This is saddening. Hillary caught attempting voter surpression.

[Dinner]

Apoc, so you're whining that back in 1996 Obama challenged signature sheets for his opponents? It seems like a huge stretch to try to turn that into something sinister. I mean if those guys wanted to run for office then they had to hand in a petition signed by a certain number of eligible voters so if it turned out they didn't have valid signatures then tough luck for them.

Essentially Obama helped to stop a fraud and the guy who got caught is now whining about it.

[Apocalypse]

Alice Palmer could have gotten the correct number of eligible voters. She was incredibly popular. She just got pretty much the minimum number of signatures and some of them just happened not to be eligible (big surprise in Chicago). She just didn't have the chance to get more signatures.

[Dinner]

In other words she could have gotten more then enough signatures but decided to be lazy and get the minimum number so when Obama did research and proved that several of the signatures were not registered area voters she failed to qualify. It's her own fault. She should have double checked the signatures and she should have gotten way more signatures then she needed instead of just the minimum number.

[asleepathewheel]

Do you disagree with anything Obama's done or any of his positions, Oerdin?

[Krill]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I was playing football whilst drunk last night. I have two nasty gashes on my hand where I got tackled into a metal fence.

Cage matches where it is a person versus the cage are always entertaining to watch

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Obama used dirty tactics when getting elected in Illinois originally. No one is clean.

Challenging signature sheets is an absolutely standard political tactic, anywhere. It's one reason that any pol with half a brain turns in many, many more signatures than s/he needs. However popular Alice Palmer might have been, she made an absolute rookie mistake, one that any opponent would have used against her. And, frankly, one of the things that has really impressed me about Obama (and I say this as someone who was an enthusiastic Hillary supporter until just recently) is that, for all the high-flown rhetoric, he and his people seem to really understand the rough-and-tumble of politics; whereas Hillary, for all her supposed experience, keeps looking like she's never been around a political campaign before in her life.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Do you disagree with anything Obama's done or any of his positions, Oerdin?

I wish he had been faster to denounce Wright, I dislike that he doesn't have much experience and wonder if he'll actually be able to get legislation passed if elected, and I both like and am fearful about how he seems to take attacks without responding. I mean part of his appeal is that he seems to rise above the normal pettiness of politics but not responding quickly to the charges of elitism or the claim that he was some how racist have hurt him and I wonder how well he'll be able to weather more such storms.

The solution in my mind is for him to get a strong VP, an attack dog if you will, who's an expert at navigating the treacherous waters of Washington. I honestly think this VP will have to be Hillary because if it is not then 1/3 of Democratic voters will be upset that she lost and will likely refuse to vote come Nov. A party unity ticket solves that problem and makes the strongest case come Nov.

[rah]

Both candidates are too polarizing to run together. The repubs would love to see it. I can see the the older white southern dem male now. I refuse to vote for a woman, I refuse to vote for a ******, so I think I'll vote for the old guy.

Obama is not as politically niave as many think. As shown he's a hardened Chicago politician. I don't have a problem with that. My problem is when he campaigns on the (I'm so clean, and not part of the system) issues, since it's obvious he's no cleaner than anyone else.

And this one is being passed around and I got a chuckle out of it.

A note from England: We in Europe cannot figure out why you
Americans are even bothering to hold an election.

"On the Democratic one side, you have a ***** who is a lawyer,
married to a lawyer. And her contender in the primary is a young lawyer who is
married to yet another lawyer."

"On the Republican side, you have a war hero who is married to a
blonde with big tits and her daddy owns a beer distributorship.

Why is there a contest here?"

[Dinner]

I do think Obama is the most principled candidate out of the three. I mean take the current gas tax holiday flap; both Hillary and McCain have said they think global climate change is real and is a big problem but both want to lower gas prices? How can you believe that human caused global warming is "the biggest threat to humanity today" (to quote Hillary) yet propose legislation which is likely to increase green house gas output? Those are contradictory positions and it sounds like blatant pandering to me. I really want someone who will actually solve problems instead of just offering the same short sighted pandering and Obama is the only one who has done that on this issue.

[Krill]

[q=Oerdin]I do think Obama is the most principled candidate out of the three.[/q]

Damning with faint praise...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I do think Obama is the most principled candidate out of the three. I mean take the current gas tax holiday flap; both Hillary and McCain have said they think global climate change is real and is a big problem but both want to lower gas prices? How can you believe that human caused global warming is "the biggest threat to humanity today" (to quote Hillary) yet propose legislation which is likely to increase green house gas output? Those are contradictory positions and it sounds like blatant pandering to me. I really want someone who will actually solve problems instead of just offering the same short sighted pandering and Obama is the only one who has done that on this issue.

Excellent point. Bleed consumers that have to drive to work. Promotion of hybrids and installation or improvement of public transportation makes sense.
You really only have to take bets on who the next VP for McCain will be. Obama and Hillary are slashing their own throats, and the other's with the other hand.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I wish he had been faster to denounce Wright, I dislike that he doesn't have much experience and wonder if he'll actually be able to get legislation passed if elected, and I both like and am fearful about how he seems to take attacks without responding. I mean part of his appeal is that he seems to rise above the normal pettiness of politics but not responding quickly to the charges of elitism or the claim that he was some how racist have hurt him and I wonder how well he'll be able to weather more such storms.

The solution in my mind is for him to get a strong VP, an attack dog if you will, who's an expert at navigating the treacherous waters of Washington. I honestly think this VP will have to be Hillary because if it is not then 1/3 of Democratic voters will be upset that she lost and will likely refuse to vote come Nov. A party unity ticket solves that problem and makes the strongest case come Nov.

I really wish he had another 4-8 years under his belt in the senate. I also wish he was more of a fighter. He hasn't come across as tough enough to me. I know that might sound silly, but I want fire in a president. I want a president who will kick ass when needed, and I think both McCain and Clinton would. Though, perhaps a wimpy conciliatory pres is needed to undue what Bush has done, on the world stage anyway. I also don't like this "new politics" charade he has engaged in, but that isn't my primary concern with him.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



Excellent point. Bleed consumers that have to drive to work. Promotion of hybrids and installation or improvement of public transportation makes sense.
You really only have to take bets on who the next VP for McCain will be. Obama and Hillary are slashing their own throats, and the other's with the other hand.

Bleed consumers? Have you paid any attention to the economists at all? The mount of correctly formulated summer blend gasoline available for this summer's driving is fixed and most of the demand is inelastic (meaning most people will drive the same amount though a few people will find ways to cut back) that means demand will continue to outstrip supply and the price will rise. Any tax reduction on gas will just result in an increase in demand further raising prices. BTW this isn't just a few economists who say this but literally EVERY economist; Hillary & McCain haven' found a single economist willing to endorse their scheme.

End of day scenario on the price of gas still goes higher, profits for producers goes up, and the national transportation budget loses it's primary funding source. We already literally have bridges falling down from neglect and lack of maintenance, we have a huge backlog of needed road repairs, and an even larger list of unfunded but required transportation projects but they want to dramaticly reduce funds for this? It's just not very smart economics especially since no price savings will be realized by consumers and neither Hillary or McCain will be President this summer.

[Barnabas]

Isnt the solution for that just better public transport, trains, subways etc?

[Dinner]

Yes, that is the 10,000 lb elephant in the room which no one wants to talk about. They're afraid that if they speak the obvious truth (that we need more and better mass transit) then the Republicans will go into attack mode claiming "elitist Democrats" are trying to take away your cars and force you on a smelly bus.