Campaign 2008

[Firestarter 0]

George W. Bush would never have been president if he wasn't white. Neither would presidents Washington-Clinton.

Your point would be?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

People's situations in life are different depending on race and a whole variety of other factors. Speculating about an alternate reality in which Barack Obama was white is a waste of time.

 

Obviously, I disagree with you about Obama--and I would say that it is pretty difficult to get into Columbia University & (as someone who recently took the LSAT & has looked at the acceptance scores for these elite law schools) Harvard Law, and I would say that the University of Chicago is pretty selective in choosing its law lecturers, but I'm sure you had a luncheon with some of the faculty at these colleges last week and they were all mongoloid twits or some such.

[Firestarter 0]

Nah, but the fact that he was editor of the Review and never wrote one single article anyone's been able to find kinda says something.

[NoCalMike 0]

The thing with Obama though is that most of the "Obama fever" is from new, young voters. It's not like the democratic establishment or long-time voters are overwhelmingly supporting Obama or anything. I mean for all this "Obama fever" bullshit, he is still polling even with McCain....McCain for christsakes, a guy who is running on Bush's platform of "staying the course" I fail to see how Obama is getting anymore support from the base then any other "flavor of the month" candidate. This isn't to say I think he is a horrible candidate or that he can't win, but I don't think this upcoming Presidential election will be decided by that much more then the previous two.

 

If Obama wins the nomination is polling 10-15 points ahead of McCain in October/November, then come talk to me about "Obama Fever"

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

George W. Bush would never have been president if he wasn't white.

Your point would be?

 

I think the labeling of Obama as an intellectual lightweight who only succeeded due to race is particularly poignant coming from someone who has been such a vocal supporter of W. Bush--an obvious mediocrity who clearly was successful only because of his father's name.

[NoCalMike 0]

George W. Bush would never have been president if he wasn't white.

Your point would be?

 

I think the labeling of Obama as an intellectual lightweight who only succeeded due to race is particularly poignant coming from someone who has been such a vocal supporter W. Bush--an incredible mediocrity who clearly was successful only because of his father's name.

 

...and father's money, and connections to saudi money.

[Firestarter 0]

I think the labeling of Obama as an intellectual lightweight who only succeeded due to race is particularly poignant coming from someone who has been such a vocal supporter W. Bush--an incredible mediocrity who clearly was successful only because of his father's name.

Vocal supporter? Yes. I admire and love the man, and I gladly worked for him for several years.

 

But I've also criticized more than one of his policies and I resigned from his administration on one of those issues. Don't try to paint me as some kind of blindfolded sheep - it won't work.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think the labeling of Obama as an intellectual lightweight who only succeeded due to race is particularly poignant coming from someone who has been such a vocal supporter W. Bush--an incredible mediocrity who clearly was successful only because of his father's name.

Vocal supporter? Yes. I admire and love the man, and I gladly worked for him for several years.

 

But I've also criticized more than one of his policies and I resigned from his administration on one of those issues. Don't try to paint me as some kind of blindfolded sheep - it won't work.

 

I seem to remember a post from the pit back when I used to post there from time to time about how W was a saint of a man and he was too good for us as a nation, or something to that effect Is "vocal supporter" going too far?

 

But, the lady doth protest too much, the point of my post was more to point out W's general crappiness than your boosterism.

[Firestarter 0]

I seem to remember a post from the pit back when I used to post there from time to time about how W was a saint of a man and he was too good for us as a nation, or something to that effect Is "vocal supporter" going too far?

That just points to the fact that we don't appreciate him enough - it says nothing about his qualities or the nation's qualities as a whole.

 

But, the lady doth protest too much, the point of my post was more to point out W's general crappiness than your boosterism.

"Boosterism?" Please. I disagree with the President on a multitude of issues.

[godthedog 0]

the clinton campaign is repeatedly calling my cell phone. i'd enjoy the attention if some 19-year-old broadcast journalism major with a mouthful of marbles wasn't always the one talking for the recording.

 

interesting article that was linked, but the implicit conclusion (that only individual agents can be causes of problems and not habits or trends or ideas, one of which obama addressed repeatedly at the debate last night with examples) was sort of dumb.

[Firestarter 0]

I thought they weren't allowed to call cell phone numbers...?

[godthedog 0]

my guess would be that restriction doesn't apply to primaries (though i'm not sure). i'm registered here as a democrat...that's the only way i can think of that they'd have the number, because my cell phone still has a virginia area code. my fiance gets them too. it's weird.

 

also while watching 'american idol' tuesday, i saw the music-video "we can change the world" obama ad, followed IMMEDIATELY by clinton's new "bitter" ad. i couldn't figure out what my tv wanted from me, and i cried.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

You're kind of ignoring the fact that Obama has an insurmountable pledged delegate lead, and also leads in the popular vote. Clinton is clinging on to the fringes of a failing campaign.

 

It's a close race. Obama currently only has a 146 delegate lead over Clinton, his 1,644 to her 1,498. While he may have more voter support nationwide, celebrity endorsements, and money, he has to be more careful because mistakes like the one he made in San Francisco may cost him the race. I wouldn't count Hillary out yet, especially if she wins Pennsylvania.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You're kind of ignoring the fact that Obama has an insurmountable pledged delegate lead, and also leads in the popular vote. Clinton is clinging on to the fringes of a failing campaign.

 

It's a close race. Obama currently only has a 146 delegate lead over Clinton, his 1,644 to her 1,498. While he may have more voter support nationwide, celebrity endorsements, and money, he has to be more careful because mistakes like the one he made in San Francisco may cost him the race. I wouldn't count Hillary out yet, especially if she wins Pennsylvania.

 

Hillary has an infitessimal chance of catching up to Obama in pledged delegates. The only chance she has is getting the superdelegates to throw the thing to her, and this seems increasingly unlikely, as her lead among superdelegates has actually been shrinking.

 

Even more telling is the fact that Obama now leads among superdelegates who are actually elected officeholders. Clinton's thin superdelegate lead comes from unelected party operatives.

[Firestarter 0]

Hillary has an infitessimal chance of catching up to Obama in pledged delegates. The only chance she has is getting the superdelegates to throw the thing to her, and this seems increasingly unlikely, as her lead among superdelegates has actually been shrinking.

 

Even more telling is the fact that Obama now leads among superdelegates who are actually elected officeholders. Clinton's thin superdelegate lead comes from unelected party operatives.

Neither one can get the nomination without the supers.

 

Again.

 

Your point would be?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hillary has an infitessimal chance of catching up to Obama in pledged delegates. The only chance she has is getting the superdelegates to throw the thing to her, and this seems increasingly unlikely, as her lead among superdelegates has actually been shrinking.

 

Even more telling is the fact that Obama now leads among superdelegates who are actually elected officeholders. Clinton's thin superdelegate lead comes from unelected party operatives.

Neither one can get the nomination without the supers.

 

Again.

 

Your point would be?

 

Right, but Clinton can't win without the superdelegates overturning the will of primary voters & caucus goers.

[Firestarter 0]

Right, but Clinton can't win without the superdelegates overturning the will of primary voters & caucus goers.

1. Caucuses are inherently undemocratic

 

and

 

2. Primary voters are at best within a 1-2% margin.

[At Home 0]

1. Caucuses are inherently undemocratic

 

In the scale of things undemocratic, superdelegates take the cake.

[Firestarter 0]

In the scale of things undemocratic, superdelegates take the cake.

Agreed. And they were instituted by... the Democratic Party.

 

Sit and spin.

[snuffbox 0]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/17/america/17obama.php

 

That slickster, Obama, always trying to avoid the real issues concerning America. How dare that uppity boy get upset when Bill Clinton's former aide and a condescending Jurassic Dipshit ask him about his lack of a lapel pin for the 8 billionth time.

[godthedog 0]

there's a certain art in politics of answering the same question over & over again in different arenas as if it was asked for the first time, which obama really has not gotten the hang of. i know he's sick of answering for these things, but for voters who haven't followed his every tv appearance and website announcement, he's not doing himself any favors with the number of times he tells his interviewer, "i've said this before." it just sounds smug and exasperated, especially in the debate the other night when it was being asked by an ordinary middle-aged woman from latrobe.

[Vyce 0]

"Boosterism?" Please. I disagree with the President on a multitude of issues.

 

And have criticized him on those issues.

 

This is more than can be said for those here re: Obama, who apparently can do no wrong.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

It's not that Obama can do no wrong, it's just instances like the before mentioned debate that really point out how some just want to stick to the "same old guard" seemingly.

[EricMM 0]

It is grossly unfair to paint Obama with the same brush as Bush. Honestly, to imply that he has done anything nearly as reprehensible...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

"Boosterism?" Please. I disagree with the President on a multitude of issues.

 

And have criticized him on those issues.

 

No one ever claimed that Marney hasn't criticized Bush.

 

Pound those strawmen all you want.

 

[snuffbox 0]

And I've disagreed with a large number of Obama's proposals, I've repeatedly indicated which specific proposals I am supporting him for, and have criticized him for not striking back hard enough and ending this thing one of the three opportunities he's had to do so. But don't let stuff like that get in the way of backing up your 'points' with utter bullshit, Vyce. If Czech tells you it's a cult than I guess you just gotta agree, right?

[EricMM 0]

Hell, he was supporting CTL fuels, the bastard!

[SuperJerk 0]

McCain camp calls Obama 'recklessly dishonest'

Posted: 04:20 PM ET

 

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.

(CNN) — John McCain's campaign is crying foul over what it characterizes as repeated distortions from Barack Obama, saying on Friday the Illinois senator is "recklessly dishonest."

 

The most recent dustup comes after Obama criticized McCain earlier Friday for comments the Arizona senator made in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

 

"John McCain went on television and said that there has been quote "great progress economically over the last seven and a half years," Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd. "John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush. Now, how could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, PA, say we've made great progress?”

 

The McCain campaign immediately took issue with the comment, noting the Arizona senator also said he knows families are facing "tremendous economic challenges."

 

 

“American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said. "It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday."

 

The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."

 

 

The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."

 

Obama has since dialed back from that characterization, saying Friday that McCain is "willing to potentially maintain the troop presence there for as long as 100 years."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ssly-dishonest/

 

Yeah, that wasn't a fair characterization of what McCain said about the economy, but...come on...they've been doing the same thing to Obama all week about the "bitter" thing, so calling Obama's misquoting "recklessly dishonest" is a little hard to swallow.

 

Speaking of saying stupid things...

 

Clinton, Obama complain about complaining

 

RADNOR, Pa. (AP) — Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are complaining about which candidate is the biggest complainer.

 

The issue is their treatment in debates. Obama is objecting to the questions posed this week in one moderated by ABC News. Many of the toughest questions were targeted at Obama, the front-runner for the nomination, and he's said too much time was spent on political divisions instead of issues that matter to Americans.

 

Clinton said Friday that if Obama thinks the debate was tough, it pales in comparison to the pressures a president faces.

 

"I'm with Harry Truman on this — if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen," she told voters while campaigning in Pennsylvania. "Just speaking for myself, I am very comfortable in the kitchen."

 

But it wasn't so long ago that Clinton was the front-runner and complaining about her treatment in debates. After a debate last fall, her campaign compiled clips of her being targeted, and called it the "Politics of Pile On." In late February, Clinton complained that she always got asked the first question.

 

"Her blatant hypocrisy here is stunning," responded Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

 

The most recent debate Wednesday night was the most watched of this election cycle and has generated some negative reviews for ABC. Obama supporters have made some of the loudest objections, and the Obama campaign sent out a fundraising appeal off the debate titled "Gotcha."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa...bEXw7gD904JP6G0

[godthedog 0]

Yeah, that wasn't a fair characterization of what McCain said about the economy, but...come on...they've been doing the same thing to Obama all week about the "bitter" thing, so calling Obama's misquoting "recklessly dishonest" is a little hard to swallow.

to be fair, by promising voters a higher standard of discourse obama's left himself more open to these kind of "mischaracterization" attacks. hillary's made a number of these kinds of attacks, but she's never said anything about promising voters not to play the game (so to speak). if this were indeed the whole content of obama's attack on mccain regarding iraq, for instance:

 

Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."

 

then it is exactly of the same rhetorical inflation & dishonesty that obama claims to be above.

 

i don't think the argument quite works because obama spells out much more carefully what he thinks is wrong with mccain's strategy outside his rallies and stump speeches (where people don't come to hear multi-step policy statements), but in principle he's absolutely open to this kind of thing and it doesn't make a difference if anyone else was misquoting too. specifically on the question of the economy, the criticism seems about right, since i don't know of any other way obama's put it up to this point.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think McCain deserves to be attacked for his 100 years comment, because he is trying to have it both ways. For McCain to claim that we can stay in Iraq for a hundred years without casualties is ridiculous. Our very presence there is creating terrorists every day...not something you can say about Korea, or Japan, or any other country McCain thinks he can inaccurately compare Iraq to (the circumstances after WWII were vastly different than the situation in Iraq, and our current troops in Kuwait and Korea are in the countries we were protecting, not the countries we were fighting). McCain made that "100 years" comment when he was trying to win the nomination, and wanted to show his committment to winning the war. Early last year, McCain was even claiming the troop surge needed to be bigger than it ended up being. Now that he's got the nomination, he can back away from any statement that makes him look like he was in favor of continuing or even expanding the war, just that he wants to "end" it.