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 *** (3 Viewers)

From First Read:

*** Those 18 delegates: Assume a 105-67 split in FL and a 73-55 split in MI. That gives Obama a grand total of: 1,789.
Why make those assumptions?
Those are the best case scenarios for the Clintons - assuming the rules committee on the 31st gives the Clintons everything they can "reasonably" ask for. Now, those uncommitted voters would definitely go to Obama in MI if they are seated in this manner (because of the Edwards endorsement - 99% of those uncommitted voters wanted to vote for Obama or Edwards based on any reasonable line of thinking) - I think the Clintons were trying to keep those delegates (if they are seated) uncommitted - that is why they turned down the 69 to 59 deal that the Michigan delegation came up with recently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From First Read:

*** Those 18 delegates: Assume a 105-67 split in FL and a 73-55 split in MI. That gives Obama a grand total of: 1,789.
Why make those assumptions?
Those were best case assumptions for Hillary. The delegates will be seated somehow, and they're just saying that even if they are, under a best case scenario for Hillary, Obama will still have a majority.
I don't get the 73-55 split of MI delegates. And I don't get why that's a "best case" for Hillary.
Well, I think under any sense of fairness, she won't get hers and prevent Obama from getting any. Odds are she also won't get more than those who voted for her. So giving her 73 and Obama 55, based roughly on the vote, would be reasonably considered to be the most realistic best case for hillary.Do you think the best case for her, realistically, could be something better?
 
From First Read:

*** Those 18 delegates: Assume a 105-67 split in FL and a 73-55 split in MI. That gives Obama a grand total of: 1,789.
Why make those assumptions?
Those were best case assumptions for Hillary. The delegates will be seated somehow, and they're just saying that even if they are, under a best case scenario for Hillary, Obama will still have a majority.
I don't get the 73-55 split of MI delegates. And I don't get why that's a "best case" for Hillary.
Well, I think under any sense of fairness, she won't get hers and prevent Obama from getting any. Odds are she also won't get more than those who voted for her. So giving her 73 and Obama 55, based roughly on the vote, would be reasonably considered to be the most realistic best case for hillary.Do you think the best case for her, realistically, could be something better?
73 for her, 55 uncommitted. They then hope to convince the uncommited to commit for her.
 
From First Read:

*** Those 18 delegates: Assume a 105-67 split in FL and a 73-55 split in MI. That gives Obama a grand total of: 1,789.
Why make those assumptions?
Those were best case assumptions for Hillary. The delegates will be seated somehow, and they're just saying that even if they are, under a best case scenario for Hillary, Obama will still have a majority.
I don't get the 73-55 split of MI delegates. And I don't get why that's a "best case" for Hillary.
Well, I think under any sense of fairness, she won't get hers and prevent Obama from getting any. Odds are she also won't get more than those who voted for her. So giving her 73 and Obama 55, based roughly on the vote, would be reasonably considered to be the most realistic best case for hillary.Do you think the best case for her, realistically, could be something better?
73 for her, 55 uncommitted. They then hope to convince the uncommited to commit for her.
That is why Edwards' endorsement is devastating. These voters were certainly meaning to vote for either Obama or Edwards - therefore killing the uncommitted argument that I'm sure the Clintons were going to make. 73 for her, 55 uncommitted has no chance of happening now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From First Read:

*** Those 18 delegates: Assume a 105-67 split in FL and a 73-55 split in MI. That gives Obama a grand total of: 1,789.
Why make those assumptions?
Those were best case assumptions for Hillary. The delegates will be seated somehow, and they're just saying that even if they are, under a best case scenario for Hillary, Obama will still have a majority.
I don't get the 73-55 split of MI delegates. And I don't get why that's a "best case" for Hillary.
Well, I think under any sense of fairness, she won't get hers and prevent Obama from getting any. Odds are she also won't get more than those who voted for her. So giving her 73 and Obama 55, based roughly on the vote, would be reasonably considered to be the most realistic best case for hillary.Do you think the best case for her, realistically, could be something better?
73 for her, 55 uncommitted. They then hope to convince the uncommited to commit for her.
Good point, that could happen too. My hope is that the nomination is locked up by this point, so that her vying for delegates is rendered pointless. But it could happen I guess. Never count the Clinton's out.
 
Reaping rewards from Edwards endorsement already:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Pittsburgh-based Steelworkers union is endorsing Barack Obama for president — giving the White House hopeful a big potential boost in his bid to attract blue-collar support.The 600,000-member strong union had previously backed former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who endorsed Obama Wednesday.
 
Considering the fact that Clinton went on 3 talk shows today and on each and every one of them commented on what a stupid stupid thing it would be for her supporters to back McCain, you would think that some of you could just calm down.She's riding it out until June 4th. I don't see what the big deal is. She's about to finish 2nd in perhaps the closest primary process this country has ever seen. There are only a handful of states left. Do we really need these next 2 weeks to take out McCain?
:hifive:As long as she is playing nice, I want her in the race. More attention on the Dems.
 
Considering the fact that Clinton went on 3 talk shows today and on each and every one of them commented on what a stupid stupid thing it would be for her supporters to back McCain, you would think that some of you could just calm down.She's riding it out until June 4th. I don't see what the big deal is. She's about to finish 2nd in perhaps the closest primary process this country has ever seen. There are only a handful of states left. Do we really need these next 2 weeks to take out McCain?
:popcorn:As long as she is playing nice, I want her in the race. More attention on the Dems.
Yea, I dont have a problem with that. It allows Obama to get into all the states. What sucks are all those Clinton quotes that we will see in McCain ads and hear him use in debates against Obama in the fall from earlier in the primary season. He cant use her as VP for that reason alone . . . "even your running-mate said you were less qualified than I am!"
 
Considering the fact that Clinton went on 3 talk shows today and on each and every one of them commented on what a stupid stupid thing it would be for her supporters to back McCain, you would think that some of you could just calm down.She's riding it out until June 4th. I don't see what the big deal is. She's about to finish 2nd in perhaps the closest primary process this country has ever seen. There are only a handful of states left. Do we really need these next 2 weeks to take out McCain?
:popcorn:As long as she is playing nice, I want her in the race. More attention on the Dems.
I think she has been playing nice, relative to how she was playing before.I think she knows in her head this is over, but her heart hasn't caught up.
 
He waited way too long, IMO. He was trying to play politics, be some kind of power broker at the convention. Plans like that never really work out. I think Edwards' day as an influential Democrat are done.
I don't think Edwards likes Obama. At all.
Who cares? Let's talk about Obama claiming he can get blue collar white voters into his camp and then going into a State that is full of them and losing by 40 points. We all knew he would lose, but 40 points? C'mon. And to top it off, 35% said he believes what Reverend Wright believes. 51% said they can't trust Obama. These are blue collar Dems, people!!! Huge numbers of Clinton supporters said they absolutely will not vote for Obama. Clinton won't win, but this is a huge problem for Obama in the General election... Discuss...
 
He waited way too long, IMO. He was trying to play politics, be some kind of power broker at the convention. Plans like that never really work out. I think Edwards' day as an influential Democrat are done.
I don't think Edwards likes Obama. At all.
Who cares? Let's talk about Obama claiming he can get blue collar white voters into his camp and then going into a State that is full of them and losing by 40 points. We all knew he would lose, but 40 points? C'mon. And to top it off, 35% said he believes what Reverend Wright believes. 51% said they can't trust Obama. These are blue collar Dems, people!!! Huge numbers of Clinton supporters said they absolutely will not vote for Obama. Clinton won't win, but this is a huge problem for Obama in the General election... Discuss...
I think the way you set it up was kinda...biased. He didn't go into the state claiming he could convince WV people to vote for him OVER Clinton, he said he could get them in the general election. We all knew he would lose by a wide margin, just like we all knew he'd lose in PA, just like we all knew hillary would lose in NC.This has been a heated primary, and the blue collar workers who are white prefer Hillary to Obama, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll prefer McCain to Obama in November. Obama is much more in tune with the issues concerning blue collar workers than McCain is, and the primary reason he does not have their support at this time is because Hillary has been better at connecting with them. Obama will fill in that void when she leaves.Edwards, as a VP, would help immensely, I think, with the white, blue collar worker vote. He would be an excellent running mate, in my opinion, as he'd help Obama in an area where he is perceived to be weakest. He'd be a southern white male, charming, hardworking, who can draw many people to Obama who might be more encouraged to go to McCain.I have to think that Edwards would be atop his VP list right now, especially after getting 7% in WV without having campaigned for about 4 months. That's a pretty big number, and shows how strong he is in states like WV, and probably PA too.
 
Back to the earlier "swing state" conversation for a second. Why are we just dimissing a state like GA as unwinnable for Obama and the Democrats? That primary was Feb 5, while all the republicans were still fighting hard for the nomination.

The republicans got 960,372 total votes. Huck won with 326,069 to McCain 303,369 while Romney grabbed 289,737 (the remainder spreadout among Rudy etc.)

The democrats got 1,054,831 total votes. Obama with 700,366 to Clinton's 328,129 while Edwards grabbed around 17,000 and the remainder spread out.

I'm not saying ever D vote goes to Obama and ever R vote goes to McCain, but that is quite a turnout for a primary. I dont see how GA is given only a .2% chance for Obama in an earlier post.

 
He waited way too long, IMO. He was trying to play politics, be some kind of power broker at the convention. Plans like that never really work out. I think Edwards' day as an influential Democrat are done.
I don't think Edwards likes Obama. At all.
Who cares? Let's talk about Obama claiming he can get blue collar white voters into his camp and then going into a State that is full of them and losing by 40 points. We all knew he would lose, but 40 points? C'mon. And to top it off, 35% said he believes what Reverend Wright believes. 51% said they can't trust Obama. These are blue collar Dems, people!!! Huge numbers of Clinton supporters said they absolutely will not vote for Obama. Clinton won't win, but this is a huge problem for Obama in the General election... Discuss...
A couple things:The Clinton name plays big in WV. Bill won there both times. Say what you will, but that name still has celebrity status in a lot of democratic circles.Obama has work to do in WV specifically, which he did not put the time in for in the primary given the numbers. There are clips of WV voters saying specifically they didnt vote for him because (paraphrasing somewhat here) 1) woman had a problem with him being the other race because there is conflict with the races 2) he is a muslim and 3) "His name is Hussein and I've had enough with Hussein!" WV is, um, unique and I wouldnt lump all white mid-low income voters together.
 
NY times

Bush Issues Veiled Attack on Obama

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: May 16, 2008

JERUSALEM — President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday to issue a veiled rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, who has argued that the United States should negotiate with countries like Iran and Syria.

Skip to next paragraph

Enlarge This Image

Mandel Ngan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

President Bush addressed the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on Thursday in Jerusalem.

Multimedia

Video Video: From Bush's Speech

Related

Lebanon Reverses Decisions That Prompted Violence (May 15, 2008)

Mr. Bush did not mention Mr. Obama by name, and the White House said his remarks were not aimed at the senator. But in a lengthy speech intended to promote the strong alliance between the United States and Israel, the president invoked the emotionally volatile imagery of World War II to make the case that talking to “terrorists and radicals” was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis.

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said. “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

The Obama campaign issued an angry response. In an e-mail statement to reporters, the senator denounced Mr. Bush for using the 60th anniversary of Israel to “launch a false political attack,” adding, “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

 
He waited way too long, IMO. He was trying to play politics, be some kind of power broker at the convention. Plans like that never really work out. I think Edwards' day as an influential Democrat are done.
I don't think Edwards likes Obama. At all.
Who cares? Let's talk about Obama claiming he can get blue collar white voters into his camp and then going into a State that is full of them and losing by 40 points. We all knew he would lose, but 40 points? C'mon. And to top it off, 35% said he believes what Reverend Wright believes. 51% said they can't trust Obama. These are blue collar Dems, people!!! Huge numbers of Clinton supporters said they absolutely will not vote for Obama. Clinton won't win, but this is a huge problem for Obama in the General election... Discuss...
A couple things:The Clinton name plays big in WV. Bill won there both times. Say what you will, but that name still has celebrity status in a lot of democratic circles.Obama has work to do in WV specifically, which he did not put the time in for in the primary given the numbers. There are clips of WV voters saying specifically they didnt vote for him because (paraphrasing somewhat here) 1) woman had a problem with him being the other race because there is conflict with the races 2) he is a muslim and 3) "His name is Hussein and I've had enough with Hussein!" WV is, um, unique and I wouldnt lump all white mid-low income voters together.
Personally, I think it's a miracle he got 26%. I love how anyone can extrapolate WV. It's weird even for a blue collar state.
 
He waited way too long, IMO. He was trying to play politics, be some kind of power broker at the convention. Plans like that never really work out. I think Edwards' day as an influential Democrat are done.
I don't think Edwards likes Obama. At all.
Who cares? Let's talk about Obama claiming he can get blue collar white voters into his camp and then going into a State that is full of them and losing by 40 points. We all knew he would lose, but 40 points? C'mon. And to top it off, 35% said he believes what Reverend Wright believes. 51% said they can't trust Obama. These are blue collar Dems, people!!! Huge numbers of Clinton supporters said they absolutely will not vote for Obama. Clinton won't win, but this is a huge problem for Obama in the General election... Discuss...
A couple things:The Clinton name plays big in WV. Bill won there both times. Say what you will, but that name still has celebrity status in a lot of democratic circles.Obama has work to do in WV specifically, which he did not put the time in for in the primary given the numbers. There are clips of WV voters saying specifically they didnt vote for him because (paraphrasing somewhat here) 1) woman had a problem with him being the other race because there is conflict with the races 2) he is a muslim and 3) "His name is Hussein and I've had enough with Hussein!" WV is, um, unique and I wouldnt lump all white mid-low income voters together.
Correct. Appalachia <> typical blue collar.
 
According to CNN's political ticker - 4 more supers are going for Obama, and at least 6 out of 8 of Edward's South Carolina pledged delegates will vote for Obama.

 
Every time Obama opens his mouth, somebody is taking enough offense about something he said for it to become a news story. His smooth, crystal image is tarnished like a rusty tin can all of a sudden. The guy went from being on offense 80% of the time to being defensive in about 80% of his comments and remarks. And he looks like he's on his heels and not very good at defending himself. When asked point blank if they would have a problem with Obama having a direct relationship with William Aires and Farakhan, most Democratic Strategists are forced to try and dodge the question and eventually concede they would have a problem with it, if it was a direct relationship. I think that's coming...and soon.

As for Farakhan, pretty soon somebody is going to ask him if he's ever met Farakhan, what the nature of that meeting was, and what he thinks about Farakhan. That could be lose, lose. If he says he met him, people will be upset. If he says he didn't and they catch him lying, he's in even deeper trouble. Then, he has implied that Farakhan is part of Reverend Wright, not his Church, but it appears his new Pastor is putting Farakhan right back on a pedestal making it seem even less probable that this was just one man who was speaking about controversial subject matter only when Obama was not present. Will he be pressured to distance himself from what appears to be a radical Church and not just a radical Reverend Wright? Will he do that or will he stand his ground? What will the very debate about this subject, regardless of outcome, do to that key demographic (working class whites) ? Will this segment of voters simply bypass this as politics or will they say this guy is a radical and vote for a McCain who has one of the best records in Congress for working with both sides of the aisle?

It is rampant extreme liberalism manifested in militant African Churches, radical extremist associations, scandalous real estate deals, a wife who has made severe anti-American comments, a relationship either directly or indirectly through association with an extremist racist anti-Semite, indicating he will speak with the leader of the one nation that is killing more Americans than any other today...without restriction, Elitist comments when the cameras are off to an extreme liberal audience in San Francisco insinuating how pathetic middle class white voters are who cling to their religions, and perceived anti-American gestures like not wearing an American Flag pin to make a point, etc. Obama, a man who most know little about, associates himself with extremists and far left wingers in the State of Illinois. Most people, who have known little about this man, are beginning to see what's under the shiny veneer. Blue collar working class and Reagan Democrats don't like what they are seeing. They don't like seeing a man who is going to raise taxes. They don't like seeing a man who appears weak on National Security. They don't like seeing a man who has radical associations. They don't like seeing a man who stands against everything they believe in except the support of their union jobs...especially when McCain is friendly to unions.

We keep waiting for Obama to turn this necessary demographic around, but it isn't happening. He's not the front runner. He's trailing McCain and I think its more likely he loses if he can't figure out a way to shift this enormous cloud of liberalism surrounding him. I have no idea how he will do that. He will scream and yell about a third term when he can, but he's going to spend the next four months defending himself and his associations. He has yet to do that and is still bantering on about change and hope. No substance. Too many unanswered questions or dodged responses and his poll numbers in key demographics are reflecting that.

I think in a debate about such subject matter, the pounding of Obama has just begun. There is more material here and we haven't even gotten in the General election.

 
He waited way too long, IMO. He was trying to play politics, be some kind of power broker at the convention. Plans like that never really work out. I think Edwards' day as an influential Democrat are done.
I don't think Edwards likes Obama. At all.
His speech yesterday pretty much outlined that he's not backing his preferred choice out of Clinton/Obama, but if he didn't like at least what Obama stood for, there was nothing forcing him to make his announcement on the honeymoon of Clinton's "big victory".
 
The more I watch the news and try to decipher it, the more depressed I'm getting, and the more excited you Obama fans should be. I'm really starting to believe we're headed for an Obama landslide, with 20 house seats going Democrat and 5-7 senate seats as well. Not only will he be elected, but he will be elected with a firm majority and able to do whatever he wants to accomplish. I think we're looking at a complete repudiation of the Republican party.

 
Obama loses major points for this.

Obama Statement on Passage of the Senate Farm Bill

Chicago, IL | May 15, 2008

Chicago, IL -- Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement in response to the passage of the Senate Farm Bill.

"I applaud the Senate's passage today of the Farm Bill, which will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability."

"The bill places greater resources into renewable energy and conservation. And, during this time of rising food prices, the Farm Bill provides an additional $10 billion for critical nutrition programs. I am also pleased that the bill includes my proposal to help thousands of African-American farmers get their discrimination claims reviewed under the Pigford settlement."

"This bill is far from perfect. I believe in tighter payment limits and a ban on packer ownership of livestock. As president, I will continue to fight for the interests of America's family farmers and ranchers and ensure that assistance is geared towards those producers who truly need them, instead of large agribusinesses. But with so much at stake, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good."

"By opposing the bill, President Bush and John McCain are saying no to America's farmers and ranchers, no to energy independence, no to the environment, and no to millions of hungry people."
There's a thread on why the farm bill sucks so bad here.
 
Obama loses major points for this.

Obama Statement on Passage of the Senate Farm Bill

Chicago, IL | May 15, 2008

Chicago, IL -- Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement in response to the passage of the Senate Farm Bill.

"I applaud the Senate's passage today of the Farm Bill, which will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability."

"The bill places greater resources into renewable energy and conservation. And, during this time of rising food prices, the Farm Bill provides an additional $10 billion for critical nutrition programs. I am also pleased that the bill includes my proposal to help thousands of African-American farmers get their discrimination claims reviewed under the Pigford settlement."

"This bill is far from perfect. I believe in tighter payment limits and a ban on packer ownership of livestock. As president, I will continue to fight for the interests of America's family farmers and ranchers and ensure that assistance is geared towards those producers who truly need them, instead of large agribusinesses. But with so much at stake, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good."

"By opposing the bill, President Bush and John McCain are saying no to America's farmers and ranchers, no to energy independence, no to the environment, and no to millions of hungry people."
There's a thread on why the farm bill sucks so bad here.
Coming out against farm subsidies is political suicide. Much like trying to do away with Social Security (the Third Rail of American politics) or questioning our one-sided support for Israel -- it will be a cold day in hell before any major party Presidential candidate can touch these things.ETA: Some quick Googling has informed me that McCain is not really in favor of farm subsidies. Surprising to me. I wonder how that will play in the heartland come election time?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Coming out against farm subsidies is political suicide. Much like trying to do away with Social Security (the Third Rail of American politics) or questioning our one-sided support for Israel -- it will be a cold day in hell before any major party Presidential candidate can touch these things.
McCain is a major party Presidential candidate.
 
This could always just be a face-saving maneuver in the event that he's not picked to be the VP (which he probably won't be). If Obama wanted Edwards to be his running mate, it will be easy for Edwards to later say "Gee, I wasn't planning on running for the Vice Presidency, but my country needs me and how can I turn down Barack during this pivotal election season blah blah blah." People do this all the time.
 
This could always just be a face-saving maneuver in the event that he's not picked to be the VP (which he probably won't be). If Obama wanted Edwards to be his running mate, it will be easy for Edwards to later say "Gee, I wasn't planning on running for the Vice Presidency, but my country needs me and how can I turn down Barack during this pivotal election season blah blah blah." People do this all the time.
When I said I wasn't interested in being Obama's running mate, I was being sincere.
 
120 delegates to go.

Congressman Pete Stark endorses Obama; Delegate Countdown - 120.5 To GoBy Sam Graham-Felsen - May 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am EDTChicago, IL –Today, United States Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) endorsed Barack Obama. Congressman Stark said, “Senator Barack Obama has captured the imagination of Americans in a way we’ve not seen for decades. He’s inspired millions of young people to register to vote and join the ranks of our Democratic Party, he’s consistently opposed the war, he advocates universal health care, and he delivers a message that transcends party politics at the same time. “I have the greatest respect for Senator Clinton and for her many years of service, but I believe the time has come to unify our party. The outcome we need in November is a Democratic President. To achieve that, we must turn our focus squarely on Senator McCain and his quest to continue another four years of the failed Bush agenda. “Barack Obama is the person we need as the next President of the United States of America. I’m excited to help him achieve that goal.” Senator Obama said, “Congressman Pete Stark has been a powerful voice for the people of California for decades, and I am proud to accept his support today. He and I share a common goal of making universal health care a reality so every man, woman and child in this country has affordable, quality health care coverage they can count on. He has spoken out powerfully on the issues that matter in the lives of working families, like ending the war in Iraq, advocating for all of our children and protecting social security for our seniors. I look forward to working with Congressman Stark to continue to bring the kind of change that matters to working families – in California and across the country.”Senator Obama is now 120.5 delegates away from securing the nomination.
 
Just to realize the uselessness of polls at this point in the season between Obama and McCain, check out this article to realize that ONLY NOW is McCain starting to rev up his political machine and get ready for the campaign to come. Obama has already had all his connections scrutinized and combed over.

McCain is getting his team ready for the pre-season while Obama's team is already in mid-season form.

McCain issues new ethics policy for staff

May 16, 2008 03:55 PM

By Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff

John McCain's presidential campaign has issued a new ethics policy for staff, volunteers, and vendors after a campaign figure stepped down because of an apparent conflict of interest by working with an independent advocacy group that has opposed Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Two other McCain campaign officials resigned in the past week because of their employment at a public relations and lobbying firm that represented the repressive ruling junta in Burma in the past.

The McCain campaign has been plagued by news reports about the role of Washington lobbyists in the campaign, and campaign manager Rick Davis, who is on leave from his lobbying and consulting business, issued the new policy.

It prohibits staff from being registered lobbyists or foreign agents, requires volunteers to disclose any lobbying work, and bars contractors and any "person with a McCain campaign title or position" from working with any independent advocacy group "that makes public communications that support or oppose any presidential candidate."

Campaign personnel are required to complete a disclosure questionnaire, in part, "to identify issues and clients that could be embarrassing for the Senator and the Campaign," the policy states.

The latest casualty was Craig Shirley, whose firm had done consulting work for the campaign and who stepped down as a member of McCain's Virginia leadership team, according to the Politico website, whose inquiries precipitated his departure. Shirley's company had also done public relations work for an independent advocacy group, Stop Her Now, that opposed Clinton and now opposes Obama, Politico reported.

Less than a week ago, Doug Goodyear, McCain's choice to manage the party's nominating convention in St. Paul, Minn., resigned after Newsweek reported that his firm, the DCI Group, had done public relations work for the Burmese government, and Doug Davenport, who ran DCI's lobbying arm, stepped down as one of McCain's regional campaign managers.
 
Obama scores major points for this:

RNC Response to Obama Comments on Medical Marijuana Laws

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

WASHINGTON – RNC Communications Director Danny Diaz released the following statement today:

“Barack Obama’s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?”

OBAMA ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS

Obama Pledged To Stop DEA Raids On Oregon Medical Marijuana:

Obama Pledged To Stop The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Raids On Oregon Medical Marijuana Growers. Willamette Week: “Would you stop the Drug Enforcement Administration’s raids on Oregon medical marijuana grows?” Obama: “I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science. And if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it’s something we should consider.” (James Pitkin, “Six Minutes With Barack,” Willamette Week, 5/14/08)

But The Presidential Oath Of Office Requires The President To “Preserve, Protect And Defend The Constitution Of The United States”:

The Presidential Oath Of Office, As Specified In Article II, Section I Of The U.S. Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (U.S. Department Of State Website, usinfo.state.gov, Accessed 5/14/08)

And The Supreme Court Has Upheld Regulations On Medical Marijuana:

The Supreme Court Ruled In 2001 And 2005, Affirming The Authority Of Congress To Regulate The Use Of Marijuana. “In 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress’s 1970 judgment about marijuana in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative et al., 532 U.S. 438 (2001), which held that, given the absence of medical usefulness, medical necessity is not a defense to marijuana prosecution. Furthermore, in Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the authority of Congress to regulate the use of potentially harmful substances through the federal Controlled Substances Act includes the authority to regulate marijuana of a purely intrastate character, regardless of a state law purporting to authorize ‘medical’ use of marijuana.” (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Website, www.usdoj.gov, Accessed 5/14/08)
 
Obama scores major points for this:

RNC Response to Obama Comments on Medical Marijuana Laws

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

WASHINGTON – RNC Communications Director Danny Diaz released the following statement today:

“Barack Obama’s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?”

OBAMA ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS

Obama Pledged To Stop DEA Raids On Oregon Medical Marijuana:

Obama Pledged To Stop The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Raids On Oregon Medical Marijuana Growers. Willamette Week: “Would you stop the Drug Enforcement Administration’s raids on Oregon medical marijuana grows?” Obama: “I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science. And if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it’s something we should consider.” (James Pitkin, “Six Minutes With Barack,” Willamette Week, 5/14/08)

But The Presidential Oath Of Office Requires The President To “Preserve, Protect And Defend The Constitution Of The United States”:

The Presidential Oath Of Office, As Specified In Article II, Section I Of The U.S. Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (U.S. Department Of State Website, usinfo.state.gov, Accessed 5/14/08)

And The Supreme Court Has Upheld Regulations On Medical Marijuana:

The Supreme Court Ruled In 2001 And 2005, Affirming The Authority Of Congress To Regulate The Use Of Marijuana. “In 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress’s 1970 judgment about marijuana in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative et al., 532 U.S. 438 (2001), which held that, given the absence of medical usefulness, medical necessity is not a defense to marijuana prosecution. Furthermore, in Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the authority of Congress to regulate the use of potentially harmful substances through the federal Controlled Substances Act includes the authority to regulate marijuana of a purely intrastate character, regardless of a state law purporting to authorize ‘medical’ use of marijuana.” (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Website, www.usdoj.gov, Accessed 5/14/08)
I think it's a bad precedent to set. I would be more than happy to see marijuana legalized, but he should work to change the law permanently. Just undermining for his term is the easy way out.
 
Obama scores major points for this:

RNC Response to Obama Comments on Medical Marijuana Laws

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

WASHINGTON – RNC Communications Director Danny Diaz released the following statement today:

“Barack Obama’s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?”

OBAMA ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS

Obama Pledged To Stop DEA Raids On Oregon Medical Marijuana:

Obama Pledged To Stop The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Raids On Oregon Medical Marijuana Growers. Willamette Week: “Would you stop the Drug Enforcement Administration’s raids on Oregon medical marijuana grows?” Obama: “I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science. And if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it’s something we should consider.” (James Pitkin, “Six Minutes With Barack,” Willamette Week, 5/14/08)

But The Presidential Oath Of Office Requires The President To “Preserve, Protect And Defend The Constitution Of The United States”:

The Presidential Oath Of Office, As Specified In Article II, Section I Of The U.S. Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (U.S. Department Of State Website, usinfo.state.gov, Accessed 5/14/08)

And The Supreme Court Has Upheld Regulations On Medical Marijuana:

The Supreme Court Ruled In 2001 And 2005, Affirming The Authority Of Congress To Regulate The Use Of Marijuana. “In 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress’s 1970 judgment about marijuana in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative et al., 532 U.S. 438 (2001), which held that, given the absence of medical usefulness, medical necessity is not a defense to marijuana prosecution. Furthermore, in Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the authority of Congress to regulate the use of potentially harmful substances through the federal Controlled Substances Act includes the authority to regulate marijuana of a purely intrastate character, regardless of a state law purporting to authorize ‘medical’ use of marijuana.” (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Website, www.usdoj.gov, Accessed 5/14/08)
:goodposting: one step closer

 
Fascinating Rasmussen Poll Numbers:

Obama: 42%

McCain: 38

Barr: 6

Nader: 4

First time the 4 way match up has been polled. I am blown away at the Barr %. That has to be a bit high doesn't it?

Then, just for fun, they polled with Hillary running as an Independent.

McCain: 32%

Obama: 31

Clinton: 22

Barr: 3

Nader: 3

She could actually truly ruin the Democratic Party if she wanted to, so please keep that in mind when she is campaigning for Obama in the coming months that this woman could have taken 1/4 the popular vote and caused an absolute electoral disaster.

 
Fascinating Rasmussen Poll Numbers:

Obama: 42%

McCain: 38

Barr: 6

Nader: 4

First time the 4 way match up has been polled. I am blown away at the Barr %. That has to be a bit high doesn't it?

Then, just for fun, they polled with Hillary running as an Independent.

McCain: 32%

Obama: 31

Clinton: 22

Barr: 3

Nader: 3

She could actually truly ruin the Democratic Party if she wanted to, so please keep that in mind when she is campaigning for Obama in the coming months that this woman could have taken 1/4 the popular vote and caused an absolute electoral disaster.
Why? He's basically running as the "true" conservative in the race. I actually think he's going to be a huge pain in McCain's backside in several states.
 
Fascinating Rasmussen Poll Numbers:Obama: 42%McCain: 38Barr: 6Nader: 4First time the 4 way match up has been polled. I am blown away at the Barr %. That has to be a bit high doesn't it?Then, just for fun, they polled with Hillary running as an Independent. McCain: 32%Obama: 31Clinton: 22Barr: 3Nader: 3She could actually truly ruin the Democratic Party if she wanted to, so please keep that in mind when she is campaigning for Obama in the coming months that this woman could have taken 1/4 the popular vote and caused an absolute electoral disaster.
I agree, she could have, but in the process could have destroyed her political future. I will appreciate all help given by Mrs. Clinton, but this isn't all altruistic here.
 
McCain: 32%Obama: 31Clinton: 22Barr: 3Nader: 3She could actually truly ruin the Democratic Party if she wanted to, so please keep that in mind when she is campaigning for Obama in the coming months that this woman could have taken 1/4 the popular vote and caused an absolute electoral disaster.
Actually the best thing Hillary might do for the democrats is to run as an independent. If those numbers are accurate, its quite likely no candidate wins 270 electoral college votes (a majority) in that scenario. The constitution stipulates that if no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, congress picks the president and vice president. And of course congress is run by the democrats. In other words, Hillary in a 3-way race probably gets Obama elected.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top