- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 15, 2008 at 12:32 am #618117
AnonymousInactiveThanks, BDG! I was wondering the same thing! What happened?
BDG – With the Edwards endorsement and Clinton encouraging her voters to vote for Obama, I’m getting nervous.
May 15, 2008 at 12:40 am #618118
walfredoMemberIt was actually pretty darn good strategy to have this be the news cycle immediately after WV… Now the story is on Edwards, and the narrative is still the end of the race… That is a lot better then the “whats wrong with Barack” narrative. This should have a lot more impact then it would have before North Carolina, or before West Virginia.
Also, it is nice to see one of the better speakers on the democratic side strike a positive tone for both candidates, but to switch the focus to the general. This is the path to victory, and I commend Edwards for not only his endorsement, but for his very kind words for Senator Clinton. Those didn’t sound much like what he was saying in January about Senator Clinton, but they struck the right tone for the current situation.
May 15, 2008 at 2:42 am #618119
WSMomParticipanthttp://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
I spent some time reading what Sen. Obama has been saying about the important issues facing our nation. I’d recommend reading up on where he stands. He definitely is right in line with my way of thinking!
May 15, 2008 at 7:08 am #618120
charlabobParticipantThis is a test (reply to NR and BDG, 800 amd 801) I did post…this; it appeared on the list and looked to me like it was really there. SO I’m reposting (old news) simply to see if it works or if we have a new version of our old links turn to spam (spam links? a new taste treat).
John Edwards to endorse Barack Obama tonight, at an event in Detroit. (That Latte sipping, bierkenstock wearing upper class elitist town we all know and love.) (Thanks, JenV, for sending me on a chase for this lovely goose.)
May 15, 2008 at 3:42 pm #618121
JoBParticipantI think it is more fun to go away for a while and come back to read multiple posts…
You guys are all over the place.
Racism exists. You don’t make it go away by rising above it in a election. You have to actually educate people as to why they should overlook your race in making their decision.
Senator Obama may rise so far above racism in this election that he loses the presidency for democrats….
The same is true of predominantly blue collar workers. By concentrating on the race issue.. you lose the point that he is not doing so well there either… and it may have nothing to do with race… in fact, it probably doesn’t.
As for all of us “deluded” old ladies.. maybe we voted for Clinton for good reasons and not delusions.
This campaign is incredibly divisive… but not from the Clinton side. Did you actually listen to her acceptance speech in West Virginia…
probably not. It would have shattered too many delusions.
don’t you think it’s time you get over yourselves.. how wonderful you and your campaign is.. and start thinking about what it might take to convince some of those voters who weren’t so convinced?
Because you will need them this fall.
In fact, if the democrats are going to win in the fall.. you will need Hillary.
now isn’t that a cosmic joke.
May 15, 2008 at 8:53 pm #618122
charlabobParticipantThe dominoes continue to fall: McDermott endorsed Obama: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/138941.asp
(BDG, is that your superdelegate walking partner?)
May 15, 2008 at 9:16 pm #618123
WSMomParticipanthttp://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1448591420080514
Three former U.S. SEC chairmen endorse Obama
“Each of us has been committed to prudent economic policy and effective financial regulation for many years,” they said in a joint statement along with former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, also an Obama supporter.
“We believe Senator Obama can provide the positive leadership and judgment needed to take us to a stronger and more secure economic future.”
In the statement they praised Obama’s “reasoned approach” in analyzing “the current financial crisis and the need for balanced regulatory reform.”
“We believe that such a constructive approach can be extended broadly in the economic area as well as elsewhere,” they said.
Even the SEC doesn’t trust the GOP — If Wall Street is going Democratic, the Republicans should be very worried!!
May 15, 2008 at 9:23 pm #618124
AnonymousInactiveNot to mention:WASHINGTON (AP) — The United Steelworkers union endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president Thursday, giving the Illinois senator a powerful advocate in attracting blue-collar voters
Apparently he can attract the working class.
May 15, 2008 at 9:38 pm #618125
JoBParticipantenjoy the kool-aid.
May 15, 2008 at 9:55 pm #618126
villagegreenMemberJob – Of course a lot of ‘old ladies’ voted for Clinton for good reasons. She looks like you and her policies are in line with the Democratic party’s. Unfortunately for her, she just happened to run up against a better nominee for the current zeitgeist. People want ‘change’, and however vapid that may sound to you, it’s a real force. The next Democratic president will have an opportunity to build a new more inclusive Democratic party. We are poised to take back what was stolen by the Republican party in the 80’s. Hillary Clinton just isn’t the right person for this job. No matter how she relates to the ‘working class’ or how righteous her policies are, she’s still viewed as too divisive by too many people. She may not deserve that label, but nonetheless, it’s a fact.
And duh, her acceptance speech in W Virginia was less divisive because she doesn’t want to upset any more superdelegates by bashing Obama. Her last ditch hope was to remain in the race and somehow convince superdelegates that she has a better shot against McCain due to her ‘working class’ supporters. She doesn’t want to be seen as hurting the party by staying in the race, so she’s toned down her attacks on Obama. Unfortunately, she’s hurting the party by staying in the race regardless of her new found ‘highroad’ approach.
You still seem to misinterpret the anger many Obama supporters feel towards Hillary. It isn’t directed (or shouldn’t be) at her policies and what she’s done as a Senator, it’s directed at the type of campaign she’s run and the fact that she still refuses to make a gracious exit from the race so the party can unite. You say Obama/his supporters should “start thinking about what it might take to convince some of those voters who weren’t so convinced.” It’s quite apparent to me what it will take – Hillary needs to graciously exit the race and start throwing her support behind Obama. As long as she stays in the race, her supporters will become more and more entrenched in their view that Obama doesn’t understand their plight. This election was decided many many months ago. People’s minds were made up long ago and there isn’t anything either one of them can do to change how it will play out. Each state has gone exactly as expected based on demographic makeup. If you want the Democrats to win in the fall as badly as you say you do, our best hope is for Hillary to get out now and give Obama the time to win over her supporters (with her help). The longer she stays in it, the less time he’ll have to do that. Simple as that.
May 15, 2008 at 9:58 pm #618127
beachdrivegirlParticipantIt is such a good thing that Obama has all of these different groups chosing to come together and openly support such a great canidate! It really assures me when I hear all of these individauls with different backgrounds supporting Obama that I made the right decison from the start for not only myself but our country.
May 15, 2008 at 10:03 pm #618128
beachdrivegirlParticipantFirst, very well said Villagegreen. Your post showed as I was writing above and secondly great day for Obama as seven of Edwards delegates have swapped to support Obama!
May 15, 2008 at 11:08 pm #618129
JoBParticipantVillagegreen…
would that what you believe was so…
the anger is not directed at Hillary but at her campaign tactics?
sorry. that’s too much of a revisionist stretch for me.
how do you explain the huge anybody but Hillary campaign prior to her so called campaign tactics… before Obama was a viable candidate?
As for the tactics.. If you look at the tactics of both campaigns objectively… you will find that there were plenty of hi-jinks on both sides…
objectively. there is real question as to who threw the first punch… but i still believe it isn’t much of a problem to document that it was the Obama campaign.
So why are her campaign tactics an excuse for the anger directed at her?
If there was no anger directed at Hillary, why was Obama’s race off limits when Hillary’s sex clearly wasn’t? she was dismissed loudly and often as “just a housewife” and her political experience dismissed as “just a spouse”… by democrats.
those would be fighting words used against you or someone you love describing their contributions to a lifetime partnership…
yet those words were used repeatedly on this blog.
I actually visited the Huffington blog and the daily KOS and others who made mincemeat of Hillary daily.
Tell me.. what liberal political site can you refer to that did the same to Obama?
I was specific because the Republican press doesn’t count.. though that and more has been attributed to her. She has been blamed for the republican tactics used against her.
and if you look at the stats.. you will find that even while Obama was getting bad press.. her negative mentions still often exceeded his.
this has been a dirty campaign.. but not a dirty campaign waged by the Hillary camp…
The only place you will find evidence to the contrary is on highly biased blogs that made a Clinton witch hunt a priority…
I don’t think you would be so proud of Adrianna Huffington speaking for you if you actually took a good look at her.
yet, she has single handedly had more to do with setting the tone of this campaign than any other media source. She puts Karl to shame.. but then.. it seems she learned from him:)
Or was it from her one time idol, John McCain?
The republican press and anti-Hillary blogs have completely distorted both the publics perception of Hillary and this primary.
And the republican press isn’t done yet…
May 15, 2008 at 11:13 pm #618130
beachdrivegirlParticipantI might be mistaken but wasn’t Clinton the one that couldnt even talk about the issues and went down during the dirt throwing path during the last debate? Hmm i think im right. For someone that has all of these strong policies and plans it seems like she might of wanted to talk about them when it mattered, but she chose not to because she thought that the Republican way of trash talking was the only way to be the nominee. Thank goodness she was wrong!
May 16, 2008 at 1:20 am #618131
walfredoMemberFunny story today- I was listening to the Ed Schultz show, and Lanny Davis was on. Now, if you have watched CNN on MSNBC the past 3 months, this guy is the most annoying Clinton surrogate out there, so far removed from reality it was frightening.
Anyway, it was the weirdest thing, because he actually sounded reasoned and well spoken. He was not willing to concede defeat, and emphasized that Hillary “can” win, but he also explained how difficult it was going to be, and what the actual victory scenario would look like. It involved her sweeping the remaining contests, overtaking the popular vote most likely being forced to exclude Michigan in the count, and getting a number of currently committed Obama superdelegates to rethink there position and endorse her.
Look, I’m not rooting for this to happen, but if the Clinton surrogates had made rational arguments from the start, about how they planned on overcoming impossible math, rather then reinventing the metrics 20 times, and challenging that the sky was blue… They might have a more compelling argument to make right now, specific to electablity. Instead, no one is taking anything they argue seriously…
May 16, 2008 at 1:58 am #618132
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl…
more Clinton bashing.
when do you think you will be done?
will you ever be done?
Walfredo…
Clinton surrogates have been making rational arguments all along… you just haven’t bothered to listen to them.
Maybe because you had to actually search to hear them.. they weren’t reported much on the anti Hillary blogs or on network news.
imagine that.
And with that i am out of here today.
i wish i could say it has been fun.. but it hasn’t.
May 16, 2008 at 3:22 pm #618133
walfredoMemberJoB- I’m sorry they haven’t. I have heard Lanny Davis talk 100’s of times. What he said yesterday was a complete 180 from what he has said in the past…
They have argued that Pennsylvania gets to pick the president. They have argued that the electorial map should be used for the primaries. They have argued that “this is a race for delegates” after Iowa. They have argued that the popular vote is the only true metric. They have argued that the sky was in fact not blue. They have argued that Michigan would not count for anything. Then that it should be revote. Then that it should be counted as it stands. They have argured that caucases shouldn’t count.
Many, many, many media outlets have covered the blatant hypocrisy of there arguments, that they have changed as the winds blown. Keith Olbermann and John Stewart probably doing the most amusing stringing together of the many false narratives…
May 22, 2008 at 4:50 pm #618134
walfredoMemberhttp://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1511
Very encouraging poll numbers. Obama with a large lead over McCain nationally, despite 1/3 Hillary supporters not currently supporting him.
Turns out the republicans might be more divided then they are letting on, and that settling on a nominee quickly didn’t heal all the primary wounds, specifically conservatives dislike on McCain…
Also nice to see Barack up 25 points in the national primary poll…
May 28, 2008 at 8:26 pm #618135
AnonymousInactiveI know that I vowed to not discuss politics, but I just cannot help myself. Especially since I notice that none of this has been discussed on this forum.
I know that you would all rather discuss polls and numbers and ratings, but I wanted to get feedback on some issues.
What are your thoughts regarding Obama’s plans to disarm our military?
What are your thoughts on his story about his “uncle” invading Auschwitz?
I know that when McCain “misspoke”, it was the worst thing in the world and he was a complete idiot. What is it, then, when Obama misspeaks?
May 28, 2008 at 8:39 pm #618136
beachdrivegirlParticipantI think that that Obama honestly made a mistake in regards to his uncle invading Auschwitz. It was his great uncle not uncle and I know that I call my great Uncles, Uncle. I also dont think it is that big of a deal about getting the rade place wrong because when you heard a story as a kid that is simpel mistake to make especially since he did not actually live through the experience himself and since it was his great Uncle he probably was very young.
May 28, 2008 at 8:42 pm #618137
rs261MemberAs far as him “disarming” our military, I’d like to ask in what regard?
The uncle/great uncle thing messing up the location, not that big of a deal in my opinion…what McCain slip up are you talking about?
May 28, 2008 at 8:44 pm #618138
beachdrivegirlParticipantI think it is in regards to stopping the production of Nuclear fire arms and trying to reason with Russia. Personally, I dont know the details of his plan, but on the surface I don not personally see to much of a problem with it.
May 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm #618139
AnonymousInactiveWouldn’t you want your future President to check his references and his story before he speaks publicly about it?
I know that everyone was very upset that McCain made a “mistake” when he got some terrorist groups mixed up. I remember everyone thinking it was a very “big deal” that he misspoke. Why is McCain held to a higher standard?
In my opinion, it is a “big deal” in that it illustrates his extreme lack of experience. How could he not foresee that the story he remembered from his childhood and shared with America would not be checked for accuracy? If it doesn’t illustrate his inexperience, then it certainly illustrates his poor judgment at the very least.
And what about plans on disarming our military? I haven’t looked a lot into this claim. The video was sent to me via email, but my sound is broken on the computer and I cannot find a transcript of the speech anywhere. As far as I can tell, the entire video has been removed from the internet.
Thoughts?
May 28, 2008 at 8:53 pm #618140
beachdrivegirlParticipantMcCain’s confusiion is a huge deal becuase it reflects CURRENT terroist groups. Groups that our next President must not confuse, must be educated on, and must be one step ahead of. It sure puts doubt in my mind as to what type of “leader” he can be if he does not understand why we are curretnly in war and what terrosts groups exist and where.
May 28, 2008 at 9:00 pm #618141
beachdrivegirlParticipantFurthermore, considering this is a family story I dont think references need to even be talked about. I dont check the references on every story I hear from mother, father, grandmother etc.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.