[guorbatschow]

  
REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

what obama is trying to do is to make the impression that having him as a president would make a huge difference to what would have been if mccain got elected.

fact is, however, that in major democratic countries, big parties always have similar views on how things have to be done. the way i see it, the constant political arguments are mostly over trivial aspects to carry out a power struggle. in election times, they try to differentiate themselves from eachother to polarize the voters.

obama just represents the democrats. there is no way he can just act out of line and suddenly trigger some "change". without help of those powerful friends who endorsed him, where would he be today?

[Longknife]

Originally Posted by guorbatschow

what obama is trying to do is to make the impression that having him as a president would make a huge difference to what would have been if mccain got elected.

fact is, however, that in major democratic countries, big parties always have similar views on how things have to be done. the way i see it, the constant political arguments are mostly over trivial aspects to carry out a power struggle. in election times, they try to differentiate themselves from eachother to polarize the voters.

obama just represents the democrats. there is no way he can just act out of line and suddenly trigger some "change". without help of those powerful friends who endorsed him, where would he be today?

While I disagree about the powerful friends who endorsed him (cause give him credit; he has done an amazing job at raising money), I agree I don't expect major change. I simply expect a decent president. Major change is pure fantasy, and if he does pull it off, then wtf he used hacks.

[meimei]

Originally Posted by Longknife

While I disagree about the powerful friends who endorsed him (cause give him credit; he has done an amazing job at raising money), I agree I don't expect major change. I simply expect a decent president. Major change is pure fantasy, and if he does pull it off, then wtf he used hacks.

I agree that there won't be a whole flip on how the government is run, but I'm hoping for a start of possibly something larger, if he were to become president.

As for that video that Tor showed, I agree with what Longknife says in general. And, there was a comment about how he would fire people, but not fire people.. they definitely twisted the context of some of the statements.

P.S. Turns out she didn't lie about Bosnia.

lol xD

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

Hillary is actually doing a decent amount better in current polls comparing McCain vs. each of the candidates..

Actually, a while back, they did a polling with Hillary versus McCain, and Obama versus McCain- Obama won versus McCain and Hillary tied. That was back before the negative attacks between the Obama and Clinton camp started to lose voters for both sides, and eventually move over to McCain.

On RealClearPolitics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Poll	Date	Obama (D)	McCain (R)	Und	Spread
RCP Average	03/15 to 03/27	45.0%	44.5%	8.0%	Obama +0.5%
Rasmussen Tracking	03/24 - 03/27	42%	49%	9%	McCain +7.0%
Gallup Tracking	03/22 - 03/27	44%	46%	5%	McCain +2.0%
NBC/WSJ	03/24 - 03/25	44%	42%	7%	Obama +2.0%
Pew Research	03/19 - 03/22	49%	43%	8%	Obama +6.0%
FOX News	03/18 - 03/19	43%	44%	13%	McCain +1.0%
CBS News	03/15 - 03/18	48%	43%	6%	Obama +5.0%

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton
Poll	Date	Clinton (D)	McCain (R)	Und	Spread
RCP Average	03/15 to 03/27	45.0%	45.7%	7.0%	McCain +0.7%
Rasmussen Tracking	03/24 - 03/27	41%	49%	10%	McCain +8.0%
Gallup Tracking	03/22 - 03/27	44%	48%	3%	McCain +4.0%
NBC/WSJ	03/24 - 03/25	44%	46%	5%	McCain +2.0%
Pew Research	03/19 - 03/22	49%	44%	7%	Clinton +5.0%
FOX News	03/18 - 03/19	46%	43%	11%	Clinton +3.0%
CBS News	03/15 - 03/18	46%	44%	6%	Clinton +2.0%

Eh.. it's really messy, but basically, Obama would win, but only by a very slight margin- Clinton versus McCain leads to a loss for Hillary, but also by a slight margin.

Again, it's just the recent polls, and the definitely do change.. but in general, I was always under the impression that Obama fared a little better versus McCain than Hillary.. at least, from the times I've looked it up

In any case, I'm kind of torn about the Hillary staying in the election. I kind of feel it would be best for her to withdraw, so that the two democrats aren't still fighting against each other- all these negative attacks are driving away voters from the democrats in general and going over to McCain, who has a pretty clear sailing so far (in comparison to Hillary and Barack). I know it wouldn't be fair for Hillary and her supporters if she were to drop out though.. but I'm just scared that, no matter who wins at the end of this bitter battle, the Republicans will win overall, because of all these negative attacks Hillary and Obama are going through.

I'm kind of disappointed Obama started attacking Hillary, but many people say that if he didn't, he probably wouldn't have survived. Iunno.. D: .. the whole issue with the democrats frustrates me ;~;

[Edric]

Sorry for the large picture, but it needed to be done.

[Nightshade]

Why people vote for obama is confusing. Hes a member of basically an anti white church.

Then as soon as his pastor says something the public doesn't like he disaffliates himself with him. It's all a bunch of bullshit to get votes. You don't go to a church for years without believing some points of what a pastor is saying.

[Moshineko]

Hmmm. Chuckles for any member of the Democratic party making "big changes". Big government isn't really a big change, it's just more of the same, really. And a majority of Republicans have started to play the Big Govt. game as well, to the shame of their political ancestors, I'm sure.

So far, I see that big change means: troops out of Iraq (eventually), health care reform (haha, yeah, right, just like all the other ones? Medicare makes me say, no thank you), ummmm... other stuff too. Oh, and minority presidents!(hurray, if that's what you're looking for, and not someone who'll veto insane, unconstitutional laws, or run an effective foreign relations campaign. But, wth, Obama's pretty cute, and Hillary was practically president anyway)

Probably the biggest candidate for change in the whole race was either Ron Paul or Huckabee. Ron at least wanted to change back to something resembling the government set up by the Constitution. Huckabee? Well, I'm glad we won't be getting those changes.

Anyone ever see the Halloween episode of the Simpsons with Kodos and Kang posing as Dole and Clinton? It was funny because it was oh, so true. Vote for whichever one you want, so far it seems you'll be getting a minority president that has little practical experience, talks up a big storm, and lies out the arse whenever necessary.

[bhamlaxy]

what obama is trying to do is to make the impression that having him as a president would make a huge difference to what would have been if mccain got elected.

Yea, he is trying to make the impression that he is different from McCain because he IS different from McCain. To argue that they have only minor ideological differences is absurd. Their policies on the Iraq War, arguably the most important international issue at hand, will be changed dramatically under Obama (and Hillary). Their views on health care, a huge issue, are very different, as are their tax policies. For the rich, your taxes will be heavily increased if the dems win, and remain at Bush tax-cut levels if McCain wins. I could go on and on and on about the differences, many of them are truly huge. For example, I think it is pretty much a fact that Gore wouldn't have gone into Iraq had he won. I'd call that a "huge difference".

fact is, however, that in major democratic countries, big parties always have similar views on how things have to be done. the way i see it, the constant political arguments are mostly over trivial aspects to carry out a power struggle. in election times, they try to differentiate themselves from eachother to polarize the voters.

Sure, they have many similar views. They all want a strong military, a good economy, etc. But they do have ideological differences when it comes to many policies. They may not be as different as we would like them to be, but there are differences.

obama just represents the democrats. there is no way he can just act out of line and suddenly trigger some "change". without help of those powerful friends who endorsed him, where would he be today?

His "change" stems a lot from two solid policy options (health care and the war), both of which are not "out of line".

Additionally, his "change" transcends the "powerful people" that helped him. Who are they? A few governors and senators that endorsed him? As I explained before, Bush not only relies on the powerful "bundlers" to raise a HUGE percent of his money, he awarded 40% of them positions in the government. At the point where Obama is raising money almost exclusively in small amounts, he doesn't rely on these extremely influential people who he has to cater to once in office. That's a huge part of his "change" argument that is already visible.

In any case, I'm kind of torn about the Hillary staying in the election. I kind of feel it would be best for her to withdraw, so that the two democrats aren't still fighting against each other- all these negative attacks are driving away voters from the democrats in general and going over to McCain, who has a pretty clear sailing so far (in comparison to Hillary and Barack). I know it wouldn't be fair for Hillary and her supporters if she were to drop out though.. but I'm just scared that, no matter who wins at the end of this bitter battle, the Republicans will win overall, because of all these negative attacks Hillary and Obama are going through.

I also agree. I think the only way Clinton can mathematically win is to get a huge chunk of the superdelegates. There is a debate going on as to what the function of the super delegates are. Recently Pelosi argued that they should vote along with the will of the public. The Hillary camp contacted her asking to retract her statement or something, because they argue the superdelegates should elect whoever best represents the democratic party. I think Hillary is just dead in the water now, and taking it to the election would be horrible. It would she alienate a huge amount of African American voters who saw their first chance at the presidency taken away by some bureaucratic bullshit although the American people wanted. At the least, this would lead to some blacks just not going to vote, and at the worst, massive amounts of blacks not voting.

So in the end, I guess my ideology looks like this. Clinton is a mess in my eyes. The Bosnia crap makes me sick, I mean how much do you have to blatantly lie. And to say it was a mistake? Sounds like a bold faced lie to try and look good. Although they are all politicians, I think Hillary bites into the reasons why politicians are bad much more than Obama. And he wins by default because I disagree with McCain on a few issues. Granted he is a more liberal republican, it could be worse, but I go with Obama in the end. I think Ron Paul is the man, but he didn't make it this time. But I still think the numbers he generated were pretty amazing for such a revolutionary candidate.

[Tor]

I think there's a media bias against Hillary. Especially CNN. They are in the tank for obama. Checking out digg.com, that site is totally in it for obama. Anything about obama or ron pual gets on the front page.

I don't think she should give up. I think she will lead obama in the remaining months.

About the bosnia lie. Yea it was bad. It was a heavy overstatment by her. I don't think it's a big deal though compared to Obama's And Wrights situation which is far far worst.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...src=newsletter
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...28/834887.aspx

Even obama lies.

[Moshineko]

The media bias for Ron Paul seen mostly on the internet is simply an extension of his supporters' fervor, and their widespread use of the internet as a fundraising and publicity tool.

The bias against Hillary probably stems more from laziness than anything else. We already know quite a bit about her, so it's easier to play up her shortcomings than digging into Obama's past. As news agencies try to deal with the media shift from television and print to internet publication, this will probably get worse, and seem much more so due to the repetitive nature of the net. The "cut and paste" syndrome we see happening so often with blogs and news collection sites.

I'm in agreement with the Obama snafu being more concerning, if only because he'd used his affiliation as a Christian several times in the past, and now, when it's disadvantageous, he pulls a sneaky word game with us, declaring that he doesn't really pay much attention to what his pastor says, but still includes him as a friend. If you're not listening to your pastor/reverend/rabbi, etc., why are you going to a church? And why affiliate yourself with a religion when you don't follow the dictates of your cleric?

Hillary, at least, is fairly transparent as far as such things go, and we've seen her husband, presumably with her influence, do good things for the country, and others, including a rather nifty trade agreement with Cambodia, which made Cambodia one of the more human-rights friendly manufacturers of low-cost goods, and went unrenewed and expired in 2001 (as far as I remember).
Obama is more of an unknown, and as such, is probably better suited to a Vice Presidency, where his influence will be heard, and he can also get a more hands-on experience in the White House, leaving him ripe for election in 2012 or 2016.

My fave, now that Ron Paul is out of the running, would be a Clinton/Obama run, I'm rather sad to see that the politics of campaigning have made this a seeming impossibility. And, unfortunately, if what I've heard is correct (Hillary offered a VP slot, Obama turned it down in favor of Richardson), it makes me more suspicious of Obama's ability to do the sort of compromising that is necessary, and desireable, in U.S. government.

[bhamlaxy]

I don't think she should give up. I think she will lead obama in the remaining months.

It is pretty much statistically impossible for Hillary to have more delegates than Obama coming into the convention. The coming races are extremely predictable. Obama will win Indiana and North Carolina and Clinton will win Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and West Virginia. All this pretty much translates into a negligible change in the spread of points. Even though each side wins, the other candidate also receives delegates. And although Hillary is most likely going to win the largest upcoming state- Pennsylvania, Obama will probably take the second largest- North Carolina. Also in the past couple weeks, Obama went from a near tie in support to an 8% lead. Large amounts of the Democratic Party are extremely fearful of Hillary going for a super-delegate dependent win, at the risk of the first black candidate's shot at the white house being destroyed by a bureaucracy outweighing the will of the people, alienating one of the strongest historical supporters of the Democratic Party, severely hurting their chances in November.

About the bosnia lie. Yea it was bad. It was a heavy overstatment by her. I don't think it's a big deal though compared to Obama's And Wrights situation which is far far worst.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...src=newsletter
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...28/834887.aspx

Even obama lies.

Of course all politicians have their moments, but I find Clinton's extreme embellishment of Bosnia in an attempt to seem more foreign-policy friendly worse than Obama's nearly harmless attempt at a connection with the Kennedy's. But whatever, both lies are bad.

I don't find the Wright situation too bad. I tend to agree with Obama when he compared him to an uncle (or grandpa or something) that says things you don't always agree with. I bet Wright was a pretty good Christian, he just went off on an extremist race tangent at times. I'm sure he wasn't ranting about the white devil while baptising Obama's children or presiding over his wedding. Obama has many good memories with him, and ignores him when he spouts hatred. Many of my friends have some old slightly racist grandparents. They love to hear stories, get presents, and go to Florida to visit them, and they love them very much, but sometimes they just have to ignore the occasional racist remark.

My fave, now that Ron Paul is out of the running, would be a Clinton/Obama run, I'm rather sad to see that the politics of campaigning have made this a seeming impossibility. And, unfortunately, if what I've heard is correct (Hillary offered a VP slot, Obama turned it down in favor of Richardson),

I agree. Although I don't really see it as an impossibility, but rather a potential inevitability. If this brutal and bloody battle goes to the convention, democrats will be so polarized they simply won't care as much come November when it comes to voting for someone who isn't their candidate. A simple solution? Whoever loses in Denver accepts the VP position in order to secure the democratic party and really kick McCain's ass in November.

And I'm not sure about the Richardson thing. As far as I know, Hillary started talking about being open to Obama being VP in order to create the appearance that a vote for her is a vote for both of them. I just remember Obama responding by saying that was a ridiculous assertion to make since she was losing at the time. I know he did his best to try and dismantle the idea that a vote for her elects them both, but I don't think he specified another VP, or completely ruled out the idea of them both being on the same ticket.

[cutieswatcher]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Why people vote for obama is confusing. Hes a member of basically an anti white church.

Then as soon as his pastor says something the public doesn't like he disaffliates himself with him. It's all a bunch of bullshit to get votes. You don't go to a church for years without believing some points of what a pastor is saying.

That is so true, i agree with you 100%.

Do you see how light-skinned his pastor is? He might have some white in his family, Obama is in fact half-white himself.

What i am noticing is that people who are black, but have some mixtures of white in their family, that end up becoming "anti-white" usually are rejected by the white people they now hate.

It may sound confusing what i'm writing, but if you see it from my viewpoint, the facts are right in front if us.

[bhamlaxy]

Then as soon as his pastor says something the public doesn't like he disaffliates himself with him. It's all a bunch of bullshit to get votes. You don't go to a church for years without believing some points of what a pastor is saying.

Yea, Obama believed a majority of the good, solid, classic Christianity type stuff his pastor preached. He probably understands where his pastor is coming from when it comes to race issues (hence the "race is still an issue" speech), but condemns his rhetoric as hateful and not constructive.

[hazelmurphy]

Originally Posted by Moshineko

Hmmm. Chuckles for any member of the Democratic party making "big changes". Big government isn't really a big change, it's just more of the same, really. And a majority of Republicans have started to play the Big Govt. game as well, to the shame of their political ancestors, I'm sure.

So far, I see that big change means: troops out of Iraq (eventually), health care reform (haha, yeah, right, just like all the other ones? Medicare makes me say, no thank you), ummmm... other stuff too. Oh, and minority presidents!(hurray, if that's what you're looking for, and not someone who'll veto insane, unconstitutional laws, or run an effective foreign relations campaign. But, wth, Obama's pretty cute, and Hillary was practically president anyway)

Probably the biggest candidate for change in the whole race was either Ron Paul or Huckabee. Ron at least wanted to change back to something resembling the government set up by the Constitution. Huckabee? Well, I'm glad we won't be getting those changes.

Anyone ever see the Halloween episode of the Simpsons with Kodos and Kang posing as Dole and Clinton? It was funny because it was oh, so true. Vote for whichever one you want, so far it seems you'll be getting a minority president that has little practical experience, talks up a big storm, and lies out the arse whenever necessary.

I hate agreeing with a Libertarian . . . but on this one I have to.

The idea of any candidate being able to enact large scale change is daydreaming.

More specific to the topic.

Hillary and Obama are both far more liberal than my beliefs. And Obama is admittedly more liberal than Hillary. That said, I get the distinct impression that Obama's reasons for running for office are far more honest than Hillary's. Everything I have seen out of Hillary over the last 16 years is pure self-glorification. At the very least, with Obama I get the sense that he honestly wants to help the country. With Hillary I get nothing other than the same old desire to be in charge.

[bhamlaxy]

Well it looks like it will almost certainly be Obama. Recent polls show him taking the lead in Pennsylvania, where he recently was down 25 percentage points. Pennsylvania was viewed as an easy win for Clinton, and now the tables are turning.

[Longknife]

This is gonna sound stupid but, I gotta say this somewhere.




I really doubt the intelligence of a ton of people who are voting, and doubt even more that at least half of them have fully looked at their candidates.

What sticks in my mind is seeing statistics showing how much white men, black men, white women, and black women get paid; showing how much less the minorities earn because...well, there's still some BS in the pay roll that hasn't been cleared out.

In the poll, black men still got less cut out of their pay check than white women.


So y'know, I really do wonder how many votes came down to "I'd rather have a black MAN as president than a WOMAN."

Slightly off-topic, but I've had the idea in mind for a while and wanted to say it. xD