Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Bill just wants to travel around, eat good food, and pretend he's doing something. He will go around the world, meet with leaders, take pictures, give lectures, and so on.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nevada/South Carolina Primary Results Thread
- Thread starter Cheebs
- Start date
- Status
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Ether_Snake said:
i bet they have an open relationship.
CoolTrick said:
seriously though. it goes both ways.
Father_Brain
Banned
whytemyke said:
What I'm saying is that the real-world numbers of the "rather stay home than vote for HITLERY" faction of Obama supporters are in all likelihood rather low, and that this group is disproportionately represented on message boards such as GAF and (especially) SA. Was I not being clear?
I don't see what's irrational about saying this is a race for the very soul of humanity and with every delegate that's illegally and fraudulently diebolded by that witch Hill-opelessness Clintange-nothing, hope itself is being crammed into a Pandora's box of stagnation to be locked away and never again to be seen for all eternity.
Finally.
Headline at Drudge Report:
It's about damn time.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/exclusive-obama.html
Bill Clinton's campaigning the past month or so against Obama has been, imo, despicable and unbecoming of a former president. I don't give two shits if his wife, who's campaign is based on his success, has been largely discredited and he feels the need to lash out at one the party's great political stars in distortions, innuendos and flat out lies. Where was Bill Clinton when the Democratic Party really needed him? Say in the run up to the Iraq War? Or any other of the innumerable transgressions committed by the Bush Administration. Silent as a mouse. Only when Obama threatens his wife's candidacy does he decided to pipe up. Spineless and cowardly.
Headline at Drudge Report:
It's about damn time.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/exclusive-obama.html
Bill Clinton's campaigning the past month or so against Obama has been, imo, despicable and unbecoming of a former president. I don't give two shits if his wife, who's campaign is based on his success, has been largely discredited and he feels the need to lash out at one the party's great political stars in distortions, innuendos and flat out lies. Where was Bill Clinton when the Democratic Party really needed him? Say in the run up to the Iraq War? Or any other of the innumerable transgressions committed by the Bush Administration. Silent as a mouse. Only when Obama threatens his wife's candidacy does he decided to pipe up. Spineless and cowardly.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Incognito said:
stop being a misogynist!
EDIT
if you notice. bill only started being a 'bulldog' after hillary decided to soften her image. they seemed to have switched roles after the crying incident.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Incognito said:
yeah, i guess what i meant was that he really came out in full force after iowa.
quadriplegicjon said:
Yeah, they've been playing good-cop/bad-cop for two years, but it wasn't until New Hampshire they realized that people would much rather be voting for the good cop, and then they switched roles. So now Bill is the bulldog and Hillary is the touchy-feely one.
It makes perfect sense for Obama to stop letting Bill say whatever he wants and really confront him as if he's being ganged on. Might get a few sympathy votes.
But I think what they've also realized that this new strategic role shift of the two Clintons really appeals to female voters. If you can drag Bill through the mud, as long as he's associated with Hillary it'll be her problem too.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
whytemyke said:
he has got to confront it somehow. so far, bill has been given a free ride to basically say whatever he wants
The good cop/bad cop image of the Clintons has been around for ages but recently switched.
It worked brilliantly in the 90's for the most part. Bill as the compassionate above the fray president. Hillary as the liberal attack dog pushing forward uncompromising ideas and attacks (right wing conspiracy comment anyone?)
Now that she is running they switched the roles. It's a very strong strategy.
They can get the negative attacks in without damaging their candidate.
Bill is still the most popular member of the democratic party despite what my fellow Obama fans would like to think. He is by far the most beloved member of the party to this day. A few weeks ago a poll was asked in if Bill was in the primary race as well who would you vote for. Bill won over hillary of course.
Running for the democratic primary and attacking its leader is like running for Pope but trashing Jesus.
It worked brilliantly in the 90's for the most part. Bill as the compassionate above the fray president. Hillary as the liberal attack dog pushing forward uncompromising ideas and attacks (right wing conspiracy comment anyone?)
Now that she is running they switched the roles. It's a very strong strategy.
They can get the negative attacks in without damaging their candidate.
Reagan is a republican though, you can attack a republican in a democratic primary.Tamanon said:
Bill is still the most popular member of the democratic party despite what my fellow Obama fans would like to think. He is by far the most beloved member of the party to this day. A few weeks ago a poll was asked in if Bill was in the primary race as well who would you vote for. Bill won over hillary of course.
Running for the democratic primary and attacking its leader is like running for Pope but trashing Jesus.
whytemyke said:
Nevada doesn't affect whether Edwards is going to drop out.
I think that on February 6th, if either of them want anything to do with the general election, Obama and Edwards will need to work out a deal that Edwards would continue pushing against Clinton, stay in the race, and reserve his seat on the Obama ticket if he has enough delegates to put Obama over the top.
Cheebs said:
Nobody, certainly no democrats, dispute the fact that Bill Clinton is immensely popular within the Democratic Party. The problem is, as a lot of people see it, not just people on message boards but also folks like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Rahm Emanuel, is that Bill Clinton's role in attacking (quite frankly, unfairly attacking) a leading democrat in the party's race for the nomination has crossed a line. He risks, if he hasn't done so already, alienating a significant portion of the Democratic Party base by playing "attack dog." He needs to pipe down and perhaps campaign the way most former heads of state do: with respect and decency.
Yeah a lot of leading dems dont like how bill is the attack dog.Incognito said:
But you honestly think the clintons will listen? The Clintons and congressional democrats often have been at odds. They have their own organization seperate almost from the DNC and run their own party within the party. As shown by their attempts to kick Dean out of power in the DNC.
The Clintons run as the Clinton Party, a party that just so happens to be within the democratic party.
The clinton party has its own loyal members who are "clinton party" members first, democrats second. Such as Evan Bayh, Wes Clark, Madaline Albright, Harold Ford Jr., and so forth.
This works as both a positive and a negative for them. But party insiders, mostly congressional ones being at odds with the Clinton is far from news. The clintons ignored the democratic parties wishes many times before, and they will continue. It's their style.
Bill Clinton is going to run as co-president no matter what anyone tells him. The party wont stop him, Hillary won't stop him (and has shown no signs since Iowa of wanting to stop him).
A lot speculated last year that Bill would be behind the scenes to not over-shadow hillary. This has been far from the case, he gets equal if not more media attention as her. He also seems to do rallies just as much as her, hell the media covers his rallies more than they do hillarys.
In his mind this is very much his election, no one will tell him otherwise. Not Ted Kennedy or anyone else.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4162996&page=1
Please, this is the nomination process and attacks between the nominees of both parties has always been a part of it. Shows the difference between if you are a fighter or a wimp. If Obama started to whine instead of doing the above, it would hurt him greatly.
Please, this is the nomination process and attacks between the nominees of both parties has always been a part of it. Shows the difference between if you are a fighter or a wimp. If Obama started to whine instead of doing the above, it would hurt him greatly.
I dont see Obama's point in bringing it up. Bill is not going to stop. He said after Nevada he is going to be in SC all week ralling in churches in black areas everyday. Attacking a former president of your own party could horribly backfire.
Yes Clinton does it, but he is in the position of "power". He has a pulpit to do it, it is very unfair that Bill can get away with it and likely not Obama. But it is life.
Is it just me or am I seeing more of Bill than Hillary in terms of this campaign?
Yes Clinton does it, but he is in the position of "power". He has a pulpit to do it, it is very unfair that Bill can get away with it and likely not Obama. But it is life.
Is it just me or am I seeing more of Bill than Hillary in terms of this campaign?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Cheebs said:
so its okay to let a former president of your own party attack you? i dont understand this point. bill has been spreading fud about obama, yet you say he should just let it slide?
i think bringing the issue up might bring more focus on this bullying (like the obama, edwards bully at the debate), and bring in enough sympathy votes and bad publicity for him to stop.
I know Bill is considered both an American hero and the country's first "black" President, but I'm not sure what racially-charged comments Obama's campaign made. Certainly Obama's supporters make all sorts of racial allegations and attacks, but unless more of you are officially in his campaign staff I'm not sure that counts.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
APF said:
random internet folk != supporters like Robert Johnson who have actual influence.
Sooo...liberals were pissed and complained 4 years ago that they had a candidate who wasn't tough enough, wasn't willing to really attack bush hard nor stand up strong and fight back against the swift boat attacks.
They get a candidate now who is willing to get dirty, willing to attack their opponets, willing to swift boat themselves. And they complain that they got what they wanted LAST time.
You expect the Clintons to play nice-nice? :lol James Carville politics was just as tough as Karl Rove politics.
As Hillary Clinton said last year in politics you have to deck your opponents hard as you can in elections. The Clintons don't play nice. They fight damn well as hard as possible, no matter how low the attacks have to be.
And you know what? The candidates who "stay above the fray" and play it clean tend to be the ones who lose the elections.
It's how the game is played, you just have to accept that those are the rules. And in the end the attacks that work best tend to be the ones that aren't true, like the swift boaters last year.
They get a candidate now who is willing to get dirty, willing to attack their opponets, willing to swift boat themselves. And they complain that they got what they wanted LAST time.
You expect the Clintons to play nice-nice? :lol James Carville politics was just as tough as Karl Rove politics.
As Hillary Clinton said last year in politics you have to deck your opponents hard as you can in elections. The Clintons don't play nice. They fight damn well as hard as possible, no matter how low the attacks have to be.
And you know what? The candidates who "stay above the fray" and play it clean tend to be the ones who lose the elections.
It's how the game is played, you just have to accept that those are the rules. And in the end the attacks that work best tend to be the ones that aren't true, like the swift boaters last year.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Cheebs said:
its one thing to use those tactics against a republican opponent, its another to do it against your own party opponent.
You must not have read/seen about many earlier democratic primaries. Particularly from 68-92. You act like this is new?quadriplegicjon said:
Democratic primaries are famous for going at eachothers throat, far more so than Republicans. Republicans like to quickly find a front runner and stick with it. Democrats like to see their candidates blast eachother till one is left standing.
This primary by democratic standards is pretty calm and peaceful. Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton were more or less SCREAMING at eachother in a primary debate back in '92.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Cheebs said:
so what. i (and many others) still think its nasty.
and its nowhere near nasty this year as it has been in the past democratic primaries. Democrats are all about nasty primaries. You think it's going to suddenly end?quadriplegicjon said:
Hillary and Bill are following the traditional path of previous democratic primaries. Destroy the other candidate by any means necessary. And even then they are holding back compared to what is normally done.
Political tradition is steadfast and unchanging. The Clintons are working within the system's limits and tradition EXTREMELY successfully, its almost amazing how good they are at it, it impresses me almost daily what I read they are able to pull off. Obama is trying to over-turn the entire system and it isn't working (sadly, as an Obama fan).
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Cheebs said:
i would like to hope that the party would move towards that end.
just because it has happened in the past doesnt mean we cannot criticize it.
I agree its horrible and nasty, but as long as it successfully works candidates won't try to stop it.quadriplegicjon said:
The candidates who do try to stop it, like Obama tend to fail. The system always wins.
The media back in 2004, DAYS after the 2004 election talked about Hillary vs. McCain, since they were the candidates of the system. And guess what? Four years later thats what it looks like we are getting. The underdog dies in politics.
Father_Brain
Banned
Cheebs said:
Pretty much. There have been some rather nasty things said on all sides (though I think Clinton's campaign is guiltier of this), but nothing remotely as vile as what the party establishment did to Dean.
Hey, ObamaGAF, WHAT THE HELL DID YOU EXPECT. ITS A CAMPAIGN. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE ALL CONTENDING FOR A PARTY'S NOMINATION.
Jesus GOD. Obama's supporters all sound like they've never been through the primaries before.
Actually, considering that many of Obama's supporters are young, perhaps they haven't.
Jesus GOD. Obama's supporters all sound like they've never been through the primaries before.
Actually, considering that many of Obama's supporters are young, perhaps they haven't.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Enron said:
I actually agree with your post but on a sidenote what crazy mod changed you back from red to green? That's like removing the bell from the neck of the cat...
Enron said:
I've watched every primary of both parties very closely since 1992, but this is the first one where I actually wanted someone to win.
I have an emotional investment in Obama winning this thing. A ton of other people I know do, too. That's never happened to me before, and I imagine that it hasn't happened for a lot of young people, because the last person to incite this much excitement was JFK.
That might explain why a lot of people are acting like they've never followed a primary before--they haven't.
And by the end of the election they'll learn that politics isn't what they think it is.
You gotta make peace with the establishment of the democratic party (and republican too for the young conservatives, the few there are lol) if you want to get anything out of politics, the establishment isn't as evil as they see it to be.
I am a Obama fan who gave him money but for months on end I have been chastised for saying Hillary will win always (though I fell into that Obama hype for a bit post-Iowa), and this is why I kept saying that. I know the establishment wins, I didn't want to disappoint myself like so many are. I have learned that lesson.
Obama will be the establishment next time there is an open primary be it 4 years or 8 years. And he'll run again, he is young and well liked. All losers in his spot run again. Chin up, Obama won't dissapear forever nor will Hillary run this country into the ground.
Gore ran in 1988, look how long it took him. But he kept trying.
Edwards in 2004, McCain in 2000, Joe Biden also ran before too. He'll be back.
Reagan was very close to getting the nomination in 1976 but he didn't give up, he ran again in 80.
You gotta make peace with the establishment of the democratic party (and republican too for the young conservatives, the few there are lol) if you want to get anything out of politics, the establishment isn't as evil as they see it to be.
I am a Obama fan who gave him money but for months on end I have been chastised for saying Hillary will win always (though I fell into that Obama hype for a bit post-Iowa), and this is why I kept saying that. I know the establishment wins, I didn't want to disappoint myself like so many are. I have learned that lesson.
Obama will be the establishment next time there is an open primary be it 4 years or 8 years. And he'll run again, he is young and well liked. All losers in his spot run again. Chin up, Obama won't dissapear forever nor will Hillary run this country into the ground.
Gore ran in 1988, look how long it took him. But he kept trying.
Edwards in 2004, McCain in 2000, Joe Biden also ran before too. He'll be back.
Reagan was very close to getting the nomination in 1976 but he didn't give up, he ran again in 80.
Kitschkraft
Member
Incognito said:
I agree 100 percent with you....I really hate the Clintons right now and would support any Republican over them.
They have successfully made Obama "The Black Candidate" again, and it's a damn shame that they would stoop that low.
And why would you support obama over a republican but not a clinton? obama and clinton have the same policies for the most part.Liara T'Soni said:
Democrats trashed voters for picking Bush over the "intelligent" Gore and Kerry because he was more likeable. Yet they are refusing to support a candidate they agree with policy wise over the likeability issue.
I LOVE THE IRONY!
Kitschkraft
Member
APF said:
What have the Clintons done for blacks?
Far as I know, more blacks were sent to prison under Bill Clinton then any president in history.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Father_Brain said:
yeah. that really pissed me off as well.
Cheebs said:
not when the establishment needs to seriously be revised.
- Status