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

[adonis]

Good speech on iraq.

Bush-McCain war...McCain will be a third term of the bush administration. Tax cuts to rich during war. Interesting and sharp rhetoric.

Certainly landed a blow on Clinton when he said her criticisms of McCain would be more significant if she hadn't voted for the war, just like McCain.

 

[ericttspikes]

ELECTION 2008Racists endorse Obama on candidate's websiteNew Black Panther Party condemns 'white men,' Jews, praises candidate--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posted: March 18, 20089:33 pm EasternBy Aaron Klein© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Pretty sad that Clinton supporters are reduced to citing WorldNetDaily articles. I am beginning to see the light in the HJS approach. Conflagration, indeed.

It is clever politics on their part. She is reinventing herself as a hardline centrist, and the best thing for her campaign is to have race interjected like this; by their doing or not. The math that doesn't add up for me is the constant blather about "Reagan Democrats". Joe Sixpack who probably hate Obama even more now if they ever liked him at all. These people may go Hillary's way in the remaining primaries, but probably based on the hate for Obama more than anything else. I don't see any way she holds them in the general election. I just heard a story today that cited a ton of information found in her record dump where it is finally documented that she unequivocally supported NAFTA, despite her statements in Ohio to the contrary. It will be interesting to see her deal with that subject in PA. However, I really doubt issues, even on as sensitive as trade and how it impacts PA, will move the needle there at all.

 

[RoarinSonoran]

I'm not going to read 144 pages, so Obama blaming the state of the economy on the Iraq War (link) may have already been covered.

I'd have gone with Global Warming as the cause, but to each his own.

Wait, are you saying that 5 years of war haven't had a horrible negative effect on our economy?

The war may be a factor, but it's not the sole component. I get the impression that he thinks gas would be $1/gal if not for the war, even considering that Iraqi oil production is barely at its pre-war level. World-wide demand spiked the prices. He should be blaming China and India (and American gas guzzlers as well).(and yes, the war has affected our economy, ballooning the deficit)

 

[commisholio]

In her quest to secure the nomination over Obama, Hillary has set up a dynamic where she can't win the general. She has conceded the point that McCain has sufficient "experience" (whatever that means) to be Commander in Chief. By doing so, she has made it infinitely harder for her to attack McCain as incompetent on foreign policy. McCain recently demonstrated that he doesn't know the first thing about the middle east by confusing Shia with Sunni FIVE YEARS into a war in the middle east. How can Hillary plausibly attack him on this issue when McCain can just point to her acknowledgement of him as someone who can handle the job?

Hillary's continued presence in the campaign makes a McCain victory increasingly probable. It's very depressing.

 

[Sweet J]

I'm not going to read 144 pages, so Obama blaming the state of the economy on the Iraq War (link) may have already been covered.

I'd have gone with Global Warming as the cause, but to each his own.

Wait, are you saying that 5 years of war haven't had a horrible negative effect on our economy?

The war may be a factor, but it's not the sole component. I get the impression that he thinks gas would be $1/gal if not for the war, even considering that Iraqi oil production is barely at its pre-war level. World-wide demand spiked the prices. He should be blaming China and India (and American gas guzzlers as well).(and yes, the war has affected our economy, ballooning the deficit)

Lots of people who say what Obama "really meant," but don't cite anything in his speech. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[adonis]

I'm not going to read 144 pages, so Obama blaming the state of the economy on the Iraq War (link) may have already been covered.

I'd have gone with Global Warming as the cause, but to each his own.

Wait, are you saying that 5 years of war haven't had a horrible negative effect on our economy?

The war may be a factor, but it's not the sole component. I get the impression that he thinks gas would be $1/gal if not for the war, even considering that Iraqi oil production is barely at its pre-war level. World-wide demand spiked the prices. He should be blaming China and India (and American gas guzzlers as well).(and yes, the war has affected our economy, ballooning the deficit)

Which has affected inflation, which has affected the value of the dollar, which has affected oil prices. It's not a 1:1 ratio or anything, but there's plenty of evidence to support saying that pouring out 10 billion dollars a month with no ROI will damage an economy, especially over 5 years.Truth be told, the mortgage crisis is the main culprit, but certainly a ballooning deficit helped in large part by the iraq war, certainly doesn't help.

But I think it's wrong to say the war in Iraq did not have a negative impact on our economy.

 

[commisholio]

I'm not going to read 144 pages, so Obama blaming the state of the economy on the Iraq War (link) may have already been covered.

I'd have gone with Global Warming as the cause, but to each his own.

Wait, are you saying that 5 years of war haven't had a horrible negative effect on our economy?

The war may be a factor, but it's not the sole component. I get the impression that he thinks gas would be $1/gal if not for the war, even considering that Iraqi oil production is barely at its pre-war level. World-wide demand spiked the prices. He should be blaming China and India (and American gas guzzlers as well).(and yes, the war has affected our economy, ballooning the deficit)

How do you read that speech and draw the conclusion that Obama asserts that our crappy economy is caused by the Iraq war? I read it as much more an indictment of our spending on the Iraq war and a discussion of the opportunity cost of the Iraq war. I think you need to read it again.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

 

[ericttspikes]

In her quest to secure the nomination over Obama, Hillary has set up a dynamic where she can't win the general. She has conceded the point that McCain has sufficient "experience" (whatever that means) to be Commander in Chief. By doing so, she has made it infinitely harder for her to attack McCain as incompetent on foreign policy. McCain recently demonstrated that he doesn't know the first thing about the middle east by confusing Shia with Sunni FIVE YEARS into a war in the middle east. How can Hillary plausibly attack him on this issue when McCain can just point to her acknowledgement of him as someone who can handle the job?Hillary's continued presence in the campaign makes a McCain victory increasingly probable. It's very depressing.

I think she feels that he will beat himself, which is entirely plausible. He was wrong not once, but over the course of several days on the Shia/Sunni thing. Even after Lieberman corrected him. He either is having trouble with the facts, possibly because of his age, or he is purposely rolling them all up into a big ball of Al Queda because that is what voters will respond to, like the Iraq/9-11 thing. If it's the latter, he is further off the Straight Talk Express than I thought. If it's the former he could very well have a James Stockdale moment in the general.

 

[adonis]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

 

[The Apache]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

 

[aardball44]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

Florida down?

 

[adonis]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

I know it may come as a surprise, but she's been saying which states are significant and which aren't throughout the campaign. I'll just say this - it doesn't seem that her criteria for selecting which states are significant comes from the fact that they're potentially not going to count.

 

[adonis]

In her quest to secure the nomination over Obama, Hillary has set up a dynamic where she can't win the general. She has conceded the point that McCain has sufficient "experience" (whatever that means) to be Commander in Chief. By doing so, she has made it infinitely harder for her to attack McCain as incompetent on foreign policy. McCain recently demonstrated that he doesn't know the first thing about the middle east by confusing Shia with Sunni FIVE YEARS into a war in the middle east. How can Hillary plausibly attack him on this issue when McCain can just point to her acknowledgement of him as someone who can handle the job?Hillary's continued presence in the campaign makes a McCain victory increasingly probable. It's very depressing.

I think she feels that he will beat himself, which is entirely plausible. He was wrong not once, but over the course of several days on the Shia/Sunni thing. Even after Lieberman corrected him. He either is having trouble with the facts, possibly because of his age, or he is purposely rolling them all up into a big ball of Al Queda because that is what voters will respond to, like the Iraq/9-11 thing. If it's the latter, he is further off the Straight Talk Express than I thought. If it's the former he could very well have a James Stockdale moment in the general.

It is a valid point though that McCain isn't receiving MUCH scrutiny on his slip-up whereas if Obama had done it, it'd be headline news for days. I do admit though, that McCain has more than proven his foreign policy experience, not to say he'd be the best for the job, but that this was likely a slipup whereas the same would be true for Obama, still, he wouldn't be given quite the grace that McCain seems to enjoy. Not a big deal, just funny.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

I still like how she's pursuing a scorched earth campaign policy."If I don't get the nomination then he's not a legitimate candidate."

Nice.

 

[The Apache]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

Florida down?

Take another look, Florida up in the quote.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

Wow, you must not have been paying attention to this race at all between super Tuesday and Ohio. You've missed some good tap dancing on her part.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It is a valid point though that McCain isn't receiving MUCH scrutiny on his slip-up whereas if Obama had done it, it'd be headline news for days.

 

[The Apache]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

I know it may come as a surprise, but she's been saying which states are significant and which aren't throughout the campaign. I'll just say this - it doesn't seem that her criteria for selecting which states are significant comes from the fact that they're potentially not going to count.

I would think that all states should count. Not just those that favored Obama or those that favored Clinton. I'm no Hillary supporter, I just find it ironic how Hillary dismissed Obama's wins in the typical Republican states in the midwest. I agree that is flawed reasoning and Obama supporters point that out. However, I also think it's reasonable that Florida and Michigan voters should have their say. Hillary supporters see this and many Obama supporters do not. For both sides it's selective reasoning.

 

[The Apache]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

Wow, you must not have been paying attention to this race at all between super Tuesday and Ohio. You've missed some good tap dancing on her part.

Maybe so. Please enlighten me as to what other states are not going to have their votes counted via a primary or caucus.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

There's no denying that the criticisms of Obama so far, have been the most negative of the entire campaign for either party.

The reason why people talk to you like you're a cult follower is because you say stuff like this.

Well, I'm waiting for an example of something that has been worse. Something that has received as much play, that has pulled poll numbers down so fast, so quickly, and that has been jumped on by news pundits so fervently as this?Will I also admit that Obama has received the most amount of positive press? Sure.But i'd like to hear a few instances of things in this campaign that have resulted in such controversy and conversation.ETA, I was talking specifically about this Wright issue.

Actually, I was thinking about it, and you're right. The media have been terribly unfair to Obama and just keep hitting him with negative stories that other candidates don't have to face. For example, there was that time when the New York Times ran a story accusing him of having an affair with a lobbyist with absolutely no evidence at all to back it up. That was incredibly dirty. And then there was the time that Obama had to cut ties with Geraldine Ferraro after she made some controversial remarks. When is the press going to apply the same scrutiny to McCain and Clinton that they give to Obama? This is just so unfair.

You really think those two stories were bigger and/or more negative than the Rev Wright issue?

They're not bigger the Wright controversy, mainly because they lack the legitimacy of that story. I don't know how one can judge whether one story is "more negative" than another. The "John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist" story was certainly negative, but it was also manufactured almost from whole cloth. On the other hand, Jeremiah Wright actually does exist, really is a racist, and Barack Obama really does consider him "like family."I'm not the one who started off trying to rank who's gotten the roughest treatment in the press. I just found it funny that as soon as the media gives Obama anything less than fawning coverage, adonis freaks out and concludes that its singled him out for negative attacks.

 

[aardball44]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

Florida down?

Take another look, Florida up in the quote.

Sorry. My chad was dangling.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

Wow, you must not have been paying attention to this race at all between super Tuesday and Ohio. You've missed some good tap dancing on her part.

Maybe so. Please enlighten me as to what other states are not going to have their votes counted via a primary or caucus.

He said "significant". See bolded.She's been doing this for weeks now.

 

[adonis]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

I know it may come as a surprise, but she's been saying which states are significant and which aren't throughout the campaign. I'll just say this - it doesn't seem that her criteria for selecting which states are significant comes from the fact that they're potentially not going to count.

I would think that all states should count. Not just those that favored Obama or those that favored Clinton. I'm no Hillary supporter, I just find it ironic how Hillary dismissed Obama's wins in the typical Republican states in the midwest. I agree that is flawed reasoning and Obama supporters point that out. However, I also think it's reasonable that Florida and Michigan voters should have their say. Hillary supporters see this and many Obama supporters do not. For both sides it's selective reasoning.

I think obama supporters say that the states should count, but not as they were polled, that would just be lunacy.As it stands, there seem to be no good options remaining for allowing the states to revote. Even allowing a revote is questionable in my eyes. The states moved their primaries up in stark violation of the rules of their party, and suffered the consequence, and now that it seems like their votes will matter, they're trying everything possible to make up for the fact that they broke the rules, by saying "OK, we know we screwed up, but maybe if we're the last person to go now you'll let our votes count?"

I doubt I'd be tooooo pissed if there was a revote in either state, even though the rules clearly state their delegates won't be seated if they moved their elections up, but if there's a fair way of working out a compromise, I'd support it. It'd have to be fair, and safe and secure though, and that seems to be the problem, setting up something like that on such short notice.

But essentially, I'd have not a huge problem if they did it, even if I think it's not technically right. Better to err on the side where you let all the people vote, ya know? Regardless, it is not looking like it's much of a possibility. That will be pretty problematic i think.

 

[The Apache]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

Wow, you must not have been paying attention to this race at all between super Tuesday and Ohio. You've missed some good tap dancing on her part.

Maybe so. Please enlighten me as to what other states are not going to have their votes counted via a primary or caucus.

He said "significant". See bolded.She's been doing this for weeks now.

I get that. The quote was about votes not counting or states not getting a chance to vote. Aren't Florida and Michigan the only two we are referring to here? I totally get that Hillary dismissed states such as Utah, Idaho, etc. that Obama won and I think that it's ridiculous on her part to try and discount the votes of those states. But as far as I'm aware, those states votes are counting and the way it stands Florida and Michigan will not. I don't think either side has the monopoly on selecting what states votes benefit them. I would think we let everyone vote and see how it turns out.

 

[The Apache]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

I know it may come as a surprise, but she's been saying which states are significant and which aren't throughout the campaign. I'll just say this - it doesn't seem that her criteria for selecting which states are significant comes from the fact that they're potentially not going to count.

I would think that all states should count. Not just those that favored Obama or those that favored Clinton. I'm no Hillary supporter, I just find it ironic how Hillary dismissed Obama's wins in the typical Republican states in the midwest. I agree that is flawed reasoning and Obama supporters point that out. However, I also think it's reasonable that Florida and Michigan voters should have their say. Hillary supporters see this and many Obama supporters do not. For both sides it's selective reasoning.

I think obama supporters say that the states should count, but not as they were polled, that would just be lunacy.As it stands, there seem to be no good options remaining for allowing the states to revote. Even allowing a revote is questionable in my eyes. The states moved their primaries up in stark violation of the rules of their party, and suffered the consequence, and now that it seems like their votes will matter, they're trying everything possible to make up for the fact that they broke the rules, by saying "OK, we know we screwed up, but maybe if we're the last person to go now you'll let our votes count?"

I doubt I'd be tooooo pissed if there was a revote in either state, even though the rules clearly state their delegates won't be seated if they moved their elections up, but if there's a fair way of working out a compromise, I'd support it. It'd have to be fair, and safe and secure though, and that seems to be the problem, setting up something like that on such short notice.

But essentially, I'd have not a huge problem if they did it, even if I think it's not technically right. Better to err on the side where you let all the people vote, ya know? Regardless, it is not looking like it's much of a possibility. That will be pretty problematic i think.

I certainly agree. Especially in the case of Michigan. Last I heard they are still trying to work out another primary there.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

I know it may come as a surprise, but she's been saying which states are significant and which aren't throughout the campaign. I'll just say this - it doesn't seem that her criteria for selecting which states are significant comes from the fact that they're potentially not going to count.

I would think that all states should count. Not just those that favored Obama or those that favored Clinton. I'm no Hillary supporter, I just find it ironic how Hillary dismissed Obama's wins in the typical Republican states in the midwest. I agree that is flawed reasoning and Obama supporters point that out. However, I also think it's reasonable that Florida and Michigan voters should have their say. Hillary supporters see this and many Obama supporters do not. For both sides it's selective reasoning.

I think obama supporters say that the states should count, but not as they were polled, that would just be lunacy.As it stands, there seem to be no good options remaining for allowing the states to revote. Even allowing a revote is questionable in my eyes. The states moved their primaries up in stark violation of the rules of their party, and suffered the consequence, and now that it seems like their votes will matter, they're trying everything possible to make up for the fact that they broke the rules, by saying "OK, we know we screwed up, but maybe if we're the last person to go now you'll let our votes count?"

I doubt I'd be tooooo pissed if there was a revote in either state, even though the rules clearly state their delegates won't be seated if they moved their elections up, but if there's a fair way of working out a compromise, I'd support it. It'd have to be fair, and safe and secure though, and that seems to be the problem, setting up something like that on such short notice.

But essentially, I'd have not a huge problem if they did it, even if I think it's not technically right. Better to err on the side where you let all the people vote, ya know? Regardless, it is not looking like it's much of a possibility. That will be pretty problematic i think.

I care less about Florida than Michigan. I think with Florida it would be slightly unfair to count but there's still a rationale for how to divide up the delegates.

Michigan is just a cluster. Splitting them 50-50 is probably unfair to Clinton, but dividing them up according to the primary when he wasn't on the ballot is insane.

No good solution that I can think of.

Maybe a compromise where they split MI (benefits him) and they proportionally allocate FL (benefits her)?

 

[adonis]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

Wow, you must not have been paying attention to this race at all between super Tuesday and Ohio. You've missed some good tap dancing on her part.

Maybe so. Please enlighten me as to what other states are not going to have their votes counted via a primary or caucus.

He said "significant". See bolded.She's been doing this for weeks now.

I get that. The quote was about votes not counting or states not getting a chance to vote. Aren't Florida and Michigan the only two we are referring to here? I totally get that Hillary dismissed states such as Utah, Idaho, etc. that Obama won and I think that it's ridiculous on her part to try and discount the votes of those states. But as far as I'm aware, those states votes are counting and the way it stands Florida and Michigan will not. I don't think either side has the monopoly on selecting what states votes benefit them. I would think we let everyone vote and see how it turns out.

Do you find any validity in the concept that if Florida and Michigan moved their primaries up knowing that it would cost them their delegates in this election that it should actually cost them their delegates in this election considering they did just that?It's pretty silly to have rules and not enforce them huh? But in this case, it may be even more silly to have an entire state that doesn't count. We'll see, just curious what you thought about the fairness of this.

 

[The Apache]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

I know it may come as a surprise, but she's been saying which states are significant and which aren't throughout the campaign. I'll just say this - it doesn't seem that her criteria for selecting which states are significant comes from the fact that they're potentially not going to count.

I would think that all states should count. Not just those that favored Obama or those that favored Clinton. I'm no Hillary supporter, I just find it ironic how Hillary dismissed Obama's wins in the typical Republican states in the midwest. I agree that is flawed reasoning and Obama supporters point that out. However, I also think it's reasonable that Florida and Michigan voters should have their say. Hillary supporters see this and many Obama supporters do not. For both sides it's selective reasoning.

I think obama supporters say that the states should count, but not as they were polled, that would just be lunacy.As it stands, there seem to be no good options remaining for allowing the states to revote. Even allowing a revote is questionable in my eyes. The states moved their primaries up in stark violation of the rules of their party, and suffered the consequence, and now that it seems like their votes will matter, they're trying everything possible to make up for the fact that they broke the rules, by saying "OK, we know we screwed up, but maybe if we're the last person to go now you'll let our votes count?"

I doubt I'd be tooooo pissed if there was a revote in either state, even though the rules clearly state their delegates won't be seated if they moved their elections up, but if there's a fair way of working out a compromise, I'd support it. It'd have to be fair, and safe and secure though, and that seems to be the problem, setting up something like that on such short notice.

But essentially, I'd have not a huge problem if they did it, even if I think it's not technically right. Better to err on the side where you let all the people vote, ya know? Regardless, it is not looking like it's much of a possibility. That will be pretty problematic i think.

I care less about Florida than Michigan. I think with Florida it would be slightly unfair to count but there's still a rationale for how to divide up the delegates.

Michigan is just a cluster. Splitting them 50-50 is probably unfair to Clinton, but dividing them up according to the primary when he wasn't on the ballot is insane.

No good solution that I can think of.

Maybe a compromise where they split MI (benefits him) and they proportionally allocate FL (benefits her)?

It may come down to something like this. It's not the perfect solution. I do agree with you the Michigan situation either has to be a revote or a 50/50 split of delegates.

 

[adonis]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

I know it may come as a surprise, but she's been saying which states are significant and which aren't throughout the campaign. I'll just say this - it doesn't seem that her criteria for selecting which states are significant comes from the fact that they're potentially not going to count.

I would think that all states should count. Not just those that favored Obama or those that favored Clinton. I'm no Hillary supporter, I just find it ironic how Hillary dismissed Obama's wins in the typical Republican states in the midwest. I agree that is flawed reasoning and Obama supporters point that out. However, I also think it's reasonable that Florida and Michigan voters should have their say. Hillary supporters see this and many Obama supporters do not. For both sides it's selective reasoning.

I think obama supporters say that the states should count, but not as they were polled, that would just be lunacy.As it stands, there seem to be no good options remaining for allowing the states to revote. Even allowing a revote is questionable in my eyes. The states moved their primaries up in stark violation of the rules of their party, and suffered the consequence, and now that it seems like their votes will matter, they're trying everything possible to make up for the fact that they broke the rules, by saying "OK, we know we screwed up, but maybe if we're the last person to go now you'll let our votes count?"

I doubt I'd be tooooo pissed if there was a revote in either state, even though the rules clearly state their delegates won't be seated if they moved their elections up, but if there's a fair way of working out a compromise, I'd support it. It'd have to be fair, and safe and secure though, and that seems to be the problem, setting up something like that on such short notice.

But essentially, I'd have not a huge problem if they did it, even if I think it's not technically right. Better to err on the side where you let all the people vote, ya know? Regardless, it is not looking like it's much of a possibility. That will be pretty problematic i think.

I care less about Florida than Michigan. I think with Florida it would be slightly unfair to count but there's still a rationale for how to divide up the delegates.

Michigan is just a cluster. Splitting them 50-50 is probably unfair to Clinton, but dividing them up according to the primary when he wasn't on the ballot is insane.

No good solution that I can think of.

Maybe a compromise where they split MI (benefits him) and they proportionally allocate FL (benefits her)?

The only fair outcome I believe is to either redo the vote entirely, giving both candidates ample time to campaign there, or split both of them 50/50 and say that their states delegates have been seated, and while their specific votes have not been heard, they have a chance to do so in the general election.I don't see any justification for splitting delegates based in any way on the poll results as they stood in either michigan or florida. Michigan because obama wasn't even on the ballot, and florida because neither campaigned there and it was basically a vote on name recognition. Obama had, until that point, made significant inroads in his polling as the election deadlines came up, because as people got to know him, they liked him. Floridians never got that chance.

 

[flufhed]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

I know it may come as a surprise, but she's been saying which states are significant and which aren't throughout the campaign. I'll just say this - it doesn't seem that her criteria for selecting which states are significant comes from the fact that they're potentially not going to count.

I would think that all states should count. Not just those that favored Obama or those that favored Clinton. I'm no Hillary supporter, I just find it ironic how Hillary dismissed Obama's wins in the typical Republican states in the midwest. I agree that is flawed reasoning and Obama supporters point that out. However, I also think it's reasonable that Florida and Michigan voters should have their say. Hillary supporters see this and many Obama supporters do not. For both sides it's selective reasoning.

I think obama supporters say that the states should count, but not as they were polled, that would just be lunacy.As it stands, there seem to be no good options remaining for allowing the states to revote. Even allowing a revote is questionable in my eyes. The states moved their primaries up in stark violation of the rules of their party, and suffered the consequence, and now that it seems like their votes will matter, they're trying everything possible to make up for the fact that they broke the rules, by saying "OK, we know we screwed up, but maybe if we're the last person to go now you'll let our votes count?"

I doubt I'd be tooooo pissed if there was a revote in either state, even though the rules clearly state their delegates won't be seated if they moved their elections up, but if there's a fair way of working out a compromise, I'd support it. It'd have to be fair, and safe and secure though, and that seems to be the problem, setting up something like that on such short notice.

But essentially, I'd have not a huge problem if they did it, even if I think it's not technically right. Better to err on the side where you let all the people vote, ya know? Regardless, it is not looking like it's much of a possibility. That will be pretty problematic i think.

I care less about Florida than Michigan. I think with Florida it would be slightly unfair to count but there's still a rationale for how to divide up the delegates.

Michigan is just a cluster. Splitting them 50-50 is probably unfair to Clinton, but dividing them up according to the primary when he wasn't on the ballot is insane.

No good solution that I can think of.

Maybe a compromise where they split MI (benefits him) and they proportionally allocate FL (benefits her)?

This compromise makes too much sense to actually happen.I think, in that scenario, it is, at worst, break even for Obama, and probably a net gain for Obama. Sure, Cliniton would get more delegates in that scenario, but it would make it that much more difficult for her to get the nomination because the margin in Florida wasn't gigantic, and because Michigan would be 50/50. I think Obama should suggest this plan - it would make Clinton look bad if she turns it down.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I think Obama should suggest this plan - it would make Clinton look bad if she turns it down.

On the Michigan part, he did. And she did.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

I know it may come as a surprise, but she's been saying which states are significant and which aren't throughout the campaign. I'll just say this - it doesn't seem that her criteria for selecting which states are significant comes from the fact that they're potentially not going to count.

I would think that all states should count. Not just those that favored Obama or those that favored Clinton. I'm no Hillary supporter, I just find it ironic how Hillary dismissed Obama's wins in the typical Republican states in the midwest. I agree that is flawed reasoning and Obama supporters point that out. However, I also think it's reasonable that Florida and Michigan voters should have their say. Hillary supporters see this and many Obama supporters do not. For both sides it's selective reasoning.

I think obama supporters say that the states should count, but not as they were polled, that would just be lunacy.As it stands, there seem to be no good options remaining for allowing the states to revote. Even allowing a revote is questionable in my eyes. The states moved their primaries up in stark violation of the rules of their party, and suffered the consequence, and now that it seems like their votes will matter, they're trying everything possible to make up for the fact that they broke the rules, by saying "OK, we know we screwed up, but maybe if we're the last person to go now you'll let our votes count?"

I doubt I'd be tooooo pissed if there was a revote in either state, even though the rules clearly state their delegates won't be seated if they moved their elections up, but if there's a fair way of working out a compromise, I'd support it. It'd have to be fair, and safe and secure though, and that seems to be the problem, setting up something like that on such short notice.

But essentially, I'd have not a huge problem if they did it, even if I think it's not technically right. Better to err on the side where you let all the people vote, ya know? Regardless, it is not looking like it's much of a possibility. That will be pretty problematic i think.

I care less about Florida than Michigan. I think with Florida it would be slightly unfair to count but there's still a rationale for how to divide up the delegates.

Michigan is just a cluster. Splitting them 50-50 is probably unfair to Clinton, but dividing them up according to the primary when he wasn't on the ballot is insane.

No good solution that I can think of.

Maybe a compromise where they split MI (benefits him) and they proportionally allocate FL (benefits her)?

This compromise makes too much sense to actually happen.I think, in that scenario, it is, at worst, break even for Obama, and probably a net gain for Obama. Sure, Cliniton would get more delegates in that scenario, but it would make it that much more difficult for her to get the nomination because the margin in Florida wasn't gigantic, and because Michigan would be 50/50. I think Obama should suggest this plan - it would make Clinton look bad if she turns it down.

I think the better plan would have been for Obama to support a full re-vote in Florida (not mail-in) and push for a caucus in Michigan, which was originally planned before the date was changed and it was moved to a primary. Put Clinton on the defensive about why she won't accept a caucus when 1) that is how MI has typically voted and 2) about 25% of the states use them. The fact that she can't win them is not a compelling argument in my mind, and I think it would not be for most voters either.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

In her quest to secure the nomination over Obama, Hillary has set up a dynamic where she can't win the general. She has conceded the point that McCain has sufficient "experience" (whatever that means) to be Commander in Chief. By doing so, she has made it infinitely harder for her to attack McCain as incompetent on foreign policy. McCain recently demonstrated that he doesn't know the first thing about the middle east by confusing Shia with Sunni FIVE YEARS into a war in the middle east. How can Hillary plausibly attack him on this issue when McCain can just point to her acknowledgement of him as someone who can handle the job?Hillary's continued presence in the campaign makes a McCain victory increasingly probable. It's very depressing.

You underestimate the depths to which her hypocrisy will go. Or, as Doc once said "It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds"

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

From the Hillary camp:

Clinton told reporters while campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind., that Obama's nomination could be tainted if he achieves it without a second Michigan contest.

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida, which has a similar problem.

I still like how she chooses which states are significant and which aren't. It's kinda endearing.

Strange, I didn't realize there were other states whose votes weren't going to count.

I know it may come as a surprise, but she's been saying which states are significant and which aren't throughout the campaign. I'll just say this - it doesn't seem that her criteria for selecting which states are significant comes from the fact that they're potentially not going to count.

I would think that all states should count. Not just those that favored Obama or those that favored Clinton. I'm no Hillary supporter, I just find it ironic how Hillary dismissed Obama's wins in the typical Republican states in the midwest. I agree that is flawed reasoning and Obama supporters point that out. However, I also think it's reasonable that Florida and Michigan voters should have their say. Hillary supporters see this and many Obama supporters do not. For both sides it's selective reasoning.

I think obama supporters say that the states should count, but not as they were polled, that would just be lunacy.As it stands, there seem to be no good options remaining for allowing the states to revote. Even allowing a revote is questionable in my eyes. The states moved their primaries up in stark violation of the rules of their party, and suffered the consequence, and now that it seems like their votes will matter, they're trying everything possible to make up for the fact that they broke the rules, by saying "OK, we know we screwed up, but maybe if we're the last person to go now you'll let our votes count?"

I doubt I'd be tooooo pissed if there was a revote in either state, even though the rules clearly state their delegates won't be seated if they moved their elections up, but if there's a fair way of working out a compromise, I'd support it. It'd have to be fair, and safe and secure though, and that seems to be the problem, setting up something like that on such short notice.

But essentially, I'd have not a huge problem if they did it, even if I think it's not technically right. Better to err on the side where you let all the people vote, ya know? Regardless, it is not looking like it's much of a possibility. That will be pretty problematic i think.

I care less about Florida than Michigan. I think with Florida it would be slightly unfair to count but there's still a rationale for how to divide up the delegates.

Michigan is just a cluster. Splitting them 50-50 is probably unfair to Clinton, but dividing them up according to the primary when he wasn't on the ballot is insane.

No good solution that I can think of.

Maybe a compromise where they split MI (benefits him) and they proportionally allocate FL (benefits her)?

This compromise makes too much sense to actually happen.I think, in that scenario, it is, at worst, break even for Obama, and probably a net gain for Obama. Sure, Cliniton would get more delegates in that scenario, but it would make it that much more difficult for her to get the nomination because the margin in Florida wasn't gigantic, and because Michigan would be 50/50. I think Obama should suggest this plan - it would make Clinton look bad if she turns it down.

I think the better plan would have been for Obama to support a full re-vote in Florida (not mail-in) and push for a caucus in Michigan, which was originally planned before the date was changed and it was moved to a primary. Put Clinton on the defensive about why she won't accept a caucus when 1) that is how MI has typically voted and 2) about 25% of the states use them. The fact that she can't win them is not a compelling argument in my mind, and I think it would not be for most voters either.

I like that one. I'd be for a primary in MI as well, but it needs to be an open primary like that last one. Clinton wants it D only.There still is the funding issue though.

 

[adonis]

I like that one. I'd be for a primary in MI as well, but it needs to be an open primary like that last one. Clinton wants it D only.There still is the funding issue though.

I think having an open primary might help Hillary more. I have a feeling even more republicans would cross over and vote to screw with the dem election than before, considering how close it is and how vital such a state would be.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I like that one. I'd be for a primary in MI as well, but it needs to be an open primary like that last one. Clinton wants it D only.There still is the funding issue though.

I think having an open primary might help Hillary more. I have a feeling even more republicans would cross over and vote to screw with the dem election than before, considering how close it is and how vital such a state would be.

What about Ind. though? If it was open before, it should be open now, even if the Limbaugh effect is a risk.I do not agree with a mail-in at all, but would be OK with a caucus under whatever terms they were normally done in MI prior to them ####### themselves and everybody else.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Small tangent.

It's not bad enough that the democrats are, well, democrats. IT's not bad enough I have one as governor. It's not bad enough that he is a miserable failure of epic proportions (who woulda saw THAT coming). And it's not bad enough that the democratic party seems to be unable to follow its own rules for selecting a nominee to run in a general election.

No, now I have my governor - who can't do anything here other then make things worse - focusing his energy on spending hiw own money to pay for a revote in another state to help a political ally because the thought is it would benefit Hillary Clinton.

I hate Jon Corzine. And Hillary. And New Jersey. I need a drink.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Small tangent.It's not bad enough that the democrats are, well, democrats. IT's not bad enough I have one as governor. It's not bad enough that he is a miserable failure of epic proportions (who woulda saw THAT coming). And it's not bad enough that the democratic party seems to be unable to follow its own rules for selecting a nominee to run in a general election.No, now I have my governor - who can't do anything here other then make things worse - focusing his energy on spending hiw own money to pay for a revote in another state to help a political ally because the thought is it would benefit Hillary Clinton.I hate Jon Corzine. And Hillary. And New Jersey. I need a drink.

I think Rendell has said the same thing. I also hate NJ and Hillary if that makes you feel better.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I think the better plan would have been for Obama to support a full re-vote in Florida (not mail-in) and push for a caucus in Michigan, which was originally planned before the date was changed and it was moved to a primary. Put Clinton on the defensive about why she won't accept a caucus when 1) that is how MI has typically voted and 2) about 25% of the states use them. The fact that she can't win them is not a compelling argument in my mind, and I think it would not be for most voters either.

It's not really up to Obama or Clinton. It's up to the DNC and Obama has repeatedly said he would go with their decision.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Small tangent.It's not bad enough that the democrats are, well, democrats. IT's not bad enough I have one as governor. It's not bad enough that he is a miserable failure of epic proportions (who woulda saw THAT coming). And it's not bad enough that the democratic party seems to be unable to follow its own rules for selecting a nominee to run in a general election.No, now I have my governor - who can't do anything here other then make things worse - focusing his energy on spending hiw own money to pay for a revote in another state to help a political ally because the thought is it would benefit Hillary Clinton.I hate Jon Corzine. And Hillary. And New Jersey. I need a drink.

I think Rendell has said the same thing. I also hate NJ and Hillary if that makes you feel better.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I like that one. I'd be for a primary in MI as well, but it needs to be an open primary like that last one. Clinton wants it D only.There still is the funding issue though.

I think having an open primary might help Hillary more. I have a feeling even more republicans would cross over and vote to screw with the dem election than before, considering how close it is and how vital such a state would be.

I don't think it can be an open primary now. If people voted in the Republican primary they can't vote in a Dem.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I like that one. I'd be for a primary in MI as well, but it needs to be an open primary like that last one. Clinton wants it D only.There still is the funding issue though.

I think having an open primary might help Hillary more. I have a feeling even more republicans would cross over and vote to screw with the dem election than before, considering how close it is and how vital such a state would be.

I don't think it can be an open primary now. If people voted in the Republican primary they can't vote in a Dem.

I don't think the democratic party has ever worried about people voting more then once.

 

[the moops]

Besides, his resume can't be assassinated (since he doesn't have one), so all that leaves is his character. HTH

Maybe you would be kind enough to tell us exactly what one needs on his or her resume to qualify. I keep looking, but I can't seem to find prerequisites for president besides age and nation of birth.

 

[adonis]

Besides, his resume can't be assassinated (since he doesn't have one), so all that leaves is his character. HTH

Maybe you would be kind enough to tell us exactly what one needs on his or her resume to qualify. I keep looking, but I can't seem to find prerequisites for president besides age and nation of birth.

We've heard it before, "blah blah blah, no experience at all", so on, and so forth. These people think he has no substance, despite the substance they're shown, and that he has no experience, despite the experience they're shown. There's really no point in engagement, even if i'm still guilty of doing just that.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I like that one. I'd be for a primary in MI as well, but it needs to be an open primary like that last one. Clinton wants it D only.There still is the funding issue though.

I think having an open primary might help Hillary more. I have a feeling even more republicans would cross over and vote to screw with the dem election than before, considering how close it is and how vital such a state would be.

I don't think it can be an open primary now. If people voted in the Republican primary they can't vote in a Dem.

What about Rs who voted back then in the R primary who otherwise would have voted in the D, but didnt because either A) their candidate wasnt on the ballot, or B) knew it wasnt going to count because MI ####ed up?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I think the better plan would have been for Obama to support a full re-vote in Florida (not mail-in) and push for a caucus in Michigan, which was originally planned before the date was changed and it was moved to a primary. Put Clinton on the defensive about why she won't accept a caucus when 1) that is how MI has typically voted and 2) about 25% of the states use them. The fact that she can't win them is not a compelling argument in my mind, and I think it would not be for most voters either.

It's not really up to Obama or Clinton. It's up to the DNC and Obama has repeatedly said he would go with their decision.

I agree with you, but unfortunately his position has also let the Clinton camp start spewing off soundbites making it look like he is sandbagging the process. I would rather have seen them be very publicly in favor of the new contests so they wouldn't have a talking point. Particularly since the outcomes aren't likely to matter anyway. Even in landslides wins she wouldn't catch him in pledged delegates.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I like that one. I'd be for a primary in MI as well, but it needs to be an open primary like that last one. Clinton wants it D only.There still is the funding issue though.

I think having an open primary might help Hillary more. I have a feeling even more republicans would cross over and vote to screw with the dem election than before, considering how close it is and how vital such a state would be.

I don't think it can be an open primary now. If people voted in the Republican primary they can't vote in a Dem.

What about Rs who voted back then in the R primary who otherwise would have voted in the D, but didnt because either A) their candidate wasnt on the ballot, or B) knew it wasnt going to count because MI ####ed up?

Or, for that matter, Ds that voted in the R primary because they though their D votes wouldn't count. I'm sure there are at least some people who fall into that category.

 

[fsword]

I'm not going to read 144 pages, so Obama blaming the state of the economy on the Iraq War (link) may have already been covered.

I'd have gone with Global Warming as the cause, but to each his own.

Wait, are you saying that 5 years of war haven't had a horrible negative effect on our economy?

The war may be a factor, but it's not the sole component. I get the impression that he thinks gas would be $1/gal if not for the war, even considering that Iraqi oil production is barely at its pre-war level. World-wide demand spiked the prices. He should be blaming China and India (and American gas guzzlers as well).(and yes, the war has affected our economy, ballooning the deficit)

Which has affected inflation, which has affected the value of the dollar, which has affected oil prices. It's not a 1:1 ratio or anything, but there's plenty of evidence to support saying that pouring out 10 billion dollars a month with no ROI will damage an economy, especially over 5 years.Truth be told, the mortgage crisis is the main culprit, but certainly a ballooning deficit helped in large part by the iraq war, certainly doesn't help.

But I think it's wrong to say the war in Iraq did not have a negative impact on our economy.

Increased economic growth has increased demand for resources, something the US was not prepared for. Increasing prices has created inflation. Add the ethanol requirements, and now food prices are inflating too. A better energy and rawe materials policy would have left the uS better prepared to avoid such inflationary pressures. Thank you Congress, thank you Mr. President, and than you myopic members of the electorate.There is benefit of the war, believe it or not. Despite the failure of the auto industry, manufacturing has rebounded domestically. Also, the pension funds that were so severly underfunded after the tech bubble have been replenished with the surge in energy, defense and manufacturing profits.

Not saying all is rosy, just adding some perspective I haven't seen posted here yet.

 

[Pai Mei]

I just don't see Obama recovering from this. He's compounded the mistake with a tin ear. He actually seems to think that his mistake of associating with a racist means that the rest of us need to have a huge discussion about racism, with him moderating it. The only play to make here is to apologize and shut up. His arrogance is astounding. Obama is cooked.