A reasoner who suggests that a claim is true, or false, merely because he or she strongly hopes it is, is committing the fallacy of wishful thinking. Wishing something is true is not a relevant reason for claiming that it is actually true.
Example:
There’s got to be an error here in the history book. It says Thomas Jefferson had slaves. He was our best president, and a good president would never do such a thing. That would be awful.
The Democratic party is currently picking a McGovern-Dukakis-(maybe Kerry) type left-wing liberal; Obama has less experience than any recent Democratic candidate and is more liberal.
If the Democratic primary were choreographed by the Republican National Committee it would follow more or less the path it’s on. Both Obama and Hillary are deeply flawed as national candidates. This should have been an easy election for Democrats to win with a candidate like Kerry, Edwards, or Gore.
I guess that is the problem with primaries. Candidates are picked by voters who will vote Democrat either way, and are, as Democrats, at least a little to the left.
how much experience did Bill Clinton have? He was never a Senator or a lowly Congressmen. he was a governor from a small unimportant fly over state.
and the fact that Obama’s mother was an atheist is the reason I am going to vote for him in 2 weeks in the primary, and will vote for him again in November.
you will see every major executive at News Corp (Fox News) has donated to Hilary. Included Rupert Murdoch he has given the maxim allowed by law.
I want to address these three points you made. The first comment shows exactly why the Obama camp isn’t right for America. It’s totally elitest, and snobby. Arkansas is one of Americas 50 states, and talking about them like they don’t matter is exactly why Obama got hit so hard over his “bitter” comments. The Obama camp is out of touch, and looks down on those they don’t agree with. Just like Mriana calling Hillary “Billary” ... it’s snobby and not appropriate.
You seem biased. Didn’t Hillary’s camp use the term “Boutique State”? Why are you criticizing Obama for a comment made by a poster on this forum about Arkansas while Hillary herself put down states she lost?
Further, Obama’s “bitter” comments might have been stupid, but they were the most atheist statements I’ve heard from any candidate. It was a foolish political move, but a comment many of us probably agree with.
And Barack Obama DOWNPLAYS his mothers atheistic beliefs. He tends to call her “spiritual”. And it worries me more that Obama has enough bad judgement to start out with an atheist parent and decide to be religious. That’s much worse then starting out in a religious family and staying that way like Hillary did.
Of course he does. Admitting to being an atheist is political suicide. If his exposure to her atheism informs his decision making, he will probably be very quiet about it, at least until he is in a less vulnerable position.
Why are you criticizing Obama for a comment made by a poster on this forum about Arkansas while Hillary herself put down states she lost?
Further, Obama’s “bitter” comments might have been stupid, but they were the most atheist statements I’ve heard from any candidate. It was a foolish political move, but a comment many of us probably agree with.
Of course he does. Admitting to being an atheist is political suicide. If his exposure to her atheism informs his decision making, he will probably be very quiet about it, at least until he is in a less vulnerable position.
In that first statement I was criticizing the Obama camp, in my mind that means him and all people around him including supporters. Those around Obama, including most of the mainstream media have this “why can’t we just get over this and have him be president, already?” attitude. Those around Obama are all like this ... media, supporter, and those in his campaign. And that leads me to suspect that it’s not just his suppoters thinking this. Every time I see an Obama advisor they talk about him like he deserves the presidency, instead of having to work for it. And that bothers me. I was using that one supporter as an example as the overall attitude that Obama’s supporters and campaigner have. “Let’s talk about whos’ better, instead of why” makes no sense.
Secondly I think the “bitter” statement was true but shows how weak he really is at diplomacy. Something that a political leader needs. Like when he said he wouldn’t want his daughter to be “punished” with a baby. Both statments are true ... but why say them in the most offensive way possible? Is this how he’s going to talk about other countries and other political leaders? In an innocent way that ends up insulting them? Hillary has made mistakes like this, about 10-15 years about. She’s learned from her past, and he has a lot to learn.
And thirdly, his exposure from her atheism informing him? That’s just an assumption, and I don’t feel it makes sense. I mean, he decided to go against these beliefs, why should we assume that he’s gained from something he rejected? Both candidates are religious, but he comes from an enviornment that allowed him to pick the smarter choice with much more ease (lack of pressure or ties) and he didn’t. And I think that matters.
Why are you criticizing Obama for a comment made by a poster on this forum about Arkansas while Hillary herself put down states she lost?
Further, Obama’s “bitter” comments might have been stupid, but they were the most atheist statements I’ve heard from any candidate. It was a foolish political move, but a comment many of us probably agree with.
Of course he does. Admitting to being an atheist is political suicide. If his exposure to her atheism informs his decision making, he will probably be very quiet about it, at least until he is in a less vulnerable position.
In that first statement I was criticizing the Obama camp, in my mind that means him and all people around him including supporters. Those around Obama, including most of the mainstream media have this “why can’t we just get over this and have him be president, already?” attitude. Those around Obama are all like this ... media, supporter, and those in his campaign. And that leads me to suspect that it’s not just his suppoters thinking this. Every time I see an Obama advisor they talk about him like he deserves the presidency, instead of having to work for it. And that bothers me. I was using that one supporter as an example as the overall attitude that Obama’s supporters and campaigner have. “Let’s talk about whos’ better, instead of why” makes no sense.
Secondly I think the “bitter” statement was true but shows how weak he really is at diplomacy. Something that a political leader needs. Like when he said he wouldn’t want his daughter to be “punished” with a baby. Both statments are true ... but why say them in the most offensive way possible? Is this how he’s going to talk about other countries and other political leaders? In an innocent way that ends up insulting them? Hillary has made mistakes like this, about 10-15 years about. She’s learned from her past, and he has a lot to learn.
And thirdly, his exposure from her atheism informing him? That’s just an assumption, and I don’t feel it makes sense. I mean, he decided to go against these beliefs, why should we assume that he’s gained from something he rejected? Both candidates are religious, but he comes from an enviornment that allowed him to pick the smarter choice with much more ease (lack of pressure or ties) and he didn’t. And I think that matters.
And the “boutique states” comment was diplomatic?
And what do you expect Obama’s campaign manager to say? “Continue running Hillary until the convention?” Continue trying to ruin Obama’s credibility so that we have no candidate to put up for November? People talk in the way you complain about because they feel that Clinton rhetoric is sacrificing the general election for the sake of winning primaries.
You are over-reacting big time to sound bites. Applying a similar analysis on Clinton and her camp will leave us with no candidates, as every public figure makes objectionable comments daily, especially when taken out of context. How do you feel about Hillary’s claims of ducking sniper fire when, in fact, she didn’t?
Focusing on someone using the term “Billary” isn’t a compelling argument. Hillary is clearly in her position due to Bill, and Bill is very involved in the campaign. This does not mean she would not be a good president, but the term “Billary” is just a shorthand for pointing this out. I find the “Billary” term childish, but most of campaigning is childish.
If you like Hillary, than fine. I will vote for whichever runs against McCain. But I don’t find your arguments for Hillary over Obama compelling for the reasons I state above.
How do you feel about Hillary’s claims of ducking sniper fire when, in fact, she didn’t?
If you like Hillary, than fine. I will vote for whichever runs against McCain. But I don’t find your arguments for Hillary over Obama compelling for the reasons I state above.
Yeah the “boutique state” comment wasn’t diplomatic, but Hillary never said it. It was one of her aides that said it. Obama DID say the “bitter” comment, he DID say the “punishment” comment. So you have no point. Obama makes the same rookie mistakes as one of Hillary’s aides. Is that really an argument for him?
And why does Hillary Clinton ask to do debates and Barack Obama ignores her? He tries to get out of debates because it has been shown that voters that are undecided tend to vote for Hillary Clinton after watching a debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The results of the recent Channel 6 focus group of undecided Philadelphia Democrats show exactly this point. After watching the debate the WPVI’s focus group of undecided Democrats showed these results for who they thought was the best candidate:
Hillary - 50% Obama - 23% Neither - 27%
Hillary beat Barack by 27% and the choice for neither candidate got even more votes than him. This is because when you place her policies next to his it’s clear that her policies make more sense, and that she has a clearer understanding of the issues she talks about. He’s all hype, and even he knows he’s just riding hype.
How do you feel about Hillary’s claims of ducking sniper fire when, in fact, she didn’t?
She made a mistake, she was told one thing from people around her and she just assumed it was true. Who hasn’t thought something happened to them in the past and then they realized they were wrong? She’s human, that happens to everyone where they mix stuff in their pasts up. Wasn’t that about 10 years ago?
And she apologized for her mistake. I haven’t seen Obama apologize once. He didn’t over Reverend Wright or the Tony Rezko thing or the “bitter” comment or the underground terrorist friend or anything. At least she has been decent nature to say she’s sorry when she messes up. Obama? He acts like he’s never wrong.
QAS,
I find your comments generally based on emotion.
Nobody is perfect. Hillary apologized for misspeaking, not lying. There is a difference, but I’m not going to rip her a new one for it.
You write that Obama never apologized for anything. Then you mention a couple of things for which it would make no sense to apologize. Then there is your mention of Rezko - you might want to look HERE before you press that one further.
Let’s keep the facts straight and the emotions on an even keel. Please?
She made a mistake, she was told one thing from people around her and she just assumed it was true. Who hasn’t thought something happened to them in the past and then they realized they were wrong? She’s human, that happens to everyone where they mix stuff in their pasts up. Wasn’t that about 10 years ago?
In the interest of full disclosure, I have a slight preference for Obama, though I’d be happy to have either of them as president. That said, you can’t be serious?! Sure, I might mix up exactly when I bought that car or whether I read the book or saw the movie, but I doubt I’d have a faulty recollection for running from sniper fire! I suspect this was an attempt to project a “commander-in-chief” image, and she got caught. Clinton is a polished politician, and Obama is a bit rough on the edges yet. I;m not sure if that really makes her more electable than him, but I do think it makes him seem a bit more genuine and honest, which I’m idealistic enough to wish was more often the case with politicians
She made a mistake, she was told one thing from people around her and she just assumed it was true. Who hasn’t thought something happened to them in the past and then they realized they were wrong? She’s human, that happens to everyone where they mix stuff in their pasts up. Wasn’t that about 10 years ago?
In the interest of full disclosure, I have a slight preference for Obama, though I’d be happy to have either of them as president. That said, you can’t be serious?! Sure, I might mix up exactly when I bought that car or whether I read the book or saw the movie, but I doubt I’d have a faulty recollection for running from sniper fire! I suspect this was an attempt to project a “commander-in-chief” image, and she got caught. Clinton is a polished politician, and Obama is a bit rough on the edges yet. I;m not sure if that really makes her more electable than him, but I do think it makes him seem a bit more genuine and honest, which I’m idealistic enough to wish was more often the case with politicians
She has gone to dozens of countries (many with dangerous political climates), talked with world leaders, and tons of other stuff. It’s not unlikely considering the life she has had as a politician.
I hate to argue a pretty minor point, especially since I think she’s perfectly qualified to be president whether or not she’s ever been shot at, but I’m highly skeptical that this was an innocent slip of memory. She’s never claimed to have faced gunfire any other time, so I still would expect the memory of such a thing to be pretty clear. It’s exactly the sort of attempt to manipulate perception that makes her a good politician, it’s just unfortunate that such manipulation and deception is seen as a necessary and acceptable price to pay for the opportunity to do what you feel right once in office.
A big problem is that no Presidential candidate can afford to show much empathy for atheists. It’s a shame that to get elected to almost any high political office in this country, you need to express a deep Christian belief. I think that Hillery is probably the least religious of the two, and more atheist friendly, but then again, only God knows. Sorry! Couldn’t resist. lol
Well, after last night, it’s over. It’s time for Hillary to do her job supporting Obama. At this point, having someone atheist friendly is the least of my worries (and I’m an atheist). It’s time for someone with a friggin synapse or two! (hint: it’s not McCain)
We already have a president who doesn’t know when a war is lost. Hillary should not imitate him by dragging this out.
No, I can’t agree. There are votes yet to be counted. It will be decided by the super-delegates, who can vote for whoever they please. Even the ones who have already expressed their support for one or the other, can change their minds. Something needs to be done about Florida and Michigan. Although I think either candidate would be much better than Bush has been, the full election process should be carried out, and I would say that even if the present delegate count were reversed. As for McCain, though I don’t support his policies, I have enough respect for him, not to insult his intelligence.
No, I can’t agree. There are votes yet to be counted. It will be decided by the super-delegates, who can vote for whoever they please. Even the ones who have already expressed their support for one or the other, can change their minds. Something needs to be done about Florida and Michigan. Although I think either candidate would be much better than Bush has been, the full election process should be carried out, and I would say that even if the present delegate count were reversed. As for McCain, though I don’t support his policies, I have enough respect for him, not to insult his intelligence.
Sadly, it is too late in the process to do anything about Florida and Michigan. The Dems undermined themselves by being hardliners on those two states, but once they made their decision, the outcome was changed and the old votes can’t count. Hopefully that doesn’t lead to disgruntled democrats.
Pissing off Florida voters doesn’t seem wise to me for some reason.
I have no problem with allowing the “process” to be played out, but enough supers will eventually inform Hillary that they are not going to go against the electorate. And that’s as it should be.
Regarding McCain - I have a great deal of respect for his contributions, but IMO he does not have the intelligence (now) to take us forward.
