Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
I really don't think there's anything there in alot of this stuff you bring up. Like I said before it's penny ante stuff....it's alot of conjecture with no facts. Or it's facts, but they're presented in a specific way to make him look bad...when if they were looked at objectively they wouldn't raise any red flags.
I don't get this distinction between independents and moderates. Ideologically speaking they're the same thing....when I refer to independents, I refer to people who are registered to vote as independents. Those are the people who normally decide Presidential elections, and those are the voters Obama is winning in an overwhelming fashion. (If you're referring to democrats who consider themselves moderate....that's a totally different thing and doesn't really have any bearing on the electability argument)
About the poll that says Clinton supporters wouldn't vote for Obama....if it was done by someone reputable like Zogby or Gallup etc...then I would look at it...but if it's done by someone who works for the Clintons or was an online poll on a pro-Clinton blog then you can't expect me to take it seriously.
|
Independents are just that. Registered as Independents. Moderates are Moderate Republicans.
You could say all facts and every article about anyone and anything is skewed anyway you see fit for all things. At some point you need to accept facts as they are. Look thru some of the bs and see the facts that are present in even the biased articles. Not easy sometimes I admit.
Not sure if anything short of Obama committing a murder on live tv could make you think it holds to discredit his ability to be the president of the most powerful nation in the world.
Rarely is there one silver bullet that takes someone down. Its a lot of issues that when combined put the nail in the coffin.
I am not being trivial and bringing up his duplicate campaign and speeches as Duval. I am bringing up the fact he says he sponsored and worked to get all these bills done and passed in Illinois when in fact he was put as a sponsor by Jones and barely did any of the work to get these bills passed. And those bills are his main experience. I am bringing up the fact that he chairs and important sub committee that deals with the EU, NATO and has jurisdiction to hold hearings on how to fix some of the issues in a nation currently under war, and yet he has not had 1 single hearing on it in 13 months because he has been to busy campaigning for president. And using your chair as your experience. Ummm ok then. Clinton has held 3 hearings as chair of her committee in that time with the last one in Mid October 07.
I am pointing out that he is claiming on his site on Iraq that he had the judgment to be against the war when he was running for US Senate in 2002 when in fact he didn't start running until early 2003 a full 3 months after the vote on Iraq was passed in the senate. The only reason for lying on his website is to try and give his anti war speech more weight than it really had because he was not privy to intelligence from the CIA and Pentagon to make an informed decision based on what was thought to be credible intelligence. And even said so when he got to the senate in 2004 and said he is not sure how he would have handled the vote since he was not given the intelligence the senators were given when they made their vote.
To me these are pretty significant issues into his background and credibility.