Obama people

[Sbane]

It is pretty damn obvious that both Obama and Clinton are liberals. Except for a few things they differ on almost nothing. Maybe it makes a difference to somelawstudent because his taxes will go up but most people are not in that category. I mean how much of a difference is 150,000 to 200,000? None for people who can never dream of that kind of salary.

[SomeLawStudent]

Again, I cited a source that I tend to believe.  I don't understand what makes your source more "objective."

Our (well, Alcon's) source refutes your source, and you haven't yet defended your source from the refutation.

Furthermore, this is a pointless reading of the tea-leaves, you guys aren't even disputing that he's more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

I guess I am, because I don't personally believe it is possible to be "more liberal" in any quantitative sense (e.g. a ranking).  I believe ideology is purely qualitative, and therefore virtually impossible to measure in any non-arbitrary way.

Yeah OK.  Well I think most people believe Obama is more liberal than Clinton.  Doesn't he want to give convicted felons the right to vote and de-criminalize a bunch of drug laws?  I would say that is non-arbitrarily liberal.  Point is, he is more liberal than her, and most people even here will admit that.  It doesn't really matter, this will all be decided in November.  I'll bump this thread when Obama loses Catholics, Ties Hispanics, and loses Seniors by a wide Margin... and loses at least 30-35 states.

[SomeLawStudent]

It is pretty damn obvious that both Obama and Clinton are liberals. Except for a few things they differ on almost nothing. Maybe it makes a difference to somelawstudent because his taxes will go up but most people are not in that category. I mean how much of a difference is 150,000 to 200,000? None for people who can never dream of that kind of salary.

Oh god, give me a freaking break.  And most people don't have to take out between $150,000-$200,000 in educational loans to achieve that salary.

[Brittain33]

Voting to uphold a glass ceiling is not the same thing as voting to break it.

Black voters vote for white candidates all the time. They've proven, time and time again, they'll vote for people of a different race. White voters have very rarely had that opportunity, and often passed it up when given.

There's the difference.

[Sbane]

It is pretty damn obvious that both Obama and Clinton are liberals. Except for a few things they differ on almost nothing. Maybe it makes a difference to somelawstudent because his taxes will go up but most people are not in that category. I mean how much of a difference is 150,000 to 200,000? None for people who can never dream of that kind of salary.

Oh god, give me a freaking break.  And most people don't have to take out between $150,000-$200,000 in educational loans to achieve that salary.

Dude I empathize with your situation but realize that most people do not make as much as you. And most who do, do not have as much student loans as you. Most people making $150,000 a year can afford to pay higher taxes. Again remember this is what they paid in the 90's. You will get squeezed and that is unfortunate and a good reason for you to vote for Mccain. Do not say that your situation is applicable to most people, because it isnt.

[Alcon]

Again, I cited a source that I tend to believe.  I don't understand what makes your source more "objective."  Furthermore, this is a pointless reading of the tea-leaves, you guys aren't even disputing that he's more liberal than Hillary Clinton.  Which was the entire point of this discussion to begin with, since he's less appealing to moderates.  Lastly, I am not a law student anymore, I just forgot to change this moniker. 

What the crap!  My source is the study itself.  My source is just as objective as the study because it is the study!  Something cannot be more or less objective than itself.

I'm trying to be patient here, but we've had four posts on a link you clearly haven't given four seconds to look at.  I can kind of see why you're complaining about Obama supporters mistreating you.  If you did this in past discussion, I'm sure they got a little pissed off.

Obama is probably marginally more liberal, although they are both non-maverick liberals.  I really never questioned your conclusion, just the shoddiness of your source.

[Lunar]

Again, I cited a source that I tend to believe.  I don't understand what makes your source more "objective."  Furthermore, this is a pointless reading of the tea-leaves, you guys aren't even disputing that he's more liberal than Hillary Clinton.  Which was the entire point of this discussion to begin with, since he's less appealing to moderates.  Lastly, I am not a law student anymore, I just forgot to change this moniker. 

What the crap!  My source is the study itself.  My source is just as objective as the study because it is the study!  Something cannot be more or less objective than itself.

I'm trying to be patient here, but we've had four posts on a link you clearly haven't given four seconds to look at.  I can kind of see why you're complaining about Obama supporters mistreating you.  If you did this in past discussion, I'm sure they got a little pissed off.

Obama is probably marginally more liberal, although they are both non-maverick liberals.  I really never questioned your conclusion, just the shoddiness of your source.

Clinton has rhetorically become much more moderate in the last few months.  I sort of doubt she planned in that much from the beginning, leaving herself room to go to the left if she needed to against Edwards (who ran as a moderate in '04)  or to the center if it became clear she was going to win the nomination.

I'm sort of baffled how she can criticize Obama on things like gun policy when they both seem to support restricting handgun ownership and generally practice big-city disdain for firearms.  They also seemed to have a little battle for who could be more anti-free trade right before the Ohio primary, but whateverr, that was on both sides.  Her health care plan is actually more liberal.  What other policy discussion has there even been in this election?  Are we going to call this gas tax issue a left/right issue?  I think there's lots of hard-core capitalists that support taxes on goods with negative externalities so I don't know if that flies.

All one needs to do to see there's no substantive policy disagreement between the two is look at the attack ads between the two.  Any policy discussion besides Iraq/Health Care/Gas tax?

[SomeLawStudent]

It is pretty damn obvious that both Obama and Clinton are liberals. Except for a few things they differ on almost nothing. Maybe it makes a difference to somelawstudent because his taxes will go up but most people are not in that category. I mean how much of a difference is 150,000 to 200,000? None for people who can never dream of that kind of salary.

Oh god, give me a freaking break.  And most people don't have to take out between $150,000-$200,000 in educational loans to achieve that salary.

Dude I empathize with your situation but realize that most people do not make as much as you. And most who do, do not have as much student loans as you. Most people making $150,000 a year can afford to pay higher taxes. Again remember this is what they paid in the 90's. You will get squeezed and that is unfortunate and a good reason for you to vote for Mccain. Do not say that your situation is applicable to most people, because it isnt.

How do you know?  Many people have huge student loans nowadays.  It's much more common, because to get good jobs nowadays people need at least a Master's Degree.  Also, did you ever consider the fact that most people who make $150,000 a year work much harder and longer hours than people who make $50,000 a year?  We always hear about the immigrant family who works s low wage cleaning jobs to make ends meat, working 60 hours a week, etc.  I'd love to have only 60 hours a week at my law firm.

[SomeLawStudent]

Again, I cited a source that I tend to believe.  I don't understand what makes your source more "objective."  Furthermore, this is a pointless reading of the tea-leaves, you guys aren't even disputing that he's more liberal than Hillary Clinton.  Which was the entire point of this discussion to begin with, since he's less appealing to moderates.  Lastly, I am not a law student anymore, I just forgot to change this moniker. 

What the crap!  My source is the study itself.  My source is just as objective as the study because it is the study!  Something cannot be more or less objective than itself.

I'm trying to be patient here, but we've had four posts on a link you clearly haven't given four seconds to look at.  I can kind of see why you're complaining about Obama supporters mistreating you.  If you did this in past discussion, I'm sure they got a little pissed off.

Obama is probably marginally more liberal, although they are both non-maverick liberals.  I really never questioned your conclusion, just the shoddiness of your source.

Again, this has been discussed to the point of utter retardation.  You are even admitting Obama is more liberal.  Are you really going to claim that Hillary Clinton who voted for the war in Iraq would rank as more liberal than Barack Obama who has spent his entire career whining about it?  Oh right, you think and have cited sources that say we should not rank people.  That's fine, but most people think he's an ultra-liberal so it doesn't the situation that Hillary is more electable, which was the point.  Debating how I came at the notion he is more liberal is a moot freaking point when you and your buddies are ADMITTING he's more liberal than a senator that is already moderate to liberal. 

I don't know why I keep debating this Obama lunacy.  I must be very bored or something today.  I need to re-evaluate the point of this nonsense.

[Democratic Hawk]

It's the most vicious double standard I've seen, and the media is too gutless to report on it.

It's not a vicious double-standard when you consider that most African Americans will support Clinton in November providing she wins the nomination fairly; unfortunately, there are signs that white supporters of Clinton could defect to McCain, even if Obama does win the nomination fairly

Polling, and exit polling, suggests that more Obama supporters will vote for Clinton than vice versa; though there may well be state to state variance

Race, in my honest opinion, carries too much saliency in American politics. It's the 21st century after all. The fact that there are whites who won't vote for Obama because he is black or, for that matter, men who won't vote for Clinton because she is a woman, is appalling

A reason why I came to endorse Obama is because he we have an African American politician, who is not by any means a Black-identity political agitator running on past grievances; who, unlike, others before him has a serious shot at being elected the next president. He's post-racial; Obama is a man of the future as much as his former pastor seems stuck in the past

I can't say I've connected as much with any past presidential candidate than I have with Obama; and, while it's all hypothetical (being British though with ancestral ties to Georgia), the demographics to which I mostly belong have tended to prefer Clinton

Dave

[JSojourner]

You know what scares me?

I was over at my Uncle's house this Sunday for a Confirmation party. We were eating dinner and the topic of conversation wandered over to the Presidential election. My aunt asked me who I was voting for. I said Obama. Then my great-uncle looked over at me like I belonged in asylum. His first words were, "You know Obama's a Muslim, don't you?"

My sister tells EVERYONE she meets that Obama is a Muslim.  I've tried to explain it to her.  But she won't listen.  Because her pastor says....

[Ban my account ffs!]

Again, I cited a source that I tend to believe.  I don't understand what makes your source more "objective."  Furthermore, this is a pointless reading of the tea-leaves, you guys aren't even disputing that he's more liberal than Hillary Clinton.  Which was the entire point of this discussion to begin with, since he's less appealing to moderates.  Lastly, I am not a law student anymore, I just forgot to change this moniker. 

What the crap!  My source is the study itself.  My source is just as objective as the study because it is the study!  Something cannot be more or less objective than itself.

I'm trying to be patient here, but we've had four posts on a link you clearly haven't given four seconds to look at.  I can kind of see why you're complaining about Obama supporters mistreating you.  If you did this in past discussion, I'm sure they got a little pissed off.

Obama is probably marginally more liberal, although they are both non-maverick liberals.  I really never questioned your conclusion, just the shoddiness of your source.

Again, this has been discussed to the point of utter retardation.  You are even admitting Obama is more liberal.  Are you really going to claim that Hillary Clinton who voted for the war in Iraq would rank as more liberal than Barack Obama who has spent his entire career whining about it?  Oh right, you think and have cited sources that say we should not rank people.  That's fine, but most people think he's an ultra-liberal so it doesn't the situation that Hillary is more electable, which was the point.  Debating how I came at the notion he is more liberal is a moot freaking point when you and your buddies are ADMITTING he's more liberal than a senator that is already moderate to liberal. 

I don't know why I keep debating this Obama lunacy.  I must be very bored or something today.  I need to re-evaluate the point of this nonsense.

Oh get off your high horse and pull that thorny stick out of your ass.  Are you really trying or are you just naturally an annoying little pipsqueak?

Most people think Obama is an ultra-liberal?  Do you have a source for this?  Perhaps a poll that asked the question "do you think Barack Obama is ultra-liberal"?

[Alcon]

Again, this has been discussed to the point of utter retardation.  You are even admitting Obama is more liberal.  Are you really going to claim that Hillary Clinton who voted for the war in Iraq would rank as more liberal than Barack Obama who has spent his entire career whining about it?  Oh right, you think and have cited sources that say we should not rank people.  That's fine, but most people think he's an ultra-liberal so it doesn't the situation that Hillary is more electable, which was the point.  Debating how I came at the notion he is more liberal is a moot freaking point when you and your buddies are ADMITTING he's more liberal than a senator that is already moderate to liberal. 

I don't know why I keep debating this Obama lunacy.  I must be very bored or something today.  I need to re-evaluate the point of this nonsense.

Most people don't think of him as an ultra-liberal.  If only 54% think of him as "liberal," that would demand that 93 percent of those think of him as ultra-.  The perception of Clinton as a liberal isn't much different.

You're being forced to debate this because you used a lame source and won't own up to it.  You've changed the debate from reality to perception.  And regardless, the correctness of your conclusions don't justify the use of a lame source.  Haven't you been complaining about your perception of Obama's "the ends justify the means" politics?

Stop trying to dismiss my opinions as if I were part of some giant mob harassing you.  I'm not.  I'm one person.  I'm sorry if that's inconvenient to you.

[Democratic Hawk]

Obama is a pragmatic progressive. The Hawk doesn't do radical leftists as y'all should know by now

Dave

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Because it's not racism.  Everybody knows that blacks can't be racist - that's a white thing to do!

[Flying Dog]

Again, this has been discussed to the point of utter retardation.  You are even admitting Obama is more liberal.  Are you really going to claim that Hillary Clinton who voted for the war in Iraq would rank as more liberal than Barack Obama who has spent his entire career whining about it?  Oh right, you think and have cited sources that say we should not rank people.  That's fine, but most people think he's an ultra-liberal so it doesn't the situation that Hillary is more electable, which was the point.  Debating how I came at the notion he is more liberal is a moot freaking point when you and your buddies are ADMITTING he's more liberal than a senator that is already moderate to liberal. 

I don't know why I keep debating this Obama lunacy.  I must be very bored or something today.  I need to re-evaluate the point of this nonsense.

Stop trying to dismiss my opinions as if I were part of some giant mob harassing you.  I'm not.  I'm one person.  I'm sorry if that's inconvenient to your dismissal of my opinions.

It's the victim card.

Hillary Clinton: "You've learned well, my young apprentice."

[SomeLawStudent]

Again, this has been discussed to the point of utter retardation.  You are even admitting Obama is more liberal.  Are you really going to claim that Hillary Clinton who voted for the war in Iraq would rank as more liberal than Barack Obama who has spent his entire career whining about it?  Oh right, you think and have cited sources that say we should not rank people.  That's fine, but most people think he's an ultra-liberal so it doesn't the situation that Hillary is more electable, which was the point.  Debating how I came at the notion he is more liberal is a moot freaking point when you and your buddies are ADMITTING he's more liberal than a senator that is already moderate to liberal. 

I don't know why I keep debating this Obama lunacy.  I must be very bored or something today.  I need to re-evaluate the point of this nonsense.

Most people don't think of him as an ultra-liberal.  If only 54% think of him as "liberal," that would demand that 93 percent of those think of him as ultra-.  The perception of Clinton as a liberal isn't much different.

You're being forced to debate this because you used a lame source and won't own up to it.  You've changed the debate from reality to perception.  And regardless, the correctness of your conclusions don't justify the use of a lame source.  Haven't you been complaining about your perception of Obama's "the ends justify the means" politics?

Stop trying to dismiss my opinions as if I were part of some giant mob harassing you.  I'm not.  I'm one person.  I'm sorry if that's inconvenient to you.

Do you get off debating inane issues online with total strangers?  Perhaps a hobby is in order?  You're very worked up for someone who claims they're unbiased and not even supporting Obama.  Well either way, Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in November anyways.

[King of the Bench]

Well guess I started a good post

[Flying Dog]

Well guess I started a good post

"Good" is in the eye of the beholder.

[Alcon]

Do you get off debating inane issues online with total strangers?  Perhaps a hobby is in order?  You're very worked up for someone who claims they're unbiased and not even supporting Obama.  Well either way, Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in November anyways.

I'm really not worked up at all.  You're just better than doing chemistry homework.  Which you shouldn't take as much of a compliment.

And I only get off when I win.  You're like a 48-hour internetgasm.

[SomeLawStudent]

Well guess I started a good post

The lesson we've learned is that any post with "Obama" in the title will be an instant success due to the obsessive nature of his cult following.

[SomeLawStudent]

Do you get off debating inane issues online with total strangers?  Perhaps a hobby is in order?  You're very worked up for someone who claims they're unbiased and not even supporting Obama.  Well either way, Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in November anyways.

I'm really not worked up at all.  You're just better than doing chemistry homework.  Which you shouldn't take as much of a compliment.

And I only get off when I win.  You're like a 48-hour internetgasm.

Nah, I just don't have the time or energy to debate 12 different Obama trolls all with OCD, most of whom regurgetate the same racist crap.

[John Dibble]

Well guess I started a good post

The lesson we've learned is that any post with "Obama" in the title will be an instant success due to the obsessive nature of his cult following.

Come on, let's not forget his obsessive detractors. You've contributed more than a few posts in this thread if you haven't noticed.

[exopolitician]

Do you get off debating inane issues online with total strangers?  Perhaps a hobby is in order?  You're very worked up for someone who claims they're unbiased and not even supporting Obama.  Well either way, Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in November anyways.

I'm really not worked up at all.  You're just better than doing chemistry homework.  Which you shouldn't take as much of a compliment.

And I only get off when I win.  You're like a 48-hour internetgasm.

Nah, I just don't have the time or energy to debate 12 different Obama trolls all with OCD, most of whom regurgetate the same racist crap.

You sir...are special. Very special indeed.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well guess I started a good post

The lesson we've learned is that any post with "Obama" in the title will be an instant success due to the obsessive nature of his cult following.

I don't do cults any more than I do radical leftists either