What was Obama thinking? Very difficult relationships to explain...... - Page 2 - 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 03-02-2008, 03:49 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
My question to you is this: Why is it that you think Hillary Clinton won't be as alienating as everyone who supports Obama thinks she will be?


because after the nominations are in

it really only comes down to

choice A or B


in 2000 the country changed courses radically from the previous administration

if people want change

McCain will seem to represent the Bush Administration

And Hillary can be said to represent Bill Clinton’s Administration.


A change (even back to that) would be welcomed by more than a McCain’s perceived continuation of the Bush policies.



The debates with McCain will give her enough of an opportunity for the swing voters/ and independents to reconsider


Keep in mind
her votes in her 2006 senate race went way up over 2000, she did much better with white males and GOP voters in 2006.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 03:56 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2isthebest
Exactly. I was extremely disappointed at the New York Times story on McCain, and I don't think my dislike for him and disagreement with him on nearly every issue is a big secret around here. To me it just reeked of a witch hunt based on nothing but bias and unprofessional journalism, and I usually like the Times. The aspect of insinuating a possible intimate relationship between McCain and the lobbbyist was no different than Ken Starr's sexual McCarthyism ( a term I love borrowed from Tom Brokaw) on Bill Clinton. Granted they did make the political relationship more of a focus than the possible sexual one, it still demonstrated an attempt to smear McCain, regardless of the reporters' intentions. We clearly don't and probably never will know all that went down between McCain and said lobbyist and on a personal level, it's none of our business. However, the article didn't even have any substantial evidence to prove there were any shady political dealings between them either. It read like an Us Weekly article with "A source said a friend of a friend had a brother whose third cousin twice removed saw/heard/thougt McCain....". It was a very sloppy article that was poor investigative journalism and a complete lack of professionalism. There was no real evidence or facts raised to support the claims of the article nor are there with these ones about Obama. I'm not angry with the article because Obama is the candidate I'm supporting, I'm angry because it's transparently biased and sloppy journalism that is a not-so-veiled attempt at slander. I was just as upset at the McCain situation for the same reason.


i do agree that there was really nothing there with the NYT McCain article


but the same claim can not be made regarding this Obama story


Quote:
Federal prosecutors have accused Rezko and an associate (who turned state's evidence) of operating a "pay to play" scheme: investment firms allegedly had to pay kickbacks or make political contributions to get money from the Illinois teachers' pension fund.

In a court filing, prosecutors described how $10,000 of alleged finder's fee money was subsequently contributed to the campaign of an unnamed "political candidate" for whom Rezko was a fund-raiser.

Chicago media have reported that the money went to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign. A source close to the investigation, who asked for anonymity when discussing nonpublic information, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Obama is the unnamed political candidate.

Obama says he wrote the letter based on the project's merits. Even so, by Obama's own account his real-estate entanglement with Rezko was a "boneheaded" mistake.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:12 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


My question to you is this

I am very confident that McCain will beat Obama in Florida.

Obama has said he will meet with (Raul) Castro

If Obama wins Ohio convincingly on Tuesday,
that will add to the belief that he has a chance in Nov.
(good for him)

If he loses, by a fairly decent margin then his November election is over.

McCain takes Ohio, too.

November will be an Electoral College blow out, and Obama will take his place along side McGovern and Dukakis.


btw, Hillary would easily win BOTH Florida and Ohio.
(this is premised on her doing well in Ohio, tuesday)
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:16 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 03:25 PM
I don't think Hillary would easily win both Florida and Ohio, that's the difference.

However, I think Obama can win a few other states that went red last time around that Hillary won't.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:17 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:25 PM
What goes into your thinking about florida?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:19 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
If this really does cost Obama the election, and the American people vote for more years of war just because of this, then they can't blame anyone but themselves for being dumb.
The same could be said for those who hold the NYT article against McCain.

This to me is just as bad.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:21 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2isthebest


Exactly. I was extremely disappointed at the New York Times story on McCain, and I don't think my dislike for him and disagreement with him on nearly every issue is a big secret around here. To me it just reeked of a witch hunt based on nothing but bias and unprofessional journalism, and I usually like the Times. The aspect of insinuating a possible intimate relationship between McCain and the lobbbyist was no different than Ken Starr's sexual McCarthyism ( a term I love borrowed from Tom Brokaw) on Bill Clinton. Granted they did make the political relationship more of a focus than the possible sexual one, it still demonstrated an attempt to smear McCain, regardless of the reporters' intentions. We clearly don't and probably never will know all that went down between McCain and said lobbyist and on a personal level, it's none of our business. However, the article didn't even have any substantial evidence to prove there were any shady political dealings between them either. It read like an Us Weekly article with "A source said a friend of a friend had a brother whose third cousin twice removed saw/heard/thougt McCain....". It was a very sloppy article that was poor investigative journalism and a complete lack of professionalism. There was no real evidence or facts raised to support the claims of the article nor are there with these ones about Obama. I'm not angry with the article because Obama is the candidate I'm supporting, I'm angry because it's transparently biased and sloppy journalism that is a not-so-veiled attempt at slander. I was just as upset at the McCain situation for the same reason.
You have just taken a HUGE step up in my book. :O)
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:25 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
What goes into your thinking about florida?
It's gone Republican for two elections in a row. I know some minds change, and the representatives of the parties change, but I wouldn't describe it as easy.

Then, there's states like Wisconsin, Iowa, and Virginia that, as of right now, Obama would win while Clinton would lose, just to name a few examples.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:37 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Florida went Dem in 96 (bill Clinton) and Dem in 2000 (gore)
2000 was close, but more people went to the polls for Gore than Bush in 2000.
Pat Buchannan has said that thousands of Jewish retirees in Palm Beach did not vote for him, the ballot was flawed.

Anyway, I do believe based on the numbers in the non-campaign Dem primary and Clinton's and Gore's strong showing in 96/ 2000
Also, taken with Obama's alienation of the Cuban- Americans
-that Hillary is the Dems best hope in Florida


I do concede that based on current polling,
there are some purple states that Obama supporters believe may be attainable

but at the end of the day,
my concern is that these states will end up being a purplish-red.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:39 PM   #25
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


The same could be said for those who hold the NYT article against McCain.

This to me is just as bad.
Agreed.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:40 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:25 PM
The one thing in the Dem's favor is the turnout in the primary has been extraordinary.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:41 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:25 PM
I think some of this turn out is misleading


I know people that voted Obama in open primaries

that will be voting McCain in November
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:43 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Agreed.
Shit if we keep agreeing what fun is it in here?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:47 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:25 PM
just as bad

there really were no tangibles in the McCain story.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 04:49 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:25 PM
Oh I don't know, it seemed this has just as little meat to me.

Not to you?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

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 03:25 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