Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 385
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by logmein View Post
    I'm sorry. The democrats are every bit as crooked as the repubs. They simply steal from different sources. That's it..

    Don't be sorry... when you speak the truth you have nothing to be sorry about.

    I laugh when someone suggests either party is less corrupt than the other party... they are all equal in their evil and get their money from the same damn place: American's pockets.

    edit: I should add that not all politicians are bad... there are some good ones out there truly trying to do the right thing for their constituents. My "they are all" comment is directed to the ones doing evil....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  2.    #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by logmein View Post
    Just today, several democratic officials were convicted of embezzling from education funds in order to fill the pockets of girlfriends, mistresses, what have you. I believe these were officials in New York and New Jersey.

    While repubs have their hands in the pockets of big oil, dems have their hands in OUR education funds and countless others for deceptive, underhanded purposes - whether its for banging THEIR pages, mistresses, or whatever.

    I'm sorry. The democrats are every bit as crooked as the repubs. They simply steal from different sources. That's it.
    ...
    This view, though its widely held and constantly re-enforced on talk radio and shouted cable, is preposterous.

    The depth and degree of conservative moral transgressions and felonious felonies -- are beyond comparison to those of democrats.

    I wish NRG -- the chief curator for the Repug's Hall of Infamy -- were still around to detail the depth of how wrong your statements are.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3. #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Don't be sorry... when you speak the truth you have nothing to be sorry about.

    I laugh when someone suggests either party is less corrupt than the other party... they are all equal in their evil and get their money from the same damn place: American's pockets.

    edit: I should add that not all politicians are bad... there are some good ones out there truly trying to do the right thing for their constituents. My "they are all" comment is directed to the ones doing evil....
    Except that nobody is saying the Dems aren't corrupt...at least I'm not. You're not reading the context of my comments, which once again, is about religion. The GOP has a stranglehold on using religion and social wedge issues to win elections. There is NO debate about that whatsoever.
  4.    #204  
    I've just finished my DVRed play back of both tonight's debate -- and the Keith Doberman after debate tea leafs analysis.

    (and just so that I’m not accused of exaggerating like Hillary, let me confess from the start that I more listened to it then watched -- as I was playing XBOX Live simultaneously all during the playback...)

    My initial impression was that though this wasn't Obama's best night, there was no decisive blows landed by either candidate -- or any fatal gaffes uttered.

    Obama was, for the first time this campaign, the central target of the questions -- and they were the kind of questions intended to make him defensive, the kind which are likely to be the ones the Repugs will attack him with this fall.

    Questions about: his associations with a 60's “Weather Underground” bomber, his racist pastor, his missing flag lapel pin, his bitterness...

    The ABC interrogators were decidedly less idolatrous than what Obama is accustomed to.

    Though somewhat chastened and battered by the questions, he never faltered or lost his poise.

    Nor was Hillary spared. She was forced to revisit her Bosnian Fairy Tale.

    Never a good thing.

    Though she took the opportunity to forthrightly apologize for her “errors” -- to put it simply, any time this tale comes up, her numbers go down ( -- and a little piece of BARYE of silently dies...)

    Doberman and company’s post-debate instant analysis was harsher in their assessment than BARYE. Instead of just their usual Obamania idolatry, they also expressed disappointment at ABC’s tough "tabloidesque" questions. They admitted that Obama seemed uncomfortable, defensive -- as though he was not really prepared for some of these lines of attack.

    What effect this will have on Obama in PA. -- with less than a week to go -- will mostly depend on how this story is replayed and regurgitated on the talk and shout shows.

    FWIW, I am becoming somewhat less confident that she will beat him in Pa. by more than 10%.
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/17/2008 at 08:51 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5. #205  
    Barye, your insistence that the the demoncrats are any less corrupt is utterly preposterous. Frankly is absolutely laughable. Your views have a great deal to do with being willfully blind to realities for the purposes of playing partisan politics. It is plain as day to see.

    You apparently pardon the gross transgressions of these common demoncretin thieves who dress themselves as politicians "for the people". Its acceptable to you that they steal from education funds to line their pockets or those of their mistresses. Its ok that when given full power they raise property taxes to astronomical levels and STILL continue to spend to the brink of bankruptcy - ie. NJ.

    All of that is right as rain to you, because you'll be too busy playing your partisan politics to see the reality. This has nothing to do with radio talking heads or "shouted cable". Nice try. Its just a matter of OBJECTIVELY paying attention to current events, which some are clearly unable to do.

    (By the way, napoleon's downfall was, to a great degree, a result of his being maniacally DELUSIONAL.)
    Last edited by logmein; 04/17/2008 at 09:41 AM.
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Except that nobody is saying the Dems aren't corrupt...at least I'm not. You're not reading the context of my comments, which once again, is about religion. The GOP has a stranglehold on using religion and social wedge issues to win elections. There is NO debate about that whatsoever.
    dude, I was not even making a comment on your comments.... My comment had NOTHING to do with the "little" exchange you have going on with everyone else. Check with who I quoted... then push away from the computer, take a deep breath, and come back 12 hours later when you calm down.

    BTW, I'm not quoting you and deliberately staying out of this little mini exchange you have going on for a reason...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  7. #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    dude, I was not even making a comment on your comments.... My comment had NOTHING to do with the "little" exchange you have going on with everyone else. Check with who I quoted... then push away from the computer, take a deep breath, and come back 12 hours later when you calm down.

    BTW, I'm not quoting you and deliberately staying out of this little mini exchange you have going on for a reason...
    No need for a deep breath...really. Hard to see that via forums like this, but I'm not angry....yet.

    I'll use more of these from now on. And sorry for dragging you into this.
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    And again, you haven't explained how. I took the time to explain to you my understanding of what you said and what Obama said. And you disagreed without explanation, saying only that I assumed a lot.
    sigh...yes, I think I have. I don't agree with your assessment of Obama's comments and I think you're looking too hard for something that isn't really there. But again, our vantage points clearly may be altering how each of us interprets his comments.

    Once again, I said that you implied that "these people are naive and taken advantage of." You denied it, but then said these people were being exploited. You're contradicting yourself.
    And I maintain christians that vote for politicians they know full well are telling them what they want to hear are walking contradictions themselves. So if you think that I think they are naive...well, I'd say that is being generous so we'll roll with that. Because otherwise, if they aren't naive, I believe in my heart of hearts that if Jesus is waiting to greet them upon the rapture someday they'll have some 'splain'n to do to JC as to why they were sheeple and not devout practioners of his many lessons in human decency, respect, tolerance, and passive resistance in the face of corrupt governments.

    Again, no one was offended by what you're inferring he said about conservatives and wedge issues. They were offended by what he said about people clinging to religion and guns because they were bitter.
    Well I guess we'll see how offended they were. My point is that they weren't as offended as the media is making it out to be. So while you cite the whopping statistically insignficant poll showing his 5% decline, I'll add that there are plenty of polls showing him gaining ground....including a better unfavorable rating than both Clinton and McCain!

    And I wouldn't say he looks down on these people. I'd say his statement doesn't show respect for their values - religion and guns. And antipathy to people who aren’t like them.
    I think people that want to dislike him have found a good thing to scream foul about. Again, I heard a guy lamenting about how these people resort to guns and god to decide who to vote for because they've got nothing else to cling to in elections - their government is failing them. You see it as though he doesn't respect your values....whatever. I think it is shear hog wash.

    I've taken the time to understand the context of what he said. I've read a lot about it. It's actually not an original concept that rural voters cling to these issues as a result of economic hardship. It's just new for a Presidential candidate to voice it.
    I see. So because he is honest about a situation in rural American that you conceptually acknowledge, he must not respect their values? I mean, this comments are a commentary about the facts - which I find refreshing, yet you seem offended.

    You're imagining a context that isn't there. His comments made no mention of right-wing political strategies. Here's the transcript:
    http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-san-francisco-fundraiser-sunday/
    I think I said that only right-wingers that are beyond reach will be the most offended.

    And since you've taken the time to post the link, I think it worthwhile to see the relevant paragraph in full context:

    And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

    Hardly a stringing rebuke of rural American. Seems to me he was asked a question and he tried to rationalize why some blue collar voters won't take to him. Now if he had said it's because he's black I suppose they could be upset. He did not. If he said, people are sheeple (which I would of said...so its a good thing I'm not running) then I could see them getting upset. He said no such thing. He said that he thinks people get so disillusioned they turn to these issues because it helps them to explain their frustations - as in, it gives them some comfort.

    Honestly, the whole thing is ridiculous to me but I think we can see just how desperate the GOP hate machine will be and they'll play the clip about "bitter" out of context to and through the general election and before you know it, Obama will hate god, America, and blue collar workers....because you know....he said so himself.

    First, I like Obama a lot. Seriously. I think he's a good leader and extremely bright, and would be good for the country in many ways. I've explained this in the past. I do have some big concerns about him, none of which relate to the bitterness comment.
    Well we can agree on that. I have concerns too. Just a lot less than the concerns I have about the other candidates. Obama has a very liberal record. But his record isn't as extensive as the other two and for me, that is a positive thing, not a negative thing. He is as close to an outsider in this election as it gets....unless you count that wacko Nader.

    But if the public is inclined to forgive and forget, the Republicans at least won't allow them to forget.
    Well if he didn't say it, they'd make stuff up about him just like they did against McCain in 2000, Gore, Kerry, etc....that is what they do best - lie. But I will admit that Obama's honesty may hurt him in this race...I mean, American's cannot really vote for an honest politician now can they?

    Peace.
  9. #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post

    The ABC interrogators were decidedly less idolatrous than what Obama is accustomed to.
    That was the most moronic debate I've seen in this election. ABC News is no BBC but jeebus could they have been more tabloid in their questions' content? The Weather Underground? Holy hannah! Yes! Please! Let's discuss this instead of the Economy or Iraq.

    PATHETIC ABC!
  10. #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    And I maintain christians that vote for politicians they know full well are telling them what they want to hear are walking contradictions themselves. So if you think that I think they are naive...well, I'd say that is being generous so we'll roll with that.
    Hey Moderateinny! IMHO, to be completely honest we can take any demographic and plug it in the place of Christians and the statement will still be just as valid.

    The problem with this type of stereotyping is that I don't think there could be a truly honest or straight shooting politician in our system as it stands now. It often times comes down to voting for who the individual feels has the least amount of bad traits, bad record, least amount of scandals or corruption allegations, the least amount of issues they disagree with, or the least amount of lies. This means that no matter what criteria, demographic, or standard is used everyone can be considered a walking contradictory voter.

    For example sexually oriented minorities (aka gays), those who are for life or for choice, those who claim they are voting for the future of the country but ignore either the importance of our economy or ignore the reality of threats in the world, or those....etc.... who vote for politicians they know full well are telling them what they want to hear but that politician's record does not match up or that politician goes against 10 other values that voter holds, then they could be considered walking contradictions themselves as well.

    It does not matter if a person is Christian, Hindu, Atheist, Jew, Muslim, or spiritually dead, chances are that they know the basics of what is right or wrong. In this sense when a voter supports a party or a politician that is obviously or highly probably corrupt (which basically includes all parties) then I would think they would be walking contradictions as well.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/17/2008 at 12:23 PM.
  11. #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    sigh...yes, I think I have. I don't agree with your assessment of Obama's comments and I think you're looking too hard for something that isn't really there. But again, our vantage points clearly may be altering how each of us interprets his comments.
    You made a bad assumption about my vantage point. I don't hate Obama. I'm just observing the implications of his comments on his chances for election.

    However, I completely do agree with you that you're biased.


    And I maintain christians that vote for politicians they know full well are telling them what they want to hear are walking contradictions themselves. So if you think that I think they are naive...well, I'd say that is being generous so we'll roll with that. Because otherwise, if they aren't naive, I believe in my heart of hearts that if Jesus is waiting to greet them upon the rapture someday they'll have some 'splain'n to do to JC as to why they were sheeple and not devout practioners of his many lessons in human decency, respect, tolerance, and passive resistance in the face of corrupt governments.
    I said that you don't respect their values. You denied it. I said that you implied they were naive. You denied it. Now you're saying they're naive, and you're ridiculing them for their religious beliefs.


    Well I guess we'll see how offended they were. My point is that they weren't as offended as the media is making it out to be. So while you cite the whopping statistically insignficant poll showing his 5% decline, I'll add that there are plenty of polls showing him gaining ground....including a better unfavorable rating than both Clinton and McCain!
    First, please explain how you concluded that 5% is statistically insignificant. What was the sample size?

    Second, please provide links to these "plenty of polls." The only ones I'm aware of that show Obama unharmed are focused on the Democratic primary against Clinton, and so exclude the conservatives who were the target of his comments.


    I think people that want to dislike him have found a good thing to scream foul about. Again, I heard a guy lamenting about how these people resort to guns and god to decide who to vote for because they've got nothing else to cling to in elections - their government is failing them. You see it as though he doesn't respect your values....whatever. I think it is shear hog wash.
    Yeah, I know what he was saying. I understand his argument. But it's clear after all this that you still don't understand what it is that people found offensive.


    I see. So because he is honest about a situation in rural American that you conceptually acknowledge, he must not respect their values? I mean, this comments are a commentary about the facts - which I find refreshing, yet you seem offended.
    First, I'm not offended. At all. This has nothing to do with me or my values. It's about the 56% of the public who disagreed with his statement.

    Second, these aren't "facts." This was a sociological theory that's been offered before. He was being honest about his opinion, and people were offended by his opinion.
  12. #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    No need for a deep breath...really. Hard to see that via forums like this, but I'm not angry....yet.

    I'll use more of these from now on. And sorry for dragging you into this.
    It is all good...

    Yes, I'm staying out of this one... for right now... and more than likely for a while.... makes for a good read though... interesting reading different opinions sometimes and not "taking a side."
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  13. #213  
    This thread is delicious.
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    That was the most moronic debate I've seen in this election. ABC News is no BBC but jeebus could they have been more tabloid in their questions' content? The Weather Underground? Holy hannah! Yes! Please! Let's discuss this instead of the Economy or Iraq.

    PATHETIC ABC!
    They didn't cover the economy and Iraq once or twice in the first twenty debates?
  15. #215  
    I would really like to see this same poll for both Obama and McClain, but for now it is about Hillary. I am just going to bullet point the findings and you can read the whole article for yourself......


    Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust In Clinton
    Washington Post: Majority Of Voters Now View N.Y. Senator As Dishonest

    • Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans compared with 52 percent in May 2006
    • Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy
    • Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006
    • among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent
    • Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent.
    • Nearly two-thirds of men said Clinton is not honest and trustworthy (an increase of 19 points)
    • 53 percent of women (up 12 points) said she is dishonest
    • Democratic men, in particular, have shifted: About four in 10 now do not believe Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, nearly triple the percentage saying so in 2006
    • those with college degrees have dropped off significantly on the question (from 82 percent to 53 percent) when ask if she is honest.
    • sharper decline among liberals (down 30 points) than among moderates (down 13) or conservatives (down 4 points)
    • Head to head with Obama on honesty among Democrats, Clinton faces a 23-point deficit overall, 17 points among whites and nearly 50 points among African Americans.


    FULL STORY: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4019777.shtml
  16.    #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I would really like to see this same poll for both Obama and McClain, but for now it is about Hillary. I am just going to bullet point the findings and you can read the whole article for yourself......


    Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust In Clinton
    Washington Post: Majority Of Voters Now View N.Y. Senator As Dishonest

    • Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans compared with 52 percent in May 2006
    • Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy
    • Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006
    • among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent
    • Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent.
    • Nearly two-thirds of men said Clinton is not honest and trustworthy (an increase of 19 points)
    • 53 percent of women (up 12 points) said she is dishonest
    • Democratic men, in particular, have shifted: About four in 10 now do not believe Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, nearly triple the percentage saying so in 2006
    • those with college degrees have dropped off significantly on the question (from 82 percent to 53 percent) when ask if she is honest.
    • sharper decline among liberals (down 30 points) than among moderates (down 13) or conservatives (down 4 points)
    • Head to head with Obama on honesty among Democrats, Clinton faces a 23-point deficit overall, 17 points among whites and nearly 50 points among African Americans.

    you know Hobbes -- I really have no argument with your poll.

    I think she has damaged herself these last few weeks. She has, probably unfairly, accrued to herself alot of ill will -- painfully raw ill will -- especially in the Black community.

    I’ve admitted myself that there has been smelt around her recently the bitter aroma of burnt toast -- of despair.

    Her problem is rooted in her belief -- no conviction -- that she was the best prepared, the most qualified, most caring and passionate human available to be President -- a job she had been readying herself for since she was a child. Moreover she understands that she is perhaps the only woman capable of being elected for another generation.

    She knows that she has been the victim of a cruel double standard by the media which for more than a year has demanded perfection from her, but which has continually graded Obama on a curve.

    Out of funds, losing allies and now even friends -- she has the air of desperation about her -- perhaps not unlike Richard III -- as he flails about offering his kingdom for a horse.

    It is cruel -- and it has been unfair.

    During 20+ debates Hillary as the putative frontrunner, has been in the cross hairs of every opponent and every journalist.

    Now after being allowed by an idolatrous press to glide through this last year, ABC subjected him to a taste of that kind of scrutiny -- a taste of what surely awaits him from the Repugs.

    Hardly a fist landed even a glancing blow.

    Even so his many friends here and elsewhere are squealing like little girls seeing their first dissection of a frog. (Or maybe it was the dissection of a Prince ??)

    I know she’s toast -- I know its too late to resurrect her candidacy. I just wish he’d been subjected to a comparable level of harshness to that which she has had to endure this last year. A harshness that surely awaits him whether his many acolytes like it or not.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  17. #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post

    She knows that she has been the victim of a cruel double standard by the media which for more than a year has demanded perfection from her, but which has continually graded Obama on a curve.
    For 9 months out of the past year obama was not even a blimp on the radar. Hillary ignored the Senator from Illinois... honestly, who would have thought obama would be HERE. Who thought his "crazy" plan to win Iowa would work?



    It is cruel -- and it has been unfair.
    lol....

    Now after being allowed by an idolatrous press to glide through this last year, ABC subjected him to a taste of that kind of scrutiny -- a taste of what surely awaits him from the Repugs.
    It is going to be interesting... mccain has a lot of dirt in his past... he lost a bid for the presidency because of it. He has already asked a 527 to stop running an ad... and the 527 complied. It is going to be very interesting to see where this all goes.

    But as rove put it (after I was saying it), if you go too negative & nasty on obama, you can forget seeing mccain in office.


    I just wish he’d been subjected to a comparable level of harshness to that which she has had to endure this last year. A harshness that surely awaits him whether his many acolytes like it or not.
    She and her husband created a lot of this on themselves. People rejected the negative ads and campaigning... she did not figure out how to battle obama until Texas with her 3 am ad. Bit late in the game.

    I honestly believe she thought this was going to be a walk in the part. Iowa was a blow... everyone scrambled to figure out who in the heck is this guy we don't know about. O who?

    Barye keeps talking about the "black vote" the real story is the white vote... obama has carried states that have a very limited number of african americans... before this year, I'm not sure if anyone thought that was possible yet in america. Much less with a name like *dare I say it* Barack Hussein Obama.

    The media scrambled to figure out who in the heck this guy was... So what did the media have? Nothing. Right... nothing. They had to start from scratch. Researching stories, doing their work.... bottom line, obama is so new, no one knew anything about him.

    I think they went after hillary since none of the others were a story. Everyone figured hillary would cruise on to victory and smash the republican contender in Nov.

    And I refuse to believe that anyone thought obama had a shot in hell before iowa. And all of this talk about black this and black that. The prior african american presidential candidates never received the type of support obama is receiving. Blacks are not voting for obama because he is black... they are voting for him because they believe he is the best candidate to do the job. Hillary never really courted the black vote.... she figured bill's connection would automatically pass to her. Another mistake.

    Plus, obama has no experience... none. It is laughable he got here on hope, change, and being "fired up and ready to go." At least she sleeps with Bill... and been in and around the white house for eight years. She has indirect experience... not to mention one of the best "free" consultants on the planet (bill himself).

    Hillary doomed herself... I don't see how anyone can blame the media, price of gas, kobe's going to be the mvp, or anything else for her downfall.

    Sad part is that bill richardson was the real choice for dems... instead being a woman or being black got wrapped up into it... instead of who was the most qualified person for the job. And even he is half-latino... if you want to add something special in there... not that it matters.
    Last edited by theog; 04/18/2008 at 05:15 AM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  18.    #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    For 9 months out of the past year obama was not even a blimp on the radar. Hillary ignored the Senator from Illinois... honestly, who would have thought obama would be HERE. Who thought his "crazy" plan to win Iowa would work?...
    Even well before his official announcement, Obama was seen as the one competitor who could defeat her.

    While Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel were all being ignored, Obama was getting idolatrous attention.

    As the dominant frontrunner, Hillary ignored Obama and all the other candidates -- even as they collectively attacked her -- mercilessly.

    As she accepted every debate, and withstood every assault, she earned a modest degree of grudging respect from even a very hostile media.

    For months the press had been begging Obama to confront Hillary, to attack her before it was too late. When she had that tiny stumble in the November debate the media pounced -- replaying that answer ad infinitum for weeks.


    She and her husband created a lot of this on themselves. People rejected the negative ads and campaigning... she did not figure out how to battle obama until Texas with her 3 am ad. Bit late in the game.

    I honestly believe she thought this was going to be a walk in the part. Iowa was a blow... everyone scrambled to figure out who in the heck is this guy we don't know about. O who? ...


    Barye keeps talking about the "black vote" the real story is the white vote... obama has carried states that have a very limited number of african americans... before this year, I'm not sure if anyone thought that was possible yet in america. Much less with a name like *dare I say it* Barack Hussein Obama. ...

    And I refuse to believe that anyone thought obama had a shot in hell before iowa. And all of this talk about black this and black that. The prior african american presidential candidates never received the type of support obama is receiving. Blacks are not voting for obama because he is black... they are voting for him because they believe he is the best candidate to do the job. Hillary never really courted the black vote.... she figured bill's connection would automatically pass to her. Another mistake.
    ...


    Theog -- I think this inaccurately characterizes what I've said.

    Months ago, before NH -- I wrote about how half the voters of the then upcoming S. Carolina primary would be black.

    I expected that despite her and her husband's long, deep, and hard earned connection to the Black community, Barack's ethnicity would trump that.

    After her surprise win over Obama in NH, the Clinton team (mistakenly) believed it could leverage her momentum and try to end the contest with a win in S. Carolina.

    Anticipating that the political environment was unfavorable to her there, I've argued that she should never have contested that primary. That she should have gracefully conceded that state to Obama, and moved on.

    That in fighting so hard to win South Carolina, Clinton (et al) opened themselves to the media deliberately twisting and mischaracterizing their words. South Carolina was foreseeable as a no win situation -- and that she has suffered from its effects ever since.

    I've also postulated that being the first of his community to have a legitimate shot at winning the Presidency, has afforded him an outpouring of small donor support from that community -- a resource that has enabled him to outfight Hillary.

    With the major self acknowledged exception of expecting that Hillary would be the nominee, I have not been wrong much about this contest.
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/18/2008 at 04:12 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  19. #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Even well before his official announcement, Obama was seen as the one competitor who could defeat her. Obama was getting idolatrous attention
    I don't remember it the same way...

    I do remember the shock when he won Iowa... and hillary unexpectedly came in third.

    Theog -- I think you are inaccurately characterizing what I've said.
    Sorry... it is true, I'm more than likely wrong... especially nowadays... my apologies if I am... not my intent.

    I expected that despite her and her husband's long, deep, and hard earned connection to the Black community, Barack's ethnicity would trump that.
    I believe Iowa "legitimized" Obama's candidacy and that is why he stormed into SC. Well, not to mention Bill's remarks... At that point, the Black population was LOOKING for a reason to disassociate themselves with the clinton's. If it would not have been bill, it would have been someone or something else.

    I live in NC (charlotte), with family in SC (columbia) and many friends in (greenville) and over other parts of NC and SC... I have a "ground level" view... but admittedly a limited scope to the people I may communicate with. I had some interesting conversations after obama won iowa... complete 180s from before iowa in most cases. Now people seem to be believing an AA can actually win.



    That in fighting so hard to win S, Carolina, Clinton (et al) opened themselves to the media deliberately twisting and mischaracterizing their words.
    So true...


    I've also postulated that being the first of his community to have a legitimate shot at winning the Presidency, has afforded him an outpouring of small donor support from that community -- a resource that has enabled him to outfight Hillary.
    We do not know if this has happened... personally, I don't know of any aa that has given to his campaingn... I know many, and we openly talk politics. But I could be wrong. No way of knowing who is really giving to obama, as we agreed before.


    With the major self acknowledged exception of expecting that Hillary would be the nominee, I have not been wrong much about this contest.
    Call you the Rove of TreoCentral.

    Did you also see obama gutting hillary in that 10 state rumpus?
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  20.    #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I don't remember it the same way...

    I do remember the shock when he won Iowa... and hillary unexpectedly came in third. ...

    If you look at my post from a week before the Iowa Caucuses, you'll see that the consensus then was that Obama would win.

    My prediction for Hillary was contrary to that consensus:


    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    .
    "...Had Iowa held its caucus 10 days ago, or even last week -- BARYE's gut believes that Obama would have won. Edwards would have been a close second, while Hillary would have been a fading third.

    But from my remote perch in the dank dungeon of some distant unknown land of solitary rendition, I get the sense that she has stabilized as Edwards and Obama have begun to scratch and bleed each other into 2nd and 3rd.

    Stories pushed by Obama about Edward's winking cooperation with a union's semi unethical advertising on Edward's behalf, has perhaps sullied him with a stain of hypocrisy after how loudly he's attacked others for their taking PAK money...

    ...Obama probably reasoned that anyone who had a leaning toward him or Hillary would have already been committed that way...

    ...Hillary is not especially concerned about Edwards winning Iowa since he’s unlikely to win NH (and he doesn’t have the resources to carry it very far after S. Carolina.) But an Edward’s win would deprive Obama of the momentum Obama needs to win NH and S. Carolina. So Obama -- the audacity of hope, the above the mud candidate -- attacks Edwards.

    Hillary narrowly wins. Obama is a close second ...

    And for the record, here's what I said in regards the GOP:


    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Romney has spent a fortune and more than a year stalking his Iowan prey. But time, news coverage, and a series of poor debate performances has pulled the curtain from Governor Silly Puddy.

    Campaigning in a state where Evangelicals predominate, Romney felt compelled to re-evolve himself from a Massachusetts liberal into a Christian conservative. It nearly worked.

    Had Brownback and the other true Christian conservatives waged better campaigns and stayed longer in the race, the Evangelical pool would have remained divided and diluted. Huckabee has benefitted from being the only true conservative left. Christians rallied around him enthusiastically. That ground swell for Huckabee forced Romney to make his famously fatuous “Mormons aren’t members of a cult” speech -- where he neglected to address any of the specific things that bother Evangelicals about Mormonism...

    Deathly afraid of losing Iowa, Romney has unleashed a torrent of largely accurate accusations about Huckabee: his pardoning of rapists and murders (and of rapists that then became murderers), his advocacy of tax increases, his Arkansan ethics...

    The attacks have lessened the glow of Huckabee’s halo -- but done nothing to reignite any passion for Romney. Huckerbee wins Iowa -- but by less than 10% over Romney.

    I expect that McCain will win NH, with Huckabee and Romney essentially tied for second, I expect that Ron Paul to come in a strong double digit fourth place.

    Like Edwards has done in Iowa -- McCain has similarly bet everything on NH where he has deep roots because of his success there in 2000.

    NH knows Romney. He was the Governor of their neighboring state -- the state from where they get most of their TV news. But they know of a liberal Republican Romney. Governor Silly Puddy is in effect coming home to those who really know him. Second place in Iowa ain’t gonna help Mr. Momentum much neither.

    In contrast McCain has run on the strength of straight talk authenticity. ...

    If Hillary wins Iowa -- even if marginally -- I expect that she’ll win NH by at least 5% and eventually become the nominee (despite a hard fight from Obama until after California).

    Guiliani, Thompson, and Romney seem to have next to no chance now to become their party’s nominee.

    Huckabee has more skeletons in his closet than Jeffrey Dalmer so its hard to imagine him getting the nomination.

    I'm expecting that McCain could well be the GOP’s nominee...


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I believe Iowa "legitimized" Obama's candidacy and that is why he stormed into SC. Well, not to mention Bill's remarks... At that point, the Black population was LOOKING for a reason to disassociate themselves with the clinton's. If it would not have been bill, it would have been someone or something else.

    ... I had some interesting conversations after obama won iowa... complete 180s from before iowa in most cases. Now people seem to be believing an AA can actually win.
    I entirely agree with you Theog -- Obama's victory in "lily white" Iowa did legitimize him in the skeptical eyes of his community.

    Until then their connection to and affection for the first Black President, Bill -- surpassed their feelings for Obama.




    Did you also see obama gutting hillary in that 10 state rumpus?
    most everyone did -- if I said I had as well, it would credit me nothing.

    FWIW, she had bet everything on ending it on Super Tuesday. They had put no resources into those 10 states -- and had none left.

    The passion that Obama's supporters had was far more suited to a caucus contest, than hers.

    Obama's team also understood the proportional delegate rules and the causus landscape far more shrewdly than Hillary's. They knew that getting 60% in some small place gave them more of a delegate advantage than 51% in a big place


    Call you the Rove of TreoCentral.
    both you and daThomas know what to say to rile BARYE ...
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/18/2008 at 03:44 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions