During last night's Democratic debate the issue of Barack Obama's realtionship with former Weather Underground radical Bill Ayers came up.

Obama said they weren't that close and that he had nothing to do with any crimes Ayers committed.

Okay,except that this is politics and in a close election Bill Ayers and Barack Obama can give the election to John Mc Cain.

During the same era Hillary Clinton protested the Veitnam War and worked for the Women's Movement ,but she did so non-violently,the Weather Underground were involved in serious violence.

Yes ,Bill Clinton did pardon two Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans in 2002.

What Barack Obama left out was that both Rosenberg and Evans spent more than twice as long in prison than virtually all other people convicted on the same charges do.

There is a big difference between that and being a presidential canidate with a extremist friend who recently said "I wish I had done more".

He's going to be the nominee. Get over it.

He's going to be the nominee.


Then get ready to say:President John Mc Cain.:eek:

Then get ready to say:President John Mc Cain.:eek:

It's certainly possible. Less likely than if Hillary was nominated, though.

Ah,my bad,let's have a do over.



He's going to be the nominee.


Then get ready to say : President John Mc Cain.:eek:

It's certainly possible. Less likely than if Hillary was nominated, though.



There is unbiased proof of that.

The only reason Obama got this far was that both Hillary and the press underestimated him and his abilty to organize,thereby he didn't get the scrutiny that he should have gotten from the start.

Now that he is finally getting that scrutiny,I think Hillary has a much better chance of beating Mc Cain,she has nothing like this in her record.




www.dictionary.com

The only reason Obama got this far was that both Hillary and the press underestimated him and his abilty to organize,thereby he didn't get the scrutiny that he should have gotten from the start.

Okay Socrates, let's scrutinize this shit you present.

Premise*: Hillary underestimated Obama's political machinary
Conclusion**: Hillary did not look at Obama's sordid background

Now that he is finally getting that scrutiny,I think Hillary has a much better chance of beating Mc Cain,she has nothing like this in her record.

Premise*: Hillary did not associate with bad people
Conclusion**: Hillary has a cleaner background that McSatan

*False Premise
**Fallacious Conclusion

The fact is that the media has not said one word about the sordid details of WHEN SHE WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! JUST ASK VINCE FOSTER!!!

During last night's Democratic debate the issue of Barack Obama's realtionship with former Weather Underground radical Bill Ayers came up.

Obama said they weren't that close and that he had nothing to do with any crimes Ayers committed.

Okay,except that this is politics and in a close election Bill Ayers and Barack Obama can give the election to John Mc Cain.

During the same era Hillary Clinton protested the Veitnam War and worked for the Women's Movement ,but she did so non-violently,the Weather Underground were involved in serious violence.

Yes ,Bill Clinton did pardon two Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans in 2002.

What Barack Obama left out was that both Rosenberg and Evans spent more than twice as long in prison than virtually all other people convicted on the same charges do.

There is a big difference between that and being a presidential canidate with a extremist friend who recently said "I wish I had done more".

Sigh. Are they friends now? Is that what the story has become?

Everyone is laughing: virtually the entire nation. This has to be the biggest stretch ever when it comes to trying to make guilt by association stick, and the only people who seem to be fooled by it are the disingenuous people trying to peddle the smear themselves.

It is already yesterday's news, and it has not stuck.

Why don't you just let the best candidate win, instead of trying to throw mud like this?

M.

Swift boating.

And TT, if you think the right wouldn't turn on Hillary the second she came out as the nominee you're kidding yourself, images of Vince Foster will be all over the right wing media, they'll go into instant Clinton hating mode, you know it.

Why don't you just let the best candidate win, instead of trying to throw mud like this?


Personally,I don't think it's much of an issue.

But,the Republicans will sucessfully make it an issue with the voters who will decide the election.



Swift boating.


That is my point,the Republicans will sucessfully swift-boat him with this.


And TT, if you think the right wouldn't turn on Hillary the second she came out as the nominee you're kidding yourself, images of Vince Foster will be all over the right wing media, they'll go into instant Clinton hating mode, you know it.

The difference is that with Vince Foster there is no "there" there.

The Republicans have dumped on her for years and they have not been successfull.

I think they will be successfull on Obama.

I think they will be successfull on Obama.

You HOPE they will be successful on Obama.
You have no grounds to think so. He is ahead of McCain in the polls despite the smear campaign. People aren't buying it yet so why would you think that?

M.

You HOPE they will be successful on Obama.
You have no grounds to think so. He is ahead of McCain in the polls despite the smear campaign. People aren't buying it yet so why would you think that?

M.

let me say first, rooting for mccain over either of the other two, is like rooting for oprah over maury....both worthless wastes of breath. but i find it interesting how you are willing to distort reality in your arguments, which is exactly what you accuse everyone else of...especially truth teller. i don't even think you do research before you post. you just throw out some bs and hope it sticks without anybody calling you on it.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/candidate.poll/

i picked cnn because i thought you would be comfortable with it as a 'reputable, unbiased' news source. the national polls have the candidates in a statistical dead heat with mccain, which is apparently the result of him having closed the gap over a matter of weeks now. laughable.

You HOPE they will be successful on Obama.


No I don't.

You are a liar when you say that.



You have no grounds to think so.


I come from the heartland ,I know what these peple think and why [I don't agree with them,but I do know].


He is ahead of McCain in the polls despite the smear campaign.


The polls don't means shit,especially six months before the election.


If you think this is a "smear campaign",you just wait until he has the nomination and it can't be taken back,then you'll see shit that will make this look tame.

The Republicans will then brutally club him [something that Hillary Clinton has been too nice to do].










i find it interesting how you are willing to distort reality in your arguments, which is exactly what you accuse everyone else of...especially truth teller. i don't even think you do research before you post. you just throw out some bs and hope it sticks without anybody calling you on it.

Thank you vindex,you are objective and you can see reality.

let me say first, rooting for mccain over either of the other two, is like rooting for oprah over maury....both worthless wastes of breath. but i find it interesting how you are willing to distort reality in your arguments, which is exactly what you accuse everyone else of...especially truth teller. i don't even think you do research before you post. you just throw out some bs and hope it sticks without anybody calling you on it.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/candidate.poll/

i picked cnn because i thought you would be comfortable with it as a 'reputable, unbiased' news source. the national polls have the candidates in a statistical dead heat with mccain, which is apparently the result of him having closed the gap over a matter of weeks now. laughable.

That poll is over a month old.
Obama has a point over McCain in the latest poll I have seen - more recent than your's.

I would post a link to it as a courtesy if your attitude had me feeling courteous towards you. Considering you are able to dig up month old polls to prove your point, I'm going to assume you're able to find the more recent polls I did without too much effort.

M.

That poll is over a month old.
Obama has a point over McCain in the latest poll I have seen - more recent than your's.

I would post a link to it as a courtesy if your attitude had me feeling courteous towards you. Considering you are able to dig up month old polls to prove your point, I'm going to assume you're able to find the more recent polls I did without too much effort.

M.

sorry malcolm. i saw the 18th...it was the 18th, and i didn't notice the month. here's a current one.......that says exactly the same thing.......from another trustworthy 'news source'. mccain has closed the gap, and your candidate only maintains a one point "lead" over him, in a poll with a THREE point margin of error. a statistical dead-heat, as i mentioned. nothing to worry about here. you may continue obfuscating.

That is my point,the Republicans will sucessfully swift-boat him with this.

There is no "this" anyway, how about we talk about the current presidents friendship with the Saudi terrorists, a REAL friendship, not this lame smear attempt.


The difference is that with Vince Foster there is no "there" there.


The GOP will dig up his corpse if they have to use it and other things against Hillary, do you really believe they like her now that she's running against black man?


The Republicans have dumped on her for years and they have not been successfull.


Well what could they do to her? Look what they did to her husband, they impeached him over a bj, while even the talk of impeaching a Republican war criminal and fascist makes them foam at the mouth.


I think they will be successfull on Obama.


They'll be just as successful against Clinton, and since when should people vote for who the GOP wants us to vote for? **** those racist scumbags.

There is no "this" anyway, how about we talk about the current presidents friendship with the Saudi terrorists, a REAL friendship, not this lame smear attempt.




The GOP will dig up his corpse if they have to use it and other things against Hillary, do you really believe they like her now that she's running against black man?




Well what could they do to her? Look what they did to her husband, they impeached him over a bj, while even the talk of impeaching a Republican war criminal and fascist makes them foam at the mouth.





They'll be just as successful against Clinton, and since when should people vote for who the GOP wants us to vote for? **** those racist scumbags.


Lots of opinions,little facts to back them up with.

Anyway,it loks like the next prez will a Democratic Congresss,that's why we need a Democratic prez as well.

sorry malcolm. i saw the 18th...it was the 18th, and i didn't notice the month. here's a current one.......that says exactly the same thing.......from another trustworthy 'news source'. mccain has closed the gap, and your candidate only maintains a one point "lead" over him, in a poll with a THREE point margin of error. a statistical dead-heat, as i mentioned. nothing to worry about here. you may continue obfuscating.

The point lead remains a point lead, even with the margin of error - it is significant, even though not anything to predict the election on.

I am not obfuscating when I say Obama, from what we know now, is heading towards the presidency. You might not like it, but from what we know at present, it is a true statement.

What happened to you Vindex? You at some point changed from someone willing to present arguments, to someone more interested in mischaracterizing me whenever you can.

You might not like me, and I can tell you that at this stage, I'm happy to return the favor - but don't sink to TT's level.

If there is a particular point you find I am misrepresenting, quote it and address it.

M.
M.

What happened to you Vindex? You at some point changed from someone willing to present arguments, to someone more interested in mischaracterizing me whenever you can.


No ,he is just noting that when it comes to Obama you have blinders on.

You totally lack objectivity when it comes to him.



but don't sink to TT's level.


Hey Malcolm ,I don't dislike you as a person [I'd put you ignore if I did].

My disagreements with you on this issue are political and philosophical,they are not personal.

Anyway,it loks like the next prez will a Democratic Congresss,that's why we need a Democratic prez as well.

Actually, it's a very good reason to have a Republican president. A deadlocked federal government, though wasteful, is less dangerous than an unstoppable democrat juggernaut.

So, if this guy is a terrorist, then what is he doing walking around free?

Oh yeah, that's right. The charges were dropped against him 40 years ago, and he's been a college professor. And he's probably in his 60s.

I don't think Obama has a Bill Ayers problem. I think a lot of people have a Barack Obama problem.

Here's a excerpt from a piece I just found on him online.

According to his memoir, Ayers became radicalized at the University of Michigan where he became involved in the New Left and the Students for a Democratic Society. Ayers joined the Weatherman group in 1969, but went underground with several associates after the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion in 1970, in which three members (Ted Gold, Terry Robbins, and Diana Oughton, who was Ayers's girlfriend at the time) were killed while constructing a nail bomb.

While underground, he and fellow member Bernardine Dohrn married and had two children. They were purged from the group in the mid-1970s, and turned themselves in to the authorities in 1981. All charges against him were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct during the long search for the fugitives. They later became legal guardians to the son of former Weathermen David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, after his parents were arrested for their part in the Brinks Robbery of 1981.[3]

In 2001, Ayers published Fugitive Days: A Memoir. Much of the controversy about him is connected with his interview with the New York Times about his book was published, by historical coincidence, on September 11, 2001,[4] and opens with his statements, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." When asked he would "do it all again," Ayers replied, "I don't want to discount the possibility."[3]

Ayers wrote a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times on September 15, describing the interview as: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[5] He has explained multiple times that by "no regrets" he meant that he didn't regret his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that "we didn't do enough" meant that efforts to stop the war were obviously inadequate as it dragged on for a decade; the two statements were not intended to elide into a wish they had set more bombs.[6][7]

The interview also mentions what he wrote in his book regarding Emile de Antonio's 1976 documentary film Underground, about the Weathermen: "[Ayres] was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism."[3]

New Politics reviewer Jesse Lemisch has contrasted Ayers's recollections with those of other Weathermen and has alleged serious factual errors.[8] Ayers, in the foreward to his book, states that it was written as his personal memories and impressions over time, not a scholarly research project.[3] His history occasionally surfaces, as when he was asked not to attend a progressive educators' conference in the fall of 2006 on the basis that the organizers did not want to risk an association with his past[9].

Ayers said "I don't regret setting bombs",that is the problem.

No amount of spin can make that quote look good.:nonono:

Gee, Hillary Clinton is MARRIED to Bill Cinton, the ex-president who continued the class war, continued the humanitarian sanctions against Iraq, and also bombed them everytime his sex life made the news, and signed us into the devastating NAFTA and WTO corporate free for all agreements. Now that's a problem that isn't going away for Hillary..

Ayers said "I don't regret setting bombs",that is the problem.

No amount of spin can make that quote look good.:nonono:

However, lying about what he actually said sure makes for a good attack ad.

:nonono::nonono:

Ayers wrote a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times on September 15, describing the interview as: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[5] He has explained multiple times that by "no regrets" he meant that he didn't regret his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that "we didn't do enough" meant that efforts to stop the war were obviously inadequate as it dragged on for a decade; the two statements were not intended to elide into a wish they had set more bombs.[6][7]

However, lying about what he actually said sure makes for a good attack ad.

:nonono::nonono:

Ayers wrote a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times on September 15, describing the interview as: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[5] He has explained multiple times that by "no regrets" he meant that he didn't regret his efforts to oppose the Vietnam War, and that "we didn't do enough" meant that efforts to stop the war were obviously inadequate as it dragged on for a decade; the two statements were not intended to elide into a wish they had set more bombs.[6][7]


Ayers may be telling the truth or he may not [I don't see any independent proof one way or the other].

The fact is that we do live a soundbite culture and that soundbites affects elections [Remember "Read my lips"?].

Politics is a contract sport and sometimes the play is dirty.

If one can't hadle that, then they shouldn't be on the field.

Politics is a contract sport and sometimes the play is dirty.

If one can't hadle that, then they shouldn't be on the field.

I think you meant contact sport.

This seems to be a favorite mantra of your's. You've said it to me before, verbatim.
We of course defer to your inflated sense of political machismo, but we still feel compelled to point out the dirty tactics because we KNOW that many Americans do not respect such diversionary capers. This sort of expenditure detracts from the real issues, and MANY Americans are no longer duped by it.

It is my hope, and my expectation that the time is not too far off where such tactics will hurt the mudslinger more than it hurts the person he attacks.
Obama's track record already illustrates the birth of such an encourageing trend. His effort to patiently repeat the wake-up call: that we have REAL problems we need to address and that the urgency of that need makes back-stabbing each other a fool's game - will pay off. Americans are slowly but surely awakening from a long slumber. Its not a moment too soon, either.

During thge PA debate, after Clinton tried to passive-aggressively dig in about Obama's misinterpreted comment to rural Pennsylvanians and the Bill Ayers smear, she stood by with an embarassed expression of uncomprehension as Obama proceeded to grace her with what she had been unable to do for him: he excused her lies about Bosnia and once again reminded the American people that these are not the issues we should be concerned about.
If you want to judge who is the greater unifier: look no further: that moment firmly separated the two candidates in unmistakable ways, and leaves only one answer to that question. Obama can rise above petty differences to unite. Hillary cannot.

M.

I think you meant contact sport.

I can't afford to get my glasses upgraded.:shrug:


This seems to be a favorite mantra of your's. You've said it to me before, verbatim.
We of course defer to your inflated sense of political machismo, but we still feel compelled to point out the dirty tactics because we KNOW that many Americans do not respect such diversionary capers. This sort of expenditure detracts from the real issues, and MANY Americans are no longer duped by it.

It is my hope, and my expectation that the time is not too far off where such tactics will hurt the mudslinger more than it hurts the person he attacks.
Obama's track record already illustrates the birth of such an encourageing trend. His effort to patiently repeat the wake-up call: that we have REAL problems we need to address and that the urgency of that need makes back-stabbing each other a fool's game - will pay off. Americans are slowly but surely awakening from a long slumber. Its not a moment too soon, either.

During thge PA debate, after Clinton tried to passive-aggressively dig in about Obama's misinterpreted comment to rural Pennsylvanians and the Bill Ayers smear, she stood by with an embarassed expression of uncomprehension as Obama proceeded to grace her with what she had been unable to do for him: he excused her lies about Bosnia and once again reminded the American people that these are not the issues we should be concerned about.
If you want to judge who is the greater unifier: look no further: that moment firmly separated the two candidates in unmistakable ways, and leaves only one answer to that question. Obama can rise above petty differences to unite. Hillary cannot.

M.


1. No one can unify the country period.

2.For what it's worth, I think both Obama and Hillary will end up on the same ticket.


I think Howard Dean will dictate that because both Clinton and Obama have constituencies that the entire pary needs in order to win and Obama supporters have divided the party so bad that the only way out will be to have them both on the same ticket.

Plus,Vice President is a much bigger job now than it was before Al Gore.

Politics is not for pussies,at least not as of this time.

1. No one can unify the country period.


Some people would be better at it than others. But I can see how after my demonstration of how Hillary and Obama sized up, you might want to make a dismissive absolutist statement such as this one.


2.For what it's worth, I think both Obama and Hillary will end up on the same ticket.

I think Howard Dean will dictate that because both Clinton and Obama have constituencies that the entire pary needs in order to win and Obama supporters have divided the party so bad that the only way out will be to have them both on the same ticket.


The division is, of course, to be blames entirely on Obama supporters :) You and Hillary have so much in common - always blaming everything on someone else.


Politics is not for pussies,at least not as of this time.

Your political machismo has us all in awe. Too bad you don't seem to convince anyone of the important traits - integrity, balanced insight, etc...

M.

-Hmm, let's see. It's early 2005, the Republican administration has won another term due in part to "swift boating" the democrat candidate. Of course, "swift boating" is just the latest term for "mud-slinging", an age-old tactic in American politics. Politics is a "blood sport" after all.

I have no doubt that the blood sport will continue to use personal attacks disguised as a political issue to legitimize efforts to knock the opponent down a few notches.
I hope it is clear to more Americans than ever before, that we were given a collective corn-holing because too many voters bought into the junior-high school tactics of character assassination. -At the expense of political analysis. Perhaps we could look at the campaign of 1928, compare it to 1932, for another comparison between the superficial voter and the beaten (but wiser) voter.

-Hmm, let's see. It's early 2005, the Republican administration has won another term due in part to "swift boating" the democrat candidate. Of course, "swift boating" is just the latest term for "mud-slinging", an age-old tactic in American politics. Politics is a "blood sport" after all.

I have no doubt that the blood sport will continue to use personal attacks disguised as a political issue to legitimize efforts to knock the opponent down a few notches.
I hope it is clear to more Americans than ever before, that we were given a collective corn-holing because too many voters bought into the junior-high school tactics of character assassination. -At the expense of political analysis. Perhaps we could look at the campaign of 1928, compare it to 1932, for another comparison between the superficial voter and the beaten (but wiser) voter.

Agreed.
Some voters, if TT is anything to go by, still cling to honoring these diversionary tactics... but I believe that a conjunction of the catastrophe of the Bush years, and the timing and character of Obama's campaign, is providing a more significant number of 'wiser' voters. How long that wisdom will remain with us is another question entirely: we have indeed shown a very high capacity for collective amnesia... but if the wisdom helps the American people correctly identify the candidates not to vote for this time around by seeing through their attempt to divert from the real issues rather than sincerely and honestly address them, that's a not-so-small victory.

My favorite moment in the PA debate, besides the one I mentioned above, was when Obama said he would consider raising the cap on the payroll tax by a certain amount if it proved to be an effective way of squeezing much needed funds to pay off some of our collossal debt. Hillary then went into one-upmanship mode and in true populist fashion claimed to the audience that Obama's plan would impoverish educators and fire fighters. In fact his plan does NOT raise taxes for people who earn less than 97k (fire fighters and educators, despite Hillary's scare tactic, have nothing to fear).

Hillary then responded she would find other ways of paying off the debt than burdening middle America. She pointed - as an example - towards Reagan's plan that successfully helped erase debt without burdening middle America.
Obama immediately pointed out that that VERY plan raised the retirement age and payroll tax!

She's a populist. She's been caught several times now trying to tell people only what they want to hear so she can get elected.
Obama shot straight: there is no magic wand - we voted for Bush twice in a row, and Bush has turned our healthy projected surplus of the end of the 20th century into a MASSIVE debt, and there is no magic wand that will get us out of it. Taxes will have to be raised, but in a manner that does not push under those who are already struggling.

That was the second most telling moment of the debate. People charge Obama with not knowing how he's going to accomplish things: this moment showed he sees very clearly the difficult necessities to start righting our situation, and he's not afraid to tell it to us like it is. Hillary only had smooth talk to address the point: when she tried to one-up Obama's solution, she was in fact citing a plan which involved the same approach Obama's involved... only she was trying to sell it to the audience as something that would be easier on their wallets.

M.