quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco It's another example of him fucking up and then him coming back on TV telling us that we didn't "understand him the right way"... He needs to explain to us what he said, we misconstrued it. It has happened hundreds of times it seems... Ugh, our candidates suck.

Have you read the speech? His comments WERE misconstrued!

And what's the problem with a candidate sticking by what he said? For God's sake, you people harp and moan about wanting a candidate that will speak his mind and not just tell you what he thinks you want to hear... well hello!

___________________

Fair enough on the first post ("consultant vs. advisor")... Ask yourself, if Hillary said the same thing, how would you feel about those comments? I dislike Hillary and McCain as much as the next guy but I can't get over how much of a circus this entire election has become, and the double standard gets pulled out everytime.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i personally don't think he's right. you will be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks americans have a right to guns because they are economically disadvantaged. the main argument is based on the constitution and the right of personal defense. I personally agree with what clinton said, however, much of this guys appeal is that he doesn't make these sort of mistakes. if he makes these mistakes then he becomes no different than other politicians.

WORD.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Fair enough on the first post ("consultant vs. advisor")... Ask yourself, if Hillary said the same thing, how would you feel about those comments? I dislike Hillary and McCain as much as the next guy but I can't get over how much of a circus this entire election has become, and the double standard gets pulled out everytime.

I'd commend her for telling the truth and not merely repeating what's popular to say too.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy This is yet another bullshit attack against Obama started by the Clinton supporters who are supporting a candidate with no chance of being nominated by a "by the people" process, unless the only people you are concerned with are the 700+ superdelegates.

You know there's no way either nominee can clinch the nomination without it going to convention. The number's just don't add up. You want to talk about being nominated BY THE PEOPLE, admit the grim reality that if Michigan or Florida were allowed, Clinton would be on top. I'm not implying that it is Obama's fault, it was a fuck-up by the DNC in general. But to see Obama so adamant against a revote makes you wonder if he wants an election BY THE PEOPLE in the first place.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'd commend her for telling the truth and not merely repeating what's popular to say too.

We can agree to disagree, that's the beauty of intelligent conversation. However, it's a matter of perception. 99% of the things that come out of his mouth are things that are popular to say and people wanna hear, imo. Same goes for her too, not gunna lie. My point is, they're BOTH politicians.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco You know there's no way either nominee can clinch the nomination without it going to convention. The number's just don't add up. You want to talk about being nominated BY THE PEOPLE, admit the grim reality that if Michigan or Florida were allowed, Clinton would be on top. In no way is that Obama's fault, it was a fuck-up by the DNC in general. But to see Obama so adamant against a revote makes you wonder if he wants an election BY THE PEOPLE in the first place.

Wow, where did you get that shaky math?

First of all, let's get this straight about Michigan and Florida - Obama isn't adamant about a re-vote - he was adamant about 1. not merely accepting the results as they stand (as Mark Penn in the Clinton campaign initially advocated for) and 2. about not having a vote that didn't also include provisional and absentee votes (which Mark Penn opposed from the start). Obama also pressed to have caucuses in both states under the argument that caucuses motivate the base and get people engaged in politics to a far greater degree - the point of the primaries in general anyway, yes?

The fact that the Clinton campaign has a far greater spin team led to Obama being vilified as an obstructionist, when in reality, both campaigns had proposals to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Secondly, the idea that Clinton would somehow come out ahead in the popular vote by including Michigan and Florida is shaky at best. Sure she won both states... but that might have something to do with her being the ONLY democratic candidate on the freaking ballot in Michigan, and the only one who campaigned or took out ad buys in Florida! Obama never campaigned there (in deference to a request by the DNC for both candidates not to... a pledge Hillary did not live up to).

And thirdly, the delegate math does add up, and it will not go all the way to the convention even if it weren't decided by the delegates - just look at statements by Democratic leadership on that front (Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Kennedy, Gore, Emanuel, etc.) - even Hillary's advisor, Howard Wolfstein, made a comment about it being decided by delegates and not going all the way to the convention.

Check out the math here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2.../303/401/493855

Based on the polling from just last week, Obama only needs to net 28% of the remaining superdelegates (a number he will far surpass) in order to mathematically clinch the nomination.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco We can agree to disagree, that's the beauty of intelligent conversation. However, it's a matter of perception. 99% of the things that come out of his mouth are things that are popular to say and people wanna hear, imo. Same goes for her too, not gunna lie. My point is, they're BOTH politicians.

See this is the frustrating thing for me. Here we have a case of a politician telling the truth and not saying the easy, more popular thing. And people leapt down his throat for it! The media plays the ten second sound-bite without the context of the paragraph it was buried in, and people jump to conclusions about him being out of touch. What possible incentive does this give him to keep on telling the truth? If good behavior is conditioned, no wonder politicians lie!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov First of all, let's get this straight about Michigan and Florida - Obama isn't adamant about a re-vote....... Obama also pressed to have caucuses in both states under the argument that caucuses motivate the base and get people engaged in politics to a far greater degree - the point of the primaries in general anyway, yes?

A caucus is a caucus and going to the polls is going to the polls. If Michigan and Florida were poll-states, then a revote should be done at the polls, simple as that. Have you looked at the turnout %'s for caucus states vs. poll states... I think the idea of a caucus is BS. If there were one here in Jersey, I wouldn't go and that sentiment is shared by older people as well as other people who don't have 3 hours to spend on election day. He, his campaign, and his supporters in Congress have shot down any possibilities of revotes because of "fraud concerns" and stuff like that. He then wanted a caucus instead. He later proposed a 50/50 split of Michigan's delegates...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Secondly, the idea that Clinton would somehow come out ahead in the popular vote by including Michigan and Florida is shaky at best. Sure she won both states... but that might have something to do with her being the ONLY democratic candidate on the freaking ballot in Michigan, and the only one who campaigned or took out ad buys in Florida! Obama never campaigned there (in deference to a request by the DNC for both candidates not to... a pledge Hillary did not live up to).

Obama spent 1.3 million dollars in Florida, but "didn't campaign there." It's public knowledge. Hillary never campaigned there, just went there after all was said and done. She's thinking further into the future as far as the November election, while Obama brushed off the Fla./Mi. numbers, totally disregarding the fact that this will come back to hurt him in November if he's chosen. But yeah... 1.3 million dollars went to Florida from his campaign, why? (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/18/11351/1420) <- I've found this information very much elsewhere, but this is the first one to come up, for the sake of citing it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Based on the polling from just last week, Obama only needs to net 28% of the remaining superdelegates (a number he will far surpass) in order to mathematically clinch the nomination.

Time and time again (not you, but other people), people criticize Clinton's bigger numbers with superdelegates as a slap in the face to the popular vote and voice of the nation. Now you are saying they will help Obama win. Would you agree with other Obama-supporters (in this thread even) that superdelegates are a load of crap, even if he wins because of them? Idk, just asking... The fact that they're so so so close (no matter how much pundits want her to step down), do you think superdelegates causing EITHER of them to win is a good thing? This election's been fucked since jump-street.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Last edited by DJ Eco on Apr-18-2008 at 01:02

Looks like Dean's had enough of the cowardly superdelegates who haven't publicly pledged yet:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...a-decision-now/

Good. Let's get this sucker over with so the real campaign battle begins.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov See this is the frustrating thing for me. Here we have a case of a politician telling the truth and not saying the easy, more popular thing. And people leapt down his throat for it! The media plays the ten second sound-bite without the context of the paragraph it was buried in, and people jump to conclusions about him being out of touch.

You wanna know who was telling the truth then? Bill Clinton was telling the truth when he simply pointed out that Jesse Jackson won the SC primaries but didn't make it to the Presidential Race. That's a simple fact that holds up as truth. He was also correct in his negative comments to one reporter claiming that the media asks unimportant questions. But no, he was a racist and was "on a rampage". And of course, Bill=Hillary in the eyes of anyone who hates either of them. I love Bill but don't like Hillary too much but I see the Obama supporters around me and have to scratch my head sometimes.

Listen, no generalization is the truth. Where's the bitterness coming from? Is it because of Bush? Are they in a shitty situation in life? Are they poor?.... I can't see how it is "telling the truth." He slipped, and I personally wouldn't have made a HUGE deal out of it like I'm sure the media has. But, taking his negatives and making them positives is mindboggling. "Oh he did cocaine when he was younger, he's a regular guy like you and me." "Oh he goes to racist and anti-Semetic church and was able to stick to his roots while differing in views (for 20 years)." "Oh he's not holding his tongue, he's telling the truth even if it's not what you want to hear." He's like some supernatural figure that can't go wrong. Wake up.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Last edited by DJ Eco on Apr-18-2008 at 01:07