I'm going To Switch My Support To John Edwards

Gala wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Gala, couldn't the turn-about re: Bill have something to do with how he's been acting recently?

Recently? He's always acted up in someway.

I don't mean acting up per se -- I mean how he's recently been going on the offensive against Barack Obama, and saying things that a lot of the black community objects to. (Not just the black community, though.) A lot of people have problems with what he is saying and the tone in which he's saying it. Neutral people like Clyburn have been telling him to chill out; Rahm Emmanuel and someone else (I forget) also told him to tone it down.

As in, I think that one reason that people's opinions could have changed about Bill is that he's given them reason to change their opinions.

I still don't think he's a racist, but I think that there is a pique and a sense of entitlement (whether on his own or on Hillary's behalf) that is coming out in angry and untruthful comments about Barack Obama. I've been looking things up, trying to find out the truth, and one of the most damning things to me is that he has been making accusations that were debunked long ago but he just keeps making them in an attempt to score political points.

Here I'm thinking of how he says that Obama said he "didn't know" how he would have voted on the Iraq war, when Obama said that while campaigning for Kerry and Edwards -- who both voted for the war -- and was being as diplomatic as he could. He indicated that they (Kerry, Edwards) had information that he didn't have since he wasn't in the Senate at the time, and wound up with "but I know that from my vantage point, the case was not made." And all of that came out and was pointed out about a year ago, when Bill first said it.

Obama's been steadily against the war*, this isn't some technicality. It's just plain misleading and dishonest of Bill.

I think people are reacting to that and to other things he's said.

*revel, you've said a few times that Obama's been "confusing" about the war, do you want me to go into that in more depth, too?

0 Replies

Quote:

*revel, you've said a few times that Obama's been "confusing" about the war, do you want me to go into that in more depth, too?

I am not sure; you seem pretty caught up in this thing. He has said he was always against the war and to vote for extending funding encourages the troops to remain; then later voted for funding and said to do otherwise was to under cut the troops. He said we need to withdraw but then says we need to stay to keep AQ from turning it into pre-war Afghanistan. (or words to that effect.) Clinton makes similar conflicting statements; but my point is that both of them do it and one of them is not better than the other except Obama is more likable and is able to insult in a more engaging manner. Plus in every test; I agree more Obama than I do Clinton and I have looking (these last few days) and I like his views on wiretapping and torture and host of other issues. If I could be sure he is sincere; it could make a lot of difference for me. I guess I need to further check him out.

Here is one place I checked out on the issues I care about

In any event here is pretty balanced article talking about Obama/Hillary and the charges being thrown back and forth.

0 Replies

Well, that's why I asked instead of just launching into it. :-) Yes, I'm pretty caught up! I like Obama a lot, which is one issue, but the fact that people are buying misrepresentations from the Clintons is a real bee in my bonnet.

A short version -- Obama was against a specific 87 (billion? must've been) plan that was being voted on when he was running for the U.S. Senate but wasn't there yet, and he explained why. He didn't say anything general about not voting to fund the troops, or promising that he wouldn't fund the troops if he was elected (this is a misrepresentation out there). He's said that while he didn't think the Iraq war should have been started, once started it needs to be done right, which includes getting resources to the troops.

That's off the top of my head, I investigated this stuff more thoroughly a bit ago. I can get links and stuff if you'd like.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Well, that's why I asked instead of just launching into it. :-) Yes, I'm pretty caught up! I like Obama a lot, which is one issue, but the fact that people are buying misrepresentations from the Clintons is a real bee in my bonnet.

A short version -- Obama was against a specific 87 (billion? must've been) plan that was being voted on when he was running for the U.S. Senate but wasn't there yet, and he explained why. He didn't say anything general about not voting to fund the troops, or promising that he wouldn't fund the troops if he was elected (this is a misrepresentation out there). He's said that while he didn't think the Iraq war should have been started, once started it needs to be done right, which includes getting resources to the troops.

That's off the top of my head, I investigated this stuff more thoroughly a bit ago. I can get links and stuff if you'd like.

That's ok; I saw some stuff the other day on it and I still have the same view.

here I left a link where he gave his explanations; but to me they seem more like just more excuses. All the democrats have kind of let us down in the Iraq issue; at least I think so.

0 Replies

If either one of them (H. Clinton, Obama) had a minute for true introspection they'd both back off from one another-- but the nature of the race is to go for the jugular, all the while seeming like the "better" person for the job.

I don't have a catalogue of "facts" about who'se doing and saying what, and frankly, I don't care what one or the other is saying, or who is analyzing who, who'se reporting what-- they (Obama, Clinton) are first and foremost human beings, with flaws and warts and nastiness and soaring moments.

If Bill Clinton chooses to make a jacka** out of himself, then it's his choice, he's certainly done it many times before and survived it. Maybe this time he won't.

0 Replies

Whatever you think about John Edwards as a candidate
he is leading on the important issues.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
If a white man had made a reference to black men and dance moves the outcry of stereotype would have been heard coast to coast. Barrack is black so he was able to get a pass on it, but he might as well have said something about checking out whether or not Bill could make the three point jumper and covered one of the other stereotypes.

A white man wouldn't have been asked that question.

bullshit. A reporter would have asked Bill clinton "Are you America's first black president" without hesitation and someone probably has at one point. If Bill Clinton said I don't know you'd have to check my dancing skills... the call of stereotype and racist remark would be deafening.

Cant' you just f*cking relax a bit with the indignation? Obama made a joke out of a stupid, meaningless question. What's wrong with that?

Cycloptichorn

How can you possibly misconstrue my statement so much? I'm not indignant, I could give a rats ass less... I'm just pointing out an INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT. Obama gets a pass on something a white man would not have. Plain and simple.

Can't you just f**king relax yourself?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
If a white man had made a reference to black men and dance moves the outcry of stereotype would have been heard coast to coast. Barrack is black so he was able to get a pass on it, but he might as well have said something about checking out whether or not Bill could make the three point jumper and covered one of the other stereotypes.

A white man wouldn't have been asked that question.

bullshit. A reporter would have asked Bill clinton "Are you America's first black president" without hesitation and someone probably has at one point. If Bill Clinton said I don't know you'd have to check my dancing skills... the call of stereotype and racist remark would be deafening.

Cant' you just f*cking relax a bit with the indignation? Obama made a joke out of a stupid, meaningless question. What's wrong with that?

Cycloptichorn

How can you possibly misconstrue my statement so much? I'm not indignant, I could give a rats ass less... I'm just pointing out an INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT. Obama gets a pass on something a white man would not have. Plain and simple.

Can't you just f**king relax yourself?

Dude, I am relaxed.

It's a fact of life that some questions are okay to ask to some people, and others are not. Is it fair? Probably not. But, we don't live in a perfect, colorblind society. So why are you bitching about it? It is truly inconsequential. AND he made a joke out of it. So I don't understand why you would even bring it up.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

and I'm not bitching... merely pointing out a fact. I didn't even make a value judgement on it which leads me to ask why you are so defensive about it? :wink:

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

and I'm not bitching... merely pointing out a fact. I didn't even make a value judgement on it which leads me to ask why you are so defensive about it? :wink:

really? Seemed like a value judgment to me. But whatever.

Oh, this whole thing is silly anyways, let's drop it. Instead, I'll reiterate: I'm not voting for John Edwards even though he seems like a nice guy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm voting for Hillary. In the general I'll vote for one or the other of them. She and Obama are both acting like dicks but what do you expect? They're certainly better than anything the republicans have to offer.

I like Edwards but he's not getting the nomination.

Clinton/Biden or Clinton/Richardson is what I want.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I'm voting for Hillary. In the general I'll vote for one or the other of them. She and Obama are both acting like dicks but what do you expect? They're certainly better than anything the republicans have to offer.

I like Edwards but he's not getting the nomination.

Clinton/Biden or Clinton/Richardson is what I want.

Clinton/obama would be stronger.

There's little doubt that Obama is more intelligent then Richardson, and he would unify the Dem ticket, pretty much guaranteeing the win.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

and if I had a plastic surgeon, personal trainer, millions of dollars and a hair transplant I'd be hotter than Brad Pitt.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Since he was the one who had the misfortune of being asked the assinine question, I counted him ahead just being able to answer it at all while maintaining his dignity and injecting some humor.

I agree it was a stupid question and I'm sure it was intended to put him on spot. He actually did fine with his answer, because everyone seemed to get a laugh out of it. It could have been a whole lot funnier, but taking it where I would have liked to see him take it would not have been the prudent thing to do.

What would have been an acceptable answer to "Was Bill Clinton the first black president?", in your estimation?

"Of course not, for no other reason than he is, quite obviously, not black. I respect Bill Clinton and believe that he demonstrated concern for many of the issues that are important to a large segment of the Black Community, but I find the idea offensive, that there should be such a clearly defined template for The Black President, that a white man could conform to it and be crowned The First Black President. The First Black President will be a person who embraces being black as a racial and cultural identity, but who has the character, skills and ideas to lead America on a path that that ensures all of it's citizens the security and prosperity this great nation has always promised."

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

snood wrote:
What would have been an acceptable answer to "Was Bill Clinton the first black president?", in your estimation?

"What a silly question. I'm not going to respond to such a question. I would like to talk about hope and change though."

Something like that could have worked too.

0 Replies

I think Obama did a great job in parrying a stupid question, based on a meaningless hypothesis, and doing so without falling into any of the several tempting mudholes nearby. He used humor and irony in a way that revealed the silliness of the question and did so in a lighthearted way, without giving offense to anyone. Where's the beef?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

sozobe wrote:
I like a lot about her

Finn wrote:
Like what?

Her policies, mostly. What she says she'll do as president. A fair amount of her record, things that she's done so far.

sozobe wrote:
and I like that a woman is running who has a real shot,

Finn wrote:
Enough so that you will vote for her even though she depresses you with her tactics?

Not at all. If I vote for her, it will be very much in spite of that. But I have to look at the alternatives. If the alternative is Giuliani or Romney or Huckabee I go back to the policies. And I think they all would be much, much worse than Hillary, as much as she is distressing me. McCain I would think about seriously but ultimately I don't think I could vote for him. If there is a viable independent candidate, maybe. If there is a NON-viable independent candidate, maybe. I don't know. We'll see.

But one thing I definitely would not be doing is voting for Hillary simply because she's a woman.

No I don't think you will be, but you may be forgiving her for some behavior that you would not forgive a man, simply because she is a woman.

sozobe wrote:
But if she wins dirty, because of things like purposely misrepresenting her opponents' positions and record -- well, I can't see myself voting Republican and I can't see myself not voting at all so I'll just have to rail against a stupid electoral system that rewards this kind of behavior.

Finn wrote:
Seems like a cop out. If she wins dirty by lying, it will not be the fault of the electoral system.

What's a better phrase? It will be the fault of voters. It will be the fault of the media. It will be rewarding behavior that I don't think should be rewarded, and making it more likely that it will recur -- it's what works.

A more accurate phrase would be: " I intend to vote for her even if she continues to lie, and if her winning is attributable to her lying, I will be disturbed, but I will not regret my vote for her. What she says she will do as president, the policies you she says she will advance, her record, and the fact that she is a woman are more important to me than her lying."

If she wins dirty by lying, when we know she is lying, the fault will be be with those who vote for her.

0 Replies

I still like my hypothetical answer best

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I still like my hypothetical answer best

no surprise there Laughing

0 Replies

Bi-Polar
"I like Edwards but he's not getting the nomination."
how come you come to the final result.
I can understand your hasty assessment.
You are a voter and i observe your election.
I still feel that the noise makers of both parties will witheraway and an approved/accomadative doll will adorn the White house.

0 Replies

I'm going To Switch My Support To John Edwards

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know