• 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.
B

Beer Monkey

Member
RubxQub said:
You're correct, but unless I'm mistaken, part of the agreement was to not allow any 527 type groups.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but how can this happen? Without passing a law, and I don't think they could get something into effect that fast.
 
RubxQub

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
Tamanon said:
Yeah but that agreement won't do anything anyways since technically campaigns aren't supposed to have any contact with 527s anyways. I wish it would, but then again, this is all McCain's doing anyways:p
Click to expand...
I guess I don't quite understand how all that is supposed to work, but I swear I saw something to this effect being mentioned.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
RubxQub said:
I guess I don't quite understand how all that is supposed to work, but I swear I saw something to this effect being mentioned.
Click to expand...

I thought so too, but all that they could do is publically condemn 527s. The whole concept of a 527 is that it has no contact with the campaign, otherwise it actually falls under FEC restrictions. Unfortunately there's no real way to avoid it.
 
RubxQub

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
maynerd said:
I'm not sure they could stop them even if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
After doing a bit of googling, it appears as though I'm a moron, and the mention of 527's wasn't that they would be banned, it was that they would likely run rampant.

I misspoke!
 
B

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
schuelma said:
You're blatantly mischaracterizing what he said. Blatantly. I understand this board's overwhelming Obama support..most of the time I'm one of them. But let's at least be intellectually honest here.
Click to expand...

Was McCain being intellectually honest though? Overtly implying a comparison with how we kept soldiers in post WW2 Japan for many, many years without backlash from Americans or the aforementioned countries to what's happening in Iraq?

Seems to me he was conflating two entirely different situations to make a political point (perhaps to his base?). Almost like his AQ=Iran "gaffe".
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
schuelma said:
You're blatantly mischaracterizing what he said. Blatantly. I understand this board's overwhelming Obama support..most of the time I'm one of them. But let's at least be intellectually honest here.
Click to expand...


He would be there for 100 years if it was completly up to him. That's what I got from him. Hell he even say 10,000 years.
 
B

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
mckmas8808 said:
He would be there for 100 years if it was completly up to him. That's what I got from him. Hell he even say 10,000 years.
Click to expand...

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.
Click to expand...

In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation.
Click to expand...


He's full of it.
 
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
mckmas8808 said:
He would be there for 100 years if it was completly up to him. That's what I got from him. Hell he even say 10,000 years.
Click to expand...


no he didnt. he said if thats what needs to be done in order to bring peace/stability there, then thats what he would want to do. which is quite different than him wanting to be there for 100 years no matter what.
 
B

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
no he didnt. he said if thats what needs to be done in order to bring peace/stability there, then thats what he would want to do. which is quite different than him wanting to be there for 100 years no matter what.
Click to expand...

Nope. He plainly states that being there one hundred years means that we've already achieved that magical peace/stability combo and we're just chillin' all up Iraq's shit, not getting killed or attacked, at the behest of the Iraqi government.

"Victory" is his pre-condition for a permanent troop presence.
 
T

Tom_Cody

Member
harSon said:
Could you remind me where I said that Obama was the guru of economics? I believed I said that none of the remaining candidates are well versed in economics.
Click to expand...

You have continually criticized McCain's honest statement that he isn't an expert on the economy. If Obama said the same thing he wouldn't be lying (not that I would expect to go out of his way to make such a statement). I don't understand how you can continue to scrutinize McCain's qualifications, when Obama is totally lacking them himself.
 
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
bob_arctor said:
Nope. He plainly states that being there one hundred years means that we've already achieved that magical peace/stability combo and we're just chillin' all up Iraq's shit, not getting killed or attacked, at the behest of the Iraqi government.

"Victory" is his pre-condition for a permanent troop presence.
Click to expand...


i gotta look at the quotes again, but i dont remember that.
 
B

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
quadriplegicjon said:
i gotta look at the quotes again, but i dont remember that.
Click to expand...


McSame on staying one hundred or thousand years said:
As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me.
Click to expand...


Which would mean we've won. Which apparently means we stay forever.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_letter_a_dozen_top_clinton.php

Twenty top Hillary fundraisers and donors have sent a scathing private letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chastising her for publicly saying that the super-delegates should support the winner of the pledged delegate count and demanding that she say that they should make an "independent" choice.

I've obtained a copy of the letter, which comes from some of the most influential fundraisers in the Democratic Party, including Hassan Nemazee, Steven Rattner, Maureen White, Stan Shuman, and Alan Patricof.

Here's a key excerpt:

Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The letter represents a significant ratcheting up of pressure from Hillary's big money people on a Democratic leader in a position to influence how the super-delegates make up their minds at the end of the primary.
Click to expand...
This is some ass-back wards reasoning and distortion of what Pelosi said. She said that at the end of the process, the super delegates should not over-turn the will of the electorate as shown by the pledged delegates won. It shows how nasty this is getting, with Hillary's supporters going after other powerful members of the party.
 
P

Piper Az

Member
Top Hillary doners/lobbists tells Nancy Pelosi to back off.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/clinton-donors-ask-pelosi-to-back-off/

The letter carries an ominous tone, which stops just short of delivering a threat. The donors remind Ms. Pelosi that they are “strong supporters” of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. (A quick check, at least, shows that at least some of letter-signers have not given to the D.C.C.C.)
Click to expand...

March 26, 2008
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.
We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.
During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:
“I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”
Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.
We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.
Sincerely,
Marc Aronchick
Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry
Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof
JB Pritzker
Amy Rao
Lynn Forester de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay and Tracy Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner
Click to expand...
 
H

harSon

Banned
Tom_Cody said:
You have continually criticized McCain's honest statement that he isn't an expert on the economy. If Obama said the same thing he wouldn't be lying (not that I would expect to go out of his way to make such a statement). I don't understand how you can continue to scrutinize McCain's qualifications, when Obama is totally lacking them himself.
Click to expand...

Once again, cite some examples. I've criticized his economic policies which are eerily reminiscent of Bush's but have never faulted his decision to admit his lack of economic knowledge.
 
mashoutposse

mashoutposse

Ante Up
GhaleonEB said:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_letter_a_dozen_top_clinton.php



This is some ass-back wards reasoning and distortion of what Pelosi said. She said that at the end of the process, the super delegates should not over-turn the will of the electorate as shown by the pledged delegates won. It shows how nasty this is getting, with Hillary's supporters going after other powerful members of the party.
Click to expand...

So, she should respect the will of these 20 insiders over the will of millions of people? :lol

Right.
 
V

v1cious

Banned
topsyturvy said:
indeed i am.

you think that all african americans will simply not vote for hillary because obama didn't win the primary simply because you feel that he got cheated?

Not all african americans are obama fanatics.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA oh man i can tell who's not a negro here. if the chance of a black president gets taken away again, there will be outrage. trust me, i've seen it firsthand here in Texas. also, who do you think caused the surge in younger voters? you know as well i do that they won't be as forgiving as the Hillary crowd.
 
K

KRS7

Member
Piper Az said:
Top Hillary doners/lobbists tells Nancy Pelosi to back off.
Click to expand...

Fuck those rich assholes. There money isn't shit compared to what can be raised online. Millions of regular people can funnel far more money to any cause than these pompous pricks. I fucking hate the influence all this money has on politics. That is why I like the idea of internet grassroots fund raising. Instead of having to listen to a few rich people whine and bitch all the time, politicians could focus on the American people. 120 million Americans voted in the last presidential election. A few bucks from each of them could completely destroy the relevance of these top donors. The money of the masses has a real potential overpower special interest. Individually we may be poor, but together we are unbelievably rich.
 
W

woeds

Member
Bernstein: Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/26/hillary-clinton-truth-or-consequences/#more-470
Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:

“Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ” [italics added]

As I noted:

“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”
Click to expand...
The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions…


When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.The latest episode — the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy “experience” — like the peace she didn’t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive “come back” after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President — all among the egregious errors that had led to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.

On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called “missing billing records” had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including “every document we had,” to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper’s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

Even her closest aides — as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later — could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing. It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. “Oh my God, we didn’t,” said Susan Thomasas, Hillary’s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary’s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign. The White House was forced — once again — to acknowledge the first lady had been ‘mistaken;” her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times’ columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”

“Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,” I wrote in A Woman In Charge. “But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”

The book concludes with this paragraph:

“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”
Click to expand...

The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.

- Carl Bernstein, 360° Contributor
Click to expand...
 
C

CoolTrick

Banned
Wolf Blitzer is saying that if Obama gets the nom that half the democratic party would vote for McCain. WTF?
Click to expand...

That's an exaggeration, but it's been backed up by numerous polls - most recently a Gallup one - that show a significantly higher defection rate if Obama is the nominee over Clinton.

I don't see why that wouldn't make sense. Clinton's coalition is compromised more of traditionally swing voters. Obama's coalition is like the the left equivalent of the social conservatives -- they're not gonna vote for the opposite party en masse no matter what.
 
M

MightyHedgehog

Member
Clinton and her campaign is so irreparably fucked, in my mind, and cannot hope to even walk out of this without being forever branded as asshats who'll stoop to ridiculous levels to win and trash the Dems chances along the way. She should just try to save some face and concede. At least that way, she'll probably be able to participate in some backroom deal while claiming to have sacrificed her chance for the good of the party so that she can also claim some tenuous role in helping to defeat McCain.
 
ToyMachine228

ToyMachine228

Member
Believe me, Obama will beat McCain. Right now, polls are pointless. When it gets down to Obama vs McCain people will see the differences and what both candidates are really about and Obama has the coalition to beat McCain.
 
3

3rdman

Member
CoolTrick said:
That's an exaggeration, but it's been backed up by numerous polls - most recently a Gallup one - that show a significantly higher defection rate if Obama is the nominee over Clinton.

I don't see why that wouldn't make sense. Clinton's coalition is compromised more of traditionally swing voters. Obama's coalition is like the the left equivalent of the social conservatives -- they're not gonna vote for the opposite party en masse no matter what.
Click to expand...
This is not the time to be taking those polls seriously anyways. In the fall, Dems will vote for Dems because we all have had enough of the present situation. Hell, I expect a landslide victory.

On the other hand, as Michael Moore said, "Only the democrats can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" :p
 
F

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Nevermind.

032608DailyUpdateGraph1.gif


Hilldawg is bulletproof.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
v1cious said:
HAHAHA oh man i can tell who's not a negro here. if the chance of a black president gets taken away again, there will be outrage. trust me, i've seen it firsthand here in Texas. also, who do you think caused the surge in younger voters? you know as well i do that they won't be as forgiving as the Hillary crowd.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? She's black for your information, are you? I'm tired of this liberal reverse racism which demands blacks to think and act a certain way with respect to politics
 
T

Triumph

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_letter_a_dozen_top_clinton.php



This is some ass-back wards reasoning and distortion of what Pelosi said. She said that at the end of the process, the super delegates should not over-turn the will of the electorate as shown by the pledged delegates won. It shows how nasty this is getting, with Hillary's supporters going after other powerful members of the party.
Click to expand...
Pelosi should send a simple reply:

55 million raised in February without your help. Almost surely more in March. Go eat a dick.
 
C

CoolTrick

Banned
This is not the time to be taking those polls seriously anyways.
Click to expand...

I don't, and I don't like either camp citing them in potential future matchups with McCain. (Unless one did SIGNIFICANTLY better/worse.)

But Obama's coalition can't win the Presidency. It's mostly solid leftists. He HAS to get Latinos, women, Hillary's coalition. Whether he can or not in the general election I don't know. That's not what I'm saying. But Hillary's coalition IS the more ideal one to go into the general election with. It's common sense. She attracts more centrists and would logically get most of the solid left because, uh, they're solid left.
 
B

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
PhoenixDark said:
I'm tired of this liberal reverse racism which demands blacks to think and act a certain way with respect to politics.
Click to expand...

So then you are the minority in the minority. The cards are stacked against ya, PD!
 
T

topsyturvy

Member
v1cious said:
HAHAHA oh man i can tell who's not a negro here. if the chance of a black president gets taken away again, there will be outrage. trust me, i've seen it firsthand here in Texas. also, who do you think caused the surge in younger voters? you know as well i do that they won't be as forgiving as the Hillary crowd.
Click to expand...
1) I'm an african american, even if i wasn't, why wouldn't my opinion matters?

2) yes obama owns the younger vote. Thats not what i'm arguing.

What i'm arguing is that this whole notion that african americans will be alienated to the point that they won't be democratic afterwards, AND/OR it will be 1968 all over again just simply bug me the hell out.

Like i said in one of the older threads. the only thing that will come out of this IF hillary clinton somehow win the primary one way or another will be a march lead by al sharpton or some other figure that thinks he's making a difference. Either way if you look at this and IF she wins by super delegates, its LEGAL. Also, I highly doubt that Obama would allow his supporters to be bitter.
 
Xisiqomelir

Xisiqomelir

Member
topsyturvy said:
But my argument is that the african american vote will not be alienated as much as you think. Seriously, african americans will still vote democratic come november. Sure some will feel piss, but lets all get real here.
Click to expand...

That is not an argument, that is a prediction. And as harSon pointed out, there is strong historical precedent against that prediction.
 
mckmas8808

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
topsyturvy said:
Like i said in one of the older threads. the only thing that will come out of this IF hillary clinton somehow win the primary one way or another will be a march lead by al sharpton or some other figure that thinks he's making a difference. Either way if you look at this and IF she wins by super delegates, its LEGAL. Also, I highly doubt that Obama would allow his supporters to be bitter.
Click to expand...

Obama might not want it, but it will happen.
 
S

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
APF said:
At least in that case Obama would be leveling with the American people.
Click to expand...

So now Hillary has a better record of leveling with he American people than Obama?

And howcome you never, ever answer any simple questions posed to you in a straight manner? It was a yes or no question, yet you constantly evade these questions for fear of admitting to hypocrisy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Most Commonly Spoken Foreign Languages in Each State (Besides Spanish)
2 3
121
14K
Mr. Wedgewood replied
  • Locked
USA Today: Clinton in commanding position for 270 EC votes
2 3 4 5
228
38K
Already Torn replied
  • Locked
Gallup: LGBT Identification Up, Vermont Highest (5.3%), South Dakota Lowest (2.0%)
49
7K
poppabk replied
  • Locked
Is it known as the RMV or DMV in your state?
2
72
9K
Desi replied
  • Locked
Fivethirtyeight: The Rust Belt has been turning red for a while.
2
62
12K
Foffy replied
Top Bottom