<p>Amen! Unbelievable! Amen! <3</p>
<p>Wow. Soccer Guy shows up and again feeds us all a bunch of disinformation.</p>
<p>This is what Obama actually said on August 9th:</p>
<p>[Obama</a> talks to Rice about Georgia, condemns Russia - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080810/pl_politico/12419]Obama”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080810/pl_politico/12419)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>News flash: Quoting from biased websites meant to further a particular perspective will not get you very far at Cornell.</p>
<p>awww…cayuga!!!</p>
<p>you always ruin the fun…i am sure that hillary has at least 1 advisor who is better than any obama has…BILL 
</p>
<p>soccerguy did fail to mention his source…</p>
<p>The Source was CNN. Here’s the link to both Obama and McCain’s statements. [CNN</a> Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - McCain, Obama decry violence in Georgia « - Blogs from CNN.com](<a href=“http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/08/mccain-obama-decry-violence-in-georgia/]CNN”>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/08/mccain-obama-decry-violence-in-georgia/)</p>
<p>I was quoting only the FIRST response of each candidate, the one both Obama and McCain released on August EIGHT, not the one you quoted for August NINTH. I’m sure after Obama’s flop of a quote went over horribly, he went back and had his advisor create the one you posted. However, his initial statement on the violence was, word for word, what I quoted, as was the first response for McCain and Hillary.</p>
<p>News flash: We all know what assuming does. Is CNN biased now? Well, I suppose it was a bit pro-Obama during the primaries.</p>
<p>hehe…the major media is setting up obama for a fall…</p>
<p>hillary is the best bet for a president…yes her experience is really mostly a mooch off of bill clinton…but alas…</p>
<p>I always felt CNN was pro Hillary. Maybe everyone feels that CNN attacks the candidate they back.</p>
<p>Also, didn’t Georgia attack in South Ossetia first and Russia is just responding? The region really doesn’t want to be part of Georgia and has tried to declare independence, even though no one really recognizes it.
[War</a> in South Ossetia - The Big Picture - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/war_in_south_ossetia.html]War”>http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/war_in_south_ossetia.html)
I don’t think that Russia really has the right to go into all out war with Georgia or to annex South Ossetia. However, Georgia shouldn’t attack the people who live in that region and I read somewhere else that the refugees are seeking shelter in Russia. It’s a lot more complicated than Russia just attacking Georgia.</p>
<p>Lieberman blasts Obama on Georgia
by Mosheh Oinounou</p>
<p>TEANECK, NJ — During his introductory remarks at a McCain Garden State fundraiser tonight Sen. Joe Lieberman ripped Barack Obama for exhibiting “inexperience” when it comes to the conflict in Georgia.</p>
<p>“The last few days, four or five days, we’ve seen one of the most unexpected crises in the world as the Russians moved into Georgia as aggressors. And if you read the statements from the beginning, Senator McCain and Senator Obama, one had kind of moral neutrality to it that comes I think from inexperience,” Lieberman said. “The other, Senator McCain, was strong and clear and principled and put America where America always wants to be.”</p>
<p>Lieberman was referring to Obama’s FIRST statement about the conflict Friday in which the IL Senator called on both the Russians and Georgians to “show restraint.”</p>
<p>It’s interesting how people interpret these statements.</p>
<p>Basically, from McCain I heard: we need more war! </p>
<p>He is a military person, conditioned to solve problems militaristically in the same way a highway builder thinks that more highways will solve problems.</p>
<p>McCain’s response was immature, short-sighted, and ignorant. Lieberman played to a populace that, until last week, mostly thought Georgia was only a state and that the U.S. can and should kick butt to solve all its problems.</p>
<p>But, yes, Obama’s initial response was rather tepid. Though, the fact that Obama’s first instinct was for diplomacy struck me as a valuable judgment to have in office. The rest he can learn from his advisors. He’s “smart as a whip”, as Bubba said.</p>
<p>When it comes down to it. though - the Democratic Party sort of screwed up. They have 2 incredible candidates. They could have established one-party control of the presidency for 16 years if they nominated Hillary and let Obama be the VP.</p>
<p>He could have 8 years to toughen his chops on the international stage while she used her slightly-less enlightened 1960s mindset to stabilize problems before age starts being an issue (she’ll be older than McCain is in 2016, and women have far less leeway with age then men do).</p>
<p>^ The Hillary-Obama ticket was perfect in my mind too - a 16 year chokehold on the white house. </p>
<p>And you’re right - I wasn’t showing that statement to display McCain’s abilities, I was displaying Hillary’s. She’s the only one whose statement made sense, had a plan, and was a call to action.</p>
<p>It’s crazy to think, but wouldn’t it be interesting if Hillary stole the convention from Obama… I didn’t really understand the mass exodus of super delegates to Obama to begin with. I guess if it can happen once, it could swing back just as hard if something happens to make it clear Obama’s not going to get the white working class vote.</p>
<p>For some reason I always thought Hillary almost planned to have Obama as her VP before he even ran. I heard that it was the Clintons who got Obama to be a speaker at the 2004 convention which is where he entered the national stage. If he never ran in the primaries he would have been a perfect VP candidate.</p>
<p>The super delegates swung from Hillary to Obama because they wanted the election to be over. He won like 10 states in a row after super Tuesday and they figured he would end it. If he had just done better in PA or Ohio none of this would be an issue.</p>
<p>applejack, that “mass exodus” was a result of superdelegates who would rather have Hillary in the White House but, at the same time, saw the writing on the wall.
They could tell Obama would be the nominee and so they switched their support to him so that he could start to focus on McCain (and because it was a politically convenient since Obama had already won over half of the elected delegates). </p>
<p>However, I would love to see another mass exodus of superdelegates - this time towards Hillary.</p>
<p>Who wouldn’t like to see Hillary come out the nominee…I mean seriously, Obama is looking worse everday. When Hillary FIRST suspended her campaign, I was willing to support Obama…but I’ve slowly drifted away from him since he started campaiging.</p>
<p>Almost every Obama supporter I know wishes they had voted Hillary at this point - I’ve never seen such voter’s remorse in my life. Obama peaked around Feb to Mar. It’s all been downhill from there, which is why almost every recent state poll has Obama losing points.</p>
<p>i said it before…and i’ll say it again…</p>
<p>the major media is setting up obama for a fall</p>
<p>If Hillary comes out of the convention as the nominee Dems will lose in November. I’m not saying she isn’t a strong candidate and she isn’t good enough to be President. However, you will alienate large chuncks of the party if the person who won the primary is not the nominee. It just makes the party look bad and destroys the whole point of having primary elections.</p>
<p>
I guess you and I are talking to different Obama supporters. I don’t know any who regret voting for him. Hillary ran a really crappy campaign against Obama considering the potential she had.</p>
<p>obama alienates working class voters (pa. and ohio)…</p>
<p>hillary can and will win key swing states :D</p>
<p>I agree with Venkat actually…there’s a high chance Hillary would lose if she won at the convention. The simple reason is: The media hates her. They’d do what they ALWAYS do when it comes to Hillary and start blaming her. I could see Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews now: “OMG! SHE STOLE IT FROM A BLACK MAN! SHES RACIST! HOW COULD SHE! SHE NEEDS TO DIE!” </p>
<p>She would lose, I agree.</p>
<p>However, Obama will lose anyway. And in all honesty, I’d rather watch Obama lose now then I would Hillary, so go ahead and let him be nominated.</p>
<p>hillary represents a majority-minority better than obama…</p>
<p>latinos and women love her <3</p>
<p>Wow so many things happened since I last checked. Let me just say McCain hasn’t led Obama for months (Check Gallup’s daily tracking…closest he has been were a couple ties). I can see how people can think there is a small chance McCain can win…but nothing more. Obama is leading in all the kerry states by a good margin (NH and Michigan aren’t going to be taken…). Then he can capture (and is currently leading pretty much tied in) Nevada, Colorodo, New Mexico, Iowa, and Indiana. He also has a chance in Virginia. Even NC, GA, MT, Alaska, and ND are in play. Then of course Ohio and Florida will be close. McCain really only has a small shot. Obama is pushing on many of Bush’s states and McCain only has a very small possible chance to take over one of Kerry’s states, NH. Obama is the favorite. Senate can also go to 56, 57, 58, 59, even 60 Dems (I’d predict 56 or hopefully 57). House is gonna be a huggge margin and that keeps getting more likely. </p>
<p>Also wow…interesting rolling stones article</p>
<p>Alsooo great little article about McCain campaign advisor: [McCain</a> adviser got money from Georgia - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_lobbyist;_ylt=AlVGq5jtCxMroGcisFpxX45snwcF]McCain”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_lobbyist;_ylt=AlVGq5jtCxMroGcisFpxX45snwcF)</p>
<p>Even though I am a Obama supporter now (and also would have voted for Hillary if he had lost) I have to join the dream and say Clinton, Obama for two elections and than Obama pres for the next two would have been amazing. I have a feeling if Obama wins and Congress also goes very Blue they need to push thru legislation in overdrive. If America hasn’t improved in 4 years the repubs will takeover in full force. We need to really take advantage of this opportunity or the republican landslide election that occured in the early 90s will happen again.</p>
<p>If u watch house races the Dem strat has been very interesting. They have been running conservatiive/moderate Dems in the South in order to win. Look up Bobby Bright who is running in the deep South. Life profile of a Repub but if a blue-collar Dem and has a good chance of taking a deeply southern seat into the blue. Also our very own district around Cornell is being fought by a very moderate Dem who barely lost the last election (Eric Massa). They are actually running people who might not necessarily fit the Dem mold perfectly (ex. could be pro-gun or pro-life) but have a chance of getting elected in red districts. This is definitely an election season to keep an eye on.</p>
<p>^ Well, new Nevada poll today has Obama losing 5 points, from being 2 points ahead, to McCain now being 3 points ahead. Once again, a state poll showing Obama losing steam.</p>
<p>Now, I honestly don’t know about Ohio at this point. I thought it would be safe McCain - but Obama’s groupies have decided to give him a “loophole” according to the Huffington Post (aka, cheating). They are going to allow early voting for the first time ever in the general election, as well as allow people to vote WITHOUT ID (opening up opportunities for Obama to do exactly what he did in the primary).</p>
<p>That in itself wouldn’t be cheating, if they hadn’t decided to ONLY allow this early voting and no ID policy in large, heavily black cities, and college towns. No rural areas (McCain areas) will have the early voting/No idea policy. Guess Obama got scared he was gonna lose Ohio - had to cheat as usual.</p>
<p>So yeah - I guess it’s possible for Obama to win. Fairly? No. But he can cheat his way to victory.</p>