Bill Clinton thinks Obama is going to lose

[Lostlover]

Oh yeah 100 years in Iraq, more Bush era economics, more heinous retrograde policies. Oh yeah you definitely know what you get with McCain -- total horse shit.

And 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.

If Obama is best described in pop-culture terms as American Idol, then McCain is best described in pop-culture terms as No Country for Old Men.

It's easier for some to play the fool than read an article or go to Obama.com .

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Lostlover]

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.

Watch out... you're going to be called elitist. You go to an ivy league school and think that people are idiots for not looking to find more information about candidates.

It's a vicious cycle, I know.

 

[Lostlover]

Correct, but I said "bigot" and I shouldn't have led that sentence with "race-baiting." A racist is a bigot but a bigot isn't necessarily a racist. Though the two are different they are on par. It's a bit hypocritical to criticize racism when one is making bigoted statements like the one Obama made.

And he actually did make a racist remark. He called his grandmother a "typical white person" which, in the context of his discussion about her latent racism, was in fact racist. Perhaps it wasn't as inflammatory as calling her a racist but it was close.

That quote was taken out of context. Even someone on Fox News was defending Obama for the butchering of that quote by the media.

 

[CoolBlue71]

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.

Do the Clintons own the Democratic Party? By your statement, it would imply that you think so—or want it to be so. "Ladies and gentleman: The King and Queen of the Democratic Party—[former] President Bill Clinton and [former] First Lady Hillary Clinton!" (Believers bow in their eternal, total awesomeness.)

Regarding any concerns on whether the former president will do some formal endorsement of presumptive Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama … I don't see why this is an issue here. (Of course he will!)

As for the payment of dues, I think your understanding is off. Anybody, born in the United States and having reached the age of 35, can run for the White House. This dues sentiment, as if it's to the detriment of Obama's worthiness (and McCain's advantage; ditto Hillary's, had she won her party's nomination) for the presidency, is a bunch of shit. Seriously, it is utter crap.

One final thing about "if Obama loses" … won't happen. As I've written before, look to elections of 1932 (Great Depression and Prohibition), 1952 (Korean War), 1968 (Vietnam War), 1980 (Inflation), and 1992 (Recession). All of them highlighted leading issue on economy and/or war. Unpopular on both counts, never in any of those cases did American citizens go ahead and vote the incumbent political party to the White House for an additional four years. And, believe me or not, it won't be happening in 2008.

 

[CoolBlue71]

Watch out... you're going to be called elitist. You go to an ivy league school and think that people are idiots for not looking to find more information about candidates.

It's a vicious cycle, I know.

Since elitist is considered by many a dirty word … has it ever occurred to people that a Republican, like the party's nominee, Senator John McCain, is the real elitist among this year's presidential candidates? (Just asking.)

 

[CoolBlue71]

Mmmmm, no!

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.

It's up to you whether you vote. No one has to care whether you do. And if you're going to make the point that you know more about McCain (and, sorry if this displeases you: Hillary isn't the nominee; Bill is no longer president), stating you know little of Obama is no excuse for failing to do any necessary research to inform yourself.

If you disagree with what I've stated…so be it. I don't think anyone here should coddle you and convince you for whom to vote—or to bother voting at all—in the 2008 Election.

 

[Zingerific]

One final thing about "if Obama loses" … won't happen. As I've written before, look to elections of 1932 (Great Depression and Prohibition), 1952 (Korean War), 1968 (Vietnam War), 1980 (Inflation), and 1992 (Recession). All of them highlighted leading issue on economy and/or war. Unpopular on both counts, never in any of those cases did American citizens go ahead and vote the incumbent political party to the White House for an additional four years. And, believe me or not, it won't be happening in 2008.

I would like to share your optimism, CoolBlue71, but I don't entirely. Three of the elections you highlight ('52, '68, '80) had significant foreign policy implications (Korea, Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis). In each of those three elections, not only were the Democratic incumbents hurt by the economy, but the Republicans in those years had (apparent) credibility on foreign policy.

I guess this is just my long-winded way of saying that I don't discount the possibility of an October Surprise that benefits McCain.

 

[falconfan]

Yeah well I'm sure Bill also thought Hillary was going to win the primaries... guess he's more than capable of being wrong.

 

[CoolBlue71]

I would like to share your optimism, CoolBlue71, but I don't entirely. Three of the elections you highlight ('52, '68, '80) had significant foreign policy implications (Korea, Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis). In each of those three elections, not only were the Democratic incumbents hurt by the economy, but the Republicans in those years had (apparent) credibility on foreign policy.

I guess this is just my long-winded way of saying that I don't discount the possibility of an October Surprise that benefits McCain.

Foreign policy isn't what people think about. Results are. For McCain to say that we'll remain in Iraq cripples his chances of winning in November. But even above the war, it's the economy that ranks No. 1 with voters. And Democrats are trusted more on that issue lately. On the issue of trust…

An interesting article below (from the site so many seem to trust most).…

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

 

[snapcat]

^ I agree with Nik2 babe!

I'm afraid I do, too.

Tex, your analogy that the entire Democratic party is on the brink of implosion unless Bill Clinton speaks is just wishful thinking. Of course Bill Clinton is going to endorse his wife. Any husband should, and would do the same thing.

Bill Clinton's endorsement is about as valuable as Jimmy Carter's endorsement of Obama.

Bill Clinton has pledged to do anything called upon to help elect Obama. There is no reason for him to shout that from atop the mountain, although some may still believe he parted the Red Sea.

 

[snapcat]

And just following up on a point ..... this whole "Obama is a Question Mark" is just a line perpetuated by the media. Anyone who still does not know "anything" about Obama obviously must not be capable of reading or watching television. The information is available to anyone who wants it.

I would also challenge people to recognize a manufactured talking point when they see one. I would have imagined everyone would have had good practice at such following the "swift boat" incidents.