Obama "Establishment" Candidate?

[Johan]

This falls under the "WTF" category of political spins. Hillary Clinton and her campaign have begun a concerted effort to pin the label of "establishment candidate" on Obama...a candidate I find myself warming up to with each passing day. I first heard this today on NPR, and decided to check it out further.

USA Today. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-15-bill-clinton-nevada_N.htm)

Same story linked at Huffington. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/16/bill-clinton-paints-obama_n_81779.html)

The former president trumpeted New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's accomplishments while painting Obama as the "establishment" candidate who would bring only the "feeling of change."

TPM Election Central. (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_pollster_mark_penn_oba.php)

Mark Penn repeatedly said Obama was becoming an "establishment candidate" -- a rather strained effort to use Obama's high-profile endorsements to weaken his insurgent appeal.

Wall Street Journal. (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/06/to-compete-with-obama-clinton-loans-campaign-5-million/)

today, Clinton advisers acknowledge that the candidate is behind in the fund-raising battle and tried to play that as an advantage, painting Obama as a well-funded establishment candidate and Clinton as the insurgent.

Hillary herself said it as well. It's the new mantra for their campaign; Barack Obama is the "establishment candidate." Does anybody really take that seriously at all? For the love of Pete already...

The Carpetbagger Report (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14491.html)

Sure, Obama has picked up some high-profile congressional endorsements, but the truth is, Clinton has the support of 90 sitting members of Congress, while Obama has 63. (Obama’s backers seem to support him despite his role as an “insurgent candidate.”)

When it comes to superdelegates, all of whom are Democratic insiders, Clinton also enjoys more support than Obama.

But numbers aside, this spin turns everything we’ve seen the last year on its ear. Obama is, and has always been, the “insurgent candidate.” He’s followed in the Bill Bradley/Gary Hart footsteps of outsiders challenging the establishment. Indeed, by some measurements, Obama is the most successful insurgent candidate in a generation.

Clinton, on the other hand, has not only played the role of “establishment candidate,” she’s practically an incumbent. To be sure, Clinton is not your usual establishment figure — her policy ideas certainly reflect a candidate who’s willing to shake up the status quo — but she’s hardly the gatecrasher. Consider some of her top surrogates utilized earlier this year — Bill Clinton (President in the ’90s), Madeline Albright (Secretary of State in the ’90s), Wesley Clark (NATO commander in the ’90s), and Dick Gephardt (Democratic House Leader in the ’90s). Hardly the stuff of an outsider.

Put it this way: is anyone really prepared to characterize Hillary Clinton as the “insurgent candidate”? It seems like a stretch.

Most troubling of all? The Democratic candidate for president may indeed end up being chosen not by the electorate, but by superdelegates, as it is truly that close.

NY Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/politics/28superdelegates.html?ex=1359176400&en=2a964a21072eda18&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Officially designated unpledged party leader and elected official delegates, members of this high-powered group are usually known by a catchier term: superdelegates.

If the primary season does not settle the nomination fight and it turns into a hunt for individual delegates, it is conceivable that this group of politicians and party insiders could hold the balance in awarding the nomination.

Superdelegates were created after the 1980 election and were intended to restore some of the power over the nomination process to party insiders, keeping a lid on the zeal of party activists. They immediately came in handy for Mr. Mondale in his 1984 presidential bid, when they gave him a cushion over the upstart campaign of Gary Hart.

Since 1984, they have constituted 15 to 20 percent of the delegates at Democratic conventions, where they have historically supported the front-runner.

Welcome to America...democracy in action. :rolleyes:

[Dr.Finger]

Can you get more establishment than Hillary? I mean without being an actual building?

[Xerxes]

What's an insurgent candidate?

What's an establishment candidate?

[Johan]

What's an insurgent candidate?

What's an establishment candidate?

I think the best way to describe it would be:

Establishment candidate: Devoid of fresh ideas; part of the past; rigid and entrenched; "the MAN" in power that's holding people down.

Insurgent candidate: Opposite of above. Fresh ideas; part of the future; flexible and accommodating; the outsider that wants to lift people up.

[Xerxes]

I think the best way to describe it would be:

Establishment candidate: Devoid of fresh ideas; part of the past; rigid and entrenched; "the MAN" in power that's holding people down.

Insurgent candidate: Opposite of above.

Yeah, I think Dr. Finger said it best. Hell, she is a building. I also hate her posters, "Let's make history" and her pleas to be the first women president. Like she's the only candidate that's not a white male.

It reminds me of when Kurt Angle use to wrestle some other guy and the crowd starts chanting USA. When the hell did the Rock, Stone Cold, and Undertaker and HHH all become anti-Americans? Now, Sgt Slaughter vs Iron Sheik? That was what's up.

[rein]

HAHAHHA!! I love Hillary but that is some funny stuff.

[antoniogaud]

Obama's slogan: Yes We Can!

Hillary's slogan: No He Di-int!

[Slack3r78]

Subterfuge and spin from the Clinton campaign? Say it ain't so.


EDIT:

On a side note, I guess we know what they would have tried to do to Howard Dean if not for the Dean Scream in 2004. Dean was a Washington outsider who was rapidly picking up endorsements from 'establishment' candidates.

[Schnoogs]

Welcome to America...democracy in action. :rolleyes:

You should have quit while you were ahead and forgone tacking this onto the end.

What would you prefer Johan? A candidate chosen for us who then sits in office til the day he dies?

[Superman's Dead]

It reminds me of when Kurt Angle use to wrestle some other guy and the crowd starts chanting USA. When the hell did the Rock, Stone Cold, and Undertaker and HHH all become anti-Americans? Now, Sgt Slaughter vs Iron Sheik? That was what's up.

That is probably the coolest way to explain it. Hilarious!

[Xerxes]

You should have quit while you were ahead and forgone tacking this onto the end.

What would you prefer Johan? A candidate chosen for us who then sits in office til the day he dies?

I think he meant this part.
restore some of the power over the nomination process to party insiders

[Schnoogs]

I think he meant this part.

It sounded like he was merely commenting on the mudslinging and name calling.

That was how I read it.

[Johan]

I think he meant this part.


Superdelegates were created after the 1980 election and were intended to restore some of the power over the nomination process to party insiders, keeping a lid on the zeal of party activists.


You got it.

[CaptStu]

I am out of town for a week, and Johan becomes an Obama fan. Wow, have things changed around here. :)

[Johan]

I am out of town for a week, and Johan becomes an Obama fan. Wow, have things changed around here. :)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't vote party line. I'm socially conservative and economically liberal, and defined by neither. I'm also not defined by the interpretations of others here as they read my posts. You guys know little about me, as I'm sure is the same for me as it comes to you.

Also, people who vote party line, whomever they are, constitute the biggest problem in American politics in my opinion. They're tools and fools. If all one does is flip a lever/press one button to vote a straight ticket, I think that voter is a brain-dead moron.

[bstiff]

Can you get more establishment than Hillary? I mean without being an actual building?


LOL.. Really hope she doesn't make it. I was wondering yesterday what did she do with the terms in NY? I never really heard her making any big proposistions and I don't see her doing it if she's president. She's just riding on her husbands coattails just like bush jr.

[Primus]

This might be only because of where I am at, but "Insurgent Candidate" just seems like a horrible thing to be calling yourself during these times!

[EternalGamer]

It depends upon your definition of "establishment," which admittedly is a very stupid and vapid term to begin with that really is nothing more than populist rhetoric.

But I can see the argument that Obama is the default democratic candidate in the sense that he has very little substance but has become just the "face" the DNC as a whole wants to put forward. In that since, he is representative of the DNC's future and little else. But I'm not so cynical about the DNC or the GOP that I think either does not want to change things and only wants to maintain the status quo.

[bKangy]

I guess this is Clinton's last throw of the "spinning dice". What other images does she have left to try?

Inevitable candidate - been and gone
Sensitive mother - used, abused and done with
Tough guy in a woman's body - done but hard to pull off after the tears
Working class hero - used, hard to pull off considering Wal Mart service
Experienced politician - used and not worked, hard to pull off now she's not the "establishment"

[SuicideKing]

Just curious Johan, if you were aware of Obama's position on abortion? You being a self-described social con.

The best part about the super delegates is that if the dems win I can whip out their "selected not elected" Bush v Gore mantra and make it my own.

[pacman]

Also, people who vote party line, whomever they are, constitute the biggest problem in American politics in my opinion. They're tools and fools. If all one does is flip a lever/press one button to vote a straight ticket, I think that voter is a brain-dead moron.

I'll agree with the second part, and extend it to people who vote based on a candidate's personality. That's another stupid thing voters do. Sure, the candidate may be a great person, but he/she could be a great person that gets us into a new depression, new war, or removes constitutional freedoms because of personal feelings. People need to look at the issues and decide, or not vote at all—you're fucking it up for the rest of us

[Johan]

Just curious Johan, if you were aware of Obama's position on abortion? You being a self-described social con.

Of course I am.

I'm also well aware of the success socially conservative politicians have had in ending abortion in America...as in, none at all (except for the well-earned and I believe morally righteous elimination of partial-birth abortion, which is/was an absolutely disgusting and unnecessary procedure). Abortion law was legislated from the judiciary (which, considering the constitutional designation of the legislative branch as the branch that actually enacts laws, and the fact that states' rights have been abrogated by the decision, is quite interesting...not to mention the horrible legal reasoning/foundation for the decision itself, which is universally recognized on all sides of the aisle as the equivalent of a kindergartner's finger-painting "art"), and despite having 7 of 9 Supremes placed by Republican candidates, abortion remains the law of the land. I have no hope that ANY of the current candidates can or will do anything to tinker with abortion law as it now stands.

[Evil Avatar]

What's an insurgent candidate?

What's an establishment candidate?

A douchebag.

A bigger douchebag.

Gee, that was simple. And nonpartisan.

[Heretic Machine]

I'll agree with the second part, and extend it to people who vote based on a candidate's personality. That's another stupid thing voters do. Sure, the candidate may be a great person, but he/she could be a great person that gets us into a new depression, new war, or removes constitutional freedoms because of personal feelings. People need to look at the issues and decide, or not vote at all—you're fucking it up for the rest of us

If the candidate is a bad (or dishonest) person, then why do their promises on the issues matter at all?

[pacman]

If the candidate is a bad (or dishonest) person, then why do their promises on the issues matter at all?

Well, while you make a valid point I meant people who base their decision on personality above all else. I would assume that 9 times out of 10 neither party will put a dishonest person up for election, although it has (and will continue to happen) happened in the past.

In fact, I can give you a great example of people paying way too much attention to only a facet of personality when voting. People are already asking 'who are you going to vote for' in the upcoming election, and when my gf says Obama they respond with 'you're going to vote for the Muslim?' avoiding the fact that a) he's a Christian and b) that religion shouldn't dictate who you vote for, as there's a separation of church and state.

[Heretic Machine]

Well, while you make a valid point I meant people who base their decision on personality above all else. I would assume that 9 times out of 10 neither party will put a dishonest person up for election, although it has (and will continue to happen) happened in the past.

In fact, I can give you a great example of people paying way too much attention to only a facet of personality when voting. People are already asking 'who are you going to vote for' in the upcoming election, and when my gf says Obama they respond with 'you're going to vote for the Muslim?' avoiding the fact that a) he's a Christian and b) that religion shouldn't dictate who you vote for, as there's a separation of church and state.

Well certainly you shouldn't base your entire decision on their personality, which you can really only judge from hear-say, assumptions based on their history, and what you see on TV; but I wouldn't say that you shouldn't take it into account at all, either.

[pacman]

Well certainly you shouldn't base your entire decision on their personality, which you can really only judge from hear-say, assumptions based on their history, and what you see on TV; but I wouldn't say that you shouldn't take it into account at all, either.

Exactly. This is what I was trying to get at, but I suppose it wasn't as clear in my first post :D

[Johan]

I found something interesting. I was curious what the Democratic race would look like if electoral delegates were awarded as they are in the Republican party, which is "winner-take-all" in most states.

As it stands right now, it's 1,100 to 1,039 in favor of Clinton. If it were "winner-take-all" Clinton would have approximately 1250 and Obama under 900 (math isn't my strong suit. I'm close, though).

Interesting...

[Krispy]

I found something interesting. I was curious what the Democratic race would look like if electoral delegates were awarded as they are in the Republican party, which is "winner-take-all" in most states.

As it stands right now, it's 1,100 to 1,039 in favor of Clinton. If it were "winner-take-all" Clinton would have approximately 1250 and Obama under 900 (math isn't my strong suit. I'm close, though).

Interesting...

As far as I understand it, Democrat primaries are not closed to the general public so if they did winner takes all, you could get some damn shady dealings going on.

[Shodan2020]

I remember seeing a debate and the question was posed: "Would you take donations from lobbyists?"

Obama adamantly refused, while Hilary said, "I certainly will! Lobbyists represent the people of America."

What's less "anti-establishment" than refusing lobbyist donations?

[Kagger]

I remember seeing a debate and the question was posed: "Would you take donations from lobbyists?"

Obama adamantly refused, while Hilary said, "I certainly will! Lobbyists represent the people of America."

What's less "anti-establishment" than refusing lobbyist donations?

Yet whose campaign is nearly out of money.

[Slack3r78]

Looks like the 'establishment' candidate swept today.

[Xerxes]

How can you even be establishment without experience?

[bKangy]

Hillary Clinton: 1095 delegates, 13 states
Barack Obama: 1070 delegates, 18 states

according to most sources, that's including super delegates. If Hillary doesn't win by a good amount of delegates in Ohio or Texas, I think it's nearly over. The question will be if she wants to destroy the party in the process.

[Xerxes]

I guess this is Clinton's last throw of the "spinning dice". What other images does she have left to try?

Inevitable candidate - been and gone
Sensitive mother - used, abused and done with
Tough guy in a woman's body - done but hard to pull off after the tears
Working class hero - used, hard to pull off considering Wal Mart service
Experienced politician - used and not worked, hard to pull off now she's not the "establishment"

She could claim to be the underdog. :rolleyes:

[EternalGamer]

She could claim to be the underdog. :rolleyes:

But that's the point, at this point, I think one could make a reasonable argument that she has become such. She was at one time the "establishment candidate" but given all the high profile endorsements Obama has been getting, it is easy to make an argument that overall the DNC prefers Obama. Notice that her political team used the term "becoming" in describing him as "the establishment candidate." Clinton once was the first choice of the DNC, it doesn't seem to be so cut and dry any more. Situitions change. She is clearly trying to make the most of this obvious disadvantage, as any smart politician would. But that doesn't mean it is inacurate to call Obama the candidate that is getting a lot of high profile endorsements and funding.

Again, the whole label itself of "establishment candidate" is a bunch of empty rhetoric to begin with. But it is no less or more empty than when Obama was implying it about Hillary with his invocations of his candidacy being about "change" and the "the future" as the distinction between himself and Clinton.

[Heretic Machine]

But that's the point, at this point, I think one could make a reasonable argument that she has become such. She was at one time the "establishment candidate" but given all the high profile endorsements Obama has been getting, it is easy to make an argument that overall the DNC prefers Obama. Notice that her political team used the term "becoming" in describing him as "the establishment candidate." Clinton once was the first choice of the DNC, it doesn't seem to be so cut and dry any more. Situitions change. She is clearly trying to make the most of this obvious disadvantage, as any smart politician would. But that doesn't mean it is inacurate to call Obama the candidate that is getting a lot of high profile endorsements and funding.

Again, the whole label itself of "establishment candidate" is a bunch of empty rhetoric to begin with. But it is no less or more empty than when Obama was implying it about Hillary with his invocations of his candidacy being about "change" and the "the future" as the distinction between himself and Clinton.

You don't get to switch places from being the Sure-Thing to the Underdog 3/4 of the way through the race. Obama was the underdog, now the underdog is winning; that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't expected to do this well before the primaries began.

[EternalGamer]

Ok, so what is your cut off point for determining who is the underdog? Most of the endorsements by members of the DNC haven't happpened until the last few months and they have been falling on Obama's side quite regularly.

[Heretic Machine]

Ok, so what is your cut off point for determining who is the underdog? Most of the endorsements by members of the DNC haven't happpened until the last few months and they have been falling on Obama's side quite regularly.

I don't know where I'd draw the line, but I'd say it'd definitely have to be before votes start coming down. What you're saying is that in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl, in the final minutes of the game, you could of called the Patriots the underdogs. That just isn't how it works.

[Slack3r78]

Ok, so what is your cut off point for determining who is the underdog?
Establishment and underdog aren't really mutually exclusive terms. You can represent the so-called establishment and still have popular opinion turn against you.

[EternalGamer]

Not if the popular opinion are you talking about is the popular opinion of those in the establishment.

[Slack3r78]

Not if the popular opinion are you talking about is the popular opinion of those in the establishment.

Hillary does still have the lead among superdelegates, no?

[Baron Samedi]

Hilary is da MAN! :D

[Johan]

Hillary does still have the lead among superdelegates, no?

This is EXACTLY why she continues to be the "establishment" candidate. The people in power are behind her and the Clinton political machine. And it IS a machine. It's been built up over a decade of being established in the halls of power.

Clinton is as establishment as it gets.

Also, if I were a person who wanted to see a Republican president in '08, I would be rooting for Hillary. If she is the Dem's candidate, I believe they will lose. If Obama is the Dem's candidate, I believe they will win.

[Xerxes]

But that's the point, at this point, I think one could make a reasonable argument that she has become such. She was at one time the "establishment candidate" but given all the high profile endorsements Obama has been getting, it is easy to make an argument that overall the DNC prefers Obama. Notice that her political team used the term "becoming" in describing him as "the establishment candidate." Clinton once was the first choice of the DNC, it doesn't seem to be so cut and dry any more. Situitions change. She is clearly trying to make the most of this obvious disadvantage, as any smart politician would. But that doesn't mean it is inacurate to call Obama the candidate that is getting a lot of high profile endorsements and funding.

Again, the whole label itself of "establishment candidate" is a bunch of empty rhetoric to begin with. But it is no less or more empty than when Obama was implying it about Hillary with his invocations of his candidacy being about "change" and the "the future" as the distinction between himself and Clinton.

His endorsements aren't worth much if she is still getting all the superdelagates. That means a lot of the people on high still cut for her more than him. No doubts that's her connections most likely, from the establishment. :D

Also, if I were a person who wanted to see a Republican president in '08, I would be rooting for Hillary. If she is the Dem's candidate, I believe they will lose. If Obama is the Dem's candidate, I believe they will win.

But with Hillary vs McCain they can bring back...
http://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/808/808_img_11.jpgvshttp://images.southparkstudios.com/media/images/808/808_img_10.jpg

[bKangy]

The establishment candidate wins in Dem establishment area, Maine, takes overall delegate lead regardless of super delegates.

[Slack3r78]

Looks like Obama took Maine. I thought it had been polling in favor of Clinton?

[Xerxes]

He took the whole weekend from Clinton.

[Slack3r78]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/maine_for_obama.php

Heh.

[Aggort]

Can you get more establishment than Hillary? I mean without being an actual building?

I read that whole long first post and Finger takes the one thing running through my head the entire time, bastard.

[Johan]

Interesting... (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23182456-28737,00.html)

[bKangy]

I'm getting pretty fed up with the "cult" thing. It's retarded. I apologise for liking and emphasizing with a politician for the first time in my life, and their message of optimism over doubt. I'm sure he's also sorry for reaching many many others with that message and being likeable as well.

[Heretic Machine]

Interesting... (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23182456-28737,00.html)

People wept when Romney dropped his campaign... Newsflash: Most of the people you see at political rallies are not rational, regardless of who they are there to see.

[Johan]

I'm getting pretty fed up with the "cult" thing. It's retarded. I apologise for liking and emphasizing with a politician for the first time in my life, and their message of optimism over doubt. I'm sure he's also sorry for reaching many many others with that message and being likeable as well.

People wept when Romney dropped his campaign... Newsflash: Most of the people you see at political rallies are not rational, regardless of who they are there to see.

Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't write the article(s) that reference a near-cultic response among some of Obama's supporters.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get ready for my daily infusion of Obamaliciousness. He's going to save us all! ;)

[Oxonian]

I'm getting pretty fed up with the "cult" thing. It's retarded. I apologise for liking and emphasizing with a politician for the first time in my life, and their message of optimism over doubt. I'm sure he's also sorry for reaching many many others with that message and being likeable as well.
Liking Obama, both personally and as a politician: OK.

This (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=obamas_gift):
Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.
Cultish.

[bKangy]

Oh yeah, there's a ton of media bullshit out there, a lot of it by two bit bloggers with no real business being in politics in the first place. They're not representative of the grassroots Obama people at all, they're just looking to get on Drudge.

[Johan]

This (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=obamas_gift):

In the days to come, just as in the days that have passed, I'll talk much more about Obama's policies. About his health care policy, and his foreign policy, and his social policy, and his economic policy. But so much as I like to speak of white papers and scored proposals, politics is not generally experienced in terms of policies.

That kills me. How the FUCK is politics experienced EXCEPT by policies?

If there's any legitimate complaint about Obama, it's the amorphous nature of his political policy proscriptions.

[joruussuun]

If there's any legitimate complaint about Obama, it's the amorphous nature of his political policy proscriptions.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Obama's Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)

[Johan]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Obama's Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)

Thank you! I will read these with interest, as I am warming to Obama quite nicely. :)

[joruussuun]

Thank you! I will read these with interest, as I am warming to Obama quite nicely. :)

You were using so many fancy-pants English teacher words that I hoped that was what you were looking for.

[shnastybiznastic]

The thing I like about Obama is exactly what others hate about him: He speaks to inspire and motivate, not to convey the outline of a plan. Oh sure, the plan's there, hell, it's enumerated in an umpteen-page-long pdf on his website. I agree with the overwhelming majority of it, and that's the main reason I support him as a candidate.

What I like about the man is that for the first time in my life I feel excited about what the country could be, and my role in that. It sounds silly and idealistic, but his policies aren't too far off from Clinton's, so given the choice, I'll take the man who makes me feel like there will be something resembling American in ten years.

[Slack3r78]

Thank you! I will read these with interest, as I am warming to Obama quite nicely. :)

I'll throw this (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071114-obamas-innovation-plan-a-christmas-list-for-the-geekerarti.html) article in as well as it's one of the things that really sets Obama apart from the other candidates, IMO. The geeky stuff might not be much interest to you, but the stuff on using technology to make government more transparent is very good, again IMO.

[cp#]

So Bush 1988-1992, Clinton 1992-2000, Bush 2000-2008... Clinton isn't the establishment candidate? Oh! Seeing as how she just established her campaign with a personal $5 million...

[Xerxes]

I'll throw this (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071114-obamas-innovation-plan-a-christmas-list-for-the-geekerarti.html) article in as well as it's one of the things that really sets Obama apart from the other candidates, IMO. The geeky stuff might not be much interest to you, but the stuff on using technology to make government more transparent is very good, again IMO.
To me this sticks out like a sore thumb. Good stuff.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Obama's Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)
Looks like some good bathroom material there.

[Slack3r78]

DC, Virginia, and Maryland all swept in excess of 25 points.

Establishment candidate? Not really. Front runner? Damn right.

EDIT:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/12/clinton-still-no-congratulations-for-obama/

Kind of tacky, IMO.

[Xerxes]

let me spell this out for many people here..

Obama is a rockstar candidate, he will never be president, he did nothing as senator except pander hsi way into the election, bypassing his role as a senator.

his middle name is hussein and lately he talks of forgetting what 9/11 stood for, especially with those who make fun of rudy..

Establishment voter?:rolleyes:

[Slack3r78]

his middle name is hussein and lately he talks of forgetting what 9/11 stood for, especially with those who make fun of rudy..

So, are you trying to look like an ignorant ass or does it just come naturally to you?

[Slack3r78]

ignorant?

buddy we are still fighting a war to keep those camel puckers from coming over here and starting another 9-11
Moron status: confirmed.

[Xerxes]

Moron status: confirmed.
Look buddy, the towelie heads can come and bomb your living room come Christmas if Osama Hussein takes office. Don't come crying to EvAv after that happens. my ribs, the laughter hurts

[Slack3r78]

Look buddy, the towelie heads can come and bomb your living room come Christmas if Osama Hussein takes office. Don't come crying to EvAv after that happens. my ribs, the laughter hurts
Yeah, my mistake wasting my time on a racist troll.

At any rate, moving on here, a policy proposal of Obama's that I've missed along the way:

We're going to put in place a $4,000 a year tuition credit, for every student, every year. But, you know what? We are going to ask something in return: you're going to have to engage in some community service while you're in school.
http://www.onlyredheadintaiwan.com/2008/01/circus-politicus-arrives-in-charleston_12.html

It strikes me as a fantastic idea and represents a lot of what I like about Obama -- leveraging all the things that are right about America to make it even better.

I hate to repeat what's becoming rapidly cliché, but there are definite shades of Kennedy on this one.

[Xerxes]

http://www.onlyredheadintaiwan.com/2008/01/circus-politicus-arrives-in-charleston_12.html

It strikes me as a fantastic idea and represents a lot of what I like about Obama -- leveraging all the things that are right about America to make it even better.

I hate to repeat what's becoming rapidly cliché, but there are definite shades of Kennedy on this one.
On that page there is a video with Kerry? Is it me or is he trying to get that VP nod? I know it was an endorsement but he said we a couple time that made my eyes squint. :confused:

[Xerxes]

let me put this to you gently..

i want the fucking government to get out of my life, i'm sick and fucking tired of hearing how great this muslim rockstar obama is...

if/when he becomes president this country is absolutely fucked....

i want to elect a president that promises me that the borders will be closed, i can sleep at peace at night, and for once i'd like to get rid of the fucking IRS so can stop wasting my hard earned cash on paying taxes to crackheads/hurricane "victims" who mooch of the goverment..

you must be blind not to see how fucked up our country is when you have people living off welfare while driving to work in 2009-2009 model cars with $20K or more in "bling" all while claiming to be poor..



it's not racist, it's opening your eyes to see how we're getting fucked!

/end of rant and probably about to get banned...

GrinR? That you? :confused:

[Slack3r78]

/end of rant and probably about to get banned...
For good fucking reason. Though I do lose the entertainment factor of having someone that will sling around terms like 'camel puckers' whilst insisting that "I AM NOT A RACIALIST" around.

vlmGknvr_Pg

On that page there is a video with Kerry? Is it me or is he trying to get that VP nod? I know it was an endorsement but he said we a couple time that made my eyes squint. :confused:

Just struck me as Kerry adopting the rhetoric of Obama's campaign. The change Obama talks about generally isn't about what he can do, but rather about what all of us can do together.

[Slack3r78]

GrinR? That you? :confused:

Nah, one of the things I respect about GrinR is that even though I disagree with him on foreign policy, his reasons for holding the positions he does are pretty much the exact opposite of racist. He genuinely cares about trying to better people regardless of where they're from. If anything, he's suggested that the idea that wanting to ignore the middle east and the rest of the world is subtly racist in itself.

GrinR's a stand up guy. This guy is a piece of shit.

[bKangy]

words

Ignorant and bigoted fucks like you are the reason there is ill will towards America abroad in the first place you cunt.

[Xerxes]

Nah, one of the things I respect about GrinR is that even though I disagree with him on foreign policy, his reasons for holding the positions he does are pretty much the exact opposite of racist. He genuinely cares about trying to better people regardless of where they're from. If anything, he's suggested that the idea that wanting to ignore the middle east and the rest of the world is subtly racist in itself.

GrinR's a stand up guy. This guy is a piece of shit.

But you remember the old GrinR, before his last two bannings? :p Just playing G man.
I was just talking about his "pull out and they've screwed up" stance. He's never all that douchey. He also uses solid sentence structure.

[bKangy]

GrinR is disagreeable but not outright disgusting in his views. There's a difference, when you don't fall to arguing based around prejudices, I think, and GrinR does use plenty of sources for what he's talking about. People like this though, just fuel the misconception that America is politically backward.

[bKangy]

so you wanna be a dick and have me banned cause you don't want to hear the truth?

why don't you and h1po go have a lemon party

"The truth" that it's acceptable to be bigoted against a candidate based on ignorance about his personal life, and then claim that the poorest in the nation are doing well regardless of actual realities, and that those who (majority African American) found themselves up shit creek following the government's post-Katrina failures don't deserve a fucking thing, and that the "camel puckers" are out to get you.

How much did that lobotomy cost you?

[Slack3r78]

2. there is nothing ignorant when you are turning a blind eye to the truth about obama, first off you can't be racist against obama when he is not even black to begin with..he's a mixed caucasian...
The fact that you think you were called a racist in the first place because Obama is black more or less proves my point.

[Lord_Don]

Ding dong the douche is gone.

[Ancalagon]

Thats weird - it says there is a page 5 of this thread, but I cant get to it. Must be because of the mass post deletions needed to remove The Voice from existence.

[Lord_Don]

Thats weird - it says there is a page 5 of this thread, but I cant get to it. Must be because of the mass post deletions needed to remove The Voice from existence.

You ARE page 5 Ancalagon.

[Ancalagon]

You ARE page 5 Ancalagon.

Only happened after I posted, I swear! before, I would click on 5 and be taken to 4.

[Deadend]

You ARE page 5 Ancalagon.

Page 3 in my book!

If you... uh, know what I mean.

Now the only way I can read what The Voice said was from quotes.
The Voice was silenced, because of LIBERAL MEDIA.

The way I see it, even IF Clinton can manage to get elected, the Republican party will do their best to completely fuck her over in every possible way as rabid idiots. Then she will have no change in 2012, which means... Other Bush 2012.