• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

biden-some perspective

doc9464 said:
Some on here picked up their rock when they had a chance with kerry and now Biden......I wasn't offended by Biden. Biden is yesterday's candidate and it shows in his inability to talk to the masses. His comment is probably dated back to oh say, 1973, but it its usually intent which I watch. Most of the comments coming from those on the RW here again are just opportunities to try to push another Dem into the proverbial mud. Thats all the peanut gallery here wanted to do and our Ohio or PA lawyer has decided to lead the irrational challenges to everything in his push to the bottom. There's a difference between dissent, opposition, and just being stupid. You can pick and choose on your own. I know what I believe on the recent posts......

The difference between Biden and Oh, say Trent Lott is a record of intent. Biden is inept and a media whore and has plenty of flaws, but he is not a racist. Trent Lott has probably learned his lesson as well as anyone can because he was stabbed so very hard in the back by his own people, so he learned how nasty conservatives can be. His comments got heat because Lott had a pretty nasty history of intent by his stands on various issues. I also know Lott did some good during Katrina in MS so while I would never trust Lott, I think he may have tried to reverse course a little not out of nobility but from lessons learned. The same applies for Robert Byrd. I have dozens of reasons not to find him to be a nobile person but he has tried to reverse course on some issues as well. Biden is neither and has no record of intent. He has a record of ineptness and it shows. Same for John Kerry. The right wing were able to use their ineptness against both men. I can reason who I feel is more racist or not. Biden is not a racist, Kerry doesn't hate troops, Trent Lott is probably a recovering racist because he was forced to be, and Byrd has done some work to try to turn around but I do not know where his heart is.

Do something conservatives are unwilling to do, use reason. You see it in posts here. The reason its so easy to malign and challenge the conservative peanut gallery here is intent. Most of the conservatives do not support issues that help all people. They have a record of intent. They cry when you call them on it. It doesn't mean they hate one particular people (but some may), but conservatives do not want everyone to succeed, they want their own personal success and the hell with everyone else. Its the culture of being self-centered and selfish.

Another post here talks of a situation that has nothing to do with "tolerence" but they try to frame any issue on race, minorities, or any issues of that type as a Democratic problem. If you want to see the results of their beliefs change the voting electorate...check the stats of the 2006 election. Just about every minority left the GOP as high and dry as you can get. People know when the raw deal is directed toward them. The Dems have a long way to go before I say they are on point on issues but I have some control of that by working for those goals. This is not true in the GOP and the record stands along with their platform, politics, and statements. Reasonable people know who the racists are......some just lurk in the closet, some speak out loud and proud of their folly. We got all kinds here.

They won't stop progress and their true lack of concern always finds light. There is a difference when people make mistakes and people just have bad intent. Biden did neither...but he was inept with his compliment. The conservative attitude is telling just because they see an opportunity to smear another Dem candidate. Look at the hatchet job done on Clinton, Obama, and Edwards so far. Look at Tom Tancredo, Virgil goode, etc. Those people are not making mistakes, misspeaking, or are inept. They represent the angry white man sector of the GOP as many do here. Their rage continues to seep out, even the ones who try to make themselves look good. Combine that with the complete lack of concern for fellow man and what do you have...a party in decline and deservedly so. Dems do not get a free pass on this issue either....but there are opportunities to force change.

Look at the truly open field we have this year.......yep, thats sure a difference from whats going on on the conservatives agenda. Instead of challenging, we get tons of smear and dirty business. Its all they have and they won't ever be ashamed, but they should be.


radiofriend1 said:
"His comments to the New York Observer about primary rival and fellow Sen. Barack Obama -- that Obama is "articulate and bright and clean" -- sparked a firestorm on behalf of the Illinois senator, who didn't appear to feel all that slighted yesterday. "He called me," Obama told reporters when asked about Biden's remarks. "I told him it wasn't necessary... I have no problems with Joe Biden." His shots at Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton for being latecomers to the Iraq war debate also got notice, though not as much."

source: msn 'first read'

So -- what you're really saying is: "Bring back Allan Keyes." ;D ;D :D ;D :D ;D ;D
 
Hillary, IF she wins the nomination, will go with very common strategy and would go immediately to Bill Richardson. Her husband will give her same advice and it would make sense that he did because Richardson is the path of least risk and possibly a larger net (Hispanics in west are moving to Dems, and AA already like the Clintons and Obama already) than Obama would bring in. But when you have a working relationship, it would be logical to continue that. Richardson is running for vice president and is ready to be a wonderful compliment to the nominee. So is Dodd, Obama, Edwards, etc. Its literally easy to put all of them in the 1 or 2 slot and they would still be 1000 times better than loser McCain and paper tiger Rudy G.

I have said and will continue saying that all of the people in the campaign on the Center-Left / Dems / Liberals are making the debate strong. Only the pundits, conservative and GOP lickspittles, and certain media whores are trying to play up the horse race and drum out all the other contenders.

Its still a very wide open race that I want to go long and far into the primary season. I am hoping Dems do not fall to the spin and media voodoo as well as the conservatives bleatings.

We need a long debate to make sure the right candidate gets vetted. Im very undecided as are many who are feeling good that the selection is deep and wide (even now, Gore, Clark, and Warner still need to be brought into the picture Despite Warner's resistance, there are those still wanting to draft him.


If you are really being a serious examiner of whats going on.....its still down to a few states, but the states to watch are:

Nevada - may go Dem, if so Dems win
Iowa - will probably go Dem again
Wisconsin - most likely blue, but needs work
Tennessee - true swing, AA vote will be more important than ever
Missouri - true swing, GOTV effort determines winner just as in 2006 where Dems did the best work
Colorado - will the republican rejection continue?, leans red but its a "bubble" state
Montana - best west chance for a move to blue, but GOTV has to be ready and working VERY hard
Ohio - set to go blue, but no guarantees - I really hope it will - true Swing (maybe better voting situation)
W. VA - true swing, but may still stay red
Arkansas - Hilary will probably carry her home state, but she has to work for it. / All other Dems would have to work like Banshees but Arkansas is already a "bubble" state.
Louisiana - fading, Bush and his minions successful with eliminating any hopes for blue post katrina, but there are some pockets of left
Florida - hispanic vote CRITiCAL - Tancredo-style verbage will hurt GOP further, Dems have to GOTV to "seal deal"
Indiana - probably red, but best chance in years to see if a bump to blue is possible.
PA - the real true Swing State - you want PA, you have to earn it
AZ - im kidding myself, Flagstaff would have to grow to Phoenix size to have any hope, McCain would carry, Rudy G would make this a swing state leaning RED.

Those who do the reasearch have now gotten enough research to see that Hillary or a Dem can easily win if the job is done correctly. If the dem holds the states from 2004 which is not too tough an effort (if work is done right) and one of the swing states move Blue, its over for the GOP. It won't be a cakewalk but its a good position to be in....if you want to earn it!


AKLes said:
doc9464 said:
Look at the truly open field we have this year.......yep, thats sure a difference from whats going on on the conservatives agenda.

Please be sure to talk with us about the openness of that field when Hillary is accepting the nomination. Only question is whether she might tolerate the increasingly popular Obama as a running mate or demand a go-along-to-get-along political hack for the role.

On the other side, Candidate? They don't need no stinkin' candidate. There are no fine young horses in the stable. Some doubt in my mind that McCain is a shoo-in for the nomination...unless only about 50 people attend the Republican convention. But if he is, write this down somewhere, a vast number of (once) Republicans and Independents will figure that since we're gonna have a liberal president we might as well have an honest one and vote for Hillary. Provided, of course, she quits trying to play moderate. If she continues the game of "look at moderate-little-me" she'd win anyway and voter turnout might well sink to the lowest in decades and her margin would be reduced....denying her the "mandate" she'd so dearly love to have when pushing certain agenda items.

I still think a third party candidate could really screw things up for Democrats and Republicans alike. Not win, mind ya, just screw things up. This time. Where might such a candidate come from? Possibly someone who bolts from either of the two currently major parties. Though I doubt Obama would have the agates to run as an independent....should Hillary dump too badly on him I wouldn't rule it out entirely. He has three major factors working in his behalf:

1. He ain't a Clinton
2. He ain't a Bush
3. He ain't related to a Kennedy (at least not that they're admitting)

Priority? Doesn't matter. All above are interchangeable.




.

radiofriend1 said:
"His comments to the New York Observer about primary rival and fellow Sen. Barack Obama -- that Obama is "articulate and bright and clean" -- sparked a firestorm on behalf of the Illinois senator, who didn't appear to feel all that slighted yesterday. "He called me," Obama told reporters when asked about Biden's remarks. "I told him it wasn't necessary... I have no problems with Joe Biden." His shots at Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton for being latecomers to the Iraq war debate also got notice, though not as much."

source: msn 'first read'
[/quote]
 
doc9464 said:
Hillary, IF she wins the nomination......

There may be some personal risk attached to using "IF" in the context above. The least of which is being branded "defeatist".
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom