Obama Overtakes Clinton Nationwide

[Pabster]

Story here.

What a dramatic reversal. Billary has lost an amazing amount of ground in just the last week alone. GO OBAMA GO!

 

[bamacre]

Good. Because if Paul does run as a 3rd party, I'd rather him hand Obama the presidency than Hillary.

 

[yllus]

Clinton should concede very soon if she wants to have any future in the Democratic Party.

 

[nageov3t]

I'm just looking forward to this being over.

I hate feeling like I have to defend her here simply because of the vitriolic hatred people have for her... I just want you guys to get it out of your system and move on

so how soon till republicans realize that Obama's even more liberal than Hillary?

 

[StageLeft]

No, we were told "It's over" and that obama should have given up, I don't believe this1

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I'm just looking forward to this being over.

I hate feeling like I have to defend her here simply because of the vitriolic hatred people have for her... I just want you guys to get it out of your system and move on

so how soon till republicans realize that Obama's even more liberal than Hillary?

It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with having a real human as a president instead of a corporate drone.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I'm just looking forward to this being over.

Indications are that 2/5 will not be the end

 

[Moonbeam]

I hate myself so I can't believe Obama has a chance. Such good fortune just can't happen to me. If he wins I will probably die soon after.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: loki8481

so how soon till republicans realize that Obama's even more liberal than Hillary?

we realize that, so what?

she is evil, he is an "unknown" , i'll take my chances with him vs. the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty

i don't want a QUEEN for POTUS

and besides, if i get "downsized" tomorrow, i'll need Obama's health insurance since i'll be unemployed/poor

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: loki8481
I'm just looking forward to this being over.

I hate feeling like I have to defend her here simply because of the vitriolic hatred people have for her... I just want you guys to get it out of your system and move on

so how soon till republicans realize that Obama's even more liberal than Hillary?

It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with having a real human as a president instead of a corporate drone.

Yeah. I don't agree with some of what Obama says, but I also know that the biggest sticking points I have with him are on issues where he'll have to compromise to get any legislation passed.

At this point I'd rather put my support behind someone who seems like a reasonable human being, even if that means I don't agree with him on several issues.

In short: Go Obamarama!

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: loki8481
I'm just looking forward to this being over.

I hate feeling like I have to defend her here simply because of the vitriolic hatred people have for her... I just want you guys to get it out of your system and move on

so how soon till republicans realize that Obama's even more liberal than Hillary?

It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with having a real human as a president instead of a corporate drone.

Yeah. I don't agree with some of what Obama says, but I also know that the biggest sticking points I have with him are on issues where he'll have to compromise to get any legislation passed.

At this point I'd rather put my support behind someone who seems like a reasonable human being, even if that means I don't agree with him on several issues.

In short: Go Obamarama!

exactly, i was thinking about this overnight, take abortion for example, it is already legal, the chances of roe v wade changing during 8 years of Obama is 0%
so why do i care what Obama's position on abortion is? Bush already put 2 conservatives on the supreme court

his health care plan is way more palletable than HillaryCare, since it is volunatary. forcing people to buy healthcare is the devil's plan

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
she is evil, he is an "unknown" , i'll take my chances with him vs. the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty

over the top ftw. The US survived the ineptitude Bush for the last 8 years, we'll survive and even prosper under an intelligent capable leader, regardless of which one it is.

 

[jonks]

Obama???

Q: It is said you have the potential to reshape the political landscape.

A: That's what I want to do. In the course of the campaign, it's the first thing I want to do. The second is to elevate the discourse. I'm not going to participate in the old Washington, D.C., game of gossip and slander. The game many people want to play is: "Let's force [the candidate] to answer questions about gossip. Let's force him off his message by making him talk about a rumor, or rumors." I'm not going to participate in that game. I'm not going to try to disprove a negative. I'm going to talk about what I want to do for America.

I have told people that 20 to 30 years ago I made some mistakes. But I have learned from those mistakes. What Americans want to hear is: Will the next president be someone who has matured to the point where he has learned from mistakes and will bring dignity to the office to which he is elected? That was my solemn pledge in [my home state] when I first took office. I have fulfilled that to the satisfaction of [my state's] voters. And that is my solemn pledge to America.

Q: In a year when Republicans lost ground or had trouble holding on to it, you won reelection with 69 percent of the total, 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, and the endorsement of every major Democratic politician in the state. How did you do it?

A: I shared credit. I didn't try to take all the credit, I shared credit with the people, both Republicans and Democrats, who helped achieve these reforms. I showed the people that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another. During the course of the campaign, I didn't talk about the past; I talked about the future.

The agent of change for a heart is not in a government subcommittee, or in government legislation. It's in civil society -- it's loving people, helping others in need. Only when you change hearts and attitudes will the laws also change.



- George W. Bush, 1999

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Obama???

Q: It is said you have the potential to reshape the political landscape.

A: That's what I want to do. In the course of the campaign, it's the first thing I want to do. The second is to elevate the discourse. I'm not going to participate in the old Washington, D.C., game of gossip and slander. The game many people want to play is: "Let's force [the candidate] to answer questions about gossip. Let's force him off his message by making him talk about a rumor, or rumors." I'm not going to participate in that game. I'm not going to try to disprove a negative. I'm going to talk about what I want to do for America.

I have told people that 20 to 30 years ago I made some mistakes. But I have learned from those mistakes. What Americans want to hear is: Will the next president be someone who has matured to the point where he has learned from mistakes and will bring dignity to the office to which he is elected? That was my solemn pledge in [my home state] when I first took office. I have fulfilled that to the satisfaction of [my state's] voters. And that is my solemn pledge to America.

Q: In a year when Republicans lost ground or had trouble holding on to it, you won reelection with 69 percent of the total, 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, and the endorsement of every major Democratic politician in the state. How did you do it?

A: I shared credit. I didn't try to take all the credit, I shared credit with the people, both Republicans and Democrats, who helped achieve these reforms. I showed the people that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another. During the course of the campaign, I didn't talk about the past; I talked about the future.

The agent of change for a heart is not in a government subcommittee, or in government legislation. It's in civil society -- it's loving people, helping others in need. Only when you change hearts and attitudes will the laws also change.



- George W. Bush, 1999

Not quite sure I'm seeing your point unless you're trying to say that GWB was a terrible president despite saying similar things so we shouldn't elect Obama because he'll be just as bad?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: FoBoT
she is evil, he is an "unknown" , i'll take my chances with him vs. the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty

over the top ftw. The US survived the ineptitude Bush for the last 8 years, we'll survive and even prosper under an intelligent capable leader, regardless of which one it is.

So you're thinking that an inept president with terrible policy would be worse than an intelligent president with terrible policy? Can't wait to see how that one shakes out.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Obama???

Q: It is said you have the potential to reshape the political landscape.

A: That's what I want to do. In the course of the campaign, it's the first thing I want to do. The second is to elevate the discourse. I'm not going to participate in the old Washington, D.C., game of gossip and slander. The game many people want to play is: "Let's force [the candidate] to answer questions about gossip. Let's force him off his message by making him talk about a rumor, or rumors." I'm not going to participate in that game. I'm not going to try to disprove a negative. I'm going to talk about what I want to do for America.

I have told people that 20 to 30 years ago I made some mistakes. But I have learned from those mistakes. What Americans want to hear is: Will the next president be someone who has matured to the point where he has learned from mistakes and will bring dignity to the office to which he is elected? That was my solemn pledge in [my home state] when I first took office. I have fulfilled that to the satisfaction of [my state's] voters. And that is my solemn pledge to America.

Q: In a year when Republicans lost ground or had trouble holding on to it, you won reelection with 69 percent of the total, 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, and the endorsement of every major Democratic politician in the state. How did you do it?

A: I shared credit. I didn't try to take all the credit, I shared credit with the people, both Republicans and Democrats, who helped achieve these reforms. I showed the people that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another. During the course of the campaign, I didn't talk about the past; I talked about the future.

The agent of change for a heart is not in a government subcommittee, or in government legislation. It's in civil society -- it's loving people, helping others in need. Only when you change hearts and attitudes will the laws also change.



- George W. Bush, 1999

Not quite sure I'm seeing your point unless you're trying to say that GWB was a terrible president despite saying similar things so we shouldn't elect Obama because he'll be just as bad?

No, I'm not saying don't elect Obama, he's my 2nd choice. I'm saying that when the number one thing your supporters cite about you is your dedication to changing the tone of politics, you have to take it with a grain of salt, and consider what's possible in Washington. That maybe there's more to the office than claiming to be a "uniter."

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Obama???

Q: It is said you have the potential to reshape the political landscape.

A: That's what I want to do. In the course of the campaign, it's the first thing I want to do. The second is to elevate the discourse. I'm not going to participate in the old Washington, D.C., game of gossip and slander. The game many people want to play is: "Let's force [the candidate] to answer questions about gossip. Let's force him off his message by making him talk about a rumor, or rumors." I'm not going to participate in that game. I'm not going to try to disprove a negative. I'm going to talk about what I want to do for America.

I have told people that 20 to 30 years ago I made some mistakes. But I have learned from those mistakes. What Americans want to hear is: Will the next president be someone who has matured to the point where he has learned from mistakes and will bring dignity to the office to which he is elected? That was my solemn pledge in [my home state] when I first took office. I have fulfilled that to the satisfaction of [my state's] voters. And that is my solemn pledge to America.

Q: In a year when Republicans lost ground or had trouble holding on to it, you won reelection with 69 percent of the total, 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, and the endorsement of every major Democratic politician in the state. How did you do it?

A: I shared credit. I didn't try to take all the credit, I shared credit with the people, both Republicans and Democrats, who helped achieve these reforms. I showed the people that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another. During the course of the campaign, I didn't talk about the past; I talked about the future.

The agent of change for a heart is not in a government subcommittee, or in government legislation. It's in civil society -- it's loving people, helping others in need. Only when you change hearts and attitudes will the laws also change.



- George W. Bush, 1999

Not quite sure I'm seeing your point unless you're trying to say that GWB was a terrible president despite saying similar things so we shouldn't elect Obama because he'll be just as bad?

No, I'm not saying don't elect Obama, he's my 2nd choice. I'm saying that when the number one thing your supporters cite about you is your dedication to changing the tone of politics, you have to take it with a grain of salt, and consider what's possible in Washington. That maybe there's more to the office than claiming to be a "uniter."

Fair enough then. I think you have to take anything politicians say with a grain of salt. Completely buying into any of their messages is stupid.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: FoBoT
she is evil, he is an "unknown" , i'll take my chances with him vs. the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty

over the top ftw. The US survived the ineptitude Bush for the last 8 years, we'll survive and even prosper under an intelligent capable leader, regardless of which one it is.

So you're thinking that an inept president with terrible policy would be worse than an intelligent president with terrible policy? Can't wait to see how that one shakes out.

Their policies are nearly identical, minus healthcare. They voted together 94% of the time in the Senate. If she's evil, so's Obama for agreeing with nearly all of her votes. Unless the difference between good and evil is 6%.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yllus
Clinton should concede very soon if she wants to have any future in the Democratic Party.

:thumbsup:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Obama???

Q: It is said you have the potential to reshape the political landscape.

A: That's what I want to do. In the course of the campaign, it's the first thing I want to do. The second is to elevate the discourse. I'm not going to participate in the old Washington, D.C., game of gossip and slander. The game many people want to play is: "Let's force [the candidate] to answer questions about gossip. Let's force him off his message by making him talk about a rumor, or rumors." I'm not going to participate in that game. I'm not going to try to disprove a negative. I'm going to talk about what I want to do for America.

I have told people that 20 to 30 years ago I made some mistakes. But I have learned from those mistakes. What Americans want to hear is: Will the next president be someone who has matured to the point where he has learned from mistakes and will bring dignity to the office to which he is elected? That was my solemn pledge in [my home state] when I first took office. I have fulfilled that to the satisfaction of [my state's] voters. And that is my solemn pledge to America.

Q: In a year when Republicans lost ground or had trouble holding on to it, you won reelection with 69 percent of the total, 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, and the endorsement of every major Democratic politician in the state. How did you do it?

A: I shared credit. I didn't try to take all the credit, I shared credit with the people, both Republicans and Democrats, who helped achieve these reforms. I showed the people that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another. During the course of the campaign, I didn't talk about the past; I talked about the future.

The agent of change for a heart is not in a government subcommittee, or in government legislation. It's in civil society -- it's loving people, helping others in need. Only when you change hearts and attitudes will the laws also change.



- George W. Bush, 1999

Not quite sure I'm seeing your point unless you're trying to say that GWB was a terrible president despite saying similar things so we shouldn't elect Obama because he'll be just as bad?

No, I'm not saying don't elect Obama, he's my 2nd choice. I'm saying that when the number one thing your supporters cite about you is your dedication to changing the tone of politics, you have to take it with a grain of salt, and consider what's possible in Washington. That maybe there's more to the office than claiming to be a "uniter."

Fair enough then. I think you have to take anything politicians say with a grain of salt. Completely buying into any of their messages is stupid.

Well the next step then is if you take away the "agent of change" argument, you're left with a 2 year senator and community organizer. Why is he ready for the presidency if you look beyond the hopes and dreams and inspirational rhetoric? People are flocking to him because he inspires them and promises change. I'm one of the cynics about how much change is possible, and that's why I was quoting Bush above.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: FoBoT
she is evil, he is an "unknown" , i'll take my chances with him vs. the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty

over the top ftw. The US survived the ineptitude Bush for the last 8 years, we'll survive and even prosper under an intelligent capable leader, regardless of which one it is.

So you're thinking that an inept president with terrible policy would be worse than an intelligent president with terrible policy? Can't wait to see how that one shakes out.

Their policies are nearly identical, minus healthcare. They voted together 94% of the time in the Senate. If she's evil, so's Obama for agreeing with nearly all of her votes. Unless the difference between good and evil is 6%.

That's one way to look at it and I don't think it's invalid. I choose to emphasize the difference in their character, though. I genuinely like Obama. I like his demeanor, I like the way he speaks. I think, as a human being, he's a better representative for the United States than Hillary. Obama has also spent less time in politics, he's not part of the Clinton family, so I don't think he's disliked by Republicans as much. I guess we'll see though.

 

[Stoneburner]

NObody ever gives ground operations any credit. Hillary has a very impressive GOTV system in most big states. The national polls may not matter.

I'll be voting for Obama tommorow... but I won't have any expectations.

 

[Capitalizt]

PLEEEEEEASE GOD BE TRUE!

We need some fresh blood in Washington badly.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
PLEEEEEEASE GOD BE TRUE!

We need some fresh blood in Washington badly.

indeed.

how about a successful governor who promises to be a uniter, not a divider? that sounds like just the person we need in this "post-partisan" age.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: FoBoT
she is evil, he is an "unknown" , i'll take my chances with him vs. the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty

over the top ftw. The US survived the ineptitude Bush for the last 8 years, we'll survive and even prosper under an intelligent capable leader, regardless of which one it is.

So you're thinking that an inept president with terrible policy would be worse than an intelligent president with terrible policy? Can't wait to see how that one shakes out.

Their policies are nearly identical, minus healthcare. They voted together 94% of the time in the Senate. If she's evil, so's Obama for agreeing with nearly all of her votes. Unless the difference between good and evil is 6%.

I do not believe that Clinton's "evil" is a result of her voting record -- it's much more a perception of her core character -- or lackthereof.