• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Amir0x

Banned
ralexand said:
Well, he's trailing in Penn and likely to lose there.

Oh you just meant this state?

Well, when you say "race" i'm thinking the actual overall race for the nomination, which Hillary has a 0% chance of winning unless news leaks that Obama is actually a sister-raping pedarist.
 

Triumph

Banned
Amir0x said:
Oh you just meant this state?

Well, when you say "race" i'm thinking the actual overall race for the nomination, which Hillary has a 0% chance of winning unless news leaks that Obama is actually a sister-raping pedarist.
Eight year olds, dude. Eight year olds.
 

lopaz

Banned
ralexand said:
I think that wordiness suggests that he's thought alot about an issue and is even in the moment is considering an issue verses just repeating a rote response.

.

Perhaps, but say for example the 6 days question, he could easily just have said "I don't believe that", but his response was more like "I realise that there is a debate between people who interpret the bible literally and those who don't, but in terms of whether the words in the bible as we would understand them are literally correct, I don't necessarily believe that". The short answer says just as much really, cutting out statements of the obvious like "there is a debate", but he probably did it because a blunt answer would catch the headlines.

That's not a criticism btw, just my reasoning of why I thought he was doing it. It's so much better than Clinton's "I will listen to many people, then make a decision" tripe.
 

harSon

Banned
impirius said:
Obama just committed to "cut poverty in half" in ten years at the behest of Jim Wallis

Thats a lot more plausible then winging off oil in 4 years :p Still a rather idiotic (And unlikely) statement to make.
 

Cheebs

Member
MightyHedgehog said:
You know, the whole elitist shit is just worthless. How can someone like Hillary even make a very strong case on the matter when she's spent the last thirty years or so being rich, living in mansions, and has 109 million in the bank today with her husband? Or McCain who has millions mostly due to his marriage? AFAIK, Obama just finished paying off his college loans and has barely one million to his name and spent more time voluntarily in community service than either of the other candidates? If Clinton and McCain press this ridiculous shit too far, their own personal wealth and histories will start to creep up from the back of things very quickly and hurt them in the long run.
She plays it off due to goodwill from Bill Clinton in 1992.

It's hard to remember but just how "backwards" Bill Clinton seemed to the public in 1992 after a president from a rich elitist political family (Bush Sr) and a hollywood star president (Reagan). Bill being raised by a a trailer trash mom who was always sleeping with new men and a drunk abusive step father in a white trash part of Arkansas without a penny to their name.
 

Tamanon

Banned
You can tell he actually relishes these kind of conversations, probably reminds him of his lecturer days.

Hey, finally someone mentions atheism! And not in a negative light!
 
Cheebs said:
She plays it off due to goodwill from Bill Clinton in 1992.

It's hard to remember but just how "backwards" Bill Clinton seemed to the public in 1992 after a president from a rich elitist political family (Bush Sr) and a hollywood star president (Reagan). Bill being raised by a a trailer trash mom who was always sleeping with new men and a drunk abusive step father in a white trash part of Arkansas without a penny to their name.
Regardless of how they were brought up, the people that they are today are who we are electing or not electing to office. I was just pointing out the political bomb that McCain and Clinton are both playing with here.
 

lopaz

Banned
THAT is why I can <3 Obama even though he's Christian. He recognises he may be wrong, and stresses that religious people don't have a monopoly on morality and must translate their concerns into universal terms. That's so refreshing.
 
harSon said:
The topic is closed :(

Sometimes I forget to stay out of the gaming forum unless I'm there to troll Nintendo. Truly a pathetic thread.

Back on topic: Hillary throwing bleach in Gore's eye

Clinton wins the coin toss (really) at the "Compassion Forum" this evening and chooses to receive.

The first question is, of course on Obama's remarks.

"The characteriation of people in a way that really seemed to be elitist and out of touch is really something that we have to overcome," she said, turning to the Democratic Party's problem with religious voters in the past.

"The Democratic Party, to be very blunt about it, has been viewed as a party that didn't understand and respect the values and the way of life of many of our fellow Americans," she said.

"It did seem so much in line with what often we are charged with -- someone goes to a closed door funraiser in San Francisco and makes comments" that, she said, could be seen as "patronizing."

Clinton then repeated her suggestion that John Kerry and Al Gore had failed to be seen as respecting people of faith, said Obama is " a good man and a man of faith."

"We had two very good men, and men of faith, run for president in 2000 and 2004," she said. "Large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand, or relate to, or respect their ways of life."


The forum is streaming live on CNN.com, if you're feeling the need for a bit of...compassion.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Clinton_Out_of_touch_and_like_Gore.html

Wow. I see her point but damn that's still a pretty dumb thing to say. She's taking this too far
 
Deus Ex Machina said:
I don't see her point because she has none.. and she's losing her mind making a suggestion like that about Gore and others.

Her faith comment was off the mark, especially with respect to Kerry, but I understood the point about those two not connecting with regular people and seeming "out of touch" - once again, with respect to Kerry. But insulting their faith to make a point is just low.
 

Triumph

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Her faith comment was off the mark, especially with respect to Kerry, but I understood the point about those two not connecting with regular people and seeming "out of touch" - once again, with respect to Kerry. But insulting their faith to make a point is just low.
Yo candidate!
 
PhoenixDark said:
Her faith comment was off the mark, especially with respect to Kerry, but I understood the point about those two not connecting with regular people and seeming "out of touch" - once again, with respect to Kerry. But insulting their faith to make a point is just low.

I agree that Al Gore didn't do a good enough job of letting people get to know him, but John Kerry was even more guilty. Obama is the complete opposite. He puts everything out there and whether you like him or hate him, I think it's pretty clear who Obama is, and that he's "in touch"
 
Deus Ex Machina said:
I don't see her point because she has none.. and she's losing her mind making a suggestion like that about Gore and others.
Especially since Gore is one of the many keys to her future.

She can't expect a wave of SD support if she's insulting some of the most respected.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
PD, she didnt attack their faiths. She's making a point that is something that is necessary to talk about: Despite Gore and Kerry having strong values, Republicans painted them as being out of touch. That was a big part of them, ESP. Kerry, losing.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
PhoenixDark said:
Her faith comment was off the mark, especially with respect to Kerry, but I understood the point about those two not connecting with regular people and seeming "out of touch" - once again, with respect to Kerry. But insulting their faith to make a point is just low.

especially considering gore went to seminary.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
Amir0x said:
He's pretty forceful there. For the most part, I like what he did here. Didn't like the "shame on her" part, evoked the Hillary pre-Ohio "shame on you, Barack Obama" publicity stunt.
Jesus. That... I think... Is not going to go over well. Remember New Hampshire. Obama was pretty damn smarmy there and there's no factual support for it.
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
CoolTrick said:
PD, she didnt attack their faiths. She's making a point that is something that is necessary to talk about: Despite Gore and Kerry having strong values, Republicans painted them as being out of touch. That was a big part of them, ESP. Kerry, losing.

She's just giving the GOP talking point after talking point. It's breathtaking really.
 

Tamanon

Banned
CoolTrick said:
PD, she didnt attack their faiths. She's making a point that is something that is necessary to talk about: Despite Gore and Kerry having strong values, Republicans painted them as being out of touch. That was a big part of them, ESP. Kerry, losing.

So she combats that by......implying that Obama does not have respect for faith. Thank goodness she's fighting for her fellow Democrats!:p
 

CoolTrick

Banned
schuelma said:
She's just giving the GOP talking point after talking point. It's breathtaking really.
This is a ridiculous myth. The GOP doesn't need Hillary to drum up anything for them. They'd do it regardless.
 

Cheebs

Member
CoolTrick said:
PD, she didnt attack their faiths. She's making a point that is something that is necessary to talk about: Despite Gore and Kerry having strong values, Republicans painted them as being out of touch. That was a big part of them, ESP. Kerry, losing.
She should not point out flaws in Obama though. When it became clear to Huckabee he lost the nomination he never attacked McCain.

Which is why I lost the respect I had for her in 2007. The Democratic Party should always come first, not the candidates personal potential gains.

All it does is hurt the party.
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
CoolTrick said:
This is a ridiculous myth. The GOP doesn't need Hillary to drum up anything for them. They'd do it regardless.


But it will give their attacks more credibility. Surely you see that.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
You guys are really off the mark if you guys don't think there's been restraint from the Clintons on what they can attack Obama with.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Deus Ex Machina said:
The Digg on that is pretty hilarious.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_PWNS_Annie_Oakley_in_Steelton_PA

"Shame on her!... She's talking like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, [like] she's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better." Oh. Snap.

He's doing a good job turning this around and hitting Clinton back, exposing her indignation as the transparent posturing that it is.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
CoolTrick said:
You guys are really off the mark if you guys don't think there's been restraint from the Clintons on what they can attack Obama with.


like? there are certain lines they will not cross because it will hurt them even more.
 
CoolTrick said:
You guys are really off the mark if you guys don't think there's been restraint from the Clintons on what they can attack Obama with.

?

hasn't she pounced on every single opportunity presented to her so far?
 

CoolTrick

Banned
Uh, Reverend Wright? Being blunt about electability arguments? Being blunt about Obama's lack of experience and untrustworthiness?

Come now. You guys NEED to start being more objective.
 

Cheebs

Member
CoolTrick said:
You guys are really off the mark if you guys don't think there's been restraint from the Clintons on what they can attack Obama with.
They shouldnt be attacking him PERIOD. Neither Clinton honestly believes hillary will be the nominee, they aren't that deluded. So what is the point of what they are doing?

I cant think of any rationale.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
Cheebs said:
They shouldnt be attacking him PERIOD. Neither Clinton honestly believes hillary will be the nominee, they aren't that deluded. So what is the point of what they are doing?

I cant think of any rationale.

Because they seem to clearly believe he can't win, because they owe it to their supporters to keep going, because they've gone for too long to give up now.

Frankly, I think this reasoning is so off-base it's borderline a lack of common sense as to why she hasn't dropped up.
 
Cheebs said:
She should not point out flaws in Obama though. When it became clear to Huckabee he lost the nomination he never attacked McCain.

Which is why I lost the respect I had for her in 2007. The Democratic Party should always come first, not the candidates personal potential gains.

All it does is hurt the party.
And all she is doing is hurting the party.

Everybody in their run to call her the "comeback kid" seems to have forgotten that Obama was the one to have come back, in a mindshare sense.

Clinton was the presumptive nominee... until voting began. From then on it's been obvious who the nominee is.

Clinton with a big name, but absolutely awful managerial skills has become the candidate of attacks. Being outpaced every step of the way by the young political upstart.
 

Clevinger

Member
CoolTrick said:
Uh, Reverend Wright? Being blunt about electability arguments? Being blunt about Obama's lack of experience and untrustworthiness?

Come now. You guys NEED to start being more objective.

What? She has pounced on him for Wright, saying she wouldn't have stayed in the church. Ironically, she did this when she came under fire from sniper-gate to deflect the media attention back to it.

She has been blunt that she doesn't think he's electable.

She has been blunt about his lack of experience...

What the fuck is wrong with you?
 
CoolTrick said:
Uh, Reverend Wright? Being blunt about electability arguments? Being blunt about Obama's lack of experience and untrustworthiness?

Come now. You guys NEED to start being more objective.

she's been touting the lack of experience thing from the very beginning right?
 
Cheebs said:
They shouldnt be attacking him PERIOD. Neither Clinton honestly believes hillary will be the nominee, they aren't that deluded. So what is the point of what they are doing?

I cant think of any rationale.

Unless they want McCain to win the general election so Hillary can run in 2012.
 

CoolTrick

Banned
Deus Ex Machina said:

I cringed when Hillary did the "Shame on you" bit and I don't think Obama doing it is going to play over well, either.


she's been touting the lack of experience thing from the very beginning right?

Oh yes but they've been comparatively soft than what they COULD be saying. McCain's not only going to be more blunt about it, but he'll be able to compact that message into soundbytes to make it stick.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom