Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messag
 

so black guy cheated ???
whaz going on here?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

A politician twisting the truth for their own advantage??????? Obama is a politician... People need to remember that...

Thats one of my biggest complaints about him and the way the media treats him. He talks endlessly about changing the way politics is done and how he is above the way the game is played, yet all his behind the scenes tactics indicate otherwise. I have no problem with him playing the game but don't claim you don't either. And my beef with the media is they really gloss over the facts that show this.

I completely agree...

Very good point.

No way anyone can win the game without playing.

You can only complain about the "rules" so much and then you just have to
win.

That IS playing the game :2 cents:

The debate in Ohio should be interesting.

I agree that is part of playing the game and hoping you don't get exposed for saying one thing and doing another. And his biggest ally has been the media because they refuse to expose him for anything which makes this particular game play all the more effective.

The media talks nonstop about his hope, change, meet in the middle with republicans, don't play the game. Yet they rarely mention what he has actually done and said off the stump. If they had held him to the same fire as a journalist should be expected too then his game would have to change as he would be exposed.

So while I think its a joke that he is getting away with this, I also applaud him for being able to pull the fast one on everyone as well. The best move he has made is play up the fact that the media hates the Clintons with a passion and there is a big wave of fringe democrats that also feel that way and he has played it well. Lots of talk, skirt the issues and actual statements of detail and hope the anti-clinton sentiment takes him to the promise land. And it seems to have worked beautifully.

And I do like Obama. When I heard that speech he gave in 2004, I was excited that he would eventually be the president but I was not happy when he choose to run for this election as it was far to early imho. We'll see.

Agreed 200%

But this is why our elections are total bullshit. We complain about candidates not talking about issues but we "nit-pick" at stupid shit like, "he said something that I said". Then the candidates spend all their time defending against the nit-picking because WE make it more important than the issues.

When I think about the way the elections are run and who wins it seems like
Americans will elected anybody as long as there is no proof they ever had a blowjob or masterbated.

Prime example is this new shit with McCain. All innuendo.
And even if it were all facts, I still wouldn't care.
I aint voting fo McCain but I feel like I should just because of this stupid
non-issue-fake-attack of no substance.

Ron Paul all the way...

My favorite policy of Obama's is the "I'll meet with our enemies without preconditions".... then he goes on to talk about there needing to be preperation first... but the preperation will include preconditions.. For example, Cuba.. He said that he expected human rights etc. to be on the agenda... that's a precondition.. so if Cuba refuses to have human rights on the agenda will you still go Obama???

Love the double speak that the public just eats up... I'l never understand why the public and the media let any politician get away with that type of lie.

Actually what they sent out was true.How is that wrong?

who's that?

How was what he said true Tony? At best half truth on health care.

http://static.hillaryclinton.com/i/b...0802013252.jpg

Using the same shady tactics used in 93 by the republicans to defeat universal health care. Claiming that no matter how poor you are you're going to pony up your cash for health care no matter if you can afford it or not. Doesn't mention the fact that with universal health care costs come down dramatically for coverage. Doesn't point out if you're not earning enough you qualify for tax breaks and subsidies to help pay for your insurance costs and that you will not be raked over the coals like he is claiming.

And the sad part about this is now no matter what Obama will never be able to obtain universal health care in his political career now that he has used this type of ad to discredit her plan as if he even tries to sniff at it, the republicans will bring his own words and ads back on him.

The reality and truth of the matter is under his plan he will be making the poor people poorer. His plan does not mandate coverage which means his plan will cost more per person for coverage. He is mandating all children have to be covered so their parents are paying higher costs due to non universal coverage but being forced to cover their children.

According to Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America?s leading health care economists says Obama's plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured ? essentially everyone ? at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700."

And yet Obama offers less subsidies and tax breaks to offer the lower class families help to pay for their insurance than Clinton does with her plan even though his is going to set back the families $1700 more a year per person.


As for the NAFTA mailers he is circulating he says she was a boon for NAFTA and use it as a quote from a newsweek article that was later retracted by the magazine as not being accurate.


So when you play this game, and use the exact same tactics and use the same ads as the Republicans used in 93 of Harry and Louise to smear and derail her health care plan in 93 and again today your showing your absolutely no different than any politician that came before him even though he claims to be holier than thou, and above doing any such things going forward. He is the candidate to change the way politics is done. Ummmmm yeah ok then.

Basically by doing these mailers he showed his true colors as being the same, but he also made a huge blow to the Democratic parties future ability to try and get universal health care for Americans. Super job Barrack!

How do you get a tax break if you are unemployed and thus paid no taxes?

How do you qualify for subsidies if you are homeless and an address is
required to qualify.

How does the price of health care go down when doctors set the prices and not the government?

So you get coverage for $2000 but the doctor charges $4000.
Do you pay the extra $2000 that you don't have or do you foolishly believe
the health plan will pay more because they are nice?

Health care in this country will never be fully paid for under the current system because if the health plans pay more the doctors just charge more.


Her plan is fucking "pie in the sky". America needs "health care reform" before any "health care plan" will work.

Do you honestly believe Doctors set the prices? Insurance companies set the prices. Doctors inflate prices to try and get as much as possible from the insurance companies but in the end they send the doctor what they think the procedure was worth, not what the doctor thought it was worth.

I agree with you that America could use a total re haul and elimination of HMO's and private insurance companies in order to get costs truly to the levels they should be at, but thats is your pie in the sky plan. That will NEVER happen in the US until the people rise up and cause a revolution.

But under what is possible, Clinton's plan does the best to work with what is available to provide the best coverage to everyone at the best price possible. When everyone is covered, eventually you see preventive care instead of sick care and that by itself ends up bringing costs down once you eliminate the more serious sicknesses which cost far more to treat.

I should also point out when you offer to insure the entire nation you have a lot more pull to reign in insurance companies by telling them what to payout and to keep their profits within reason or the whole lot is moving onto a company that will do it right. Power in numbers.

And no plan in a campaign will survive in tact and without modifications. So it is tough to fully judge either plan without getting to the nuts and bolts after its been thru the house and senate a couple times. I do however much prefer where Hillary's is starting off from.

And whether you prefer hers or his isn't really the issue about this thread. Its the fact he is spreading half truths and fear mongering to sway voters into thinking something that is not true. Doing something that he claims he is against and which is the whole basis of his campaign and speeches. A pot calling the kettle black. A man who has recently said that Action does speak louder than words. Well it seems his action is yelling right now.

You may be right, but what's your reasoning for this?

From a strategic standpoint, it seems now is better than ever. We're coming off what most Americans believe are two consecutive failed Bush administrations. If a Dem is going to get the nod, it'll be this time around. What would waiting achieve? If Americans aren't ready for Obama now, I don't see why they would be 4 or 8 years from now either.

He said he did cocaine which is a felony!!! haha whats next. "I car jacked a cracker back in the day but I want to change the country and make it safe" Anyway, he reminds me of a used car salesman:2 cents:

experience

My reasoning behind it was/is that without the experience of the senate and being on some committees his resume is lacking and sets himself up to be beaten in the GE and also my fear is/was if he got in by some chance that his lack of experience and learning on the job would cause a series of missteps opening the door up for being outed after 4 years and ruining what I thought would be a sure lock for two terms and strong legacy when the time was right.

Honestly I didn't think he would get this far, and thought he would get beat up on his lack of record and a few various things like voting present and such and thought it also would be stupid to go thru that just for the sake of doing it and therefor potentially jeopardizing his potential in 4 to 8 years.

Now he hasn't been beaten up bad at all so far, but its coming from the Right soon enough and I am not sure he has enough to fight it. Again we'll see.

I'd hate to see him fail in his bid and get beaten up or get tossed in 4 years and waste the potential he had to lead for a strong 8 after a solid bid in the meantime as a potential Vice.

In some ways I was kinda hoping Edwards would win the primary and ask Obama to be his Vice.

It is 100% true and completely fair.

Every chance she gets she spouts out her crap about how he leaves 15 million people uncovered with his plan.
The difference between their plans is that she FORCES everyone to buy insurance whether they want it or not.
He makes it cheaper and makes sure that nobody can be excluded or charged more because of a health problem.

The 15 million is an estimate done by a think tank...based on their logic 15 million people will choose to not buy insurance even if it's affordable.

Hillary's plan FORCES people to buy insurance, and she has said she's willing to garnish their wages and charge them a fine for not buying a policy.

Now after she's spouted out the half truth about him "leaving 15 million people out" how is it not fair for him to point out that her plan FORCES people to buy a policy?

2 things.

1st, there is no job on the planet that can prepare a person to be President of the United States. Ask any former President (excluding Bill Clinton right now because his wife is running on experience)....ask any of them, as long and impressive as their resumes were, they'll all tell you that nothing prepares you for being President. The job is unique.
The only thing you can hope for is that a person has the character, and the intelligence to make the right decisions, and that they are willing to surround themselves with the right kind of people, not just yes men, to help advise them on those decisions.

2nd, staying in the Senate for 8 more years, authoring 20 pieces of legislation and casting 1000 more votes, would not make him any more prepared to be President than he is today. This is exactly what Dick Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois told Obama when they discussed whether or not Obama should run for President.

On another note, you say you hoped that Edwards would win and make Obama VP.
Obama has ALOT more "experience" than Edwards.

Edwards was in the Senate for 1 term, the rest of his life he was a trial lawyer.

Obama was a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer, a state representative, a state senator (with an impressive track record of pushing bi-partisan legislation through), and a United States Senator for the last 4 years.

The "present" vote thing is a non-issue. It's a legislative tactic that is specific to Illinois, and 99% of the time he voted that way it's because that's what his party's leadership asked him to do, because it was part of a larger strategy to fix errors in what the leadership determined were "bad bills".

:2 cents:

I agree with you. He's the media darling and the Right is going to pounce on him if he's nominated, and he lacks certain political experience. I also agree that if Edwards had won, it would give Obama experience as VP if he was chosen (although it's doubful because if he didn't run in this election it's unlikely Edwards would even know who Obama is - he was a virtual unknown). But that pre-condition didn't happen. It's only him and Hillary so he can either bow out now or go on and potentially lose once the knives come out. I really don't see an option for him except to stay in the race and hope for the best. Looking into the future for a 'time is right' moment may never come to pass; the political landscape is always changing.

Hillary could win or lose. If she wins she could be perceived as a good or bad President. If good, people would likely give her a second term. If bad, Dems will be out of office again for years with no chance for Obama (since his platform is virtually identical to Clinton's). McCain could win or lose. If he wins and is perceived as a good President, Repubs will get another term. If bad, it would be another year of Clinton vs Obama all over again, and competing with new candidates.

Running right now despite all his shortcomings just seems like the best option for him personally, because nobody knows what the future holds. What he knows is that people seem to be prepared to accept a Dem in office because of Bush.

What I mean by this is that by not running in this election Obama could very well jeopardize his ability to run in 4 years or forever. Who is to say that waiting or [potentially] getting more political experience than he already has would work in his favor 4 or 8 years from now when all the faces vying for the Presidency have changed and domestic and international situations have changed.

Note that I think Obama is no different than the rest. He's a politician to the core.

She also points out his will leave 15 million out and yet still forces a mandate on parents of children that FORCES people to buy insurance and will have no choice but to also put in fines and garnish wages to enforce his policy. And these people are FORCED to pay costs estimated to be $1700 more a year than on Hillary's plan. Good luck for a family of 3 making $30k a year under Obama.

The reality is his plan because it leaves people out does not come close to lowering the cost of insurance to people therefor makes it affordable to some but not to all. And since he makes no amends for subsidies and programs to pay that difference for those unable to afford it, the reality is the number left out will rise year after year as costs continue to rise and those who are uninsured are still sick and continue to drain the system. As long as you have uninsured, you will have a continuous rise in costs making the gap and definition of affordable further and further from those its supposed to protect.

On health care I truly feel Obama pussied out and tried to take the safe route.

On foreign relations I think he is far too green and is making a lot of promises he won't be able to keep. Its irresponsible to claim you'll have all troops out in a year when you have no idea what the intelligence is saying is feasible and safe. Maybe its possible, but if it isn't is he going to force everyone out to keep his word, or is going to break his promise right away because its the safe and smart thing to do?

There is no doubt there is no job that prepares you for the full scope of the presidency, but there are lots of jobs that help to make the transition a lot smoother and more effective for the greater good of the nation. Spending time doing foreign missions and serving on the committees would have given him a far greater view and knowledge on the issues and made his decisions more informed and less reckless.

On experience we disagree and thats fine. Too me when he is debates and substance comes up he stumbles and rambles and gets unclear on the issues and to me that shows that he is not experienced enough on the issues to be confident and know what he is talking about. Thats how I see it. You see it differently. Oh well.

We'll see how it plays out in the next little while and if he gets the nomination how he reacts to the right machine grinding on him as well as how the Democratic base reacts to him. There is a very large swell of Clinton supporters who are part of the true dem base that are getting pretty ticked with Obama and starting to talk of voting McCain.

When you lose even part of the democratic base plus now have to fight for the independents who helped you in the primary but could just as easily head home to the right, that makes things interesting to say the least. Factor in the fact Obama's campaign is so against reinstating the Florida vote in any shape even at half the delegates being awarded and he has just alienated a very very important state that is always a toss up for each party. Michigan isn't thrilled.

Missouri a swing state in which he won but lost 110 of the 115 counties and won the city states with the large black population and votes and you got another swing state in heavy play.


I truly fear that with Obama the Dems may lose this election as the states he won were largely red states and with no caucuses to lean on in the GE it could get extremely tight. He's going to have to make significant inroads with the base and I am not sure he can.

Recent polls show he has peaked and slipped in national ratings vs Clinton and McCain. His campaign is a tough one to start another uptrend of momentum with.

I hope I am wrong as the last thing I want is the Republicans in the white house come Jan. For the war ending if not anything else.

I do agree with you no doubt. I believe both of them have to stay in to the convention. Him cause he is the leader in delegates even if he loses the big 3 coming up. In Texas he has a good shot since 25% of the delegates are given to a caucus so thats his in the bag. The rest are normal primary. Crazy that you can vote in the primary then have to return on the night of the 4th to also caucus for your full vote to count. In PA he will have a harder time as its a closed primary so he loses his indys and republican votes.

So either way he will have the delegate lead going in so he will stay in for sure.

Hillary should stay in as well even if she wins 2 of the 3 states as she will be close enough in delegates that super delegates can dictate the nominee if something goes really wrong with the electability of Obama in the 6 months upcoming.

She has nothing to lose by staying in and seeing how it shakes out. And there have been a few missteps lately in Obama's campaign and when things get pumping full out at him who knows where it ends up.

ie you got this Larry Sinclair thing floating about right now where he claims in 99 he did crack and blow with Obama in the back of a limo and then gave him head. Sinclair did a 4 hour lie detector test as well as drug test from whitehouse.com this weekend with results coming out on Monday. If he passes that test (he passed the drug test) well that opens up a lot of doors and ammunition for the right to pounce on.

Also claims coming out that he was with males during his time at Columbia.

Once the media starts to dig, who knows what comes out with Obama, so to me I fully expect this to goto the convention to decide what will happen with super delegates, michigan and Florida.


BTW although Obama was an unknown of sorts he had a different standing in the DNC party. Since 04 he has been a guy they wanted to groom and had their eye on as their future rock star. So Edwards may not have asked him on his own but I really believe that Howard Dean would have asked Edwards to think about Obama with his eye to the future. Certainly could be wrong though.

All I want is a Democrat as president and a lot more democrats taking over republican seats in the senate and house so that things can actually get done. Cause if you have to rely on bi-partisan to get things accomplished its going to be a long 4 years no matter who is in charge.

The cost of insurance under his plan is virtually identical to the cost under hers. Most analysts have said they're exactly the same plan with the exception of Clinton's mandate.

And complaining that his plan requires a mandate for children to be covered and boo-hooing over the cost to the parents....while at the same time sticking up for Hillary who mandates that EVERYONE buy coverage is the definition of hypocritical.

The $1700 a year more is crap, please show me an independent analysis that says the cost will be $1700 more on his plan than hers. My guess is you got that straight from her campaign website....not exactly an unbiased source.

4 of our last 5 Presidents were governors before they were President and had absolutely zero foreign policy experience. 3 of those 4 did a good job with it. The 4th will be out of there on Jan 20, 2009.

Obama has more foreign policy experience than Carter, Reagan, or Clinton did when taking office.

He also did not claim that he would have all troops out within a year. He said exactly this "We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless going in"....and that military officials say that we can safely withdraw our troops at the rate of one or two brigades a month.
He has never "committed" to withdrawing them within a certain time frame because he doesn't know what the conditions on the ground will be when he takes office.
He wants to get them out as quickly and safely as we can, but has made no firm commitment on how long that would take.

Who's that? You and your cousins?

All of the data available says the exact opposite of what you're saying here...Clinton voters for the most part will support Obama in the general, the reverse of that is not true. All of the exit polling says that.

Obama isn't losing any of the Democratic base....he's increasing it. I really don't know where you're getting this stuff from other than your blind loyalty to the Clintons.
Obama is getting young voters to show up to the polls, he's getting independent AND republican votes.
Maybe Hillary can win in the general (the polls show her losing to McCain though...and her numbers aren't going to get much higher, everyone in the country already knows who she is and what she stands for) BUT if she wins it'll be a 51 to 49 election, and she won't have any mandate to get things accomplished the way Reagan did when he won big.

Also, the Florida thing is a sham. The DNC and all of the candidates agreed that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count because they moved their primaries up without permission.
Now that Clinton won in those states and she's behind in delegates, she wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. She was the only one on the ballot in Michigan and none of the candidates campaigned in Florida....she won that on name recognition alone. Now you think it should be counted???

Hey, why don't we just count all the states where Clinton won and not count the states where Obama won? If we're going to change the rules to benefit Hillary and only Hillary, let's go all the way with it.

Not only can Obama win, but he can win HUGE. He can win by 10 points or more and drag in alot of new democratic Senators and Congressman on his coattails.
If you want to see huge republican turnout in November while independents stay home because they're sick of all the dirty negative campaigning, then Hillary is who the nominee should be.
If you want to see huge democratic turnout, along with millions of independent voters and about 10% of republicans voting for the democratic nominee, then Obama is who you want.

All of the data that's available is congruent with what I just said. I really don't know where you're getting your information from about the democratic base being ticked at Obama or these twisted versions of what his policy proposals are.

This is all bullshit man.
Nobody in politics has a better opposition research operation than the Clintons. They're the resident experts on slinging mud. If there was anything in Obama's past they could use against him, they would have done it by now. If they haven't found anything, then there's nothing to be found.


2 things here.
If you want a candidate with long coattails, then you should be rooting for Obama.
Hillary is a polarizing figure, and even though she might squeak out a victory in November, alot of republicans will show up at the polls to vote against her even if they don't really like McCain. While they're there, they'll also vote for the republican candidates for congress and the Senate.

I also disagree that you can't get things done in a bi-partisan way.
Reagan did it. Democrats controlled congress when he was President, and they got lots of things done. (not all of them good mind you, but they got things done)

Just because Bill Clinton was the king of gridlock and government shutdowns doesn't mean that no democratic president can work with republicans in congress.

Lenny your pointless to discuss with. You put out info with zero links to your sources and its never specifics its terms like "affordable" "bi-partisan" "huge accomplishments" "he can win by 10 points"

You speak like you talk to Clinton supporters all day and know they also love Obama and will of course vote for him. You hang out at Barrack joints and believe it when they tell you that the whole Base has a hardon for him. When the only place he has won the majority of the democratic party was Wisconsin.

We'll agree to disagree and continue to believe our own things, its cool.

BTW on Iraq he has changed his stance multiple times already.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/9/12/13551/3214

on his site now he says 16 months where as in early debates he claimed out in 12 months which was the biggest difference vs him and her as she would not commit to a specific time frame other than starting the withdrawal when in office.

In modern philosophy, Kant introduced a new term - transcendental, thus instituting a new, third meaning. In his theory of knowledge, this concept is concerned with the conditions of possibility of knowledge itself. He also opposed the term transcendental to the term transcendent, the latter meaning "that, which goes beyond" (transcends) any possible knowledge of a human being.[2] For him transcendental meant knowledge about our cognitive faculty with regard to how objects are possible a priori. "I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects even before we experience them."[3] He also equated transcendental with that which is "...in respect of the subject's faculty of cognition."[4] Something is transcendental if it plays a role in the way in which the mind "constitutes" objects and makes it possible for us to experience them as objects in the first place. Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of objects; transcendental knowledge is knowledge of how it is possible for us to experience those objects as objects. This is based on Kant's acceptance of David Hume's argument that certain general features of objects (e.g. persistence, causal relationships) cannot derive from the sense impressions we have of them. Kant argues that the mind must contribute those features and make it possible for us to experience objects as objects. In the central part of his Critique of Pure Reason, the "Transcendental Deduction of the Categories", Kant argues for a deep interconnection between the ability to have self-consciousness and the ability to experience a world of objects. Through a process of synthesis, the mind generates both the structure of objects and its own unity. For Kant, the "transcendent", as opposed to the "transcendental", is that which lies beyond what our faculty of knowledge can legitimately know. Hegel's counter-argument to Kant was that to know a boundary is also to be aware of what it bounds and as such what lies beyond it -- in other words, to have already transcended it.

In phenomenology, the "transcendent" is that which transcends our own consciousness - that which is objective rather than only a phenomenon of consciousness. Noema is employed in phenomenology to refer to the terminus of an intention as given for consciousness.

Jean-Paul Sartre also speaks of transcendence in his works. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre utilizes transcendence to describe the relation of the self to the object oriented world, as well as our concrete relations with others. For Sartre, the for-itself is sometimes called a transcendence. Additionally if the other is viewed strictly as an object, much like any other object, then the other is, for the for-itself, a transcendence-transcended. When the for-itself grasps the other in the others world, and grasps the subjectivity that the other has, it is referred to as transcending-transcendence. Thus, Sartre defines relations with others in terms of transcendence.[5]

[edit]
Colloquial usage

Took you long enough :1orglaugh

Christ dude, I didn't know I had to include a bibliography with every post.

Have you looked at the exit polling data from any of the last 10 primaries? It's all there in black and white, I didn't make it up.
They specifically asked democratic voters if they would be happy with Obama as the nominee and over 2/3 of them said yes.

FWIW I haven't seen any links to sources on your claims like "his health care plan will cost you $1700 more per year than hers" or that "a large part of the democratic base is ticked with Obama"

Maybe you think it's pointless to discuss these things with me because I don't accept the premise of your statements just because you use 300+ words per post. Maybe for you the only time it's not pointless to discuss these things is if you're discussing them with someone who agrees with you already or whose mind you can easily change.

Well gee, if only democrats were allowed to vote in November that would matter, but since the last time I checked both independents and republicans are allowed to vote in the general election, and usually the winner is decided by independents and swing states, wouldn't it be wise to select a nominee who is popular among independent voters?

The fact that you have to dig that deep into the specifics of the voting breakdown to find good news for Hillary shows that you're grasping for straws. She's lost the last 10 primaries by an average of 33 points for crying out loud.

We can argue this until we're blue in the face but the fact of the matter is that unless he has a major political catastrophe, or she has a major political miracle, Obama will be the nominee of the democratic party, and likely the next President of the United States.

Vote for Clinton.

Practice what you preach. Show me a link to the transcript where he said he would have us out of Iraq in 12 months and how that was a difference between her and him.

Early debates? Is the September 2007 debate in Iowa early enough?

Russert: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?

Obama: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office [and] if there's no timetable [for withdrawal], then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...k_in_iraq.html