All Things Pro-Hillary

[lostfan]

I'm definately not saying the other candidates and their proxies haven't screwed up at one point or another. The problem with McCain is that he is saying stupid things when no one cares about. Once Hillary is out of the race, that will change.

Considering McCain's history of saying dumb things even before this election year, I think that will offset any inevitable slip-ups from Obama or his wife. Unless it's something major like "So yeah this one time I was at a terrorist training camp and made a donation - UH S*** I MEAN I was reading a report on terrorist financing... yeah that's it"

[bmags]

I don't mean to be shallow, but I'm sure if you put a microphone in front of McCain's wife she'd say something dumb.

[EvilMonkey]

I don't mean to be shallow, but I'm sure if you put a microphone in front of McCain's wife she'd say something dumb.

The thing is, McCain's wife isn't running FOR the microphones to say something stupid, like the others are.

[Gene Honda Civic]

stupid things no one cares about.

There's a platform you can run on.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Gene Honda Civic

[southsider2k5]

There's a platform you can run on.

 

Ah the Mariotti Platform.

[EvilMonkey]

 

Obama wants to change the subject from his character and judgement to issues that matter. He should be careful what he asks for. The RNC takes him up on his offer.

[KipWellsFan]

 

Obama wants to change the subject from his character and judgement to issues that matter. He should be careful what he asks for. The RNC takes him up on his offer.

 

F'n bring it on!

[whitesoxfan101]

 

Obama wants to change the subject from his character and judgement to issues that matter. He should be careful what he asks for. The RNC takes him up on his offer.

 

He has a very limited record due to lack of experience on issues that matter though, so I don't know how he goes at doing that. The only record we know of with Obama is he's the most liberal member of congress, and that won't appeal to independents as much as a lifetime moderate like McCain. Plus, if he thinks that character and judgement don't matter to the American voters, he's making a terrible mistake because they do. Most politicians at least wait until they are in office before showing bad judgement and questionable character, whereas he did it long before that.

Edited May 10, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[KipWellsFan]

The only record we know of with Obama is he's the most liberal member of congress, and that won't appeal to independents as much as a lifetime moderate like McCain.

 

The congress is pretty big, you might want to rethink that one.

[southsideirish71]

The congress is pretty big, you might want to rethink that one.

He is number 1.

 

 

[lostfan]

He is number 1.

He's only been in office for 2 years though. It's kind of like a player's batting average after April.

 

I just read the rest of the article and realized it actually mentions that:

"While it's somewhat irrelevant to look at Obama's lifetime liberal rating since he only has two years under his congressional belt"

Edited May 11, 2008 by lostfan

[bmags]

I find it fascinating that the democratic nominee is always the most liberal member of congress. Especially when his policies are less liberal than his democratic adversary at the moment, and less populist than John Edwards. It's all so very convenient how every election people just happen to pick the most liberal member!

[Mplssoxfan]

He is number 1.

FWIW, that Post post was made March 1, 2007. Here's a more recent posting reinforcing the finding.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Mplssoxfan

[jackie hayes]

He is number 1.

That article -- I do not think it means what you think it means. Obama was not ranked the most liberal senator for 2006 (the article only says he was more liberal than the other Dem pres candidates). He was ranked most liberal (by the NJ, not all rankings) for 2007. And just for the Senate, not in the entire Congress.

[EvilMonkey]

A parting shot at Obama from a Hillary supporter?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UAFbMLZm4g

[KipWellsFan]

FWIW, that Post post was made March 1, 2007. Here's a more recent posting reinforcing the finding.

 

While it's obvious that the McCain camp will try to take advantage of this, most people could probably come to the conclusion that Obama's pretty centrist in real terms. I mean as far as I know he's not in favour of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana, legalizing prostitution, withdrawing from Afghanistan as well as Iraq, and his health care program doesn't seem as left as Hillary's.

 

And what's the deal with Americans using the word liberal as a negative. It's the only country I know of that uses the word this way, and in the rest of the Western world people often use it to describe what you guys would consider conservativism. What definition are you guys using? Anything that's not conservative is liberal?

[Balta1701]

While it's obvious that the McCain camp will try to take advantage of this, most people could probably come to the conclusion that Obama's pretty centrist in real terms. I mean as far as I know he's not in favour of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana, legalizing prostitution, withdrawing from Afghanistan as well as Iraq, and his health care program doesn't seem as left as Hillary's.

 

And what's the deal with Americans using the word liberal as a negative. It's the only country I know of that uses the word this way, and in the rest of the Western world people often use it to describe what you guys would consider conservativism. What definition are you guys using? Anything that's not conservative is liberal?

The answer to your 2nd question is that, quite simply, it's been the business of some really well paid conservatives over the past 25-30 years to turn the word liberal in to a dirty word in this country. That has been one of the most subtle and perhaps the most important effects of the Hannity/Limbaugh/Fox news work, every time something bad happens, blame it on those evil "liberals".

[Balta1701]

That article -- I do not think it means what you think it means. Obama was not ranked the most liberal senator for 2006 (the article only says he was more liberal than the other Dem pres candidates). He was ranked most liberal (by the NJ, not all rankings) for 2007. And just for the Senate, not in the entire Congress.

The fun of these stupid rankings for the major candidates always gets magnified when they're running for a higher office because they wind up missing a decent chunk of votes that aren't going to be close and which they might wind up crossing over on. If the Republicans put together a good bill on something, they're going to have an 75-20 majority without the main 3 candidates showing up for the vote, and so Obama and Clinton lose out on a chance to do the crossover type vote that might have moved those rankings around. Conversely, if the Dems are pushing a bill and the vote is tight, they're likely to show up for that vote because their vote will actually be important in that case, and thus the main candidates are driven towards the edges in election years.

 

In case you're interested, 2 votes separated Hillary from Obama in the last year's rankings. Here's the votes:

Spokesman Bill Burton points out that because Sen. Obama was campaigning for much of 2007, he missed 32 out of the 99 votes the NJ used for its rankings.

 

Of the remaining 67, Obama and Clinton (who also missed many votes because she was campaigning, as did John McCain, etc), were both there to vote for 65.

 

They voted the same way on 63 of them.

 

On one where they differed, Obama voted with an amendment from Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ind - Conn., to create an Office of Public Integrity and Clinton voted against it.

 

On the other, Obama voted for an amendment from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, allowing "Y" visa holders to stay in the U.S. while renewing their visas, while Clinton -- who has staked out a more conservative position on illegal immigration -- voted against it.

[EvilMonkey]

The fun of these stupid rankings for the major candidates always gets magnified when they're running for a higher office because they wind up missing a decent chunk of votes that aren't going to be close and which they might wind up crossing over on. If the Republicans put together a good bill on something, they're going to have an 75-20 majority without the main 3 candidates showing up for the vote, and so Obama and Clinton lose out on a chance to do the crossover type vote that might have moved those rankings around. Conversely, if the Dems are pushing a bill and the vote is tight, they're likely to show up for that vote because their vote will actually be important in that case, and thus the main candidates are driven towards the edges in election years.

 

In case you're interested, 2 votes separated Hillary from Obama in the last year's rankings. Here's the votes:

So all those votes Obama missed or voted present on while in Illinois were because he was campaigning?

[EvilMonkey]

The answer to your 2nd question is that, quite simply, it's been the business of some really well paid conservatives over the past 25-30 years to turn the word liberal in to a dirty word in this country. That has been one of the most subtle and perhaps the most important effects of the Hannity/Limbaugh/Fox news work, every time something bad happens, blame it on those evil "liberals".

Likewise for 'Neocon'. And you are fooling yourself if you think 'conservative' is used in a positive way when referencing politicians by anyone other than Fox.

[YASNY]

In my eyes, liberal is a dirty word. It has been since I was in 7th grade and had a liberal Social Studies teacher that tried to influence the thinking of the class. It worked just opposite with me. Stupid ass b****.

[Balta1701]

So all those votes Obama missed or voted present on while in Illinois were because he was campaigning?

Naturally, the anti Obama person chimes in with "Oh, it's always black or white, either you voted with something or against it". You know as well as I do that in some legislatures, voting "Present" is a standard tactic. A significant chunk of those present votes (50+) were actually instructed from the party leadership in the state senate. Yes, even I'll admit, some of them were for political cover, because you have 2 groups pointing at different parts of an issue as good or bad, and you have to do something about that. So, if you have a problem with a specific vote, then point to it. If you want me to care about him voting "Present", then please, point to a bill that either won or lost specifically because Sen. Obama voted Present and thus the bill lost by 1 vote, so that we can analyze how much his present voting mattered. I couldn't care less about a candidate voting present because he had a specific issue with a small part of a bill in a vote where the margin of victory was already there without him.

 

For example, I can do exactly that with John McCain. If you have a problem with Senator Obama voting present on bills where his vote was not the deciding margin, then you also have to have a much bigger problem with John McCain flying back to Washington with Sen. Graham and Sen Lieberman on the same plane to vote on the cloture of the bill that would have banned the CIA from torturing people, having the other 2 vote, and having Sen. McCain not vote, despite the fact that the cloture motion failed by 1 vote, 59-40.

[southsider2k5]

Naturally, the anti Obama person chimes in with "Oh, it's always black or white, either you voted with something or against it". You know as well as I do that in some legislatures, voting "Present" is a standard tactic. A significant chunk of those present votes (50+) were actually instructed from the party leadership in the state senate. Yes, even I'll admit, some of them were for political cover, because you have 2 groups pointing at different parts of an issue as good or bad, and you have to do something about that. So, if you have a problem with a specific vote, then point to it. If you want me to care about him voting "Present", then please, point to a bill that either won or lost specifically because Sen. Obama voted Present and thus the bill lost by 1 vote, so that we can analyze how much his present voting mattered. I couldn't care less about a candidate voting present because he had a specific issue with a small part of a bill in a vote where the margin of victory was already there without him.

 

For example, I can do exactly that with John McCain. If you have a problem with Senator Obama voting present on bills where his vote was not the deciding margin, then you also have to have a much bigger problem with John McCain flying back to Washington with Sen. Graham and Sen Lieberman on the same plane to vote on the cloture of the bill that would have banned the CIA from torturing people, having the other 2 vote, and having Sen. McCain not vote, despite the fact that the cloture motion failed by 1 vote, 59-40.

 

So the "they all do it" excuse for the candidate for "Change". Do you really wonder why there is a growing group that doesn't believe the hype?

[NorthSideSox72]

In my eyes, liberal is a dirty word. It has been since I was in 7th grade and had a liberal Social Studies teacher that tried to influence the thinking of the class. It worked just opposite with me. Stupid ass b****.

Sort of makes it difficult to engage in discourse with someone when they think anything described as left of center should be labeled with a dirty word.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Likewise for 'Neocon'. And you are fooling yourself if you think 'conservative' is used in a positive way when referencing politicians by anyone other than Fox.

Same deal, I agree. The real problem, IMO, is the polarization going on. The middle-leaning groups in both parties (Blue Dogs, New England Republicans, Farm Democrats, etc.) have all been eaten away as each party goes to their respective gutters. And the media just eats it up, because a good old a vs B fight is much easier for their crappy journalists (for the most part) to grab on to.