^i know. lol




we support obama!

[Edited on May 10, 2008 at 8:32 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2008 8:31:21 PM

Quote :

"Basically, all of you that disputed Rat's position concerning Obama's limitations can suck eggs. Even the Democrats fucking know it."

don't y'all fuck wit hooksaw's logic

5/11/2008 3:06:49 AM

I'll cite over 100,000 republicans:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NC

McCain only got 74% of the primary vote when he was the only one still in the race.

Yet the democrats are the ones who are going to have trouble winning their base?

5/11/2008 9:07:41 AM

we support obama!

5/11/2008 11:13:14 AM

Apparently the Dems are taking Karl Rove's advice about focusing on the base to heart. Joy.

I am not a political scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I can see that using that strategy lost Bush the popular vote in 2000 and did not result in many policies I would brag about.

So what makes anyone think pandering to the base is the way the Democrats should go in 2008?

Rather than Obama trying to be the Democrat George Bush, maybe he should look for a different model. Like Bill Clinton, the only Dem to win 2 terms since FD-fucking-R. And he did it by appealing to the humble majority of moderate voters. In doing so, he told the "base" of his party hard truths they didn't want to hear (NAFTA is a good idea and government programs like AFDC need serious reform). He showed a Democrat didn't need to pander to labor unions or academics or college kids to win elections. They could win by telling the truth and offering good ideas.

Do we really have to give up on that?

5/11/2008 1:37:02 PM

nice loaded question there; it sets up a situation where they are either "pandering" or telling the truth. not all would agree that the things you call pandering are only because it appeals to the base.

5/11/2008 3:13:16 PM

Quote :

"I am not a political scientist by any stretch of the imagination"

and thank god

5/11/2008 4:14:11 PM

pooljobs,

It was a rhetorical question designed to convey my own views of where the Democrat Party should be headed. So I'm not suprised you consider it "loaded".

But if you want to argue that Obama is not pandering, then I just want to say that it really strikes me as odd that Obama has taken so many positions that "just so happen" to be popular with the voting block he is courting.

For example, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary, Obama still supports ethanol subsidies as a good way to reduce carbon emissions and reduce reliance on foreign oil. Why? Well, the state he represented as a Senator (IL) "just so happens" to be one of the biggest ethanol producing states in the Union.

Also, despite the advice of most major economists (possibly including his senior economic adviser), Obama supports "renagotiating" NAFTA to protect American workers. And that policy "just so happens" to be popular among labor unions and other large portions of the Democratic base.

And I have repeatedly argued that Obama's position on Iraq has shifted with the polls ever since he was elected. In 2004, he said he was in agreement with Bush moving forward in Iraq. In 2006, Obama said that Congress should not impose time tables for withdrawal, 10 months later he proposed his own time table for redeployment. And his positions "just so happened" to change as the war in Iraq became increasingly unpopular.

About the only unpopular thing Obama has ever supported (or opposed) was the gas tax holiday, and guess what? Even that turned out to not be so unpopular of a position.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CBSNYT_poll_Gas_tax_holiday_bad_0504.html

If you want someone that is more interested in getting things done than getting elected, then Obama is not the man you're looking for.

PS* I have provided links for all these descriptions of Obama's positions in previous posts that I don't have time to grab now. They are really beyond debate. But if you want links just ask.

[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 5:03 PM. Reason : ``]

5/11/2008 4:59:27 PM

Quote :

"renagotiating"

I want links.

5/11/2008 5:20:03 PM

Quote :

"McCain only got 74% of the primary vote when he was the only one still in the race."

lol and??? that doesnt prove anything in my opinion...him already being the nominee probably kept a lot of people out...it makes sense that mccain wouldnt get 26 percent of the vote

5/11/2008 6:21:02 PM

IMStoned,

Ethanol Subsidies
http://www.commercial-news.com/statenews/cnhinsall_story_233000901.html

NAFTA
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html

Iraq
Before I start posting links, I want to note that Obama has indeed been (somewhat) steadily opposed to going into Iraq in the first place. However, his position on what to do in Iraq now that we’re there seems to depend on what office he’s running for. I count 3-5 different positions in as many years (depending on what rationalizations you use). Why has he changed his mind so many times? Did he have good reasons (besides changing poll numbers)? He wont say.

As IL State Senator
2002: Obama gives “great speech” opposing the war in Iraq.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/warspeech.pdf

As US Senate Candidate
2004: Obama did not criticize Kerry's Iraq vote saying that Obama did not know how he himself would have voted on the war since he was not privy to senate intelligence documents, but that from his vantage point as a citizen the case for war was not made (apparently he didn't care two years earlier whether he was privy to intelligence or not).
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2DF153DF935A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

2004: Obama says US forces should remain in Iraq and that “there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801140002

As US Senator/US Presidential Candidate
2006: Obama votes against Kerry ammendment saying Congress should not impose time a “hard” deadline for withdrawal.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/

2007: Obama introduces bill that sets deadline for withdrawal, but leaves option open for keeping troops in Iraq indefinatley if Iraqi government begins meeting certain goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html?ref=politics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

2008: Obama has apparently totally dropped his opposition to “hard” deadlines or at least he no longer mentions the possibility of haulting withdrawal on his website or in any speeches.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

2008: Or has he? His former senior foreign affairs adviser says that no time-table Obama sets at this point is an actual commitment (though you wont hear that in any stump speech):
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html

[Edited on May 11, 2008 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ``]

5/11/2008 9:45:47 PM

Thank you very much. I'm not going to read any of those.

5/11/2008 9:50:09 PM

figures.

5/11/2008 10:01:11 PM

Quote :

"Obama has apparently totally dropped his opposition to “hard” deadlines or at least he no longer mentions the possibility of haulting withdrawal on his website or in any speeches."

damn, what a loser.

i guess he's going to do what his daddy shoulda done!!!
pullout!!

but everybody under the sun with a brain knows he won't retreat from iraq. neither would hillary.


[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 1:12 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 1:08:32 AM

hasnt he repeatedly said since he doesnt have access to the generals etc like bush that he cant really promise anything?

5/12/2008 1:11:29 AM

^ I don't know. I only know what is in his position papers and what he's said during the debates I've seen (try as I might, I can't hold down a job and track Obama daily ). If he is saying something different on the stump, that would be helpful for me. Do you have any links?

But in any case, that still leaves Obama with some very big changes in position that he has not be called to task for. Like I said, he's always opposed the war in Iraq, but he apparently doesn't know what he wants to do about the situation. And that kinda worries me.

5/12/2008 6:13:03 AM

Quote :

""[Obama] will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator," Power told the BBC in what the Clinton campaign flagged as eyebrow-raising remarks. "He will rely upon a plan - an operational plan - that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now, as a result of not being the President," she said. "

to me this sounds like the logical thing to do

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/08/2008-03-08_barack_obamas_aide_suggested_renege_on_i.html

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 6:27 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2008 6:27:21 AM

^ um....That's actually the exact same interview I was referring to in my list (it's very last link). Power gave the interview as she was leaving the Obama campaign for calling Hillary a "monster." The question is whether Obama has ever actually said this himself in recent months. I know his policy papers do not mention it. They only mention how quickly Obama "will bring our troops home".

I would also note that agreeing with Obama in 2008 is the same as agreeing with Obama in 2007, 2006, 2005, or 2004. He has taken essentially every position available on the issue of what to do in Iraq. He's said we should stay to stablize the country, he's said we should begin leaving now. He's said Congress should not impose time-tables for withdrawal, he's introduced legislation setting time-tables for withdrawal.

Now, I have no problem with people changing their position as facts emerge or situations change. But I can't make heads-or-tails of Obama's frequently shifting policy on Iraq. And he isn't offering any explainations.

5/12/2008 8:22:33 AM

one he becomes president he'll be able to assess the facts and make a proper strategy

5/12/2008 8:27:34 AM

Obama has (un)officially taken the lead in super delegates now.

5/12/2008 11:15:23 AM

^^^ it's pretty clear that he wants to get out of Iraq, but it's also clear he doesn't have access to the information to state exactly how that could be done. If you ever assumed that anyone not working with the military leaderhsup could gather enough information to say finally and exactly what should be done, then that's your problem, not Obama's.

Obama is doing the right thing by noting that he can't truly make a final decision, because he can't. McCain can't and hillary can't either. But, I do think trying to leave ASAP is better than the wait-and-see approach of both Bush and McCain.

5/12/2008 1:50:30 PM

he won't pull out.

5/12/2008 1:57:17 PM

i never pull out

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM. Reason : a]

5/12/2008 2:28:50 PM

^^ Obama never has said he can't make a final decision on Iraq (that I have seen in print). His ex-foreign advicer Samantha Powers did after she left the Obama campaign for calling Hillary a monster. His website only says he will bring the majority of troops home in 16 months and that's all I've ever seen him say in the debates and on the stump. Now obviously, I am not tracking him 24/7 so he may have said something different somewhere, but I can't find it. As I told DNL, I would be interested in seeing if Obama has said that he hasn't made up his mind, but I have not seen it yet.

I would also note that not having access to military intelligence has not stopped Obama from trying to set Iraq policy before. For example, when he introduced legislation setting a time-table for withdrawal. If he didn't know what he was talking about or didn't have the proper intelligence, was he being recklesss when he introduced this bill??

And let's not forget my original complaint. Obama's position has changed many time over the past few years and for no apparent reason outside the election cycle. He's said we should stay in Iraq to stablize the county, he's said we should leave now because our presense is making it worse. He's said that congress shouldn't set time-tables, he's introduced time-tables of his own.

If Obama's position is changing because he has legitimate reasons, that's perfectly fine. But he hasn't given any reason for why he changes his mind so much. And "it just happens" that his mind changes when either the polls change or he's running for office. And that really really worrys me. I don't want our foreign policy being dictated by one man's blind ambition to be elected (or re-elected) at any cost.

[Edited on May 12, 2008 at 2:48 PM. Reason : ``]

5/12/2008 2:30:41 PM

he won't pull out.

5/12/2008 5:17:40 PM

Barack OMFbama!

5/13/2008 1:14:09 AM

Well, people really do get fired for stupid irrelevant shit they may have done while ago, especially if fags in the public can find out then complain about it (teachers, for example).

5/13/2008 1:17:39 AM

5/13/2008 4:57:56 AM

I hope moron doesn't disappear. I think I asked a really good question.

5/13/2008 4:58:12 AM

Apparently Obama isn't smarter than a 5th grader, he's been a busy man, traveling to 57 states. LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/v/EpGH02DtIws&hl=en



[Edited on May 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2008 2:28:55 PM

Misspeaking (ie: 57 instead of 47) /= Fabricating memories (ie: sniper fire & running instead of little girls reading poems)

5/13/2008 3:02:24 PM

Quote :

"SOUTHFIELD, Mich (Reuters) - Three former chairmen of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday, bolstering the Illinois senator's economic credentials and bipartisan appeal as he closes in on his party's nomination. Former SEC head William Donaldson, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, joined Arthur Levitt and David Ruder in backing Obama, who leads rival Hillary Clinton in the number of delegates necessary to become the Democratic White House nominee. Levitt was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, while Ruder was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. "Each of us has been committed to prudent economic policy and effective financial regulation for many years," the men said in a joint statement along with former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, also an Obama supporter. "We believe Senator Obama can provide the positive leadership and judgment needed to take us to a stronger and more secure economic future." In the statement they praised Obama's "reasoned approach" in analyzing "the current financial crisis and the need for balanced regulatory reform.""

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1448591420080514

5/14/2008 2:05:16 PM

I support obama because hes black.


oh yeah and because hes not mccain and not hillary.

5/14/2008 3:10:06 PM

There's already a line forming for this rally at Van Andel Arena tonight (Michigan)

It doesnt' start till after 8

[Edited on May 14, 2008 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2008 3:27:39 PM

Quote :

"Misspeaking (ie: 57 instead of 47)"

I guess GWB has just been misspeaking all along

5/14/2008 3:43:18 PM

one thing they both have in common, they're both fuckin hilarious

5/14/2008 3:55:45 PM

i think Bill Clinton and Bush are both hilarious

the three candidates this year, i'm not so sure, we'll see

5/14/2008 3:57:52 PM

The first time I LOL's at Obama was when he told Hillary Clinton in one of their first debates (when there was at least 6 candidates) that he looked forward to her advising him when he is president.

5/14/2008 4:02:32 PM

Quote :

"So what makes anyone think pandering to the base is the way the Democrats should go in 2008?"

Well, considering the party itself is split in half at the moment and he'd need Hilary's half of the voters on his side if he gets the nomination, pandering to the "base" for a while isn't necessarily a bad move.

5/14/2008 4:02:57 PM

http://marcusharris.net/2008/03/11/im-not-trashing-barack-obama-he-was-born-trash/


54 DOUBLE DEEZ!!!

5/14/2008 4:18:17 PM

In the first response to this thread I said I supported Edwards first & Obama secondly (both campaigns I've donated to, meet or heard speak, & volunteered for both). I'm glad to see Edwards endorsing Obama today... I think that'll help put all of NC's democrats into the Obama pool. Obama obviously had a lot of support here already to win on May the 6th and at his victory speech in Raleigh, where he mentioned the wolfpack, he said he considered this a swing state that he would campaign in. I think with this endorsement added in there's a decent chance that NC will get some attention in the general election instead of just the primary which is a good thing in my opinion to have the parties fight for our votes regardless of who you support.

[Edited on May 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2008 8:05:41 PM

John Edwards is a lying piece of shit.


Obama is a socialist. I wouldn't vote for him because of his policies, but at least he isn't trash like Edwards.

5/14/2008 8:34:33 PM

mm trashy socialists.


if only chelsey would come out of her box and get real slutty, thats a candidate i could fully support.


trashy socialist whores...mmmm

5/14/2008 8:38:02 PM

isnt it like against christianity to say stuff like that?

5/14/2008 8:57:50 PM

i'm not a christian

5/14/2008 9:00:44 PM

oh ok that makes it all better lol

5/14/2008 9:01:39 PM

I find it interesting that both parties are running one of their most liberal members for president.

5/15/2008 12:39:32 AM

Quote :

"I hope moron doesn't disappear. I think I asked a really good question. "

Where? (seriously, i have been too busy to keep up with my TSBing )

5/15/2008 1:08:46 AM

obama is not black. his mom is white his dad isn't even american and had him as a bastard child while he was already married to a woman back in kenya. This is a man that was raised in Indonesia by a Muslim stepfather and didn't even step foot on the mainland until college. This is a man that has recently sold out his own grandmother and preacher of 20 years just to win a few votes. Is this the type of character we want out of a president? Someone who would lie on their own preacher? own grandmother?

Theres no way possible you can go to a man church for TWENTY years and not know what he is preaching about.

The media will cover this up all they want because he is the charming charismatic liberal perfect child but the man isn't patriotic and if he is disloyal to even his own grandmother and preacher with which who he was "intimate" with why would he be loyal to the American people?

5/15/2008 3:39:12 AM

"Sold them out?" He said that he disagreed with his pastor on a number of issues. How is that selling him out?

And the grandmother thing is just silly-- did you really interpret his speech that way before Rush told you to?

5/15/2008 8:00:25 AM