Change We Can Xerox?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Feb 22, 2008.

  1. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    you could tell that was something she was saving for a long time. and then she said it and it really bombed.
    she should have said it in a way that made it sound like she just came up with it in a split second.
    anyways i think she walked away the winner. she's probably kicking herself for that snide little remark but at the end she pulled it together.
     
  2. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #2
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Clinton may have eeked out a slight win against Obama in the debate last night, but she failed to contrast herself with him strongly enough to change the momentum Obama has going for him right now.

    The way I see it, Obama is going to win Texas by probably 10 points. He'll be within a couple points of her in Ohio, whichever way that state goes.

    The Clinton ground game seems to be sucking air, while the Obama camp has tons of energetic volunteers willing to canvass neighborhoods and pound the ground for votes. Clinton seems prepared for an air war, while Obama's strength is his ground game.

    The recent financial reports don't do Clinton any favors either. Donors will be questioning the wisdom of her spending priorities, which could lead her donor pool to dry up, if not completely, at least enough to be significant.
     
  4. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #4
    Voters should be questioning her leadership ability considering her wasteful spending during this campaign. This campaign is the biggest thing either of them have ever done. They both raised so much money and had so many staffers working for them, it was like managing corporations. One of them put together an incredible ground operation, the likes of which have never been seen in American politics. It's strong enough to take on even the corrupt Clinton Machine and stomp it into the ground. If she cannot even successfully run her campaign after all the money she raised last year, to the point of lending her own $5 million to the campaign, then she probably isn't fit to run this country. Her "experience" slogan is truly a crock of garbage if there ever was one and the mainstream media has not called her out on it.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/
     
  5. walangij macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Location:
    MI
    #5
    In the grand scheme of things, it looks like Clinton didn't win last night. She needed a big win to change the dynamic of her campaign. It doesn't look like it did, and the "Change we can Xerox" line and redfirebird08's video are all over the web and that is not a good thing for the Clintons.
     
  6. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    Frankly, I don't think this is the media's responsibility. She's facing a very capable opponent who can make this point whenever he likes. I also believe the voters know that most of her political experience is as First Lady, the value of which they are capable of considering without media assistance.
     
  7. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #7
    No, the media is responsible. For instance, Chris Matthews the other night embarrassed one of Obama's supporters. At the same time, he also had a Clinton supporter on the air and he didn't ask her the same question when he damn well should have because I can guarantee you most of her supporters are brainwashed into thinking she legitimately has tons of experience when she doesn't. She has only passed 20 bills in her entire time in the Senate, and many of them were fluff bills (memorial tributes to people, etc.) rather than actual policy that would affect the real issues in the country. Just from the standpoint of being fair and balanced in their reporting, they constantly question him and never question her. That's not fair and it's lazy journalism. The Obama campaign seems to not to want to outright attack her on this issue, possibly for fear of being considered too negative of an attack (kind of like her attacks throughout the campaign lately have received backlash).

    Even in the White House, The New York Times (who has endorsed her) reported that she never had anywhere near the insider access that a lot of people have assumed through the years. "She wears the pants in the marriage" and other quotes like that have become the standard assumption in the public about her. That she was just as responsible for Bill's decisions as anything else, when in fact she didn't even have access to the information in order to offer advice.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    And Clinton supporters are convinced that Obama gets the kid-gloves treatment by the media. It's an endless game. Everybody believes the other guy gets it easier. The fact is, it's a political contest, and both of the candidates get to make their points and counterpoints. This is a lot more important than keeping score in the media.
     
  9. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #9
    Actually, I do think Obama has received better treatment from the media but not on the issues themselves, which is a shame. He's also had several instances of insidious crap used against him. The most recent was when CNN's closed captioning said "Al Quaeda called Barack Obama to congratulate him" when Anderson Cooper was talking about Hillary calling Barack on the night of the Wisconsin primary to congratulate him.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4674045#4675271

    On Chris Matthews' show, he was talking about Obama and a graphic of Osama appeared above his shoulder. And on CNN, they were talking about Osama and showing pictures of him, but the graphic said "Obama." I tend to think that the main people who are connecting with the audience do not feel this way and in fact they have apologized (though Matthews was way too abrupt and did not personally apologize to Obama like he should have). And in fact, CNN has also defended Barack against the Muslim madrassa smear by going to Indonesia and getting the real story on his school. And as I said, I think he gets an overall better portrayal from the media. But it's the people behind the scenes that are slipping this kind of garbage into the broadcasts.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWP1pz70-is
     
  10. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #10
    So if Obama is "Change We Can Xerox", then what's Hillary? "Status quo we can xerox?" "The same old hypocrite politician we can xerox?"

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=rEOjttmqIrc

    what a hypocrite.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    "Change you can Xerox" reminds me of the Beavis and Butthead episode where they are counterfitting money at the local copyshop by putting coins on the glass and copying them, then tearing the one-sided copied coins out and trying to spend them.

    "Change you can Xerox" indeed...
     
  12. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #12
    You win 3 internets for finding a valid comparison between a presidential debate and the best show to ever air on TV :D
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    Once again, I don't think keeping score is of much use. At any given moment, the media is going to be seen by someone as being "unfair" to somebody. Nothing is proven, no remedy is at hand. Sadly I believe this impulse to find media bias everywhere we look is a product of the right wing's long, relentless attacks on the media.
     
  14. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    where have the clintons ever been corupt?
    What you have to understand is that hillary is a fighter
    she has been through worse times than these and she has come out victorious EVERY TIME. She has been through hell before
    She will win this election if it kills her
    she will get univ health care if of kills her
    and she will close the deficit/debt if it kills her

    11 setbacks in a row won't stop the Clinton machine
     
  15. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #15
    yeah, they released the fund raising numbers from january.. hillary took over 95,000 from pacs. and its not the first time.

    hahaha, her campaign is like $15 million in debt. if she can't manage a $200 million campaign, how will she manage the multi-trillion dollar government budget?
     
  16. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #16
    Excuse me in case you didnt notice bush inherited a balanced budget a surplus and zero debt
    what's wrong with taking money from pacs? Dont believe that bs from obama about not taking money from them.

    I dont understand why everyone thinks obama will bring change to govt.
    we've heard "let's change washington and unite America" from bush and he sure didn't do it
    and what exactly is obama's plan to make everyone in Washington get along?
     
  17. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #17
    what does that have to do with anything?
    hillary started a campaign with a balanced budget and now they're 15 million in debt (not even including her $5mil loan).

    having small groups controlling **** is against the principles of democracy
    and i saw the january 2008 fundraising totals from the government database, all 36 million of obama's money was from the "Individuals" group

    part of the reason is because he's new to federal politics and hasn't whored himself out to all the corporate interests like hillary has
    this is irrelevant again, both obama and hillary are both claiming change so that doesn't help your case against obama
    because he's done it before. he helped liberals and conservatives settle arguments while working at harvard law review, he worked with republicans in the illinois state senate to pass a bunch of bills including healthcare reform for children, lobbyist reform, etc (while the dems had the minority), and he's done it in the us senate working with republican senators to propose and pass bills on nuclear proliferation and his "google for government" bill

    all i've heard from hillary in debates and such is "we have to overcome the republicans to do x" while obama says "we have to work WITH republicans to do x"

    like he said in 2004, "we are not a collection of red states and blue states, we are the united states of america"
     
  18. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #18
    Because PACs and lobbyists are not what democracy is about. Democracy is government by the people for the people. Notice that the word "corporations" is nowhere to be found in that sentence. I don't want the decisions of my president to be based off which company gave her the most money, that's not democracy. When she voted for the Iraq war, she was so quick to spread democracy elsewhere, but she doesn't seem to want to bother with it at home.
     
  19. stevento thread starter macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #19
    about pacs money - pacs are people
    heres what john edwards has said about pacs "they can come to the table but they cannot buy every seat" and that sounds great. there's nothing wrong with take a couple mil or so from them as long as they dont own your administration

    let's keep in mind obama had no problem taking money from pacs when he was running before. only edwards has never taken one red cent of their cash over the career

    its about fiscal reposibility. it has to do with the national budget and that's part of what america needs right now. you asked how she would manage a multi trillion dollar gov't and i said that's what the clintons do and they did it well in the 90's because we had a couple extra hundred billion lying around when bill left.

    we cannot work with repubs to bring health care reform becuase they like the system we have.
    we cannot work with republicans to end iraq because they want to stay there for 100 years.
    republicans are not going to jump on the bandwagon with any democratic causes. everyone expects that obama will just snap his fingers and republicans and dems will just start singing kumbaya.

    anyways hillary can be bipartisan. for instance there are 21,000 nat guard. members who have health care who wouldn't otherwise becuase she worked with repubs.

    i'm not making a case against obama; i like him -- but like all politicians he is full of poop. i think everyone is getting so excited about change that they are forgettin what kind of change we need
     
  20. walangij macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Location:
    MI
    #20
    :confused: so we can't work with them, but it's possible? Face it, Obama has delt the Clinton Machine a tough hand, and as we all know the Clintons did not just sit by, they fought him, and they're losing. Looks like that's a pretty good indicator that he has the stuff for November.


    The change that Obama and Clinton are advocating is actually quite similar. They have different methodology and some of the issues are just nitpicking at small differences. Obama supporters are not stupid, we do not think that beautiful speeches will change things. I think it says something when exit polls show that most educated democrats support Obama rather than Clinton. Obama has made a HUGE comeback, from 20-30 points behind in the polls to now, that's an impressive feat, especially against the Clintons.
     
  21. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #21
    You can't be serious.
     
  22. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #22
    I also hate that it's Obama versus the Clintons, plural. She keeps on trying to say that she'll be her own president and then tries to take credit for things that Bill did. She was the First Lady, not Vice-President. And do we really want our first woman president to be riding the coattails of her husband? Sounds like progress for women to me... :rolleyes:
     
  23. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    Umm... 1993 health care? Not victorious.

    This is the kind of rhetoric that turns me off of Clinton supporters.
     
  24. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #24
    yeah, and she's not fiscally responsible. if she can't even have a balanced budget in a small presidential campaign, how will she balance the budget of the whole government?

    and also, I thought Hillary was saying "Don't judge me by what my husband did"
    here's a quote of yours from one of the other threads:
    sorry, but if you're going to campaign about the good things that bill did, then you're going to have to deal with the bad things bill did too.

    did you just say that hillary can work with repubs while obama can't, even though obama has a better record of working with them?

    we need a change from the status quo (the clintons). we need a change from the old, corrupt, owned by lobbyists, lying, two-faced hypocrite politicians. obama is young and fresh, honest (he wants more government transparency too) doesn't take money from lobbyists (wants to reform this like he did in illinois)
     
  25. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #25
    Anyone else think it's funny how Clinton is always talking about people coming up to her to tell her about their problems, grabbing her arm/hand/shoulder/etc? I get the impression that whenever she walks through a crowd of people, the mob just starts grabbing random body parts of hers.
     

Share This Page