Obama '08?

JPB wrote:

I'm forever grateful that I don't live in Cook County.

Hmm, a couple of miles make a big difference - as 175 years do :wink:

0 Replies

Obama doesn't want to end the war in Iraq?

0 Replies

Quote:

Clinton-backer Ferraro: Obama Where He Is Because He's Black
March 11, 2008 7:30 AM

Clinton campaign finance committee member, former vice presidential candidate, and former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, D-NY, told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Ca., that, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Of Clinton, Ferraro said that the press "has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign."

from http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-backer.html

Gerry thinks Obama is the beneficiary of being black.

And just where would Hilly be if she hadn't married Billy?

She is where she is because of her husband.

Hilly has served one full term in the Senate.

She wouldn't have been elected to that either, if she hadn't been Billy's wife.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
I only referred to his position on the war. He has been consistent. Can you say the same for Obama?

Sure - he's been against it from the start.

Cycloptichorn

Yes. That's his favorite line and one he thinks is his money quote. Unfortunately for him, he has shown no consistency on what should be done now. Even his advisors have hinted he doesn't mean what he says in regard to ending the war.

Sure he has. If elected, he'll start pulling troops out of the place at a rate which hopefully will keep Iraq from collapsing immediately when we leave.

He's been consistent about this from the start. As someone who wants to see the troops home earlier rather then later, I wish he was more insistent on bringing them home NOW.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I was just reading about that. Oy.

What is she saying, exactly? That people are voting for him BECAUSE he's black... but meanwhile NOT voting for Hillary because she's a woman?

There are people who are voting for Obama because he's black, sure (as a tie-breaker if nothing else). And a heck of a lot of them are voting for Hillary because she's a woman. Then there are those who won't vote for Obama because he's black (11% in CA) and those who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman (6% in CA).

I'm so sick of the victimhood thing. I have been since I incurred the wrath of entire women's studies classes circa 1990. ("Oh god, she's raising her hand again...")

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Obama doesn't want to end the war in Iraq?

There is no candidate, R or D, who 'doesn't want to end the war'.

The question is how and under what circumstances, Imposter.

Dems are emotionally invested in defeat.

They really cannot afford for America to succeed.

The weak kneed responses of the last Democratic president when America was repeatedly attacked by terrorists, should be sufficient reason to NEVER trust a liberal with America's security.

Billy chased skirts and practiced CYA while the country was attacked.

Sandy Burglar, Clinton's hatchet man, stole documents from the National Archives to cover the Clintons backside.

Quote:

Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper

By John F. Harris and Allan Lengel
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.......

The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.......

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

Oh never mind. I forgot. The Washington Post is just a right wing rag out to get the Clintons.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
I only referred to his position on the war. He has been consistent. Can you say the same for Obama?

Sure - he's been against it from the start.

Cycloptichorn

Yes. That's his favorite line and one he thinks is his money quote. Unfortunately for him, he has shown no consistency on what should be done now. Even his advisors have hinted he doesn't mean what he says in regard to ending the war.

Sure he has. If elected, he'll start pulling troops out of the place at a rate which hopefully will keep Iraq from collapsing immediately when we leave.

He's been consistent about this from the start. As someone who wants to see the troops home earlier rather then later, I wish he was more insistent on bringing them home NOW.

Cycloptichorn

Says Obama, "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused."

But that is not what he said last year, nor what he said in 2004 and even his former foreign policy advisor Samantha Power disputes he knows what the situation in Iraq will be in 2009. Her saying one thing and him another is probably the real reason she had to resign - not calling Hillary a monster.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
I only referred to his position on the war. He has been consistent. Can you say the same for Obama?

Sure - he's been against it from the start.

Cycloptichorn

Yes. That's his favorite line and one he thinks is his money quote. Unfortunately for him, he has shown no consistency on what should be done now. Even his advisors have hinted he doesn't mean what he says in regard to ending the war.

Sure he has. If elected, he'll start pulling troops out of the place at a rate which hopefully will keep Iraq from collapsing immediately when we leave.

He's been consistent about this from the start. As someone who wants to see the troops home earlier rather then later, I wish he was more insistent on bringing them home NOW.

Cycloptichorn

Says Obama, "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused."

But that is not what he said last year, nor what he said in 2004 and even his former foreign policy advisor Samantha Power disputes he knows what the situation in Iraq will be in 2009. Her saying one thing and him another is probably the real reason she had to resign - not calling Hillary a monster.

I really don't care what his advisor said - it's meaningless. What he said is what matters.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I really don't care what his advisor said - it's meaningless. What he said is what matters.

Unless he's saying "half-truths".

"I will bring this war to an end in 2009"

is quite different than saying

"I will bring ALL of our troops home in 2009"

or

"I will bring 80% of our troops home in 2009"

0 Replies

Or what he said in 2004.

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he [Obama] said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Or what he said in 2004.

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he [Obama] said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

That's not inconsistent with his plan to remove troops at all.

Thanks for playing, tho

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Or what he said in 2004.

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he [Obama] said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

That's not inconsistent with his plan to remove troops at all.

Thanks for playing, tho

Cycloptichorn

Yes it is inconsistent, but Obamites seem to hear whatever they want, despite the words actually coming out of his mouth. That must be the game you're referencing. Play on.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Or what he said in 2004.

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he [Obama] said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

That's not inconsistent with his plan to remove troops at all.

Thanks for playing, tho

Cycloptichorn

Yes it is inconsistent, but Obamites seem to hear whatever they want, despite the words actually coming out of his mouth. That must be the game you're referencing. Play on.

Sorry, but assertions don't make for a strong argument.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I'm so sick of the victimhood thing.

Completely agree. Victimhood is a disease that should not be enabled.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I really don't care what his advisor said - it's meaningless. What he said is what matters.

Cycloptichorn

If I remember correctly, didnt Obama and Hillary both say early in the campaign that they could see leaving our forces in Iraq till the end of their first terms?
Isnt that 2012?

So, whats changed since then?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I really don't care what his advisor said - it's meaningless. What he said is what matters.

Cycloptichorn

If I remember correctly, didnt Obama and Hillary both say early in the campaign that they could see leaving our forces in Iraq till the end of their first terms?
Isnt that 2012?

So, whats changed since then?

I think both of them are still considering leaving some of our forces there for some time to come; I don't believe that this has changed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Victimhood is a disease that should not be enabled.

I am willing to concede I might be getting old and out of touch, but sometimes I read a sentence, apparently written in English, or more specifically Americaneze, and I have no idea what it means. Thats an example. What do you mean tico? Is it possible to express this idea in a written language that might convey meaning to me, a native English speaker?

0 Replies

Steve
"apparently written in English, or more specifically Americaneze, and I have no idea what it means"
My Eglish is not that perfect niether oxfordian/ or Queens one.
English is not German nor Sanskrist or Tamil.
Let us appreciciate .

0 Replies

well have you any idea what the poor man is on about?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

On the same note..

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You'll find it peppered all over A2K.

"Yeah, well while Obama and Clinton rip each other to shreds, McCain isn't getting any news coverage. So take that dude!"

From where do they receive their marching orders?

Karl Rove apparently, since he signed off on the point :wink:

(I think he was even the one first bringing it - I remember Blatham linking to him saying that a week or two ago already.)

Right.

Rove suggested that McCain has the worst of this current situation because a bloody battle unto the death between the Democratic gladiators is depriving him off face time in the media.

Right.

Rove's comments on the subject do reveal a mind that is always weighing advantages and disadvantages --- big surprise --- he's a strategist, and a very good strategist (like Rove) isn't content with savoring the wonderful treat provided by the Dems, he looks to enhance it, by shoring up whatever minor deficit it might impose upon his guy.

I doubt that he would advise McCain to somehow trade places with Obama/Clinton so he could get all the juicy press while they wallow in media obscurity.

The bottom line is that sometimes you are dealt a crappy hand, and it's fairly pathetic to crow, "Yeah, but your hand is so good it won't raise the pot!"

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know