What was Obama thinking? Very difficult relationships to explain......

[Dreadsox]

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]

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)

[phillyfan26]

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.

[deep]

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.

[martha]

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.

[Dreadsox]

The one thing in the Dem's favor is the turnout in the primary has been extraordinary.

[deep]

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

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by martha


Agreed.

Shit if we keep agreeing what fun is it in here?

[deep]

just as bad

there really were no tangibles in the McCain story.

[Dreadsox]

Oh I don't know, it seemed this has just as little meat to me.

Not to you?

[deep]

there is a paper trail

and why is Obama saying "his real-estate entanglement with Rezko was a "boneheaded" mistake"?

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by deep




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

I'm glad Obama admitted he may have made a mistake in the real estate situation. I can't see anything illegal or immoral about that situation, but if he feels he made a poor choice; I'm glad he was willing to admit it. As for the second part of the statement, if the money was in fact donated to to the Obama campaign, which has not been officially confirmed, I still don't understand how that proves any wrongdoing on Obama's part. If Rezko gained the money allegedly donated to the Obama campaign illegally, that's wrong. However, how could Obama know that? Is it possible he truly did not know of Rezko's shady business dealings at the time? It's not as if he, or any politician, can do a background check on their donors or an in-depth investigation on the source of the money that comes in to their campaigns.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by deep
there is a paper trail

and why is Obama saying "his real-estate entanglement with Rezko was a "boneheaded" mistake"?

Because he should have known that it would backfire no matter if he was involved in anything, I guess.

Is there any evidence he knew of the sources of the $10,000 donation mentioned above? So far, it is money that went to his campaign for the senate, but no indication whatsoever that he knew what kind of money it was.

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.

And...?

[anitram]

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.

I didn't think the McCain story would resonate with the voters and I don't think this one would either.

I think a lot of people (on this thread included) are totally missing the plot. This election year is different. I don't believe it's 72, and I don't believe it's like any other year either. The electorate has changed, but the conventional thinking yet hasn't.

It feels very much to me like when mp3s came out and the record companies dug their heels in and believed that the same ol' would work. I might be wrong, we'll see shortly. But the staunch unwillingness to consider that there has been a fundamental shift is really kind of baffling to me.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Dreadsox
The one thing in the Dem's favor is the turnout in the primary has been extraordinary.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by Dreadsox


You have just taken a HUGE step up in my book. :O)

Thanks!

[Harry Vest]

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.

Well said!!!

[deep]

What was Obama thinking???

Was he fibbing in Ohio to get votes??

Canada says didn't misrepresent Obama over NAFTA
Mon Mar 3, 2008 4:59pm EST

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada on Monday denied it had tried to sway the U.S. presidential election by misrepresenting Democratic candidate Barack Obama with the suggestion that he didn't really believe his criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Obama and rival Hillary Clinton -- who both blame the deal for job losses -- say the United States could quit NAFTA unless Canada and Mexico agree to major changes.

Key Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee discussed his candidate's policies with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, which wrote a report suggesting Obama's words on NAFTA were designed for a political audience and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by deep
What was Obama thinking???

Was he fibbing in Ohio to get votes??

So because an organization said he was lying that automatically confirms it?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]March 2, 2008

My goodness - I mean where there is smoke there must be fire!!!!! For someone who represents himself as an outsider and not beholden to the special interests.....an anonymous source indicates this man has helped fun Obama's political career with his shady deals.





Good thing we don't hold grudges in FYM over guilt by assosciation

Have at it!

dread, is it really necessary to tease me?

you know i'll give you what you want.