Have you watched any of the debates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Printable View
Have you watched any of the debates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Yes, I saw one last week. The one in which Hillary and Obama kept lashing out at each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Next thing I see, is Obama speeching that 'that kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all'. All this, in a speech in which Obama does the very opposite of what he says he is doing. The first half is one big smear against Hillary. The second half is one big promise that he will rid politics from smear.
So I might have been impressed with the speech if Obama would've had the courtesy to put his money where his mouth is.
Obama has as much campaign money as Hillary, and he is as prepared to use dirty tricks. The difference is that Hillary is less hypocritical about it. She always fights with the gloves off, and, unlike Obama, doesn't have to pretend that she isn't just to keep her image up. That's why she'd be an excellent president, and Obama a major disappointment once the novelty has worn off.
1. Holy frijoles, I did not expect Obama to win by that much.
2. Louis, Most of Obama's policies are actually pretty similar to Hillary's. That's why you don't here him talk about them. Him and Hillary are trying to illustrate the differences between each other during the primaries.
3. Nice speech.
4. Hillary's campaign has been incredibly dirty. She can't use the "Republicans are going to tear him apart" excuse anymore. She didn't leave them any dirt to dig up on Obama.
Hillary will fall in the general election, Louis. She's used the excuse of how Bill isn't running to dodge any and all questions about him. But now he's back in the game, and the GOP will be giddy with what they can unleash. Especially if McCain is on the ticket.
CR
I don't think so, Caius. These state-by-state discussions are a product of how these nominating events are scheduled. Next week, we have Florida, and the following week "Super Tuesday", where 24 states all vote on the same day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caius
So, I think you'll see fewer US election-related threads after that, until late August, when the 2 major parties hold their actual nominating conventions.
And then again in November, when the REAL voting actually occurs.
So are you favoring McCain now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Rassmussen said Romney has a 6% lead in Florida today. He is out if he doesn't win this. America deserves a race between Romney and Obama.
I would be so dissapointed with a Hillary McCain race. Republicans would vote for McCain just to stop her, rather than because he should be pres (which he shouldn't). We all know how anti-campaigns go - especially with a candidate who has no business being president (Kerry '04). We have seen how fogies fare against young charisma and momentum (Dole '96 - in the case of McCain vs Obama).
McCain is obviously approaching senility a year away from the election at 71 years of age, Do you honestly believe that the oldest President in in history is what we need right now (not just directed to you CR)?
Also, McCain has a Bi-polar relationship with the G.O.P. - he is favored now, but just months ago he was hauling his own bags flying economy and delivering his speeches to 50 people. I will bet you that he fizzles more than any candidate closer to crunch time - and that he picks Huckabee as his running mate. We all know that McCain is adept at tearing into Republicans and their policies, but he hasn't shown me a reason to suggest that he can lead the party.
I'm thinking McCain as VP.
CR
He would make a great VP electability wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Absolutely, but I think that McCain is blowing any chance of a partnership between the two, come what may.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I completely agree. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I'm truly mystified by the rockstar awe people have of Obama. What has he done other than pull of a few good speeches? Big Deal. ~:handball: Has anyone taken the time to actually to go to his website and read up on the positions that he tries so hard not to talk about?
I don't like any of the candidates currently running. The only thing left to determine is which one I dislike the least.... I definitely have a lot of reservations about McCain but, at the moment, he's probably the least unpalatable of the bunch for me. If it were up to me, I'd disqualify all of them and ask for a new batch on both sides.
I swear, at this point, Ron Paul is starting to sound good... :sweatdrop:
So, Xiahou, are you waiting for the real candidates, or for the U.S. citizenry to say 'MULLIGAN! Start this over!' :laugh4:
What I want to know is if you think that everyone who supports a candidate doesn't know what they're supporting? I think that while there may be some who are still blank on the issue, they have a fair to good grasp on where the candidates stand. While they probably can't quote it like scripture, everyone has a general sense of the candidates. Besides, the Democrat candidates have some similar opinions, it's only how you choose to say it. It's your opinion, just like that was mine.
Xiahou seems to be channeling Homer Simpsons's epiphany: "When will people learn? Democracy doesn't work!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Glad to hear you're ready to kiss and make up with Mac, BTW.
Ew. Not until there are no other options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
For the Dems:
Obama is getting all the buzz because SC was a notch higher than expected in his win column. He did better with older/more traditional dems than anyone expected and he picked up the "Camelot" crowd for whatever that is worth.
Obama has made great strides in funding and organization, and has a real chance to unseat Clinton during the first mega-Tuesday vote. His appeal among Democrat African-descent voters is strong and his appeal among the under 35 Dem voters is huge.
However, Clinton has had lots more funding for lot longer, has had more state party organizations behind her for longer, and is willing to be more politically ruthless than Obama has so far demonstrated.
This one is NOT over yet and will not be decided on the 5th. Perhaps a 60-40 win on 2/5 will create the snowball for one or the other, but I think it will be early March before the Dems wrap up their choice.
Either way, the Dems are far from unbeatable in November. Hillary, for all her wit and pelf, carries lots of negatives with voters. She is the most polarizing of Dems. Obama, while far more "likeable" and charming, carries his greatest level of support among those who show up at the polls in the fewest numbers. Remember, the activists who vote in primaries and caucuses (cauci?) are a small slice of the pie compared to the general voters. SC, which Obama seems to have won somewhere between "clear" and "heroic," has only voted for the Dem candidate in the General Election 4 times since the 2nd World War -- and three of those were during the last of the "machine" era "Dixiecrat" elections of 1952, 1956, adn 1960. The ONLY Dem to win in SC was the Georgian Jimmy Carter who had the advantage of Watergate going in.
Thank you. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Full of sound and fury that one is. "Vice President" written all over him. Let's see how his "policies" change as he swings back toward the middle for the general election.
This is absurd.
Dr. Juan Hernandez, McCain's Hispanic outreach director: “We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.”
Juan Hernandez
Quote:
TANCREDO: I had a great argument one time with a gentleman by the name of Juan Hernandez who was at that time the minister of that ministry that I just mentioned, the Ministry for Mexicans Living in the United States.
And I asked him that very question. What he told me the purpose of his ministry was to push people into the United States, it was to—by the way, it was also AFC work with them so that they did—he was with the community, he said. He was three days a week in the United States, four in Mexico.
By the way, he himself is a dual citizen born in Texas, university—teaching at the University of Texas and on the Vicente Fox cabinet. And he said, “I work with the community in the United States, the Mexican community because I don‘t want them essentially going native on us. We want them continually tied emotionally, linguistically, politically to Mexico, because then they‘ll continue to send money home.”
And I said to him, that does not sound like—you know, you‘re doing something that‘s actually the act of an unfriendly government.
CARLSON: Well, of course, it doesn‘t in any way serve American interests. It undermines our country in a pretty direct and direct and obvious way.
TANCREDO: Tucker, his response. Let me tell you his response.
CARLSON: Yes.
TANCREDO: At the end he goes, “Congressman,” in an incredibly condescending way. He goes, “Congressman, it‘s not two countries; it‘s just a region.”
CARLSON: That is not my view, to put it mildly.
TANCREDO: Not mine either.
Quote:
****Now, incredibly, Juan Hernandez is GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s Hispanic Outreach Director. He is, as my Nevada reader wrote, a sovereignty-undermining extremist who “whose views and interests are so clearly anti-security and not in the interest of the American people or for that matter us legal Hispanic immigrants.”
I repeat: Geraldo Rivera Republican John McCain has learned nothing from the shamnesty debacle.
Next stop for his friend Juan Hernandez: DHS Secretary?
:shrug: Are you surprised?
As for me, I'll get the galleons seaworthy again. :titanic: :whip:
In other news: B
1)Billary decided to break its pledge not to campaign in Florida here
2) Sharpton tells Bill to shut his race baiting face here
3) Nader rips Hillary a new hole (funny word play comes to mind regarding Bill, but it is not PG-13 so it has been censored) here
Also, instead of running as the former President's wife, now she's trying to run as... Women in General! NOW NY supporters are claiming that Hillary has a right to be President because she is a woman. anyone who would stand in her way based on logic or ability is a traitor to women!
Quote:
“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.
“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.
“This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”
You'll have to pardon me for kicking a man while he's down, but I just found out that Rudy thinks it would be great if you needed a Real ID card to get online.
Anyone who supported this muppet is how encouraged to insult themselves.
I'm 50% happy. Rudy is going down like the Lusitania, now all we need is for Billary to go down like the Batavia. Then I'll be a 100% happy lemur.
Yea, that would be nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
OK, everybody who had to look up Batavia raise your hand.
:Kukri raises hand feebly:
Nice simile, Lemur. :bow: I wondered what an Illinois town had to do with that. :)
I'm reposting this clip for the express purpose of making Xiahou and Louis have aneurysms. A small-c conservative writes:
As a libertarian-minded conservative, I agree with almost nothing of Barack Obama's actual policy positions. Whether it is with education, health care, or fiscal matters, Obama is a liberal in the truest sense of the word. He fails to respect federalism and his policies can often border on socialism. Indeed, I have trouble identifying any policy positions of Obama's that appeal to me. In short, I think Barack Obama would make a terrible Head of Government.
Yet, as David Kopel has deftly noted, the Head of State is an entirely different role altogether, and regardless of your ideological perspective, there is something tremendously appealing about Obama. Indeed, several of his recent speeches - his Iowa victory, a speech on MLK Jr. Day, and the South Carolina victory - have given me goosebumps and caused me to swell with pride at being an American.
-edit-
Is the Batavia that obscure? I referenced it since it involves mutiny and cannibalism. I note with dismay that the Wiki article doesn't even touch on some of the more lurid aspects of the Batavia wreck. It's really, really nasty. Check it out sometime ...
I 100% agree. I just wish he could have been a pro-life Republican. He could just as easily be from the speeches he makes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
1. Actually she held a couple "fundraisers" in Florida, and that [sc] definitely doesn't could as campaigning, including the photo-op on the tarmac [/sc]
2. He's said something I can agree with.
3. Nader, well, good job.
4. Oh okay, so we can elect a female president, just because it hasn't occurred before. We just can't elect an African-American one, because he's a guy.
This got my goat, and swung it around, and then smashed it into a bolder. I can handle a woman president, just not this one. Yea, duh! It's not like I'm trying to hold back women's rights or degrading them, it's just that I don't think she should lead the country! For Pete's sake, is that a crime?Quote:
He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one).
The only woman Ted Kennedy supports is a St. Pauli Girl, as it goes from glass to mouth. But women are welcome in his Oldsmobile any time. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by TSM's quote
This is what I love about the Democratic Party. All the minorities and "oppressed" at each others throats for their slice of the pie. Should get really juicy as Clinton courts the Hispanic vote for California's primary on Super Tuesday.
Another blogger on Obama, saying things Louis won't like:
He is not a traditional top-down big government liberal. He's a pragmatist who believes in finding ways to empower people to run their own lives. No, he's no libertarian. But his view of government's role has absorbed some of the right-wing critiques of the 1970s and 1980s. Hence the lack of mandates in his healthcare proposal and his refusal to engage in racial victimology. This nuance is worth exploring. Unlike Hillary, he doesn't believe he is going to save anyone. He thinks he has a chance to help some people save themselves.
Haha, I thought he meant Bavaria... "Yeah, they don't exist any more, so I suppose they did go down..." was pretty much my thought process.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
(PS - new laptop! Happy Birthday CountArach!)
:groan: Don't remind me. Hers are the first adverts to appear on local TV stations here. I've seen 3 versions so far, all aimed at Hispanics.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
p.s. Congrats on the new lappy, CA! :balloon2:
I had an epifanie about the sudden show of support for Obama. This could be an internal power struggle in the Democratic party. Bill Clinton, as head of the party and former president, would have a lot of power if he was co-president. Since the man absorbs far more light than he reflects I think the other dems are afraid their piece of the pie will get smaller if Billary is elected. I doubt Ted's support and that of others is genuine, or even a reaction against the dirty tricks pulled by the Clintons (He and far too many democrats love playing dirty).Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Are they willing to take this gamble? Are they hedging their bets? I bet you'll see (and not see :sneaky: ) active support from other members of the democrat establishment. Bill's wrath is harsh and everyone knows it. Once they're in, they're in.
Sorry guys but Obama is weak. With him as president and the Clintons marginalized the old sharks will be taking bites of dark meat. Now, how will this manifest itself? I don't think we'll really know until Obama gets into the general election. Watch how much his views change and on what to see how the bottom feeders will react.
It's sad really, we have lost all military expertise with a rare exception. That exception isn't acceptable in my opinion. Oh, and did anyone hear about the rumor of Edward's role in an Obama presidency? Was that here? Attorney General or something*. I can't wait to see his other cabinet choices.
Does anyone want to expand on this or throw rotten fruit at me?
Oh, and are you Europeans sick of hearing about this election crap? French politics are much more fun.
*Damn the .org! I keep wanting to type a "u" after an "o".
Vladimir, I'd rather see Obama lose the general election than Billary.