Good. Let's get this sucker over with so the real campaign battle begins.
Dean's a coward who is single-handedly ruining the Democratic party. Every election that passes, it seems each one gets more and more ridiculous.
DJ Eco
For the record, all discussion aside, whoever's the Democratic nominee will be getting my support anyway. I just can't spend another 4 years with another Republican, especially John McCain.
josh4
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Looks like Dean's had enough of the cowardly superdelegates who haven't publicly pledged yet:
Good. Let's get this sucker over with so the real campaign battle begins.
I watched the video and he did ask the delegates to start deciding now, but he also mentioned having a nominee "by June". All eyes are on PA. After PA we'll hopefully see a wave of superdelegates start committing. Ideally, enough to finally end it.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
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...
The correlation between caucus participation and high turnout numbers in November is well documented, whereas the correlation between high primary turnout and November turnout is not. And anyway, older people are typically the most diehard caucus goers - just look at the most famous example in Iowa.
4 million people turned out for the Texas democratic caucus this year... more than voted for John Kerry in the 2004 general election. Numbers weren't the issue - process was.
quote:
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.
From the Center for Responsive Politics (the place that released those numbers):
[The information from the Center for Responsive Politics that Jerome Armstrong cites comes from our Feb. 5 analysis of the candidates' year-end campaign finance reports; it's not something we posted today. He also conveniently left out this disclaimer from that same item of ours: "Now would be a good time to mention that measuring spending in a state is problematic. The biggest expenses--advertising, for one--are often spent with vendors outside the state, or even just over the state line. These figures measure only what was spent on the ground with local companies and individuals."
To explain further, the expenditures figures Jerome cited are calculated by looking only at the addresses of the vendors that each campaign paid. They are almost certainly not accurate counts of how much was spent in a state. It's possible that Obama hired a vendor based in Florida who did work outside the state for his campaign. For example, maybe the printer of his signs is in Florida. The amount of money spent on signs would appear in the campaign finance reports to have been focused solely on Florida, when, in fact, the signs were used to campaign all over the country.
Bottom line: I wouldn't use state spending totals gleaned from campaign finance reports to saw anything authoritative about a candidate's effort in a particular state. The FEC's requirements for reporting expenditures just don't allow for that sort of precision.
Feel free to share what I've told you with the blogosphere. And thanks for your question.
Massie Ritsch
Center for Responsive Politics]
It's worth noting that both the Jacksonville, Gainesville, and Tallahassee media markets cross the border into Georgia, one of Obama's focus states.
When I made my comment, I was talking strictly campaign stops. As "The Nation" reported in January:
quote:
Hillary Clinton has decided to rewrite the rules of the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
Like other candidates, she pledged not to campaign in Florida after the state jumped ahead on the schedule of caucuses and primaries set by the Democratic National Committee. She had to make that pledge if she hoped to compete in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, as Iowa and New Hampshire zealously guard their starting status on the political calendar.
But Iowa and New Hampshire are history and, after a landslide loss in South Carolina on Saturday, Clinton needs a win.
So she has begun appearing in Florida in anticipation of Tuesday's Democratic primary there.
Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process. Effectively, she is saying to Democrats in states that will participate in February 5th's "Super Tuesday" primaries and caucuses and in the two dozen states that have scheduled later votes: You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.
That's the raw political reality of Clinton's move, even if she is spinning it as an embrace of participatory democracy.
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 ed since jump-street.
Look, this is the reason that Hillary's superdelegate situation was criticized and Obama's is not. OBAMA HAS A LEAD IN THE POPULAR VOTE AND PLEDGED DELEGATES. The superdelegates are merely reaffirming this lead, not manufacturing a lead for Hillary where one does not exist. The criticism was that Hillary's campaign has claimed that even if she loses the popular vote AND the pledged delegate count after the primaries are said and done (which she will), the superdelegates should go against popular will and support her in numbers great enough to circumvent the democratic process and anoint her as the nominee.
I believe superdelegates are useful, but there are too many of them - the DNC should seriously look into cutting in half the number of superdelegates that are part of the process.
The Clinton campaign was done after the Feb. 12 Potomac Primaries - you're spinning the numbers even more than the mainstream media. After Feb. 12 it was necessary for Clinton to average 12% victories in all remaining primaries/caucuses in order to catch Obama in the pledged delegate count. Somehow she has gotten credit for wins that are far less than that in the meantime, but that magic average win now stands at about 20% for the remaining contests. You take a look at the poll numbers and tell me whether that has ever been realistic (considering that Obama is up 15 in North Carolina, for instance). No, the Clinton campaign has hinged entirely upon appealing to superdelegates ever since early February (hence, the electability argument, which polling shows voters don't really even care about).
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
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.
While I understand your criticism and even share your sentiments to a certain extent, the bottom line is that Obama is still quite far ahead in both the popular vote, the delegate count, and has won twice as many states as Hillary. If the situation was that only polls were allowed in the states, then I would agree that Hillary may have had a better chance. But that's simply not the situation here, and both Hillary and Obama knew full well the rules of the game coming into it.
The problem for Hillary, however, is that Obama and his supporters took full advantage of the caucus situation and ran with it. There's no reason to gripe at someone and their supporters who played well within the boundaries of the rules that were given to them. We can play the "what if" game all night, and the end result is Mickey Mouse could likely be president as a consequence. But in the end, the reality and the rules we have right now clearly have Obama in the lead and will be the Democratic candidate.
quote:
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...
I'm curious as to what your sources are for this. He was willing to agree to whatever the DNC supported, last I heard. While he may be proposing certain situations, just as Hillary has proposed, and while those proposals clearly favor themselves in those states, he was willing to agree upon whatever the DNC wanted.
Now granted, Obama's lawyers had some questions about the Michigan re-vote, but ultimately it was the Republican-led legislature of that state that gave the thumbs down to a re-vote:
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.
You know, you only have to scroll down in the comments to see Kid Oakland and Along's criticism, as well as linking to Kid Oakland's post over at Hillary-supporting blog, MyDD, to see a rebuttal of this claim:
The bottom line is that Hillary agreed to the rules that were broken by both states, just as Obama did. Only when her ass behind Obama's is she now digging for votes and delegates in those states.
And those state legislatures have only themselves to blame for screwing over their Democratic voters, by the way.
quote:
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?
I would agree to that. They shouldn't be relevant, but again it's the system that we have and we have to accept that. Of course I'd love to see a change, but that does nothing to change the present situation.
quote:
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?
I would disagree with you that this election is close. It hasn't been close since Super Tuesday. It's been nothing but a farce trumped up by the media since then. While the delegate count is somewhat close by the numbers (Obama ahead by what, 140 or so?), the reality of the situation is that he would literally have to croak in order for her to catch him.
So in the end, I doubt that the argument pertaining to the superdelegates really matters anyway. Like I said a while back in this thread, they aren't going to be stupid enough to create a gigantic controversy in the party and swing towards Hillary, who has no chance of catching Obama without them. That's a non-issue, at least it has been for some time.
quote:
This election's been ed since jump-street.
It's certainly been a bit strange so far, I'll say that much.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
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.
I'll leave it to you to glean whether Bill left out the "and we all know Jesse Jackson wasn't mainstream enough for white folks to vote for him in any other state."
quote:
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.
I don't know what situation you are referring to in the second point about Bill, but then again, I never claimed that the media's characterizations of either candidate are accurate; merely that their characterizations of Obama's comments in this particular case are completely misleading. That said, I see nothing wrong with using Bill's record (particularly since Hillary herself has claimed such an active role in his Administration) as something to scrutinize in this campaign. And if Bill's comments aren't part of the campaign, maybe he should stop speaking on their behalf.
quote:
Listen, no generalization is the truth. Where's the bitterness coming from? Is it because of Bush? Are they in a ty 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.
Ok - this is what's mindboggling. You obviously haven't read the speech.
Here it is for you one more time:
quote:
OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.
Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.
Context is key.
And if you want the perspective of Mayhill Fowler, the reporter who actually broke the story, well here you go:
quote:
When I began following the Obama Campaign through Pennsylvania, the place was new to me -- as apparently it was to Senator Obama, since his Road to Change bus tour was heralded as the candidate's introduction to the Keystone State. Now the Senator has moved on to Indiana for a spell, but I'm back in PA, thinking about Obama's and my experiences of the people here.
Pennsylvanians are as friendly as Iowans-- and that's a huge compliment. (I love you Texas, but you get up on the wrong side of the bed a lot, or at least you did during the weeks before the primaries.) These Pennsylvanians are patriotic. On several occasions, they've awarded Barack Obama a standing ovation for his promise to restore the Constitution. Clearly, Quaker Staters feel a connection to the part their state played in the making of the Constitution; they see themselves in America's larger history.
At two town hall meetings in Pennsylvania, Senator Obama drew plenty of remarks about patriotism. In Harrisburg two weeks ago, one person called on by Obama chose not to ask a question. Instead a man who introduced himself as only Dennis told Obama, "Make a speech on patriotism because the Republican Party does not own the flag." In Wilkes-Barre a few days later, Obama fielded a similar comment from a man who said, "I believe that this nation now has dangerously low levels of patriotism and national pride.... My question to you is How are we going to reestablish America's reputation to Americans?" After leaving Pennsylvania and stopping over in Montana on his way to California, Senator Obama must have had these Pennsylvania questioners on his mind, because in Butte and Missoula he talked a bit about patriotism, introducing the subject as a theme we'll likely will be hearing more from him in the future, perhaps in a major speech at some appropriately historic date and time. Barack Obama and the rest of us will owe that to Pennsylvanians.
Another thing about Quaker Staters. The ravages of mining and old-style manufacturing have been unable, after all, to break the bond Pennsylvanians have with the natural world. Driving through the western part of the state, I thought again and again what great deer hunting country it is, and how my dad, a hunter in his younger days, would love it. Clipping a poem from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by Jeff O'Brien, a citizen of Upper Turkeyfoot, Somerset County, I imagined Turkeyfoot's "ice hard in the cavities of the derelict woods/the long dark coming in the magnesium shifts of twilight" as I drove through and determined to order O'Brien's poetry collection from Amazon. I've wondered about Pennsylvania and its citizens in other times and seasons, and I would like to stay longer here to see.
In the midst of this harsh pastoral, Pennsylvanians are scrappy survivors. They complain (particularly about their governor and Clinton surrogate Ed Rendell, who doesn't seem as popular as the media make him out to be), but they endure. They refuse to be bound to the broken temples of commerce and manufacturing, the vacant Beaux Arts hotels, the rotting nineteenth-century row houses, the abandoned sidings and once-grand railway stations that inscribe Scranton and Wilkes-Barre and diminish Pittsburgh and Lancaster. Pennsylvanians are remarkably chipper. In the end, the material world that once gave them prosperity has not defined them. On the contrary, Pennsylvania unfolds in an interlocking chain of Turkeyfoots and Allentowns, held separately and together by a sense of shared community, of humor, of history, and of abiding faith.
These qualities of hospitality, patriotism and endurance are exactly what Californians need to hear about Pennsylvanians. And when he spoke to a group of his wealthier Golden State backers at a San Francisco fund-raiser last Sunday, Barack Obama took a shot at explaining the yawning cultural gap that separates a Turkeyfoot from a Marin County. "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Obama made a problematic judgment call in trying to explain working class culture to a much wealthier audience. He described blue collar Pennsylvanians with a series of what in the eyes of Californians might be considered pure negatives: guns, clinging to religion, antipathy, xenophobia.
I'm not sure this is what at least this lot of Californians needed to hear about Pennsylvanians. Such phrases can reinforce negative stereotypes among Californians, who are a people in a state already surfeited with a smug sense of superiority and, as an ironic consequence, a parochialism and insularity at odds with the innovation, prosperity and openness for which California is rightly known. (Of course, this is a generalization, and as such does not fit everyone; but as a state characteristic I stand by it.) Californians might be better served by hearing that Pennsylvanians have a strong sense of their place in American history, for here California is wanting. California needs to hear that other Americans have gone through hard times and survived, humor intact. Since Barack Obama sees himself as the candidate best able to unify the country, these are the messages he needs to carry and his frank words about Pennsylvania may not have translated very clearly.
To give Obama his due, he spoke about working class Pennsylvanians likely because he had been thinking about them a great deal. And he spoke, as he often does away from large rallies, in a calm, even, matter-of-fact way. Every town hall meeting I've observed, from California to Iowa, Nevada to Texas, has showcased Senator Obama's core decency and high measure of regard for each individual.
It's curious, then, that he often has such a hard time making a connection with many working class Americans. With plenty of time for people to get to know him, like in southern Illinois before his first state legislature race and in Iowa before the caucuses, Obama has forged that connection. People get comfortable with the way his mind works. Obama is the man with the big picture; he jumps quickly from the particular to the general and back again, for he makes sense of the world in a synchronic rather than a linear way. For all his soaring rhetoric, there is a dispassion about him. And yet he blends rationcinative intelligence with empathetic understanding. This is a rare combination, and for many people, this aspect of Obama takes some getting used to. His Puritanical streak, moreover, while amusing to the press can be off-putting to everybody else.
Wednesday in Levittown, Obama told his audience, "We can find areas of common ground." But if we are going to move from divisiveness to comity, then Obama must show that he can lead us to see one another at our best and to measure one another at our highest worth. "I'm going to have a big table and will invite everybody," Obama often says. These were his exact words to Johnstown March 29. "I'll have the biggest chair, because I'll be President," he added.
One of the roles of host is making introductions. Just as Californians need to learn a few things from Pennsylvanians, the reverse is also true. California is the, most racially tolerant and ethnicity-tolerant state in the Union. California has found a way to bring strict environmental standards to prosperity's table. Californians celebrate entrepreneurship, open-mindedness and creativity.
In answer to the Wilkes-Barre gentleman's question about low levels of national pride, Senator Obama said, in part, that a new generation needs to move into government service, for there is "something big and noble and exciting and important about serving the country." First, however, Senator Obama-- and also Senators Clinton and McCain-- must see us and talk about us in such a way that sets the bar high. A leader will hold us to that standard. "Californians and Pennsylvanians," our next president must say, "find your best selves in one another."
Again, the allegations in this thread seem unfounded when looking at the context of both the speech and the article that broke the quote. Where does he say that economic woes are what led to people defending the right to own guns? Where did he say that all religious people are bitter? He used the economy as AN example prevalent in rural parts of the upper Midwest as a reason why religious fervor is more pronounced there than in other regions of the country, and why gun ownership has gone up as economic woes have as well. It's a correct sociological explanation, and to be honest, it's one I want my president to be aware of.
edit: Also worth noting --
quote:
Woman Who Broke "Small Town" Story Says Obama Campaign's Response Was "Classy"
By Greg Sargent - April 15, 2008, 6:06PM
The woman who broke the Obama "small town" story for The Huffington Post may have come under relentless fire from some Obama supporters after the news broke, but she has one word to describe the response she's since received from the Obama campaign itself: "Classy."
I just spoke briefly with the woman, Mayhill Fowler, and she said that though she created the worst and most sustained controversy for Obama since Jeremiah Wright's sermons surfaced, Obama campaign aides haven't directed any anger or punitive action in her direction.
"They haven't denied me any kind of access," Fowler said. "From the time I started following them around last June, they have been a classy operation, and I still think they are. They haven't treated me any differently than before."
Fowler rejected charges -- voiced in the blogosphere and elsewhere -- that she'd deliberately broken the story to harm Obama on Hillary's behalf.
"There are still a lot of conspiracy theories out there, that I'm a Clinton campaign plant. None of that is true," she said, adding that covering the campaign was a great pleasure that consumes her "24-7."
Fowler confirmed that a number of people shot the episode on their cellphones and at least one person filmed it with a video camera -- meaning that it's likely that video of the controversial comments themselves is still lurking out there.
One final tidbit: Fowler rejected the idea that the people Obama made his guns and religion remarks to were rich.
"I'm not sure that it's completely come out, but these were not really wealthy people."
Originally posted by DJ Eco
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.
The fact that it was the truth about Jackson is wholly irrelevant and was a deliberate attempt to undermine Obama's victory not just in SC but elsewhere. Please don't tell me you really thought Bubba was simply stating that without any political motivations of any sort? I hope you don't think it was a just a "truth-telling" moment by Bubba, rather than an attempt to slow down the momentum of Obama's victories.
And besides, that really is neither here nor there now, isn't it, considering where Obama is now compared to Bubba's wife?
quote:
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".
I don't agree that he was a "racist", and from what I've read from the liberal bloggers is that is honestly the last thing they thing Bill was demonstrating at the time. He was, however, attempting to sideswipe and halt Obama's momentum by belittling his resounding victory in SC. The problem for Bill and Hillary, however, is that Obama had more than Jesse ever did with his prior wins at the time, let alone number of voters coming out to vote for him (and Hillary too, of course).
As for his comments to reporters, honestly I agree with him on that as well. But what was clear at that point, however, is that Bubba was stepping into the spotlight a little too much and was beginning to undermine his wife, who happens to be the one running for president. Obama was correct to question in one of his debates that he was unsure who he was running against, Bill or Hillary, because the campaign rhetoric was coming from both of them towards Obama. Bubba needed to step back, and to his credit he did a little bit.
quote:
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.
I think you need to take a closer look at Bill's involvement and comments a bit more before you wonder why people equate Bill=Hillary. On the flip-side, I've heard a number of Hillary supporters yearning for the times of when Bill was in office and want those days to come back. I guess my problem (not towards you personally) is that for those who criticize Obama supporters equating Bill=Hillary, I hope those Hillary supporters are not doing the same and being a little hypocritical.
quote:
Listen, no generalization is the truth. Where's the bitterness coming from? Is it because of Bush? Are they in a ty 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."
Ahh, I see. So you would rather have someone sell you the bull line that they smoked pot "but didn't inhale?"
No thanks.
quote:
"Oh he goes to racist and anti-Semetic church and was able to stick to his roots while differing in views (for 20 years)."
I'm curious again if you could point out how exactly this church was racist and anti-Semitic, let alone having those undertones creating such a substantial influence on Obama. Gosh, what is he, a secretive Black Panther Iranian President in disguise?
quote:
"Oh he's not holding his tongue, he's telling the truth even if it's not what you want to hear."
I'm afraid you lost me on that one. What on earth are you trying to say here?
quote:
He's like some supernatural figure that can't go wrong. Wake up.
I could have sworn I've heard these arguments before. I'll have to skim through some of the conservative blogs to confirm, but this appears to be a Hannity/Limbaugh/Malkin/Powerline argument if I've ever seen one.
What exactly is your argument against Obama here? That he's got rabid fans? That he creates enthusiasm for people to vote for him? That he's drastically different than the complete bull we've had in office for the past 7 years? That people like him more than Hillary? That he's seemingly weathered some gaffs he's made already and is still way out in front?
And these are bad things, how again?
He's not "supernatural" FFS, but he is better, much better than what we've had over the past 2 terms, and he is better than Hillary too. Now we'll see if he's better than McCain. I believe he is, but we'll see what the public decides.
By the way, do you agree with Obama's stances? Do you know what they are? Just curious.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
By the way, do you agree with Obama's stances? Do you know what they are? Just curious.
+1 - when was the last time a criticism was given on substance?
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
+1 - when was the last time a criticism was given on substance?
here's some cricitism on substance:
(1) Obama's fair trade talk is just another way of saying, trade barriers. that's not the answer. (i think hillary is saying the same things though).
(2) McCain is the only candidate who is taking notice that our corporate tax rates are the second highest in the world. Obama is set on removing deductions that help american businesses stay competitive on the world market.
(3) obama keeps saying he will cut wasteful spending....HOW? Every candidate says the same , but exactly what the hell is your plan?!?
(4) How is Obama's tax cut for the working family going to be offset by his PAYGO reinstatement?
those are only a few of the things i could think of at 1 am, but i have many more issues. obama has the right policy ideas, but his plans aren't really thorough enough for me to be convinced. also, i'm not convinced he will be good for our economy. with that said, whatever democrat wins i will support; although i hope it's hilary.
DJ Eco
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What exactly is your argument against Obama here? That he's got rabid fans? That he creates enthusiasm for people to vote for him? That he's drastically different than the complete bull we've had in office for the past 7 years? That people like him more than Hillary? That he's seemingly weathered some gaffs he's made already and is still way out in front?
He's not "supernatural" FFS, but he is better, much better than what we've had over the past 2 terms, and he is better than Hillary too. Now we'll see if he's better than McCain. I believe he is, but we'll see what the public decides.
By the way, do you agree with Obama's stances? Do you know what they are? Just curious.
I appreciate your reply and taking time to reply and I can't address even 10% of it for lack of time as I'm running out. But explain, how is he different? How is better? What in his 2.5 years in the Senate (1 of which has been all campaigning and fundraising) has set him apart from ALL the rest besides his incredible speech at the DNC. I just can't vote for someone as our next president based on a series of speeches. What has he accomplished? The ridiculousness of the "he's better argument" won't work against McCain. It's like saying "Oh wow, that freshman trying out for football in the first 15 minutes of trying out is BETTER than Joe Smith, that varsity captain of ours who gave us 2 championships and plays all state." Why we may not like "Joe Smith" and his style of play, a 2.5-year career in the Senate is not criteria to tell how much better he is than someone who's been in the government for decades. And don't give me the "well he's not corrupted" argument, because they're ALL corrupt. They've all taken money from lobbyists and the like, but I won't even get into that... I just want to see if you can list all his accomplishments. I admit, Hillary's not too far ahead in the year-count in the Senate, but, you can hate however much you want, I think 8 years alongside the President of the United States counts as some good experience. At the end of the day, she has a laundry-list of numbers and friends and old contacts in her roladex around the world that she can get things done with, thanks to Bill. According to TOO MANY (it's kinda freaky) Obama supporters, he has the color of his skin to help him around the world... I don't know, I don't knwo if I can bank on that as a reason for voting for my next President... But if he wins the nomination, I will bite my tongue and do it.
Zild
What really cracks me up, and yes reading this thread has been a huge laugh riot for me, is that you people actually think you have a choice. Or that the candidates are in some way different from each other when they're all centrists.
DJ Eco
quote:
Originally posted by Zild
What really cracks me up, and yes reading this thread has been a huge laugh riot for me, is that you people actually think you have a choice. Or that the candidates are in some way different from each other when they're all centrists.
I agree... +1 for that, that's what it comes down to....
I was just gunna reply with a closing statement before I head off... If the people wanted CHANGE, they woulda voted for Kucinich or Ron Paul. Both of them are radically different than anything we've had in decades and they would bring about real change... I'm saying this because I assure you I'm not a Hillary-lover. IIf Jersey was the first primary, Hillary and Obama woulda been my last two choices.
