The Clinton Thread

[Abaddon]

Oh, come on Hillary has already addressed the affair in various appearances and that book she wrote. I doubt the question would have ever been asked if it'd been anyone other than Chelsea. He might as well have cut the ******** and asked her how she felt about her father's infidelity.

[Tron5000]

Oh, come on Hillary has already addressed the affair in various appearances and that book she wrote. I doubt the question would have ever been asked if it'd been anyone other than Chelsea. He might as well have cut the ******** and asked her how she felt about her father's infidelity.

Perhaps he should have. That seems a relevant question, as it pertains to the character of the 2 individuals who once again wish to call the White House "Home."

Hillary has addressed the issue, and she has also lied about the issue. Not only that, but she is aiding and abetting a felon based on the fact that she is harboring a rapist (see: Juanita Broaddrick).

[Addendum]

Then ask the questions to Hillary. It doesn't take a damn genius to grasp that.

Then again, this is the media and they're getting paid to ask questions, not think

[Tron5000]

Then ask the questions to Hillary. It doesn't take a damn genius to grasp that.

Then again, this is the media and they're getting paid to ask questions, not think

Well I guess I'm not a damn genius then. "Shucks!" to me then.

What is so difficult about understanding that the behavior of your parents in the past is a sign of their likely behavior in the future? And why is it OK to put your daughter out on the front lines yet feel that you can protect her from the bullets? What occurred in the White House while her parents first inhabited it is likely congruous to what will occur the second go-round. Chelsea was there, she witnessed it, and she is now speaking out on behalf of Mommy's campaign. She went to a good school. Presumably she's a smart person. If she doesn't want to answer the questions, she (and her parents) should not put herself into a position where she is expected to do so.

[Addendum]

If I have a question about person A, I don't go to person C and ask them about person A. I direct my question to person A. The middle man, or in this case middle-woman, is cut out.

And having re-read the first post, it wasn't the media. It was some random dude. Sorry sportsfan. A person is not required to answer every single question in a way that pleases the person that asked it.

[Tron5000]

If I have a question about person A, I don't go to person C and ask them about person A. I direct my question to person A. The middle man, or in this case middle-woman, is cut out.

And having re-read the first post, it wasn't the media. It was some random dude. Sorry sportsfan. A person is not required to answer every single question

Then don't ask Person C to answer for Person A. When you are cast in that role of surrogate, you are speaking for the other person.

And Chelsea isn't being asked about her mother's position on the issue. She is being asked specific questions regarding all 3 members of the Clinton family; Her father, her mother and herself.

Like I said, if she doesn't have any business answering these questions, then keep her at home. Obama has certainly had to answer for his pastor. Cheney had to endure criticism from Republicans for his support of his daughter's lesbian lifestyle. It comes with the territory.

[Addendum]

And she answered the question, just not in a way that made you happy. Awaits more whine from you

[Tron5000]

And she answered the question, just not in a way that made you happy. Awaits more whine from you

That's unnecessary. You can try to make your point without resorting to that.

And obviously the one who was unhappy with the entire situation was not myself, but you. I'm not the one getting all upset because a 30-year-old campaigning for her mother had to field a tough question. I quite enjoyed the entire exchange, as I'm equally enjoying watching Dems rip one another apart.

So, good sir, it is not I who is whining about the state of affairs in Democrat campaigns, but it is you. It must be a bad feeling to feel that you have to support such sordid, lying, criminal individuals.

[Addendum]

I don't give a damn about either the republicans or democrats. They de-evolved. As for the entire exchange was random dude and Chelsea, it gave me laughter and a grin. What should I be unhappy about

[Tron5000]

I don't give a damn about either the republicans or democrats. They devolved.

Apathy...I like it. That way you can stay home on Election Day and demonize whichever party happens to win as it fits your agenda. Bravo. Well played, sir.

[Addendum]

I enjoy my cynicism, sarcasm, skepticism and general misanthropy. Besides, no one in Washington has shown any proof of higher brain functions

[Malice]

Honestly...
She got herself into the crossfire when she started speaking politically about her mother.
Granted she doesnt have to answer anything she wants to, but she is no longer off limits.

[Tron5000]

Honestly...
She got herself into the crossfire when she started speaking politically about her mother.
Granted she doesnt have to answer anything she wants to, but she is no longer off limits.

She can decline to answer any question she chooses. Hell, that's preferable to misspeaking, or whatever Hillary's excuse of the day may be. But the press has the right to ask her questions about the character and integrity of her parents. Kind of comes with the territory.

[Malice]

She can decline to answer any question she chooses. Hell, that's preferable to misspeaking, or whatever Hillary's excuse of the day may be. But the press has the right to ask her questions about the character and integrity of her parents. Kind of comes with the territory.

Absolutely.

[kane9321]

Obama lead McCain is every poll until Huckabee left. Whenever Hillary gets her ass outta the campaign, Obama will go back over him. Same goes for her if he gets out, really. Right now everybodys bitter; if the polls obama vs. mccain than Hillary voters vote for McCain to make it seem as though Obamas weaker, ect. The biggest problem noone takes into a count is while Hillarys voters will rally around Obama, Obamas wont rally around her. They just wont vote period. All these young folks and black people who have never voted before will keep it that way fi he aint the nominee; cant say the same about Hillarys people and the DNC knows that.

Come November, whever it is thats running for the democrat will win barring some major turn of events. A Obama-McCain or Clinton-McCain debate would be ajoke; either democrat would make a mockery of the stuff that comes outta that guys mouth. He really is Bush 2.0 except hes saying the stupid stuff BEFORE he's won. Just wait till Obama ot Hillary taunt the "100 year war" quote against him; he'll get booed off the stage and his own people know it.

truth be told

[Matt]

Honestly...
She got herself into the crossfire when she started speaking politically about her mother.
Granted she doesnt have to answer anything she wants to, but she is no longer off limits.

She can decline to answer any question she chooses. Hell, that's preferable to misspeaking, or whatever Hillary's excuse of the day may be. But the press has the right to ask her questions about the character and integrity of her parents. Kind of comes with the territory.

Exactly. It would be one thing if reporters were showing up at her apartment and questioning her about this, but they're not. She decided to go on the campaign trail, therefore she is fair game to any question.

[Memphis Slim]

According to some around here, that would be an impossibility.

"A white dude from the South agreeing ideologically with a black man? Can't be!"

Everyone knows we're all just racist folk who kill animals in our spare time (Michael Vick included) and attend Klan rallies in between our gay-hating extremist church services.


They're so "open-minded" that they fail to understand that not all black people think the same way. Some are conservative.....love their country....support the military......respect others (but may still disagree with their lifestyles).

Which makes them not as "open-minded" as they think. :hehe:

I don't walk lock step to any collective if I think they are wrong on an issue.

[Marx]

That's unnecessary. You can try to make your point without resorting to that.

And obviously the one who was unhappy with the entire situation was not myself, but you. I'm not the one getting all upset because a 30-year-old campaigning for her mother had to field a tough question. I quite enjoyed the entire exchange, as I'm equally enjoying watching Dems rip one another apart.

So, good sir, it is not I who is whining about the state of affairs in Democrat campaigns, but it is you. It must be a bad feeling to feel that you have to support such sordid, lying, criminal individuals.

That goes for all of the Republicans too. Dems aren't the only ones in this situation. Just because McCain got the nom doesn't mean he won over the party. He got the nom largely through independent support.

[Tron5000]

That goes for all of the Republicans too. Dems aren't the only ones in this situation. Just because McCain got the nom doesn't mean he won over the party. He got the nom largely through independent support.

And independent support is exactly what you need to win a GE. The hard-core wingers on each side will vote for their party no matter what. You need the independent cross-over vote to win the presidency.

[Addendum]

And a steady supply of bull**** is a given

[Marx]

And independent support is exactly what you need to win a GE. The hard-core wingers on each side will vote for their party no matter what. You need the independent cross-over vote to win the presidency.

And a steady supply of bull**** is a given

Very true. We'll see which was the independents swing this time around. Obama pulls in alot too.

[Tron5000]

Very true. We'll see which was the independents swing this time around. Obama pulls in alot too.

He did, but I believe his indiscretions regarding his associations with (and explanations of) certain individuals will be his undoing. Independents are beholden to neither party, but they want a candidate in whom they believe they can place their trust. I think Obama is pushing these people away.

[Marx]

He did, but I believe his indiscretions regarding his associations with (and explanations of) certain individuals will be his undoing. Independents are beholden to neither party, but they want a candidate in whom they believe they can place their trust. I think Obama is pushing these people away.

I can't disagree with that Tron. He is definately hurting his chances.

[Lightning Strykez!]

What am I supposed to face? Obama hasn't won yet. He's leading the Democratic Primary. He still loses the general, if we're going by polling data which is what everyone else seems to be basing their opinions off of. And if the Democratic Party doesn't want to lose this November, they'll be wise to kick both their asses to the curb and bring in Gore to take on the nomination. Or simply forfeit this contest, let McCain win, and get their act together in four years so they can run the election they should have run from the very beginning.

If Hillary has the class to endorse Barack, her followers will come around. THAT will unite the party.

Kudoes on your list, by the way. Although it's not as savvy as mine. :p

[Lightning Strykez!]

I will admit though: this Bosnia crap has stuck to her longer than I expected. They are STILL talking about it--and the polls are seeing her slide as a result.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Because Monica Lewisnky has absolutely no place in this campaign! It's just another pathetic attempt to somehow railroad Hillary. I am so sick and tired of people bringing that woman up! Let's all burn Hillary at the stake because she decided to stay with her husband! How in the **** is her credibility somehow damaged because of Monica Lewinsky??? Give me a break! Chelsea answered it exactly how I think she should have.

IT'S NOT ANYBODY'S BUSINESS!!! :cmad:

Soooooooooooo...Monica Lewinsky has no impact on Hillary at all, but Obama's weird reverends damage his credibility?

That's crap...and a double-standard if there ever was one. :o

:whatever:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Honestly...
She got herself into the crossfire when she started speaking politically about her mother.
Granted she doesnt have to answer anything she wants to, but she is no longer off limits.

Yeah but you have to admit, her "I know you are but what am I?" response is nothing short of childish. This is politics and if she wants to play with the adults she needs to deal with it effectively.

[kainedamo]

I will admit though: this Bosnia crap has stuck to her longer than I expected. They are STILL talking about it--and the polls are seeing her slide as a result.

Quite rightly so. It's a pretty significant lie. Even the military are annoyed at her.

[Memphis Slim]

Yeah but you have to admit, her "I know you are but what am I?" response is nothing short of childish. This is politics and if she wants to play with the adults she needs to deal with it effectively.

yep.....

[Malice]

Yeah but you have to admit, her "I know you are but what am I?" response is nothing short of childish. This is politics and if she wants to play with the adults she needs to deal with it effectively.

True, but that is not our problem, is it? :)

[Addendum]

True, but that is not our problem, is it? :)

And that was part of my point.

[Lightning Strykez!]

^ I always said she was an unmitigated liar. But ya'll don't hear me tho. :o

[wsox35]

Mark Penn, Clinton's campaign strategist, lobbied for Colombian Free trade agreement that Hillary opposes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726769569388303.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

Mark then "apologizes" for discussing it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/mark-penn-apologizes-for_n_95090.html

Just a month ago Hillary was saying this when questioned by the press, "Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments."

[redfirebird2008]

They just released their tax returns and the income was $109 million since leaving the White House. Bill has made $52 million from speeches. That's pretty impressive. :yay:

[Captain Planet!]

Lol, I loved her interview with Jay Leno. :up:

[gap5ewl]

damn...

[Marx]

And they have earned (and deserved) every bit of it! I'm happy for them. :yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

And they have earned (and deserved) every bit of it! I'm happy for them. :yay:

so...whitewater.....you know,political pressure....no issue with you?

[Addendum]

The Clinton's were not charged with any wrongdoing with regard to Whitewater, so where would the issue be?

[Marx]

so...whitewater.....you know,political pressure....no issue with you?

The Clinton's were not charged with any wrongdoing with regard to Whitewater, so where would the issue be?

That's what I'm curious to know. I fail to see what kind of argument you are trying to make Sparkle when they were not charged with anything. :huh:

[Matt]

A good portion comes from post-presidency speaking engagements. They are both two of the most sought after speakers and can easily pull in 6 figures per event. Factor in Hillary's salary, Bill's pension, money they made prior to becoming prominent in politics, and various stocks and bonds and it makes sense.

[Kelly]

Absolutely not surprised at all by that.......an Ex-President and First Lady who is now a Senator..........hell they can ask for just about any price for speaking engagements....ALL OVER THE WORLD, not just here in the US.....

[The Senator]

I'm actually surprised it isn't a bit higher. I was expecting their income to be between $130-150 million. The last I knew, CNN had estimated Hillary's income to be roughly $34 million, whereas Bill's was close to $100 million.

[Mr. Credible]

more lies, yay!!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/5/2548/10462/625/490580?f=1

maybe she's suffering from post traumatic stress from all the sniper fire?

[Zen]

more lies, yay!!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/5/2548/10462/625/490580?f=1

maybe she's suffering from post traumatic stress from all the sniper fire?

i just dont get this...

how could she be this careless??

[jaymes_e06]

Hillary Hillary Hillary! I try so despratly to like you but then you do these types of things. Why do you always do this?

[Lightning Strykez!]

Good for them. :up:

Now my question is...can Hillary manage her finances? Because if the way she's run her campaign is any indication, this country is going to reach a new level of screwed-upedness. :dry:

[Memphis Slim]

Who cares? Most of these cats are rich and act like they are so in tuned to your normal needs. They hadn't known what was normal for quite some time.

[Lightning Strykez!]

i just dont get this...

how could she be this careless??

Ducking sniper fire has a way of doing that to you...:whatever:

[Kelly]

Well, I think exaggeration is a problem of most politicians.....I think it must be a prerequisite or something....

just a few more examples...
Obama said his parents met and joined -- got together at the Selma March, and that led to them being together and him being born. Well, he was born four years before the Selma March.

He claimed to be a constitutional law professor, and turned out not to be.

Claimed to speak fluent Indonesia as a child. His schoolteacher said that was not the case.

He claimed to be involved in an asbestos campaign in public housing in his book, and it turned out not to be the case.

He claimed that he had a racial awakening at the age of 9 by reading a LIFE magazine article about an African-American man was scarred physically and mentally by trying to make himself look more white. LIFE magazine and Ebony magazine never published such an article.


Now mind you, Hilary REALLY, REAAAALLLLY exaggerated on hers....that's for damn sure......but I think theres quite a bit of exaggeration going around this election year. :yay:

[jaymes_e06]

^^^You got that right all politician do that.

But Hillary doesn't just exaggerate she straight out lies! It seems as if she will go at any lengths to win. I was a firm Hillary sopporter in the begining even after Oprah indorsed Obama I was still for Hill because I new she would fight for this country; yet if she is going to fight this way if just makes her less and less atractive to the American public.

[Kelly]

^^^You got that right all politician do that.

But Hillary doesn't just exaggerate she straight out lies! It seems as if she will go at any lengths to win. I was a firm Hillary sopporter in the begining even after Oprah indorsed Obama I was still for Hill because I new she would fight for this country; yet if she is going to fight this way if just makes her less and less atractive to the American public.


Hmmmm.....seems they just want their stories to be more than they truly are...


Just like when The Washington Post caught Obama in a "whatever ya want to call it" about the Kennedy family role in getting his father to America. It turns out the Kennedys were not involved in any Kenyan airlifts until after Obama's father was safely in Hawaii.

Just seems like that want their life stories to be more than they are......I guess they are scared they are not going to be able to "one up" McCain being a POW in Vietnam for 5 and half years......that is kinda a hard one to beat......:cwink:

[Gilpesh]

I guess they are scared they are not going to be able to "one up" McCain being a POW in Vietnam for 5 and half years......that is kinda a hard one to beat......:cwink:

But it turns out that McCain could have actually left at any time. The Vietnamese were just messing with him as a joke. :whatever:

You can't say that isn't below Clinton's tactics at this point if she gets the nom.

[Kelly]

lol....

[Zen]

Hmmmm.....seems they just want their stories to be more than they truly are...


Just like when The Washington Post caught Obama in a "whatever ya want to call it" about the Kennedy family role in getting his father to America. It turns out the Kennedys were not involved in any Kenyan airlifts until after Obama's father was safely in Hawaii.

Just seems like that want their life stories to be more than they are......I guess they are scared they are not going to be able to "one up" McCain being a POW in Vietnam for 5 and half years......that is kinda a hard one to beat......:cwink:

well i think thats the wrong route for Obama to go... his life story to me regardless of how storied it is, isnt going to get him elected. he better focus on the issues, and debate on the situation of the Country.

Life stories will only get in the way of the issues

[Zen]

But it turns out that McCain could have actually left at any time. The Vietnamese were just messing with him as a joke. :whatever:

You can't say that isn't below Clinton's tactics at this point if she gets the nom.


you gotta offer a link or something if your going to throw McCains service in his face like that.

im for the democrats, but this is just a hard pill to swallow.

i heard he stayed because he didnt want to leave without his comrades.

i never heard anything about it being a joke

[jaymes_e06]

^^^ I totally agree! I have not carved in stone who I will vote for when it is my turn to vote for the democratic party. I am unsure of if I want to vote for either. They both still have some convincing to do.

[Gilpesh]

you gotta offer a link or something if your going to throw McCains service in his face like that.

im for the democrats, but this is just a hard pill to swallow.

i heard he stayed because he didnt want to leave without his comrades.

i never heard anything about it being a joke

I was making a joke. Tasteless yes... but still a joke. Then I mentioned how at this moment in time you could safely say that Clinton is not above that type of blatant lying on her campaign or just in life.

[Zen]

I was making a joke. Tasteless yes... but still a joke. Then I mentioned how at this moment in time you could safely say that Clinton is not above that type of blatant lying on her campaign or just in life.

Whoops that was over my head!

carry on sir!

[jaymes_e06]

Hillary: OBAMA CAN'T WIN!!! MUHAHAHAHAHA!

[Gilpesh]

Whoops that was over my head!

carry on sir!

Yeah. No emoticon can convey internet sarcasm without completely removing the sarcasm.

[Cosmic]

I'll just assume that entire list on Obama is true. All of it piled up together, doesn't come anywhere near this latest gaffe.

It's one thing to embellish, exaggerate, or outright lie about facts concerning your own past. It's an entirely different thing when it concerns other people's lives and careers.

Hillary got caught "exaggerating" about the true story of a dead woman and her stillborn child, so she could score political points out on the campaign trail. In the process, she smeared the hospital that treated this woman.

Sure, maybe her campaign workers just failed to properly fact-check the story before green-lighting it. In a boldly elitist statement released by the campaign management, they basically try to say that the details don't matter that much...it's the message that people care about.

Now, apply that same attitude to the business of running this country, and see what you get.

[redfirebird2008]

Hillary's now claiming she criticized the war before Obama. She's officially gone off the deep-end. Unbelievable.

[Excel]

Obama doesnt need to do anything now, just sit back and let her destroy herself.

[Gilpesh]

Hillary's now claiming she criticized the war before Obama. She's officially gone off the deep-end. Unbelievable.

Linkage?

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry3996192.shtml

Clinton said, “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.”

I don't know if she was tired when she said it or what, but it's absolutely baffling. She didn't start speaking out against it until she began thinking about running for President. There's evidence of her supporting it as recently as 2006, so I'm curious as to how it's possible that she criticized it before Obama when he criticized it before it ever got started, meanwhile she gave a speech in which she claimed it was the right thing to do because Saddam had WMD and she thought he was connected to Al-Quaeda. I just don't understand what she was thinking when she decided to make this newest claim.

[Gilpesh]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry3996192.shtml

Clinton said, “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.”

Ah thank ya. She's lost even more respect that I had for her... which was little to start with seeing as all the major lies.

[redfirebird2008]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080404/capt.349897249b3849c8a96116b6df9b9f24.clinton_2008 _king_anniversary_tncd117.jpg

Maybe it's just me, but smiling in the spot where MLK was murdered seems pretty awkward.

[Whirlysplat]

Who cares? Most of these cats are rich and act like they are so in tuned to your normal needs. They hadn't known what was normal for quite some time.

They never knew what was normal; Bill was from a wealthy family and was a Rhodes scholar. Hilary was from a wealthy family and had a very strong career herself. Only the rich ever lead first world countries.

[Marx]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080404/capt.349897249b3849c8a96116b6df9b9f24.clinton_2008 _king_anniversary_tncd117.jpg

Maybe it's just me, but smiling in the spot where MLK was murdered seems pretty awkward.

But not even showing up (which was what Barack Obama chose to do,) or having a speech in which an african-american man holds the umbrella over your head while it's raining (which is what John McCain did) is even worse.

[Mr Sparkle]

That's what I'm curious to know. I fail to see what kind of argument you are trying to make Sparkle when they were not charged with anything. :huh:

I'm asking if you really think all politician's wealth is "deserved":cwink:

[redfirebird2008]

But not even showing up (which was what Barack Obama chose to do,) or having a speech in which an african-american man holds the umbrella over your head while it's raining (which is what John McCain did) is even worse.

Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Obama would have been criticized for taking advantage of the obvious if he showed up. He gave a great speech in Indianapolis (where Bobby Kennedy delivered the news of MLK's death and there were no riots in that city b/c of RFK's speech) to many white people instead of preaching to the choir in Memphis. I think MLK would be proud of him for reaching out to a different demographic on that day and trying to spread MLK's message to a more diverse audience. Obama went and spoke at Ebenezer Baptist Church (MLK's church) on the weekend of MLK's birthday. It was a more private event than this most recent thing in Memphis.

Meanwhile, Hillary claims that when she saw MLK as a child, he changed her heart. Yet she was against the civil rights acts of the mid-1960's and was a "Goldwater Girl" at that point. Goldwater was a segregationist a-hole. If MLK had really changed her heart, she would have supported those pieces of civil rights legislation. She didn't change until she got to college, at which point she was part of the College Republicans and had an epiphany at some point.

McCain showed some balls going there to admit he was wrong, but it was straight up political pandering, just like Hillary. Having a black guy holding the umbrella didn't help his cause at all. Some analysts have suggested that he was doing it to win whites that are tired of the Republican Party ignoring blacks. He knows he won't win the black vote (88% for Kerry in '04) so it wasn't so much that as it was trying to get a potential campaign issue out of the way and pandering to whites that want the party to broaden its appeal.

[Cosmic]

We worship celebrity status and wealth. The rich, elite minority who wields nearly all the power in central government is almost completely out of touch with the vast majority of people who they claim to speak for. The mainstream media comments on this, but doesn't question it.

[Kelly]

I'll just assume that entire list on Obama is true. All of it piled up together, doesn't come anywhere near this latest gaffe.

It's one thing to embellish, exaggerate, or outright lie about facts concerning your own past. It's an entirely different thing when it concerns other people's lives and careers.

Hillary got caught "exaggerating" about the true story of a dead woman and her stillborn child, so she could score political points out on the campaign trail. In the process, she smeared the hospital that treated this woman.

Sure, maybe her campaign workers just failed to properly fact-check the story before green-lighting it. In a boldly elitist statement released by the campaign management, they basically try to say that the details don't matter that much...it's the message that people care about.

Now, apply that same attitude to the business of running this country, and see what you get.

lol.....look I'm not going to debate any politicians motive.....I don't trust any of them.....so it's silly for me debate that.....BUT, she was told the by a officer of the Sheriff's department in the county where it happened. Her campaign should have checked the story before going with it, they didn't. A reason to not vote for her......please....:whatever: Obama should have checked when the Kennedy's worked with helping to get people out of Africa......he should have actually checked when the Selma march was.......A reason to not vote for him......please....:whatever: McCain, should slow down in his speeches and make sure he says Iraq when he means Iraq....reason to not vote for him......please.....:whatever:

There are actually "real" reasons to not vote for them......:o

[hippie_hunter]

Obama doesnt need to do anything now, just sit back and let her destroy herself.

I never thought that I'd agree with you like this :o

[Kelly]

McCain can just tool around the country for the next few months, talking about his life, and watch the Democratic Party implode............they better get their **** together before June......

[redfirebird2008]

yeah McCain's biggest enemy right now is himself. He's just gotta tread water lightly and be careful, try to avoid any Iran/Al-Qaeda type gaffes and just sit back and laugh at the Dems.

[Cosmic]

There are actually "real" reasons to not vote for them......:o
Don't vote for Hillary, because she won't hesitate to use people as fodder for her political ambitions. For the Clintons, people with no names, and no political power, are nothing but fodder. I don't know...I think it's a valid reason.

And again with the excuses. I mean, does she need campaign handlers to think for her? To consider, even for a second, that details of this deputy's story might be (gasp!) inaccurate? To consider, for one fraction of a second, that telling this lie out on the trail would hurt real people, such as the staff of the hospital that was implied in this yarn?

[redfirebird2008]

Mark Penn has been asked to step down from Clinton's campaign. This should save them some headaches (he's an agitator and finger-pointer that blames everything on other members of the campaign) as well as a lot of money (he gets paid top-notch money b/c he's considered a top-notch consultant). So two birds with one stone should get knocked out by booting Penn: some of the headaches and some of the financial troubles.

[redfirebird2008]

Oops, looks like he's not really out. He's still going to be a pollster for the campaign and will still be providing advice. This is like when Karl Rove became a "pollster" after the Plame scandal. I'm sure this is mostly about trying to look like they got rid of Penn due to his pro-free trade discussion with Colombia (not playing well in Pennsylvania with the unions there) and also by having him in more of a behind-the-scenes role, he charges less and her campaign can save some money.

[Excel]

Does Hillary have any idea what a "backround check" is because with all the people coming and going on her campaign it makes me wonder...

[souvlaki]

Well, I think exaggeration is a problem of most politicians.....I think it must be a prerequisite or something....

just a few more examples...
Obama said his parents met and joined -- got together at the Selma March, and that led to them being together and him being born. Well, he was born four years before the Selma March.


That doesn't mean a whole lot. This is sort of like Hillary's "lie" about who she was named after. You could easily chalk this up to a family story that got exaggerated over time. It may have been an honest mistake.


He claimed to be a constitutional law professor, and turned out not to be.

That actually is not true. He WAS a constitutional law professor, and his former school debunked this shortly after this was reported.

Claimed to speak fluent Indonesia as a child. His schoolteacher said that was not the case.

One school teacher, that taught him over 40 years ago? You are a teacher, aren't you? Do you remember every detail about the students you taught even five years ago, let alone 40? For that matter, he was younger than 10. Maybe he thought he WAS fluent, and remembered being able to speak it well. I mean, he was a kid.

He claimed that he had a racial awakening at the age of 9 by reading a LIFE magazine article about an African-American man was scarred physically and mentally by trying to make himself look more white. LIFE magazine and Ebony magazine never published such an article.

Once again, this was almost 40 years ago. Just because it was not LIFE magazine, does not mean he completely imagined the article. That's like saying you saw a really good show on NBC 40 years ago, but it turned out it was actually on ABC. Has anyone proved that such an article was never published in any publication when Obama was younger?


Now mind you, Hilary REALLY, REAAAALLLLY exaggerated on hers....that's for damn sure......but I think theres quite a bit of exaggeration going around this election year. :yay:

Yeah, but there is a difference between remembering something slightly differently from when you were ten or younger, and remembering SNIPER FIRE at a highly publicized event a little over ten years ago. And then on top of that, lying about it AGAIN even after she was corrected. I mean, I'm only 26 years old, and I constantly remember things differently than my family from when I was a kid. But I remember trips I took ten years ago quite clearly, and would certainly remember sniper fire. If Hillary was remembering her trip to Bosnia from when she was 10, it would be one thing... if she remembered things from that event even slightly differently it would also not be a big deal. But sniper fire? I mean, let's be realistic here. Either her memory is just complete crap, or she's lying. I'd hardly call what she said "exaggerating"... Her story goes way beyond a simple exaggeration.

[Matt]

That doesn't mean a whole lot. This is sort of like Hillary's "lie" about who she was named after. You could easily chalk this up to a family story that got exaggerated over time. It may have been an honest mistake.

An honest mistake in which he forgot the date of his birth? Please.

Obama is just as dishonest as Clinton.

[Kelly]

Don't vote for Hillary, because she won't hesitate to use people as fodder for her political ambitions. For the Clintons, people with no names, and no political power, are nothing but fodder. I don't know...I think it's a valid reason.

And again with the excuses. I mean, does she need campaign handlers to think for her? To consider, even for a second, that details of this deputy's story might be (gasp!) inaccurate? To consider, for one fraction of a second, that telling this lie out on the trail would hurt real people, such as the staff of the hospital that was implied in this yarn?


Well, honestly Cosmic.....I make my own mind up about who I vote for......as I said before, most politicians do this, out of the 3, McCain is the true Maverick.........he has had to court the Conservative right, but if anyone thought that he could get the candidacy without doing that, they are simply ignorant.....

I can assure, there are plenty of reasons why I won't vote for any of these people.......right now, I'm looking for the reasons why I should........and I'll find those through my own research, news watching, debates etc..........no one here will know, until after the vote, and possibly not even then...:cwink: If it were someone that I felt passionate about, I would be on the campaign trail with them this summer.......I don't have that this go around. Maybe in 2012.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I just read the press release regarding Penn's removal as chief strategist. But um...he "asked" to step down? Are they kidding us? :lmao:

I swear, this campaign is the gift that keeps on giving. :up:

[Lightning Strykez!]

But not even showing up (which was what Barack Obama chose to do,) or having a speech in which an african-american man holds the umbrella over your head while it's raining (which is what John McCain did) is even worse.

What???!? No offense, but...that was a silly comment. :whatever:

I still :heart: you though.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Only the rich ever lead first world countries.

Was Obama from a wealthy family?

[Matt]

I just read the press release regarding Penn's removal as chief strategist. But um...he "asked" to step down? Are they kidding us? :lmao:

I swear, this campaign is the gift that keeps on giving. :up:

In all fairness LS, basically any campaign would say that. "They left amicably." "They want to move onto different opportunities," etc. Obama would say the same if one of his advisors stepped down.

[Excel]

How does one get involved to campaign for a candidate???

[Lightning Strykez!]

In all fairness LS, basically any campaign would say that. "They left amicably." "They want to move onto different opportunities," etc. Obama would say the same if one of his advisors stepped down.

Meh. I believe there's more to it than that Matt. He is still working for her, albeit in a different area now. So technically this was just a slap on the wrist "for show" to voters. I seeeeriously doubt he "stepped down" of his own free will.

Essentially, it seems this was done as a "band-aid" to accomodate all the bad press. And it's commensurate with Hillary's campaign's motto: "Do anything and everything you can to destroy and win until you get caught. If you do happen to get caught we'll simply "fire" you for publicity and then rehire you through the backdoor." :whatever:

[Excel]

Ummm....wow :dry:

http://www.clevelandseniors.com/images/quiz/famous/bill-hillary-clinton.jpg

[Lightning Strykez!]

They don't...look very wealthy there. :dry:

[Excel]

To be honest...I welcome this "I started speaking out against the war before Barack" stuff from her. For real, its over. She's always been a known liar, but for some reason many forgot that in the past few months. She gave us a great reminder with Bosnia, and because of that, there are not gonna be any new passengers on the Hillary express for a long time. All there will be are people getting off.

Getting off because like everyone else, they know their candidate lies. And gets caught. And then when she keeps lying, it is a slap in the face to the people who support her because it's like she thinks they have no intelligence.

People are over her, and they dont believe her. As long as she keeps giving us more stuff to make her supporters lose respect for her, like these recent more comments, the better a hold Obama gets on the nomination.

[Excel]

Was Bill?

[The Senator]

How does one get involved to campaign for a candidate???

It depends on your qualifications and level of experience with the political field. If you have no experience and come from a background outside of politics and management, you are usually placed at a simple desk job, or your out in the field handing out brochures and other informational devices at rallies. If you have some experience, maybe a bachelor's degree, you are usually at a desk and in the field doing the same things. If you have a college degree or two, in addition to campaign or political experience, you usually have a desk job, though you'd be writing letters, calling donors, organizing events, etc. If you have multiple degrees and/ or significant management/ campaign experience, you usually get an executive-level job, where you're put in charge of important matters, perhaps regional GOTV efforts and what not. If you're educated, experienced, and a high roller in the party, you're usually given a high-level job as well.

With campaigns, you pretty much have to work your way from the bottom up, like any other job, or have a significant relationship with the candidate. For example, if you worked in Hillary Clinton's senate office as a legislative assistant, you could theoretically be an issues adviser. If you once volunteered for one of her senate campaigns, you would probably be a field worker. And if you were a former high ranking official in the party who wanted a job on her campaign, you'd probably chair one of the departments in her campaign.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Can you share with us what your position is? You are quite knowledgeable of her campaign's inner workings, and somehow I doubt you are a mere peon. So...give up the ghost! ;)

[redfirebird2008]

Ummm....wow :dry:

http://www.clevelandseniors.com/images/quiz/famous/bill-hillary-clinton.jpg

What's wrong with this that makes you say "wow"?

[The Senator]

Can you share with us what your position is? You are quite knowledgeable of her campaign's inner workings, and somehow I doubt you are a mere peon. So...give up the ghost! ;)

I was an unpaid field worker for her Presidential campaign from September through November, and I had the same position on her Senate campaign in late 2006.

[Gilpesh]

I was an unpaid field worker for her Presidential campaign from September through November, and I had the same position on her Senate campaign in late 2006.

TELL ME WHERE THE BODIES ARE?!!?!?!??!?!!




:oldrazz: But srsly... how much a punch in the gut is it to see her now fumble for a new lie?

[Lightning Strykez!]

Unpaid? So you really must believe in her huh? And no, I'm not trying to be sarcastic at all here.

[Zen]

Ummm....wow :dry:

http://www.clevelandseniors.com/images/quiz/famous/bill-hillary-clinton.jpg

Bill looks ridiculous, but in an awesome sort of way... Hillary's glasses destroy whatever is going on there.


Don't worry excell, people will be looking back on your pictures and saying...Wow...

[The Senator]

They never knew what was normal; Bill was from a wealthy family and was a Rhodes scholar. Hilary was from a wealthy family and had a very strong career herself. Only the rich ever lead first world countries.

Um... Bill's parents owned a small grocery store which didn't bring much wealth to his family. He actually earned his way to Georgetown, then Oxford and Yale, on his academic performance alone. Then he worked for a few campaigns, before successfully running for Governor of Arkansas.

Hillary's parents owned a textile plant, which brought her family moderate wealth. They paid for her tuition at Wellesley, but she had to pay her way through law school. Of course, she rode her way to where she is now on Bill's back, so her story isn't nearly as admirable as his.

[Kelly]

Also, knowing someone is a great way to get into a campaign for someone.......its alot about who ya know......if ya know the right people.....doesn't really matter what your background is as far as education. The people traveling with them, as we have witnessed from the foot and mouth disease coming from both campaigns, they aren't the smartest people around.....they had to have known someone...lol

[Lightning Strykez!]

The people traveling with them, as we have witnessed from the foot and mouth disease coming from both campaigns, they aren't the smartest people around.....they had to have known someone...lol

Never have you spoken greater truth. I've always wondered where they get these dummies from...especially considering the large amount of $$$ and resources they have to get smarter support in place.

[The Senator]

Unpaid? So you really must believe in her huh? And no, I'm not trying to be sarcastic at all here.

That was the position they were hiring for. I already had a paid position at the university I attend, and really just wanted something good on a resume.

[The Senator]

TELL ME WHERE THE BODIES ARE?!!?!?!??!?!!




:oldrazz: But srsly... how much a punch in the gut is it to see her now fumble for a new lie?

Well, they're both liars, but she just happens to suck at it more.

[Kelly]

Um... Bill's parents owned a small grocery store which didn't bring much wealth to his family. He actually earned his way to Georgetown, then Oxford and Yale, on his academic performance alone. Then he worked for a few campaigns, before successfully running for Governor of Arkansas.

Hillary's parents owned a textile plant, which brought her family moderate wealth. They paid for her tuition at Wellesley, but she had to pay her way through law school. Of course, she rode her way to where she is now on Bill's back, so her story isn't nearly as admirable as his.

Bill's grandparents owned the grocery store, his dad died before he was born, and his mom became a nurse. So no, he did not in any way come from a wealthy family.....lol

[redfirebird2008]

Well, they're both liars, but she just happens to suck at it more.

LOL, nice way of putting it. :woot:

[Marx]

I'm asking if you really think all politician's wealth is "deserved":cwink:

With regard to the Clintons - Yes. The majority of it is from speaking engagements and book sales.

[The Senator]

Bill's grandparents owned the grocery store, his dad died before he was born, and his mom became a nurse. So no, he did not in any way come from a wealthy family.....lol

D'oh! Botched facts again...

But at any rate, he went to school on his own merits and scholarships, and became a successful politician based on his academic success and ambition.

[Marx]

Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Obama would have been criticized for taking advantage of the obvious if he showed up. He gave a great speech in Indianapolis (where Bobby Kennedy delivered the news of MLK's death and there were no riots in that city b/c of RFK's speech) to many white people instead of preaching to the choir in Memphis. I think MLK would be proud of him for reaching out to a different demographic on that day and trying to spread MLK's message to a more diverse audience. Obama went and spoke at Ebenezer Baptist Church (MLK's church) on the weekend of MLK's birthday. It was a more private event than this most recent thing in Memphis.

Meanwhile, Hillary claims that when she saw MLK as a child, he changed her heart. Yet she was against the civil rights acts of the mid-1960's and was a "Goldwater Girl" at that point. Goldwater was a segregationist a-hole. If MLK had really changed her heart, she would have supported those pieces of civil rights legislation. She didn't change until she got to college, at which point she was part of the College Republicans and had an epiphany at some point.

McCain showed some balls going there to admit he was wrong, but it was straight up political pandering, just like Hillary. Having a black guy holding the umbrella didn't help his cause at all. Some analysts have suggested that he was doing it to win whites that are tired of the Republican Party ignoring blacks. He knows he won't win the black vote (88% for Kerry in '04) so it wasn't so much that as it was trying to get a potential campaign issue out of the way and pandering to whites that want the party to broaden its appeal.

What???!? No offense, but...that was a silly comment. :whatever:

I was just responding to a comment about how some said it was "inappropriate it was for Hillary to be smiling at the event." To which I said that McCain having an African-American hold his umbrella over his head for him or Obama not even bothering to show up, seems a little bit worse than someone smiling. While I do agree about Obama, it is a fine line to walk.

I still :heart: you though.

Aww...thanks! :yay:

[Gilpesh]

Well, they're both liars, but she just happens to suck at it more.

Well, she also seems to rely on it more. :oldrazz:

[redfirebird2008]

This is kind of embarrassing:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/06/BAAU1006M1.DTL

Money swing: In the wake of her Super Tuesday barnstorming, Hillary Rodham Clinton left a stack of unpaid bills here in California - with at least $40,000 still owed to four of the state's universities.

UC Santa Barbara is owed $11,112, UC Davis is owed $5,486, Cal State Northridge in L.A. County is waiting for $13,611, and San Diego State, $10,000 - all for the use of halls for Clinton rallies.

The UC Davis tab includes the cost of hosting former President Bill Clinton before a crowd of 7,800 at the student arena on Jan. 15 - with some money still owned to the school band, Cal Aggie Marching Band-Uh.

The cash-strapped Clinton campaign recently acknowledged putting off paying hundreds of bills across the country.

UC Davis spokesman Mitchel Benson said they've contacted the Clinton campaign three times seeking payment. If the money doesn't show up within the next month, "it will go to a collection agency," Benson said.

We asked the Clinton campaign for comment Friday and are still awaiting a response.

Universities are gonna send bill collectors after the Clinton campaign? Ouch.

[Malice]

I cant understand who would want Bill to speak to them...let alone pay him
I would be afraid for my daughters

[Excel]

What's wrong with this that makes you say "wow"?

Nothing is wrong, they just sure as hell dont look like a future first couple. Bills hair is cool but Hillary looks...ehhh

[Doctor Strange]

To which I said that McCain having an African-American hold his umbrella over his head for himI suspect the man is an American, and not an African-American.

[rdh007]

I suspect the man is an American, and not an African-American.

A great and honorable American if he's been allowed to hold an umbrella over one of our great patriots. Perhaps the greatest patriot. Ever.

However, the greatest honor will surely come to whoever gets to change the First Diapers.

[redfirebird2008]

A great and honorable American if he's been allowed to hold an umbrella over one of our great patriots. Perhaps the greatest patriot. Ever.

However, the greatest honor will surely come to whoever gets to change the First Diapers.

:hehe::hehe::hehe::hehe:

[redfirebird2008]

LOL, Hillary went bowling on Ellen's show today. Turns out she's just as bad as Obama! ROFL.

http://ellen.warnerbros.com/

[Lightning Strykez!]

*sigh*

I know this has nothing to do with anything but....GOOD GOD IS SHE STILL IN THE RACE??!?! :rolleyes:

[Marx]

*sigh*

I know this has nothing to do with anything but....GOOD GOD IS SHE STILL IN THE RACE??!?! :rolleyes:

Yes she is Lightning...as she should be. :cwink:

[Marx]

I cant understand who would want Bill to speak to them...let alone pay him
I would be afraid for my daughters

Some of us actually admire and respect Bill Clinton Malice. :yay:

[Superman]

Some of us actually admire and respect Bill Clinton Malice. :yay:Amen.

I'm not for Hillary in this race but I would love to meet Bill and shake his hand.:yay:

[Mr Sparkle]

With regard to the Clintons - Yes. The majority of it is from speaking engagements and book sales.

:yay: :up: ok.

[Mr Sparkle]

Some of us actually admire and respect Bill Clinton Malice. :yay:

I admire and respect Bill Clinton.
I also happen to know he is a politician, a politician that happens to be human, flawed.

so, while you might think that the majority of his wealth comes from speaking arrangements, therefore it is "deserved" then, I hope when some shady deals featuring a politician you don't like come forth you will be able to be as pragmatic.

[Marx]

I admire and respect Bill Clinton.
I also happen to know he is a politician, a politician that happens to be human, flawed.

so, while you might think that the majority of his wealth comes from speaking arrangements, therefore it is "deserved" then, I hope when some shady deals featuring a politician you don't like come forth you will be able to be as pragmatic.

We're all human...and flawed.

[Mr Sparkle]

that we agree upon.

[redfirebird2008]

that we agree upon.

What's there to agree on? Isn't it an established fact that no one is perfect? :cwink:

[Mr Sparkle]

yes.

hence it's agreeable.

[Marx]

What's there to agree on? Isn't it an established fact that no one is perfect? :cwink:

Not to everyone :funny:

[Memphis Slim]

Don't hate on Bill for finding thousands of chumps who'd pay to hear him lie ....errr...uh...."speak" to them. :woot:

[SuBe]

I don't know if this has been mentioned. But, the Clintons has stated they earned 109 Million and donated 10 Million to Charity. I heard they donated that 10 Million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Does that seem odd that they are being touted as donating 10 Million, but it isn't odd that they donated it to their own charity?

[Zen]

I don't know if this has been mentioned. But, the Clintons has stated they earned 109 Million and donated 10 Million to Charity. I heard they donated that 10 Million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Does that seem odd that they are being touted as donating 10 Million, but it isn't odd that they donated it to their own charity?


their foundation spreads donations across other charities. thats the essential purpose of a foundation. a case can be made that it would seem less suspicious if it was an outside chairty being directly donated to but many people donate to their own foundations which then spread the wealth out amongst multiple smaller charities.

I.E. Bill and melinda gates foundation.


nothing terribly suspicious as i see it.

[jaguarr]

Ummm....wow :dry:

http://www.clevelandseniors.com/images/quiz/famous/bill-hillary-clinton.jpg

When I saw that pic of Bill all I could think was "Oh, he DEFINITELY inhaled!" And to look at that smile on Hillary's face, I'm pretty certain she did, too.

jag

[SuBe]

their foundation spreads donations across other charities. thats the essential purpose of a foundation. a case can be made that it would seem less suspicious if it was an outside chairty being directly donated to but many people donate to their own foundations which then spread the wealth out amongst multiple smaller charities.

I.E. Bill and melinda gates foundation.


nothing terribly suspicious as i see it.
Ok, thanks. It was just something I heard last night, but they didn't explain anything with it.

[Zen]

Ok, thanks. It was just something I heard last night, but they didn't explain anything with it.

i have to admit though im a bit suspicious myself, something comlpletely unwarranted in my gut says they are funneling money through there for some alterier purpose... and the clinton library as well.

but these things are completely unsubstantiated, and lay completely with the growing notion that the clintons are a bit more devlish than i used to assume.

thats partly due to the primary.

its hard to dog them though when things were so good under bill barring his moral escapades.

basically im just saying even after knowing what the foundation is for, your not alone in your suspicions.

im so conflicted lately, Meh...

[SuBe]

i have to admit though im a bit suspicious myself, something comlpletely unwarranted in my gut says they are funneling money through there for some alterier purpose... and the clinton library as well.

but these things are completely unsubstantiated, and lay completely with the growing notion that the clintons are a bit more devlish than i used to assume.

thats partly due to the primary.

its hard to dog them though when things were so good under bill barring his moral escapades.

basically im just saying even after knowing what the foundation is for, your not alone in your suspicions.

im so conflicted lately, Meh...
I am always suspicous of the Clintons. But, you know, it is their money, and they can donate it to who ever they want if at all. If they it is found out that they are using their wealth to buy of fellow politicians in Congress through Campain Contributions, then I'll have an issue with it. But, Their money, they spend it how they wish.

But, remember the world wasn't rosey all the time under the Clintons. Our embassies were bombed quite a bit, the USS Cole bombing, the 1st World Trade Center Bombing, Nuclear Secrets being sold to China, High Unemployment Rates, Higher Taxes... There was a lot to Complain about during his Adminstration.

[The Senator]

Don't hate on Bill for finding thousands of chumps who'd pay to hear him lie ....errr...uh...."speak" to them. :woot:

Yeah, why pay to have Clinton lie to you when you can turn on the television and watch Bush do the same practically for free?

[Memphis Slim]

Yeah, why pay to have Clinton lie to you when you can turn on the television and watch Bush do the same practically for free?


Exactly......
Just shows Libs ' brains are turned off. Conservatives are smarter.

[Mr Sparkle]

of course, one could say that given the economy, the conservatives aren't smart, they are kind of paying a lot to hear him speak right now.
when Clinton spoke as president it was free, and given the economy, he actually kind of paid people to hear him.

weird how logic goes.

[Marx]

Yeah, why pay to have Clinton lie to you when you can turn on the television and watch Bush do the same practically for free?

When Clinton lied no one died.

[Marx]

I don't know if this has been mentioned. But, the Clintons has stated they earned 109 Million and donated 10 Million to Charity. I heard they donated that 10 Million to the Clinton Family Foundation. Does that seem odd that they are being touted as donating 10 Million, but it isn't odd that they donated it to their own charity?

MANY people donate to their own charities and causes. It's no different for the Clintons to do the same thing.

[Doomed_hero]

ya now she fired him but he is pretty much doing his same job without the title. yay more cover ups

[Tron5000]

Hillary, yesterday:

"It's time for the president to answer the question being asked of him: In the wake of the failed surge, what is the endgame in Iraq?"

I usually just laugh, but it's getting old. WHAT THE F*** is wrong with these people? You have the distinguished and honorable leader of our forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the likewise distinguished and honorable US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, sitting right in front of these people and detailing for them the immense successes that have been caused and the gains that have been made possible by the surge.

They either a) think the General and Ambassador are not being truthful, and therefore essentially accuse them of being liars, or b) they distort what they know to be the truth in order to gain political favor for doing so.

I'm f***ing sick of this bulls***.

EDIT: She's also saying that the sacrifices of the brave men and women involved in the surge (and indeed in all of Iraq) have been for FAILURE. I can't stand this hideous woman, I really f***ing can't.

[The Senator]

Hillary, yesterday:

"It's time for the president to answer the question being asked of him: In the wake of the failed surge, what is the endgame in Iraq?"

I usually just laugh, but it's getting old. WHAT THE F*** is wrong with these people? You have the distinguished and honorable leader of our forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the likewise distinguished and honorable US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, sitting right in front of these people and detailing for them the immense successes that have been caused and the gains that have been made possible by the surge.

They either a) think the General and Ambassador are not being truthful, and therefore essentially accuse them of being liars, or b) they distort what they know to be the truth in order to gain political favor for doing so.

I'm f***ing sick of this bulls***.

EDIT: She's also saying that the sacrifices of the brave men and women involved in the surge (and indeed in all of Iraq) have been for FAILURE. I can't stand this hideous woman, I really f***ing can't.

She's absolutely correct, in my opinion. These soldiers' lives are being taken in vain, for a mission we cannot win at the hands of a failed President. We need to start planning an exit strategy for Iraq before we get caught in the middle of a full-fledged civil war and more of our troops die in vain.

Additionally, General Betra-- er, Patraeus and Ryan Crocker are just like any other free-thinking human being. They can distort the facts. They can lie. They aren't magical truth-telling beings just because they wear military uniforms.

[Tron5000]

She's absolutely correct, in my opinion. These soldiers' lives are being taken in vain, for a mission we cannot win at the hands of a failed President. We need to start planning an exit strategy for Iraq before we get caught in the middle of a full-fledged civil war and more of our troops die in vain.

Additionally, General Betra-- er, Patraeus and Ryan Crocker are just like any other free-thinking human being. They can distort the facts. They can lie. They aren't magical truth-telling beings just because they wear military uniforms.

So if we don't trust the men that are most directly involved in Iraq, then who do we trust? You think these guys are just lying through their teeth to Congress 'cause they just love fighting this war and want to keep doing it for kicks?

So then I assume you're a fan of the "cut-and-run" strategy. Sorry, but I have friends who died in Iraq and believed in their mission, and LEAVING NOW is what would make their deaths have been in vein. Winning the battle is the only true way to honor their memories.

And by the way, Ambassador Crocker does not wear a military uniform.

And with that, I'll leave now. I'm much too worked up over this issue to discuss it on these boards.

[The Senator]

I suspect the man is an American, and not an African-American.

Hahaha! I know you're banned, but I hadn't seen that until now.

I guess this justifies McCain letting him hold an umbrella over his head, and it also justifies his opposition to MLK day. Which I'm sure you're opposed to as well. But hey, as long as the citizens have their guns...:hehe:

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming :dry:

[The Senator]

So if we don't trust the men that are most directly involved in Iraq, then who do we trust? You think these guys are just lying through their teeth to Congress 'cause they just love fighting this war and want to keep doing it for kicks?

Absolutely. Colin Powell lied to the UN about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush lied to the American people about a direct connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks. What's to say Patraeus and Crocker aren't lying to Congress about our progress in Iraq?

So then I assume you're a fan of the "cut-and-run" strategy. Sorry, but I have friends who died in Iraq and believed in their mission, and LEAVING NOW is what would make their deaths have been in vein. Winning the battle is the only true way to honor their memories.

We already accomplished our goals in Iraq. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We installed a new government. Now it's time for us to train Iraqi forces to take back their country so we can get out of there and American soldiers can stop dying in the name of the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of the United States.


And by the way, Ambassador Crocker does not wear a military uniform.

I typed through my post rather fast. He doesn't wear a military uniform.

So let me rephrase that:

"They aren't magical truth-telling beings just because they work in the Bush administration."

[Marx]

Hillary, yesterday:

"It's time for the president to answer the question being asked of him: In the wake of the failed surge, what is the endgame in Iraq?"

I usually just laugh, but it's getting old. WHAT THE F*** is wrong with these people? You have the distinguished and honorable leader of our forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the likewise distinguished and honorable US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, sitting right in front of these people and detailing for them the immense successes that have been caused and the gains that have been made possible by the surge.

They either a) think the General and Ambassador are not being truthful, and therefore essentially accuse them of being liars, or b) they distort what they know to be the truth in order to gain political favor for doing so.

I'm f***ing sick of this bulls***.

EDIT: She's also saying that the sacrifices of the brave men and women involved in the surge (and indeed in all of Iraq) have been for FAILURE. I can't stand this hideous woman, I really f***ing can't.

Ok first of all, do you remember what the surge was installed for in the first place? The surge was put in place to quell the violence enough so that diplomacy could resume and the leaders of the Iraqi government could get their act together and come together as a nation. On that basis - which was the rationale for the surge - the surge has failed. You cannot deny that. There has been very little political reconciliation made. Has it brought down the level of violence? Yes. But that was not the sole reason for the surge in the first place. The main objective is a stalemate, and will continue to be.

When some people claim that the surge has been an unrivaled success - it's the same as saying that we went into Iraq to "liberate the Iraqi people." Well, we didn't go into Iraq for that reason, we went in because they "had WMD and we had to stop them" and the surge hasn't been a success because the rationale for it in the first place has not been met.

So if we don't trust the men that are most directly involved in Iraq, then who do we trust? You think these guys are just lying through their teeth to Congress 'cause they just love fighting this war and want to keep doing it for kicks?

So then I assume you're a fan of the "cut-and-run" strategy. Sorry, but I have friends who died in Iraq and believed in their mission, and LEAVING NOW is what would make their deaths have been in vein. Winning the battle is the only true way to honor their memories.

And by the way, Ambassador Crocker does not wear a military uniform.

And with that, I'll leave now. I'm much too worked up over this issue to discuss it on these boards.

Judging from that response Tron, I would say that you are a very staunch Republican. Am I wrong in that assessment? If I am, I do apologize for mischaracterizing you.

The point is, this administration lied to go into war. Colin Powell, whom I can no longer have any respect for, flat out lied to the United Nations to make the case for war. (He has admitted things were not accurate, I'm not just pulling that out of thin air.) And don't you find it the least bit odd that the top generals in Iraq continually have been replaced once they start voicing discontent for this war? I do.

I also personally resent the line of "cut and run." I am so sick of that accusation being thrown towards anyone who suggests a responsible redeployment of our forces. It isn't "cut and run" to redeploy our forces in supportive roles. It isn't "cut and run" to place our forces in the positions that they need to be in. Instead of remaining in positions that they shouldn't be in.

[Marx]

I typed through my post rather fast. He doesn't wear a military uniform.

So let me rephrase that:

"They aren't magical truth-telling beings just because they work in the Bush administration."

You have such a way with words Jman, I agree. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[rdh007]

"They aren't magical truth-telling beings just because they work in the Bush administration."
You, sir, are treasonous. I'd report you, but...
Big Brother is watching you anyway.

[Tron5000]

Yeah, great idea. Let's just leave Iraq, allow al-Sadr to take control of the country (with the aid of Iran, who is currently speeding up its nuclear weapons program), let the amount of violence in the country grow exponentially amidst genocide, and all but invite bin Laden to regroup (with the al-Qaeda members currently operating in Iraq) to re-establish the head base of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Yep, sounds like a fantastic idea to me.

Everyone wants to talk about bringing our troops home, yet few discuss the horrific realities that would closely follow such a move. This isn't "redeployment," it's running for the hills and allowing Iraq to descend into total and utter chaos.

We have trained over 175,000 Iraqi military personnel and 375,000 Iraqi police. The time will come (and is nearing) when they will be able to police the country and fight the insurgents (read: Islamic terrorists) on their own. That time is not now, and if we leave them at this critical juncture, that time will be never.

I thought Democrats were all about helping those "less fortunate." Well, I think the citizens of Iraq fall into that category. But instead of assisting these people and helping them reach a point where they can run the country and fight their battles on their own, Democrats want us to just leave these people to the unspeakable hardships that will befall them with a US withdrawal. Which is it? Help the people of Iraq, or say, "You know, it's time we take off. Good luck with everything" ?

Maybe President Obama will just go talk to all the terrorists over there and the sky over Iraq and Iran will be filled with rainbows made of cuddly puppies.

[Marx]

Yeah, great idea. Let's just leave Iraq, allow al-Sadr to take control of the country (with the aid of Iran, who is currently speeding up its nuclear weapons program), let the amount of violence in the country grow exponentially amidst genocide, and all but invite bin Laden to regroup (with the al-Qaeda members currently operating in Iraq) to re-establish the head base of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Yep, sounds like a fantastic idea to me.

Everyone wants to talk about bringing our troops home, yet few discuss the horrific realities that would closely follow such a move. This isn't "redeployment," it's running for the hills and allowing Iraq to descend into total and utter chaos.

We have trained over 175,000 Iraqi military personnel and 375,000 Iraqi police. The time will come (and is nearing) when they will be able to police the country and fight the insurgents (read: Islamic terrorists) on their own. That time is not now, and if we leave them at this critical juncture, that time will be never.

I thought Democrats were all about helping those "less fortunate." Well, I think the citizens of Iraq fall into that category. But instead of assisting these people and helping them reach a point where they can run the country and fight their battles on their own, Democrats want us to just leave these people to the unspeakable hardships that will befall them with a US withdrawal. Which is it? Help the people of Iraq, or say, "You know, it's time we take off. Good luck with everything" ?

Maybe President Obama will just go talk to all the terrorists over there and the sky over Iraq and Iran will be filled with rainbows made of cuddly puppies.

When will that time come Tron? It's been five years now and our brave forces are still on the front lines. I do not believe that as long as our troops are there in the main role that the Iraqi's and their government and army will ever step up. Why should they when we are still there in the main role doing it for them? You know? We should be in supporting roles at this point, not the main roles.

[Tron5000]

When will that time come Tron? It's been five years now and our brave forces are still on the front lines. I do not believe that as long as our troops are there in the main role that the Iraqi's and their government and army will ever step up. Why should they when we are still there in the main role doing it for them? You know? We should be in supporting roles at this point, not the main roles.

And we are reaching that point. Think about how long it takes to build a nation from the ground up. It took longer than 5 years after its birth for the US to establish a national infrastructure, and I'd say our country turned out OK.

No one can say for sure when the time will come when Iraq is a fully self-sustaining nation. You say "we should be in supporting roles," and we are getting to that point, as evidenced by the fact that Maliki ordered the strikes against al-Sadr, and the Iraqi military ran point on that mission with US troops acting in a supporting role. Maliki (and the Iraqi military) won that round, and al-Sadr declared a ceasefire. The Iraqi government and military called the shots there, not us. And they won.

The numbers of trained Iraqi military and police forces are rapidly growing. From nothing 5 years ago, these forces now number over 550,000. We are bringing home 20,000 of our troops this summer, and that is a pretty good sign that we are winning the war. As the Iraqis increasingly make strides toward self-governance and self-defense, more and more of our troops will come home.

If we leave now, we allow Iraq to descend into chaos and dishonor the memories of those in the US military who fought and died to bring freedom to the Iraqis. There are 2 outcomes in war: you win or you lose. We can either choose to stay and win (and help the Iraqis win), or we leave and admit defeat (for ourselves and for the Iraqis). I'm none too fond of the second option.

[The Senator]

Yeah, great idea. Let's just leave Iraq, allow al-Sadr to take control of the country (with the aid of Iran, who is currently speeding up its nuclear weapons program), let the amount of violence in the country grow exponentially amidst genocide, and all but invite bin Laden to regroup (with the al-Qaeda members currently operating in Iraq) to re-establish the head base of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Yep, sounds like a fantastic idea to me.[quote]

We had a chance to do this mission correctly at the very beginning. Instead, we spent three and a half years screwing around. The surge should have been implemented at the beginning of this war, instead of four years later.

We screwed up, and we screwed any chance of victory in the process.

[quote]
Everyone wants to talk about bringing our troops home, yet few discuss the horrific realities that would closely follow such a move. This isn't "redeployment," it's running for the hills and allowing Iraq to descend into total and utter chaos.

Then let it be. Had we not entered Iraq, this pending civil war would have happened anyway. We serve as a barrier between three sides of this conflict. How long should we remain there? Ten years? Twenty? How about one hundred, like Walnuts McCain thinks? Meanwhile our soldiers are being murdered every single day by people we aren't sure are our friends or allies.

If we stay, we're screwed. There's no foreseeable path to victory, and we're just a mobile barrier waiting to break amid sectarian bloodshed. If we leave, we're screwed. Many of our soldiers will die as the numbers thin out, and the Iraqi people will be left to suffer in the process. The Iraqis should take control of their own government and police actions, which brings me to your next point...


We have trained over 175,000 Iraqi military personnel and 375,000 Iraqi police. The time will come (and is nearing) when they will be able to police the country and fight the insurgents (read: Islamic terrorists) on their own. That time is not now, and if we leave them at this critical juncture, that time will be never.

...Aren't those numbers comparable to the amount of troops we have in Iraq now? Why is it so hard to train these forces? Afterall, we don't train many of our troops when we send them into combat, considering many of them are national guardsmen. Bush and friends say that the troops are adequately prepared even though many of them are basically thrown into the desert, so why don't we just do the same to the Iraqis?

But in all seriousness... the numbers you mentioned are comparable to the amount of troops we have deployed in Iraq. Over 133,000 troops were stationed in Iraq last year. We should be training the Iraqis with all of our resources, then leave their country to them. It is their country, not ours, and their responsibility to sort out their own problems.


I thought Democrats were all about helping those "less fortunate." Well, I think the citizens of Iraq fall into that category. But instead of assisting these people and helping them reach a point where they can run the country and fight their battles on their own, Democrats want us to just leave these people to the unspeakable hardships that will befall them with a US withdrawal. Which is it? Help the people of Iraq, or say, "You know, it's time we take off. Good luck with everything" ?

I certainly support helping those who are less fortunate... in our own country. We've spent over $500 billion on this war, taking money from an oh-so-plentiful pit of nothingness (aka a deficit), when that money could have been put towards some sort of health care reform, maintaining social security, infrastructure repairs, or it simply could have been used to pay off our mounting debts to other nations such as China. The amount we've spent on this war has sucked us dry financially, and will ruin our children's financial certainty as they pay back our debts long after they themselves retire.

I support fixing social security, reforming health care, reforming welfare, repairing our infrastructure and paying back our debts more than going into a country for fictitious reasons so we can play "international policeman."


Maybe President Obama will just go talk to all the terrorists over there and the sky over Iraq and Iran will be filled with rainbows made of cuddly puppies.

And maybe Walnuts McCain will single-handedly steer us into victory on horseback, and all the Sunnis and Shia and Kurds will shake hands and dance to Abba on an electric glass dancefloor created after the nuclear annihilation of Iran and the installation of Democracy and American flags in every single country around the world!!! Yay!! Hooray for Democracy in the name of blood and treasure. :o

[Tron5000]

"Walnuts McCain" advocates a peacetime presence, which could last for 100 years.

We have soldiers in Germany, Korea, Japan...nearly everywhere in the world where we have waged battle. No one talks about bringing those troops home. 'Cause they're not getting shot at, which is exactly the same situation McCain envisions for Iraq.

And why resort to calling the man "Walnuts"? Didn't you get upset when someone referred to Obama by his given middle name?

If you say there is "no foreseeable path to victory," does that mean that you do not have confidence in our military to win this war? You think Iraq is doomed no matter what we do, so f*** it? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this defeatist mentality.

We ARE training the Iraqis. As I previously noted, the Iraqi military has begun running operations in Iraq, with assistance from our military. The goal is to see this increase, to the point where Iraq is strong enough to handle the terrorists on its own.

No sense responding to your last paragraph. You think those who envision a free and peaceful Iraq are living in a fantasy world. You would rather leave that nation, for whose freedom thousands of our countrymen have fought and died, to descend into chaos than to continue the fight.

What happens then? Iran and al-Qaeda assert their influence, turn Iraq into a terrorist state, and then where are we? Worse off than we are today.

But that's fine. Let's just let them deal with it. It won't impact us in the least. We'll just go about our merry lives while millions die in a genocidal war and Iran and Iraq are controlled by extremists with nuclear weapons.

Gotcha.

[Marx]

"Walnuts McCain" advocates a peacetime presence, which could last for 100 years.

We have soldiers in Germany, Korea, Japan...nearly everywhere in the world where we have waged battle. No one talks about bringing those troops home. 'Cause they're not getting shot at, which is exactly the same situation McCain envisions for Iraq.

And why resort to calling the man "Walnuts"? Didn't you get upset when someone referred to Obama by his given middle name?

If you say there is "no foreseeable path to victory," does that mean that you do not have confidence in our military to win this war? You think Iraq is doomed no matter what we do, so f*** it? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this defeatist mentality.

We ARE training the Iraqis. As I previously noted, the Iraqi military has begun running operations in Iraq, with assistance from our military. The goal is to see this increase, to the point where Iraq is strong enough to handle the terrorists on its own.

No sense responding to your last paragraph. You think those who envision a free and peaceful Iraq are living in a fantasy world. You would rather leave that nation, for whose freedom thousands of our countrymen have fought and died, to descend into chaos than to continue the fight.

What happens then? Iran and al-Qaeda assert their influence, turn Iraq into a terrorist state, and then where are we? Worse off than we are today.

But that's fine. Let's just let them deal with it. It won't impact us in the least. We'll just go about our merry lives while millions die in a genocidal war and Iran and Iraq are controlled by extremists with nuclear weapons.

Gotcha.

That's not a fair statement Tron. I don't believe that there is anyone on these boards OR in this country that does not firmly support or have confidence in our troops and their abilities. The question lies in the flawed mission, not in the capability of our brave armed forces.

[Tron5000]

That's not a fair statement Tron. I don't believe that there is anyone on these boards OR in this country that does not firmly support or have confidence in our troops and their abilities. The question lies in the flawed mission, not in the capability of our brave armed forces.

Well, the mission is certainly making progress. Coalition and civilian casualties are down drastically, al-Qaeda in Iraq is on the run, people are able to walk the streets in cities that were uninhabitable only months ago, Maliki's government ordered the Iraqi military operation which resulted in al-Sadr calling for a ceasefire, troops are about to begin coming home...This is called progress.

Now, I grant you that the approach to the war was greatly flawed for the first 4 years. But then General Petraeus took charge, made changes in strategy, suggested the surge, and it has all worked. We are moving toward victory, as the very evidence on the ground affirms.

So if we are making progress and moving toward victory, how can it then be said that there is "no foreseeable path to victory"? Do you not believe that our military can win this war?

[Marx]

Well, the mission is certainly making progress. Coalition and civilian casualties are down drastically, al-Qaeda in Iraq is on the run, people are able to walk the streets in cities that were uninhabitable only months ago, Maliki's government ordered the Iraqi military operation which resulted in al-Sadr calling for a ceasefire, troops are about to begin coming home...This is called progress.

Now, I grant you that the approach to the war was greatly flawed for the first 4 years. But then General Petraeus took charge, made changes in strategy, suggested the surge, and it has all worked. We are moving toward victory, as the very evidence on the ground affirms.

So if we are making progress and moving toward victory, how can it then be said that there is "no foreseeable path to victory"? Do you not believe that our military can win this war?

Progress and success are a point of view Tron. There have been reductions in violence, I will give you that much. But you have to admit that the bar for success has been set so low, that anything is welcomed. Our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war that has been brewing for quite some time. We may be able to further push some form of stability in Iraq, but I believe that it will be fragile at best. I think Iraq is destined to break in three sections among sectarial lines. That being said, I don't think that there is any real sense of "victory" in the traditional form being possible.

[The Senator]

And why resort to calling the man "Walnuts"? Didn't you get upset when someone referred to Obama by his given middle name?

I refer to him as "Walnuts" because a) he talks like he's a squirrel with his cheeks filled with walnuts, and b) there was some poorly-made YouTube video circulating a while back, where someone playing John McCain introduced himself as "walnuts"

I also didn't get upset when someone referred to Obama by his middle name. In face, I started a debate on Obama's middle name in which I said "I think its silly how everyone gets upset whenever some refers to Obama as 'Barack Hussein Obama'"...


If you say there is "no foreseeable path to victory," does that mean that you do not have confidence in our military to win this war? You think Iraq is doomed no matter what we do, so f*** it? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this defeatist mentality.

I do not have confidence in our military because their commander-in-chief has been steering them away from a path to victory from the very beginning of this war.

Iraq could have been successful, if we employed the surge at the very beginning rather than relying on Rumsfeld's 'brilliant' "shock and awe" strategy which basically had us walking around in a circle for three and a half years.

We ARE training the Iraqis. As I previously noted, the Iraqi military has begun running operations in Iraq, with assistance from our military. The goal is to see this increase, to the point where Iraq is strong enough to handle the terrorists on its own.

Again, if we went to Iraq with the same amount of troops as there are trained Iraqi security officers, then why don't we give them the same level of training many of our soldiers received? Give them six months of training, then say "see ya; you're on your own."

The Iraqi government has had four years to straighten itself out. Wasn't our mission to overthrow Hussein and start a free government, anyway? Didn't we install a new Government in 2003 and 2004? They should have inherited this conflict the moment they became a sovereign government.


No sense responding to your last paragraph. You think those who envision a free and peaceful Iraq are living in a fantasy world. You would rather leave that nation, for whose freedom thousands of our countrymen have fought and died, to descend into chaos than to continue the fight.

They are living in a fantasy world, though. How are you going to end the sectarian violence which has existed for thousands of years? Is Bush's strategy to hand out Bibles and force everyone to convert to Christianity? Because until these three sects resolve their conflict, there will always be strife in Iraq.

These folks aren't going to stop executing their 'enemies' because the United States came and said "ok guys, please play nice or we'll bomb ya." The United States is a retaining wall which is about to break. This pending civil war will never be stopped.


What happens then? Iran and al-Qaeda assert their influence, turn Iraq into a terrorist state, and then where are we? Worse off than we are today.

So what if Iraq joins forces with Iran? Both nations should be able to form alliances with whoever they want, whenever they want. They're independent, sovereign bodies which don't need the United States to act like a babysitter for them.

Iraq has never been allied with al-Qaeda, and the presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq has been minimal at best. We only hear about a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda because Bush thinks the more he repeats it, the better chance it'll become true.

You know where we'll be if we stay? In the middle of a civil war. You know where we'll be if we leave? In the middle of a civil war. We're just as likely to establish permanent peace in Iraq now than we would be if we left and all hell broke loose.


But that's fine. Let's just let them deal with it. It won't impact us in the least. We'll just go about our merry lives while millions die in a genocidal war and Iran and Iraq are controlled by extremists with nuclear weapons.

Bush should have thought about the consequences of his actions before he decided to take us to war with Iraq. He also should have realized that by focusing solely on Iraq, we would hurt the job we're doing in Afghanistan. And we are starting to lose there, too, since the Taliban is coming back to power, since Osama bin Laden hasn't been captured and the United States is in as much danger now than it was after 9/11. He should have known that be focusing on a war cast for fictitious purposes, he would be taking his eye off of real threats in other countries around the world. He should have known this. But instead he employed his oh-so-successful cowboy diplomacy, ruining the chances we had in Iraq while harming our mission in Afghanistan.

[Tron5000]

I refer to him as "Walnuts" because a) he talks like he's a squirrel with his cheeks filled with walnuts, and b) there was some poorly-made YouTube video circulating a while back, where someone playing John McCain introduced himself as "walnuts"

I also didn't get upset when someone referred to Obama by his middle name. In face, I started a debate on Obama's middle name in which I said "I think its silly how everyone gets upset whenever some refers to Obama as 'Barack Hussein Obama'"...

[quote]
If you say there is "no foreseeable path to victory," does that mean that you do not have confidence in our military to win this war? You think Iraq is doomed no matter what we do, so f*** it? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this defeatist mentality.

Bush should have thought about the consequences of his actions before he decided to take us to war with Iraq. He also should have realized that by focusing solely on Iraq, we would hurt the job we're doing in Afghanistan. And we are starting to lose there, too, since the Taliban is coming back to power, since Osama bin Laden hasn't been captured and the United States is in as much danger now than it was after 9/11. He should have known that be focusing on a war cast for fictitious purposes, he would be taking his eye off of real threats in other countries around the world. He should have known this. But instead he employed his oh-so-successful cowboy diplomacy, ruining the chances we had in Iraq while harming our mission in Afghanistan.

I'm not talking about the reasons that we went to war. That's not at issue here. The fact of the matter is that we are engaged in a war, and we are winning it. So contrary to the evidence coming from the battlefield, do you still believe that our military will not win this war?

Iraq and Afghanistan are 2 different fronts in the same war. We are not losing in Afghanistan. You are correct that we have yet to find bin Laden, but find him we will. And hopefully, he'll be hanged by his countrymen just as Saddam was.

Iraq is the central front in this current war. If we abandon it, we invite chaos into a region that we are attempting to stabilize. We leave Israel all alone to deal with an Iran that wants to eradicate Jews and an Iraq that will be under the control of Iran and bin Laden, who want nothing more than to harm America and its allies.

[Marx]

Edit

[Tron5000]

[quote=Tron5000;14529166]

The Taliban are the strongest that thay have been since before 9/11 and are only gaining in strength. There is no winning or losing. The traditional war has gone out the window. You cannot eliminate an ideology.

Yet they seek to eliminate us. How do you propose we deal with that?

Make no mistake about it: This is the War Against Islamic Fascism. They will not stop until the world is ruled by Islamic Law, and they will kill anyone who will not allow this to happen. How should we deal with this threat?

[Marx]

Yet they seek to eliminate us. How do you propose we deal with that?

Make no mistake about it: This is the War Against Islamic Fascism. They will not stop until the world is ruled by Islamic Law, and they will kill anyone who will not allow this to happen. How should we deal with this threat?

That's a good question. One that I do not have an answer to. All I am saying is that you cannot eliminate an ideology. It just won't work, which is why "victory" isn't possible.

[The Senator]

You are correct that we have yet to find bin Laden, but find him we will. And hopefully, he'll be hanged by his countrymen just as Saddam was.
.

Sigh... just because Bush said it, doesn't mean its true...

[Tron5000]

Sigh... just because Bush said it, doesn't mean its true...

Thanks for discounting my personal beliefs and my cognitive thinking abilities by assuming that my beliefs are rooted in what another man says. Apparently you think I am not a human being who can think for himself. Thanks for that.

[comicgirl]

Former president Bill Clinton's campaign rally this morning at the junior high gym in Corydon, Indiana was a wealth of Hillary Clinton surrogates, among them many who had their own thoughts about Sen. Barack Obama's recent comments about small town voters....

Over seven stops in North Carolina, Clinton said "Everywhere I go there are all these people with signs, saying I'm not bitter - I'm not bitter."

During Clinton's seven stops in North Carolina on Saturday there were no "I'm not bitter" signs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/bill-clinton-claims-to-se_n_96643.html


Good ole Bill, the congenital liar.

[blackcobra]

Billary can't win on attacking his policies, just his character, and bittergate is the latest in her desperate attempt to subvert the popular vote.

[The Senator]

So? Many voters are still offended by Obama's remarks, regardless of whether these signs exist...

[C.F. Kane]

Billary needs a hug. And then go back into retirement.

[souvlaki]

So? Many voters are still offended by Obama's remarks, regardless of whether these signs exist...

I don't know if that is the case. If the polls taken the last couple of days are any indication, the only people upset over this are pundits on CNN, and people that disliked Obama in the first place. I think they are overplaying their hand on this one. Between Hillary getting jeered yesterday, and then this getting brought up, if they don't play it right this will blow up in their faces.

[The Senator]

I don't know if that is the case. If the polls taken the last couple of days are any indication, the only people upset over this are pundits on CNN, and people that disliked Obama in the first place. I think they are overplaying their hand on this one. Between Hillary getting jeered yesterday, and then this getting brought up, if they don't play it right this will blow up in their faces.

It doesn't really matter how Obama does in the primary. I'm completely beyond that at this point, and am approaching this as if he is the nominee. Even if Obama survives the primary and makes it through the convention, he will deal with considerable backlash from independent and Republican voters who have been on the fence in crucial states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, where voters certainly enjoy their guns and religion, and also feel illegal immigration is a serious problem which isn't only confined to "bitterness" and "voter antipathy." The Democratic Primary does not reflect how this will play out in the general election.

[comicgirl]

I live in PA; home of the former Bethlehem Steel, Steelton Metalworks(right down the road), etc....Obama is right, folks here are angry, frustrated and bitter. That tends to happen when your job (and sometimes your retirement plan)is gone.

[Matt]

I live in PA; home of the former Bethlehem Steel, Steelton Metalworks(right down the road), etc....Obama is right, folks here angry, frustrated and bitter. That tends to happen when your job (and sometimes your retirement plan)is gone.

Would you agree that said 'bitterness' has turned everyone into racist, gun-totting, zealots?

[The Senator]

I live in PA; home of the former Bethlehem Steel, Steelton Metalworks(right down the road), etc....Obama is right, folks here are angry, frustrated and bitter. That tends to happen when your job (and sometimes your retirement plan)is gone.

It doesn't matter what you or other die-hard Obama supporters think. It matters what the independents and Republicans in many swing states think. They aren't going to buy the whole "I misspoke" line he gave the other day, and they certainly aren't going to let him brush it under the rug. These are the folks who Obama has been counting on-- independents and moderate Republicans (the Obamacans as he so arrogantly calls them) who helped give him a boost in the primary. And they don't take kindly to being insulted en masse.

[comicgirl]

Would you agree that said 'bitterness' has turned everyone into racist, gun-totting, zealots?...nah, not everyone...but, there are certain "pocket" areas (Perry County, Bradford Co., etc) that I wouldn't want to run out of gas in.

I love my state....but, yeah Pennsyltucky has more than it's share of gun-rack-in-the-truck, Praise the Lord, all them n##$%$ need to stay over there dudes. But, so does every state.

BTW - is "racist, gun-toting, zealots" a direct quote?:grin:

[comicgirl]

It doesn't matter what you or other die-hard Obama supporters think. It matters what the independents and Republicans in many swing states think. They aren't going to buy the whole "I misspoke" line he gave the other day, and they certainly aren't going to let him brush it under the rug. These are the folks who Obama has been counting on-- independents and moderate Republicans (the Obamacans as he so arrogantly calls them) who helped give him a boost in the primary. And they don't take kindly to being insulted en masse.If you and the other Hillarites think this will slow Obama down, you must be dreamin'.



BTW - thanks for your civil feedback that my opinions "don't matter". That sounds rather elitist to me.

[Matt]

...nah, not everyone...but, there are certain "pocket" areas (Perry County, Bradford Co., etc) that I wouldn't want to run out of gas in.

I love my state....but, yeah Pennsyltucky has more than it's share of gun-rack-in-the-truck, Praise the Lord, all them n##$%$ need to stay over there dudes. But, so does every state.

BTW - is "racist, gun-toting, zealots" a direct quote?:grin:

Basically. "They are bitter so they have an antipathy for those who are different (antipathy means hate) so they clutch onto their guns and religion."

[Matt]

If you and the other Hillarites think this will slow Obama down, you must be dreamin'.



BTW - thanks for your civil feedback that my opinions "don't matter". That sounds rather elitist to me.

I don't think that is what Jman meant. I think he meant that Obama supporters aren't going anywhere. Just as Clinton supporters won't turn from her due to her lies about Bosnia. Independents and swing state undecided voters however, will turn their back onto him based on stuff like this.

[The Senator]

If you and the other Hillarites think this will slow Obama down, you must be dreamin'.

I've given up on Hillary Clinton and this entire presidential election, to be honest. I would be insulting myself if I voted for someone who has less political experience than the lamp on my desk, and I'd be selling my soul if I voted for McCain. So as of now, I'm abstaining and approaching this from an objective standpoint.

But yes, this will hurt him, because the media is only focusing on how this affects the Pennsylvania primary. They aren't focusing on rural Ohio or Michigan, nor are they focusing on the independents who will determine who will win this election. An interesting thing to note is that Clinton has gained a 16 point lead in Indiana over the weekend, compared to a week ago when the two were statistically tied.


BTW - thanks for your civil feedback that my opinions "don't matter". That sounds rather elitist to me.

It's true-- it doesn't matter what the Obama supporters think about this. You've already made up your mind on who you're going to support. What matters are the voices of those who have yet to make up their minds, the independent or undecided voter who probably won't decide who to vote for until all the blood spilling is over with. They're the ones who are sitting on the sidelines, watching as Hillary lies about Bosnia or Obama's pastor goes on racist rants... many of them will be offended by Obama's comments, and won't vote for him... especially those who consider themselves religious, like guns, and think illegal immigration is a big problem (i.e. many rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, three big swing states the Democrat needs to win).

[comicgirl]

I don't think that is what Jman meant. I think he meant that Obama supporters aren't going anywhere. Just as Clinton supporters won't turn from her due to her lies about Bosnia. Independents and swing state undecided voters however, will turn their back onto him based on stuff like this.Thanks for your conceise arguement. Although, if I had Sinbad out me on a lie, I'd be pretty p#$$ed.:cmad:

[blackcobra]

Would you agree that said 'bitterness' has turned everyone into racist, gun-totting, zealots?


I admit, that was a bad gaffe by Obama. However, wouldn't you agree that people in the lower economic classes tend to go to church more often, and hunt more often, and usually have a problem with racism. In the upper middle class people tend to judge you more based on your income, then your color.

I think this goes for both races. In the South where I was born, Church is everything, hunting & fishing is everything. Then I moved out to California in a upper middle class neighborhood. And those people tended to take road trips on Sunday instead of church, and NEVER went hunting. And the neighborhoods aren't as segregated as they were in the South.

[blackcobra]

Check out these stats. People in lower income states attend church more, and tend to be hunting and fishing states.


http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pRkQYR9Agq0jNw_Sc_8FkAw&gid=2

[Zen]

Basically. "They are bitter so they have an antipathy for those who are different (antipathy means hate) so they clutch onto their guns and religion."


i dont think antipathy means hate.

its the opposite of sympathy... its like an "aversion" or "dislike"

[rdh007]

First of all, stupid thing for Obama to say. Stupid.

But I'm so freaking tired of Bill Clinton that I can't truly express it.

[Tron5000]

I admit, that was a bad gaffe by Obama. However, wouldn't you agree that people in the lower economic classes tend to go to church more often, and hunt more often, and usually have a problem with racism. In the upper middle class people tend to judge you more based on your income, then your color.

I think this goes for both races. In the South where I was born, Church is everything, hunting & fishing is everything. Then I moved out to California in a upper middle class neighborhood. And those people tended to take road trips on Sunday instead of church, and NEVER went hunting. And the neighborhoods aren't as segregated as they were in the South.

I've lived in the South my entire life, as has my entire family. People in the South don't "cling to" religion and guns because they are "bitter." People go to church because they love God and fellowship with others. It is the opposite of being "bitter." It is being loving and giving, from yourself to others and to God.

People love guns in the South because they have respect for their rights to own and use them. Guns are used for food, sport and protection. People don't "cling" to their guns. They use and respect their firearms. It has nothing to do with being "bitter." It's about providing food for your family, having fun and being safe and protected.

There are racists in every racial, geographical and economic group. When you go to truly rural areas in the South, you see all races hanging out together. The kids play together in school and on the little league teams. The parents work with each other and see one another at the ball field. They jump start the other's car and offer to help carry groceries and work on your engine.

The portrayal of small-town Americans as racists, bigots and xenophobes is an antiquated notion. The true racists are the ones in the big cities who don't promote someone to VP or partner because of their race, not the small-town Americans who worship in church together, see each other at the little league ball field and play cards with one another on Friday night.

[Marx]

If you and the other Hillarites think this will slow Obama down, you must be dreamin'.



BTW - thanks for your civil feedback that my opinions "don't matter". That sounds rather elitist to me.

I hardly doubt Jman meant that your opinions "don't matter." All anyone is saying is that Obama isn't president yet. He has to escape the primary first. Let's not put the cart before the horse. He is doing a pretty good job of shooting himself in the foot with all of his careless remarks and affiliations. All of these republican swing voters and independents are turning off of him, and quickly. More and more so once something else comes out about him or he makes another idiotic generalization.

[Marx]

I admit, that was a bad gaffe by Obama. However, wouldn't you agree that people in the lower economic classes tend to go to church more often, and hunt more often, and usually have a problem with racism. In the upper middle class people tend to judge you more based on your income, then your color.

I think this goes for both races. In the South where I was born, Church is everything, hunting & fishing is everything. Then I moved out to California in a upper middle class neighborhood. And those people tended to take road trips on Sunday instead of church, and NEVER went hunting. And the neighborhoods aren't as segregated as they were in the South.

People do not "cling" to guns or religion, period. People enjoy guns for sport or what have you, and have great pride in their faith.

[hippie_hunter]

I don't know if that is the case. If the polls taken the last couple of days are any indication, the only people upset over this are pundits on CNN, and people that disliked Obama in the first place. I think they are overplaying their hand on this one. Between Hillary getting jeered yesterday, and then this getting brought up, if they don't play it right this will blow up in their faces.

With 56% of Americans disagreeing with Obama especially with 75% of Republicans and independents by a two-to-one margin (groups Obama needs), along with Obama slipping in the polls in Pennsylvania and Indiana along with his favorability ratings, I don't think just the news pundits and people who already disagree with Obama are people upset over this.

[Mr Sparkle]

So? Many voters are still offended by Obama's remarks, regardless of whether these signs exist...

but he lied, shows his judgement....shows his character.
blah blah blah! un-important ******** blah blah!

[Mr Sparkle]

People do not "cling" to guns or religion, period. People enjoy guns for sport or what have you, and have great pride in their faith.

no, sorry, wrong.
some people in the Hispanic community very much "cling" to gangs and a false sense of pride in their countries of origin. in the impoverished areas? a very large percentage does this.
to deny the truth in the statement Obama made is wrong.
simple.

[blackcobra]

I've lived in the South my entire life, as has my entire family. People in the South don't "cling to" religion and guns because they are "bitter." People go to church because they love God and fellowship with others. It is the opposite of being "bitter." It is being loving and giving, from yourself to others and to God.

People love guns in the South because they have respect for their rights to own and use them. Guns are used for food, sport and protection. People don't "cling" to their guns. They use and respect their firearms. It has nothing to do with being "bitter." It's about providing food for your family, having fun and being safe and protected.

There are racists in every racial, geographical and economic group. When you go to truly rural areas in the South, you see all races hanging out together. The kids play together in school and on the little league teams. The parents work with each other and see one another at the ball field. They jump start the other's car and offer to help carry groceries and work on your engine.

The portrayal of small-town Americans as racists, bigots and xenophobes is an antiquated notion. The true racists are the ones in the big cities who don't promote someone to VP or partner because of their race, not the small-town Americans who worship in church together, see each other at the little league ball field and play cards with one another on Friday night.


I'm from the South, and still visit there frequently. The only real intergration is through atheletic's, but after the ball game is over, things go back to being the same. Interacial dating is still a BIG taboo also.

But my point wasn't that they clinged to them because they were bittter, I provided facts that showed people in poorer economic states have higher church attendance, and tend to be hunting and fishing states. Leave the bitters out of the equation. And lets focus on that. Isn't it true that Hunting and fishing states have lower median incomes, yes or no?

[blackcobra]

People do not "cling" to guns or religion, period. People enjoy guns for sport or what have you, and have great pride in their faith.

Why is clinging to a gun or religon bad? People are acting like Obama said they cling to satanism?

[Matt]

Why is clinging to a gun or religon bad? People are acting like Obama said they cling to satanism?

Because Obama gave it a negative spin in his speech. He commented the reason these people cling to guns or religon is because they are bitter and racist.

[Tron5000]

I'm from the South, and still visit there frequently. The only real intergration is through atheletic's, but after the ball game is over, things go back to being the same. Interacial dating is still a BIG taboo also.

But my point wasn't that they clinged to them because they were bittter, I provided facts that showed people in poorer economic states have higher church attendance, and tend to be hunting and fishing states. Leave the bitters out of the equation. And lets focus on that. Isn't it true that Hunting and fishing states have lower median incomes, yes or no?

No, athletics are not the only means of real integration. Trust me: I live in Georgia and things do not work the way you describe them. People down here don't give a damn what color your skin is, as long as you cut your grass, don't drive too fast through the neighborhood, and let people over into your lane when they have their turn signal on, rather than speeding up and cutting them off.

Why leave the "bitters" out of the equation? That's kind of the purpose of this thread, is it not? I'm not here to debate you on the issue; I'm here to discuss the comments made by Barack Obama and why he was wrong in making them.

[Soundwave]

It was probably not the right thing for Obama to say given the sensitive nature of our country, but you can't deny that there is some truth to what he is saying. I'm an African American and I grew up in poverty and I can tell you that a lot of family and friends of our family were in fact "bitter" and blamed a lot of their problems on the white man, and our family did cling to religion a lot. Not to say that everyone who was poor felt this way but where I'm from it was definitely the majority.

[blackcobra]

Because Obama gave it a negative spin in his speech. He commented the reason these people cling to guns or religon is because they are bitter and racist.

He said they clinged to guns an religon due to the dire economic conditions that exist in those states.

[blackcobra]

No, athletics are not the only means of real integration. Trust me: I live in Georgia and things do not work the way you describe them. People down here don't give a damn what color your skin is, as long as you cut your grass, don't drive too fast through the neighborhood, and let people over into your lane when they have their turn signal on, rather than speeding up and cutting them off.

Why leave the "bitters" out of the equation? That's kind of the purpose of this thread, is it not? I'm not here to debate you on the issue; I'm here to discuss the comments made by Barack Obama and why he was wrong in making them.

Point taken, now lets focus on this fact. Wouldn't you agree that states with lower median incomes have higher church attendance, and ten to be hunting and fishing states yes or no?

[Marx]

no, sorry, wrong.
some people in the Hispanic community very much "cling" to gangs and a false sense of pride in their countries of origin. in the impoverished areas? a very large percentage does this.
to deny the truth in the statement Obama made is wrong.
simple.

Ugh, Sparkle. Must you disagree with everything I say? While some do cling to "guns and religion," the vast majority do not. The broad generalization that Obama made is inaccurate.

[WorthyStevens]

Ugh, Sparkle. Must you disagree with everything I say? While some do cling to "guns and religion," the vast majority do not. The broad generalization that Obama made is inaccurate.

He didn't say *every* small town in America. He said alot of towns in the midwest, which isn't a stretch from the truth.

[Marx]

He didn't say *every* small town in America. He said alot of towns in the midwest, which isn't a stretch from the truth.

Do you live in the Midwest? I do. Maybe that's where we see something different.

[WorthyStevens]

I live in Pennsylvania so I've seen some of these towns that Obama's talked about.

[Marx]

I live in Pennsylvania so I've seen some of these towns that Obama's talked about.

But would you agree that his statement was a vast generalization that isn't accurate? True...there are places that may "cling," but he went beyond that.

[WorthyStevens]

I don't think he did. The only thing he did wrong was not explain himself fully.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm completely beyond that at this point, and am approaching this as if he is the nominee. Even if Obama survives the primary and makes it through the convention, he will deal with considerable backlash from independent and Republican voters who have been on the fence in crucial states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, where voters certainly enjoy their guns and religion, and also feel illegal immigration is a serious problem which isn't only confined to "bitterness" and "voter antipathy." The Democratic Primary does not reflect how this will play out in the general election.

And yet, one of the Democratic Party's biggest voices is the reason why he'll have some of the difficulty in the GE. Hillary has wrecked the entire party's chances at winning by treating Obama as if he were a Republican enemy. She has done all the dirty work--providing all the pettiness, Muslim-rumor-winking, Somalian garb pix and sound bites for McCain & Co. to have a field day. And her arrogant "entitlement" attitude has done the exact opposite of uniting the party--which again benefits the Republicans.

If the Democratic party fails in November, it will be its own fault...they destroyed themselves from the inside out.

[Marx]

And yet, one of the Democratic Party's biggest voices is the reason why he'll have some of the difficulty in the GE. Hillary has wrecked the entire party's chances at winning by treating Obama as if he were a Republican enemy. She has done all the dirty work--providing all the pettiness, Muslim-rumor-winking, Somalian garb pix and sound bites for McCain & Co. to have a field day. And her arrogant "entitlement" attitude has done the exact opposite of uniting the party--which again benefits the Republicans.

If the Democratic party fails in November, it will be its own fault...they destroyed themselves from the inside out.

Do you honestly believe that McCain and the RSM wouldn't have brought all of this up at some point anyway? Come on, Lightning. Of course they would have! Hillary or no Hillary. I might add that Obama now seems to have that same arrogant "coronation" frame of mind that you are knocking Hillary for. He hasn't won yet, but he is acting as though he's already the president.

[Matt]

And yet, one of the Democratic Party's biggest voices is the reason why he'll have some of the difficulty in the GE. Hillary has wrecked the entire party's chances at winning by treating Obama as if he were a Republican enemy. She has done all the dirty work--providing all the pettiness, Muslim-rumor-winking, Somalian garb pix and sound bites for McCain & Co. to have a field day. And her arrogant "entitlement" attitude has done the exact opposite of uniting the party--which again benefits the Republicans.

If the Democratic party fails in November, it will be its own fault...they destroyed themselves from the inside out.

So 50 % of the Democrat party should've just laid down and allowed Obama to be crowned? Yeah, thats Democratic.

And don't play the entire "Well Clinton was the one who made it dirty," because we both know Obama played just as dirty. It is an election. Clearly there is a split within the party. No one ought to lay down. If this goes to the Convention, it is the will of the people, which is what America is all about.

[Marx]

So 50 % of the Democrat party should've just laid down and allowed Obama to be crowned? Yeah, thats Democratic.

And don't play the entire "Well Clinton was the one who made it dirty," because we both know Obama played just as dirty. It is an election. Clearly there is a split within the party. No one ought to lay down. If this goes to the Convention, it is the will of the people, which is what America is all about.

Exactly. The "mighty" Obama has played just as dirty. And trying to tell half of the Democratic party to just lie down and give up doesn't sound very Democratic to me either. Whether you all want to admit it or not, this race is not over. Not yet.

[WorthyStevens]

Exactly. The "mighty" Obama has played just as dirty. And trying to tell half of the Democratic party to just lie down and give up doesn't sound very Democratic to me either. Whether you all want to admit it or not, this race is not over. Not yet.

Not really.

Basically 70% of Hillary's campaign has been about attacking Obama. Obama's made some remarks about McCain and Clinton, but not nearly to the same extent that Hillary and Bill have.

[Marx]

Not really.

Basically 70% of Hillary's campaign has been about attacking Obama. Obama's made some remarks about McCain and Clinton, but not nearly to the same extent that Hillary and Bill have.

Because Obama is so much "above it all" right? That's just not accurate Worthy.

[Tron5000]

Not really.

Basically 70% of Hillary's campaign has been about attacking Obama. Obama's made some remarks about McCain and Clinton, but not nearly to the same extent that Hillary and Bill have.

70% of all statistics can be made to say anything. 50% of the time.

[The Senator]

Check out these stats. People in lower income states attend church more, and tend to be hunting and fishing states.


http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pRkQYR9Agq0jNw_Sc_8FkAw&gid=2

But Pennsylvania isn't a lower-income state, so how does that justify Obama's remarks? :huh:

[The Senator]

Point taken, now lets focus on this fact. Wouldn't you agree that states with lower median incomes have higher church attendance, and ten to be hunting and fishing states yes or no?

Why does it matter which life style folks lead if the live in lower-income states? Obama did not say "lower income voters like to fish and hunt!" He said they are bitter and cling to guns and religion and show antipathy to those who are different from them. That's a far cry from saying "if you live in Mississippi, you love to fish!"

[The Senator]

Why is clinging to a gun or religon bad? People are acting like Obama said they cling to satanism?

Because the way Barry-O said it, it came off as though he was criticizing the lifestyles these people lead, as if they shouldn't be living that way, as if all that will change once he becomes president...

[Marx]

Because the way Barry-as if they shouldn't be living that way, as if all that will change once he becomes president.O said it, it came off as though he was criticizing the lifestyles these people lead, ..

You mean it won't Jman? Everything won't change if Obama wins? We won't be dancing around singing campfire songs and holding hands? Now I'm disappointed. :whatever:

[souvlaki]

Because the way Barry-O said it, it came off as though he was criticizing the lifestyles these people lead, as if they shouldn't be living that way, as if all that will change once he becomes president...

Wait a minute... let's back up a second here. Weren't you saying not even two days ago that this was being blown way out of proportion? That you actually agreed with what he said to a certain extant? You confuse me sometimes, Jman.

[souvlaki]

An interesting thing to note is that Clinton has gained a 16 point lead in Indiana over the weekend

Two polls today have Obama up by 6 and 4 in Indiana. That is sort of like the Pennsylvania poll a couple days ago that had Obama down by 20, and then suddenly more polls came out and it turned out there was no change (6 to 8 point Clinton lead). I really am doubting this will have much immediate effect on the primaries. I don't get the feeling this is really catching on with the public like Rev. Wright or Bosnia did. Noone seems to care no matter how much the media keeps putting it back in the news.

[Matt]

It is hard to determine the accuracy of polls. Different polls can show hugely different results. It is important to remember, at the end of the day, polls are small samples of large populations. At the end of the day, the only poll that matters is the one on election day.

On a side note, I saw Bill speak today. Gotta admit, after all these years, he is still a hell of a public speaker. He hasn't swayed me to vote for Hillary, but it was still great to see a former President of this country and shake his hand. :up:

[The Senator]

Two polls today have Obama up by 6 and 4 in Indiana. That is sort of like the Pennsylvania poll a couple days ago that had Obama down by 20, and then suddenly more polls came out and it turned out there was no change (6 to 8 point Clinton lead). I really am doubting this will have much immediate effect on the primaries. I don't get the feeling this is really catching on with the public like Rev. Wright or Bosnia did. Noone seems to care no matter how much the media keeps putting it back in the news.

Yeah, but polls also had Obama up that much in Massachusetts and California... while some polls showed Clinton with a strong double-digit lead...

Also, I don't think this will affect the Democratic Primary at all, but it will affect independent, blue-collar voters in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania during the general election. John McCain won't let these comments go unnoticed, especially since the demographics Obama targeted make up a good part of those three swing states...

[The Senator]

Wait a minute... let's back up a second here. Weren't you saying not even two days ago that this was being blown way out of proportion? That you actually agreed with what he said to a certain extant? You confuse me sometimes, Jman.

Yeah, I did say that. But that doesn't mean it won't have an affect on him. There is such a thing as having an opinion and looking at a situation objectively...

[Malice]

Would it be safe to say that Penn is Clintons last hope? If she does not win by at least a 7% margin, its over for her...

[Marx]

Would it be safe to say that Penn is Clintons last hope? If she does not win by at least a 7% margin, its over for her...

Every state since Super Tuesday has been billed as "Hillary's last hope!"

[Malice]

Every state since Super Tuesday has been billed as "Hillary's last hope!"

Well it comes to numbers now...she simply cant win if she looses..
Or so I understand....
Before they are speaking from a momentum standpoint..
Now its pretty much pure mathematics...

[Marx]

Well it comes to numbers now...she simply cant win if she looses..
Or so I understand....
Before they are speaking from a momentum standpoint..
Now its pretty much pure mathematics...

While that may be true Malice, I'm still betting that this will only end at the convention. I would be very surprised otherwise.

[The Senator]

She won't lose Pennsylvania... she'll probably end up with an Ohio-sized lead... and if that happens, I don't think she'll be out before the convention. There's no way Obama can get the 2025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination, and she'll do everything she can to prevent him from making it to that magic number.

[Excel]

There is a way and I think itll happen. After a rousing big winin NC, most of the unpledged super delegates flee to Obama giving him a lead in that column as well. This makes even more come out in support of him and some leave hillary for him for the will of the party. Hillarys mysteriously announces shes gonna stop taking donations for the time being and sees through a few more states and losses in the west force her to call it quits in mid May.

[The Senator]

There is a way and I think itll happen. After a rousing big winin NC, most of the unpledged super delegates flee to Obama giving him a lead in that column as well. This makes even more come out in support of him and some leave hillary for him for the will of the party. Hillarys mysteriously announces shes gonna stop taking donations for the time being and sees through a few more states and losses in the west force her to call it quits in mid May.

The problem with your theory is that Obama has been expected to win North Carolina throughout this contest. He isn't winning a state which wasn't expected to go to him. If he wins Pennsylvania, then the race may be over sooner than expected. If he doesn't, and goes on to do what's been expected of him since mid-February, then nothing will change whatsoever. The race will continue long into the summer, probably until the convention.

[blackcobra]

Hillary is the biggest friggin liar ever. How can any of her supporters defend this.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/someone-doesnt.html

[The Senator]

Hillary is the biggest friggin liar ever. How can any of her supporters defend this.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/someone-doesnt.html

We get it, she lied about Bosnia. I'm certainly not defending her.

But, now that we're talking about "biggest friggin liars"...

How can Obama supporters defend his comments that all rural voters are racist, religious zealots? How can Obama supporters defend the fact that he takes money from lobbyists when he's run an entire campaign based on not accepting money from those people? How can Obama supporters defend his decision to hire a racist lunatic to head up his spiritual outreach program?

etc. etc....

[Zen]

Maliki's government ordered the Iraqi military operation which resulted in al-Sadr calling for a ceasefire
the ceasefire was brokered by Iran.


Now, I grant you that the approach to the war was greatly flawed for the first 4 years. But then General Petraeus took charge, made changes in strategy, suggested the surge, and it has all worked. We are moving toward victory, as the very evidence on the ground affirms.

So if we are making progress and moving toward victory, how can it then be said that there is "no foreseeable path to victory"? Do you not believe that our military can win this war?

I beleive the only way we can trully win this war is two bolster our troop strength by another 1/2

and i dont beleive we have the resources to do this, human or monetary.

untill then, progress is fragile... so fragile that we are counting a handfull of less death as progress.

al-queada-in-Iraq is less than 2-5 percent of the extremists in Iraq... to have them "on the run" all you need to do is be crafty enough to find one of them and shoot at them, if he runs away you've essentially got a good percentage of them on the run. :whatever:

oh and korea?

in south korea 33 percent think the main enemy is north Korea... while 34% think its the US. That sucks, im not saying our troops who faught in the korean war did not do there job, nor am i saying i do not support them...

i think the outcome of that is not what i want to happen in Iraq... yet McCain keeps referencing it as paragon of presence.

Just once i want to see him say something relatively intelligent about either the war or the economy. thats all i ask.

[Zen]

We get it, she lied about Bosnia. I'm certainly not defending her.

But, now that we're talking about "biggest friggin liars"...

How can Obama supporters defend his comments that all rural voters are racist, religious zealots? How can Obama supporters defend the fact that he takes money from lobbyists when he's run an entire campaign based on not accepting money from those people? How can Obama supporters defend his decision to hire a racist lunatic to head up his spiritual outreach program?

etc. etc....

while your point is valid... and let me say it again

your point is valid.

2 things, i suscribe to what Obama said in the debate last night... we have to move passed this and focus on issues. he defended clinton on the bosnia thing. whereas she clung to clawing at him.

second... your post is exagerative. period.

racist religious zealots, racist lunatic.... :word: Whoah nelly. he takes no money from federally registered lobbyists... theres many examples on the web of how certain peoples money has been turned back. with so many individual people donating i can see its hard to sift through them all when the average donation out of a a million or so people is 50-100 dollars. he recently gave back a 150,000 dollar donation cause it was from a lobbyist who wasnt registered but might as well been.

Clinton supporters are angry about Obama because he seems like he should have gone ddown in flames already, but somehow he keeps righting the ship and sailing on...

Obama supporters are angry because they think hillary should drop out at this point.

then theres folks who i completely understand... who are tired of the battle, and just want a democratic leader to emerge so they can vote cherub cheeked McCain out of the possiblity of the presidential office.

i dont think hillary should drop out, it will temper Obama if he wins, and if she wins somehow then she validates her presence either way in my book. Obama has made some serious Gaffes in my opinion... i do not think the reverend wright thing is anywhere near noteworthy when considering Obama's character... but what he said in PA was just terribly worded. he rephrased it last night and i think it helped a little... as its more clear now, but you cant erase the bitter thing. Reverend Wright has barely made a dent in his candidacy, the PA statments... he may have lost some crucial voters there, as i think he officially ended his momentum and possibility of winning that state.

Obama may come off as a shrewd politician to some, or even an elitist now... but ill take what john stewart said about elitist presidents...

after someone like bush, i want someone who is embarrasingly superior to me as president.

[blackcobra]

We get it, she lied about Bosnia. I'm certainly not defending her.

But, now that we're talking about "biggest friggin liars"...

How can Obama supporters defend his comments that all rural voters are racist, religious zealots? How can Obama supporters defend the fact that he takes money from lobbyists when he's run an entire campaign based on not accepting money from those people? How can Obama supporters defend his decision to hire a racist lunatic to head up his spiritual outreach program?

etc. etc....

He didn't say that, but what Hillary did say on that video is that she supported Nafta. That's the smoking gun in the video. Hillarys campaign, and rightwing conservatives have been making racist claims against Obama since this race started.

And plus, how can you be a member of a party that mislead us into war, How can you support a President that sat during 911 for half an hour while Americans were being burned alive. How can you support a party that brought us warrantless wire taps. How can you support a party where the president refuses to go under-oath for the 911 commission. Only innocent people do that right?

How can you support a party that has brought us GITMO, torture chambers in Abu Gharib, suspension of habeas corpus. How could you support a party that's for arresting Americans without any proof of evidence, only to be convicted by a military tribunal. Yeah, you don't won't to go there.



Those are the real issues. Not tabloid muckraking and he said she said.

[blackcobra]

Yeah, but polls also had Obama up that much in Massachusetts and California... while some polls showed Clinton with a strong double-digit lead...

Also, I don't think this will affect the Democratic Primary at all, but it will affect independent, blue-collar voters in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania during the general election. John McCain won't let these comments go unnoticed, especially since the demographics Obama targeted make up a good part of those three swing states...

The Reagan Democrats were never going to vote for Obama anyway. Obama is going for affluent voters, the Reagan Democrats continue to vote against their economic interests every election. And that's why they continue to suffer the consequences of their votes with lost jobs, open borders, and the middle class tax burden.

[Marx]

while your point is valid... and let me say it again

your point is valid.

2 things, i suscribe to what Obama said in the debate last night... we have to move passed this and focus on issues. he defended clinton on the bosnia thing. whereas she clung to clawing at him.

second... your post is exagerative. period.

racist religious zealots, racist lunatic.... :word: Whoah nelly. he takes no money from federally registered lobbyists... theres many examples on the web of how certain peoples money has been turned back. with so many individual people donating i can see its hard to sift through them all when the average donation out of a a million or so people is 50-100 dollars. he recently gave back a 150,000 dollar donation cause it was from a lobbyist who wasnt registered but might as well been.

Clinton supporters are angry about Obama because he seems like he should have gone ddown in flames already, but somehow he keeps righting the ship and sailing on...

Obama supporters are angry because they think hillary should drop out at this point.

then theres folks who i completely understand... who are tired of the battle, and just want a democratic leader to emerge so they can vote cherub cheeked McCain out of the possiblity of the presidential office.

i dont think hillary should drop out, it will temper Obama if he wins, and if she wins somehow then she validates her presence either way in my book. Obama has made some serious Gaffes in my opinion... i do not think the reverend wright thing is anywhere near noteworthy when considering Obama's character... but what he said in PA was just terribly worded. he rephrased it last night and i think it helped a little... as its more clear now, but you cant erase the bitter thing. Reverend Wright has barely made a dent in his candidacy, the PA statments... he may have lost some crucial voters there, as i think he officially ended his momentum and possibility of winning that state.

Obama may come off as a shrewd politician to some, or even an elitist now... but ill take what john stewart said about elitist presidents...

after someone like bush, i want someone who is embarrasingly superior to me as president.

1. Jman's post isn't an exaggeration. Period.

2. Obama does in fact take lobbyist money. So before blindly claimly otherwise, read the article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm?se=yahoorefer

3. Obama supporters feel the same way about Clinton that you just described. Obama's supporters are frustrated because Clinton just won't quit. Well Zen, why should she? She continues to win when she needs to and still holds about half the democratic electorate in supporters. Do you really think telling half of the democratic electorate to lie down is democratic? I didn't think so.

4. Reverend Wright has affected Obama's campaign. To suggest otherwise tells me that you must not be paying attention. Obama is losing more and more independent and republican swing voter support with each passing misstatement and controvery. That's a fact. And that fact will hurt him in the GE assuming he gains the nomination first.

He didn't say that, but what Hillary did say on that video is that she supported Nafta. That's the smoking gun in the video. Hillarys campaign, and rightwing conservatives have been making racist claims against Obama since this race started.

And plus, how can you be a member of a party that mislead us into war, How can you support a President that sat during 911 for half an hour while Americans were being burned alive. How can you support a party that brought us warrantless wire taps. How can you support a party where the president refuses to go under-oath for the 911 commission. Only innocent people do that right?

How can you support a party that has brought us GITMO, torture chambers in Abu Gharib, suspension of habeas corpus. How could you support a party that's for arresting Americans without any proof of evidence, only to be convicted by a military tribunal. Yeah, you don't won't to go there.



Those are the real issues. Not tabloid muckraking and he said she said.

1. Hillary's campaign has not made racist comments. Have they said some things they should not have said in certain ways? Yes. But I'm sick to death of people labeling anyone as a racist because they say anything against Obama or question his background! It is not racist to question how someone got to be where they are. It is a conversation that we should be having. Unfortunately, anyone who doesn't seem to support him MUST be some kind of racist. Give me a break. :whatever:

2. Obama has done just as much "He said, she said" as Clinton. He has played just as dirty. Obama is no saint, I don't care how eloquent the speech. He is no different from any other politician out there, regardless of his claims otherwise.

[Marx]

Yeah, I did say that. But that doesn't mean it won't have an affect on him. There is such a thing as having an opinion and looking at a situation objectively...

Very few Obama supporters that I have seen or know look at anything involving him...objectively.

[Excel]

The problem with your theory is that Obama has been expected to win North Carolina throughout this contest. He isn't winning a state which wasn't expected to go to him. If he wins Pennsylvania, then the race may be over sooner than expected. If he doesn't, and goes on to do what's been expected of him since mid-February, then nothing will change whatsoever. The race will continue long into the summer, probably until the convention.

Jman, people just want this to end. NC win will make it LITERALLY impossible for her to within 150 delegartes of him. Same way there were rumors of supers fleeing to him after a big state win of texas or ohio, it will happen if he wins pennsyvania, and if not then, itll happen when he wins NC. Its not so much expectations or state size...they just want the friggin thing to end. Its far too clear to too many people that Obama will win and they just want it over. When its pretty clear who the winner will be, theres no point in dragging it on another 4 months. Thats the logic many are using and they are just waiting tomake a large, mass movement.

[Marx]

Jman, people just want this to end. NC win will make it LITERALLY impossible for her to within 150 delegartes of him. Same way there were rumors of supers fleeing to him after a big state win of texas or ohio, it will happen if he wins pennsyvania, and if not then, itll happen when he wins NC. Its not so much expectations or state size...they just want the friggin thing to end. Its far too clear to too many people that Obama will win and they just want it over. When its pretty clear who the winner will be, theres no point in dragging it on another 4 months. Thats the logic many are using and they are just waiting tomake a large, mass movement.

Obama has not won any state that he wasn't expected to Ex. That's the thing. Regardless of how much longer this back and forth goes, it is obvious that both candidates still have a very large and committed base. Are people tired of it being dragged out? Yes. But both candidates still have valid arguments for the nomination. It's true that Hillary cannot win in pledged delegates. I think the whole contest has moved beyond that now. It is going to come down to Supers, and more than likely at the convention. And with all of the misstatements and controversies surrounding Obama, I wouldn't be so sure that the Supers will "flock" to him just to end this. They are going to go with whoever they feel their best option is to win the GE and who can do the most for them.

[Excel]

Yes they will. A rousing 15% win in North Carolina, a real ass-beating in a large state with over 100 delegates, will be so damn damaging for her press. At this point, many supers on the fence will go to him, which will cause even mroe on fence/undecided supers to go to him as well. There will be clinching of 2,025. He'll have a pledged delegate lead of close to 200 and a lead in supers as well, and thats when itl end. Her argument for the past 2 months has been shell win via supers and when she loses the lead in supers that she has had for ever, itll be symbollic. The press wil runaway with how Obama now leads her amongst the only hope she had to win. Her people will tell her flatly it wont work, and amongst defeaning calls to quit and bad press, shell graciously bow out.

[Kelly]

Excel, a good spell check on that post, would do a lot to give credibility.....wow...... *winks*

[The Senator]

He didn't say that, but what Hillary did say on that video is that she supported Nafta. That's the smoking gun in the video. Hillarys campaign, and rightwing conservatives have been making racist claims against Obama since this race started.

And plus, how can you be a member of a party that mislead us into war, How can you support a President that sat during 911 for half an hour while Americans were being burned alive. How can you support a party that brought us warrantless wire taps. How can you support a party where the president refuses to go under-oath for the 911 commission. Only innocent people do that right?

How can you support a party that has brought us GITMO, torture chambers in Abu Gharib, suspension of habeas corpus. How could you support a party that's for arresting Americans without any proof of evidence, only to be convicted by a military tribunal. Yeah, you don't won't to go there.



Those are the real issues. Not tabloid muckraking and he said she said.

I truly hope you did not just imply that I was a member of the Republican party...

[Kelly]

Lmao.......:lmao::applaud

[The Senator]

Yes they will. A rousing 15% win in North Carolina, a real ass-beating in a large state with over 100 delegates, will be so damn damaging for her press. At this point, many supers on the fence will go to him, which will cause even mroe on fence/undecided supers to go to him as well. There will be clinching of 2,025. He'll have a pledged delegate lead of close to 200 and a lead in supers as well, and thats when itl end. Her argument for the past 2 months has been shell win via supers and when she loses the lead in supers that she has had for ever, itll be symbollic. The press wil runaway with how Obama now leads her amongst the only hope she had to win. Her people will tell her flatly it wont work, and amongst defeaning calls to quit and bad press, shell graciously bow out.

Sigh... I have to use the big font again...

Hillary has been expected to lose NC since February!

She has been consistently behind or tied with Obama since the Potomac Primary on February 12. Her campaign has pretty much avoided the state because they know she is going to lose it. North Carolina is not the be all, end all. There are a few states left after North Carolina, the most prominent being Indiana, which she may very well win. There's no way she's going to drop out before all the contests are decided. Why would she drop out when she's come so far? Why would she drop out when Obama won't have 2025 delegates one way or another?

She's not going to let this go because the media will kiss Obama's ass like they always do. Not. At. All.

[The Senator]

The Reagan Democrats were never going to vote for Obama anyway. Obama is going for affluent voters, the Reagan Democrats continue to vote against their economic interests every election. And that's why they continue to suffer the consequences of their votes with lost jobs, open borders, and the middle class tax burden.

I wasn't talking about Reagan Democrats. I was talking about swing voters-- the voters who don't make up their minds until long after the primary contests are decided and the general election is only a few weeks away. These are the people who don't decide who they're voting for until a week or so before the election, who may say one day "I'm voting for Obama" but support McCain two days later. Obama can't afford to make gaffes like this, especially when those gaffes target the voters who make or break Presidential elections in these crucial swing states.

[Mr Sparkle]

Ugh, Sparkle. Must you disagree with everything I say? While some do cling to "guns and religion," the vast majority do not. The broad generalization that Obama made is inaccurate.

I'll disagree with you every time I think your statements are wrong.
:huh: I mean, I don't go like " I don't agree with him, but I have disagreed the last ten times, so I better break tradition this time"

[Lightning Strykez!]

Not really.

Basically 70% of Hillary's campaign has been about attacking Obama. Obama's made some remarks about McCain and Clinton, but not nearly to the same extent that Hillary and Bill have.

Don't bother. I gave up trying to reason with Marx and Matt a long time ago.

We all know that Obama has worked hard to take the "higher" road throughout this campaign and he NEVER has dug into Hillary's past to give the Republican's ammo. Ever. He has treated her with dignity and respect--which she has not reciprocated...unless by force of arms. I will give him credit for that--he's tried to stick to the issues, not the pettiness.

Anyway. Objectivity around here is a dying art...so... :rolleyes:

[Marx]

Don't bother. I gave up trying to reason with Marx and Matt a long time ago.

We all know that Obama has worked hard to take the "higher" road throughout this campaign and he NEVER has dug into Hillary's past to give the Republican's ammo. Ever. He has treated her with dignity and respect--which she has not reciprocated...unless by force of arms. I will give him credit for that--he's tried to stick to the issues, not the pettiness.

Anyway. Objectivity around here is a dying art...so... :rolleyes:

But I love our conversations Lightning! :oldrazz: As for the second thing, I wouldn't exactly call grossly misrepresenting her positions on issues in the form of deceptive mailers in my state "taking the high road."

[Lightning Strykez!]

But I love our conversations Lightning! :oldrazz: As for the second thing, I wouldn't exactly call grossly misrepresenting her positions on issues in the form of deceptive mailers in my state "taking the high road."

I love them too. :)

And deceptive mailers to a few hundred people are nothing compared to the accusations of incompetence, plagiarism, Islamic ties--not to mention 3AM scare tactics...basically whatever would stick that Hillary has launched against him. She has tried very, VERY hard to assassinate his character before the country. Can you say the same for him? Honestly?

Do you realize that not even Huckabee or Romney treated McCain (or eachother) this harshly? That's why they can come together now. Hillary and Obama cannot and neither will their supporters. It's called "bloodied".

[Marx]

I love them too. :)

And deceptive mailers to a few hundred people are nothing compared to the accusations of incompetence, plagiarism, Islamic ties--basically whatever would stick that Hillary has launched against him. She has tried very, VERY hard to assassinate his character before the country. Can you say the same for him? Honestly?

I don't see how you guys could even compare the two of them.

All Matt and I are trying to say is that he isn't the innocent "messiah" that some would like to believe. He pulls underhanded tactics just like she does. Has she thrown the "kitchen sink" at him? Maybe, but it could be alot worse. And it will get worse, assuming he gains the nomination, and McCain and RSM get ahold of him.

[Marx]

Do you realize that not even Huckabee or Romney treated McCain (or eachother) this harshly? That's why they can come together now. Hillary and Obama cannot and neither will their supporters. It's called "bloodied".

It may not have gotten this bad between them, but it did get fairly critical and harsh. Had the Republican race lasted as long as the Democratic one, I gurantee you that it would be very similiar in tone.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Had the Republican race lasted as long as the Democratic one, I gurantee you that it would be very similiar in tone.

Ah, but see the Republicans actually CARE about the wellbeing of its party--and are willing to put aside their own ambitions for its success in November. They are actually focused on WINNING the GE. In other words, they didn't WANT things to get this bad and distract from the main focus.

The same cannot be said on the Democratic side. We are dealing with folks who are suffering from a disease known as "entitlement." :whatever: