[besson3c]

I think this will probably help Obama.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think this will probably help Obama.

Assuming he doesn't endorse Hillary that is.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think this will probably help Obama.

I dunno about that, I don't see how it clearly helps either. But Clinton has got the advantage right now, so I suppose anything that changes the dynamics is a good thing for Obama.

[BadKosh]

Edwards can still be seen running in back of ambulances all over the south east.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I dunno about that, I don't see how it clearly helps either. But Clinton has got the advantage right now, so I suppose anything that changes the dynamics is a good thing for Obama.

What makes you say that Clinton has the advantage right now? It's very inconclusive to me.

The reason why I think that it will help Obama (aside from the fact that some pundits are speculating the same) is that Edwards campaigned as a big changer, just like Obama is doing. In most debates he was challenging and attacking Hillary more than he did Obama.

"The conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama will pick up maybe 60 percent of them, and in some places, that makes a huge difference," former presidential adviser David Gergen said.

Time magazine journalist Joe Klein said, "I don't think he endorses Hillary Clinton. The question is whether or not he endorses Barack Obama."

Klein contends that Clinton "represents a lot of the things that [Edwards] campaigned against, you know, the old Washington Democratic establishment that he believes got too close to the corporations in the '90s."

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What makes you say that Clinton has the advantage right now? It's very inconclusive to me.

She has a huge advantage, almost insurmountable unless things really dramatically change. She is ahead in almost all of the big Feb. 5 states by double digits. The polls for the primary season haven't been too accurate, to be sure, but all the existing evidence suggests she's leading by a very large amount.

[chris v]

Arrgghh.

[Big Mac]

I am glad. I was getting mighty tired of hearing that lazy southern drawl from the ivory tower socialist. Now we just have to listen to the shrill one until she goes down to defeat.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

She has a huge advantage, almost insurmountable unless things really dramatically change. She is ahead in almost all of the big Feb. 5 states by double digits. The polls for the primary season haven't been too accurate, to be sure, but all the existing evidence suggests she's leading by a very large amount.

Where are you getting this polling data?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where are you getting this polling data?

Here for example.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Here for example.

Cool... I didn't know about that site.


We'll have to see I guess... The polls were very off in NH, and also worth remembering is that the delegate count is more important than the popular vote. It could still go either way.

[MacosNerd]

Not a surprise given his anemic results.

He's playing a little close to the vest in not throwing what support he does have behind Clinton or Obama. From what I heard today on CNN while at the gym, He could support either candidate. People are saying he could easily support clinton but it makes more sense to support Obama since they both have a message of change.

I think in the short run, it will give more voters to Obama regardless of who he officially supports. I think for the democrat side its really too close to call on who could come out on top next tuesday. Regardless of him dropping out.

With McCain winning Florida, it positions him nicely to make a successful run Tuesday, especially if Rudy does throw his support behind him.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm very certain we'll be looking at a Romney/Clinton choice in the november general election.

If you look at the primary delegates, it's going to be difficult for Romney to lose - and impossible for Clinton to lose.

[Macrobat]

Don't fool yourselves, he'll endorse, and bring his 56 delegates to whichever campaign offers him the highest slot in their potential administration.

[spindler]

What a weasel. He campaigns for "change" and then won't even endorse Obama over Hillary. Not saying Obama is perfect, but he has got to be better than Hillary in terms of doing things differently and having a leader both sides can like at least somewhat.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I'm very certain we'll be looking at a Romney/Clinton choice in the november general election.

If you look at the primary delegates, it's going to be difficult for Romney to lose - and impossible for Clinton to lose.

Weren't you the guy that was saying that Newt Gingrich would be our next president?

Just teasing with you (but I'm pretty sure you did say this

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I'm very certain we'll be looking at a Romney/Clinton choice in the november general election.

How do you figure Romney? It looks pretty clear that McCain has got a huge advantage over Romney.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

How do you figure Romney? It looks pretty clear that McCain has got a huge advantage over Romney.

You need to break each state down by delegates - not by how many people say they will vote for each candidate. Remember, some states are "winner take all" - their delegates do not get divided. while it may appear that McCain is leading by sheer number of votes - that really doesn't mean anything. The 'popular vote' means very little.

Also, keep in mind that NONE of the more conservative states have even voted/caucused yet. Of course McCain looks good right now - he's the most liberal Republican and only liberal states have voted so far.

PS, besson3c; I'm sure you were surprised when you heard Newt was thinking about running. Everyone thought I was stupid when I said Newt would be running - back in 2006, or whenever I said it.

He could have won. But he didn't even enter the contest. So, I could have been right.

[Shaddim]

You think McCain is more liberal than Giuliani?

[Big Mac]

I'd say so, yeah, although not by much considering Giuliani's endorsement.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You think McCain is more liberal than Giuliani?

He's a bit more liberal than McCain - the liberals despise Guiliani, though. The whole 9/11 thing and the fact that he mentions it all the time. Liberals do not like to be reminded of terrorists or war.

[besson3c]

It's not that we don't like to be reminded, it's that it isn't necessary... I wear a string around my finger to always remember 9/11. Every time I forget, I look down and see the string on my finger and say "oh yeah... 9/11". So, when Guliani goes on about 9/11 I just say to myself "tell me something I don't know, jackass!"

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by spindler 

What a weasel. He campaigns for "change" and then won't even endorse Obama over Hillary. Not saying Obama is perfect, but he has got to be better than Hillary in terms of doing things differently and having a leader both sides can like at least somewhat.

I keep hearing this. The only "change" with Obama over Hillary is that he'll cut and run from Iraq faster.

There is no substance there, just empty platitudes and rhetoric. No real policy proposals other than "change."

He's been compared to JFK, does that mean that he - too - will be over-rated, bring us to the brink of nuclear war and start the next Vietnam?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's not that we don't like to be reminded, it's that it isn't necessary... I wear a string around my finger to always remember 9/11. Every time I forget, I look down and see the string on my finger and say "oh yeah... 9/11". So, when Guliani goes on about 9/11 I just say to myself "tell me something I don't know, jackass!"

Honest question: Is McCain's frequent referencing of the fight against Islamist terrorists annoying to you as well?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's not that we don't like to be reminded, it's that it isn't necessary... I wear a string around my finger to always remember 9/11. Every time I forget, I look down and see the string on my finger and say "oh yeah... 9/11". So, when Guliani goes on about 9/11 I just say to myself "tell me something I don't know, jackass!"

Oh, I don't know about all that. Alot of the electorate seems to have forgotten just that - they have reverted to 9/10 thinking.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Honest question: Is McCain's frequent referencing of the fight against Islamist terrorists annoying to you as well?

Not annoying, but manipulative and over-the-top, yes...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

If you look at the primary delegates, it's going to be difficult for Romney to lose - and impossible for Clinton to lose.

I had to swallow my puke after reading this.

But then I remembered the Democratic nomination is proportional, so I'd still say it's open on that side.

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

There is no substance there, just empty platitudes and rhetoric. No real policy proposals other than "change."

That's a very uninformed statement. None of the candidates have much substance if you only watch the soundbites on TV. Here's 49 minutes of substance:
Obama Interview with Reno Gazette Journal

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Arty50 

That's a very uninformed statement. None of the candidates have much substance if you only watch the soundbites on TV. Here's 49 minutes of substance:
Obama Interview with Reno Gazette Journal

More like 49 minutes of the same old same old. No substance, not even a nice try.

[besson3c]

Comon Macrobat, give us more than that... Elaborate please.

Fitting that a claim about lacking substance is lacking substance.

[Macrobat]

How does one elaborate on vacuousness?

Until he gives us something to elaborate ON, in other words, something that ressembles specific policy and not just "hope" and "change."

So far, all he's done is prove he's a complete military dipshit by saying he would immedately leave Iraq, reinforce Afghanistan, then invade Pakistan (our ally).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

How does one elaborate on vacuousness?

Until he gives us something to elaborate ON, in other words, something that ressembles specific policy and not just "hope" and "change."

Have you watched any of the debates? Have you watched the video that was passed on above? What have you been paying attention to?

So far, all he's done is prove he's a complete military dipshit by saying he would immedately leave Iraq, reinforce Afghanistan, then invade Pakistan (our ally).

The quote about him invading Pakistan was badly distorted, and since it has been successfully refuted, like many of the other charges against him have been dropped (Madrassa, etc.)

It's okay to dislike him, but to claim that he hasn't said anything substantive while all of your own arguments to support this are extremely flimsy and themselves lacking substance is rather hypocritical, no?

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have you watched the video that was passed on above?

Obviously not.

[Macrobat]

Same question - both of you:

YouTube - Name one accomplishment by Obama

It's a cult of personality, plain and simple.

And no, Besson3, his having stated IN HIS OWN WORDS that he would invade Pakistan was NOT "badly distorted." I think the phrase you're looking for is "successfully spun,' but it's not true for the thinking half of the country - we all know what we heard.

[besson3c]

He provided many qualifications for when/if he would invade Pakistan which you are leaving out, because I've heard him say this myself...


You could ask the general public about the accomplishments of *any* candidate and they would come up short just the same. People don't keep track of voting records, or of personal histories of candidates outside of the government - especially those that don't live in Illinois. Could somebody who didn't live in Texas tell you a single thing about Bush's accomplishments prior to his being elected?

[Macrobat]

"Qualifications" about invading an ALLY.

Nice try but - lmao. You heard him ATTEMPT to spin what his big, unexperienced, naive mouth got him into.

Here's a hint: If someone has to "qualify" the statement, it's probably NOT a good one to make in the first place. ESPECIALLY in the international (and therefore presidential) arena.

And NO, most decidedly, ALL the other candidates HAVE actual accomplishments, unlike yours.

And yes, Bush had accomplishments prior to his national election that were actually BROUGHT OUT in the primary and general election cycles - UNLIKE OBAMA.

There is NOTHING there for his camp to espound upon - which is PRECISELY the point.

Unless you count voting "present" a helluva lot.

[besson3c]

Qualifications about under conditions he would invade Pakistan. Stop looking for ways to distort this and go and read the entire pretext if you want to continue this conversation. For the record, I think it's unfair to quote McCain as saying that we'll be in Iraq for another 100 years without taking into account the context in which this was said as well.

If you *really* want to know Barack Obama's accomplishments, there are plenty listed here:

Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have a feeling you are just trying to win an argument though. If that is your intent, please go ask a bunch of people what the accomplishments of Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee are - I guarantee that you will get the same empty responses. Like I said, people don't keep track of this stuff because this is not a part of the information they are spoonfed from the media.

[Macrobat]

Feel what you want - he has NOTHING to recommend him for the presidency except a cult of personality.

So his "accomplishments" are that he travelledalot and co-sponsored ONE bill while in the Congress? (from your link)

OH!!!! And he delivered the keynote address at the last Dem convention!

He has SPONSORED legislation - NONE of which was made into law.

And he is capable of parroting ALL the democrat talking points War - check, Healthcare - check, Unemployment - check.

Oh HELL!!! Let's elect him tomorrow!

And no - you won't their records are out there and well-known. Simply because they HAVE records to BE out there.

Plain fact of the matter: Obama is underqualified and a babe in the political woods.

[besson3c]

Also, do not take what a bunch of people that are probably no smarter than any of us say when put on the spot by Sean Hannity as some sort of representation of anything. Just because this sample of Obama supporters are on TV doesn't make them experts on anything.

[Macrobat]

Well, your OWN Wikipedia link does only marginally better.

Face the facts - he's an empty suit.

On the plus side, it will definitely PROVE the old "elect a ham sandwich" saw if he manages to get the presidency.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Feel what you want - he has NOTHING to recommend him for the presidency except a cult of personality.

So his "accomplishments" are that he travelledalot and co-sponsored ONE bill while in the Congress? (from your link)

OH!!!! And he delivered the keynote address at the last Dem convention!

He has SPONSORED legislation - NONE of which was made into law.

And he is capable of parroting ALL the democrat talking points War - check, Healthcare - check, Unemployment - check.

Oh HELL!!! Let's elect him tomorrow!

And no - you won't their records are out there and well-known. Simply because they HAVE records to BE out there.

Plain fact of the matter: Obama is underqualified and a babe in the political woods.

I suggest reading the Wikipedia article again, you conveniently missed several points.

My interest in continuing this conversation with you is waning pretty quickly though, since it seems like you aren't interested in an actual conversation, but simply about employing whatever rhetoric will work in order to come across as being right. If you cannot demonstrate some objectivity, I'm done.

[Macrobat]

ORLY?
Full quote:

Barack Hussein Obama (pronounced /bəˈɹɑːk huˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/[1]) (born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.[2][3] The U.S. Senate Historical Office lists him as the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history, the third to have been popularly elected, and the only African American currently serving in the Senate.[4]
Obama was born in Honolulu to a Kenyan father and an American mother. His father and late grandfather were followers of the Muslim faith, however, Obama is himself a devout Christian. He lived most of his early life in the U.S. state of Hawaii. From ages six to ten, he lived in Jakarta, Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before running for public office and serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. After an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for U.S. Senate in 2003.
The following year, while still an Illinois state legislator, Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.[5] He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.[6] As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, Obama co-sponsored legislation for controlling conventional weapons and for promoting transparency in public life; in addition, he made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the 110th, and current, Congress, he has sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.
Since announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama has emphasized ending the Iraq War, increasing energy independence, and providing universal health care as major priorities.[7] He married in 1992 and has two daughters. He has written two bestselling books: a memoir of his youth titled Dreams from My Father, and The Audacity of Hope, a personal commentary on U.S. politics.[8]

Now point out what I missed. That's the ENTIRE entry.

I think the lack of objectivity here is on YOUR side, not mine.

[besson3c]

*sigh* I don't know why I'm wasting my time here, but:

A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Obama worked as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before running for public office and serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.

The following year, while still an Illinois state legislator, Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.[5] He was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote.[6] As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, Obama co-sponsored legislation for controlling conventional weapons and for promoting transparency in public life; in addition, he made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In the 110th, and current, Congress, he has sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.

Since announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama has emphasized ending the Iraq War, increasing energy independence, and providing universal health care as major priorities.[7] He married in 1992 and has two daughters. He has written two bestselling books: a memoir of his youth titled Dreams from My Father, and The Audacity of Hope, a personal commentary on U.S. politics.[8]

This is just in the bloody overview section...

7 bills listed here, 2 books written, allusions to stuff he did in Illinois, and as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer.

Did you happen to miss this? Again, this is just the *overview*

[Macrobat]

Books written are NOT political accomplishments - not even a nice try.

7 bills NONE of which made it to law - and I mentioned those.

His upbringing and education are also NOT politicial accomplishments. No one reaches this level without decent educational credentials.

"Allusions to stuff" - I actually spit coffee.

"Community organizer" - so are Boy Scout troop leaders.

University Lecturer - this is NOT an accomplishment. Bozo the Clown has (literally) lectured at Northwestern.

Civil Rights Lawyer - whoopee - what did he accomplish while doing this?

I missed NOTHING, evidently YOU did - nothing here.

You are MAKING my argument for me - thanks.

[besson3c]

Macrobat: if you want to make the argument that Obama's experience is inadequate and not enough, you will have to regroup and make that argument. Clearly the list is not "nothing" though, nor is it simply "one bill".

If you decide to make this argument, please contrast this to some sense of average or baseline for federal experience, and also tell us exactly why this particular experience is important.

Now is a great time to demonstrate the extent of your intellect.

[Macrobat]

Right back at you. You keep posting that Obama has accomplishments of merit, then posting PROOF that he doesn't.

I have no need to regroup, you've made my argument for me quite eloquently.

I expect a background of proven leadership for anyone to be elevated to the rank of the presidency.

Problem is, Obama has less experience than ANYONE ELSE in the race.

The experience he DOES have should suffice to get him elected mayor of a decent sized city, not President of the United States.

Now is the time for you to face the facts - as you have posted them YOURSELF.

[besson3c]

If you decide to make this argument, please contrast this to some sense of average or baseline for federal experience, and also tell us exactly why this particular experience is important.

[Macrobat]

Sorry, I don't HAVE to - you have already PROVEN my premise - he has (at best) minimal experience to recommend him to anyone who isn't gaga over the cult of personality.

I understand you're trying to salvage this, but the argument is made, no need for me to elaborate on anything.

As a baseline, he needs to have actually LED people, either in government, the military or business, and he has done NONE of that - plain, simple, to the point.

The presidency is pretty much the ultimate management job in this country, Obama hasn't even managed so much as a Burger King.

He hasn't even "managed" to get one piece of legislation passed into law at the federal level. That speaks VOLUMES on his lack of "compromise building" as well - you know - diplomacy?

Hell, his one "huge" endorsement was because Teddy was PO'd about Hillary's LBJ comments. In other words, the Dem's "senior statesman" resorted back to middle school.

Clinton's LBJ Comments Infuriated Ted Kennedy - The Sleuth

Mary Jo Kopechne couldn't be reached for comment.

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you decide to make this argument, please contrast this to some sense of average or baseline for federal experience, and also tell us exactly why this particular experience is important.

I'll help

From GovTrack:

"Hillary Clinton has sponsored 352 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 305 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1713 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)."

"Barack Obama has sponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 120 haven't made it out of committee (Poor) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Obama has co-sponsored 535 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Arty50 

I'll help

From GovTrack:

"Hillary Clinton has sponsored 352 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 305 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1713 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)."

"Barack Obama has sponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 120 haven't made it out of committee (Poor) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Obama has co-sponsored 535 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)."

Yeah, this is where these arguments fall apart...

Is experience of value when you are dealing with bills that weren't passed? Why weren't they passed? Was it because of who controlled Congress? Too ambitious? Fatally flawed?

At what point does political experience become a liability? Surely after x number of years as a politician you will make enemies.

What other kinds of experience is valuable? Leading a state? Leading a municipality? Leading a business? Is experience as a governor more valuable than experience as a senator?

There are charges being leveled at Mitt Romney that say that his experience as a CEO does not transfer to being a president. Is there some truth to this?

I think the whole experience angle is overblown. A good leader is a good leader because they articulate a clear vision, communicate effectively, and can execute. I think that Obama is definitely an excellent communicator, and am willing to take the risk that he'll be able to execute as well based on his articulated approach to negotiation and finding middle ground. However, this variable which is very difficult to measure in advance, and I definitely think that simply looking at the number of years a candidate has been involved in federal politics or the number of bills that were sponsored or successfully passed is wrong-headed.

Really, what it comes down to is a personal assessment and taking a chance. There is no other job quite like being president.