[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win(Hillary's Debt)
(snip) Concerning giving the Clinton's more money... Is there anyone else in any campaign that offered to pay of a rivals debt. Having gotten into debt in itself, shows irresponsiblity, and arrogance. Most of the debt is owed to consultants that helped her to lose the election. Did anyone help Romney pay his debt; no, he is wealthy and spent his own money. The Clinton's are wealthy people. It's just another way, the Clinton's can say- Look, Obama's no good; He won't pay our way, and our old debts. I wonder if the shoe were on the other foot... and Barack had debts to pay... I'm sure the Clinton's would be running to the bank to withdraw money, so they could give it to Barack? I don't think so... How many more millions do the Clinton's really need?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win(Hillary's Debt)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) Concerning giving the Clinton's more money... Is there anyone else in any campaign that offered to pay of a rivals debt. Yes, it happens often (but only in primary campaigns, as far as I'm aware). Having gotten into debt in itself, shows irresponsiblity, and arrogance. No, it doesn't. Many major campaigns end up in debt. If you want to win, you have to spend money, and it's not always possible to collect enough of it in advance of when you need to spend it. snip I wonder if the shoe were on the other foot... and Barack had debts to pay... I'm sure the Clinton's would be running to the bank to withdraw money, so they could give it to Barack? I don't think so... You're right, because that's not how it works. The winner doesn't give the loser his/her own money, nor even his/her campaign funds. Rather, s/he asks his/her maxed-out donors to donate to the loser's campaign debt. And yes, if Hillary had won, *of course* she would do that for Obama. But it wouldn't be just out of the goodness of her heart, any more than it is for Obama to help Hillary with her debt. First of all, the loser is expected to ask his/her supporters to donate to the winner; that's a major source of campaign funds for the winner. Second, it's in the winner's interests to look like a good guy to the loser's supporters (especially when, as in this case, there's a very substantial number of them, without most of whom Obama can't win the general). In a very hard-fought primary campaign like this one, it's in the winner's interests to do whatever s/he can to unify the party and get it behind him/ her, otherwise s/he's likely to lose in the general. Even Obama is down with this: NY Times, May 9: Mr. Obama suggested today that there would be some precedent for helping erase her debt. I think historically after a campaign is done and you want to unify the party particularly when you've had a strong opponent, Mr. Obama said, you want to make sure that you're putting that opponent in a strong position so that they can work to win an election in November. http://tinyurl.com/4thjw3
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: [snip] and the McCain people who are afraid of any change and are mostly racists. Wake up; We live in a racist country, everyone knows it. Just stated the facts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
(snip) Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as leverage to insure cooperation. He doesn't need any leverage. She wants to see a Democrat in the White House whether he helps pay her debts or not. (snip) Why should anyone but Hillary be responsible for her debts. The Clinton's seem fine with making lot's of money. Is she really that 'broke' now? Don't think so. Her ego has fallen a notch or two, and Bill is still making speeches. Where is the problem. Obama is a better speaker, more intelligent, more universal leader for the United States and the World. Hillary will do alright; I wouldn't worry about her finances too much. Why would you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
Obama's stiff upper lip during HIllary's long path of realization that she won't be the nominee, nor the VP, is proving he has wisdom, discipline and patience necessary for the job. It seems that much of Hillary's campaign debt has to be paid back to her wealthy supporters who ' leant ' funds after they had already maxed out their individual federal campaign contribution limit of $2500 per donor per race. From the very beginning of Hillary's campaign, Hillary relied on big money contributors who quickly maxed out. The strategy to rely on big money, her and Bill's name recognition, a retarded sitting lame-duck Republican president and a terribly weak Republican field bred hubris and overconfidence on Hillary's part. On March 22, I wrote that when HRC is denied the Dem VP slot, an indignant HRC will team with McCain as his VP. She underestimates the public's exhaustion from the never- ending Clinton dramas. Such a move would be her Waterloo, and would ruin Bill's speech circuit career. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as leverage to insure cooperation. He doesn't need any leverage. She wants to see a Democrat in the White House whether he helps pay her debts or not. (snip) Why should anyone but Hillary be responsible for her debts. The Clinton's seem fine with making lot's of money. Is she really that 'broke' now? Don't think so. Her ego has fallen a notch or two, and Bill is still making speeches. Where is the problem. Obama is a better speaker, more intelligent, more universal leader for the United States and the World. Hillary will do alright; I wouldn't worry about her finances too much. Why would you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Why wouldn't someone with their own real power base be placed as VP on the ticket ? Obama wants his power base to be the only one. Are you inferring that HILLARY will not be placed on the ticket BECAUSE she has her own real power base ? I think it's very unlikely he'd pick her, at least partly for that reason.. If you could determine Hillary's thinking at this time Is she be thinking that she will be given the right of first refusal for the Democratic VP slot ? As far as Hillary's thinking goes, she'll do whatever she thinks is best for the Democratic Party. If she and Obama agreed privately that his publicly giving her first refusal--on condition that she refused--would be good for the party, she'd go along with that gesture. I doubt Obama would go that far, however. He's interested in what's good for Obama. The above is OPINION. However, I think everyone here knows that if someone had said the same things about Hillary Clinton -- and they could, with considerably greater accuracy -- that Judy would be calling them LIARS for saying it. When Judy expresses an OPINION, somehow it comes out as if she is speaking pure Truth, as if she has convinced herself that she knows, and anyone who disagrees with her doesn't. But when someone else expresses an OPINION that Judy doesn't like, they aren't just mistaken, they are LYING. Interesting, doncha think? Judy, *my* OPINION is that you project onto the people you don't like the very things you can't face in yourself. I have never encountered a person on this planet who is more interested only in what she thinks is good for herself than you. I've never encountered a person who fears what she perceives as other people's power base than you. You are basically accusing Obama of acting like YOU. And I'm not lying. This is what I actually believe about you. Lying doesn't even enter into the equation. That's just you avoiding dealing with the fact that someone really DOES believe this of you, and with reason.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
On Jul 15, 2008, at 2:08 AM, mainstream20016 wrote: On March 22, I wrote that when HRC is denied the Dem VP slot, an indignant HRC will team with McCain as his VP. She underestimates the public's exhaustion from the never- ending Clinton dramas. Such a move would be her Waterloo, and would ruin Bill's speech circuit career. Yeah, but it *would* be interesting! Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as leverage to insure cooperation. He doesn't need any leverage. She wants to see a Democrat in the White House whether he helps pay her debts or not. (snip) Why should anyone but Hillary be responsible for her debts. It's traditional that primary winners help the losers retire their campaign debt. This isn't a new wrinkle. snip Obama is a better speaker, more intelligent, more universal leader for the United States and the World. I'll give him better speaker. Hillary will do alright; I wouldn't worry about her finances too much. Why would you? Where exactly did I say I was worried about her finances?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip It seems that much of Hillary's campaign debt has to be paid back to her wealthy supporters who ' leant ' funds after they had already maxed out their individual federal campaign contribution limit of $2500 per donor per race. Documentation, please, that her supporters leant [sic] her money. From the very beginning of Hillary's campaign, Hillary relied on big money contributors who quickly maxed out. So did Obama. On March 22, I wrote that when HRC is denied the Dem VP slot, an indignant HRC will team with McCain as his VP. And you're just as ridiculously wrong now as you were then.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Why wouldn't someone with their own real power base be placed as VP on the ticket ? Obama wants his power base to be the only one. Are you inferring that HILLARY will not be placed on the ticket BECAUSE she has her own real power base ? I think it's very unlikely he'd pick her, at least partly for that reason.. If you could determine Hillary's thinking at this time Is she be thinking that she will be given the right of first refusal for the Democratic VP slot ? As far as Hillary's thinking goes, she'll do whatever she thinks is best for the Democratic Party. If she and Obama agreed privately that his publicly giving her first refusal--on condition that she refused--would be good for the party, she'd go along with that gesture. I doubt Obama would go that far, however. He's interested in what's good for Obama. The above is OPINION. Right, I was asked for my opinion, and I gave it. However, I think everyone here knows that if someone had said the same things about Hillary Clinton -- and they could, with considerably greater accuracy -- that Judy would be calling them LIARS for saying it. Barry's hard up for Gotta-Get-Judy bashes. If everyone here knows what Barry says, everyone is in as bad shape mentally as he is. Even in the midst of the primary, when the nastiest imaginable criticisms of Hillary were flying thick and fast, I don't believe I ever called anyone making them a liar, even when their criticisms were based on misinformation. When Judy expresses an OPINION, somehow it comes out as if she is speaking pure Truth, as if she has convinced herself that she knows, and anyone who disagrees with her doesn't. But when someone else expresses an OPINION that Judy doesn't like, they aren't just mistaken, they are LYING. Interesting, doncha think? What's interesting is not just that the above is flatly untrue, somehow it comes out as if Barry is speaking pure Truth, as if he had convinced himself that he knows, and anyone who disagrees with him doesn't. Judy, *my* OPINION is that you project onto the people you don't like the very things you can't face in yourself. But Barry, that's my OPINION of you. I have never encountered a person on this planet who is more interested only in what she thinks is good for herself than you. I've never encountered a person who fears what she perceives as other people's power base than you. You are basically accusing Obama of acting like YOU. And I'm not lying. This is what I actually believe about you. As I've frequently observed, when you say things that are obviously untrue, it's not always easy to tell when you're lying and when you're speaking from serious delusion. Sometimes, I'm afraid, I tend to give you more credit for being in your right mind than is really appropriate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember, he isn't the nominee until the convention nominates him officially. He didn't win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination; he'll need superdelegates to make up the difference, and they get to change their minds at any time up to the convention. This is true. This also clarifies your desires regarding the convention. Best yas not hold yer breath.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Remember, he isn't the nominee until the convention nominates him officially. He didn't win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination; he'll need superdelegates to make up the difference, and they get to change their minds at any time up to the convention. This is true. This also clarifies your desires regarding the convention. You betchum. Call it the Impossible Dream. (What did I say previously that needed clarification?) Best yas not hold yer breath. Uh, wasn't planning to, but thanks for the warning.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as leverage to insure cooperation. He doesn't need any leverage. She wants to see a Democrat in the White House whether he helps pay her debts or not. (snip) Why should anyone but Hillary be responsible for her debts. It's traditional that primary winners help the losers retire their campaign debt. This isn't a new wrinkle. You have posted this false argument before with no support, simply calling it traditional. That simply isn't true, as Sunshine Sal pointed out to you. There have been instances where candidates who were on good terms helped a failed campaign retire a small debt. i.e. 10k To help retire a debt that was recklessly and imprudently driven to, say, 22 million dollars is foolish. snip Obama is a better speaker, more intelligent, more universal leader for the United States and the World. I'll give him better speaker. Hillary will do alright; I wouldn't worry about her finances too much. Why would you? Where exactly did I say I was worried about her finances?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
On Jul 15, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Tom wrote: It's traditional that primary winners help the losers retire their campaign debt. This isn't a new wrinkle. You have posted this false argument before with no support, simply calling it traditional. That simply isn't true, as Sunshine Sal pointed out to you. There have been instances where candidates who were on good terms helped a failed campaign retire a small debt. i.e. 10k To help retire a debt that was recklessly and imprudently driven to, say, 22 million dollars is foolish. It's not traditional at all, it happens, but it's the exception rather than the rule, was the clear message from the articles. All the examples Judy linked to previously also came with big caveats. The one I remember best was Tom Vilsack, who pulled out early and had a debt I think of something like $100,000 or less--big diff from 22 million! And they were also on the best of terms, Vilsack then becoming campaign chairman for Hillary in Iowa, a state she seemed destined to breeze through at that point, giving her every reason in the world to reward him as it seemed that he was doing a heck of a job. Well, we all know how *that* turned out. :) Would have loved to hear the conversation between them the morning after she lost so badly she came in third. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as leverage to insure cooperation. He doesn't need any leverage. She wants to see a Democrat in the White House whether he helps pay her debts or not. (snip) Why should anyone but Hillary be responsible for her debts. It's traditional that primary winners help the losers retire their campaign debt. This isn't a new wrinkle. You have posted this false argument before with no support, simply calling it traditional. Actually I did provide support, from four recent published articles: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money14- 2008may14,0,1137125.story http://tinyurl.com/6rwqkp http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080605/pl_bloomberg/apktsglzmhzm http://tinyurl.com/5hk4pt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/08/obama-camp-faces-major- ob_n_100928.html http://tinyurl.com/5x5vvw http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-14- campaign-debt_N.htm http://tinyurl.com/5u59qp That's from post #179401 if you want to check. That simply isn't true, as Sunshine Sal pointed out to you. Sal is simply incorrect, as are you. See my response to her in post #179429. They don't *always* do it, but they *frequently* do. It isn't something Hillary dreamed up all on her own. There have been instances where candidates who were on good terms helped a failed campaign retire a small debt. i.e. 10k To help retire a debt that was recklessly and imprudently driven to, say, 22 million dollars is foolish. Actually she says she'll absorb the loan she made to her campaign herself, so it's about half that. If it's foolish to help her, then Obama's foolish, because he's offered to do so. He very badly needs at least to *appear* to be on good terms with her. He can't win without a very substantial portion of the votes of her 18 million primary supporters. That's also why she's unlikely to complain, at least publicly, if he doesn't live up to his promise, because, again, she wants to see a Democrat in the White House. (Note that he won't be giving her any of his campaign funds; that would be illegal. Rather, he's asking his maxed-out donors to give money to her.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip It's not traditional at all, it happens, but it's the exception rather than the rule, was the clear message from the articles. Sal, you embarrassed yourself on this the first time around; why step in it again? Let's have another look at what I quoted in my post from those articles in response to you the first time, shall we? From the first article: The ultimate winner often helps the penultimate winner repay debt, said Chris Lehane, a former Clinton White House aide, who is not part of Sen. Clinton's campaign. From the second article: It's not unusual for a winner to help a vanquished rival retire campaign debts. From the third article: A winning candidate often offers to do whatever is legal to help a loser pay down debts. From the fourth article: It's not atypical for a winning candidate to assist financially in relieving some of the opposing campaign's debt, said Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College in Maine who is not affiliated with a campaign. I would expect Sen. Obama to extend support. And three new ones: AP, May 13: That is a normal thing when a candidate finishes a race and loses, the winning candidate would try to help if there's some debt that's been incurred, said Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant who has worked in several presidential campaigns but is unaligned this year. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24594032/ FoxNews.com, Susan Estrich, July 10: It's an old tradition in politics for the winner to help the losers retire their debt. http://tinyurl.com/6xjctw NY Times, May 9: Mr. Obama suggested today that there would be some precedent for helping erase her debt. I think historically after a campaign is done and you want to unify the party particularly when you've had a strong opponent, Mr. Obama said, you want to make sure that you're putting that opponent in a strong position so that they can work to win an election in November. http://tinyurl.com/4thjw3 So, in order, we've got often, not unusual, often, not atypical, normal, an old tradition, and--from Obama himself--historically. Yet you claim it's the exception rather than the rule.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as leverage to insure cooperation. He doesn't need any leverage. She wants to see a Democrat in the White House whether he helps pay her debts or not. (snip) Why should anyone but Hillary be responsible for her debts. It's traditional that primary winners help the losers retire their campaign debt. This isn't a new wrinkle. There's no tradition whatsoever of primary winners helping losers retire their debt. There have been cases in which candidates on track to win the nomination have helped out a laggard in exchange for the laggard dropping out early and thus saving everyone money. Hillary did just the opposite - forcing both of them to pony up millions more so she could stick it out till the end despite no chance of winning. snip Obama is a better speaker, more intelligent, more universal leader for the United States and the World. I'll give him better speaker. Hillary will do alright; I wouldn't worry about her finances too much. Why would you? Where exactly did I say I was worried about her finances?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
On Jul 15, 2008, at 7:04 PM, boo_lives wrote: There's no tradition whatsoever of primary winners helping losers retire their debt. There have been cases in which candidates on track to win the nomination have helped out a laggard in exchange for the laggard dropping out early and thus saving everyone money. Hillary did just the opposite - forcing both of them to pony up millions more so she could stick it out till the end despite no chance of winning. Thanks, boo, not to mention that HIllary's debt is so huge now, that if Obama were to help her retire it in any significant way, he'd basically have no time to campaign. I'm not positive, but I think her debts are pretty much unprecedented. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the motive behind her sticking it out for so long to begin with, putting him in a lose/lose position. Don't help her out, look like an ungallant winner. *Do* help her, and have no time to run his own. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, boo_lives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip It's traditional that primary winners help the losers retire their campaign debt. This isn't a new wrinkle. There's no tradition whatsoever of primary winners helping losers retire their debt. I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this, as are Sal and Tom. Even Obama disagrees with you. It's not *always* done, but it's done often enough that nobody should be surprised he's doing it for Hillary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the motive behind her sticking it out for so long to begin with, putting him in a lose/lose position. Don't help her out, look like an ungallant winner. *Do* help her, and have no time to run his own. No, Sal. She stuck it out for so long because she was absolutely convinced he couldn't win, and she wanted a Democrat in the White House. She still wants a Democrat in the White House, though, so she'll do everything she can to help him win, including raising money for his campaign and rallying her own supporters. He really doesn't have to do a lot to help her retire her debt; it's not going to take away any significant time from his campaign. He won't be doing that much of it himself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: (snip) Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as leverage to insure cooperation. He doesn't need any leverage. She wants to see a Democrat in the White House whether he helps pay her debts or not. (snip) Why should anyone but Hillary be responsible for her debts. It's traditional that primary winners help the losers retire their campaign debt. This isn't a new wrinkle. You have posted this false argument before with no support, simply calling it traditional. That simply isn't true, as Sunshine Sal pointed out to you. There have been instances where candidates who were on good terms helped a failed campaign retire a small debt. i.e. 10k To help retire a debt that was recklessly and imprudently driven to, say, 22 million dollars is foolish. Obama isn't attempting to retire CLinton's loans to herself. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Obama isn't attempting to retire CLinton's loans to herself. She's said explicitly that she's not asking anybody to retire her own loans to her campaign. She's just going to absorb the hit. That's been so widely reported, I don't know how anyone has managed to miss it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: snip Every President has one, by going to the 'Center'. (I think Robert meant to write won, not one.) Problem is, Robert, Obama campaigned for the primary on the claim that he was a *transformative* politician, not one who would do exactly what all the others have done. That's why so many people who supported him are now very pissed off. I did mean won, not one... Obama has already been transformative, in many ways, he has woken up the electorite, and given hope to the rest of the world, that the United States is changing it's facist tendencies. He is a politician, and is moving toward the 'center' in order to win the election. I am not sure who is pissed off at him, besides the people who were supporting Hillary, and the McCain people who are afraid of any change and are mostly racists.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: snip Every President has one, by going to the 'Center'. (I think Robert meant to write won, not one.) Problem is, Robert, Obama campaigned for the primary on the claim that he was a *transformative* politician, not one who would do exactly what all the others have done. That's why so many people who supported him are now very pissed off. I did mean won, not one... Obama has already been transformative, in many ways, he has woken up the electorite, and given hope to the rest of the world, that the United States is changing it's facist tendencies. He is a politician, and is moving toward the 'center' in order to win the election. I am not sure who is pissed off at him, besides the people who were supporting Hillary, and the McCain people who are afraid of any change and are mostly racists. Didn't you read what I wrote? A lot of people who supported *Obama* are now very pissed off at him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: snip Every President has one, by going to the 'Center'. (I think Robert meant to write won, not one.) Problem is, Robert, Obama campaigned for the primary on the claim that he was a *transformative* politician, not one who would do exactly what all the others have done. That's why so many people who supported him are now very pissed off. I did mean won, not one... Obama has already been transformative, in many ways, he has woken up the electorite, and given hope to the rest of the world, that the United States is changing it's facist tendencies. He is a politician, and is moving toward the 'center' in order to win the election. I am not sure who is pissed off at him, besides the people who were supporting Hillary, and the McCain people who are afraid of any change and are mostly racists. Didn't you read what I wrote? A lot of people who supported *Obama* are now very pissed off at him. Who are these people? A lot of people? And why do we have to put stars around *Obama* Is that sum subliminal thing your doing? What's up with your anger against Senator Obama. It's not his fault, he won. He got more votes. Same in the fall. He will win, because he will get more votes. So, whoever these people are, they will come along. You'll see. On flip-flopping, one time a reporter commented to Abraham Lincoln, saying: 'Mr. Lincoln, you've seemed to have changed your mind, many times the past 24 hours... At which, Lincoln replied: 'I don't think much of a man who thinks exactly the same today, as he did yesterday! R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: snip Every President has one, by going to the 'Center'. (I think Robert meant to write won, not one.) Problem is, Robert, Obama campaigned for the primary on the claim that he was a *transformative* politician, not one who would do exactly what all the others have done. That's why so many people who supported him are now very pissed off. I did mean won, not one... Obama has already been transformative, in many ways, he has woken up the electorite, and given hope to the rest of the world, that the United States is changing it's facist tendencies. He is a politician, and is moving toward the 'center' in order to win the election. I am not sure who is pissed off at him, besides the people who were supporting Hillary, and the McCain people who are afraid of any change and are mostly racists. Didn't you read what I wrote? A lot of people who supported *Obama* are now very pissed off at him. Who are these people? A lot of people? Yes. Take a look at some of the blogs that have been supporting Obama, such as DailyKos, for example. Take a look at the shift in the polling and approval numbers. Take a look at the decline in contributions to his campaign. And why do we have to put stars around *Obama* Is that sum subliminal thing your doing? The emphasis is because you suggested the people who were pissed off were either Hillary or McCain supporters, obviously. What's up with your anger against Senator Obama. I think he's a fraud, have thought so from the beginning. He isn't who he claims to be. It's not his fault, he won. He got more votes. Just barely, and then only depending on how you count them. And there are a lot of questions about how legitimately he won the caucuses. Same in the fall. He will win, because he will get more votes. So, whoever these people are, they will come along. You'll see. Remember, he isn't the nominee until the convention nominates him officially. He didn't win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination; he'll need superdelegates to make up the difference, and they get to change their minds at any time up to the convention. On flip-flopping, one time a reporter commented to Abraham Lincoln, saying: 'Mr. Lincoln, you've seemed to have changed your mind, many times the past 24 hours... At which, Lincoln replied: 'I don't think much of a man who thinks exactly the same today, as he did yesterday! Obama is no Lincoln. Not only has he changed his mind many times, he's lied about having done so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
Here's my prediction, for what it's worth: Obama in a landslide. Hard to see how he could lose to McCain. I see a parallel to 1996, with McCain resembling the hopeless Bob Dole, the old guy who trailed the much smarter, younger Democrat (Clinton) throughout the campaign and lost resoundingly. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: snip Every President has one, by going to the 'Center'. (I think Robert meant to write won, not one.) Problem is, Robert, Obama campaigned for the primary on the claim that he was a *transformative* politician, not one who would do exactly what all the others have done. That's why so many people who supported him are now very pissed off. I did mean won, not one... Obama has already been transformative, in many ways, he has woken up the electorite, and given hope to the rest of the world, that the United States is changing it's facist tendencies. He is a politician, and is moving toward the 'center' in order to win the election. I am not sure who is pissed off at him, besides the people who were supporting Hillary, and the McCain people who are afraid of any change and are mostly racists. Didn't you read what I wrote? A lot of people who supported *Obama* are now very pissed off at him. Who are these people? A lot of people? Yes. Take a look at some of the blogs that have been supporting Obama, such as DailyKos, for example. Take a look at the shift in the polling and approval numbers. Take a look at the decline in contributions to his campaign. And why do we have to put stars around *Obama* Is that sum subliminal thing your doing? The emphasis is because you suggested the people who were pissed off were either Hillary or McCain supporters, obviously. What's up with your anger against Senator Obama. I think he's a fraud, have thought so from the beginning. He isn't who he claims to be. It's not his fault, he won. He got more votes. Just barely, and then only depending on how you count them. And there are a lot of questions about how legitimately he won the caucuses. Same in the fall. He will win, because he will get more votes. So, whoever these people are, they will come along. You'll see. Remember, he isn't the nominee until the convention nominates him officially. He didn't win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination; he'll need superdelegates to make up the difference, and they get to change their minds at any time up to the convention. On flip-flopping, one time a reporter commented to Abraham Lincoln, saying: 'Mr. Lincoln, you've seemed to have changed your mind, many times the past 24 hours... At which, Lincoln replied: 'I don't think much of a man who thinks exactly the same today, as he did yesterday! Obama is no Lincoln. Not only has he changed his mind many times, he's lied about having done so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] and the McCain people who are afraid of any change and are mostly racists. [snip] ...anyone who would make a comment like that is, in my opinion, a racist themselves. By labelling your political opponents as racists you eliminate ANY possibility at rational dialogue. But wait. Obama supporters such as R.G. haven't been calling just McCain supporters racists, they've been doing a lot of that to Hillary supporters, too. I can think of one prominent Hillary supporter who is really hurting as a result of being called a racist during this campaign. His name is Bill Clinton. It is this kind of name-calling by Obama supporters like R.G. that is not so much pissing off Republicans as it is the kind of people who started The Denver Group that Judy alluded to. They are ROYALLY pissed off. So much so that they are taking the DNC rules to heart which not only allow pledged Obama delegates to switch votes at the convention (even ont he first ballot) but actually encourage it. Here is what the DNC says from their own website: Pledged delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot. A pledged delegate goes to the Convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the Convention, while it is assumed that delegates will cast their votes for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required. Under the Delegate Selection Rules, a delegate is asked to 'in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.' This provision is designed in part to make the Convention a deliberative body. There are about 300 websites at last count that are devoted to getting Hillary the nomination. Remember that Obama got most of his votes for the pledged delegates BEFORE the Rev. Wright revelations and BEFORE all the flip-flopping on core issues he has done. If you think Obama is going to get the nomination in a cake-walk on the first ballot, you have no idea what is coming down the pike. 18,000,000 pissed off Hillary supporters are NOT taking this lying down. (from: http://www.demconvention.com/delegate-voting )
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
Who do you think will be the Democratic VP nominee ? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. babajii_99@ wrote: snip Every President has one, by going to the 'Center'. (I think Robert meant to write won, not one.) Problem is, Robert, Obama campaigned for the primary on the claim that he was a *transformative* politician, not one who would do exactly what all the others have done. That's why so many people who supported him are now very pissed off. I did mean won, not one... Obama has already been transformative, in many ways, he has woken up the electorite, and given hope to the rest of the world, that the United States is changing it's facist tendencies. He is a politician, and is moving toward the 'center' in order to win the election. I am not sure who is pissed off at him, besides the people who were supporting Hillary, and the McCain people who are afraid of any change and are mostly racists. Didn't you read what I wrote? A lot of people who supported *Obama* are now very pissed off at him. Who are these people? A lot of people? Yes. Take a look at some of the blogs that have been supporting Obama, such as DailyKos, for example. Take a look at the shift in the polling and approval numbers. Take a look at the decline in contributions to his campaign. And why do we have to put stars around *Obama* Is that sum subliminal thing your doing? The emphasis is because you suggested the people who were pissed off were either Hillary or McCain supporters, obviously. What's up with your anger against Senator Obama. I think he's a fraud, have thought so from the beginning. He isn't who he claims to be. It's not his fault, he won. He got more votes. Just barely, and then only depending on how you count them. And there are a lot of questions about how legitimately he won the caucuses. Same in the fall. He will win, because he will get more votes. So, whoever these people are, they will come along. You'll see. Remember, he isn't the nominee until the convention nominates him officially. He didn't win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination; he'll need superdelegates to make up the difference, and they get to change their minds at any time up to the convention. On flip-flopping, one time a reporter commented to Abraham Lincoln, saying: 'Mr. Lincoln, you've seemed to have changed your mind, many times the past 24 hours... At which, Lincoln replied: 'I don't think much of a man who thinks exactly the same today, as he did yesterday! Obama is no Lincoln. Not only has he changed his mind many times, he's lied about having done so.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who do you think will be the Democratic VP nominee ? I haven't the *foggiest*, except that it probably won't be anyone who has their own real power base.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
Why wouldn't someone with their own real power base be placed as VP on the ticket ? Are you inferring that HILLARY will not be placed on the ticket BECAUSE she has her own real power base ? If you could determine Hillary's thinking at this time Is she be thinking that she will be given the right of first refusal for the Democratic VP slot ? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Who do you think will be the Democratic VP nominee ? I haven't the *foggiest*, except that it probably won't be anyone who has their own real power base.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why wouldn't someone with their own real power base be placed as VP on the ticket ? Obama wants his power base to be the only one. Are you inferring that HILLARY will not be placed on the ticket BECAUSE she has her own real power base ? I think it's very unlikely he'd pick her, at least partly for that reason.. If you could determine Hillary's thinking at this time Is she be thinking that she will be given the right of first refusal for the Democratic VP slot ? As far as Hillary's thinking goes, she'll do whatever she thinks is best for the Democratic Party. If she and Obama agreed privately that his publicly giving her first refusal--on condition that she refused--would be good for the party, she'd go along with that gesture. I doubt Obama would go that far, however. He's interested in what's good for Obama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
With the mantle of being interested in doing what's good for the Democratic party, Hillary is thereby obligated to support Obama, no matter who is selected as VP, or how... A Private agreement that Hillary will refuse his publc offer of the VP slot to Hillary - only in Hillary's dreams. Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as leverage to insure cooperation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 mainstream20016@ wrote: Why wouldn't someone with their own real power base be placed as VP on the ticket ? Obama wants his power base to be the only one. Are you inferring that HILLARY will not be placed on the ticket BECAUSE she has her own real power base ? I think it's very unlikely he'd pick her, at least partly for that reason.. If you could determine Hillary's thinking at this time Is she be thinking that she will be given the right of first refusal for the Democratic VP slot ? As far as Hillary's thinking goes, she'll do whatever she thinks is best for the Democratic Party. If she and Obama agreed privately that his publicly giving her first refusal--on condition that she refused--would be good for the party, she'd go along with that gesture. I doubt Obama would go that far, however. He's interested in what's good for Obama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the mantle of being interested in doing what's good for the Democratic party, Hillary is thereby obligated to support Obama, no matter who is selected as VP, or how... Did somebody suggest otherwise? A Private agreement that Hillary will refuse his publc offer of the VP slot to Hillary - only in Hillary's dreams. I don't think that's in Hillary's dreams at all. *You* asked about first refusal; I told you the only circumstances under which I thought that might happen. I also said it was unlikely. Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as leverage to insure cooperation. He doesn't need any leverage. She wants to see a Democrat in the White House whether he helps pay her debts or not. Why the hostility?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mainstream20016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the mantle of being interested in doing what's good for the Democratic party, Hillary is thereby obligated to support Obama, no matter who is selected as VP, or how... A Private agreement that Hillary will refuse his publc offer of the VP slot to Hillary - only in Hillary's dreams. Obama's effort to pay Hillary's campaign debts might not be enough to please Hillary. He should hold those funds as leverage to insure cooperation. No need to *hold* the funds Mainstream. Just *forget* to mention them at fundraisers meant to retire them. guffaw Oh what a great sense of humor that Barack has... . he cracks me up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) TV producers understand the psychology of the American public: A former advertising copywriter, he sees Law and Order as a brand. He tells his writers that the series should be like Campbell's Soup: (snip) So, therefore, the Mr. Mrs. John Q. American will play it safe and vote for McDonald's as President... I mean McCain, sorry... My observation is the extreme shift of the American consciousness, so that this brand of 'Law and Order' is failing. It's a good metaphore for what is happening. The old 'laws and orders' are not working because they are mostly built on lies, and the old power structure is collapsing fast. There is only one vision for America at this point, which make sense. President Obama is that vision. And which vision is that, pray tell, because no one knows since he's flip-flopped on virtually every significant issue. Some will say he hasn't gone to the center on many of those issues but the center- right!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
(snip) And which vision is that, pray tell, because no one knows since he's flip-flopped on virtually every significant issue. Some will say he hasn't gone to the center on many of those issues but the center- right! (snip) Every President has one, by going to the 'Center'. Americans like being at the center; (which is why we are so 'off center' now) So, Senator Obama is appealing to the center, as it is now... The 'Percieved Center' is alway changing... And it also has to do with confidence and desire. How else did Bush win, not once, but twice. Desire, confidence and a perception that he was at the 'Center' of American politics... But that was back then, and this is now. So, I don't think we can swing from the far right, as with Bush, To the far left, as with Hillary... So, I feel that Senator, soon to be President Obama is playing his cards just so right...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (snip) And which vision is that, pray tell, because no one knows since he's flip-flopped on virtually every significant issue. Some will say he hasn't gone to the center on many of those issues but the center- right! (snip) Every President has one, by going to the 'Center'. Americans like being at the center; (which is why we are so 'off center' now) So, Senator Obama is appealing to the center, as it is now... The 'Percieved Center' is alway changing... And it also has to do with confidence and desire. How else did Bush win, not once, but twice. Desire, confidence and a perception that he was at the 'Center' of American politics... But that was back then, and this is now. So, I don't think we can swing from the far right, as with Bush, To the far left, as with Hillary... So, I feel that Senator, soon to be President Obama is playing his cards just so right... ...and is pissing off the people who put him where he is today. Look, I actually think your analysis above is spot-on and that's why I said later in the post that I really don't mind -- with a few exceptions -- if Obama becomes president. But it is the lefties on this forum, like Bhairitu and Wright, would should be concerned.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, R.G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Every President has one, by going to the 'Center'. (I think Robert meant to write won, not one.) Problem is, Robert, Obama campaigned for the primary on the claim that he was a *transformative* politician, not one who would do exactly what all the others have done. That's why so many people who supported him are now very pissed off. snip So, I don't think we can swing from the far right, as with Bush, To the far left, as with Hillary... Hillary far left? You've got to be joking.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
http://tinyurl.com/5lecp5
[FairfieldLife] Re: Why Obama won't win
(snip) TV producers understand the psychology of the American public: A former advertising copywriter, he sees Law and Order as a brand. He tells his writers that the series should be like Campbell's Soup: (snip) So, therefore, the Mr. Mrs. John Q. American will play it safe and vote for McDonald's as President... I mean McCain, sorry... My observation is the extreme shift of the American consciousness, so that this brand of 'Law and Order' is failing. It's a good metaphore for what is happening. The old 'laws and orders' are not working because they are mostly built on lies, and the old power structure is collapsing fast. There is only one vision for America at this point, which make sense. President Obama is that vision.
