http://gamingtrend.com
July 23, 2014, 06:29:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: South Carolina-is it important?  (Read 6327 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5445


I live in Japan


View Profile
« on: January 25, 2008, 09:42:36 AM »

For the election I mean smile  Hopefully Obama can pull this one out.  If he were to lose it it would be a huge shocker.  What's Hillary's goal?  Just do as well as possible?
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2008, 11:04:50 AM »

I think her goal is win at any and all costs.

which is why her and her husband are using every dirty political tactic they can.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2008, 05:28:02 PM »

If Hillary wins in SC then she is pretty much a lock for the nomination in my opinion. 

If Obama wins it's still wide open going into Super Tuesday next month.


The Republican race still seems to be wide open and my not be decided until the convention.  If it takes them that long, the Republican nominee will have a very tough time winning in November.


If it comes down to a Clinton vs Huckabee race look for Michael Bloomberg to possibly jump in as an independant because the Middle ground between the Far Left Clinton and the Far Right Huckabee could be huge.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2008, 06:28:43 PM »

Huckabee has no chance of getting the nomination though. I'm of the opinion that McCain will probably pull out a single digit victory in Florida, whereupon he gains enough steam to pick up enough states on Super Tuesday to gain the nomination.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2008, 06:38:18 PM »

Personally i think it would be a huge mistake for the democrats to give Hillary the nomination (even despite my preference for Obama) because I think that there is always this air of controversy surrounding the Clintons that would hurt her chances for winning.

Edwards or Obama seem like they would have a much better chance as it seems that a lot of people are really fed up with the Bush administration and want to see a drastic change - that's a huge opportunity for the democrats to obtain votes from people that traditionally would have voted the conservative line. However I've heard a sentiment among people i know like that who say that they would vote for anyone who's running against Hillary.
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2008, 06:46:36 PM »

If there is anything i've learned over the last few years, its that the Democratic Party will fuck everything up just when they have the chance to win everything - nominating Hillary seems about the proper course for them.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2008, 07:11:28 PM »

Quote from: CSL on January 25, 2008, 06:46:36 PM

If there is anything i've learned over the last few years, its that the Democratic Party will fuck everything up just when they have the chance to win everything - nominating Hillary seems about the proper course for them.

I have been saying that for months.  I don't think there is a single unifying Republican candidate out there.  But Hillary will energize the Republican base better than any candidate could. 

I still think a Hillary vs Rudy or possibly a Hillary vs McCain race are the Republicans' only shot.

Personally I like both McCain and Obama quite a bit.  While they have their differences philosophically, they both seem honest and not afraid to tell truth, even if it could cost them votes.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2008, 10:18:01 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 25, 2008, 07:11:28 PM

Personally I like both McCain and Obama quite a bit.

McCain is a whore.  He's entirely flip-flopped on every issue since his "Maverick" campaign run in 1999.  He'll say anything to get elected now.  He's swapped positions on Roe v. Wade, Jerry Faldwell and fundamentalist Christians, tax cuts, ethanol, campaign-finance reform, immigration, how easy it would be in Iraq and so on. 

I don't want a guy who has already been shown to be bought off (Charles Keating), who is anti-2nd Amendment, a war-monger (bomb Iran?) and who has no clear policy on health care or the economy.  Simply put, while I admire his service his candor and some of his fiscal conservatism, he's a relic to an age gone by and I don't feel like a repeat of the last 8 unsuccessful years.  I don't see any positions where he brings anything substantially different to the table that George W. Bush, who will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2008, 10:35:07 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on January 25, 2008, 10:18:01 PM

I don't see any positions where he brings anything substantially different to the table that George W. Bush, who will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. 

Maybe the rule of law, a return to moral standing in the war on terror, and probably a renewed multilateral approach to foreign issues.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2008, 11:55:09 PM »

Quote from: CSL on January 25, 2008, 10:35:07 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on January 25, 2008, 10:18:01 PM

I don't see any positions where he brings anything substantially different to the table that George W. Bush, who will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. 

Maybe the rule of law, a return to moral standing in the war on terror, and probably a renewed multilateral approach to foreign issues.

Good points and fair enough, but...

I'm concerned about McCain's real intent when it comes to FISA.  I'm very glad he's anti-torture, but his positions on giving the telecom companies immunity and his position that "if the administration came and said here’s why we need this capability, that they wouldn’t get it" make me question his commitment to backing away from the police state path that Bush has taken us down.  Plus, I don't necessarily trust him on foreign policy issues.  I think he's trigger happy and I don't feel like getting into yet another war.  His personal rhetoric against Iran is troubling.  And he's definitely not the guy to deal with trimming our bloated military budget.  He's never seen a military expenditure bill he didn't want to vote for.

Finally, I don't think he's the guy to deal with the weakness of the middle class.  His votes against SCHIP and his lack of a health care plan show a lack of attention to the plight of the average guy.

He's probably the best Republican candidate of the bunch, but I think there are far better alternatives on the Democratic side.  And I voted for McCain in the primaries in 2000, so I was once a big supporter.  But to me, he's become an establishmentarian caricature of himself.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2008, 05:14:22 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on January 25, 2008, 10:18:01 PM

McCain is a whore.  He's entirely flip-flopped on every issue since his "Maverick" campaign run in 1999.  He'll say anything to get elected now.  He's swapped positions on Roe v. Wade, Jerry Faldwell and fundamentalist Christians, tax cuts, ethanol, campaign-finance reform, immigration, how easy it would be in Iraq and so on. 

I completely disagree with you there.  McCain and Obama are the only two candidates who have held their stances on the war in Iraq from the beginning until now.  McCain has always disagreed with Bush and Rummy in terms of force level.  He has been a firm supporter of the surge (which seems to be working) and criticized Rummy's minimal troop polocy from the start.I also agree with McCain's policies on immigration and reducing government spending.
Obabma has been against the war from the start and has never waivered. He pointed out that Ronald Reagan was the last president who brought fundamentally new ideas to the job. Which is absolutely correct in my opinion.  This position is not popular with some democrats.  But it's still correct.

Both have taken unpopular positions at various times even with their own parties.  I admire both of them for their political courage and straight talk.

I think either would make a good president.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2008, 01:22:50 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 26, 2008, 05:14:22 AM

I completely disagree with you there.  McCain and Obama are the only two candidates who have held their stances on the war in Iraq from the beginning until now.  McCain has always disagreed with Bush and Rummy in terms of force level.  He has been a firm supporter of the surge (which seems to be working) and criticized Rummy's minimal troop polocy from the start.I also agree with McCain's policies on immigration and reducing government spending.
Obabma has been against the war from the start and has never waivered. He pointed out that Ronald Reagan was the last president who brought fundamentally new ideas to the job. Which is absolutely correct in my opinion.  This position is not popular with some democrats.  But it's still correct.

Both have taken unpopular positions at various times even with their own parties.  I admire both of them for their political courage and straight talk.

I think either would make a good president.

Please note I said "the ease of the war in Iraq".  http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/mccain-iraq-easy/

I'll grant that he has been consistent about going to war.  Of course, I have been too, but the exact opposite - I knew it was a mistake then and I know it's a mistake now.

Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2008, 03:27:45 PM »

Voting for McCain is the exact same thing as voting for George W Bush.  There will be absolutely zero policy change, and there would likely be very little in the way of cabinet change.

McCain isn't just a neocon.  He's a neocon's neocon.

Although honestly, aside from Ron Paul, voting for any Republican candidate is the same as voting for GWB, since all of them view him as a successful president and have vowed to Stay the Course (this isn't meant to be an endorsement of Ron Paul- the majority of his policies are just a different flavor of wrong).  The only difference between any of them is which "kind" of GWB you like most.  Huckabee is the "I love Theocracy" GWB, McCain is the "NeoConservative Think Tanks RULE!!11!!1" GWB, Rudy is the "Sept. 11,  Sept. 11,  Sept. 11,  Sept. 11,  Sept. 11,  Sept. 11,  Sept. 11,  oh, and I'll also be on a 'working vacation' for the next six months" GWB, and Mitt is the "I'm incredibly rich and that makes me better than you" GWB.

So there sure is quite a bit of choice in the Republican field.  They can choose any kind of GWB they like!
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2008, 03:36:17 PM »

Quote from: DarkEL on January 25, 2008, 06:38:18 PM

Personally i think it would be a huge mistake for the democrats to give Hillary the nomination (even despite my preference for Obama) because I think that there is always this air of controversy surrounding the Clintons that would hurt her chances for winning.

Edwards or Obama seem like they would have a much better chance as it seems that a lot of people are really fed up with the Bush administration and want to see a drastic change - that's a huge opportunity for the democrats to obtain votes from people that traditionally would have voted the conservative line. However I've heard a sentiment among people i know like that who say that they would vote for anyone who's running against Hillary.

The only candidate who actually represents change is Edwards.  Both Hillary and Obama are drinking deeply from the well of defense contractors.

Also, the little "Rezco" blowup seems to me to be typical of why I don't like Obama.  Everything he says points to a belief that he operates in a vacuum.  To illustrate, the Rezco exchange came about because Obama started attacking Hillary over being a lawyer who represented Wal-Mart.  It's like the Glass House saying... but Obama either didn't think she would throw a stone back his way, or didn't appreciate how big of a stone someone else could throw.  He seems to think he can push and nobody is going to push back, which complete shows in his "sitting around a big table" rhetoric about how he's going to "fix" health care with the help of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  Yeah... right.  He seems to think they wouldn't rather spend billions of dollars to keep up business as usual, like they did last time someone tried fixing health care in America.

Both Hillary and Edwards already understand the amount of pushback they next president is going to face if they try enacting any kind of change.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2008, 12:34:12 AM »

Seems that Obama has won South Carolina
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2008, 02:06:52 AM »

Quote from: DarkEL on January 27, 2008, 12:34:12 AM

Seems that Obama has won South Carolina

Thats an understatement - he demolished Hillary.

All total Obama and Edwards voters went 3 to 1 against Clinton voters. Obama got better than expected with white voters and got a majority of women.

Awesome!
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2008, 08:48:43 PM »

And even better is that Hillary received more votes than the winning Republican candidate did.

Not even Diebold can save them now.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2008, 11:15:22 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 27, 2008, 08:48:43 PM

And even better is that Hillary received more votes than the winning Republican candidate did.

Not even Diebold can save them now.

Well I'm not arguing that the republican party is in trouble but stating it like that is a bit misleading


Adding up all the votes showed that there were around 100k more votes in the democratic primaries than the Republican and as you can see - according to CNN - McCain got more votes than Hillary (barely).

But you also have to take into account that in the Democratic race there are really only 3 candidates compared to the 4 - 6 potential candidates in the Republican race that are splitting up those votes. Once more of those guys start dropping out - you would see the numbers for the remaining candidates go up.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2008, 11:17:12 PM by DarkEL » Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2008, 11:49:03 PM »

LOL, Ron Paul beat Rudy 9ui11iani again.  And yet Fox Noise Channel still talks up their darling Rudy.

And the media blackout of John Edwards continues.  I saw him on CNN and almost fell out of my chair in amazement.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2008, 02:24:58 AM »

Quote from: DarkEL on January 27, 2008, 11:15:22 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 27, 2008, 08:48:43 PM

And even better is that Hillary received more votes than the winning Republican candidate did.

Not even Diebold can save them now.

Well I'm not arguing that the republican party is in trouble but stating it like that is a bit misleading


Adding up all the votes showed that there were around 100k more votes in the democratic primaries than the Republican and as you can see - according to CNN - McCain got more votes than Hillary (barely).

But you also have to take into account that in the Democratic race there are really only 3 candidates compared to the 4 - 6 potential candidates in the Republican race that are splitting up those votes. Once more of those guys start dropping out - you would see the numbers for the remaining candidates go up.



True, but total Democratic turnout was far about Republican turnout.  And that's significant, considering the last time a Democrat won South Carolina (home of Bob Jones University!) was Carter/Ford.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Ralph-Wiggum
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2600


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2008, 02:38:50 AM »

It should also be noted that the Republican and Democratic SC primaries were on different days and, if I recall correctly, the weather was much worse during the Republican SC primary than it was yesterday.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2008, 02:58:56 AM »

Quote from: Ralph-Wiggum on January 28, 2008, 02:38:50 AM

It should also be noted that the Republican and Democratic SC primaries were on different days and, if I recall correctly, the weather was much worse during the Republican SC primary than it was yesterday.

I traveled to Columbia from Charlotte during Republican Primary day and there were no problems whatsoever.  Weather isn't a factor in this case.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Ralph-Wiggum
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2600


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2008, 04:00:15 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on January 28, 2008, 02:58:56 AM

Quote from: Ralph-Wiggum on January 28, 2008, 02:38:50 AM

It should also be noted that the Republican and Democratic SC primaries were on different days and, if I recall correctly, the weather was much worse during the Republican SC primary than it was yesterday.

I traveled to Columbia from Charlotte during Republican Primary day and there were no problems whatsoever.  Weather isn't a factor in this case.

Huh. I thought it was rainy and cold during the Repub primary. Even if there was bad weather, though, that still wouldn't account for large discrepency in turnout.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2008, 01:45:20 PM »

Just for reference. Obama got more total votes (295,095) than all of the Democratic candidates got combined in the 2004 primary (291,175).


Wow.

Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2008, 04:11:09 PM »

I know Hillary is getting slammed for campaigning in Florida right now... but I seriously have to question the wisdom of the Democrats abandoning the state (well, ANY state), especially in a year which is seeing a huge voter surge for the Dems.

And especially since the Republicans, by their own actions, are hard at work disenfranchising Latino voters, getting law enforcement and labor enforcement to treat all of them as criminals, etc.  I just can't see the wisdom in letting Republicans continue to waltz in there, talk a little anti-Castro hate speech, and gather up the phony machismo vote, just like they do every year.

Dean's "50 State Strategy" already paid off huge for the Dems.  They abandon it at their own peril.  So while Hillary may not be my favorite candidate, at least she is visiting American voters living in Florida.  This is especially important, since Florida had a hugely prominent role in past rigged Federal elections.  Assuming they are going to try rigging the election again, the Dem candidate is going to have to win by at least 15% in the presidential election.  That's going to be hard to do if they won't even campaign there.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2008, 06:59:09 PM »

I expect the Clinton campaign to really start cranking up the heat on Obama now.  They are doing a great good-cop-bad-cop routine with Bill playing the one with the rubber hose.  It's going to get nasty.

I really think a McCain vs Clinton election would be very close.  While I think Obama would defeat McCain easily.  Watch for the Republicans to shut off all anti-Hillary talk until the conventions. I suspect that yhey really want her to win.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2008, 08:00:56 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2008, 09:35:49 PM »

I suspect that they want to see a President Hillary as well (meaning, they already know they have no chance in hell of winning in '08).  But those damn libr00l voters aren't cooperating!

Here is a roadmap of the Conservative strategy for post-'08.  At some point they will champion the cause of depowering the office of the president, protect civil servants from being fired, etc.  Their claim will be that "never again will we let a president do this", or some such bullshit.  That's how they will try to "lock in" all the conservative crony hires of the past eight+ years, and prevent the De-Bush-ification the Federal Government desperately needs.

Now sadly enough, I don't think Obama has the balls to lead the needed De-Bush-ification, so they might be content with using a different strategy (especially if his foolish bipartisan rhetoric has him pick a stealth Republican, like a Lieberman, as VP).  But if, say, he chooses Edwards, or someone like him, as VP... well in that case they will of course become big converts to limiting the power of the White House (aka keeping all their crony hires in place).

But this is all typical of the conservative establishment.  They hate the government with the fury of a thousand suns when it's lead by a Democrat, and lovingly embrace the guaranteed corrupt dictatorship when it's lead by a Republican.

So as usual, they'll just bash and bash and bash, have Rush drag out his "America Held Hostage" sign, Fox News will continue to lie, Bill O'Reilly will become even more shrill (if that's even possible), Coulter and Malkin will Stay the Course and probably write a few more the shrill puling screeds they call books, etc.  And, of course, the (hopefully few) remaining Republican politicians will make sure to obstruct any investigations into war profiteering, illegal activity committed between 2000 and 2008, any meaningful governmental reform, etc.  I just hope the Democrats make sure to put just as much effort into the State and Congressional elections as they are into the presidency.

And that's how all the E Coli Conservatives will change the subject away from the fact that conservative policies and government are a recipe for disaster, and instead put forth the meme that all their problems were "a few bad apples"... then simply lie to everyone over and over that everything the Federal Government did in the past eight years wasn't hand crafted by the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the "liberal" Brookings Institute, and the Project for a New American Century.

And since those guys never even try being intellectually honest, they'll just canonize GWB in the same way they did Reagan and GHWB, and know that lying loud enough and long enough will again work to make everyone believe their president was a huge success.  Despite everyone knowing how horrible Nixon and McCarthy were, they've likewise been resurrected as conservative Gods.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2008, 09:36:31 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on January 28, 2008, 06:59:09 PM

I expect the Clinton campaign to really start cranking up the heat on Obama now.  They are doing a great good-cop-bad-cop routine with Bill playing the one with the rubber hose.  It's going to get nasty.

I really think a McCain vs Clinton election would be very close.  While I think Obama would defeat McCain easily.  Watch for the Republicans to shut off all anti-Hillary talk until the conventions. I suspect that yhey really want her to win.
I suspect the same thing. An Obama or Edwards nomination would have the risk of swaying larger numbers of republicans / conservatives to vote democrat this election. Not so with a Hilary nomination.

I actually expect that they'll talk about her more as a means of giving her legitimacy over Obama and Edwards.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2008, 09:49:44 PM »

Quote from: DarkEL on January 28, 2008, 09:36:31 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on January 28, 2008, 06:59:09 PM

I expect the Clinton campaign to really start cranking up the heat on Obama now.  They are doing a great good-cop-bad-cop routine with Bill playing the one with the rubber hose.  It's going to get nasty.

I really think a McCain vs Clinton election would be very close.  While I think Obama would defeat McCain easily.  Watch for the Republicans to shut off all anti-Hillary talk until the conventions. I suspect that yhey really want her to win.
I suspect the same thing. An Obama or Edwards nomination would have the risk of swaying larger numbers of republicans / conservatives to vote democrat this election. Not so with a Hilary nomination.

I actually expect that they'll talk about her more as a means of giving her legitimacy over Obama and Edwards.

Edwards is finished.  It's down to Hillary vs Obama now.  I think in a McCain vs Hillary race alot of independents would go to McCain and alot of the conservative base would come out of the woodwork to vote against Hillary. 

Hillary's big point of contention is her "experience."  McCain has her there.  He could also say that she voted for the war in Iraq just as he did.  But when things got tough she wanted to cut and run while he supported the surge.  If the surge continues to show progress he could at least fight her on equal ground on the Iraq issue.

Then it comes dow to who the voters think is more honest and has better credibility. 

Clinton vs McCain would be a very close election.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2008, 10:42:30 PM »

Well, I think Edwards is hoping to get enough votes to sway the election one way or the other, which will give him a bit of influence.  Definitely a good thing, IMO, so I'll still be voting for him.

But it seems like the Democratic establishment is lining up behind Obama.  The Kennedy's have come out on his side, as have many other big players.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2008, 12:24:13 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 28, 2008, 10:42:30 PM

Well, I think Edwards is hoping to get enough votes to sway the election one way or the other, which will give him a bit of influence.  Definitely a good thing, IMO, so I'll still be voting for him.

Yeah it seems like he would be a good choice for VP....



....oh wait.   slywink
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Soulchilde
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5076


You and I have unfinished business


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2008, 07:31:53 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 28, 2008, 10:42:30 PM

Well, I think Edwards is hoping to get enough votes to sway the election one way or the other, which will give him a bit of influence.  Definitely a good thing, IMO, so I'll still be voting for him.

But it seems like the Democratic establishment is lining up behind Obama.  The Kennedy's have come out on his side, as have many other big players.

President Clinton race baiting in SC has soured alot of bag name Dems against Hilary.  I think we will see less of Bill.  I think he took his favorable african american support for granted and he got burned. 

With the Kennedy's support of Obama things aren't looking so good for Clinton.'


Btw, I think Edwards is positioning himself for a VP bid
Logged

Quote from: Devil on January 12, 2007, 01:14:38 AM

NiM$
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2008, 08:19:30 PM »

Quote from: Soulchilde on January 29, 2008, 07:31:53 PM

President Clinton race baiting in SC has soured alot of bag name Dems against Hilary.  I think we will see less of Bill.  I think he took his favorable african american support for granted and he got burned. 

I think most of their comments were widely publicized out of context, but that's just the typical "liberal media" at work.  It worked out well for the Obama campaign, of course, but thats one of several tactics they've taken which I think helps his candidacy at the expense of the Democratic party (and the progressive movement as a whole).

Not that I think a president Hillary is even close to the perfect progressive candidate, but at least she isn't praising Ronald Reagan and worshipping at the altar of bipartisanship.  I've said before how I have serious issues with my senator's claims of what "opposing the war" means, seeing as how he's never actually opposed anything.

So as far as Obama is concerned, I simply don't get the feeling that he's bringing anything different to the table, aside from being a new face at the same old table in the same old room, talking about the same old things in the same old way while they eat the same old food.  And since both he and Hillary are drinking deeply from the well of defense industry money, I don't really know how "The Candidate of hope" means to actually change anything.  Maybe he's just going to hope things change?  Or hope that when he sits around the big table with the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry, he's going to hope that everything works out how he wants?

I'm just hoping he has the good sense to get a VP who wants to kick some asses, rather than sit around the big bipartisan table and eat granola and sing kumbaya.  If he sticks with his bipartisan bullshit, there's going to be a whole lot of disappointed people, who thought they were voting for a Democrat.
Logged
Soulchilde
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5076


You and I have unfinished business


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2008, 09:44:39 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 29, 2008, 08:19:30 PM

Quote from: Soulchilde on January 29, 2008, 07:31:53 PM

President Clinton race baiting in SC has soured alot of bag name Dems against Hilary.  I think we will see less of Bill.  I think he took his favorable african american support for granted and he got burned. 

I think most of their comments were widely publicized out of context, but that's just the typical "liberal media" at work.  It worked out well for the Obama campaign, of course, but thats one of several tactics they've taken which I think helps his candidacy at the expense of the Democratic party (and the progressive movement as a whole).

Not that I think a president Hillary is even close to the perfect progressive candidate, but at least she isn't praising Ronald Reagan and worshipping at the altar of bipartisanship.  I've said before how I have serious issues with my senator's claims of what "opposing the war" means, seeing as how he's never actually opposed anything.

So as far as Obama is concerned, I simply don't get the feeling that he's bringing anything different to the table, aside from being a new face at the same old table in the same old room, talking about the same old things in the same old way while they eat the same old food.  And since both he and Hillary are drinking deeply from the well of defense industry money, I don't really know how "The Candidate of hope" means to actually change anything.  Maybe he's just going to hope things change?  Or hope that when he sits around the big table with the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry, he's going to hope that everything works out how he wants?

I'm just hoping he has the good sense to get a VP who wants to kick some asses, rather than sit around the big bipartisan table and eat granola and sing kumbaya.  If he sticks with his bipartisan bullshit, there's going to be a whole lot of disappointed people, who thought they were voting for a Democrat.

I haven't made up my mind on whom to support, but I was lining up for Hilary cause at least know her record.  The thing is that if Hilary is nominated than she is the one canidate that the majority of republicans will line up against.   

I do think Bill's comments was taken out of context, but you have to admit Hilary;s camp has been trying to get Obama's camp into a race debate.
Logged

Quote from: Devil on January 12, 2007, 01:14:38 AM

NiM$
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2008, 02:57:39 AM »

I don't know if I really agree with the idea of discrediting Bill's comments as being out of context.

This is a guy who has no shortage of experience of dealing with reporters and has plenty of experience of walking right past them, rather than making public statements. To me - it seems as if most of the comments that we've seen the media report from him were taken in situations that he was fully aware of what he was saying and how it would be interpreted. In my personal opinion I think it was all a calculated risk that he purposefully took.

That's not to say that the media is blameless (they're a bunch of vultures looking for anything they can twist around into controversy), but Bill knows their game full well and could have easily have avoided some of the nastiness he is now associated with.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2008, 04:21:27 AM »

Quote from: DarkEL on January 30, 2008, 02:57:39 AM

I don't know if I really agree with the idea of discrediting Bill's comments as being out of context.

This is a guy who has no shortage of experience of dealing with reporters and has plenty of experience of walking right past them, rather than making public statements. To me - it seems as if most of the comments that we've seen the media report from him were taken in situations that he was fully aware of what he was saying and how it would be interpreted. In my personal opinion I think it was all a calculated risk that he purposefully took.

That's not to say that the media is blameless (they're a bunch of vultures looking for anything they can twist around into controversy), but Bill knows their game full well and could have easily have avoided some of the nastiness he is now associated with.

Well, I'm not going to give Bill any kind of know-it-all status, since first of all he knew the Republicans were looking to hang him and was screwing around with an intern.  Also, when you hear the context Clinton was talking about S.C. in, he was basically answering the question of whether losing there mattered much.  His point was, "meh, it's just South Carolina, that's just how things work there".  I think it's kind of silly, and seems really ULTRA P.C., to say he's bringing race into it by pointing out that black voters voted for a black candidate.  Sure, it happens.  And I would never even think to say it's a bad thing, or should be otherwise.  Of course people want to be represented by somebody who they feel represents their interests, and regardless of the perfect world where nobody looks at color, skin color is certainly a factor in the American experience.  It's not good or bad, it just is. 

So it seems (to me) silly to call it race baiting or whatever.  But, I will say this, is that it seems really stupid to say something like that on the record, especially when the media has been trying to push the story that Hillary is a racist (as seen by what they did when they took her MLK statement out of context).  And... to be honest, in the same vein I can't understand why Hillary wouldn't have known to steer way clear of saying anything that can even remotely be misconstrued as negative about MLK.  It should just have been chanted to her as a mantra: don't say anything even close to negative about MLK.  Don't.  Just... don't.

But I think that's a symptom of the presidential run, is the candidates get thrown into this framework where they are required to show how everything in the world can be improved by having them as president.  So Hillary just framed the civil rights struggle's results culminating in a president signing legislation into law.  Yeah... from that narrow viewpoint the statement was accurate... but why she would even touch that issue at all seems like a really bad move.  It's one of those situations where you can't win anything, but can lose.  You win by not even playing. 

So it would have been much wiser to just realize every issue doesn't have to be about you, or the presidency, or whatever.  Just say MLK was one of the greatest heroes of the civil rights movement, give him his propers (especially around his own day), and move on to another subject.

I don't see any malice or strategizing in what they've said.  In each of their own ways they've both been great champions for civil rights.  It seems more like a few isolated missteps which have been taken out of context in order to fit this "zOMG WE TOLD U TEH LIBR00LZ R TEH RACISTZ!!11!" narrative the media is desperate to weave.  Which of course fits into the relationship the media has always had with the Clintons.  I think their fault is not keeping in mind just how much the media wants to hang them.  They just need to be way more guarded with their words... but then when they are careful people complain that they aren't "real enough".  So either way they fall into the "just can't win" situation, which of course is another creation of the media.

If someone wants to think the media isn't manipulating the election, simply look at the almost total media blackout of John Edwards.  The guy barely beats out Ron Paul for the amount of media coverage he's gotten... and Paul isn't even a top tier candidate.  And neither is Rudy 9ui11iani, yet he's gotten way more coverage than Edwards.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2008, 05:05:40 AM »

okay just to clarify - I was referring to Bills general spewing of negativity - not any racist comments.

Quote
If someone wants to think the media isn't manipulating the election, simply look at the almost total media blackout of John Edwards.  The guy barely beats out Ron Paul for the amount of media coverage he's gotten... and Paul isn't even a top tier candidate.  And neither is Rudy 9ui11iani, yet he's gotten way more coverage than Edwards.

I think the issue is that Edwards has never really stood out and the media coverage is reflecting that. I look at him and just see Vice President, nothing more.

Ron Paul has some crazy amounts of internet buzz about him and a lot of really, really devoted followers who have done a lot to get his name out. He probably has a snowballs chance in hell, but irregardless - there's a lot going on around his campaign that makes him more interesting.

Rudy 9ui11iani (BTW - love that spelling!!) is one big time bomb of controversy waiting to happen. The media can smell the scent of all those big headlines that are just over that horizon and that's why they've been giving him more coverage.


Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2008, 04:51:19 PM »

Quote from: DarkEL on January 30, 2008, 05:05:40 AM

Quote
If someone wants to think the media isn't manipulating the election, simply look at the almost total media blackout of John Edwards.  The guy barely beats out Ron Paul for the amount of media coverage he's gotten... and Paul isn't even a top tier candidate.  And neither is Rudy 9ui11iani, yet he's gotten way more coverage than Edwards.

I think the issue is that Edwards has never really stood out and the media coverage is reflecting that. I look at him and just see Vice President, nothing more.

But the thing is... that's not for them to decide.  Edward's strongest support was from people on the internet, who tend to be much more informed on issues and policies than people who get all their information from the TV or newspapers.  And since TV and newspapers were purposely not covering him... well, that means that huge block of people had no idea about him.

In fact, I heard NPR talking about him today, and they said his campaign was never able to gather any support.  But the guy came in 2nd place in New Hampshire, where he beat out Hillary Clinton!  Seeing as how when NPR reported on that and glossed over that victory by saying "Hillary and Edwards finished in a virtual tie" (of course mentioning Edwards name last), it's pretty obvious that even they are avoiding any mention of the guy.

Quote
Ron Paul has some crazy amounts of internet buzz about him and a lot of really, really devoted followers who have done a lot to get his name out. He probably has a snowballs chance in hell, but irregardless - there's a lot going on around his campaign that makes him more interesting.

And that's why he should be getting more press coverage than a guy who is a serious presidential contender?  Fox wouldn't even allow him in their debate!

Quote
Rudy 9ui11iani (BTW - love that spelling!!) is one big time bomb of controversy waiting to happen. The media can smell the scent of all those big headlines that are just over that horizon and that's why they've been giving him more coverage.

LOL, I picked that up from some blog, they had me laughing my ass off after seeing it. 

But who they cover and who they don't is such an obvious attempt at using the media to play kingmaker.  Even they can see the Republicans have zero chance of winning this year- none of the candidates are saying anything other than "Stay the Course" to the policies of the worst president in our nation's history, a guy who 3 out of 4 Americans won't even support.  And yet... the media is giving more coverage to every single one of them* than one of the top three Democratic candidates.

* every one except Ron Paul... who is amazingly enough the only one who ISN'T saying "stay the course".

The real issue seems to be not that they are blocking out specific candidates (although it is that), but rather how they are shaping the discussion.  The block out Paul because they want every Republican candidate to say "stay the course"... even if that's not what Republican voters want to hear.

Likewise, they really veered away from the "culture of corruption" issue, which sadly the Democrats appear to have dropped anyway.  Despite mass resignations, indictments, and the almost overwhelming instances of corruption.  It's just so much easier to slap your name on a White House press release and feel like your article has been written, I guess.

Even the "death" of traditional media isn't going to accomplish anything, since it will just become like AM radio.  The culture of corruption has thrived on AM, and they are likewise buying up all the print media, and have their sights set on broadcast television.  And now that Rupert Murdoch has taken over the Wall Street Journal, he can propagandize the US economy in the same way he's propagandized our politics.
Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2008, 05:44:04 PM »

I'm not arguing with you that the media doesn't try and put things into little boxes to make easy captions for how they're telling the story, and I do think that they do cross the line far too often in interpreting events for people instead of simply reporting things fairly and honestly.

But I don't think the blame is fully on the media. I think the american public wants it that way. The media is simply a business trying to get eyeballs - if they think people were interested in Edwards - he would have gotten more attention. He had some internet support but they were nowhere near as vocal or interesting as the support that Ron Paul was getting.

But looks like he's dropping out today anyways http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001069.html

I know you don't really like Obama - but the guy is interesting and thus people want to hear about him.

In the end - I think it's more about them wanting to sell more advertising than trying to shun certain candidates.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #39 on: January 30, 2008, 06:13:14 PM »

Quote from: DarkEL on January 30, 2008, 05:44:04 PM

I know you don't really like Obama - but the guy is interesting and thus people want to hear about him.

It's not really a dislike as having serious doubts about him.  At least with Hillary we know where she stands.  With Obama, he hasn't done a single thing as my Senator, or taken a stand on anything.  Declining to vote on stuff doesn't really do anything for me.

He just seems like a whole lot of spin, and it kind of makes me mistrust him.  We've had eight years of nothing but spin, so I'd kind of like to see us distanced from that. 

But hopefully it will work out for the best.  I'd rather have an FDR-type in office, but oh well.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.151 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.032s, 2q)