I'd vote for the ticket with Edwards on it.
Yeah...it's a weird crowd. Naturally it was a big startup movement in Austin.
But you know...9/11 really did change America...War and Terrorism was so far out of the minds of people then...including myself. Back then the environment was my #1 concern in the world and I liked what the Greens were trying to do...I wasn't really a Green, but I did like a lot of what they had to say back then. It's amazing what a difference a decade can make.
And FWIW...I don't think the Greens(if that's who Nader is still with) will have near the impact in this election that they had in the 2000 election...different world now.
So Obama is now an inauthentic gay black plagiarizing somali muslim without great hair?
You seem utterly fixated on Obama using other peoples lines, but nonplussed about Edward's voting record (as pointed out by Peabody and Holt's Cat).So you admit that Obama is not using his own lines. I see. And it's also funny how John was talking about "change" in this election before Obama, but yet Obama got credit for using the word.
For you, apparently, words really are more important than actions.
I find it amusing that somehow Obama is the least "authentic" when compared to Her Majesty and Breck Girl. Just like a vocal minority of Republicans are trying to sabotage their most electable candidate, such is the same for the Dems.
Let me see if I can condense this into its purest and most timely form...
Words matter. Votes don't.
Obama by the Numbers: Twice-Told Tales, and Nine in a Row
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, February 20, 2008; A02
HOUSTON, Feb. 19 In the lavatory aboard Barack Obama's campaign plane, a cartoon shows the Clintons attempting to roast Obama in a cauldron. Bill stirs, Hillary adds salt and pepper. But Obama is smiling, and all that emerges from the pot are bubbles labeled "Hope."
For Obama, life seems to be imitating art lately. The Clintons in the past couple of weeks have done all they could to cook him up into an airy souffle, a candidate so light in substance that he collapses when speared. They exposed him as a guy who copies others' speeches and makes lofty pledges only to break them.
And yet: The Obama Souffle continues to rise.
Obama scored another convincing victory Tuesday in the Wisconsin primary, bringing his tally to nine straight wins in the past two weeks. The victories gave him a very real lead in delegates and fresh momentum approaching the March 4 primaries in Ohio and here in Texas.
"Houston, I think we've achieved liftoff," Obama told the capacity crowd of more than 18,000 at the Toyota Center, home of the Houston Rockets. They responded with roars that forced people on the arena floor to plug their ears.
A week of news that could have killed a lesser candidate only made Obama stronger. Double-teamed by Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and likely Republican opponent John McCain, he was portrayed as a man of big words but modest deeds. "To encourage a country with only rhetoric," McCain said last week, "is not a promise of hope, it's a pla ude."
Obama made things worse for himself. First came word that he was backing down on his promise to seek public financing in the general election if the Republican agreed to do so -- infuriating the good-government crowd that had adored him. Then, on Saturday night, Obama responded to Clinton's criticism by borrowing, nearly word for word and without attribution, a favorite passage from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. "Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream' -- just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words."
On Tuesday morning, the Clinton campaign publicized another case of Obama apparently appropriating Patrick's words: a quote from last year ("I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me; I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations") that was strikingly similar to one that Patrick uttered a year earlier ("I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me; I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations").
Still, Obama seemed to borrow anew on Tuesday at an outdoor rally in San Antonio -- this time from former foe John Edwards. Criticizing pharmaceutical companies' ads, Obama joked: "You know those ads where people are running around the fields, you know, they're smiling, you don't know what the drug is for?"
Compare that with this staple of Edwards's 2004 stump speech: "I love the ads. Buy their medicine, take it, and the next day you and your spouse will be skipping through the fields."
The likely nexus: top Obama adviser David Axelrod, who played a similar role for Patrick in 2006 and for Edwards in 2004. That may explain the list of lines Obama lifted from Edwards -- whose campaign compiled a list of the offenses before the candidate dropped out of the race.
Here's Obama's announcement speech in February 2007: "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."
Compare that with Edwards's 2003 announcement speech: "I haven't spent most of my life in politics, but I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington."
"We need a president not afraid to use the word 'union,' " Edwards told a steelworker audience in July 2007.
"We need a president . . . who is not afraid to mention unions," Obama said a month later. Edwards, accepting the party's vice presidential nomination in 2004, said, "Hard work should be valued in this country, so we're going to reward work, not just wealth." Obama, in turn, has been heard to say, "We shouldn't just be respecting wealth in this country, we should be respecting work."
Whatever we should be respecting, Obama had a ready answer for the questions about his originality: another big primary win.
Just after 5 p.m. Central time yesterday, early exit polls pointed to a victory for Obama in Wisconsin. Ten minutes later, his campaign sent around an Associated Press article seeking to raise the stakes of its likely victory: "Wisconsin is almost the kind of state Hillary Rodham Clinton would have invented to win a Democratic presidential primary. . . . A poor performance there Tuesday would raise big questions about her candidacy."
A couple of hours after that, Obama was at Toyota Center, waiting backstage for the networks to announce his victory. On the floor, a woman in a too-tight shirt danced about the stage and led painful-to-the-eardrum cheers of "Fired up!" and "Ready to go!"
Axelrod, the Obama strategist who authored many of the phrases the candidate borrowed from Edwards and Patrick, preceded the senator to the floor. On the jumbo screen, the campaign played a music video by the Black Eyed Peas' "will.i.am." Its le, "Yes We Can," is a signature slogan of the Obama campaign -- and before that, of Deval Patrick, not to mention César Chávez and Bob the Builder.
A chant of "Yes, we can" filled the arena, and Obama, emerging underneath a banner honoring basketball great Hakeem Olajuwon, enjoyed a reception the Houston Rockets would envy. "The American people have spoken out, and they've said we need to move in a new direction," Obama told the arena.
Whoever first uttered the words that followed, it didn't much matter: On the arena floor, they were drowned out by deafening cheers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...902342_pf.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
A country fooled...
A lot of that going around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGpnGKnbks8
How am I flip-flopping? I do like Edwards, but I also recognize that he is not perfect. His '08 message didn't match his actions in the Senate. I still thought he was a better candidate than Hillary and for the most part, I felt his heart was in the right place. And I do think he may have been more progressive as a President than he was as a Senator, but I have nothing to base that on and frankly, neither do you.
Also, I did say that if Obama wasn't in the race, I would have supported Edwards and that's true. , I supported him in '04. I don't know why it has to be so absolute. As if because I support Obama, I must hate Edwards or vice-versa. Both have a similar message on the issues I care about.
This election I just didn't buy the anti-establishment, angry rhetoric from Edwards. I liked him better in '04. It's as if he tried to assume the Howard Dean mantle from '04. Maybe it wasn't a bad strategy, as it almost got Dean the nomination (save for the "Dean Scream"). That's not to say I think he was a bad candidate or not to be trusted. I just liked Obama more in this election.
^SA210 just steamrolls along, utterly oblivious to question asked of her, just like the Hillary supporters in that youtube vid.
So what do you think Obama will do once he's in office?
Well, now that we agree that Obama steals other people material, you wanna talk about how Obama kept voting for the war that he was against???
Who knows, he hasn't been straight so far.
No, that guy failed the lie detector test yesterday.
Edwards claimed that his fight against poverty led him to go to work for a large asset management firm based on that dreaded Wall Street.
:guffaw
Authentic.
Heathe must be sad.
Yeah, I just watched that on HBO tonight. I would say it's outrageous, but I am sure that I've fallen for "campaign-speak" this year from one candidate or another. I've done my best to research my candidate, but these campaigns are nothing but BS generators and it can get hard to sift through it all. The mainstream media doesn't help with their constant focus on non-issues like who's had an affair, who wore what, who is a closeted lesbian....
What I don't get is you have a charismatic Democratic candidate, the first since '96. One who is running on a rather "progressive" (by any definition of the label in today's American politics) program, yet is drawing in independents and disaffected Republicans and some Democrats are complaining about this in favor of a Hillary Clinton who repels independent and Republican support about as much as her husband's libido.
What's even more ironic is that it was the Clintons who perfected the art of campaigning progressive yet governing as the most conservative Democrats since Woodrow Wilson.
You have an economy in the tank, a country disillusioned with the current administration which happens to be led by a member of the opposing party, and you are trying to screw it up?
Hey, fine by me.
I think it depends on how he wins the presidency. If he pulls off a huge victory, then I think he gets more of his agenda pushed through and he can really change mindset of the country (ala Reagan in the 80's). If he gets the blue states, plus Ohio and Florida victory, I doubt things will change much.
I think much of the constipation in government the last 20 years or so is in part due to the fact that no president won overwhelmingly in any election. Clinton never got a majority, while Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and did the red states, plus Florida and Ohio scenario in 2004. No one really ever got a mandate from the electorate.
I honestly don't know. The difference is, I do know what all the other candidates would and would not do.
January 2009 will mark 20 years that either a Bush or a Clinton resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. For that reason alone either Obama or McCain works for me. Enough with these familial dynasties. I thought the opposition to such rule was something on which this country was founded.
And if Obama is hiding anything in this election, it's that he's more liberal than his program.
Obama may not have a royal bloodline but he's definitely picked up schmaltz quick enough and fast enough to make Ted Kennedy jealous...
McCain is basically a silverspoon with a little more credibility than most of them but he's not long on common sense, in face he might have less common sense than anyone in this election, and frankly I just don't think the dude is all there.....he's got one redeeming quality to me and that's that he won't pull us out of Iraq.
All in all...a ty batch.
At least I knew W was a dumbass with a purpose and clear vision of what he wanted to do...I don't get that from any of these guys.
None of them seem to be willing to stand on their own principals, xcept Ron Paul(and Nader) and scratch what I said earlier about McCain having the least common sense of anyone in this election...that'd be Paul. And all of the rest of them are basically trying to say anything to get elected.
That's why there's no clear winner left...it's not due to the strength of the crop...but the weakness.
I'm not saying a Bush or Clinton would be better...but I seriously doubt they'd be any worse.
Weak batch....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote