|
Hillary is winning them by getting traditional democratic voters who would almost all switch over to Obama, while not all of Obama's voters would switch over to Hillary. I agree with the quoted post. This was illustrated when I saw one poll showing that while Obama trailed Hillary head to head in Ohio, he surpassed her in a one on one with McCain in the state (in which both of them lost, Obama by 2%).
Way to over-generalize. There are plenty of Clinton supporters that would gladly switch over to McCain rather than some preachy guy that is all image and no substance.
Face it, Obama has no substance. How many times do I have to drill that into your thick skull before you actually believe this to be true? Do you know what Obama's platform is? Here the list below:
* American principles: CHANGE
* Civil rights: CHANGE
* Disabilities: CHANGE
* Economy: CHANGE
* Education: CHANGE
* Energy & Environment: CHANGE
* Ethics: CHANGE
* Family: CHANGE
* Fiscal: CHANGE
* Foreign Policy: CHANGE
* Gun Control: CHANGE
* Health care: CHANGE
* Homeland Security: CHANGE
* Immigration: CHANGE
* Iraq: CHANGE
* Poverty: CHANGE
* Prostitution: CHANGE
* Rural: CHANGE
* Service: CHANGE
* Seniors & Social Security: CHANGE
* Technology: CHANGE
* Use of the "N-word" in Mike Tyson's Punch Out: CHANGE
* Veterans: CHANGE
He has not been hiding. It is not the fault of Obama that change is the only thing the media will seem to discuss about him (as a positive). See fusionsdf's post.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/29/obamas-nafta-double-talk-confirmed-ctv/
|
|
|
If anyone is actually thinking of responding to dickhead's post, don't.
Trolls should at least have to try.
and if anyone actually believes the nafta bs:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/118171
|
i'm not going to read those links lol, anytime hillary challenged him about not having universal healthcare he said "my plan is universal. ted kennedy has insisted he would not support a candidate who did not have universal healthcare"
edit: did you ninja edit me? (directed at stealth not fusion)
|
I'm simply pointing out that Obamas plan actually has backing not just give it to you. No foundation means a money pit.
|
ok well originally you said you were against universal healthcare, i guess you meant you're against a mandate or something. it's all good 
|
You wanna know the reason obama is better than hillary? Because its a lot harder for a black man to screw the country, because everything he does will be heavily scrutinized.
|
ummm since his plan is lowering the cost so that you will choose to buy health insurance, I dont really see what the complaint is.
Shouldnt your problem be more with hillary?
|
oh hey
cnn has 2 clinton supporters and no obama supporters on.
Yet again.
What are the odds
|
nono fusion, he's just clarifying a point to me, he wasn't attacking obama. pretty sure he was actually describing why he favours obama's plan.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 06 2008 07:38 useLess wrote:Something I saw on another forum:Show nested quote +----------------------------------------
Ok time for some serious shit
The wins last night by Hillary Clinton are being overrated by the media and general public.
Yes, she won Ohio/Texas but it is by no means a upset or anything special for her. Woopie, she broke Obama's 11 state win streak and gained some momentum back, but it doesn't matter.
1) Hillary was a shoe-in for Ohio/Texas from the very beginning of this nomination. Ohio was always hers and it should not come as a surprise that she won by 10%. The fact that Obama actually caught up and brought the split to within 10% is a more important (and underlooked) message. Her win in Ohio was not significant enough to overcome the overall delegate count for the night.
2) Texas. Just like Ohio, she had a massive lead in Texas from the start. It wasn't until these past 2 weeks that Obama caught up to the point where it was a virtual tie. However, because of this, the media (and us) started hyping Texas up as a possible win for him. Now that he lost, many people and the media are seeing it as Obama's failure when he was unlikely to take it from the start. The delegate split on the primary and the win in the caucus means that Hillary will walk away with less delegates. The media and others should stop looking at the popular vote as the deciding factor, especially when it's fucking 51-47%. That's a very slim margin.
2.5) No one cares about RI
3) As the copypasta article that's been around says, it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win. The florida/michigan delegates will not just be handed to her either especially since SHE broke the party agreement. Superdelegates shouldn't even be a point of discussion because its very doubtful that they will go against their own state. It's politically best for her to drop out now.
4) The notion that Hillary winning the big states is a good argument for the nomination is bullshit. California? Votes democratic anyways. New York? Mass? Conn? Rest of NE? All the same. Even PA went dem last election. The very notion that because Hillary won the big states means Obama won't win them in the general election is stupid as hell. Those states vote democratic. Obama is a democrat. Put the two and two together, use logic, christ. Florida and Texas vote rep, those are nonissues.
Rather than that, we should look at who can win swing states and that is Obama. Who decides the general election? Swing states. Who has cross-party and independent appeal? Obama. One of the key deciding factors this election will be independents. Hillary has absolutely no appeal to moderates and she has no appeal to moderate-leaning republicans. Guess what? McCain has a shitload of moderate appeal because he virtually is one. This means that logically, Obama is still the best person to go up against McCain as he is the only one who can generate enough enthusiasm and moderate appeal to properly take down McCain.
----------------------------------------
And I heard something about her supporters chanting "Yes She Will"? I mean, after the fear mongering with the 3am ad and the constant negative attacks and accusations of Obama plagarism, they go ahead and basically rip off his callsign
Where did you get that info? DailyKKKos?
|
I do have to say, the mainstream media has been giving Obama a pass untill recently. Did you see Tim Russert during the debate? He grilled Clinton then practically kissed Obama's shoes. Lawl. That's the kind of press Obama was expecting going into Texas.
COME ON GUYS! I ALREADY ANSWERED LIKE EIGHT QUESTIONS, JEEZ!!!
|
On March 06 2008 12:04 Chronofox wrote:
I do have to say, the mainstream media has been giving Obama a pass untill recently. Did you see Tim Russert during the debate? He grilled Clinton then practically kissed Obama's shoes. Lawl. That's the kind of press Obama was expecting going into Texas.
COME ON GUYS! I ALREADY ANSWERED LIKE EIGHT QUESTIONS, JEEZ!!!
Weird then how mainstream media keeps mistaking Obama's picture with Osama, and CNN, for example, felt like a fifteen minute story showing how Obama dressed like the President of Iran.
Perhaps leading into Texas there was an absence of negativity, but they never really did him any big favors. They said things like "oh, he's a great speaker" quite often, which has no substance. It may have given him momentum (or not), or it may have actually been a negative. It fits with the "he's only a good speaker" angle of the Clinton campaign. You never saw anything like the article fusionsdf posted (The Audacity of Data) which compliments him on something of that depth (not that the article even got very deep, but it was relatively deep). Because of things like that a great many people honestly think that Obama is just an empty suit; that there is no substance or specifics to his plans, and that he never accomplished anything in the US Senate or prior--both of which are demonstrably false, and quite easy for the media to show.
Also, they did him no favors in representing his side of the issue. Like in New Hampshire when Bill Clinton unleashed his efforts to portray Obama as not having been really against the war, among other things. I watched many mainstream shows at that time and never saw them reference the easy to find facts that would of easily contradicted Clinton's claim. This repeated this Monday. No TV that I saw actually clarified Obama's defense and they all left him looking extremely suspicious.
I think the media would like the Democratic primary to last as long as possible. It's giving them killer ratings and so lots of money.
|
On March 06 2008 12:04 Chronofox wrote:
COME ON GUYS! I ALREADY ANSWERED LIKE EIGHT QUESTIONS, JEEZ!!!
He was late for a plane, wasn't he? :o
|
obama may yet still win texas
out of 193 delegates he's trailing 91-92 with 10 delegates yet to be apportioned.
|
can someone explain what the problem with NAFTA is?
|
By some calculations, Clinton would need to win more than 60 percent of the vote in the dozen contests remaining between now and June 7 to catch Obama in pledged delegates -- a steep challenge given that, so far, she has won that much in only one state, her onetime adopted home of Arkansas. Even in New York, where she is a sitting senator, she won 57 percent of the vote. She won 55 percent in Michigan, where Obama was not even on the ballot.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/04/AR2008030403354.html
|
she doesn't need to catch up. she just needs to get close enough that she can say the pledged delegates shouldn't affect super delegate decisions and then convince super delegates to vote for her!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
