US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part Catorce!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
corianderstem said:
I LIVE in Washington and I'm confused by it all.

I voted, but my vote didn't count towards the primary, and if you didn't declare your party on the ballot your vote doesn't count (loads of people put nasty notes in that spot, or left it blank out of confusion or out of protest), but you don't have to vote that party in later elections.

It's all really confusing. I don't remember anything being this confusing in the 2004 election season.
Click to expand...

Push comes to shove.

You're in a secluded cabin up in the mountains.

Would you rather have relations with Mulder or Scully?
 
NEW YORK — NBC News said Tuesday it has reprimanded the employee responsible for mistakenly flashing a picture of Osama bin Laden on MSNBC as Chris Matthews talked about Barack Obama.

"This mistake was inexcusable," MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said.

It happened during the opening of Hardball Monday evening. Matthews was previewing a story on the controversy over Obama's use of another politician's words, and a picture of bin Laden briefly flashed on the screen beside him with the headline "Words About Words."

The Obama campaign immediately called NBC to complain, and Matthews apologized on the air a few minutes later. When Hardball was rerun later that night, a picture of Obama replaced the picture of the terrorist leader.

The mistake was made by someone in the network's graphics department whom MSNBC would not identify. The network did not explain exactly how the mistake was made nor detail the punishment for the employee.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor noted the apology and said the campaign had no other comment.
 
February 19, 2008 9:51 PM

ABC News' Ron Claiborne and Teddy Davis Report: Arizona Sen. John McCain unveiled a new line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., following his Tuesday win in Wisconsin's Republican primary.

"I will work hard to make sure Americans aren't deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change," said McCain.

The presumed Republican nominee also knocked his likely Democratic opponent by taking a shot at the "confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate."

The Obama camp -- fresh off a big win of their own in Wisconsin -- quickly responded.

"John McCain's remarks tonight shows why he's offering nothing more than a third term of George Bush's policies -– more fear-mongering, more than a century of war in Iraq, and more budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthiest few at the expense of hardworking Americans," said Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton.

A week ago, after winning the Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. primaries, McCain suggested without ever using Obama's name that the Illinois Democrat's theme of hope was nothing more than "a platitude."

But Tuesday was the first time that he painted his rival as "eloquent but empty."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded to McCain's barb by accusing the Arizona senator of offering "nothing more than a third term of George Bush's policies: more fear-mongering, more than a century of war in Iraq, and more budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthiest few at the expense of hardworking Americans."

McCain also used his victory speech to take what some might interpret as a subtle dig at Obama's wife.

"I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven’t been proud of the privilege" of being an American, said McCain. "Don't tell me what we can't do. Don't tell me we can’t make our country stronger and the world safer. We can. We must. And when I'm President we will."

Speaking Monday in Milwaukee, Wisc., Michelle Obama said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country . . . not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Asked about McCain's new "eloquent but empty" line of attack, McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker called it, "A preview of things to come."
 
Damn, McCain's nervous.:lol:

You know what's NOT eloquent, but is empty? McCain's attacks on Obama. Learn what your fellow candidates stand for, McCain. I'm sure you have plenty of extra time on your hands aboard the Shit Talk Express. Take a visit to www.barackobama.com and actually come up with something to say that relates to Obama's policies as opposed to this petty statement. Obama, at least, mentioned specific issues in his statments about McCain.
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:


:drool:

I actually checked CNN when I woke up in the middle of the night last night to see the result of Hawaii (wasn't shocked in the least when I saw it overwhelmingly went to Obama, but I still felt the need to check :reject: ).
Click to expand...

If I had woken up last night, I probably would have checked too.:hi5:
 
So at this point, Hillary has to win 58% of the remaining delegates just to overtake Obama's lead...that's not even to reach the threshold of 2025 delegates to clinch the nomination.
 
U2democrat said:
So at this point, Hillary has to win 58% of the remaining delegates just to overtake Obama's lead...that's not even to reach the threshold of 2025 delegates to clinch the nomination.
Click to expand...

I heard that Obama would have to win every remaining state by about 70%-30 in order to get 2025. Chances are, its going to the convention. Unless Hillary loses both Ohio and Texas, I don't see her quitting.
 
U2isthebest said:
Damn, McCain's nervous.:lol:

You know what's NOT eloquent, but is empty? McCain's attacks on Obama. Learn what your fellow candidates stand for, McCain. I'm sure you have plenty of extra time on your hands aboard the Shit Talk Express. Take a visit to www.barackobama.com and actually come up with something to say that relates to Obama's policies as opposed to this petty statement. Obama, at least, mentioned specific issues in his statments about McCain.
Click to expand...

Don't be that overconfident.

I think McCain will eat Obama alive in most of the debates... so if I were Obama I would relax, win the primary and train more debating.

And no, I am not a republican.
 
2861U2 said:


I heard that Obama would have to win every remaining state by about 70%-30 in order to get 2025. Chances are, its going to the convention. Unless Hillary loses both Ohio and Texas, I don't see her quitting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Obama must win 65% of the remaining delegates to hit the 2025 mark, that is WITHOUT superdelegates. You include the superdelegates and that number gets lower.
 
2861U2 said:


I heard that Obama would have to win every remaining state by about 70%-30 in order to get 2025. Chances are, its going to the convention. Unless Hillary loses both Ohio and Texas, I don't see her quitting.
Click to expand...

At some point (probably shortly after Texas/Ohio) the pressure from the Party for her to quit will become so strong that she'll have no choice politically but to step aside. It would be nice if she'd do that because she's wise, but if she doesn't do it by her own volition, she does have her positioning in the Senate and in the Party generally to worry about.
 
U2@NYC said:


Don't be that overconfident.

I think McCain will eat Obama alive in most of the debates... so if I were Obama I would relax, win the primary and train more debating.

And no, I am not a republican.
Click to expand...

I'm not overconfident at all. I was simply stating that McCain wasn't even bothering to criticize Obama's positions on the issues or his policy ideas. Obama, on the other hand, mentioned the war and taxes, specifically in his remarks. He didn't go into detail, but debate is the time for that. If McCain had mentioned his contempt for Obama's economic or foreign policies, for example, I wouldn't be bothered. When McCain starts resorting to attacks on Obama because he's a brilliant speaker, he clearly is just going for the gut, so to speak. The empty comment is ridiculous because none of the candidates have laid out their concrete plans and policies yet, except for on their websites. It's up to us as citizens of a democratic republic to do the research on who these candidates are and what they stand for. I've watched both Democratic and Republican debates and no candidate has really given an in-depth description of what their plans are at this point. It's too early in the game for that in the way our political system works. That's why these websites are so great. Everything is laid out on them, so none of us have any excuse to say any candidate is "empty" regardless of whether or not we agree with them. A few keystrokes and mouse clicks will tell us much of what we want to know. McCain's argument doesn't hold up as anything other than the nerves of a man who knows he's got a hard fight ahead of him if a candidate that inspires hope and vision, and a belief that things can change becomes his opposition. In the same way, Obama has an uphill battle in being a young, relatively inexperienced (compared to McCain), candidate who would be running against a long-term senator with a lot of experience and clout in the Senate. As we've said though, experience clearly doesn't mean much. One look at the Bush administration will tell us that. In the end, if Obama and McCain are the nominees, it will come down to this: Is America ready for a new vision, a new way of governing that won't pander to one party and one group? Do we want a president that wants to be a new kind of president, that wants to unite the country against constant bipartisan issues that make it impossible for real progress to made. Do we want a president who has hope and concrete, workable ideas and policies for change that will benefit the common good like they're supposed to? Or, are we content with how things are right now? Do we want to just live our comfortable, suburban lives with our 2.5 kids, house in a new subdivision, and SUVs, and live comfortably numb while ignoring the serious problems our country and others face? Do we just want politics as usual with no real vision for change offered? The second option is easier, that's for sure. It robs and strips us of any true responsibility and doesn't require us to have faith and reach out to those around us, whether they're like us or not. The first option will hopefully pull more people's total focus off of themselves and their families and their own lives and will inspire them to work for changes in the world around them. It can truly make a difference and inspire people as opposed to allowing them to be sedated into business as usual. The choice is up to us.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Funny how when this started everyone thought Obama would have been the easy one to beat...

Silly conservatives.
Click to expand...

Like who? :scratch:

Personally, I've always preferred going against Hillary.
 
U2democrat said:
So at this point, Hillary has to win 58% of the remaining delegates just to overtake Obama's lead...that's not even to reach the threshold of 2025 delegates to clinch the nomination.
Click to expand...

Essentially, barring a complete and utter collapse, Obama is likely to get on the ticket. :drool:

I hope you like my new signature. :wink:
 
WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. 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.
Click to expand...

link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp

I don't think this will have much of an impact, but it sure will piss off a lot of evangelical republicans IF it is true.
 
U2isthebest said:


I'm not overconfident at all. I was simply stating that McCain wasn't even bothering to criticize Obama's positions on the issues or his policy ideas. Obama, on the other hand, mentioned the war and taxes, specifically in his remarks. He didn't go into detail, but debate is the time for that. If McCain had mentioned his contempt for Obama's economic or foreign policies, for example, I wouldn't be bothered. When McCain starts resorting to attacks on Obama because he's a brilliant speaker, he clearly is just going for the gut, so to speak. The empty comment is ridiculous because none of the candidates have laid out their concrete plans and policies yet, except for on their websites. It's up to us as citizens of a democratic republic to do the research on who these candidates are and what they stand for. I've watched both Democratic and Republican debates and no candidate has really given an in-depth description of what their plans are at this point. It's too early in the game for that in the way our political system works. That's why these websites are so great. Everything is laid out on them, so none of us have any excuse to say any candidate is "empty" regardless of whether or not we agree with them. A few keystrokes and mouse clicks will tell us much of what we want to know. McCain's argument doesn't hold up as anything other than the nerves of a man who knows he's got a hard fight ahead of him if a candidate that inspires hope and vision, and a belief that things can change becomes his opposition. In the same way, Obama has an uphill battle in being a young, relatively inexperienced (compared to McCain), candidate who would be running against a long-term senator with a lot of experience and clout in the Senate. As we've said though, experience clearly doesn't mean much. One look at the Bush administration will tell us that. In the end, if Obama and McCain are the nominees, it will come down to this: Is America ready for a new vision, a new way of governing that won't pander to one party and one group? Do we want a president that wants to be a new kind of president, that wants to unite the country against constant bipartisan issues that make it impossible for real progress to made. Do we want a president who has hope and concrete, workable ideas and policies for change that will benefit the common good like they're supposed to? Or, are we content with how things are right now? Do we want to just live our comfortable, suburban lives with our 2.5 kids, house in a new subdivision, and SUVs, and live comfortably numb while ignoring the serious problems our country and others face? Do we just want politics as usual with no real vision for change offered? The second option is easier, that's for sure. It robs and strips us of any true responsibility and doesn't require us to have faith and reach out to those around us, whether they're like us or not. The first option will hopefully pull more people's total focus off of themselves and their families and their own lives and will inspire them to work for changes in the world around them. It can truly make a difference and inspire people as opposed to allowing them to be sedated into business as usual. The choice is up to us.
Click to expand...

Boy, you are going to be so disappointed when Obama cannot deliver on 90% of what he proposes. I see him just taking advantage of a very particular situation in the U.S.

But we'll see who is right. If he ever makes it to President. Which would not surprise me, as the majority of Americans were stupid enough to re-elect Bush.
 
U2@NYC said:


Boy, you are going to be so disappointed when Obama cannot deliver on 90% of what he proposes. I see him just taking advantage of a very particular situation in the U.S.

But we'll see who is right. If he ever makes it to President. Which would not surprise me, as the majority of Americans were stupid enough to re-elect Bush.
Click to expand...

How in the world can you compare electing Obama and electing Bush? Obama hasn't even been elected as the Democractic nominee. We have no idea what he will or won't accomplish as president. Bush has been our president for 8 years. That doesn't make any sense at all.:huh:
 
U2isthebest said:


How in the world can you compare electing Obama and electing Bush? Obama hasn't even been elected as the Democractic nominee. We have no idea what he will or won't accomplish as president. Bush has been our president for 8 years. That doesn't make any sense at all.:huh:
Click to expand...

I see the trend going. What I meant is that electing a President does not necessarily mean that he will be the best at his job. Or even worse, he can be a total disaster. I mean, people actually voted for Bush, again, even knowing how bad he was. So I would not be surprised if Obama wins.

And I do not think, again, that he will be able to accomplish much. I hope I am wrong but he does not look too capable to me. And, as someone said in another thread, he is just not "believable" at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Master List and Discussion Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
5K
Axver
Axver
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
MrsSpringsteen
Bono Wants One Campaign To Be NRA For The World's Poor
Replies
2
Views
610
lazarus
lazarus
youvedonewhat
Diaries. Part 7.
Replies
12
Views
4K
vibria
V
youvedonewhat
Diaries Part 6.
Replies
2
Views
1K
lharper
lharper

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom