http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/long...enated_hal.html

Obama has just lost my vote, and I feel with that statement, he has lost many votes. Sometimes, one should keep their mouth shut.

I'm not very happy with Obama right now, he should have just kept his hole shut. This is only January 2 and 2008 is already looking lousy. I just hope the hell I'm wrong.

I was considering John Edwards, now I'm considering him even more. He may be a rich lawyer, but he seems to have a pretty strong argument against letting HMO's, insurance companies, defense contractors, and others from squeezing America's golden goose until she suffocates. :spikey:

If Obama truly said this, then he just lost any small chance of getting my vote. I'll consider Edwards as well, that is, if Gore don't get in by a brokered convention... :Y:

Not that I'm defending Obama or anything, as I'm not a huge fan of anyone (except the obvious) but it seems that this could have been taken out of context, or not completely accurate somehow, as it is going on the word of someone just there at the event. Until confirmed, I'll try to give the benefit of the doubt and assume it could be less than 100% accurate. I'd like to believe he's above that, since our options are very few at this point.

If it is true and not out of context, I'm gullible and Obama's got some 'splaining to do!!

I woldn't vote for Edwards ever.

SAys he don't take corporate money, then he is caught being a lying hypocrite

Yeah, he should go back and get some more hair cream or something useful
Certainly not presidential material. Edwards couldn't win dogcatcher in NC if he tried

Obama don't need to explain anything.
Is that the best they can come up with on Barack?
At least Obama is one zillion times better than Harold "Republican" Ford

BTW-which issues did Edwards change on? Oh, guess it depends on what day of
the week it is, or which side his part on his hair is parted

If this is a true statement, then it just confirms my thoughts that Obama is not ready for prime time. I would like to see Al run (wouldn't we all), but I'd sooner cast my vote for Dodd than any of the three frontrunners.

At the end of the day, Al Gore won what, 53 percent of the voters who voted in 2000
But only 1/2 the people of the nation who could vote did

Which means about 73 percent of the nation who could vote did not vote for Al Gore
W in 2000 had about 76 percent of the nation not voting for him

Same with Kerry in 2004- only 1/4 the nation voted for him

Maybe 75 percent will vote for Obama of all people who can vote,now, that would be something

As the only person in the race Al Gore would support would be Obama, seems mghty silly that a one sentence out of lots of words would irritate those?
Especially as one would need Obama's delegates if they are hoping for a brokered convemtion

For all you know, Obama said this on purpose with Gore's blessing.

Reactions (in order of appearance):

1) What?

2) 'Splaining - Yes, if he said it, I'd love to hear some clarification.

3) Harold Ford?!?

4) What?

5) Hey, you forgot to slam Hillary!?!

There are more important things going on in the world then worrying about one sentence out of 1000s that Barack Obama said, which in reality is true, based on
ACTUAL numbers from 2000 and 2004

Being that Obama is the only logical choice someone who likes Al Gore would then vote for
If Obama is good enough for Dennis Kucinich he is more than good enough for me

There is a reason Al Gore did not pick Edwards in 2000. No way he would want his backers to support him now.

I for one need no clarification on this statement, again, there are plenty more important issues to focus on.

And remember, Al Gore got the 52, or 53 percent.

(here comes my slamming of the Clintons---
Bill Clinton in 1992 got what, about 40 percent of the vote (and only 20 percent of the entire nation as only 1/2 of the nation voted).

So instead of angrily reacting to Obama's one line, think about what he said, because he is correct, when looking at the actual number of USA eligible voters, and the amount of people that actually did vote

What about focussing on his wanting more votes so that it is so many, they can't be stolen? (which is what Kerry should have focused on in 2004...
remmeber, no one knew they would steal 2000 so nothing could be prepared
However, everyone knew they would steal 2004 and did.

Don't you want the 2008 candidate to be ready so 2004 don't happen again?

Rasmussen 12/26-29. Likely voters. MoE 3% (No trend lines)

Favorable Unfavorable
McCain 53 27
Edwards 49 42
Clinton 48 50
Obama 43 51
Thompson 42 42
Giuliani 40 55
Huckabee 40 47
Romney 38 51

I agree completely.

Didn't we just go through this with a thread titled
'Redford bashes Al Gore?' (Redford did NOT 'bash' Al Gore).
The title of this 'blog entry' or 'article' is not true.
Read it. Gore and Kerry are not even mentioned (except in
the title, where the author is making a false claim).

And look at the result.

The first four posters are stating that their voting decisions
might very well be affected by this one (false) blog 'headline.'
I'm sure that is what it was created to do.
The day before ... what?

It has 'legs' also. A google search brings up at least two
pages of hits with this 'headline.'
Isn't this what happened in 2000?
Lies that were given legs??

The only way to stop this is to vote for Obama in Iowa

Tell the racists where to go

Obama is getting hit by all sides, because they know the public likes him
Whereas Hillary and Edwards have nothing positive to offer, and both were for the
war before flipflopping
(the whisper racist campagins run by Edwards (I'm the last great white hope), and Hillary against Obama rank with what W did to McCain whispering in SC (the black baby smear)

I agree with both of you that this may have been taken out of context...there is really not enough information there.

It doesn't change my mind, however, I was not for Obama initially.

thnx for adding clarification.

I started thinking about that too. There really isn't a lot of information in the article to prove that Obama said this. You know, we all get mad when someone is misquoting or misrepresenting Al. I think Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt here, until it can be proven that he said those things about Gore and Kerry. It does look suspect. And it seems hard to believe he would say this considering that he and Gore talk to each other on occasion.

Granted, Obama isn't my first choice, just because this is a critical time in our country. We need Gore first. Obama can be his VP, then he'd be ready for the President spot in 8 years. Yeah, I know, Gore isn't even in the race. :rolleyes: (yet) :Y: Come on, brokered convention. Just wishful thinking on my part....sigh

earnAlgore is correct in saying if you "give a lie legs" it will walk another warmonger right into the Oval Office...this is a Rove tactic used to DIVIDE the Democratic electorate and we FALL for it every time...so as you can see Karl Baby is still alive and kicking and trying to affect the 2008 vote...after the 2004 primaries it worked soooo effectively that after the primaries everybody went in separate directions leaving Kerry alone to get hit by "swiftboating"...."negative ads"...and "myths & fallacies" (like they used on Al in 2000)...also the fact that Kerry was NOT good at defending himself did NOT help matters...by the way I am a Clinton supporter...so why am I standing up for Obama?...ONE WORD...UNITY! :good:

By the way Al Gore WON the 2000 popular vote...it was chickanery in Florida provided by "Witchipoo" Sec Of State, Katherine Harris that allowed BU$H to steal the election...in 2004 in was chickanery in Ohio provided by Sec of State, Kenneth Blackwell & Diebold that was the FINAL coffin nail for Kerry...Proving the Karl Rove method of putting a Secretary of State in your 'back pocket' and 'voter fraud' will insure a win... :mad:

In 2008 WE should INSIST on International Observers to VERIFY the vote or I guarantee the GOP (Guardians Of Perplexity) will do it AGAIN! :mad:

Meanwhile Rudy sits down in Florida hoping the TWO gaping holes in NYC that have sat there for 7 years will guarantee him a WIN...through the Politics Of Fear :rolleyes:

I think I should should say that yes, I should not take one quote of Obama's, possibly taken out of context, and make that a reason not to vote for him. I may end up voting for Obama, and I sure would love to see a Gore/Obama 2008 ticket. My wish is for that to still somehow happen.

Neither do I detest Edwards, or Hillary, or any of the Democrats. None of them are Al Gore or even John Kerry for that matter. Like a lot of Dems, I could still change my mind..

James- I do thought think its really funny you posted an article that you would have
put me down if I posted it by saying

blather blather RIGHTWING MEDIA blather blather DISTORTION blather blather
LIES blather blather HALFTRUTHS

WE know YOU James don't want Obama do you?
Admit it.

I admit I don't want Hillary or Edwards.

Obama is the ONE if he is authentic and he is the natural HEIR to Al Gore and Bobby's place.

And if it leads to Gore/Obama, well then :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
(this would proove this article originally came from Hillary's camp or Edwards camp who don't like the idea of a Gore/Obama ticket.

You don't usually post articles. I guess since most of your posts are pulled directly from your butt.

The rest is just the usual blather so I'm not going to bother. :tongue:

I can't CUT AND PASTE articles here
I have already told you that

So unless it is real, real important, I am not going to type an entire article

I have no problem cutting/pasting on any other board but this one

AND other people have indeed indicated they have the same problem

I have put by hand links to articles, however make a typo and those links don't work

:tongue: :tongue:

oh cut the crap. Even Kos said something about the fact that Obama may have said this. I don't have the sources that Kos has so, the remark could well be true about Obama. I will only not repeat it because I am not sure, so I'd hardly accuse James of purposely undermining someone. No one's hands are clean in this race and that includes Obama...and for that matter all the front-runners and maybe the second tier as well. Our system is broke. And the American people are being soundly cheated out of their democracy.

Kos was the one who started this article in the first place

BUT Kos himself says Obama is the person most likely to win and get his vote, just not in Iowa

Kos is pushing Obama to say more but do you really think Obama, being black, could say what Edwards is saying?

Edwards only says what he does becuase he is not going to win nationally, so he is free like Paul and kucnich to say it louder

If Obama said these things, he would be too radical and not stand a chance

So I will give him Obama the benefit, being that he is politically handicapped because he is black
You saw what happened to Rev. Jackson

If we didn't have so many racists in this country who might as well be members of the KKK, Obama being black wouldn't make any difference.

I'll give Obama the benefit too...because it's just not a wise course to suggest something about someone based on very little or scant information.

But I have to say G4 ,that Kos's own decision making process could be flawed. Admittedly he has said he'd like a minority or female candidate. Now, I don't think that many people would necessarily object to that sentiment, but if that is the sole reason for a choice it is as bad as flipping a coin to choose your candidate or voting straight ticket without being informed of the policy decisions a candidate has made. Or, even voting on the electability of a candidate no matter his positions.

On the other hand some black people don't think he's black enough! Could be why Oprah stepped in...

In all honesty though, if I thought he was the right leader, I wouldn't hestitate....and in Colbert fashion (although I'm not joking), I would vote for the man, not his color as would probably many of us.

As the person who is perfect is not at the moment running or may not,
we all have to then figure which is the next person based on what factors are important to that person
Everyone has their own
(and none of the remaining candidates are perfect, most are terrible, very few
acceptable, and we know all the rest

Why the ticket won't be Gore/Feingold is beyond me. (And you and I know Russ
said he would be very interested in that possiblity when he decided not to run)

I know, I haven't a clue either.....I'd sure love to be surprised though.


just FYI, this is an update to clarify Kos's seeming position on Obama (from his front page):

I'll post his projections as well from polling and from political assessment:

Iowa prediction thread
by kos

Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:48:00 AM HST
Entrance poll:

Obama 29.5
Clinton 27
Edwards 26



Final results:

Obama 36
Edwards 31
Clinton 28

Shame Gore didn't run.

I'm signing up as an Independent and voting for Michael Bloomberg.

Not to say I'm not rooting for any Democrat, I hope Al Frankin kick Coleman's ass this November.

Peace.

Thanks, Valadon.

This item was all over the DU site the other day so I thought people here might find it interesting. However, as someone else pointed out, it is hearsay that Obama said this and even if he did he never mentioned Gore by name; so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Now that Hillary is out of the way, it is time for Gore to make his move. Obama would be the perfect VP for Gore. I still do not think that Obama is ready for prime time.

I still don't get this comparison with Harold Ford. Did you pick him just because of skin color. Ford has some wacko family members, but personally, I like him.

Ford is just one of the many non-liberal democrats that put together have continued to give Bush every single thing he wanted. And he has aligned himself
with that wing of the party(which got thoroguhly defeated in Iowa).

You mean like a certain Senator who voted to:

- Limit class action suits against corporations

- Provide tax breaks to the oil industry

- Re-authorize the Patriot act

- Provide over $120 Billion dollars to fund the war in Iraq

Can anyone guess the name of this Senator?

Strange he should bring up Harold Ford, who was ahead until one racist ad flipped the election. I thought that was a travesty, and race has nothing to do with my objections to Obama as a prospect for POTUS. But the Harold Ford story should be a nightmare to Obama supporters - and all Democrats who want to actually win the White House. The claims of "whisper campaigns" by Edwards, rather than somehow reflecting on Edwards, should serve as warnings of the REAL swiftboating to come from the pugs as soon as they get him nominated. His "big tent" talk of accommodation of all smells like a sellout to get corporatists to call off the dogs and let him win. But he'll have to pay a price for that. Kennedy got help from the mob and then turned around and had his brother go after them. That backfired. Is Obama planning to do the same thing with this mob, or continue to "compromise" - meaning cave in and let them continue to rape and pillage the country?

Harold Ford comes from a corrupt family

Why someone clean like Al Gore would want to have his fans associate with Ford (or Ford's crony Evan Bayh) I don't know

Guess it depends on what people want

An actual liberal like Gore and Obama (after all, Gore will back Obama)
or a middle of the road Demo-RAT like Lieberman and Bayh

Ford is way too much to the right.

But what does Harold Ford, who backs Hillary and the Clintonites(and is a friend of Rahm Emmanuel and Terry Goofy Grin McAuliffe(who was practically hugging Hillary on stage) and both are noted Clintonites btw) have to do with anything?

That was my original question? :?:

I wish everyone would get off of 'skin color.' It may matter to racists, which are usually republicans, but I see too many people here making an issue of it where it shouldn't be.

:?: :?: :?: :wacko:
I give up.