Obama trips up on campaign trail - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

HOZ · 08-01-2007, 05:27 PM

From what I have heard these politiians for president are on 24/7. A 6 month human marathon. They fight exhaustion and their own mistakes as much as they fight off attacks from their ooposition. Inevitably someone makes the big boo-boo. This was Obama's moment IMO.

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government.

Bend over Obama and kiss it good-bye...Clinton will eat you alive!

ernie · 08-01-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

From what I have heard these politiians for president are on 24/7. A 6 month human marathon. They fight exhaustion and their own mistakes as much as they fight off attacks from their ooposition. Inevitably someone makes the big boo-boo. This was Obama's moment IMO.

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government.

Bend over Obama and kiss it good-bye...Clinton will eat you alive!

I haven't followed it that much but I believe as of last week Clinton had a double digit lead on Obama and it was continuing to widen. A while to go yet but it was Clinton's race to lose and it remains so.

Drunk Skunk · 08-01-2007, 05:50 PM

Clinton now has 21% edge on second running Obama

Azure · 08-01-2007, 06:11 PM

That sucks....Pakistan does need to do something about the terrorism in their country...but if Obama loses the race against Clinton...the Republicans win the election, IMO. And I am a big Obama supporter.

Slava · 08-01-2007, 06:13 PM

Everything I've heard is that it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket for the Dems anyway...this doesn't change that IMO.

Azure · 08-01-2007, 06:17 PM

Ugh....I wouldn't vote for that. I hate Hillary Clinton...and such a ticket would drive away a lot of voters....even though they would have a good VP, IMO.

Drunk Skunk · 08-01-2007, 06:20 PM

Despite the numbers, I think there are more people that would vote against Clinton then would vote for Obama. If Clinton does get the nom, as Azure said, it's going to be four more years in a red country.

Displaced Flames fan · 08-01-2007, 06:30 PM

I just heard this evening that Obama has pulled even with Clinton in New Hampshire though....that is huge.

Table 5 · 08-01-2007, 06:31 PM

Funny thing is, I think the Democrats would cruise to a Presidential victory with a guy like Obama. Hillary Clinton is the best weapon the Republicans have....and as usual, the Democrats will just give it to them.

gonzo29 · 08-01-2007, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

Everything I've heard is that it will be a Clinton/Obama ticket for the Dems anyway...this doesn't change that IMO.

I have very good information that Hillary's running mate, should she be selected as the Dem's candidate, will be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

FlamesAddiction · 08-01-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

From what I have heard these politiians for president are on 24/7. A 6 month human marathon. They fight exhaustion and their own mistakes as much as they fight off attacks from their ooposition. Inevitably someone makes the big boo-boo. This was Obama's moment IMO.

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government.

Bend over Obama and kiss it good-bye...Clinton will eat you alive!

It's funny how similar statements by Bush about Iraq when he was innitially running for president increased his popularity, but Obama saying it about Pakistan decreases his.

calculoso · 08-01-2007, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's funny how similar statements by Bush about Iraq when he was innitially running for president increased his popularity, but Obama saying it about Pakistan decreases his.

That's typically what happens when you have Bush running for the war-crazy Republicans and Obama running for the war-hating Democrats.... (stereotypes galore)

Displaced Flames fan · 08-01-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's funny how similar statements by Bush about Iraq when he was innitially running for president increased his popularity, but Obama saying it about Pakistan decreases his.

Well, one huge difference....Bush was talking about invading a country and taking out the government of said country. Obama is talking about taking military action inside a country, not against that country, and without notification or permission.

The fear here is that such a scenario could destabilize the Pakistani government and that it could be replaced with one that is more supportive of Al-Qaeda.

I think the point is that we need to work with Musharaf and not around him.

The two situations are really very different.

Azure · 08-01-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drunk Skunk

Despite the numbers, I think there are more people that would vote against Clinton then would vote for Obama. If Clinton does get the nom, as Azure said, it's going to be four more years in a red country.

Absolutely....I honestly believe many people would be voting against Clinton...more than they would be voting for the Republican candidate.

Azure · 08-01-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Table 5

Funny thing is, I think the Democrats would cruise to a Presidential victory with a guy like Obama. Hillary Clinton is the best weapon the Republicans have....and as usual, the Democrats will just give it to them.

Agreed once again. Obama is sort of in the mold of JFK....very interesting speaker and easy to like. But then again...someone who is easy to like might not be the best person. I.E. Bush.

mrdeeds · 08-01-2007, 10:06 PM

I weep for the Democrats if their two front-runners are Obama and Clinton. Both have some appeal, but I am sure there will be the traditional rift in the party between the moderates and the liberals.

The Republicans are weak and should be ripe for the pickings in 08, but their rickety old Big Tent may just squeak out a 'win' ala 2000.

octothorp · 08-01-2007, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Well, one huge difference....Bush was talking about invading a country and taking out the government of said country. Obama is talking about taking military action inside a country, not against that country, and without notification or permission.

The fear here is that such a scenario could destabilize the Pakistani government and that it could be replaced with one that is more supportive of Al-Qaeda.

I think the point is that we need to work with Musharaf and not around him.

The two situations are really very different.

From a logistical perspective, I agree 100%. However, I'm not sure that the majority of the populace is going to be thinking about destabilizing a key partner. This is something that was said as part of an attempt to try to correct a perception that he's soft on foreign policy. He needs to look strong and defiant towards America's enemies, so he comes up with this sound bite. There are people who are smart enough to understand that such an assault is completely unrealistic both in terms of what the US military can accomplish and what is in the best interests of the US. Those people are probably also smart enough to realize that Obama is doing some political grandstanding here and has no real intent of unilaterally persuing military options inside Pakistan.

mykalberta · 08-02-2007, 09:13 AM

Damn.

Probably the most truthful comment you will hear between now and the end of the election.

With respect, if Bin-Saudi-Terrorist is in Pakistan and the Govt does nothing, well send in the Rangers. Its not like the Pakistan have control over that area of the country anyway.

The problem with that is while you solve one issue, you likely throw Pakistan into the new Afghanistan.

MYK

lifer · 08-02-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's funny how similar statements by Bush about Iraq when he was innitially running for president increased his popularity, but Obama saying it about Pakistan decreases his.

I think a lot of that has to do with the USA being a little bit war weary right now. That wasn't the case during Bush II's campaign.

Flames89 · 08-02-2007, 11:22 AM

The other problem is Hilary just says what people want to hear ... not exactly leadership ...