Obama '08?

Re: say huh?
so Cyclo - care to explain how running ads isn't campaigning?

Magginkat wrote:

But Obama did campaign in Florida.... he ran over 1.3 million in ads and he had his followers sending out his "Democrat for a day" flyers. He may not have held one of his revivals in Florida but he damn sure campaigned. I know because I could not turn on one of our TV stations without being bombarded with his gawd awful ads. They may not have been in your part of the state but they were damn sure in N. Florida.

sptimes

Cable companies have come a long way since the 1970's. To suggest that they were unable to remove one state or another from a nation-wide run is nuts.

Canadians can vouch for cable systems being able to modify advertising in particular markets - it's been happening for decades.

0 Replies

Re: say huh?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
real life wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Why did Hillary sign a pledge not to participate in either state's campaign, say that they 'didn't matter' if she truly felt this way?

Obama signed the same pledge, did he not? And kept his name on the ballot in FL?

He participated as well.

It was too late to take the names off the ballots in FL when the pledge was signed; that's why all their names were on it, and there was no move to remove any of them.

Damn those facts, destroying your argument so easily!

Cycloptichorn

If it was too late to remove the names leaving Obama faultless... then Hill must also be faultless yes?

In FL, yes. But not in MI, where she had ample opportunity to do so, and chose to break her pledge and participated in the election anyways.

Interestingly enough, it looks like even this may bite her in the ass. MI may have a re-vote after all - which Obama would probably win at this point - but FL looks not to. Ironic!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Roxy wrote-

Quote:

Ah Duh! That would be port security like preventing terrorsits from bringing in material for a "dirty bomb" through our ports.

Well-it's one thing talking about preventing terrorsits from bringing in material for a "dirty bomb" through our ports and it's another actually preventing terrorsits from bringing in material for a "dirty bomb" through our ports.

Confuse the two and you will end up in total confusion yourself. The first one just sounds good the second is good. We are all in favour of all our electoral choices doing their best to prevent terrorsits from bringing in material for a "dirty bomb" through our ports. I feel sure that Mrs Clinton and Mr McCain are 100% in agreement.

Thus it isn't an issue. Like Mom and apple pie.

0 Replies

Roxy wrote-

Quote:

Very little danger of that.

Are all BO's supporters as ignorant as that?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

'Jump the gun' ?

What does that mean?

It means to start prematurely. It is a metaphor derived from track and field, where races were traditionally started with the firing of a starter's pistol. Those runners who left their marks before the official fired his pistol were said to have "jumped the gun."

And now you know the rest of the story!

0 Replies

Thank you Mr. Harvey Laughing

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

real life wrote:
'Jump the gun' ?

What does that mean?

It means to start prematurely. It is a metaphor derived from track and field, where races were traditionally started with the firing of a starter's pistol. Those runners who left their marks before the official fired his pistol were said to have "jumped the gun."

And now you know the rest of the story!

Indeed.

And of course there's a similar history and term related to swimming races as well, which originated in the shark infested Brazilian Hebrides.

0 Replies

Obama's Gay Leadership Council Member Resigns in Disgrace

(And no, it isn't Roxxxxxxxxxanne)

0 Replies

We can all forget about this election, because al Qaida is going to influence how we vote.

McCain says al Qaeda might try to tip U.S. election

By Steve Holland
Fri Mar 14, 12:22 PM ET

SPRINGFIELD, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday he fears that al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the U.S. election against him.

0 Replies

They have been "planning" a spectacular attack since September 12 2001 CI....remember? Dubya has saved thousands of lives by preventing further attacks because of domestic spying, Gitmo, the Patriot Act.
As soon as that Muslim Obama becomes president, expect the US to fast become an Islamic state.

....be afraid....

0 Replies

Obama is now at 50% in both the Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking polls. It ties his highest ever in Gallup and is his highest ever in Rasmussen.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/031408DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

No graph yet for the other one
Rasmussen link

I think that the reality of Clinton's bad situation has sunk in a little.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

50, cool.

Meanwhile, presenting... the Clinton cult!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/holding-up-a-mirror-to-th_b_91579.html

Excerpts:

Quote:

The hate-filled emails and comments from Hillary Clinton supporters show up every time I criticize the Clinton campaign strategy. They're always the same: rage-filled, reflexive, and personal. Sometimes I suggest that people look in the mirror and reflect on what factors in this campaign have made them the kind of people who write hate mail to strangers.

Quote:

Of course, you can't condemn an entire campaign ... or its supporters ... based on the hate-filled fanatics in its midst. But the ability of otherwise reasonable Clinton supporters to tolerate and explain away inexcusable behavior is disturbing at best. Their best defense seems to be that all these racial innuendos are absolutely innocent episodes on the part of Clinton and her supporters. They usually garnish this defense with the argument that these innocent mistakes are then cleverly exploited and inflamed by that slick, shifty, overly clever Obama and his supporters.

Quote:

The Clintons have raised the level of hatred in this campaign to an unprecedented level, at least in my lifetime, for a Democratic contest. They've convinced their followers that it's Obama who keeps bringing up race ... and if you criticize her in any way, you're a sexist. And what else? Oh, right. His followers are cultlike.

Irony, anyone?

I completely agree with the bolded part -- and of course that goes both ways.

0 Replies

It's been kinda quiet in here since Obama's pastor was forced out of the campaign, and 'Present' stated that he was not there when Wright made racist comments from the pulpit.

The frequency of Wright's usage of such language means that now it's just a matter of time before someone shows that 'Present' Obama indeed WAS there when Wright made such comments.

Obama claimed first of all that 'he was aware, but not in attendance' on the occasions that Wright had made offensive remarks.

But , 'Present' said, he remained a member because of his 'close ties' to the church and the fact that the pastor was 'nearing retirement' anyway (6 years before Wright 'retired').

Later he backpedaled and said if only he had been there to hear it, he would've quit the church.

Since the pastor's sermons are recorded, what prevented Obama from hearing for himself his pastor's racist hate speech?

0 Replies

The whole site was down! I was just trying to post the link to Obama's Huffington post piece when it first went down, and it apparently just came back a couple of hours ago.

Anyway, here's the piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

0 Replies

Latest from First Read:

Quote:

BY THE NUMBERS:
Pledged Count: Obama leads 1,400-1,251
Superdelegates: Clinton leads 253-217
OVERALL TOTAL: Obama leads 1,617-1,504

Since Super Tuesday, Obama is +47, Clinton is -7.
Since March 4, Obama is +6, Clinton is -1 (Spitzer).

I think Paterson is expected to vote for Hillary, too, though (as in maybe not -1). Still, a pretty stark pattern.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

We can all forget about this election, because al Qaida is going to influence how we vote.

McCain says al Qaeda might try to tip U.S. election

By Steve Holland
Fri Mar 14, 12:22 PM ET

SPRINGFIELD, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday he fears that al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the U.S. election against him.

This is an interesting PR move and quite typical of how the Bush people (particularly the neoconservative operators) have framed the Iraq problem. The problem has been two-fold...how to make this situation look good or at least not too bad and how to prevent any diminishment in US militarism from elections and domestic unhappiness with such on-going militarism.

What they do is frame or describe the matter so that any outcome seems to present evidence that Iraq is going well, and/or that the decisions made have been the right ones, and that ONLY a Republican administration with a seriously aggressive militarist policy will be able to keep evil at bay.

In this case, if the violence level stays the same or reduces, then obviously the surge (which McCain supported and which his campaign and the neocons at Weekly Standard, National Review etc work very hard to identify McCain with on a daily basis) is working.

But if the violence rises again (which at least temporarily, it is) then that presents evidence that al Qaeda fears John McCain and is actively increasing their evilness to keep him (or anyone like him) out of the WH. The converse suggestion or inference which piggy-backs on this framing is, of course, that al Qaeda want a Dem in the WH. Thus Dems (or insufficiently militarist policies )are effectively on the same side as al Qaeda.

The stupider conservatives on this board who get their daily propaganda from the usual sources will repeat this stuff without the slightest clue that they are being set up and how they are being set up.

0 Replies

Pelosi's Delegate Stance Boosts Obama
March 14, 2008 6:08 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on Friday that it would be "harmful" to Democrats if superdelegates were to give the party's presidential nomination to a candidate who is trailing in the delegates awarded in primaries and caucuses.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections," said Pelosi, "it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."

Although Pelosi offered her assessment without directly referencing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., her comments lend considerable support to the Illinois Democrat.

Obama leads Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in pledged delegates: 1,396 to 1,241. Because of the proportional system used by the Democratic Party to allocate delegates, Obama is widely expected to remain in front of Clinton in pledged delegates at the conclusion of the primary season.

Political prognosticators give Clinton more of a chance of catching, or even surpassing, Obama in the national popular vote but Pelosi argued that superdelegates should follow the pledged-delegate, not the popular-vote, leader.

"But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?" asked Stephanopoulos.

"But it's a delegate race," Pelosi replied. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

Pelosi's comments to Stephanopoulos, which were made in Washington, D.C., air Friday evening on ABC News' "World News with Charles Gibson."

The full interview with Pelosi airs Sunday morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

0 Replies

I've seen a lot of speculation that Pelosi backs Obama. Several of her close associates have endorsed him (I saw something about a "kitchen cabinet," I can try to look that up).

Of the people who so speculate, several seem to want her to come out already and help seal things up. I agree with that as an Obama-supporter, but from Pelosi's perspective I can see that it would be much safer to wait until the popular perception is that Obama has the nomination and that an endorsement is a formality. I don't think she wants to have "the person who ruined it for Hillary" hanging over her head.

0 Replies

Re: say huh?

ehBeth wrote:

so Cyclo - care to explain how running ads isn't campaigning?

Magginkat wrote:
But Obama did campaign in Florida.... he ran over 1.3 million in ads and he had his followers sending out his "Democrat for a day" flyers. He may not have held one of his revivals in Florida but he damn sure campaigned. I know because I could not turn on one of our TV stations without being bombarded with his gawd awful ads. They may not have been in your part of the state but they were damn sure in N. Florida.

Interesting that you should take Magginkat's word for this. He ran over 1.3 million in ads in Florida? Thats nuts. "I could not turn on one of our TV stations without being bombarded with his gawd awful ads"? When the ad was only ever aired on cable? Magginkat is just making up stuff, and I wouldnt have expected you to fall right for it.

ehBeth wrote:

Cable companies have come a long way since the 1970's. To suggest that they were unable to remove one state or another from a nation-wide run is nuts.

Really? I dont know about this stuff myself, but I havent seen anyone dispute that assertion yet, from either side, and I've seen a lot of disputing on this. Can you give an example of a deal where a campaign could have a specific state exempted from an ad broadcast on a cable station nationwide?

0 Replies

Re: say huh?

nimh wrote:

Can you give an example of a deal where a campaign could have a specific state exempted from an ad broadcast on a cable station nationwide?

How did Clinton manage to not air ads in FL?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know