I lol'd

[FMBI]

Link

 

The left denounces it, the right laughs at it, the economists joke about it, bloggers mock it.

 

And yet here we are.

 

What makes this even more pathetic is that she's trying to pull out the "elite" card.. one more time.. God, I hate her. It wouldn't be bad if she did it intelligently, but she has !@#$%^&*ed up again and again. Need something to make a younger, more attractive, (slightly) more moderate person look bad? First, spread one quote around for 2 weeks (and, by the way, I'm from small-town PA, and it was true), then pull out his pastor, then keep throwing up questions about his patriotism every week or so.

 

Why can't she just find a smart policy and stick with it, instead of throwing out random gimmicks and covering it up by launching ceaseless attacks on her opponents?

Edited May 5, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Aceflyer]

First, spread one quote around for 2 weeks (and, by the way, I'm from small-town PA, and it was true), then pull out his pastor, then keep throwing up questions about his patriotism every week or so.

 

The "bitter" comment was obviously taken rather seriously by many voters. The good Reverend Wright did make some inflammatory remarks, and Obama did waver back and forth before finally denunciating said remarks after voters weren't too pleased with his previous half-hearted dismissals (this is something Karl Rove has also pointed out). I will concede the stuff about patriotism was just bad.

 

Why can't she just find a smart policy and stick with it, instead of throwing out random gimmicks and covering it up by launching ceaseless attacks on her opponents?

 

She actually has quite a few detailed policies laid out which she has been presenting. Whether they are 'smart' or not is something that is subjective. It is actually Obama, on the contrary, who hasn't really laid out policies in real detail and has mostly stuck to grand, uplifting rhetoric.

[AstroProdigy]

Hillary already lost the popular vote and the delegate count (other than the super delegates). She needs to keep up the smear tactics in order to make Obama's candidacy unwinable in the general election so she can then go to the super delegates and tell them Obama's candidacy is unwinable so they should choose her. It's a huge long shot and even if she beat Obama all the smear tactics would make her even less credible and give McCain an easy victory, but what else can you do if you're Hillary; not be president? I bet if she could capture some nukes and hold the country hostage to elect her president with them she'd do that too.

 

The "bitter" comment was obviously taken rather seriously by many voters. The good Reverend Wright did make some inflammatory remarks' date=' and Obama did waver back and forth before finally denunciating said remarks after voters weren't too pleased with his previous half-hearted dismissals (this is something Karl Rove has also pointed out). I will concede the stuff about patriotism was just bad.[/quote']

You're ignoring the sentence that the "bitter" comment was in and you never bothered to listen to because you want Hillary to win. It's actually quite insightful and shows him to be way more in tune with what America needs than Miss "I'll do anything to win even lie about being shot at to look tough" Clinton. Obama didn't waver about Reverend Wright. He didn't want to just be a liar the way Hillary is and say that he will cut himself off from the pastor that married him and his wife and baptized his kids just because he disagrees with his opinions. Eventually he had to really denounce Wright the man instead of just the things he said because he was going out and flaunting his extreme ideas instead of just having them taped and shown to the world out of context. Half-hearted dismissals? Wright isn't a member of Obama's cabinet here; he's allowed his own opinions and there's nothing you or I can or should do about it. You're listening to Karl Rove to justify your support of the sinking Hillary ship too now? We all know how honest Karl Rove is! The fact is no one could ever pin Obama on something so Hillary eventually decided to use the words of someone else and take the snipets of Obama's words she could find most offensive to do the trick. All this does is hand over the country to another Republican who will screw America further. Congratulations to both you and Hillary for being willing to do and believe anything for a very very very long shot of victory.

Edited May 5, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aileron]

Look, as a Republican, I think I can safely say that I had an impartial !@#$%^&*essment going in to this campaign, because I hate both of them equally.

 

 

What's going on is that as this race started, Obama was nobody. This lead to a background of no positives and no negatives. I am suddenly reminded of a children's book I read long ago about a boy who wished to become 'perfect' by making no mistakes, so he picked up a self-help book on how to become perfect. The book (within a book) eventually directed him to do nothing sit in his room 24/7, thus eliminating any possibility of making mistakes. The downside of that is that such a person is marginally more useful than a rock. Obama is that type of perfect person.

 

 

His campaign has been so successful because, Republicans notwithstanding, the Democrats have adopted a pure negative campaigning strategy. They don't run for office, they run against the other candidate. That is why they lost 2004, because they never boosted up John Kerry. All they could do is attack Bush. The voting public had to decide between a 'poor' president and a non-presidential candidate. Really, everything going on as it is, the Democrats will probably lose the election, because the only thing they can do is attack Bush, and he isn't even running.

 

Thus, when Hillary Clinton was faced with Obama, her campaign couldn't handle him. The only page in their book is attack. With no past, Clinton couldn't find anything to pin on him, until recently. If Clinton had done some positive campaigning, she might have been more successful, though as a product of the current Democratic regime, the Clintons are just not the type of candidates who can campaign defensively. Only recently have things about Obama's past reached the public, and Clinton is trying to win.

 

She and Wright are in fact doing their party a service. As bad as this is, McCain's campaign isn't going to pull any punches. The worst thing that could have happened to the Democrats would have been if Obama got easy-street nomination and McCain's campaign started publishing this stuff afterwards.

 

As for the 'bitter' comment, the fact of the matter is that wasn't candor. Obama is a lawyer. Lawyers pander. At the moment he was pandering to a bunch of people who would call themselves communists if they were more honest. The fact that he was pandering to Californians in the middle of a campaign over Pennsylvania makes him an idiot.

 

And Hillary has a point. Obama is literally the most liberal senator. No matter what, the Democrats are going to get California, and that the elections are decided by relatively swing states like Pennsylvania. If Obama alienates the swing states, he's going to lose. Lets take stock of his secondary campaign options, after McCain attacks every flaw with Obama as much as possible, which he is going to do. Obama has already alienated all of the non-atheists in the country with his 'bitter' comment. Obama's buddy Heirs has alienated anybody who has a positive opinion of our armed forces. Probably, after McCain is done with Wright, most white people won't vote Obama either, and possibly McCain can get the not-so-fanatical blacks as well. Keep in mind, that Obama would also have to deal with his natural weakness, an opponent who can positively campaign.

 

 

 

Clinton isn't out by the numbers, so she should still be campaigning. Also, there is no easy street to the presidency, so she shouldn't shy away from attacking Obama, because whatever she doesn't throw at him will be used by McCain.

[Aileron]

 

 

This is how I think this election is going to turn out. If we pretend my ms paint drawing is a bell curve, this chart represents the political opinions of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in the country. I then marked the approximate political stance of all the candidates.

 

On a simple level, the turnout between two candidates would be that if you could 'average' their political stances, and drew a line at that position, that line would show how the votes are divided. However, a candidate's popularity would increase their 'reach' and push the line over on to their opponent's territory.

 

 

Without the popularity factor, or should I say the lack of popularity for Clinton, this campaign would have been decided in Clinton's favor easy. However, due to it, the line is pretty much where I drew it, divvying up the democratic party.

 

In the general election, Obama is going to have problems. Yes, he is popular, but he has to reach accrossed the entire Democratic party to reach the Independents, while McCain is practically an independent already. Meanwhile, Clinton though less popular has a better shot at the center.

 

In hindsight, I'd say I put Clinton and the Clinton vs. McCain line too far right. She'd get trounced as well really, but she does have a better shot at McCain than Obama does.

 

Also, the reason why Obama is so popular here is because the internet generally represents the left-most sixth of that chart there. Heck, if I recall some of you people tested more left-wing than Stalin.

 

 

End of the day, with Obama or Clinton the Democrats are gonna lose either way, so I'd say vote Obama because as long as the Clintons are around, the Democratic leadership is never going to put forth a decent centrist. Axing Joe Lieberman was the worst thing that party has done.

[SeVeR]

Clinton is pathetic. She's so desperate to win that she's announcing policies that are completely unimportant, but which might grab a few votes from stupid Americans who think the price of gas runs their lives. It's detrimental to the political process. Following on from all her bitter comments, and the advert which tried to scare people into voting for her, i can only conclude that people who support Hillary are too stupid to think properly.

 

She voted for the Iraq war, but now changes her mind simply because it helps her chances to win the nomination.

 

She was once the champion of socialised health care (1993). Now she is the second most highly paid recipent of donations from health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals. Why? Because Hillary's new plan takes away the choice of Americans on whether or not to have insurance. The companies get 50 million extra quotes, and so they are more than happy to support Hillary's "universal" health plan.

 

She's the friggin - lol

[Aileron]

The people who vote for Clinton are Democratic conservatives. Generally, people who would vote Republican if they voted by political stance rather than party name. They want to believe that the Democrats hold conservative values, and are all to willing to accept a liberal who will lie to them.

 

I don't like those people. If they would only wake up the Republicans would win more elections. That would be good for the Democrats too, because they would have to put forward better candidates.

[Aceflyer]

Also, the reason why Obama is so popular here is because the internet generally represents the left-most sixth of that chart there.

 

Agreed.

 

And what exactly is wrong with Clinton's universal healthcare proposal?

[NBVegita]

There are dozens of problems with socialized health care.

 

I'll just point out a couple. Right now I pay for health care, but my company pays a majority of it. If health care was government funded, my company would no longer offer me health care, in fact most companies wouldn't. Now that health care is governmentally funded, they tell the doctors what to charge. So now your good doctors are going to keep their private practices for the rich people who can pay for it. We will, for the most part, get the doctors who simply aren't good enough to have their own private practice. Now that every American has health care and you can only go to the specific doctors that the government decides, if you have a problem with that old shoulder injury from high school it's going to take you a minimum of 2 months (if you're lucky) just to get in to see what could possibly be a second rate doctor. Heaven forbid you need to see a specialist.

 

I have an Aunt who lives in Canada and when she has to go to the doctors she comes back to the U.S. because of how bad the health care in Canada is compared to the U.S.

 

I will never vote for socialized anything.

[Aceflyer]

[NBVegita]

require everyone to obtain insurance

 

How else do you describe that?

[SeVeR]

Not as socialised health-care. It's still privatised, except with Hillary's plan no-one would have a choice about whether to buy insurance...

 

EDIT- which is why the health insurance companies love her.

Edited May 6, 2008 by SeVeR

[»Ducky]

*boggle* I'm not understanding why manditory healthcare is bad, can someone enlighten me? Honest proposal.

[SeVeR]

Because as far as i can tell, Hillary's plan would force you to pay for insurance whether you want it or not. Mandatory health-care is not socialised health-care.

[»Ducky]

Everyone required to have insurance generally means lower healthcare prices right?

[SeVeR]

With the health-care companies having 50 million extra customers, they will be able to lower prices a bit with all the extra profit.

 

It doesn't really make-up for the loss of choice in deciding whether to part with your money or not.

[»Ducky]

So, car insurance basically. You pay a little in the hopes you don't have to pay a lot. Right now, Health insurance is not affordable. So not only are people not getting it, they aren't paying ridiculous medical bills either. That seems rather broken to me. In reality, 90% of drivers don't need car insurance where as 90% (if not more)will need hospital attention at some point in their lives. At the going rate of just an ambulance ride from my local hospital, I'd say it's a fair deal if it were cheap enough. If 50 million extra customers are s!@#$%^&*ing out money monthly, I'd assume the price wouldn't just drop a little.

 

I just don't see the problem in it. In most cases, you simply don't choose to part with your money or not if you're in the hospital for a serious reason.

12 grand benign hernia surgeries in the 10% chance it doesn't become worse, a 2 grand 4 block ambulance drive...

 

The system is completely broken. I'm not a fan of this particular quick fix, I'd rather just have free across the board. It's SOMETHING though.

[Aceflyer]

Not as socialised health-care. It's still privatised, except with Hillary's plan no-one would have a choice about whether to buy insurance...

 

EDIT- which is why the health insurance companies love her.

 

Agreed.

[darkhosis]

[Aceflyer]

cant carry the election on 93% of black vote (none of whom are racist of course)

 

Haha yeah. He probably won't even get that much of the black vote in the November election, because some blacks are conservatives/Republicans and will vote for McCain.

 

however, we do still have an option! vote for your local third party candidate

 

If it comes to voting for "your local third party candidate" might as well not vote.

[darkhosis]

cant carry the election on 93% of black vote (none of whom are racist of course)

 

Haha yeah. He probably won't even get that much of the black vote in the November election, because some blacks are conservatives/Republicans and will vote for McCain.

 

however, we do still have an option! vote for your local third party candidate

 

If it comes to voting for "your local third party candidate" might as well not vote.

pretty much =P

 

i should have said 93% of dem blacks.

 

you know, i actually sent money to alan keyes once. and years later i still get emails from him, and i think he's sold my email address a few times too. last i read, i think he was running for nomination for the Cons!@#$%^&*utional Party? hmm.. perhaps an option for a nice throwaway vote?

 

ed:

 

Convening its national convention in Kansas City today, the Cons!@#$%^&*ution Party picked radio talk-show host Chuck Baldwin over former Amb!@#$%^&*ador Alan Keyes as its 2008 presidential candidate.

 

The pick was seen as something of an upset, given Keyes' higher national profile. Known for his fiery stem-winders, Keyes is a two-time GOP presidential candidate who abandoned the Republican Party this month to join the Cons!@#$%^&*ution Party, which believes in limited government and is committed to ending abortion and bringing American troops home from Iraq.

 

But Baldwin's roots in the Cons!@#$%^&*ution Party run deeper. He was the party's 2004 vice-presidential candidate, and party members said his stands were more in line with party thinking.

 

oops!

 

ed also: i see yer graph now aileron and i pretty much agree with it, except where you are pinning mccain's ideology, well i guess we can just say "that's what america thinks" anyway!

Edited May 8, 2008 by darkhosis

[»Ducky]

The problem I see with the whole "he can't win the states needed against republicans" isn't really a known factor.

 

He lost them against Clinton, but that doesn't mean the democrats that voted for Clinton won't vote for him anyways just because he's the democratic nominee.

 

I don't buy too much into exit polls, the amount of people who say they are voting but actually never do isn't counted.

[SeVeR]

I agree with Ducky; I think most Dems will vote Obama if Clinton isn't nominated. The more states/votes he steals of Republicans the better. I think he's got more vote stealing power than vote losing power.

[Aileron]

Everyone required to have insurance generally means lower healthcare prices right?

 

No. It means the opposite according to the Law of Supply and Demand. For fixed supply, the Price vs. Demand curve is different for a 'want' than it is a 'need'. Generally, the curve for a 'need' will be a less steep function, because demand won't lower much with the raising of prices. For example, gas. Demand isn't inversely proportional to price because gas is a need. When a law requires the purchasing of insurance, what it does is change the status of that insurance from a 'want' to a 'need', which would allow insurance companies to charge more. Essentially it would allow the bare-bones HMOs to charge whatever they want. (Not literally, even for a need the Demand vs. Price curve will eventually reach zero demand, but it takes very high prices for that to happen.)

 

Usually when a government does this with something, they are smart enough to enact price regulations with the same bill. Thus, the sum total effect can be lower prices. However, by itself such regulations will increase prices.

[SeVeR]

What about a big supermarket chain that is able to out-compete local shops for prices because it has low comparative operating costs due to a large amount of stores/customers. That's not a fixed supply, but neither is the health-insurance business.