Jump to content

*official* 2008 us election thread


Daaaaave

Recommended Posts

http://www.liveearth.org/

LIVE EARTH FACT SHEET

Live Earth - The Concert for a Climate in Crisis

7/7/07

Concerts on all 7 continents:

Shanghai

Sydney

Johannesburg

London

Brazil - TBD

Japan - TBD

United States - TBD

Antarctica - TBD

100+ artists

Current and legendary artists across all genres performing multiple hits.

Announced today:

Pharrell

Red Hot Chili Peppers

Foo Fighters

Snoop Dogg

Lenny Kravitz

Bon Jovi

Paolo Nutini

Sheryl Crow

AFI

Melissa Etheridge

John Mayer

Damien Rice

Corrine Bailey Rae

Duran Duran

Snow Patrol

John Legend

Black Eyed Peas

Akon

Enrique Iglesias

Fall Out Boy

Mana

Keane

Kelly Clarkson

Korn

Faith Hill w/ Tim McGraw

Bloc Party

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm actually not that fussed about the crap bands. considering britney and the rest of the pop ******* love for bush up to this point, it'd be nice to get some popsters getting the teens wise for a change.

I'm also guessing that the other 75 bands will be more low-key, local acts. you know...good music?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Splendid:

I never took Snoop for the socially conscious type, tbh.

I didn't know kelly clarkson had the ability to think.

a bit ****ed about the us show being on the east coast though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So it'll be one huge national show?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Splendid:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Splendid:

I never took Snoop for the socially conscious type, tbh.

I didn't know kelly clarkson had the ability to think.

a bit ****ed about the us show being on the east coast though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So it'll be one huge national show? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Concerts on all 7 continents:

Shanghai

Sydney

Johannesburg

London

Brazil - TBD

Japan - TBD

United States - TBD

Antarctica - TBD

the na portion will be in the states somewhere on the east coast (early word was dc)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

Antarctica, fabulous icon_biggrin.gif

my honest guess is that'll be 3 songs from u2 simulcast to all the other venues around the world </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I was thinking "P!ATD dies in freak sinking accident," but your way works too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K-uglen:

I would like to plug this entertaining election game, by the way: http://www.80soft.com/pforever/info/index.htm

It is interesting.

I steered Gore to the Democratic nomination, then got humbled in the general (by Giuliani, IIRC). icon_biggrin.gif

Failed to get the nomination for Edwards (finished in the last 2 after Hillary dropped out before the convention). Then took over Biden's campaign, won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Brownback. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I took Obama to the nomination, although Clinton tried to choke me at the end, and almost succeeded, had it not been for Edwards' dislike of her (and thus endorsement of me). In the general it became a little too tense at the end, but I still beat Romney.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jason the Yank:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kizzak:

It is worth noting that both Nixon and Reagan won while not actually representing anyone.

Although in Reagan's case he nearly took out Ford in the '76 primaries, so he already had an organization in place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, they both had run for President in previous years, I was just pointing out the whole sitting thing.

Typically the longer you are on the 'national forefront' as opposed to your state, the better chance you'll **** something up and get whacked for it either during nomination or in the election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hoping for a Democrat win.

I have read news stories about Obama, but not seen much of him directly till the last few days.

I was cautious about investing hope in him, as I feared the hype would never match the reality. And he would just be a star without substance who people were projecting qualities onto.

Though I liked how he dealt with the Howard issue.

=-------------------------------=

What happened last time? Were there any key reasons for the outcome?

* Was it an impossible situation? (Bush as War time incumbent, Democrats never going to win the key marginal states)

* Or were there big strategic mistakes during the campaign?

* Or did the Democrat candidate just lack substance, and someone else may have had a better chance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's quite an interesting statistic. Didn't Truman back out of running for a second term, though - but I guess his VP still ran?

Truman took over for FDR in early 1945, just after his 4th term started, so since he had not completed at least half of that term, Truman was considered to have served one "full" term, plus the term after he won in 1948.

As the current president at the time of ratification in 1951, Truman was intentionally "grandfathered" under the 22rd Amendment to the Constitution limiting presidential terms. Truman was eligible to run for a third term by the agreement and indeed did run in the primaries. However, at that time hundreds of Truman staff and executive branch appointees were embroiled in scandal for corruption and for perception of being Communist. Truman lost the first primary of 1952 and quickly withdrew from the race.

I miss teaching icon_frown.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

a "war time president" is rarely ever ousted from office

the field was particularly weak that year, no one was really that excited about kerry

kerry had a difficult time connecting with people

he reacted very slowly to smears from the bush campaign, particularly the "swift boat" ads.

he didn't properly define the differences in iraq between parties

and even considering all that, he was one state away (ohio) from winning where there was major vote fraud and vote tampering by the republican secretary of state (who heads the elections)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Media types seem to be waking up to the fact that the space alien who briefly controlled John McCain in 2000 has returned to his home planet.

Anybody think he'll have any impact on this race?

The American Debate | Welcome to McCain's flip-flop express

By Dick Polman

Inquirer Political Analyst

Join me for a trip down memory lane, aboard "maverick" John McCain's Straight Talk Express.

This was seven winters ago, long before the Washington press corps finally got hip to the fact that McCain was just another pandering politician. This was during the 2000 Republican primary season, when, at McCain's invitation, a steady procession of besotted journalists rode with him on his bus (right up front, no less) for days and weeks at a time, laughing at his jokes and reveling in the illusion that they were insiders.

I remember one frigid New Hampshire night, somewhere along Interstate 93. McCain held court, and we crowded around. He ruminated a bit about health care (he confessed that the issue bored him), gossiped about some people he didn't like (signaling his distaste by rolling his eyes), reminisced about his days as a carousing Navy flyboy (he said he dated an exotic dancer named "Marie the Flame Thrower of Florida"), and there were rollicking good vibes as we rolled along.

But I never rode again, having no desire to be part of McCain's laugh track. Somehow, a bit of professional distance seemed more appropriate. And it was obvious McCain knew exactly what he was doing. He had very little money at the time - all the big donors were backing his rival, George W. Bush - so he needed free and favorable exposure. And flattering the press was the best way to get it.

He has reaped the benefits ever since. Over the last seven years, he has been constantly depicted in the press as a "straight-talking," "independent" "maverick," despite the fact that, with the exception of a few high-profile issues, he has long voted in the Senate as a conventional conservative Republican. By all accounts, he's still talking with the media about Marie the Flame Thrower. So one might assume McCain will simply gas up the bus for 2008, and conjure the old camaraderie.

But that's not likely to happen, not at a time when the media feel so betrayed.

They fell hard for McCain in 2000, not just because he granted so much access, but because he sold himself as a rebel, an antiestablishment reformer with no patience for political orthodoxy. Reporters bought the McCain persona, because they (like many of their fellow citizens) are frustrated romantics who yearn for authenticity in public life. So when an alleged rebel turns out to be a calculating opportunist, that's an open invitation for the Fourth Estate to lose the love and rediscover its adversarial impulses.

It's impossible to pinpoint when the long media honeymoon finally ended; perhaps it was last April, when the Associated Press sent out a story headlined "McCain's straight-talking image called into question." Suffice it to say that reporters generally don't abide politicians - not even the friendly ones - who say one thing and do another. And at this point, it's impossible to ignore the fact that McCain has been riding the Double Talk Express for the better part of a year, flip-flopping with an alacrity that would humble Hamlet.

Reporters, outsiders by nature, liked the 2000 version of McCain because he was an outsider battling the GOP establishment; but the 2007 version of McCain is an insider who craves acceptance by the establishment. And he cannot join that establishment unless he wins over the Bush moneymen, and the social and religious conservatives, whom he scorned seven years ago. Hence his apparent willingness to throw his old self under the bus.

Space does not permit a full recitation of his flip-flops, so here's a modest sampling:

McCain used to dismiss Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance," but tomorrow he will trek to a Florida religious convention to woo the guy.

McCain, until recently, was pushing for a reform law that would require conservative groups to reveal their financial donors. But, after fielding protests from evangelical Christians and antiabortion activists, McCain decided last month to strip out the provision.

McCain in 2000 assailed Bush's proposed tax cuts as a sop to the rich, and a year later, with Bush in office, he voted against those cuts, declaring that "the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans." But a year ago, he switched sides and voted to extend tax cuts for the wealthy.

McCain in 1999 said that, "even in the long term," he would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade because "thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations." But last November he said that he now favored repeal because "I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."

McCain in 2000 was incensed when a pair of Texas businessmen, Sam and Charley Wyly, bankrolled some Bush-friendly TV ads that distorted McCain's record. McCain declared at the time that their "dirty money" did not belong in national politics. But last year, McCain decided that their dirty money belonged in his campaign; he took $20,000 and allowed them to chair a McCain fund-raiser. (McCain later had to give back the money, because, it turns out, his new friends are reportedly under federal investigation.)

McCain, who has long deplored negative politics, defended John Kerry in 2004 when the Democratic candidate's war record was being impugned by the Swift Boaters. But today, one of McCain's top advisers is GOP hardball specialist Terry Nelson, who has worked as a consultant with one of the principal Swift Boaters. Nelson also produced the notorious '06 TV ad that implied, in the Tennessee Senate race, that the black Democratic candidate cavorted with white women.

McCain has voted against a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but last fall, regarding his own state, he supported an Arizona referendum that would have banned gay marriage.

McCain in 2006 suggested that creationism was not a fit topic for the schoolroom: "I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not." But he suggested the opposite in 2005 ("all points of view should be presented"), and Friday he is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at a confab sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a prominent creationism advocacy group.

This is all raw meat for even the most somnolent watchdogs. Few facets of the old McCain appeal - including his military heroism (which wowed the reporters, few of whom have served), and his willingness to admit error (reporters love candidates who cop to flaws) - will shield him from rigorous questioning in the months ahead. A new mainstream media Web site, Politico.com, even referred to McCain the other day as "the onetime maverick," which is probably some kind of milestone.

Nor does McCain need to woo reporters as he once did; he has lots of money and universal name ID, so their usefulness is over. More important, his top priority right now is to assure the media-wary GOP establishment that he's not in bed with his old buds. Indeed, he knows that there can never be another love bus; by opting to pander for the nomination, he understands that, this time, there will be no free ride. It's the price he is willing to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by bflaff:

Reporters bought the McCain persona, because they (like many of their fellow citizens) are frustrated romantics who yearn for authenticity in public life.

Does the optimistic expectations of a candidate ever get met?

At the end of a president's term, have they thought he was a "good man and a good president". And the reality lived up to the romantic hype of the candidacy. And they feel glad they voted for him.

Is Bill Clinton still well regarded? I remember people talking about that movie based on one of his campaign staffers, suggesting that he had the potential to have done something better.

And in England you have Tony Blair. Where the euphoria and optimism of the new refreshing type of politician inevitably turns into hate and disillusionment.

Re McCain

I had not followed US politics, So a year ago I had assumed that he would easily win the presidency, especially against Hilary Clinton. Because he seemed like a guy who would appeal to indendents and swinging voters. Whilst Clinton would alienate a lot of people.

I was surprised to read stories about him not being very popular. I assumed it was just the Iraq issue, but it seems like it is his general behaviour.

I also can see why Obama ran for president this time rather than two terms away. With that image of a "refreshing politician with integrity" like McCain. He is probably going to have greater scrutiny and be held to a higher standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sean M:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bflaff:

Reporters bought the McCain persona, because they (like many of their fellow citizens) are frustrated romantics who yearn for authenticity in public life.

Does the optimistic expectations of a candidate ever get met?

At the end of a president's term, have they thought he was a "good man and a good president". And the reality lived up to the romantic hype of the candidacy. And they feel glad they voted for him.

Is Bill Clinton still well regarded? I remember people talking about that movie based on one of his campaign staffers, suggesting that he had the potential to have done something better.

And in England you have Tony Blair. Where the euphoria and optimism of the new refreshing type of politician inevitably turns into hate and disillusionment.

Re McCain

I had not followed US politics, So a year ago I had assumed that he would easily win the presidency, especially against Hilary Clinton. Because he seemed like a guy who would appeal to indendents and swinging voters. Whilst Clinton would alienate a lot of people.

I was surprised to read stories about him not being very popular. I assumed it was just the Iraq issue, but it seems like it is his general behaviour.

I also can see why Obama ran for president this time rather than two terms away. With that image of a "refreshing politician with integrity" like McCain. He is probably going to have greater scrutiny and be held to a higher standard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clinton is interesting, for a couple years - public opinion was marred as a result of the whole Lewinsky silliness. In fact, from 1998 till 2005, Hillary had a higher favorable rating than Bill did.

It's worth noting that 2001 and 2002 were the low points for both Clintons with average approval ratings on the years under 50%, but their numbers have been recovering since then.

Since 2005 though, Bills's favorable ratings have continued going up while Hllary's have levelled off. Bill is currently at 63% favorable rating and 35% unfavorable, Hillary is at 58%.

It's also worth pointing out the views split up by partisan view.

Prior to his inauguration in 93, Clinton's favorable rating was at it's highest level (42% Republicans, 61% independents, 92% Democrats).

Just after he left office, Clinton had 18% for Republicans, 49% for Independents, 83% for Democrats.

Later that year, it dropped down to 13% Republicans, 38% Independents, 67% Democrats.

July 2004: 20% Republicans, 54% Independents, 83% Democrats

October 2005: 32% Republicans, 56% Independents, 92% Democrats

February 2007: 30% Republicans, 64% Independents, 89% Democrats

Over time, some of the partisan anger has ebbed away - while people are getting quite a lot of nostalgia when comparing Clinton to Bush - so people have reconsidered their views of his presidency as a result.

It's also worth noting other ex president's favorable ratings:

Jimmy Carter (possibly the greatest ex-president) 69% favorable, 27% Unfavorable, 4% no opinion. 56% of Republicans, 68% Independents, 81% Democrats.

Bush v1: 62% favorable, 36% unfavorable, 2% no opinion. 90% Republicans, 61% Independents, 42% Democrats.

Reagan also had a massive glossing over of his administration over the last decade and a half, so I expect all their favorable ratings to rise the further away we go from their administrations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary gives up on SC:

Clinton objects to Confederate flag

By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer

ORANGEBURG, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that South Carolina should remove the Confederate flag from its Statehouse grounds, in part because the nation should unite under one banner while at war.

"I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to, as I know that most people in South Carolina do every single day," Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview.

"I personally would like to see it removed from the Statehouse grounds," the New York senator said during her first trip to the early voting state since announcing her White House bid.

Other Democratic hopefuls, including Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, have said the flag should come down. The banner, which once flew over the Statehouse dome and now flies nearby, is the subject of an ongoing NAACP boycott.

Clinton is one of several Democrats to draw huge crowds during campaign stops in the state, but she said during the interview that her party will have a tough time winning in GOP-heavy South Carolina

"I think it's going to be hard for any Democrat to carry the state," she said. "The Republican Party is very strong here."

Earlier in the day, Clinton spoke to more than 1,500 people gathered at Allen University, a historically black college in Columbia.

The senator picked up key endorsements last week from two black state senators who helped deliver black voters to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in 2004. One of those politicians, state Sen. Darrell Jackson, whose media company also picked up a $10,000 consulting contract from Clinton's campaign, introduced her to the Allen University crowd.

During the AP interview, Clinton said her campaign struck no deal with Jackson. "Senator Jackson has worked in Clinton campaigns going back to 1992," she said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Geffen stirring things up between Clinton and Obama:

"BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. -- One day after Sen. Barack Obama made a glittery statement with a Hollywood fundraiser that brought in an impressive $1.3 million, the top two Democratic presidential contenders went after each other in the first big food fight of the 2008 presidential election.

It started when David Geffen slammed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in remarks published Wednesday morning, accusing the presidential candidate of lying with "such ease" compared to other politicians, dismissing her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as "reckless," and blasting the Clinton "machine." Geffen, a powerful Hollywood producer and executive, was once a major Clinton supporter but has switched to Obama and was a host of Tuesday's bash.

The Clinton campaign, perhaps stung by Obama's successful incursion into Hollywood, which at one time was unchallenged Clinton country, hit back hard, saying Geffen's comments contrasted poorly with the Illinois senator's self-promotion as a new breed of politician, unifying and optimistic.

"If Sen. Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money," said Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. "While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Sen. Obama's principal fundraiser."

The Clintons have long been known for skilled, aggressive political infighting, and Geffen's comments provided a way for the Clinton campaign to test how Obama, relatively new to the national stage, would take a punch. It also was the first of what will no doubt be many attempts by rivals to knock the halo off Obama's head.

The Obama camp—eager to show that it knew how to handle criticism and could stand up to an experienced political warrior like Clinton—issued a biting statement.

"We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters," said Obama communications director Robert Gibbs. "It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

Obama also took the opportunity to go on offense, suggesting that Clinton was being hypocritical, since she had not disavowed the recent comments of South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford. Ford, who has endorsed Clinton, said last week that if Obama were the Democratic nominee, "Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose, because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything."

Gibbs said Wednesday that it is "ironic" that Clinton has praised Ford and accepted his support.

If both candidates had reasons for engaging in what might seem like a minor squabble, the spectacle of Clinton and Obama duking it out so early in the campaign was nonetheless striking. It was the sort of rat-a-tat-tat political spat that usually breaks out in the snowy cold of New Hampshire in the critical days before the nation's first presidential primary, rather than 11 months before that contest and almost two years before the 2008 election."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quinnipiac University poll:

"Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leads Sen. Hillary Clinton 48 - 43 percent among American voters in a 2008 national presidential poll released by Quinnipiac University today. Arizona Sen. John McCain edges Sen. Clinton 46 - 44 percent.

Giuliani tops Clinton 55 - 38 percent in Red states, which voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election, and ties her 46 - 46 percent in Blue states, which went Democratic in 2004. He gets 44 percent to Clinton's 45 percent in Purple states, where the margin in 2004 was less than 7 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. In other possible presidential matchups:

Clinton tops former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 49 - 37 percent;

Giuliani beats Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 47 - 40 percent;

Giuliani tops 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards 48 - 40 percent;

McCain ties Obama 43 - 43 percent;

McCain gets 43 percent to Edward's 42 percent, a tie;

Obama tops Romney 49 - 29 percent;

Edwards beats Romney 48 - 32 percent.

"After 9/11, Rudolph Giuliani earned the title 'America's Mayor.' After the 2008 election, he could be America's President," said Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "But we vote in November 2008, not February 2007 - and lots of things can happen. Let's watch the state-by-state breakdown and the Electoral College. Remember 2000?"

"When we look at the Red, Blue and Purple state matchups, we see Giuliani running strong in any color, while Sen. Clinton outpoints Sen. McCain in Blue and Purple states. Sen. Obama and John Edwards are in the middle somewhere and Mitt Romney is nowhere, actually losing to Obama and Edwards in Red states, where voters probably just don't know the former Massachusetts governor."

Clinton gets 38 percent of Democratic primary voters, followed by Obama with 23 percent, former Vice President Al Gore with 11 percent and Edwards with 6 percent.

Giuliani gets 40 percent of Republicans, followed by McCain with 18 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 10 percent and Romney at 7 percent.

American voters give Giuliani a 57 - 21 percent favorability rating. Favorability ratings for other contenders are:

46 - 45 percent for Clinton;

51 - 22 percent for McCain;

44 - 14 percent for Obama, with 40 percent who haven't heard enough to form an opinion;

44 - 27 percent for Edwards;

44 - 47 percent for Gore;

22 - 47 percent for Gingrich;

For Romney, 67 percent haven't heard enough to form an opinion."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

obama's people absolutely CLOWNED clinton.

stuff like this makes you think he has a real shot because one of hillary's great advantages was supposed to be all the skilled players from bill's campaign.

Everything I've read interprets the exchange as chalk one up for Clinton?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Splendid:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daaaaave:

obama's people absolutely CLOWNED clinton.

stuff like this makes you think he has a real shot because one of hillary's great advantages was supposed to be all the skilled players from bill's campaign.

Everything I've read interprets the exchange as chalk one up for Clinton? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters," said Obama communications director Robert Gibbs. "It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

check and mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Obama came out on top, too. Attempting to conflate Geffen's opinions with Obama is pretty clumsy. As Obama put it:

“It’s not clear to me why I would be apologizing for someone else’s remarks,†Mr. Obama said. “My sense is that Mr. Geffen may have differences with the Clintons, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with our campaign.â€

Clinton's people are understandably eager to knock Obama's positive image, but I think they jumped too fast and too hard on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JK Galgreefe:

atheists so hated. :*(

just found this on pollingreport, doesn't bode well for mccain.

I think its funny how 40+ years ago a candidate being a person of faith was so controversial and now its one of the requirements that many in the American electorate seem to look for in their potential political leaders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Young Jimlad:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JK Galgreefe:

atheists so hated. :*(

just found this on pollingreport, doesn't bode well for mccain.

I think its funny how 40+ years ago a candidate being a person of faith was so controversial and now its one of the requirements that many in the American electorate seem to look for in their potential political leaders. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

didn't ask about muslims i notice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Young Jimlad:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JK Galgreefe:

atheists so hated. :*(

just found this on pollingreport, doesn't bode well for mccain.

I think its funny how 40+ years ago a candidate being a person of faith was so controversial and now its one of the requirements that many in the American electorate seem to look for in their potential political leaders. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

up until 47 years ago, every single american president was a protestant (or claimed to be one) so it made absolutely no difference

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but JFK broke the mould if I recall correctly as the first openly Catholic presidential candidate.

Its been a while since I read up on Kennedy but from what I recall from Robert Dallek's JFK biography his religious affiliation caused him problems in some areas because he was the first (again iirc).

Just commenting in a "how times change" kinda way given importance of what a candidate "believes" in contemporary US politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

obama's people absolutely CLOWNED clinton.

stuff like this makes you think he has a real shot because one of hillary's great advantages was supposed to be all the skilled players from bill's campaign.

And Hillary's getting crushed over her refusal to apologize for her Iraq War Resolution vote. Edwards and Dodd both took her to the woodshed yesterday, and when they link her to Bush by saying that he doesn't admit mistakes either, it's game, set, match. The longer Hillary waits to give voters their pound of flesh, the more it will hurt when she does. But even at this point, it might be too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Young Jimlad:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JK Galgreefe:

atheists so hated. :*(

just found this on pollingreport, doesn't bode well for mccain.

I think its funny how 40+ years ago a candidate being a person of faith was so controversial and now its one of the requirements that many in the American electorate seem to look for in their potential political leaders. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't that JFK was a person of faith that was controversial. It was that he was a Catholic -- people worried he'd take direction from the Pope, eat Protestant babies, or some other medieval paranoia.

Presidents who go to church and say their prayers has always been the norm, but it's true that Bush has been a bit more showy about his faith than is usual. Conservative Christians have become a big part of the Republican base, so candidates have to pander to them and openly tout their piety, whereas before presidents and candidates were much more low-key.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than being forced to apologise, why doesn't she admit that supporting the Iraq policy has become a mistake but use the fact that she was operating as a representative of the people at a time when public opinion, as much as her own, was swayed towards supporting the invasion?

Or does that leave her open to charges of flip-flopping?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Young Jimlad:

Rather than being forced to apologise, why doesn't she admit that supporting the Iraq policy has become a mistake but use the fact that she was operating as a representative of the people at a time when public opinion, as much as her own, was swayed towards supporting the invasion?

Or does that leave her open to charges of flip-flopping?

No, it leaves her open to the charge that she lacks convictions -- that on the most important vote of her tenure, she punted to popular will -- a Pilate and Barabbas moment. I couldn't decide, so I let the people tell me what to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Edinho:

I still don't understand Hilary's popularity? Who exactly is rooting for her except those in New York state?

baby boomers, leathery feminists, blacks who hope she's the second coming of bill and the normal joe schmos who vote based on name recognition

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Daaaaave:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Edinho:

I still don't understand Hilary's popularity? Who exactly is rooting for her except those in New York state?

baby boomers, leathery feminists, blacks who hope she's the second coming of bill and the normal joe schmos who vote based on name recognition </div></BLOCKQUOTE>any poll data showing black support now that Obama is officially in the race?

he could really swing some states like Ohio, as long as Blackwell's no longer secretary of state there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andy Jordan:

there are chinks in the Republican armor now, I really think someone like Obama could poll well in the libertarian West.

he might be too liberal though :/

as bill orally pointed out last night, the only issues obama's taken a firm stand on so far is

iraq

universal healthcare

iraq is a no-brainer and healthcare has become a lot more populist issue since the last time it was really debated in 93.

while leftists and naderites try to pummel him for voting for rice's confirmation and not voting for the filibuster on alito, he can point to those (which were going to be passed regardless on which way he went) as how moderate he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.