We all read on the previous thread that even her own advisors say that Clinton only has a 10% chance of winning the nomination. Others have suggested more like a 5% chance, and that her success can only be obtained through a "Tonya Harding" approach. The tone to her campaign has become even more desparate sounding, as she suggests that pledged delegates are not really bound to vote one way or another. And now she is attacking Obama's church, something that I never thought I would see a democrat stoop to.
And now for today's polls: Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February. Obama has shot back ahead by over 20% in North Carolina, a must win state for her. Today, intrade has her at under 20 to win.
Wow, this will piss RM off....
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow, this will piss RM off....
Not really. Expect another Obama hit piece in the very near future.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
We all read on the previous thread that even her own advisors say that Clinton only has a 10% chance of winning the nomination. Others have suggested more like a 5% chance, and that her success can only be obtained through a "Tonya Harding" approach. The tone to her campaign has become even more desparate sounding, as she suggests that pledged delegates are not really bound to vote one way or another. And now she is attacking Obama's church, something that I never thought I would see a democrat stoop to.
That advisor either misspoke or is clearly sleep deprived.
It sure seems that Clinton and Obama are having to use some weapons on each other that they would rather use against the Republicans.... The ultimate winner of this primary is going to be pretty bloody.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
And now for today's polls: Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February.
Not true.
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=PA
This shows that she is ahead by 16 points in Pennsylvania. Obama has fallen under 40%.
Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 hundred thousand votes.
First the losses in Texas and Ohio. Then the stories about his pastor. Wait until the Rezko trial ends in a couple of weeks. Then he loses Pennsylvania by double digits.
Obama has peaked and is heading down. Just wait till they show his connections to Farrakan. It will be a freefall.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
Tuesday, March 25
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Rasmussen Clinton 49, Obama 39 (Clinton +10)
North Carolina Democratic Primary PPP (D)
Obama 55, Clinton 34 (Obama +21)
Hmmmmm.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004303769_clinpublicans25.html
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
And now for today's polls: Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February.
Not true.
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=PA
This shows that she is ahead by 16 points in Pennsylvania. Obama has fallen under 40%.
Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 hundred thousand votes.
First the losses in Texas and Ohio. Then the stories about his pastor. Wait until the Rezko trial ends in a couple of weeks. Then he loses Pennsylvania by double digits.
Obama has peaked and is heading down. Just wait till they show his connections to Farrakan. It will be a freefall.
Honestly Recycle, give it up. How can you continue to push Hillary given what has been revealed re: the Bosnia visit?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
And now for today's polls: Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February.
Not true.
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=PA
This shows that she is ahead by 16 points in Pennsylvania. Obama has fallen under 40%.
Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 hundred thousand votes.
First the losses in Texas and Ohio. Then the stories about his pastor. Wait until the Rezko trial ends in a couple of weeks. Then he loses Pennsylvania by double digits.
Obama has peaked and is heading down. Just wait till they show his connections to Farrakan. It will be a freefall.
RM, you cited to the "average" tracking for Pennsylvania, which includes several polls over a longer period of time. I was referring to the latest poll, which is the only post-speech poll of which I am aware, done by Rasmussen. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html.
Also, current polls for North Carolina: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/poll-obama-regains-big-l_n_93331.html
Sorry I didn't post the link before--I was having trouble with my computer.
I am sure that Clinton's polls will go down even further, with the recent news about her trip to Bosnia. It hasn't gotten nearly as much discussion, but Hillary's choice of religion is not without its problems either. I am sure I will still vote for her if she is the Democratic candidate, but it gives me pause to hear she belongs (//%22http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich%22) to The Family (//%22http://www.therevealer.org/archives/feature_print.php?printid=2953%22).
Yes. I am aware of the rumors that she is a member of the family.
Reading scripture with Jim Inhofe does trouble me.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
And now for today's polls: Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February.
Not true.
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=PA
This shows that she is ahead by 16 points in Pennsylvania. Obama has fallen under 40%.
Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 hundred thousand votes.
First the losses in Texas and Ohio. Then the stories about his pastor. Wait until the Rezko trial ends in a couple of weeks. Then he loses Pennsylvania by double digits.
Obama has peaked and is heading down. Just wait till they show his connections to Farrakan. It will be a freefall.
Honestly Recycle, give it up. How can you continue to push Hillary given what has been revealed re: the Bosnia visit?
Be leary of these type posts. He's for McCain't...
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Yes. I am aware of the rumors that she is a member of the family.
Reading scripture with Jim Inhofe does trouble me.
I don't find anything about "The Family" any more sinister than membership in skull & bones or the Masons.
Gee whiz, anyone else here engage in the worship of God? Gasp!
Obama can't get past 39% in Pennsylvania and Hillary has polled between 49% and 60% in every poll. This sounds just like Ohio where he outspent her four to one and still got creamed.
Do you think this is good news for Obama?
The guy can't close the deal. His supporters should be worried.
After Pennsylvania, all momentum will be with her.
Hillary's problem with the truth
Admitted Fabrications:
• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
Please, feel free to attack or add to this list.
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)
Whoppers She Won't Confess To
• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).
Okay, can we maybe start fighting over another topic now? I'm all for constructive intraparty debate, but the ole familiar circular firing squad has reformed and, look, here we all are firing at each other.
It's really annoying that, in the absence of actual primary voting, all we have to do is focus on indelicate phrasing, misremembered or misrepresented events, and opinion polls.
We're focusing on minutiae because no new data points have come in recently.
Anyway, I'll admit contributing to the uproar in an earlier thread, but isn't anyone else tired of this crap?
/2 cts.
quote:
...but isn't anyone else tired of this crap?
Well, then quit reading these threads or go elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Okay, can we maybe start fighting over another topic now? I'm all for constructive intraparty debate, but the ole familiar circular firing squad has reformed and, look, here we all are firing at each other.
It's really annoying that, in the absence of actual primary voting, all we have to do is focus on indelicate phrasing, misremembered or misrepresented events, and opinion polls.
We're focusing on minutiae because no new data points have come in recently.
Anyway, I'll admit contributing to the uproar in an earlier thread, but isn't anyone else tired of this crap?
/2 cts.
You mean, we should get a life or something? Not check polls, two, three times a day? Not glance through the 500 or so political blogs to see what they are saying (while the 24hr news is playing in the background) today?
What would I do with my time then?[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
And now for today's polls: Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February.
Not true.
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=PA
This shows that she is ahead by 16 points in Pennsylvania. Obama has fallen under 40%.
Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 hundred thousand votes.
First the losses in Texas and Ohio. Then the stories about his pastor. Wait until the Rezko trial ends in a couple of weeks. Then he loses Pennsylvania by double digits.
Obama has peaked and is heading down. Just wait till they show his connections to Farrakan. It will be a freefall.
I've wondered how the Jewish folks in the party are going to react to the Farrakan connection?
Republicans have been working hard to capture the Jewish vote and of course Jews are major contributors to our party so I've been worried about this.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Okay, can we maybe start fighting over another topic now? I'm all for constructive intraparty debate, but the ole familiar circular firing squad has reformed and, look, here we all are firing at each other.
It's really annoying that, in the absence of actual primary voting, all we have to do is focus on indelicate phrasing, misremembered or misrepresented events, and opinion polls.
We're focusing on minutiae because no new data points have come in recently.
Anyway, I'll admit contributing to the uproar in an earlier thread, but isn't anyone else tired of this crap?
/2 cts.
Well, it is important that we be respectful to each other and avoid name calling -- FOTD making up funny names for Clinton based on her anotomy is an example of what we should "not" be doing.
Each candidate has about 50 percent of the party in their camps and we must be very careful going foward that we don't do anything to cause 50 percent of the party to stay home in November. When I hear Democrats encouraging Clinton to drop out I hear "and she can take her 50 percent of the party with her."
I could make an argument stating why giving the Republicans another four years in the White House would destroy their party, but I'm not ready to go there yet. I mean anyone else besides me getting tired of being assigned "clean up after the Republicans duty?"
In a sense we enable the Republicans by cleaning up after them on a regular basis.
It appears Hillary wasn't lying about Bosnia after all:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc&hl=en
I have enjoyed these political threads and standing up for my candidate.
I never get pissed about it...I whine a lot, but enjoy discussing the campaign.
The problem is that both democrats are in agreement (and right) on so many issues. All we have left is to criticize their friends, their comments and their wardrobes.
By the way, Hillary looks fabulous!
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
And now for today's polls: Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February.
Not true.
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=PA
This shows that she is ahead by 16 points in Pennsylvania. Obama has fallen under 40%.
Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 hundred thousand votes.
First the losses in Texas and Ohio. Then the stories about his pastor. Wait until the Rezko trial ends in a couple of weeks. Then he loses Pennsylvania by double digits.
Obama has peaked and is heading down. Just wait till they show his connections to Farrakan. It will be a freefall.
I've wondered how the Jewish folks in the party are going to react to the Farrakan connection?
Republicans have been working hard to capture the Jewish vote and of course Jews are major contributors to our party so I've been worried about this.
I've always been surprised at their un-abashed support of the Democrat party and out-spoken distaste for the war on terrorism, considering our cozy relationship with Israel is the major reason for Islamic hatred of the U.S. and our muddy Middle East relations. Also consider that prominent anti-semites Je$$e Jack$on and Al $harpton are right at home in the Democratic party.
Next hurdle for Obama is going to be his "association" with William "Billy" Ayers. There's a whole lot of snooping going on right now trying to find some traction in that relationship. It's tenuous at best.
A lot of this is guilt by association, but it makes for good headlines and that's what many voters go off of.
I disagree with some of you here, but one thing I do appreciate about most all of us on the political section of the forum is that we dig a lot deeper than the headlines in participating in the process.
So no matter how mis-guided I think you are HT, know that I do appreciate you at least think about your politics even though they are all wrong. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
And now for today's polls: Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February.
Not true.
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=PA
This shows that she is ahead by 16 points in Pennsylvania. Obama has fallen under 40%.
Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 hundred thousand votes.
First the losses in Texas and Ohio. Then the stories about his pastor. Wait until the Rezko trial ends in a couple of weeks. Then he loses Pennsylvania by double digits.
Obama has peaked and is heading down. Just wait till they show his connections to Farrakan. It will be a freefall.
I've wondered how the Jewish folks in the party are going to react to the Farrakan connection?
Republicans have been working hard to capture the Jewish vote and of course Jews are major contributors to our party so I've been worried about this.
Jews earn like Episcopals and vote like Puerto Ricans. The only Jews I know who vote for conservative candidates are Hassidic.
I think that the Farrakhan would be dreadful news for Obama, but I was always under the impression that the Jews were voting for Clinton anyway.
The world media is all over this story now too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7314726.stm
quote:
When Hillary Clinton corrected her description of a visit to Bosnia in 1996, she made an interesting choice of words: "I did misspeak the other day."
Her initial version of events was that her plane landed under fire and she had to duck and run to her vehicle.
But television footage shows her disembarking with a smile, waving to the crowd and strolling across the tarmac to greet a little girl who read her a poem.
. . .
She's in danger of doing what Bill Clinton did in redefining sexual relations.
. . .
She's redefining telling the truth because 'misspeaking' is a euphemism for not telling the truth. It's the language of bamboozling, which US politicians and the US military love and get away with.
. . .
The word does fill a lexical gap, says Mr Thorne, because alternative ways of saying it are so long-winded, like "I made a mistake, I got it wrong" or "I used the wrong word", but don't expect to hear it in the streets any time soon.
. . .
She's chosen a short, sharp soundbite word but like 'known unknown' it will probably only be used ironically or mockingly.
Depends on what your definition of "is", "is."
It really isn't that bad, the REAL video surfaced today:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/121420/881/486/484625
On the net the tag "invisible sniper fire" is already getting some play. Makes me chuckle. Politicians are always full of crap, love it when one takes it too far. Clinton didn't make her story up, she just got a few of the details wrong (like how she got of the plane, what she did afterwards, whether or not she got shot at, if there was running involved and... well OK, the whole thing was wrong).
FFS, she didn't say she landed in the wrong town or call Bosnia "Kosovo" by mistake.
For all us typical white people:
http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html
"Obama's strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we're sidetracked by Wright's words, we'll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation."
"Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. "
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I have enjoyed these political threads and standing up for my candidate.
I never get pissed about it...I whine a lot, but enjoy discussing the campaign.
The problem is that both democrats are in agreement (and right) on so many issues. All we have left is to criticize their friends, their comments and their wardrobes.
By the way, Hillary looks fabulous!
Yeah, but did you catch the pictures of Obama on the beach? [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
For all us typical white people:
http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html
"Obama's strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we're sidetracked by Wright's words, we'll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation."
"Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. "
I did hear an interesting comment on Savage last night- we've spent $3 trillion in Iraq and it will still be an anti-semitic country.
Do American Jews not worry about the relative security of Israel? What do they think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Would they be against U.S. intervention in Iran if Israel is attacked by Iran?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
For all us typical white people:
http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html
"Obama's strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we're sidetracked by Wright's words, we'll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation."
"Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. "
I did hear an interesting comment on Savage last night- we've spent $3 trillion in Iraq and it will still be an anti-semitic country.
Do American Jews not worry about the relative security of Israel? What do they think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Would they be against U.S. intervention in Iran if Israel is attacked by Iran?
We do a lot to restrain Israel.
They have a significant military force with probably the most experienced air force in the world. Outside of a nuclear attack, I think Israel could level Iran if we allowed them off the leash.
All the chemistry would change quickly if the Persians would take their country back from the fanatics....
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
For all us typical white people:
http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html
"Obama's strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we're sidetracked by Wright's words, we'll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation."
"Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. "
I did hear an interesting comment on Savage last night- we've spent $3 trillion in Iraq and it will still be an anti-semitic country.
Do American Jews not worry about the relative security of Israel? What do they think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Would they be against U.S. intervention in Iran if Israel is attacked by Iran?
There have been no more scud missile attacks since the takeover though......
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
All the chemistry would change quickly if the Persians would take their country back from the fanatics....
Hasn't happened in 29 years...
What's your idea?
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
For all us typical white people:
http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html
"Obama's strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we're sidetracked by Wright's words, we'll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation."
"Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. "
I did hear an interesting comment on Savage last night- we've spent $3 trillion in Iraq and it will still be an anti-semitic country.
Do American Jews not worry about the relative security of Israel? What do they think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Would they be against U.S. intervention in Iran if Israel is attacked by Iran?
There have been no more scud missile attacks since the takeover though......
I thought all the SCUD's had been used or confiscated by the end of Iraq I.
Today's poll (//%22http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657171729866843.html?mod=politics_primary_hs%22) shows that Hillary is continuing to lose ground. She has lost ground with white voters, and for the first time, the number of women with negative views of her exceed the number of women with positive views. The majority of voters say they do not identify with her. The number of people who view her positively (at 37%) is the lowest since 2001.
On the other hand, Obama appears to be weathering the Wright incident quite well. While he has lost some support among republicans, he still maintains significant support among independents. More people believed that Obama could unite the country than either of the other two candidates. His positive ratings remain virtually unchanged.
Unfortunately, the bad news for democrats is that more and more people are starting to say that they won't support the other candidate if theirs loses. I guess that is to be expected as the primaries drag on and on, and people become more polarized.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
For all us typical white people:
http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html
"Obama's strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we're sidetracked by Wright's words, we'll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation."
"Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. "
I did hear an interesting comment on Savage last night- we've spent $3 trillion in Iraq and it will still be an anti-semitic country.
Do American Jews not worry about the relative security of Israel? What do they think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Would they be against U.S. intervention in Iran if Israel is attacked by Iran?
There have been no more scud missile attacks since the takeover though......
I thought all the SCUD's had been used or confiscated by the end of Iraq I.
Well they never found any after the invasion, so you're probably right. I just think there has been a big improvement on Saddam. Not a $3 trillion improvement, but some.
"Unfortunately, the bad news for democrats is that more and more people are starting to say that they won't support the other candidate if theirs loses. I guess that is to be expected as the primaries drag on and on, and people become more polarized."
Dream ticket is the solution. Loser should be asked to join ticket as vice-president.
You can blame the superdelegate system for this.
I finally sat down and read the entire process, history, and purpose. To me, it sounds like 20% of the delegates are literally for sale. I think it also smacks of an attitude of the general electorate not knowing what's good for itself, which sort of fits a lot of the "nanny" policies of the Democratic party in the first place. Another reason I'm not a registered Democrat.
I really don't understand why the primary system isn't the same as Oklahomas all over the country and in both parties. The closed primary system makes the most sense. Seating delegates strictly by popular vote also is the only thing which makes proper sense.
Why would it be right for a registered Republican or independent to vote in a Democrat primary and vice versa? How will it feel to have a candidate with the majority of the popular vote in the primaries lose the nomination because a klatsch of 800 or so priveleged party officials were politicked to vote for someone the people clearly did not approve?
That's right about 20% of the delegate total at the DNC, and enough to change the outcome of the nomination. Obama's precarious lead of 100 and something delegates means nothing considering there's still close to 800 superdelegates and other un-committed delegates.
Hillary lacks the humility to step back and end the in-fighting. I really do not see any reason nor incentive for her to concede this race before the national convention. Be prepared for five more months of skullduggery.
As far as one candidate's supporters not voting for the other, I can see Hillary supporters going to Obama rather than McCain and likely much of Obama's white support going to Hillary eventually, at least from die-hard party loyalists.
What I don't see is the black vote showing up in November if Obama is not #1 on the ticket. If Obama had the delegate lead going into the convention and comes out second-fiddle, there's going to be a lot of pissed off African American voters who will most likely boycot the '08 election.
This is the penalty of a long, long campaign cycle this time. In the meantime, the GOP has unified behind their candidate and can focus on the DNC foibles for the next five months. The Democrats will get about ten weeks to focus on McCain finally after the convention and I think will eventually unite.
This could also be a ripe year for a fringe candidate to grab 10 to 15% of the vote from voters who will say "none of the above".
I'm not unified behind McCain.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
I'm not unified behind McCain.
Can't say I am either. I couldn't think of a better way to say that the RNC has a clear-cut candidate and we don't have two Republicans lobbing **** bombs back and forth at each other. Hey, prolly what I should have said in the first place.
To Obama's credit, I think he's tried to wage a clean campaign, but Clinton isn't allowing the race to be a clean one.
Yet, Hillary supporters seem to be blaming Obama for not capitulating while he's still got an earned delegate lead.
I am so glad the republicans have picked McCain. We are guaranteed a liberal in the White House.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
All the chemistry would change quickly if the Persians would take their country back from the fanatics....
Hasn't happened in 29 years...
What's your idea?
29 years is a mere moment in this region. Once China hits the skids and the world goes into a recession there will be new alliances forming. The Sauds have already started to make overtures for a process to start talks.
Iran will someday follow their people's desire to be a major player in both the world economy and the global culture. Only the neo cons want them portrayed as Al Queda.....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
All the chemistry would change quickly if the Persians would take their country back from the fanatics....
Hasn't happened in 29 years...
What's your idea?
29 years is a mere moment in this region. Once China hits the skids and the world goes into a recession there will be new alliances forming. The Sauds have already started to make overtures for a process to start talks.
Iran will someday follow their people's desire to be a major player in both the world economy and the global culture. Only the neo cons want them portrayed as Al Queda.....
The last 29 years has slid us perilously close to WWIII ever since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini checked into power.
A lot of their agenda has been played out against Israel with puppets like Air-a-fart and Que-daffy.
Just as Obama's issue with Jeremiah Wright seemed to have maximum impact and give Hillary a chance to seize momentum. Hillary has the Bosnia sniper fire gaff and takes a hit too.
I call it even, both candidates having to emerge from major hits to their campaigns and trying to regain momentum. If Hillary beats Obama bad in PA, I think that that gives her momentum to the convention.
Here's something to keep it in perspective and proportional!
Imagined Snipers, Real Challenges
By ROGER COHEN
Published: March 27, 2008
Here's some news for Hillary Clinton: the Bosnian war was over in 1996.
"Passages Those of us, like myself, who first went to Bosnia at the start of the war in 1992 and then, in 1994 and 1995, endured President Bill Clinton's circumlocutions as we sat in an encircled Sarajevo watching pregnant women getting blown away by shelling from Serbian gunners, know that.
We know that as President Clinton mumbled about "enmities that go back 500 years, some would say almost a thousand years," Bosnia burned. We know what that talk of intractable grievances dating back to 995 was meant to communicate: no western intervention could achieve anything in the Balkan pit.
Only after the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica, three years after the initial Serbian genocide of 1992 against that population (and one year after a genocide on his watch in Rwanda), did the gelatinous Clinton develop some backbone. NATO bombed, Richard Holbrooke did his brilliant work at Dayton in November 1995, and the guns fell silent in Bosnia.
So, yes, the war was well and truly over when Hillary Clinton arrived in the northeastern Bosnian town of Tuzla on March 25, 1996. It was over, although she recently recalled "landing under sniper fire." It was over when "we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
Oh, please. Researching a book, I also visited that base in 1996 to talk to Maj. Gen. William Nash, then the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia. If you'd lived the war, the base was a small miracle of American order and security.
Hillary Clinton's transference is intriguing: Suffering Sarajevans ran from snipers during the war her husband let fester. Invented danger, supposed to showcase bravery, may instead betray guilt.
But I'm not going to psychoanalyze the Clintons. I don't have the space to plumb such unquenchable ambition. Few do. Anyway, she now says she "misspoke" about Tuzla. End of story, you might say. But I'd say it's the beginning of another, more important one.
Clinton made up Bosnian sniper fire in an attempt to show that she's tougher than Barack Obama; that she's a hardened, seasoned, putative commander in chief ready to respond to crisis when the "red phone" of her fear-mongering ad rings.
John McCain's own recent "misspeaking" about Iran, placing (Sunni) Al Qaeda in (Shiite) Iran, also smacked of muscle-flexing: he wanted to signal toughness to the mullahs in Tehran, where Obama has suggested he'd seek dialogue.
But what the United States, and those that look to it, need now is not more braggadocio from the White House. We've had a seven-year dose. That's enough.
What's needed, rather, is some new, creative thinking about a changed world in which authoritarianism is enjoying a renaissance and America and its allies need to work together to spread peace, prosperity, freedom, equity, security and, yes, democracy.
American hard power has not worked. The Iraq invasion was bungled. European soft power is insufficient.
As Constanze Stelzenmuller of the German Marshall Fund notes in an important recent essay called "Transatlantic Power Failures," a "European Union with 27 member states and a total of 1.8 million men and women under arms" is incapable of pacifying little Kosovo ("one-quarter the size of Switzerland") on its own.
The transatlantic bond of cold war years is gone forever. The alliance is going to be looser, more pragmatic. But it has to find "the right mix of idealism and realism," and new cohesion, if one-pipeline Russia and one-party, Tibet-tormenting China are not to prosper with authoritarianism-for-export.
Foreign policy debate in this election campaign has been paltry. I'd like to hear something about GWOT – the "Global War on Terror" – the heart of U.S. national security strategy. It amounts to war without end because "terror" is a tactic and tactics don't surrender. GWOT should be abandoned: it's externally divisive and internally treacherous. Al Qaeda can be beaten sans GWOT.
I'd like some discussion of what NATO might do to help spread the Iraqi burden and ease a gradual extrication of most U.S. troops from Iraq.
On issues that cross borders – terrorism, financial market volatility, global warming – and on Iran, Israel-Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq – three things are essential: a new moral authority in the White House, the capacity for original strategic thought, and a 21st-century understanding of the border-jumping networks that have knit humanity into new relationships.
Obama, in his speech on race, did important things. He confronted reality, thought big, probed division, sketched convergence. He took Americans and many people beyond U.S. shores to a different mental place. Imagine that capacity applied to GWOT, Iran, Russia, China and Israel-Palestine.
If you don't like the sound of that, there's always seasoned swagger of the sort that runs from imaginary snipers. "
Wow, it took roughly 700 words or so to say "Obama good, Clinton bad".
I guess that's why they pay essayists the big bucks for "news".
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow, it took roughly 700 words or so to say "Obama good, Clinton bad".
I guess that's why they pay essayists the big bucks for "news".
Geez Conan. You really need to understand what's considered "news" and what's editorial.
Clinton is not only bad. She is a self defeatest. Using the vast right wing conspirators as her allies makes a reasonable person wonder if she would be more like Cheney than like Bill.
The devil may wear a blue dress but Hillary stands naked now. And the vision is scary.
Yet another poll (//%22http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html%22) by PEW Research with bad news for Hillary. She's now down 10% against Obama. Her negatives seem impossible to overcome--51% of voters believe that she is hard to like, 46% believe that she is phony, and 46% believe she is not honest.
Up against McCain, Obama does slightly better than Clinton. Oddly, regardless of whom they support, the clear majority of voters think that Obama would beat McCain, while the majority of voters think that McCain would beat Clinton.
Like Nancy Pelosi, 63% of democrats believe that the winner should be chosen by whomever received the most support in the primaries, not by the superdelegates.
Of course. All Obama supporters don't want superdelegates to have any say in this election. Sorry. You don't get to change the rules.
But I am sure that FOTD will find some obscure blogger that believes that she made up the rules and that they are racist.
Hillary has always been ahead in superdelegates. Obama will do and say whatever it takes to stop their votes from even being heard. It worked for him in Michigan and Florida...who is to say it won't work in Denver?
No wonder you're attracted to Hillary Clinton's campaign, RM..... spin, spin, spin...
HRC wants to make up her own new rules for Michigan and Florida... and not abide the rules she agreed to months ago...
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/03/7428/
quote:
(Michigan Voter) "There is something wrong with this. People don t even have a choice to vote for the person we want to vote for. The only name I even recognize here is Hillary Clinton. It appears people are trying to control how to vote."
"You know," Senator Clinton remarked, "it's clear the election they're having isn't going to count for anything. Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan." (Obama was not allowed to withdraw his name in Florida.)
Superdelegates are the Democratic Party's version of the House of Lords.
quote:
quote:
Like Nancy Pelosi, 63% of democrats believe that the winner should be chosen by whomever received the most support in the primaries, not by the superdelegates.
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Of course. All Obama supporters don't want superdelegates to have any say in this election.
Hillary has always been ahead in superdelegates.
Are you saying that 63% of democrats are Obama supporters?
While Clinton started with more Superdelegates, Obama has gained at least 60 superdelegates since supertuesday. Hillary actually lost some, though she's gained a few new ones as well. According to the New York Times (//%22http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/superdelegates-a-shift-toward-obama/%22), the difference in the number of superdelegates that support Clinton vs. Obama is less than 20.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Of course. All Obama supporters don't want superdelegates to have any say in this election. Sorry. You don't get to change the rules.
But I am sure that FOTD will find some obscure blogger that believes that she made up the rules and that they are racist.
Hillary has always been ahead in superdelegates. Obama will do and say whatever it takes to stop their votes from even being heard. It worked for him in Michigan and Florida...who is to say it won't work in Denver?
RM....knock it off. I have always said play by the rules. Be true to your word is my motto.
What do you know about the game of golf? Do you understand what somebody does when they take mulligans all over the course?
I don't care how it unfolds. I just know it will work itself out when they sit down to add up the score.
lol, you forgot the obscure blogger post FOTD.
RM,
The difference is Obama is not trying to change the rules. He is trying to persuade the super delegates which way to vote, but f that is by saying they shouldn't ignore the will of the voters (who, even counting MI and FL still support him). There is a huge difference between persuading votes and trying to go back on an agreement.
I'm still trying to figure out if you are just following the Clinton line or if you really believe such nonsense . Certainly Obama's "will of the people line" is to get elected, just like Hillary couldn't care less about MI or FL if she didn't think she needed them to have a chance.
While Obama just seems to be doing the standard political crap - Hillary continues to reinforce my image of her being a person who will do or say anything (no matter how obvious the lie) to get elected. Some horse play is expect, by Bill's line that "if you don't want to be attacked don't run for office" is a sad statement of how the Clinton's view politics.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'm still trying to figure out if you are just following the Clinton line or if you really believe such nonsense .
"In politics, an absurdity is not a handicap."
Napoleon Bonaparte
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
lol, you forgot the obscure blogger post FOTD.
RM,
The difference is Obama is not trying to change the rules. He is trying to persuade the super delegates which way to vote, but f that is by saying they shouldn't ignore the will of the voters (who, even counting MI and FL still support him). There is a huge difference between persuading votes and trying to go back on an agreement.
I'm still trying to figure out if you are just following the Clinton line or if you really believe such nonsense . Certainly Obama's "will of the people line" is to get elected, just like Hillary couldn't care less about MI or FL if she didn't think she needed them to have a chance.
While Obama just seems to be doing the standard political crap - Hillary continues to reinforce my image of her being a person who will do or say anything (no matter how obvious the lie) to get elected. Some horse play is expect, by Bill's line that "if you don't want to be attacked don't run for office" is a sad statement of how the Clinton's view politics.
I think Hillarity might seriously be a sociopath. At the very least she and her husband are political sociopaths.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Wow, it took roughly 700 words or so to say "Obama good, Clinton bad".
I guess that's why they pay essayists the big bucks for "news".
Geez Conan. You really need to understand what's considered "news" and what's editorial.
Huh? This coming from the postie that goes from one bizarre blog to another to try and back up his political opinions?
Come on dude say an "Om" with me and swear off the lib-tard blogs, they are clogging the blood vessels in your brain.