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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cheebs said:
Why would she be THAT upset? We have had many speaker of the houses and senate majority leaders make names for themselves and earn active places in history.
Click to expand...
It doesn't get you elected President, though, and that seems to be her ultimate goal.

Besides, Senators don't typically get elected to the Presidency - the only reason it's going to happen this cycle is because the only three candidates left are all Senators.

Honestly, though, I do agree that Senate Majority Leader would be a better position for her than NY Governor, 'cause that isn't really the launching pad for Pres. that you'd think it would be - IIRC, FDR and Teddy were the only NY Governors elected POTUS, and that was 70-100 years ago, when the political system (of both the country and NY) was quite different.
 
Mandark said:
Because every news report I've seen characterizes this as a planned offensive against the Mehdi Army in Basra. I don't think that version of events is disputed by the Iraqi, American, or British governments.


siamesedreamer: You're missing the point pretty badly.
Click to expand...


Interesting report. So the following is true.

But many Sadr followers view the offensive as the latest attempt by the United States and Sadr's Shiite rivals, who run Iraq's government, to take advantage of Sadr's cease-fire to weaken his movement politically ahead of provincial elections that could take place this year.
Click to expand...

Now this is interesting. Makes me wonder if this is true. If they had a cease fire wouldn't it be wrong for the Iraqi army to shoot and kill Sadr's guys?


Later, hundreds of Sadr followers took to the streets of Najaf, carrying Korans, Iraqi flags and olive branches. Calling Maliki "the agent of Americans," they chanted: "No, no occupation! No, no terrorism!"
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I agree with them, but I do find it interesting that they view what we are behind and what the Iraqi army starting as terrorism. I wonder if the US people see it this way?
 
Deus Ex Machina said:
NBC News: Ann Dunham

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7An5LPXjOa4

copy-of-stanley-ann-dunahm-small.jpg
Click to expand...
The Lamonster said:
quoted again because that was really good
Click to expand...
:D
 
Texas county conventions today, should be interesting.

e: according to NYT, "two senior aides and a close ally" would urge Hillary to quit if she lost Indiana

e2: Carville still going on about Richardson "betrayal"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032802826.html

Nothing interesting except perhaps this:
But, even more than that, I know that a former president of the United States who appointed someone to two Senate-confirmed positions is entitled to have his phone calls returned.
Click to expand...
 
icarus-daedelus said:
It doesn't get you elected President, though, and that seems to be her ultimate goal.

Besides, Senators don't typically get elected to the Presidency - the only reason it's going to happen this cycle is because the only three candidates left are all Senators.

Honestly, though, I do agree that Senate Majority Leader would be a better position for her than NY Governor, 'cause that isn't really the launching pad for Pres. that you'd think it would be - IIRC, FDR and Teddy were the only NY Governors elected POTUS, and that was 70-100 years ago, when the political system (of both the country and NY) was quite different.
Click to expand...
Well as for NY Gov position, Eliot Spitzer was widely considered someone who would likely run in 2012 or 2016 if a Dem didn't win. He really wanted to run for president someday. And he was using the NY Gov. spot as a means to get there.
 
I saw your powerful reply on the last thread. That is some wonderful insight. You should share more of your thoughts on this topic. The neo-lib phenomenon is indeed unparalleled in US political history. You address the more social side of this and I hope more research can be done on this aspect. Now this movement is beginning to sense its own power. They self-righteously believe they are the saviors of the modern age, even more so than the neo-cons did. This message has been reflected consistently in Obama’s campaign. And the neo-libs have ample funding, control most media outlets, and dominate the web, believing that this will lead them to achieve supreme victory for their global agenda. It’s a bit scary. If the DNC hands the Party over to them; the neo-libs will have little use for their old-style liberal allies after they control things. The old guard Kennedy/Kerry/Pelosi clique will be squeezed out to make room for the younger neo-libs. Fools!

The neo-libs have two goals:

1) First and primarily is to take control of the Party. This is their most important battle and the first step to power. They must win this nomination contest at all costs, using any method. Worry about the fallout later.
2) As a secondary goal, gain control of the government via Obama.

We are in an epoch struggle for the soul of our country. We can not afford to lose this one without very serious consequences for the world as we know it. Hillary is aware of this danger. Why do you think she is so determined to continue fighting down to the last minute and dollar? She knows what is at stake. She is not doing this for her health that’s for sure, but for folks like you and me. I think often when people are engaged in monumental struggles like this one, it is difficult to see the bigger picture because we are in the trenches, involved in daily hand-to-hand combat with the enemy. But someday years later, we will say to ourselves, “When our country needed us the most, we answered the call.” Is this not really the campaign message of Hillary Clinton? Even the Republicans are beginning to finally realize that she is truly one great American. Even they now know we must stop the neo-libs before it is too late. I am so proud to be on the Hillary team!

h44
 
siamesedreamer said:
Why? If Iraqi troops can't contain violence in Basra, then how the hell can they be expected to contain violence in Baghdad and other populated areas?
Click to expand...

As a concerned Iraqi, I also worry about this.
 
mckmas8808 said:
So does this mean that the 5 brigades that Bush has leaving soon is a bad idea?
Click to expand...

We'll see. There were other aspects to the success of the surge that goes beyond just general greater troop presence. Although I believe Petreus/Gates wants a halt to the drawdown.


mckmas8808 said:
If they had a cease fire wouldn't it be wrong for the Iraqi army to shoot and kill Sadr's guys?
Click to expand...

The cease fire ended before the Iraqi army went after them.
 
"The real issue is this: Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

Howard Dean's 2004 endorsement speech for John Kerry
 
Probably not much play considering America's answer to that question at the time was "who the fuck cares" and also "his service wasn't quite great ENOUGH, according to the swiftboaters!"
 
siamesedreamer said:
"The real issue is this: Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

Howard Dean's 2004 endorsement speech for John Kerry
Click to expand...

:lol :lol :lol No.
 
Just want to give credit properly - the Still Alive remake is from SA. There's multiple versions going on, the linked one sounds the best but actually has the worst lyrics. They're re-recording the better version for mass consumption.
 
siamesedreamer said:
"The real issue is this: Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

Howard Dean's 2004 endorsement speech for John Kerry
Click to expand...
Where that's from? did some plagiarize it in their speech or something?
 
Deus Ex Machina said:
Yes, Howard Dean. But did someone else recently use that line?
Click to expand...

No, he's just positing that it might be used in a commercial against the current candidates. But it won't, because Kerry's military service was tarnished anyways in the eyes of the public.
 
Tamanon said:
No, he's just positing that it might be used in a commercial against the current candidates. But it won't, because Kerry's military service was tarnished anyways in the eyes of the public.
Click to expand...

Yup. Apparently America has no problem besmirching the name of a decorated war veteran.
 
siamesedreamer said:
"The real issue is this: Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

Howard Dean's 2004 endorsement speech for John Kerry
Click to expand...

only issue with your quote is kerry lost. so that does not bode well for mcain. :lol
 
GhaleonEB said:
Today's Rasmussen daily tracking.

Obama 48% Clinton 42%

It was Obama by 2 yesterday.
Click to expand...

yeah he has weathered the wright issue and i think she is hurting alot from that bosnia issue.


i also wanted to mention yesterday that why the rasmussen is lagging behind the gallop is cause the gallop did not conduct polling on easter and they are both rolling polls. also matches the pew +10 obama poll.

its clear we have a trend to obama. but i am more interested in state polls so would love some new penn polls.
 
A pretty damn solid NY political journalist wrote a very striking insight into how Edwards dealt with Hillary and Obama.

His take seems rather negative on Obama but reading beyond his negative tone I see it in a more positive light. I get the impression Hillary pandered to Edwards from this. Told him what he wanted to hear. While Obama stuck to what his plan was and didn't attempt to kiss Edwards' ass.

Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.
Click to expand...
 
Clevinger said:
Yup. Apparently America has no problem besmirching the name of a decorated war veteran.
Click to expand...
So Dems will go ahead and do this like a bunch of hypocrites? Actually I don't understand the logic behind the knee-jerk responses to that post. The only answer is, "all's fair in politics," which is another way of saying, "politics as usual," etc.
 
Cheebs said:
A pretty damn solid NY political journalist wrote a very striking insight into how Edwards dealt with Hillary and Obama.

His take seems rather negative on Obama but reading beyond his negative tone I see it in a more positive light. I get the impression Hillary pandered to Edwards from this. Told him what he wanted to hear. While Obama stuck to what his plan was and didn't attempt to kiss Edwards' ass.
Click to expand...
I would like to read the whole thing. Linky?
 
APF said:
So Dems will go ahead and do this like a bunch of hypocrites? Actually I don't understand the logic behind the knee-jerk responses to that post. The only answer is, "all's fair in politics," which is another way of saying, "politics as usual," etc.
Click to expand...
You use the nominee's background as a plus, even if in 4 years your opponet has the same background.

If Obama is the nominee they are as party going to play up his "worldly" roots as an ability to work better with Europe and the Middle East than McCain. Again, you use what you got.
 
Cheebs said:
You use the nominee's background as a plus, even if in 4 years your opponet has the same background.

If Obama is the nominee they are as party going to play up his "worldly" roots as an ability to work better with Europe and the Middle East than McCain. Again, you use what you got.
Click to expand...
But wasn't the point, if that was a good argument four years ago, why isn't it a good argument today? Also (as an aside) note that McCain spoke out against the swiftboat guys and in defense of Kerry, so using that line of attack would be doubly-hypocritical and disgusting. Yet folks are lol-ing over the possibility.
 
APF said:
So Dems will go ahead and do this like a bunch of hypocrites?
Click to expand...

I think they can very easily point out that his continued support of the Iraq War negates any of his supposed wisdom/experience without being hypocritical. I don't see how that's a problem at all.
 
APF said:
But wasn't the point, if that was a good argument four years ago, why isn't it a good argument today? Also (as an aside) note that McCain spoke out against the swiftboat guys and in defense of Kerry, so using that line of attack would be doubly-hypocritical and disgusting. Yet folks are lol-ing over the possibility.
Click to expand...

Who said it was a good argument then, besides siamesedreamer...who supports McCain?
 
APF said:
But wasn't the point, if that was a good argument four years ago, why isn't it a good argument today? Also (as an aside) note that McCain spoke out against the swiftboat guys and in defense of Kerry, so using that line of attack would be doubly-hypocritical and disgusting. Yet folks are lol-ing over the possibility.
Click to expand...
It is a bit different now. Kerry did not run as the anti-Iraq War nominee. He ran as a nominee who would run the war better and be able to fix the problems of it. That isn't the message at all of Obama. Obama is running a far more liberal anti-war message compared to Kerry's competent "fixer" style of 2004.

Kerry shifted totally anti-war after the weight of presidential politics was off him which kind of blurs his stance in 2004.

A comparison would be Kerry's campaign was more of Humphrey and Obama is more McGovern. Obama is running in an enviroment where for the first time in most of our lifetimes a Democrat can openly run as a full-on liberal and not get too much of a backlash from that. But who knows? Nixon's silent majority could rear its head again.

But I doubt it. I see 2008 as the revenge 1980 still, as long as the democrat in-fighting doesn't cause permant damage. And I don't say that a wide-eyed optimist. I was someone who from day one was 100% sure of Bush's re-election and doubted Obama's chances for a long, long time.
 
Sounding like Obama may net some more delegates in the Texas caucuses than thought because a good number of Hillary delegates are no-shows so far for the County Caucuses, per DailyKos comments.
 
thefro said:
Sounding like Obama may net some more delegates in the Texas caucuses than thought because a good number of Hillary delegates are no-shows so far for the County Caucuses, per DailyKos comments.
Click to expand...
Interesting. She was trying to gum up the process as of Wednesday, so I'm hoping for no movement.
ralexand said:
Damn, this getting ugly. What did Obama do to get this boost?
Click to expand...
I think it has less to do with what Obama did and more to do with Clinton, but who knows.
 
thekad said:
Who said it was a good argument then, besides siamesedreamer...who supports McCain?
Click to expand...
Well, the Dems made Kerry's service history the key selling point of the convention, so apparently, the Democratic party felt it was a good argument then.


bob_arctor said:
I think they can very easily point out that his continued support of the Iraq War negates any of his supposed wisdom/experience without being hypocritical. I don't see how that's a problem at all.
Click to expand...
While that wouldn't be disgusting, I also think no one who hasn't already made up their minds will buy it in the long run.


Cheebs said:
It is a bit different now. Kerry did not run as the anti-Iraq War nominee. He ran as a nominee who would run the war better and be able to fix the problems of it.
Click to expand...

While I understand your perspective in saying this, I'm also not quite sure it's completely accurate. In any case, Kerry's service was a key point of the "story" behind his run, as well as being an outspoken anti-war advocate and leader when he returned.

Cheebs said:
But I doubt it. I see 2008 as the revenge 1980 still, as long as the democrat in-fighting doesn't cause permant damage. And I don't say that a wide-eyed optimist. I was someone who from day one was 100% sure of Bush's re-election and doubted Obama's chances for a long, long time.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm the opposite in your prediction history, but time will tell.
 
syllogism said:
Haha, they randomized the url so it can't be posted early
Click to expand...
I wonder if gaf is to blame for that. :lol

I visit 2582958295 political blogs and havent seen one where they figured out that url trick gaf found.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MMA-GAF | Interim Thread 7
65 66 67 68 69
3K
315K
manfestival replied
So they deleted my post, because of jelousy and envy
3 4 5 6 7
302
61K
GeorgPrime replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
258K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom