Has Obama shot his wad? Clinton rebounds...

bobabooey69

Cherished Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Posts
3,398
Media
5
Likes
493
Points
303
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
still liking Obama personally.

if Hillary beats him... I still think McCain will win.

God help us all.:frown1:

It might be just me, but split delegate counts and superdeligates seem like a completely inefficient and overly complicated system. And don't even get me started on the electoral college....when on earth will this retarded system be overhauled?
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
of course I will support Hillary Clinton should she be the nominee...what disturbs me is the amount of "Trash Talk" regarding Senator Obama here....and the statements that if Hillary Doesn't win I'm voting for mcCain...are there really democrats that want to stay in Iraq for 100 years?
I hope this disturbs you as well-
"On the other hand, we have a muckraking, duplicitous, self-aggrandizing, disingenuous cunt who will pander to any audience and stoop to any level if she believes it will serve her purposes."

Seems to me there is quite a lot of trash talk on both sides. Substitute the word 'bastard' for cunt in that statement and you can apply it to most politicians.

I really don't understand where this hatred of Clinton comes from. Wasn't that image of her created by the right wing pundits back in the 90's after she said she didn't intend to bake cookies in the White House or something? They did such a great job on her that now everyone has bought into Hannity's idea that she is some kind of dangerous uberbitch. Yes she is tough and ambitious and probably a c**t at times. So what?
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
As for the the 50% black remark, I made it clear it was a genetic fact, not how Barack identifies himself.

It's very telling that you brought it into the discussion at all, even moreso that you did it apropos of nothing that had been stated beforehand.

Seems to me there is quite a lot of trash talk on both sides. Substitute the word 'bastard' for cunt in that statement and you can apply it to most politicians.

That substitution doesn't apply to Obama. The "cunt" part wasn't the pivotal adjective in that phrase, in case you didn't notice.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
You know exponentially more about US politics than me Nic, but I think that if Mr. Obama wins the nomination he will not win the Presidency.

I base this solely on the fact that his "change" campaign has not won an undeniable endorsement from his own camp, and given that the US is politically conservative, and women voters more so, a semi endorsement from liberals for change will never be enough to convince the whole country.

As mentioned above, Mr. McCain is enough of a centrist with a nice smile to win the centrist swing vote.

I thought it telling that Mrs. C. said the other night that it took one Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it will take another to clean up after this one. Whilst democrats are voting on ideology, I think Mrs. C's message is the one that non partisan voters would listen to.
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
As mentioned above, Mr. McCain is enough of a centrist with a nice smile to win the centrist swing vote.

I thought it telling that Mrs. C. said the other night that it took one Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it will take another to clean up after this one. Whilst democrats are voting on ideology, I think Mrs. C's message is the one that non partisan voters would listen to.

You know exponentially more about US politics than me Nic, but I think that if Mr. Obama wins the nomination he will not win the Presidency.

I base this solely on the fact that his "change" campaign has not won an undeniable endorsement from his own camp, and given that the US is politically conservative, and women voters more so, a semi endorsement from liberals for change will never be enough to convince the whole country.

As mentioned above, Mr. McCain is enough of a centrist with a nice smile to win the centrist swing vote.

I thought it telling that Mrs. C. said the other night that it took one Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it will take another to clean up after this one. Whilst democrats are voting on ideology, I think Mrs. C's message is the one that non partisan voters would listen to.

One move the GOP may make in the general election is "outing" Obama on his promise to unite and reach across the aisle.

I am surprised I can only hear that argument of Fox News at this point. It is after all Obama's key proposition: achieve everything Clinton would want to achieve, but succeeding because HE knows how to bridge gaps.

Some GOP senators have already commented on the scant evidence of Obama's bipartisanship in the US Senate.

Overall, he's sided with his party, nothing to be ashamed of, but not exactly a behavior making his central claim credible.

As it happens, McCain has far more credibility when it comes to collaboration.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
One move the GOP may make in the general election is "outing" Obama on his promise to unite and reach across the aisle.

I am surprised I can only hear that argument of Fox News at this point. It is after all Obama's key proposition: achieve everything Clinton would want to achieve, but succeeding because HE knows how to bridge gaps.


What is completely unsurprising, given the body of commentary you've put forth thus far, is that you just don't get it at all. His speaking in terms of "we" and "us" isn't just campaign gimmickery...it's illustrative of his entire philosophy of negotiation. He doesn't propose to force his ideas as being the only way, never talks about implementing policy by mandate.


Some GOP senators have already commented on the scant evidence of Obama's bipartisanship in the US Senate.

Overall, he's sided with his party, nothing to be ashamed of, but not exactly a behavior making his central claim credible.

Opposition party colleague intimating that Obama wasn't always standing with one foot one either side of the aisle? Unimaginable. BTW, you wouldn't happen to be able to name any of these senators, would you? Or provide us any link to this commentary you're referencing, perhaps?

It's easy to do. Here, I'll start: In a passage in The Audacity of Hope, Senator Obama recounts an exchange that took place when he and other Democratic senators were invited to the White House to discuss the possibility of their supporting Bush's first round of tax cuts. Objections were presented, and compromise measures proposed. One senator said to Karl Rove that if these measures would be agreed to by the White House, not only would he support the bill himself, but he would guarantee it received 70 votes on the Senate floor. Karl Rove flatly demurred, saying that he didn't care about getting 70 votes...he only needed 50.

I'm actually amazed there has been any amount of bipartisan effort attempted, given such a political climate. This is the type of "us vs. them", "my way or no way" thinking that's dominated national politics in the current administration...an unwillingness to negotiate in good faith. Don't get me wrong...I know both sides have been guilty of similar behavior, but this has been the modus operandi during the majority of the Bush years because his party controlled both houses of Congress. It is precisely this way of thinking that Obama seeks to do away with as POTUS.


As it happens, McCain has far more credibility when it comes to collaboration.

On what do you base this assertion?
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Liberals (myself included) always end up over analysing everything.

There's only one issue, who is most likely to win the Presidential election? And you don't have to have a 160 IQ to know that you win an election by telling the the 5 - 10 % of swing voters what they want to hear.

I am afraid that if you are politically committed one way or the other, you are irrelevant.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Yes, it's something of a paradox for long established democracies that successful politicians care least for those voters who care most about politics.

Of course they will take your money and let you do all the campaign work etc, but they know your vote won't win them elections.

Short term lies to the swing voters. Know what they want and give it to them :rolleyes:. That's about it really. So if I was a Democrat, I would vote for Mrs. C even though I prefer Mr. O. The Clintons have a proven track record in lying :biggrin1:.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes, it's something of a paradox for long established democracies that successful politicians care least for those voters who care most about politics.

Of course they will take your money and let you do all the campaign work etc, but they know your vote won't win them elections.

Short term lies to the swing voters. Know what they want and give it to them :rolleyes:. That's about it really. So if I was a Democrat, I would vote for Mrs. C even though I prefer Mr. O. The Clintons have a proven track record in lying :biggrin1:.

I can still consider myself a swing voter, to be honest. The drink I mentioned is definitely of the Obama variety, not the whole party flavor.

If he doesn't get the nomination, I'll likely vote Libertarian again.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Another thing HG. In the UK we have parliamentary constituencies, and each constituency votes one person to Parliament. Apart from the undemocratic fact that constituencies don't have anything like equal numbers, you are most likely to live in a constituency that favours one party because of its demographics etc. I have never lived in a constiuency that has swung from one pary to another, so again my vote is completely meaningless. So I normally vote for someone I like so they get enough votes to not have to pay for having stood for election. We call that losing your deposit, more often than not, the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Official Monster Raving Loony Party - Homepage

Have a look - they are a Brit institution, though I believe Pecker is the International candidate.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Sadly, I'm not much better off. The bicameral Congress was an attempt to mitigate such inherent unfairness, but it's something of a double-edged sword and it doesn't really extend into the electoral process much.

As a result, my vote in the general election has always been meaningless...the Republican party dominates Texas politics...even Mr. Popularity (WJC) couldn't eke out a majority down here. And because the constitution of my state handles presidential elections in a "winner takes all" manner, my vote doesn't get silenced...it gets converted and added to the opposition party.

The primary election is really the only chance an independent has to cast a meaningful vote, as it will actually count toward a decision on which candidate goes up in the general election later on.

I try to maintain a hopeful outlook, but the cold realist in me knows that no matter how I vote, the smart money lies on my state sending electors to DC to vote for McCain.