"They're Attacking Me Because I'm White!"

[Matt]

Matt, It seems like on the one hand you don't like him because he's too liberal, when I also remember you attacking him for taking too conservative a stance where it regards big business. [RandomLocalHackNewscaster]Which is it, Councilman?[/RandomLocalHackNewscaster]

It depends on the issue, my friend.

For example, his proposed law forcing corporations to make shareholders vote on certain things each year is a bit too liberal and crosses the boundries of the public and private sector far too greatly.

His wanting to allow the UN to tax US citizens is ridiculously too liberal.

On the other hand, he is far too conservative on issues that actually affect the middle class. His letter urging President Bush to not even consider getting rid of the 54 cent ethanol tariff that would in turn cause gas prices to drop 54 cents. His support of expanding free trade is too conservative. He can call it "fair trade" all he wants. The fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as "fair trade." The humane standards that are required in fair trade are pretty much just dog and pony shows, while continuing to allow their workers to work for ridiculously cheap wages and in horrible conditions. Why wouldn't a corporation pack up and move over seas when they aren't going to have to pay tariffs and then can exploit workers?

There is room for both conservative and liberal ideals. Both get it right sometimes. Neither side is 100 % right. Unfortunately it seems like Senator Obama takes the wrong stances from the conservative side and the wrong stances from the liberal side and molds them together.

 

[Matt]

No you did not just....




If you haven't noticed, there is a pattern here with stuff like this--and it's timed in accordance with each primary where the white vote is substantial. For example:

It was Bill making the race comments in South Carolina--complete with the original "Jesse Jackson" comment (Jesse Jackson is another polarizing figure that isn't exactly loved by the white community BTW).

I'll give you that one.

It's Hillary's "half-truth" that Obama is not a Muslim "as far she knows."

Hillary says "as far as I know" any time she addresses anything about Obama. After all, she cannot speak for him. Obama has used the "As far as I know" line when addressing Clinton's stance on NAFTA and health care. Granted, it is a bad topic to use it on, but what do you expect her to do? Stand up and defend her opponent?

It's Hillary saying Obama has nothing to offer but a speech from 2002.

It's Hillary saying John McCain and her are ready to be president but not Obama.

Neither of these have anything to do with race but are attacking him on the issues. One of the biggest critiques of Obama is his lack of a record, thus the nothing to offer comment. The McCain thing was a commentary on his experience (or lack there of).

It's Hillary saying that only the states she's won count.

Thats true though. Obama is winning in traditional Republican strong hold states that will not carry over to the general election. When you have a state that is 75 % Republican, it really doesn't matter if you win by a landslide in the primary of the state's 25 % Democrats as the 75 % of Republicans are still going to overwhelm you in November. Again though, it is a valid attack that has nothing to do with race.

And now we've got her cohorts injecting comments that are sure to piss off anti-affirmative action nuts before the Penn. primary. Surely you can see the rhyme and reason with all of this Matt. It was DESIGNED to be blown out of proportion--and it's intent is to damage Obama. Can't you see that?

Firstly, it wasn't designed to attack. Ferarro was responding to a question. This was not even a Hillary speaking event she said it at. It was an engagment that she was paid to speak at. A private event. A local newspaper ran this story. No one caught on to it until it was leaked to a national newspaper (can't remember which). If you think for a second Obama's staff did not have a hand in that, you're crazy. And that in turn, is blowing things out of porportion. To call Ferarro a racist is absurd. She has been one of the most active civil and human rights crusaders of the past 40 years.

 

[Matt]

Hes fostered bills with Lugar, worked with coburn on ethics bill, Senator dillard (R) says republicans respected him and his negotiation skills. worked with McCain on the secure america and immigration act.

hes stated publicly that he plans on puttin republicans in his cabinet such as Hagel and lugar.

his tone helps to, if it stays the way it is... he does not disenfranchize republican law makers...

"You know, very rarely do you hear me talking about my opponents without giving them some credit for having good intentions and being decent people," he said. "I think that I would explicitly reach out to disaffected Republicans and remind them of some of their traditions. I mean, there's nothing uniquely Democratic about a respect for civil liberties. There's nothing uniquely Democratic about believing in a foreign policy of restraint. You know, a lot of the virtues I talk about are virtues that are deeply embedded in the Republican Party.... The Democrats don't have the monopoly on wisdom, but we have to make some sharp breaks from the failed administration policies of the past."

no one else is talking like this. i understand it is just that... talk, but this perception helps.

theres articles about him organizing basketball games and poker games with republicans and democrats in the state senate. all of his colleagues praise him as someone who is easy to work with.

and then i think a case can be made that he is a transformational figure. i think he is not nearly as divisive as clinton, the history his election would make would foster an atmosphere of cooperation in my opinion.

i think republicans do like him. there certainly are alot of republican voters who do, and i do not remember seeing specific instances of republicans disliking him for valid reasons besides his candiacy. everything i've seen is positive.

I can see it Matt, perhaps i am blinded a bit by a bias that has slowly crept over me since last november... Perhaps. but i do not think it is accurate to say he has no experience in reaching across party lines, or that there is no perception that he can.

granted it is said he has an extremely liberal voting record, im not going to balk at reality here... but i see him working with everyone. hes not tied to special interests and hes a unique character the likes we may have never seen. change can be fostered in such an arena.

Any nominee can promise it, and they do... i think his cantor in this campaign, his history of working well with others and his historic candiacy will force change if he will, and i think he will.

Firstly, in regards to the bills he sponsored, its not really a fair assessment of how he can cross party lines. Every Senator has a few bills here and there that are bipartisan and co-sponsored by someone from both parties. They are usually harmless, ineffective bills that are more symbolic than anything. Things like "Flags for war widows" that no one can vote against. Obama's seems to be no exception. Granted, they are not as extremely soft as my example, but they are still relatively harmless.

I think the only candidate who can really make that claim ("I can reach across party lines") based on his record, is John McCain. He has done several bills that actually took balls to co-sponsor with Democrats. The type that can cost you your support within the Senate and make you sort of a lame duck senator. Things like campaign finance reform and going against the Republican majority to negotiate a way to get the nuclear option off of the table.

I am sure Republicans like Obama to play basketball or cards with. He is a likable guy, no doubt. That doesn't mean when it comes down to policies they are suddenly going to flip and say "Well, he's a nice guy, so let me vote for his incredibly liberal agenda!"

And it doesn't matter if he is really liberal or not. The fact is he is a percieved on and as you've said, perception is everything. Republican congressmen and senators are not going to risk pissing off their Republican constituents by falling in line behind a president that everyone percieves as a nutjob liberal. Same with Hillary. I doubt either can cross party lines very effectively.

 

[jaguarr]

Matt, It seems like on the one hand you don't like him because he's too liberal, when I also remember you attacking him for taking too conservative a stance where it regards big business. [RandomLocalHackNewscaster]Which is it, Councilman?[/RandomLocalHackNewscaster]

Matt does not need a reason to hate Barack Obama with the blazing, white hot heat of a thousand suns! How DARE you try to make him give you one!

jag

 

[rdh007]

It depends on the issue, my friend.

For example, his proposed law forcing corporations to make shareholders vote on certain things each year is a bit too liberal and crosses the boundries of the public and private sector far too greatly.

His wanting to allow the UN to tax US citizens is ridiculously too liberal.

On the other hand, he is far too conservative on issues that actually affect the middle class. His letter urging President Bush to not even consider getting rid of the 54 cent ethanol tariff that would in turn cause gas prices to drop 54 cents. His support of expanding free trade is too conservative. He can call it "fair trade" all he wants. The fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as "fair trade." The humane standards that are required in fair trade are pretty much just dog and pony shows, while continuing to allow their workers to work for ridiculously cheap wages and in horrible conditions. Why wouldn't a corporation pack up and move over seas when they aren't going to have to pay tariffs and then can exploit workers?

There is room for both conservative and liberal ideals. Both get it right sometimes. Neither side is 100 % right. Unfortunately it seems like Senator Obama takes the wrong stances from the conservative side and the wrong stances from the liberal side and molds them together.

Fair 'nuff. Thanks.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Matt, since when it nuclear proliferation a soft issue?

 

[Matt]

Matt, since when it nuclear proliferation a soft issue?

Because at the end of the day, what did that bill actually do? Zilch. Like I said, either soft or ineffective figure head bills.

 

[Matt]

Matt does not need a reason to hate Barack Obama with the blazing, white hot heat of a thousand suns! How DARE you try to make him give you one!

jag

I actually gave a reason. Jag, when McCain wins the white house, can't we just go back to the way things were where we both just bash the president mercilessly? :heart:

 

[sinewave]

Hes fostered bills with Lugar, worked with coburn on ethics bill, Senator dillard (R) says republicans respected him and his negotiation skills. worked with McCain on the secure america and immigration act.

hes stated publicly that he plans on puttin republicans in his cabinet such as Hagel and lugar.

his tone helps to, if it stays the way it is... he does not disenfranchize republican law makers...

"You know, very rarely do you hear me talking about my opponents without giving them some credit for having good intentions and being decent people," he said. "I think that I would explicitly reach out to disaffected Republicans and remind them of some of their traditions. I mean, there's nothing uniquely Democratic about a respect for civil liberties. There's nothing uniquely Democratic about believing in a foreign policy of restraint. You know, a lot of the virtues I talk about are virtues that are deeply embedded in the Republican Party.... The Democrats don't have the monopoly on wisdom, but we have to make some sharp breaks from the failed administration policies of the past."

no one else is talking like this. i understand it is just that... talk, but this perception helps.

theres articles about him organizing basketball games and poker games with republicans and democrats in the state senate. all of his colleagues praise him as someone who is easy to work with.

and then i think a case can be made that he is a transformational figure. i think he is not nearly as divisive as clinton, the history his election would make would foster an atmosphere of cooperation in my opinion.

i think republicans do like him. there certainly are alot of republican voters who do, and i do not remember seeing specific instances of republicans disliking him for valid reasons besides his candiacy. everything i've seen is positive.

I can see it Matt, perhaps i am blinded a bit by a bias that has slowly crept over me since last november... Perhaps. but i do not think it is accurate to say he has no experience in reaching across party lines, or that there is no perception that he can.

granted it is said he has an extremely liberal voting record, im not going to balk at reality here... but i see him working with everyone. hes not tied to special interests and hes a unique character the likes we may have never seen. change can be fostered in such an arena.

Any nominee can promise it, and they do... i think his cantor in this campaign, his history of working well with others and his historic candiacy will force change if he will, and i think he will.

excellent post!

Hillary says "as far as I know" any time she addresses anything about Obama. After all, she cannot speak for him. Obama has used the "As far as I know" line when addressing Clinton's stance on NAFTA and health care. Granted, it is a bad topic to use it on, but what do you expect her to do? Stand up and defend her opponent?

are you serious? you have to know what kind of xenophobia that kind of crap can inspire in people. with the history of false accusations regarding his religious preference and upbringing including briefly attending a madrassa as a child, that kind of sly implication is definitely calculated, especially considering the source.

Thats true though. Obama is winning in traditional Republican strong hold states that will not carry over to the general election. When you have a state that is 75 % Republican, it really doesn't matter if you win by a landslide in the primary of the state's 25 % Democrats as the 75 % of Republicans are still going to overwhelm you in November. Again though, it is a valid attack that has nothing to do with race.

it's not necessarily true. just because he's not winning the democratic primaries in those states doesn't mean he wouldn't win them in the general election (GE). we've seen proof that he can rally people behind his cause in ways unseen since the kennedy era. i see no reason why he couldn't win the popular vote in most of the states that clinton won in the primaries.

 

[Zen]

Firstly, in regards to the bills he sponsored, its not really a fair assessment of how he can cross party lines. Every Senator has a few bills here and there that are bipartisan and co-sponsored by someone from both parties. They are usually harmless, ineffective bills that are more symbolic than anything. Things like "Flags for war widows" that no one can vote against. Obama's seems to be no exception. Granted, they are not as extremely soft as my example, but they are still relatively harmless.

well, like i said... i could be blinded by some bias and be cought up in the hype. but i think nuclear proliferation is a relatively solid issue, i think ethics is an issue with teeth. and as for the standing lunch rule... its really not as bad as everyone makes out... sitting and eating is much more luxurous at restaurants than it is at a hotdog stand or take-away joint. i havn't seen much lobbying being done with lunch-time 4 star quality takeout, but hey... im open to the possibility that it happens. without digressing further i would point out that his "soft" stance is hardened when focused under the lens of tenure... sure, criticize him for not having enough experience... but for half a senate term and having already touched those issues with those people.... you gotta give the guy credit. I'm not sure how much more he would temper himself with more experience... so im going with hope, that hes ready now... and we don't have to wait for him to mature further. i dont think his accomplishments in bi-partisanship are soft when examined under the light of tenure. i think hes doing exceptionallly well.

I think the only candidate who can really make that claim ("I can reach across party lines") based on his record, is John McCain. He has done several bills that actually took balls to co-sponsor with Democrats. The type that can cost you your support within the Senate and make you sort of a lame duck senator. Things like campaign finance reform and going against the Republican majority to negotiate a way to get the nuclear option off of the table.

I'll hand it to McCain, the guy did reach across the aisle in ways that are certainly laudable. but the mans foreign policy (despite the troop surge numbing effect) is antique and absolutely disasterous for our economy, an area where he has said himself he has little experience on... In a few more months people are going to seriously eyeball economics much more then they are now, and they will tie the war to economics, and McCain will loose this battle... if this Campaign were solely based on reaching across the aisle i would vote this guy in, but when i factor it all in... i think Obama has a better aproach on more things, and as for reaching across the aisle... will be able to do it better than hillary. I can't debate with you whether or not hes the best candidate ever... because i happen to agree with you on many of your points concerning his experience (to a point ) among other things. but out of the field of candidates up on the stage, i make my choice among them... and hes the better of the three. and i believe he will reach past party divides. Hopefully as well as McCain has. Heck... if he threw McCain in his cabinet after the election, that would be a cohesive move across all walks of the political sphere except for hardcore conservatives, who lets face it... are loosing ground politically.

I am sure Republicans like Obama to play basketball or cards with. He is a likable guy, no doubt. That doesn't mean when it comes down to policies they are suddenly going to flip and say "Well, he's a nice guy, so let me vote for his incredibly liberal agenda!"

And it doesn't matter if he is really liberal or not. The fact is he is a percieved on and as you've said, perception is everything. Republican congressmen and senators are not going to risk pissing off their Republican constituents by falling in line behind a president that everyone percieves as a nutjob liberal. Same with Hillary. I doubt either can cross party lines very
effectively.

i would submit that you underestimate the effect of hob-nobbery in politics, especially between political characters opposed on ideology. to reach a comprimise (which is what im expecting, not liberal domination) its relatively important to be able to relate to your adversary on other levels when reaching an agreement. plus if Obama wins with the sort of popular response some would predict in the national elections... it would not be hard to acquiesce a bit and comprimise with the man who invigorates millions of people to vote for the first time. The countries realignment to the left (and this could be another debate ) is devaluing hardcore conservative views on certain things. i doubt sacred cows like abortion and gay marriage will be touched... but everything else is on the table, and very doable with the right people, willing to talk... possibly shoot some god damn hoops together, why the hell not... or cards, you know... if your into cigars and cant control the rock.

i gotta hand it to you though, you make me think... which is what true debate is about.

 

[Zen]

I actually gave a reason. Jag, when McCain wins the white house, can't we just go back to the way things were where we both just bash the president mercilessly? :heart:

i think our first obligation as national citizens is to vote in the one (out of the available 3) we beleive we would bash the least... and then commence to Bashin

if you believe McCain is that guy, then i accept that.

 

[Matt]

excellent post!



are you serious? you have to know what kind of xenophobia that kind of crap can inspire in people. with the history of false accusations regarding his religious preference and upbringing including briefly attending a madrassa as a child, that kind of sly implication is definitely calculated, especially considering the source.

Xenophobia or not, why should she go out there and defend her opponent? Do you expect Barack Obama to hold a news conference where he says "Hey, lets quit saying that Hillary is only where she is because of her husband,"? Is it low, sure. But its politics.

it's not necessarily true. just because he's not winning the democratic primaries in those states doesn't mean he wouldn't win them in the general election (GE). we've seen proof that he can rally people behind his cause in ways unseen since the kennedy era. i see no reason why he couldn't win the popular vote in most of the states that clinton won in%2

2 % can make all the difference in the world as 2004 and 2000 proved. He isn't going to win Republican strong holds like Georgia and Texas, no matter how well he does in the primary. That is common sense.

And just for the record, I read your post prior to your edit. It may be a sad commentary on society, but is it really any different than you saying something like "All Republicans are evil." I don't necessarily buy into the "nut job liberal" thing, but it is something you have to look at, as it is a prevelant train of thought in our society on BOTH sides of the aisle.

 

[Matt]

i gotta hand it to you though, you make me think... which is what true
debate is about.

I appreciate that and feel the same towards you. Its been awhile since I've gotten a good debate on here that has actually made me think.

Well Zen, while I believe Obama's bills show potential, as of now they don't really have the teeth necessary to do much. Could that change? Sure, but I am forced to wonder, if he does try to make them more powerful, will he have the same bipartisan support? It is a fine line to walk. If he does win the presidency it will definitely be interesting to watch and see how it plays out.

As for McCain, yeah, I too think the guy is a nut job in regards to foreign policy and the economy. I have no doubt that Obama is less polarizing than Hillary as well. However, I think, a McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress is probably the best combination for bipartisan work. That is simply when considering all three candidates records. Although, the way McCain has been pandering to the neo-cons does worry me.

At the end of the day, you're probably right that I under-estimate the effects playing basketball or poker can have. As they say, most business is done on the golf course. Why should politics be any different?

 

[Matt]

i think our first obligation as national citizens is to vote in the one (out of the available 3) we beleive we would bash the least... and then commence to Bashin

if you believe McCain is that guy, then i accept that.

McCain's not my guy. I'm probably voting Nader or writing in Mickey Mouse or something I voted for a candidate whom I did not agree with or believe in, strictly based on party, 4 years ago when I voted John Kerry and I will never do that again.

 

[Malice]

One thing I do know...Obama has been let off easy because he is black.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Because at the end of the day, what did that bill actually do? Zilch. Like I said, either soft or ineffective figure head bills.

You can't blame him for passing serious legislation and then other powers-that-be ignoring it. If you want fluff legislation, Hillary's the queen of it. Bunch of memorials and commendations. McCain's a typical do as I say, not as I do legislator. He comes up with campaign finance reform legislation, and then turns around doing sleazy stuff with his donor's names in order to get a loan for campaign finance.

 

[sinewave]

Xenophobia or not, why should she go out there and defend her opponent? Do you expect Barack Obama to hold a news conference where he says "Hey, lets quit saying that Hillary is only where she is because of her husband,"? Is it low, sure. But its politics.

oh come on. it'd be one thing if there were a shred of truth to it, but there isn't and she knows it. he's said again and again that he's a practicing christian. for her to pretend otherwise it extremely dirty, in my book. that's definitely a republican tactic that she should be above, but obviously she isn't. are you seriously defending that? are you that biased?

2 % can make all the difference in the world as 2004 and 2000 proved. He isn't going to win Republican strong holds like Georgia and Texas, no matter how well he does in the primary. That is common sense.

there is no common sense in this election. it's unprecedented. he's pulling in 90% of the black vote. if they turn out in the GE like they did in the primaries, that'll be a huge boon to him, especially in states like georgia, with a large black community. that's a big if, especially with the black community taking offense to all the racially charged mudslinging going on right now. still, obama appeals to such a wide range of groups, i don't think anything is completely out of the question.

And just for the record, I read your post prior to your edit. It may be a sad commentary on society, but is it really any different than you saying something like "All Republicans are evil." I don't necessarily buy into the "nut job liberal" thing, but it is something you have to look at, as it is a prevelant train of thought in our society on BOTH sides of the aisle.

i was trying to type that response quickly before going to lunch and i accidentally deleted a couple of paragraphs that i wish i hadn't. it's completely different than me someone saying "all republicans are evil", which i've never said and i'd appreciate it if you, as a mod, would grow up and stop putting words in my mouth. you honestly don't see how conservatism is embraced but liberalism is denigrated in our society? seriously? you can't see the double-standard? i've got nothing else to say to you if that's the case.

edit: that previous post of mine was butchered. that's not my "2%" at the end. a bunch of stuff was cut off.

 

[jaguarr]

I actually gave a reason. Jag, when McCain wins the white house, can't we just go back to the way things were where we both just bash the president mercilessly? :heart:

I've actually kind of developed a taste for bashing you.

jag

 

[The Senator]

oh come on. it'd be one thing if there were a shred of truth to it, but there isn't and she knows it. he's said again and again that he's a practicing christian. for her to pretend otherwise it extremely dirty, in my book. that's definitely a republican tactic that she should be above, but obviously she isn't.

Hillary Clinton isn't pretending that he's a Muslim, though. She's acknowledged time and time again that he's a practicing Christian, and she's denounced the emails sent by staffers on her campaign or photos from campaign associates which hint otherwise. Everyone seems to be viewing how campaigns work as black and white (no offense) issues: If a staffer does something, it's automatically the candidate's fault. Hillary and Obama have thousands-- maybe hundreds of thousands-- of people working for them. They can't control what every staffer says or does. They can't predict what they will say. If an employee pisses on a hamburger at Burger King, is it Burger King's fault that the employee did that? No. That was the action of the employee, and that employee suffers the consequences, though the corporation may suffer in the process. I'm sure Burger King didn't want their employees to piss in their food and serve it... just like Hillary Clinton didn't want her stupid staffers to send out emails claiming that Obama studied at a Madrassa.

Hillary Clinton does not think these things, nor does she endorse them. She's proven this by firing everyone who has gone out of their way to send images, emails, etc. which hint otherwise.

there is no common sense in this election. it's unprecedented. he's pulling in 90% of the black vote. if they turn out in the GE like they did in the primaries, that'll be a huge boon to him, especially in states like georgia, with a large black community. that's a big if, especially with the black community taking offense to all the racially charged mudslinging going on right now. still, obama appeals to such a wide range of groups, i don't think anything is completely out of the question.

You seem to forget how disproportionate the parties are represented in Georgia. There are more registered Republicans than there are Democrats, and most of the African Americans who voted were Democrats to begin with. I think Georgia will be close... but I also think it's a bit naive to think that Obama will win states like Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana simply because they have a huge African American population. I think he'll come close in Georgia, maybe Mississippi... but I don't expect him to win.

The only reason Clinton was able to win some of these deep Southern states was because Perot split the Republican vote. Clinton barely made it above 40% in LA and GA.

 

[sinewave]

Hillary Clinton isn't pretending that he's a Muslim, though. She's acknowledged time and time again that he's a practicing Christian, and she's denounced the emails sent by staffers on her campaign or photos from campaign associates which hint otherwise. Everyone seems to be viewing how campaigns work as black and white (no offense) issues: If a staffer does something, it's automatically the candidate's fault. Hillary and Obama have thousands-- maybe hundreds of thousands-- of people working for them. They can't control what every staffer says or does. They can't predict what they will say. If an employee pisses on a hamburger at Burger King, is it Burger King's fault that the employee did that? No. That was the action of the employee, and that employee suffers the consequences, though the corporation may suffer in the process. I'm sure Burger King didn't want their employees to piss in their food and serve it... just like Hillary Clinton didn't want her stupid staffers to send out emails claiming that Obama studied at a Madrassa.

Hillary Clinton does not think these things, nor does she endorse them. She's proven this by firing everyone who has gone out of their way to send images, emails, etc. which hint otherwise.

you've mistaken my comments. they weren't directed at her staffer's comments. i was referring to the interview where she was asked if obama was a muslim and at first she said she doesn't believe he is, and then thew in that "as far as i know" statement, which many see as a sort of mischievous, backhanded implication. maybe it's being blown out of proportion, but with someone as calculating and articulate as she is, there's always going to be that hint of doubt that says it might have been intentional.

You seem to forget how disproportionate the parties are represented in Georgia. There are more registered Republicans than there are Democrats, and most of the African Americans who voted were Democrats to begin with. I thing Georgia will be close... but I also think it's a bit naive to think that Obama will win states like Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana simply because they have a huge African American population. I think he'll come close in Georgia, maybe Mississippi... but I don't expect him to win.

The only reason Clinton was able to win some of these deep Southern states was because Perot split the Republican vote. Clinton barely made it above 40% in LA and GA.

again, i never said he'd win them, just that you can't rule it out. please don't mischaracterize my statements.

 

[The Senator]

you've mistaken my comments. they weren't directed at her staffer's comments. i was referring to the interview where she was asked if obama was a muslim and at first she said she doesn't believe he is, and then thew in that "as far as i know" statement, which many see as a sort of mischievous, backhanded implication. maybe it's being blown out of proportion, but with someone as calculating and articulate as she is, there's always going to be that hint of doubt that says it might have been intentional.

Well, as far as I knew last week, Eliot Spitzer was adamantly against prostitution rings in New York state and did everything in his power to dismantle their operations when he was Attorney General.

She said he wasn't a Muslim... as far as she knew... which doesn't translate to "as far as I know, he's a Muslim." I don't think she intended to hint at anything else... politicians have a way of trying to use as many words as they possibly can sometimes, regardless of whether they add any depth to the sentence. This was one of those cases, I'm sure.

again, i never said he'd win them, just that you can't rule it out. please don't mischaracterize my statements.

I didn't mischaracterize your statements... I added my thoughts on whether he'd win Georgia or any other deep red state like the media has been claiming he will as of late. A lot of folks seem to think he'll make those states competitive, but they're only looking at primary turnout and African American populations as an indicator. I see GA and MS being close... maybe in the 5-10% range... but I don't think Obama will be able to come out on top.

 

[sinewave]

I didn't mischaracterize your statements... I added my thoughts on whether he'd win Georgia or any other deep red state like the media has been claiming he will as of late. A lot of folks seem to think he'll make those states competitive, but they're only looking at primary turnout and African American populations as an indicator. I see GA and MS being close... maybe in the 5-10% range... but I don't think Obama will be able to come out on top.

my mistake. i thought you were inferring that i was being naive.

 

[Matt]

oh come on. it'd be one thing if there were a shred of truth to it, but there isn't and she knows it. he's said again and again that he's a practicing christian. for her to pretend otherwise it extremely dirty, in my book. that's definitely a republican tactic that she should be above, but obviously she isn't. are you seriously defending that? are you that biased?

Its not a Republican tactic. It is an every politican tactic. News flash Sine, the Democrats are no better than the Republicans. They are just as bad. Hell, how is Clinton's "as far as I know" any different than Obama implying that she is racist by saying in a heavily black state that Clinton marginalized Dr. King?

there is no common sense in this election. it's unprecedented. he's pulling in 90% of the black vote. if they turn out in the GE like they did in the primaries, that'll be a huge boon to him, especially in states like georgia, with a large black community. that's a big if, especially with the black community taking offense to all the racially charged mudslinging going on right now. still, obama appeals to such a wide range of groups, i don't think anything is completely out of the question.

Wasn't the 2004 election supposed to be "unprecedented" as well. I will believe it when I see it. Otherwise, I'm going to assume just like 2004, the big surge in voters is a trend and will not last to the GE.

i was trying to type that response quickly before going to lunch and i accidentally deleted a couple of paragraphs that i wish i hadn't. it's completely different than me someone saying "all republicans are evil", which i've never said and i'd appreciate it if you, as a mod, would grow up and stop putting words in my mouth. you honestly don't see how conservatism is embraced but liberalism is denigrated in our society? seriously? you can't see the double-standard? i've got nothing else to say to you if that's the case.

edit: that previous post of mine was butchered. that's not my "2%" at the end. a bunch of stuff was cut off.

Yes, I can see a double standard. That doesn't change the fact that it is something the candidates will have to deal with and SHOULD be discussed. And please don't throw my mod status in my face. I very seldomn if ever use those powers in this forum, and as someone who has been talking to you about politics for years, I think you can show me a little more respect as I have ALWAYS shown you than to do something like that.

 

[sinewave]

Its not a Republican tactic. It is an every politican tactic. News flash Sine, the Democrats are no better than the Republicans. They are just as bad. Hell, how is Clinton's "as far as I know" any different than Obama implying that she is racist by saying in a heavily black state that Clinton marginalized Dr. King?

not even remotely true but i don't have time to argue.

Yes, I can see a double standard. That doesn't change the fact that it is something the candidates will have to deal with and SHOULD be discussed. And please don't throw my mod status in my face. I very seldomn if ever use those powers in this forum, and as someone who has been talking to you about politics for years, I think you can show me a little more respect as I have ALWAYS shown you than to do something like that.

if you want to show me respect, then apologize for putting words in my mouth.

 

[Matt]

not even remotely true but i don't have time to argue.

By all means, explain how its not. Obama knows Clinton was not attacking Dr. King or saying his accomplishments pale compared to LBJ. Yet he took the quote out of context and used it as a rallying point in a heavily black community. Seems just as bad if not worse than the things Clinton did.

if you want to show me respect, then apologize for putting words in my mouth.

I will not apologize. I did not put words in your mouth. When you say things like "Republican tactics" you do imply that Democrats are some how morally better than Republicans. Just because you haven't said something explicitly does not mean you have not said it.