It's official now, Edwards endorses Obama

[RobMoney$]

...and right before the NC primary.
This is huge for Obama's campaign.

LINK (http://www.chetedwards.com/node/265)

[RobMoney$]

Some of you may have missed this, but Chet Edwards (D-TX) endorsed Obama a while back.

I thought some of you might want to know.

[QueenAdrock]

I figure John Edwards will go Obama, his top advisors said he's endorsing him unofficially. But I think NC was going to go to him anyways, he plays very well in the south. My mom was also telling me that Obama was setting up a campaign office in their town (heavily Democratic area), whereas Clinton's closest headquarters is in Raleigh, 3 hours away from them. They also say that it seems like Obama's commercials outweigh Clinton's by about 5-to-1. It seems like she's running out of money and I think that will really affect her in North Carolina.

[RobMoney$]

They also say that it seems like Obama's commercials outweigh Clinton's by about 5-to-1. It seems like she's running out of money and I think that will really affect her in North Carolina.


Obama did the same here in Pa. with all the commercials. It didn't help.

Nothing's Changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdOK4L868cI), the commercial he ran in Pa.

Factcheck.org. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/129895)


In a new ad, Obama says, "I don't take money from oil companies."
Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn't distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

****************

We're not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we'd note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he's received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.

Lobbyist Loopholes?
We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

Even the campaign has acknowledged that this policy is flawed. "It isn't a perfect solution to the problem and it isn't even a perfect symbol,"Obama spokesman Bill Burton has said.


Is Obama a NEW kind of politician? Or is he just like every other politician?
Obama got into office because a gangster financed him, he will take money from anyone that offers it.
After the hype wore off, Obama is just like all the others.

[what_the_doofus]

Is Obama a NEW kind of politician? Or is he just like every other politician?
Obama got into office because a gangster financed him, he will take money from anyone that offers it.
After the hype wore off, Obama is just like all the others.


How is this a valid criticism? Obama says he's not like all other politicians, but he pretty much is. Hillary Clinton is content with being status quo, so vote Hillary?

flawed logic.

[RobMoney$]

You say she's status quo, I didn't.
I'm not criticizing Obama for being like all the others, I'm pointing out how he's full of shit for trying to act like he's somehow vastly different.
He's telling the little white campaign lies just as much as Hillary, trying to skew the facts to his favor to gain an advantage.
I'm not bothered by it. It's a competition. I expect both of them to try to exploit an opening where they see it.
The Obama-maniacs were trying to act like he was above all that.

[yeahwho]

You say she's status quo, I didn't.
I'm not criticizing Obama for being like all the others, I'm pointing out how he's full of shit for trying to act like he's somehow vastly different.
He's telling the little white campaign lies just as much as Hillary, trying to skew the facts to his favor to gain an advantage.
I'm not bothered by it. It's a competition. I expect both of them to try to exploit an opening where they see it.
The Obama-maniacs were trying to act like he was above all that.

Obama is more than just slightly better, he is head and shoulders above the Clinton's. Hillary Clinton is a fine presidential candidate, her speaking points and campaign have been brutal. She has shown to be a tenaciousness foe, I respect.

That said I learned nothing about her that appeals to me. She seems divisive within her own party. The republicans would love to have her run for president because the baggage is premium. They will point her out to be delusional and a bit of a bitch. She says she really wants to get in there and fight for her programs, she has portrayed herself as a fighter for US citizens, but her actions do not meet her talk.

We voted in a majority congress to end this war, it did not happen.

Currently she would like to roll back the federal gas tax for what she (BTW McCain too wants to this) wil be a savings of $28 a fill up for a few months. Why not just freeze gas prices, put a moratorium on gas at $4.00 a gallon. The Oil corporations have oil flow and demand is high, we're being exploited by every billionaire oil CEO and their interests via hedge funds and plain old fear.

Hillary wants us, thats my tax money to chip in and give the Oil companies another huge break, it isn't going to help one single person, we're just chipping in to justify the high prices. She's not very bright for making Americans pay.

Obama wants to do whats been neglected the past 20 years, get the automotive industry to built more efficient cars and the oil companies to make more fuel efficient options for these cars.

He wants to invest in new technology and let research begin on options to oil.

The normally sympathetic Paul Krugman calls Clinton's plan "pointless" and McCain's "evil," while his colleague Thomas Friedman denounces the plan as "money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks." Still, it's the kind of pander that could work, no matter how transparent or absurd. If voters associate Clinton with cheap gas, mission accomplished.
Hillarys current odds of being the presidential nominee now at 12.6%,

Deathwatch (http://www.slate.com/id/2190281/)

[DIGI]

So now I guess Rob will act the same as he did in the hockey thread. Talk a lot of shit and when he finds out his team/candidate is facing imminent defeat, he'll say he never cared.

[QueenAdrock]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html

It's official that the other Edwards endorses Obama. Or at least, it will be tonight.

[RobMoney$]

So now I guess Rob will act the same as he did in the hockey thread. Talk a lot of shit and when he finds out his team/candidate is facing imminent defeat, he'll say he never cared.


You're so full of shit DIGI.
I said I didn't care about either team before the first game was played. I also said that the fact that the Flyers being from Philadelphia practically guarenteed they'd find a way to not win the cup. The Flyers were the worst team in the entire league just last year and as the 6th seed in the East, I'm happy with how far they advanced. The Penguins are just a better team than the Flyers at this point, plain and simple.
I do think Detroit will beat them in 5 though.

But since you're interested, I think if it does come down to Obama vs. McCain, I'll probably go for Obama.
I think I'd vote for Brett Lambert for President before I ever voted for a Republican.

[ToucanSpam]

Is it possible for us to vote for Brett Lambert for PM too? God knows I won't be voting for Stephane Dion.

That's right, he's a weak leader. Don't ask me the stupid crybaby response of 'if not him, who?' because I said Ignatieff more than a year ago.

[The Notorious LOL]

no one gives a shit about Canadian politics including Canadians.

[saz]

uh, no. maybe not on this board.

[alien autopsy]

just goes to show they are all in it together....

[Bob]

just goes to show they are all in it together....

i'm sure i'll regret asking this, but in what exactly?

[QueenAdrock]

no one gives a shit about Canadian politics including Canadians.

Hahahaha, sadly it's true. I hear more hoop-la up here about the upcoming American election than I ever did about the elections here a few months ago. Only something like 41% voted in that election. :-/

[saz]

that's just alberta.

[DroppinScience]

that's just alberta.

No, I'd say apathy is a nation-wide epidemic. Yes, the Alberta provincial election this March had the lowest voter turnout in our entire history, but I'd attribute it to the fact that the leaders from all the parties fail to inspire the electorate (and the fact that our first-past-the-post system ensures that our gerrymandered ridings will make your vote not count, especially if you're not a Tory voter).

Look at federal elections: typically they only get 50-55% voter turnout on a good day. Maybe that's not terrible for a Western democracy, but it's certainly no bragging rights either.

[saz]

it's pretty much the same anywhere in any western democracy, except france and australia.

and no, in the last fifteen years, voter turnout in federal elections has been in the 60s (http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pas&document=turnout&lang=e&textonly=false), while it had previously been in the 70s. ignorant, lackadaisical youth slackers seem to not turnout. voting should be made mandatory like in australia.

[DroppinScience]

and no, in the last fifteen years, voter turnout in federal elections has been in the 60s (http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pas&document=turnout&lang=e&textonly=false), while it had previously been in the 70s. ignorant, lackadaisical youth slackers seem to not turnout. voting should be made mandatory like in australia.

Do you mean mandatory as in if you don't vote, you get fined? Though I'd love for more people anywhere to vote, I'm not 100% sure mandatory voting is a good idea. If you don't give a shit about the election, you simply don't give a shit. Being "forced" to vote and then making an uninformed choice on the ballot doesn't sound like the best way. But perhaps mandatory voting would compel more people to get more acquainted with the candidates and the issues, I don't know. If you got some evidence that mandatory voting makes for a better electorate and democracy, by all means, throw me a link.

Thanks for showing voter turnout being more in the 60s. I'm not sure where I thought it was more 50-ish (mixing my provincial with the federal, perhaps?).

[The Notorious LOL]

voting should be made mandatory like in australia.

thats a fucking horrible idea. It probably works wonders in Australia because they have 40,000 people, some dirt and eucalyptus plants to govern.

[saz]

well, others see it differently (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Infoparl/english/issue.htm?param=168&art=1140). australia is a nation of approximately twenty million and after visiting there it'd be a great place to live.