blatham
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 10:30 am
Quote:
Neither one are natural leaders.

As constrasted with....?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 10:32 am
Quote:
"I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook," said Mrs. Clinton, who began by joking that she prepared for debate combat by wearing a pantsuit made of asbestos.



All this does is show where you got the line about mud slinging. It doesn't explain what was said that you or Hillary are pointing to as inaccurate mud slinging about her record on issues.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 10:55 am
dyslexia wrote:
Integrity, popular or not;
Quote:
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio was the only candidate who would not agree to support the eventual Democratic nominee should he or she not win the nomination in 2008. He said he only would support that Democrat "if they oppose war as an instrument of policy."



He is supporting the UFO pilot. Laughing
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 10:56 am
au1929 wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Integrity, popular or not;
Quote:
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio was the only candidate who would not agree to support the eventual Democratic nominee should he or she not win the nomination in 2008. He said he only would support that Democrat "if they oppose war as an instrument of policy."



He is supporting the UFO pilot. Laughing
IMO he is completely out of touch with reality.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 11:03 am
Kucinich: There is no such thing as an illegal human being.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 11:05 am
au1929 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Integrity, popular or not;
Quote:
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio was the only candidate who would not agree to support the eventual Democratic nominee should he or she not win the nomination in 2008. He said he only would support that Democrat "if they oppose war as an instrument of policy."



He is supporting the UFO pilot. Laughing
IMO he is completely out of touch with reality.

Damn, I hope so, the current "reality" (both dems and repubs totally sucks)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 11:08 am
dyslexia wrote:
au1929 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Integrity, popular or not;
Quote:
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio was the only candidate who would not agree to support the eventual Democratic nominee should he or she not win the nomination in 2008. He said he only would support that Democrat "if they oppose war as an instrument of policy."



He is supporting the UFO pilot. Laughing
IMO he is completely out of touch with reality.

Damn, I hope so, the current "reality" (both dems and repubs totally sucks)


There's no question that he's the most principled person on the dem side. And as for UFOs, I simply cannot wait for my next probing.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 11:42 am
dyslexia wrote:
Kucinich: There is no such thing as an illegal human being.

Theres your man shining with genius, dys. Brag it up. ha ha ha ha ha ha. How about illegal martians?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 12:01 pm
okie wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Kucinich: There is no such thing as an illegal human being.

Theres your man shining with genius, dys. Brag it up. ha ha ha ha ha ha. How about illegal martians?
Not only that Okie, the man's a Vegan. How disgusting is that?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 12:14 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Neither one are natural leaders.

As constrasted with....?


Hillary has her finger in the air, Obama has his up her arse just reacting to what she does. Neither is a form of leading.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 12:56 pm
Uh, no, but I have the feeling neither you nor Goldie are really interested in having your minds changed, so I won't pursue it. A question I do have, BrandX -- who, if anyone, looks good to you at this point?

---


I finished reading the debate transcript. It didn't seem like there were any real breakout moments, positive or negative. It does seem from the "boos" and "cheers" notations that there were a lot of Hillary supporters, which isn't necessarily nefarious (polls show that Hillary claims the most supporters among Democrats, after all, if things are shifting a bit).

On paper, I was happy with Obama's performance, especially in catching and responding to stuff Hillary said about him.

Edwards said some good stuff but I'm worried (since I like him) that he's painting himself into an angry, strident corner.

Biden had some zingers, he's good at this stuff. I think he's positioning himself pretty well to be a VP, we'll see though.

Clinton... sigh. When this all started I was extremely worried about what would happen if she were the Democratic nominee, but I liked her well enough. Now those two positions are reversing, a bit... I'm not quite as worried (though still worried) that she will spell automatic defeat for the Democrats if she's the nominee, but I'm liking her less and less. If anyone played dirty last night, it was her, as she cried wolf to Wolf.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 01:34 pm
Quote:
BrandX -- who, if anyone, looks good to you at this point?


If I was voting today I'd vote for Ron Paul...not that he has a snowballs chance of a nomination. He seems to be his own man and if he were elected I know he couldn't get half done that he would like... but he would surely bring the debates that need to be had to the surface. Turning the focus torward taking real action on problems which have been spiraling out of control instead of just talking about fixing them. He seems like he could get a lot done with a little cooperation. His age is a concern though.

I suppose that shows I'm not real impressed by any of the other contenders, most are either too religious(as in keeping the war going) or too reactionary or too special interest. I think a lot of them, excluding Hillary, would do more good for the country than bad.

Honestly there are some I have hardly really considered or studied, like Dodd. Biden would be okay and probably Romney although I don't care for him much. Huckabee might fall into the too religious category in the context mentioned above. Tancredo, Obama, Hill, Kucinich and Rudy are def off my list so far.

Who's Goldie?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 01:37 pm
Brand X wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Neither one are natural leaders.

As constrasted with....?


Hillary has her finger in the air, Obama has his up her arse just reacting to what she does. Neither is a form of leading.


Actually, I ought to have said "As contrasted with whom?"
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 01:42 pm
OK, thanks BrandX. You didn't mention Edwards, that I noticed...

I call au1929 Goldie sometimes. au... gold...
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 01:48 pm
sozobe wrote:
OK, thanks BrandX. You didn't mention Edwards, that I noticed...

I call au1929 Goldie sometimes. au... gold...


Edwards I would consider..mostly because of the all the given choices(candidates). Sometimes I like him, other times not. I don't think he'd do anything too stupid.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 02:56 pm
okie wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Kucinich: There is no such thing as an illegal human being.

Theres your man shining with genius, dys. Brag it up. ha ha ha ha ha ha. How about illegal martians?


When asked if he'd seen a UFO, Kucinnich clarified that he had seen an object that could not be identified. That is what a UFO actually is. He said nothing about martians.

This is an example of political tricks that piss me off. Take what the man said, not what you wish he'd said. How annoying.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 03:20 pm
sozobe wrote:
Uh, no, but I have the feeling neither you nor Goldie are really interested in having your minds changed, so I won't pursue it. A question I do have, BrandX -- who, if anyone, looks good to you at this point?

---


I finished reading the debate transcript. It didn't seem like there were any real breakout moments, positive or negative. It does seem from the "boos" and "cheers" notations that there were a lot of Hillary supporters, which isn't necessarily nefarious (polls show that Hillary claims the most supporters among Democrats, after all, if things are shifting a bit).

On paper, I was happy with Obama's performance, especially in catching and responding to stuff Hillary said about him.

Edwards said some good stuff but I'm worried (since I like him) that he's painting himself into an angry, strident corner.

Biden had some zingers, he's good at this stuff. I think he's positioning himself pretty well to be a VP, we'll see though.

Clinton... sigh. When this all started I was extremely worried about what would happen if she were the Democratic nominee, but I liked her well enough. Now those two positions are reversing, a bit... I'm not quite as worried (though still worried) that she will spell automatic defeat for the Democrats if she's the nominee, but I'm liking her less and less. If anyone played dirty last night, it was her, as she cried wolf to Wolf.


It's interesting, Soz that what was done to Hillary last debate was exactly what was done to Obama this time. I don't approve of it for anyone. The press needs to make some news, so they exaggerate and quote things out of context, or ask trick questions.

If you get a chance, do try to watch the debate. I'm impressed by the different feeling I got when watching the event as opposed to only reading the transcript. Body language is so important.

I think the "mud slinging" Hillary was referring to was Edwards saying some things about her plan that were not true. And she didn't want to leave it like that. She wanted to correct the impression. And of course she did it with force and using a phrase with a negative connotation. All politics.....but if one side is going to do it and it lowers her poll numbers, then she should not be criticized for doing it in order to defend herself.

The press seemed pleased. It was a good show. It will get people watching the news for the opinions of the talking heads. Sponsors will be happy.

I agree about Edwards. I hate to see him in this unattractive corner. I like him too.

And Biden was hilarious. Several times he got a huge laugh from the audience as well as the press, including Blitzer who in one instance was the target. It served for comic relief. I've been a Biden fan for years, I think since the Clarence Thomas hearings. I think he's fair and well spoken. He doesn't resort to cheap tricks. Maybe that's why he's nowhere in the polls. And there's something about the way he looks that appeals to me too. I wish he would run for Vice President.

I started in the middle of the debate and then, when they repeated it, following the commentary, I watched the first hour too. I agree with Watts or Gergen or whoever said that all the fireworks happened within the first 10 minutes. The reactions from the audience did influence the debater's style. The "mud slinging" was not playing well in Las Vegas. Hillary is favored there almost 2 to one.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 03:52 pm
Lola wrote:
I think the "mud slinging" Hillary was referring to was Edwards saying some things about her plan that were not true. And she didn't want to leave it like that. She wanted to correct the impression. And of course she did it with force and using a phrase with a negative connotation.


That's not borne out by the transcript, though. I mean, it shows what Edwards said that got her to say she was being personally attacked, and I just don't see anything that was mudslinging. If she has some factual correction to make, she can correct it with facts. Obama did that, later, a couple of times. (Such as correcting Dodd about whether he has changed his mind about Peru -- he made sure Dodd knew that he hadn't changed his mind, and still supported it, and Dodd said "Oh you are for it," and then "Okay," and that was that.)

Quote:
All politics.....but if one side is going to do it and it lowers her poll numbers, then she should not be criticized for doing it in order to defend herself.


How did the other side do it? Who accused her of mudslinging?

I don't mind if she makes accusations (that can be rebutted, as Obama did), but I mind when she takes issues-based debating -- I mean, it's a debate, that has disagreement and point-counterpoint built in -- and starts talking about personal attacks and mudslinging. That's where I have that "Oh come ON" reaction.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 03:54 pm
sozobe wrote

Quote:
I finished reading the debate transcript. It didn't seem like there were any real breakout moments, positive or negative. It does seem from the "boos" and "cheers" notations that there were a lot of Hillary supporters, which isn't necessarily nefarious (polls show that Hillary claims the most supporters among Democrats, after all, if things are shifting a bit).


There was very little difference between the ovations Obama and Clinton received. There were suppoters of both in abundance. The boos were well deserved with both Edwards of the 400 dollar haircut and Obama getting the message. They seemed to deflate. Obama more than Edwards it seemed to me.



PS it is AU 1929 not goldie
Thank you.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 16 Nov, 2007 04:02 pm
au1929 wrote:
There was very little difference between the ovations Obama and Clinton received. There were suppoters of both in abundance. The boos were well deserved with both Edwards of the 400 dollar haircut and Obama getting the message. They seemed to deflate. Obama more than Edwards it seemed to me.


The booing seemed unfair to me, though. Again, it wasn't that they were saying something like "and she looks TERRIBLE in that color, too," the boos came when they were making valid criticisms. (I can look that up if you'd like.)



Quote:
PS it is AU 1929 not goldie
Thank you.


Noted.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 264
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.25 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 11:21:08