comes out of her mouth is irrelevant because it's likely not true.

And going to Bosnia doesn't mean you are qualified to lead this great nation. I'll bet lots of people have been to Bosnia. Hell, some actually live there! Does that qualify them for the big chair in the Oval Office? Methinks not.

Wow, that's ridiculous logic. Yes, because she went to Bosnia for vacation and the surfing on the beaches of Bosnia is so world renowned that she had to go there for Spring Break. Break out the suntan lotion Chelsea, we're going to Bosnia!

[Tron5000]

Wow, that's ridiculous logic. Yes, because she went to Bosnia for vacation and the surfing on the beaches of Bosnia is so world renowned that she had to go there for Spring Break. Break out the suntan lotion Chelsea, we're going to Bosnia!

How the hell does going to Bosnia qualify you for the highest office in the land? And you accuse ME of "ridiculous logic"?

[Darthphere]

How the hell does going to Bosnia qualify you for the highest office in the land? And you accuse ME of "ridiculous logic"?

Because like my previous post mocking you said, she didn't go there for some time off. You think all she did there was shake hands and have sing a longs with Sheryl Crow? Come on Tron, you need a new processor if you can't figure things out on your own.

[Tron5000]

Because like my previous post mocking you said, she didn't go there for some time off. You think all she did there was shake hands and have sing a longs with Sheryl Crow? Come on Tron, you need a new processor if you can't figure things out on your own.

Can you tell me exactly what she accomplished on her trip to Bosnia?

[Darthphere]

Can you tell me exactly what she accomplished on her trip to Bosnia?

Can you tell me what she didn't accomplish?

Lets say she didn't get **** done. People were still fighting, going hungry, forced out of their homes etc. Again, she was there to try to help people, not for vacation, not for fun, you don't go to Bosnia in 1996 for kicks and giggles. She was there, trying to help people, be it our soldiers on the ground or the people of Bosnia. It was a relief effort trip. I guess sitting there and doing nothing would be better right? Since apparently, Obama can get away with that.:o