February 15, 2008
Obama Responds to Clinton's Debate Challenge Ad
After Hillary Clinton's started airing a commercial in Wisconsin questioning why Barack Obama declined to appear in another debate, Obama came back with his own ad. The voiceover says:
After eighteen debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates? It's the same old politics, the phony charges, and false attacks. On health care, even Bill Clinton's own labor secretary [Robert Reich] even says Obama covers "more people" than Hillary and does more to cut costs, saving $2500 for the typical family. Obama's housing plan it stems foreclosures and cracks down on crooked lenders. That's change we can believe in.Provisional votes in New Mexico, which had its caucus on Super Tuesday, were finally counted and Clinton officially won the caucus, 48.8% to Obama's 47.6%. Clinton received one more delegate, earning a total of 14 to Obama's 12. The delegate counts vary depending on the media outlet (as MSNBC explains, the differences are due to "how they account for states that have held caucuses but have not yet chosen their delegates, and how they project the apportionment of delegates within congressional districts where the vote was close."): The AP says Obama has 1,276 and Clinton has 1,220, while NBC says Obama has 1,116 and Clinton has 985.
The fight for delegates and superdelegates continues. The NY Times reports that Representative John Lewis of Georgia, "one of Hillary Clinton's most prominent black supporters" will cast his superdelegate vote for Obama. The influential Congressman said, "In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit. Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.”
Clinton made a campaign stop at a GM plant in Ohio, attacking Obama's record. Clinton's advisers are reportedly prepared to demand Florida's and Michigan's delegates be seated. The Democratic National Committee stripped them of their delegates when they held their contests early and none of the candidates campaigned there; Clinton won both states.
The NAACP's Julian Bond also believes the delegates should be awarded, but the Reverend Al Sharpton sent a letter to the DNC, threatening to organize a march in Washington D.C. if this happened. Sharpton's letter read, "I firmly believe that changing the rules now...at this point would not only violate the Democratic Party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice."
Good news for Obama/bad news for Clinton, the big labor union Service Employees International Union is set to support Obama. Oh, and in the Republican race, Mitt Romney has endorsed John McCain; Romney said, "Even when the contest was close and our disagreements were debated, the caliber of the man was apparent."
|
I like how all the blacks are supporting Obama blindly but all the women don't do squat for Hilary. Tells you something about society.
As sad as it may sound, the reality is that the "trendy" vote will land Obama in the White House in 2009. With momentum and logistics behind him at this moment, no one under 40 is going to be caught dead this year as a Clinton supporter. Yes, now go out out and vote for the cool black guy. Change is good. He gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling also...
I recently found this interesting web page on the internet. I have no connection to the web page. Very interesting reading about the Clintons.
http://www.hillcap.org/
I recently found this interesting web page on the internet. I have no connection to the web page. Very interesting reading about the Clintons.
www.hillcap.org/
Woman are doing things for Clinton. NOW came out and condemned sexist attacks on her; Erica Jong wrote a scathing piece on the Huffington Post about the race. All the major older feminists have basically come out to support her, though another group of feminists didn't. What else do you want women to do, babyhitler? What do you think they can do beside vote for her?
Mark my words. I've been right about the winner of every presidential race for over 30 years. My gut feelings about them during the race have always panned out.
Nixon '72 - I knew he was bad news.
Carter '76 - Heart in the right place, although not the brightest bulb. Still seems the same.
Reagan '80 and '84 - Definitely not smart, but I figured he couldn't do much damage.
Bush '88 - Could be the worst president in recent history.
Clinton '92 and '96 - Sounds good to me.
Bush '00 and '04 - For the love of God, noooooooo!!! I stand corrected about Bush '88.
Tell me I was wrong about any of them. I'm not getting a good vibe about Obama.
>>>After eighteen debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates? It's the same old politics, the phony charges, and false attacks.
The front runner never wants a one on one debate with the trailing candidate, and the trailing candidate wants as many as possible. Same old politics...
www.forgotten-ny.com
Voting for Clinton "because she is a woman" is about the intellectually lamest thing one can do. If anything I though feminism supported women making choices with their own minds rather than having men making it up for them - in this case women are trying to make the mind up for other women by calling them gender traitors if they don't vote for her.
I think that's unfair.
"I like how all the blacks are supporting Obama blindly but all the women don't do squat for Hilary. Tells you something about society."
What is it that tells you blacks are supporting Obama blindly?
Romney's at least right about something, the caliber of McCain is quite apparent. He voted FOR torture.
You put Obama against McCain and we've got another Republican president. Hands down, no contest.
The only reason republicans have stopped supporting bush blindly is because his blundering of the war and the economy have directly affected them and they're sick of it. McCain wholeheartedly supports Bush's approach on both issues.
The 25% right wing base will back him, of course, but the middle? They're ready to vote for anyone who will stop sending their kids to Iraq and transferring their bank accounts to the hyperrich.
Why do you think democratic voter turnout has been more than double that of the republicans?
too be honest there's only three candidates now and McCain is not the imminent threat that Bush was. It's all up in the air now. Obama will not win as a politician but might win if he gets his celebrity to michael jordan/tiger woods/oprah level. I mean california voted for Schwarzenegger!!!! a republican! as well as a man who doesn't have a grasp of the english language. I don't underestimate the american public's ability to do the worst thing imaginable which was vote in Bush a second term. After Bush in '04 anything is possible. Is Obama the best candidate? who knows. All I know is a lot of Democrats would vote for McCain.
"The 25% right wing base will back him, of course, but the middle? They're ready to vote for anyone who will stop sending their kids to Iraq and transferring their bank accounts to the hyperrich."
As opposed to transferring their bank accounts to the not-so-rich...the middle class get f* either way...
Obama is trendy, yes, but don't discount him for that reason alone. He has risen in status for a reason. He is the real deal. He genuinely cares about this country and wants us to live in a truly Democratic state. Please READ some of his literature and base your judgments on his proposed policies.
Again, a link to his website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
The blueprint for change, for instance, is interesting and will give you an idea about what he really stands for.
Babyhitler, I do think Obama's celebrity status will help him get elected, but he is much more than a just a celebrity. He's not an entertainer; he's an intellectual. Oh, and not all blacks are supporting Obama blindly. I have volunteered for his campaign and I've met plenty of black people who support Clinton.
Spiritof76, you should adjust your radar. You're definitely wrong this time.
Gothamistgal, Are you willing put money on your "sure thing"? Obama is a far stronger contender when put up against John McCain.
Gossipgirl, You're right. McCain DID vote for torture. Others should see this:
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/02/mccains-red-shi.html
One thing that concerns me is if McCain wins against either Obama or Hillary...
I really don't want to spend the next four years listening to how sexist or racist America is. I suppose if McCain lost he could complain America is too ageist. I am so tired of identity politics.
Despite what Babyhitler says, I think we have reached a time where a good candidate can win regardless of race or gender (and not because of it). I'd like to think that whether Obama or Hillary wins, it won't be attributed to their race or gender, and that the loser (or more likely, the loser's supporters) won't portray the loss as being based on race or gender. The loser will have lost on the merits, and that's the way it should be.
Hillary's run has shown that a woman CAN make it. Obama's run has shown that a black CAN make it. Regardless of whether they succeed or not.
I think I'm gonna vote for the black guy. Did I tell you some of my best friends are black?
Yeah, Obama rocks! Say yes to change and umm, all that other stuff he preaches!
Obama's "blueprint" for change...oh puuuhhhleeeze Vanessa gimme a break...zero foreign policy experience zero economic policy experience and practically zero senate experience...
Mind you it didn't stop dubbya...but that hasn't exactly worked out has it? Only here can the equivalent of an air hostess get to fly the plane...
Gothamistgal, Are you willing put money on your "sure thing"? Obama is a far stronger contender when put up against John McCain.
I would actually put money on McCain beating either Clinton or Obama.
I think you are going to see a lot of single-issue Republican voters come out of the woodwork because of Obama's stand on gun control and socialized medicine. I also think you'll find a lot of the middle class not really happy about their taxes going up 3%. As much as people like to tout "BUSH'S TAX CUTS ONLY HELP THE RICH~!!!" it's untrue. The 10% bracket goes back to 15% and the rest of them come back up 3%. In a time when people are struggling to make ends meet and pay for gas, McCain's going to be telling them that Obama wants them to pay more taxes. Good luck with that.
I also think you can't discount the fact that McCain has an outside chance of winning blue states. He's the type of Republican that this city in particular has made mayor in the last few elections. Nor can you discount racism, which still is probably a pretty strong force in some states.
I'm pretty sure the Democratic party has managed to pick two candidates that have no shot as their front-runners.
What's scaring me is the runaway support he's getting from an American public that elected W not once, but twice into office. And until recently still regarded Mr Rudy Giuliani as "America's Mayor"! Food for thought? But hey, I'd still vote for the black dude over the middle-aged pant-suit wearing white woman any day!
for the people hating the Obama hype - two months ago it was about how Hillary was a shoe in and Obama didnt stand a chance...thankful thats changed, but its not because of his skin color, but because of his message.
experience doesnt count for anything - cheny, rumsfeld, they've been in washington all thier lives, they make horrible criminal decisions despite thier experience because they have no character. Obama has character, because he's not a career politician he's closer to an average american than Hillary and I hope he wins, and stays true to his message
"I also think you'll find a lot of the middle class not really happy about their taxes going up 3%. "
As I understand, both Dem candidates would preserve that part of the cut, or otherwise offset the increase. McCain can tell them that Obama wants them to pay more taxes, but he'd be lying, at least as far as the income tax is concerned.
I'd feel good voting for a black guy. Anyone else here feel the same? Si, se puede and all that other good stuff!
His message? Or rather, his subliminal anti-Hillary message?
"What's scaring me is the runaway support he's getting from an American public that elected W not once, but twice into office. And until recently still regarded Mr Rudy Giuliani as "America's Mayor"!"
He's getting runaway support in the Dem primaries. That is generally not the same group that elected W twice, nor regarded Rudy as "America's Mayor".
Nationwide polls, like 2000 and 2004, basically have a dead heat.
Loopus,
Just to get the facts straight:
"(Obama has) zero foreign policy experience"
Obama has fought against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Russia in cooperation with Republican Senator, Richard Lugar.
I admit, this doesn't count as experience, simply good judgment. Obama said this about the Iraq war back in 2002:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Queda, thru effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."
"(Obama has) zero economic policy experience"
Clinton is in the same boat here.
(I actually support Clinton too, by the way, I just think Obama will make a better president)
"practically zero senate experience"
Obama's became a US Senator in 2004. He has held various positions in public office since 1997.
Hillary has been a senator since 2001 and that is the only political office she has ever held.
Loopus,
Really, have you read anything that Obama has written? "Puuuhhhleeeze" doesn't qualify as an informed response.
eyekantspel: to say that obama and hilary woud make it by not winning is stupid. they would only make it if they won. Margaret Thatcher already made it, and Colin Powell made it when he was actually instilled as a powerful member of bush's cabinet. The good thing about this race is that you are going to see politicking like you've never seen before. Three special interests that have to tiptoe around the other party members racial, sexual and ageist platforms. That's why I bet there will be a lot of auxilary groups that are gonna do the dirty work in the coming months. Black ops politics and rupert Murdoch is gonna be one of those guys.
"That's why I bet there will be a lot of auxilary groups that are gonna do the dirty work in the coming months. Black ops politics and rupert Murdoch is gonna be one of those guys."
Don't forget MoveOn.org
Interesting article about race and sex at CNN that's pretty much dead on.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/15/kaye.ohioracegender/index.html
The question remains unanswered on how he plans to pay for all these programs, promises, and new administrative agencies. The "Blueprint for change" won't spell it out. But the blueprint highlights hundreds of billions of dollars in programs which will be implemented with government oversight. It has to come from somewhere. His tax plan gives you a clue, but won't lay it out.
The blueprint also contradicts itself on free trade. I'm not sure if he understands that we are now a part of global economy. The threat to scrutinize our free trade agreements show he is out of touch with the economy.
I am not confident on the economy issues that he has proposed. I personally feel that it stifles growth, and does not promote free enterprise. He seems to be writing checks, that he can't possibly cash.
babyhitler, I didn't say that Obama and Hillary would make it by not winning. What I said was that Hillary and Obama have shown that a black or a woman CAN make it. They both beat a white guy in the primary race, and both have proven viable candidates, with plenty of support from outside their demographic group.
The article from CNN doesn't say much, other than to rehash the story that it's considered more acceptable to judge Hillary on her looks than to make observations on Obama's race. The reporter, Randi Kaye, might be displaying some pro Clinton bias here... covered President Bill Clinton's campaign in Little Rock, Ark, moved to Arkansas and worked on a number of Clinton stories, "most memorable interviews include Hillary Clinton", etc.
Yes, we judge women based on their looks. Men too-- Bill on his hair, Obama on how he looks in a bathing suit, Rudy on his combover. This is true regardless of race or political affiliation (see, e.g., Condi Rice). While some suggest that those are anti-women sentiments, I think they are overstating things. Judgments about Hillary's tears weren't anti-woman, but more a question about her sincerity/motive for doing so. If she misted up at a funeral, no one would have said anything. Doing so while describing her frustration at not polling better is a different story, at least to some observers.
You think people can't get past race or gender, I disagree, and think that, if anything, the fact that we are at a point where a black or a woman is going to be the Democratic nominee, and that either of them are pretty much even-money against a well-regarded, white independent-Republican like John McCain tells me that voters aren't bound by race or gender the way you seem to think.
"The question remains unanswered on how he plans to pay for all these programs, promises, and new administrative agencies... He seems to be writing checks, that he can't possibly cash."
And McCain, with another 100 years in Iraq, isn't?
McCain's 100 years in Iraq comment makes a nice soundbite, but doesn't represent what he said. He said that he supports having a lasting US presence in Iraq, much as we have in Korea, or Japan.
He was flip in making it, but making it sound like he was suggesting 100 more years of ground war is nothing but spin; even if you thought that is his intent, he obviously couldn't make a commitment that would bind anyone for that length of time.
videoclip of comment here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
That said, I agree completely that the money we are spending in Iraq, and elsewhere abroad, seems crazy. We borrow money from everyone to fund these overseas endeavors, and it needs to stop.
Vanessa your responses say it all about the circus-act junior senator...light on substance and accuracy.
And please don't fall for the whole "I never voted for the war" BS...His deliberate shirking of a stance on Iraq was shamefully premeditated and shown to be bogus on subsequent votes for funding...the "oh I just happened to be away when the vote took place" crap might work with the 18 yr olds but come on...get a grip.
Not sure how McCain's dumb statement answers the question, but I don't quite recall him trying to sell hope as a solution.
"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dzHDzvTfzQ&feature=user
What is that supposed to mean? Does it even make sense? It must. Because people are lapping it up. You really don't see how ridiculous it is until you take away the theatrics.
Here is a man that talks about change. Yet, he is giving the same speech about hope when he stumped for John Kerry in 2004.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/dems.obama.transcript/index.html
As I understand, both Dem candidates would preserve that part of the cut, or otherwise offset the increase.
I respond to that: Hogshit. With all the new stuff they are proposing, the money's got to come from somewhere.
Unless we're just planning on taxing anyone making over X00K/year at like 50%.
VanessaNYC (11:01AM), an LA Times opinion blog is a pretty funny source to link for John McCain's views on anything.
Spiritof76, you should adjust your radar. You're definitely wrong this time.
Definitely? That's what the Bush supporters said in 2000 and 2004 and some are still saying that. 36 years. Nine elections. Longer than many of the commenters here have been alive. I've been right every time about what kind of president that winner would be. That's a pretty good record. I don't think I'm a bad judge of presidential character.
So who's your pick then Spiritof76? Hillary?
Does your list mean that in 1988 you were for Dukakis? lol.
Roland Martin, CNN contributor, just published a column about the NAACP's late voice on the matter. The link is Here.
roland martin is black and is pro obama, of course. I like it whenever a black editor writes, the first thing he says it's not about race and then proceeds to endorse the black candidate. He's also a crazy religious nutter
Spiritof76 - I wrote the exact same post as you did at #6. I wrote it on a napkin an hour before you did and stuck it in a desk. I also predicted, to myself, you'd post an exact copy of it at 7:58 a.m. today. Weird, huh? ;-)
Look, no one really knows what will open. It's too fluid. I'm in the mood for a different perspective in the WH from Bush. Obama or Hillary are different from Bush and McCain is Bush's 3rd term. War, economy, judges.
We know Hillary voted for Iraq. The question is, if she had been CIC in 2003, would we have gone to Iraq? It's an overwhelming no. McCain would do it again. I'm not sure why the Dems don't mention this more.
One question, tho....both Hillary and Obama didn't vote at all on the terror torture bill. They should be on the record for that.
ekantspel, yes, I was for Dukakis. You probably don't remember that long before John Kerry, a Bush pioneered a "swift boat" attack campaign before anybody invented the term. See Willie Horton.
This, BTW, is the same Bush that endorses John McCain.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush also brought us important issues like: the pledge of allegiance, allowing atheists to be American citizens and ACLU membership.
I'm glad I'm an independent voter because I'm not beholden to any party. I have and will always vote for the individual. However, I will say that in all my years, I have never seen a candidate treated with a double standard like Obama has by the mainstream media.
First of all, there is no denying the fact that Obama and his staff have run a great campaign with a lot of energy. They have injected themes of race and class warfare in the appropriate places. Combine their effort with Clinton running one of the worst campaigns in recent history and he deserves to be in the position he is in.
I do not think that the Republicans are be on the passive side if Obama is the Democratic nominee. Obama will be forced to address issues from his Chicago days that have nipped at him in this campaign thus far. He has been allowed by Clinton and the national media to handle these neatly with a press release. It should be obvious to every one that many people, in particular, the mainstream media are afraid to question Obama on any thing out of fear of being labled a racist.
As a Black man, I will tell you this - it is not racist to question some one about an issue. He's running for President of the U.S., not the local PTA. I would like to consider voting for Obama, but he has to address my concerns:
1) Please explain your relationship with your spiritual advisor, Mr. Wright? I don't have a problem with you being a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (www.tucc.org). That is your right to be a member of that church.
My problem is that you should be held to the same standard as every other candidate in presidential elections. What does that mean? That means, if you were a White candidate, you would have had to disassociate yourself with that church.
There is no way in hell and it cannot be argued otherwise, that a White candidate who attended a church that was "unashamedly White" with a non-negotiable commitment to Europe" would be allowed to remain in the race for the nomination. The media woud have been on this story all day, every week.
2) I understand that your church's magazine issued a Lifetime Achievement Award to Louis Farrakhan. It is your church's right to give that award to any body they want to. I find it disgusting to award a man for his hate mongering just because he rehabbed some people in jails and organized a big march.
My problem is this - there is no way that Obama did not know Farrakhan was getting that award. There is no way his minister was going to hurt his campaign. Don't be naive and think Obama didn't tell the minister he could handle the heat if the issuance of the award made its way to the public air waves.
I don't want to hear about degrees of seperation and all that nonsense. The bottom line is this - there is a double standard being played out in this campaign thus far. One for the White candidates and one set for the minority candidate. These are the new "Obama Rules".
By staying a member of Trinity, Obama has basically approved of the award going to Farrakhan. I don't care what his press release said regarding his disdain for Farrakhan's anti-semitic rants. I will not believe Obama until he gets on national TV and denounces Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam for their beliefs. We would expect a White candidate to denounce the KKK. Obama should be held to the same standard.
However, this will never happen because Obama knows that there are a lot of Blacks who "buy the B.S." that Farrakhan sells and he does not want to upset his largest voting bloc and be called a "sell out" or "Uncle Tom". That's reserved for us Blacks that don't believe what ever the Jacksons, Sharptons, etc. tell us to think.
3) I would like Obama to explain how he got elected as a State Senator in Illinois, representing the Hyde Park neighborhood without the endorsement of Farrakhan. That is Nation of Islam territory and every one knows that you don't get that seat without being in bed with the Nation of Islam.
4) I also want him to address the fact that he has Nation of Islam members on his Senate and campaign staff. Once again, this is Obama's right, but it is not worthy of a Presidential candidate who wants to represent all races. Don't forget - David Duke said the same thing when he ran for office.
Lastly, Obama supporters, I appreciate and respect your energy and enthusiasm for your candidate. I only urge you to read every thing you can about Obama and all of the candidates. Then make your decision. Don't just look at their web sites and listen to their speeches. Read the information from the media (left, right, moderate, etc.). The truth is always in the middle some where.
For example, stop saying Obama is about change. I know you realize every candidate says they are about change. If Obama is so much about change, his campaign and Senate staff and advisors would be fresh faces, instead of the same old Washington insiders from the anti-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party.
As I said before, if Obama would address my aforementioned concerns, than I would consider voting for him. However, I do not think that's going to happen.
It takes real courage to start a revolution and enact real change. - unfilteredopinion.com