Could this be the kiss of death for Obama's Presidential hopes?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...0,133587.story
Printable View
Could this be the kiss of death for Obama's Presidential hopes?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...0,133587.story
Wow. So a black activist supports the black guy who's running for President.
This is a truly unexpected development. What's next? Rich, white Republicans supporting McCain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
This isn't just any black activist, this ahem "activist" has called for the destruction of a particular race of people. This endorsement might hurt in areas with large numbers of this race of people. These are the same areas that he more than likely will need in order to beat the republican candidate especially now that Nader has decided to enter the race. If Obama was smart he would quickly renounce this "activist". His silence will only raise more questions in people's minds about his relationship with extremist muslims. IMHO this endorsement, along with Nader's decision to join the race for president, gives a hugh advantage to the republicans in November.
Thanks "Screwy Louie" Good work! :thumb:
And I'm sure that the KKK will be voting for the GOP. Do you therefore think that McCain's association with this extremist group will be the kiss of death for his campaign?
Hmmm, I recall reading about any national/worldwide leader of any hate organization endorsing any republican candidate, let alone McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
I must have missed that article Tom ;-)
Well, I can't check the KKK site from work, but I'll take a look tonight about what they're saying about a black Presidential candidate and whether they think that voting for the guy running against him might be a good strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
In the meantime, though, what about the part of the article that you linked to that had Obama saying that he objects to what Farrakhan says and hasn't done anything to get his support? Isn't that what you're saying Obama should do in response to this article?
Didn't Farrakhan die of cancer a couple years ago?
I don't think this will make much difference anyways.
This I agree with. The people who think that Obama will make Bin Laden the Secretary of Defense aren't going to be voting for him anyways. Come to think of it, anyone who would see this as a reason not to vote for Obama wouldn't be voting for him anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Who's Pat Robertson supporting these days.... I'll go out on a limb and guess it's a Republican Candidate... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
It was Gouhliani. I suppose his support should have shifted, but I haven't heard anything, so perhaps he's not supporting anybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Last time I checked Pat Robertson hasn't advocated for the destruction of a particular race of people.
I disagree. The Jews are a big supporter of Clinton and they despise Farrakhan. They normally vote democratic. Who do you think these people will vote for in the general election? Obama because he is the democratic candidate? No, either they will either stay home (probable) or vote for someone other than Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Farrakhan/Obama just handed McCain the election. He will win this thing running away.
Really? You think so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Even if we ignore the gaping logical flaws in your argument, Jewish people are 1.4% of the US population and are mainly concentrated in heavily Democratic states. Do you think that even if a significant number of them stay home, do you think that will be enough to make New York, California or Connecticut swing over to the GOP?
I can't speak about the Jews in any other state other than NY but in NY the Jews were important enough to Clinton that her campaign has been pandering to them since she was re-elected to the senate. Now although they may or may not be 14% of the population I would what percentage of the Jews vote on election day. I would say it is probably over 50%. It is one thing to say a group only represents a small percentage of the overall population but it is another when you compare the percentage of likely voters of one group to another. The Jews are a very large and formidable block of voters in NY and I suspect they are probably the same in the areas you described. So they could turn the tide in larger states such as NY and CA just because of there ability to have members of their group turn out and vote. Can other groups make that claim?
Face it Obama and the Dems will not be inhabiting the White House next year especially after the Clinton Machine finishes chewing up Obama. Clinton is desperate now and she will not be denied and she will do anything she can to ensure that she wins the nomination. Even if it destroys the Democratic Party because as an outsider, your party looks like a mess right now. If this bitter riviary continues it is going to fracture in small fractions who will not be able gather around one candidate during your convention.
Personally I hope that your candidate isn't selected until your convention and I hope it is Obama because by then he will be damaged goods and your party will see him for what he is: "a panderer".
Now with Nader jumping in to the race and the Farrakhan endorsement, this alone spells disaster and the end of his chances to win. Like most democrats, you will probably say Nader is a non entity but who is he going to take votes away from McCain, not likely, he will most likely take votes from your candidate. Even if he only get 3 to 7 percent of the vote, your candidate will need every vote in those "Green" states where the race will be close.
Your party's candidates are spending tons and tons on money in a primary, (Hilliary is even spendig money on food that nobody wants to eat) do you really think that the major financial backers of the loser are going to back the winner just like that? Especially after this contest or shall I say slugfest?
Think again, your party is in real trouble and name calling isn't going to change that, sorry better luck next time.
You and your fellow dems should get use to the Republicans controlling the White House for 4 more years and hopefully they win the Senate.
True, but we'll settle for calling Muslims "Worse than Nazi's", asking the Jews to wake up and see the "threat" of the Muslims..... and then of course there's that whole encouraging murder thingy.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
MG: you are dreaming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Shag, you have to admit that the democratic party has been fragmented by the Obama and Clinton camps. The Democratic campaign has left a really bad taste in the mouths of the Big Donors. Shilliary is further causing division by telling the super delegates to disregard how their districts voted and now she want the Florida and Michigan delegates to be allowed to attend the DNC Convention. How do you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?
The Dem's only chance of winning this November is to unite behind one candidate right now. If the democratic candidate isn't chosen before then, the race is lost. It seems that the Clinton machine is using their tried and true Policy: "Scorched Earth". If she can't win then nobody will win. The photo of Obama that was reported on Drudge was just the tip of the iceberg just wait and see what comes out when HillBilly pull out all of the stops.
Shag, we will see who is dreaming after the November elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Are you calling McCain a republican? He seems farther left than some of the democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
Very true, he is actually a R.I.N.O. but he is still better than either of the two Democrats.
http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:v...cCain_Rino.jpg
John McCain
You support McCain? I thought only senior citizens did that ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
I'm not going to dispute that this has been a tight race with two candidates who are pulling people into two camps. However, I don't see that as being so problematic. I hear far more from conservatives saying they won't vote for McCain, than I hear from Dems saying they won't vote for X. In fact, I don't hear them saying that at all. The fragmentation seems to be on the other side.
As for the Dem race, Hillary has gone to certain, rather distasteful, lengths to get back into the race, but it is fairly likely that the race will be over next Tuesday, even Bill has said that if she loses she' done. She can't regain the delegate lead even by winning both of the major races, since they aren't winner-take-all, and she isn't going to win by a wide enough margin even if she does win.
Meanwhile, the Farrakhan support was covered in the last debate and doesn't seem to have gotten any traction, and then there is the funding issue. McCain was in trouble early, and appears to be in trouble again, while Obama is disturbingly effective at raising money. If only one candidate is running on either side for the next six months, that's probably going to make a difference.
There's not all that much difference between the policies of Clinton and Obama, so if Dems like one, they can like the other about as well, whereas conservatives are publicly voicing their disapproval of McCain. One thing that seems likely, though, is that a race between McCain and Obama is likely to be the most civil race we have seen in our lifetimes.
Shag,Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
This is probably the only statement in your post that you and I agree upon.
I disagree, it isn't a kiss of death unless Obama accepts the support ... which he hasn't. Instead Obama has repudiated Farrakhan's support, even called him antisematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
You can't really get a better response then that.
Of course the Right-Wing media will most likely leave Obama's rejection of the support out of their news coverage.
That's what we call seeing everything through the filter of your agenda.
The practice of omission and implying things without saying them is a key characteristic of these idealogues on television, especially the Fox News channels, but to be fair, I see them from extremist Environmentalists and PETA groups as well for different issues.
Unfortunately, as of Wednesday, I am of the same opinion. Had Obama won the big ones on Tuesday (technically, he has won Texas, but he needed to win on Tuesday, not days later when the caucus vote was counted), then I would have stood by what I said. With new information, I have changed my mind. The outcome of the Tuesday primaries has left the Democratic party in the worst position it has been in since the 1980 race. It's not over, and they could still win, but that certainly didn't help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Really the subject of this thread is analogous to Bush declaring support for McCainn? I mean who would want someone who openly condones torture as an active supporter.... I'm sure McCain was hoping Bush would endores Hillary, that would probably have done him more good.
When McCain met with Bush, he made a speech. At three points in that speech he said that he looked forward to Bush joining him on the campaign trail, but only if Bush could find time in his busy schedule. Three times, McCain mentioned Bush having a very busy schedule that might preculde or limit his ability to help him campaign.
Bush just broke Reagan's record for the amount of vacation taken by a president during their term in office.
Sounds like McCain is praying for a busy schedule.
Shag,
Here is the first Democrat to publically admit that the Democratic race is probably hurting the democrats. Echoing my point that I made earlier.
It keeps on getting better for the Dems. I hope the Dems don't decide on a delegate until they get to Denver.
True. The republicans must be killing themselves laughing at all the character assassinations that the dems are doing on each other.....