What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

I expected some reactionary posts but I actually was expecting adonis to be more thoughtful about this.
I'm not exactly sure what there is to be thoughtful about this.
I'd file this under "things that non-Obama supporters think that Obama-supporters should believe in order to be better Obama supporters" -- which is similar to "things that atheists think that theists should believe in order to be better theists," "things that theists think that atheists should believe in order to be more rational atheists," "things that non-libertarians think that libertarians should believe according to basic libertarian principles," etc. Such ideas are nearly always much kookier than the actual beliefs held by people in those groups.
For being such an intelligent individual, sometimes you strike me as not being so smart. I do not think that this is something that Obama supporters should think. When did I ever state that? I am not even saying Obama should do this. I am simply throwing it out there as being a thought of something that will not happen but would be a brilliant political move.

The reactionary comments are a joke. They seem to be more directed at me personally since I am well known as not being an Obama supporter. I am not for Clinton and I am not for Obama. I am observing this with interest because the politics of it all is amazing. If Obama did this, he would be on top of the world and have a lock as a future U.S. President. I am not so sure why that deserves these 'that is like throwing your fantasy league to get a better draft spot' kind of B.S.. Disagree with the idea, fine, but I do not understand the over reactions here to this.

What is the threat here? :mellow:
Why would any Obama supporter from this time around throw their support to him the second time around? After all, he quit while he was ahead "for the good of the party" - better to support someone who is in it to win it.
A fair enough argument. I think that it would be a risk but the strategy could easily be pulled off with a moving speech about individual sacrafice for the cause of the common good.... people would faint.... there would be a universal swoon... and as Clinton joked about later on the sky would open up. I think that right now, this idea is unthinkable to Obama supporters.... and I think it is unthinkable for the Obama campaign as well. But, in a purely political move, I think it would be the most brilliant political move that we have seen in modern times. It would take some balls to pull off and it does carry risk but I think it would lock up the Oval office for him at some point.

 
I expected some reactionary posts but I actually was expecting adonis to be more thoughtful about this.
I'm not exactly sure what there is to be thoughtful about this.
I'd file this under "things that non-Obama supporters think that Obama-supporters should believe in order to be better Obama supporters" -- which is similar to "things that atheists think that theists should believe in order to be better theists," "things that theists think that atheists should believe in order to be more rational atheists," "things that non-libertarians think that libertarians should believe according to basic libertarian principles," etc. Such ideas are nearly always much kookier than the actual beliefs held by people in those groups.
For being such an intelligent individual, sometimes you strike me as not being so smart. I do not think that this is something that Obama supporters should think. When did I ever state that? I am not even saying Obama should do this. I am simply throwing it out there as being a thought of something that will not happen but would be a brilliant political move.
I've already explained to you why I think you are wrong. It's an interesting discussion to consider what the ramifications would be were Obama to drop out now when he is on the verge of having the nomination sewn up. But it's absurd to argue that doing so would be a "brilliant political move" for Obama and that Obama would be viewed as a "hero" by Democrats when he drops out and hands the presidency to McCain.
The reactionary comments are a joke. They seem to be more directed at me personally since I am well known as not being an Obama supporter. I am not for Clinton and I am not for Obama. I am observing this with interest because the politics of it all is amazing. If Obama did this, he would be on top of the world and have a lock as a future U.S. President. I am not so sure why that deserves these 'that is like throwing your fantasy league to get a better draft spot' kind of B.S.. Disagree with the idea, fine, but I do not understand the over reactions here to this.

What is the threat here? :mellow:
I don't think the "reactionary comments" are "over reactions." If I had to guess, I'd speculate that the reason you aren't getting many serious responses is because you are so obviously wrong that people aren't all that interested in spending the time on a substantive response.
 
I've already explained to you why I think you are wrong. It's an interesting discussion to consider what the ramifications would be were Obama to drop out now when he is on the verge of having the nomination sewn up. But it's absurd to argue that doing so would be a "brilliant political move" for Obama and that Obama would be viewed as a "hero" by Democrats when he drops out and hands the presidency to McCain.
Obviously, he would have to campaign for Clinton and give a great speech to announce it but if he did it right, it would not be seen as handing the Presidency to McCain but rather ending the deadlock, keeping the party from going to the convention without a nominee, and being supremely sacraficial and decidedly non-politician like.
I don't think the "reactionary comments" are "over reactions." If I had to guess, I'd speculate that the reason you aren't getting many serious responses is because you are so obviously wrong that people aren't all that interested in spending the time on a substantive response.
Seems like some are spending time on it. :shrug:
 
I do not think that this is something that Obama supporters should think. When did I ever state that? I am not even saying Obama should do this. I am simply throwing it out there as being a thought of something that will not happen but would be a brilliant political move.

The reactionary comments are a joke. They seem to be more directed at me personally since I am well known as not being an Obama supporter. I am not for Clinton and I am not for Obama. I am observing this with interest because the politics of it all is amazing. If Obama did this, he would be on top of the world and have a lock as a future U.S. President. I am not so sure why that deserves these 'that is like throwing your fantasy league to get a better draft spot' kind of B.S.. Disagree with the idea, fine, but I do not understand the over reactions here to this.

What is the threat here? :shrug:
You cannot be serious here.... With all due respect that's just an insane proposition.
 
This reminds me of when Hillary was offering up the VP spot to Obama when we was leading.

Even as a Hillary supporter, it makes absolutely no sense. It is the equivalent of being in the lead at the end of the 800m at the Olympics, and then deciding to pull up with a cramp because it will make for a better story in 4 years. It is now or never. You don't know what competition will arise between now and 2012. Maybe a new, fresh face hits the sprinting scene. Then you are screwed. You lost your shot at the gold forever.

 
I do not think that this is something that Obama supporters should think. When did I ever state that? I am not even saying Obama should do this. I am simply throwing it out there as being a thought of something that will not happen but would be a brilliant political move.
I'm not trying to stifle your creative thought process here.But on a ten-point scale with ten being the most politically brilliant, I think for Obama to drop out now would be somewhere south of a one. By doing so, he would drastically reduce his chances of ever becoming president.

Right now, he's got about a 45% chance of becoming president in 2008 (technically 2009). If he were to drop out now, he'd probably have only about a 25% chance of winning the Democratic nomination in 2012, which means about a 12% chance of becoming president. And that's if everyone forgives him for stupidly dropping out. If they don't forgive him, it will drop much more than that. We don't know what will happen between now and 2012. We don't know what other Democrats will run. Nobody in the universe could possibly be up around 75% right now to win the 2012 nomination -- which is at least where Obama currently is for 2008.

It's like an Obama supporter suggesting that McCain should drop out of the Republican race for the good of that party. Well, yeah, that would be best for Obama, so that's what an Obama supporter might fool himself into believing would be best for McCain. But it's simply not best for McCain. Not by a longshot. Neither would Obama's dropping out be best for Obama. Not by a longshot.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not think that this is something that Obama supporters should think. When did I ever state that? I am not even saying Obama should do this. I am simply throwing it out there as being a thought of something that will not happen but would be a brilliant political move.
I'm not trying to stifle your creative thought process here.But on a ten-point scale with ten being the most politically brilliant, I think for Obama to drop out now would be somewhere south of a one. By doing so, he would drastically reduce his chances of ever becoming president.

Right now, he's got about a 45% chance of becoming president in 2008 (technically 2009).
I reckon it was about 75% before he bowled that 37. I mean that's just absurd.
 
I don't think the "reactionary comments" are "over reactions." If I had to guess, I'd speculate that the reason you aren't getting many serious responses is because you are so obviously wrong that people aren't all that interested in spending the time on a substantive response.
Seems like some are spending time on it. :thumbup:
Right, and I'm one of them. But you stated that you didn't understand the reactionary comments you were getting from others, so I offered you a possible explanation.
 
If a candidate that was leading a presidential race after receiving donations from literally millions of supporters decided to suddenly drop out.. How would that make his supporters feel? Do you really think they'd be inclined to support him again?

"Yeah, Obama was cool to quit last time for the good o' the party, let's throw our monetary support behind him again this time and see if he sticks it out".

 
I expected some reactionary posts but I actually was expecting adonis to be more thoughtful about this.
I'm not exactly sure what there is to be thoughtful about this.Obama is winning states, delegates, popular vote. He's up by 10%+ nationally over Hillary among democrats. Most expect that in a head-to-head competition with McCain he'd win. And you're suggesting he drop out to improve his chances somehow?What does he need to improve on? The democrats, once he is the nominee, will rally around him and give him upwards of 80% support. The 42% you note now is only with Hillary in the mix, the numbers will be much higher when/if Obama wins the nomination.So he's on pace, and odds on favorite, to do this. Once he does it (if), he'll have a much higher percentage of support than 42, so that number is almost meaningless in a decision making process regarding what he should do.Hillary on the other hand, has a lot to gain by dropping out here. The party would appreciate it, leaders would, it would repair her image of causing much problems, many elected officials would appreciate it because they won't have to make tough stands...she had everything to gain and little to lose by doing it. She has no lead, and is a longshot to win it all.Obama is in great position to win it all. Why would he pull out this year, only to hope that more years from now he can be in much the same position he's in today? Probably a worse position? It just doesn't make sense.
Clinton gains nothing by dropping out. Her image will not be changed within or without the party. Obama is in a great position to win it all but he certainly is not a lock. The last poll I saw (sometime last week) had Obama up on McCain by 4 points. 4 points! That is not nearly as inevitable as you seem to think it is. I disagree, I think he would be in a much better position to win and in fact, would be a real life "lock" to be a future U.S. President with the only real question being 'when'.
There are far too many things that could come up that would hurt his chances for the presidency in 4, 8, or 12 years, far too many things that make him more likely to win than he is now...In this election, right now, he has huge support, he's leading hillary, he's running against an old white man who wants to continue the iraq war indefinitely, one of obama's biggest selling points is that he was against the iraq war to begin with, he stacks up well against mccain on that issue. Republicans are coming off of 8 years of an unpopular president, obama is a democrat who wants to usher in reform, he's a change candidate, the time is right.In 4, 8 or 12 years, who knows if the iraq war will play well, who knows how the dem president might do if clinton were to win, who knows what kind of president mccain would make, who knows what would happen with obama, his record, his votes, his friends, between now and then, who knows what other kinds of political leaders might show up between now and the next election he'd have a shot at...i'm sure hillary thought she had it locked up in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and even at the start of 2007. Things change, you can't predict the political future very well, and to say obama should hold out is to ignore the timeliness of his run now, how he stacks up against others in the race, hillary CLINTON, after bush, clinton, bush then maybe clinton? No thanks.The time is right, RIGHT now for Obama. Who knows what times we'll be in four years down the road. Who will win, hillary, mccain? Maybe mccain has a stroke and hillary wins, and gets reelected...you think obama could win after 8 years, or even 4 years of her? I don't think so.It's just silly to think that he should drop his best chance that we can imagine of him running for president. I'm all for discussing hypotheticals, but to play this one of as being anything but a horrible decision for obama would be foolish. It would be a terrible decision, terrible, terrible.It'd be akin to saying McCain should drop out now and let Romney take the reigns because McCain might have a better shot in 4 years after an obama or clinton regime. That ignores that he's 72 and his chance is now....obama is in the same boat, although his opportunity is not dictated by age, but by circumstances...iraq war, no national health care, bush, clinton, bush maybe clinton...up against a war hawk and a committed iraq war supporter who voted for the war....who has admitted he doesn't know much about the economy.I have to go, and shouldn't have taken the time to post, but while it was on my mind, I wanted to just give a driveby of just a few of the reasons that would be a horrible decision for him. It would be akin to giving up a first round draft pick in hopes that you might again get a top round draft pick in the future.You realize how rare it is for someone to have come from nothing to having a legitimate shot at the presidency? Hillary is there because of Bill...bottom line. McCain did great and is a rare example, but even then he had good competitiion from Romney, if only huckabee wasn't in the race.It's all about circumstances, opponents, political environments, and no time imaginable could be better suited for an Obama presidency.
 
Hilarious.

Its ok Super, i have begun to unravel the mindset of the Hill supporter after pondering my and Chachi's exchange. They are desperate, grasping at straws, and incredibly frustrated. Obama has become the Anti-Rove. Instead of turning his opponents strengths into weaknesses, he has take his own weaknesses and turned them into strengths. And the only dirt that HRC was able to find on Obama in 12+ months of campaigning was so brilliantly dealt with, that they now have to take aim at anything and everything related to Obama's campaign. So, the Hill faithful grasp at yet another straw, make some irrational claims, deny the truth as it appears in video form (much like a certain candidate), and shriek at the Obama supporters. Of course, they have no real evidence to back up any claims. And their accusations are easily dismantled and proven inaccurate. But, we have to listen to only 3 more months of it (max) and then Hill will be banished to the Senate for eternity

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Electoral-vote.com has a great break-down of the Pennsylvania primary delegate splits.

PA has 103 district-level delegates, 35 pledged at-large delegates, and 20 PLEO delegates (I have no idea what that stands for), and 29 Superdelegates.

If Hillary wins PA with 55% of the vote, she'll get a 13 delegate lead in district-level, 3 extra at-large, and 2 extra PLEO delegates for an 18 delegate advantage.

If Hillary wins PA with 60% of the vote, those numbers go to 14, 7, and 4, for a 25 delegate edge.

So that's somewhere between an 18 and 25 delegate pick-up for Hillary. I have a feeling, Obama will more than make that up a week later down here in North Carolina.

 
bigbottom said:
I've already explained to you why I think you are wrong. It's an interesting discussion to consider what the ramifications would be were Obama to drop out now when he is on the verge of having the nomination sewn up. But it's absurd to argue that doing so would be a "brilliant political move" for Obama and that Obama would be viewed as a "hero" by Democrats when he drops out and hands the presidency to McCain.
By dropping out, Obama would win the same respect from Democrats that Kerry Collins won from his New Orleans teammates when he announced that he just didn't feel like playing for that team anymore.
 
whoknew said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Chadstroma said:
I do not think that this is something that Obama supporters should think. When did I ever state that? I am not even saying Obama should do this. I am simply throwing it out there as being a thought of something that will not happen but would be a brilliant political move.
I'm not trying to stifle your creative thought process here.But on a ten-point scale with ten being the most politically brilliant, I think for Obama to drop out now would be somewhere south of a one. By doing so, he would drastically reduce his chances of ever becoming president.

Right now, he's got about a 45% chance of becoming president in 2008 (technically 2009).
I reckon it was about 75% before he bowled that 37. I mean that's just absurd.
McCain is crippled in one arm, and he could probably double that score easily.
 
He bowled a 37 in 7 frames - which would be the equivalent of about 52 in 10 frames. Still awful, but not quite as awful as it sounds.

 
On Drudge Report:

RASMUSSEN POLL: Clinton Lead Shrinking in PA; Clinton 47% Obama 42%... Developing...
Wow! That's extremely close, and it's Rasmussen who a certain conservative poster here seems to think is the only poll that matters. I wonder if a lot of Democrats are finally realizing how far behind Hillary really is and want this to be over with so we can go about the business of defeating McCain. Hillary does have the Republican "opperation chaos" group in her corner, though, so Hillary will likely outperform her poll numbers a little bit.
 
On Drudge Report:

RASMUSSEN POLL: Clinton Lead Shrinking in PA; Clinton 47% Obama 42%... Developing...
Wow! That's extremely close, and it's Rasmussen who a certain conservative poster here seems to think is the only poll that matters. I wonder if a lot of Democrats are finally realizing how far behind Hillary really is and want this to be over with so we can go about the business of defeating McCain. Hillary does have the Republican "opperation chaos" group in her corner, though, so Hillary will likely outperform her poll numbers a little bit.
As far as predictive ability, Rasumussen is the worst of the pollsters out there. So don't put too much emphasis on this.
 
On Drudge Report:

RASMUSSEN POLL: Clinton Lead Shrinking in PA; Clinton 47% Obama 42%... Developing...
Wow! That's extremely close, and it's Rasmussen who a certain conservative poster here seems to think is the only poll that matters. I wonder if a lot of Democrats are finally realizing how far behind Hillary really is and want this to be over with so we can go about the business of defeating McCain. Hillary does have the Republican "opperation chaos" group in her corner, though, so Hillary will likely outperform her poll numbers a little bit.
As far as predictive ability, Rasumussen is the worst of the pollsters out there. So don't put too much emphasis on this.
OC, which of the polsters do you consider to be the most on target so far this campaign?
 
bigbottom said:
Yankee23Fan said:
bigbottom said:
Chadstroma said:
What if Obama were to step out? An act of the 'ultimate' sacrafice for the good of the party. He would instantly jump in popularity among Democrats and likely be the new leader of the party.
If Obama were to drop out now when he leads Clinton in delegates, states won, popular vote and national polling results, do you think Obama's popularity would jump among the million or so folks who donated to his campaign and have expended a lot of time and energy to his campaign? I don't.
I'd be ok if they both dropped out. It would really show class and dignity. They could have a joint press conference. Something along the lines of, "we realize that our disagreements might hurt our party and we don't want that. So we are both dropping out so that we may continue this debate outside of the election to build a stronger party for the future without playing games with our electoral process."I think that will really really work and make them both look really really good.
I think you may be on to something here.
I'm loving the Republicans trying to get behind a McCain presidency. This is the same guy who came close to bolting the GOP in 01. I can't wait to see "conservatives" proudly putting McCain/Lieberman stickers on their Hummers.
 
On Drudge Report:

RASMUSSEN POLL: Clinton Lead Shrinking in PA; Clinton 47% Obama 42%... Developing...
Wow! That's extremely close, and it's Rasmussen who a certain conservative poster here seems to think is the only poll that matters. I wonder if a lot of Democrats are finally realizing how far behind Hillary really is and want this to be over with so we can go about the business of defeating McCain. Hillary does have the Republican "opperation chaos" group in her corner, though, so Hillary will likely outperform her poll numbers a little bit.
As far as predictive ability, Rasumussen is the worst of the pollsters out there. So don't put too much emphasis on this.
Explain why.
 
On Drudge Report:

RASMUSSEN POLL: Clinton Lead Shrinking in PA; Clinton 47% Obama 42%... Developing...
Wow! That's extremely close, and it's Rasmussen who a certain conservative poster here seems to think is the only poll that matters. I wonder if a lot of Democrats are finally realizing how far behind Hillary really is and want this to be over with so we can go about the business of defeating McCain. Hillary does have the Republican "opperation chaos" group in her corner, though, so Hillary will likely outperform her poll numbers a little bit.
As far as predictive ability, Rasumussen is the worst of the pollsters out there. So don't put too much emphasis on this.
Explain why.
In New Hampshire, for example, Rasmussen predicted an Obama win by 7%. He lost by 3%. In SC, Rasmussen was off by 12% in the margin, predicting a 15% Obama win that turned out to be 27% in the actual vote. Based on the results throughout the primaries, I put much greater emphasis on SurveyUSA and Gallop. Their results have been much more accurate.I probably shouldn't have said "worst", though, because Zogby is even further off in the results. I don't even bother looking at Zogby any more so that's at least my excuse why I used the term "worst" for Rasmussen. I was comparing him to other "reputable" pollsters.

The most accurate throughout the primaries has been SurveyUSA. And their latest PA poll has Clinton up by 12%.

 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election.

This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?

 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election. This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
No.
 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election. This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
Yes and no. I don't believe support for Obama is soft, though it is softer than it once was among independents. Obama fares a far better chance in the general than Fox gives him credit for because he's still tussling with Hillary, and McCain looks stronger every day he campaigns on his own. That, plus Fox & the conservative powers that be benefit from portraying a weak Obama because they really, REALLY want to face Hillary in the general. At least, that's my take on it.
 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election. This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
The truth of the matter is that FOX isn't the place to get info on how much support a Democrat has.
 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election.

This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
The truth of the matter is that FOX isn't the place to get info on how much support a Democrat has.
Wait, they are still allowed to be called Fox NEWS? I thought for sure by now that the FCC, AP, NTSB, NAMBLA, somebody, anybody would have stepped in and forced them to drop the "news" portion of their title
 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election. This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
The truth of the matter is that FOX isn't the place to get info on how much support a Democrat has.
.....and ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are no place to get fair coverage for Republicans. Atleast you can have a difference of opinion like Chris Wallace did last week, and air it on FOX. That could not have happened on the other networks at all!
 
Another NewsMax hack job (check out the fear-mongering from Matthew Conrad) but good info nonetheless.

Obama: Huge Capital Gains Tax Increase Needed

Monday, March 31, 2008 2:01 p.m. EDT

Citing advice from the sage of Omaha, Warren Buffet, Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has called for a massive increase in the capital gains tax.

No word from the billionaire investor Buffett in reaction to Obama’s policy proposal — aired first on MSNBC by the Democratic presidential contender in an interview with Maria Bariromo – but many other investors are already responding. Currently, the capital gains tax rate is 15 percent.



"When I talk to people like Warren Buffet, or others, and I ask them, you know, how much of a difference is it going to be if it’s 20 or 25 percent, they say, ‘Look, if it’s within that range then it’s not going to distort, I think, economic decision making,” said Obama in an interview on March 27 on CNBC’s Closing Bell program.

Sen. Obama, who also favors letting the Bush income tax cuts expire in 2010, added that he would not like the capital gains tax rate to go up to "confiscatory rates.”

Story Continues Below



"I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. . . my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent,” said Sen. Obama.

Some economists tell MoneyNews that it is not a wise tax policy decision to raise capital gains tax rates in the middle of an economic downturn and possibly a recession.



"I think it's a fairytale to tell people that appreciably raising taxes on voluntary investment activities would not have an effect in the market. Or course it would,” Matthew Conrad, managing director of Complete Wealth Management, Orange, Calif., tells MoneyNews.

Conrad, who is a licensed CPA, does not believe that Obama would stop at 25 percent for a cap gains tax, however. He thinks it could go much higher to"65 percent. That would sure distort my economic decision making, and that of my clients.”

Also taking on Obama is the Republican National Committee (RNC), which issued a statement quoting several financial experts, including Martin Sosnoff, chairman and founder of Atlanta/Sosnoff Capital, The Tax Foundation's Scott Hodge, and the U.S. Congressional Joint Committee On Taxation, which indicated that "higher tax rates for capital gains and dividends are bound to dampen the stock market.”

But, Obama seems confident that an increase in capital gains rates will do much to help an economy in crisis.



"What it will also do is first of all help out the federal Treasury, which is running a credit card up with the bank of China and other countries,” said Obama. "What it will also do, I think, is allow us to make investments in basic scientific research, in infrastructure, in broadband lines, in green energy and will allow us to give some relief to middle class and working class families who have been driving this economy as consumers but have been doing it through credit cards and home equity loans. They're not going to be able to do that.”
 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election. This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
The truth of the matter is that FOX isn't the place to get info on how much support a Democrat has.
.....and ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are no place to get fair coverage for Republicans. Atleast you can have a difference of opinion like Chris Wallace did last week, and air it on FOX. That could not have happened on the other networks at all!
Right, right, sure, sure. I'm not denying the left tilt of any networks. But, to say you cant have a dissenting opinion is absurd. I guess the round tables on CNN are all one sided? And Meet The Press never gives a Rep POV? And none of the flagship news programs ever report anything good about McCain. Try forming your own opinons instead of waiting for "da TV tah giv um tah me"
 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election.

This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
The truth of the matter is that FOX isn't the place to get info on how much support a Democrat has.
.....and ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are no place to get fair coverage for Republicans. Atleast you can have a difference of opinion like Chris Wallace did last week, and air it on FOX. That could not have happened on the other networks at all!
April Fools?Anyway, I don't watch much on those networks at all, but I can pull up a name on MSNBC that's as fair as it gets for politics: Joe Scarborough.

 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election. This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
The truth of the matter is that FOX isn't the place to get info on how much support a Democrat has.
.....and ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are no place to get fair coverage for Republicans. Atleast you can have a difference of opinion like Chris Wallace did last week, and air it on FOX. That could not have happened on the other networks at all!
MSNBC has Joe Scarborough (who I dig quite a bit) and Pat Buchanan as regulars. Tucker Carlson's show as well.CNN has Dobbs' show and a lot of pretty smart conservative commentators mixed in on the other shows.Headline News even gives King of the Doofuses Glen Beck an hour of airtime. Fox has Colmes. Alan Colmes.
 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election. This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
The truth of the matter is that FOX isn't the place to get info on how much support a Democrat has.
.....and ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are no place to get fair coverage for Republicans. Atleast you can have a difference of opinion like Chris Wallace did last week, and air it on FOX. That could not have happened on the other networks at all!
MSNBC has Joe Scarborough (who I dig quite a bit) and Pat Buchanan as regulars. Tucker Carlson's show as well.CNN has Dobbs' show and a lot of pretty smart conservative commentators mixed in on the other shows.Headline News even gives King of the Doofuses Glen Beck an hour of airtime. Fox has Colmes. Alan Colmes.
Tucker's show is gone, but he's still a regular contributor.
 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election. This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
The truth of the matter is that FOX isn't the place to get info on how much support a Democrat has.
.....and ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are no place to get fair coverage for Republicans. Atleast you can have a difference of opinion like Chris Wallace did last week, and air it on FOX. That could not have happened on the other networks at all!
MSNBC has Joe Scarborough (who I dig quite a bit) and Pat Buchanan as regulars. Tucker Carlson's show as well.CNN has Dobbs' show and a lot of pretty smart conservative commentators mixed in on the other shows.Headline News even gives King of the Doofuses Glen Beck an hour of airtime. Fox has Colmes. Alan Colmes.
Tucker's show is gone, but he's still a regular contributor.
Oh yeah, they got that David Gregory turd doing a show. I like tucker better.
 
As I watch the Fox channel, I get the distinct impression that support for Obama is soft, that the Wright story has been terrible for him among independents and that it has energized conservatives, that he really doesn't have a chance in the general election. This is pretty fascinating to me, because I don't know the truth of the matter. Does anyone here believe any of this?
The truth of the matter is that FOX isn't the place to get info on how much support a Democrat has.
.....and ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are no place to get fair coverage for Republicans. Atleast you can have a difference of opinion like Chris Wallace did last week, and air it on FOX. That could not have happened on the other networks at all!
MSNBC has Joe Scarborough (who I dig quite a bit) and Pat Buchanan as regulars. Tucker Carlson's show as well.CNN has Dobbs' show and a lot of pretty smart conservative commentators mixed in on the other shows.Headline News even gives King of the Doofuses Glen Beck an hour of airtime. Fox has Colmes. Alan Colmes.
Tucker's show is gone, but he's still a regular contributor.
Oh yeah, they got that David Gregory turd doing a show. I like tucker better.
I like Tucker better, too. He has a different point of view from most analysts and loves to bring out points that most people gloss over.
 
Sorry if this was already posted. Another defense to the "he has no foreign policy experience" brigade.

Obama received this endorsement.

 
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmem...been_pushin.php

Harold Ickes Confirms That Wright Is Key Topic In Discussions With Super-Delegates

By Greg Sargent - April 1, 2008, 3:25PM

In an interview with me this morning, senior Hillary adviser Harold Ickes confirmed that Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a key topic in discussions with uncommitted super-delegates over whether Obama is electable in a general election.

The comments from Ickes, who is Hillary's chief delegate hunter, are to my knowledge the first on-the-record confirmation from a Hillary adviser that the Wright controversy is a subject in conversations between the Hillary campaign and the super-delegates her advisers are trying to win over to Hillary's side.

In the wide-ranging interview, Ickes also:

* Said that it was possible that Hillary forces on the convention credentials committee could bring a so-called "minority report" to a full convention vote, though he also said that this is something Hillary doesn't want to happen

* Confirmed that the Hillary campaign could still try to woo super-dels even if she lost the popular vote, with Michigan and Florida counted

* Said that there was no risk of Hillary's efforts "tearing the party apart," described the current campaign as "genteel," and dismissed those worrying about the damage the campaign could do to the party as "hand-wringers"

"Look what the Republicans did to a genuine war hero," Ickes said, in a reference to John Kerry.

"Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks," Ickes continued. "I've had super delegates tell me that the Wright issue is a real issue for them."

In a reference to Wright's controversial views, Ickes continued: "Nobody thinks that Barack Obama harbors those thoughts. But that's not the issue. The issue is what Republicans [will do with them]...I think they're going to give him a very tough time."

Asked whether he was specifically bringing up Wright to super-delegates, Ickes said: "I've said what I've said...I tell people that they need to look at what they think Republicans may use against him. Wright comes up in the conversations."

When I asked Ickes if the Hillary campaign would still try to woo super-dels even if she was behind in the popular vote counting Florida and Michigan, he said: "I think being ahead in the popular vote is an important factor. I don't think it's dispositive...if at the end of the process she's running very slightly behind in the delegates overall, the popular vote vote will be important. I don't think it's absolutely critical."

Ickes added: "It seems to me that there's this great desire to rush to judgment...this has been a genteel debate for God's sake. People are wringing their hands, `oh, we're gonna tear party apart.' The party's a lot sturdier than these hand wringers in Washington would have you believe."

Ickes also said that it was possible that Hillary supporters on the convention credentials committee would bring a minority report to force a floor vote if the committee's solution on Florida and Michigan wasn't to the campaign's liking, but he predicted it likely wouldn't come to that and said Hillary doesn't want that to happen.

"My sense is it'll be resolved before then, but if it goes into the credentials committee we can always bring out a minority report and take it to the floor of the convention. Hillary does not want that. We don't think it's good for the party. We don't think it's good for the nominee."

Ickes pointed out that when he worked for Ted Kennedy's losing presidential primary run against Jimmy Carter in 1980, Kennedy aides brought a minority report calling for delegates to be able to vote their consciences, even though they "knew it was a foreordained conclusion" that it would lose.

"Look, there's always a possibility" that Hillary forces would produce a minority report, Ickes continued, but he added that it was not likely: "You don't do this lightly and only if you feel very very strongly...I think it will be resolved before then."
Of course it's an issue when you're the one bringing it up.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/02/o...t-_n_94606.html

Obama To Get Endorsement From 9/11 Commission, Iraq Study Group Co-Chair Lee Hamilton

INDIANAPOLIS — Former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton is backing Sen. Barack Obama in an endorsement that could boost the presidential hopeful's national security standing, The Associated Press has learned.

Hamilton, who during a three-decade House career rose to be chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees, also was vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission. He planned to announce his endorsement of Obama on Wednesday.

In an interview Hamilton said he viewed the Illinois senator as a champion of "the politics of consensus and not of partisan division."

"I think he is driven by the search for the common good," Hamilton said.

Hamilton is best known as the top Democrat on the panel that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He also was co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission that assessed U.S. policy in Iraq.

Although Hamilton is not a Democratic superdelegate, his backing comes on the heels of several high-profile endorsements for Obama, who leads Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in delegates for the party's nomination. Sens. Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota endorsed Obama in recent days.

Hamilton is the highest-profile Indiana Democrat to back Obama before the state's May 6 primary. Sen. Evan Bayh and the bulk of Indiana's Democratic Party leadership have campaigned actively for Clinton in a state where neither candidate is regarded as a natural front-runner.

Hamilton, once mentioned as a possible running mate for Bill Clinton, told the AP he believed Obama was the candidate most likely to unite the country.

"I begin by asking myself what kind of leadership the country needs at this juncture and I think, for me at least, the answer is that you want a candidate that will try to bring together a country that is very evenly divided, a country in which partisanship has been very sharp and to try to get a candidate who will create a new sense of national unity and will try to transcend the divisions within the country," he said.

Hamilton spent 34 years in Congress representing a southern Indiana district before retiring in 1999.

Hamilton now leads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. In a speech there last year, written by a longtime aide to Hamilton, Obama warned Pakistan that he would use military force if necessary to root out terrorists.
 
Sorry if this was already posted. Another defense to the "he has no foreign policy experience" brigade.

Obama received this endorsement.
Getting an endorsement does not automatically bestow experience on the endorsee. It's undeniably true that Obama doesn't have much (any?) experience at foreign policy. That's not a big deal IMO, but it's sort of an odd thing to deny.

 
Sorry if this was already posted. Another defense to the "he has no foreign policy experience" brigade.

Obama received this endorsement.
Getting an endorsement does not automatically bestow experience on the endorsee. It's undeniably true that Obama doesn't have much (any?) experience at foreign policy. That's not a big deal IMO, but it's sort of an odd thing to deny.
These are the people he will surround himself with - I think that is the only defense, no? He can't create experience, but he CAN create advisers.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top