Clinton to Richardson: 'Barack Obama Can't Win' - Page 15

ERD50 · 05-25-2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

At a minimum then, he is embracing the media statements.

Embracing? You keep trying to 'spin' this. Maybe, he is just responding to the stuff that is out there.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

-ERD50

Danny · 05-25-2008, 11:09 AM

There's quite a bit of artful use of language to convey hidden messages - Clintons are quite cleaver (whoops that's clever)...Bush is not as...

youbet · 05-25-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

I'd sure like to see your evidence that Obama is personally directing any of the media and blogosphere uproar. I seriously doubt it.

I just watched the tape of Hillary's comments and then read Barack's personal response. His interpretation is troublesome. Imagine him dealing with international affairs and making those kinds of stretchy interpretations.....

I'm not worried about what Hillary said. She's not likely to wind up in office. But Barack is. And I'm trying to get a read on what makes him tick. This was a negative dot on the chart.

youbet · 05-25-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50

Embracing? You keep trying to 'spin' this. Maybe, he is just responding to the stuff that is out there.

Look at the tape of her remarks. Then read his personal response. (Maybe there is a tape of his remarks but I can't find it.) He forgives her for her attack on him....... I don't get it.

youbet · 05-25-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50

I get the impression that youbet is just baiting some of the posters here.

He keeps insisting things that really can't be known - why be so insistent unless it is just to get a reaction?

I really think that type of personal attack is uncalled for. I'm a little surprised you would do that based on reading zillions of your posts. You, like Gumby, have sided with Barak and your vote is in his pocket. I'm still undecided. Barack's interpretation of Hillary's remarks and his interpretation of GWB's remarks ref Israel are troublesome to me as they are representative of a kind of politics I'd hoped he was free of. You don't have to agree and I don't expect you to as you indicated in earlier threads your mind is already made up. Ditto with Gumby. He has already stated in this thread that Barack is his choice and therefore I assume everything Gumby sees and says is from the viewpoint of a loyal fan.

As far as me insisting things that can't be known...... I'm just listening to what she said and reading his response and wondering what's going on in his mind that he would make that interpretation.

**Gumby** · 05-25-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

I really think that type of personal attack is uncalled for. I'm a little surprised you would do that based on reading zillions of your posts. You, like Gumby, have sided with Barak and your vote is in his pocket. I'm still undecided. Barack's interpretation of Hillary's remarks and his interpretation of GWB's remarks ref Israel are troublesome to me as they are representative of a kind of politics I'd hoped he was free of. You don't have to agree and I don't expect you to as you indicated in earlier threads your mind is already made up. Ditto with Gumby. He has already stated in this thread that Barack is his choice and therefore I assume everything Gumby sees and says is from the viewpoint of a loyal fan.

As far as me insisting things that can't be known...... I'm just listening to what she said and reading his response and wondering what's going on in his mind that he would make that interpretation.

Your posts reveal you to be anything but an impartial observer. In fact, your most recent posts verge on trolldom.

youbet · 05-25-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby

Your posts reveal you to be anything but an impartial observer. In fact, your most recent posts verge on trolldom.

Spoken like a loyal fan. And, BTW, a tip of the hat for coming right out and identifying yourself as a Barack man as it helps me understand your remarks. I understand your frustration when someone hasn't yet signed the loyalty oath to your team but I'm having a lot of trouble developing an unwavering commitment to any of the candidates.

TromboneAl · 05-25-2008, 02:32 PM

After Clinton's initial remarks to the newspaper were reported, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying the comment "was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."

But Obama himself later said, "I don't think that Senator Clinton intended anything by it," and that "we should put it behind us."

**Gumby** · 05-25-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

Spoken like a loyal fan. And, BTW, a tip of the hat for coming right out and identifying yourself as a Barack man as it helps me understand your remarks. I understand your frustration when someone hasn't yet signed the loyalty oath to your team but I'm having a lot of trouble developing an unwavering commitment to any of the candidates.

I don't care who you support, so long as you can intelligently discuss the issues. So far, you haven't demonstrated that ability.

If you just want to regurgitate Rush's latest screed, there are other, more appropriate places to do it.

BoutDone · 05-25-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby

If you don't believe those remarks were directed at Obama, you just haven't been paying attention.

And yes, when you slander my candidate, you can expect to be called on it.

When did Obama say he was an appeaser? If he didn't, then what has he got to worry about.

All Obama has to do, like he did with Rev. Wrong, it dissavow appeasement. Tell the American people how tough he will be against our enemies - especially those who on a daily basis say they want to destroy us.

If the shoe fits, wear it!

**Gumby** · 05-25-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoutDone

When did Obama say he was an appeaser? If he didn't, then what has he got to worry about.

All Obama has to do, like he did with Rev. Wrong, it dissavow appeasement. Tell the American people how tough he will be against our enemies - especially those who on a daily basis say they want to destroy us.

If the shoe fits, wear it!

Don't be disingenuous. Anyone with a pulse knows that the Republicans have been pounding Obama as an appeaser for statements he made earlier in the campaign about meeting without pre-conditions.

As I mentioned to youbet, if you want to have an intelligent debate about the issues, I can do that. If you're just here to troll, go somewhere else.

youbet · 05-25-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby

I don't care who you support, so long as you can intelligently discuss the issues. So far, you haven't demonstrated that ability.

If you just want to regurgitate Rush's latest screed, there are other, more appropriate places to do it.

Temper temper........

Wags · 05-25-2008, 04:32 PM

How is talking to our enemies ap·pease·ment?

How is one going to come to some type of understanding and find a chance for peace if we do not talk to our so called enemies.

Is it only called ap·pease·ment if Mr. Obama suggests that he will talk to our enemies, but not viewed as ap·pease·ment when Mr. Nixon and Mr. Reagan (both republicans) talked to our enemies?

Were Mr. Reagan and Mr. Nixon wrong for having talked to the Soviet Union and China?

God Bless Us All

clifp · 05-25-2008, 05:16 PM

Personally, I am amazed and sadden but the hyper sensitivity shown by all the candidates. Compared to the nasty remarks made past all of the candidates have been on their best behavior. I remember lots of mean stuff said in the last 20 years about various Presidential candidate and have read various accounts of the vicious ad-hominem insults made in the 200 years before that. (Go back and read what they said about Lincoln in every election).

I don't see the need to for the constant apologies that seem be issued every week. Hillary said nothing wrong, there was a vigorous campaign in June and while Bobby was winning the issue was still somewhat in doubt. I am not entirely sure that Hillary didn't sell her soul to the devil early in her career, but even I don't think there was some veiled assassination suggestion.

The Presidency is a really tough and important job, if you don't have skin as thick as rhino, you shouldn't be running. I am reasonably sure both Hillary and McCain qualify, and I suspect Barrack is no thin skinned creature either. However, for some reason their campaigns are looking for any excuse to be victimized probably cause the media loves victims.

Of all the "scandals" I think the only two that are even vaguely important are: Hillary's lying about her experience in Bosnia, because it reflects on her truthfulness and Rev. Wright because it reflects on Obama's judgement. The rest are simply media inventions, with full cooperation by various campaigns.

Notmuchlonger · 05-25-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

Temper temper........

Ya you might find a bit of that here

clifp · 05-25-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags

How is talking to our enemies ap·pease·ment?

How is one going to come to some type of understanding and find a chance for peace if we do not talk to our so called enemies.

Is it only called ap·pease·ment if Mr. Obama suggests that he will talk to our enemies, but not viewed as ap·pease·ment when Mr. Nixon and Mr. Reagan (both republicans) talked to our enemies?

Were Mr. Reagan and Mr. Nixon wrong for having talked to the Soviet Union and China?

God Bless Us All

There is nothing wrong with talking with ones enemies.
Reagan had a right "trust but verify". It is pointless at best and very dangerous at worse to talk with your enemies if you have no reason to believe that they will honor any agreement you reach. In that respect discussions with Iran and North Korea, are the same as Chamberlain having negotiations with Hitler's Germany. Any concessions we make are going to be one way only. Furthermore we will enhance their prestige and put is horrible position if we promise to do A and they promise to do B. If they don't do B, what do we do?

Without a change in leadership in Iran and North Korea nothing they agree to is worth the paper it is printed on.
Barrack is naive if he doesn't understand this.

Your analogy is flawed for a couple of reasons. First there was much evidence to suggest that Gorbachev was different type of Soviet leader, when Reagan agreed to meet and negotiate with him. History showed this assessment to be correct.

In the case of China, it appeared that China also was going through a leadership revolution Mao was being replaced by Zhou En-Lai. In fact the revolution in Chinese politics wouldn't come for another 25 years and it was economic revolution. Secondly, and far more importantly Nixon need to play Russia and China against each other. I suspect that if Russia and China were largely independent of each other, Nixon wouldn't have bother to meet with the China.

Finally, it is mistake to equate China and Russia, with states like Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. China and Russia were/are legitimate 2nd tier super powers. At best Iran and North Korea are regional powers and potential sources of nuclear proliferation, while Cuba is just a regional trouble maker.

As I (as well as people who know a hell of a lot more than I do) have said for a decade, all in options stink with respect to Iran and North Korea. However, other than dropping nuclear bombs on each other I can't think of a worse thing to do than open up presidential negotiations with them.

BoutDone · 05-26-2008, 10:46 AM

Perhaps Bush was talking about Mr. Appeaser himself. After all, Carter was just in the mideast talking to Hamas and bashing Israel. Why shouldn't the President state the US position so the Israelis, and other friendly countries in the region, do not get mixed signals.

"The former US president Jimmy Carter has called for his country to resume trade relations with Iran, which he described as a "rational" nation. Speaking at the Hay Festival yesterday, Mr Carter also suggested the US should provide nuclear power technology and fuel to Iran as a show of goodwill.

"What happens if, in three years time, Iran has a nuclear weapon," Mr Carter asked. "I'm not sure that is going to happen, but if it does, what do we do? They are rational people like all of us in this room. Do they want to commit suicide? I would guess not. So what we have to do is talk with them now and say to them we want to be their friends. The United States must let Iran know that we want to give them fuel and everything they need for a non-military nuclear programme. Twenty-five years ago we cut off trading with Iran. We've got to resume trading to show Iran we are friends."

Does Obama want to help Iran with their nuclear program? Does he want Iran to be our friends? If not, he should state so and emphatically disavow Carters' remarks.

Maybe Obama also thinks Iran should be our friend?

Ahmadinejad spoke of his belief in the return of the Twelfth Imam. One of the differences between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam is that the latter, who dominate Iran and form the majority in Iraq, believe that Allah shielded or hid the Twelfth until the end of time. Shi’ites expect the Twelfth Imam, which Jews and Christians would recognize as a messianic figure, to return to save the world when it had descended into chaos.

While Ahmadinejad has not drawn an explicit connection between his desire to see Israel wiped off the map and an activist belief in the Twelfth Imam’s return, the dots are there to be connected once one understands the tyrannical "logic" behind someone who, perhaps viewing himself as a self-proclaimed deputy for the Twelfth Imam, might wish to effect Mahdi’s return. The deputy would promote Iran’s nuclear capabilities for they are key to effecting chaos in the world.

Yea, we need to show them they are our friends - right!

Wags · 05-26-2008, 03:36 PM

Hey, every country on this globe has individuals who use religion as a justification for civil rights abuses, torture, violence and starting wars.

Just look at Mr. Bush's "God told me to invade Iraq" as a justification for attacking and invading Iraq.

Bush: God told me to invade Iraq - Americas, World - The Independent

I do not think that talking to one's enemies can be considered appeasement.

U.S adminstrations have not talked to Cuba for almost 50 years and the U.S has imposed an embargo on them - Where has that gotten us?

Fidel outlasted at least 6 Presidents as the MAN and now his brother Raul has taken over the throne.

God Bless Us All

BoutDone · 05-26-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags

Hey, every country on this globe has individuals who use religion as a justification for civil rights abuses, torture, violence and starting wars.

Just look at Mr. Bush's

05-25-2008, 02:32 PM	#288
TromboneAl Thinks s/he gets paid by the post Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,332	After Clinton's initial remarks to the newspaper were reported, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying the comment "was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign." But Obama himself later said, "I don't think that Senator Clinton intended anything by it," and that "we should put it behind us." __________________ - Al -- Always serious, never joking. No, wait. Never serious... Always... I forget.

05-25-2008, 04:32 PM	#293
Wags Full time employment: Posting here. Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 961	How is talking to our enemies ap·pease·ment? How is one going to come to some type of understanding and find a chance for peace if we do not talk to our so called enemies. Is it only called ap·pease·ment if Mr. Obama suggests that he will talk to our enemies, but not viewed as ap·pease·ment when Mr. Nixon and Mr. Reagan (both republicans) talked to our enemies? Were Mr. Reagan and Mr. Nixon wrong for having talked to the Soviet Union and China? God Bless Us All __________________ *War is a poor chisel to carve out tomorrow. -* *Martin Luther King Jr.* Seek peace, and pursue it. - Psalms 34:14 Be kind to unkind people - they need it the most - by Ashleigh Brilliant. Last edited by Wags; 05-25-2008 at 04:42 PM..

05-26-2008, 03:36 PM	#298
Wags Full time employment: Posting here. Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 961	Hey, every country on this globe has individuals who use religion as a justification for civil rights abuses, torture, violence and starting wars. Just look at Mr. Bush's "*God told me to invade Iraq"* as a justification for attacking and invading Iraq. Bush: God told me to invade Iraq - Americas, World - The Independent I do not think that talking to one's enemies can be considered appeasement. U.S adminstrations have not talked to Cuba for almost 50 years and the U.S has imposed an embargo on them - Where has that gotten us? Fidel outlasted at least 6 Presidents as the MAN and now his brother Raul has taken over the throne. God Bless Us All __________________ *War is a poor chisel to carve out tomorrow. -* *Martin Luther King Jr.* Seek peace, and pursue it. - Psalms 34:14 Be kind to unkind people - they need it the most - by Ashleigh Brilliant.

05-25-2008, 11:09 AM	#282
Danny Thinks s/he gets paid by the post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 2,189	There's quite a bit of artful use of language to convey hidden messages - Clintons are quite cleaver (whoops that's clever)...Bush is not as...

05-25-2008, 05:16 PM	#294
clifp Thinks s/he gets paid by the post Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,338	Personally, I am amazed and sadden but the hyper sensitivity shown by all the candidates. Compared to the nasty remarks made past all of the candidates have been on their best behavior. I remember lots of mean stuff said in the last 20 years about various Presidential candidate and have read various accounts of the vicious ad-hominem insults made in the 200 years before that. (Go back and read what they said about Lincoln in every election). I don't see the need to for the constant apologies that seem be issued every week. Hillary said nothing wrong, there was a vigorous campaign in June and while Bobby was winning the issue was still somewhat in doubt. I am not entirely sure that Hillary didn't sell her soul to the devil early in her career, but even I don't think there was some veiled assassination suggestion. The Presidency is a really tough and important job, if you don't have skin as thick as rhino, you shouldn't be running. I am reasonably sure both Hillary and McCain qualify, and I suspect Barrack is no thin skinned creature either. However, for some reason their campaigns are looking for any excuse to be victimized probably cause the media loves victims. Of all the "scandals" I think the only two that are even vaguely important are: Hillary's lying about her experience in Bosnia, because it reflects on her truthfulness and Rev. Wright because it reflects on Obama's judgement. The rest are simply media inventions, with full cooperation by various campaigns.

05-26-2008, 10:46 AM	#297
BoutDone Recycles dryer sheets Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 159	Perhaps Bush was talking about Mr. Appeaser himself. After all, Carter was just in the mideast talking to Hamas and bashing Israel. Why shouldn't the President state the US position so the Israelis, and other friendly countries in the region, do not get mixed signals. "The former US president Jimmy Carter has called for his country to resume trade relations with Iran, which he described as a "rational" nation. Speaking at the Hay Festival yesterday, Mr Carter also suggested the US should provide nuclear power technology and fuel to Iran as a show of goodwill. "What happens if, in three years time, Iran has a nuclear weapon," Mr Carter asked. "I'm not sure that is going to happen, but if it does, what do we do? They are rational people like all of us in this room. Do they want to commit suicide? I would guess not. So what we have to do is talk with them now and say to them we want to be their friends. The United States must let Iran know that we want to give them fuel and everything they need for a non-military nuclear programme. Twenty-five years ago we cut off trading with Iran. We've got to resume trading to show Iran we are friends." Does Obama want to help Iran with their nuclear program? Does he want Iran to be our friends? If not, he should state so and emphatically disavow Carters' remarks. Maybe Obama also thinks Iran should be our friend? Ahmadinejad spoke of his belief in the return of the Twelfth Imam. One of the differences between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam is that the latter, who dominate Iran and form the majority in Iraq, believe that Allah shielded or hid the Twelfth until the end of time. Shi’ites expect the Twelfth Imam, which Jews and Christians would recognize as a messianic figure, to return to save the world when it had descended into chaos. While Ahmadinejad has not drawn an explicit connection between his desire to see Israel wiped off the map and an activist belief in the Twelfth Imam’s return, the dots are there to be connected once one understands the tyrannical "logic" behind someone who, perhaps viewing himself as a self-proclaimed deputy for the Twelfth Imam, might wish to effect Mahdi’s return. The deputy would promote Iran’s nuclear capabilities for they are key to effecting chaos in the world. Yea, we need to show them they are our friends - right!