Tom
I think it's more a matter that Canadians have seen how the Republicans have screwed it up. Bill was popular up here, and still is.
Initially Hillary was, until she got in the Senate and actually opened her mouth. Her constant talk, even up until a year ago, that the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada (which even Lord Vader has backed down from, cuz it's totally false), advocating closing the border to "protect" American jobs, (hey beyotch, if you wanna close the border, then that also closes off oil and natural gas), and her general anti Canadian stance on pretty well everything that will get her press in the US, has not endeared her to anyone up here.
Okay, so Obama made a mistake that Canada had a president. Most Canadians assume that the US has a president, when in fact it has a hand puppet for Daddy Cheney.
And yes, the mental picture of THAT idea is meant.
Full Version: Obama wins Iowa Caucus
QUOTE(Lksimcoe @ Jan 8 2008, 08:36 AM) 
Okay, so Obama made a mistake that Canada had a president. Most Canadians assume that the US has a president, when in fact it has a hand puppet for Daddy Cheney.
And yes, the mental picture of THAT idea is meant.
Well,this American(me) with a strong Canadian blood-line still prefers Hillary!
MSNBC reports that John Kerry says he will endorse O'Bama this morning.
QUOTE(hockeyTom @ Jan 10 2008, 06:53 AM)
MSNBC reports that John Kerry says he will endorse O'Bama this morning.
That's one endorsement that could very well hurt Obama. I don't like Kerry anymore even though I donated to his campaign, spent much of Fall 2004 volunteering for him, and of course voted for him.
I can relate to that comment. I know I was FURIOUS with him, when it took him so long to respond to the swift boating, otherwise I thought his nomination was his to lose, and of course, thats exactly what he did. But it very well could have a somewhat negative effect on Obama. I am also going to see who Richardson ends up supporting. Stay tuned.
QUOTE(TheOtherFSU @ Jan 10 2008, 04:51 PM)
That's one endorsement that could very well hurt Obama. I don't like Kerry anymore even though I donated to his campaign, spent much of Fall 2004 volunteering for him, and of course voted for him.
I totally agree. I would be shocked if it didnt hurt Obama. Since Kerrys loss he is viewd, as a loser within the democratic party. That image is not something Obama needs. Perhaps Obama is feeling the heat and getting desperate. In short it makes Obama too far left and out of touch for the general election.
As for Richardson, there are some polls that show several western states and Texas, come into play with Richardson as VP. and Hillary at the top of the ticket. Could it be that Hillary and Richardson are fine tuning the details, in advance, of his endorsementt?
QUOTE(billybob @ Jan 10 2008, 11:26 AM)
As for Richardson, there are some polls that show several western states and Texas, come into play with Richardson as VP. and Hillary at the top of the ticket. Could it be that Hillary and Richardson are fine tuning the details, in advance, of his endorsement?
I hope so - Clinton/Richardson would be a great ticket, imo. When the Iowa caucuses were held, Richardson had apparently told his supporters to go to Obama if he wasn't viable on his own. Never heard of any particular reasoning for that. In our precinct, many DID go to Obama's group, while at least as many went to Edwards. Hillary only claimed a few Richardson supporters, thus losing out on second place by six people at our location. Anyway, for me, that would make the best ticket with her (indirect) experience in the White House and personal experience in the Senate and his years of international diplomacy and running New Mexico.
I don't think the Kerry endorsement is going to amount to much. It doesn't seem like people pay much attention to him anymore, except the media and that's only because he ran (poorly) last time. Ditto on the swiftboat comment just above - agree totally with that.
Right now I'm more worried about Bloomberg entering the contest than I am Kerry endorsing Obama. If he enters because Hillary gets the nomination, she may very well lose no matter who the VP is. Yes, even a Clinton/Obama ticket would be in trouble trying to offset a Bloomberg candidacy. She's too polarizing.
I thought that he has pretty much decided against running according to insiders, is what I have heard.....
QUOTE(billybob @ Jan 10 2008, 12:26 PM)
I totally agree. I would be shocked if it didnt hurt Obama. Since Kerrys loss he is viewd, as a loser within the democratic party...
Ah, but it's not so much about the endorsement itself as it is about the donor lists, the rolodexes, the favors Kerry has amassed. Anyone would be a brain-dead fool to turn away the endorsement of the party's previous nominee. Think of the voter rolls and direct-dial lists Kerry's folks have in Iron Mountain boxes all over the place. This is a good think for Obama.
I agree aqua...bottom line is that this is a man who was very close to winning the presidency. Its not as if Bush won by a landslide. People for the most part know that the swift boat thing was dirty politics at its best. Kerry is a benefit in my eyes because of the inside stuff he could provide.
QUOTE(hockeyTom @ Jan 10 2008, 06:19 PM)
I thought that he has pretty much decided against running according to insiders, is what I have heard.....
Oh really? Not according to what they've been reporting since late last night.
Just What the Dem's need: A Ralph Nader with Money
He's not spending all that money for exploratory statistics for nothin.
The Unity08 folks, who are allied with former Senator and current U. of Oklahoma president David Boren, have said they're folding up their tents for now, because Obama's pushing their agenda. However, if Hillary gets the nod, Bloomberg could jump right back into it. These Unity08 folks HATE the Clintons, do not like the Democratic Party in general, though some (Boren, Hart, Nunn, etc.) are ostensibly Democrats, and want the party to do the Republicans' bidding. We've seen where that's gotten us. So don't count Bloomberg out. He would severely damage Clinton's chances of winning.
I think Bill Richardson has a great resume and has been a fine governor, but I continue to be surprised by the enthusiasm for him on here. Have you people heard him in person? Have you met him? He really comes off as a lackluster candidate, with some great ideas but not much discipline on the stump, though once he's in a job he does pretty well, it seems. There just wasn't much enthusiasm out there for him, and even in national polling he's doing poorly, except in New Mexico. And he's not polling exceptionally among Latinos, either. (BTW, has anyone noticed that Obama is now using the English version of the immigrant chant, "Si se puede"--"Yes, I can." Tell me he doesn't know what's going on.) I'm not sure Richardson's really an asset as a VP, though I hope that HRC or Obama, whichever one wins, considers him as Secretary of State.
How a candidate looks on paper doesn't count. The issue, as we all know, is how she or he energizes people to go to the polls. Obama is firing up millions of younger voters, many independents, and (scarily to me) a decent number of Republicans. HRC is very inspiring to many women, and has some strong policies to tout, along with her husband, the still popular former president. And John Edwards is passionate about what he belives in, which is fighting to maintain a middle and working-class in this country. Resumés really have no bearing at all for a vast swathe of voters. I mean, look at George W. Bush, who failed in every business he ever ran (except the Rangers, where the taxpayers enriched him), was a drunk and drug abuser, had a DUI, etc. He was pretty lackluster and very right-wing as Texas's governor. I mean, if Obama or HRC had a background like that, they would have been driven off-stage. Did that stop people from voting for him? No--and after he stole the 2000 election and was already screwing up Iraq in 2004, people went out and VOTED FOR HIM AGAIN.
One of the most important things the Democrats should be thinking about is a slate of young, very progressive judges, to go onto the Supreme Court. Not one of these justices should be over 55, all should have impeccable credentials (be brilliant), and all should submit health records to assure HRC/Obama/Edwards that they'll be likely to serve for half a century, if possible. John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and David Souter are getting up there. Steven Breyer needs some company, and Anthony Kennedy needs someone young and dynamic and progressive who can flatter and persuade him to vote with the liberals. The federal court system needs a strong infusion of progressives to counter the generally reich-wing people W has staffed it with.
I think Bill Richardson has a great resume and has been a fine governor, but I continue to be surprised by the enthusiasm for him on here. Have you people heard him in person? Have you met him? He really comes off as a lackluster candidate, with some great ideas but not much discipline on the stump, though once he's in a job he does pretty well, it seems. There just wasn't much enthusiasm out there for him, and even in national polling he's doing poorly, except in New Mexico. And he's not polling exceptionally among Latinos, either. (BTW, has anyone noticed that Obama is now using the English version of the immigrant chant, "Si se puede"--"Yes, I can." Tell me he doesn't know what's going on.) I'm not sure Richardson's really an asset as a VP, though I hope that HRC or Obama, whichever one wins, considers him as Secretary of State.
How a candidate looks on paper doesn't count. The issue, as we all know, is how she or he energizes people to go to the polls. Obama is firing up millions of younger voters, many independents, and (scarily to me) a decent number of Republicans. HRC is very inspiring to many women, and has some strong policies to tout, along with her husband, the still popular former president. And John Edwards is passionate about what he belives in, which is fighting to maintain a middle and working-class in this country. Resumés really have no bearing at all for a vast swathe of voters. I mean, look at George W. Bush, who failed in every business he ever ran (except the Rangers, where the taxpayers enriched him), was a drunk and drug abuser, had a DUI, etc. He was pretty lackluster and very right-wing as Texas's governor. I mean, if Obama or HRC had a background like that, they would have been driven off-stage. Did that stop people from voting for him? No--and after he stole the 2000 election and was already screwing up Iraq in 2004, people went out and VOTED FOR HIM AGAIN.
One of the most important things the Democrats should be thinking about is a slate of young, very progressive judges, to go onto the Supreme Court. Not one of these justices should be over 55, all should have impeccable credentials (be brilliant), and all should submit health records to assure HRC/Obama/Edwards that they'll be likely to serve for half a century, if possible. John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and David Souter are getting up there. Steven Breyer needs some company, and Anthony Kennedy needs someone young and dynamic and progressive who can flatter and persuade him to vote with the liberals. The federal court system needs a strong infusion of progressives to counter the generally reich-wing people W has staffed it with.
Great post as usual Fantomas. There is so much going on politically in the country from one minute to the next its difficult to stay on top of it all! One day I hear Bloomberg isn't going to run, then the next minute it APPEARS he is....as far as Richardson, I would have SERIOUS issues with anyone who said they thought homosexuality was a "choice." Otherwise, he may be V.P. material, but he hasn't impressed me so much...
Last night, actually the past 2 nights Dan Abrams has been talking about how much alot of American media hates Hillary for whatever reason(s). He had on one Republican mouthpiece, whose name escapes me, and the guy brought up Whitewater again!
Dan had to pretty much put him in place... .
Last night, actually the past 2 nights Dan Abrams has been talking about how much alot of American media hates Hillary for whatever reason(s). He had on one Republican mouthpiece, whose name escapes me, and the guy brought up Whitewater again!
Dan had to pretty much put him in place... .
Yes, fantomas, I agree -- great analysis.
Only a couple things to add to this thread (I know it's mainly about Obams but this relates).
I'm probably going to end up voting for Obama. Not because he and I are Black, but because I don't really like or trust Hillary's pandering. Obama has some excellent ideas and I like his position of getting out of Iraq.
Clinton, on the other hand, just seems to say (and do) whatever needs to be said and done for the moment. That scares me because, if, as president, she were ever in a position to prove, according to any prevailing political wind, that she's just as tough as anybody else, what military moves might she make just to prove she's up to the challenge?
Not being crazy about HRC (HC?), I could definitely support a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. Too bad neither will happen because they both want the first chair too badly to do something that might be advantageous to both their election chances. I'd will definitely support any Democratic candidate (including that "I'll suck a dick/shine your shoes/take you daughter to the prom/be anybody's running mate" for a vote Edwards) over any Republican that's currently in the field. (If one appears that had the right stuff, I'd consider him/her -- not likely, though). I also think Richardson's strategy of not endorsing anybody yet, now that he is out the race, is because he wants to be considered as a running mate.
Additionally, I'm anticipating the time down the road when Obama will have to start signalling (but not name) that he will pick an older, politically experienced white male as his running mate. I don't know who, but I could see it happening.
My one happiness though is that it doesn't seem like Guiliani's candidancy is going anywhere. The article and quiz below express why he shouldn't even be considered quite succinctly:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/12/05/giuliani/;
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2007/12/17/..._shouts_slansky.
Since it's becoming clearer that Bloomberg will enter the race, my "things that make you uhhmmm"-dar is wondering what a Bloomberg/Obama ticket might look like.
Only a couple things to add to this thread (I know it's mainly about Obams but this relates).
I'm probably going to end up voting for Obama. Not because he and I are Black, but because I don't really like or trust Hillary's pandering. Obama has some excellent ideas and I like his position of getting out of Iraq.
Clinton, on the other hand, just seems to say (and do) whatever needs to be said and done for the moment. That scares me because, if, as president, she were ever in a position to prove, according to any prevailing political wind, that she's just as tough as anybody else, what military moves might she make just to prove she's up to the challenge?
Not being crazy about HRC (HC?), I could definitely support a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. Too bad neither will happen because they both want the first chair too badly to do something that might be advantageous to both their election chances. I'd will definitely support any Democratic candidate (including that "I'll suck a dick/shine your shoes/take you daughter to the prom/be anybody's running mate" for a vote Edwards) over any Republican that's currently in the field. (If one appears that had the right stuff, I'd consider him/her -- not likely, though). I also think Richardson's strategy of not endorsing anybody yet, now that he is out the race, is because he wants to be considered as a running mate.
Additionally, I'm anticipating the time down the road when Obama will have to start signalling (but not name) that he will pick an older, politically experienced white male as his running mate. I don't know who, but I could see it happening.
My one happiness though is that it doesn't seem like Guiliani's candidancy is going anywhere. The article and quiz below express why he shouldn't even be considered quite succinctly:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/12/05/giuliani/;
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2007/12/17/..._shouts_slansky.
Since it's becoming clearer that Bloomberg will enter the race, my "things that make you uhhmmm"-dar is wondering what a Bloomberg/Obama ticket might look like.
Former NJ senator Bill Bradley to endorse Obama.
May be more important than the Kerry endorsement.
I don't consider John Kerry's endorsement of Obama to be a snub of John Edwards. And I still think Edwards would be the more effective president.
I think either Edwards or Obama would have less difficulty than Clinton defeating any of the Republicans.
May be more important than the Kerry endorsement.
I don't consider John Kerry's endorsement of Obama to be a snub of John Edwards. And I still think Edwards would be the more effective president.
I think either Edwards or Obama would have less difficulty than Clinton defeating any of the Republicans.
Ask yourself, why are these various candidates running? What is their rationale?
Obama wants to change things (vague, but it's a positive thing) and bring people across the country, across parties, across generations together, to get the country back on track. He's going to need more than youth, a cute face, soaring rhetoric, and good will, but I think he could do some great things as president. His political orientation is more Bill Clinton than Franklin Roosevelt, but I could live with that.
Edwards wants to fight for the working-class and middle-class, and end the increasing corporate control of our government and society. Admirable goals, not sure he'll be able to pull it off, but it's something to aim for. He's got the mainstream media and corporate America against him, though, so I worry that he would be another Jimmy Carter, a president with great intentions but no way of effecting the major changes he wants. Still, I can't count him out.
Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to...be president. She wants to be the first female president, it's "personal," she has this list of things, some great, she hopes to achieve. But what's her underlying rationale, aim, narrative? In this regard, she reminds me a lot of John Kerry, and, in some cases, Al Gore (though as we now see, he had some excellent ideas and an overall vision that he couldn't articulate, because of the hostile mainstream media, Republicans, and his own deficits as a candidate.). What does she stand for? What is her goal? Not that a candidate always has to verbalize this, especially before taking office, but I'm still not sure what she stands for. "Experience" is not enough; and what is this "experience," really? Her legislative record doesn't really exceed Obama's. Or Edwards's, for that matter.
I keep coming back to this question of what these people stand for and WHY they want to be president. This is the great deficit for me in HRC's case.
Maybe after George W. Bush we don't need someone whose stands are so clear (yet in Bush's case, couched in lying rhetoric). We've seen the damage he's done and continues to do. Or rather, is it just the failed conservative, right-wing ideology that we need to be aware of? We haven't had a truly left-wing president since Lyndon Johnson, who, outside of the Vietnam War disaster, did a pretty good job governing.
Obama wants to change things (vague, but it's a positive thing) and bring people across the country, across parties, across generations together, to get the country back on track. He's going to need more than youth, a cute face, soaring rhetoric, and good will, but I think he could do some great things as president. His political orientation is more Bill Clinton than Franklin Roosevelt, but I could live with that.
Edwards wants to fight for the working-class and middle-class, and end the increasing corporate control of our government and society. Admirable goals, not sure he'll be able to pull it off, but it's something to aim for. He's got the mainstream media and corporate America against him, though, so I worry that he would be another Jimmy Carter, a president with great intentions but no way of effecting the major changes he wants. Still, I can't count him out.
Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to...be president. She wants to be the first female president, it's "personal," she has this list of things, some great, she hopes to achieve. But what's her underlying rationale, aim, narrative? In this regard, she reminds me a lot of John Kerry, and, in some cases, Al Gore (though as we now see, he had some excellent ideas and an overall vision that he couldn't articulate, because of the hostile mainstream media, Republicans, and his own deficits as a candidate.). What does she stand for? What is her goal? Not that a candidate always has to verbalize this, especially before taking office, but I'm still not sure what she stands for. "Experience" is not enough; and what is this "experience," really? Her legislative record doesn't really exceed Obama's. Or Edwards's, for that matter.
I keep coming back to this question of what these people stand for and WHY they want to be president. This is the great deficit for me in HRC's case.
Maybe after George W. Bush we don't need someone whose stands are so clear (yet in Bush's case, couched in lying rhetoric). We've seen the damage he's done and continues to do. Or rather, is it just the failed conservative, right-wing ideology that we need to be aware of? We haven't had a truly left-wing president since Lyndon Johnson, who, outside of the Vietnam War disaster, did a pretty good job governing.
I received this e-mail from a Jewish friend who is not particularly religious, but seems to believe the entire world will soon be controlled by anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-everything Muslim fanatics. And thus we need to watch out for Barack Obama. My friend was not too happy when I pointed out how absurd and distorted this 'evidence' is...after reading this, please check the REAL Snopes version
While I think Obama is by far the toughest Dem candidate the GOP could face, I will admit there is an undercurrent of ignorance that could be a high hurdle for him to get over. Two months ago, I was at dinner with some old friends from college and one of my best college friends sat next to me at the restaurant. She is a very religious, almost evangelically-oriented person... put it this way, her kids' school only allows kids to dress as religious figures on Halloween. This woman is not dumb -- she comes from a politically-connected inside the Beltway family and lives a very white collar life, yet I could not convince her that Obama regularly attends a Christian church. Every sentence I uttered was shut off with a "No, he's a Muslim," said in a very "end of story" kind of way. I just could not penetrate her head.
Well, I think we can forget about a Hillary/Obama ticket now. There is too much bad blood between the campaigns now with all this race stuff that has been injected in the campaign. I find it very disheartening that this has become an issue, but I can't say that I'm surprised. I knew that once the Clinton campaign went negative, and it was the Clinton campaign who started all of this, that things were going to get bad. Pat Buchanan said it on the night of the New Hampshire primary that he could see race splitting the Democratic party if the Clinton campaign went negative and he seems correct. However, while I don't follow the "Clinton was the first black president" rhetoric that some other black people do, they both have a long history of standing up for civil rights. Blacks benefited in many ways under the Clinton White House so my being torn between Hillary and Obama has great part to do with Bill Clinton. If Hillary wins the nomination, she will have a great former President by her side, advising her on many important issues. Thats a big incentive.
Lets be clear, Hillary has a lot of black supporters not because of her, but because of her husband. So, at this point I think we can forget about a Hillary/Obama ticket. Its gotten too personal and I think the media has added to the ridiculousness of the situation. I do think that Bill and Hillary's recent comments could have been chosen better, but to imply that they are racist in any way is RIDICULOUS!!! Now while I often bring up things that are viewed by me as having racist undertones, this is a case where I will say that the race card is being played. That is NOT what the Democratic party needs right now. The Republicans I'm sure are sitting back loving it. While I love Bill and Hillary, they are hungry for power and will do just about anything to get it. And in all honesty, thats actually a trait that I admire. When I want something, I go after it and do almost whatever it takes to get it. She wants to be President and he wants to be important again. Bill loved being President and the closest way he can get back to that is his wife becoming President. But at this point, unless there is a real coming together of Obama and Hillary I can't see them running on a ticket together. So any potential V.P. like Richardson or Biden must be sitting back loving the fact that these two are going at it. It will be interesting though that after all this "we want change" it ends up being a Hillary/Richardson ticket. Those two are NOT change candidates.
Lets be clear, Hillary has a lot of black supporters not because of her, but because of her husband. So, at this point I think we can forget about a Hillary/Obama ticket. Its gotten too personal and I think the media has added to the ridiculousness of the situation. I do think that Bill and Hillary's recent comments could have been chosen better, but to imply that they are racist in any way is RIDICULOUS!!! Now while I often bring up things that are viewed by me as having racist undertones, this is a case where I will say that the race card is being played. That is NOT what the Democratic party needs right now. The Republicans I'm sure are sitting back loving it. While I love Bill and Hillary, they are hungry for power and will do just about anything to get it. And in all honesty, thats actually a trait that I admire. When I want something, I go after it and do almost whatever it takes to get it. She wants to be President and he wants to be important again. Bill loved being President and the closest way he can get back to that is his wife becoming President. But at this point, unless there is a real coming together of Obama and Hillary I can't see them running on a ticket together. So any potential V.P. like Richardson or Biden must be sitting back loving the fact that these two are going at it. It will be interesting though that after all this "we want change" it ends up being a Hillary/Richardson ticket. Those two are NOT change candidates.
QUOTE(Marc @ Jan 14 2008, 07:48 PM)
I received this e-mail from a Jewish friend who is not particularly religious, but seems to believe the entire world will soon be controlled by anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-everything Muslim fanatics. And thus we need to watch out for Barack Obama. My friend was not too happy when I pointed out how absurd and distorted this 'evidence' is...after reading this, please check the REAL Snopes version
[i]Who is Barack Obama? (hate speech snipped)
Why, oh why would you post this vicious, discredited bit of slander about Senator Obama on this website? It's been established that a very crazy, hard-right Republican wrote this and it has been circulating for some time. It has been discredited repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, and yet here you go posting it. Why not just tell us about it rather than putting it out there, when it is a vicious, hateful, anti-Muslim slander against one of our presidential candidates? Whatever your friend may feel, take that up with him. But PLEASE, do not post this kind of hateful, venomous crap on here. Okay? (I.e., please do us all a favor, edit it and wipe it off of here.)
Fantomas...thank you for dealing with that. I purposely avoided making a comment on it because I would've used language that would have been far less tactful than how you responded to it.
QUOTE(fantomas @ Jan 15 2008, 02:55 AM)
Why, oh why would you post this vicious, discredited bit of slander about Senator Obama on this website? It's been established that a very crazy, hard-right Republican wrote this and it has been circulating for some time. It has been discredited repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, and yet here you go posting it. Why not just tell us about it rather than putting it out there, when it is a vicious, hateful, anti-Muslim slander against one of our presidential candidates? Whatever your friend may feel, take that up with him. But PLEASE, do not post this kind of hateful, venomous crap on here. Okay? (I.e., please do us all a favor, edit it and wipe it off of here.)
Why don't you post the rebuttal or website that discredits this? Seems like a logical thing to do since this will stay on here.
QUOTE(fantomas @ Jan 14 2008, 07:55 PM)
Why, oh why would you post this vicious, discredited bit of slander about Senator Obama on this website? It's been established that a very crazy, hard-right Republican wrote this and it has been circulating for some time. It has been discredited repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, and yet here you go posting it. Why not just tell us about it rather than putting it out there, when it is a vicious, hateful, anti-Muslim slander against one of our presidential candidates? Whatever your friend may feel, take that up with him. But PLEASE, do not post this kind of hateful, venomous crap on here. Okay? (I.e., please do us all a favor, edit it and wipe it off of here.)
I don't know why you feel the need to berate me for this. I made it very clear in my original post that I completely DISAGREE with the contents of the e-mail, which is why I linked the Snopes story. Also I'm sorry that as a non-American trying to follow your country's politics, I am expected to know for a fact that some crazy nameless Republican wrote it (although it doesn't surprise me). I can assure you it was the first time I had ever seen or heard about this nonsense. It is possible that other people who visit this site may also have been seeing it for the first time, so I didn't see the harm in sharing it so they can see for themselves an example of reprehensible slander. Posting it should not in any way imply endorsement, and if I was so 'out of line' in posting it, I'm sure the moderator would have stepped in and censored it. But as you can see, I have deleted it since you and mdterp01 feel I was so wrong to have posted it.
Thank goodness from what I just read online, and in my morning paper, both Hillary and Obama are going to take big steps backwards and maybe chill considerably from the rhetoric we have been hearing coming from both sides over the past couple of days. Thank goodness. Its disgusting as far as I am concerned, and the only ones benefitting and laughing on the sides are the Republicans, who of course, would love nothing better than to have both candidates battered and bloodied by all this crap....
Last night both Keith Olbermann, and especially Dan Abrams took the position that is the media that has been largely fueling this race tension between the camps. Now surrogates from both parties as well as both candidates themselves have not helped one bit in trying to explain things or countering, but Dan Abrams just outright blamed what he called the " D.C. media", for fueling this.. racial tension between the two camps, of which I also tend to buy into....there were some interesting opinions mentioned on CNN's The Situation Room yesterday too. Jack Cafferty had asked people why the Democrats were raising the race issue. Quite a few people though once again, the so called "liberal" media was to blame for escalating tensions. One guy wrote words to the effect, " the biggest reason is because there are 4 white guys running on the Republican side, so no story or excitement there"!
Memo to both camps: CUT IT OUT, unless you want the GOP for yet another 4 years!!!
Last night both Keith Olbermann, and especially Dan Abrams took the position that is the media that has been largely fueling this race tension between the camps. Now surrogates from both parties as well as both candidates themselves have not helped one bit in trying to explain things or countering, but Dan Abrams just outright blamed what he called the " D.C. media", for fueling this.. racial tension between the two camps, of which I also tend to buy into....there were some interesting opinions mentioned on CNN's The Situation Room yesterday too. Jack Cafferty had asked people why the Democrats were raising the race issue. Quite a few people though once again, the so called "liberal" media was to blame for escalating tensions. One guy wrote words to the effect, " the biggest reason is because there are 4 white guys running on the Republican side, so no story or excitement there"!
Memo to both camps: CUT IT OUT, unless you want the GOP for yet another 4 years!!!
Marc, thank you!
Unfortunately, such attacks are again going mainstream*, as Richard Cohen in the Washington Post has decided to try his hand at smearing Obama by linking him to Louis Farrakhan. It's really pathetic, but hey, if we end up with President Mike Huckabee, who just last night was talking about amending the US Constitution so that it was in line with the Bible; or John McCain, who wants US troops in Iraq for 100 years; or Mitt Romney, who's such a weathervane on any issue we'll be in worse shape than we are now, you can thank "liberals" like Cohen, who helped torpedo Al Gore, John Kerry, and now one of the best agents we have for a fresh start, Barack Obama.
And don't think he and others like him won't trash Hillary Clinton, because they already have, and they've ignored and mocked John Edwards, so you have to ask yourself, who do they really want in office? Rudy Ghouliani, who pals around with an alleged Catholic priest pedophile? I can assure you they surely don't want Ron Paul in office, so who does that leave? Fred Thompson? God help us!)
--
*CNN had to debunk this smear about Obama, but he has been repeatedly smeared in this way by the likes of former Senator Bob Kerrey; Jonathan Alter, who compared his clothing style to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; etc. It's clear that there's a concerted effort to attack him on grounds other than the standard racist (anti-Black) ones, and I hope he realizes it will only get worse if he keeps winning.
Unfortunately, such attacks are again going mainstream*, as Richard Cohen in the Washington Post has decided to try his hand at smearing Obama by linking him to Louis Farrakhan. It's really pathetic, but hey, if we end up with President Mike Huckabee, who just last night was talking about amending the US Constitution so that it was in line with the Bible; or John McCain, who wants US troops in Iraq for 100 years; or Mitt Romney, who's such a weathervane on any issue we'll be in worse shape than we are now, you can thank "liberals" like Cohen, who helped torpedo Al Gore, John Kerry, and now one of the best agents we have for a fresh start, Barack Obama.
And don't think he and others like him won't trash Hillary Clinton, because they already have, and they've ignored and mocked John Edwards, so you have to ask yourself, who do they really want in office? Rudy Ghouliani, who pals around with an alleged Catholic priest pedophile? I can assure you they surely don't want Ron Paul in office, so who does that leave? Fred Thompson? God help us!)
--
*CNN had to debunk this smear about Obama, but he has been repeatedly smeared in this way by the likes of former Senator Bob Kerrey; Jonathan Alter, who compared his clothing style to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; etc. It's clear that there's a concerted effort to attack him on grounds other than the standard racist (anti-Black) ones, and I hope he realizes it will only get worse if he keeps winning.
QUOTE(Todd @ Jan 15 2008, 04:54 AM)
Why don't you post the rebuttal or website that discredits this? Seems like a logical thing to do since this will stay on here.
Well, it didn't. The smear has been rebutted repeatedly. But since you seem to feel it's necessary (even though Marc (thanks!) posted a link to Snopes.com, which people who've received this email may or may not check out), here's a more extensive rebuttal. You can access any of the links if you go to PBS's site.
PBS.org: Anatomy of a Smear. NOW|PBS
QUOTE
Week of 1.4.07
Anatomy of a Smear
Sorting Fact from Fiction in the 2008 Election Campaign
This Week: Dirty Politics 2008 | Anatomy of a Smear | The Misinformation Superhighway? | Interview: Rod Shealy | Feedback Forum
Barack Obama Smear campaigns are nothing new in U.S. politics, but during the 2008 presidential race, the Internet has assumed a bigger role in transmitting misinformation and negative claims about candidates. The lightning speed at which these rumors spread and the lack of scrutiny they receive threaten to seriously undermine public discourse. The good news is that this campaign season the public has access to a slew of fact-checking websites, including FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com, and Snopes.com that are squelching Internet rumors and separating fact from fiction.
To illustrate how a rumor based on falsehoods can spread, NOW takes a look at one claim that has received a lot of media attention recently: the "Barack Obama is Muslim" rumor. This unsubstantiated claim originated from chain e-mails that started circulating some time in 2006. They contend that Obama is a Muslim (false) and that Obama attended a radical Muslim school (false). There's also a more recent rumor that Obama did not have his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.
Timeline of a Smear
2006: The first chain e-mail circulated on the Internet contending that Obama is Muslim. (Politifact and other fact-checking websites have been unable to pinpoint the exact date)
Jan. 17, 2007: A discredited news story from InsightMag.com, "Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background," reported that Obama had attended a madrassa, an Islamic religious school, as a child.
Jan. 19, 2007: Fox News' Fox & Friend First and Fox & Friends highlighted the report from InsightMag in its coverage without discrediting it. The weblog Think Progress noted that Fox even took caller comments about the allegations.
Jan. 20, 2007: New York Post article titled 'Osama' Mud Flies at Obama quoted Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson saying, "We have no connection to this story."
The week of Jan. 20, 2007: CNN, ABC-TV and the Associated Press sent reporters to the school Obama attended and reported that it was not a religious school but a public school.
Jan. 23, 2007: Washington Post article by media columnist Howard Kurtz, "Headmaster Disputes Claim That Obama Attended Islamic School", reported that the school Obama attended was not a religious school but a public school.
Jan 28, 2007: Washington Post editorial, "Sticks, Stones and Mr. Obama; Misleading aspersions about the senator's background only make the perpetrators look bad", criticized the Insight Magazine article.
March, 15, 2007: A Snopes.com website article titled "The Enemy Within" dispelled the claim that Obama is a "radical, ideological Muslim."
Sept. 16, 2007: A photo of Obama that would later be used as the basis for another negative rumor was taken in Indianola, Iowa, at the Harkin Steak Fry, an annual political event hosted by Sen. Tom Harkin. The caption on the Time photo read, "Respect: Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem."
Oct. 2007: The first chain e-mail accompanying some version of an e-mailed photo circulated on the Internet questioning Obama's patriotism based on its contention that Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. One of the e-mails read: "He refused to not only put his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegiance, but refused to say the pledge ... how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief?"
Oct. 27, 2007: Snopes could not find any information substantiating the claim that Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. However, they did say that the following claim, "Photograph shows Barack Obama without his hand over his heart while the U.S. national anthem is being played," is true.
Nov. 9, 2007: The St. Petersburg Times publishes an article "E-mail assailing Obama's patriotism misses mark" pointing to the original Time photograph as evidence that the e-mail rumor makes a false claim. The article also discusses the new phenomenon of chain e-mails "ricocheting" around Internet.
Nov. 11, 2007: A video from ABC News confirmed that the photo was taken during the singing of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Nov. 29, 2007: The Washington Post publishes an article, "Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him", by political reporter Perry Bacon Jr. exploring the rumors that Obama was Muslim. The article did not explicitly dispel those rumors.
Dec. 9, 2007: In response to "ferocious" criticism from readers and others, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell addresses Bacon's story in a column titled Refuting, or Feeding, the Rumor Mill. She writes: "My problems with the story...were that Obama's connections to Islam are slender at best; that the rumors were old; and that convincing evidence of their falsity wasn't included in the story."
Dec. 13, 2007: Despite being debunked by mainstream news organizations, the claim that Obama didn't place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance is repeated on Bill O' Reilly's show. In response to a caller who says she's disturbed by Obama's alleged action, O'Reilly doesn't correct her and, according to MediaMatters.org, replies: "I think that Obama needs to answer some questions about his point of view, not only on the USA, but on a lot of things."
Damage Lasts Longer Than Rumors Themselves
Taken together, InsightMag.com's anonymously-sourced report inspired numerous "baseless" accusations about Sen. Barack Obama in the media and widespread coverage from mainstream news sites and other news sources. Whether this rumor had any significant negative impact on Obama's campaign is unclear.
One of the most frustrating things about rumors on the Internet is that it is often impossible to pinpoint their origin, particularly since chain e-mails can come from multiple people. Another challenge is that they circulate under the radar for so long.
But some websites are working to combat rumors with truth and correction. Politifact.com features a "Truth-o-meter" section that examines who laid claim to a rumor, who the rumor is about, the extent to which the rumor is true and what was alleged by the informant. The Truth-o-meter recently dispelled the Obama "hand over his heart rumor" by giving it a "false" rating. Snopes.com, the site with a reputation for debunking urban legends, has a similar system of checking rumors, but they do it through a "ratings key" which allows for more ambiguity in the case of rumors that are partially based on truth, but ultimately incorrect. The audience for these websites remains marginal. Only when major media outlets take it upon themselves to verify a rumor before repeating it or invest resources in debunking it, as CNN did with the Obama-is-Muslim rumor, will the power of unfounded rumors and smear campaigns dissipate.
Debunking Resources
FACTCHECK.ORG: Analysis of ads and statements
POLITIFACT.COM: Analysis of attacks and statistics
FactChecker: The Washington Post Fact-Checker
SNOPES.COM: Urban Legends Reference Pages
WASHINGTONPOST.COM: The "Pinocchio" test
COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW: Fact checking the Media
MEDIA MATTERS: Media Matters for America
Sources: Information for this article is based partly on a timeline from MediaMatters.org's timeline of the smear and leads from Politifact.com.
Anatomy of a Smear
Sorting Fact from Fiction in the 2008 Election Campaign
This Week: Dirty Politics 2008 | Anatomy of a Smear | The Misinformation Superhighway? | Interview: Rod Shealy | Feedback Forum
Barack Obama Smear campaigns are nothing new in U.S. politics, but during the 2008 presidential race, the Internet has assumed a bigger role in transmitting misinformation and negative claims about candidates. The lightning speed at which these rumors spread and the lack of scrutiny they receive threaten to seriously undermine public discourse. The good news is that this campaign season the public has access to a slew of fact-checking websites, including FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com, and Snopes.com that are squelching Internet rumors and separating fact from fiction.
To illustrate how a rumor based on falsehoods can spread, NOW takes a look at one claim that has received a lot of media attention recently: the "Barack Obama is Muslim" rumor. This unsubstantiated claim originated from chain e-mails that started circulating some time in 2006. They contend that Obama is a Muslim (false) and that Obama attended a radical Muslim school (false). There's also a more recent rumor that Obama did not have his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.
Timeline of a Smear
2006: The first chain e-mail circulated on the Internet contending that Obama is Muslim. (Politifact and other fact-checking websites have been unable to pinpoint the exact date)
Jan. 17, 2007: A discredited news story from InsightMag.com, "Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background," reported that Obama had attended a madrassa, an Islamic religious school, as a child.
Jan. 19, 2007: Fox News' Fox & Friend First and Fox & Friends highlighted the report from InsightMag in its coverage without discrediting it. The weblog Think Progress noted that Fox even took caller comments about the allegations.
Jan. 20, 2007: New York Post article titled 'Osama' Mud Flies at Obama quoted Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson saying, "We have no connection to this story."
The week of Jan. 20, 2007: CNN, ABC-TV and the Associated Press sent reporters to the school Obama attended and reported that it was not a religious school but a public school.
Jan. 23, 2007: Washington Post article by media columnist Howard Kurtz, "Headmaster Disputes Claim That Obama Attended Islamic School", reported that the school Obama attended was not a religious school but a public school.
Jan 28, 2007: Washington Post editorial, "Sticks, Stones and Mr. Obama; Misleading aspersions about the senator's background only make the perpetrators look bad", criticized the Insight Magazine article.
March, 15, 2007: A Snopes.com website article titled "The Enemy Within" dispelled the claim that Obama is a "radical, ideological Muslim."
Sept. 16, 2007: A photo of Obama that would later be used as the basis for another negative rumor was taken in Indianola, Iowa, at the Harkin Steak Fry, an annual political event hosted by Sen. Tom Harkin. The caption on the Time photo read, "Respect: Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem."
Oct. 2007: The first chain e-mail accompanying some version of an e-mailed photo circulated on the Internet questioning Obama's patriotism based on its contention that Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. One of the e-mails read: "He refused to not only put his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegiance, but refused to say the pledge ... how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief?"
Oct. 27, 2007: Snopes could not find any information substantiating the claim that Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. However, they did say that the following claim, "Photograph shows Barack Obama without his hand over his heart while the U.S. national anthem is being played," is true.
Nov. 9, 2007: The St. Petersburg Times publishes an article "E-mail assailing Obama's patriotism misses mark" pointing to the original Time photograph as evidence that the e-mail rumor makes a false claim. The article also discusses the new phenomenon of chain e-mails "ricocheting" around Internet.
Nov. 11, 2007: A video from ABC News confirmed that the photo was taken during the singing of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Nov. 29, 2007: The Washington Post publishes an article, "Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him", by political reporter Perry Bacon Jr. exploring the rumors that Obama was Muslim. The article did not explicitly dispel those rumors.
Dec. 9, 2007: In response to "ferocious" criticism from readers and others, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell addresses Bacon's story in a column titled Refuting, or Feeding, the Rumor Mill. She writes: "My problems with the story...were that Obama's connections to Islam are slender at best; that the rumors were old; and that convincing evidence of their falsity wasn't included in the story."
Dec. 13, 2007: Despite being debunked by mainstream news organizations, the claim that Obama didn't place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance is repeated on Bill O' Reilly's show. In response to a caller who says she's disturbed by Obama's alleged action, O'Reilly doesn't correct her and, according to MediaMatters.org, replies: "I think that Obama needs to answer some questions about his point of view, not only on the USA, but on a lot of things."
Damage Lasts Longer Than Rumors Themselves
Taken together, InsightMag.com's anonymously-sourced report inspired numerous "baseless" accusations about Sen. Barack Obama in the media and widespread coverage from mainstream news sites and other news sources. Whether this rumor had any significant negative impact on Obama's campaign is unclear.
One of the most frustrating things about rumors on the Internet is that it is often impossible to pinpoint their origin, particularly since chain e-mails can come from multiple people. Another challenge is that they circulate under the radar for so long.
But some websites are working to combat rumors with truth and correction. Politifact.com features a "Truth-o-meter" section that examines who laid claim to a rumor, who the rumor is about, the extent to which the rumor is true and what was alleged by the informant. The Truth-o-meter recently dispelled the Obama "hand over his heart rumor" by giving it a "false" rating. Snopes.com, the site with a reputation for debunking urban legends, has a similar system of checking rumors, but they do it through a "ratings key" which allows for more ambiguity in the case of rumors that are partially based on truth, but ultimately incorrect. The audience for these websites remains marginal. Only when major media outlets take it upon themselves to verify a rumor before repeating it or invest resources in debunking it, as CNN did with the Obama-is-Muslim rumor, will the power of unfounded rumors and smear campaigns dissipate.
Debunking Resources
FACTCHECK.ORG: Analysis of ads and statements
POLITIFACT.COM: Analysis of attacks and statistics
FactChecker: The Washington Post Fact-Checker
SNOPES.COM: Urban Legends Reference Pages
WASHINGTONPOST.COM: The "Pinocchio" test
COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW: Fact checking the Media
MEDIA MATTERS: Media Matters for America
Sources: Information for this article is based partly on a timeline from MediaMatters.org's timeline of the smear and leads from Politifact.com.
Here's another:
Newsweek.com: "Sliming Obama"
I do not think Bill or Hillary Clinton are racist. However, I do believe that they would use the fact that other people are racist in order win an election.
J1780...can't say I disagree with you there. Those two I think would do just about anything to get back into the White House. Politics is a very slimy business and everyone has a bit of slime on their hands when its all over. The "oops my bad" statements that "were taken out of context" and "oops I'm sorry my campaign staffer said that. He/she will be dismissed" I mean come on. We are not stupid. Everyone gets down and dirty to some extent...some more than others.
As I expected the very first question asked of Hillary and Obama concerned the race angle the media has been trying to blowup over the past couple of weeks. I thought both camps, handled it well, and said they all realize the importance of this election, and how some overzealous supporters in both camps, can sometimes say things that can be taken out of context and used against them. I watched most of the debate and I was impressed with all of the candidates. There was much more time for more through and detailed respsonses, and I thought all 3 candidates did well. Hillary impressed me with her take on the economic recession I believe we are already in......I read this morning where Kucinich was not happy about being left out, so he set up some kind of a live satellite hookup where he spoke to supporters...I forgot to mention one question came up to Barack about the slime/rumors that have been circulating online about his supposedly being a Muslim and all, and he addressed it well and thoroughly.....I loved one of Hillarys responses talking about how Bush was over in the Middle East begging OPEC to increase its output, " How pathetic" she offered.......
Thank god Obama and Hillary squashed that ridiculous race BS. It was blown up by the media and it could've been something that really ended up causing major divisions in the party. I think everyone agrees that the main Democratic candidates are all after the same thing, which is new and effective leadership in Washington; a change from the status quo, and a new direction for this country. Getting caught up in that kind of mess only adds fuel to the Republican fire. I was impressed with all of their performances in the debate. I was glad to hear more substance from Obama and Hillary is just on it. Homegirl is just ALWAYS ON POINT.
Obamas victory speech in S.C. Saturday Night was just riveting and spine tingling......I thought he hit it out of the park. I am so proud of what he was able to do....I am hoping now there is less bickering between his camp and the Clintons....he sure sounded like he was trying to send a message to him...but this was one of his best speeches, EVER!
It really was an incredible speech.
As for the Clintons, you saw what came out of Bill's mouth right after that. He also blabbered on for 75 minutes, while Hillary was off in Tennessee campaigning. They're kind of shameless, but I like how they don't even cede an inch.
Obama, just be ready to rumble on February 5!
As for the Clintons, you saw what came out of Bill's mouth right after that. He also blabbered on for 75 minutes, while Hillary was off in Tennessee campaigning. They're kind of shameless, but I like how they don't even cede an inch.
Obama, just be ready to rumble on February 5!
I think I did. And from what I have been reading online today, it seems Mr. Bill has received the message loud and clear...I thought Baracks best line was " this election is a choice between the past and the future". Hear hear!!!!
The Kennedyization of Obama is now complete.
The re-Arkansasification of Billary is also complete. The Endorsement summarily kicked the Clintonoids back to their trailer parks and ripped the rug of mainstream Democratic Party support out from under them. At this rate, even winning the primaries will be of no consequence, and a major confrontation at the convention is assured, they way it's supposed to be.
This is entirely their fault, mind you. THEY were the ones who created the two-headed tag-team by making Bill waaaaaay more visible than he should be. THEY were the ones who kept up with the racism, using phrases like "shucking and jiving", "roll the dice", and the name Jesse Jackson in the hopes that their Jim Crow smokescreen would scare voters away from Obama. They're also the ones that stand to drive a serious and destructive wedge right through the party base by turning latino voters against Obama out west. (Novak's column in the WaPo) Fat chance of talking unity in November now that the top Democratic Party brass has left their parade.
And you know what? I believed Teddy Kennedy today. Obama is the heir to RFK at the very least - and maybe JFK if he gets a chance. I can see the comparison big time.
I read that Massachusetts polls showed Clinton with a 59%-28% edge over Obama. I bet that evaporates by the end of the week.
Billary looks tired.
The re-Arkansasification of Billary is also complete. The Endorsement summarily kicked the Clintonoids back to their trailer parks and ripped the rug of mainstream Democratic Party support out from under them. At this rate, even winning the primaries will be of no consequence, and a major confrontation at the convention is assured, they way it's supposed to be.
This is entirely their fault, mind you. THEY were the ones who created the two-headed tag-team by making Bill waaaaaay more visible than he should be. THEY were the ones who kept up with the racism, using phrases like "shucking and jiving", "roll the dice", and the name Jesse Jackson in the hopes that their Jim Crow smokescreen would scare voters away from Obama. They're also the ones that stand to drive a serious and destructive wedge right through the party base by turning latino voters against Obama out west. (Novak's column in the WaPo) Fat chance of talking unity in November now that the top Democratic Party brass has left their parade.
And you know what? I believed Teddy Kennedy today. Obama is the heir to RFK at the very least - and maybe JFK if he gets a chance. I can see the comparison big time.
I read that Massachusetts polls showed Clinton with a 59%-28% edge over Obama. I bet that evaporates by the end of the week.
Billary looks tired.
Personalities of the candidates aside, is America more likely to elect a black man before electing a female as President of USA?
I have no idea. But THIS IS THE FUNNIEST VIDEO OF THE CAMPAIGN.
Swim, we hope to address your question this November...in my opinion the US is ready to elect its first black President, and its also possible we will have our first female President eletced as well...just this afternoon they were poll talking ( for what its worth-not much probably) and both Hillary and Barack are doing very well in theoretical head to heads with the GOP, and McCain, if he is the nominee for the GOP....I wonder who the Log Cabiners will support. I should hazard a guess for McCain...
QUOTE(Frank Bruno @ Jan 28 2008, 04:47 PM)
The Kennedyization of Obama is now complete.
The re-Arkansasification of Billary is also complete. The Endorsement summarily kicked the Clintonoids back to their trailer parks and ripped the rug of mainstream Democratic Party support out from under them. At this rate, even winning the primaries will be of no consequence, and a major confrontation at the convention is assured, they way it's supposed to be.
This is entirely their fault, mind you. THEY were the ones who created the two-headed tag-team by making Bill waaaaaay more visible than he should be. THEY were the ones who kept up with the racism, using phrases like "shucking and jiving", "roll the dice", and the name Jesse Jackson in the hopes that their Jim Crow smokescreen would scare voters away from Obama. They're also the ones that stand to drive a serious and destructive wedge right through the party base by turning latino voters against Obama out west. (Novak's column in the WaPo) Fat chance of talking unity in November now that the top Democratic Party brass has left their parade.
And you know what? I believed Teddy Kennedy today. Obama is the heir to RFK at the very least - and maybe JFK if he gets a chance. I can see the comparison big time.
I read that Massachusetts polls showed Clinton with a 59%-28% edge over Obama. I bet that evaporates by the end of the week.
Billary looks tired.
I COULDN'T AGREE MORE!!!!! South Carolina was a referendum on Bill and Hillary and their "oh I didn't mean that the way it sounded" comments.
Granted, the media blew it up more than it needed to be, but the fact remains that it was not necessary for Clinton to make that Jesse Jackson comment after Hillary got slaughtered in South Carolina. I would have LOVED to be a fly on the wall today with Bill and Hillary after they found out that the Kennedy's were not endorsing "BILLary". Now I love the Clintons. I think that Bill was a great president, and I think that Hillary has the intelligence and experience to be a president. But, their brand of politics, better known as the Clinton machine really disgusts me. Bill needs to shut up because he is reinforcing everything that people remember that they didn't like about the Clintons. I do not want the Democratic party to be torn apart because of this. Interesting too, since this whole race stuff has come up, I didn't think that a Clinton/Obama ticket was possible. I thought it was much more likely about 4-5 months ago. Well now....a lot of the pundits I've heard have now said that 4-5 months ago they didn't see it, but that if Hillary doesn't choose Obama if she gets the nomination she will lose. But at this point I think that the two can't stand each other. I think that the Clintons are pissed quite frankly. I think they are upset because it was Hillary who was supposed to be the first this...and the first that, and here comes this young whippersnapper in Obama who is motivating and cross cultural and is really making them have to fight. Its just very interesting. I love politics and this one is truly fascinating.
So much has changed in the Democratic nomination race since the Discussion Board was down that I feel a bit like Rip Van Winkle - waking up to a new reality.
The most inspiring thing about the surge in the Obama campaign is the number of young people he is pulling into the voting booth.
I had almost given up on the 17-25'ers, or whatever the upper cutoff point is, until the South Carolina results. It almost makes me tear up to see that they are finally taking an interest in their future and seeing the vote as a way to do something about it - even if some are voting in the Republican primary.
Hopefully he will pull far enough ahead to make a contested nomination less painful for the party. At this point it seems very unlikely that Hillary Clinton will remain the presumptive nominee. The stakes seem to be getting higher and the egos are being frayed.
It is also good that a lot of young black men in this country will start feeling more pressure to stop making excuses and start to finally "do the right thing" as Spike Lee said in his movie.
But it is young voters in general who now seem to have the chance to control this election, and not just the Democratic nomination but who the next president will be. To me that is a good thing for all generations.
The most inspiring thing about the surge in the Obama campaign is the number of young people he is pulling into the voting booth.
I had almost given up on the 17-25'ers, or whatever the upper cutoff point is, until the South Carolina results. It almost makes me tear up to see that they are finally taking an interest in their future and seeing the vote as a way to do something about it - even if some are voting in the Republican primary.
Hopefully he will pull far enough ahead to make a contested nomination less painful for the party. At this point it seems very unlikely that Hillary Clinton will remain the presumptive nominee. The stakes seem to be getting higher and the egos are being frayed.
It is also good that a lot of young black men in this country will start feeling more pressure to stop making excuses and start to finally "do the right thing" as Spike Lee said in his movie.
But it is young voters in general who now seem to have the chance to control this election, and not just the Democratic nomination but who the next president will be. To me that is a good thing for all generations.
On Saturday, my partner and I made up our minds once and for all on which candidate we're going to vote for on Feb. 5 in California. We'd both been going back and forth for the past few months... we were solidly Clinton, then leaning Obama, then leaning Clinton and then leaning Edwards. But Saturday after seeing Obama's speech after winning South Carolina, we moved into the solidly Obama camp. I have long been a huge fan of Bill Clinton and a pretty strong Hillary supporter too, but I didn't like the way they tried to play the race card, and I was especially annoyed with some of Bill's antics.
There was a poll taken Wed.-Sat. of last week in California and it showed Hillary beating Obama by around 12 points in California, but I would not be shocked at all to see Obama get the win next Tuesday. That would be huge.
There was a poll taken Wed.-Sat. of last week in California and it showed Hillary beating Obama by around 12 points in California, but I would not be shocked at all to see Obama get the win next Tuesday. That would be huge.
I personally think Obama may win California. He has the momentum and excitement that makes a good candidate right now.
QUOTE(Frank Bruno @ Jan 28 2008, 09:47 PM)
The Kennedyization of Obama is now complete.
The re-Arkansasification of Billary is also complete. The Endorsement summarily kicked the Clintonoids back to their trailer parks and ripped the rug of mainstream Democratic Party support out from under them. At [i]this rate, even winning the primaries will be of no consequence, and a major confrontation at the convention is assured, they way it's supposed to be.
This is entirely their fault, mind you. THEY were the ones who created the two-headed tag-team by making Bill waaaaaay more visible than he should be. THEY were the ones who kept up with the racism, using phrases like "shucking and jiving", "roll the dice", and the name Jesse Jackson in the hopes that their Jim Crow smokescreen would scare voters away from Obama. They're also the ones that stand to drive a serious and destructive wedge right through the party base by turning latino voters against Obama out west. (Novak's column in the WaPo) Fat chance of talking unity in November now that the top Democratic Party brass has left their parade.
And you know what? I believed Teddy Kennedy today. Obama is the heir to RFK at the very least - and maybe JFK if he gets a chance. I can see the comparison big time.
I read that Massachusetts polls showed Clinton with a 59%-28% edge over Obama. I bet that evaporates by the end of the week.
Billary looks tired.
Ted Kennedy is an irrelevant hack. The Kennedy name is way past it prime, and JFK ws playing fast and loose on civil rights. So much for Kennedyization.
I am not necessarily a Hillary fan, but I am not convinced that Obama is ready. He is eloquent, but what will he do about the war in Iraq, the economy, and health care. It's not enough to give a good speech. We have allowed the moron who stole the election in 2000 to get on the job training, I don't want us to make that mistake again.
QUOTE(m1011 @ Jan 29 2008, 12:08 AM)
Ted Kennedy is an irrelevant hack. The Kennedy name is way past it prime, and JFK ws playing fast and loose on civil rights. So much for Kennedyization.
I am not necessarily a Hillary fan, but I am not convinced that Obama is ready. He is eloquent, but what will he do about the war in Iraq, the economy, and health care. It's not enough to give a good speech. We have allowed the moron who stole the election in 2000 to get on the job training, I don't want us to make that mistake again.
Kennedy's impact has yet to be measured, but he's probably the biggest Dem in DC (and I don't mean around the waist, though that might be true!) and he's probably got the biggest rolodex in town -- bigger than Billary's. Kennedy is a masterful campaigner who has tremendous appeal to certain segments of Democrats who Obama really really needs in the Super Tuesday primaries: older voters, white Catholic Dems, pro-choicers, enviros, Latinos and labor. The last 2 on that last are perhaps the most important. Kennedy is probably the only Dem who can go directly to Latino voters in California and talk about his brother's personal relationship with Cesar Chavez or his own personal dedication to labor unions.
It struck me last night that Kennedy's endorsement was more than just an endorsement. He practically called Obama the heir to his own brothers' aspirations and dreams. He made it personal. And he also practically called the Clintons liars, which has to endear him ever so slightly to millions. LOL
I make no effort to hide that I'm an Obama fan, but I udnerstand your hesitation about his experience. My question to you: would you rather someone who has a skilled staff but who needs a few months to get his sea legs, or someone who is ready from day one to cynically manipulate the process and public opinion for her own aggrandizement? Because believe me: the double-talking, double-dealing Clintons we saw last week are the ones we're going to be seeing for four or eight more years if she wins.
M1011 asked what would Obama do about health care, the war etc. etc.
Obama will end the war. He has said repeatedly, he will be as careful about ending the ar as we were careless about getting into the war. As far as health care he has a plan that will cover ALL Americans and make health care more affordable. I don't know specifically what his plan for the economy is, but suffice to say I believe he will have advisors and a cabinet second to none of individuals that will be ready and able to serve him and the country...like the Kennedys I see him as a visionary, and I haven't been able to say that for some time.....he also understands we need to get off of oil, NOW. WE have waited too long, and the damage is being done every day to the country and the economy.......
Obama will end the war. He has said repeatedly, he will be as careful about ending the ar as we were careless about getting into the war. As far as health care he has a plan that will cover ALL Americans and make health care more affordable. I don't know specifically what his plan for the economy is, but suffice to say I believe he will have advisors and a cabinet second to none of individuals that will be ready and able to serve him and the country...like the Kennedys I see him as a visionary, and I haven't been able to say that for some time.....he also understands we need to get off of oil, NOW. WE have waited too long, and the damage is being done every day to the country and the economy.......
QUOTE(m1011 @ Jan 29 2008, 05:08 AM)
Ted Kennedy is an irrelevant hack. The Kennedy name is way past it prime, and JFK ws playing fast and loose on civil rights. So much for Kennedyization.
Exactly. Oh to have been a fly on the wall when Bill and Hillary found out that ole Ted was backing Obama. Whats more impressive to me though is Caroline. She NEVER involves herself in this kind of thing, so for her to publicly endorse Obama and put out the new powerful ad I saw is big. Its a real fascinating election and I just wish that the Obama camp and the Clinton camp can stop all of this bickering with each other. They are both great candidates and it would be ashame if it becomes so bitter that a Clinton/Obama ticket becomes something that can't happen. Super Tuesday is obviously going to break this thing open in a big way. The thing about the Democratic process though is that there are no winner take all states, so as long as Obama can keep it close, he's still in a good position. I'll support either one who gets the nomination, but I don't like the "Clinton machine" dirtiness that has been taking place. They need to cut it. Other than that, go Hillary and go Obama.
Actually, I recall Caroline Kennedy endorsing John Kerry. (It's not like she was going to support Bush in '04, but still.) I don't recall her having much to say about the Clintons in 1992 or 1996, but then Bill and Hillary did develop a relationship (acqaintance) with Jackie O. before she died. She even had them to her estate on Martha's Vineyard.
Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary did receive a Kennedy endorsement: Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who failed in her gubernatorial run, because she dissed black folks in Maryland, thus helping Bob Ehrlich to become the first Republican governor of that state in a while. Maybe Billary weren't really thinking that one out too clearly, huh?
Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary did receive a Kennedy endorsement: Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who failed in her gubernatorial run, because she dissed black folks in Maryland, thus helping Bob Ehrlich to become the first Republican governor of that state in a while. Maybe Billary weren't really thinking that one out too clearly, huh?
To bad I don't live in Boise, as I read where Obama is coming to pay a visit there soon, otherwise I also read where an Obama office is opening up here in Spokane. Woo-Hoo!!!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.