The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[eclectics]

Well, Obama isn't a Clinton or a Bush either.

And the Independents like him....very much.

Obama vs. McCain is the Dems best scenario to take the WH, imho. And please Hillary supporters, don't flame me for dissing Hillary. I like her too and will vote for her if she wins the nod. It's just that she will have a harder time beating McCain in November. I think we can all safely say that as a fact rather than conjecture.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

And the Independents like him....very much.

Obama vs. McCain is the Dems best scenario to take the WH, imho. And please Hillary supporters, don't flame me for dissing Hillary. I like her too and will vote for her if she wins the nod. It's just that she will have a harder time beating McCain in November. I think we can all safely say that as a fact rather than conjecture.

Although Karl Rove's little white board this morning on CBS has McCain doing just about as well as either Clinton or Obama, the actual polls say otherwise.

 

[wvrevy]

No, it really does matter how it started. The Republican Florida legislature decided to move the primaries up knowing full well the DNC rules. Put the blame where it belongs.

You are just plain wrong in your assertion that the the candidates were not allowed to campaign in the state. There was nothing preventing anyone from campaigning in Florida other than the 2007 agreement between the candidates. The DNC did NOT stop anyone from campaigning in Florida.

Btw, I take exception to the idea that the Florida primary was just a name-recognition beauty contest. The fact is, the Florida voter has been following the various campaigns/debates just like everyone else in the country. We also know the issues and what's at stake in the next election.

And I will continue to argue that it simply doesn't matter where the blame lies. The fact is that no campaigning was done in the state, and yes it was the DNC that prevented it from happening. Both sides made the same pledge, but the pledge was made to the DNC, who basically demanded that the candidates abide by it. I've also seen no explanation as to why Hillary didn't pull her name off the Michigan ballot the way everyone else did. Gee...think that might have been an advantage?

As for the name-recognition issue, I'm sorry, but if you don't think name recognition plays a large part in the election process you don't know as much about politics as I thought you did. Yes, a lot of people follow the process from the beginning, and could tell you a lot about Barack Obama. But the facts are that the more people are exposed to Barack, the more likely they are to vote for him. That's proven true all across the country...yet you don't seem to think that would have been the case in Florida? Besides...how many voters did stay home when told their vote wouldn't count? Yeah, I know all about the record turnout...so join the rest of the country. The point is, how much higher would it have been if they had known their vote would actually count?

And the Independents like him....very much.

Obama vs. McCain is the Dems best scenario to take the WH, imho. And please Hillary supporters, don't flame me for dissing Hillary. I like her too and will vote for her if she wins the nod. It's just that she will have a harder time beating McCain in November. I think we can all safely say that as a fact rather than conjecture.

Good luck with that. I've been having that argument for days, and Hillary's supporters seem to think that I'm making it up.

 

[eclectics]

Although Karl Rove's little white board this morning on CBS has McCain doing just about as well as either Clinton or Obama, the actual polls say otherwise.

I'm sure his "little white board" also has Bush's numbers at a 75% approval rating. One of these days he really should get a clue.

 

[DISUNC]

Although Karl Rove's little white board this morning on CBS has McCain doing just about as well as either Clinton or Obama, the actual polls say otherwise.

NO!!!! NOT THE WHITEBOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder if he stole that from Tim Russet (circa 2000)!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, as noted on The Daily show the other night, Karl Rove is now a Political News Consultant for Faux news!

Anyone suprised???????

 

[DISUNC]

I'm sure his "little white board" also has Bush's numbers at a 75% approval rating. One of these days he really should get a clue.

The whole GOP schtick is a "whiteboard"...Words & Numbers are very easily erased!!!!!

 

[DISUNC]

Good luck with that. I've been having that argument for days, and Hillary's supporters seem to think that I'm making it up.

No argument from me. I seen that too!
Just dont believe it!

 

[LuvDuke]

And I will continue to argue that it simply doesn't matter where the blame lies. The fact is that no campaigning was done in the state, and yes it was the DNC that prevented it from happening. Both sides made the same pledge, but the pledge was made to the DNC, who basically demanded that the candidates abide by it. I've also seen no explanation as to why Hillary didn't pull her name off the Michigan ballot the way everyone else did. Gee...think that might have been an advantage?

As for the name-recognition issue, I'm sorry, but if you don't think name recognition plays a large part in the election process you don't know as much about politics as I thought you did. Yes, a lot of people follow the process from the beginning, and could tell you a lot about Barack Obama. But the facts are that the more people are exposed to Barack, the more likely they are to vote for him. That's proven true all across the country...yet you don't seem to think that would have been the case in Florida? Besides...how many voters did stay home when told their vote wouldn't count? Yeah, I know all about the record turnout...so join the rest of the country. The point is, how much higher would it have been if they had known their vote would actually count?


Good luck with that. I've been having that argument for days, and Hillary's supporters seem to think that I'm making it up.

Frankly, I think I understand what's happening in Florida a heckuva lot more than someone from WV. You have no idea what was happening in Florida. And please stop arguing with your friends and save it for the other side. You'll need it.

The nominee with either be Obama or Clinton. Either one, IMO, will win not because they're the savior of the world, but because tens of millions will NOT vote for a Republican. Least of all a Republican with enough baggage to fill 2 tractor trailers.

 

[wvrevy]

Frankly, I think I understand what's happening in Florida a heckuva lot more than someone from WV. You have no idea what was happening in Florida. And please stop arguing with your friends and save it for the other side. You'll need it.

1 - And obviously, I know more about the national scene than you do, if you don't think that name recognition plays a large part in who a lot of people vote for. I mean...they even made a crappy Eddie Murphy movie about it. The point is, all anyone needs to know is that the candidates did not (I won't quibble over the reason) campaign in Florida, and that is a HUGE handicap for a less established name trying to beat someone who's been in the national news just about every day for the last 16 years.

2 - I thought this was the liberal thread, where disagreement among friends was actually allowed? Last I checked, we weren't required to march in lockstep like those in a certain other camp. If you've been following the political threads on the board the last few days, I don't think I've been handicapped by also debating a point on this thread. Do you?

The nominee with either be Obama or Clinton. Either one, IMO, will win not because they're the savior of the world, but because tens of millions will NOT vote for a Republican. Least of all a Republican with enough baggage to fill 2 tractor trailers.

And while I would like to agree with you, nothing seems to indicate that to be the actual case. You and I and pretty much everyone on this thread thought the same thing in 2004...and how did that turn out for us? Much as I'd like to think people have woken up, all it takes is for one to read through a thread like "Obama Supporters: A Question" to see that an awful lot of people will either vote for McCain or stay home if the Democratic alternative is Hillary Clinton. Please understand, I'm not saying I agree with their thinking. I'm simply pointing out that the reality doesn't reflect what we wish id did.

 

[robinb]

I'm off to see the next President of the United States! He is having a town hall in Alexandria this afternoon and I'm going to head over early and stand in line and make calls to Maine voters on my cell.

He'll be in Madison on Tuesday at the Kohl Center which seats in excess 17,000 people. I'm going with friends and bringing my DD with me. We're lucky that we can actually sit at the Kohl Center instead of standing for hours. I am looking forward to a victory speech for the east coast primaries on that day.

BTW, I signed up for Election Official training tomorrow. There is a new state law that says we all have to be officially trained. *sigh* I've been working the polls for years (and no, my hair IS NOT blue). Does anyone else her work the elections?

 

[eclectics]

Hillary Campaign news....She just demoted her Campaign Manager and hired a new one, Maggie Williams, supposedly a very good friend. Her old manager Patti Doyle will stay on as an advisor. Look to see a new direction in strategy. What path that exactly will take is unknown.

 

[Honu]

BTW, I signed up for Election Official training tomorrow. There is a new state law that says we all have to be officially trained. *sigh* I've been working the polls for years (and no, my hair IS NOT blue). Does anyone else her work the elections?

I used to, but they closed all our home polling stations and combined them into one big one at the neighborhood Catholic church. So I don't work it anymore and tend to vote by mail now.

 

[LuvDuke]

1 - And obviously, I know more about the national scene than you do, if you don't think that name recognition plays a large part in who a lot of people vote for. I mean...they even made a crappy Eddie Murphy movie about it. The point is, all anyone needs to know is that the candidates did not (I won't quibble over the reason) campaign in Florida, and that is a HUGE handicap for a less established name trying to beat someone who's been in the national news just about every day for the last 16 years.

2 - I thought this was the liberal thread, where disagreement among friends was actually allowed? Last I checked, we weren't required to march in lockstep like those in a certain other camp. If you've been following the political threads on the board the last few days, I don't think I've been handicapped by also debating a point on this thread. Do you?


And while I would like to agree with you, nothing seems to indicate that to be the actual case. You and I and pretty much everyone on this thread thought the same thing in 2004...and how did that turn out for us? Much as I'd like to think people have woken up, all it takes is for one to read through a thread like "Obama Supporters: A Question" to see that an awful lot of people will either vote for McCain or stay home if the Democratic alternative is Hillary Clinton. Please understand, I'm not saying I agree with their thinking. I'm simply pointing out that the reality doesn't reflect what we wish id did.

Please point out where I said name recognition plays no part in politics. It played the same role in Florida as it did in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the rest of the primary states. Your opinion seems to be, because there was no active campaigning by any candidates, name recognition was all Floridians had to go by. Yanno, we watch the television and read newspapers and listen to talk radio and talk among ourselves just like the rest of the country. Obama was no stranger here and neither was John Edwards. My contention is Clinton would've won regardless of whether there was an active campaign or not. But that is a moot point.

Quite honestly, I think you're buying into the "Hillary can't win" campaign that's being waged by and large, but the corporate media and the Republicans. I'd like you to consider this angle and see if it fills in some of the blanks:

The reason why the Republicans are spreading the word that "Hillary can't win because ............" is because the Republicans are terrified of Hillary Clinton. They're are passing gold bricks every time they think of a President Hillary Clinton who now has the power to declassify everything that's been done in the last 7+ years. And the Republicans would be powerless to stop it because that is the perogative of the president. Gee, think there may be a few war profiteers or outright treasonous individuals who lied to get their country into a war? Do you think there may be some records of who really did know what when it came to torture, rendidition, illegal wiretaps, etc? My contention is, we don't 90% of what really went on.

So, who would the Republicans rather see in the WH? A fresh face like Barak Obama who really doesn't have an axe to grind OR Hillary Clinton who has a long memory and the power to expose the last 7+ years? Hmmmm ............ ? Think the Republicans are feeling lucky?

 

[LuvDuke]

**Double Post**

 

[DISUNC]

Breaking news!

Hillarys Campaign Manager steps down

 

[LuvDuke]

**Triple Post*

 

[wvrevy]

Please point out where I said name recognition plays no part in politics. It played the same role in Florida as it did in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the rest of the primary states. Your opinion seems to be, because there was no active campaigning by any candidates, name recognition was all Floridians had to go by. Yanno, we watch the television and read newspapers and listen to talk radio and talk among ourselves just like the rest of the country. Obama was no stranger here and neither was John Edwards. My contention is Clinton would've won regardless of whether there was an active campaign or not. But that is a moot point.

No, it isn't a moot point, it is the exact point. You are right, she may well have won had both actively campaigned in the state. But the fact is that they didn't.

And no, name recognition did not play the same role in Florida that it did in Iowa or New Hampshire, because Barack campaigned in those states, and as I've said over and over (and as the polls have shown over and over), the more he campaigns in a state, the better he does, as a general rule.

All I want is a fair fight. If Hillary wins, then Hillary wins, and I'll support her for the general election. But she did not win Florida or Michigan fairly. Period.

Quite honestly, I think you're buying into the "Hillary can't win" campaign that's being waged by and large, but the corporate media and the Republicans. I'd like you to consider this angle and see if it fills in some of the blanks:

The reason why the Republicans are spreading the word that "Hillary can't win because ............" is because the Republicans are terrified of Hillary Clinton. They're are passing gold bricks every time they think of a President Hillary Clinton who now has the power to declassify everything that's been done in the last 7+ years. And the Republicans would be powerless to stop it because that is the perogative of the president. Gee, think there may be a few war profiteers or outright treasonous individuals who lied to get their country into a war? Do you think there may be some records of who really did know what when it came to torture, rendidition, illegal wiretaps, etc? My contention is, we don't 90% of what really went on.

So, who would the Republicans rather see in the WH? A fresh face like Barak Obama who really doesn't have an axe to grind OR Hillary Clinton who has a long memory and the power to expose the last 7+ years? Hmmmm ............ ? Think the Republicans are feeling lucky?

1 - I'm not buying into anything, I'm making a statement of my own opinion, based on looking at how this race is going on both sides and my own experiences dealing with people that simply can't stand Hillary, for whatever reason. I KNOW you've looked at that other thread...are all of those people "buying into" it as well, or are they simply stating their own intentions to either vote for McCain or stay home if Hillary is the nominee? Do you really think the youth vote will be as energized by her as they are for Barack? Or - much more likely - will they do the same thing they did in 2004 and stay home?

2 - I could care less about sticking it to the Republicans. Yes, they absolutely would hate to see Hillary in the White House. But you're completely discounting the fact that their irrational hatred is enough to send an awful lot of them to the polls on election day. They may not be able to stand McCain, but they'll hold their noses and pull the lever for him if it means keeping her out of the white house.

Hey...maybe I'm wrong, and if so, I'll be more than happy to have misjudged the situation. But I don't think I am, and ALL of the evidence to date backs me up. Every single poll I've seen shows a very close race between McCain and Hillary, while a McCain versus Obama race isn't all that close at all. And these aren't Faux News polls...one was done just a couple days ago by Time magazine, which is hardly a bastion of conservatism. Right now, the only thing you've got to back up your position is your "feeling" that the rest of the country is tired enough of current policy to swallow any dislike they have of her and choose her over McCain. As much as I would like to think you are right, I think I have to go with the side with the evidence. Again...the same people had the same "feeling" four years ago, and it resulted in four more years of the worst president in history.

 

[DISUNC]

Quite honestly, I think you're buying into the "Hillary can't win" campaign that's being waged by and large, but the corporate media and the Republicans. I'd like you to consider this angle and see if it fills in some of the blanks:

The reason why the Republicans are spreading the word that "Hillary can't win because ............" is because the Republicans are terrified of Hillary Clinton. They're are passing gold bricks every time they think of a President Hillary Clinton who now has the power to declassify everything that's been done in the last 7+ years. And the Republicans would be powerless to stop it because that is the perogative of the president. Gee, think there may be a few war profiteers or outright treasonous individuals who lied to get their country into a war? Do you think there may be some records of who really did know what when it came to torture, rendidition, illegal wiretaps, etc? My contention is, we don't 90% of what really went on.

So, who would the Republicans rather see in the WH? A fresh face like Barak Obama who really doesn't have an axe to grind OR Hillary Clinton who has a long memory and the power to expose the last 7+ years? Hmmmm ............ ? Think the Republicans are feeling lucky?

DANG! You are ON FIRE today!

I see it his way too. "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend!" My enemy is the Republican party, Their enemy is Hillary...Therefore Hillary is my 'friend"

I always thought it was very odd & circumspect how the GOP and their Media outlets have always been rather kind to Obama. Very suspicious to me.

 

[Planogirl]

So what's the solution to the Florida mess then? No matter which scenario is proposed someone is upset and someone feels it's unfair.

Also, I don't want to vote for a candidate just because some people don't like that candidate. That seems to be the call now..."vote for Obama because no one likes Hillary". Is that really the right reason to vote for someone?

 

[DISUNC]

So what's the solution to the Florida mess then? No matter which scenario is proposed someone is upset and someone feels it's unfair.

I think they are going to have to count them. Michigan may be a "Do Over"! They whole mess is soooooooo flippen dumb!

Also, I don't want to vote for a candidate just because some people don't like that candidate. That seems to be the call now..."vote for Obama because no one likes Hillary". Is that really the right reason to vote for someone?

Nope! Nor is the reason to vote for someone should be because they are percieved as a uniter.

I dont get the whole"we need a uniter' thing anyway. The PEOPLE are not divided, the politians are....and they have & will ALWAYS be. Just now we have the unreasonable GOP who sit with their arms folded and pout like 2 years olds when they dont get their own way. They just have to be ousted!
Dont even try to "reach out" to them...thats a HUGE mistake!