The 2008 Presidential Race

[Jujubees2]

No. But at that time the economy wasn't like it is today. I'm just saying that raising taxes now would really hurt the average American even more than they are already hurting.

But it's all semantics. They wouldn't be raising anyone's taxes just going back to the way it was before Bush decided that the upper 1% needed to hold on to more of their millions. You average Joe wouldn't see any difference.

[foodcourtdruide]

No. But at that time the economy wasn't like it is today. I'm just saying that raising taxes now would really hurt the average American even more than they are already hurting.

Completely disagree. Increasing our debt to foreign nations is going to hurt the average American more than raising taxes.

I heard McCain's tax plan and it makes no sense to me.

1. The gas tax holiday is insane. We're supposed to be reducing our dependence on oil, not increasing it by lowering taxes. Also, gas is taxes 18 cents per gallon, is that REALLY saving us a ton of money? All this really helps is the gas companies, who basically get an 18 cents reduction of their product without losing a penny.

2. I agree that the government will eventually have to bail individuals out of their bad mortgages, but where on Earth is he seeing this money come from? His plan will force us to borrow from another Country, and the interest will probably be more than the interest the U.S. government would get back from the mortgages they'd be handing out. And why don't the mortgage companies have to take any responsibility for giving out risky mortgages? We're so quick to blame the individual, but there were two sides to those deals.

3. His idea of introducing an alternative tax system to reduce confusion and tax code would do the exact opposite. This is common sense. There is currently one tax system. He does not want to eradicate that tax system, but add an additional one. That would mean:

current tax confusion + current tax code + new tax confusion + new tax code

I'm sorry, his ideas suck and are extremely short sighted.

[JerseySean]

But it's all semantics. They wouldn't be raising anyone's taxes just going back to the way it was before Bush decided that the upper 1% needed to hold on to more of their millions. You average Joe wouldn't see any difference.

That is not true. If you are single making 40K a year; under pre-Bush cuts, you would pay 28%. Under the Bush plan, you now pay 25%. That is a difference for the "average Joe". If you make $297,350 or more, you pay the same 39.6% as before. The one thing that you cant dispute about the Bush economic policies is that the tax cuts have worked.

I own a business and am filed as an S-Corp. I pay NO taxes and am exempt from SS and Medicare taxes because I have opted out of the SS system. Under the Democrat plan, I will take an 18% hit on my income for SS and Medicare and at least a 3% increase. I can't afford that and this is the troublesome part of the Dems tax strategy.

[ShowerBench]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LvUNFmB7Jl8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LvUNFmB7Jl8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[NewYorkDragons80]

I heard McCain's tax plan and it makes no sense to me.

1. The gas tax holiday is insane. We're supposed to be reducing our dependence on oil, not increasing it by lowering taxes. Also, gas is taxes 18 cents per gallon, is that REALLY saving us a ton of money? All this really helps is the gas companies, who basically get an 18 cents reduction of their product without losing a penny.
So everyone's supposed to have a hydrogen car by June? The roaring 90s was the time to pull the oil card, but we're a little bit past that right now. The economy takes precedence and we can worry about oil in 12-18 months. This benefits the consumers in the short term and increases the likelihood that they'll travel by car (or travel, period). That benefits the businesses they'll be patronizing on the way, too.

[HBox]

So everyone's supposed to have a hydrogen car by June? The roaring 90s was the time to pull the oil card, but we're a little bit past that right now. The economy takes precedence and we can worry about oil in 12-18 months. This benefits the consumers in the short term and increases the likelihood that they'll travel by car (or travel, period). That benefits the businesses they'll be patronizing on the way, too.

And oil prices will be just that much higher after all this increased demand.

The idea should be to encourage less oil consumption. That would lower prices. This is like taking a $10 bill from someone on the condition he's going rip your nuts off next week.

[foodcourtdruide]

So everyone's supposed to have a hydrogen car by June? The roaring 90s was the time to pull the oil card, but we're a little bit past that right now. The economy takes precedence and we can worry about oil in 12-18 months. This benefits the consumers in the short term and increases the likelihood that they'll travel by car (or travel, period). That benefits the businesses they'll be patronizing on the way, too.

It's such a tiny benefit. Oil prices will probably go up more anyway. Is the 18 cents a gallon going to really make anyone decide for or against a road trip? Would a 6 percent decrease in Airline tickets cause a sudden HUGE boost in air travel?

Also, if it does encourage people to consume more oil it would be a BAD thing, it would just make us that much more worse off when the tax break is over. We should worry about oil NOW. Why would we choose the quick-fix for our economy? That's what got us into this mess to begin with!

And I'm not saying everyone will have a hydrogen car by June, but I think it's pretty simple to see that the way to promote alternative energy is NOT by making gas more affordable.

[scottinnj]

But it's all semantics. They wouldn't be raising anyone's taxes just going back to the way it was before Bush decided that the upper 1% needed to hold on to more of their millions. You average Joe wouldn't see any difference.

yea you would. I got a tax break, and I'm not in the upper 1%

[keithy_19]

yea you would. I got a tax break, and I'm not in the upper 1%

You're in my upper 1%
:bye:

[epo]

Some comedy to laugh at this Obama/Clinton mess:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zi6mP6l6nBI&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zi6mP6l6nBI&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[epo]

The Wall Street Journal has thrown in the towel for Hillary since she won't....

The Democrats have a nominee: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120899521565139921.html?mod=todays_columnists)

No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it's going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008.

At least the republicans will know who to hate now.

[K.C.]

The Wall Street Journal has thrown in the towel for Hillary since she won't....

The Democrats have a nominee: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120899521565139921.html?mod=todays_columnists)



It's a faulty premise. The majority of superdelegates won't declare until this thing is over.

As far as Hilldog goes, there's an article up on Kos's site right now (the staunchest of Obama supporters) talking about the potential problem for Obama in the Appalachian states, which is important with West Virginia and Kentucky still up .

Hillary has posted totals as high as 90% in some Appalachian counties so far this primary cycle.

If she wins in Indiana, hold her ground in NC (Obama's 15% lead has dwindled to 9% in the last poll), and posts some blowouts in some extremely favorable races on the calendar for her such as West Virginia, Kentucky, and ESPECIALLY Puerto Rico which has way more delegates than it probably deserves, she's going to close the delegate gap significantly.

It's still unlikely she over comes Obama's delegate count, but a near running the table, paired with the popular vote (a possibility), paired with his inability to close really could swing this thing back to her, as unbelievable as it may seem.



I can't say it enough times...Obama needs to knock her out. You think people are starting to waver on his toughness right now...wait for the frenzy next month if she's still pounding him in some of these states.

[Dude!]

she can pounce on him now for refusal to debate
make him look even more like he is a wuss who is afraid of her

i like obama but it is chickenshit to be afraid to debate

[foodcourtdruide]

she can pounce on him now for refusal to debate
make him look even more like he is a wuss who is afraid of her

i like obama but it is chickenshit to be afraid to debate

I don't think this will play out like this. They've had 21 debates. I don't know what else they could talk about.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I don't think this will play out like this. They've had 21 debates. I don't know what else they could talk about.
With the tone of the last debate, Obama definitely has the upper ground on this

[K.C.]

With the tone of the last debate, Obama definitely has the upper ground on this

Not when he doesn't know how to spin why he doesn't want to debate. He's horrible at playing the media game.



Howard Dean made some really curious comments on Meet The Press today. He basically said that the Super Delegates should vote for who's more electable, not necessairly who has the most pledged delegates.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Not when he doesn't know how to spin why he doesn't want to debate. He's horrible at playing the media game.



Howard Dean made some really curious comments on Meet The Press today. He basically said that the Super Delegates should vote for who's more electable, not necessairly who has the most pledged delegates.
He also said that there's effectively a tie. Democrats should be proud to have such a courageous man heading their party.

[Dude!]

Not when he doesn't know how to spin why he doesn't want to debate. He's horrible at playing the media game.



Howard Dean made some really curious comments on Meet The Press today. He basically said that the Super Delegates should vote for who's more electable, not necessairly who has the most pledged delegates.

i noticed that too
his stance was tacit pro-hillary

i wonder if there is some dirt on obama that dean knows is going to come out
so he is laying the groundwork to dump obama

[K.C.]

i noticed that too
his stance was tacit pro-hillary

i wonder if there is some dirt on obama that dean knows is going to come out
so he is laying the groundwork to dump obama



Yikes...SurveyUSA has Clinton +9 in Indiana and Obama down to +5 in North Carolina (once led by 25).

If he gets blown out in Indiana and loses NC, he's in free fall.

Doesn't help tht the NC Governor endorsed Hilldog today, and the belief is that if John Edwards endorses, it'll be to her as well.


Obama's just taking punch after punch after punch.

[foodcourtdruide]

Yikes...SurveyUSA has Clinton +9 in Indiana and Obama down to +5 in North Carolina (once led by 25).

If he gets blown out in Indiana and loses NC, he's in free fall.

Doesn't help tht the NC Governor endorsed Hilldog today, and the belief is that if John Edwards endorses, it'll be to her as well.


Obama's just taking punch after punch after punch.

If that happened he probably wouldn't lose more than 10 delegates. He's still over +100 delegates. I don't think that's a freefall.

[NewYorkDragons80]

If he gets blown out in Indiana and loses NC, he's in free fall.

Doesn't help tht the NC Governor endorsed Hilldog today, and the belief is that if John Edwards endorses, it'll be to her as well.
If Obama can't win NC, he's in deep shit

What's wrong with Wright? Obama stood by him in the best way he viably could. Now he comes out with more crap? Is this a behind the scenes move to give Obama the opportunity to sever his ties to Wright? If so, it's a risky move to rehash the old AIDS conspiracy. This election is a sideshow. I don't even know what to make of it anymore

[TheMojoPin]

Just get it over with and give it to Hillary. It somehow always felt inevitable. The sooner this gets done, the sooner I can decide whether or not I need to waste a day at the DMV registering to vote here.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Just get it over with and give it to Hillary. It somehow always felt inevitable.
I always felt the exact same way. As soon as that Time magazine article said it would be Hillary and McCain back in 06, you might as well have gotten the bumper stickers then. When's the last time a frontrunner lost in the primary? Kerry wasn't exactly anointed, but he was an establishment guy in a field without a frontrunner in the beginning. I guess Clinton was the last... I mean that was pretty much Tsongas's, right?

[K.C.]

Just get it over with and give it to Hillary. It somehow always felt inevitable. The sooner this gets done, the sooner I can decide whether or not I need to waste a day at the DMV registering to vote here.

If Obama loses the nomination, this would be one of the all-time political meltdowns.

All he has needed for two months is one more big win. If she runs the table on him, it would be absolutely incredible.

But more and more, it's looking like a possibility.

[NewYorkDragons80]

If Obama loses the nomination, this would be one of the all-time political meltdowns.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Rudy_Giuliani.jpg/467px-Rudy_Giuliani.jpg
I dithagree

[epo]

Just get it over with and give it to Hillary. It somehow always felt inevitable. The sooner this gets done, the sooner I can decide whether or not I need to waste a day at the DMV registering to vote here.

Fuck that. I refuse to give the party back to the Clintonistas.

Their brand of politics fucked us everywhere on the ticket except for them. We lost record numbers of national, state and local races because of their politics and their organizational tactics. I refuse to move backwards, not this far into the battle.

They can blow me.

[TheMojoPin]

If Obama loses the nomination, this would be one of the all-time political meltdowns.

Doubtful. If she wins, she'll be sneaking away with it. Even if he continues to slip, she's never going to trounce him.

[K.C.]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Rudy_Giuliani.jpg/467px-Rudy_Giuliani.jpg
I dithagree

Good point.

[TheMojoPin]

Fuck that. I refuse to give the party back to the Clintonistas.

Their brand of politics fucked us everywhere on the ticket except for them. We lost record numbers of national, state and local races because of their politics and their organizational tactics. I refuse to move backwards, not this far into the battle.

They can blow me.

That's what I wouldn't vote for her. And I've pledged to never vote for anyone over the age of 70 ever again. If there's no Obama, I'm staying home. I have no idea if anything would be different under him...it could very easily be business as usual...but out of the 3, he's the only one that has at least a chance of not being a repeat of the last 8 years or the Clinton years sans the booming economy and "peacetime" he had dumped in his lap.

[Gvac]

I honestly cannot fucking wait for this election to be over. It feels like it's been going on for 2 years now, and I can't believe we've got another 6 months of this bullshit.

I swear to God, I want a Federal Law enacted stating that political campaigns of any kind cannot begin sooner than 6 months prior to the election.

[badmonkey]

If Obama can't win NC, he's in deep shit

What's wrong with Wright? Obama stood by him in the best way he viably could. Now he comes out with more crap? Is this a behind the scenes move to give Obama the opportunity to sever his ties to Wright? If so, it's a risky move to rehash the old AIDS conspiracy. This election is a sideshow. I don't even know what to make of it anymore

Winner! (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/29/transcript-obama-press-conference-on-jeremiah-wright/)

[K.C.]

Doubtful. If she wins, she'll be sneaking away with it. Even if he continues to slip, she's never going to trounce him.

She absolutely will trounce him in Kentucky and West Virginia which are up after these two states...same with Puerto Rico.

You could be looking at 65% of the votes in all three of those primaries, easily.

And at that point, if he's lost Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico since his last big win...

What makes anyone believe he'll be able to make a stand in any of the remaining states on the calendar.



And I think if she ends up winning the nomination in that manner, a lot of spin of 'she stole it' that people think would create a huge backlash will give way to 'he lost it' and that there really won't be a huge "we're not voting for her because she took it."


Honestly, I like Obama and would vote for him...but if he can't make a stand somewhere, he probably shouldn't be the nominee, if you're thinking in terms of strategy.

If all that comes to pass, she would be the better nominee. And that's why it'd be an all-time political meltdown.

[K.C.]

It feels like it's been going on for 2 years now, and I can't believe we've got another 6 months of this bullshit.

Actually for close to four...I'm pretty sure Edwards started campaigning immediately after the '04 defeat.

[TheMojoPin]

If all that comes to pass, she would be the better nominee. And that's why it'd be an all-time political meltdown.

I still don't see how. It's not like he came into this with anything more than a longshot. A "meltdown" strikes me more as Rudy being a sure thing and then imploding, or if Hillary loses after coming into this all but crowned.

I'm not saying she won't win, but her creeping out just over the top doesn't really strike me as much of a "meltdown" for anyone going up against the First Family of the Democratic party.

[K.C.]

I still don't see how. It's not like he came into this with anything more than a longshot. A "meltdown" strikes me more as Rudy being a sure thing and then imploding, or if Hillary loses after coming into this all but crowned.

I'm not saying she won't win, but her creeping out just over the top doesn't really strike me as much of a "meltdown" for anyone going up against the First Family of the Democratic party.

He has a nearly mathematically insurmountable pledged delegate lead.

For the Super Delegates to jump to Hillary at the end of the day, it would mean that his stock has plummeted so low in their minds that they see him as unelectable at this point.

And it's not like a lot of these people like the Clintons. People like Howard Dean hate them. But he made the statement he did because he's seeing the Obama star starting to take a bit of a dive.


While I agree...Rudy may be the ALL-TIME meltdown, this is a pretty big one...by all accounts of the party insiders, Obama has needed ONE more big victory since Potomic Primaries to get the Super Delegates off the sidelines and behind him to force Hillary out.

For him to go from that position to losing the nomination would be pretty remarkable.

And especially when you consider the money he has, which is like six or seven times what she has at this point.

[scottinnj]

Well, Ed Schultz said today that the lady who invited Pastor Wright to the NPC luncheon to let him lose his mind once again in front of a national audience is a Clintonista.

Go figure.

[scottinnj]

Actually for close to four...I'm pretty sure Edwards started campaigning immediately after the '04 defeat.

Yeah, there was a six-month primary to nominate his new hairdresser.

[Dude!]

If Obama loses the nomination, this would be one of the all-time political meltdowns.

All he has needed for two months is one more big win. If she runs the table on him, it would be absolutely incredible.

obama '08 = mets '07

[ShowerBench]

This was before Wright Week:

Clinton/McCain (291-247)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/Apr29.png

Obama/McCain (243-269)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/Apr29.png

[NewYorkDragons80]

And I've pledged to never vote for anyone over the age of 70 ever again.
So I take it you threw in the towel after the Perot/Stockdale campaign in which you invested so much emotion.

[epo]

Well, Ed Schultz said today that the lady who invited Pastor Wright to the NPC luncheon to let him lose his mind once again in front of a national audience is a Clintonista.

Go figure.

Which is utterly ironic considering Clinton's association with The Fellowship (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich).

[NewYorkDragons80]

Which is udderly ironic considering Clinton's association with The Fellowship (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich).
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/udder_200.jpg
Udderly, indeed

[TheMojoPin]

Yikes...SurveyUSA has Clinton +9 in Indiana and Obama down to +5 in North Carolina (once led by 25).

Serious question...should we place more stock in SurveyUSA for any real reason? Just scanning around, Rasmussen has Obama still up by 14 points in NC and CNN has them both tied in Indiana. Who should be listen to?

[HBox]

Serious question...should we place more stock in SurveyUSA for any real reason? Just scanning around, Rasmussen has Obama still up by 14 points in NC and CNN has them both tied in Indiana. Who should be listen to?

Listen to Pollster's poll of polls. (http://www.pollster.com/)

http://www.pollster.com/08INPresDems600.png
Indiana here. (http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php)

http://www.pollster.com/08NCPresDemsZOOMr600.png
North Carolina here. (http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php)

[TheMojoPin]

Thanks, HBox.

[K.C.]

Serious question...should we place more stock in SurveyUSA for any real reason? Just scanning around, Rasmussen has Obama still up by 14 points in NC and CNN has them both tied in Indiana. Who should be listen to?

SurveyUSA has actually gotten a lot of traction since California...they were one of the only polls to accurately reflect the result, I believe.

And in general, they've been more accurate than Zogby, Rasmussen, and CNN.

Now, I was just reading that they've missed the margin a bit in terms of Southern states...but I'd say they've done a pretty good job this time around.

If I had to guess in terms of my feeling of taking everything in...Obama has probably a 10%-12% lead. That would be down from his previous lead close to 20%.

Regardless of what polls you believe, be it the SurveyUSA at +9 or the others, they're all showing him losing part of his margin.

[TheMojoPin]

Nobody said his lead hasn't shrunk. What is being pointed out is the SurveyUSA numbers are drastically different from almost all the other major polling sources. It also seems there Indiana numbers are way off from everyone else. Why should they get so much more credit for getting one state right?

[NewYorkDragons80]

Nobody said his lead hasn't shrunk. What is being pointed out is the SurveyUSA numbers are drastically different from almost all the other major polling sources. It also seems there Indiana numbers are way off from everyone else. Why should they get so much more credit for getting one state right?
Realclearpolitics avg is the way to go, IMO

[epo]

Lookie, lookie! Guess who got Rev. Jeremiah Wright the gig at the National Press Club that started this whole shit storm....a Clinton supporter.

And guess who is trying to bury that connection...the fucking Clinton campaign.

Link here. (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/349)

[FUNKMAN]

i saw Obama speak today and he held up pretty well. this Rev Wright issue has to be the toughest adversity either of the three remaining candidates have faced and he's still standing, still in the lead on the democratic side. i give him a bunch of credit for it

from what I'm seeing it looks like the media can make or break any one of these candidates if they so choose to do. it's too much power in their hands... you would have to believe more than half the people who vote do so by just what they see on the news. sure it's their fault but doesn't mean there isn't fault on both sides

[Friday]

obama '08 = mets '07

Not Funneh!! :nono:

[A.J.]

I honestly cannot fucking wait for this election to be over. It feels like it's been going on for 2 years now, and I can't believe we've got another 6 months of this bullshit.

I swear to God, I want a Federal Law enacted stating that political campaigns of any kind cannot begin sooner than 6 months prior to the election.

Indeed.

But remember, this is "the most important election EVER"!!!!

[epo]

Oh look! Clinton is trying to suppress the black vote in North Carolina. Should I be surprised?

Obama: Robocalls 'extremely disturbing' (http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/obama_robocalls_extremely_disturbing)

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, legal counsel Bob Bauer said that recent robocalls by Women's Voices Women Vote to North Carolina voters fit "the classic model of voter suppression" by introducing confusion just before an election.

Link to audio of a sample call here. (http://www.democracy-nc.org/nc/spprncall.wav)

Luckily the state elections board is trying to hunt down the caller identified as "Lamont Williams (http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/elections_board_hunting_robocaller)"...which is a fictious name used by the robocalls. But let's face it, Lamont Williams doesn't exist...rather he is a "black name" used to suppress the votes of black voters in North Carolina.

And the "Women's Voice Women Vote" is supporting which candidate? Hillary Clinton of course! What a leader she is!

[A.J.]

Luckily the state elections board is trying to hunt down the caller identified as "Lamont Williams (http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/elections_board_hunting_robocaller)"...which is a fictious name used by the robocalls. But let's face it, Lamont Williams doesn't exist...rather he is a "black name" used to suppress the votes of black voters in North Carolina.

Lamont's a big dummy.

http://needcoffee.cachefly.net/html/dvd/images/sason1-2_1.jpg

[K.C.]

Bad news keeps on coming:

Last three North Carolina polls:
Mason-Dixon: Obama 49, Clinton 42
Insider Advantage: Clinton 44, Obama 42
SurveyUSA : Obama 49, Clinton 44 (we've discussed this one already)

RealClearPolitics average has Obama at +7


Last three Indiana polls
Rasmussen: Clinton 46, Obama 41
PPP: Clinton 50, Obama 42
SurveyUSA: Clinton 52, Obama 43

RealClearPolitics average has Clinton +2 (a lower number because RCP takes the Top 6, and there are three polls from well over a week ago that had Obama leading)


But perhaps more disheartening:

Quinnipiac General Election Swing State polls:

Florida: McCain 44, Obama 43
Florida: Clinton 49, McCain 41

Ohio: McCain 43, Obama 42
Ohio: Clinton 48, McCain 38

Pennsylvania: Obama 47, McCain 38
Pennsylvania: Clinton 51, McCain 37


I know Obama is only trailing by a point in Florida and Ohio, but the Clinton camp will be all over it for the next couple days saying it's proof that he can't win where Democrats need to win.

That one point in Florida and one point in Ohio could cost him more primary votes what's shaping up to be two close primary races.

[TheMojoPin]

So to find evidence of Hillary's advisors spouting racist garbage and insulting an entire state, one only has to look to the mainstream documentary The War Room.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN_nQOHj__s&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN_nQOHj__s&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Hey, that's very convenient and thoughtful of them!

[A.J.]

So to find evidence of Hillary's advisors spouting racist garbage and insulting an entire state, one only has to look to the mainstream documentary The War Room.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN_nQOHj__s&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN_nQOHj__s&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Hey, that's very convenient and thoughtful of them!

Never again Mickey Kantor. Never again.

[ShowerBench]

Looks like the gullible have fallen for the Obama bullshit again.

The story is already debunked. Kantor says "THOSE PEOPLE ARE SHITTING.." - about their opponents, not Hoosiers.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Pennebaker_Clip_Doctoered.html

"Those people are shit" doesn't even make sense in the context of noting that your candidate is WINNING the state, but that's something that would require an IQ over 70 or haven't OD'd on Kool Aid to process.

Original video, comment around 4:30 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_wKOgMNs0U

[foodcourtdruide]

Looks like the gullible have fallen for the Obama bullshit again.

The story is already debunked. Kantor says "THOSE PEOPLE ARE SHITTING.." - about their opponents, not Hoosiers.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Pennebaker_Clip_Doctoered.html

"Those people are shit" doesn't even make sense in the context of noting that your candidate is WINNING the state, but that's something that would require an IQ over 70 or haven't OD'd on Kool Aid to process.

Original video, comment around 4:30 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_wKOgMNs0U

When someone disagrees with me I like to make personal attacks on their intelligence.

Ohhhh wise showerbench, you are so much smarter than the rest of us!

THANK YOU!!!!!

[TheMojoPin]

Hmmmm, I may have jumped the gun on that one...looks like the video has already been yanked. I have absolutely no idea, however, how that one is "Obama bullshit," SB. You got something to back that up?

And there's really no explaning away the second comment that SB doesn't even touch. The people "deunking" it are loyal Clintonites. The "debunking" doesn't really hold up on that comment at all. Nobody can actually break down how it's supposedly "doctored." The "shitting" part is used out of context, but the second comment is what it is. Please, try and explain it away. Find some proof that the audio track there has been doctored. If Pennebaker isn't just scrambling, he can easily genuinely debunk this. Let's see what happens.

[ShowerBench]

The "shitting" part is used out of context, but the second comment is what it is. Please, try and explain it away. Find some proof that the audio track there has been doctored. If Pennebaker isn't just scrambling, he can easily genuinely debunk this. Let's see what happens.

It doesn't MAKE SENSE to slur a state you're gloating about doing well in.

Two words: Occam's Razor.

[ShowerBench]

The "uniting" Obama camp smears someone who's never said N***er. Nice.

(I've said it and would bet everyone on this board has)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/02/clinton-adviser-claims-in_n_99810.html

Mickey Kantor, who served as campaign chairman during Clinton's 1992 run for the White House and says he has offered help and advice to Sen. Clinton, insisted that the tape was a fraud and that he was exploring legal steps against the individual who posted it online.

"I've never used that word in my entire life, ever, under any circumstance, ever," an angry Kantor told The Huffington Post, citing his and his parent's work fighting for civil rights.

[TheMojoPin]

Maybe he's just a huge Elvis Costello fan.

What is he supposed to actually be saying? Why is he being all whispery and giggly like he's telling some really naughty and he's a bashful schoolgirl?

If it's been faked, it should be a simple matter to see it debunked. If it is, a buffet of crow will be served. Until then, we're waiting.

[epo]

The "uniting" Obama camp smears someone who's never said N***er. Nice.

(I've said it and would bet everyone on this board has)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/02/clinton-adviser-claims-in_n_99810.html

Mickey Kantor, who served as campaign chairman during Clinton's 1992 run for the White House and says he has offered help and advice to Sen. Clinton, insisted that the tape was a fraud and that he was exploring legal steps against the individual who posted it online.

"I've never used that word in my entire life, ever, under any circumstance, ever," an angry Kantor told The Huffington Post, citing his and his parent's work fighting for civil rights.

I haven't seen the clip yet, as I'm at work with plenty of filters. However, why would this necessarily be the work of the Obama camp? There seems to be plenty of individuals on all sides (including external) of this campaign pulling plenty of bullshit.

(By the way, by historical terms this has actually been a quite civil race. The length however is driving us all insane.)

[epo]

It doesn't MAKE SENSE to slur a state you're gloating about doing well in.

Two words: Occam's Razor.

Ah, yes. The simplest answer is often true. Now explain why Fox News has been gutting Obama for the last two months while leaving Hillary nearly untouched......

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2007/220107clinton3.jpg

Could it be that they are friendly?

[epo]

I've often talked about how the Clinton's don't give a shit about the Democratic Party and only themselves. Well here is some further proof:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1_ma-1w6BFs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1_ma-1w6BFs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

That's right she just told us that she wants to know who is "with us or against us". What leadership, especially when you are clearly pandering!

[scottinnj]

I blame Chelsea.

[scottinnj]

she wants to know who is "with us or against us."

she has to know now, how else will she have the time to compile her enemy list, and have their fbi files ready to be moved to the west wing, just like hubby did!

i'll say it again-anyone but her!

[HBox]

I've often talked about how the Clinton's don't give a shit about the Democratic Party and only themselves. Well here is some further proof:

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1_ma-1w6BFs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

That's right she just told us that she wants to know who is "with us or against us". What leadership, especially when you are clearly pandering!

Stupid in more ways than I can comprehend. First of all the majority of uncommitted super delegates are in Congress so its not really in her best interest to be attacking them in this way. Second this measure would help oil companies. It would spur demand for gas, increasing prices and and therefore their bottom line. They could also simply raise prices to make up for the tax elimination, essentially taking money away from the government and putting it right into the oil companies pockets. Thirdly the absolute disrespect and contempt she is showing for the populace by acting as if they are so stupid not to realize any of this (not that i can blame her, she's probably right).

I could go on but I'm not.

[Philly Franko]

JIMMY TIDE 08' ...he gets my Vote. Billary was picked to follow mr BUSH 27% Approval rating...scares me how she said...Do you want me to NUKE Iran...I will...she is nuts and will do anything to Lead our evil Empire...God Bless Us All.

[FUNKMAN]

i saw Obama speak today and he held up pretty well. this Rev Wright issue has to be the toughest adversity either of the three remaining candidates have faced and he's still standing, still in the lead on the democratic side. i give him a bunch of credit for it

from what I'm seeing it looks like the media can make or break any one of these candidates if they so choose to do. it's too much power in their hands... you would have to believe more than half the people who vote do so by just what they see on the news. sure it's their fault but doesn't mean there isn't fault on both sides

Ah, yes. The simplest answer is often true. Now explain why Fox News has been gutting Obama for the last two months while leaving Hillary nearly untouched......

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2007/220107clinton3.jpg

Could it be that they are friendly?


Go Figure!

[ShowerBench]

I've often talked about how the Clinton's don't give a shit about the Democratic Party and only themselves. Well here is some further proof:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1_ma-1w6BFs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1_ma-1w6BFs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

That's right she just told us that she wants to know who is "with us or against us". What leadership, especially when you are clearly pandering!

Politicians pander. Three weeks ago Obama said "I can no longer disown him than I could the black community or my own white grandmother." Last week he disowned him.

"With Us or Against Us" is another way of saying "I'm not one of those fat cats in DC." Obama says it all the time. Yesterday he, a US Senator, referred to Clinton and McCain as his "Washington" opponents.

Do Clintons give a shit about the Democratic party and themselves? I think they believe they ARE the Democratic party, at least that they're the only representatives of the "real" Democratic party in the current nomination race. I agree with them on the latter.

The Democratic party doesn't stand for representing black voters + urban white college kids and liberal $200,000+ earners. Three groups that have nothing in common.

Democrats represent the underdogs and the economically/socially disadvantaged and Obama doesn't (Clinton would be getting 90% of the black vote if Obama were white). When Obama tries to preach about their struggles he sounds awkward and uncomfortable. He is most comfortable boasting about his magical power to unite people and to change politics, which no one has been able to do in this nation's entire history. The message only appeals to college kids who don't have any responsibilities and rich liberals who like to feel good about themselves.

Elderly voters, hispanics, working class whites, and blacks are the core of the Democratic party. Obama has alienated three out of four of those groups. If he wins the nomination, he will lose. He will not be able to pivot toward winning over the center as he should because he'll be too busy trying to win back those traditional constituencies. (Clinton could win back blacks by simply putting a black VP on the ticket or with Obama's strong endorsement, which he would give since he wants a political future).

[epo]

"With Us or Against Us" is another way of saying "I'm not one of those fat cats in DC."



It's also a way to put your fellow democratic politicans in Washington in a horrible position, especially those in House races & Senators up for re-election in the fall. She just gave republicans in those election a possible talking point about how those "tax & spend" liberals didn't give you a lower gas price this past summer. This is the type of shit that proves the point that the Clintons are out for themselves, and themselves only.

Do Clintons give a shit about the Democratic party and themselves? I think they believe they ARE the Democratic party, at least that they're the only representatives of the "real" Democratic party in the current nomination race. I agree with them on the latter.

They are the Democratic Party of the 90's, but not the Democratic Party of today or tomorrow. I've been saying this for years, but the party has turned the page. The Clinton legacy of them being the party and their individualistic approach to politics is obvious in our history. Look at the party totals:

House of Representatives: 1993: 258 Seats, 2001: 212 Seats.
Senate: 1993: 57 Seats, 2001: 50 Seats.
Governorships: 1993: 30 Governors, 2001: 21 Governors.

We have a real choice this year and a real opportunity to move our organization forward. I'm not beholden to the past, a past which in many ways fucked our party & our country in the ass. You may choose that path, but I want it made clear that I'm not on that track. I do not want a Clinton on the top of our ticket.

[ShowerBench]

We have a real choice this year and a real opportunity to move our organization forward. I'm not beholden to the past, a past which in many ways fucked our party & our country in the ass. You may choose that path, but I want it made clear that I'm not on that track. I do not want a Clinton on the top of our ticket.

The past has fucked our party and country in the past and it always will. Republicans will say the same thing about their party and country. Politics is never pure and no purist Democrat or Republican will ever be elected. Both parties will feel fucked because there will always be tension between citizens in any democracy on issues of money and rights and there will always be compromises.

But in terms of what the Democratic party stands for (social and economic justice), the Clintons have always advanced it well throughout their entire careers. They have compromised where they had to and a few times where they didn't (telecom) but they are far more representative of traditional Democratic (and liberal) ideals than Barack Obama.

Barack Obama represents bringing in more independents (NOT Democrats or liberals) to vote for him and appealing to college students and wealthy liberals - not even representing their interests through issue advocacy or ideology, but making them "feel inspired" about some new politics mumbo jumbo.

Obama isn't a liberal/Democratic ideologue. Nor is he even a pragmatist that accepts political realities and advances a liberal/Democratic agenda within the bounds of the political reality.

He is as committed to the Democratic agenda as he was to Rev. Wright. It's useful to him as long as it's useful to him, until it's not.

He's basically a blank slate and a branding experiment and there is nothing in his record or in this campaign that has proven he has united people on any issue or fought for any liberal or Democratic issue.

If anything, he's exploited and divided the Democratic party, divided blacks/whites, divided rural/urban, upper/working class. He's forced himself to have to do what no candidate should ever have to do: fight for the traditional base of the party (elderly, Hispanic, working class, women) after a nomination.

Obama is a disaster for the Democratic party. He was too enamored of himself to even deign to serve at least one full term in the US Senate, and Democrats are going to lose in November.

[Zorro]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml

[ShowerBench]

From the CBS poll:

Among Democratic primary voters who support Obama now, 70 percent say they would vote for Clinton in November if she is the Democratic nominee. Among those who support Clinton now, 60 percent say they would vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

Seven in 10 think both Clinton and McCain are tough enough to make the right decisions a President has to make. Fifty-eight percent say this about Obama.

He now leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the hypothetical fall contest by eleven points, 51 percent to 40 percent. Just like Obama, Clinton’s lead over McCain has jumped, from 5 to 12 points.

Today's Rasmussen tracking:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Hillary Clinton with a two-point advantage over John McCain, 46% to 44%. At the same time, McCain has a three-point lead over Barack Obama, 47% to 44%

he race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination is now tied. Clinton and Obama are each supported by 45% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters

Among all voters nationwide, McCain is viewed favorably by 52% and unfavorably by 46%. (see recent daily favorable ratings). Obama is now viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 48%. For Clinton, the reviews are 48% favorable, 50% unfavorable. Those numbers reflect the best ratings for Clinton since March 12.

Today's Gallup matchups:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/050408DailyUpdateGraph2_h0f4j8.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/050408DailyUpdateGraph3_l8v6z1.gif

National polls don't mean much though. A useful indicator:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[ShowerBench]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/carville-if-hillary-gave_n_100038.html

"The Republicans will eat him alive" is what the Clinton campaign is telling the superdelegates. Hillary is the tougher of the two, the candidate you want on your side in a knife fight, a gender reversal that prompts Carville to indulge in some ribald humor: "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."

[FUNKMAN]

obama is gonna kick some fuckin ass





this has been a political viewpoint

[ShowerBench]

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com /

NC:
Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 54% to 39% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Obama leads 47% to 44%.

Clinton leads 62% to 27% among white voters (60% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 88% to 9% among African American voters (36% of likely Democratic primary voters).

Obama leads 55% to 37% among voters age 18 to 49 (51% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 48% to 45% among voters age 50 and older.

IND:
Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 51% to 47% among men (44% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 58% to 40%.

Clinton leads 60% to 38% among white voters (84% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 90% to 8% among African American voters (12% of likely Democratic primary voters).

Obama leads 51% to 47% among voters age 18 to 49 (51% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 59% to 39% among voters age 50 and older.

[ShowerBench]

Some beautiful work by the Howler:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Special report: From one side now!

PART 1–BASED ON AN OLDE PRESS CORPS BALLAD: If you’re the type who likes to believe that our discourse lies in human hands, this was a very bad weekend to read the Post and the Times. We may examine more of the rubble in the next few days, but let’s start with a (familiar) paragraph by the well-scripted noble, Lady Collins. Late in her Saturday column, she warbled the following song, thus expressing a story-line these dullards can recite in their sleep. You can tell that Obama is finer than Clinton because of that flag-burning bill!

COLLINS (5/3/08): All this actually tells us something about the Democratic candidates, which has nothing to do with fuel prices. Obama believes voters want a sensible, less-divisive political dialogue, that the whole process can become more honorable if the right candidate leads the way. Hillary really doesn’t buy that. She has principles, but she doesn’t believe in principled stands. She thinks that if she can get elected, she can do great things. And to get there, she’s prepared to do whatever. That certainly includes endorsing any number of meaningless-to-ridiculous ideas. (See: her bill to make it illegal to desecrate an American flag.)

Barack Obama believes in high principle. Sorry, but Hillary Clinton doesn’t! Indeed, Clinton is willing to do and say anything, much like Vile Candidate Gore before her. To get elected, “she’s prepared to do whatever” Indeed, apparently unlike Obama, Clinton is willing to “endors[e] any number of meaningless-to-ridiculous ideas,” Collins says. Collins’ example? Cue the snoring! “See: her bill to make it illegal to desecrate an American flag.”

Clinton wanted to make it illegal to burn an American flag! As noted, these life-forms know how to type that one up in any type of weather. As we’ll see, they’ve typed it, and typed it, and typed it again; they know this particular novel so well they could just keep typing it as their owners work on their programming. Indeed, they all seem to know this pleasing tale. Here’s Richard Cohen, two months ago, typing it up for the Post:

COHEN (2/5/08): If [her vote on the Iraq war resolution] were the only example of Clinton's voting suspiciously like a presidential candidate, I would not be troubled. But in 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would make flag-burning illegal. It just so happened that around that time I heard Justice Antonin Scalia explain why he, a conservative so conservative you cannot be more conservative, considered flag-burning a form of political expression. It was therefore, he said, protected. Precisely so.

I was not alone in suggesting that on the flag issue, Clinton was readying herself for a presidential race and trying to blunt her image as a harridan of the political left. The New York Times reached the same conclusion and accused her of pandering. Again, precisely so.

An anti-harridan had been “pandering” with that flag-burning thing. Cohen knew it; the New York Times knew it–and Collins knew it again this past weekend. And Cohen, just like Lady Collins, knew the rest of this new classic script. You just can’t fool a life-form like Cohen. He drew the invidious distinction about Clinton/Obama just as Collins would:

COHEN (continuing directly): Look, I know what Obama was doing when he refused to confront his minister about the latter's embrace of Louis Farrakhan. He was ducking an issue with no upside for him. He will not get my Profiles in Courage award for this, but the rest of his record overwhelms this one chintzy act.

Not so with Clinton. In the first place, you don't get to pander with the First Amendment. It is just too important, too central, not merely an amendment but a commandment: Thou Shalt Not Abridge Speech. In the second place, this ugly lurch to the political right is not outweighed by a spectacular stand on some other matter of principle.

Cohen will give Obama a pass. But not so with vile Clinton, he says; after all, she supported that flag-burning crap! Like Collins, Cohen could tell: This flag-burning folderol showed the difference between these two candidates’ souls.

And then, one week later: Alas, poor Cohen! Yes, he has had to do this sort of thing in the past–but it’s gruesome every time it happens. Seven days after defining Clinton/Obama, the gentleman typed a minor correction. Good God! He’d done it again! This appeared in his next column:

COHEN (2/12/08): My Feb. 5 column was critical of Hillary Clinton for supporting a bill to make flag burning illegal. I have since learned from a reader that Barack Obama also supported that bill.


That’s right, dumb-ass! Clinton supported the flag-burning bill. And Obama supported it too!

But then, more than half the senate’s Democrats supported that bill, in June 2006. It was brought to the floor by Dick Durbin, Obama’s biggest senate supporter. Everyone understands the politics of these bills–everyone but Cohen and Collins, that is. Because they’re two of the world’s biggest androids, they keep singing the same tired songs.

Lady Collins warbled a folk sing this weekend, a folk song based on an olde press corps ballade. At THE HOWLER, we heard her saying this: She’s looked at life from one side now! Tomorrow, a bit more recent history–the type of history great balladeers will sometimes rearrange, fix and fudge.

TOMORROW–PART 2: Even Kornblut knew the facts! But don’t try to tell Lady Collins.

[epo]

Clinton's rules on winning. Kinda funny after this long trudge:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L9qd-P2bIiY&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L9qd-P2bIiY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Zorro]

The Game of Lowering Expectations has begun...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnc.htm

[TheMojoPin]

Over/under on aboslutely nothing changing after today?

[epo]

Over/under on aboslutely nothing changing after today?

95%.

Obama wins NC by 10ish. Clinton wins Indiana by 5-7. Obama gains delegates, but Clinton to continue.

[Zorro]

95%.

Obama wins NC by 10ish. Clinton wins Indiana by 5-7. Obama gains delegates, but Clinton to continue.

Obama loses both states...delegate count remains stagnant...

[FUNKMAN]

obama wins both states, hillary prepares "leaving the race" speech...

[foodcourtdruide]

Obama wins close Indiana race by 1 point, wins NC race by 9 points.

Nothing changes.

[Zorro]

obama wins both states, hillary prepares "leaving the race" speech...

...if there's a God...

[Friday]

Over/under on aboslutely nothing changing after today?

epo may need to take his first Xanax. :bye:

obama wins both states, hillary prepares "leaving the race" speech...

the speech she should have already had prepared for months now?
yeah.... please let there be a god...... http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:0oLzeKZNwipEnM:http://www.westburyhockey.com/phorum/mods/smileys/images/praying%2520smiley.gif

[ShowerBench]

Clinton's rules on winning. Kinda funny after this long trudge:



The smarm-meister aside, Clinton's rules on winning are the same rules in place all along: reach the pledged delegate threshold or win enough pledged delegates + superdelegates. Nothing has changed.

As far as which states "count" (are "important" in determining who is the stronger candidate), the Clinton argument that Obama's lead in the pledged delegates is comprised of Republican states/caucus states, while he has lost every big, important swing state is not only a valid one but is the strongest superdelegate pitch made by either candidate, as anyone who knows anything about politics (including you) recognizes.

Defections are an issue. Again, Clinton can win back black voters with a black on the ticket. Obama can't win back elderly voters who think he's weird, working class voters who think he's out of touch, or Hispanics, who think he's black. He'll be scrambling for these groups when he should be taking them for granted and going for the center.

Hope won't win in November. A solid candidate with a proven record for attracting the Democratic base and winning enough moderates will beat McCain.

Which means Obama will join Dukakis and Kerry in the annals of Beautiful Losers.

[Recyclerz]

Hope won't win in November. A solid candidate with a proven record for attracting the Democratic base and winning enough moderates will beat McCain.


Maybe. But, in my honest and earnest opinion, that candidate ain't Hilary Rodham Clinton. She is way too polarizing a figure to win the lightly affiliated independents and the easily swayed which are necessary to win a national election these days. If she somehow secures the nomination and manages to convince the African-Americans not to desert en masse (a VERY big IF, imo) she'll start with a solid base of support in the low
40's, % wise. After the Republicans start the "swiftboating" I doubt she gets any higher.
And you can't realistically make the argument that the Limbaugh-Newsmax-Drudge- et al. Chorus of the Damned have already taken their best shot at HRC. They've been working on their material for 8 years now and it would get very ugly very fast.

Another factor to consider, although I'm not sure how seriously yet, is the Unity '08 crowd of behind the scenes wonks. If Obama feels like he got robbed by the Clinton Bros., he could take his merry band of naive dreamers over to the internet convention for Unity "08 and automatically be on the ballot in, I believe, all 50 states without too much muss and fuss. He has the ability to raise the funds to make this a true three way race and would be free to keep up the message of we have to change the way we conduct politics from a much "purer" platform.

/just sayin'.

[Zorro]

Hope won't win in November. A solid candidate with a proven record for attracting the Democratic base and winning enough moderates will beat McCain.



If she had a solid record of attracting the Democratic base...we wouldn't be talking primaries on May 6th

[HBox]

If she had a solid record of attracting the Democratic base...we wouldn't be talking primaries on May 6th

BURN.

[ShowerBench]

If she had a solid record of attracting the Democratic base...we wouldn't be talking primaries on May 6th

That doesn't even make logical sense. Someone that has a solid record attracting the Democratic base can be undercut by a black candidate who cobbles 90% of the black vote (because he's black) with saucer-eyed college students and wealthy liberals who want to feel good about themselves.

The working class, elderly voters, Hispanics, women, and blacks comprise the Democratic base. Clinton has a solid record of attracting all of those constituencies except blacks - who would be going for her candidacy by 90% if a black candidate were not in the race.

Does this stuff really require spelling out? Alas it probably does, but Obama's flock is in the process of becoming educated about politics, and the most painful but important lesson of all will come in November when he loses.

[TheMojoPin]

The one positive thing for all the Democrats so far is that both candidates have been getting record numbers of people out to the polls in state after state.

[K.C.]

obama wins both states, hillary prepares "leaving the race" speech...

Hillary's winning Indiana.

I'll stick with the polls in North Carolina and say Obama will win by 6-7%.

Normally, I'd be inclined to think Obama would outperform his NC polling and push it to 10%, but he's had so much trouble getting traction, I think the number holds steady.

Nothing will change in the race, but it's a huge sigh of relief for Obama to pick up a solid win.

[Zorro]

That doesn't even make logical sense. Someone that has a solid record attracting the Democratic base can be undercut by a black candidate who cobbles 90% of the black vote (because he's black) with saucer-eyed college students and wealthy liberals who want to feel good about themselves.

The working class, elderly voters, Hispanics, women, and blacks comprise the Democratic base. Clinton has a solid record of attracting all of those constituencies except blacks - who would be going for her candidacy by 90% if a black candidate were not in the race.

Does this stuff really require spelling out? Alas it probably does, but Obama's flock is in the process of becoming educated about politics, and the most painful but important lesson of all will come in November when he loses.

That's the way to a winner, blame the blacks

[HBox]

Hillary's so great she's getting nearly half the vote!

[K.C.]

Could Gore settle the race? (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/06/gore-speaks-i-still-may-endorse/)


I firmly believe he'd endorse Obama if he were to endorse. My guess is this is the last resort. If Hillary wins both states tonight, Obama will push very hard for Gore to publicly endorse him to offset the momentum.

[epo]

From the CBS poll:

Among Democratic primary voters who support Obama now, 70 percent say they would vote for Clinton in November if she is the Democratic nominee. Among those who support Clinton now, 60 percent say they would vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

Seven in 10 think both Clinton and McCain are tough enough to make the right decisions a President has to make. Fifty-eight percent say this about Obama.

He now leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the hypothetical fall contest by eleven points, 51 percent to 40 percent. Just like Obama, Clinton’s lead over McCain has jumped, from 5 to 12 points.


This is part of the stupid logic I'm tired of from the Clintons. Your people will support me...my people won't support you. Even though you are winning in votes & delegates...because my people suck, I should win.

Icckkk.

[scottinnj]

Icckkk.


I smell Mod Quote!

[NickyL0885]

Obama takes North Carolina. awesome.

[ShowerBench]

This is part of the stupid logic I'm tired of from the Clintons. Your people will support me...my people won't support you. Even though you are winning in votes & delegates...because my people suck, I should win.

Icckkk.

I don't think it's as easy as saying "my people suck."

There are some voting blocs that just won't support Obama, some for good reasons and some not. Elderly people are afraid of him. Working class people know he insulted them. They aren't coming back to the Democrats this year if Obama is the nominee.

There are also voters like myself who think Obama is too weak, inexperienced, and undefined to be suitable for the presidency. I won't vote for him in November particularly because I think he's dangerous and weak on national security. But most people with that view not only won't vote for him but will feel perfectly comfortable voting for McCain.

I doubt I would go that far - I've never voted for a Republican and that's still a point of pride, but there aren't so many yellow dog Dems left these "post-partisan" days.

Obama's black voters wouldn't vote for Clinton either if there is no black candidate on the ticket but they could easily be won back if there were. That is the difference between how serious the defection factor is for these candidates: There is a remedy for getting back Obama supporters but not for getting Clinton supporters.

[ShowerBench]

The one positive thing for all the Democrats so far is that bth canidates have been getting record numbers of people out to the polls in state after state.

I'd praise Obama for that except that they aren't Democratic voters, they're more like "post-partisan hope and change" independents and college kids who are coalescing around a flash in the pan. They aren't the constituencies Democrats can count on election after election. In fact, they probably will be bored by November. They aren't worth nominating an ersatz Democrat who doesn't stand for anything and served less than one term in the senate.

It's not a good development for Democrats to bring in new voters in a cult of personality/branding experiment that is already showing signs of crashing and burning in the face of political realities. It's the worst thing that could have happened in a year we should have won in a walk.

[K.C.]

Obama takes North Carolina. awesome.

Looks to be a big victory....could be the knockout blow he needed.

[ShowerBench]

That's the way to a winner, blame the blacks

Who's "blaming"? Obama's black voters are the only ones who can't be blamed for voting for him. This is coming from someone who would have voted to acquit OJ if I were black so I get it.

Saucer-eyed college freshmen are somewhat blameworthy but they don't know any better than to believe phrases like "new politics" mean something. They are too young to remember W. Bush ran on "changing the tone in Washington" and "uniter not a divider" so they don't get the joke.

The ones who can be blamed are the rich/academic/latte liberals, always in search of an identity, who should know better but just want to feel good about themselves.

[Friday]

There are also voters like myself who think Obama is too weak, inexperienced, and undefined to be suitable for the presidency.

.

Exactly how experienced do you think Hilary is? http://www.wackbag.com/images/smilies/kopfkratz.gif




(cue Jimi....)

[FUNKMAN]

Obama takes North Carolina. awesome.

i called it :smile:

and he'll make an unbelievable comeback win in Indiana and then Hillary will punch Bill in the balls...

[ShowerBench]

Exactly how experienced do you think Hilary is? http://www.wackbag.com/images/smilies/kopfkratz.gif




(cue Jimi....)

I make no secret of being a Billary supporter. She has "enough" experience between the co-governorship in Arkansas, co-presidency, and Senate experience that I would be OK with it if I thought he wouldn't be in the picture much. But we all know that isn't the case, and the two of them have more than enough experience, and a record of performance.

[K.C.]

It's over.

That blowout in NC knocks the Clinton Brothers out. I expect the Super Delegates to clamp down and end this thing in the coming days.

I do think it would be in Obama's best interest to pick her as the VP, though. No Bill Richardson, or Jim Webb, or Evan Bayh is going to give him what he would get with an Obama-Clinton ticket.

I've laid this out several times...she would absolutely savage McCain, and take all the heat for doing it. Obama just has to stand there, look dignified, and ride that machine to victory.

She's the Democratic equivalent of Darth Cheney.

[scottinnj]

It's over.

Agreed. It is mathematically impossible for her to pull ahead of Obama now. He got through the Wright Storm, and I don't see anything else that the cable news outlets can use to sink him.

Unless there is some backroom deal at the DNC Convention to seat Michigan and Florida, Obama has this wrapped up. If the delegates from Michigan and Florida do get seated, now I predict a bloodbath and McCain wins while Democrats once again shoot themselves in the head. The 08 election should be a no-brainer for the Dems, but somehow I see the Clinton Brothers ruining it for the whole party if she is denied the nomination.

The issue of making her VP is distasteful for me. Obama is the candidate for "Change in Washington" and to make her, probably one of the top Washington Insiders, his VP candidate will make me pause and I would reconsider my support for him in November. I am absolutely against a Clinton getting anywhere near the WH ever again. McCain is a non-issue for me. I just won't vote for him.
I would be horribly disappointed if Obama wins the nod and then picks her as VP. It would smack of "deal-making;" make me VP and I'll concede the race. It goes against his message of uniting the country. I am so willing to cross party lines for him and his message, if he is sincere about it. I would not be so willing with the "right wing conspiracy" queen waiting to smack down people with my values once we get there.

Done and gone. That's what I want the Clintons to be about this election.

[K.C.]

Agreed. It is mathematically impossible for her to pull ahead of Obama now. He got through the Wright Storm, and I don't see anything else that the cable news outlets can use to sink him.

Unless there is some backroom deal at the DNC Convention to seat Michigan and Florida, Obama has this wrapped up. If the delegates from Michigan and Florida do get seated, now I predict a bloodbath and McCain wins while Democrats once again shoot themselves in the head. The 08 election should be a no-brainer for the Dems, but somehow I see the Clinton Brothers ruining it for the whole party if she is denied the nomination.

The issue of making her VP is distasteful for me. Obama is the candidate for "Change in Washington" and to make her, probably one of the top Washington Insiders, his VP candidate will make me pause and I would reconsider my support for him in November. I am absolutely against a Clinton getting anywhere near the WH ever again. McCain is a non-issue for me. I just won't vote for him.
I would be horribly disappointed if Obama wins the nod and then picks her as VP. It would smack of "deal-making;" make me VP and I'll concede the race. It goes against his message of uniting the country. I am so willing to cross party lines for him and his message, if he is sincere about it. I would not be so willing with the "right wing conspiracy" queen waiting to smack down people with my values once we get there.

Done and gone. That's what I want the Clintons to be about this election.


She's a necessary evil. You can't change everything overnight. And the Republicans are going to kick the attack dogs into gear about 10 times as vicious as this.

The Clinton Brothers know how to turn the tables as well as anyone.

He did enough to hold her off here, but it's going to be much tougher on him in the general. She would protect any weakness he shows to these types of attacks.

[scottinnj]

Republicans are going to kick the attack dogs into gear about 10 times as vicious as this.


You are right about that. I have been amazed how Fox News apparantly has become the 24 hour Jeremiah Wright Channel. That's why I left the party, I got so sick and tired of the nastiness, arrogance and bullshit. But I'm tired of it from not just the Republicans, but also the Democrats as well.

That's why I went Independant. I hope a lot more people do the same thing, which is in my opinion the only way to get the parties to concentrate more on the moderates, liberal and conservative alike, then pander to their bases.

[HBox]

A chill ran down my spine when she said "I'd like to thank Evan Bayh." I can't quite convey the vitriol I sensed.

[TheMojoPin]

For someone claiming to be a Democrat, ShowerBench sure loves talking down to and slamming as many Democratic voters as possible with as many generalizations as possible as long as they don't think exactly like he does.

[epo]

Who's "blaming"? Obama's black voters are the only ones who can't be blamed for voting for him. This is coming from someone who would have voted to acquit OJ if I were black so I get it.

Saucer-eyed college freshmen are somewhat blameworthy but they don't know any better than to believe phrases like "new politics" mean something. They are too young to remember W. Bush ran on "changing the tone in Washington" and "uniter not a divider" so they don't get the joke.

The ones who can be blamed are the rich/academic/latte liberals, always in search of an identity, who should know better but just want to feel good about themselves.

So I'm an academic/latte liberal. Does that mean that I'm only voting for Obama because I want to feel good about myself?

Or that I understand the system & the organizational structure of the party and I clearly feel that Obama is the better candidate as the face of the party?

[epo]

"I can assure you I will work for the nominee of the party in November."
- Hillary Clinton.

Yes you will Hillary...and his name is Barack Obama.

[scottinnj]

Who said Clintonistas were Democrats?

Clintonistas are loyal to two people:
The Clinton Brothers
Party and Country be Damned!

They're like the humans in the Blade movies who hung out with the vampires, hoping their loyatly would be rewarded with a conversion bite while humanity was turned into the vampire's personal bloodbank.

Edit: I was bumped by epo-I was responding to Mojo's question about Showerbench's party affiliations.

My bad, I should have quoted Mojo!

[epo]

Russert is currently laying out the case that the race is over and Clinton will be out very, very soon.

Essentially, she'll quit and Obama's campaign will pay her bills for her.

[scottinnj]

Russert is currently laying out the case that the race is over and Clinton will be out very, very soon.

Essentially, she'll quit and Obama's campaign will pay her bills for her.

Another reason why I believe God is real.

[K.C.]

Another reason why I believe God is real.

Be prepared to renounce this so-called God when he names her VP.

I can feel it already. The more I think about it the more political sense it makes.

There are soulless people like myself who actually like the Clintons, though.

[HBox]

Great moment on MSNBC. Chris Matthews going to commercial, starts saying "When we get back from commercial Norah O'Donnell with......," his face starts looking annoyed, " race breakdowns. Can't we skip this once? Every time we have to do this."

[Kevin]

Russert is currently laying out the case that the race is over and Clinton will be out very, very soon.

Essentially, she'll quit and Obama's campaign will pay her bills for her.

Tim Russart is a gutless backstabbing douche.
People have been wanting Hilary to "quit" for months.

The pro Obama tact in this election by the "unbiased" media has been pretty sickening. I do not have a problem with Obama winning but this shit is ridiculous.

[scottinnj]

WERTH RULES!!!! WAM A HOMER! WAM! ANOTHER HOMER!!!! WAM, WAM, WAM!!!
http://www.alexross.com/FF1045-Baseball-Bugs.jpg


UHHHHH....wrong thread

[BoondockSaint]

WERTH RULES!!!! WAM A HOMER! WAM! ANOTHER HOMER!!!! WAM, WAM, WAM!!!
http://www.alexross.com/FF1045-Baseball-Bugs.jpg

He's got my vote.

[epo]

Tim Russart is a gutless backstabbing douche.
People have been wanting Hilary to "quit" for months.

The pro Obama tact in this election by the "unbiased" media has been pretty sickening. I do not have a problem with Obama winning but this shit is ridiculous.

Just a question: How long has Reverend Wright been the lead story while both McCain & Clinton walked without scrutiny?

[TheMojoPin]

The pro Obama tact in this election by the "unbiased" media has been pretty sickening.

As soon as people reaize that an "unbiased media" always has been and always will be a myth, they'll be a lot less stressed out. There's never been some mythical time when robots reported the news.

[Kevin]

Just a question: How long has Reverend Wright been the lead story while both McCain & Clinton walked without scrutiny?

Hey, it should have been.

And come on. You do not think that Obama has been the darling of the media?

[Kevin]

As soon as people reaize that an "unbiased media" always has been and always will be a myth, they'll be a lot less stressed out. There's never been some mythical time when robots reported the news.

I understand that but come on, show a little professionalism. Just a bit.

[HBox]

Tim Russart is a gutless backstabbing douche.
People have been wanting Hilary to "quit" for months.

The pro Obama tact in this election by the "unbiased" media has been pretty sickening. I do not have a problem with Obama winning but this shit is ridiculous.

I'd refer you to the last ABC debate, the last two months of "JEREMIAH WRIGHT OMG! JEREMIAH WRIGHT OMG!" and the reluctance of most of the media to actually state the fact that Hillary has not had a chance at the nomination and call them out on their weekly new benchmark for winning the nomination for starters.

You are 2-3 months late with this observation.

[scottinnj]

Tim Russart is a gutless backstabbing douche.
People have been wanting Hilary to "quit" for months.

The pro Obama tact in this election by the "unbiased" media has been pretty sickening. I do not have a problem with Obama winning but this shit is ridiculous.

PRO OBAMA???

I just don't see it. Ed Schultz put it correctly today. The cable news does not want this to end. Ratings are more important.

[Kevin]

I'd refer you to the last ABC debate, the last two months of "JEREMIAH WRIGHT OMG! JEREMIAH WRIGHT OMG!" and the reluctance of most of the media to actually state the fact that Hillary has not had a chance at the nomination and call them out on their weekly new benchmark for winning the nomination for starters.

You are 2-3 months late with this observation.

I want Obama to win, i voted for the man in the NY primary but, i just see the coverage more towards Obama than Hilary.

[K.C.]

I want Obama to win, i voted for the man in the NY primary but, i just see the coverage more towards Obama than Hilary.

Agreed.

Exactly my position, too.

[HBox]

I want Obama to win, i voted for the man in the NY primary but, i just see the coverage more towards Obama than Hilary.

Then I honestly don't know what you've been watching for the last two months,

[Kevin]

I dont see either person getting the 2000+ dels to win and until Obama passes Hilary in super delagets. 266 to 252 last time i checked, then i don't see why people are calling for her to quit.

[scottinnj]

There's never been some mythical time when robots reported the news.

You're right.

Even Bender has an agenda:

http://37prime.com/futurama_bender_big_score.jpg

[HBox]

I dont see either person getting the 2000+ dels to win and until Obama passes Hilary in super delagets. 266 to 252 last time i checked, then i don't see why people are calling for her to quit.

Because it's been all but impossible for Hillary to get a majority of elected delegates and almost as impossible as that to get a majority of the popular vote.

And since Super Tuesday Obama has been getting the vast majority of super delegates. That 262-252 used to be a high 100s advantage for Hillary. Now it's 14.

[Kevin]

Because it's been all but impossible for Hillary to get a majority of elected delegates and almost as impossible as that to get a majority of the popular vote.

And since Super Tuesday Obama has been getting the vast majority of super delegates. That 262-252 used to be a high 100s advantage for Hillary. Now it's 14.

The day he passes her, is the day she should quit.

[NickyL0885]

Hes behind by under 20,000 votes now. 51-49. Hillary already claimed to win Indiana. I would love for this to bit her in the ass.

[HBox]

The day he passes her, is the day she should quit.

That day was in February.

[scottinnj]

Hes behind by under 20,000 votes now. 51-49. Hillary already claimed to win Indiana. I would love for this to bit her in the ass.

Another "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment? Oh how sweeeeeet!

[scottinnj]

Russert's REALLY pushing the idea Hillary is going to quit. Out of all the NBC journalists covering this, if I were Hillary, I'd really pay attention to what he is saying.

He's been around for a long time, and is well respected by both Republicans and Democrats. If he says its over....well....

http://www.orbison.de/bilder/roy30.jpg

"It's over, now...."

[TheMojoPin]

I saw we put in a call to Paris and see what his cousin Megan Russert thinks.

[high fly]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml


He must be wearing a flag pin again..........

[IMSlacker]

Anybody else watching the mayors of Hammond and Gary bicker on CNN? The Gary mayor seems to be an incompetent boob.

[Kevin]

CNN Projects Hilary Winner in Indiana.

[Friday]

CNN Projects Hilary Winner in Indiana.

by 2 percentage points.

from here... that looks pretty sweet.
(translation.... a much smaller margin than the Hilly camp was hoping for. )

[FUNKMAN]

CNN Projects Hilary Winner in Indiana.

yeah by the skin of her balls...

[Kevin]

yeah by the skin of her balls...

Yea, she dodged a major embarrassment there.

[scottinnj]

the fat lady in a pantsuit is singing.........

[Friday]

epo pointed this out in chat earlier, and it's my goodnight lullabye on MSNBC right now....

Hilly cancelled her TV appearances for tomorrow which is a HUGE step on the road to conceding. Now, she IS keeping her fundraiser tomorrow but that probably has more to do with the huge campaigning debt she has racked up than anything else.

All signs so far.... and it's early.... seem to be pointing happily towards the end of the pants suit and awful haircut era.

( and this, from someone who was even more enthused to meet and shake Hillary's hand at Bill Clinton's 50th Birthday party than I was to meet the President, himself.... times have changed, indeed. )

[scottinnj]

na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!

[Slumbag]

I'm so happy this primary is finally over. I've gotten home from work every morning, flipped on the news and seen Barack Obama eat breakfast. For some reason our local news thought it would be great to show him eating breakfast, EVERY DAY. We have a bunch of people working for the Obama campaign staying in the hotel, giving me tickets to rallys, Obama hats, fucking "You don't want four more years of Bush", speeches. SO glad it's over. Sorry for ranting up the thread, but this elections been shoved in my face for two weeks now.

[scottinnj]

I'm so happy this primary is finally over. I've gotten home from work every morning, flipped on the news and seen Barack Obama eat breakfast. For some reason our local news thought it would be great to show him eating breakfast, EVERY DAY. We have a bunch of people working for the Obama campaign staying in the hotel, giving me tickets to rallys, Obama hats, fucking "You don't want four more years of Bush", speeches. SO glad it's over. Sorry for ranting up the thread, but this elections been shoved in my face for two weeks now.
think about we feel. some of us voted months ago, and we've been waiting for you slowpokes the whole time.

[keithy_19]

I'm more than likely going to vote for McCain come November. ith that in mind, I really would love to see this go to the convention, though I'm almost positive it will not.

I don't want it to go to the convention because I will probably be voting republican, but more because it'll be historical. And I feel that having a woman and a black man running isn't historical enough.

[Kevin]

I'm more than likely going to vote for McCain come November. ith that in mind, I really would love to see this go to the convention, though I'm almost positive it will not.

I don't want it to go to the convention because I will probably be voting republican, but more because it'll be historical. And I feel that having a woman and a black man running isn't historical enough.

Huh?

[NewYorkDragons80]

I'm more than likely going to vote for McCain come November. ith that in mind, I really would love to see this go to the convention, though I'm almost positive it will not.

I don't want it to go to the convention because I will probably be voting republican, but more because it'll be historical. And I feel that having a woman and a black man running isn't historical enough.

I'm with you. Republicans voting in states that allow crossovers is about as underhanded as it gets within the law, but I like the excitement that would've gone along with a true convention.

[sailor]

of penn, nc, and indiana, obama called indiana (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/11/878455.aspx) the tie-breaker. he now has lost indiana and it means hillary should concede?

[HBox]

of penn, nc, and indiana, obama called indiana (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/11/878455.aspx) the tie-breaker. he now has lost indiana and it means hillary should concede?

So we throw out all the rules of the primary, forget the the fact that Obama has won more delegates, more states, more of the popular vote, that it stays that way even if you add in Florida and Michigan (and Obama would receive zero votes from Michigan since he wasn't on the ballot) that Hillary was supposed to win Indiana easily, that its virtually impossible for her to win the nomination, and that it has been for quite a while, ignore all of reality, because Obama had an off-hand comment a month ago that Indiana might be a tiebreaker?

[epo]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wDm3dEz9mmk&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wDm3dEz9mmk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[epo]

I'm more than likely going to vote for McCain come November. ith that in mind, I really would love to see this go to the convention, though I'm almost positive it will not.

I don't want it to go to the convention because I will probably be voting republican, but more because it'll be historical. And I feel that having a woman and a black man running isn't historical enough.

Have fun!

http://www.electjohnmccain2008.com/images/bush-mccain.jpg

[sailor]

So we throw out all the rules of the primary, forget the the fact that Obama has won more delegates, more states, more of the popular vote, that it stays that way even if you add in Florida and Michigan (and Obama would receive zero votes from Michigan since he wasn't on the ballot) that Hillary was supposed to win Indiana easily, that its virtually impossible for her to win the nomination, and that it has been for quite a while, ignore all of reality, because Obama had an off-hand comment a month ago that Indiana might be a tiebreaker?

i believe it's also virtually impossible for him to win the nomination since they're not counting those two states, so that point is moot. he has a very slim margin over her and everyone is acting like he is destroying her. the fact that she's still winning states shows many people don't agree with you.

[epo]

i believe it's also virtually impossible for him to win the nomination since they're not counting those two states, so that point is moot. he has a very slim margin over her and everyone is acting like he is destroying her. the fact that she's still winning states shows many people don't agree with you.

There are 511 remaining delegates to be declared. 244 pledged delegates, 267 superdelegates.


Obama needs 180 delegates to hit the magic number of 2024.
Clinton needs 332 delegates to hit that number.


Realistically put, it is over. Many of the superdelegates were waiting for Obama or Clinton to firm up or wanted to vote with the popular vote, as to not overturn the will of the people. Her odds are extremely long, her campaign is in debt again and she lost her momentum.

Obama has just pulled off one of the largest political upsets in quite some time. I would venture to say the largest upset since an Arkansas governor won the nomination in 1992.

[TheMojoPin]

Hillary loans herself another $6 million. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

She's not getting out.

[sailor]

There are 511 remaining delegates to be declared. 244 pledged delegates, 267 superdelegates.


Obama needs 180 delegates to hit the magic number of 2024.
Clinton needs 332 delegates to hit that number.


Realistically put, it is over. Many of the superdelegates were waiting for Obama or Clinton to firm up or wanted to vote with the popular vote, as to not overturn the will of the people. Her odds are extremely long, her campaign is in debt again and she lost her momentum.

Obama has just pulled off one of the largest political upsets in quite some time. I would venture to say the largest upset since an Arkansas governor won the nomination in 1992.


don't those pledged totals also include florida and michigan? without those counting isn't he also much less likely to hit the magic number?

[epo]

don't those pledged totals also include florida and michigan? without those counting isn't he also much less likely to hit the magic number?

Those pledged delegates do not include Florida or Michigan.

This race is over.

[K.C.]

Hillary loans herself another $6 million. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

She's not getting out.

The Supers will force her hand sooner than later.

This thing is done. I thought she had a shot to pull it out if she could take North Carolina, but for the Super Delegates to not jump in now would be a little stupid.

[K.C.]

Those pledged delegates do not include Florida or Michigan.


And the debacle that came with that could very well cost the Dems this November. If Obama loses Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (three of the four are quite likely...Obama is doing ok in PA right now), the Dems aren't winning.

I don't care what kind of map people are pointing to saying "well, Obama is competitive in Arizona, and Georgia, and North Carolina"

I've followed this stuff too long. He need three of those four, and probably all four to win the presidency.

It's not Obama's fault...it's Howard Dean's. But Obama will pay the price for it.

[epo]

Hillary loans herself another $6 million. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

She's not getting out.

It's all old money though. MSNBC Link here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24501501/)

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lent her presidential campaign $6.4 million over the past month, her campaign said Wednesday, underscoring the financial advantage held by her rival, Barack Obama.

The money breaks out like this:


April 11 - $5 million loan
Last Week - $1 million
Monday - $425,000


Wolfson is just spinning this as a sign that she is "strong" and staying in the race. Doing otherwise would further damage her ability to raise funds and pay off the huge debt load her campaign already has.

[ShowerBench]

of penn, nc, and indiana, obama called indiana (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/11/878455.aspx) the tie-breaker. he now has lost indiana and it means hillary should concede?

Don't argue logic.

There's a sense of desperation from the Obama camp about Clinton withdrawing. If he really thought he had it in the bag, he could do himself some good by encouraging seating the FL and MI delegates and allowing the remaining states to vote.

But he's not. He's in a hurry. And it's not about "the Democratic party" because she has barely criticized him compared to what he'll be in store for in the main event.

So what's the hurry? My sense is that he knows he's an inherently weak candidate and at some point the supers might figure that out.

[TheMojoPin]

Don't argue logic.

There's a sense of desperation from the Obama camp about Clinton withdrawing. If he really thought he had it in the bag, he could do himself some good by encouraging seating the FL and MI delegates and allowing the remaining states to vote.

But he's not. He's in a hurry. And it's not about "the Democratic party" because she has barely criticized him compared to what he'll be in store for in the main event.

So what's the hurry? My sense is that he knows he's an inherently weak candidate and at some point the supers might figure that out.

So because he knows he's "inherently weak"...he wants to hurry up and get to the stage where you say he's going to get it much worse?

Talk about a self-defeating argument, SB. You're tripping over yourself to slam Obama as much as possible.

[epo]

And the debacle that came with that could very well cost the Dems this November. If Obama loses Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (three of the four are quite likely...Obama is doing ok in PA right now), the Dems aren't winning.

I don't care what kind of map people are pointing to saying "well, Obama is competitive in Arizona, and Georgia, and North Carolina"

I've followed this stuff too long. He need three of those four, and probably all four to win the presidency.

It's not Obama's fault...it's Howard Dean's. But Obama will pay the price for it.

Also remember the current maps have a 72 year old John McCain who honestly hasn't been put through the ring yet at all. This Obama/Clinton thing has been front page gold for news organizations.

Just yesterday, McCain in speeches referred to Czechslovokia as a country & talked about the "League of Nations". Not only are they going to use the McCain = Bush talking point, but also they will go after him on his temper and his age.

[epo]

Don't argue logic.

There's a sense of desperation from the Obama camp about Clinton withdrawing. If he really thought he had it in the bag, he could do himself some good by encouraging seating the FL and MI delegates and allowing the remaining states to vote.

But he's not. He's in a hurry. And it's not about "the Democratic party" because she has barely criticized him compared to what he'll be in store for in the main event.

So what's the hurry? My sense is that he knows he's an inherently weak candidate and at some point the supers might figure that out.

How could a weak candidate defeat the greatest political brand in this nation? Going into the fall, she had the brand, the machine and the momentum. She lost it all and personally I am dying to read the books that will be written on how she screwed this up.

Seriously, she lost....it's OVER!

[K.C.]

Also remember the current maps have a 72 year old John McCain who honestly hasn't been put through the ring yet at all. This Obama/Clinton thing has been front page gold for news organizations.

Just yesterday, McCain in speeches referred to Czechslovokia as a country & talked about the "League of Nations". Not only are they going to use the McCain = Bush talking point, but also they will go after him on his temper and his age.

That shit doesn't seem to stick to Republicans as much as it does to Dems.

Must be something in the voting demographics. :wink:

The bottom line is that the DNC failed its party by not working out the Michigan and Florida thing earlier. I'm not saying that people aren't going vote for Obama based on that fiasco. But how it does affect the race is that the Democrats, despite all the media attention, will enter those states on basically even footing with McCain, when they should have been riding a wave of momentum there.

And I don't really know anyone who doesn't see those being difficult states to pull off. Obama may have a slightly easier time with Michigan, because of economic backlashes, but Florida is going to be extremely tough.

[epo]

That shit doesn't seem to stick to Republicans as much as it does to Dems.

Must be something in the voting demographics. :wink:

The bottom line is that the DNC failed its party by not working out the Michigan and Florida thing earlier. I'm not saying that people aren't going vote for Obama based on that fiasco. But how it does affect the race is that the Democrats, despite all the media attention, will enter those states on basically even footing with McCain, when they should have been riding a wave of momentum there.

And I don't really know anyone who doesn't see those being difficult states to pull off. Obama may have a slightly easier time with Michigan, because of economic backlashes, but Florida is going to be extremely tough.

You are right that there is a built-in issue with Michigan & Florida...but I don't think they are issues that can't be overcome by November.

I will say that the DNC was put in an awful position with both Michigan & Florida with delegates. And both are different cases.

Florida was a republican controlled state, so their breaking the rules wasn't a huge shocker. But they did set the date, knowing what the rules were.

Michigan quite frankly has zero excuse. Governor Granholm should be ashamed of herself as her state's party set the date for the primary, knowing the rules and running in direct violation of Dean's rules.

At the end of the day, Dean did what he felt he had to do. It's a shame as it's a catch-22, as if let those states get away with it, it sets a historical precedent that states don't have to follow the rules. If he enforces it, someone points out that their state is disenfranchised in the nomination process.

[ShowerBench]

So because he knows he's "inherently weak"...he wants to hurry up and get to the stage where you say he's going to get it much worse?

Talk about a self-defeating argument, SB. You're tripping over yourself to slam Obama as much as possible.

He wants to clinch the nomination and "hope" he can overcome all of the hardened and hardening resistance.

If anyone here had to wager their life's savings on one of the two Democratic candidates against McCain, the smart money would be on Clinton because ALL of the data show she is the stronger candidate. Carries the big swing states, keeps the base, can win back most defectors just by putting a black on the ticket.

There's a considerable degree of denial and just plain failure of logic on the part of Obama's flock when it comes to analyzing this race.

[epo]

There's a considerable degree of denial and just plain failure of logic on the part of Obama's flock when it comes to analyzing this race.

There has been a considerable degree of denial and just plan failure of logic on the part of the Clinton people when it comes to analyzing this race and realizing that it has been over since Wisconsin voted on Feburary 19.

[ShowerBench]

How could a weak candidate defeat the greatest political brand in this nation? Going into the fall, she had the brand, the machine and the momentum. She lost it all and personally I am dying to read the books that will be written on how she screwed this up.



Nope. It's easy to see what happened in this race. The media was in the tank for Obama, and no one who is honest will even try to deny that - study after study has borne it out.

So we know what happened to the Clinton campaign against Obama. The only surprising thing is that she managed to stay competitive this long, and that fact is testament to Obama's extreme weaknesses.

The epitaph will be that the dumb Democrats nominated an inherently weak, first term senator who was basically a branding experiment who didn't really stand for anything and was unappealing to the base that has been with the Democratic party since FDR. The candidates' problems came into greater relief the longer the primary season went on, but the dumb Democrats defied all logic and nominated the weaker candidate anyway. The weaker candidate went down to defeat against a GOP candidate in a year that almost any Democrat should have won.

[K.C.]

He wants to clinch the nomination and "hope" he can overcome all of the hardened and hardening resistance.

If anyone here had to wager their life's savings on one of the two Democratic candidates against McCain, the smart money would be on Clinton because ALL of the data show she is the stronger candidate. Carries the big swing states, keeps the base, can win back most defectors just by putting a black on the ticket.

There's a considerable degree of denial and just plain failure of logic on the part of Obama's flock when it comes to analyzing this race.

You're wrong in this respect.

Hillary is a strong candidate, too....but there's nothing that suggests to me that she's the stronger candidate.

At the end of the day, Obama has pretty much accomplished what no Republican could ever do, and that's defeat the Clintons.

That suggests some level of political savvy.

I think everyone jumped the gun a little in believing this general election was going to be a walk. No matter who the nominee is, it's was going to be tough.

And the 'defector' argument is a little overblown. Dean supporters said it about Kerry. Bradley supporters said it about Gore. McCain supporters said it about Bush. EVERY one who ran against Clinton in '92 thought he was a brain dead hayseed unworthy of their vote.

In the end, the party almost ALWAYS comes together. The defection rate will be slightly higher this year, because of race, but not an election changer.

And you say Clinton could bring back blacks with putting Obama on the ticket. A lot of the "I'd vote for Clinton or McCain" people I talk to say they'd be much easier with an Obama ticket if he puts her on it.

So putting her on would work as well to curb defections with poor white voters as much as Clinton could win back blacks with Obama on her ticket .

[ShowerBench]

There has been a considerable degree of denial and just plan failure of logic on the part of the Clinton people when it comes to analyzing this race and realizing that it has been over since Wisconsin voted on Feburary 19.

An honest question: Why did Clinton win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, being outspent three to one in the latter two?

Second question: Why did Obama lose Florida, Ohiio, and Pennsylvania?

[Midkiff]

An honest question: Why did Clinton win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, being outspent three to one in the latter two?

Second question: Why did Obama lose Florida, Ohiio, and Pennsylvania?

Hayseeds.

[Zorro]

An honest question: Why did Clinton win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, being outspent three to one in the latter two?

Second question: Why did Obama lose Florida, Ohiio, and Pennsylvania?

fear, racism and lies...

[epo]

An honest question: Why did Clinton win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, being outspent three to one in the latter two?

Second question: Why did Obama lose Florida, Ohiio, and Pennsylvania?

You completely invalidate any type of argument that you are trying to make by including Florida in that question.

[ShowerBench]

You're wrong in this respect.

Hillary is a strong candidate, too....but there's nothing that suggests to me that she's the stronger candidate.

At the end of the day, Obama has pretty much accomplished what no Republican could ever do, and that's defeat the Clintons.

That suggests some level of political savvy.

I think everyone jumped the gun a little in believing this general election was going to be a walk. No matter who the nominee is, it's was going to be tough.

And the 'defector' argument is a little overblown. Dean supporters said it about Kerry. Bradley supporters said it about Gore. McCain supporters said it about Bush. EVERY one who ran against Clinton in '92 thought he was a brain dead hayseed unworthy of their vote.

In the end, the party almost ALWAYS comes together. The defection rate will be slightly higher this year, because of race, but not an election changer.

And you say Clinton could bring back blacks with putting Obama on the ticket. A lot of the "I'd vote for Clinton or McCain" people I talk to say they'd be much easier with an Obama ticket if he puts her on it.

So putting her on would work as well to curb defections with poor white voters as much as Clinton could win back blacks with Obama on her ticket .

Go to electoral-vote.com and look at the two candidates matched against McCain in the electoral college. Then look at the exit polls from all states Democrats need to win in November (which I'm sure you already have). There is the data - and they support the theory that Clinton is much stronger.

I don't think all defectors will carry out their threats but I think most on the Clinton side will. Last night Indiana exits showed that FORTY-EIGHT percent of Clinton supporters said they would not vote for Obama. Only 17% said they would stay home and the rest would vote McCain.

Yes that is Indiana but that danger is there for other critical states. I don't know how many he could get back if he put Clinton on the ticket but suspect it isn't many, other than gender identity voters.

The reason is that I suspect most defectors, like me, aren't supporting Clinton the person so it wouldn't have much of an impact. Instead most of us would be supporting any candidate positioned where Clinton is, and have a resistance to Obama as president. For voters like that, a VP pick doesn't make much difference.

If she were on the ticket and Pres Clinton went all out to bring back the working class, I could see that making a difference if there were a perception that they would have a significant role. But 48% is a big hill.

[epo]

Go to electoral-vote.com and look at the two candidates matched against McCain in the electoral college. Then look at the exit polls from all states Democrats need to win in November (which I'm sure you already have). There is the data - and they support the theory that Clinton is much stronger.

I don't think all defectors will carry out their threats but I think most on the Clinton side will. Last night Indiana exits showed that FORTY-EIGHT percent of Clinton supporters said they would not vote for Obama. Only 17% said they would stay home and the rest would vote McCain.

Yes that is Indiana but that danger is there for other critical states. I don't know how many he could get back if he put Clinton on the ticket but suspect it isn't many, other than gender identity voters.

The reason is that I suspect most defectors, like me, aren't supporting Clinton the person so it wouldn't have much of an impact. Instead most of us would be supporting any candidate positioned where Clinton is, and have a resistance to Obama as president. For voters like that, a VP pick doesn't make much difference.

If she were on the ticket and Pres Clinton went all out to bring back the working class, I could see that making a difference if there were a perception that they would have a significant role. But 48% is a big hill.

I have no idea who's ass you are pulling this 48% number from, as CNN has 18% of Indiana Democratic primary voters leaning McCain...and 88% of those are Clinton people. That translates to 15%

Link to data here. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#INDEM)

[K.C.]

Go to electoral-vote.com and look at the two candidates matched against McCain in the electoral college. Then look at the exit polls from all states Democrats need to win in November (which I'm sure you already have). There is the data - and they support the theory that Clinton is much stronger.

I don't think all defectors will carry out their threats but I think most on the Clinton side will. Last night Indiana exits showed that FORTY-EIGHT percent of Clinton supporters said they would not vote for Obama. Only 17% said they would stay home and the rest would vote McCain.

Yes that is Indiana but that danger is there for other critical states. I don't know how many he could get back if he put Clinton on the ticket but suspect it isn't many, other than gender identity voters.

The reason is that I suspect most defectors, like me, aren't supporting Clinton the person so it wouldn't have much of an impact. Instead most of us would be supporting any candidate positioned where Clinton is, and have a resistance to Obama as president. For voters like that, a VP pick doesn't make much difference.

If she were on the ticket and Pres Clinton went all out to bring back the working class, I could see that making a difference if there were a perception that they would have a significant role. But 48% is a big hill.

All exit polls, and all electoral map polls should be taken with a grain of salt at this point.

As I've said many times, Ross Perot was leading the 1992 election race as late a June of '92 in the polls.

Polling for the general election means so little right now.

At the end of the day, Hillary will stand up on that stage at the Democratic convention and endorse Obama (she still even might be his VP), and they'll put on the big unity show.

And if you get a number over 15%, of Democrats who say they won't vote for Obama, after that...then you might be on to something.

I follow this stuff pretty closely. The general defection rate for any Democratic candidate in any given year is between 10-15%. Obama will probably get close to 15, because there is a race issue.

But I'll be absolutely stunned if it's higher than that come September and October. It just does not happen.


And on the flip side, I never bought the argument that blacks wouldn't vote for Hillary if she won...it's just not how these things trend.

[scottinnj]

no way she could win. if you say people wouldn't vote for obama because he's black, it can be said she won't win because she's a woman. on iraq, despite what she says, she has the identical plan mccain has, so just vote for the man!
she has demonstrated so far she has totally screwed up a campaign that originally was supposed to be a coronation for her. she can't even win a campaign that was supposedly hers for the taking! if she is that bad at allowing this nomination process to slip away from her, how do you expect her to win in the general campaign that according to the polls, she's only breaking even with mccain nationwide?

[ShowerBench]

All exit polls, and all electoral map polls should be taken with a grain of salt at this point.

As I've said many times, Ross Perot was leading the 1992 election race as late a June of '92 in the polls.

Polling for the general election means so little right now.

At the end of the day, Hillary will stand up on that stage at the Democratic convention and endorse Obama (she still even might be his VP), and they'll put on the big unity show.

And if you get a number over 15%, of Democrats who say they won't vote for Obama, after that...then you might be on to something.

I follow this stuff pretty closely. The general defection rate for any Democratic candidate in any given year is between 10-15%. Obama will probably get close to 15, because there is a race issue.

But I'll be absolutely stunned if it's higher than that come September and October. It just does not happen.


And on the flip side, I never bought the argument that blacks wouldn't vote for Hillary if she won...it's just not how these things trend.

I agree with all that, particularly that the exit polls and current electoral polling isn't always predictive, but I am talking about how things should be evaluated at this point with the information we have at hand, and I'm saying there is clearly one candidate who is stronger than the other one and requires less of a leap of faith in his general election chances to put up as the nominee.

For the defectors, I think the number would be higher than average this time, partly because of the contentiousness of a race between two strong candidates but also there is the race and cultural factors you mention. The Dean supporters who threatened defection came around and they were probably comparable to most Obama supporters in their allegiance to the candidate, but there was never a grudgematch between Dean and Kerry, it was more the Dean vs. the Anybody But Deans.

I think the "spite" defections will be minimized because, as you note, presuming it's Obama, the Clintons will rally behind him (once their own last dog is dead). But that still leaves voters who are resistant on race, culture, and the elderly voters who just don't "get" him. Those are huge hurdles and if Obama loses to McCain come November, we'll look back and wonder why we ignored the writing that is on the wall with those huge constituencies right now.

[ShowerBench]

no way she could win. if you say people wouldn't vote for obama because he's black, it can be said she won't win because she's a woman. on iraq, despite what she says, she has the identical plan mccain has, so just vote for the man!
she has demonstrated so far she has totally screwed up a campaign that originally was supposed to be a coronation for her. she can't even win a campaign that was supposedly hers for the taking! if she is that bad at allowing this nomination process to slip away from her, how do you expect her to win in the general campaign that according to the polls, she's only breaking even with mccain nationwide?

I don't agree she's positioned with McCain on Iraq, I think she's positioned as anti-war but not Anti-War. Wants to bring the troops home, would not have started an Iraq war as president, but won't back out prematurely or hesitate to do what needs doing in Iran should something need doing. I perceive McCain and Obama as two opposite ends of crazy when it comes to national security.

I would expect her to beat McCain by neutralizing McCain on Iraq (she hasn't given him enough to question her patriotism or apply the usual "weak on defense" formulas, and Bill Clinton is solid on the national security front) -- and tearing him apart on the economy.

Her Achilles heel would be being female but she has always won by winning begrudging support by pounding issues. My guess is she's broken down some resistance on the personality front in the course of the campaign too by pandering to the Fox crowd and only eating babies when the cameras are off. She would also have a boost from female voters that would probably be enough to more than cancel out what she would lose from men.

[Recyclerz]

Nope. It's easy to see what happened in this race. The media was in the tank for Obama, and no one who is honest will even try to deny that - study after study has borne it out.

So we know what happened to the Clinton campaign against Obama. The only surprising thing is that she managed to stay competitive this long, and that fact is testament to Obama's extreme weaknesses.

The epitaph will be that the dumb Democrats nominated an inherently weak, first term senator who was basically a branding experiment who didn't really stand for anything and was unappealing to the base that has been with the Democratic party since FDR. The candidates' problems came into greater relief the longer the primary season went on, but the dumb Democrats defied all logic and nominated the weaker candidate anyway. The weaker candidate went down to defeat against a GOP candidate in a year that almost any Democrat should have won.

SB, no disrespect intended but I think that your partisianship is overwhelming your common sense.

HRC started this race with just about every advantage a candidate could have: name recognition together with the support of the most popular Democrat since RFK (if not JFK) who just happened to be her husband (reviviving the implied 2 for 1 deal); all the big money people in the party were behind her; she was able to get several 1st round draft picks in putting together (what she thought was the best) her campaign staff; institutional support from most Democratic governors, mayors, etc. who owed them favors (campaigning, fund raising, etc.); the excitement of being the 1st woman candidate with a legimate shot at being President, et cetera, et cetera. Look back at where the polls were in late 2007.

And yet more than half of her own party has said "No, thanks." Misogyny? Maybe, but I don't think so. I can't speak for everybody who has voted against her but I can speak for myself. I view Hilary as a very flawed candidate for President and I have already voted for her twice as Senator. She has very high negatives among independents who are essential to a winning prediental bid. (The FDR coalition hasn't elected anybody since Truman; I think it is safe to say it is defunct.) She is a polarizing figure and there aren't enough "pure" Democrats to win a national election anymore. (Look at 2004 - we picked our "champion", threw $ at him, worked our asses off and we still couldn't beat a half-retarded war criminal.) We've been picking our "intramural champions" in the Democratic party as our candidates for my entire adult life (Eg. Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) without seeing that they had "cross-over" appeal that approached zero as a calculus limit. Clinton only won in 1992 because Perot muddied the waters enough for 40% to win. I, and I guess people like me, saw Hilary as another one of our 46%ers in an election that was not only winnable but was absolutely essential to win if we are to save any of the political ideals for this country that we hold as Democrats.

Obama is a gamble but one with a lot of upside in my opinion. HRC would have no doubt led a "spirited fight" but would have lost to McCain by at least 6-8% in the best of circumstances and now would get blown out by over 10% with the way that the Clinton Bros. have pissed on the African-American support for the party. I can go into this election with Obama as our guy and know in my heart that, even if he loses, he was probably our best shot. And I really don't want to lose this election.

[keithy_19]

SB, settle down. Hillary will be the VP for Obama when it's all said and done.

[Zorro]

SB, settle down. Hillary will be the VP for Obama when it's all said and done.

No upside for Obama in this...

[ShowerBench]

SB, no disrespect intended but I think that your partisianship is overwhelming your common sense.

HRC started this race with just about every advantage a candidate could have: name recognition together with the support of the most popular Democrat since RFK (if not JFK) who just happened to be her husband (reviviving the implied 2 for 1 deal); all the big money people in the party were behind her; she was able to get several 1st round draft picks in putting together (what she thought was the best) her campaign staff; institutional support from most Democratic governors, mayors, etc. who owed them favors (campaigning, fund raising, etc.); the excitement of being the 1st woman candidate with a legimate shot at being President, et cetera, et cetera. Look back at where the polls were in late 2007.

And yet more than half of her own party has said "No, thanks." Misogyny? Maybe, but I don't think so. I can't speak for everybody who has voted against her but I can speak for myself. I view Hilary as a very flawed candidate for President and I have already voted for her twice as Senator. She has very high negatives among independents who are essential to a winning prediental bid. (The FDR coalition hasn't elected anybody since Truman; I think it is safe to say it is defunct.) She is a polarizing figure and there aren't enough "pure" Democrats to win a national election anymore. (Look at 2004 - we picked our "champion", threw $ at him, worked our asses off and we still couldn't beat a half-retarded war criminal.) We've been picking our "intramural champions" in the Democratic party as our candidates for my entire adult life (Eg. Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) without seeing that they had "cross-over" appeal that approached zero as a calculus limit. Clinton only won in 1992 because Perot muddied the waters enough for 40% to win. I, and I guess people like me, saw Hilary as another one of our 46%ers in an election that was not only winnable but was absolutely essential to win if we are to save any of the political ideals for this country that we hold as Democrats.

Obama is a gamble but one with a lot of upside in my opinion. HRC would have no doubt led a "spirited fight" but would have lost to McCain by at least 6-8% in the best of circumstances and now would get blown out by over 10% with the way that the Clinton Bros. have pissed on the African-American support for the party. I can go into this election with Obama as our guy and know in my heart that, even if he loses, he was probably our best shot. And I really don't want to lose this election.

I get all that, but I don't think either candidate or campaign can be blamed for the best arguments against their candidacy/electability. The media is the X factor: That is, Obama endured a couple of weeks of scrutiny on Wright and couldn't win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana as a result. We've all seen that he is vulnerable on those issues, and the fact that he's vulnerable in the DEMOCRATIC primary makes it worse news.

Clinton endured MONTHS of negative press and has landed about even with Obama. I believe the damage done to Obama will prove more persistent than what they did to Clinton. What's more, she proved she could come back from the attacks, and Obama has yet to prove that he can win back those voters turned off by his associations.

It's interesting that you mention crossover appeal, because I think that is Clinton's greatest virtue and Obama's biggest problem in terms of electability. I think if you look at indies over the last few primaries, Clinton has pulled about even. If you look at mod/conservative Democrats, Clinton blows him away.

I'm convinced that if the superdelegates were to decide the stronger candidate based on preponderance of the evidence and extrapolation based on what we know thus far, they would have to go with Clinton.

I understand there are "possibilities" with Obama such as huge youth turnouts, McCain meltdowns, etc. that can "possibly" overcome his proven vulnerabilities, but right now he looks like another Dukakis and Mondale by my lights. Clinton looks like a Gore or a Clinton - candidates with enough southern/Reagan Dem/hayseed, whatever you want to call it appeal to squeak it out by campaigning like a Democrat on Democratic economic issues in a Democrat's year.

I agree with Begala's observation that Democrats casting their lot with a coalition of "African Americans and eggheads" is a risky proposition.

[ShowerBench]

SB, settle down. Hillary will be the VP for Obama when it's all said and done.

That won't win my vote and I suspect it will change the minds of less than a third of defectors (white working class women over 50)

[Jujubees2]

SB,

What are you pontificating here? Go and sign up with Hilary's campaign. You'd do a much better job than the bozos she has running the campaign now.

[TheMojoPin]

Clinton endured MONTHS of negative press and has landed about even with Obama. I believe the damage done to Obama is of a more persistent type than what they did to Clinton. What's more, she proved she could come back from the attacks, and Obama has yet to prove that he can win back those voters turned off by his associations.

The flipside of that is that Obama has now endured over a month of harsh media scruitiny and Clinton attacks and still managed to fight her off in spite of her simply being a Clinton and pulling off some major victories, thus providing her with momentum and funding. It's simply false to say that Obama has shown he can't "win back people" when he has done just that in the face of the Wright scandal.

[ShowerBench]

Mitt Romney was out today preaching that Obama is unfit for the presidency because "he's never run anything, never led anything. The presidency is not an internship."

My point in all this is that there really isn't a single front on which Obama is not vulnerable as a weak or unsuitable presidential candidate. Inexperienced, easily exploited by the GOP formula as a soft, liberal lefty out of touch elitist egghead. I would guess race is the least of his obstacles, but it's still going to be a factor.

I'm not seeing how he can he hope to overcome all of those vulnerabilities. His chances rest on one hope: that the economy is so bad voters are in a mood to put aside all of their prejudices, grudges, fears and they become impervious to GOP exploitation of all of those - AND they come to believe he represents a hardcore Democratic response to the last 8 years and not just some pie in the sky different politics mumbo jumbo.

I've never seen that come close to happening.

[Jujubees2]

Mitt Romney was out today preaching that Obama is unfit for the presidency because "he's never run anything, never led anything. The presidency is not an internship."

My point in all this is that there really isn't a single front on which Obama is not vulnerable as a weak or unsuitable presidential candidate. Inexperienced, easily exploited by the GOP formula as a soft, liberal lefty out of touch elitist egghead. I would guess race is the least of his obstacles, but it's still going to be a factor.

I'm not seeing how he can he hope to overcome all of those vulnerabilities. His chances rest on one hope: that the economy is so bad voters are in a mood to put aside all of their prejudices, grudges, fears and they become impervious to GOP exploitation of all of those - AND they come to believe he represents a hardcore Democratic response to the last 8 years and not just some pie in the sky different politics mumbo jumbo.

I've never seen that come close to happening.

What has Hilary run or led?

[TheMojoPin]

Mitt Romney was out today preaching that Obama is unfit for the presidency because "he's never run anything, never led anything. The presidency is not an internship."

My point in all this is that there really isn't a single front on which Obama is not vulnerable as a weak or unsuitable presidential candidate. Inexperienced, easily exploited by the GOP formula as a soft, liberal lefty out of touch elitist egghead. I would guess race is the least of his obstacles, but it's still going to be a factor.

I'm not seeing how he can he hope to overcome all of those vulnerabilities. His chances rest on one hope: that the economy is so bad voters are in a mood to put aside all of their prejudices, grudges, fears and they become impervious to GOP exploitation of all of those - AND they come to believe he represents a hardcore Democratic response to the last 8 years and not just some pie in the sky different politics mumbo jumbo.

I've never seen that come close to happening.

You refuse to acknowledge that Hillary has any significant weaknesses herself, and that the GOP has defined itself over the last 15 yeas by specifically and successfully countering and defeating the Clintonian style of Democrat, or by painting Democrats as being Clintonian. The Clintons have been the chief ammunition for the Republicans seizing power since 1994.

[ShowerBench]

What has Hilary run or led?

Come on. We all know the candidate is Billary.

But even the age alone and time in public service translates into "experience."

I think almost anyone could overcome this line of criticism provided they served a couple of terms in the Senate at least. Obama is extremely vulnerable to it because he's young and started running without even completing one term.

And he agrees that he isn't qualified. How is he going to respond to this?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zabeYKddqDU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zabeYKddqDU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[ShowerBench]

You refuse to acknowledge that Hillary has any significant weaknesses herself, and that the GOP has defined itself over the last 15 yeas by specifically and successfully countering and defeating the Clintonian style of Democrat, or by painting Democrats as being Clintonian. The Clintons have been the chief ammunition for the Republicans seizing power since 1994.

I acknowledge Clinton has an "honesty" vulnerability. However, Bill had it too and I think voters differentiated between a generalized, vague mistrust and whether they trusted them to govern effectively. A paradox.

Being female is also one but I think she did what Obama did somewhat effectively: went out of their way to minimize those factors. Obama played up his "white grandmother" and all I heard about last week was Hillary's balls.

I think the "Clintonian" line of attack has lost most of its potency after two terms even the most begrudging voters say were successful, and the fact that the Clintons just don't come off as liberal intellectuals/hippies anymore, partly a function of their age. I think they have been replaced by Michael Moore and "MoveOn" as fundraising tools.

[scottinnj]

SB, settle down. Hillary will be the VP for Obama when it's all said and done.
I sure hope not
No upside for Obama in this...
Agreed.

[foodcourtdruide]

Here's a cute little story...

There is a person in my life that is a life-long democrat. She's supported Hillary from the beginning, but is beginning to face reality and accept Obama as the democratic candidate. I give her credit, because she's not acting bitter about it and is going to stick with her party in the general election.

She's 60+. She's rather intelligent and has a REALLY good job. She's also Jewish (non-practicing).

She's a bit nutty, so yesterday when she conceded the loss to Obama she said, "Obama is not bad, but he'll end up killing all the jews."

America's support of Israel is very important to her. She interpreted Obama's rational response to Clinton's aggressive stance against Iran as a weak defense for Israel.

Anyone who spent 5 minutes researching Obama and Israel will learn that he is actually pro-Israel, but that doesn't mean anything to her. The only information she was able to digest was that Clinton said "obliterate" and Obama didn't.

The point of this story is... I believe, that the average American has no real interest or motivation in understanding the candidates real policies. I understand why Clinton and McCain supported the gas tax bill because it got the "we support working class America and want them to pay less money for gas!" sound bite in the media.

Just my $.02. I think the American election processes's relationship with the media and the citizens relationship with the media are incredibly flawed.

[Recyclerz]

It's interesting that you mention crossover appeal, because I think that is Clinton's greatest virtue and Obama's biggest problem in terms of electability. I think if you look at indies over the last few primaries, Clinton has pulled about even. If you look at mod/conservative Democrats, Clinton blows him away.

I'm convinced that if the superdelegates were to decide the stronger candidate based on preponderance of the evidence and extrapolation based on what we know thus far, they would have to go with Clinton.



I think we have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I believe that we can agree on the fact that, while he may be a fine man and and an American hero, a John McCain presidency, particularly with the policy positions he has been announcing, would be the worst possible outcome of the 2008 elections and we should work backward from there.

[scottinnj]

She's a bit nutty, so yesterday when she conceded the loss to Obama she said, "Obama is not bad, but he'll end up killing all the jews."


That's funny. My mom thinks since Obama came from being an unknown to a contender for the White House in a short period of time, and is a dynamic, motivating figure in public life, he must be the Anti-Christ. She actually said he must be the Anti-Christ.

[foodcourtdruide]

That's funny. My mom thinks since Obama came from being an unknown to a contender for the White House in a short period of time, and is a dynamic, motivating figure in public life, he must be the Anti-Christ. She actually said he must be the Anti-Christ.

lol, unfortunately I think these irrational thoughts exist in many American's and they are what drive our elections. Media rarely questions the main-stay institutions of this country (ie, our election process), but I really think there's a serious flaw that needs to be discussed by American's and evaluated.

[epo]

I acknowledge Clinton has an "honesty" vulnerability. However, Bill had it too and I think voters differentiated between a generalized, vague mistrust and whether they trusted them to govern effectively. A paradox.

Being female is also one but I think she did what Obama did somewhat effectively: went out of their way to minimize those factors. Obama played up his "white grandmother" and all I heard about last week was Hillary's balls.

I think the "Clintonian" line of attack has lost most of its potency after two terms even the most begrudging voters say were successful, and the fact that the Clintons just don't come off as liberal intellectuals/hippies anymore, partly a function of their age. I think they have been replaced by Michael Moore and "MoveOn" as fundraising tools.

A. I honestly don't think Obama can survive with Clinton on the ticket. He's run as something different to the voters and having her on the ticket would ruin that brand. This is a tough spot, as he could use a VP with perceived experience and somebody who can be the hammer. However, I think she has too many negatives with swing republicans and independents for her to be positive as a running mate.

B. The "Clintonian" line of attack is as relevant now as it ever has been. If you consume any of the right wing media, you'll know how much they love trashing her. With that crowd, Clinton=ratings, and that is not a good thing for the Democratic Party at all. The party needs that crowd as demoralized as possible. We don't need the extra talking point.

[keithy_19]

Just a quick question, why hasn't SB's modquote been something of support for Obama? I thought that was the point of the mod quotes. TYo entirely go against what the person believes, to make them feel bad, or to show that they love cock. Shouldn't his mod quot read;

"I would blow Obama's black cock"

?

[scottinnj]

A. I honestly don't think Obama can survive with Clinton on the ticket. He's run as something different to the voters and having her on the ticket would ruin that brand. This is a tough spot, as he could use a VP with perceived experience and somebody who can be the hammer. However, I think she has too many negatives with swing republicans and independents for her to be positive as a running mate.

B. The "Clintonian" line of attack is as relevant now as it ever has been. If you consume any of the right wing media, you'll know how much they love trashing her. With that crowd, Clinton=ratings, and that is not a good thing for the Democratic Party at all. The party needs that crowd as demoralized as possible. We don't need the extra talking point.

epo is right. The "change" platform to get away from Washington insiders that Obama runs his campaign on would be totally erased by having Hillary on the ticket. It would also be used by Republicans that he is just another politician, making deals with "washington insiders" to wrap up the nomination and move on to the general election.

Republicans are trying to wrap their heads around having Obama as the nominee for the Dems now. They are putting away all the sound bites and video clips of Hillary that they were going to launch onto television attack ads. The Republicans were ready for her, and after 8 years of being trashed by her husband, were desperate to pick a fight with her and demolish her. You guys thought the swift-boaters were bad? They were a bunch of dummies compared to what the RNC is capable of.

I'm looking at two VP candidates that I hope Obama is considering.

1. Senator Jim Webb

2. Governor Bill Richardson


Senator Webb is my kind of guy. He's a Democrat, but someone I really, really want to be in the executive branch in a big way. He's a veteran, combat veteran at that, he's doing great things for our men and women in uniform trying to revamp the GI Bill to make it easier for our soldiers coming home to get the physical and mental health care they deserve and the education benefits they have earned.
He's pro-gun. Not just "hunting rights and supporting sportsman" which any NRA member can spot as code words-he believes in the right to defend yourself with a firearm. That is a huge thing from a Democrat as a hand reaching out to the gun owners in freindship.


Governor Richardson-he didn't do well in the primaries, which surprised me. I think he is more intelligent then John Edwards on both foreign policy and domestic management. It must have been all the money in the campaign was gone when he came into the race. He wasn't as dynamic or "motivational" as Edwards, and the media treated him like a bore, and his message never got out. But as VP, or in Obamas cabinet, especially as SOS, he would be an awesome assett to America's endeavors abroad.

[ShowerBench]

Just a quick question, why hasn't SB's modquote been something of support for Obama? I thought that was the point of the mod quotes. TYo entirely go against what the person believes, to make them feel bad, or to show that they love cock. Shouldn't his mod quot read;

"I would blow Obama's black cock"

?

make you a deal, I'll do it if he wins in November to show how wrong I was here all this time, but it's gonna say UNCIRCUMCISED black cock

[scottinnj]

The Clintons have been the chief ammunition for the Republicans seizing power since 1994.


Absolutely right. Bill Clinton's "triangulation" strategy, to make himself look above the fray while the two parties hashed it out in congress, cost Democrats a lot of power, all to keep up his image, while all the time in the background, was stirring the coals on both sides to ensure the spotlight of negative press was not on him.

[Recyclerz]

make you a deal, I'll do it if he wins in November to show how wrong I was here all this time, but it's gonna say UNCIRCUMCISED black cock

Shower Bench - Black Earl Fan since Day One :wink:

[scottinnj]

UNCIRCUMCISED


Heathen

[Friday]

The point of this story is... I believe, that the average American has no real interest or motivation in understanding the candidates real policies.

I think the American election processes's relationship with the media and the citizens relationship with the media are incredibly flawed.

I think that the above statements are right on the money.

Quoted for Troof.

[GvacMobile]

Hillary will destroy the Democrat party.

You'll see!!!

[TooLowBrow]

Hillary will destroy the Democrat party.

You'll see!!!

what is the democratic party anymore?

if obama gets new voters and independents to vote for him, are they democrats?
or are they just voting for a democrat in this election?
i cant see these people staying with the party, they all seem like fair weather fans.
and the super delagates seem like fair weather delegates

[furie]

So, has Hillary Clinton the psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic Party?

[A.J.]

So, has Hillary Clinton the psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic Party?

We'll know when Obama finds a rabbit boiling on his stove.

[Kevin]

Hillary will destroy the Democrat party.

You'll see!!!

http://members.tripod.com/~karmasunn/sr.jpg

[ShowerBench]

what is the democratic party anymore?

if obama gets new voters and independents to vote for him, are they democrats?
or are they just voting for a democrat in this election?
i cant see these people staying with the party, they all seem like fair weather fans.
and the super delagates seem like fair weather delegates

That's my gripe. Obama didn't run on economic/social issues he ran on "Vote for me, ain't I awesome." The "inspired" voters are doing just that and buying into "new kind of politics" and "uniter not divider" nonsense that has never or will never come to pass, and what's worse, Obama has zero record of ever bringing anything close. I doubt if Christopher Dodd was selling the same snake oil it would get the same response because part of it is the packaging in a hip looking black dude. The entire campaign is more or less a marketing gimmick.

[foodcourtdruide]

That's my gripe. Obama didn't run on economic/social issues he ran on "Vote for me, ain't I awesome." The "inspired" voters are doing just that and buying into "new kind of politics" and "uniter not divider" nonsense that has never or will never come to pass, and what's worse, Obama has zero record of ever bringing anything close. I doubt if Christopher Dodd was selling the same snake oil it would get the same response because part of it is the packaging in a hip looking black dude. The entire campaign is more or less a marketing gimmick.

Can you honestly say that any of these three candidates are running more on economic/social issues, rather than their images?

Please reference the campaign that is not more or less a marketing gimmick. You are taking a huge flaw in our election process and applying it ONLY to Obama.

[TheMojoPin]

Can you honestly say that any of these three candidates are running more on economic/social issues, rather than their images?

Please reference the campaign that is not more or less a marketing gimmick. You are taking a huge flaw in our election process and applying it ONLY to Obama.

No kidding.

He's arguing like his main Democratic rival wasn't running almost totally on "hey, my name is Hillary CLINTON." Her TV ads might as well just have been reruns of I Love the 90's.

SB, Obama is clearly flawed and open to criticism, just like anyone who runs for public office. The difference here is that you continual go out of your way to tag him with things that are applicable or worse to others running as if he's the only one showing these traits. Then you'll fall back on, "but he's the one who said he's about change..." A candidate can still potenially offer a newer voice or perspective different from the norm while still "playing the game." That's unavoidable. It's a strawman to pin up expectations on him that you also condemn his supporters for doing.

[ShowerBench]

My first pick, Edwards, was running on issues. Yes, the Clintons are running on "the 90's" but that is a record (on issues). To this day I don't know what the hell Obama is running on except some nebulous "hope and change" script that Patrick Deval used verbatim and his ability to read the script well.

[foodcourtdruide]

My first pick, Edwards, was running on issues. Yes, the Clintons are running on "the 90's" but that is a record (on issues). To this day I don't know what the hell Obama is running on except some nebulous "hope and change" script that Patrick Deval used verbatim and his ability to read the script well.

Edwards is my first pick too, however, he really hasn't been in the position to show how he'd market himself in a tight race.

Obama's positions on issues are all over the place. They are not hard to find if you look for them. The media emphasizes his hope and change stuff because it is gimmicky and appeal to the masses.

[TheMojoPin]

My first pick, Edwards, was running on issues. Yes, the Clintons are running on "the 90's" but that is a record (on issues). To this day I don't know what the hell Obama is running on except some nebulous "hope and change" script that Patrick Deval used verbatim and his ability to read the script well.

What record was Edwards running on? Y'know, since you're constantly down on Obama's lack of experience and how that's a weakness for him.

[HBox]

What record was Edwards running on? Y'know, since you're constantly down on Obama's lack of experience and how that's a weakness for him.

His one Senate term. Which was the entirety of his governmental experience. Which was so bad he didn't have a chance if he ran for re-election.

I mean I like John Edwards, he was my choice in 2004 and my second choice this year. But PLEASE. He has LESS experience than Obama. Much less.

[HBox]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B6Lstkiexhc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B6Lstkiexhc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

Her TV ads might as well just have been reruns of I Love the 90's.

:clap: :clap: :clap: LOL!



VH1 Announcer Voice:
"I love the 90s starring Hillary Clinton, followed by Patrice O'Neals' Webjunk 2.0"

I'm guessing America's Funniest Home Videos feels threatened by a Friday night lineup like that-I smell "Idol" like ratings!!!!

[scottinnj]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B6Lstkiexhc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B6Lstkiexhc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

"Marshmallow-Shaped Dykes"-I laughed, I cried! I loved the rant! That was f-ing funny as hell!

[epo]

From today's USA Today:

Clinton makes case for wide appeal (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm)

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

By the way, Hillary would like you to realize that Barack Obama is black. It's nice that Clinton is going out classy.

[scottinnj]

and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Isn't it amazing? She's actually saying it's okay for dummy ham 'n' eggers to be racist-as long as they vote for her, not McCain.

How's that for saving .15 cents on a gallon of gas?

[scottinnj]

It's nice that Clinton is going out classy.

I loathe and despise the Clinton Brothers. But I'm not a guy who likes kicking a person when she is down.

However, after hearing this today, she can suck a bag of dicks.

[epo]

Isn't it amazing? She's actually saying it's okay for dummy ham 'n' eggers to be racist-as long as they vote for her, not McCain.

How's that for saving .15 cents on a gallon of gas?

WooHoo! 15 cents a gallon so this nation can lose 300,000 jobs and the gas companies can raise prices! That's not pandering or stupid! :wacko:

You can calculate your massive savings here! (http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=13lkzo)

I'm gonna buy a 12-pack of beer with mine. Who needs those stupid jobs or infrastructure?

[scottinnj]

I'm gonna buy a 12-pack of beer with mine. Who needs those stupid jobs or infrastructure?


Not me buddy. I buy fancy beer, so I can only get a six pack. And NO you can't split it with me!

[scottinnj]

You can calculate your massive savings here! (http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=13lkzo)



I save 2.39 cents. Since I don't drive my truck to and from work, and only put about 20 miles on it a week, I won't even be able to buy a six pack of Budweiser with that. I'll be able to buy a fucking Red Bull from WaWa when the tax holiday is over.

I won't even be able to afford a six pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon. I won't even be able to buy HOBO BEER?!?!? WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT THEN??????

[furie]

I save 2.39 cents. Since I don't drive my truck to and from work, and only put about 20 miles on it a week, I won't even be able to buy a six pack of Budweiser with that. I'll be able to buy a fucking Red Bull from WaWa when the tax holiday is over.

I won't even be able to afford a six pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon. I won't even be able to buy HOBO BEER?!?!? WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT THEN??????

it'll save me $55 over a 15 week period.
big woop

[TheMojoPin]

His one Senate term. Which was the entirety of his governmental experience. Which was so bad he didn't have a chance if he ran for re-election.

I mean I like John Edwards, he was my choice in 2004 and my second choice this year. But PLEASE. He has LESS experience than Obama. Much less.

Agreed. I like a lot of what Edwards has to say, but for someone to rail on Obama's "lack of experience" and then present Edwards as an ideal alternative is just not being realistic. Obama can be pianted as "weird" and "out of touch," yet Edwards' huge expensive house and his expensive haircuts and his "ambulace chaser" (not what I think, but how it would be spun) career and his failed run with Kerry would be invulnerbale and able to stand up to the Republicans? How does that work, SB?

[scottinnj]

it'll save me $55 over a 15 week period.
big woop

That's enough for a kegger. Where do you live?

[TooLowBrow]

if there was a vote right now, for pres, 3 candidates, would it be 24%, 26%, 48%?

[ShowerBench]

From today's USA Today:

Clinton makes case for wide appeal

Quote:
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Nice attempt at a nasty smear there.

Read (and listen to) it again, and this time without the race-card-playing-colored glasses.

She wasn't making a racist statement by including "white Americans," she was correcting her generalization about working class voters, a phrase which she often interchanges with "hard working Americans."

She started to say Obama's support among working class voters is weakening, but since it isn't weakening among BLACK voters she clarified that by adding "white Americans."

If she hadn't specified "white," the comment would have either meant that black voters are not among the "hard working" or she would be lying and claiming black working class voters were among her supporters.

You're insane if you think she was boldly proclaiming either that only white Americans are hard working or that Obama's support is weakening among "white Americans" as opposed to white working class Americans (since black working class Americans are not supporting her).

It's getting pathological when a simple reading of a straightforward comment that was even clarified for precision is interpreted as racist.

People need to be smarter than this. Really.

[HBox]

People need to be smarter than this. Really.


:laugh:

[JerseySean]

I save 2.39 cents. Since I don't drive my truck to and from work, and only put about 20 miles on it a week, I won't even be able to buy a six pack of Budweiser with that. I'll be able to buy a fucking Red Bull from WaWa when the tax holiday is over.

I won't even be able to afford a six pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon. I won't even be able to buy HOBO BEER?!?!? WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT THEN??????

The point is that it will cost significantly less to transpost goods throughout the US. IE-Food, Therefore people will save real money on groceries and other important good in their everyday lives. I am not sure if it is a goo idea but there will be real savings.

[A.J.]

What record was Edwards running on? Y'know, since you're constantly down on Obama's lack of experience and how that's a weakness for him.

His one Senate term. Which was the entirety of his governmental experience.

That and his Bobby Kennedy-like good looks.

[Jujubees2]

The point is that it will cost significantly less to transpost goods throughout the US. IE-Food, Therefore people will save real money on groceries and other important good in their everyday lives. I am not sure if it is a goo idea but there will be real savings.

If you really believe that I've got a bridge here in Brooklyn to sell ya'

[Zorro]

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/Chas4604/aChasers.jpg

[foodcourtdruide]

The point is that it will cost significantly less to transpost goods throughout the US. IE-Food, Therefore people will save real money on groceries and other important good in their everyday lives. I am not sure if it is a goo idea but there will be real savings.

Define "significantly"? If gas is $4 a gallon, cutting it by $.18 will save roughly 5%.

That is assuming:

1. Gas companies don't just jack up prices because they can.
2. Demand doesn't go up 5%, naturally making prices go up 5%.

Also, this money is not coming from the sky.

[epo]

You're insane if you think she was boldly proclaiming either that only white Americans are hard working or that Obama's support is weakening among "white Americans" as opposed to white working class Americans (since black working class Americans are not supporting her).

It's getting pathological when a simple reading of a straightforward comment that was even clarified for precision is interpreted as racist.

People need to be smarter than this. Really.

You might have a point, IF Clinton and her surrogates hadn't played the race card so many times already in this contest. Honestly, if you don't think a quiet, yet obvious strategy of the Clinton campaign hasn't been to portrait Obama as the "black candidate", then you are a damned fool.

[Friday]

Honestly, if you don't think a quiet, yet obvious strategy of the Clinton campaign hasn't been to portrait Obama as the "black candidate", then you are a damned fool.

this was #5 on image search for the phrase 'damned fool'.
i just thought i'd share that with y'all.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hillary_clinton.jpg

[ShowerBench]

What record was Edwards running on? Y'know, since you're constantly down on Obama's lack of experience and how that's a weakness for him.

Agree it was the same weakness and that's why I moved off backing him. I did originally because he was the white male in the Democratic field and I liked the message. Before I get called names, "white male" was important only because of what it means in terms of electability.

After a while when it looked like the Clinton strategy to emphasize the Billary factor of experience was successful, I switched because Edwards was just coming off as "weak" (a combination of inexperience and almost no focus on national security).

But Edwards has a classically DEMOCRATIC message that I liked. I don't see any message out of Obama except "I'm awesome and have special powers to change politics."

There is money at the root of the partisan divide, therefore neither side is ever going to be interested in compromising before they are forced to. "Post-partisan" is another word for acquiescence.

[Zorro]

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hillary_clinton.jpg

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/Chas4604/David_Duke.gif