|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:29:58 PM | If you can't win a debate on the issue, confuse the issue! How about answering the question? Compared to Senators Clinton and McCain, Obama is a Washington outsider. But he's bamboozling lots of people into labeling himself as an outsider, selling us that he's coming into Washington to save us all. He's a Senator too, which means he better be an insider. Or if he's not an insider, he ain't getting anything done with his current elected position. Hey he talks out of both sides of his mouth like a senior politician even though he is a junior. Maybe you're right, I am confused. 
He's got different experience. Sure. Is it presidential experience? No. He's got 20 years of experience going to fire-and-brimstone churches. I do know that.
Has every Sunday at YOUR church been just the same as every other for twenty years??! I'm not running for president. What's your point? 
Do you think that MAYBE, somewhere in those twenty years, this highly-decorated Baptist minister might have spoken about Jesus and his teachings, or do you think it's all been "fire and brimstone" about Hillary, Barack, and how we can't always trust our government? I picture myself sitting with the parishioners listening to ONE fire-and-brimstone oration from the pastor. It would turn me off once. Once would be enough for me not to return. That's just me, I understand pretty well what offends me.
deeds of the candidate himself and how he actually measures up politically against the competition Deeds? His national "deeds" are lacking when compared to the competition.
How he measures up politically is pretty much my primary point throughout this thread. How Obama measures up against McCain in the 2008 November Electoral college. Explain which states Obama will turn from red to blue. Are they enough for him to win if he holds enough blue states? It's real real iffy that he will hold Pennsylvania, Ohio will stay red even, Michigan could be lost, Florida probably is gone.
Back on topic, Hillary will most undoubtedly lose her party's nomination; why? because she was running a November campaign in January. Big mistake, even though she knew she was the better November candidate, she needed to move further left to engage the registered party people who planned to vote in the primaries. She was too far to the right too early. Obama played his early momentum to his advantage. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:37:47 PM |
State legislative experience?
Yes. State legislative experience. Governmental legislation is governmental legislation. To discount his addressing health-care concerns, infrastructure, corporate regulation, and ethics by associating with a "part-time" job is rather presumptuous.
Most presidents have either been in the federal legislature or have been governors of their state.
So somehow a state's executive branch carries weight, but it's legislative branch doesn't??  OK. Incidentally, Time Magazine recently printed a very informative article about the "experience" argument and it's relation to serving as an effective president. I posted it a while back. You should check it out. 
True, but I was talking about how he sees himself, not how other people see him.
So he sees himself as everyone sees him -- as an African American man -- and, according to you, that's where he screwed up, eh? OK.
I'm not even a little bit against having a black man as president. If it's the RIGHT black man, I'm voting for him. I vote for the human, not the skin color nor the gender.
Well, I'm glad to hear that. America needs more guys like you around. 
True, but this is far from something that's just a little off, and Obama was using this guy for spiritual and personal guidance. Makes you wonder why he'd do that.
That argument is SO tired! He held him as a spiritual advisor because he appreciated the Rev's spiritual insights. I've never picked MY reverend, based on his political stances. You?
Hmm . . . have I ever said to you that your opinions "seriously call into question" why you support Obama? No? Gee, I didn't think so.
I'm just as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, and without you questioning my motives.
Hmmmm ... clearly you misunderstood me here. I'm pretty sure I started off there saying something to the effect that "you are just as entitled to your opinion as I am my own." And NEVER did I question your "motives" for doing so. In fact, I never suggested you had any motives other than what was readily apparent. I respect people that way -- at least until there is significant evidence to the contrary -- which I don't see in your case. My questioning was of your LOGIC in trusting -- in the face of repeated lies and purposeful propagation of falsehoods; essentially a "bewilderment" as to your BASIS of truth, rather than any suggestion that you have ulterior motives for doing so. But don't worry about apologizing. That's a reasonable mistake, I suppose. It's not like you like and claimed experience that later came to be proven to be untrue, or claimed to parachute out of a C-141 alongside Chuck Norris, during night-time Black Ops over Bosnia, while contra-insurgents shot at you from below. 
Read the RealClearPolitics article. It makes SEVERAL assumptions that, to me at least, seem pretty absurd. I'd LOVE to see the pool of superdelegates that try -- for the first time ever -- to tell the successful presidential nominee who he HAS to pick as a Veep! All the Dem insiders, who have commented publicly on the question have said the chances are virtually non-existent of the two getting on the same ticket (at this point; perhaps back in February, but I have my doubts even about that) and I tend to think they know something beyond voter speculation.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:38:27 PM | | This thread is like Hillary's campaign. Still kicking long after it's death. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:41:18 PM |
She can't win.. Read the artical above about how much people hate her.. Poor woman
Even if you give the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan to Obama, which is actually an overestimate since half those voters would have voted for the other candidates, she still pulls about 50% of the vote. There were several states such as Pennsylvania, where I from, where she won by a large margin and which is a closed primary so only democrats could vote.
Sure a lot of people who aren't her supporters don't care for her. But trust me if you went on a Clinton supporter site you would see some pretty virulent dislike of Obama as well. And with the Wright flap, Obama has also gotten some pretty high negative ratings too.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:41:19 PM | Yo, Philly! You wanna go have a drink tonight at Walt's Devil's Hideaway?  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:45:07 PM | Give me a few minutes to see where it's located I'll send you a message if I'll have time to make it.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:48:01 PM | | I expect to see a video of the discussion you guys have on Youtube tomorrow. We ARE all brothers after all! | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:49:31 PM |
This thread is like Hillary's campaign. Still kicking long after it's death. Props to Spitfire for starting up a 50 page thread. 
I don't blame Hillary for staying in the race. Her financial debt is her business. She is damn close to Obama in delegate count. Maybe she knows something none of us don't know? Then again, pigs can fly. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:57:16 PM | tireofbeinglonely2, given Obama's close connection to the soon to be convicted Antoin Rezko, it is almost certainly going to be the case the feds are going to investigate why the DNC rules committee went against their own rules to fully strip those two states, both big Clinton favoring, of their delegates.
Another VERY important fact to keep in mind is that if it was only a 50% delegate penalty then the popular votes in those states would have counted! The candidates would have campaigned there just as they did for any other state. The delegate penalty would just have been enforced at the convention. But because Clinton had such huge leads in the votes in both those states she would have gotten a huge gain in the popular vote from them. Because those are such large states the delegate gain she would get also would have been significant even with a 50% penalty.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 3:00:39 PM |
This thread is like Hillary's campaign. Still kicking long after it's death.
"It ain't over 'til the federal prosecutor has made all his indictments."
To coin a phrase.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 3:13:56 PM | Obama enlists more Democratic superdelegates
4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — White House front-runner Barack Obama gained the backing of four more Democratic leaders Thursday to take him closer to shutting Hillary Clinton out of the race to the party's nomination.
A day after former vice presidential nominee John Edwards endorsed the Illinois senator, three members of Congress and the head of the Communications Workers of America union rallied to Obama's camp.
All four are Democratic "superdelegates" who can cast their convention vote for the presidential nominee of their choice.
The most prominent was California Congressman Henry Waxman, who as chairman of the House of Representatives oversight committee has waged war on alleged wrongdoing in the administration of President George W. Bush.
Both Waxman and another of the quartet, Congressman Howard Berman, are leaders in the US Jewish community, and their support could help Obama fend off questions about the level of his commitment to Israel's security.
"Senator Obama's vision for change has inspired tens of millions of Americans. And he's also proved that he has the experience, judgment, integrity and toughness to bring real reform to Washington," Waxman said in a statement.
"He will be an extraordinary president, and I look forward to working with him to make his vision for change the new reality in Washington," he said.
According to RealClearPolitics.com, Obama now has the support of 1,889 Democratic convention delegates to Clinton's 1,719, considerably closer to the winning line of 2,025.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDKOrlN9xslqDXs0kWSChi-L36Tg
Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Sen. Barack Obama's Missouri co-chairman and pledged Obama superdelegate, said Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided Democratic superdelegates later this week, according to the Columbia Missourian.
Said Clay: "She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers. This race is over."
Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw first reported yesterday that Obama had about 50 secretly committed superdelegates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/05/confirmed-obama-has-50-s_n_90159.html
Getting closer, isn't it.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the CSI team doing a show on the Hillary campaign soon. | |
|
_JAFO_
|
Joined: 11/9/2007
Msg: 1237 | |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 5:15:46 PM | ...I just heard Michael Jackson doesn't know whether to vote for his race or his sex.
(sorry. I couldn't resist) | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 7:31:47 PM | | I live in Illinois and believe me, the Rezko case is only about Robbin' Rodney. Don't pin any hopes on any Obama bombshells. Blagosonuvab*tch is the one going down there. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:25:51 PM | Itechman, Rezko was the financial manager both for one of the Obama campaigns and for the Rod Blagojevich campaign for governor. Based on the huge amount of evidence presented at trial against Rezko, he is inherently incapable of running any financial transaction honestly. We already know from the evidence presented at trial that Blagojevich was involved in the illegal activities involved in amassing his campaign contributions and undoubtedly Blagojevich will be indicted for them.
Rezko almost certainly engaged in the same illegal activities in obtaining campaign contributions for the Obama campaign, shakedowns, state jobs in exchange for campaign contributions, etc. The one question might be did Obama know about it. That's what has to be determined. However, Obama did make an admission that would give one suspicions about his honesty on the question. He had been saying for months Rezko only raised $50,000 for him. However, recently he was forced to admit the amount was closer to $250,000.
A big part of the feds evidence against Rezko came from wiretaps involving Stuart Levine. However, I can't tell if these were all on Levine's phone or some were from a tap on Rezko's phone. If there were a tap on Rezko's phone then they might have picked up some of the conversations Obama had with him when he was calling Rezko once a day.
If these conversations were sufficiently incriminatory, they might have gotten a court order to tap Obama's phone as well.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:29:32 PM | Trust me Phil, with all the attacks on Obama, had he said sweety even once during those phone conversations we'd have heard about it by now.
Keep digging though, and do let us know when you reach China. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:37:36 PM | | It's funny how people keep mentioning Barack and this trial, when people keep letting it slip in the cracks that Rezko gave money to the Clinton's, too. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:49:30 PM |
If you don't like McCain can I say you hate all Old white haired men... Hell no!!!! stop being stupid..
Ah ha, the 'ageism' card. I've been waiting for that one.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:57:41 PM |
Trust me Phil, with all the attacks on Obama, had he said sweety even once during those phone conversations we'd have heard about it by now.
Keep digging though, and do let us know when you reach China.
That's not how federal prosecutors conduct investigations. They don't tip their hand unless they have to. Plus, the very big fact you're not considering is that once Rezko is likely convicted the feds will try to get evidence from him about the big public officials involved such as Gov. Blagojevich and Sen. Obama in exchange for a lighter sentence.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:59:37 PM | Flyonwall...
perhaps a bit of research. Of course she's going to deny!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-rezko_N.htm
"The vetting of the Clinton's is just beginning. This was a risky strategy by the Clinton's in the first place, because the boomerang effect will expose much more of their shenanigans to the American people....
...Since the name of Chicago defendant Antoin 'Tony' Rezko has come up in national debate, it seems fair to look at donations from other defendants in Chicago's "Operation Board Games."
Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama's political opponents. None have donated to Obama."
And another tidbit...
"Antoin Rezko, a former Obama fundraiser who is on trial facing extortion charges, helped raise up to $250,000 for the Illinois senator’s past political campaigns, nearly $90,000 more than the Obama campaign previously acknowledged.
Sen. Barack Obama made the disclosures in interviews with two Chicago newspapers on Friday. The campaign said that the previous figure — of up to $160,000 in contributions raised or contributed by Rezko — represented the total for just his 2004 successful bid for the U.S. Senate, and that Rezko had helped raise between $60,000 and $90,000 for his state senate contests and his unsuccessful congressional campaign in 2000.
In the past, Obama has donated to charity all contributions linked to Rezko.
Obama also told the editorial boards of the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times that it was a mistake for him to purchase his Chicago home on the same day that the wife of Rezko, who was under federal investigation at the time, purchased an adjoining vacant lot from the same seller.
Obama paid less than the asking price of the home, and he had previously acknowledged that the move was “boneheaded” because it gave the appearance of impropriety. “This is an area where I can see sort of a lapse in judgment, where I could have said, ‘No, I’m not sure that’s a good idea,’” he told the Chicago Sun-Times.
Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the Rezko trial, but the fact that Obama and Rezko have been friends for nearly 20 years — coupled with revelations about controversial statements by Obama’s pastor of roughly the same time — are bound to raise questions about Obama’s judgment." | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 10:06:00 PM | Props to Spitfire for starting up a 50 page thread.
Thanks, Bikeman. Couldn't have done it without all of you.
Hillary did well for herself today by continuing to be a team player, defending the Democratic Party against President Bush's "appeasement" comments. It also came out today that both Obama and Hillary signed on to a joint Democratic Victory Fund which will aid Obama in the Fall and also help Hillary with her campaign debt. They are starting to coalesce and work together now. Expect a couple of lapses on Hillary's part, though, as she comes to terms with her new support role.
Hillary is losing the primary, but she doesn't have to be a loser overall. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 10:18:27 PM |
this is true to the more uneducated voter. People don't want a mother hen who appears to want to be a man leading the country. She's a bit stiff. If she would just loosen up a bit people would be able to identify with her on a more human level.
Laurasavana, the Brits had a hell of alot of respect for Margaret Thatcher, as did the Indians for Indira Gandhi, as did the Israeli's for Golda Maeir.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 10:48:21 PM | | What are the chances for both an Obama Hillary ticket? I hope no. But every now and then I think... It could happen. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/16/2008 12:54:13 AM | Of course, if you want to be really cynical, you might entertain the thought of offering BILL Clinton the Vice-Presidency.
I figure Bill might say yes, and then Hillary might have a stroke. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/16/2008 1:09:35 AM | | Bill actually conceded during an interview last year that he had some Constitutional Law experts look into that very possibility and that they ASSURED him that it would not be possible for him to become someone's VP. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/16/2008 4:44:36 AM | We don't hear about anything else other than the Rezko trial and there's been zero implications made about Obama being involved in any corruption. I'm just saying that I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for anything earth shattering there.
There's nothing about Robbin' Rod that isn't known, he's such an arrogant a-hole. Prosecutors aren't trying to discover anything new they're just trying to present what is known. | |
|
|
| Page 50 of 98
|
36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 |
|
Home
login 
