- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 20, 2008 at 3:55 am #617417
beachdrivegirlParticipantHouse I find it very extreme to call Obama a hypocrite. He has stayed real through the entire campaign. In fact, he has stayed real through his entire time in politics. Real to who he is. and that is what makes people believe in him.
March 20, 2008 at 4:19 am #617418
beachdrivegirlParticipantSo earlier tonight I was watching CNN and they referenced whether or not it hurt Obama that he did not want to count Michigan and that got me irate. Hillary knew and voted for the rules that were in Michigan. Furthermore, she signed a pledge in these states not to campaign there. She was the only name on the ballot in Michigan. We can not have double standards.
March 20, 2008 at 5:30 am #617419
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl..
she followed the rules. she did not campaign there.
the rules said nothing about the choice to actually be on the ballot…
she made her choice.
Obama made his.
And he did campaign there… after choosing not to be on the ballot… he encouraged all of his supporters to mark the other box in protest…
that was the 40% vote….
who ultimately broke the rules?
So…
what does this have to do with whether Michigan should get to recount? Then everyone’s votes would count.
There is no rule prohibiting that. In fact, if Michigan’s primary didn’t count.. then they have not yet voted.. have they?
So why is Obama against a do over?
March 20, 2008 at 5:32 am #617420
AnonymousInactiveObama is a hypocrite because he demanded Ferraro resign for a lot less than what Wright has said. And Obama refuses to distance himself from his pastor and laughs about it!! Ridiculous.
March 20, 2008 at 6:08 am #617421
JanSParticipantI think Mr. Obama stated today that he will go along with whatever the DNC (aka The Party) decides.
New res…I guess we see things differently. I don’t see him laughing at all….and I see that he denounced this man in the most vociferous way. He HAS distanced himself from the man..what would you have him do?
I’m done with this…time to move on…
March 20, 2008 at 6:18 am #617422
TheHouseMemberbeachdrivegirl, I think this blog spells it out pretty clearly that he is a hypocrite. NewResident’s reason listed above is another reason.
PS…while the Democrats sling poop at each other, McCain is quietly going to creep in as the next President.
I’m really starting to feel bad for Dems…your party can’t seem to get it together.
Looks like the only thing you Dems will be changing for me in 2008 will be my tires.
March 20, 2008 at 6:19 am #617423
TheHouseMemberMarch 20, 2008 at 11:25 am #617424
KayleighMemberHouse, would you like to talk about what “influential” people close to Bush have said and done? Meaning the parade of corporate criminals, Bible-thumping wackos, corrupt Saudis, etc. that the Bush family keeps company with?
You do realize you sound paranoid, don’t you? Or do you think people are capable of having their own opinions separate from the people around them?
March 20, 2008 at 11:38 am #617425
KayleighMemberNewRes, Obama didn’t laugh at what the pastor said; he denounced it while trying to explain it in context. Not gonna stand by while you make stuff up.
Ferraro is a bigot going way back and should not be part of anybody’s campaign. Her thinking is out-of-date and divisive.
I’m just laughing that you could actually believe that he hates America. Why in the world has he spent his life in public service? And have you honestly seen any glimmer of hatred in him?
Are you white? Do you spend a lot of time with black people or in black churches? If not, it’s entirely possible that there are things you don’t understand about black American culture—including beliefs, history, style of communication, what’s acceptable, etc.
Jo, your love for Hillary won’t let you see that he’s a statesman. But he is.
House, there I agree with you: the Republicans are likely laughing so hard at us they’re spilling their Chardonnay on their golf shirts.
March 20, 2008 at 2:46 pm #617426
beachdrivegirlParticipantI am with you on this Kayleigh and JanS I dont think that Obama was laughing at all at what his minister said. Furthermore, correct me if I wrong, but I do not think Obama demanded that Ferraro resign. And yes, House, Kayleigh is dead on with the Republicans laughing at us right now..
March 20, 2008 at 4:41 pm #617427
AnonymousInactive“laughing” was too strong a word to use on my part. He clearly stated that he will not denounce the pastor, because he would then be denouncing the entire black community. Am I to assume the entire black community holds these same beliefs? To liken the pastor to an uncle that will say crazy things, I feel, is belittling the seriousness of the harsh things the pastor said.
BDG is right when she says that the Dem’s need to come together. Right now it’s Dems against Dems, as far as I can see. It really is a mess for the Democratic Party. I truly thought, as Charla knows, that the Dems would take it this term, now I’m not so sure.
March 20, 2008 at 5:21 pm #617428
JoBParticipantright now it appears to be trash talk against trash talk.. and that’s boring…
house, i don’t think you are a fool, but the tire changing remark is pretty foolish. and.. lame link.
unless you count the polls which ask only whether McCain can beat Hillary or Obama, which are bound to be off right now with such a heated race on the democratic side…. and his approval rating… which at the moment looks pretty good becasue nobody is on him yet….
if you look at the polls which look at who is willing to vote for who… he is in about the same place as Obama and Clinton.
Since this isn’t a three way race… i would be worried if i were him… no matter how the press paints it and how inflamed everyone gets, some of those voters whose candidate doesn’t get the nomination will vote democratic.
As for the undecideds and independents.. those swing votes… it doesn’t matter which candidate wins the democratic nomination.. either stands more for the issues that Americans actually care about than McCain.
You can only dip into America’s pocketbook so far before they start to scream… and republicans have been greedy lately. I doubt even hate will trump self interest this time.
What part of bailout don’t you understand? The last one resulted in a ton of small business owners going belly-up. People don’t like that.
Andi dont’ think it is just in the Presidential election where things will swing democrat. People are pissed off.. and those who are really pissed off will only be getting $300 of that sweet economic bailout to spend.. and to those losing their homes (because their mortgage company is in trouble due to their own greed and still too stupid to negotiate terms their customers can live with,,, that will have to be another legislated buyout and is going to be too late for most) .. do you think even $1,200 for a couple is going to go far in most areas?
Have you actually looked at house prices and mortgages today? Have you looked at what your house could realistically get on the market today? Seattle hasn’t slid like some places because of the demand for houses, but those subprime deals haven’t yet hit for the low end of the housing market and when they do it is likely that even your house will lose value for a time.
Even those who are at the upper ends of the middle economic bracket are hurting. Wall street isn’t doing so well for them right now. The dollar has slid to a hole so low that friends canceled trips to France this spring due to the dollar/eruo ratio… our neighbors to the north are ecstatic… and we are all worried for those retirement accounts which laughingly substitute for pensions these days.
And are you driving as much these days? i’m not.. yet reduced demand hasn’t created even a blip at he pump.
sometimes self interest trumps even ideology…
NewResident.. i don’t think you have to worry about us dems coming together when it counts… we may both be defending our candidate now.. but wait till you see us defend our cause.
As for Reverend Wright… you are right that Obama isn’t exactly repudiating him… but there is a lot of selective listening going on in both sides of that question. His speech was a great speech.. and a well calculated political gamble. It may just work.
either way, McCain isn’t going to have the high road on that one… his preacher friends & contributors are anti-black, anti-sementic, anti-catholic… is there anything else to be anti about???
And he can’t make up his mind if he is a presbyterian or a baptist… you may have noticed that there is a wide difference in theology between the two? his religion appears to be opportunism.
Kayleigh.. i know you are upset for your candidate, but Geraldine Ferraro is not a racist. she is a crusty lady who calls it like she sees it and sometimes doesn’t think before she opens her mouth… but definately not a racist. Accusations don’t make it so. perhaps you should go read a little of her personal history.. because it is obvious you need some context.
Beachdrivegirl.. yes, Obama and/or his campaign did demand her resignation… which is in stark contrast to what Hillary said about the monster remark.
The demands for “justice” are consistent with Obama’s political style. Not the first time he has risen in umbrage as a black man and not likely to be the last. Like i said, his is a fine line… he built his political base on that umbrage.. but points out to his biological mix when it’s mentioned. So far, it’s worked. I said it, but i couldn’t have meant it… fine line.
JanS.. just because Obama finally figured out that he couldn’t buck the democratic party on this one either (re: his end run on superdelegates) doesn’t mean he didn’t try. And that is the big deal.
it may be good gamemanship, but not good politics.
a good night’s sleep really does wonders for my attitude:)
March 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm #617429
walfredoMemberJoB- you are nuts. She followed the rules in Michigan and Florida? Okay- seriously? Are you serious? She has been quoted, numerous times- numerous times- prior to the elections saying “THE DELEGATES IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WILL NOT COUNT”. This was her position, she expressed 0 outrage prior to the elections. Her campaign staff was part of the democratic committee that set the rules.
She then, went alone and kept her name on the ballot… then all of a sudden is actively campaigning that the elections should count, and stand!
That is following the rules? Please tell me how that complete 180 isn’t completely hypocritical and entirely self-serving. Please tell me you believe in your heart of hearts that Hillary would want those results to stand if Obama was the only candidate on the ballot and recieved slightly over 50% of the vote!
Please break this down for me. I know Obama’s 6-year old can figure this out. It seems ridicuously simple to me, but for some reason Clinton supporters leave in a different universe. I’d like visit- please explain how her actions aren’t appalling and self-serving…
March 20, 2008 at 7:19 pm #617430
KayleighMemberJoB,
She said of Obama: He got where he is because he is black.
She said of Jesse Jackson: He got where he is because he is black.
Aside from being derisive and disrespectful and diminishing their accomplishments as leaders and as humans, it’s the exact kind of retro-divisiveness that Obama is trying to rise above. Racist or not? I think so, but even if not, it does not honor either man and doesn’t further the dialogue. (and I’m no Jesse Jackson fan.)
Now I know you’ll parse out what she said and twist it to be OK, because you have become an apologist for the Hillary campagin. An alternate universe to be sure.
I won’t forgive Ferraro that one, no matter who spins it.
March 20, 2008 at 7:47 pm #617431
JoBParticipantYou are quoting the rules…
She followed the rules.
She was simply pragmatic and left her name on the ballots… which was not against the rules.
campaigning was.
she didn’t campaign. it was against the rules.
rules which the Obama campaign ignored when it organized an “other” vote in michigan… when “other” was supposed to signify support for Obama…
technically, they didn’t break the rules… only because they did not initiate a write in campaign… but they certainly edged right up against the line.
Ergo. she followed the rules.
opportunistic… perhaps… self serving.. of course… but well within the rules…
and by the way.. nothing more than her job as a candidate. no matter how you paint it.. her job as a candidate is to get elected.
And equal opportunity, because Obama had the same opportunity.
And she is both eager and willing for a revote for both states…
which some could argue would put Obama at better advantage now than then… because he has built his momentum… which he didn’t have earlier in the race… and is currently outfunding her campaign in every state…
I personally think she would have been better off to let those states alone because the outcome is likely to be basically what it is now… and she no longer has the advantage there…
If there is a recount, Obama has every opportunity and certainly the means to carry those electoral votes and enter the convention the clear winner.
I will concede that Hillary has had a strategic advantage when it came to party politics…
and that’s called experience..
which the Obama campaign doesn’t want to admit she has… but which has certainly paid off here.
She also started courting superdelegates early.
Obama didn’t.
He now trails… and his campaign intimates that actively courting superdelegates is cheating… they should follow the will of the people.
That isn’t their role at the party convention. Their role is precisely for situations like this when the voters are not showing a clear preference.. and overwhelming preference for one candidate or the other.
Is that a fair explanation?
As i have stated over and over, party nominations are not jsut popular elections. they are the process the party uses to choose their candidate. As voters, we have the opportunity to influence our party.. and if there is an overwhelming popular preference for one candidate over the other… then their rules require them to follow with popular opinion.. but when there isn’t.. the party chooses it’s candidate at conventions.
that’s how it all works.
And there are a lot of people just like me whose clear preference is for Hillary… we deserve to be heard as loudly as those who support Obama.
If there is no clear preference.. the decision goes to performance.. and that is more about party politics than anything else.
Personally, if supporters are going to abandon the party because they don’t get their candidate..
i think the true progressives should take over and we should back Kucinich.. who was the only true progressive running:)
At least then going down in flames would stand for something…
March 20, 2008 at 8:00 pm #617432
JoBParticipantkayleigh,
she said Jesse Jackson pulled the black vote in South Caroline (i think) because of his race… black people voting for their own.
And in fact, when the vote was analyzed, that turned out to be true.
She said that Obama was lucky and that his race allowed him to pull a huge portion of the black vote.. which when analyzed is true.
neither of those remarks is racist or bigotted…
any more than the Obama campaign stating that Clinton pulls a large percentage of the older vote and the female vote because of her age or her sex is ageism or sexism.
If Ferraro had said.. people only vote for him because he is black.. that could be considered racist… and he would certainly have reason to complain.
That still wouldn’t make Ferraro a racist.
She would have to actually go much further than that on a regular basis … to be a racist..
something in the line of what Obama’s pastor is quoted as saying would do nicely… but of course you don’t think that is racist.
I don’t care what your standard is.. but you have to pick one and use it equally for both sides.
It has been repeated in the press regularly that Hillary is only in the campaign because of those “middle aged”… “bitter” … “vindictive” … “women’s libbers” .. and each of those actual words that have been used in conjunction to describe her supporters…
and that is actually rampant sexism…
yet Obama supporters of the same sex seem to feel that is ok.
Pick a standard and then apply it equally.
March 20, 2008 at 8:08 pm #617433
JenVMemberforgive me for sounding politically naive- lord knows I don’t want House jumping my &%&#!- but my thought on Obama’s speech was that it showed he is a true person of integrity. A “stand up guy” if you will. He knows what Wright did to his campaign- and yet because he is a friend he did not denounce or distance himself from Wright, just distanced himself from his statements. We need someone in office who at least has an ounce of integrity- and let me tell you- it ain’t McCain. He can’t even stand by anything he himself says! All other political statments aside- at least Obama has personal integrity- and that I respect- whether or not I am voting for him. I don’t normally get involved in political discussions, and I wont get any further embroiled in this flame fest. That was just my $.02.
March 20, 2008 at 8:11 pm #617434
beachdrivegirlParticipantThe President is supposed to be a leader and so far I see where Obama is and Clinton lacks! First and far most as mentioned in an earlier post to be a leader you have to be able to manage and as we have all seen/read/heard that is one thing she has failed to do with her own campaign. A bit scary to think that she cant manage that small group yet we still have people who think she can manage and lead a country. Truely frightening! Now onto the next part a leader should be ethical. And being ethical does not just trace back to whether or not someone is following the rules it goes back to right and wrong. So, JoB you are right it was not breaking the rules. But she was not begin ethical. An individual who lacks management skills and is unethical is noone I want representing the Democratic party.
March 20, 2008 at 8:31 pm #617435
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl..
if someone else hadn’t worn me out already i might go into the ethics of both campaigns.
what she did was ethical.
If Obama had been as clever… you would think so. you apparently have no problem with the ethics of his campaign’s other vote campaign in Michigan when he figured out it was too late to get on the ballot there.
Clinton’s campaign suffers from the inheritance of her husband’s campaign structure and from her willingness to delegate and not second guess her staff. A problem by the way which her senate staff doesn’t seem to have… and which this one no longer seems to have either.
You know.. i am tired. this isnt’ a conversation any more… i have noticed i am repeating myself.
it’s after one and i am going to leave this mess to you and go have some fun.
March 20, 2008 at 8:31 pm #617436
KayleighMemberJo, I’m not responsible for what the other Obama supporters say (and I had not read that anywhere, so I don’t know where you’re reading.) I don’t have magical powers so I can’t make them to stop saying sexist things. You are the one employing the double standard, Jo, by saying that Ferraro is factually correct (and she isn’t, but you’re not interested in facts) but the mysterious Obama supporters are sexist.
I knew you would pretend it wasn’t racist. I really did. Obama is just “lucky”? Are all successful black people “lucky” and where they are because they’re black and black people support them? Do they have any real human qualities, leadership, skill, intelligence, dilligence, talent, etc that got them there? Would *any* black person inspire the confidence and hope that Obama does (he does it with all races, by the way)? Shall we just drop any black person in that slot? How about Kareem Abdul Jabaar? He’s black, so black people will support him, right?
You have no idea how insulting this is. No idea at all, or you wouldn’t defend it.
March 20, 2008 at 9:15 pm #617437
JoBParticipantKayleigh,
you apparently have no idea how insulting you are being to me… personally
You are labeling me a racist.. and i know i have earned the right not to be labeled that way by a lifetime of commitment to the rights of all people. I have shared information in this forum that should tell you that i am not racist.
i put my money, my time and my ideals and even my personal safety where my mouth is.
You dismiss my assertion that Obama carried surprisingly large percentages of the black vote in predominately black states as not factual?
What part of about 90% of the black vote in Mississippi … just one state… doesn’t seem like carrying the black vote to you? You may not like what it seems to imply. but it is factual.
i would like you to show me any one place where i said anything which implied this?
“…. Obama is just “lucky”? Are all successful black people “lucky” and where they are because they’re black and black people support them? Do they have any real human qualities, leadership, skill, intelligence, dilligence, talent, etc that got them there? Would *any* black person inspire the confidence and hope that Obama does (he does it with all races, by the way)? Shall we just drop any black person in that slot? How about Kareem Abdul Jabaar? He’s black, so black people will support him, right?”
I don’t know who you are reacting to.. but i know for a fact that it isn’t me.
and if you actually looked at Geraldine Ferraro beyond the two remarks you quote.. you would find it wasn’t her either.
That is the problem with just reacting.. it tends to spill out into and onto conversations that have nothing to do with those reactions.
March 20, 2008 at 9:34 pm #617438
KayleighMemberSHE DIDN’T SAY “CARRY THE BLACK VOTE”. SHE SAID
“GOT WHERE HE IS BECAUSE HE IS BLACK”. YOU ARE PRETENDING SHE SAID “CARRY THE BLACK VOTE” BECAUSE YOU LIKE THAT BETTER.
HE CARRIED UTAH, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.
BLACKS ARE 13% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION. THEY CAN’T SINGLEHANDEDLY ELECT SOMEONE!
Un-frickin-believable.
March 20, 2008 at 9:37 pm #617439
beachdrivegirlParticipant“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,†she continued. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.â€-This is the quote.
March 20, 2008 at 10:09 pm #617440
SAMemberThe Dems better settle this quickly because if this drags out until August I’m not sure there will be enough time between the convention and the election to heal the wounds of the losing side.
You’ve got to wonder how the Dems will run the country if they can’t even run their own party without it imploding. Sad… very sad.
March 20, 2008 at 10:32 pm #617441
JohnMMemberso, lowmanbeach, how about sponsoring a live debate and invite all these folks to participate?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.