Mr. "Change" (same as all politicians!)

[LeoTheLion]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

Chicago politics and Obama is just like the rest of them and will be the same as all others - no change.

[Starbuck]

Oh shoot...I thought you were talking about this ad (https://pol.moveon.org/donate/challengevideo.html?rc=homepage), which I saw for the first time this morning. It's pretty funny.

But yah, I'm not real surprised that Obama plays dirty...every politician does.

[Kensey]

Chicago politics and Obama is just like the rest of them and will be the same as all others - no change.

But moving someplace just to represent it in Congress isn't underhanded at all, right? :)

I remember how open they were about why they were moving to NY -- "yep, gonna run for Moynihan's spot."

[LeoTheLion]

Obama is running on the fact that he isn't the SAME OLE THING - but he is. You missed my point Kensey.

[Kensey]

Obama is running on the fact that he isn't the SAME OLE THING - but he is. You missed my point Kensey.

Hillary's running partly on the fact that she's "one of us" (her campaign reminds me of Bill's statement that he felt my pain), but she's not even one of the people she represents in Congress. Different claim, same hypocrisy?

[LeoTheLion]

NO arguing that she is a politician - but she ISN'T saying she isn't one. Again, don't deflect my point. You made another one, I admit you have an a new argument, but you were not speaking to mine, only trying to start an argument.

I don't have time for that - going to fight for her votes in DC tomorrow. Busy night for me and an early morning.

[Kensey]

NO arguing that she is a politician - but she ISN'T saying she isn't one. Again, don't deflect my point. You made another one, I admit you have an a new argument, but you were not speaking to mine, only trying to start an argument.

I'm not trying to start an argument per se, but I am noting that if we're going to talk about candidates saying one thing and doing another, Hillary has a sizable helping on her plate as well.

It's also worth noting that Obama's Chicago maneuver was 12 years ago; only this year Hillary promised not to campaign or participate in Michigan or Florida, and broke that promise, most egregiously by leaving her name on the MI ballot while all other candidates removed theirs. If she wins the nomination by getting Michigan seated at the convention, she will have won by taking advantage of a violation of the rules, whereas Obama won in 1996 by enforcing the rules. He enforced them then, and he wants to enforce them now. That's not hypocrisy at all -- it's respect for the rules, and the rule of law rather than of personality.

[Nanuk]

That's not hypocrisy at all -- it's respect for the rules, and the rule of law rather than of personality.

I gotta agree with Kensey here. Words mean things, and rules, like laws, can be changed or adhered to, but they cannot just be disregarded or broken and when they are, the violators cannot be allowed to retain a benefit from doing so. Michigan and Florida took themselves out of the contest by breaching the rules. They were sanctioned and all the candidates agreed not to campaign there, including Hillary. Her subsequent actions shine a light on her total lack of integrity in that she has, once again, promised one thing then done another and now tries to redefine the whole issue in such a way that she hopes to be allowed to get away with it and profit by doing so.

If by some chance that this maneuver allows her to steal the nomination from Obama, it will totally undercut any claim of legitimacy that she might have as the actual candidate. Even if--God forbid--she became President, she'd still carry that taint. And is that really how her few remaining backers want to win? "Yes, a woman can be elected President, but only if she cheats."

[LeoTheLion]

She didn't "cheat" on MI or FL. HE took his name off, put it on, then took it off again. Not her fault he decided that MI didn't matter to him.

Also, just because that incident happened 12 years ago, doesn't mean that he is all high and mighty now. He has pulled many slimy things over this election, just as any politician would, so he really needs to just admit he IS like all the others, including Hillary. He's not an angel is my point, get it?

Also, many examples you two have made about Hillary had an over 8-10 year limit on them - so do those not count either? Curious what your statute of limitations is on wrong-doings of politicians. Or is it okay to bring up old S about Hillary, just not Obama. Hmm...

I'm seriously not surprised that you two, again, have nothing new to say about Hillary. But thanks for trying.

[Kensey]

She didn't "cheat" on MI or FL. HE took his name off, put it on, then took it off again. Not her fault he decided that MI didn't matter to him.

I'm not able to find any news about him changing his mind and individually trying to put his name back. The closest I find is the state-level Democrats trying to get special legislation passed to restore the names of all Democratic candidates to the ballot, since three declined to remove themselves.


Also, just because that incident happened 12 years ago, doesn't mean that he is all high and mighty now. He has pulled many slimy things over this election...Such as...?


Also, many examples you two have made about Hillary had an over 8-10 year limit on them - so do those not count either? Curious what your statute of limitations is on wrong-doings of politicians. Or is it okay to bring up old S about Hillary, just not Obama. Hmm...I'm just trying to compare apples to apples. If we're going to talk about ballot maneuvers, we're comparing Obama's enforcement of the rules 12 years ago in a state contest, to Hillary's flouting of the rules six months ago in a national contest.

I don't see how Obama playing hardball within the rules of the law and of the party is anything particularly bad -- if the other candidates in the Chicago contest had paid attention to the quality of their petition signatures, and/or contested Obama's, things might have turned out differently. They didn't, too bad for them. If those Chicago candidates couldn't be bothered to cross their t's and dot their i's so that their signatures were uncontestable, then I have little sympathy for them now. If it were an onerous process they were shut out of, I might feel differently, but apparently all you had to do was show up on the right day. One candidate was the incumbent, so she particularly has no excuses.

It's also handy that since no records exist any longer, we don't know what his challenges were. They could very well have been important things like "this voter's address isn't in the right district". We'll never know now, all we have to go on is the fact of the challenges themselves and the anti-Obama spin.


I'm seriously not surprised that you two, again, have nothing new to say about Hillary. But thanks for trying.Again? I don't recall saying much, if anything, about her before this thread. I'll admit I don't particularly care for her because of her deep involvement in the Clinton Administration, which gave us idiocy like the Scary-Looking-Guns Not-Really-a-Ban and Don't-Tell-We'll-Kick-You-Out-Anyway.

[Nanuk]

For the record, I don't like Hillary only slightly more than I don't like Obama and/or McCain. All of them espouse policies that will hurt this country more that they'll help it, with Obama and Hillary's policies being worse than McCain's unacceptable agenda. The only difference between Hillary and Obama is her total lack of scruples and ethics during the time that her Husband was President and Governor of Arkansas. I think that she's dishonest and crooked to the core and that she'll do anything or hurt anyone if she thinks that it'll lead to her becoming President. That kind of lust for power is unsettling to say the least so I oppose her more than the other two but you can be assured that my condemnation of her is based solely on who she is, what she's done and what might happen if she gets in office. It has nothing to do with me wanting to tear her down in order to help someone else win.

[JiveTurkey]

It has nothing to do with me wanting to tear her down in order to help someone else win.
But you will admit that is indeed why some people pretend to run for office? :evil:

[Nanuk]

But you will admit that is indeed why some people pretend to run for office? :evil:

Undoubtedly. Spoiler candidates are becoming more and more common and it's an ugly trend that only promises to get worse.

[KemCam2]

Way to bring it "full circle!" :D

[derricksonb]

Chicago politics and Obama is just like the rest of them and will be the same as all others - no change.

You really need to resist the urge to drink the Kool-Aid at those Hillary rallys......

And it's not that I'm for Obama and against Hillary. Honestly, I hope they both lose for the sake of our nation, even though the alternative isn't much better, but McCain to me is the lesser of three evils and isn't going to reach as far into my pocket to prop up a bunch of nonproducers with healthcare bennies that they would have if they'd get a freaking job....... Also, McCain has stated repeatedly that he will never "End This War." Job security for DoD. YEAH!!!!!!!


BTW- Looks like Hillary won Puerto Rico yesterday.

Question- If we allow PR (as a district/territory) to vote does that also mean that Guam and the other territories get to vote?

[Nanuk]

Question- If we allow PR (as a district/territory) to vote does that also mean that Guam and the other territories get to vote?


They do. Guam went for Obama.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/03/politics/main4068775.shtml?source=mostpop_story

[Chutney Daftcraft]

He's not an angel is my point, get it?


Angels come in many colors, and black is never one of them.

The only time angels come in black is when they work for... Could it be? SATAN?!?.