Clinton and Obama

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Araxen

Obama Receives Endorsement of Flag Officers from Army, Navy and Air Force - Democratic Underground

Obama Receives Endorsement of Flag Officers from Army, Navy and Air Force.

You couldn't find a more unbiased source than Democratic Underground huh? Not surprising. I heard about that presentation but the whole press community in Chicago is plastered to Rezko's court revelations.

Maybe those generals can help Obama wish away his connection via Rezko to Nadhmi Auchi's convicted money laundering operation for Palestinian terror funding "charity" groups. Maybe one of the generals can help Obama maneuver around the fact that Obama was the director for three years of the same Woods Group that funnelled funds to Palestinian Terror groups. Who knows, maybe one of those generals knows the federal judge and can have the discovery phase muzzled.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

Well the sad part is, it shouldn't come down to that. I personally can find things I like about all the candidates (yes, even the republican nom nom) and some things are more serious and others more fluff but they all have redeeming qualities in my eyes. I know when I go and vote, even if it's not my preferred candidate I know I will be voting because I believe that who I am voting for will do a better job then the other candidate.

I guess more to the point I was talking about people who really don't have a clear understanding outside of "I don't like this person, so I am voting for the other one" when they don't even really know who they are voting for, just who they are "not" voting for, if that makes any sense.

I think you're looking at this a bit off.

Is there a difference between "I vote for A because I like A more than B" and "I vote for A because I dislike B more than A"?

It is really the same thing, except you're assuming the second group do it out of ignorance and the first group has a more educated opinion on the matter. People who vote for Obama due to blind lust for him are just as ignorant as those who vote for him soley out of hate for Clinton. The same way someone who judges their position and decides they like both but Obama's positions are slightly more favorable is just as educated as someone who finds they dislike neither after weighing their positions, but find they like Clinton a bit less, so votes for Obama.

[The Hiram Key]

Originally Posted by Zhaun's_Shade

I think you're looking at this a bit off.

Is there a difference between "I vote for A because I like A more than B" and "I vote for A because I dislike B more than A"?

It is really the same thing, except you're assuming the second group do it out of ignorance and the first group has a more educated opinion on the matter. People who vote for Obama due to blind lust for him are just as ignorant as those who vote for him soley out of hate for Clinton. The same way someone who judges their position and decides they like both but Obama's positions are slightly more favorable is just as educated as someone who finds they dislike neither after weighing their positions, but find they like Clinton a bit less, so votes for Obama.

While I agree the A and B example people are essentially committing the same "sin", I think it's more true to the spirit of democracy when you vote for the better candidate in your opinion, and not vote for example, the lesser of two evils, or of course, this one, because I hate that one.

Is it too much to ask for people to understand who they are voting for, regardless of the motivation for voting for them ? You want to hate Obama so bad your going to vote Clinton or McCain thats fine, but spend an hour and research who you are throwing your support behind. These type of people are the same ones who go BEZERK down the line when the person they vote for, gets in office and does shit that they don't agree with.

They tend, to cry the loudest as well.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

While I still plan to cast my vote for John McCain in the fall it is my sincere hope that somehow this campaign can be the honorable and noble contest both McCain and Obama seem to want. The message should be that, no matter who wins, opportunity and possibility are open for people of all backgrounds, and at the end of the day hopefully we've moved forward as a nation. If the general election becomes about race, be it because people attack Obama for race or because his campaign chooses to frame every criticism as a racial attack, it will be a bad thing for America....far worse than what Hillary is doing, which is just a power grab by one of the most devious and cutthroat political teams ever assembled.

Although I think Obama and McCain would run this ideal type of election, if Hillary gets the nomination prepare for more than the kitchen sink to be thrown at McCain. She will not only take the kitchen sink from Obama's head and throw it at McCain, but she will throw the bathtub at him as well.

The 527s will be at work during the campaign regardless of who gets the nomination. The Democrat ones will abuse McCain on his age. The Republican ones will make it a Black vs. White election if Obama wins or a Man vs. Woman election if Hillary wins. Those techniques win elections not the issues.

The 527s are character assassins. They will use smear techniques that will resemble the posts that Khorum puts up.

[The Hiram Key]

Originally Posted by Khorum

You couldn't find a more unbiased source than Democratic Underground huh? Not surprising. I heard about that presentation but the whole press community in Chicago is plastered to Rezko's court revelations.

Maybe those generals can help Obama wish away his connection via Rezko to Nadhmi Auchi's convicted money laundering operation for Palestinian terror funding "charity" groups. Maybe one of the generals can help Obama maneuver around the fact that Obama was the director for three years of the same Woods Group that funnelled funds to Palestinian Terror groups. Who knows, maybe one of those generals knows the federal judge and can have the discovery phase muzzled.

I saw an MSNBC special on Obama last night (followed the second hour of hardball) and I am pretty sure it's been on before because I remember watching the last 20 mins of it. Anyway, I found it interesting, and I admit up front I was pretty tired, but I don't recall them saying a word, not a single word about the whole Muslim issue. They covered his dad(s) and their stuff but they didn't really mention it at all, nothing that I recall about the school in Indonesia or anything. Maybe I missed that part. Surprisingly they droned on a bit about the drugs, quite a bit longer then I thought was appropriate but it is part of the story.

Anyway, working back to your comment, it almost feels like nobody cares at all about what Obama has done in the past, they only care about what he is going to do in the future, and conversely, for Clinton, it's all about her past and what she has done. I guess thats the benefits of being a more "shallow" candidate in terms of record, theres not much there to judge and you can't make an omelette etc.

Still I find it very strange that given the Rezko issue, the past drug use, the "impatience" for him to wait his turn (hell, he hasn't even finished one term in the Senate, and they had Obama on with Tim Russert declaring "I am not running for President in 2008, I am finishing my term out" and so on.

I think we are all aware (on debateable levels) that there are racial and gender undertones (and overtones) in this campaign, and that there is some bias on the media's part (that swings around apparently) but I have to look at the bias of the voters.

If it came out tomorrow that Clinton was doing coke in college, they would probably burn her at the stake and her campaign would be over. Obama's drug use is out there and has been for years (he wrote about it in his book) and because he managed the message better, he essentially gets a pass from voters on this.

I can't imagine how anyone in their right logical minds can see how that works out to not only be unfair, but bad for the country overall. It's almost like he is "close enough" so they overlook anything bad going on.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

While I agree the A and B example people are essentially committing the same "sin", I think it's more true to the spirit of democracy when you vote for the better candidate in your opinion, and not vote for example, the lesser of two evils, or of course, this one, because I hate that one.

Is it too much to ask for people to understand who they are voting for, regardless of the motivation for voting for them ? You want to hate Obama so bad your going to vote Clinton or McCain thats fine, but spend an hour and research who you are throwing your support behind.

You're still assuming that someone voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't understand one or more of the candidates. If you don't like either candidate are you not supposed to vote?

[AngryGerbil]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

While I agree the A and B example people are essentially committing the same "sin", I think it's more true to the spirit of democracy when you vote for the better candidate in your opinion, and not vote for example, the lesser of two evils, or of course, this one, because I hate that one.

I definitely don't agree with this.

99 times out of a 100 you are voting for someone you like or someone you like a bit more than the other guy, and that's all fine and good. But voting against someone is no less democratic. 2004 was the biggest no-brainer vote I've ever cast in my life. I'm not here to rag on Bush but just to make a point about voting. In my opinion at that time, he needed to go. I didn't know anything about Kerry and didn't need to. I voted against Bush. That is not somehow "less democratic" or even "less informed" though I know you're thinking that. I had all the information I needed at the time. That info was: "This man is the worst possible electable president I can imagine, he's gotta go." That's all I needed. The vegas odds (in my book) of Kerry being worse than Bush were like one in a billion (again, in my opinion at the time) therefore, I had all the info I needed. I was well informed. There was nothing wrong with that and it wasn't 'less democratic' in any way. I did vote for the better candidate.

Which by the way, 2004 makes this election all the more fun for me. 2004 was a snore as far as the campaigns went. This year, with no incumbent and no one left who I genuinely despise, I actually get to study them all. Mind you, just like in 2004, I will be picking what I think is the better candidate but this time I get to do more homework on it and I guess I just find that to be fun, as do you apparently. Which is cool, but it's no more or less democratic than what I (and maybe even you) did in 2004.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

Still I find it very strange that given the Rezko issue, the past drug use, the "impatience" for him to wait his turn (hell, he hasn't even finished one term in the Senate, and they had Obama on with Tim Russert declaring "I am not running for President in 2008, I am finishing my term out" and so on.

If it came out tomorrow that Clinton was doing coke in college, they would probably burn her at the stake and her campaign would be over. Obama's drug use is out there and has been for years (he wrote about it in his book) and because he managed the message better, he essentially gets a pass from voters on this.

I can't imagine how anyone in their right logical minds can see how that works out to not only be unfair, but bad for the country overall. It's almost like he is "close enough" so they overlook anything bad going on.

Clinton's drug use would only bite her in the ass because she wasn't up front about it. It isn't about the drugs as much as it is the "coverup". Coming out up front about it makes it a non-story. Just like no one really makes an issue of McCains past infidelity because it was somthing already on the record for a long time.

You seem to have a raging hardon about teenage drug use making you a bad person for life. I don't think most people care.

I don't think that people overlook anything bad about Obama, its just most people feel Clinton's "bad" outweighs his still.

[The Hiram Key]

Originally Posted by Zhaun's_Shade

You're still assuming that someone voting for the lesser of two evils doesn't understand one or more of the candidates. If you don't like either candidate are you not supposed to vote?

I wish they had a "none of the above" candidate like in Brewsters Millions, what a wake up call THAT would be for Washington hehe

[Clericnon2boxed]

Is there money that goes to palestine that doesnt end up in the hands of terrorists ?

no penny should go there, but its a bit overkill to discredit all people who worked for a charitable organization active in palestine

----
(from khorums link)
The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barak Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist (was that his widely known official status back then too ?) granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.

becomes:
(khorums summary)
Obama was the director for three years of the same Woods Group that funnelled funds to Palestinian Terror groups.

conclusion:

Everyone in europe is a terrorist, through taxes they allowed their governments to send lots of financial aid there.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

... I am not enjoying BOTH campaigns playing into the race card for poltical gains...

It was not started by the Obama camp. He has to respond to some of the more blantant stuff. It is simply out of control so he has to respond to some of it. He wants to keep race out of it. Up until South Carolina he had been successful. The Clintons know that pointing out he is Black is the only way to win so they are doing it.

The Clintons are really evil couple and will win at all costs. The good thing about this election for the Republicans is that more Blacks will join the Republican party as a result of this race. We can see clearly which party has more racists. It is clearly the Democrats.

[The Hiram Key]

Originally Posted by Zhaun's_Shade

Clinton's drug use would only bite her in the ass because she wasn't up front about it. It isn't about the drugs as much as it is the "coverup". Coming out up front about it makes it a non-story. Just like no one really makes an issue of McCains past infidelity because it was somthing already on the record for a long time.

You seem to have a raging hardon about teenage drug use making you a bad person for life. I don't think most people care.

I don't think that people overlook anything bad about Obama, its just most people feel Clinton's "bad" outweighs his still.

In a campaign where your major qualification in your own words is your superior judgment, the decision to do some blow, for a number of years (not just once, no "did not inhale") is a pretty clear indication to me that you lacked sound judgment back then. Doesn't make him a bad person today, from what I watched last night and have read, he has had a remarkable life, and done alot of excellent things (south side of Chicago community activism for example), however, he decided to run on his judgment, and that is an indicator of his judgment.

I dont have a problem with McCains past because to date, he isn't running on his judgment that I am aware of (that is of course subject to change).

If you don't think people overlook the bad in Obama then clearly you need to go back and re-read this thread. Some people posting here beleive the guy can and does walk on water and is literally the next coming.

[The Hiram Key]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

It was not started by the Obama camp. He has to respond to some of the more blantant stuff. It is simply out of control so he has to respond to some of it. He wants to keep race out of it. Up until South Carolina he had been successful. The Clintons know that pointing out he is Black is the only way to win so they are doing it.

The Clintons are really evil couple and will win at all costs. The good thing about this election for the Republicans is that more Blacks will join the Republican party as a result of this race. We can see clearly which party has more racists. It is clearly the Democrats.

You see evil, and I see cunning, driven, calculating. Maybe from the EOB that looks evil to you, but it really is a matter of perception. Looking at it from that perspective, do I want a president who:

1. Is probably physically too old to stand up to the rigors of the job and probably won't survive the full term, who wants to bomb iran, wants 100 years of war in Iraq, and has a temper, a "serious one"

2. Is the peace, unity, love one another, we must work together, talk to anyone, say anything if it gets him a vote, goes back on his promise not to run, is in a big hurry with little to no experience former drug user with ties to radical religious elements.

3.A lying, coniving, back stabbing, evil stop at nothing to get the job done, win at all costs, who thinks health care is good, fucking evil bitch that everyone just wants to go away so the nice guy can win .

Hmm. Thats my take, I am sure yours is different.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

In a campaign where your major qualification in your own words is your superior judgment, the decision to do some blow, for a number of years (not just once, no "did not inhale") is a pretty clear indication to me that you lacked sound judgment back then. Doesn't make him a bad person today, from what I watched last night and have read, he has had a remarkable life, and done alot of excellent things (south side of Chicago community activism for example), however, he decided to run on his judgment, and that is an indicator of his judgment.

I dont have a problem with McCains past because to date, he isn't running on his judgment that I am aware of (that is of course subject to change).

First: No one has good judgement when they're 18. I'm sorry, but I think this is just a foolish point.

Secondly, if you run on it or not, isn't good judgement of of, if not the most important thing a President needs? Shouldn't we consider the judgement of all of them? Are you saying we should ignore a candidates judgement or character as long as they don't try to make it a selling point? Come on.

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

If you don't think people overlook the bad in Obama then clearly you need to go back and re-read this thread. Some people posting here beleive the guy can and does walk on water and is literally the next coming.

Yeah, well... there are idiots on all sides.

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by The Hiram Key

A lying, coniving, back stabbing, evil stop at nothing to get the job done, win at all costs, who thinks health care is good, fucking evil bitch that everyone just wants to go away so the nice guy can win

Eliot Spitzer was a evil son of a bitch also. He got what was coming to him. The same will happen to the Clintons. You do not have to be evil to be an effective President.

Just as Tony Dungy shows that NFL Coaches do not have to be bat shit crazy to be successful, Obama or McCain will show that the President can be a man of character.