bmags Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 07:03 PM) Secondly, Russert didn't make it about him. YOU made it about him because he actually had the stones to not let the candidates give a bs answer to tough questions, and you weren't accustomed to that by the previous moderators. That's for the other candidates, not the moderator. Once again, on Meet The Press, if Russert wants to do his faux outrage to drag out pseudo-controversy, that's his prerogative. Moderators are there to keep the debate moving, bring up topics, and make sure both get the right to speak (or all get the right to speak.) The Farrakhan question was a fine question, but the 40 follow-ups were ridiculous. This isn't the Meet the Press debate, it was The Democratic Primary Debates. Russert needs to ask questions and shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:04 PM) C. I support Barack. Russert busted their chops equally, and it was a nice change of style/pace from previous moderators. Nice retort. I won't even hold that first sentence against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/020...n_February.html Clinton raises $35 million in February More doughnuts for everyone!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:25 PM) http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/020...n_February.html Clinton raises $35 million in February More doughnuts for everyone!!! Is that after repaying the loan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) Is that after repaying the loan? My guess is no. It's $35 million brought in. now, when you factor in they ended January with $7.6 million in debt and the $5 million LOAN... she "only" netted $22.4 million. Seems like a lot, but we dont know how much they spent this month. And factor in Obama had "money in hand" (aka, no massive debt) after January and will probably raise $50 million this month. And MSNBC just said it is unknown if all of this is primary money or if some of it is general election money. Edited February 28, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...d-cash-for.html ABC is reporting it at $25M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 11:32 AM) And MSNBC just said it is unknown if all of this is primary money or if some of it is general election money. A non-trivial chunk is certainly general election money. It's been reported for a couple weeks now that they've been going back to donors to pick up general election money to make their total numbers look better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 And, almost as if out of spite, they're teasing us. I guarantee you this number hits before next Tuesday. Hell they may put it out on Monday. Obama spokesman Bill Burton, anticipating the Clinton campaign's announcement that she has raised roughly $35 million this month, tells me that the Illinois senator has raised "considerably more than that" in the same period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Question: what happens to all of this money if a campaign loses/ drops out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 By "considerably more" I have a feeling it's more than 3 or 4 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:35 PM) Question: what happens to all of this money if a campaign loses/ drops out? I believe they are free to keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Let the speculation begin... Obama said he has "reached out" to Bloomburg since he dropped out. Combine that with their "secret" breakfast meeting back in November. Hmmm... Obama / Bloomburg '08? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:35 PM) Question: what happens to all of this money if a campaign loses/ drops out? They are allowed to keep the money in their "war chest", btu i dont think they can buy a nice new house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) Let the speculation begin... Obama said he has "reached out" to Bloomburg since he dropped out. Combine that with their "secret" breakfast meeting back in November. Hmmm... Obama / Bloomburg '08? I just don't see how that will help Obama in the General Election. Why not someone like Edwards, that may appeal to some of the southern states or red states more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) I just don't see how that will help Obama in the General Election. Why not someone like Edwards, that may appeal to some of the southern states or red states more? Edwards didn't help Kerry at all last time. I think Obama benefits most from a VP with a strong economics or foreign policy background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) I just don't see how that will help Obama in the General Election. Why not someone like Edwards, that may appeal to some of the southern states or red states more? Edwards didn't even help get a win in his home state in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:47 PM) Edwards didn't help Kerry at all last time. I think Obama benefits most from a VP with a strong economics or foreign policy background. Yeah, but Edwards wasn't running with an African-American candidate last time. Let's face it, there are areas of the country that are going to feel better if a southern white male is on the ticket along with Obama, Or maybe not- maybe they are so prejudiced already that it wouldn't matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStorie...ms_nafta_080227 Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric 28/02/2008 1:50:01 PM Printer-friendly page Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned. CTV.ca News Staff Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama participate in a debate at Cleveland State University in Cleveland on Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008. (AP / Carolyn Kaster) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama participate in a debate at Cleveland State University in Cleveland on Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008. (AP / Carolyn Kaster) Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs. Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources. The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value. But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards." Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made. "Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said. Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim. During Tuesday's debate, she said that as president she would opt out of NAFTA "unless we renegotiate it." Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Wednesday that the candidates' criticisms of NAFTA were misguided. "(They) should recognize that NAFTA benefits the U.S. tremendously," he said. "Those who speak of it as helpful to (just the) Canadian or Mexican economies are missing the point." Liberal MP and finance critic John McCallum told Canada AM that the U.S. pulling out of NAFTA "would be a disaster for Canada." But he added, "I hope and I believe that it's politics, because they're in a high-stakes contest. I believe after this nominee is decided, this issue will go away." John Fortier, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise institute, said that in an effort to gain votes in the anti-NAFTA state of Ohio, each candidate might find themselves "locked-in" to their pledge to renegotiate NAFTA. "Last night, both candidates really locked themselves in to at least doing some serious renegotiation," Fortier told Canada AM. "But how serious they are and what the changes (will be) . . . that's another question. "But I don't know how Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton can get out of last night's very clear pledge that they are going to use the opt-out (clause) as a threat to do some serious renegotiation." Crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas are just one week away. During Tuesday night's debate, each candidate was quite specific about using the six-month opt-out clause in NAFTA, to pressure Canada and Mexico into renegotiating the deal. The March 4 primaries are seen as vital for each candidate, but particularly Clinton. It's expected that without a decisive win in both Texas and Ohio, she has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Clinton once had a large lead in each state, but recent polls are showing the candidates as close to even, with Obama surging ahead. Early polls show that there is a strong possibility of a Democrat in the White House in January 2009. Obama, in particular, is surging in popularity throughout the U.S. and some polls give the Illinois senator an almost double-digit lead if he were to run head-to-head against the expected Republican candidate, John McCain. With a report by CTV's Tom Clark in Washington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) Already debunked: A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of NAFTA. "None of the presidential campaigns have called either the ambassador or any of the officials here to raise NAFTA," Landry said. He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject. "We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said. "There is no story as far as we’re concerned," he said. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/020...Obama_call.html Edited February 28, 2008 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 03:11 PM) http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStorie...ms_nafta_080227 I also wonder what the trade ratio is with Canada. i tend to think the REAL problem is Mexico, but no one is going to say that so thy dont piss off the Latinos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 2 minute ads in every market in Texas and Ohio!?!?! Shows you what raising a crap load of money can do for a campaign. According to a source who tracks TV ad buying, Obama campaign has bought two-minute blocks in every market in both Ohio and Texas on Monday. It's unclear what the content will be, but sounds like it will be some sort of closing message. As we find out more, we'll report more. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 03:18 PM) I also wonder what the trade ratio is with Canada. i tend to think the REAL problem is Mexico, but no one is going to say that so thy dont piss off the Latinos. I don't really know, but I believe the general impression among decision making elites, and the Liberal and Conservative Parties is that Free Trade is good for Canada. I also believe we get more out of trading with the U.S., than you guys do with Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 03:39 PM) 2 minute ads in every market in Texas and Ohio!?!?! Shows you what raising a crap load of money can do for a campaign. LINK I gotta be honest, I am sick of the commercials. They are on every commercial break for every freaking show. One Hillary, one Obama commercial, every bank of commercials. Sometimes Hillary first, sometimes Obama first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 In case anyone was wondering, I think Rep Jack Kingston (R-GA) is a douche bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 04:17 PM) In case anyone was wondering, I think Rep Jack Kingston (R-GA) is a douche bag. ok look... I won't say that Obama is un-patriotic because of this. But, people have DIED fighting for what that flag symbolizes. I mean hell, if the flag as a symbol is that worthless, let's stop giving them out after veterans of our country die. If it's that worthless, then let's stop flying the damn thing. If it's that worthless, let's stop the pledge of allegiance. If it's that worthless... Obama has now made it a point. And that is what is bulls*** to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts