Barack Obama

Jesus Wept

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Hillary Clinton thinks its her right to be selected as the Democrat candidate, she is already behaving in a Presidential manner. If she cried because she was on the brink of losing NH caucus, can she be trusted not to bottle it if she made it to the White House, where the big decisions are made? I think she would not cut it, and the young voters in the US will see right through her.

She didn't cry. Did you watch it?

is_that_so

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Hillary Clinton thinks its her right to be selected as the Democrat candidate, she is already behaving in a Presidential manner. If she cried because she was on the brink of losing NH caucus, can she be trusted not to bottle it if she made it to the White House, where the big decisions are made?

I agree with with you about her "god-given right" -the presidency has to be earned. I also think the "crying thing" was a bit overstated. Most of what happened in NH was because she got her core vote out - the older ones.

I think she would not cut it, and the young voters in the US will see right through her.

Agreed if they could be bothered to vote. They did come out in Iowa but not in NH. Over the years in the US as well as here the young have been very hard to persuade to vote.

Mr.Micro

The-Rigger wrote: »

She didn't cry. Did you watch it?

Yes, I did watch it, it was reported variously I believe as a small cry, eyes moisting up, breakdown, do'nt let's split hairs, perhaps I have not quite got the right semantics for you, anyway it was all a BS ploy, crocodiles do not really cry. It gave her the bounce she needed so it worked, perhaps she can try it again.

Jesus Wept

Mr.Micro wrote: »

it was reported variously I believe as a small cry, eyes moisting up, breakdown, do'nt let's split hairs, perhaps I have not quite got the right semantics for you

The day I start taking the U.S media at their word, there will be 6" of snow in hell.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

anyway it was all a BS ploy, crocodiles do not really cry. It gave her the bounce she needed so it worked, perhaps she can try it again.

Of course it was, but they all dance to the same song. They will do and say whatever it takes, at any given moment if they are told it will help.
I wouldn't single Hilary out for it.

It's sadder that it works.

Mr.Micro

The-Rigger wrote: »

The day I start taking the U.S media at their word, there will be 6" of snow in hell.



Of course it was, but they all dance to the same song. They will do and say whatever it takes, at any given moment if they are told it will help.
I wouldn't single Hilary out for it.

It's sadder that it works.

We sing from the same hymn sheet on this one, its all Hollywood, whatever it takes as you say. The next stage when it comes to Republican Vs Democrat then the smear tactics start.

chat2joe

Maybe, but he looks fresh enough (on TV) he doesn’t come across as old and doddery.

True....

Denis Irwin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Florida doesn't count, for the Democrats.

NTM

At the moment no but the DNC are supposedly looking at running the Michigan and Florida contests again.But they've already said that if they are run again it'll be probably by postal ballot so as to cut down on costs.

ciaran2008

To clarify - If Hilary wins the Democrat nomination it would be unconstitutional for her to select her husband as Vice President as the Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States. The United States Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947 and yes It was ratified by the requisite number of states (February 27, 1951.)

According to the US Const Presidential Line of Succession the Vice President becomes President in the event of the death of the President. So assuming Hilary wins the Democrat nomination, beats McCain and becomes President, selects her husband Bill Clinton and ex 2term President as Vice President and during her term she dies in office that would mean Bill Clinton would have to be sworn in as President but he can’t as he has served his two terms.

The only way to by-pass this would be by the creation the 28th amendment allowing for a ‘skip’ to occur in the Presidential line of succession which will never happen!!

You Suck!

ciaran2008 wrote: »

To clarify - If Hilary wins the Democrat nomination it would be unconstitutional for her to select her husband as Vice President as the Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States. The United States Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947 and yes It was ratified by the requisite number of states (February 27, 1951.)

According to the US Const Presidential Line of Succession the Vice President becomes President in the event of the death of the President. So assuming Hilary wins the Democrat nomination, beats McCain and becomes President, selects her husband Bill Clinton and ex 2term President as Vice President and during her term she dies in office that would mean Bill Clinton would have to be sworn in as President but he can’t as he has served his two terms.

The only way to by-pass this would be by the creation the 28th amendment allowing for a ‘skip’ to occur in the Presidential line of succession which will never happen!!

er........I wasn't aware that she had proposed so, much less that she's even going to make it that far. Also, I'd say Bill's probably enjoying his current lifestyle giving speechs for thousands and providing consulting and what not. If she did make it that far, chances are bill would get to hang out under the desk of the oval office as a humidor expert(i.e advisor).

With regard to Obama, I think this is one of the times where inspired leadership is more important then the other elements of leadership. The us needs a figurehead who can inspire confidence in America as a global player and revive investor confidence in America.

It's also worth bearing in mind that it rarely comes down to the President alone in terms of the profile a presidency takes. The presidency is often defined by the quality of the administration that surrounds the president.

We should be more worried about Obama substance being demonstrated by the team he will choose should he win the nomination.

Moriarty

Entirely off-topic: ciaran, would you mind not posting with colour tags? It makes it hard to read for people that have different forum skins set.

ciaran2008

Moriarty wrote: »

Entirely off-topic: ciaran, would you mind not posting with colour tags? It makes it hard to read for people that have different forum skins set.

Yea I didnt realise the hyperlinks were still active in that reply. It might be off topic but its just a reply! ill delete it!

Manic Moran

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9398.html

Who's he trying to kid? His position on firearms is well known.

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.

But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

<snip>

The need to craft a strategy aimed at pro-gun voters underscores the potency of the issue in Pennsylvania, which claims one of the nation’s highest per capita membership rates in the National Rifle Association.

<snip>

The pitch from Obama may prove to be a tough sell with this state, where polling shows four in 10 voters — with higher percentages in rural areas — own a firearm. But it is a requisite if he hopes to expand his appeal beyond the state’s metropolitan areas.

<snip>Melody Zullinger, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs who received the Obama campaign e-mail on his gun record, said Obama sounds like he is “speaking out of both sides of his mouth.”

“I was at one of our county meetings last night and I mentioned this to [federation members],” Zullinger said Friday of the Obama outreach. “Everyone basically blew it off and weren’t buying it.”

PA is most definitely a gun state. From the State Constitution:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

And as the article says, a lot of people there exercise that clearly stated right.

NTM

Manic Moran

Oof.. And from the same week he's in PA, this is what he had to say at a fund-raiser in San Francisco.

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

That's going to make him real popular in PA, I'm sure. Clinton and McCain have already seized on this.

NTM

edanto

I think it's a good ploy. He seems to be so aware of how mudslinging contests are popular in the press that he's thrown a bit of mud at Nowhere County, PA to attract attention to his pledge to regenerate jobs in the Midwest.

It's a very proactive attempt to control the agenda for a round or two. He really wanted the attention of PA, now he's got it, what will he say to them?

Manic Moran

You're supposed to sling mud at your opponents, not the people you want to vote for you.

NTM

flogen

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're supposed to sling mud at your opponents, not the people you want to vote for you.

NTM

The mistake Obama made wasn't to say people in PA were bitter, it was to imply that their bitterness was the only reason that they ran to God 'n' Guns... he's been quick to backtrack on that and try to undo the damage (although it's hard to know if he can).

Frankly, I think this could have been a gaffe but IMO Clinton has totally misfired on this issue. She has focused on the word 'bitter' rather than the religious/2nd Amendment inference giving Obama plenty of space to remove the original correlation unchallenged... now all that remains is the argument as to whether voters in PA are or are not bitter about jobs being shipped overseas and I think Obama's on the winning side.

Besides, Clinton has had the neck to use this opportunity to call Obama out of touch and elitist, which is just opening herself up to a whole world of smack-downs. She's also running around PA acting like a gun-toting, beer-swilling gal-of-the-people which I doubt anyone is buying.

All in all I think her refusal to accept that people in PA are bitter, and her clearly desperate attempt to be seen as working class have just served to make her look more out of touch than anyone else.

Even if people agreed with Clinton on the 'bitter' issue I think the waft of desperation coming from her campaign will still put them off.

Overheal

flogen wrote: »

The mistake Obama made wasn't to say people in PA were bitter, it was to imply that their bitterness was the only reason that they ran to God 'n' Guns... he's been quick to backtrack on that and try to undo the damage (although it's hard to know if he can).

Frankly, I think this could have been a gaffe but IMO Clinton has totally misfired on this issue. She has focused on the word 'bitter' rather than the religious/2nd Amendment inference giving Obama plenty of space to remove the original correlation unchallenged... now all that remains is the argument as to whether voters in PA are or are not bitter about jobs being shipped overseas and I think Obama's on the winning side.

Besides, Clinton has had the neck to use this opportunity to call Obama out of touch and elitist, which is just opening herself up to a whole world of smack-downs. She's also running around PA acting like a gun-toting, beer-swilling gal-of-the-people which I doubt anyone is buying.

All in all I think her refusal to accept that people in PA are bitter, and her clearly desperate attempt to be seen as working class have just served to make her look more out of touch than anyone else.

Even if people agreed with Clinton on the 'bitter' issue I think the waft of desperation coming from her campaign will still put them off.

McCain too. But they can really relate with the common man, what with having half a dozen houses each and being worth millions of dollars.

is_that_so

flogen wrote: »

The mistake Obama made wasn't to say people in PA were bitter, it was to imply that their bitterness was the only reason that they ran to God 'n' Guns... he's been quick to backtrack on that and try to undo the damage (although it's hard to know if he can).

Frankly, I think this could have been a gaffe but IMO Clinton has totally misfired on this issue. She has focused on the word 'bitter' rather than the religious/2nd Amendment inference giving Obama plenty of space to remove the original correlation unchallenged... now all that remains is the argument as to whether voters in PA are or are not bitter about jobs being shipped overseas and I think Obama's on the winning side.

Besides, Clinton has had the neck to use this opportunity to call Obama out of touch and elitist, which is just opening herself up to a whole world of smack-downs. She's also running around PA acting like a gun-toting, beer-swilling gal-of-the-people which I doubt anyone is buying.

All in all I think her refusal to accept that people in PA are bitter, and her clearly desperate attempt to be seen as working class have just served to make her look more out of touch than anyone else.

Even if people agreed with Clinton on the 'bitter' issue I think the waft of desperation coming from her campaign will still put them off.

He's fair game tbh, especially if he wants to be President. People are entitled to know what their potential President thinks of them. A very, very foolish comment to make politically and appallingly poor judgement from one who has been questioning the political judgement of others. One of the problems with clever people is that they can't see that those at a lesser level will only hear the bits they understand. Remember the Pope's comments about Islam. He knew what he meant but a lot of other people got angry about it.

Reports on the latest polls suggest the gap in PA widening a bit to about 9% or 20% according to other less reliable ones. She's still entitled to give it a go. If the margin is big enough and if she does anyway well in Indiana and NC she will be better placed to make the argument about being able to win bigger states ,to the super-delegates.

It does show that he is a man, not some latter-day messiah, just a bloke with a gift for some pretty good oratory. He is not a "special one" any more than either of the other two. He has his flaws as well and it is just as well that this stuff comes out now well in advance of the GE.

At this stage I'd be disappointed, if I was American, at what is on offer. They are all flawed and tbh I don't think it makes a lot of difference who gets in. With the US seemingly drifting towards recession domestic problems will occupy whoever gets in for some time to come.

McCain is looking a better bet by the day.

flogen

is_that_so wrote: »

He's fair game tbh, especially if he wants to be President.

Who said he wasn't fair game - of course he is.

People are entitled to know what their potential President thinks of them. A very, very foolish comment to make politically and appallingly poor judgement from one who has been questioning the political judgement of others.

I think he did make a mistake in what he said but only because he suggested that people only turn to guns and god because they're bitter. Going by much of the reaction it seems that people in PA agree with what he said but do not like the inference that they only like to hunt and pray because of it.

That's why he's withdrawing the inference but continue to say he believes people are bitter and angry.

One of the problems with clever people is that they can't see that those at a lesser level will only hear the bits they understand. Remember the Pope's comments about Islam. He knew what he meant but a lot of other people got angry about it.

I don't think this is about intelligence - he went off script and didn't say something as he could have. The point he was trying to make seems to be gaining traction, the point he did make is where the controversy is.

Reports on latest polls suggest the gap in PA widening a bit to about 9% or 20% according to other less reliable ones. She's still entitled to give it a go. If the margin is big enough and if she does anyway well in Indiana an NC she will be better placed top make the argument about being able to win bigger states to the super-delegates.

I'm seeing anything from 6% to 20%, which suggests to me that no poll should be trusted. 6% would be an impressive victory for Obama, 20% would be a revitalising victory for Clinton - either way the only way it's going to end in PA is if Obama wins and I don't think that's going to happen.

It does shows that he is a man, not some latter-day messiah, just a bloke with a gift for some pretty good good oratory. He is not a "special one" any more than either of the other two. He has his flaws as well and it is just as well that this stuff comes out now well in advance of the GE.

True, it's best to get this out of the way in April rather than October but I don't think many really felt he was a messiah - if they did this little slip of the tongue isn't going to change their minds.

At this stage I'd be disappointed if I was American at what is on offer. They are all flawed and tbh I don't think it makes a lot of difference who gets in. With the US seemingly drifting towards recession and domestic problems will occupy whoever gets in for some time to come.

Of course they're all flawed - they're human. No American should be under the impression that some Superman (or woman) is going to swoop down and sort out all their ills. It's just a question of which person is least flaws, or which person has their flaws in the least important places.

RonMexico

Hehe this is pretty good

Podge_irl

flogen wrote: »

I think he did make a mistake in what he said but only because he suggested that people only turn to guns and god because they're bitter. Going by much of the reaction it seems that people in PA agree with what he said but do not like the inference that they only like to hunt and pray because of it.

Maybe I just completely misunderstood what he said, but by my reading of his statements he wasn't implying that people turn to guns and god because they are bitter, but rather by "cling to them" he meant people vote based on their feelings on these issues because they don't see any point in voting based on economic or other issues as they are continuously disappointed. He was saying they vote based on issues such as gun rights or abortion (things that frankly, aren't going to change much either way) rather then issues that might actually affect them because they are generally promised things that don't end up happening. I thought it was a valid, if ineloquent, observation.

The media and his critics in America seem to be running with his comments as if they say people are only religious or go hunting because they're bitter with their economic situation, but seems to me to be misframing his remarks quite drastically.

Manic Moran

I have to say, it's not how I read it.

However, even if that were the case, an interesting little OpEd in the NYT today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Finally, Mr. Obama, in later clarifying remarks, declared that the people he’s talking about “don’t vote on economic issues,” and are motivated instead by things like guns and gay marriage.

That’s a political theory made famous by Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” According to this theory, “values” issues lead working-class Americans to act against their own interests by voting Republican. Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that’s also why they support Hillary Clinton.

I was impressed by Mr. Frank’s book when it came out. But my Princeton colleague Larry Bartels, who had an Op-Ed in The Times on Thursday, convinced me that Mr. Frank was mostly wrong.

In his Op-Ed, Mr. Bartels cited data showing that small-town, working-class Americans are actually less likely than affluent metropolitan residents to vote on the basis of religion and social values. Nor have working-class voters trended Republican over time; on the contrary, Democrats do better with these voters now than they did in the 1960s.

NTM

David@Bayard.co

Got this from a Hilary website but the facts have been verified

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=7267

Obama Campaign Releases False and Misleading Mailer In Indiana

4/23/2008 12:02:03 PM
Sen. Obama’s new Indiana mailer is full of misrepresentations on the candidates’ positions.
1.) The mailer falsely claims that Hillary strongly supported NAFTA as First Lady and Senator. This is false - Hillary publicly said NAFTA was flawed as early as 2000: "What happened to NAFTA I think was we inherited an agreement that we didn’t get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion. I think the NAFTA agreement was flawed." Former White House adviser David Gergen confirms that Hillary was ‘extremely unenthusiastic’ about NAFTA as First Lady. Watch Video here.
2.) The mailer suggests that Sen. Obama has ‘always opposed NAFTA.’ But in 2004, newspapers reported that Sen. Obama supported NAFTA and wanted to pursue similar agreements.
3.) The mailer hits Hillary for accepting money from lobbyists, but doesn’t tell you that Sen. Obama takes money from lobbying firms, state lobbyists, former lobbyists and the spouses of lobbyists. He has accepted $2.8 million from firms that employ federal lobbyists, and ten of his top bundlers have been federal lobbyists.
Prior to his presidential campaign, Sen. Obama accepted contributions from lobbyists and PACs. In his 2004 Senate race, Sen. Obama raised $1.3 million from PACs and $128,000 from lobbyists. As a state senator, over half of Sen. Obama’s contributions came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions.
4.) The mailer attacks Hillary for supporting permanent trade relations with China as a way to enforce fair trade practices, an argument Sen. Obama himself has made.
5.) The Obama mailer also hits Hillary for having support in the business community:
Just last week, Obama was braging about his support in the business community:

Sen. Obama: 'I'm a big believer in business…That's probably the reason why I got such strong support in the business community in Illinois.' "I'm a big believer in business. I think business create jobs, I think that our economy has to grow in order for everybody to prosper. If we've got a shrinking economy, I don't care how the pie's divided. Sooner or later, we're going to have problems. That's probably the reason why I got such strong support in the business community in Illinois." [Sen. Obama interview with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette Editorial Board, 4/16/08]

Manic Moran

I'll wager that the Obama campaign officially had nothing to do with it, and it was sent out without his knowledge or approval.

That's the way these things always seem to be.

NTM

ghostdancer

David, i'm not sure where exactly you think those facts have been verified, considering you didn't bother telling us and just stated that. perhaps you could? i'm assuming you're not seriously using the hillary clinton fact checker as a legitimite source...


1)the very first point is a blatant lie from the Clinton campaign, she's on record, both on video and through first-hand accounts of people at meetings, as being pro-NAFTA while First Lady.
2) the second point doesn't link to any such repudiation of that claim. Obama clearly said that the US should pursue deals like NAFTA, and that the US has benefitted from NAFTA, which it indeed has. so strike down another one as blatant b.s. from the Clinton campaign.

3) "Washington lobbyists and PACs" / "PAC and federal lobbyists"is what it says in the mailer, which is completely true, Hillary Clinton does take money from these interests and has taken the most money from them, between either the Democrats or Republicans. Obama takes none. former lobbyists, and spouses of lobbyists is such tenuous links, i'm not going to bother, and "from lobbying firms"? well i guess that's the little spin the Clinton campaign has been using recently when individuals from within a company donate either seperately or through their company and has been pushing it through with "from federal interests" spin, and "firms that employ federal lobbyists"; almost every reasonably sized company in the US will have some sort of federal lobbyist, no shock horror there. that isn't a federal lobbyist, nor are bundles from companies. so he still isn't accepting money from federal lobbyists, no matter what way you'd like to spin it. his past acceptance of money is indeed in keeping with what he has said throughout this campaign that he does not accept that money. so again the Clinton factchecker falls flat.
4) the quote provided in that link in no way has Obama encouraging permanent trade relations with China. did you even bother to read that link?

5) No, the mailer doesn't hit her for that. the closest thing to supporting a claim like that is an image of Hillary on Fortune magazine. if Obama had said that he didn't have the support of big business then he might be open to some flack, but he didn't, and he's not the one pretending that he's a regular Joe fighting big bad capitalist business.

David@Bayard.co

It is written there in Black and white (blue).......... the fact is you can twist it anyway you want, everything in that article was written and backed up - to one extent or another - it was and has been done!!!

Denis Irwin

Edwards to endorse Obama's bid for the White House:

<H2>Former Democratic US presidential candidate John Edwards is to endorse Barack Obama's White House bid, a campaign spokeswoman said.

</H2>The move gives a big boost to the Illinois senator in his effort to rally the party around his candidacy.
Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, dropped out of the Democratic race in January.
He has been heavily courted by both Obama and rival Hillary Clinton in the past few months.
"I confirm the endorsement (of John Edwards)," Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki confirmed to reporters.
The move comes the day after Obama lost to Clinton in a nominating contest in West Virginia.
But the defeat was not enough to put much of a dent in his lead in the Democratic race.
Obama retains an almost unassailable advantage in delegates, who will select the Democratic nominee at the party convention in August.




He has gained the support of three more superdelegates, who are free to back any candidate, and the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Obama spent the day in Michigan focusing on a likely November face-off with Republican John McCain.
He said the Arizona senator "is not offering new solutions or economic policies that are different from what George Bush has given us for eight long years."
Clinton returned to Washington for a round of media interviews and meetings with top donors.
She promised to push on through the last five contests in the hope her showing will bolster her argument that she is the Democrat with the best chance to beat McCain in November.
"I'm going to keep fighting until every last American has a chance to be heard, and as we learned last night in West Virginia, I know we can win," she said in an email plea for donations.
Clinton's campaign is $20m (£10m) in debt - but her campaign chairman said she had the resources to compete with Obama.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1316087,00.html

Interesting and probably yet another blow to Clintons very slim chance of getting the nomination. I just wonder though will it be Edwards that will become Obama's VP if as expected he gets the nomination. It would certainly be of benefit to Obama IMO in the southern states where he to choose Edwards as his running mate.

LostinBlanch

No, I heard that Edwards wants attorney general. But that Obama may offer VP to the govenor of Virginia or Ohio (I know he's a Clinton supporter but this could be spun as a bridge building excercise).

is_that_so

Denis Irwin wrote: »

Edwards to endorse Obama's bid for the White House:



http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1316087,00.html

Interesting and probably yet another blow to Clintons very slim chance of getting the nomination. I just wonder though will it be Edwards that will become Obama's VP if as expected he gets the nomination. It would certainly be of benefit to Obama IMO in the southern states where he to choose Edwards as his running mate.

Some discussion on this on Who do you want to win ...? thread. Not sure Edwards really offers anything, apart from yet another nail in the Clinton coffin.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

No, I heard that Edwards wants attorney general. But that Obama may offer VP to the govenor of Virginia or Ohio (I know he's a Clinton supporter but this could be spun as a bridge building excercise).

If this is true then IMO he offers even less. At least as a potential VP candidate he has a reason to be out and about. Obama needs someone who can deliver the Clinton constituency of blue collar, women and older voters. Edwards does to an extent but with far less ability than Clinton. Clinton will do as she says and get behind him, assuming we have no more dramatic twists,although it would be easier were she the VP nominee.

Bubs101

I really like Edwards and would love to see him as VP. Obama did seem to pinch alot of his healthcare policies but I stopped following once Edwards dropped out so I could be wrong