MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
namkcuR said:


Strongbow is Sting? Wow, I had no idea.

Isn't it obvious? His posting style is so distinctive as are his stances (I don't think I've ever met anyone else who will tell you with a straight face that we "actually" won in Vietnam). I'm usually terrible with alters but even I picked that one up pretty quickly.
 
Well he admitted it's him, he had an issue signing in as Sting so started a new one, I don't think he as trying to fool anyone with an alter.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well he admitted it's him, he had an issue signing in as Sting so started a new one, I don't think he as trying to fool anyone with an alter.

Well, even if he was, he couldn't have fooled me. :)
 
maycocksean said:
And I'd also add that Obama has done a lot to re-energize the electorate about the possiblities of what this country can do, especially among younger people. That is so important! Because when we become cynical and figure there's nothing we can do any way, then only the fringe types and moneyed lobbyists are active and we give up the reigns of the government that is supposedly ours.

Obama gives people a sense that they can still make a difference, that what they do does actually matter.

That is exactly right. No candidate is going to be exactly the way we want them to be, but he gives us a feeling that it's not about him... it's about US! And he is right!!

As far as joyfulgirl posting that she didn't like the fact that he voted to fund the war at every turn.. well that is NOT true. He spoke out AGAINST it to begin with and....he voted against funding the war and guess who was waiting in the wings to see which way he would vote at the last minute? Hillary. She didn't vote until he did and voted the same way AGAINST the funding so that they couldn't hold that over her head.

Here is the blurb from the Washington Post:

5/24/07 Vote 181: SENATOR OBAMA VOTE: NO

On the Motion: This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24. The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics.
A previous war funding bill was vetoed by the president because it included troop withdrawal deadlines, which were largely supported by anti-war Democrats.

Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28.

According to the Washington Post, this bill includes 18 “benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid.” One hundred billion dollars in funding is slated to support continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill says that the President and Congress must not take any action that will endanger the troops and that they provide any funds necessary for training, equipment and other types of support to ensure their safety and the effectiveness of their missions. The president is required to give a first report on the Iraqis' progress in meeting the benchmarks to Congress on July 15.

Seventeen billion dollars in the package is for domestic spending. Out of this funding, $6.4 billion is for Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts, $3 billion in emergency aid for farmers, $1 billion to upgrade port and mass transit security, $3 billion towards converting closing U.S. military bases to other uses, and $650 million to increase funding for children’s health care. A Congressional Research Service summary states that the “other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection.”

Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hilary Clinton (N.Y.) were among the 14 who opposed the bill.
 
Jeannieco said:


That is exactly right. No candidate is going to be exactly the way we want them to be, but he gives us a feeling that it's not about him... it's about US! And he is right!!

As far as joyfulgirl posting that she didn't like the fact that he voted to fund the war at every turn.. well that is NOT true. He spoke out AGAINST it to begin with and....he voted against funding the war and guess who was waiting in the wings to see which way he would vote at the last minute? Hillary. She didn't vote until he did and voted the same way AGAINST the funding so that they couldn't hold that over her head.

Here is the blurb from the Washington Post:

5/24/07 Vote 181: SENATOR OBAMA VOTE: NO

On the Motion: This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24. The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics.
A previous war funding bill was vetoed by the president because it included troop withdrawal deadlines, which were largely supported by anti-war Democrats.

Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28.

According to the Washington Post, this bill includes 18 “benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid.” One hundred billion dollars in funding is slated to support continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill says that the President and Congress must not take any action that will endanger the troops and that they provide any funds necessary for training, equipment and other types of support to ensure their safety and the effectiveness of their missions. The president is required to give a first report on the Iraqis' progress in meeting the benchmarks to Congress on July 15.

Seventeen billion dollars in the package is for domestic spending. Out of this funding, $6.4 billion is for Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts, $3 billion in emergency aid for farmers, $1 billion to upgrade port and mass transit security, $3 billion towards converting closing U.S. military bases to other uses, and $650 million to increase funding for children’s health care. A Congressional Research Service summary states that the “other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection.”

Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hilary Clinton (N.Y.) were among the 14 who opposed the bill.

The irony is that this vote will be used against him in the campaign at some point (probably by the Republicans if it should come to that).

In a way, I think it's to Obama's benefit that he is so inspiring because his actual stances are often very nuanced and nuance doesn't sell well on TV (just ask John Kerry, he who famously--and I think unjustly--was known for voting against the war before he voted for it). If you can't sell overly simplistic ideas and solutions on TV because you recognize the world is too complicated for that, then you better have something else to sell on TV. Fortunately, Obama does.
 
Earnie Shavers said:


I hope you are simply talking about your military, and the power the threat of it's use wields, because if you are talking socially/politically, I'm sorry to break it to you and don't want to sound rude, but....

Well I hate to break it to you that the United States impact on the rest of the world goes well beyond simply its military power for well over 60 years now.
 
namkcuR said:


You're arguing that the Democrats were 'completely ineffective', but you're digging your own hole. The vast majority of Democrats supported those spending bills just as you say they did, and they wanted the deadline to withdraw the troops, just as they said they did as soon as they were elected, and the reason these bills were 'completely ineffective' was because none of them ever became reality. Bush vetoed all of them and the Democrats never had a big enough majority to to override any of those vetoes. If they did, the deadline would've been set. It is entirely George W. Bush's fault/responsibility/whatever that the Democrats have been 'completely ineffective' in accomplishing what they said they wanted to. You can't get things done in Congress when the President keeps standing in your way.

The Democrats failed to do what they said they would be able to. A presidents veto is not the end of any bill provided you can muster the support to override the veto and the Democrats could not. Say what you will about the Presidents approval rating, the Democratic congress's are even lower.
 
“You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose,” Mrs. Clinton said

But of course it is Obama's poetry that has me switching to him from Kucinich. And as my friends have shown me in the last three days, there are all the things I disagree with Obama on, and even prefer Edwards, Richardson, and Ron Raul on, not to mention my beloved Dennis. On positions, Obama is too centrist for me, but as person, he is too perfect for me, at least too real to be real, if you know what I mean.

And that's okay, because you win my heart in poetry, not in prose. (which is why I am even a regular on a U2 board).

Obama has this 'thing' I cannot shake, and I think he can win, which is scary and beautiful.

NH is huge.

Barack on,
a
 
Last edited:
Anu said:
“You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose,” Mrs. Clinton said


Fair point, Senator Clinton. But the message should still be the same whether in poetry or prose.
 
Strongbow said:


The Democrats failed to do what they said they would be able to. A presidents veto is not the end of any bill provided you can muster the support to override the veto and the Democrats could not. Say what you will about the Presidents approval rating, the Democratic congress's are even lower.

Yes, that's right. Shift the blame onto congress. Nevermind that the majority of American's continue to think the War in Iraq was a bad idea and disapprove of Bush's management of it. Nevermind that the 2006 elections were a clear referendum that the American people were unhappy with the Bush administration. Nope, it's the Democrats fault that they didn't have a large enough majority to override Bush's veto. It's the democratic congress's approval rating that is really the issue here.

Yes. Tell me, do you carry around a 2 liter jug of koolaid or have you moved on to the IV yet?
 
Strongbow said:

Say what you will about the Presidents approval rating, the Democratic congress's are even lower.

Yeah, but this will always happen when a president isn't willing to work with it's congress.

This divider isn't liked by anyone outside of his base, that's why this next election will be an election of change, no one is looking for status quo on this one, not even most Republicans.
 
Strongbow said:
Well I hate to break it to you that the United States impact on the rest of the world goes well beyond simply its military power for well over 60 years now.

The EU, Australia, New Zealand, et al. socially and politically depend on the US? Get the fuck over yourself. I find your arrogant Americentrism insulting.

Hell, New Zealand doesn't depend on the US for anything. We've been doing just fine after you guys had that little hissy fit in the mid-1980s and suspended the ANZUS treaty because we wouldn't let your government infringe our sovereignty.
 
If Paul or Huckabee gets the nom, I could even vote Republican or third party, depending on the Dems. It is very likely that for the first time in my life, I will actually like all the candidates if it is not Hillary vs Romney.

Obama-Edwards still seems likely and most likable.
 
Anu said:
If Paul or Huckabee gets the nom, I could even vote Republican or third party, depending on the Dems. It is very likely that for the first time in my life, I will actually like all the candidates if it is not Hillary vs Romney.

Obama-Edwards still seems likely and most likable.

Huckabilly? Really? He seems like he would be the complete opposite of what you would want...

Care to tell me why?
 
Axver said:


The EU, Australia, New Zealand, et al. socially and politically depend on the US? Get the fuck over yourself. I find your arrogant Americentrism insulting.

Hell, New Zealand doesn't depend on the US for anything. We've been doing just fine after you guys had that little hissy fit in the mid-1980s and suspended the ANZUS treaty because we wouldn't let your government infringe our sovereignty.

Amen. I wish you can announce this to every single arrogant American (and believe me there are plenty of us) who thinks that America takes care of the world and that we are somehow the "greatest nation in the world." We are definitely NOT the greatest nation, the world doesn't need America's bullshit, the world hates America. I can honestly say that after 9/11 I was very proud to be American, but for some reason, over the last 7 years that pride went to zero.

I don't know why that happened. :huh:
 
Axver said:


The EU, Australia, New Zealand, et al. socially and politically depend on the US? Get the fuck over yourself. I find your arrogant Americentrism insulting.

Hell, New Zealand doesn't depend on the US for anything. We've been doing just fine after you guys had that little hissy fit in the mid-1980s and suspended the ANZUS treaty because we wouldn't let your government infringe our sovereignty.

Sting is definately an extremist when it comes to U.S. nationalism. Personally I see no need in nationalism, but that's just me. But what I find interesting is that yearly Sting posts the world's 'Quality of Living' results and the U.S. isn't at number 1 yet he always acts as if it is...
 
Strongbow said:

Well I hate to break it to you that the United States impact on the rest of the world goes well beyond simply its military power for well over 60 years now.

No, of course it does. I'm sitting here wearing Nikes, I just drank a Coke and I work for a major US film studio. There is absolutely no doubting the US dominance of popular culture over the past 60 years, nor their dominance in international politics.

My comment was based on yours being a direct response to anitram. She's talking about the religious right using gay marriage as bait in the 2004 election, and your comment comes directly after that. It reads like you are saying that socially and/or via domestic policies, the world looks to the US for some sort of foundation or something. I am probably reading it wrong, but in that context, that's how it reads. If so, you couldn't be more wrong. I love the US, truly do. It is, however, very easy to sit there as I did last Friday night and watch about an hour of Fox News as they talk the most ignorant rubbish about the world and the people that inhabit it, interview someone like Mike Huckabee who somehow despite (you'd think) having absolutely every road block created by the common sense and mild average intelligence of the public in his way, is not just a serious contender for a major public office, but a serious contender for THE major public office, all while cutting over to LA for the latest updates on the Britney drama, and you just sit there wondering what the f*ck is in the water over there?

Anti-Americanism in some form is always going to exist while the US does have such dominance globally in various ways. If you're a dominant sports team in a competition, even if that team is loaded with good guys who got there purely by working hard for it, a third of people will admire you, a third will be respectfully competitive, and a third will just hate you. But if the team is perceived to be loaded with bad boys who play dirty, and do so simply because they believe it is their birthright to be # 1, well, you're going to lose loads of the respect and admiration, if not all of it.

Make no mistake - arguments over policies and doctrines aside - the Bush years and it's bringing of the conservative, religious, guns'n'jesus Republican right to front and centre on the global stage did (completely and totally unfairly) damage the image of the US greatly.

Of course the cultural dominance is still there, of course the political dominance is still there. However, for a couple of years there the image of some ignorant middle-American in a truck with a God Bless America bumpersticker, on his way to church, stopping to talk to someone with a camera, telling them that absolutely Iraq should be invaded because of 9/11 (before then not being able to find Iraq on a map), was, unfortunately, the image that US social/political beliefs had globally. It was wrong and unfair, but that was the easy beat up for a couple of years there. Anyone who paid any closer attention to the US, or travelled there since 9/11 (personally, I've made 4 US visits since then, love the place, will be back for nearly a month in Sept/Oct) would know that it wasn't reality, and now I think that is obvious to absolutely everyone.

It's why everyone is genuinely excited at the looming passing of the Bush years, and hence the massive interest in this election, and massive support for Obama globally. He seems to represent the US that people the world over honestly really do like a lot, rather than the last 8 years where it seems to have been represented by the US that people think is a little bit crazy, but mostly just woefully ignorant.
 
Jeannieco said:

As far as joyfulgirl posting that she didn't like the fact that he voted to fund the war at every turn.. well that is NOT true. He spoke out AGAINST it to begin with and....he voted against funding the war and guess who was waiting in the wings to see which way he would vote at the last minute? Hillary. She didn't vote until he did and voted the same way AGAINST the funding so that they couldn't hold that over her head.

Yes, he voted against that important bill. But he voted for appropriations funding the war through 2006 ("for the troops," a position many agreed with--I did not) after his initial vote against the war to begin with, and he missed the key vote on the Kyl Lieberman Amendment while criticizing Hillary for voting for it. He and Hillary have almost identical voting records on Iraq yet she is criticized for being pro-war while he is anti-war (and I'm no fan of Hillary). I just find that a bit disingenuous but it's old news now. Kucinich was the only one who consistently voted against funding the war. I'm not saying any of this is a deal-breaker for me when it comes to November, just pointing out that Obama has his flaws like everyone else.


maycocksean said:

Not everyone who supports Obama is being swept away by the fervor. I've been an admirer of his since well before he was a candidate, and believe me, if anything, I've been more disappointed in him, not less since he started campaigning. I'm trusting that he's still the same guy that I read about back in 2006, but I also realize he's human and as likely to fall victim to the usual political temptations that most people do. I didn't like a number of things he's done/said since he declared his candidacy but on the whole I still think he could provide the fresh leadership, and yes, change, that this country needs.

I don't much care for Kool-Aid.

Sorry, I meant no offense by the Kool-Aid comment and wasn't referring to anyone here at all, more the rock star treatment he was getting after last week's victory. It's an expression a friend and I use in jest a lot, most often in reference to ourselves when we get swept up by things. Anyway, you could be right about Obama, I don't know. It is truly refreshing to see so many people actually excited about voting again. I'm still cynical about all of them but there's still a ways to go yet in this campaign.
 
I can't blame anyone for voting for the funding even if they're against the war. I simply do not think it is right to take away money as long as there is a single troop over there. It's a difficult situation to vote a simple "yea" or "nay" when it is far more complicated than that.
 
U2democrat said:
I can't blame anyone for voting for the funding even if they're against the war. I simply do not think it is right to take away money as long as there is a single troop over there. It's a difficult situation to vote a simple "yea" or "nay" when it is far more complicated than that.

It's kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't thing, and voting yea or nay are political decisions made in the moment.
 
The site that I believe has been the most accurate in polling over the last ten years put Obama 10% up and McCain 6% up.
 
I think it's quite clear both have the necessary momentum to win tomorrow.

While watching the debate, I was struck by how presidential Obama looked. Carefully listening, a single finger across his lips, deep in thought.

I don't know. He just struck me as a man who looks like he could be a President.

I also couldn't help but think that Edwards was stumping for a possible VP spot. He liked to mention that he came in second in Iowa, but instead of going after the person ahead of him, he went after Clinton. If he thinks his second place finish was so good, why worry about her? If he really wants to be President, shouldn't he have challenged Obama at all? They seemed awfully chummy to me that night.

Clinton reacted with a bit of anger at that moment, which I think was a mistake. She seemed to lose control. A better approach would have been to use humor. She should have retorted back that she didn't know this was a VP debate, or something along the lines of Edwards appearing to be happy being #2.

Just random thoughts I'm having going into tomorrow's vote.
 
phanan said:


I also couldn't help but think that Edwards was stumping for a possible VP spot. He liked to mention that he came in second in Iowa, but instead of going after the person ahead of him, he went after Clinton. If he thinks his second place finish was so good, why worry about her? If he really wants to be President, shouldn't he have challenged Obama at all? They seemed awfully chummy to me that night.

Clinton reacted with a bit of anger at that moment, which I think was a mistake. She seemed to lose control.

I agree. Wow what a ticket would that be, Obama and Edwards...
 
phanan said:

While watching the debate, I was struck by how presidential Obama looked. Carefully listening, a single finger across his lips, deep in thought.

I don't know. He just struck me as a man who looks like he could be a President.

I also couldn't help but think that Edwards was stumping for a possible VP spot. He liked to mention that he came in second in Iowa, but instead of going after the person ahead of him, he went after Clinton. If he thinks his second place finish was so good, why worry about her? If he really wants to be President, shouldn't he have challenged Obama at all? They seemed awfully chummy to me that night.

I agree with all of this. I caught the repeat last night and those same exact thoughts were running through my head the entire time.

Hillary seems to be losing more and more ground with each passing day.

I only wish that Obama and/or Edwards was on the ballot for the Michigan primary here in a couple of weeks.
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:


I agree with all of this. I caught the repeat last night and those same exact thoughts were running through my head the entire time.

Hillary seems to be losing more and more ground with each passing day.

I only wish that Obama and/or Edwards was on the ballot for the Michigan primary here in a couple of weeks.

You have no idea how pissed off I am about that. The primary is next Tuesday isn't it, the 15th?
 
phanan said:
I think it's quite clear both have the necessary momentum to win tomorrow.

While watching the debate, I was struck by how presidential Obama looked. Carefully listening, a single finger across his lips, deep in thought.

I don't know. He just struck me as a man who looks like he could be a President.

I also couldn't help but think that Edwards was stumping for a possible VP spot. He liked to mention that he came in second in Iowa, but instead of going after the person ahead of him, he went after Clinton. If he thinks his second place finish was so good, why worry about her? If he really wants to be President, shouldn't he have challenged Obama at all? They seemed awfully chummy to me that night.


Oh ya!! I totally agree. I have been saying that for a long time...
OBAMA/EDWARDS. :)
Edwards could take the health care platform and hit the ground running. They would make a great team!

Gore/Obama was my ideal ticket but that was not to be.
 
U2isthebest said:


You have no idea how pissed off I am about that. The primary is next Tuesday isn't it, the 15th?

Yes.

I was going to go and vote, but after finding out that neither Obama or Edwards was in the running I lost all desire to. I read that even if you were to write in their names it would not be counted.

There was an article in the Free Press about all the ins and outs of why, but I can't seem to find it now. If I do, I'll post it.
 
Back
Top Bottom