The case for Obama and the Case against Clinton

[Phokus]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9436.html

Never mind the lies and demagoguery that has come out of the Clinton campaign, the one simple fact is that she's a BAD MANAGER with NO JUDGMENT. How many stories have we heard of her campaign botching everything up and all the infighting in her campaign? Now we have the incident with Mark Penn and the Columbian government, another embarrassing episode for the Clinton campaign.

Do we really want another president that has drama following them around? Or do we want a president focused on the mission at hand and bringing everyone together to accomplish that mission? That's the choice between Clinton and Obama.

 

[senseamp]

George Bush and Karl Rove ran great campaigns, but couldn't run the country at all.
Obama is the drama candidate here.
Even your article states that:

Penn was not that person. And the Clinton campaign never really tried anything different. Clinton did show a little human emotion in New Hampshire, a state she narrowly won, but then she went back to being an issues machine.

God forbid a candidate runs on the issues instead of emotions like this whole Obama campaign has.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets be fair and balanced here---lets have the case against Clinton, the case against McCain, and the case against Obama.

Fair and balanced, I did it in alphabetical order.

 

[jonks]

You mean like the judgment of a man who got involved in a real estate transaction with a campaign contributer whom he was aware was under federal investigation for corruption? The judgment of a man who takes his children to a church where the preacher tells them the government wants to give them AIDS because they are black? The judgment of a man who can only bowl a 37? The first two I can forgive, but a 37? If you suck that much why go bowling to display your suckiness? Horrible judgment IMO.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: senseamp
George Bush and Karl Rove ran great campaigns, but couldn't run the country at all.
Obama is the drama candidate here.
Even your article states that:

Penn was not that person. And the Clinton campaign never really tried anything different. Clinton did show a little human emotion in New Hampshire, a state she narrowly won, but then she went back to being an issues machine.

God forbid a candidate runs on the issues instead of emotions like this whole Obama campaign has.

Bush ran a great campaign? Gore f***ed up by distancing himself from Slick Willy's popularity... plus the 'win' was razor thin (some would say Gore actually won). John Kerry was a weak candidate. Plus, Bush used dirty tricks in both campaigns to win (the 'black baby' push polling of John McCain in SC and the swift boating of John Kerry), which is very reminiscent of how Hildabeast is campaigning right now

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You mean like the judgment of a man who got involved in a real estate transaction with a campaign contributer whom he was aware was under federal investigation? The judgment of a man who takes his children to a church where the preacher tells them the government wants to give them AIDS because they are black? The judgment of a man who can only bowl a 36? The first two I can forgive, but a 36? If you suck that much why go bowling to display your suckiness? Horrible judgment IMO.

I suggest that you read up on some of the things that our wondrous government has done to blacks throughout history before condemning Rev. Wright's statements as those of a loon.

And do you really want to compare questionable real estate transactions when the barometer you are using is Hillary "Whitewater" Clinton or John "Keating Five" McCain?

Two words for you....Bring It!

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: senseamp
George Bush and Karl Rove ran great campaigns, but couldn't run the country at all.
Obama is the drama candidate here.
Even your article states that:

Penn was not that person. And the Clinton campaign never really tried anything different. Clinton did show a little human emotion in New Hampshire, a state she narrowly won, but then she went back to being an issues machine.

God forbid a candidate runs on the issues instead of emotions like this whole Obama campaign has.

Bush ran a great campaign? Gore f***ed up by distancing himself from Slick Willy's popularity... plus the 'win' was razor thin (some would say Gore actually won). John Kerry was a weak candidate. Plus, Bush used dirty tricks in both campaigns to win (the 'black baby' push polling of John McCain in SC and the swift boating of John Kerry), which is very reminiscent of how Hildabeast is campaigning right now

Blabla Blablama's supporters on Politico want to have it both ways, they are on one hand complaining that she has too much drama, and on the other hand bashing her for not being emotional and being an issue machine. Seems to me like typical reflexive Hillary bashing, which is only going to make sure people like me vote McCain if Obama is in fact the nominee.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: senseamp
George Bush and Karl Rove ran great campaigns, but couldn't run the country at all.
Obama is the drama candidate here.
Even your article states that:

Penn was not that person. And the Clinton campaign never really tried anything different. Clinton did show a little human emotion in New Hampshire, a state she narrowly won, but then she went back to being an issues machine.

God forbid a candidate runs on the issues instead of emotions like this whole Obama campaign has.

You mean like crying to garner sympathy/votes?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You mean like the judgment of a man who got involved in a real estate transaction with a campaign contributer whom he was aware was under federal investigation? The judgment of a man who takes his children to a church where the preacher tells them the government wants to give them AIDS because they are black? The judgment of a man who can only bowl a 36? The first two I can forgive, but a 36? If you suck that much why go bowling to display your suckiness? Horrible judgment IMO.

I suggest that you read up on some of the things that our wondrous government has done to blacks throughout history before condemning Rev. Wright's statements as those of a loon.

And do you really want to compare questionable real estate transactions when the barometer you are using is Hillary "Whitewater" Clinton or John "Keating Five" McCain?

Two words for you....Bring It!

There was no there there with Whitewater. There is outright kickback there with Rezko.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: senseamp
George Bush and Karl Rove ran great campaigns, but couldn't run the country at all.
Obama is the drama candidate here.
Even your article states that:

Penn was not that person. And the Clinton campaign never really tried anything different. Clinton did show a little human emotion in New Hampshire, a state she narrowly won, but then she went back to being an issues machine.

God forbid a candidate runs on the issues instead of emotions like this whole Obama campaign has.

You mean like crying to garner sympathy/votes?

Pretty much, every Obama supporter I talk to has no clue where he is on the issues, but says that Obama "inspires" them

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You mean like the judgment of a man who got involved in a real estate transaction with a campaign contributer whom he was aware was under federal investigation? The judgment of a man who takes his children to a church where the preacher tells them the government wants to give them AIDS because they are black? The judgment of a man who can only bowl a 36? The first two I can forgive, but a 36? If you suck that much why go bowling to display your suckiness? Horrible judgment IMO.

I suggest that you read up on some of the things that our wondrous government has done to blacks throughout history before condemning Rev. Wright's statements as those of a loon.

And do you really want to compare questionable real estate transactions when the barometer you are using is Hillary "Whitewater" Clinton or John "Keating Five" McCain?

Two words for you....Bring It!

He's a loon because he has ZERO evidence for his accusations. Know what accusing people of trying to kill you without evidence is called? Paranoia. Show me a gov't report titled: CIA Plan On Killing Blacks With HIV and I'll reassess. Right now he looks like a paranoid nut. And you rationalizing it is pretty sad. This is a leader in the black community, not Ray Ray down on the corner talking about "the man."

Your second argument immediately redirects to Clinton, and boils down to "Obama may have shown poor judgment but he isn't as sleazy as Clinton." Great defense. I actually buy that, but he's also only been in politics for 10 years. Given him 30 years in a governor's mansion, white house and senate, and then we'll see how clean he is.

I'm not campaigning on Hillary being squeaky clean, but BO fans think he can do no wrong and shrug off all evidence of his lapses by comparing it to people who have been in the game decades longer than him. That's one reason he wants to run now, because he knows if he was senator or governor for another term he'd end up being just as sleazy as the rest of them, because politics is dirty.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You mean like the judgment of a man who got involved in a real estate transaction with a campaign contributer whom he was aware was under federal investigation? The judgment of a man who takes his children to a church where the preacher tells them the government wants to give them AIDS because they are black? The judgment of a man who can only bowl a 36? The first two I can forgive, but a 36? If you suck that much why go bowling to display your suckiness? Horrible judgment IMO.

I suggest that you read up on some of the things that our wondrous government has done to blacks throughout history before condemning Rev. Wright's statements as those of a loon.

And do you really want to compare questionable real estate transactions when the barometer you are using is Hillary "Whitewater" Clinton or John "Keating Five" McCain?

Two words for you....Bring It!

He's a loon because he has ZERO evidence for his accusations. Know what accusing people of trying to kill you without evidence is called? Paranoia. Show me a gov't report titled: CIA Plan On Killing Blacks With HIV and I'll reassess. Right now he looks like a paranoid nut. And you rationalizing it is pretty sad. This is a leader in the black community, not Ray Ray down on the corner talking about "the man."

Your second argument immediately redirects to Clinton, and boils down to "Obama may have shown poor judgment but he isn't as sleazy as Clinton." Great defense. I actually buy that, but he's also only been in politics for 10 years. Given him 30 years in a governor's mansion, white house and senate, and then we'll see how clean he is.

I'm not campaigning on Hillary being squeaky clean, but BO fans think he can do no wrong and shrug off all evidence of his lapses by comparing it to people who have been in the game decades longer than him. That's one reason he wants to run now, because he knows if he was senator or governor for another term he'd end up being just as sleazy as the rest of them, because politics is dirty.

Maybe Wright just confused the name of the STD that the gov was injecting into blacks?

And my other argument wasn't "he isn't as bad as them". It was a "those in glass houses" argument.

And if you are going to argue that being in office for a prolonged period of time is a key indicator of what it takes to corrupt someone, your arguments ends up making a stronger case for Obama than you think it does tearing him down.

And FTR, I think that Obama is by far the best person for the job (out of the realistic choices we have). With that said, I am still critical of him when he does things that I don't agree with (policy wise or whatever other manner) and will call him on it. My response wasn't meant to be as an apology for him but more of a warning to Hillary or McCain supporters that you need to check your own laundry before going through someone else's.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: senseamp
George Bush and Karl Rove ran great campaigns, but couldn't run the country at all.
Obama is the drama candidate here.
Even your article states that:

Penn was not that person. And the Clinton campaign never really tried anything different. Clinton did show a little human emotion in New Hampshire, a state she narrowly won, but then she went back to being an issues machine.

God forbid a candidate runs on the issues instead of emotions like this whole Obama campaign has.

You mean like crying to garner sympathy/votes?

Pretty much, every Obama supporter I talk to has no clue where he is on the issues, but says that Obama "inspires" them

He's almost in line with Hillary on issues but he's head and shoulders better at public speaking. Last I checked the POTUS is the face of the nation and the ability to speak is important. I'm sorry your candidate can't deliver that same message as well.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: senseamp
George Bush and Karl Rove ran great campaigns, but couldn't run the country at all.
Obama is the drama candidate here.
Even your article states that:

Penn was not that person. And the Clinton campaign never really tried anything different. Clinton did show a little human emotion in New Hampshire, a state she narrowly won, but then she went back to being an issues machine.

God forbid a candidate runs on the issues instead of emotions like this whole Obama campaign has.

You mean like crying to garner sympathy/votes?

Pretty much, every Obama supporter I talk to has no clue where he is on the issues, but says that Obama "inspires" them

He's almost in line with Hillary on issues but he's head and shoulders better at public speaking. Last I checked the POTUS is the face of the nation and the ability to speak is important. I'm sorry your candidate can't deliver that same message as well.

I think this thread actually answers many questions about who Obama is and why he's been pushed to the front.

Obama was, until recently, an unknown with little or no known, negative baggage and no solid issue positions. Hillary, on the other hand, represented most of the positions the Dems were looking for but had been under attack from the right for many years and therefore carried high negatives. I believe a plan was concocted to take all of the good points that Hillary brought to the table and project them onto the unknown candidate in an attempt to push the agenda without facing the battle. Whether or not that was a good idea remains to be seen. Because he appears to be a manufactured candidate, some see him as an "empty suit". Because he was unknown, we have to hope he has no negative baggage to surprise us before the GE.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp
George Bush and Karl Rove ran great campaigns, but couldn't run the country at all.
Obama is the drama candidate here.
Even your article states that:

Penn was not that person. And the Clinton campaign never really tried anything different. Clinton did show a little human emotion in New Hampshire, a state she narrowly won, but then she went back to being an issues machine.

God forbid a candidate runs on the issues instead of emotions like this whole Obama campaign has.

Yes, we wouldn't want anybody running an emotional campaign...

*cue Hillary crying*

 

[Phokus]

I think this cartoon perfectly sums up Hillary's management style:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...llary_campaignstan.jpg

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[nageov3t]

how anyone can support single-party government again boggles my mind.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: RY62
I think this thread actually answers many questions about who Obama is and why he's been pushed to the front.

Obama was, until recently, an unknown with little or no known, negative baggage and no solid issue positions. Hillary, on the other hand, represented most of the positions the Dems were looking for but had been under attack from the right for many years and therefore carried high negatives. I believe a plan was concocted to take all of the good points that Hillary brought to the table and project them onto the unknown candidate in an attempt to push the agenda without facing the battle. Whether or not that was a good idea remains to be seen. Because he appears to be a manufactured candidate, some see him as an "empty suit". Because he was unknown, we have to hope he has no negative baggage to surprise us before the GE.

And I think you're really reaching here. Just because Obama and Clinton are both similarly aligned with the general traits of the Democratic Party doesn't mean Obama is a 'better looking' Clinton clone. If you think Obama is being 'pushed to the front' by the party then why haven't the SD's finished this thing without the unnecessary bickering back and forth?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: sirjonk
You mean like the judgment of a man who got involved in a real estate transaction with a campaign contributer whom he was aware was under federal investigation? The judgment of a man who takes his children to a church where the preacher tells them the government wants to give them AIDS because they are black? The judgment of a man who can only bowl a 36? The first two I can forgive, but a 36? If you suck that much why go bowling to display your suckiness? Horrible judgment IMO.

I suggest that you read up on some of the things that our wondrous government has done to blacks throughout history before condemning Rev. Wright's statements as those of a loon.

And do you really want to compare questionable real estate transactions when the barometer you are using is Hillary "Whitewater" Clinton or John "Keating Five" McCain?

Two words for you....Bring It!

He's a loon because he has ZERO evidence for his accusations. Know what accusing people of trying to kill you without evidence is called? Paranoia. Show me a gov't report titled: CIA Plan On Killing Blacks With HIV and I'll reassess. Right now he looks like a paranoid nut. And you rationalizing it is pretty sad. This is a leader in the black community, not Ray Ray down on the corner talking about "the man."

Your second argument immediately redirects to Clinton, and boils down to "Obama may have shown poor judgment but he isn't as sleazy as Clinton." Great defense. I actually buy that, but he's also only been in politics for 10 years. Given him 30 years in a governor's mansion, white house and senate, and then we'll see how clean he is.

I'm not campaigning on Hillary being squeaky clean, but BO fans think he can do no wrong and shrug off all evidence of his lapses by comparing it to people who have been in the game decades longer than him. That's one reason he wants to run now, because he knows if he was senator or governor for another term he'd end up being just as sleazy as the rest of them, because politics is dirty.

Maybe Wright just confused the name of the STD that the gov was injecting into blacks?

And my other argument wasn't "he isn't as bad as them". It was a "those in glass houses" argument.

And if you are going to argue that being in office for a prolonged period of time is a key indicator of what it takes to corrupt someone, your arguments ends up making a stronger case for Obama than you think it does tearing him down.

And FTR, I think that Obama is by far the best person for the job (out of the realistic choices we have). With that said, I am still critical of him when he does things that I don't agree with (policy wise or whatever other manner) and will call him on it. My response wasn't meant to be as an apology for him but more of a warning to Hillary or McCain supporters that you need to check your own laundry before going through someone else's.

The Legacy of Tuskegee


In 1990, a survey found that 10 percent of African Americans believed that the U.S. government created AIDS as a plot to exterminate blacks, and another 20 percent could not rule out the possibility that this might be true. As preposterous and paranoid as this may sound, at one time the Tuskegee experiment must have seemed equally farfetched.

Who could imagine the government, all the way up to the Surgeon General of the United States, deliberately allowing a group of its citizens to die from a terrible disease for the sake of an ill-conceived experiment? In light of this and many other shameful episodes in our history, African Americans' widespread mistrust of the government and white society in general should not be a surprise to anyone.

Seriously, the pastor is a major dumbass for expressing that, esp after how well the gov't has treated black people throughout history. You'd think they'd appreciate it a bit. Guess that shows why you can't trust blacks for anything.

I know he's not running for Pres, but he's such a dumbass that anyone even around him should be disbarred from being president.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: senseamp
George Bush and Karl Rove ran great campaigns, but couldn't run the country at all.
Obama is the drama candidate here.
Even your article states that:

Penn was not that person. And the Clinton campaign never really tried anything different. Clinton did show a little human emotion in New Hampshire, a state she narrowly won, but then she went back to being an issues machine.

God forbid a candidate runs on the issues instead of emotions like this whole Obama campaign has.

Bush ran a great campaign? Gore f***ed up by distancing himself from Slick Willy's popularity... plus the 'win' was razor thin (some would say Gore actually won). John Kerry was a weak candidate. Plus, Bush used dirty tricks in both campaigns to win (the 'black baby' push polling of John McCain in SC and the swift boating of John Kerry), which is very reminiscent of how Hildabeast is campaigning right now

Of course Bush ran a great campaign. Gore should have had that in the bag and lost to a chimp.

 

[apoppin]

Do we really want another president that has drama following them around? Or do we want a president focused on the mission at hand and bringing everyone together to accomplish that mission? That's the choice between Clinton and Obama.

the Real Question that rips at the real heart of the matter is Do We [as Dems] Want to Risk electing McLame?

IF these TWO candidates Keep On tearing Each Other Down

. . .THEN . . .

. . Neither of them imo yet show Judgement nor they are Great Managers nor are they "focused" nor are they "uniting" anybody against their Common Enemy - they should be able to settle as their positions are more far similar than different as contrasted by Both their Views being at Odds Completely with the Other Party
.. and we may get Stuck with McLame - by DEFAULT

i propose that they settle their differences and team up
-however the hell they see fit

unite or die!

[it's an oldie but a goodie]

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RY62
I think this thread actually answers many questions about who Obama is and why he's been pushed to the front.

Obama was, until recently, an unknown with little or no known, negative baggage and no solid issue positions. Hillary, on the other hand, represented most of the positions the Dems were looking for but had been under attack from the right for many years and therefore carried high negatives. I believe a plan was concocted to take all of the good points that Hillary brought to the table and project them onto the unknown candidate in an attempt to push the agenda without facing the battle. Whether or not that was a good idea remains to be seen. Because he appears to be a manufactured candidate, some see him as an "empty suit". Because he was unknown, we have to hope he has no negative baggage to surprise us before the GE.

And I think you're really reaching here. Just because Obama and Clinton are both similarly aligned with the general traits of the Democratic Party doesn't mean Obama is a 'better looking' Clinton clone. If you think Obama is being 'pushed to the front' by the party then why haven't the SD's finished this thing without the unnecessary bickering back and forth?

The force pushing Obama is the evolution of human consciousness. Humanity is leaving the worm for flight.

Let there be light, on earth, as it is in heaven.

 

[nageov3t]

The force pushing Obama is the evolution of human consciousness

:laugh:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RY62
I think this thread actually answers many questions about who Obama is and why he's been pushed to the front.

Obama was, until recently, an unknown with little or no known, negative baggage and no solid issue positions. Hillary, on the other hand, represented most of the positions the Dems were looking for but had been under attack from the right for many years and therefore carried high negatives. I believe a plan was concocted to take all of the good points that Hillary brought to the table and project them onto the unknown candidate in an attempt to push the agenda without facing the battle. Whether or not that was a good idea remains to be seen. Because he appears to be a manufactured candidate, some see him as an "empty suit". Because he was unknown, we have to hope he has no negative baggage to surprise us before the GE.

And I think you're really reaching here. Just because Obama and Clinton are both similarly aligned with the general traits of the Democratic Party doesn't mean Obama is a 'better looking' Clinton clone. If you think Obama is being 'pushed to the front' by the party then why haven't the SD's finished this thing without the unnecessary bickering back and forth?

The force pushing Obama is the evolution of human consciousness. Humanity is leaving the worm for flight.

Let there be light, on earth, as it is in heaven.

except there is not light .. the real light here is being cast aside by you as an illusion because of your misunderstood, mistimed and wrongly hopeful vision.

a Truly Great Leader in the Mold of JFK or MLK would UNITE his party - now matter the personal costs or effort. If he was truly the Visionary that you make him to Be, the Democrats would ALREADY be solidly united behind Him

Yet they are not united .. i offer proof in their continued bickering and loss of momentum to McLame and the Reps. You still deny that the Churches will be Preaching Obama is the AntiChrist and that racial tensions will be at their Highest Level in many years. The Republicans understand that they cannot lose - they are backed into a corner and fighting Dirty for their Party and their Very Existence - even if Most of the Dems are truly clueless about the Importance of this Election
-- all i hear is empty promises and a dark light of unreality blocking real progress and an inability to even grasp the real issues of Who the Real Enemy is - and She is not named Hillary

i am Sorry to bring you Sad Tidings of a Great Sorrow - the Darkness has reached into Heaven itself ... and all is not well even in the Tower

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RY62
I think this thread actually answers many questions about who Obama is and why he's been pushed to the front.

Obama was, until recently, an unknown with little or no known, negative baggage and no solid issue positions. Hillary, on the other hand, represented most of the positions the Dems were looking for but had been under attack from the right for many years and therefore carried high negatives. I believe a plan was concocted to take all of the good points that Hillary brought to the table and project them onto the unknown candidate in an attempt to push the agenda without facing the battle. Whether or not that was a good idea remains to be seen. Because he appears to be a manufactured candidate, some see him as an "empty suit". Because he was unknown, we have to hope he has no negative baggage to surprise us before the GE.

And I think you're really reaching here. Just because Obama and Clinton are both similarly aligned with the general traits of the Democratic Party doesn't mean Obama is a 'better looking' Clinton clone. If you think Obama is being 'pushed to the front' by the party then why haven't the SD's finished this thing without the unnecessary bickering back and forth?

Maybe a large portion of the party, just like a large portion of Dems in general, would rather have the real candidate, with all of her faults, than the manufactured image of what the candidate should be.

You could be right and I might be a just bit crazy but my gut tells me something isn't quite right with Obama. I, like most of Clintons base, am a little older than most of Obama's base. I've been around for a while, and for sure I can be a little cynical, so when I look at Obama and listen to the hype it just feels fake. It's like someone is going to great lengths to sell us on the idea that the Messiah has come to save us. They want us to believe he's all the good without any of the bad. Maybe he is but it's going to take alot more than just a few pretty speaches and a well polished package to convince me.