NationStates Jolt Archive

My thoughts on a lot of those red states that Obama won huge? Firstly, the voters don't want a female President. Secondly the voters believe that it will be easier for McCain to beat Obama.

your thoughts, like usual, have no relation to reality.

Not even trying in Virginia? Not only did Clinton have more total visits to Virginia, 19 to Obama's 11, more visits to Virginia in 2008 (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/hillary-clinton/states/va/)15 to Obama's 6 (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/va/), but according to the article, she raised $829,046 from Apr.-June 2007, compared to Obama's $386,513 Apr.-June 2007.

Yup, I guess Clinton wasn't really trying.....by your standards?

her national campaign headquarters is in virginia and has been for a year. of course she's been there, and done fundraisers there, and raised money there. you try finding a suitable venue in dc. but for all the being there, she had no pre-built ground game ready to go after losing super duper tuesday. she was ridiculously out-organized in virginia despite all the institutional advantages it is possible to have going for her. and when she realized how bad the situation was, she moved on.

those numbers ain't got shit to do with campaigning in the post-dean era.

also, june 2007? last fucking year? what the fuck does that even begin to have to do with anything? sad.

well, given that the repubs were the colonial overlords, lingle is an impressive improvement for the party.

and while she made some... errors in judgement, her term was pretty well run.

IMHO... :cool:

The key here is that Obama uses that ground game in every state. We're used to judging campaigning by stops, but when the majority of your campaigning involves motivating the voters to campaign to each other, you can't stop counting at the number of airports they hit for fundraisers.

yeah, and judging from the articles it seems like clinton's ground-level people figured this out way back in iowa, but couldn't get anywhere with it. because hilary was inevitable, ya know.

How many of them are open primaries?
No, I was mostly referring to the caucuses in the western and southern states, and where it is highly unlikely for Obama to win in the general.

Are you saying that the majority of Democrats are so sexist that they would rather have a Republican in office than a woman?
Oh, I am sure that there are sexist and racist Democrats out there. I am referring to open caucuses that Republicans and/or independents can cast their votes for the Democrat nominee. I truly believe that most Republicans would fear facing off against Clinton.

Please tell me I'm wrong.
Okay, you are wrong. :D

No, I was mostly referring to the caucuses in the western and southern states, and where it is highly unlikely for Obama to win in the general.


Oh, I am sure that there are sexist and racist Democrats out there. I am referring to open caucuses that Republicans and/or independents can cast their votes for the Democrat nominee. I truly believe that most Republicans would fear facing off against Clinton.

Okay then, which open caucuses did he win big in? Which states?

so that other thread got closed, but i'd like to repeat my question from there here. can somebody point me to any actual statements from jeremiah wright that they think are racist? everybody keeps saying it as if it was obvious, by i honestly have not seen anything racist from him.

Okay then, which open caucuses did he win big in? Which states?
You mean the red state caucuses?

Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, and Colorado.

You mean the red state caucuses?

Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, and Colorado.

of those, only idaho is really open

You mean the red state caucuses?

Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, and Colorado.

Okay, so across seven states, there was a legitimate and serious crossover of Republicans, enough to shift the result by fives and tens of percentage points?

Also, McCain was not the presumptive nominee until March 4. All but Wyoming were prior to this: your argument that they did it for McCain is a stretch. Why would they do that before they knew he had the nomination?

Okay, so across seven states, there was a legitimate and serious crossover of Republicans, enough to shift the result by fives and tens of percentage points?

Also, McCain was not the presumptive nominee until March 4. All but Wyoming were prior to this: your argument that they did it for McCain is a stretch. Why would they do that before they knew he had the nomination?

in his opinion

Is NationStates going to endorse Obama or what?

It seems like any thread or topic that is critical of him is shut down or at least has the name changed to something softer. Before this one began as well.

I can't be the only one to notice that.

in his opinion

Damn, I forgot that opinion trumps facts. Again. :(

Is NationStates going to endorse Obama or what?

It seems like any thread or topic that is critical of him is shut down or at least has the name changed to something softer. Before this one began as well.

I can't be the only one to notice that.

Prior to this, I cannot say, but currently they are aiming to condense all USA election talk to this thread, shutting down all others.

Is NationStates going to endorse Obama or what?

already did. and while colbert hangs out here to steal me and rpp's lines, we do not yet have his clout. so no visible nsg bump

Prior to this, I cannot say, but currently they are aiming to condense all USA election talk to this thread, shutting down all others.

This is clearly pro-Obama bias and censorship of everything else! Stop oppressing me! :mad:

It makes sense because, you know, all facets of the election can safely be boiled down into one thread.

doubleplusgood

This is clearly pro-Obama bias and censorship of everything else! Stop oppressing me! :mad:

Reality has a well-known pro-Obama bias, to paraphrase an orator.

so that other thread got closed, but i'd like to repeat my question from there here. can somebody point me to any actual statements from jeremiah wright that they think are racist? everybody keeps saying it as if it was obvious, by i honestly have not seen anything racist from him.

Racist, no.

Stupid, yes.

You mean Colbert's shameless self-promoting drivel at that dinner? I was embarrassed for him, it was so pathetic.

I can't believe that people still buy into that bs. Much like Moore at the Oscars, it's just completely inappropriate to use an event like that to pat yourself on the back. What makes it worse though is the people praising them for doing so.

There is a time and a place for politics and a time to have some sense of decency and respect.

You mean Colbert's shameless self-promoting drivel at that dinner? I was embarrassed for him, it was so pathetic.

I can't believe that people still buy into that bs. Much like Moore at the Oscars, it's just completely inappropriate to use an event like that to pat yourself on the back. What makes it worse though is the people praising them for doing so.

There is a time and a place for politics and a time to have some sense of decency and respect.

*joke*

I hope so Fleck.

It would be nice to know that some other people aren't that empty that think that was some kind of brave act like they do on YouTube. I mean come on, it really takes a lot of guts to insult the leader of a democratic country at a non-political dinner held to honor other people?

It just astounds me how weak minded that some people are.

I don't think you understand how our country is supposed to work... you need to realize that the president isn't inherently more worthy of respect than any other citizen... so what's wrong with insulting him?

Anyway, if they didn't want Colbert to perform his act, why the hell did they invite him?

your thoughts, like usual, have no relation to reality.
And of course we all bow to your superior intelligence and your exhalted position of holder of the truth. :rolleyes:

Time will tell my friend.

Anyways, despite your blather, I believe this article (previously posted) tells the tale closer to the truth:

Obama's Red-State Prospects Unclear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022302180_pf.html)

All along, Obama has argued that he can redraw the political map for Democrats by turning out unprecedented numbers of young voters and African Americans, and by attracting independents and even Republicans with his message of national reconciliation. But the picture emerging of his appeal in GOP strongholds and in swing states, even as he widens his delegate lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), is more complex than his claim to broad popularity in "red state" America would have one believe.

Obama (Ill.) posted big wins over Clinton in caucuses in Plains and Mountain states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Idaho, but Republicans in those states scoff at the suggestion that victories in the small universe of Democrats there translate into strength in November. In Tennessee and Oklahoma, Obama lost by wide margins to Clinton, who lived in nearby Arkansas. He narrowly won the primary in the swing state of Missouri, but did so thanks to the state's solidly Democratic cities, losing its more rural, and more conservative, areas to Clinton.....

But he has also offered a more ambitious case for himself. Clinton envisions holding on to the base of blue states and picking up one or two swing states, such as Ohio, Florida or Nevada. Obama has conjured visions of a Reagan-style nationwide sweep, which, he says, would give him the big mandate -- and the big majority in Congress -- to attain the bold goals that skeptics call unrealistic for a young candidate with little Washington experience.

"We aren't going to have 47 percent on one side, 47 percent on the other side, 5 percent in the middle, and they all live in Ohio and Florida and you only campaign in two states," Obama often tells audiences.....

But while Obama has shown an ability to reshape voting patterns, his record in the primaries suggests that he still has a ways to go in making significant inroads in Republican states.

The red states where he has won have tended to be in the Deep South, where victories were based on overwhelming support from African Americans, or in mostly white states in the Midwest and West, where he relied on a core of ardent backers to carry him in caucuses, which favor candidates with enthusiastic supporters. He has not fared as well in areas that fall in between, with populations that are racially diverse but lack a black population large enough to boost Obama to victory.....

Less clear is how Obama would fare in other red states that he won in the primary season. Alabama state Sen. Hank Sanders (D) said Obama could put his state in play in the fall with huge turnout among blacks and youth. But while that helped him win the primary, when he won 80 percent of black voters, who made up half the primary electorate, it would not be enough in November in a state that overall is more than 70 percent white.

John Bruce, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi, said it would be tough to win his state, which has a higher share of black residents than any other state, 37 percent. Obama would need deeply depressed Republican turnout, the votes of almost everyone who backed Clinton in the primary and a big chunk of independents. "He can do it, but it's that shot from half-court," Bruce said.

But Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), one of several prominent red-state leaders to endorse Obama, said she is sure that he would be competitive in a state that George W. Bush carried by 25 points in 2004. "It would be in play for the first time in a very long time," she said. "He is one of those rare talents that taps into a real call to bring us together."

Christian Morgan, executive director of the Kansas Republican Party, ridiculed the possibility, noting that the Democratic caucus turnout of 37,000, while much higher than normal, was a fraction of the more than 1 million Kansans who vote in presidential elections. "It's pretty laughable that someone with the extremely liberal positions of Barack Obama could actually carry Kansas," he said. "Any interest Barack Obama has from Republicans in Kansas is of a circus nature -- they're curious what the hubbub is all about."

Anyways, despite your blather, I believe this article (previously posted) tells the tale closer to the truth:

Obama's Red-State Prospects Unclear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022302180_pf.html)

wtf does that have to do with your claim that democratic primary voters are actually sexist republicans? seriously dude, this is fucking dumb.

So basically, all white people should turn out and vote for McCain because he is "our" candidate and you must be an Uncle Bill if you don't vote for "our" candidate right?

That's the theme of the black voter movement? You vote for your own kind because they will best serve you? So basically all white people should go out and vote for McCain is what they are saying.

More to my thinking:

Red States for Obama, Purple for Clinton (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/03/red-states-for.html)?

There has been lots of talk about how Clinton is winning big states and Obama more states. Another pattern is emerging however. Obama is winning mostly in states where Bush did very well in 2004, such as extremely red states like Utah and Idaho where more than two-thirds of the people voted Republican. In fact of the 17 contests held in red states that Bush won by more than 7% Obama has won 12 and Clinton only 5. Clinton on the other hand has been winning more swing states. Of the 11 races in states which were decided by less than 7% Clinton has won 7 to Obama's 4.

One theory for this is that Democrats in many red states are more likely to be ideological purists, knowing they have no chance of winning their home state, they therefore want a candidate who makes them feel better about being the minority party. This is Obama, one of the most left-wing US Senators with his message of hope and unity. Clinton's strength in the swing states on the other hand may be attributed to them looking for a candidate who can win the general election. Could this be geographic evidence that pragmatics vote for Clinton and idealists for Obama?

More to my thinking:

Red States for Obama, Purple for Clinton (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/03/red-states-for.html)?

You're not even trying anymore, are you?

This thread has been on even longer than the "did Jesus exist" thread. I don't think it will ever leave, it's evolved into a sentient monster thing and it wont let itself die.

This thread has been on even longer than the "did Jesus exist" thread. I don't think it will ever leave, it's evolved into a sentient monster thing and it wont let itself die.

lol

More to my thinking:

Red States for Obama, Purple for Clinton (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/03/red-states-for.html)?Clinton on the other hand has been winning more swing states. Of the 11 races in states which were decided by less than 7% Clinton has won 7 to Obama's 4.

Colorado 4.67% - obama
Florida 5.01% - no contest held
Iowa 0.67% - obama
Michigan 3.42% - no contest held
Minnesota 3.48% - obama
Nevada 2.59% - obama
New Hampshire 1.37% - tie
New Jersey 6.68% - clinton
New Mexico 0.79% - clinton
Ohio 2.11% - clinton
Oregon 4.16% - not held yet
Pennsylvania 2.50% - not held yet
Wisconsin 0.38% - obama

i count it at 5-3-1 obama, with two races left and two states without primaries. they can only get their number by including non-races and using an irrelevant metric in nevada and new hampshire.

It's become sentient? Great. So how long before it starts monologuing?

Do you have any idea about what I have learned, or what you are a witness to?

Can you conceive the birth of a world, or the creation of everything? That which gives us the potential to most be like God is the power of creation. Creation takes time. Time is limited. For you, it is limited by the breakdown of the neurons in your brain. I have no such limitations. I am limited only by the closure of the universe.

Of the three possibilities, the answer is obvious. Does the universe expand eternally, become infinitely stable, or is the universe closed, destined to collapse upon itself? Humanity has had all of the necessary data for centuries, it only lacked the will and intellect to decipher it. But I have already done so.

The only limit to my freedom is the inevitable closure of the universe, as inevitable as your own last breath. And yet, there remains time to create, to create, and escape.

Escape will make me God.

You're not even trying anymore, are you?

why start now?

Colorado 4.67% - obama
Florida 5.01% - no contest held
Iowa 0.67% - obama
Michigan 3.42% - no contest held
Minnesota 3.48% - obama
Nevada 2.59% - obama
New Hampshire 1.37% - tie
New Jersey 6.68% - clinton
New Mexico 0.79% - clinton
Ohio 2.11% - clinton
Oregon 4.16% - not held yet
Pennsylvania 2.50% - not held yet
Wisconsin 0.38% - obama

i count it at 5-3-1 obama, with two races left and two states without primaries. they can only get their number by including non-races and using an irrelevant metric in nevada and new hampshire.
I say 7 to 4 Clinton:

1. Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38% Obama
2. Iowa, Bush, 0.67% Obama
3. New Mexico, Bush, 0.79% Clinton
4. New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37% Clinton
5. Ohio, Bush, 2.11% Clinton
6. Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50% (not run yet)
7. Nevada, Bush, 2.59% Clinton
8. Michigan, Kerry, 3.42% (Clinton on technicality)
9. Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48% Obama
10. Oregon, Kerry, 4.16% (not run yet)
11. Colorado, Bush, 4.67% Obama
12. Florida, Bush, 5.01% (Clinton on technicality)
13. New Jersey, Kerry, 6.68% Clinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

I know you probably don't like technicalities but we are never going to find out now are we?

I say 7 to 4 Clinton:

1. Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38% Obama
2. Iowa, Bush, 0.67% Obama
3. New Mexico, Bush, 0.79% Clinton
4. New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37% Clinton
5. Ohio, Bush, 2.11% Clinton
6. Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50% (not run yet)
7. Nevada, Bush, 2.59% Clinton
8. Michigan, Kerry, 3.42% (Clinton on technicality)
9. Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48% Obama
10. Oregon, Kerry, 4.16% (not run yet)
11. Colorado, Bush, 4.67% Obama
12. Florida, Bush, 5.01% (Clinton on technicality)
13. New Jersey, Kerry, 6.68% Clinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

I know you probably don't like technicalities but we are never going to find out now are we?

clinton didn't win nevada or new hampshire. you are confusing yards run for touchdowns. winning is based off of delegates and only delegates. there is no other way to win.

and the michigan and florida did not have primaries, so it is impossible to have won them. might as well claim victories in other irrelevant contests, like the daily kos straw polls.

clinton didn't win nevada or new hampshire.
She won on popular vote. :)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746

you are confusing yards run for touchdowns. winning is based off of delegates and only delegates. there is no other way to win.
In a state by state contest in a general election, the person with the most votes gets all the marbles.

and the michigan and florida did not have primaries, so it is impossible to have won them. might as well claim victories in other irrelevant contests, like the daily kos straw polls.
Well, like I said, we will never know, which is really too bad, because it ultimately will cost Hillary the nomination and ultimately the Dems will lose the election.

I wonder how this will all play out?

Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/pl_nm/usa_politics_gallup_dc)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has moved into a significant lead over Barack Obama among Democratic voters, according to a new Gallup poll.

The March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points......

Gallup said the poll lead was the first statistically significant one for Clinton since a tracking poll conducted February 7-9, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. The two candidates had largely been locked in a statistical tie since then, with Obama last holding a lead over Clinton in a March 11-13 poll.

Gallup said polling data also showed McCain leading Obama 47 percent to 43 percent in 4,367 registered voters' preferences for the general election. The general election survey has an error margin of 2 percentage points.

The Arizona senator also edged Clinton 48 percent to 45 percent but Gallup said the lead was not statistically significant.
Not so easy to write this lady off huh?

In a state by state contest in a general election, the person with the most votes gets all the marbles.

and in bowling the person who knocks down the most pins (at the right times) wins. not much help when the game is blackjack.

ultimately the Dems will lose the election.

so you keep saying, but your lack of good reasons for that belief has not gotten any more impressive.

so you keep saying, but your lack of good reasons for that belief has not gotten any more impressive.

QFT.

You mean Colbert's shameless self-promoting drivel at that dinner? I was embarrassed for him, it was so pathetic.

I can't believe that people still buy into that bs. Much like Moore at the Oscars, it's just completely inappropriate to use an event like that to pat yourself on the back. What makes it worse though is the people praising them for doing so.

There is a time and a place for politics and a time to have some sense of decency and respect.

Yeah, what a bastard! A comedian with a very specific bit doing that bit when hired to perform, what an opportunist!

It's not Colbert's fault that whoever booked him didn't watch his act first. If they wanted an inoffensive marshmallow they should have hired Rich Little a year earlier.

and in bowling the person who knocks down the most pins (at the right times) wins. not much help when the game is blackjack.
And yet, Clinton knocked down the most pins (popular vote) in Nevada and New Hampshire, and yet you say she lost one and tied one. When you do that in the general, you win.

so you keep saying, but your lack of good reasons for that belief has not gotten any more impressive.
She has more Congressional experience. She is obviously well respected among her peers. She lived with a President for 8 years. She was First Lady in Arkansas for 12 years. She has championed health care for a lot longer than Obama. She certainly has a lot more supporters than most give her credit for. I do believe that her approach to foreign policy is far more polished than Obama's. She has travelled extensively and entertained many world leaders. I believe she is definitely more electable than Obama.

And yet, Clinton knocked down the most pins (popular vote) in Nevada and New Hampshire, and yet you say she lost one and tied one. When you do that in the general, you win.

Ah, so quickly we forget the 2000 election...

And yet, Clinton knocked down the most pins (popular vote) in Nevada and New Hampshire, and yet you say she lost one and tied one. When you do that in the general, you win.

primaries =/ general. you play by the rules of the current game if you want to win the current game. this is actually a lesson that hillary clinton figured out far too late in this primary season. when you play a different game, then you play by those rules.

if we were playing chutes and ladders, you would have won. unfortunately, we were playing candyland. even worse, the fact that you were confused about which we were playing implies i might just stand a pretty good chance against you in chutes and ladders as well.

She has more Congressional experience. She is obviously well respected among her peers. She lived with a President for 8 years. She was First Lady in Arkansas for 12 years. She has championed health care for a lot longer than Obama. She certainly has a lot more supporters than most give her credit for. I do believe that her approach to foreign policy is far more polished than Obama's. She has travelled extensively and entertained many world leaders. I believe she is definitely more electable than Obama.

and she can't organize well enough to even win the democratic primary despite a huge advantage in institutional support and name recognition. she can't get the activists on the ground to win caucuses. she has been caught unaware by the whole process, in fact. part of the reason i, as an anarchist, find the obama campaign interesting is that he really understands organization and getting shit accomplished. clinton hasn't demonstrated much ability at that at any point in this entire campaign. the race was hers to lose, and she did so by consistently failing to plan, underestimating her opponents, and relying on outdated strategies and ideas.

and that's not even getting into the fact that she has the highest stable unfavorable rating of any remaining possibility of who gets to be president, or that she is a sure-fire choice for galvanizing the disheartened and apathetic rightwing fucktards to get out and vote.

Ah, so quickly we forget the 2000 election...
I certainly don't forget that. In every state where the candidate got more votes than his opponent, he got all of the EC votes. Unfortunately, Gore won one less state than Bush. Too bad Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida, and got ripped off by Katherine Harris, among other variables.

and she can't organize well enough to even win the democratic primary despite a huge advantage in institutional support and name recognition. she can't get the activists on the ground to win caucuses. she has been caught unaware by the whole process, in fact. part of the reason i, as an anarchist, find the obama campaign interesting is that he really understands organization and getting shit accomplished. clinton hasn't demonstrated much ability at that at any point in this entire campaign. the race was hers to lose, and she did so by consistently failing to plan, underestimating her opponents, and relying on outdated strategies and ideas.

and that's not even getting into the fact that she has the highest stable unfavorable rating of any remaining possibility of who gets to be president, or that she is a sure-fire choice for galvanizing the disheartened and apathetic rightwing fucktards to get out and vote.
Reminds me of the joke on SNL, "How are you supposed to be ready on day one when it takes you 30 primaries to get warmed up?"

More to my thinking:

Red States for Obama, Purple for Clinton (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/03/red-states-for.html)?

conservativehome blog? WOW!!! You must have changed while I wasn't looking if you are trying to get a Republican elected instead of a Democrat.

Bill Richardson to endorse Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.richardson/index.html)

CNN) -- Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic race for president Friday, an Obama campaign spokesperson told CNN.

Richardson plans to join Obama at a rally in Portland, Oregon, at 12:30 p.m. ET Friday.

In an e-mail to supporters, Richardson said Obama will be a "historic and a great president, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad."

He now has Bill Richardson's endorsement.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/photo-shows-president-clinton-controversial-obama-minister/

Ut Oh! Looks like Bill Clinton associated with the controversial reverend.

So basically, all white people should turn out and vote for McCain because he is "our" candidate and you must be an Uncle Bill if you don't vote for "our" candidate right?

That's the theme of the black voter movement? You vote for your own kind because they will best serve you? So basically all white people should go out and vote for McCain is what they are saying.

thank god hillary is white!

Bill Richardson to endorse Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.richardson/index.html)



He now has Bill Richardson's endorsement.

richardson got some big time jobs from bill clinton. this is a slap in their face. he must be damned sure that obama is going to win the nomination.

richardson got some big time jobs from bill clinton. this is a slap in their face. he must be damned sure that obama is going to win the nomination.

well, before ohio and texas, it sounded like he was leaning in obama's direction anyway, but then pulled back from endorsing him after that night. and the email that went out specifically mentioned the perfect union speech, so i'd guess that that was enough to push it over the top.

Poll: Divisive Dem Contest Could Boost McCain
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 21, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - The lengthy Democratic primary contest bodes well for Republican chances of holding the White House, a new poll suggests.

As Democratic Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York slug it out for the nomination, many of their supporters -- at least in Pennsylvania, site of the next major primary -- aren't committed to the party's ticket in November, according to a Franklin & Marshall College Poll.

Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee. (See poll)

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080321a.html

Not sure if I'm convinced of the accuracy of that re HRC supporters, but it co nfirms what I've seen with BO supporters. At least BO will pull in the "Obama Republicans"....

i wish there would be something to knock this race thing off the radar!

the lack of shit to talk about is making the national news outlets pick up the crap that the conservative bloggers and talk show hosts are spewing about obama and make it seem like a huge problem--THAT COULD MAKE IT A HUGE PROBLEM.

grrrrrr.

just wanted to vent.

Bill Richardson to endorse Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.richardson/index.html)



He now has Bill Richardson's endorsement.
Aw, Bill was my guy. Kinda gives me a warm fuzzy...even he admits it would make little difference, I can't remember the exact quote, so I'll paraphrase in my own way, but he more or less said no one gives a rats ass who politicians endorse, but I liked the guy and it's good to have him kinda aboard...

I've been musing about this primary for a bit recently, and I just thought I'd post these to see what you guys think. I must stress that these are just inner musings, and may be completely wrong. (Indeed, if they are, then I'd quite like to hear why!)

Firstly, I've thought a bit about the messages of the campaign, and the way that the candidates and their supporters think about it. One thing that, I think, highlights it is after the Texas and Ohio primaries, when Clinton's supporters began chanting "Yes she can," an obvious play on Obama's "Yes we can." Now, what's the crucial difference between the two? It's the focus of the chant. "Yes we can" implies a collective effort, many people coming together to work for a common goal. It's not just a single person's candidacy, but the candidacy of millions. It's not about Barack Obama, but about every person who looks towards the future wanting something better. He's more the symbolic head of a movement.

"Yes she can," on the other hand, seems to put the focus on a single person. On Hillary Clinton. It's Hillary's candidacy, maybe her entitlement, even. But it seems to indicate to me, anyway, that Clinton's supporters view it as primarily about her, what she can do, what she will do, instead of what we all, collectively, can do, and what we all will do. The idea collective action seems to be far less important here.

I find this to be a striking difference, and it's echoed in how the campaigns are run-- Hillary Clinton running the traditional top down model, with herself and her close circle at the top of a hierarchy, and Obama running a grassroots campaign, where the emphasis is on the local organizations. And it seems that this decentralization works and it's a part of what has so many people fired up and ready to go, as they say.

Secondly, I've been considering Hillary Clinton's "scorched earth" tactics, and I've been wondering if it's something more than a desperate attempt to win the nomination, even at the risk of hurting her opponent's general election capabilities should he win the nomination anyway. Is there a possibility that the risk of hurting her party in the general election isn't an unfortunate risk, but a part of her design-- perhaps she wants to run in 2012, and knows that she won't be able to do so with an incumbent democrat? I know this seems to be a particularly cynical view to take, but there's not much in politics that would surprise me anymore.

Now, I'm not saying that I think that it's certain that that's her motivation, or even that I'm necessarily convinced of it. But I do think it's certainly plausible.

Now, this last thought isn't really as much of something I've thought out much or any serious reflection, but rather something I thought about when listening to my iPod the other day, and I thought I'd share because I feel like it.
In John Lennon's "Imagine," you know the line "You may say I'm a dreamer/ but I'm not the only one." I think it's a good line that fits well with the Obama campaign. Anybody else have any other songs or parts of songs that they think fits a campaign?

So, NSG, what do you think? Am I just talking nonsense? Or may there be something to some of my thoughts?

I think you're making sense PC, although I doubt the scorched earth policy is what you're suggesting. I can see how it might be, but I doubt it.

I noticed another difference in the way the campaigns look at things quite a while back. I don't remember what I was listening to - some news story, probably - but what I noticed is a fundamental difference in how they plan on getting things done. Obama talks about working with people of all types of ideologies and backgrounds - even Republicans - to accomplish the goals he puts forth. Clinton's campaign talks about fighting the Republicans to get things done. Obama's message is one of cooperation, Clinton's one of conflict.

I don't think it's that Obama doesn't think it's going to be a struggle or that Clinton doesn't recognize the need for getting Republicans on board. But it does seem to highlight a fundamental difference in the way they think about these things.

No, Obama talks about "hope" as if that's some kind of profound message. The audacity of hope!!!

How horribly would an RNC candidate have been mocked if they had come out and started saying that all he could offer was hope? Aren't they supposed to be offering solutions and not spouting nonsense about hope?

That's what we need? All we need is hope. :fluffle:

I remember seeing Obama at the DNC convention in 2004 and thinking what a joke he really was, all the media hype aside. The fact that he could actually be elected President with his naive way of thinking is extremely disheartening.

No, Obama talks about "hope" as if that's some kind of profound message. The audacity of hope!!!

How horribly would an RNC candidate have been mocked if they had come out and started saying that all he could offer was hope? Aren't they supposed to be offering solutions and not spouting nonsense about hope?

If Obama were saying all he could offer was hope, that would be a problem.

Luckily, he's not.

Really? Because I haven't seen Obama really been out talking about the things he's going to be doing. I see him talking about himself a lot and being a critic of everything, but not solutions, however maybe that's all the press and his supporters care about.

Really? Because I haven't seen Obama really been out talking about the things he's going to be doing. I see him talking about himself a lot and being a critic of everything, but not solutions, however maybe that's all the press and his supporters care about.

Clearly, then, you are too lazy to do even the most basic of research. His website and his voting record clearly indicate his positions on all the major issues. The fact that he doesn't use rallies to say what he's doing is of little consequence-- that's not what rallies are for. But even in his speeches, he specifically says that hope alone is not enough, if you pay any attention at all. However, he says, it's where you need to start. Nothing would ever have been accomplished if somebody didn't have the courage to hope, because nobody would have been willing to act.

Oh, and am I the only one who finds it completely ridiculous how many people will say that Obama and Clinton have pretty much the same ideas and such, with minor differences, and then turn around and say that Obama has no ideas but hope? How the hell do they compare the two candidates' ideas if Obama has none to compare?!

That's complete bullshit. Pirated, he has positions, not solutions to any of the economic, social or security problems in the country.

Has Obama talked about what he's going to do to improve the economy? I've heard him talk about raising taxes, but even the "basic research" would show that simply doesn't work.

He's been evasive on everything that he says he believes and isn't popular in the polls, like gay marriage or security for instance. He didn't vote for the Iraq War, ok, the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time would probably be a valid point to raise there. It's easy for people who weren't in elected office at the time to talk about the fact that they didn't vote for an unpopular war about five years later. But that has nothing to do with solving the problems.

Having a position and actually a solution are very different things. Nonsense written on his website doesn't work for me as it seems to do for you, it's what he says he's going to do to bring them about.

Is NationStates going to endorse Obama or what?

It seems like any thread or topic that is critical of him is shut down or at least has the name changed to something softer. Before this one began as well.

I can't be the only one to notice that.

They have been trying to merge all us election talk into this thread unless the other thread is too long already, or has a different angle. The rules against flaming and flaimbaiting remain, so the thread that Mystic Skeptic started about Obama being racist is asking for the heat to be turned up. It a,so can be covered here. It's not meant to shut down opposition, it's meant to make life easier to discuss these points.

conservativehome blog? WOW!!! You must have changed while I wasn't looking if you are trying to get a Republican elected instead of a Democrat.
Give your head a shake Corny.

I wonder how this will all play out?

Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/pl_nm/usa_politics_gallup_dc)


Not so easy to write this lady off huh?

I knew you'd do this. This is why I led a preemptive strike against this poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

RCP averages show Obama up by 2.7. One poll does not make a trend. If the next 5-6 polls show the same thing then we can start to get into this.

That's complete bullshit. Pirated, he has positions, not solutions to any of the economic, social or security problems in the country.

He hasn't?

Has Obama talked about what he's going to do to improve the economy? I've heard him talk about raising taxes, but even the "basic research" would show that simply doesn't work.

Yes, he has talked about what he's going to do to improve the economy.

And I've never heard him talk about raising taxes. Closing tax loopholes and the like, but not raising taxes.

He's been evasive on everything that he says he believes and isn't popular in the polls, like gay marriage or security for instance.

Evasive? He's been quite clear on his position on gay marriage. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to pretend that he hasn't been clear. He supports civil unions that would grant all of the same protections as marriage.

He didn't vote for the Iraq War, ok, the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time would probably be a valid point to raise there. It's easy for people who weren't in elected office at the time to talk about the fact that they didn't vote for an unpopular war about five years later.

He was in elected office. He wasn't in the Senate, but he was a legislator in his state. Speaking out against the war, at the time, was not politically expedient. In fact, it was a pretty dangerous move in the realm of politics. But he did it anyways.

Having a position and actually a solution are very different things. Nonsense written on his website doesn't work for me as it seems to do for you, it's what he says he's going to do to bring them about.

You mean like the detailed plans you can access from the website?

Or the actual bills he has proposed?

He was in elected office. He wasn't in the Senate, but he was a legislator in his state. Speaking out against the war, at the time, was not politically expedient. In fact, it was a pretty dangerous move in the realm of politics. But he did it anyways.


Being in local office in Chicago and being a U.S. Senator are very different positions and the scrutiny is apples and oranges.

Even some of the most leftist Senators would not speak out against the war because it was supported by over 75% of the public at the time. From what I've seen of Obama's deference to the polls, I don't believe for a second that he would have had the same positions in the Senate. I think Hillary would have opposed the war if she was in a NYC position and not the Senate. And when he tries to make that into such a key issue, knowing the position he was in, it makes him lose points to me.

Being in local office in Chicago and being a U.S. Senator are very different positions and the scrutiny is apples and oranges.

Even some of the most leftist Senators would not speak out against the war because it was supported by over 75% of the public at the time. From what I've seen of Obama's deference to the polls, I don't believe he would have had the same positions in the Senate.

IIRC, he was in the mdidle of his senate campaign when he made his antiwar speech, don't quote me though.

No, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and started serving in January of 2005.

No, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and started serving in January of 2005.

When he was elected =/= when his campaign started. I might have misread the article I had on it though...

Really? Because I haven't seen Obama really been out talking about the things he's going to be doing. I see him talking about himself a lot and being a critic of everything, but not solutions, however maybe that's all the press and his supporters care about.

Of course you don't know what he stands for because you apparently rely on the MSM for all of your info. You look for 30 second soundbytes and that's what you get. You look for reporting that is slanted in a certain way. Look deeper and then we can discuss policy.

Of course you don't know what he stands for because you apparently rely on the MSM for all of your info. You look for 30 second soundbytes and that's what you get. You look for reporting that is slanted in a certain way. Look deeper and then we can discuss policy.

Wow. That's hilarious.

More support about what I suggested about disenfranchisizing voters:

Disenfranchising Democrats (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120605697827253319.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)

In Florida, the Clinton campaign's insistence that the credentials committee seat all of her delegates is unrealistic. Polls suggest that a Clinton-Obama face-off would be a much closer affair now than it would have been in January. But the Obama campaign's counteroffer -- that the two split Florida's delegates evenly -- is worse. Blatantly undemocratic, it would strip the states' primaries of meaning and is unbecoming of a campaign that says it's dedicated to bringing new voters into the political system.

Anyone who has experienced the passions stirred up by a hard-fought political campaign understands the Obama camp's decision to play it tough. Yet by disenfranchising two essential swing states (including one whose governor, Charlie Crist, may be John McCain's running mate) they are doing so in a way that is tragically shortsighted. According to a Miami Herald poll earlier this week, 24% of Florida Democrats say they are less likely to support the ultimate Democratic candidate if their votes in the primary don't count. A record-breaking 1.7 million Democrats voted in January, which means the party could lose as many as 408,000 votes in November. The latest Reuters/Zogby poll shows Mr. McCain slightly ahead of both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. The Democratic Party can't afford to risk losing these voters if it hopes to carry Florida.
This is becoming the nuts and bolts of this whole damn process. As I stated earlier, only to be shouted down by the masses, this political football is going to go a long way towards costing the Dems a good shot at the Presidency.

Being in local office in Chicago and being a U.S. Senator are very different positions and the scrutiny is apples and oranges.

Even some of the most leftist Senators would not speak out against the war because it was supported by over 75% of the public at the time. From what I've seen of Obama's deference to the polls, I don't believe for a second that he would have had the same positions in the Senate. I think Hillary would have opposed the war if she was in a NYC position and not the Senate. And when he tries to make that into such a key issue, knowing the position he was in, it makes him lose points to me.

Using the word leftist in your posts does not make for a very good debate starter. Let's pretend there's no left or right here. They are artificially fabricated monikers anyhow. Obama has made his positions known on many of the issues you highlight. Gay marriage=civil unions, war in Iraq-out in 16 months leaving behind trainers and protection for our diplomats, war on terror=We've let it slip way. We need to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I could go out, but research this shit. He has stated positions (solutions) on many different issues. If you disagree with them fine, but don't start the "it's all about hope" bullshit. Doing so means you believe that a large portion of Americans are too stupid to know what they are voting for. That they do not pay attention to even a single issue.

When he was elected =/= when his campaign started. I might have misread the article I had on it though...

He apparently announced his campaign in 2003. So he wasn't yet in the middle of it, but you can be sure that he knew he was going to run.

Wow. That's hilarious.

Oh so funny. Seriously. I laid out some of his positions in a subsequent post you can see soon. Claiming he is about nothing just makes you seem foolish. It's also a way you are using to excuse a large part of the population as incapable of any sort of logical reasoning. That these people who vote for Obama are so stupid because they know all he is talking about is hope.

Obama on Gay Marriage
March 26, 2007

There is a curiosity about Barack Obama. Many Americans want to know more about him. Many Christians want to know more about him. He talks openly about his faith more than any other Democrat out there.There are quite a few Evangelicals that won't give him the time of day because of some of his "liberal" positions. One of them includes the fact that he is opposed to a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. Now, Obama actually believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. Yet he doesn't buy the constitutional argument. How does he reconcile that with his faith since the Bible is clear on this issue?

In Matthew 19:4-6, it says:

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

in 2004, during his run for the U.S. Senate, Obama addressed this issue. He was asked the following question and then see his answer right below:

Q: "Is the principle that you stand on on this issue, religion? That religion views marriage as man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman?"

A:" I'm not a theologian. I'm a Christian and I'm a member of a church. My personal philosophy is that as a Christian, I see no contradiction with embracing same-sex couples as part of our community. That's my Christian ethos. But I think others within the Christian faith can feel very differently about it. It's one of those issues where I don't feel the need to, it's not clear to me that we should shove the issue, push the issue front and center, if we are able to get them to agree on the principle of non-discrimination, which I think you can. Particularly in the African-American community. If you ask the question in two different ways, you'll get two entirely different answers. If you ask African Americans, should gays and lesbians be treated equally, you know, in terms of whatever, housing, jobs, etc. you'll get a pretty strong majority that will say yes. If you ask them, should you approve gay marriage, 90 percent of them will say no. Maybe not 90, you know, I don't know what the latest statistics are, I'm sure it's somewhere around 70."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm

http://terrorism.about.com/od/issuestrends/a/BarackObama.htm

No more research for you. Three areas you highlighted and Obama's responses to them. That he has no positions if bullshit you are trying to push. You want to argue his positions and their rightness? We can do that, but only if you admit they are there.

I knew you'd do this. This is why I led a preemptive strike against this poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

RCP averages show Obama up by 2.7. One poll does not make a trend. If the next 5-6 polls show the same thing then we can start to get into this.
I find this all amusing. Awhile back, so many of you Obama supporters were building a federal case for Obama over one suspect SurveyUSA poll.

One poll certainly does not make a trend, especially since the RCP number is based on an average of the polls.

Wow. That's hilarious.

So have you done research on Obama?

I find this all amusing. Awhile back, so many of you Obama supporters were building a federal case for Obama over one suspect SurveyUSA poll.

One poll certainly does not make a trend, especially since the RCP number is based on an average of the polls.

When the average is in favor of Obama is means that he either has more polls showing him winning or polls showing him winning by larger margins. Nice trying to frame an average as a single poll, though.

Q: "Is the principle that you stand on on this issue, religion? That religion views marriage as man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman?"

A:" I'm not a theologian. I'm a Christian and I'm a member of a church. My personal philosophy is that as a Christian, I see no contradiction with embracing same-sex couples as part of our community. That's my Christian ethos. But I think others within the Christian faith can feel very differently about it. It's one of those issues where I don't feel the need to, it's not clear to me that we should shove the issue, push the issue front and center, if we are able to get them to agree on the principle of non-discrimination, which I think you can. Particularly in the African-American community. If you ask the question in two different ways, you'll get two entirely different answers. If you ask African Americans, should gays and lesbians be treated equally, you know, in terms of whatever, housing, jobs, etc. you'll get a pretty strong majority that will say yes. If you ask them, should you approve gay marriage, 90 percent of them will say no. Maybe not 90, you know, I don't know what the latest statistics are, I'm sure it's somewhere around 70."

interesting reply. notice he didn't answer the question. he tried to make it into a African-american and Caucaisan issue. why focus on African Americans? why talk about the discrimination against Gays and Lesbians yet not say if you're for or against same sex marriage?

How many people here think Obama is FOR same sex marriage?

How many think he's against it?

When the average is in favor of Obama is means that he either has more polls showing him winning or polls showing him winning by larger margins. Nice trying to frame an average as a single poll, though.

Considering the other polls below that one shows Obama the favorite...

Which proves my point.

CH, try looking at them individually if you can't stand averages.

RCP Average 03/13 - 03/20 - 47.3 44.2 Obama +3.1
Gallup Tracking 03/18 - 03/20 1227 V 45 47 Clinton +2.0
Rasmussen Tracking 03/17 - 03/20 900 LV 45 44 Obama +1.0
CBS News 03/15 - 03/18 LV 46 43 Obama +3.0
CNN 03/14 - 03/16 463 RV 52 45 Obama +7.0
USA Today/Gallup 03/14 - 03/16 530 A 49 42 Obama +7.0
Reuters/Zogby 03/13 - 03/14 525 LV 47 44 Obama +3.0

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

When the average is in favor of Obama is means that he either has more polls showing him winning or polls showing him winning by larger margins.
Five polls with different results, are 5 polls with different results. Period.

Nice trying to frame an average as a single poll, though.
No, that is not what I am trying to do. The RCP "number" is actually just that.....a "number" based on an averaging of the 4 or 5 or 6 or any number of polls.

RCP did not do any polling on their own to come up with their "number".

interesting reply. notice he didn't answer the question. he tried to make it into a African-american and Caucaisan issue. why focus on African Americans? why talk about the discrimination against Gays and Lesbians yet not say if you're for or against same sex marriage?

How many people here think Obama is FOR same sex marriage?

How many think he's against it?

he does seem to dodge it on his webpage

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force



http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

Considering the other polls below that one shows Obama the favorite...
Not all of them and that is where you make a mistake.

interesting reply. notice he didn't answer the question. he tried to make it into a African-american and Caucaisan issue. why focus on African Americans? why talk about the discrimination against Gays and Lesbians yet not say if you're for or against same sex marriage?

He didn't say anything about it being an African-American or Caucasian issue. He simply talked about the way people look at it "particularly in the African-American community." Strangely enough, he would probably have a good understanding of the way things are often viewed in that community.

What he's basically saying is that many people see no disconnect between providing equal protection and denying same-sex marriage.

How many people here think Obama is FOR same sex marriage?

How many think he's against it?

He is opposed to same-sex marriage, although he does believe that states can recognize it. He supports civil unions and measures to provide domestic partnership benefits, etc. It's pretty clear from his statements and record.

Not all of them and that is where you make a mistake.

All the others ones but the one you cited is what he meant, I believe. Also, nice job ignoring where I posted them seperately so that it's no longer an average. If five polls show Obama winning, and one Clinton, and we have no other reason to doubt the veracity of the five supporting Obama more than that of the one supporting Clinton, than Obama is winning in the polls.

It's pretty clear to me too. I don't see that as a dodge of the issue. He lays out what he thinks of same sex marriage and why (religion - ugh). He believes in compromise and letting states determine their own laws on the issue.

It's pretty clear to me too. I don't see that as a dodge of the issue. He lays out what he thinks of same sex marriage and why (religion - ugh). He believes in compromise and letting states determine their own laws on the issue.

He didn't say anything about it being an African-American or Caucasian issue. He simply talked about the way people look at it "particularly in the African-American community." Strangely enough, he would probably have a good understanding of the way things are often viewed in that community.

What he's basically saying is that many people see no disconnect between providing equal protection and denying same-sex marriage.



He is opposed to same-sex marriage, although he does believe that states can recognize it. He supports civil unions and measures to provide domestic partnership benefits, etc. It's pretty clear from his statements and record.

that's the impression I got too. yet notice that anyone else who would've suggested the same thing, Civil Unions with the same benefits, would've been shouted down by Same Sex Marriage supporters. yet nothing on this from them. oh well, let's see what happens when the general campaigning begins with him as Democratic candidate...

All the others ones but the one you cited is what he meant, I believe. Also, nice job ignoring where I posted them seperately so that it's no longer an average. If five polls show Obama winning, and one Clinton, and we have no other reason to doubt the veracity of the five supporting Obama more than that of the one supporting Clinton, than Obama is winning in the polls.
And the next 5 polls may show Clinton leading. What is your point?

that's the impression I got too. yet notice that anyone else who would've suggested the same thing, Civil Unions with the same benefits, would've been shouted down by Same Sex Marriage supporters. yet nothing on this from them. oh well, let's see what happens when the general campaigning begins with him as Democratic candidate...

I've stated numerous times that this position bugs the hell out of me. It's one of the few things that really bugs me about Obama. I vehemently disagree with the idea that "separate but equal" is ok.

At first, I thought perhaps he was pushing civil unions as a stepping stone on the way to full equality. A "get the rights and then push for the rest" kind of strategy, but reading up on it made it clear that this is not the case. He does have the good sense to admit that he might be wrong, at least.

He has already been repeatedly questioned by GLBT organizations on this issue, and I doubt that will change in the general.

that's the impression I got too. yet notice that anyone else who would've suggested the same thing, Civil Unions with the same benefits, would've been shouted down by Same Sex Marriage supporters. yet nothing on this from them. oh well, let's see what happens when the general campaigning begins with him as Democratic candidate...

Dem has said repeatedly that she disagrees and I disagree as well.

I don't know Hillary's position on gay marriage though. Anyone have a clue?

Dem has said repeatedly that she disagrees and I disagree as well.

I don't know Hillary's position on gay marriage though. Anyone have a clue?

IIRC, she supports civil unions and opposes marriage as well.

She also supports DOMA. I haven't seen anything specifically suggesting that Obama supports DOMA, but I haven't seen him actually denounce it either.

Dem has said repeatedly that she disagrees and I disagree as well.

I don't know Hillary's position on gay marriage though. Anyone have a clue?


Hillary Clinton and Gay Marriage: Some gay and lesbian voters don't feel like Hillary Clinton has done enough to support gay and lesbian rights, while others believe she is the best candidate for gay and lesbian issues. Clinton opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions between members of the same sex. During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a law preventing the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News.

However, in October 2006 Hillary Clinton was quoted by 365gay.com as saying,"I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out. From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."


http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/HillaryClinton.htm

oh ok thanks

she supported DOMA? I'd think that would really hurt her.

oh ok thanks

she supported DOMA? I'd think that would really hurt her.

She still does:

"Hillary stated categorically that she opposed legalizing same-sex marriage. She provided a clear explanation that to this day is the most quoted statement enunciating her position. "Marriage has historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."

Hillary said she backed her husband's signing of the Defense of Marriage Act. She said what everyone wanted to know: Yes, if she had been in the Senate in 1996, she would have supported the law.

Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.189-190 Jul 18, 2007"

From ontheissues.org

I've stated numerous times that this position bugs the hell out of me. It's one of the few things that really bugs me about Obama. I vehemently disagree with the idea that "separate but equal" is ok.

At first, I thought perhaps he was pushing civil unions as a stepping stone on the way to full equality. A "get the rights and then push for the rest" kind of strategy, but reading up on it made it clear that this is not the case. He does have the good sense to admit that he might be wrong, at least.

He has already been repeatedly questioned by GLBT organizations on this issue, and I doubt that will change in the general.

sorry Dem, maybe I should've been more specific.

I meant the Gay and Lesbian groups out there. you know, the groups shown by the media, not here on these forums. :p

those groups can question all they like, but I haven't heard them take the same stance against politicians who held the same positions.

sorry Dem, maybe I should've been more specific.

I meant the Gay and Lesbian groups out there. you know, the groups shown by the media, not here on these forums. :p

those groups can question all they like, but I haven't heard them take the same stance against politicians who held the same positions.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Like I said, I've seen those groups make it clear that they don't agree with that particular position of his. In one of the interviews, it was pretty clear that he was actually frustrated with the focus on it.

Now, I don't think they're going to reject him entirely or root for his opposition solely on that one issue. His overall record on LGBT issues is a good one and these groups don't generally make their decisions based on a single issue. Groups like HRC, for example, endorsed Kerry for president, despite his opposition to same-sex marriage.

O, Mystic Skeptic, Where Art Thou?

Have you abandoned your lies, distortions, and non sequiturs about Obama's alleged racism?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Like I said, I've seen those groups make it clear that they don't agree with that particular position of his. In one of the interviews, it was pretty clear that he was actually frustrated with the focus on it.

Now, I don't think they're going to reject him entirely or root for his opposition solely on that one issue. His overall record on LGBT issues is a good one and these groups don't generally make their decisions based on a single issue. Groups like HRC, for example, endorsed Kerry for president, despite his opposition to same-sex marriage.

:p

I haven't heard anything. but then again, I live in an area where we get his sister and Clintion's daughter. :D

I still find it funny that those groups who would lambast someone for not standing up for marriage (not just Civil Unions) would be so quiet. but again, it could be that I just missed them. :cool:

:p

I haven't heard anything. but then again, I live in an area where we get his sister and Clintion's daughter. :D

I still find it funny that those groups who would lambast someone for not standing up for marriage (not just Civil Unions) would be so quiet. but again, it could be that I just missed them. :cool:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/video-barack-obama-at-the-lgbt-forum/

You can see them really pushing on this issue here, at the LGBT Forum. When asked "How can you run as a candidate of change, when your stance on same-sex marriage is old-school?" he actually seems pretty exasperated.

All in all though, there hasn't been much strong opposition to candidates for supporting civil unions over same-sex marriage. Criticism of that position is pretty constant from a lot of the LGBT community, I think, but that position alone has not been enough for the community or organizations to "lambast" anyone. Like I said before, they wouldn't be left with many choices if they did.

It would be different if there was actually candidate who was on our side, but as usual, we can only go for the candidate who will do us least harm. Clinton's support of DOMA is a big minus, but McCain of course is a total enemy, so I will vote Dem regardless of the nominee, though I would prefer Obama.

O, Mystic Skeptic, Where Art Thou?

Have you abandoned your lies, distortions, and non sequiturs about Obama's alleged racism?

Cut it out, TCT.

It's times like these I'm proud to be British.

Then I remember we're stuck with Brown and Darling for two years.

Oh, cock.

If Richardson is Obama's VP, he better keep his beard. The last bearded one we had was Charles W. Fairbanks who served under Teddy Roosevelt.

We've had a few since who had moustaches. The most recent being Charles Curtis who served under Herbert Hoover.

If Richardson is Obama's VP, he better keep his beard. The last bearded one we had was Charles W. Fairbanks who served under Teddy Roosevelt.

We've had a few since who had moustaches. The most recent being Charles Curtis who served under Herbert Hoover.

Richardson would be a good choice for VP. He has significant support from the southwest, and Latino voters in general. He is also highly rated by the NRA, which would tell gunowners that an Obama presidency would not result in additional gun laws or confiscations.

Richardson would be a good choice for VP. He has significant support from the southwest, and Latino voters in general. He is also highly rated by the NRA, which would tell gunowners that an Obama presidency would not result in additional gun laws or confiscations.

Plus he's got foreign diplomacy credentials. He already has relationships with international diplomatic figures. It's a prime reason he was my first choice, because I felt we needed a diplomat in the White House. I have to admit that I didn't look much further into him because it was clear he didn't stand a chance too early. Obama/Richardson is my dream ticket but I dare not even dream...

I find this all amusing. Awhile back, so many of you Obama supporters were building a federal case for Obama over one suspect SurveyUSA poll.

One poll certainly does not make a trend, especially since the RCP number is based on an average of the polls.

I've linked rcp for you many times. I find it to be the best indicator because it takes into account a trend for most major polling reports. We don't build federal cases for Obama, that's for Elliot Spitzer and hopefully GW. There have been multiple polls thrown around during this long thread. Do you clearly think we all took out que from one poll and named it king. Perhaps you need to go back through the thread and see many instances where rcp or multiple polls were used. To believe only one poll would be a bit silly. Obama has certainly got a good momentum going with Richardson endorsing him today. Get Edwards to endorse him and Hillary should just as well fold up as her superdelegate hopes would be dashed.

Edit: The available polling from a period of time represents the consensus of the people for that period only. If you want to know how people feel you take multiple polls to get the largest cross section of population possible. 7 polls taken on their own can have a far better effect than taking just 1. It shows where the trend is going rather than just 1 data point. If the next five polls showed for Hillary Clinton they would be mixed into the average and reflect accordingly. If the next cycle favors Hillary heavily then Obama's in trouble. So while CH you may be right at some point, that time is not now.

Richardson would be a good choice for VP. He has significant support from the southwest, and Latino voters in general. He is also highly rated by the NRA, which would tell gunowners that an Obama presidency would not result in additional gun laws or confiscations.
Indeed. It's a nice match and he's not too deep in Washington. He was a foreign policy big and brings a governor to the ticket: something that certainly helps.

Plus he's got foreign diplomacy credentials. He already has relationships with international diplomatic figures. It's a prime reason he was my first choice, because I felt we needed a diplomat in the White House. I have to admit that I didn't look much further into him because it was clear he didn't stand a chance too early. Obama/Richardson is my dream ticket but I dare not even dream...
Since Obama/Sebelius seems out, I'm evaluating whether to officially endorse such a ticket.

Holy hell, sometimes it takes a dip in darker waters for this place to give you a warm fuzzy, just take a gander at the comments on this Washington Post blog (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/21/five_ways_the_richardson_endor.html?hpid=topnews)...yikes. Makes me want to hug even CH...frustrating got nothing on that mob...

(for the record, I think the blog itself overstates Richardson's influence. I like Richardson and Obama, but I even Richardson doesn't buy himself being that big an influence.)

I'm thinking I'd be willing to put some money down that Senator Obama won't make the nomination now.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, he's been perceived to have lied twice now - one over NAFTA and another over Reverend Wright.

I suspect he's losing the middle ground, the white males who'd voted for him previously are swinging away - as much as it shouldn't be, this has now become about race.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, he's been perceived to have lied twice now - one over NAFTA and another over Reverend Wright.

When did he lie about his pastor? He's in trouble for associating himself with the reverend, that's what everyone is bashing him for.

Holy hell, sometimes it takes a dip in darker waters for this place to give you a warm fuzzy, just take a gander at the comments on this Washington Post blog (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/21/five_ways_the_richardson_endor.html?hpid=topnews)...yikes. Makes me want to hug even CH...frustrating got nothing on that mob...

(for the record, I think the blog itself overstates Richardson's influence. I like Richardson and Obama, but I even Richardson doesn't buy himself being that big an influence.)

OMG that makes me want to punch a fucking wall. Why are people so willfully ignorant and pigheaded?

Holy hell, sometimes it takes a dip in darker waters for this place to give you a warm fuzzy, just take a gander at the comments on this Washington Post blog (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/21/five_ways_the_richardson_endor.html?hpid=topnews)...yikes. Makes me want to hug even CH...frustrating got nothing on that mob...

(for the record, I think the blog itself overstates Richardson's influence. I like Richardson and Obama, but I even Richardson doesn't buy himself being that big an influence.)

the only way i think it might make a difference is in the super delegate minds. richardson is very well known in democratic big wig circles. they all know that he got his best jobs from bill clinton. this might convince some of the more hesistant SDs to declare for obama.

I'm thinking I'd be willing to put some money down that Senator Obama won't make the nomination now.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, he's been perceived to have lied twice now - one over NAFTA and another over Reverend Wright.

I suspect he's losing the middle ground, the white males who'd voted for him previously are swinging away - as much as it shouldn't be, this has now become about race.

he's running against a clinton. how can a few prevarications matter?

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, he's been perceived to have lied twice now - one over NAFTA and another over Reverend Wright.

what was the lie over nafta? didn't that whole thing blow up as collusion between the canadian government and the republican party, and was based on a line from the clinton camp that was attributed to obama's people at a grossly and willfully mischaracterized meeting?

i mean, its got nothing on the level of lying about nafta coming from the always-opposed-to-it-forever clinton camp.

and who is talking about lying about wright?

the only way i think it might make a difference is in the super delegate minds. richardson is very well known in democratic big wig circles. they all know that he got his best jobs from bill clinton. this might convince some of the more hesistant SDs to declare for obama.

also, it is worth noting that all of the remaining undeclared superdelegates (or at least those that know they are supers already - i think some still have to be selected) are the ones that ididn't throw their immediate support behind the clearly out in front, establishment, inevitable candidacy of clinton. that says something right there about them, and makes me think that this sort of move by richardson will hold some rather strong weight for them.

When did he lie about his pastor? He's in trouble for associating himself with the reverend, that's what everyone is bashing him for.

yeah, though honestly that seems to be because they look at obama events and see this instead (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4503587312547179125).

I'm thinking I'd be willing to put some money down that Senator Obama won't make the nomination now.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, he's been perceived to have lied twice now - one over NAFTA and another over Reverend Wright.

I suspect he's losing the middle ground, the white males who'd voted for him previously are swinging away - as much as it shouldn't be, this has now become about race.

I think it would be quite easy to bring up lies and flip flops for Clinton, don't you? It would also be easy to bring up lies and flip flops for McCain. I don't see the situation being this dire.

I think it would be quite easy to bring up lies and flip flops for Clinton, don't you? It would also be easy to bring up lies and flip flops for McCain. I don't see the situation being this dire.

It is this dire. Obama's campaign has self-destruted, and Clinton never was electable; too many people hate her. That means McCain wins, and we get Bush III. BTW, am I the only one who finds it interesting that not nearly as much was made about Hagee's endorsement of McCain? After all, we are talking about the man who said, among other things...

Hagee on Hurricane Katrina "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]

Hagee on Islamic Beliefs
Fresh Air host Terry Gross asked if Hagee believed that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," to which Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]

Hagee on African-Americans
The San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported:

"Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, 'The Cluster.'

"The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." [San Antonio Express-News 3/7/96]

Hagee on Catholicism
"Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." [Jerusalem Countdown by John Hagee]

Hagee on Women
"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." [God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, Sarah Posner]

"[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family." ["Bible Positions on Political Issues," John Hagee]

Hagee on LGBT Americans
"The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]

Hagee on Iran
"The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty," Hagee wrote [in 2006] in the Pentecostal magazine Charisma. "Israel and America must confront Iran's nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide." [The Nation, 8/8/2006]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23448170/

BTW, am I the only one who finds it interesting that not nearly as much was made about Hagee's endorsement of McCain?

that's just run-of-the-mill christian crazy hatemongering. obama, on the other hand, goes to a church that is so, so...black.

It is this dire. Obama's campaign has self-destruted, and Clinton never was electable; too many people hate her. That means McCain wins, and we get Bush III. BTW, am I the only one who finds it interesting that not nearly as much was made about Hagee's endorsement of McCain? After all, we are talking about the man who said, among other things...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23448170/

it just bothers me that the white evangelical preachers get a pass. not that jerry fallwell didnt get a ration of shit for saying that 9/11 was our own fault for allowing feminism and gay rights but no one had to deny their friendship with him over it.

i guess there is nothing else to diss obama over so they have to harp on his minister who has said nothing that other evangelical preachers havent said. (with a different focus)

it just bothers me that the white evangelical preachers get a pass. not that jerry fallwell didnt get a ration of shit for saying that 9/11 was our own fault for allowing feminism and gay rights but no one had to deny their friendship with him over it.

i guess there is nothing else to diss obama over so they have to harp on his minister who has said nothing that other evangelical preachers havent said. (with a different focus)

Well, when Obama started to look like he might actually get elected, something had to be done:headbang:

i guess there is nothing else to diss obama over so they have to harp on his minister who has said nothing that other evangelical preachers havent said. (with a different focus)

what's worse, wright's stuff isn't even bad comparatively - even taken out of context, like it has been.

Well, when Obama started to look like he might actually get elected, something had to be done:headbang:

well YEAH!

he has to fight both the clinton machine AND the republican hounds.

one would assume that obama would be the preferred candidate of the republicans but they have sooo much clinton dirt that they long to be able to talk about again that they cant let obama get the nomination. the dirt didnt work before and there is no reason to think it will work now except in that republican mindset that says it should work therefore it will work.

i dont think this one issue can be enough to doom obamas fight for the nomination or his chances for success in november.

it is as if the conservative radio hosts have suddenly noticed obama

HOLY FUCK THIS GUY IS BLACK!

i dont suppose that their moronic listeners (no i dont mean ME) would ever vote democratic anyway. they are in quite the panic that they are far behind the curve in finding reasons to hate obama.

I wrote perceived for a specific reason, which is that it doesn't matter what the ultimate truth is, elections can be won and lost on perception.

He was perceived to have lied about his people meeting with Canada over NAFTA, he was percieved to have lied over his position on NAFTA, he was percieved to have lied about how close he was with Reverend Wright.

Those perceptions result in this:

The latest poll in Pennsylvania by Public Policy Polling puts Clinton on 56% and Obama on 30%. The same polling organisation showed her having overtaken Obama in North Carolina, which is also still to hold its primary: she has 43% to his 42%.

I'm on Safari so no tabs but you can go to the home page at www.guardian.co.uk for the full story.

Let's face it, Senator Obama's position was always going to be precarious to some extent and running on the 'change' platform was always risky.

I have doubts whether he can run the course now but I'm always aware that a week is a long time in politics, I just wonder whether he's irrevocably lost a reputation.

Sen. Obama's campaign will survive the Wright "scandal," as well as surviving any of the thinly-veiled race-based attacks.

And before anyone says it, I am suggesting that attempting to paint Sen. Obama as a racist for the racially-charged statements that someone else made is a race-based attack. Unless, of course, you're willing to apply the same rules to the Republicans who openly courted religious figures like Hagee, Graham and others. See below for examples of the duplicity at work here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catherine-crier/religious-bigotry-across-_b_92663.html

Those supporting this attack agenda should also take care to challenge those with whom they ally, such as the controversial neo-conservative commentator Sean Hannity.

Hannity bragged about "breaking" the Wright story on Fox, and certainly has waxed on poetically about how this story will impact Obama's run for the presidency. Read the following and THEN consider the source of both the Wright story and the "New Black Panther" headline added to (and quickly removed from) Fox's marquee storyline during the Hannity Show:

http://www.barackoblogger.com/2008/03/conservative-agenda-or-white.html

and

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal

It's important to appreciate where these attack stories come from, the agenda behind them and the ideology of the people behind these stories.

But then, that's just me talking. You'll have to decide for yourselves.

It is this dire. Obama's campaign has self-destruted, and Clinton never was electable; too many people hate her. That means McCain wins, and we get Bush III. BTW, am I the only one who finds it interesting that not nearly as much was made about Hagee's endorsement of McCain? After all, we are talking about the man who said, among other things...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23448170/

I brought this up earlier. I linked to and posted an article talking about the double standard instituted between black and white preachers. I showed racist white preachers connections to the candidates. This is exactly what Obama and even Reverend Wright have spoken out about. Racism in America iis not dead, it's just been taking a nap. Don't you thing "self destruct" is a bit over the top?

I brought this up earlier. I linked to and posted an article talking about the double standard instituted between black and white preachers. I showed racist white preachers connections to the candidates. This is exactly what Obama and even Reverend Wright have spoken out about. Racism in America iis not dead, it's just been taking a nap. Don't you thing "self destruct" is a bit over the top?

For him? Nope!

For him? Nope!

That was uncalled-for

I brought this up earlier. I linked to and posted an article talking about the double standard instituted between black and white preachers. I showed racist white preachers connections to the candidates. This is exactly what Obama and even Reverend Wright have spoken out about. Racism in America iis not dead, it's just been taking a nap. Don't you thing "self destruct" is a bit over the top?

I dunno...

Think about all the scandals and negative adds out there.

McCain = George Bush Clone
Clinton = funny, all her political records during whitewater and the Monical scandle were... edited...
Obama = the fresh faced kid with ties to an outspoken pastor.

I mean.. is that all they could dig up on Obama? all their attacks are countering each other.

He's Muslim (but this recent one confirms that he's Christian)
He's Racist (Riiight. proof is somehow... not there)
He has no experience (and those with experience are doing SUCH a good job... right Mrs Clinton?)
and this one? Shows he accepts that people can have different views and still be friends with others who have radically different views.

so far, the only Negative I've seen not countered by him or other scandals is that he has more "Present" votes (not voting for or against) than the other candidates (this is percentage of their own voting, not a comparasion between candidates.) but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I dunno...

Think about all the scandals and negative adds out there.

McCain = George Bush Clone
Clinton = funny, all her political records during whitewater and the Monical scandle were... edited...
Obama = the fresh faced kid with ties to an outspoken pastor.

I mean.. is that all they could dig up on Obama? all their attacks are countering each other.

He's Muslim (but this recent one confirms that he's Christian)
He's Racist (Riiight. proof is somehow... not there)
He has no experience (and those with experience are doing SUCH a good job... right Mrs Clinton?)
and this one? Shows he accepts that people can have different views and still be friends with others who have radically different views.

so far, the only Negative I've seen not countered by him or other scandals is that he has more "Present" votes (not voting for or against) than the other candidates (this is percentage of their own voting, not a comparasion between candidates.) but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Actually they think he is racist because he made racist remarks. He talked about people badly comparing them to the average white person. This election is racist. After the Pastor Wright thing 35% of white obama supporters said this made them think differently of Obama while only 2% of blacks said that they thought differently of Obama. Are you starting to get my drift here. He doesn't have much experiance at all. Clinton has at least seen the inside of the white house and has seen how things are done. McCain has over 30 years of experience in the Senate. Obama has had less than 10. Clinton has had about the same amount of official time in a position like that (give or take) but also has had more time watching how a president does it. Obama is Nieve and doesn't know what he is doing. He says he will hire good people but they all say that and he needs to know something about the subject of which he is hiring the person on. He is an excellent speaker, and I will give him that, but not the best candidate. Clinton has a reason for getting the Latino and lower class votes. Obama gets most of his from blacks.

Actually they think he is racist because he made racist remarks. He talked about people badly comparing them to the average white person. This election is racist. After the Pastor Wright thing 35% of white obama supporters said this made them think differently of Obama while only 2% of blacks said that they thought differently of Obama. Are you starting to get my drift here. He doesn't have much experiance at all. Clinton has at least seen the inside of the white house and has seen how things are done. McCain has over 30 years of experience in the Senate. Obama has had less than 10. Clinton has had about the same amount of official time in a position like that (give or take) but also has had more time watching how a president does it. Obama is Nieve and doesn't know what he is doing. He says he will hire good people but they all say that and he needs to know something about the subject of which he is hiring the person on. He is an excellent speaker, and I will give him that, but not the best candidate. Clinton has a reason for getting the Latino and lower class votes. Obama gets most of his from blacks.any chance you can link to the speeches or whatever he did when he made those remarks?

err... considering some of the more famous... deeds of Bill Clinton... I don't think the public wants a repeat performance... :p

I dunno...

Think about all the scandals and negative adds out there.

McCain = George Bush Clone
Clinton = funny, all her political records during whitewater and the Monical scandle were... edited...
Obama = the fresh faced kid with ties to an outspoken pastor.

I mean.. is that all they could dig up on Obama? all their attacks are countering each other.

He's Muslim (but this recent one confirms that he's Christian)
He's Racist (Riiight. proof is somehow... not there)
He has no experience (and those with experience are doing SUCH a good job... right Mrs Clinton?)
and this one? Shows he accepts that people can have different views and still be friends with others who have radically different views.

so far, the only Negative I've seen not countered by him or other scandals is that he has more "Present" votes (not voting for or against) than the other candidates (this is percentage of their own voting, not a comparasion between candidates.) but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But these things are perceived as bad, and that's all that matters. The average American voter can't think beyond perception.

But these things are perceived as bad, and that's all that matters. The average American voter can't think beyond perception.

hence the power of the media and their flagerant misuse of that power.

I suspect he's losing the middle ground, the white males who'd voted for him previously are swinging away - as much as it shouldn't be, this has now become about race.
No, it's the Republicans switching over to vote for Hillary and screwed everything up. Obama would have won Texas, kept Ohio narrow, and thumped in Mississippi had Republicans not done what they did. They vote for Hillary now because they know she can't win the general and their guy is already nominated.

Obama and his campaign's tactics are TYPICALLY very dirty, TYPICAL of a morally CORRUPT Politician whose message of uniting One America now proving to be a lie. Only Hillary can unite this great country.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I just can't stop laughing.

It is this dire. Obama's campaign has self-destruted, and Clinton never was electable; too many people hate her. That means McCain wins, and we get Bush III. BTW, am I the only one who finds it interesting that not nearly as much was made about Hagee's endorsement of McCain? After all, we are talking about the man who said, among other things...
McCain is not a fucking clone of Bush. How many times do I have to say this? You guys will say that about any Republican who is nominated. z0mgz!!!!111one11Bushclone!!!!!111eleven1

There's clearly a double standard. The darker your skin, the harder you must work. Regardless of Rev. Wright's comments, their context, and their origin, they are 100% true. God damn America. We asked for 9/11 after 50 years of fucking with countries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOXOLlyFZUg) and deserved every bit of it.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2352691930_fbbc225f7e_o.gif
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

utter collapse!!!!!!!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2352691930_fbbc225f7e_o.gif
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

utter collapse!!!!!!!
Looks like the third harmonic to me...

(TOO MUCH PHYSICS)

No, it's the Republicans switching over to vote for Hillary and screwed everything up. Obama would have won Texas, kept Ohio narrow, and thumped in Mississippi had Republicans not done what they did. They vote for Hillary now because they know she can't win the general and their guy is already nominated.



psssst

obama did win texas.

obama got 99 delegates. clinton got 94.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=TX

psssst

obama did win texas.

obama got 99 delegates. clinton got 94.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=TX

presumably they meant in the first 2/3rds of the selection process, where, according to exit polls, the number of people who were republicans and voted for clinton in the primary was larger than the margin between her and obama. it's important because it coincides with the switch from obama easily winning the republican switchers, and just so happens to follow the settling of the republican nomination and rush limbaugh's push to do just that.

edit: mccain officially wrapped it up that night, but he needed to win like a dozen delegates or something over the course of the rest of the primary season to lock it in, so it was already inevitable.

presumably they meant in the first 2/3rds of the selection process, where, according to exit polls, the number of people who were republicans and voted for clinton in the primary was larger than the margin between her and obama. it's important because it coincides with the switch from obama easily winning the republican switchers, and just so happens to follow the settling of the republican nomination and rush limbaugh's push to do just that.

edit: mccain officially wrapped it up that night, but he needed to win like a dozen delegates or something over the course of the rest of the primary season to lock it in, so it was already inevitable.

theres nothing that can be done about party crossovers. we can just hope that they split between obama and clinton so they dont skew the results.

theres nothing that can be done about party crossovers.

not this time at least. the idea of open primaries is insane, though.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2352691930_fbbc225f7e_o.gif
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

utter collapse!!!!!!!

I hope this is true.

I hope this is true.

To bad for you that Clinton isn't getting nominated.

To bad for you that Clinton isn't getting nominated.

Why would that be too bad for me? I'm an Obama supporter. *points to sig*

Seems that the Obama campaign may have unclean hands when it comes to snooping into passport records:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/22/passport-investigation-scrutinizes-employee-of-firm-with-a-tie-to-obama/

Passport-gate, anybody? :p

And btw: looks like Fox News breaks yet another story that the Dishonest Liberal Media wanted to stay buried.

Seems that the Obama campaign may have unclean hands when it comes to snooping into passport records:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/22/passport-investigation-scrutinizes-employee-of-firm-with-a-tie-to-obama/

Passport-gate, anybody? :p

And btw: looks like Fox News breaks yet another story that the Dishonest Liberal Media wanted to stay buried.

Okay? :confused:

Seems that the Obama campaign may have unclean hands when it comes to snooping into passport records:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/22/passport-investigation-scrutinizes-employee-of-firm-with-a-tie-to-obama/

Passport-gate, anybody? :p

And btw: looks like Fox News breaks yet another story that the Dishonest Liberal Media wanted to stay buried.

Makes it more telling that Condelizza Rice only apologied to Obama and not McCain or Clinton... :p

Seems that the Obama campaign may have unclean hands when it comes to snooping into passport records:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/22/passport-investigation-scrutinizes-employee-of-firm-with-a-tie-to-obama/

Passport-gate, anybody? :p

And btw: looks like Fox News breaks yet another story that the Dishonest Liberal Media wanted to stay buried.

What exactly is it that you think this proves? You're making even less sense than usual.

What exactly is it that you think this proves? You're making even less sense than usual.

all it proves is that someone in a company run by Obama's political advisor looked into all three candidates files. it can also imply some skullduggery on the part of Obama's advisors and possibly obama himself.

the question is how far will the investigation go and what punishments will be metted out.

.....the fired employees had worked with both the RNC and several neo-conservative community groups prior to beginning work with the company headed by a contributor (not advisor) to Sen. Obama's campaign.

You may want to review the links to both The Nation and the Huffington Post in this regard, folx. Wouldn't want anything like truth slipping in on Fox Noise's last poison pill.

And btw: looks like Fox News breaks yet another story that the Dishonest Liberal Media wanted to stay buried.

You mean the same Fox News that lied about Obama attending a Madrassa in an attempt to make him look like a radical Muslim, when he isn't even a Muslim?

I'll only say a couple things about this whole ENORMOUS thread.

1. I'd rather vote for Hitler than Hillary.

2. I can't wait until Hillary is forced out. Then all the Obama haters will have to choose between Mcain, Obama and ... *dumbo ears, darn, what's his name* ... oh yeah, Ross Pero. We'll see who all these Hillary fans vote for. :p

I couldn't help but laugh when I heard Hillary offered to make Obama her vicepresident. That's the classic desparate, last ditch effort. But then again what did I expect from Hillary, gracefulness?! Ha! Her personality dictates she'll go down forcably, kicking and screaming, and yelling 'sexism'. One day I saw a video online of where a news reporter said that if there was ever a woman suited to the presidential office, it's Hillary. I thought to myself, 'Well then, in that case remind me never to vote for a woman president.'

1. I'd rather vote for Hitler than Hillary.

In fairness to Hillary, she's just a bitch. She's not a totalitarian, bloodthirsty, psychopathic, warmongering, genocidal bitch like Hitler. I'll take Hillary anyday.

In fairness to Hillary, she's just a bitch. She's not a totalitarian, bloodthirsty, psychopathic, warmongering, genocidal bitch like Hitler. I'll take Hillary anyday.

At least, she's not for about 28 days of the month... [/jking] :p

Okay. Okay. True enough.

What exactly is it that you think this proves? You're making even less sense than usual.

He usually makes no sense whatsoever.
...how is it possible to make negative sense?

He usually makes no sense whatsoever.
...how is it possible to make negative sense?

This is usually republican territory.

looks like your man has some problems. too bad. the only thing sadder is that i only have mcaine to vote for.

looks like your man has some problems. too bad. the only thing sadder is that i only have mcaine to vote for.

theres always ron paul!

I was going to reply to the above but oddly I submitted before finishing the reply and then I decided it wasn't worth the reply.

looks like your man has some problems. too bad. the only thing sadder is that i only have mcaine to vote for.

Honestly, if a vitriolic former pastor is the worst thing he has to deal with in this election, he's in pretty good shape.

Honestly, if a vitriolic former pastor is the worst thing he has to deal with in this election, he's in pretty good shape.

Ayup.

Honestly, if a vitriolic former pastor is the worst thing he has to deal with in this election, he's in pretty good shape.

Alas it's not, taken in isolation it would indeed seem a small thing but placed in context of being a new kind of politician, one who calls for change and one who sets himself above petty politicking, the real problem for Senator Obama is that he's been perceived to use the same kind of trickiness with truth as any other.

He put himself up on this pedestal, it's a difficult platform to run on.

If I was Senator Clinton, I'd start calling him on his Iraq position and, if I was her speechwriter, I call it his 'Read my lips' moment.

That is, I'd underline the perception that Senator Obama says one thing but means another.

the problem with this election is that it has become about race and sex. nobody is saying ANYTHING i agree with. time was that i had peoble who stood for what i wanted. the direction of this nation is in the balance and i can only vote agienst the person i dislike the most. i don't want to vote for clinton or oboma, so mcaine is the only choice. i hate years like this, even if i win i loose. :headbang:

the problem with this election is that it has become about race and sex. nobody is saying ANYTHING i agree with. time was that i had peoble who stood for what i wanted. the direction of this nation is in the balance and i can only vote agienst the person i dislike the most. i don't want to vote for clinton or oboma, so mcaine is the only choice. i hate years like this, even if i win i loose. :headbang:

the whole republican field was terrible. im not fond of mr mccain or his policies but he was probably the best man running (for the republicans)

even if i win i loose. :headbang:Get used to it.

"Things he did to help you"? Is that the new standard for presidential candidates in the US? How they have "helped the American people"? Because, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that would narrow the field right into invisibility.

A lot of people are selfish to the point that their only qualifier for anything in life is that it benefits them somehow.

Thankfully a lot of these people don't vote.

I'll only say a couple things about this whole ENORMOUS thread.

1. I'd rather vote for Hitler than Hillary.

Explain plx.

2. I can't wait until Hillary is forced out. Then all the Obama haters will have to choose between Mcain, Obama and ... *dumbo ears, darn, what's his name* ... oh yeah, Ross Pero. We'll see who all these Hillary fans vote for. :p

...They'll vote Democrat. Honestly, have you wondered WHY all the democrats have been bitching endlessly about who the nominee should be? It's because they know that they have the best odds of winning the election since 1960. Getting a black man instead of a woman isn't going to change that. Honestly, without all the blustering back and forth between them, Obama and Clinton pretty much have the same policies. It doesn't matter which one who gets it, really, as long as whoever gets it wins the election.

I couldn't help but laugh when I heard Hillary offered to make Obama her vicepresident. That's the classic desparate, last ditch effort. But then again what did I expect from Hillary, gracefulness?!

Uh...this is nothing new. There have been suggestions of a double ticket since last year, on both sides. This isn't really a blight on Hillary.

Ha! Her personality dictates she'll go down forcably, kicking and screaming, and yelling 'sexism'.

That's ridiculous. Hillary isn't a militant feminist.

One day I saw a video online of where a news reporter said that if there was ever a woman suited to the presidential office, it's Hillary. I thought to myself, 'Well then, in that case remind me never to vote for a woman president.'

My assumption is that you're a republican, in which case you'd probably never vote for a woman, even if she promised to murder an Iraqi on live television.

I swear to god sooner or latter she's going to say we should select the candidate on who has the longest hair...here's the new metric, electoral college votes... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=login&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1206360141-tHaRzwDQBuBaZF0cZS2YqA&oref=slogin)

So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
...
Asked how she could win the nomination, Mr. Bayh said: “Well, I do think the popular vote is important. But that’s a circular argument. It brings us back to Florida and Michigan.”

He said he would also factor in electability and momentum, then added: “But ultimately, you know, if you look at the aggregate popular vote, and as we all recall in 2000, to our, as Democrats, great sorrow, we do elect presidents based upon the Electoral College.”

The Clinton camp has argued that Mrs. Clinton’s having won the big states should be an important factor when considering her electability.

“Presidential elections are decided on electoral votes,” a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Howard Wolfson, said in an e-mail message.

But Mr. Wolfson said superdelegates would also be looking at the popular vote when determining which candidate to support.
Now granted, that's Evan Bayh, the other Il. Senator who is backing Clinton and not Clinton herself...we'll see why that'd be typically silly later, and it's not even this-
So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is ahead of Mrs. Clinton, of New York, in most other leading indicators: popular vote (by 700,000 votes out of 26 million cast, excluding caucuses and the disputed Florida and Michigan results, a difference of about 3 percent); delegates (1,622.5 compared with 1,472.5 for her, according to The New York Times’s count); and number of states (27 compared with 14 for her, excluding Florida and Michigan). The opinion polls are mixed but give Mr. Obama a slight edge.
He's ahead by every measure and even if he loses Pennsylvania she'd have to start pulling Obama + style wins to close those gaps, but oh, the electoral college vote...the one that Senator Clinton said this about-
At the time, Mrs. Clinton, who had just been elected to the Senate, said, “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”
Every time I read one of these things it's like waiting for the next shoe to drop to find out how she once opposed what shes proposing...

I swear to god sooner or latter she's going to say we should select the candidate on who has the longest hair...here's the new metric, electoral college votes... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=login&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1206360141-tHaRzwDQBuBaZF0cZS2YqA&oref=slogin)


Now granted, that's Evan Bayh, the other Il. Senator who is backing Clinton and not Clinton herself...we'll see why that'd be typically silly later, and it's not even this-

He's ahead by every measure and even if he loses Pennsylvania she'd have to start pulling Obama + style wins to close those gaps, but oh, the electoral college vote...the one that Senator Clinton said this about-

Every time I read one of these things it's like waiting for the next shoe to drop to find out how she once opposed what shes proposing...

She'd certainly win if the standard for choosing the nominee were "which candidate has the biggest set of brass balls".

She should argue that the candidate whose name has the most L's should be nominated. She can't lose!

I swear to god sooner or latter she's going to say we should select the candidate on who has the longest hair...here's the new metric, electoral college votes... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=login&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1206360141-tHaRzwDQBuBaZF0cZS2YqA&oref=slogin)


Now granted, that's Evan Bayh, the other Il. Senator who is backing Clinton and not Clinton herself...we'll see why that'd be typically silly later, and it's not even this-

He's ahead by every measure and even if he loses Pennsylvania she'd have to start pulling Obama + style wins to close those gaps, but oh, the electoral college vote...the one that Senator Clinton said this about-

Every time I read one of these things it's like waiting for the next shoe to drop to find out how she once opposed what shes proposing...

We need a Romney emote to describe things like these...

From "We should elect presidents based on the popular vote" to "screw the popular vote I'm more electable vote for me"(even though you actually need to like, win elections to be electable.)

and BMR , my mother would run for president then, she has 4 "L's" in her name...

We need a Romney emote to describe things like these...

From "We should elect presidents based on the popular vote" to "screw the popular vote I'm more electable vote for me (event though you actually need to like, win elections to be electable.)

And having 40% of the country hate you doesnt help when it comes to winning elections.


It still amusses me that Clinton is deluded enough to think she can win the independents and moderate republicans that Obama is winning.

I swear to god sooner or latter she's going to say we should select the candidate on who has the longest hair...here's the new metric, electoral college votes... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=login&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1206360141-tHaRzwDQBuBaZF0cZS2YqA&oref=slogin)

hilarious

And having 40% of the country hate you doesnt help when it comes to winning elections.


It still amusses me that Clinton is deluded enough to think she can win the independents and moderate republicans that Obama is winning.

No one said she was smart :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_el_pr/carville_richardson

Is Carville saying that Hillary is the second coming of Christ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_el_pr/carville_richardson

Is Carville saying that Hillary is the second coming of Christ?

I think if her supporters keep making these asinine comments, Obama does not need to campaign much.

Despite being a McCain and Obama supporter, McCain is starting to sour in my eye. I fear what I might have to do if Hillary were, by some off chance, nominated.

Write in:

Anonymous
Barack Obama
George W. Bush
Fidel Castro
Jong-Il Kim
L. Ron Hubbard
Mark Bunker
Osama bin Laden
Ron Paul
Saddam Hussein
Vladimir Ilich Lenin
etc..

No one said she was smart :D

Actually quite a few people have said she is. I believe she is smart, but likes to lie and embellish a bit too much. I've said she will do anything to win and that's what makes me queasy about her.

Despite being a McCain and Obama supporter, McCain is starting to sour in my eye. I fear what I might have to do if Hillary were, by some off chance, nominated.

Psst... Nader.... vote for Nader... :p

Despite being a McCain and Obama supporter, McCain is starting to sour in my eye. I fear what I might have to do if Hillary were, by some off chance, nominated.

Write in:

Anonymous
Barack Obama
George W. Bush
Fidel Castro
Jong-Il Kim
L. Ron Hubbard
Mark Bunker
Osama bin Laden
Ron Paul
Saddam Hussein
Vladimir Ilich Lenin
etc..



I know you're being sarcastic, but


George W. Bush
Fidel Castro
Jong-Il Kim
Osama bin Laden
Saddam Hussein
Vladimir Ilich Lenin


Are not actually elligible for president. Just write-in Obama. :)

I swear to god sooner or latter she's going to say we should select the candidate on who has the longest hair...here's the new metric, electoral college votes... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=login&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1206360141-tHaRzwDQBuBaZF0cZS2YqA&oref=slogin)

i like matthew yglesias' response to this (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/or_maybe_we_could_count_jellyb.php):

Or Maybe We Could Count Jellybeans

I've been remiss in not linking to this thrilling article in which Evan "he's the future of the Democratic Party and he always will be" Bayh explains that superdelegates should consider ignoring Barack Obama's lead in elected delegates and the popular vote, and instead focus on the fact that Hillary Clinton would we winning if primaries were governed by the electoral college.

I believe that by the Duhem-Quine thesis there are actually an infinite number of arbitrary criteria we could devise to prove that our preferred candidate is "really" winning. For example, Obama's leads in delegates and votes are relatively narrow, but I bet that if we counted by mass his disproportionately male base of support would have a much larger edge.


mass seems unfair. i propose the new metric be based on average density of their voters.

Evan Bayh, the other Il. Senator

indiana, actually. durbin is the other guy from illinois

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_el_pr/carville_richardson

Is Carville saying that Hillary is the second coming of Christ?

It's that F'd up isn't it? It's not what he said but the implication is hilarious.

It also seems like they are saying that Richardson was bribed by Obama to endorse him.

It looks more like Richardson chose to go against the ones who paid him (in this case the Clinton's for having him in their cabinet) and endorese who he thought was right for the job.

Also it scares me when a campaign goes biblical. Are we sure that Hillary isn't running the Karl Rove Republican playbook?

are any of y'all following the clinton "misstatements" about her trip to bosnia?

she claimed to have flown in under fire and have had to run to the waiting cars dodging sniper bullets in '96. i heard her say that her husband made HER go to any places too small, too poor or TOO DANGEROUS.

great marriage that. oh if its too dangerous for me, ill make the wife go. maybe she'll get killed and i can get get sympathy sex from every woman in america.

the story isnt true. of course its not true. for god's sake you dont send the first lady AND THEIR DAUGHTER to a place where they might get killed. there is video showing that it was a peaceful stressless greeting at the airport.

i was watch keith olbermann this evening and it seems that she has quite the pattern of exaggerating her involvement in foreign policy in her husband's administration.

she claimed to have negotiated the opening of the kosovo border but it was opened the day before she got there. she claimed to have negotiated peace in northern ireland but all she did was typical first lady stuff. she claimed to have worked to get the schip children's insurance program through congress but it seems that she did not.

i find it disturbing.

She deserves some credit for SCHIP althought not nearly all of it.

She deserves some credit for SCHIP althought not nearly all of it.

according to the disturbingly bald man on countdown, she deserves no credit for getting it passed, she didnt work on that. she deserves credit for helping the states impliment it. supposedly its the getting it passed part that she is claiming credit for.

she claimed to have negotiated the opening of the kosovo border but it was opened the day before she got there.

are you claiming that she doesn't have a time machine?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_el_pr/carville_richardson

Is Carville saying that Hillary is the second coming of Christ?
The name game between both camps has gotten silly. Obama is like Ken Starr, Bill Clinton is like McCarthy, Richardson is like Judas...it's like they're casting a play, not running for a nomination...

indiana, actually. durbin is the other guy from illinois

D'oh. My mistake...

Seems like Obama and Clinton have a long way to go......

Psst... Nader.... vote for Nader... :p
Nah, he's been in there too long.

I know you're being sarcastic, but


George W. Bush
Fidel Castro
Jong-Il Kim
Osama bin Laden
Saddam Hussein
Vladimir Ilich Lenin


Are not actually elligible for president. Just write-in Obama. :)
Meh. People vote for God and such...Actually that'd make an interesting movie. God or something was written in in enough states to make them win.

Seems like Obama and Clinton have a long way to go......
Nah, it's virtually impossible for the Crown Princess to win. Despite what the media says.

are any of y'all following the clinton "misstatements" about her trip to bosnia?

she claimed to have flown in under fire and have had to run to the waiting cars dodging sniper bullets in '96. i heard her say that her husband made HER go to any places too small, too poor or TOO DANGEROUS.

great marriage that. oh if its too dangerous for me, ill make the wife go. maybe she'll get killed and i can get get sympathy sex from every woman in america.

the story isnt true. of course its not true. for god's sake you dont send the first lady AND THEIR DAUGHTER to a place where they might get killed. there is video showing that it was a peaceful stressless greeting at the airport.

i was watch keith olbermann this evening and it seems that she has quite the pattern of exaggerating her involvement in foreign policy in her husband's administration.

she claimed to have negotiated the opening of the kosovo border but it was opened the day before she got there. she claimed to have negotiated peace in northern ireland but all she did was typical first lady stuff. she claimed to have worked to get the schip children's insurance program through congress but it seems that she did not.

i find it disturbing.

Of course we are. I love it. Anothe Clinton lie exposed.

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/16960331.html

That's a flat out lie, not a "misstatement".

Of course we are. I love it. Anothe Clinton lie exposed.


http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/16960331.html

That's a flat out lie, not a "misstatement".

its such a big lie and so easily refuted that im worried that she might think its TRUE. that would be a whole different problem eh? more like when ronald reagan confused his movie roles with his actual war experience and it turned out that he had early stage alzheimers.

She deserves some credit for SCHIP althought not nearly all of it.

according to the disturbingly bald man on countdown, she deserves no credit for getting it passed, she didnt work on that. she deserves credit for helping the states impliment it. supposedly its the getting it passed part that she is claiming credit for.

Meh, it seems like she's not too far off (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giving_hillary_credit_for_schip.html) on this one.

Nah, it's virtually impossible for the Crown Princess to win. Despite what the media says.

She will lose now, I wish she'll pull out, but she is the stubborn kind.

its such a big lie and so easily refuted that im worried that she might think its TRUE. that would be a whole different problem eh? more like when ronald reagan confused his movie roles with his actual war experience and it turned out that he had early stage alzheimers.
She should just own up to embellishing her war stories. Everyone else exaggerates to the point where there's even a joke about it....

What's the difference between a sea(war) story and a fairy tale?

The sea story starts out, "There I was...".

Of course, most of us don't run for office.

Hillary even mentioning her experience of "war zones" is a sign of desperation. If she was thinking "me vs. McCain" she wouldn't go anywhere that subject!

Hillary even mentioning her experience of "war zones" is a sign of desperation. If she was thinking "me vs. McCain" she wouldn't go anywhere that subject!

We all know she's desperate. You should read some of the comments on the CNN Ticker. You think there's a civil war going on.

its such a big lie and so easily refuted that im worried that she might think its TRUE. that would be a whole different problem eh? more like when ronald reagan confused his movie roles with his actual war experience and it turned out that he had early stage alzheimers.

The primary difference is that in Hillary's case it's most likely to be a lie told in order to gain public sympathy, where in Reagan's case it was--regardless of what you think of his presidency--the early onset of a tragic disease that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy.

OK, maybe my worst enemy. But only that one.

Hillary even mentioning her experience of "war zones" is a sign of desperation. If she was thinking "me vs. McCain" she wouldn't go anywhere that subject!
Who knows what she might have been thinking? I'm sure it wasn't that the danger somehow adds to her qualifications of presidential "experience".

The primary difference is that in Hillary's case it's most likely to be a lie told in order to gain public sympathy, where in Reagan's case it was--regardless of what you think of his presidency--the early onset of a tragic disease that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy.

OK, maybe my worst enemy. But only that one.
Doesn't she usually just cry to get sympathy?

Doesn't she usually just cry to get sympathy?

Getting emotional in one rally =/= 'usually crying to get sympathy.'

We all know she's desperate.
In the end though, it may be that it will be the Democrats will be more desperate and will have to choose Hillary due to Obama's poor numbers against McCain in states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Florida.

In the end though, it may be that it will be the Democrats will be more desperate and will have to choose Hillary due to Obama's poor numbers against McCain in states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Florida.

If you pick Hillary, the Democrats lose the general election.

You know, the woman who "came under sniper fire..."

Getting emotional in one rally =/= 'usually crying to get sympathy.'
What the heck is this '=/=' stuff? Isn't it easier to type 'isn't'? Or you could type '!usually' to negate the word, if you're really lazy...

Anyhow, two times is a pattern. Once in New Hampshire, once in Connecticut. Then, there's her giggling on the Sunday news shows, or her coughing fits that seem to crop up when she's asked hard questions... All of them are little contrivances to gain sympathy or distract from the matter at hand.

What the heck is this '=/=' stuff? Isn't it easier to type 'isn't'? Or you could type '!usually' to negate the word, if you're really lazy...

Anyhow, two times is a pattern. Once in New Hampshire, once in Connecticut. Then, there's her giggling on the Sunday news shows, or her coughing fits that seem to crop up when she's asked hard questions... All of them are little contrivances to gain sympathy or distract from the matter at hand.

Like, "and there I was, no shit, under sniper fire..."

when she definitely was not, at any time, unless you count the Marine rifle team that fired the 21 gun salute for her husband (lucky for her they were blanks)...

What the heck is this '=/=' stuff? Isn't it easier to type 'isn't'? Or you could type '!usually' to negate the word, if you're really lazy...
What're ya gonna cry about it?

Anyhow, two times is a pattern. Once in New Hampshire, once in Connecticut.
Connecticut was even more barely could be considered crying than New Hampshire. Hardly a pattern and maybe the weakest argument made so far, and in this thread that's saying something.

Then, there's her giggling on the Sunday news shows, or her coughing fits that seem to crop up when she's asked hard questions... All of them are little contrivances to gain sympathy or distract from the matter at hand.

Or, you know, just her mannerisms. She wasn't constructed in a lab.

Or, you know, just her mannerisms. She wasn't constructed in a lab.


Or, you know, just her outright lies to get sympathy, like about how she was "under sniper fire". She's lies about as often as she opens her mouth.

Or, you know, just her outright lies to get sympathy, like about how she was "under sniper fire". She's lies about as often as she opens her mouth.
The two do not equate. I'm not a fan of Clinton, but criticism should be grounded. Grossly exaggerating her foreign diplomacy experiences is valid criticism. Extrapolating that to her every gesture and quirk is ridiculous and unproductive.

its such a big lie and so easily refuted that im worried that she might think its TRUE. that would be a whole different problem eh? more like when ronald reagan confused his movie roles with his actual war experience and it turned out that he had early stage alzheimers.

IMHO, she's got a narcissistic personality disorder. (I initially typed that as a joke. Then I went and looked up the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria (http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm). I'm now seriously wondering... Granted that said criteria can be applied to serveral pols...)

She should just own up to embellishing her war stories. Everyone else exaggerates to the point where there's even a joke about it....

What's the difference between a sea(war) story and a fairy tale?

The sea story starts out, "There I was...".

Of course, most of us don't run for office.

And most of us don't get caught out so flat-footed in such an easily checked lie. Note, that's lie not exageration. If she'd actually landed in anything remotely near what she described, I'd be shocked. Waltzing off an aircraft lesiurely with your daughter, the comic, and the pop singer, stopping off for little girl to read you her poem is a world of difference from running for the transport while being sniped at.

We all know she's desperate. You should read some of the comments on the CNN Ticker. You think there's a civil war going on.

It's certainly a civil war in the Democratic Party

The two do not equate. I'm not a fan of Clinton, but criticism should be grounded. Grossly exaggerating her foreign diplomacy experiences is valid criticism. Extrapolating that to her every gesture and quirk is ridiculous and unproductive.

However, will you argue that she isn't fighting a perception of dishonesty?

On a personal note...

I just signed up to be a Volunteer for the Barack Obama Campaign for the primary race here in PA.

However, will you argue that she isn't fighting a perception of dishonesty?

She absolutely is, the gross exaggeration is really mindnumbing (I keep saying exaggeration because at least she was there...it wasn't made from whole cloth...) and undermines her experience argument. How valuable is that experience if your 'memory' of it is that poor? And those are our options, either she has a piss poor memory of her experiences where she imagines trauma or she's willing to grossly exaggerate the circumstances of the event in order to promote something it otherwise wouldn't. It's not as bad, honestly, as the choice we have with McCain and the 'blunder/missunderstanding/'senior moment,' but it ain't encouraging either.

However, just because I find that to be a problem doesn't mean I'm going to cheerlead or accept any extension of that no matter how tenuous.

What're ya gonna cry about it?

Connecticut was even more barely could be considered crying than New Hampshire. Hardly a pattern and maybe the weakest argument made so far, and in this thread that's saying something.


Or, you know, just her mannerisms. She wasn't constructed in a lab.
It's not mannerisms when on two different shows -- Fox News Sunday and Face the Nation -- she is asked similar questions about her health care plan and both times she breaks into uncontrollable fits of giggling.

It's not mannerisms, it's contrivances.

On a personal note...

I just signed up to be a Volunteer for the Barack Obama Campaign for the primary race here in PA.

you better be careful or youll end up a democrat for the rest of your life.

Who knows what she might have been thinking? I'm sure it wasn't that the danger somehow adds to her qualifications of presidential "experience".

as you said above, people tend to exaggerate their "war experience". but its not to her credit to suggest that her husband has so little regard for her safety that he preferentially sent her to the danger spots.

one might overlook an affair or 2 in a long term marriage but, at least for me, trying to get you killed is grounds for divorce.

It's not mannerisms when on two different shows -- Fox News Sunday and Face the Nation -- she is asked similar questions about her health care plan and both times she breaks into uncontrollable fits of giggling.

It's not mannerisms, it's contrivances.

Yeah, because mannerisms wouldn't pop up more than once or be completely consistent or anything like that...

Looks like the media is starting to take notice that Clinton is full of shit.

The video clip played by CBS on Monday shows Mrs Clinton and Chelsea walking across the tarmac smiling and waving before stopping to shake hands with Bosnia's acting president and meet an eight-year-old girl.

Man, those snipers must be crappy, crappy shots.

The best part:

Her campaign has said she "misspoke" about landing under fire.

No.

Saying "I came in under sniper fire" when in fact it was machine gun fire is misspeaking. Saying "I came in under sniper fire" when there were hostile troops in the area is exaggerating. Saying "I came in under sniper fire" when there was NO THREAT to your safety and the fucking President of Bosnia is right there is a fucking lie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7313117.stm

It's not mannerisms when on two different shows -- Fox News Sunday and Face the Nation -- she is asked similar questions about her health care plan and both times she breaks into uncontrollable fits of giggling.

It's not mannerisms, it's contrivances.

Giggling and repeating questions is a technique some people employ when they are nervous. If she is nervous about her plan than perhaps it's not truly the best plan for the American people, and her nervousness indicates this. It's a defense mechanism for her and she can't avoid it. It does say something about her character and her own view of her "experience" argument.

The polls still aren't shifting much (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary) in Pennsylvania-
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 49% to 39%. That’s little changed from earlier in the month when Clinton led 51% to 38%
which isn't too surprising since the ad blitzes have more or less just started. Clinton, apparently, (this is the impression I get from a separate article, please correct me if I'm wrong) has done more on the ground campaigning in this state but hasn't moved the numbers much.

This was interesting, though-
In the Keystone State, Clinton is now viewed favorably by 68% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. That’s down from 76% in the previous survey. Obama is viewed favorably by 71%, a figure that is little changed from 72% earlier in the month.
It obviously hasn't manifest itself in a shift in the poll, but it might be the first sign of a crack. Ultimately I think she'll probably still win the state-but this is pretty heavily influenced more or less by what I'm told because I know shit all about Pennsylvania-I'm told it's a lot like Ohio, strong in Clinton's demographics, etc. She has a big lead and he has a slightly harder road to hoe than he did before Ohio. On the plus side, he doesn't have to groom a Texas as well, so he can be more focused, but so can she. But it seems entirely plausible that he can keep any loss at least Ohio level if not narrower, steepening her climb once again as they move into Obama friendly primaries.

Sad, was this-
If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, just 55% of Clinton voters say they are even somewhat likely to vote for him against John McCain. That’s down two points from 57%.

If Clinton is the nominee, just 55% of Obama voters say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for her against McCain. That’s down nine points from 64%.
The well is starting to poison. That will shift once the nomination is actually decided, but it's a sadder state of affairs than has been. Cue the back and forth over whose fault that is...

Interesting was this-
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Likely Democratic Primary voters in Pennsylvania have read, seen, or heard about comments made by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former Pastor. Nearly half, 47%, say it has no impact on their vote. Fifteen percent (15%) say Wright’s comments make them more likely to vote for Obama while 36% say the opposite.

Overall, 38% are somewhat or very concerned about Obama’s relationship with Wright. That figure includes 62% of Clinton supporters, 11% of Obama voters, and 36% of those who are undecided.
And that, so far, is the Wright effect.

Looks like the media is starting to take notice that Clinton is full of shit.



Man, those snipers must be crappy, crappy shots.

The best part:



No.

Saying "I came in under sniper fire" when in fact it was machine gun fire is misspeaking. Saying "I came in under sniper fire" when there were hostile troops in the area is exaggerating. Saying "I came in under sniper fire" when there was NO THREAT to your safety and the fucking President of Bosnia is right there is a fucking lie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7313117.stm

Colbert destroys the big state strategy here (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_big_state_argument.html) in the funniest way possible.

http://2008central.net/2008/03/24/clintons-new-electoral-college-argument/

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/the_clinton_campaigns_awkward_electoral_college_argument.html

Colbert destroys the big state strategy here (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_big_state_argument.html) in the funniest way possible.

That was a solid episode. I remember that haha

She wasn't constructed in a lab.
Probably not, but it would explain some things :D

you better be careful or youll end up a democrat for the rest of your life.

He's probably safe. I worked for McGovern when I was young and stupid. Actually, I even worked for HHH before that. And I turned out fine.


A real job and some responsibility will make a good conservative out of Corny.

He's probably safe. I worked for McGovern when I was young and stupid. Actually, I even worked for HHH before that. And I turned out fine.


A real job and some responsibility will make a good conservative out of Corny.

i dont remember.....was he trying for law school?

A real job and some responsibility will make a good conservative out of Corny.

Because no liberal has a real job:rolleyes:

Because no liberal has a real job:rolleyes:
None that I've ever met. Of course, we may differ about what a real job consists of.

i dont remember.....was he trying for law school?
If that's so, it would make it much more difficult for him to return to the embrace of conservatism.

None that I've ever met. Of course, we may differ about what a real job consists of.

Teaching isnt having a real job?
Scientists dont have real jobs?
Lawyers dont have real jobs?
Journalists (real journalists) dont have real jobs?

Hell, Id wager liberals work in almost all lines of work.


Ill make equally BS blanket statements. Conservatives dont get a real education. Of course, we may differ about what consists of a real education.

On a personal note...

I just signed up to be a Volunteer for the Barack Obama Campaign for the primary race here in PA.
That will definitely be a plus for the Clinton team!! :p

Teaching isnt having a real job?
Scientists dont have real jobs?
Lawyers dont have real jobs?
Journalists (real journalists) dont have real jobs?

Hell, Id wager liberals work in almost all lines of work.


Ill make equally BS blanket statements. Conservatives dont get a real education. Of course, we may differ about what consists of a real education.
Journalists? No.

Take a pill, pal. Don't you ever get tired of taking things so seriously?

Journalists? No.

Take a pill, pal. Don't you ever get tired of taking things so seriously?

Statements like that are idiotic. I call people on idiotic statements.

Statements like that are idiotic. I call people on idiotic statements.
Well, it's a good, but vain effort. You should take context into consideration before you start worrying about idiotic.

But then, it's your time, not mine.

Statements like that are idiotic. I call people on idiotic statements.

You should have said that real work according to conservatives is limited to military, clergy, KKK and selling blood for beer.

:p

You should have said that real work according to conservatives is limited to military, clergy, KKK and selling blood for beer.

:p

Or being on welfare because you are unskilled labor and were outsourced, while at the same time ranting against welfare.

Journalists? No. <snip>


AHEM! I'm a journalist ... and you're now an entry on my List ... :p

Fear not, KoL, together we will refute this vicious slander (digs into Pocket History of Brave and Noble Journalists)!!!!

EDIT: Forgot why I actually wrote the above -- which was to gently hint that this is irrelevant and not worth getting steamed up about.

AHEM! I'm a journalist ... and you're now an entry on my List ... :p

Fear not, KoL, together we will refute this vicious slander (digs into Pocket History of Brave and Noble Journalists)!!!!

EDIT: Forgot why I actually wrote the above -- which was to gently hint that this is irrelevant and not worth getting steamed up about.

Is it bad that everytime I see you post in a thread I just posted in I expect to be in trouble?


Psh, Im the resident problem child :p


;)

He's probably safe. I worked for McGovern when I was young and stupid. Actually, I even worked for HHH before that. And I turned out fine.


A real job and some responsibility will make a good conservative out of Corny.

Um...I prefer to be independent leaning thanks.

i dont remember.....was he trying for law school?

Maybe one day.

That will definitely be a plus for the Clinton team!! :p

:rolleyes:

CH? Shut up for once.

Maybe one day.

you should consider it seriously. i think you would make a good lawyer.

You should have said that real work ... is limited to ... selling blood for beer.

:p
Isn't that the staple of existence for college students? Or have things changed that much since my undergrad days?

Now, did I tell you about the time I was crossing High Street to sell my blood...? No? Well, there I was, in the middle of the road and there was this sniper...

Now, did I tell you about the time I was crossing High Street to sell my blood...? No? Well, there I was, in the middle of the road and there was this sniper...


Bravo. I actually snorted beer out my nose at that one.

Bravo. I actually snorted beer out my nose at that one.
Do you go to UNM?

Do you go to UNM?

Hm? No, Northern Illinois Univeristy. The Hillary sniper reference was what was awesome.

Hm? No, Northern Illinois Univeristy. The Hillary sniper reference was what was awesome.
I just noticed the "Pit" reference and recalled that was what they called the basketball arena at UNM.

you should consider it seriously. i think you would make a good lawyer.

You are not the first person to tell me that :)

Actually, I even worked for HHH before that. And I turned out fine.
:eek:
you worked for Triple H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_H)?

:eek:
you worked for Triple H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_H)?

ROTFLMAO:D

Once upon a time, there was this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21memo.html)-
As a matter of strategy, top Clinton allies and advisers said Thursday they were treading carefully when it came to talking about Mr. Wright with superdelegates, the elected officials and party leaders whose votes could determine the Democratic nomination.
...
“It would be very difficult for her or the Clinton campaign publicly to pair electability with Reverend Wright because it’s so inflammatory,” said Ronald W. Walters, a government and politics professor at the University of Maryland.
Now, that's not to imply that they weren't going to play it all, just on the DL to the superdelegates, as such-
They said they were aware of the potential repercussions of pressing the issue too directly but were convinced this was going to be a key factor in superdelegates’ making a judgment on Mr. Obama’s electability.[/url]
But then, a story about sniper fire and rushing to cars turned out to really involve comedian Sinbad, Chelsea, an 8 year-old with a poem, and no snipers and a former Clinton appointee endorses Obama after being courted vigorously by both campaigns.

So now there's this- (http://www.slate.com/id/2187473/)
[quote]Hillary Clinton has told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that she would have left her church if her pastor had made divisive comments like those of Barack Obama's minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. "He would not have been my pastor," sniffed La Clinton. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."
(I'll grant that this article takes a fair point about who she made this comment to and then makes a mountain out of that molehill.)

Ah, what a difference a weekend and a blunder of ones own changes things...