US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-02-2008, 03:18 PM   #421
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
The woman is clueless.
Yeah, I'm sure.

Says the guy of the party whose candidates: didn't know the USSR was no longer with us (Thompson), completely wrongly stated that Bhutto's assassination was bad for the U.S. because Pakistanis make the 2nd largest group of illegal immigrants and that Pakistan has no control of its eastern border with Afghanistan, nevermind that's the border with India (Huckabee), referred to Barack Obama as "Osama" (Romney), didn't know that the US gradually withdrew forces from Vietnam according to a timetable (Giuliani), stated that he wasn't sure whether condoms prevented the spread of AIDS (McCain).

I guess you won't be voting for such clueless candidates?
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:03 PM   #422
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 07:17 PM
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 05:20 PM   #423
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 09:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Yeah, I'm sure.

Says the guy of the party whose candidates: didn't know the USSR was no longer with us (Thompson), completely wrongly stated that Bhutto's assassination was bad for the U.S. because Pakistanis make the 2nd largest group of illegal immigrants and that Pakistan has no control of its eastern border with Afghanistan, nevermind that's the border with India (Huckabee), referred to Barack Obama as "Osama" (Romney), didn't know that the US gradually withdrew forces from Vietnam according to a timetable (Giuliani), stated that he wasn't sure whether condoms prevented the spread of AIDS (McCain).

I guess you won't be voting for such clueless candidates?
This is my favorite post of the week!!!
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-02-2008, 05:47 PM   #424
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 04:17 AM
Looks like every candidate has his weak moment and says something unfavorable.

But when a whole foreign policy program screams of cluelessness (e.g. Guiliani) I would be far more concerned than a single quote.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 05:53 PM   #425
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:17 PM
McCain >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other GOP Candidates

Dems >>>>>>>>>>>>>> McCain
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 06:10 PM   #426
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 11:17 PM
Rudy's campaign is going down in flames if the desparation this new ad gives off is any indication.

Fuckin' 'ell - disgustingly bad political ad.

__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 08:09 PM   #427
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 09:17 PM
Wow.

Vote for me or the bogeyman will get you.



Utterly shameless and despicable. That's the kind of ad that should sink a career.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-02-2008, 08:12 PM   #428
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 10:17 PM
That is an embarrassment. Shameless, disgusting, lame and really, really intellectually lazy.

Thankfully Giuliani is done.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-03-2008, 07:46 AM   #429
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:17 AM
All of the Republicans, except for Ron Paul, want to keep us in Iraq.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 08:16 AM   #430
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 11:17 PM
Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul!!!!!!




Anyway, on a serious note, I am eagerly awaiting the Iowa shenanigans today. Nothing like letting a small group of earnest, elderly white people kick off the election season Obama's folks better be able to get the young'ins out to the caucuses, that's all I can say.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 08:40 AM   #431
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:17 PM
Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008
Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 01:32 PM   #432
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:17 PM
NY Times

January 3, 2008
Domestic Issues Now Outweigh Iraq
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

DES MOINES — The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are navigating a far different set of issues as they approach the Iowa caucuses on Thursday than when they first started campaigning here a year ago, and that is likely to change even more as the campaigns move to New Hampshire and across the country.

Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes.

The shift suggests that economic anxiety may be at least matching national security as a factor driving the 2008 presidential contest as the voting begins.

The campaigns are moving to recalibrate what they are saying amid signs of this changing backdrop; gone are the days when debates and television advertisements were filled with references to Iraq.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York recently produced a television advertisement that attacked the Bush administration for failing to deal with “America’s housing crisis.” Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican, has begun talking about expanding health care coverage, an issue of particular concern in New Hampshire.

“People say that health care is a Democratic issue,” he said. “Baloney.”

John Edwards of North Carolina has a ready answer when asked about immigration at rallies here — a subject that rarely if ever came up at Democratic gatherings a year ago. He drew cheers at a New Year’s Day rally in Ames when he said that while he would support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, he would insist that none could become naturalized “until they learned to speak English.”

Part of the shift appears to stem from the reduction in violence in Iraq after President Bush’s decision to send more troops there last year. Mrs. Clinton, who once faced intense opposition from her party’s left over her vote to authorize the war, now is rarely pressed on it, though Democrats say it continues be a drag on her in this state. Senator John McCain, a strong proponent of increased troop levels, is off of the defensive and now positions himself as having been prescient about what would work to quell the violence.

“You see much more concern about the economy,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist. “You see much more concern about health care. When we started it was principally concern about the war, and now it’s a mix of war, the economy and health care.”

Alex Castellanos, a senior strategist for Mr. Romney, said much the same thing was happening on the Republican side and suggested that it may have contributed to the success of Mike Huckabee, the Republican former governor of Arkansas.

“As concern in the economy grows, you’ve seen in both parties this populist strain of appealing to voters,” Mr. Castellanos said.

The shift in emphasis is also a reflection of the fact that New Hampshire is, politically, a very different place from Iowa, especially for Republicans. A central part of the Republican appeal here has been to social conservatives on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage; they have far less sway in New Hampshire.

In that state, where the primary is held Jan. 8, Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney and Mrs. Clinton have begun broadcasting advertisements that talk about cutting taxes and reducing government spending. Both those issues have historically proved to have great resonance with New Hampshire voters, and particularly with independents who are allowed to vote in either primary.

This is not to suggest that Iraq is no longer a pressing issue for many voters. Senator Barack Obama points to his unwavering opposition to the war in a television advertisement being broadcast in the final hours here, and Mr. McCain is pointing to his early advocacy of increasing troop levels in Iraq as evidence that he had more national security credentials than Mr. Romney.

What has changed, though, is that the war in Iraq is far from the only issue driving this election, the result of the decline in carnage there and daily reports that the nation’s economy might be in trouble.

“I still think the war is a real important issue,” said David Axelrod, a senior strategist for Mr. Obama. “But the sense of economic insecurity has grown and pushed those other issues up on the list of concerns.”

That has become increasingly evident in what the candidates are hearing from voters. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were pressed on Social Security, gaps in Medicare coverage, the economic threat to middle class from the alternative minimum tax and rising energy costs. All the candidates are hearing, at virtually every stop, questions about immigration and trade deals.

And it was increasingly evident in what the candidates were choosing to say at a time when they were enjoying as big as a stage as they will during this caucus season. In his speeches, Mr. Obama is spending less time speaking about the war than he once did, instead talking about a “retirement system that is in tatters,” and the loss of jobs to Mexico. Mr. McCain talked about Iraq and Pakistan, but moved to on to talk about education, health care and global warming.

“There are a number of challenges facing us domestically,” Mr. McCain said Wednesday in Londonderry, N.H.

Mrs. Clinton is devoting a long portion of her closing speech to health care. Mr. Huckabee’s closing stump speech is devoted to economic anxiety, as he criticizes Wall Street and hedge funds managers and says that the wealthy cannot understand the concerns of everyday people.

And Mr. Edwards on Wednesday seized on the news that oil prices had reached $100 a barrel to reprise the populist message that long ago eclipsed the war as the central thrust of the campaign. “Today’s report that the price of oil has reached $100 a barrel is just another example of how corporate greed is squeezing the middle class,” he said.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 09:49 PM   #433
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 10:17 PM
I heard a few news reports the last couple of days indicating that Illinois may actually be a battleground state this time around. That is excellent news. Time to get away from this blue-state tradition!
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 01-03-2008, 09:53 PM   #434
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,062
Local Time: 10:17 PM
I doubt that would be the case if Obama is the candidate, as it is his home state.
__________________
phanan is online now  
Old 01-03-2008, 09:53 PM   #435
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 09:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
I heard a few news reports the last couple of days indicating that Illinois may actually be a battleground state this time around. That is excellent news. Time to get away from this blue-state tradition!
Highly doubt it. Where did you hear this?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com