You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #66: Exactly: "Neither candidate disputed what has been reported." [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #56
66. Exactly: "Neither candidate disputed what has been reported."

They couldn't dispute it since it's on videotape.

Even those who buy Edwards's explanation that they were talking about smaller debates, not eliminating candidates, need to wake up and realize the unfairness of dividing the candidates into two or three groups for debates.

We've already seen that once, when CNN gave Clinton, Edwards, and Obama to be asked about their religious views and a half hour for Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Richardson.

Of course "the top tier" aired first, getting across the message that the media keeps pushing: these are the candidates who count. Ignore those other guys. It effectively eliminates the other guys. The media has been pimping the "top tier" for months, years for Hillary.

The Clinton-Edwards discussion doesn't pass the smell test and those who support Obama should be very concerned.

Watch the tape and notice how HC and JE barely glanced at Obama or Kucinich while Hillary said "Thanks, Barack," "Thanks, Dennis." JE shook their hands, didn't seem to say anything, probably because Hillary was talking to him and inserted her brief recognition Obama and Kucinich in the midst of saying to JE that they had to get together, obviously for further discussion of how they would get the networks to do what they want for the debates. JE was listening to her, not paying attention to Obama or Kucinich.

If HRC gets the nomination, she'll pick JE for VP because he's a Southerner and she knows she'd have to win some of the Southern states to win the election. She won't pick BO because he is black. Only half-black, really, but seen as black, and that would cost her some votes in every state, including blue states like California, New York, and Massachusetts. CA and NY have GOP governors so they have a fair share of conservative voters. There will be people everywhere who won't vote for a woman, as well as people who won't vote for THIS woman, so she can't afford to lose people who might vote for her but won't vote for a black. All our presidents and VPs have been white men so who knows if the voters will go for a woman or a black in 2008?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC