EPTIt's a shame he's dropping out.
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 12
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
RowdierBob
Australia13005 Posts
It's a shame he's dropping out. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32051 Posts
GO OBAMAAA | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
REALLY Bad News Day for Hillary Clinton clinton.jpg Check out this collection of stories from around the web. First, there's a crushing ABC News story about Hillary Clinton's inaction during her tenure with Wal-Mart. In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.... "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting. The story reports that video of Wal-Mart's many private board meetings never shows Clinton reacting to the other board member's vicious anti-union statements. The story also reports that Clinton's main effort on the board, improving conditions for female workers, accomplished little. Further, the story says that Clinton will keep $20,000 in donations from Wal-Mart executives, and that former President Bill Clinton has regular private meetings with Wal-Mart's current CEO. Then there is David Broder who writes in the Washington Post that Barack Obama is the Democratic frontrunner, despite Hillary Clinton's polling leads in many February 5 states. Broder points to establishment Democratic opinion trending toward BHO. The advantage has shifted back to Barack Obama — thanks to a growing but largely unremarked-upon tendency among Democratic leaders to reject Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former president. The New York senator could still emerge from the "Tsunami Tuesday" voting with the overall lead in delegates, but she is unlikely to come close to clinching the nomination... That establishment that is heading Obama's way? That's the one the Clintons have owned for nearly two decades. Think we're done? Oh, no. More after the jump. In the Wall Street Journal, Michael Zeldin compares the questionable but ultimately insubstantial legal work Clinton did for Jim McDougal in Arkansas that was later investigated by Kenneth Starr to the legal work Obama did for "slumlord" Tony Rezko that Clinton is now using as an attack line her stump speeches. After discussing the truly insignificant nature of the Rezko situation, Zeldin writes: No one who has ever practiced law, let alone Mrs. Clinton, could argue, with a clear conscience, that these five hours on behalf of a church group that partnered with a man who at a later point in time would be alleged to be a scoundrel equated to knowingly representing a Chicago slumlord. Yet she could not resist leveling the accusation. I suggest that this provides a window into Mrs. Clinton's character because notwithstanding the enormous suffering she had to endure when accused of wrongful conduct in her representation of Madison Guaranty — a representation that appears to have been no more than a routine business transaction — she is willing to behave no differently than did her Whitewater accusers if she can gain politically. And heavens, we're still not finished. The New York Times reports that Bill Clinton went to the Kazakhstani president and vouched for a Canadian businessman named Giustra seeking inroads into Kazakhstan's uranium mining business. In a simple quid pro quo, Giustra later made a massive donation to Clinton's charitable foundation. The monster deal [that Giustra signed with Kazakhstan] stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world's largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said. Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton's charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra's more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges. It may actually be a good thing for Hillary Clinton that all of this muck came out on the same day. There's only so much oxygen for news stories to breathe. At least one of these is going to wither and die without much attention. Update: Whoops, thought we were finished. Also out today, news that Obama has raised a stunning $32 million in January, an amount which "roughly equals his previous best three-month fundraising haul." Howard Dean raised $51 million during his entire campaign in 2004. http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/7047_really_bad_news.html | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
Dave[9]
United States2365 Posts
On January 31 2008 10:47 Hawk wrote: .why is edwards not supporting anyone not a surprise?? isnt that the standard practice when you drop out? mostly because the whole country thinks he's a douche for a lot of the "un-morale" things he's done contemplating what he'd like to do as president. His new house could be an example of that. To make it straight to the point, he's ust a douche. | ||
|
MenzieK
United States123 Posts
On January 31 2008 06:09 Rev0lution wrote: I hope too, and Menziek is such a retard. Obama 08' ^^ First of all I must say, I did receive quite a response!! I will apologize for my outburst there; I confess I could have put that into a more articulate efficient response. Before I begin however, Revolution, you are no position to call me a retard looking into your posting history because I do believe you were banned or temp banned in the past for the "retard" reason. Please, do try to quip down your passive-aggressiveness and attempts on picking on me. Oh and Please do find a better a method at attacking me if you want to prove yourself to be more articulate or more "sensible". Now going to the other guy's response: + Show Spoiler + First the Patriot Act should not even pass let alone have any standing because it goes against the foundations of the U.S constitution. I don't care whether Obama was in a tough position or not, he shouldn't do anything to support that bill, and I don't say this because I am a Paulite, (Ron Paul mind you has been the most consistent on the integrity card and did vote against both the Iraq war and was againts this bill in the first place). This bill shouldn't even have passed in the slightest inch but of course you can't entirely put it on Obama's shoulders. Now we come to the point where "Oh but Obama couldn't do anything so since he's still good because he tried to change it or amend", yes he introduced amendments that made it slightly less egregious, and then voted for the amended version. Also, do keep in mind of HR 1955/S 1959. It's very similar to the Patriot Act. Barack Obama's campaign has said he supports this bill in their automated response e-mails. Iraq, yes every senator democratic and republican voted for funding in Iraq. But Obama has always opposed the war in every statement he has made about the war. The continued funding was to avoid making it a political issue. Don't try to rationalize Obama's actions all the time. Obama's voting record on the Iraq war is the same as Hillary's, and thats based on RECORDS and solid concrete evidence, which IMHO is true despite whatever comes out of Obama's mouth, and I don't trust him anyways. Yes, he deosn't want immediate withdrawal from Iraq since its not exactly POSSIBLE taking into account logistics and preparation needed for withdrawal, however Obama has also said that he will not have U.S troops out of Iraq by 2012 . He also said that he wants troops to still remain there, after the war finishes , so that the U.S might be able to deal with a muslim terrorists in Iraq, in a debate with John Edwards. Paul despite having a crazy idea about withdrawal has by far the most consistent voting record against the Iraq war from the very start of the conflict. On Iran, no he has not hinted that he would sent troops there, never hinted never said. That's just not true. His statements you were referring to are based on the security of Isreal. On Pakistan, he has said if the US has actionable intelligence on Al queada leaders and Pakistan for some reasons refuse to cooperate than he could potentially strike militarily. That does not mean troops. Killing a few men in a cave doesn't mean you have to send in battalions of marines. You underestimate the capabilities of the US military. BS, he HAS hinted war with Iran and sending troops to Pakistan in one his speeches regarding foreign policy. Then there is this niche in your logic, saying sending in a few troops to Pakistan will fix the problem is moronic and amazingly ignorant at the same time. ROFL at the task being that simple and easy, do you know anything about Pakistan? Its right now one of the most dangerous places in the world, so much for me underestimating the military of the US of A, whom can’t even deal with a bunch of insurgents with their “advanced sophisticated” technology. Just imagine the chaos in Iraq right now, and the strain it’s putting on our military and economy. Now we need to go through another chaos again just to reach “those few men in a cave”. We can’t exactly try that now can we? If this was such an easy task then we would have already caught “those few men in a cave” already now wouldn’t we have? OH GEUSS WHAT? WE ALREADY TRIED THAT!!! The freakin CIA with their cloak and dagger crap haven’t managed to even find one trace of those “few men in caves” that you speak of, and trust me they’ve had a hard time and they’re having a hard time already. Indeed it may take battalions, just to reach them. But then there is another point, the more we remain in messy middle eastern politics the more power we are giving to those “few men in caves” to build upon, infact that’s what probably many of the enemies of the U.S want right now because it will tarnish us as a result anyways. Now Ron Paul is willing to get rid of the CIA since they’re a burden with their secret clandestine operations that they have even managed to hide from past presidents and that have ruined our foreign policy and relationships. I’ve never heard anything like that from the likes of Obama, I don’t think he’s willing to take that of a radical action which is needed, granted the position of us in this world right now and the CIA has been pretty useless lately. His statements you were referring to are based on the security of Isreal THERE, yet another niche in your logic that you base your response on. Israel is and has been a constant thorn and a parasite on the U.S and has been draining the U.S economy. The entire faction of Zionism and the Neo-conservatism base their support and allegiance to the state of Israel. Gaza and the many regions surrounding it are considered by world standards to be humanitarian disasters. This whole conflict has Israel with being rightly at fault and with good reasons. Israel has been and will be the root problem and needs to be gotten ridden of. Forget Middle East peace treaties, Israel is ruining the U.S image and an already abysmal foreign policy. Israel has nuclear weapons, and they have been the creator of all the problems and conflicts in that area for decades not Egypt or Palestinian rebels but the state of Israel. Israel, has been feeding on the U.S like a mosquito blood sucking, infact, about 4-5 billion dollars has been going continuously to Israel and that’s more then the money from the entire Caribbean trade. Right now, there are people in Haiti who are forced to eat mud cookies/fresh dirt, and they could use a little money. But instead, with people having cognitive dissonance lately, so much wasted money is going to a rogue state that shouldn’t have the right to exist nor exist at all that’s bringing the entire U.S Empire down and its image and has no real allegiance or tie to the U.S, except for support and unnecessary funding. Our Enemies as a whole are benefiting from this, and this continued funding is just irrational/stupid. Obama is not going to change the status quo and stand up against Israel like Carter did, and he also happens to be a staunch supporter for Israel from what we have seen. The ruling elite of the U.S right now owe a lot of their allegiance to the state of Israel, if Obama is a staunch supporter of Israel, then we can safely arrive at the conclusion that Obama will use military action against Iran, which will be blatantly stupid and completely unnecessary/damaging if we allow this because Iran has a right to be angry with us and the U.S has no right to be angry with Iran looking at history. Obama would continue the legacy of Cheney/Bush, and the ruling elite will benefit, getting richer, while the rest of us disintegrate as the Middle East pulls the U.S apart. Israel has been the creator of all the conflicts and root problem in that region. The reaction we are getting from Iran from decades of hostility is perfectly normal; it’s Israel that has been being the more overall hostile intruder and their unjustified aggressiveness causing states like Iran and Syria to be hostile to the U.S and go on the defensive. Israel has also has one of the worst humanitarian records in the world as indicated by numerous organizations such as Human rights watch, in regards of their treatment of Palestinian citizens which is also unnecessary and unjustified. But of course the corporate controlled media won’t really tell you about this. Israel is the top recipient of U.S foreign aid, and receives more foreign aid and money then any other country in the world and it’s already a relatively rich country. . After all Obama is the golden child of the corporate establishment, he’s really going to fix everything and not cut funding/ties to Israel, the mess its been to the U.S, and continue the same whole conflict for decades to come and not really fix anything in that area and stick to the status quo that Bush/Cheney comforted in and sucked dry. A Paul presidency would ensure an end to the whole Israel conflict by cutting allegiance, ties, funding and support to the state of Israel; since he is actually aware of the real history of the whole Israeli conflict, unlike Obama mind you. Paul would be a real savior and really cut out the blood sucking parasite like a doctor wielding a deadly scapel and put a final end to this whole Israeli charade. The next thing this country needs is another Bushi-sque attack on Iran which I am goddamn certain Obama will do as mentioned above. Subsequently he will create such a big hole, that it will take an entire generation to get out of it or we will completely be torn apart and our empire will probably collapse. The holocaust does not justify the current actions of the state of Israel nor the existence of it over the will and freedom of the Palestinian people, nor deos it allow those working for and with this artifical state to control and shape foreign policy of the world, in accordance to them and their choosing. BTW here’s an excerpt of a letter Einstein wrote to the New york times regarding his opinions of the state of Israel, and from your narrow minded viewpoint I guess what Einstien states here would be credible with him being a Jew and a survivor of the holocaust. TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES: New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine. The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Beginâs political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents. Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Beginâs behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. The public avowals of Beginâs party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future. Attack on Arab Village A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants÷240 men, women, and children÷and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party. Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute. The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots. Discrepancies Seen The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Beginâs efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin. The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism. Obama fails, I really don’t get why so many people are falling for him and his deceit. But hey, people care more about charisma and race then the real issues at hand. On real Id, I have no facts on Now we go to the issue of real ID, then here we come to the third niche in your argument. From what you have wrote, you really have no idea about the situation in politics in the U.S right now and why this is one of the important elections in the history of this whole nation. But instead you only argued with what has been presented to you by the media, or so it seems from your piss poor response of a logical argument. Real Id is a direct obstruction of our liberties and rights, and that the fact that Obama wholeheartedly supports real ID gives me no doubt that Obama is just yet again, another establishment candidate that will take similar actions like that of a the present administration. So what is Real ID? Real ID is a national ID card system which turns driver’s licenses into ID cards. There was no debate on the actual bill as it was passed along with several other bills with immediate action to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since it was passed, sixteen states have rejected Real ID with legislations making a nation wide implementation impossible. According to homeland security, it will cost over 23 billion dollars to create this system, 8 billion will be paid by individual citizens through higher costs to obtain a freaking Real ID drivers license. 14.6 billion dollars will be paid by individual states. So that means that you have to renew your drivers license, you’ll have to get hold of a social security card with your full legal name on it, birth certificate and a ton of other documents just to renew or replace your license. Once you go through the trouble of getting your documents together, the DMV will make digital copies of your data and put them on a computer that can accessed by a DMV workers ANYWHERE in the country. The data on your license card or ID card will be able to be called up by any federal state agency ANYWHERE. Your information will be put in a chip or unencrypted barcode in the back making it for easy for anyone to access your personal information. With so many databases collecting so much information, all it takes is one direct breach anywhere in this massive collective system and your personal information is out in the open, pretty much forever. I don’t think the phrase, “your papers please” suits well with the fondness of freedom personality that most Americans seem to have or not. As mentioned above, Real ID has not even been debated on the Senate floor, it has not been even talked about in any committee and no one has even read it!!! But it was passed unanimously while no questions were asked about it back in 2005. When our troops return, (that is if they return), we don’t want them to come back to a surveillance state but a free happy one. (Ron Paul is against Real ID) All in conclusion as pointed out, Obama is REALLY for sure a establishment candidate with main ties and interest to the corporations in power and the ruling elite that rules presently while confusing the rest of the populace about the concept of patriotism. I am sure he’s indeed going to bring change and “unite” the people, since he is willing to obstruct the rights of people for personal gain or power. Want more proof that that Obama is a greedy, status quo son of a bitch? Obama is a staunch supporter of enforced net neutrality/pro corporate internet. Obama believes that it’s necessary that the Government regulate the internets and a tiered internet is better then the equal one everyone has access to right now. To keep the web "neutral", the government is going to forcefully stop ISPs from charging a tiered payment system in order to increase efficiency. The problem of bandwidth is not a problem yet but will become a problem once the explosion of increasing internet usage comes into effect. When it does, popular web sites are going to be bogged down, and the sites that are not popular (e.g not visited enough) are going to be faster than they have to be. If the government does this, then it would prevent needed businesses from expanding, it would distort the proper allocation of bandwidth, and it would increase government scope into a medium that has been better than msm BECAUSE it is not affected by government. Net neutrality is nothing more than a reason, come up by the government to monitor the internet. Ron Paul does not want the government to regulate the internet or a tiered internet for that matter. He may be bad in some degrees but he’s definitely better then Obama. All of this points to Obama being a corporate-pro establishment candidate being used by them to further solidify their power or perhaps for reasons unknown, or to keep the status quo until America gets ripped apart. Either way, Obama is not the guy everyone makes him out to be, but a generic charismatic guy with the advantage of being black, persuading so many people with his vague notions of uniting the people and bringing “change”. This guy is something very different inside while so many people fall for him, but hey, with everyone under cognitive dissonance and 32% of the American population believing that the Bush administration is doing a good job and will continue to do so, I can think otherwise. Oh well, I should be focusing my efforts on the people voting for Mitt Romney, Gulliani, or McCain, since they’re the real morons/retards. Edit: I tried to format my response in paragraphs but something seems to be wrong with this site, and thus you can see, its not exactly in suitable paragraphs. | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
On January 31 2008 10:47 Hawk wrote: why is edwards not supporting anyone not a surprise?? isnt that the standard practice when you drop out? john edwards doesn't want change. he isn't against the status quo. his goal is a post in an administration imo. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
GREATFUL DEAD REUNITE .... JUST TO SUPPORT OBAMA | ||
|
MenzieK
United States123 Posts
| ||
|
._.
1133 Posts
You've just been acting like a flamebait and going on the defensive the whole thread through and not expressed your own ideals and appeal on your own. And everyone's ignoring you, not cause their in denial, but I'm just posting this so you don't feel righteously narcissistic. Don't feel good about your massive wall of words about redundant facts that could be placed with most politicians, in one way or another. What is your political background? Where are your sources? On the subject of Obama's badness: Corrupt Buddies: Tony Rezko, a long time friend and fund-raiser for Obama, was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business. When asked about his friend, Obama said, “I’ve never done any favors for him.” This turned out to be a lie, as evidence turned up proving that Obama had written letters to city and state officials praising Rezko’s business practices. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article Wal-Mart Ties: While bashing of Wal-Mart’s labor practices in public, Obama has been profiting from their business through the money his wife made as a member of the board of directors for a company that produces food for the mega-corporation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/wobama13.xml Gas-guzzler: Obama might attack American automakers for not making enough environmental friendly automobiles, but when he goes home he drives a gas-guzzling V-8 hemi-powered Chrysler 300. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/05/more_obama_hypocrisy.html Despite this, I hope he wins the nomination. Get real man, politicians lie, 99.9% are all corporate-run beings, but Obama is the lesser of the evils, this is damn light compared to the other candidates. It just takes image and will to become a half-decent president, as phony as it may be. Similar things were said about Bill Clinton (politician from random state, charismatic appeal, little experience, and disputable economic plan, but took advantage at the right moment when Bush was screwing up his domestic economics.) for his doubtful track record and practices, but hey, he came being pretty decent no? Unless you support Ron Paul, then..uh I wouldn't know what to say. I'm going to sleep, have to meet up with some friends, won't be able to respond but do so with rationale and sources. Thank you and good night. | ||
|
radar14
United States1437 Posts
This isn't meant to be inflammatory...I'm genuinely curious. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On February 02 2008 23:05 radar14 wrote: I'm not really following the primaries too closely, but can somebody explain in concrete terms why Obama is so popular? He has an indisinguished short career in the Senate and speaks often in incredibly general rhetoric (although it's clear he's very good at that). Bipartisanship, inclusion, we are one, yada yada. He can certainly talk the talk, that's for sure. Yes he seems like a cool guy, is a good writer, and is likeable and eloquent. What does that mean? That he's a good candidate. Why do you guys think he'll be a good President? This isn't meant to be inflammatory...I'm genuinely curious. He's better than clinton because: She refuses to admit she was wrong about the war, her health plan isnt as well conceived as obama's, shes a heavily divisive figure, she cant bring out the young vote or the black vote, she resorts to dirty political tricks to boost her chances. | ||
|
ZaplinG
United States3818 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
Tim Reid in Chicago A huge surge of support for Barack Obama has wiped out Hillary Clinton’s once-formidable lead in four of the biggest “Super Tuesday” states, according to new polls that show the Illinois senator riding an ever-greater wave of momentum into the critical nationwide contest. As the Democratic rivals campaigned across the country and blitzed most of the 22 states voting tomorrow with the most expensive television advertising war in primary history, Mr Obama appeared to have drawn level in California and was running close behind in New Jersey, Arizona and Missouri. According to yet another poll — a Washington Post-ABC News survey — Mr Obama is now in a virtual tie with Mrs Clinton among Democrats nationally, after months in which the former First Lady held a double-digit lead. “This is a very contested race for the nomination,” Mrs Clinton told Fox News Sunday. Referring to the fact that more primaries and caucuses were being held on Super Tuesday than on any previous single day in a nomination battle, she said: “This is something nobody’s ever gone through before. We’re kind of making this up as we go along.” Both campaigns are now targeting states that vote after February 5 as they prepare to dig in for a delegate battle not seen in a generation. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3299816.ece | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080204/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc i suspect the clintons will pull something out of their bag of dirty tricks on monday to check this momentum by obama. clinton only plays nice when she has a healthy lead ad: wtf i didn't see this before.. from Jan. 26 : Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/attorney_general_edwards.html | ||
|
radar14
United States1437 Posts
On February 04 2008 04:12 fusionsdf wrote: He's better than clinton because: She refuses to admit she was wrong about the war, her health plan isnt as well conceived as obama's, shes a heavily divisive figure, she cant bring out the young vote or the black vote, she resorts to dirty political tricks to boost her chances. so that's why you don't like clinton. I still don't know why I should vote for Obama. The only "reason" you stated that really matters in regards to being an effective president is the health care plan. The other stuff is just standard political bullshit that people only care about when it makes their candidate look good. What is Obama's health care plan? I was under the impression that he had no concrete plan (although it was a couple weeks ago that I heard a lecture comparing the candidates. At that time, Clinton and Edwards both had more specific plans. Whether those plans were good is another story of course). | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
On February 05 2008 01:12 radar14 wrote: What is Obama's health care plan? http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/#coverage-for-all i'm not trying to get you to vote for anybody edit: and i'm not making any opinion as to whether i agree with the plan or not, just thought it might be the sort of info you were seeking | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32051 Posts
And did anyone else catch the yahoo story about Bush and the budget? We're at 3.1 Tril, and he has increased defensive spending and continued tax breaks. It also said in there someting about Medicade/care and that hospitals would not be getting paid by the govt for this. Does this basically mean that instead of the government compensating the hospitals for this, they just take the hit now out of pocket? Wtf? | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On February 04 2008 15:42 a-game wrote: early morning polls have obama with a small lead in california http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080204/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc i suspect the clintons will pull something out of their bag of dirty tricks on monday to check this momentum by obama. clinton only plays nice when she has a healthy lead I'm worried about this as well. Obama was way up in New Hampshire and then comes the crying game and Clinton doing a Limbaugh-job on Obama at the last second, before anyone has time to deny it or check the facts, and other things. I don't know what else they could do. Hopefully they don't have the credibility to get rewarded by their last minute stunts any longer. | ||
| ||
