# Clinton Vs Obama



## madisona (14 Jan 2008)

what a fascinating contest this is turning out to be. Everybody thought that Hillary was finished after Iowa but she has fought back using every dirty trick in the book. First she played the gender card "It's not easy. I see whats happening. We have to reverse it. Some of us are ready.Some are not"  I'm just a poor woman. whether planned or not the crying was a master stoke that won her New Hampshire and saved her canditaticy 

then Bill turned Bad Cop and started attacking Obama "this whole thing is the biggest fairytale that I have ever seen". then the Clinton campaign started to focus again on Obamas drug use as a teenager  "Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood - and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book" said the guy introducing her at a rally, comments that Hillary is refusing to dissociate herself from.   

But perhaps the riskiest move is the decision by the Clinton campaign to play the race card. By saying that Lyndon Johnson acccomplished things whereas Martin Luther King did not and then attributing responses from black leaders to that to the Obama campaign. The strategy seems to be to cede the black vote to Obama in the hope that  by focusing on race they will win  more white votes. [FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]"Ain't no black people in Iowa" Michelle Obama said but if Clinton can  paint Obama as the "black" canditate she will win. So far Obama is holding fire which may or may not be the the best strategy. His message of hope and reconcillation will be tarnished if he decides to go negative.

[/FONT]


----------



## Sherman (14 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> then Bill turned Bad Cop and started attacking Obama "this whole thing is the biggest fairytale that I have ever seen". then the Clinton campaign started to focus again on Obamas drug use as a teenager "Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood - and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book" said the guy introducing her at a rally, comments that Hillary is refusing to dissociate herself from.


 
According to Hillary on Meet the Press yesterday, Bill was referring to Obama's anti-war stance and not his candidacy.

Hillary definitively rejected and disassociated herself and her campaign from the insinuations about Obama and drugs.

You seem to have a very rosy picture of Obama - no one gets to the position of running for US President without being well able to get down and dirty with the best of them - Obama and his supporters sure as hell ain't averse to playing dirty if they see the need/opportunity...


----------



## madisona (14 Jan 2008)

Sherman said:


> Hillary definitively rejected and disassociated herself and her campaign from the insinuations about Obama and drugs.




no she didn't. she magnanimously sacked a surrogate who raised the issue in December when she thought that the race was sewn up. When  Robert L. Johnson a prominent and influential backer raised the issue a few days ago while introducing her, her campaign refused to disown the comments


  “It's troubling that neither the campaign nor Sen. Clinton - is willing to condemn it, as they did when another prominent supporter recently said a similar thing," said Obama's campaign Manager.


----------



## madisona (14 Jan 2008)

Sherman said:


> According to Hillary on Meet the Press yesterday, Bill was referring to Obama's anti-war stance and not his candidacy.



never said that he wasn't


----------



## ClubMan (14 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> First she played the gender card ... I'm just a poor woman.


Did she actually say that? If not are you referring to the fact that the became emotional/cried? Don't men do that too?


----------



## madisona (14 Jan 2008)

Sherman said:


> - Obama and his supporters sure as hell ain't averse to playing dirty if they see the need/opportunity...



don't think he has so far. at least not to the level of personal attacks which I would consider the Clinton focus on his drug use to be. The equivalant would be Obama talking about Monica, although I accept that his not going negative so far is also a pragmatic decision. I also think that the Clintons have a point when they talk about his high faluting rhetoric about change, hope ect as being a bit to short on specifics.


----------



## madisona (14 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Did she actually say that? If not are you referring to the fact that the became emotional/cried? Don't men do that too?


 
eh no. That bit wasn't in quotes. yeah men cry. but it is a dangerous tactic as it can be seen as weakness. Hillary had built herself up as experienced and in control, so showing a bit of emotion worked. Of course I am assuming that it was a bit contrived. and to me it seemed that she was playing on her gender. All the boys are picking on me.

Obama said earlier "I am assuming that Sen Clinton wants to be treated as everyone else. I didn't come out and say I was being picked on because I looked different"


----------



## ClubMan (14 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> at least not to the level of personal attacks which I would consider the Clinton focus on his drug use to be. The equivalant would be Obama talking about Monica


Having extra marital sexual relations with an intern is not illegal...


----------



## ClubMan (14 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> eh no. That bit wasn't in quotes. yeah men cry. but it is a dangerous tactic as it can be seen as weakness.


So how was it a "gender card" then!?


----------



## almo (14 Jan 2008)

Gazza cried and created the Sky League, at least that's what RM would have us believe, maybe Hill's non-tears will create a new dawn for EL football!


----------



## almo (14 Jan 2008)

almo said:


> Gazza cried and created the Sky League, at least that's what RM would have us believe, and she cries and David Beckham has just founded/discovered soccer in the US and Canada, maybe Bertie's non-tears will create a new dawn for EL football!


----------



## Sherman (14 Jan 2008)

madisona said:


> don't think he has so far. at least not to the level of personal attacks which I would consider the Clinton focus on his drug use to be. The equivalant would be Obama talking about Monica, although I accept that his not going negative so far is also a pragmatic decision.



I don't think anyone has accused Hillary Clinton of having sex with an intern, so how is that an equivalent?  He has admitted taking illegal drugs - IMHO, in a country which gets its knickers in a twist to the extent the US does about drugs, I think it's fair to remind voters of the truth.  Oh, and did David Axelrod (Obama's top political aide) not insinuate that Hillary was in part responsible for Benazir Bhutto's assassination  - if that isn't dirty tricks, I don't know what is... as an aside, Bill Clinton claims the Obama campaign has been responsible for 80 negative attacks on the Clinton campaign in the last 6 months.  Of course Obama supporters will probably say that claim is evidence itself of Clintonian dirty tricks


----------



## madisona (15 Jan 2008)

There is different reasons for crying . It is more acceptable to cry in relation to say, people killed in an earthquake or in a plane crash or starving people somewhere (Bill Clintons "I feel your pain") or the death of some one close, or most acceptable of all, the loss of a sporting competition by ones team. Hillarys (near) crying was self pity for herself ("It's not easy"). A man would never have gotten away with it (unacceptable weakness) and as it was imo contrived it was playing the gender card.

ok forget the Monica comparison which is inappropriate. However by focusing on Obamas admitted illegal past drug use, the Clinton campaign is focusing on the personal rather than policy differences which is the opposite of the way they had previously promised to conduct the campaign.

Axelrod did kinda insinuate that Hillary was in part responsible for Benazir Bhutto's assassination, by what may be called the butterfly effect (what he said was that she supported the invasion of Iraq, which diverted resourses from Afganistan, which allowed Al-Quida to flourish and they may have been responsible for Bhutto assassination ) He withdrew the remarks and Obama kinda apologised.

Another tactic of the Clinton camp which they used effectively to bring race into it is to make a remark (i.e the MLK\ Lyndon Johnson comments) and then attribute the predictable responses from black leaders to the "Obama campaign", even though Obama deliberately held back from responding as the last thing he needs is for race to come to the forfront as an issue. I am surprised that Bill and Hill have not attributed the "Iron my Shirt" incident to the "Obama campaign" although I sure Bill counted it as part of his 80 negative attacks


----------



## diarmuidc (15 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Having extra marital sexual relations with an intern is not illegal...


Depends on what they were doing and in what states ....


----------



## ClubMan (15 Jan 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> Depends on what they were doing and in what states ....


Good point - forgot about that!


----------



## Fly (15 Jan 2008)

there's no proof that the show of emotion by Hillary in NH was a factor in people voting for her...in fact exit polls didn't point to that at all.

The pollsters got that one wrong for whatever reason...people wanting to go with the young unproven candidate but in uncertain times changing to the older more experienced one, people overestimating their liklihood to vote for a minority candidate, or as a lot of people seem to believe the pollsters themselves getting it wrong on who will turn out.

After all the white, male, middleaged, middle class protestants that have made up the list of presidents to date (Think JFK was the only exception) it would be great to have a change.  I would go for the woman in this instance.  Really think the US needs to distance itself from the macho rhetoric of recent times.


----------



## Madangan (15 Jan 2008)

When the biography of President McCain comes out no doubtthere will be a chapter about how the in fighting democrats helped him win the white house....
Personally I have been an admirer of Hillary C for years and hopes she gets the nomination as Obama is a little too slick with his MLK like "Yes we can" speeches for my liking. I think the more time goes by the sheen will come off...I would rather a somewhat charisma lacking but experienced and tough president than a novice who talks the talk and may or may not be able to walk the walk in the white house.
I would like to see one or other of them in the White House before any of the Republicans,but as a woman I would put the fact that Hillary is a woman on my list of reasons for wishing her to win but its actually pretty far down the list.In fact if truth be told I believe the best democrat nominees was Richardson. 
It is I think at least equally ground breaking to have a woman as president as an african american ,the difference being that overt racism is an absolute no no(and rightly so) but overt gender bashing is not such a problem.
IMHO btw Hillary won the NH primary because (a) Nh voters dont like being ignored(i.e the total media consensus that before any of them voted Hillary had already lost by a landslide,(b) the totally OTT reaction of the media both print but especially tv to this landslide loss and (c) the other face of obama appearing ever so fleetingly in the debate on the previous saturday night with his rather snide"youre likeable enough Hillary" in response to a question about her likeability factor and this after she had quite cleverly said that he was very likeable but that she wasnt so bad. It apparently went down very badly and while a very small thing the fact that he had been elevated to almost god like status previously meant this little chink in the armour had greater significance than otherwise it would have had.(d)after the non crying episode and the way the media dealt with that there was a groundswell of opinion that she was damned if she did and damned if she didnt and the abuse being meted out crossed a line of fairness.
Having said all that her remarks about LBJ were crass and incredibly stupid at best.It may be very difficult to fight a charismatic african american without being accused of playing the race card but one way not to behave is to be seen to be denigrating in any way the great african american hero MLK. I happen to think( whatever about other accusations of the race issue being raised) this was a very badly put attempt to play the experience card. I think it will defintely lose her NC and it remains to be seen how much damage has been done to her campaign.


----------



## csirl (15 Jan 2008)

I think its early days to be predicting the next President. 

Remember that the Clinton v Obama battle is just one political party chosing which of its members should go forward for election. 

It annoys me a bit when people start comparing the so called policies of candidates for a particular parties nomination. It escapes them that the people they are comparing are all members of the same party and all will be running on the same policies which will be those of the party, not the individual.

The real election has still to come.


----------



## Madangan (16 Jan 2008)

csirl said:


> I think its early days to be predicting the next President.
> 
> Remember that the Clinton v Obama battle is just one political party chosing which of its members should go forward for election.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with almost all of what you say. It is however hard to know what the policies of each party in the usa are.Their party system is very different, certainly at the level of President whatever about at congress level. In most other countries, for example,Huckabee would be in a very different party to say Giuliani or McCain.

Anyway its a marathon not a sprint and as a politics nerd I am enjoying the spectacle!!!


----------



## madisona (14 Feb 2008)

looks like its now more or less over. Obama with victories the last eight contests, an increasing lead in opinion polls and now ahead on delegates too. More Superdelegates now declaring for Obama. Clinton camp in turmoil and even victories in Texas and Ohio unlikely to make much difference given that delegates will be assigned proportionally.   
So it's Obama Vs McCain in November


----------



## csirl (14 Feb 2008)

> So it's Obama Vs McCain in November


 
Comfortable McCain victory with low turnout due to it being a forgone conclusion by the time polling day arrives.


----------



## Madangan (14 Feb 2008)

Narrow McCain victory real possibility as the Us public will just have gotten over their initial adoration with obama and if,like the emperor, he is is seen not to have any clothes, his fans may start to drift away in their droves.
If he does win the nomination I am fascinated as to his choice of running mate..he may be forced to offer it to Hillary(as proof that the democrats are not bitterly split) but why would she accept? She has more power as the senator from New York than as a vice pres with no possibility of becoming president in 8 years time. Oh happy times for us politics nerds,so much more interesting than Bertie and his sterling lodgements.


----------



## SarahMc (14 Feb 2008)

I read analysis recently that showed Clinton tends to win primaries (secret ballots) and Obama caucases (open votes).  I found this quite worrying, but interesting, that although many Democrats claim to be liberal and open to a Black nominee, when it comes to putting pen to paper in private, they cannot do it.

The article (Economist I think) was written before Super Tuesday, so may have been disproved since.


----------



## madisona (15 Feb 2008)

Madangan said:


> if,like the emperor, he is is seen not to have any clothes, his fans may start to drift away in their droves.
> If he does win the nomination I am fascinated as to his choice of running mate..he may be forced to offer it to Hillary(as proof that the democrats are not bitterly split) but why would she accept?


 
Although he is great at the old platitude filled rhetoric there is also a lot of substance, intelligence and integrity to the man. I don't think that there is any chance that he would offer the VP slot to Hillary for a lot of reasons. I genuinely think that he dislikes her ( despite his protestations to the contrary) and it may also not be the best strategy to attract votes. Edwards was angling for it and am surprised that he has not yet endorsed Obama.




SarahMc said:


> I read analysis recently that showed Clinton tends to win primaries (secret ballots) and Obama caucases (open votes). I found this quite worrying, but interesting, that although many Democrats claim to be liberal and open to a Black nominee, when it comes to putting pen to paper in private, they cannot do it.
> .


 
This is known as the Bradley effect. It was also used to explain why the Tories won the 1992 UK General election after being behind in opinion polls. apparantely some people were embarassed to admit that they were voting for them.

btw Bill Clinton explanation "the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."


----------



## Remix (21 Feb 2008)

It seems now that Hillary is so far behind that any tears from this point on are likely to be genuine.

Could she come back ?

One commentator noted she will need to fight back by:
"summoning hitherto unknown strength from that vast pool of goddessness deep within the core of her menopausal feminine essence"

 Classic!


----------



## Madangan (22 Feb 2008)

I have no problem if the democrats choose Obama over clinton, that is democracy. But good god the level of misogyny in this campaign is so incredibly depressing and quite frankly shocking. 

What is shocking about it for me is that while it is generally accepted that overt rascism is a total no no (and rightly so) it seems almost impossible to criticize Obama without being accused of subtle rascism but its quite another thing to be sexist. 

the quote in the last post may have been a joke but it is still indicative of the level of sexism in this entire campaign...and I am not suggesting that the Obama campaign is particularly guilty of this.. I am referring to the media commentators I have heard and read since before Iowa.

BTW  I have never voted for a woman in an election because of gender, I have voted for some women and there are others I would not vote for in a blue fit !


----------



## almo (22 Feb 2008)

Being objective I have to agree with Madangan, the whole "he's black so we have to vote" or "Oprah told us to do it" rhetoric is making a little bit of a mockery of the situation.  I have read and wondered in the past about Oprah's political ambitions, and it is entirely possible that if O'bama does win the nomination he might not take the eloquent and decent John Edwards as VP, but actually call up Oprah!  

Okay, why?  Well, he'll get the votes of embittered lonely "you go girl".  He'll grab attention with white "liberal" voters, and he'll shore up his support with the coloured/hispanic/asian voters.  Plus the novelty value will win a few extra votes - plus she can bankroll the biggest campaign since Bush II was illegally made President and lost the last campaign.

There is a counterweight, the country could see through Oprah's plot to grab power witha  puppet President and go for McCain, which could mean an extension of war into Iran in 2009.


----------



## madisona (22 Feb 2008)

Madangan said:


> But good god the level of misogyny in this campaign is so incredibly depressing and quite frankly shocking.
> 
> ...a joke but it is still indicative of the level of sexism in this entire campaign...


 

IRON MY SHIRT


----------



## Simeon (22 Feb 2008)

Remix said:


> It seems now that Hillary is so far behind that any tears from this point on are likely to be genuine.
> 
> Could she come back ?
> 
> ...


To (mis)quote our very own ex-Legal Eagle supremo ....... the last sting of a dying 'nonWasp'.


----------



## csirl (22 Feb 2008)

> Being objective I have to agree with Madangan, the whole "he's black so we have to vote" or "Oprah told us to do it" rhetoric is making a little bit of a mockery of the situation


 
Oprah tends to appeal to the "lowest common demoninator" in TV audience terms - trash TV for trash people. Who Oprah tells them to vote for has little impact on the result as most of these people probably havent even bothered to register to vote. Any election expert worldwide will tell you that the lowest voting rate is amongst the poor and uneducated. This is particularly true in the US where registration is not as automatic as here (where you get reminded annually). Also in the US, the polling stations tend to be a lot fewer and further apart than in Ireland. Most people in the US will not be within 5min walk of a polling station. The type of person who watches Oprah is the type of person who couldnt be bothered to travel to vote. 

I know I'm making a very sweeping generalisation in the above, but there is a lot of truth in it.

We saw it last time around with John Kerry - popular in the trash media & Oprah on his side.


----------



## sherib (23 Feb 2008)

> Originally Posted by *Madangan*
> _.......But good god the level of misogyny in this campaign is so incredibly depressing and quite frankly shocking. _
> 
> _What is shocking about it for me is that while it is generally accepted that overt rascism is a total no no (and rightly so) it seems almost impossible to criticize Obama without being accused of subtle rascism but its quite another thing to be sexist _


Couldn't agree more..... the degree and extent of the misogyny exhibited by the U.S. media is enough to make me a Feminist. The appeal of Obama decreases daily for me with his repetitious sound bites which are just plain boring at this stage. He appears to be more like a _Pied Piper_ than a future president. 

Since the race is far from over we should wait and see how Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania vote before writing Hillary off. From what I've read McCain would prefer to have Obama as his opponent rather than H.C. I also believe the Super Delegates are more likely to support a tried and tested super woman (H.C.) rather than an aspiring _Superman._ His day will come but not yet I'm hoping.


----------



## stir crazy (23 Feb 2008)

Madangan said:


> with obama and if,like the emperor, he is is seen not to have any clothes, his fans may start to drift away in their droves.




I dont get that argument. Does Obama not have policies like anyone else and are those policies not the policies of the democratic party ?????
If anyone didnt' have clothes, it would apply to Bush if you want my opinion.
With both Hilary and Obama I see unsubstantiated arguments against both which given my current level of knowledge about both can only be explained by veiled sexism/misogyny or racism. I mean why say something like that without backing it up ? Unless of course you work for the republican campaign team? Can anyone educate me here? Why shouldnt' Obama, as educated and atriculate as he is, not have policies ? The policies of all of them are pretty much opaque right now if you ask me.


----------



## diarmuidc (23 Feb 2008)

Madangan said:


> I have no problem if the democrats choose Obama over clinton, that is democracy. But good god the level of misogyny in this campaign is so incredibly depressing and quite frankly shocking.


Maybe. But it could also be that people just don't like her. (I personally don't like her. Nothing to do with being a woman ...)


----------



## Madangan (23 Feb 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> Maybe. But it could also be that people just don't like her. (I personally don't like her. Nothing to do with being a woman ...)


 
And that is absolutely fine.. I have no problem with that whatsoever as I said at the beginning of my post " I have no problem if the democrats choose Obama over clinton, that is democracy" 



Stir crazy,

That is why I used the word *if *! That particular post was expressing my opinion that a Mc Cain victory is a real possibility. Many people with far more years of watching US elections than me have said that they have never seen anything like the Obama factor.... and that he really is not being subjected to the scrutiny like other candidates.* IF *the current mania/adoration wears off between now and november(and that type of intensity is very hard to maintain ...by way of a muchlesser example see the initial euphoria generated by Howard Dean in 2004) then *if* he is more style than substance the wheels could slip off the wagon very quickly.

Btw voicing an opinion that there is misogyny in the media was not a criticsm of any other candidate and I made that clear in my post.


----------



## Remix (23 Feb 2008)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

All candidates have been fair game for gags. If anything I would say it's McCain gets most in the form of "Old (white) guy" jokes.


e.g. McCain
There was the suggestion from Hillary that "no country for old men" should be his campaign slogan.

John McCain says it’s been tested, retested, and tested again — and that’s just his prostate

Or, The New York Times is claiming John McCain, who is 71 years old, had an inappropriate relationship with a woman who is a Washington lobbyist. The good news is there’s no footage. 

e.g Obama
Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail. She’s been speaking about Black History Month. She’s been saying, “America’s come so far that today, a black man can grow up and one day be _vice_ president.” 

Obama got 100% of the black vote in Ohio - A guy called Larry !

Also Obama's wife has been referred to as Mama Obama


----------



## csirl (26 Feb 2008)

Interesting that both Democratic candidates have issues over their names:

Hilary Blythe (Clinton is a stage name adopted by her husband).

Some of the US paper last week had an article to the effect that Barry Dunham, the junior senator from Illinois doesnt sound quite as exotic as "Barrack Obama".


----------



## Sherman (26 Feb 2008)

csirl said:


> (Clinton is a stage name adopted by her husband).


 
Clinton was actually the name of Bill's stepfather.  He formally changed his name to Clinton in his early teens.


----------



## madisona (10 Mar 2008)

still practically mathematically impossible for her to catch Obama in elected pledged delegates but I think Jon Stewart put it best 

"I swear to God, I'm starting to think she's one of those Terminators. She can't be stopped. You throw them in the vat, you think it's over, and all of a sudden, the little droplets start to recoagulate, and she rises up -- I won Ohio!"


----------



## Calico (10 Mar 2008)

madisona said:


> still practically mathematically impossible for her to catch Obama in elected pledged delegates but I think Jon Stewart put it best



The whole maths thing is a red herring. The math won't be there for Clinton but neither will be possible for Obama which is why superdelegates are so important. Throw in the delegate count for Florida & Michigan (the Dem party will have to seat those delegates or have a re-run with it being so close) and the 2 are basically even.

The fact that Obama can't carry a big state outside Illinois - his home state - does not bode well for him. I think Clinton will get the nomination and ask Obama to run with her. Can't see him accepting though - he (and his wife! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1qZMBE9Gc) really seem to dislike her.


----------



## madisona (10 Mar 2008)

Calico said:


> The whole maths thing is a red herring. The math won't be there for Clinton but neither will be possible for Obama which is why superdelegates are so important. Throw in the delegate count for Florida & Michigan (the Dem party will have to seat those delegates or have a re-run with it being so close) and the 2 are basically even.
> 
> I think Clinton will get the nomination and ask Obama to run with her. Can't see him accepting though - he (and his wife! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1qZMBE9Gc) really seem to dislike her.


 
neither of them will reach the required number of elected delegates but it will be very difficult for the superdelegates to justify overturn an elected delegate lead. The reason that they are there is apparantly to avoid a brokered convention. and it is practically impossible for her to overtake him in elected delegates. Florida and Michigan won't be seated as is, but they may be a rerun. I think Obama would probably win Michigan and even Hillary winning Florida by a large margin will not close the delegate gap too much.

Hillarys talk of Obama as VP is a tactic. She is trying to potray herself as the natural canditate. I doubt that she would offer and he would not accecpt


----------



## Calico (10 Mar 2008)

madisona said:


> neither of them will reach the required number of elected delegates but it will be very difficult for the superdelegates to justify overturn an elected delegate lead. The reason that they are there is apparantly to avoid a brokered convention. and it is practically impossible for her to overtake him in elected delegates. Florida and Michigan won't be seated as is, but they may be a rerun. I think Obama would probably win Michigan and even Hillary winning Florida by a large margin will not close the delegate gap too much.
> 
> Hillarys talk of Obama as VP is a tactic. She is trying to potray herself as the natural canditate. I doubt that she would offer and he would not accecpt



The whole point of the superdelegate is to exercise independent judgment regardless of the delegate count. If Obama can't win the likes of Ohio then he will have a problem convincing them he is the candidate to win the white house. And Hillary will make up ground between now and the convention - Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico. Probably with Florida & Michigan too. The difference in delegates could be in only double digits. She may even hold the edge in the popular vote. She can also argue that the caucas system, where Obama has done so well, is inherently anti-democratic and if states allocated delegates on a winner takes all basis she would be ahead by a mile. 

I agree that Hillary's talk of Obama as VP is a tactic. A clever one too. I can see the convention offering the VP ticket to Obama as a sweetner for losing the nomination saying it will give him a chance to get the experience and go for President himself in 2012/2016. That will be an interesting prospect as I really don't think Obama is interested - but he could end up looking arrogant and petulant if he rejects it out of hand. After all the talk of any party split being blamed on Hillary I think it could come full circle and people may say that of Obama...


----------



## csirl (10 Mar 2008)

Noboudy would want to be on a losing ticket, particularly one headed by Clinton. Obama would be mad to become Clintons running mate - would be a career ender.


----------



## shanegl (10 Mar 2008)

Good point. In that case, if Obama can wait 4 years, he could easily see McCain beating Clinton and then being too old for the next election.


----------



## Calico (10 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> Noboudy would want to be on a losing ticket, particularly one headed by Clinton. Obama would be mad to become Clintons running mate - would be a career ender.



But the Clinton-Obama match is touted as the dream ticket. Her experience & his bringing in young people & African American support.

Again, he has rejected the notion out of hand, which he is bound to do at this stage. I suspect he wouldn't be able to stomach being Hillary's understudy & would take exception to whatever role Bill might play in a Clinton administration.

Still, there is a long way to go in this election. Obama may yet put Hillary away but equally he may hang himself...


----------



## Madangan (10 Mar 2008)

madisona said:


> Hillarys talk of Obama as VP is a tactic. She is trying to potray herself as the natural canditate. I doubt that she would offer and he would not accecpt


 
No doubt its a tactic but quite a good one. If she gets the nomination I think she would find it impossible not to offer him the v-p spot(particularly as she is practically after saying she will in recent comments)..if he rejects then he looks like a bad loser, petulant etc.. going against the apparent wishes of the majority of those who voted in the primaries(in polls democrat voters express admiration for both candidates)etc... 

On the other hand as he has made no overtures about offering her the v-p ship he may start coming across as the one who is not prepared to give the democrats their dream ticket, who is prepared to split the party etc..

Personally I would prefer Hillary to get the nomination and I think if she does ,barring something unknown, she will scrape to a narrow victory over McCain. However I dont think she will win the nomination and Obama may either crush McCain or crash and burn. I have to say that I am resigned to Obama getting the nomination but try as I do I cant see what people see in him and I am beginning to dislike him as time goes by, I think this is because of the somewhat holier than thou attitude he and his campaign has adopted and I am far too much of a cynic to buy into his hope and change mantras.


----------



## Madangan (10 Mar 2008)

csirl said:


> Noboudy would want to be on a losing ticket, particularly one headed by Clinton. Obama would be mad to become Clintons running mate - would be a career ender.


 
This assumes she would be beaten by McCain and I have a feeling that she would beat him particularly with Obama on the ticket. If she became president and had another v-p( obama having rejected it) then the v-p would then be the obvious candidate in 8 years time. Meanwhile Obama has 8 years of experience in the senate and 8 years of a voting record that can be attacked.
Interesting to wonder who might either pick as v-p if not each other...an older white man if you are Obama or a younger white/latino/ black man if you are Hilary...


----------



## csirl (12 Mar 2008)

I disagree - barring some unforeseen huge event, the election is already a foregone conclusion. McCain is going to win comfortably, probably with a low turnout due to voter apathy with the result not being in doubt.

You have to remember that it is the opinion of the US voters that count in the election, not the opinions of us foreigners and the non-US media. McCain is universally popular. While both Clinton and Obama do have their supporters, they also not liked by large portions of the US electorate and are both considered niche market candidates playing to minority dissaffected support - you know the types, anti-Iraq war, anti-whatever etc. As a general rule "anti" tactics do not win elections as people do not like negative candidates - John Kerry learned this last time around. 

The other big issue is...."its the economy stupid".

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the recession in the US has coincided with the Democrats winning the Senate and Congress elections. You can bet your life that the Republicans will play on this in the run up to the election - "you elect Democrats and you get a recession". Whether or not the Democrats were responsible for the recession (which I suspect they werent) is irrelevant - its the voters perception that matters.


----------



## redstar (12 Mar 2008)

I'm inclined to agree with csirl here.  I think McCain will win the Presidency along with a right-wing-possibly-evangelical type VP candidate. The evangelicals are suspicious of McCain, but might vote for him if one of their own was also on the ticket.

The more conservative-leaning Democrats might also vote McCain rather than Obama. I know  race is not supposed to be a factor but in reality it will be. Obama won the Mssissipi primary with 90% of black votes cast. Clinton won 75% of the white vote.


----------



## Simeon (12 Mar 2008)

Barring something of deluvian proportions McCain should walk it ....... providing  the skeletons only rattle and don't make an appearance. Even those against the Iraqi adventure will get a bit gung ho just to stop Clinton and Obama.


----------



## Remix (14 Mar 2008)

The Leading House Democrat says her party will have a "dream team" on the presidential ticket this fall but it just won't be the team of Obama and Hillary. 

Nancy Pelosi called a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket "impossible." 
Some pundits say that before the scandal broke with Spitzer, Hillary had considered him for a possible running mate!

Spitzer used some very odd choices of words during his resignation. Like "To whom much has been given, much is expected." This from a guy who used $5,000-an-hour hookers! Is that what he said to them !

Also "It's time to return home for some healing". Is that because his wife has been repeatedly kicking him in the b*lls ?


----------



## stir crazy (14 Mar 2008)

Madangan said:


> I think this is because of the somewhat holier than thou attitude he and his campaign has adopted .



Is it just my perception or do all candidates, especially winning candidates adopt that kind of attitude in most of what they do ? Isn't that just the rough and tumble of politics ?


----------



## Madangan (14 Mar 2008)

Remix said:


> Spitzer used some very odd choices of words during his resignation. Like "To whom much has been given, much is expected." This from a guy who used $5,000-an-hour hookers! Is that what he said to them !


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (19 Mar 2008)

Turning nasty now - it was all too fairytale to be true. Obama won't dissassociate himself from a guy who says "God Damn America" and who compares 9/11 to Hiroshima. Also we now hear that we was "introduced" to Christianity. So he was brought up a Muslim in Indonesia.

No way is this guy goin' to be presi, which is a pity. But neither will Hillary. If she wins the demo candidacy it will be so bitter that she will lose the black vote which normally the Democratic party can rely on.

McCain is a really good bet at 2/1.


----------



## stir crazy (19 Mar 2008)

Harchibald said:


> Turning nasty now - it was all too fairytale to be true. Obama won't dissassociate himself from a guy who says "God Damn America" and who compares 9/11 to Hiroshima. Also we now hear that we was "introduced" to Christianity. So he was brought up a Muslim in Indonesia.
> 
> No way is this guy goin' to be presi, which is a pity. But neither will Hillary. If she wins the demo candidacy it will be so bitter that she will lose the black vote which normally the Democratic party can rely on.
> 
> McCain is a really good bet at 2/1.




Yeah thats interesting. Obama could well lose the important Jewish Vote even for having any distant association with Islam.

I've found Snopes to be a dependable site for clearing up rumors and urban legends , see below ...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (19 Mar 2008)

Fantastic links _Stir_. I don't know what to think but I am absolutely amazed that this guy has progressed so far given that he has indeed a considerable Muslim background even if he his not quite a paid up member of Al Quida.


----------



## bond-007 (19 Mar 2008)

McCain is a safe bet. The current infighting will split the vote and hand the election to McCain. Also with Nader running as a 3rd party candidate McCain is a shoe in.


----------



## madisona (20 Mar 2008)

Obamas "Perfect Union" speech on race. powerful and important 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

he will beat Hillary and McCain.


----------



## diarmuidc (20 Mar 2008)

Harchibald said:


> Turning nasty now - it was all too fairytale to be true. Obama won't dissassociate himself from a guy who says "God Damn America" and who compares 9/11 to Hiroshima



In fairness to the guy, it might loose him the nomination but it's exactly the thing that should win him it. Disassociating himself from the guy who married him, baptised his kids and has been his pastor for years would be the worst kind of political expediency.


----------



## Calico (20 Mar 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> In fairness to the guy, it might loose him the nomination but it's exactly the thing that should win him it. Disassociating himself from the guy who married him, baptised his kids and has been his pastor for years would be the worst kind of political expediency.



Don't you think he should have had better judgment than to follow this kind of person? I know what we have seen of his sermons is selective, but I personally would not bring my kids to hear this guy every week. There is no doubt, Obama is highly intelligent and he gave an amazing speech on Tuesday but his implication is that it is not okay to be interrogated over these kind of associations. I disagree. I also wonder if we will see the black community fall in behind this sentiment. I think there will be a lot of black people who will agree but also I think a lot won't.

Either way, he MAY still get the nomination. Not so sure about winning the Presidency.......


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Mar 2008)

Obama (or is it Osama?) has said his background helps him understand Islam and this will be good for the world.

What is there to understand about ...

9/11?

Bali, Madrid, London?

suicide bombers in Iraq, Pakistan, Aghanistan, Israel etc.?

a fatwah on an author?

global outrage against a cartoon?

mob uprisings against a harmless middle aged teacher for calling a teddy bear M?

I have gone completely off this dude which is a pity coz I did like the idea of a black president.


----------



## diarmuidc (20 Mar 2008)

Calico said:


> Don't you think he should have had better judgment than to follow this kind of person?


Well for starters, he's Obama's pastor not This post will be deleted if not edited immediately so to say he is "following" him is misleading. 
Secondly how many people here would agree with everything the priest who married them said / says mass in their local church / etc? hell, if you are a Catholic who attends mass, you are "associating" yourself with a man who believes being gay is evil! 

It's a non-issue that certain people are trying to make into an issue for political purposes.


----------



## diarmuidc (20 Mar 2008)

Harchibald said:


> Obama (or is it Osama?) has said his background helps him understand Islam and this will be good for the world.
> 
> What is there to understand about ...
> 
> ...



Are you ignorant, stupid or both?


----------



## stir crazy (20 Mar 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> if you are a Catholic who attends mass, you are "associating" yourself with a man who believes being gay is evil!



I understand your point. You would be associating yourself with an institution which condemns certain things which the mainstream tolerates but that would be not necessarily be the personal private view of the priest.


----------



## madisona (20 Mar 2008)

Harchibald said:


> calling a teddy bear M?
> .


 
Are you afraid to say Mohammed?


----------



## Caveat (20 Mar 2008)

So Harchibald, do you also think for example that to understand Roman Catholicism you need only to look at the actions of the IRA?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Mar 2008)

madisona said:


> Are you afraid to say M...?


 
Taking a big risk there Maddie



			
				DC said:
			
		

> Are you ignorant, stupid or both?


 
Both, actually, but is not a debate on my personal deficiencies a bit off topic?



			
				Caveat said:
			
		

> So Harchibald, do you also think for example that to understand Roman Catholicism you need only to look at the actions of the IRA?


 
Caveat, how would you answer DC's question? Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, Franco all were RCs as were most of the IRA, but they did not carry out their misdeeds on the basis of their religious beliefs. The examples I cited of muslims behaving badly are all in the name of Islam.


----------



## diarmuidc (20 Mar 2008)

Harchibald said:


> Both, actually, but is not a debate on my personal deficiencies a bit off topic?


Well as the old saying goes, never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you on experience.


----------



## Caveat (21 Mar 2008)

So Harchibald, predictably, you have either misunderstood or have chosen to misunderstand my point.

You implied that the violent actions of a minority group were representative of the religion that group belongs to, or purports to belong to, and that these actions are sufficient to understand Islam as a whole.

Hence my example.

The motivation for the violence (whether it is religious or not) is not the issue at this point. 

Anyway, since you are obviously merely ranting, or more likely, trolling, the topic is closed for me.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (21 Mar 2008)

We can see from [broken link removed] that in all likelihood Obama's formative years were strongly influenced by the Sunni side )) of Islam. We know the Sunnis are the "bad guys" in Iraq (Saddam etc.) - is that why Obama wants to pull out of Iraq?

More generally is the fact that Obama has a Sunni background really an advantage in dealing with the likes of Iraq and Iran?

And as for Clinton. Some day I will retire from my humble little post. No way will my other half (who is younger) apply for the vacancy on the grounds of experience.

McCain is your only man - plough in at 2/1 on Betfair. I also agree fully with Brendan Keenan of the Indo that in recessionary America Ireland's interests are by far best served by the Republicans. Clinton would be next best. But Ireland must be scarcely on Obama's radar screen. Why is it that most Irish commentators seem to favour him?


----------



## tyoung (23 Mar 2008)

Harchibald said:


> We can see from [broken link removed] that in all likelihood Obama's formative years were strongly influenced by the Sunni side )) of Islam. We know the Sunnis are the "bad guys" in Iraq (Saddam etc.) - is that why Obama wants to pull out of Iraq?
> 
> More generally is the fact that Obama has a Sunni background really an advantage in dealing with the likes of Iraq and Iran?
> 
> ...


That's quite a post Mr H.
 A combination of a Republican talking points memo and a Little Irelander worldview. Nice one!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Mar 2008)

I just don't think that it is appropriate for a muslim to lead the world's largest free capitalist democracy.

And BTW neither does Obama as he protests strongly that he never was a muslim albeit both his fathers were and he was educated at a muslim school.


----------



## madisona (25 Mar 2008)

Harchibald said:


> ? Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, Franco all were RCs .........but they did not carry out their misdeeds on the basis of their religious beliefs. The examples I cited of muslims behaving badly are all in the name of Islam.


 
that is very debatable. Hitler and other Nasis frequently gave religious justifications for their actions against the jews, and their is much evidence for the catholic  churchs complicity in the Holocaust (the contention that they stayed silent and refused to critize the holocaust because they wanted to "protect" the jews is risible) 

_“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”_  –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

_When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person  see ye to it. Then answered all the people , and said, *His blood be on us, and on our children.*_ Matthew 27:24-25


----------



## madisona (25 Mar 2008)

Harchibald said:


> I just don't think that it is appropriate for a muslim to lead the world's largest free capitalist democracy.
> 
> And BTW neither does Obama as he protests strongly that he never was a muslim albeit both his fathers were and he was educated at a muslim school.


 
Obama said that he was never a Muslim. He has not said that it would be inappropriate for a Muslim to be President. His natural Father was not a practising Muslim by the time of his birth and anyway he left when Barrack was two. During the five years that Obama spent in Indonesia as a young boy, he attended both Catholic and a predominatly (though not exclusively) Muslim school.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Mar 2008)

_Maddie_, I take your point about the Nazis, I knew I was on weak ground there.

I also accept your semantic correction re Obama. But let me ask you, do *you* think that a muslim is suitable as presi of the USA? This is not necessarily an anti Islamic point. No more do I believe that someone brought up with a Christian background is suited to lead the Iranian revolution, which is not necessarily saying which way of life is the more correct.


----------

