The 2008 Presidential Race

[TheMojoPin]

Because as Democrats, you'd come across as being hypocritical and duplicitous.

If I thought that still having super delegates was a good idea, OK. But I never have because it's pointless elitism. The Republicans were smart to do away with their system.

Regadless of that, it wouldn't somehow negate the issue of 2000.

[TheMojoPin]

Yea I am kinda disappointed in Hannity cause he's usually not the venomous demagogue that these other cocks are. He says some weird shit from time to time, but he supported Arnold in CA.

Does Hannity still support Arnold? Arnold's ended up way more to the center/left than he seemed or was thought to be when he was trying to take office.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Does Hannity still support Arnold? Arnold's ended up way more to the center/left than he seemed or was thought to be when he was trying to take office.
Not sure, but I distinctly remembered his methodical explanation of WHY he supported Arnold even though he's pro-choice during the recall when it was down to only Arnold

[scottinnj]

Story Here (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/10/clinton-campaign-manager-resigns/)

Campaign officials told FOX News that Doyle was not asked to step down, and the switch does not signal that the campaign is in any different position than it was yesterday. The announcement came one day after her opponent Barack Obama swept three state races — in Washington, Nebraska and Louisiana.


My thinking is the cut in salary and held back paychecks until Hillary wrote that check had something to do with this.

[scottinnj]

Does Hannity still support Arnold? Arnold's ended up way more to the center/left than he seemed or was thought to be when he was trying to take office.

I think his support of Arnold was just because he was a Republican, and let's face it, the Democrat candidate Phil Angelides was left of Arnold, which means as long as a Republican was governor of California, Hannity was fine with it. But that just shows what hypocrisy there is among the party leaders. Schwarzeneggar is fine for California, but McCain is going to destroy the party and the nation if he is president. :thumbdown:

[epo]

Story Here (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/10/clinton-campaign-manager-resigns/)

My thinking is the cut in salary and held back paychecks until Hillary wrote that check had something to do with this.

I do know that if Clinton hadn't won New Hampshire that Doyle was apparently going to either resign or get fired. Add to that the internal politics of that campaign & it was only a matter of time.

It's too bad really, as all reports have her (Doyle) being a geniunely nice person. But then again, this is the nature of the political field.

[epo]

I think his support of Arnold was just because he was a Republican, and let's face it, the Democrat candidate Phil Angelides was left of Arnold, which means as long as a Republican was governor of California, Hannity was fine with it. But that just shows what hypocrisy there is among the party leaders. Schwarzeneggar is fine for California, but McCain is going to destroy the party and the nation if he is president. :thumbdown:

It's kind of funny as when Arnold got elected, I thought "Are they crazy!"

But in all honesty he seems to have done a pretty good job as governor, and seems to being reflecting the will of the populus. Of course, ideologues on their side may not like him (especially the right) but he seems to be really well-liked.

Good for him.

[DiabloSammich]

This quote was from the story, “This has already been the longest presidential campaign in the history of our nation, and one that has required enormous sacrifices from all of us and our families,”

And it has me thinking, if this thing continues to drag on all the way to the convention and maybe beyond, and there's no reason to think otherwise, do you think it will have an adverse effect on either candidate? They have already worked like hell on this campaign and there's a long way to go. I'm thinking at some point burn-out would set in.

[scottinnj]

It's kind of funny as when Arnold got elected, I thought "Are they crazy!"

But in all honesty he seems to have done a pretty good job as governor, and seems to being reflecting the will of the populus. Of course, ideologues on their side may not like him (especially the right) but he seems to be really well-liked.

Good for him.

Yeah, I wish Corzine would phone him for advice.

[sailor]

for issues like abortion (which it seems like that's a large part of the problem is) i think it matters a lot more for the president than a governor (on either side of the issue). even though i disagree completely with those on the right who are scared of mccain, i don't think it's really hypocritical.

[Bulldogcakes]

from Drudge (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/10/politics/main3813759.shtml)

CBS: Obama Takes Delegate Lead, Even Counting Uncommitted Supers...

(AP/CBS) Illinois senator Barack Obama finished a series of weekend primary and caucus contests undefeated as he bested Hillary Clinton in Maine today, according to CBS News estimates.

Obama’s victory in the Maine caucuses follow on the heels of his Saturday sweep in which he won Louisiana’s primary contest as well as caucuses in the states of Washington and Nebraska.

His winning margins ranged from substantial to crushing. In Maine, he led 59 percent to 41 percent with 91 percent of the precints reporting. In Louisiana, Obama defeated Clinton, 57 percent to 36 percent. He won in Nebraska by a 68 percent to 32 percent margin and in Washington 68 percent to 31 percent.

Obama's victory in Maine -- and the ease with which it came -- actually exceeded expectations, even though he swept the caucuses held on Super Tuesday. Clinton had the backing of the state's governor, John Baldacci, and its proximity to New Hamsphire and Massachusetts, both of which Clinton has already won this year, led some analysts to expect a close race.

Even Obama's own campaign said they didn't expect to win Maine, according to a document the campaign said was accidentally leaked earlier in the week.

In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton, even when the support of uncommitted super delegates is figured in. According to CBS News estimates, Obama holds a razor-thin lead with 1,134 delegates overall to 1,131 for Clinton.



Momentum is huge in these races, his supporters are emboldened and those on the fence take a new look at him. Very big news for the Obama camp, especially at this stage.

[Dude!]

why is epo banned

[DiabloSammich]

why is epo banned


For speaking out against the man.

If Obama is elected, travesties like this will never take place.


POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!

[scottinnj]

why is epo banned

Yeah WHAT THE FUCK????? I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!!!!!


But seriously, why is epo banned? I'm much more terrible and homoerotic then he is.:down:

[IMSlacker]

He wasn't being homoerotic enough.

[Bulldogcakes]

Tuesday's NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?ei=5065&en=83bd560436fa713f&ex=1203397200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said Monday.

Which of course, means that it is slipping away.

Its like the old RF line about a girl who has to keep telling people "I'M NOT CRAZY! REALLY! I'M REALLY NOT CRAZY"

[Dude!]

so the clintons are virtually ignoring everything until March 4
sounds like the rudy strategy
and we know how that worked out for him

[keithy_19]

so the clintons are virtually ignoring everything until March 4
sounds like the rudy strategy
and we know how that worked out for him

Getting the GOP nomination? Oh wait...

[Dirtybird12]

You're welcome America

http://montrosedogs.org/img/obama08.jpg

[thejives]

You're welcome America

http://montrosedogs.org/img/obama08.jpg

You're a hero.

:clap:

[epo]

MSNBC reports that Hillary Clinton Deputy Campaign Director Mike Henry has resigned.

[NickyL0885]

MSNBC reports that Hillary Clinton Deputy Campaign Director Mike Henry has resigned.

that hurts her more. now all the people and donaters that she is trying to assure, will prob be hesitant to give money. This shows that there is In-Fighting with her campaign. I think Obama will pick off OHIO.

[epo]

that hurts her more. now all the people and donaters that she is trying to assure, will prob be hesitant to give money. This shows that there is In-Fighting with her campaign. I think Obama will pick off OHIO.

Texas seems to be in play also. It sounds like the polling data from today indicates he has made major in-roads with Latinos and whites.

Also, she is sort of abandoning Wisconsin. This does seem like the Guiliani strategy.....

[Neckbeard]

Based on the numbers Obama has surged in tonight, Texas and Ohio are basically wide open. Yes, there's a lot of time between now and then, but he just needs to balance until then. With Latino delegates passing e-mails denouncing her "firing" her Latino advisor, that's gonna hurt her.

[HBox]

What the hell is Hillary meandering about right now?

[epo]

What the hell is Hillary meandering about right now?

She's avoiding tonight's results and doing it in Texas. Apparently she & Bill had some chili there in 1992.

[scottinnj]

She's avoiding tonight's results and doing it in Texas. Apparently she & Bill had some chili there in 1992.

From that speech, sounds like it's still in her stomach.

[scottinnj]

MSNBC just called Maryland for Obama.


This is almost as good as when Utley led us to the sweep of the Mets.


OH, SNAP!!!!

[ShowerBench]

d'oh

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_obama_on_cn.html

OBAMA: I believe that NBC should not be having hosts like Don Imus who are making derogatory statements toward women and minorities. I’ve got two young daughters who I hope will be athletes and the notion that somehow they would be degraded and insulted and that that would pass as humor and that NBC would be running that over the public airwaves, I think, is atrocious.

[TheMojoPin]

d'oh

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_obama_on_cn.html

OBAMA: I believe that NBC should not be having hosts like Don Imus who are making derogatory statements toward women and minorities. I’ve got two young daughters who I hope will be athletes and the notion that somehow they would be degraded and insulted and that that would pass as humor and that NBC would be running that over the public airwaves, I think, is atrocious.

So?

[epo]

d'oh

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_obama_on_cn.html

OBAMA: I believe that NBC should not be having hosts like Don Imus who are making derogatory statements toward women and minorities. I’ve got two young daughters who I hope will be athletes and the notion that somehow they would be degraded and insulted and that that would pass as humor and that NBC would be running that over the public airwaves, I think, is atrocious.

Shower Bench, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Imus seriously fucked up and was rightfully punished on this one.

Every great communicator understands that the first tenet of communication is "identification". If your audience identifies with you, you are most likely to gain their approval. However a responsibility of said identification is avoiding "congregation by segregation". If you break that tenet, you are putting yourself at risk.

Imus knowingly made a living breaking that tenet. Anyone in that position knows that eventually the jig will be up.

[NewYorkDragons80]

So?
Obama might've had a chance to end the Imus pile-on if he stuck up for him at that moment. That being said, I personally wouldn't vote on the PC over-reaction controversies. Other people might, but I don't see it as a threat from the government as much as very small special interest groups.

A lot of the pundits are already acting like Obama's got November sewn up. I wouldn't be so sure. I don't see him standing up too well against McCain, especially on national security and international relations. He's a one-term senator who spent half of his Senate career running for the office that much of the country feels he's underqualified for. Let's wait to see how he responds to a tough question, because he has yet to hear one.

[epo]

Obama might've had a chance to end the Imus pile-on if he stuck up for him at that moment. That being said, I personally wouldn't vote on the PC over-reaction controversies. Other people might, but I don't see it as a threat from the government as much as very small special interest groups.

A lot of the pundits are already acting like Obama's got November sewn up. I wouldn't be so sure. I don't see him standing up too well against McCain, especially on national security and international relations. He's a one-term senator who spent half of his Senate career running for the office that much of the country feels he's underqualified for. Let's wait to see how he responds to a tough question, because he has yet to hear one.

McCain likes to shoot himself in the foot:

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

[HBox]

d'oh

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_obama_on_cn.html

OBAMA: I believe that NBC should not be having hosts like Don Imus who are making derogatory statements toward women and minorities. I’ve got two young daughters who I hope will be athletes and the notion that somehow they would be degraded and insulted and that that would pass as humor and that NBC would be running that over the public airwaves, I think, is atrocious.

You have to reach back 10 months now?

[DolaMight]

McCain likes to shoot himself in the foot:

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

and everything he said is indisputable. He said as long as americans are not being hurt there is no problem maintaining a presence in a volatile part of the world. He's not talking about war, he's talking about keeping the peace.

[HBox]

and everything he said is indisputable. He said as long as americans are not being hurt there is no problem maintaining a presence in a volatile part of the world. He's not talking about war, he's talking about keeping the peace.

You're right. Our American military presence in the Middle East causes no problems at all. What are we thinking?

[DolaMight]

You're right. Our American military presence in the Middle East causes no problems at all. What are we thinking?

If soldiers are safe and the region is stable the pro's outweigh the cons. And besides, with or without a presence in the middle east, wahabi islam preaches jihad against all things western. They constantly threaten us even in Canada, the RCMP have thwarted attempts where they've targeted our buildings right after our government was very publicly against the war in Iraq. They don't hate us because of our meddling, that's just an excuse, they hate us because of our morals. The hate is never going to cease.

As far as the military presence goes, in the future when the shit hits the fan you'll be thankful they had a foot in the door before china and russia. It's a strategic position to protect the west.

[ShowerBench]

You have to reach back 10 months now?

I doubt he's changed his mind in 10 months.

Actually I don't.

[ShowerBench]

A lot of the pundits are already acting like Obama's got November sewn up. I wouldn't be so sure. I don't see him standing up too well against McCain, especially on national security and international relations. He's a one-term senator who spent half of his Senate career running for the office that much of the country feels he's underqualified for. Let's wait to see how he responds to a tough question, because he has yet to hear one.

Sums it up for me. If anyone told me I wouldn't be voting for a Democratic nominee this year I woulda giggled like a school shooter. But my choices are Billary, then Juan McAmnesty. The idea of giving the keys to the treasury and arsenal to someone with Obama's CV makes me queasy.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm still trying to figure out how Obama was obligated in any way to "stop" the Imus mess.

[TheMojoPin]

Sums it up for me. If anyone told me I wouldn't be voting for a Democratic nominee this year I woulda giggled like a school shooter. But my choices are Billary, then Juan McAmnesty. The idea of giving the keys to the treasury and arsenal to someone with Obama's CV makes me queasy.

I'm curious as to why you claim to be a Democrat when even vaguely Democratic candidates apparently turn you off.

[ShowerBench]

I'm curious as to why you claim to be a Democrat when even vaguely Democratic candidates apparently turn you off.

Clinton is vaguely Democratic? I guess I can call myself a Democrat because I've never voted for a Republican.

For me a candidate has to clear a national defense hurdle before I consider them. Obama hasn't and can't. The "bomb Pakistan" candidate is green and he's weak.

Second, I know what to expect from a Billary presidency in the economic realm - success. I know what to expect from a McCain presidency in the economic realm - moderate failure. Problem with Obama, I don't know what to expect in the economic realm, but predict abject failure.

Obama has no history of advocacy of any other issue aside from "organizing." He's a blank slate on whom followers are projecting their hopes and dreams.

Rule of thumb: People who wrap hopes and dreams up in politicians will always, always end up disappointed and embarrassed.

[TheMojoPin]

Clinton is vaguely Democratic? I guess I can call myself a Democrat because I've never voted for a Republican.

For me a candidate has to clear a national defense hurdle before I consider them. Obama hasn't and can't. The "bomb Pakistan" candidate is green and he's weak.

National defense hurdle? That's a completely hollow and false point. Our national defense "works" fine. If you're talking intelligence systems, sure, that needs drastic streamlining, but point me to the candidate that has even touched that issue.

Second, I know what to expect from a Billary presidency in the economic realm - success. I know what to expect from a McCain presidency in the economic realm - moderate failure. Problem with Obama, I don't know what to expect in the economic realm, but predict abject failure.

Why? I'm by no means looking at him as a guarenteed success, but where are you getting this doom and gloom scenario from? (http://businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/feb2008/db20080212_645487.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _top+story)

Rule of thumb: People who wrap hopes and dreams up in politicians will always, always end up disappointed and embarrassed.

Your criticisms of him are as vague and unfounded as you claim him to be.

Bottom line, you don't like him because he's "new." You calim people that are for him are setting themselves up for failure because of his lack of a track record, but how can you so definitively condemn him? Aren't you dealing with the same "newness" that you're using to shoot down support of him with?

[ShowerBench]

I'm curious as to why you claim to be a Democrat when even vaguely Democratic candidates apparently turn you off.

There is only one Democratic candidate who is running on traditional Democratic platform.

Obama appeals to three subgroups: blacks, college kids, and upper-income Democrats.

He appeals to blacks because he is black. He avoided civil rights events and kept black church appearances off his calendar in Iowa because he feared being seen as black. What's the name of the U2 song - Pride?

He appeals to college aged kids because they have lost the idealism/religion people crave at that age, and have glommed onto a POLITICIAN for "inspiration" because they don't yet known any better.

Obama is also winning with upper income Democrats, limousine liberals, who have nothing to lose by electing someone who couldn't care less about working people. People in this group like Obama because they are entertained by him. This group consists of social liberals so they don't like McCain, but they are fiscal conservatives. They know Obama can be bought and they know he has no real interest in poverty or the lower-middle and middle classes. He has already conceded the health care reform issue.

So I would ask you - why would any Democrat be turned on by Obama, a black man who avoids civil rights events, a blank slate with no history of advocacy on Democratic issues, and the flavor of the day for latte liberals?

[TheMojoPin]

There is only one Democratic candidate who is running on traditional Democratic platform.

Obama appeals to three subgroups: blacks, college kids, and upper-income Democrats.

He appeals to blacks because he is black. He avoided civil rights events and kept black church appearances off his calendar in Iowa because he feared being seen as black. What's the name of the U2 song - Pride?

He appeals to college aged kids because they have lost the idealism/religion people crave at that age, and have glommed onto a POLITICIAN for "inspiration" because they don't yet known any better.

Obama is also winning with upper income Democrats, limousine liberals, who have nothing to lose by electing someone who couldn't care less about working people. People in this group like Obama because they are entertained by him. This group consists of social liberals so they don't like McCain, but they are fiscal conservatives. They know Obama can be bought and they know he has no real interest in poverty or the lower-middle and middle classes. He has already conceded the health care reform issue.

So I would ask you - why would any Democrat be turned on by Obama, a black man who avoids civil rights events, a blank slate with no history of advocacy on Democratic issues, and the flavor of the day for latte liberals?

My question wasn't just in regards to Obama. You were seemingly rejecting Hillary and whoever "Juan McAmnesty" is as if this was a a weak crop of Democrats gunning for the nod.

Your judgements of Obama's voting base to this point fails because you're talking about it as if it's static. He's now shifting to include more middle and lower class non-black Democrats. And besides, how does who is voting for them "prove" anything about them?

And avoiding civil rights events? What are you talking about? He's been to plenty along the way. Is he obligated to go to every single one? We're really going to dwell on what amounts to window dressing? You say you don't like him because he seems shallow and riding on looking good, but then you condemn him for not making an effort to be at every "civil rights event" possible. Which do you want? You want him to trudge to all of these simply because he is black? How much more shallow could one be?

It's fun who you just blanket dismiss anyone who supports him as if they're incapable of actually looking into a candidate at all. Sure, all of them are going to have their share of lazy voters/supporters, but your amazing, incisive judgement and dismissal of them all is astounding.

And face it, inspiration feeds into the push for any candidate at some level, no matter how old or young they are or where they're coming from. It's admirable you want to be seen as the jaded politico, but it's a really forced and meaningless point.

[PhilDeez]

Look out Obama fans...this is just awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRJiVG9FlNo

[ShowerBench]

My question wasn't just in regards to Obama. You were seemingly rejecting Hillary and whoever "Juan McAmnesty" is as if this was a a weak crop of Democrats gunning for the nod.


You misunderstood me. I meant my first choice for president is Billary (Clinton). My second choice is McAmnesty (McCain). The nicknames were borrowed from the various anti- camps just because I think they are funny.

[ShowerBench]

You want him to trudge to all of these simply because he is black? How much more shallow could one be?

It's fun who you just blanket dismiss anyone who supports him as if they're incapable of actually looking into a candidate at all. Sure, all of them are going to have their share of lazy voters/supporters, but your amazing, incisive judgement and dismissal of them all is astounding.

And face it, inspiration feeds into the push for any candidate at some level, no matter how old or young they are or where they're coming from. It's admirable you want to be seen as the jaded politico, but it's a really forced and meaningless point.


I don't want him to trudge to civil rights events, I just don't want someone who calculatedly avoids them.

As for inspiration, I laugh at the idea that anyone looks to POLITICIANS for "inspiration."

But even stipulating that inspiration can be a factor in campaigns, it's the ONLY thing that Obama followers seem to see in him. Projecting their hopes and dreams onto a Chicago politician, and a typical one at that. I don't get it.

[NewYorkDragons80]

You're right. Our American military presence in the Middle East causes no problems at all. What are we thinking?
Dude, we haven't had any problems with our bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE, so the problem isn't the bases. McCain is being realistic and honest with the public about Iraq. You can take it or leave it, but we need to be dug in and ready for the shitstorms to come. And they're coming because there's a good amount of assholes in the region. Mind you, they were assholes before Prince Sultan air base existed, and they remain assholes after it closed. This is about crazy people who want to destroy moderate and reasonably democratic governments in Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, conquer "illegitimate occupiers" in Israel and Spain, and force the former's biggest protector, the United States, to retreat.

And my point was that McCain has to answer tough questions, and he does it eloquently and honestly. Obama hasn't gotten a tough question yet.

[HBox]

Dude, we haven't had any problems with our bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE, so the problem isn't the bases. McCain is being realistic and honest with the public about Iraq. You can take it or leave it, but we need to be dug in and ready for the shitstorms to come. And they're coming because there's a good amount of assholes in the region. Mind you, they were assholes before Prince Sultan air base existed, and they remain assholes after it closed. This is about crazy people who want to destroy moderate and reasonably democratic governments in Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, conquer "illegitimate occupiers" in Israel and Spain, and force the former's biggest protector, the United States, to retreat.

And my point was that McCain has to answer tough questions, and he does it eloquently and honestly. Obama hasn't gotten a tough question yet.

First I think you are giving these people way too much credit, that we need another military base in Iraq to keep them in check. And why did you even mention Israel and Spain? Nobody's overthrowing them. I don't give a shit about their pie in the sky hopes. I care more about what they might actually accomplish.

You do make a good point. We do have bases in other countries, like CENTCOM in Qatar. Why is this Iraq base so necessary? Is it worth it when we are constantly under attack? When the government doesn't have any progress politically when we manage to hold down the violence?

And for that last thing, this almost Ron Paul syndrome. Yes, it is refreshing that McCain gives honest answers. Doesn't change the fact he's WRONG.

[DolaMight]

Pastor: IRS Probes Huckabee Endorsement (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gjm0zUi-ujjFYgD3nfQjQvxAT9uwD8UPKU000)

"After very serious prayer and consideration, I announce today that I am going to personally endorse Mike Huckabee," the release said. "I ask all of my Southern Baptist brothers and sister to consider getting behind Mike and helping him all you can."

He added: "I believe God has chosen Mike for such an hour, and I believe of all those running Mike Huckabee will listen to God."

"They can feel free to personally endorse candidates. It was not a church endorsement and he made that very clear," said Stanley, who is representing Drake on behalf of the Alliance Defense Fund.

Should the church be fined, warned, or lose their tax-free privilege?

He knew what he was doing when he phrased it that way.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I'm not necessarily saying we NEED a base in Iraq, though a pacified Iraq with 1 base could allow us to close 2 or 3 other Gulf installations. I'm just saying that the notion that they hate us because we have bases in that general region is vastly exaggerated. First off, Prince Sultan Air Base had about as much to do with holy Islamic soil as Antarctica. It was in a part of the Saudi Arabia that had a negligible historical connection to Mecca or Medina (come to think of it, Saudi Arabia has negligible traditional roots in the holy cities), but I digress. It's exactly because of those pie in the sky hopes that they want to kill us, our "collaborator" friends, and our European allies. So a base in Iraq is a non-factor. The British occupied Iraq (successfully, IMO) for 20 years and passed it over to full Hashemite control when it got too expensive. Were there Arab terrorists in Britain? Mind you the Union Jack flew over most of the Persian Gulf and the Levant for the first half of the 20th Century. So, IMO this is about an Islamic re-awakening that's been brewing for decades and has about as much to do with bases as it has to do with cartoons, free speech, and free religion

[TheMojoPin]

And my point was that McCain has to answer tough questions, and he does it eloquently and honestly. Obama hasn't gotten a tough question yet.

While I agree that Obama will face a world of difference in terms of attacks and scrutiny if he gets the nod, and it's no sure thing he can deal with it, he has been asked point blank to detail his plans for things like health care, the tax cuts and Iraq, etc., and he's gone into detail about his approach for them all numerous times now.

[epo]

And my point was that McCain has to answer tough questions, and he does it eloquently and honestly. Obama hasn't gotten a tough question yet.

So you got today's right wing radio talking points memo too?

[NewYorkDragons80]

Umm... yeah. I'm a big Limbaugh fan. The fact that I don't listen to the right wing talk shows demonstrates that he obviously hasn't had any tough questions, and what's more, you pay more attention to the Limbaughs of the world than I do. The media used to love my candidate, then in 2007 they turned on him. It was proven that McCain had more negative press than any other candidate in the race, regardless of party affiliation (http://journalism.org/node/8187). With McCain's renaissance has come a wealth of good press so these results are not as true as they once were, but you have to admit that Obama gets a free pass from the media. And this isn't a liberal media thing, this is a Obama has charisma that talks journalists out of doing their jobs thing.

[Zorro]

Should the church be fined, warned, or lose their tax-free privilege?


We oughta tax them all...church, synagogue, mosque...whatever... why do purveyors of fantasy get a free ride?

[scottinnj]

We oughta tax them all...church, synagogue, mosque...whatever... why do purveyors of fantasy get a free ride?

For starters, you call it fantasy while 85% of the rest of your countrymen disagree with you, and would call it "faith"

If you tax the church, you allow the church as an organization to have a say in this country, not just as individuals who believe the same way.
For instance, the Southern Baptist Convention could very well run a candidate for president and be a political party, instead of just having a voice within the Republican Party. The taxation of religious groups would be the wall between church and state being taken down by the state.

"no taxation without representation"

[Ritalin]

For starters, you call it fantasy while 85% of the rest of your countrymen disagree with you, and would call it "faith"

If you tax the church, you allow the church as an organization to have a say in this country, not just as individuals who believe the same way.
For instance, the Southern Baptist Convention could very well run a candidate for president and be a political party, instead of just having a voice within the Republican Party. The taxation of religious groups would be the wall between church and state being taken down by the state.

"no taxation without representation"

There is no discernible difference between the Republican Party and most religious organizations.

A = B

[underdog]

If you tax the church, you allow the church as an organization to have a say in this country, not just as individuals who believe the same way.
For instance, the Southern Baptist Convention could very well run a candidate for president and be a political party, instead of just having a voice within the Republican Party.

So? They basically can do that now.

The taxation of religious groups would be the wall between church and state being taken down by the state.

Really? Seems like it would just be churches treated like other organizations and for profit corporations, which most of them basically are.

[TheMojoPin]

For starters, you call it fantasy while 85% of the rest of your countrymen disagree with you, and would call it "faith"

If you tax the church, you allow the church as an organization to have a say in this country, not just as individuals who believe the same way.
For instance, the Southern Baptist Convention could very well run a candidate for president and be a political party, instead of just having a voice within the Republican Party. The taxation of religious groups would be the wall between church and state being taken down by the state.

"no taxation without representation"

Religious figures can run for office.

They just don't typically win.

[keithy_19]

Religious figures can run for office.

They just don't typically win.

But one day moho, but one day.

POPE FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

[FUNKMAN]

Religious figures can run for office.

They just don't typically win.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_02/ChristUPPA1202_800x617.jpg

[scottinnj]

Religious figures can run for office.

They just don't typically win.

But one day moho, but one day.

POPE FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

keithy hit on it in his joke-because of the separation of church and state we no longer have the pope dictating policy or leading us on some "damned fool crusade"http://www.sideshowtoy.com/mas_assets/thumb/7141.gif

You can't have it both ways. You can't demand certain religious icons on public walls or displays be removed and then have the government tax the religions.

BTW, how would you tax a church or synagouge? The money raised by the church is from tithes given by its parishoners. Churches don't sell products, nor do they sell stocks. All the money raised is to pay for the utilities, maintenance and improvements to the building, the pastor/rabbis salary, and the rest is used to pay for missions programs and outreach activities and charity work within the church's community.

[NewYorkDragons80]

So you got today's right wing radio talking points memo too?
By the way, EPO, I was just listening to the replay today and that champion of the Republican party, Ron Bennington, said the same fuckin thing...

[ShowerBench]

Professor Obama's Political Plagiarism

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/13/professor-obamas-political-plagiarism


Article about Obama attempting to ape Clintonian economic plans, and how is first stimulus plan, called "disreputable" by Paul Krugman, was ultimately replaced by...the Clinton plan.

I'd rather have the real thing.

[TheMojoPin]

keithy hit on it in his joke-because of the separation of church and state we no longer have the pope dictating policy or leading us on some "damned fool crusade"http://www.sideshowtoy.com/mas_assets/thumb/7141.gif

You can't have it both ways. You can't demand certain religious icons on public walls or displays be removed and then have the government tax the religions.

So politcians should be able to cover their offices or themselves in advertising logos since all those companies pay taxes?

We tax all kinds of things and people that have specific restrictions when it comes to the political world. Why would the various churches and such any different?

[TheMojoPin]

Professor Obama's Political Plagiarism

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/13/professor-obamas-political-plagiarism


Article about Obama attempting to ape Clintonian economic plans, and how is first stimulus plan, called "disreputable" by Paul Krugman, was ultimately replaced by...the Clinton plan.

I'd rather have the real thing.

The best point in that link is that Edwards' proposed economic stimulus plan blows both Obama's and Hillary's out of the water, and that was pretty much the only real thing you credit the guy with. I'd hope that whoever wins has a place for him in their Cabinet as an economic advisor.

That said, I don't really see what Obama's been "busted" wih here. It's been shown many times that Obama and Clinton are incredibly similar politically, so who wouldn't expect many of their camps' proposals and plans to basically overlap?

SB, I understand your concerns and I myself don't think Obama is anything even close to a sure bet as a quality president...nobody is...bt you do seem to be reaching in terms of trying to criticize him. What does this article prove? That politician often "borrow" political plans or theories of other politicians similar to them? How is this news?

[foodcourtdruide]

For starters, you call it fantasy while 85% of the rest of your countrymen disagree with you, and would call it "faith"

If you tax the church, you allow the church as an organization to have a say in this country, not just as individuals who believe the same way.
For instance, the Southern Baptist Convention could very well run a candidate for president and be a political party, instead of just having a voice within the Republican Party. The taxation of religious groups would be the wall between church and state being taken down by the state.

"no taxation without representation"

I don't agree with this at all scott. The church already has a huge representation in our government. Do you think if the church got taxed we'd add a theological branch to the government? I don't think people would stand for it.

[A.J.]

National defense hurdle? That's a completely hollow and false point. Our national defense "works" fine. If you're talking intelligence systems, sure, that needs drastic streamlining, but point me to the candidate that has even touched that issue.

B-b-but we fixed the Intel community. We created the DNI. That added layer of bureacracy was just what the doctor ordered!

Dude, we haven't had any problems with our bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE, so the problem isn't the bases. McCain is being realistic and honest with the public about Iraq. You can take it or leave it, but we need to be dug in and ready for the shitstorms to come. And they're coming because there's a good amount of assholes in the region. Mind you, they were assholes before Prince Sultan air base existed, and they remain assholes after it closed. This is about crazy people who want to destroy moderate and reasonably democratic governments in Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, conquer "illegitimate occupiers" in Israel and Spain, and force the former's biggest protector, the United States, to retreat.

And my point was that McCain has to answer tough questions, and he does it eloquently and honestly. Obama hasn't gotten a tough question yet.

McCain also made a good point that we're still in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea. The public hasn't been clamoring for those troops to come home.

[COLOR=navy][SIZE=2]And why did you even mention Israel and Spain? Nobody's overthrowing them. I don't give a shit about their pie in the sky hopes. I care more about what they might actually accomplish.

The existence of Israel, and the U.S.'s carte blanche support of it, is one of the main reasons Al-Qa'ida exists and why the Arabs are angry at the U.S.

And I think Dragons brought up Spain because the hard-core, radical Muslims consider that to the Muslim state of Andalusia from the old Islamic Caliphate days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andalusia#Arabs_and_Moors).


I'm not necessarily saying we NEED a base in Iraq, though a pacified Iraq with 1 base could allow us to close 2 or 3 other Gulf installations. I'm just saying that the notion that they hate us because we have bases in that general region is vastly exaggerated. First off, Prince Sultan Air Base had about as much to do with holy Islamic soil as Antarctica. It was in a part of the Saudi Arabia that had a negligible historical connection to Mecca or Medina (come to think of it, Saudi Arabia has negligible traditional roots in the holy cities), but I digress. It's exactly because of those pie in the sky hopes that they want to kill us, our "collaborator" friends, and our European allies. So a base in Iraq is a non-factor. The British occupied Iraq (successfully, IMO) for 20 years and passed it over to full Hashemite control when it got too expensive. Were there Arab terrorists in Britain? Mind you the Union Jack flew over most of the Persian Gulf and the Levant for the first half of the 20th Century. So, IMO this is about an Islamic re-awakening that's been brewing for decades and has about as much to do with bases as it has to do with cartoons, free speech, and free religion

Well said.

[Zorro]

For starters, you call it fantasy while 85% of the rest of your countrymen disagree with you, and would call it "faith"


"no taxation without representation"

They can call it what they want, but I shouldn't have to subsidize it

[epo]

By the way, EPO, I was just listening to the replay today and that champion of the Republican party, Ron Bennington, said the same fuckin thing...

NY Dragons....I'm glad you are mad. Because this "Obama has no substance" thing is a trap that many are falling into.

[scottinnj]

NY Dragons....I'm glad you are mad. Because this "Obama has no substance" thing is a trap that many are falling into.


Yeah no shit. I spent 5 minutes on his website and had his energy policy figured out. People act like he is hiding something, when all they have to do is google "Obama's plan for Healthcare" and see about 10,000,000,000,000 hits that explain it quite thoroughly.

I equate the "no substance" ploy the same way I do the "he's a Muslim" email that circulated.....a Hillary-Bill Clinton swiftboat mission.

[PhilDeez]

NY Dragons....I'm glad you are mad. Because this "Obama has no substance" thing is a trap that many are falling into.

Look, I am not trying to stir the pot, but a lot of well respected publications, news outlets, etc. feel the same.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=10689547

His campaign has been nothing short of amazing. At some point he has to face the music with all of his hope banter - and I hope he can as he is the apparent next president.
Yes, he outlines his strategies on his site, but how realistic are they really? It is very easy to get caught up the Obama phenomena - I admit as one who will not be voting for him, I find him very appealing (until I really start thinking about what he is saying) he is extremely charismatic, and I appreciate he really is someone NEW, unlike any of the other candidates.

[scottinnj]

I don't agree with this at all scott. The church already has a huge representation in our government. Do you think if the church got taxed we'd add a theological branch to the government? I don't think people would stand for it.

That's alright dude. I feel no threat towards some dumb tax on the church anyway, I was just expressing an opinion about it. It really is a non-issue to me.

[epo]

Yeah no shit. I spent 5 minutes on his website and had his energy policy figured out. People act like he is hiding something, when all they have to do is google "Obama's plan for Healthcare" and see about 10,000,000,000,000 hits that explain it quite thoroughly.

I equate the "no substance" ploy the same way I do the "he's a Muslim" email that circulated.....a Hillary-Bill Clinton swiftboat mission.

Notice the Clintons haven't gone too close to this one yet. They've alluded to it...but haven't really touched it and won't until they have no other cards left. However radio & certain news agencies have. However here is the trap angle.

Every Tuesday night and/or Wednesday morning he seems to deliver a "big policy speech" in which he delivers a fully laid out policy. Of course it just happens to jive completely with the 64-page Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)as laid out on his website.

This always stops the tide, delivers new people to his site and is in complete agreement with his plan. This is the perfect example of why Obama is beating Clinton.

He & his team are better communicators than the Clinton machine for this day & age. To connect to modern voters you need to speak in platforms or "buckets", then specify when necessary. Always go broad to narrow, not narrow to broad. When working with the media, understand that new media drives old media, all 50 states are better than just the big states and that under the current laws, many little contributors beats few big contributors.

Let's face it, the Clintons are running a splendid 1992 campaign, but the year is 2008.

[Yerdaddy]

I'm not necessarily saying we NEED a base in Iraq, though a pacified Iraq with 1 base could allow us to close 2 or 3 other Gulf installations. I'm just saying that the notion that they hate us because we have bases in that general region is vastly exaggerated. First off, Prince Sultan Air Base had about as much to do with holy Islamic soil as Antarctica. It was in a part of the Saudi Arabia that had a negligible historical connection to Mecca or Medina (come to think of it, Saudi Arabia has negligible traditional roots in the holy cities), but I digress. It's exactly because of those pie in the sky hopes that they want to kill us, our "collaborator" friends, and our European allies. So a base in Iraq is a non-factor. The British occupied Iraq (successfully, IMO) for 20 years and passed it over to full Hashemite control when it got too expensive. Were there Arab terrorists in Britain? Mind you the Union Jack flew over most of the Persian Gulf and the Levant for the first half of the 20th Century. So, IMO this is about an Islamic re-awakening that's been brewing for decades and has about as much to do with bases as it has to do with cartoons, free speech, and free religion

I agree with you that the significance of the idea of permanent bases in Iraq has little to do with al-Qaeda's reasoning that the presense of foreign troops on the soil of the same country that contains the holy places. I certainly think that we shouldn't make policy decisions based on what al-Qaeda wants from us. The Saudi government no doubt thinks the same, but the bases presented a different strategic calculation for them that led to them asking us to remove them.

However, permanent bases in Iraq represent something entirely different to the rest of the Muslim world. They, justifiably, see our war in Iraq as something other than the benevolent war for the liberation of Iraqis premise that our operations are justified by today, or the necessary war to pre-empt an imminent threat by Iraq rationale that we couched the initial invasion upon. Nobody outside of die-hard American Republicans can be expected to believe any of the stated rationales for this debacle that has caused immense suffering among the Iraqi people, (enough that there are still 2 million Iraqis living as refugees outside of Iraq and another 2 million internally displaced Iraqis). And, naturally, ordinary Muslims don't believe in our benevolent intentions and so they have to come up with other paradigms by which to understand what we've done and they aren't nice, (even though many of them are arguably accurate).

So the problem with permanent bases is not what al-Qaeda thinks of them, (the only message we should care about conveying to al-Qaeda is "fuck you. We and our allies are coming to get you."), but what ordinary Muslims think of them. If it's determined that the presence of permanent bases breed enough distrust from ordinary Muslims to make them not worth their strategic purpose, as I would expect to be the case, then the permanent bases idea should be scrapped.

The problem is this: policy-makers, (the small class of people who rise to the offices that actually come up with and conduct our foreign policy), often have a whole different set of desires than just doing the things that logically make us Americans more safe.

That said, I feel blessed that I don't feel the need to add my usual diatribe about the possibility of us electing a new cadre of cynical foreign policy war-mongers now that Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee are no longer viable candidates. When the time comes to make the final decision on permanent bases I think McCain is likely to make the smart move rather than the Dr. Strangelovean decision the others would make, and that the neocons have now stuck us with.

Thank you Republican primary voters. Seriously. Thank you!

[Jujubees2]

Huckabee told to stop using "More Than a Feeling".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23183663/

[high fly]

I'm not necessarily saying we NEED a base in Iraq, though a pacified Iraq with 1 base could allow us to close 2 or 3 other Gulf installations. I'm just saying that the notion that they hate us because we have bases in that general region is vastly exaggerated. First off, Prince Sultan Air Base had about as much to do with holy Islamic soil as Antarctica. It was in a part of the Saudi Arabia that had a negligible historical connection to Mecca or Medina (come to think of it, Saudi Arabia has negligible traditional roots in the holy cities), but I digress.

The notion they hate us because we have bases on Muslim soil is a major reason goven by Osama bin Laden as to why he is attacking us.
Those bases were, and would continue to be used to kill Muslims, including large numbers of civilians.
American military power propping up corrupt, oppressive regimes is another major point bin Laden has made.

The entire Arabian Peninsula is regarded as holy Muslim soil and on his deathbed Muhammed said there should be no other religion than Islam on the peninsula. Your notion about the holiness of the soil under Prince Sultan Air Base is not shared by Osama bin Laden.

Al Qaeda began attacking us in 1995 with the November attack on the Office of the Program Manager of the Saudi National Guard where the U.S. military was working with the Saudis.

After that, they conducted the two bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998. August 7 was chosen because it is the anniversary of the deploymentof U.S. troops onto Saudi soil for Operation Desert Shield.

A reading of the words of bin Laden show that objection to U.S. bases on Muslim lands is a consistently recurring theme.


Our activities in the Persian Gulf have served to intensify and spread hatred of the U.S. and rightly or wrongly, served also to set us up as the reason for all of their problems.
U.S. troops based in Iraq will be targets as long as they are there.
The idea we can somehow render these people docile and have things like they were during the British occupation is fanciful, in my view....

[Bulldogcakes]

Pelosi: Don't overrule the voters


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- who may be the most super delegate of all as chair of the Democratic national convention in Denver -- gave an interview with Bloomberg TV's Al Hunt in which she laid down the law for super delegates:

Don't veto the people's choice. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=24286)

[Zorro]

Pelosi: Don't overrule the voters


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- who may be the most super delegate of all as chair of the Democratic national convention in Denver -- gave an interview with Bloomberg TV's Al Hunt in which she laid down the law for super delegates:

Don't veto the people's choice. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=24286)

This superdelegate stuff is much ado about nothing. Just like all the stories of Hillary's demise it's media hype. It's the Weather Reporting method of journalism. Predict a huge storm and when it doesn't come to pass do a 15 second mea culpa and then start the process all over again.

[TooLowBrow]

This superdelegate stuff is much ado about nothing. Just like all the stories of Hillary's demise it's media hype. It's the Weather Reporting method of journalism. Predict a huge storm and when it doesn't come to pass do a 15 second mea culpa and then start the process all over again.

in '04 howard dean was the superdelagates main choice, but kerry won the people over, swaying their vote, as much good as it did us....

[Zorro]

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/48404.html

[scottinnj]

Story Here (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/16/top-clinton-adviser-says-superdelegates-will-decide-election-obamas-victories-irrelevant/)

Top Clinton Adviser Says Superdelegates Will Decide Election, Obama’s Victories ‘Irrelevant’

[epo]

[CENTER]Story Here (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/16/top-clinton-adviser-says-superdelegates-will-decide-election-obamas-victories-irrelevant/)

Mind you Harold Ickes is still bitter that Howard Dean got the DNC job rather than him. This is a completely irrelevant story.

[Bulldogcakes]

OBAMA ROBBED IN NY (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/news/regionalnews/obama_robbed_in_ny_97932.htm)

Barack Obama's primary-night results were strikingly under recorded in several congressional districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said today

Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the Board of Elections confirmed.

Truth is, in some districts getting a recount, the senator from Illinois is even close to defeating Hillary Clinton.

Initial results in the 94th District, for example, showed a 141-0 sweep for the New York senator, but Board of Elections spokeswoman Valerie Vazquez said today that the ongoing recount had changed the tally to 261-136.



The NYC Board of Elections is byzantine and corrupt? They call this news?

The only city in the nation still using the old Diebold machines. Because local officials haven't figured out how to manipulate the new computer models and get away with it. Once they find a system they can control, they'll find the money for it.

[TooLowBrow]

Even a fourth-grader apparently can't get through to the press-shy Chelsea Clinton.

Scholastic News "kid reporter" Sydney Rieckhoff was in pursuit of a story as she questioned presidential candidates last month on the campaign trail in Iowa, according to The Associated Press.

Approaching Chelsea Clinton, she reportedly asked, "Do you think your dad would be a good 'first man' in the White House?"

But Clinton wasn't talking. "I'm sorry, I don't talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you're cute," she said, according to the AP.

[A.J.]

Even a fourth-grader apparently can't get through to the press-shy Chelsea Clinton.

Scholastic News "kid reporter" Sydney Rieckhoff was in pursuit of a story as she questioned presidential candidates last month on the campaign trail in Iowa, according to The Associated Press.

Approaching Chelsea Clinton, she reportedly asked, "Do you think your dad would be a good 'first man' in the White House?"

But Clinton wasn't talking. "I'm sorry, I don't talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you're cute," she said, according to the AP.

She's no Chuck Schumer.

[epo]

She's no Chuck Schumer.

It would be interesting to see who loved the camera more....Chuck Schumer or Joe Biden?

[high fly]

Even a fourth-grader apparently can't get through to the press-shy Chelsea Clinton.

Scholastic News "kid reporter" Sydney Rieckhoff was in pursuit of a story as she questioned presidential candidates last month on the campaign trail in Iowa, according to The Associated Press.

Approaching Chelsea Clinton, she reportedly asked, "Do you think your dad would be a good 'first man' in the White House?"

But Clinton wasn't talking. "I'm sorry, I don't talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you're cute," she said, according to the AP.



Hillary had my vote until I read that..........

[TooLowBrow]

Hillary had my vote until I read that..........
i prefer someone who will treat a kid like an adult over someone, reading to children and informed of a national disaster, will continue reading so as not to upset them

[keithy_19]

i prefer someone who will treat a kid like an adult over someone, reading to children and informed of a national disaster, will continue reading so as not to upset them

There are several things that I disagree with your statement.

[thejives]

i prefer someone who will treat a kid like an adult over someone, reading to children and informed of a national disaster, will continue reading so as not to upset them

There are several things that I disagree with your statement.

The only thing wrong with that statement is the punctuation.

It should be:

I prefer someone who will treat a kid like an adult over someone who will continue reading to children <i>about a goat for 20 minutes</i> despite having been informed of a national disaster.

[keithy_19]

Or you simply don't speak to children the same way you speak to adults. And when not all of the facts are in you don't just blurt out things.

[thejives]

Or you politely stand up, pass the book to the teacher, excuse yourself and find out if maybe there's something going on that a president could help out with.

[sailor]

Pelosi: Don't overrule the voters


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- who may be the most super delegate of all as chair of the Democratic national convention in Denver -- gave an interview with Bloomberg TV's Al Hunt in which she laid down the law for super delegates:

Don't veto the people's choice. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=24286)

aka: don't vote for who you want. that really is crazy if you think about it. either have the super-delegates and let them vote their own conscience or get rid of them altogether.

[high fly]

The other day Limpbaugh said the reason he was not supporting McCain was because it would destroy the moderate wing of the GOP.....

[Zorro]

Just watching Hardball in MSNBC. Chris Matthews was doing a story on Barack Obama and the graphic behind him was Osama Bin Laden... ouch

[ShowerBench]

Does your family look like what good families should look like?

Michelle Obama: "One of the things... the important aspects of this race... is role modeling what good families should look like. In my view, is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1qZMBE9Gc&eurl=http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/4/135338/3992

[epo]

Does your family look like what good families should look like?

Michelle Obama: "One of the things... the important aspects of this race... is role modeling what good families should look like. In my view, is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1qZMBE9Gc&eurl=http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/4/135338/3992

Hey, you fulfilled your daily two post minimum of attacking Barack Obama about shit that has absolutely nothing to do with policy or qualifications or the race!

Congrats...you did it!

[TheMojoPin]

Poor ShowerBench.

I kind of hope Obama does end up haing a serious scandal just to make him feel better.

[ShowerBench]

Hey, you fulfilled your daily two post minimum of attacking Barack Obama about shit that has absolutely nothing to do with policy or qualifications or the race!

Congrats...you did it!

Well, since Obama stole Clinton's economic plan after Krugman called his "disreputable," there is little left that divides them policywise. It's down to substance and experience

:tongue:

[TheMojoPin]

Well, since Obama stole Clinton's economic plan after Krugman called his "disreputable," there is little left that divides them policywise. It's down to substance and experience

:tongue:

Yeah, it doesn't matter at all to look at the policies of the top economists each of them has hired to work on the campaign.

Still trying to figure out why it's a bad thing if Obama's economic plan has evolved to be very similar to another one from someone...get this...IN HIS SAME POLITICAL PARTY.

[ShowerBench]

Yeah, it doesn't matter at all to look at the policies of the top economists each of them has hired to work on the campaign.

Still trying to figure out why it's a bad thing if Obama's economic plan has evolved to be very similar to another one from someone...get this...IN HIS SAME POLITICAL PARTY.

It's not, but why not select the one (or two, in Billary's case) with proven success in fixing economies destroyed by Republicans (and foreign relations destroyed by them)? Especially when the "change" candidate comes around to adopting their policies anyway.

[Zorro]

Does your family look like what good families should look like?

Michelle Obama: "One of the things... the important aspects of this race... is role modeling what good families should look like. In my view, is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House."


So, does this mean Hillary can't be President?

[TheMojoPin]

It's not, but why not select the one (or two, in Billary's case) with proven success in fixing economies destroyed by Republicans (and foreign relations destroyed by them)? Especially when the "change" candidate comes around to adopting their policies anyway.

So the "change candidate" can't have any similarities in any way to anyone else in his own party? "Change" doesn't mean that everything is going to be done differently. Nobody seriously thinks that. You can enact major change while still adopting policies of your party that have worked before.

[epo]

Clinton's lead in Texas at 2 points.

According to the latest CNN/Opinion Research Poll, the race is Texas is basically a dead heat at 50-48, advantage Clinton. Link to story here. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/poll.texas/index.html)

Folks, if she loses Wisconsin, Hawaii & Texas, it's over.

[Bulldogcakes]

aka: don't vote for who you want. that really is crazy if you think about it. either have the super-delegates and let them vote their own conscience or get rid of them altogether.

The fact that they exist tells you the Washington Democratic establishment doesn't trust the base that votes in primaries.

[epo]

The fact that they exist tells you the Washington Democratic establishment doesn't trust the base that votes in primaries.

That's funny, Rush Limbaugh claimed the same bullshit today.

[ShowerBench]

They're having buyer's remorse in Mass, hence the state went with Clinton despite the Kennedy/Kerry endorsements.

But it's hilarious how Axelrod just lathered, rinsed, repeated the entire campaign from 2006 and applied to his latest lab project, Obama:

"I choose change. I choose hope. Together we can."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSVsUvqb_Q&feature=related

"Together We Can!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7IWMreH_LA

[epo]

They're having buyer's remorse in Mass, hence the state went with Clinton despite the Kennedy/Kerry endorsements.

But it's hilarious how Axelrod just lathered, rinsed, repeated the entire campaign from 2006 and applied to his latest lab project, Obama:

"I choose change. I choose hope. Together we can."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSVsUvqb_Q&feature=related

"Together We Can!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7IWMreH_LA

Can you get anymore desperate Hillary?

[Bulldogcakes]

That's funny, Rush Limbaugh claimed the same bullshit today.

First of all, I haven't listened to Rush in years. So nice try, but you got the wrong guy. Plus, if Rush says the "Pope is Catholic" is it any less true? What difference would that make anyway?

If you think its "bullshit" tell us why you think that. What's your explanation for it?

[ShowerBench]

Can you get anymore desperate Hillary?

Aw come on. Just because Obama turns out to be just like any old other Chicago politician is no need to get snippy, to plagiarize Al Gore.

Political marketing and branding is getting as effective as any other kind. It's no wonder people buy it.

But as a rule, people shouldn't look to politicians for inspiration or hope.

[TheMojoPin]

Aw come on. Just because Obama turns out to be just like any old other Chicago politician.

Get anything to back that up yet?

[HBox]

Get anything to back that up yet?

Yeah. He was against Imus and cheated on a test in 4th grade.

[ShowerBench]

Get anything to back that up yet?

When you have two practically identical candidates on policy, the burden is on the one whose only experience is a year in the Senate to demonstrate why he is a better choice than the team that has a record of successfully fixing economies and foreign policies trashed by Republicans.

If it turns out that the central and only claim of his campaign - "inspirational/transcendental" - is merely a calculated formula applied before by the same campaign manager, right down to the exact words, there's nothing left.

There is nothing extraordinary about Barack Obama and nothing in his record to back up "inspirational/transcendental." If you're going to run on that, you really ought, at the very least, be a military hero, long time advocate and activist on a cause, or an otherwise extraordinarily courageous and/or visionary human.

Obama isn't that. He isn't even an accomplished government official.

[TheMojoPin]

That completely ducked my question. You said he was a typical Chicago politician, implying that he's corrupt. You've alluded to areas where you thought was so, but it was pretty much debunked. Why do you persist with that tag if you can't back it up?

[Zorro]

When you have two practically identical candidates on policy, the burden is on the one whose only experience is a year in the Senate to demonstrate why he is a better choice than the team that has a record of successfully fixing economies and foreign policies trashed by Republicans.

If it turns out that the central and only claim of his campaign - "inspirational/transcendental" - is merely a calculated formula applied before by the same campaign manager, right down to the exact words, there's nothing left.

There is nothing extraordinary about Barack Obama and nothing in his record to back up "inspirational/transcendental." If you're going to run on that, you really ought, at the very least, be a military hero, long time advocate and activist on a cause, or an otherwise extraordinarily courageous and/or visionary human.

Obama isn't that. He isn't even an accomplished government official.

You're begining to creep me out...

[ShowerBench]

That completely ducked my question. You said he was a typical Chicago politician, implying that he's corrupt. You've alluded to areas where you thought was so, but it was pretty much debunked. Why do you persist with that tag if you can't back it up?


http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.

5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.

6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.

7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

[TheMojoPin]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.

5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.

6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.

7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

OK, now make the jump. Come on, you've clearly got something that this amounts to...we'll be waiting.

[HBox]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.

5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.

6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.

7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

So I guess you were hoping no one clicked on the link and read the first 3 items huh?

[keithy_19]

So I guess you were hoping no one clicked on the link and read the first 3 items huh?

Which is interesting, cause when I read the first three it was all about how Obama was a kid toucher (1), a supporter of Irans nuclear ambitions (2), and that he absolutely loves Pauly Shore (3).

Hillary may be better afterall...

[underdog]

They're having buyer's remorse in Mass, hence the state went with Clinton despite the Kennedy/Kerry endorsements.

What?

This state is filled with college girls and successful business women who have a strong allegiance to Hillary simply because she's a woman. She was supposed to win this state in a landslide and she did. Anyone who thought Obama would pull Mass hasn't been paying attention.

[Fallon]

Uhoh.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8M6x1H08aFc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8M6x1H08aFc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[epo]

Uhoh.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8M6x1H08aFc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8M6x1H08aFc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Yea....the Clinton are trying way too hard on this one. The desperation in their camp reeks.

[TheMojoPin]

Uhoh.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8M6x1H08aFc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8M6x1H08aFc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Why "uh-oh?" Patrick has been working with the Obama campaign.

[epo]

The fact that they exist tells you the Washington Democratic establishment doesn't trust the base that votes in primaries.

First of all, I haven't listened to Rush in years. So nice try, but you got the wrong guy. Plus, if Rush says the "Pope is Catholic" is it any less true? What difference would that make anyway?

If you think its "bullshit" tell us why you think that. What's your explanation for it?

Actually in this case BDC, I don't need to justify shit. You claimed that the FACT that superdelegates exist is the Democratic establishment doesn't trust the base and did so without proof or merit.

Prove that, because you can't. It's a bullshit claim & you know it.

[ShowerBench]

So I guess you were hoping no one clicked on the link and read the first 3 items huh?

Actually the first three are irrelevant. They occurred before Obama's cozy relationship with Rezko flourished. But if you want them, here they are. Obama met Rezko, Obama joined a law firm, Obama's law firm represented Rezko. That's before Rezko began throwing lavish parties for Obama, funding his campaigns, freezing his tenants to death in his 11 slums in Obama's district, and buying property with him.

1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down.

2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.

3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm.

[thejives]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article
7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot.


And as if fate would have it, today the family that sold Obama that house was actually
interviewed (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us) and provided proof that the Obamas made several offers on the house (many of them lower than $1.65 mil) and got the deal because they were the highest bidders.

But that's just typical campaign bickering. We could all go back and forth for hours about various financial indiscretions (Vinod Gupta and InfoUSA for Clinton, Exelon for Obama).

The even more creepy thing about shower bench (besides the name and avatar) is this:


But as a rule, people shouldn't look to politicians for inspiration or hope.

Nice.
Setting aside the dour codgeriness of that statement, it seems showerbench has two priorities for his nominee: 1. Have experience, and 2. Fight republicans. Under these criteria, you'd be a better fit as a McCain (Elected official for 25 years) or Obama (elected official for 12 years) supporter.

[epo]

Why "uh-oh?" Patrick has been working with the Obama campaign.

Exactly. And the world doesn't just have You Tube clips carefully edited by the Clinton campaign, but also contains articles!

How about this snippet from an April 16, 2007 article about Deval Patrick in the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/16/patrick_obama_campaigns_share_language_of_hope/) about Obama & Patrick's shared theme:

It was Obama who first tested the approach during his Senate victory in Illinois in 2004. Patrick improved on it last year. Now Obama is building on both of those successes as he makes his historic run for the White House.

When a delegation of Massachusetts Democrats heard Obama speak at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in Washington in February, they could trace the thread, said state Democratic Party chairman Philip W. Johnston.

Oh wait, so Obama first tested the theme? And yet the Clinton people drag out this sludge when they are this desperate? They need to stop this right now as they are disgracing their legacy.

[epo]

Actually the first three are irrelevant. They occurred before Obama's cozy relationship with Rezko flourished. But if you want them, here they are. Obama met Rezko, Obama joined a law firm, Obama's law firm represented Rezko. That's before Rezko began throwing lavish parties for Obama, funding his campaigns, freezing his tenants to death in his 11 slums in Obama's district, and buying property with him.



The richness of the Clinton camp questioning somebody's associations is hilarious at best.

[ShowerBench]

Actually in this case BDC, I don't need to justify shit. You claimed that the FACT that superdelegates exist is the Democratic establishment doesn't trust the base and did so without proof or merit.

Prove that, because you can't. It's a bullshit claim & you know it.

If the Democratic primary were decided according to Democratic voters (as opposed to Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in caucus states Democrats will not win) Clinton would have it sewn up. Basically they exist to keep the party from nominating a loser. Obama is a sure loser because he cannot win states like Ohio and PA in the general election. The fact that he wins southern primaries and red state caucuses is meaningless - he won't win any of those states in a general election. And that's judging from today's exit polls. Once he's attacked, legitimately and not legitimately, he'll be finished. It likely won't take long at all. The old standards will work just fine against Obama - weak on defense, "weird" and suspicious background, obnoxious wife who isn't proud of America. And that's only the tip of the iceburg.

If the supers do their jobs and select the candidate the DEMOCRATS have voted for and who has the best chance in the general election, Obama will not win. It's doubtful they will do their jobs, so Obama will probably be around for a few more months to bask in the adulation of his followers. Ted Divine, present at the creation:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19115811&ft=1&f=1001

"They were created for a number of reasons.....a feeling at the time that the activists who were getting elected as delegates at the time during the 70s and 80s really didn't reflect the mainstream of the Democratic Party and that these elected officials [super delegates] would actually be more representative of the mainstream of the Democratic Party. And they were also picked so there would be some mechanism to make sure that there was...a backstop in case someone who was way outside the mainstream was going to be the nominee...."

[thejives]

Wow.
Harold Ickes is posting on .net as "showerbench."

[ShowerBench]

The richness of the Clinton camp questioning somebody's associations is hilarious at best.

The problem with that is the Clintons aren't running on being "a different kind of politician" or promising "a different kind of politics." * They're telling us politics and politicians are always the same, because they are. If a politician is running on being "different" then he needs to be different. Obama isn't, but what else was he going to run on?

*Here is FDR, talking about the usefulness of "a different kind of politics based on reconciliation":

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

[epo]

If the Democratic primary were decided according to Democratic voters (as opposed to Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in caucus states Democrats will not win) Clinton would have it sewn up. Basically they exist to keep the party from nominating a loser. Obama is a sure loser because he cannot win states like Ohio and PA in the general election. The fact that he wins southern primaries and red state caucuses is meaningless - he won't win any of those states in a general election. And that's judging from today's exit polls. Once he's attacked, legitimately and not legitimately, he'll be finished. It likely won't take long at all. The old standards will work just fine against Obama - weak on defense, "weird" and suspicious background, obnoxious wife who isn't proud of America. And that's only the tip of the iceburg.

If the supers do their jobs and select the candidate the DEMOCRATS have voted for and who has the best chance in the general election, Obama will not win. It's doubtful they will do their jobs, so Obama will probably be around for a few more months to bask in the adulation of his followers. Ted Divine, present at the creation:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19115811&ft=1&f=1001

"They were created for a number of reasons.....a feeling at the time that the activists who were getting elected as delegates at the time during the 70s and 80s really didn't reflect the mainstream of the Democratic Party and that these elected officials [super delegates] would actually be more representative of the mainstream of the Democratic Party. And they were also picked so there would be some mechanism to make sure that there was...a backstop in case someone who was way outside the mainstream was going to be the nominee...."

Let's face it, Obama vs. Clinton is a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. The problem for you Clinton people is that you are losing, and you weren't expecting this. You expected a coronation ceremony.


To say that certain voters of this nation count based on location or race and others don't is insulting.
To say that Hillary is somehow more representative of the party is insulting.
To push poll that Obama is Muslim is insulting.
To claim that Barack can't handle an attack when Clinton has been undergrounding it this whole campaign is insulting.
To attack Barack for wins because he's black is insulting.


I'm gonna say this right now, Hillary is running a horseshit campaign. The deck was stacked in her favor and she couldn't get the job done. Let me count the ways her campaign has utterly sucked off of the top of my head:


She doesn't have a core message.
She speaks narrow to wide in her themes, not allowing voters to connect to her.
Her communication people don't understand the modern media, still thinking that this is 1992 and "old media" feeds "new media" when the opposite is the truth.
Her campaign does not buy into the Howard Dean 50-state strategy, thinking rather than "only the big states matter".
Mark Penn is the worst communications director on the goddamned planet.
Her campaign is arrogant. This is completely obvious in the fact that the campaign had basically no infrastructure in the post-Super Tuesday states. These fuckers thought the campaign would be over by now.


Need more?

This has been a terrible campaign and I'll add this statement. If her name wasn't "Clinton", but rather Hillary Jones she wouldn't have made it past New Hampshire. She's traded off of the most famous brand in the world and still can't cash the check.

[thejives]

*Here is FDR, talking about the usefulness of "a different kind of politics based on reconciliation":

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

Those are some pretty inspiring words you're quoting there.

But those don't matter do they.

[epo]

Wow.
Harold Ickes is posting on .net as "showerbench."

And the Clintons are still pissed that he didn't get that DNC Chair Job instead of Howard Dean.

Of course, nobody wants to point out that under the Clinton brand of politics the Democrats lost both Houses of Congress. This was of course the first time we lost both Houses since Eisenhower was President. So Dean institutes a 50-state strategy, wins both houses back and all the Clintonistas can do is shit on him. It's childish and tiring.

I'll never doubt that the Clintons (especially Bill) are great individual politicians. However they don't translate well into party building across the nation. The numbers in history bear that out.

[epo]

The problem with that is the Clintons aren't running on being "a different kind of politician" or promising "a different kind of politics." * They're telling us politics and politicians are always the same, because they are. If a politician is running on being "different" then he needs to be different. Obama isn't, but what else was he going to run on?

*Here is FDR, talking about the usefulness of "a different kind of politics based on reconciliation":

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

Mind you that FDR carried both the House & the Senate for 12 of 12 years. Clinton carried both for 2 of 8 and inherited the two.

Clinton simply was not a master of the hatred.

[ShowerBench]

Nice.
Setting aside the dour codgeriness of that statement, it seems showerbench has two priorities for his nominee: 1. Have experience, and 2. Fight republicans. Under these criteria, you'd be a better fit as a McCain (Elected official for 25 years) or Obama (elected official for 12 years) supporter.

I've already said my top two choices would be Clinton, then McCain.

An Obama-McCain race as this Democrat sees it:

Obama: Screw the poor/working class but keep abortion a federal issue instead of state (big deal)

McCain: Screw the poor/working class but prevent a nuclear Iran (that's a big deal, but would rather be nuked by Iran than vote Republican)

Look, I'm curious at this point why anyone would be supporting Obama given that we have established they are both typical politicians outside of packaging, that they are similar in policy (now that Obama has adopted the Clinton economic plan) and that the Clintons are already proven successes at repairing the damage from wayward Republican administrations.

Since no one has given a single reason - I'll offer the only legitimate one I've seen so far. Obama is black. It would be good for America to have its first black president. It would be good for America to have its first woman president too but there are 16 female US senators already, a third of the female proportion. There is one black one (Obama), about 1/12 proportion. It's far more difficult for a black to be elected statewide much less to the presidency, so the "now or never" position is legitimate if "electing a minority is good for the country" is your TOP issue.

It might even be my top issue, but not this year. Too much damage left by Bush. My top concern is getting the country back on track economically (with attention to the poor and working class) while maintaining national security. I don't trust Obama on the economy or national security. I don't trust McCain to handle the economy.

Still left wondering: why is anyone supporting Obama?

[thejives]

And the Clintons are still pissed that he didn't get that
I'll never doubt that the Clintons (especially Bill) are great individual politicians. However they don't translate well into party building across the nation. The numbers in history bear that out.

Absolutely.
And I completely agree with your post about the Clinton campaign. She has nobody to blame but herself. Her supporters have nobody to blame but her.

I also agree about your general opinion of the Clintons. Bill made some moves as president I disagree with, Welfare Reform, NAFTA, the Defense of Marriage Act... but by and large he did a good job. And that's what I expect out of the next president. Obama and Hillary would both do that.

And unlike showerbench seems to indicate, I will support the Democratic nominee regardless of who it ends up being, and I believe Hillary can beat McCain, despite what early various tracking polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html) say.

It's way to early in this thing to fall apart whining.

[thejives]

I've already said my top two choices would be Clinton, then McCain.

An Obama-McCain race as this Democrat sees it:

Obama: Screw the poor/working class but keep abortion a federal issue instead of state (big deal)

McCain: Screw the poor/working class but prevent a nuclear Iran (that's a big deal, but would rather be nuked by Iran than vote Republican)

Look, I'm curious at this point why anyone would be supporting Obama given that we have established they are both typical politicians outside of packaging, that they are similar in policy (now that Obama has adopted the Clinton economic plan) and that the Clintons are already proven successes at repairing the damage from wayward Republican administrations.

Since no one has given a single reason - I'll offer the only legitimate one I've seen so far. Obama is black. It would be good for America to have its first black president. It would be good for America to have its first woman president too but there are 16 female US senators already, a third of the female proportion. There is one black one (Obama), about 1/12 proportion. It's far more difficult for a black to be elected statewide much less to the presidency, so the "now or never" position is legitimate if "electing a minority is good for the country" is your TOP issue.

It might even be my top issue, but not this year. Too much damage left by Bush. My top concern is getting the country back on track economically (with attention to the poor and working class) while maintaining national security. I don't trust Obama on the economy or national security. I don't trust McCain to handle the economy.

Still left wondering: why is anyone supporting Obama?

One year ago
<p>McCain is a phony and a panderer.</p><p>Idiot Son smeared him in the '00 primary (black baby, wife a drug addict) and McCain came back and carried water for the Idiot on '04.&nbsp; Seems like whatever courage he had back in Vietnam is history.

Now, all of a sudden he's better than a Democratic candidate who has policies that you admit are almost identical with Clinton's.

And despite Supreme Court appointments coming up that McCain will be rushing to give to the right, ensuring a conservative majority on the court for decades.

You're desperately rationalizing. You're treading on your own beliefs with some fictional Iran difference, and you're romanticizing the Clintons beyond all recognition. They don't have the monopoly on cleaning up government.

It's just pathetic.

[ShowerBench]

And unlike showerbench seems to indicate, I will support the Democratic nominee regardless of who it ends up being, and I believe Hillary can beat McCain, despite what early various tracking polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html) say.

It's way to early in this thing to fall apart whining.

I think Clinton would beat McCain. Looking at a state like PA, the working class are desperate to elect a Democrat but they won't vote for someone they think is weak on defense. Clinton is much less vulnerable, not only on defense but as a known entity on every other issue. A fill in the blank candidate is perilous in a year like this one, when the electorate recognizes that problems that have reached crisis proportion need solving, including national security crises.

In this context I can't see Obama winning a state like PA over McCain when push comes to shove, and view a state like that as a microcosm of the general election.

[HBox]

You don't like having the race care turned back on you do you?

I've already said my top two choices would be Clinton, then McCain.

An Obama-McCain race as this Democrat sees it:

Obama: Screw the poor/working class but keep abortion a federal issue instead of state (big deal)

McCain: Screw the poor/working class but prevent a nuclear Iran (that's a big deal, but would rather be nuked by Iran than vote Republican)

Look, I'm curious at this point why anyone would be supporting Obama given that we have established they are both typical politicians outside of packaging, that they are similar in policy (now that Obama has adopted the Clinton economic plan) and that the Clintons are already proven successes at repairing the damage from wayward Republican administrations.

Since no one has given a single reason - I'll offer the only legitimate one I've seen so far. Obama is black. It would be good for America to have its first black president. It would be good for America to have its first woman president too but there are 16 female US senators already, a third of the female proportion. There is one black one (Obama), about 1/12 proportion. It's far more difficult for a black to be elected statewide much less to the presidency, so the "now or never" position is legitimate if "electing a minority is good for the country" is your TOP issue.

It might even be my top issue, but not this year. Too much damage left by Bush. My top concern is getting the country back on track economically (with attention to the poor and working class) while maintaining national security. I don't trust Obama on the economy or national security. I don't trust McCain to handle the economy.

Still left wondering: why is anyone supporting Obama?

As hard as this maybe to understand, and this may be a shock to your system so sit down and if you have heart disease just stop reading all together: people look at the same thing as you and ::GASP:: COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.

And also here's a newsflash: HILLARY IS NOT BILL. BILL HAS EXPERIENCE FIXING THE ECONOMY. HILLARY HAS EXPERIENCE FUCKING UP THE CHANCES FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.

And I also knew that you'd eventually come down to the he's black thing. I'm sure in the future your inner racism that's driving this irrational constant anti-Obama posts will also eventually rear it ugly head.

[ShowerBench]

And also here's a newsflash: HILLARY IS NOT BILL. BILL HAS EXPERIENCE FIXING THE ECONOMY. HILLARY HAS EXPERIENCE FUCKING UP THE CHANCES FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.

And I also knew that you'd eventually come down to the he's black thing. I'm sure in the future your inner racism that's driving this irrational constant anti-Obama posts will also eventually rear it ugly head.[/color][/size]

Actually I said the only rational reason to support Obama over Clinton is that he's black. That's racist?

And "Hillary is not Bill." Come on.

[thejives]

I think Clinton would beat McCain. Looking at a state like PA, the working class are desperate to elect a Democrat but they won't vote for someone they think is weak on defense.

In this context I can't see Obama winning a state like PA over McCain when push comes to shove, and view a state like that as a microcosm of the general election.

Ah, so now you're rationalizing this based on winning PA.

I look forward to your next one.

How about this. I'd have more confidence in Clinton's ability to win a GE if she could win a primary, starting out with a huge advantage in money, institutional support and name recognition.

[epo]

Since no one has given a single reason - I'll offer the only legitimate one I've seen so far. Obama is black. It would be good for America to have its first black president.

Still left wondering: why is anyone supporting Obama?


Seriously? It's 2008, you are a Democrat and you are accusing fellow Democrats of voting for a candidate because of his race? You see none of us accusing you of favoring Clinton because of her gender.

I thought Democrats were supposed to be better than that shit. I thought we were supposed to be better than them. Apparently you aren't.

And why am I supporting Obama? Two reasons:

1. Judgment. Simply put his judgment has been stellar over the course of his state & federal career. He has stood up for civil rights, while Clinton voted for the Patriot Act. He disapproved of the Iraq War, while Clinton voted to give Bush the hammer. Clinton voted for the Iran measure than Obama opposed. I could go on all night.

2. Opportunity for real fundamental change. Let's face it, in many ways he represents a change of the guard. Internationally he would provide a fresh slate. Domestically he provides a new outlook and a real opportunity to engage the people in this nation into truly giving a shit again.

I believe that Einstein said that "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In many ways, electing Clinton is simply rearranging deck chairs.

[HBox]

Actually I said the only rational reason to support Obama over Clinton is that he's black. That's racist?

And "Hillary is not Bill." Come on.

I was afraid the white text at the beginning of my post was too obvious. I guess not.

And if you are hoping for a Bill Clinton term part 2, 1. you're not going to get it and 2. there are SO MANY reasons why that would be a bad idea.

[ShowerBench]

Seriously? It's 2008, you are a Democrat and you are accusing fellow Democrats of voting for a candidate because of his race? You see none of us accusing you of favoring Clinton because of her gender.

I thought Democrats were supposed to be better than that shit. I thought we were supposed to be better than them. Apparently you aren't.

And why am I supporting Obama? Two reasons:

1. Judgment. Simply put his judgment has been stellar over the course of his state & federal career. He has stood up for civil rights, while Clinton voted for the Patriot Act. He disapproved of the Iraq War, while Clinton voted to give Bush the hammer. Clinton voted for the Iran measure than Obama opposed. I could go on all night.

2. Opportunity for real fundamental change. Let's face it, in many ways he represents a change of the guard. Internationally he would provide a fresh slate. Domestically he provides a new outlook and a real opportunity to engage the people in this nation into truly giving a shit again.

I believe that Einstein said that "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In many ways, electing Clinton is simply rearranging deck chairs.

No, I'm not accusing Democrats of voting for him because of his race. I'm accusing them of NOT voting for him because of his race, but voting for him on some other nebulous nonsense. I said voting for him based on race, if that is one's TOP issue, would be perfectly reasonable.

You offered a couple of reasons. I'll give you the second - he represents the most stark appearance of a changing of the guard, obviously. Maybe there is a virtue in that. For me, too risky this year. A fresh slate in dealing with the world? I'd agree with that, but Clinton has a positive track record there. Obama is unknown entity.

The other reason is "standing up" against the war. So why did Obama campaign against funding it (equating it with a pro-war position), then once he had secured his Senate seat FUND IT? He also voted for the Patriot Act, just like Clinton. (I don't hold those votes against either of them on their face because they are advantages in the general election and neither of these candidates would have invaded Iraq - but they are diametrically at odds with Obama attempting to portray himself as "anti-war" or purer on civil liberties)

More on Obama's war record -again, none of these are deal breakers for me but they show hypocrisy. My question persists: why support the unproven candidate who didn't oppose Bush's war but runs on the basis of being "different," as opposed to the proven candidate who did not oppose Bush's war but doesn't claim to be "different"?:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687

“1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2”



“2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).”



“2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture...[and a] man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.”



“4/21/05: Obama voted to make John ‘Death Squad’ Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107”



“4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 [W FOR PRO-WAR VOTE]”



“7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed ‘The Nuclear Bill’ by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 [W].”



“9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.”

“10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 [W].”



“11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. [W].”



“12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. [W]”



“5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 [W].”



“5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 [W].”



“6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W].”



“6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 [W].”



“6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 [W]”



“6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 [W]”



“6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183[W].”



“6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 [W].



9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 [W]”



“9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 [W].”



“11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 [W].”



“12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 [W]”



“Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 [W]...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…”





Wow. I might have worded things a little differently than CYNT at times, but that’s a damning bill of indictment.



Obama’s intra-Democratic political record also defies those who insistent on wrapping him in an antiwar flag. In 2006 Obama lent his celebrity and political finance assistance to neoconservative war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-Connecticut) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Obama supported other mainstream Democrats fighting genuinely antiwar progressives in primary races, collaborating with Democratic muscle man Rahm Emannuel’s campaign to marginalize “peaceniks” within the party (see Sirota 2006, Silverstein 2006 and Cockburn 2006).



In a November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama advocated “a pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq” and made repeated references to the need to “defeat” the “insurgency.” This language meant continuation of the war (Ford and Gamble 2005).



Earlier that same year, Obama shamefully distanced himself from his fellow Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo (Street 2005; Cockburn 2006).





And he still refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran (Gerson 2007). As Kucinich pointed out during last night’s debate, this is what Obama’s comment that “all options are on the table” in regard to Iran really boils down to: the potential first black U.S. President is willing to seriously consider the launching of a thermonuclear attack on that country. Debate participant Mike Gravel (a left former U.S. Senator of Alaska)was thinking of that horrific possibility when said the following about the leading Democratic candidates (Obama included of course) last night: “these people scare me.”

[ShowerBench]

And if you are hoping for a Bill Clinton term part 2, 1. you're not going to get it and 2. there are SO MANY reasons why that would be a bad idea.

Honest disagreement with you there.

There is another reason someone might support Obama over Clinton - electability. The arguments are out there based on current polls vs McCain and a lot of wishful thinking, such as "Obama can win Georgia."

I didn't mention that one because from every indication I've seen (Dem primary exit polls), Clinton would be likely to win by a smallish margin but Obama would be trounced (against McCain).

[epo]

No, I'm not accusing Democrats of voting for him because of his race. I'm accusing them of NOT voting for him because of his race, but voting for him on some other nebulous nonsense. I said voting for him based on race, if that is one's TOP issue, would be perfectly reasonable.

You offered a couple of reasons. I'll give you the second - he represents the most stark appearance of a changing of the guard, obviously. Maybe there is a virtue in that. For me, too risky this year. A fresh slate in dealing with the world? I'd agree with that, but Clinton has a positive track record there. Obama is unknown entity.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687



The idea of people not voting or voting for him because of race is just silly. Honestly, if one candidate is using a demographic to their advantage, it would be the manner in which Clinton and those around her use gender and the "it's our time" message.

I saw it myself on Saturday night in those that introduced her and the manner in which her volunteers frame the message. Of course having a campaign funded display board with the theme "You go vote girl!" isn't pandering at all.

And an article from a radical such as Paul Street trashing Obama is proof? The manner in which he frames those votes is so obviously anti-Barack.

I ask you, has Paul Street wrote an article about Hillary's voting record in the past year? As he seems to spend all of his time on the senator from Illinois these days.

[Yerdaddy]

So I guess you were hoping no one clicked on the link and read the first 3 items huh?

Ouch.

When you have two practically identical candidates on policy, the burden is on the one whose only experience is a year in the Senate to demonstrate why he is a better choice than the team that has a record of successfully fixing economies and foreign policies trashed by Republicans.

If it turns out that the central and only claim of his campaign - "inspirational/transcendental" - is merely a calculated formula applied before by the same campaign manager, right down to the exact words, there's nothing left.

There is nothing extraordinary about Barack Obama and nothing in his record to back up "inspirational/transcendental." If you're going to run on that, you really ought, at the very least, be a military hero, long time advocate and activist on a cause, or an otherwise extraordinarily courageous and/or visionary human.

Obama isn't that. He isn't even an accomplished government official.

Listen, I prefer Hillary over Obama just like you, and for the same main reason you do - he's untested in the big leagues. But your portrayal as an ungifted corrupt Chicago politician is absurd and is hurting your case more than helping it. Chicago politics is as corrupt as it was in the 1930s. But all you've found to accuse Obama of the typical Chicago corruption is that he bought some property for a guy who was indicted and who had a partnership with Obama's old boss once. Your constant stretching of the rules of logic to make that into some wrongdoing on Obama's part or to justify the idea that he's as corrupt as any other Chicago politician only makes it look like he's got nothing to hide if his detractors have to resort to trying to make this case stick - or calling him a Muslim or a "Magic Negro". His inexperience scares me but what reading your links has taught me is that he probably made it through Chicago politics without getting his hands dirty and that makes me fear his inexperience LESS.

As for there being nothing to back up his image as "inspirational/transcendental" - well that's just absurd, especially in the era of Wikipedia:

After high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles, where he studied at Occidental College for two years.[21] He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.[22] Obama received his B.A. degree in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation and NYPIRG before moving to Chicago to take a job as a community organizer.[23] As Director of the Developing Communities Project, he worked with low-income residents in Chicago's Roseland community and the Altgeld Gardens public housing development.[24] He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.[25] In 1990, The New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history".[26] He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991.[27] On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive.[27] As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.[28] He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.[29]

Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005.[46] Although a newcomer to Washington, he recruited a team of established, high-level advisers devoted to broad themes that exceeded the usual requirements of an incoming first-term senator.[47] Obama hired Pete Rouse, a 30-year veteran of national politics and former chief of staff to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, as his chief of staff, and economist Karen Kornbluh, former deputy chief of staff to Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, as his policy director.[48] His key foreign policy advisers include Samantha Power, author on human rights and genocide, and former Clinton administration officials Anthony Lake and Susan Rice.

Obama has been an unusually successful first-term Senator, and those people on his team are heavy hitters. I especially like the inclusion of Samantha Power. I've read her book on genocide and in my time as a human rights activist I've come to know her as one of the leading academics and activists on human rights in the world today. She's not a political insider. Her choice as an adviser and likely appointment to an Obama administration is very encouraging to me.

Anyway, the basics of Obama's career are readily available and trashing him the way you have been - and which is not unlike the right-wing pundits have and will do throughout this election and beyond - ignores the facts and makes you less persuasive than if you'd said nothing at all about the man.

Basically, you sound like a conservative mole that would prefer McCain faced Hillary than Obama.

[thejives]

showerbench=desperate Clinton partisan


There's no reason for anyone to be supporting Obama at all, and yet they are (probably because they are stupid, unlike showerbench)

Hillary voted for AUMF, but Obama is worse because he didn't pursue cutting off funding to troops in the field.

Hillary refuses to rule out using nukes on non-nuclear countries (http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0309-23.htm), but Obama is irresponsible for doing the same. (notice how that works using links instead of pasting whole articles?)

Hillary loses in matchups against McCain and has a huge negative rating, but Obama would lose to McCain. Because showerbench feels like PA likes Hillary better.

but 4 more years of a republican is OK with showerbench, because Hillary winning is more important than things like Roe V. Wade ("Big deal").

The worst thing for a politician to be is different. Because showerbench is too afraid for anyone but a Clinton or a republican to be president.



It's not happy world to be poor poor showerbench.

[A.J.]

I like watching the Clintons in panic mode. Their arrogance is delicious.

I'm half-tempted to give money to Obama's camp.

[epo]

I like watching the Clintons in panic mode. Their arrogance is delicious.

I'm half-tempted to give money to Obama's camp.

I'm sure this Politico.com story will add to your humor: (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html)

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

That's not superdelegates...that's delegates. Can you smell the desperation in the air?

[Zorro]

Listen, I prefer Hillary over Obama just like you, and for the same main reason you do - he's untested in the big leagues.


I really don't get the Hillary "has been tested in the big leagues".

She was annointed Senator from New York and besides being along for the ride hasn't really done much else.

Everytime I see her talking about experience I am reminded of that "Well, I stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night."

[Zorro]

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/and_it_continuesmore_obamaosama_confusion_77734.as p

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/Chas4604/hardball_2-18.jpg

[Bulldogcakes]

Actually in this case BDC, I don't need to justify shit. You claimed that the FACT that superdelegates exist is the Democratic establishment doesn't trust the base and did so without proof or merit.

Here's what I said. They do EXIST, don't they?

The fact that they exist tells you the Washington Democratic establishment doesn't trust the base that votes in primaries.

You might want to take your 3rd grade reading class again.



Prove that, because you can't. It's a bullshit claim & you know it.

What I do know is that you can't defend your political party, so you made a weak, knee jerk attempt at a personal attack. Thats tells me you have nothing of substance to offer on this subject.

[epo]

Here's what I said. They do EXIST, don't they?


You might want to take your 3rd grade reading class again.

What I do know is that you can't defend your political party, so you made a weak, knee jerk attempt at a personal attack. Thats tells me you have nothing of substance to offer on this subject.

Actually you need to learn to read again. The fact that the superdelegates exist, does not prove that the party does not "trust the public" as you so claim.

You might wanna take a logic class and learn what a Venn diagram is.

http://www.openc.k12.or.us/ccp/authors/images/venn01.gif

[Bulldogcakes]

Actually you need to learn to read again. The fact that the superdelegates exist, does not prove that the party does not "trust the public" as you so claim.

You might wanna take a logic class and learn what a Venn diagram is.



Bravo! That was a much stronger, more inspired personal attack.

And I'm still waiting for your explanation.

[ShowerBench]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-rezko-home-feb19,0,6690484.story

Before he bought his South Side mansion in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama took his friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko on a tour of the premises to make sure it was a good deal, Obama's campaign revealed Monday.

Weeks after saying he'd answered all questions about his controversial dealings with the now-indicted Rezko, Obama released new details about their purchase of adjacent lots from the same seller on the same day. But the disclosures by Obama's presidential campaign left unanswered questions and raised new ones.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/184540,122306obama.article

In addition to a land deal, Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to indicted dealmaker Antoin “Tony” Rezko include an internship the senator provided the son of a contributor at the request of Rezko, an Obama spokesman confirmed today.

John Aramanda served as an intern for Obama for about a month in 2005, said Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs. His father is Joseph Aramanda, a Rezko business associate who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal corruption case against Rezko. Aramanda has contributed $11,500 to Obama since 2000, Gibbs said.

“Mr. Rezko did provide a recommendation for John Aramanda,” Gibbs said. “I think that it’s fairly obvious that a few-week internship is not of anything of benefit to Mr. Rezko or any of his businesses.”

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.

Obama's letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko -- a longtime friend, campaign fund-raiser and client of the law firm where Obama worked -- who was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Gov. Blagojevich.

The letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he's known Rezko, "I've never done any favors for him.''

[epo]

The fact that they exist tells you the Washington Democratic establishment doesn't trust the base that votes in primaries.

Bravo! That was a much stronger, more inspired personal attack.

And I'm still waiting for your explanation.

I'm going to say this one more time and do it slowly.

You
made
a
claim
with
no
proof,
hence
the
onus
is
on
you
to
prove
it.

[high fly]

I really don't get the Hillary "has been tested in the big leagues".

She was annointed Senator from New York and besides being along for the ride hasn't really done much else.

Everytime I see her talking about experience I am reminded of that "Well, I stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night."


Since 1992 she has been subject to quite a bit of irrational abuse by right-wingers.
Since 2002 they have been running shit-scared from her and the campaign against her intensified.
Remember the theories of how she and she alone engineered John Kerry's victory in the primaries and then sabotaged his campaign so she wouldn't have to run against an incumbent?

What you have somehow missed is she has been the subject of a smear campaign for many years, something the other democratic candidates were not subject to.

[high fly]

[QUOTE=epo;1630726]Actually you need to learn to read again. The fact that the superdelegates exist, does not prove that the party does not "trust the public" as you so claim.



The fact that they exist is proof they exist to do exactly what BDC claims they exist for.

I mean, what other reason could they exist if not for carrying out BDC's agenda?




Especially when he's got those nifty cliches issued by Limpbaugh?

[Bulldogcakes]

I'm going to say this one more time and do it slowly.

You
made
a
claim
with
no
proof,
hence
the
onus
is
on
you
to
prove
it.

Like when you claimed I was a Rush Limbaugh dittohead?

Look, I get it. You have nothing. When you're ready to explain why your party has super delegates and why they were created, I'm all ears.

[epo]

Like when you claimed I was a Rush Limbaugh dittohead?

Look, I get it. You have nothing. When you're ready to explain why your party has super delegates and why they were created, I'm all ears.

If you didn't get the original claim from Limbaugh, I'm sorry. However that very afternoon he went on a 20 minute diatribe on the very same topic.

But you made the original claim, hence you need to prove it's validity. I need to prove nothing until you have an argument greater than "I think". It is simply not my job to disprove your theories.

[sailor]

instead of having a pissing contest why don't both of you put your reasoning out there?

[keithy_19]

instead of having a pissing contest why don't both of you put your reasoning out there?

That's not the political way silly. :nono:

[Doomstone]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2eMkth8FWno&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2eMkth8FWno&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

instead of having a pissing contest why don't both of you put your reasoning out there?

Don't worry about it. They're secretly PMing each other hugs and kisses. This is just a front to stay manly to the rest of us.

[epo]

Don't worry about it. They're secretly PMing each other hugs and kisses. This is just a front to stay manly to the rest of us.

Fuck that Scott. You know as well as anyone how stubborn I can be in a semantical argument.

[scottinnj]

You mean you deleted my "I :wub: epo" PM without looking at it? I'm sad now.

BTW, congrats in Wisconsin dude. Obama kicked some ass! But why is Washington State so close right now? I figured them to be liberal enough to just ignore Hillary altogether.

[epo]

You mean you deleted my "I :wub: epo" PM without looking at it? I'm sad now.

BTW, congrats in Wisconsin dude. Obama kicked some ass! But why is Washington State so close right now? I figured them to be liberal enough to just ignore Hillary altogether.

Washington state is a meaningless straw vote that even the head of the state primary mocked.

[scottinnj]

You mean you deleted my "I :wub: epo" PM without looking at it? I'm sad now.

BTW, congrats in Wisconsin dude. Obama kicked some ass! But why is Washington State so close right now? I figured them to be liberal enough to just ignore Hillary altogether.

Washington state is a meaningless straw vote that even the head of the state primary mocked.

I got nothing on that? God I suck at jokes. I throw so many bombs at work and on this board the NSA has my cell phone on speed dial.

[HBox]

Especially for Showerbench:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZbHiw2jlwa4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZbHiw2jlwa4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[epo]

By the way Hillary, the AP is on to you with the plagarism claim:

FACT CHECK: Any suggestion that the story had a life of its own, apart from the Clinton campaign, is disingenuous.

Link to article here (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrMRzzhtkEXXcGY9cNmKYSRpVigD8UTNA980). Honestly, the wheels are coming off very quickly.

[thejives]

It's OK, showerbench is going to fix everything and restore the middle class by posting full articles about Rezko.

[scottinnj]

Besides, who would you rather want as President? Obama, a proven uniter-case in point, this campaign, or Hillary, a proven divider, case in point, her elitist attitude towards questions regarding her 1992 healthcare proposal.

Let me tell you something. I am SOOOOOO excited to have a chance at voting for Obama, I'm beside myself. If Hillary somehow gets the nomination, myself and a lot of Republican and former Republican voters are going to gather up our toys and go home, and settle in for another 4-8 years of fighting and partisanship between the two parties with nothing getting done.
She doesn't stand a chance in November. I'm not trying to be mean about this, I'm just stating my analysis of the situation. The latest poll I saw has 30% of independants more then likely to vote are saying "under no circumstances" would they vote for Hillary Clinton. That's independants, not Republicans. Combine that with the Republican vote, and this November's electoral college map will just be a xerox of the 1984 vote of Reagan vs. Mondale.

Bill wasn't so bad in hindsight. And with a Republican congress from 1994 until the end of his presidency, we wound up with a balanced budget, with a surplus. I can pick and needle at some of his mistakes, but my point is general: On major issues, there was bipartisanship, and things got done. With Obama as President, I feel that the positive message he has spoke about throughout the campaign will stay hold and he will keep his promise of reaching over to my side of the aisle to genuinely listen to my side's input on BIG issues like foreign policy, healthcare and the budget deficit.

Together we can fix these problems. Another 8 years of "gotcha" politics and corruption and cronyism is just wasting time and too many opportunities have passed us by. Let's fix this crap now and then tackle the problems of disease and famine around the world. People are looking to us as Americans to stop this maddening bickering and start fixing things.

[Coach]

Behind Big Daddy Mac!!..Obama..Not a fan..I am sorry, he is too green to be a president..Like putting Captain of an auxiliary Boat in Charge of a Carrier..

[thejives]

This election is gonna be great.
A McCain vs. Obama debate will finally respect this country's intelligence.

Obama's classy. Every time he mentions McCain he says he's a war hero and asks the audience to applaud. Some people may think he's too "green" but then again a lot of people think we need something new in there, cuz the old stuff isn't working.

Plus, McCain isn't the kind of candidate to outright go on the attack. The 527s will get really ugly, but at least it won't be the race to the lowest common denominator like the last two elections.

[Dude!]

with the big loss last night the next 3 weeks
will be the clinton brothers last stand

to change the dynamic they will start dropping obama bombs
the only question is will they be little stink bombs
like his wife hates this country and he steals speeches

or will they go nuclear like he is a radical muslim named hussein

i do not forsee a graceful clinton exit

[foodcourtdruide]

with the big loss last night the next 3 weeks
will be the clinton brothers last stand

to change the dynamic they will start dropping obama bombs
the only question is will they be little stink bombs
like his wife hates this country and he steals speeches

or will they go nuclear like he is a radical muslim named hussein

i do not forsee a graceful clinton exit

I'm not sure how the Clinton's will play this either. Do they care at all about the Democratic party, or are they just out for themselves? Will the Clinton's try to destroy Obama, and if they are unsuccessful hurt his chances against McCain?

Also, will Clinton backdooring her way into the election hurt her chances against McCain?

I think whatever happens will be good for McCain, unless Clinton or Obama step down soon.

[Bulldogcakes]

If you didn't get the original claim from Limbaugh, I'm sorry. However that very afternoon he went on a 20 minute diatribe on the very same topic.

But you made the original claim, hence you need to prove it's validity. I need to prove nothing until you have an argument greater than "I think". It is simply not my job to disprove your theories.

No hard feelings. As nasty as this forum can get at times, this was a pillow fight.

And I kept asking because I honestly don't know why the Dems have super delegates while the Republicans don't. Maybe there is some legit reason for it. The Federal Government has the Senate to put the brakes on the more democratic House, the non elected Judiciary can trump both of them. There's good reason to have appointed positions in many areas of government. But when you're talking about a primary election, I think you can take the wet blanket off. Unless there's some reason for it other than the one I assumed.

BTW-I'm a Republican, I usually LIKE putting the wet blanket on democracy. Pure democracy would bankrupt the country in 5 minutes and lead to all sorts of hideous laws based on demagoguery. But here it just seems excessive.

[thejives]

Clinton is a much better politician than her campaign has shown.
She's popular enough to have a powerful impact on the party for many years to come, but this campaign has frittered away her shot at the presidency.

The question is, will she push this thing far enough to do damage that popularity and kill her chances of being an effective Senate Majority Leader?

[Zorro]

Clinton is a much better politician than her campaign has shown.
She's popular enough to have a powerful impact on the party for many years to come, but this campaign has frittered away her shot at the presidency.

The question is, will she push this thing far enough to do damage that popularity and kill her chances of being an effective Senate Majority Leader?

or...maybe we are seeing what happens when you have real competiton. In her short political career she's never had to face a serious challenger...until now

[epo]

Clinton is a much better politician than her campaign has shown.
She's popular enough to have a powerful impact on the party for many years to come, but this campaign has frittered away her shot at the presidency.

The question is, will she push this thing far enough to do damage that popularity and kill her chances of being an effective Senate Majority Leader?

She already has.

The Senate Majority Leader under the current model either needs to be very popular or milquetoast. She is neither. And with Pelosi as Speaker of the House, the Democratic Party can ill afford to have two lightning rods in leadership positions.

However she could get a Senate committee leadership position for playing fair.

[thejives]

Interesting.
But I think the real lesson from this campaign is that Mark Penn is a douchebag.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TtQxyaweiYQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TtQxyaweiYQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Zorro]

Interesting.
But I think the real lesson from this campaign is that Mark Penn is a douchebag.


Looks like he could opt for the salad once in awhile...

[high fly]

Looks like he could opt for the salad once in awhile...

......and on a similar note, "Gimme" Dick Morris has shown the toes of male prostitutes to be fattening....

[Zorro]

......and on a similar note, "Gimme" Dick Morris has shown the toes of male prostitutes to be fattening....

Dick Morris being interviewd by Bill O'Reilly.... man the off camera confab must be amazing...toes, louffa, toes, louffa...

[epo]

Hold the horses! Holy Shit! McCain affair with a lobbyist reported by the New York Times! MSNBC is all over this one.

Link to story here! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

This story will only develop from here.

[TheMojoPin]

Wow.

If this has legs, the Dems could run away with this.

[Bulldogcakes]

Or it will help him, like it did Bill Clinton. All of of sudden the frumpy, grumpy old guy will have sex appeal.

But both are denying the story, so there's nothing there unless some staffer has an eyewitness account of some kind. So he'll just have to keep trying to win as an unsexy old guy for now.

[alexc]

i don't think this has legs .. no pics , no blue dress.

[DolaMight]

Hold the horses! Holy Shit! McCain affair with a lobbyist reported by the New York Times! MSNBC is all over this one.

Link to story here! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

This story will only develop from here.

I'll believe it when I see a sextape. I'm craving for a hot sweaty John McCain sextape.

[Bulldogcakes]

I'll believe it when I see a sextape. I'm craving for a hot sweaty John McCain sextape.

I bet he'd be real good at fisting.

[epo]

Whether the story has legs or not (and nobody seems to truly know at this point)...does this give Huckabee "the miracle" he needs to get him back into the race?

[Dude!]

Whether the story has legs or not (and nobody seems to truly know at this point)...does this give Huckabee "the miracle" he needs to get him back into the race?

no

remember a month ago people here were all agitated about the guy who gave obama a blow job

what happened to that

[Bulldogcakes]

Whether the story has legs or not (and nobody seems to truly know at this point)...does this give Huckabee "the miracle" he needs to get him back into the race?

I think he's mathematically eliminated at this point. He was close about a week ago.

[scottinnj]

Whether the story has legs or not (and nobody seems to truly know at this point)...does this give Huckabee "the miracle" he needs to get him back into the race?

I don't think so, most Republicans view the NY Times as an enemy to conservatives, so they'll just chalk this article up to a gossip story printed by a paper to personally destroy him.

[TheMojoPin]

Or it will help him, like it did Bill Clinton. All of of sudden the frumpy, grumpy old guy will have sex appeal.

Uh, no. With Clinton, as hideous as he was, he was young and "handsome" by fucked up presidential standards. If it was McCain 40 years ago, he'd be golden. Rowr.

[ShowerBench]

Obama "open" to using taxpayer funding to indoctrinate citizens in fundamentalist Christianity. Obama "open" to using taxpayer funding to teach citizens that Jesus rode a dinosaur.

Obama "Open" to Privatizing Public Education

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/20/105444/139
http://www.nysun.com/article/71403

Education analysts said Mr. Obama's statement is the closest they have ever seen a Democratic presidential candidate come to embracing the idea of vouchers.

Vouchers, taxpayer-funded scholarships that allow families to opt out of public school and use their government-allotted education dollars to attend a private school instead, has been a major right-wing policy objective for years. From the National Education Association:

http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.htm

Despite desperate efforts to make the voucher debate about "school choice" and improving opportunities for low-income students, vouchers remain an elitist strategy. From Milton Friedman's first proposals, through the tuition tax credit proposals of Ronald Reagan, through the voucher proposals on ballots in California, Colorado, and elsewhere, privatization strategies are about subsidizing tuition for students in private schools, not expanding opportunities for low-income children....In the words of political strategist, Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."

[HBox]

Obama "Open" to Privatizing Public Education

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/20/105444/139
http://www.nysun.com/article/71403
Education analysts said Mr. Obama's statement is the closest they have ever seen a Democratic presidential candidate come to embracing the idea of vouchers. Vouchers, taxpayer-funded scholarships that allow families to opt out of public school and use their government-allotted education dollars to attend a private school instead, has been a major right-wing policy objective for years. From the National Education Association:

http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.htm
Despite desperate efforts to make the voucher debate about "school choice" and improving opportunities for low-income students, vouchers remain an elitist strategy. From Milton Friedman's first proposals, through the tuition tax credit proposals of Ronald Reagan, through the voucher proposals on ballots in California, Colorado, and elsewhere, privatization strategies are about subsidizing tuition for students in private schools, not expanding opportunities for low-income children....In the words of political strategist, Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."

MY GOD HE'S OPEN TO DIFFERENT IDEAS WE CAN'T HAVE THAT CAN WE?

[scottinnj]

Uh, so what? Vouchers are a good idea in helping educate our kids. Next you'll be saying that the GI bill is unconstitutional because some veterans use it for preacher schools.

Damn, scooped by HBox.

[Bulldogcakes]

Uh, no. With Clinton, as hideous as he was, he was young and "handsome" by fucked up presidential standards. If it was McCain 40 years ago, he'd be golden. Rowr.

Oh, so wrong. His age and looks have nothing to do with it.

http://www.celebritywonder.com/picture/Jeri_Thompson/FredThompson_JMcCarth_8441278.jpg
Exhibit A

http://www.radarmagazine.com/features/Dennis-Kucinich-72810358_10.jpg
Exhibit B


"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."
Henry A. Kissinger

[TheMojoPin]

Oh, so wrong. His age and looks have nothing to do with it.

http://www.celebritywonder.com/picture/Jeri_Thompson/FredThompson_JMcCarth_8441278.jpg
Exhibit A

http://www.radarmagazine.com/features/Dennis-Kucinich-72810358_10.jpg
Exhibit B


"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."
Henry A. Kissinger

And look how well their campaigns went.

Clearly, the public doesn't want to be reminded of hideous candidates having sex. Rumors of affairs or hot wives force people to think of it. This is scientifically sound.

[FUNKMAN]

http://www.radarmagazine.com/features/Dennis-Kucinich-72810358_10.jpg

looks like a scene from The Mummy where the guy is getting the life sucked out of e'm

[scottinnj]

http://www.radarmagazine.com/features/Dennis-Kucinich-72810358_10.jpg

looks like a scene from The Mummy where the guy is getting the life sucked out of e'm


Dude, I think his politics are nutty, but he ran the classiest campaign in modern history.

[ShowerBench]

MY GOD HE'S OPEN TO DIFFERENT IDEAS WE CAN'T HAVE THAT CAN WE?

Except they're not different, they're the same old ideas the religious right has been trying to implement for decades. Ideas people who believe in the First Amendment reject.

Privatizing education has been pushed by Republicans and religious conservatives since public education was instituted. It's not a bad idea, it's one of the worst ideas anyone has ever come up with.

[Zorro]

Obama "open" to using taxpayer funding to indoctrinate citizens in fundamentalist Christianity. Obama "open" to using taxpayer funding to teach citizens that Jesus rode a dinosaur.

Obama "Open" to Privatizing Public Education

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/20/105444/139
http://www.nysun.com/article/71403

Education analysts said Mr. Obama's statement is the closest they have ever seen a Democratic presidential candidate come to embracing the idea of vouchers.

Vouchers, taxpayer-funded scholarships that allow families to opt out of public school and use their government-allotted education dollars to attend a private school instead, has been a major right-wing policy objective for years. From the National Education Association:

http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.htm

Despite desperate efforts to make the voucher debate about "school choice" and improving opportunities for low-income students, vouchers remain an elitist strategy. From Milton Friedman's first proposals, through the tuition tax credit proposals of Ronald Reagan, through the voucher proposals on ballots in California, Colorado, and elsewhere, privatization strategies are about subsidizing tuition for students in private schools, not expanding opportunities for low-income children....In the words of political strategist, Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."

It's their money they should get a choice in how its spent... expecially considering how well the billions we spend now are used

[epo]

Obama "open" to using taxpayer funding to indoctrinate citizens in fundamentalist Christianity. Obama "open" to using taxpayer funding to teach citizens that Jesus rode a dinosaur.

Obama "Open" to Privatizing Public Education

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/20/105444/139
http://www.nysun.com/article/71403

Education analysts said Mr. Obama's statement is the closest they have ever seen a Democratic presidential candidate come to embracing the idea of vouchers.

Vouchers, taxpayer-funded scholarships that allow families to opt out of public school and use their government-allotted education dollars to attend a private school instead, has been a major right-wing policy objective for years. From the National Education Association:

http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.htm

Despite desperate efforts to make the voucher debate about "school choice" and improving opportunities for low-income students, vouchers remain an elitist strategy. From Milton Friedman's first proposals, through the tuition tax credit proposals of Ronald Reagan, through the voucher proposals on ballots in California, Colorado, and elsewhere, privatization strategies are about subsidizing tuition for students in private schools, not expanding opportunities for low-income children....In the words of political strategist, Grover Norquist, "We win just by debating school choice, because the alternative is to discuss the need to spend more money..."

Yawn. Can you try to spin something some more you desperate Clinton camp?

From his original quotes about the topic: (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718193)

School choice: Obama said he has been a strong supporter of charter schools "as a way to foster competition in the public school system."

He pronounced himself a skeptic of private school vouchers, saying: "My view is you're not going to generate the supply of high-quality schools to meet the demand."

Obama said he was surprised to learn from Gov. Jim Doyle that "there was no assessment process" for the Milwaukee program but indicated he might be open to supporting voucher programs if studies show they work.

"If there was any argument for vouchers, it was 'Let's see if the experiment works,' " Obama said. "And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what's best for kids."

Of course losing doesn't preclude one from distorting the truth or spreading unnecessary fear. Does it Clintonista?

In some real news...The Clinton campaign admits that it's now or never, or they are fucked. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4318311&page=1)

Even Clinton's most devoted surrogate -- her husband, Bill Clinton -- acknowledged the do-or-die stakes on Wednesday in Beaumont, Texas, conceding that a loss in Texas or Ohio would likely doom her candidacy.

Hillary campaign goes full-on dirty! (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/new-pro-clinton.html)

ABC News has learned that a group of Democratic politicos have set up a new independent 527 organization called the American Leadership Project (ALP) with the express purpose of helping Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, beat Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in Ohio, and possibly Texas and Pennsylvania as well.

[The Jays]

Oh man, I have been energized about this election. The field was so big, on both sides, and everyone is excited, because it all means that Bush will be fucking gone, and I think it is time for the Republican's to just be punished, PUNISHED, for supporting this awful president. George Bush was a disgrace, he did nothing, and really, NOTHING. Katrina was the second saddest sight I've ever seen, next to 9/11, and both happened under his watch. This fucking guys suffered from Distinguished Gentleman syndrome, he got vote into office on his name. He is fucking Jeff Johnson the name you know. And he did nothing. And the R's are not and have not nominated a guy who actually espouses conservative, small government values, so, if we're gonna be libs, let's be real libs. Let's be as lib as we can be, and let's be honest about it. What's the worst that can happen, we spend less than expected?

Our fucking president prays to God in order to inform his decisions. The rational guy downs a scotch whiskey before making a choice, this guy prays!

[thejives]

Hey showerbench, could you start posting full articles about McCain's new scandal? I'd like a change of pace...

[ShowerBench]

Hey showerbench, could you start posting full articles about McCain's new scandal? I'd like a change of pace...

Wish I could muster up some interest. He's probably not denying it because he knows it would help, if anything.

[thejives]

Wish I could muster up some interest. He's probably not denying it because he knows it would help, if anything.

Hey. His scandals are OK.

Because he has experience.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Wish I could muster up some interest. He's probably not denying it because he knows it would help, if anything.
When (not if) it comes out that this affair is bullshit, Iseman's status as a lobbyist will be irrelevant because McCain's fidelity will overshadow the possible conflict of interest and the Times will again be discredited.

[ShowerBench]

From his original quotes about the topic:

He pronounced himself a skeptic of private school vouchers, saying: "My view is you're not going to generate the supply of high-quality schools to meet the demand."

A "skeptic" eh? Doesn't he have any position on anything? With all the debate in recent decades over vouchers/privatizing education you would think Obama would have a principled position on the issue. Here's Clinton's:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill224636775feb22,0,1447657.story

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton slammed private-school voucher proposals yesterday, predicting that vouchers would eventually lead to the creation of taxpayer-financed white supremacist academies - or even a government-funded "School of the Jihad."

Clinton, a longtime voucher foe who earned the backing of the city teachers union in 2000, says government financing of sectarian groups would incite ethnic and religious conflict - and encourage fringe groups to demand government cash to run their schools.

President George W. Bush has long favored laws that require states to provide vouchers, a position that earned him the allegiance of conservative Christian groups that have clamored for public education dollars.



Hillary campaign goes full-on dirty!

Quote:
ABC News has learned that a group of Democratic politicos have set up a new independent 527 organization called the American Leadership Project (ALP) with the express purpose of helping Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, beat Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in Ohio, and possibly Texas and Pennsylvania as well.

"Full on dirty"? The preliminary ad is benign and truthful. It doesn't even mention Obama. Aside from disclosure I don't support any restrictions on campaign financing, and I'm all for 527's.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jMVbE8Q7FOw

[HBox]

When (not if) it comes out that this affair is bullshit, Iseman's status as a lobbyist will be irrelevant because McCain's fidelity will overshadow the possible conflict of interest and the Times will again be discredited.

Because whether or not Captain Integrity Maverick Super Ethics did anything politically improper is meaningless in the face of whether or not he fucked around.

But seriously, this is SO FAR ahead of the election that unless it balloons up into a massive scandal its a non-issue as far as the campaign goes.

[thejives]

Remind me again what you're doing with these cut and paste jobs, showerbench.
Making sure the dumb people on ronfez.net read the paper?

Could you maybe try to present things with more panache than a sore loser?

[thejives]

Because whether or not Captain Integrity Maverick Super Ethics did anything politically improper is meaningless in the face of whether or not he fucked around.

But seriously, this is SO FAR ahead of the election that unless it balloons up into a massive scandal its a non-issue as far as the campaign goes.

Agreed.
Hell, it might even help him by reminding people how devastatingly virile he is.
The man's a blond magnet.

[epo]

From his original quotes about the topic:

He pronounced himself a skeptic of private school vouchers, saying: "My view is you're not going to generate the supply of high-quality schools to meet the demand."

A "skeptic" eh? Doesn't he have any position on anything? With all the debate in recent decades over vouchers/privatizing education you would think Obama would have a principled position on the issue. Here's Clinton's:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill224636775feb22,0,1447657.story

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton slammed private-school voucher proposals yesterday, predicting that vouchers would eventually lead to the creation of taxpayer-financed white supremacist academies - or even a government-funded "School of the Jihad."

Clinton, a longtime voucher foe who earned the backing of the city teachers union in 2000, says government financing of sectarian groups would incite ethnic and religious conflict - and encourage fringe groups to demand government cash to run their schools.

President George W. Bush has long favored laws that require states to provide vouchers, a position that earned him the allegiance of conservative Christian groups that have clamored for public education dollars.



Hillary campaign goes full-on dirty!

Quote:
ABC News has learned that a group of Democratic politicos have set up a new independent 527 organization called the American Leadership Project (ALP) with the express purpose of helping Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, beat Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in Ohio, and possibly Texas and Pennsylvania as well.

"Full on dirty"? The preliminary ad is benign and truthful. It doesn't even mention Obama. Aside from disclosure I don't support any restrictions on campaign financing, and I'm all for 527's.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jMVbE8Q7FOw

It's gotta be tough for you to keep this up. You've only got two more weeks until the dream of re-living the 90's is crushed.

[ShowerBench]

Dude, I think his politics are nutty, but he ran the classiest campaign in modern history.

Hard to argue. Here's a Kucinichian on Obama. Worth the (long) read if you don't mind an Obamania buzzkill:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687

He said that the American people are basically good “once they focus” on real facts and things that matter. He called for citizens to “transform the country” by acting in accord with the historical lesson that “change comes from the bottom up, NOT from the top down.”

Obama can deliver a speech.

Did I mention it was a beautiful day? At one point, I saw a hawk soar just above the crowd and the Senator; it made a graceful pass and disappeared west, over the Iowa River.

So why wasn’t I dancing and singing along? Why did I have a terrible taste in my mouth two hours after Obama’s speech even as the sun shone and the warm spring breeze passed through my den just a mile east of the Pentacrest?

[thejives]

It's gotta be tough for you to keep this up. You've only got two more weeks until the dream of re-living the 90's is crushed.

Let him dream, man.
let him dream.

[Jujubees2]

Uh, so what? Vouchers are a good idea in helping educate our kids. Next you'll be saying that the GI bill is unconstitutional because some veterans use it for preacher schools.

Damn, scooped by HBox.

I think you mean that vouchers are a good idea in helping to educate our middle and upperclass kids. Those from the lowest income families will never any benefit from vouchers and will suffer even more as their schools are underfunded even more.

[ShowerBench]

It's gotta be tough for you to keep this up. You've only got two more weeks until the dream of re-living the 90's is crushed.

Well that's substantive.

The 90's...A decade of peace, prosperity, the cleanest yet most investigated administration in history, and reversing the devastation left by 12 years of criminal Republican maladmnistration.

I'm convinced - who needs to endure that nightmare again.

[epo]

Hard to argue. Here's a Kucinichian on Obama. Worth the (long) read if you don't mind an Obamania buzzkill:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687

He said that the American people are basically good “once they focus” on real facts and things that matter. He called for citizens to “transform the country” by acting in accord with the historical lesson that “change comes from the bottom up, NOT from the top down.”

Obama can deliver a speech.

Did I mention it was a beautiful day? At one point, I saw a hawk soar just above the crowd and the Senator; it made a graceful pass and disappeared west, over the Iowa River.

So why wasn’t I dancing and singing along? Why did I have a terrible taste in my mouth two hours after Obama’s speech even as the sun shone and the warm spring breeze passed through my den just a mile east of the Pentacrest?

This is the same Paul Street article that you already quoted. Can't you find some new material other than these obviously biased sources?

Oh wait....you can't.

[thejives]

Nice work.


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687



http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687


Posting the same link twice.
This is the kind of brilliant and versatile rhetorical skill that got Hillary where she is today.

beat me to it epo... but I have the actual quotes.

[epo]

Well that's substantive.

The 90's...A decade of peace, prosperity, the cleanest yet most investigated administration in history, and reversing the devastation left by 12 years of criminal Republican maladmnistration.

I'm convinced - who needs to endure that nightmare again.

An era in which more democrats lost more seats than ever. An era in which the politics of this nation became so divided and individualist that the Republicans were able to elect majorities in the House & the Senate for the first time since Ike was president.

An era in which the term "family values" gained steam and allowed the Republicans to successfully run a chimp from Texas twice and do so against two of the most honorable and qualified candidates in our recent history.

No, I don't wanna go back in time, I want to start the future and I want to do it now.

[thejives]

An era in which more democrats lost more seats than ever. An era in which the politics of this nation became so divided and individualist that the Republicans were able to elect majorities in the House & the Senate for the first time since Ike was president.

An era in which the term "family values" gained steam and allowed the Republicans to successfully run a chimp from Texas twice and do so against two of the most honorable and qualified candidates in our recent history.

No, I don't wanna go back in time, I want to start the future and I want to do it now.

But the 90s had Seinfeld ...

[epo]

But the 90s had Seinfeld ...

And they got Fleetwood Mac to reunite! Maaaaaannnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.dreampages.com/fleetwood_mac/fleetwood_mac.jpg

[The Jays]

I think you mean that vouchers are a good idea in helping to educate our middle and upperclass kids. Those from the lowest income families will never any benefit from vouchers and will suffer even more as their schools are underfunded even more.


Eh, why should I have to pay for a school that I don't want my child to go to?

[ShowerBench]

This is the same Paul Street article that you already quoted. Can't you find some new material other than these obviously biased sources?

Oh wait....you can't.

The link was posted before in reference to a particular portion of the essay on Iraq. This time I recommended the entire piece. Do you disagree with its content?

As for bias, there are no unbiased sources. There is only overt bias and "fair and balanced" claims.

[ShowerBench]

An era in which the term "family values" gained steam and allowed the Republicans to successfully run a chimp from Texas twice and do so against two of the most honorable and qualified candidates in our recent history.

No, I don't wanna go back in time, I want to start the future and I want to do it now.

Family values didn't elect Bush. It was a mainstream media who turned Gore into a grotesque caricature of a confused, lying weirdo, Kerry, a war hero, into an effeminate self-fragging windsurfer, and Bush - a National Guard-deserting chimp - into an "authentic," plain spoken yet profoundly wise, war hero.

The Democrats this year are getting the candidate the same news media selected for them using basically the same playbook.

[Jujubees2]

Eh, why should I have to pay for a school that I don't want my child to go to?

That's a weak argument. I don't want my tax dollars going to bomb Iraq but they do.

[keithy_19]

That's a weak argument. I don't want my tax dollars going to bomb Iraq but they do.

That's all I want my taxes to go too. That and stem cell research so we can clone freakishly grotesque animals and teach them to dine on the blood of god fearing people.

[scottinnj]

Except they're not different, they're the same old ideas the religious right has been trying to implement for decades. Ideas people who believe in the First Amendment reject.



Baloney. Jack Kemp was one of the original people who proposed it, and he's no bible thumper.

I love the idea. Especially if it can go from district to district. The town north of Northfield is Pleasantville. The schools there are a travesty, and 15 years of federal, state and county funding has been revealed to have been pissed away by corrupt school board officials currently on trial for taking bribes and giving those funds away to corrupt businesses that stole the money with double billing, incomplete work and such.

If a child over there is doing well in school, but surrounded by teachers who don't care, principals who are inept and a school board that steals their education dollars, the parents should have a RIGHT to be able to take the money allocated to their child's education and go somewhere else. Another public school, or take the funds from a bunch of students to fund a charter school and yes, why not a private school? Like I said before, millions of federal dollars go to pay for Christian college education, it is constitutional and there is no difference. The parents and the local communities know what is best for our kids. If your area says "no" to private schools, that's your choice. Don't force it on us, or deny us dollars and deny kids who need a better enviroment a place to learn.

Vouchers are not the only answer to improving education, but it is one of many good ideas that can improve the lives of kids trapped in enviroments that almost guarantee that they will fail in school and be far behind their peers in life.

[Yerdaddy]

It's their money they should get a choice in how its spent... expecially considering how well the billions we spend now are used

I've paid just as much taxes towards the public school system as the parents of kids in private school - AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY FUCKING KIDS. If they deserve a voucher to pay for private school then I deserve a voucher for hookers and hot dogs!

[scottinnj]

No, I don't wanna go back in time, I want to start the future and I want to do it now.

Goddamned right epo. I just get so sick and tired of this bullshit.

"Vouchers" = code word for breaking the NEA and destroying separation of church and state.

"Gay Marriage" = code word for destroying the Nucular family.

"Gun Control" = Destruction of the 2nd Amendment

"Privatisation" = Turning government over to Corporate Criminals.


It's all fucked. Why the hell can't we get along, and try to LISTEN to the other side's ideas without sounding like Rush Limbaugh or Sam Seder or the other finger pointing paranoid fear mongering douchebags?

Vouchers is just a right wing conspiracy....SHUT THE FUCK UP! Come down here to Atlantic County and tell that to the "Liberals" in Pleasantville who give a shit about their kid's education. Give them a chance to send their kids to my kids school, which is less then 3 miles away, separated by an imaginary city line boundry, and they'd vote for the person who would help them accomplish that, no matter what party that person is affiliated with. Tell that to conservatives like me who want those kids in our school, off the streets and getting a good education. Oh I forgot we're all bible thumping racists who want to keep the minorities in check so they'll be educated enough to know how to run the cash reigister at Wal Mart. Pardon me for forgetting my place in the political spectrum.

Oh yeah, and I'm supposed to automatically reject the charter schools because they cost more money, and there are more minorities in them because of some evil affirmative action program that "reverse discriminates" against my kids. And because the idea came from some Democrat somewhere. Again, I'm sorry for considering something like that, I'm supposed to be over on the right throwing racial epithets and scaring everyone into believing charter schools are wasteful and a gift to pay off some NEA lobbyist.

Right now, I'm open to listening to ANY idea that seems to help. On education, healthcare, foreign policy and the many other problems we collectively have as a country of fellow Americans. There are too many bureocracies, too many politicians grandstanding on bills that get passed into law that do NOTHING to help and too many pundits and lobbyists making a living out of scaring the shit out of the American people into getting us to believe their bullshit.

Obama said he will listen to ALL sides. He's the only one in this campaign to have the balls to say that. I believe him. That's why I'm gonna vote for him, and help end the bickering that goes on that wastes time while people and our kids need action and new ideas, no matter where they come from.

I hate going off like that, but the racist crap from Earthbrown and now this mindless reading of Clinton talking points by ShowerBench just pissed me off. Do you know how many times I have heard Clintonistas call the Ed Schultz show this past 2 weeks and almost VERBATIM say the exact same thing ShowerBench is saying? It was the same thing with the Romniacs and now it's looking to be the same with the McCainiacs and Huckabites. Just nauseating.

[scottinnj]

I've paid just as much taxes towards the public school system as the parents of kids in private school - AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY FUCKING KIDS. If they deserve a voucher to pay for private school then I deserve a voucher for hookers and hot dogs!

Pharoah has spoken. So as it has been said, so shall it be done.

[underdog]

Privatizing education has been pushed by Republicans and religious conservatives since public education was instituted. It's not a bad idea, it's one of the worst ideas anyone has ever come up with.

You're absolutely right. It has to be the worst idea ever, because our public schools are doing such a good job at educating our youth. Why would we want to change up our school system?

[Yerdaddy]

Pharoah has spoken. So as it has been said, so shall it be done.

Thank you sir! I'll have mustard and relish on both, please, and enough bun to fit the whole weiner.

[PapaBear]

and enough bun to fit the whole weiner.
Too easy.

[thejives]

Thank you sir! I'll have mustard and relish on both, please, and enough bun to fit the whole weiner.

Too easy.

Wampus would take it in a second.
If he ever visited the politics board.

[Bulldogcakes]

That's a weak argument. I don't want my tax dollars going to bomb Iraq but they do.

I've paid just as much taxes towards the public school system as the parents of kids in private school - AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY FUCKING KIDS. If they deserve a voucher to pay for private school then I deserve a voucher for hookers and hot dogs!

I have the solution to this. Bomb the children.

[A.J.]

I've paid just as much taxes towards the public school system as the parents of kids in private school - AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY FUCKING KIDS. If they deserve a voucher to pay for private school then I deserve a voucher for hookers and hot dogs!

I heartily endorse this idea.

[DolaMight]

Now that the dust has settled and seeing how unpredictable the primaries were, how nobody figured it would be Obama/McCain, also judging how the shoe-in nominees ie. Rudy, Clinton Bros. fared, another shoe-in that everyone threw around was Condoleezza Rice.

How do you think a well funded Rice campaign would have fared in the 08 primaries knowing what we know now?

[Zorro]

I've paid just as much taxes towards the public school system as the parents of kids in private school - AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY FUCKING KIDS. If they deserve a voucher to pay for private school then I deserve a voucher for hookers and hot dogs!

Gonna shoot me a hot dog.

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

[foodcourtdruide]

Now that the dust has settled and seeing how unpredictable the primaries were, how nobody figured it would be Obama/McCain, also judging how the shoe-in nominees ie. Rudy, Clinton Bros. fared, another shoe-in that everyone threw around was Condoleezza Rice.

How do you think a well funded Rice campaign would have fared in the 08 primaries knowing what we know now?

I don't think it would have done well. I think the republicans would have tried to distance themselves as much as possible from the Bush regime for this current election.

[Zorro]

How do you think a well funded Rice campaign would have fared in the 08 primaries knowing what we know now?

Does Rice have any support in the Black Comunity or is she considered an Uncle Tom?

[thejives]

How do you think a well funded Rice campaign would have fared in the 08 primaries knowing what we know now?

Rice the grain would have gotten more support.

The administration is at 19% approval rating.

[keithy_19]

Rice the grain would have gotten more support.

The administration is at 19% approval rating.

19% is more than 17%. I think that's what we should be focusing on. That's what they are.

[thejives]

19% is more than 17%. I think that's what we should be focusing on. That's what they are.

two girls one cup has a higher approval rating than this president.