Is this news or not

Thecure

there was an interesting report yesterday on CNN abotu Obama and i am wondering what people have to say about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

DriftingByTheStorm

Thecure wrote:

there was an interesting report yesterday on CNN abotu Obama and i am wondering what people have to say about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

The only news is that Hillary is still at it with dishonest shenannigans,
and will stop at nothing, perhaps short of homicide, to get her lying criminal ass in to the White House.

other than that?

no.
definately not news.

Thecure

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The only news is that Hillary is still at it with dishonest shenannigans,
and will stop at nothing, perhaps short of homicide, to get her lying criminal ass in to the White House.

other than that?

no.
definately not news.

i am hoping that the smirk at the bottem of your post means that you do think it is news. Hillary was not really mentioned in the article except for teh beginning. so lets try to stick to the topic.

DriftingByTheStorm

Thecure wrote:

i am hoping that the smirk at the bottem of your post means that you do think it is news. Hillary was not really mentioned in the article except for teh beginning. so lets try to stick to the topic.

No, i was dead serious.
This is not news.

I don't understand what you want us to focus on?

The fact that Obama played politics in a '96 senate race to invoke rules to "supress" political opposition?

The article is trying to compare apples and oranges to bring up what Obama has done in the past with different rules, under different circumstances in a different campaign.

It doesn't even make the implication which i think it was attempting.
Is it that Obama should allow Hillary the votes in FL and MI, because he invoked rules in Chicago in '96?

What is the "topic" of this article that you want us to "stick to", and why is it news?

FL and MA broke the rules.
The rules were there to keep states from doing exactly what FL and MA did.
Allowing there votes to count simply encourages this same behavior next time around.

Hillary needs to shut the fuck up, bag it, let the coal out of her ass, and go the fuck home.

Her tired game is played out, and her devisive bullshit is unwanted even within her own party, even by some of her own supporters.

If it were ANY one but Hillary sticking around right now, the media would have their head.

Lucky for her, she is the matriarch of one of two ruling families in this country.

God save the queen.

:rolleyes:

ledvedderman

This is the way it is done in Illinois. I've been part of many challenges of petitions as both a campaign worker and as an employee of the Illinois State Board of Elections. It's just the way it is done.

When someone files, you have a staffer view their petitions and make an objection if you don't think they have enough ballots.

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

No, i was dead serious.
This is not news.

I don't understand what you want us to focus on?

The fact that Obama played politics in a '96 senate race to invoke rules to "supress" political opposition?

The article is trying to compare apples and oranges to bring up what Obama has done in the past with different rules, under different circumstances in a different campaign.

It doesn't even make the implication which i think it was attempting.
Is it that Obama should allow Hillary the votes in FL and MI, because he invoked rules in Chicago in '96?

What is the "topic" of this article that you want us to "stick to", and why is it news?

FL and MA broke the rules.
The rules were there to keep states from doing exactly what FL and MA did.
Allowing there votes to count simply encourages this same behavior next time around.

Hillary needs to shut the fuck up, bag it, let the coal out of her ass, and go the fuck home.

Her tired game is played out, and her devisive bullshit is unwanted even within her own party, even by some of her own supporters.

If it were ANY one but Hillary sticking around right now, the media would have their head.

Lucky for her, she is the matriarch of one of two ruling families in this country.

God save the queen.

:rolleyes:

Holy shit. i agree.

Thecure

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

No, i was dead serious.
This is not news.

I don't understand what you want us to focus on?

The fact that Obama played politics in a '96 senate race to invoke rules to "supress" political opposition?

The article is trying to compare apples and oranges to bring up what Obama has done in the past with different rules, under different circumstances in a different campaign.

It doesn't even make the implication which i think it was attempting.
Is it that Obama should allow Hillary the votes in FL and MI, because he invoked rules in Chicago in '96?

What is the "topic" of this article that you want us to "stick to", and why is it news?

FL and MA broke the rules.
The rules were there to keep states from doing exactly what FL and MA did.
Allowing there votes to count simply encourages this same behavior next time around.

Hillary needs to shut the fuck up, bag it, let the coal out of her ass, and go the fuck home.

Her tired game is played out, and her devisive bullshit is unwanted even within her own party, even by some of her own supporters.

If it were ANY one but Hillary sticking around right now, the media would have their head.

Lucky for her, she is the matriarch of one of two ruling families in this country.

God save the queen.

:rolleyes:

i think the point of the story (if it is a story, i have never said it was) is that Obama is trying to make this view point that he is not like other policticians and that his slogan is about change but it seems that he is not really that different. i still don't know why you keep mentioning Hillary as the story is not about her.

i have posted many times stories abotu Hillary and always get upset if people bring about Obama.

DriftingByTheStorm

Thecure wrote:

[...] his slogan is about change but it seems that he is not really that different.

holy shit,
i agree.

cornnifer

Thecure wrote:

i think the point of the story (if it is a story, i have never said it was) is that Obama is trying to make this view point that he is not like other policticians and that his slogan is about change but it seems that he is not really that different. i still don't know why you keep mentioning Hillary as the story is not about her.

i have posted many times stories abotu Hillary and always get upset if people bring about Obama.

To address your original question, first of all, i think it is a non-story. For one thing it was 12 years ago. Another thing, Obama has talked about changing the way things are done in WASHINGTON. Not necessarily in CHICAGO (i concede that i may be stretching that point a bit). Another point, however, is that the simple fact is that Obama played by the rules. He didn't seek to change the rules in the final seconds of the fourth quarter. As someone else mentioned, its the way things are done in Chicago. He was simply "speaking the language" as is sometimes necessary. If anything i think this "story" only helps to illustrate the point that Obama will be able to play "hardball" with the GOP in the general election contrary to the "concerns" voiced by many of his detractors. Obama is in a tricky spot. If he refuses to, at times, "take the gloves off", he is regarded by his detractors as a political wimp unable to withstand the politics of the republicans. If he does show himself, at times, to be a fighter, his detractors say it is a sign of him going against his message.

Thecure

cornnifer wrote:

To address your original question, first of all, i think it is a non-story. For one thing it was 12 years ago. Another thing, Obama has talked about changing the way things are done in WASHINGTON. Not necessarily in CHICAGO (i concede that i may be stretching that point a bit). Another point, however, is that the simple fact is that Obama played by the rules. He didn't seek to change the rules in the final seconds of the fourth quarter. As someone else mentioned, its the way things are done in Chicago. He was simply "speaking the language" as is sometimes necessary. If anything i think this "story" only helps to illustrate the point that Obama will be able to play "hardball" with the GOP in the general election contrary to the "concerns" voiced by many of his detractors. Obama is in a tricky spot. If he refuses to, at times, "take the gloves off", he is regarded by his detractors as a political wimp unable to withstand the politics of the republicans. If he does show himself, at times, to be a fighter, his detractors say it is a sign of him going against his message.

thank you for a great post. my only thing that i have to say is yes Obama did follow the rules but i think there is something to be said about the spirit of rules.