This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

I don't think obama should of sent out pamphlets that criticize hillary's healthcare plan, it mirrors what the republicans did to bill back in the 90's. I just don't understand why someone that has so much momentum would even need to do that, this may backfire on Obama.

I will not vote for McCain in a million years. He wants to turn this nation backwards by nominating justices to overturn Roe v. Wade (a friend of mine in Arizona wrote him a letter about her pro choice views, to which he responded and pretty much called her a "murderer"). There is also the fact that he sucked up to Scarecrow with hugging him just four years ago when Scarecrow smeared him like no other in 2000. He also has no promises to the American people to end this war, which is what most Americans want right now. I only agree with McCain on his views with torture (he is against it, as am I) and stem cell research (we both support it)

If McCain is the next president (which I doubt...he has alienated a lot of the GOP with his devotion to Bush through the hug and his somewhat liberal stances), you can expect the same policies of Scarecrow to be carried out for another four or eight years.

I don't think obama should of sent out pamphlets that criticize hillary's healthcare plan, it mirrors what the republicans did to bill back in the 90's. I just don't understand why someone that has so much momentum would even need to do that, this may backfire on Obama.

I saw that and Hillary rightfully called him out on it. Good for her. This just goes to show that he will also do what he has to in order to win, just like people criticize Hillary for "winning at all costs"...the same goes for Obama. I love how she called a spade a spade with saying it was from the "Karl Rove playbook"-truer words have never been spoken.

Here is an interesting read on Obama: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8073

Make no mistake about it, if Obama gets the nomination, I will vote for him but my first choice is Hillary.

I'm interested in what the pamphlet says, is it anything new? Because if it is why doesn't he bring this stuff up at the debates???

I am sure it is nothing new but who knows....he should have addressed it at the debate so that way Hillary could respond to it.

But with him now attacking Hillary on NAFTA and health care, well let's just say Bonnie and Clyde Clinton are going to put an emotional hit out on him

It is also all right for Hillary to change her mind on NAFTA after seeing what it did under Bush's term (Clinton used it to build jobs here, not ship them to Mexico)....sure it can be a dangerous agreement but it may also help deliver jobs.

Edited February 24, 200817 yr by DevotedToAMC

Trust me. Not all of NY loves Hillary. Just look at her slim win in the NY Primary to prove that. And I refuse to vote for her/support her because I'm gay, like all of my friends are doing. One issue does not get my vote. I look at the bigger picture.

She is relying too much on her past and rehashing old ideas when what the country needs is change for the future.

Here's a little something to further explain why I don't think she should get the nomination:

1. Her top campaign staff, such as Mark Penn, are all connected to the GOP-lite Democratic Leadership Council, corporate lobbying, corporate deregulation, polling data manipulation, Big Pharma, Big Oil, PR firms and even — gasp! — Tom DeLay. Apparently, none of them have ever seen a conflict of interest they can resist. This kind of incestuous relationship between corporatism and government is what has put us in our current mess; a Hillary administration would likely continue rather than end this situation.

2. Her smoke-and-mirrors health care plan, including allowing the for-profit health care industry to continue making money from the misery of Americans, isn't any better than the one she proposed in 1994. As Ari Berman in The Nation said, "She's now the number-one Congressional recipient of donations from the health care industry." Don't think she's entirely kidding when she says we'll have health care for all Americans by the end of her second term — she'll put it off for as long as she can on behalf of her heavyweight campaign contributors.

3. Most of her money comes from corporate contributions and she actively covets lobbyist and PAC money. That's a lot of favors that need to be repaid should she be elected president, a lot of favors owed to the Gucci Gulch K Street types who work against the best interests of the people.

4. Her willingness to be chummy with big corporations, personified by her friendly relationship with none other than neocon media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who held a $60,000 fundraiser for Hillary in July of last year. Murdoch doesn't raise money for politicians for nothing — everything to him is quid pro quo and he always gets back more quid for his pro quo than he invests. A President Hillary would not likely turn her back on the Australian billionaire, even though his vast media empire has made a blood sport of vilifying All Things Clinton. Politics makes strange bedfellows, perhaps, but her sleeping with this dog will give us all fleas. And, incidentally, Bill has signed a contract to flack for our 'leetle friends' who run Dubai, Halliburton's new home. Can another lucrative ports deal, or its equivalent, be far behind in a Hillary administration?

5. Her baffling tendency to embrace right-wing nuttiness like a flag burning amendment for no apparent reason. What if she has an attack of this Neoconitis when naming a judge for the Supreme Court or a Secretary of Defense?

6. Her elitist, inside-the-beltway limousine liberalism combined with her moderately-right Senate voting record — the worst of both worlds. Besides, Fox Newsers like ditzy loudmouth Susan Estrich, who as Michael Dukakis' campaign manager in 1988 ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in modern history, support Hill, even writing a gushy book about her, "The Case for Hillary Clinton." When you have 'friends' like the execrable Estrich, you know you're in trouble — the woman writes columns for NewsMax, for cripe's sake.

7. Her previous support for the Iraq War and refusal to apologize for her vote authorizing it. She also continues to support a 'troop presence' in Iraq. It's really troubling that she doesn't seem to perceive that our military occupation of Iraq, in any strength beyond embassy guards, will aggravate the horrible situation in the Middle East created by Bush. The days of America Uber Alles over there are gone, but Hillary doesn't seem to realize it.

8. Her votes for the PATRIOT Act, NAFTA, CAFTA, the Republican bankruptcy bill, and other legislation that's detrimental to the interests of average Americans, and her opposition to campaign finance reform. (In 2002, she even out-neoconned the neocons on welfare reform.)

9. Her continued support for Bush's phony War on Terror and tendency to speak about the world situation using 'framing' dreamed up by the RNC and Frank Luntz. What we don't need in the next president is the same level of Bush hysteria in responding to terrorism, but, so far, Hillary seems comfortable with joining the Republicans in the panic room they've created over this issue.

10. Her embarrassing phoniness at times — using forced cornpone accents and lame cracker-barrel phrases to make her appear more down-home and empathetic to the plight of the average American. It's as ludicrous as Junior's laughable Texas twang and speaks to what cretins she thinks the voters are. FDR always spoke as the New York blue-blood he was, but he never talked down to his audience; this is something Hillary should master — she's not hubby Bill and doesn't come by it naturally and her attempts at Trailer Park Patois are as cynically condescending as O.J. removing pictures of his white friends and family and replacing them with photos of black folks to up his street cred with the minority members of the jury.

The truth about Hillary Clinton in a nutshell. Hopefully the country shall let current trends continue (Obama still winning primaries that is) and hope she does not get into the White House. The country has had enough bad experience with have one political family (The Bush family) in the White House with disasterous results. Hopefully the American voters shall have learned their lesson by now and have it that the Clintons not be brought back to the White House.

Shame on Tavis Smiley for making a big deal about Obama not going to the BSU. But I think he will shut up now that he and his mother are getting death threats ( which I don't condone). Although his reasons for not attending was sort of a cop out not to attend; these are exactly the people Obama needs to stay away from, Obama is not running to be the African American president he is running to be the American president. He also needs to stay away from the likes of al sharpton, jesse jackson, and jesse jackson jr, don't let those race-baters ruin your campaign. Obama has learned from Jesse Jackson's mistake of running as an AA president. Hillary on the other hand made the right choice to attend, she had nothing to gain by going because Obama won Louisana and she has lost majority of the black vote. It shows that she still cares for the AA communithy and doesn't hold any grudges so to me this was a positive move on her part.

Edited February 25, 200817 yr by EricaKane70

Obama needs to avoid Sharpton and Jackson because they ultimately would put him and black America against the rest of this country, fair or not. If he has to avoid all hints of his background until vigorously dancing the electric slide at his inaugural ball, so be it. I find nothing inherently wrong with the work of those two, because almost nobody else can shed a light on injustices African Americans suffer in the way they do. That doesn't make them race baiters. They simply demand an end to discrimination. Nobody of a different ethnicity will do it for them, that's for sure. Who is Hilary to hold a grudge against any voting bloc? If anything, she's trying harder to appease a demographic whose support she felt entitled to.

^^^I disagree about Sharpton and Jackson, I think they set african americans back, all they see is race and play the race card to its fullest. I'm not saying AA don't have injustices, but when they jump over every little comment white america says its really ridiculous, thats why I say they are race baiters. Thats also where there message gets lost to me, how can you take someone serious when they cry wolf all the time? They need to pick and chose there battles a little wiser. An maybe I shouldn't of used the word grudge so I will say you are right about that.

^^^I disagree about Sharpton and Jackson, I think they set african americans back, all they see is race and play the race card to its fullest. I'm not saying AA don't have injustices, but when they jump over every little comment white america says its really ridiculous, thats why I say they are race baiters. Thats also where there message gets lost to me, how can you take someone serious when they cry wolf all the time?

Obviously they are activists who focus on rhetoric as well as blatantly discriminatory practices. Certain comments are from a mentality that lead to the Jena 6 problem, and government apathy during the Hurricane Katrina response. These things are not isolated coincidences. If Sharpton and Jackson really jumped on every inflammatory statement, they would have denounced the recent fetish for calling Obama by his middle name Hussein, and Bill O'Reilly's crack about lynching his wife. Crying wolf implies lying. Whose conduct did they lie about? America is only tired of these guys because it hates personal responsibility. A progressive person would see their efforts as a big favor to those who need a wake up call about their treatment of others. Unfortunately no politician will support them because they're understandably aggressive, not stoic like Martin Luther King Jr. The last thing Obama will do is side with the modern day angry black man.

The Clintons have GONE WAY too FAR this time! Their new Obama smear takes things just too FAR!

The Clintons have GONE WAY too FAR this time! Their new Obama smear takes things just too FAR!

They are a campaign that is clearly gasping for air at this point and of course they are going to go negative. No it isn't right but that's what you do in American politics, when you are down for the count, you go negative.

Obama is clearly on his way to the nomination now. I have basically accepted that fact. I would have voted for Hillary and supported her if I was an American, but that doesn't mean Obama isn't a good thing. The way I am looking at it as an outsider, Obama or Clinton as the next president of the United States is a good thing.

I just wish we could settle this nomination business so we can look to the bigger picture in November.

Adam,

You are not an outsider. You are a member of this society, and your voice is just as important and strong as mine.

She has REALLY fucked up this time (Pardon my French). I don't know what the hell she was thinking, but she may have ruined not only her chances for now, but her chances of running for higher office in the near future.

She needs to ask herself.........is the presidency worth gaining if she loses her soul?

Unfortunately no politician will support them because they're understandably aggressive, not stoic like Martin Luther King Jr.

Stenbeck212, We will have to agree to disagree about Sharpton and Jackson. I prefer a Martin luther king type leadership where the message isn't lost from race-baiting, because crying wolf over every little comment they think is racist helps no one and people will tune you out because you aren't saying anything they have heard over 100 times.imo

The Clintons have GONE WAY too FAR this time! Their new Obama smear takes things just too FAR!

ITA. I am no longer supporting hillary and I hope obama doesn't even think of making her his vp. This is really pathetic on her part, he's not a muslim yet she uses this photo to apply that he is. I didn't blame her for her comment about MLK at the SC primaries because I understood what she was trying to say, it was that idiot husband that was the problem. But now HC true colors are shining through not only do I find this offensive, I find it racist. This is something I would expect from a republican.

Edited February 26, 200817 yr by EricaKane70