Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
DENVER (AP) - Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.
Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues like trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security.
Obama said he understands voters might feel some comfort at the idea of returning to another President Clinton after eight years of Bush. But he cautioned voters not to buy the argument that Clinton's experience is what the country needs.
The Clinton campaign said Obama was abandoning his pledge to run a positive campaign by making misleading attacks on her record.
"Senator Obama laments this kind of politics in his book, 'Audacity of Hope,'", her campaign responded.
But he cut taxes.
McCain, has been pointing out (rightly) that Romney has flip-flopped on supporting gays. Romney, campaigning for Governor of Massachusetts, described himself as "more gay friendly than Ted Kennedy." Now, in order to win the GOP nomination, he's anti-gay. McCain has been pointing this out. But McCain has done a bit of flip-flopping on gay rights himself.
And now McCain is running this ad:
"Mitt Romney thinks he can fool us. He supported abortion on demand, even allowed a law mandating taxpayer-funding for abortion. He says he changed his mind, but he still hasn’t changed the law. He told gay organizers in Massachusetts he would be a stronger advocate for special rights than even Ted Kennedy. Now, it’s something different.
Note the use of the religious right catchphrase "special rights". The religious right that McCain is courting considers marriage a "special right" -- when it involves gay people, that is. To them, if a gay person simply wants to get married, they're asking for "special rights". Here McCain is trying to appeal to religious homophobes, and hopes to pull some of their votes away from Huckabee. But McCain hasn't always been this way. He used to have quite a few gay people on his staff. So who's flip-flopping?
http://www.americablog.com/2008/01/mccain-is-now-gay-baiting.html
Wow. Hillary speaks out about gay youth suicide.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/01/hillary-speaks-out-about-gay-youth.html
I have to admit. Obama gave a very good speech today.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/01/obama-receives-endorsement-of-ted.html
Well, now there's something new to factor into Super Tuesday. The Kennedy clan plans to announce tomorrow that they support Obama. It's a game of momentum, so this could have an impact.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/27/politics/fromtheroad/entry3756225.shtml
Hahaha!
Lol. Something tells me that it's working.
You're right, and it's got me puzzled too. And right now, as I think Jeff was saying, a lot of people are looking for an alternative to the rancor. I really feel for the guy. It's tough to choose between good candidates.
Sigh. I still can't stop thinking about Heath.
Doesn't he just break your heart? Shouldn't there be a second prize in the nomination race? I mean, the beauty pageants have the Miss Congeniality prize. Why don't the conventions have something like that? "Mr. We-love-ya--but"
So you watched the GOP debate? Good for you. I don't even bother, though I should. I'd rather keep the house peaceful for the cats. They don't need all that yelling. And besides, in the TV room we've got a twin lazyboy recliner with spring-loaded leg rests. If one of the kitties is sitting under the leg rests when we jump up to scream at the GOP candidates, well.... I don't even want to think about it.
True, but then Bill had a good point the other night as well. He poo pooed the whole mess, saying that compared to some of what he's been through in the political arena, S. Carolina has been a piece of cake.
I knew it. Me too.
WOW! What an idea! It's kind of like the way musicians audition for our orchestra. They enter the room unseen, and play behind a screen. Those doing the hiring never actually see them. They simply listen to how they play.
There's only one flaw with your idea, Susie, and I hate to mention it, but today seems to be a day for total honesty. Someone like Edwards might not win because no one would see how GORGEOUS he is.
Irresistible
I used to be innocent. That was before Qbid.
I'm SURE I have no idea what you're talking about!
Lolol. Great idea. Just pull the plug and watch them turn into dummies like Charlie without Edgar. (I know you are too young to remember them. You just googled them, right?)
tee hee hee
I definitely agree with you about the harm that this is causing, and think your "celebration of the diversity of choices we have" is brilliant.
Can I run for President from home? Using my laptop? And and alias? If not, forget it. LOL.
Thanks, Susie. I was very nervous about posting that message. It's hard sometime to be honest.
I think you are SO RIGHT about what is coming once the nomination has been made. Any candidate is going to get clobbered. And Obama will face some really ugly stuff if he gets the nod. If he does win the nomination, the GOP attacks will certainly help me put aside my concerns and jump in behind him. That's for sure.
I think the answer is that Bush is always ruled by two things - politics of the moment, and profits of the moment.
I LOVED that movie!
That's the problem. Show him a pretty face, and his voting finger goes right to their button.
ROTF! I never thought of homogenized milk as a gay plot. lolol. Next they're going to fluoridate it. Or will that be floridate?
"Why not homo marriages?, "so everybody gets a share." WHY NOT?" Brilliant, Jimsky.
;0)
They didn't need earpieces back when Reagan was in office. Nancy simply fed him his lines. It was occasionally caught on tape. They always kept reporters very far away so that they had to shout questions. When a reporter yelled a question at Ronnie, he'd just get that puzzled look on his face, as if he couldn't quite hear the question. Then you'd hear Nancy give him the answer, and he'd repeat it word for word.
Well, ok. And you may be right. If he wins the nomination, I certainly will vote for him. And I'll cross my fingers that he won't make any major mistakes before November. I'm turned off by him, but it wasn't that long ago that I was very enthusiastic about his candidacy.
Lolol. The question really is, "Who did Ronald Reagan think Ronald Reagan was?". Ooooo. nasty. Sorry. >;0)
That's really interesting, Susie. Amazing that this sort of thing can happen. Actually, it's amazing that this sort of thing isn't happening all the time, since it's obviously so easy, and so much is at stake in these debates.
Wouldn't you just love to be able to tap into the earpiece, and either feed the candidate misinformation, or just produce a loud SCREEEEEEECH! ;0)
Morning, Jeffsky. I have to disagree with that article. I'm going to just be honest, and hope it doesn't offend anyone.
Let's not forget how Hillary's comment about Martin Luther King was taken out of context, distorted, and played up by the Obama camp, which is now maintaining that the Clinton's introduced race into the campaign.
My take is that the Clintons were heroes of the black community until recently. I can certainly understand the desire to see a black president. But now they risk being seen as ungrateful for what the Clintons did, and willing to easily forget.
Both sides are playing the race card now, regardless of "who started it". Clearly Obama fanned the flames, because he needed to pull black support away from Hillary. Bill is playing hardball. He's reminding white voters that they fear racial guilt-slingers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Just the thought that the presidential race could turn into a "race" race has caused Obama's support among whites in South Carolina to suddenly drop by 50%. Bill and Hillary know that if Obama is seen as a strong candidate who just happens to be black, there are millions and millions of whites who would be happy to vote for him. But if he is seen as a "black candidate" who carries with him all the racial wounds of the past, with an abiding drive to right those wrongs, many of those white supporters will be alarmed. "What will he do?" they might wonder. "Are there going to be monetary reparations for slavery? Are we going back to affirmative action?" As soon as race becomes a central issue, there's an undercurrent of fear involved. Sad, but true. So Bill is playing hard ball, and he's good at it. It may hurt his popularity and reputation, but he's interested in getting his wife elected.
I don't think we really get to know the candidates. Not who they really are. We can only see what they present of themselves, and what comes out of their campaigns. When Obama speaks, it's inspiring. When he and his campaign make some of their racially charged statements, many find it alarming. I see it as a mistake on his part. Personally I think his campaign has made many blunders, and this is a major one. If he allows himself to become "the black candidate", he will turn off more voters than he turns on, in my opinion.
Imagine a gay candidate who was likable and inspired people with his intelligence and ability to speak. Now imagine if he started accusing his opponents of being anti-gay. Imagine if he started bringing up the sad history of oppression and hatred toward gays, and began to imply that his opponents were somehow taking part in all that. His support among gays might increase dramatically. But might it not also set off alarm bells among straight voters? "What will he do as President?" And what if he started making campaign blunders, like, say, inviting a racist to MC one of his campaign events? Might it not cause people to wonder if his campaign isn't making too many mistakes to be a safe bet against the GOP next November?
Best for any minority candidate to constantly keep in the eyes of the voters an image of someone they could feel comfortable electing. Lots of people would LOVE to cross racial lines to elect a black President, if only just to be able to say race wasn't a factor. America would LOVE to be rid of its racial pain. But for a candidate to spotlight racial differences only raises questions. People want a President. They don't want a white President, or a black President, or a gay President. They just want a President. Many would be happy to vote for someone who happened to be white, or black, or gay. But they want a President. I think Obama's latest mistake is to play into the racial tensions that have arisen. Blame him for introducing them into the campaign, or blame the Clintons - they are there nevertheless, and he is playing into them. To me it is yet another blunder on the part of his campaign.
Hi Susie. I missed that. Very interesting. I hope the media pays more attention to this than they have with Bush. During the 2004 debate the "bulge" on his back, and the obvious way he seemed to be listening to someone - at one point even telling the mystery person to wait because he wanted to finish what he was trying to say - all caught the attention of the media for a short while. But basically he's gotten away with it.
I once found a video in which the entire earpiece channel was picked up by the reporter's sound equipment, and you can hear Bush being fed each line. But some claimed the sound track was faked. I'm not sure. But it sure is obvious at times that Bush is being prompted, and it certainly explains why he managed to stand his ground with Kerry in the debate.
I thought it was a good speech too. But it left me cold. I found a different person giving the speech than the one who's been campaigning lately.
I'd been thinking that Super Tuesday would settle things, and was expecting Clinton to emerge as the clear winner. But some analysts are saying it won't be over that soon. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
So Romney really is a robot, just like Bush. He uses an earpiece through which they feed him his lines.
First, listen to this very short video from the GOP debate in Fla.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3397605068349566410&q=romney+whispering&total=27&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Just before he says that he will not raise taxes, a voice can be heard whispering "Not raise taxes". It was not heard by the moderator or the other candidates, but it was picked up on one of the audio channels. He even moves his head to his right the way Bush does when listening for his lines. It recalls Bush's performance on many occasions, including a debate in 2004.
Here's the story:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/jerry_zandstra/2008/jan/26/who_is_whispering_in_romneys_ear
We used to love to watch the news when Clinton was President. Amazing how different things felt back then, isn't it?
No. They wouldn't want to mention global warming.
Really? I was wondering where you stood on him. I get the feeling he's turning off a whole lot of people. Am not sure if Hillary is turning off as many. The media can't decide what kind of spin they want to put on it, and many other sources come to many different conclusions. Time will tell, I guess.
I'd be stunned if Obama didn't win S. Carolina. But I don't expect him to do well after that. The Clintons seem to be trying to downplay a loss in S. Carolina. Hillary's letting Bill turn it more into a battle between Bill and Obama, which is risky, but makes political sense on some levels.
It's indefensible, even just given what the public knows. And I'm sure there's so much more we don't know about.
Well, at least his face keeps you in the Democratic fold. ;)
Yeah, I like him too. I'm sorry to see all the bruising going on between Hillary and Obama, but I take her side in it. That's just me. I DO hope Super Tuesday puts an end to it. But some are saying that nothing will be decided for the Dems on ST. Groan.