Girl Seen In Clinton's '3 a.m.' Ad Supports Obama

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Yes, but we all know GW Bush is a goof that the American public want to get some distance from with their successor. They want a return to a savvy leader. A guy making suggestions that even GW Bush would never make to "President Harper," or intimating a violent incursion into Pakistan, rhetoric or otherwise, is not that direction.

What they want is a guy that is thoughtful and will do the right thing. The thoughtful and right thing to do in the war on terror is going after the "masterminds" hiding out in tribal Pakistan. That's where the intelligence community says he is, and that's where the efforts should be made to take the problem out. Blowing $18 million an hour in Iraq, or not rebuilding Afghanistan, is not the wise thing to do. John McCain is status quo. Barak Obama presents some hope, especially for those who hope a negotiated settlement is possible. Obama opens up avenues for discourse, which is exactly what this nation needs.

[Vulcan]

It looks to me that after the bad taste that Bush has left in the publics mouth that the Republicans have named McCain as their sacrificial lamb, kind of like Kim Campbell. Look at the candidates the Republicans had, an old geezer whose stability is questioned after spending years tortured as a prisoner of war, a Mormon who on his best days reminds me of Stockwell Day and an evangelical minister who doesn't believe in evolution and expected a miracle while not knowing when to quit. There was not really a viable candidate among them as anyone with any smarts or a real chance knows it's not the right time. The only fly in the ointment is the stupidity of the voters, who after all elected Bush, not once but twice.

[Itse]

I think McCain looks to compare more favourably to the Democratic candidates now than when the real race starts. The Republicans haven't had that much interest in throwing Bush-leftovers at each other, and out of the Rep candidates McCain was actually a hard target for that rhetoric. However, that will change when either Clinton or Obama is let loose on him. At that point he will look like an old, white Republican who essentially represents everything that people have learned to hate in the previous administration. (Somewhat unfairly, I think he'd be vastly more competent to start with.)

Also, the Republican swiftboating is starting to be too infamous, and especially against Obama it might seriously backfire, as an old white man saying nasty things about a black man has a really big chance to look and sound horribly racist, no matter how much they try to avoid it. One badly chosen line and McCain would be done.
It has already backfired for Clinton to some extent, and she has recently made several comments about how she has a fine historical candidate to run against, and how it's a privilege to be a part of this and so on.

Also, an old white man saying nasty things about a woman also very easily has a nasty ring to it. Obama and Clinton are somewhat protected by the fact that they represent the same party and they are both "minority" candidates (although of course women are only a minority in headline politics), but McCain is in a way the optimal mirror for them. Putting him side by side with either Clinton or Obama will produce such a powerful image that it might by itself be impossible to beat.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Its rhetoric a man of Obama's stature and position should not be stooping to... he's simply not at a point of desperation where he needs to stick his neck out and say stuff like that. Unless of course, he somewhat believes it, or he didn't realize they were not smart things to say and he was only giving McCain and Clinton some ammunition.

Unless of course he believes it.

I don't see any other reason for him to say it.

Does it even benefit the US to shut down NAFTA? Because Canada has already threatened to cut off oil supplies to the US if they unilaterally withdraw from the agreement.

Seriously, why would you even talk about screwing over your biggest trade partner unless you were serious about it?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Unless of course he believes it.

I don't see any other reason for him to say it.

Does it even benefit the US to shut down NAFTA? Because Canada has already threatened to cut off oil supplies to the US if they unilaterally withdraw from the agreement.

Seriously, why would you even talk about screwing over your biggest trade partner unless you were serious about it?

Because he was in a place where saying this kind of thing gains you support.

He's a politician. He's acting like it. I can't for the life of me figure out why this is so shocking to you.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Unless of course he believes it.

I don't see any other reason for him to say it.

Does it even benefit the US to shut down NAFTA? Because Canada has already threatened to cut off oil supplies to the US if they unilaterally withdraw from the agreement.

Seriously, why would you even talk about screwing over your biggest trade partner unless you were serious about it?

He said it because he wanted to win Ohio and Hillary had already said she would renegotiate NAFTA. Excuse me for being obvious but politicians have long practiced catering to the locals and what they say in Seattle may have little to do with what they say in Miami. The problem now is that with international real time news politicians have to be more careful and Obama in his naivety leaked his real feelings about NAFTA to Canada and got caught. Hillary didn't get caught. He didn't have to do this as Harper is smart enough to know what's going on and probably does the same thing in Quebec. Harper may even have done it to bolster the Clintons although he'll deny it until he writes his bio.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, because no American politican has ever trivialized Canada or Mexico. Heck, the guy in office right now didn't even know who the sitting Canadian "President" was when he took his oath.

Blasphemy. He knew it was none other than the illustrious Prime Minister Jean Poutine:

http://dewit.ca/archs/poutine/index.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Because he was in a place where saying this kind of thing gains you support.

He's a politician. He's acting like it. I can't for the life of me figure out why this is so shocking to you.

Because everyone is propping him up as someone 'better.'

And no, I don't see how saying something as idiotic as tearing down NAFTA would gain him any kind of support.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Because everyone is propping him up as someone 'better.'

And no, I don't see how saying something as idiotic as tearing down NAFTA would gain him any kind of support.

Sure he's being propped up as "better". They all are. That's what they do.

I'm not at all familiar with Ohio, but I'd be willing to bet Obama's campaign people are, and they said " the people here don't like NAFTA" and that's the way they went.

Chummying up to the voters with what they want to hear started about 10 seconds after the guy who invented democracy invented democracy.

I don't like it anymore than you do but that's the way it goes.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Sure he's being propped up as "better". They all are. That's what they do.

I'm not at all familiar with Ohio, but I'd be willing to bet Obama's campaign people are, and they said " the people here don't like NAFTA" and that's the way they went.

Chummying up to the voters with what they want to hear started about 10 seconds after the guy who invented democracy invented democracy.

I don't like it anymore than you do but that's the way it goes.

Fair enough.

I don't necessarily disagree....but I would think common sense(if he has any) would tell you that talking about screwing over Canada and Mexico...just might lose you votes in the long run.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by llama64

Politics has always been about propaganda.

This is amusing. Not sure how this could translate into anything meaningful for either campaign.

I'm beginning to wonder if Obama can beat McCain. He refuses to go negative, and as the conservative right has demonstrated time and time again, attacking your opponent routinely translates into electoral votes.

Hell, Clinton just demonstrated it herself with her wins in Texas.

His strategy is brilliant IMO.

Don't worry, the media will go negative and they will focus on McCain's age. We will see non-flattering images that make him look his age or confused. It's definitely a legitimate concern, but the media will do the dirty work and Obama will stay clean.

He can beat McCain. Don't think Hillary can.