See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: HOW HILLARY CAN STILL WIN IT
Source:
NewsWithViews.com
URL Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff224.htm
Published: May 18, 2008
Author: By Cliff Kincaid
Post Date: 2008-05-18 01:02:19 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: Hillary Clinton, Obama, Ron Paul
Views: 868
Comments: 64
HOW HILLARY CAN STILL WIN IT By Cliff Kincaid May 17, 2008 As Hillary Clinton won a huge victory in West Virginia last Tuesday, the political pundits began to change their tune. Ever since the previous week’s primary returns, in which Hillary lost big to Barack Obama in North Carolina, and barely squeaked by with a win in Indiana, the assumption was that the race was over, and it was just a matter of how she would make her exit. Perhaps she would wait till she could go out on a winning note in West Virginia, suggested NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Or maybe she would finish out the primaries on June 3, and bow out at that point, for the good of the party, when enough Superdelegates chose Obama to put him over the top. But it now seems clear that Senator Clinton intends to be in it to the end, and that she has a strategy to take the Democratic presidential nomination away from Obama. This will make for exciting media coverage. “We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it,” said Tim Russert on MSNBC the night of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries. “Those closest to her will give her a hardheaded analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say: ‘What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared Superdelegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that.” Time magazine declared Obama the nominee with a cover story that said, “And the nominee is…” with a picture of Obama. On “The Early Show” on CBS, Bob Schieffer said, “Basically…this race is over.” On ABC, George Stephanopoulos said, “This nomination fight is over.” And Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel said that “I think the Clinton people know the game is almost up.” Andrea Mitchell is reporting even today, that “for the first time now, her [Hillary] people, her closest aides, are saying, ‘she knows the reality, we know the reality.’ They’re acknowledging that she’s not going to win this? that she is really just going through the motions. And that’s a big change.” But there is little indication that Hillary has accepted this notion. Comedy of Errors In a column last summer I took Russert to task for stating with certainty that we would know on Super Tuesday who the nominees were going to be. There he goes again. The pundits have been wrong before and they will probably be wrong again. Indeed, they are singing a different tune this week. Terry McAuliffe challenged Russert on Meet the Press last Sunday, asking, “Did it become an avalanche after Tuesday, when you and others were all on the air saying it was over?” Russert got defensive and said that he was only quoting others. “The Clinton campaign says it’s the media. What we did,” said Russert, “is add up the delegates, call Clinton supporters and say, ‘Is the math there?’ Clinton supporters said ‘No.’” But what it would take for Obama to get “over the top” was in flux. It has been, and the networks’ graphic still says, that the total needed is 2025 delegates. But over the last couple of weeks, Hillary’s team has abandoned that number. The new number is 2209, or 2210, which is one more than half the delegates, if Florida and Michigan get to seat all of their delegates. This is supposed to be decided at a May 31 Rules committee meeting, but up to now, Howard Dean has been too weak of a party chairman to be able to engineer a compromise that would satisfy both Obama and Clinton. Another Russert Error On Tuesday night, during the coverage of the West Virginia primary, Russert said that “48 hours ago on Meet the Press, Terry McAuliffe said he was willing to seat half of the delegations of Michigan and Florida.” But in fact, McAuliffe didn’t say that. When Russert asked him on Meet the Press if he would accept that compromise, McAuliffe said, “We certainly might, you bet. But in fairness, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet on, on the 31st to make that decision.” When pressed on the issue again by Russert, he again deferred to the Rules and Bylaws Committee and said, “it’s up to them to make that decision.” That is a distinction with a significant difference. Advertisement The problem for the Democrats and the media stars that love them is that Hillary has emerged as the stronger candidate with wider appeal, but only after the media had abandoned her for the “Rock Star” Obama. It is now apparent that Obama has serious weaknesses on policy matters, like the reason for and effect of raising capital gains taxes, and his willingness to meet unconditionally at the presidential level with some of the world’s worst tyrants. Just as important, perhaps, are his links to and handling of the situations with his controversial former minister Jeremiah Wright and the unrepentant terrorist and former Weatherman William Ayers. These have hurt him in immeasurable ways. The exit polls in West Virginia showed that 50% of the voters believe that Obama shares Jeremiah Wright’s views to some degree, and nearly half of those who voted for Hillary said that if Obama is their party’s nominee, they won’t vote for him. His radical ties are showing, and his efforts to distance himself without seeming to repudiate his past have been unconvincing. In this 12-round heavyweight championship fight, Hillary spotted these cuts over Obama’s eye and has been pounding away. The problem for Hillary is that in a 12-round fight, to extend the metaphor, if one party wins the first seven or eight rounds, the other party needs a knockout punch to win. In determining the winner, the early rounds count equally to the late rounds. At one point, immediately after Super Tuesday on February 5, Obama won 10 straight primaries and caucuses, by an average of about 30 points each. Those count too. Plus, Hillary, while becoming a better candidate, has continued to make mistakes. Earlier it was her lie, or as Larry King called it, a “mistruth,” about running to avoid sniper fire in Bosnia. More recently, she has been brutally criticized for her comment to USA Today, in which she cited an Associated Press story that referred to an exit poll that “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.” Clinton had a valid point, but she was politically incorrect to refer to “white” voters. Bob Herbert, the black columnist for the New York Times said that those comments were the equivalent of saying, “He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!” Added Herbert, “The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and Superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.” She’s a Fighter But now, if we are to take her at her word, Hillary appears determined to fight on. She told the crowd in West Virginia Tuesday night that “…I never give up. I'll keep coming back, and I'll stand with you as long as you stand with me.” Money isn’t a problem for the Clintons, other than the appearance of weakness for having to dip into their personal hundred-million-dollar kitty. There is no Federal Election Commission watching because the two parties are fighting over who will be seated to fill the vacancies. The Clintons also have potential access to funds from other accounts, although dipping into them could pose legal problems. Millions of dollars have been raised by Bill Clinton for the Clinton Library and the Clinton Global Initiative. Using money from questionable sources is not new for the Clintons. During the 1996 election cycle, Bill Clinton and the Democratic National Committee took at least $3 million from sources linked to China, and claimed to have paid it back after getting caught. Even NBC’s Andrea Mitchell questioned the Clintons’ trustworthiness on money matters, saying on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that “We don’t know and won’t know whether their claims of having enough money [to continue on with the campaign] are accurate and truthful.” Regardless of what happens with Michigan and Florida, and even if Superdelegates appear on paper to give Obama the number of delegates he needs to win, Hillary still probably won’t get out. For one thing, as Politico has reported, there is little agreement among the various news agencies exactly how many Superdelegates are committed to whom, and how many remain uncommitted. They point to the argument that counting Superdelegates is an art, not a science. Hillary could go to the convention in Denver the last week of August, where the delegates actually vote, and count on their ultimate support. If she can somehow get enough delegates to switch to her side, or hold back support from Obama, she might make it through the first ballot without Obama securing the nomination. Then all delegates are free, and this is where the Clintons may see their opening and chance for victory. While it seems that the Clintons have lost their magic and the fear and respect they used to have in the party, they just might be able to succeed. It would certainly come at the expense of any sort of party unity. But does anyone really believe that if Obama gets the nomination, Hillary will want him to win? If she loses, the party might be so split that it can’t possibly win the White House. The Clintons say the process has been good for the Democrats because of all the voters registered, and all the enthusiasm generated. But is that true or just a rationalization for Hillary to stay in the race? High Ratings Despite getting the facts wrong and making unfounded predictions, the media love the ongoing campaign. The liberal media hate seeing the Democrats fighting, but they love the high ratings and constant coverage they are able to provide, as they hope to influence voters. On the night of the West Virginia vote, Chris Matthews told Terry McAuliffe, who earlier in the day had called Matthews the unofficial chairman of the Obama campaign, that he, as a reporter and political junkie, wants more than anything to see this race go down to midnight on the last night of the Denver convention. Yet, Matthews had said that morning, “I think most people…understand that the fight is over for the nomination.” The media preference for either Democrat over McCain is unmistakable, although McCain has traditionally been a favorite of the liberal media because of his liberal stands on such issues as campaign finance reform, immigration, and global warming. For example, Dan Abrams, in his prime time show on MSNBC on Thursday night, practically begged the Democrats to have a ticket with Obama at the top, and Hillary as his vice president. “My fear is that the Obama supporters simply hate Hillary Clinton so much that she’s simply got no shot [of becoming his running mate].” This is the main fear that the liberal media have about the race. Hillary was the liberal media’s early favorite when she was the presumed nominee. But as Obama gained strength, and the Clintons began using race and his links to the far-left to try to stop his momentum, his popularity grew in the media. Chris Matthews talked about how after being in the presence of an Obama speech, he “felt this thrill going up my leg,” and he compared Obama’s message to the New Testament. This is what passes for journalism these days. The rock star treatment was obvious for all to see. There is hardly a pretense of objectivity by any of the networks. The Obama Chorus In a column in Politico titled, “Obama’s Secret Weapon, The Media,” Jim VandeHei and John Harris argued that “Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.” So will Hillary bow out soon, and gracefully, as Andrea Mitchell is reporting? Not likely. She has been dropping clues along the way. Back in February, she made it clear that she looks at the letter rather than the spirit of the pledged delegate rules, which is that even they don’t have to vote on the first or any ballot for whom their state’s primary or caucus sent them to Denver to vote for. So until the delegates have a chance to actually vote, they are just stating a temporary preference. That is how the Clintons are looking at this process. The Democrats are reeling because they don’t know how this drama will play out. Their allies in the media, while the Democrats are getting way more coverage than the Republicans, continue attempting to prepare the country for attacks on the nominee, whoever it is, by the Republican Party and conservative groups. An ABC article pointed out after last month’s Pennsylvania primary, two-thirds of Democratic voters felt that Hillary had attacked Obama unfairly, and 50% said Obama had unfairly attacked her. This shouldn’t deter Republicans from going after either of them this fall. There is a lot of drama left, and with the Democrats so badly divided, it is possible that McCain could win a big victory in November. That depends on him attracting the votes of disaffected Democrats, and McCain appears to be courting the left, especially with his support for global warming treaties and legislation. In his recent speech on the need for conservative judges, he defended his vote for Clinton’s nomination of ACLU general counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. The Republican Party is also in turmoil but it hasn’t gotten as much coverage as the problems in the Democratic Party. About a quarter of Republicans in recent primaries have refused to vote for McCain, and Rep. Ron Paul, the most popular Republican presidential candidate on the college campuses, says he won’t endorse the Arizona senator for president. While Ralph Nader is threatening to siphon votes away from the Democratic nominee, third party candidates such as Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr, the likely candidate of the Libertarian Party, could take some conservative votes away from McCain. There is a lot of suspense and excitement on both sides as the media prepare for the campaign ahead. © 2008 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: FOH (#0)
"But what it would take for Obama to get “over the top” was in flux. It has been, and the networks’ graphic still says, that the total needed is 2025 delegates. But over the last couple of weeks, Hillary’s team has abandoned that number. The new number is 2209, or 2210, which is one more than half the delegates, if Florida and Michigan get to seat all of their delegates. This is supposed to be decided at a May 31 Rules committee meeting, but up to now, Howard Dean has been too weak of a party chairman to be able to engineer a compromise that would satisfy both Obama and Clinton."
"The Republican Party is also in turmoil but it hasn’t gotten as much coverage as the problems in the Democratic Party. About a quarter of Republicans in recent primaries have refused to vote for McCain, and Rep. Ron Paul, the most popular Republican presidential candidate on the college campuses, says he won’t endorse the Arizona senator for president. While Ralph Nader is threatening to siphon votes away from the Democratic nominee, third party candidates such as Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr, the likely candidate of the Libertarian Party, could take some conservative votes away from McCain."
"Conservatives" dreaming of a Hillary miracle win. Now I've seen everything. The Clintons are toast (thanks to Obama). Get used it it.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
The CFR appears to be consolidating their Party's (D-R) power into one final dominant brand. A NAU-NWO-Communist brand. The only and last chance the practically dead Republic has (think Amnesty, permanent Communist overt control) is for thousands of these traitors to disappear from the scene, including McHitlObama...and soon. Even the mere pretense of 'free and fair' elections is no longer just an illusion...all the fellow travelers are out in the open now. Look at 4um FCOL !
For YOU of all people on this or any forum you've pretended to be an America-firster on...takes a lot of gall...you've got that going for you anyway. Traitor.
"third party candidates such as Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr, the likely candidate of the Libertarian Party, could take some conservative votes away from McCain."
We need to reject the Establishment and their tools by showing up in droves to register our anger by voting against them. Not write ins for candidates who aren't running, but real America-first American candidates like Baldwin and to a lesser extent Barr imo...
It ain't over until its over. This one is going to the Convention Floor. We'll know then who the winner is. Any guess from now to then is just that - a guess.
McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.
Right-O! Hitlery emerges as the queen - and I still think that is likely how it will play out. McCain cannot hold the conservative vote, and certainly has already lost the Patriot vote, so Hitlery wins the general (s)Election.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
The 2000 Bilderberg meeting chose Hillary as winner of the 2008 election. The "New World Order" plan is right on schedule.
Like I said, if all Obama does is crush Clinton and McCain on his way to the White House - and, YES, HE WILL - then he's done enough to make me happy. Everything else would be extras. Meanwhile, the GOPs seem to be the party (of freaks) looking for something to pretend they are standing for and Newt, the perv responsible for starting the race to the bottom with the Demos, is playing elderly statesman to his wrinkled dick.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
That's how I see it too. Unfortunately, it seems that some here would rather see Bush-Clintonism continue in power unabated, than see it vanquished by a (gulp) black man.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
Complete and total bull$#it. There are indeed blacks I would vote for but Obama isn't one of them. And if you don't think he will carry on the same policies that Bush and Clinton did you might ought to put the crack pipe down. He will take his orders and do what he is told, just like they have. He is a member of the establishment, how much clearer could it be made? His stance on the second amendment ALONE disqualifies this traitor. Barack Obama on Gun Control Democratic Jr Senator (IL) Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men? A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now. Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew (sic) need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair. Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions * Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would: * Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime Source: Barack Obama on Gun Control
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Cliff Kincaid is singing like the "Mockingbird" he is. The CIA front group, Accuracy in Media, is where I first noticed him shilling for the Shadow Government.
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Ahh... there's so much to talk about and have fun with in this little paragraph alone. Let's see... Obama is not the right Negro? Why don't I think of Uncle Tom when I read this? Or, it's like the freaking Neocons, screaming about spreading democracy but, of course, never when the people democratically elect Israel's enemies. You wrote: "if you don't think he will carry on the same policies that Bush and Clinton did you might ought to put the crack pipe down.". Since you wrote that, I assume that you KNOW that Obama will carry on the same policies that Bush and Clinton did. Which begs the question: what are YOU smoking? Statistically speaking, given that there millions of way in which Obama's policies would be different than those of Bush and Clinton and only one way in which they would be the same, it is CERTAIN that his behavior would be different from Bush's or Clinton's because... he is not 'them'. Then you are desperate and fearful because Obama would take away our guns and run with them. LIKE BILL CLINTON DID? I am asking because Clinton's administration was openly and overtly anti-gun. Anyway, you are quoting Obama stating that it would be good if the existing laws were enforced. I can see how this may sound unusual to someone who lived through Bush-Clinton-Bush but... that's the way it's supposed to be. Don't you agree? And, finally, you are so into Obamaphobia, you seem to be unable to see that the only alternative to Obama at this time is McCain. The choice is clear to me. Apparently, you prefer McCain because, you state, McCain and Obama are 'the same' except for Obama being darker?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Why do you have a need to slap the race card down early and often? Obama is a socialist and whoever he beats isn't going away. Did the Rs vanish while they were in congressional exile for the 40 years prior to the '94 Republican revolution? On the flip side, did the Ds go away when they were vanquished in '94. Your political insight, to the degree you had any, disappeared with your infatuation with Obama.
it's Obama's radical politics and past associations with promoters of same, not his color. we have all posted many times that if it were Shelby Steele, for example, assuming that he is not a NWO'er, that he would have our vote.
{{{clapping}}}
No, he is not and he wouldn't be if he were white either. And the rest of your post is just so much bs--I despise ALL the establishment whores running (Clinton, McCain, and yes, even the one you grovel over, Obama). So don't try to hang that "McCain supporter" on my neck unless you want me to believe you are retarded.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Thank you kindly ma'am.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. James, the dirty trick these anti-gun Marxists use is a failure to identify how many of these 34 "public school students" were gang members. By omitting that data the sheeple are - intentionally - left with the thought that these kids were all A-students, busy doing what college bound kids do, when they were senselessly gunned down. As you say, bulls**t. Here's an example of HS kids, living the multiculturists dream here
{{{clapping}}} You DO see that his argument is that there's no difference between Obama and McCain and, therefore, he opposes Obama. While I repeatedly stated that only the intellectually lazy and unimaginative would keep repeating that, I can't help but noting that, if the only difference between the Demo and the GOP is 'race' and he passionately opposes the Demo, then it's got to be the Demo's race that bothers him. This may explain why some are accusing the Obamaphobes of 'racism'. I am not one of them because, in my view, everyone is racist and, for as long as racism doesn't become an obsession, there's nothing wrong with it.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Here is a little excerpt from the article you linked to (good article, thanks): Soon we’ll end up with segregated schools. The Latino vs. Armenian violence mentioned is a problem that has been going on since the 90s apparently, with a gang called Armenian Power forming up specifically to protect Armenians from Latino gang violence. A.P. is small but extremely violent and have fought MS-13 on occasion. In ‘05 there was a riot in Grant High School involving Latinos and Armenians... I hope the "Armenian Power" gang beats the crap out of the MS-13 crowd. There probably isn't a much more hateful, scum of the earth gang in the world than MS-13.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Yeah, there is a LITTLE difference between them. One of the establishment clowns is a white traitor* and the other one is a black traitor. But I don't have any white guilt so I can oppose Communist B even though he is black. But I don't support his commie counterparts, Hillary and McCain, so that makes your argument a bit weak. *Actually two of them are--Clinton and McCain--but since you were only talking about Obama and McCain that is why I said one of them was a white traitor and the other one a black one. A traitor is a traitor as far as I am concerned and they come in all colors.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You have nothing left but attempts or threats to devolve into personal insults and, therefore, you lost the debate. I discussed your arguments in my post and I derived the logical conclusions. Unless you can refute my conclusions, you lost.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
uh huh. Sure I did. Funny how I "lost" yet I am not the one supporting communists and/or socialists and fascists for president. Yet you "winners" are.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. That cops and citizens allow this band of mutts to remain free to cause havoc on our streets is obscene. I'd have no problem leaving a few dozen of them in unmarked graves. If government chooses to ignore this threat, then safety becomes our responsibility.
I will type this very slowly so you may be able to understand it. I "passionately oppose" ALL THREE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT WHORES AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT COLOR THEY ARE! I don't give a $#it what Obama's race is, wouldn't care if he was green or polka dotted. Race doesn't enter into it for me. If you could just get that through your head there might be some hope for you. But whether you can or not I am not the one supporting traitors for president.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I guarantee you that is one bunch I wouldn't shed any tears over. People who think nothing of beheading someone and then using their heads for soccer balls and who even go so far as to castrate their victims, they don't deserve any sympathy and wouldn't get any from me.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. i'm going to refer you to OI's post to Arator because he expresses my position much more articulately than i can.
This entire mass neurosis which infects many of our so called intelligentsia is likely to be our ruin if we don't discard our fear and stand up for common sense and our culture. I do not know of an historical precedence involving mass guilt and it's accompanying weaknesses that has destroyed a culture in the way we are undermining our own now.
The text you qoted is a fine example of the guilt by association nonsense. Just to take care of Zbig first. His guilt seems to be that he is an anti-Russian Pole and he is not an anti-Arab Zionist. Oh... how easy it is to manipulate us. On the Obama case. First of all, how exactly did the NWO Globalists pushed Obama at the top of his class in college? I am asking, because I just don't know. Then, after he graduate, did Obama receive a visit from a Globalist emissary who instructed him to forgo what could have been a very rewarding career in the big corporate world and go back to his Chicago ghetto instead and try to help some of his fellow ghetto dwellers? Did the globalists single him out from the pool of black politicians to take a state representative job? When the GOP candidate for US Senate in his state turned out to be either corrupt or a pedophile - can't remember which - the GOP wiseguys shipped Keyes in, to match the Demoblack with a GOPblack. The GOPs lost. Do you think that the NWO Globalists were on the side of the Demoblack? When Obama became on of the dozen apparent also runs, providing Hillary some cordial 'opposition', Hillary was the clear establishment choice. Are you saying that the NWO Globalists decided to take down Hillary - because Billy did not serve him well enough? I don't think so. And, how exactly did the NWO Globalists persuade a million or 2 million people give Obama a dew dollars each? I'm asking because it seems that it's the fat cats financing Hillary and McCain - remember how the Hollywood Jews threatened to stop financing the Demos if they don't help their favorite girl Hillary beat Obama? These being said, I do suspect that Obama is not going to be channeling Ronald Reagan or George Washington. But he's not going to be Lincoln or Wilson or FDR either. He may not bring all of our troops back home in 4 years but there will probably be fewer if any bombs dropped on defenseless people abroad while he is president. It is unlikely that he would allow a Waco 2 or that there will be an expansion of NAFTA/CAFTA. He may not deport all the illegal aliens but it's likely that he will make it more difficult for employers to bring in more. The 'health care' thing, which seems to be a national obsession since 1980... it's hard to change it. Clinton tried and couldn't do it. Same thing about 'gun rights'. The kind of weapons that are currently 'allowed' are irrelevant when it comes to the individual confronting the agents of the state. People will continue to be able to carry small arms and it's probably the course that will decide to what extent their ability to self-defend may expand or shrink. It is strange and bizarre to me that some did not see anything wrong with Ron Paul running for the GOP nomination - never expressing fears that Ron Paul, once elected, would be controlled by the GOP/Globalist machine. I found RP's association with the GOP to be VERY problematic and we can see now that I was right. Obama is clearly a Demo. We kind of know what he stands for and we can see what McCain stands for. There is a much wider gap between Obama and McCain today than there was between Gore and W in 2000 or even between Kerry and W in 2004. Obama has some positives while McCain has zero positives and a lot of HUGE negatives. As for those who decided to 'oppose them all', that's fine with me too but I am wondering how are they going to enact their opposition. If they decide to stay out of the election game whose outcome is going to be either McCain or Obama in the White House, how are they going to oppose the 2 or the 3?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
This would be a topic worth discussing. I am not saying that everyone does it but, it's quite apparent that the US has enjoyed a very privileged status in the world since WW2 or maybe since the gold standard was abandoned. 'We' have been able to simply print money while the rest of the world had to work hard to earn some of the paper coming out of the printing presses. I can see how now, that the Ponzi scheme is collapsing, there is a lot of guilt, fear, hatred and disorientation. I agree with some posters at this site who noted that 'we' would gladly massacre a million defenseless people abroad if that would help improve or maintain our standard of living. There's a lot of subconscious guilt that comes with this outlook on life. Do you want to see how much this is deserved? Try to discuss, let's say 'Hiroshima' in terms of it being a cowardly, unnecessary, cruel, murderous undertaking and you will see just about everyone jumping and howling to defend it or explain it. As far as our 'culture' being destroyed... I'm totally with Spengler on that one. Sorry, but we don't have any and the little 'civilization' that we used to have is constantly diminishing. Bush is barking at some 'forum' in Egypt (C-Span) as I write this. 'Turkey', he barked.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems we are killing millions of innocent people *and* our collective standard of living is going *down* rather than up. Os and Is would agree with that, it's the solutions we seek that has caused this spat. We both agree that global capitalism is criminal, empire must be stopped and that the Elitists are our common enemy. How to change course is the dilemma. We reject promises and socialism, for a return to an America First. We have no viable horse in this race, so we can only point out the similarities in all three frauds.
I wish I was more familiar with the works of Tarpley but... how did Zbig make one or 2 million people to give Obama money?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
No mention of John Edwards or his endorsement in this article.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
It must not be important???
Well, if their spokespeople, like Limbaugh and Cliff Kincaid, want it.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Christine has now posted an article saying Obama is not black enough. I guess he can't win.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Comments (42 - 64) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: ALL (#0)
#3. To: Original_Intent (#0)
#4. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
(Edited)
#5. To: TwentyTwelve (#1)
(Edited)
#6. To: Arator (#4)
(Edited)
"Conservatives" dreaming of a Hillary miracle win. Now I've seen everything.
#7. To: FOH (#5)
#8. To: TwentyTwelve (#7)
"third party candidates such as Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr, the likely candidate of the Libertarian Party, could take some conservative votes away from McCain."
#9. To: Arator (#4)
The Clintons are toast (thanks to Obama). Get used it it.
#10. To: TwentyTwelve (#3)
#11. To: Original_Intent (#10)
Right-O! Hitlery emerges as the queen - and I still think that is likely how it will play out.
#12. To: Arator (#4)
(Edited)
The Clintons are toast (thanks to Obama). Get used it it
#13. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Jethro Tull, christine, FOH, RickyJ (#12)
(Edited)
Like I said, if all Obama does is crush Clinton and McCain on his way to the White House - and, YES, HE WILL - then he's done enough to make me happy. Everything else would be extras.
#14. To: Arator, a vast rightwing conspirator, Jethro Tull, christine, FOH, RickyJ (#13)
That's how I see it too. Unfortunately, it seems that some here would rather see Bush-Clintonism continue in power unabated, than see it vanquished by a (gulp) black man.
Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
* Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
* Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
* Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
* Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Lord Acton
#15. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
#16. To: James Deffenbach (#14)
(Edited)
Complete and total bull$#it. There are indeed blacks I would vote for but Obama isn't one of them. And if you don't think he will carry on the same policies that Bush and Clinton did you might ought to put the crack pipe down.
#17. To: Arator (#13)
That's how I see it too. Unfortunately, it seems that some here would rather see Bush-Clintonism continue in power unabated, than see it vanquished by a (gulp) black man.
#18. To: Arator (#13)
#19. To: James Deffenbach (#14)
Complete and total bull$#it. There are indeed blacks I would vote for but Obama isn't one of them. And if you don't think he will carry on the same policies that Bush and Clinton did you might ought to put the crack pipe down. He will take his orders and do what he is told, just like they have. He is a member of the establishment, how much clearer could it be made? His stance on the second amendment ALONE disqualifies this traitor.
#20. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#16)
Let's see... Obama is not the right Negro?
Lord Acton
#21. To: christine (#19)
{{{clapping}}}
Lord Acton
#22. To: James Deffenbach (#14)
But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed - Barry Obama
#23. To: christine (#19)
Complete and total bull$#it. There are indeed blacks I would vote for but Obama isn't one of them. And if you don't think he will carry on the same policies that Bush and Clinton did you might ought to put the crack pipe down
#24. To: Jethro Tull (#22)
Lord Acton
#25. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, christine (#23)
(Edited)
You DO see that his argument is that there's no difference between Obama and McCain and, therefore, he opposes Obama.
Lord Acton
#26. To: James Deffenbach (#20)
So don't try to hang that "McCain supporter" on my neck unless you want me to believe you are retarded.
#27. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#26)
Lord Acton
#28. To: James Deffenbach (#24)
There probably isn't a much more hateful, scum of the earth gang in the world than MS-13.
#29. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#23)
While I repeatedly stated that only the intellectually lazy and unimaginative would keep repeating that, I can't help but noting that, if the only difference between the Demo and the GOP is 'race' and he passionately opposes the Demo, then it's got to be the Demo's race that bothers him...
Lord Acton
#30. To: Jethro Tull (#28)
That cops and citizens allow this band of mutts to remain free to cause havoc on our streets is obscene. I'd have no problem leaving a few dozen of them in unmarked graves. If government chooses to ignore this threat, then safety becomes our responsibility.
Lord Acton
#31. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Original_Intent, Arator (#23)
#32. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#26)
You have nothing left but attempts or threats to devolve into personal insults and, therefore, you lost the debate
#33. To: christine (#31)
#34. To: Jethro Tull (#32)
(Edited)
I do not know of an historical precedence involving mass guilt and it's accompanying weaknesses that has destroyed a culture in the way we are undermining our own now.
#35. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#33)
#36. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#34)
I agree with some posters at this site who noted that 'we' would gladly massacre a million defenseless people abroad if that would help improve or maintain our standard of living.
#37. To: christine (#35)
#38. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
#39. To: aristeides (#38)
No mention of John Edwards or his endorsement in this article.
#40. To: Arator (#4)
"Conservatives" dreaming of a Hillary miracle win. Now I've seen everything.
#41. To: Arator, christine (#13)
than see it vanquished by a (gulp) black man
.
.
.