Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

PEOPLE ARE OUT OF THEIR FUCKING MINDS AND THEY'RE RUINING THE PARTY.

Also, this is Agent Icebreezy's clip of Daschle on MSNBC, not sure how many people saw it in the last thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxN7n8CZF1k

Like I said, he really doesn't seem to confident in the Clintons to end this thing when after the weekend. I have a gut feeling these selfish, ignorant, now brainless fools are taking this to the convention.

And just yesterday, Obama was downplaying the imapct of Clinton taking it to the convention. There's definately a shift in message from the Obama camp.

 

[KRS7]

Wouldn't you get more benefits if you funded healthcare and energy research directly, instead of using it to go to the moon?

Research is not only a matter of money, but of time as well. NASA has been on the cutting edge for years so money has been going into solar cells and fuel cells for decades. If we waited until the current oil crunch to start investing in these technologies we would be decades behind where we are now. Space exploration has contributed technology we never knew to research. Look at the temperpedic mattress .

You also must consider how many kids NASA has interested in science and engineering. I guarantee you if NASA was not around we would have even less students going into these fields. Less scientist and engineers means less scientific breakthoughs.

 

[tanod]

Welcome to disagreeing with Obama.

I strongly disagree with his stance on Plan Colombia, i.e. radically minimize it or cut it out altogether. I also disagree, as pointed out earlier, on his stance with signing statements. I hope he eventually does something about it.

Hey, no one is perfect, and it helps remind me that the man is flawed.

Signing statements have been around for a long time and are legal in most circumstances. It's only Bush who has used them to declare which parts of the law he's specifically going to ignore or not enforce.

 

[scorcho]

Signing statements have been around for a long time and are legal in most circumstances. It's only Bush who has used them to declare which parts of the law he's specifically going to ignore or not enforce.

which sets a stupid precedence that hopefully isn't repeated

 

[Tamanon]

On a McCain campaign conference call, Senator John Kyl did not concede that McCain had made an error in saying "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels," instead accusing the Obama campaign and reporters of "trying to nitpick the tense of the verb about the surge troops being home."

"The surge troops will be home by the end of July," he said.

McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann hit the same talking poitn.

"To get into a debate about a verb tense rather than the real fundamental national security issues at stake is really a distraction," he said.

This verb tense thing is a novel excuse, with potentially wide future use on both sides. Hillary, for instance, could have been referring to the risk of future sniper fire. Obama, perhaps, meant that the U.S. will, at some future date, add seven states.

OK, so McCain meant that "sunnis WILL be shias" later on.

BTW, all this talk about signing statements is silly. Obama just said that he might still use them, any president would. It's just another thing said so after the first term he can't be labeled a liar(No new taxes). Besides, do you really think he'll actually need signing statements like Bush did with Congressional control?

 

[sangreal]

In today's conference call, the Clinton campaign conceded any rules-based or fairness-based argument for the full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign declared that, unlike Iowa, NH and South Carolina, Florida and Michigan did indeed break the DNC rules and without justification. The Clinton campaign expressly disagreed with the Michigan Democratic Party's contention that the DNC had selectively enforced its rules by allowing New Hampshire and South Carolina to break the sanctioned primary schedule, that Florida was not entitled to a safe harbor or waiver, and that the DNC had acted properly and within the rules when it stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates.

The Clinton campaign's only argument now seems to be that yes, rules were broken, but to help us in November, the RBC should seat the delegates anyway. It seems to me that the obvious response by the RBC is to rely on its staff memo which says it can only restore half of the delegates, and that to honor the voters of Florida and Michigan, it will magnaminously do so.

I am not sure that Barack Obama or the DNC objects to such a result and the Clinton campaign has no justifiable basis anymore to object to it. To me, the statements made in today's conference call make tomorrow's meeting a mere formality.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/30/13333/0744

wtf? Hillary having second thoughts about tearing apart the party?

Big Tent Democrat is a Clinton supporter on the level if HillaryIs44, for what its worth

 

[SleazyC]

I tried to get a spot at the Rules Committee meeting tomorrow but those spots flew. I don't even want to try to think about the line of Hillary supporters that will be there tomorrow trying to get the limited spots up for grabs.

 

[pxleyes]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/30/13333/0744

wtf? Hillary having second thoughts about tearing apart the party?

Big Tent Democrat is a Clinton supporter on the level if HillaryIs44, for what its worth

HOLY CRAP LOGIC!

 

[Diablos]

And just yesterday, Obama was downplaying the imapct of Clinton taking it to the convention. There's definately a shift in message from the Obama camp.

Yeah, and it worries me.

Does Hillary have any idea how bad she's messing with the party? I believe it was Robert Novak who said she is now getting the same kind of negative criticism from Democrats that Republicans have been getting from them for the past 15 or so years. And he's right. I'm getting angry at the Clintons like I would at Republicans. This is not a good thing.

I'd argue Hillary getting the nomination would be worse than Obama getting it.

If Obama gets it basically angers some women and older voters. If Clinton gets it, it angers EVERYONE ELSE and rallies Republicans together to vote McCain like never before.

 

[sangreal]

HOLY CRAP LOGIC!

Now the question is will her supporters drop this stupid talking point? They've been using that insane argument for some time now

(the argument that MI/FL shouldnt be punished because 4 other states also went early (which the rules explicitly gave them permission to do) without punishment)

 

[pxleyes]

Now the question is will her supporters drop this stupid talking point? They've been using that insane argument for some time now

(the argument that MI/FL shouldnt be punished because 4 other states also went early (which the rules explicitly gave them permission to do) without punishment)

I want to see the main networks pick this up first before I put anything behind it.

 

[Diablos]

If Hillary doesn't get enough delegates because of the MI/FL decision, but can then argue she won the popular vote, and superdelegates ACCEPT THAT, what a sad day that will be for American history.

Likewise, if they don't accept that, but her pushing on regardless of everyone but her own people realizing it's over will also be just as sad.

It's really looking like a case of we're damned if she does one thing, damned if she does another.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If Hillary doesn't get enough delegates because of the MI/FL decision, but can then argue she won the popular vote, and superdelegates ACCEPT THAT, what a sad day that will be for American history.

Likewise, if they don't accept that, but her pushing on regardless of everyone but her own people realizing it's over will also be just as sad.

It's really looking like a case of we're damned if she does one thing, damned if she does another.

That's not going to happen so there's no point in thinking about it. It's more likely that she'll stay in the race, but we'll see. Hillary is not fucking stupid. She knows that she's perceived as the villain right now. I doubt she thinks she can ruin Obama's chances then prance back to the senate and be warmly accepted. And worse, I doubt she thinks people will simply forget all this in 2012 assuming Obama loses.

If I had to bet I'd say she'll get out before the third week of June.

 

[Kaeru]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/30/13333/0744

wtf? Hillary having second thoughts about tearing apart the party?

Big Tent Democrat is a Clinton supporter on the level if HillaryIs44, for what its worth

wow

That's the first sane thing I heard coming from her campaign in MONTHS!
Needs to be discussed.

 

[typhonsentra]

If they grant the popular vote by giving proportional delegates for Florida she'll have a hard time continuing to argue for Michigan. Turnout was crazy low there, even lower than Oregon or Kentucky both of which have roughly half the population of Michigan.

 

[Diablos]

Meh, just go back to the Senate, Hilolry. Put all of your energy into taking Harry Reid's job or something. I bet that'd be easy enough for her.

If she keeps it up, though, she won't get re-elected in the Senate. I'm sure she already blew her chances in the GE if she was actually lucky enough to get the nom, based on her actions AND statements.

 

[soul creator]

I've always found that there is a pretty decent amount of money in eduction, but the mis allocation of it is just appalling.

http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/tables.php?tabtype=t1&subtype=at&rowtype=f

Major contracting agency	FY 2000	FY 2001	FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006 FY 2007	FY 2008 2Q * Partial year help link
(partial year)	FY 2000-2008	FY 2007 Rank
Dept. of Defense	$133.2	$145.0	$170.5	$195.4	$231.0	$269.7	$298.5	$312.1	$20.2	$1,775.5	1


Dept. of Education	$0.9	$1.1	$0.9	$1.0	$1.5	$1.4	$1.4	$1.4	$0.2	$9.8	16

over the past 8 years, 0.38% of our money has been spent on Education...while ~68% has been spent on "defense"

 

[tanod]

over the past 8 years, 0.38% of our money has been spent on Education...while ~68% has been spent on "defense"

Most of education is funded by state and local taxes.

 

[scorcho]

i'm confused, doesn't the above directly contradict what MSNBC's First Read reports on the matter?

Also on the conference call, the campaign repeated what it said it earlier in the week: that it wants the full Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated; that it wants them seated according to the January primary votes in each state; and that the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan can't be given to Obama -- they must remain uncommitted.

"We are hopeful and confident that after hearing all the arguments and hearing all the facts ... that all the delegates will be seated and all of them will have a full vote," Ickes said.

Moreover, the Clinton's campaign general counsel issued a letter to members of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws committee, which takes issue with the DNC analysis suggesting that Florida and Michigan must be penalized by at least 50%. "The RBC," the letter says, "has broad powers to fully reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegations. Rule 20(C)(7) allows the RBC to forgive violations when a state party and other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials have taken provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to bring the state into compliance with the DNC’s Delegate Selection Rules."

there's either some crossed signals or really shady reporting going on.

 

[pxleyes]

i'm confused, doesn't the above directly contradict what MSNBC's First Read reports on the matter? there's either some crossed signals or really shady reporting going on.

Again, until CNN, Fox, and MSNBC pick up on it I'm letting it sit.

 

[soul creator]

Most of education is funded by state and local taxes.

That is correct. I'd still say it's a pretty huge (and sad) gap. Yes, one role of federal government is "national security", but I don't think military bases around the world, and preemptive wars should count as "national security". (I'm channeling my inner Ron Paul I suppose)

 

[sangreal]

i'm confused, doesn't the above directly contradict what MSNBC's First Read reports on the matter? there's either some crossed signals or really shady reporting going on.

No, they don't contradict actually. Hillary isn't going to stop pushing for the full seating, the point that she was supposedly conceding is that it would be unfair not to give them full seating, or that it would be inconsistent since the other 4 states weren't punished

She is still arguing, but her argument now just boils down to seat them all because I need the delegates, and you'll need those states in November

Her lawyers are pointing out that they have the authority to make exception to the rules in some cases (mainly if the Democratic primary is moved up by Republicans against the wishes of the Democrats -- which didn't happen). In my opinion its a big difference from saying that the only fair thing to do is make an exception

 

[Farmboy]

That's not going to happen so there's no point in thinking about it. It's more likely that she'll stay in the race, but we'll see. Hillary is not fucking stupid. She knows that she's perceived as the villain right now. I doubt she thinks she can ruin Obama's chances then prance back to the senate and be warmly accepted. And worse, I doubt she thinks people will simply forget all this in 2012 assuming Obama loses.

If I had to bet I'd say she'll get out before the third week of June.

I agree. I've become convinced that these convention threats are just that: threats, designed to pressure the RBC.

 

[grandjedi6]

 

[Relix]

So, Hillary has been pushing PR hard... ads everywhere, constant activities, etc. She will win here in PR, but won't make a difference. How sad it would be if she won (and she will). Goddammit... I want Obama to win PR =P

 

[sangreal]

So, Hillary has been pushing PR hard... ads everywhere, constant activities, etc. She will win here in PR, but won't make a difference. How sad it would be if she won (and she will). Goddammit... I want Obama to win PR =P

She was way up in the poll the other day and Obama is barely campaigning there. I don't see any situation where she loses

Besides, there have been zero upsets since super tuesday

 

[pxleyes]

McCain's tone is so condescending it makes me sick. I honestly think THAT will be the death of his campaign should he keep it up.

 

[mckmas8808]

Welcome to disagreeing with Obama.

I strongly disagree with his stance on Plan Colombia, i.e. radically minimize it or cut it out altogether. I also disagree, as pointed out earlier, on his stance with signing statements. I hope he eventually does something about it.

Hey, no one is perfect, and it helps remind me that the man is flawed.

What does signing statements mean?

 

[KRS7]

She was way up in the poll the other day and Obama is barely campaigning there. I don't see any situation where she loses

Besides, there have been zero upsets since super tuesday

I thought Hillary would win Maine. That was a little upset.

 

[SouthernDragon]

What does signing statements mean?

From what I understand, they were originally intended to be commentary on a law Congress passed. You know "I like this bill" or "I hate it." There's a legal loophole, though, that allows Presidents to abuse signing statements which gives them the power to do things like "I like this part, but let's remove this part of the bill, eheheheheh."

Bush has done more signing statements than every other president combined, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Diablos]

McCain's tone is so condescending it makes me sick. I honestly think THAT will be the death of his campaign should he keep it up.

Seriously. Listening to this guy speak is so boring. I'd argue even more boring than Kerry.

If this guy is our next President... :lol

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Most of education is funded by state and local taxes.

Down here in Florida, the lotto tickets you buy goes toward education.

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://i27.tinypic.com/2wcr5dt.png

Most important part of that survey:

Alone, Obama beats McCain by 6 points today; with running mates added, outcomes range from McCain winning by 5 (McCain/Huckabee vs. Obama/Rendell) to Obama winning by 15.

http://www.surveyusa.com/

 

[grandjedi6]

Most important part of that survey:


http://www.surveyusa.com/

Actually I think the survey data itself is far more important. Almost all the undecided voters were either Democrats or liberal independents, meaning Obama could gain even more ground. It'll be interesting to see how well Obama does in polls when the Democrats finally group behind him fully.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Actually I think the survey data itself is far more important. Almost all the undecided voters were either Democrats or liberal independents, meaning Obama could gain even more ground. It'll be interesting to see how well Obama does in polls when the Democrats finally group behind him fully.

We're agreeing with each other. My point was, Obama's upside appears greater than his downside. He's up by six on the top line, and has a +15 to -5 spread with veeps. And as you said, where the undecideds lie. It's good news all around.

 

[maynerd]

Bush has done more signing statements than every other president combined, if I'm not mistaken.

Through July 2006

 

[Farmboy]

What I find odd is: Obama beats McCain by six by himself, but factor in the veeps and he needs someone as well-known as Edwards to win, except when McCain selects the relatively unknown Pawlenty (and even then, Obama's numbers go down if he isn't paired with Edwards). Do Romney, Huckabee, even Lieberman add that much simply because they're known? I would think that they'd come with some built-in negatives as well as positives.

 

[ZealousD]

Man, every single one of these VP polls predicts a blowout with an Edwards VP.

Too bad it won't happen. =(

 

[terrene]

"Ahhhh, life."

 

[The Lamonster]

What I find odd is: Obama beats McCain by six by himself, but factor in the veeps and he needs someone as well-known as Edwards to win, except when McCain selects the relatively unknown Pawlenty (and even then, Obama's numbers go down if he isn't paired with Edwards). Do Romney, Huckabee, even Lieberman add that much simply because they're known? I would think that they'd come with some built-in negatives as well as positives.

Name recognition usually outweighs any negatives. Remember, most voters are retarded.

 

[Odrion]

Man, every single one of these VP polls predicts a blowout with an Edwards VP.

Too bad it won't happen. =(

why not?

 

[The Lamonster]

why not?

Edwards said he wasn't interested. He wants Secretary of State or something.

Although, when you're asked to run for VP, you don't say no.

 

[Cheebs]

The VP polling is useless. It's all about name recognition.

Same reason Hillary had 20-30% lead in nearly every primary state 4-5 months before the primary.

 

[Farmboy]

Man, every single one of these VP polls predicts a blowout with an Edwards VP.

Too bad it won't happen. =(

I think Obama and Edwards should take it under serious (re)consideration. I know Edwards polling well in these matchups is mostly because of name recognition, but 1) it does prove he's a positive (I bet George W. Bush would be an even more recognizable name, but wouldn't quite boost the numbers), and 2) thanks to Hilldog, time to build up an unknown to the level of Edwards' popularity is relatively short. Edwards can hit the ground running.

Of course, Edwards is a true standout amongst these particular names. Someone like Richardson or Webb (who has been the subject of a minor media blitz of late) would probably also poll very well. But I'd prefer any well-known candidate over an unknown, at this point.

 

[typhonsentra]

The VP polling is useless. It's all about name recognition.

Same reason Hillary had 20-30% lead in nearly every primary state 4-5 months before the primary.

Then why did Edwards do better than Hillary in SUSA's Kansas poll?

Another positive for Edwards is that we know there won't be any big surprises with him, he's already been through all of this.

 

[sangreal]

Then why did Edwards do better than Hillary in SUSA's Kansas poll?

Because she wasn't on it? Or did you mean Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas? He only beat her out in one matchup

 

[Clipjoint]

It's definitely about name recognition, but the head-to-head numbers of Obama vs. McCain are looking really promising on a state by state basis. Michigan is the only one I'm disappointed in.

Just for quick reference, SurveyUSA has:

Wisconsin - Obama +9
Kansas - McCain +10
Michigan - McCain +4
Iowa - Obama +9
Ohio - Obama +9
Virginia - Obama +7
California - Obama +8
Pennsylvania - Obama +8
New Mexico - TIE

 

[ZealousD]

The New Scott McClellan IM's the Old Scot McClellan

 

[Servbot #42]

The Obama Gaffe Machine
By JOHN FUND
May 30, 2008

For months, Barack Obama has had the image of an incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate. That image may be fraying now.

As smart and credentialed as he is, Sen. Obama is often an indifferent speaker without a teleprompter. He has large gaps in his knowledge base, and is just as likely to dig in and embrace a policy misstatement as abandon it. ABC reporter Jake Tapper calls him "a one-man gaffe machine."

Take the Auschwitz flub, where Mr. Obama erroneously claimed last weekend in New Mexico that his uncle helped liberate the Nazi concentration camp. Reporters noted Mr. Obama's revised claim, that it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. They largely downplayed the error. Yet in another, earlier gaffe back in 2002, Mr. Obama claimed his grandfather knew U.S. troops who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka – even though only Russian troops entered those concentration camps.

That hardly disqualifies Mr. Obama from being president. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing it would have been the focus of much more attention, especially after her Bosnia sniper-fire fib. That's because gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician.

When John McCain claimed, while on a trip to Iraq in March, that Sunni (as opposed to Shiite) militants in Iraq are being supported by Iran, coverage of the alleged blunder tracked Democratic attacks on his age and stamina. (In fact, Iran may well be supplying both Sunni and Shiite militants.) Dan Quayle, tagged with a reputation as a dumb blond male, never lived down his misspelling of "potatoe."

Mr. Obama, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, has largely been given a pass for his gaffes. Many are trivial, such as his suggestion this month that America has 57 states, and his bizarre statement in a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico that America's "fallen heroes" were present and listening to him in the audience.

Some gaffes involve mangling his family history. Last year in Selma, Ala., for example, he said that his birth was inspired by events there which took place four years after he was born. While this gaffe can be chalked up to fatigue or cloudy memory, others are more substantive – such as his denial last April that it was his handwriting on a questionnaire in which, as a state senate candidate, he favored a ban on handguns. His campaign now contends that, even if it was his handwriting, this doesn't prove he read the full questionnaire.

Mr. Obama told a Portland, Ore., crowd this month that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us," saying that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets aren't much to worry about. But Iran has almost one-fourth the population of the U.S. and is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons. The next day Mr. Obama had to reverse himself and declare he had "made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Last week in Orlando, Fla., he said he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez to discuss, among other issues, Chávez's support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. The next day, in Miami, he insisted any country supporting the FARC should suffer "regional isolation." Obama advisers were left explaining how this circle could be squared.

In a debate last July, Mr. Obama pledged to meet, without precondition, the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba. He called President Bush's refusal to meet with them "ridiculous" and a "disgrace."

Heavily criticized, Mr. Obama dug in rather than backtrack. He's claimed, in defense of his position, that John F. Kennedy's 1961 summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was a crucial meeting that led to the end of the Cold War.

Not quite. Kennedy himself admitted he was unprepared for Khrushchev's bullying. "He beat the hell out of me," Kennedy confided to advisers. The Soviet leader reported to his Politburo that the American president was weak. Two months later, the Berlin Wall was erected and stood for 28 years.

Reporters may now give Mr. Obama's many gaffes more notice. But don't count on them correcting an implicit bias in writing about such faux pas.

Over the years, reporters have tagged a long list of conservative public figures, from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, as dim and uninformed. The reputation of some of these men has improved over time. But can anyone name a leading liberal figure who has developed a similar media reputation, even though the likes of Al Gore, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have committed substantial gaffes at times? No reporter I've talked to has come up with a solid example.

It's clear some gaffes are considered more newsworthy than others. But it would behoove the media to check their premises when deciding just how much attention to pay to them. The best guideline might be: Show some restraint and judgment, but report them all.

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121210923476431299.html


I found this article interesting, it basically list all the times when obama has screwed when talking about stuff and how some of them has been ignored by the media, i know he had mispoken a few times before but some of the gaffes on the article are new to me like the chavez thing. I find all of this relevant because the Republicans will probably try to use the gaffes to paint obama as flip-flopper like they did with kerry in 2004 and i am kinda worried about that.

 

[ZealousD]

I find all of this relevant because the Republicans will probably try to use the gaffes to paint obama as flip-flopper like they did with kerry in 2004 and i am kinda worried about that.

If they want to play the flip flopper card, let them. I guess you might say that McCain is far more consistent in his flip flopping than Obama is. Playing that card will only come to bite them in the ass.