The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
3 members (Fr. Al, 2 invisible), 103 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
One thing I was wondering is why the attacks are so personal between Obama and the Clintons. Will it be possible that it will play a major role in the general election?

I can imagine that it would be bad for Hillary Clinton to take the campaign to the personal level, because she would be putting a future Republican candidate at an advantage. Why would she choose to make herself vulnerable? Was it that she did not believe she could lose?

For Obama, he seems to be trying to take a high road. He appears to be more reactionary than aggressive in this verbal fight.

A majority of Democrat/independent voters could prefer Obama, for example, and the nomination will go to Hillary. Voting delegates are obliged by duty, but not law or necessity, to vote one way or the other. The biggest question is with the super delegates: those chosen by the DNC who are free to vote how they wish and are also free to remain uncommitted to one candidate or another until they vote.

Terry

Last edited by Terry Bohannon; 01/26/08 12:04 AM. Reason: Last paragraph
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Originally Posted by harmon3110
This thread is going way off topic. It is also becoming offensive.

-- John

John,

You are right- please forgive my bluntness on this issue. I have less of an issue with liberalism per se, than with journalists who purport to be objective reporters of fact and will not acknowledge their own bias.

That said, I will also say that much more is made of the Obama/Clinton divide because...well, it sells! There is as much of a corporate interest in perpetuating (or even creating) conflict as there is political interest.

Ultimately, we are more often exploited by the 4th branch...and I find that bothersome...even more than the politics of Obama or Clinton.

God bless,

Gordo

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful
Member
Offline
Grateful
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
No prob., Gordo. And thank you for responding.

I am once again fed up with the media coverage of the election that passes for news: on both the right and the left.

The pundit programs are actually rather good this time around . . . perhaps because they aren't pretending to be news.

But as for the news? ::shaking my head:: It's more about spin and the horse race than about substance. Oh well, what else is new? whistle

-- John



Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful
Member
Offline
Grateful
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Originally Posted by Terry Bohannon
One thing I was wondering is why the attacks are so personal between Obama and the Clintons. Will it be possible that it will play a major role in the general election?

Terry, here is my two cents' worth of opinion.

Hillary and Barack are fighting personally with each other beause they're both liberals who more or less agree on the issues. Therefore, the only real thing they have to fight over is each other's persons. Debates about expereicne can get boring (and embarassing . . .) after a while, and a mud-fight gets more attention, and so there they go.


Quote
I can imagine that it would be bad for Hillary Clinton to take the campaign to the personal level,

I agree. Some women can be aggressive and even nasty -- with charm and grace and a smile on the face and a perfect demeanor. Hillary Clinton is not one of those women. When she becomes aggressive, she comes across as . . . aggressive, and abrasive, and other, less complimentary, terms. Hence, Bill Clinton has been her stand-in. He has been aggressive in place of her. He has been playing bad cop to Hillary's good cop.


Quote
For Obama, he seems to be trying to take a high road. He appears to be more reactionary than aggressive in this verbal fight.

I think he doesn't know quite how to respond. He cannot afford to be perceived as an angry black man in white America. He especially cannot appear to be angry towards a white woman. Hence again, a pugnacious Bill Clinton is a perfect stand in for Hillary. I think Barack perhaps has figured that out, based upon his more aggressive remarks towards Bill Clinton recently.


Quote
A majority of Democrat/independent voters could prefer Obama, for example, and the nomination will go to Hillary.

The polls (that I have seen lately) seem to indicate that more Democrats across the country support Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. If Obama wins today in Sourth Carolina, which he should, it will keep him viable for Super Tuesday. Then, who knows?

The question I have now is: How will John Edwards do today in the primary in South Carolina (his native state)? If he comes in a distant third, his future role might be de minimis. But if he comes in a strong third or even second, he may yet be a king-maker.

But, that an $1.59 will get you a cup of coffee. In other words, it's just my opinion . . . whistle

-- John

Last edited by harmon3110; 01/26/08 10:31 AM. Reason: typos
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
This is an interesting take from a former insider in the Clinton camp. I think it offers a plausible explanation of Bill's recent behavior towards Obama:

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/bill_hillary/2008/01/24/67036.html

Quote
Bill Deflects Negative Coverage From Hillary

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Why is Bill Clinton courting such intense publicity, in evitably much of it negative?

Is he crazy? Crazy like a fox.

He has two goals and is achieving them both spectacularly.

First, he wants to be the same kind of lightning rod for Hillary that she was for him during his run for the presidency.

As the 1992 Republican convention approached, Hillary ratcheted up her comments and profile precisely to attract GOP fire so that they would leave Bill alone. He and I discussed the plan.

Hillary's comment, for example, about "baking cookies and serving tea" put her squarely in the Republican Party's sights as the convention approached. The Republicans fell for the lure big time and spent their entire convention going after Hillary. Bill was scarcely hit.

And the 1992 GOP convention is one of the few that afforded its party no bounce at all. Now Bill is returning the favor. In the days before Iowa and leading up to New Hampshire, Hillary was the prime topic of political discussion.

She took shots for misusing Bill's record and trying to adopt it as her own, for minimizing King's contribution to civil rights, for crying, for attacking her opponents, and for changing her campaign style to become more likeable.

Now, she rarely gets hit anymore. They're hitting Bill instead.

Like a red cape, he is attracting the attention of the bull so his wife the matador escapes unharmed. The other method behind his madness is that Bill wants to suck up all the oxygen in the room and dominate the coverage of the Democratic contest. By doing so, he cuts Obama out of the news, pushes him off the front page, and usurps the headlines.

Of course, he also crowds out Hillary, but that's OK, given her large leads in the national polls and in all the big states whose primaries are coming up. If there were a newspaper and television blackout, Hillary would cruise to an easy win, so Bill, by injecting himself into the coverage and hogging it, is accomplishing the same goal.

His tactics now are reminiscent of those he used to black out John Kerry during the lead-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. By scheduling book signings and speeches in Boston, he effectively took the coverage away from the prospective Democratic nominee, a man who would have eclipsed Hillary's presidential ambitions had he won the election.

Ultimately, the Clintons are playing a game of jujitsu with Obama, using his own strength against him.

By challenging Obama for the black vote � via going door to door in South Carolina in minority neighborhoods, for example � Bill is highlighting the question Will Obama carry the black vote? Of course, he will. He leads, 4-1, among African-Americans now. But by making that the central question, Obama's South Carolina victory will be hailed as proof that he won the African-American vote. Such block voting will trigger the white backlash Sen. Clinton needs to win.

Once whites see blacks voting en masse for a black man, they will figure that it is a racial game and line up for Hillary. Already, she carries white voters by 2-1.

The Clintons can well afford to lose South Carolina as long as the election is not seen as a bellwether of how the South will vote but as an indication of how African-Americans will go. It's a small price to pay for the racial polarization they need to win.

So to seize the limelight, take Hillary out of the line of fire, and to call attention to his head-to-head battle with Obama for the loyalty of America's blacks, Bill Clinton is seeking all the coverage he can get, positive, negative, or neutral.

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful
Member
Offline
Grateful
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Let me pose a question: Which candidate do you feel comfortable with entrusting our troops as commander in chief?

The main reason that I am undecided --and why I might yet register as a Republican to vote for John McCain-- is my concern for my family members who are in the military during this time of war and for those who depend on our military presence.

I might not like the fact of the war, but we are at war. And, I have to take that into consideration as my main priority. It is no abstract issue for me. It is several members of my family. Hence, I would be sincerely glad to have the input of others on this issue.

-- John

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
I trust McCain would be a good commander-in-chief, but his domestic policies lead me to support Romney. I would vote for a Romney/Thomson ticket.

I would be concerned with a Clinton/___ ticket, her husband made a wreck of our military in the 90s. Since she wears the pants in the family, I can't imagine that she would do much better than he did.

It's hard for me to imagine what Obama would do with the troops. It's possible he could do a good job, but he would be doing it in spite of the alienation of a portion of his base.

Terry

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 28
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 28
Quote
I believe the republican controlled media . . .

dwight:

Are you serious? The mainstream media in this country has been left or far left of center since the early 1970s. In fact, the initial journalism course that I was required to take was taught from what was termed the "New Left" perspective. The whole thrust was to teach new journalism students how to critique the world and the news from the perspective of New Left politics which the professor assumed we all shared.

With all due respect, the fact that you don't hear as much about the Republican candacies is the fact that the media is in love with both these Democrats.

OTOH, I am a registered Republican and I'm not thrilled with any candidates from either party. In fact, I'm scared to death about the people our country has had come forth in this election cycle. If this is the best we've got to choose from, we're in serious trouble.

McCain, as far as I'm concerned, wouldn't be a great choice because of his stance on keeping the southern border open and his negative comments to those who have asked him to support tough measures in that area.

As for the rest, none have really been impressive enough for me to have an opinion or even try to remember their names.

BOB

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317
Likes: 21
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,317
Likes: 21
But let's get back to the original question of this thread which is:

What do Democrats think?

When have they started?

Alex

Last edited by Orthodox Catholic; 01/28/08 03:03 PM.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 28
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,924
Likes: 28
OUCH!!!

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
I'm not a member of any political party, but perhaps I can join the conversation. It is at least possible that his own background and experience would lead Obama to a greater appreciation of the justice of the Palestinian position. No other candidate seems to offer such a hope.

Fr. Serge

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
Member
Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
To be fair, I thinl the enture eletorsal system has become corrupted, since only well cnnected and well financed members of certain parties can even get in.

Those we have rto select now are those supported by their parties and the backers of their parties or the agenda of the party.

It is not like this is a new Phoenomenon.

The point of the Republian system is, after all, to seelct the best to administer the Govenrmentl roles, by Populace vote in our currnt system.

Not that I m a fan of electoral systems to begin with. I am a Monarchist, who thinblsks a Constitutional Monarchy where the crown acted as cheif executive and had the power to introduce legeslation ( but not unilateral legeslative, or veen executive, powers) would be better.



Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 250
Byzantine Secret Service
Member
Offline
Byzantine Secret Service
Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 250
Knowing the lack of good taste that many Americans subscribe to, if a constitutional monarchy were ever established, I could envision the crown of state to look like this:
[Linked Image]

It also reflects the age-level that most of the candidates are acting like (both parties). And yes, you can "super size" it to match their over-inflated promises and egos.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
Member
Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Ah yes, the glories of a Burger King crown...

...byt would even Americans be that poor in taste?

More than likely they'd do as Vatian 2 did to the Pope and just abolish the crown in favour of a standard Suit and tie.

Then we'd still have Political Pundits at every eleciton for Representitives talking about "Democracy".

Or maybe, just maybe, we'd get lucky and they'd call the United States OF America a "Republic" after it becomes a Monarchy.


Last edited by ZAROVE; 01/29/08 01:49 AM. Reason: Spelling, added last portion that did nto make it in.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
A Budweiser for a scepter.

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5