Tweedling Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I'm pretty sure Obama's first blunder was not being born white. His second was not being named "John Johnson III." Its the other way around. I do not think him being "brown" is THAT big of an issue at all. It's in the name....The name! All 3 are horrible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Its the other way around. I do not think him being "brown" is THAT big of an issue at all. It's in the name....The name! All 3 are horrible.He was born before he was named. And I'm sure you wouldn't vote for him because of his politics, but anyone who bases their vote for a candidate based on the candidate's name (any one of them) is retarded. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 i don't know if she was or not, i was merely referring to things such as how she became senator of a state she never previously resided in. or how she was once on the board of directors for wal-mart because her husband bill was the governor of arkansas, etc. she has benefited tremendously because of who she's married to. she has been cashing in on her husband for decades and i can't stand her. her "i know better than you" aura is insulting. she will never be president not because she's a woman, but because she is a completely unlikeable personality in general. Hold on a sec. I am not an HRC apologist by any stretch, and she is probably unelectable for the reasons you say. But she voted against a proposition allowing politicians to pay salaries to family members from interest group donations. And that is the right stance to take on this issue. Not to mention, given this thread, it is not the vote that Obama made. So isn't that the issue? Benefitting from who you are married to is one thing. Diverting campaign donations to your family is another thing. And that thing is called a payoff. It's a big difference. HRC voted the right way here and Obama didn't. I dont care who they are married to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 He was born before he was named. And I'm sure you wouldn't vote for him because of his politics, but anyone who bases their vote for a candidate based on the candidate's name (any one of them) is retarded. last check we lived in America. a significant portion of the people are clearly retarded Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Hold on a sec. I am not an HRC apologist by any stretch, and she is probably unelectable for the reasons you say. But she voted against a proposition allowing politicians to pay salaries to family members from interest group donations. And that is the right stance to take on this issue. Not to mention, given this thread, it is not the vote that Obama made. So isn't that the issue? Benefitting from who you are married to is one thing. Diverting campaign donations to your family is another thing. And that thing is called a payoff. It's a big difference. HRC voted the right way here and Obama didn't. I dont care who they are married to. shoutout to the NYC holla! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 last check we lived in America. a significant portion of the people are clearly retarded ...name calling? Just sayin'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 shoutout to the NYC holla! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 last check we lived in America. a significant portion of the people are clearly retardedNo argument there; however, knowing that a significant portion of American voters are retarded doesn't make their actions any less retarded. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I'm pretty sure Obama's first blunder was not being born white. Doesn't half count? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Here in Illinois all the politicians are on Rezko's payroll, so look for plenty of mileage on this story in the months to come. His support of Gianoulious was ridiculous as well, but what the heck, I'll vote for him. The one constant about politics in Illinois is that it is all dirty, so no matter how clean Obama appears, he has plenty of dirt to dish ultimately. Remember this is the town where Daley reins supreme and nearly every politician is on the take (Democrat or Republican). We love it.... LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Doesn't half count?Not to the people to whom such things matter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dontknownuthin Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Questions re: Obama, 1. What's Obama like in a tough election? He's never had a strong challenger in any race. We know how tough the Clintons are when they get smacked in the mouth; only the Bushes come back stronger. Obama isn't battletested; how tough is he? 2. Can he beat the expectations game? In the early caucuses/primaries in Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC, a win isn't always a win. Sometimes you can win by finishing a surprising third; it's all about beating expectations. What will Barack's be? Does he have to knock off Hillary in Iowa? NH? What will a win for him be? Hillary has a battletested, national infrastructure in place - Barack has none as of today. 3. Is he interested in being a VP candidate? If Obama doesn't think this is HIS YEAR to go for gold, he may have to play nice in the primaries a la Edwards in 04 in the interest of being thought of come Convention Time when the Veep gets picked. Hesitancy to punch back w/ equal force vs. Edwards or Hillary could doom him in the critical early primaries, dry up his cashflow and lead to an early exit. 4. The Experience question. Gravitas: will the voters find it in him? Hillary will have eight years in the Senate (plus 8 in the White House and 2 national campaigns) under her belt come '08. Those are solid bonafides. Edwards will be more familiar to voters than in 04, though still limited in terms of national political experience. Barack will have 4 years in the Senate under his belt, though will be more well-known to primary voters than Edwards in was in '04. Do voters want freshness? Experience? Or some combo that shows competence but not an entrenchment to the current political machinery? 5. The Electoral Question. Does Barack lose any states that Kerry won? Maybe. Pennsylvania could be in play despite voters disposing of Santorum. Oregon, New Jersey and Hawaii were all close calls in the months leading up to Election Day. It's likely though that whoever the Dem nominee in '08 is will run a stronger campaign than Kerry did and seize possible inroads in the SW and SE while shoring up Dem commitments in traditional blue states with a message of continued change and reform. Dems' Convention is in CO this year. VA, TN and NC will be in play as well. The possibility of Veep candidates Bill Richardson, Edwards, Mark Warner and Clark all add electoral wrinkles as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Eh, as far as experience goes, uh, Hillary has made the mistake of opening her mouth. She's really one to stick her foot in her mouth, and while she might have more years under her belt, she's been very 'politicking' with them (leaning with the majority and not really standing on her own). I think, as Uncle Wilco (correct me if I'm wrong) has said, that lack of experience will provide Obama with an advatangeously fresh perspective. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 barack has crossover potenial. hillary does not. barack's lack of track record is his strength. hillary has succeed in polarizing the voter base. you either hate her or you love her. most people hate her. new york, contrary to popular belief, is NOT the center of the universe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 new york, contrary to popular belief, is NOT the center of the universe. Who said it was? In this thread, i mean. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Who said it was? In this thread, i mean. dude, i'm from k.c. and i still have memories from the royals and yanks in the 70's. just roll with it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 does this mean Bomber McStabachristian might not win the senate race in 06? is a name really that big of a macaca in american politics? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 dude, i'm from k.c. and i still have memories from the royals and yanks in the 70's.Some great serieses, there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 does this mean Bomber McStabachristian might not win the senate race in 06? is a name really that big of a macaca in american politics?Brilliant! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 ok, you can stop right there. what a f*cking joke.Sorry if anyone already addressed this. I think the irony is intended. However, taking advantage of your spouse's name and rep is different than being put on their payroll. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Here in Illinois all the politicians are on Rezko's payroll, so look for plenty of mileage on this story in the months to come. His support of Gianoulious was ridiculous as well, but what the heck, I'll vote for him. The one constant about politics in Illinois is that it is all dirty, so no matter how clean Obama appears, he has plenty of dirt to dish ultimately. Remember this is the town where Daley reins supreme and nearly every politician is on the take (Democrat or Republican). We love it.... LouieBI'm surprised that his land deal with Rezko hasn't received more coverage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I don't really understand what happened. They bought land next to eachother, then later Obama buys a small strip of Rezko's property. It's all really, really fishy, but nothing illegal, so...? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Sorry if this has already been posted... Obama Announces Something Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 that was amazing. P.S. He sounds off key. So much for doing Johnny Cash covers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
squarewave Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 BAD vocals?!@???!?Speaking of Dylan?? Hell yes bad vocals!!Don't get me wrong, I love Mr. Zimmerman... but if his lyrics had the meaning of say, Scott Stapp's writing, we would have never HEARD his voice... agreed?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.