DieGrundsachefur holdem poker strategie la ruleta de la suerte casino gamble jeu baccarat jugar apostar pagina web…

Just as slots machine downloads gratuito stanze di gioco gioco video poker gratis software dadi play casino…

I admire Senator Clinton’s guts, but her camp is bleeding badly and needs to be put out of its misery.

Michelin

On the issue of NAFTA itself, both Clinton and Obama basically have the same position. They want it revised, but are not willing to pull the US out of it. Obama has tried to manufacture a difference on the issue hoping to take advantage of its unpopularity amongst working class voters due to the fact that Bill Clinton passed it originally. Goolsbee little meeting caused that ploy to blow up in his face as it exposed that his rhetoric on the issue to voters was much stronger than his actual position. The same is true of Clinton, but at least her campaign was smart enough not to be so blatantly hypocritical about it. I personally have no problem with Obama or Clinton’s actual position on NAFTA, even though I am not crazy about their pandering on the issue. It should have been a non issue in this primary campaign, but the Obama people tried to exploit it and it clearly backfired on them as the results in Ohio and Pennsylvannia have showed.

As for your accusations of racism, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It seems when it suits one’s political ambitions they have find racism wherever they look. And when they can’t find it apparently they can doctor videos to make it up:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/official-transc.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/More_on_that_video.html

I wonder if Obama does actually secure the nomination if his camp is going to continue to try and smear Clinton and her supporters as racist when they need their votes to beat John McCain. They seem to talk a lot about the good of the party, but I am starting to wonder if it is the Republican party they are referring to when they say that.

If you don’t want to pay, the bottom line of the story is that the Clinton camp NOT the Obama camp were the ones who were double-dealing with the Canadian government.

Apparently, this doesn’t matter because Senator Clinton continues to campaign against NAFTA (although RJ supports it).

As for the race card… I wouldn’t expect most white people to be sensitive to a race issue, so it’s no surprise here either. You can take a look at a mini-doc on youtube that has plenty of HC’s words that hang herself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdTCkqB_KoQ

You can believe what you want. Every time, I back my stuff with news stories. To say I’m spreading “lies” is pretty silly and pretty much indicative of the vitriol being spewed out by the Clinton campaign. You’re right on board.

michelin

I really don’t have the inclination or the time to completely dispel the list of lies that have been put forth on this thread, but I will point out a few of the more outrageous. First of all, the Clinton campaign has never insinuated Barack Obama was a Muslim. Bob Kerrey once said that Obama’s exposure to Muslim culture as a youngster could actually be an asset to America in restoring our image in the world, and he was branded as smearing Obama for saying this; yet Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan has consistently made the same point and there was never any outcry about it. This seems to only become a problem when there is an opportunity to dishonestly accuse the Clinton campaign of racism.

On your point about NAFTA, it is just a flat out lie. It was the Obama campaign who had secret talks with Canada about NAFTA, which Obama lied about, until it was eventually leaked by the Canadian government what had occured. There has never been anything but wild accusations with zero evidence to support it that the Clinton campaign ever did such a thing. The name of the Obama official who did so was Austan Goolsebee, a chief economic adviser. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html?ex=1362286800&en=b1b2ec15c4b97c16&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). What was the name of the Clinton adviser who did this? Maybe it was the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny? I could understand how you might be so deluded as to believe this racism non sense, there is at least some degree of subjectivity involved in that claim, but it is really sad when you are so far gone that you state clearly factually inaccurate statements like they were the gospel truth. You are giving W and his supporters a run for their money when it comes to being out of touch with reality.

Spreading lies and playing the race card against anyone who doesn’t support your candidate reaks of desperation to me. Accusing half your own party of being racist is certainly a novel general election strategy. At least Obama is delivering on his promise to deliver change.

Let’s be clear about something: it’s not groundless to say that the Clinton campaign has engaged in latently racist tactics. After all, it was them — NOT the Republicans — to insinuate that Obama is a Muslim. They were also the ones who leaked photos of Barry in the land of his grandfather wearing a traditional outfit. They were also the first to imply that Barry was a drug dealer because he admitted to having experimented with drugs in his younger days (like nearly everyone in his generation). I mean, it’s not like there are many Americans think all non-white men are drug dealers, right? C’mon RJ, do you really think that stuff isn’t racist? If you don’t, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

As for NAFTA… first, Senator Clinton campaigned in Ohio and Pennsylvania about her willingness to get away from NAFTA. Her people even contacted the Canadian Government to say that she was merely using that as a campaign concept, but not something she’d implement. Then, she turned around and said that Obama’s campaign was the one who did such a silly thing!

Second, NAFTA has been a complete disaster for the manufacturing sector of this country. Ask the people who were in union jobs about how well NAFTA has worked out for them. The fact that Clinton has campaigned against it (yet was a chief proponent of making it happen) is quite telling.

As for the super d’s… your arg is just plain goofy on this point. You first (rightly) said that the super d’s should intervene and pick the candidate who they believe has the best chance to win. They’ve started doing that and have been doing so since Super Tuesday. Then, when I point out evidence to counter your claim about HC’s super d lead, you say it’s not right that they’re stepping in to end the BS that’s being perpetuated AND STARTED by the Clinton camp.

If you want to support your candidate until the end, that’s cool. I just don’t understand singing on the mast of a sinking ship, especially when the tactics used by the campaign have been despicable.

michelin

I have not forgotten NAFTA, and in fact don’t have a major problem with it. I am sure there could be adjustments to it, but no one is actual saying we should revoke it, and with good reason. It may be a politically charged issue in a Democratic primary, but overall it has been good for our economy. In fact, here in North Carolina many people, especially those who work for companies who were heavily involved with the tobacco industry, have benefited greatly from NAFTA and in all likelyhood would be out of a job if not for it. NAFTA is a problem politically because its costs are concentrated, and its benefits dispersed; and so those baring the costs are going to devote a lot of political capital to opposing it, whereas those who benefit (which is esssentially all consumers in the form of lower prices and more goods) do not devote any political capital to supporting it. Both Clinton and Obama are right to be concerned about labor and environmental standards, but also right to stop well short of revoking NAFTA. There is no difference between the two candidate on this issue, just pandering by both.

I am not really sure how to address the Wright issue. Apparently Obama first said he couldn’t condem Wright, but now apparently that has changed. I have no idea what to make of the issue, other than that people’s outrage over Hillary’s response to the issue is simply another example of the rank hypocrisy that we all come to expect from the Obama camp.

As for Michelin’s gracious offer to accept all the Clinton supporters on the Obama bandwagon, I find it suprising that he believes all those people who are supporting Clinton’s supposdely racist campaign will find the Republican’s appalling enough to support Obama come the fall. I am long past the point where I could ever vote for a Republican in a presidental election, but I can say that the attitudes of Obama and his supporters is the best thing McCain has going for him. It is no wonder McCain is continuing to gain on Obama in the polls. I fail to see how anyone who is even open to voting Republican would not be leaning McCain right now if the alternative is Obama. I hope there are enough people who, like me, aren’t even willing to consider that option; but I sad feeling that there aren’t. Obviously that is not what Obama supporters believe because all we seem to hear is how they are going to destroy the party of their guy is not given the nomination in spite of his inability to actually earn it with the threat of mass destruction. Those superdelegates coming out for Obama is proof his attempt to extort the nomination out of the party seems to be working, not that Obama is the best candidate. In fact most seem to be intentionally avoiding making any such claim. No one wants to take responsibility for the disaster that could be awaiting. When half the Democratic party doesn’t even want you as their nominee, it is probably a good idea not to go around accusing people who you need to vote for you of being racists. Those victories in Red Caucus states aren’t exactly going to carry the general election for you.

How dare she. How dare she criticize Rev Wright, Obama, and their church. How dare she say that it is offensive and irrationial to speak out like he did. How dare she say that she would have left the church upon hearing of those statements. She has no basis from which to be criticizing either of those two men for their stances on their church. They both grew up in an era (moreso wright than obama, but still) where neither of them were allowed to be considered equals. They grew up in an era where they were to be neither seen nor heard. She has no basis, no history, nothing that could ever justify her unwarranted and down right appalling criticisms of the church of the Trinity United Church of Christ. She should be thankful that neither of those men, nor the church decided to stand up for themselves and demand her apology for criticizing something she can only hope to understand.