NationStates Jolt Archive

The latest polls show him winning in Texas and closing the gap in Ohio and Pennsylvania. An Obama victory in any of those three states would likely prove fatal to Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

I have said it many times before, and I say it again. Barack Obama is not the right choice for the Democratic Party. He is certainly a force in his own right....but he is not the best suited to winning in November or taking the White House in January. The White House is not a place for training wheels, and it takes experience to get to change. We saw that difference in the debate last night, when Obama actually deferred to Clinton's experience in foreign policy on one particular question. She was forceful, yet not angry...informed, yet not haughty. She looked presidential last night, and Obama looked defensive. Picking a presidential candidate is (or should be) more than a popularity contest, or a likability contest. Presidential politics should be issue-driven....and Hillary Clinton has a commanding understanding that outstrips Obama's on most of those issues.

Furthermore, saying that "we are going to unite the country, we are going to turn the page" is all very well and good. But who are you going to unite us with, Mr. Obama? The Bush-McCain Republicans? We've just spent seven years having the neoconservatives stamp their radical agenda into the face of this country. Perhaps a call for unity is the more mature thing to do, but I'm not interested in "uniting" with Republicans. I want a President who will stand up for Democratic values, for what is right. I want a President who will not cave to the demands of the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party. I want a fighter, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is that type of fighter. We've seen it many times in this campaign already....any other candidate would have been finished by Obama's string of victories. Clinton's candidacy was declared dead in New Hampshire...and then she won. Her candidacy was declared dead in Nevada...and then she won. She's dead even with him or leading slightly in Ohio and Texas, even with all the money and momentum (God, I hate that word) that Obama has. You want a story? Here's a story. She's fighting Obama with one hand tied behind her back, honorably, and she's still got a shot at victory even after all THIS.

The call for change is seductive, but it takes experience to make change happen. Obama is not the only one who represents change. Either Obama or Clinton would represent radical change from eight years of Bush-Cheney. We've seen what seven years of -inexperience- can do to the country...the American people have paid a bitter price in treasure and lost jobs for Mr. Bush's on-the-job training. Obama's supporters may claim that Hillary's prior experience in the White House doesn't really count as "experience"...but it is wholly unrealistic to think that she is not familiar with how the White House works...not after observing her husband for eight years. We need a candidate who can create an economy like we had during the Clinton Administration. We need a candidate who can command respect from around the world, who can bring our allies together once again. We need a candidate who is familiar with the problems in our healthcare system, and who is ready to fix them...someone who has a workable, affordable, and executable plan to provide all Americans with some level of health care. We need Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States, and I call on my fellow Ohioans to deliver a resounding victory to her in the Buckeye State on March 4. We are down. But we are NOT out.

It's becoming increasingly clear the Republicans are conceding that McCain can't beat Obama, but he can beat Hillary. Voting for Obama is the pragmatic thing to do.

That point you made about the Bush-Cheney rule for 8 years, his Father had the job before him, Clinton's husband had the job before her.
Do you really want to have rich families who just keep making the same mistakes or someone different, who doesn't resort to laughable smear tactics to take out their opponents.
Clinton appears false to me, always trying to secure power and not really caring for who she represents.
But i'm sure other posters here have far better reasons for rejecting Hillary.

Maybe i'm interpreting your post wrong but the only reason you really gave for voting for Hillary was she has the knowledge of the workings of the White House, I imagine Obama also has at least some knowledge of the White House.

What i really think it boils down to is, there's already been one Clinton in power, why vote for a second one?

The White House is not a place for training wheels, and it takes experience to get to change.
Patently absurd on multiple levels. For starters, this is not an incumbent race and thus no one has experience at being president. And since when did change require experience? That is an absurd statement in and of itself.

We saw that difference in the debate last night, when Obama actually deferred to Clinton's experience in foreign policy on one particular question.
And this is indicative of what? The fact he will institute a cabinet of people more experience than himself instead of appointing yes men? I fail to see the problem.

Furthermore, saying that "we are going to unite the country, we are going to turn the page" is all very well and good. But who are you going to unite us with, Mr. Obama? The Bush-McCain Republicans? We've just spent seven years having the neoconservatives stamp their radical agenda into the face of this country.
What are you even bitching about here?

I want a fighter, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is that type of fighter.
Too bad she personally holds a number of unflattering neocon positions herself.

She's fighting Obama with one hand tied behind her back, honorably, and she's still got a shot at victory even after all THIS.
Bullshit, she's fighting Obama with one foot in her mouth - and that is why she is losing. She has the name recognition and semi-experience. She just has no charisma and can't even figure out which strategy she wants to use to overcome Obama. If she can't overcome Obama, she definitely can't overcome McCain.


*snip repetitive and still incorrect crap*

Why do you post this shit still. You are not going to convince anyone, because youre not saying anything new.


America has spoken. They have rejected Clinton and the prospects of two families alternating rule over the country.


America does not want Hillary.

That remains to be seen. I vote for Clinton because I feel she is the right person for the job. And because some of Obama's supporters have been insufferably arrogant, and even Bushist in their outlook. One of them cavalierly told me that "I might as well vote for McCain if I voted for Clinton". Another told me that "they don't need my vote to win". Those are hardly the voices of "change" that Obama is supposedly driving before him. That's old politics disguised as new politics.

are you saying that Obama Been Leadin'?

ouch, that hurt my brain on several levels.


S - you keep claiming Obama has no substance/details - tell us where he is lacking and demonstrate where Hillary makes up for this lack please.

If i was an american (i'm polish) i would vote for obama. experience is not the most important thing. Hillary is in debt, and is broadly speaking, a power-hungry woman. I watched many videos for and against hillary and obama. And all i could see against(may be considered obama is :

- Lack of experience
- Total anti-bushism
- He's black (?!?:confused:)
- He's second name is Hussein
- He's a smoker

I don't really get any of these arguments, apart from the lack of experience. I think it is some sort of an advantage, since he's not really one of those types that are involved in politics too much and by that, i mean not so deep into all of these financial problems like Hillary. I wish i'd knew more on that.

He's black. That's great. Finally some hopes of UNITING the people (it's not republicans and the democrats imo, it's the poor and the more wealthy and the black and the white to support each other)

He's Hussein. That might sound alarming. But no - islamist country peoples WILL have a lot more trust in someone having his roots in islam school. Even though he is protestant, he will be considered someone who understands how to speak and how to get along with the middle east, especially Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel. Well, at least he will have more of that than Hillary.

One other thing is that as far as i know(not sure), he lived(or s) in a Polonia city.

So in short, I'll summarise:

Experience is not everything. Symbols, attitude and the way of beeing with people - that is more important. I don't really see Hillary on that bit.

Never mind that Obama is capable of winning not only independents, but also moderate Republicans... :rolleyes:

If experience is so important, why aren't you writing in for Chris Dodd or Joe Biden? Unlike Clinton, Biden's experience superiority over Obama can be measured in decades rather than 4 years provided you ignore local government work.

Why do you post this shit still. You are not going to convince anyone, because youre not saying anything new.


America has spoken. They have rejected Clinton and the prospects of two families alternating rule over the country.


America does not want Hillary.

yay, good news Obama is pulling ahead even more...

I'd just like to see the US elect a Democrat instead of a Republican. Obama is preferable I like his positions more than I like Clinton's, and it'll be easier for him to win against McCain than for Hilary.

You got another note on that trumpet or what?

The call for change is seductive, but it takes experience to make change happen. Obama is not the only one who represents change. Either Obama or Clinton would represent radical change from eight years of Bush-Cheney.

I disagree, Clinton does not represent radical change from Bush.

We've seen what seven years of -inexperience- can do to the country...the American people have paid a bitter price in treasure and lost jobs for Mr. Bush's on-the-job training.

Stop right there. Bush had experiance as Governer of Texas.

We need a candidate who can create an economy like we had during the Clinton Administration.

For that we need Allan Greenspan, not a Clinton.

We need a candidate who can command respect from around the world, who can bring our allies together once again. We need a candidate who is familiar with the problems in our healthcare system, and who is ready to fix them...someone who has a workable, affordable, and executable plan to provide all Americans with some level of health care.

So...we need Obama is what your saying.

We need Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States, and I call on my fellow Ohioans to deliver a resounding victory to her in the Buckeye State on March 4.

YES! 4 more years of an authoritarian war mongring moron!


We are down. But we are NOT out.

Yes you are.



Once again, America has rejected Hillary. Face reality.

That remains to be seen.

Its over. Everyone but Hillary and apperantly you and CH know it.

"I might as well vote for McCain if I voted for Clinton". Another told me that "they don't need my vote to win". Those are hardly the voices of "change" that Obama is supposedly driving before him.


Both of those statements are true. The truth is ugly and hurts, but true.

Conservative talking heads would rather have Hillary Clinton than John McCain, what does that tell you?


That's old politics disguised as new politics

Man, you must write Hillary's speeches, or she writes yours. We've heard tis before. Obama tactics = Karl Rove. Guess what? They work.

You know what else isnt new politics? Sending out a photo of him in traditional garb to pander to the "OMGEEE OBAMA IS TEH EBIL MUSLIM!" crowd, crying plagerism when you do it all the time without permission from the friend your taking it from, and whining about media bias when you start to realize youre loosing and looking like a fool in a process. I know she denies the picture thing. Obama even accept her at her word. I dont believe her, and I doubt he does either, but hes being the better man and putting it behind him.


EDIT: Oh, and let us not forget such mature Hildabeast moments as "Change you can Xerox" or "Is Obama comfortable? Should we give him another pillow?"

Frankly, the more desperate she gets, the more she loses control of her sanity, and the more she sickens me.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.
What happened to this?

Obama kicked our collective butts in Virginia, DC, and Maryland tonight by surprising margins.

This race, however, is not over by any stretch of the imagination. Any other candidate would have been finished by getting swept in three primaries at once. Hillary, however, still has a shot, is still strong enough to reach that nomination. But she can't do it without our help. For those of you in the Clinton camp who happen to live in the upcoming primary states, I urge you to get out and vote. We have seen the consequences of inexperienced leadership for the past seven years, and whilst I have great respect for Senator Obama, I do not believe he is the best positioned to enact change from the Oval Office. Hillary Clinton is the most experienced candidate, the one most likely to deliver change. You can even see it in the debates...Clinton usually wins the debates based on the merits of her arguments. Clinton offers more specific plans and proposals. Obama is a great speaker, to be true, and perhaps an even better speaker than Clinton. But his speeches are full of glittering generalities. I've had my fill of such generalities....

Obama has apparently swept the Wisconsin primaries, dealing yet another blow to the Clinton campaign. We have now reached the endgame. Either Clinton will find some way to hold her ground in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, or she will succumb to the tidal wave that is Barack Obama.

I have stated repeatedly my opinions regarding Sen. Obama. I do not think he is the right person for the job. I now throw out some additional criticism, to those who are voting for him.

Momentum and star power are never good rationales for choosing a Presidential candidate, but that seems to be the authority from which Obama is speaking. As it stands now, there is a stampede in both the media and the Democratic Party to nominate him. It's breathtaking. Some of his supporters both in my local area and on this forum have been insufferably arrogant about the whole situation.

Make no mistake. I do not care if Barack Obama is the more electable candidate either now or in the general election. Such things can be argued about all day. The fact remains that for the man who supposedly brings "change" to the table, Obama runs his political machine very much like the President who has been sitting in office the past seven years. Some of his followers sound very much like the followers of the man currently sitting in the Oval Office. He offers grand promises and glittering generalities without substance. It is all well and good to speak of change, but you don't get change before you get results. Clinton gets results.

I say now that nominating Obama, should we go through with it, would be a major mistake, even if he wins the election. It is most especially a mistake to sweep him to victory just because he's put together a string of wins since Super Tuesday. Yet tonight that seems to be precisely the mood of the Party...and it is absolutely maddening.

I have always considered myself to be fairly liberal in my politics, but when the Obama freight train comes to Ohio in about two weeks, I will cast my vote against him. I feel in my heart that he is the wrong person for the job....I feel it just as readily as I felt it when I cast votes against George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Nobody listened to me then, and nobody appears to be listening to me now. But dammit, we are making a mistake by rushing to judgment on this, and even if Obama wins we may end up losing.

Acting on the request of a fellow poster, I created a poll to answer a question.

A lot of people have shown a strong dislike of Hillary Clinton (why, precisely, escapes me). The argument came to a head with me arguing that she is the best suited for the job, versus the highly negative opinions of her detractors who say that they simply won't vote for her.

My question is this: If Hillary Clinton really WAS the best candidate for the job (we can debate the reality of that until doomsday, so just assume that it is the case), how many of you who dislike her would go ahead and vote for her?

It took nine days to tally up all the votes, but the results are finally in:

Hillary Rodham Clinton snaps the Obama winning streak by finally coming away with New Mexico in her column.

In addition, polls show Clinton still holding sizable leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

For those of you in Camp Clinton, this is all some encouraging news after the ruinous events of the Potomac Primaries. It shows Clinton is still very much in the game, and that she has an opportunity to counterpunch in the big states.

:)
Seriously, you're banging the skin off your drum.

This whole argument is ridiculous. Personally, I prefer Obama to Clinton, but do any of you see anything seriously wrong with either one? Whichever one gets nominated is going to win.

Why?

McCain is afraid to lose in Iraq. He made some comment about us being there a century if that's what it took.

This is going to be a one-issue election. What is that issue? The Iraq war. Why would all the moderates and independents vote for the continuation of the second most unpopular American war?

Either way, I certainly wouldn't bet on any candidate who is still foolish enough to support the war.

If experience is so important, why aren't you writing in for Chris Dodd or Joe Biden? Unlike Clinton, Biden's experience superiority over Obama can be measured in decades rather than 4 years provided you ignore local government work.

Chris Dodd has cast his endorsement for Obama :)

This whole argument is ridiculous. Personally, I prefer Obama to Clinton, but do any of you see anything seriously wrong with either one? Whichever one gets nominated is going to win.

You may want to check full poll numbers on that one.

The latest polls show him winning in Texas and closing the gap in Ohio and Pennsylvania. An Obama victory in any of those three states would likely prove fatal to Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

I have said it many times before, and I say it again. Barack Obama is not the right choice for the Democratic Party. He is certainly a force in his own right....but he is not the best suited to winning in November or taking the White House in January.

Unfortunately for you, lots of people disagree with you.

Perhaps a call for unity is the more mature thing to do, but I'm not interested in "uniting" with Republicans.

Then you aren't interested in getting anything done in this country or in actually following the will of the people. Believe it or not, there are lots of Republicans in this country. Trying to leave them out of the political process is absurd. Trying to "fight" them all the time is equally absurd. Tit for tat politics is certainly not what this country needs.

I want a President who will stand up for Democratic values, for what is right. I want a President who will not cave to the demands of the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party.

Ah, so you'd be fine with Obama then. Good.

Clinton's candidacy was declared dead in New Hampshire...

It was?

Her candidacy was declared dead in Nevada...

It was?

Obama's supporters may claim that Hillary's prior experience in the White House doesn't really count as "experience"...but it is wholly unrealistic to think that she is not familiar with how the White House works...not after observing her husband for eight years.

So Bill must have been an awful president, right? After all, he didn't have White House experience until he was there. Too much "on the job training" and all.

Not to mention that, by this logic, I'm well-qualified to be a computer programmer.

We need a candidate who can command respect from around the world, who can bring our allies together once again.

Like Obama?

We need a candidate who is familiar with the problems in our healthcare system, and who is ready to fix them...someone who has a workable, affordable, and executable plan to provide all Americans with some level of health care.

Like Obama?

We need Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States,

I disagree.

Guess what Barackites? We had our very own Obama in 1997; Tony Blair. Change, hope, and all the rest of the semantic apparatus of the young politician. Take a guess how "novel" New Labour has been? Not in the slightest. The same disregard for the electorate, for electoral promises and for constitutional practice. The same duplicity, the same internecine factionalism, and the same demagoguery, but disguised in the mantle of a "new politics".

Enjoy whta you're about to elect. I certainly will.:)

When Ann Coulter said she would rather vote for Hillary than Mcain, That put the final nail in the coffin.

This whole argument is ridiculous. Personally, I prefer Obama to Clinton, but do any of you see anything seriously wrong with either one? Whichever one gets nominated is going to win.

Why?

McCain is afraid to lose in Iraq. He made some comment about us being there a century if that's what it took.

This is going to be a one-issue election. What is that issue? The Iraq war. Why would all the moderates and independents vote for the continuation of the second most unpopular American war?

Either way, I certainly wouldn't bet on any candidate who is still foolish enough to support the war.

I think the way that some Obama supporters are going on about Clinton (and vice versa) is the silliest.

I think it's better to elevate your favorite candidate rather than tearing down the other. For one, it's that old way of politicking that is turning so many people off of this whole thing. It's negative and ugly. Also, we may see an Obama/Clinton ticket which would work a lot better if there wasn't all this negativity attached to either of the candidates by their own party members. This merely gives the Republican side more cannon fodder anyway.

I don't really get any of these arguments, apart from the lack of experience. I think it is some sort of an advantage, since he's not really one of those types that are involved in politics too much and by that, i mean not so deep into all of these financial problems like Hillary. I wish i'd knew more on that.

Indeed, when they say "lack of experience", they mean "lack of Washington , DC experience. Someone who hasn't "learned to play the game" as much.

Tell me, how does one bring about change when one is mired in the current "game"?

Guess what Barackites? We had our very own Obama in 1997; Tony Blair. Change, hope, and all the rest of the semantic apparatus of the young politician. Take a guess how "novel" New Labour has been? Not in the slightest. The same disregard for the electorate, for electoral promises and for constitutional practice. The same duplicity, the same internecine factionalism, and the same demagoguery, but disguised in the mantle of a "new politics".

Enjoy whta you're about to elect. I certainly will.:)



Well, the difference is Blair was Bush's bootlick.

Indeed, when they say "lack of experience", they mean "lack of Washington , DC experience. Someone who hasn't "learned to play the game" as much.

Tell me, how does one bring about change when one is mired in the current "game"?

By retaining one's principles whilst gaining personal experiance of the failings of the extant polity.

Well, the difference is Blair was Bush's bootlick.


Irrelevant. Blair was not elected because of promises concerning foreign relations; he was elected to bring "change" and "hope" to Britain internally, and any change he has wrought has not been for the better. The problems are worse, and if not, have been replaced by flaws, insufficiencies and failings anew.

Irrelevant. Blair was not elected because of promises concerning foreign relations; he was elected to bring "change" and "hope" to Britain internally, and any change he has wrought has not been for the better. The problems are worse, and if not, have been replaced by flaws, insufficiencies and failings anew.



Now, any change Blair brought that is "worse"....is that the opinion of the British as a whole (or majority) or your opinion?


I honostly dont know thats why Im asking.

Irrelevant. Blair was not elected because of promises concerning foreign relations; he was elected to bring "change" and "hope" to Britain internally, and any change he has wrought has not been for the better. The problems are worse, and if not, have been replaced by flaws, insufficiencies and failings anew.

better than the mess the conservatives made of things, who mostly still comprise of rich old men.
All governments suffer problems.
Worse problems? whereabouts?

EDIT: I think the OP got scared by all these nasty comments. Hasn't posted since the initial one, poor guy.

Chris Dodd has cast his endorsement for Obama :)

so has Calypso Louie

Now, any change Blair brought that is "worse"....is that the opinion of the British as a whole (or majority) or your opinion?


I honostly dont know thats why Im asking.

The "British as a whole" are an electorate the majority of whom embrace Big Brother, X-Factor, binge drinking and celebrity culture. To ask their opinion and treat it with any respect would be foolish.

I think the way that some Obama supporters are going on about Clinton (and vice versa) is the silliest.

I think it's better to elevate your favorite candidate rather than tearing down the other. For one, it's that old way of politicking that is turning so many people off of this whole thing. It's negative and ugly. Also, we may see an Obama/Clinton ticket which would work a lot better if there wasn't all this negativity attached to either of the candidates by their own party members. This merely gives the Republican side more cannon fodder anyway.
This is nothing, what's bad is when they get stabby... (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html)
According to a criminal complaint, a copy of which you'll find here, the 41-year-old Shurelds, an Obama supporter, told Ortiz that the Illinois senator was "trashing" Clinton (apparently in regard to recent primary and caucus results). Ortiz, a Clinton supporter, replied that "Obama was not a realist." While not exactly fighting words, the verbal political tiff led to some mutual choking and punching. And, allegedly, a stabbing in the abdomen. Ortiz, pictured in the mug shot below, was charged with a felony aggravated assault count and two misdemeanors and jailed in lieu of $20,000 bail.

(posted earlier, trying again)

Irrelevant. Blair was not elected because of promises concerning foreign relations; he was elected to bring "change" and "hope" to Britain internally, and any change he has wrought has not been for the better. The problems are worse, and if not, have been replaced by flaws, insufficiencies and failings anew.

Not irrelevant. Having a puppet of George W. Bush serve as the prime minister certainly doesn't do justice to Queen and Country.

If America hadn't dragged Britain into the Iraq war, Blair's premiership would be in a lot better shape.

better than the mess the conservatives made of things, who mostly still comprise of rich old men.
All governments suffer problems.
Worse problems? whereabouts?

EDIT: I think the OP got scared by all these nasty comments. Hasn't posted since the initial one, poor guy.

Try education. Try crime, and more specifically try juvenile delinquency. Try soulless, bureaucratic NHS. Try an increaisngly controlling, authoritarian state.

Where the Conservatives are concerned, I will not dispute that the situation in 1997 merited a change of party, however, this owes more to the vacillating post-Thatcher leadership of Mr.Major, and the manner in which Lady Thatcher was dismissed from office. Had the transition been more orderly, indeed voluntary, and had a stronger leader followed, the mess Major made could easily have been avoided. It is fascinating to wonder what may have occurred had Portillo assumed the leadership after a more civilised, orderly transition.

Not irrelevant. Having a puppet of George W. Bush serve as the prime minister certainly doesn't do justice to Queen and Country.

If America hadn't dragged Britain into the Iraq war, Blair's premiership would be in a lot better shape.

I don't think so. The failings of Blair's policies at large have now been exposed; Iraq may have rendered him immensely unpopular, but it was merely agent that accelerated a process I would have expected to have happened anyway.

This is nothing, what's bad is when they get stabby... (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html)


(posted earlier, trying again)

Oh yeah I saw that. Sheesh, and the OP in this thread or another was talking smack about Obama supporters and their tactics. As if somehow the supporters reflect the personality of their desired candidate directly. It's flurking schnitty! Pardon my Rigelian.

Also I want to clarify that I don't mean there is anything wrong to draw a contrast to the candidates positions and say why you are against ones policies and for the others, or why you are against their voting record or who they took money from. I'm talking about the "Hillary is an evil baby-eating bitch that will set fire to the constitution" kind of statements from Democrats in their attempt to get support for Obama.

OP, how about you stop trolling and tell us why you support Hillary and why Obama shouldn't be President. Your trolling is getting old.

Try education. Try crime, and more specifically try juvenile delinquency. Try soulless, bureaucratic NHS. Try an increaisngly controlling, authoritarian state.

Where the Conservatives are concerned, I will not dispute that the situation in 1997 merited a change of party, however, this owes more to the vacillating post-Thatcher leadership of Mr.Major, and the manner in which Lady Thatcher was dismissed from office. Had the transition been more orderly, indeed voluntary, and had a stronger leader followed, the mess Major made could easily have been avoided. It is fascinating to wonder what may have occurred had Portillo assumed the leadership after a more civilised, orderly transition.

Education?
It's got better as far as i'm concerned.
Crime? what in particular?
Juvenille delinquency?:p okay i'll take your word for that.
bureaucratic NHS, perhaps but that's because of reduced funding and private health services which nick all the good doctors (when i say good i mean better qualified, no offence meant).
Authoritarian state? yes there is increasing amounts of traffic measures, drug laws are too harsh and general not listening to the public (E.g. War in Iraq).
Of course there are some things the Labour Party have managed,
with devolution of Scottish parliament, reducing troubles in Northern Ireland, as for economy, well there was a boom, but now things are becoming a little tight.
I suppose there's always going to be things a government will never accomplish, but the current New Labour has lost some of it's roots in actually listening to it's public, and the Iraq war was a pretty bad idea.
As a matter of interest, what are the Conservative policies it wishes to make happen if it did take power?

Let me put it this way:

Barack Obama is the clear choice in the Democratic primary.

If you really want an experienced canidate why not support Bidan? He was the best canidate, followed by John Edwards.

The VERY last resort is Hillary. She is a beauracratic, and really rather annoying as a canidate.

Yelling at Obama in a press-confrence because her healthcare policy was said to be "wrong?"

I hate to say it but as a liberal Democrat I would rather see McCain then Hillary Clinton.

She walked all over herself last night in the debate with her whining about getting the first question.

I pray to God that Clinton doesn't get the nomination. Obama is the better canidate, plain and simple.

You honestly think Clinton would be a great canidate?! It would be an oligarchy!!

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?!

Hillary likes to say, "We needed a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and we may need another one to clean up after the second Bush."

No, Hillary, we need an Obama to clean up after the second Bush.

Patently absurd on multiple levels. For starters, this is not an incumbent race and thus no one has experience at being president. And since when did change require experience? That is an absurd statement in and of itself.


It's a continued troll.
I swear.

*snip repetitive and still incorrect crap*

Exactly. Shal, proof please. Like we've been asking for every other thread you've started.

I believe Hillary said it best, albeit against the wrong target. "Change you can Xerox."

If I may add two more points:

Firstly, Hillary is the real one using attack ads. She can whine when Obama does, but when she does, "it's running a hard campaign."

Secondly, Obama should NOT accept the vice-President ticket if Clinton gets the nomination.

He should know that he would basically be third in command, behind Bill. (Ask Al Gore on this one)

Education?
It's got better as far as i'm concerned.
Crime? what in particular?
Juvenille delinquency?:p okay i'll take your word for that.
bureaucratic NHS, perhaps but that's because of reduced funding and private health services which nick all the good doctors (when i say good i mean better qualified, no offence meant).
Authoritarian state? yes there is increasing amounts of traffic measures, drug laws are too harsh and general not listening to the public (E.g. War in Iraq).
Of course there are some things the Labour Party have managed,
with devolution of Scottish parliament, reducing troubles in Northern Ireland, as for economy, well there was a boom, but now things are becoming a little tight.
I suppose there's always going to be things a government will never accomplish, but the current New Labour has lost some of it's roots in actually listening to it's public, and the Iraq war was a pretty bad idea.
As a matter of interest, what are the Conservative policies it wishes to make happen if it did take power?

Education is worse. Far, far worse; results have improved, quite simply, because examinations have become easier. Easier to teach pupils to pass, and easier to pass. University applications and admissions have risen, but this is not, nor ever should be, an end in itself.

Every teacher I have ever spoken to singularly loathes the reforms New Labour has made to education. In 1997 the head of one of the examination boards, I forget which, was a Cambridge professor with a phD. He has subsequently been replaced by a teacher from a comprehensive school, and the content and requirements of examinations reflects this.

The thrust of any education system should be academic, and in this sense New Labour education has failed. It has done nothing more than provide a generation of children with increasingly worthless, derided and disregarded qualifications, which can conveniently be brandished as evidence of success and progress.

The NHS, I would also note, is better funded now than previously. It is bureaucratic and soulless because New Labour is unable, as in education, to place trust in those for whom the practise of medicine, teaching or what you will, is a profession, and thus trusts protocol and rules.

Education is worse. Far, far worse; results have improved, quite simply, because examinations have become easier. Easier to teach pupils to pass, and easier to pass. University applications and admissions have risen, but this is not, nor ever should be, an end in itself.

Every teacher I have ever spoken to singularly loathes the reforms New Labour has made to education. In 1997 the head of one of the examination boards, I forget which, was a Cambridge professor with a phD. He has subsequently been replaced by a teacher from a comprehensive school, and the content and requirements of examinations reflects this.

The thrust of any education system should be academic, and in this sense New Labour education has failed. It has done nothing more than provide a generation of children with increasingly worthless, derided and disregarded qualifications, which can conveniently be brandished as evidence of success and progress.

The NHS, I would also note, is better funded now than previously. It is bureaucratic and soulless because New Labour is unable, as in education, to place trust in those for whom the practise of medicine, teaching or what you will, is a profession, and thus trusts protocol and rules.

Hmmm now i come to think of it, i've heard teachers complaining about how much work they are required to do, i hear it's worse down south.
I wonder why we don't just raise the age children go to school to 6 or 7?
I think you can't put all the blame on the Labour government for all the downfalls, globilisation is a large factor.
so what changes are needed for the current state of affairs with education, NHS and policing strategies? A reduction in their powers?

However i think this discussion is for another thread, i think we should avoid thread jacking, thanks for your comments.

are you saying that Obama Been Leadin'?

ouch, that hurt my brain on several levels.


S - you keep claiming Obama has no substance/details - tell us where he is lacking and demonstrate where Hillary makes up for this lack please.

No she won't. She'll just recycle the same bullshit (this thread is an example) and hope we don't pick up on it. Many people have pointed out the deatials for Obama's platform, but she is willfully ignorant. People are getting pissed off at you and being "arrogant" because you don't want to debate. You don't want to listen to anyone but your own talking points. This thread is useless as we already have multiple threads on Obama and Hillary. But this is the tactic of the Hill supporters here. CH makes up a new nation to fight a war he's already lost. This chick starts new threads after being disarmed in others. If you want to debate do it in the threads already out there. Or admit what we all already know. The choice is yours.

If experience is so important, why aren't you writing in for Chris Dodd or Joe Biden? Unlike Clinton, Biden's experience superiority over Obama can be measured in decades rather than 4 years provided you ignore local government work.

Obama was not my first choice in this election cycle. I actually would have preferred a Biden-Obama ticket. Joe is intelligent, experienced, and has very pragmatic ideas on Iraq and other issues. You have pointed out a fatal flaw and hypocrisy in this Hillary cheerleader.

I have said it many times before, and I say it again. Barack Obama is not the right choice for the Democratic Party. He is certainly a force in his own right....but he is not the best suited to winning in November or taking the White House in January.
I think your living in 2007 my friend.

should be issue-driven
Should be, but in reality aren't. Or Kerry would have won.


Experience has given us nothing. Obama has given us hope. What experience does she have? Would you allow a surgeon's wife to operate on you? What experience did Billy have before running for president?

Obama was not my first choice in this election cycle. I actually would have preferred a Biden-Obama ticket. Joe is intelligent, experienced, and has very pragmatic ideas on Iraq and other issues.




That was my ticket I was praying for as well.

That was my ticket I was praying for as well.

We had to know that Biden wouldn't make it through the primary season. The most media coverage he got was when he referred to Obama as "clean and articulate." I always find this funny when people refer to a person of color as "articulate." Chris Rock said it best when he was speaking about Colin Powell.

Chris Rock on white folk and Colin Powell: "... he speaks so well. He's so well spoken. He speaks so well. 'Speaks so well' is not a compliment!!! 'Speaks so well' is something you say about retarded people who can talk!"

Barack's a smoker? Really?

I might register to vote, now that I know that. Not that I smoke, but the (supposed) fact that he does shows he's not an uptight chickenshit. Not that non-smokers are, but Hillary... Well, I need not say any more.

are you saying that Obama Been Leadin'?

ouch, that hurt my brain on several levels.


S - you keep claiming Obama has no substance/details - tell us where he is lacking and demonstrate where Hillary makes up for this lack please.
Ha Ha.

When you do dig into Obama's positions, it's even more disturbing than him not having any. The gazillion dollars that he wants to pay to dictators to 'end world poverty' sounds pretty silly, fiscally speaking.

Then there's the idea that we should remove the earnings cap on Social Security. That ties into the biggest problem, he wants to raise taxes on the majority of people who provide jobs in this country. That's certainly no way to encourage economic growth.

I love the comparisons of Clinton to Bush. You want a comparison? Here's one. How about the tactics of Obama's supporters? The radicalism and fanaticism that they have leveled against Clinton. Her husband was a damn fine President, regardless of his scandal with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Rodham Clinton is an intelligent, ambitious, and skilled woman. Why is it that, in our country, a man who possesses ambition finds it numbered amongst his assets....but a woman who is ambitious is a bitch? The Obamites and the Bushites sound almost exactly the same in this regard. They claim she is power hungry, that she is aggressively trying to win in any method that she can think of within the rules of the contest. Is Obama not power hungry as well? He wants to be President of the United States. You do not become President of the United States unless you seek the power that accompanies that post. Whether you use it for good or for ill is an entirely different matter.

The Obamites who claim that Clinton is "more of the same" and who suggest that she is the same as George W. Bush are liars, perhaps even to themselves. Clinton does not share the beliefs or the policies of Bush. She is not the candidate promising to "stay the course" in Iraq for another hundred years, if necessary. To claim that she is this domineering figure, a Bush-Lite, is a retreat to the politics of labeling, the politics of misrepresentation. I question the honesty of both a man and his movement who accept such a dichotomy of truth into their ranks.

I'd like to see Obama's supporters spin the fact that he's going to break his promise on public campaign funding. Now that it is to his advantage to reap the rewards of private funding, he's backtracking on his earlier pledge. Broken promises like that do not jive with Obama's claim that he is not one of the "Washington establishment". It strikes to the very base of his credibility, since this was an issue about how politics is run in this country. He has flip-flopped on something that close to the core of his campaign. You would have to be some type of moron not to at least scratch your head and ask, "Why, Barack, why?".

Why is it that, in our country, a man who possesses ambition finds it numbered amongst his assets....but a woman who is ambitious is a bitch?

She's not a bitch because she's ambitious.

*blah blah blah blah*
Aye, aye, more of the same as you always go on about.

People don't like Hillary because she's become more and more unpleasant as time has come on, and you don't want that in a President.
I'd like to see Obama's supporters spin the fact that he's going to break his promise on public campaign funding. Now that it is to his advantage to reap the rewards of private funding, he's backtracking on his earlier pledge.
Yeah, fine -

Nobody cares, outside of Clinton supporters.

It's not something that people are interested in. If people want to have a dig at him, they'll bring it up. If you said it in a shocked tone to the average person on the street, they'd probably look slightly vexed and also mildly confused as to why this is really a big deal.
He has flip-flopped on something that close to the core of his campaign. You would have to be some type of moron not to at least scratch your head and ask, "Why, Barack, why?".
Unlike Clinton and taxation and Iraq, right?

Because it's not like those are the actual issues or anything?

Ha Ha.

When you do dig into Obama's positions, it's even more disturbing than him not having any. The gazillion dollars that he wants to pay to dictators to 'end world poverty' sounds pretty silly, fiscally speaking.

Then there's the idea that we should remove the earnings cap on Social Security. That ties into the biggest problem, he wants to raise taxes on the majority of people who provide jobs in this country. That's certainly no way to encourage economic growth.

No, he wants to give tax breaks to poor and hike the taxes on the rich and major corporations. Its Hillary that wants to tax those that don't have healthcare. Most pople that don't have healthcare can't afford it, so basically Hillary wants to take from poorest and give to the slightly less poor.

I love the comparisons of Clinton to Bush. You want a comparison? Here's one. How about the tactics of Obama's supporters? The radicalism and fanaticism that they have leveled against Clinton. Her husband was a damn fine President, regardless of his scandal with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Rodham Clinton is an intelligent, ambitious, and skilled woman. Why is it that, in our country, a man who possesses ambition finds it numbered amongst his assets....but a woman who is ambitious is a bitch? The Obamites and the Bushites sound almost exactly the same in this regard. They claim she is power hungry, that she is aggressively trying to win in any method that she can think of within the rules of the contest. Is Obama not power hungry as well? He wants to be President of the United States. You do not become President of the United States unless you seek the power that accompanies that post. Whether you use it for good or for ill is an entirely different matter.

Oh no no no. Dont you turn this into a sexist arguement. This has nothing to do with her being a woman. I like when a womans ambitious, but Hillary is power hungry. I dont trust anyone whos power hungry, regardless of gender.

Shalrirorchia, instead of trolling, why not address our points, and explain why Hillary is better.

Actually, I think (as many Americans do) that Obama is exactly what we need right now: someone who hasn't been around Washington long enough to make friends (or enemies, for that matter, though I could imagine he's had a few of those since day 1 of his election to senate, due to the... shall we say "old-fashionedness" of some of its members).

Of course it's not a place for training wheels, but some people are just naturally talented ;) You have to remember, as well, that the president really doesn't hold a lot of power--considering he (or she) is only one constituent in one of three branches of this government. Bush isn't running this circus show all on his own, is he? He couldn't possibly have single-handedly run this country into the ground and down to hell and back several times, could he?

Thank you, but no. I'm tired of being on the defensive. It's time the Obama people starting answering some tough questions.

For one, how does he reconcile the politics of hope with the fact that he's fighting to prevent the Michigan and Florida delegates from being seated? He's fighting because a large portion of those delegates would be Clinton delegates. The people who voted in Florida and Michigan had nothing to do with the move of their primaries up closer to Iowa and New Hampshire...that was the action of their state party officials. Yet the whole electorate of Florida and Michigan are being punished for that (and in my opinion, they shouldn't have been punished at all).

I can understand on some level why Obama opposes seating the delegates, especially the Michigan delegation. But that doesn't jive with his image as a reformer, either. He's playing the political system at the same time he's playing the reform card.

I love the comparisons of Clinton to Bush. You want a comparison? Here's one. How about the tactics of Obama's supporters? The radicalism and fanaticism that they have leveled against Clinton. Her husband was a damn fine President, regardless of his scandal with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Rodham Clinton is an intelligent, ambitious, and skilled woman. Why is it that, in our country, a man who possesses ambition finds it numbered amongst his assets....but a woman who is ambitious is a bitch? The Obamites and the Bushites sound almost exactly the same in this regard. They claim she is power hungry, that she is aggressively trying to win in any method that she can think of within the rules of the contest. Is Obama not power hungry as well? He wants to be President of the United States. You do not become President of the United States unless you seek the power that accompanies that post. Whether you use it for good or for ill is an entirely different matter.

The Obamites who claim that Clinton is "more of the same" and who suggest that she is the same as George W. Bush are liars, perhaps even to themselves. Clinton does not share the beliefs or the policies of Bush. She is not the candidate promising to "stay the course" in Iraq for another hundred years, if necessary. To claim that she is this domineering figure, a Bush-Lite, is a retreat to the politics of labeling, the politics of misrepresentation. I question the honesty of both a man and his movement who accept such a dichotomy of truth into their ranks.

I'd like to see Obama's supporters spin the fact that he's going to break his promise on public campaign funding. Now that it is to his advantage to reap the rewards of private funding, he's backtracking on his earlier pledge. Broken promises like that do not jive with Obama's claim that he is not one of the "Washington establishment". It strikes to the very base of his credibility, since this was an issue about how politics is run in this country. He has flip-flopped on something that close to the core of his campaign. You would have to be some type of moron not to at least scratch your head and ask, "Why, Barack, why?".

First, if John McCain is going to forgo public financing it would be tactically stupid for Barack to go with it. It's not like Hillary doesn't change her mind and say things that are popular at the time. So why hold Barack to a different set of standards just because you like Hillary? If McCain goes with public financing then Obama should too. But I am wondering what forgoing public financing has to do with the "Washington establishment." Hillary Clinton never thought she had anything to worry about and she was sadly mistaken.

Wow, I'm glad I haven't made comments like this about Hillary so I'm in a perfect position to remind you that you've still not responded to what issues you'd like to be informed about with regard to Barack. You've leveled the claim that Barack has no substance and no details. You then go on to make a comment about something specific Obama said. Do you see the conflict here? Many of us have provided you with information to the contrary. So what is it that you don't know? I don't care that Hillary is a bitch. My wife is a bitch and I love her for it. It's part of why both of us are so successful. I have said she is a political opportunist who wants power in any way she can. I don't think that in the end her principals are strong enough to withstand her populist nature. She's a by the numbers kind of gal and in this election that has cost her. You can't run your campaign from push-polls and focus group testing.

Thank you, but no. I'm tired of being on the defensive. It's time the Obama people starting answering some tough questions.
"I can't address any of your points, nor admit that Hillary is going to lose because she's a fundamentally worse candidate than Obama, and attracts nobody but a rabid base of Democrat supporters who desperately want her to be exactly like her husband, albeit female."

You could have just said that, you know.
For one, how does he reconcile the politics of hope with the fact that he's fighting to prevent the Michigan and Florida delegates from being seated?
"They're pricks, and I don't want them around because I know they'll tear our already fragile party to pieces, which kind of kills our hope of winning".
He's fighting because a large portion of those delegates would be Clinton delegates.
Yes, exactly.
The people who voted in Florida and Michigan had nothing to do with the move of their primaries up closer to Iowa and New Hampshire...that was the action of their state party officials. Yet the whole electorate of Florida and Michigan are being punished for that (and in my opinion, they shouldn't have been punished at all).
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4119PM108BL._AA280_.jpg
I can understand on some level why Obama opposes seating the delegates, especially the Michigan delegation.
There we go, then.
But that doesn't jive with his image as a reformer, either. He's playing the political system at the same time he's playing the reform card.
"Politicians have a popular face in public and a pragmatic face in private shocker!"

Yet the whole electorate of Florida and Michigan are being punished for that (and in my opinion, they shouldn't have been punished at all).
Seating delegates that we didn't vote for would be punishing those of us who took the Dems at their word when they said that primary didn't count for anything. Lots of people didn't bother, or crossed over to the Republican side. Run a real primary, with candidates actually campaigning, and Hillary would not have much of a shot in Michigan.

We had to know that Biden wouldn't make it through the primary season. The most media coverage he got was when he referred to Obama as "clean and articulate." I always find this funny when people refer to a person of color as "articulate." Chris Rock said it best when he was speaking about Colin Powell.

Chris Rock on white folk and Colin Powell: "... he speaks so well. He's so well spoken. He speaks so well. 'Speaks so well' is not a compliment!!! 'Speaks so well' is something you say about retarded people who can talk!"

To a degree, I'd agree with you, but Obama is an exceptional speaker by any standard. The other day, I saw him on TV, and, pausing to watch, I was drawn into his speech. When he spoke of cynics being drawn into a campaign of hope, when he spoke of people working long hours for his candidacy, I thought back. I thought of my journey, from being inspired by him, to volunteering for him, making trips to South Carolina, and canvassing in the rain and the snow... I thought back on all of these things, and I choked up.

Or an earlier speech, when he told about an elderly woman who sent him a money order for three dollars and one cent. Earlier, when he spoke in Atlanta and I stood in the crowd, enchanted and inspired. All the way back to DNC 2004, when he gave one of the greatest speeches I've seen.

Obama is a great speaker, and I don't feel it's condescending or racist to say it.

Thank you, but no. I'm tired of being on the defensive. It's time the Obama people starting answering some tough questions.

For one, how does he reconcile the politics of hope with the fact that he's fighting to prevent the Michigan and Florida delegates from being seated? He's fighting because a large portion of those delegates would be Clinton delegates. The people who voted in Florida and Michigan had nothing to do with the move of their primaries up closer to Iowa and New Hampshire...that was the action of their state party officials. Yet the whole electorate of Florida and Michigan are being punished for that (and in my opinion, they shouldn't have been punished at all).

I can understand on some level why Obama opposes seating the delegates, especially the Michigan delegation. But that doesn't jive with his image as a reformer, either. He's playing the political system at the same time he's playing the reform card.

Oh no you don't. Not this. I'll reiterate a response to this from earlier-

Where the fuck was she in 2007 when the decision to strip them of their delegates was made? Huh? This shit is from October-

The DNC, as it does every presidential cycle, voted in mid-2006 to give special permission to certain small states to hold early caucuses and primaries. This time around the winning states were the traditional Iowa and New Hampshire, plus South Carolina (first moved to the front row in 2004) and Nevada (the new state on the early calendar). The DNC's rationale was compelling: Small states require personal campaigning rather than airport rallies, and they prevent politics from totally degenerating into a contest of who has the most money for TV ads. With the exception of the kerfuffle over caucus locations in Nevada, the early states did their job well in giving a fair look to the Democratic field before narrowing it down to Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

No other state, under the DNC's regulations, could hold a primary or caucus before Feb. 5. But last year, first Florida and then Michigan defiantly scheduled their 2008 primaries in January. This queue jumping not only undermined the special status of the four small states, but it also meant unfairly squeezing ahead of the throng of 22 states that had slated primaries and caucuses for Feb. 5.

The abuse was so flagrant that not only did the DNC play tough guy (stripping Michigan and Florida of all their convention delegates), but the party chairs in the four small front-of-the-pack states pressured the candidates into signing a pledge not to campaign in the two outlaw primaries. Obama and Edwards, in fact, even took their names off the Jan. 15 Michigan primary ballot in which Clinton beat "uncommitted" by a 55-to-40 percent margin.

And you want to paint this as a concern for the voters? Bull-fucking-shit. This decision was made in 2007, but when did Clinton make her grumble?

Only when the dimensions of her South Carolina setback were clear did Clinton begin portraying the Florida vote as ... well ... the 2000 Florida vote. The former first lady suddenly had a new cause -- justice for Florida. She pledged on primary night to do everything in her power to guarantee that "Florida's Democratic delegates [are] seated."

There was a time to make this argument, there was a time to champion this cause. After the fact when you're struggling isn't it. She had a fucking year, a year.[edit-meh, since October of last year, point still stands] But it's not until she already 'wins' Michigan and is falling behind in states that have delegates that she takes it up.

Where's her concern for the agreed upon process? About diminishing the small states that were given their positions so as not to get skipped over entirely?

What about Michigan's Mark Brewer counting on the DNC not having any teeth-
Mark Brewer, the Michigan party chairman, radiates optimism that his state will get its delegates back. "In the past when such penalties have been imposed on states that have gone early, they have always been lifted," he said in an interview. "But beyond that, the political reality is that Michigan is a targeted battleground state ... It would be political suicide for the Democratic nominee to refuse to seat us and hope to win Michigan in November."

He could end this, but will he?

In the short term, under Democratic Party rules, Michigan and Florida could theoretically petition for a do-over, asking to hold a party-sanctioned caucus or primary between Feb. 5 and June 10. But Brewer insists that the DNC has not asked Michigan to hold another delegate contest -- and he added, "If they did, we would refuse."

There are solutions that are equitable for all. Clinton's is a grab no matter how you paint it. No one, I'm betting even you alone in the dark, buy this 'concern for the voters' nonsense, not when there were and are so many opportunities for equitable resolutions.

source (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/30/hillary/)

More on 'where the fuck was she in October when this decision was made?'

Well, where was she? Was she campaigning to have the votes counted? Was she speaking out against this decision?

She was, rather, shutting out reporters from Florida (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/30/florida/index.html?source=sphere) (from an article at the time)-
Two weeks ago, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times was denied a chance to speak with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, because he carried the scarlet letter of his home state. "You're still from Florida," the spokeswoman told him. "A tiger can't change its stripes." Last week when Bill Clinton came to south Florida to host a fundraiser for 2,000 people in Miami, the Miami Herald had to contribute a $50 fundraising ticket to witness his only appearance in the state.

Still want to try and paint this as anything other than opportunism?

This is an interesting analysis- (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=the_florida_vote)
In comments, many of you asked how I could be so dismissive of Floridians who voted for Hillary Clinton. And the answer is, I'm not. I didn't keep their vote from counting. When the Democratic National Committee decided to impose order on an out-of-control primary process by stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates if they refused to return their primaries to their original dates, there were three individuals who could have restored the franchise to those states. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the DNC, could have changed his mind, or changed his proposed penalty. Even in the face of his intransigence, however, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could have simply refused his entreaty to avoid the offending states. A declaration by either that they disagreed with the DNC's decision and would instruct their delegates to alter the rules at the convention and seat Florida and Michigan would have forced all the other candidates to do the same, and the DNC's prohibition would have collapsed. The voters in Florida and Michigan would have attended speeches, and seen ads, and hosted a debate, and been able to make an informed choice

That didn't happen. Clinton's campaign manager backing the DNC, said, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role." So Florida and Michigan didn't get their primaries. They didn't get campaigns. They didn't have serious Get Out The Vote efforts. And now, they're being cynically used, the language of democracy revisited and dusted off in service of a power play for additional delegates. Where, rightly or wrongly, the campaigns agreed to deny them a primary, now Clinton's campaign, which in Michigan won because they were the only campaign on the ballot and in Florida won because no one contested their lead, is demanding they be seated. The intervention did not come in time to give Florida and Michigan a full role in the democratic process, only in time to let the Clinton campaign benefit from their essential disenfranchisement.

"But this is a blog!" Read on...

Another source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012902998_pf.html) cites the same quote-
"There are more voters in Florida alone than there are in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina combined," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle argued in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. This was the same Solis Doyle who last summer committed Clinton to signing the Florida boycott pledge, saying, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

And another, this one actually dated Sept. 1st, 2007 (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2007/09/top-democrats-s.html)-
Now this Democratic boycott is serious.
On Saturday, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards added their names to the list of Democratic presidential hopefuls who plan to skip campaigning in Florida and other states that violate national party rules for when they can stage primaries.
This from Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager:
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."
Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden a day earlier endorsed the so-called "four state" pledge not to veer from the small-state Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina road to the party nomination.
After Clinton's announcement, Florida Democratic Party Executive Director Leonard Joseph issued a letter stating "No matter which cards we're dealt, Florida Democrats are going to win the state's 27 electoral votes and elect a Democratic President in 2008. The country needs us."
But the reaction from state Democratic stalwarts is decidedly less upbeat.
I found the abstract of the original article, but you have to pay for it so, you know...no. But it seems clear this isn't a 'made up' quote and certainly underlines the opportunistic nature of this sudden desire for the votes to be heard.

From September- (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/11/news/iowa/c07662f8adc84f9a8625735300091c7f.txt)
The Clinton campaign announced they would sign the pledge on Sept. 1.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role," Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle said in a statement that day.

Meh. Obama is a Quite Good public speaker. He certainly seems to appeal to Americans, but his style seems a bit... overdramatic... in the UK.

To a degree, I'd agree with you, but Obama is an exceptional speaker by any standard. The other day, I saw him on TV, and, pausing to watch, I was drawn into his speech. When he spoke of cynics being drawn into a campaign of hope, when he spoke of people working long hours for his candidacy, I thought back. I thought of my journey, from being inspired by him, to volunteering for him, making trips to South Carolina, and canvassing in the rain and the snow... I thought back on all of these things, and I choked up.

Or an earlier speech, when he told about an elderly woman who sent him a money order for three dollars and one cent. Earlier, when he spoke in Atlanta and I stood in the crowd, enchanted and inspired. All the way back to DNC 2004, when he gave one of the greatest speeches I've seen.

Obama is a great speaker, and I don't feel it's condescending or racist to say it.
I had said something like this before. Obama is a good speaker by any standard and we can't be so afraid of our shadows that we can't level a compliment at him that we'd afford him regardless of our color because it's been misused in the past. He's not a good speaker for a black man, he's a good speaker full stop.

That remains to be seen. I vote for Clinton because I feel she is the right person for the job. And because some of Obama's supporters have been insufferably arrogant, and even Bushist in their outlook. One of them cavalierly told me that "I might as well vote for McCain if I voted for Clinton". Another told me that "they don't need my vote to win". Those are hardly the voices of "change" that Obama is supposedly driving before him. That's old politics disguised as new politics.

So one of your major problems with a candidate is not their views the arrogance of their supporters?

That is one of the less reasonable reasons for disliking a candidate that I have heard in awhile

So are you saying Bush would do well in the UK? :p
Probably better than Obama in terms of speaking style, actually. In terms of what he's actually saying, no :p

Meh. Obama is a Quite Good public speaker. He certainly seems to appeal to Americans, but his style seems a bit... overdramatic... in the UK.

So are you saying Bush would do well in the UK? :p

It's becoming increasingly clear the Republicans are conceding that McCain can't beat Obama,
Republicans are conceding that McCain can't beat Obama?

You have any proof of that or is that just your opinion?

but he can beat Hillary.
Until a nominee is selected by both parties, I would suggest that most polls are next to useless. They have been all over the map the past few months.

Voting for Obama is the pragmatic thing to do.
Perhaps in 4 or 8 years.

Until a nominee is selected by both parties, I would suggest that most polls are next to useless. They have been all over the map the past few months.So you think Hillary could still land the nomination. Care to make a wager?

The latest polls show him winning in Texas and closing the gap in Ohio and Pennsylvania. An Obama victory in any of those three states would likely prove fatal to Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

Indeed so. :)

The White House is not a place for training wheels, and it takes experience to get to change.

Hmmm... you realise, don't you, that the experience argument either negates the greatness of Abraham Lincoln's presidency or is null and void.

Perhaps a call for unity is the more mature thing to do, but I'm not interested in "uniting" with Republicans. I want a President who will stand up for Democratic values, for what is right. I want a President who will not cave to the demands of the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party. I want a fighter, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is that type of fighter.

This is where I most fevorently disagree with you. It is well past time to get over refighting the damned culture wars!

The call for change is seductive, but it takes experience to make change happen. Obama is not the only one who represents change. Either Obama or Clinton would represent radical change from eight years of Bush-Cheney. We've seen what seven years of -inexperience- can do to the country...the American people have paid a bitter price in treasure and lost jobs for Mr. Bush's on-the-job training.

Again, you denigrate Abraham Lincoln with this line. :mad:

Obama's supporters may claim that Hillary's prior experience in the White House doesn't really count as "experience"...but it is wholly unrealistic to think that she is not familiar with how the White House works...not after observing her husband for eight years. We need a candidate who can create an economy like we had during the Clinton Administration.

Her husbands presidency is a huge drag on her. The US does NOT need another four years of Bill.

We need a candidate who can command respect from around the world, who can bring our allies together once again. We need a candidate who is familiar with the problems in our healthcare system, and who is ready to fix them...someone who has a workable, affordable, and executable plan to provide all Americans with some level of health care. We need Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States, and I call on my fellow Ohioans to deliver a resounding victory to her in the Buckeye State on March 4. We are down. But we are NOT out.

Just say no to HRC.

And finally, for those who claim Obama's lack of experience/substance, is a list:
Here are some of Senator Barack Obama's positions:


Opposed the Iraq war from the start.
Voted to end the war in Iraq.
Supports capturing and killing Osama Bin Laden.
Favors a $1000 tax cut for every working American
family.

Will implement tax form simplification to reduce
filing time.
Provide tax credit for all middle class homeowners.
Provide a tax cut for all families making less than
$75,000 a year.
Amend NAFTA to protect American workers.
Amend NAFTA to strengthen environmental protections.
Providing Flex Ed training accounts for workers.
Extending Trade Adjustment assistance to service
workers.
Supported Patriot Employer Act of 2007 that gives tax
credits to large companies that keep workers here in
America.
Double funds for basic federal research.
Implement a long term research and development tax
credit.
Invest in green technologies.
Reduce carbon emission gases.
Tackle the challenges of global warming.
Create an energy focused youth jobs program.
Create Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Extend the Production Tax Credit.
Expand Broadband into every community.
Keep the Internet tax free.
Expand high speed internet access in rural areas.
Fight for passage of Employee Free Choice Act.
Ensure freedom to unionize.
Would overturn "Kentucky River" classifications of
Bush's NLRB
Protect rights of striking workers.
Increase the mininum wage to index it to inflation.
Crack down on predatory lenders.
Provide a universal mortgage tax credit for homeowners
who don't itemize.
Sign the Stop Fraud Act to prevent lending fraud.
Mandate accurate loan disclosure.
Create a fund to protect people from foreclosures.
Close the bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies.
Establish a credit card rating to improve disclosure.
Ban utilateral credit card charges.
Apply interest rate only to future debt.
Prohibit credit card interest on fees.
Prohibit Universal defaults.
Require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder
payments.
Protect working people from unfair bankruptcy laws.
Ban executive bonuses for bankruptcy companies.
REquire disclosure of pension investments.
Cap outlandandish interest rates on payday loans.
Implement legislation to drive unscrupulous lenders
out of business
Create a bankruptcy exemption for people that went
broke because of medical bills.
Double funding for after school programs.
Extend Family and Medical Leave Act.
Encourage states to adopt Paid leave.
Expand the Child Care Tax Credit
Supports ratification of UN Convention Rights of
Persons With Disabilities.
Supports independent, community based living for
people with disabilities.
Expand educational opportunites for people with
disabilities.
Expand job opportunities for people with disabilities.
Strengthen civil rights enforcement.
Sign into law the Fair Pay Act.
Sign law reversing recent SCOTUS rulings that
permitted discrimination against women.
Sign law reversing recent SCOTUS rulings that
permitted discrimination against racial minorities.
Strengthen federal hate crimes legislation.
Eliminate the sentence disparities regarding crack
cocaines.
Establish drug courts for first time, non violent
offenders.
Create a prison to work incentive for those
transitioning back into society.
Passed a law to prohibit the practice of racial
profiling.
Supported reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
Opposes all discriminatory barriers to voting.
Helped reform death penalty system in Illinois to
protect innocent people on death row.
Voted to ban cluster bombs.
Provide high quality affordable child care to
families.
Will quadrulple Early Head Start funding.
Will increase Head Start funding.
Creates early learning challenge grants.
Abolish overly rigid teach to the test curriculum in
schools.
Improve accountability in public schools.
Invest in intervention strategies to reduce dropout
rates in schools.
Increase funding for afterschool programs.
Supports Step Up program to increase summer learning
opportunities.
Support English language learner programs.
Expand college outreach programs.
Create teacher service scholarships.
Requires all public schools to be accredited.
Create teacher residency programs.
Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit for higher
education.
Streamline financial aid application.
Introduced legislation to increase Pell Grant to
$5,100.
Reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
Confront deforestation.
Promote carbon sequestration.
Accelerate commercialization of plug in hybrids.
Promote development of commercial scale renewable
energy.
Invest in low emission coal plants.
Transition to new electric digit grid.
Double science funding for clean energy products.
Create Green Jobs Corps.
Invest in programs to help manufacturers make
transition to green products.
Create clean technologies venture capital fund.
Deploy cellulosic ethanol.
Expand locally owned biofuel refineries.
Increase renewable fuel standards.
Establish national low carbon fuel standard.
Increase fuel economy standards.
Invest in solar energy.
Invest in wind energy.
Establish a centralized database to track lobbyist
activities.
Appoint an independent watchdog group to oversee
congressional ethic violations.
Favors campaign finance reform.
Sunshine on legislation proposal.
End abuse of no bid contracts.
Release presidential records in a more timely fashion.
Prevent political appointees from working as lobbyists
within two years after employment has ended.
Reform political appointment process.
Sign ethics legislation that he proposed as a Senator
with Russ Feingold.
Obama sponsored a bi-partisan bill allowing regular
people to track federal grants.
Take leadership in the global fight against AIDS.
Provide tax cuts to small businesses.
Provide income tax cuts for all senior citizens making
$50,000 a year or less.
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Protect workers from caregiver discrimination.
Increase mentoring programs for beginner teachers.
Provide universal health care for all Americans within
4 years.
Combat fraudulent subprime loans.
Expand Nurse Family Partnership.
Provide automatic workplace pensions for workers.
Expand savings credit for retirement accounts.
Reinstate pay as you go budget rules.
Repeal Bush tax cuts for top 1% which led to lower
middle class standard of living.
Slash earmarks to pre 2001 levels.
Abolish obsolete wasteful government programs.
Voted against raising the minimum debt in 2006.
Supports wiping out Al Qaeda wherever they may be.
Opposed Kyl Lieberman.
Supports tough attempts at diplomacy with Iran to
protect America's interests.
Will work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Restrengthen NATO.
Passed a bipartisan law with Senator Lugar to prevent
smuggling of WMDs.
Introduced a bill with Senator Hagel to reduce nuclear
arsenals around the globe.
Supports securing loose nuke arsenals from the former
Soviet Union and elsewhere.
Strengthen Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
Expand size of Army by 65,000.
Expand size of Marines by 27,000.
Provide our troops with new equipment and the tools
they need.
Provide National Service troops with adequate leave
time.
Will insulate the Director of National Intelligence
from partisan politics.
Guarantee that health care can never be denied because
of a pre-existing condition.
Introduce a health care plan similar to the one
members of Congress have and give all Americans access
to this plan.
Simplify the paperwork in health care costs.
Make premiums and co pays affordable.
Require mandatory coverage of all children for health
care.
Expand SCHIP.
Expand Medicaid.
Reduce costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers
and employees.
Support disease management programs.
Require hospitals and providers to have full
transparency over costs.
Promote patient safety by requiring providers to
report medical errors.
Establish an independent institute to guide reviews +
research on comparative effectiveness in health care.
Strengthen anti trust laws to prevent insurance
companies from gouging medical providers.
Lower medical costs by having electronic health info
systems.
Increase competition in prescription drug markets.
Advance biomedical research field.
Improve mental care coverage.
Reduce mercury deposits to help prevent miscarriages.
Increase funding for autism research.
Cosponsored Healthy Kids Act of 2007.
Cosponsored reauthorization of SCHIP in 2007.
Obama introduced legislation to establish guidelines
to monitor fuels from nuclear power plants.
Sponsored a bill with Senator Lautenberg to protect
chemical plants from possible terrorist attacks.
Introduced legislation to upgrade monitoring of water
supplies.
Introduced legislation to protect localities from
radioactive leaks.
Create secure borders with additional personnel and
infrastructure.
Remove incentives for people to enter this country
illegally.
Crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Invest in transitional jobs.
Improve transportation access to jobs.
Fully fund community block grants.
Create an affordable housing trust fund.
Establish a program called 20 Promise Neighborhoods.
Invest in rural areas, especially small businesses,
schools, and doctors.
Implement a payment limitation program to help small
farmers.
Protect family farms from anti-competitive monopolies.
Implement tough fines for CAFO violations.
Establish country of origin labeling for all products.
Support regional food systems.
Encourage organic farming.
Provide tax credits for young farmers.
Increase capital for small farmers.
Modify FCC so all rural residents have access to
modern communications.
Upgrade rural infrastructure.
Supported legislation to reverse 2 billion dollars of
agriculture cuts under Bush.
Cosponsored Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2006.
Sponsored a bill to combat the scourge of
methamphetamines.
Expand Americorps.
Double the Peacecorps in 8 years.
Expand Service learning in all our schools.
Offer an opportunity tax credit for college students
in exchange for 100 hours of community service.
Promote college work study programs with public
service.
Expand on the YouthBuild program.
Create a Social Investment Fund Network.
Create a non profit entrepreneur agency.
Protect Social Security.
Reform corporate bankruptcy laws.
Strengthen laws protecting against age discrimination
in the workplace.
Ensure heating assistance for senior citizens.
Protect the openness of the Internet.
Encourage diversity in media ownership.
Protect children from Internet predators with strict
law enforcement.
Support transition of the internet into the digital
world.
Preserve artistic expression.
Keep inappropriate advertising away from programs for
children.
Enhance safety standards for toys imported into this
country.
Protect the right of privacy of every law abiding
American.
Update surveillance laws under the rule of law.
Higher salaries for teachers.
Work with the FTC to cut down on cyber crimes.
Eliminate teach to the test curriculum and restore
true learning to the classroom.
Open up government to citizens by providing
transparency.
Provide all our schools with broadband technology.
Modernize public safety networks.
Make the research and development tax credit
permanent.
Protect intellectual property at home and abroad.
Reform the patent system to encourage innovation.
Allow all veterans back into the VA.
Strengthen VA care for all veterans.
Fight veterans employment discrimination.
Fix the benefits bureaucracy to help veterans.
Expand vet centers across the country.
Obama passed legilsation to slash red tape to help
wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.
Introduced legislation to direct the VA and Pentagon
to fix its veterans record systems.
Introduced legislation to help the victims of
Hurricane Katrina.
Rebuild the roads and bridges that need to be rebuilt.
Will end the genocide in Darfur.
Will restore habeas corpus to America.
Reject torture.
Close down Gitmo.
Pledges to obey the Constitution of the United States.
Will fully implement and enforce the Equal Pay Act.
End tax breaks for US companies sending jobs overseas.
Voted to reinstate 1.15 billion to the COPS program to
reduce crime.
Wants to keep drinking age at 21.
Supports grants to local educational agencies.
Voted to protect ANWR.
Voted to protect the Great Lakes from polluters.
Favors labor and trade standards with trade with
China.
Opposed CAFTA which hurts American workers.
Voting to give the District of Columbia its proper
vote in Congress.
Voted to expand enrollment period for Medicare Part D.
Favors repealing the discriminatory don't ask don't
tell policy.
Provide first responders with the health care and
equipment they need.
Voted to implement the 9/11 commission
recommendations.
Voted to restore money to ports and first responders.
Voted to establish a Guest Worker program.
Voted to increase the minimum wage.
Voted against anti-Constitution radicals Alito and
Roberts.
Voted against the repeal of the estate tax that only
applies to 1% of the wealthiest of estates.
Supports the first amendment freedom of religion
clauses and establishment clauses.
Introduced a bill requiring public companies to give
shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive
compensation.
Protects our schools by opposing voucher schemes.
Introduced Biofuels Security Act in 2007.
Favors closing corporate tax loopholes.
Understands that global warming is a real problem that
must be addressed.
Supports civil unions for LGBT couples.
Favors the death penalty in the rarest but appropriate
of circumstances.

Why don't I think that this is unfortunate?

Well, it could be that I take issue with HRC's support for Iraq. And her refusal to apologize for that vote. Or it could be that after 20 years, the Bush-Clinton dynasty has to end. It could be that I hearken to Obama's campaign as being similar to that of FDR. Franklin Roosevelt's campaign was a lot of oratory, and he had contracted polio. Now we have another campaign accused of being a lot of oratory, and the candidate's father was from Kenya.

But really? What it comes down to is the simplest of things. My gut feeling is to oppose Clinton. My gut is rarely wrong. It can tolerate a lot. Even eating a hamburger and an immediate trip on a roller coaster without giving me trouble. So when my gut says no, then I listen. People want to talk about Obama's unifying message, his push for change in Washington and its power brokers, but really, it's simple. People have a gut instinct to support Obama. There is nothing unfortunate about that.

So you think Hillary could still land the nomination. Care to make a wager?
Yes it is still possible for Hillary to become the nominee. No, I don't want to bet.

I think it will be a terrible mistake for the Dems to nominate Obama. The only chance for him to succeed and win the Presidency would be with Hillary as his running mate. I don't see that happening.

Perhaps in 4 or 8 years.

or perhaps now. perhaps we're tired of waiting, of being told the change will come "eventually". Perhaps our time is now, and if we fail to take it now, it will elude us forever.

I think it will be a terrible mistake for the Dems to nominate Obama.

And nominating an extremely polarizing figure wouldn't be a terrible mistake?

Thank you, but no. I'm tired of being on the defensive. It's time the Obama people starting answering some tough questions.

For one, how does he reconcile the politics of hope with the fact that he's fighting to prevent the Michigan and Florida delegates from being seated? He's fighting because a large portion of those delegates would be Clinton delegates. The people who voted in Florida and Michigan had nothing to do with the move of their primaries up closer to Iowa and New Hampshire...that was the action of their state party officials. Yet the whole electorate of Florida and Michigan are being punished for that (and in my opinion, they shouldn't have been punished at all).

I can understand on some level why Obama opposes seating the delegates, especially the Michigan delegation. But that doesn't jive with his image as a reformer, either. He's playing the political system at the same time he's playing the reform card.

Excuse me -- why is Hillary fighting to get those delegates when before the election even went on, the Democratic party said they wouldn't count because they moved their election up? Seems like she's trying to change the rules of the game mid-stream -- especially since she supported that decision at the time.

And no, it's not time for the Obama supporters to answer "hard questions": you've been asked multiple times to defend your position. All I see is redirection, blame, complaints, and NOT ANSWERING.

We need a candidate who can command respect from around the world, who can bring our allies together once again.

Trying to command respect will only get the world leaders to fall into line, trying to earn it will get the people of the world on your side as well.

Agreeing with your opponent when s/he is correct on a specific point is the intelligent thing to do.

Trying to command respect will only get the world leaders to fall into line, trying to earn it will get the people of the world on your side as well.

Indeed. And only one candidate has experienced the real day-to-day lives of people outside the US needed to do so.

Agreeing with your opponent when s/he is correct on a specific point is the intelligent thing to do.

Indeed.

Which one is that? I know hardly anything about either of them (except Hillary's stance on the ESRB which pisses me off, they're doing a good job, but nobody cares), and I was disagreeing with that phrase rather than the OP in it's entirety.

Barack.

Indeed. And only one candidate has experienced the real day-to-day lives of people outside the US needed to do so.

Which one is that? I know hardly anything about either of them (a quick glance through Hillary's political positions on Wikipedia shows support for net neutrality (good), and ignorance and backstabbing directed towards video-games (very bad)), and I was disagreeing with that phrase rather than the OP in it's entirety.

Trying to command respect will only get the world leaders to fall into line, And if Hillary's behavior in the recent debates is any indication of how she "commands respect", all she would do is piss them off.

And if Hillary's behavior in the recent debates is any indication of how she "commands respect", all she would do is piss them off.

Except for Bushevik toadies like Sarkozy, and tinpot dictators who failed their history lessons when it comes to Getting American Support.

or perhaps now. perhaps we're tired of waiting, of being told the change will come "eventually". Perhaps our time is now, and if we fail to take it now, it will elude us forever.
Change for the sake of change can leave you shortchanged. I really don't think Obama can take the White House, at least not without Hillary. That is strictly my opinion. I believe that Hillary hatred, disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida, and dumb primary/caucus rules will keep the WH in Republican hands.

Change for the sake of change can leave you shortchanged.That's why Barack Obama spells out exactly why he wants change in every single speech he makes.

I really don't think Obama can take the White House, at least not without Hillary. That is strictly my opinion. I believe that Hillary hatred, disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida, and dumb primary/caucus rules will keep the WH in Republican hands.Wait wait, Hillary hatred will stop Obama if he DOESN'T??? run with Hillary? Care to make a wager on that?

That's why Barack Obama spells out exactly why he wants change in every single speech he makes.
And most Americans want some kind of change, but can he deliver the goods? Perhaps his shopping list is too long and by trying to change too much he ends up changing nothing. I think he is too idealistic for the job at this time.

Wait wait, Hillary hatred will stop Obama if he DOESN'T??? run with Hillary? Care to make a wager on that?
Time will tell if my opinion is right or wrong. And since it is not a sure thing, why would I want to make a wager?

[temporary thread hijack]CH, might want to change your "location." ;)[/temporary thread hijack]

Okay, continue.

personally i don't see a damd thing unfortunate about it, and i think he IS the best available choice at this time, for all of us.

sure there are other's i might rather see even more then him in the oval office. but not a one of them that stands a snowflakes chance THIS decade.

=^^=
.../\...

And most Americans want some kind of change, but can he deliver the goods? Perhaps his shopping list is too long and by trying to change too much he ends up changing nothing. I think he is too idealistic for the job at this time.


Time will tell if my opinion is right or wrong. And since it is not a sure thing, why would I want to make a wager?

Don't make me explain the Pancake Tuesday/Syrup hose thing to you again...

And most Americans want some kind of change, but can he deliver the goods?Considering that he's the candidate who can persuade Republicans and draw out more Democrats to bolster numbers in Congress, I would say yes.

Perhaps his shopping list is too long and by trying to change too much he ends up changing nothing.What, too many specifics, not enough generalities? Somehow having a detailed platform will magically "backfire"? Send Congress too much legislation and they'll get offended and decide to sit on their hands?

I think he is too idealistic for the job at this time.What does this even mean? Principles are bad if you flush them down the toilet every once in a while like Clinton? How does being "too idealistic" pose a problem with being president? Maybe you meant to say that he wouldn't be pragmatic enough, in which case what would make you say that? I mean, he's the one who's moderated his position on health care to make it more politically palatable, not Clinton.

Time will tell if my opinion is right or wrong. And since it is not a sure thing, why would I want to make a wager?I don't know, maybe you like money?

Change for the sake of change can leave you shortchanged. I really don't think Obama can take the White House, at least not without Hillary. That is strictly my opinion. I believe that Hillary hatred, disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida, and dumb primary/caucus rules will keep the WH in Republican hands.

I actually doubt it for if Hillary gets the nomination, I would hit her with changing the rules mid-stream if MI and FL do not have caucuses as a redo.

Time will tell if my opinion is right or wrong. And since it is not a sure thing, why would I want to make a wager?

Because that's what you do when no one knows if its a sure thing or not. That is why gambling is so popular.

Indeed. And only one candidate has experienced the real day-to-day lives of people outside the US needed to do so.
Which one is that? I know hardly anything about either of them (a quick glance through Hillary's political positions on Wikipedia shows support for net neutrality (good), and ignorance and backstabbing directed towards video-games (very bad)), and I was disagreeing with that phrase rather than the OP in it's entirety.

Obama lived in Indonesia from age six to ten, thus experiencing the real day-to-day life of people outsidse the US.


In the words of one commentator:
Obama makes clear in "Dreams From My Father" that he brings another valuable gift to politics, in addition to his African American heritage. That's his identity as what sociologists call a "third-culture kid," whose formative years were spent living overseas. Journalist Lee Aitken, who studied the phenomenon when she was editing a special feature for expatriate families called "At Home Abroad" in the International Herald Tribune, says that Obama exemplifies many of these third-culture traits.

Third-culture kids learn how to make their way in unfamiliar surroundings. The late Ruth Hill Useem, a former Michigan State sociologist who studied them for decades, explained: "They adapt, they find niches, they take risks, they fail and pick themselves up again. . . . Their camouflaged exteriors and understated ways of presenting themselves hide their rich inner lives." In surveys, more than 80 percent said they could relate to anyone, regardless of race or nationality.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603446.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Or, as I said earlier on this exact subject:
The one particular point that gets lost or played down, where Obama has a leg up is his four years spent living abroad.

I can tell you from my own personal experience of my nearly 17 years of expatriate life, that living abroad, as opposed to simply visiting, gives one a unique international perspective that most Americans do not have - this includes Hillary Clinton.

My experience is backed up in sociological research on so called "Third Culture Kids", or TKCs, that is people who've spent more than two years living abroad as children.

Quote:
Based on the results of a long-term study of students in an international school in Japan, Willis (1994) suggests that TCKs exhibit characteristics of a transcultural / transnational identity that is needed for the world to transcend untranationalism and ethnocentrism. He concludes that these students have the skills needs to create community from diversity. Gerner et al. (1992) also noted positive characteristics of TCKs in two large international schools. In their study, TCKs reported having a high level of interest in travel and learning languages, and they rated themselves as being culturally accepting and having developed a high level of acceptance of diversity. In addition, Iwama (1990) found that in comparison of Japanese TCKs with students who have lived only in Japan, the TCKs were more self-confident, had more flexible minds, were more active and curious, and had a higher bilingual ability. He noted that these students can "swim in two cultural oceans." Because of their varied experiences, the students can see life in terms greater than one cultural boundary and can explain and express themselves in more than one culture.
http://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c22473.htm

Here's some more on TCKs:
http://www.iss.edu/pages/kids.html
http://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c21995.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Culture_Kids


As a TCK, there is nobody better running than Obama to repair the serious diplomatic damage of the last eight years, and the less serious but still real damage of the previous eight.
http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=547109

But don't take my word for it. There's a damned good reason why Obama won the Democrats Abroad Primary (http://www.democratsabroad.org/article/2008/02/21/obama-wins-democrats-abroad-global-primary) - us expat Americans would love to see someone who understands expat life as the next president. HRC's foreign contact, in contrast, has been of the insular type remote from the real people. Sorry, but attending overseas first lady social functions with social elites and actually living overseas with the common people are totally different things.

Speaking as a conservative:

The latest polls show him winning in Texas and closing the gap in Ohio and Pennsylvania. An Obama victory in any of those three states would likely prove fatal to Hillary Clinton's candidacy.


YAY! Unlike those who focus primarily on getting their party in power, I am not willing to risk the chance of Hilary winning by getting to be the nominee. I don't like McCain either, but the thought of Hilary in the White House truly scares me.


I have said it many times before, and I say it again. Barack Obama is not the right choice for the Democratic Party. He is certainly a force in his own right....but he is not the best suited to winning in November or taking the White House in January. The White House is not a place for training wheels, and it takes experience to get to change.

Oh gawd yes let's talk about Hilary's much touted 'experience.' She's been a Senator. Prior to that she was... The President's wife. How that makes her inherently more qualified to be President I don't know. I'm a software developer but I'm pretty sure if you tried to hire my wife to do the same job you'd quickly see what that's worth.

Frankly, I see Obama's newness as a good thing. In Washington, experience = corruption.


We saw that difference in the debate last night, when Obama actually deferred to Clinton's experience in foreign policy on one particular question.


Good. He doesn't let his ego get in the way.


She was forceful, yet not angry...informed, yet not haughty. She looked presidential last night, and Obama looked defensive. Picking a presidential candidate is (or should be) more than a popularity contest, or a likability contest. Presidential politics should be issue-driven....and Hillary Clinton has a commanding understanding that outstrips Obama's on most of those issues.


That's debatable, and purely a matter of opinion. Her understanding of her own agenda is what I find troubling.


Furthermore, saying that "we are going to unite the country, we are going to turn the page" is all very well and good. But who are you going to unite us with, Mr. Obama? The Bush-McCain Republicans? We've just spent seven years having the neoconservatives stamp their radical agenda into the face of this country. Perhaps a call for unity is the more mature thing to do, but I'm not interested in "uniting" with Republicans. I want a President who will stand up for Democratic values, for what is right.

Divisive, just like your candidate. All becomes clear.


I want a President who will not cave to the demands of the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party.


What, for example, has Obama done to cave to them?


I want a fighter, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is that type of fighter. We've seen it many times in this campaign already....any other candidate would have been finished by Obama's string of victories. Clinton's candidacy was declared dead in New Hampshire...and then she won. Her candidacy was declared dead in Nevada...and then she won. She's dead even with him or leading slightly in Ohio and Texas, even with all the money and momentum (God, I hate that word) that Obama has.


Of course. She's been planning this too long to give in so easily. She's been contriving to run for office for years and years. Do you think she ran for NY Senator because sge gives a wet fart about New Yorkers? No. She did it for visibility so she could run later for Prez.


You want a story? Here's a story. She's fighting Obama with one hand tied behind her back, honorably, and she's still got a shot at victory even after all THIS.


Honorably? Are you stoned? Or are you one of those who fell for the crying jag?

And if she's been fighting with one hand tied behind her back, then she's a miserable tactician, not my choice for Commander-in-Chief.


The call for change is seductive, but it takes experience to make change happen. Obama is not the only one who represents change. Either Obama or Clinton would represent radical change from eight years of Bush-Cheney. We've seen what seven years of -inexperience- can do to the country...the American people have paid a bitter price in treasure and lost jobs for Mr. Bush's on-the-job training.


Oh? How can that be when unemployment is down from where it was in 2000?


Obama's supporters may claim that Hillary's prior experience in the White House doesn't really count as "experience"...but it is wholly unrealistic to think that she is not familiar with how the White House works...not after observing her husband for eight years.


Nobody learns by observing. People learn by doing. In that, sha has no advantage.


We need a candidate who can create an economy like we had during the Clinton Administration.


A fragile tech bubble? Thanks, but no thanks.


We need a candidate who can command respect from around the world, who can bring our allies together once again.


Obama.


We need a candidate who is familiar with the problems in our healthcare system, and who is ready to fix them...someone who has a workable, affordable, and executable plan to provide all Americans with some level of health care.


Obama's plan is far and away more realistic and workable than hers, which I might add, is also voluntary and thus not stomping on freedom of choice. She's admitted to favoring legislation to force Americans to be on board with her plan.


We need Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States, and I call on my fellow Ohioans to deliver a resounding victory to her in the Buckeye State on March 4. We are down. But we are NOT out.

*cue Battle Hymn of the Republic*

Simply put, if you want Barack Obama, you're gonna have to get past me and my state. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we did in 2000 and 2004. I'm gonna fight tooth and nail until such a time that Obama clinches the necessary delegates to win, or Clinton does. Obama's very own supporters have told me to my face that, "They don't need my vote to win". That arrogance cost his campaign my support, and it'll be a frigid day in Hell before I back him with that experience foremost in my mind.

Simply put, if you want Barack Obama, you're gonna have to get past me and my state. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we did in 2000 and 2004. I'm gonna fight tooth and nail until such a time that Obama clinches the necessary delegates to win, or Clinton does. Obama's very own supporters have told me to my face that, "They don't need my vote to win". That arrogance cost his campaign my support, and it'll be a frigid day in Hell before I back him with that experience foremost in my mind.

Why can't you answer what so many posters here are saying?
I'd like to see good reasons to vote for Hillary, without saying why Obama is bad, just about what Hillary has to offer.

We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we did in 2000 and 2004.

Forgive me for questioning you, but weren't the mistakes the Democrats made in 2000 and 2004 running someone closely tied to the Clintons and an uninspiring 'safe choice' respectively?

Simply put, if you want Barack Obama, you're gonna have to get past me and my state. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we did in 2000 and 2004. I'm gonna fight tooth and nail until such a time that Obama clinches the necessary delegates to win, or Clinton does. Obama's very own supporters have told me to my face that, "They don't need my vote to win". That arrogance cost his campaign my support, and it'll be a frigid day in Hell before I back him with that experience foremost in my mind.

Before we hammer either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton again, I'd like to remind everyone that both camps are working towards the same goal, and that goal is making sure that the next President of the United States isn't a Republican. We have different ideas of who the best person for the job is, but we all agree that the country cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.

So let's put aside the intense, personal attacks that we have seen in the past couple days. Either Clinton will win or Obama will win. Either of them are vastly preferable to John McCain.

Seriously, what happened to this? You got in a confrontation with a supporter and sold your own principle down the river? At least they didn't stab you. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html) I mean, if we're going to take the actions of individual supporters...

Simply put, if you want Barack Obama, you're gonna have to get past me and my state.

Would that be Texas or Ohio? If its Ohio, are you by chance near Cleveland? I mean...the way it looks, she is going to lose Texas and if she loses Texas, she is D-O-N-E DONE!!!!

We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we did in 2000 and 2004.

Here we agree. That is why I am supporting Obama. Electing Hillary will be the same mistake as it was in 2000 and 2004.

I'm gonna fight tooth and nail until such a time that Obama clinches the necessary delegates to win, or Clinton does. Obama's very own supporters have told me to my face that, "They don't need my vote to win".

That's right. They do not need your vote to win. Obama will more than likely take the Presidency this year.

That arrogance cost his campaign my support, and it'll be a frigid day in Hell before I back him with that experience foremost in my mind.

Then you are a class a idiot.

Simply put, if you want Barack Obama, you're gonna have to get past me and my state. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we did in 2000 and 2004. I'm gonna fight tooth and nail until such a time that Obama clinches the necessary delegates to win, or Clinton does. Obama's very own supporters have told me to my face that, "They don't need my vote to win". That arrogance cost his campaign my support, and it'll be a frigid day in Hell before I back him with that experience foremost in my mind.

I think at this point, we should just dismiss Shal's posts as trolls. He's probably getting some kind of odd kick out of all this. For a matter of fact, Obama doesn't need YOUR vote. Nor does he need your support, really. The fact of the matter is, the majority of the Democratic community has supported Obama. There is obviously a reason for this other than being trapped in 'glittering generalities'.

You don't seem to get it. You're not really winning any of NSG to your side with your unsupported ranting. If Clinton offered more than attacks on Obama as well as whiny complaints when she's being attacked on weakpoints in the only plans she's given--Yeah, I'd vote for her. And the last time I checked, Clinton was behind in both the Texas and Ohio polls. ;)

If you want anyone to see your side of things, you'll have to start offering support other than the "First Lady" argument and the "Obama sucks" argument.

IAnd the last time I checked, Clinton was behind in both the Texas and Ohio polls. ;)

Can I see a link for Ohio?

Simply put, if you want Barack Obama, you're gonna have to get past me and my state.

And, simply put, I don't think the HRCers understand that many Obama supporters will not vote for her.

We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we did in 2000 and 2004.

Nor can we afford the mistakes of the last 16 years.

I'm gonna fight tooth and nail until such a time that Obama clinches the necessary delegates to win, or Clinton does.

Which hopefully won't be much longer.

Obama's very own supporters have told me to my face that, "They don't need my vote to win". That arrogance cost his campaign my support, and it'll be a frigid day in Hell before I back him with that experience foremost in my mind.

I can't speak for your experience. However, HRC lost my vote in about 1993...

The only question I have at this point is this: will you or will you not vote for Obama in November if he gets the nod? A simple yes or no will suffice. Can you say yes or no?

I think at this point, we should just dismiss Shal's posts as trolls.

Along with CH's...

You don't seem to get it.

I really don't think any of the Clintonistas get it. None of them here seem to understand that a fairly significant number of people simply will not vote for HRC.

You're not really winning any of NSG to your side with your unsupported ranting. If Clinton offered more than attacks on Obama as well as whiny complaints when she's being attacked on weakpoints in the only plans she's given--Yeah, I'd vote for her. And the last time I checked, Clinton was behind in both the Texas and Ohio polls. ;)

If you want anyone to see your side of things, you'll have to start offering support other than the "First Lady" argument and the "Obama sucks" argument.

Indeed. :::Drags out a couple of old moldies:::

Where's the HRC beef?
Show me the money!

For one, how does he reconcile the politics of hope with the fact that he's fighting to prevent the Michigan and Florida delegates from being seated?

Simple. The rules were set ahead of time and changing them midstream would not be fair to anyone. It wouldn't be fair to the candidates running - candidates who weren't necessarily even on the ballot and had no opportunity to campaign in those states. It wouldn't be fair to the voters who either stayed home or crossed over to vote in the Republican primaries because they knew their votes wouldn't count.

The time for making the decision on what to do with Michigan and Florida delegates was before their elections, not after. Interestingly enough, Clinton supported the decision not to seat any of those delegates, until it appeared that she needed them.

He's fighting because a large portion of those delegates would be Clinton delegates.

And Clinton is fighting...why? Oh, because she wants delegates from votes unfairly skewed in her favor.

The people who voted in Florida and Michigan had nothing to do with the move of their primaries up closer to Iowa and New Hampshire...that was the action of their state party officials. Yet the whole electorate of Florida and Michigan are being punished for that (and in my opinion, they shouldn't have been punished at all).

Again, the time to make this decision was prior to the elections.

Luckily, there is another option on the table: reholding elections with the opportunity for candidates to campaign in those states.

Do you know why Clinton won't support that option?

I can understand on some level why Obama opposes seating the delegates, especially the Michigan delegation. But that doesn't jive with his image as a reformer, either. He's playing the political system at the same time he's playing the reform card.

Following the rules as they have been set isn't really "playing the system".

I love the comparisons of Clinton to Bush. You want a comparison? Here's one. How about the tactics of Obama's supporters? The radicalism and fanaticism that they have leveled against Clinton.

Ah, yes. Not liking a candidate is the same as acting like Bush.

Her husband was a damn fine President, regardless of his scandal with Monica Lewinsky.

I can agree with this, but it is completely irrelevant.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is an intelligent, ambitious, and skilled woman.

This is probably true.

Why is it that, in our country, a man who possesses ambition finds it numbered amongst his assets....but a woman who is ambitious is a bitch?

Why is it that HRC supporters can't understand the idea that someone can be opposed to their candidate without being sexist?

They claim she is power hungry, that she is aggressively trying to win in any method that she can think of within the rules of the contest.

Forget staying within the rules. She's made it clear that she will fight to have the rules changed in her favor, if that's what it takes.

Is Obama not power hungry as well? He wants to be President of the United States. You do not become President of the United States unless you seek the power that accompanies that post. Whether you use it for good or for ill is an entirely different matter.

And whether you use it for yourself or for others is another matter as well. One who is power hungry wants power for the sake of power. I get the impression that Clinton fits that bill. I get the impression that Obama wants that power because he is truly passionate about the issues he brings up, a sense that is fueled by the fact that, unlike Clinton, he sticks to the same issues no matter who he is talking to.

The Obamites who claim that Clinton is "more of the same" and who suggest that she is the same as George W. Bush are liars, perhaps even to themselves. Clinton does not share the beliefs or the policies of Bush.

She shares some of them. For instance, she's made it clear that she has no qualms with Congress giving up power to the Presidency. She has made it clear that "we're taking our ball and going home unless you do what we say" is appropriate diplomacy in her mind. She has made it clear that she supports secrecy in government. She has stated that she places national security before human rights.

People who say that Clinton is "more of the same" are not comparing specific policies. They are comparing tactics and priorities.

The only chance for him to succeed and win the Presidency would be with Hillary as his running mate.

Why is that?

I can actually think of much better running mates.

Simply put, if you want Barack Obama, you're gonna have to get past me and my state.
Oh, man, I bet the Obama camp is quaking in their boots about this one... :rolleyes:

Change for the sake of change can leave you shortchanged. I really don't think Obama can take the White House, at least not without Hillary. That is strictly my opinion. I believe that Hillary hatred, disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida, and dumb primary/caucus rules will keep the WH in Republican hands.

If Hillary hatred would keep the White House in Republican hands if Obama was the nominee, why would having her as a running mate help? And how would having her as the actual nominee help?

You really aren't making any sense here.

Can I see a link for Ohio?
She's not behind in Ohio, neither CNN nor Fox is claiming that one.

Oh? How can that be when unemployment is down from where it was in 2000?

From what I've read, this has more to do with them changing the way they tally it than absolute numbers. That, and quite a few people have dropped out of the market for jobs altogether, and those people don't get counted in the numbers.

Why is that?

I can actually think of much better running mates.

Indeed so.

In 2004, there was mention of a Kerry-McCain ticket.

And this time out, a wicked bipartisan team has been mentioned around*: An Obama-Hagel ticket would seriously chew bubble gum, kick ass, take names, and kill zeds. ;) (And that may sound facetious, but I'm dead serious.)


Obama brings the Dems, both bring the indies, and Hagel brings the unhappy GOPers...

And both pull the unhappy middle...

*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201956.html
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/02/25/110056.php
http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/05/thats_hagelian.html

Indeed so.

In 2004, there was mention of a Kerry-McCain ticket.

And this time out, a wicked bipartisan team has been mentioned around*: An Obama-Hagel ticket would seriously chew bubble gum, kick ass, take names, and kill zeds. ;) (And that may sound facetious, but I'm dead serious.)

Hmmm. If I were going to pick a bipartisan ticket with Obama, I'd say he should ask Colin Powell to be his VP.

Hmmm. If I were going to pick a bipartisan ticket with Obama, I'd say he should ask Colin Powell to be his VP.

That's be orgasmic as well. ;)

Condi Rice would bring interesting stuff to the ticket, as well as some negs..

Hmmm. If I were going to pick a bipartisan ticket with Obama, I'd say he should ask Colin Powell to be his VP.


Hellz yes! I really like Colin Powell and they would be unstoppable.

Hellz yes! I really like Colin Powell and they would be unstoppable.

Unfortunately, CP threw his rep under the wheels of GWB's Iraq War, deeply damaging his creds... However, I'd still call that a very strong ticket. CP's military chops would definately equal-negate McCain's...

Unfortunately, CP threw his rep under the wheels of GWB's Iraq War, deeply damaging his creds... However, I'd still call that a very strong ticket. CP's military chops would definately equal-negate McCain's...

Yeah, that's the only strike I can see against him. He's apologized for it at least.

Yeah, that's the only strike I can see against him. He's apologized for it at least.

Indeed so. And, all regards re the lead up to the Iraq war aside, I'll still say a BHO/CP ticket would be solid gold. Especially when, note - not if, but when, the Surge starts to go south in a few months... that'll take HRC and McCain both south...

Unfortunately, CP threw his rep under the wheels of GWB's Iraq War, deeply damaging his creds... However, I'd still call that a very strong ticket. CP's military chops would definately equal-negate McCain's...

It would have damaged his creds in my eyes, except for the fact that he was fairly obviously resisting a lot of the stupid crap the administration did - and that seems to be his reason for leaving it.

Excuse me -- why is Hillary fighting to get those delegates when before the election even went on, the Democratic party said they wouldn't count because they moved their election up? Seems like she's trying to change the rules of the game mid-stream -- especially since she supported that decision at the time.

And no, it's not time for the Obama supporters to answer "hard questions": you've been asked multiple times to defend your position. All I see is redirection, blame, complaints, and NOT ANSWERING.

Kat if we weren't both married I'd ask you to tea and some cuddling ;)

I've been saying this for days. Can we bounce her for trolling if she doesn't start to debate? Please.:fluffle:

what exactly has hillary clinton done to claim experience? i'm arab so im intreseted.
also obama seems pretty liked in the middle east generally, even shias are liking him! (they usually hate the democratic and republican canidates)
mcain or obama would be good, but hillary apears to have forgotten the point of the primaries: BE LIKED, and obviously she is not being liked any more in the upcoming states

Simply put, if you want Barack Obama, you're gonna have to get past me and my state. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we did in 2000 and 2004. I'm gonna fight tooth and nail until such a time that Obama clinches the necessary delegates to win, or Clinton does. Obama's very own supporters have told me to my face that, "They don't need my vote to win". That arrogance cost his campaign my support, and it'll be a frigid day in Hell before I back him with that experience foremost in my mind.

So wait... you're with Hilary because you're mad at the Obama campaign? That doesn't give your essay much credibility.

Then you are a class a idiot.

Trolls like her are not worth getting in trouble with the mods over.

It's becoming increasingly clear the Republicans are conceding that McCain can't beat Obama, but he can beat Hillary. Voting for Obama is the pragmatic thing to do.

Yeah, Republicans are scared to death of Obama, especially when it gets down to substance. ;)

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll27feb27,0,5452138.story

For one, how does he reconcile the politics of hope with the fact that he's fighting to prevent the Michigan and Florida delegates from being seated? He's fighting because a large portion of those delegates would be Clinton delegates.



That is the stupidest fucking arguement ever, taken just from the CH school of Debating For Mrs. Clinton.

Everyone, every single Democratic delagate agreed that they should not be seated as a punishment. Then, when she started getting her power hungry ass kicked and realized she would win them and needed those delegates, she decided it was "wrong" and "unfair" not to seat them.

Thats how you reconcile his politics of change. Change doesnt mean changing your opinion on the rules half way through.

Change for the sake of change can leave you shortchanged. I really don't think Obama can take the White House, at least not without Hillary. That is strictly my opinion.

Exactly, your undefendable, flies in the face of polls, opinion.

To a degree, I'd agree with you, but Obama is an exceptional speaker by any standard. The other day, I saw him on TV, and, pausing to watch, I was drawn into his speech. When he spoke of cynics being drawn into a campaign of hope, when he spoke of people working long hours for his candidacy, I thought back. I thought of my journey, from being inspired by him, to volunteering for him, making trips to South Carolina, and canvassing in the rain and the snow... I thought back on all of these things, and I choked up.

Or an earlier speech, when he told about an elderly woman who sent him a money order for three dollars and one cent. Earlier, when he spoke in Atlanta and I stood in the crowd, enchanted and inspired. All the way back to DNC 2004, when he gave one of the greatest speeches I've seen.

Obama is a great speaker, and I don't feel it's condescending or racist to say it.

You and I are in the same boat. I canvass for him in NJ and NY. I don't think we're talking about the same kind of people though. You and I saying he's a great speaker is different than Che Whitey in SC saying, "That boy sure speaks well." I think we are just splitting hairs at this point. He inspires me as well. I'm glad you feel the same.

Simply put, if you want Barack Obama, you're gonna have to get past me and my state.


Oh gawd teh horror!

We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we did in 2000 and 2004.

I agree. Dont vote for Hillary.

Obama's very own supporters have told me to my face that, "They don't need my vote to win".

Frankly, we dont.

That arrogance cost his campaign my support, and it'll be a frigid day in Hell before I back him with that experience foremost in my mind.

Really? You considered Obama? Or are you just one of those proto-femanists who are supporting Hillary SOLEY based on the fact she has a vagina and are totally ignorant of the issue aside from each respective candidates anatomy? Because my money's on the latter.

We need a candidate who is familiar with the problems in our healthcare system, and who is ready to fix them...someone who has a workable, affordable, and executable plan to provide all Americans with some level of health care.

So Hillary is going to fix health care as president. Hillary tried to fix healthcare in 93 but failed even with a Democratic controled Senate and House. So I've been wonder for sometime, why is she going to get it done this time?

Meh. Obama is a Quite Good public speaker. He certainly seems to appeal to Americans, but his style seems a bit... overdramatic... in the UK.

I love the irony in that statement. Quality.

Oh gawd teh horror!



I agree. Dont vote for Hillary.



Frankly, we dont.



Really? You considered Obama? Or are you just one of those proto-femanists who are supporting Hillary SOLEY based on the fact she has a vagina and are totally ignorant of the issue aside from each respective candidates anatomy? Because my money's on the latter.

My favorite response to those sorts of people is that if Michelle Obama was running instead of Barak, even if she was not married to him, I'd vote for her. I've heard her speak and believe she would make a great President.

but unfortunately she has no personal interest in politics.

Poor poor America, your trapped in your tiny right-wing ideological box and you argue so fervently over issues so semantic and irrelevant that's it makes one sad, seriously it's conservative capitalists versus liberal capitalists, nothing will change. It's sad how much effort you Americans put into changing absolutely nothing, you have your non-issue divisive arguments about 'morality' issues but that's it. I mean seriously even outside America the political spectrum is far more broad, it's sad seeing you guys stuck in your own isolated political world, where America talks down to the world and everyone else sighs.

Poor poor America, your trapped in your tiny right-wing ideological box and you argue so fervently over issues so semantic and irrelevant that's it makes one sad, seriously it's conservative capitalists versus liberal capitalists, nothing will change. It's sad how much effort you Americans put into changing absolutely nothing, you have your non-issue divisive arguments about 'morality' issues but that's it. I mean seriously even outside America the political spectrum is far more broad, it's sad seeing you guys stuck in your own isolated political world, where America talks down to the world and everyone else sighs.

What the fuck makes you think that the administration of the most powerful country in the world is unimportant?

What the fuck makes you think that the administration of the most powerful country in the world is unimportant?

Don't feed the troll. Seriously, maybe if you people stopped responding to him, he'd crawl back under his bridge.

What the fuck makes you think that the administration of the most powerful country in the world is unimportant?
Not saying it isn't pragmatically, but the rest of the world tends to be more pragmatic in foreign relations, while America has it's head perpetually up it's anus, and talks down to countries it defines as bad, take Cuba for example. The Presidential campaign is also a good example, the speeches etc, you'd think it was still 1950 and American was on top of the world, the arrogance is horrible.

Seriously America, why must you engage us in your vulgar jingoism and symbolism, it's so superficial that it makes me puke.

Don't feed the troll. Seriously, maybe if you people stopped responding to him, he'd crawl back under his bridge.

QFT

You know...I wish we had some method of owning trolls before they even get started. Honestly...I would love it.

What the fuck makes you think that the administration of the most powerful country in the world is unimportant?

By the same token, just because we're America doesn't make us all-powerful and omnipotent. Not saying that was your point, but...just felt I should make sure.

He IS right on one thing. Our foreign affairs have been atrocious from time to time.

The Gospel of Barack Obama. (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2862&Itemid=48)

1:10 Therefore did the multitudes go out to Obama in the wilderness of Iowa, Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Utah. And seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

1:11 Blessed are those who Believe, for they shall say, "Yes We Can!"

1:12 Blessed are those who say, "Yes We Can!" for they shall audaciously Hope.

1:13 Blessed are those who Hope, for they shall speak of Change.

1:14 Blessed are those who speak of Change, for they shall Get Fired Up.

1:15 Blessed are those who Get Fired Up, for they shall be baptized with the Spirit of the Age.

1:16 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst during long rallies, for they shall drink the waters of Evian and I shall not lose my photo op.

1:17 Blessed are we. For we are the ones we have been waiting for. We are the Change that we seek.

Poor poor America, your trapped in your tiny right-wing ideological box and you argue so fervently over issues so semantic and irrelevant that's it makes one sad, seriously it's conservative capitalists versus liberal capitalists, nothing will change. It's sad how much effort you Americans put into changing absolutely nothing, you have your non-issue divisive arguments about 'morality' issues but that's it. I mean seriously even outside America the political spectrum is far more broad, it's sad seeing you guys stuck in your own isolated political world, where America talks down to the world and everyone else sighs.

We know we know, the only election youd think was important wouldnt be an election at all, itd be the proletariate uprising.

We know we know, the only election youd think was important wouldnt be an election at all, itd be the proletariate uprising.

I believe in substance, not symbolism. Nothing will ever change for the better in America through reform.

QFT

Got nothing to say but inane one-liners? I thought so. If my comment was trolling then report it and let the Mods decide, otherwise answer it or go to your hole.

I believe in substance, not symbolism. Nothing will ever change for the better in America through reform.


I know, only a working class rebellion could change anything. God youre predictable.

Nothing can change eh? Look at the civil rights movement 40 years ago. My you look ignorant.

Do you live here? If not, you really dont have much right to say such things and think youre informed and doing anything but stereotyping.

We know we know, the only election youd think was important wouldnt be an election at all, itd be the proletariate uprising. And the idea that a proletariat uprising could change things for the better is akin to the belief that consuming fecal matter promotes good health.

The Gospel of Barack Obama. (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2862&Itemid=48)

LOLz

And the idea that a proletariat uprising could change things for the better is akin to the belief that consuming fecal matter promotes good health.

Disgusting, but accurate. :p

In refference to those who are "omg he just says stuff," pehaps you should check out his positions on issues which he conviently posts on his website where anybody with an internet connection can access it, instead of expecting him to be able to point out his stances on the myriads of issues in the ~30 second comercials.

And honestly, Clinton says notmore in the stump about the details of her positions than Obama does (I've been to one of her rallies) so she's really getting a free pass on the "all hat no cattle" issue.

Got nothing to say but inane one-liners? I thought so. If my comment was trolling then report it and let the Mods decide, otherwise answer it or go to your hole.

Not to you. See, you just kind of have this anti-american "we're so stupid and fat and uninformed and teh suck" thing going, and I just don't have the energy to argue trolls.

But I'm gonna go with Privatised Gaols said. I'm gonna ignore you.

Disgusting, but accurate. :p
A couple of hundred years ago, there was a serious community of people who believed it, but over the intervening years we learned more about the way things work, and now only serious crackpots give the theory any validity.

Same goes for the poo. :)

Not saying it isn't pragmatically, but the rest of the world tends to be more pragmatic in foreign relations, while America has it's head perpetually up it's anus, and talks down to countries it defines as bad, take Cuba for example.

Thats true to an extent. But it doesn't invalidate its importance.


The Presidential campaign is also a good example, the speeches etc, you'd think it was still 1950 and American was on top of the world, the arrogance is horrible.

Seriously America, why must you engage us in your vulgar jingoism and symbolism, it's so superficial that it makes me puke.

I haven't notice any bombardment of symbolism compared to any other election, except due to the importance of the USA, many more people are experiencing it.

I believe in substance, not symbolism. Nothing will ever change for the better in America through reform.

anadaras where do you live? because youre words make me think of an angry college student in canada

anadaras where do you live? because youre words make me think of an angry college student in canada

What exactly does not matter? Or are you just engaging in personalized attacks?.... Thought so. Is it so horrible to be passionate?

The Gospel of Barack Obama. (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2862&Itemid=48)

There's something kind of delicious about copy and pasting a critique of followers chanting repeated phrases. Even more delicious when that critique comes from a Catholic website.

And the idea that a proletariat uprising could change things for the better is akin to the belief that consuming fecal matter promotes good health.

Generally revolutions occur when the people feel that they have nothing left to lose. The decision becomes one of "storm the Bastille or starve to death in the streets".

1. What exactly does not matter?2. Or are you just engaging in personalized attacks?.... Thought so. 3.Is it so horrible to be passionate?

1. Huh?
2. no really i'm curious you always talk of the people and the revolution, and the silliness of america, so i was wondering... (and i know an angry college kid in canada who talks alot like you)
3. no not really

Generally revolutions occur when the people feel that they have nothing left to lose. The decision becomes one of "storm the Bastille or starve to death in the streets".

i don't know, it seems to me that lots of revolutionary action is touched off after being down at the bottom for awhile, just barely scrapping by, but then some sort of reform is offered that gets everyone's hopes up. except that the reform then doesn't go far or fast enough (or doesn't go anywhere at all) for the rising hopes and expectations of the people.

people will put up with shit for a long time.