US Presidential Election ... [All recent threads merged here]

[Bob George]

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn96/Bob_George/barackobama.jpg

Popular Vote
Obama 53% - 69.5 million
McCain 46% - 60 million

Electoral College
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn96/Bob_George/2008ElectoralMap.jpg

[Bob George]

Presidential candidates and their crazy church folk

Barack Obama has been a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ since 1988. The long-time pastor of this church, Jeremiah Wright, retired last month. Wright was the inspiration behind the title of Obama's book "Audacity of Hope". Wright has said some very controversial things recently about Obama's opponent for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. He said she doesn't deserve to be president because she's never been called a "n*****". He has also been an advocate of the Black Value System. Something that has been viewed by some as being black supremacist and separatist. The Trinity United Church of Christ awarded Louis Farrakahn a lifetime achievement award. Farrakahn infamous for his racist, homophobic and antisemitic comments. In 2007, Farrakahn endorsed Obama. Obama has denounced Farrkahn's endorsement and admitted that he doesn't see eye-to-eye with Wright of some issues.

Recently, news has come out about John McCain's spiritual advisor John Hagee. Hagee has also made some controversial statements that have been homophobic and anti-Islam. More to come on Hagee and if McCain will denounce his endorsement.

What do you make of these connections to religious nuts? And will Obama's connection to Wright and Farrakahn or McCain's connection with Hagee affect their public support at all?

[MJJC Moderator]

McCain's Pastor, Rod Parsley is a vicious homosexual hating, Muslim hating person. McCain calls him his spiritual adviser. This pastors church also lost a child abuse case a few years ago. Should Fox News and other media hold McCain to the same scrutiny that they are holding Obama to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tViqufbk7I8

Pastor Rod Parsley is John McCain's spiritual advisor

Church found liable for Child Abuse:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3368


States all muslims are evil and a holy war should be waged against them:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3548250.ece


" The leader of a 12,000-member megachurch, Mr Parsley has written several books detailing his fundamentalist views, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this contentious work, Mr Parsley castigates homosexuals, abortionists, the entertainment industry and civil libertarians before turning his attention to the perceived threat to the United States from Muslims.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Mr Parsley speaks of Allah as a “demon spirit” and urges "war between Islam and Christian civilisation". There is no difference between violent Islamist extremists and moderate Muslims, he argues.

“I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is,” he writes. “In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam.

“I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.”

"The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore." Similarly, he says "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." And, Mother Jones bureau chief David Corn says of Parsley "in 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status."


Anti-Gay

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/individuals/rod_parsley/index.html

Patriot Pastors Report - Parsley against gays, muslims, immigrants, etc..

http://media.pfaw.org/PDF/RW/PatriotPastorsReport.pdf

[Bob George]

Should Fox News and other media hold McCain to the same scrutiny that they are holding Obama to?
Yes, but it wont do much. McCain is already the republican nominee. They are bringing up Obama's church more because he's not the presumptive democratic nominee yet and if it turns out he's suss, there's still a chance he could lose the nomination.

[MJJC Moderator]

But is that fair? Afterall, McCain is not the republican nominee until the convention when his delegates are counted. What this pastor said is much worse than Obama's former pastor. Should we have a president that's current pastor holds offending and inflammatory views about people of color, people of a different religion, and homosexuals?

[Bob George]

I think it's fair. Because as you said, do you guys want a president that holds offending and inflammatory views about white people and jews?

McCain is the presumptive nominee. The media can't really do anything to change that. They may however have an affect on the outcome of the remaining primaries for the democratic party. If Obama does share some of the same views as his pastor, but he's not telling the public that, I think it's in the best interest of the American people to know that before he ends up with the nomination. Then you've got two crazy church folk running for president. They can't do much to change the outcome of the republican nomination, but they can have an influence on the outcome of the democratic nomination, so they'll be digging up as much dirt as they can on Obama and Clinton. It just so happens they've got more dirt on Obama than Clinton. But expect them to go just as hard at Clinton if they dig up any dirt on her.

[J5master]

Did HE (obama) or did he NOT speak the truth in his speech today????!!

OMG talk about CHANGE. Obama is creating CHANGE with that speech on its own. Bringing racial issues OUT in the open and not walking around them and "denouncing" a PERSON because it's politically correct and SAFE. Now everyone is gonna be talking about things that they wouldn't have been talking about otherwise, out in the open. BINGO!

[arXter]

you got that right, J5. i honestly didn't expect him to go that deep and this is simply the best speech i've ever heard from him. historic, even.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

this is reality.

[J5master]

got that right. HISTORICAL. i'm still in awe of how good that speech was. And it wasnt GOOD simply because of the way he SPOKE about it...it wasnt good because he's simply a good SPEAKER. It was good because of WHAT he spoke ABOUT...because what he spoke about was TRUE and HONEST. And it really was the best speech on race since MLK's I Have A Dream. And of course people are gonna dissect it and draw attention away from the REAL issues here, like the media loves to do...and thats because people dont wanna hear that truth. And if this is what does Obama in...if Obama being risky and unsafe and HONEST is what does Obama in...then America really isnt ready for real change then. That's how I feel about it.

[KOPV]

Great speech. I can't wait for his next..

I love speeches on race and human struggle.. They are inspiring and moving.. Bringing THE TRUTH of what's going on in our OWN land

[arXter]

what he spoke about was TRUE and HONEST. And it really was the best speech on race since MLK's I Have A Dream. And of course people are gonna dissect it and draw attention away from the REAL issues here, like the media loves to do...and thats because people dont wanna hear that truth. And if this is what does Obama in...if Obama being risky and unsafe and HONEST is what does Obama in...then America really isnt ready for real change then. That's how I feel about it.
this speech was in part directed at the best political team in the media, informing them of their choice to face up to such a dark and secret swamp of an issue. and to me, the message clearly resonates throughout the world as we look at the divides and injustices happening everywhere.

with this message, Barack has shown that you can't run from your problems but have to face them and address them. this doesn't just go for his campaign and the Rev. Wright media exaggeration but also for the real issues that no one dares to talk about. he's shown this before in his writings which i've quoted in the old thread with regards to injustices throughout the world and this is why i'm rooting for him.

[J5master]

BUMP guys! This was important speech! A REALLY important speech for not just Obama.

Hmmph. I guess the silence is good. Means he nailed it lol

[RubbaRubba]

what happened to the rest of our thread?

[J5master]

it got erased like the rest of this section of the board.

[eternitys_child]

got that right. HISTORICAL. i'm still in awe of how good that speech was. And it wasnt GOOD simply because of the way he SPOKE about it...it wasnt good because he's simply a good SPEAKER. It was good because of WHAT he spoke ABOUT...because what he spoke about was TRUE and HONEST. And it really was the best speech on race since MLK's I Have A Dream. And of course people are gonna dissect it and draw attention away from the REAL issues here, like the media loves to do...and thats because people dont wanna hear that truth. And if this is what does Obama in...if Obama being risky and unsafe and HONEST is what does Obama in...then America really isnt ready for real change then. That's how I feel about it.
His speech moved me incredibly and what you said about it being good because it was true and honest is right on. Just a couple of hours ago I showed it to a classmate and used almost those exact words you used to describe it. Sometimes when someone is a good speaker they can make you 'think' they are sincere but when you finally hear someone who IS sincere and is speaking honestly you KNOW it and you understand what was missing before.

[RubbaRubba]

it got erased like the rest of this section of the board.

WHAT?!??!?!?!?!? What happened, did I miss something?

EDIT: nvm, I saw it.

[J5master]

His speech moved me incredibly and what you said about it being good because it was true and honest is right on. Just a couple of hours ago I showed it to a classmate and used almost those exact words you used to describe it. Sometimes when someone is a good speaker they can make you 'think' they are sincere but when you finally hear someone who IS sincere and is speaking honestly you KNOW it and you understand what was missing before.


Its a shame that those BIASED people on FUX news (they have NOT changed since the MJ trial lol)...cant see that. Man did they MISS the point of the entire speech lol

[Bob George]

Obama's just guaranteed his victory with that speech.

[eternitys_child]

Obama's just guaranteed his victory with that speech.
I think you may very well be right about that.

[Bob George]

And he knew it too. The way it was set up with the flags behind him and everything. He knew this was going to be his make or break moment.

[arXter]

and done it by rising above the level of the kitchen sink.

[Bob George]

No. He did it by having very good speech writers and campaign managers who saw an opportunity to win over the people and wrote the speech that would do so.

[arXter]

it's a shame you're resort to cynicism in a belittling a speech that every human being should commend

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/speechwriter_of_one.php



Speechwriter Of One (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/speechwriter_of_one.php)

18 Mar 2008 12:03 pm

This wasn't a speech by committee... Obama wrote the speech himself, working on it for two days and nights.... and showed it to only a few of his top advisers.

[eternitys_child]

it's a shame you're resort to cynicism in a belittling a speech that every human being should commend

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/speechwriter_of_one.php



Speechwriter Of One (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/speechwriter_of_one.php)



18 Mar 2008 12:03 pm



This wasn't a speech by committee... Obama wrote the speech himself, working on it for two days and nights.... and showed it to only a few of his top advisers.
Thank you for that. I for one felt certain it was his own.

[arXter]

yes eternitys_child, it's actually similar to the tone of his first book and has some elements from his 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention.

in other news...




Another Senior Staff Departure In Hillary Land

Jessica O'Connell, the national director of operations, responsible for personnel management, staff deployment and headquarters operations, has decided to step down. She joins a raft of Patti Solis Doyle loyalists, ranging from wonderkind Adam Parkhomenko to deputy manager Mike Henry, who have departed in recent weeks.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/another_senior_staff_departure.php

[Bob George]

I'm not belittling the speech. I think it was a good speech. He could've written by himself over two days and night. But I just doubt it, despite what someone wrote in a newspaper. But regardless, it was a good speech and I think Obama's won it for himself (not just the nomination, but the general election). I'm still going to support Hillary, and I still think she has some chance at the nomination if it's decided at the convention. But I'm no so sure this convention will be a brokered one because Obama's gained so much support that he could get 2025 delegates, beating Hillary 60/40 even 70/30 in some states. He's really pulled through and recruited the support of so many people just with that one speech and if you look throughout US history, people who can do that (win so many people over with just one speech) usually win the presidency.

[arXter]

I'm not belittling the speech.
yes you are. if you've heard/read it, you'll see just how personal it was for him. to say he didn't write it is to diminish its authenticity.


I think it was a good speech. He could've written by himself over two days and night. But I just doubt it, despite what someone wrote in a newspaper.

not just one newspaper (which happens to be a conservative one) but every news source is standing with that obvious fact.

it's why it resonated so much, because of its authenticity.

[arXter]

Obama's Lincoln moment (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten19mar19,0,5754610.column)

Never before has a candidate for national office spoken so frankly about race in America.
March 19, 2008

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten19mar19,0,5754610.column

One hundred and fifty years ago this June, a lanky Illinois lawyer turned politician gave a speech that changed the way Americans talked about the great racial issues of their day.

The lawyer was Abraham Lincoln, and the speech was the famous "House Divided" address with which he accepted the Republican Party's nomination as a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Lincoln lost to Stephen Douglas, but the address changed the national conversation on slavery and, two years later, Lincoln was on his way from Springfield to the White House.

America's political story is studded with such addresses -- historical signposts that divide that which went before from all that followed on an issue of crucial national importance. Franklin Roosevelt's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" speech fundamentally changed Americans' expectations of their government in times of social and economic crisis. John F. Kennedy's address on Catholicism and politics to the Greater Houston Ministerial Assn. in 1960 forever altered the way we think about religion and public office.

Sen. Barack Obama, another lanky lawyer from Illinois, planted one of those rhetorical markers in the political landscape Tuesday, when he delivered his "More Perfect Union" speech in Philadelphia, near Independence Hall. The address was meant to dampen the firestorm of criticism that has attached itself to the senator's campaign since video clips of race-baiting remarks by his Chicago church's former pastor began circulating last week.

But instead of offering a simple exercise in damage control, Obama chose to place his discussion of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright's incendiary comments in a wider consideration of race in America -- and the results were, like those Kennedy achieved in Houston, historic.

Just as every seasoned political hand in 1960 knew that, sooner or later, Kennedy would have to tackle the question of his Catholicism head-on, it's been clear for some time that Obama would have to speak explicitly to the question of race in this campaign. Still, polished orator that he may be, no one could have predicted an address of quite this depth and scope.

"That was the most sophisticated speech on race and politics I've ever heard," said CNN's Bill Schneider, the only network pundit who actually has taught American political history at elite universities.

It was all the more remarkable because, while Kennedy presided over what may have been the greatest speech-writing team in electoral history, Obama -- like Lincoln -- wrote his address himself, completing the final draft Monday night.

Obama did what he had to do, unequivocally repudiating Wright's extreme rhetoric. But what was truly radical about his analysis was his implicit demand that black and white Americans accept the imperfection of each other's views on race. Embedded in such acceptance is the seed of that "more perfect union" toward which this country -- unquestionably great but itself imperfect -- must strive.

It was a concept that Obama subtly invoked near the beginning of the speech by pointing to the fact that although the Constitution "was stained by the original sin of slavery," the "answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution -- a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time."

Theologically, original sin is the source of man's fallen nature and the root of his imperfection. Obama went on to build on that concept, invoking the authority of his own mixed heritage -- son of a black immigrant father and white mother, raised by a loving white grandmother -- and refusing to reject either Wright, a man of good works as well as extreme rhetoric, or his loving grandmother, who was prone to racial stereotypes. Obama demanded that black anger make an allowance for white anxiety and that white resentment make a place for black grievance.

No candidate for national office has ever spoken so candidly or realistically about race as it is lived as a fact of life in America. As he put it Tuesday, "The profound mistake of Rev. Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country ... is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."

[Bob George]

I don't want to wish anything bad upon Obama, but history shows that men like him don't left long. Lincoln, Kennedy. He gets compared to them in his speech making. But will he have the same fate as these guys? I've heard so many people say Obama's way to popular to avoid a fate like Lincoln's or Kennedy's, and I unfortunately agree. I hope his security is tight when he becomes president. It will have to be.

[Dutchie]

I don't want to wish anything bad upon Obama, but history shows that men like him don't left long. Lincoln, Kennedy. He gets compared to them in his speech making. But will he have the same fate as these guys? I've heard so many people say Obama's way to popular to avoid a fate like Lincoln's or Kennedy's, and I unfortunately agree. I hope his security is tight when he becomes president. It will have to be.

Good post. We will have to see. Let's hope he makes it.

[Bob George]

I just got this email. The Clinton campaign is really pushing for Pennsylvania.


Dear Robert,

The Obama campaign is already on the air with their first ad in Pennsylvania, putting their fundraising advantage to work. They're going to spend every dollar they've got to end this race in Pennsylvania, and we can't let that happen.

In Texas and Ohio, your incredible support kept us competitive, and today this race is close thanks to what you did for Hillary.

Now the Obama campaign is going to do everything they can to try to beat Hillary in Pennsylvania. They're going to try to outspend us 3-1 on the air -- and their first ads are already up and running.

We cannot let them have that advantage. Hillary needs your help now to level the playing field in Pennsylvania and beyond.

Contribute now to help Hillary win.

You and I trust Hillary to lead America in a bold new direction -- to fix the problems George Bush leaves behind and to accomplish goals we once thought were out of reach.

Hillary is trusting us to make sure she has the resources she needs to win. We need to get up on the air in Pennsylvania to match Obama's spending, and Hillary is depending on you to help.

We can't let this race be decided by a fundraising advantage.

Contribute now to level the playing field in Pennsylvania and beyond.

With your help, Hillary can win in Pennsylvania on April 22 and go all the way to the White House. It all depends on what you do today, so please act now to help Hillary win.

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton

[Bob George]

Whoa. I didn't realise what was shown here, on Australian TV, of Obama's speech, was shortened. I just read the transcript of his entire speech. Geez Louise! That guy can go on. What was shown on Australian TV was more of a best bits thing. Did anyone watch it live? How long did it go for? I'm guessing around an hour.

[J5master]

um 37 mins :huh:

[arXter]

seemed like 5 to me

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg107/canderer/2343825775_a85cd1c18f_o.jpg

[J5master]

I don't want to wish anything bad upon Obama, but history shows that men like him don't left long. Lincoln, Kennedy. He gets compared to them in his speech making. But will he have the same fate as these guys? I've heard so many people say Obama's way to popular to avoid a fate like Lincoln's or Kennedy's, and I unfortunately agree. I hope his security is tight when he becomes president. It will have to be.

Well just because he's good enough to be considered a revolutionary person (which is a good thing)..doesn't mean u gotta be cynical about it LOL. Obama knows the risk he's taking by being revolutionary, and if he suffers the same fate that those people u mentioned did, his death would definitely mean a lot for the country as did the Kennedy's and Lincolns.

Just cuz there's a possibility of him suffering that fate doesn't mean u shouldn't support the truth and what was right. And that speech was the truth, and he MEANT ever word of it. There's no evidence to prove otherwise. There was no advisor to tell him what to do...if there was he would have told him to sweep the reverend under the rug and DENOUNCE him and never talk well about him ever again. That's what any political adviser would tell him. But Obama knew that wasn't RIGHT and he knew that behind the Reverend controversy there was a deeper issue at hand, and he pulled it right out. Like he said, u can't just take an issue like that, and seep it under the rug, but sweeping the PERSON under the rug.

And for that I think its a stretch to say that he secured the nomination, because as great and as bigger of a route he choose to take, he did take the UNPOPULAR route. people are still very closed minded, still bigots too...and still don't understand race. They are still gonna connect OBama to the lil soundbites played over and over of the pastor....and that might COST him the nomination. But at this point, like i said, if that is what does him in, the America isn't ready for real change.

[arXter]

There's no evidence to prove otherwise. There was no advisor to tell him what to do...if there was he would have told him to sweep the reverend under the rug and DENOUNCE him and never talk well about him ever again. That's what any political adviser would tell him.
funny you should say that... Wolf Blitzer said that Obama's team advised him against making the speech.


But Obama knew that wasn't RIGHT and he knew that behind the Reverend controversy there was a deeper issue at hand, and he pulled it right out. Like he said, u can't just take an issue like that, and seep it under the rug, but sweeping the PERSON under the rug.

And for that I think its a stretch to say that he secured the nomination, because as great and as bigger of a route he choose to take, he did take the UNPOPULAR route. people are still very closed minded, still bigots too...and still don't understand race. They are still gonna connect OBama to the lil soundbites played over and over of the pastor....and that might COST him the nomination. But at this point, like i said, if that is what does him in, the America isn't ready for real change.they really are. on American TV, many democrats are reporting that they've forgotten about it and showing Bush's bullshit speech on how Iraq is a "victory" than Obama's historic message.

[MJJC Moderator]

Mike Huckabee on Barack Obama and Rev. Wright... GO HUCKABEE!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTFLOu8fjxU

[AdamTakeItxl]

His speech was laughable. "I will no more disown my pastor than disown the black community."

Obama is just the black candidate now. That's not belittling him or his race; he just can no longer be taken seriously as he is a shady, hypocritical, and naive politician.

[AdamTakeItxl]

seemed like 5 to me

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg107/canderer/2343825775_a85cd1c18f_o.jpg

Hahahaaha! Look at his wife's face. Maybe for the first time, she's proud of her husband? Lmfao!


Murtha pledges support for Clinton:

Rep. John Murtha on Tuesday became the first superdelegate to endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination since the Ohio and Texas primaries March 4.
Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran from Johnstown, caused an uproar on Capitol Hill in 2005 by calling for an end to the war in Iraq. He released a statement saying Clinton has "a similar position" on the conflict.

He called Clinton "the candidate that will forge a consensus on health care, education, the economy and the war in Iraq."

Murtha, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that controls defense spending, said he has known Clinton for 15 years.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_557940.html

[J5master]

Wow :huh:

See? Reason why that speech didn't secure his nomination ^^^

The ONLY reason Obama gave this speech is cuz the media pushed this whole reverend Wright thing. He wouldn't need to speak about race at all if people weren't so insistent on making something out of nothing. Yes, like Obama just got up one morning and said "hmm I think I'll give a speech about race and politics today, just cuz I feel like it". If the media is drawing attention to his race, he can't just IGNORE what he is, when he's speaking about it. He told it like it IS. WHat do u expect him to do? LOL

And did u understand the meaning of that line: "I will no more disown my pastor than disown the black community." ? Did u listen to the whole speech? Can u tell me how he's naive, shady, and hypocritical....beyond just throwing labels around? LOL

[AdamTakeItxl]

seemed like 5 to me

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg107/canderer/2343825775_a85cd1c18f_o.jpg


Wow :huh:

See? Reason why that speech didn't secure his nomination ^^^

The ONLY reason Obama gave this speech is cuz the media pushed this whole reverend Wright thing. He wouldn't need to speak about race at all if people weren't so insistent on making something out of nothing.

And did u understand the meaning of that line: "I will no more disown my pastor than disown the black community." ? Did u listen to the whole speech? Can u tell me how he's naive, shady, and hypocritical....beyond just throwing labels around? LOL

Oh yes, I listened to it. And he was ridiculous. He maligned his own, still-living, grandmother, and deemed her a racist!

Obama is obviously a liar. As a member of the Trinity Church for 20 years, he is NOW "appalled" at the comments?

He kisses medias' ass.

[arXter]

http://tailgatesport.com/feed_troll.jpg

[eternitys_child]

http://tailgatesport.com/feed_troll.jpg
Lol lol :lol:

I think we all need to keep one of those in our pockets.:lol:

[AdamTakeItxl]

http://tailgatesport.com/feed_troll.jpg

Typical response from an Odrama supporter.

[J5master]

U obviously didn't listen very carefully because he didn't deem her as a racist...nor did he deem the pastor as a racist. He made clear that people who have LEGIT concerns about the opposite race, does NOT equal racism. These issues that are being expressed with anger are REAL.

And if u LISTENED carefully, he said that there were many things over the years, politically that his pastor said that he has disagreed with and were appalled with. Doesn't mean that he should DISOWN this guy because of his LEGIT concerns and ANGER about race (the man, as Obama said, harbored anger that he felt when living during the HEART of the civil rights movement) But the parts of a person doesn't make up the whole. and if Obama knew this man...knew MORE than the soundbites of anger displayed on television...then yes it makes since that he stayed with the church. Just like Oprah did. Obviously the church is more than just outbursts of anger. Obviously the MAN, the REVEREND, is MORE than just outburst of anger.

He also said that if he heard JUST the soundbites played in the media over and over again, then YES...he'd be appalled.


http://tailgatesport.com/feed_troll.jpg

Hahaha i'm so weak. LOL

[arXter]

Lol lol :lol:

I think we all need to keep one of those in our pockets.:lol:

*hands out troll detectors*

this WUM only signed up to troll this thread and run away and come back, troll again, and run away LOL

funny thing is they probably don't realise they're an asset for the Obama campaign.

[AdamTakeItxl]

*hands out troll detectors*

this WUM only signed up to troll this thread and run away and come back, troll again, and run away LOL

funny thing is they probably don't realise they're an asset for the Obama campaign.

You help bolster the Clinton campaign with your stupidity :)

[arXter]

^ quod erat demonstrandum

[RubbaRubba]

and now, a word from Reverend Mike Huckabee....

http://dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/72716/0494/229/479797

HUCKABEE: "...[Obama] made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama, or anybody else... Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that."

"...And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"... I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me."

[J5master]

WOw I commend Huckabee for those words.

[eternitys_child]

and now, a word from Reverend Mike Huckabee....

http://dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/72716/0494/229/479797

HUCKABEE: "...[Obama] made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama, or anybody else... Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that."

"...And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"... I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me."
Thanks. I was too lazy to listen to the video of him. What he says is very true and I DO think we need to factor people's experiences into their responses.

[arXter]

what Huckabee and others are now saying (and their realism) has been opened up by Obama and this is the true genius of his message last night.

[MJJC Moderator]

Oh snap! Someone clicked the ban button!

[arXter]

mod @ work http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w4/arXter/smilies/McHammer.gif cheears.

[MJJC Moderator]

He was an obvious troll so before anyone starts with the censorship thing, don't. Now rock on and have a spirited debate and discussion!

[eternitys_child]

what Huckabee and others are now saying (and their realism) has been opened up by Obama and this is the true genius of his message last night.
I remember Bill Clinton trying to open up a dialog when he was in office with his town hall meetings. Remember that? Obama is in a much better position to make that work however and the directness and courage of his work was outstanding.

You probably can't tell from my prior posts but I am actually a Hillary supporter. I am upset with the way the media has bashed her and portrayed her. I use Drudge as a link to other news sources and routinely see unflattering pictures and captions of her on his site. There is constant comment about the way she looks or dresses as opposed to discussion of her policies. It disheartens me because I do believe it says that the US is not ready yet to accept a woman in power. I think that the media slant on her has as much to do with Obama's gain as Obama's impressiveness (and yes he does continue to amaze me and I would hope that he would be president some day) because they are both excellent candidates.

It was a tough choice for me this time but at least a choice between two good candidates.

[eternitys_child]

Oh ****. I can't see Clinton and Obama on a ticket together because who are you going to choose as what but what if it is the only way to guarantee a Democrastic win?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/mccain-leads-ob.html (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/mccain-leads-ob.html)

McCain leads Obama by 6, Clinton by 8 in Reuters/Zogby Poll

The latest Reuters/Zogby national poll (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1824791220080319?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10112) gives Republican Sen. John McCain leads over both his potential Democratic rivals for the White House.
He's ahead of Obama by 46%-40% and ahead of Clinton 48%-40%.
Zogby says the survey of 1,004 "likely" voters was done March 13-14, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. So, McCain's lead over Clinton is "outside" the margin of error, but his lead over Obama is not. In the matchup against Obama, McCain's support might be as low as 42.8% (since 46-3.2=42.8) and Obama's support might be as high as 43.2% (since 40+3.2=43.2).
Our standard reminder on all posts about polls, especially when there are nearly eight months to go before Election Day: Polls are snapshots of current public opinion, not forecasts for what will happen when people vote.
Update at 1:05 p.m. ET: Rasmussen Reports' "daily tracking poll" (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) gives McCain a 48%-42% lead over Obama and a 49%-43% lead over Clinton.



Posted by Mark Memmott at 11:11 AM/ET, March 19, 2008 in Democrats (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/democrats/index.html), Polls (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/polls/index.html), Presidential race, 2008 (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/presidential_race_2008/index.html), Republicans (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/republicans/index.html) | Permalink (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/mccain-leads-ob.html)

[J5master]

geez. THat's not good.

OMG ya'll should watch the Daily Show...Jon Stewart did a HILARIOUS sketch about Obama's speech...omggg lol

[arXter]

i commend your unbiased thoughts on this, eternitys_child.


You probably can't tell from my prior posts but I am actually a Hillary supporter. I am upset with the way the media has bashed her and portrayed her. I use Drudge as a link to other news sources and routinely see unflattering pictures and captions of her on his site. There is constant comment about the way she looks or dresses as opposed to discussion of her policies.

It disheartens me because I do believe it says that the US is not ready yet to accept a woman in power.
there is blatant left/centre media bias for Obama. most of the major online sources for lefties (Huffington, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground etc.) have virtually endorsed him. but Matt Drudge is not to be taken seriously.. his site has always been that way and does not reflect the otherwise respectful attitude and non-sexist views of respectable media. well i say non-sexist - as in no more sexist than they are racist if we're talking about what America is ready for.

[arXter]

feminist Marianne Williamson on why she's notvoting for Hillary Clinton:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ1Qzo_8gs

[J5master]

I think both Obama and Hilary has had equal praise and hits from the media. Honestly.

[eternitys_child]

I think both Obama and Hilary has had equal praise and hits from the media. Honestly.
Well early on when the tide starting turning towards Obama one of the journalists for a mainline news source (forget which one now) said they had a hard time being objective when reporting on Obama because they just got caught up in him. I believe that Obama is sincere but we have to be careful to not be so captivated that we do not question.

To Arxter:
Yeah. Drudge is not to be taken seriously and I suppose he posts the nastiest things he can find but he is finding them and from mainstream sources too.

[arXter]

I believe that Obama is sincere but we have to be careful to not be so captivated that we do not question.
the problem is, when the common mass media does question, they focus on the wrong issue. we had the Spitzer and Wright blowout in the same week.

[eternitys_child]

the problem is, when the common mass media does question, they focus on the wrong issue. we had the Spitzer and Wright blowout in the same week.
True. And all it does is distract from the real issues. Kudos for Obama's abilty to turn it around and use the Wright hoopla to bring attention to something important. He has my respect for that.

[movingcoolcat]

On what Marianne Williamson said about Hillary: the problem with all of this, is that wether she is attacked for being a woman, or because she is not "feminine enough", its two sides of the same coin. The main problem is that she can never just be a candidate- she also has to be judged as a representative for "women", for her gender.

I would be happy if either of the democratic candidates were elected, but as a foreigner its interesting to see how differently they are treated in the media.
Sometimes I wonder though, if race is too mutch of a challenge to be "used" as a tool openly against Obama, but gender is more accepted to use in attacking a candidate?

i also wonder what will happen if ( and right now this seems the most likely outcome) that he becomes the dem candidate. How will that affect the medias treatment?
It would be interesting to hear what people in the US think about this- will race be "openly" used as a way of attacking him, or is that too sensitive a thing, and his opponents would rather use it as a "hidden" tool?

[J5master]

I think race always has been used to attack him...either race or religious background. I mean of course people arent gonna come out directly and say hateful things, but i think a lot of it has been subtly implied (just like racism generally is in america). On the surface people has said that, as obama has said himself, that he is not black enough or too white, or which ever. Or now that he's "only" a "black candidate" and nothing more.

I do think that gender has been used against hillary too. and it has been more direct because, as u have said, it is less sensitive of a topic. Honestly (although i am biased for Obama lol)...i think Hillary's experience push has made up for that. She has pushed her campaign and herself to be more "competent" as president...more so than Obama as a male, since she has more experience.

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

If Obama gets the nomination, which seems likely, what I fear is that it is then racism will rear it's ugly head. Racism in inherent in the United States, whether people want to admit it or not. What's worse about it today is that, it still exsists just as strongly, but it is not as overt, yet still has and takes an affect on the outcome of things. I'm worried that right now, those voting for Obama won't be so sure of that vote when it comes down to putting him in the White House. I liken it to American Idol, when people vote for the contestent they most relate to, not because they're the best, but because they find something of themselves in that person. But when it comes down to buying their album, they drop the ball and aren't willing to put their money on the counter for them. I don't know if that will happen with Obama, but it might. Behind that curtain, even if it is subconcious, people may not be willing to make the big vote when it comes to a black candidate.

[J5master]

^ ur right. Hopefully that's not the case. I have hope that a big majority of the country would have learned their lesson after the last 8 years, and rather some real change over another Bush clone lol

[L.J]

feminist Marianne Williamson on why she's notvoting for Hillary Clinton:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ1Qzo_8gs

It's interesting that feminists are popping up and not supporting Hilary first it was Germaine Greer and now it's Marianner Williamson


it certainly makes things interesting

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

Maybe. I didn't think people would want to vote a Rebublican in to office again, but it's hard to say, and McCain isn't a very radical republican. He falls more towards the liberal side of things and is likeable due to his war time expereiences and over all experience.

[J5master]

yeahhh its tough. We'll see.

[browneyedgirl]

From Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic comes the reporting that Obama wrote his speech on race and America himself. Reports Ambinder:

"This wasn't a speech by committee... Obama wrote the speech himself, working on it for two days and nights.... and showed it to only a few of his top advisers."

---
To be honest, I don't know what to make of this controversy surrounding his pastor. It won't affect the Democratic election much, but come GOP time, it will most likely used by the Republicans. It's good to see Obama has turned something so threatening to his campaign into something positive.

Now tell me how presidential this looks!
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/browneyedgirl77/0011eeha.jpg

[Bob George]

That was the only thing I didn't like about his speech. The flags. It was such a cheap tactic.

[eternitys_child]

On what Marianne Williamson said about Hillary: the problem with all of this, is that wether she is attacked for being a woman, or because she is not "feminine enough", its two sides of the same coin. The main problem is that she can never just be a candidate- she also has to be judged as a representative for "women", for her gender.

I would be happy if either of the democratic candidates were elected, but as a foreigner its interesting to see how differently they are treated in the media.
Sometimes I wonder though, if race is too mutch of a challenge to be "used" as a tool openly against Obama, but gender is more accepted to use in attacking a candidate?

i also wonder what will happen if ( and right now this seems the most likely outcome) that he becomes the dem candidate. How will that affect the medias treatment?
It would be interesting to hear what people in the US think about this- will race be "openly" used as a way of attacking him, or is that too sensitive a thing, and his opponents would rather use it as a "hidden" tool?
Yes. Hillary is in a damned if she does and damned if she doesn't position. That is why I say I believe people not being ready for a woman in power is a major factor here.

As to Obama, while there will always be hardcore haters I think the majority of predjudice is against a stereotype that Obama shatters or at least doesn't fit so you will not see any majority turn against him because of his race or heritage. That is my opinion but then I have never understood predjudice so I have a hard time predicting it.

[browneyedgirl]

That was the only thing I didn't like about his speech. The flags. It was such a cheap tactic.

It wasn't a cheap tactic. Many are accusing Obama of "not respecting the flag" which I don't even know how that started. Obama was trying to make a statement without saying a word... political stagecraft.

I could give you a list of all of Hillary's cheap tactics, but that's another debate for another day.

[eternitys_child]

That was the only thing I didn't like about his speech. The flags. It was such a cheap tactic.
I only read his speech. I didn't listen to it. I'm kind of glad now that I see the flags. They are a distraction.

[J5master]

Well when u watch the speech u only see partially two of them on his left and right sides LOL. I don't think it was THAT big of a deal. I was paying to much attention to what he SAID lol

[Bob George]

It wasn't a cheap tactic. Many are accusing Obama of "not respecting the flag" which I don't even know how that started. Obama was trying to make a statement without saying a word... political stagecraft.

I could give you a list of all of Hillary's cheap tactics, but that's another debate for another day.
I think it was a cheap tactic. Because Americans are very sentimental when it comes to their flag. So Obama just stuck some flags behind to emote that sentimentality in the American people. He knew what he was doing. It wasn't anything more than a cheap tactic. You can disguise it as political stagecraft, but that's just a fancy term for a cheap tactic, lol. I don't like it when any politician gives a speech in front of flags because it's not necessary and is only done because it's a foolproof way to capture the hearts of the people. In any country, the only person that should give a speech in front of the flag of that country, is the president/prime minister/whatever.

[J5master]

I don't like it when any politician gives a speech in front of flags because it's not necessary and is only done because it's a foolproof way to capture the hearts of the people.

Really now?

q6Ry9nZu_dM

EVERYONE does it lol.

[Bob George]

Just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right. It's always done for a reason, regardless of who does it (besides the president).

[J5master]

therefore u can allot the same critique to ur own favorite candidate then right?

[Bob George]

correcto mundo

[arXter]

newly released 11,000+ paged Clinton White House schedules are showing some interesting stuff... i can see why they didn't want them released. this thing needs a series of its own

episode 1:


Hillary's schedule proves she worked on NAFTA

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/16710/5636/924/480135


scamming Ohio voters.


http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u101/kubla000/naftasked.jpg

She was also involved in helping her husband win congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal she now criticizes and says she would try to change.

Her schedule for Nov. 10, 1993, shows her speaking at a NAFTA briefing closed to the media, with 120 people expected to attend.

[Bob George]

I'm sorry, but I find this video funny now that this info about her meeting on NAFTA have come out...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9h7dF7Q2mNk

Politicians are such hypocrits. lol. Including Obama. He's not exactly been straight and honest about NAFTA either.

[arXter]

Politicians are such hypocrits. lol. Including Obama. He's not exactly been straight and honest about NAFTA either.
he's been very straight. he did not contradict himself in any way and has been consistent on the issue. the story with the Canadian politicians was a Hillary media attack that misinterpreted and exaggerated a memo ahead of Ohio votes.



The Overlooked Fact in the Canadian NAFTA Memo.

Mark Jay Flanders - 3/5/08

The narrative of the attack on Obama over a supposed "back-channel" reassurance of Canada about NAFTA goes something like this: After Tim Russert, in the Ohio debates, pushed both the Candidates into saying they would use the threat of dropping out of NAFTA to renegotiate for improved environment and Labor standards, Obama presumably sent his leading economic advisor quietly to Canada to reassure them that it was merely political positioning. When asked about it, Obama said "It didn"t happen". The media pounced, producing a memo describing a talk between a Canadian Embassy official and Obama"s economic advisor. GOTCHA!

For the moment, put aside Obamas position on trade, which has been consistent and available for anyone to see. The damage of this attack is the implication of duplicity about the meeting itself. Obama prides himself on being an honest agent of change, and this episode paints this to be false. However, there is a simple fact that blows this narrative out of the water.

The meeting the memo discusses was on Friday, February 8th.

In terms of election cycles, this was a century ago. It was the day before the Washington State and Nebraska Caucuses and the Louisiana Primary. It was before the Maine vote, before the Potomac Primaries and before Wisconsin. The Ohio vote was light years away, nobody was talking about NAFTA and the Ohio debate had not even been scheduled.

Given this detail, Obama"s NAFTA debate comments were in no way "soft-pedaled" via a back channel, and more importantly, Obama told the truth. An independent, introductory meeting in Chicago on February 8th, which Obama may or may not have known about, can in no way be described by this media narrative.

It seems an unlikely coincidence that this story broke two days before the Ohio primary.

---
Source: AP- "Obama denies assuring Canada on NAFTA." Nedra Pickler

[Bob George]

So the meeting on February 8th about NAFTA or not?

[arXter]

the Embassy contacted his campaign (and surely contacted Hillary's too). this is different than working for NAFTA and meeting up with 200 NAFTA'rians telling them what a good job they're doing.

and remember, Obama never wanted to eliminate NAFTA completely but to amend it.

this is why it's being blown out of proportion.

[Bob George]

Oh OK. I just wasn't sure. The article was confusing, didn't get to the point. Thanks for explaining it.

But I do have one question; how is that you can tell by looking at the excerpt from Hillary's schedule that the meeting for NAFTA was a positive one where she told the NAFTA people what a good job they're doing? Isn't that just an assumption. Couldn't she of just as well been speaking out against NAFTA and telling 120 people that NAFTA isn't working and needs to be amended?

[arXter]

But I do have one question; how is that you can tell by looking at the excerpt from Hillary's schedule that the meeting for NAFTA was a positive one where she told the NAFTA people what a good job they're doing? Isn't that just an assumption. Couldn't she of just as well been speaking out against NAFTA and telling 120 people that NAFTA is working and needs to be amended?yes after appproving the deal with her husband, i'm sure she told everyone at that meeting just how skeptical she was, how it would shaft workers in Ohio and all that jazz.... sheaahhh...




First Lady schedules episode 2:


NYT article DEBUNKS Hillary's claims of experience
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19cnd-archives.html?ref=politics

remember, this is from the paper that endorsed Clinton.


On supporting her claims on experience:

The documents offer no support for her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords or facilitated the flow of refugees in the Balkans. Neither is there evidence in them to back up her claim that she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first legislation Mr. Clinton signed as president. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, sailed through Congress and landed on Mr. Clinton’s desk 10 days after he was inaugurated. Indeed, on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law, Feb. 5, 1993, there is no indication on that day’s calendar that she attended.

On her 80 country passport-filling visits where she dealt with snipers, major foreign policy issues etc:

They show Mrs. Clinton representing the nation at ceremonial functions in dozens of foreign visits, attending formal White House functions and sitting to be photographed for magazines.

On some of her claims regarding the most important"speech" of her life:

In her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton writes that she received intelligence briefings prior to going to China in September 1995 to deliver her landmark women’s rights speech. But no such meetings appear on the calendars released on Wednesday.

[Bob George]

The China 1995 speech on women's rights. Now that was a great speech!

Say what you want about Hillary. When it comes to women's rights, children's rights and healthcare, she is so passionate. I hope if there's another debate schedules between Obama and Clinton, they ask something about women's rights. Or something to do with children. That'll shut everyone up who says she's a heartless drone.

[arXter]

I hope if there's another debate schedules between Obama and Clinton, they ask something about women's rights. Or something to do with children. That'll shut everyone up who says she's a heartless drone.a debate is set up in about 2 weeks time i think and i'm sure they'll be questioning her integrity more than anything.



When it comes to women's rights, children's rights and healthcare, she is so passionate.which brings us to...


Hillary Clinton Schedules Show Drop in Policy Role After Healthcare Failure

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080319/pl_bloomberg/aubvzzfnsa8g_1

March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton's daily schedules show that her formal policy role in the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton, shrunk once Congress shelved the health- care plan she helped craft in the administration's first two years.

The 11,046 pages of daily schedules released by the Clinton Presidential Library show that her days became filled with the more traditional, ceremonial events attended by first ladies instead of policy meetings after Congress in 1994 killed her plan to guarantee every American access to health insurance.

In campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton says the experience she gained in her husband's administration prepared her to be president on ``day one.'' Clinton, a New York senator, argues that her travel and meetings with foreign leaders give her a deeper foreign-policy resume than Democratic rival Barack Obama. She has questioned the Illinois senator's fitness to be commander in chief.

><

During the first two years of her husband's presidency, Clinton mixed her traditional first lady duties with her work on health-care reform.

The records also show she attended two White House meetings in October and November of 1993 about the North American Free Trade Agreement as the administration was seeking congressional approval of the accord. On the campaign trail this year, Clinton has denounced the agreement as costing U.S. jobs and has questioned Obama's willingness to seek new labor protections.

On Jan. 21, 1994, she met privately with Queen Noor of Jordan, went to the Healthcare Leadership Council at the Madison Hotel, and then returned to the White House to join a meeting that staff aides were conducting with health-care executives including Roy Vagelos, chief executive officer of drugmaker Merck & Co.

With the death of her health-care plan in September 1994 and the election that gave Republicans control of Congress, Clinton's daily activities became more social and ceremonial.

[Bob George]

The next debate should be very interesting. There's a lot of questions. Obama will no doubt be asked about Jeremiah Wright.

[arXter]

which will only lead to the ingenious platform he set up for himself in The Speech.

[Bob George]

Do you think he's remain calm and reserved or get annoyed and frustrated if they question him about Jeremiah Wright?

[arXter]

well he knows he hit the right keys with the sentiments of his speech so i'm sure he'll remain calm and go with the flow.

[Bob George]

But I still think he'll try to move on from the question and remind the people conducting the debate that he's addressed the issue already.

[arXter]

i'm not arguing against that. he definitely wants to end this on a high and unfortunately the right wing media are not going to end it there at all. so the questions are still highly likely to come up. but he already settled his damage control two nights ago and could just refer back to it.

[Bob George]

Who's doing the debate btw? What network?

[arXter]

there are two lined up


Obama, Clinton plan Philadelphia debate
WASHINGTON // Democratic Sens. Barack Obama (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/politics/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic) and Hillary Clinton (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/politics/government/hillary-clinton-PEPLT007433.topic) plan to debate in Philadelphia next month before Pennsylvania's primary, their presidential campaigns said yesterday. ABC News will host the debate on a date still to be determined. Pennsylvania voters go to the polls April 22 for the primary, a contest with 158 delegates at stake. Obama also has agreed to a matchup April 19 hosted by CBS News in North Carolina, his campaign said. North Carolina has 115 delegates up for grabs in its May 6 primary. CBS News said it was awaiting word on whether Clinton would participate.

[Bob George]

I hope they ask some interesting questions in this coming debate. I've found all the debates so far to be pretty tame in their line of questioning and like for the candidates to be really challenged by the questions they are asked for a change.

[WestSavannah]

I think it was a cheap tactic. Because Americans are very sentimental when it comes to their flag. So Obama just stuck some flags behind to emote that sentimentality in the American people. He knew what he was doing. It wasn't anything more than a cheap tactic. You can disguise it as political stagecraft, but that's just a fancy term for a cheap tactic, lol. I don't like it when any politician gives a speech in front of flags because it's not necessary and is only done because it's a foolproof way to capture the hearts of the people. In any country, the only person that should give a speech in front of the flag of that country, is the president/prime minister/whatever.

In fairness, Obama sort of has to overcompensate regarding the appearance of his patriotism so as not to offend (read: provide ammo to) the right wing patriot-fanatics (read: patriot nazis) who have criticized him for things like not wearing a flag pin and having a picture taken during the national anthem (NOT the pledge of allegiance) without his hand over his heart.

I am not an Obama supporter, I don't support anyone at this point. But the level of attacks against him for trivial, petty, and downright offensive things (like his middle name) make me disgusted. I think now thanks to these kind of people, Obama has to sport US flags wherever he goes just so he wont be swiftboated for it by those who are looking for anything they can to smear him.

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll

1 hour, 10 minutes ago



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has moved into a significant lead over Barack Obama among Democratic voters, according to a new Gallup poll.
ADVERTISEMENT

The March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points.

The poll was a snapshot of current popular feeling, but Clinton trails Obama in the state-by-state contest which began in January to select a nominee to face presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the November election to succeed President George W. Bush.

The nominees are formally chosen by delegates at the parties' conventions in the summer.
Gallup said the poll lead was the first statistically significant one for Clinton since a tracking poll conducted February 7-9, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. The two candidates had largely been locked in a statistical tie since then, with Obama last holding a lead over Clinton in a March 11-13 poll.


Gallup said polling data also showed McCain leading Obama 47 percent to 43 percent in 4,367 registered voters' preferences for the general election. The general election survey has an error margin of 2 percentage points.

The Arizona senator also edged Clinton 48 percent to 45 percent but Gallup said the lead was not statistically significant.

(Reporting by David Morgan, editing by Vicki Allen)

[arXter]

yes, one of many.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Obama still leading and after that speech, anticipate a huge lead by next week.

[RubbaRubba]

You all do know that Bill Clinton has associated himself with Reverend Wright quite a few times before as well, right?

http://www.drudgereport.com/bcw.jpg

[The Dancin Machine]

Im pulling for Obama! His words are powerful, and he can make a huge impact on America. He is a great speaker, and wants Change for the better. He wants to fulfill the American Dream. I hope he wins! Its also seems Hilary has been mad slander like, these pas monts.

[browneyedgirl]

You all do know that Bill Clinton has associated himself with Reverend Wright quite a few times before as well, right?

http://www.drudgereport.com/bcw.jpg

Oh wow, who would've thought...

This just keeps gets crazier and crazier.

[J5master]

You all do know that Bill Clinton has associated himself with Reverend Wright quite a few times before as well, right?

http://www.drudgereport.com/bcw.jpg

didnt know that. Funny how certain things are talked about and other things aren't.

[144,000]

^ ur right. Hopefully that's not the case. I have hope that a big majority of the country would have learned their lesson after the last 8 years, and rather some real change over another Bush clone lol

i don't think america is ready for this because they are inundated with fear. fear is still the great divide between race and gender in this country. it is truly the most backward country in the world. the rest of the world is ahead of them..has progressed past america. every time i hear talk shows, sports, politics..entertainment, you name it..i can hear the great divide..and it's definitely based on fear...each side feels they don't know enough about the other side...and there is just fear. gang violence is up...and the media loves to stereotype...and they do it in such a subtle way, that i don't even think they know that they are in denial. the fabric of the united states makes it hard for me to think that this whole campaign is nothing more than a smokescreen. after all, it's not the first time that women and people of color have tried to run for high office in this country.

whatever anyone is thinking about issue based campaigns...like you said..when it's time for the rubber to hit the road...i think voters will get cold feet.

[J5master]

well imma try to keep hope alive :lol:

[arXter]

Governor Bill Richardson just endorsed Obama.

"I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world"


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gIWF-cWWTIzLwKoOVfi50PnqNM0wD8VHLSSO0

also

OBAMA'S SPEECH MAKES YOUTUBE HISTORY...Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech is the most popular video in the world today, drawing an unusual 1.2 million full views in its first 24 hours on YouTube – double the views of the next most popular clips. YouTube only counts visitors who watch an entire video, so hundreds of thousands of additional visitors probably watched part of the 37-minute address.

While commentators and Democratic leaders predict that "A More Perfect Union" will ultimately be seen as a historic contribution to American race relations, it is already making history in YouTube politics. At this pace, it will be the most watched contemporary political speech in Internet history. In about a day, it is already the second most viewed item on Obama's innovative YouTube channel, which boasts 810 videos and 13 million channel views. (For comparison, that is nine times the views of Clinton's channel and 21 times the views for the McCain channel.)

Obama's all-time top video, a 4-minute response to President Bush's State of the Union recorded exclusively for YouTube, ultimately drew 1.3 million views. An Obama aide tells The Nation that video took about two weeks to reach one million views -- this longer Philadelphia address broke one million views in a single day, with visitors voting it the top rated and most "favorited" video on YouTube. And over at MSNBC.com, an excerpt of Obama's speech was also the most popular clip, drawing over 360,000 views.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=300367 (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=300367)

[L.J]

Youtube is gonna crash!!! http://www.therealityshow.net/talk/images/smilies/shock.gif


:lol:

[LindaC781]

Rush Limbaugh should be INDICTED and CONVICTED of VOTE TAMPERING and VOTE FRAUD...

Rush Limbaugh encourages VOTER FRAUD!!

I am joining a class action about this.... http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/80392/

There are LAWS against this. And ANYONE who actually DID this at his urging ALSO should be SUED!!

***

Will Rush Limbaugh Be Indicted for Voter Fraud?

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted March 21, 2008.

As Ohio election officials investigate illegal crossover voting in the 2008 primary, questions arise on Limbaugh's role.

***

As the board of election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Cleveland is located, launches an investigation into illegal crossover voting in the state's 2008 presidential primary, a big open question remains unanswered: Will county officials go after the ringleaders of apparently illegal electioneering where thousands of Republican voters swore -- under penalty of law -- allegiance to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Hillary Clinton?

In case you missed it, Rush Limbaugh, the nation's top-rated talk radio host, was urging Republicans in Texas and Ohio to skip their party's primary on March 4 and instead cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prolong the fight between her and Barack Obama. And that Tuesday, as media in both states reported, thousands of Republicans did just what Limbaugh and others had suggested -- they changed parties to vote for Clinton.

"I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura," Limbaugh told Laura Ingraham on Feb. 29, near the start of his Hillary crusade. "This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it, as you probably know."

And on Wednesday, the day after the Ohio primary, Fox News asked Clinton if she owed Limbaugh a thank you. "Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she replied. Later that day, Limbaugh played the Fox tape on his show and said, "How do you interpret this, folks? She could have said thank you. She could have said thank you! In fact, I was expecting in her victory speech last night to be thanked.

"I helped give Mrs. Clinton the biggest and happiest moment and night of the campaign season so far, maybe her life, and she tells me, "Be careful what you wish for, Rush"? Why, that sounds like a threat, does it not? I've got a Democrat presidential candidate threatening your host. Why, I am stunned! After all I did ..."

While this all makes for great talk radio and sounds like fun, there is one catch: What Limbaugh encouraged Republican voters to do in Ohio was a fifth-degree felony in that state, punishable with a $2,500 fine and six to 12 months in jail. That is because in order to change party affiliation in Ohio, voters have to fill out a form swearing allegiance to that party's principles "under penalty of election falsification."

On Thursday, March 20, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the "Cuyahoga County Board of Election has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary." According to the report, "One voter scribbled the following addendum to his pledge as a new Democrat: "For one day only."

"Such an admission amounts to voter fraud," the report continued, attributing that conclusion to BOE member Sandy McNair, a Democrat. The report said the four-member board -- two Democrats and two Republicans -- had yet to vote on whether it would issue subpoenas, although Ohio's secretary of state, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, is empowered to cast tie-breaking votes when the BOE is deadlocked.
***
An addendum - Forget the PRIEST and CONFESSION if you did this. You are answerable to the LAW...

[KOPV]

This rev. thing is thrown way out of paportion.. Every has been assosiated with people that would not look good in public eye..

I have family that are criminals, Yes I visit and spend time with them anyways..

How many of us have had a friend that has been in trouble with the law, and/or been looked down upon my people..

Has anyone looked up to someone with many flaws?? I have...
A human has many more demensions to them than just that 'bad' things about a person..

Take this for example.. I think Melcolm X has done many great things, he should be looked up to by everyone.. NOW!! I disagree MANY things he said and did. Especially before his pilgrimage to Mecca. He had many flaws. Many of the things he said, I did not agree with.. But he is inspirational, and in many positive ways..

Should I be ashamed of it? NO!

[arXter]

Take this for example.. I think Melcolm X has done many great things, he should be looked up to by everyone.. NOW!! I disagree MANY things he said and did. Especially before his pilgrimage to Mecca. He had many flaws. Many of the things he said, I did not agree with.. But he is inspirational, and in many positive ways..

Should I be ashamed of it? NO!

that's a great example and i used it in the previous elections thread but you know everyone will ignore such reasoning from the media, to many republicans and even some democrats.

[arXter]

You all do know that Bill Clinton has associated himself with Reverend Wright quite a few times before as well, right?

http://www.drudgereport.com/bcw.jpg

haha yeah it's such hypocrisy.. and it gets funnier

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/1809/wrighthillaryzq8.jpg

[J5master]

Take this for example.. I think Melcolm X has done many great things, he should be looked up to by everyone.. NOW!! I disagree MANY things he said and did. Especially before his pilgrimage to Mecca. He had many flaws. Many of the things he said, I did not agree with.. But he is inspirational, and in many positive ways..

Should I be ashamed of it? NO!

that is a GREAT example. Kudos ! :punk:

[KOPV]

thanks^^^

People can just make 'evil' out of anything and everything.. Anything can be twisted.

[RubbaRubba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXmYVRIpu2w

[RubbaRubba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mlZeb2k8NA

[eternitys_child]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mlZeb2k8NA
That was an interesting clip. I hope someone here posts the followup.

[arXter]

Money In The Bank:
Obama $30 Million... Clinton $3 Million (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/obama-has-clear-money-adv_n_92861.html)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/15830/thumbs/r-MONEY-large.jpg

[arXter]

since KOPV remarked on controversial but inspirational associates, i though i'd post this here from the MJ/Celeb thread. it's Minister Farrakhan remarking on Mike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SI5SZNoejw

thanks to daphnieas for sharing.

[RubbaRubba]

That was an interesting clip. I hope someone here posts the followup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85S0PIPv5Co

[eternitys_child]

Thank you Rubba. After all of the hoopla about this pastor I expected something considerably 'worse'. It is easy to see Reverend Sharpton's point. I wonder how the general audience took it.

[arXter]

Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll


OBAMA TAKES LEAD IN GALLUP

Down 2 yesterday, up 3 today

Update:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Ed... (http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx)

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

Obama's campaign clearly suffered in recent days from negative press, mostly centering around his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps as a result, Clinton moved into the lead in Gallup's Wednesday release, covering March 16-18 polling. But Obama has now edged back ahead of Clinton due to a strong showing for him in Friday night's polling, perhaps in response to the endorsement he received from well-respected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former rival for the nomination.

[144,000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mlZeb2k8NA


i gotta say...rev. sharpton didn't get his name for nothin.
i've NEVER seen a reporter get that flustered and stuttery and unprepared looking, when confronting an interviewie in my life. lol..yes..i had to make up a new word to get my point across.

[144,000]

since KOPV remarked on controversial but inspirational associates, i though i'd post this here from the MJ/Celeb thread. it's Minister Farrakhan remarking on Mike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SI5SZNoejw

thanks to daphnieas for sharing.

absolutely remarkable. brings me to tears. that proves that if you want to find hate, you'll see hate..but if you want to find positivity, and love, you'll see it. if it hadn't been for this clip, it would be easy for me to think that Minister Farrakahn is about hate, because of what i heard in the media. it pays to be an MJ fan...cus i guess it takes other MJ fans to help me see what the media won't let me see. thanks for posting.

[arXter]

that proves that if you want to find hate, you'll see hate..but if you want to find positivity, and love, you'll see it. if it hadn't been for this clip, it would be easy for me to think that Minister Farrakahn is about hate, because of what i heard in the media.
absolutely, it shows the media's brutal force on the world. i'll go as far as calling many of them psychological terrorists working for governments who are trying to hunt for the "real" terrorists.

Farrakhan's remarks are said with so much clarity, it's quite awesome.

and even Pastor Jeremiah Wright - most of what he says is quite frankly the truth that America can't bear to get its head around.

[Bob George]

Just on the Bill Clinton meeting Jeremiah Wright and you guys shouting "HYPOCRISY":

a) Bill Clinton is not running for President
b) the Clinton's aren't members of the Trinity Church
c) Hillary wasn't the one who outed Obama on his affiliation with Wright, so even if she was also friends with Wright, she wouldn't be a "hypocrite".

3 strikes, you're out.

[arXter]

mm hypocrites and compulsives liars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2rtBUfc6YA

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html

[RubbaRubba]

Net worth of the Presidential Candidates - very very interesting http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/256.0/popup/index.php?cl=6782580

[eternitys_child]

Net worth of the Presidential Candidates - very very interesting http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/256.0/popup/index.php?cl=6782580
I expected Obama and his wife to be worth more although they certainly aren't middle class. The article I had seen spoke about Michelle leaving a high paid legal job (I think Obama did as well) to work for humanitarian causes. The article mentioned that in spite of that she had a very high salary as board member (or whatever position it was she had) of that agency.

I don't know why you find it very, very interesting though. I don't think there is any earth shattering information there.

Obama and Hillary's campaign contributors are very similiar (corporate, legal, wealthy) with the exception that Obama (in addition to the high dollar contibutors which at least initially contributed by far the most to his campaign) had more small contributors. Supposedly whereas many of Hillary's (and Obama's) high dollar contributors have maxed out in allowable contributions the small donors are stepping in and picking up the slack for Obama.

[mello1]

Just on the Bill Clinton meeting Jeremiah Wright and you guys shouting "HYPOCRISY":

a) Bill Clinton is not running for President
b) the Clinton's aren't members of the Trinity Church
c) Hillary wasn't the one who outed Obama on his affiliation with Wright, so even if she was also friends with Wright, she wouldn't be a "hypocrite".

3 strikes, you're out.
I don't find anything hypocritical about it either, but I also don't think that's the point.

The picture conveys that Rev. Wright is not some fringe loony on the edge. He is (or shall I say, was) very highly respected. When Wright was a lance corp., he was on the surgical team for President Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

I have not commented on this whole Wright/Trinity thing because I'm just too close to it, being that I have visited Trinity many times over the years and I have close friends who are members of that church and are close personal friends to Rev. Wright.

To say that those snippets are a gross mischaracterization of the man would be an understatement.

[mello1]

Money In The Bank: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/obama-has-clear-money-adv_n_92861.html)
Obama $30 Million... Clinton $3 Million (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/obama-has-clear-money-adv_n_92861.html)

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/15830/thumbs/r-MONEY-large.jpg
I think that Obama's campaign netted it's 2 millionth contributor as of last night and some blogs are stating that Clinton is really in the red because a large chunk of her campaign funds cannot be spent until the General Elections...

[eternitys_child]

I don't find anything hypocritical about it either, but I also don't think that's the point.

The picture conveys that Rev. Wright is not some fringe loony on the edge. He is (or shall I say, was) very highly respected. When Wright was a lance corp., he was on the surgical team for President Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

I have not commented on this whole Wright/Trinity thing because I'm just too close to it, being that I have visited Trinity many times over the years and I have close friends who are members of that church and are close personal friends to Rev. Wright.

To say that those snippets are a gross mischaracterization of the man would be an understatement.
It was interesting that a reporters attempt to demonstrate to Reverend Sharpton that the Rev. Wright's remarks were racist showed (to some of us anyway) that Wright was not. He sounded like someone who was not afraid to speak truth and forgot to be politically correct while doing it. That's all. Not speaking about it is not the answer. Then it just all goes underground and festers and grows.

Ministers try to fire up their congregations and words are their tools. If you take anyones words over time and start pulling them out of context you can make them look just about any way you want. The media does it all the time and the American public continues to bite. I am impressed that Obama did not abandon a man he understands to be good for political expediency. To me that is character.

I just wish that the media did not decide to put crappy photos of Hillary's expressions on their sites with captions inplying negative things. I feel sure the media's attempts to manipulate opinion have influenced this primary unjustly, just not to what degree. Of course you have the same thing going on with Obama and the Wright thing now. I am so dang tired of trying to filter out media influence. Just like with Michael. If a lie is told enough times people start to believe it. And then when I try to adjust for it wonder if I am adjusting too far the other way.

Bah!

[eternitys_child]

I think that Obama's campaign netted it's 2 millionth contributor as of last night and some blogs are stating that Clinton is really in the red because a large chunk of her campaign funds cannot be spent until the General Elections...
Ouch. Why is that?

[mello1]

Ouch. Why is that?
Campaign finance rules. You max out at 2300 bucks for the primary and 2300 bucks for the general. A lot of Hillary's contributors, especially early on in the campaign season, gave her the max contribution. Probably on the thought that she was going to be the defacto nominee by February 5th.

A candidate cannot spend funds advanced to them for the generals until they are named the nominee. If the candidate does not become the nominee, they must refund all that money to contributors.

Obama's net has resulted from a gigantic pool of contributors giving about 25, 50, 100 or 200 bucks at a time. That means that the Obama campaign can hit up those contributors several times during the primary alone before they hit the 2300 buck ceiling.

And if he is the nominee, the Obama camp can start all over again and hit up those million and a half contributors for even more money, not to exceed 2300 bucks. This is the truly untold story of this whole campaign (and when it's told, it's heavily downplayed). If Bush or McCain had raised this kind of money, that is all that the mainstream media would be talking about, because their point would be that it would be impossible to beat that candidate with those kinds of deep pockets and long contributor list.

My thought is that beyond the headline story of who has the most delegates, votes and state wins, the DNC's real problem is the possiblity of having to lose Obama's VERY LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG campaign contribution list, because that's like liquid gold to a politican or political party. And they would most surely lose it if Hillary garners the nomination. It's one thing if peeps somewhat mend the rips of the party to back her. It's another thing to ask peeps who didn't back her in the first place to put hard earned money down for her general election campaign and she would need all she could get, as well as Obama, to deal with all of the 527 swiftboating - ads, and Bill/Monica/Whitewater/who-really-killed-Vince-Foster fare.

[arXter]

interesting stuff, thanks mello.

[eternitys_child]

Campaign finance rules. You max out at 2300 bucks for the primary and 2300 bucks for the general. A lot of Hillary's contributors, especially early on in the campaign season, gave her the max contribution. Probably on the thought that she was going to be the defacto nominee by February 5th.

A candidate cannot spend funds advanced to them for the generals until they are named the nominee. If the candidate does not become the nominee, they must refund all that money to contributors.

Obama's net has resulted from a gigantic pool of contributors giving about 25, 50, 100 or 200 bucks at a time. That means that the Obama campaign can hit up those contributors several times during the primary alone before they hit the 2300 buck ceiling.

And if he is the nominee, the Obama camp can start all over again and hit up those million and a half contributors for even more money, not to exceed 2300 bucks. This is the truly untold story of this whole campaign (and when it's told, it's heavily downplayed). If Bush or McCain had raised this kind of money, that is all that the mainstream media would be talking about, because their point would be that it would be impossible to beat that candidate with those kinds of deep pockets and long contributor list.

My thought is that beyond the headline story of who has the most delegates, votes and state wins, the DNC's real problem is the possiblity of having to lose Obama's VERY LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG campaign contribution list, because that's like liquid gold to a politican or political party. And they would most surely lose it if Hillary garners the nomination. It's one thing if peeps somewhat mend the rips of the party to back her. It's another thing to ask peeps who didn't back her in the first place to put hard earned money down for her general election campaign and she would need all she could get, as well as Obama, to deal with all of the 527 swiftboating - ads, and Bill/Monica/Whitewater/who-really-killed-Vince-Foster fare.
Ah yes. I guess that was probably included in the article I had read but I forgot about half carrying over.

It is important in another way. It is important because it shifts some power back to what I would call the average American since their dolklars show up as important to this campaign. To me this is more relevant than the incomes or net worth of the candidates. It is plus if they have at some point been in a position where they truly understood living on the edge financially but I would not say it is necessary. There are plenty of wealthy humanists.

[mello1]

It was interesting that a reporters attempt to demonstrate to Reverend Sharpton that the Rev. Wright's remarks were racist showed (to some of us anyway) that Wright was not. He sounded like someone who was not afraid to speak truth and forgot to be politically correct while doing it. That's all. Not speaking about it is not the answer. Then it just all goes underground and festers and grows.

Ministers try to fire up their congregations and words are their tools. If you take anyones words over time and start pulling them out of context you can make them look just about any way you want. The media does it all the time and the American public continues to bite. I am impressed that Obama did not abandon a man he understands to be good for political expediency. To me that is character.

I just wish that the media did not decide to put crappy photos of Hillary's expressions on their sites with captions inplying negative things. I feel sure the media's attempts to manipulate opinion have influenced this primary unjustly, just not to what degree. Of course you have the same thing going on with Obama and the Wright thing now. I am so dang tired of trying to filter out media influence. Just like with Michael. If a lie is told enough times people start to believe it. And then when I try to adjust for it wonder if I am adjusting too far the other way.

Bah!
The 'GD America' statement was just going too far, even Trinity members have said so, even in full context of his sermon. But I do cringe with the characterization of this man being some loony, like I do when they do that to MJ, when, knowing what we all know as people who are interested in MJ enough to keep up with him and know that it's just not true.

The MSM is invested in their ratings. It was clear to all who took the time to watch Obama's speech that they 'got' the whole thing, but if you listen to the MSM, one would get the impression that he had not said anything at all.

Also this op piece by Glenn Greenwald summed up the whole sorry state of racial politics in America for me:



One of Instapundit's favorite blogs speaks on race

(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds today linked (http://instapundit.com/archives2/016824.php) to what he called "EASTER THOUGHTS" from one of his favorite right-wing blogs (http://instapundit.com/mt/asdaf.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=instapunk) gers, his namesake, "Instapunk (http://instapundit.com/archives/025905.php)." That Easter post (http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=1307) has a large picture of a crucified Christ along with a lovely religious poem.



Immediately beneath that righteous celebration of Easter is a somewhat less charitable post purporting to take up Barack Obama's invitation to speak about race. After listing a few black entertainers and sports figures he says he likes, here (http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=1306) are some of the thoughts Instapunk offers on race:
On the other hand, I am sick to death of black people as a group. The truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it? I live in an eastern state almost exactly on the fabled Mason-Dixon line. Every day I see young black males wearing tee shirts down to their knees -- and jeans belted just above their knees. I'm an old guy. I want to smack them. All of them. They are egregious stereotypes. It's impossible not to think the unthinkable N-Word when they roll up beside you at a stoplight in their trashed old Hondas with 19-inch spinner wheels and rap recordings that shake the foundations of the buildings. . . .


Here's the dirty secret all of us know and no one will admit to. There ARE n!iggers. Black people know it. White people know it. And only black people are allowed to notice and pronounce the truth of it. Which would be fine. Except that black people are not a community but a political party. They can squabble with each other in caucus but they absolutely refuse to speak the truth in public. And this is the single biggest obstacle to healing the racial divide in this country.



I'm not proposing the generalized use of the term, just trying to be clear for once, in the wake of Obama's call for us to have a dialogue about race. However much they may scream and protest, black people will know what I mean when I demand they concede that the following people are n!iggers:



- Jeremiah Wright


- O.J. Simpson


- Marion Barry


- Alan Iverson


- William Jefferson


- Louis Farrakhan


- Mike Tyson . . .



You see, you've just given life to the suspicion that black people in America are, and have long been, a fifth column -- unanimously hating the very country that has afforded the highest standard of living ever achieved by black people in human history. We're teetering at the edge of believing that you're a secret society, a massive collection of sleeper cells just waiting for your chance to do serious harm to the rest of us. You've made it possible for us to believe that. Because you're never outraged by what the worst black people do. Because you continue to make excuses for what should be inexcusable to everyone.
This is just a slightly more explicit version of what one hears on so much right-wing talk radio, beginning with conservative hero Rush Limbaugh. Why is there so much hatred and extremism in black churches? Let's talk more and more about all the racism and radicalism among isolated black people and ignore the endless bile that has long spewed forth from the far more powerful appendages of the right-wing noise-machine, exemplified by Instapunk's Easter meditation on race.



While the dominant political faction in the United States built itself (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm) and continues to feed and nourish itself (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50979/) with this sort of endless exploitation of racial resentments and grievances -- and while it openly embraces far more powerful religious fanatics (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/) who espouse ideas at least as radical and repugnant as anything Jeremiah Wright has ever said -- let's spend the next eight months talking about the controversial comments of a single, comparatively powerless black preacher and have our presidential election decided by that.


UPDATE: In comments, DrEyeBall makes a good and important point (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/23/race/permalink/71f1e497fbc2db83e349d23c0023e21e.html):
Don't be fooled into thinking that this applies only to African-Americans. The sense of threatened tribalism is at the root of movement conservatism, and always has been.




This is why it was so easy to sell most of white America on the Iraq war. Polls showed that 2/3 thought that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, or at least close ties to AlQ. . . .



Take almost any one of their "thoughtful" screeds about Islam and do a global search/replace from "Islam" to "niggers" and the text becomes instantly recognizable. This racist energy had for a long time been at least partly directed towards "the Communists" but now that it isn't it is pretty much clear that Islam is now the designated n!gger.
There is no better phrase to describe the animating feature of the modern Limbaugh/Kristol/Fox News conservative faction than "threatened tribalism." The belief that they are good and pure, yet subjected to unprecedented systematic unfairness and threatened by some lurking Evil Other against whom war must be waged (the Muslim, the Immigrant, the Terrorist, the Communist, the Liberal, the Welfare Queen) is the centerpiece of their ugly worldview.



The sentiments expressed here by Instapunk are now most commonly expressed towards the New Enemy -- the Muslim -- but the Wright episode is a nice reminder of how seamlessly it gets directed towards a whole host of other threatening, bad groups. Hence the blithe application of the term "sleeper cells" to black Americans. That's what coalesces them and justifies everything. What matters is that there be some scary, malicious group about to harm them and America. The identity of the particular scary group at any given moment is really secondary. (emphasis mine)


UPDATE II: Instapunk's far-from-uncommon thoughts on race illustrate another significant point. What explains the media's Obama/Wright fixation while virtually ignoring McCain's embrace of people like Rod Parsley and John Hagee is the assumption that the controversial behavior of any one black person is easily attributed to black people generally, while white political leaders aren't held accountable for the views of others solely by virtue of shared race. That dynamic is what explains this (emphasis mine) -- Tim Russert interviewing Barack Obama, January 22, 2006 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10909406/):
MR. RUSSERT: I want to talk a little bit about the language people are using in the politics now of 2006, and I refer you to some comments that Harry Belafonte made yesterday. He said that Homeland Security had become the new Gestapo. What do you think of that?




MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Belafonte went to Venezuela, as you well know, some time ago and met with the Hugo Chavez, leader of that country, and said some things that obviously were noted in this country and around the world. Let's listen, and come back and talk about it. . . . Is it appropriate to call the President of the United States "the greatest terrorist in the world"?

Barack Obama has nothing to do with Harry Belafonte and yet, out of the blue, Tim Russert demanded that he opine on Belafonte's statements -- just as Russert demanded that Obama renounce Louis Farrakhan's. Here, to my knowledge, is the only other time Russert ever asked anyone about the statements of Harry Belafonte -- Tim Russert interviewing Colin Powell, May 4, 2003 (http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/20163.htm):
MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned criticism of Castro. In fact, some artists and writers from the United States of America, led by Harry Belafonte, said that the United States has been guilty of harassment of Cuba, and this is a pretext for invasion.By stark contrast, there is never any assumption that John McCain shares the radical and vehemently "anti-American" views (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/23/various_items/index.html) of his "spiritual guide" Rod Parsley or John Hagee, whose endorsements he sought and with whom he has shared a stage and lavishly praised. What accounts for that extreme disparity in media treatment? (That Obama has a closer relationship to Wright than McCain does with Parsley/Hagee is a separate issue, for the reason explained in the first paragraph here (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/)). Instapunk's observations shed significant light on the reasons for that disparity.


UPDATE III: As Zack points out in comments (http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/23/race/permalink/cdd62093b0771494021d64d6afb27acf.html), here's what the other right-wing "Insta" blogger -- Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds -- said (http://instapundit.com/archives2/016574.php) about Jeremiah Wright a couple of weeks ago after citing an article which mentioned that Oprah Winfrey was also a member of Trinity Church:
That's from a 2007 Chicago Tribune piece via Hot Air. This kind of makes me see Oprah a bit differently, too. "Not many people would associate Oprah's easygoing nature and warm, welcoming appeal with the kind of oratory provided by Wright." As with Mitt Romney on guns, I'm starting to think that they haven't been entirely straight with us.Indeed. It's only a matter of time before even the most seemingly well-intentioned black people get exposed as the white-hating extremists that they are. Even Oprah. Or, as Instapundit's long-time political comrade, Instapunk, put it on Friday: "We're teetering at the edge of believing that you're a secret society, a massive collection of sleeper cells just waiting for your chance to do serious harm to the rest of us."
(emphasis mine)

UPDATE IV: Just two weeks ago, Instapundit (which is (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2008/03/rove-hearts-putz.html), revealingly enough, one of Karl Rove's favorite blogs (http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/5720.html)) promoted (http://instapundit.com/archives2/016551.php) and praised (http://instapundit.com/archives2/016577.php) a separate post on race by Instapunk (http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=1298), which proclaimed that (h/t Zack):

Barack Obama "is none of us";
"in his heart of hearts Obama understands nothing and no one, because he has never belonged anywhere or truly participated in anything";
"It's Michelle Obama who hates America";
it's feminists who have "done more to destroy the black family and promote the epidemic of children born out of wedlock than any conspiracy Jeremiah Wright could ever dream up"; and,
"Even though Obama is not and never was an African-American, he has always been black enough to benefit from the superannuated slave culture that forgives every corruption and hypocrisy in those who have any claim on being black."
Reynolds is promoting ugly bile of this sort for one simple reason -- because, as always, exploiting racial resentments is one of the principal tribalistic weapons on which the Right intends to rely in order to win the election. (emphasis mine) As one blogger just wrote via email:
What I don't understand is why Glenn R. continues to visit and link to a blog where such racist sentiments are permitted to be posted. He must be aware that InstaPunk is a blog that permits contributors to spout venomous racial hatred. Why doesn't he find another blog to visit? I mean, if it were me, I would not keep up an association with a blog that thinks it's okay to let a contributor be so hateful. Why doesn't he disavow this guy?As Reynolds himself wrote the other day (http://instapundit.com/archives2/016771.php) about Obama: "Obama is giving us a 'national conversation on race,' but mostly by letting a lot of white people realize just what circulates, unremarked, in the black community." I believe that's similar to the way that the blogs and posts Instapundit promotes "let[] a lot of people realize just what circulates, unremarked, in the right-wing sewers."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/23/race/index.html


And if we were being honest with one another, we all would have to admit that this is what lies beneath the surface -- whether some would out and out say so in the most blunt in terms as this rightwing blogger did, or whether it exists in the subconsicous mind of the Tim Russert - types who don't even realize it...

[mello1]

Ah yes. I guess that was probably included in the article I had read but I forgot about half carrying over.

It is important in another way. It is important because it shifts some power back to what I would call the average American since their dolklars show up as important to this campaign. To me this is more relevant than the incomes or net worth of the candidates. It is plus if they have at some point been in a position where they truly understood living on the edge financially but I would not say it is necessary. There are plenty of wealthy humanists.
Oh yes. That too, and I should have included it because it takes power AWAY from the MSM, because their parent companies are the very corporations who lobby U.S. politicans for legislation that is most favorable to them, such as the ridiculous provisions in the Federal Communications Act that allows corporations to monopolize media markets, thus thrwarting competition. This is the number one reason why news centers that have been turned into profit centers of 'infotainment', and not news that the people can trust or use.

Certainly a far cry from being 'fair and balanced'...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[eternitys_child]

The 'GD America' statement was just going too far, even Trinity members have said so, even in full context of his sermon. But I do cringe with the characterization of this man being some loony, like I do when they do that to MJ, when, knowing what we all know as people who are interested in MJ enough to keep up with him and know that it's just not true.

The MSM is invested in their ratings. It was clear to all who took the time to watch Obama's speech that they 'got' the whole thing, but if you listen to the MSM, one would get the impression that he had not said anything at all.

Also this op piece by Glenn Greenwald summed up the whole sorry state of racial politics in America for me:




And if we were being honest with one another, we all would have to admit that this is what lies beneath the surface -- whether some would out and out say so in the most blunt in terms as this rightwing blogger did, or whether it exists in the subconsicous mind of the Tim Russert - types who don't even realize it...
I see your point about the GD America statement, especially since it was said in a church. I am an agnostic so that is why it really didn't jump out at me. UUC is a liberal church but still creedal and Christian based so a statement like that would have been inappropriate. I certainly understate his rage at our government however and working with the poor as we have heard he does he would have due reason to be frustrated.

I had a hard time deciding if I thought Obama's speech was in any way comparable to Reynold's linking to the right wing blog (although I know that is not your main point Mello) as Greenwald stated in his last paragraph.

I guess I do, in the sense it acknowledges it and brings it out in the open where nonradicals can enter the discussion. People who are afraid and/or feel deficient or powerless IMO are the ones most likely to make these kinds of statements or dwell on these types of thoughts. Because they are afraid or feel powerless they will make them where they feel they are safe, where they believe they will not be challenged. It makes them feel strong to be able to put someone down but they are actually afraid. In this case right wing bloggers converse on a right wing blog or an alientated black person with a group of blacks he or she feels will relate. The degree to which people who disagree or have opposing input do not speak out makes the opposings sides feel bolder.* Isolated groups speaking amongst themselves does nothing to solve the problems, even when it is done with good intent. It is only when you can get the dialogue started between the two groups that you can begin to heal society and solve the problems.

As I recently heard someone at a Common Ground conference comment recently, "I am the education."

*We do not at this point know if Obama was present for the sermon in question or if he spoke to the reverend about it but we do know he spoke out in the public about it rather than bury it.

[mello1]

I see your point about the GD America statement, especially since it was said in a church. I am an agnostic so that is why it really didn't jump out at me. UUC is a liberal church but still creedal and Christian based so a statement like that would have been inappropriate. I certainly understate his rage at our government however and working with the poor as we have heard he does he would have due reason to be frustrated.

I had a hard time deciding if I thought Obama's speech was in any way comparable to Reynold's linking to the right wing blog (although I know that is not your main point Mello) as Greenwald stated in his last paragraph.

I guess I do, in the sense it acknowledges it and brings it out in the open where nonradicals can enter the discussion. People who are afraid and/or feel deficient or powerless IMO are the ones most likely to make these kinds of statements or dwell on these types of thoughts. Because they are afraid or feel powerless they will make them where they feel they are safe, where they believe they will not be challenged. It makes them feel strong to be able to put someone down but they are actually afraid. In this case right wing bloggers converse on a right wing blog or an alientated black person with a group of blacks he or she feels will relate. The degree to which people who disagree or have opposing input do not speak out makes the opposings sides feel bolder.* Isolated groups speaking amongst themselves does nothing to solve the problems, even when it is done with good intent. It is only when you can get the dialogue started between the two groups that you can begin to heal society and solve the problems.

As I recently heard someone at a Common Ground conference comment recently, "I am the education."

*We do not at this point know if Obama was present for the sermon in question or if he spoke to the reverend about it but we do know he spoke out in the public about it rather than bury it.
It is my understanding that he wasn't there.

I posted that blog because it in it, it displays the real undercurrent on the discussion of race in America. I think Greenwald used the word 'tribalism'. And for that blogger, that is 'his' truth, although he would be hard pressed to qualify his sweeping statements that all black folk acted in the way he described. It's certainly delusional to think of black folk as a 'fifth column' (translation for those wondering: terrorists lying in wait to exude violence in a racial jihad sort of way) because of one black man's angry rant that has been generally mischaracterized by a main stream media with it's own agenda...

[eternitys_child]

It is my understanding that he wasn't there.

I posted that blog because it in it, it displays the real undercurrent on the discussion of race in America. I think Greenwald used the word 'tribalism'. And for that blogger, that is 'his' truth, although he would be hard pressed to qualify his sweeping statements that all black folk acted in the way he described. It's certainly delusional to think of black folk as a 'fifth column' (translation for those wondering: terrorists lying in wait to exude violence in a racial jihad sort of way) because of one black man's angry rant that has been generally mischaracterized by a main stream media with it's own agenda...
I understood why you posted it. It was very hard to follow the 'article' because I was not familiar with the blog or either of the journalists but I did understand what you were saying and I do agree. I guess tribalism is a good word that I should have picked up and used. It does begin in people banding together in fear of 'the others' or of their own abilty to 'keep themselves safe' whether physically or from ideas or circumstances they are not sure of.

[movingcoolcat]

Is it not a very bad sign for a society, when it needs the fear of a outside enemy to hold them together? What would happen to a society like that, if no enemy existed?

[Bob George]

Is it not a very bad sign for a society, when it needs the fear of a outside enemy to hold them together? What would happen to a society like that, if no enemy existed?
They'd go back to hating each other.

[movingcoolcat]

Well, that does explain the need for an enemy.......................

[mello1]

Is it not a very bad sign for a society, when it needs the fear of a outside enemy to hold them together? What would happen to a society like that, if no enemy existed?
Well for one thing, the PTB who constantly pushes an enemy agenda would no longer be the PTB...

[movingcoolcat]

Mello; I enjoy reading this thread- thanks for all the info!
I stand on the outside, looking in and try to understand. I visited NY resently, my first time in the US. And even if I realy, truly enjoyed it the feeling I got there was very different from traveling in Europe or in Asia. In the short time i was there, I saw more cops then I normaly would in a year.It sort of made me feel safe, but at the same time i thought- they must be there for a reason, if you understand what I mean?Like there was something to be afraid of?
And that is one of the things that springs to mind when I think about the US, and the election- a sort of paranoia. A need for someone to be the ultimate enemy. Not a feeling of finding a way to solv the problems, but a need to find the one to blame.
For me the main symbol of what wrong is the fact that people do not have a desent health care. Its basic, its something that a society just should have. Not something that even should be up for discussion. Not having it is bad for economy, as far to many people will not be able to fix basic health problems and go back to work when cured.
To me and election should be less a matter of person, and more about actual politics.
For me, a politician could be gay, white, black, female, into serious bed jumping with prostitutes- as long as he/ she does what i elected him to do; make society work, make relationships with other nations peaceful and functioning, and make shore my rights when it comes to health care, education and safety is held to a satisfying standard.

Maybe the ultimate question for a leader would be; do you have the guts to make unpopular desicions when needed, because its for the common good. People may not thank you until after you 6 feet under, but the result will be good, and you would have made shore that any hairy camels you ate during the time as leader, would be worth it.

No politician will ever be without flaws, and a person you would not even like in person could still be the one who actually got the job done.

Personally I think Hillary would be a very good canditate for the job. She has had her fair share of falling flat on her face, she has been humiliated, and that in front of the whole world - and she took it standing, and have experienced the good, the bad and the truly ugly. She can do a good "horse- traid" when needed, but in the end, when it comes down to it she is fighting for a cause. Its something in her that makes her want to do this, despite everything, and it may very well be just that fight for "common good".

I realy like Obama. But I am afraid that when it comes down to it- if he becomes the candidate, the world will see the US shoosing another white, old republican male. Due to all that is said about the fear that lies deep within the society. They will shoose him, not because he is the best candidate, but because their emotion, their fear will make the desicion for them.

[mello1]

For me, a politician could be gay, white, black, female, into serious bed jumping with prostitutes- as long as he/ she does what i elected him to do; make society work, make relationships with other nations peaceful and functioning, and make shore my rights when it comes to health care, education and safety is held to a satisfying standard.

Oh Movingcoolcat, we are SO not at this point yet. We just had the Governor of New York resign because he was having an affair with high priced prostitutes. The new Governor is being chastised over his affairs that he admitted to (somewhat). He's only been in office for a week. I do think that we are a bit hypocritical about some of this because we hold these people up to a higher moral standard than some of us exercise ourselves.

You are point on with your observations...

[movingcoolcat]

Well, I never could understand what peoples bed habits has to do with how they are doing their job. As long as they don`t do it in the office................-_-:lol:

[J5master]

eternity and mello, im just gonna sit back and enjoy you guys' informative conversation. It's very refreshing lol

[RubbaRubba]

Clinton 'misspoke' on Bosnia trip By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer
20 minutes ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piZqaUfNs8g

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" last week when she said she had landed under sniper fire during a trip she took as first lady to Bosnia in March 1996. The Obama campaign suggested it was a deliberate exaggeration on Clinton's part.

Clinton often cites the goodwill trip she took with her daughter and several celebrities as a part of her foreign policy experience.

During a speech last Monday about Iraq, she said of the trip: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

According to an AP story at the time, Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on that trip. And one of her companions on it, comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.

When asked Monday about the New York senator's recent remarks on the trip, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to Clinton's previous written account in her book, "Living History," in which she described a shortened welcoming ceremony at Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Clinton wrote: "Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find."

"That is what she wrote in her book," Wolfson said. "That is what she has said many, many times and on one occasion she misspoke."

The written account in Clinton's book contradicts the comments she made last Monday about the welcoming ceremony.

Just after her speech last Monday, she reaffirmed the account of running from the plane to the cars when she was asked about it by reporters at a news conference. She said was moved into the cockpit of the C-17 cargo plane as they were flying into Tuzla Air Base.

"Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton told reporters. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver. ... There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."

A spokesman for rival Barack Obama's campaign questioned whether Clinton misspoke, saying her comments came in what appeared to be prepared remarks for her speech on Iraq. The Obama campaign statement contained a link to a text of Clinton's speech that is still posted on her campaign Web site including the account of running to the cars.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a written statement that Clinton's Bosnia story "joins a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking."

The Obama campaign statement also links to a CBS news video taken from her Bosnia trip and posted on YouTube, which shows Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, walking across the tarmac from a large cargo plane, smiling and waving, and stopping to shake hands with Bosnia's acting president and greet an 8-year-old girl.

"This is something that the Obama campaign wants to push cause they have nothing positive to say about their candidate," Wolfson said Monday in the conference call.

[Bob George]

Wow. The Clinton campaign is really desperate for funding. I've received like a dozen emails in the last week asking for donations from Hillary and people in her campaign. I'll be surprised if she can win Pennsylvania based on her lack of funding (which results in lack of TV ads and stuff) and also Obama's "down with whitey" speech. Everything seems to be going so well for Obama now that he turned the black-supremacist church thing around into a positive thing. While everything seems to be going not so well for Hillary. So if she wins Pennsylvania it'll be a true testament to her popularity and support. Because to win with poor funding and not long after Obama's well-received speech, will be remarkable.

[J5master]

"down with whitey" speech? wooooooow, what speech were YOU listening to?

[arXter]

So if she wins Pennsylvania it'll be a true testament to her popularity and support. Because to win with poor funding and not long after Obama's well-received speech, will be remarkable.
not really since the state was always in her favour. i predict a win for her by a narrow margin and no doubt she'll stay in the race after that...

[Bob George]

"down with whitey" speech? wooooooow, what speech were YOU listening to?
lol, it was a joke. Obviously.

[J5master]

Hey sometimes i dunno with you lol

[Bob George]

I was wondering what you all thought of Chelsea's response to someone asking her if she thought the Lewinski scandal damaged her mother's credibility. She said something along the lines of "none of your business."

[arXter]

i was going to post that video but couldn't find a YouTube link last night - great response.

[J5master]

OBAMA on The View


yg4Wqkl60lE

pv-WYqYVaX8

OCUVbG2tV2I

HcmQtkr8hsE

[AussieBob]

As someone from the outside looking in, the US presidential election is very interesting. The first thing that struck me is how long the election process is. Another thing that I find very different is the primaries that are going on now. You easily forget Obama and Clinton are in the same party. You'd think they were competing in opposing parties for office. It's also interesting how the media makes them into celebrities more so than politicians. I think no matter who gets the democratic nomination out of Obama and Clinton, they will win. Simply because all we've heard about (atleast from a overseas perspective) is Obama and Clinton and McCain seems to have been forgotten. So by the time the general election comes out it'll be like "who?" McCain doesn't have the celebrity status of Obama or Clinton and I think that's why he'll lose and either Obama or Clinton will win. Just my take on things.

[J5master]

I really wish thats how things are Aussie...lol But there really is more than just the democratic party...and when general election comes around, the republicans are gonna be fighting full force.

[RubbaRubba]

How the hell can she balance the National Budget?!?!??!?!?!

-------------------------------
Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills

By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 3/30/08 7:00 AM EST

Clinton’s camp has put off paying bills for months earning campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small business circles.


Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys, but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community and anyone else who will listen to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton's inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign did not respond to recent, specific questions about its transactions with vendors. But Clinton spokesman Jay Carson pointed on Saturday to an earlier statement the campaign issued to Politico, asserting: "The campaign pays its bills regularly and in the normal course of business, and pays all of its bills."

Just like with other businesses, it's common for campaigns to carry unpaid bills from month-to-month, but in Clinton's case it also could serve a strategic purpose.

The New York senator's presidential campaign ended February with $38 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $16 million of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.

The rest can only be spent in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn't. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, the cash she would have had available at the end of last month to spend on television ads and other up-front expenses would have been less than $2 million.

The presidential campaign of presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, reported $4.3 million in debt at the end of February, but only $1.3 million of that was in the form of unpaid bills to a dozen vendors. The rest was a bank loan, which the campaign says it paid off last week.

Its not just the size of Clintons debts that's noteworthy. It's also that her unpaid bills extend beyond the realm of high-priced consultants who typically let bills slide as part of the cost of doing business with powerful clientele whose success is linked to their own.

Some of Clinton's biggest debts are to pollster and chief strategist Mark Penn, who's owed $2.5 million; direct mail company MSHC Partners, which is owed $807,000; phone-banking firm Spoken Hub, which is waiting for $771,000; and ad maker Mandy Grunwald, who’s owed $467,000.

Clinton also reported debts more than one month old to a slew of apolitical businesses and organizations, large and small, in the states through which this historically expensive Democratic primary campaign has raged.

She owed Iowa's Sioux City Art Center Board of Trustees $3,500 for catering and venue costs, New Hampshire's Winnacunnet Cooperative School District $4,400 in event costs, Qwest $24,000 for phone service, various branches of the Iowa-based supermarket chain Hy-Vee $15,000 for food, beverages and catering and $7,700 to Ohio and Massachusetts branches of the theatrical stage employees union for equipment costs.

In fact, about a third of the nearly 700 individual debts Clinton reported at the end of February were for various types of event expenses, including $319,000 for catering and venue costs, $420,000 for equipment, $11,000 for photography and $9,000 for security.

Event production is important to big-time presidential campaigns. It shapes how candidates look and sound, not just to the thousands of people who turn out to campaign speeches and rallies, but also to the millions who catch snippets of them on television.

And word is getting around that Clinton's campaign does not promptly pay those who labor to make her events look good, said an employee of the event production company Forty Two of Youngstown, Ohio.

I feel insulted by the way that the campaign treated this company and treated us personally, said the employee, who did not want to be named talking about a client.

The Clinton campaign paid the company $16,500 to set up a stage, press riser, sound system and backdrops at a Youngstown high school last month for a raucous union rally, where an aggressive Clinton stump speech drew thunderous applause. But the Clinton campaign has yet to pay Forty Two for two other February events and the employee said the campaign has stopped returning phone calls, e-mails and didn't respond to a certified letter.

We worked very hard to put together these events on a moments notice and do absolutely everything to a 't' to make it look perfect on television for her and for her campaign, said the employee. Sen. Clinton talks about helping working families, people in unions and small businesses. But when it comes down to actually doing something that shows that she can back up her words with action, she fails.

Forty Two also has done events for Obama's campaign, which has paid its bills promptly, according to the employee. FEC records show Obama's campaign paid the company $18,500.

Show Tyme Exhibits, another Youngstown event production company, has produced political events for years and had never had problems getting paid before Clinton, according to owner Jim Phillips.

He said he's still waiting for a payment for setting up the sound system and stage for Clinton's February tour of a General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio.

It was only $607, but I'm a small guy; I could use that, said Phillips, adding, Everyone I can tell, I do tell about it. You tell somebody something bad about somebody, they tell ten other people.

Both Phillips and the Forty Two employee said they voted for Clinton in Ohio's March 4 primary, which she won handily, but regret their votes and are reluctant to work for her campaign again.

Their sentiments aren't universal in the event production world, though.

At the end of January, Clinton owed $38,000 to ACS Sound and Lighting of Columbia, S.C. But the company was paid in full last month and is planning to do events for Clinton in other states, according to manager Troy Gwin.

We don't have any problem with them, he said. I'd continue to do business after the primaries if she is the nominee. I would love to.

And Tony Galarza, director of the Missoula, Mont. branch of a national event production company, remained committed to staging an April 6 Clinton fundraising brunch at a local hotel even after a colleague in his company e-mailed a list of Clinton's campaign debts.

Galarza said he's confident Clinton will pay his company, but admitted he was surprised to see so many event production companies among the campaign's creditors.

Once I looked at those numbers, I realized how important to our economy nationally these elections are, he said. Just the sheer numbers listed there were immense.

[J5master]

How the hell can she balance the National Budget?!?!??!?!?!

that...is SO bogus...:lol: :lol:






yet true IMO :P

[RubbaRubba]

that...is SO bogus...:lol: :lol:






yet true IMO :P

I know, but I couldn't resist :lol:

[movingcoolcat]

Why?:huh:Sorry, but as far as I know there are always a very good reason to ask why a story like this is printed? Who gains by it? And has there not been enough examples of stories about other people that may not be exactly as they are told in the press?

[RubbaRubba]

Barack Obama wins big in Texas; Clinton will be the clear loser in the Lone Star State


Barrack Obama appeared to have scored a clear victory over Hillary Clinton on Saturday in the second step of Texas' multi-tiered process for selecting its delegates to the Democratic National Convention. With results available from about half of the district conventions held statewide, the Associated Press reported that Obama had won 59 percent of the delegates headed to the state party's June convention to Clinton's 41 percent. That translates into 1,858 delegates for Obama and 1,270 for Clinton.

That result made it likely that when the delegate selection process is finally completed, Obama will have more Texas delegates to the national convention than Clinton, despite Clinton's having won the March 4 primary vote 51 to 47 percent. Under Texas' delegate selection process, 67 of its 206 delegates are selected by the June state party convention.

Tens of thousands of Texas Democrats turned out for Saturday's district conventions in a chaotic day in which many of the meetings in Texas' large cities lasted late into the night. Some delegates -- confused and frustrated by hours-long delays, disorder and disorganization -- gave up on the process and left, still not sure if their vote counted. "Please move a bit faster," urged delegate Whitney Larkins, who attended the largest senatorial district in Fort Worth gathered at the Will Rogers Coliseum. "Have some consideration. Think about those of us who took time out of our lives to participate in this."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/30/obama-win-appears-big-in-_n_94139.html

[KOPV]

Vote for ME as president.. I will put tax payers money into buying Michael Jackson albums and sending them out to everyone.. His new album will become the largest selling alum in history.. Beating THRILLER.. Because of US. Me with all your help, we can make this happen...

YES WE CAN!!

YES WE WILL!!

VOTE FOR ME..





Just write my name at the bottom of your ballet this year..


thank you ;)

[J5master]

haaaaaa ha hahaha!

I see another goofy thread brewing in MJ GD! Thanks KOPV! :lol:

[RubbaRubba]

Hillary Clinton Fails to Pay Staff's Health Care Premiums


Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.

Clinton, who is being pressured to end her campaign against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, has made her plan for universal health care a centerpiece of her agenda.

The campaign provides health insurance to all its employees, their spouses, partners and children — and that wasn’t interrupted by any lag in payments to insurance providers, said Jay Carson, a Clinton campaign spokesman.

He said the campaign this month paid off all outstanding bills to Aetna Healthcare and CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield. Those payments will be reflected on a report the campaign will file this month with the Federal Election Commission, which Carson said will show “zero debt owed to both vendors.”

“Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses,” Carson said in a statement e-mailed to Politico. “Sometimes invoices arrive at the very end of the month at the cutoff of the reporting period, which means that we are required to report them as a debt on the current FEC report, even where they are paid in regular course during the next month.”

But the unpaid bills to Aetna were at least two months old, according to FEC filings.

They show the campaign ended last year owing Aetna more than $213,000 for “employee benefits.”

During the first two months of the year, the campaign did not pay down any of that debt. In fact, it accrued another $16,000 in unpaid bills last month, and it finished the month owing Aetna $229,000.

Though the campaign reported owing $63,000 to Carefirst at the end of February for employee benefits, it appears Clinton paid that company on a more frequent basis. The New York senator’s presidential campaign began the month owing $299,000 to Carefirst, but paid that amount in its entirety, and the $63,000 it owed at the end of the month appears to be from services rendered last month.

Campaigns resemble businesses in many ways. Like businesses, one of their biggest costs is salaries, payroll taxes and the benefits of their employees. Also like businesses, they tend to carry unpaid bills as debt from week-to-week or even month-to-month.

But Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, did not report any unpaid bills to insurance providers at the end of February. And the only insurance-related debt reported by Obama, an Illinois senator, was $908 to AIG American International Group for “insurance.”

Their campaigns also reported substantially less debt overall than Clinton’s, which owed $8.7 million at the end of February. Obama owed $625,000 and McCain $4.3 million, though most of his debt was from a bank loan, and only $1.3 million was in the form of unpaid bills to a dozen vendors.

Carson stressed that Clinton’s campaign pays all its bills “regularly and in the normal course of business.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html

[RubbaRubba]

http://i32.tinypic.com/11bkx92.jpg

[movingcoolcat]

I couldn`t resist to copy this blog here, as it seems that it might be time for some balance?

:she_devil::shifty:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/hillaryondrudge.png
Now, first of all, I want to make it clear that it doesn't matter a whit to me—and shouldn't matter to anyone—what Hillary looks like. If she had one eyeball hanging out of its socket and a third leg growing out of her back, I wouldn't give a flying fart. I'd still agree with her on some **** and disagree with her on other ****, and I'd still vociferously defend her right to not be judged on her appearance.

That said, this is also just another piece of dogshit journamalism typical of Drudge, because the picture isn't even particularly representative of what Hillary looks like.

Here are other pictures taken the same afternoon (Saturday) while Hillary was doing door-to-door campaigning:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/hils.png
And here's a picture of her being introduced at a town hall meeting in Iowa earlier today:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/hils2.png
Yeah, she looks like she might keel over from exhaustion at any moment. Meanwhile, if she were a dude five years older who looked like this:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/freddie.png
…manly men like Drudge and Chris Matthews would be falling all over themselves to gush about how handsome he is and wax inquisitive about how he smells.

Maybe, just maybe, the media could give Hillary a ****ing break and allow her, as a 60-year-old woman, to look like a 60-year-old woman, for which other 60+-year-old women, and those of us who will one day be 60-year-old women, would be extremely goddamned appreciative.

But something tells me that ain't gonna happen.

[RubbaRubba]

Hillary Clinton owed her own High School money - until this story was published

Clinton owes her own high school money

Hillary Clinton's friends and schoolmates Betsy Ebeling, left, Ernest Ricketts of Oak Brook, right, and Hardye Moel, foreground, of Chicago, at a town hall meeting via satellite with Clinton at Clinton's alma mater, Maine South High School, on Feb. 4. Chicago Tribune Photo by Candice C. Cusic.

by Rick Pearson and updated with a campaign check.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has made little secret that it has been routinely outspent by rival Barack Obama in the extended race for the Democratic presidential nomination and has been forced to curtail checks for some of its vendors and staff.

But stiffing your high school alma mater?

That’s apparently the case, according to federal campaign disclosure reports that show that among more than $8.7 million listed as debts, the Clinton campaign owed $3,161 to Maine South High School in Park Ridge for renting the school for an event, as well as for catering.

Clinton, then Hillary Rodham, was a 1965 Maine South graduate.

The Clinton campaign used the school’s Watson Auditorium for an election eve event prior to the Feb. 5 “Super Tuesday” balloting in Illinois and more than 20 other states. The event was a “town hall meeting,” broadcast on the Hallmark Channel, which allowed supporters across the country to question the candidate.

The FEC form listed only a “Dr. Rose” as a contact at the school. A switchboard operator at Maine South said no one was available to discuss the debt and that the only “Dr. Rose” at the school was Dr. Rose Garlasco, the assistant principal of students, who was unavailable.

Jay Carson, a spokesman for Clinton's campaign, said the invoice from Maine South High School was paid today.

[arXter]

Gaza's Obama campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g

[street walker]

Rudd wins praise from Clinton, Obama
April 1, 2008 - 2:24PM

Kevin Rudd has won praise from US Democrat presidential rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as a leader who will promote the Australia-United States alliance and be a force for good in the Asian region.

Senator Obama, frontrunner in the nomination race, complimented Mr Rudd following a 25 minute telephone conversation between the two men.

He suggested Mr Rudd brought "special skills and experience" to relations between the two countries.

"His progressive domestic policy agenda, innovative and realistic diplomacy, and optimistic vision enrich the already solid base of our bilateral dialogue," Senator Obama said in a statement.

"In Asia, the quality of our alliance and the scope of our diplomatic partnership shine brightly."

During their phone call, the pair spoke about the potential for Australia and the US to be partners on issues such as climate change and China.

But Senator Obama's generous assessment of the new Australian prime minister was slightly tainted by a mistake in his press release, in which Labor's iconic wartime leader John Curtin was referred to as "John Curtain".

It's not clear whether Senator Obama harboured any grudges against Mr Rudd for backing Senator Clinton during the Australian election campaign last year but it appears he does remember a slur by former prime minister John Howard.

He jokingly raised with Mr Rudd claims by Mr Howard that al-Qaeda would be praying for an Obama win because it would help militants claim victory in Iraq.

Senator Obama called Mr Rudd from Pennsylvania, where he is campaigning ahead of the next state primary contest on April 22.

Senator Clinton, who is fighting for her political life against her Democratic rival, took time out of a packed schedule for a 40-minute meeting with Mr Rudd before hitting the hustings in Pennsylvania.

Mr Rudd will meet the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain on Tuesday.

He has pledged to work closely with whoever - Democrat or Republican - wins the November presidential race.

Mr Rudd and Senator Clinton talked about health care, China and the Asia Pacific more generally.

"Australia is a valued friend to the United States and we have enjoyed a long history of working together to address issues that affect both our nations," Senator Clinton later said in a statement.

"I believe Prime Minister Rudd is a leader who will continue to work with the United States to foster the kind of international cooperation we need to tackle the important challenges facing Asia and the world."

While they posed for the cameras, the pair chatted about the rigours of campaigning, especially in a big country like America.

"As one candidate myself who knows what it's like on the campaign trail, I have every, every sympathy for Hillary," Mr Rudd said.

At one stage Mr Rudd appeared to offer Senator Clinton help with her campaign but it emerged he was offering assistance with a climate change event being organised by her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

The meeting, their first since Tel Aviv in 2005, was at The Brookings Institution, where Mr Rudd gave a foreign policy speech on the alliance, as well as on the relationship between China and America.

He threw his support behind a US push for a new regional forum to deal with security in the Asia-Pacific region.

The US has signalled that six-party talks, involving the US, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and Russia, and designed to ease nuclear tensions on the Korean peninsula, could form the basis of a permanent peace and security mechanism in the region.

Mr Rudd finishes up his trip to the US with another full day, including meetings with US Trade Representative Susan Schwab and Democrat House leader Nancy Pelosi.

© 2008 AAP

[street walker]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=skIlZflDs9Y

:rollin:

[J5master]

OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG :lol: *favorites*

[browneyedgirl]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=skIlZflDs9Y

:rollin:

HAHAHAHAHA @ the blank stares. I love from 0:13 - 0:16! :lol: Obama's expression.... :lol:

[suspicious_mind]

Dont know if you guys have posted this or not but this is by far one of the best videos yet about that lie she told about being in Bosnia. :toofunny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

[Bob George]

Rudd wins praise from Clinton, Obama
April 1, 2008 - 2:24PM

*insert article*

© 2008 AAP

It's nice to see the democratic candidates are supportive of the Prime Minister and wish to strengthen to US-Australian alliance. That's very promising.

[RubbaRubba]

Gaza's Obama campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g

cool vid, THANKS!! :punk:

[arXter]

whenever Obama gets real, Clinton does everything to rip it to shreds she can eat.


Clinton Portrays Herself as a Pro-Gun Churchgoer

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/clinton-portrays-herself-as-a-pro-gun-churchgoer/

VALPARAISO, Ind. - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton managed to co-opt Mr. Obama’s message of hope and optimism, beginning a speech in Valparaiso, Ind., by talking about how positive and “fundamentally optimistic” Americans are.

“We don’t get bogged down and looking back – we’re always looking forward,” she said, as heavy applause nearly drowned out her words. “Whatever obstacle we see, we get over it. Whatever challenge we have, we meet it. We’re the problem-solvers, we’re the innovators, we’re the people who make the better future.”

For the third time since Mr. Obama’s remarks were made public Friday night, Mrs. Clinton criticized him at length, saying his comments seemed “kind of elitist and out of touch.”

“I disagree with Senator Obama’s assertion that people in our country cling to guns and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration,” she said.

She described herself as a pro-gun churchgoer, recalling that her father taught her how to shoot a gun when she was a young girl and said that her faith “is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.”

[Bob George]

^ clever way to get votes. Americans love their guns, god and government.

[suspicious_mind]

^ clever way to get votes. Americans love their guns, god and government.



We also love our freedom, power and our people. :)

[KOPV]

I'm just so sick of Hillary to be honest..

She's a fake to me.. EVERYTIME she talks she just blabs on about what SHE HAS DONE.. She sits there and praises herself without just saying "LOOK WHAT I'VE DONE"..

She says things like..

"I'm so happy to take part in this orginization, one that helps people as I did for the past 20 years through........................."

SICK OF THAT TALK..

She ALWAYS just talks about what she DID and praises herself, THINKING telling people what you've done will win them over.. NO!! People just want a person that will stand up and do the damn job..

SELL YOURSELF to the people.. NOT WHAT YOU'VE DONE..

[J5master]

I agree KOPV. very much.

[movingcoolcat]

Whats up with the discussion about "elite"?:huh:

You have had Bush, that wasn`t actually a great thing..........someone with a brain ( elite as in well educated, smart, skillful, etc......) would be anice change.........-_-


Whats kind of confusing me is that while everyone is targeting Hillary/ Obama ( to a lesser degree), McCain seems to be off the radar. So in fact, all the "dirt" will tag along with the dem. candidates in the final election- while McCain just walks around in the shaddow, unharmed.
I may be wrong, but I think the fight between the candidates in the democratic party should be regarded as essentially two very good candidates, with rather small differences when it comes to politics ( unless someone can point out the major political- not personal- differences are).
As a person outside of the Us, I worry the democratic party will fail- not weather its going to be Hillary or Obama.
Any of them will not be able to turn back everything thats been done in their time as president. They will start the work, but they will have too mutch to make right to have enough time- and as well, there are forces withing the political and economical system that has power to halt / stop the process.

I read that Bush has acknowledged the use of torture.
That speaks volumes for how far things has gone. Its a huge mess.
Weather Hillary comes off as phony, or Obama as an elitist- I dont give a flying fart.............Just "make that change".
Please?:mello:

[J5master]

No I worry they will fail too. But i think thats due to ONE particular candidate's tactics lol. I hope that things turn out ok, but the party is weakening in strength if this keeps up.

[sugababe]

SPRINGSTEEN ENDORSES OBAMA

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 24 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Rock star Bruce Springsteen endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday, saying "he speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years."
http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=AufPx0WTcuqKtqJlRPdvuwoRSJiGlkgGIskAC8Jn&T=1a8562jg4%2fX%3d1208361673%2fE%3d8903521%2fR%3dn ews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d29 16554504%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJ EZW1vY3JhdGljO0FtZXJpY2E7aXQ7ZWxlY3Rpb247SXJhcTttY W47ZW52aXJvbm1lbnQ7cmVmdXJsX3ByaW5jZV9vcmciIHJlZnV ybD0icmVmdXJsX3ByaW5jZV9vcmciIHRvcGljcz0icmVmdXJsX 3ByaW5jZV9vcmci%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d68719345&U=13benv2kh%2fN%3dutPpyULEYpM-%2fC%3d571699.12544600.12888681.1414694%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d5246725
In a letter addressed to friends and fans posted his Web site, Springsteen said he believes Obama is the best candidate to undo "the terrible damage done over the past eight years."

"He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next president," the letter said. "He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where '...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.' "

The bard of New Jersey is known for his lyrics about the struggles of working-class Americans, particularly in the economically ravaged factory towns of the Northeast.
Springsteen and his E Street band were part of the Vote or Change tour, a coalition of musicians opposed to the re-election of President Bush in 2004. He wrote the anti-war ballad "Devils and Dust" about Iraq.

Springsteen did not directly mention Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, in his letter, but appeared to take issue with her recent criticisms of comments made by Obama about working-class voters in small towns in Pennsylvania and controversial statements by his pastor.

"Critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships," Springsteen wrote. "While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision ... often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_el_pr/obama_springsteen

___

[elusive moonwalker]

I'm just so sick of Hillary to be honest..

She's a fake to me..
i find her to be pretty fake aswell. her whole personality when she speaks makes her appear like a typical politican. and i guess the lack of respect some may feel she has for herself by staying with bill just to help her career hardly helps her

and why do celebs have to come out and endorse ppl. they must think pretty highly of themselves if they think that everyone else should know who they are supporting and ppl will now vote for x over y because a certain celeb supports them. its tacky

[L.J]

^ I agree on the tackyness of celebrities :lol:


You have folks like Oprah who say that everyone should go ahead and get involved in the voting system and have a say in who you want to see lead the nation etc etc... and then they go "Oh by the way I'm voting for so and so" It's almost like, "go do this, by the way I'm, doing this..."

The sad thing is, a lot of people will vote for who their favourite celeb says they're gonna vote for. It's either laziness, "I wont research the candidates but if the BOSS is voting for Obama then he must be alright so I'll vote for him too." Or they honestly blindly follow their fav celeb. "Oh he/she is never wrong so if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me."


The good thing is though, that they do raise awareness of the importance of voting and making sure your own voice is heard. Especially in a country where voting isn't compulsory. Women and black folks have fought so hard for the right to vote, but sadly in this day and age, political parties are buying their votes from the minority (big businesses) instead of earning their votes from the majority (the general public).

[Sdeidjs]

No one is perfect...and just like all the canidates I don't agree with everything, however, she is about working together and rebuilding that strong foundation that we so deperately need.

With no disrespect intended to anyone...Hilary Clinton Rocks..!

Education is the Key~~~

[elmoy]

Did anyone happen to catch the debate last night? I swear that sometimes the media and the voters are tuning into something different. When I went to bed last night I really believe the debate was an obvious win for Obama. When I turned on crappy cable news this morning, it seems like the media (including the NY Times) are on the idea that Obama completely lost the debate.

I mean yes I was disappointed in the moderators for letting this so called debate turn into a three on one attack. However, Obama made it completely obvious they were shooting blanks at him all night and Hilliary's answers on foriegn policy were irresponsible and her answer on securing social security was extremely faulty with her saying that we can't do it Obama's way but we will work it out some how. Maybe I'm truly biased because I decided about a month ago to be for Obama.:unsure:

But what do you guys think about who won the debate and why?

[arXter]

^ yeah i saw it and the questions for both candidates were complete rubbish. i didn't know ABC anchors sucked so much.. even Obama pointed out that they're asking the wrong, trivial questions.

[arXter]

Worst. Debate. Ever. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/worst-debate-ieveri_n_97125.html)

Jason Linkins
The Huffington Post

Going into tonight's debate in Philadelphia (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/philadelphia-democratic-d_n_96936.html), the two millionth one we've had so far this primary season, I had one significant worry: that the bulk of the time would be taken up with process questions and media obsessions, and that issues of import would end up getting sidelined. As it turns out, I was depressingly, distressingly correct. In fact, there were times when tonight's debate ventured into territory so utterly asinine that I could scarcely believe what I was witnessing.

Twas not until the nine-o'clock hour drew nigh that a single issue-oriented question was asked. The entire first hour was dedicated to silly campaign queries and scandals both du jour and d'antan. Before a single question was posed about the War in Iraq or the economy was asked, the viewing audience had to wade through the following:
Any chance at a "Dream Ticket?"
"Bitter, much?"
"Do you think your opponent stands a chance against McCain?"
"What about Reverend Wright?"
"Wait. I have an even stupider question about Reverend Wright."
"Seriously. Who were you fooling with that Bosnia shizz?"
"Hey, Hussein! Why no American flag lapel pin?"
"Hey, Sean Hannity wanted me to ask you something (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/16/13329/3501/457/496866), Barack! I got a question on the Weather Underground! Maybe later we'll talk about the Symbionese Liberation Army!"
All of these questions have been beaten to a pulp, grim death. And neither candidate really had anything new to add to the responses they've already offered time and time again. It was as if ABC News, left out of the twenty-four hour news cycle that spawned these zombo-droid queries, needed to get in their licks on the same matters, too, just so they could feel like they'd played a part in every last one of the primary season's glittering inanities.

Why in the world George Stephanopoulos felt compelled to ask Barack Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/barack-obama) if Reverend Wright "loved America" after he had already been made to give another recitation of his repudiation of Wright's remarks is a question that simply defies the imagination. What sort of sensible answer can be given to that question? It would require astral projection to properly gauge another man's emotional state. And if you want to ask Hillary Clinton to account for the odd contortions she advanced on the matter of her Bosnia recollections, just sack up and ask. Don't hide behind the additional, pointless cruelty of a random voter's scoldings that Clinton lost their vote. What a wholly superfluous pile on!

And the flag lapel pin question came with this admonishment from Charles Gibson: "It keeps coming up, again and again." Well, no ****, Charlie! It keeps "coming up, again and again" because the media resolutely refuses to obtain the necessary courage to stop doing so.

[L.J]

Clinton, Obama trade snipes




BARACK Obama and Hillary Clinton have accused each other of waging negative campaigns as they sped across Pennsylvania before this week's potentially make-or-break primary election.

Senator Obama, who is the party's national front-runner but trails in Pennsylvania, hopes an upset this week (Wednesday AEST) will hand him the Democratic nomination and knock Senator Clinton out of the race for the right to face Republican John McCain in the November election.
After a week that included a contentious television debate that focused on issues such as his controversial former pastor and recent relationship with a 1960s radical, Senator Obama pounded on the New York senator at various stops throughout the day for using negative tactics and changing positions on key issues.
"What's happened is that Senator Clinton has internalised a lot of the strategies, the tactics that have made Washington such a miserable place where all we do is bicker and all we do is fight," he told a rally in Paoli, Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia.
He described the former first lady's tactics as: "We're going to throw whatever we want at Barack, whether it's true, whether it's false, whether it's exaggerated, whether it's relevant, because that's, according to Senator Clinton, what the Republicans will do."
The Clinton campaign returned fire, saying an Obama ad deliberately misrepresented her health care policy and taking umbrage at comments by a US general and Obama supporter who said Senator Clinton lacked the "moral authority" to lay a wreath on a soldier's grave.
"He always says in his speeches that he's running a positive campaign, but then his campaign does the opposite," Senator Clinton told a rally in the town of California in southwestern Pennsylvania, referring to Senator Obama.
Senator Clinton has seen her sizable advantage over the Illinois senator in Pennsylvania dwindle to a single-digit lead, but a Gallup daily tracking poll released today gave her a slight edge among Democrats nationwide - putting her ahead of her rival in that ranking for the first time since mid-March.
Both candidates crisscrossed the state ahead of this week's primary, the first nominating contest in several weeks. In a suburb of Philadelphia Senator Obama sharpened his tone against Senator Clinton, accusing her of changing positions on major issues, including the war in Iraq.
"She's taken different positions on different issues as fundamental as trade, even the war, to suit the politics of the moment, and when she gets caught at it, the notion is, 'Well you know what, that's just politics'," he said.
Later in Paoli he said: "She also believes that the nature of politics is, you say what the people want to hear. Maybe you say one thing about the war when it looks like the war is popular. Maybe you say something different when the war gets to be unpopular."
Clinton advisers said Senator Obama was using negative tactics himself. Seeking to play down expectations of a big Clinton victory, advisers said they expected a narrow win and said if Senator Obama loses, it would not bode well for a general election if he were the nominee.
"If Senator Obama is unable to win here with his enormous spending advantage ... it will again demonstrate that he has a big problem winning in the large swing states that a Democrat needs to win in order to become president," communications director Howard Wolfson said.



Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23569199-1702,00.html?from=public_rss)







Looks like the kids are still having fun....

[MJJChichi]

the two candidates barely differ on their issues ... one is white and female, the other is male and brown.

this year we will see the first woman president elected or the first african american president. like it or not, that is what the vote will come down to. McCain ... i cannot see winning.

It is also possible we will see the first african american pres and the first female Vicepres. or female pres, african american vicepres

why does neither one of these scenerios make me particularly happy ?? For some reason, I am not comfortable with either candidate winning or being in office in any capacity. The both of them give me an uneasy feeling.

[L.J]

I've been starting to feel like that the more and more I watch the process...

it makes me wonder, is it because as the more we watch these people the more they appear like political snakes? or is it because they are snakes? or is it just too long tired a process?

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

To me, Oboma comes across as an arrogant, pompus ass while Clinton comes across as a power bit*h. Either way, one must remember that they are politicians and in the end they're both as full of sh*t as a person can be. I don't really care which one gets in at this point, but there's something about Obama that makes me just really dislike him. He seems so full of himself as though he has a sense of self-entitlement, more so then Clinton even. That's just me though and is just personal feeling, it has nothing to do with the issues.

[MJJChichi]

see now, I didn't want to say it that way but since you have... I concur.

I want to like Obama ... I have tried to ignore my distaste for him and look at the bigger picture, it keeps coming back to an inner uneasy feeling. Then I go and attempt to embrace Clinton, only to get the same uneasy feeling.

It would mean a great deal for my children and their generation, to see the first african american president be elected. In the same sense, I would love for my daughter to see the first woman pres. elected ...

However, neither of these historic moments will mean a damn thing if the candidate is nothing more than a typical politician. If the next president is going to continue to F!%K up the country, I would just as soon see an old wrinkly azz white man do it & continue to blame the messed up results on him :chichi:

[eternitys_child]

Wow. I have been away from this thread for a while because I figured I could too easily get sucked into a major discussion I didn't have time for. I said early on that we had to be careful we didn't just get caught up in Obama's charm factor (and I had to catch myself on that as well). Until the last debate I think the media had been soft on Obama and now they still are in that they are outraged at the questions asked Obama in the debate but were not outraged when Hillary was treated similarly in the past. I just think we need some balance and to make sure we keep our heads about us.

That being said, as I came back to this thread and read the last page I am sad to see the disallusionment go so far. I keep reading in the news reports that Hillary and Obama have damaged each other to the point that they have given the republicans a leg up and could even lose the election. I didn't take it that seriously. I understood all along the degree to which ALL candidates use careful choice of words to taylor their image, so things being brought out recently just haven't changed my opinion that much. I still believe that either Obama or Hillary would be good for our country. I still believe that they wish to do good. So what if they are ambitious (and that is not necessarily the same as power hungry)? Look what happened when we got a lazy candidate elected. The question is, can they keep their integrity after they get power? I prefer to hope and believe they can. I think of Gore not being able to come out and push the environmental issues because at the time it was not a popular issue: You could look at his past and know he would once in office and yet environmentalist activists trashed him because they said he was not standing up for their cause. The way newspapers report, can you blame candidates for speaking cautiously? They know that any minor looseness in phrasing on their part can be turned into a major issue by the media. We have a public that refuses to accept a candidate that disagrees with them on any issue. Once a candidate is running they have the responsibility of representing their party, not just themselves as they may have in the past and that tends to make them look insincere. I think that we have to keep our eyes (and minds) open but to make sure we see the good as well.

With as many speeches, etc that they give and as many people as they have giving them information an error in something they say does not have to be an intentional lie. An association with someone who sometime in their life did something unwise does not make the candidate someone we should despise. There is a saying that if you have never made a mistake you are not working up to your potential. (Sometimes it is alternately phrased that if you have never made a mistake you haven't been doing anything.) Candidates are not gods but they are not all devils either.

[Sdeidjs]

Did anyone happen to catch the debate last night? I swear that sometimes the media and the voters are tuning into something different. When I went to bed last night I really believe the debate was an obvious win for Obama. When I turned on crappy cable news this morning, it seems like the media (including the NY Times) are on the idea that Obama completely lost the debate.

I mean yes I was disappointed in the moderators for letting this so called debate turn into a three on one attack. However, Obama made it completely obvious they were shooting blanks at him all night and Hilliary's answers on foriegn policy were irresponsible and her answer on securing social security was extremely faulty with her saying that we can't do it Obama's way but we will work it out some how. Maybe I'm truly biased because I decided about a month ago to be for Obama.:unsure:

But what do you guys think about who won the debate and why?

I have to agree this time with the News...Hilary rocked the house..!

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

see now, I didn't want to say it that way but since you have... I concur.

I want to like Obama ... I have tried to ignore my distaste for him and look at the bigger picture, it keeps coming back to an inner uneasy feeling. Then I go and attempt to embrace Clinton, only to get the same uneasy feeling.

It would mean a great deal for my children and their generation, to see the first african american president be elected. In the same sense, I would love for my daughter to see the first woman pres. elected ...

However, neither of these historic moments will mean a damn thing if the candidate is nothing more than a typical politician. If the next president is going to continue to F!%K up the country, I would just as soon see an old wrinkly azz white man do it & continue to blame the messed up results on him :chichi:

lol, exactly. I mean, I would love to see either historic milestone reached in my lifetime, and obviously I think it's going to happen. But as you said, if either of them are typical, which I think they are, then what difference does it really make?

Politicians say what they know people want to hear so that they can get elected. I don't see any difference between these two and any other policitian. But then again, that's why I don't usually take an interest in politics.

[L.J]

You know I honestly think that if the US had a compulsory voting system like we do in Australia it might solve a lot of the US's problems. But I am biased towards my own system.

However, if big corporations didn't have to try and buy votes they wouldn't have as big an influence over political parties and all those campaign fund raising etc.

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

Oh, you're right. The United States' voting system is jacked up. The electorol college and all that stuff.

[movingcoolcat]

see now, I didn't want to say it that way but since you have... I concur.

I want to like Obama ... I have tried to ignore my distaste for him and look at the bigger picture, it keeps coming back to an inner uneasy feeling. Then I go and attempt to embrace Clinton, only to get the same uneasy feeling.

It would mean a great deal for my children and their generation, to see the first african american president be elected. In the same sense, I would love for my daughter to see the first woman pres. elected ...

However, neither of these historic moments will mean a damn thing if the candidate is nothing more than a typical politician. If the next president is going to continue to F!%K up the country, I would just as soon see an old wrinkly azz white man do it & continue to blame the messed up results on him :chichi:

Well, look at it this way; It can`t really get any worse then the current situation................( can it?:unsure:).

I actually like Hillary. Call me naive, but I do think that she wants to do what she can do, given the sircumstances. And i think that one of her major goals is in establishing a better and more fair health care system. If she managed to do that during her time in office, it would propably be somewhat of a revolution. And sometimes, a bit...chy woman is the only one who is stubborn enough to get the job done. She wont be popular anyway with a lot of people, so she has less to loose, sort of........:lol:

[RubbaRubba]

Hillary will win tomorrow, but she won't have that 20% lead she had 3 weeks ago in PA.

[mello1]

At the end of the day, no politican can be worse than George W. Bush and Dick Chency.

And it's the mainstream media who is playing up this as a soap opera instead of doing their jobs.

As usual.

[browneyedgirl]

I'd have a real... giggle if McCain wins the whole thing.

[MJJChichi]

yeah, that'd b a hoot :rolleyes: :giggle: :puke:

[L.J]

:rofl:


I think you can safely say that McCain won't be an improvement on the current situation. The only difference I can see between him and Bush, is that he is a little bit more interested in climate change ... wait let me go back and underline little....


All these promises of quitting the war etc are a bit thin, because the reality is, the US are in there now and they just can't pull out just because a new person is in charge. The effects could end up being like when you pull a plug out of a bath of water.... everything else comes rushing in.


I'm not supporting the war mind you, just pointing out that you just can't back up shop because someone else takes over.

[MJJChichi]

OK terminator

[L.J]

sorry was in a preachy mood :innocent:

[suspicious_mind]

Tonight should be very interesting for Clinton. Its do or die day. :D
If she dosent win and win BIG then Obama is sliding in to the nomination slot :wub:

[Bee]

Well, I have read the old Election thread and it was pretty good. I was going to add my two cents but then the thread disappeared.

Well, I was for Obama until a few reasons: Oprah decided that she should be on his side and that just turned me off right there. I know some of you are like, "what... why?" But I cannot stand the woman. I also did not want to support Obama because he really was not helping me figure out what kind of change that he is hoping for and aiming for. I mean, like, "ok, dude, what change do you want?" Also, the things that his former pastor said regarding the victims of 9/11 really pissed me off. I could not believe that Obama would associate himself with that guy.

With Hillary, I was not really focusing on her because I just was not. However, I listened to what she was saying and I liked what she saying. Hillary is focusing on the middle class and that is a good thing.

Since I reside in PA, this is due or forget it for Hillary and I really hope that she wins this state. I was a bit bothered that all over Philly streets (the Center City section) a lot of people were for Obama. I just have this bad feeling about this guy. I do not believe that he is truly for America, I am a bit questionable about what is his actual religion, and his associations with questionable people is really getting to me. I really hope this guy is not the democratic nominee for President. He has zero to little experience and I really do not think he knows what he is doing. I think he is using his rock star like charisma and charm to get people to listen to what he is saying. He is a great speaker, but so is Hillary.

So, I voted for Hillary this morning and I am waiting for the results. Tonight is going to be a very interesting night for PA.

McCain is like Bush but smarter. I really do not want that war loving old geezer to be President. I am very shocked that a lot of these conservative big mouth talkers like Hannity the clown, Rush Limburg the drug chacker and Anne Culter the nutty loser were not McCain supporters. That really shocked me. They felt that he was not "conservative enough". Well, anyone that loves wars like McCain is def. conservative enough.

[arXter]

I do not believe that he is truly for America, I am a bit questionable about what is his actual religion, and his associations with questionable people is really getting to me.
i'd say the media is getting to you..

[MJJChichi]

screw all of 'em /// let's elect Michael :chichi:

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

screw all of 'em /// let's elect Michael :chichi:

Yeah boooy! You know if some crazy dictator started some sh*t, all Michael would have to do is sing "Heal The World" to em', and they'd fall down, crying like a baby, preaching world peace!

By the way, Hillary won, good for her.

[Grand Master S]

i'd say the media is getting to you..

Concur. The stuff people care about so much is a damn circus. The things they've dug up to discredit Obama, sad that people actually fall for it and let it hinder the good feelings they had about him before.

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

Well I never had good feelings about him, so I can't really say that the media's affected my mind, lol.

[J5master]

Obama, Hilary, and Edwards were on the Colbert report...it was like, his best show ever :lol:

[suspicious_mind]

Hillarys win didnt make much of a difference at all. Shes gonna still have to win about every one of the last few states to beat Obama. Its never gonna happen. Obama and McCain will be the nominees. :wub: :)
I cant wait for those debates!

[MJJChichi]

i'd say the media is getting to you..

I was uneasy about him before they started digging up ish about him or the people around his camp.

'Change' 'Change' 'Change' what kind of 'Change' ?? Not all 'Change' is good. His agenda is unclear to me ... and makes me less than comfortable either securing his nomination or voting him into the presidency.

Niether one of them make me feel comfortable on thier own ... However, I cannot imagine them being any worse than the current president.

[Dangerous Incorporated]

The Fox News Channel is projecting that Hillary Clinton has defeated Senator Barrack Obama in tonight's Pennsylvania primary election. I guess Keystone state voters didn't smell what the Barrack is cooking.

[Mechi]

I think what's happening now is that ppl are getting tired of listening to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.

As all is said and done it seems for a while already and both campaign camps suffer a loss of ideas and creativity they are now only throwing dirt against the other one and that doesn't make any of them really look nice anymore. Well non of them had the character to resist obviously.

And that's indeed the biggest chance developing and growing for the other big party in the country.

I'm really wondering what will come out there... really... and I am kind of worried, can't deny it.

[Sparkling9Souls]

I'm wondering how everyone else feels about this thought since I feel to be the only one that is thinking about it: If Clinton wins the white house, at least until 2012 - if not 2016, there will have only been TWO families in our highest office for over two decades.

Whether we are republican or democrat, we DO want change in the White House, right? I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Clinton in a general under that circumstance. Especially since hearing Hillary's policy on Universal Healthcare, and then hearing her - similar to McCain's thoughts - on Iran, I can't imagine voting for Hillary come November. The fact that she's a Clinton and that I actually do want change in the White House only makes McCain more of what I guess I'm looking for.

[MJJChichi]

mmmm mcain is i white haired bush ...how is that a change ??

[Sparkling9Souls]

mmmm mcain is i white haired bush ...how is that a change ??
Elaborate.

It's funny how we've all forgotten the Republican primary and how Republicans HATED McCain for not being conservative enough. Are you calling him a "white haired Bush" solely on the fact that he's Republican? Do you really believe that Hillary, or Obama, is just going to magically get ALL of the troops out of Iraq? We haven't even left Japan, and WW2 was more than 60 years ago now, so let's not kid ourselves in thinking that if we elect any random dem in 2008, we'll be out of Iraq by 2012 - just ain't happening.

Speaking of war:

"Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons programme in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."
link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/toughtalking-clinton-vows-to-obliterate-iran-if-it-ever-dares-to-attack-us-ally-israel-814090.html)

No, that's not Bush, or even McCain....that is Hillary. That's your idea of change? At least McCain is honest on his path of war. lol

[J5master]

I would vote for Hilary in a HEART BEAT against mccain if it comes down to it. McCain is a BUSH CLONE.

I hope the media "distractions" (which is ON WATCH :lol: ) don't ruin it for the democratic party. It really has only been the media that has started this tit-for-tat stuff. Neither candidates have been malicious against the other , its just the media that keep bringing up tired ish like the angry black preacher and Hilary's trip to Bosnia...the DEBATE in Philly was testimony to that fact. So it's not really the candidates fault that the democratic party is becoming a sinking ship.

[MJJChichi]

Do you really believe that Hillary, or Obama, is just going to magically get ALL of the troops out of Iraq?
I don't believe I said anything close to that ??

McCain is an old, white, male politician. I would rather see a black man or a woman take office, over him.

[Sparkling9Souls]

I don't believe I said anything close to that ??
What are you saying then? I'd like to know how McCain is a white haired Bush.

BTW, race and gender should be damned...it should be about what these people are actually saying and doing rather than the "anybody but Bush/Republican" mentality. It didn't work in 2004, and it's not going to work here. At the rate the dems are going, McCain is going to tap dance his way into the white house come November.

[arXter]

I think what's happening now is that ppl are getting tired of listening to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.

As all is said and done it seems for a while already and both campaign camps suffer a loss of ideas and creativity they are now only throwing dirt against the other one and that doesn't make any of them really look nice anymore. Well non of them had the character to resist obviously.
that's the problem with such people - they look at it so dramatically. this isn't a soap opera - it's not about being 'nice' or what 'feeling' you get about a person. the background, track records, policies and political views of each candidate has already been laid out and we should primarily judge by that. i think with Obama and Clinton in this day and age is quite a step forward - in America that is. certainly with Obama it goes further if he truly cares about eradicating such heavy lobbyist-influence and what not. of course they're not perfect or even ideal, but that's what filtered through from our current society.

[browneyedgirl]

TOTAL DELEGATES
------------------
Barack Obama
Pledged: 1,487
Superdelegates: 232
Total: 1,719

Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 1,331
Superdelegates: 255
Total: 1,586

I have a feeling Obama's going to be just fine... Hilary seems to win only the larger states
and Pennsylvania was the only "big state" in the 9 remaining.

[L.J]

Elaborate.

It's funny how we've all forgotten the Republican primary and how Republicans HATED McCain for not being conservative enough. Are you calling him a "white haired Bush" solely on the fact that he's Republican? Do you really believe that Hillary, or Obama, is just going to magically get ALL of the troops out of Iraq? We haven't even left Japan, and WW2 was more than 60 years ago now, so let's not kid ourselves in thinking that if we elect any random dem in 2008, we'll be out of Iraq by 2012 - just ain't happening.


That's the nature of the US defence forces though. Once in a place always in a place. The US never fully leave a region, because it makes it too hard to get back in should they need to. This has been like that for many years. They are not at war with the Japanese, and their troops are not seeing action in Japan, they're just stationed there.


As for withdrawl from Iraq, I think it's fairly clear that it's going to be a long drawn out process.... they can promise whatever they like in regards to troop withdrawal, but at the end of the day they'll have to follow a path that doesn't result in their troops being put at risk, or the region falling into utter chaos. (They wouldn't want to be left responsible for that... that would be a big oops).




What are you saying then? I'd like to know how McCain is a white haired Bush.



Cause the only difference in policy between McCain and Bush is that McCain is a little more environmentally pro-active.

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

Big states are important though. She's shown she can carry the big states. But anyway, as has been said already, both Obama and Clinton are very similar in terms of policy. It comes down to preference, mostly. We aren't going to completely pull out of Iraq, that's not even a possibility I don't think. Eventually, but it will take a lot of time. Obama is as fake as Clinton, don't be fooled. They both say what they think the voters want to hear. I don't see either of them brining any kind of signifigant change to this country. Either being elected will be a step forward in how this country is percieved and how we percieve ourselves, but that is the only real change I see occuring from this. I don't see either candidate creating any kind of revoulution or shift as an individual. Clinton getting in and having the same two families for the last 26 years doesn't bother me, because as I said, I don't see any political candidate actually offering any sort of specific "change", that's such a vague term. Again, either being elected will symbolize a step forward in this country and help to start a shift in persepctive regarding equality, but in terms of what actions either candidate will take, I don't see any change happening, and as politics is so fickle a thing, whatever change that could be made will be temporary, not perminent, as leaders and laws change every few years. The only way to really change things is to change the way people see and think, and that takes more then fancy words and political/policy/legislation shifts, that takes a realization of something better then what we currently are. People don't like to admit that they're wrong, it takes someone who is able to show and make people aware of the truth of things, and politics has never done that.

[Dangerous Incorporated]

Im in Oz so can someone tell me when is the day we find who is the new President of USA?

[MJJChichi]

not till after November :winking:

[The One.]

Ok this is just mine, a little Finnish girl's opinion who know nothing about politics
but IMO it would be nicer if Barack Obama become your new president :):D

[Sdeidjs]

In the AOL News today: Hilary Clinton raised 10 million dollars in 24 hours...Wow!

[wannabestartinsomthin21]

That's pretty big.

[Dangerous Incorporated]

not till after November :winking:

Thanx for that Chi

[Dangerous Incorporated]

SAN JOSE, Calif. - A simple flaw in the coding of Sen. Barack Obama's Web site led to a hacking switcheroo of presidential proportions just days before the important Pennsylvania primary.
Some supporters who tried to visit the community blogs section of Obama's site started noticing late last week they were being redirected to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's official campaign site.
Security researchers said a hacker exploited a so-called "cross-site scripting" vulnerability in Obama's Web site to engineer the ruse.
Netcraft Ltd. said the hacker injected code into certain pages in the section _ code that was then executed when subsequent visitors tried to view the community blogs section. The vulnerability has since been fixed.
While the hack appears to have been a prank, researchers said the breach underscored that candidates risk exposing their supporters to computer viruses and identity theft if they don't secure their Web sites. For instance, a similar mechanism could be employed to redirect campaign site users to a site that steals personal information from visitors.
"With people closely watching the heated contest to determine the next U.S. president, you can bet that this won't be the last time such attacks happen," Symantec Corp. researcher Zulfikar Ramzan wrote on the company's official blog.
Neither campaign responded to e-mail messages seeking comment.
The community blogs feature is working normally again this week. The link that took visitors to Clinton's site now directs visitors to the appropriate page, which is populated with blog postings from Obama supporters around the country.
On the Net:
http://www.barackobama.com
http://www.hillaryclinton.com
A service of the Associated Press(AP)

[Bob George]

Hillary Clinton on the O'Reilly Factor

Reverend Jeremiah Wright & Universal Health Care
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wJbyWBkf-t4

Taxes
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uQnQjV4sovE

War on Terror
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nr23bb4EDGw

Waterboarding & Immigration
http://youtube.com/watch?v=npeT8-Hv_sc

[CindyRilla]

FINALLY it's OREGON'S TURN!

I re-registered from Independent Voter (been that for YEARS) to Dem voter just so I could VOTE in Oregon's May 20th 2008 PRIMARY - I received the ballot May 2nd and MAILED it in!

Check how I voted for this >>> HERE (http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6522/oregonvotesforobamazf0.jpg)

And OOOOH YES WE CAN!!! Help make this HOPE for our future come true:

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jjXyqcx-mYY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

And here is a fantastic 30 second video someone made out of Washington (the state just north of me)
It's Simple, sweet and to the point!
called "COME TOGETHER"
<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4mUBKyNiL2g&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

No more drama! VOTE OBAMA!

[L.J]

I thought Hilary handled herself really well with O'Rielly :yes:

[CindyRilla]

AND HOW COOL!!
Tom Hanks endorses Obama May 3rd 2008

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6A86pWc9biw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6A86pWc9biw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[arXter]

Amid Talk of the End and Boos From the Crowd, Clinton Carries On

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
<hr align="left" size="1"> May 8, 2008

By JOHN M. BRODER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

SHEPHERDSTOWN, W.Va. — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s greatest gift may be her ability to remain upright and smiling as chaos and chagrin surround her.

On what was probably one of the toughest days of her campaign so far, with pundits and analysts of all stripes declaring her presidential candidacy finished, Mrs. Clinton put on her battle face Wednesday and confronted what was at times a hostile crowd at a hastily arranged speech here at Shepherd University.

Mrs. Clinton endured boos when she mentioned her proposal for a gasoline tax (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gasoline_tax_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) holiday, catcalls when she spoke of ending the Iraq war and, most difficult of all, the heckling of her daughter, Chelsea, who introduced her.

“End the dynasty!” a young man holding an Obama poster shouted when Chelsea Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/chelsea_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) stepped to the microphone.

All the while, a smile was fixed on Mrs. Clinton’s perfectly made-up face — not a hair was out of place — and she betrayed only an occasional glimmer of recognition of the exceedingly narrow straits she must now navigate.

At one point in her 19-minute remarks, Mrs. Clinton promised that the United States would have universal health care “if I’m president,” a deviation from her customary “when I’m president.” She said she was proud of her two-point victory in Indiana on Tuesday, but made no mention of her 14-point loss in North Carolina. Nor did she speak the name of her rival, Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per), or even refer to him as “my opponent,” as she ordinarily does.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/us/politics/08clinton.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin<!-- ADXINFO classification="button" campaign="foxsearch2008_emailtools_810903d-nyt5"-->

[HemlockDevi]

I agree with Tom Hanks, Bruce Springsteen, Usher, Will I Am and many others Barack Obama2008!

[browneyedgirl]

Seriously, Clinton should just throw in the towel. It's gone rotten now. This has nothing to do with the fact that I support Obama, I'd be saying the same thing about Obama if he was in Hillary's situation. She's hanging on a thin rope putting all her hope into Michigan and Florida... I just don't see it happening.