Obama '08?

cicerone imposter wrote:

No matter how people interpret what the candidates say during their campaign to win, we must live with the message they share with the electorate. Otherwise, campaigning has no meaning or use. It's a matter of "trust." They can maintain it or lose it by their actions.

Bush lost it a long time ago.

I find Michelle and Barack Obama's message to be overwhelmingly negative. But then, I'm among the majority in this country that are satisfied with their lives (despite what Obama tells us).

From reading some of your posts, Obama seems to be the perfect candidate for you. He'll fix your broken soul. Whether you want him to or not.

I too painfully agree that Obama will probably get the nomination. It is really a reflection on americas obsession with the candidate as rock star and a mistake.

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

No matter how people interpret what the candidates say during their campaign to win, we must live with the message they share with the electorate. Otherwise, campaigning has no meaning or use. It's a matter of "trust." They can maintain it or lose it by their actions.

Bush lost it a long time ago.

I find Michelle and Barack Obama's message to be overwhelmingly negative. But then, I'm among the majority in this country that are satisfied with their lives (despite what Obama tells us).

From reading some of your posts, Obama seems to be the perfect candidate for you. He'll fix your broken soul. Whether you want him to or not.

Polling data does not agree with your conclusion that the 'overwhelming majority' of Americans are satisfied with their lives. In fact, it's the exact opposite -

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

You are making stuff up.

Cycloptichorn

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

No matter how people interpret what the candidates say during their campaign to win, we must live with the message they share with the electorate. Otherwise, campaigning has no meaning or use. It's a matter of "trust." They can maintain it or lose it by their actions.

Bush lost it a long time ago.

I find Michelle and Barack Obama's message to be overwhelmingly negative. But then, I'm among the majority in this country that are satisfied with their lives (despite what Obama tells us).

From reading some of your posts, Obama seems to be the perfect candidate for you. He'll fix your broken soul. Whether you want him to or not.

Polling data does not agree with your conclusion that the 'overwhelming majority' of Americans are satisfied with their lives. In fact, it's the exact opposite -

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

You are making stuff up.

Cycloptichorn

"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track

Cycloptichorn wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

No matter how people interpret what the candidates say during their campaign to win, we must live with the message they share with the electorate. Otherwise, campaigning has no meaning or use. It's a matter of "trust." They can maintain it or lose it by their actions.

Bush lost it a long time ago.

I find Michelle and Barack Obama's message to be overwhelmingly negative. But then, I'm among the majority in this country that are satisfied with their lives (despite what Obama tells us).

From reading some of your posts, Obama seems to be the perfect candidate for you. He'll fix your broken soul. Whether you want him to or not.

Polling data does not agree with your conclusion that the 'overwhelming majority' of Americans are satisfied with their lives. In fact, it's the exact opposite -

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

You are making stuff up.

Cycloptichorn

Your link indicates opinion on the state of the country. I specifically said that most Americans are satisfied with their lives. I don't have to 'make stuff up'. That's your tactic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103483/Most-Americans-Very-Satisfied-Their-Personal-Lives.aspx

Going around whining that "I stink, my country stinks, my culture stinks" is not healthy. No wonder liberals report lower mental health.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102943/Republicans-Report-Much-Better-Mental-Health-Than-Others.aspx

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

No matter how people interpret what the candidates say during their campaign to win, we must live with the message they share with the electorate. Otherwise, campaigning has no meaning or use. It's a matter of "trust." They can maintain it or lose it by their actions.

Bush lost it a long time ago.

I find Michelle and Barack Obama's message to be overwhelmingly negative. But then, I'm among the majority in this country that are satisfied with their lives (despite what Obama tells us).

From reading some of your posts, Obama seems to be the perfect candidate for you. He'll fix your broken soul. Whether you want him to or not.

Polling data does not agree with your conclusion that the 'overwhelming majority' of Americans are satisfied with their lives. In fact, it's the exact opposite -

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

You are making stuff up.

Cycloptichorn

Your link indicates opinion on the state of the country. I specifically said that most Americans are satisfied with their lives. I don't have to 'make stuff up'. That's your tactic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103483/Most-Americans-Very-Satisfied-Their-Personal-Lives.aspx

But, Obama isn't running on the idea that people aren't satisified with their personal lives, but on the fact that people aren't satisfied with the Country as a whole. So when you said Obama tells you that the majority aren't satisfied with their personal lives, it was a falsehood. Ie, you made it up.

Cycloptichorn

Polling data does not agree with your conclusion that the 'overwhelming majority' of Americans are satisfied with their lives. In fact, it's the exact opposite -

I understand what the truth behind the attacks against Obama is, though - you're scared, b/c you know he's going to win. That McCain can't beat him.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I understand what the truth behind the attacks against Obama is, though - you're scared, b/c you know he's going to win. That McCain can't beat him.

Cycloptichorn

Pointing out Michelle and Barack Obama's hype and hypocrisy = scared?

Only in your mind.

But YOU are the one that said

Quote:

Polling data does not agree with your conclusion that the 'overwhelming majority' of Americans are satisfied with their lives. In fact, it's the exact opposite -

Yet the poll you posted had absolutly NOTHING to do with what Americans think about their own lives.

Maybe, if Bush and Obama are mentioned in the same sentence enough times, people will become deluded enough to believe there is anything remotely similar about them!

mysteryman wrote:

But YOU are the one that said

Quote:

Polling data does not agree with your conclusion that the 'overwhelming majority' of Americans are satisfied with their lives. In fact, it's the exact opposite -

Yet the poll you posted had absolutly NOTHING to do with what Americans think about their own lives.

Not going to answer him?

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I understand what the truth behind the attacks against Obama is, though - you're scared, b/c you know he's going to win. That McCain can't beat him.

Cycloptichorn

Pointing out Michelle and Barack Obama's hype and hypocrisy = scared?

Only in your mind.

Yup. You wouldn't bother otherwise.

Cycloptichorn

Not just the affair, but the telecom legislation that he wrote on her behalf.

At first, I thought the same as you - but when I actually READ the story, it doesn't look great for McCain.

Cycloptichorn

It can be used a few ways against him -

First, he's a serial adulterer. He married the current Mrs. McCain only a month after divorcing the first one.

Second, when he talks about his 'legislative accomplishments' this will be used as a dagger right in the heart. Who was he accomplishing things for?

Third, it has a sex angle - and we all know how well that plays.

One way or the other, not good for McCain. The Drudge link above, talking about his furious efforts to deny the story and his hiring of a lawyer, aren't good for him either; if he didn't take it seriously he wouldn't be doing such things.

Cycloptichorn

Agreed that the lobbyist favors are the big part of the story. The sexual angle will merely seek to propagate it in the minds of readers.

Interestingly, the lobbyist firm mentioned is furiously scrubbing its' website. The pages went down one by one last night (starting with 'who we are!') and now the whole site is off-line. The lobbyist in question has lawyered up and so has McCain himself.

Not proof of guilt, but not signs of a relaxed, innocent situation either.

Cycloptichorn

Big difference between a major mistake by a candidate, and a slip of the tongue by his wife. One cuts right to the heart of the campaign, the other is immaterial.

Thanks for playin, tho

Cycloptichorn

I read an interesting article in today's newspaper. It talks about the Clintons trying to win the Hispanic vote now, because they will certainly lose without them. However, when the leaders of Hispanic groups looked at the Clinton's record on helping Hispanics, they found nothing. Yes, nothing, and they want the Hispanic vote - to win.

Can the Clinton's be trusted with their 35-years of experience rhetoric?

cicerone imposter wrote:

I read an interesting article in today's newspaper. It talks about the Clintons trying to win the Hispanic vote now, because they will certainly lose without them. However, when the leaders of Hispanic groups looked at the Clinton's record on helping Hispanics, they found nothing. Yes, nothing, and they want the Hispanic vote - to win.

Can the Clinton's be trusted with their 35-years of experience rhetoric?

Link?

Cycloptichorn