obama's comeback

2»

  Comments


  • oh, and Jackson and Sharpton? GTFOHWTB

    yea, the two other most recent black presidential candidates. they couldn't possibly be black leaders. Oprah, now that's someone with political experience.

    are you kidding? those dudes were playing. and what is their actual political experience?

    watch the video, if not for Obama stuff, just glance at the people in the audience while Oprah is on. she owns it. if she ran, it would be so over, but anyways...

    God help us...Am I the only one here who thinks Oprah's insane?

    despite my appearance here, i do not ride for Oprah, but i'm trying to point that one must recognize her influence.

    No doubt...

  • A top adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said that Democrats should give more thought to Sen. Barack Obama's admissions of illegal drug use before they pick a presidential candidate.

    It's truly mindboggling to me that people say stuff like this with a straight face.

    I'd be deeply suspicious of any adult who hasn't engaged in the amount of "drug use" that Obama has admitted to--which certainly doesn't begin to compare to the level of drug abuse we know the current president to have engaged in.

    its not quite as bad as it looks. what he said is that the gop will use this against him and try to smear him, thats why dems should not act like its irrelevant if they are trying to vote for someone who will win the general election. obviously, its still a knock. but the press and the obama camp are being a little deceptive in how they are couching his statements.

    Yeah, but again, look at who the face of the GOP has been for the past seven years--a bona fide coke head and somebody who heavily abused alcohol.

    But he found Jesus! (all-sins-forgiven-related)


  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    i remember in early 99 when Gore was supposed beat Bush by a large margin, but people got concerned when McCain rose after NH. they thought McCain could actually beat Gore. but Bush? Pffft.

    things change

  • A top adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said that Democrats should give more thought to Sen. Barack Obama's admissions of illegal drug use before they pick a presidential candidate.

    It's truly mindboggling to me that people say stuff like this with a straight face.

    I'd be deeply suspicious of any adult who hasn't engaged in the amount of "drug use" that Obama has admitted to--which certainly doesn't begin to compare to the level of drug abuse we know the current president to have engaged in.

    its not quite as bad as it looks. what he said is that the gop will use this against him and try to smear him, thats why dems should not act like its irrelevant if they are trying to vote for someone who will win the general election. obviously, its still a knock. but the press and the obama camp are being a little deceptive in how they are couching his statements.

    Yeah, but again, look at who the face of the GOP has been for the past seven years--a bona fide coke head and somebody who heavily abused alcohol.

    But he found Jesus! (all-sins-forgiven-related)


    Sayin! Have any of these other candidates truely embraced Jesus into their hearts as their true lord and saviour? No, because they are too busy doing drugs and worshipping satan!

  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    I saw the Devil and His hair was perfect.


  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts


    yea, the two other most recent black presidential candidates.

    ...and no love for Dolo's boy?


    I definitely big-up Keyes--dude brings the crazy like nobody's business.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    Oprah, now that's someone with political experience.






    x 1000

  • I do not understand the hype around him AT ALL. ... there's nothing special about him

    Have you ever heard him speak? I'm not talking about the debates. He is a very intelligent person. In fact, he is perhaps the most intelligent & candid politician I have ever heard. I thought he was overhyped as well, but I saw 2 or 3 speeches/Q&A sessions he gave several months ago and realized what he was about. The other top candidates are typical, predictable, bullshitters who supported one of the greatest foreign policy errors in our history.

    Edwards is far more to the left.

    Edwards appears to be farther left but he has moved there since his last run. However I don't think being far left automatically makes one a good leader. In fact I'm a little wary to give the gov't over to one-party rule again.

    Also he sounds like Forrest Gump.

    Hillary is unbearable.

    Yes. She tried and failed to speak with Forrest Gump's accent, even though she lived in the South and is married to a southerner. This is irrelevant, but seriously she has done nothing to earn my vote. She marginally more experienced/accomplished than Laura Bush and talks like a calculating phony.

    As for the Republican side, I think this sums it up nicely
    I'm votin Romney because he has the most hair and he's not bogged down by taking a firm stance on any one position the way other candidates are. Hucakbee is a close second for me because of his remarkable resemblance to Kevin Spacey but I'm not sure I can get over his "no pants in the white house" policy. And despite his ability to deftly slip the phrase "911" into every answer he gives, Giuliani has a lisp and unfortunately, the terrorists are going to see him as weak. McCain just cares too much about stuff for me to be comfortable with him.

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts


    But, hell, coming off the WORST president in the history of the USA, I'd settle for just leaving the office vacant to for a while.


    Say, thats actually not a bad idea.




  • I will vote for whoever the Dems nominate

    No way. Hillary is unbearable. Edwards has good ideas, but I don't see him leading the country. The rest -- who are they?

    I'll write in Obama if need be.


    "the rest" don't matter because they aren't getting the nomination. look, i've tried the 3rd party/off the beaten path vote before, and the result was this:




    no more...even if the Dems (assuming they actually win) fuck up as badly as Bush has, which would really take some effort, at least it's a new group of people to be pissed off at.


  • djsheepdjsheep 3,620 Posts

    "Obama accepted her apology, according to David Axelrod[/b], the top political strategist for the Obama campaign."



  • here's a decent place to watch the horse race ... a collection of all polls although the first states are certainly the most important

    trendlines based on recent polling data

    Iowa[/b]




    NH[/b]


  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Of course, this can't be true......




    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1

    ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

    It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

  • Of course, this can't be true......




    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1

    ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

    It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

    ABC News is Fox News light. I don't know how this is news. The NYT has a front page story on Obama's history of skipping controversial votes. When he was in a state senator in illinois, you were allowed to vote "present" if you did not want to make a yes or no vote. If you read the NYT article, they point out that while he didn't do this all the time, it seems that on many highly controversial votes, he decided to pass, rather than take a stand. This is only an issue because on votes such as whether to declare that offshoot army in Iran a terrorist organization, he did the same thing.

    Why wouldn't Hillary draw attention to his voting record, or lack thereof. The fact that she registered websites to maker her point means she has good campaign managers.

    I guess ABC News thinks that is evil.

  • BsidesBsides 4,244 Posts
    Of course, this can't be true......




    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1

    ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

    It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

    ABC News is Fox News light. I don't know how this is news. The NYT has a front page story on Obama's history of skipping controversial votes. When he was in a state senator in illinois, you were allowed to vote "present" if you did not want to make a yes or no vote. If you read the NYT article, they point out that while he didn't do this all the time, it seems that on many highly controversial votes, he decided to pass, rather than take a stand. This is only an issue because on votes such as whether to declare that offshoot army in Iran a terrorist organization, he did the same thing.

    Why wouldn't Hillary draw attention to his voting record, or lack thereof. The fact that she registered websites to maker her point means she has good campaign managers.

    I guess ABC News thinks that is evil.

    were they real issues? or just contraversial ones?


  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    Did you see David Brooks' (the neocon NYT's writer) recent article on Obama? As I read it I felt like Brooks was endorsing Obama. This surprised me as I thought he was more of a John McCain/Rudy Gulianni republican. Maybe I just don't read him enough to understand his views.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    Anyway one of his points is Obama's aproach is to avoid controversy and concentrate on solutions. The Iranian Guard vote is a good example. The vote offered no solutions, only controversies. Obama is looking better to me everyday.




  • David Brooks wrote an article Oct. '06 saying Obama should run for president. This was 4 months before the candidacy was announced

    http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html?hp

    Here's something else worth reading from Harpers

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
Sign In or Register to comment.