"Shame on you, Barack Obama"
 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,4798090.story

I don't like this a bit. While what Obama has said is "true," I believe he's put a negative spin on it. This is exactly what I was hoping he would not do. Then again, Clinton has no business getting upset about it when she has been dirty throughout the entire campaign.

I say "Go McCain".

I'm over the Dems acting like children.

Yea, Obama is inspiring when he talks, but I don't really think he has any kind of experience to back any of it up as a President. Maybe in a few years... And Hillary... I don't know about her...she just seems sketchy.

I'm not even a Republican either.

Wait so it's "true" but . . .

Knock it off.

It is very possible that her campaign knew about the mailings before the conference where she voiced her outrage. I like how he always seemed to take the high road. However, based on the article, he didn't seem to attack her character, only her healthcare plan. Along with her previous attacks, her "change you can Xerox" comment during the debate was calloused, and not well-received. It may be a little late for her to play the victim.

Here's my take: The mailings are a month old. I read a discussion of how they are very similar (perhaps intentionally) to images used against the idea when Hillary Clinton promoted her health care during Bill's presidency. This "moral outrage" comes off as a mother scolding a child... and in a way that makes them mom look bad. Maybe it's my age but she came off overly upset, not justifiably so. The sort you respond to with an :rolleyes:.

Oh yes, and btw: http://www.freefilehosting.net/files/3cf1d

Gee... attacking on healthcare is wrong? (Also, please note that the last quote on there is actually from HER as reported on CBSNews.com. Not from a reporter, she's quoting herself.)

I see this as staged outrage and nothing else and she doesn't adequately respond to the "attacks" in the mailings that oh-so-completely offend her.

ETA: Video of Hillary's OMG
Video of Obama's response

More fun links: What if we're nuked on day one!
The NAFTA mailer from Obama
An image purportedly from a mailer

I was watching the debate the other night and Hilary just looked very smuged to me. That really just bugged the crap out of me. And I really haven't caught the Obama fever yet (turning in my black card right now:p)

GO McCain. I'm not Republican either

I have the same issue with Clinton. I know the campaign changes daily, but during the debates she acts all nice and then the next day comes with another charge. This has been happening ever since her "crying I found my voice" moment in New Hampshire. If she has that 35 years of experience she claims, shouldn't she already have a voice?

I'm just tired of it on both sides.

Hillary reminds me of a big crybaby. She claims that Obama won't be able to handle all of the pressures of being a president and she can. By the looks of her recent bipolar behaviors, (I'm honored to be sitting next to Barak Obama/Shame on Barak Obama) she'd crack under pressure.

LOL

ETA: Drolefille, I just checked out the links and had a bad grammar moment on this one:

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/d...Picture1-1.png

Which...don't??? Who wrote that?

The mailers have been out for a while, why is she just NOW appalled, hurt, etc....

Does "which" always have to be singular?

The question is asking "which one of these people" so the correct verb is "does not deserve" not "do not deserve."

He has been in the Junior Senate for 2 years. Seriously? In a time like we are in right now (we've got a "war" in Iraq... we still have people looking for Osama... the economy is a mess and we are several trillion $$'s in national debt) I would prefer someone who has more than 2 year's worth of experience... but that's just me.

And I do find it hilarious that when any news channel talks to people outside of Obama rallies, they are all psyched up but when asked, none of them can tell reporters why they support him or any of this accomplishments. They must really just like the words "change" and "hope" a lot.

He is very well spoken and does a good job of getting people excited, but it takes waaaaay more than that to run a country. But that's just IMHO. If you think differently, rock on with your bad self :p

No, it doesn't actually if you read the poster at the link. It says "which of these people" which I think could be either singular or plural depending on if you could only choose one or more than one. (unless it's been changed)

Unless I'm missing something, there's no reason why one would assume only one of the group pictured doesn't deserve health care, rather than two or three.

(This assumes of course that everyone is entitled to health insurance as a matter of governmental responsibility, rather than my real response which would be "which among those people can afford to purchase health insurance ands elects not too?" Those don't deserve it, IMO.)

I'm with you though, that it seems awkwardly phrased, and have I written the slogan, I would have figured some other way of expressing it so that no one would question if it was grammatical.

Well, his endorsers sure know </sarcasm>

"Which" is a relative pronoun in the sentence. What is "which" referring to? It is referring to an understood "one" because there is no other useable noun in the sentence - it can't refer to a noun within a prepositional phrase (i.e. "of these people"). "One" is singular, therefore, the verb has to be singular. If the sentence said "Which people don't deserve health care?" the verb "don't" would be appropriate, because "which" would be referring to "people" which is plural.

If you're going to be a grammar nazi, it's important to be right.

The word "one" isn't present and there's no reason that the subject would need to be singular or that "one" would be understood to be present. It could just as easily by understood to be "three."

There is no clear referent for "which," which by the way is probably functioning as an interrogative pronoun rather than as a relative pronoun. Any number of people in the photo could be the "which." It doesn't have to be understood to be singular and is probably more effective as an ad if it's understood to be plural.

Again, I probably wouldn't have set it up to read like that because it was going to bug some people, but you are insisting that it's incorrect as written, and I don't think it is.

Nazi? No. The ad is a reflection on the campaign, not on you. There's no need to defend the people who decided this ad was good to go.

But from a purely grammatical point of view, it was good to go.

There's enough out there to keep you busy if you just worry about the stuff that's actually wrong or if you just want to focus on health care without expanding into the stuff that's awkward because you're not sure of the number intended in advance.

And with the grammar nazi comment, I include myself in that anytime I'm going to call someone out. It's one thing to correct or comment on something that's wrong. It's something else to correct or comment on something that turns out to be right.

ETA: but I wrote Bosnia when I meant Serbia early this week, so I'm really not trying to pretend I'm upholding some high standard of commentary.

Um, I think he's been in the regular Senate, it's not like there's a junior Senate equivalent to junior Panhell. ;)

But couldn't we write a great SNL skit based on this premise?

For sure. Teddy Kennedy as John Kerry's "big" shows a lot of potential. :)

He has about as much experience as Abe Lincoln. He's been a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer, a state legislator and a US Senator. He's not 23 and fresh out of college.

I know which one of his supporters you're referring to, but if you watched the debate he laid out his accomplishments, you can see them on public websites, and see this site: http://www.usaspending.gov/. Obama was one of the two major sponsors of the legislation to create a public, searchable database of where our money goes. If you don't know his accomplishments it's because you haven't listened for them.

And finally, I don't think anyone's voting because they think that "getting people excited" is enough to run the country, but that in addition to his experience and skills he has the ability to excite people and inspire them.

But he's been a US Senator for a relatively short period of time, and I don't usually think that community organizer, civil rights lawyer, state legislator, 1/2 a Senate term, President of the US is the usual progression. And isn't Lincoln kind of the exception, rather than the rule? Aren't most serious candidates either long term US Senators or Representatives or Governors, in which position we assume they have experience with the executive branch?

On the other hand, Hillary's own experience isn't all that much deeper if we judge her strictly for positions she was elected to or selected for on her own merits. I only mean experience that we'd think for the Presidency; I think she's an accomplished lawyer in her own right and I'm not trying to diminish that.

(I say this knowing I would have voted for Fred Thompson and he's have the same "experience" weakness using this standard.)

Well, some of the most "experienced" presidents have been the worst. Nixon ran on experience for example. He has a decent amount of state legislative experience, he's familiar to politics without being an "insider" which appeals to me. And Senators don't usually do well in national elections because so many of the Senate votes are "bad" no matter which way you vote.

Honestly the fact that he's not stuck in the Washington politics is more appealing to me. I think he and Clinton have similar levels of experience and I like him better. Thus making that choice relatively easy for me.

I think it's sometimes easier to run with no record because you're untainted, but consider the Jimmy Carter era. He's regarded as a man of great character today, but it's hard to make a case that his Presidency was good time for the USA. I think Obama would be better than Jimmy, but I'm still finding Obama a little insubstantial and not having been inside DC forever can have some drawbacks.

I prefer Obama to Clinton too, but McCain to both of them, I think.

Yeah I pretty muched missed the Jimmy Carter era and since recent history is the least taught (how much do you know about the Revolutionary War? The Civil War? WWII? Now, what about the 70s ((if you weren't alive for them)) ) I'll admit to not having a lot of perspective.

McCain, well I just don't trust him. He's a panderer and, imo, a liar. And I don't give a damn who he slept with or whether he did but lobbyists should not be making phone calls from a campaign bus. He's in bed with them, if you'll pardon the pun.

http://election.msn.com/?GT1=10928

Even if Clinton quits, which I don't think would happen, McCain will probably win. That would include people who vote for McCain, people who vote for a third party or do a write-in, and people who opt not to vote at all because they are discontent with the candidates and process.

Obama is doing extremely well in the primaries but that doesn't mean that voters are ready for Obama (the change that he claims to stand for) and that election day will come out in his favor.

That didn't take me to anywhere that backs up what you're saying. Unless you're just referencing the Clinton quits thing.

Anyway, I disagree, Obama is beating McCain in the polls now, Nader will likely be less significant than he was in 2004 and definitely won't be the factor he was in 2000. Obama does well with the independents that McCain also attracts (and even has Republicans voting for him not just against Clinton). And the man isn't just Teflon he's Kevlar thus far. He's also mobilizing the "youth vote" in a way that actually gets them to come to the voting booth not just talk on the internet. He's got a lot going for him, and, though it's possible, I don't think McCain will pull it out.

I also get the feeling that some hard core conservatives are giving up on this election cycle. I saw an article talking about how it'd be good if a Democrat won, because then the GOP would come back even stronger. That might change between now and November, but it's out there nonetheless.

Yes.

Obama may be squeaky clean in this area, but I don't think most candidates are. I don't know how long he'll stay clean if elected.

McCain is at least my third choice, but I don't think I'm going to be able to vote for Obama. I don't care about him being unproven domestically very much, but his inexperience in terms of foreign policy and national security has me thinking I'm going McCain.

And I strongly prefer Obama to Clinton.

While most of what McCain has on his website regarding his ideas surrounding foreign policy is tame, some of his comments in person have been a bit disconcerting. I'm in favor of more diplomatic measures and I'm rather tired of America's hubris and isolationism when it comes to other world governments. For example, we currently have a very pro-American French ally and we are not fostering that relationship in any useful way.

https://damicoworks.sslpowered.com/1...a/lolbama3.jpg

http://www.whatsdrivingyoucrazy.com/...02/believe.jpg

:confused:

The UFO one made more sense than the pee one.

What were they posted in response to though?

Random, I guess.

A random post on GC? Please say it isn't so.

:eek: