All this rhetoric is same old shit red/blue divide.

It means nothing.

We'll see what happens in november. That's when it fuckin' counts.

He to, like all the rest, will talk shit to get the vote, and then do ONLY what makes him the most money!

Obviously he thinks like most Liberals. If you believe in God, think that self defense and the second amendment is a fundamental right, and have the audacity to oppose amnesty for illegals, you must be stupid....

I'm glad his true feelings do show from time to time despite his attempts to hide them.

I live in the south. And contrary to the crap the media wants people to believe, I find that the northern states are much more racist. The blacks and whites are separated into "neighborhoods" and they all seem to hate each other. Down here it's just not like that. I have a black neighbor across the street along with several mexican families on the same block. I go to clubs with black and white people. The only time I hear the "n" word is when one black guy is talking to another black guy.
Yeah, my grandparents were pretty racist. But overall the south is far more "black" both in terms of population and race relations than the northern states. Hell, I was up in New York a few months ago...now THAT is a racist city. I love the city , but the blacks and whites there hate each others guts. I was shocked. It was the same way when I was up in Detroit. The same in Washington, DC and Ocean City, Maryland as well.
I think the "white" south is a vastly exaggerated myth. Just my opinion from living down here for 46 years from Fla., Georgia, SC, Alabama, NC, Tenn., and Kentucky.
And I have spent a good amount of time in Miss. and Louisianna too. Blacks and whites live together down here pretty much in harmony. Hell, just go to downtown Atlanta anytime. If you're white you are the MINORITY there. :)

The biggest social program we have is the military. But most Republicans only think its socialism if it's something they don't support. Military, border control, farm subsidization must not count as socialism in your world. :1orglaugh

I got no problem with the claim that the northern states are more racist, or just as racist.

I wasn't really talking about that.

I'm saying mosty of the states that voted red last time will vote red this time too.

I assumed you were saying that the southern states wouldn't vote for Obama because of race when you said "the white south" I guess using the word "white" if it wasn't about race is what threw me off. And I'm not so sure about whether the states that voted republican last time will do so again. They may. But everyone that I speak to where I live are all ready for a big change. Don't forget that the south was pure Democrat up until Ronald Reagan came along. Dixie used to be Democrat country. And it still has been as far as local elections were concerned. I think that in the 1980's when the Democratic Party became more of an alliance of interest groups like gay rights and feminism is when the older formerly Democrat voters turned to the Republicans in national elections.
But now that a new generation is taking their place, that is starting to change. Whether or not it will happen in this election I don't know. But if there was ever an election that could change the South's vote in national elections, this might be the one.
Just my opinion. And I could be way off base. I'm just commenting from my own observations in this region. Which is probably a lot more accurate than the national news reporters sitting in New York reading a script off of a monitor.

What you say is exactly why I think Obama could win some southern states against McCain. The conservative Christian right doesn't really like McCain and there is a strong chance they wouldn't support him if her were up against Obama (or at least not support him in big numbers) if you factor that lack of support in with the fact that a lot of black people haven't voted in the past, but might not vote for Obama it could take a couple of the states that were close in the last election, but went to the republicans and move them over to Obama.

Watch some Obama videos. Click my sig :)

The biggest issue is that whites vote and blacks don't. I am talking stats not trying to create issues. If minorities and young people voted and supported a candidate they would win. Wee are ruled by older white conservatives because that is who votes. Clinton got in by walking down the middle of the road and energizing some youth. Hilary is way to liberal to do the same thing and Obama might be able to pull it off.

Fitty losses:Oh crap

Agreed. So far the guy has certainly surprised all the pundits by pulling in young voters. It's the first time in my lifetime that I've seen young people come out and vote. So who knows.

I can only hope you are pretending to be this stupid. Providing for national defense and controlling the borders are some of the few legitimate purposes of government. They hardly constitute socialism. Farm subsidies on the other hand are clearly socialism and are good examples of big government programs which should be ended.

Whether it's legitimate or not is not the point. Military and border control are still socialized aspects of our country. I feel that education and infrastructure development are legitimate purposes of the government, it does not make them any less socialized though. Your opinion on whether it is legitimate or not does not change the definition of socialized (which is to place under government ownership or control).

I'm simply pointing out that it's hypocritical to say one thing constitutes socializing while the other is not. Republicans and Democrats loves socializing things. Republicans were strongly in favor of Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and massive government spending over the past decade. Democrats want socialized medicine and more money for unemployment benefits. Both sides are socialist in their views, they simply disagree about what parts.

So argue about which candidate has the best ideas and which has the worst, but the socialism card is ignorant. The country socializes a lot of stuff. There are few aspects of it that are not socialized. Both parties accept it and want it (along with much of the population). This isn't 1980 where you can scare people into thinking the big bad commies are coming to take over.

The right is going to kill him directly and indirectly with 527's on this. Factor in Rev Wright and the fact that he blocked revotes in MI and FL and Obama is sunk. His whole premise for the general was creating a new map and winning some typically solid red states and this statement has hurt him in OH, PA, Indiana and the south and totally screwed him on his new map theory.

Whether or not it was enough for the superdelegates in the primary to deny him the nomination is up in the air, but come the general its going to be a fucking disaster.

The only time I can recall saying I was leaving GFY forever was when they had the GUBA ads here.....the ads were pulled and I came back.

As for the political discussions, what can I say, I'm a junkie. :pimp

You don't think the right is gonna kill Hillary directly and indirectly with her Bosnia thing?

He didn't "block" revotes in FL and MI....that issue was alot more complicated than you're making it sound, and it'll be very very very old news by November.

You say he can't win because of this and that and the other thing....but I'll tell you this, IF Hillary gets the nomination blacks will stay home in November.
They will be told to stay home by their political leaders, guys like Sharpton and Jackson will be all over the airwaves and in all of the major cities in the fall telling the black people to stay home.
Then Hillary will lose in a 49 state wipeout.

What states a democrat needs to get to 270 electoral votes can change from election to election based on changing demographics and who the candidate is.....but democrats CANNOT win an election without the black vote period.

The FL vote was more than I stated as the state said our vote was legit and 1.7 million democrats came out to vote a state record for a primary. But in Michigan it falls 100% on Obama blocking it and using his surrogates in the state legislature to help block it. And in Nov it will be fully out in the open as McCain and Right use it to hammer him to get both states red since Obama didn't think your votes should count.

If you think the A.A vote will stay home or vote for McCain then its equally fair to say that the Reagan democrats and women vote will stay home or vote for McCain. And as I am sure you know, the Women vote makes up the majority of all voters while the A.A vote in a general makes up just under 20% of all voters. And no party can win with out the women vote, PERIOD. Let alone rural voters. Obama is fucked 6 ways to Sunday.

No democrat can win the general losing MI, OH, PA and FL. And Obama has effectively killed any shot he had in all 4 states with the blocking of revotes and counting of the election results, and this his talking down to the blue collar workers in his most recent comments. That says nothing about his staying in a church of Rev Wright for 20 years and contributing $25k to the church last year. And yes that will turn many the other way alone.

BTW Lenny, the Bosnia thing was a big blunder of trying to overstate her experience and she deserved to be hammered on it, and when Bill brought it back up he and she deserved to be called out on it again.

But to equate inflating the resume vs being condescending and telling people the only reason the rural citizen has religion and guns is because they are bitter about their jobs and economic standing is beyond crazy. Calling the voters bitter wasn't great but it also wasn't the biggest problem. It was the fact he said because they are bitter they cling to their religion and guns and hatred of trade and immigrants. That was just a crazy thing to say, and only said because he thought he was in a closed room of supporters with no press or cameras. If he had just said voters in rural PA were bitter with their job loses and left it at that, it would be pretty much a non story.

Ok so these are your umpteen reasons why he can't win this month.

Last month you had umpteen different reasons why he couldn't win.

Next month you'll have umpteen more.....but the fact of the matter is that he keeps winning, there aren't enough contests left for her to catch him. MAYBE if she won all 10 that were left by 60-40 or something similar the superdelegates would consider giving it to her.....but that's a very very remote possibility.

Barack Obama will be the democratic nominee for President, you should start getting used to the idea.

As for he said this and did that and Rev Wright this and 527 that, it doesn't really matter. Like I said you were bitching about 100 other things last month and now those have all but been forgotten by the media and the voters and now they've moved on to other things.
It's a LONG time until November.

You act as though Obama will be tarnished with these things forever.....but if that were the case then Hillary would still be taking major shit in the press over saying "I'm not gonna just bake cookies" or talking about "Vast right wing conspiracies" or even more recently her flip-flop on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants or her double talk on NAFTA etc etc etc.

These things half a very short half life and at the end of the day it's a personality contest really. That's one category where even someone like you would have to agree, Obama is head and shoulders above the other candidates.

See you're way wrong about what he said. If you read the actual transcript and what he said about it afterwards....and did so honestly without any bias you would see what what he said was true, made alot of sense, but he chose his words poorly.

I read a whole book a few months ago called "What's the Matter with Kansas" in which the author described how middle class people vote against their own economic interest and instead base their votes on issues like gay marriage, gun rights, abortion, etc.
This is basically what Obama was saying....that alot of people figure no matter who is president they're not going to do anything for me economically, they're all in bed with the wall street fat cats, so I may as well vote for the guy who shares my family values, or will protect my right to bear arms, or is against abortion, or whatever.

He never said the only reason they have religion and guns is because they're bitter about their jobs (that would be offensive) he said they base who they're going to vote for on things like guns and religion because they don't believe any politician cares about their economic standing.

Lenny I thought you were a political junkie? Obviously you drank the koolaide and are blind to realities.

Will the left MSM try and blow past this like they did Wright yes. Will it be as easy? No, because these words came directly from Obama himself. And the Rightwing media will be relentless. And you better believe the super delegates are at the very least taking notice of the NAFTA bullshit with Goolsbee telling the CDN gov't to not worry and look the other way. The Rezko land deal and the corruption he was part of in Chicago and tied directly to Obama in the grants provided for the housing projects that were turned into slums. The Reverend Wright I hate America and blame white people. Obama's typical white person comment. His claim to get out of Iraq in 16 months while his senior foreign policy advisor is telling the BBC that its crazy to think he will stick to a plan he created on the campaign trail. And finally belittling the rural, blue collar workers of America saying the only reason they have religion and guns is because they are bitter with their lives because of the downturn in jobs and the economy. Yeah the SD's are taking notice and if they don't take it seriously, it will be a 4 year McCain whitehouse.

And when I said I feel confident enough to bet you money that Obama would lose and not be the next president come Nov for charity, you backed out like a pussy because when push comes to shove, you talk a big game but you know full well there are big issues on the table that make the man unelectable.

Anyway I am off to bed and we still disagree on Obama's electablity come the fall. And my offer stands I will send $100 to your favorite charity if he wins the presidency if you send the same to mine if he doesn't. If you truly believe in him and what you say, then it shouldn't be that hard to step up for charity.

Truth is you know he's fucked. Hell I don't even need you to do the bet. If he wins in Nov I will send $100 to your favorite charity anyways.

Jeez, now you're throwing personal insults at me over this?

And it's a reflection of my manhood that I would rather put $100 into my kids college fund rather than gamble it on a presidential election?

Your girl is going to lose, my guy is going to win....you can sit here and make all the arguments you want for why she is the better candidate, hell 13 million people agree with you and voted for her also.

But more voted for my guy, and in the end that's why he's going to win. No amount of name-calling or arguing on a message board is going to change that.

Look Brent, make all the arguments you want for your candidate and against mine, but don't presume to know what I'm thinking or what I know. That's quite immature.

I am calling you out on that issue, I actually still really like you as a person. You're take on politics or something like religion doesn't take change my view on you as a person.

I apologies for the term used in calling you on the bet, wrong choice.

All in jest my friend, doesn't translate in a msg I am sure but thats why I love politics as its combative and people friendly can disagree. We are on the same side, but at the same time not. Although I do think your being a bit to naive regarding the flaws of Obama and how they will be painted and received in the General. The reality is Obama is fresh and the left media loves him so the picture painted right now is rosy and forgiving. Hillary has been painted the same for 16 years. The two biggest things she can be hit on right now that are new are Bosnia and trying to peg down the contributions to the Bill Clinton foundation and that has merits and should be looked into deeper.

Anyway my offer still stands. I will contribute $100 to your favorite charity or your childs education fund if Obama wins in November. No reciprocation required on that.

Living in the Bible belt I can say that what he said is 100% true. So what is to be angry about? If some bible thumping gun lover is going to get mad, then he must think that guns and god are bad.

That is exactly why the republicans tend to win more often. Their base is the conservative Christian right and say what you will about them, they are organized and they vote. The hard, hippy unwashed left talk a good game, then on election day they smoke a bowl and forget to vote. Young people put Bill Clinton in the white house. Kerry thought they would do the same for him. He bragged a few days before election day about how his campaign had registered the highest number of first time voters in history, then on election day they stayed home.

If the minorities and young turn out in mass, whoever they want will win. It is getting their support and getting them to vote that is the hard part.

Here are two definitions of socialism
noun
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital

The police, fire, military, schools and general city/state operations are socialized systems. These are things that everyone pays into whether you use them or not and they are run by the government on our behalf. You can argue we all use the military or the city/state operations, indirectly, but in the end we don't get a choice. We pay for it and it is run by the government. There are many others. Like farm subsidies, or for that matter any kind of corporate welfare. The welfare system in general and food stamps/Medicare and social security are all socialized systems. The difference is most of these things have been fed to use in a way that we don't look at them in that way. Just because we like them and use them and approve of them doesn't mean they are not socialist system.

some socialized things can be and are good. others need to be done away with. The trick is deciding which is which.

Brent the $100 thing isn't necessary, but it's a nice gesture.

If Obama is so unelectable, but Hillary can't beat him, then what does that say about her?

You're joking right? I guess you only make statements that suit your argument at the time.. Ealier in this very thread you indicated that the results of a purely Democratic election can't be used to judge what would happen in the real election and yet here you use them as "proof" Obama can win the real election.

?You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,? she said.

?You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It?s part of culture. It?s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it?s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.?

- Hillary Clinton's response.

very true.. I didn't think what Obama said was all that bad. I mean Hill made 109million in 7 years, John Mccain has 8 houses ( Pot calling kettle black) no pun intended

there's too many Negroes down south for him to lose it....

End of thread.

Yeah, but there are even more southern families who grew up raised by KKK members.

There's a theory that the most racist people typically are those that don't live near other races (i.e. have no interaction with them), so their beliefs are based on myths - and aided by ignorance, not personal experience.

I don't recall making that argument.....but if you're talking about victory in a certain state in the primaries equaling victory in that state in the general then yeah....that argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Reason being, someone had to win the republican primary in that same state also....so come November somebody who won a primary in a state is going to lose the general in that state....and the idea that Obama would lose in California or New York...or the argument that Hillary would beat McCain in Texas is ridiculous.

My point is simply that if Obama is so "unelectable" and Hillary is a better candidate, then why hasn't she been able to get more votes than him? Especially considering all of the advantages she started with.

You can love Hillary all you want and that's fine, I don't fault you for that, but the fact is that Obama got more votes and more pledged delegates and EVEN IF you counted the FL results, and gave Hillary all of the votes she got in MI (without giving Obama any votes for MI) then he would still beat her both in the popular vote and the pledged delegates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ote_count.html

The reason FL and MI don't really matter at this point is that the results the first time around were Hillary's best case scenario, and even if you counted those results, all it does is make the race closer, it DOES NOT PUT HER AHEAD in either the popular vote or the delegates. (and a do-over in MI would certainly widen the popular vote total in Obama's favor)

So again, unless she wins the last 10 remaining contests by margins of 60-40 or better, the nomination is going to be his.

Welcome to politics son.

Do you honestly believe that if Hillary had lost in MI and FL that she would be making a big deal out of having their votes count? Not a fucking chance.

It wasn't until after South Carolina when she looked at the polls and saw two things, 1) This was going to be a close race, and 2) She was 20 points ahead in FL, that she decided that these were "crucial states whose votes should be counted".


Do you think if Clinton was winning in the caucus states they would be bitching about the caucus process and how "undemocratic" that is? Not a fucking chance.

So hmmmmm.....not counting MI and FL is "undemocratic".....caucuses are "undemocratic".....but superdelegates, the only place in the race where she holds a lead.....well that's not undemocratic, that's just following the rules of the democratic party.

So you were saying about arguments that only suit your purpose at the time?