What the hell is Obama talking about?

Obama made fun of clinton for "throwing back a shot" saying

"After all, you've heard this kind of rhetoric before. Around election time, the candidates can’t do enough for you. They'll “promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer.

But if those same candidates are taking millions of dollars in contributions from the PACs and lobbyists, ask yourself, who are they going to be toasting once the election is over?"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_throwing_back_shots.html

However, on March 29th...

"“You know I got a beer down there,” Obama said to a male patron. “What do they call it? A Yuengling?”

“Yuengling,” the man confirmed. “Like you didn’t know.”

“Trying a Pennsylvania beer, that’s what I’m talking about,” said Obama, his sleeves rolled up, smiling. “Is it expensive, though? ... Wanna make sure it’s not some designer beer or something.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9260.html

What up with that?? How is this different?

Maybe I missed something.

when they were in Bosnia.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Simple enough.

I just wanted to hear an Obama supporter admit that fact. Not gonna happen I suppose.

in Pennsylvania.

"But if those same candidates are taking millions of dollars in contributions from the PACs and lobbyists, ask yourself, who are they going to be toasting once the election is over?"


That's the difference between Obama and the rest in a nut shell. It's why he can make promises with a straight face.

Sure, Obama is pure. Facts be damned! I got a bridge to sell ya.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I can't understand how you put up with it

Is it like how over time you can become desensitized to a really foul odor if you are always enveloped in it?

There's no need to personally insult someone here.

The % of alcohol is the big difference. Got it...and hey, good one.

And it goes very well with a beer: called a "beer and a bump" where I come from.

when he lifted the bottle? Hell, you mean to tell me he actually drank a fucking beer out of the bottle and not a forsty glass? Was that little finger sticking up? You know hoity toity people...the elite people raise their pinky's

:sarcasm:

I missed your explanation of how the situations are different.

Obama drinking a Yeungling in a bar in Latrobe wasn't - it was believable. Besides, If Obama has really wanted to pander, he would have had a Rolling Rock since it's brewed there. :P

God, you Obama supporters are kinda weird with your logic.

.....everyone knows that a shot is to be taken as the name implies - in a shot, not sipping it like it was Mint Julep, ferchrissakes.

now makes Sam Adams.

People drink it here like crazy; don't understand why I won't. Yuk! :hi:

"Rolling Rock - From the glass lined tanks of Old Latrobe, we tender this premium beer for your enjoyment as a tribute to your good taste. It comes from the mountain springs to you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Rock

Anheuser-Busch bought the brand, and they no longer brew in Latrobe.

So Yuengling was the correct choice. :)

- as

“What do they call it? A Yuengling?”--Barack Obama

"Look, look. I drink beer and shoot whiskey... and ducks, I'm just like you. Please believe me! Are you getting all this on Camera? Make sure to get the guy in the 'Dad' shirt in the picture."

She is trying to sell herself as a good ol' gal to the white males of PA.

She looks like an absolute fool. It only makes it worse that it was intentional.

You really are stretching it.

Say, why don't you phone this into the Obama Campaign? He hasn't pissed anyone off that I know of TODAY.

"Wanna make sure it’s not some designer beer or something."

Give me a BREAK. That sounds positively ASININE.

Paging handlers. paging handlers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ignored. You might not want to waste time replying but it's your nickel.

If she was gonna do it, she should have at least made it believable. Just who IS Hillary Clinton anyway? That's the problem.

Thank you for making me lose my temper.

over someone making fun of the idea of sipping a shot just because your wife does the same thing, i think anger management would help you out greatly.

And expect no one to take offense, you're an idiot.

MOST husbands defend a wife's behavior they find nothing wrong with. Why don't you try it on your SO and see how far it gets you?

I'd drop it, if I were you.

My point - Hillary shouldn't try to do things for which she has no frame of reference. She just isn't believable in a pub downing shots and drinking beer.

Don't insult a behavior, and you won't find someone taking offense.

would ya tell her to lay off the Lyin' , tyler, 'cause she's draggin' her ass down in the gutter.

"Why Hillary’s Lies are Important"

- March 24, 2008, 9:53PM
Hillary Clinton has been caught in a series of lies and misrepresentations during the primary campaign. To some of her supporters, these lies may seem trivial and insignificant and even politics-as-usual. However, please consider the serious impact of these lies by placing them in the context of the past seven years of the Bush Administration and the legacy of expanded executive power that he leaves behind. In particular, consider the dangerous message that the Clinton campaign sends by employing similar tactics to achieve her political goals.

1. The Florida and Michigan Primaries / The Delegate Count
Hillary agreed to honor the DNC’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates after their primaries were moved up into January in express violation of the DNC rules. She did not change her position on the validity of these primaries until she found herself unexpectedly behind in the delegate count and desperately needed to claim the delegates that she had won in these unsanctioned contests. As her chances of winning the nomination became increasingly slim in recent weeks, we have been presented with threatening and desperate lines of reasoning for why these primary results should count as is. At the same time, Clinton and her surrogates continue to propose different metrics for determining who should win the nomination even though there is and has been a clearly defined process in place for several decades.

Please think about the implications of changing election rules after the fact. We have suffered through at least one stolen presidential election and the manipulation of untold numbers of Congressional and state elections through various vote tampering and voter intimidation schemes used by the Republicans and their allies. The American people (and especially Democratic voters) have lost faith in the integrity of the election process. The Clinton strategy to continually change the rules for determining the Democratic Party nominee sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to increasingly un-Democratic elections in the future if it is allowed to succeed. If anything, we need more transparency and methods of accountability in our elections in order to repair the damage done in recent years and to restore our confidence in the Government.

2. The Bosnia Fabrication / Exaggerated Experience Claims
Hillary fabricated a story about a dangerous, life-risking visit to Bosnia in order to gain stature as an experienced negotiator in international conflicts and war. While this type of embellishment can seem almost comical, it represents a willingness to distort reality in order to influence the public perception. This is the same type of distortion that the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq, although the magnitude of the lie is certainly on a different scale. The Bush administration falsified reports, cherry-picked intelligence, used unreliable sources, and employed fear-mongering tactics to convince the American public that our safety was at risk and as such, you were either with us or with the terrorists. The lies used by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeachable offenses and should be condemned by all Americans. Sadly, the Clinton campaign seems to have shown a shocking willingness to employ the same tactics to create a more favorable reality and to rely on divide-and-conquer rhetoric to weaken opposition. Her attempts to frighten the American people by conjuring up 3 AM phone calls are bad enough, but her vote of confidence in John McCain over Barack Obama should be seen as treason against the Democratic Party.

3. NAFTA
Hillary lied about her position on NAFTA and used her lies in a calculated way to influence the Ohio primary. Recently released White House documents confirm that Hillary had been an active proponent of NAFTA prior to its passage, and she has continued to support it publicly in her speeches and memoir. However, while campaigning in Ohio, she claimed to have been privately against NAFTA during the Clinton presidency and believes that it should be rewritten to protect American jobs and workers. This type of maneuvering is reminiscent of the behind-closed-doors policy-making that the Bush administration has used during the past seven years. Specifically, Bush and Cheney have made policy decisions without providing transparency to Congress or the public, and President Bush has repeatedly ignored the rule of law by issuing signing statements and disregarding the parts of the laws that he doesn’t agree with. If we cannot trust Hillary to be truthful about her positions on critical legislative issues now, how can we trust that she will be truthful as president?

These are just three examples that illustrate the concerns we should have with a candidate who demonstrates a sense of entitlement to the nomination and is willing to lie, misrepresent, threaten, and divide in order to obtain the nomination. President Bush and the neoconservative movement have greatly harmed this country by the creation of an imperial-like presidency. This election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. The framers of the Constitution were in such fear of an imperial president that mechanisms for impeachment are prominently and explicitly included in the Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-h ...

<snip>

"Her response to being caught lying to a military audience, when she invented a story about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, was to say it wasn't surprising she got some things wrong, seeing how she spoke millions of words every day. What a magnificent idea, that if you say lots of words some of them are bound to be fantastic lies. So if you listen carefully to horse-racing commentators they say things like "And it's Teddy's Boy still leading three furlongs out as they come up to the fourth last fence with Nip and Tuck two lengths behind by the way I fought a tiger once, punched it clean out and they're all safely over."



<lots more>
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article3 ...

"It's not that lying to pad the resume, avoid Indictment or to advance her political fortune is anything new for Hillary Clinton. She famously said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (debunked); she told New Yorkers she was a Yankee fan when she lived in Chicago (debunked); she told rural New Yorkers that she was a "duck hunter" (debunked); she claimed that her daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center at the time of the 9/11 attack (debunked by Chelsea herself.) And, those subpoenaed Rose Law billing records just happened to show up one day on a hallway table in the most monitored home in America!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

and the demographics...and what better way to get to know voters than to sit down and have a drink and an honest talk with them?

If he wants to attack her on her attempts to characterize herself as not an elitist to his supposed elitism, he should go the class-war angle by promoting that she has 1/10th of a billion dollars while people are struggling to get by on food stamps. As crappy as that'd be, since she is using right-wing talking points here trying to label him as being "too liberal" to be in touch with the common man that'd be the angle i think.

:eyes:

as Obama did, there would be no issue. The problem was her having a shot -- something no one should do in the middle of a working day -- and then doing it badly. The photo of her with the crossed eyes undid whatever good will she got out of throwing down the shot.

In situations like that, you take the beer -- decline the shot if offered -- take a few sips out of the beer and go on with your business, unless you're a power drinker and can do it with some dignity and no after affects -- like screwing up your next speech.

I was once at a business banquet in Russia. They placed one quart of vodka on the table for every three people. Then, someone proposed a toast. Having drunk with Russians at banquets before, I warned the friend I was with not to drink the vodka, merely touch the glass to his lips. He looked at me strangely, but I told him to just do what I said. About an hour and 30 or 40 toasts later, some of the non-Russians were falling out of their chairs or passed out on the table and others were out puking in the hallway (the Russians kept replacing bottles as they were emptied). The worst ones were the Aussies, who had shown up three sheets to the wind.

The reason shots are dangerous for politicians in front of the camera is (a) it impairs you, (b) unless you're really good at it, you can end up choking or sputtering or having your face turn red, and (c)if you are good at it, you probably shouldn't let people know you like to toss them back in the daytime. That makes some people nervous.

Candidates are offered a lot of weird shit on the campaign trail. Political instinct is what tells them how to handle it. She's not doing well with that. She's suffering now and she keeps handing opportunities to critics and political cartoonists. It's almost like a death wish.

sipping a beer and taking a shot? no difference

Where did I say or imply that she was drunk?

But, if you're a heavy hitter in the shot and beer department, then one probably won't make you noticeably drunk. However, if I were a candidate with that "quality," I might not want voters to know I could pound 'em down.

Yes, there is a big difference between taking a few sips from a beer and tossing a shot down your gullet, followed by a beer. Big difference.

What is it with Hillary supporters claiming that people said things they didn't say? Maybe the Clintons' inability to tell the truth is what attracts them so.

It doesn't really show me anything but a photo opportunity that never went anywhere. Was she doing it to impress middle -aged men? I don't think many women especially her age thought it was very smart of her to do.

:beer:

It's a delicate balance between wanting to look like "one of the guys" and looking like someone who is way too good at belting down neat whiskey.

But it's also something you don't do in the middle of a working day when you've got important work to do. When I was working, I was often offered liquor at lunch. I like my liquor as much as anyone, but I would never do it. In fact, I wouldn't do it after hours, if there was still work to be done.

Hillary is in the fight of her life. She really needs to stay sharp. Tossing down boilermakers is not designed to keep you sharp. In fact, quite the opposite. People do that specifically to get a buzz on. A few polite sips on a beer -- fine. More than that and you're playing with fire.