Obama, Clinton: California Debate

Freakshow

Anyone catch this? The policy similarities were enormous. On policy I think either one will do a fine job as President, provided they do what they say they will do. How about we start a list of differences shall we?

Health care "mandate" v. no mandate.
One penis v. one vagina
Promise of 16 months out of Iraq v. No SET time span, but "most out in a year."
Yellowish beigeish pinkish color v. tan-ish brownish purple-ish color
High profile presidential meetings with the bad guys v. some other form of diplomacy.
Driver's liscense for illegals "sure, whatever" v. "nope, whatever"
Mamary glands v. not mamary glands
short v. tall?

What else?

slightofjeff

Freakshow wrote:

Anyone catch this? The policy similarities were enormous. On policy I think either one will do a fine job as President, provided they do what they say they will do. How about we start a list of differences shall we?

Health care "mandate" v. no mandate.
One penis v. one vagina
Promise of 16 months out of Iraq v. No SET time span, but "most out in a year."
Yellowish beigeish pinkish color v. tan-ish brownish purple-ish color
High profile presidential meetings with the bad guys v. some other form of diplomacy.
Driver's liscense for illegals "sure, whatever" v. "nope, whatever"
Mamary glands v. not mamary glands
short v. tall?

What else?

Alright, I'll say it:

black vs. white

my2hands

past vs. future

jlew24asu

woman vs man?

TheVoiceInside

apple vs. quint

Indifference

communist vs socialist

MasterFramer

voted for the war vs. did NOT vote for the war...

Cree Nations

If Matt is playing for Obama then he is the man....I take all my political leanings from Rock Gods.

chopitdown

i heard clinton likes creed

DriftingByTheStorm

Indifference wrote:

communist vs socialist

Welfare Statist.

Want To Continue Stealing More Of Your Money While Promising You More Things They Can't Really Afford To Give You - Ist.


BTW, it's both parties.
All candidates, except you know who.

cornnifer

You're overlooking the perhaps the largest difference:

Insincere, lying, slandering, divisive, polarizing, selfish, doomed in a general election, political opprotunist bitch vs. straight shooting, uniting, leader with integrity and a better than average chance of actually being elected.

slightofjeff

MasterFramer wrote:

voted for the war vs. did NOT vote for the war...

because he wasn't given the chance ...

seriously. I LOVE this argument. Obama didn't vote for the war BECAUSE HE WASN'T IN CONGRESS AT THE TIME.

Guess what? I didn't vote for the war either. Neither did Peyton Manning, Dom DeLuise, or Jack Black.

It's easy to say you didn't vote for the war ... WHEN NOBODY ASKED YOU.

Alright. I'm done. Long live Obama. Peace.

MasterFramer

slightofjeff wrote:

because he wasn't given the chance ...

seriously. I LOVE this argument. Obama didn't vote for the war BECAUSE HE WASN'T IN CONGRESS AT THE TIME.

Guess what? I didn't vote for the war either. Neither did Peyton Manning, Dom DeLuise, or Jack Black.

It's easy to say you didn't vote for the war ... WHEN NOBODY ASKED YOU.

Alright. I'm done. Long live Obama. Peace.

He has been against it from the start. Way to distort the truth you fucking republican...

"Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences." In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations."

Hinny

Person that all republican voters and many independents can't stand, vs person that republicans are capable of liking and many independents like.

slightofjeff

MasterFramer wrote:

He has been against it from the start.

He very well may have. I don't know.

In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences." He made these statements to a convention comprised of stuffed animals in his living room.

Fixed it.

In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations."

Good for him. If he had introduced this legislation in 2004, it might actually support your point.

Mine is this: Obama very well may have been against the war from the beginning. It's easy to be against something you don't have to go on record and vote for. It would have been interesting to note what the junior senator from Illinois would have done if he'd actually been in Congress in 2003. He just might have followed the drum beat like everybody else, because that's what was politically expedient at the time. Or maybe he wouldn't have.

This is where Obama gets lucky. He's not on record with a war vote, so he has no war vote to defend. Since he wasn't in Congress at the time, we get to believe whatever we want about what he "would have" done. Supporters can believe he would have been a strident opponent. Detractors can believe he would have gone along with popular opinion of the times. everyone is happy.

theroachman

It seems most people leave off the fact that there are more Women who vote then men.

As horrible as Cookie Roberts is she had a panel of several woman. They all said they would love for a woman to be President. Sure the panel was not much better then Frank Lutz would do but the point is that many woman regardless of political affiliation will vote for Senator Hillary over any Republican

Character Zero

slightofjeff wrote:

He very well may have. I don't know.



Fixed it.



Good for him. If he had introduced this legislation in 2004, it might actually support your point.

Mine is this: Obama very well may have been against the war from the beginning. It's easy to be against something you don't have to go on record and vote for. It would have been interesting to note what the junior senator from Illinois would have done if he'd actually been in Congress in 2003. He just might have followed the drum beat like everybody else, because that's what was politically expedient at the time. Or maybe he wouldn't have.

This is where Obama gets lucky. He's not on record with a war vote, so he has no war vote to defend. Since he wasn't in Congress at the time, we get to believe whatever we want about what he "would have" done. Supporters can believe he would have been a strident opponent. Detractors can believe he would have gone along with popular opinion of the times. everyone is happy.

You seem to be arguing against yourself, just because he couldn't vote doesnt mean he wasn't against the war. He still had a very public stance against it, and it was frequently reported. See Below:

On March 4, 2003, an AP story picked up by an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, states as follows:

"Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question....'What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago."


On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:

"Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam and four days before the invasion], then marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, 'It's not too late' to stop the war."

slightofjeff

Character Zero wrote:

You seem to be arguing against yourself, just because he couldn't vote doesnt mean he wasn't against the war. He still had a very public stance against it, and it was frequently reported. See Below:

On March 4, 2003, an AP story picked up by an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, states as follows:

"Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question....'What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago."


On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:

"Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam and four days before the invasion], then marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, 'It's not too late' to stop the war."

All right. I'll buy it. I stand corrected.

Character Zero

I also am aware that he is not going to be right on everysingle thing, but I like the face that a.) he admits that too, he said that during the debate, and that he would look to the american people and a well diversified group of advisors to work out any important decision. and b.) He is willing to admit to his mistakes. When he became involved with Anthony Rezko, and the illegal actions of Rezko became known, Obama admitted associating with him was not a good idea, and promptly donated all campaign finances from Rezko to charity.