All Things Probama

[lostfan]

Who cares anyway, this crap is all semantics. Instead of discussing the actual issues, we have both sides trying to smear each other.

I can agree with you on that.

 

Both comments are completely meaningless when viewed in their proper context but they keep getting brought up over and over and over (especially the Michelle Obama thing, seriously now, nobody's ever brought up the fact that she's said this numerous other times using better wording because they don't want to hear it).

Edited June 20, 2008 by lostfan

[jackie hayes]

what, he was trying to make a point about how McCain "flip-flopped" his opinion on offshore drilling 8 years ago. And I made a point saying that a few years ago Obama was for the war, and that a few years can change people's views and opinions. To say someone is a flip-flopper or something along those lines because they changed their views over a couse of 5-8 years is ridiculous. People adapt and so do their opinions.

What he said was that he was opposed to the idea of a precipitous pullout, not that he "was for the war". He basically said, secure the country to the point that the govt doesn't collapse, then let's get the hell out. Now, I have doubts myself about how realistic Obama is about Iraq, but he hasn't really flipped his position on the war at all. You can easily, consistently oppose the invasion and also oppose a pullout that would cause a brutal civil war, and perhaps result in a Taliban-like regime.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama was never "for" the war. The quote you're talking about, I assume, was from several years ago when the situation on the ground was COMPLETELY different than it is now so that's just a silly comparison. He said something to the effect of "we have to stay there for a while so Iraq can get back on its feet" which was the practical thing to do (frankly, to a degree, it is now too, and he actually says that but you have to listen closely to hear through the BS campaign rhetoric). His view on the war itself has never changed.

 

On the other hand what he is calling McCain out for just reeks of honest-to-god "flip-flopping" (god I hate that term but it's applicable) because he's arbitrarily changing numerous stances for political convenience. It isn't adapting, he hasn't learned anything new. It's pandering. Call it what it is and don't make excuses for him.

On the Obama war thing...so many people like to jump on Obma for "throwing people under the bus". If you remember, Obama was asked about the war right after the democratic convention. He was trying to not throw Kerry under the bus for supporting the war.

 

As for McCain... lots of Flip-Flops here FlipFlopExpress.info.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[jackie hayes]

no no no. Taken at face value (which was taken WAY out of context) she said she wasn't PROUD of her country until this year. Ask any parent, they may not always be proud of their children, but they still love them. Michelle Obama NEVER said she didn't love her country. hmm... McCain did.

Family should never be compared to country.

 

And, you are taking McCain's words "WAY out of context". I suppose you know that, but you think of it as tit for tat. Not my cup of tea, but as you like.

 

I'd also add that I don't think you're understanding why people were upset by Michelle Obama's quote. It wasn't so much that she hadn't always been proud of the US. Some would get angry at that, but not as many. It was the reasoning behind it -- it sounded like, 'I'm proud of the US because Barack's getting votes'. It just sounds so self-serving and presumptuous. Almost like, I'm proud of the US now that it recognizes how wonderful my husband is. I just don't want to hear that sort of thing out of anyone in politics, for anyone else in politics. No individual politician is wonderful enough for that.

 

Mind you, I'm completely in the Obama camp. Just saying.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Family should never be compared to country.

 

And, you are taking McCain's words "WAY out of context". I suppose you know that, but you think of it as tit for tat. Not my cup of tea, but as you like.

Oh dont get me wrong. I am just making the argument that if you want to take one out of context (michelle) then you better be willing to take the heat when YOUR words are taken out of context. So, dont go attacking Michelle for what she said and expect people to just ignore McCain's similar comments.

[jackie hayes]

Oh dont get me wrong. I am just making the argument that if you want to take one out of context (michelle) then you better be willing to take the heat when YOUR words are taken out of context. So, dont go attacking Michelle for what she said and expect people to just ignore McCain's similar comments.

Eh... I really don't think they're very similar, but okay.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama Asks NBC to Draw Up Olympics Ad Packages

Those tuning in to NBC Sports' Olympics coverage this year will see spots from General Motors, McDonald's, Budweiser, Nike and -- just maybe -- Sen. Barack Obama.

 

Though the Obama campaign is keeping mum about whether it will definitely run spots, it has asked NBC Universal about Olympics advertising including $500,000, $2 million and $4 million packages of ads. (NBC presented those along with a $10 million package.) It's not only a sign that the Obama camp has faith it can continue its stellar fundraising achievements but a signal that a widening field of battleground states has the candidate contemplating national broadcast buys. An Olympics buy could also allow Mr. Obama to reach out to a large swath of women.

[HuskyCaucasian]

AP is reporting that Chuck Hagel ( R ) would consider being Obama's VP is asked!

 

"If it would occur, I would have to think about it.... I think anybody, anybody would have to consider it. Doesn't mean you'd do it, doesn't mean you'd accept it, could be too many gaps there, but you'd have to consider it, it's the only thing you could do. Why wouldn't you?"

 

Other than the war, where does Hagel stand on the other major issues like universal heath care, oil / big oil companies, and the economy?

 

I have a hard time seeing Hagel as a one issue VP. I think it would be hard for the them to work together when they have very different views on major issues. HOWEVER, I thought... what if Hagel was a one term VP? If they agreed on one or more of the other issues, maybe he can really work towards those goals and when they are done, back off and let another VP step in. Just an idea.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

Here's one that SS2k5 should absolutely love. McCain's energy speech 2 days ago...saying that speculation and commodities trading is part of the reason oil prices are so high.

There is the further problem of speculation on the oil futures market, which in many cases has nothing to do with the actual sale, purchase, or delivery of oil. When crude oil became a futures-traded commodity in the 1980's, the idea was to afford a measure of protection against the historic volatility of oil pricing. It takes several weeks to ship oil from the Arabian Peninsula to the offshore port of Louisiana. And for the buyers, it helps to know that the price will not suddenly fall while the oil is in transit. A futures contract assures importers that they can sell the oil at a profit.

 

That's the theory, anyway. But we all know that some people on Wall Street are not above gaming the system. When you have enough speculators betting on the rising price of oil, that itself can cause oil prices to keep on rising. And while a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end -- using more and more of their hard-earned paychecks to buy gas for the truck, tractor, or family car.

 

Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. And to make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. In all of these markets, reform must assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Uh oh!! McCain and his RNC buddies better not open his mouth about Michelle Obama.

 

John McCain on March 13, 2008 "I didn't really love America until I was deprived of her company."

 

hmmmm.... you know that "fair and balanced" Fox News? Looks like they scrubbed THAT part from their interview transcript. Everything else is there, but that part "mysteriously" disappeared!

 

Everybody already knows that FOX is conservative, but doesn't doctoring the transcript -- as they seem to have done -- violate every journalistic standard an MSM organization should have?

[jackie hayes]

hmmmm.... you know that "fair and balanced" Fox News? Looks like they scrubbed THAT part from their interview transcript. Everything else is there, but that part "mysteriously" disappeared!

To be completely accurate -- the bolded part is not true. The entire first part of the interview is missing, and the transcript (and the linked video) picks up only after a commercial break. So there's more missing than that.

 

Now, I don't find the argument that Fox simply forgot a big block of content very convincing, but anyway...

[HuskyCaucasian]

To be completely accurate -- the bolded part is not true. The entire first part of the interview is missing, and the transcript (and the linked video) picks up only after a commercial break. So there's more missing than that.

 

Now, I don't find the argument that Fox simply forgot a big block of content very convincing, but anyway...

good point. i just went back and compared the two. you are indeed correct.

I guess the transcriber just "forgot" to do the first part.

Edited June 21, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

Here's one that SS2k5 should absolutely love. McCain's energy speech 2 days ago...saying that speculation and commodities trading is part of the reason oil prices are so high.

 

Pure 100% pandering.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Pure 100% pandering.

actually, I thought I heard somewhere that possibly 60% of today's oil prices might be pure speculation. Heck, even the Saudis went "something isnt right here".

Edited June 22, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[southsider2k5]

actually, I thought I heard somewhere that possibly 60% of today's oil prices might be pure speculation. Heck, even the Saudis went "something isnt right here".

 

What are the Saudi's supposed to say? "Hey you stupid American's, why don't you guy buy some more SUV's and keep making us rich?!?"? Of course they want someone else to blame.

 

Let me put it this way, if someone can find something that has a basis in economic fact, instead of just blaming someone else for the price of energy, I'll listen. I want to see someone prove to me how something that involves a buy AND a sell of an energy contract (to avoid delivery, because if you take delivery it is REAL demand) can only have a positive effect.

 

If what all of these people is saying is true, there are all of these people who own crude oil contracts, who have to sell them out at the last minute so that they don't take delivery of them. The last days or so of trading would involved a huge influx of sell orders in the front month (all of these speculators who don't want to take delivery), coupled by a huge influx of buy orders in the second month(all of these speculators who still want to own crude oil for the run up in prices), which would lead to a large divergence of prices. July's price should crash in relation to August. For example if at the end, there are 25,000 contracts owned in July by speculators, that means all 25,000 of those have to be sold, and 25,000 August's would be bought. Crude oil expiration for the delivery month of July just happened on Friday, and there was no change in the differential between the prices of July and August.

 

In simple terms, that is how you could tell if this was truely a speculative bubble. Until someone actually proves something different, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

[jackie hayes]

What are the Saudi's supposed to say? "Hey you stupid American's, why don't you guy buy some more SUV's and keep making us rich?!?"? Of course they want someone else to blame.

 

Let me put it this way, if someone can find something that has a basis in economic fact, instead of just blaming someone else for the price of energy, I'll listen. I want to see someone prove to me how something that involves a buy AND a sell of an energy contract (to avoid delivery, because if you take delivery it is REAL demand) can only have a positive effect.

 

If what all of these people is saying is true, there are all of these people who own crude oil contracts, who have to sell them out at the last minute so that they don't take delivery of them. The last days or so of trading would involved a huge influx of sell orders in the front month (all of these speculators who don't want to take delivery), coupled by a huge influx of buy orders in the second month(all of these speculators who still want to own crude oil for the run up in prices), which would lead to a large divergence of prices. July's price should crash in relation to August. For example if at the end, there are 25,000 contracts owned in July by speculators, that means all 25,000 of those have to be sold, and 25,000 August's would be bought. Crude oil expiration for the delivery month of July just happened on Friday, and there was no change in the differential between the prices of July and August.

 

In simple terms, that is how you could tell if this was truely a speculative bubble. Until someone actually proves something different, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

An interesting piece by Guillermo Calvo that challenges the inventories no-speculation argument,

 

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1244

 

Basic idea hinges on inelastic demand, anticipation of a shift away from tbills, and differential price adjustments.

 

Found this through Krugman's NYT blog. At first blush, I think Krugman is more right (he's critical of Calvo), but it's still worth a read.

 

I should add, to be clear, for those who are convinced it's all evil speculators swimming in their pools of money, Calvo's NOT saying that. It's a lot more nuanced.

[southsider2k5]

An interesting piece by Guillermo Calvo that challenges the inventories no-speculation argument,

 

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1244

 

Basic idea hinges on inelastic demand, anticipation of a shift away from tbills, and differential price adjustments.

 

Found this through Krugman's NYT blog. At first blush, I think Krugman is more right (he's critical of Calvo), but it's still worth a read.

 

I should add, to be clear, for those who are convinced it's all evil speculators swimming in their pools of money, Calvo's NOT saying that. It's a lot more nuanced.

 

Its interesting and plausible, but it still doesn't explain the lack of a divergence in prices at expiration.

[jackie hayes]

Its interesting and plausible, but it still doesn't explain the lack of a divergence in prices at expiration.

I don't think it has to, though. It's not the popular conception of evil traders hoarding, then dumping at expiration (which wouldn't be a good story, anyway, as it's really hard to see how that would affect the spot price). It's more a story of financial market-based inflation feeding more quickly into commodities prices than elsewhere. Basically, it's speculation without the speculators (only potential speculators). Not at all the popular bugaboo, but a consistent story, at least.

[southsider2k5]

I don't think it has to, though. It's not the popular conception of evil traders hoarding, then dumping at expiration (which wouldn't be a good story, anyway, as it's really hard to see how that would affect the spot price). It's more a story of financial market-based inflation feeding more quickly into commodities prices than elsewhere. Basically, it's speculation without the speculators (only potential speculators). Not at all the popular bugaboo, but a consistent story, at least.

 

Potential demand, isn't demand. Either there are buyers, or there aren't.

[jackie hayes]

Potential demand, isn't demand. Either there are buyers, or there aren't.

And there is demand in Calvo's story. There can also be speculators, but they need not be active speculators, because the anticipation of the price movements is enough to move the price to the point at which speculators are indifferent to stockpiling.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Well, one fear is relieved:

McCain aide- "John McCain is aware of the Internet"

 

He may have no idea how to use a computer, but he is aware of the internet.

[HuskyCaucasian]

McCain got caught in a Flip-Flop...

FLASHBACK: McCain Declared Osama Bin Laden Threats Are ‘Very Helpful’ To Bush’s Campaign

 

Then (2004)-

U.S. Sen. John McCain, campaigning in southwestern Connecticut on Saturday, said Osama bin Laden’s video message to Americans will likely energize President Bush’s re-election campaign. “I think it’s very helpful to President Bush,...It focuses America’s attention on the war on terrorism. I’m not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it does have an effect.”

 

Now (June 23, 2008)-

A McCain adviser said about another terrorist attack on American soil “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him.” McCain responded, “I strenuously disagree.”

[lostfan]

Politically, it's true. The problem is when the actual candidate says it, because it sounds like they want it to happen. That's why McCain is distancing himself from it, because it comes across as crass and cynical.

[StrangeSox]

There's a difference between "Osama video" and "terrorist attack on American soil." Weak sauce.

[jackie hayes]

McCain got caught in a Flip-Flop...

FLASHBACK: McCain Declared Osama Bin Laden Threats Are ‘Very Helpful’ To Bush’s Campaign

 

Then (2004)-

U.S. Sen. John McCain, campaigning in southwestern Connecticut on Saturday, said Osama bin Laden’s video message to Americans will likely energize President Bush’s re-election campaign. “I think it’s very helpful to President Bush,...It focuses America’s attention on the war on terrorism. I’m not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it does have an effect.”

 

Now (June 23, 2008)-

A McCain adviser said about another terrorist attack on American soil “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him.” McCain responded, “I strenuously disagree.”

Just, no. No, it's not a "flip flop", and I'm so f***ing tired of those two words.

 

Sorry, I want Obama elected, too, but this kind of thing just makes Democrats look desperate. Or vengeful. McCain has obviously been inconsistent on some issues, but good God, this is turning into some sad little witch hunt to find anything vaguely similar and yell "Flip! Flop!" and then move on to the next one before anyone's had time to actually think. It's awful.

 

Taxes, Social Security, the Roe v Wade stuff, a couple other issues -- it's a lot more convincing to focus on issues where he was actually inconsistent. And I mean ISSUES -- even if he had been inconsistent here (and there's no evidence of that), why do we care about his personal opinion on what moves his polling numbers?

 

He could be lying through his teeth and believe that a goddam nuke in middle America would be just awesome for his popularity. But it's just basic decency to not SAY in public that something that kills other people would help you. Trying to score political points off a denial of that is slimey.