The Next President?

My understanding is that Hillary will be offered a place on the ticket, on the understanding that she'll decline it, but do so with an endorsement for Obama and ask her supporters to throw in behind him. Obama doesn't want her, but if he doesn't make her the offer, she'll drag it out to the convention. That way she'll save a bit of face.

We'll see. But since I've been wrong with just about every prediction so far, I wouldn't take too much notice of what my source tells me :D
 
Originally posted by clivex@Jun 5 2008, 09:16 AM
Since when do a "vast majority" of people thinks hes the "best "candidate. He scraped in didnt he? Hes not steaming ahead in the national polls either

Since when has a democratic candidate received the nomination at such a late stage and by such a small majority?

My opinion of him has changed slightly ...no more. He is guilty of some poor judgement and is seemingly naive when away from the script. His refusal to take questions form the press without prior briefing was indicative of a lack of confidence at best and his past cosying up to extremists pastors is little different to a white politician haveing connections to the KKK IMO
Click to expand...
Clivex, I'd counter your first question with asking for your evidence about him being supported by "many on the left.......simply because of his colour".

I was refering to the same constituency as you were - not the US electorate as a whole, but will concede that I perhaps could have made this clearer.

As for your suggestion that he has "cosied-up" to extremist pastors, well, I again think this is wilful misinterpretation on your part. He didn't "cosy-up" to Jeremiah Wright - he attended his church; no more, no less.

When Wright came out with his nonsense, which was politically motivated and nothing to do with his preaching, Obama immediately distanced himself from it. Likewise when Plegler came out with his utterances. Indeed, Obama has now left his church because of these episodes - I fail to see what more he could do to distance himself from them.

As for your KKK remark, it is, of course, complete and utter horse-sh*it.
 
When Wright came out with his nonsense, which was politically motivated and nothing to do with his preaching,
Click to expand...

You are joking arent you? The stuff was part of his sermons FFS

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788

That pastor has been coming out with that stuff for years

The idea that Obama has been oblivious to his "beliefs" in all that time is laughable

The pastor linked to and is on the record as endorsing Farrakhan and his racist sect

Very good piece on thsi whole issue here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8011402083.html

Farrakhan is little different to the KKK

Indeed, Obama has now left his church because of these episodes - I fail to see what more he could do to distance himself from them.
Click to expand...

:laughing:

Is this serious?

The idea that he has been oblivious to Wrights well publicised views up until n ow is ridiculous

Whether or not he agrees with wrights sinister rubbish, it was a serious misjudgement to continue to be associated with him until so late a stage. As he will continue to find out

And brings into question his overall judgment too
 
Clivex, Obama is no more responsible for what his pastor says, than McCain is responsible for what his pastor says; McCain's pastor of course being the rabid evangelist John Hagee, whose view on Catholics, Jews and homosexuals are way more offensive and backward than anything Wright has come out with.

Forget Farrahkan being "little different" to the KKK - Hagee sounds like a fully-paid-up member, and there has been no sign whatsoever of McCain considering it necessary to leave his church.

The idea that McCain has been oblivious to his pastor's beliefs is laughable.

The fact that you yet again fail to see the contradiction in your argument is absolutely fu*cking hysterical.
 
Could you both please refrain from personalising an interesting and informed debate.

Clivex, Obama is no more responsible for what his pastor says, than McCain is responsible for what his pastor says; McCain's pastor of course being the rabid evangelist John Hagee, whose view on Catholics, Jews and homosexuals are way more offensive and backward than anything Wright has come out with.

Forget Farrahkan being "little different" to the KKK - Hagee sounds like a fully-paid-up member, and there has been no sign whatsoever of McCain considering it necessary to leave his church.

The idea that McCain has been oblivious to his pastor's beliefs is laughable.
Click to expand...

= interesting and informed.

The fact that you yet again fail to see the contradiction in your argument is absolutely fu*cking hysterical.
Click to expand...

= bullshit.
 
Relax Melendez - me and clivex go way back, and none of us takes this personally - well not me at least. It's just verbal jousting on an interesting topic.

Also, it's worth pointing out that my "interesting and informed" post was technically incorrect.

Hagee is not McCain's personal pastor - rather he is merely an endorser of McCain's candidacy. However, the fact that McCain was happy to share a platform with him, and warmly welcomed the endorsement, points to the same poor judgement as clivex has levelled at Obama; ergo it's a score-draw on that front, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Grasshopper had to quickly backtrack there because he knew that i would be ready with the facts
 
If Mccain was as close to this Hagee as Obama was to Wright then they are equally stupid

But was he as close?

Of course not. No where near.

Mccain wouldnt be the first to drop an unsavoury endorsement (although it was a stupid mistake) but how many presidential candidates had "spiritaul guidance" from the likes of Wright...? David Duke springs to mind...perhaps

That is clear logic ...easily understood
 
Clivex, they key points are this:

Obama has left the church he was once a member of; completely dissociating himself from Wright's comments in the process.

McCain has not dropped or distanced himself from the (some may say) even more controversial Hagee endorsment. Indeed, he welcomed it.

Which makes your point about Obama's judgement, insofar as it stands against McCain's, somewhat redundant.

That logic is equally clear, and equally easily understood.
 
Interesting, Warbler. Having initially heard she would decline the job, throughout the day yesterday all of the utterances were that she was increasingly interested.

There are really only 4 people who know what she's thinking, so it really is hard to decipher her intentions.

Clivex, I take your point about the nuclear link being yet another distinction between the two situations (another reason they are not comparable). However, I still fail to see how isolating Iran, as McCain is advocating, will be more beneficial than communication (especially in light of the current administration's policy on North Korea!). I would suggest McCain's policy (which is, in effect, "feeding the beast") is far more naive than Obama's. Still reckon a lot has to do with pandering to the Jewish vote.
 
McCain said he rejected the endorsement of John Hagee after learning of a recording in which the San Antonio pastor portrayed Adolf Hitler as being sent by God to force Jews "to come back to the land of Israel."

McCain said he had not been aware of the comments -- which were made in a sermon in the late 1990s and turned up recently on the Internet -- when Hagee endorsed him in February. "I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable," McCain said. The pastor's words, he added, "are just too much."

Later in the day, McCain told the Associated Press that he also repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent. "I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue
Click to expand...

But Grasshopper desperately claimed

McCain has not dropped or distanced himself from the (some may say) even more controversial Hagee endorsment. Indeed, he welcomed it.
Click to expand...

To repeat again... Obama was undoubtably far closer to Wright than Mccain was to Hagee
 
I dont agree trackside because being drawn into and giving credibility to (possibly attention seeking) regimes who throw around war like threats is naive in itself

Like naughty children..it just encourages them

Behind the scenes chatter is probably the way forward. At top level, Iran has to make the first move i believe

...or mccain will turn it into a car park :suspect:
 
So McCain and Obama have both distanced themselves from controversial backers.

Ergo, it is the score draw I mentioned earlier, and your insinuation that Obama had shown poorer judgement than McCain was wrong.

Regardless, aren't these minor, and largely irrelevant, side issues? It's not like the outcome of the election is going to be decided on how close Obama was to Wright once upon a time (though I can see why you're pushing this point - mainly because most of the rest of your argument on this thread has been a train-wreck).
 
I don't think there's anybody would argue with that.

The US election will come down to this: in order for McCain to win, he must make the election a referendum on Obama, rather than on the state of the country (in which case he would be destroyed). In order to do this, he has to subtly (or at times explicitly) create doubts in the voters' minds about Obama. He will do this through any number of ways, including Jeremiah Wright/Tony Rezko, as well as trying to paint him as a traditional left-wing liberal senator.

In many ways I feel the Democrats would have been best served by a more "electable" (as bullshit as the phrase may be). Perhaps the likes of John Edwards (*cue Warbler crying hysterically in a corner*) :P ) that present less opportunities to the GOP. In that sense, I can't agree with anyone who says Obama got support because of his skin colour. That is nonsense.

If the Republican's succeed in creating enough insecurities about Obama among voters to the point where they feel they cannot vote for Obama (despite his message), McCain will win the election.
 
Anybody wanting to make a point about McCain's poor judgement need look no further than the Keaton Five scandal that nearly ended his political career. :what:
 
The US election will come down to this: in order for McCain to win, he must make the election a referendum on Obama, rather than on the state of the country (in which case he would be destroyed). In order to do this, he has to subtly (or at times explicitly) create doubts in the voters' minds about Obama. He will do this through any number of ways, including Jeremiah Wright/Tony Rezko, as well as trying to paint him as a traditional left-wing liberal senator.
Click to expand...

Is it the case then that Obama has actually benifitted from being in such a tough primary race and having all of this come up in the national media already?

(which was the whole point of primaries in the first place, right?)
 
Originally posted by Grasshopper@Jun 5 2008, 01:17 PM
Regardless, aren't these minor, and largely irrelevant, side issues? It's not like the outcome of the election is going to be decided on how close Obama was to Wright once upon a time
Click to expand...
If the Republican's get their way, it's exactly what the election will be decided upon.

I thought McCain pulled a very shrewd move in suggesting a series of town hall debates. While McCain is a terrible debator, if there is any format that will play to his strengths and Obama's weaknesses, it is a town hall format.
 
Originally posted by trackside528@Jun 5 2008, 01:26 PM
If the Republican's get their way, it's exactly what the election will be decided upon.
Click to expand...
Possibly tracks, though I'd suggest it's a dangerous tactic.

Obama has the nous and verbal dexterity to expose such a play for what it is, and if the polls are anything to go by, the Yanks want a grown-up debate this time around. I suspect that the state of the economy, and the Iraq war will mean more to US citizens, than what Obama's ex-pastor said or didn't say.

Besides, I tend to agree with Gareth; this is probably a boil that has already been lanced.
 
You could be right (and I hope to God you are), but at the same time it's a very dangerous game predicting what the American electorate wants (particularly a "grown-up debate").

I would also point out that Obama has not comprehensively dealt with this issue in the primary race; in fact, I would say the campaign's handling of the issue was clumsy at best, and the attacks are only going to get sharper and much more personal as the autumn draws nearer.

It may sound crass, but never underestimate the power of "familiarity" or "likability" in an American election.
 
Obama was to Wright once upon a time
Click to expand...


About three weeks ago

But do the Wright or Rezko stories still have legs
Click to expand...
?

Just a bit. Get Rove on the case and it will be battered into the skull of every voter right up to polling day

if there is any format that will play to his strengths and Obama's weaknesses, it is a town hall format.
Click to expand...

intersting point. Obama would prefer a Sheffield type windbag victory rally :suspect:
 
Originally posted by clivex@Jun 6 2008, 12:01 AM
But do the Wright or Rezko stories still have legs
Click to expand...
?

Just a bit. Get Rove on the case and it will be battered into the skull of every voter right up to polling day
Click to expand...
Fox News for one have already been there, done that. Surely the vast majority of undecideds who would not want to vote for him on the basis of Wright or Rezko will have already made their mind up by now? Unless the Republicans can find a fresh dimension to it, of course. Otherwise its too obvious a shot and, if anything, risks backfiring.
 
The majority of so-called "independents" couldn't give a rats ass about the primaries and are only starting to tune in to the election now.

I'm not sure the Wright story has legs, so to speak, but it will remain below the surface and still has the potential to affect how voters see Obama.
 
Back
Top