06-02-2008, 10:00 PM
Apteji,
Okay, here's some talking points, not necessarily my endorsement pro/con anyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It will be intellectually dishonest to compare an intellectually incurious Bush (who didn't know who the president/PM of pakistan/India was when he was running for election) with Obama.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are we electing a President or Mensa scholarship champion? If so, I'll recommend Ken Jennings.
Even this no good Bush had a track record of running Texas state. Can you list one legislation or record of Obama? Maybe then we can have a intellectually honest discussion. Till then it's only <i>tu-tu-main-main</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A recent poll had put Obama in clear lead in VA. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Survey Polls taken in June for general election in Nov is not accurate. Example: Check '04 when Kerry was beating Bush in double digits around this time. Or in '00 where Gore had a lock over Bush.
In '92 around Jun, Bill Clinton was trailing Bush Sr and Perot!!
If it's a matter of scoring discussion points, here's some useless statistics (as of Monday am):
Obama has 1 point lead over McCain but <b>Clinton has 2 point lead</b> over McCain
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->IMO Clinton didn't have a lot to do with economic prosperity (from a policy perspective), for the most part Congress and President were at logger heads during most of his presidency and prosperity happened inspitre of all those.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you prefaced it with IMO. Because that opinion reflects the Bush/GOP line which stated in '00 that America prospered because of 'hard-working Americans'. Seems like suddenly Americans have become lazy or they just migrated elsewhere?
And if congress/senate is credited for economic prosperity in 90s, will Pelosi/Reid stand up and take credit for current debacle? Didn't think so.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I should say Gore got the nomination inspite of Clinton's scandals and pecadillos.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most people don't have problems with adults having consenting relationships, hence Clinton came out unscathed despite impeachment while his detractors (Starr, Livingstone, Gingrich, Hyde) are just a byline in history.
And why the heck did Kennedy, Gore etc stand by Clinton during impeachment proceedings?
If you think Gore didn't run on Clinton's prosperity years, what did he run on? His charm that's supposed to have inspired 'Love Story'? Or his record as inventor of internet?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He had distanced himself from Clinton while he was running against Bradley <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, would you have expected anything else given that Donna Brazil was his advisor? If he done otherwise, he'd have at least carried his own state.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Clintons only significant involvement was around the healthcare reform and she failed on that miserably, primarily because she displayed an inability to work with others - even with those from her party.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was an unpopular issue then and some in her party cared for their own skin than take this issue head on. So it's okay if she went with her gut and failed. 30 years in Senate, what's Kennedy got to show on healthcare? She's got more battle scars on healthcare than anyone in the history of US and it's a fact. Current crop of Obama headnodders seem to have conveniently taking GOP stance when it comes to plant blame on her while hogging credit for whatever little's been achieved by her.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also Clinton presidency was REALLY bad for the working class in america as it is the free-trade agreements by Clinton and his "China first" policy is what caused so much of job losses for blue collar workers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
New flash: Manufacturing job losses in US started back in 80s.
Question: You believe Obama can reverse it? I'm with you if you can convinence me otherwise.
Kerry and his crew went against outsourcing in '04. By the way, where are we on that?
As I stated earlier, 'hope' is not a strategy.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Clinton was sitting on wal-mart board (wal-mart believes in dumping their workers to tax-payer funded healthcare)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Barak's served board with a former weather-underground terrorist. Please try again with better example.
And if Wal-Mart's as bad as you claim, will Barak's team will ask Wal-Mart shoppers to not vote for him? I don't think so. So please try again - talking points from Kos and HuffPo have no buyers here.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->there is a rather unflattering article about Bill Clinton in Vanity Fair<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last I checked Hillary was running and not Bill. And checking the article, it's nothing new being stated or quoted.
If it's guilt by association for Hillary, Barak's got a lot more explaining to do with his Resko, Farahakhan, Aires etc ties.
And the Vanity Fair's itself clear: <i>Nor, indeed, is there any proof of post-presidential sexual indiscretions on Clintonâs part, despite a steady stream of tabloid speculation and Internet intimations that the Big Dog might be up to his old tricks.
</i>
Anyway, the article seems more of 'Vainty. and hardly 'fair'.
Bill's published retort to this rag. Even Media Matters states: <b>Vanity Fair finds no "proof" of Clinton affairs -- but spreads rumors anyway</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Or as David Letterman once joked, even when Obama is inaugurated, Hillary will still be running <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Hannity (or was it lunatic Levin) who joked that Michelle will probabily be 'really' 'really' proud of her country only the day Barak's inaugurated.
And hey, nothing wrong for Hillary to keep running. And 2012's not far, she has the luxury to keep running if she can raise money - of which I have no doubt.
Pray Barak's focused on the job after inauguration and not going into a full time campaign mode for 2012 - Bush did it and see where the nation is today.
Okay, here's some talking points, not necessarily my endorsement pro/con anyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It will be intellectually dishonest to compare an intellectually incurious Bush (who didn't know who the president/PM of pakistan/India was when he was running for election) with Obama.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are we electing a President or Mensa scholarship champion? If so, I'll recommend Ken Jennings.
Even this no good Bush had a track record of running Texas state. Can you list one legislation or record of Obama? Maybe then we can have a intellectually honest discussion. Till then it's only <i>tu-tu-main-main</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A recent poll had put Obama in clear lead in VA. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Survey Polls taken in June for general election in Nov is not accurate. Example: Check '04 when Kerry was beating Bush in double digits around this time. Or in '00 where Gore had a lock over Bush.
In '92 around Jun, Bill Clinton was trailing Bush Sr and Perot!!
If it's a matter of scoring discussion points, here's some useless statistics (as of Monday am):
Obama has 1 point lead over McCain but <b>Clinton has 2 point lead</b> over McCain
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->IMO Clinton didn't have a lot to do with economic prosperity (from a policy perspective), for the most part Congress and President were at logger heads during most of his presidency and prosperity happened inspitre of all those.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you prefaced it with IMO. Because that opinion reflects the Bush/GOP line which stated in '00 that America prospered because of 'hard-working Americans'. Seems like suddenly Americans have become lazy or they just migrated elsewhere?
And if congress/senate is credited for economic prosperity in 90s, will Pelosi/Reid stand up and take credit for current debacle? Didn't think so.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I should say Gore got the nomination inspite of Clinton's scandals and pecadillos.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most people don't have problems with adults having consenting relationships, hence Clinton came out unscathed despite impeachment while his detractors (Starr, Livingstone, Gingrich, Hyde) are just a byline in history.
And why the heck did Kennedy, Gore etc stand by Clinton during impeachment proceedings?
If you think Gore didn't run on Clinton's prosperity years, what did he run on? His charm that's supposed to have inspired 'Love Story'? Or his record as inventor of internet?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He had distanced himself from Clinton while he was running against Bradley <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, would you have expected anything else given that Donna Brazil was his advisor? If he done otherwise, he'd have at least carried his own state.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Clintons only significant involvement was around the healthcare reform and she failed on that miserably, primarily because she displayed an inability to work with others - even with those from her party.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was an unpopular issue then and some in her party cared for their own skin than take this issue head on. So it's okay if she went with her gut and failed. 30 years in Senate, what's Kennedy got to show on healthcare? She's got more battle scars on healthcare than anyone in the history of US and it's a fact. Current crop of Obama headnodders seem to have conveniently taking GOP stance when it comes to plant blame on her while hogging credit for whatever little's been achieved by her.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also Clinton presidency was REALLY bad for the working class in america as it is the free-trade agreements by Clinton and his "China first" policy is what caused so much of job losses for blue collar workers.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
New flash: Manufacturing job losses in US started back in 80s.
Question: You believe Obama can reverse it? I'm with you if you can convinence me otherwise.
Kerry and his crew went against outsourcing in '04. By the way, where are we on that?
As I stated earlier, 'hope' is not a strategy.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Clinton was sitting on wal-mart board (wal-mart believes in dumping their workers to tax-payer funded healthcare)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Barak's served board with a former weather-underground terrorist. Please try again with better example.
And if Wal-Mart's as bad as you claim, will Barak's team will ask Wal-Mart shoppers to not vote for him? I don't think so. So please try again - talking points from Kos and HuffPo have no buyers here.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->there is a rather unflattering article about Bill Clinton in Vanity Fair<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last I checked Hillary was running and not Bill. And checking the article, it's nothing new being stated or quoted.
If it's guilt by association for Hillary, Barak's got a lot more explaining to do with his Resko, Farahakhan, Aires etc ties.
And the Vanity Fair's itself clear: <i>Nor, indeed, is there any proof of post-presidential sexual indiscretions on Clintonâs part, despite a steady stream of tabloid speculation and Internet intimations that the Big Dog might be up to his old tricks.
</i>
Anyway, the article seems more of 'Vainty. and hardly 'fair'.
Bill's published retort to this rag. Even Media Matters states: <b>Vanity Fair finds no "proof" of Clinton affairs -- but spreads rumors anyway</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Or as David Letterman once joked, even when Obama is inaugurated, Hillary will still be running <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->And Hannity (or was it lunatic Levin) who joked that Michelle will probabily be 'really' 'really' proud of her country only the day Barak's inaugurated.
And hey, nothing wrong for Hillary to keep running. And 2012's not far, she has the luxury to keep running if she can raise money - of which I have no doubt.
Pray Barak's focused on the job after inauguration and not going into a full time campaign mode for 2012 - Bush did it and see where the nation is today.