Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place
Barack Obama vs. John McCain
Sheriff Roland:
--- Quote from: jstephens9 on May 15, 2008, 01:01:44 pm ---And all they can talk about, the news media, is the idea that it is major news that John Edwards is backing Obama. I don't consider it any news at all except that Edwards is wanting to run for vice president again :laugh: Who cares who Edwards is backing. The news media will do all they can to make anything Hillary does seem like nothing. And now they are saying that anyone who backs Hillary is poor and uneducated. The states that voted for Hillary are considered the stupid states. On the news last night they showed a little map showing the "stupid" states of Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennyslvania, and New York. Hey that's a lot of votes in the national election to be throwing away. I also heard on the news that California and Texas are considered "stupid" states by the Obama campaign. Of course, those are two other states where Hillary won by a big margin. That's some smart strategy to be saying this about the two largest states (CA and NY) in the nation.
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure who you mean by "they are saying", but think! Who is this kinda talk going to help the most? the republicans or Obama? Now I ask again, who is the "they (that is) are saying" this crap about stupid states?
The message has to stay on what's really important - the economy and how that's been affected (among other things) by the illegal war in Iraq. "They" are going to try and change the story (wedge issues - gay marriages, for example) over and over again in the next 6 months. Can the American people stay on message?
Here's the latest 'wedge' issue (that really is just trying to intoduce yet another ridiculous nugget)
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080515/NATION/437214374/1002
Shasta542:
If the war were really illegal it would have been stopped by now. The legislature deems what is legal and illegal. Isn't that correct? And even if the president vetoes the legislature -- they can override a veto.
If Senator Clinton, John McCain, or any other political figure in the spotlight called a member of the press "sweetie" -- that would certainly make the news. I doubt it would be a huge deal then or now -- the next thing will come along and replace it. It really isn't an issue.
Sheriff Roland:
The problem with the logic (concerning the legality of the war) is that it is self serving. Americans may not (yet) see this war as illegal but that doesn't make it so. History will decide. In the meantime, if you want a barometer of what the world (you know, we who aren't allowed to vote next November) thinks about whether this was a legal war or not, just look at the respect level the american government (nation and people) has been able to garner in the past 6 years.
Have you seen Keith Olbermann's little nugget dated May14th with regards to 'Why this war was started?'
&hl=en ("I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction ...")
As for the sweetie comment - I'm glad it won't 'stick', but I think the 'stupid states' comment's gonna affect some votes.
jstephens9:
I don't think that the "sweetie" thing is that big of a deal, but Shasta is right that if Clinton or McCain would have said it we would have a national debate. Now as far as the "stupid states" comments go that will and should affect votes.
Sheriff Roland:
Still don't know who talked about 'stupid states'. Was it the media? And if so, why should that matter? Why "will and should affect votes." Who's it going to hurt? The Dems. Sounds to me like it's the Republican Media that's likely responsible for the comment & they are the ones that should be taken to task for the comment. Like any Rush pronoucement, it's a comment that needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version