Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Black Law Students => Topic started by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 04, 2007, 10:52:13 PM

Title: ......... OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 04, 2007, 10:52:13 PM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

we gonna vote for that?


as an african american aye am puzzled by some n..gz fervor for CLINTON...BUMBLECLOTS!!



black folk are being bamboozled into thinking that bill clinton will be back in office...and on their side.


WRONG


if black folk think that hiliary clinton is THEIR candidate...because she is looking out for black folk...they deserve every set-back they get when the plantation missa sets up court in her WHITE house...


black folk got a chance to make some history by putting a brother in the WHITE house...it can happen...obama is just a senator...not a governor...but kennedy did it...he was just a senator...


why can't black people realize that the white man is pullin' the con...

but perhaps a friend of mine is right...black people talk like a black man can run the country...but when it comes to ACTION black folks get nothing done...lets make the white house clear for african americans and a real chance for an african american to RUN the show...


haven't black people had enough of bush-clinton years...


how about OBAMA


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: cui bono? on November 05, 2007, 05:43:37 AM
shouldnt this be on your other thread?

anyway,  it isn't only up to us.  And the voting population likes experience, Obama, (who I personally support; particularly because he has actual practical plans for hc and Iraq) doesn't have a whole lot of it.  The voting pop isn't just gonna vote for him because he's black.  Because even if Clinton wins, it'll be a "social change" having a woman in office for the first (really 2nd, lol) time.   
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: Burning Sands, Esq. on November 05, 2007, 09:01:47 AM
shouldnt this be on your other thread?

anyway,  it isn't only up to us.  And the voting population likes experience, Obama, (who I personally support; particularly because he has actual practical plans for hc and Iraq) doesn't have a whole lot of it.  The voting pop isn't just gonna vote for him because he's black.  Because even if Clinton wins, it'll be a "social change" having a woman in office for the first (really 2nd, lol) time.   

By "experience" you must mean "experience in Washington DC politics" because he does have years of experience as a state legislator and civil rights attorney/activist before showing up in DC.


And that's not the real reason why I've heard most black folk quote as their #1 reason for not voting for Obama.  The vast majority of black people who are not voting for Obama it seems have voiced that will not vote for Obama because they strongly believe that a black man can not win the presidency in 2008 - therefore they don't want to vote for him because others may not vote for him.  A sort of ironic, self-fulfilling prophecy if you will.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: cui bono? on November 05, 2007, 02:30:22 PM
shouldnt this be on your other thread?

anyway,  it isn't only up to us.  And the voting population likes experience, Obama, (who I personally support; particularly because he has actual practical plans for hc and Iraq) doesn't have a whole lot of it.  The voting pop isn't just gonna vote for him because he's black.  Because even if Clinton wins, it'll be a "social change" having a woman in office for the first (really 2nd, lol) time.   

By "experience" you must mean "experience in Washington DC politics" because he does have years of experience as a state legislator and civil rights attorney/activist before showing up in DC.


And that's not the real reason why I've heard most black folk quote as their #1 reason for not voting for Obama.  The vast majority of black people who are not voting for Obama it seems have voiced that will not vote for Obama because they strongly believe that a black man can not win the presidency in 2008 - therefore they don't want to vote for him because others may not vote for him.  A sort of ironic, self-fulfilling prophecy if you will.

yep that's what I was referring by lack of experience; he's a senator not a governor, etc, etc.  Most ppl realized his existence when he made that one speech. (I think that was in 2004).

Agreed on the main reason why some black folks say they wouldnt vote for him in reality.  But if you asked those particular folks on their voting in years past, I'd think you'd find that they have not been consistent.  Meaning,  the majority of those folks aren't voting period.  It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, an unfortunate one, one that also perpetuates the 2 party system.  I think their reasoning indicates a lack of political understanding.  So I think black ppl with political understanding may not vote for Obama b/c of the "lack of (washington) experience"         
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: playaj on November 05, 2007, 06:38:24 PM
I usually don't speak about who I vote for, but I am sort of a role model around this female dog so maybe i can influence others.

I will be voting for Obama. HTH.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: cui bono? on November 05, 2007, 06:49:28 PM
I usually don't speak about who I vote for, but I am sort of a role model around this female dog so maybe i can influence others.

I will be voting for Obama. HTH.

 :D :D :D

this is why i heart playaj.  hilariously random 
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: playaj on November 05, 2007, 07:37:23 PM
ty :-*

I usually don't speak about who I vote for, but I am sort of a role model around this female dog so maybe i can influence others.

I will be voting for Obama. HTH.

 :D :D :D

this is why i heart playaj. hilariously random
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 05, 2007, 07:46:09 PM
I don't like this thread title. I'm supporting Obama because he's the best candidate. Him being black is just a plus for me.

And I think the experience argument is bogus.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: doubledown on November 05, 2007, 09:10:36 PM
I'm not "gonna" support Anybody.  I'm going to support the best candidate--and at this point, that's whomever receives the democratic nomination.  End of story.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 05, 2007, 09:17:55 PM
I'm not "gonna" support Anybody.  I'm going to support the best candidate--and at this point, that's whomever receives the democratic nomination.  End of story.

really?? the best? explain that.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: doubledown on November 06, 2007, 06:08:08 AM
I'm not "gonna" support Anybody.  I'm going to support the best candidate--and at this point, that's whomever receives the democratic nomination.  End of story.

really?? the best? explain that.

My reasoning should be reversed but I edited it to reflect how I really feel. hth.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 06, 2007, 06:29:20 AM
I'm not "gonna" support Anybody.  I'm going to support the best candidate--and at this point, that's whomever receives the democratic nomination.  End of story.

really?? the best? explain that.

My reasoning should be reversed but I edited it to reflect how I really feel. hth.

Interesting. Seems like you have a lot of blind faith in the primary process.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: daemonsan on November 06, 2007, 06:37:57 AM
/clicks on his LSD bookmark

/sees this title on the front page for 'Recent Threads'

/clicks

/wtf...
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: I can has lauskul! on November 06, 2007, 07:38:18 AM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

we gonna vote for that?


as an african american aye am puzzled by some n..gz fervor for CLINTON...BUMBLECLOTS!!



black folk are being bamboozled into thinking that bill clinton will be back in office...and on their side.


WRONG


if black folk think that hiliary clinton is THEIR candidate...because she is looking out for black folk...they deserve every set-back they get when the plantation missa sets up court in her WHITE house...


black folk got a chance to make some history by putting a brother in the WHITE house...it can happen...obama is just a senator...not a governor...but kennedy did it...he was just a senator...


why can't black people realize that the white man is pullin' the con...

but perhaps a friend of mine is right...black people talk like a black man can run the country...but when it comes to ACTION black folks get nothing done...lets make the white house clear for african americans and a real chance for an african american to RUN the show...


haven't black people had enough of bush-clinton years...


how about OBAMA


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -
  --  Abraham Lincoln
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: Special Agent Dana Scully on November 06, 2007, 09:24:38 AM
Black people are ignorant if they support a black man because he's black over a white person who will really protect their interests. I don't think having Clarence Thomas on the Court has done us anything but harm.

(Of course BO is certainly no Clarence Thomas, but support him because you think he's the best, not because he's black. By that same logic women should support HRC because she's one of them...so Barack would lose.)

titcr
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: Shark Week on November 06, 2007, 09:29:03 AM
Black people are ignorant if they support a black man because he's black over a white person who will really protect their interests. I don't think having Clarence Thomas on the Court has done us anything but harm.

(Of course BO is certainly no Clarence Thomas, but support him because you think he's the best, not because he's black. By that same logic women should support HRC because she's one of them...so Barack would lose.)

qfmft
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: cui bono? on November 06, 2007, 10:28:45 AM
I'm not "gonna" support Anybody.  I'm going to support the best candidate--and at this point, that's whomever receives the democratic nomination.  End of story.

I'm not sure where you were gonna go or going with this  :D

And I support BO b/c, among other things, I like his plans for the 2 things that matter to me the most.  The war and health care.  I'm not one of those blind voters that just vote a certain way b/c their party tells 'em to.  And as much as I'd like to see a black prez, I want the right guy so that he doesn't make a fool of us.  I'm not gonna vote for Pookie down @ the OTB because he's black and decides to run for Prez.  No, there are larger issues at stake.  The fact that BO is black is nice; the icing on the cake.  The fact that I agree with his politics is the reason why I'm voting for him.  And I would like if he had more "washington experience" but I think that negative could be turned into a positive- he'd bring something fresh.  He's not tainted by whatever the heck's in the water down in DC that makes our more recent politicians ineffective.   
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 06, 2007, 10:33:01 AM
I'm not "gonna" support Anybody.  I'm going to support the best candidate--and at this point, that's whomever receives the democratic nomination.  End of story.

I'm not sure where you were gonna go or going with this  :D

And I support BO b/c, among other things, I like his plans for the 2 things that matter to me the most.  The war and health care.  I'm not one of those blind voters that just vote a certain way b/c their party tells 'em to.  And as much as I'd like to see a black prez, I want the right guy so that he doesn't make a fool of us.  I'm not gonna vote for Pookie down @ the OTB because he's black and decides to run for Prez.  No, there are larger issues at stake.  The fact that BO is black is nice; the icing on the cake.  The fact that I agree with his politics is the reason why I'm voting for him.  And I would like if he had more "washington experience" but I think that negative could be turned into a positive- he'd bring something fresh.  He's not tainted by whatever the heck's in the water down in DC that makes our more recent politicians ineffective.   

i agree...but what the heck is "washington experience" and who has it?
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: cui bono? on November 06, 2007, 10:35:54 AM
I'm not "gonna" support Anybody.  I'm going to support the best candidate--and at this point, that's whomever receives the democratic nomination.  End of story.

I'm not sure where you were gonna go or going with this  :D

And I support BO b/c, among other things, I like his plans for the 2 things that matter to me the most.  The war and health care.  I'm not one of those blind voters that just vote a certain way b/c their party tells 'em to.  And as much as I'd like to see a black prez, I want the right guy so that he doesn't make a fool of us.  I'm not gonna vote for Pookie down @ the OTB because he's black and decides to run for Prez.  No, there are larger issues at stake.  The fact that BO is black is nice; the icing on the cake.  The fact that I agree with his politics is the reason why I'm voting for him.  And I would like if he had more "washington experience" but I think that negative could be turned into a positive- he'd bring something fresh.  He's not tainted by whatever the heck's in the water down in DC that makes our more recent politicians ineffective.   

i agree...but what the heck is "washington experience" and who has it?

well i think most ppl on the washington presidential tract are govs some place not senators.   
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 06, 2007, 10:54:40 AM
I'm not "gonna" support Anybody.  I'm going to support the best candidate--and at this point, that's whomever receives the democratic nomination.  End of story.

I'm not sure where you were gonna go or going with this  :D

And I support BO b/c, among other things, I like his plans for the 2 things that matter to me the most.  The war and health care.  I'm not one of those blind voters that just vote a certain way b/c their party tells 'em to.  And as much as I'd like to see a black prez, I want the right guy so that he doesn't make a fool of us.  I'm not gonna vote for Pookie down @ the OTB because he's black and decides to run for Prez.  No, there are larger issues at stake.  The fact that BO is black is nice; the icing on the cake.  The fact that I agree with his politics is the reason why I'm voting for him.  And I would like if he had more "washington experience" but I think that negative could be turned into a positive- he'd bring something fresh.  He's not tainted by whatever the heck's in the water down in DC that makes our more recent politicians ineffective.   

i agree...but what the heck is "washington experience" and who has it?

well i think most ppl on the washington presidential tract are govs some place not senators.   

Besides Huckabee, Richardson and Romney, who? That's 3 out of 20-something.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: blk_reign on November 06, 2007, 12:07:42 PM
agreed..

Black people are ignorant if they support a black man because he's black over a white person who will really protect their interests. I don't think having Clarence Thomas on the Court has done us anything but harm.

(Of course BO is certainly no Clarence Thomas, but support him because you think he's the best, not because he's black. By that same logic women should support HRC because she's one of them...so Barack would lose.)

B probably titled this thread as such because he knew someone would respond based on title alone..whereas he noticed no one was posting in the others lol
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: cui bono? on November 06, 2007, 04:27:53 PM
LOL, I guess that's my bad then since I kinda set it off.  But some good discussion came from it  :)

:D So true.

B probably titled this thread as such because he knew someone would respond based on title alone..whereas he noticed no one was posting in the others lol
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: playaj on November 06, 2007, 07:48:12 PM
If you support universal healthcare you're an idiot. That is all.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 07, 2007, 06:08:18 AM
If you support universal healthcare you're an idiot. That is all.
that's funny. I think the opposite.

why is that? Universal healthcare is a tremendous idea, definitely better than what we have currently.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: Burning Sands, Esq. on November 07, 2007, 01:06:08 PM
agreed..

Black people are ignorant if they support a black man because he's black over a white person who will really protect their interests. I don't think having Clarence Thomas on the Court has done us anything but harm.

(Of course BO is certainly no Clarence Thomas, but support him because you think he's the best, not because he's black. By that same logic women should support HRC because she's one of them...so Barack would lose.)

B probably titled this thread as such because he knew someone would respond based on title alone..whereas he noticed no one was posting in the others lol

Agreed and Agreed.

And per the presidential race debate, I'm with Seventhson on the whole "washington experience" not being persuasive, nor is it a requirement to be a Governor rather than a Senator.  If that were the case, then all 3 frontrunners on the Democratic ticket would be out.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: playaj on November 07, 2007, 03:01:21 PM
If you support universal healthcare you're an idiot. That is all.
that's funny. I think the opposite.

It sounds nice in theory but in practice it absolutely sux. I'm going to give you one example that one of my cohorts across the pond told me about. Over in London, old people tie up the healthcare system, cuz they don't have *&^% else to do so every time they catch a cold they go to the hospital. Imagine a hospital full of olds with minor ailments, who go to the hospital cuz they don't have anyone to talk to and they like chatting it up with hospital staff.

and to give you an idea of what would come of healthcare in this country just take a look at other government run institutions, for example, public schools. and dont get me started on the department of family and children services.

why is that? Universal healthcare is a tremendous idea, definitely better than what we have currently.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: cui bono? on November 07, 2007, 03:32:42 PM
agreed..

Black people are ignorant if they support a black man because he's black over a white person who will really protect their interests. I don't think having Clarence Thomas on the Court has done us anything but harm.

(Of course BO is certainly no Clarence Thomas, but support him because you think he's the best, not because he's black. By that same logic women should support HRC because she's one of them...so Barack would lose.)

B probably titled this thread as such because he knew someone would respond based on title alone..whereas he noticed no one was posting in the others lol

Agreed and Agreed.

And per the presidential race debate, I'm with Seventhson on the whole "washington experience" not being persuasive, nor is it a requirement to be a Governor rather than a Senator.  If that were the case, then all 3 frontrunners on the Democratic ticket would be out.

not a requirement, moreso a preference for some voters.  HRC gets a pass b/c of Bill

I'm voting for BO anyway but I do see their argument.  The first time most people even heard of BO was 4 years ago when he made that articulate moving speech.  Almost everyone else, you've at least heard of prior to that.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 07, 2007, 04:50:47 PM
If you support universal healthcare you're an idiot. That is all.
that's funny. I think the opposite.

It sounds nice in theory but in practice it absolutely sux. I'm going to give you one example that one of my cohorts across the pond told me about. Over in London, old people tie up the healthcare system, cuz they don't have sh*t else to do so every time they catch a cold they go to the hospital. Imagine a hospital full of olds with minor ailments, who go to the hospital cuz they don't have anyone to talk to and they like chatting it up with hospital staff.

and to give you an idea of what would come of healthcare in this country just take a look at other government run institutions, for example, public schools. and dont get me started on the department of family and children services.

why is that? Universal healthcare is a tremendous idea, definitely better than what we have currently.


I also have a friend in London who says that sometimes the wait is long, but that he would never trade that for American-style healthcare. And if we were to adopt universal healthcare, we could stand to learn from some of the mistakes in Canada and the UK.

Public schools suck for a myriad of reasons other than federalization. But like I said in another thread (and I think Alci even agreed) the federal gov should mandate and subsidize healthcare and let the states run it.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: playaj on November 07, 2007, 06:13:08 PM
You let the states run it and the focus of healthcare will change dramatically. It would be too political. I think the system would suffer dramatically. There's so much that could go wrong. The best doctors work in america because they can make more money in america. Who is going to do that much schooling for half the salary? and don't act like salaries wouldn't be affected by all of this. You mess with salaries and you'll create a situtaion where the best and brightest don't want to go that career route anymore. I just haven't seen any gov't programs that have been run effectively. Private institutions almost always run better than govt institutions in the same field.

If you support universal healthcare you're an idiot. That is all.
that's funny. I think the opposite.

It sounds nice in theory but in practice it absolutely sux. I'm going to give you one example that one of my cohorts across the pond told me about. Over in London, old people tie up the healthcare system, cuz they don't have sh*t else to do so every time they catch a cold they go to the hospital. Imagine a hospital full of olds with minor ailments, who go to the hospital cuz they don't have anyone to talk to and they like chatting it up with hospital staff.

and to give you an idea of what would come of healthcare in this country just take a look at other government run institutions, for example, public schools. and dont get me started on the department of family and children services.

why is that? Universal healthcare is a tremendous idea, definitely better than what we have currently.


I also have a friend in London who says that sometimes the wait is long, but that he would never trade that for American-style healthcare. And if we were to adopt universal healthcare, we could stand to learn from some of the mistakes in Canada and the UK.

Public schools suck for a myriad of reasons other than federalization. But like I said in another thread (and I think Alci even agreed) the federal gov should mandate and subsidize healthcare and let the states run it.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on November 07, 2007, 06:18:39 PM
obama is not the best candidate imo. Both Hillary and John Edwards are better candidates. I'll be casting my ballot for one of them.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: cui bono? on November 07, 2007, 07:18:07 PM
obama is not the best candidate imo. Both Hillary and John Edwards are better candidates. I'll be casting my ballot for one of them.

BO's def getting my vote because I apppreciate his honesty.  He basically said look, we can't just rip our boyz out of Iraq but he had a steady plan that each cycle there would be fewer and fewer soliders over there.   
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 07, 2007, 10:31:51 PM
obama is not the best candidate imo. Both Hillary and John Edwards are better candidates. I'll be casting my ballot for one of them.

Both voted for the War in Iraq. Hillary's other vote basically is a vote for war with Iran. Clinton and Edwards lack the consistency Obama has displayed in state politics and as a U.S. Senator. He is honest and very pragmatic, unlike Clinton and Edwards, whose pragmatism depends on the political wind.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 07, 2007, 11:01:33 PM
You let the states run it and the focus of healthcare will change dramatically. It would be too political. I think the system would suffer dramatically. There's so much that could go wrong. The best doctors work in america because they can make more money in america. Who is going to do that much schooling for half the salary? and don't act like salaries wouldn't be affected by all of this. You mess with salaries and you'll create a situtaion where the best and brightest don't want to go that career route anymore. I just haven't seen any gov't programs that have been run effectively. Private institutions almost always run better than govt institutions in the same field.

Ummmm...Medicare is state run...? It's more efficient than private healthcare and I believe doctors prefer it because they know they'll get paid. AND I'm sure salaries affect healthcare. Doctor salaries, HMO CEO salaries, etc. That doesn't make our system the best...it just makes it more expensive and less accessible. It just shouldn't be the case that people go without healthcare because they can't afford to see a doctor. Anything is better than what we have now.

 I don't know about your religious beliefs, but with so many "Christians" in Congress, I don't see why we don't already have universal healthcare.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: TinaTina on November 08, 2007, 07:28:15 AM
Consistency in a vacuum (i.e. not succumbing to the "political wind") can be a failing.  Bush II is very consistent.  A pragmatic, modern politician shouldn't be married to any particular course of action.  Cuba, Iraq and Vietnam are all examples of what happens when an administration draws a line in the sand and refuses to budge.
 I'm personally distrustful of politicians who don't change their minds even when their constituents do.  A significant number of New Yorkers supported the war initially, now, not so much.  Much of the "furor" over the the Clinton/Edwards change of heart is a media construct.

obama is not the best candidate imo. Both Hillary and John Edwards are better candidates. I'll be casting my ballot for one of them.

Both voted for the War in Iraq. Hillary's other vote basically is a vote for war with Iran. Clinton and Edwards lack the consistency Obama has displayed in state politics and as a U.S. Senator. He is honest and very pragmatic, unlike Clinton and Edwards, whose pragmatism depends on the political wind.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 08, 2007, 10:06:00 AM
Consistency in a vacuum (i.e. not succumbing to the "political wind") can be a failing.  Bush II is very consistent.  A pragmatic, modern politician shouldn't be married to any particular course of action.  Cuba, Iraq and Vietnam are all examples of what happens when an administration draws a line in the sand and refuses to budge.
 I'm personally distrustful of politicians who don't change their minds even when their constituents do.  A significant number of New Yorkers supported the war initially, now, not so much.  Much of the "furor" over the the Clinton/Edwards change of heart is a media construct.

obama is not the best candidate imo. Both Hillary and John Edwards are better candidates. I'll be casting my ballot for one of them.

Both voted for the War in Iraq. Hillary's other vote basically is a vote for war with Iran. Clinton and Edwards lack the consistency Obama has displayed in state politics and as a U.S. Senator. He is honest and very pragmatic, unlike Clinton and Edwards, whose pragmatism depends on the political wind.

I know you aren't comparing Bush consistency to Obama consistency. Bush policies are purely self-serving (ie. Medicare/Medicaid Drug Plan, Haliburton, New Orleans No-bid Contracts, I could go on) Yes, consistency in that direction is bad and we knew what we were getting when Bush was elected. Same with Obama except he has a history working for people and not for special interest.

Now, Clinton & Edwards were privy to a lot more information that we were as citizens. So even if a position is politically unpopular, pragmatism should outweigh any voter consensus. People vote for politicians because they want leaders, not followers.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: jarhead on November 08, 2007, 10:52:54 AM
my problem is not such much the black white thing 'cause i'm not voting for nobody just 'cause they're black. the problem for me is the reasons given by blacks for voting for hillary. they don't make much sense, are not thought out and all fall under "our laz massa named clinton was real good so this un will be too"
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: TinaTina on November 08, 2007, 11:03:03 AM
I'll be voting for Clinton, so will a number of thougtful black people I know.  You should modify your statement accordingly.

my problem is not such much the black white thing 'cause i'm not voting for nobody just 'cause they're black. the problem for me is the reasons given by blacks for voting for hillary. they don't make much sense, are not thought out and all fall under "our laz massa named clinton was real good so this un will be too"
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: jarhead on November 08, 2007, 11:13:44 AM
I'll be voting for Clinton, so will a number of thougtful black people I know.  You should modify your statement accordingly.

my problem is not such much the black white thing 'cause i'm not voting for nobody just 'cause they're black. the problem for me is the reasons given by blacks for voting for hillary. they don't make much sense, are not thought out and all fall under "our laz massa named clinton was real good so this un will be too"



you're correct....clarification: i do not think that is ignorant to not vote for obama because hillary is white i think the exact opposite in fact. but of the reasons i've heard for NOT voting for obama, not reasons TO vote for hillary (one good one that i share is that  obama can not win the nomination let alone the election but we shall see) many fall under see above. i would love for obama to win but i will be voting for whichever one of them wins the nomination. i do think that experience encompasses more than holding elected office i think it means knowing how washington works which under that definition i agree that obama is inexperienced but i don't think that's a bad thing. i think we need people who are not politics as usual.
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 08, 2007, 11:39:31 AM
Why did Obama wait to see how HRC voted on Iraq funding before he voted? Why did he vote "present" instead of taking a position on key but controversial bills when he was in the state leg? Some leader.

Umm... "She [Clinton] waited for Obama to vote before casting her own vote against war funding without a timetable. This time, she did not make her plans to vote against war funding clear until after Obama took a similar step the day before." (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/clinton-obama-r.html)

and I like, how those controversial "present" votes by Obama in the Illinois Senate regarding abortion were done "with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council."

"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time . . . because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats." (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html) 
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: Smokey on November 08, 2007, 01:46:28 PM
Black people are ignorant if they support a black man because he's black over a white person who will really protect their interests. I don't think having Clarence Thomas on the Court has done us anything but harm.

(Of course BO is certainly no Clarence Thomas, but support him because you think he's the best, not because he's black. By that same logic women should support HRC because she's one of them...so Barack would lose.)

credited
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: 7S on November 08, 2007, 02:55:33 PM
I'll be voting for Clinton, so will a number of thougtful black people I know.  You should modify your statement accordingly.

I know why you're really voting for Hilary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCK7pbhrb8o
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 09, 2007, 01:58:48 AM

...people fail to see that the south carolina primary is one where the african american vote could make ALL of the difference in the outcome of the democratic nomination process.  now, aye understand that iowa and new hampshire may not have a huge african american expression, however if we REALLY want change...if we really want to see a person who is not part of the "old politico"...a point which obama addressed earlier in the week...then we are going to have to vote in our individual state primary...and not not vote. 8)

so we'll have to not succumb to the media push for, clinton.  obama has 11 years in public office and clinton has 7...the fact of the matter is that 11yrs. IS experience...7 yrs. is questionable...unless you count clinton's laura bush style experience...it is clear that obama has the better judgement and more tact than clinton...also, in the general presidential election...he would have NO poll worthy numbers of animosity the way that "old politico" clinton does...

and if he were to get the nomination...who cares who the opposing candidate is...although our country in the past 50+ years has elected governors or vice-presidents to the office of president...kennedy, a young man at the time he ran for the presidency had 13 years in public office and was only a senator...and that was a very close presidential race...but he won...obama is someone who speaks to communities and neighborhoods...he is an african american who will look out for african americans...hell, he does what he says and sticks to his convictions...aye draw out the fact that he is african american to wake up the sleeping commiserates from complacency to a trust and a social change for american's of african descent...who better to do this but an african american.

and then there it is...the BIG question of who do you trust?.

...why should we trust an "old politico" like clinton...as far as clinton's appeal, decisions and judgement behind those decisions...she has used "black-face" dialogue, flip-flopped, and flat out lied...her judgement is fatally flawed...

obama's judgement and decisions he sticks to and stands behind.

sounds like change to me...even if the candidate happens to have a darker complexion.

clinton's own shaky judgement has put a huge dent in her lead...why can't obama have the support of south carolina and take the nomination and run with it...

who says he can't win?


...as far as my o.p. goes...suck it if you don't like it...you don't know me...aye am one savvy bombastic trini mon...thankyou to those who understand my method...and if you don't like the way aye put things...don't read it. ;)

now why would aye put this in the obama thread?  to be ignored???? :D :D :D :D

px.o.rsta
Title: Re: BLACK people are IGNORANT...we gonna support a WHITE woman? over a BROTHER?
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 09, 2007, 02:09:44 AM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

we gonna vote for that?


as an african american aye am puzzled by some n..gz fervor for CLINTON...BUMBLECLOTS!!



black folk are being bamboozled into thinking that bill clinton will be back in office...and on their side.


WRONG


if black folk think that hiliary clinton is THEIR candidate...because she is looking out for black folk...they deserve every set-back they get when the plantation missa sets up court in her WHITE house...


black folk got a chance to make some history by putting a brother in the WHITE house...it can happen...obama is just a senator...not a governor...but kennedy did it...he was just a senator...


why can't black people realize that the white man is pullin' the con...

but perhaps a friend of mine is right...black people talk like a black man can run the country...but when it comes to ACTION black folks get nothing done...lets make the white house clear for african americans and a real chance for an african american to RUN the show...


haven't black people had enough of bush-clinton years...


how about OBAMA


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -
  --  Abraham Lincoln

"I am rather inclined to silence, and whether that be wise or not, it is at least more unusual nowadays to find a man who can hold his tongue than to find one who cannot."

--abraham lincoln
Title: Re: why bother voting for....O B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !!!!!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 18, 2007, 09:12:40 PM
...so because people believe that obama can't beat a republican they won't vote for him???  bullshite!

aye guess folks aren't that upset with bush that much if they won't push the effect of change in the form of obama..

cause in reality...hiliary voted for the war in iraq and has been in step with bush since she took office...no matter what you hear her say...check how she votes...


...so by thinking that obama can't beat a republican is a reason to vote for clinton is stupid and a waste of a vote...

...don't underestimate the voters who will come out to vote against clinton...because they are ready...
Title: Re: BLACKS are SCARED to voteO B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !!!!!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 23, 2007, 08:35:18 PM
Obama to air ads in South Carolina
The Associated Press
 Barack Obama ad

COLUMBIA, S.C. --Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama plans to air his first television ads in South Carolina on Wednesday, commercials that stress his experience as a civil rights attorney and community organizer in Chicago.

"You know, hope and change haven't just been campaign slogans for me, they've been the causes of my life," Obama says in the 30-second spot as he sits in a sunny room as though he were being interviewed.

The civil rights theme is critical in early voting South Carolina, where about half the Democratic primary voters are black. The ad also aims to add weight to Obama's resume - it uses several still photographs, including one black-and-white image of him speaking to people in Chicago, and one shot of a young-looking Obama as he talks about "working as a civil rights attorney to make sure that everybody's vote counted."

"In each instance, there were naysayers who said it couldn't be done, but when millions of voices join together and insist on change, change happens and that's what we have to do in this election," he says.

Obama's campaign said the spot is running statewide but would not comment on its duration. The Democratic primary is scheduled for Jan. 26.

The Illinois senator has already aired television ads in New Hampshire and Iowa.

Obama follows former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as the two Democrats who have run TV ads in the state. Edwards became the first Democrat to advertise here last week.

Edwards' campaign said Tuesday it also planned to air a Thanksgiving-themed ad this week in South Carolina.

In the ad, Edwards says he is thankful for "30 years with one amazing woman. For 231 years of America. For the hopes and determination of a nation filled with the most optimistic people on Earth."

The ads shows snapshots of Edwards' parents and the home where he grew up in northwestern South Carolina.

Title: Re: BLACKS are SCARED to voteO B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !!!!!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 24, 2007, 11:47:01 PM
Poll: Obama Takes Lead In Iowa
By Greg Sargent - November 19, 2007, 5:13PM
The new Washington Post/ABC News poll that Dems have been talking about today has finally been released -- and it finds that Obama has edged into a lead over Hillary in Iowa, though the race remains close.

Obama has 30% of likely voters, while Hillary has 26% and Edwards has 22%.

The poll shows that Obama has marginally increased his standing since WaPo's last Iowa poll in August, which found Obama at 27%, with Hillary and Edwards at 26%.

But various findings in today's poll suggest that rival criticism of Hillary might be working. Obama is ahead of her by 2-1 as the most honest and trustworthy candidate. And 55% say that "new ideas" is more important to them in a candidate, while 33% pick "strength and experience." Obama has argued that he's the race's true change agent, while Hillary counters that only she has the strength and experience to realize real change.

Key fact: Obama is running even with Hillary among Iowa women, 32%-31%.

Title: Re: BLACKS are SCARED to voteO B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !!!!!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 02, 2007, 06:15:13 PM
Clinton nomination not such sure thing
Related Content
Lee Bandy
On Politics
lbandy@thestate.com
(803) 771-8648
With her leads slipping in South Carolina and elsewhere, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton suddenly finds herself embroiled in the fight of her political life.

Clinton could lose.

Her once commanding lead has evaporated.

In mid-November, Clinton saw her lead in New Hampshire over her opponent Barack Obama — 23 points in September — fall to 14 points, according to a CNN/WMUR presidential poll. (Two subsequent polls found her lead had dropped to 12 points, then 11 points.)

The New Hampshire survey came out a day after another poll — this one in Iowa — found Obama, the U.S. senator from Illinois, taking over first place in that state, although his lead was within the poll’s margin of error.

The news only got worse for the U.S. senator from New York as the days wore on.

A new Zogby survey found that 50 percent of likely voters said they would never vote for Clinton, up from 46 percent in March.

Why? Voters don’t like Clinton.

If that weren’t enough, the most recent poll taken of S.C. voters, by Clemson University, had Clinton and Obama in a statistical dead heat.

A large number of voters remain undecided, however.

‘THAT IS A PROBLEM’

Clinton has been at the top of the Democratic pack since Day 1 of the 2008 presidential campaign, casting herself as the inevitable victor. No one had come close to challenging her.

However, the most recent polls show the race for the Democratic nomination tightening a month before the first contest, in Iowa, that kicks off the state-by-state nomination battles.

S.C. Democratic voters go to the polls Jan. 26.

Several Democrats have expressed concern about the former first lady’s electability next November should she win her party’s nomination.

Obama, who would be the first black president in U.S. history, has stirred up enthusiasm among grass-roots Democratic activists. He attracts big crowds on the campaign trail.

But for some reason he hasn’t been able to break out of the pack. He has remained stuck in neutral.

Until now.

Thanks in large part to campaign gaffes, Clinton has given her foes an opening.

Polls show her not doing that well with independents and younger voters.

“The questions about her electability have always been there,’ pollster John Zogby says. “This suggests that is a problem.”

Front-runners generally can suffer one primary loss, says Emory University political scientist Merle Black. “But,” he added, “two losses in a row would be difficult to survive.”

Clinton is preparing to lose one primary.

She is quietly building a firewall in New Hampshire — the “Live Free or Die” state — in case she loses Iowa.

Why? She can’t afford to lose both Iowa and New Hampshire. If she did, that would be all she wrote.

‘CAN SHE STOP THE BLEEDING?’

Meanwhile, the Clemson University Palmetto Poll shows S.C. Democrats — who will hold their party’s third primary, if you count Michigan’s disputed election — are having a difficult time making up their minds. At this late hour, nearly half — 49 percent — remain undecided.

“Voters in the state have not started paying close attention to candidate activity ahead of the primary,” said Joseph Stewart, chairman of Clemson’s political science department.

He said most S.C. voters are likely to pay more attention to the candidates in January. “It’s hard for the candidates to compete with Santa Claus,” Stewart said, citing the holiday season as a distraction to voters.

The result of that distraction and lack of attention?

“South Carolina is up for grabs,” he said.

In the past, candidates have lost Iowa and gone on to win their party’s nomination and the general election. Among them have been Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Despite those precedents, Clinton is in trouble.

In South Carolina, she is losing ground, said Bruce Ransom, a Clemson professor. “She can’t run away from that. The question is: Can she stop the bleeding?”

That’s a mighty tall order. Once a campaign starts unraveling, it’s virtually impossible to put it back together.

What’s it all mean? Hillary may not be inevitable after all.

Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to voteO B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !!!!!
Post by: Burning Sands, Esq. on December 04, 2007, 05:24:27 PM
Obama, Huckabee lead 2008 race in Iowa: poll
Dec. 2, 2007

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN0244421720071202


By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee surged into narrow leads in Iowa in a poll released on Sunday, barely a month before the state holds the first contest in a shifting 2008 presidential race.

The poll by the Des Moines Register, the state's largest newspaper, showed Obama with a three-point edge over national front-runner Hillary Clinton in Iowa, 28 percent to 25 percent, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards third at 23 percent.

Among Republicans, Huckabee moved past previous leader Mitt Romney to take a five-point edge, 29 percent to 24 percent. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who leads national polls, trails in third place at 13 percent.

The poll of 500 likely Iowa caucus-goers in each party had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent.

The new poll follows other recent surveys showing Obama, an Illinois senator, and Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, picking up steam in Iowa and nationally one month before Iowa's January 3 contest kicks off the state-by-state battle to choose candidates for the November 2008 election.

Obama, campaigning in Iowa, said the shifting polls explained the growing frequency and intensity of attacks on him from Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady.

"Folks from some of the other campaigns are reading the polls and starting to get stressed, and issuing a whole range of outlandish accusations," Obama said.

"All these accusations that are starting to come out seem to correspond to shifting political fortunes," he told reporters.

Clinton's campaign on Sunday renewed its criticism of Obama for using his "Hope Fund" leadership political action committee for campaign contributions to politicians in crucial early voting states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," called the committee "a slush fund" and asked Obama's campaign to shut it down.

WITHIN THE LAW

Obama said the fund operated within the law and suggested Clinton's campaign "focus on trying to get their supporters to caucus" in Iowa.

Clinton's campaign also attacked Obama for telling reporters in Iowa he had not been planning a presidential run "for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said the comment was at odds with what Obama's teachers, classmates and staff have said about his ambitions. "Senator Obama's campaign rhetoric is getting in the way of reality," Singer said.

Huckabee, appearing on ABC's "This Week," said his campaign was "on fire" in part because voters were being drawn to his underdog candidacy.

"That's why there's an excitement about my campaign," he said. "It's about all those Americans out there who were told what they couldn't do, what they couldn't become."

Huckabee, a social conservative and former Baptist preacher, had lingered in low single digits all year and barely raised any money until a surprise second-place showing in the Iowa straw poll in August propelled him on a slow climb.

Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to voteO B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !
Post by: 7S on December 05, 2007, 09:41:51 AM
Y'all know polls of caucuses are notoriously inaccurate, right?

especially when they're not in your favor.  :P

Nah, I don't believe in most polls anyway.
Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to voteO B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !
Post by: blk_reign on December 05, 2007, 10:01:08 AM
seventhson i finally made it to a rally lol
Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to voteO B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !
Post by: 7S on December 05, 2007, 10:48:54 AM
seventhson i finally made it to a rally lol
nice!

besides crowded, how was it? The one in Austin was like Woodstock, except for this one guy who kept talking on his cell phone. My friend finally put her video camera in his face since she was already recording his conversation.  :D
Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to voteO B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !
Post by: blk_reign on December 05, 2007, 11:03:27 AM
crowded and cold.. it was 20 degrees outside and snowing..

it was nice.. he's a great speaker and motivator.. but he's still vague about his platform when he speaks which to me is a bit problematic..

seventhson i finally made it to a rally lol
nice!

besides crowded, how was it? The one in Austin was like Woodstock, except for this one guy who kept talking on his cell phone. My friend finally put her video camera in his face since she was already recording his conversation.  :D
Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to voteO B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !
Post by: 7S on December 05, 2007, 12:08:42 PM
on what issues is he vague?
Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to voteO B A M A. .......south carolina primary vote !!!!!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 06, 2007, 07:59:43 PM
Hillary in attack mode as Obama takes lead
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 2:59am GMT 06/12/2007



Hillary Clinton has moved into attack mode against her main rival Barack Obama after a poll put him ahead in Iowa, where the first caucus to decide the Democratic Party's presidential nominee is held in less than a month.

Full coverage: US election 2008
Speaking on the campaign trail in the Midwestern state, the former First Lady said "Now the fun part starts," before launching into a character assassination of Mr Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois.

   
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been resorting to personal attacks

 
"How did running for president become a qualification to be president?" she demanded. "This is not a job you can learn about from a book."

Mrs Clinton sneered at Mr Obama for dodging difficult votes on abortion and gun control when he was a state senator and mocked him for a lack of experience and over-reaching ambition.

"So you decide which makes more sense: entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one … or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the US Senate," she told an audience in Clear Lake, Iowa.

The 46-year-old senator has previously suggested that Mrs Clinton feels she has a right to the presidency after eight years as First Lady and six as senator for New York, and claimed he only decided to run for the White House relatively recently.

The row between the two rivals reached its low point when the Clinton campaign issued a press release quoting an essay written by Mr Obama at the age of six at nursery school in Indonesia, entitled "I want to become president".

Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman, said the essay proved his words were hollow. "Senator Obama's relatives and friends say he has been talking about running for president for at least the last 15 years. So who's not telling the truth, them or him?" he said.

With the battle for the 2008 nomination sliding towards open warfare, Mr Obama's campaign set up a website on Monday, Hillary Attacks, chronicling "baseless attacks" on his record and character and appealing for donations to strengthen the campaign. Mrs Clinton's advisers maintain that they are merely responding to weeks of personal criticism by Mr Obama and John Edwards, the third-placed contender, who have portrayed her as a dissembler and a centrist who not only voted for the Iraq war but refuses to apologise for doing so.

   

 
The former First Lady still tops national polls, but has seen a seven-point lead in Iowa eroded over the past two months.

Much of her appeal to voters has been the aura of "inevitability" around her well-disciplined campaign, which has been engendered by her experience, command of the issues and eloquence.

But many pundits think her lack of personal rapport with voters means her support is much wider than it is deep.

If that starts to slip, then an Obama win in Iowa could give him the momentum for victory in New Hampshire and other states that vote soon afterwards.

advertisement
Although Mr Obama's three-point lead in Iowa is below the margin of error, he is seen as the candidate with the momentum behind him, prompting Mrs Clinton to change course.

• George W Bush has said that he misses being on the campaign trail for the presidency apart from the respiratory infection he said he caught from a reporter covering his 2000 campaign.
 
Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to vote O B A M A. .......SOUTH CAROLINA.......BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 13, 2007, 07:53:32 PM
the tide is turning...
Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to vote O B A M A. .......SOUTH CAROLINA.......BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 20, 2007, 09:06:04 PM
Slip Slip Slipping Away: Hillary Suffers Two Barak Poll-Axes

Hillary Rodham Clinton has lost her commanding lead in two key states to Barack Obama, according to polls released yesterday.

In the past month, Obama has erased a 9-point deficit in New Hampshire to tie Clinton, and jumped 12 points in South Carolina to overtake her, according to the Democratic presidential polls by American Research Group.

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani’s political fortunes have been markedly better, the polls show.

As support for Arizona Sen. John McCain continues to crumble, the former mayor has jumped 8 points in New Hampshire into a virtual tie with Mitt Romney. He has climbed 6 points in South Carolina.

Pollster male private part Bennett, who conducted the surveys, blamed Clinton’s woes on her skirmish last week with Obama over comments he made during their latest debate.

Clinton had blasted Obama for agreeing to meet - without any preconditions - some of the world’s most dangerous dictators during his first year in the White House. It showed Obama is "naive" and "inexperienced," Clinton said.

Obama fired back that her foreign policy is little different than President Bush’s and Vice President male private part Cheney’s. He called it "Bush-Cheney light" and that’s what Democratic voters remembered, Bennett said.

"It really backfired on Clinton," said Bennett, citing interviews with voters that his firm polled.

"It’s not the issue itself that hurt Clinton, it’s that it gave Obama the opportunity he needed to prove that he represents change. And Clinton kept it alive by talking about it all week."

Clinton’s stance may have come across as measured and presidential to general election voters, but it came off as "status quo" among the Democratic primary voters surveyed by ARG.

Her support in South Carolina sank 8 points in the last month to 29 percent. That’s the first time this year she has polled below 34 percent.

Obama, meanwhile, jumped 12 points in South Carolina, to 33 percent.

And in New Hampshire, Clinton’s numbers are at the lowest of the year.

Source: New York Post

Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to vote O B A M A. .......SOUTH CAROLINA.......BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 21, 2007, 09:59:07 PM
who is still scared to vote for a brother???
Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to vote O B A M A. .......SOUTH CAROLINA.......BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 26, 2007, 08:55:56 PM
let's not forget...

Some W.H. hopefuls skip reading key Iraq report
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography's suggestion that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't personally read a key intelligence report before her 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq has raised eyebrows, but Clinton was not alone.

Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which summarized the reports of U.S. intelligence agencies, but was briefed on it several times, a spokesman told CNN.

The book, "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton," is by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. It is one of two upcoming biographies of Clinton, the former first lady turned New York senator.

She is one of four current and former Democratic senators now seeking the presidential nomination who voted for the October 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq, clearing the way for the invasion the following March. Two Republican senators who are now presidential hopefuls, John McCain of Arizona and Sam Brownback of Kansas, also voted in favor of the resolution.

Like Clinton, a spokesman for McCain told CNN his boss was briefed on the document "numerous times, and read the executive summary." A spokesman for Sen. Christopher Dodd said the Connecticut Democrat did not read the document, either.

Efforts to contact other lawmakers for comment were unsuccessful Monday.


0361
Title: Re: blacks ARE SCARED to vote O B A M A. .......SOUTH CAROLINA.......BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 27, 2007, 09:39:16 PM
The Long Run
The Résumé Factor: Those 8 Years as First Lady


 
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: December 26, 2007
As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.




But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.

And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.

In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.”

Her rivals scoff at the idea that her background gives her any special qualifications for the presidency. Senator Barack Obama has especially questioned “what experiences she’s claiming” as first lady, noting that the job is not the same as being a cabinet member, much less president.

And late last week, Mr. Obama suggested that more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration were supporting his candidacy than hers; his campaign released a list naming about 45 of them, and said that others were not ready to go public. Mrs. Clinton quickly put out a list of 80 who were supporting her, and plans to release another 75 names on Wednesday.

Mrs. Clinton’s role in her most high-profile assignment as first lady, the failed health care initiative of the early 1990s, has been well documented. Yet little has been made public about her involvement in foreign policy and national security as first lady. Documents about her work remain classified at the National Archives. Mrs. Clinton has declined to divulge the private advice she gave her husband.

An interview with Mrs. Clinton, conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and a review of books about her White House years suggest that she was more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power.

Her time in the White House was a period of transition in foreign policy and national security, with the cold war over and the threat of Islamic terrorism still emerging. As a result, while in the White House, she was never fully a part of either the old school that had been focused on the Soviet Union and the possibility of nuclear war or the more recent strain of national security thinking defined by issues like nonstate threats and the proliferation of nuclear technology.

Associates from that time said that she was aware of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and what her husband has in recent years characterized as his intense focus on them, but that she made no aggressive independent effort to shape policy or gather information about the threat of terrorism.

She did not wrestle directly with many of the other challenges the next president will face, including managing a large-scale deployment — or withdrawal — of troops abroad, an overhaul of the intelligence agencies or the effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Most of her exposure to the military has come since she left the White House through her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

When it came to the regional conflicts in the Balkans, she, along with many officials, was cautious at first about supporting American military intervention, though she later backed air strikes against the Serbs and the NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.

Her role mostly involved what diplomats call “soft power” — converting cold war foes into friends, supporting nonprofit work and good-will endeavors, and pressing her agenda on women’s rights, human trafficking and the expanded use of microcredits, tiny loans to help individuals in poor countries start small businesses.

Asked to name three major foreign policy decisions where she played a decisive role as first lady, Mrs. Clinton responded in generalities more than specifics, describing her strategic roles on trips to Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, India, Africa and Latin America.

Asked to cite a significant foreign policy object lesson from the 1990s, Mrs. Clinton also replied with broad observations. “There are a lot of them,” she said. “The whole unfortunate experience we’ve had with the Bush administration, where they haven’t done what we’ve needed to do to reach out to the rest of the world, reinforces my experience in the 1990s that public diplomacy, showing respect and understanding of people’s different perspectives — it’s more likely to at least create the conditions where we can exercise our values and pursue our interests.”

Crisis at Home and Terror Afar

There were times, though, when Mrs. Clinton did not appear deeply involved in some of Mr. Clinton’s hardest moments on national security. He faced a major one in 1998 — the bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and subsequently whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan. Just days after he acknowledged to his wife, the public and a grand jury that he had had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Mr. Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on targets suspected to be a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and a chemical weapons factory in Sudan.

“It was the height of Monica, and they were barely talking to each other, if at all,” said one senior national security official who spoke with both Clintons during that time.

Asked if she talked to the president about the military choices or advised him, regardless of their personal problems, Mrs. Clinton was elliptical.


20
Title: Re: WHY BLACKS NOT ALLOWED 2 VOTE 4 O B A M A. ..SOUTH CAROLINA..BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on December 28, 2007, 09:21:16 PM
"The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result," he said in Des Moines. "You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America."

obama

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071228/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc_13
Title: Re: WHY BLACKS NOT ALLOWED 2 VOTE 4 O B A M A. ..SOUTH CAROLINA..BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 03, 2008, 08:09:11 PM


who's standing behind obama's left shoulder?  as he makes his speech of challenge.












1942
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! BLACK PEOPLE.. SCARED to vote OBAMA.?...........BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 04, 2008, 12:47:28 AM
the people...


now that european american iowa has spoken...let s. carolina speak.
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! BLACK PEOPLE.. SCARED to vote OBAMA.?...........BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 05, 2008, 02:46:53 AM
hope...hope...


what a speech that man gave.
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! BLACK PEOPLE.. SCARED to vote OBAMA.?...........BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: 20+ Andrew Hill Albums on January 07, 2008, 03:02:36 PM
as an african american aye am puzzled by some n..gz fervor for CLINTON...BUMBLECLOTS!!

I thought it was "bumbo clot'".
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! BLACK PEOPLE.. SCARED to vote OBAMA.?...........BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 10, 2008, 07:48:29 PM

"As Lincoln organized the forces arrayed against slavery, he was heard to say: "Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought to battle through."

That is our purpose here today.

That's why I'm in this race.

Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.

I want to win that next battle - for justice and opportunity.

I want to win that next battle - for better schools, and better jobs, and health care for all.

I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.

And if you will join me in this improbable quest, if you feel destiny calling, and see as I see, a future of endless possibility stretching before us; if you sense, as I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber, and slough off our fear, and make good on the debt we owe past and future generations, then I'm ready to take up the cause, and march with you, and work with you. Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth."




from the four winds...sw...crlnz...fl...cal ib.. ;)
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 12, 2008, 03:06:08 AM

just a couple of things...

obama will win south carolina and the reason is that those who live in that state...and quite a few other southern states realize that while bill clinton may have appeared genuine and did make efforts to assist african american communities...THAT TIME HAS ENDED.

mrs. clinton...the former first lady has obviously affected behavior and artificially manipulates her choice of words and phrasing just like actors do...she indicates what she is thinking and feeling...her southern twang among rich hilton head ladies is a con...her use of african american colloquialisms pushed so far they echo the sounds of a "black painted face minstrel show" are shameful....people who behave this way look...sound...and smell like LIARS...aye'm sure some of us have met a few individuals like this one...disingenuous.

bill clinton was real...but bill clinton's time ended...first lady, clinton is part of the past, too.

aye know many of you either can't stand me or think aye am playing or just don't understand me...guess what?

it doesn't matter...but when aye express that hillary clinton is going to be more bush...aye joke not that we will end up with more of the same...look in your heart and do the math....{g.bush/b.clinton/gw.bush/}=20 years.

hey...if hiliary clinton really deserved to be commander in chief... she would have accomplished some "nobel" work or been honored for some noble work she championed or written some "no bull" monumental legislature...A LONG TIME AGO...after all she tells us all the time she has had 35 yrs....but in reality...she has been as effective as the shadow under bill's past silver lined presidential cloud.

first lady clinton's greatness has never come...it is all of minimal perception...

and most importantly...in the past...THAT TIME HAS GONE. 


A NEW TIME HAS BEGUN.


it begin's with BARAK OBAMA.






Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 19, 2008, 02:08:03 AM
Clinton Allies Suppress the Vote in Nevada Tue Jan 15, 11:40 AM ET
 


The Nation -- On Meet the Press on Sunday, Hillary Clinton said her campaign had nothing to do with a lawsuit--written about by Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel--that threatens to prevent thousands of workers from voting in the Nevada caucus on Saturday.

Back in March, the Nevada Democratic Party agreed to set up caucus locations on the Vegas strip for low-income shift workers, many of them members of the state's influential Culinary Union, who commute long distances to work and wouldn't be able to get home in time to caucus. It was an uncontroversial idea until the Culinary Union endorsed Barack Obama and the Nevada State Education Association, whose top officials support Clinton, sued to shut down the caucus sites. The Clinton camp played dumb until yesterday, when President Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit.

Clinton's comments drew a heated response from D. Taylor, the head of Nevada's Culinary Union, on MSNBC's Hardball. "He is in support of disenfranchising thousands upon thousands of workers, not even just our members," Taylor said of Clinton. "The teachers union is just being used here. We understand that. This is the Clinton campaign. They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they're trying to disenfranchise people here in Nevada, who are union members and people of color and women."

Rank-and-file members of Nevada's teachers union also come out against the lawsuit filed by their leadership. "We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what's right for our students, but that's exactly what they're doing," the letter stated. "As teachers, and proud Democrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support."

The lawsuit's opponents make a persuasive point. Creating obstacles to voting is what the GOP does to Democrats, not what Democrats should be doing to other Democrats.
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! BLACKPOWAH!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 26, 2008, 10:55:21 AM
Bush-Clinton Administrations are OVER...



can't wait for this man OBAMA'S speech tonight...


Hope springs eternal!!!

...hope...HOPE!
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: blk_reign on January 26, 2008, 04:02:14 PM
and the winner is.... Obama!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 26, 2008, 07:48:16 PM



obama has WON south carolina ss mighty blk reign has threaded...and the reason is that those who live in that state...and quite a few other southern states realize that while bill clinton may have appeared genuine and did make efforts to assist african american communities...THAT TIME HAS ENDED.

mrs. clinton...the former first lady has obviously affected behavior and artificially manipulates her choice of words and phrasing just like actors do...she indicates what she is thinking and feeling...her southern twang among rich hilton head ladies is a con...her use of african american colloquialisms pushed so far they echo the sounds of a "black painted face minstrel show" are shameful....people who behave this way look...sound...and smell like LIARS...aye'm sure some of us have met a few individuals like this one...disingenuous.

bill clinton was real...but bill clinton's time ended...first lady, clinton is part of the past, too.

aye know many of you either can't stand me or think aye am playing or just don't understand me...guess what?

it doesn't matter...but when aye express that hillary clinton is going to be more bush...aye joke not that we will end up with more of the same...look in your heart and do the math....{g.bush/b.clinton/gw.bush/}=20 years.

hey...if hiliary clinton really deserved to be commander in chief... she would have accomplished some "nobel" work or been honored for some noble work she championed or written some "no bull" monumental legislature...A LONG TIME AGO...after all she tells us all the time she has had 35 yrs....but in reality...she has been as effective as the shadow under bill's past silver lined presidential cloud.

first lady clinton's greatness has never come...it is all of minimal perception...

and most importantly...in the past...THAT TIME HAS GONE. 


A NEW TIME HAS BEGUN.


it begin's with BARAK OBAMA.





...and the silver lining of bill's cloud is oxidizing by his reminding us of the past nominated winners in south carolina...such bull...aye mean....bill.
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: 7S on January 26, 2008, 09:49:33 PM
and the winner is.... Obama!!!!!!!!!!! ;D

hellz yeah!
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: Kirk Lazarus on January 26, 2008, 09:57:59 PM
*clap clap clap*

as if black people weren't going to vote for Obama. Jesse won SC too. On to February 5th!
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: 7S on January 26, 2008, 10:03:15 PM
*clap clap clap*

as if black people weren't going to vote for Obama. Jesse won SC too. On to February 5th!

well....there has been a LOT of uncle tomery going on in the black community as of lately.
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 27, 2008, 12:06:06 AM
*clap clap clap*

as if black people weren't going to vote for Obama. Jesse won SC too. On to February 5th!

here is the point...jesse won by such an overwhelming amount...55%?  has obama doubled the second tier candidate yet? :)
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 27, 2008, 12:20:30 AM
*clap clap clap*

as if black people weren't going to vote for Obama. Jesse won SC too. On to February 5th!

well....there has been a LOT of uncle tomery going on in the black community as of lately.

aunt hiliary...u mean?
Title: Re: ..SOUTH CAROLINA! OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 27, 2008, 02:27:01 AM
that speech flew off the roof...out of my radio...aye could picture that strong speech...

congrats obama...

more south florida...cali...
Title: Re: ......... OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on February 01, 2008, 07:24:34 PM






here we go now.........


Title: Re: ......... OBAMA.! HOPE! WINS!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on February 09, 2008, 09:43:33 PM
...run with it........................... ......an O out in the mid west a big O...


living in the OO's means Obama.................


ohio and pa????

get those independents who dislike hiliary to come out and vote for obama...