All Things Probama

[jackie hayes]

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.

 

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

 

Both 100% right.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Bill Clinton 'committed to' Obama

Former US President Bill Clinton has announced for the first time that he is backing fellow Democrat Barack Obama to win the US presidential election.

 

Mr Clinton's wife Hillary was Mr Obama's biggest rival for the party nomination, and he was often critical of Mr Obama on the campaign trail.

 

Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton are set to hold a joint rally on Friday.

 

Mr Clinton will be in Europe to celebrate Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday and will not attend the rally.

 

"President Clinton is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States," said spokesman Matt McKenna.

[BigSqwert]

Bill Clinton 'committed to' Obama

Committed to a fairy tale?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Committed to a fairy tale?

Well, there's nothing wrong with supporting the 2nd black president

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama Holds Huge Advantage Over McCain On Energy

A new Gallup poll finds that Obama holds a huge and striking advantage over McCain on which is more trusted to handle energy issues.

 

And not only that, it also finds that energy policy, by one measure, has now become the number one concern of voters.

 

The poll finds that Obama leads McCain by 19 points (47%-28%) on the question of who would do a better job handling energy policy, including gas prices. It also finds that 51% say that energy and gas prices are "extremely important" in determining their vote, higher than the economy (49%) or Iraq (44%).

[Reddy]

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

 

thank you. and i whole-heartedly agree. it's frankly annoying. i mean, we all have been calling for Bush to apologize for his mistakes, change his policy, blah blah blah but when a politician does it we yell FLIP FLOP!

 

jesus christ. media and american public you're all idiots.

[southsider2k5]

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.�

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jQyNjVmMGFkMjI=

 

So Is That a 'Yes' to the Invite?

 

There's a bit of a glitch in Team Obama's how-dare-you response to the comment by McCain adviser Charlie Black on the political impact of a terrorist attack:

 

"Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe. The fact that John McCain's top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda."

 

If Obama really "welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain", could he possibly, you know, show up for one of these joint town halls? I mean on a day besides July 4 or the middle of August, when everyone is on vacation?

[jackie hayes]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jQyNjVmMGFkMjI=

He doesn't want to let McCain dictate the terms of the debates. Aww...how mean!

 

Please...

[Balta1701]

Great lines...

In reporting Karl Rove’s attempt to find an analogy that Republicans could relate to to describe Barack Obama -- “You know this guy…he’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by” -- ABC’s Jake Tapper posed the question, at the same country club, who would Rove be?

 

The easy answer, of course, is “the guy who quit the club when it integrated.”

[HuskyCaucasian]

Great lines...

And there's this...

Karl Rove Throws Stones From His Glass Country Club

 

“The problem for these Democrats is that their policies would have consequences and their policies would make us more, not less, vulnerable,” Rove said from a podium beneath the beamed, vaulted ceilings and brass chandeliers of the Inverness Country Club in Toledo....

 

“While Karl Rove was enroute to talk at a campaign fundraiser for Republican congressional candidate Mike Whalen at the members-only Sunnyside Country Club Monday....

 

“Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove called on Oakland County Republicans for their support in the next presidential election and criticized Democrats for wanting to pull out of Iraq during a speech Saturday night at Shenandoah Country Club. […] The crowd at the $65-a-ticket event gave him a standing ovation at 6:50 p.m. as he approached a podium.”

 

“Putting Democrats in charge of Congress would embolden terrorists and put Americans in danger, presidential adviser Karl Rove told local Republicans at a fundraiser Friday. […] The fundraiser, at Tucson Country Club, attracted other Republican candidates,

[kapkomet]

And there's this...

Karl Rove Throws Stones From His Glass Country Club

Those evil f***ing Republicans. No Democrats belong to country clubs.

 

[jackie hayes]

Those evil f***ing Republicans. No Democrats belong to country clubs.

Did you just totally miss Rove's description of Obama, or...?

[kapkomet]

Did you just totally miss Rove's description of Obama, or...?

Or...

 

 

[bmags]

for all republicans on this site, if you want to continue your pat on the back club of "oh well obama can do no wrong with you" in regards to me,

 

I'm deeply disappointed in his weak move on FISA. A disgusting typical insecure democrats move to try and not appear weak on national sec. Well, far be it of me to expect LAW to still exist in a war on anything.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm deeply disappointed in his weak move on FISA.

 

As am I, and as are many. He swore he'd filibuster teleco immunity, and now is his chance to make good on his word.

 

Feingold is apparently the only one with enough backbone to stand up for this, and it's really disheartening to see most of the Dem majority so willing to capitulate.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

As am I, and as are many. He swore he'd filibuster teleco immunity, and now is his chance to make good on his word.

 

Feingold is apparently the only one with enough backbone to stand up for this, and it's really disheartening to see most of the Dem majority so willing to capitulate.

 

Is there any reason the democrats are letting this happen? Is it just so they can try and make themselves look better on security issues or what? Because I am baffled at this turn of events, I never thought they'd let this happen.

 

[kapkomet]

As am I, and as are many. He swore he'd filibuster teleco immunity, and now is his chance to make good on his word.

 

Feingold is apparently the only one with enough backbone to stand up for this, and it's really disheartening to see most of the Dem majority so willing to capitulate.

Listen, and I'm being serious, when push comes to shove, what HAVEN'T the Democrats eventually caved in on regarding the war on terror? This party has absolutely fleeced America. They scream they will not stay in Iraq, they scream that everything Bush does is bad, and yet, eventually, on almost every point, months down the road, they "give in". These people are worse on the hypocrisy scale then just about any modern political party I've seen.

 

They have no backbone, on anything, and that's part of my trouble with them.

 

For those of you on soxtalk that have major issues with this and stand your ground, even if I disagree with you, bravo. But your party is doing you a huge disservice, which makes them no better then the Republicans you are so quick to throw under the bus (and in fact, I would argue they are WORSE because they are outright lying to you all to keep your votes, with no intention of doing what they say).

 

And a bigger point to this is despite all the fancy WORDS, and the campaign promises, Barack Obama is exactly the same way. JUST WORDS.

[lostfan]

Hence - why I left the Democratic party. At one point, up until a couple of years ago I was a pretty staunch Democrat (or thought I was) who would follow and defend anything they said or did. Then I realized they weren't really representing what I believed, either ideologically or practically, and the party had no leadership or backbone. All they do is pout and cry and talk about how terrible Bush is. Granted, Bush is in fact pretty terrible, but now that you've gotten people to notice, what are you doing about it? (Somewhat in their defense, they don't have a large enough majority to really trump anything and they still have to make concessions to the Republicans).

 

I thought about registering Republican but I just can't do it, even though I align with the party ideologically on almost as many conservative issues as liberal ones, I find there are too many just plain disgusting and obnoxious people within the GOP that I just can't identify with (they are in the far left too, but the far right irks me more).

[kapkomet]

Hence - why I left the Democratic party. At one point, up until a couple of years ago I was a pretty staunch Democrat (or thought I was) who would follow and defend anything they said or did. Then I realized they weren't really representing what I believed, either ideologically or practically, and the party had no leadership or backbone. All they do is pout and cry and talk about how terrible Bush is. Granted, Bush is in fact pretty terrible, but now that you've gotten people to notice, what are you doing about it? (Somewhat in their defense, they don't have a large enough majority to really trump anything and they still have to make concessions to the Republicans).

 

I thought about registering Republican but I just can't do it, even though I align with the party ideologically on almost as many conservative issues as liberal ones, I find there are too many just plain disgusting and obnoxious people within the GOP that I just can't identify with (they are in the far left too, but the far right irks me more).

And that's about where I am. I am conservative when it comes to fiscal policy and the war. Socially, I want the bats*** crazy Republicans to stay out of my life and others (i.e. stay out of the marriage debates).

 

I find the far right repulsive, which is partly why I'm so disappointed in GWB. He pandered to too many of these right wing idiots, and now he's about as effective as a pool of slime.

 

[jackie hayes]

Listen, and I'm being serious, when push comes to shove, what HAVEN'T the Democrats eventually caved in on regarding the war on terror? This party has absolutely fleeced America. They scream they will not stay in Iraq, they scream that everything Bush does is bad, and yet, eventually, on almost every point, months down the road, they "give in". These people are worse on the hypocrisy scale then just about any modern political party I've seen.

 

They have no backbone, on anything, and that's part of my trouble with them.

 

For those of you on soxtalk that have major issues with this and stand your ground, even if I disagree with you, bravo. But your party is doing you a huge disservice, which makes them no better then the Republicans you are so quick to throw under the bus (and in fact, I would argue they are WORSE because they are outright lying to you all to keep your votes, with no intention of doing what they say).

 

And a bigger point to this is despite all the fancy WORDS, and the campaign promises, Barack Obama is exactly the same way. JUST WORDS.

Wrong. There's always been vacillation on Iraq, with the tacit acknowledgment that even a Democratic Congress could not in good conscience simply abandon the country to chaos. An implicit precondition of leaving Iraq has always been relative stability. As long as the commander-in-chief (not a Democrat) is unable to achieve that goal, Congress obviously has it's hands tied. If you believed there was a Democratic consensus that we will pull out yesterday, no matter the consequences, that's your misreading.

 

What this is on Obama's part is a mix of an effort to avoid appearing weak on security and (more importantly) an opportunity to show that he's this kind of everyone-at-the-table, I'll-meet-you-halfway kind of guy. It's pure politics -- kind of like how McCain shelved every true belief he's ever had to become a Bush shill so that he could become the nominee. It's not good, but understandable, and a good deal less despicable.

 

Between the party that has made too many compromises, and the party that compromises my country's fundamental laws and notions of decency, I actually don't have a hard time choosing, thank you very much. I'm not a hardened Dem, nor do I lack doubts about Obama. But the last eight years made my choice VERY easy.

[lostfan]

And that's about where I am. I am conservative when it comes to fiscal policy and the war. Socially, I want the bats*** crazy Republicans to stay out of my life and others (i.e. stay out of the marriage debates).

 

I find the far right repulsive, which is partly why I'm so disappointed in GWB. He pandered to too many of these right wing idiots, and now he's about as effective as a pool of slime.

If I was a little less in favor of certain gov't programs I think I'd be aligned exactly wtih you.

 

I'm not really as anti-war so much as I thought we were reckless and irresponsible going into Iraq, and I hope to God we never do anything like that again.

[lostfan]

Wrong. There's always been vacillation on Iraq, with the tacit acknowledgment that even a Democratic Congress could not in good conscience simply abandon the country to chaos. An implicit precondition of leaving Iraq has always been relative stability. As long as the commander-in-chief (not a Democrat) is unable to achieve that goal, Congress obviously has it's hands tied. If you believed there was a Democratic consensus that we will pull out yesterday, no matter the consequences, that's your misreading.

I recall the GOP started a "put your money where your mouth is" vote for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which was intended to be a blatant misrepresentation of what the Democrats were trying to do so they could make a point. Nobody voted in favor of it, obviously.

Edited June 25, 2008 by lostfan

[jackie hayes]

I recall the GOP started a "put your money where your mouth is" vote for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which was intended to be a blatant misrepresentation of what the Democrats were trying to do so they could make a point. Nobody voted in favor of it, obviously.

Right after Murtha's comments, I believe.

[lostfan]

Right after Murtha's comments, I believe.

Right. I always thought it was silly for people to expect the Democrats to "change course" on the war... or whatever. That's virtually impossible, it would be like jumping in the driver's seat of a car to replace a driver when a car is going 70 mph towards a cliff 50 feet away, and expecting to stop it or reverse course. The GOP-led Congress had already set the course. What was going to change was how the gov't conducted itself from then on, and I'm not sure if most people notice, but Bush is no longer walking around like he's some invincible badass anymore.

 

Even still... the Democratic party lacked and apparently still continues to lack backbone.

[kapkomet]

Wrong. There's always been vacillation on Iraq, with the tacit acknowledgment that even a Democratic Congress could not in good conscience simply abandon the country to chaos. An implicit precondition of leaving Iraq has always been relative stability. As long as the commander-in-chief (not a Democrat) is unable to achieve that goal, Congress obviously has it's hands tied. If you believed there was a Democratic consensus that we will pull out yesterday, no matter the consequences, that's your misreading.

 

What this is on Obama's part is a mix of an effort to avoid appearing weak on security and (more importantly) an opportunity to show that he's this kind of everyone-at-the-table, I'll-meet-you-halfway kind of guy. It's pure politics -- kind of like how McCain shelved every true belief he's ever had to become a Bush shill so that he could become the nominee. It's not good, but understandable, and a good deal less despicable.

 

Between the party that has made too many compromises, and the party that compromises my country's fundamental laws and notions of decency, I actually don't have a hard time choosing, thank you very much. I'm not a hardened Dem, nor do I lack doubts about Obama. But the last eight years made my choice VERY easy.

I don't think I'm wrong. What is it that we hear all the time? Get out of Iraq. No compromises on issues like this telecomm law. Etc. etc. etc. Then, when it's really quiet, all of a sudden, these guys fold like a wounded tent in a hurricane. The Democrats are duping the "anti-war" crowd something fierce, promising something that they never have an intention of keeping.

 

Now, I have always said that both parties do it. I just happen to think that the Dems are quite a bit more backhanded about it, or that is to say, Republicans are more in your face about being corrupt, while the Dems are just sneaky about it.