Hilary/Romney losing momentum?

[oldanforgotten]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/06/nh.poll/index.html

Ouch. That's an almost 16% swing in less than 5 days. MSN's poll has it 41-28. Granted, losing NH is not going to kill her in any way shape or form, especially since she has a very large lead in superdelegates committed (150ish to 40ish), and will be leading in delegates at least through the first 4 or 5 primaries, but definitely seems like she is losing some momentum.

The whole Edwards-Obama coalition definitely seems to be taking a toll on her. She seemed to have lost her cool more than a couple times in the debate even though in the end, her performance was strong, although extremely negative.

The now biggest downside for Hilary seems to be that whichever of Edwards/Obama folds first, they are probably going to endorse the other.

Even Romney has failed to make any inroads against McCain, and may be on his way to another loss. And considering Huckabee's war chest was never big to begin with, and McCain doesnt have strong national support, we may be on the way to seeing Guiliani going on the offensive for the bigger states. If NH goes as the polls show, I dont think any of the Republican candidates has much momentum.
________
Top penny stocks (http://pennystockpicks.net/)

[Parkbandit]

I really hope Obama doesn't select Edwards as his running mate if he wins the nomination.. that would be political suicide imo.

And Giuliani staying out of the Iowa and NH contests for the most part could turn out to be the most politically savvy move in this entire process.

[Tsa`ah]

And Giuliani staying out of the Iowa and NH contests for the most part could turn out to be the most politically savvy move in this entire process.

Or, as many people are predicting ... campaign suicide.

[Savageheart]

Not sure why it would be political suicide, can you explain that a bit curious? Both are moderates to my knowledge and their bases overlap but are wider together than each independently in my approximation, which is mindfully under qualified.

[Parkbandit]

Or, as many people are predicting ... campaign suicide.


Time will tell.

What do you think.. or do you need to google that first to let us know your opinion?

[Parkbandit]

Not sure why it would be political suicide, can you explain that a bit curious? Both are moderates to my knowledge and their bases overlap but are wider together than each independently in my approximation, which is mindfully under qualified.


What's to explain.. it's an old trick to say something you want to say without going out on a limb to say it. If it turns out true, he can always say "HA! I TOLD YOU SO!" and if it turns out false, he can always say "Well I never said it would happen.. I just stated that many people predicted it"

[bluesmith]

Obama would never select Edwards, not if he listens to his strategists.

Should he get the nod, I imagine his advisors would try to pair him with a more seasoned politician with good foreign experience. Someone to balance the ticket in the general election. A Bill Richardson, for example...not that he's perfect by any means...there's probably someone with a bit more name recognition out there...

[oldanforgotten]

Not sure why it would be political suicide, can you explain that a bit curious? Both are moderates to my knowledge and their bases overlap but are wider together than each independently in my approximation, which is mindfully under qualified.

The argument of it being political suicide is because while early straw polls help determine which way people are leaning, for the most part, people who are just leaning, on the fence, or outright undecided tend to stack most behind whichever candidate gets the most exposure and gets the most momentum. Guiliani has gone from the low 30?s in the earliest straw polls to the low 20?s/high teens nationally already.

He?s banking on the fact that other candidates will be beating up each other a lot, which may create additional negativity towards them early on, and/or fighting a smaller, more specific fight, because a couple may invariably drop out before his campaign revs up.

Could be political suicide, could be political genius. As no one else in recent memory has used this (seemingly absurd, but who knows) tactic, it?s tough to tell right now if its viable or not. The viability of the strategy increases if none of the other candidates emerges as a national front runner before he enters the race.

Giuliani is still a big name party wise, because he gives them an excellent shot at winning NY, NJ, Connecticut, and Florida, the former 2 of which are delegate rich and generally blue states.
________
Girlfriends Pics (http://girlfriendpics.org)

[Tsa`ah]

Not sure why it would be political suicide, can you explain that a bit curious? Both are moderates to my knowledge and their bases overlap but are wider together than each independently in my approximation, which is mindfully under qualified.

McCain also elected to stay out of IA. It wasn't until the last hour, when it was evident that he could still show, that he decided to jump in. He pulled 13% compared to Guiliani's 4.

It's an issue of momentum and turkey trotting. Early polling (pre-IA) painted a largely different campaign picture. If you look at the IA polls in the months before the caucus, Romney and Huckabee were swapping the lead seat every other day ... but further down in the poll you would see Guiliani, sometimes as high as 20%. While you had Romney/Huckabee trading seats, the next 3 Guiliani, McCain, and Thompson always hovered between 10 and 20% while trading positions.

On the Dem side of the fence, Hillary (pre-AI) enjoyed a rather consisistant double digit margin over everyone.

Now that IA is behind us with Obama and Huckabee the clear winners in that scenario, we look at NH polling prior to and after the IA caucus.

On the Dem side of things again, Hillary (pre-IA) in NH had a substantial polling lead on everyone ... from 10-17 points at times. Post IA it has completely flipped on her. She's down by the same margin and barely able to keep even a hair ahead of Edwards.

Huckabee on the other hand, in NH, dwindled at almost no showing to maybe as high as 11% into december. With IA behind him, he's sitting around 14% ... a boon as a result of the IA caucus.

Guiliani has suffered as a result of the IA caucus. Polling in NH prior to AI was promising. Never the lead dog, but close enough to make Romney or McCain watch their backs. Post IA, well his polls dropped through the floor. As high as 25% early on ... sucking on 7 points right now.

There's nothing to say it won't turn around for him, but despite what people claim ... no one likes the underdog until the underdog wins. Americans love a winner, and often we vote in that manner.

Losing out in IA may not have been a big deal for Guiliani, losing out in both IA and NH will be. It indicates a backslide. If he also loses big in SC ... he's got too much ground to try and make up and very little time to do so.

[Gan]

Got this joke in my email today...

In a news conference today, Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.

:lol:

[Tsa`ah]

Time will tell.

What do you think.. or do you need to google that first to let us know your opinion?

Same old same old from you ... nice contribution.

[oldanforgotten]

Obama would never select Edwards, not if he listens to his strategists.

Should he get the nod, I imagine his advisors would try to pair him with a more seasoned politician with good foreign experience. Someone to balance the ticket in the general election. A Bill Richardson, for example...not that he's perfect by any means...there's probably someone with a bit more name recognition out there...


I wouldn?t put it past him to take Edwards on the ticket. It would be the coup de grace for his unusual path up. Two more idealistic politicians, and Edwards has some experience. I know historically candidates usually have a running mate that represents some levels of contrast on party lines to balance the ticket. But considering that right now and presumably down the road, he has a good deal of momentum and a highly favorable national rating of his person (Rasmussen has he and McCain as the candidates with the most favorable general rating), it would behoove him not to ride that momentum out and choose a running mate who also is viewed favorably by people over someone who is unknown or provides the formulaic political contrast.
________
California Dispensary (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

[TheEschaton]

Edwards is already a loser, putting a loser on the ticket again is not something Dems do.

I think Giuliani's main problem is not that he didn't do well in IA, but that he did so abysmally. He placed SIXTH, only ahead of Duncan Hunter. He finished behind also-rans like Ron Paul, who, face it, isn't winning the GOP nomination. Can he come back from such a hole? I don't think so.

-TheE-

[ClydeR]

Hillary is so broken up by her slump in the polls that she started crying at a town hall meeting earlier today. It looked real to me, but you never know for sure with the Clintons. I think Ed Muskie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie) was the last presidential candidate to cry, and it ended his candidacy. George W. Bush cried in public after 9/11, but of course that was after he was elected.

Tearful :violin: Video (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4097366)

[oldanforgotten]

Hillary is so broken up by her slump in the polls that she started crying at a town hall meeting earlier today. It looked real to me, but you never know for sure with the Clintons. I think Ed Muskie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie) was the last presidential candidate to cry, and it ended his candidacy. George W. Bush cried in public after 9/11, but of course that was after he was elected.

Tearful :violin: Video (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4097366)

She has the most publicized and well financed campaign in history. She has the backing of a former president husband who is still generally popular. She has a near unlimited set of resources to fight. But a lot of people don?t like her, and they get on her case because her two main rivals are passing a more popular message, and she has not found a way to provide good contrast without being negative.

Obama?s supporters tend to be a younger crowd, a more independent crowd, and a more fed up crowd, so he?s beating the stuffing out of her in terms of crowd enthusiasm. Edwards, despite Obama now being seen by many as the frontrunner, is still browbeating and spending his energy waging verbals wars with her, and she probably is beginning to feel the pressure that not only can she not win NH, but the win will probably give MORE TV time to Obama, more coverage of his speeches, and she can?t match him for public speaking, nor can she garner crowds with those levels of enthusiasm. In short, she probably is starting to see the writing on the wall that she may not win the nomination, and that she?s going to have to really fight for it, and she can?t do it without losing her cool.

I?ve got a feeling we?re gonna see her pull a Howard Dean somewhere along the road.
________
Montana Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (http://montana.dispensaries.org/)

[Sean of the Thread]

Can't wait for Obama to win the nomination to lock up another Republican presidency.

[oldanforgotten]

Can't wait for Obama to win the nomination to lock up another Republican presidency.

I dont see any of the Republicans able to go head to head with Obama and win. The most beatable of the Dems is Hilary. She's the polarizing one that inspires people to vote against her.
________
W209 (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W209)

[Hulkein]

Can't wait for Obama to win the nomination to lock up another Republican presidency.

I don't know about that. I don't see Huckabee beating Obama. I'd probably vote for Obama over Huckabee to tell you the truth. Rudy has a pretty sketchy past.

I think McCain would beat him. Possibly Romney.

[Parkbandit]

Same old same old from you ... nice contribution.


Well, at least you didn't have to google this post. Grats I suppose are in order.

Fantastic contribution from you as well.. but then again, we've been down the hypocrite road with you.. why bother going down it again.

[diethx]

Well, at least you didn't have to google this post. Grats I suppose are in order.

Fantastic contribution from you as well.. but then again, we've been down the hypocrite road with you.. why bother going down it again.

Man, I love your avatar.

[Parkbandit]

Hillary is so broken up by her slump in the polls that she started crying at a town hall meeting earlier today. It looked real to me, but you never know for sure with the Clintons. I think Ed Muskie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie) was the last presidential candidate to cry, and it ended his candidacy. George W. Bush cried in public after 9/11, but of course that was after he was elected.

Tearful :violin: Video (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4097366)

LOL at you for thinking this was nothing but a political move.

[Ilvane]

Huckabee won't win the nomination. The scary part about Obama to me is that he doesn't really say anything when he speaks. He sounds great, but there is no substance there.

At least with Hillary I know where she stands.

I have no freaking clue who I'd vote for if it came down to Obama and Rudy, or Obama and Huckabee. I'd have to wish for a third party candidate.

Scary.

Angela

[Ilvane]

And before someone says anything..The reason why I think Obama doesn't have the substance is because he says he can unite America..okay--tell me how you can do this when everyone else in the past 12 years has failed?

How can you get us out of Iraq without destabilizing the entire area?

How can you provider universal health care the way you want, and pay for it?

What is your plan for diplomacy in the Middle East that is going to work so differently that it's going to work?

I'm all for optimistic, but how about realistic?

Angela

[oldanforgotten]

And before someone says anything..The reason why I think Obama doesn't have the substance is because he says he can unite America..okay--tell me how you can do this when everyone else in the past 12 years has failed?

Uniting America has never been about policy, its about being genuine, and being personally appealing to both sides. It' about having a personality that galvanizes people. It's about appointing some conservatives and liberals into decision making circles. And the reason everyone else for the past 20+ years has failed is because they were all Washington insiders with tied political roots and they all owed people who got them there. If you're going to admit a defeatist attitude before even giving someone a chance, then you're a lost cause anyway.



How can you get us out of Iraq without destabilizing the entire area?


I don't know. People asked Nixon the same question in Vietnam. Chances are there is a way to start the process without destabilizing the region. Second is that he has not called for any unilateral pullout, just that he wants to start the process of bringing them home, and set a timetable for return. Where has clinton provided specific numbers on the return and made her picture so clear?



How can you provider universal health care the way you want, and pay for it?


You're insane. And you obviously don't know the issues. His plan and Hilarys are nearly identical, except his plan mandates health care for children, and provides affordable health care for adults, but does not force them to take it. Her plan forces everyone to take it. And they are BOTH paying for it under a universal health care budget, which would be funded by those taxpayer dollars, with the coverage being cheaper because a) the economies of scale are incredible from having so many people, and b) the government is not profiting from the plan.



What is your plan for diplomacy in the Middle East that is going to work so differently that it's going to work?


There is this strategy called talking to people instead of calling them the "axis of evil" playing the 6 year old kid game of "I'm not talking to you". As for how it works, it's simple. That's how shit got done in the past. When we strayed away from the tactic of opening our mouths and talking to people, as Hilary wants to stick with, it becomes difficult to make any progress. But as for it being different, it's not. It's what the world used up to the first Bush Sr. and Clinton administration, when we began the process of not talking to folks.



I'm all for optimistic, but how about realistic?


You're all for uninformed and brainwashed is what you are. The truth is that a majority of what all 3 want to do is similar. The big difference is Hilary is playing the role of batshit crazy lying scorned woman, and giving americans the knowledge of why she'd be a shitty leader. She's acted negative, conniving, and needs to lie her way in by planting questions, pre-selecting background people in her speeches, not remembering anything under oath about the 300 hours she billed to her law firm working on her husband's loan deals in Whitewater, etc.. She's dishonest, she's vindictive, and she's incredibly divisive.

I'm not saying Obama is the guy to do it, or Edwards, but the fact remains, they are much better people than her, they are more honest than her, and people respect them more than her. That's what makes them both better for the job. Republican wise, both Giuliani and McCain have some of those galvanizing qualities as well.
________
Easy Vape Review (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/easy-vape)

[Sean of the Thread]

Tamral you're going to get tired of spelling it out to her.

Get used to just replying to her posts with a LOL or Idiot.

[Daniel]

In all honesty. I can't think of a policy that would be worse than our current middle east policy.

Hey's lets funnel billions of dollars in weaponry out there, alienate people on both sides and hope for the best!

[oldanforgotten]

In all honesty. I can't think of a policy that would be worse than our current middle east policy.

Hey's lets funnel billions of dollars in weaponry out there, alienate people on both sides and hope for the best!


Eh, there are a few that would be up there:

Our policy in Vietnam was equally bad.
Ike?s 100% top tax bracket was pretty bad
Woodrow Wilson?s re-induction of the Stamp Tax (Death Tax)
Bill?s policies in Somalia
Reagan authorizing the use of tactical missiles to assassinate Khadafi, the leader of a foreign country

But I agree in principle.

Here?s the thing. We voted in a democratic house and senate 2 years ago, all these people with ?experience? and ?inside knowledge? pulling for change.
It?s proof positive that experience doesn?t mean a damn thing, and hasn?t done jack shit for us.

I?d rather trust Howard Stern with setting our middle east policy than Hilary OR Dubya, so I?m more than willing to give someone with an alternative approach a shot.
________
SEX TAPE (http://www.fucktube.com/)

[ClydeR]

And before someone says anything..The reason why I think Obama doesn't have the substance is because he says he can unite America..okay--tell me how you can do this when everyone else in the past 12 years has failed?

That is a good point.


How can you get us out of Iraq without destabilizing the entire area?

We can't. Our goal should be to build military bases from which we can ensure that Iraq's oil flows uninterupted.


How can you provider universal health care the way you want, and pay for it?

If a man will not work, then neither should he eat. The government should go no further into the welfare business. It is not the government's responsibility to provide health insurance for people who are unwilling to provide it for their families.

[oldanforgotten]

That is a good point.

From someone who supports the evangelical right, there is not a single candidate you would support that is capable of uniting anything other than Sunday Mass.



We can't. Our goal should be to build military bases from which we can ensure that Iraq's oil flows uninterupted.


Yes, that approach will work wonders. Because left to their own devices, obviously they wouldn?t pump oil. Are you for real?



If a man will not work, then neither should he eat. The government should go no further into the welfare business. It is not the government's responsibility to provide health insurance for people who are unwilling to provide it for their families.

Which is why, under Obama?s plan, the children in the family are covered and the adults would not be, since they couldn?t afford it. You go ahead and make your case that a child that cannot provide for themselves should be responsible for their parent?s inability to provide them with basic necessities. Just highlight it in red, so everyone can categorically ignore it. Clinton is the one who would mandate they all be covered.
________
Vaporizer Help (http://vaporizer.org/)

[Ilvane]

Actually, in Obama's case, I think it's taking a pretty big leap to trust that someone who doesn't have a touch of experience in doing these kinds of things to fix everything. It's a hell of a lot more realistic, not defeatist.

Where I see her as being passionate, you see her as being batshit crazy, lying scorned woman.

I don't see her that way at all. I see her as a strong woman in a mans world, someone who has more balls than most of those men combined(heh) and who sincerely believes in her stances. At least I KNOW where she stands.

:shrug: You can disagree, that's your choice, just like it's my choice to want to be a Hillary supporter.

Angela

[Sean of the Thread]

I really don't think you've got a clue to be honest about either of them based on the shit you've been posting.

[TheEschaton]

ClydeR really has to be a caricature. Who outright says on the right that we should increase our presence in Iraq so that the "oil keeps flowing"?

-TheE-

[oldanforgotten]

Actually, in Obama's case, I think it's taking a pretty big leap to trust that someone who doesn't have a touch of experience in doing these kinds of things to fix everything. It's a hell of a lot more realistic, not defeatist.

Where I see her as being passionate, you see her as being batshit crazy, lying scorned woman.

I don't see her that way at all. I see her as a strong woman in a mans world, someone who has more balls than most of those men combined(heh) and who sincerely believes in her stances. At least I KNOW where she stands.

:shrug: You can disagree, that's your choice, just like it's my choice to want to be a Hillary supporter.

Angela

Below, if you actually do read, or care to read, is a summary of all major involvings of the two as Senators, taken from good old Wikipedia. Clinton sponsored and wrote next to nothing. Obama not only wrote and sponsored bills, but was one of a select few democrats that did so in a bipartisan manner. But as for being a talker and a doer, The Senate records speak clear. One of them showed up from time to time, talked to the media, and voted, while the other was actively working with other people, constantly trying to come up with ideas, and at times bipartisan ones, to make the country a better place.

As for the lying part, yes. She billed her own law firm 300 hours regarding work on the Whitewater loan case for her husband, yet could remember nothing about it under oath 2 years later. Sorry, either that?s a lie, or she has no memory. And if she has no memory, then she is unfit to be president. Balls, yes, she?s a batshit crazy fighter who has balls. But her LIES about Obama and Edwards health care plan is not a contrast. Obama would not leave 3 million people uninsured. Those are the 3 million people that Clinton?s own committee estimated would not purchase health care even if it was affordable. The only difference is that Obama wouldn?t FORCE people to purchase health care. As for sincerely believes in her stances, I don?t know. She doesn?t write or construct a fucking thing in the Senate and never has because she?s a lazy bitch too busy trying to further herself politically with the media than to actually get anything done. GG.

Obama is a more idealistic person, no question. But he actually has a track record not just of showing up and voting whichever way his people tell him to, but of actually WRITING the bills, sponsoring them, working across partisan lines to come up with them (in short, he?s the one that actually has gotten something done).

Edwards has gotten things done. Richardson has gotten things done. Biden has gotten things done. Hilary is the only one who hasn?t, unless you plan on giving her credit for the things Bill did. And I honestly don?t know where she stands, because she changes stances depending on the crowd she?s talking to. She says that the paper said Obama has enough stances to debate himself on health care, when it was her own campaign manager who was quoted in the paper as having said it. The only place I know Hilary isn?t is between her husband?s legs, because he?s been finding other women for that job for years now.


Hilary?s Senate Career:

Upon entering the United States Senate, Clinton maintained a low public profile while building relationships with senators from both parties, to avoid the polarizing celebrity she experienced as First Lady.[105][186][187][188] Clinton also forged alliances with religiously-inclined senators by becoming a regular participant in the Senate Prayer Breakfast.[111][189]

Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001?2002),[190] Committee on Armed Services (since 2003),[191] Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001),[190] Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001)[190] and Special Committee on Aging.[192] She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe[193] (since 2001).[194]

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clinton sought to obtain funding for the recovery efforts in New York City and security improvements in her state. Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in quickly securing $21.4 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.[195][196][197] She subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders.[198] Clinton voted for the USA Patriot Act in October 2001, as did all but one senator. In 2005, when the act was up for renewal, she worked to address some of the civil liberties concerns with it,[199] before voting in favor of a compromise renewed act in March 2006 that gained large majority support.[200]

As a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Clinton strongly supported military action in Afghanistan, saying it was a chance to combat terrorism while improving the lives of Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban government.[201] Clinton voted in favor of the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized United States President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, should such action be required to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution after pursuing with diplomatic efforts. (However, Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq.[191] She did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to one year increments, but the only mechanism necessary for the President to renew his mandate without any Congressional oversight was to claim that the Iraq War was vital to national security each year the authorization required renewal.)[191]

After the Iraq War began, Clinton made trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan to visit American troops stationed there, such as the 10th Mountain Division based in Fort Drum, New York. On a visit to Iraq in February 2005, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country were functioning well.[202] Noting that war deployments are draining regular and reserve forces, she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain.[203] In late 2005, Clinton said that while immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake, Bush's pledge to stay "until the job is done" is also misguided, as it gives Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves." She criticized the administration for making poor decisions in the war, but added that it was more important to solve the problems in Iraq.[204] This centrist and somewhat vague stance caused frustration among those in the Democratic party who favor immediate withdrawal.[205] Clinton supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans, and lobbied against the closure of several military bases.[206]

Senator Clinton voted against the tax cuts introduced by President Bush, including the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, saying it was fiscally irresponsible to reopen the budget deficit.

Clinton voted in 2005 against the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States,[207] and in 2006 against the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court; [208] both were confirmed. In 2005, Clinton called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate how hidden sex scenes showed up in the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.[209] Along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act, intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games. In July 2004 and June 2006, Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment that sought to prohibit same-sex marriage. The proposed constitutional amendment fell well short of passage on both occasions.

Looking to establish a "progressive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism,[210] Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress;[211][212] shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003;[213] advised and nurtured the Clintons' former antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004;[213][212] and following the 2004 Senate elections, successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.[213]

Reelection campaign of 2006

In November 2004, Clinton announced that she would seek a second term in the United States Senate. The early frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, withdrew from the contest after several months of poor campaign performance.[214] Clinton easily won the Democratic nomination over opposition from anti-war activist Jonathan Tasini.[215] Clinton's eventual opponents in the general election were Republican candidate John Spencer, a former mayor of Yonkers, along with several third-party candidates. Throughout the campaign, Clinton consistently led Spencer in the polls by wide margins. She won the election on 7 November with 67 percent of the vote to Spencer's 31 percent,[216] carrying all but four of New York's sixty-two counties.[217] Clinton spent $36 million towards her reelection, more than any other candidate for Senate in the 2006 elections. She was criticized by some Democrats for spending too much in a one-sided contest, while some supporters were concerned she did not leave more funds for a potential presidential bid in 2008.[218] In the following months she transferred $10 million of her Senate funds towards her now-official presidential campaign.[219]

Second term

Senator Clinton listens as Chief of Naval Operations Navy Admiral Mike Mullen responds to a question during his 2007 confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture.[220] In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines[221] but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush. In May 2007 a compromise war funding bill that removed withdrawal deadlines but tied funding to progress benchmarks for the Iraqi government passed the Senate by a vote of 80-14 and would be signed by Bush; Clinton was one of those who voted against it.[222] Clinton responded to General David Petraeus's September 2007 Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq by saying, "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief."[223] In September 2007 she voted in favor of a Senate resolution calling on the State Department to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps "a foreign terrorist organization", which passed 76-22.[224]

In March 2007, in response to the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, Clinton called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign,[225] and launched an Internet campaign to gain petition signatures towards this end.[226] In May and June 2007, regarding the high-profile, hotly debated comprehensive immigration reform bill known as the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, Clinton cast a number of votes in support of the bill, which eventually failed to gain cloture.[227]


Obama?s Senate Career

Obama was sworn in as a Senator on January 4, 2005.[51] In a move considered exceptional for a first-term incoming senator, he recruited Pete Rouse, a 30-year veteran of the Washington political scene and former chief of staff to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, as his chief of staff.[52] Karen Kornbluh, an economist who was deputy chief of staff to former Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, was hired as Obama's policy adviser.[53] Foreign policy advisers include Samantha Power, author on human rights and genocide, and former Clinton administration officials Anthony Lake and Susan Rice.[54] Obama holds assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs,[55] and is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.[56]

Congressional ratings for Senator Obama's votes by a number of interest groups are tracked by Project Vote Smart.[57]

109th Congress

Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions brought before the 109th Congress in 2005 and 2006, and cosponsored another 427.[58][59] Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. Beginning in 2005, Obama co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).[60] He later added three amendments to S. 2611, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act," sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA).[61][62] S. 2611 passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the U.S. House of Representatives.[63] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States?Mexico border.[64] President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."[65]

Partnering first with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[67][68] The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for a web site, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.[69][70] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[71]

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In August 2005, he traveled to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks.[72] Following meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006, Obama visited Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. At a meeting with Palestinian students two weeks before Hamas won the legislative election, Obama warned that "the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel."[73] He left for his third official trip in August 2006, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.[74] The speech touched off a public debate among rival leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and improper, others defending his positions.[75][76]

110th Congress

In the first month of the newly Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, Obama worked with Russ Feingold (D?WI) to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", which was signed into law in September 2007.[77] He joined Charles Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.[78] Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.[79] Obama also introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act", a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008.[80]

Later in 2007, Obama sponsored with Kit Bond (R-MO) an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges, and calling for a review by the Government Accounting Office following reports that the procedure had been used inappropriately to reduce government costs.[81] He sponsored the "Iran Sanctions Enabling Act" supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry,[82] and joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism. A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.[83] Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[84] After passing both houses of Congress with bipartisan majorities, SCHIP was vetoed by President Bush in early October 2007, a move Obama said "shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans."[85]
________
Volcano Vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/volcano-vaporizer)

[Latrinsorm]

I think it's taking a pretty big leap to trust that someone who doesn't have a touch of experience in doing these kinds of things to fix everything.It's pretty clear that the expectation isn't for Obama to "fix everything" but to change the culture of corruption and stagnation.
At least I KNOW where she stands.Empirical evidence does not support this claim. This isn't a matter of opinion, and insisting that it is only demonstrates your bias.

[Sean of the Thread]

the bottom line is Barack Obama LIED to the American people..... when he told us that he was black.

I should know.. because I'm black.

[CrystalTears]

Clinton lied too when she said she was a woman. :D

[Ilvane]

Actually, Hillary had a health care plan LONG before most of these guys.

Have you looked at hers at all?
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

As for her not sponsoring bills, um..where are you getting that information?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022&tab=bills

As for her voting record, it she rarely missed votes until she started running for president(last few months of 2007)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?tab=votes&id=300022



Angela

[oldanforgotten]

It's pretty clear that the expectation isn't for Obama to "fix everything" but to change the culture of corruption and stagnation.Empirical evidence does not support this claim. This isn't a matter of opinion, and insisting that it is only demonstrates your bias.

I love how some people just assume a president goes out there, cleans the streets, picks up the trash him/herself, writes policy on a computer at his/her own desk, etc.

A president acts as the overseeing influence of policy, and acts as the general moral/fiscal/poitical compass. Changing the culture of Washington is the first of many steps required to fix whats wrong. And if this is the experience we need, the only candidate on either side with that experience is Giuliani, because like him or not, the entire city of new york, its political offices, the professional nature of city employees, and general change in attitude IS largely attributed to his performance as Mayor. Whether or not he can change Washington? I doubt it, because it?s a much more difficult fight, but that?s my opinion. It takes a person with integrity, passion, and a willingness to work, not just talk to enact that level of change.

What we don?t need is just another Washingtonized politician with experience. We?ve got plenty of them already in Washington. And both democrat and republican, they are doing an extraordinarily shitty job.
________
Buy herbalaire vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/herbalaire-vaporizer)

[Kembal]

Actually, in terms of health care plans introduced by the candidates last year, I believe Hillary was third. Edwards definitely introduced first, and I think Obama introduced second.

Hillary stayed far far away from health care otherwise once she was elected as a Senator. (with good reason....politically, it would've been a very bad idea for her to take it up as a Senator)

[oldanforgotten]

Actually, in terms of health care plans introduced by the candidates last year, I believe Hillary was third. Edwards definitely introduced first, and I think Obama introduced second.

Hillary stayed far far away from health care otherwise once she was elected as a Senator. (with good reason....politically, it would've been a very bad idea for her to take it up as a Senator)

I think Ilvane is trying to give Hilary credit for coming up with the concept of socialized health care in the US. Kinda like she invented the internet or something.
________
Linden Assembly (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Linden_Assembly)

[Ilvane]

Actually, Kembal, I'm talking about the plan she tried to get introduced back when she was First Lady.

Everyone seems to forget that, for some reason...back before it was popular.

Within the first five days of becoming First Lady, Hillary Clinton was named by her husband to head the President's Task Force on Health Care Reform, overseeing research, investigatory trips, financial reports, numerous committees composed of medical and insurance professionals, lawmakers and other government officials, public service leaders, and consumer rights advocates. In this capacity, she became the third First Lady to testify before Congress, appearing to the House committee on health insurance reform in September 1993. When the plan devised was attacked as too complicated or an intention leading to "socialized medicine" the Administration decided not to push for a vote and it never came to a vote in the Senate or House, abandoned in September, 1994. Hillary Clinton's interest in the subject, however, had helped raise national consciousness about the problem of citizens who lived without any medical insurance and she began to address an assortment of other medical problems facing many citizens. Perhaps the most successful component of her accomplishments as First Lady was initiating the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for those children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage. She also successfully sought to increase the research funding for illnesses such as prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institute of Health. The First Lady also gave voice to the illnesses that were affecting veterans of the Gulf War, with the possibility of their suffering the toxic side effects of chemical "Agent Orange" used in warfare.

Angela

[Tsa`ah]

Actually, Hillary had a health care plan LONG before most of these guys.

Have you looked at hers at all?
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

As for her not sponsoring bills, um..where are you getting that information?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022&tab=bills

As for her voting record, it she rarely missed votes until she started running for president(last few months of 2007)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?tab=votes&id=300022



Angela

I think the point you're missing here is that Hillary had the chance when Bill was in office. She likes to point out that she spearheaded a reform campaign and that's the truth. She had the influence, she had support ... and then she sold every one out and took the paycheck.

I think you're blinding yourself Angela. Clinton has sold out so many times that it's become a career for her. She likes to talk about special interests, but she jumped into special interest pockets well before she had an office to sell.

Set aside that fact and you have to look at her personally. Her personality and her rhetoric. As president she would have a hard time sitting down with some democrats and getting them to work with her .... do you think she could convince republicans?

She has very little ability to lead and even less to inspire cooperation.

[Tsa`ah]

Actually, Kembal, I'm talking about the plan she tried to get introduced back when she was First Lady.

You mean the plan that had a chance, the plan that had unilateral support to an extent ... and the plan that everyone dropped when the insurance lobby handed Hillary a check?

[Ilvane]

Oh come on..you mean it wasn't attacked by every Republican as being "socialized" health care? COME ON.

I know you are a smart guy, Tsa'ah, read up on this stuff, will you?

Angela

[Tsa`ah]

Oh come on..you mean it wasn't attacked by every Republican as being "socialized" health care? COME ON.

I know you are a smart guy, Tsa'ah, read up on this stuff, will you?

Angela

It was attacked by hardline conservatives, that is not to say she didn't have some support from the GOP side of things.

That's not the point however. She took a payoff and backed off. You can't excuse that.

[Ilvane]

She even had some on the Democratic side attacking her on it because they didn't think it was necessary..

And yes, she did get money from the insurance industry..some of the same people that fought to tear down her bill. ((Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, refers to his previous battles with Clinton as "ancient history," and says "she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue."))

Angela

[Kembal]

Actually, Kembal, I'm talking about the plan she tried to get introduced back when she was First Lady.

Everyone seems to forget that, for some reason...back before it was popular.

Haven't forgotten it at all. However, since then, she hasn't taken leadership on the health care issue at all. And honestly, her plan right now is the worst of the three, in my opinion...either have no mandates, or mandate for both individuals and employers. Instead she mandates for individuals, but doesn't mandate for corporations.

In other words, that forces everyone into a government-sponsored pool, because I can't see why a corporation would keep offering health insurance, even with the incentives she offers in her plan.

As for why I finally chose to not support Clinton, it wasn't for her angry moment at the debate on Saturday. It was for her line in the debate about "false hope." Any presidential candidate that says we shouldn't be striving for the best we can do, because it's a false hope, automatically loses my vote. That's what Clinton did.

[CrystalTears]

She even had some on the Democratic side attacking her on it because they didn't think it was necessary..

And yes, she did get money from the insurance industry..some of the same people that fought to tear down her bill. ((Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, refers to his previous battles with Clinton as "ancient history," and says "she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue."))

Angela
Yeah probably because her proposal would force everyone to get health insurance.

[Tsa`ah]

She even had some on the Democratic side attacking her on it because they didn't think it was necessary..

And yes, she did get money from the insurance industry..some of the same people that fought to tear down her bill. ((Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, refers to his previous battles with Clinton as "ancient history," and says "she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue."))

Angela

So ... it's acceptable that she sold the american people out back then? That makes her a good candidate for the Oval Office?

I'm sorry, but Clinton is an earmarking machine. She has made over 500 million in earmarks since she won her senate seat that were to the specific benefit of 59 corporate intities ... 64% of those were campaign contributors.

How does that qualify her as a candidate for the people?

There exists no excuse on the planet that can justify her taking a payout to drop the healthcare issue then. With her track record it's only a matter of resistance before she backs out again ... for another payoff.

[Gan]

... handed Hillary a check?

You have just pointed out Hillary's greatest weakness. ;)

[oldanforgotten]

She?s a ?strong? woman.

So strong she lied under oath about her work on the whitewater case, breaking her vows as a lawyer
So strong she sold out the American people to special interests on health care
So strong she has to plant questions
So strong she has to run an extremely negative campaign of half-truths, half-lies and outright lies.
So strong that she has to adopt her rivals monikers for change and apply it to her own campaign
So strong that she?s the one, more than any republican, taking money from special interests.

Yep, she?s a ?strong? woman.

Find me a ?weak? one, then, since I?m looking for the opposite, and I?ll vote for her.

Is Barack the most qualified person? Probably not. Do I agree with everything Barack says? No. Do I think he?s the candidate that is closest to my overall views on things? Nope. But he appears to be genuine, he?s been fighting on Capitol Hill more for getting things done than just talking about it, and he?s delivering his message without having to lie and put down others to do it.

You have admitted that you know that she sold out her own health plan, yet you still know where she stands. Are you saying that you know that she?ll sell out every time? Or anytime she comes under fire? Socialized health care will pass in this country, and would have passed then, despite objections from hard line conservatives. It depends on who has the balls to do it, because that person will lose a lot of votes, because

1) HMO?s employ a lot of people and make a lot more people very rich. Those people all stand out to lose a lot with socialized health care.
2) Wall Street hates the idea of socialized medicine, simply because HMO?s and Pharmas are strong stocks in tough times, and are big cyclicals that hedge funds LOVE.
3) A lot of government employees are opposed to it because it is one of the largest creators of kickbacks today.

Hilary has proven that check in personal bank account > people already on this issue. It takes a ?strong? person to do that.
________
Maine dispensaries (http://maine.dispensaries.org/)

[Ilvane]

What exactly is Obama's great hope, aside from he comes across with great flowery words about what he wants to do?

He speaks better, granted..he sounds like a preacher sometimes, he's got peoples attention, but is he really what people want, or is he the equivalent of a political "Rockstar" as so many people call him?

I heard all this baloney about how he was the candidate of destiny, and people would be talking someday about "where they were when the first black American was elected." yesterday by some talking heads on CNN, and I just wanted to toss something at the TV.

It's sad that this country, when you come down to it, would elect a man over a woman STILL, because people see the woman as being a bitch, mainly because she's passionate about what she stands for.

As far as being paid off, I took a look at the numbers on Open Secrets. I also included the links if you guys wanted to take a look.
Money given from HMO/Health Care Companies

1 Clinton, Hillary (D) Pres $246,480
2 Obama, Barack (D) Pres $175,093
3 Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $122,650
4 Baucus, Max (D-MT) Senate $110,300
5 Giuliani, Rudolph W Pres (R) $94,175



Hillary Clinton Donations(http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008)
Total Receipts: $90,935,788
Total Spent: $40,472,775
Cash on Hand: $50,463,013
Debts: $2,347,486
Date of last report: September 30, 2007
Totals may include compliance fund receipts

Source of Funds:
(How to read this chart / methodology)
Individual contributions
$79,644,559
88%

PAC contributions
$748,052
1%

Candidate self-financing
$0
0%

Federal Funds
$0
0%

Other
$10,543,177
12%

PAC Contribution Breakdown:
(How to read this chart / methodology)

Business
$304,408
56%

Labor
$58,600
11%

Ideological/Single Issue
$181,484
33%

Her top 5 types of contributors:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $9,596,748
2 Securities & Investment $4,735,730
3 Retired $4,139,270
4 Real Estate $3,939,008
5 Business Services $2,539,364

Barack Obama(http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008)
Total Receipts: $80,256,427
Total Spent: $44,169,236
Cash on Hand: $36,087,191
Debts: $1,409,740
Date of last report: September 30, 2007
Totals may include compliance fund receipts

Source of Funds:
(How to read this chart / methodology)

Individual contributions
$79,218,370
99%

PAC contributions
$6,775
0%

Candidate self-financing
$0
0%

Federal Funds
$0
0%

Other
$1,031,282
1%

PAC Contribution Breakdown:
(How to read this chart / methodology)

Business
$3,250
26%

Labor
$0
0%

Ideological/Single Issue
$9,237
74%

His top 5 Types of Contributors:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $10,536,629
2 Retired $5,846,838
3 Securities & Investment $5,764,231
4 Real Estate $2,994,198
5 Education $2,691,274


Oh, and HMO money for Hillary?
2004 Election Cycle?: She's not in the top 25.

2006 Election cycle?:Hillary was 24 on the list of people taking money, total amount Hillary Clinton (D-NY) $34,000(whopping isn't it?)
(Here's a link to the list: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/pacrecips.asp?Ind=H03&Cycle=2006)

They also have 2008, but she's not on the list.

Pharmaceutical industries PAC's? She's not in the top 25. (2004, 2006 or 2008)
Physicians/Doctors PAC's? She's not in the top 25.(2004, 2006 or 2008)

[CrystalTears]

I really don't ever want to hear you call someone blinded by their bias again, Ms. Hypocrite. If you can't even acknowledge her faults, then there is no hope for you.

[Ilvane]

Weeeeeelll..when someone says she's sold out to the health care industry and the numbers don't seem to show it?

How am I being a hypocrite?

Angela

[oldanforgotten]

What exactly is Obama's great hope, aside from he comes across with great flowery words about what he wants to do?

He speaks better, granted..he sounds like a preacher sometimes, he's got peoples attention, but is he really what people want, or is he the equivalent of a political "Rockstar" as so many people call him?

I heard all this baloney about how he was the candidate of destiny, and people would be talking someday about "where they were when the first black American was elected." yesterday by some talking heads on CNN, and I just wanted to toss something at the TV.

It's sad that this country, when you come down to it, would elect a man over a woman STILL, because people see the woman as being a bitch, mainly because she's passionate about what she stands for.

As far as being paid off, I took a look at the numbers on Open Secrets. I also included the links if you guys wanted to take a look.
Money given from HMO/Health Care Companies

1 Clinton, Hillary (D) Pres $246,480
2 Obama, Barack (D) Pres $175,093
3 Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $122,650
4 Baucus, Max (D-MT) Senate $110,300
5 Giuliani, Rudolph W Pres (R) $94,175






No, because she has a track record of lies, and is still lying RIGHT THE FUCK NOW while trying to contrast her plans to Obama?s. I?m not voting for Obama because he is a man/woman, black/white, Christian/non Christian. If I do cast my vote for him, it is because he is the best candidate. You on the other hand, are obvious in the bias that you are voting for Clinton BECAUSE she?s a woman. GG.

In the NH debate, she (LIE) accused Obama of having a health care plan that would leave 3 million poor Americans without coverage.
FACT: His plan draws from the same fund, but instead offers people the choice of whether to have health care or not, and those 3 million represent the number of people who would not purchase health care even if offered it at an affordable cost. Yes, GOD DAMN HIM for not being a fascist fuck forcing people to purchase it.

Under oath, she (LIE) did not recall anything about the 300+ hours she billed her law firm on the Whitewater Loan Issue she worked on for her husband.

What bipartisan bills has she supported in defiance of her own party insiders? What has she sponsored? NONE. Explain to me how that unifies anything?

She talks about protecting American workers, yet which person has done the most to help continue the outsourcing process of white collar jobs to places like India and South Korea?

Her staffers have routinely leaked negative press (Barack Hussein Obama), the Muslim schooling, etc. and have not stopped. She?s the only one running the Karl Rove tactics. Good to know how ABSOLUTELY FULL OF SHIT YOU ARE when you talked about Karl Rove being a bad person. Who knew you were secretly sucking his dick because those tactics would help you make a sexist decision for Hilary?

The fact is the general strategies of all 3 major democratic candidates is clear and evident, you just don?t plan on listening to anyone but Clinton, because you?re a sexist bitch who assumes her being a woman has anything to do with her general incompetence, lack of integrity, and divisive nature.

And just to clarify, that?s the amount of money given to their campaigns. Considering many companies have a policy by which a personal contribution to a charity or political campaign is matched by the employer, that can explain that number without any issue. Here?s the thing. The HMO?s gave Clinton a personal check, not a campaign check when they talked her into absolving herself of her convictions and dropping universal health care while she was First Lady. That won?t show up here, and until the Clintons open up their income tax statements, you won?t see it anywhere.
________
LINCOLN TOWN CAR SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Lincoln_Town_Car)

[Latrinsorm]

people see the woman as being a bitch, mainly because she's passionate about what she stands for.That's exactly the opposite of why people don't like her.
Weeeeeelll..when someone says she's sold out to the health care industry and the numbers don't seem to show it?The reference to her selling out was before she became an elected politician (i.e. before the cited site has data for her). I don't know if the claim is true or not, but I do know that your site has nothing to do with it.

[Tsa`ah]

Ilvane ... I'm less concerned about campaign contributions (considering he has taken more from healthcare professionals than he has insurance companies).

175 grand, 250 grand ... in a campaign is nothing. I'm talking about the money she received as the First Lady, and as a NY Senator. The money "earned" from special interests while in office.

When you can show that Obama has taken lobby cash and sold out an effort ... you'll have a point. The facts are that Obama won't earmark tax dollars for private/corporate interests. He earmarks to government entities. He doesn't, at least that I've read, take special interest money.

Hillary has made a career of it.

[Parkbandit]

Is Barack the most qualified person? Probably not. Do I agree with everything Barack says? No. Do I think he’s the candidate that is closest to my overall views on things? Nope. But he appears to be genuine, he’s been fighting on Capitol Hill more for getting things done than just talking about it, and he’s delivering his message without having to lie and put down others to do it.


Actually, doesn't Obama have the worst voting record since he said he was running for President out of all the candidates still holding an office? Not much for 'getting things done' imo.

[Tsa`ah]

"Worst" voting record in reference to what? It's a subjective opinion.

Let me be the first to request a source from you.

[oldanforgotten]

Actually, doesn't Obama have the worst voting record since he said he was running for President out of all the candidates still holding an office? Not much for 'getting things done' imo.


Well, you definitely have a point on that one. Here?s the problem though, none of her current rivals can use that as ammunition. Neither Clinton nor Edwards are present at the Senate now either. I mean, what are they gonna say? Hey, at least I made 7% of the votes, this guy is making 1%?
________
Daimler Dingo (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Daimler_Dingo)

[Ilvane]

The biggest problem I see with Obama is that he doesn't come across to me as a leader, but a compromiser. That's a HUGE thing to me.

He connect with people, but he comes across as just a blank slate. Think of what we got with a blank slate of George Bush for the Republicans. A royal mess.

Obama talks a big game about being against the Iraq war...that's all fine and good...but he never did anything about it!! "Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions brought before the 109th Congress in 2005 and 2006, and cosponsored another 427. None of these were related to ending the war in Iraq. He made only one Senate speech on Iraq."(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201062.html)

So, if he's so against it, why didn't he try to do anything? Sure, it's nice to have opinions, but how are you going to DO something?

And what has he accomplished that was so impressive, aside from giving good speeches? Can someone tell me?

Seriously, people.

Angela

[Daniel]

Environmental regulations to protect poor south side of chicago communities that were literally sitting on a waste land.

[Tsa`ah]

Obama wasn't in a position to end the war. He's campaigning to put himself into that position.

What did you want him to do ... vote against the spending at the expense of our soldiers?

And that article is funny ... it's about Clinton and her excuses.


Too often when a candidate throws his hat into the ring, he tosses principle out the window. Yet this is precisely what we want in a president -- principles and the courage to stick to them. Instead of Clinton saying she had been misled by Bush and his merry band of fibbers, exaggerators and hallucinators, I'd like to hear an explanation of how she thinks she went wrong and what she learned from it. I don't want to know how Bush failed her. I want to know how she failed her country.

[Latrinsorm]

Obama talks a big game about being against the Iraq war...that's all fine and good...but he never did anything about it!!http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S433:

In the sense of ending the war, you could replace "Obama" with every candidate, Democratic or Republican. Excoriating only Obama only demonstrates your bias (once again).

[oldanforgotten]

The biggest problem I see with Obama is that he doesn't come across to me as a leader, but a compromiser. That's a HUGE thing to me.

He connect with people, but he comes across as just a blank slate. Think of what we got with a blank slate of George Bush for the Republicans. A royal mess.

Obama talks a big game about being against the Iraq war...that's all fine and good...but he never did anything about it!! "Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions brought before the 109th Congress in 2005 and 2006, and cosponsored another 427. None of these were related to ending the war in Iraq. He made only one Senate speech on Iraq."(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201062.html)

So, if he's so against it, why didn't he try to do anything? Sure, it's nice to have opinions, but how are you going to DO something?

And what has he accomplished that was so impressive, aside from giving good speeches? Can someone tell me?

Seriously, I'm a batshit crazy idiot.

Angela

Seriously, it's not like every Senator can just walk up to the podium and talk about the Iraq war during any normal business. Have you bothered to check what committees he was on? It's kind of hard without being on a committee involved in Iraq to just "get" floor time to talk about it, and he was very outspoken with the media on the matter throughout the process.

As for being a compromiser, thats what good leaders are able to do at times. Hard-lining like Hillary or Bush has gotten us real fucking far.

:club:


but either way, early reports are showing record turnout, record independant turnout, and record youth turnout. Lots of places running real short on ballots.

Considering Hilary was trailing by 10 points among democrats alone, (not counting the 40+ pt gap among independants), I'd say this one could be an absolute LANDSLIDE in favor of Obama for the democrats, and McCain for the GOP.
________
BMW V12 LM (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_V12_LM)

[Tsa`ah]

Considering Hilary was trailing by 10 points among democrats alone, (not counting the 40+ pt gap among independants), I'd say this one could be an absolute LANDSLIDE in favor of Obama for the democrats, and McCain for the GOP.

Let's hope for one further ... let's hope Edwards tops her as well. The faster the nails go in the coffin, the faster we can bury her.

I'm hopeful that after this race is over, the good people of NY will see the light and vote her out of that job as well.

[Ilvane]

Wow, you guys are vindictive.

:shrug: Shouldn't surprise me on this site, really.

I say what has he done, and I get not a national discussion, something regional..which is nice, Daniel, thank you.

Otherwise, more diatriabe against her.

Intelligent debate, ha.

Angela

[Sean of the Thread]

Diatribe? More like calling it like it is.

[oldanforgotten]

Wow, you guys are vindictive.

:shrug: Shouldn't surprise me on this site, really.

I say what has he done, and I get not a national discussion, something regional..which is nice, Daniel, thank you.

Otherwise, more diatriabe against her.

Intelligent debate, ha.

Angela

I posted a summary of every major action he has been involved in since being in the Senate. Not my fault you can't read. Many of those issues are national.

Has it ever occurred to you that part of his limitations of what types of bills he can and cannot sponsor is determined by the old timers who deny some of the junior senators opportunities to be in some of the more meaty Committees?

Of course not. But then again, you were never looking for intelligent discussion to begin with.

You want a track record?
Giuliani cleaned up NYC. Call it what you want, but I don't care who you are, that's impressive.

You want popular?
Obama is an excellent public speaker most capable of galvanizing groups of different people

You want an anti-corruption/special interest guy?
Obama, McCain ring the two loudest bells.

You want a Washington outsider?
Obama, Giuliani

You want experience?
McCain, Edwards

But the thing is, a lot of us want the most genuine, which is one of the areas where Giuliani, Clinton, and Romney fall terribly short. The people who shine in that department are Huckabee, Ron Paul, Obama, and McCain. Huckabee is a batshit crazy evangelical, and Ron Paul is a Teddy Roosevelt style isolationist, so that leaves the list of electable seemingly honest and caring people painfully short.

Here's the nice thing about Obama though, that none of the other candidates have. Until last year when his book deal paid him a couple million, he was actually a member of the middle class. Who was the last presidential candidate who could say that?
________
DURANGO (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Durango)

[Daniel]

I was just being nice. "What you have done" is kinda worthless when trying to determine what you can do as a President.

Ronald Reagan and JFK are two pretty good examples of that.

[Ilvane]

I'm hoping for McCain with the Republican nod, especially if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. I'd prefer Edwards if not Clinton, then would actually go Republican if not.

I just can't imagine it would be good for our country to put a person like Obama in office right now. We need strength.

I don't think he offers that at all.

Angela

[Daniel]

Why don't you think Obama has strength? Because he doesn't devote himself blindly to causes? Isn't that one of the things you hate about Bush?

If Iraq is so important to you, why would you vote for McCain who is not only committed to staying the course but wants a higher involvement in Iraq?

[oldanforgotten]

I'm hoping for McCain with the Republican nod, especially if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. I'd prefer Edwards if not Clinton, then would actually go Republican if not.

I just can't imagine it would be good for our country to put a person like Obama in office right now. We need strength.

I don't think he offers that at all.

Angela

Strength = abandoning plan as First Lady because HMO writes you a big nice personal check to cash.
Strength = being rich and acquiring enough wealth to have a team of estate planning lawyers to avoid estate taxes and then opposing ending estate taxes for the middle and upper middle class

I get it now.
________
Bmw Model Designations (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_model_designations)

[Ilvane]

OMG, I GET IT NOW..YOU DON'T LIKE HILLARY..NOOOOO WAY.

[oldanforgotten]

Why don't you think Obama has strength? Because he doesn't devote himself blindly to causes? Isn't that one of the things you hate about Bush?

If Iraq is so important to you, why would you vote for McCain who is not only committed to staying the course but wants a higher involvement in Iraq?

Because she is uninformed and generally batshit crazy.

Here along comes an actual member of the middle class talking about middle class issues from experience, but that's not enough.

Then you've got Giuliani on the other side who has shown remarkable leadership under duress and cleaned up NYC, but McCain is her man (not that I dislike McCain, but strength in leadership is hands down a Giuliani strength).

Uninformed and batshit crazy is the only explanation.
________
Yamaha xv1100 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_XV1100)

[Sean]

What "strength" has Hillary or Edwards shown that Obama hasn't?

[oldanforgotten]

OMG, I GET IT NOW..YOU DON'T LIKE HILLARY..NOOOOO WAY.

Guess what, neither do Independants. And neither do republicans. In fact, she, more than anyone else, galvanizes republicans to vote against her even if they are voting for Howard Stern as her opposition.

You still haven't read Obama's record, and your rhetoric against him is as near-sighted as you are stupid.

She abandoned health care plans as First lady because she was bought off.

She forgot about whitewater under oath despite billing her law firm 300+ hours on it, and mysteriously had none of the documentation.

She repeatedly lies about Edwards and Obama in her campaign ads.

Tell me, what about that to you find to be strong and impassioned?
________
Crome (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Crome)

[Parkbandit]

"Worst" voting record in reference to what? It's a subjective opinion.

Let me be the first to request a source from you.


You seem to be the google expert.. feel free to look it up. By worst, I mean is never there for casting votes. It should be a pretty simple task for someone with your google experience to look up.

[Gan]

5 star thread.


5 fucking stars.

[oldanforgotten]

What "strength" has Hillary or Edwards shown that Obama hasn't?

None. It's uninformed batshit crazy rhetoric from a female chauvinist pig who's only major concern this election is voting for another female.

Strength is a willingness to admit mistakes, not cover them up and change the subject.
Strength is conviction in ideals.
Strength is willingness to compromise to a degree to ensure progress is made.
Strength is willingness to not just talk about, but do things that are unpopular in order to serve the greater good.
Strength is a willingness to learn from mistakes, address them, and make amends.
Strength is a willingness to open dialogue with people you don't like, or want to hurt you, in order to actually work out differences and at least TRY to create a solution, not play the 6 year old red headed stepchild game of "I'm not talking to you"
Strength is a willingness to cross party lines and reach out to people and at least try to unify them under a single banner.
Strength is the ability to not cave in and act like a spoiled brat trying to lie about other people to get yourself ahead.

Hilary has done none of this. NONE.
________
MFLB (http://mflbvaporizer.com)

[Bobmuhthol]

<<What "strength" has Hillary or Edwards shown that Obama hasn't?>>

Being white.

[Parkbandit]

Because she is uninformed and generally batshit crazy.

Here along comes an actual member of the middle class talking about middle class issues from experience, but that's not enough.

Then you've got Giuliani on the other side who has shown remarkable leadership under duress and cleaned up NYC, but McCain is her man (not that I dislike McCain, but strength in leadership is hands down a Giuliani strength).

Uninformed and batshit crazy is the only explanation.

Well it's been explained to her about 10 times her on this thread.. so she can't be uninformed. I believe there is a much more logical explanation.. one that has been pointed out by many people in the past.

[Gan]

Why don't you think Obama has strength? Because he doesn't devote himself blindly to causes? Isn't that one of the things you hate about Bush?

If Iraq is so important to you, why would you vote for McCain who is not only committed to staying the course but wants a higher involvement in Iraq?

I thought you understood that about Ilvane. She's a walking political contradiction.

Good post, I was framing the same response you just said.

[oldanforgotten]

You seem to be the google expert.. feel free to look it up. By worst, I mean is never there for casting votes. It should be a pretty simple task for someone with your google experience to look up.

And you?d be right. Clearly ammunition and valuable ammunition for a republican rival. But considering Edwards, Obama and Clinton have all been eschewing their duties as well right now, its not like they can use it as ammo on him.
________
Bmw r100rs (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/BMW_R100RS)

[Parkbandit]

And you’d be right. Clearly ammunition and valuable ammunition for a republican rival. But considering Edwards, Obama and Clinton have all been eschewing their duties as well right now, its not like they can use it as ammo on him.


I don't think it's appropriate to use "he’s been fighting on Capitol Hill more for getting things done than just talking about it" when comparing him to Edwards or Clinton.. which was my point.

[oldanforgotten]

I don't think it's appropriate to use "he?s been fighting on Capitol Hill more for getting things done than just talking about it" when comparing him to Edwards or Clinton.. which was my point.

Well, considering its damn near impossible to be in Washington and campaign at the same time, I don?t begrudge him for it. At the same time, should he win the nomination, rightfully he should give up his Senate seat to focus on the election as opposed to holding that seat hostage like Kerry did.

In other news, the new Clinton Campaign slogan should be ?warm up the bus?, as she is now getting her ass kicked in South Carolina too.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008
________
Wicca Forum (http://www.religionboard.org/wicca/)

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm just voting for Obama in hopes that the Civil War vets in South Carolina and closet rednecks across Texas actually get a brick of reality thrown at their faces.

Of course, since they'll be glued to Fox TV and fused to a sweat-soaked Lazy Boy from 1812, situated underneath a pair of deer antlers, right underneath a Confederate flag, right underneath another pair of deer antlers, they're probably going to get going to get their "Bush-leading-by-99%" for third election on a fairness awareness "Our polls speak the truth, still" special presented by Hannity & that hard-hiting liberal, roll-my-motherfucking-eyes, Colmes. My vote for Obama, and maybe even a few more could make people realize that there's a world full of color outside of the horse barn/oil index.

COULD YOU IMAGINE?!

I'm expecting Drudge to photoshop Obama with severe erythropoietic porphyria to help make his skin color "softer" to the white-bread community ... Right after explaining his negative 12% lead in another Scales of Justice conducted poll.

[Latrinsorm]

I say what has he done, and I get not a national discussion, something regional..which is nice, Daniel, thank you.I gave you a link to a Senate action. I'm not at all surprised that you would choose not to follow it, though.

[Kembal]

Well, considering its damn near impossible to be in Washington and campaign at the same time, I don’t begrudge him for it. At the same time, should he win the nomination, rightfully he should give up his Senate seat to focus on the election as opposed to holding that seat hostage like Kerry did.

That I disagree with. Governors, by and large, don't resign their seats when running for President while in office. Why should Senators?

Holding the Senate office allows him to lead legislative opposition against any divisive proposals that might be put forward by Bush.

[Gan]

I'm just voting for Obama in hopes that the Civil War vets in South Carolina and closet rednecks across Texas actually get a brick of reality thrown at their faces.

Of course, since they'll be glued to Fox TV and fused to a sweat-soaked Lazy Boy from 1812, situated underneath a pair of deer antlers, right underneath a Confederate flag, right underneath another pair of deer antlers, they're probably going to get going to get their "Bush-leading-by-99%" for third election on a fairness awareness "Our polls speak the truth, still" special presented by Hannity & that hard-hiting liberal, roll-my-motherfucking-eyes, Colmes. My vote for Obama, and maybe even a few more could make people realize that there's a world full of color outside of the horse barn/oil index.

COULD YOU IMAGINE?!

I'm expecting Drudge to photoshop Obama with severe erythropoietic porphyria to help make his skin color "softer" to the white-bread community ... Right after explaining his negative 12% lead in another Scales of Justice conducted poll.

Yes, because all people from Texas are a bunch of racist rednecks.

I know you try to come across as not being an idiot, its not working.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff175/IrishManX/fail/fail8.jpg

[Ilvane]

It's Tamral..heh..explains it..just realized that after re-reading over the thread. If I had know it was you, I don't think I would have bothered trying to have a political discussion with you.

[Gan]

It's Tamral..heh..explains it..just realized that after re-reading over the thread. If I had know it was you, I don't think I would have bothered trying to have a political discussion with you.

LOL

We say the same thing about you all the time. We're gluttons for punishment though. ;)

Or in sad need of entertainment.

:whistle:

[CrystalTears]

It's Tamral..heh..explains it..just realized that after re-reading over the thread. If I had know it was you, I don't think I would have bothered trying to have a political discussion with you.
Do we even have proof of that? I haven't heard any. Just like you don't have proof of anything you talk about. I shouldn't be surprised.

[Hulkein]

It's Tamral..heh..explains it..just realized that after re-reading over the thread. If I had know it was you, I don't think I would have bothered trying to have a political discussion with you.

Who is?

[Sean of the Thread]

Obama has extra strength in fact... he has extra muscles in his leg and therefore can jump higher and run faster.

[Latrinsorm]

He (OAF) has issued a denial or two, for what that's worth.

[Crazy Bard]

Black Power ..:whistle:

[Parkbandit]

I don't think I would have bothered trying to have a political discussion.


This would have been the best course of action you could have possibly taken EVER on these forums.

But then.. I wouldn't be nearly as entertained.

[Stanley Burrell]

Yes, because all people from Texas are a bunch of racist rednecks.

I know you try to come across as not being an idiot, its not working.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff175/IrishManX/fail/fail8.jpg

You're right. Texas is a Blue State.

You know why? Smurf invasion.

[Stanley Burrell]

On the subject of image-linking to win political e-peen on a text-based gaming forum:

http://www.bettybowers.com/graphics/jesuslandmap.gif

You guys spawned the Dixie Chicks, not us.

[Clove]

Weeeeeelll..when someone says she's sold out to the health care industry and the numbers don't seem to show it?

How am I being a hypocrite?

Angela

Seriously, just pull your posts. It would be less humiliating.

[Hulkein]

You're right. Texas is a Blue State.

You know why? Smurf invasion.

Take a second, step back, and take note of what your response (and most others responses) would be if someone were to ignorantly stereotype New Yorkers of your class the same way you just did.

Don't be a hypocrite.

[Stanley Burrell]

Take a second, step back, and take note of what your response (and most others responses) would be if someone were to ignorantly stereotype New Yorkers of your class the same way you just did.

Don't be a hypocrite.

I live in Hades, Connecticut.

[Hulkein]

Didn't you grow up in New York?

If I'm mistaken then use that vivid imagination of yours and imagine how you'd react to someone doing what you did but used lower class residents of any Northeast city instead of southerners.

[Stanley Burrell]

No.

Bridgeport seriously is the River Styx.

[Stanley Burrell]

Didn't you grow up in New York?

If I'm mistaken then use that vivid imagination of yours and imagine how you'd react to someone doing what you did but used lower class residents of any Northeast city instead of southerners.

Er, sorry, my mind defaults "New York" to Manhattan. It's like when I say "The City" I sure as hell am not talking about New Haven.

My bad, my bad. I grew up... Eh, kinda in New York? Just not real New York, as I lived too close on the northern edge of The Bronx bordering Yonkers to have been from actual New York.

It's hard to explain to an out-of-towner.

[Latrinsorm]

It's like when I say "The City" I sure as hell am not talking about New Haven.Obviously you mean Bridgeport! :)

[Hulkein]

Er, sorry, my mind defaults "New York" to Manhattan. It's like when I say "The City" I sure as hell am not talking about New Haven.

My bad, my bad. I grew up... Eh, kinda in New York? Just not real New York, as I lived too close on the northern edge of The Bronx bordering Yonkers to have been from actual New York.

It's hard to explain to an out-of-towner.

I knew you weren't from Manhattan, I was pretty sure you were from the Bronx and that's where I wanted you to imagine how someone could stereotype the average resident from there. It wouldn't be something you'd appreciate, I'm sure.

[Clove]

Obviously you mean Bridgeport! :)

Surely you jest. I thought he meant Norwich.

[Stanley Burrell]

Obviously you mean Bridgeport! :)

You don't even have rappers coming out of Bridgeport to complain about the hard-knock.

Are Long Islanders "Native New Yorkers" btw? Like, say you grew up in the 5 Towns, you sort of have that NYC knack to your persona, even if you are a Mets fan. I think you have the "Native New Yorker" though.

Obviously, folks in Albany and the Snow Belt towns don't refer to themselves as "Native New Yorkers." That isn't a holier-than-thou thingy either, as it stands. The wordplay isn't at all hypocrisy, but it might seem that way to The KKK, I'm betting. Or should I say, THE EVIL CROSS-ON-THE-SWORD REPUBLICANS?!

Usually, Hulkein, I'm like 3/16th of being 100% serious in a post sometimes.

[Stanley Burrell]

I knew you weren't from Manhattan, I was pretty sure you were from the Bronx and that's where I wanted you to imagine how someone could stereotype the average resident from there. It wouldn't be something you'd appreciate, I'm sure.

I'm from "The Bronx" until I meet some Spanish Mami who actually is and I scurry away muttering something about Riverdale and Northern Kingsbridge. As you know, it's dangerous when you first spit the "I'm from The Bronx" game to someone who's lived on the other 230th. The New Yorker kind. She thought it was cute though and I got a number out of it, so it was alright.

[Gan]

Take a second, step back, and take note of what your response (and most others responses) would be if someone were to ignorantly stereotype New Yorkers of your class the same way you just did.

Don't be a hypocrite.

Its just typical east coast snobbery used to mask the fact that they have the same issues as the rest of the country, they just choose to ignore it.

And Stan, dont be a hater - you know you're jealous that the Dixie Chicks arent from your area. I bet you have their autographed posters on your wall. Oh wait, I should have used past tense, you probably pawned them to get your next fix.

[CrystalTears]

Its just typical east coast snobbery used to mask the fact that they have the same issues as the rest of the country, they just choose to ignore it.
Hey hey HEY! Stanley doesn't represent us. Hell he doesn't represent our species. Way to make me hate you or something. :(

[Ilvane]

So much for Hillary losing momentum, at least last night.

Angela

[Parkbandit]

A 2% win after having a double digit lead only a week ago is still losing momentum. A 1-1 record after being proclaimed the nominee by most pundits (no, not Backlash either) is still losing momentum.

[Ilvane]

Actually coming back to win after the polls had you 10 points back, and the media had you counted out..pretty damned good.

You can see it whatever way you want PB, she's done well in winning this primary.

Angela

[Hulkein]

A 2% win after having a double digit lead only a week ago is still losing momentum. A 1-1 record after being proclaimed the nominee by most pundits (no, not Backlash either) is still losing momentum.

Momentum is relative. She definitely gained some last night.

[Parkbandit]

Actually coming back to win after the polls had you 10 points back, and the media had you counted out..pretty damned good.

You can see it whatever way you want PB, she's done well in winning this primary.

Angela

I won't deny that.. she has. Like I've said before, she is by far the most politically savvy person running right now.. and her political machine is the most organized.

Her moment of 'humanity' that was staged imo was perhaps the tide turner. She's absolutely brilliant.

[Ilvane]

Actually, it worked on men and woman equally, according to the "polls"

I did an informal poll around my office and most of them thought it was genuine. I also work with mostly all women. The one man even agreed. We were talking today about how she had Bill way far away from her last night, like she's trying to run on her own.

I think that's a great idea, since she is different than him in a few issues. They don't always agree, even according to them.:)

Anyway, Romney is losing momentum, I really think he's got to win something big..otherwise he's done. Even with all his money, he doesn't seem to be resonating with people.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

What do you mean like she's trying to run on her own? Shouldn't she be?

[Ilvane]

Well, considering people always think she's running on Bill's Coattails? Yes.

[Tsa`ah]

I'm up in the air over the results right now. While I'm not the biggest fan of polling, I will admit that during the primary/caucus season they're far more accurate than polling done during the general.

Sour grapes or not ... I wouldn't be surprised if we're hearing stories of ballot tampering in the coming days.

That aside, the vagina vote pisses me off more than anything. One of our local stations had a crew in NH interviewing random people about their vote, experience, etc ... three women interviewed said they voted for Hillary because it's time for a woman president. They couldn't identify any issues, they couldn't identify any qualifications ... just that they had one thing in common, a vagina, and it's time for a vagina to preside in the Oval Office.

One thing is certain, Oprah did not destroy the vagina vote for Hillary. If Obama is going to win this thing, he's going to have to put in more work pulling that vote away from Hillary .... or he's going to have to pull in more undecidedes and independents.

[Gan]

Hey hey HEY! Stanley doesn't represent us. Hell he doesn't represent our species. Way to make me hate you or something. :(

:(

The last thing I would consider you to be is an east coast snob CT.

:love:

[Ilvane]

They couldn't identify any issues, they couldn't identify any qualifications ....

Hmm, that sounds familiar about on how I feel about Obama.

Though, I don't think it's fair to say that a quick interview of three women would have identified the full issues, and reasons why someone voted. I know in our area it usually consists of about a minute answer, which would be.."I think it's time for a woman president, and I really like Hillary. I support her issues on"...(edit for time)

And come on Tsa'ah, ballot tampering???

Come on, you are better than that.

[Sean of the Thread]

ffs

[CrystalTears]

Hmm, that sounds familiar about on how I feel about Obama.
Except you've pretty much admitted that you're voting for Hillary because she's a woman and you're blinding yourself to what she has done in the past that could affect her presidency.


Though, I don't think it's fair to say that a quick interview of three women would have identified the full issues, and reasons why someone voted.
Yes because your informal voting poll at your liberal university office had a better grasp of why people are voting the way they are.

I'm truly disappointed that she won yesterday. It bothers me tremendously because I don't want her to have any shot at that presidency. The thought of that crazy bitch in charge scares the bejeezus out of me.

[Sean of the Thread]

Fake or not that vagina cried under pressure. Sounds like a great president to me. Talks over Iran not going well? Break down in tears.

She's a dumb bitch. No wonder you've got your arm up her ass to your elbow having so much in common.

[Ilvane]

I never said I was voting for her because she was a woman, at all, ever CT.

Not once.

I'm voting for her because she has more ideas on Health Care, the Economy and Education and she is the closest to my political views. She is not perfect, no and neither is anyone else running in this race. I know what has happened in the past, it hasn't exactly been secret. And YES, I still like her.

And Sean, she can't win with the assholes like you who when she is strong is called a plastic bitch, with hollow eyes, and when she shows emotion must be playing it up and is then weak because she cries. Give me a break.

Oh and why is she crazy, CT? Please--elaborate.

It amazes me that more women don't get pissed off at this crap.

Angela

[Parkbandit]

Actually, it worked on men and woman equally, according to the "polls"

I did an informal poll around my office and most of them thought it was genuine. I also work with mostly all women. The one man even agreed. We were talking today about how she had Bill way far away from her last night, like she's trying to run on her own.


Well shit, I didn't know you did your own poll Ilvane. I should never have questioned you.

And where again do you work? It wouldn't happen to be the 2nd largest cesspool of liberalism in the Northeast, would it?

[Parkbandit]

Sour grapes or not ... I wouldn't be surprised if we're hearing stories of ballot tampering in the coming days.


I believe there would be a trademark infringement case for anyone who didn't ask for written permission from the Democratic Party for it's use.

Just saying.

And Ilvane saying that someone is better than that for insinuating it.. makes me laugh at her harder than I ever have.

[CrystalTears]

I never said I was voting for her because she was a woman, at all, ever CT.
You've mentioned how her gender is a factor before, wondering why people hold her gender against her when you're basically voting in favor of a woman president.


And Sean, she can't win with the assholes like you who when she is strong is called a plastic bitch, with hollow eyes, and when she shows emotion must be playing it up and is then weak because she cries. Give me a break.
I want someone strong, not someone who's going to break down and cry. If a man did that, he'd be called a pussy so let's call a spade a spade, alright? But she's a woman, she has omg feelings, see her cry? What bullshit.


Oh and why is she crazy, CT? Please--elaborate.
Because for me, I oppose any health care decision where people are forced to pay for a service they may not need or want. She can be bought out. I don't agree with most of her issues.


It amazes me that more women don't get pissed off at this crap.
It amazes me that some women fall for this crap.

[Parkbandit]

I never said I was voting for her because she was a woman, at all, ever CT.

Not once.

I'm voting for her because she has more ideas on Health Care, the Economy and Education and she is the closest to my political views. She is not perfect, no and neither is anyone else running in this race. I know what has happened in the past, it hasn't exactly been secret. And YES, I still like her.

And Sean, she can't win with the assholes like you who when she is strong is called a plastic bitch, with hollow eyes, and when she shows emotion must be playing it up and is then weak because she cries. Give me a break.

Oh and why is she crazy, CT? Please--elaborate.

It amazes me that more women don't get pissed off at this crap.

Angela

Actually, the thing you said was that you would vote for McCain over Obama.. McCain doesn't have anything even close to Clinton when it comes to ideas about Health Care, the Economy and Education... so it makes people wonder...

Either you are voting for Clinton because she is a woman.. or you are voting against Obama because he is black.

[Ilvane]

You've mentioned how her gender is a factor before, wondering why people hold her gender against her when you're basically voting in favor of a woman president.

Gender IS a factor for how some people vote against her. I'm not voting for her because she is a woman. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. If she were a man with the same views, I'd vote for that candidate too.

And PB, nice try in attempting to brand me a racist, but no dice. I'm not interested in Obama because of his lack of concretes and I disagree him on a few issues.

Hillary, while not perfect, is most like me issues wise.

Oh and as far as McCain, I would vote for him for different reasons, not the same ones as I would vote for Hillary.

Soo..again, no dice.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

Hillary, while not perfect, is most like me issues wise.
You're right. You're both crackheads. MFEO.

[Ilvane]

Aww..I love you too.

[Sean of the Thread]

Gender IS a factor for how some people vote against her. I'm not voting for her because she is a woman. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. If she were a man with the same views, I'd vote for that candidate too.

And PB, nice try in attempting to brand me a racist, but no dice. I'm not interested in Obama because of his lack of concretes and I disagree him on a few issues.

Hillary, while not perfect, is most like me issues wise.

Oh and as far as McCain, I would vote for him for different reasons, not the same ones as I would vote for Hillary.

Soo..again, no dice.

Angela

When will you ever learn to stop digging your holes deeper?

[Ilvane]

I'm a stubborn bitch..perhaps another thing Hils and I have in common.

[Sean of the Thread]

Stubborn.. .stupid.. who's keeping track anymore.

[Ilvane]

So predictible..:yawn:

[Gan]

So what you're saying, Ilvane, is that you are voting for Hillary because of her views on specific issues, and that you would vote for McCain for his views on issues that are not the same issues as Hillary's. So that leads me to 2 questions.

1. Since McCain's issues are pretty much polar opposite from Hillary's, how can you take that stance?

2. Who will you vote for if the final candidates are Clinton and McCain? And for what reasons?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Ilvane
Hmm, that sounds familiar about on how I feel about Obama.

This is inpart due to willful ignorance. Every time you've said this in a thread people have come and said okay here's information X,Y, and Z also heres where you can find out (his website, etc.) and you keep refusing to absorb any of it. I can only assume/guess this is because it works better for your agenda if you intentionally ignore everything.


Originally Posted by Ilvane
I never said I was voting for her because she was a woman, at all, ever CT.

Maybe not. But you did imply that people like OAF didn't like her and wont vote for her because she's a woman and therefore a bitch when they were arguing issues they had with her. I'd say your implications are as equally off base.

[Sean of the Thread]

Sean is spot on.

Oh and when you regain your self respect please get around to answering Gan's question so we can take it away again.






Post script... stick to karaoke.

[Clove]

So what you're saying, Ilvane, is that you are voting for Hillary because of her views on specific issues, and that you would vote for McCain for his views on issues that are not the same issues as Hillary's. So that leads me to 2 questions.

1. Since McCain's issues are pretty much polar opposite from Hillary's, how can you take that stance?

2. Who will you vote for if the final candidates are Clinton and McCain? And for what reasons?

3. Would you prefer McCain over Clinton if McCain had a vaginga?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Ilvane
Gender IS a factor for how some people vote against her. I'm not voting for her because she is a woman. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. If she were a man with the same views, I'd vote for that candidate too.

I missed this before. So if I'm reading your replies in this thread correctly voting for Obama because he's black = bad. Not voting for Hillary because she's a woman = bad. Hillary getting the vagina vote = news caster coverup involving cut mikes?

Additionally if Hillary was a man she'd be a democratic clone of Dick Cheney - cold and calculating.

[Ilvane]

Actually, Sean I spent a lot of time on Obama's website trying to find what it was that everyone was making a big deal about. I do like the way he speaks. He's inspirational. He has charisma that Clinton doesn't have nearly as much of(heh), and he has very idealistic views. It's fantastic to want to bring the country together. However, I have NO idea how he plans to do that. People have pointed me to sites..I don't see how he's going to do anything different than Hillary, and I like her experience.

Normally, I'm a very idealistic type of person. I tend to like that kind of thing. My problem with it at the moment is that I don't think the country needs that right now. I think we need someone who is going to come in and clean up, but also not be a puppet. We had enough of that when Bush came in. He was the nice guy everyone wanted to hang with, and somehow he got elected twice, mostly I can imagine on likabilty, as opposed to his issues. Most people didn't pay attention to those issues.

I have thought about it, researched it, and looked deeply into the sites of all of these candidates, and I agree with at least one thing with most of them.

When looking at all of them, Hillary is closest to my thoughts. I didn't just read an article on Hillary and decide I liked her for no good reason.

I'll answer Gan's questions, but then I want answers back from him. Why did you choose Rudy to begin with? Why did you pick him over someone like McCain, or Romney? What is so different about him from the others?

1. Since McCain's issues are pretty much polar opposite from Hillary's, how can you take that stance?

I can tell you exactly why. McCain's stance on Immigration is closest to how I think. I don't agree with Hillary entirely on it. Also, I really his plans for the Veterans, and specifically disabled veterans. It's important to me.

I also appreciate his candor, and his ability to stay strong in what he believes in.

2. Who will you vote for if the final candidates are Clinton and McCain? And for what reasons?

If it's Clinton and McCain it would be Clinton, because she is closer to my stance on issues than he is.

Seriously, I don't think it's that hard to understand.

Angela

[Ilvane]

I missed this before. So if I'm reading your replies in this thread correctly voting for Obama because he's black = bad. Not voting for Hillary because she's a woman = bad.

I decided to leave that last bit out.

But YES. That's exactly it.

Angela

[Clove]

Gender IS a factor for how some people vote against her. I'm not voting for her because she is a woman. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. If she were a man with the same views, I'd vote for that candidate too...

Angela


I missed this before. So if I'm reading your replies in this thread correctly voting for Obama because he's black = bad. Not voting for Hillary because she's a woman = bad. Hillary getting the vagina vote = news caster coverup involving cut mikes?

Not exactly. In Ilvane world (if I can go by post history)

1) Any negative attention focused on Hillary results (unfairly) from her being a woman.

2) Any positive attention focused on Hillary results (justly) from her excellent leadership potential.

Those that strongly disagree with Hillary must have a problem with women, because her record and politics are beyond reproach.

[Parkbandit]

I'm a stubborn bitch..


You spelled stupid wrong.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Ilvane
I decided to leave that last bit out.

But YES. That's exactly it.

Angela

That's all well and good but then I don't get your post admonishing Tsa`ah for pointing out that voting for Hillary because she has a vagina = bad also.

[Gan]

Actually, Sean I spent a lot of time on Obama's website trying to find what it was that everyone was making a big deal about. I do like the way he speaks. He's inspirational. He has charisma that Clinton doesn't have nearly as much of(heh), and he has very idealistic views. It's fantastic to want to bring the country together. However, I have NO idea how he plans to do that. People have pointed me to sites..I don't see how he's going to do anything different than Hillary, and I like her experience.

Normally, I'm a very idealistic type of person. I tend to like that kind of thing. My problem with it at the moment is that I don't think the country needs that right now. I think we need someone who is going to come in and clean up, but also not be a puppet. We had enough of that when Bush came in. He was the nice guy everyone wanted to hang with, and somehow he got elected twice, mostly I can imagine on likabilty, as opposed to his issues. Most people didn't pay attention to those issues.

I have thought about it, researched it, and looked deeply into the sites of all of these candidates, and I agree with at least one thing with most of them.

When looking at all of them, Hillary is closest to my thoughts. I didn't just read an article on Hillary and decide I liked her for no good reason.

I'll answer Gan's questions, but then I want answers back from him. Why did you choose Rudy to begin with? Why did you pick him over someone like McCain, or Romney? What is so different about him from the others?

1. Since McCain's issues are pretty much polar opposite from Hillary's, how can you take that stance?

I can tell you exactly why. McCain's stance on Immigration is closest to how I think. I don't agree with Hillary entirely on it. Also, I really his plans for the Veterans, and specifically disabled veterans. It's important to me.

I also appreciate his candor, and his ability to stay strong in what he believes in.

2. Who will you vote for if the final candidates are Clinton and McCain? And for what reasons?

If it's Clinton and McCain it would be Clinton, because she is closer to my stance on issues than he is.

Seriously, I don't think it's that hard to understand.

Angela

First lets go back to the "what are your issues poll". In it you selected the following issues are whats most important to you:

Healthcare
Education
Poverty
Rural Aid
Iraq war
National Security
Foreign policyKeep in mind this poll was posed without any specific candidate in mind. It was generic to ALL candidates.

So now, lets look at the issues specifically with regards to Clinton, Obama, and McCain.


Healthcare: Clinton and Obama are almost identical, McCain is the opposite
Education: Clinton and Obama are almost identical, McCain seems to back the No Child Left Behind effort as it stands.
Poverty/Rural Aid: Clinton and Obama are again, almost identical. McCain's approach is through GOP platform of tax cuts etc. (opposite of DNC).
Iraq War: Obama wants the troops out now. Clinton supports phased redeployment. McCain is the opposite.
National Security: Clinton - not an issue on her site. Obama - focuses on domestic efforts. McCain includes domestic and international efforts.
Foreign Policy: Clinton - non-protectionist social driven foreign agenda. Obama - non-protectionist diplomatic driven policy. Both similar to each other with the main difference of military expansion supported by Obama. McCain - aggressive stance against terrorist organizations/states, supports military expansion, less focus on diplomacy and greater emphasis on defense structures - way different than Obama and Clinton.As you'll notice, Obama and Clinton's stances are pretty much the same according to the issues that matter to you the most. SO that has to conclude that you're either selecting Hillary over Obama because of the vagina factor or the black factor.

And now you throw immigration into the mix (see above response) when it wasnt even mentioned in your earlier list of most important issues. And Veterans issues matter a lot to you??? Why didnt you select that in the earlier poll? Seriously, do you realize you are ALL OVER THE BOARD HERE?
:wtf:

Honestly, I dont think you stick with the issues when you make your decision as much as you do on a set of unconscious criteria that you're either too blind to recognize or just unwilling to come out and say it on these forums.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With regards to your question to me about Guiliani. Early on in the race I really liked his presence and where he stood on the issues that matter the most to me. I am a economy focused republican by nature sine I identify myself the most with where they stand as relating to other ideals (libertarian, liberal, grass roots, etc.).

I believe the president should have a very strong presence, have the ability to lead and keep a cool head, have the sense to surround himself with smart people to help him lead - because he cant do it alone, and should know how to manage/operate with business like efficency without bogging down in political red-tape. To me Guiliani fit that bill. I dont think he's kept up his end of the bargain in not waffleing on some issues and that doesnt bode well with me on the integrity scale.

With that said, I am leaning more towards McCain now because he's perservering through the politics more forthright than Guiliani and way more than Huckabee and Romney. I still have trouble with McCain's ties to the religious right - but that sits 2nd seat to the economic and foreign policy issues I hold greater emphasis on. And I still think he has the scary ability to snap under pressure, or had that at one time. I think he's matured more politically while still standing true to his own platform without waffleing - which begets bonus points from me.

[Gan]

I missed this before. So if I'm reading your replies in this thread correctly voting for Obama because he's black = bad. Not voting for Hillary because she's a woman = bad.


I decided to leave that last bit out.

But YES. That's exactly it.

Angela

Aaarrgh.

:banghead:

[Parkbandit]

Trying to make sense from that which has no sense.. is pointless. I'm sure she's no longer wondering why she is considered stupid.

[Warriorbird]

I can't even begin to explain all that's wrong with that crazy justification. I pray that Hillary doesn't get nominated... but America has often proven itself stupid.

[Ilvane]

Wait, so why is it when Gan posts his reasons people say..Oohh okay, and when I say mine people(which YES, I have a right to my opinion, even if you DO NOT AGREE with me) You all say YOU STUPID BITCH!!1!! YOU KNOW NOTHING?!!!!!!

You guys are too much.

I understand you like to attack me and all for every little nitpicky reason, but it's a bit ridiculous after a while.

Angela

[Daniel]

Because for whatever reason you seem deadfast against Obama being the president, despite the fact that he pretty much has the same liberal values that you profess and actually does alot of the things that you have stated you wanted done in the past.

I've honestly never attacked you, but your apparent hatred of Obama seems pretty ridiculous to me. and I've gone on record as saying I'd vote for McCain over Obama.

[Sean]

If I had to guess I'd say probably because his responses are consistent with his ideologies and you can follow the logical progression. I def. don't agree with Gan on some issues just like I don't agree with you on some issues. The difference is I can read through his point and see where he's coming from whereas you're all over the map.

[CrystalTears]

Because your reasoning isn't logical. You keep on saying that you don't agree with Obama's issues or don't find his ideas concrete, when it's been pointed out that the issues you agree with Clinton most on are very close if not identical to his. What is it about his issues you don't agree with? Because if you say he's too idealistic, what does that say about her ideas?

[Atlanteax]

Nevermind that people like to push your buttons Ilvane, with glee I may add, when you apparently continue to contradict yourself further.

[Ilvane]

Daniel, to answer your comment, it's not hatred, I just don't like him. It has nothing to do with him being Black, nothing to do with anything other than I do not prefer him as my candidate because of my impression that he is not strong enough of a leader to be president.

End of story.

I think both McCain and Clinton are strong enough to be leaders.

Angela

[Daniel]

And why again don't you think he is strong?

[CrystalTears]

Who would you vote for should it come down to those two?

[Gan]

Wait, so why is it when Gan posts his reasons people say..Oohh okay, and when I say mine people(which YES, I have a right to my opinion, even if you DO NOT AGREE with me) You all say YOU STUPID BITCH!!1!! YOU KNOW NOTHING?!!!!!!
LOL, quit playing the victim, thats a Hillary tactic.
There has been ample evidence in previous threads where my opinions have been stated and then questioned. Believe me, folks like Daniel, TheE, and Keller keep me on my toes and at the same time call me out when I'm talking out of my ass. You're not a victim here, you are simply getting the attention that some of the crazy shit you post deserves.

You are on record for what issues matter the most. You are on record for why you support Clinton and not Obama, and believe it or not - THAT SHIT DOESNT ADD UP LOGICALLY. You are adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 7, every time! What about that do you NOT expect someone to call you out on? Then when confronted with the un-logic'ness of what you have posted you either divert or delete. You have deleted in the past, and now you are diverting in this thread by playing the Victim.

In looking back at the evidence you have presented yourself, with your own words and actions, if you can not logically answer why you support one candidate over another with simliar values and platforms then you have to admit that the next reasonable conclusion is that its either a gender issue or a race issue. Plain and simple.

And your attempt to appear bi-partisan by saying you would support McCain, who stands against every issue you feel is important, against a candidate who does espouse your issues (like Obama) is simply crazy talk, or you hiding the fact that its a racial matter to you.

Crazy Talk.

You should use that as your new title under your avatar. Thats what it amounts to in the long run.


You guys are too much.

I understand you like to attack me and all for every little nitpicky reason, but it's a bit ridiculous after a while.

Angela
Yes, this is you playing the victim. I bet you can turn on the tears just like Hillary can. ;)

:clap:

[Warriorbird]

I have nothing against you personally, Ilvane. I think the witchunting tactics that get used against you are lame... but your reasoning in this thread seems way far away from logical.

"I'm voting for Hillary because I just like her better."

...would've been 50 times more convincing to me.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Daniel
And why again don't you think he is strong?

The only thing I can gather from her responses on this question (asked and not answered) is that she thinks he compromises too much and doesn't have plans defined well enough for her liking. But what I don't get is why thats necessarily a bad thing (assuming it's true).

[Daniel]

Especially considering that she has blasted Bush for not being able to compromise on certain issues.

[Warriorbird]

Heck, Obama nearly has my vote solely for his statements on what he'd do/have done about Pakistan. It's kinda funny... but I feel a bit of sympathy for all the Republicans putting up with Bush's shenanigans because they believed in the Iraq War.

I feel like nominating someone who can bring people together is a much better choice that one who divides them. In their own ways I think Obama and Giuliani would've been the best nominees for each party in that sense... but I could certainly see McCain as a unifying force to Republicans. I used to have a lot more respect for him when he'd take on the hyper-Christian right... but... his total reversal on that count pretty much eliminated any of that respect in me.

[Gan]

The only thing I can gather from her responses on this question (asked and not answered) is that she thinks he compromises too much and doesn't have plans defined well enough for her liking. But what I don't get is why thats necessarily a bad thing (assuming it's true).

IMO that would reflect compromise and resulting in some bi-partisan efffects, which is currently lacking in our executive offices.

[Ilvane]

Yes, Sean. Exactly.

Angela

[Ilvane]

Actually there is a such a thing as compromising too much, and not compromising at all.

I think, from what I've read on Obama, and looked into, that he would be willing to compromise too much.

Angela

[Warriorbird]

And Hillary wouldn't? Have you seriously looked at a timeline of her Iraq stances? Examined her cozying up to Rupert Murdoch? Looked at what the DLC actually stands for?

[Ilvane]

And your attempt to appear bi-partisan by saying you would support McCain, who stands against every issue you feel is important, against a candidate who does espouse your issues (like Obama) is simply crazy talk, or you hiding the fact that its a racial matter to you.

I am asking you right now to stop implying that I am racist. You are royally pissing me off with that, and I am trying to be polite to you with your bullshit, but it's getting a bit old, and not just a little bit.

Healthcare
Education
Poverty

Those are my top three. Yes, I agree. I also feel that Immigration is also important, being that my mother was an immigrant and her family had to go through it the tough way.

I like McCain on his ideas of security. When faced with a choice between Obama, who I would not trust to be a strong leader, and McCain who I would trust to be that, I would pick McCain, for those very reasons, that I feel he would be a principled, strong leader.

Even if I don't agree 100% with everything he does, I agree enough with him that I would vote for him.

I don't agree with everything that Hillary does and says either. I don't think any person really agrees with everything a person does, all the time.

It makes sense, just stop trying to blindly look at everything I say as something you won't understand.

[CrystalTears]

But do you see how you say that healthcare, education and poverty are your top three then say you'd pick McCain because of his security ideas would cause people to wonder what it is you really want from a president, since your top three are completely opposite from what you really want?

Runon sentence FTW

[Ilvane]

I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that it depends on the final two candidates.

[CrystalTears]

And I'll ask again... should McCain and Clinton be the two people to choose from, who are you going to vote for?

I'm also not sure how it would "depend". If you have issues that are important to you, shouldn't you follow through and choose the candidate that stands for those same issues regardless of who the candidates are? So does that mean should it be McCain and Obama you would vote for McCain?

[Ilvane]

I already answered that.


If it's Clinton and McCain it would be Clinton, because she is closer to my stance on issues than he is.

I guess I have to spell this out, yet again. It's pretty damned simple too.

Of course it depends. Even you could admit it really, if you wanted to. Most have a preference on who they would rather be the candidate.

If Obama were to win the the nomination, I would not want him to be president, so I would vote for someone else. I've already stated numerous times why I don't prefer Obama for president.

If McCain was the other nominee, I would vote for McCain, because of my preference of him to Obama in leadership qualities.

If it came down to Clinton and McCain, I prefer her, so I would vote for her. (for numerous reasons stated previously)

[Gan]

I am asking you right now to stop implying that I am racist. You are royally pissing me off with that, and I am trying to be polite to you with your bullshit, but it's getting a bit old, and not just a little bit.
Since I'm not the only one who's been given the impression that your reasoning could be racist when it comes to Obama... I cant just volunteer and say its simply my perception.

Perhaps if your logic dictated a clearer path to understanding then people wouldnt think that way.

And as far as pissing you off.... OOOOOOOOOOH, now you've got me skeered. (not really). Since calling you a racist isnt against TOS, there's really not much you can do but try and refute it, and based on your pattern of posts I would hazard to say if the shoe fits... So yes, I greatly encourage you to refute it. Otherwise we'll have to suffer another great thread being half deleted when you get mad and storm out.

[CrystalTears]

Okay. That's fine. Fair enough.

Seriously, I really don't care that you want to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm just amazed at how dead set you are against Obama when his issues are basically the same. You just don't like him because he hasn't been around as long as she has, is my guess. Saying because he's idealistic or not explaining his issues enough would cause one to believe you would feel that way about her too, but you don't.

That's fine, but really, I'd rather you just say "I just like her" than to rationalize the differences in issues when there really isn't much.

[Ilvane]

Actually, it's not just the idealism, it's more than that. I want to know how, when everyone else has failed at so many things he says he wants to do, he's going to accomplish that.

I've read his plans, and I don't find him compelling, except for that he has a great ability to make speeches and sound phenomonal. I admit he can sound inspiring, but there is more to just that in what I want in a candidate.

I also believe that she has ideas and knows how to get down to the nitty gritty and get things done. She might not come across as the best speaker, or the most pretty, or even the most inspiring when she talks, but I believe her when she says she wants to help the middle class, and the poor, and the people without insurance. Call me stupid, you already do, but I think she's the right person for the job.

I see Obama as the one who comes in, brainstorms the ideas of what would be good to work on, and the one who would come out and talk about the accomplishments, proudly. I see Hillary as the person who busts her ass behind the scenes and gets things done.

Angela

[Gan]

Actually, it's not just the idealism, it's more than that. I want to know how, when everyone else has failed at so many things he says he wants to do, he's going to accomplish that.

I've read his plans, and I don't find him compelling, except for that he has a great ability to make speeches and sound phenomonal. I admit he can sound inspiring, but there is more to just that in what I want in a candidate.

I also believe that she has ideas and knows how to get down to the nitty gritty and get things done. She might not come across as the best speaker, or the most pretty, or even the most inspiring when she talks, but I believe her when she says she wants to help the middle class, and the poor, and the people without insurance. Call me stupid, you already do, but I think she's the right person for the job.

I see Obama as the one who comes in, brainstorms the ideas of what would be good to work on, and the one who would come out and talk about the accomplishments, proudly. I see Hillary as the person who busts her ass behind the scenes and gets things done.

Angela

Fair enough. Not founded on anything concrete, but fair enough.

[Warriorbird]

What has Hillary ever gotten done?

[Stanley Burrell]

Its just typical east coast snobbery used to mask the fact that they have the same issues as the rest of the country, they just choose to ignore it.

And Stan, dont be a hater - you know you're jealous that the Dixie Chicks arent from your area. I bet you have their autographed posters on your wall. Oh wait, I should have used past tense, you probably pawned them to get your next fix.

What the fuck kind of pawnshop would buy a Dixie Chicks poster? Kilron in Wehnimer's Landing?

You don't make sense sometimes.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Ilvane
I guess I have to spell this out, yet again. It's pretty damned simple too.

Of course it depends. Even you could admit it really, if you wanted to. Most have a preference on who they would rather be the candidate.

If Obama were to win the the nomination, I would not want him to be president, so I would vote for someone else. I've already stated numerous times why I don't prefer Obama for president.

If McCain was the other nominee, I would vote for McCain, because of my preference of him to Obama in leadership qualities.

If it came down to Clinton and McCain, I prefer her, so I would vote for her. (for numerous reasons stated previously)

For the record I'm not trying to bash you for voting for Hillary, McCain, Edwards, whoever.. because really I don't care you have your own reasons for voting just like anyone else. That being said...

I guess for me the confusing part (and I'd assume the same for others) is how your values system on issues changes from candidate to candidate. If Hillary and Obama have similar goals, with varying strategies, on the issues you find most important for Hillary you still wouldn't vote for Obama were he to get the nomination (depending I'm assuming on whoever he's running against). If it ended up being Obama vs McCain your values are no longer on the issues but instead on what makes you more comfortable or rather the window dressing. If you aren't voting really on your core issues anymore are you really any different than those who say vote for Obama because he's black, those who vote for Hillary because she's a woman, those who vote for Romney because he's a mormon, etc. All those things are pretty closely related to comfort.

Basically is voting for McCain whose fundamentally opposed to your core voting issues because, for example (whether it's true or not I don't know), he better relates to your family (veteran, stance on immigrants, etc.) any better than a Black man/woman voting for Obama because he better relates to their position in life?

[Lyonis]

I've read his plans, and I don't find him compelling, except for that he has a great ability to make speeches and sound phenomonal. I admit he can sound inspiring, but there is more to just that in what I want in a candidate.



Where I think that is one of the President's most fundamental roles, especially right now. The President spends quite a bit of time doing nothing but being "presidential", making appearances and being the visible figurehead of the United States. I'd wager he spends close to as much time doing that, if not as much, as the decision making aspect of the job. With all of the red tape to go through before a President can really make an actual policy change worthy of a campaign promise, ie Social Security reform, the Iraq war, Immigration, his symbolic role is important.

I think one of the most asinine things people believe is that Democrats and Republicans are so different. I run into quite a few highly intelligent Democrats in life that I find a lot of common ground with. I also see some Republicans I want to beat with a stick. (That commie Keller and the ultra religious right come to mind immediately) Obama seems to be the kind of guy that can get everyone sitting down at the table again.

I like that Obama gives me a warm and fuzzy, I like that he is willing to compromise, to talk, to reason out problems. He is also a man of conviction and was one of the few Democrats that spoke against the Iraq war when his fellow Democrats would not for what can only be reasoned as purely political motives. Which incidentally also makes his opposition in his party giant pussies.

I totally wish I could vote in the Democratic primary.

~Two time voter for G Dubb

PS I wasn't taking a shot at you Ilvane

[Warriorbird]

Nice post, Lyonis.

[Stanley Burrell]

Hey hey HEY! Stanley doesn't represent us. Hell he doesn't represent our species. Way to make me hate you or something. :(

Um, hi: No.

People in Greenwich, for instance, suck less because they live near enough to New York to glow in the holiness of the last civilization of the Modern World to wipe off some of their Bridgeport butt-taint.

Oh, also, only N.H. (not New Haven. Ever) matters now, so this is all moot. Remember Iowa? They had their five seconds of importance too. Cedar Rapids my fucking ass.

Oh, Wisconsonites is cool peepz. They're the only individuals on the planet capable of operating a tour bus with BACs of like 8.00. Connecticunts can't even drive. Maybe they could if they were intoxicated. Seriously, all of China drives better than Connecticut.

Connecticut = Texas like ParkBandit = Backlash, foos.

[TheEschaton]

Except that bit about voting for G.W. the second time.

[Ilvane]

The whole problem is, with what information was given at the beginning of the Iraq war, most did vote for the war. The information was that there was proof of weapons of mass destruction, or constructs of them.

So, people voted for it, because it was scary, and people were sure that the President wouldn't come up with lies to make a war with Iraq.

The problem would be if, after--when we knew the intelligence was wrong--the war continued to be funded without restraint.

I am glad that some people woke up.

I was not for the war, but understood why we needed to do it, in the end. I still think we should have tried more with the UN and more diplomacy, and I agree with Obama in that sense. Where I don't agree with him 100% is that we need to get out NOW. I don't think it's safe to say we are going to set a deadline to get out, because we don't know what is going to happen.

Now that we are in the war, we need to at least stay and make things more stable before we go, and make sure things will be safe when we leave. So, I don't believe that we should have a unilateral pull-out, or set a certain day to leave Iraq, because things over there are far too volitile and changing to do something like that.

However, I do think we should start having a plan on what we want to do..what would get things going for the Iraqi people, what would get them to spend time securing themselves, so we can leave.

Does that clarify how I feel about things now a bit more, on the war side? And why I don't mind McCain very much in that end?

Angela

[Warriorbird]

No... you're coming across sort of like you portray Obama as coming across. If anything... Hillary's win was based on campaigning more LIKE Obama. People want a politician that can make them feel better about themselves.

The crying/sympathy thing played with a lot of people on an emotional level.

[CrystalTears]

I was not for the war, but understood why we needed to do it, in the end. I still think we should have tried more with the UN and more diplomacy, and I agree with Obama in that sense. Where I don't agree with him 100% is that we need to get out NOW. I don't think it's safe to say we are going to set a deadline to get out, because we don't know what is going to happen.
Hillary wants the same thing. She wants the troops to start coming home within the first 60 days of her term.

[Warriorbird]

Well.. that's what she says right now.

[Stanley Burrell]

Well.. that's what she says right now.

Whee. QFT.

[Ilvane]

I just show what I see as my problem with Obama, and HOW is he going to do things.

Hillary: As president, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. She would direct aid to the entities -- whether governmental or non-governmental -- most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

Obama: Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I love the thoughts, really I do. If I thought he could accomplish that, it would be fantastic, but do you really think he can accomplish that as a political novice walking into the minefield that is Iraq?

Hillary has been on the foreign relations committee, she's been interested in these kinds of things, her ideas seem to me to be more concrete, and they are similar, but not the same.

:shrug:

Anyway, I have to go home and I'm tired of going back and forth.:)

See ya all later.

Angela

[Warriorbird]

So...what has she accomplished? Other than getting elected and staying married.

[Stanley Burrell]

Sooner or later, the Iraqi people are going to have to be the Iraqi people.

[Kembal]

Hmm. I'd say Obama's plan has more chance of working than Hillary's. But the probability of anything working (in terms of political reconciliation) that will avoid a full out civil war is pretty small.

And Ilvane, Hilliary has never served on the Senate Committee for Foriegn Relations. Obama is a member of the committee currently.

[Ilvane]

I meant Armed Services, damned it when I get tired.

Hillary's committees.

http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/committees/index.cfm

Angela

[Daniel]

I just show what I see as my problem with Obama, and HOW is he going to do things.

Hillary: As president, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government.


Stop there.

What aid do we give to "prop up" the government?

Especially, how would it differ in perception from what you say next?



She would direct aid to the entities -- whether governmental or non-governmental -- most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people.


You can't stabilize a country if there is no government. I guess you could go back and start again but that would A) be retarded and B) entail compromising. Something you apparently don't like.




She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.


Um..You think this will happen when someone steps in, takes charge or with compromising?

This is why people don't really understand where you are coming from.

You say Obama is not good because he comprises, but the things you want are comprises.

It's retarded, Really.




I love the thoughts, really I do. If I thought he could accomplish that, it would be fantastic, but do you really think he can accomplish that as a political novice walking into the minefield that is Iraq?


You really think the UN will appoint a high rep? Do you even know the problem with that in Bosnia and Kosovo right now? Do you even know the shit storm that would be for european countries who would not want that?

or do you think it's just that easy too?



Hillary has been on the foreign relations committee, she's been interested in these kinds of things, her ideas seem to me to be more concrete, and they are similar, but not the same.


Wow. She has shown interest...

P.s. Obama is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Hilary is not. So once again...what exactly is your basis here?

[Parkbandit]

Wait, so why is it when Gan posts his reasons people say..Oohh okay, and when I say mine people(which YES, I have a right to my opinion, even if you DO NOT AGREE with me) You all say YOU STUPID BITCH!!1!! YOU KNOW NOTHING?!!!!!!

You guys are too much.

I understand you like to attack me and all for every little nitpicky reason, but it's a bit ridiculous after a while.

Angela

I'm sure someone has hit upon this already.. but I am reading this thread and laughing my ass off at you. God.. you seriously can't be this dumb.. can you? Gan basically pointed out how Obama and Clinton hold the same values and ideas.. and that McCain has almost the DIRECT OPPOSITE value and idea.

Yet.. you want us to believe you are voting for Clinton because her ideas and values mirror yours.. but if she loses the nomination to Obama and McCain wins the Republican nod.. you will suddenly vote the direct opposite way and cast your vote for McCain?

You have a habit of posting some real stupid shit.. but I believe this might be the dumbest. Instead of casting blame on us unfairly targeting you.. perhaps you should peruse the multitude of stupid posts by you in this very thread and just take some responsibility for your own stupidity.

An award well deserved:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Dumbshit.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I know why she's a Clinton supporter.. because she changes her mind almost as much as Clinton.

I think I got whiplash from her posts in this thread alone......

[Keller]

That commie Keller


Proletariat, rise up!

[Latrinsorm]

I don't see how he's going to do anything different than Hillary, and I like her experience.He can dunk and he won't bleed all over the Oval Office every month.

HOW HAS SEAN2 NOT MADE THESE REMARKS YET??
I also believe that she has ideas and knows how to get down to the nitty gritty and get things done.She got us out of Iraq, right?
her ideas seem to me to be more concreteHow can anything be more concrete than at least one brigade every month?

[Sean of the Thread]

I've all but given up commenting too much on Ilvane's garbage.

[Gan]

I know why she's a Clinton supporter.. because she changes her mind almost as much as Clinton.

I think I got whiplash from her posts in this thread alone......

Dude, I'm already in a neck brace from working through her earlier posts in this thread.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/neckbrace.jpg

[Lyonis]

The whole problem is, with what information was given at the beginning of the Iraq war, most did vote for the war. The information was that there was proof of weapons of mass destruction, or constructs of them.

So, people voted for it, because it was scary, and people were sure that the President wouldn't come up with lies to make a war with Iraq.

The problem would be if, after--when we knew the intelligence was wrong--the war continued to be funded without restraint.

I am glad that some people woke up.



Except that they weren’t just people, they were members of the United States Congress. Some were members of committees that gave them Secret Squirrel clearances to boot.

If there was no evidence of WMDs then those members of Congress had the obligation to their constituents and the soldiers they sent to war to call bullshit when it was not presented. Since it’s fairly safe to assume now that there were no WMDs, then why exactly did they not do anything when they had the chance? Oh that’s right, no one wanted to be painted as soft in a post 9/11 America. Their decision making process began and ended with their political survival. Something I personally find morally reprehensible and a character trait I won’t endorse with my vote.

The average American who gets his information from the News between commercial breaks watching the Lakers game while sitting on his couch doing the hippie thing is allowed to claim ignorance for supporting the war, these politicians aren’t. Especially when they love to comment on W’s lack of intelligence. It’s a pretty big stretch to go from GW is a moron to OMG BUSH R SO CLEVER HE TRIX0R ME!!! I hate being fooled, especially by dumb people, but at least I get to say she was a pretty blonde and I was thinking with the wrong head. What’s their excuse?


Proletariat, rise up!

Hit me up when you get back from France, I haven’t even played the new Madden yet so you might stand a chance. Oh yeah, I just went there.

[Lyonis]

Except that bit about voting for G.W. the second time.

I opted for the Giant Douche over the Turd Sandwich. Or was it the other way around?

[Gan]

Douche > Turd

Everytime.

[Hulkein]

Kerry was and is a clown. That entire crop of Democratic front runners were terrible.

[Keller]

Except that they weren’t just people, they were members of the United States Congress. Some were members of committees that gave them Secret Squirrel clearances to boot.


:rofl:

So brutally honest.

[Parkbandit]

The whole problem is, with what information was given at the beginning of the Iraq war, most did vote for the war. The information was that there was proof of weapons of mass destruction, or constructs of them.

So, people voted for it, because it was scary, and people were sure that the President wouldn't come up with lies to make a war with Iraq.



LOL.. You really are the dumbest person on this forum. Hey.. here's a sweet ass quote for you from your non-black candidate:


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And her hubby:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998


But yea.. continue to dwell in your own reality when this one doesn't fit your bullshit.

[Tsa`ah]

Though, I don't think it's fair to say that a quick interview of three women would have identified the full issues, and reasons why someone voted. I know in our area it usually consists of about a minute answer, which would be.."I think it's time for a woman president, and I really like Hillary. I support her issues on"...(edit for time)

Let me clarify the "vagina" vote for you. The vagina vote is akin to all other classifications of mindless voters. In this case it's women (obviously) who don't follow politics, don't know the issues, have no political opinion, don't identify with either political party because they don't like the mascots ... brainless consumers with the power to vote.

Bill Clinton had the vagina vote in both elections because the vagina vote found him to be the more attractive candidate. Dubya had some vagina vote because he was cute like a chimp.

The vagina voters are typically 32+ in years. Married (at one time at least), have children (often over involved in their kid's lives as if they're living out lost youth through them), and have a completely useless yet expensive hobby.

The vagina vote largely populates the suburbs, small towns and the rural US. Many of them are glued to the tube during daytime television ... and I think every fucking one of them spams my e-mail with bullshit uneducated campaign crap.

The three women I watched on the local news broadcast were the epitome of the vagina vote.

The vagina vote packs my hotel twice a month and Hillary is all I fucking hear on the weekends during horse shows and and the girl rodeo. What's worse is they're grooming their daughters to be future vagina voters.


And come on Tsa'ah, ballot tampering???

Come on, you are better than that.

This is what I know ...

Bill Clinton, in my opinion, was an excellent president. This doesn't change the fact that he was a thieving scum bag of the highest magnitude. He, and his wife, have yet to open their mouths without spewing a lie or half truth.

Bill's entire political career is littered with scandals of every type, and in the midst of all of that is Hillary. They campaigned dirty, they raised funds dirty, and they have used their political positions for more personal gain than as public servants.

There is currently no candidate, on either side, that wants the White House more than Hillary ... and when a Clinton wants something, the end absolutely justifies their means.

I'm not saying there was tampering, I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me. It's not only myself that's shocked that she pulled off NH ... the entire nation, and every expert in the field, is shocked that she pulled off NH.

While I'm willing to chalk it up to bad polling, I'm not comfortable chalking it up to bad polling.

[Parkbandit]

Isn't NH a state where you can come in, say you are looking to move there.. and they hand you a ballot to vote? It was either NH or maybe Vermont.

[Tsa`ah]

Except that they weren’t just people, they were members of the United States Congress. Some were members of committees that gave them Secret Squirrel clearances to boot.

If there was no evidence of WMDs then those members of Congress had the obligation to their constituents and the soldiers they sent to war to call bullshit when it was not presented. Since it’s fairly safe to assume now that there were no WMDs, then why exactly did they not do anything when they had the chance? Oh that’s right, no one wanted to be painted as soft in a post 9/11 America. Their decision making process began and ended with their political survival. Something I personally find morally reprehensible and a character trait I won’t endorse with my vote.

Which is why I'm glad this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201062.html) was posted. Simply because I'm tired of elected officials claiming they were duped. If you were so easily duped, you failed in doing your job ... resign and let someone not so stupid do it.

The last bit still makes me laugh.


Too often when a candidate throws his hat into the ring, he tosses principle out the window. Yet this is precisely what we want in a president -- principles and the courage to stick to them. Instead of Clinton saying she had been misled by Bush and his merry band of fibbers, exaggerators and hallucinators, I'd like to hear an explanation of how she thinks she went wrong and what she learned from it. I don't want to know how Bush failed her. I want to know how she failed her country.

[Lyonis]

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002



You would think she might feel a bit responsible for her words.


Which is why I'm glad this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201062.html) was posted. Simply because I'm tired of elected officials claiming they were duped. If you were so easily duped, you failed in doing your job ... resign and let someone not so stupid do it.



Great article and yeah that.