[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, obviously, I’m biased. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden that. I don’t like Barack Obama. I think his election will be a disaster for the party. I hope he doesn’t get the nomination. If he gets the nomination, I hope McCain beats him (I’ll still vote for him, of course, but I’ll hope he loses). There. Now my bias is upfront.
[/QUOTE]
Why vote for him if you hope he loses? Thats kinda backwards thinking ain’t it?
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, obviously, I’m biased. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden that. I don’t like Barack Obama. I think his election will be a disaster for the party. I hope he doesn’t get the nomination. If he gets the nomination, I hope McCain beats him (I’ll still vote for him, of course, but I’ll hope he loses). There. Now my bias is upfront.
But that being said, there is such a thing as political plagarism. Just because the candidates get their speeches written for them doesn’t mean the speechwriters can’t take things out of other speeches. If you’re asking who cares about it, I do. Maybe I’m the only one who does, but I do. It’s not enough to turn me against a candidate I like…I still like Joe Biden, and there’s no bigger plagarist than him, but it’s still not a good thing to do.
[/QUOTE]
Why isn’t it a good thing to do? If you tell me I should say a line in a certain speech that you’ve already used, how is that any different from my speechwriter telling me to use a line? The reasons that make academic plagiarism wrong do not apply to political speech-making.
The 527 Swiftboat-vet-style stuff doesn’t concern me as an Obama supporter. I think that stuff will backfire on Clinton, hardcore. In any case, you can’t assume Clinton herself is having anything to do with it.
What does concern me is all her talk about changing the rules in the middle of the game. Too many people seem to think that this is remotely acceptable. It doesn’t bode well for the quality of our democracy, and I can’t imagine it will do anything to help Clinton. However, if such shenanigans did help her to secure the nomination, I’d have to oppose her on principle, and either not vote or grudgingly support McCain.
[QUOTE=Jolly Roger]
Why vote for him if you hope he loses? Thats kinda backwards thinking ain’t it?
[/QUOTE]
Not if you’ve seen the luck that the candidates I vote for have.
Seriously, I’m going to vote for him if he gets the nomination because he’ll have the nomination, and regardless of my opinion of the man, he’s still the party’s choice.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
It means that Hillary is a “favorite daughter” of New York, and the New York media were working very hard to crown their homegirl as the inevitable candidate for two years leading up to the primaries. She has had similar support from California media, and from Hollywood heavy-hitters.
[/QUOTE]
If you say so. It kinda sounds like empty populism to me. And considering Clinton is the “favorite daughter,” Obama actually ran a pretty close primary here.
I don’t think the media favors Clinton, all things considered. They do believe in her more because she’s lasted a long time and tend to favor her view of the campaign, from what I’ve seen.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Any respect I had for Hillary is gone. She would rather go extremely negative against the man than cut her losses and back him.
[/QUOTE]
Leaving these two specific contenders out of it, and generalizing about historical events, do Americans typically elect – or even take seriously in the future – those politicians who step aside for the good of the party? Isn’t that typically the death knell for someone’s career? We do like our winners and we have little patience for Number Two.
Sailboat
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Leaving these two specific contenders out of it, and generalizing about historical events, do Americans typically elect – or even take seriously in the future – those politicians who step aside for the good of the party? Isn’t that typically the death knell for someone’s career? We do like our winners and we have little patience for Number Two.
[/QUOTE]
I dunno; I think Gore would have been a serious contender in 2008 had he chose to run.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
They let McCain say that Obama was going to Bomb Pakistan without letting the Pakistanis know about it…WTF?
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t see this- are you saying McCain said Obama would bomb Pakistan just for the hell of it, or did he quote what Obama said, that he would bomb terrorist camps there if he had solid proof they existed and where they were, with or without Pakistan’s permission?
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
I didn’t see this- are you saying McCain said Obama would bomb Pakistan just for the hell of it, or did he quote what Obama said, that he would bomb terrorist camps there if he had solid proof they existed and where they were, with or without Pakistan’s permission?
[/QUOTE]
Here is what he said on GMA:
WTF…
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Leaving these two specific contenders out of it, and generalizing about historical events, do Americans typically elect – or even take seriously in the future – those politicians who step aside for the good of the party? Isn’t that typically the death knell for someone’s career? We do like our winners and we have little patience for Number Two.
Sailboat
[/QUOTE]
Myself and many others are losing patience with HRC already, and she’s currently number 2. I’m not necessarily losing patience because she is not backing him, I could care less about that, I’m more concerned she brings down the party to an extent not easily overcome in the nationals.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
It’s a primary campaign. One where the candidates are mostly in agreement on policy issues. Attack ads are damaging to the party. They do the Republicans’ work for them and save the Republicans money.
[/quote]
Not to defend the particular things she is saying, but even in primaries, candidates use both negative and positive ads comments. If you want her to drop out, I understand that, but I disagree that she is honor-bound to do it.
Money’s not going to be an issue for McCain. He doesn’t really need to spend anything at this point, since he has the race locked up.
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Leaving these two specific contenders out of it, and generalizing about historical events, do Americans typically elect – or even take seriously in the future – those politicians who step aside for the good of the party? Isn’t that typically the death knell for someone’s career? We do like our winners and we have little patience for Number Two.
Sailboat
[/QUOTE]
You don’t have to be President to have a political career in the U.S. Hillary has the option to step aside from the presidency, but remain a powerful force as a U.S. Senator. It is a respected role that in many ways has more power and longevity than the presidency. A President is at most eight years and out, while a Senator can remain an elder statesman/woman for decades. I think Hillary would also have a very good shot at being Governor of New York. While I don’t think it’s her style, she could even go the Al Gore route, with the Nobel Prize and the Oscar, and the general respect of the American people.
Stepping aside might mean that she would never be president (although not necessarily – Nixon lost and came back), but it would by no means end her role as one of the most powerful women in American politics.
[QUOTE=Desert Nomad]
What is stunning is that Hillary does not see the rift she is causing in the party by going uber-negative and holding out even after 10 losses in a row and then trying to change the pre-agreed rules.
If she wins, I am signing a new 4-year lease to stay overseas.
[/QUOTE]
I can see an uber-negative campaign by Clinton against Obama backfiring two ways. First, it could end up driving more people into Obama’s camp thereby guaranteeing his victory. Two, if the strategy “works” and Hillary ends up wrestling the nomination from Obama, it will end up alienating most of the Obama supporters so much that they’ll either stay home in or vote for McCain in November.
Also, I know inter-party squabbles are to be expected during the nomination process but the scorched-earth and insulting rhetoric from some of Clinton’s supporters (like this blast from Taylor Marsh) against Obama’s has me worrying that the Democrats are on the verge of screwing the pooch again. It seems that there’s the view among at least some of the people who are running Clinton’s campaign that Obama’s supporters consist of disloyal back-stabbing traitors and unruly uneducated children who need to be disciplined. Not only is there no effort to dissuade potential Obama voters but they seem to be saying, “We don’t want your vote anyway.” If Clinton does get the nomination, how does she expect to get most of those people to vote for her? Maybe the people running her campaign figure because many of these people come from “red” states, their potential votes aren’t important.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Did anyone catch Good Morning America this morning? They let McCain say that Obama was going to Bomb Pakistan without letting the Pakistanis know about it…WTF? :eek: They didn’t even question him on that…
[/QUOTE]
Which is made even more retarded by virtue of the fact that the CIA Operation that took out Abu Laith al-Libi recently, is “Similar To Tactic Obama Advocated, Bush Criticized”
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Obama is a plagarist, though. He lifted language from that Patrick speech without accredation, and Patrick’s speech wasn’t famous enough that people would neccesarily know it was a reference.
[/QUOTE]
NO, he’s not. You clearly haven’t been following along.
1.) Even Deval Patrick says Obama didn’t “lift his language” without permission. They’re friends, and Deval is one of Obama’s national co-chairs. Deval told him what to expect to hear about the power of his speeches, because he had come under the same attack. And he told him HOW to respond to it.
2.) And even if that weren’t the case (which it IS), even one of Bill Clinton’s former speech writers says that’s a ridiculous claim.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Well, obviously, I’m biased. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden that. I don’t like Barack Obama. I think his election will be a disaster for the party. I hope he doesn’t get the nomination. If he gets the nomination, I hope McCain beats him (I’ll still vote for him, of course, but I’ll hope he loses). There. Now my bias is upfront.
But that being said, there is such a thing as political plagarism. Just because the candidates get their speeches written for them doesn’t mean the speechwriters can’t take things out of other speeches. If you’re asking who cares about it, I do. Maybe I’m the only one who does, but I do. It’s not enough to turn me against a candidate I like…I still like Joe Biden, and there’s no bigger plagarist than him, but it’s still not a good thing to do.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure you’ll be changing your mind now that you know it wasn’t “lifted”, “plagiarized” or any other sort of unethical thing you want to call it.
[QUOTE=SpoilerVirgin]
You don’t have to be President to have a political career in the U.S. Hillary has the option to step aside from the presidency, but remain a powerful force as a U.S. Senator. It is a respected role that in many ways has more power and longevity than the presidency. A President is at most eight years and out, while a Senator can remain an elder statesman/woman for decades. I think Hillary would also have a very good shot at being Governor of New York. While I don’t think it’s her style, she could even go the Al Gore route, with the Nobel Prize and the Oscar, and the general respect of the American people.
Stepping aside might mean that she would never be president (although not necessarily – Nixon lost and came back), but it would by no means end her role as one of the most powerful women in American politics.
[/QUOTE]
Well, this isn’t McCain’s first crack at the presidency.
[QUOTE=NDP]
Also, I know inter-party squabbles are to be expected during the nomination process but the scorched-earth and insulting rhetoric from some of Clinton’s supporters (like this blast from Taylor Marsh) against Obama’s has me worrying that the Democrats are on the verge of screwing the pooch again.
[/QUOTE]
It will recede by November.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
I’m sure you’ll be changing your mind now that you know it wasn’t “lifted”, “plagiarized” or any other sort of unethical thing you want to call it.
[/QUOTE]
What am I supposed to be changing my mind about? Liking him? I won’t. Like I said, it doesn’t much matter to me whether he plagarized or not.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
What am I supposed to be changing my mind about? Liking him? I won’t. Like I said, it doesn’t much matter to me whether he plagarized or not.
[/QUOTE]
You said, “If you’re asking who cares about it, I do.” So it does matter to you, even if it wouldn’t be enough to make you pick a new candidate. You should defend saying that it was wrong and matters or retract it.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
What am I supposed to be changing my mind about? Liking him?
[/quote]
Accusing him of being a plagiarist. It’s factually incorrect.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
If you’re asking who cares about it, I do. Maybe I’m the only one who does, but I do.
[/QUOTE]
One of these things is not like the other.
Jinx! You owe me a coke!