redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread
- Thread starter Varitek
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Hmmm
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is gaining attention for recent comments on why her husband may receive less attention from the media – and campaign cash — than the two leading Democratic candidates.
“We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman,” said Edwards, referring to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton during an interview with Ziff Davis Media about the Internet’s role in the 2008 presidential election. “Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars.”
The interview was published Monday.
Considered a top tier presidential candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards lags significantly behind Clinton and Obama in fundraising and in national polls.
During the interview, Elizabeth Edwards attributed the Internet as a way to bypass the “sieve of mainstream media” and reach voters despite receiving less publicity than her husband’s chief rivals.
“The idea that you have people standing between you and the voter is diminished, and the capacity to speak directly empowers candidates to trust their own voices,” she said.
“Now it’s nice to get on the news, but not the be all and end all,” Edwards added.
Eric Schultz, a spokesman for Edwards’ campaign, told CNN Tuesday that Elizabeth Edwards was “noting what countless reporters and pundits have said for months, that Senators Clinton and Obama get a lot of media attention, and deservedly so, because of the potential ‘firsts’ of their candidacies.”
“But the reality is, with so many candidates in this race, we just have to work a little harder to get our message out and inform the people about John Edwards’ bold vision for America,” he added.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is gaining attention for recent comments on why her husband may receive less attention from the media – and campaign cash — than the two leading Democratic candidates.
“We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman,” said Edwards, referring to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton during an interview with Ziff Davis Media about the Internet’s role in the 2008 presidential election. “Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars.”
The interview was published Monday.
Considered a top tier presidential candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards lags significantly behind Clinton and Obama in fundraising and in national polls.
During the interview, Elizabeth Edwards attributed the Internet as a way to bypass the “sieve of mainstream media” and reach voters despite receiving less publicity than her husband’s chief rivals.
“The idea that you have people standing between you and the voter is diminished, and the capacity to speak directly empowers candidates to trust their own voices,” she said.
“Now it’s nice to get on the news, but not the be all and end all,” Edwards added.
Eric Schultz, a spokesman for Edwards’ campaign, told CNN Tuesday that Elizabeth Edwards was “noting what countless reporters and pundits have said for months, that Senators Clinton and Obama get a lot of media attention, and deservedly so, because of the potential ‘firsts’ of their candidacies.”
“But the reality is, with so many candidates in this race, we just have to work a little harder to get our message out and inform the people about John Edwards’ bold vision for America,” he added.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Barack Obama cant decide if he would invite Barry Bonds to the White House, but he is certain he knows how to handle foreign policy and wants to bomb Pakistan.
This man wants to be president.
This man wants to be president.
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
2861U2 said:Barack Obama cant decide if he would invite Barry Bonds to the White House, but he is certain he knows how to handle foreign policy and wants to bomb Pakistan.
This man wants to be president.
I don't think he's alone in that regard. Why should we get on his case for that too?
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
i don't even understand how that question is relevant. i wonder if somebody was trying to trap him in something, but i can't figure out what.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
unico said:
No, that's my point. It was a simple, fun question, and he couldnt answer it. It was PMSNBC and Keith Olbermann. Do you really think they would try to trap Obama? It was a simple question, and he didn't know what he would do. I think that says something about the man.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
2861U2 said:
i'm no fan of obama's platform, but i can think of loads of other reasons that speak to his incompetency than this question. to be quite honest, i think this was just an example of how he and many other candidates (on both sides) avoid the question (whether simple/fun or direct and controversial) when they are put on the spot. keith DID have to ask him twice.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
OP
OP
Varitek
Blue Crack Addict
^ yes, the American public within swing states is more likely to be anti-gay than not. News? Not really.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
2861U2 said:
Who gives a shit? What would that have to do with anything?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Newsflash: Being tolerant and open-minded could cost politicians. Hello, it's been that way since day one...
At one point being anti-slavery would have cost you a vote, it's those that are ahead of social issues that shape this nation. The right and for the most part middle America have ALWAYS been on the wrong side of history with social issues.
At one point being anti-slavery would have cost you a vote, it's those that are ahead of social issues that shape this nation. The right and for the most part middle America have ALWAYS been on the wrong side of history with social issues.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I'd invite Barry to the White House-just hide the syringes 
I guess it's not about Barry Bonds, it's about Obama hedging on the question. He does seem to hedge/avoid quite a bit, but don't they all? They're all afraid of losing votes and they tailor answers accordingly.
Barack's Barry Bonds baseball bust
By: Howard Mortman
August 8, 2007 politico.com
Did Barack Obama swing and miss with Barry Bonds?
A rare confluence of two great American institutions -- politics and baseball -- occurred Tuesday night. Shortly before Bonds hit his record-breaking 756th career home run, Obama was asked at the Democratic presidential candidate forum in Chicago whether, if he were president today, he would honor Bonds at the White House. The senator responded this way:
"First of all, he’s still gotta hit one more, and it’s been taking a while. I had the opportunity to meet Hank Aaron just this past weekend. It reminded me of what sports should be, and that is something that young people can look up to.
"Now, Barry Bonds is a remarkable baseball player, and I honor his achievement. But I hope that all of us are focused on making sure that sports is something that kids can look up to, not something that they start feeling cynical about. We’ve got enough cynicism in politics without having cynicism in our sports teams as well.”
Pressed by the moderator whether that was a yes or a no, Obama offered, “Like I said, he hasn’t done it yet, so we’ll answer the question when he does.”
Obama’s response prompts more questions, starting with, Huh? Other questions include: What was wrong with answering the question straightforwardly then, mere hours before Bonds hit No. 756? What difference would it have made before or after No. 756? How would that additional home run have affected Obama’s thoughts? Had he not given the matter any thought -- or if he had, was there political calculation in sidestepping?
Obama effectively told his audience to wait for his answer. But there’s little doubt that most already had their own opinion of Bonds. This isn’t inside baseball, as it were. This is the big picture. We are a nation of strong views about Barry Bonds’ place in the pantheon of heroes.
This makes it fascinating that Obama may be one of the few Americans without an opinion on Bonds -- or at least one he’s readily willing to reveal. Consider the ample polls taken on our attitudes toward Bonds:
-- 42 percent in a July 2007 AP/Ipsos poll said they hoped Bonds fell short of the record.
-- Over half in a June 2007 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll said that even if Bonds finished with more career homers, Aaron would still be the true record holder.
-- A May 2007 ESPN/ABC News poll showed that more than half of baseball fans were rooting against Barry Bonds.
And these headlines: From an April 2007 CBS News poll, “Public Divided Over Barry Bonds” and from a March 2006 Gallup poll, “Baseball Fans' Views of Barry Bonds Mixed.”
These days, it’s tough not to have an opinion of Barry Bonds.
Yes, Bonds presents a difficult issue. By contrast, Aaron had the support of three-quarters of the people polled when he was closing in on Babe Ruth’s record. That was the easy one.
The question whether Bonds’ record is tainted is an ideal, even profound, one to frame the presidential campaign. Not necessarily to solve the issue for Bonds -- we may never get a complete answer -- but to get a fuller picture of our candidates’ values.
Cheating, role models for youth, achieving greatness, hero worship -- there’s lots of societal issues wrapped up in Barry Bonds. It’s an American dilemma.
Others in leadership have taken stances on this difficult issue. Bud Selig’s hands-in-pockets snubbing of Bonds during the home-run chase was about as bold as a baseball commissioner can get. (And what a fascinating contrast that Selig avoids Bonds, while Obama would seek out the world’s thugs.) Presidential candidates, who have nothing more at stake in the matter than rhetoric, can go a lot further. And they should. In fact, when he announced his candidacy for president, Obama denounced “our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.” Amen.
Barry Bonds: Hero or villain? It’s a great American debate -- and it belongs in the presidential race.
Howard Mortman is the public affairs practice director for New Media Strategies in Arlington, Va., where he writes the Extreme Mortman blog.
I guess it's not about Barry Bonds, it's about Obama hedging on the question. He does seem to hedge/avoid quite a bit, but don't they all? They're all afraid of losing votes and they tailor answers accordingly.Barack's Barry Bonds baseball bust
By: Howard Mortman
August 8, 2007 politico.com
Did Barack Obama swing and miss with Barry Bonds?
A rare confluence of two great American institutions -- politics and baseball -- occurred Tuesday night. Shortly before Bonds hit his record-breaking 756th career home run, Obama was asked at the Democratic presidential candidate forum in Chicago whether, if he were president today, he would honor Bonds at the White House. The senator responded this way:
"First of all, he’s still gotta hit one more, and it’s been taking a while. I had the opportunity to meet Hank Aaron just this past weekend. It reminded me of what sports should be, and that is something that young people can look up to.
"Now, Barry Bonds is a remarkable baseball player, and I honor his achievement. But I hope that all of us are focused on making sure that sports is something that kids can look up to, not something that they start feeling cynical about. We’ve got enough cynicism in politics without having cynicism in our sports teams as well.”
Pressed by the moderator whether that was a yes or a no, Obama offered, “Like I said, he hasn’t done it yet, so we’ll answer the question when he does.”
Obama’s response prompts more questions, starting with, Huh? Other questions include: What was wrong with answering the question straightforwardly then, mere hours before Bonds hit No. 756? What difference would it have made before or after No. 756? How would that additional home run have affected Obama’s thoughts? Had he not given the matter any thought -- or if he had, was there political calculation in sidestepping?
Obama effectively told his audience to wait for his answer. But there’s little doubt that most already had their own opinion of Bonds. This isn’t inside baseball, as it were. This is the big picture. We are a nation of strong views about Barry Bonds’ place in the pantheon of heroes.
This makes it fascinating that Obama may be one of the few Americans without an opinion on Bonds -- or at least one he’s readily willing to reveal. Consider the ample polls taken on our attitudes toward Bonds:
-- 42 percent in a July 2007 AP/Ipsos poll said they hoped Bonds fell short of the record.
-- Over half in a June 2007 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll said that even if Bonds finished with more career homers, Aaron would still be the true record holder.
-- A May 2007 ESPN/ABC News poll showed that more than half of baseball fans were rooting against Barry Bonds.
And these headlines: From an April 2007 CBS News poll, “Public Divided Over Barry Bonds” and from a March 2006 Gallup poll, “Baseball Fans' Views of Barry Bonds Mixed.”
These days, it’s tough not to have an opinion of Barry Bonds.
Yes, Bonds presents a difficult issue. By contrast, Aaron had the support of three-quarters of the people polled when he was closing in on Babe Ruth’s record. That was the easy one.
The question whether Bonds’ record is tainted is an ideal, even profound, one to frame the presidential campaign. Not necessarily to solve the issue for Bonds -- we may never get a complete answer -- but to get a fuller picture of our candidates’ values.
Cheating, role models for youth, achieving greatness, hero worship -- there’s lots of societal issues wrapped up in Barry Bonds. It’s an American dilemma.
Others in leadership have taken stances on this difficult issue. Bud Selig’s hands-in-pockets snubbing of Bonds during the home-run chase was about as bold as a baseball commissioner can get. (And what a fascinating contrast that Selig avoids Bonds, while Obama would seek out the world’s thugs.) Presidential candidates, who have nothing more at stake in the matter than rhetoric, can go a lot further. And they should. In fact, when he announced his candidacy for president, Obama denounced “our chronic avoidance of tough decisions.” Amen.
Barry Bonds: Hero or villain? It’s a great American debate -- and it belongs in the presidential race.
Howard Mortman is the public affairs practice director for New Media Strategies in Arlington, Va., where he writes the Extreme Mortman blog.
OP
OP
Varitek
Blue Crack Addict
I still don't get why it belongs in the presidential race. And if candidates don't know what they would do, they're pretty much like the majority of Americans, who are conflicted on the issue.
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
Ok, should this thread be moved to PEUP now, or...
I'm confoozed.
I'm confoozed.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
obama would've earned some points from me if his response was "i'm sorry, that question belongs in the PEUP forum. this is an FYM topic."
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
It's ok, April
I really hope I start liking Hillary soon, because it's sure looking difficult to overcome her lead.
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I personally think the Bonds question was a valid question. It's one of the biggest stories in the entire country right now. Not to mention that tt's a very controversial topic and his answer or how he went about coming to his answer would speak to his thought process/even whether he sticks to the presumption of innocence before guilt. It also normalizes he too. It's a question that more people will discuss than how they feel about Pakistan.
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
unico said:
I am finding myself more and more in the Hillary camp each day. And not because she's in the lead at the moment, either. She looks more presidential every time I see her.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
randhail said:
yeah but the question was would he invite him to the WH. does it really matter what this guy has been accused of? the question wasn't whether or not he supported him, it is whether or not he would invite him. is that really too hard to answer? it's as simple as inviting someone over to hang out or something.
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I don't think it's that cut and dry. Inviting Bonds to the White House is a means of honoring of him. Most of the pro and college sports teams get a day at the White House to celebrate their accomplishments. Major League Baseball couldn't even figure out a way to honor him with all of the allegations flying around. He is the new home king, the most sacred record in sports, but potentially lied to a grand jury in addition to all of the steroid talk. Do you honor the guy based on what he accomplished regardless of the allegations or do you not honor before his actually guilty of anything?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
randhail said:
No way is it a valid question.
And the way he answered it, I think in a way does say, "well I don't know all the details yet", which goes along your innocence before guilt issue.
But the point is, anyone who equates this to "and he wants to run our country?" is just biasly reaching and doesn't know what they are talking about.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
randhail said:
i see what you're saying. but i mean really, how many liars get to pass through the white house doors? hell bush and cheney are guilty of nasty lies themselves, and congress is letting them stay there instead of holding them accountable for their lies.
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Yes, in the grand scheme of things, Bonds walking through the door would rank low on the list of sleezebags ever to graze the White House. I agree with you all the way on that.
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
BonoVoxSupastar said:
How is it not a valid question?
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
randhail said:
I was just about to ask that.
Again, it was a simple question, and he had to be asked twice. He failed in every aspect of answering that question. He is showing his inexperience and he is afraid to upset potential supporters.
Ultimately though, I dont think it matters. He is done as a serious candidate. It looks like Mrs. Bill Clinton will get the nomination easily.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
randhail said:
One for the pure fact that his "innocence" is still in question. It's like asking, "do you think OJ did it?" How would that be valid to ask a President?
Secondly, how many criminals walk in and out of the WH doors? No one seems to care. If no one cares, why is it a valid question?
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Asking if OJ did it is a terrible analogy because it played out in the courts already. He was proven innocent. Enough said. The fact that his innocence is still in doubt is what makes it a valid question. Bond's broke the most historic record in sports. On those grounds alone, it should result in an open invitation to be honored at the white house, but it's all clouded up because of the allegations. Do you honor the act or do you ignore it based on allegations? It sure is a pretty valid question.
People may not care about liars entering the White House, but they care about the Bonds issue. It's not like this is some minor event. Bonds is one of the most polarizing figures in this country today.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
He's afraid to say something wrong or unpopular. It makes me wonder if the man has any true, earnest beliefs. He did not demonstrate what a good politician looks like, and that might be why he is losing ground daily to Clinton.
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
2861U2 said:
At least on this matter he comes across as a spineless wimp. A lot of people love Barry, a lot of people hate Barry, but hardly anyone is in the middle or can't make up their mind. Grow a sack and make a decision. It's pretty simple.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
2861U2 said:
You're reacting as though this is the only question that he, or many other candidates (democrat or republican) avoid answering.
sidenote: anybody else agree that if a candidate runs over their alloted speaking time that it should be deducted from their next response time? i think they should have a total number of seconds for the entire debate. that would get them to shut up and focus on directly answering questions instead of avoiding the issue and going off on their usual soundbytes.
im already tired of politics and the election is so far away.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
