PDA

View Full Version : Hillary: Down To Her Last Two Weeks?



DaJudge
February 21st, 2008, 09:52 PM
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ssi/globalnav/wpdotcom_190x30.gif (http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=pf)
Teetering on the Border

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, February 21, 2008; A02

HIDALGO, Tex. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Texas?tid=informline) Hillary Clinton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hillary+Clinton?tid=informline), drubbed by Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) in 10 straight
votes, flew down to this dusty border town on Wednesday to make her last
stand for the Democratic presidential nomination. But where was the
cavalry?

On Tuesday night, Obama had packed in a capacity crowd of more than
18,000 at the Toyota Center (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Toyota+Center?tid=informline) in Houston (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Houston?tid=informline), home of the National Basketball
Association's Houston Rockets (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Houston+Rockets?tid=informline). But when Clinton emerged to speak at the
6,800-seat Dodge Arena here -- home of a minor-league hockey team --
rows and rows of empty blue seats awaited.

Organizers had pulled out all the stops: a two-dozen-piece mariachi band,
Mexican dancers, a cowboy-cowgirl dancing act, a goth rock band, even a
guy throwing out T-shirts and shouting "Who's excited?" But it was no use.
In the top row of the arena, Jose G. Bustos, wearing a Clinton T-shirt and
sticker, had Section 120 to himself. He surveyed the crowd. "We were
expecting a little more," he said.

After her defeat in the Wisconsin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Wisconsin?tid=informline) primary Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton on
Wednesday did what Americans in trouble have done for centuries: She ran
for the border. As has been her habit this primary season, she came up just
short.

She ended up in this outpost on the Rio Grande (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Rio+Grande?tid=informline) with a view of the Mexican
town of Reynosa. For a candidate who has lost 10 contests in a row to
Barack Obama and is fast becoming the Mike Huckabee (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Mike+Huckabee?tid=informline) of the Democratic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Democratic+Party?tid=informline)
Party, she must have felt tempted to slip across the bridge and into Mexico (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Mexico?tid=informline),
a fugitive from a coronation gone awry.

Instead, she made her stand here, on the home ice of the Rio Grande Valley
Killer Bees. And while it wasn't quite Davy Crockett material -- that honor
goes to Republican Huckabee, who has scheduled a campaign event at the
Alamo for Thursday -- Hidalgo proved a fitting place for a down-on-her-luck
candidate.

This town has had its share of hard knocks, getting passed over by the
railroads a century ago in favor of neighboring McAllen (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Mcallen?tid=informline) and then, in 1990,
earning national attention for being the first place in the United States to
be colonized by African "killer bees." Defiantly, town leaders commissioned a
20-foot-long, 10-foot-high, 2,000-pound killer bee statue. They named
their minor-league hockey team the Rio Grande Valley Killer Bees. "Hidalgo
took a lemon and made honey-flavored lemonade!" the Chamber of
Commerce chirps.

So, too, must Clinton decide what to do with her lemon. After Obama's big
win in Wisconsin on Tuesday, his campaign claimed he had an
insurmountable lead in delegates, and reporters dusted off their Clinton
obituaries that had been shelved after her comebacks in New Hampshire (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+Hampshire?tid=informline) in
January and Super Tuesday on Feb. 5.

"Is it panic time yet?" asked NBC (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/NBC+Universal+Inc.?tid=informline).

"It's panic-button time," answered the Associated Press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Associated+Press?tid=informline).

The New York Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+New+York+Times+Company?tid=informline) announced that her "road to victory is now a cliff
walk." The New York Observer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+York+Observer+LP?tid=informline) said Clinton is "down to her last out," and
Karl Rove (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Karl+Rove?tid=informline) said "it's hard to see how she gets back into the game." Obama
even added insult to the electoral injury he inflicted on Clinton; while
Clinton was still speaking Tuesday night, Obama came out to give his
victory speech, causing cable networks to drop their coverage of her.

Clinton has gambled it all on wins on March 4 in Ohio (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ohio?tid=informline) and here in Texas.
Though Clinton advisers, in a conference call with reporters Wednesday
morning, spoke gamely of the Puerto Rico (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Puerto+Rico?tid=informline) primary in June, they know that a
loss in either Ohio or Texas would effectively end Clinton's candidacy. That
means she could be down to her final two weeks as a viable presidential
candidate.

"Two more weeks! Two more weeks!" chanted Clinton supporters at her
speech Tuesday morning in New York (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+York?tid=informline) before she flew here to make her last
stand in Texas. The chant no doubt was meant as encouragement, but it
also served to remind Clinton that she hasn't much time left.

"It is time to get real, to get real about how we actually win this election,"
Clinton informed the crowd. "It's time that we moved from good words to
good works, from sound bites to sound solutions."

The Clinton campaign had spoken about a major rally here in south Texas, a
display of the voting power of Latinos who would revive her campaign.
There were indeed thousands of people here, many of them Latinos, but not
enough to fill sections 107, 108, 113, 118, 119, 120 and 121. A big Texas
flag concealed the empty seats of one whole section, and vast patches of
the arena floor went unoccupied.

The musicians, their instruments checked for weapons by the Secret (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Secret+Service?tid=informline)
Service, put on their performances. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, the local
congressman, tried to fire up the crowd. "Early Start and Head Start are
going to be increased!" he promised. Modest applause.

Henry Cisneros (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Henry+Cisneros?tid=informline), a Cabinet officer in Bill Clinton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+Clinton?tid=informline)'s administration, took a turn
next. "This is not a game!" he said, his voice breaking. "This is about the
future of our country!" More modest applause.

Clinton delivered her usual stump speech, and the audience applauded in all
the right places. "Tested, proven, effective -- that's what we need in our
next president." Applause. "Do you believe that we will take back our
country?" Affirmative applause.

It was a brief speech but insufficiently inspiring. After she got to the part
about health care ("I'm not going to leave anyone out; Senator Obama
leaves out at least 15 million"), the mariachi band walked off the arena floor
in single file and headed for the exit. After she passed the part about
"alternative renewable energy" and announced her pleasure at having "the
endorsement of the United Farmworkers Union," there was a steady flow of
people from the arena floor and out the exit below Section 120.

"There's nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed once we have
new leadership," Clinton called after them. "I will work my heart out for you
and your families."

Sound_Man
February 21st, 2008, 10:13 PM
I hope she throws in the towel and quits politics, her and Slick Willy. I hope the crawl back under whatever rock they came from.

Oscar
February 21st, 2008, 10:41 PM
That would be Little Rock

Sound_Man
February 22nd, 2008, 12:07 AM
This made me laugh but I really wonder if it is true.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5b5_1203497658


Ku Klux Klan Endorses Obama
KENTUCKY - USA - Imperial Wizard, Ronald Edwards has stated that, "anything is better than Hillary Clinton."


White Christian Supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan has endorsed Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States of America.

Speaking from his Kentucky office in Dawson Springs, the Imperial Wizard exclaimed that anything or anyone is better than having that "crazy ass bitch" as President.

This is the first time in Klan history that any member of the KKK has ever publicly supported an African American candidate for the presidency.

KKK lodges all over America have been gathering and holding rallies supporting the black presidential candidate.


Grand Turk Cletus Monroe has also been very vocal about the election and has donated thousands of dollars to Obama's election fund.

"The boy's gonna do it. My Klan group has donated up to $250,000 to the Obama fund. Anything is better than Hillary Clinton. Hell I'll even adopt a black kid from Africa before I vote for Hillary."

"A few years back we were lynching negroes. Now we're gonna vote for one to be president of the US of motherfu**ing A, damn it! Anyone or anything is better than Hillary Clinton - anything!!"

Placards for Barack Obama have been put up around the Klan's Headquarters and the KKK have announced a television ad campaign to support the African American candidate.


It is satire, a joke please don't get your panties in a bunch.

creepycrawler
February 22nd, 2008, 12:17 AM
I just want to see the stupid bitch fake cry again...


http://www.encircling.us/photoplog/file.php?n=1879&w=l

Pilot
February 22nd, 2008, 06:53 AM
I saw highlights of the debate. She is so contrived and fake its sickening. Not that Obama isn't but he covers his up slightly better.

THETODD
February 22nd, 2008, 08:09 AM
Does anyone but me think that Romney threw the towel in a little early? It looks like McCain will have an easy walk of it right into the white house.

cheftyler
February 22nd, 2008, 08:12 AM
Does anyone but me think that Romney threw the towel in a little early? It looks like McCain will have an easy walk of it right into the white house.

I don't think he can beat Obama.

THETODD
February 22nd, 2008, 08:15 AM
I think that Obama is starting to weaken and people are seeing through the BS. Obama will beat Hillary (already is) but Steve nailed it a few weeks ago when he posted his question--What will Obama do?--

Just my .02

Bskey
February 22nd, 2008, 08:42 AM
The nation will not vote another Republican in office, regardless of who the nominee is, or who the Dem nominee is. In my opinion the Dem nominee is the race for the office. Bush really turned the nation away from Republicans.

cheftyler
February 22nd, 2008, 09:05 AM
I think that Obama is starting to weaken and people are seeing through the BS. Obama will beat Hillary (already is) but Steve nailed it a few weeks ago when he posted his question--What will Obama do?--

Just my .02

I agree that he's an empty candidate that doesn't actually stand for anything specific, but he'll still beat McCain. Regardless of who wins, we all lose...these candidates suck balls.

THETODD
February 22nd, 2008, 09:07 AM
I agree that he's an empty candidate that doesn't actually stand for anything specific, but he'll still beat McCain. Regardless of who wins, we all lose...these candidates suck balls.

X2!!!

I couldn't agree more.....:mad:

Steve
February 22nd, 2008, 09:28 AM
The nation will not vote another Republican in office, regardless of who the nominee is, or who the Dem nominee is. In my opinion the Dem nominee is the race for the office. Bush really turned the nation away from Republicans.

:bs:

I don't know who'll win, but with the current sheeple in this country you could nominate two child molesters and it would still come out 51/49% in the popular vote. Way too many people vote D or R with little or no thought to the person and what they stand for.

THETODD
February 22nd, 2008, 09:56 AM
I agree with Bskey to an extent. I also agree with Steve--let me explain.

The Dems should have had an absolute slam dunk in this election. Kerry could have won. Gore could have won. Howard Dean maybe, even-that may be a stretch. But you see where I'm going. But what to the Dems do? They have Obama who is unproven, not the strongest voting record (what the hell is voting "present" supposed to do?) and doesn't have a clear plan or answers for his big change that he has planned for this nation. And then we have Hiilary. No comment even needed for that one. It's almost like the Democrats wanted to shoot themselves in the foot before the big race. :shrug:

grimmjeeper
February 22nd, 2008, 10:02 AM
I just want to see the stupid bitch fake cry again...


http://www.encircling.us/photoplog/file.php?n=1879&w=l

In two weeks, the crying won't be fake.

Ding dong the wicked witch is dead.

scottycards
February 22nd, 2008, 10:07 AM
I dunno, Todd.

Looking at the sheer numbers of dems showing up in the primaries, I think this is a done deal. You're getting 30% + more dems showing up, so unless something really drastic happens, I see it as being more than 49/51 this year.

I guess what I'm saying is that a larger than usual number of democrats seem to be motivated to get off the couch and vote this year.

But it's anyone's guess.

LONEWOLF
February 22nd, 2008, 10:09 AM
Electoral votes is what counts!

Steve
February 22nd, 2008, 10:13 AM
Electoral votes is what counts!

Shhhhhhhhhhh, don't bring facts into the discussion. You'll upset the "but, but, but Gore won the popular vote" crowd. :spit:

scottycards
February 22nd, 2008, 10:17 AM
I need help explaining the electoral process.

Say we have one million voters in a state.

800,000 vote for candidate A

200,000 vote for candidate B

Is the net effect the same as 500,001 voting for A, and 499,999 voting for B?

If so, wouldn't that bring the same net result as the scenario I outlined in the earlier post- i.e winning that state, and collecting electoral votes for the 270 needed to win?

The only way you can win the popular vote and not get elected is under a pretty unusual set of circumstances- you win states with small number of electoral votes by a friggin' landslide, but lose states with lots of electoral votes by a slim margin.

I still don't see that scenario panning out in November.

Quit stirring the pot, Steve......:P

89minitruck
February 22nd, 2008, 10:21 AM
Shhhhhhhhhhh, don't bring facts into the discussion. You'll upset the "but, but, but Gore won the popular vote" crowd. :spit:

You are just being silly now...

Hillary is done.... and McCain wins. It's over democrats... don't bother going to the polls. :D

LONEWOLF
February 22nd, 2008, 10:33 AM
You are just being silly now...

Hillary is done.... and McCain wins. It's over democrats... don't bother going to the polls. :D

That thinking is what got Nixon elected!

Gags
February 22nd, 2008, 11:06 AM
We can talk sh!t about Obama and his voting record but how many of us know the voting records of any of the candidates we either like or dislike?

In fact, I don't see any candidate talking any substance right now.

Surprising maybe maybe not, but, several people after a couple drinks have mentioned they don't like Obama because we shouldn't have a President with the middle name Hussien...And he's part Black. Now I'm not saying that is what people here are doing nor am I pointing fingers. Just recent observation.

old_man
February 22nd, 2008, 11:08 AM
Given the Clintons history of dirty politics, I expect that they will drop some type of bomb shell (true or not) just before the elections.

DaJudge
February 22nd, 2008, 11:17 AM
.... (what the hell is voting "present" supposed to do?) ...

http://s.wsj.net/img/mainWSJlogoWhite.gif

The Ever-'Present' Obama
Barack has a along track record of not taking a stand.

BY NATHAN GONZALES
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Finally and officially, Barack Obama is running for president. His symbolic
announcement, in the Land of Lincoln, called for a new era in politics.
Obama downplayed his thin federal experience while championing his record
on the state and local level, and he talked about the need to change
Washington, set priorities, and "make hard choices."

"What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics-
-the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic
avoidance of tough decisions," Obama said in his announcement speech.
But a closer look at the presidential candidate's record in the Illinois
Legislature reveals something seemingly contradictory: a number of
occasions when Obama avoided making hard choices.

While some conservatives and Republicans surely will harp on what they call
his "liberal record," highlighting applicable votes to support their case, it's
Obama's history of voting "present" in Springfield--even on some of the
most controversial and politically explosive issues of the day--that raises
questions that he will need to answer. Voting "present" is one of three
options in the Illinois Legislature (along with "yes" and "no"), but it's almost
never an option for the occupant of the Oval Office.

We aren't talking about a "present" vote on whether to name a state office
building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect
an officeholder's core values.

For example, in 1997, Obama voted "present" on two bills (HB 382 and SB
230) that would have prohibited a procedure often referred to as partial
birth abortion. He also voted "present" on SB 71, which lowered the first
offense of carrying a concealed weapon from a felony to a misdemeanor
and raised the penalty of subsequent offenses.


In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory
adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed
the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that
protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have
the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.

In 2001, Obama voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills
(HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093,
1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if it survived a failed abortion. In
his book, the "Audacity of Hope," on page 132, Obama explained his
problems with the "born alive" bills, specifically arguing that they would
overturn Roe v. Wade. But he failed to mention that he only felt strongly
enough to vote "present" on the bills instead of "no."

And finally in 2001, Obama voted "present" on SB 609, a bill prohibiting strip
clubs and other adult establishments from being within 1,000 feet of
schools, churches, and daycares.

If Obama had taken a position for or against these bills, he would have
pleased some constituents and alienated others. Instead, the Illinois
legislator-turned-U.S. senator and, now, Democratic presidential hopeful
essentially took a pass.

Some of these bills may have been "bad." They may have included poison
pills or been poorly written, making it impossible for Obama to support them.
They may have even been unconstitutional. When I asked the Obama
campaign about those votes, they explained that in some cases, the
Senator was uncomfortable with only certain parts of the bill, while in other
cases, the bills were attempts by Republicans simply to score points.

But even if that were the case, it doesn't explain his votes. The state
legislator had an easy solution if the bills were unacceptable to him: he
could have voted against them and explained his reasoning.

Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate,
a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally
used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the
record against a bill that they oppose. Of course, Obama isn't the first or
only Illinois state senator to vote "present," but he is the only one running
for President of the United States.

While these votes occurred while Obama and the Democrats were in the
minority in the Illinois Senate, in the "Audacity of Hope" (page 130), Obama
explained that even as a legislator in the minority, "You must vote yes or no
on whatever bill comes up, with the knowledge that it's unlikely to be a
compromise that either you or your supporters consider fair and or just."


Obama's "present" record could hurt him in two very different ways in his
bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination and, ultimately, the White
House. On one hand, those votes could anger some Democrats, even
liberals, because he did not take a strong enough stand on their issues. On
the other hand, his votes could simply be portrayed by adversaries as a
failure of leadership for not being willing to make a tough decision and stick
by it.

Obama is one of the most dynamic and captivating figures in American
politics at this time, and he has put together an excellent campaign team.
He clearly is a factor in the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008.
But as Democrats--and Americans--are searching for their next leader, the
Illinois senator's record, and not just his rhetoric, will be examined under a
microscope. As president, Obama will be faced with countless difficult
decisions on numerous gray issues, and voting "present" will not be an
option. He will need to explain those "present" votes as a member of the
Illinois Legislature if he hopes to become America's commander-in-chief.

Mr. Gonzales is political editor of the Rothenberg Political Report.

Hardcor4x4
February 22nd, 2008, 11:21 AM
I keep hearing Obama promising "change" but never describes this "change" Does Obama even have a plan for presidency? or is he blowing smoke and preaching? I have yet to hear one thing Obama is going to change or his plan for change.

Clinton has described her plan of action and what she's going to do. are they good ones? not really. Do I like them? Not really.

So where stuck with this guy who says he has a plan but hasn't talked about it meaning he doesn't really have one or we have another Clinton in office with some poor ideas. Now what?

THETODD
February 22nd, 2008, 11:34 AM
I thought I might have Obama on a technicality. He was born in Hawaii but Hawaii didn't become a state until 1959. He was born in 1961. Close but no cigar. I'd like to know A LOT more about his religious preferences.

Oh and a basic plan on how he is going to steer this country in the right direction would be good too.:)

LONEWOLF
February 22nd, 2008, 11:36 AM
I thought I might have Obama on a technicality. He was born in Hawaii but Hawaii didn't become a state until 1959. He was born in 1961. Close but no cigar. I'd like to know A LOT more about his religious preferences.

Oh and a basic plan on how he is going to steer this country in the right direction would be good too.:)

What a difference 2 yrs makes, dang-it. Good try XJ.

DaJudge
February 22nd, 2008, 11:40 AM
I keep hearing Obama promising "change" but never describes this "change" Does Obama even have a plan for presidency? or is he blowing smoke and preaching? I have yet to hear one thing Obama is going to change or his plan for change...


Barack Obama candidate platform

Thursday, December 27, 2007
http://www.bostonherald.com (http://www.bostonherald.com/)

Candidate Profiles (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/)

High priorities: health care for all, ending the war in Iraq, social security

Abortion: Pro-choice

Capital Punishment: Supports capital punishment in certain cases

Education: Obama spports a new school construction program to improve
crumbling schools. Supports recruitment of a ?new generation? of teachers,
improving teacher pay, and improvement in early childhood education.
Opposes school vouchers. Has called for a ?STEP UP? summer learning
program for disadvantaged children through partnerships between
community groups and schools. Supports increased funding for Head Start.
Opposes reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind law until it undergoes
reform. Supports merit pay for ?master teachers? but opposes merit pay for
teachers based on test outcomes.

?Our schools must prepare students not only to meet the demands of the
global economy, but also help students take their place as committed and
engaged citizens. It must ensure that all students have a quality education
regardless of race, class, or background.? (www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com))

Energy/Environmental Issues: Obama pledges to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, with a goal of 80 percent by 2050, and make the U.S. a leader in
the effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global
warming partnership. Supports implementing a cap-and-trade program to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Pledges to invest $150 billion over the
next 10 years to develop and implement ?climate-friendly energy supplies,
protect our existing manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs.?
Pledges to double federal clean energy research spending. Supports efforts
to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and to reduce oil consumption by 35
percent by 2030. Would require that 25 percent of electricitycome from
renewable sources by 2025. (www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com))

Experience: Senator and attorney

Gay Marriage: Supports civil unions. Opposes gay marriage.

Health Care: Obama?s health care platform focuses on a new national
health plan that covers the nation?s uninsured. The plan would guarantee
eligibility, provide coverage similar to the federal employee health insurance
program, offer ?affordable? premiums, co-pays and deductibles; and allow
enrollees to keep their coverage when they change jobs. He would
introduce a requirement for all children to have health insurance and
pledges to expand eligibility for Medicaid and the State Children?s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP). Businesses that do not provide insurance to
their employees would be assessed a fee based on a percentage of their
payroll. His plan would allow states to continue developing their own reform
plans. He would also make employer health plans eligible for reimbursement
of catastrophic costs provided the savings would be used to offset
employee premiums. Obama also pledges to support disease prevention
programs, promote quality and cost transparency and reform medical
malpractice insurance.

Immigration: Obama upports comprehensive immigration reform legislation
that combines increased border enforcement with a path to legal citizenship
for illegal immigrants (http://www.bostonherald.com/search/?searchSite=true&keyword=illegal+immigrants&submit=Go%21&byline=&mode=score&sorting=score&searchSite=recent) already living in the U.S.

The war in Iraq: Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq when he was a
state senator in Illinois but was not in Congress when the vote to authorize
the use of force was taken. Supports a plan to immediately begin troop
withdrawal from Iraq at a pace of one or two brigades a month, to be
completed by the end of 2008. Has called for a new constitutional
convention in Iraq, to be convened with the United Nations.
(www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com))

Social Security: Obama opposes privatization of Social Security. Has
pledged to take steps to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent.
Promises to amend federal bankruptcy laws to keep companies from
choosing bankruptcy to avoid private pension obligations. Promises to
eliminate the income tax for seniors who earn less than $50,000 a year.
(www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com))

Stem Cell Research: Obama supports expansion of federally-funded stem
cell research, including embryonic stem cell research.

Taxes and Budget issues: Obama supports repeal of tax cuts for upper
income earners to pay for health care. Opposes repeal of the estate tax.

http://www.barackobama.com

Article URL:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=1063110 (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=1063110)

jeepn4evr
February 22nd, 2008, 01:09 PM
So far I haven't seen anyone that I really want, but anyone is better than Hillary

Put Clyde back on the ticket

Clyde in 08

cheftyler
February 22nd, 2008, 01:21 PM
We can talk sh!t about Obama and his voting record but how many of us know the voting records of any of the candidates we either like or dislike?

In fact, I don't see any candidate talking any substance right now.

Surprising maybe maybe not, but, several people after a couple drinks have mentioned they don't like Obama because we shouldn't have a President with the middle name Hussien...And he's part Black. Now I'm not saying that is what people here are doing nor am I pointing fingers. Just recent observation.


I agree that he's an empty candidate that doesn't actually stand for anything specific, but he'll still beat McCain. Regardless of who wins, we all lose...these candidates suck balls.

.

ZappBranigan
February 22nd, 2008, 01:47 PM
I dunno, Todd.

Looking at the sheer numbers of dems showing up in the primaries, I think this is a done deal. You're getting 30% + more dems showing up, so unless something really drastic happens, I see it as being more than 49/51 this year.

I guess what I'm saying is that a larger than usual number of democrats seem to be motivated to get off the couch and vote this year.

But it's anyone's guess.


I'll see if I can dig up the source but I remember reading that for every election over the past 50 years or so, there were always more democrats voting in the primaries than republicans except for two years, I think it was 1996 and 2004.

I don't think it really means that much except that maybe the democratic primary elections are more volatile and people get more worked up over them, or that the republican nominee is usually already determined by the time most of the primaries begin and so there's no incentive to get involved at the primary stage. But I don't think it's a predictor of how people will vote in the general. The numbers of people who vote in the general election are orders of magnitude greater than the people who vote in the primaries.

THETODD
February 22nd, 2008, 02:06 PM
Keep in mind the Republicans are at work. Once the election happens they'll come out.:)

Hillary is already shooting holes in Obama's statements calling him a Xerox candidate. For once I feel myself agreeing with her. I think once it's down to Obama and McCain then Obama will start to llose more and more cedibility.

IH8PVMNT
February 22nd, 2008, 02:40 PM
Obama or McCain I think they are both a little weak to be honest. That being said Obama is the only one that has a shot at beating McCain. Clinton was too polarized not to mention for the past 28 years there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the white house. 1980 - 1988 Bush Sr as VP, 1988 - 1992 Bush Sr as Pres, 1992 - 2000 B Clinton as Pres, 2000 - 2008 Bush Jr as Pres. That's way too many years of the same family names in the White House. Hilary was doomed before she started.

SUPERGILDO43
February 22nd, 2008, 03:11 PM
I'd like to know A LOT more about his religious preferences.


I honestly dont know how that affects anything :shrug:

SUPERGILDO43
February 22nd, 2008, 03:13 PM
I want to see what starts to come of the race when the cadidates are chosen and start doing debates. Obama WILL be pushed to be more specific and then IMO it will clear up Obamas "change" without explanation reputation.

I think as of now I am definately leaning towards McCain, but we'll see.

I want to see the dem debate from texas, I need to download it...

ZooMad75
February 22nd, 2008, 03:24 PM
Keep in mind the Republicans are at work. Once the election happens they'll come out.:)

:D That's pretty funny right there!

CLYDE
February 24th, 2008, 01:17 AM
So far I haven't seen anyone that I really want, but anyone is better than Hillary

Put Clyde back on the ticket

Clyde in 08
Why thank you :D

Gunter
February 24th, 2008, 01:24 AM
The nation will not vote another Republican in office, regardless of who the nominee is, or who the Dem nominee is. In my opinion the Dem nominee is the race for the office. Bush really turned the nation away from Republicans.
we can only hope the public is smart enuff to go dem president,and repub house and senate.(majority in each)
jackasses want to run away from anything uncomfortable.......spend money we have to pay back....and so on etc.
and when is the count of the(our own) dead a way to tell if a war is being won?if thats the case--is the civil war a draw?
all i can say is: 3rd independant party NOW! and the red and blue teams need to let the other people play too.

osue077
February 24th, 2008, 01:46 AM
Ralph Wiggum for President!!!

4-rocks
February 24th, 2008, 10:26 AM
I doubt if there are very many Republicans that would vote for a Clinton,,,for ever and eternity. It would be kinda like a Democrat voting for a Bush at this point. It has been talked up that Obama should make Hillary his vice presidential candidate. I think that would be a mistake. 1st ,I think it would lose him votes, and number 2, if by chance they won and Hillary were one heartbeat away from being president, if I were Obama I wouldn't invite Hillary to the White House for a sleep over!!!!
I know my attemps at humor sux.

Seriously, I'd hate to work Secret Service with Obama as Prez. There are people still living in the 60's in this country. I predict the guy will dodge bullets before it's all over. I hope not, just a feeling. I guess growing up in the 50's and 60's makes me worry about something like this.

LONEWOLF
February 24th, 2008, 11:23 AM
4-rocks I agree with u on the bullet dodging. I think if he is elected something will happen and this will cause a big uprising. I hope I am wrong, for everyones sake I hope I am wrong, but its just a gut feeling I have.