|
The Substance of Barack Obama; What does he stand for?
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 6 2008, 12:49 AM (1,245 Views)
|
|
Sgt. Jaggs
|
Jan 29 2008, 09:59 AM
Post #46
|
How about a Voyager Movie
- Posts:
- 4,792
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #90
- Joined:
- December 28, 2003
|
The First victim of the Media's race card.....Bubba Clinton! Thats right, he mentioned Jessie Jackson wins in South Carolina in the Past and just like that Bubba is no longer the First Black President.
This race card stuff is media driven by the talking heads. Who will be next?
|
|
|
| |
|
Dr. Noah
|
Jan 29 2008, 11:50 PM
Post #47
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
- Posts:
- 17,698
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- January 8, 2004
|
^^^^
I don't understand what you're saying? By "Bubba" I assume you mean Bill Clinton, and I was pretty sure we aren't using disrespectful euphamisms for presidents before, but whatever.
He mentions that Jackson won SC in the past, you have "past" capitalized for reasons I don't understand and you are saying because of this he is no longer the first black president?
Bill Clinton, if that is who you are talking about is clearly not black.
What in God's name do you mean by that?
And what do you mean by "race card"?
I'm afraid these might be dittohead references I'm not familiar with. They're always making up little buzzwords to simplify perspective.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Jan 30 2008, 12:51 AM
Post #48
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
Actually Noah - he is not using dittohead references. He is refering to Bill Clinton getting himself into hot water by overstepping his bounds while campaigning for Hillary. It made the news here but maybe not overseas.
Source
- Quote:
-
Bill gives Hillary a headache Jan 28, 2008 04:30 AM Tim Harper WASHINGTON BUREAU
TAMPA–What to do about Bill?
That was the question that dominated the frenzied Democratic presidential race yesterday as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began a nine-day sprint to Feb. 5, when they will do battle in the biggest voting day of the campaign season.
Whether it was just too much love, too little sleep, too much hubris or too little tact – or maybe he "just got carried away'' – Bill Clinton's transformation from supportive spouse to campaigner-in-chief received a resounding smackdown in the South Carolina primary Saturday.
It may also have been responsible for driving arguably the most important Democratic congressional endorsement, Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, into the Obama camp.
Kennedy, the long-serving liberal lion of the party, will formally endorse Obama at a Washington rally today, a move that goes far beyond symbolism because of Kennedy's long-time alliance with the Clintons.
Kennedy was reported to have personally delivered to the Clinton campaign last week his objection over the tactics being used in South Carolina, and one report yesterday suggested the tipping point might have come after Bill Clinton drew the link between Obama's pending victory with South Carolina caucus victories for civil rights leader Jesse Jackson in the 1980s.
Bill Clinton's message was clear – Jackson, an African American, could win in South Carolina without being a serious presidential candidate.
If the Clintons continue their campaigning style, it will be because they feel they can eventually goad Obama into a fight and take away some of his lustre. They may also feel the tactics will play better in the 22 states that will vote Feb. 5.
"My husband has such a great commitment to me and to my campaign,'' Hillary Clinton said on the CBS program Face the Nation.
"You know, he loves me just like, you know, husbands and wives (who) get out there and work on each other's behalf.
"I certainly did that for him for many years.
"I think that ... the spouses of all three of us have been passionate and vigorous defenders of each of us and maybe got a little carried away.''
She also tossed in "sleep deprivation'' as a factor in all campaigns, but she did not signal any different role for the former president, a man who is legendarily difficult to rein in.
The campaigns played duelling Kennedys all day. Ted Kennedy's niece and John F. Kennedy's daughter Caroline Kennedy had already endorsed Obama in a New York Times opinion column, so the Clintons countered with the endorsement of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, and put out a reminder that Hillary already had the endorsement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The Clintons also served notice that they will continue to play their own brand of sharp-elbows, my-way-or-the-highway style of politicking when Hillary Clinton announced she will be here tomorrow night to essentially take a victory lap in a state where there are no Democratic delegates and where all candidates had pledged not to campaign.
Last night, she was in Florida for private fundraisers.
Obama, however, was able to take his message of inclusive politics and a rejection of the great partisan divide of the past to the airwaves and the campaign trail in Georgia and Alabama with a huge affirmation from South Carolina voters who chose him by a two-to-one margin Saturday.
He said the old racial politics and the pitched battles of the '90s have been put to rest.
"I think people want change,'' he said on ABC's This Week. "I think they want to get beyond some of the racial politics that has been so dominant in the past.
"I think that in the '90s, we got caught up in a slash-and-burn politics that the American people are weary of.
"And we still see it in Washington today. It is very hard for us to have a common sense, non-ideological conversation about how we're going to deal with our energy problems. It's very difficult for us to figure out how are we going to make this economy work for all people and not just some people.''
He also suggested that Bill Clinton's reference to Jesse Jackson was the statement of a man from another era (Jackson won in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988).
"That's when he was active and involved and watching what was going to take place in South Carolina,'' Obama said. "I think that a lot of South Carolinians looked at it through a different lens.''
Clinton has said that she would urge her delegates to push for full participation of delegates from Florida, which has been penalized by the party for its decision to move its primary so early in the season, contrary to party regulations.
But the Clinton move is seen by most as an attempt to score some headlines here, where she is expected to easily win the vote, and blunt some of Obama's momentum fuelled by the South Carolina victory.
Because of extensive advance voting here, the Democratic turnout has already been heavy even though the race is a "beauty contest.''
An analysis of voting patterns, however, suggests African-Americans have not been mobilized here, believing their vote does not count.
"All of us agreed not to campaign there,'' Obama said. "As I said before, when I tell people I'm going to do something or not do something, I try to stick to it."
By the way the reference to Bill Clinton being the first "black" president is not new. I am suprised you never heard the comment before Noah. It was originally intended as a compliment to President Clinton, not an insult.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dr. Noah
|
Jan 30 2008, 01:29 AM
Post #49
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
- Posts:
- 17,698
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- January 8, 2004
|
I was not familiar with that phrase, but I googled it. Seems Toni Morrison said that in 1998, although Jag's statement still doesn't make much sense to me.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Jan 30 2008, 05:27 AM
Post #50
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
- Dr. Noah
- Jan 30 2008, 04:50 AM
I'm afraid these might be dittohead references I'm not familiar with. They're always making up little buzzwords to simplify perspective.
Nope, in this case they are all MSM references. Nothing "dittohead" about them.
Although, the rest of the comment is interesting ....
Does that mean the MSM makes up buzzwords to simplify perspectives as well?
|
|
|
| |
|
ds9074
|
Jan 30 2008, 06:59 AM
Post #51
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,449
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- August 27, 2003
|
Clinton seems to have been campaigning in Florida and now in that article posted she wants to push for Florida to count. After previously agreeing not to campaign there? Sounds underhand and wrong to me, not the behaviour of someone I would want to elect to high office.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sgt. Jaggs
|
Jan 30 2008, 10:52 AM
Post #52
|
How about a Voyager Movie
- Posts:
- 4,792
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #90
- Joined:
- December 28, 2003
|
- Dr. Noah
- Jan 29 2008, 11:50 PM
^^^^
I don't understand what you're saying? By "Bubba" I assume you mean Bill Clinton, and I was pretty sure we aren't using disrespectful euphamisms for presidents before, but whatever.
He mentions that Jackson won SC in the past, you have "past" capitalized for reasons I don't understand and you are saying because of this he is no longer the first black president?
Bill Clinton, if that is who you are talking about is clearly not black.
What in God's name do you mean by that?
And what do you mean by "race card"?
I'm afraid these might be dittohead references I'm not familiar with. They're always making up little buzzwords to simplify perspective.
Sorry Noah way too much for me to explain there.
As for Bubba being coined by dittheads or Rush, I didn't even know that! :lol: Its just one of his nicknames, I thought it was common knowledge.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Jan 30 2008, 11:11 AM
Post #53
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Jag
- Jan 30 2008, 10:52 AM
- Dr. Noah
- Jan 29 2008, 11:50 PM
^^^^
I don't understand what you're saying? By "Bubba" I assume you mean Bill Clinton, and I was pretty sure we aren't using disrespectful euphamisms for presidents before, but whatever.
He mentions that Jackson won SC in the past, you have "past" capitalized for reasons I don't understand and you are saying because of this he is no longer the first black president?
Bill Clinton, if that is who you are talking about is clearly not black.
What in God's name do you mean by that?
And what do you mean by "race card"?
I'm afraid these might be dittohead references I'm not familiar with. They're always making up little buzzwords to simplify perspective.
 Sorry Noah way too much for me to explain there. As for Bubba being coined by dittheads or Rush, I didn't even know that! :lol: Its just one of his nicknames, I thought it was common knowledge.
I believe Limbaugh called him (Bill Clinton) "Der Schlickmeister."
Bubba was definitely MSM, mostly from New York papers, as I remember. George Carlin even used it in one of his HBO specials.
That being neither here nor there, though.
Now that the candidates are dropping like flies (Kucinich, Rudy, Edwards in the past few days, I see both primaries turning into a bloodbath.
Hillary will be courting the hispanics and painting Obama as the tool of the blacks. Obama will be painting Hillary and Bill as racist. McCain and Romney are already starting the "he's more liberal" wars.
Edwards hopes to be a kingmaker at the Democrat convention. Giuliani hopes to be a vice president at the Republican convention.
I have to get in one little dig at John Edwards. "Yes John, there are two Americas. Neither one likes you!"
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Jan 30 2008, 11:25 AM
Post #54
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- ds9074
- Jan 30 2008, 06:59 AM
Clinton seems to have been campaigning in Florida and now in that article posted she wants to push for Florida to count. After previously agreeing not to campaign there? Sounds underhand and wrong to me, not the behaviour of someone I would want to elect to high office.
DS,
Democrats were banned from campaigning in Florida, but not from participating in private fundraisers.
Also, as a resident of Florida and a Democrat, I am nothing short of royally pi$$ed off about what the DNC has done. First, in it's political game-playing, it has nearly deprived me of my right to have my vote counted. I say "nearly" because the election results here will have some impact on the future primaries and fund-raising so all is not completely lost. Second, in refusing to lift the campaigning ban, the DNC has allowed Republican candidates to get their word out while depriving Democrats of the same here - a fact that may impact the November election - how smart was that...?! Third, the Florida legislature is controlled by Republicans anyway. When the primary date was moved back, it was out of the Democrats' hands to be able to do anything about it - yet, the DNC thinks they ought to be punished. :rolleyes: So, the bottom line that I'm trying to make is that Hillary is right for pushing for Florida to count. It should never have been removed from counting. Howard Dean, on the other hand, should be fired. Thank goodness HE never became President!
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Jan 30 2008, 12:11 PM
Post #55
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
^^^^^
Yeaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgh!
|
|
|
| |
|
ds9074
|
Jan 30 2008, 12:37 PM
Post #56
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,449
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- August 27, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 30 2008, 04:25 PM
- ds9074
- Jan 30 2008, 06:59 AM
Clinton seems to have been campaigning in Florida and now in that article posted she wants to push for Florida to count. After previously agreeing not to campaign there? Sounds underhand and wrong to me, not the behaviour of someone I would want to elect to high office.
DS, Democrats were banned from campaigning in Florida, but not from participating in private fundraisers. Also, as a resident of Florida and a Democrat, I am nothing short of royally pi$$ed off about what the DNC has done. First, in it's political game-playing, it has nearly deprived me of my right to have my vote counted. I say "nearly" because the election results here will have some impact on the future primaries and fund-raising so all is not completely lost. Second, in refusing to lift the campaigning ban, the DNC has allowed Republican candidates to get their word out while depriving Democrats of the same here - a fact that may impact the November election - how smart was that...?! Third, the Florida legislature is controlled by Republicans anyway. When the primary date was moved back, it was out of the Democrats' hands to be able to do anything about it - yet, the DNC thinks they ought to be punished. :rolleyes: So, the bottom line that I'm trying to make is that Hillary is right for pushing for Florida to count. It should never have been removed from counting. Howard Dean, on the other hand, should be fired. Thank goodness HE never became President!
Your points about the situation in Florida sound valid, afterall I'm sure you know far more about it than me.
However what is underhand is if Hillary entered into an agreement with the other candidates and then went back on that. Since there was no proper contest in Florida it seems wrong for her now to be wanting Florida to count. Perhaps she should have spoken up earlier and not agreed to go along with the ban on campaigning if she felt that strongly.
One thing I would say, I know this is a tangent but anyway... Surely it would be fairer and more democratic to hold all the primaries and caucuses on one day? The current situation means that a few states have a disproportionate influence. Look at Guiliani's campaign and you can see how the influence of momentum from places like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina has. The process is therefore biased in favour of candidates who have support in those early states.
|
|
|
| |
|
Hoss
|
Jan 30 2008, 12:50 PM
Post #57
|
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
- Posts:
- 19,893
- Group:
- Validating
- Member
- #29
- Joined:
- August 28, 2003
|
It is up to the states to determine when they want to do this. I don't think that the results in Iowa or Wyoming will really mean that much, I think that it is just a media circus, trying to manufacture more news out of it than it really is. I think that the candidates will care a lot more about winning the more populous states. In the end, this is just parties deciding who to run for President, not an actual election.
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Jan 30 2008, 01:53 PM
Post #58
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- ds9074
- Jan 30 2008, 12:37 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 30 2008, 04:25 PM
- ds9074
- Jan 30 2008, 06:59 AM
Clinton seems to have been campaigning in Florida and now in that article posted she wants to push for Florida to count. After previously agreeing not to campaign there? Sounds underhand and wrong to me, not the behaviour of someone I would want to elect to high office.
DS, Democrats were banned from campaigning in Florida, but not from participating in private fundraisers. Also, as a resident of Florida and a Democrat, I am nothing short of royally pi$$ed off about what the DNC has done. First, in it's political game-playing, it has nearly deprived me of my right to have my vote counted. I say "nearly" because the election results here will have some impact on the future primaries and fund-raising so all is not completely lost. Second, in refusing to lift the campaigning ban, the DNC has allowed Republican candidates to get their word out while depriving Democrats of the same here - a fact that may impact the November election - how smart was that...?! Third, the Florida legislature is controlled by Republicans anyway. When the primary date was moved back, it was out of the Democrats' hands to be able to do anything about it - yet, the DNC thinks they ought to be punished. :rolleyes: So, the bottom line that I'm trying to make is that Hillary is right for pushing for Florida to count. It should never have been removed from counting. Howard Dean, on the other hand, should be fired. Thank goodness HE never became President!
Your points about the situation in Florida sound valid, afterall I'm sure you know far more about it than me. However what is underhand is if Hillary entered into an agreement with the other candidates and then went back on that. Since there was no proper contest in Florida it seems wrong for her now to be wanting Florida to count. Perhaps she should have spoken up earlier and not agreed to go along with the ban on campaigning if she felt that strongly. One thing I would say, I know this is a tangent but anyway... Surely it would be fairer and more democratic to hold all the primaries and caucuses on one day? The current situation means that a few states have a disproportionate influence. Look at Guiliani's campaign and you can see how the influence of momentum from places like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina has. The process is therefore biased in favour of candidates who have support in those early states.
I don't see it that way. She and other candidates were pushing before the election too and this is just a continuation of that disagreement over the delegate stripping. In addition, there has been some speculation that the DNC may end up allowing full participation of the delegates when the Democratic convention arrives anyway so I don't blame her for trying to push that direction now that she has won in Florida. Why shouldn't she? It seems like the politically smart thing to do. The "agreement" you speak of wasn't something any of those candidates really wanted to enter into either. They did so only because it could have hurt their campaigns in the early primary states if they didn't do so. Being that it was something they were pressured into begrudgingly, I don't blame anyone who wants to back out now that the early primaries have passed.
Here's an article that talks about what happened with the delegates and campaigning ban.
As for your suggestion that all the primaries and caucuses be held on the same day, I agree that would be much better. It's ridiculous to me that the early states have such influence. But, as 38957 pointed out, it's up to each state (yet another reason that the DNC - the "N" for National - should keep its nose out of it) so I don't see this ever changing.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Jan 30 2008, 01:58 PM
Post #59
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- ds9074
- Jan 30 2008, 06:59 AM
Clinton seems to have been campaigning in Florida and now in that article posted she wants to push for Florida to count. After previously agreeing not to campaign there? Sounds underhand and wrong to me, not the behaviour of someone I would want to elect to high office.
Thats Clinton for you. Disingenuous. Kind of like her pretending to be a New Yorker.
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Jan 30 2008, 03:53 PM
Post #60
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
:rolleyes: You've been listening to too much Sean Hannity.
|
|
|
| |