U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread

Obama or McCain/Democrat or Republican..you decide

  • McCain

    Votes: 14 7.5%

  • Obama

    Votes: 173 92.5%
  • Total voters
    187
  • Poll closed .
Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.
 
The 'first black president' has proved he was no such thing with his treatment of the likely second

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/14/uselections2008.barackobama

Alexander Chancellor

No president of the United States has ever attracted as much trust and affection from African-Americans as Bill Clinton. They felt comfortable with him, and he with them. More than any of his predecessors, he convinced them that he really understood and cared about them. Above all, he did not condescend to them. So at ease did he seem with America's black minority, so open and sincere in his defence of their rights, that Toni Morrison, winner of the 1993 Nobel prize for literature, chose to describe him as the country's "first black president".

But now the love affair is over, a casualty of the bitter battle for supremacy between Hillary Clinton and a genuinely black aspirant to the presidency. And the reason it has soured is not the predictable appeal of Barack Obama to his fellow African-Americans, but the disillusionment generated by the shabby way the Clinton camp has conducted its campaign.

It was Bill Clinton himself who started the rot by implying in his comments on Obama's victory in South Carolina that any African-American candidate would have won there, as Jesse Jackson once did - in other words, that Obama was just a marginal candidate who, like Jackson, garnered votes from African-Americans because of the colour of his skin. Not only was Clinton wrong about that, as Obama's support among white Americans has proved; he left many African-Americans feeling betrayed, their hero suddenly seeming no more than an old-time white politician exploiting racial prejudices for electoral gain.

Then there was Hillary's television advertisement about whom Americans would trust to answer the red telephone if it rang in the White House at 3am. The ad, showing vulnerable white children asleep in their beds, suggested that Hillary, with her White House experience, would be better equipped than her Democratic rival to protect them from danger. There was nothing overtly racist about this, but in the view of Orlando Patterson, a Harvard professor of sociology who has spent his life studying racism in America, it carried an unmistakable "racist sub-message".

Writing this week in the New York Times, he said that the ad played on the deep-rooted white American fear of the black man as a secret enemy. "The message: our loved ones are in danger, and only Mrs Clinton can save them," he claimed. "An Obama presidency would be dangerous - and not just because of his lack of experience. In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within."

Whether this interpretation is correct or not - and personally, I find it convincing - there is the additional fact that during the same weekend that the ad was aired, Hillary Clinton refused to quash unequivocally the rumours that Obama was a Muslim, even though she must have known perfectly well that he is not, or indeed to explain why it would have been so bad if he were.

All of this, however, palls before the grotesque intervention of her supporter Geraldine Ferraro, the former vice-presidential candidate. Ferraro (who was forced to resign from Hillary's campaign team because of her remarks) said in a press interview that Obama's success in the campaign was due to the fact that he was black. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she said. "And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."

Obama retorted that he didn't think either his colour or his name could be listed as assets in his campaign for the presidency, and it would be difficult to disagree with him. Ferraro was obviously talking rubbish.

What she was also doing, as the Clintons had been doing less explicitly, was trying to undermine Obama's impressive efforts to rise above America's history of racial division and present himself as a unifying candidate. In their desperation to halt his rise, they have sought to persuade voters that he is trading on his blackness, whereas in fact he has been doing his utmost to transcend it.

The sad thing is that the Clintons are so terrified of losing their new chance of power that they are prepared to squander one of the finest achievements of Bill Clinton's presidency in order to prevail in the Democratic race. They don't deserve to succeed, and I hope they won't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, I enjoy this analysis.
 
Pennypacker said:
We haven't been in a recession for the last 8 years. If you choose to frame things that way, then the Clinton terms could be blamed for 9/11 and the following conflicts. It is an overly simplistic view of things. Of course, the respective party hardliners love making those pitches to their sheep, so you might have a point.
Click to expand...

Technically, since second and third quarter 2001 - 6 and 3/4 years.
 
Frosty said:
The 'first black president' has proved he was no such thing with his treatment of the likely second

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/14/uselections2008.barackobama

Alexander Chancellor

No president of the United States has ever attracted as much trust and affection from African-Americans as Bill Clinton. They felt comfortable with him, and he with them. More than any of his predecessors, he convinced them that he really understood and cared about them. Above all, he did not condescend to them. So at ease did he seem with America's black minority, so open and sincere in his defence of their rights, that Toni Morrison, winner of the 1993 Nobel prize for literature, chose to describe him as the country's "first black president".

But now the love affair is over, a casualty of the bitter battle for supremacy between Hillary Clinton and a genuinely black aspirant to the presidency. And the reason it has soured is not the predictable appeal of Barack Obama to his fellow African-Americans, but the disillusionment generated by the shabby way the Clinton camp has conducted its campaign.

It was Bill Clinton himself who started the rot by implying in his comments on Obama's victory in South Carolina that any African-American candidate would have won there, as Jesse Jackson once did - in other words, that Obama was just a marginal candidate who, like Jackson, garnered votes from African-Americans because of the colour of his skin. Not only was Clinton wrong about that, as Obama's support among white Americans has proved; he left many African-Americans feeling betrayed, their hero suddenly seeming no more than an old-time white politician exploiting racial prejudices for electoral gain.

Then there was Hillary's television advertisement about whom Americans would trust to answer the red telephone if it rang in the White House at 3am. The ad, showing vulnerable white children asleep in their beds, suggested that Hillary, with her White House experience, would be better equipped than her Democratic rival to protect them from danger. There was nothing overtly racist about this, but in the view of Orlando Patterson, a Harvard professor of sociology who has spent his life studying racism in America, it carried an unmistakable "racist sub-message".

Writing this week in the New York Times, he said that the ad played on the deep-rooted white American fear of the black man as a secret enemy. "The message: our loved ones are in danger, and only Mrs Clinton can save them," he claimed. "An Obama presidency would be dangerous - and not just because of his lack of experience. In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within."

Whether this interpretation is correct or not - and personally, I find it convincing - there is the additional fact that during the same weekend that the ad was aired, Hillary Clinton refused to quash unequivocally the rumours that Obama was a Muslim, even though she must have known perfectly well that he is not, or indeed to explain why it would have been so bad if he were.

All of this, however, palls before the grotesque intervention of her supporter Geraldine Ferraro, the former vice-presidential candidate. Ferraro (who was forced to resign from Hillary's campaign team because of her remarks) said in a press interview that Obama's success in the campaign was due to the fact that he was black. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she said. "And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."

Obama retorted that he didn't think either his colour or his name could be listed as assets in his campaign for the presidency, and it would be difficult to disagree with him. Ferraro was obviously talking rubbish.

What she was also doing, as the Clintons had been doing less explicitly, was trying to undermine Obama's impressive efforts to rise above America's history of racial division and present himself as a unifying candidate. In their desperation to halt his rise, they have sought to persuade voters that he is trading on his blackness, whereas in fact he has been doing his utmost to transcend it.

The sad thing is that the Clintons are so terrified of losing their new chance of power that they are prepared to squander one of the finest achievements of Bill Clinton's presidency in order to prevail in the Democratic race. They don't deserve to succeed, and I hope they won't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, I enjoy this analysis.
Click to expand...
Prof going on about the phone call having racist undertones is bollocks though.
 
Instant Karma said:
Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.




Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.
Click to expand...

So the Republicans vote for Clinton and get her nominated.The Economy collapses and the republicans get a kicking.Clinton becomes president because the republicans hate her.Now that would sting a bit,I imagine.
 
Instant Karma said:
Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.
Click to expand...


This dont suprise me but even with this obama won more delegates in Texas won by over 100k votes in Mississippi.


This really proves that Hillary is just more of the same. Seems the Republicans like the current state of affairs in this country. How deluded can they really be?
 
Cal? said:
Right, so under every scenario, Hillary would win more delegates in those 2 states but you 2 think they should be 50/50... a real comeback from the "democratic" process you've been harping on about...

If the nomination is given to Obama by small margin, you not only have driven away the hispanics who don't like Obama, the old women who won't vote for Obama, now you've succeeded in driving FL (one of the vital states in a general election) to the McCain column.... great idea.
Click to expand...


I tend to disagree Obama would be very competitive in Michigan as he was in Wisconsin and will be in indiana.

Florida with a chance to revote he would certainly cut into hillary's margin of victory.

I voted for edwards along with over 225k floridians they wont all go to her.

If you want more of the same vote for her and watch all of the division in washington get worse.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I just remember the "its the economy stupid" comments getting Clinton's ball rolling.The economic data we get about the US on the news over here makes it look like a pretty grim run up to an election.
Click to expand...

John Kerry claimed in 2004 that we had "the worst economy since the Great Depression". Chuck Shumer (a very high profile Hillary Clinton supporter) has compared Bush to Herbert Hoover.

This is a key element of the Democratic Playbook against an incumbent Republican, although for once there is actually a great deal of cause for concern.
 
manufanatic said:
This dont suprise me but even with this obama won more delegates in Texas won by over 100k votes in Mississippi.


This really proves that Hillary is just more of the same. Seems the Republicans like the current state of affairs in this country. How deluded can they really be?
Click to expand...

These insane retards think that they are better off running against Clinton.

The fact is that this is driven by Rush Limbaugh's damaged ego when McCain got the nomination in spite of 3 hours of invective every day for two months. His pride is hurt, so he's trying to prove how clever he is with his grand strategy.

If Clinton is the nominee, she will do anything to win. Limbaugh will then blame McCain, who he hates anyway, and absolve himself from any blame.

When you have a chance to put the stake in the vampire, you don't decide to wait until tomorrow to do it. The Clintons are political vampires who suck the blood out of the country for the sake of their own need for power.
 
jasonrh said:
These insane retards think that they are better off running against Clinton.

The fact is that this is driven by Rush Limbaugh's damaged ego when McCain got the nomination in spite of 3 hours of invective every day for two months. His pride is hurt, so he's trying to prove how clever he is with his grand strategy.

If Clinton is the nominee, she will do anything to win. Limbaugh will then blame McCain, who he hates anyway, and absolve himself from any blame.

When you have a chance to put the stake in the vampire, you don't decide to wait until tomorrow to do it. The Clintons are political vampires who suck the blood out of the country for the sake of their own need for power.
Click to expand...

...well put....Clintons are dirty fighters...Obama imo would be a more straight forward fight for McCain.....

I actually think HRC, who I'm sure is behind the pastor story....may have damaged Obama pretty good here....he is supposed to give a major speech on race tomorrow......

all very interesting....
 
jasonrh said:
These insane retards think that they are better off running against Clinton.

The fact is that this is driven by Rush Limbaugh's damaged ego when McCain got the nomination in spite of 3 hours of invective every day for two months. His pride is hurt, so he's trying to prove how clever he is with his grand strategy.

If Clinton is the nominee, she will do anything to win. Limbaugh will then blame McCain, who he hates anyway, and absolve himself from any blame.

When you have a chance to put the stake in the vampire, you don't decide to wait until tomorrow to do it. The Clintons are political vampires who suck the blood out of the country for the sake of their own need for power.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I am not buying this.If ever you get a steak you eat it straight away.Of that I am certain.

:)


With regards to the voting for Clinton issue.It is a very dangerous game to play.If she gets the nomination the momentum will swing.Is there any running mate she could choose to offset the resentful black supporters not turning out,other than her current opponent.
 
I find it strange.... throughout the nineties, all the slurs against the Clintons were the fault of the Republicans.

Now she is fighting dirty against a fellow Democrat, all of a sudden the Clintons have been nasty pieces of work all along. This does indicate that the Republican 'slurs' may well have all been true.

Or am I reading this incorrectly?
 
Frosty said:
I find it strange.... throughout the nineties, all the slurs against the Clintons were the fault of the Republicans.

Now she is fighting dirty against a fellow Democrat, all of a sudden the Clintons have been nasty pieces of work all along. This does indicate that the Republican 'slurs' may well have all been true.

Or am I reading this incorrectly?
Click to expand...
Democrats have dug themselves into a big hole.
One one hand, they have exposed Obama as the hippy child he can be portrayed as, on the other Clinton as everything that is wrong with politics. While McCain is developing a reputation as someone who is in the middle. Even though if Mccain gets elected, nothing would really change. It would be like another Bush reign.
 
Red Dreams said:
....he is supposed to give a major speech on race tomorrow......
Click to expand...

Text of his speech -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/u...&ei=5087&em&en=ee9b37a72e4cff50&ex=1206072000

It may have been an honest, frank and insightful speech but is it over for him?

The one thing that a black man called Barack Hussein Obama didnt need was his patriotism and committment to the country repeatedly called into question (His wife's comments about being proud of America for the first time, 'God damn America' from his pastor). Especially not when he would be up against a genuine war hero.
 
I was just about sick of all the coverage of his speech yesterday. Whenever I'd switch to the news channels all they would talk about was his speech. Ten hours of speech coverage. I hate the media sometimes.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Sorry but I am not buying this.If ever you get a steak you eat it straight away.Of that I am certain.

:)


With regards to the voting for Clinton issue.It is a very dangerous game to play.If she gets the nomination the momentum will swing.Is there any running mate she could choose to offset the resentful black supporters not turning out,other than her current opponent.
Click to expand...

I'm such a fat bastard I ate the stake and then had Draculbobs.

Nothing like a bit of sun-seared vampire with some potatoes and a garnish of garlic.
 
Frosty said:
I find it strange.... throughout the nineties, all the slurs against the Clintons were the fault of the Republicans.

Now she is fighting dirty against a fellow Democrat, all of a sudden the Clintons have been nasty pieces of work all along. This does indicate that the Republican 'slurs' may well have all been true.

Or am I reading this incorrectly?
Click to expand...

No, you're not.

We was right all along. They are dirt.

I've had those who spent 15 years supporting the Clintons no matter what now admitting to me that yes, we were right, and yes, they distracted us from the real things that needed to be accomplished. I started this message including a list of those things, but it took up half of the post.

We spent an entire decade in siege mode, all for the sake of a couple of crooked manipulative sociopathic power freaks.

The difference is that the media (who are mainly liberal) chose Clinton because it was better than a fourth Reagan term. Leftists in the media and the Democrats then found out that they had sold their souls to the devil, and there was no salvation in sight.

The reason the mainstream media (aside from ex-Clintons in the media, like George Snuffaluffagus) are flocking to Obama and now exposing the Clintons is because like a battered spouse who suddenly meets a new caring man who will protect her, they finally have the guts to bolt from their abuser.

Also, there has been a huge end to the stranglehold that a dozen or so media outlets had over the public 20 years ago, meaning that information which starts off on the internet, radio, or YouTube now end up plastered all over the place forcing the mainstream media to cover the stories.

At first this was a right wing phenomenon, but ironically it was the Clintons who took it into the internet in a real and significant way via MoveOn.Org.

The process begun by anti-war activist throwing Terry McCauliffe and the Clintonistas under the bus at MoveOn.Org by the Howard Dean crowd will be completed with an Obama nomination.

The King is dead. Long live the King.
 
olesmyhero said:
I was just about sick of all the coverage of his speech yesterday. Whenever I'd switch to the news channels all they would talk about was his speech. Ten hours of speech coverage. I hate the media sometimes.
Click to expand...

I was a lot more sick of the coverage of those sermons in a 24/7 loop.

An entire career of fighting for social justice and leading the most powerful black church in the country summed up by Sean Hannity in 45 seconds of clips.

I still fail to see what the fuss was about some of the comments. The eight that are harped upon by the Self-Righteous-Pompous-Middle-Class-White Brigade only actually contain one falsehood that is arguably truly offensive, and even it needs to be placed in context.

1) "He did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky...he was ridin' dirty" - true. The Clintons have long tried to encourage racial division for the sake of their own political aims while having no desire whatsoever to actually help the black community. Bill's sole reason for the claim to being the first black president was his being a serial adulterer who wasn't very well liked by David Duke.

2) Supporting the Black Work Ethic - and? The black community needs special support from black organisations because it isn't like anyone else is going to do it. Like, say, Geraldine Ferrarro or Hillary Clinton.

3) "God Damn America!" - much ado about nothing. In the context of his speech about social inequities it makes total and perfect sense. It is a condemnation of ignored disparities between the average American of colour and the average white American rather than an active call for God to set his wrath down on the nation.

4) "The US of KKK-A" - again, so what? He's making the point that America still has had huge racial problems, and he comes from an era that actually had an active KKK.

We had a former Grand Dragon of the KKK (basically the leading sheet-wearer/cross-burner/lyncher of a whole state) Democratic Senate Majority Leader who was a Grand Dragon of the KKK as recently as 1989, and he's now the venerated Dean of the US Senate. He spoke of "niggers" on TV as recently as in 2001. Until 2003 the Republican Dean of the Senate was a man who ran as a 'Dixiecrat' for president with a segregationist platform - he then became a Democrat again and later of Republican. These two led the active fillibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A 2005 retiree from the Senate was Ernest Hollings, who as Governor of South Carolina restored the Confederate flag to the state capital building as a part of his segregationist policies. The vast majority of Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And the Democrats are supposed to be the pro-black party.

Hell, John Kennedy, the standard against which all young Democrats are still judged, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 - the only such act he had a chance to vote for in his short Congressional career - and after promising to get a new one passed did feck all in his three years in office.

5) "Hillary ain't ever been called nigger" - true. And again, the Dean of Democrats in the Senate spoke of "niggers" in a tv interview as recently as in 2001.

6) The US sponsors state terrorism against the Palestinians...9/11 is...our chickens coming home to roost" - many on the left believe this and expressed these sentiments. If anything this should help him amongst the anti-war crowd on a day Hillary gave a speech claiming Obama was lying about taking the truth out.

7) The Tuskegee Experiment - absolutely true. The US of KKK-A did conduct experiments on injecting blacks with syphillis. The so-called "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male" lasted from 1932-1972, which is just unbelievablely horrible and something the vast majority of Hannity-types or the blue-collar white Democrats who are leaning Hillary have never heard of. God damn us for that, I'll totally agree with him there.

8) AIDS was designed as an instrument of Genocide on blacks - hogwash, obviously. But grounded in fears that are based on the above incidents, and something which has been expressed by black social justice crusaders of the Civil Rights era a lot more than the average white (who couldn't give a damn) knows.

Wright comes from an era of angry (rightfully so) and active opposition to much of the white community as a part of the Civil Rights struggle. To ignore that is to completely disown America's shady past.

Obama IS a post-racial candidate from a post-racial generation. If he gets thrown under the bus because he had to kiss the rings of powerful elders in the black community who have different views than he does, and come from a different era, then we have learned nothing as a racially divided society scuppers the bid of the first post-racial candidate.
 
crappycraperson said:
Democrats have dug themselves into a big hole.
One one hand, they have exposed Obama as the hippy child he can be portrayed as, on the other Clinton as everything that is wrong with politics. While McCain is developing a reputation as someone who is in the middle. Even though if Mccain gets elected, nothing would really change. It would be like another Bush reign.
Click to expand...

McCain would dramatically cut back pork barrel spending, but our foreign policy would change very little.

Spending has spiraled wildly out of control in recent years, and McCain really is honestly pissed off about it - in face he coined the phrase "bridge to nowhere" which the Democrats used as a symbol of Republican excesses in 2006.

Supreme Court nominees might choose to be the big difference, and while I feel we need more conservatives to curb legislative powers (like in the case of imminent domain to increase tax revenues), I think we're going significantly backwards in the police power department - almost nothing seems to be a step too far these days.
 
Jason, it seems you're twisting every story in Obama's favour much like Red Dreams.
 
Times on Line 21-3-08

Barack Obama has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his pastor’s inflammatory remarks and the issue has become a serious threat to his presidential ambitions, polls suggest.

The surveys released yesterday point to an erosion of Mr Obama’s support among independents, a bloc that has previously backed him in overwhelming numbers, and particular alienation among white, working-class voters who will be critical to the general election in November.

They appear disturbed by the Illinois senator’s refusal to disown the Rev Jeremiah Wright in a keynote speech he delivered on Tuesday — an address that he was forced to give to try to defuse the outrage caused by the emergence of his former pastor’s videotaped, incendiary sermons.

A new national Gallup tracking poll shows Hillary Clinton regaining her lead over Mr Obama for the first time in a month, now leading 49 per cent to 42, a 13-point shift to the former First Lady in less than a fortnight.

Mrs Clinton also holds a 16-point lead over Mr Obama in Pennsylvania, their next contest on April 22. In addition, Mr Obama has lost his once-commanding lead among independent voters to John McCain, the Republican nominee, in a new CBS poll. The survey shows Mr McCain with leads over both Democrats, a sign of how their protracted battle threatens to damage the eventual nominee.

Despite praise for Mr Obama’s speech, when he used the controversy to challenge America to move beyond its current racial tensions, aides to Mrs Clinton believe that the Wright controversy offers the former First Lady perhaps her best chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

Republican strategists believe that the rage-filled sermons, in which Mr Wright declares “God damn America”, blames US foreign policy for the September 11 attacks, criticises Israel and levels racist insults against the Clintons, offers them a powerful way to destroy Mr Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee. Mr Wright was the Illinois senator’s “spiritual mentor” for nearly two decades. After initial denials, Mr Obama admitted in Tuesday’s speech that he had witnessed "controversial” sermons.

Many Republicans who viewed Mrs Clinton as the easier candidate to beat in November are now reconsidering that opinion. Mr Wright’s comments are so appalling, they believe, that they are a political gift that will keep on giving if the Illinois senator becomes Mr McCain’s opponent. It is a fact Mrs Clinton’s aides are privately impressing upon the Democratic party’s so-called super-delegates — the congressmen, senators and officials now likely to determine the nomination.

A video, financed by a wealthy conservative, has appeared on YouTube, splicing together the pastor’s most incendiary comments, and footage including Mr Obama not putting his hand on his heart during the national anthem and images of Malcolm X.

Last night a member of Mr McCain’s campaign was suspended for circulating the video. A spokeswoman for Mr McCain said: “We have been very clear on the type of campaign we intend to run and this staffer acted in violation of our policy.”

Mrs Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination narrowed significantly this week when her efforts to force re-votes in the disputed primary states of Florida and Michigan appeared doomed. With only ten contests left Mr Obama has a virtually impregnable lead among elected delegates but neither candidate is likely to reach the 2,024 needed to clinch the nomination.

This means that the most important audience for both candidates are the super-delegates. Mr Obama is arguing that they should back the candidate who emerges with the most elected delegates — a powerful case that many senior Democrats, including the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, favour.

Central to Mrs Clinton’s strategy is to persuade enough super-delegates that she is the more electable general election candidate. Her greatest chance of wooing super-delegates now is to shake their faith in Mr Obama’s electability, and Mr Wright has provided her with her best chance to do that.
 
Topper,

Obama has addressed the crazy preacher issue, but the cable news networks (proving CNN is now as bad as Fox) will not stop with the negative propaganda.

This might prove to be damaging to the news media overall. More and more people are thinking and voting the exact opposite of what the media intends.

We'll see what happens... One thing is for sure, the USA can no long tout that it has the freedom of the press, any longer. The volume of punditry has reached a level of what a classic theocracy would look like.
 
ooeat0meoo said:
Topper,

Obama has addressed the crazy preacher issue, but the cable news networks (proving CNN is now as bad as Fox) will not stop with the negative propaganda.

This might prove to be damaging to the news media overall. More and more people are thinking and voting the exact opposite of what the media intends.

We'll see what happens... One thing is for sure, the USA can no long tout that it has the freedom of the press, any longer. The volume of punditry has reached a level of what a classic theocracy would look like.
Click to expand...

great post mate....

IF this had to happen...this was the best time for the pastor issue to come out....still several weeks for PA and several months to Nov.
and all the overload on the media is going to turn people off....

by November it will all be about the economy......and people will look at what the candidates plans will be to turn it around....

one other factor...when we elect a president...its about character....there are two candidates who imo have that...and HRC is not one of them...
 
Red Dreams said:
great post mate....

IF this had to happen...this was the best time for the pastor issue to come out....still several weeks for PA and several months to Nov.
and all the overload on the media is going to turn people off....

by November it will all be about the economy......and people will look at what the candidates plans will be to turn it around....

one other factor...when we elect a president...its about character....there are two candidates who imo have that...and HRC is not one of them...
Click to expand...

No wonder there's been 8 years of Bush... :rolleyes:
 
ooeat0meoo said:
Topper,

Obama has addressed the crazy preacher issue, but the cable news networks (proving CNN is now as bad as Fox) will not stop with the negative propaganda.

This might prove to be damaging to the news media overall. More and more people are thinking and voting the exact opposite of what the media intends.

We'll see what happens... One thing is for sure, the USA can no long tout that it has the freedom of the press, any longer. The volume of punditry has reached a level of what a classic theocracy would look like.
Click to expand...


isn't that a tad strong wasn't it The Washington Times that first reported on the breaches with Obama passport .

As for TV News you may well be correct - I await a comment from the Republican Caff quarter
 
3 candidates' passport files breached

BY DESMOND BUTLER and ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writers
1 minute ago


WASHINGTON (AP) — The passport files of the three presidential candidates — Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain — have been breached, the State Department said Friday.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the breaches of McCain and Clinton's passport files were not discovered until Friday, after officials were made aware of the privacy breach regarding Obama's records and a separate search was conducted.

McCormack said the individual who accessed Obama's files also reviewed McCain's file. This contract employee has been reprimanded, but not fired. The individual no longer has access to passport records, he said.

"We are reviewing our options with that person" and their employment status, McCormack said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke with at least Obama and Clinton on Friday and expressed her regrets. State Department officials also planned to brief the staffs of all three candidates on Friday.

McCormack declined to name the companies that employed the contractors, despite demands by a senior House Democrat that such information is in the public interest.

"At this point, we just started an investigation," he said. "We want to err on the side of caution."
 
ooeat0meoo said:
Topper,

Obama has addressed the crazy preacher issue, but the cable news networks (proving CNN is now as bad as Fox) will not stop with the negative propaganda.

This might prove to be damaging to the news media overall. More and more people are thinking and voting the exact opposite of what the media intends.

We'll see what happens... One thing is for sure, the USA can no long tout that it has the freedom of the press, any longer. The volume of punditry has reached a level of what a classic theocracy would look like.
Click to expand...

There is no sign that the government is behind any of the coverage on that cretinous preacher. If the media entities themselves decide to pursue the almighty dollar or follow the cheap publicity route, I fail to see where that impinges "freedom of the press." The press is perfectly free to blow things out of proportion, emphasize the wrong things, misinterpret the significance of information, miseducate the public, and pursue their own agenda. Isn't that what they've been accused of by the right wingers for the past 50 years?
 
FresnoBob said:
There is no sign that the government is behind any of the coverage on that cretinous preacher. If the media entities themselves decide to pursue the almighty dollar or follow the cheap publicity route, I fail to see where that impinges "freedom of the press." The press is perfectly free to blow things out of proportion, emphasize the wrong things, misinterpret the significance of information, miseducate the public, and pursue their own agenda. Isn't that what they've been accused of by the right wingers for the past 50 years?
Click to expand...


Yet, their have been 28 years of fiscal conservative (whatever that means - for me it really means Neo-conservative) Presidencies.
 
2Bullish said:
Cue McCains mighty band wagon.

Hey Bob hows things?
Click to expand...

Well, seeing the alternatives of Hillery and Barak, I'm aboard that band wagon.

I stay busy with meth dealers, pseudoephedrine buyers, and running the office March Madness pool. I should probably go over to the main office building and spend more time politicking for a promotion, as those higher positions tend to go to the loud and obvious rather than the diligent and competent.

How's life in the fast lane?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.