I only meant "holding back" as not aggressively going after Hillary. How often have you seen politicians say "you know what, I agree with that" or "you're right, I concede that point" and still come out as the winner?
I think I've made abundantly clear that I do not expect Obama to come out with some 20 point program of how to insure every American, withdraw from Iraq, stop illegal immigration, or get the steel mills in Ohio working again.
Anyone who says they have any such solution is full of shit. I'd prefer my President to not be that
And LOL at you impugning his years of service and sacrifice. Coming from you, that's rich.
Russert dissected Hillary's waffling on NAFTA better than Obama did... it's true, he's gonna need to grow some teeth if he wants to win against McCain. That said, I think he's been holding back because he's conscious of appearing to beat up on Hillary. His cool last night was the right tone to strike.
the nafta questions were idiotic. its not a black and white issue. if she supported it in the 90s, when globalization didn't have the same far-reaching effects, its irrelevant. obama's answer to the NAFTA question was that he agreed with what Hillary said.
obama held back in the debate last night? did he also do that in the prior 19 where he objectively lost many more than he won?
See, for me this argument does not fly. It's not as if globalization took this bizarre turn that no one could have predicted after Nafta passed. There was widespread opposition to it from many different quarters and the analysis and critiques at the time have proved to be accurate. She was simply on the wrong side on that one, and I view it as a key issue. It is entirely analogous to her supporting the Iraq war despite a very sizable amount of very vocal and articulate opposition. Then, when it is demonstrably clear that she was on the wrong side down the line, she makes up ludicrous stories about how the information at the time dictated that she support the invasion.
I only meant "holding back" as not aggressively going after Hillary. How often have you seen politicians say "you know what, I agree with that" or "you're right, I concede that point" and still come out as the winner?
I think I've made abundantly clear that I do not expect Obama to come out with some 20 point program of how to insure every American, withdraw from Iraq, stop illegal immigration, or get the steel mills in Ohio working again.
well, they vote the same about 99% of the time so what is he going to "go after her" about that is substantive, other than the iraq vote, which he has done ad nauseum??
As for the second point you made, that's exactly why he loses the debates and why i think hillary is the better candidate. they have same positions, but where they differ - healthcare for example- its only about implementation, and not about the point that every american should have the right to healthcare. so to me, the fact that she seems more apt to get that policy in place, is more compelling than the symbolism of an Obama presidency. that doesn't mean he won't be a better president than hillary, i'm just talking about what goes into predicting that.
Well, he hasn't really "lost" any of the last three debates - but that not withstanding, I can understand why you support a Clinton presidency but I do think it's misinformed. We can agree to disagree on that.
Saba, you really think a 72 year old man is going to beat a 46 year old?
i think a war hero senator who actually can point to a long career of bipartisan legislation will win over a freshman senator from chicago ranked the most liberal in the senate and wearing a dashiki.
How do you explain the discrepancy in primary turnout?
Also, would you disagree that there is a clear national trend towards "change?" Now, I'd agree that word doesn't really mean a lot, but what it doesnt mean is a 72 year old who now supports all Bush policies, right??
i think a war hero senator who actually can point to a long career of bipartisan legislation will win over a freshman senator from chicago ranked the most liberal in the senate and wearing a dashiki.
Yes, but when he was a POW, he gave up sensitive info. Also, all that torture made him too mentally unstable to be a reliable president. Plus, he has a black baby.
(Note: I believe exactly none of the above; I'm merely reciting the smears that the Bushies lobbed at McCain in 2000...I wonder if GOPers will find them unacceptable now.)
i think a war hero senator who actually can point to a long career of bipartisan legislation will win over a freshman senator from chicago ranked the most liberal in the senate and wearing a dashiki.
Hilarious. I guess we all have our dreams. McCain needs to get with this as his campaign song.
he was tortured and when given an opportunity to leave because of his rank he chose to stay being tortured with his men
I can't believe people would question his heroism.
What's to believe? He chose to fight; it was his duty. He had more training and equipment then the people he bombed. Being tortured is fucked up, no doubt, but applying the term "hero" to McCain doesn't fit in my opinion.
Comments
I think I've made abundantly clear that I do not expect Obama to come out with some 20 point program of how to insure every American, withdraw from Iraq, stop illegal immigration, or get the steel mills in Ohio working again.
Anyone who says they have any such solution is full of shit. I'd prefer my President to not be that
And LOL at you impugning his years of service and sacrifice. Coming from you, that's rich.
See, for me this argument does not fly. It's not as if globalization took this bizarre turn that no one could have predicted after Nafta passed. There was widespread opposition to it from many different quarters and the analysis and critiques at the time have proved to be accurate. She was simply on the wrong side on that one, and I view it as a key issue. It is entirely analogous to her supporting the Iraq war despite a very sizable amount of very vocal and articulate opposition. Then, when it is demonstrably clear that she was on the wrong side down the line, she makes up ludicrous stories about how the information at the time dictated that she support the invasion.
im not running for president.
it makes no difference to me which one of them wins, because i dont think either is electable.
well, they vote the same about 99% of the time so what is he going to "go after her" about that is substantive, other than the iraq vote, which he has done ad nauseum??
As for the second point you made, that's exactly why he loses the debates and why i think hillary is the better candidate. they have same positions, but where they differ - healthcare for example- its only about implementation, and not about the point that every american should have the right to healthcare. so to me, the fact that she seems more apt to get that policy in place, is more compelling than the symbolism of an Obama presidency. that doesn't mean he won't be a better president than hillary, i'm just talking about what goes into predicting that.
Saba, you really think a 72 year old man is going to beat a 46 year old?
Without the support of the conservative base?
Youse a funny dude.
yes.
Also, would you disagree that there is a clear national trend towards "change?" Now, I'd agree that word doesn't really mean a lot, but what it doesnt mean is a 72 year old who now supports all Bush policies, right??
Yes, but when he was a POW, he gave up sensitive info. Also, all that torture made him too mentally unstable to be a reliable president. Plus, he has a black baby.
(Note: I believe exactly none of the above; I'm merely reciting the smears that the Bushies lobbed at McCain in 2000...I wonder if GOPers will find them unacceptable now.)
LOL. Thanks Dubya.
I like William F. Buckley's style even though I don't really agree on his influence.
I'd still take him over any modern day conservative.
Hilarious. I guess we all have our dreams. McCain needs to get with this as his campaign song.
I can't believe people would question his heroism.
What's to believe? He chose to fight; it was his duty. He had more training and equipment then the people he bombed. Being tortured is fucked up, no doubt, but applying the term "hero" to McCain doesn't fit in my opinion.