Obama '08?

What alarms Mark (and me) is [is] a McCain-led GOP leading to (b) the entrenchment of an immigration policy that is eroding the GOP demographically.

A political event is in the conservative interest if it strengthens and stabilizes the country.

And if it should turn out to be Obama, Republicans will take cautious comfort from the possibility that his presidency will advance the wider conservative interest in a less fractured America. For that would be a permanent gain for conservatism under any president.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

We havent been talking about Obama's wife, but about Obama.
You must be afraid that McCain will win, because you like to point out his mistakes and flaws.

Does he scare you that much?

The Clintons have demonstrated in this primary season a knack for building bridges to minority groups - and then blowing them up.

Having alienated African-Americans, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton are proving to be equal opportunity offenders by irritating parts of the Latino community through divisiveness, condescension and scapegoating.

Then, to cover their tracks, they trot out prominent Latinos who assure the flock that the Clintons have always fought for them. Recently, Dolores Huerta, who co-founded the United Farm Workers union with Cesar Chavez, has been stumping for Hillary Clinton in the Southwest. Painting Barack Obama as someone who only recently discovered Latinos, Huerta assures crowds that Hillary is "not the Johnny Come Lately" in this election and that the former first lady "has been advocating for us for 35 years" dating back to registering Latino voters in Texas when Clinton was fresh out of Yale Law School.

That's laying it on a bit thick, Dolores. Hillary Clinton has been fighting for Latinos for 35 years? That includes those years in Arkansas, which - in the 1970s and 1980s, when the Clintons lived there - was home to very few Latinos. And it includes the eight years while Hillary's husband was president; Hispanic political activists say they can't recall a single initiative that came from her office that was focused specifically on Latinos. And it includes her tenure in the Senate where - again - Latinos in New York and around the country can't cite a single bill, debate, or committee meeting involving Latinos where Clinton took a leading role.

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

We havent been talking about Obama's wife, but about Obama.
You must be afraid that McCain will win, because you like to point out his mistakes and flaws.

Does he scare you that much?

Nappy was talking about Obama's wife's comments. That's how this little conversation got started. Please go back and read the last few pages.

As for McCain, nah - I don't think he has much of a chance. He would have a tough race in an EQUAL environment, and you don't need me to point out that the country is very against Republicans at this moment. Bush's approval ratings are once again in the toilet, yet McCain has wedded himself to Bush's positions on the economy, on Iraq, on Iran, and on Torture. It isn't a winning strategy!!!

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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

We havent been talking about Obama's wife, but about Obama.
You must be afraid that McCain will win, because you like to point out his mistakes and flaws.

Does he scare you that much?

Nappy was talking about Obama's wife's comments. That's how this little conversation got started. Please go back and read the last few pages.

As for McCain, nah - I don't think he has much of a chance. He would have a tough race in an EQUAL environment, and you don't need me to point out that the country is very against Republicans at this moment. Bush's approval ratings are once again in the toilet, yet McCain has wedded himself to Bush's positions on the economy, on Iraq, on Iran, and on Torture. It isn't a winning strategy!!!

Cycloptichorn

Is Michelle Obama's anti-Americanism a winning strategy to the Democrats? Appears so.

Kicky, I don't get that either. This has a little more info but it still doesn't really make sense:

Quote:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/make-that-11-for-obama/?hp

Good thing Mrs. Obama isn't running for office then, whew.

Now, I know you guys don't want to get into comparisons of spouses, do you? B/c there's more then a little which can be said about Mrs. McCain's past problems.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Good thing Mrs. Obama isn't running for office then, whew.

Now, I know you guys don't want to get into comparisons of spouses, do you? B/c there's more then a little which can be said about Mrs. McCain's past problems.

Cycloptichorn

I think we both know that it's only a matter of time before the vicious remarks about Cindy McCain show up here, so your threat rings hollow with me.

Michelle has made speech after speech stumping for her husband, and while she isn't running for president, she has certainly put herself out there for criticism of some of her remarks in those speeches.

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Good thing Mrs. Obama isn't running for office then, whew.

Now, I know you guys don't want to get into comparisons of spouses, do you? B/c there's more then a little which can be said about Mrs. McCain's past problems.

Cycloptichorn

I think we both know that it's only a matter of time before the vicious remarks about Cindy McCain show up here, so your threat rings hollow with me.

Michelle has made speech after speech stumping for her husband, and while she isn't running for president, she has certainly put herself out there for criticism of some of her remarks in those speeches.

Sure thing; but you'll have to come up with some better criticisms. Right now, the whole 'muuahhh, she's not patriotic enough!!!1!!' thing just isn't sticking - except with Republicans who never would have voted for her husband anyways.

There's no need to even say anything about Cindy at all; you already know it and so does most everyone else. She oughta keep her mouth shut, though, if she doesn't want the criticism to arise; wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Good thing Mrs. Obama isn't running for office then, whew.

Now, I know you guys don't want to get into comparisons of spouses, do you? B/c there's more then a little which can be said about Mrs. McCain's past problems.

Cycloptichorn

I think we both know that it's only a matter of time before the vicious remarks about Cindy McCain show up here, so your threat rings hollow with me.

Michelle has made speech after speech stumping for her husband, and while she isn't running for president, she has certainly put herself out there for criticism of some of her remarks in those speeches.

Sure thing; but you'll have to come up with some better criticisms. Right now, the whole 'muuahhh, she's not patriotic enough!!!1!!' thing just isn't sticking - except with Republicans who never would have voted for her husband anyways.

There's no need to even say anything about Cindy at all; you already know it and so does most everyone else. She oughta keep her mouth shut, though, if she doesn't want the criticism to arise; wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

No, I wouldn't agree. Quite the contrary, I hope Michelle keeps on talking and let's us see just how little she thinks of this country.

If you want her or anyone else to keep their mouths shut, you should communicate that with them directly.

By the way, there is no such thing as a plural adverb, so your constant use of 'anyways' is juvenile.

And someday you really should avail yourself of an education and learn the difference between 'then' and 'than'.

"Anyways" at the beginning of a sentence usually indicates that the speaker has resumed a narrative thread: "Anyways, I told Matilda that guy was a lazy bum before she ever married him." It also occurs at the end of phrases and sentences, meaning "in any case": "He wasn't all that good-looking anyways." A slightly less rustic quality can be imparted to these sentences by substituting the more formal anyway. Neither expression is a good idea in formal written English. The two-word phrase "any way" has many legitimate uses, however: "Is there any way to prevent the impending disaster?"

dyslexia wrote:

"Anyways" at the beginning of a sentence usually indicates that the speaker has resumed a narrative thread: "Anyways, I told Matilda that guy was a lazy bum before she ever married him." It also occurs at the end of phrases and sentences, meaning "in any case": "He wasn't all that good-looking anyways." A slightly less rustic quality can be imparted to these sentences by substituting the more formal anyway. Neither expression is a good idea in formal written English. The two-word phrase "any way" has many legitimate uses, however: "Is there any way to prevent the impending disaster?"

I think 'anyways', both spoken and written, is mainly used by teenagers.