*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

DanFouts said:

DPRugby said:

snogger said:

whoknew said:

snogger said:

whoknew said:

DPRugby said:

My simple question is this, can he win?

I saw his speach at the DNC during the last race for President and the talking heads seemed to think at the time that he'd be a good candidate at some point in the future but that 2008 would be too soon and he wouldn't have the experience needed. I'm a republican but at first glance I'm thinking this guy may get my vote if he wins the Democratic nomination. I haven't see a Republican candidate yet that I like more than Obama.

Click to expand...

My guess is that Hillary will crush him. She's much more moderate and will have a greater appeal. Of course, you never know who votes in the primaries.

Click to expand...

You are not really buying into the image make over she has been building the last 4 years.. Are you??

Click to expand...

Well, sure. Compared to Obama, she's much more moderate. And she also knows that being a moderate will help get her elected and keep her popular. Perhaps she's truly not a moderate at heart, but she is/has been a moderate politician. She'll do whatever the popular opinion is, and that's generally pretty middle of the road. This is what I don't understand about a lot of conservatives out there. So many of them HATE Hillary. But if you are a conservative, there's no question that if you had to choose a Dem who is running, you should choose Hillary.

Click to expand...

I consider myself a Middle of the road american who leans a little to the right.. and there is no way in Hell I'd vote for Hillary. I don't trust her, don't like her and would be in for the country if she runs it the way she lives her family life.

If those on the left want my vote and many others that sit in the middle they have a better chance with Obama then with Hillary.

Click to expand...

This nicely sums up how I feel about the situation. If it's Hillary running I'd cast my vote for whoever she runs against her. If Obama wins the Dem nommination then the GOP would have to put up someone stronger than Gulliani or McCain for me to vote my party line.

Click to expand...

That is funny! I mean Obama is more liberal a senator than Hillary (which doesn't bother me). That's a fact based on their voting record. So when I hear a Republican say " I like Obama more than Hillary", is it just cause of the woman thing? It can't be based on policy (Iraq war, taxes, etc). Explain....

Click to expand...

whoknew said:

Ok so there seems to be a number of independents/conservative/right-leaning people in this thread who would NEVER vote for Hillary but say that the GOP better have a great candidate or they'll vote for Obama.To those people I ask -- what about Obama would get you to vote for him? It can't be his voting record or positions. So what is it?

Click to expand...

whoknew said:

Ok so there seems to be a number of independents/conservative/right-leaning people in this thread who would NEVER vote for Hillary but say that the GOP better have a great candidate or they'll vote for Obama.To those people I ask -- what about Obama would get you to vote for him? It can't be his voting record or positions. So what is it?

Click to expand...

scoobygang said:

whoknew said:

Ok so there seems to be a number of independents/conservative/right-leaning people in this thread who would NEVER vote for Hillary but say that the GOP better have a great candidate or they'll vote for Obama.To those people I ask -- what about Obama would get you to vote for him? It can't be his voting record or positions. So what is it?

Click to expand...

This isn't that hard. Obama has learned how to connect with people. Hilary has trouble with it. There's an interesting article in Salon today that shows that Obama came across that ability the hard way. He had to learn it. Of course, Obama hasn't endured eight years of negative press and opposition ads like Hilary, so that helps too. You seem to think that it matters that Hilary will be perceived as moderate. It won't because she won't. She'll be called a liberal no matter how moderate she chooses to run. Anyone we run outside of Lieberman will be labeled a liberal. So if I were a conservative, I'd be worried about the guy who just might be able to actually sell some liberal ideas that a less charismatic politician couldn't.

Click to expand...

DanFouts said:

DPRugby said:

snogger said:

whoknew said:

snogger said:

whoknew said:

DPRugby said:

My simple question is this, can he win?

I saw his speach at the DNC during the last race for President and the talking heads seemed to think at the time that he'd be a good candidate at some point in the future but that 2008 would be too soon and he wouldn't have the experience needed. I'm a republican but at first glance I'm thinking this guy may get my vote if he wins the Democratic nomination. I haven't see a Republican candidate yet that I like more than Obama.

Click to expand...

My guess is that Hillary will crush him. She's much more moderate and will have a greater appeal. Of course, you never know who votes in the primaries.

Click to expand...

You are not really buying into the image make over she has been building the last 4 years.. Are you??

Click to expand...

Well, sure. Compared to Obama, she's much more moderate. And she also knows that being a moderate will help get her elected and keep her popular. Perhaps she's truly not a moderate at heart, but she is/has been a moderate politician. She'll do whatever the popular opinion is, and that's generally pretty middle of the road. This is what I don't understand about a lot of conservatives out there. So many of them HATE Hillary. But if you are a conservative, there's no question that if you had to choose a Dem who is running, you should choose Hillary.

Click to expand...

I consider myself a Middle of the road american who leans a little to the right.. and there is no way in Hell I'd vote for Hillary. I don't trust her, don't like her and would be in for the country if she runs it the way she lives her family life.

If those on the left want my vote and many others that sit in the middle they have a better chance with Obama then with Hillary.

Click to expand...

This nicely sums up how I feel about the situation. If it's Hillary running I'd cast my vote for whoever she runs against her. If Obama wins the Dem nommination then the GOP would have to put up someone stronger than Gulliani or McCain for me to vote my party line.

Click to expand...

That is funny! I mean Obama is more liberal a senator than Hillary (which doesn't bother me). That's a fact based on their voting record. So when I hear a Republican say " I like Obama more than Hillary", is it just cause of the woman thing? It can't be based on policy (Iraq war, taxes, etc). Explain....

Click to expand...

Foosball God said:

He's certainly winning me over with his speeches. I appreciate the fact that he's up front about his skeletons. It also is a smart move on his part to defuse a situation before it arises, and those kind of smarts are sorely needed in the White House.

Click to expand...

scoobygang said:

whoknew said:

Ok so there seems to be a number of independents/conservative/right-leaning people in this thread who would NEVER vote for Hillary but say that the GOP better have a great candidate or they'll vote for Obama.To those people I ask -- what about Obama would get you to vote for him? It can't be his voting record or positions. So what is it?

Click to expand...

This isn't that hard. Obama has learned how to connect with people. Hilary has trouble with it. There's an interesting article in Salon today that shows that Obama came across that ability the hard way. He had to learn it. Of course, Obama hasn't endured eight years of negative press and opposition ads like Hilary, so that helps too. You seem to think that it matters that Hilary will be perceived as moderate. It won't because she won't. She'll be called a liberal no matter how moderate she chooses to run. Anyone we run outside of Lieberman will be labeled a liberal. So if I were a conservative, I'd be worried about the guy who just might be able to actually sell some liberal ideas that a less charismatic politician couldn't.

Click to expand...

whoknew said:

Ok so there seems to be a number of independents/conservative/right-leaning people in this thread who would NEVER vote for Hillary but say that the GOP better have a great candidate or they'll vote for Obama.To those people I ask -- what about Obama would get you to vote for him? It can't be his voting record or positions. So what is it?

Click to expand...

adonis said:

whoknew said:

Ok so there seems to be a number of independents/conservative/right-leaning people in this thread who would NEVER vote for Hillary but say that the GOP better have a great candidate or they'll vote for Obama.To those people I ask -- what about Obama would get you to vote for him? It can't be his voting record or positions. So what is it?

Click to expand...

- He was right on Iraq, long before it was popular to be against it. He never wavered, and in spite of being right, he's more prone to offer solutions than to point fingers. He has a plan presently to get troops out by sometime in 2008 (march?).

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for your kind introduction and the invitation to meet with you this morning.

Last week, this event was described to me as a small gathering of friends. Looking at all of you here today; seeing so many of you who care about peace in this world; who care about a strong and lasting friendship between Israel and the United States, and who care about what's on the next page of our shared futures, I think “a small gathering of friends†fits this crowd just right.

I want to begin today by telling you a story.

Back in January of 2006, I made my first trip to the Holy Land. It is a place unlike any other on this earth - a place filled with so much promise of what we truly can be as people; a place where we've learned how in a flash, violence and hatred and intolerance can turn that promise to rubble and send too many lives to their early graves.

Most will travel to the holy sites: the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Dome of the Rock or the Western Wall. They make a journey to be humbled before God. I too am blessed to have seen Israel this way, up close and on the ground.

But I am also fortunate to have seen Israel from the air.

On my journey that January day, I flew on an IDF helicopter to the border zone. The helicopter took us over the most troubled and dangerous areas and that narrow strip between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea. At that height, I could see the hills and the terrain that generations have walked across. I could truly see how close everything is and why peace through security is the only way for Israel.

Our helicopter landed in the town of Kiryat Shmona on the border. What struck me first about the village was how familiar it looked. The houses and streets looked like ones you might find in a suburb in America. I could imagine young children riding their bikes down the streets. I could imagine the sounds of their joyful play just like my own daughters. There were cars in the driveway. The shrubs were trimmed. The families were living their lives.

Then, I saw a house that had been hit with one of Hezbollah's Katyusha rockets.

The family who lived in the house was lucky to be alive. They had been asleep in another part when the rocket hit. They described the explosion. They talked about the fire and the shrapnel. They spoke about what might have been if the rocket had come screaming into their home at another time when they weren't asleep but sitting peacefully in the now destroyed part of the house.

It is an experience I keep close to my heart. Not because it is unique, but because we know that too many others have seen the same kind of destruction, have lost their loved ones to suicide bombers and live in fear of when the next attack might hit. Just six months after I visited, Hezbollah launched four thousand rocket attacks just like the one that destroyed the home in Kiryat Shmona, and kidnapped Israeli service members. And we pray for all of the service members who have been kidnapped: Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser, and I met with his family this week. I offered to help in any way I can.

It is important to remember this history-that Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousands of rockets.

Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region.

That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point. And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security.

It won't be easy. Some of those stones will be heavy and tough for the United States to carry. Others with be heavy and tough for Israel to carry. And even more will be difficult for the world. But together, we will begin again.

One of the heavy stones that currently rest at the United States' feet is Iraq. Until we lift this burden from our foreign policy, we cannot rally the world to our values and vision.

As many of you know, I opposed this war from the beginning - in part because I believed that giving this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq would lead to the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today.

Now our soldiers find themselves in the crossfire of someone else's civil war. More than 3,100 have given the last full measure of devotion to their country. This war has fueled terrorism and helped galvanize terrorist organizations. And it has made the world less safe.

That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos. In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East. And my plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran - something this Administration has finally embraced.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But a consequence of the Administration's failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril. These are not the signs of a well-paved road. It is time for profound change.

As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world's most tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region-that's not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world.

To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran into Gaza.

The United States' leverage is strengthened when we have many nations with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a profound impact on Iran's economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the world's best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.

We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. They know that President Ahamadinejad is reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive to their day-to-day needs which is why they sent him a rebuke at the ballot box this fall. And we hope more of them will speak out. There is great hope in their ability to see his hatred for what it is: hatred and a threat to peace in the region.

At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza.

And when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields, Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict, and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there. That's why we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in the region, must end.

These are great challenges that we face. And in moments like these, true allies do not walk away. For six years, the administration has missed opportunities to increase the United States' influence in the region and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security she needs. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities.

The Israeli people, and Prime Minister Olmert, have made clear that they are more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security. But the Israelis must trust that they have a true Palestinian partner for peace. That is why we must strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel's destruction.

The U.S. and our partners have put before Hamas three very simple conditions to end this isolation: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce the use of violence; and abide by past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month. The reports of this agreement suggest that Hamas, Fatah, and independent ministers would sit in a government together, under a Hamas Prime Minister, without any recognition of Israel, without a renunciation of violence, and with only an ambiguous promise to "respect" previous agreements.

This should concern us all because it suggests that Mahmoud Abbas, who is a Palestinian leader I believe is committed to peace, felt forced to compromise with Hamas. However, if we are serious about the Quartet's conditions, we must tell the Palestinians this is not good enough.

But as I said at the outset, Israel will have some heavy stones to carry as well. Its history has been full of tough choices in search of peace and security.

Yitzhak Rabin had the vision to reach out to longtime enemies. Ariel Sharon had the determination to lead Israel out of Gaza. These were difficult, painful decisions that went to the heart of Israel's identity as a nation.

Many Israelis I talked to during my visit last year told me that they were prepared to make sacrifices to give their children a chance to know peace. These were people of courage who wanted a better life. And I know these are difficult times and it can be easy to lose hope. But we owe it to our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, and to all those who have fallen, to keep searching for peace and security -- even though it can seem distant. This search is in the best interests of Israel. It is in the best interests of the United States. It is in the best interests of all of us.

We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in working to make that goal a reality.

But in the end, we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.

We must be partners - we must be active partners. Diplomacy in the Middle East cannot be done on the cheap. Diplomacy is measured by patience and effort. We cannot continue to have trips consisting of little more than photo-ops with little movement in between. Neither Israel nor the U.S. is served by this approach.

Peace with security. That is the Israeli people's overriding wish.

It is what I saw in the town of Fassouta on the border with Lebanon.

There are 3,000 residents of different faiths and histories. There is a community center supported by Chicago's own Roman Catholic Archdiocese and the Jewish Federation of Metro Chicago. It is where the education of the next generation has begun: in a small village, all faiths and nationalities, living together with mutual respect.

I met with the people from the village and they gave me a tour of this wonderful place. There was a moment when the young girls came in and they played music and began to dance.

After a few moments, I thought about my own daughters, Sasha and Malia and how they too could dream and dance in a place like this: a place of renewal and restoration. Proof, that in the heart of so much peril, there were signs of life and hope and promise-that the universal song for peace plays on.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

ArcticEdge said:

What does Obama think about Thomas Jones going to the Jets?

Click to expand...

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Leviathan said:

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination in 2008, said yesterday that the senator did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks. He sold them at a net loss of $13,000.

The spokesman, Bill Burton, said Mr. Obama’s broker bought the stocks without consulting the senator, under the terms of a blind trust that was being set up for the senator at that time but was not finalized until several months after the investments were made.

Click to expand...

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he was not aware that he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and did nothing to aid their business before the government.

The Illinois senator faced questions about more than $50,000 in investments he made right after taking office in 2005 in two speculative companies, AVI Biopharma and Skyterra Communications. Obama said his broker bought the stocks as part of a quasi-blind trust.

"At no point did I know what stocks were held, and at no point did I direct how those stocks were invested," Obama told reporters at the end of a press conference called to tout an unrelated immigration bill.

"What I wanted to make sure is that I didn't want to invest in companies that potentially would create conflicts with my work here," said Obama, who has campaigned on the need for stronger congressional ethics rules. "Obviously, the thing didn't work the way I wanted it to."

Obama purchased $5,000 in shares for AVI, which was developing a drug to treat avian flu. Two weeks after buying the stock, Obama pushed for more federal funding to fight the disease, but he said he did not discuss thematter with any company officials.

Obama also had more than $50,000 in shares of Skyterra, a company that had just received federal permission to create a nationwide wireless network that combined satellite and land-based communications systems.

Among the company's top investors were donors who raised more than $150,000 for Obama's political committees, the New York Times reported Wednesday. The stock holdings were first examined Monday by the financial Web site, Thestreet.com.

The reports found no evidence that any of his actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months he owned the stocks.Obama lost about $15,000 on Skyterra and earned a profit of about $2,000 on AVI.

Obama said he wanted to invest in stocks after signing a $1.9 million deal for his second book, "The Audacity of Hope." He said after buying a home and putting money in the bank and mutual funds, he asked a friend and political donor, investor George Haywood, to recommend a broker so he could invest a portion more aggressively.

"I thought about going to (billionaire investor) Warren Buffett, and I decided it would be embarrassing that I only had $100,000 to invest," Obama said.

Haywood, who was a major backer of both AVI and Skyterra,recommended a broker at USB who also bought stock for Obama in those companies.

Obama said at some point in fall 2005 he got a stockholder letter. He said he believes it was from AVI or Skyterra, but he couldn't remember which company. But he decided to liquidate the quasi-blind trust and put his money in mutual funds and money market accounts that wouldn't raise such questions.

"It's at that point that I became concerned that I might not be able to insulate myself from knowledge of my holdings, that this trust instrument might not be working the way I wanted it to," Obama said.

Obama said he didn't invest in astandard blind trust because it wouldn't allow him to limit which companies he invested in, such as those in the tobacco industry and other areas that he did not want to support.

"At this point, I'm only invested in mutual funds or cash or money market accounts. That's my instruction to my accountant," Obama said. "We are not going to own individual stocks precisely because it raises questions like this."

Senate ethics rules do not prohibit lawmakers from owning stocks in companies that do business with the federal government.

One of the other investors involved in Skyterra was Jared Abbruzzese, a New York businessmannow at the center of a federal inquiry into public corruption.

Abbruzzese and his wife had contributed $10,000 to Obama's political action committee. But normally they back Republican causes, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that damaged John Kerry's presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee.

Obama said he has never met Abbruzzese.

Click to expand...

Spiderman said:

I believe all of this Obama dirt is coming from Hilary's camp as she benefits the most from his downfall. Saying that, is she looking to bury him now ? I don't think any of these stories stick as it's way too early.I know Obama is running on being above the Washington slime, and being an ethical person so maybe the reasoning is to show early that's he no different.My question is - I don't think Obama is going away. Why not release this as we get closer to the primaries (unless she had 10 other things to put out there) ?

Click to expand...

Clayton Gray said:

Spiderman said:

I believe all of this Obama dirt is coming from Hilary's camp as she benefits the most from his downfall. Saying that, is she looking to bury him now ? I don't think any of these stories stick as it's way too early.I know Obama is running on being above the Washington slime, and being an ethical person so maybe the reasoning is to show early that's he no different.My question is - I don't think Obama is going away. Why not release this as we get closer to the primaries (unless she had 10 other things to put out there) ?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy into everything coming from one camp, but maybe the thinking is that it's easier to stop a freight train before it gets going.

Click to expand...

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

nortobc said:

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

nortobc said:

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Clayton Gray said:

nortobc said:

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The sad thing about supposed "busts" like this is the huge number of people that simply read the headlines and think there is something of substance here.

Click to expand...

adonis said:

Born Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

Click to expand...

Clayton Gray said:

nortobc said:

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The sad thing about supposed "busts" like this is the huge number of people that simply read the headlines and think there is something of substance here.

Click to expand...

NCCommish said:

I would always read the article before I counted on what Drudge says it says.

Click to expand...

LHUCKS said:

nortobc said:

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Clayton Gray said:

nortobc said:

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The sad thing about supposed "busts" like this is the huge number of people that simply read the headlines and think there is something of substance here.

Click to expand...

SlimShady said:

Clayton Gray said:

nortobc said:

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The sad thing about supposed "busts" like this is the huge number of people that simply read the headlines and think there is something of substance here.

Click to expand...

at the time I posted it last night, there was no story yet just a news flash on Drudge that said "New York Times hit piece on Obama" and a little blurb about how they were going to publish it today. Sorry I'm not a psychic. Couldn't read the article because it hadn't been published yet.

my bust comment just comes from knowing the New York Times carries a lot of weight in shaping public discussion of various topics. If they're publishing something negative about you, its a bust IMO. Even if they're wrong.

Click to expand...

Clayton Gray said:

Spiderman said:

I believe all of this Obama dirt is coming from Hilary's camp as she benefits the most from his downfall. Saying that, is she looking to bury him now ? I don't think any of these stories stick as it's way too early.I know Obama is running on being above the Washington slime, and being an ethical person so maybe the reasoning is to show early that's he no different.My question is - I don't think Obama is going away. Why not release this as we get closer to the primaries (unless she had 10 other things to put out there) ?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy into everything coming from one camp, but maybe the thinking is that it's easier to stop a freight train before it gets going.

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON, March 7 — Senator Barack Obama said today he did not believe it was a conflict to seek investment advice and use the brokerage services recommended by a friend and political contributor. He said he was not aware he had invested money into two of the same companies supported by some of his top donors.

“At no point did I know what stocks were held,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “And at no point did I direct how those stocks were invested.”

Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors. He made the purchase less than two months after arriving in the Senate.

Mr. Obama said he retained a broker upon the recommendation of a wealthy friend and top contributor, George W. Haywood. The senator said he did not specifically instruct the broker to follow the investment patterns of Mr. Haywood, who along with his wife, Cheryl, has contributed nearly $50,000 to his campaigns and political action committee.

“What I wanted to make sure was that I didn’t want to invest in companies that would potentially bring conflicts with my work here or not abide by some public statements I’ve said in terms of how things work,” Mr. Obama said. “Obviously, the thing didn’t work the way that I wanted it to, which is why we ended up discontinuing it.”

But, he added: “It wouldn’t be surprising to me that he was recommending stocks similar to me that he would be recommending to others.”

Mr. Obama faced a barrage of questions about his financial investments after a Capitol Hill news conference about immigration. Mr. Obama said he “did not see any potential conflict in getting advice, in terms of a stockbroker,” from Mr. Haywood. The senator said he told the broker he wanted an “aggressive strategy” for investing, but he did not identify stocks.

“I went to that stockbroker and indicated to him that I wanted to set something up. I did not want to know what stocks were involved that we were going to initiate a process to set up a blind trust,” Mr. Obama said. “And he could direct those funds based on a more aggressive strategy than the normal mutual fund.”

In the fall of 2005, Mr. Obama said, he received a prospectus in the mail from a health care company or a satellite technology company. That was the first time, he said, he knew what companies he was investing in.

“It was at that point that I became concerned that I might not be able to insulate myself from knowledge of my holdings, that this trust instrument wasn’t working the way I wanted it to,” Mr. Obama said. “So it was at that point that I told my attorneys to go ahead and liquidate the stock and put it into mutual funds.”

The stocks were sold at a net loss of $13,000.

Before he arrived in the Senate in January 2005, Mr. Obama signed a $1.9 million book deal. He established a quasi-blind trust rather than a standard blind trust, he said, so he would be able to avoid investing in companies he did not wish to be associated with.

“I determined that based on the traditional notions of how you should invest — although traditionally I haven’t had a lot of money to invest — that some of it we could put into something more high risk at least for a while,” Mr. Obama said. “I asked a friend of mine, George Haywood, for the recommendation of a stockbroker.”

Until signing the book deal, Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, have said that they were paying back law school loans and had little extra money to invest. After signing the book deal, the family purchased a $1.6 million house and began looking for other investment options.

“I thought about going to Warren Buffett, but I decided it would be embarrassing with only $100,000 to invest, to ask his advice,” Mr. Obama said, referring to the billionaire investor who is a close adviser and supporter.

Mr. Obama has made ethics a centerpiece of his agenda in the Senate and he is declining contributions from registered lobbyists in his presidential campaign. To avoid the appearance of future conflicts, he said he had instructed his financial advisers to change his investment practices.

“At this point, I’m only invested in mutual funds or cash or money market accounts,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s my instruction to my accountant that we are not going to own any individual stocks precisely because it raises potential questions like this.”

Click to expand...

SlimShady said:

Clayton Gray said:

nortobc said:

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The sad thing about supposed "busts" like this is the huge number of people that simply read the headlines and think there is something of substance here.

Click to expand...

at the time I posted it last night, there was no story yet just a news flash on Drudge that said "New York Times hit piece on Obama" and a little blurb about how they were going to publish it today. Sorry I'm not a psychic. Couldn't read the article because it hadn't been published yet.

my bust comment just comes from knowing the New York Times carries a lot of weight in shaping public discussion of various topics. If they're publishing something negative about you, its a bust IMO. Even if they're wrong.

Click to expand...

Clayton Gray said:

SlimShady said:

Clayton Gray said:

nortobc said:

tommyboy said:

bad news obama, you just got busted by the New York Times. Later dude.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The sad thing about supposed "busts" like this is the huge number of people that simply read the headlines and think there is something of substance here.

Click to expand...

at the time I posted it last night, there was no story yet just a news flash on Drudge that said "New York Times hit piece on Obama" and a little blurb about how they were going to publish it today. Sorry I'm not a psychic. Couldn't read the article because it hadn't been published yet.

my bust comment just comes from knowing the New York Times carries a lot of weight in shaping public discussion of various topics. If they're publishing something negative about you, its a bust IMO. Even if they're wrong.

Click to expand...

So the posting has nothing to do with you being giddy at possible misfortune for a democrat?

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON – Reports are surfacing that Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama denied a MySpace friend request from fellow candidate Hillary Clinton.

While Obama has 1,323,896 friends on MySpace, Clinton only has 784,533 so far, and the friend request denial could be quite damaging to Clinton's campaign and self esteem. Upon hearing about the request snub, Clinton reportedly stated, "What? I thought we were pals. That guy is such a #####."

Though Obama's people have not confirmed or denied the claim, an unnamed source close to Obama said that he simply didn't want to deal with all of Clinton's stupid comments on his page and invites to all her events. He just felt she would be the type of person to leave giant tacky "Happy Easter" comments and such.

It is rumored that as a response to the friend rebuff, Clinton plans to give Obama's video clips one-star ratings on YouTube.com and DailyMotion.com.

Click to expand...

Part of the dynamic that Sen. Hillary Clinton always had working in her favor was the ability of her husband to deliver the black vote, en masse, for her if she ran into minor bumps along the way in Iowa, New Hampshire and even Nevada.

This was always a critical element in why she was such an overwhelming favorite to capture the Democratic nomination. The Barack Obama phenomenon has made this analysis inoperable.

Against candidates like John Edwards, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, or even Al Gore, former President Bill Clinton would have been in a position to deliver Hillary the black vote. And when Sen. Obama originally threw his hat in the ring there was a question of just how much of the black vote he would be able to get against Hillary.

Six weeks ago I was of the opinion that she had a decent chance of winning the black vote, but today, in the aftermath of the David Geffen affair, which helped whack 10 points off her lead, and then this weekend's head-to-head down in Selma, Ala., on the current trajectory there is no way Hillary Clinton will beat out Barack Obama for the black vote.

And what has to have the Hillary camp scared stiff is the possibility that not only will Obama win the black vote, but that he might win it overwhelmingly. On FOX News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fred Barnes suggested that Obama would win 80 percent of the black vote. Today I would agree that 70 to 80 percent is a very real possibility.

If you watch Obama's speech from last weekend he sends a clear message that he is not going to let any campaign try and make the case that he is "not black enough." As the first of the second generation of black candidates to run for president -- as opposed to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who had no chance of winning the White House -- not only does Obama have a very real chance of being the next president, but at the current rate he may well be the frontrunner by summer.

He has closed Clinton's recent 20-point plus lead to only 10.2 percent in the latest RCP Average; he trails Rudy Giuliani by only 3.5 points and actually leads John McCain by 1.4 percent in today's RCP Average.

Obama's ability to take away the black vote, en masse, from the Clinton campaign may turn out to be the iceberg that sinks the H.M.S. Hillary.

Click to expand...

adonis said:

Breaking News!

Obama Denies Hillary Clinton Friend Request On MySpace

WASHINGTON – Reports are surfacing that Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama denied a MySpace friend request from fellow candidate Hillary Clinton.

While Obama has 1,323,896 friends on MySpace, Clinton only has 784,533 so far, and the friend request denial could be quite damaging to Clinton's campaign and self esteem. Upon hearing about the request snub, Clinton reportedly stated, "What? I thought we were pals. That guy is such a #####."

Though Obama's people have not confirmed or denied the claim, an unnamed source close to Obama said that he simply didn't want to deal with all of Clinton's stupid comments on his page and invites to all her events. He just felt she would be the type of person to leave giant tacky "Happy Easter" comments and such.

It is rumored that as a response to the friend rebuff, Clinton plans to give Obama's video clips one-star ratings on YouTube.com and DailyMotion.com.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

urbanhack said:

Obama rakes in $25 million. Only 1 million less than the Clinton political machine. His money came from twice as many donors as Clinton with 90% giving less than $100.

Pretty impressive.

link

Click to expand...

Spiderman said:

How does Hillary and Obama compare to the GOP?I know Romney got somewhere in the range of $25 million as well....how about McCainn and Rudy ?

Click to expand...

fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Spiderman said:

How does Hillary and Obama compare to the GOP?I know Romney got somewhere in the range of $25 million as well....how about McCainn and Rudy ?

Click to expand...

I think Rudy reported $15 million and McCain reported $12 million. Something like that.

Click to expand...

Spiderman said:

fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Spiderman said:

How does Hillary and Obama compare to the GOP?I know Romney got somewhere in the range of $25 million as well....how about McCainn and Rudy ?

Click to expand...

I think Rudy reported $15 million and McCain reported $12 million. Something like that.

Click to expand...

That's seem really low. I wonder what the excuses were ?

Click to expand...

urbanhack said:

Obama rakes in $25 million. Only 1 million less than the Clinton political machine. His money came from twice as many donors as Clinton with 90% giving less than $100.

Pretty impressive.

link

Click to expand...

nortobc said:

urbanhack said:

Obama rakes in $25 million. Only 1 million less than the Clinton political machine. His money came from twice as many donors as Clinton with 90% giving less than $100.

Pretty impressive.

link

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

flufhed said:

I made a small donation to Obama. First time I have ever donated to any political campaign.

Click to expand...

nortobc said:

urbanhack said:

Obama rakes in $25 million. Only 1 million less than the Clinton political machine. His money came from twice as many donors as Clinton with 90% giving less than $100.

Pretty impressive.

link

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

urbanhack said:

nortobc said:

urbanhack said:

Obama rakes in $25 million. Only 1 million less than the Clinton political machine. His money came from twice as many donors as Clinton with 90% giving less than $100.

Pretty impressive.

link

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It's an Obama thread, what's the problem?

Click to expand...