Hillary Fading?

[yeahwho]

I have mixed emotions about Hillary Clinton. There is no denial in her appeal and support yet it seems as if now she is banking on some pretty thin thread to gain some sort of momentum in her candidacy.

I feel now that the criticisms from the Hillary camp are divisive. I like Hillary Clinton and I know that she is restraining from many personal attacks herself, it's the folks that support her who always seem to let loose with the vitriol.

She would make a fine president, I have no doubts many of the things we bitch about on this board would change within a year of her in the White House. That doesn't mean she would be universally accepted, she is literally detested by a very large and vocal chunk of the population.

At this point when most everybody (pick a story (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1145432123)) is beginning to see an endgame (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/24/america/clinton.php), I believe she will only do more harm and help the republicans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/23/hillaryclinton.uselections2008)than actually make gains in her candidacy.

I think she should support Obama, I love her toughness and it is needed now in the the upcoming presidential election.

Otherwise we'll just be watching an endless game of "She Said, He Said" rather than the actual talking points about the one who will lead our country for the four years.

[RobMoney$]

ORLY, She should support Obama? LOLZ


We need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.

If this is what America needs, and I'm not necessarily saying that we don't, then isn't he making the case for McCain rather than himself?

John McCain has been the most bipartisan politician of our generation, it's the very thing that makes a lot of people in his own party wary of his presidency. His legislative accomplishments (getting things done), as Obama might call it, is full of bringing Democrats, Independents, and Republicans together.

McCain - Feingold
McCain - Kennedy
McCain - Edwards
McCain - Liberman

Obama was named by National Journal as having the most consistently left-leaning voting record of any senator. That's not the mark of someone who brings people together from across the spectrum to get things done.

And what is his list of bipartisan legislative accomplishments?
There is no "Obama - Lott", or "Obama - McConnell", or even "McCain - Obama" for that matter (McCain always has to be listed first as the sponsor of a bill, I think.)

I am not really a McCain supporter, but this doesn't seem to be the tact Obama should to be taking. This quote has me wondering if Obama is going to vote for Senator McCain?

[yeahwho]

I'm sort of perplexed by your response, I'm guessing you think Hillary should continue to berate her opponent and try to somehow or another come out on top through pure fucking magic.

I'm not the brightest bulb on the block, but unless somebody can prove Obama is beating kids and smoking meth, nothing short of death will take the nod to democratic presidential nominee away from him.

The race relations issue would of shut down any other candidate in the past 232 years, Obama made lemonade out of it.

LOL, nothing says bipartisanship more than "Hillary Clinton".

[funk63]

idk bout u guys but Bill Clinton brought the house down at West Lafayette HS last night..

[afronaut]

Obama was named by National Journal as having the most consistently left-leaning voting record of any senator. That's not the mark of someone who brings people together from across the spectrum to get things done.


It's about time the lefties are given a chance. Maybe instead of wasting time trying to ban gay marriage or lying about wars (or in the case of McCain, trying to nuke Iran most likely,) a lefty president will actually tackle something worthwhile, like education, healthcare, or the economy.

And anyway, this thread is about Hillary, not Obama, though I understand you have some Obama fetish and must talk about him every chance you get.

Like any right wing Republicans are willingly going to cooperate with Hillary. Come on, between Hillary and Obama, who do you think appeals more to the right wingers? The answer has to be Obama by default, because he's not a Clinton. Shit, some of Obama's economic policies are downright right wing.

[abcdefz]

I'm melllllllllllllllllllllllltiiiiiiiing...!

I'm mellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiing...!

[saz]

Obama was named by National Journal as having the most consistently left-leaning voting record of any senator. That's not the mark of someone who brings people together from across the spectrum to get things done.


are you serious? you're actually referencing that b.s. national journal item on obama? this is the same national journal that in 2004 rated kerry and edwards with the most liberal voting records, but they both voted for the war and patriot act. coincidence? obama doesn't have the most consistently "left-leaning"
voting record. first, there's independent senator bernie sanders of vermont, who is an adamant socialist. there's also barbara boxer who has been in the senate a lot longer than obama, and actually has a progressive voting record. russ feingold pushed for a censure of president bush, something which obama is opposed to. the progressive punch (http://www.progressivepunch.org/) meanwhile found obama near the bottom (http://progressivepunch.yvod.com/members.jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&scoreSort=current_close) of democratic senators with a progressive voting record.

obama is pretty conservative (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/obamas-conservative-econ_b_83315.html). he is a wall street democrat and is not a champion of progressive politics (http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=81655&mesg_id=81655). he is opposed to universal healthcare. just take a look at some of his advisors (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/).

and if you've ever listened to joe scarborough or p.j. o'rouke comment on obama, they have discussed how he is pulling in a lot of reagan democrats, conservatives, and traditional republican supporters.

and even if obama were to do a complete 360 if elected, the majority of americans want the iraq war to end, and they also want universal healthcare (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml). so what better way than to unite a country than to end an illegal nightmare of a war and provide universal healthcare.

[yeahwho]

The problem here is Hillary seeks the wrong style of exposure, or maybe it has just become apparent due to Obamas' higher road style that the exposure she doe get is negative. When she hits the papers it has almost universally been trying to bash Obama (nobody gives a shit what she has to say about McCain).

That is a major problem on many levels which will become overtly a democratic problem in the weeks to come. She has been mislead and out-hustled. The future will be damage control if something doesn't happen soon.

I look for Gore, Edwards or Pelosi to come out and endorse one of these two in the next 2 weeks. It has to be done, otherwise the divisiveness of these two candidates will take spotlight rather than the focus being on John McCain and the Bush legacy.

[djdjdj]

Read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_on_el_pr/clinton;_ylt=AmxKopuoXBLXLWF2ci2NaPas0NUE

That woman is full of crap. That's what I think.

[QueenAdrock]

I ran upon a very good opinion article by the New York Times today, it should go here. Basically, it's about how Hillary has an alleged 5% chance of winning now and she should do the graceful thing and bow out, though the writer is doubtful she will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html

[yeahwho]

I ran upon a very good opinion article by the New York Times today, it should go here. Basically, it's about how Hillary has an alleged 5% chance of winning now and she should do the graceful thing and bow out, though the writer is doubtful she will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html


I really like David Brooks, he is a very good writer and has kept himself in tune with the political world, like me, he understands the vibe. Hillary is not all that wonderful of a person, what she is, is an effective politician at a very calculated level. The problem being is that calculation exacts a price on those who betray her. Probably why the previous chickens in her camp have come over to Obamas to roost.

Whenever I hear the word "experience" come out of her or her supporters mouths, it morphs into "entitlement". She drives me batty and I'm basically not that far off bubble as the rest of America.

[Tzar]

Read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_on_el_pr/clinton;_ylt=AmxKopuoXBLXLWF2ci2NaPas0NUE

That woman is full of crap. That's what I think.
i have as much as in this topic as a blind man at an art gallery, but i saw this story on the news tonight and i pissed myself. ya could see every journo in the room "OOHHH"ing and "AHHHH"ing at her 'ducking sniper cover'. ahahahaha top stuff, hillary.

[NoFenders]

Anyone who votes Dem better hope Hillary doesn't fade. She's your only hope against McCain. Obama has lost it. Fact.

:cool:

[abcdefz]

I ran upon a very good opinion article by the New York Times today, it should go here. Basically, it's about how Hillary has an alleged 5% chance of winning now and she should do the graceful thing and bow out, though the writer is doubtful she will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html



Newsweek ran a good article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/114725) about that, too.

[abcdefz]

i have as much as in this topic as a blind man at an art gallery, but i saw this story on the news tonight and i pissed myself. ya could see every journo in the room "OOHHH"ing and "AHHHH"ing at her 'ducking sniper cover'. ahahahaha top stuff, hillary.



If I were fired upon with my daughter, I'd think it would make an indelible impression.

Yeah, Hil. With your steel trap mind, you're my pick for that 3:00 a.m. phone call. (y)

[Bob]

Anyone who votes Dem better hope Hillary doesn't fade. She's your only hope against McCain. Obama has lost it. Fact.

:cool:

i don't think you know what "fact" means

[abcdefz]

^
Fact. (y)

[saz]

Anyone who votes Dem better hope Hillary doesn't fade. She's your only hope against McCain. Obama has lost it. Fact.

:cool:

As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.

Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton is. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28.

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.

In the general-election matchups, Obama led McCain by 2 points, and McCain led Clinton by 2 points; all margin of error results and nothing to get too excited over.

McCain 46% - Clinton 44%
Obama 44% - McCain 42%

link (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx)

[afronaut]

Anyone who votes Dem better hope Hillary doesn't fade. She's your only hope against McCain. Obama has lost it. Fact.

:cool:

So wait, you're saying a woman who doesn't have any chance against a guy who supposedly doesn't have any chance against McCain is the only person who actually does have a chance against McCain?

Also, just because you say something, doesn't make it true or a fact. Learn to back up your arguments.

If the Dems are going to steal any percent of the Republican vote, it's going to be with Obama, and sure as hell not with a Clinton.

[jennyb]

Obama rules. Fact.

:)

[abcdefz]

Obama rules:
:)





No smoking in bed.
Elbows off the table.
Don't speak with your mouth full.
No TV until your homework is done.
Stop tracking mud across my nice, clean kitchen floor.

[jennyb]

No smoking in bed.
Elbows off the table.
Don't speak with your mouth full.
No TV until your homework is done.
Stop tracking mud across my nice, clean kitchen floor.


hehehe... you forgot


*Go to hospital and get better no matter your income.
*Be respectful of other nations.

[abcdefz]

I don't want to be called "Barry" anymore.

[NoFenders]

i don't think you know what "fact" means

I guess not. But it sure is fun thinking I do. :cool:

[NoFenders]

So wait, you're saying a woman who doesn't have any chance against a guy who supposedly doesn't have any chance against McCain is the only person who actually does have a chance against McCain?

I think she a lot more of a chance over Obama than she did before, just because of his pastor, and how he dropped the ball in his speech.

Also, just because you say something, doesn't make it true or a fact. Learn to back up your arguments.

Just because I said fact, doesn't mean you have to take it so definite. Like you thought he dropped out or some shit?? Come on, you guys can stop it with the educated persona.

If the Dems are going to steal any percent of the Republican vote, it's going to be with Obama, and sure as hell not with a Clinton.

You obviously don't know many Republicans. After this whole deal with his pastor he's turned off quite a few people, most would be Republicans.


:cool:

[NoFenders]

Sorry guys, I just feel he's done, kaput, wash your hands. There's really no way he can take it now. If he does, the country is blind. :cool:

[afronaut]

You obviously don't know many Republicans. After this whole deal with his pastor he's turned off quite a few people, most would be Republicans.
:cool:

I don't doubt this, though the fact still remains that Hillary's last name is "Clinton."

[yeahwho]

Sorry guys, I just feel he's done, kaput, wash your hands. There's really no way he can take it now. If he does, the country is blind. :cool:

Just as a courtesy, who do you support for our next President? I think you'll be fine with coming out and telling the board who you support. This is the internet, we'll probably never meet, so go ahead and talk about the next best hope for our country and then lets talk about that person. Your "Great Hope" for the USA.

Playing offense is all your capable of right now.

[NoFenders]

omg!! are you calling me out???? :eek:

yeahwho, would it really be that hard to guess who I'll vote for???

Here's a clue, who will give me more of my money that I work for????

When ya get that answer, you've got who I'll vote for.

You're so in touch with the political game, that should be a no-brainer for ya.

Try and give it some zing though. Your writing style is starting to fade a little. ;)

j/k

Anyway, I don't defend others. Never have, unless it's a 100lb kid getting tanked by a football player, I don't get involved. I never expect anyone to deffend me, and I like it that way. You are your only problem you will ever have, and you are your only solution. Sink or swim and all that jazz. What I will do on occasion is voice my opinion. A few here have no time for opinion, and can only survive by facts and a link to that fact. Everything else is mute. There's a huge problem in that. The problem is they only believe what they read. They have no sense of reality away from the tv or computer. When you meet a lot of new people every day, you get a feeling. It's not from a poll or a report, it's from actual humans.

So, to all who expect me to post links and back up my opinion with links and crap, step off. Never have and never will. If anyone takes it as bs and stupidity, that's your right and you can survive that way. I choose to let my feelings determine my actions. I feel one way about a certain thing, well then I'll act to voice my opinion. We can still have opinions ya know.

They say black is a bad color to buy a car in because it always gets dirty and you can see every scratch. I don't mind washing/buffing it, so I disagree. My opinion is that the car looks great clean, and a lot better than a silver one. But my opinion doesn't add up to what they say, so I must be a fool.

All political nonsense is just that, nonsense. You fight for what you think is right, and speak out against what I think is wrong. That's America, still the best damn place on the planet, no matter who's in charge.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

omg!! are you calling me out???? :eek:

yeahwho, would it really be that hard to guess who I'll vote for???

Here's a clue, who will give me more of my money that I work for????

When ya get that answer, you've got who I'll vote for.

You're so in touch with the political game, that should be a no-brainer for ya.

Try and give it some zing though. Your writing style is starting to fade a little. ;)

j/k

Anyway, I don't defend others. Never have, unless it's a 100lb kid getting tanked by a football player, I don't get involved. I never expect anyone to deffend me, and I like it that way. You are your only problem you will ever have, and you are your only solution. Sink or swim and all that jazz. What I will do on occasion is voice my opinion. A few here have no time for opinion, and can only survive by facts and a link to that fact. Everything else is mute. There's a huge problem in that. The problem is they only believe what they read. They have no sense of reality away from the tv or computer. When you meet a lot of new people every day, you get a feeling. It's not from a poll or a report, it's from actual humans.

So, to all who expect me to post links and back up my opinion with links and crap, step off. Never have and never will. If anyone takes it as bs and stupidity, that's your right and you can survive that way. I choose to let my feelings determine my actions. I feel one way about a certain thing, well then I'll act to voice my opinion. We can still have opinions ya know.

They say black is a bad color to buy a car in because it always gets dirty and you can see every scratch. I don't mind washing/buffing it, so I disagree. My opinion is that the car looks great clean, and a lot better than a silver one. But my opinion doesn't add up to what they say, so I must be a fool.

All political nonsense is just that, nonsense. You fight for what you think is right, and speak out against what I think is wrong. That's America, still the best damn place on the planet, no matter who's in charge.

:cool:

So your just vague, lack facts and shoot from the hip what your feelings are. That is your constitutional right. You must be more than a little touchy about my criticism of your style, because your defense is pretty long winded.

Nice to see you being defensive of your vagueness, it's really more entertaining than the hits and jabs you throw around without any solution what so ever.

You must be voting for Obama, he's the one most vocal against the most expensive tax payer program going on currently.

[NoFenders]

Lack of facts?? Not really, maybe lack of links is more like it.

Yeah, I shoot from the hip, always have.

I'm not touchy, I just felt like getting that crap out of my way since everytime I speak people are all freaked about links and what a poll says. I could care less.

Call it vague, I enjoy being vague. It allows me to not be tagged in one way or another. It keeps my options open, and my word true.

Hits and jabs are what this entire game is about. You're very educated on hits and jabs, so careful throwing those stones.

The only solution I have for you is to think long and hard on what's best for you, and vote accordingly. If you've done that, then good for you.

Obama can walk off a cliff for all I care, so no, I wont be voting for him and I'll talk as many people as I can out of voting for him. I would pay more in taxes with him in office. If you don't know that,then you don't know Obama.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

Lack of facts?? Not really, maybe lack of links is more like it.

Facts must be demonstrated to exist, your actually just assuming your thoughts are facts, they aren't.

Yeah, I shoot from the hip, always have.

Thats great but your firing blanks, you have no lead in your shot.

I'm not touchy, I just felt like getting that crap out of my way since everytime I speak people are all freaked about links and what a poll says. I could care less.

I'm obviously not touchy, that is why I'm going straight into your bullshit posts.

Call it vague, I enjoy being vague. It allows me to not be tagged in one way or another. It keeps my options open, and my word true.

Your word is false. You are vague. You do not have a solid belief to share.

Hits and jabs are what this entire game is about. You're very educated on hits and jabs, so careful throwing those stones.

Somebody who is afraid to actually name there candidate on a very anonymous internet message board is telling me about how to fight. Your afraid to actually endorse your candidate. You have No Fight.

The only solution I have for you is to think long and hard on what's best for you, and vote accordingly. If you've done that, then good for you.

Maybe you missed my post last December, here it is (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=84687).

Obama can walk off a cliff for all I care, so no, I wont be voting for him and I'll talk as many people as I can out of voting for him. I would pay more in taxes with him in office. If you don't know that,then you don't know Obama.

You haven't a clue, your mean spirited and still are basically unable to endorse somebody you will stick with right up till Nov. 2008.

How does that make you feel? You have no candidate to back. 0-nothing-zilch.

[Bob]

Lack of facts?? Not really, maybe lack of links is more like it.

Yeah, I shoot from the hip, always have.

I'm not touchy, I just felt like getting that crap out of my way since everytime I speak people are all freaked about links and what a poll says. I could care less.

Call it vague, I enjoy being vague. It allows me to not be tagged in one way or another. It keeps my options open, and my word true.

Hits and jabs are what this entire game is about. You're very educated on hits and jabs, so careful throwing those stones.

The only solution I have for you is to think long and hard on what's best for you, and vote accordingly. If you've done that, then good for you.

Obama can walk off a cliff for all I care, so no, I wont be voting for him and I'll talk as many people as I can out of voting for him. I would pay more in taxes with him in office. If you don't know that,then you don't know Obama.

:cool:

you're like stephen colbert, only real

[Bob]

The only solution I have for you is to think long and hard on what's best for you, and vote accordingly. If you've done that, then good for you.

Obama can walk off a cliff for all I care, so no, I wont be voting for him and I'll talk as many people as I can out of voting for him. I would pay more in taxes with him in office. If you don't know that,then you don't know Obama.

:cool:

so hypothetically, if there were a candidate who proposed to eliminate the income tax, and to do it, he would cut all government funding from schools, police, and infrastructure programs (roads and fire departments and shit), and the military, would you vote for him? i mean no taxes, how great would that be?

[QueenAdrock]

you're like stephen colbert, only real

I was just thinking that!

"That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."

[yeahwho]

I've been Colbert'd, I feel so naked. This is the best quote of the day for sure though, it's funnier than Colbert..... because it's real.

Lack of facts?? Not really, maybe lack of links is more like it.

[NoFenders]

Facts must be demonstrated to exist, your actually just assuming your thoughts are facts, they aren't.

I know what I know, and I know what I feel. If that upsets you, so sorry.



Thats great but your firing blanks, you have no lead in your shot.

It's obvioulsy enough to get you off your ass.



I'm obviously not touchy, that is why I'm going straight into your bullshit posts.

Makes no sense to me. Sorry.



Your word is false. You are vague. You do not have a solid belief to share.

Sorry Charlie, but to those who know me know my word is gold. A guy on a internet board can never take that away as hard as he may try.Yeah, I'm vague. I like it that way. If you don't, stop the reply.

No solid belief??According to you, sure. I have plenty of solid beliefs.I just dont go on and on about them like others.



Somebody who is afraid to actually name there candidate on a very anonymous internet message board is telling me about how to fight. Your afraid to actually endorse your candidate. You have No Fight.

I don't really have a candidate to endorse. They all suck ass. Since you're clueless to who I'd vote for if the election were today, it'd have to be McCain.



Maybe you missed my post last December, here it is (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=84687).

Thanks, but no thanks



You haven't a clue, your mean spirited and still are basically unable to endorse somebody you will stick with right up till Nov. 2008.

I'm mean spirited??? lmao Please tell me how I've been so mean spirited that is unlike anyone else here. I'm very interested.

How does that make you feel? You have no candidate to back. 0-nothing-zilch.

It makes me feel like this election is a joke. It also makes me worry that people who are so full of themsleves can't see the light. People like yourself who are so obsessed with one candidate that they can't see any other view. That in my opinion, makes you weak. It also justifies my belief that most people who go on and on, do so because they don't want to look like they really have no idea what they're talking about. Your reply has been laughable at best, as have the others. Not in what you believe, but how you express yourself towards others. I didn't come here to pick a fight with a kid and I don't get why you jump on others for stating their opinion. If that's what Obama Land will be like, you can have it.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

you're like stephen colbert, only real

Yeah, reality scares most. :cool:

[NoFenders]

so hypothetically, if there were a candidate who proposed to eliminate the income tax, and to do it, he would cut all government funding from schools, police, and infrastructure programs (roads and fire departments and shit), and the military, would you vote for him? i mean no taxes, how great would that be?

Income tax doesn't pay for roads and schools or police and fire depts.I think you're confusing property tax with income tax.

The military, yes. So, I would have no trouble writing a check to the gov for twice what I gave to the military last year,($500) if they'd stop taking the rest for people who don't work for what they have. So yeah, I'd vote for him/her, and I feel very sorry for anyone who didn't. You worked for it, why not have it in your pocket. Maybe you feel you can help others with it. Great, I guess you're incapable of finding those who need it most, since the gov does such a great job at it. Do you really think there'll be a Social Security check when you're old and wrinkled??? If you do, take another look. We're paying into it now, and we'll never see a dime. Just except it, I do. I don't except the lazy good for nothings who sponge though.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

Yeawho, can I ask how old you are??? :cool:

[yeahwho]

Yeawho, can I ask how old you are??? :cool:

I'm not going to date you, nice try though, especially with all the money your going to be making.

Your just not as smart on politics as me, you know why? Because I said so!

[NoFenders]

:)



:cool:

[EarlsJims]

Depending on where you stand, Hillary is either the wicked witch, melting ... or Dorothy being told to surrender (to borrow from Dowd).

[yeahwho]

Depending on where you stand, Hillary is either the wicked witch, melting ... or Dorothy being told to surrender (to borrow from Dowd).

Yeah I read that Maureen Dowd ED/OP in yesterdays NYTimes,
Surrender Already Dorothy (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=dowd&st=nyt&oref=slogin)

Democrats are coming around to the point Jay Rockefeller made 10 days ago after introducing Obama in West Virginia: “Democrats always make a mistake by nominating people who know everything on earth there is to know about public policy. I introduced both Al Gore and John Kerry at their rallies. They knew all the policies, but people didn’t connect with them. You don’t get elected president if people don’t like you.”

At some point the signal will hit Hillary, if she causes anymore damage she'll more than likely go the Nader route as a spolier. I feel this way for one big reason, she showed her leadership skills when she gave Bush the ability to invade Iraq.

[saz]

nader never was a spoiler. the fact that 250,000 registered democrats in florida voted for bush in 2000 speaks volumes.

[DroppinScience]

nader never was a spoiler. the fact that 250,000 registered democrats in florida voted for bush in 2000 speaks volumes.

Heck, didn't an unexpected amount of retired New York Jews in Florida vote for Pat Buchanan, as well? ;)

[yeahwho]

nader never was a spoiler. the fact that 250,000 registered democrats in florida voted for bush in 2000 speaks volumes.

That is one way to look at it, then of course there is the other way to look at it,

The final certified vote totals show that Bush won just 537 more votes than Gore, thus winning the state. Since the Florida votes were among the last to be reported, and because the results were so close, and there was a vote recount, some say that the Florida result "decided the election". Some Gore supporters believed that many of the 97,421 votes that went to Ralph Nader in that state would likely have been votes for Gore, had Nader not been running in the election. Some Gore supporters contend that Nader's candidacy "spoiled" the election for Gore by taking away enough votes from Gore in Florida and many other states (in particular, New Hampshire being the allegation most statistically supportable) to allow Bush to win.



That too speaks volumes.

Nader said he was running as a protest against the two major candidates, He was very disappointed that the Clinton administration wouldn't listen to views of his Public Interest groups. He should of been and i do feel he has every right to run for president, my problem with Nader is his Public Relations, I love his activism and feel he actually hurts his causes by not encouraging the rank and file to be more politically active. He is a fighter and really very, very intelligent. He has absolutely no experience dealing with foreign diplomacy other than "how to regulate".

As far as 250,000 democrats voting for Bush, I have a theory about Florida...

here it is (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tanning+shops+in+florida&btnG=Search)

[saz]

Some Gore supporters believed that many of the 97,421 votes that went to Ralph Nader in that state would likely have been votes for Gore, had Nader not been running in the election. Some Gore supporters contend that Nader's candidacy "spoiled" the election for Gore by taking away enough votes from Gore in Florida and many other states (in particular, New Hampshire being the allegation most statistically supportable) to allow Bush to win.



That too speaks volumes.

no, that's just called wishful thinking by gore supporters, who always like to presume that if nader didn't run, those progressive, socialist and left-wing voters would have voted for gore.


He has absolutely no experience dealing with foreign diplomacy other than "how to regulate".

ditto hillary and obama, and if they do have experience in this area it's very little.

[yeahwho]

no, that's just called wishful thinking by gore supporters, who always like to presume that if nader didn't run, those progressive, socialist and left-wing voters would have voted for gore.

Thats why it is so commonly referred to as the "Wishful Thinking Effect" by all who recall the 2000 election's demographics. Gore has never once publicly said Nader had spoiled his candidacy, it's the general population. What Hillary is doing right this moment is helping Barack Obama How?


ditto hillary and obama, and if they do have experience in this area it's very little.

Actually they have 100%+ more foreign affairs and diplomacy experience in official government capacity. You see, Mr. Nader hasn't even ventured to be a councilman for his own local community (whatever the fuck his community is? Talk about a private secretive bitch). Yet he calls all the other candidates opportunistic. I'm just getting started on how much of an arrogant ass he is.

The only thing he has said that I sort of agree on so far this campaign is from Meet the Press, and it's an observation not a policy pulled out of his vision of regulation,

When asked by MSNBC's Tim Russert about the possibility of preventing a Democratic victory in 2008, Nader responded, "Not a chance. If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form."

[EarlsJims]

At some point the signal will hit Hillary, if she causes anymore damage she'll more than likely go the Nader route as a spolier. I feel this way for one big reason, she showed her leadership skills when she gave Bush the ability to invade Iraq.

Now there's talk about her running for governor of New York. (I don't see her settling for anything less than queen, I mean commander-in chief.)

[abcdefz]

There was a good observation made in today's editorial section.

From the Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_8793401):

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently said that superdelegates should respect the voters' choice. In contrast, Sen. Hillary Clinton
argued that superdelegates should exercise "independent judgment."

What does Clinton mean by that? Consider, for a moment, judicial standards for determining an individual's capacity for objectivity.
Any prospective juror who has any dealings with a plaintiff or defendant is automatically disqualified from jury duty. A person
who makes financial contributions to a judge in the midst of a trial commits a felony.

The exchange of votes and favors is ongoing in politics. Over the years, like Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton contributed thousands
of dollars to members of the House and Senate who are now superdelegates. Some delegates are close friends of the candidates.
Clinton has organized dozens of lavish fundraising parties for her allies in Washington, D.C. As her biographer, Sally Bedell Smith,
wrote: "Hillary's efforts . . . earned the gratitude of countless influential Democrats who could help with her political ambitions."


....There are ethical issues regarding the Clinton position on superdelegate power. At every rally, at every major event, she appeals
to voters as if their votes will become the deciding factor in the nomination. She does not tell them that superdelegates are -
n her opinion - wiser than the cooks, taxi drivers, lawyers, technicians, nurses, and humble Americans to whom she appeals.
Is it really ethical to appeal to Americans to vote, while making appeals behind the scenes to superdelegates to nullify those
voters if they choose your opponent?

To be sure, Clinton certainly has a right to take Mondale's elitist position on the role of superdelegates in the nominating process.
But doesn't she have an obligation to inform voters that their activism, hopes and idealism - their participation in the primaries -
may all be in vain? Why not just cancel the primaries, let superdelegates pick the nominee, and spare us the humiliation of yet
another election overturned?

[abcdefz]

Latest poll shows her lead in Pennsylvania at 6%.

Nine points five days ago, eleven points late March.

CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

[saz]

Actually they have 100%+ more foreign affairs and diplomacy experience in official government capacity.

well, that's obvious, since they have served in one of the main legislative branches. however, it's not much to brag about, considering that obama has been a senator for only a few years, and hillary approximately six.


You see, Mr. Nader hasn't even ventured to be a councilman for his own local community (whatever the fuck his community is? Talk about a private secretive bitch). Yet he calls all the other candidates opportunistic. I'm just getting started on how much of an arrogant ass he is.

so, let me get this straight. nader is a "private secretive bitch" and "an arrogant ass", because he hasn't "even ventured to be a councilman for his own local community"? but meanwhile he has an extensive public service record, who has made dramatic and colossal changes and progress for americans and consumer rights, who has accomplished so much more and done so much more for americans than both hillary and obama combined.


The only thing he has said that I sort of agree on so far this campaign is from Meet the Press, and it's an observation not a policy pulled out of his vision of regulation,

When asked by MSNBC's Tim Russert about the possibility of preventing a Democratic victory in 2008, Nader responded, "Not a chance. If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form."

really? (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1560850&postcount=3) ;)

[yeahwho]

well, that's obvious, since they have served in one of the main legislative branches. however, it's not much to brag about, considering that obama has been a senator for only a few years, and hillary approximately six.



so, let me get this straight. nader is a "private secretive bitch" and "an arrogant ass", because he hasn't "even ventured to be a councilman for his own local community"? but meanwhile he has an extensive public service record, who has made dramatic and colossal changes and progress for americans and consumer rights, who has accomplished so much more and done so much more for americans than both hillary and obama combined.



really? (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1560850&postcount=3) ;)

These responses seem to be sort of nickel and diming the topic, I really don't think I'm being exposed or even schooled on anything. At some point the gap between Nader and me agreeing on multiple issues and him actually being the President of the USA is so huge I think it should be obvious.



Maybe me just posting is bothering you. Or perhaps your one of the multiple folks who think Obama should be examined more closely, yet never once has any of these folks put up a support thread for any other candidate.

I am the one who started the thread your quoting me from, Nader Runs Again (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=1560850#post1560850), it is neither a support or oppose thread I made, just a view of politics in 2008 America.

If you scroll down and read all of my posts on that thread or throughout the years I've posted on this board you'll see politically I believe Nader is an ass.

I'm just not sure if your trying to say I'm a hypocrite or not. That would be bullshit and I'm pretty fucking sure my political stance is completely backed up and more clearly stated than any other poster on the BBMB right now.

I am the guy who began the Going to Support Barack Obama thread. I'm still here and the Ron Paul folks have sort of faded on their support. All other candidates have no vocal supporters here.

Because Obama is the best candidate we have. Without a doubt head and shoulders above Nader. Nader needs to learn how to serve within the confines of the electorate. He is only effective now because he has no limitations on time with each issue he takes on. How will that work when the multiple agency's of government begin to depend on him to help them out rather than have him scrutinize them? You can't have it both ways, you have to earn it. He hasn't.

[D_Raay]

Income tax doesn't pay for roads and schools or police and fire depts.I think you're confusing property tax with income tax.

The military, yes. So, I would have no trouble writing a check to the gov for twice what I gave to the military last year,($500) if they'd stop taking the rest for people who don't work for what they have. So yeah, I'd vote for him/her, and I feel very sorry for anyone who didn't. You worked for it, why not have it in your pocket. Maybe you feel you can help others with it. Great, I guess you're incapable of finding those who need it most, since the gov does such a great job at it. Do you really think there'll be a Social Security check when you're old and wrinkled??? If you do, take another look. We're paying into it now, and we'll never see a dime. Just except it, I do. I don't except the lazy good for nothings who sponge though.

:cool:
Do you have children?

[abcdefz]

Hillary's down to four points in Pennsylvania. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/10/polls-clintons-lead-down-to-4-points-in-pennsylvania/)

[saz]

These responses seem to be sort of nickel and diming the topic, I really don't think I'm being exposed or even schooled on anything. At some point the gap between Nader and me agreeing on multiple issues and him actually being the President of the USA is so huge I think it should be obvious.

it's "sort of nickel and diming" to compare nader's extensive public service record to obama's and hillary's scant public service records?


Maybe me just posting is bothering you. Or perhaps your one of the multiple folks who think Obama should be examined more closely, yet never once has any of these folks put up a support thread for any other candidate.

i'd already made it quite clear that i'd support nader, or the green party's candidate. and no you're not bothering me.


I am the one who started the thread your quoting me from, Nader Runs Again (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=1560850#post1560850), it is neither a support or oppose thread I made, just a view of politics in 2008 America.

yeah that's fine.


If you scroll down and read all of my posts on that thread or throughout the years I've posted on this board you'll see politically I believe Nader is an ass. I'm just not sure if your trying to say I'm a hypocrite or not. That would be bullshit and I'm pretty fucking sure my political stance is completely backed up and more clearly stated than any other poster on the BBMB right now.

yeah i'm well aware that you don't like nader, however when you posted that link to his website, you seemed to come across that you liked his differences from the mainstream dem positions. after all, you have stated that you are a kucinich democrat (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1554714&postcount=89), and kucinich's policies are pretty much exactly in line with nader's progressive policies. so, and no offence, but it seems that you're compromising your core beliefs (being a kucinich democrat), and supporting what looks like a sure winner. i can kind of understand that, considering the last seven years, but with the mainstream centrist democrats (who enabled the iraq war, the patriot act etc), you can't expect much to change, especially considering that it was bill clinton who adopted the republican's economic platform.


I am the guy who began the Going to Support Barack Obama thread. I'm still here and the Ron Paul folks have sort of faded on their support. All other candidates have no vocal supporters here.

Because Obama is the best candidate we have. Without a doubt head and shoulders above Nader.

is obama campainging for universal healthcare? is obama pushing for all contractors to get out of iraq?


Nader needs to learn how to serve within the confines of the electorate. He is only effective now because he has no limitations on time with each issue he takes on. How will that work when the multiple agency's of government begin to depend on him to help them out rather than have him scrutinize them? You can't have it both ways, you have to earn it. He hasn't.

again, nader has clearly proven himself to be a true crusader for average americans, and the american consumer at large. his record and achievements are very extensive, whereas obama's record is skant. and no, nader is effective because he has the guts to stick to his core beliefs, his core progressive principles, and he refuses to back down. obama could very easily adopt nader's platform, or even part of it, which speaks directly to average americans. but with obama it appears to be more of the same (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm).