Campaign 2008

[Guest Beastalentier]

Hillary's campaign is doing the unthinkable (to me): kneecapping the first most influential and energizing politician in the 21st century. Supporting McCain over Obama was an act of sheer cynicism, and only proves that Clinton, is indeed, a "polarizing and divisive force."

Oh, she doesn't owe the party anything anymore. They've abandoned her. If she ranks McCain as the second-best candidate and Obama the third, fine. I can't blame her.

[SuperJerk 0]

Possibly that, possibly an afterthought, certainly not this world-changing force he's being as touted as now.

Except Obama being a "world-changing force" wasn't what Ferraro was asked about.

 

And did it ever occur to you that maybe people just really like what he has to say? Maybe he offers something different that the other candidates do not? Maybe he has a positive vision for changing America's political climate, instead of the fear-mongering and mock-sentimentality we get from Senator Clinton.

 

Hillary's campaign is doing the unthinkable (to me): kneecapping the first most influential and energizing politician in the 21st century. Supporting McCain over Obama was an act of sheer cynicism, and only proves that Clinton, is indeed, a "polarizing and divisive force."

Oh, she doesn't owe the party anything anymore. They've abandoned her. If she ranks McCain as the second-best candidate and Obama the third, fine. I can't blame her.

She doesn't owe anything to the party that handed her a Senate seat?

 

It's not the party's fault she got greedy and thought she was entitled to the presidency based on her husband's accomplishments.

 

 

 

[Guest Beastalentier]

Would. He. Be. In. This. Position. The answer is no, not as a wholly white man. I thought it was fairly clear, but if you guys wanna go to bat for Y2Jerk here, I'll just have to try my best.

[SuperJerk 0]

While there may be people who are ONLY supporting Barack Obama because he is black, I assure you that for the first 231 years of this nation's history, being black never got you special treatment in a presidential campaign. Perhaps the real reason for Obama's frontrunner status is that he has a MESSAGE people want to hear. He has a positive vision for changing America's political climate, instead of the fear-mongering and mock-sentimentality we get from Senator Clinton. And in November, there are going to be a LOT people voting against Obama because he's black.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Bieng a front-runner at an earlier date doesn't mean he wasn't a front-runner. Out of sight/mind doesn't really work in terms of facts and history.

Romney only had a few % points lead in the polls and there wasn't much seperation between him and Giuliani, Mccain, Huckabee and Thompson in any of the polls, especially considering you could look at certain polls and see any of the other 4 ahead going into actual voting. So I find it really hard to consider him a front runner with like 25% of the GOP poll votes. Thats not a front runner, thats a guy who's in the lead because the party vote is split in several directions.

[snuffbox 0]

And yet Lincoln did it with less as a white man.

[SuperJerk 0]

Bieng a front-runner at an earlier date doesn't mean he wasn't a front-runner. Out of sight/mind doesn't really work in terms of facts and history.

Romney only had a few % points lead in the polls and there wasn't much seperation between him and Giuliani, Mccain, Huckabee and Thompson in any of the polls, especially considering you could look at certain polls and see any of the other 4 ahead going into actual voting. So I find it really hard to consider him a front runner with like 25% of the GOP poll votes. Thats not a front runner, thats a guy who's in the lead because the party vote is split in several directions.

 

"I only disagree with you because I'm redefining the word 'front-runner' to mean what I want it to instead of defining it as the guy who has more votes and delegates than anyone else (a.k.a. the actual definition)."

 

-Marvin

[Guest Beastalentier]

Marvin is on death row, anyway.

[SuperJerk 0]

And yet Lincoln did it with less as a white man.

Imagine what Lincoln would've been able to accomplish if he'd been black.

 

Nevermind, he probably would've been sold into slavery.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Bieng a front-runner at an earlier date doesn't mean he wasn't a front-runner. Out of sight/mind doesn't really work in terms of facts and history.

Romney only had a few % points lead in the polls and there wasn't much seperation between him and Giuliani, Mccain, Huckabee and Thompson in any of the polls, especially considering you could look at certain polls and see any of the other 4 ahead going into actual voting. So I find it really hard to consider him a front runner with like 25% of the GOP poll votes. Thats not a front runner, thats a guy who's in the lead because the party vote is split in several directions.

 

"I only disagree with you because I'm redefining the word 'front-runner' to mean what I want it to instead of defining it as the guy who has more votes and delegates than anyone else (a.k.a. the actual definition)."

 

-Marvin

Romney had ZERO voes and delegates when he was the supposed front runner because they hadn't even started voting yet so I dont see how he fits the actual definition. I was going to give you he was a front runner for the last quarter of 07 but if thats the definition of front runner than there wasn't a front runner at all at that point. And when the primaries started he was 2nd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire and never held the most delegates even when he managed to win insignificant states like Wyoming and Utah.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Bieng a front-runner at an earlier date doesn't mean he wasn't a front-runner. Out of sight/mind doesn't really work in terms of facts and history.

Romney only had a few % points lead in the polls and there wasn't much seperation between him and Giuliani, Mccain, Huckabee and Thompson in any of the polls, especially considering you could look at certain polls and see any of the other 4 ahead going into actual voting. So I find it really hard to consider him a front runner with like 25% of the GOP poll votes. Thats not a front runner, thats a guy who's in the lead because the party vote is split in several directions.

 

"I only disagree with you because I'm redefining the word 'front-runner' to mean what I want it to instead of defining it as the guy who has more votes and delegates than anyone else (a.k.a. the actual definition)."

 

-Marvin

Romney had ZERO voes and delegates when he was the supposed front runner because they hadn't even started voting yet so I dont see how he fits the actual definition. I was going to give you he was a front runner for the last quarter of 07 but if thats the definition of front runner than there wasn't a front runner at all at that point. And when the primaries started he was 2nd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire and never held the most delegates even when he managed to win insignificant states like Utah.

 

You might want to look up which Republican won Wyoming and had the early lead in delegates. Just because the media decides not to cover some of the contests seriously, doesn't mean they didn't happen.

 

EDIT: I see you added Wyoming to "insignificant states". Why exactly is it insignificant? Because Glenn Beck and the rest of the mainstream media say so, or because it saves your claims about Romney not ever having the lead?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Bieng a front-runner at an earlier date doesn't mean he wasn't a front-runner. Out of sight/mind doesn't really work in terms of facts and history.

Romney only had a few % points lead in the polls and there wasn't much seperation between him and Giuliani, Mccain, Huckabee and Thompson in any of the polls, especially considering you could look at certain polls and see any of the other 4 ahead going into actual voting. So I find it really hard to consider him a front runner with like 25% of the GOP poll votes. Thats not a front runner, thats a guy who's in the lead because the party vote is split in several directions.

 

"I only disagree with you because I'm redefining the word 'front-runner' to mean what I want it to instead of defining it as the guy who has more votes and delegates than anyone else (a.k.a. the actual definition)."

 

-Marvin

Romney had ZERO voes and delegates when he was the supposed front runner because they hadn't even started voting yet so I dont see how he fits the actual definition. I was going to give you he was a front runner for the last quarter of 07 but if thats the definition of front runner than there wasn't a front runner at all at that point. And when the primaries started he was 2nd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire and never held the most delegates even when he managed to win insignificant states like Utah.

 

You might want to look up which Republican won Wyoming and had the early lead in delegates. Just because the media decides not to cover some of the contests seriously, doesn't mean they didn't happen.

 

EDIT: I see you added Wyoming to "insignificant states". Why exactly is it insignificant? Because Glenn Beck and the rest of the mainstream media say so, or because it saves your claims about Romney not ever having the lead?

Wyomings republican primary got almost no coverage and was on a Saturday night and no one was talking about it on monday. I remember being pissed off that it was being ignored cause Romney won it too, which shows how much of a front runner he was that he couldnt even get any airtime about winning the 2nd contest of the election..

 

To be fair, I also so totally forgot he won Michigan which was an important state, so for 4 days from January 15-19, Mitt Romney was a front runner after winning Wyoming and Michigan. So I so totally apologize for being wrong about Romney not being a front runner since he was one for 4 whole days.

[snuffbox 0]

Some of the most "experienced" presidents: James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon.

 

Some of the least: Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy,.

 

(Note: I didn't take the founding father presidents into this as they were all certainly qualified for the job, and it actually panned out each time.

[SuperJerk 0]

Bieng a front-runner at an earlier date doesn't mean he wasn't a front-runner. Out of sight/mind doesn't really work in terms of facts and history.

Romney only had a few % points lead in the polls and there wasn't much seperation between him and Giuliani, Mccain, Huckabee and Thompson in any of the polls, especially considering you could look at certain polls and see any of the other 4 ahead going into actual voting. So I find it really hard to consider him a front runner with like 25% of the GOP poll votes. Thats not a front runner, thats a guy who's in the lead because the party vote is split in several directions.

 

"I only disagree with you because I'm redefining the word 'front-runner' to mean what I want it to instead of defining it as the guy who has more votes and delegates than anyone else (a.k.a. the actual definition)."

 

-Marvin

Romney had ZERO voes and delegates when he was the supposed front runner because they hadn't even started voting yet so I dont see how he fits the actual definition. I was going to give you he was a front runner for the last quarter of 07 but if thats the definition of front runner than there wasn't a front runner at all at that point. And when the primaries started he was 2nd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire and never held the most delegates even when he managed to win insignificant states like Wyoming and Utah.

Before the winner-take-all Florida primary, Romney was the frontrunner because he'd won already 65 delegates when McCain had only won 38 and Huckbee only had 27. And if Florida had assigned its delegates porportionally, Romney would've still been the front-runner until Super Tuesday.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_th...ntial_primaries

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Some of the most "experienced" presidents: James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon.

 

Some of the least: Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy,.

 

(Note: I didn't take the founding father presidents into this as they were all certainly qualified for the job, and it actually panned out each time.

 

So obviously by that it would seem as if a lesser experienced candidate would be the way to go, though I hate being the one to note that 2 of the 4 in the least were assassinated.

 

 

[snuffbox 0]

Glen Beck doesn't count with his fingers, he counts with his gut.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm not saying it's the way to go. As I pointed out, being experienced and being good went hand-in-hand for the founding fathers. And, some inexperienced presidents didn't pan out as with Grant and Harding (who weren't personally bad but put together the worst Cabinets you could imagine and let them run amok with other criminals and dipshits).

 

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

For reasons already stated repeatedly, I definitly think Obama can end up in the field of Teddy Roosevelt and JFK.

 

In Hillary's case you start with her experience, which is dubious as it is. From there you have her two biggest moments for personal impact: her biggest domestic issue was health care as First Lady and that panned out terribly; as a Senator overseeing foreign policy she neglected to look into the subject and voted for a war in Iraq. Two key issues/events, two huge failures.

 

Hillary, with all her "experience", has displayed the same judgement and ability to get the big shit right as Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

[SuperJerk 0]

Glen Beck doesn't count with his fingers, he counts with his gut.

 

And Marvin just doesn't count!

 

Oh...BURN!

[snuffbox 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080312/us_nm/...itics_muslim_dc

 

Another footsoldier in the Obama jihad.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I liked this part:

 

Carson's faith had not been an issue in the special election.

 

Well, probably because his grandmother was the one he was replacing and its a feel good story.

 

His faith will get dragged out a beat on repeatedly as an issue in the regular elections and theres no way he'll win a chance to serve any more than the remainder of his grandmother's term.

 

 

[Guest Beastalentier]

Honest question: is there a tendency for black Democrats to be replaced by family members? I think of Todd Stroger valiantly rising up to take the place of his father John Stroger.

[snuffbox 0]

Was Lincoln Chafee's dad a black Democrat?

 

Seriously, Czech.

[Guest Beastalentier]

Only on weekends.

 

I just remember being told that the Stroger thing was a "typical black politician move," and I wasn't sure how typical it really was.

[At Home 0]

Well Bill Clinton was decreed the first black president. So...

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Between Czech's curious and questionable pro-Hillary sentiments, and Marvin's ramblings, this thread has turned into a pretty big clusterfuck.

[EricMM 0]

The Party didn't abandon Clinton, Clinton abandoned the party!

 

For crying out loud she'll spend the next six or so weeks dogging Obama's ability to be president. In PA. Is she going to be dogging McCain with the same fervor? No, she's been COMPLIMENTING him! There's more to this race than Hilary Clinton, and she seems unable or willing to see that.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Hey dudes, would Hilary Clinton be in the position she's in right now if she never married Bill? It's stupid to argue this Obama point, considering him and Hilary our almost fucking identical on nearly every subject. Fuck, how can you buy into this? Oh wait...

 

...Really, all the hypothetical shit goes down the toilet... it's not relevant. Well, scratch that, it's only relevant when you don't like said candidate. I expected better from some of you here, fucking sheep. This is almost as bad as shitheads that wouldn't vote for Obama because of his name.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I think it has more to do with his voice sounding like The Rock's than being black. If he sounded like Mike Tyson, there's no way in hell he's doing this well.

You smell what Barack is cookin'?

 

 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2mY7f4OQK2o

 

Even better

[The Niggardly King 0]

Haha, I just noticed the headline of that article about Ferraro from that California newspaper

 

Geraldine Ferraro lets her emotions do the talking

Typical of those cunts.

 

Shit dude, don't go all Marvin with the Geraldine Ferraro shit.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I think it's obvious that Obama is going to win, but I'm not gonna like it. I've really started to legitimately feel awful for Hillary and how she's been treated. They found a shiny new toy.

 

She kind of deserves it with the way she carries herself ya fucking dolt. The random "meltdowns", the way she acts to the media and for the longest time she never got called on shit. Fuck dude, get over the fact a charismatic mulatto is going to win the Presidency in one of the weakest field of candidates in a long while.