Members EricaKane70 Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 I wonder if the people will be calling obama if hillary wins tx to end his camapaign now? or will it be a virtual tie again? I'm sick of this race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members daysfan Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 This is too confusing. One minute, one of them is down and looking finished. Then they make a comeback. Then they are tied again. Then one of them look finished again, and things just repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricaKane70 Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 Its the neverending story, will someone just win already!!!! Well at least there debates are entertaining. Hillary has a 20,000 vote lead in TX. Damn Devoted how many phone calls did you make on hillarys behalf, she's kicking obama's ass.j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 I hope Clinton wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 LOL not as many as other people in the campaign did ...I also did not get a whole lot of "yes" votes in Texas. Most of them hung up early. Why hang up on me? I am going to make calls to Pennsylvania for BOTH Obama and Hillary....hey I love them both so I got to help both of them out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 Well it looks like Obama got the Texas caucus so both Hillary and Obama get the state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevotedToAMC Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 Hey Kwing...you know I love talking politics with you so here it goes . I have to agree that a lot of Obama is talking with regards to policy but not enough emphasis on how he will go about bringing that policy into The White House. It is clear that Hillary is putting forth her ideas, giving specifics, while Obama is touting the "change" card a whole lot. Now Obama has substance in him, at least in my opinion. To me, he has been a welcome addition for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate as well as basically a breath of fresh air. I was inspired by his speech at the 2004 Democrat National Convention where he became famous...it only got better once he entered the U.S. Senate. I just like both Hillary and Obama a lot and am now volunteering to help both of them in upcoming states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kwing42 Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 You are right, he is a great spokesman for the DNC and he makes great speeches. But there is NO substance. He has nothing to go on. Except his tired old "A Change is a coming". Which is pretty pathetic. Every candidate talks about change, and when every candidate gets to office, nothing changes. Why is he different? Because he made one or two good speeches? What is his record? Why is he afraid to talk to the National Media? Clinton has been getting the shaft. I honestly feel bad for her, and you know I do not like her one bit. She has, to me, become way more likeable as a person and a candidate and to be honest, I would rather see her in the White House than Do Nothing Obama. The Dem party is in chaos though. They always want all votes counted, but now they don't want Michigan and Florida counted because they moved up their primary....BOOO HOOO. Count the votes. But what is funny about this...the same party that brought about this mess in MI and FL also has that whole superdelegate mess. Barack does not want MI and FL counted because its wrong, but he thinks that all SuperDelegets should automatically vote for him....thats ironic. Clinton is only 100 some delegates behind. Anyone find it interesting that the media was all over Huckabee and him standing his ground, supporting his continued run when he had NO chance? But Hillary who is only a hundred or so delegates behind is made out to look like world war 3 because she wants to stay and fight, and rightfully so? Bias? I think so. And to whomever cried about Rush urging Repubs to vote for Hilary...he may think Hil would be easier to beat, I think otherwise. America if finally waking up from their Obama induced sleep and seeing that he really has nothing but words....thats it. But, if it was wrong for Rush to urge Repubs to vote for Hillary, was it wrong for the Dem party to call on Repubs to vote for Romney because they were afraid of McCain??? Because that happened, but you do not seem upset about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kwing42 Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 It shouldn'e be that hard of a choice bro. Any candidate that pissed off the biggest portion of his base is worth voting for. Why? Because they WILL work with both sides, like they always have. You do not need a Liberal or a Conservative as President you need a centrist or a moderate. Plain and simple. The left and the right cause too much hate....us centrists and moderates know what it takes to bring about change..and change starts by working together...not against. Obama does not know foreign policy at all, he already said he would attack Pakistan...you are right , not a hard choice there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ponz Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 Getting people to the polls is not the mark of a great or competent leader. On that logic, Karl Rove should run for President. BTW, I disagree that Obama lacks substance. The trouble is that his substance amounts to the same stale class politics that his party have been been pimping for years. He claims to be a bridge builder yet his voting record is the most left-wing of anyone in the Senate. And he rails against 'special interests' yet (unlike McCain) has shown no courage to face down the interest groups in his own party. Rhetoric aside, there's no evidence to suggest Obama would be a uniting/bi-partisan type leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JackPeyton Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 Obama makes me want to turn to the other side. He is so fake and all talk. Thats is the impression i have gotten from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stenbeck212 Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 Not at all, given the circumstances he clearly said he would attack Pakistan under. Let's tell it all if we're going to tell it. Working with the Republicans is a necessary evil, but what would be his inspiration to do so? They hate science, love war, claim no fiscal responsibility, promote bigotry. Because Obama isn't exactly what some bargained for as a Democrat, why would anyone completely change their values and adopt THOSE instead? Obama isn't going to fall in line with tactics like that, and I personally see a lack of patriotism when the GOP is considered a better alternative to him after what they've done for 7 years and still plan to do. And if Clinton is so much better at bipartisanship then why is her health care mission tainted by shutting out conservatives in the 90's? She talks about how Republicans derailed her efforts, but not her own contribution to the failure, which Obama pointed out in the last debate. She touts the successes of an administration she was neither elected into or appointed to a cabinet position in. Then she has the nerve to suggest that he can't provide national security, when she helped authorize a war that has depleted the morale and resources of the armed forces, and helped to fund it every time Bush wanted to. How can she not see that those decisions compromised our readiness for war breaking out here? It's the same as Republicans making no connection between the war and the horrid economy. As far as speeches, if they're such a problem for her then she should shut up until she's in the oval office and implementing those solutions she's fond of. Is Obama supposed to pull us out of Iraq on the campaign trail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kwing42 Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 You made some valid points...others are pretty laughable. To generalize republicans as a group that supports bigotry and loves war is a kind of out of touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Roman Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 Oh. So because you don't agree with some of his points, BRO, they are laughable. Amazing how he generalizes republicans.....but you NEVER do that to democrats (Which you did in one of your previous posts). It's nice to see that repsect others opinions. I guess now you'll tell me you're not a republican but a fair minded person (If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that one)...... And, on most republicans n that party, Stenbeck may have it right. It's that party that is out of touch. Fiscal conservatives........who created a record deficit. Not involved in nation building.........while doing it in Iraq. And a president who was actually surprised that gas is 4 dollars a gallon on the west coast.......this is before he was taped tap dancing with a huge smile on his face. That is what sounds out of touch to me. And to me, getting people to the polls who have never believed in the democratic process is a mark of a great leader. What I find silly is someone who counts her "35 years of experience" even though she's been a senator from NY for 6 years? And I'm not talking about being married to Bill, because if that is the case..... Why haven't Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Lady Bird Johnson or Jackie Kennedy not ever ran for president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EricaKane70 Posted March 5, 2008 Members Share Posted March 5, 2008 Kwing, I wasn't crying when I said it, but I find it interesting that the republicans are pushing for hillary when majority don't even like her. The reason is they can easily smear her campaign, with obama that won't work. I have to agree with you about obama though, he talks about change too much instead of discussing the issues. I happen to like Hillarys ideas more. So we are stuck back in square one with either voting for the more likeable candidate or the more experienced candidate? An when were the dems pushing for Romney? Because all the liberal talks shows I listen to don't even like him. If anything the dems were pushing for McCain and making fun of his age/100 years at war strategy/no plan for the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.