Support NeoGAF

[jamesinclair]

Who came third, McCain or Thompson?

CNN is missing 5% of the voting places, and theyre 300 votes apart

 

[kame-sennin]

He has over half a million donors... most of his money is from small donations.

Individual donations. He gets a lot of money from the internet, but he still does candidate lunches and everything, he just tries to avoid people who might be asking for something underhanded.

The bold is certainly true, but the following is also worth noting:

While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists, and he needs their help.

Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities, said of the network of lobbyists supporting Obama: “I would imagine that it’s as large as the Clinton list,” in reference to rival presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is an entrenched favorite of the Washington Democratic establishment.

He said that while lobbyists cannot give money to Obama, they can give “policy” and “campaign support.” Indeed, K Street denizens have rare policy and national campaign expertise.

Williams is actively building support for Obama among lobbyists and the corporate clients they represent.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

Also:

When Barack Obama and fellow state lawmakers in Illinois tried to expand healthcare coverage in 2003 with the "Health Care Justice Act," they drew fierce opposition from the insurance industry, which saw it as a back-handed attempt to impose a government-run system.

Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides, according to lobbyists, Senate staff, and Obama's remarks on the Senate floor.

The wrangling over the healthcare measure, which narrowly passed and became law in 2004, illustrates how Obama, during his eight years in the Illinois Senate, was able to shepherd major legislation by negotiating competing interests in Springfield, the state capital. But it also shows how Obama's own experience in lawmaking involved dealings with the kinds of lobbyists and special interests he now demonizes on the campaign trail.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/

 

[Justin Bailey]

Can anyone tell me any significant differences between 2004 Edwards and 2008 Edwards? I'm just curious if he's changed his message or switched any issues around.

 

[Absinthe (Permed)]

Can anyone tell me any significant differences between 2004 Edwards and 2008 Edwards? I'm just curious if he's changed his message or switched any issues around.

I have no idea. All I can tell you is that I don't trust him. He's from my home state of North Carolina and the only thing he has going for him is that he is charming and an adequate speaker. He's probably still sticking with the same shtick.

 

[Xdrive05]

I guess I'll put this here. I just got back from visiting my mom, and her neighbor Gary was hanging out at the house. Well eventually we ended up talking about this caucus. Gary, a staunch Democrat, said, "Well I know who I'm NOT voting for. It's that Obama guy. I can't stand the thought of a woman president, but I'd vote for Hillary twice before I'd vote for a damn nig*er."

I...I was stunned. This guy was a poverty stricken, living at home with his mom, laid-off Democrat. A genuine Bush hater (but who isn't these days) and Republican basher through and through.

I just hope he's in the OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW SMALL IT IS minority of racist democrats. It's Indiana, so maybe that's why.

 

[Absinthe (Permed)]

It goes without saying that Obama's biggest hurdle is going to be race, not Hilary.

 

[NWO]

Best think that could happen would be Hukabee winning New Hampshire and getting the nomination. Obama or even Hillary would butcher him.

Please don't say that. Huckabee scares the fuck out of me and I can easily see him winning an election. Being better or more popular doesn't mean jack. It will come down to Ohio, Florida, and maybe another state to determine who becomes President. It will be close no matter WHO is elected. People saying blowouts or people getting crushed know jack shit.

All Huckabee has to do is pick a good VP that will get him other swing votes and he could be unstoppable. He already has the religious vote locked up and they don't give a shit how well Obama's speeches are because it will be a pro choice vs. pro life. Obama kills babies along with Clinton and Edwards so as long as Rudy doesn't get the those people will vote Republican NO MATTER WHAT.

 

[kame-sennin]

The idea that Obama isn't substantial or has "no actual positions" is nothing more the parroted talking point now from people who don't like him. It's amazing, with a Swiss watch-like synchronicity, the minute both John Kerry and now Obama cleared their first major hurdle, out came the talking point memes against them. In Kerry's case, "flip flopper." In Obama's now, it's "insubstantial." I'm seeing it everywhere today among the few Obama detractors. And it's funny, it's actually a more empty and insubstantial argument than what you're arguing against! Obama has defined positions on every issue out there, just like any other candidate, which you can find out about through his speeches or website or interviews. Of course, when he pulls a major upset in Iowa and made some degree of history last night as an African-American, his victory speech is going to be emotional and sweeping rather than specific.

Are some of you really going to go with this silly talking point from now until November, that he has "no actual positions" and voting for him is voting for speeches rather than substance? 'Cause it's not a good one. Anyone who thinks about that for 30 seconds will realize how foolish it is.

It's very dishonest of you to act as though my post was specifically about Barrack Obama, and not about this general statement that you made:

Well said. Every two years people trot out the "voters elect people based on superficialities rather than the issues!" sour grapes, without seeming to realize that it's human nature to relate to people in emotional ways. You pick an insurance plan based on nothing but cold, hard facts. Same with buying a computer. But with people, whether it's a girlfriend or a presidential candidate, a lot of your decision making is going to be emotional and visceral. Obama inspires and talks a big game, which is very appealing. Especially now. The president is the figurehead of our communal lives, and it shouldn't be so surprising that people vote largely based on the personality and the direction the candidate exudes moreso than the specifics.

That's why I said I wasn't being naive. In my view, there is nothing naive about believing that the above position is a recipe for disaster. As for Obama specifically, I am not APF. I'm not an "Obama hater", I hate all politicians equally. The reason I don't like Barrack specifically is because I researched him. I read his book, I listened to his speeches (which used to inspire me too, btw), and I didn't like what I found.

Barrack had the opportunity to lead on Iraq, but instead he chose to fund the war and would not even promise to get out by the end of his second presidential term. Barrack had the chance to lead on healthcare, but instead he wants the government to subsidize the health insurance industry, and he won't even insure those over 18. Barrack could have led on gay rights, but instead he favors civil unions because 'America isn't ready'. Yes, Obama does have positions on the issues - bad ones. He's aiming for the middle of the middle of the middle, because he lacks courage. All he does have (and when I say all, I refer to the only thing that makes him stand out) is an ability to wrap up this political centrism and espousal of the status quo in brilliant poetic language that makes us all feel good about doing nothing at all.

 

[adamsappel]

I still don't get why people think Huckabee isn't electable.

I don't know that it makes him unelectable, but someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old and believes he will witness Armageddon isn't who I want sitting in the Oval Office.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Can anyone tell me any significant differences between 2004 Edwards and 2008 Edwards? I'm just curious if he's changed his message or switched any issues around.

2004: Hay guys look at me aren't I JFK-esque cute? I can fight for your rights too lol
2008: GOD DAMMIT IMMA BURN EXXON MOBILE TO THE GROUND AND PULL THE TROOPS OUT IN 60 SECONDS

 

[speculawyer]

I guess I'll put this here. I just got back from visiting my mom, and her neighbor Gary was hanging out at the house. Well eventually we ended up talking about this caucus. Gary, a staunch Democrat, said, "Well I know who I'm NOT voting for. It's that Obama guy. I can't stand the thought of a woman president, but I'd vote for Hillary twice before I'd vote for a damn nig*er."

I...I was stunned. This guy was a poverty stricken, living at home with his mom, laid-off Democrat. A genuine Bush hater (but who isn't these days) and Republican basher through and through.

I just hope he's in the OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW SMALL IT IS minority of racist democrats. It's Indiana, so maybe that's why.

As I said earlier . . . it is a terrible reason to pick a particular person to be president . . . but oh how nice it would feel if Obama did win and knowing the effect on people like him.

 

[minus_273]

I guess I'll put this here. I just got back from visiting my mom, and her neighbor Gary was hanging out at the house. Well eventually we ended up talking about this caucus. Gary, a staunch Democrat, said, "Well I know who I'm NOT voting for. It's that Obama guy. I can't stand the thought of a woman president, but I'd vote for Hillary twice before I'd vote for a damn nig*er."

I...I was stunned. This guy was a poverty stricken, living at home with his mom, laid-off Democrat. A genuine Bush hater (but who isn't these days) and Republican basher through and through.

I just hope he's in the OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW SMALL IT IS minority of racist democrats. It's Indiana, so maybe that's why.

huh? democratic senator robert bird who is #2 in the senate is a KKK leader. why are you surprised?

 

[siamesedreamer]

Links to Obama's lobbyist connections

I pointed out yesterday that the former Governor of SC turned lobbyist in now a national chair on Obama campaign. It really doesn't matter what's taking place behind the scenes as long as he is percieved as being the change agent. But, that's the thing about politics in America - he can't get elected without these guys.

He's simply no different than anyone else in that regard. And he's not being honest about it.

 

[speculawyer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Byrd

In the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's (NAACP)[44] Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress (spanning the 2003–2004 congressional session), Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100% for favoring the NAACP's position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other Senators of the same session matched this approval rating. In June 2005, Byrd[45] proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently."

You see some people see the errors in their ways and change.


Other people continue to feed upon the existing latent racism by using words like "Macaca", having the stars & bars in their office, denying their own Jewish heritage, etc.

 

[speculawyer]

huh? democratic senator robert bird who is #2 in the senate is a KKK leader. why are you surprised?

Are most Republicans really this stupid? I guess that would explain many things.

 

[Xdrive05]

I don't know that it makes him unelectable, but someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old and believes he will witness Armageddon isn't who I want sitting in the Oval Office.

A good chunk of of half the country wants EXACTLY that person in the white house. In fact, they would vote for that person even if they were a balls-out, no nonsense Fascist. The other half of the country is far too politically correct on account of religious moderation to criticize someone with those beliefs, even though they don't hold them themselves.

That said, as long as he doesn't try to get it taught in the classrooms, I'm fine. The only reservation for me is the Armageddon one; would he actually go as far as setting off nukes because he thinks it'll bring Jesus back to earth as part of God's plan? I doubt it, but that's reason for concern in general.

The Bush-appointed judge who presided over the Dover PA trial was a conservative Republican and he was quick to throw ID in the garbage where it belongs. Why would a guy like that do such a thing? Because if nothing else, conservatives care about the economy and he knew what teaching non-science in the classroom would do to our competitiveness in the increasingly globalized world. But then again Huckabee is a lot more left so......

 

[Xdrive05]

huh? democratic senator robert bird who is #2 in the senate is a KKK leader. why are you surprised?

Well I'm not talking about the voter base made of senators. I'm talking about the majority of democratic voters. And I know that where I came from in southern Indiana, people vote Democrat just because (tradition). The would NEVER vote Republican, but they would if Obama ran. Or they wouldn't vote at all.

 

[NWO]

Barrack could have led on gay rights, but instead he favors civil unions because 'America isn't ready'.

No he is actually against gay marriage because of his religion. He's a born again Christian.

"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman,'' Obama said. But the Democratic state senator added that he does not understand people who say gay marriage somehow threatens the sanctity of marriage as an institution.

I don't see the issue with gay people being allowed to get married but then again I'm not a religious freak.

 

[deadbeef]

Slightly OT, but related to the Obama question on funding, how does one go about tracing the campaign finance contributions behind these candidates to see who is really providing the money behind these campaigns?

 

[NWO]

A good chunk of of half the country wants EXACTLY that person in the white house. In fact, they would vote for that person even if they were a balls-out, no nonsense Fascist. The other half of the country is far too politically correct on account of religious moderation to criticize someone with those beliefs, even though they don't hold them themselves.

Exactly.

I forgot the percentage but a MAJORITY of people in America actually think like Huckabee. They think Noah's Ark carved the Grand Canyon, they think Jesus will return to Earth in the next few years, they think people lived with dinosaurs.

That's why I said Huckabee scares the fuck out of me because HE WILL GET MASSIVE support from the religious Republican base. They were turned off because of "fake religious Republicans" who said they were Christian and then they went into the bathroom and screwed some guy after voting against some gay rights bill.

He's "authentic" because he is a former preacher or something like that so he will get all the people out to vote for him who stayed away from the party because of all the corruption.

So the people thinking he will be an easy target are wrong IMO. Somebody like Romney or Rudy would be an easier target because they wouldn't charge up the Christian vote.

 

[Deleted member 21120]

I don't know that it makes him unelectable, but someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old and believes he will witness Armageddon isn't who I want sitting in the Oval Office.

He believes those things?

Huckabee on Armageddon:

You know, every generation has thought that they were, and we could be, but we don't ever act like, "OK, this is it," so we just sit back and coast and ride it out until the end. We always act as if it could be today, but we also plan as if it could be 100,000 years from now.

http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2007/10/huckabee-tells-.html


Huckabee on age of the Earth:

How did he do it, when did he do it, how long did it take? I don't honestly know... Whether he did it in six days or whether he did it in six days that represented periods of time, he did it and that's what's important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA

You guys and Huckabee. :lol

Also, Xdrive, in that vid he makes a comment that he's "not going to be the one writing the 8th grade schoolbooks."

 

[Absinthe (Permed)]

He believes those things?

Huckabee on Armageddon:

http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2007/10/huckabee-tells-.html


Huckabee on age of the Earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA

You guys and Huckabee. :lol

Also, Xdrive, in that vid he makes a comment that he's "not going to be the one writing the 8th grade schoolbooks."

Interesting.

 

[kame-sennin]

No he is actually against gay marriage because of his religion. He's a born again Christian.

Ah, even better. That actually reminds me of the turning point in my own feelings for Obama (from admiration to disgust). I was reading his book and I got to the part where he discusses gay marriage. From The Audacity of Hope:

And I was reminded that it is my obligation... to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided... I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.

A man as intelligent as Barrack Obama takes time to note how his views are likely to be proven wrong in the future, and yet has the audacity to say that he is going to be moderate on the issue anyway. He's basically admitting that he knows his position is wrong, even citing historical precedent in other parts of the book, but he won't change it anyway. You can believe that that's a religious view, but it seems to smack of political expediency to me.

 

[Flaming Duck]

In response to the idea that Obama isn't leading on gay rights:

I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President’s role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.

Obama's HRC Questionnaire

Maybe I'm just stupid, but this makes sense to me. If a gay couple can receive the same legal rights and benefits as a straight couple, doesn't the basic idea of a marriage come down to just the religious components? While I wouldn't agree with it, if a church wants to refuse to perform a religious ceremony for a couple why shouldn't they be able to? As long as the government can ensure that it is offering the same legal rights and benefits to everyone, it seems to me like its job is done in this regard.

 

[kame-sennin]

Can anyone tell me any significant differences between 2004 Edwards and 2008 Edwards? I'm just curious if he's changed his message or switched any issues around.

Well, this time around, he has Nader's endoursement because of his anti-corporate views, which means a lot to me. But he still isn't willing to remove insurance companies from the universal healthcare equation, so I'm not sure I can support him. Other than that, he's still on his "two-Americas", anti-poverty stump.

I pointed out yesterday that the former Governor of SC turned lobbyist in now a national chair on Obama campaign. It really doesn't matter what's taking place behind the scenes as long as he is percieved as being the change agent. But, that's the thing about politics in America - he can't get elected without these guys.

He's simply no different than anyone else in that regard.[/QUOTE]

I tend to disagree with most of your other points, but this is spot on, and it's all I've been trying to say. Obama isn't better than the Clintons or the republicans, at least in that regard.

 

[adamsappel]

He believes those things?

Yes, he does. He says "we could be" in the End Times. I don't want somebody facing turmoil in the Middle East and maybe thinking it's all part of God's plan and it's not appropriate for Man to intervene.

The "6000 years" of the Young Earthers is derived from working backwards from all those "begats" from Adam and Eve, isn't it? Certainly, biblical literalists believe that Jesus was born 2000 years ago as we still measure time, why the discrepancy before that?

 

[kame-sennin]

In response to the idea that Obama isn't leading on gay rights:

Obama's HRC Questionnaire

Maybe I'm just stupid, but this makes sense to me. If a gay couple can receive the same legal rights and benefits as a straight couple, doesn't the basic idea of a marriage come down to just the religious components? While I wouldn't agree with it, if a church wants to refuse to perform a religious ceremony for a couple why shouldn't they be able to? As long as the government can ensure that it is offering the same legal rights and benefits to everyone, it seems to me like its job is done in this regard.

It's one thing to say that civil unions provide equal rights, and it's another to actually make that happen. As the law stands now, civil unions do not provide all the same rights. Why? Because there a lots of benefits that specifically require one's partner to be legally married. If Barrack wants to change that, that's great, but it's unlikely and not as quick a fix as allowing gay people to just get married. Not to mention, it is needlessly discriminatory to create a second class of unions specifically for homosexuals.

Secondly, no one is forcing churches to marry gay people. If my atheist ass ever gets married, I'll be doing it in front of a judge in a court house, as is the legal right of every American (except the gay ones). The idea that legal gay marriage will force gays into our churches (and maybe our swimming pools!) is bullshit propaganda. Marriage is a legal contract, the religious bit is optional window dressing.

Edit: Upon re-reading Obama's quote I noticed that while he is a "proponent" of civil unions, he's willing to let states decide the issue for themselves. Awesome. Hey Tom and Bill, it turns out your married in New York, but your just roommates in Jersey!

 

[AmishNazi]

I hate Hillary Clinton. And I wasn't defending her. I feel the urge to defend her now because I feel like you are mis-representing what happened with her health care plan back in the 90's, but I'll abstain. The bottom line is, Barrack isn't much better, if at all. And yes, he has backed down from difficult positions. He constantly brags about being the first to oppose the Iraq war, yet he continues to fund it every time a vote comes up. There are even votes he skipped because they were too controversial. So, the crux of my point was that if you hate Hillary for her positions, then you have no real reason to like Obama.

I don't hate her for her positions I hate how apologetic she is for them. I don't hold the funding of the Iraq war over ANY candidates head. It was a classic fucked if you sign fucked if you don't. Plus I really hate when politicians play with humans as bargaining chips.

Which is why I'm not as disappointed with the middle of aisle to mid left of it, because hurting soldiers that might die tomorrow to make a point is a problem. Plus then you're fucking with their dependents at home too.

I'd much rather they focus on the presidency and wait till there is no shot for Veto.

A man as intelligent as Barrack Obama takes time to note how his views are likely to be proven wrong in the future, and yet has the audacity to say that he is going to be moderate on the issue anyway. He's basically admitting that he knows his position is wrong, even citing historical precedent in other parts of the book, but he won't change it anyway. You can believe that that's a religious view, but it seems to smack of political expediency to me.

Can't take a stand and explain why you won't change your opinion? So 2004 no flip flops, and 2008 flip flop or be shot. You do not get a 2008 John Kerry, sorry.

 

[Hitokage]

A man as intelligent as Barrack Obama takes time to note how his views are likely to be proven wrong in the future, and yet has the audacity to say that he is going to be moderate on the issue anyway. He's basically admitting that he knows his position is wrong, even citing historical precedent in other parts of the book, but he won't change it anyway. You can believe that that's a religious view, but it seems to smack of political expediency to me.

Admission of the possibility that one is wrong is a reason to be moderate on an issue.

 

[Deleted member 21120]

Yes, he does. He says "we could be" in the End Times. I don't want somebody facing turmoil in the Middle East and maybe thinking it's all part of God's plan and it's not appropriate for Man to intervene.

Do you have any evidence that supports the idea that he'd think it wouldn't be "appropriate for Man to intervene"? Rather than speculating on what he might do, it is probably more reasonable to read about his plan for the Middle East (which I can tell you haven't done, otherwise you wouldn't have said what you said) and then decide what you think he might do.

And I think it's funny that you've made the jump from him saying "we could be" in the End Times to "we are in the End Times and I will act accordingly." Oftentimes the nonreligious are as illogical as they claim that the religious are.

The "6000 years" of the Young Earthers is derived from working backwards from all those "begats" from Adam and Eve, isn't it? Certainly, biblical literalists believe that Jesus was born 2000 years ago as we still measure time, why the discrepancy before that?

If he's open to interpretation on the days possibly being "time periods," then maybe he's open to a different interpretation elsewhere also. I don't know. I just know that people have been saying "he believes the Earth is 6000 years old," and when asked he said, "I don't know."

 

[AmishNazi]

I guess I'll put this here. I just got back from visiting my mom, and her neighbor Gary was hanging out at the house. Well eventually we ended up talking about this caucus. Gary, a staunch Democrat, said, "Well I know who I'm NOT voting for. It's that Obama guy. I can't stand the thought of a woman president, but I'd vote for Hillary twice before I'd vote for a damn nig*er."

I...I was stunned. This guy was a poverty stricken, living at home with his mom, laid-off Democrat. A genuine Bush hater (but who isn't these days) and Republican basher through and through.

I just hope he's in the OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW SMALL IT IS minority of racist democrats. It's Indiana, so maybe that's why.

Rich and poor people. All the other shit is BS. *shakes* I've converted a few friends to that thinking, but not many.

 

[maximum360]

The KKK has 3000 members in the nation. I'm sure the political parties are desperate for their approval.

Wow, just 3000?
Are they all on Xbox live?

Seriously they come out of the woodwoks on Live. Once one person mouths the "N" word, the chorus chimes in and it happens now more than ever. Everytime I think the country's turning around all I need to do is go back to Xbox Live and listen to the kids/adults for a reality check.

 

[Y2Kev]

Obama's position on gay marriage....I actually like it. I liked reading that.

I think I like him. Go Obama.

 

[APF]

You see some people see the errors in their ways and change.

Dur dur dur: "In the 1970s, Thurmond endorsed racial integration earlier than many other southern politicians. He also hired African American staffers, enrolled his white daughter in an integrated public school, and supported black nominees for federal judgeships. [...] Thurmond would also support extension of the Voting Rights Act and making the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. a federal holiday."

 

[Stoney Mason]

I guess I'll put this here. I just got back from visiting my mom, and her neighbor Gary was hanging out at the house. Well eventually we ended up talking about this caucus. Gary, a staunch Democrat, said, "Well I know who I'm NOT voting for. It's that Obama guy. I can't stand the thought of a woman president, but I'd vote for Hillary twice before I'd vote for a damn nig*er."

I...I was stunned. This guy was a poverty stricken, living at home with his mom, laid-off Democrat. A genuine Bush hater (but who isn't these days) and Republican basher through and through.

I just hope he's in the OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW SMALL IT IS minority of racist democrats. It's Indiana, so maybe that's why.

Not overly surprising.

There are all sorts of people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate including the ones who delude themselves and pretend it's not because he is black.

Not really related and purely anecdotal but a lot of blacks I know still don't believe Obama has a chance to win the presidency despite winning in a very very white state.

Conventional wisdom is still conventional wisdom I guess until it changes.

 

[perfectchaos007]

It sucks that in the end, Hillary Clinton got second in Iowa and John Edwards got third

 

[adamsappel]

Do you have any evidence that supports the idea that he'd think it wouldn't be "appropriate for Man to intervene"? Rather than speculating on what he might do, it is probably more reasonable to read about his plan for the Middle East (which I can tell you haven't done, otherwise you wouldn't have said what you said) and then decide what you think he might do.

And I think it's funny that you've made the jump from him saying "we could be" in the End Times to "we are in the End Times and I will act accordingly." Oftentimes the nonreligious are as illogical as they claim that the religious are.


If he's open to interpretation on the days possibly being "time periods," then maybe he's open to a different interpretation elsewhere also. I don't know. I just know that people have been saying "he believes the Earth is 6000 years old," and when asked he said, "I don't know."

No, I haven't read Huckabee's plan for the Middle East. Link me? And yes, I'm probably being a little hard on him. He seems like a very nice gentleman, and I appreciate that he doesn't hate poor people. He's got a little bit of small-state corruption to him, but we've had worse in the presidency. In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter to me. I'm not voting Republican, and if he's the nominee, all these questions will be asked and evaded ad nauseum.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

It sucks that in the end, Hillary Clinton got second in Iowa and John Edwards got third

Wow, confirmed? That was a huge story.

 

[Particle Physicist]

...

 

[speculawyer]

Ah, even better. That actually reminds me of the turning point in my own feelings for Obama (from admiration to disgust). I was reading his book and I got to the part where he discusses gay marriage. From The Audacity of Hope:



A man as intelligent as Barrack Obama takes time to note how his views are likely to be proven wrong in the future, and yet has the audacity to say that he is going to be moderate on the issue anyway. He's basically admitting that he knows his position is wrong, even citing historical precedent in other parts of the book, but he won't change it anyway. You can believe that that's a religious view, but it seems to smack of political expediency to me.

Of course it is political expediency. Look . . . if you want to be an activist for something, go raise hell over your issue. But if you want to become president, you can't take extreme views.

I agree that he knows the position is wrong but he also knows that he can't take the right position and get elected. But any opponent of his will likely be far more homophobic, so Obama is the better choice.

Yeah, it is cynical Clinton-esque triangulation. But he somehow manages to do it in a way that doesn't seem extremely transparent & manipulative (as Hillary often does).

And my admiration of him has gone up.

 

[speculawyer]

Dur dur dur: "In the 1970s, Thurmond endorsed racial integration earlier than many other southern politicians. He also hired African American staffers, enrolled his white daughter in an integrated public school, and supported black nominees for federal judgeships. [...] Thurmond would also support extension of the Voting Rights Act and making the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. a federal holiday."

But he still cultivated some of the latent racism. And I wasn't referring to him, I was referring to George 'Macaca' Allen.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Wow, confirmed? That was a huge story.

yep. I asked the question here hours ago and was never answered as to why Hillary ended up getting more delagates than Edwards even though technically Edwards got more votes. But in the end the amount of delagates you get is all that matters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229206

 

[Stoney Mason]

do you have a link to that? i know that he supports civil unions.. but id like to read what he thinks about it all.

What is there to really read? He supports it but like all the top Democrats running he is afraid to openly admit he favors gay marriage for fear of offending middle American voters. So they take the safer civil unions route.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-M2Cf1L-zk

 

[Flaming Duck]

It's one thing to say that civil unions provide equal rights, and it's another to actually make that happen. As the law stands now, civil unions do not provide all the same rights. Why? Because there a lots of benefits that specifically require one's partner to be legally married. If Barrack wants to change that, that's great, but it's unlikely and not as quick a fix as allowing gay people to just get married. Not to mention, it is needlessly discriminatory to create a second class of unions specifically for homosexuals.

Secondly, no one is forcing churches to marry gay people. If my atheist ass ever gets married, I'll be doing it in front of a judge in a court house, as is the legal right of every American (except the gay ones). The idea that legal gay marriage will force gays into our churches (and maybe our swimming pools!) is bullshit propaganda. Marriage is a legal contract, the religious bit is optional window dressing.

Edit: Upon re-reading Obama's quote I noticed that while he is a "proponent" of civil unions, he's willing to let states decide the issue for themselves. Awesome. Hey Tom and Bill, it turns out your married in New York, but your just roommates in Jersey!

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that he was for federally recognized civil unions but would not stand in the way of a state deciding something regarding gay marriage. His response does make it a little hard to tell to what he is referring when he says "would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own," but he writes that directly after writing that he does not support gay marriage, and then follows that by citing examples of constitutional amendments seeking to ban gay marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act. But, I could be wrong.

Next, I don't think Obama's response to the question or my initial post ever indicated that legal gay marriage would force gays into churches. I'm not sure why you even brought that up, actually. The legal contract of marriage that you talk about is exactly what would be given to gay couples entering civil unions. Obama's whole point of view is that, good or bad, marriage does have certain social and religious connotations. While some people might view marriage as only a legal contract, there are many people who see the religious and social components of a marriage to be just as large if not larger than the legal rights and benefits.

Obama himself happens to be one of those people who attaches a larger meaning to the idea of a marriage, and so he is uncomfortable supporting the idea of a gay marriage. At least he is honest enough to admit this and honest enough to admit that he could be wrong on this. But what is also important to note is that he is not allowing his religious views to get in the way of offering the same legal rights and benefits to gay couples.

According to his website, he:

supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.

Obviously anything other than him announcing full support for gay marriage is going to leave some people cold. I see cries of, "Separate is inherently unequal!" but at the end of the day, he is all for letting gay couples receive those same rights and benefits. Does it honestly matter that much what it's called?

Also, not to be a jerk or anything, but his first name is spelled "Barack". It only has one R.

 

[Talka]

yep. I asked the question here hours ago and was never answered as to why Hillary ended up getting more delagates than Edwards even though technically Edwards got more votes. But in the end the amount of delagates you get is all that matters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229206

Not really. Edwards got second place in the percentages and the media is reporting that he got second place and Clinton third. Delegates don't matter at this stage. If they did, Clinton would be ahead by a huge margin because she's got the support of most of the super-delegates.

That said, I am curious what archaic rule allowed for Edwards to receive one fewer national delegates than Clinton despite receiving a higher percentage of Iowa's precincts' delegates. Weird.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Not really. Edwards got second place in the percentages and the media is reporting that he got second place and Clinton third. Delegates don't matter at this stage. If they did, Clinton would be ahead by a huge margin because she's got the support of most of the super-delegates.

That said, I am curious what archaic rule allowed for Edwards to receive one fewer national delegates than Clinton despite receiving a higher percentage of Iowa's precincts' delegates. Weird.

Yeah, if in the end delegates decide who they want to go to, whats the point in having people vote in the first place? I also don't see how Obama just got one more delegate than Hillary even though Obama finished first and Hillary finished third.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I think leaving gay marriage up to the states is the right choice. The fed doesn't give you a marriage license your state does.

I also think voting for troop funding was the right call. They are there, give them what they need to do whatever it is they are supposed to be doing. He is the only candidate AFAIK that voted against the war in the first place.

As for racists, yeah some people will just not vote for him. But I think that number of mouth-breathers is lower than the number of people who will just not vote for a woman. esp. a BITCH like hillary.

 

[Stoney Mason]

That said, I am curious what archaic rule allowed for Edwards to receive one fewer national delegates than Clinton despite receiving a higher percentage of Iowa's precincts' delegates. Weird.

It's the Iowa Caucus. Probably has something to do with the corn and wheat rules...

 

[avatar299]

It goes without saying that Obama's biggest hurdle is going to be race, not Hilary.

The man just won Iowa. Yeah there will be some hicks who won't support on both sides(OMG Democrats are racist) but they aren't a factor.

Iowa just proved middle america isn't as full of closet klansmen as people wanted.

You see some people see the errors in their ways and change.

Nice to know republicans can't change:lol

 

[NWO]

In response to the idea that Obama isn't leading on gay rights:

That's all good and all but then why did he support Donnie McClurkin then. The guy goes around preaching that gays can be cured through "prayer" and that thinks being gay is a choice. Obama kept him on his campaign sponsored tour and added a "openly gay minister" in response to the backlash.

Don't you think if he was for change he wouldn't be associating with people like that? Nor would he be supporting a guy who thinks you can "cure" homosexuality? Why didn't he just get rid of him if he was so against what the guy was preaching? I mean I'm not even gay and I would have NEVER let a guy like that near my campaign because I don't believe in what he's saying.

I just think adding an openly gay minister in response is kinda odd because its like the "I have a minority friend" that white people play whenever somebody calls them a racist. If somebody else campaigning had this incident happen that wasn't Obama I'm pretty sure this board would be bashing the hell out of them especially if they were Republican.

I mean I understand that he is a very religious person and that some people like that but I prefer my candidates to be somebody who is basically neutral on religion and from the digging I've been doing Obama doesn't seem like he's that kind of guy.