DVD Talk
Election X [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Election X


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

nemein
02-19-08, 12:14 PM
cont here...

Pharoh
02-19-08, 12:28 PM
you think it's a personal thing? ie the Democrat hatred of the Bush era? Can you not see how much he's done to fuck up this country? the whole country should be outraged. This isn't partisan politics. It's way beyond that


Of course it is personal and partisan politics, stemming from your belief that the country is 'fucked up' which a personal assessment.

NCMojo
02-19-08, 12:33 PM
Of course it is personal and partisan politics, stemming from your belief that the country is 'fucked up' which a personal assessment.
But not a partisan assessment. You're seeming to imply that Democrats see the world myopically through some kind of Bush-frenzy, while Republicans recognize the remarkable accomplishments of a great man. The reality is that the vast majority of people -- including many die-hard Republicans and more moderate Democrats -- recognize the simple truth as Dick presented it -- that this country certainly is "fucked up", in a myriad of different ways that can be traced back to the current Administration and the Republican Congress.

classicman2
02-19-08, 12:36 PM
With all of these changes that the candidates of my party promise, people seem to forget a rather important institution - The United States Senate.

It's extremely doubtful that the Democrats will have 60 votes. Actually they would need more than that on some issues, because a couple of Democrats (and Independent) have been known to stray somewhat.

One thing that will happen if either Clinton or Obama is elected is that somewhere down the line there will be a systematic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I seriously doubt that it will satisfy many of our fervent anti-Iraq War folks. People need to remember - it's different when you've got the job.

X
02-19-08, 12:38 PM
Funny how Hillary telling un/underemployed workers in the midwest that she'll fix NAFTA. Who "fucked up" their lives?

Red Dog
02-19-08, 12:41 PM
If the country is 'fucked up,' it's the fault of both Democrats and Republicans over the course of decades if you ask me.

'Fucked up' is a pretty strong statement. I'm sure I have more fundamental problems with the role of government in our country than most people in this forum, yet I would in no way characterize the country as being 'fucked up.'

Pharoh
02-19-08, 12:42 PM
But not a partisan assessment. You're seeming to imply that Democrats see the world myopically through some kind of Bush-frenzy, while Republicans recognize the remarkable accomplishments of a great man. The reality is that the vast majority of people -- including many die-hard Republicans and more moderate Democrats -- recognize the simple truth as Dick presented it -- that this country certainly is "fucked up", in a myriad of different ways that can be traced back to the current Administration and the Republican Congress.


I purposefully and very specifically only used the word personal when describing his assessment. I realise what that the majority disapprove of the job of the current administration. However, I strenously object to the notion that the nation is fucked up. It is far from it, and despite your beliefs, and that of many others, there have been many long lasting and far reaching accomplishments under the administration.

So no, I don't think Democrats see the world myopically and only Republicans recognise the truth. However, there certainly exists a sizeable number of people who allow their personal dislike of the President to color their view, let hyperbole feed more hyperbole, and make outlandish statements not truly grounded in the reality of the situation.

nemein
02-19-08, 12:57 PM
So no, I don't think Democrats see the world myopically and only Republicans recognise the truth. However, there certainly exists a sizeable number of people who allow their personal dislike of the President to color their view, let hyperbole feed more hyperbole, and make outlandish statements not truly grounded in the reality of the situation.


One needs to look no further than some of the statements this morning made on CSPAN regarding Castro. There were many people (surprisingly IMHO) praising Castro and the job he has done in Cuba and criticizing Bush's stance on Cuba (which essentially is the same one we've had for the past several decades) as if he put those policies into place. Personally I think we've taken the wrong approach wrt Cuba, but to use it as another reason to criticize Bush seems a bit much.

Regarding whether or not the country is fucked up... we have the freedom to worship as we please, we have the ability to work and make a living, we are allowed to voice our opinions, we have freedom of movement, we can enter into private contracts, own property and for the most part frankly the Gov't does leave us alone. Sure there are some problems and issues but I think given the diversity of opinions and approaches to solving those problems that exist the balance we usually maintain is the right approach. Going too much in one extreme (either in a particular issue or talking about political approaches in general) is what seems to cause us the most problems.

MartinBlank
02-19-08, 12:57 PM
Without a doubt, one of THE most spot on opinion pieces I've ever read, thus, no bolding....

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man


Gary Hubbell
February 9, 2008

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324

I guess your agreement or disagreement with the author's assessment is going to boil down to ideology :shrug:

NCMojo
02-19-08, 01:07 PM
Without a doubt, one of THE most spot on opinion pieces I've ever read, thus, no bolding....


http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324

I guess your agreement or disagreement with the author's assessment is going to boil down to ideology :shrug:
Or it could boil down to whether you abhor his turgid writing style.

Venusian
02-19-08, 01:08 PM
i don't see much substance in that

Chrisedge
02-19-08, 01:13 PM
So Angry White Man = Republican

Venusian
02-19-08, 01:15 PM
is everyone in the NRA white?

MartinBlank
02-19-08, 01:16 PM
i don't see much substance in that

Disagreeing with something means that it lacks substance?

Being a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy I found his view of both politics and society to be spot on.

Chrisedge
02-19-08, 01:17 PM
Being a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy I found his view of both politics and society to be spot on.

Obviously...

MartinBlank
02-19-08, 01:18 PM
is everyone in the NRA white?

I doubt it.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

MartinBlank
02-19-08, 01:19 PM
Obviously...

And obviously you don't. Thanks for the input :)

Red Dog
02-19-08, 01:34 PM
Sorry but I can't muster up much sympathy for the angry white man. :lol:

Venusian
02-19-08, 01:37 PM
Disagreeing with something means that it lacks substance?

Being a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy I found his view of both politics and society to be spot on.

i didn't say i disagreed with it. I just don't see much to disagree with. Angry white men, as the guy describes them, are angry with Clinton. Okay. Anything else?

nemein
02-19-08, 01:37 PM
Sorry but I can't muster up much sympathy for the angry white man. :lol:


I thought that was kind of the point of the article though... he doesn't want your sympathy ;)

Red Dog
02-19-08, 01:40 PM
So the angry white man presumably won't vote for a woman (like Hillary anyway), a black man, or a guy who is for amesty for illegals.

How is this segment of the population going to decide the election again? ;)

Venusian
02-19-08, 01:41 PM
I doubt it.
it says he considers himself white. Does everyone in the NRA consider themselves white?

classicman2
02-19-08, 01:45 PM
It's that angry white woman that you have to watch out for.

classicman2
02-19-08, 01:49 PM
Speaking of the angry white man - when was the last time that a Democrat candidate for president received a majority of the white male vote?

DullandWitless
02-19-08, 01:56 PM
Speaking of the angry white man - when was the last time that a Democrat candidate for president received a majority of the white male vote?

White male vote or the angry white male vote?

dick_grayson
02-19-08, 01:56 PM
Of course it is personal and partisan politics, stemming from your belief that the country is 'fucked up' which a personal assessment.


I said Bush has "fucked up" the country, not that the country is "fucked up" which it is, to some degree, but you missed the point altogether. If you want a response to your question or reply, see Mojo's post as it's certainly clearer and better than I would have done.

General Zod
02-19-08, 03:37 PM
It's all over folks...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004188691_aponthe2008trail18.html

Ben & Jerry's Founders Endorse Obama



The founders of Ben & Jerry's endorsed Barack Obama on Monday, and lent his Vermont campaign two "ObamaMobiles" that will tour the state and give away scoops of "Cherries for Change" ice cream.

"If there was ever a need for real change, and if there ever was a candidate to inspire us and make that happen, it's now," said Ben Cohen.

Added Jerry Greenfield: "Barack is showing that when you lead with your values and follow what you have inside that good things will happen."

Echoing Obama, Greenfield said he and Cohen succeeded when they opened their ice cream shop 30 years ago in Burlington by doing things differently, instead of copying the "tired ways" of doing business.

"What we saw is that when you want real change it's not a marketing slogan. You have to do things differently. And that is not going to be done by someone who's been involved in the system for years and years," Greenfield said. "It needs to come from inside and Barack Obama has it."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and his wife joined the ice cream duo to announce their radio campaign backing the Illinois senator.

Cohen initially supported John Edwards, who dropped out of the race earlier this month.

Rob Hill, director of the Vermonters for Obama campaign, said he looked forward to getting behind the wheel of one of the two ObamaMobiles _ retrofitted Honda Elements.


Of course nobody can possibly know politics as well as a pair of ice-cream makers.... Well, except for celebrities....

wishbone
02-19-08, 03:47 PM
The founders of Ben & Jerry's endorsed Barack Obama on Monday, and lent his Vermont campaign two "ObamaMobiles" that will tour the state and give away scoops of "Cherries for Change" ice cream.
http://www.cityhammer.com/blog/uploaded_images/MN013_ABOMINABLE_SNOWMAN-738465.jpg
Will The Bumble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_the_Red-Nosed_Reindeer_(TV_special)) be driving one of the OmabaMobiles? ;)

bhk
02-19-08, 03:59 PM
The country is doing very well and Bush has had a big hand in it.
No large terror attacks.
Full employment.
Sustained economic growth.
I wish he would lock down the border but you cannot have everything.

Republicans in Wisconsin should vote for Hillary to keep the fight going on longer and longer and have it get nastier and nastier.

Flay
02-19-08, 04:29 PM
Wisconsin exit polls are coming in:

- For about one in seven Democratic voters, Tuesday was the first time they were voting in a primary.
- Men outnumbered women in Republican primaries while the reverse was true on the Democratic side.
- About nine in 10 voters in both primaries were white.
- Roughly four in 10 in each party were college graduates.

Brent L
02-19-08, 04:32 PM
I heard Michelle Obama on a local radio show a few weeks back, and she comes off pretty bad to begin with. I know this was mentioned in the other thread, but the issue isn't going away:

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/19/michelle-obama-takes-heat-for-saying-shes-proud-of-my-country-for-the-first-time/

I don't even think what she said is being misunderstood. Just a very, very stupid thing to say at the moment.

I've been more on Obama's side since the start, although I wouldn't vote for him, but as we get closer to the finish line the less I think he's any better than Clinton, and possibly worse.

More examples of "borrowing" from Patrick:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8594.html

He better do a great job in the upcoming debates, but that goes without saying.

Yancey
02-19-08, 05:12 PM
I heard Michelle Obama on a local radio show a few weeks back, and she comes off pretty bad to begin with. I know this was mentioned in the other thread, but the issue isn't going away:

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/19/michelle-obama-takes-heat-for-saying-shes-proud-of-my-country-for-the-first-time/

I don't even think what she said is being misunderstood. Just a very, very stupid thing to say at the moment.


Obviously as an African-American woman Michelle Obama has had a very different experience than 99.99% of the people covering her/commenting on her, and there seems to be this weird insistence that she <i>must</i> see things their way. Certainly there seems to be some hyperbole in her statement, but it is also very important to acknowledge that our country's treatment of its underclass, as well as its most vulnerable citizens, has been shameful, even in contemporary times. I have no idea if that's the place from which she was speaking, but I have to think that it certainly played a very powerful part.

Pharoh
02-19-08, 05:19 PM
Obviously as an African-American woman Michelle Obama has had a very different experience than 99.99% of the people covering her/commenting on her, and there seems to be this weird insistence that she <i>must</i> see things their way. Certainly there seems to be some hyperbole in her statement, but it is also very important to acknowledge that our country's treatment of its underclass, as well as its most vulnerable citizens, has been shameful, even in contemporary times. I have no idea if that's the place from which she was speaking, but I have to think that it certainly played a very powerful part.



Holy crap!

How are you?

General Zod
02-19-08, 05:52 PM
I'd much rather get the "Look what we've accomplished.. you can too!" type message rather than the tired "We're the victims, help us not be victims anymore" message.

However I'm sure they will get much more success and support playing the victim role. You just need to kind of blind yourself to their success and pretend it isn't there for it to work.. but there are lots of people who will do just that.

Yancey
02-19-08, 06:01 PM
Hi Pharoah! I'm doing well! Haven't had as much time to post -- been starting a business, believe it or not -- but have been reading along when I can. Hard to stay away during an election. Hope you are well!

Zod, I don't view Michelle Obama's statement -- or my, albeit guessing, reading of it -- as playing any sort of victim card. I don't view it as impugning anyone, necessarily, more just a reading of "isn't this just effing great?" In fact, much to the GOP's chagrin, from my perspective both Obama and Clinton have really avoided any sort of identity politicking -- it has been much more on their merits and ideas than it has been their pedigree. Part of that might just be that they cancel each other out to some degree, and I would guess that in a general election, depending on how the polls are swinging, that would change.

Michael T Hudson
02-19-08, 06:27 PM
I voted early today in Texas after work. The line had about 6 people in it. I am curios to see how Texas is going to end up.

Deadman31
02-19-08, 06:42 PM
"They tryin' to tell us that deep inside we all wants to be white!"

crazyronin
02-19-08, 06:47 PM
Gotterdamerung for Hillary?
kjrXhbQA2Jk

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v78/jt_lynn/alex-trebek1.jpg
"What is the sound of a political campaign flushing itself down the toilet?"

VinVega
02-19-08, 06:49 PM
It's that angry white woman that you have to watch out for.
That's the way it has been over the past. I would go with this guess a lot better than the angry white man vote. Sorry boys, you ain't gonna make the difference.

classicman2
02-19-08, 07:02 PM
Mrs. Obama's statement simply enforces the belief that many folks have - the Democrats are the blame America first crowd.

She needs to keep her mouth shut.

Brent L
02-19-08, 07:12 PM
I find it funny that she said it not once, but twice in to different speeches.

I mean...come on now. I don't care what her reason for saying it was, it just doesn't matter. It was just something very stupid for her, or anyone else in her position, to say.

Now we have Cindy McCain:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/erwQuaThdCw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/erwQuaThdCw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

No matter Michelle's reasoning behind saying it, twice, all it does is hand over ammunition for both the Clinton camp as well as McCain to use against them.

BKenn01
02-19-08, 07:55 PM
But not a partisan assessment. You're seeming to imply that Democrats see the world myopically through some kind of Bush-frenzy, while Republicans recognize the remarkable accomplishments of a great man. The reality is that the vast majority of people -- including many die-hard Republicans and more moderate Democrats -- recognize the simple truth as Dick presented it -- that this country certainly is "fucked up", in a myriad of different ways that can be traced back to the current Administration and the Republican Congress.

I can safely assume the war is in part what you are referring to. I am curious what other specific legislation you think that Bush or the GOP is soley responsible for that everyone thinks has "Fucked Up" the country.


Mrs. Obama's statement simply enforces the belief that many folks have - the Democrats are the blame America first crowd

Yep, nothing like your own words.

McCain is sounding pretty strong right now in the speech on the Wisconsin victory. Good comments about the Obama Change Rhetoric. The sooner that Dog and Pony show comes to light the better. At some point the experience will count and Obama hasnt got it.

Oh, anybody point me to the Michelle Obama vid. I saw it on tv, but it didnt come up on a search on utube

crazyronin
02-19-08, 08:22 PM
Oh, anybody point me to the Michelle Obama vid. I saw it on tv, but it didnt come up on a search on utube

ffGpYcTu5GI

Michael T Hudson
02-19-08, 08:25 PM
I can safely assume the war is in part what you are referring to. I am curious what other specific legislation you think that Bush or the GOP is soley responsible for that everyone thinks has "Fucked Up" the country.




Yep, nothing like your own words.

McCain is sounding pretty strong right now in the speech on the Wisconsin victory. Good comments about the Obama Change Rhetoric. The sooner that Dog and Pony show comes to light the better. At some point the experience will count and Obama hasnt got it.

Oh, anybody point me to the Michelle Obama vid. I saw it on tv, but it didnt come up on a search on utube



McCain did look strong tonight. It was a good speech.

Brent L
02-19-08, 08:28 PM
Yep, that's the strongest that McCain has sounded to me in quite some time. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

EDIT:

Just to add, I think the situation on the Democratic side is quite interesting. I know that many hate to hear people say that it's over for Clinton, but I honestly believe that Obama is going to pull it out by the time it's all said and done. With that said, when I hear Clinton stick it to Obama with jabs, and rightfully so, it's almost as if she's helping out John McCain. Heck, if it goes to the convention, she'll already have done half of McCain's job against Obama for him.

It's interesting, that's all. Clinton needs to be very careful here when she strikes at Obama. If she gets too desperate, there's no telling where she'll go in an attempt to gain ground, no matter if it will be a pointless try or not. I'm going to love seeing the two beat up one another, but they really need to think things through.

EDIT:

:lol: @ Obama coming out for his victory speech right now just as Clinton is in the middle of speaking.

Yancey
02-19-08, 08:40 PM
McCain did look strong tonight. It was a good speech.

How was McCain's speech any different from what we've heard from Bush or even Giuliani in the past six years? To me it felt awfully familiar.

BKenn01
02-19-08, 08:52 PM
How was McCain's speech any different from what we've heard from Bush or even Giuliani in the past six years? To me it felt awfully familiar.

He was very gracious to Huckabee. And he threw some great shots at the Dog and Pony "Its time for Change" show.

The change seems to be the same old Liberal ideoligy. Obama is trying to convince he will do it right this time. All he needs is more of our money.

X
02-19-08, 09:11 PM
:lol:

Obama didn't wait for Hillary to finish her televised blabfest where she was trying to obsfucate his election victory again. Good for him! :up: The gloves are off.

It was funny watching CNN trying to decide whose audio to turn on when they were both speaking. The other cable networks I saw didn't have that big a problem deciding.

Hillary's gonna have to stay up late to try to cover up Obama's Hawaii victory tonight.

DerangedHermit
02-19-08, 09:14 PM
The change seems to be the same old Liberal ideoligy. Obama is trying to convince he will do it right this time. All he needs is more of our money.As opposed to the Republicans, who talk "small government" but manage to make the government larger and who tossed money into the pit named Iraq before making completely sure there was a damn good reason to do so? And the Bush tax cuts? Borrowing against the future for a small band-aid over the gaping wound we call the economy isn't prudent, either.

NCMojo
02-19-08, 09:19 PM
So Wisconsin's been called for Obama. That puts Hillary's big comeback on hold for... what, three weeks? Wow, that's an eternity. Both Texas and Ohio are in single digits for Clinton... but a lot can change in three weeks.

BKenn01
02-19-08, 09:20 PM
As opposed to the Republicans, who talk "small government" but manage to make the government larger and who tossed money into the pit named Iraq before making completely sure there was a damn good reason to do so? And the Bush tax cuts? Borrowing against the future for a small band-aid over the gaping wound we call the economy isn't prudent, either.

I agree on the small government, but I will take their version over having to live with Socialized medicine any day. Having said that, if they dont change their spending ways, they will continue to lose. As for Iraq, plenty of threads to argue that one any way you like.

I say thank you for the tax cuts. This economy would be in a lot worse shape if it were not for those tax cuts. It has put plenty back in my middle class wallet.

VinVega
02-19-08, 09:27 PM
So Wisconsin's been called for Obama. That puts Hillary's big comeback on hold for... what, three weeks? Wow, that's an eternity. Both Texas and Ohio are in single digits for Clinton... but a lot can change in three weeks.
If anyone can turn it around, it's the Clintons. My gut says that they are slowing starting to fade out of the Democratic spotlight though. I think the party in interested in new faces.

Flay
02-19-08, 09:30 PM
So Wisconsin's been called for Obama. That puts Hillary's big comeback on hold for... what, three weeks? Wow, that's an eternity. Both Texas and Ohio are in single digits for Clinton... but a lot can change in three weeks.

March 4th is 14 days away. That would be two weeks. Also, early voting in the Texas primary began today.

BKenn01
02-19-08, 09:32 PM
If anyone can turn it around, it's the Clintons. My gut says that they are slowing starting to fade out of the Democratic spotlight though. I think the party in interested in new faces.

Dont count Hillary out. Her husband is probably the 2nd greatest politician in our lifetime (Reagan was #1 IMHO)

NCMojo
02-19-08, 09:32 PM
I can safely assume the war is in part what you are referring to. I am curious what other specific legislation you think that Bush or the GOP is soley responsible for that everyone thinks has "Fucked Up" the country.
Well, there's the massive deficit spending... our bullheaded cowboy international diplomacy... the complete disintegration and mismanagement of multiple government agencies, from FEMA to the EPA to the FDA to the Department of Justice... the degredation of civil liberties and the Constitutional system of checks and balances... the housing crisis... underfunding homeland security and first responders... failure to secure our nation's borders, even six years after 9/11...

There's more, but you get the idea. :shrug:

NCMojo
02-19-08, 09:36 PM
March 4th is 14 days away. That would be two weeks. Also, early voting in the Texas primary began today.
Again... I suck at math. :(

I'd say that early voting would certainly favor Clinton... but have early voters made up a large percentage of any primary vote so far?

Flay
02-19-08, 09:47 PM
Again... I suck at math. :(

I'd say that early voting would certainly favor Clinton... but have early voters made up a large percentage of any primary vote so far?

No idea. It's really hard to tell without any accurate count of the early vote across the state. But turnout is waaaaay up.

Take Dallas County for instance. Their first day of early voting in 2004 brought in 911 democrats. Today brought in 6,452 voters just by the afternoon. -eek-

X
02-19-08, 10:00 PM
So after Omama's done speaking I'm flipping through the cable channels. CNN still has Hillary doing her whatever-it-was speech, the one trying to take attention away from Obama. Or maybe they were just showing the rerun of the part we missed (I didn't hang around long enough to figure it out). Do they have some kind of contract with the Clintons mandating this kind of coverage?

BKenn01
02-19-08, 10:01 PM
Yea X, the Clintons will get mad, take their toys and go home. No more interviews for CNN.

darkessenz
02-19-08, 10:11 PM
Well, there's the massive deficit spending... our bullheaded cowboy international diplomacy... the complete disintegration and mismanagement of multiple government agencies, from FEMA to the EPA to the FDA to the Department of Justice... the degredation of civil liberties and the Constitutional system of checks and balances... the housing crisis... underfunding homeland security and first responders... failure to secure our nation's borders, even six years after 9/11...

ditto. Restructuring at the agencies was terrible and shameless.

Numanoid
02-19-08, 10:28 PM
So after Omama's done speaking I'm flipping through the cable channels. CNN still has Hillary doing her whatever-it-was speech, the one trying to take attention away from Obama. Or maybe they were just showing the rerun of the part we missed (I didn't hang around long enough to figure it out). Do they have some kind of contract with the Clintons mandating this kind of coverage?I can't believe a news channel providing election coverage would show the speeches of both of the candidates involved in an unprecedented primary race. Surely, it must be something underhanded on the Clintons' part.

MartinBlank
02-20-08, 01:46 AM
Video: Obama steps on Hillary’s concession speech....

<embed width="425" height="355" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LWnRCUfRAaU&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed>

Wait...why is this video from Fox News?!? I thought they were Evil and totally biased!?!? What gives?!?! ;)

wmansir
02-20-08, 05:55 AM
If it was really a concession speech I would say it was bad form, but she was merely using the opportunity to give her standard stump speech and take swipes at him, ignoring the primary results altogether. From what I understand she was also an hour behind schedule.

VinVega
02-20-08, 07:08 AM
So after Omama's done speaking I'm flipping through the cable channels. CNN still has Hillary doing her whatever-it-was speech, the one trying to take attention away from Obama. Or maybe they were just showing the rerun of the part we missed (I didn't hang around long enough to figure it out). Do they have some kind of contract with the Clintons mandating this kind of coverage?
Yet c-man is calling them the Obama News Network. Fascinating. Not that I even watch CNN that often anymore.

DullandWitless
02-20-08, 07:18 AM
This is what I offer i this thread"

Obamowned.

Red Dog
02-20-08, 07:39 AM
Yet c-man is calling them the Obama News Network. Fascinating. Not that I even watch CNN that often anymore.


I think ONN is his moniker for MSNBC. Yeah, it confused me at first as well.

Speaking of MSNBC, they (I believe it was Chuck Todd) brought up a good point this morning. If any other candidate besides Hillary had lost 9 straight primaries, the media would (and did) abandon them.

JasonF
02-20-08, 07:48 AM
I think ONN is his moniker for MSNBC. Yeah, it confused me at first as well.

Speaking of MSNBC, they (I believe it was Chuck Todd) brought up a good point this morning. If any other candidate besides Hillary had lost 9 straight primaries, the media would (and did) abandon them.

That's the point that Jon Stewart made after Senator Clinton got trounced in Washington, Louisiana, Kansas and everyone started talaking about her "firewalls" in Ohio and Texas, while Governor Huckabee won Louisiana and Nebraska and kept it close in Washington and everyone kept talking about how McCain will be the nominee. Why does Governor Huckabee need a miracle and Senator Clinton just needs an IT guy?

das Monkey
02-20-08, 08:33 AM
Why does Governor Huckabee need a miracle and Senator Clinton just needs an IT guy?
He didn't major in math. He majored in miracles!

das

General Zod
02-20-08, 08:34 AM
It will be interesting to see how things go in the debate tomorrow. Will Clinton and Obama continue to be huggy and kissy like last time? Or will Clinton go on the attack? Obviously what she has been doing has not been working for her. My guess is she goes negative.

Tracer Bullet
02-20-08, 08:35 AM
That's the point that Jon Stewart made after Senator Clinton got trounced in Washington, Louisiana, Kansas and everyone started talaking about her "firewalls" in Ohio and Texas, while Governor Huckabee won Louisiana and Nebraska and kept it close in Washington and everyone kept talking about how McCain will be the nominee. Why does Governor Huckabee need a miracle and Senator Clinton just needs an IT guy?

To be fair, even though Obama is winning state after state, the delegate count is still very close. Huckabee still hasn't won more delegates than Romney. :lol:

That said, if Obama takes Texas or Ohio & Texas, expect calls for Clinton to drop out.

Iron Chef
02-20-08, 08:49 AM
Obamowned.

this

wishbone
02-20-08, 08:53 AM
I think ONN is his moniker for MSNBC. Yeah, it confused me at first as well.http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5296/onnwe7.jpg
Obama Beats Clinton 9th Straight In Wisconsin; McCain Wins For GOP (http://www.ohionewsnow.com/?sec=&story=sites/ONN/content/pool/200802/933719685.html)

Senator Obama is one of their top stories for today. :shrug:

Flay
02-20-08, 08:58 AM
Yeah, that was not a concession speech. It was a reason to exploit national airtime. I haven't seen Clinton congratulate Obama on a win since Super Tuesday.

MartinBlank
02-20-08, 09:01 AM
*pfffft* Accomplishments?!?! Who cares about accomplishments?!?

<embed allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" flashvars="embedId=d1766447-d990-4b3a-8baa-81c276111c30" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="390" height="320"></embed>

"He inspires people!" Um...yeah....so did Charlie Manson :rolleyes:

VinVega
02-20-08, 09:38 AM
"He inspires people!" Um...yeah....so did Charlie Manson :rolleyes:
I'm surprised you passed on such a golden opportunity to compare him to Adolf Hitler. That could really bring the level of discussion up.

Groucho
02-20-08, 09:40 AM
"He inspires people!" Um...yeah....so did Charlie Manson :rolleyes:Well, this explains the call I got from Obama's campaign yesterday. They didn't want a donation, but they did ask if I wouldn't mind breaking into the house of a Hollywood director and killing everybody inside.

I declined politely.

Tracer Bullet
02-20-08, 09:41 AM
Well, this explains the call I got from Obama's campaign yesterday. They didn't want a donation, but they did ask if I wouldn't mind breaking into the house of a Hollywood director and killing everybody inside.

I declined politely.

Was it Uwe Boll's house?

bhk
02-20-08, 09:56 AM
I love Uwe Boll. No one irritates fanboys like Uwe Boll.

parrotheads4
02-20-08, 10:07 AM
It will be interesting to see how things go in the debate tomorrow. Will Clinton and Obama continue to be huggy and kissy like last time? Or will Clinton go on the attack? Obviously what she has been doing has not been working for her. My guess is she goes negative.

I think Hillary Rodham Clinton is in a tough spot. She needs to go negative, but when she does she sounds like a bitching woman. Howard Stern has said that when Hillary starts arguing it sounds like his mother yelling at him. I think a lot of men - and women - feel the same way. And forget the tears. I can't vote for someone who's going to cry when things get tough.

MartinBlank
02-20-08, 10:13 AM
I'm surprised you passed on such a golden opportunity to compare him to Adolf Hitler. That could really bring the level of discussion up.

Only Republicans can be compared to Hitler...apple...tree....doesn't fall far ;)


I was amazed at the guys answer to the question, "I know nothing of his policies, but he's inspiring!!" It was weird that he was so honest about his own ignorance. It was refreshing.

DullandWitless
02-20-08, 10:16 AM
WTF? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626

MartinBlank
02-20-08, 10:26 AM
*pfffft* Accomplishments?!?! Who cares about accomplishments?!?

<embed allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" flashvars="embedId=d1766447-d990-4b3a-8baa-81c276111c30" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="390" height="320"></embed>

"He inspires people!" Um...yeah....so did Charlie Manson :rolleyes:

"Well allow me to retort...."

<embed width="425" height="355" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/un5RK8GhdPg&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed>

mosquitobite
02-20-08, 10:26 AM
WTF? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626

I realize the guy is pro-se, but that court document is about the most retarded thing I've ever read. :lol:

It reads like "judge, tell them to leave me alone!" even though he admits, he's the one that whacked the beehive.

The guy makes serious allegations, and I didn't see where his court documents provided any proof of his allegations. What an idiot.

Yancey
02-20-08, 10:27 AM
Dude has already been discredited repeatedly. He is clearly crazy. I'm sure we'll see this one added to the Obama is a secret Muslim email. Maybe the Washington Post will run a frontpage story, too!

MartinBlank
02-20-08, 10:30 AM
I think Hillary Rodham Clinton is in a tough spot. She needs to go negative...

WTF? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626

Coincidence? :shrug:

It's one of two things...

Either the guy's completely whacked out of mind-crazy

OR

It's true, and if that's the case, I'd say the timing on this is too perfect to not have the Clinton's fingerprints all over it.


But I'm pretty sure the guy's just a nutjob.

DullandWitless
02-20-08, 10:30 AM
I am saddened that there are actually human beings that will believe this. It's actually kind of hilarious.

Chrisedge
02-20-08, 10:39 AM
But I'm pretty sure the guy's just a nutjob.

You're pretty sure?

VinVega
02-20-08, 10:43 AM
Only Republicans can be compared to Hitler...apple...tree....doesn't fall far ;)
Actually it falls very far because I don't compare Bush to Hitler.

MBoyd
02-20-08, 10:51 AM
I saw the drug/gay sex youtube video weeks ago. When I sent it into Drudge and he didn't post it I knew it was fake. :lol:

Oh and yeah, I think the Hillary cabal is behind it. :lol:

Jeremy517
02-20-08, 12:19 PM
CNN is reporting that the Teamsters will endorse Obama.

Red Dog
02-20-08, 12:29 PM
CNN is reporting that the Teamsters will endorse Obama.


I would have figured on Hillary receiving the lazy, surly vote.

X
02-20-08, 12:35 PM
So Obama's got some goons on his side now too. That might help when things get real ugly.

Jeremy517
02-20-08, 12:39 PM
I would have figured on Hillary receiving the lazy, surly vote.

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1334/944649743_2b65fbed2e.jpg">

Pharoh
02-20-08, 02:34 PM
Since he raised the issue today, will Mr. Obama keep his word and opt for public financing if nominated? Will any of his supporters care if he breaks the deal he agreed to?

DullandWitless
02-20-08, 02:45 PM
http://www.celsias.com/2008/02/19/an-open-letter-to-hillary-clinton-from-a-wellesley-college-alumna/

bhk
02-20-08, 02:45 PM
http://www.aberdeennews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/OPINION02/802200308/-1/OPINION

Clinton committed one 'sin of princes'
Published on Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Niccolo Machiavelli was a political philosopher who expressed his thought in a campaign manual for scoundrels. When a threat to your success is small enough to be dealt with, he shrewdly warned, it is all too easy to ignore. When it has grown too large to ignore, it is often too late to do anything about it. So even the most unscrupulous ambition needs at least this much scruple: never take your position for granted.

If you were preparing a new edition of "The Prince," you could illustrate this advice with Hillary Clinton's picture. As results came in on Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign seemed to be holding a slight advantage. Barack Obama had won more state contests, but she had netted the big prizes of California and New York. By Feb. 12, seven days later, she had the look of a politician with a great future behind her.

Obama swept the states of Washington, Kansas, Nebraska and Louisiana. Next, he swept D.C., Maryland and Virginia, and took the lead in delegates for the national convention. But he didn't just win seven straight; he flattened Sen. Clinton by a 2-to-1 ratio in each place. In Virginia, he cut into all the constituencies that had sustained Clinton on Feb. 5.

When Virginians went to the polls, neither Obama nor Clinton were in the state. Obama didn't have to be there, and the Clintons had written it off. Barack was in Wisconsin, where he expected to win big again. Hillary was in Texas, one of the few places where she can hope to stage a comeback. Obituaries for the Clinton campaign are now sprouting up in the press like toadstools after a good, warm rain.

It needn't have been a surprise. There have been ominous signs of disarray and dysfunction in the Clinton campaign for more than a year. Last summer Joshua Green produced a story about trouble in Hillaryland for GQ magazine. But Bill Clinton was to appear on the cover of GQ's Man of the Year issue. The former president threatened to bail out unless the unfavorable story was withdrawn, and the editor caved. If Green's piece had run as scheduled, Ms. Clinton might have been forced to shake up her organization before the campaign really started, instead of after it suffered a string of defeats. It didn't and she wasn't.

What Green now reports in The Atlantic is that Sen. Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, was obviously incompetent. She had no genius for political strategy. She wasted tens of millions on Sen. Clinton's reelection bid, when there was virtually no opposition. She so badly mismanaged the millions raised for the present campaign that Ms. Clinton was left helpless in the recent string of state contests. She was put in charge of persuading John Kerry to endorse Ms. Clinton. He endorsed Obama.

Solis Doyle firmly backed the decision to delay Ms. Clinton's official entry into the race until after her reelection to the Senate. That allowed Obama to get first crack at the big donors, and that is how the small threat was born. It is only now, when her nomination is in grave peril, that Solis Doyle has been sacked. Why did it take so long? Clinton valued Solis Doyle's perfect loyalty, and her ability to lay down the law against any dissenting voices, over competence. And besides, the senator had persuaded herself that she was entitled to the nomination.

Hillary Clinton is hardly out of the race. If she can win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where she is still ahead, she might yet get to the convention with half the delegates. But to do so she must split white voters against black voters, the most loyal Democratic constituency. The Clintons have been cynically playing the race card for that purpose.

But Ms. Clinton has alienated much of her party's leadership, most of its activist core, and nearly all of its black constituency. Her arrogance allowed a freshman senator no one had heard of three years ago to become a mortal threat to her ambition. That is what Machiavelli meant when he spoke of "the sins of princes."

Kenneth C. Blanchard Jr., is a professor of political science at Northern State University. His columns appears occasionally in the American News. Write to him at the American News, P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, S.D., 57402, or e-mail [email protected] The views presented are those of the author and do not represent those of Northern State University.

Good article on what went wrong with the "inevitable" nominee.

nemein
02-20-08, 02:46 PM
Since he raised the issue today, will Mr. Obama keep his word and opt for public financing if nominated? Will any of his supporters care if he breaks the deal he agreed to?

No and no would be my guess.

Chew
02-20-08, 03:07 PM
ABC News has learned that a group of Democratic politicos have set up a new independent 527 organization called the American Leadership Project (ALP) with the express purpose of helping Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, beat Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in Ohio, and possibly Texas and Pennsylvania as well.

Free from campaign finance rules, ALP will not be legally permitted to coordinate with the Clinton campaign, but it is clearly intended to help her.

The group is targeting through TV ads, mail, and phone communications white women under 50 in the Ohio area -- specifically Cleveland, Columbus, Youngstown, Charleston (WV), Wheeling- Steubenville, Zanesville, and Parkersburg (WV).

White men will also be a focus, and if there are any excess funds Latinos in Texas and middle class families in Pennsylvania will also be targeted.

ALP has developed three ads aimed at pushing the idea that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is a talker and not a doer -- the ads are called “If speeches could solve problems" -- and they will contrast Obama and Clinton on issues of importance to middle class voters, such as the economy, health care, and the mortgage crisis.

"Our purpose is to encourage audiences to look beyond the campaign speeches and political rhetoric to specific proposals to address these core issues," says an ALP mission statement obtained by ABC News.

The plan right now is for the TV ads to never actually mention Obama -- rather, the statements about rhetoric vs. reality will go after him through implication, the contrast between Clinton and Obama already being so well-known.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/new-pro-clinton.html

Too little, too late to start helping save Hillary I wonder?

nemein
02-20-08, 03:25 PM
Too little, too late to start helping save Hillary I wonder?

One can only hope ;)

Pharoh
02-20-08, 03:34 PM
One can only hope ;)


Or hope not.

wishbone
02-20-08, 03:43 PM
Some additional info per Chew's post:

jMVbE8Q7FOw
American Leadership Project AdNew 527 group has pro-Clinton ad on the web

An earlier item in The Daily Briefing today noted the formation of a group called the American Leadership Project, a so-called 527 organization run independently of a campaign, designed to aid Hillary Clinton in the key states of Ohio and Texas on March, and perhaps later in Pennsylvania on April 22 if Clinton holds off a surging Barack Obama in March 4 and remains in the hunt for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Here is a link to an ad placed on the web by the group, which is raising money and hopes to place this and other ads on television.

The ad is anti-Obama in addition to being pro-Clinton. It begins with a narrator saying, "If speeches could create jobs, we wouldn't be facing a recession, but it takes more." That is a not-so-veiled shot at Obama, who the Clinton campaign is trying to characterize as a fiery orator lacking substance.

The ad also goes on to laud Clinton's work as senator and says her economic blueprint has been endorsed by Gov. Ted Strickland, a Clinton backer, and urges her to keep working on behalf of the middle class.

One of the people working on the American Leadership Project is Roger Salazar, a California political consultant who also served as an White House assistant press secretary under President Clinton. He said the effort is meant to address issues affecting middle class families, but acknowledged in an interview that it would be fair to characterize the new group as a "pro-Hillary committee."http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2008/02/new_527_group_has_proclinton_a.shtml

Venusian
02-20-08, 03:52 PM
i like it better when the ads reference what bill/law they are talking about

nemein
02-20-08, 04:05 PM
Or hope not.


No I'm pretty sure I like my way better -ptth-

General Zod
02-20-08, 07:07 PM
Even blowing his nose, Obama gets applause

DALLAS – It's probably safe to say that you have arrived as a politician when your audience applauds when you blow your nose.

Yes, just a day before a debate in Texas, Sen. Barack Obama has a head cold.

And about a half-hour into a speech here, the Illinois Democrat announced that he had to take a quick break. "Gotta blow my nose here for a second," Obama said.

Out came a Kleenex (or perhaps it was a hankie), and he wiped his nose.

The near-capacity audience at the Reunion Arena, which his campaign said totaled 17,000, broke out in a slightly awkward applause.

Despite the cold, Obama's voice seems as strong as ever. He has a light schedule today and some time to rest up before his debate Thursday evening with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

:lol:

He should possibly consider selling some time shares while he is at it..

DullandWitless
02-20-08, 07:48 PM
:lol:

He should possibly consider selling some time shares while he is at it.. He's the Beatles, yo.

JasonF
02-20-08, 07:50 PM
Since he raised the issue today, will Mr. Obama keep his word and opt for public financing if nominated? Will any of his supporters care if he breaks the deal he agreed to?
Well, that's not what he promised, though:

If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

So, the question is this: if Senator McCain and Senator Obama both opt for public financing, and the RNC and the DNC and a hundred different 527s all pour money into the election, is it a "publicly financed general election"?

Pharoh
02-20-08, 10:08 PM
Well, that's not what he promised, though:



So, the question is this: if Senator McCain and Senator Obama both opt for public financing, and the RNC and the DNC and a hundred different 527s all pour money into the election, is it a "publicly financed general election"?

First, is that what he pledged months ago?

In answer to the second, yes. What would be the alternative? Despite any good intentions by either of the candidates I have no faith in any 527s to keep in line, particularly the 527s of the MoveOn ilk. (Sorry, I've never claimed I wasn't partisan).

At least let the candidates be above board and keep to their pledges. Let the other chips fall where they may.

Unless, shocking as it may be, Mr. Obama does not want to relinquish a perceived advantage?

Pharoh
02-20-08, 10:18 PM
Here is the original story from a year ago:

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: March 2, 2007
WASHINGTON, March 1 — Senator John McCain joined Senator Barack Obama on Thursday in promising to accept a novel fund-raising truce if each man wins his party’s presidential nomination.

The promises by Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, are an effort to resuscitate part of the ailing public financing system for presidential campaigns.

In every election since Watergate, candidates have received limited sums of taxpayer money on the condition that they abstain from raising or spending any more. But this year, the leading candidates are all sidestepping the system in a competition to raise far more in private donations, more than $500 million each, according to most projections, compared with $150 million in potential public financing.

But there is a chance that the obituaries for the public system may be premature. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. McCain said that he would take up Mr. Obama on a proposal for an accord between the two major party nominees to rely just on public financing for the general election.

Such a pact would eliminate any financial edge one candidate might have and limit each campaign to $85 million for the general election. The two candidates would have to return any private donations that they had raised for that period.

Mr. Obama laid out his proposal last month to the Federal Election Commission, seeking an opinion on its legality. The commissioners formally approved it on Thursday.

The manager of Mr. McCain’s campaign, Terry Nelson, said he welcomed the decision.

“Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same,” Mr. Nelson said.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, said, “We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same.”

Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement” with whoever was his opponent.

Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have backed changing campaign finances.


Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1203341276-olxOCyC520LnOfIsu2ecsw&oref=slogin)

JasonF
02-20-08, 11:09 PM
I don't think Senator Obama ever made an explicit promise to forgo privatae fundraising, although he did strongly imply that he would do so if his Republican opponent agreed to do so. It is a fair criticism of him. So, to answer our questions (will his supporters care if he breaks his word to participte in public financing), the answer for this particular supporter is I'm not sure he'd be breaking his word, but he will be playing semantic games, and I would be a little disappointed, but I would also understand (and agree with the decision) not to give up one of Senator Obama's strengths -- his ability to out-fundraise Senator McCain.

General Zod
02-20-08, 11:17 PM
although he did strongly imply that he would do so if his Republican opponent agreed to do so.
Strongly implied? When asked if he would do it if his opponent would he said "yes" (well.. actually he wrote it). I'm not sure what more you could ask for except maybe "I double pinky swear..."?

JasonF
02-20-08, 11:58 PM
Looking at Senator Obama's response again, I want to take back the sentence Zod highlighted. He's right. Senator Obama said he would forgo private financing if his opponent agreed to do so. I still stand by my second sentence -- he probably ought to back out of that (it was a dumb proposal to make in the first place), and it's legitimate to criticize him for doing so.

MartinBlank
02-21-08, 01:29 AM
<embed width="425" height="355" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r2oPys_5iXc&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed>

:lol:

MartinBlank
02-21-08, 01:31 AM
I don't think Senator Obama ever made an explicit promise to forgo privatae fundraising, although he did strongly imply that he would do so if his Republican opponent agreed to do so. It is a fair criticism of him. So, to answer our questions (will his supporters care if he breaks his word to participte in public financing), the answer for this particular supporter is I'm not sure he'd be breaking his word, but he will be playing semantic games, and I would be a little disappointed, but I would also understand (and agree with the decision) not to give up one of Senator Obama's strengths -- his ability to out-fundraise Senator McCain.

<embed allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf" flashvars="embedId=460e66a9-5665-4b7f-937d-1d5bb0d7b91e" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="390" height="320"></embed>

JasonF
02-21-08, 09:18 AM
The funny thing about this whole McCain/Obama public financing thing is that Senator McCain has some serious issues surrounding his own use of campaign funds.

Feb 21, 9:55 AM EST

McCain Loan Raises FEC Questions

By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government's top campaign finance regulator says John McCain can't drop out of the primary election's public financing system until he answers questions about a loan he obtained to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign.

Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain this week, said the all-but-certain Republican nominee needs to assure the commission that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November.

McCain's lawyer, Trevor Potter, said Wednesday evening that McCain has withdrawn from the system and that the FEC can't stop him. Potter said the campaign did not encumber the public funds in any way.

"Well, it was done before in another campaign. ... We think it's perfectly legal. One of our advisers is a former chairman of the FEC, and we are confident that it was an appropriate thing to do," McCain told a news conference Thursday.

McCain, a longtime advocate of stricter limits on money in politics, was one of the few leading presidential candidates to seek FEC certification for public money during the primaries. The FEC determined that he was entitled to at least $5.8 million. But McCain did not obtain the money, and he notified the FEC earlier this month that he would bypass the system, freeing him from its spending limits.

But just as McCain was beginning to turn his attention to a likely Democratic opponent, Mason, a Republican appointee to the commission, essentially said, "Not so fast."

By accepting the public money, McCain would be limited to spending about $54 million for the primaries, a ceiling his campaign is near. That would significantly hinder his ability to finance his campaign between now and the Republican National Convention in September.

Complicating the dispute is the FEC's current lack of a quorum. The six-member commission has four vacancies and Senate Democrats and Republicans are at loggerheads over how to fill them.

In his letter, Mason told McCain he would need the votes of four commissioners to accept his withdrawal from the system.

"The commission will consider your request at such a time as it has a quorum," Mason wrote.

Without action by the Senate, McCain could be waiting indefinitely.

"We believe that Senator McCain had a clear legal right to withdraw from the primary matching fund system and he has done so," Potter said. "No FEC action was or is required for withdrawal."

Potter said McCain will continue with his campaign and not adhere to the public financing system's limits on spending. Without a full commission, Mason has little enforcement power. Likewise, without an FEC, McCain has no way to appeal Mason's conclusion.

At issue is the fine print in the loan agreement between McCain and Fidelity Bank & Trust. McCain secured the loan using his list of contributors, his promise to use that list to raise money to pay off the loan and by taking out a life insurance policy.

But the agreement also said that if McCain were to withdraw from the public financing system before the end of 2007 and then were to lose the New Hampshire primary by more than 10 percentage points, he would have had to reapply to the FEC for public matching funds and provide the bank additional collateral for the loan.

In his letter to McCain, Mason said the commission would allow a candidate to withdraw from the public finance system as long as he had not received any public funds and had not pledged the certification of such funds "as security for private financing."

Citing the loan agreement, Mason wrote: "We note that in your letter, you state that neither you nor your (presidential campaign) committee has pledged the certification of matching payment funds as security for private financing. In preparation for commission consideration of your request upon establishment of a quorum, we invite you to expand on the rationale for that conclusion."

McCain has been an outspoken critic of the FEC and he and Mason have had ideological differences over campaign finance law for years.

"We will of course carefully review and respond to the questions asked about the collateral for the campaign's bank loan," Potter said Wednesday. "We very carefully negotiated that loan on the basis that the federal matching funds certification we held would not be security or collateral for that loan."

One former Republican FEC chairman, Michael Toner, said McCain should not need action by the FEC to pull out of public financing.

"If a candidate indicates he or she does not want the money and does so before payments are made and does not take advantage of the promise of future payments, then he or she is free to withdraw from the system," said Toner, who advised former GOP presidential contender Fred Thompson. "That's my understanding of exactly what happened here."

The dispute comes at an awkward time for McCain. While he has sought to bypass the public financing system for the primaries, he would like to participate in the system for the general election and he is attempting to hold Democrat Barack Obama to his offer to participate in the system too.

If McCain were to face Obama in the general election under public financing rules, each would get about $85 million to spend between September and Election Day in November. McCain would be the clear beneficiary because Obama has become the most prolific fundraiser in presidential politics and likely would be able to amass much more than $85 million from his donors.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MCCAIN_FEC?SITE=VABRM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Venusian
02-21-08, 09:24 AM
So we don't even have an FEC for our election? Stupid Senate.

classicman2
02-21-08, 09:56 AM
Returning to FL for a minute - would you consider a Democratic candidate who aired campaign aids in FL before the primary had violated his/her word not to campaign in FL?

Groucho
02-21-08, 09:58 AM
Returning to FL for a minute - would you consider a Democratic candidate who aired campaign aids in FL before the primary had violated his/her word not to campaign in FL?"Airing campaign aids". Is that some sort of hipster euphemism?

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 10:02 AM
Returning to FL for a minute - would you consider a Democratic candidate who aired campaign aids in FL before the primary had violated his/her word not to campaign in FL?

Yes, but not if said ads were part of a nationwide ad buy.

classicman2
02-21-08, 10:05 AM
Yes, but not if said ads were part of a nationwide ad buy.

Typical reply for a confirmed Obamaite. :lol:

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 10:07 AM
Typical reply for a confirmed Obamaite. :lol:

Can you explain to me how exactly to buy ads for every state but Florida (and Michigan, for that matter) without wasting a lot of time and money?

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 10:10 AM
Obama won the Democrats Abroad primary with 65% of the vote:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUPSXLSf9BMjfyPSCc2sdK8RtV8QD8UUPCPG1

11 straight wins now.

classicman2
02-21-08, 10:12 AM
You can't exclude a state from a nationwide ad buy?

Venusian
02-21-08, 10:14 AM
i assume you can't. depends on who they buy ads with though. if it is with a network, say NBC, it goes on the nationwide feed. but if it was with an affiliate, it is local....from what i understand

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 10:14 AM
You can't exclude a state from a nationwide ad buy?

Apparently not, hence the term "nationwide".

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 10:15 AM
i assume you can't. depends on who they buy ads with though. if it is with a network, say NBC, it goes on the nationwide feed. but if it was with an affiliate, it is local....from what i understand

Well, the ads in question were cable ads. Apparently there is some sort of system in place whereby an ad broker sells "nationwide" ad time.

Venusian
02-21-08, 10:17 AM
looks like you can't separate it:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8019.html

Clinton’s campaign acknowledged that it’s not possible to buy 49-state coverage — that the only alternative would be the much more complex process of buying state by state and market by market.

JasonF
02-21-08, 10:46 AM
I wonder why classicman wants to change the subject back to something that got debunked and resolved a month ago?

Anyway, I find it very interesting that talk is quickly turning to "How dare the New York Times report on this now!" and away from the substance of the McCain story. Quite frankly, if you told Senator McCain that this story was going to break some time between January 1, 2008 and election day, he couldn't have picked a better time. So I don't know why people are looking for ulterior motives -- if the Times wanted to sink the McCain candidacy, this isn't the way to do it.

The Newspaper and the Senator

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 21, 2008; 9:03 AM

The New York Times dropped a bombshell on John McCain last night, questioning his past relationship with a female lobbyist.

How much does the paper have? Why did it wait until now? And how will the story play out?

I reported on the first hints of this in December, when the Arizona Republican hired criminal attorney Robert Bennett to help handle the Times inquiry. "What is being done to John McCain is an outrage," Bennett told me then.

I wrote in The Post that the matter involved whether McCain had done legislative favors for a Washington lobbyist and her clients. The Times effort had leaked onto the Drudge Report. I didn't mention the rumors of a possible personal relationship because I had no proof and didn't know what, if anything, the Times had.

Bennett went on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" last night to denounce the story, and Sean Hannity joined in the denunciation.

McCain's spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said in a statement last night: "It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign . . . Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics."

Less than three hours after the Times posted its piece, The Washington Post, which had also been pursuing the allegations, put up its version.

The first thing to know about the Times piece is that both McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, deny there was any romantic relationship. So it's not a Monica Lewinsky or Gennifer Flowers situation. And whatever happened, or didn't happen, took place eight years ago.

Iseman, a telecommunications lobbyist, "had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client's corporate jet," the Times says. "Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself -- instructing staff members to block the woman's access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity. . . .

"To his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity."

In early 1999, "Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator's advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

"A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman's access to his offices. . . . Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman."

The Times has an on-the-record confirmation from John Weaver, McCain's former top strategist, regarding an aide to the senator warning Iseman at a Union Station meeting to stay away from the boss. Weaver e-mailed that he arranged the meeting after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about her.

Weaver said: "Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation's interests before either personal or special interest. Ms. Iseman's involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort."

On the policy front, the Times cites McCain, a champion of deregulation, sending several letters to the FCC that would have benefited Iseman's clients, among others. In one instance, Iseman acknowledged to the Times that she sent McCain draft language for a letter to the commission on behalf of Paxson Communications.

As for the timing of the story, you might think the Times had waited until McCain had all but secured the GOP nomination, to avoid influencing the primaries. But my understanding is that is not the case--that the team of reporters has been wrestling with it and the editors published it when it was ready.

The McCain/Bennett strategy, of course, is to make the Times the issue. The senator's statement doesn't deny any of the specifics in the piece.

As for the political fallout, the issue should be the confirmable facts and what they say, or don't say, about McCain's run for the presidency. In Bill Clinton's case it turned out to be quite relevant, and he had sexual relations with that woman, and some others. In this case, we have two people who deny such a relationship.

Oh, and for those who think newspaper coverage follows an editorial line: The New York Times endorsed John McCain.

Time reaches McCain confidant Mark Salter: "The bulk of the story's more titillating accusations, he said, stemmed from 'two blind quotes . . . Are these the standards of the New York Times? No. They are the standards of the National Enquirer.' "

Christopher Orr opines in the New Republic: "One interesting question about the piece is just how it will be received by the considerable segment of the conservative movement that already views McCain with deep suspicion (the Ann Coulters, the Glenn Becks, and other assorted anti-McCainiacs). On the one hand, as Noam notes, being 'attacked' by the New York Times is seen as a feather in the cap by many Republicans and, as printed, the story is hardly dispositive. On the other hand, the story does feed into the feeling on the part of some conservatives that McCain is a sanctimonious phony who's really no purer than the fellow politicians he occasionally castigates."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022100800.html

classicman2
02-21-08, 11:03 AM
Once again -the story is 8 years old.

It's not new. It's been out there since the 2000 Republican Primary.

I invite you to return to the thread about it.

Perhaps you can answer the questions that I asked?

Red Dog
02-21-08, 11:07 AM
Well, the ads in question were cable ads. Apparently there is some sort of system in place whereby an ad broker sells "nationwide" ad time.


Absolutely. For example, during an ESPN sporting event, there is ad-time-blocks that go everywhere across the country - to every cable system and satellite provider. Then there is ad-time-blocks sold directly by the local cable provider (usually very local ads) or satellite provider (for example, DirecTV promos for certain PPV programming and such).

This was just more silly whining from the Clinton camp.

Groucho
02-21-08, 11:18 AM
I see ads all the time on cable for businesses that don't even operate in this area. The nationwide thing is nothing new, and should only be "controversial" for somebody desperate to sling mud at Senator Obama.

JasonF
02-21-08, 11:29 AM
Once again -the story is 8 years old.

It's not new. It's been out there since the 2000 Republican Primary.

I invite you to return to the thread about it.

It's most certainly not been out there since 2000. It relates to events that occurred in 2000, but it was not reported on then.

Perhaps you can answer the questions that I asked?

A national ad buy is a national ad buy. I don't think Senator Obama violated either the letter or the spirit of the pledge not to campaign in Florida.

Pharoh
02-21-08, 11:31 AM
I see ads all the time on cable for businesses that don't even operate in this area. The nationwide thing is nothing new, and should only be "controversial" for somebody desperate to sling mud at Senator Obama.



And I haven't seen one single ad for candidates not in the running for my state, something I would have seen if they did national buys.

Now I understand fully the concept of national buys, and can't say for certain that any candidate didn't employ this advertising method, but I find it difficult to fathom why any would. I do know for a fact that all Democratic ads in my state are either local or state only ads.

X
02-21-08, 11:33 AM
I don't see how national ad buys make sense since so many primaries are at different times.

The only ads I saw for candiates were in the couple weeks before the California primary. Haven't seen one since that date.

Pharoh
02-21-08, 11:36 AM
I don't see how national ad buys make sense since so many primaries are at different times.

The only ads I saw for candiates were in the couple weeks before the California primary. Haven't seen one since that date.


I can't imagine any campaign using national ad buys. But hey, what do I know?

Venusian
02-21-08, 11:36 AM
it depends on the pricing. it may be cheaper to by a national air ad during super tuesday than to buy ads in all the big markets...but i could be wrong

JasonF
02-21-08, 11:37 AM
Pharoh, X -- are you disputing the fact that Senator Obama made national ad buys? Because he did. That's a demonstrable fact. Now, you can question whether that was a strategically sound decision, but with all due respect, I think facts have shown that Senator Obama's campaign strategy is pretty solid.

Venusian
02-21-08, 11:37 AM
if there is any complaint, shouldn't it be of Clinton leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan?

Venusian
02-21-08, 11:42 AM
so what happens after the next round of primaries when it becomes official that neither candidate can get the number of delegates needed to win without superdelegate support? Will the pressure increase for the candidate with fewer delegates to quit? Will they fall for it?

X
02-21-08, 11:44 AM
Pharoh, X -- are you disputing the fact that Senator Obama made national ad buys? Because he did. That's a demonstrable fact. Now, you can question whether that was a strategically sound decision, but with all due respect, I think facts have shown that Senator Obama's campaign strategy is pretty solid.Well, if he did and they didn't happen to correspond to the date of the California primary, they must have been shown on channels I don't watch. But I sure did see his ads right before our primary on the channels I watch.

Pharoh
02-21-08, 11:44 AM
Pharoh, X -- are you disputing the fact that Senator Obama made national ad buys? Because he did. That's a demonstrable fact. Now, you can question whether that was a strategically sound decision, but with all due respect, I think facts have shown that Senator Obama's campaign strategy is pretty solid.



No I am not. And yes I think that national ad buys are not a wise strategic decision.

More to the point though, I think it illustrates another example of Mr. Obama playing the semantics game and breaking a pledge he took yet again. They knew the ads would run in Florida and they didn't have to go that route.

Pharoh
02-21-08, 11:44 AM
Well, if he did and they didn't happen to correspond to the date of the California primary they must have been shown on channels I don't watch. But I sure did see his ads right before our primary on the channels I watch.



You don't watch CNN or the ONN?


:)

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 11:50 AM
No I am not. And yes I think that national ad buys are not a wise strategic decision.

Obama's campaign seems to be doing fairly well. :lol:

More to the point though, I think it illustrates another example of Mr. Obama playing the semantics game and breaking a pledge he took yet again. They knew the ads would run in Florida and they didn't have to go that route.

That may be your view, but do you have access to a cost breakdown between buying ad time in each state individually versus buying national airtime?

Jeremy517
02-21-08, 11:51 AM
More to the point though, I think it illustrates another example of Mr. Obama playing the semantics game and breaking a pledge he took yet again. They knew the ads would run in Florida and they didn't have to go that route.

So you think that he paid for national ads, solely to get the ad aired in a state that doesn't count? That is silly.

Venusian
02-21-08, 11:55 AM
i dont think it is entirely silly. people have said since last year that MI and FL delegates would probably be seated at the convention. most people just assumed their votes wouldn't matter.

X
02-21-08, 11:58 AM
So Obama decided to do a national buy the last couple of weeks in January when California and Florida were coming up. That explains why I saw his ads at that time. They "just happened" to have been shown in Florida, but I'm sure he really only intended them to be seen in the states that counted.

Has he been buying national ads since then? Because I sure haven't seen any more of them.

Pharoh
02-21-08, 11:59 AM
So you think that he paid for national ads, solely to get the ad aired in a state that doesn't count? That is silly.



No, rather they could have waited for a national ad buy until after Florida, or gone with state buys instead, regardless of the cost differences.

He broke the spirit of the pledge. It really is that simple.

Red Dog
02-21-08, 12:00 PM
I certainly understand national buys in the weeks leading into Super Tuesday. It makes far more sense than buying local ad time in each of the states, particularly on cable. The latter is likely more expensive and far more labor intensive.

Jeremy517
02-21-08, 12:02 PM
Has he been buying national ads since then? Because I sure haven't seen any more of them.

It makes sense to buy national ads in the weeks leading up to a day with 22 primaries. It does not make sense to buy national ads in the weeks leading up to days with 3 primaries.

JasonF
02-21-08, 12:04 PM
It makes sense to buy national ads in the weeks leading up to a day with 22 primaries. It does not make sense to buy national ads in the weeks leading up to days with 3 primaries.

:up:

Some of the attacks on Senator Obama are downright silly. Is it time to start talking about "Obama Derrangement Syndrome" yet? ;)

X
02-21-08, 12:05 PM
It makes sense to buy national ads in the weeks leading up to a day with 22 primaries. It does not make sense to buy national ads in the weeks leading up to days with 3 primaries.I can believe that. I can't believe that they didn't think of the side benefit of it as well though.

NCMojo
02-21-08, 12:13 PM
so what happens after the next round of primaries when it becomes official that neither candidate can get the number of delegates needed to win without superdelegate support? Will the pressure increase for the candidate with fewer delegates to quit? Will they fall for it?
My take is yes and yes. If Hillary doesn't win outright in both Texas and Ohio, there will be enormous pressure on her to drop out. As much as she may want to win the Presidency, she won't be able to count on universal superdelegate support -- and she'd probably need it to win the nomination.

Similarly, if Clinton does make an incredible comeback and takes the lead in delegates -- if she spanks Obama Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and then upsets Obama in several southern states -- Obama will probably bow to political pressure and try and capture a VP nod. In any event, I don't see any way this makes it all the way to the convention in June.

NCMojo
02-21-08, 12:18 PM
:up:

Some of the attacks on Senator Obama are downright silly. Is it time to start talking about "Obama Derrangement Syndrome" yet? ;)
Dammit! I'll bet you already have that term trademarked, don't you? And to think I bet my fortune on HRC™. :mad:

Venusian
02-21-08, 12:20 PM
I doubt either would select other as the VP, but who knows.

Obama has a lot of political future left in him, does Hillary? She can always come back in 4 or 8 years, but it is harder for her than Obama. But I don't think that matters much to the party officials who want a clean convention.


I doubt either will blow each other out in any of those states. What happens if TX/OH split on them? Do we look to some other state?

NCMojo
02-21-08, 12:24 PM
I doubt either would select other as the VP, but who knows.

Obama has a lot of political future left in him, does Hillary? She can always come back in 4 or 8 years, but it is harder for her than Obama. But I don't think that matters much to the party officials who want a clean convention.


I doubt either will blow each other out in any of those states. What happens if TX/OH split on them? Do we look to some other state?
No. She would need knockout wins in Texas and Ohio in order to reclaim... Obamomentum.

Ha! I've got that sucker mailed off to the Patent Office as we speak, JasonF. Beat that!

Venusian
02-21-08, 12:28 PM
let's say she wins both states, but not by a big margin. You think she'd still quit? I doubt it. She needs a reason to quit. If she loses both states, I could see it

nemein
02-21-08, 12:47 PM
let's say she wins both states, but not by a big margin. You think she'd still quit? I doubt it. She needs a reason to quit. If she loses both states, I could see it

I don't. I think she'll fight it out until the end banking on the superdelegates. Her campaign has pretty much have stated as much actually. Now if those delegates start to jump ship that'll be a different story, but I don't think any of them are yet.

NCMojo
02-21-08, 12:49 PM
let's say she wins both states, but not by a big margin. You think she'd still quit? I doubt it. She needs a reason to quit. If she loses both states, I could see it
Well, Texas has proportional assignment of delegates -- so if Hillary does win and win big, she'll lose a big chunk of delegates. And even though Ohio is "winner take all"... what HRC really needs to get back is momentum. Barack Obama seems like the frontrunner right now, and the Democratic Party definitely wants to annoint him as the presumptive nominee as soon as possible.

But again... it's waaay too early to count Hillary out.

Venusian
02-21-08, 12:50 PM
a couple of them have...John Lewis is talking about jumping ship.

Venusian
02-21-08, 12:54 PM
i didn't realize ohio was winner takes all...that makes it a bigger deal than texas imho

NCMojo
02-21-08, 12:55 PM
I don't. I think she'll fight it out until the end banking on the superdelegates. They pretty much have stated as much actually. No if those delegates start to jump ship that'll be a different story, but I don't think any of them are yet.
Hillary can't "bank" on any superdelegates. If Obama looks to be the presumptive nominee -- especially if he can carry Ohio or Texas -- then most of the superdelegates that are "committed" to Hillary Clinton will switch sides. Above and beyond anything else, the Democrats want to recapture the White House, and no amount of armtwisting, or calling in favors, or promising sweet cabinet posts, will change that. In the end, all of the superdelegates will vote for whomever seems destined to win the nomination. Hillary can't even count on the 200-odd superdelegates who have publicly committed to her -- they'll vote with the majority if it even appears that they might be on the losing side.

NCMojo
02-21-08, 01:00 PM
i didn't realize ohio was winner takes all...that makes it a bigger deal than texas imho
I may be wrong about that. I can't find a good link... Wikipedia says that the delegates are proportional. I know it's an open primary (which is good for Obama, bad for Clinton)... any help, guys?

VinVega
02-21-08, 01:01 PM
Hillary can't "bank" on any superdelegates. If Obama looks to be the presumptive nominee -- especially if he can carry Ohio or Texas -- then most of the superdelegates that are "committed" to Hillary Clinton will switch sides. Above and beyond anything else, the Democrats want to recapture the White House, and no amount of armtwisting, or calling in favors, or promising sweet cabinet posts, will change that. In the end, all of the superdelegates will vote for whomever seems destined to win the nomination. Hillary can't even count on the 200-odd superdelegates who have publicly committed to her -- they'll vote with the majority if it even appears that they might be on the losing side.
Agreed. I don't think the superdelegates would want to tear the party apart or have the fact that they went against the will of the voters on their hands. A lot of them will be running for office in the future.

nemein
02-21-08, 01:02 PM
Hillary can't "bank" on any superdelegates.

Someone should tell her campaign that ;)

Venusian
02-21-08, 01:02 PM
I may be wrong about that. I can't find a good link... Wikipedia says that the delegates are proportional. I know it's an open primary (which is good for Obama, bad for Clinton)... any help, guys?

I don't understand what this means


http://innovation.cq.com/primaries?tab=2

141 pledged, 20 unpledged. Of the 141 pledged: 92 are district-level delegates who will be selected at a pre-primary caucus Jan. 3, 2008 and then certified by Ohio Democratic Party to DNC Secretary within three days after their election is certified by the Secretary of State in early April; 18 pledged PLEOs will be selected at the State Executive Committee meeting on May 10, 2008; and 31 at-large delegates who will be selected by the state executive committee on May 10.Of the 20 unpledged: 10 are DNC members, 7 are Dem members of Congress, 1 is Dem Gov. Ted Strickland; they will be confirmed by DNC Secretary to Ohio Dem Party by March 1, 2008. The 2 remaining unpledged delegates are add-ons who will be selected May 10, 2008 by the state Democratic executive committee after being nominated by the state chair.

Jeremy517
02-21-08, 01:02 PM
I may be wrong about that. I can't find a good link... Wikipedia says that the delegates are proportional. I know it's an open primary (which is good for Obama, bad for Clinton)... any help, guys?

The Democratic Party doesn't allow winner-take-all.

Venusian
02-21-08, 01:03 PM
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/OH-D.phtml

proportional again

classicman2
02-21-08, 01:18 PM
Agreed. I don't think the superdelegates would want to tear the party apart or have the fact that they went against the will of the voters on their hands. A lot of them will be running for office in the future.

The stated purpose of the super delegates (reason for their being) is they would use reason in determining who they thought would be the best candidate for the party. They knew that voters often times leave reason outside of the voting booth, and may not be so concerned about the party.

Speaking of the will of the voters - what would the super delegates do if Clinton wins 7 of the largest 8 states? Could that sway them into thinking that Clinton was the best candidate for the party?

Venusian
02-21-08, 01:20 PM
the point of the superdelegates doesn't matter to the voters. There are many adamant Obama supporters out there that would be pissed off enough to not vote in November if superdelegates overturn the "will of the voters". Are there enough of them to make a difference? Who knows

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 01:23 PM
let's say she wins both states, but not by a big margin. You think she'd still quit? I doubt it. She needs a reason to quit. If she loses both states, I could see it

Latest math I saw has Clinton needing to win in TX and OH with at least 65% of the vote. I don't see that happening.

classicman2
02-21-08, 01:25 PM
the point of the superdelegates doesn't matter to the voters. There are many adamant Obama supporters out there that would be pissed off enough to not vote in November if superdelegates overturn the "will of the voters". Are there enough of them to make a difference? Who knows

You missed the point, but we'll move on.

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 01:28 PM
Speaking of the will of the voters - what would the super delegates do if Clinton wins 7 of the largest 8 states? Could that sway them into thinking that Clinton was the best candidate for the party?

Why does this matter?

For one thing, Obama has the lead in the total popular vote. For another, Clinton isn't running to be president of New Califlorjerchusettes, last time I checked.

Venusian
02-21-08, 01:31 PM
info on delegates from a reliable source ;)

http://www.delegatehub.com/

Venusian
02-21-08, 01:33 PM
You missed the point, but we'll move on.
i must have. please explain.


if superdelegates are supposed to vote for what's best for the party, they should remember that if they vote against the person with the most votes in the primaries they are going to disillusion a lot of voters in the party. That should play into what is best for the party

wishbone
02-21-08, 01:36 PM
The stated purpose of the super delegates (reason for their being) is they would use reason in determining who they thought would be the best candidate for the party. They knew that voters often times leave reason outside of the voting booth, and may not be so concerned about the party.So when voting for the best party candidate the "electoral" system is fine but when voting for the president it should be the popular vote that counts? "You can vote for the president of your choice so long as it is our choice." :confused:

Venusian
02-21-08, 01:38 PM
i dont think cman has been against the electoral college.

VinVega
02-21-08, 01:38 PM
i must have. please explain.


if superdelegates are supposed to vote for what's best for the party, they should remember that if they vote against the person with the most votes in the primaries they are going to disillusion a lot of voters in the party. That should play into what is best for the party
The interesting thing is in this case I think if the SD overturned the popular vote in favor of Obama, there would be less disillusionment on the Clinton supporters' side because older voters would go and vote anyway. Obama has a lot of young voters who tend to be less reliable and would possibly not vote if the SD overturned in favor of Clinton.

Venusian
02-21-08, 01:43 PM
I don't see why the SD would overturn a Clinton win though. I suspect they'll be pressured to go with whoever has the most votes/delegates (hopefully the same) on convention day. The other person will be told of this strategy and highly encouraged to drop out

VinVega
02-21-08, 01:50 PM
I don't see why the SD would overturn a Clinton win though. I suspect they'll be pressured to go with whoever has the most votes/delegates (hopefully the same) on convention day. The other person will be told of this strategy and highly encouraged to drop out
I don't think they would either since she has them lobbied into her corner anyway, I was just speaking hypothetically and emphasizing that if the SD do work to overturn towards Hillary, it could hurt WRT young voters in Nov. They tend to be a little flaky anyway, so there is an unknown when it comes to them.

Chew
02-21-08, 01:53 PM
ABC News last night did a little math and they said Hillary needs 60% of the remaining available delegates, which means she has to start winning with a bigger percentage of the vote than Obama just got in Wisconsin from here on out.

Don't see that happening.

JasonF
02-21-08, 02:06 PM
I may be wrong about that. I can't find a good link... Wikipedia says that the delegates are proportional. I know it's an open primary (which is good for Obama, bad for Clinton)... any help, guys?

Ohio is not winner take all. There are no winner take all Democratic contests (primaries or caucuses).

belboz
02-21-08, 02:20 PM
I expect we'll get an idea of what Hillary is thinking at the debate tonight. If she comes out swinging, she's likely in this until the bitter (and it will be very bitter) end. If it's more like the last debate, it may indicate that reality has set in and she's vying for some kind of consolation prize (or to just raise more money so she can pay off her campaign debts).

classicman2
02-21-08, 02:45 PM
So when voting for the best party candidate the "electoral" system is fine but when voting for the president it should be the popular vote that counts? "You can vote for the president of your choice so long as it is our choice." :confused:

The popular vote doesn't necessarily who wins the most delegates of a state - does it?

Is it not possible for a candidate to win the overall popular vote of the state and still not win more delegates than the opponent?

NCMojo
02-21-08, 02:58 PM
i dont think cman has been against the electoral college.
P'shaw. He's still bitter from the way those "12th Amendment" do-gooders screwed things up in 1803.

NCMojo
02-21-08, 03:09 PM
The stated purpose of the super delegates (reason for their being) is they would use reason in determining who they thought would be the best candidate for the party. They knew that voters often times leave reason outside of the voting booth, and may not be so concerned about the party.

Speaking of the will of the voters - what would the super delegates do if Clinton wins 7 of the largest 8 states? Could that sway them into thinking that Clinton was the best candidate for the party?
See, this is one of the arguments defending these "superdelegates" that makes me the most upset. The idea that we don't know what's good for us, so we need a group of "wiser" gentlemen speaking for us, is distinctly undemocratic. It is bitterly ironic coming from the so-called "Democratic" Party. It makes a mockery of the entire primary system.

Mark my words... if Barack Obama wins the majority of delegates before the Denver convention, only to see the DLC hand the nomination over to Hillary Clinton (or vice versa)... I will never call myself a Democrat again. And I do not think I will be alone.

Pharoh
02-21-08, 03:20 PM
See, this is one of the arguments defending these "superdelegates" that makes me the most upset. The idea that we don't know what's good for us, so we need a group of "wiser" gentlemen speaking for us, is distinctly undemocratic. It is bitterly ironic coming from the so-called "Democratic" Party. It makes a mockery of the entire primary system.

Mark my words... if Barack Obama wins the majority of delegates before the Denver convention, only to see the DLC hand the nomination over to Hillary Clinton (or vice versa)... I will never call myself a Democrat again. And I do not think I will be alone.



You do realise though the perjorative original connotations of the word Democracy? And accept the concept as preached and practiced by the Founders & Framers from your neck of the woods?

I get what you are saying, but the primaries were not intended to simply be a popular referendum, but rather as C-Man pointed out to nominate the candidate best equipped to win the general election.

Don't worry, it will only come to Super Delegates if the candidates are close enough with no possibility of one winning enough on their own. If Mr. Obama wins either Texas or Ohio it will be over.

classicman2
02-21-08, 03:26 PM
See, this is one of the arguments defending these "superdelegates" that makes me the most upset. The idea that we don't know what's good for us, so we need a group of "wiser" gentlemen speaking for us, is distinctly undemocratic. It is bitterly ironic coming from the so-called "Democratic" Party. It makes a mockery of the entire primary system.

Mark my words... if Barack Obama wins the majority of delegates before the Denver convention, only to see the DLC hand the nomination over to Hillary Clinton (or vice versa)... I will never call myself a Democrat again. And I do not think I will be alone.

What if Clinton receives the most popular votes?

Venusian
02-21-08, 03:26 PM
they may not be intended for that, but i'm guessing a sizeable portion of the population that voted in democratic primaries don't know that.

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 03:34 PM
What if Clinton receives the most popular votes?

There is no way that is going to happen at this point.

classicman2
02-21-08, 03:37 PM
<i>Mod note: more generalizations removed...</i>

classicman2
02-21-08, 03:43 PM
There is no way that is going to happen at this point.


What's Obama's popular vote lead counting FL & MI?

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 03:46 PM
What's Obama's popular vote lead counting FL & MI?

I don't know, I don't do research for you. When you find out let us know.

Iron Chef
02-21-08, 03:50 PM
States Awarding Delegates

Total Vote %
Obama 9,373,334 50%
Clinton 8,674,779 46%
Others 726,095 4%

With Florida
Total Vote %
Obama 9,942,375 49%
Clinton 9,531,987 46%
Others 984,236 4%

With Florida and Michigan
Total Vote %
Obama 9,942,375 47%
Clinton 9,860,138 47%
Others 1,249,922 6%

Iron Chef
02-21-08, 03:50 PM
google is your friend

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 03:53 PM
Wow, look at that. Even counting FL, Obama is ahead.

Counting MI just makes it extremely apparent that one is grasping at straws, as Obama was not on the ballot there.

classicman2
02-21-08, 03:54 PM
If my math is correct, Clinton trails Obama by 81,353 votes.

You don't believe that the SDs are going to take into account the popular vote if they are the ultimate decision makers?

parrotheads4
02-21-08, 04:30 PM
This has prabably been discussed, but it seems worth bringing up again:

A couple of weeks ago Howard Stern was discussing super delegates. It was brought up that one of the super delegates was a college kid in his early 20's. It turns out Bill Clinton had been calling him in an effort to buy his vote. I can't believe this is allowed. I want to be a super delegate. Maybe Bill can hook me up with an intern with really nice lips.

X
02-21-08, 04:38 PM
This has prabably been discussed, but it seems worth bringing up again:

A couple of weeks ago Howard Stern was discussing super delegates. It was brought up that one of the super delegates was a college kid in his early 20's. It turns out Bill Clinton had been calling him in an effort to buy his vote. I can't believe this is allowed. I want to be a super delegate. Maybe Bill can hook me up with an intern with really nice lips.Bill hooked him up with Chelsea for breakfast.

Superdelegate schmoozed by Chelsea backs Obama
Posted: 10:15 AM ET

(CNN) – A few weeks ago, 21-year-old Wisconsin superdelegate Jason Rae was taken out to breakfast by Chelsea Clinton in the runup to that state’s Democratic primary.

Two days after the vote, the college junior – who will be the youngest superdelegate at this year’s Democratic National Convention — is undecided no longer: he’s backing Barack Obama.

“The Democratic Party is fortunate to have two very talented individuals running for President this election,” said Rae in a statement released by the Obama campaign Thursday. “It is a difficult choice for anyone, but in the end, the choice for me has become clear. I am proudly supporting Senator Barack Obama.”

He cited Obama’s support from an overwhelming majority of young voters as the major reason for his decision.

The Democratic Party’s roughly 800 superdelegates – who can cast their votes for any candidate they choose, regardless of their state’s primary or caucus results – have been at the center of a fierce lobbying effort by the campaigns of both Barack Obama and Chelsea Clinton’s mother, Hillary Clinton.

Rae, a Marquette University history and political science major, talked political strategy and electability over a half-hour breakfast with the former First Daughter a little more than a week before his state’s February 19 primary.

He said then he had also been called by former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who tried to convince him to vote for Clinton, and by Sen. John Kerry, who urged him to back Obama. He also spoke with Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/21/superdelegate-schmoozed-by-chelsea-backs-obamaDidn't work out so good.

Jericho
02-21-08, 04:45 PM
Who wins Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would probably be best for the party. But then, Michigan and Florida haven't counted for squat yet.

Groucho
02-21-08, 05:43 PM
How does a 21-year-old college student become a superdelegate?

JasonF
02-21-08, 06:15 PM
How does a 21-year-old college student become a superdelegate?

First, you become a member of the DNC ...

He was elected to be a delegate as a 17-year-old and from there got involved with the DNC.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/speakout/mystory/jason_democrat_delegate.html

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=241657

Red Dog
02-21-08, 06:27 PM
How does a 21-year-old college student become a superdelegate?


He probably wore a cape at the '04 convention.

Brent L
02-21-08, 08:03 PM
For a second there I thought Obama was about to jump over the table and beat Clinton down. :lol:

Willy
02-21-08, 08:09 PM
Damn ever since Hillary brought up the plagerism he is so going after her.... it's on woot

General Zod
02-21-08, 08:52 PM
He probably wore a cape at the '04 convention.
:lol:

parrotheads4
02-21-08, 09:04 PM
I came away from the debate thinking there is no way I could vote for either of these two candidates.

Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be preparing for a VP position. It was very nice and sweet tonight. It's got me thinking she'll go for VP, then have Bill's goons take out Obama, and .....ta da! Mrs. President!

MartinBlank
02-21-08, 09:11 PM
“Change you can Xerox”

<embed width="425" height="355" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4lowGc16Xy8&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed>

:lol: And I'm sure she came up with that on her own :rolleyes:

Brent L
02-21-08, 09:14 PM
For the longest time I was thinking that there wasn't a chance in the world that Clinton would accept the VP spot, but then it just hit me that there is one, and only one, reason that she would ever accept. I just didn't want to mention it.

maingon
02-21-08, 09:18 PM
Hillarys “Change you can Xerox”" just made her laughable, Things like this makes her seem really desperate. Obama came across very well tonight. Politico.com showed that her last line was almost the same thing Edwards said as his last line during his last debate.

Willy
02-21-08, 09:19 PM
Clinton Tonight: ?

You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.?


Edwards the December 13 debate:

?What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine.?




odd

onebyone
02-21-08, 09:27 PM
I thought that was a really good line for her at the time. I cannot believe I did not recognize it, I liked it the first time too. :lol:

MartinBlank
02-21-08, 09:31 PM
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9605/clipboard01lt9.jpg

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/obamaspot.asx

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/obamaspot2.asx

I can't wait until actual issues get discussed.

Tracer Bullet
02-21-08, 09:32 PM
So Clinton is plagiarizing now?

JasonF
02-21-08, 09:35 PM
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9605/clipboard01lt9.jpg

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/obamaspot.asx

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/obamaspot2.asx

I can't wait until actual issues get discussed.

Issues like "should we double Guantanamo, or super extra double it?"

These debates have been no less and no more substantive than just about every other debate during every other election cycle.

MBoyd
02-21-08, 09:48 PM
Pat Buchanan just pronounced it pahlaygerized on MSNBC. :lol:

MartinBlank
02-21-08, 10:39 PM
Clinton Tonight: ?

You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.?


Edwards the December 13 debate:

?What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine.?




odd

<embed width="425" height="355" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5fBWxQqTxFw&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed>

The "echo" kicks in at about 2:40

MartinBlank
02-21-08, 10:42 PM
Err...um...uhh....

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZjZmA4YXFNo&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed>

I highly doubt his story...but what do I know? What we really need is change. And hope. And hope for change. :)

MartinBlank
02-21-08, 10:44 PM
That Line
02.21.08 -- 10:37PM
By Josh Marshall

I mentioned at the end of my debate blog that the pivot of Hillary's powerful concluding remarks came from Bill Clinton's 92 campaign. Clinton had various permutations to it back then. But TPM Reader CG found one example in this November 1992 article by Anna Quindlen ...

Clinton, 92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

Just to be 100% clear, there's nothing in the least wrong with this. And it's a great line. But I think it shows the silliness of the 'plagiarism' charges based on a few borrowed lines. Politicians borrow good lines and catch-phrases. Happens all the time. There's nothing wrong with it.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179614.php

I have no comment about this, I'm just sharing the information/observations.

JasonF
02-21-08, 10:55 PM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179614.php

I have no comment about this, I'm just sharing the information/observations.

And by "sharing the information/observations," you mean plagiarizing. -ohbfrank-

;)

kvrdave
02-21-08, 11:11 PM
Every time she goes in for the kill, she comes off looking terrible. But it is awesome that she is actually using past speaches of others as she attacks. :lol: In an internet world, I expect that to get more play than she would like and the hit to increase over the next few days.

NotThatGuy
02-21-08, 11:47 PM
http://www.obamaofdreams.com/index.html

:D

Shannon Nutt
02-22-08, 07:04 AM
I can't wait until actual issues get discussed.

Poor Barack...all he was doing in his early campaigning was discussing his stand on issues and his plans to make things right. He was way down in the polls, because he would go on and on and the media couldn't get any good "sound bites" from his speeches.

Then late last year he amped things up and gave more "motivational" stump speeches, and his poll numbers shot up, the media started covering him more and what happened? His opposition started to say he was all "words" and no detail! :(

His 45 minute speech after Wisconson was a good example of what he used to say in his stump speeches and the motivational stuff in his more recent speeches.

Hillary's doing a good job of talking about the issues as well....

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you think either one of these nominees hasn't been discussing the issues, you really haven't been paying attention (or your attention is limited to what the pundits and press have been saying).

classicman2
02-22-08, 08:14 AM
You can say a lot of things about Hillary & Bill Clinton.

Among them - they're both smart & realistic. I suppose one can equate realism with 'giving up' if one chooses to do so.

NotThatGuy
02-22-08, 09:35 AM
Yeah, that was not a concession speech. It was a reason to exploit national airtime. I haven't seen Clinton congratulate Obama on a win since Super Tuesday.

She has yet to show some class.

NCMojo
02-22-08, 11:07 AM
You can say a lot of things about Hillary & Bill Clinton.

Among them - they're both smart & realistic. I suppose one can equate realism with 'giving up' if one chooses to do so.
Another thing you can say -- they're both good Democrats. If Obama can win outright in Texas and/or Ohio... they'll step aside.

Speaking of which -- Keith Olbermann last night kept showing the "concillitory handshake" scene from the debate last night over and over again. What does it mean, he kept asking. What does it mean???

Well, it means just what it seemed to mean -- that Hillary will still be an active Senator, that she will still be a political force, if she loses in 2008. Actually, she'll be in really good shape in 2012 if either Obama wins (and struggles) or McCain wins.

kvrdave
02-22-08, 11:20 AM
Hillary is damn near too old now. She won't run in 2012. I think this is her best shot. If she could have started her Senate career 1 term earlier than she did, she would be a lot better off.

Chew
02-22-08, 11:24 AM
Hillary is damn near too old now. She won't run in 2012. I think this is her best shot. If she could have started her Senate career 1 term earlier than she did, she would be a lot better off.

She's still younger than McCain was the last time he ran for president.

kvrdave
02-22-08, 11:34 AM
Yeah, but she is a woman.

Iron Chef
02-22-08, 11:45 AM
plastic surgery

NCMojo
02-22-08, 11:46 AM
Yeah, but she is a woman.
She'd be about the same age that Margaret Thatcher was when she took office. About the same as Indira Gandhi. Decades younger than Golda Meir.

:shrug:

Groucho
02-22-08, 11:48 AM
It was very telling that Hillary was getting booed during her "Xerox" line. Maybe NOW she'll get the message that this negative campaigning is not helping her at all.

classicman2
02-22-08, 12:08 PM
If you're critical of your opponents' proposals - that's negative campaigning.

If you make a comparison of your experience with your opponent's experience, you're accused of negative campaigning.

If you point out the differences between your plan and your opponent's plan, the media accuses you of negative campaigning.

If you want to see negative campaigning, wait until the nominees are selected. Then you'll 'be treated' to real negative campaigning. You'll see the Republican attack machine in full gear.

classicman2
02-22-08, 12:09 PM
btw: Real negative campaigning works.

classicman2
02-22-08, 12:15 PM
Many people's definition of negative campaigning: The campaign that is being waged by the opponent of the candidate you support.

On the other hand, the campaign that is being waged by your guy/gal is a positive campaign.

Tracer Bullet
02-22-08, 12:16 PM
Yeah, but she is a woman.

:lol: Ouch.

Sad but true.

JasonF
02-22-08, 12:22 PM
Is it negative campaigning if you make three substantively identical posts in a row with nobody replying to you?

Groucho
02-22-08, 12:22 PM
Come on, c-man. You don't think that attacking your opponents supporters (as Clinton did last night referencing the YouTube video) is negative campaigning? It's surely a bad idea. "You people are all dumb. Don't be stupid, be a smarty. Come and join the Clinton party!"

A few weeks ago Clinton was considered a lock in Texas. Now she's getting boos. And she only has herself to blame.

classicman2
02-22-08, 12:40 PM
Is it negative campaigning if you make three substantively identical posts in a row with nobody replying to you?

Pls. provide the forum with your definition of negative campaigning.

X
02-22-08, 12:41 PM
Is it negative campaigning if you make three substantively identical posts in a row with nobody replying to you?I'm not sure about that. But it seems I've heard that catchphrase about "negative campaigning being what your opponent does" before. Would that be plagiarism?

classicman2
02-22-08, 12:44 PM
Come on, c-man. You don't think that attacking your opponents supporters (as Clinton did last night referencing the YouTube video) is negative campaigning? It's surely a bad idea. "You people are all dumb. Don't be stupid, be a smarty. Come and join the Clinton party!"

A few weeks ago Clinton was considered a lock in Texas. Now she's getting boos. And she only has herself to blame.

I don't remember saying that Clinton hasn't used negative campaigning.

btw: So has Obama.

I've never seen a state or national campaign run that didn't have some negative campaigning in it.

The reason it's used - it works.

nemein
02-22-08, 12:51 PM
"You people are all dumb. Don't be stupid, be a smarty. Come and join the Clinton party!"


Plagiarist -ohbfrank-

Shannon Nutt
02-22-08, 01:20 PM
It was very telling that Hillary was getting booed during her "Xerox" line. Maybe NOW she'll get the message that this negative campaigning is not helping her at all.

I figured half those "boos" were proably just groans - it's not a very funny line.

JasonF
02-22-08, 01:34 PM
Pls. provide the forum with your definition of negative campaigning.

Broadly speaking, campaigning on why the voters should not vote for the other guy (as opposed to campaigning on why the voters should vote for you).

JasonF
02-22-08, 01:38 PM
In other news, Senator Clinton sat down with Texas Monthly and gave an interview:

TM: There’s been a lot of talk about what your campaign would do should it get to the convention. Would you commit today to honoring the agreement made earlier not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations?

HC: Let’s talk about the agreement. The only agreement I entered into was not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. It had nothing to do with not seating the delegates. I think that’s an important distinction. I did not campaign--

TM: The press seems to have missed the distinction if that’s the case. The talk is that you agreed not to seat the delegation.

HC: That’s not the case at all. I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that. I think it’s important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC’s decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat.

TM: So your intention is to press this issue?

Yes, it is. Yes, it is. It’s in large measure because both the voters and elected officials in Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about this. Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, early on in the process actually sued because he thinks it’s absurd on its face that 1.7 million Democrats who eventually voted would basically be disregarded, and I agree with him about that.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/polldancing/2008/02/hillary-seat-michigan-florida-delegates.php

As an aside, I love the logo Texas Monthly uses for their Election 2008 coverage:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/images/blogs/blog_headers_polldancing.gif

Tracer Bullet
02-22-08, 01:41 PM
In the spirit of the above, there's this gem from the Clinton campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22cnd-campaign.html

DALLAS — With the mood of her campaign darkened by the death of a motorcycle officer escorting her motorcade Friday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed to carry her campaign beyond the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, despite the lengthening odds of her capturing the Democratic presidential nomination.

She's not going to give up until either Obama or McCain are sworn in, is she?

Michael T Hudson
02-22-08, 01:47 PM
In the spirit of the above, there's this gem from the Clinton campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22cnd-campaign.html



She's not going to give up until either Obama or McCain are sworn in, is she?


I am not a fan of hers but I don't think this should have anything at all to do if she stays in the race.

Brent L
02-22-08, 02:08 PM
Here is a video comparing Clinton's final lines last night to those of Edwards at his last debate:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zAYItnI-lPo&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zAYItnI-lPo&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

nemein
02-22-08, 02:53 PM
She's not going to give up until either Obama or McCain are sworn in, is she?

It does seem she is going to go down fighting, whether that's against Obama or McCain. Part of me would almost like to see her get the nomination so that she'll lose the election and hopefully that'll be the end of her notion of running again (although that's probably unlikely too). However, the odds are so much against the Reps this year I don't trust she'll lose so the sooner she's out the better. Overall I just want both of these families, Clinton and Bush, to go the fuck away... IMHO we've had enough of both of them.

Tracer Bullet
02-22-08, 03:01 PM
Overall I just want both of these families, Clinton and Bush, to go the fuck away... IMHO we've had enough of both of them.

:thumbsup:

chowderhead
02-22-08, 03:03 PM
If you're critical of your opponents' proposals - that's negative campaigning.

If you make a comparison of your experience with your opponent's experience, you're accused of negative campaigning.

If you point out the differences between your plan and your opponent's plan, the media accuses you of negative campaigning.

If you want to see negative campaigning, wait until the nominees are selected. Then you'll 'be treated' to real negative campaigning. You'll see the Republican attack machine in full gear.

you forgot the part where the media is pulling for Clinton to go negative. The pundits all saying she has to "do something" to shake things up or else she cannot thwart his momentum. The moment she does attack his record or his experience or makes any charges, the media will jump on her and say she is going negative and she is desperate, etc. Obama has attacked Clinton's record and in debates but it is Clinton who gets the negative press. We will see if the media's lovefest with Obama continues throughout the summer/fall.

JasonF
02-22-08, 04:23 PM
Err...um...uhh....

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZjZmA4YXFNo&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed>

I highly doubt his story...but what do I know? What we really need is change. And hope. And hope for change. :)

Here's a fact check on that story:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0