The 2008 Presidential Race

[epo]

[IMG]
Actually, Iowa has picked the Republican nominee every election since 1992, and the last two Presidential election cycles they went with Kerry (2004) and Gore (2000) for the Democrats, so they have a pretty decent track record. Going back to Reagan's re-election, they have only gotten it wrong three times combined between the parties.


Iowa has done a pretty solid job with the Democrats:

2004 - John Kerry
2000 - Al Gore
1996 - Bill Clinton
1992 - Tom Harkin
1988 - Dick Gephardt
1984 - Walter Mondale
1980 - Jimmy Carter
1976 - Jimmy Carter (actually finished second to undecided).

If you look at that track record the only one they really missed was 1988 when they selected Gephardt over Simon & Dukakis. You can point to 1992, but remember Tom Harkin was a hugely popular Iowa politician so Clinton & Tsongas both skipped the caucus entirely.

While the 1996 Clinton nod was obvious, remember that in 1980 the Carter nod was not. He was strongly challenged by Ted Kennedy who ran a great campaign against an unpopular sitting president.

I can't rip Iowa too much. Well...except for the corn and pig farms part.

[HBox]

This..... this can't possibly help.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vf7HYoh9YMM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vf7HYoh9YMM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Grendel_Kahn]

http://lucytheblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/mclaughlin.jpg

:wink:



Actually, Iowa has picked the Republican nominee every election since 1992, and the last two Presidential election cycles they went with Kerry (2004) and Gore (2000) for the Democrats, so they have a pretty decent track record. Going back to Reagan's re-election, they have only gotten it wrong three times combined between the parties.



New Hampshire actually has a worse history of being accurate - Gary Hart won in 1984, Paul Tsongus won in 1992, McCain won there in 2000 and Buchanan (!) won there in 1996.

Ya know...no one likes a know it all!:surrender:

[Freakshow]

People like voting for men from Hope, AR
It must be something in the water.

[TeeBone]

YAWN.

Nothing like election season to bring out the flame-happy trolls.

It's so easy to spot dullards.
"I got my eye on you, Heather 8."
Does the '8' stand for the number of times you had to stop yourself from standing while you pee this week?
:bye:

[scottinnj]

They told me first thing..."You guys made the right call with Obama" and they genuinely meant it.
They other thing they said was "I'm not voting for Huckabee".





That's funny, that's what I was saying this morning too. I think I'm the only registered Republican in the office. I felt bad most everyone didn't stay up for Obama's speech.

[epo]

That's funny, that's what I was saying this morning too. I think I'm the only registered Republican in the office. I felt bad most everyone didn't stay up for Obama's speech.

Hence the epo/scottinnj ticket!

I know it was posted in the Iowa thread...but seriously Obama's speech was so fucking good that I'm gonna post it again:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yqoFwZUp5vc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yqoFwZUp5vc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

QFT!

I played it for my wife tonight. She is so sick of politicians, she is ready to vote for this guy too. In fact, she's pissed she never changed her party affiliation to independant to vote for him on Super Tuesday.

[HBox]

QFT!

I played it for my wife tonight. She is so sick of politicians, she is ready to vote for this guy too. In fact, she's pissed she never changed her party affiliation to independant to vote for him on Super Tuesday.

Well, in New jersey you have to switch affiliation tot he party, not just independent. But in NJ you can change affiliation at the voting station on election day.

[HBox]

IThis may be a moot point as he's probably on his way out but if anyone needed any more proof about how much of a transparent phony mitt Romney is, here's him him trashing his home state to help himself in the primary. Or the latest, most obvious attempt at doing so:

link here. (http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2008/01/romney-concedes-massachusetts-to.html)

[epo]

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but kudos to the New Hampshire State Republican Party.

They have withdrawn as a co-sponsor of tomorrow night's republican debate to be broadcast on Fox News...as Fox refused to allow Ron Paul to participate. I understand that I think Ron Paul is nutty, but honestly the voters of New Hampshire currently have him in third place in the last Rasmussen poll. He may not have a realistic chance, but he deserves to be heard.

Link to story here. (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=State+GOP+withdraws+as+FOX+d ebate+partner&articleId=fecf75e6-240c-4ef4-80f0-637736adf6fd)

[TheMojoPin]

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but kudos to the New Hampshire State Republican Party.

They have withdrawn as a co-sponsor of tomorrow night's republican debate to be broadcast on Fox News...as Fox refused to allow Ron Paul to participate. I understand that I think Ron Paul is nutty, but honestly the voters of New Hampshire currently have him in third place in the last Rasmussen poll. He may not have a realistic chance, but he deserves to be heard.

Link to story here. (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=State+GOP+withdraws+as+FOX+d ebate+partner&articleId=fecf75e6-240c-4ef4-80f0-637736adf6fd)

Yeah, I'm as anti-Ron Paul as they come, but this is bullshit. This is just like Nader getting shut out of the Democratic debates in 2000.

[scottinnj]

These debates have been a waste of time anyway, both on Fox and MSNBC.

I've gotten more information from Meet the Press about each candidate individually then these 30 second Q & A sessions.

I swear to god, some of the questions were longer then the time the candidates were allowed to give an answer.

[scottinnj]

Didn't Kucinich get shut out of the Democrat debates as well?

[TheMojoPin]

Didn't Kucinich get shut out of the Democrat debates as well?

He's been in them thus far.

[HBox]

Well, in New jersey you have to switch affiliation tot he party, not just independent. But in NJ you can change affiliation at the voting station on election day.

I was wrong here. In NJ you have until January 15th to file a change of party affiliation form.

[scottinnj]

Linkey Linkey (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TVTSJO0&show_article=1)


Democrats, prodded by liberal activists who argue Fox News is biased, have been avoiding the cable news network. Fox had to cancel a scheduled Democratic debate after the candidates refused to participate.

I guess if they won't come to you, you have to go to them. But it seems he is going too far:

Secret Service agents assigned to protect Obama ordered O'Reilly back behind the barricade. At that point Obama approached him and extended his hand.

I'm glad the Secret Service keeps everyone away from the candidates. I don't care who you are. The "do not cross" line is there for a fucking reason. DO NOT CROSS IT!

[epo]

Bill O'Reilly was also at the Clinton rally this morning:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/678M-DKVlfo&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/678M-DKVlfo&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

He must be making the rounds.

[scottinnj]

He's been in them thus far.

I remember now. ABC is cutting him. Link (http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/367411.html)


The candidates failed to meet benchmarks for their support that were outlined prior to Thursday's Iowa caucus, the network said Friday.



Gravel, and Hunter too.

[scottinnj]

Bill O'Reilly was also at the Clinton rally this morning:


He must be making the rounds.


She handled it well. Gave a real answer too. I guess he brings out the best in people.

[scottinnj]

Linkey Link (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/top_three/story/7526155p-7427430c.html)


Gov. Jon S. Corzine is working for the Clinton campaign this weekend in Nevada.

It is highly rumored that he will be VP candidate for Hillary if he hands her NJ and helps out elsewhere. This kind of explains the 25 million dollars he's spent on his own to be Senator then Governor. Just sliding into position for the White House.

And another reason NJ Democrats should support OBAMA!!!!! :thumbup:

[pennington]

It is highly rumored that he will be VP candidate for Hillary if he hands her NJ and helps out elsewhere. This kind of explains the 25 million dollars he's spent on his own to be Senator then Governor. Just sliding into position for the White House.

And another reason NJ Democrats should support OBAMA!!!!! :thumbup:

It doesn't make too much sense. Why would you have a presidential candidate from NY and a VP candidate from NJ? The sheep in this state are going to vote for her anyway.

It would be nice way to get him out of here, though...

[epo]

It doesn't make too much sense. Why would you have a presidential candidate from NY and a VP candidate from NJ? The sheep in this state are going to vote for her anyway.

It would be nice way to get him out of here, though...

I keep hearing Evan Byah, the Senator from Indiana. He's a former governor and a moderate politician from the midwest.

[Grendel_Kahn]

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but kudos to the New Hampshire State Republican Party.

They have withdrawn as a co-sponsor of tomorrow night's republican debate to be broadcast on Fox News...as Fox refused to allow Ron Paul to participate. I understand that I think Ron Paul is nutty, but honestly the voters of New Hampshire currently have him in third place in the last Rasmussen poll. He may not have a realistic chance, but he deserves to be heard.

Link to story here. (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=State+GOP+withdraws+as+FOX+d ebate+partner&articleId=fecf75e6-240c-4ef4-80f0-637736adf6fd)

Say what you want about Ron Paul. But the guy has won every single debate he has been involved in.

[epo]

By the way, this year we've seen some odd political/Hollywood affiliations. We've got Obama & Oprah. Then we got Huckabee & Chuck Norris. Now we have....John McCain & Wilford Brimley (http://www.yourconcord.com/primaryblog/mccains_answer_to_chuck).

"Wilford Brimley is our response to Chuck Norris," McCain said on his campaign bus. "He's huge in every way."

Umm...eat your oatmeal & vote McCain in 08'!

http://www.s9.com/images/portraits/3815_Brimley-Wilford.jpg

[HBox]

By the way, this year we've seen some odd political/Hollywood affiliations. We've got Obama & Oprah. Then we got Huckabee & Chuck Norris. Now we have....John McCain & Wilford Brimley (http://www.yourconcord.com/primaryblog/mccains_answer_to_chuck).



Umm...eat your oatmeal & vote McCain in 08'!

http://www.s9.com/images/portraits/3815_Brimley-Wilford.jpg

"If ya keep on wantin ta get your diabetus supplies, y'all better vote McCain."

[Grendel_Kahn]

Hence the epo/scottinnj ticket!

I know it was posted in the Iowa thread...but seriously Obama's speech was so fucking good that I'm gonna post it again:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yqoFwZUp5vc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yqoFwZUp5vc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I gotta say.....that was one fucking good speech.


VERY JFK.

[TheMojoPin]

Wow...I already liked the guy, but that is a damn fine speech.

[HBox]

I think I finally understand a major reason why Ron Paul is so popular. So much of these Republican debates have been about foreign policy and he's the only man on that stage making any sense WHATSOEVER. If you are only watching these debates he looks like a genius among raving lunatics.

[TheMojoPin]

I think I finally understand a major reason why Ron Paul is so popular. So much of these Republican debates have been about foreign policy and he's the only man on that stage making any sense WHATSOEVER. If you are only watching these debates he looks like a genius among raving lunatics.

Good point.

[HBox]

I think Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani would fist fight given the opportunity.

[HBox]

Romney and Huckabee on the undercard.

[HBox]

Giuliani just asked "Where did the attack on the Munich Olympics take place?"

Nice one there buddy.

[HBox]

There are some crazy quotes tonight.

John McCain:"You were talking about healthcare in Europe, well some people in this audience have been to Canada and I don't think they want that system."

[HBox]

I hate this. Mitt Romney is the only one making sense on health care up here. John McCain thinks inflation and fat people are the problem. Ron Paul thinks the gold standard is the answer. Giuliani thinks tax cuts are the answer. Feed Thompson said gibberish. Huckabee said nothing at all.

OK, they're letting Huckabee's talking now and he's making some sense too. Mostly fucking nonsense though.

[K.C.]

I hate this. Mitt Romney is the only one making sense on health care up here. John McCain thinks inflation and fat people are the problem. Ron Paul thinks the gold standard is the answer. Giuliani thinks tax cuts are the answer. Feed Thompson said gibberish. Huckabee said nothing at all.

OK, they're letting Huckabee's talking now and he's making some sense too. Mostly fucking nonsense though.

This is just a big clusterfuck.

For what it's worth, Romney's winning some point hammering McCain on Immigration, and Giuliani has done a good job deflecting Ron Paul's attacks on him, but that's about it.

Huckabee's still the best speaker of the bunch, but hasn't said a damn thing.

[HBox]

What the fuck is this moderator doing? 'you've been hammering on Hillary Clinton a lot. Why not spend a little time attacking Obama?"

I mean really, this isn't touching any issues. You just gave them fucking target practice!

[Tenbatsuzen]

I think I finally understand a major reason why Ron Paul is so popular. So much of these Republican debates have been about foreign policy and he's the only man on that stage making any sense WHATSOEVER. If you are only watching these debates he looks like a genius among raving lunatics.

What was the name of the guy that O&A were supporting in Wisconsin with the over the top ads? Whenever I hear "Ron Paul" I think of that guy with the awful voice.

[HBox]

Paul R. Nelson

[Tenbatsuzen]

Paul R. Nelson

Mmmmhmmm. Ron Paul sounds like him, or a celebrity hair product guy.

[K.C.]

Here's the problem...when the Republican candidates are fighting over who's the Republican version of Obama, it doesn't bode well for them in the general election.

[HBox]

Great. The truthers are there nestled right between the Paul and Hillary supporters.

[Zorro]

I hate this. Mitt Romney is the only one making sense on health care up here. John McCain thinks inflation and fat people are the problem. Ron Paul thinks the gold standard is the answer. Giuliani thinks tax cuts are the answer. Feed Thompson said gibberish. Huckabee said nothing at all.


Fat people aren't the problem?

[Tenbatsuzen]

Great. The truthers are there nestled right between the Paul and Hillary supporters.

So homos, idiots, and tree-huggers?

When Gibson asked "What would you do the Day After a Nuclear Attack," my first response was "Jack Bauer, duh!"

[Tenbatsuzen]

Corzine + Hillary makes my nuts retreat into my torso.

I actually never heard Obama speak until tonight. Damn, he's smooth. He's like Billy Dee Williams.

[HBox]

So homos, idiots, and tree-huggers?

When Gibson asked "What would you do the Day After a Nuclear Attack," my first response was "Jack Bauer, duh!"

On another board I read a great reply: "Let my vaporized ashes settle into the ground because the President would be the likely target."

Oh great. They let the Republicans have taarget practice on Obama, now let the Democrats do it with him sitting right there.

[Tenbatsuzen]

On another board I read a great reply: "Let my vaporized ashes settle into the ground because the President would be the likely target."

Oh great. They let the Republicans have taarget practice on Obama, now let the Democrats do it with him sitting right there.

I hate to say it, but Nuclear Terrorism is one of the reasons I want to get the fuck out of here. I love NJ, but if a dirty bomb goes off, the environment is fucking SCREWED here.

[Zorro]

Corzine + Hillary makes my nuts retreat into my torso.

I actually never heard Obama speak until tonight. Damn, he's smooth. He's like Billy Dee Williams.

I had never donated money to a candidate before, but last summer I heard Obama give a speech, read his book and love the idea of an african-american president...and even though I know its really small I've donated about $600 dollars to the guy $50 bucks at a time.

[Tenbatsuzen]

So realistically - is Giuliani/McCain the best ticket the Republicans can offer up?

[Tenbatsuzen]

When I think of Barack, I think of...

http://www.geocities.com/larsgorzelak/amazonwomen_3.jpg

[HBox]

So realistically - is Giuliani/McCain the best ticket the Republicans can offer up?

Anything including Giuliani and I'm convinced World War 3 starts the second he's sworn. Seriously listen to what he says about foreign policy. He is FUCKING BONKERS.

[Tenbatsuzen]

Anything including Giuliani and I'm convinced World War 3 starts the second he's sworn. Seriously listen to what he says about foreign policy. He is FUCKING BONKERS.

Although a state dinner for Vietnam with McCain would be 1000x awesome.

[Tenbatsuzen]

No love for Don "No Soul" Simmons. Damn you people.

[HBox]

WOW. i think Edwards just started running for Obama's VP. Man he just slammed Clinton in defense of Obama and sent her into harpy mode. this is hilarious.

[K.C.]

WOW. i think Edwards just started running for Obama's VP. Man he just slammed Clinton in defense of Obama and sent her into harpy mode. this is hilarious.

Agreed.

The whole exchange was great, though. And then Hillary came back super-pissed and tried to unload on both of them.

I'll be honest...Richardson's given the best pitch so far of the four at this point...shame nobody's paying attention.

If Edwards is going to jump to Obama's defense when Hillary attacks, there's no way she can win this.

[Zorro]

WOW. i think Edwards just started running for Obama's VP. Man he just slammed Clinton in defense of Obama and sent her into harpy mode. this is hilarious.

Just what the country needs an ambulance chasing VP....

[HBox]

Agreed.

The whole exchange was great, though. And then Hillary came back super-pissed and tried to unload on both of them.

I'll be honest...Richardson's given the best pitch so far of the four at this point...shame nobody's paying attention.

If Edwards is going to jump to Obama's defense when Hillary attacks, there's no way she can win this.

They both know exactly what in Hillary turns people off about her and just exposed it.

[K.C.]

They both know exactly what in Hillary turns people off about her and just exposed it.

It's clear to me that Edwards' strategy is to push her from the race and make it Obama vs. Edwards.

Of course, Edwards can't win that fight, because Obama's got about 10 times the money he does.

But it's the same thing he did in '04. He helped boil it down to him vs. Kerry and made it so he was a viable VP candidate. The same thing's happening here. If he somehow beats Obama, great...if not, he's positioned himself to be a solid VP choice.

[HBox]

Richardson was doing well but WOW was that rough.

[HBox]

I think Edwards won that overall but Hillary had a couple of really horrible moments which will probably carry the news which means Obama is probably the real winner hear despite a couple of stumbles.

[K.C.]

I think Edwards won that overall but Hillary had a couple of really horrible moments which will probably carry the news which means Obama is probably the real winner hear despite a couple of stumbles.

Kind of the way I saw it. Edwards definitely won, but Obama didn't really screw up, so it's a win for him too. Hillary lost pretty badly, I thought. Richardson...well, he couldn't have really hurt himself at this point. I think he'll pick up a little from this debate.

In terms of pure debating, though:
1) Edwards
2) Richardson
3) Obama
4) Clinton


And the Republicans
1) McCain
2) Giuliani
3) Romney
4) Huckabee
5) Paul
6) Thompson

[HBox]

Kind of the way I saw it. Edwards definitely won, but Obama didn't really screw up, so it's a win for him too. Hillary lost pretty badly, I thought. Richardson...well, he couldn't have really hurt himself at this point. I think he'll pick up a little from this debate.

In terms of pure debating, though:
1) Edwards
2) Richardson
3) Obama
4) Clinton


And the Republicans
1) McCain
2) Giuliani
3) Romney
4) Huckabee
5) Paul
6) Thompson

I'm not sure if you noticed this but Richardson is a governor. It was a subtle message he was trying get across tonight.

[Grendel_Kahn]

I've said it time and again: when you hear Ron Paul speak at these debates you think that he's the only one who makes sense.

[Grendel_Kahn]

Anything including Giuliani and I'm convinced World War 3 starts the second he's sworn. Seriously listen to what he says about foreign policy. He is FUCKING BONKERS.


I am so fucking with you on that. We're like the Yankees right now. Still pretty good, but needs to go through a rebuilding phase.

[K.C.]

I've said it time and again: when you hear Ron Paul speak at these debates you think that he's the only one who makes sense.

On some issues, he's clearly a good candidate. I like social libertarianism, and while I'm more prone to agree with guys like Edwards and Obama on foreign affairs, I would take Paul's approach to foreign policy any day of the week over guys like McCain and Giuliani. McCain seems unable to accept reality, and Giuliani just comes off as a warmonger

But I think Paul's certifiably crazy when it comes to economics. You can't eliminate government aid in this country without causing some enormous societal issues.

[K.C.]

I'm not sure if you noticed this but Richardson is a governor. It was a subtle message he was trying get across tonight.

Really? I thought he was just the Secretary of Energy...somewhere in the 800 times he said that, he must have snuck in that he was a governor too.

In all seriousness, I thought he did well except for getting sandbagged by that reporter with the New England energy crisis from 2000 question.

[Yerdaddy]

On some issues, he's clearly a good candidate. I like social libertarianism, and while I'm more prone to agree with guys like Edwards and Obama on foreign affairs, I would take Paul's approach to foreign policy any day of the week over guys like McCain and Giuliani. McCain seems unable to accept reality, and Giuliani just comes off as a warmonger

But I think Paul's certifiably crazy when it comes to economics. You can't eliminate government aid in this country without causing some enormous societal issues.

Just curious - what are Edwards' and Obama's positions on foreign affairs? I've never seen them say anything substantive from either of them other than they've always opposed the Iraq war, which is fine, but doesn't tell me anything about what they might do about it if elected. I also don't have access to the debates, so I don't know if they've actually committed themselves to saying something meaningful lately. Have they?

[TheMojoPin]

Just curious - what are Edwards' and Obama's positions on foreign affairs? I've never seen them say anything substantive from either of them other than they've always opposed the Iraq war, which is fine, but doesn't tell me anything about what they might do about it if elected. I also don't have access to the debates, so I don't know if they've actually committed themselves to saying something meaningful lately. Have they?

Nope.

[HBox]

Obama's web page on Foreign affairs. Pretty substantive. (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/)

[K.C.]

Just curious - what are Edwards' and Obama's positions on foreign affairs? I've never seen them say anything substantive from either of them other than they've always opposed the Iraq war, which is fine, but doesn't tell me anything about what they might do about it if elected. I also don't have access to the debates, so I don't know if they've actually committed themselves to saying something meaningful lately. Have they?

Outside of the Iraq issue, both favor a kind of direct diplomacy approach. Like with Iran, Obama has said he would enter direct diplomatic negotiations with them and offer economic and diplomatic incentives for them renouncing terrorism in the region. They both also favor the two-state solution on Israel-Palestine, and strengthing the non-proliferation treaty on nuclear weapons.

In tonight’s debate, both said they would intervene in Pakistan with or without permission to extract Osama Bin Laden if they had credible information on his whereabouts. Furthermore, Edwards said he’s push a global agenda of designed to gradually dismantle nuclear weapons worldwide.

Lastly, and in a general sense, both stand for building stronger international coalitions, such as strengthing our UN and NATO ties to better handle situations like Darfur, and combat global poverty (obviously that would be the UN, not NATO).

About the only thing I disagree with them is not pushing to redefine the US relationship in the WTO.

[K.C.]

By the way, the one thing that annoys me about this Obama rise is listening to the assholes they trot out in these focus groups, like I'm watching on FOX right now.

They all like Obama, but when they're asked why, all they can say is "he stands for change"...it's like a bunch of sheep...Can they at least give a real reason why they like the guy?

[epo]

WOW. i think Edwards just started running for Obama's VP. Man he just slammed Clinton in defense of Obama and sent her into harpy mode. this is hilarious.

Edwards did this last time too. However a VP must cover the weaknesses of the Presidential candidate...and I don't think John covers Obama's major weakness, experience.

Barack is going to need a battle tested warhorse as a VP candidate if...and that's a big if he were to get the nomination. Edwards does not fit that fold in the least bit.

[epo]

Kind of the way I saw it. Edwards definitely won, but Obama didn't really screw up, so it's a win for him too. Hillary lost pretty badly, I thought. Richardson...well, he couldn't have really hurt himself at this point. I think he'll pick up a little from this debate.

In terms of pure debating, though:
1) Edwards
2) Richardson
3) Obama
4) Clinton


And the Republicans
1) McCain
2) Giuliani
3) Romney
4) Huckabee
5) Paul
6) Thompson

I'm kind of disappointed I missed this. Who ran this debate?

[HBox]

Edwards did this last time too. However a VP must cover the weaknesses of the Presidential candidate...and I don't think John covers Obama's major weakness, experience.

Barack is going to need a battle tested warhorse as a VP candidate if...and that's a big if he were to get the nomination. Edwards does not fit that fold in the least bit.

Yeah. All the commentary I've read agrees that this is Edwards' strategy but nobody agrees with it.

I personally think if Obama secures the nomination his VP was on that stage, except he was the guy who might have mentioned once or twice he was a governor and former secretary of energy who apparently never did anything.

God that was a cockpunch.

[HBox]

I'm kind of disappointed I missed this. Who ran this debate?

ABC. Charlie Gibson did the moderating for the most part and did a good job mostly. The first few questions to the Democrats were ridiculous hypotheticals but other than that was pretty good. For the second part of the debate a guy from a New Hampshire TV station mostly took over and started sniping at everybody. Richardson got the worst of it.

[K.C.]

Yeah. All the commentary I've read agrees that this is Edwards' strategy but nobody agrees with it.

I personally think if Obama secures the nomination his VP was on that stage, except he was the guy who might have mentioned once or twice he was a governor and former secretary of energy who apparently never did anything.

God that was a cockpunch.


This is probably the short list of Obama VP Candidates:

Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) (obvious similarities in policy)
Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) (would lend experience and credibility to candidacy, and geographically help in the southwest, as well as among Latinos)
Sen. Joe Biden (DE) (would lend enormous foreign policy experience)
Sen. Jim Webb (VA) (would make Obama seem more towards the center, and make Virginia a battleground state)
Sen. Evan Bayh (IN) (puts Indiana in play; one of the most moderate and well respected senators on both sides of the isle.)
Gov. Brian Schweitzer (MT) (big success story of the moderate democrat surge in '04 and '06. Would put some of the midwest that was red state country in play)


My guess is Hbox is right...his VP is probably on that stage, although it could be Edwards or Richardson. I could see him picking Bayh, possibly, but in Edwards you gain the best campaigner of the bunch and in Richardson you gain the best election strategy.

[TeeBone]

It's always funny to me when people say, " I'd vote for Colin Powell..." Lately it seems people are eager to jump in with, "...He screwed himself over big time and there is no way he'd be elected." I wish I had such a narrow, ill-informed view of the world. My answer is 'WHY?' Is it because he was Secretary of State under George Bush when the war started? Can anyone honestly say they have heard Colin Powell ever talk about running for President? I can't and I wish he would have 8 years ago. He has never made anyone believe he wanted to be President, so to hear people say that he screwed himself is just an example of, 'If many people hear something on cable news, eventually it will become fact.' I feel sorry for people that talk like this; they just don't have the facts to talk through the Colin Powell debate honestly.

[epo]

It's always funny to me when people say, " I'd vote for Colin Powell..." Lately it seems people are eager to jump in with, "...He screwed himself over big time and there is no way he'd be elected." I wish I had such a narrow, ill-informed view of the world. My answer is 'WHY?' Is it because he was Secretary of State under George Bush when the war started? Can anyone honestly say they have heard Colin Powell ever talk about running for President? I can't and I wish he would have 8 years ago. He has never made anyone believe he wanted to be President, so to hear people say that he screwed himself is just an example of, 'If many people hear something on cable news, eventually it will become fact.' I feel sorry for people that talk like this; they just don't have the facts to talk through the Colin Powell debate honestly.

Here is the beginning & end of the Colin Powell debate:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IYBA9JD5oW4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IYBA9JD5oW4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

The man simply has no credibility left.

[TheMojoPin]

Can anyone honestly say they have heard Colin Powell ever talk about running for President?

I believe he staed he never wanted to run because he didn't want to put his family through the unfair scrutiny that comes along with a presidential bid. I believe it was also mentioned that his wife had had some mental health issues in her past and he didn't want that all over the news, but that could have just been a rumor. Either way, he chose his family over seeking elected office.

Out of curiosity, what were you responding to in this thread?

[AKA]

Powell wrote about it in his first book that one reason he would never run for president because he knew he wouldn't make it through the primaries.

Wesley Clark is one that hasn't been mentioned yet who seems poised to be asked to be a running mate (for Hillary).

Of those ones mentioned, Richardson would be an excellent VP choice for either Clinton or Obama - securing those states in and around him would really block out any GOPer running.

[Zorro]

Powell wrote about it in his first book that one reason he would never run for president because he knew he wouldn't make it through the primaries.

Wesley Clark is one that hasn't been mentioned yet who seems poised to be asked to be a running mate (for Hillary).

Of those ones mentioned, Richardson would be an excellent VP choice for either Clinton or Obama - securing those states in and around him would really block out any GOPer running.

Richardson would also be the first hispanic VP... man Obama and Richardson would really rock

[epo]

Did anyone else see Karl Rove's oped in today's Wall Street Journal on New Hampshire? It is simply one of the most overt racist pieces I have ever read. Link to oped here.

Here are some clips (All about Sen. Obama):

His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.

He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn't know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.

For someone who talks about a new, positive style of politics and pledges to be true to his word, Mr. Obama too often practices the old style of politics, saying one thing and doing another

Seriously Karl, why not just claim Barack likes watermelon...you racist, fat old man.

[epo]

Powell wrote about it in his first book that one reason he would never run for president because he knew he wouldn't make it through the primaries.

Wesley Clark is one that hasn't been mentioned yet who seems poised to be asked to be a running mate (for Hillary).

Of those ones mentioned, Richardson would be an excellent VP choice for either Clinton or Obama - securing those states in and around him would really block out any GOPer running.

Richardson would also be the first hispanic VP... man Obama and Richardson would really rock

Bill Richardson would have made a very good president. He actually was qualified for the job! :annoyed:

[TooLowBrow]

Does anyone have the site that opie and anthony used to help them see who they should vote for? from the 'jimmy tide' show?

[TeeBone]

Out of curiosity, what were you responding to in this thread?
I was listening to the replay from the other day and it was brought up. It has always been a subject that has baffled me that people automatically assume Colin Powell has always had a desire to run for President. He's smart enough and too much of a concerned family man to go for it.

What's it to ya', Pin? (said in best Philly accent)

[TeeBone]

Here is the beginning & end of the Colin Powell debate:
The man simply has no credibility left.

You are just not smart enough to understand, Epo. His credibility doesn't matter because he has Never expressed a desire to be President.

[epo]

You are just not smart enough to understand, Epo. His credibility doesn't matter because he has Never expressed a desire to be President.

Thanks for the brilliant explanation. I'm barely able to read your discourse.

Of course I would expect nothing less from someone on the I4 Corridor.

[TeeBone]

Thanks for the brilliant explanation. I'm barely able to read your discourse.

Of course I would expect nothing less from someone on the I4 Corridor.

I was almost involved in that horrible disaster a few days ago on I-4 and I'm sure you would of loved it had I been one of the burn victims.

[K.C.]

I'm sorry...I try to be impartial in my analysis of this stuff, but this GOP field sucks ass, and the FOX debate mods are even worse.

The candidates spent 40 fucking minutes seeing who could invoke the name of Ronald Reagan the most times, then Huckabee and Thompson took a shot at seeing who could trump each other with the best one-liner regarding killing Iranians, and then Ron Paul finally brings a little bit of perspective to the event saying that the Iranian boat thing a couple days ago didn't warrant WWIII, only to have Brit Hume say "everyone on this stage supported passive action, so what are you talking about?" literally seconds after Fred Thompson said "if they had moved one inch closer, they'd of been seeing all those virgins they always talk about."

The response to Hume's question? Let's laugh at the crazy befuddled old man on stage who doesn't support Bush.

Fucking unwatchable. This party is so screwed this election.

[TeeBone]

I'm sorry...I try to be impartial in my analysis of this stuff, but this GOP field sucks ass, and the FOX debate mods are even worse.

I could not agree more. I am equally put off by both parties and the circus-act that is a 'Presidential Debate.' Do any of these clowns look or act Presidential?
I used to think Romney LOOKED like a good leader, but the more he talks; the more frightening he becomes.

[epo]

I was almost involved in that horrible disaster a few days ago on I-4 and I'm sure you would of loved it had I been one of the burn victims.

I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

[K.C.]

I could not agree more. I am equally put off by both parties and the circus-act that is a 'Presidential Debate.' Do any of these clowns look or act Presidential?
I used to think Romney LOOKED like a good leader, but the more he talks; the more frightening he becomes.

They're all jackoffs.

Romney and Huckabee have no clue what the hell they're even talking about when it comes to foreign affairs.

Giuliani wants to kill anything that moves.

Fred Thompson occasionally wakes up, throws out a joke, and falls asleep.

McCain's basically selling his soul to try and convince Republicans that he's enough of a religious fanatic and kill-crazy maniac that they'll actually finally give him a chance.

And maybe...MAYBE...I'd like Ron Paul if he wasn't completely batshit insane when it came to economics.


It's a pathetic field. The RNC should blow this entire thing up, draft Bloomberg (who I'm not even a fan of to begin with), and start the primaries over.

[K.C.]

And FOX's agenda is so obvious


"Rep. Paul....why do 9/11 truthers support you"

"Gov. Huckabee...recite the names of every leader throughout the Middle East and South Asia."

"Sen. McCain...why are you so popular with liberals?"


Then you get stuff like

"Mayor Giuliani...why were you such a stalwart leader during 9/11"

"Sen. Thompson...you're such a good conservative...what do you think is your best conservative quality."


It's such a fucking farce.

[TeeBone]

They're all jackoffs.


And maybe...MAYBE...I'd like Ron Paul if he wasn't completely batshit insane when it came to economics. .

I agree with just about everything you are saying but if we somehow could change the entire system, electing a Foreign Policy President and a Domestic Policy President, I would vote Ron Paul for Domestic President.

[Zorro]

Bill Richardson would have made a very good president. He actually was qualified for the job! :annoyed:

His qualifications are exactly what make him unqualified. People with experience, success and strength of character are excluded from the Presidency.

[K.C.]

Giuliani's foreign policy experience: Jamaica, Queens.


Questions to Mike Huckabee:

"Are you that religiously crazy?"

Good question, Carl...glad we're being so fair & balanced.



Carl's next question to Ron Paul:

"Electability...do you have any?" (I'm not making this one up...he literally asked it)

[K.C.]

The awful debate is finally over.

I don't even know how to rank this thing...now FOX is using their 'focus group' on Hannity & Colmes of 'undecided voters' (who just happen to ALWAYS end up reflecting Hannity's opinion), to tell us Fred Thompson won.

If I had to rank 'em (and it's almost impossible to do given how biased the questions were):
1) The Democrats
2) Mike Huckabee
3) Ron Paul
4) Fred Thompson
5) John McCain
6) Rudy Giuliani
7) Mitt Romney

[TeeBone]

I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

Well alright:thumbup:

[K.C.]

Well, after carefully deliberating, I've ready to make my official pick:

Democrats
Presidential Candidate: Hillary Clinton - NY
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Barack Obama - IL

Hillary eeks it out, but the Obama wave of support makes it impossible for her to not make him her VP nominee.

Republicans
Presidential Candidate: Mike Huckabee - AR
Vice-Presidential Candidate: John Thune - SD

Huckabee is the only Republican with any fire or any ability to convey ideas, and the ideological conservatives when it comes down to a choice of him or McCain will take Huckabee in the end. As for my VP pick there, it was very difficult for me to figure out who the hell Huckabee would pick as a running mate. Everyone in the current field of Republicans is too old except for Romney, and those two hate each other. Usually a VP candidate is suppose to be young, and represent the future of the party, while reflecting the Presidential candidates views. So that guy Thune is pretty Huckabee-esque, and fits the bill.


Long story short, Clinton/Obama destroys Huckabee/Thune in November...the Republicans begin trying to rebuild what the party stands for over the next four years.

[epo]

Well, after carefully deliberating, I've ready to make my official pick:

Democrats
Presidential Candidate: Hillary Clinton - NY
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Barack Obama - IL

Hillary eeks it out, but the Obama wave of support makes it impossible for her to not make him her VP nominee.

Republicans
Presidential Candidate: Mike Huckabee - AR
Vice-Presidential Candidate: John Thune - SD

Huckabee is the only Republican with any fire or any ability to convey ideas, and the ideological conservatives when it comes down to a choice of him or McCain will take Huckabee in the end. As for my VP pick there, it was very difficult for me to figure out who the hell Huckabee would pick as a running mate. Everyone in the current field of Republicans is too old except for Romney, and those two hate each other. Usually a VP candidate is suppose to be young, and represent the future of the party, while reflecting the Presidential candidates views. So that guy Thune is pretty Huckabee-esque, and fits the bill.


Long story short, Clinton/Obama destroys Huckabee/Thune in November...the Republicans begin trying to rebuild what the party stands for over the next four years.

I'll give you all the credit in the world if that comes through, but that's an early call all the way around.

I would guess this mess on both sides rides right into Super Tuesday & maybe beyond.

[foodcourtdruide]

Well, after carefully deliberating, I've ready to make my official pick:

Democrats
Presidential Candidate: Hillary Clinton - NY
Vice-Presidential Candidate: Barack Obama - IL

Hillary eeks it out, but the Obama wave of support makes it impossible for her to not make him her VP nominee.

Republicans
Presidential Candidate: Mike Huckabee - AR
Vice-Presidential Candidate: John Thune - SD

Huckabee is the only Republican with any fire or any ability to convey ideas, and the ideological conservatives when it comes down to a choice of him or McCain will take Huckabee in the end. As for my VP pick there, it was very difficult for me to figure out who the hell Huckabee would pick as a running mate. Everyone in the current field of Republicans is too old except for Romney, and those two hate each other. Usually a VP candidate is suppose to be young, and represent the future of the party, while reflecting the Presidential candidates views. So that guy Thune is pretty Huckabee-esque, and fits the bill.


Long story short, Clinton/Obama destroys Huckabee/Thune in November...the Republicans begin trying to rebuild what the party stands for over the next four years.

I wish this would happen, but I doubt it. I think the main message the political parties will be sending, no matter who is elected, is that everything that is wrong with the country is the other parties fault. It's really depressing to me and it's all our fault. We really just don't give a shit about this country.

[epo]

Bill Clinton tries to explain "fairy tale" remark about Obama. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIPjLy2zdP2UFpnZcyg2TMR7TPRQD8U3VCUG0)

Hmm......let's go to the article:

"If you decide to vote for Senator Obama, I respect you, because it is a source of enormous pride in the African-American community, and it should be. He is an impressive man," Clinton said.

However, Clinton said black voters should support his wife because of her policies and record in the Senate.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K1Ytbr-7VaE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K1Ytbr-7VaE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

You are riding a line Bill. You are riding a line.

[HBox]

So he's saying it's OK and he understands if people vote for Obama just because he's black? That's condescending and stupid. I feel Like Bill is putting his credibility up for sacrifice just Colin Powell did for Bush at the UN.

[TheMojoPin]

If Bill fucks up Hillary's bid, the irony will be delicious and orgasm-inducing.

[FUNKMAN]

the first time i heard Kerry was supporting Obama i immediately thought " kiss of death " and especially when i saw them on stage together. Kerry just gives the perception of being a dope, just like gore, and ESPECIALLY after losing to the current dope in the white house. Does anyone really take Kerry or Gore seriously?

[HBox]

the first time i heard Kerry was supporting Obama i immediately thought " kiss of death " and especially when i saw them on stage together. Kerry just gives the perception of being a dope, just like gore, and ESPECIALLY after losing to the current dope in the white house. Does anyone really take Kerry or Gore seriously?

The Nobel prize committee, for one of them anyway.

[TheMojoPin]

the first time i heard Kerry was supporting Obama i immediately thought " kiss of death " and especially when i saw them on stage together. Kerry just gives the perception of being a dope, just like gore, and ESPECIALLY after losing to the current dope in the white house. Does anyone really take Kerry or Gore seriously?

Considering that most estimates have Gore destroying any of the current presidential candidates if he entered the race, yes, many do.

And like I said, even Kerry has benefited in hindsight. Sure, he lost, but things hae only gotten worse under Bush.

[Bama]

I would like to believe that a Clinton/Obama ticket could win but I don't.

They'd get crushed by any two old white guys.

[epo]

Clinton campaign fucks up more: (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/clinton_aide_obama_is_for_people_who_want_imaginar y_hip_black_friend.php)

An anonymous Clinton adviser made an interesting comment to The Guardian, explaining the difference between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters.

"If you have a social need, you're with Hillary," the aide said. "If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."

That's probably a bad idea a week away from the South Carolina primary. Add this to the LBJ/MLK comments and the "fairy tale"...seriously can they fuck up any more?

[FUNKMAN]

Considering that most estimates have Gore destroying any of the current presidential candidates if he entered the race, yes, many do.

And like I said, even Kerry has benefited in hindsight. Sure, he lost, but things hae only gotten worse under Bush.

it may be " most estimates " but i feel if it came down to him actually running he would not have a chance and he has the " most estimates " because people know he is not running and he's become likeable due to the nobel prize like HBOX mentioned, likeable like a puppydog

and anyone would have been better than Bush and that includes Kerry. the reality is his tax cuts only sped up the process of 'rich getting richer'. we very well could be in the middle of a recession as we speak, the deficit, a trillion dollars spent in iraq when our own citizens are dying from lack of healthcare, it could go on and on and on. makes me fucking insane

i think an Obama/Edwards ticket could take it

IMHO

[sailor]

i'm seriously confused by the whole fairy-tale issue. i just saw it on the news and read a couple of articles and can't even begin to imagine what the controversy is. can anyone explain it any?

[scottinnj]

The actual "fairy tale" is Bill Clinton saying he (himself) was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.

But that's why his library is made up of a set of Etch a Sketches.

[scottinnj]

If Bill fucks up Hillary's bid, the irony will be delicious and orgasm-inducing.


My whole thing with Hillary is Bill. If she really wants to unite the country and "change" it like she claims she does, Bill has to do one thing: SHADDUP!
Not a single Republican is going to rally with her as long as he is allowed to yap on like he does.

Note to Bill:
Be a good political spouse, smile and say how much you support your husband, er, wife.

Note to Hillary:
Quit telling us how "experienced" you are because you shared your bed with the guy who had the ideas and made it to the top. And then treated you like a welcome mat.

[scottinnj]

Clickety Click Clicker from Clickeyton! (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/11/2008.poll/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)


The senator from Arizona is the front-runner in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination, according to the first national poll taken after the New Hampshire primary.

McCain has the support of 34 percent of registered Republicans in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Friday. That's a 21-point jump from the last CNN/Opinion Research poll, taken in December, well before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary earlier this month.

[Yerdaddy]

I'm keeping hope alive. It's on a feeding tube in Florida, but it's still alive.

[scottinnj]

I'm keeping hope alive. It's on a feeding tube in Florida, but it's still alive.

Don't unhook it from the feeding tube in Florida Yerdaddy, I saw hope's eyes follow the balloon.

[epo]

I'm gonna try to sound Fair & Balanced for once in my life. It's been reported (and I've seen the posts) that a few progressive sites have asked Democratic voters in Michigan to participate in the primary. Why? To vote for Mitt Romney.

Link to story here. (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/11/liberal-web-site-urges-democrats-to-stir-mischief-by-voting-romney-in-michigan/)

The Michigan Republicans have a rich recent history of fucking with Democratic primaries, including:


Voting for George Wallace in the 1972 presidential primary.
Voting for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 presidential primary.
Voting for Geoffrey Feiger in the 1998 governor primary.


While all of that may not be true, I cannot condone voting for something you don't believe in just to fuck with the other side. If we as Democrats are supposed to be "better than THEM", then we shouldn't act like them.

[ShowerBench]

i'm seriously confused by the whole fairy-tale issue. i just saw it on the news and read a couple of articles and can't even begin to imagine what the controversy is. can anyone explain it any?

Obama's camp tried to claim the "fairy tale" comment was in reference to the idea of a black man becoming president. Roll tape, and everyone can see it was in reference to Obama suggesting that elusive phrases like "reconciliation" will translate into a real ability to handle international crises and other issues.

It was in the context of hitting Obama on his inexperience - three years in the US Senate with half of that time spent running for president. Some say Clinton was suggesting that, all other things being equal, it's likely a white guy would be laughed out of the race if he spent a total of three years in the Senate and therefore Obama's appeal is largely race for some voters.

[ShowerBench]

I would like to believe that a Clinton/Obama ticket could win but I don't.

They'd get crushed by any two old white guys.

New poll: All Republican candidates lose to Clinton and Obama


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/12/poll.matchups/index.html

[HBox]

Obama's camp tried to claim the "fairy tale" comment was in reference to the idea of a black man becoming president. Roll tape, and everyone can see it was in reference to Obama suggesting that elusive phrases like "reconciliation" will translate into a real ability to handle international crises and other issues.

It was in the context of hitting Obama on his inexperience - three years in the US Senate with half of that time spent running for president. Some say Clinton was suggesting that, all other things being equal, it's likely a white guy would be laughed out of the race if he spent a total of three years in the Senate and therefore Obama's appeal is largely race for some voters.

And if Obama's experience consisted solely of three years in the Senate, which it doesn't, it would make sense.

I seriously don't know where Hillary's tons of supposed experience is. There's only one experience candidate on this side of the race and that was Richardson.

[HBox]

New poll: All Republican candidates lose to Clinton and Obama


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/12/poll.matchups/index.html

That's pretty consistent with polls done in the past. Obama beats every Republican and Hillary usually beats them, though occasionally Giuliani and McCain would beat her.

[thejives]

Obama can take, it man. He loses MI, but that's no surprise. Gains in Nevada, that's a surprise, takes SC, and then in FL, and the wave hits in Cali.

C'mon man. Gotta believe.

[ShowerBench]

That's pretty consistent with polls done in the past. Obama beats every Republican and Hillary usually beats them, though occasionally Giuliani and McCain would beat her.

All anyone has seen of Obama is some pretty speeches. Clinton beats them after 20 years of scrutiny. On the experience question, it would be a Billary presidency so that's what they're telegraphing there.

[Bulldogcakes]

New poll: All Republican candidates lose to Clinton and Obama


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/12/poll.matchups/index.html



Its still very early. I remember early polls saying Dukakis would beat Bush 1 and Kerry would beat W. Bush. But with Bush's approval ratings as low as they are, the way he has demoralized the conservative movement AND the economy poised for recession, the Dems are in the best position they've had since 92. If the Dems can't win this one, they should just close up shop.

[K.C.]

Obama can take, it man. He loses MI, but that's no surprise. Gains in Nevada, that's a surprise, takes SC, and then in FL, and the wave hits in Cali.

C'mon man. Gotta believe.

Michigan is a loss for him because neither him nor Edwards are running there.

Nevada is 50/50...Obama's got the culinary union, but Clinton's got most of the party support.

South Carolina is probably Obama.

Florida is definitely Hillary.

It's going to be tough for him. He's got to win California, or he won't win...and I'm not sure he can.

[thejives]

What do y'all think of this whole recount thing.
I'm hard pressed to decide what's more likely, racist new hampshire voters or the Shaheen's rigging it.

[K.C.]

Edwards has a shot...but his campaign is f-ing him up.

Nevada poll (1/11-1/13)
Obama - 32%
Clinton - 30%
Edwards - 27%


Edwards should be concentrating on Nevada. Instead, his campaign is focusing on South Carolina where he's trailing by like 20% behind Obama and Clinton.

Horrible strategy. He needs to get a win and Nevada's his best shot.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm not worried about Obama matching his projections...I'm worried about more voters showing up than expected and voting for Hillary agan, a la NH. Damn those last minute lollygaggers.

[K.C.]

Let me put on my prognostication hat one more time:



I just took a little bit of time to look at the Democratic side for Super Tuesday.

Granted, I'm just going off my feel for the Democratic side (and some polls), but if Obama has any shot of winning the Democratic Nomination, he needs Edwards out of the race after South Carolina.

There's a good shot of that if Edwards doesn't win Nevada or South Carolina (if he finishes strong seconds in both, he could stick around, but it still seems unlikely.)


A Clinton vs. Obama matchup would likely breakdown given momentum, polls, history, and the mood of the parties in each state:

Nevada - Obama
South Carolina - Obama
Florida - Clinton
_____________________
Alabama - Obama
Alaska - Clinton
American Samoa - Obama
Arizona - Clinton
Arkansas - Clinton
California - Clinton
Colorado - Obama
Connecticut - Clinton
Delaware - Clinton
Georgia - Obama
Idaho - Clinton
Illinois - Obama
Kansas - Clinton
Massachusettes - Clinton
Minnesota - Obama
Missouri - Obama
New Jersey - Clinton
New Mexico - Clinton
New York - Clinton
North Dakota - Clinton
Oklahoma - Clinton
Tenneesee - Obama
Utah - Clinton
________________________
That's my general feel of where they would be right now. If Obama can cut Hillary's margins in the big states (California, Florida, New York) to gain delgates and minimize the impact of her victories there, he can carry through to the primaries after Super Tuesday with a decent shot.

However, if Edwards stays in (which would mean a Nevada or SC victory), there's quite a few states on Feb. 5th he could do well, so then you're looking at:

Nevada - Edwards
South Carolina - Obama
Florida - Clinton
_________________________
Alabama - Obama
Alaska - Clinton
American Samoa - Obama
Arizona - Clinton
Arkansas - Clinton
California - Clinton
Colorado - Edwards
Connecticut - Clinton
Delaware - Clinton
Georgia - Obama
Idaho - Edwards
Illinois - Obama
Kansas - Clinton
Massachusettes - Clinton
Minnesota - Edwards/Obama (close vote either way)
Missouri - Edwards/Obama (close vote either way)
New Jersey - Clinton
New Mexico - Clinton
New York - Clinton
North Dakota - Edwards
Oklahoma - Edwards
Tenneesee - Obama
Utah - Clinton

That scenario only benefits Hillary, because she would likely maintain her margins in places like California, New York, and Florida, and Edwards and Obama would cut into each others'
numbers, essentially splitting delegates between them.

She would be very close to the nomination under this scenario, and Edwards and Obama would have to make the decision of which one, both having about equal support at this point, would drop out and throw behind the other, or they'd both stay in essentially slitting each others' throats and letting Hillary walk to the nomination.


Obama's best shot is Edwards being out. Even with him out, Hillary still has the inside track, but Obama has more of a chance in that scenarios.

Hillary's easiest path to the nomination would actually be Edwards winning Nevada (or her winning, and him finishing second) and then Obama underperforming in South Carolina.

As far as Edwards goes, even if he's able to do well enough to stay in, it's almost impossible for me to figure out a scenario in which he legitimately has a shot to win the nomination unless he wins Nevada, wins South Carolina, and that momentum gives him enough of a platform to do damage in the big states. seems very unlikely.


At the moment, though, I'd say Hillary is the heavy favorite to lock this up by Feb. 5th.

[TheMojoPin]

I wish Edwards and Obama could somehow come to their sense and realize that they're both very young, and Edwards jumping on as Obama's VP would just set him up for an even better shot at the top spot (ideally) 8 years from now. Join your powers for good and defeat the Clintons!

[ShowerBench]

California NAACP endoses...Clinton. Game over?


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-gets-endorsement-of-california-naacp-president-2008-01-14.html

[badmonkey]

I wish Edwards and Obama could somehow come to their sense and realize that they're both very young, and Edwards jumping on as Obama's VP would just set him up for an even better shot at the top spot (ideally) 8 years from now. Join your powers for good and defeat the Clintons!

If they come together, do you think they will run on Obama's "one America" or Edwards' "two Americas" platform?

[Zorro]

I wish Edwards and Obama could somehow come to their sense and realize that they're both very young, and Edwards jumping on as Obama's VP would just set him up for an even better shot at the top spot (ideally) 8 years from now. Join your powers for good and defeat the Clintons!

Not gonna happen. Obama needs a VP that brings something to the table. Edwards would attract no one. He even lost his home state to Bush last time around

[badmonkey]

Not gonna happen. Obama needs a VP that brings something to the table. Edwards would attract no one. He even lost his home state to Bush last time around

Not in America 2 he didn't!

[TheMojoPin]

If they come together, do you think they will run on Obama's "one America" or Edwards' "two Americas" platform?

I'd like to think they'd go for the much vaunted Tri-America AKA America-Cubed.

[TheMojoPin]

Not gonna happen. Obama needs a VP that brings something to the table. Edwards would attract no one. He even lost his home state to Bush last time around

Well, the polls clearly disgree with you. People are much more willing to vote for him this time around.

Therein lies the oddness of modern American politics in the last 30 years. For the rest of our history, most candidates holding major public office, from mayors up through presidents, typically ran and lost before they got the top slot, some many times. Nixon, I believe, was the last elected president to follow that pattern. Back in ye olden days, running and losing was pretty much mandatory to get your name out there so people would know of you next time. Now we look at someone who loses the presidential nod, even their party's nomination, or even somone who ran as VP and lost, as hopelessly damaged goods who couldn't possibly run again. That's kind of why I'd like to have seen Gore try again, since he'd hae a really good shot of breaking the "you lose, you're gone" mentality that really doesn't make much sense at all.

[Bulldogcakes]

Well, the polls clearly disgree with you. People are much more willing to vote for him this time around.

Therein lies the oddness of modern American politics in the last 30 years. For the rest of our history, most candidates holding major public office, from mayors up through presidents, typically ran and lost before they got the top slot, some many times. Nixon, I believe, was the last elected president to follow that pattern. Back in ye olden days, running and losing was pretty much mandatory to get your name out there so people would know of you next time. Now we look at someone who loses the presidential nod, even their party's nomination, or even somone who ran as VP and lost, as hopelessly damaged goods who couldn't possibly run again. That's kind of why I'd like to have seen Gore try again, since he'd hae a really good shot of breaking the "you lose, you're gone" mentality that really doesn't make much sense at all.

Thats because the primary process has changed so much. It used to be the parties would send delegates to the convention and then the party bosses would cut some deal. The conventions actually decided who got the nod. Now the voters decide and voila! they buy candidates the same way they buy soap. Which explains the whole last 27 years of Bush-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. They're name brands, so they must be good. Plus if I vote for them I get free fries with my Big Mac.

BTW-Reagan ran at the 1976 convention and lost to Ford.

[TheMojoPin]

I think it's just the evolution of the media machine over the last three decades. We've seen the 24-hour news outlets explode, and they need something to fill that time...as such, when someone wins, they WINNNNNNNNNNNNN!!! and when someone loses they LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSE!!!! ad nauseum until something else breaks. It just pounds the idea of "unelectable" into people's heads.

[scottinnj]

BTW-Reagan ran at the 1976 convention and lost to Ford.


We Republicans can admit when we were wrong.

[Grendel_Kahn]

We Republicans can admit when we were wrong.

That just might be the funniest thing I have ever read on the internet. :lol:

[A.J.]

For the rest of our history, most candidates holding major public office, from mayors up through presidents, typically ran and lost before they got the top slot, some many times. Nixon, I believe, was the last elected president to follow that pattern.

BTW-Reagan ran at the 1976 convention and lost to Ford.

And Reagan made a challenge in 1968 as well.

Back in ye olden days, running and losing was pretty much mandatory to get your name out there so people would know of you next time. Now we look at someone who loses the presidential nod, even their party's nomination, or even somone who ran as VP and lost, as hopelessly damaged goods who couldn't possibly run again. That's kind of why I'd like to have seen Gore try again, since he'd hae a really good shot of breaking the "you lose, you're gone" mentality that really doesn't make much sense at all.

Look at your William Jennings Bryans, Thomas Deweys and Adlai Stevensons.

I agree with Mojo about Gore. I would love him to jump in and run a "fuck you campaign" against the Clintons.

[Zorro]

Well, the polls clearly disgree with you. People are much more willing to vote for him this time around.

Therein lies the oddness of modern American politics in the last 30 years. For the rest of our history, most candidates holding major public office, from mayors up through presidents, typically ran and lost before they got the top slot, some many times. Nixon, I believe, was the last elected president to follow that pattern. Back in ye olden days, running and losing was pretty much mandatory to get your name out there so people would know of you next time. Now we look at someone who loses the presidential nod, even their party's nomination, or even somone who ran as VP and lost, as hopelessly damaged goods who couldn't possibly run again. That's kind of why I'd like to have seen Gore try again, since he'd hae a really good shot of breaking the "you lose, you're gone" mentality that really doesn't make much sense at all.

I do not disagree with you on your analysis of past losers running for office, but I think you are missing the point of the VP slot. The traditional view of selecting a Democrat Vice Presidential candidate is to have them add to your base. Kerry chose Edwards because he thought it would bring in the South. Gore chose Lieberman because it would shore up his right or so he assumed. While people have been willing to vote for Edwards. Those voters are are not any different than the ones that would vote for Obama anyway. So, while Edwards wouldn't pull Obama down he wouldn't do anything to increase the vote.

Look for Obama to select someone with "experience" particularly in Foreign Affairs.

We may never know. The other tradition has been to wait until after the primaries to select a VP (unless of course you have some huge weakness you're trying to cover up.) If Obama loses the primaries decisively we will never see his pick. My heart is with Obama, but I just don't see Hillary losing...so it's all moot anyway.

On the other hand they could always dig up Admiral Stockdale.

[TheMojoPin]

I do not disagree with you on your analysis of past losers running for office, but I think you are missing the point of the VP slot. The traditional view of selecting a Democrat Vice Presidential candidate is to have them add to your base. Kerry chose Edwards because he thought it would bring in the South. Gore chose Lieberman because it would shore up his right or so he assumed. While people have been willing to vote for Edwards. Those voters are are not any different than the ones that would vote for Obama anyway. So, while Edwards wouldn't pull Obama down he wouldn't do anything to increase the vote.

Look for Obama to select someone with "experience" particularly in Foreign Affairs.

We may never know. The other tradition has been to wait until after the primaries to select a VP (unless of course you have some huge weakness you're trying to cover up.) If Obama loses the primaries decisively we will never see his pick. My heart is with Obama, but I just don't see Hillary losing...so it's all moot anyway.

On the other hand they could always dig up Admiral Stockdale.

I simply don't see how you can assume Edwards would bring nothing vote-wise with how high he's polling in some states. He didn't have numbers like that 4years ago.

I do agree with the foreign affairs experience, and I assume you're talking about Richardson, but I think he'd be more useful in a Secretary of State position.

[Yerdaddy]

I simply don't see how you can assume Edwards would bring nothing vote-wise with how high he's polling in some states. He didn't have numbers like that 4years ago.

I do agree with the foreign affairs experience, and I assume you're talking about Richardson, but I think he'd be more useful in a Secretary of State position.

An Obama/Richardson ticket would be less about shoring up Obama's foreign policy and more about shoring him up against the inevitable redneck assassins: "Shoot me and you're stuck with the Mexican!"

[Zorro]

I simply don't see how you can assume Edwards would bring nothing vote-wise with how high he's polling in some states. He didn't have numbers like that 4years ago.

I do agree with the foreign affairs experience, and I assume you're talking about Richardson, but I think he'd be more useful in a Secretary of State position.

Yes, it's true Edwards is polling high, but the point was that he would not attract any additional voters to Obama. Edwards is not going to draw anybody to Obama that he wouldn't already already have. The political purpose of selecting a VP is to draw in people who might not otherwise vote for you or are on on the bubble. Edwards is no use in that department.

When I said "Foreign Policy Experience" I had no one in particular in mind. But Tom Daschle would definitely be on my short list.

[K.C.]

I like John Edwards a lot, but he wouldn't make a good VP for either of the other two. He brings nothing to the table on a ticket with Obama, and he doesn't mesh with Clinton.

That's why he's so insistent on saying 'I'm taking this all the way to the convention.'

Because he knows this is his last shot in the political realm. He hasn't held office since 2004, and he was only a one term senator to boot.

And in all fairness, what he ran as when he got elected to the senate from North Carolina in the late 90s ended up being kind of a lie. He ran as a very conservative, middle of the road, Democrat and drifted further and further left.

In fact, the reason he didn't run for re-election while he was running for VP (Remember, Kerry did this), was because the internal polling they did of North Carolina showed he was going to get killed in his re-election bid. And that reflected in the Democrats losing his state in '04.

Edwards is probably done with politics after this...so there's no real way to predict what he's going to do here, because he has nothing to lose.



If Obama pulls this off (and it's a long shot), he would have to look to an elder statesman. Richardson, or Evan Bayh from Indiana are the most likely. Biden would be interesting, but he's too much of a loose cannon where he could say something that would reflect poorly on the campaign.


Clinton also has to have both Richardson and Bayh on her list, but she could also go with Bob Kerrey. The big controversy with Clinton will be that there will be a huge push from the press, and the democratic party members, and some of the officials to include Obama on the ticket as her VP since he's the biggest rising start in the party.

The level of ugliness this campaign has started to take on will make that difficult. And all things equal, the Clintons wouldn't want anything to do with him, since he's a bit of a threat to the whole 'internal stranglehold on the party' struggle that's always going on with them.

Yet if it ultimately comes down to it reflecting very poorly on her if she doesn't offer it to him, she will.

And then Obama has a choice...does he throw in with these people who have savaged him over the last month and will no doubt continue to until they lock it up, or does he publicly refuse it, which would hurt Hillary and her chances in the general election enormously, because it'll be seen as creating a huge divide in the party.

If he does that, there's a good chance the establishment will do everything in their power to crush any potential future runs by him (they're vindictive).

[epo]

Republican Michigan Primary: Romney, Romney, Romney! (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI)

Your projected winner is Williard Romney. The early returns:

Romney: 39%
McCain : 30%
Huckabee: 16%
Paul: 6%
Thompson: 4%
Guiliani: 3%
Uncommitted: 2%
Hunter: 0%

Personally the shocker is that Uncommitted couldn't get it done vs. Rudy & Thompson. I really thought Uncommitted ran a good campaign. On the serious side, this really settles nothing and would seem to bode well for Huckabee, as he could start to figure he has legs for a long race.

[Zorro]

It's a weird state. Uncommitted is running around 35% in the Democratic primary. Would you leave your warm house to go vote for nobody?

[sailor]

i didn't realize all the major democratic candidates asked for their names to be removed from the michigan ballot (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/michigan.uncommitted/index.html), except hillary. douchey non-move on her part.

[Zorro]

i didn't realize all the major democratic candidates asked for their names to be removed from the michigan ballot (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/michigan.uncommitted/index.html), except hillary. douchey non-move on her part.

Up until a couple of days ago it looked like a no lose situation for her.

[Zorro]

BTW... I am not getting the Huckabee appeal. To use a Ronism...he's "Batshit crazy"...and he's got some kind of psycho eye thing going. Is he just a protest vote or are people really into this guy.

Wow...Ari Fleischer has resurrected...he had married some hot twentysomething and disappeared.

[pennington]

Is he just a protest vote or are people really into this guy.

I think people (not me) are really into this guy. He's personable, he's likeable. These are a couple of the same traits people like about Obama.

[K.C.]

Republican Michigan Primary: Romney, Romney, Romney! (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI)

Your projected winner is Williard Romney. The early returns:

Romney: 39%
McCain : 30%
Huckabee: 16%
Paul: 6%
Thompson: 4%
Guiliani: 3%
Uncommitted: 2%
Hunter: 0%

Personally the shocker is that Uncommitted couldn't get it done vs. Rudy & Thompson. I really thought Uncommitted ran a good campaign. On the serious side, this really settles nothing and would seem to bode well for Huckabee, as he could start to figure he has legs for a long race.

Huckabee or Giuliani...whoever wins Florida. Also bodes well form Romney since he can spend a billion dollars in all these states coming up if he wants.

The Republican side is a complete joke...I'm praying Grandpa Fred wins South Carolina...they'll put us right on pace for a clusterfuck brokered convention.

And I enjoy a good trainwreck.

[K.C.]

Well, I watched the debate tonight. It was mindnumbingly boring.

Never thought I'd miss Dennis Kucinich so much.

Anyway, this is how they did:

1st place (barely): John Edwards - He made an effective case about his differences between him and the other two. Other than that, he kind of won by default. I'll explain that in a minute:

2nd place: Hillary Clinton - She lied her way through the racial comment issues pretty well, and her and Obama played super nice with each other all night. Since Obama couldn't effectively attack her, she places second by default, because she didn't have to say anything of substance after the first five minutes of the debate where Brian Williams asked her if her campaign was race baiting.

3rd place: Barack Obama - I don't know what it is about the guy, but i've seen him in a number of debates and he just doesn't seem to be a great debater. He's so committed to his positive vibe 'change' message, that he doesn't challenge anyone or call them out on certain issues. As a result, he just comes off as very forgettable in these things. Good thing he's such a good stump campaigner.

I have a feeling Nevada will go to Clinton or Edwards...Obama will place a strong 3rd. That may hurt him a little in South Carolina, but if Edwards wins in Nevada, all bets are off in SC.

One thing of note, that I mentioned....Hillary and Obama played very nice together tonight. Something tells me they're hedging bets in case one needs the other in the VP role.

[Yerdaddy]

One thing of note, that I mentioned....Hillary and Obama played very nice together tonight. Something tells me they're hedging bets in case one needs the other in the VP role.

Hillary will never accept and will never be offered a VP nomination. She, rightly, feels that she has at least two or three shots at President and taking, or even considering, a VP nomination would lower her stock value for the White House.

From any other candidate's perspective, she'd still be a big target of the right. As a Presidential candidate she can fight back and gain points for being tough, while her VP would be separated from that aspect of the campaign fight. But on someone else's ticket the Presidential candidate would be dragged into it and it would waste too much of his own time and money fighting Clinton's battles.

She is not considering and will not be considered a VP spot on anyone's ticket.

As for Obama, I think he may be viable as Edward's VP candidate, but Edwards has less of a shot than Obama. I think Clinton could make a Chick/Black Guy ticket work, but it'd be pretty risky. The hope would be that it would bring so many racists and sexists into the open that the majority of Americans would turn against it. But I think the Dems don't, (and shouldn't), have that much faith in the wisdom and moderation of the majority in America given the way the last two elections have gone. Hillary would be better off with a solid establishment veteran, like Richardson or Gen. Anthony Zinni. Or she could try to rally the extreme left like Bush did and put Noam Chomsky, crazy old Ramsey Clark or maybe even Woody Harrelson on the ticket. Show the right that we can be batshit crazy too!

[sailor]

don't candidates usually pick someone who didn't run against them to be their vp candidate? hasn't it become more common to just pick a random senator or such?

[PapaBear]

don't candidates usually pick someone who didn't run against them to be their vp candidate? hasn't it become more common to just pick a random senator or such?
Not really. With candidates that won, George W. is the only one since the 70's, as far as I can remember. Bill Clinton picked Gore (who tried to get the nomination). George H. W. picked Dole (who tried to get the nomination), Reagan picked George H. W. (who tried to get the nomination).

Also... I'm pretty sure that Ferraro and Mondale fought for the nomination against each other, as did Gore and Lieberman. I'm pretty sure Edwards tried to get the nomination also, against Kerry.

[PapaBear]

And now that I think about it... The Reagan/Bush one really made me start to understand hypocrisy when I was a kid. The big difference between Reagan and Bush was that Bush was the one who wasn't considered to be "conservative enough". Bush had some powerful backing. When it became obvious that Reagan would win, Bush suddenly became more conservative for the sake of the party. And by "conservative", I mean "socially". All the sudden, Barbara wasn't talking so much about thinking that abortion should be a woman's choice. Yes... She said that.

I'm pretty sure that's around the time George "Jr" suddenly had to stop drinking and doing coke... and become a Texan.

[sailor]

Not really. With candidates that won, George W. is the only one since the 70's, as far as I can remember. Bill Clinton picked Gore (who tried to get the nomination). George H. W. picked Dole (who tried to get the nomination), Reagan picked George H. W. (who tried to get the nomination).

Also... I'm pretty sure that Ferraro and Mondale fought for the nomination against each other, as did Gore and Lieberman. I'm pretty sure Edwards tried to get the nomination also, against Kerry.

ferraro didn't run, i didn't recall that lieberman had run (which he did, my bad), i don't believe bentsen did. seems mixed. i was trying to find somewhere that listed all this info together and just got lazy, again. with the amount of mud slinging it seems like there is nowadays, it must make it more difficult to pick a former opponent.

[PapaBear]

I thought Ferraro had run, but I'm working totally on my memory. It's been a long time, and there were lots of drugs involved. To be honest, the first time I ever voted in a Presidential election, I voted for Mondale and Pontiac Fiero.

[sailor]

I thought Ferraro had run, but I'm working totally on my memory. It's been a long time, and there were lots of drugs involved. To be honest, the first time I ever voted in a Presidential election, I voted for Mondale and Pontiac Fiero.

i was holdin' out for a bitchin' camaro.

[joethebartender]

i was holdin' out for a bitchin' camaro.

I went independant that year and voted for the El Dorado.

[epo]

I thought Ferraro had run, but I'm working totally on my memory. It's been a long time, and there were lots of drugs involved. To be honest, the first time I ever voted in a Presidential election, I voted for Mondale and Pontiac Fiero.

You are probably thinking of Pat Schroeder from Colorado. She ran in 1984 against Fritz Mondale.

[Jujubees2]

And now that I think about it... The Reagan/Bush one really made me start to understand hypocrisy when I was a kid. The big difference between Reagan and Bush was that Bush was the one who wasn't considered to be "conservative enough". Bush had some powerful backing. When it became obvious that Reagan would win, Bush suddenly became more conservative for the sake of the party. And by "conservative", I mean "socially". All the sudden, Barbara wasn't talking so much about thinking that abortion should be a woman's choice. Yes... She said that.

I'm pretty sure that's around the time George "Jr" suddenly had to stop drinking and doing coke... and become a Texan.

Not to mention Bush the elder calling Reganomics "Voodoo Economics".

[AKA]

Bill Clinton picked Gore (who tried to get the nomination).

Gore ran in 1988 not 2000 - he never went up against Clinton during that race.

[K.C.]

Hillary will never accept and will never be offered a VP nomination. She, rightly, feels that she has at least two or three shots at President and taking, or even considering, a VP nomination would lower her stock value for the White House.

From any other candidate's perspective, she'd still be a big target of the right. As a Presidential candidate she can fight back and gain points for being tough, while her VP would be separated from that aspect of the campaign fight. But on someone else's ticket the Presidential candidate would be dragged into it and it would waste too much of his own time and money fighting Clinton's battles.

She is not considering and will not be considered a VP spot on anyone's ticket.

As for Obama, I think he may be viable as Edward's VP candidate, but Edwards has less of a shot than Obama. I think Clinton could make a Chick/Black Guy ticket work, but it'd be pretty risky. The hope would be that it would bring so many racists and sexists into the open that the majority of Americans would turn against it. But I think the Dems don't, (and shouldn't), have that much faith in the wisdom and moderation of the majority in America given the way the last two elections have gone. Hillary would be better off with a solid establishment veteran, like Richardson or Gen. Anthony Zinni. Or she could try to rally the extreme left like Bush did and put Noam Chomsky, crazy old Ramsey Clark or maybe even Woody Harrelson on the ticket. Show the right that we can be batshit crazy too!


First, you are right...I misspoke. Hillary would never accept a VP spot nor would Obama offer it to her.


But I do think there was something to the niceness between them.

As I've said numerous posts before, if she wins there will likely win be a lot of outcry from people to put Obama on the ticket to keep him on the national scene and as the future of the party. And Obama has to know that if that he can't blast her because if that scenario does happen, he either looks like a hypocrite playing second fiddle to her afterwards, or if he rejected her offer, it'd cause a rift in the party.

I think in any other year, you'd be right about the risk of the Chick/Black Guy ticket, but the Republicans are in such disarray and have such a weak field that they, on paper, should be able to overcome some obvious prejudices that will still exist.



Make no mistake, though...the Clintons have made it clear they don't like Obama. They'll only put him on if they're basically forced to, and by that I mean, she burned so many bridges with the black base of the party to get the nomination, she needs him to firm up their vote.

[A.J.]

Make no mistake, though...the Clintons have made it clear they don't like Obama.

Probably because he's not disingenuous like they are.

[K.C.]

don't candidates usually pick someone who didn't run against them to be their vp candidate? hasn't it become more common to just pick a random senator or such?

2004
-Kerry picked Edwards who primaried him

2000
-Bush picked Cheney who didn't run
-Gore picked Lieberman who didn't run (Bradley primaried Gore...Lieberman ran in '04)

1996
-Bob Dole picked Jack Kemp who didn't run (Dole was primaried by Steve Forbes, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and a couple more unimpressive candidates...Kemp ran for the nomination in '88 vs. Bush)

1992
-Clinton picked Gore who didn't run (Clinton was primaried by Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown...Gore ran in '88 and then again in '00)

1988
-George H.W. Bush picked Dan Quayle who didn't run (Bush was primaried by Dole, and Pat Robertson)
-Michael Dukakis picked Lloyd Bentsen who didn't run (Dukakis was primaried by Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, and Joe Biden)

1984
-Walter Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro (Mondale was primaried by Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson)

1980
-Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush who ran against him




So the last time before Kerry/Edwards was 1980...it's not common, but it does happen.

[badmonkey]

First, you are right...I misspoke. Hillary would never accept a VP spot nor would Obama offer it to her.


But I do think there was something to the niceness between them.

As I've said numerous posts before, if she wins there will likely win be a lot of outcry from people to put Obama on the ticket to keep him on the national scene and as the future of the party. And Obama has to know that if that he can't blast her because if that scenario does happen, he either looks like a hypocrite playing second fiddle to her afterwards, or if he rejected her offer, it'd cause a rift in the party.

I think in any other year, you'd be right about the risk of the Chick/Black Guy ticket, but the Republicans are in such disarray and have such a weak field that they, on paper, should be able to overcome some obvious prejudices that will still exist.



Make no mistake, though...the Clintons have made it clear they don't like Obama. They'll only put him on if they're basically forced to, and by that I mean, she burned so many bridges with the black base of the party to get the nomination, she needs him to firm up their vote.

Any increase niceness between them would have to be from Hillary's side. Obama's whole thing all along has been "I'm not going to be an asshole." and he's done a fantastic job of sticking to that and still being competetive.

What amuses me the most is the perceived risk in the "chick/black guy" ticket. Where's the risk? In New Hampshire we established that qualifications don't mean shit. If you don't vote for Obama, it's because you're racist, and if you don't vote for Hillary, it's because you're sexist. No matter who the Republicans run agains a Clinton/Obama ticket, the only reason they possibly lose is because "we are a racist/sexist country that refuses to allow women and blacks to hold power". [/sarcasm]

The democrats should can the primaries immediately and go with the Clinton/Obama ticket. There's no need for Edwards to continue. The ambulance chasing lawyer voting block will probably go to the democrats anyway as Bush wanted to limit their winnings.

[K.C.]

No matter who the Republicans run agains a Clinton/Obama ticket, the only reason they possibly lose is because "we are a racist/sexist country that refuses to allow women and blacks to hold power". [/sarcasm]


You're right to a there's a lot of that knee jerk reaction from people on the left.



But the risk in the Chick/Black Guy ticket is that there is a percent of people, and I'm just going
to generalize who they are...older working class, labor, and union guys...who generally vote Democratic based on economics, who wouldn't based on sex and race (more race then sex).

It's not a large percentage...but it's enough to possibly shift the balance if this one is as close as the last two.


They are still out there...and I'm not sure Iowa and New Hampshire really accurately reflects the potential of that vote. The Iowa caucus, and it's process, doesn't come close to reflect popular vote in each state.

And there's no way to tell as of yet how much race factored into Clinton's percents, or race and sex factored into Edwards.



Again, it's not a large percentage or Democrats...but in a close election, it could potentially tip the balance in swing states decided by a percent or two.

[scottinnj]

I went independant that year and voted for the El Dorado.

My dad voted for Reagan, which means he was pretty Acura on knowing who was going to win in the end.

[Yerdaddy]

First off I think KC deserves a round of applause for his fact-based analysis of the elections so far. Just ten more months of constant typing to go! Don't worry though, I can assure you that your fingers will grow back.

First, you are right...I misspoke. Hillary would never accept a VP spot nor would Obama offer it to her.


But I do think there was something to the niceness between them.

They're Democrats - they're practically Canadian kindergarten teachers. I'm just hoping they know when to turn the niceness off for the general election. Most of the hype about the various "attacks" against each other have been media peeing-on-the-butt bits: The Clinton campaign worker that said the Republicans would question Obama's drug use was completely retarded, and the recent hooplah over civil rights and race was nothing to begin with either. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402398_pf.html)

As I've said numerous posts before, if she wins there will likely win be a lot of outcry from people to put Obama on the ticket to keep him on the national scene and as the future of the party. And Obama has to know that if that he can't blast her because if that scenario does happen, he either looks like a hypocrite playing second fiddle to her afterwards, or if he rejected her offer, it'd cause a rift in the party.

I don't remember the VP nomination process ever being particularly deliberative; there's usually a ton of speculation on the part of the media and secrecy by the candidate while the campaign and candidate pick someone relatively unexpected. I don't think public opinion weighs much on it at all.

I also just thought about it and I don't think Obama would take a VP nomination either. He's come out of nowhere to become almost as big a star as Hillary and he's got to be thinking he's got as much chance in his long political future to become President as she does. I bet he lets the party know he won't accept a VP nod.

I think in any other year, you'd be right about the risk of the Chick/Black Guy ticket, but the Republicans are in such disarray and have such a weak field that they, on paper, should be able to overcome some obvious prejudices that will still exist.

I think real early in the general election this is going to look like a horse race between the parties. Remember: the dems are still The Chicago Cubs in 2003. They haven't proved they can win against a retarded chimp with no resume.

Make no mistake, though...the Clintons have made it clear they don't like Obama. They'll only put him on if they're basically forced to, and by that I mean, she burned so many bridges with the black base of the party to get the nomination, she needs him to firm up their vote.

Really? You think this latest little row will have permanence?

[Yerdaddy]

January 17, 2008
McCain Parries a Reprise of ’00 Smear Tactics (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/us/politics/17carolina.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Volunteers making telephone calls for Senator John McCain in South Carolina last weekend noticed something odd: Four people contacted said in remarkably similar language that they opposed Mr. McCain for president because of his 1980 divorce from his first wife, Carol, who raised the couple’s three children while Mr. McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

By Tuesday afternoon, a group calling itself Vietnam Veterans Against McCain had sent out a crude flier accusing the candidate of selling out fellow P.O.W.’s to save himself.

By Tuesday evening, a group called Common Sense Issues, which supports Mike Huckabee, had begun making what it said were a million automated calls to households in South Carolina telling voters, according to one of the calls, that Mr. McCain “has voted to use unborn babies in medical research.” (The campaign of Mr. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, said it had no connection to the group and had asked it to stop the calls.)

Mr. McCain quickly fired back, but he has seen this movie before. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, one of the most notorious smear campaigns in recent American politics peddled distortions and lies about him, among them that Mr. McCain’s current wife, Cindy, was a drug addict and that the couple’s daughter Bridget, adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh, was a black child Mr. McCain had fathered out of wedlock.


Unbelievable. When did the Republicans become the anti-war veterans party?

[K.C.]

First off I think KC deserves a round of applause for his fact-based analysis of the elections so far. Just ten more months of constant typing to go! Don't worry though, I can assure you that your fingers will grow back.

Thank you, sir


They're Democrats - they're practically Canadian kindergarten teachers. I'm just hoping they know when to turn the niceness off for the general election. Most of the hype about the various "attacks" against each other have been media peeing-on-the-butt bits: The Clinton campaign worker that said the Republicans would question Obama's drug use was completely retarded, and the recent hooplah over civil rights and race was nothing to begin with either. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402398_pf.html)

Whether it's a fabrication of something else, or of the actual candidates, or both, I definitely think there's some serious tensions about it among supporters. One thing I've learned in just talking to and encountering some Obama supporters is that, for whatever reason, they are fiercely loyal to the guy...and I get the impression they are holding a grudge over it...at least for now.



I don't remember the VP nomination process ever being particularly deliberative; there's usually a ton of speculation on the part of the media and secrecy by the candidate while the campaign and candidate pick someone relatively unexpected. I don't think public opinion weighs much on it at all.

The pressure will come from the media, the pundits, but most importantly from in the party itself, who have direct contact with the campaign and the candidate. The Democratic Party has more younger stars than the Republican Party right now, but neither have many. Obama is their future, if he doesn't win this time around. If he goes back to Illinois a loser, he risks getting lost in the shuffle of the Senate over at least the next four years (if a Republican wins...eight if Hillary pulled it off). They'd lose a lot of the Joe-mentum he's injected into the race under those circumstances.

There was a similar thing that happened with Howard Dean. He brought a lot of new fundraising ideas and grass root youth groups into the '04 race. When he lost, the bitterness of the campaign made it impossible for Kerry to pick him. Luckily, they had the DNC Chairmanship available to keep Dean as a national face of the party and incorporate him, his new ideas, and the people he had with him into the party power-structure (which paid off for them big time in '06). Obama has tapped into something they need to find a way to maintain. And that probably means keeping him as a visible, national, figurehead. But there's no DNC Chairmanship...and even if Harry Reid left the Senate, Obama would have to fight with at least a dozen old men who believe they earned the spot of Majority Leader. VP would be ideal...if they could make it work.


I also just thought about it and I don't think Obama would take a VP nomination either. He's come out of nowhere to become almost as big a star as Hillary and he's got to be thinking he's got as much chance in his long political future to become President as she does. I bet he lets the party know he won't accept a VP nod.

I'm not sure what he'd do, but the VP nod would be best for his future. If they win, he has a stepping stone to the presidency in eight years. If they lose...he spends an entire campaign season gaining even bigger national exposure, and Hillary absorbs almost all the criticism for their loss.



I think real early in the general election this is going to look like a horse race between the parties. Remember: the dems are still The Chicago Cubs in 2003. They haven't proved they can win against a retarded chimp with no resume.


So very true.


Really? You think this latest little row will have permanence?

It depends on if it continues or not. Obviously, the Democrats won't lose the black vote to the Republicans, but they could conceivably stay home if they're so annoyed by the tone of
how she got the nomination.

If she wins bludgeoning Obama into the ground with race and drug related rumors (or if she does none of it, but it's still perceived that way), there will be a lot of nervous Democrats up for re-election in the House, Senate, and for the Governorships, who rely on that vote to keep them in office urging her to make amends for the good of the party.

[epo]

Obama goes after Big Bill Clinton himself! (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/exclusive-obama.html)

In an interview running tomorrow morning on Good Morning America, Obama feels like he is running against both Clintons...and then rips on Bill for distorting his record.

This is going to get really ugly.

[ShowerBench]

Obama whining about his opponent's spouse on the heels of two defeats sounds weak.

Also the last thing Obama needs is voters picking between him and the Clintons. He's been rope a doped.

[A.J.]

Obama feels like he is running against both Clintons

That's because he is. I'm just waiting for a repeat of the "two for the price of one" line from back in 1992 to make it official.

[K.C.]

Obama goes after Big Bill Clinton himself! (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/exclusive-obama.html)

In an interview running tomorrow morning on Good Morning America, Obama feels like he is running against both Clintons...and then rips on Bill for distorting his record.

This is going to get really ugly.

He's not going to win that fight...nobody works the media and the spin game like Bill Clinton.

[badmonkey]

He's not going to win that fight...nobody works the media and the spin game like Bill Clinton.

He hasn't been doing as well this year with the whole working the media and spin game. His words on the trail have been blamed for Hillary's campaign problems more than once and now he's been told by his party to lay off Obama.
Chill, Bill Dems tell Bubba tone down attacks (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1067932)

[Knowledged_one]

I'm voting for Satan

He could win just think of the slogan

The evil you know is better then the evil you dont

[ShowerBench]

He hasn't been doing as well this year with the whole working the media and spin game. His words on the trail have been blamed for Hillary's campaign problems more than once and now he's been told by his party to lay off Obama.
Chill, Bill Dems tell Bubba tone down attacks (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1067932)

My guess is the half hearted "criticism" is about avoiding endorsing Obama, who they don't want to win, while throwing a bone to his black supporters. Then in the general election, they will endorse Clinton and everybody's happy.

As for how well he's been doing, he had tons of coverage for NH and NV and she won. He's undoubtedly an asset, which is why Obama is trying to silence him.

[ShowerBench]

This was idiotic, because Obama will lose in Florida anyway. I.e., the only candidate to break the pledge and advertise there - and he loses.

Statement By The Clinton Campaign On Senator Obama’s Violation Of The Early State Pledge

The Obama campaign today began airing paid television advertisements in a national cable buy that include advertising in the state of Florida. There is no question that these ads are a clear and blatant violation of the early-state pledge that Senator Obama and the other leading Democratic candidates signed last year.

The early state pledge was crystal clear in its prohibition against any kind of campaign activity (outside of fundraising) in states that do not adhere to the DNC calendar. There is no ambiguity. Among the list of prohibited activities are “electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state.” (According to Nielsen, there are 6,6 million TV households in Florida that receive CNN through either local cable systems or satellite dishes. This represents 92% of all Florida TV households.) The Obama campaign knows this, but has chosen to violate the pledge regardless.

Just last week the Obama campaign snubbed the people of Florida in a memo that stated that Florida did not matter in the nominating process. After consecutive losses in New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada, they appear to be changing course.

Senator Obama’s flagrant disregard for the pledge that he signed is disturbing and calls the integrity of the pledge into question.

[DolaMight]

NY Mac Attack:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is trailing in the race for the Republican presidential nomination even on his home turf of New York state, a new poll showed on Monday.

The WNBC/Marist poll ahead of the February 5 primaries in New York showed 34 percent of registered Republicans support John McCain, compared to 23 percent for Giuliani. Among Republicans likely to vote, McCain kept his 34 percent support, while Giuliani was tied in second place with Mitt Romney at 19 percent. (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2141677120080121?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

[K.C.]

He hasn't been doing as well this year with the whole working the media and spin game. His words on the trail have been blamed for Hillary's campaign problems more than once and now he's been told by his party to lay off Obama.
Chill, Bill Dems tell Bubba tone down attacks (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1067932)

I would argue that he's done better than ever this time around.

I've heard and read the stories in the media that say he's caused problems from what he's said for the Hillary campaign, but I think the 'problems' actually helped her win both New Hampshire and Nevada.

He went to college campuses in New Hampshire in the final two days of that primary and the turnout in those areas ended up not being as heavy for Obama as he needed them to be to win that primary.

In Nevada, he spent all of the caucus morning going back and forth through the casinos talking to the culinary workers union members and persuading them, and Hillary won most, and basically split the rest of the casino caucus sites, which Obama was also expected to win heavily, and which also cost him that state.



I'm of the firm belief that she'd be 0-for-3 if he wasn't actively campaigning for her. He connects with Democrats in a way that she couldn't possibly understand. Hell, I don't understand it...but it's just a reality for some reason.

[DolaMight]

Hillary has poor Bill is all tuckered out

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" id="vxFlashPlayer5608" width="416" height="410" ><param name="movie" value="http://publish.vx.roo.com/nypost/viral/flashembed/" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullscreen" value="true" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="scale" value="noScale" /><param name="wmode" value="windowed" /><param name="flashvars" value="template=http://publish.vx.roo.com/nypost/viral/VideoWindowViral.swf&amp;siteId=b0debab1-419e-413a-bc36-ecb11d2ff4f8&amp;defaultChannel=NY Post&amp;clipId=1458_227094&amp;clicktoplay=clip&amp;tint=&amp;ser verBase=&amp;defaultBitrate=700&amp;vxCore=http://publish.vx.roo.com/nypost/viral/vxCore.swf&amp;" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://publish.vx.roo.com/nypost/viral/flashembed/" width="416" height="410" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullscreen="true" quality="high" scale="noScale" wmode="windowed" flashvars="template=http://publish.vx.roo.com/nypost/viral/VideoWindowViral.swf&amp;siteId=b0debab1-419e-413a-bc36-ecb11d2ff4f8&amp;defaultChannel=NY Post&amp;clipId=1458_227094&amp;clicktoplay=clip&amp;tint=&amp;ser verBase=&amp;defaultBitrate=700&amp;vxCore=http://publish.vx.roo.com/nypost/viral/vxCore.swf&amp;" ></embed></object>

[badmonkey]

Democratic debate on CNN right now. Clinton and Obama are not getting along at all. Best debate ever.

[scottinnj]

I'm voting for Satan

He could win just think of the slogan

The evil you know is better then the evil you dont

Yeah, but do you feel comfortable having a beer with the guy?

[badmonkey]

Yeah, but do you feel comfortable having a beer with the guy?

I'll have a beer with pretty much anybody. Hell.. I'd even stand next to Hillary at the urinal afterwards.

[scottinnj]

I'll have a beer with pretty much anybody. Hell.. I'd even stand next to Hillary at the urinal afterwards.

I wouldn't. I hear she's a 9 and a half'er. I'd feel small and insignificant next to her.



I T' S A J O K E !!!!!

[Jujubees2]

So long Freddie. Take that hot wife of yours home and show her your "O" face...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22786860/

[ShowerBench]

Uh oh.

Guy on YouTube claiming he did crack with Obama in '99 and gave him a blow job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

:blink:


more:

http://anndavis.blogspot.com/2008/01/exclusive-statement-from-obama-accuser.html

[TheMojoPin]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah ahhahaaaaaaaaaah!

That's adorable. This dude's dates and times are all kinds of fucked up.

[ShowerBench]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah ahhahaaaaaaaaaah!

That's adorable. This dude's dates and times are all kinds of fucked up.

Where? On the blog he gives a 5-day window during which he was in Chicago.

[TheMojoPin]

Where? On the blog he gives a 5-day window during which he was in Chicago.

Read through the comments.

[ShowerBench]

Read through the comments.

You mean the discrepancy over when the Great Lakes Navy Training Center graduation was held? If the comments are correct the dates are within a couple of weeks and if he proves he went to the event, then what difference do the dates make? Also, as is noted there were several different types of graduation ceremonies and that military facilities hold them on several weekends.

[DolaMight]

Uh oh.

Guy on YouTube claiming he did crack with Obama in '99 and gave him a blow job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

:blink:


more:

http://anndavis.blogspot.com/2008/01/exclusive-statement-from-obama-accuser.html

There's only one way to settle this. Get a sketch artist to have the limo driver/cock rider to give a witness description of the obamadong. Then Live on CNN have other impartial obamadong witnesses to verify the obamadong's identity.

[epo]

Uh oh.

Guy on YouTube claiming he did crack with Obama in '99 and gave him a blow job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

:blink:


more:

http://anndavis.blogspot.com/2008/01/exclusive-statement-from-obama-accuser.html

Yea......

That dude hasn't seen an upscale lounge or a limo in his fucking life.

I would love to see who the hell fed this asshole's bank account lately.

[ShowerBench]

Yea......

That dude hasn't seen an upscale lounge or a limo in his fucking life.

I would love to see who the hell fed this asshole's bank account lately.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel.

He's inviting a libel suit and it's not clear to me why the Obama campaign wouldn't have moved aggressively on that if this is a lie. Sometimes it's best to hope the allegations go away but at this stage in the campaign and forward, when Obama's campaign knows this will end up on the front pages of every blog on the internet AFTER nomination, challenging it now would be the only way to put it to rest and convince voters it isn't true.

I don't think it would take more than that - filing a libel suit behind the scenes and then stating that has happened and refusing to discuss it further - to put the issue down. Why hasn't he?

[epo]

Truth is an absolute defense against libel.

He's inviting a libel suit and it's not clear to me why the Obama campaign wouldn't have moved aggressively on that if this is a lie. Sometimes it's best to hope the allegations go away but at this stage in the campaign and forward, when Obama's campaign knows this will end up on the front pages of every blog on the internet AFTER nomination, challenging it now would be the only way to put it to rest and convince voters it isn't true.

I don't think it would take more than that - filing a libel suit behind the scenes and then stating that has happened and refusing to discuss it further - to put the issue down. Why hasn't he?

Simple enough. If you file suit, it becomes a story and his hopes are over.

This reeks of dirty politics at the highest level.

[TheMojoPin]

Simple enough. If you file suit, it becomes a story and his hopes are over.

This reeks of dirty politics at the highest level.

Exactly. If you even acknowledge it it just gives it legs, even if it is to shoot it down. This thing has been around for, what, a couple of days? They only need to respond if it takes up a life of its own and dogs him, which is incredibly unlikely.

I support the Obamadong idea.

[ShowerBench]

Simple enough. If you file suit, it becomes a story and his hopes are over.

This reeks of dirty politics at the highest level.

The reason it doesn't reek of dirty politics is this guy doesn't look like an operative, and probably hasn't been paid off by a campaign. No campaign is that stupid. Obama ought to be praying this guy has a long history of mental illness.

I'd say if Obama doesn't file a suit it becomes a story anyway. It would be a Drudge Report headline the day after Obama won the Democratic nomination. A lawsuit then would be too little too late.

It's got 50,000 hits already. Millions by the end of the week.

[TheMojoPin]

The reason it doesn't reek of dirty politics is this guy doesn't look like an operative, and probably hasn't been paid off by a campaign. No campaign is that stupid. Obama ought to be praying this guy has a long history of mental illness.

I'd say if Obama doesn't file a suit it becomes a story anyway. It would be a Drudge Report headline the day after Obama won the Democratic nomination. A lawsuit then would be too little too late.

It's got 50,000 hits already. Millions by the end of the week.

That sets a horrible precendent. That basically means anyone can post a video of them saying a candidate doing whatever so long as they know alittle about their schedule, ad if it gets enough hits, a campaign has to acknowledge it.

If there's anything to this, it'll come out. Until then, it's just a crank trying to get some attention.

[epo]

The reason it doesn't reek of dirty politics is this guy doesn't look like an operative, and probably hasn't been paid off by a campaign. No campaign is that stupid. Obama ought to be praying this guy has a long history of mental illness.

I'd say if Obama doesn't file a suit it becomes a story anyway. It would be a Drudge Report headline the day after Obama won the Democratic nomination. A lawsuit then would be too little too late.

It's got 50,000 hits already. Millions by the end of the week.

Money doesn't need to come from a campaign. In fact in a case like this, it wouldn't.

[FUNKMAN]

McCain is pushing 'Corporate Tax Breaks'... I hope he gets hit by a fucking bus

the little bus is all it should take

[Zorro]

If Hillary wins South Carolina does Obama concede the election and quit the race?

[Zorro]

McCain is pushing 'Corporate Tax Breaks'... I hope he gets hit by a fucking bus

the little bus is all it should take

It's a crime that you can order from Amazon tax free, but the guy that actually invests in the hood and employs the neighbors has to collect 8.375%.

[TheMojoPin]

The reason it doesn't reek of dirty politics is this guy doesn't look like an operative, and probably hasn't been paid off by a campaign. No campaign is that stupid. Obama ought to be praying this guy has a long history of mental illness.

I'd say if Obama doesn't file a suit it becomes a story anyway. It would be a Drudge Report headline the day after Obama won the Democratic nomination. A lawsuit then would be too little too late.

It's got 50,000 hits already. Millions by the end of the week.

Odds are it would be a Drudge mention already and even he isn't touching it.

[ShowerBench]

Odds are it would be a Drudge mention already and even he isn't touching it.

Waiting and hoping it doesn't surface much until the Dems nominate Obama.

Then it will be Larry Sinclair 24/7 and reach critical mass on the blogs so that the mainstream media is forced to cover it.

I wouldn't worry about it if I knew the guy had a record of mental illness but so far that hasn't been reported. I wouldn't be all that surprised if it were true or not true.

[epo]

Waiting and hoping it doesn't surface much until the Dems nominate Obama.

Then it will be Larry Sinclair 24/7 and reach critical mass on the blogs so that the mainstream media is forced to cover it.

I wouldn't worry about it if I knew the guy had a record of mental illness but so far that hasn't been reported. I wouldn't be all that surprised if it were true or not true.

There is a reason even fucking Drudge ain't touching this story. It's obviously slime & if Drudge were to jump in....he would risk his status of having the "easiest job on the planet"!

[ShowerBench]

There is a reason even fucking Drudge ain't touching this story. It's obviously slime & if Drudge were to jump in....he would risk his status of having the "easiest job on the planet"!

Problem with that is he reported rumors of a Kerry "affair" before the 2004 election including naming the specific woman who was forced to come out and deny it. Sludge doesn't care about slime. He couldn't be sued successfully for posting a link to the video or blog either so that's not stopping him.

He's saving it.

[epo]

Problem with that is he reported rumors of a Kerry "affair" before the 2004 election including naming the specific woman who was forced to come out and deny it. Sludge doesn't care about slime. He couldn't be sued successfully for posting a link to the video or blog either so that's not stopping him.

He's saving it.

An affair is much different than accusing a serious minority candidate of not only an affair, but a gay affair with drug use. Add to that, the source hasn't been vetted, but also seems to be the blight of the Earth.

[high fly]

I'm feeling bad about not catching that bastard Mark Levin today and get his reaction to Fred bowing out.

He didn't like any other Republican, so now he's gotta backpedal...

[TheMojoPin]

An affair is much different than accusing a serious minority candidate of not only an affair, but a gay affair with drug use. Add to that, the source hasn't been vetted, but also seems to be the blight of the Earth.

Claiming that a journalist, on ANY level, would be "saving" a story this sensational if there was even a shred of truth to it is absurd. That would just screw them out of a story. If there was anything to this, people would be fighting over each other to outscoop the person next to them, Drudge included. "Saving it" from ajournalisti standpoint makes absolutely no sense.

[ShowerBench]

Claiming that a journalist, on ANY level, would be "saving" a story this sensational if there was even a shred of truth to it is absurd. That would just screw them out of a story. If there was anything to this, people would be fighting over each other to outscoop the person next to them, Drudge included. "Saving it" from ajournalisti standpoint makes absolutely no sense.

Agree but Sludge isn't a journalist he's a closeted gay Republican political op.

[TheMojoPin]

It still wouldn't make sense to bottle it. If it can be built up, it can sink Obama now or later. Why wait? Whether he gets the nod or not, it still potentially takes him down. What would be the point in waiting?

[ShowerBench]

It still wouldn't make sense to bottle it. If it can be built up, it can sink Obama now or later. Why wait? Whether he gets the nod or not, it still potentially takes him down. What would be the point in waiting?

The point in waiting is to sink the Democratic nominee once he's running against the Republican, rather than sink him now and allow a viable candidate to be nominated.

[TheMojoPin]

The point in waiting is to sink the Democratic nominee once he's running against the Republican, rather than sink him now and allow a viable candidate to be nominated.

But it's not like nobody knows of this non-story. It isn't some trump card that Drudge is sitting on...it's out there for all to see.

[scottinnj]

Agree but Sludge isn't a journalist he's a closeted gay Republican political op.

Quit trying to gay up yet another thread. I'm getting excited over here.

[yeti]

They all suck, I'm voting for my postman.

[K.C.]

Dick Morris: Hillary will beat Obama because of race war (my words, not his)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/how_clinton_will_win_the_nomin.html


Dick Morris is one of the biggest douchebags in the world. But he does have a solid track record as far as predicting elections goes.

I actually can't argue with most of the logic. Obama will win handily in South Carolina because of the black vote, and it will be perceived that way in the media. The older, white, baby boomers types in the Democratic Party will start to think blacks are only voting for Obama so heavily because he is black (Earl Douglas syndrome), and cast, in their minds, 'protest' votes for Hillary.

That, combined with her already being ahead nationally will win her the nomination.

[Yerdaddy]

If we've reached the point where any random nutjob can post a bunch of retarded lies on YouTube and actually have it impact a presidential election through dissemination by propaganda institutions like Drudge and Fox "News" then we are truly too stupid for democracy and our soveriegnty needs to be taken away from us (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29523)and handed over to Europe and Canada until such time as we are capable of handling democracy again.

[A.J.]

If we've reached the point where any random nutjob can post a bunch of retarded lies on YouTube and actually have it impact a presidential election through dissemination by propaganda institutions like Drudge and Fox "News" then we are truly too stupid for democracy and our soveriegnty needs to be taken away from us (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29523)and handed over to Europe and Canada until such time as we are capable of handling democracy again.

This country reached that point long, long ago.

[Zorro]

If we've reached the point where any random nutjob can post a bunch of retarded lies on YouTube and actually have it impact a presidential election through dissemination by propaganda institutions like Drudge and Fox "News" then we are truly too stupid for democracy and our soveriegnty needs to be taken away from us (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29523)and handed over to Europe and Canada until such time as we are capable of handling democracy again.

Europe and Canada seem to be having enough problems with their own Democracies to be adding ours.

[DolaMight]

Europe and Canada seem to be having enough problems with their own Democracies to be adding ours.

Our Democracy is just fine, however we can't afford to take yours. Ask China.

[K.C.]

South Carolina is getting a little interesting on the Democratic side:

Survey USA poll
Obama - 45
Clinton - 29
Edwards - 22

Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll
Obama - 39
Clinton - 24
Edwards - 19

Clemson poll (8-day tracking)
Obama - 27
Clinton - 20
Edwards - 17

Rasmussen
Obama - 43
Clinton - 28
Edwards - 17



Obama seems to be in good shape to win...the number to watch is Clinton vs. Edwards. John Edwards is in striking distance of second place, he was born in the state, and he won it in 2004. My guess is there's a strong core presence for him still in place in South Carolina, and especially with it becoming more and more clear that Hillary is kind of pulling out of the state, and not going to get close, her support could swing somewhat Edwards way.

If Edwards finishes 2nd, it's a devastating loss for Clinton and throws Super Tuesday completely up in the air again, as she'll be perceived as falling victim to negative campaigning and race baiting.

It revives Edwards a bit, as he can claim a big comeback and milk the finish for some media coverage that he desperately needs. Plus, much of his issue with voters is not seeming viable. This will help his viability.

Plus, it's pretty clear that Edwards strategy, while he wants to win, is to at least run above 15% in all the states so he acquires delegates, and then hope Obama and Clinton deadlock each other, turning it into a brokered convention, and throw his support to whomever (likely Obama) for the VP nod.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Dick Morris is one of the biggest douchebags in the world. But he does have a solid track record as far as predicting elections goes.
Wasn't Dick Morris saying it would be Condi-Hilary 2 years ago?

[K.C.]

Wasn't Dick Morris saying it would be Condi-Hilary 2 years ago?

Probably...maybe I should rephrase that statement a little...he's not good and predicting candidates...but despite his douchebaggery and obvious obsession/loathing for the Clintons, when he's not trying to be a third-rate, right-wing Michael Moore, he's solid at predicting voter tendencies and outcomes.

I'll give him that much.

[epo]

So Chuck Norris endorsed Huckabee & now Stallone endorses McCain.

Link to story here. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/24/yo_mccain_hoping_stallone_can.html)

This is seriously turning into the dumbest election ever.

[K.C.]

So Chuck Norris endorsed Huckabee & now Stallone endorses McCain.

Link to story here. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/24/yo_mccain_hoping_stallone_can.html)

This is seriously turning into the dumbest election ever.

All eyes turn to Seagal...

[scottinnj]

All eyes turn to Seagal...

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Lock it up Mojo, I can't continue following this brilliance. :lol:

[A.J.]

So Chuck Norris endorsed Huckabee & now Stallone endorses McCain.

Link to story here. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/24/yo_mccain_hoping_stallone_can.html)

This is seriously turning into the dumbest election ever.

All eyes turn to Seagal...

And to a lesser extent, Van Damme.

[Zorro]

And to a lesser extent, Van Damme.

I'm hoping for an endorsement from Jackie Chan

[scottinnj]

Or at least "anyone but Hillary"

These two op-ed pieces appeared on the Times' webpage after Obama's victory in South Carolina:

Two Presidents Are Worse Than One (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/26wills.html?em&ex=1201496400&en=ea016e347a5a3d9c&ei=5087%0A)


An obvious jab at Hillary's "Two for the Price of One" campaigning.


And......


A President Like My Father (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?em&ex=1201496400&en=19693ca2b82115e1&ei=5087%0A)

Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama-which I think the NY Times is using to endorse Obama without actually coming out and officially endorsing Obama

[DolaMight]

Or at least "anyone but Hillary"

These two op-ed pieces appeared on the Times' webpage after Obama's victory in South Carolina:

Two Presidents Are Worse Than One (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/opinion/26wills.html?em&ex=1201496400&en=ea016e347a5a3d9c&ei=5087%0A)


An obvious jab at Hillary's "Two for the Price of One" campaigning.


And......


A President Like My Father (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?em&ex=1201496400&en=19693ca2b82115e1&ei=5087%0A)

Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama-which I think the NY Times is using to endorse Obama without actually coming out and officially endorsing Obama

Yeah I see that but isn't the times officially the McCain Clinton tandem. They endorsed both last week. Ask drudge, he hasn't forgotten, he's used it to put mccain in the gop electric chair.

[Zorro]

A really insightful review of Bill and Hillary Clinton

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1251-Eight-More-Years.html#extended

[Ritalin]

An interesting, Six Degrees of Separation-ish piece of information about the Obama/Kennedy connection:

The bond began with Kenyan labour leader Tom Mboya, an advocate for African nationalism who helped his country gain independence in 1963. In the late 1950s, Mboya was seeking support for a scholarship program that would send Kenyan students to US colleges - similar to other exchanges the US backed in developing nations during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Mboya appealed to the state department. When that trail went cold, he turned to then-senator Kennedy.
Kennedy, who chaired the senate subcommittee on Africa, arranged a $100,000 grant through his family's foundation to help Mboya keep the program running...
One of the first students airlifted to America was Barack Obama Sr, who married a white Kansas native named Ann Dunham during his US studies.

[TeeBone]

I have seen at least a half-dozen political ads tonight with the now all too familiar tag-line, "I'm Blah-Blah and __________ of this message."

Which one is it?

"I approve of this message,"
or
"I've proved this message."

I heard both and it might be either option, but perhaps I'm wrong.
I dunno...

[Yerdaddy]

A really insightful review of Bill and Hillary Clinton

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1251-Eight-More-Years.html#extended

Some valid criticizms in there but you have to consider that Nader is a liberal idealist. If Jesus were president Nader would criticize him for not curing ALL the lepers and accuse him of pandering to the meek-vote by promising not to charge them a progressive inheritance tax on the earth. Dog bless Nader for all he's done over the years, but he hates everyone with a shot at winning an election. I gave him my money in 2000 but since then I've learned that the lesser of two evils is just that - the lesser of two evils. And the reason we have the shit candidates we have is because we, the American people, wouldn't choose anyone better - we'd destroy them.

[epo]

I have seen at least a half-dozen political ads tonight with the now all too familiar tag-line, "I'm Blah-Blah and __________ of this message."

Which one is it?

"I approve of this message,"
or
"I've proved this message."

I heard both and it might be either option, but perhaps I'm wrong.
I dunno...

I approve of this message. It's required by advertising paid for by candidates. If you don't hear that line, it's an ad paid for by an interest group.

[Dude!]

this will be the first election that i can vote
after seeing the clintons in action the last few weeks
i will not vote for her, i mean them, under any circumstance
what nasty, evil, machiavellian people they are
ive come to hate them

[TooLowBrow]

this will be the first election that i can vote
after seeing the clintons in action the last few weeks
i will not vote for her, i mean them, under any circumstance
what nasty, evil, machiavellian people they are
ive come to hate them

i like my leaders to be as ineffective as possible

[ATMfromChico]

this will be the first election that i can vote
after seeing the clintons in action the last few weeks
i will not vote for her, i mean them, under any circumstance
what nasty, evil, machiavellian people they are
ive come to hate them


Sounds like your political cherry has been roughed up. Just remember, you have to really have a cyncial eye for anyone who would aspire to be the president of this country. The leadership of this country would best fall to one who seeks not the power and prestige the office of president seemingly provides.

[Zorro]

Some valid criticizms in there but you have to consider that Nader is a liberal idealist. If Jesus were president Nader would criticize him for not curing ALL the lepers and accuse him of pandering to the meek-vote by promising not to charge them a progressive inheritance tax on the earth. Dog bless Nader for all he's done over the years, but he hates everyone with a shot at winning an election. I gave him my money in 2000 but since then I've learned that the lesser of two evils is just that - the lesser of two evils. And the reason we have the shit candidates we have is because we, the American people, wouldn't choose anyone better - we'd destroy them.

I'm not a huge Nader fan, but I thought his critique synthesized into words the anger that Democrats feel towards Clinton for pissing away his presidency

[AKA]

you have to really have a cyncial eye for anyone who would aspire to be the president of this country.

The cynics will always be satisfied.

[Yerdaddy]

I'm not a huge Nader fan, but I thought his critique synthesized into words the anger that Democrats feel towards Clinton for pissing away his presidency

Bubba, and his presidency, are hugely popular with Democrats. This is the sentiment of the hardcore left - the crowd that still says there's no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. It's more factually argued than most of them, and I agree with most of the specific points, but the conclusions he's drawn from it are based on the fantasy that someone as liberal as Nader could have done get his policies enacted much less be elected President in the first place. It's idealism at its purest. Which is at least a thousand times more useful than its retarded cousin: ideology.

[ShowerBench]

Obama won 22% of the white vote in Florida

Clinton won 27% of the black vote in Florida

The FL primary turnout was so huge Clinton won 300,000 more votes there than Kerry did in 04.

The Dems tied the R's in turnout even though the D race was uncontested and no one campaigned there, while the R's were fighting for their lives.

[Dirtybird12]

his father worked in a mill.

he's done. - from the front page of MSNBC.COM (no story yet, just headline)

The AP is reporting that Mr. Edwards is dropping out of the race.

vice president?

[K.C.]

his father worked in a mill.

he's done. (story)

The AP is reporting that Mr. Edwards is dropping out of the race.

vice president?


EDIT: Don't see it anywhere...only AP story is about him nixing campaign stops to make a public policy address on poverty.

[A.J.]

Here's the story about Edwards dropping out. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/ap_on_el_pr/edwards)

[K.C.]

Just saw it...announcement in New Orleans today at 1 PM