OT Do you feel corruption will force Obama out

[fimslim3]

white people are so damn corrupt

White suburban entitlement???

[sixersinsider]

Repent your sins Jesus Christ season begins..................... obama wants to bomb packistan...s arabia..... afghanistan....right wing facious dictators are not trying to hear that.
WWW3 Bloomberg 500 mill a year
Lybia 100 mill a year wht does it mean to be pro isreal ask BIll...........
.And the next prez of the usa is.........
a Democrat that can land the black vote and the upscale white vote..........

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

-= original quote snipped =-



Edwards is much more vunerable than that.

After making a fortune as a trial lawyer, Edwards channeled his $$ in 2 areas: sub-prime lending & off-shore tax shelters.

As a candidate, Edwards has been highly critical of both - after he himself reaped the benefits.

His hypocrisy is an easier target for the GOP than either Hillary or Obama

I don't know anything about Edwards' personal investments, but everyone knows you don't invest under political motivations. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't also profit from it legally. Otherwise, every American who invests in large Chinese corporations like CHL, PTR, SNP, ect. can be said to be supporting the problem in Darfur, because the Chinese government is the controlling interest in all large Chinese corporations. Then you can't invest in Bank of America, because they invest in CBC. And you might as well not invest in oil and fertilizer companies like VLO and MON because they're big polluters. Hell, lets boycott MSFT because the sleep mode in the XP OS doesn't work property, which has wasted how much electricity worldwide? You can't even invest in solar companies. FSLR's solar panels require a toxic chemical, Tellurium. And scratch Sony, Blu-ray discs use Tellurium as well.. Ect..

It's hard enough to beat the market without your conscience getting in the way (assuming you're doing it legally).

From a purely curious point of view, I'd love to see Hilary win, because then Bloomberg would run. But I doubt he'd be able to win, so we'd be struck with no good viable candidates since the Republican front runners are all horrible.

[cmaff051]

The last thing I want to happen is for Bloomberg to enter the race, even if Hillary wins the nomination. Bloomberg will steal votes from our party, just like every independent does (see: Nader in 2000).

[VinnyTheMick]

The last thing I want to happen is for Bloomberg to enter the race, even if Hillary wins the nomination. Bloomberg will steal votes from our party, just like every independent does (see: Nader in 2000).

Not every independent (Perot helped Clinton a lot). Just saying.

[hype_2004]

I have a feeling that the government are going to corrupt this election, plain and simple and sorry to say. Bush was proven to rig the 2000 voting with what happened in Florida and he disenfranchised blacks and hispanics from Florida from voting. It is confirmed they arrested programmers to 18 months for rigging the elections. Go look it up. And the American people dont question him. Thats what is wrong with this damn country, the president rigged the election and nobody questions it because they think they vote. YOU DONT VOTE. Voting is a myth. The electoral college votes.

I think this government are going to prevent RON PAUL from becoming president. Either that or they will shoot him. I predict Hillary will win because of this corruption. This isnt a democracy.

do you think corruption will force this great man out or not

Obama is just another CFR/Neo-Globalists tool, and beng a minority has nothing to do with it either. He is another one of the long line of flip-floppers that is willing to sell their soul to the military industrial complex to acquire power. He has passion, conviction and great sound bites but on issues he falls flat on substance.

[mg]

^^I agree...hate to break it but Obama has nearly as much corporate donations as Hillary. In other words another corporatist shill. His campaign manager in NH was a lobbyist for 2 drug companies. Personally, I don't see alot of difference between Clinton, Obama, and Bush except Obama has promised to bring the troops home. Of course his short voting record shows he has supported the Bush plan to keep the troops in place.

The republicans are equally as bad. They are all claiming to be conservatives in the mode of Reagan but they are a liberal bunch except for moderate Fred Thompson who doesn't have a chance in this election.

Everyone is spouting change but I don't see much 'change' coming down the pike with McCain, Hillary, or even Obama the corporatist panderer as the next president.

[duetta]

You guys do realize that a majority of the problems from our political system stem from us being forced to have a two party system? The two party system is not a blessing. The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Basically the electoral college is a remnant of the past.

This is quite true. The Founders feared "democracy" because democracy meant to them the chaos of the ancient Greek experiments in democracy. And in an America where some 40% of the electorate remained convinced in October 2004 that Saddam had been involved in 9/11, while another substantial percentage of it were convinced that Bush-Cheney were behind it, you can easily appreciate the Founders suspicion of direct Democracy. So long as the people remain clueless, and at odds with the need to understand the difference between paranoia run amok and critical thinking, Democracies will flounder.

I worked for the Kerry campaign for 15 months in 2003-04. We lost the popular vote in 2004 because the Republicans did a better job of motivating their base, and getting them to the polls (using wedge issues like gay marriage), and because Kerry allowed the Republicans too much leeway in defining him, most notably with the Sleaze Boat Veterans, but really throughout the entire post-primary period - and because the right wing spin machine had created an alternate reality that too many independents and apolitical Americans bought into. I'm sure that there was chicanery in States like Ohio that might have tipped the balance in the Electoral College - but that would have led to the 2nd straight election in which the winner of the popular vote would have lost.

What's most amazing about the Framers of the Constitution, in particular, is that they did not anticipate the development of political parties. This is an amazing oversight given the fact that political parties had existed in England for nearly 100 years by that point.

There have been third parties in America from time-to-time, but they always seem to fade away. I'm not clear why, from an historical point of view. I mean, the Liberal Party existed in NYS right up until the late 90s. And winning candidates often ran the Liberal Party line. I voted for candidates on the Liberal Party line. But the Liberal Party didn't disappear because some conspiracy. It faded away due to lack of interest. Yes, there are institutional bars to third parties competing equally in some states, but none of those are insurmountable obstacles if the will existed to change this. It can be argued, in fact, that the two party system has given America greater stability than as in some of these countries where all of these fringe, ludicrous special interest try to extract a pound of flesh before being willing to participate in a government.

[cmaff051]

-= original quote snipped =-



This is quite true. The Founders feared "democracy" because democracy meant to them the chaos of the ancient Greek experiments in democracy. And in an America where some 40% of the electorate remained convinced in October 2004 that Saddam had been involved in 9/11, while another substantial percentage of it were convinced that Bush-Cheney were behind it, you can easily appreciate the Founders suspicion of direct Democracy. So long as the people remain clueless, and at odds with the need to understand the difference between paranoia run amok and critical thinking, Democracies will flounder.

I worked for the Kerry campaign for 15 months in 2003-04. We lost the popular vote in 2004 because the Republicans did a better job of motivating their base, and getting them to the polls (using wedge issues like gay marriage), and because Kerry allowed the Republicans too much leeway in defining him, most notably with the Sleaze Boat Veterans, but really throughout the entire post-primary period - and because the right wing spin machine had created an alternate reality that too many independents and apolitical Americans bought into. I'm sure that there was chicanery in States like Ohio that might have tipped the balance in the Electoral College - but that would have led to the 2nd straight election in which the winner of the popular vote would have lost.

What's most amazing about the Framers of the Constitution, in particular, is that they did not anticipate the development of political parties. This is an amazing oversight given the fact that political parties had existed in England for nearly 100 years by that point.

There have been third parties in America from time-to-time, but they always seem to fade away. I'm not clear why, from an historical point of view. I mean, the Liberal Party existed in NYS right up until the late 90s. And winning candidates often ran the Liberal Party line. I voted for candidates on the Liberal Party line. But the Liberal Party didn't disappear because some conspiracy. It faded away due to lack of interest. Yes, there are institutional bars to third parties competing equally in some states, but none of those are insurmountable obstacles if the will existed to change this. It can be argued, in fact, that the two party system has given America greater stability than as in some of these countries where all of these fringe, ludicrous special interest try to extract a pound of flesh before being willing to participate in a government.

I think the democrats did a good job motivating there base in 2004 too, as shown by a record showing by democrats. But as you said, the GOP smear machine defined Kerry on their own terms during the election. Kerry, for all his greatness as a progressive politician, was always an introvert and had a tough time inspiring those outside the democratic party lines to vote for him. If the 2008 Kerry ran 2004, I think he wins the presidency. Kerry is energized right now, he's passionate about the issues.. I ask, where was this Kerry in 2004?

[duetta]

I ask, where was this Kerry in 2004?

Truthfully, IMHO (since I never got to speak with him, but worked with people who I consider my friends who do know him), John was listening to too many consultants - just as Gore was in 2000. When you reach that level, you can lose your passion - and instead become a slave to polling and your consultants. He's free now, there's no pressure anymore.

[knicks742]

-= original quote snipped =-



Truthfully, IMHO (since I never got to speak with him, but worked with people who I consider my friends who do know him), John was listening to too many consultants - just as Gore was in 2000. When you reach that level, you can lose your passion - and instead become a slave to polling and your consultants. He's free now, there's no pressure anymore.

Clinton was having the same problem until NH. We'll see how people react after some more Obama stories come out.

[VinnyTheMick]

-= original quote snipped =-



I think the democrats did a good job motivating there base in 2004 too, as shown by a record showing by democrats. But as you said, the GOP smear machine defined Kerry on their own terms during the election. Kerry, for all his greatness as a progressive politician, was always an introvert and had a tough time inspiring those outside the democratic party lines to vote for him. If the 2008 Kerry ran 2004, I think he wins the presidency. Kerry is energized right now, he's passionate about the issues.. I ask, where was this Kerry in 2004?

Don't forget that the GOP controlled states put gay marriage ammendments up for votes on election night to bring out as many anti-gay GOP voters as possible.