Slander, deceit, and divisive fear tactics are the traditional hallmark of Democrats, and I haven't seen that Obama has put himself above those tactics, either against Hillary, or in his attacks the last few days on McCain.
Man, you really don't pay attention to or you enthusiastically endorse ANYTHING the right wing does.
Quote:
The Hillary Clinton campaign publicized the islamic-dressed Osama photo. Bill Clinton said that blacks are voting their skin color for Obama, rather than on the merits of qualification for president. Even the liberal media has criticized the Clintons for race-baiting. Hillary Clinton pulled Rezko's 17-year relationship and ties to Obama out, and his representing a "slumlord". And on and on. Not the Republicans.
i.e., you're a lying partisan sack of shit.
And that is a large part of why I don't support her and have called her a bitch here publicly. The other part is her denouncing gOP policies while having had voted FOR them. That doesn't make the rest of the right wing and some state gOP's innocent from spreading what may or may not have come from Clinton. Same pieces of shit if you ask me.
As for the "attack" on McCain. You mean THIS?:
That is not so much "attack" as stupidity on McCain's part that Obama handled expertly..
Still, i'm glad you've been reduced to frothing at the mouth insults. It brings a wide grin to my face. Really it does.
I wonder, if Obama wins the Presidency and the south doesn't secede, will some of you guys down there reenact the '08 election for the next 150-some years?
...People like Karl Rove know that the more ridiculous the charge you make, the better. Because they’re not aimed at rational people. They’re aimed at that great teeming mass of Americans who wept with joy when they heard “American Gladiators” was coming back. They’re called “undecideds” or “swing voters”, but I prefer the traditional term, “morons”.
remember, the poster who quoted this is 'with' the majority of Americans.
What happened?
Bill Maher cut a little too close there?
you make me sick, thats a KKK promo video!
I appreciate a little irony as much as the next guy...
Quote:
"The KKK Took My Baby Away" is a song written by Joey Ramone. It appears on the Ramones' 1981 album Pleasant Dreams.
Many Ramones fans claim that the song was penned by Joey after Ramones' guitarist Johnny Ramone "stole" Joey's ex-girlfriend Linda from him, although he claims that he wrote the song years before the incident. The KKK reference refers to Johnny's conservative political stance, which influenced Johnny's management of the band in a militant, slightly authoritarian way. Johnny first started to cheat on his girlfriend at the time, to see Linda. When he wanted to see one girl he would claim to visit his uncle in Philadelphia. To add insult to injury, Johnny eventually married Linda, while his relationship with Joey never recovered—even when Joey was stricken with cancer.
wow it is ironic. joey was the liberal crying into a song about somebody "stealing" "his" girlfriend, while johnny was the conservative that saw what he wanted, went and got it on his own.
The circulation of pictures of Sen. Barack Obama in traditional Somali garb - said to be an effort by Clinton operatives to tar him - have stoked Muslim extremists' anger at the United States, a terror expert says.
"May Allah kill them" and "May Allah destroy them" are among sentiments expressed toward the United States in Web posts about the controversy on al Qaeda- and extremist-oriented sites, said Evan Kohlmann of Global Terror Alert.
Some posts even claim Obama is an Iranian agent sent to take over the US government and wage war against Sunni Muslims.
"They are suggesting there is no difference between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Bush and Satan," Kohlmann said.
It's safe to say that muslim extremists are going to hate the new president no matter what. They got pissy when MN elected the first muslim to the senate too. And of course Obama isn't even a muslim to begin with despite efforts of conservatives like yourself G-man to paint him as one.
I've been saying that for years to all of you especially our European members and our more liberal memebers. George Bush has very little to do with how much the world hates us. They will hate whoever is the President and they will always hate the USA.
Oops, it seems that Ohio Union officials have some questions for Senator Barack Obama. In a letter sent by them to the Obama campaign, Gary Dwyer, Secretary-Treasurer, Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council Barry Pickett, Business Representative, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 24, write: “We were surprised and disappointed to learn that your top economic adviser reportedly had a secret meeting with a representative of the Canadian government where he dismissed your anti-NAFTA rhetoric.”
It is therefore that they have some questions. Questions that need to be answered:
1) Did you direct your top economic adviser - Austan Goolsbee - to tell the Canadian government that your speeches railing against NAFTA are just political rhetoric? If so, why?
2) Are you aware that Mr. Goolsbee held a secret meeting with the Canadian Counsel General Georges Rioux? Have you spoken with Mr. Goolsbee about that meeting and will you repudiate his comments?
3) Why has Mr. Goolsbee been unwilling to deny that he discussed your positions on NAFTA with Mr. Rioux? Why won’t your campaign disclose the full details about that meeting?
4) Given these reports, why should Ohioans believe that you will act on the campaign promises you have made about NAFTA?
5) Sen. Clinton has issued a comprehensive plan to fix NAFTA. Why haven’t you done so as well?
They conclude: “The people of Ohio are eager to hear from you - there’s too much at stake.”
Slander, deceit, and divisive fear tactics are the traditional hallmark of Democrats, and I haven't seen that Obama has put himself above those tactics, either against Hillary, or in his attacks the last few days on McCain.
Man, you really don't pay attention to or you enthusiastically endorse ANYTHING the right wing does.
As usual, all you have is insults and mischaracterizations.
What exactly have I "endorsed"?
I already said that McCain is difficult to support on a number of issues, particularly amnesty for illegals, and the mess he's made of campaign finance reform with the McCain/Feingold bill.
Originally Posted By: WB
The Hillary Clinton campaign publicized the islamic-dressed Osama photo. Bill Clinton said that blacks are voting their skin color for Obama, rather than on the merits of qualification for president. Even the liberal media has criticized the Clintons for race-baiting. Hillary Clinton pulled Rezko's 17-year relationship and ties to Obama out, and his representing a "slumlord". And on and on. Not the Republicans.
i.e., you're a lying partisan sack of shit.
Originally Posted By: Whomod
And that is a large part of why I don't support her and have called her a bitch here publicly. The other part is her denouncing gOP policies while having had voted FOR them. That doesn't make the rest of the right wing and some state gOP's innocent from spreading what may or may not have come from Clinton. Same pieces of shit if you ask me.
Uhh, most of the Democrat leadership, with the exception of Obama, ALSO voted for those GOP policies, particularly Iraq. The 9.2 trillion dollar deficit is largely liberal spending that Bush did not use his veto power to restrain as a true Republican would have. And before you rant further about the Iraq war, annual budgets under Bush have run higher in domestic spending than on the War on Terror.
I haven't seen the Republican candidates take any noteworthy shots at Hillary and Obama, preferring instead to just let them bloody each other. Even conservative pundits such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are thrashing McCain more than Clinton or Obama. Coulter said she'd vote for Hillary over McCain !
So except for one guy who announce John McCain when he was on the stump campaigning, who said "Barack Hussein Obama" about 6 times (some nameless conservative radio commentator from the styx, who McCain immediately denounced and distanced himself from) I don't see this EEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLL Republican attack machine you keep harping about.
Originally Posted By: Whomod
As for the "attack" on McCain. You mean THIS?:
That is not so much "attack" as stupidity on McCain's part that Obama handled expertly..
Obama said "Bush and McCain chose to invade Iraq", which slandered McCain as being 100% backing Bush in the invasion and conduct of the Iraq war. Whereas in truth, McCain has vocally opposed many aspects of Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq, ongoing, for years. McCain, like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, has occasionally supported W.Bush regarding Iraq, and at least as often opposed Bush policy, and pressed for Rumsfeld's removal and a more effective strategy in Iraq, which finally happened with "the Surge".
Obama's remarks were mired in pedantic monotone, but were slanderous nonetheless. If Obama is going to raise such arguments as "Bush and McCain chose to invade Iraq," Obama could include John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and most of the other Democrats in Washington in that "chose to invade Iraq" characterization.
If Obama were a U.S. Senator in Sept 2002 when the Senate voted to invade Iraq, he probably would have voted "present" instead of "yes" or "no", as Obama did so often in the Illinois State Senate, where he served before his brief little field trip to Washington. But yeah, Obama's an agent of change, not just another politician.
Originally Posted By: Whomod
Still, i'm glad you've been reduced to frothing at the mouth insults. It brings a wide grin to my face. Really it does.
If you want to see "reduced to frothing at the mouth insults", just re-read the two lengthy apoplectic rantings of yours I quoted in my previous post.
Originally Posted By: Whomod
I wonder, if Obama wins the Presidency and the south doesn't secede, will some of you guys down there reenact the '08 election for the next 150-some years?
Just asking.
More slander on your part.
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
No, that's just more ad-hominem attack. You label anyone who disagrees with you a bigot, homophobe, hater, extremist, etc.
Your tactics come straight from the Moscow Central Committee:
Quote:
Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi, or Anti-Semitic... the association will, after enough repitition, become "fact" in the public mind.
Slander as an alternative strategy to honest political debate.
The Revolution continues, even after the fall of the Soviet Union.
You insinuate some racist mindset for my resistance of Obama, while ignoring that I many times have praised widespread support of Colin Powell as a potential candidate, and have often quoted polls that show Powell would have nationally beaten any other candidate in 1992, 1996 and 2000, if he had chosen to run for president. Powell is a black man who is highly qualified and experienced for the job of President.
It's not about race, as you slanderously attempt to make it at every turn. It's about whether the candidate in question is a pandering liberal who will give amnesty to illegals (because they're reliable Democrat voters) and in other ways will raise taxes and expand the welfare state, in the testing of their pet liberal theories. At the expense of U.S. sovereignty and taxpaying citizens.
By NEDRA PICKLER | Associated Press Writer 11:14 AM EST, March 3, 2008
SAN ANTONIO, Texas - Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton. The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting. "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." ...
Big time WHOOPSY, he's been waving the anti-NAFTA flag heavilly lately & now he's been caught telling Canada that it's just political rhetoric. I'm sure he still has certain votes that he can count on but I think the days of his inevitablity of winning the nomination is over.
This is typical of the old way of doing politics. We can't look at what I may or may not have said to a consulate in Canada in the past. We need to look to the future.
I give you my word, that in the future I will not secretly meet with Canadian politicians and tell them that I'm just kidding about my campaign promises.
I'm bringing real change to Washington. Change you can count on. In the past many politicians would make a campaign promise, get elected, then back out.
I don't follow the traditional path.
I have decided that in order to move this country forward, we as politicians should make campaign promises, and break them before we get elected. Let's take the special interest out of the White House, and cater to them on the campaign trail.
Vote for change you can believe in.
My name is Barack Hussein Obama, and I support this message(publicly anyways).
Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. "She didn't give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won't even admit that her vote was a mistake--or even that it was a vote for war," Obama said.
"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.
He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.
Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.
Not only that, but Clinton said in a debate, with Obama sitting right next to her, that she regrets her vote and wished she could take it back.
Of course, the more these two fight for the nomination, the longer it'll take to have a Democrat nominee. The longer it takes them to get a nominee, the further behind their campaigns are going to be on McCain.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Not only that, but Clinton said in a debate, with Obama sitting right next to her, that she regrets her vote and wished she could take it back.
Of course, the more these two fight for the nomination, the longer it'll take to have a Democrat nominee. The longer it takes them to get a nominee, the further behind their campaigns are going to be on McCain.
Well if fund raising is any indication, that may not be entirely true.
In a remarkable financial recovery, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton raised $35 million in February even as Democratic rival Barack Obama was outspending her in key March 4 battlegrounds.
Likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain raised a little over $12 million in February, two campaign sources tell CNN’s John
King.
Obama has raised possibly 50 million from some reports in the same time period. Didn’t the McCain camp say they raised tons of cash over the NY Times story? What an embarassing turnout for McMaverick.
Following up on this, the NYT noted that the contests in Ohio and Texas are going down to the wire between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with Obama hoping to use a fundraising advantage to deliver a “knock-out blow.” Both sides have the resources, though, to oversee massive campaign operations in both states — in just February, Clinton raised $32 million, while Obama is believed to have taken in at least $50 million.
And, across the aisle, there’s John McCain, who reportedly collected about $12 million in February — the same underwhelming number he raised in January.
For Republicans, watching Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama fight for supremacy in fundraising is not just a spectator sport. It is a look into the future, and the GOP isn’t cheering.
Obama and Clinton together raked in as much as seven times as much cash in February as John McCain, the all-but-certain Republican nominee.
The Democrats, particularly Obama, are also developing a broad base of fervent donors whose help goes beyond sending money.
Some Republicans are sounding alarms. “Since the midterm election of 2006, Democrats have had an enthusiasm gap with Republicans,” said GOP strategist Scott Reed. “They have big crowds, raise more money and appear to have more excitement on the campaign trail. Couple this with turnout numbers, which are off the charts, and Republicans are going to have a big challenge in the fall.”
Worse, they don’t seem to have any idea what to do about it.
It’s a dynamic Republicans haven’t faced in the modern political era. I couldn’t be more pleased.
And overall, if G-Man and his fellow Republicans are voting in Democratic primaries to try to "prolong the agony", they'll still be voting for someone they despise and could handily win the Presidency. Big whoop.
Where did I say I did this, or even approved of it? The fact I mentioned something was happening does not imply endorsement or participation.
Furthermore, whomod, it's no secret that I live in New York. New York is a closed primary state. Therefore, as a registered Republican, I couldn't vote in the Democrat primary, or any other primary outside my party.
For someone who likes to pretend he's sophisticated about how politics works, you sometimes display some very woeful ignorance of the processes.
Also, McCain was behind in fund raising before the primaries and was all but counted out of the running. In fact, Romney outspent everyone in the campaign and lost Iowa to Huckabee, who hadn't spent much at all and just stayed on the ground and won voters with personal appearances.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Where did I say I did this, or even approved of it? The fact I mentioned something was happening does not imply endorsement or participation.
Furthermore, whomod, it's no secret that I live in New York. New York is a closed primary state. Therefore, as a registered Republican, I couldn't vote in the Democrat primary, or any other primary outside my party.
For someone who likes to pretend he's sophisticated about how politics works, you sometimes display some very woeful ignorance of the processes.
Well you didn't but you did mention it. With no hint of dissaproval. If I assumed you approved of it then my mistake.
Second, on the same note you sound about me, I'd assume that you were politically sophisticated enough to know that there is no such thing as a "Democrat primary". As I've said innumerable times in the past, it tends to make one sound like an ignorant dittohead when one repeats the politically motivated renaming of a political party espoused by the likes of Limbaugh, despite the fact that everyone outside of the fringe right knows that there is no "Democrat Party" or "Democrat Primary".
Thirdly, I have no idea where you live. Why should I?
...early on in the campaign, Obama had a strained relationship with the gay community over statements made from ...his campaign manager, another one of those so called "ex gays". Donnie McClurkin, a gospel singer (and Bush supporter)...
And the fact he supports Bush as well as Obama is relevant because...?
By JIM KUHNHENN and CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writers Wed Mar 5, 11:49 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama regained lost ground in the fierce competition for Democratic convention delegates on Wednesday based on results from the Texas caucuses, partially negating the impact of Hillary Rodham Clinton's string of comeback primary victories.
Late returns showed Clinton emerged from Rhode Island, Vermont, Texas and Ohio with a gain of 12 delegates on her rival for the night, with another dozen yet to be awarded in The Associated Press' count.
That left Obama with an overall lead of 101 delegates, 1,562-1,461 as the rivals look ahead to the final dozen contests on the calendar. It takes 2,025 to win the nomination.
The two presidential contenders made the rounds of the morning television news shows, agreeing on little — except that their historic struggle would continue at least until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.
That left six weeks for public campaigning, and for private appeals to party leaders, known as superdelegates, who attend the convention but are not chosen in primaries or caucuses.
Clinton has the support of 241 superdelegates, and Obama 202. But more than 350 remain uncommitted, a large enough bloc to swing the nomination should they band together.
Clinton, in particular, projected confidence on the day after her candidacy-saving victories, suggesting she might want Obama as her vice presidential running mate.
"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me," she said on CBS.
Obama no doubt had other thoughts.
He said he would prevail in the nominating battle despite facing a tenacious candidate who "just keeps on ticking."
Democrats plunged into the next round of their campaign as Republican John McCain was visiting the White House to confirm his status as the party's nominee-in-waiting. Lunch with President Bush headlined his day.
Bitter rivals in the 2000 presidential primaries, the two have forged an uneasy relationship during Bush's administration and have clashed on issues such as campaign finance, tax cuts, global warming and defining torture.
There were 370 Democratic delegates at stake in Tuesday's contests, and nearly complete returns showed Clinton outpaced Obama in Ohio, 74-65, in Rhode Island, 13-8, and in the Texas primary, 65-61.
Obama won in Vermont, 9-6, and was ahead in the Texas caucuses, 30-27. Ten of the dozen that remained to be awarded were in Texas; the other two in Ohio.
"We still have an insurmountable lead," Obama said.
Clinton and Obama spent most of the past two weeks in Ohio and Texas in a bruising campaign, with the former first lady questioning his sincerity in opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement and darkly hinting he's not ready to be commander in chief in a crisis.
Based on their current delegate counts, neither candidate can win enough delegates in the remaining primaries and caucuses to secure the nomination without the help of nearly 800 party officials and top elected officials who also have a voice in the selection. On Wednesday, Clinton and her campaign clearly aimed their case at those so-called "superdelegates" — a strategy that could take the nomination fight all the way to the party's August national convention in Denver.
"New questions are being raised, new challenges are being put to my opponent," she said. "Superdelegates are supposed to take all that information on board and they are supposed to be exercising the judgment that people would have exercised if this information and challenges had been available several months ago."
She said voters are being drawn to her argument that she would be the better commander in chief, the best steward of the economy and that she can better confront McCain in the general election.
Obama countered that on a key national security issue — the war in Iraq — "she got it wrong" by supporting Bush's call for authority to use of force.
As for superdelegates, Obama said he expected them to rally around him.
"I don't think it will necessarily go to the convention floor," he told reporters aboard his plane before taking off from San Antonio for Chicago.
He also said he will challenge Clinton on her foreign policy credentials.
"Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no," he said. "She made a series of arguments on why she should be a superior candidate. I think it's important to examine that argument."
The count does not include delegates from Florida and Michigan, who were penalized by the Democratic Party for moving up their primaries ahead of a schedule set by the Democratic National Committee. None of the Democratic candidates campaigned in either state. But Clinton, who won the popular vote in both state primaries, on Wednesday renewed her call for Florida and Michigan to be counted in the nomination race.
"It's a mistake for the Democratic Party to punish these two states," she said. "I don't see how a Democratic nominee goes forward alienating two of the most important states."
McCain surpassed the 1,191 delegates needed to win his party's nomination against odds that seemed steep only a few months ago, and all but impossible last summer.
Facing a couple of well-financed marquee candidates in a crowded field, the Arizona senator opened his comeback in New Hampshire's leadoff primary, rolled over Rudy Giuliani in Florida and finished off Mitt Romney after Super Tuesday on Feb. 5.
Mike Huckabee hung in until Tuesday night, gamely keeping up the fight weeks after dropping from long shot to afterthought.
___
Associated Press Writer Tom Raum in San Antonio contributed to this report.
But if he picked up more total delegates in Texas, wouldn't that be a "win"?
Never mind. I just read the totals. It looks like even with the caucus delegates added in, Hillary still picked up one more delegate than Obama in Texas so she won either way.
Last edited by the G-man; 2008-03-0612:13 AM. Reason: I ran the numbers and the Hildebeast is still ahead in Tx
Obama's answer to the 3 am phone call is apparently that neither cnadidate is ready...
Quote:
Clinton camp targets Obama adviser saying neither candidate ready for 3 a.m. call David Edwards and Nick Juliano Published: Thursday March 6, 2008
...Clinton distributed a clip of Obama adviser Susan Rice arguing that neither candidate would be ready for the type of 3 a.m. phone call Clinton portrayed in a recent ad. A cable host asked when Obama had been in the position to handle a similar crisis.
"He hasn't. And he hasn't claimed that he's been in a position to have to answer the phone at three o'clock in the morning in a crisis situation," Rice said on MSNBC Wednesday night. "That's the difference between the two of them. Hillary Clinton hasn't had to answer the phone at three o'clock in the morning, and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They're both not ready to have that phone call."
Clinton's response...
Quote:
"With one of his top foreign policy advisers acknowledging yesterday that he is not ready to take the 3am call ... Senator Obama’s time would be better spent making the case for why he can do the most important job in the world just three years out of the state senate," read the campaign release.
Really it does.
