realjohnboy
 
  1  
Mon 2 Jun, 2008 08:56 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
realjohnboy wrote:
The civility here is killing me. Stop it.


rjb, Didn't realize you had humour in you blood until now. LOL


Oh, come now, ci. You know that isn't true. Admittedly, it can be a dry humor, but humor.
And when did you start talking with a British accent? "Humour"
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Mon 2 Jun, 2008 09:03 pm
Meanwhile, back to tomorrow for the last two primaries. Clinton will probably pick up the popular vote totals in both, but Obama will pick up enough delegates to put him close to clinching the nomination. Will she fold her tent? I think so. If she doesn't, she will be seen as the "evil b*tch" who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for the Dems.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 2 Jun, 2008 09:08 pm
I don't think Hillary is gonna call it quits any time - sooner or later; she wants to keep the door open for more "I'm the better candidate against McCain" rhetoric. My radar tells me that Hillary is gonna stick around until the convention.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 2 Jun, 2008 09:46 pm
I think that so far Hillary has benefitted from staying in the campaign. She has gained considerable ground during the last couple of months, and that has raised her stature in the party - at least as a political force to be reckoned with. Her position as a likely candidate in 2012, in the event that Obama doesn't win the election in November, has been strengthened, and her place as the real Democrat leader in the Senate has been assured.

Finally, given the volatility of the present political climate and the uncertainty that besets any political campaign, she benefits in some sense just by staying in the game. For the last reason, I think there is even a fair chance she will elect to take the contest even into the convention - simply because the delegate's votes aren't cast until the convention and until then promises are only promises.

I don't think she has in any way seriously hurt Obama's chances in the election. The adverse elements in Obama's public image that have emerged in the last two months would have played the same way whether Hillary was in the campaign or not. Though I think his odds have weakened a bit, I believe he is still the most likely victor in November.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 2 Jun, 2008 09:55 pm
teenyboone wrote:
okie wrote:
teenyboone wrote:

I can't object to what I don't know, but times were better when they were in the WH. I don't know of any corruption, but much was made over the President's personal life, which I don't think is any of our business, but when the Republicans were doing pretty much the same thin, they look like a bunch of hypocrites, doing the same things as Bill. Getting caught like the guy leading a double life in Washington, is something else!

Talking about the guy from Staten Island, who had an accident and it was learned he had a mistress and a baby!


If you didn't know it, then you need to pull your head out of the sand. I guess you never heard of Whitewater, FBI files, Rose law firm files, bar bouncer white house security, rape charges by women and personal threats to those women, the Indonesian mafia, Chinese military money and technology for campaign contributions, pardon of terrorists, foreign campaign money, intimidation of political ememies using the IRS, the list goes on. It is really a very long list, teeny. This is what I am talking about when I mentioned the media whitewashed all of that and covered it up and ignored it. Most of you believed it didn't amount to anything but his so-called personal life, when in truth the Clinton administration was the most corrupt administration by far, of any in the history of the country in not just my opinion. I suspect this couple is connected somehow to some shadowey international mafia or something. No proof and I am not a conspiracy theorist, but the Clinton era defies all explanation by normal reasoning.

Have the courage to face the truth, teeny, the Democratic Party is corrupt through and through.

Okie, there's a grain of truth in what you stated; that all political parties are corrupt, including the democrats! You can't clump Democrats and NOT include Repugs, after all the finagling that's gone on since Bush stole the election in 2000!

teeny, the grain is more like a mountain. But please don't use the argument "everybody does it." That ploy was used for 8 years to justify the crooks, the Clintons. Sure there is corruption in the Republican party, but when it is found, it is usually dealt with, and if someone is corrupt regardless of party, they need to be scrutinized, and punished by the law if warranted. And get over 2000, Bush never stole the election. He won fair and square.

Quote:
Just take White-Water! The Republicans wasted 8 million dollars, investigating a $40,000 dollar LOSS! Then, they started investigating accusations, that Bill hit on this one or that one and some were so ugly, I thought, was Bill that hard up? Bill Clinton, we've found out IS a man, DOES have a sex drive unlike Bob Dole who was the spokesperson for Viagra!
Agreed Dole was a dumb as a post to become the viagra spokesman, I thought he was smarter than that, but doing that is a 0.5 on a scale of 10 as compared to Clinton, who was about a 9. Advertising viagra does not compare with being a serial stalker of women, with accusations of rape thrown in the mix. But as I said, Clinton's corruption included alot more than sexual dysfunctional escapades, and Whitewater was about alot more than $40,000 I think.

Quote:
I didn't read about any Democrats involved in the Congressional Page scandal! I didn't read about any Democrat screwing his aide, while his wife was dying of cancer, did you? Newt Gingrinch, the hypocrite, just admitted, while investigating and impeaching Bill Clinton, HE was engaged in screwing his assistant, then MARRIED the B*TCH, while his wife died of cancer! How can you spell Hypocrite? I don't know of any Democrat engaged in the lobbyists scandal, like Tom "teriffic" Delay, did you?

Again, I won't defend Gingrich, but affairs are one thing, what Clinton does is much more. Again, its about alot more than Monica. And there are plenty of Democrats involved with lobbyists, and involvement with lobbyists is not illegal unless there is quid quo pro. Also, don't forget Democrat William Jefferson with cash in his freezer, I think he is still in Congress, and nobody cares.

Quote:
Republicans "kill" their girlfriends, as did the congressman from California, but not enough evidence to prove it. Her body was found in Rock Creek Park! He threw evidence away that linked him to an expensive wristwatch she bought for him and he denies it. The "shadow" military, Blackwater, making more money than our underpaid, underequipped Army! Ever heard of Halliburton or JBR? All owned by Cheney, the draft dodger!
You buy the propaganda of the left, remember, Halliburton is one of a very few companies that can do the jobs needed done, Cheney sold his stock, remember, Clinton used Halliburton, there is nothing new here. The Republican that had a girlfriend murdered, yes I agree it was suspicious, but what about Vince Foster?

Quote:
The hypocrite congressman that tries to "pick up" men in airport bathrooms, but claims he isn't gay! Any democrats found doing that?
Remember Gerry Studds, he was given a standing O by his fellow Dems.
Quote:

Oh and what about the Louisiana Congressman, found engaging prostitutes? Oh I forgot, she was found dead, after "hanging" herself, before she said, if she was accused of suicide, don't believe it! Well, that's just what they claim she did, but won't divuge the typewritten "suicide" note! What other Democrat scandals can you dig up? I have a few more Repug scandals, if you can't think! :wink:

There are Republican sleezebags, yes, but when they are Dems, I also want them kicked out of Congress. Remember Teddy Kennedy has remained in Congress how long now? I don't wish him ill now, but if he was a Republican he would have been drop kicked all the way home within a month or two of the woman drowning, and we would have forgotten his name by now.

We don't need corruption from either party, and when Dems do it, I am tired of hearing the justification that everybody does it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 2 Jun, 2008 10:28 pm
okie wrote:

Interesting, Obama finally quits the church. Just a thought, was this latest stupidity by the guest preacher a setup to give him an excuse or cover to quit the church, so Wright doesn't get blamed, and so on? I have not heard this at all, and this is only a thought of mine after seeing the announcement on the web, and no opinions at all. Only a person of questionable intelligence, or perhaps a motive?----- would say what was said to stimulate the events following.


Interesting, 2 days after I figured it out, so did Rush today. He thinks it was no accident this Phleger guy did what he did. It provided cover for his friend, Obama, to quit the church. As Rush pointed out, and as I already figured out, nobody in their right mind would go off on a rant in that church with the video and recordings rolling, unless you were either totally dumb with no brains at all, or if there was an ulterior motive. He would not do that if he actually cared about Obama at all, because it would be no help at all, unless it was a stunt for the very purpose of providing cover for Obama to quit, and by blaming the white guy he doesn't have to throw the church and Wright or any black person overboard when he quits. Now he can claim he has quit the church and he hopes by doing so that all of that baggage will go away.

If Rush and I have this tabbed correctly, and I think we do, Obama is being much less than honest about this, it was all a stunt, and possibly even planned.

With every day that goes by, it is becoming more obvious that Obama is not only an ultra liberal, but a radical leftist of the nth degree. No successful Chicago politician does not orchestrate all of this stuff, and I fully believe Obama is the ultimate manipulator indeed. When he talks about this, he even gives himself away by talking about "managing" the issue. The guy is a manager of it alright, he is a manipulator, and quitting the church means nothing, this church and their wild eyed pastors defines Obama and always has, and it is not a religion primarily, but racist and blame / hate America politics of the first order.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 01:21 am
Wow, some of the stuff we learn about Obama's friends, this Father Phleger guy is a dandy. A genuine nutcase for sure. Question, does Obama have any normal friends? Another question, do normal people have friends like his? Is Obama not only an ultra liberal, but is he a radical, and is he a nutcase? I used to think he was a nice guy, but, woe, this guy keeps looking worse by the day. No wonder Clinton hangs on. Take away the tele-prompters and speech writers and handlers, and lets hear the real Obama, it can't happen too soon.

Ask the man a good question with no prepared answer at hand, and listen to the stuttering and stammering. Is the Democratic Party actually seriously wanting to run this guy for president of the United States? Super Delegates, you better re-consider if you have just an ounce of common sense.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 05:27 am
Quote:
Take away the tele-prompters and speech writers and handlers, and lets hear the real Obama, it can't happen too soon.


Considering Obama writes a lot of his own speeches; I agree that it can't happen any time soon.

Any day now Hillary will be out of the picture and the focus will be on McCain and Obama. McCain new found friends are not so hot that he can afford to talk about Obama's so maybe focus will be on issues for a refreshing change.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 06:24 am
Hey RJB,

realjohnboy wrote:
Meanwhile, back to tomorrow for the last two primaries. Clinton will probably pick up the popular vote totals in both, but Obama will pick up enough delegates to put him close to clinching the nomination. Will she fold her tent? I think so. If she doesn't, she will be seen as the "evil b*tch" who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for the Dems.


What do you mean about "Clinton will probably pick up the popular vote totals in both"? You think she'll get more votes in both SD and Montana? As far as I can tell, Obama will win by a pretty good margin in Montana -- both delegate-wise and popular-vote-wise -- and SD will be closer (I don't have a good idea at this point about whether Obama or Clinton will win. I saw something from the Clinton camp yesterday that they expect to be "within 10 points" of Obama in SD, which would suggest that they expect to lose, but other things make it look close or advantage Clinton).

Hillary has the "popular vote total" currently only in certain creative counts. For example, if Obama gets zero votes out of Michigan while all of Hillary's votes are counted. It's widely accepted that at least some of the 40% of the voters who chose "uncommitted" were voting for Obama. Reasonable estimates of the number of Michigan Obama voters -- just the ones who actually voted, not the ones who stayed home because they believed that their vote wouldn't count -- erases Hillary's "popular vote advantage" even then, leaving no advantage by any count.

It would be nice if even the creative counts were stymied though by a strong showing today. The turnout in Puerto Rico was low, and didn't boost Hillary's overall numbers much even though she won by a high percentage.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 06:33 am
Meanwhile, it's June 3rd.

That's a date that's been looming for an awfully long time -- almost as much resonance as January 3rd, the date of the Iowa caucuses and when this whole circus got properly in gear.

James Clyburn is finally endorsing today. He's calling other undeclared superdelegates in SC (I don't know how many there are) and urging them to unite behind Obama and finish this thing.

After the South Dakota and Montana primaries tonight -- and depending on how many superdelegates he picks up today -- Obama will need only somewhere around 20 more superdelegates to go over the top. (I.e., to get to 2,118 delegates, the current "magic number.")

It's possible it will all happen tonight.

I'm not sure if I'll really be able to celebrate until Hillary has dropped out. I worry about what she'd do between now and the convention, and what she'd do AT the convention. I don't think she'll drop out tonight or tomorrow -- I think more like June 15th, after a period of lobbying the superdelegates like crazy.

But today might be a very big day indeed.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 07:02 am
So, Obama quit his church last week. I wonder when he's going to get divorced?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 07:50 am
georgeob1 wrote:
I think that so far Hillary has benefitted from staying in the campaign. She has gained considerable ground during the last couple of months

Gained considerable ground, huh?

Fact check by courtesy of Christopher Orr:

Quote:
Defining 'Dominate' Down

From Politico:

    "I'm sort of a day-at-a-time person," [Hillary Clinton] said, adding that she has "closed very strongly" and "dominated" Obama since February 20.
According to CNN, on February 20, the delegate math was Obama 1,301 and Hillary Clinton 1,239, for an Obama lead of 62 delegates. Today (again according to CNN) the tally is Obama 2,072 and Clinton 1,916, for an Obama lead of 152. So during the period in which Clinton claims to have "dominated," Obama has in fact more than doubled his lead.

Now, it's true that if you only want to count (how many times have we heard this phrase in the last few months?) pledged delegates, Clinton has slightly outperformed Obama in the 100+ days in question. By my calculation, she has a net gain of 18 pledged delegates over Obama, or just over one percent of the 1,448 pledged delegates that have been awarded during that span. (That will presumably narrow slightly after tomorrow's primaries.)

If that constitutes "dominating," we're clearly going to have to invent a new word to describe what Obama accomplished in February when he, for all intents and purposes, put the race far out of reach.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 08:10 am
today the decision will probably be made... in the grand tradition of recent politics and American Idol (same thing) the wrong decision has been made.

Now we'll hope for the best and live with our decision and it's consequences.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 08:21 am
Nimh,

You are countering my general proposition that Hillary has "benefitted from staying in the campaign" and "gained considerable Ground", by offering a weak counterargument against a different and much narrower proposition; namely that she has narrowed Obama's lead among pledged or total delegates. Worse you dressed up your point to make it appear that you were "revealing facts" that somehow corrected a deception.

This is a silly and unworthy gambit, and you should retract it.

My point was clearly that she has materially benefitted her overall political stature and prospects by staying in the race; and that this is not the lunatic action of some deranged person, designed to deprive the sainted Obams of his foreordained place in the sun, as is so tiresomely implied by some of his supporters. The point remains.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 08:31 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Nimh,

You are countering my general proposition that Hillary has "benefitted from staying in the campaign" and "gained considerable Ground", by offering a weak counterargument against a different and much narrower proposition; namely that she has narrowed Obama's lead among pledged or total delegates. Worse you dressed up your point to make it appear that you were "revealing facts" that somehow corrected a deception.

This is a silly and unworthy gambit, and you should retract it.

My point was clearly that she has materially benefitted her overall political stature and prospects by staying in the race; and that this is not the lunatic action of some deranged person, designed to deprive the sainted Obams of his foreordained place in the sun, as is so tiresomely implied by some of his supporters. The point remains.


This is quite true. As a 15-year philosophical opponent of the whole Clinton machine, I knew that the odds are favorable for a Democrat to be in the White House come January. Last year I was thinking that Obama was the best choice to be that Democrat. As the campaign has worn on, however, and we have had more time to do critical observations and analysis, Obama's luster lost its sheen for me while Hillary earned my respect for tenacity under intense pressure if for nothing else. I think neither is likely to serve the country magnificently, but I now consider Hillary to be the least dangerous to principles I consider important. I think maybe millions of Americans have come to that same conclusion.

I am guessing that if we could start all over knowing what we know now, Hillary would be the nominee. But as BPB said, as in American Idol, the process itself does not always produce the best choice.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:07 am
[quote="Foxfyre" As the campaign has worn on, however, and we have had more time to do critical observations and analysis, Obama's luster lost its sheen for me while Hillary earned my respect for tenacity under intense pressure if for nothing else. .[/quote]


Wow! Do you realize how intellectually dishonest this appears to anyone familiar with your extreme outlook? There is no doubt in my mind that you would be trashing Hillary had she secured the nomination. It doesn't really matter what an extreme wingnut like yourself thinks, there is not a single Dem candidate who ran that you would support. Hell, if Edwards had won or Biden or Dodd won, you would be saying the same thing.

Who the f*** do you think you are fooling?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:09 am
Cross-posting from Roxxxanne's "Hillary to concede tonight" thread:

sozobe wrote:
First Read:

Quote:
Hillary to recognize Obama nomination
Posted: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:55 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama, Delegates
From NBC's Mark Murray
Breaking news from the AP: "Officials say Clinton will acknowledge Tuesday
night Obama has the delegates for the nomination."


So that sounds less conditional.

Wow.

This phase might actually almost be over...!!!
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:12 am
Hey, Soz, I have a question for you. Do you feel as strongly about Obama as you did when you started this thread?

Just wondering.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:17 am
I don't know about Soz, but it sure created a whole lot more questions for me!
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:20 am
I bet B. Hussein Obama changes his name, divorces, and gets some whitey pills from Michael Jackson before November.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 891
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 10:25:17