SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Geoff Altman who wrote (260109)3/25/2008 3:44:42 PM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 281500
 
You are wasting your time trying to have an intelligent or substantial conversation with that whackjob and pig J. Chrissy poo....

J.



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (260109)3/25/2008 3:48:01 PM
From: sylvester80  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
No he didn't. You are a LIAR & nothing else.

Here is what he actualy said:

"One clarification, because I’ve noticed some of the commentary about the speech – it’s been suggested by a number of conservative commentators, but even some that were favorably disposed towards the speech -- that somehow there was a flip-flop or a contradiction between previous statements about not being aware of Rev. Wright’s statements and my statement in the speech that I was aware of controversial statements he’s made.

"There’s no contradiction there. So I want to be very clear. I was not aware that he had made some of most offensive statements that had been looping on the internet and on the television news.

"I wasn’t aware of the AIDS conspiracy statement, which I think is completely out of line and off the wall.

"I wasn’t aware of his statements, 'God damn America' Those statements were not ones that I knew about until the story broke a week and a half ago.

"The 9/11 statement I became aware of in the New York Times after I announced my candidacy. And as I said in my previous statement, the reason I did not decide to leave the church was because I saw Rev. Wright retiring.

"Now, I was aware of controversial statements. As I said, he has been a fierce critic on occasion of US foreign policy and domestic policy and in fact in my first book 'Dreams of My Father,' and in 'The Audacity of Hope' I quote him making a comment about racism that I think would be considered controversial but I didn’t think was beyond the pale.

"So that’s distinction that I would make. I just wanted to make sure people were clear – I know Joe Klein had column, for example, that suggested I had admitted something that I didn’t previously, but there’s no contradiction there. I just want to make that as clear as possible."


blogs.abcnews.com



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (260109)3/26/2008 2:29:03 AM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
After Bush, my dog could be POTUS. The standards have been lowered in the Oval Office even more than they have been lowered in the army.

Qualifications: Adult citizen who can fog a mirror. Bush thought he could start and finish an easy war so he would have an easy reelection. What is more naive than that?



To: Geoff Altman who wrote (260109)3/26/2008 8:42:50 PM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 281500
 
JUST IN: HILLARY NEGATIVE RATINGS SOAR TO NEW HIGH!!!!

First Read: Rev. Wright controversy seems to have done little damage to Obama among likely Democratic voters, but Clinton's negative ratings have reached a new high, NBC/WSJ poll finds.

Posted: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:30 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Democrats, 2008, Clinton, Obama, Polls

From NBC's Chuck Todd
firstread.msnbc.msn.com

As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.

The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday this week by Hart-McInturff and surveyed 700 registered voters, which gives the poll a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percent. In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup. (Watch Tim Russert's analysis of the poll results.)

On that issue specifically, 32 percent of voters overall said Obama "sufficiently addressed the issue," while 26 percent of folks believe he needs to address the Wright controversy further; 31 percent did not see the speech or had no opinion.

Interestingly, of those voters who said they saw the speech, 47 percent said Obama sufficiently addressed the Wright issue while 37 percent said he needs to address it further. Among whites, 45 percent were satisfied with Obama's explanation, 38 percent were not. Among blacks, 67 percent said the speech was sufficient, while 25 percent want him to address it further.

Overall, 55 percent of voters told us that they were "disturbed" by the videos of Wright that circulated so widely on cable TV and the Internet.

As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. Yes, Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton is. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers were among Republicans.

On one of the most critical questions we've been tracking for a few months, Obama showed resilience. When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton. All three candidates saw dips on this issue, by the way. In January, 67 percent thought Obama could unite the country; 68 percent thought McCain could do it; and 55 percent said Clinton would be able to pull it off.

The fact that all three dropped equally in the last three months is a sign that the campaign is becoming more ideological and partisan.

In the head-to-head matchups, there weren't huge shifts in the numbers, with Obama and Clinton dead even at 45 percent in the national Democratic primary matchup (a slight increase for Obama from early March). In the general-election matchups, Obama led McCain by 2 points, and McCain led Clinton by 2 points; all margin of error results and nothing to get too excited over.

One thing about these head-to-head matchups: Our pollsters found that for the second poll in a row, more than 20 percent of Clinton and Obama supporters say they would support McCain when he's matched up against the other Democrat. There is clearly some hardening of feelings among some of the most core supporters of both Democrats, though it may be Obama voters, who are more bitter in the long run.

Why? Because among Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating (35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29). Taken together, this appears to be evidence that Obama, intially, should have the easier time uniting the party than Clinton.

Considering the doom-and-gloom some predicted for Obama with regard to the Wright controversy, the overall tenor of the electorate appears to still be favorable for him. He's mortal, but he's survived ... for now. It's not clear whether he'd be this resilient if another controversy exploded as big as Wright, but it appears that voters are giving him the benefit of doubt. There's lots of evidence inside these numbers that voters still would like to know more about Obama, and that is both an opportunity and a potential obstacle.