Bill Clinton thinks Obama is going to lose

[Lostlover]

There is no one more gullible than Obama supporters. Give me a break. The man has yet to server a single term in the Senate. He has zero going for him other than good looks, a silver tongue, and a platform of change that no one seems to know any details on. As for race-baiting, he's the one calling rural Americans a bunch of religious, gun-toting bigots and I'm frankly scared of this guy. No big fan of McCain but with McCain you know what you're getting. Obama is a big question mark. But hey, he's for change so who cares. He's the American Idol candidate.

Rural Americans like his mother and grandparents huh?

There are no blacks in rural America either? I could have sworn in Texas near the Louisiana border I saw tons of blacks in those rural towns.

Gullible Obama supporters... some are. But look at the statistics of who the educated people are voting for... look at the statistics of who people distrust the most in the race when Hillary was in.

All those statistics say something not so good about Hillary.

 

[Lostlover]

And that's the chance people are willing to take as opposed to someone they view as a liar, lying about her experience and her duties as First Lady.

Someone who is corrupt, which has been documented in her questionable fundraising scandals (didn't happen just once) and the Whitewater Scandal.

That's why I was hoping at the end of the campaign that Obama would call her a bitch or a cunt and THEN, only THEN would she have something to bitch and moan about on Obama.

Ferraro and Hillary were foaming at the mouth trying to hate Obama for something. Calling either one of them out of their names would have made his supporters happy and put them in their places (away and out of politics entirely).

She was picking a fight that wasn't there... remember this fabricated "pissed" off Hillary... from a fucking flier... that was TRUTHFUL. That's all it took to set her off?

No wonder Bill cheated. I bet you she screamed bloody murder if the toilet seat was left up at their home.

 

[kneelin]

That's why I was hoping at the end of the campaign that Obama would call her a bitch or a cunt and THEN, only THEN would she have something to bitch and moan about on Obama.
. . .

Very profound . . . I wish he had said it too because it would have been the end of him . . . and your fanaticism.

 

[Zingerific]

Insisting that there's some mal-intent behind not being at a birthday party for another black leader is an example of the way his race is working against him.

Oh, for heaven's sake, marleyisalegend, I wasn't criticizing Obama for not going to a birthday party; I wasn't insisting on "mal-intent" or anything of the sort. Frankly, I was thinking more of his going to the party of a respected world leader as a way to enhance his credibility on the world stage.

I was also wondering what would have happened had Obama went to the party; I'd wager that Bill Clinton would have suddenly found another vitally important event to go to.

 

[Lostlover]

Ummm. Are you making my point for me?

No, it wasn't racist.

That's my point.


Unless Obama is making racist remarks towards his mother and grandparents (who actually raised him).


And whites areN'T the only ones "rural".

 

[spearsfan20]

snapcat, we totally disagree!

I view Clinton's problem as being too conspicuous. During the campaign, he said some impolitic things and became a lightning rod of criticism, drawing attention away from the candidate. Now, he is conspicuous in his absence. His perfunctory letter of "endorsement" is a textbook example of "damning with faint praise."

Anyway, why wasn't Obama at Mandela's birthday party? That would have been a good move -- I think anything that shows Obama acting on the world stage is a plus for him.

I heard on CNN that Obama is taking a short campaign break to spend time with his daughters. I think that's very sweet of him as a dad in politics to do something like that.

 

[Zingerific]

The idea of him being a "question mark" is something that was manufactured by the media.

Very true. It really is amazing how people will repeat the party line yet not bother with a simple Google search. Obama's record is neither mysterious nor hard to find.

Also amazing is how the same people who subscribe to the "question mark" nonsense also buy into "the most liberal senator" canard.

 

[texpatriot]

Where's Bill? He could be at Sea World, or vacationing in San Tropez, or sleeping in church. His physical absence doesn't=lack of support. Unless he's gone completely cenial or completely changed his views on everything, he'd recognize that Obama would be more of a likeness of his views, especially when the other option is Mccain. Or may he doesn't care and he just wants to lounge around the crib in his drawers.

Senator Obama is a marsh-mellow-peep:

when it comes to politics.

And before anyone jumps my ass with any of their PC racist bullshit, hear me out!

Bill and Hillary Clinton have paid their dues in the National Political process, and Bill Clinton WAS the leader of the Democratic Party during his 8 years as POTUS.

His voice on this issue is VERY important to me as a Democrat.

You can heap on all of the accolades upon Senator Barack Obama that you want; he's the RFK of our time, the first black man on a party ticket, he's our saviour of all that's wrong in America and 8 years of Bush!

But without President Bill Clinton, and with all due respect to Hillary, the party won't be united without him.

If Obama loses in November I think that it will be because of a calculated move on Bill Clinton's part; considering McCain's age, there's no way that he can run for a second term. That means that who ever he pics as his VP will be the one that Hillary or Barack will be running against in 2012.

Bill Clinton was the 42nd POTUS of the United States, and any other pundits, challangers, or up and coming hopefulls are nothing more than ankle biters in this process as far as he's concerned.

We can wait another four years, because their ain't much that anyone can do to immediately fix the mess that we're in.

There's a part of me that's willing to not vote and get what we get, than to vote for an unknown variable, and to prevent what we could get.

 

[texpatriot]

That makes absolutely no sense.

Why?

Because it's not a question in an exit poll?

 

[texpatriot]

^ Well, yeah, but only if you're living the NOW!

 

[texpatriot]

Could this be coined as Passive Aggressive Voting? Making a choice by not making a choice?

Nope.

Who would seriously miss my vote?

 

[texpatriot]

The entire group. The idea of voting is that if you perpetuate the interests of your community, you represent a portion of that community. By failing to vote (in large numbers) the community is misrepresented. Failing to vote without an exceptionally sound reason disrespects the community that needs your help being recognized, and is an example of misinterpreting the purpose of an election.

You wouldn't want America to strike out and vote Mccain into the office would you?

Is that a sports metaphor?

 

[texpatriot]

Regardless, the rest of his post pwned you.

That reminds me, what does pwned mean?

And for that matter IIRC, and FWIW?

There's this class at the local community center that teaches "Engrish" for txt msging, and I've been thinking about taking it so that I don't accidently get pwned.

 

[texpatriot]

It most certainly wasn't. America's hanging on by one thread and while I can't attest Obama's character, he's certainly the lesser of two evils at this point. Striking out doesn't mean we get to hit the showers, it means one more hit and we're going to see poverty rise to unsupportable heights=rise in criminal activity=more prisoners=etc..etc.. ipso facto the end of the world if Mccain wins. Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot. He won't.

Marry me!

 

[texpatriot]

No. Because -- and listen very closely now -- it. makes. no. sense.

And you're perpetuating that tired idea that we don't know what we're getting with Obama which is blatantly untrue and something I've already addressed in this thread but I will repeat: anyone who has read any interview or article on Obama knows what he stands for. The idea of him being a "question mark" is something that was manufactured by the media. It's not true at all. I'm not a fan of a lot of what Obama stands for, but I DO KNOW what he stands for. And it's not that different from most Democrats. But go ahead, keep parroting the myth of the Right and the mainstream media. It's easier than actually listening to the man speak or reading an article I guess.

NOW , you've been pwned.

Mmmmm, no!

I don't think so.

It goes back to the marshmallow-peep metaphor that I made earlier in this thread.

Lots of great speeches, lots of charm and charisma, an ability to raise money, and motivate the youth in our country, to get out the vote from people who don't, didn't or would usually wouldn't vote, lots of sweet packaging from handlers, and pollsters, and people hired to help him get his "message" across, but not a lot of substance, politically, below the surface.

Compared to who he ran against, call it baggage or experience, there's not a lot there on his part.

I know more about Senators McCain and Clinton that I know about Obama.

At some point he's going to have to LEAD, and to GOVERN, and so far he hasn't done that.

At least not from my perspective.

 

[texpatriot]

Then you need to actually read some interviews and articles on him, or his books, or listen to more of his speeches, instead of just trusting what the TV tells you because that line? Straight from the mainstream media and especially FOX News.

Actually the first book that Barack Obama wrote is on my reading list.

I haven't gotten to it yet.

I don't watch FOX Snooze, or any other programs related to their agenda.

That must really give you reason to lose hope on those who you think you can categorically marginalize.

Last I heard they'd already pulled the rug out from under our feet.

Uh, that rug would have needed to be there BEFORE anyone had a chance to pull it out. Dontcha think?

 

[texpatriot]

It was, wasn't it? Aren't the marriages performed during the legal period valid?

I'm sorry marley!

It was that weekend of drunken debauchery that you and I shared in Las Vegas wasn't it?

I curse Jose Cuervo!

Not really since I included "mainstream media" in there and your initial quote couldn't possibly be made by anyone who had actually listened to enough of the man's speeches or read any interview/article on him.

Unless you were pretending to be Helen Keller while doing those things.

See, that shows presumption on your part.

Just because you're following Barack Obama's every move, and making yourself informed about who the man is, doesn't mean that former Hillary Clinton supporters, or the rank and file Democrats who make things happen from the State Level all the way up the the DNC are paying any attention.

But I guess that we're all fucking idiots and should exert ourselves more.

It's Barack Obama's election to lose!

Not win.

History points to the fact that everything is in the Democrats favor to win this election in November.

I'm afraid that Obama WILL lose this election because, when it comes to politics 2008, he won't be able to find his way out of a paper bag with a flash-light and map!

The GOP and the Karl Rove/Bush Republican Swift Boaters will have pwned Obama's ass before he or his election team will have know what hit them.

And then it will be TOO late.

 

[texpatriot]

Then they're idiots.

If I can find out where he stands on issues pretty easily WITHOUT spending that much time (I'm actually not fond of the man, did you not get that?) "following his every move" as you incorrectly stated (I don't have to, this stuff is out there for anyone who chooses to read/hear it rather than just parroting the myth of the mainstream media) -- but yeah, if I can find this stuff pretty easily, then the people you mentioned should be able to since it's...you know..kind of THEIR BUSINESS.

And once they've gotten up off of their fat, lazy, idiotic asses, they're supposed to do WHAT with that information?

I mean they've already put heart and soul into a candidate who didn't come anywhere close to losing by a landslide.

It was never about voting for the "lessor of two evils," but rather for a candidate that they felt could best lead us out of the morass that we're in now.

I personally think that Bill Clinton could motivate a lot of those voters, but his voice has been silent since his wife conceded to Obama.

And, if you don't mind my asking you a personal question, since you're not "fond of the man," why do you care?

 

[CoolBlue71]

Having appeared and contributed at a number of sites, I have since learned that it's fucking pointless to explain my support of voting for "lack of experience" Senator Barack Obama in November. Especially to any shit-for-brains—who are really just exposing their own partisan politics—who refuse to recognize 71-/72-year-old "Maverick" Senator John McCain's repositioning (read: flip-flopping) on the issues.

Obama will be winning in November. Look to elections of 1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, and 1992. All those elections boasted top issue on devastating economy and/or unpopular war—and, in each case, this country did not vote to elect to the White House the incumbent political party.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Question for marleyisalegend…

marleyisalegend,

Polls have shown that your home state, North Carolina, is really in play. It hasn't voted for the Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Do you believe your state can—or will—be swayed to move from the GOP's to the Dems' win column in November?