Obama '08?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

interesting that you would say let us turn to BILL Clinton, quote him and then say "See? THEY have already admitted they're wrong." where was Hillary in that?

Taking the money that he said was unethical, that's where she is in that.

Besides - if she's going to run on the successes of the 90's, which you know she has, as if they were her own, she oughta own Bill completely and not just his successes.

If there's anyone you guys should be mad at, it's him...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Lola wrote:
And Bull I say back to you. Whatever Bill has earned for speaking is his money. Since he earned it. And that money, being his is no longer belonging to anyone overseas. Really that's pretty convoluted reasoning there, Cyclo.
Just for clarification: Is it your opinion that essentially any foreign interest could contribute as much money as they wish to the Hillary Clinton campaign; as long as Bill Clinton delivers a speech in return? And that's no one's business? Really?

Ps. I am the movable middle. Obama can probably have my vote over McCain. Hillary cannot. And nothing will unite the Right more than Hillary Clinton.

You're not claiming to be the moveable middle in it's entirety are you? Surely not. If we're going to be presenting anecdotal evidence, I have a daughter who has been an avid evangelical right republican for all of her voting life. When she first heard that Hillary was going to run she declared loudly that she would go out to vote against Hillary. But no more. She's been won over to Hillary's side. She a baby boomer, you see. She's even considering knocking on doors for Hillary in Texas. So tit for tat.

0 Replies

Quote:

Just for clarification: Is it your opinion that essentially any foreign interest could contribute as much money as they wish to the Hillary Clinton campaign; as long as Bill Clinton delivers a speech in return? And that's no one's business? Really?

If he did another kind of work over seas and got paid for it, would that make it "overseas" money? No, it would not. What information do you have that the amount of money paid exceeded the amount of money deserved for the speech?

PS. I'm a female baby boomer and there are a lot more of us are voting for Hillary than for Obama. And we're baby boomers. Remember, there are more of us than there are of subsequent generations?

0 Replies

Oh and here's an aside for all our A2K friends.........High Seas, you'll especailly be interested in this:

Our boy Bernie was legitimated, (or is it legitimatized?)" today by the U.S. government. It went really well and easy. Bernie is happy about it.

Congratulate him. He deserves it. Before you know it, he'll have dual citizenship and be able to vote, just like the rest of us. Won't that be great?

0 Replies

I guess as long as he votes for Obama :wink:

congrats there bern...

0 Replies

I have no knowledge that his fees were excessive. I don't begrudge the man making money, and he is an extraordinary speaker. All is well until he uses the funds to put his wife in the White House... at which point I think the public has a legitimate interest in insuring those funds are not tainted. How would you feel if you learned Laura Bush, for instance, accepted $5,000,000 from Iran's KHAMENEI for whatever-consulting, and then turned around and added it to George's last campaign? I wouldn't like it one bit.

Congrats Bernie!

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Oh and here's an aside for all our A2K friends.........High Seas, you'll especailly be interested in this:

Our boy Bernie was legitimated, (or is it legitimatized?)" today by the U.S. government. It went really well and easy. Bernie is happy about it.

Congratulate him. He deserves it. Before you know it, he'll have dual citizenship and be able to vote, just like the rest of us. Won't that be great?

Blatham can vote! Shocked

0 Replies

Just to be clear, I'm a Republican and the only way I would vote for either Hllary or Obama would be if the Republicans were crazy enough to put Huckabee on the ticket. In addition, I find it very difficult to judge which of the leading Democrat candidates may be stronger or may present more vulnerabilities in the final election. I can think of a case for Hillary's negatives with some voters and vulnerabilities with others, and, as well, an analogous case for Obama's weaknesses and vulnerabilities. To me it's a toss up.

Thus not having a dog in this fight let me say that I find this contentious debate a little odd. Moreover I doubt that it is doing the Democrats any good. Posters in one breath acknowledge past Clinton financial shenanigans and then say "she is vulnerable to a Republican smear". This is sort of like claiming yours doesn't stink. If the deeds are fact, they will speak for themselves. Others claim Obama walks on water and insist that any criticism, however slight, is an affront to God, political correctitude and the sainted spokesmen of all that is "progressive". The truth is both are credible candidates and it is very hard to tell which has a better chance of prevailing in the finals.

It is remarkable that after two Republican terms in the presidency and the public disquiet concerning President Bush, the Republicans have much of a chance of winning at all. The fact that they do is ample testimony to the divisiveness and lack of vision in the Democrat party today (and as well of the feckless leadership they have displayed in the House and the Senate for the past two years).

Surely there is some way we can delay Blatham's voting rights for a year or so. It will pain me to think of the prospect. I'll have to vote twice.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Since the Republican nominee will be McCain, you know they'll try to scare us about national security. It will be much easier for the Republicans to fight and win against Obama, what with his profound vision about the Iraq war, than against Hillary.

Um.

The war in Iraq is hugely impopular.

John McCain is one of the hawkiest politicians around on Iraq.

Ergo, the Democrat running in November will have a big opportunity there: there you have a Republican who was in favour of the war from the beginning, believes in it heart and soul, and will continue it forever if necessary. If the Democrat can represent a clear contrast with all of that, it's a vote-winner.

Now you have Hillary, who assented to the war, voted for a resolution to authorize "military force" without even reading the NIE, bought into the whole WMD meme and talked about it repeatedly, and who later changed her mind, as it happens at a point in time where it became politically safe to do so. Can she represent that clear contrast, that clean break with a war that most Americans are fed up with?

I dont think so..

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I have no knowledge that his fees were excessive. I don't begrudge the man making money, and he is an extraordinary speaker. All is well until he uses the funds to put his wife in the White House... at which point I think the public has a legitimate interest in insuring those funds are not tainted. How would you feel if you learned Laura Bush, for instance, accepted $5,000,000 from Iran's KHAMENEI for whatever-consulting, and then turned around and added it to George's last campaign? I wouldn't like it one bit.

Congrats Bernie!

Bill Clinton was paid $5,000,000. from Iran? No, he wasn't. You can see how your example doesn't fit the charge. How much was he paid and by whom? That's the question.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Bill Clinton was paid $5,000,000. from Iran? No, he wasn't. You can see how your example doesn't fit the charge. How much was he paid and by whom? That's the question.

If this is about the Kazakhstan affair, which was way too complicated for me to grasp, all I will inject is that Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan is no better than Khamenei. He's just less well-known, and doesnt wrap his dictatorship in a religious flag. Doesnt make his dictatorship any more savoury a state, and I was aghast to hear that Bill Clinton publicly praised the man right around when he got the money for his charity. Dictators like that should be shunned, not courted.

0 Replies

Congratulations, Bernie.

0 Replies

I would not vote for Clinton under any circumstance; Bill Clinton left too much bad taste during his last year in office. His pardons of criminals big and small is the price Hillary will pay with my vote for anybody but Hillary.

It's also my understanding that Bill made some deals in foreign countries while in office; a conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned.

No more Clintons for me.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lola wrote:
Since the Republican nominee will be McCain, you know they'll try to scare us about national security. It will be much easier for the Republicans to fight and win against Obama, what with his profound vision about the Iraq war, than against Hillary.

Um.

The war in Iraq is hugely impopular.

John McCain is one of the hawkiest politicians around on Iraq.

Ergo, the Democrat running in November will have a big opportunity there: there you have a Republican who was in favour of the war from the beginning, believes in it heart and soul, and will continue it forever if necessary. If the Democrat can represent a clear contrast with all of that, it's a vote-winner.

Now you have Hillary, who assented to the war, voted for a resolution to authorize "military force" without even reading the NIE, bought into the whole WMD meme and talked about it repeatedly, and who later changed her mind, as it happens at a point in time where it became politically safe to do so. Can she represent that clear contrast, that clean break with a war that most Americans are fed up with?

I dont think so..

And Obama took his speech off his web site and voted exactly as Hillary did from there on out. Really, they are both staunchly anti-unnecessary war. One just has more experience and knowledge in politics, foreign affairs, the economy, health care issues than the other. It's nothing against him, he just needs to prove himself to me and to many others like me.

In reality the majority of Americans like them both. They are so similar to each other in policy issues, they are almost indistinguishable. george is right, I find this discussion very odd myself. The claims that are being made.........that none of you would put up with if a Republican made them for Geroge Bush are outragious.

Further, Obama's claim that we would have to go back to the 90s if we voted for Hillary is offensive. This generation is not done yet. Hillary is at the height of her career and capability. She got there by hard work, ethically. Since when is experience and knowledge of how to build a machine to win an election a bad thing?

Exactly what changes will Obama make in "politics as usual"? What changes that will win him an election? We hippie baby boomers learned the hard way that change, while it can be speeded up, cannot happen too fast. You have to get into the system in order to change it. The Republicans know how to use the system and one has to be inside the system to fight their methods.

There is a time to learn and a time to use what you have learned. It's Obama's time to learn. I hope he takes this opportunity to do so. In eight years, he'll make a fine president and we'll keep the White House for 16 years.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lola wrote:
Bill Clinton was paid $5,000,000. from Iran? No, he wasn't. You can see how your example doesn't fit the charge. How much was he paid and by whom? That's the question.

If this is about the Kazakhstan affair, which was way too complicated for me to grasp, all I will inject is that Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan is no better than Khamenei. He's just less well-known, and doesnt wrap his dictatorship in a religious flag. Doesnt make his dictatorship any more savoury a state, and I was aghast to hear that Bill Clinton publicly praised the man right around when he got the money for his charity. Dictators like that should be shunned, not courted.

Clinton introduces the Canadian to Nazar.

Nazar gives the Canadian huge Uranium contratct.

Canadian gives Clinton 131 million donation to his foundation.

Not that complicated in the end.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Think there's different levels of momentum in this race?

Clinton loaned herself 5 million dollars last month, and is currently holding a 3-day fundraising drive to raise 3 million dollars online.

Obama, upon hearing of this, organized a drive online - without ever once mentioning his website in a speech or on TV, actually without mentioning the drive at all - and has raised 5.3 million dollars. In 24 hours.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Oh and here's an aside for all our A2K friends.........High Seas, you'll especailly be interested in this:

Our boy Bernie was legitimated, (or is it legitimatized?)" today by the U.S. government. It went really well and easy. Bernie is happy about it.

Congratulate him. He deserves it. Before you know it, he'll have dual citizenship and be able to vote, just like the rest of us. Won't that be great?

Delighted at the news we've gained another top-flight hockey player - now, if only you can teach him Texas hold'em (or even 5-card stud) he'll be perfect.

Lots of love to both of you all the same Smile

0 Replies

Just to be clear, I am a Republican and there is no way that I will vote for Hillary or Obama.

If my life depended on voting for a Democrat, I would vote for Hillary.

Judging them on personality and character alone I would vote for Obama, and I understand why so many of his supporters find him captivating. I also understand though why some people find the level of esteem in which his supporters hold him to be troubling.

Think back to the last time Americans were desperate for change, a fresh face, an outsider untainted by Washington politics. We were sorely sick of politics and politicians, and some of us actually believed that lack of experience was a virtue, not a weakness. We placed a greater emphasis on character than qualifications and we, Democrats included, were attracted to a candidate who spoke about faith and the basic tenets of his religion, The last time Americans were desperate for change we got Jimmy Carter, arguably the worst president in the last 75 years precisely because he was unqualified to be the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of an enormously complex nation in a a dangerous world.

We don't know that Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, hopelessly over his head, but that is a legitimate risk in voting for him. His supporters can only rely on their own faith in the belief that someone who they find to be so talented and principled just has to be able to do the job well.

Hillary for all her faults has a very intimate knowledge of what the job entails and requires. She has contemplated every issue facing the nation and many that don't actually exist. I'm not sure that she is always been honest in telling us how she intends to handle these issues, but I am sure that she has plans for everyone of them. She has seen how the true world can, with contempt, slap aside idealistic fancies based on hope and wishes rather than reality and cruel truths.

This is far from being an endorsement of Hillary, merely an explanation of why I would choose a person who I personally respect less than her opponent.

Having said this, my preference for Hillary winning the nomination has far more to do with the fact that I believe she will be more vulnerable in the general election than Obama.

I agree with george that it is not clear cut as to which one of them is the better nominee for Republicans, but I think that is because of the uncertainly inherent in Obama the candidate.

Republicans have been preparing for Hillary for at least four years. I can't imagine anything about her candidacy that can come as a surprise to Republican strategists.

Obama, on the other hand presents Republican strategists with a lot of uncertainty and a lot of variables. How will his charisma play to a larger, less partisan audience who will not have an immediate affinity to his ideology? How rough can they get with him before there is a backlash? How closely will he adhere to his liberal positions once he makes it to the general election. How will he match up with McCain when they stand side by side on a debating stage. The differences will be stark but how will they be seen: the naive neophyte versus the wise as seasoned veteran, or the vital visionary vs the tired old warhorse.

Clinton will galvanize conservative and bring them to the polls no matter what they think about McCain. Obama, at least now, is not seen, among conservatives, as a threat to conservative principles the way Hillary is. He will not necessarily get out the right-wing vote.

Finally it has been very interesting to observe the debate between the Obama and Clinton supporters. It's odd only to the extent that the folks opposing one another are most often aligned with them in the political debates on A2K. The nature and tone of this debate is not very different than those that involve the right vs the left. It may be something of a surprise to have your former allies' guns now turned on you, but trust me, almost no one in either Democratic camp is debating in a style or manner they do not use with the members whom you usually consider mistaken or a vile idiot...depending on how you view these things.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

......................

Having said this, my preference for Hillary winning the nomination has far more to do with the fact that I believe she will be more vulnerable in the general election than Obama. ....... Obama, at least now, is not seen, among conservatives, as a threat to conservative principles the way Hillary is. He will not necessarily get out the right-wing vote.........

Amen, bro - have been trying to explain this for the longest time.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The last time Americans were desperate for change we got Jimmy Carter, arguably the worst president in the last 75 years...

You must be exhausted after your long nap. How long were you asleep? Seven years? My, that's a long time. Let me fill you in on what has happened ...

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know