Support NeoGAF

[AniHawk]

2004 doesn't count?

The NES had a long life, man.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Interesting news on Charlie Black's ties to Jesse Helms. I don't want to make the official Helms thread any worse than it is so I'll post here

From the right, Reagan biographer Craig Shirley remembers Helms as the man who made the Reagan revolution possible:

"If Helms accomplished nothing else in his life, he is the man most responsible for the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Had Helms not engineered Reagan's stunning upset win in the North Carolina primary in 1976, Reagan would have dropped out and faded into oblivion. Reagan staged a furious comeback as a result, losing the nomination to Gerald Ford by only a handful of delegate votes. As a result, Reagan became the frontrunner for the 1980 nomination. None of this would have been possible without Helms. One man simply decided to changes history."

And from the other side of the aisle, here's a nice bit of quickly Neixised oppo. from the proverbial sources-who-have-requested-to-remain-nameless recalling McCain chief strategist’s Charlie Black’s work for Helms, and tying him to some of the former Senator’s more racially charged, to put it nicely, campaign tactics. Here’s the full memo, which was sent our way with the remark, “The connection is Charlie.”

1984: Black Advised Helms On Senate Re-Election Bid And Bragged About Victory. The Washington Post reported, “‘It’s a tremendous victory for conservatives,’ Helms’ strategist Charles Black said. ‘It enhances his clout and influence in the Senate in the eyes of the press and his colleagues. He’ll be even more effective than he has been.’” [Washington Post, 11/8/84, emphasis added]

Black And Helms Used “Racist Appeals” To Win. Politics reporter Bill Peterson wrote in the Washington Post, “Lesson: A vicious new electronic form of negative politics has evolved and matured. And it is frightening. It is a politics of distortion, half truths and character assassination. Ends are used to justify means. Truth often takes a back seat. … Helms and the National Congressional Club, a political action committee run by his allies, had used negative advertising long before the Senate race began. … Racial epithets and standing in school doors is no longer fashionable, but 1984 proved that the ugly politics of race are alive and well. Helms is their master. A case in point was the pivotal event of the campaign: Helms’ filibuster against a bill making the birthday of the late Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. … Helms campaign literature sounded a drumbeat of warnings about black voter-registration drives. His campaign newspaper featured photographs of Hunt [his opponent] with Jesse L. Jackson and headlines like ‘Black Voter Registration Rises Sharply’ and ‘Hunt Urges More Minority Registration.’ Helms shamelessly mined the race issue.” [Peterson, Washington Post, 11/18/84, emphasis added]

1990: Black Advised Jesse Helms. As He Ran Controversial “Hands” Ad Against Black Candidate. Newsday reported that Helms, “through a series of blistering advertisements unleashed just days before, had beckoned the long-simmering issue of race to the surface of this senatorial contest. In doing so, Helms had hurled the campaign into its most bitter and acrimonious phase to date, namely by labeling his opponent, falsely, an advocate of racial job quotas and accusing him of conducting a ‘secret campaign’ in the black community. … On the television commercial, the camera zones in on a white man’s hands, crumpling what apparently is a job rejection letter. The announcer then intones: ‘You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is,’ the message continues. ‘Gantt supports Ted Kennedy’s racial quota law that makes the color of your skin more important than your qualifications.’” Black, an adviser to the campaign and a consultant for the Congressional Club – Helms’s political machine – insisted the race would come down to turnout: “‘What it’s going to come down to is turnout,’ said Charles Black, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a Helms adviser. ‘It’s, no question, the biggest challenge at this point.’” [Newsday, 11/4/90]

Black Defended “Hands Ad.” Black defended Helms’s “Hands” television ad, which featured white hands crumpling a job rejection letter and linking Helms’s black opponent to racial job quotas. Asked about the ad on the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, Black said, “Well there is nothing racial about the campaign.” When asked if there was anything improper about the ad, Black said, “Of course not.” Another guest on the show, DNC Chairman Ron Brown, pressed Black again, saying, “You are a principal adviser of Jesse Helms. Would you advise him to run that kind of ad, Charlie? Do you approve of that ad, Charlie?” Black responded, “I advised Jesse Helms to do what he’s always done.” [MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour, 11/5/90]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

 

[Guileless]

You're right siamesedreamer, Pres. Bush actually did get 50.7% of the vote in '04. I meant to say the last time a candidate got at least 51% of the vote was 1988 when the first Pres. Bush beat Mike Dukakis. So I don't think 'the media' should declare a winner in July based on polling done before most people start paying attention.

What alternative do you propose GaimeGuy? If there's no "profit-driven" news, then the government has to repeal the 1st Amendment. And then what? Government-controlled media treats the election as a battle of good vs. evil like y'all are this year, and settles on a winner months in advance when the "good" candidate starts leading in the polls? Our system has its flaws of course, but I prefer it. It sounds like you would prefer the system in Russia.

 

[The Crimson Kid]

I disagree with this oft-expressed sentiment. No reporter is going to get a raise if the election is close. The people who rely on quick feedback from ratings are the TV hosts who are playing to partisan audiences and not trying to be objective anyway. Reporters want good stories to write about, and a close but non-volatile election would just be a boring replay of '04.

Plus, the last time a president was elected with a majority of the popular vote, the NES was in its prime. It's not ridiculous at this point to assume it will be close again. If Sen. Obama looks like he is going to win a majority of the vote and be elected, that is a good story and "the media" isn't going to try to invent ways to tell people otherwise.

Wrong, concerning the mainstream media.

With newspapers, magazines, and reputable internet sources, people can read what they are interested in. One facet of the publication's entire body of content can be enough for someone to support the publication. While it would probably inaccurate to say that more people buy USA Today for the Life section than for their News section (or as many readers), both sections are included because it enhances the entire package. Because of the element of choice, these publications don't necessarily have to have the most eye-catching headlines and can instead focus on quality reporting.

With the mainstream media (my codeword for 24-hour TV news networks), they can only show one subject at a time, so they have to maximize ratings for what they are showing for maximum profit. Now what gets big ratings, especially in an election year? Controversy. Just outlining policy in an accurate way doesn't get the ratings that people arguing about Candidate X's latest attack at Candidate Y.

Regarding what I bolded, the problem with the mainstream media is that having volatile coverage is rewarded with larger ratings. A closer, more suspenseful election makes them more money than a blowout, for obvious reasons. This leads the mainstream media to "create" controversies where nothing really exists. There's a reason that you don't hear about Barack's mortgage or more of the crazy, often false "controversies" in a newspaper. Reputable publications don't have to fall back on these cheap tricks to make money. If you were paying attention during the Democratic primaries, it should've been obvious how the MSM stretched it out for months after it was nigh-impossible for Hillary to win.

While the example you cited in your second paragraph may be a good story, it won't bring the ratings a nail biter of an election will. Reporters may not see much out of it, but the managers offering orders from on high will, and the reporters have no choice to follow these orders if they value their jobs.

 

[Clevinger]

There's a reason that you don't hear about Barack's mortgage or more of the crazy, often false "controversies" in a newspaper. Reputable publications don't have to fall back on these cheap tricks to make money.

uhh...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070103008_pf.html

Also, see McCain's lobbyist lover and the New York Times. It probably happens less than the 24 hour networks, but it still happens a lot.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Obama Family Celebrates Fourth of July, Enjoys The Parade In Butte, Montana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGwHMDFQImw

Perhaps it is the dress or just me, but I suspect that if this had been anyone else, there would already be rumors that Michelle Obama is expecting a little something in about five/six months. :lol

 

[Karma Kramer]

As bad as the mainstream media may be sometimes, its not anyone's fault but Obama's that he has been slouching recently. Whining about it and crying foul on how un-fair it is that the news organizations only focus on making money is incredibly pointless and incredibly stupid.

Obama has to be offensive and he has to control the message. Republicans seem to prove again and again that they know how to campaign. Democrats simply play too nice.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Obama Family Celebrates Fourth of July, Enjoys The Parade In Butte, Montana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGwHMDFQImw

Perhaps it is the dress or just me, but I suspect that if this had been anyone else, there would already be rumors that Michelle Obama is expecting a little something in about five/six months. :lol

That secret service comment was probably not the best idea...

 

[laserbeam]

Obama Family Celebrates Fourth of July, Enjoys The Parade In Butte, Montana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGwHMDFQImw

Perhaps it is the dress or just me, but I suspect that if this had been anyone else, there would already be rumors that Michelle Obama is expecting a little something in about five/six months. :lol

Sign caught him off guard. He said Butte America cause the sign in the crowd said it heh

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Rachel Maddow & Joe Scarborough Butt Heads on Obama's Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiF6xvKYBo

what he says at the end - MSNBC needs to kick him off

and Rachel should refuse to go on MSNBC until he does

 

[laserbeam]

Rachel Maddow & Joe Scarborough Butt Heads on Obama's Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiF6xvKYBo

what he says at the end - MSNBC needs to kick him off

and Rachel should refuse to go on MSNBC until he does

Why Exactly? Honestly it was a matter of english as stated. 16 months or sooner was declared and we were gonna be saved form the big bad war. Different story now.

The one man was right on the button. Obama took the stance in the primaries he needed to so he could capture the Democrat Vote. Now he has to change his stance to appeal to the others.

September 12, 2007

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama was expected to say in a speech Wednesday at Ashford University.

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year _ now," the Illinois senator was to say.

He introduced legislation last January calling for withdrawal to start on May 1 and for all combat brigades to be pulled out by March 31, 2008.

"But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month," he said. "If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."

July 2008
We will listen to the Generals and do what they suggest.

That sir is a flip flop and a change of what he said big time.

Is this about the "Yes" that Scarb and Tony Blankley hallucinated? That was pathetic to see two people who were wrong gang up on someone who was right. Obama didn't say "Yes" . . . what he said then matches what he says now.

I am the Commander in Chief I make the mission is very clearly saying he is the boss and not the Generals in response to 16 months or less

 

[speculawyer]

Rachel Maddow & Joe Scarborough Butt Heads on Obama's Iraq

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiF6xvKYBo

what he says at the end - MSNBC needs to kick him off

and Rachel should refuse to go on MSNBC until he does

Is this about the "Yes" that Scarb and Tony Blankley hallucinated? That was pathetic to see two people who were wrong gang up on someone who was right. Obama didn't say "Yes" . . . what he said then matches what he says now.

 

[speculawyer]

Why Exactly? Honestly it was a matter of english as stated. 16 months or sooner was declared and we were gonna be saved form the big bad war. Different story now.

The one man was right on the button. Obama took the stance in the primaries he needed to so he could capture the Democrat Vote. Now he has to change his stance to appeal to the others.

September 12, 2007

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama was expected to say in a speech Wednesday at Ashford University.

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year _ now," the Illinois senator was to say.

He introduced legislation last January calling for withdrawal to start on May 1 and for all combat brigades to be pulled out by March 31, 2008.

"But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month," he said. "If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."

July 2008
We will listen to the Generals and do what they suggest.

That sir is a flip flop and a change of what he said big time

Except that is not what he said in July 2008.

Mr. Obama said at his first news conference that he planned a “thorough assessment” of his Iraq policy when he visits the country later this summer. “I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability,” he said. “That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/u...bl&ex=1215403200&en=19a1dd70cd48fd44&ei=5087

All he is saying that he will listen to the generals on the tactics of withdrawal. He didn't say anything to indicate he'd keep the war going if that is what the generals suggest.

 

[NewLib]

Maybe Im a bit confused on the issue. I watched the clip and are people arguing that Obama wasn't of the position of 16 months regardless? Just because it wasnt a hard yes to Gibson's question (A big rule of politics is to never give a hard yes or no), the way Obama states it leads little doubt.

Im not going to hold it against him for changing his opinion and maybe we will still be out in 16 months if he is elected. However, its impossible to say that there hasn't atleast been a modification to his position to appear less as a hardliner in leaving Iraq despite circumstances.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Is this about the "Yes" that Scarb and Tony Blankley hallucinated? That was pathetic to see two people who were wrong gang up on someone who was right. Obama didn't say "Yes" . . . what he said then matches what he says now.

I think Joe can't keep up with Rachel's brain. Of course, he's only concerned with what will come out of his own mouth, not having a discussion, which makes it absurd for him to host either show.

 

[NewLib]

Why is it so important for politicans to "stick to their guns"? There is a noticable difference between modifying a position do to either better information, changing situation, or just a slight change of heart and lying.

Why is it such a big concern on "flip-flops"? Don't all reasonable adults modify and adjust their opinions on matter as the world dictates. This entire exercise is childish.

 

[Mandark]

Q. When you formulate your position for where we go from here in Iraq, which experts to you consult with? What informs your judgment and assessment of the next steps?

Senator Barack Obama: Well, we have a pretty wide circle of advisers. We talk to everybody from the usual suspects in Washington – various foreign policy experts – to mid-rank military officers, many of whom have served in Iraq, to higher ranking officers like General Scott Gration who flew repeated combat missions and has helped to advise us on a range of these issues and people like Richard Danzig, who is one of our key foreign policy advisers. So it’s a pretty wide circle.

Obviously, I keep up with the reports that are coming directly from the field as well, although, we’re usually one step removed. My former foreign policy adviser is a Naval intelligence officer who is stationed in Anbar – he’s obviously doing his thing, he’s not reporting his observations – we don’t have people on-line reporting to us on a regular basis so the information is coming back to us a month late, two months late, depending on the rotation.

But we are certainly taking into account what we are hearing in the field, from mid-level officers and a general assessment that we’re receiving from them, is the same assessment that you’re reporting in the newspapers, which is that the surge has had some impact that is to be hoped for. We put in an additional 30,000 troops that there has been some lessoning of the horrific violence that we were seeing last year and earlier this year, but that we still have a situation which there is an ongoing sectarian conflict, that violence is still occurring.

The way I view my roll as a candidate and as president is to look at the broader strategic concerns that this country has to face. My plan is premised on those broader strategic concerns, understanding that I’m going to be in constant consultation with the military in terms of how we tactically execute a strategy that’s been put forward, a strategy’s not going to be formed in a vacuum and we’re going to have to listen to the actual troops in the field.

Q. So if you become president in January 2009, you’d be inheriting a situation where it seems there would be in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq or somewhere around that number – between 10 to 12 combat brigades – or some reduced level of violence, but still significant sectarian tensions, what would be the first step you would take as president?

A. My first step would be to call in the joint chiefs of staff, the military commanders who are on the ground and most familiar with the situation there. I’m assuming that Petraeus might still be our lead in shaping our activities there and assign a new mission, which his that we’re going to begin a phased redeployment. It is going to be responsible. It is going to be taking pace at a … It will be conducted at a pace that will ensure the safety of our troops that will give us time to fill the diplomatic void that I believe the president has left, in both Iraq and in the region. It will provide us the time to engage in the humanitarian activities that are going to be necessary because the humanitarian crisis that is projected for withdrawal has actually already occurred.

We’ve already gotten huge numbers of internally displaced Iraqis as well as Iraqis in other countries, so my job is to say to them, my strategic goal is to get us out of the business of street patrols and counter insurgency. We are not going to be engaging in combat activities day-to-day in Iraq. How do we do that responsibly and safely for our troops and how do we marry that and how do we couple that with the kinds of strong efforts and humanitarian efforts that are going to be required to stabilize the country.”

Q. Ambassador Crocker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that if the United States withdrew forces on a chronological schedule, without adjustments to take account of developments, it would backfire. It would not succeed on putting pressure on the Iraqi government to achieve a political accommodation. How do you assess that argument?

A. I fundamentally disagree with the ambassador on this. I think Ambassador Crocker, as well as General Petraeus are trying to play a bad hand well and are trying to play out the mission that has been given to them. But I see no evidence, whatsoever, that our actions to date have encouraged the kinds of political reconciliation that has been the objective of the surge and our purported objective of the last several years. I believe the reverse.

I think the only way we are going to get the Iraqi factions, as well as powers in the region that don’t have an interest in seeing Iraq collapse, to focus their attention on what are the compromises and accommodations that we have to make is if they understand that we are proceeding with a withdrawal, that we are not going to maintain permanent bases there, that there is going to be a new reality on the ground and they are going to have to make the series of decisions that they may have been putting off for a very long time.

Q. Following that up, what is your schedule for withdrawing forces from Iraq? How fast would these withdrawals be carried out? What time frame?

A. Based on the conversations we’ve had internally as well as external reports, we believe that you can get one to two brigades out a month. At that pace, the forces would be out in approximately 16 months from the time that we began. That would be the time frame that I would be setting up. That also gives us time to make sure that we are strengthening the Iraqi forces. Obviously, I would prefer that we start this process now, but let’s assume that there are 100,000 troops when I get there, that means that we’re talking 14 to 15 months from now.

According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we’re not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we’re making a determination – in this region we see some stability. We’ve had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we’ve still got problems, it’s going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out.

Here's the interview.

This isn't exactly new.

 

[speculawyer]

I think Joe can't keep up with Rachel's brain. Of course, he's only concerned with what will come out of his own mouth, not having a discussion, which makes it absurd for him to host either show.

He's done a lousy job hosting the show . . . a lot of missed queues, wasted air time, pointless bickering, etc. David & Rachel are both much better.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Here's the interview.

This isn't exactly new.

Little too wordy for Joe Scarborough!

He's been saying the same thing for some time. If anything the use of rhetoric differs depending on the crowd - in front of an anti war crowd during the primaries he'd harp on bringing the troops home, and in front of more "centrist" (sigh) crowds now he ensures people that the situation on the ground as well as the generals' reports will matter. There's nothing deceptive about what he's saying

Scarborough and the rest of the media are simply doing their job - sticking to whatever narrative they determine is In. And right now the In Thing is "Obama flip flops?" I loved how Joe had the other members raise their hands if they agreed with Rachel as if popular opinion determined truth.

 

[Macam]

I'm pretty sure SD is just posting these imaginary flips for his own amusement at this point.

 

[Mandark]

I predicted a while back that in the event of an Obama presidency, a lot of us were going to get annoyed at having to explain and re-explain the concept of civilian control of the military.

I'm changing that now. We'll probably be getting annoyed at it well before November.

 

[worldrunover]

Is it still 2004?


zzzzzz

Either that or July. It's the only explanation.

Flip-flopping was the most effective tactic in 2004 and it looks like the playbook hasn't changed much. "OMG nuance in the position@!1 flip!"

This goes for both sides. It's ironic that people always complain "they're not talking about their positions more in depth!" and then when they actually do JUST THAT people don't ACTUALLY break down what they're saying for their content or substance but who they are trying to appeal to and whether or not it was a flip.

It's sickening really, and this thread is no exception. You guys blast the MSM and then do the same shit. Why don't you guys looks past who they are trying to appeal to, and LISTEN TO THE MESSAGE.

You wonder why you hear so many talking points non stop.... TA DA!

 

[Synth_floyd]

Personally I don't see it as flip flopping but as pandering. Either way it shows he's just a regular pol and the "change" stuff is all BS.

By October, I wonder how different Obama's and McCain's positions on Iraq will actually be? I bet they'll be a lot closer than they are now.

 

[ToyMachine228]

Personally I don't see it as flip flopping but as pandering. Either way it shows he's just a regular pol and the "change" stuff is all BS.

By October, I wonder how different Obama's and McCain's positions on Iraq will actually be? I bet they'll be a lot closer than they are now.

You're a fucking idiot. McCain is for staying in Iraq, Obama is for leaving over a 16 month withdrawl. Period.

 

[Cheebs]

You're a fucking idiot. McCain is for staying in Iraq, Obama is for leaving over a 16 month withdrawl. Period.

Obama will win, and there will be troops there still in 2010. I'd place hard money on that.

 

[ToxicAdam]

You're a fucking idiot. McCain is for staying in Iraq, Obama is for leaving over a 16 month withdrawl. Period.

Just like in 2006 when Democrats took the Congress.

 

[Cheebs]

Just like in 2006 when Democrats took the Congress.

There are going to be a lot of dissapointed liberals in 2009-2010. Obama isn't doing a Iraq pullout, no matter what he said in a democratic primary. Not a chance.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Obama will win, and there will be troops there still in 2010. I'd place hard money on that.

Well, to be picky, by 2010 he'll have been in office less than 12 of those supposed 16 months.

 

[JayDubya]

Obama will win, and there will be troops there still in 2010. I'd place hard money on that.

There are going to be a lot of dissapointed liberals in 2009-2010. Obama isn't doing a Iraq pullout, no matter what he said in a democratic primary. Not a chance.

If you believe this, you still support this guy... why again?

 

[Door2Dawn]

If you believe this, you still support this guy... why again?

Because hes a better choice than McCain? Its hard to believe I know.

And I personally believe that he will get us out,if you want to fix this fucking economy.

 

[Guileless]

Good post Crimson Kid. I am familiar with the critiques of the cable news networks and I agree with most of them, but you are investing too much importance in them. The cable news networks are not the sum total of the mainstream media. The true gatekeepers are the big-name political reporters and columnists for the Washington Post and the New York Times. The typical young politically aware person now doesn't read them, but they eventually absorb what they say because the TV producers and reporters read those papers in the morning before preparing for the evening talk shows and evening newscasts on the networks.

They are the people who really set the agenda, and I guarantee you they do not wake up worrying about how their coverage will affect the stock price of the giant conglomerates they work for. They want to write good stories and break news that will get them on the front page of their papers. I agree that the small number of TV hosts who make huge salaries based on the ratings they deliver approach their jobs differently, but they are the end of the line, not the beginning. There is no grand conspiracy to keep things close. Grizzled political reporters know something young Obamaniacs may not: the last time a Democrat from north of the Mason-Dixon Line won the presidency was 1960. They aren't going to declare it over before the conventions because Sen. Obama has a lead in the polls right now.

 

[Cheebs]

If you believe this, you still support this guy... why again?

So I should be a one issue voter?

I want loose constructionists on the SC. Obama will give me that.
I want universal health care, that is far more likely under Obama than McCain.
I prefer the democratic agenda for the economy than the republican.
I believe we should have open discussions with our enemies, Obama agrees. McCain doesn't.


Should I continue?

 

[Synth_floyd]

Because hes a better choice than McCain? Its hard to believe I know.

Obama is *Gasp* the lesser of two evils. Unfortunate but true. I was on the Obama bandwagon myself before until he decided to trade principles for "electability." Or rather he morphed from being Barack Obama into the "token Democrat in 2008." John McCain has also become the "token Republican."

 

[PhoenixDark]

If you believe this, you still support this guy... why again?

Trust?

Obama is going to try to do the right thing, and he'll have all the options on the table unlike McCain. I don't think we can just leave Iraq - it will be a disaster, and finally people on both sides of the debate are seeing eye to eye on that. A careful withdrawal plan is what we need, one which takes the situation on the ground into account.

Far left liberals will be disappointed, but I have a feeling they're going to be very disappointed in Obama by 2012 anyway if he gets elected. He's not their puppet, nor is he shucking and jiving for their affection and that pisses the ring wing talking machine off.

 

[Kyuuketsu_Night]

I don't know if anyone realizes this but -

It's Obama versus McCain.
One or the other.
2 choices.

It shouldn't be a problem for any Obama supporter if he does a few things they don't like because no one is perfect and, in the end.... ultimately, it's Obama vs. McCain. Jesus there's no comparison.

 

[Synth_floyd]

I don't know if anyone realizes this but -

It's Obama versus McCain.
One or the other.
2 choices.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Obama is *Gasp* the lesser of two evils. Unfortunate but true. I was on the Obama bandwagon myself before until he decided to trade principles for "electability."

So you got pissed at him because hes trying to win. Sounds like its your own fault that you held him at a high standard,I know your to naive to understand this,but you can't change shit if you don't get elected. Even though hes gone to the center on some issues its still is a hell of a lot better than McCain's.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Just like in 2006 when Democrats took the Congress.

About that...

There are going to be a lot of dissapointed liberals in 2009-2010. Obama isn't doing a Iraq pullout, no matter what he said in a democratic primary. Not a chance.

Cheebs is right. My buddy recently got back from Iraq where he served on a special "think tank" directly under Petreaus. He sat in few meetings with Obama's Iraq guy over the Sping. Obama isn't withdrawing anymore than what is already planned to come out.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Cheebs is right. My buddy recently got back from Iraq where he served on a special "think tank" directly under Petreaus. He sat in few meetings with Obama's Iraq guy over the Sping. Obama isn't withdrawing anymore than what is already planned to come out.

its true! my uncle is friends with obama's butler.. and he confirmed this. he also says that obama is secretly a devil worshiper, and sacrificed his first born son.
111!

 

[siamesedreamer]

I grew up with the guy. Its a little hard to believe myself.

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't like the idea of shifting to the center when you run. It seems like Republicans never do. Sometimes I think the country is experiencing a big shift to the left at times, but you'd never know for sure because it feels like the Democrats are still walking on eggshells on a number of big issues.

edit: The more I think about it, I guess they kind of do too. Compassionate conservatism and all. Maybe in the Senate it is particularly notable? Or maybe I just feel this way. :\

 

[Cheebs]

About that...




Cheebs is right. My buddy recently got back from Iraq where he served on a special "think tank" directly under Petreaus. He sat in few meetings with Obama's Iraq guy over the Sping. Obama isn't withdrawing anymore than what is already planned to come out.

Obama has talked about potentially keeping on Robert Gates as Sec. of Defense saying he is one of the best sec. defenses in his life, Obama isn't as much as a dove on Iraq as the primary made him seem to be.

Obama is not George McGovern.

Obama claimed he wants to work with republicans and not be someone who decides policy based on a political agenda, when he does that liberals complain? It confuses me.

If you wanted someone to fight the "evil" republicans and force down your policy agenda, you should have voted Hillary.

This was obvious since 2004 when he said "There is no red states or blue states".

 

[siamesedreamer]

Nearly a week after his controversial “Face the Nation” appearance last Sunday, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark is taking a break from the presidential campaign — but many Democratic insiders think he has already been crossed off the list of Barack Obama’s potential running mates. Sunday morning on CBS News, Clark argued that John McCain’s military experience — and his years as a prisoner of war — in no way qualified him to be president. Following his appearance, one prominent liberal blog, apparently seeing the genie as out of the bottle, launched into a considerably harsher attacks on McCain’s service headlined “Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?”

“On a scale of 1 to 10, Clark’s words were a 10 in terms of unhelpfulness,” said one Democrat who has helped manage past presidential campaigns.

At first, Clark moved aggressively to defend his remarks, scheduling additional press appearances and even updating his Facebook status to “Wes Clark knows that John McCain is largely untested and untried when it comes to matters of national security.” But now Clark is looking to put the remarks behind him. The former NATO supreme allied commander and 2004 Democratic primary candidate is “moving on,” said a close aide, who added that Clark can now “devote his time to the business affairs which pay the bills.”

Politico

 

[Kitschkraft]

Politico

I am so sick of this kind of shit from his campaign.

 

[Amir0x]

About that...

He's a good guy, that Kanjorski. There's no doubt there's some hints of truth to what he says though, there's always over promising.

Personally I've simply decided to observe until the convention to see exactly where Obama as a politician ends up, because he's already made several moves that I severely disagree with since clinching the nomination. Like any other candidate, he may lose my support if it continues.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I can't help but wonder if Clark's stupid outburst was the Clinton's idea, not his. And I hate conspiracy theories and shit but I dunno...

 

[speculawyer]

I can't help but wonder if Clark's stupid outburst was the Clinton's idea, not his. And I hate conspiracy theories and shit but I dunno...

I dunno . . . it may have been Rove-ian style "attack the person's strength."

You gotta admit, the "I don't think riding a jet and getting shot down qualifies you to be president." was a good line. :lol

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It's hard for me to imagine Clark had that planned in advance. Half of his sentence was just directly repeating a phrase used by the interviewer immediately beforehand.

 

[StoOgE]

I dunno . . . it may have been Rove-ian style "attack the person's strength."

You gotta admit, the "I don't think riding a jet and getting shot down qualifies you to be president." was a good line. :lol

In Clarks defense, Clark had made a very articulate arguement, then was asked point blank if being shot down qualifed him to be president and he said no.

 

[Chichikov]

I dunno . . . it may have been Rove-ian style "attack the person's strength."

Hardly, a Roveian attack would have been suggesting that he got shot due to incompetence and went mad and brainwashed in the POW camp.

Wait, why am I saying 'would have been'?