<p>simba,
Obama ran ads on national cable networks (such as CNN). There was no way to designate the ad not run in Florida because it’s a national network. There’s a difference between that and deliberately taking out ads on Florida-only TV markets. Apparently the candidates agreed on the latter, not the former.</p>
<p>Food for thought on top of that. Clinton had one of her congressman supports send robo-calls urging people to vote for Clinton in the Florida dem primary.</p>
<p>50% and 700,000 votes…I am gloating.</p>
<p>After months of denouncing the influence of special-interest money in politics, Senator Barack Obama is nonetheless entering a critical phase of the presidential campaign benefiting from millions of dollars being spent outside campaign finance rules.</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Referring to Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama said in December in the heat of the Iowa campaign, John said yesterday he didnt believe in these 527s. Then he added, You cant say yesterday you dont believe in it, and today three-quarters of a million dollars is being spent for you.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30donate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30donate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>OK Obama supporters, you made a big deal out of Hillary’s comments. How do you explain his snubbing?</p>
<p>[Political</a> Radar: Obama on the State of the Union “Snub”](<a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-on-the-st.html]Political”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-on-the-st.html)</p>
<p>video here</p>
<p>[ABC</a> News](<a href=“ABC News Videos - ABC News”>ABC News Videos - ABC News)</p>
<p>“I don’t think she is a racist. I think she is an experienced dissembler.”</p>
<p>Exactly!</p>
<p>“I think you hate Hillary and that is affecting your thinking.”</p>
<p>I know this opinion was directed at Dross, Dstark. But as for me, I can say with 100% certainty (:D) that I DO NOT hate Hillary Clinton. In fact, there’s a lot that I admire about her. I think she is an extremely intelligent, and capable woman, with a gift for single minded determination that if channeled for a lofty goal (such as her child health care initiative), can be used to accomplish great things. But I still have serious reservations about the idea of her as President, none of which have anything to do with her gender. Despite her strengths, I don’t trust her. And though I think that she alone has integrity issues, the prospect of the two-headed entity called, Billary being back in the White House gives me serious pause, because this time, the dynamic will be very different. I think that together as Co-President, (because Bill is just not going to settle to be the “First Husband” in anything like the tradition of the historical First Ladies, not even in the way Hillary was First Lady to his president. He’s going to do far more than diddle the interns. He is just not going to play second banana—his ego simply won’t allow it—so I think there are going to be some inherent problems with that. As it is now, it’s exceedingly hard to tell which of them is actually running for President. The way he’s gotten down and dirty in this campaign is unprecedented in the spouse of a candidate, and certainly in a former President, and acts as a harbinger of what we can expect from him once he’s back in The Oval Office. This is just his way to make an end-run around the constitutional two term limit) they will continue to act as if the rules don’t apply to them. They are ruthless and totally unapologetic about it. That’s my opinion and I’m entirely entitled to it, just as you are entitled to vehemently disagree (which I know, many of you do).</p>
<p>MSNBC reported this evening that when you look at the voters in Florida who voted in the last month, Obama beats Clinton. Apparently lot of voters in FLA are absentee and those who sent their ballots in at the end of December favored Clinton. Interesting. Seems like momentum for Obama.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I can say with 99% certainty that I don’t hate her either (har har har). I don’t even know the woman, though I think she offers no reason to trust her.</p>
<p>As for Obama’s so-called “snub” (I hate having to defend this guy here, but…) C’mon now. This is just stupid, much ado about nothing. If I were to freeze frame a bunch of fluid actions and then comment on them, I could make up all sorts of wacky narratives. I am not saying he did not snub her, perhaps he did. But when you have thousands of people around you, tons of whom are vying for your attention at the same time, you may tend to turn and view them from time to time. Also, maybe he felt uncomfortable and didn’t know how to deal with having someone against whom he is in a bitter struggle be so close and shaking the hand of someone else, not him. Were I in his shoes, I may have turned away too, not so much to snub her, but because, well, shoot, its just God awkward.</p>
<p>Yall crazy. LOL.</p>
<p>“But when you have thousands of people around you, tons of whom are vying for your attention at the same time,”</p>
<p>Obama explained today his alleged snub of fellow candidate Hillary Clinton, saying he was “surprised” to hear about the coverage this morning:</p>
<p>“I was turning away because Claire [McCaskill] asked me a question, as Senator Kennedy was reaching for her [Clinton]… And senator Clinton and I have had very cordial relations on the floor and off the floor; I waved at her as we were coming into the Senate chamber before we walked over. I think there’s a lot more tea leaf reading going on here than I think people are suggesting.”</p>
<p>Claire verified the event.</p>
<p>“And I can say with 99% certainty that I don’t hate her either (har har har). I don’t even know the woman, though I think she offers no reason to trust her.”</p>
<p>Anyone that compares a Goldwater girl, in this case Hillary Clinton, with a Nazi vet… all I can say is that 99% certainty is a little too high. :)</p>
<p>I can say with 83% certainty, I don’t like people I can’t trust. :)</p>
<p>Oh…and one more thing, my 99% number was taken out of context. I just didn’t bother to explain it. :)</p>
<p>Obama '08! WooOOHooOO! Four members of our household (okay ALL the members of our household), are voting and actively campaigning for Obama.</p>
<p>“Anyone that compares a Goldwater girl, in this case Hillary Clinton, with a Nazi vet…”</p>
<p>Is the concept of CONTEXT really that difficult for you to grasp, Dstark? Never mind…don’t bother to respond to that. I already the know the answer to that question based on your prior posts in this thread.</p>
<p>Primetime Mom–the girls (3) in our house are all voting for Obama. The guys…well, one is a registered Independent and the other a Republican. But I think the independent is voting for Obama (they don’t like us to pry). I have spent a lot of time wondering if I can put up a yard sign, and if the neighbors would think it was too weird if we had BOTH an Obama and a McCain sign in the front yard, just in case the Republican wants equal time.</p>
<p>Sorry Poetsheart, can’t do it.</p>
<p>"2. The issue never was about her having been a Goldwater Girl. Once again, simply to show the principle of this issue I will associate it with a past that is well known and quite obviously pernicious. I do not claim Hillary’s circumstance here is as pernicious, but only that the structure of it is the same. Let us consider a Nazi Vet who, after WWII, flew Germany to live in another country. He settled in a region with a large German Jewish population. Some twenty years after the war he decided to run for local office, and he waged a fine campaign that worked vigorously for the Jewish vote. We have here a man who worked ardently for Hitler. But let us say at some point in his work for Hitler he heard a speech by a famous Jew. Years later, instead of explaining the circumstances of the speech, he avoids it so that he might appeal to Jews for their goodwill and votes. In a campaign speech he claims “I remember during the war having the great privilege of hearing Mister Famous Jew challenge us to stay awake for the Revolution that would make Germany a better place!”, and all the Jews cheered for him.</p>
<p>Surely there is a difference between the vet and Hillary. But there is no difference between the structure of their offense. Both worked for men who were expressly hostile to their audience’s interests. And yet both failed to reveal the truth that context would have afforded everyone. They both lied by omission. That is the issue, not what they did in the past, but what they did in the present regarding the past."</p>
<p>“Both worked for men who were expressly hostile to their audience’s interests.”</p>
<p>Sorry I don’t see the structure as the same. That one person tortured people, gassed people, buried people alive, tattoed numbers on their bodies, starved populations, raped people, and another person who was 15 years old, wore cowboy hats, and played with badges…no, I don’t see them both working, at least not the same kind of work. </p>
<p>I don’t see a Nazi and a 15 year-old Goldwater girl in the same context.</p>
<p>As far as admitting the past, I don’t see a comparison with a Nazi who never admitted his past and then talked to a bunch of Jews and praised some Jew’s action 20 years after the fact, with somebody who publicly admitted she was a Goldwater girl, over and over again, and then gave a speech to African Americans and did not mention her Goldwater ties as a 15 year-old.</p>
<p>You’re right. I don’t understand that context.</p>
<p>And even if the Nazi admitted his past, but some people missed it, and then the Nazi gave a speech just like Hillary, you are right. These omissions. What are called lies…
No. I don’t see these omissions, these lies in the same context either.</p>
<p>So you are right again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course this is entirely irrelevant. The issue is that the Nazi, who may not have done ANY of the things you here assume he did, identified with someone diametrically opposed to the people with whom he later tried to curry favor. This is quite exactly what Hillary did. The issue of the differences in behavior (which in this case none of us really know), is unimportant and a mere issue of degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And who mentioned that they were in the same context? I certainly didn’t. The point is that their respective contexts are vital if we wish to see their meaning. The structure of their relevant offense is quite the same. Again, I speak only of their relevant offense-- the offense they both committed when they gave their speech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, we are only dealing here in degree, not in essentials. The Nazi could easily have admitted his dealings publicly so that those with the right abilities and connections could later research and discover him. The problem is with how few people have these abilities and connections. Understanding this puts him in perfect position to exploit their ignorance. This is exactly the same case with Hillary. Her affiliations were not as well-known as you claim (which is why so many people gasped upon reading Novak), certainly not so much so that they could be easily connected to the facts surrounding civil rights and MLK.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please reconsider what you are saying. You admit that even had the Nazi admitted his past but still not everyone knew of it, and then he went and gave a speech “just like Hillary”, then his omissions in the speech would amount to lies. Why do you claim the Nazi tells lies for his omission, but not Hillary, despite that they both gave speeches with omissions just like Hillary? You are in fact admitting that, like the Nazi, Hillary told lies, since, like the Nazi she made the same sort of omission and not everyone knew of her past despite her admitting it.</p>
<p>Hopefully you can now see why I think she is dishonorable.</p>
<p>Degrees make a difference.</p>
<p>“This is quite exactly what Hillary did. The issue of the differences in behavior (which in this case none of us really know), is unimportant and a mere issue of degree.”</p>
<p>Not true in my opinion. I also find this talk about different degrees (different behaviors), not being important, insulting. Your above paragraph just blows me away. What you consider important and what I consider important must be worlds apart.</p>
<p>“Please reconsider what you are saying. You admit that even had the Nazi admitted his past but still not everyone knew of it, and then he went and gave a speech “just like Hillary”, then his omissions in the speech would amount to lies. Why do you claim the Nazi tells lies for his omission, but not Hillary, despite that they both gave speeches with omissions just like Hillary? You are in fact admitting that, like the Nazi, Hillary told lies, since, like the Nazi she made the same sort of omission and not everyone knew of her past despite her admitting it.”</p>
<p>Because all omissions are not the same. Saying that they are doesn’t make it so. </p>
<p>I have written so many posts in this thread, I can’t remember what I said. :)</p>
<p>“Hopefully you can now see why I think she is dishonorable.”</p>
<p>I can see why you think she is dishonorable. I don’t think she was dishonorable. I think what Novak wrote was not factually correct. I think he wrote about implications that were incorrect because he hates Hillary. I do not think Hillary said anywhere that she was a strong advocate for civil rights as a 15 year-old. Reading that from what she actually said, takes a leap I am not willing to make. Hillary did omit her Goldwater years when she gave her speech. She did mention her Goldwater years publicly and I would like to think some people in the audience know this about Hillary). For all these reasons I think Novak is a *****.</p>
<p>You can think otherwise. You can think Hillary was dishonorable. You can think I am wrong. You can think I am a *****. But I disagree with you.</p>
<p>I understand you think Hillary is dishonorable for the Selma episode (I also understand your reasons).</p>
<p>"Yes, Clinton, as expected, beat Barack Obama by a wide margin in the Florida primary. But all the Democratic candidates had agreed months ago to boycott the contest after the Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to punish the state for moving up its primary date. The result was a primary without purpose, a show about nothing.</p>
<p>But in a political stunt worthy of the late Evel Knievel, the Clinton campaign decided to put on an ersatz victory party that, it hoped, would erase memories of Obama’s actual victory Saturday night in South Carolina’s Democratic primary. “Thank you, Florida Democrats!” Clinton shouted to the cheering throng. “I am thrilled to have this vote of confidence.”</p>
<p>It was a perfect reproduction of an actual victory speech, delivered at a perfectly ersatz celebration at a perfectly pretend location: a faux Italianate palace with lion sculptures, indoor fountains and a commanding view of Interstate 595. The Signature Grand (“Elegant Weddings and Grand Social Occasions”) was also holding receptions Tuesday night for a pediatric practice and for a group of optometry students, but the Clinton campaign was the biggest draw: It filled the Silver Palm Room, the Golden Palm Room and the Emerald Palm Room.</p>
<p>But even some of the faithful in the hall doubted that the big margin for Clinton, flashed on a projection screen, was an accurate gauge of the race here. ,…"</p>
<p>This is so Clinton! :eek:</p>
<p>856,944 votes</p>
<p>^ Yup, too bad they don’t count. They may just as well be hanging chads.:D</p>
<p>It is amazing the number of total votes that Edwards and Obama received without any campaigning! This may be another Clinton stunt that backfires. Time will tell.</p>
<p>Clinton really got no momentum from the Michigan <em>cough</em> win.</p>
<p>If you listened to her speech last night she said something along the lines that she will make sure the delegates from FL get counted. I am guessing if the race remains so tight as it is now, that the DNC will add the FL count in to break the tie. </p>
<p>I bet that the real tie-breaker will be Edwards after Super Tuesday and he will thow his delegates to one candidate.</p>