PDA

View Full Version : Obama Vs Clinton live on CNN.com


tlr online
01-02-08, 01:47
Thanks to Mr. Burns for the heads-up.

http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream1

Mr.Burns
01-02-08, 02:25
No problem Justin. :wve:

Eddie Haskell
01-02-08, 02:58
It is done. It was a real debate on the issues. And party unity is in the air! It is IMPERATIVE that a Democrat wins the election. They know it and we know it. Party unity is a must. I truly hope that it is an Obama/Clinton ticket, or vice-versa even. They will win in a landslide.

SamReeves
01-02-08, 03:01
:vlol: Give me a break Eddie. There's just as much division in the Democrats right now as there are for the Republicans. With the Kennedy's siding with Obama, and others with Clinton. This will be wide open until the conventions conclude.

Eddie Haskell
01-02-08, 03:04
:vlol: Give me a break Eddie. There's just as much division in the Democrats right now as there are for the Republicans. With the Kennedy's siding with Obama, and others with Clinton. This will be wide open until the conventions conclude.

I can tell that you didn't watch the debate. And that you have no idea of their positions on these issues. There is no substantive difference between them. Other than skin color or what's in their underwear...:)

Mr.Burns
01-02-08, 03:07
I can tell that you didn't watch the debate. And that you have no idea of their positions on these issues. There is no substantive difference between them. Other than skin color or what's in their underwear...:)

I did (obviously). I was surprised as to how cordial and polite they were with each other. It was actually a bit odd. I think they both held their ground but the one area that Hillary faltered on was Iraq. Her answers were too drawn out and complex. I'm curious to see how Super Tuesday turns out.

DREWY
01-02-08, 03:10
Like moths to a flame they are drawn....

SamReeves
01-02-08, 03:11
Like moths to a flame they are drawn....

Oh yes Drewy. Lots of moths shall be toast on Tuesday! :cln:

USP
01-02-08, 03:17
I think most people in this thread know where I stand politically, so pardon if this is biased.
I think the most hilarious thing was listening to them talk about economics. Both of these guys (pardon that) are completely lost. None of them are willing to take on the real economic issues, such as the Federal Reserve. It is always "how much should we spend" rather than "should we spend at all".

Also, Hillary's laugh reminds me of the Joker

Eddie Haskell
01-02-08, 03:32
I think most people in this thread know where I stand politically, so pardon if this is biased.
I think the most hilarious thing was listening to them talk about economics. Both of these guys (pardon that) are completely lost. None of them are willing to take on the real economic issues, such as the Federal Reserve. It is always "how much should we spend" rather than "should we spend at all".

Also, Hillary's laugh reminds me of the Joker

"Lost" to you, quite "found" to me.

"should we spend at all". Before I respond, I reiterate; I don't come to this forum for political debate, I get enough of that on the military forum I am on. However, I have already spelled out what a Libertarian society would look like previously in another thread. No real serious candidate would take such heartless and dis compassionate positions and hope to get elected. It will never happen.

USP
01-02-08, 20:22
"Lost" to you, quite "found" to me.

"should we spend at all". Before I respond, I reiterate; I don't come to this forum for political debate, I get enough of that on the military forum I am on. However, I have already spelled out what a Libertarian society would look like previously in another thread. No real serious candidate would take such heartless and dis compassionate positions and hope to get elected. It will never happen.

And I have told you time after time that I have NEVER met a Libertarian that proposed the policies that you listed. NOT ONE.
You are clearly confused.

Mona Sax
01-02-08, 20:29
:vlol: Give me a break Eddie. There's just as much division in the Democrats right now as there are for the Republicans. With the Kennedy's siding with Obama, and others with Clinton. This will be wide open until the conventions conclude.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that somebody who supports Obama doesn't necessarily oppose Clinton and vice versa. The Republican party still hasn't learnt that people are sick of malicious smear campaigns after 8 years of Bush in the White House. A president who is only there for his or her party and doesn't approach anybody who didn't vote for him or her clearly has the wrong job. Personally I hope Obama wins, but I'd be happy with Clinton as well. Both together as president and vice would be ideal.

FomarThain
01-02-08, 20:59
I am one who will vote for whoever as long as its not Hillary. I am still "Clinton-ed" out. Despite my dislike of Hillary I tell ya I was ****ed when Blitzer(sp?) called her naive. Granted she gave a so-so answer but still. I thought that was a poor dig at her and think he should have sent one zapping Obama as well. I hate when reporters do that. Try to dig up something that isn't there.

As to the debates I thought they were ok. All the candidates (Republicans too) are so good at talking alot without saying anything. It can be hard to hear the meat between the promises. I am enjoying how close it is but I tell ya if Hillary wins I will jump out my window. If she wins she has no chance against the Republican candidate imo. I believe there is to much exhaustion where she is concerned.

Flipper1987
01-02-08, 22:47
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that somebody who supports Obama doesn't necessarily oppose Clinton and vice versa.

The same is true in the Republican party. There are many in the Republican party who have a healthy respect for all the candidates, even the ones they may have differences with on certain issues. When the general campaign starts, the vast majority of Republicans will rally around their candidate (even if it's McCain), especially if Hillary is the Democratic candidate.

IMO, the problem with Hillary is her high negatives. Republicans are vehemently anti-Hillary, there is a large contingent of independents who can't stand her, & there is a growing anti-Hillary faction emerging in the Democratic party. Whether that stops her from getting the nomination is another thing. Super Tuesday will clear up a lot of the uncertainty.

The Republican party still hasn't learnt that people are sick of malicious smear campaigns after 8 years of Bush in the White House.

As a political junkie & a historical scholar, the above comment doesn't hold muster. Bush's campaigns in 2000 & 2004 may have engaged in aggressive campaigning (just as his opponents did), but labeling them as "smear campaigns" is over the top. Bush had nothing to do with the Swiftboat veterans in 2004.

Speaking of "smear campaigns," you may want to check out Moveon.org. They wrote the book on it. Just ask General Petraeus.


In addition, it's the Clintons who are reknown for their manipulative campaigns:

After Obama won Iowa, Obama's race magically appeared as an issue in the Democratic primaries. I wonder who brought that up?

Who plays the victim everytime she can?

Who trots her husband out to complain about how the other Democratic candidates are "ganging up on the woman?"

Who resorts to crying in an attempt to manipulate the female vote?

Who calls moderators such as Tim Russert a "bully" b/c he had the gall to ask her a serious, straight-forward question about drivers licenses for illegals?

Who digs up dirt on all of her opponents? I hope you have all of your Kindergarten essays stored away in a safe place. :)


I will not argue that every Republican runs a clean campaign; that's simply not true.

However, the Democrats can't make any claim that they always run clean & honest campaigns. It's members of the Democratic party that regularly engage in all sorts of under-handed tactics when it comes to each election cycle. It's the Dems that regularly play the race card, the gender card, engage in class warfare, & attempt to scare seniors with lies that Republicans are trying to take away their Social Security, Medicare, etc... They have done this for decades & the mainstream media rarely calls them out on it.

But hey, during the political season, such tactics are part of the game; kind of like how fighting is part of hockey (at least in the NHL). This has been going on in the US for the last 200+ years.

FLIPPER

Mona Sax
02-02-08, 14:33
I agree, the Democrats aren't always clean, either. Bush's aides were particularly proficient in killing his opponents, both Republicans and Democrats, though, Rove being the most infamous.
But hey, during the political season, such tactics are part of the game; kind of like how fighting is part of hockey (at least in the NHL). This has been going on in the US for the last 200+ years.
Yeah, but the difference is that a fight in a hockey game is a spontaneous outburst of emotions, and nobody's harmed. There are simply no consequences, a few minutes in the sin bin aside. Political campaigns often aim to literally destroy an opponent's career. You're comparing a game to war. Seriously, I think America and every other country on this planet would profit a great deal if parties and politicians considered each other partners instead of mortal enemies. Disagreeing partners, maybe, but still partners. We all want a better future, liberals as well as conservatives, leftists as well as rightists. Nobody can build it alone, we all have to work together, whether we want to or not. Out of the four main candidates, I think Obama is the one who has the best chances of being a president for everybody. Not even just one for every American, but somebody who will also consider other countries' interests. As you said, Clinton has high negatives, and I can't imagine Democrats and independents ever growing to like McCain and Romney, either. Not to mention the rest of the world - I think in the last 100 years, we've seen our share of 'falcons'.

I'd like campaigns that convince me to vote for a candidate, not against another. It's just poor style.

danitiwa
02-02-08, 14:42
Oh yes Drewy. Lots of moths shall be toast on Tuesday! :cln:

Mmm... Toast. :cln:


Whawetalkingabou? :confused: :pi:

petujaymz
02-02-08, 15:44
This nomination battle's certainly an interesting one.

My ears always perk up when it makes the news.

:wve: