OT: 2008 Elections

[Jackdog]

Terry McAuliffe is a so full of s***. The guy is a bad used car salesman. He's the left's Carl Rove.

[Brando70]

Fact is she never apologized to Obama or apologized about bringing this up. She's basically telling ppl, well, if he gets shot, i'll be there, let's hope he gets shot, someone want to shoot him? hint hint.

That's ludicrous. There is no way that she was in any way implying that someone should shoot the man. She shouldn't have been so blunt in her example, but she was free to argue that late-breaking events could influence the nomination. It was a tone deaf and dumb thing to say, but her underlying argument was reasonable.

Agreed. She was trying to make the point that there have been times that the Democratic nomination process had run into June. She just expressed that idea in the dumbest way possible.

It doesn't matter, she was done when she lost North Carolina and had a close race in Indiana. It's all academic at this point.

[Rodster]

Fact is she never apologized to Obama or apologized about bringing this up. She's basically telling ppl, well, if he gets shot, i'll be there, let's hope he gets shot, someone want to shoot him? hint hint.

That's ludicrous. There is no way that she was in any way implying that someone should shoot the man. She shouldn't have been so blunt in her example, but she was free to argue that late-breaking events could influence the nomination. It was a tone deaf and dumb thing to say, but her underlying argument was reasonable.

Agreed. She was trying to make the point that there have been times that the Democratic nomination process had run into June. She just expressed that idea in the dumbest way possible.

It doesn't matter, she was done when she lost North Carolina and had a close race in Indiana. It's all academic at this point.

Not only that but she killed off any chance of being considered VP.

[Brando70]

I don't think she was ever really in Obama's VP crosshairs

Obama/Clinton only makes sense because the nomination race has been so close. But having your VP be an ambitious, polarizing figure is not a recipe for success. Obama is better off nominating someone like Bill Richardson, who has a broad range of experience but lacked the charisma to be a presidential contender.

[Jackdog]

I don't think she was ever really in Obama's VP crosshairs

Obama/Clinton only makes sense because the nomination race has been so close. But having your VP be an ambitious, polarizing figure is not a recipe for success. Obama is better off nominating someone like Bill Richardson, who has a broad range of experience but lacked the charisma to be a presidential contender.

I like Bill Richardson. IMO That would be a very good choice for Obama.

[Rodster]

I would like to know what makes Bill Richardson Puerto Rican? He doesn't look or sound PR never mind his name.

[pk500]

I would like to know what makes Bill Richardson Puerto Rican? He doesn't look or sound PR never mind his name.

His mother is Mexican.

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

And that oil shale link is interesting...if it's economically feasible, it sounds good to me.

Jared here's another interesting link on the subject.

http://www.research.uky.edu/odyssey/fall07/coal.html

[jLp vAkEr0]

Obama talked at my Alma Mater. 1 min from my house.

I don't understand why some Pricans are excited to participate in this or any other presidential primary. We won't be able to vote for any of them in November.

Anyways, voting turnout should not be very high.

Both Obama and Clinton are making promises they don't have to keep.

Clinton saying that she'll fight for the right for Pricans to vote for the president is laughable.

Neither really cares about finally ending our island's status as a US colony.

[Jackdog]

That's ludicrous. There is no way that she was in any way implying that someone should shoot the man. She shouldn't have been so blunt in her example, but she was free to argue that late-breaking events could influence the nomination. It was a tone deaf and dumb thing to say, but her underlying argument was reasonable.

Agreed. She was trying to make the point that there have been times that the Democratic nomination process had run into June. She just expressed that idea in the dumbest way possible.

I am no fan of Clinton,but I don't think she said anything wrong. The key word here isn't "Assassinated". It was "June".

The Clinton campaign has been knocked back on its heels by the reaction to her comments, made Friday to the editorial board of the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls, S.D., in which she said she did not understand why some people were trying to push her out of the presidential race because historically, other campaigns had gone on into June, and added:

“You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?” she said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

My God is Keith Olbermann that much of an idiot? He is nutt hugging Obama so much he took that comment so far out of context it's criminal. I wonder if he'll get in Obama's ass for telling a group of veterans that his uncle was among the American troops who liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp. That's all good and well Barack,if your uncle was serving in the Red Army. Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz.

Anyone see the media jump on this? Hell no. He's Messiah Obama.

[JackB1]

Hillary knew exactly what she was doing regarding the "assassination" comment. She is a desperate woman right now and she is trying anything to justify she stay in the race.

Can't wait until we can get down to Obama/McCain debates.

[Jackdog]

Hillary knew exactly what she was doing regarding the "assassination" comment. She is a desperate woman right now and she is trying anything to justify she stay in the race.

Can't wait until we can get down to Obama/McCain debates.

So she compared the only reason why she's staying in is because Barack Obama might be assassinated in June like RFK. I saw that headline and I'm like, what? There's no way she's this stupid. What did she say? I can't believe it, no way. I went and I looked at the video. Here's the video. Listen to what Hillary Clinton actually said. She was having a conversation on, I don't know why they are trying to get me out of this race; it's un-American; it's beyond me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyFqmp4wzI

If you watched that and still say she was suggesting "Assassination" so be it. The media is feeding you with a spoon and your loving it. Does Barack Obama need secret service? You bet! He got secret service faster than anybody else. Is it cool to make any kind of reference to any candidate being assassinated or an attempt on their life? Never. Never. Not funny, not cool, not American. You don't do it. Was she doing anything like that? No.

The media picked it up and it was a feeding frenzy. Does the truth matter anymore? It does to me. But it requires us to actually look at things and be consistent, to actually look at things and say, Hillary Clinton would suck beyond belief as President. But you know what? She was was making a point and it was correct.

I can't imagine what's coming if Barack Obama becomes President of the United States, what do you think is going to happen? Who is going to be allowed to say anything about this guy or his policies or about historical facts that somehow or another he can tie into him? It's crazy, we haven't even begun to see craziness until you see what I believe is coming in political correctness. This is the first truly politically correct campaign where you just can't say s*** without someone jumping on it and calling it "Racist" or worse.

Until she drops out, she has to live like a conservative. Remember the rules: when you criticize, you are mean spirited. When you question, you are fear mongering. When you’re white, you’re racist. The media has been letting her get away with these sorts of things for a long time. She has to realize that the media has picked Obama to be the chosen one. Good luck Hillary!

As far as McCain/Obama debate goes. We'll see. McCain at least knows who liberated Auschwitz.

[matthewk]

My God is Keith Olbermann that much of an idiot?

Yes, he is. I cannot stand to even hear his voice anymore.

[Rodster]

So she compared the only reason why she's staying in is because Barack Obama might be assassinated in June like RFK. I saw that headline and I'm like, what? There's no way she's this stupid. What did she say? I can't believe it, no way. I went and I looked at the video. Here's the video. Listen to what Hillary Clinton actually said. She was having a conversation on, I don't know why they are trying to get me out of this race; it's un-American; it's beyond me.

You know the problem with all of this is if it were any other politician who said it I would say dumb choice of words now let's move on. The problem is that it involves the Clinton's and what they say and what her true motivations for saying it were, are two separate issues. IOW based on what we know about Bill and Hillary and their track record I wouldn't trust with a nickel.

[JackB1]

Hillary knew exactly what she was doing regarding the "assassination" comment. She is a desperate woman right now and she is trying anything to justify she stay in the race.

Can't wait until we can get down to Obama/McCain debates.

So she compared the only reason why she's staying in is because Barack Obama might be assassinated in June like RFK. I saw that headline and I'm like, what? There's no way she's this stupid. What did she say? I can't believe it, no way. I went and I looked at the video. Here's the video. Listen to what Hillary Clinton actually said. She was having a conversation on, I don't know why they are trying to get me out of this race; it's un-American; it's beyond me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyFqmp4wzI

If you watched that and still say she was suggesting "Assassination" so be it. The media is feeding you with a spoon and your loving it. Does Barack Obama need secret service? You bet! He got secret service faster than anybody else. Is it cool to make any kind of reference to any candidate being assassinated or an attempt on their life? Never. Never. Not funny, not cool, not American. You don't do it. Was she doing anything like that? No.

The media picked it up and it was a feeding frenzy. Does the truth matter anymore? It does to me. But it requires us to actually look at things and be consistent, to actually look at things and say, Hillary Clinton would suck beyond belief as President. But you know what? She was was making a point and it was correct.

I can't imagine what's coming if Barack Obama becomes President of the United States, what do you think is going to happen? Who is going to be allowed to say anything about this guy or his policies or about historical facts that somehow or another he can tie into him? It's crazy, we haven't even begun to see craziness until you see what I believe is coming in political correctness. This is the first truly politically correct campaign where you just can't say s*** without someone jumping on it and calling it "Racist" or worse.

Until she drops out, she has to live like a conservative. Remember the rules: when you criticize, you are mean spirited. When you question, you are fear mongering. When you’re white, you’re racist. The media has been letting her get away with these sorts of things for a long time. She has to realize that the media has picked Obama to be the chosen one. Good luck Hillary!

As far as McCain/Obama debate goes. We'll see. McCain at least knows who liberated Auschwitz.

Who knows for sure what Hillary's INTENT really was with this remark, but she said it TWICE, so it wasn't a casual "off the cuff" remark. It was planned. Just to bring up the assassination of Kennedy days after Edward is diagnosed with a brain tumor, was terrible timing and just plain stupid on her part. She didn't realize that the media would take it a put a negative spint on it? Please.

As far as your thinking that Obama has been the subject of a "love fest"
with the media, I disagree. What about the month long stream of Reverend Wright quotes.....or the rumours of him being Muslim.....or all the American Flag lapel pin stuff....or the pictures of him in robes, etc.

I don't think the media has been one sided at all. They have been blowing up ridiculous, non factor issues about both of them. The difference is that Obama doesn't kick Hillary when she's down, but not the other way around.

[Jackdog]

Who knows for sure what Hillary's INTENT really was with this remark, but she said it TWICE, so it wasn't a casual "off the cuff" remark. It was planned. Just to bring up the assassination of Kennedy days after Edward is diagnosed with a brain tumor, was terrible timing and just plain stupid on her part. She didn't realize that the media would take it a put a negative spint on it? Please.

As far as your thinking that Obama has been the subject of a "love fest"
with the media, I disagree. What about the month long stream of Reverend Wright quotes.....or the rumours of him being Muslim.....or all the American Flag lapel pin stuff....or the pictures of him in robes, etc.

I don't think the media has been one sided at all. They have been blowing up ridiculous, non factor issues about both of them. The difference is that Obama doesn't kick Hillary when she's down, but not the other way around.

Fox News yes. The mainstream media,not so much. NBC just might be on his payoll.

Jack your opinion of Obama is high. I don't like his politics for many reasons. The main ones are, he reeks of bigger goverment. That's something we don't need. He believes the goverment can fix it all.

His comments on foreign policy leave me scratching my head. He wanted to sit down and talk to Ahmadinejad. He's now saying, no, he won't talk to President Tom. He'll talk to the real leaders of Iran. The real leaders are crazy nut job clerics! They all say that Jews need to be run into the sea.

I would think that if you had a great-uncle that liberated one of the death camps, one of the lessons that you would get is you do not appease dictators. Two, you listen to people and take people at their word when they say they are going to wipe somebody off the face of the Earth, you take them at their word because they meant it. And three, gee, I think I've heard of people trying to run the Jews into the sea before. Oh, yeah, it was a story of WWII Germany. They weren't running them into the sea. They were pushing them into ovens. But in the meantime somehow or another you have that experience an yet you have an advisor that's currently talking to Hamas. I'm telling you something does not smell right. Something is not right. Maybe I'm taking it all out of whack. Maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I don't think so.

I have to tell you I think that there are too many things out here that people are just not paying attention to.

[Jared]

People aren't paying attention to this stuff, because most of it is either minimal gaffes or not true.

You've been harping on the Obama Auschwitz "gaffe", wondering if the media would pick up on what he said. Look up Obama and Auschwitz in Google News, and you'll find 2,000 stories, so the media has picked up on it. No, it hasn't been on the front pages. But is it really a big deal? No...Obama's uncle liberated Buchenwald, not Auschwitz. Obama got the place wrong, but the story was correct.

As for Hamas, once people found out that Obama's advisor was talking to Hamas (which is part of his "day job"), he was pushed out of the campaign. Furthermore, Obama has said that he will not talk to Hamas or any terrorist organizations.

And yes, Obama has said he'd talk to leaders of rogue nations such as Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. But you're conflating talking with appeasing. He can open a dialogue with a nation's leaders, but that doesn't mean he's giving them anything. And really, how has our past policy w/these countries worked? Not so well...the Iraq war has given more power to Iran, the embargo has been a stupid policy that has simply strengthened Castro for the last 50 years, and Venezuela continues to turn against us. Israel and Syria are in talks right now, ignoring the Bush administration's policy of not talking to rogue states. Why is Israel going against it? Maybe it's because it's a stupid, counterproductive policy...

Finally, even though Iran is run by crazy religious clerics, there is no way that they will even try to commit genocide against Israel. The wiped off the map quote was a mistranslation, and Iran knows it would be suicide to even try.

[Jackdog]

People aren't paying attention to this stuff, because most of it is either minimal gaffes or not true.

You've been harping on the Obama Auschwitz "gaffe", wondering if the media would pick up on what he said. Look up Obama and Auschwitz in Google News, and you'll find 2,000 stories, so the media has picked up on it. No, it hasn't been on the front pages. But is it really a big deal? No...Obama's uncle liberated Buchenwald, not Auschwitz. Obama got the place wrong, but the story was correct.

Harping? I mentioned it twice. You work for MSNBC? Big deal? If he was trying to win the election for class President,no. The fact he could be the next leader of this country,yeah a little bit. You would think that a guy who is Harvard educated and Columbia educated would know that Auschwitz was liberated by the red army, but apparently not. Buchenwald does sound a lot like Auschwitz. I think he didn't care enough about the subject to really listen to his great uncle. Since he has no military background, he was trying to relate to vets by family extension. It backfired. Instead of his family's service in the war, his verbal blunder made the news.

As for Hamas, once people found out that Obama's advisor was talking to Hamas (which is part of his "day job"), he was pushed out of the campaign. Furthermore, Obama has said that he will not talk to Hamas or any terrorist organizations.

And yes, Obama has said he'd talk to leaders of rogue nations such as Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. But you're conflating talking with appeasing. He can open a dialogue with a nation's leaders, but that doesn't mean he's giving them anything. And really, how has our past policy w/these countries worked? Not so well...the Iraq war has given more power to Iran, the embargo has been a stupid policy that has simply strengthened Castro for the last 50 years, and Venezuela continues to turn against us. Israel and Syria are in talks right now, ignoring the Bush administration's policy of not talking to rogue states. Why is Israel going against it? Maybe it's because it's a stupid, counterproductive policy...

Finally, even though Iran is run by crazy religious clerics, there is no way that they will even try to commit genocide against Israel. The wiped off the map quote was a mistranslation, and Iran knows it would be suicide to even try.

Honestly Jared,I don't care anymore abut the Bush administration and it's failed policies. I care about the next Presidents policy. If he gets elected I don't want to have to come out of retirement to help invade Pakistan.

[Jackdog]

My God is Keith Olbermann that much of an idiot?

Yes, he is. I cannot stand to even hear his voice anymore.

I watched some of his show on YouTube. What a blowhard. I can see why his ratings suck.

[JackB1]

People aren't paying attention to this stuff, because most of it is either minimal gaffes or not true.

You've been harping on the Obama Auschwitz "gaffe", wondering if the media would pick up on what he said. Look up Obama and Auschwitz in Google News, and you'll find 2,000 stories, so the media has picked up on it. No, it hasn't been on the front pages. But is it really a big deal? No...Obama's uncle liberated Buchenwald, not Auschwitz. Obama got the place wrong, but the story was correct.

As for Hamas, once people found out that Obama's advisor was talking to Hamas (which is part of his "day job"), he was pushed out of the campaign. Furthermore, Obama has said that he will not talk to Hamas or any terrorist organizations.

And yes, Obama has said he'd talk to leaders of rogue nations such as Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. But you're conflating talking with appeasing. He can open a dialogue with a nation's leaders, but that doesn't mean he's giving them anything. And really, how has our past policy w/these countries worked? Not so well...the Iraq war has given more power to Iran, the embargo has been a stupid policy that has simply strengthened Castro for the last 50 years, and Venezuela continues to turn against us. Israel and Syria are in talks right now, ignoring the Bush administration's policy of not talking to rogue states. Why is Israel going against it? Maybe it's because it's a stupid, counterproductive policy...

Finally, even though Iran is run by crazy religious clerics, there is no way that they will even try to commit genocide against Israel. The wiped off the map quote was a mistranslation, and Iran knows it would be suicide to even try.

I agree that talking doesn't equal "appeasing". You learn NOTHING from the "no talk" policy that has been Bush's. Only good or at the very work, no change, can come from open discussions with countries like Iran, Cuba, etc. When was the last time you resolved an argument with someone by just ignoring each other?

[matthewk]

When was the last time you resolved an argument with someone by just ignoring each other?

When was the last time you knew someone whose life's goal was to wipe you off the face of the earth? They do not want to "work things out", they want to behead you.

Even if you do meet with leaders like Amadenajag, how can you trust them? I don't buy that we just mistranslated what they meant. These people want to destroy us, not work on a solution to all of our problems. It sucks, but I believe that is the reality of it.

[Jackdog]

When was the last time you resolved an argument with someone by just ignoring each other?

When was the last time you knew someone whose life's goal was to wipe you off the face of the earth? They do not want to "work things out", they want to behead you.

Even if you do meet with leaders like Amadenajag, how can you trust them? I don't buy that we just mistranslated what they meant. These people want to destroy us, not work on a solution to all of our problems. It sucks, but I believe that is the reality of it.

Your right Matt. I have spent years in countries that are home to radical Muslims. They have a convert or die logic. That's why I laugh when some people think they are giving me a compliment when they say" I agree with what you did in Afghanistan but not Iraq". We are fighting extensions of the same ideology in both places.

There is no middle ground with an ideological and legal system that kills those who stop believing the party line, hangs gay people, lets little girls burn to death for wearing the wrong clothes, and calls for beheading people who insult them ,all while they haven’t contributed two cents to mankind’s psychological or material innovations to create greater well-being. They do create more than their fair share of bombings and threats.

al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the other cadres of fundamentalist Islam are a little fed up at having their message diluted. They certainly do not think of themselves as people who have “hijacked” a religion, and it’s pretty obvious that they don’t think they represent a “religion of peace.” However, they very specifically claim to represent and speak on behalf of the religion of Islam, to which they invite our conversion.

Amid a growing crackdown on religious freedom, Iranian police reportedly have been rounding up people they suspect have converted to Christianity.

On May 11, police arrested eight people in the southern city of Shiraz, according to Carl Moeller, president of Open Doors USA, a Christian organization that fights religious persecution.

Converting from Islam is a crime in Iran; converts can face jail and other penalties.

Most of those detained have been released, but at least one of them, 21-year-old Mojtaba Hussein, is still behind bars and is not cooperating with his captors, according to Moeller.

“He may not be willing to give up the names of other Muslim converts. He may not be willing to recant his faith himself,” Moeller said.

Numerous calls to Iranian government representatives in the U.S. have not been returned.

Nope. No thanks. I'll pass. Sounds like Nazi Germany to me. It doesn't matter who or how much we talk to a dictatorship like this one. They will still want to kill us if we don't convert.

[Jackdog]

I agree that talking doesn't equal "appeasing". You learn NOTHING from the "no talk" policy that has been Bush's. Only good or at the very work, no change, can come from open discussions with countries like Iran, Cuba, etc. When was the last time you resolved an argument with someone by just ignoring each other?

Please don't leave Bill Clinton out of this. That would be cherry picking.

After the first World Trade Center bombing in March 1993, for example, Clinton warned Americans not to overreact, and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid." That's not exactly tough talk.

The president had gotten the words down a bit better by June 1996, after the attack on the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished," Clinton said the day of the bombing.

But the next day, Clinton stumbled a bit. "Let me be very clear: We will not resist," he said before quickly realizing he had said something wrong. "We will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them."

Clinton got the rhetoric right by the time of the embassy attacks. "We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes," he said then. "We are determined to get answers and justice."

By October 2000, when al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole, Clinton had the routine down. "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable," he said.

On Tuesday, Kerrey cut through all the talk. "From 1993 through 2001, the United States of America was either attacked or we prevented attack by radical Islamists close to a dozen times," Kerrey told Albright. "During that period of time, not only did we not engage in any single military attack other than the 20th of August 1998 — there was no attack against al Qaeda during that entire period of time. Indeed, the presidential directive that was...written and signed in May of 1998, didn't give the military primary authority in counterterrorism. They were still responsible for supporting the states and local governments if we were attacked and they were still providing support for the Department of Justice and doing investigations. It seems to me that that was a terrible mistake."

Albright answered by saying the administration basically didn't know who — or where — to attack.

"Well, what the hell does that say to al Qaeda?" Kerrey responded. "Basically, they knew — beginning in 1993, it seems to me — that there was going to be limited, if any, use of military, and that they were relatively free to do whatever they wanted."

That's about as concise a summation of terrorism in the Clinton years as could be made.

He should have done more in 93.

[Jackdog]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_ ... ma_pfleger

These people can't really want Obama to win. My God they call themselves his friends. What idiots. They know the media is waiting to pounce on anything coming out of that church and they still do this. I am not an Obama man,but I feel for him as he tries to distance himself from these idiots again.

[XXXIV]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_ ... ma_pfleger

These people can't really want Obama to win. My God they call themselves his friends. What idiots. They know the media is waiting to pounce on anything coming out of that church and they still do this. I am not an Obama man,but I feel for him as he tries to distance himself from these idiots again.

I dont get it either...

Seems to me they care more about their own agendas than him.