# Obama vs Clinton



## amptor (Feb 7, 2008)

Ok well I just looked around on the internet for which supports Bush more and came up with some startling findings.

Now, what I ask you guys is what is true.  These internet sites I read stories that show that the Clinton family has strong ties with the Bush family and actually helps hide them after they commit illegal acts are coming from sites that are not necessarily what in college would be coined as "reliable sources".

So I am confused.  If I type in something like "Obama ties to bush"  it comes up with nothing more than him being very distantly related to some former presidents including Bush.  And this information is entirely irrelevant because I know that I've had great great uncles and such that I don't know anything at all about, I don't even know if they are still alive.  I found out that one owned a car dealership within drivable distance of me.  I didn't even know I had relatives in this state.  See what I'm getting at?

Which one is best for the office?  I'm a bit confused.  I was going to go with Clinton but their family has been involved in scandals in the past.  Obama looks like a clean slate, but maybe he isn't as strong of a leader as Clinton?  He seems smart enough for a job as a politician.  I'm thinking about swaying toward Obama but I wonder if anyone here knows if there's more than meets the eye to either politician.

On the other hand about Clinton, it's a different human being this time so maybe she could pull it off.  It's tough to say, I dunno how this stuff works.  I'm definitely not voting for a republican.


----------



## Skye07 (Feb 7, 2008)

Well if Clinton becomes president, one thing we know for certain, there won't be any Monica Lewinsky stuff going on, unless she's a lesbian 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





To be honest, I don't really follow who does what but somehow I'm siding with Clinton rather than Obama,  I just don't like his attitude.


----------



## xalphax (Feb 8, 2008)

either better than bush.


----------



## j5c077 (Feb 8, 2008)

dont vote for either

theyre both idiots


----------



## Ace Gunman (Feb 8, 2008)

There's always more than meets the eye to politicians. They all lie, cheat, steal, etc. It's all just a judgment call as to who you think is the lesser of two evils. This is my perspective on the matter:

Obama's younger, and more liberal than Clinton. He could be a real force for change and a new era for the US government. However he and Clinton share most of the same policies, and really when it comes down to the hard issues, they're of the same mind. Clinton though, well, she was the force behind the previous Clinton administration. Bill was her puppet, and she got things done. The original Clinton administration was hugely successful; and gave the US a new era of economic prosperity. She has the experience, but her outlook hasn't exactly mellowed with time. She's the most conservative liberal you'll ever meet.

Now while I think either one would make a fine president, the issue that sways me towards Obama is censorship. Clinton has a very rigid stance on the matter, she wants to completely retool and censor video games, movies, TV shows, and so on. Whereas Obama is of the mind that content shouldn't be touched, instead that parents should be properly educated rather than the majority being forced to suffer due to parental guidelines. Basically Clinton wants censor, and Obama wants to teach parents how to better moderate their own children's viewing/playing habits.

So really the deciding factor for any liberal voter should be: how do you feel about video game censorship? Should everyone suffer just because certain parents allow their 5 year olds to play Leisure Suite Larry? The rest of their stances are very, very similar. You can't go wrong with either candidate, but my guess is that Hillary will be the winner. Hopefully, however, she takes Obama as her running mate; because they're the ideal democratic ticket.


----------



## Westside (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(hybridstigmata @ Feb 7 2008 said:


> dont vote for either
> 
> theyre both idiots


What?  Then wait for McCain to win?


----------



## jgu1994 (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(xalphax @ Feb 8 2008 said:


> either better than bush.


QFT


----------



## cubin' (Feb 8, 2008)

I like Obama much better because he seems a little more real and also seems like he will keep his promises. He won't win because he's black. Lots of people in America are racists even though they don't think so. He seems like he's a really smart bloke and hasn't been corrupted yet. (lots of Australians are racist too btw)

Clinton is a woman. She's cried on numerous occasions in public and even though I have no problems with crying I don't think it's wise to have someone  who might start crying in front of world leaders. She can also have periods which will effect her judgment (no offense girls it's just not quite time for woman to be that high up yet IMO) I do think it's important to have a woman president in the next decade or so however..but lets have a black one first.

(I'm far from an expert on these matters just watch the American news channel a few times a week)


----------



## Ace Gunman (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(cubin' @ Feb 7 2008 said:


> Clinton is a woman. She's cried on numerous occasions in public and even though I have no problems with crying I don't think it's wise to have someoneÂ who might start crying in front of world leaders. She can also have periods which will effect her judgment (no offense girls it's just not quite time for woman to be that high up yet IMO)








 Uhhh... no offense? Even I'm offended by that. That's one of the top 10 most offensive things I've ever heard.


----------



## cubin' (Feb 8, 2008)

lol. Yeah maybe I went a little far with that but periods do effect woman quite strongly. If anyone lives with a female they'd know this. Maybe I'm a little sexist I just don't think a woman would make a good president yet.

Mind you I'd rather Clinton be president than half the other idiots who are running.


----------



## silent sniper (Feb 8, 2008)

i'd have to go with obama, mainly because the US government needs change and I think obama can give good change.


----------



## Ace Gunman (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(cubin' @ Feb 7 2008 said:


> lol. Yeah maybe I went a little far with that but periods do effect woman quite strongly. If anyone lives with a female they'd know this. Maybe I'm a little sexist I just don't think a woman would make a good president yet.
> 
> Mind you I'd rather Clinton be president than half the other idiots who are running.



Well... at least you put it politely and can admit you might have a bit of a problem in that area. That's better than a lot of people. And it's also the first step towards moving past your preconceived notions (some day).


----------



## Urza (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(cubin' @ Feb 7 2008 said:


> Yeah maybe I went a little far with that but periods do effect woman quite strongly.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menopause
> 
> QUOTEeither better than bush.


Which means nothing.


In related news, they're both speaking here in Washington tomorrow, so I'll be in Seattle all day. I've got a humdinger of a question for Obama if I get the chance to ask it.


----------



## Mewgia (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(Ace Gunman @ Feb 7 2008 said:


> QUOTE(cubin' @ Feb 7 2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Clinton is a woman. She's cried on numerous occasions in public and even though I have no problems with crying I don't think it's wise to have someoneÂ who might start crying in front of world leaders. She can also have periods which will effect her judgment (no offense girls it's just not quite time for woman to be that high up yet IMO)
> ...


it's true though. The menstrual cycle can affect a woman's judgment, however at Clinton's age I doubt it really matters any more. There have been plenty of female leaders in other countries that were fine anyway.


Also, Obama is better since he: doesn't change his stances all the time; doesn't cry when he starts losing poll points; doesn't believe in mudslinging to make himself look better; has much more of a sympathy for society's lowest (the impoverished and such) since he used to be in all of that; is supported by the Pirate Party because he has the best stances on Net Nuetrality, taking away the DMCA (put in place by the Clinton administration); ect ect.


----------



## Foie (Feb 8, 2008)

Now that Mitt Romney dropped out of the primaries, every candidate is going to be a horrible president.


----------



## Urza (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(Foie @ Feb 7 2008 said:


> Now that Mitt Romney dropped out of the primaries, every candidate is going to be a horrible president.


If thats not sarcasm, I will lol at your expense.


----------



## j5c077 (Feb 8, 2008)

http://glassbooth.org/


----------



## Verocity (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(hybridstigmata @ Feb 7 2008 said:


> dont vote for either
> 
> theyre both idiots
> 
> ...



The problem is...they all suck.

If Al Gore ran again he would win hands down.

And on the quiz I got 68% relevant to Obama.


----------



## notnarb (Feb 8, 2008)

Ron Fucking Paul.  TAXES ON TIPS ARE AN OUTRAGE


----------



## ridgecity (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(Verocity @ Feb 8 2008 said:


> QUOTE(hybridstigmata @ Feb 7 2008 said:
> 
> 
> > dont vote for either
> ...



Al Gore sucks too, he already was vice-president yet, he never did anything pro-enviroment and all he was famous for was saying everywhere he invented the internet. Just because he might have been a better choice than Bush doesn't make him any good, the current president probably is in  the 3 worst in 200 years.

and believe me. Mexico was never being considered during north american treaties, yet thanks to Bush, Mexico is considered in the top 5 most powerful countries in the world, something that since the 1940's no one even joked about. I guess you Mexico leveled up with U.S.A. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Edit: Posts merged together, don't double post. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - Ace


----------



## Renegade_R (Feb 8, 2008)

Vote Ron Paul!!!!!!111!1


----------



## Gus122000 (Feb 8, 2008)

OBAMA IS GOING DOWNNNNNNNNNN~!~!!!!~!!!111111


----------



## amptor (Feb 8, 2008)

I'm not sure that Gore would indeed completely win.  Look at what american voters focus on: semantics, abortion (gore is anti abortion right?) and stuff like that.  What about the real issues.  Clinton's going to address health care and otherthings, not sure if Obama is going to be as strong focused on that or not.  Bill Clinton still has his hand dipped in that which is a good thing too.

Censorship, another very minor and weak issue.  Do you really think this lady is going to have enough time to be that strict on an already lax censorship in the US?  I remember when I was in elementary school and there was a bill being voted on that, and all the kiddies with their pop art drawings they made on cereal boxes of chip and dale rescue rangers armed to the teeth with violent weapons were gungho about that bill passing through.  Oh please...  and now that censorship is very assnine in this country, I don't think anything's going to change that very fast.  I think it's an issue that isn't of very much importance.

What is important?  Our economy, the people's futures, health care.  These are real issues.  Gay rights, affirmitive action, abortion, etc are things that ALREADY have strict laws and legislation that has been passed through the Supreme Court and is VERY difficult to get a case back into the Supereme Court on.  We shouldn't waste valuable time/taxes on these issues which have been solved over a decade ago.  One shouldn't decide on a president based on these very minor things.

Plus she gets a lot of support from the latino community.  This is fine, but come on we aren't really going to believe that they're just going to hand the entire south to Mexico are we?  Sure Bill Clinton did a lot for them in the past, but look how many non mexicans rallied last time the illegals rallied in our cities.  It was well organized but there sure are a lot of Americans that want them to come in the legal way.  It's a free country, but we all gotta pay taxes and the main point people had about this was that they want these people to contribute to social security like anyone else.  And there already are laws in place about that too.  Our citizens just want equality with anyone coming in, it isn't about being prejudice or whatnot for the most part, that kind of stuff doesn't float in the political world.

Well anyway looks like either of the two would be fine with me then for the ballot, just going to wait and see.  I haven't seen one person on here yet say yay for McCain.  I believe he'd be a very powerful and strong leader, but is that what we really want is a strong arm screwing up our economy again?  Nobody mentions military here.. I always felt that republicans were strongest for military, but a democrat isn't weak either.  They just handle politics differently and I feel that democrats handle it more sophisticated.  Either way, the job gets done.


----------



## Ace Gunman (Feb 8, 2008)

Censorship may be a minor issue (although I consider it important, but against health care and such, it's not)... but the reason I said it's a decisive factor is because everything else is the same. They're both pulling out of Iraq, they're both cutting taxes for the poor and middle class and upping them for the extremely wealthy, they're both instituting effective (nearly identical) healthcare plans, they both have the same stance on the border business, and the list goes on. That's why the small issues like censorship matter, because they have the same basic opinions on all of the big issues.


----------



## Strokemouth (Feb 8, 2008)

Those of us in NY should take a look at what Hillary has done for us. Not a damn thing, from what I can see. All I know is, I just paid close to $20k in taxes this year myself. Granted, I'm probably not the best person to ask about democrat candidates as I am a conservative.

Note sig.



QUOTE(Ace Gunman @ Feb 8 2008 said:


> Censorship may be a minor issue (although I consider it important, but against health care and such, it's not)... but the reason I said it's a decisive factor is because everything else is the same. They're both pulling out of Iraq, they're both cutting taxes for the poor and middle class and upping them for the extremely wealthy, *they're both instituting effective (nearly identical) healthcare plans*, they both have the same stance on the border business, and the list goes on. That's why the small issues like censorship matter, because they have the same basic opinions on all of the big issues.



First, yay for simul-reply!

Second, note bolded text. Who ends up footing the bill for this so-called effective healthcare plan? If I wanted a socialist healthcare program, I'd move to Canada.


(yes, that was a cheap shot based on the flag under your avatar 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## TheStump (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(cubin' @ Feb 8 2008 said:


> Clinton is a woman. She can also have periods which will effect her judgment



I heard that menstruation attracts bears.


all this reminds me of Australia's recent prime minister election.  Basically everyone hated John Howard (ex Prime Minister) so much that basically the other parties could have ran a campaign that just said "Vote for us, because we AREN'T John Howard!".
This theory could also apply for America's President.


----------



## SaltyDog (Feb 8, 2008)

This will be the year I dont vote! What a complete mockery of the presidential system. Each candidate is a complete moron. Crap, I wish they would run Mickey Mouse, at least that way another fictional character can get elected that I would enjoy and support more. Oh, and by the way everyone here in Arizona (my home state) are completely bewildered that McCain is this far. AZ has some, if not THE, toughest immigration laws in the US and yet McCain has thumbed his nose at everyone in this state time and again. Every single candidate is a big douche-bag. I say, although it would not happen ever, that no one should vote come November. Now that would be fucking hilarious!!


----------



## Renegade_R (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(TheStump @ Feb 8 2008 said:


> QUOTE(cubin' @ Feb 8 2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Clinton is a woman. She can also have periods which will effect her judgment
> ...




And you know what happens in a bear market...hooray for recession!


----------



## dakeyras (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> Also, Obama is better since he: doesn't change his stances all the time; doesn't cry when he starts losing poll points; doesn't believe in mudslinging to make himself look better; has much more of a sympathy for society's lowest (the impoverished and such) since he used to be in all of that; is supported by the Pirate Party because he has the best stances on Net Nuetrality, taking away the DMCA (put in place by the Clinton administration); ect ect.



As Clinton and Obama are pretty much alike when it comes to what they want to do, it's all about the person really and if they're gonna do what they promise to do and how they will be doing it.

Now, on one hand, we have a corporal whore who used to be on the board of walmart while walmart was abusing their own employees (as they are still doing), who is being sponsored by people who are not served at all by her agenda (makes you wonder what they know about whether she's going to do what she promises right now), who thinks that lobbyists need to be protected at all costs, who was bribed by the insurance companies in 1993 to make sure the healthcare plan she devised was such absolute crap there was no way it would get through congress, is not going to do anything about the insurance companies big fat ass profits except lick their asses by making it mandatory for everyone to have insurance, who is friends with Mccain, who is a very polarizing figure: alot of people hate the clintons and you do need someone who is also able to work with the republicans to get things done.

On the other hand, we have Obama who might have worked with some questionable landlord somewhere in the past and who went to an islamic primary school when he was 6 years old.

Seriously, that's all the 'negative' there is about him. There is no reason to assume he's going to fuck us over for a lobby, even the opposite, he seems totally disgusted by the lobbies and wants to wipe em out. He's a newcomer in the white house yes, but   I think that counts in favour of him. He manages to draw both republicans and democrats to vote for him what is pretty exceptional for a democrat and gives him a good chance of defeating Mccain. He has a very good record on working with the opposite party, he has a very good political record in which he really get's things done. He says he is willing to cut down the insurance companies' profits and make healthcare more affordable, instead of making people spend money they don't have. I think that shows the difference in thinking we've got between both candidate.

Yeah, I'm an Obama fanboy.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPtg-gvgWhE

Text:
Edit: he's also a damn good speecher. for the people interested: Ten months ago, I stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., and began an unlikely journey to change America.

I did not run for the presidency to fulfill some long-held ambition or because I believed it was somehow owed to me. I chose to run in this election — at this moment — because of what Dr. King called “the fierce urgency of now.” Because we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril. Our health care system is broken, our economy is out of balance, our education system fails too many of our children, and our retirement system is in tatters.

At this defining moment, we cannot wait any longer for universal health care. We cannot wait to fix our schools. We cannot wait for good jobs, and living wages, and pensions we can count on. We cannot wait to halt global warming, and we cannot wait to end this war in Iraq.

I chose to run because I believed that the size of these challenges had outgrown the capacity of our broken and divided politics to solve them; because I believed that Americans of every political stripe were hungry for a new kind of politics, a politics that focused not just on how to win but why we should, a politics that focused on those values and ideals that we held in common as Americans; a politics that favored common sense over ideology, straight talk over spin.

Most of all, I believed in the power of the American people to be the real agents of change in this country — because we are not as divided as our politics suggests; because we are a decent, generous people willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations; and I was certain that if we could just mobilize our voices to challenge the special interests that dominate Washington and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there was no problem we couldn’t solve — no destiny we couldn’t fulfill.

Ten months later, Iowa, you have vindicated that faith. You’ve come out in the blistering heat and the bitter cold not just to cheer, but to challenge — to ask the tough questions; to lift the hood and kick the tires; to serve as one place in America where someone who hasn’t spent their life in the Washington spotlight can get a fair hearing.

You’ve earned the role you play in our democracy because no one takes it more seriously. And I believe that’s true this year more than ever because, like me, you feel that same sense of urgency.

All across this state, you’ve shared with me your stories. And all too often they’ve been stories of struggle and hardship.

I’ve heard from seniors who were betrayed by CEOs who dumped their pensions while pocketing bonuses, and from those who still can’t afford their prescriptions because Congress refused to negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price.

I’ve met Maytag workers who labored all their lives only to see their jobs shipped overseas; who now compete with their teenagers for $7-an-hour jobs at Wal-Mart.

I’ve spoken with teachers who are working at doughnut shops after school just to make ends meet, who are still digging into their own pockets to pay for school supplies.

Just two weeks ago, I heard a young woman in Cedar Rapids who told me she only gets three hours of sleep because she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister with cerebral palsy. She spoke not with self-pity but with determination, and wonders why the government isn’t doing more to help her afford the education that will allow her to live out her dreams.

I’ve spoken to veterans who talk with pride about what they’ve accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq, but who nevertheless think of those they’ve left behind and question the wisdom of our mission in Iraq; the mothers weeping in my arms over the memories of their sons; the disabled or homeless vets who wonder why their service has been forgotten.

And I’ve spoken to Americans in every corner of the state, patriots all, who wonder why we have allowed our standing in the world to decline so badly, so quickly. They know this has not made us safer. They know that we must never negotiate out of fear, but that we must never fear to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends. They are ashamed of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and warrantless wiretaps and ambiguity on torture. They love their country and want its cherished values and ideals restored.

It is precisely because you’ve experienced these frustrations, and seen the cost of inaction in your own lives, that you understand why we can’t afford to settle for the same old politics. You know that we can’t afford to allow the insurance lobbyists to kill health care reform one more time, and the oil lobbyists to keep us addicted to fossil fuels because no one stood up and took their power away when they had the chance.

You know that we can’t afford four more years of the same divisive food fight in Washington that’s about scoring political points instead of solving problems; that’s about tearing your opponents down instead of lifting this country up.

We can’t afford the same politics of fear that tells Democrats that the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, act and vote like George Bush Republicans; that invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes instead of a challenge that should unite all Americans to defeat our real enemies.

We can’t afford to be so worried about losing the next election that we lose the battles we owe to the next generation.

The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high.

In this election, it is time to turn the page. In seven days, it is time to stand for change.

This has been our message since the beginning of this campaign. It was our message when we were down, and our message when we were up. And it must be catching on, because in these last few weeks, everyone is talking about change.

But you can’t at once argue that you’re the master of a broken system in Washington and offer yourself as the person to change it. 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.

The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. I believe deeply in those words. But they are not mine. They were Bill Clinton’s in 1992, when Washington insiders questioned his readiness to lead.

My experience is rooted in the lives of the men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I fought for as an organizer when the local steel plant closed. It’s rooted in the lives of the people I stood up for as a civil rights lawyer when they were denied opportunity on the job or justice at the voting booth because of what they looked like or where they came from. It’s rooted in an understanding of how the world sees America that I gained from living, traveling and having family beyond our shores — an understanding that led me to oppose this war in Iraq from the start. It’s experience rooted in the real lives of real people, and it’s the kind of experience Washington needs right now.

There are others in this race who say that this kind of change sounds good, but that I’m not angry or confrontational enough to get it done.

Well, let me tell you something, Iowa. I don’t need any lectures on how to bring about change, because I haven’t just talked about it on the campaign trail. I’ve fought for change all my life.

I walked away from a job on Wall Street to bring job training to the jobless and after-school programs to kids on the streets of Chicago.

I turned down the big-money law firms to win justice for the powerless as a civil rights lawyer.

I took on the lobbyists in Illinois and brought Democrats and Republicans together to expand health care to 150,000 people and pass the first major campaign finance reform in 25 years; and I did the same thing in Washington when we passed the toughest lobbying reform since Watergate. I’m the only candidate in this race who hasn’t just talked about taking power away from lobbyists, I’ve actually done it. So if you want to know what kind of choices we’ll make as president, you should take a look at the choices we made when we had the chance to bring about change that wasn’t easy or convenient.

That’s the kind of change that’s more than just rhetoric — that’s change you can believe in.

It’s change that won’t just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There’s no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don’t need more heat. We need more light. I’ve learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.

For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but independents and Republicans who’ve lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again — who desperately want something new.

We can change the electoral math that’s been all about division and make it about addition — about building a coalition for change and progress that stretches through blue states and red states. That’s how I won some of the reddest, most Republican counties in Illinois. That’s why the polls show that I do best against the Republicans running for president — because we’re attracting more support from independents and Republicans than any other candidate. That’s how we’ll win in November and that’s how we’ll change this country over the next four years.

In the end, the argument we are having between the candidates in the last seven days is not just about the meaning of change. It’s about the meaning of hope. Some of my opponents appear scornful of the word; they think it speaks of naiveté, passivity and wishful thinking.

But that’s not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task before us or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Yes, the lobbyists will fight us. Yes, the Republican attack dogs will go after us in the general election. Yes, the problems of poverty and climate change and failing schools will resist easy repair. I know — I’ve been on the streets; I’ve been in the courts. I’ve watched legislation die because the powerful held sway and good intentions weren’t fortified by political will, and I’ve watched a nation get misled into war because no one had the judgment or the courage to ask the hard questions before we sent our troops to fight.

But I also know this. I know that hope has been the guiding force behind the most improbable changes this country has ever made. In the face of tyranny, it’s what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire. In the face of slavery, it’s what fueled the resistance of the slave and the abolitionist, and what allowed a president to chart a treacherous course to ensure that the nation would not continue half slave and half free. In the face of war and Depression, it’s what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. In the face of oppression, it’s what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through the streets of Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause. That’s the power of hope — to imagine, and then work for, what had seemed impossible before.

That’s the change we seek. And that’s the change you can stand for in seven days.

We’ve already beaten odds that the cynics said couldn’t be beaten. When we started 10 months ago, they said we couldn’t run a different kind of campaign.

They said we couldn’t compete without taking money from Washington lobbyists. But you proved them wrong when we raised more small donations from more Americans than any other campaign in history.

They said we couldn’t be successful if we didn’t have the full support of the establishment in Washington. But you proved them wrong when we built a grass-roots movement that could forever change the face of American politics.

They said we wouldn’t have a chance in this campaign unless we resorted to the same old negative attacks. But we resisted, even when we were written off, and ran a positive campaign that pointed out real differences and rejected the politics of slash and burn.

And now, in seven days, you have a chance once again to prove the cynics wrong. In seven days, what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable. And that’s why in these last weeks, Washington is fighting back with everything it has — with attack ads and insults; with distractions and dishonesty; with millions of dollars from outside groups and undisclosed donors to try and block our path.

We’ve seen this script many times before. But I know that this time can be different.

Because I know that when the American people believe in something, it happens.

If you believe, then we can tell the lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.

If you believe, then we can stop making promises to America’s workers and start delivering — jobs that pay, health care that’s affordable, pensions you can count on, and a tax cut for working Americans instead of the companies who send their jobs overseas.

If you believe, we can offer a world-class education to every child, and pay our teachers more, and make college dreams a reality for every American.

If you believe, we can save this planet and end our dependence on foreign oil.

If you believe, we can end this war, close Guantanamo, restore our standing, renew our diplomacy and once again respect the Constitution of the United States of America.

That’s the future within our reach. That’s what hope is — that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us around the corner. But only if we’re willing to work for it and fight for it. To shed our fears and our doubts and our cynicism. To glory in the task before us of remaking this country block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state.

There is a moment in the life of every generation when, if we are to make our mark on history, this spirit must break through.

This is the moment.

This is our time.

And if you will stand with me in seven days — if you will stand for change so that our children have the same chance that somebody gave us; if you’ll stand to keep the American dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for justice; if you’re ready to stop settling for what the cynics tell you you must accept, and finally reach for what you know is possible, then we will win this caucus, we will win this election, we will change the course of history, and the real journey — to heal a nation and repair the world — will have truly begun.


----------



## noamkot (Feb 8, 2008)

I'm really not an expert but the way I see it, most of Obama's primary victories are in states with a clear Republican majority which means that these states won't be able to help him win the presidency.
Clinton's major victories are in large, liberal and traditionally Democratic states which would most likely give her their votes in the general elections as well (Voters in these states might not bother to vote if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate allowing the Republicans to win some of these states).
But Clinton is not too charismatic and not very popular (and also a woman but I've got no idea if that matters) and I get the feeling that people think she's manipulative and cunning (and not necessarily in a positive way). I fear she won't be able to gain significant victories in key states.
The Republican party has already chosen its candidate and would have more than enough time to build McCain's image and totally abuse the Clinton/Obama scuffle.


----------



## Jiggah (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(noamkot @ Feb 8 2008 said:


> I'm really not an expert but the way I see it, most of Obama's primary victories are in states with a clear Republican majority which means that these states won't be able to help him win the presidency.
> Clinton's major victories are in large, liberal and traditionally Democratic states which would most likely give her their votes in the general elections as well (Voters in these states might not bother to vote if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate allowing the Republicans to win some of these states).
> But Clinton is not too charismatic and not very popular (and also a woman but I've got no idea if that matters) and I get the feeling that people think she's manipulative and cunning (and not necessarily in a positive way). I fear she won't be able to gain significant victories in key states.
> The Republican party has already chosen its candidate and would have more than enough time to build McCain's image and totally abuse the Clinton/Obama scuffle.



I see it the other way.  Obama is getting votes from a lot of independents and crossing the black/white line.  He won huge numbers in predominantly white states (although his set back have really been areas where there are large amounts of latinos and asians).  Hillary in the general election probably won't be able to attract the independent voters that voted for Obama, whereas it would be easier for Obama to win the supporters of Hillary i.e. the latinos and asians will vote Democrat no matter what.

Putting McCain against Hillary gives the Republican a chance to win the White House, she'll move not only the Republicans that don't want to vote McCain to vote, but shift the independents his way.


----------



## .TakaM (Feb 8, 2008)




----------



## Mars (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> On the other hand, we have Obama who might have worked with some questionable landlord somewhere in the past and who went to an islamic primary school when he was 6 years old.
> 
> Seriously, that's all the 'negative' there is about him.



Attending an Islamic school is negative?


----------



## dakeyras (Feb 8, 2008)

According to fox news it is.


----------



## Shuny (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(Mars @ Feb 8 2008 said:


> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All religious schools are negative.


----------



## EN!GMA (Feb 8, 2008)

QUOTE(noamkot @ Feb 8 2008 said:


> I'm really not an expert but the way I see it, most of Obama's primary victories are in states with a clear Republican majority which means that these states won't be able to help him win the presidency.
> Clinton's major victories are in large, liberal and traditionally Democratic states which would most likely give her their votes in the general elections as well (Voters in these states might not bother to vote if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate allowing the Republicans to win some of these states).
> But Clinton is not too charismatic and not very popular (and also a woman but I've got no idea if that matters) and I get the feeling that people think she's manipulative and cunning (and not necessarily in a positive way). I fear she won't be able to gain significant victories in key states.
> The Republican party has already chosen its candidate and would have more than enough time to build McCain's image and totally abuse the Clinton/Obama scuffle.
> ...



May I ask what that question may be?


----------



## ZeWarrior (Feb 8, 2008)

Neither. If John Edwards hadn't dropped out, I would vote for him. IMO he had the best ideas.


----------



## drock360 (Feb 9, 2008)

Ron Paul

The candidate of champions.


----------



## m3rox (Feb 9, 2008)

America isn't ready for Clinton or Obama.  

1.) Clinton is a woman

2.) Obama is black

Say what you will about that, but you know I'm right.


----------



## VmprHntrD (Feb 9, 2008)

Well actually Clinton and Obama aren't truly that similar.  On the surface they appear so, but when you go into policy, vote history, saying one thing and doing it (or another) and they change some.

Hillary as someone said was a conservative liberal.  Before it was looking tasty for a presidential run she was right there early on supporting all of Bush's efforts with war (start and early pushes for more...then silently on some after), seemed ok with his economics more than less, and outside of some healthcare bits and other things has been very not 'left' as she wants to pretend to be.  Also in general, the woman is a lawyer, a liar at heart who in education and practice learned how to lie, cheat, poker bluff, and fake emotion better than most others.  That 'crying' lately was crap, staged...watch the questions, moments...it was bs.  Furthermore, I can't recall other than her husband who to a lesser degree tried to appeal to each diverse type of person in this county by claiming to be a part of probably a 1/2 dozen races.  She pretends to be black, and does that rousing 'King' like accent, then says she's asian, mexican, etc all the while telling each group what they want to hear, not actually doing what they want.

Far as I'm concerned it is time for a minority or a woman in office, just not this two faced carpetbagging bitch.

And also...FYI on the corruption of the DNC delegate mess.  It's a 60/40% split between YOU decide and the party machine(super delegates) decide.  If you remove the SD's right now Obama is up by 3 delegates, but when you put in the SD's he's down by around 90.  The upcoming states are much not in Hillary's favor due to a lack of hispanic(mexicans really as cubans and puerto ricans have no love there much), and she pissed off blacks into a 90/10 split to Obama with her shit in South Carolina with Bill.

As of now it's got a weird chance of actually having the SD's decide it, and as trends look Obama is going to widen his base margin (w/out SD's)  So the real question is...will the party tell their members go fuck yourself and swing it to Clinton or give it to Obama?  If Obama is in the lead, and they SD swing it to her...expect a fracturing of that party and a lot of spite voting to McCain just as a lot of Republicans spite voted in 06 to the Democrats over Bush's bullshit punishing both people who did and did not fall in line with his crap just because they carried the party ticket in name.


----------



## dakeyras (Feb 9, 2008)

Yeah, she pretty much does anything to get people's votes. I wonder if there is actually a person left under all those layers of bullshit.


----------



## [VAF]Flyper (Feb 9, 2008)

QUOTE(ridgecity @ Feb 8 2008 said:


> Mexico is considered in the top 5 most powerful countries in the world



Oh---

Oh c'mon, are you being really serious? 
I mean, I suppose the world changes when you live on the other side.


----------



## dakeyras (Feb 9, 2008)

The world being the americas of course.


----------



## pkprostudio (Feb 9, 2008)

Screw both of them. Why can't we all vote for Republican?


----------



## VmprHntrD (Feb 10, 2008)

^I can agree with that seeing it is McCain...he's so moderate that both sides like him well enough except for the blind party playing more winged out douche bags that get all close minded.  As is it's best from a long track record to have the WH by one party the Congress by the other as it usually just takes about 6~ years until the greed settles in once you get that first full round of renewed senators.  Democrats did it for years, and then the Republicans started acting like spending like Democrats and got the boot due to Bush association.  I could live with McCain or Obama as both do what they say and don't simply just play party sides...nearly dare I say politicians with consciences...frightening I know.


----------



## King Zargo (Feb 10, 2008)

Who would vote for a woman >_>. Hello... Wake up. 

"First Man" totally sounds like crap.


----------



## EN!GMA (Feb 10, 2008)

QUOTE(pkprostudio @ Feb 9 2008 said:


> Screw both of them. Why can't we all vote for Republican?
> 
> QUOTE(LocationSan Antonio, Texas



no comment


----------



## pkprostudio (Feb 10, 2008)

QUOTE(.aznbrotha. @ Feb 9 2008 said:


> QUOTE(pkprostudio @ Feb 9 2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Screw both of them. Why can't we all vote for Republican?
> ...


Why do people judge others by their location?


And one more thing, if Clinton is President, all of us are screwed.


----------



## apd (Feb 10, 2008)

I bet the red necks brains must be frazzled on whether to vote for a black man or a Bill Clinton's bit of stuff as their country's leader.

If I had a vote I'd have voted Obama purely because of the Oprah factor...


----------



## Linkiboy (Feb 10, 2008)

Whoever wins, we lose.


----------



## RiotShooter (Feb 10, 2008)

We are seriously screwed if clinton or obama win. they just dont understand anything.


----------



## golden (Feb 10, 2008)

I am pretty sure Clinton was the one that pulled some strings in the video game world to get manhunt2 banned/delayed/made rated A or whatever, all I remember is I read that somewhere and I was like, what a bitch!!!


----------



## Volsfan91 (Feb 10, 2008)

Obama FTW.


----------



## dakeyras (Feb 10, 2008)

QUOTE(pkprostudio @ Feb 10 2008 said:


> Screw both of them. Why can't we all vote for Republican?
> 
> 
> Cause you'd get a majority of conservatives in the supreme court and if you think that the christian agenda was pushed the last 8 years, hide yourself for the onslaught of human right violations they'll impose on you through that.
> ...



You watch fox news don't you?

edit:
Also, if you want to pull the economy card to favour a republican..Mccain does not know shit about economics and even admits that. Saying: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should, I've got Greenspan's book."


----------



## rest0re (Feb 10, 2008)

edit: lamy jokey! no hahahaa fun! vote for ron paul!


----------



## Urza (Feb 10, 2008)

QUOTE(.aznbrotha. @ Feb 8 2008 said:


> Urza said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"If you were elected President, and had all the powers of the office at your disposal,

Senator Obama, would you do a barrel roll?"

Unfortunately there was a major accident on the interstate, which caused my bus to be an hour late. So I ended up standing outside the arena with 3000 other people listening over the intercom.


----------



## Chotaz (Feb 10, 2008)

politics are pretty stupid in my opinion :\


----------



## pkprostudio (Feb 10, 2008)

QUOTE(Urza @ Feb 10 2008 said:


> QUOTE(.aznbrotha. @ Feb 8 2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Urza said:
> ...


If they come around here, I'll ask that question for you.


----------



## Issac (Feb 10, 2008)

I'll be short: 
For someone like me, not living in the US, I shouldn't have anything to say about any president or candidates or anything. BUT.
What I've seen and heard of them, I'd vote for obama (if i'd live in america).


----------



## basf11214 (Feb 10, 2008)

Obama reminds me too much of Bush.  During the 2000 campaign, Bush was running the same kind of "outsider" show.  After what he did with his presidency, I can't really trust anyone who claims to be an outsider anymore.


----------

