The 2008 Presidential Race

[keithy_19]

two girls one cup has a higher approval rating than this president.

I blame far far left liberals and far far right conservatives for that.

[thejives]

I blame far far left liberals and far far right conservatives for that.

How do you know the politics of those two girls?

[Zorro]

How do you know the politics of those two girls?

I hear they're stumping for Ron Paul...

[thejives]

I hear they're stumping for Ron Paul...

true libertarians

[K.C.]

Obama's not putting it away with the debate tonight...although I've never thought debating is his best format.

If people actually tuned into this thing in Texas, it's probably Hillary's best performance of the 19 they've had. Good enough to stop Obama's 'Joementum'....probably not.

[Bulldogcakes]

New Republic article on the NYTimes piece (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24)

Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.

What happened? The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn't. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable


Pretty much mirrors my initial reaction to it. Shouldn't have gone with it. Not much there.

[scottinnj]

I may be biased, but the first part of the debate puts to rest the nonsense that Obama is all talk and no substance.
Hillary is keeping up with Obama, but she is still using the cheap shots like the plagirism charge.

[HBox]

Hillary was doing well until she got booed.

[scottinnj]

New Republic article on the NYTimes piece (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24)



Pretty much mirrors my initial reaction to it. Shouldn't have gone with it. Not much there.

The timing is weird, publishing the article after endorsing him for the Republican nomination. Keller has to answer the question "Why have your paper go on record endorsing a candidate it believes is having an inapprpriate relationship with a Washington lobbyist?"

If true, at best it eliminates his qualifications for the NY Times' ebdorsement, and at worst, automatically disqualifies him for the Presidency.

Either way, the editor knew the story was being vetted for publication at the time of the paper's endorsement-even if the editorial page was not aware of the story, wouldn't it behoove the editor (Keller) to at least give the editorial staff a warning that this piece existed and it would conflict with the endorsement.

[Bulldogcakes]

The timing is weird, publishing the article after endorsing him for the Republican nomination. Keller has to answer the question "Why have your paper go on record endorsing a candidate it believes is having an inapprpriate relationship with a Washington lobbyist?"
If true, at best it eliminates his qualifications for the NY Times' ebdorsement, and at worst, automatically disqualifies him for the Presidency.

Either way, the editor knew the story was being vetted for publication at the time of the paper's endorsement-even if the editorial page was not aware of the story, wouldn't it behoove the editor (Keller) to at least give the editorial staff a warning that this piece existed and it would conflict with the endorsement.

To be fair, thats a bogus charge. Republicans are the ones who are generally pushing "Family Values" and religious values (although McCain doesn't). Therefore, when stuff like this comes out and proves to be true, the "hypocrisy" charge sticks to them. The Times and the Left in general is much more agnostic about these things, so there's no double standard being applied. They don't proselytize about these things, Republicans do. Its a single standard of holding each candidate to what they claim to believe.

[TheMojoPin]

Ouch. Hillary aced that final statement. Moved in for the kill.

[DiabloSammich]

Ouch. Hillary aced that final statement. Moved in for the kill.



Felt like the best heat she got all night though. BO got most of the crowd noise.

That standing O did hurt though.

[scottinnj]

To be fair, thats a bogus charge. Republicans are the ones who are generally pushing "Family Values" and religious values (although McCain doesn't). Therefore, when stuff like this comes out and proves to be true, the "hypocrisy" charge sticks to them. The Times and the Left in general is much more agnostic about these things, so there's no double standard being applied. They don't proselytize about these things, Republicans do. Its a single standard of holding each candidate to what they claim to believe.

I don't care about the family values issue. If the story is true, it disqualifies him for the presidency because it shows a lack of judgement on his part to become intimately involved with a lobbyist-that goes way beyond the rules of "no dinners" and "no trips"
Lobbyists are there for a reason-to lobby for issues. Senators and Congressman are supposed to not be freindly and buddy buddy with them, it shows a conflict of interests.

The sex part I dont give a shit about. I'd hit her too, if I had the chance.

[scottinnj]

Ouch. Hillary aced that final statement. Moved in for the kill.

I thought it was cheesy, being that she went after him with the plagarism angle earlier.

[keithy_19]

How do you know the politics of those two girls?

Well, they both eat shit. Therefore their politics must each shit too.

[AKA]

With regards to "experience," Obama is the only one of the three main candidates who has successfully managed a $100+ campaign - NOT an easy task - both Clinton and McCain found themselves, at different times, with no money and no organization.

[thejives]

Went really well for Obama. He went a long way toward appearing presidential.
I noticed him using the word president and commander-in-chief a lot in reference to his policies.

Hillary's last answer was great! It came across very genuine. I think the campaign would have ended very differently if she had been like that more while she was on the trail. In this context it seemed like a concession speech though.

[JerseySean]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626

Obama 08

[HBox]

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

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

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oJ7Cs3QvT3U&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oJ7Cs3QvT3U&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object

Horrible timing Hilldog.

[thejives]

Ha!
Yea... but the thing is there's nothing wrong with that.

She just needs to find something better to attack Obama with, because that ain't gonna fly.

[JerseySean]

Ha!
Yea... but the thing is there's nothing wrong with that.

She just needs to find something better to attack Obama with, because that ain't gonna fly.

She isnt going to attack him too hard. Her 527s ill do that job. Should start up in a few days. there are three groups. 2 legit 527s and watch a swiftboat group to come out against Barack. He is going to have a bad two weeks.

[jonyrotn]

Just ask Bill Bratton and the NYPD How loyal Rudy is. He fired one for being liked too much & kicked the other 30,000 in the pocketbook for doing too good a job cleaning up this god foresaken city..

[thejives]

She isnt going to attack him too hard. Her 527s ill do that job. Should start up in a few days. there are three groups. 2 legit 527s and watch a swiftboat group to come out against Barack. He is going to have a bad two weeks.

We know. Like everything you post it's old old news.
Here's the first ad. Yeah it's real brutal.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jMVbE8Q7FOw&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jMVbE8Q7FOw&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Just ask Bill Bratton and the NYPD How loyal Rudy is. He fired one for being liked too much & kicked the other 30,000 in the pocketbook for doing too good a job cleaning up this god foresaken city..

WTF is going on?
Could someone please restore a sense of sanity to this thread?

[JerseySean]

WTF is going on?
Could someone please restore a sense of sanity to this thread?

Yes, I will do it. Please pass the Obama-Aid Jives

[thejives]

God I hope the smart kids get this on track in the morning.

[scottinnj]

Is this what a thread looks like when part of it gets moved to another thread? JerseySean roooned our beautiful thread!

[scottinnj]

Ah, new page, and it's back to normal. Be glad I'm a post whore people.

[thejives]

It's almost time to start talking VPs.

[JerseySean]

It's almost time to start talking VPs.

Wishlist For McCain in order:

Tim Pawlenty, MN Gov
Mark Sanford, SC Gov
Romney
Bobby Jindal, LA Gov

Obama:

Evan Bayh?
Bill Richardson?
Jim Webb
Ben Nelson

Clinton:

Obama
Bayh
Richardson
Mar Pryor AR Sen
Bob Menendez

What do you think?

[NewYorkDragons80]

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.
Now that everything with the Times piece appears to be unfolding exactly as I predicted, I can scoff at those who were tapdancing on McCain's grave and writing his political obituary... again! Now HBox, I wasn't saying it was right that the ethics would be glossed over when the sex stuff is discredited, I'm just stating the fact that that's the way it would go down, which it did. I personally don't think McCain violated ethics and I think time will prove that. It's not something McCain can say, but everybody has lobbyist friends. What McCain is against is earmarks and congressional pork that pump federal money into a constituency for no apparent reason. Until they can prove that McCain took positions and voted on issues that unfairly cheated the taxpayers out of money in a way he wouldn't have normally voted (and that's damn hard to prove), he's gonna weather this with relative ease as it appears he already is.

[NewYorkDragons80]

two girls one cup has a higher approval rating than this president.
As bad as his approval rating is, the Democratic congress WISHES they had his approval rating.

[epo]

Wishlist For McCain in order:

Tim Pawlenty, MN Gov
Mark Sanford, SC Gov
Romney
Bobby Jindal, LA Gov

Obama:

Evan Bayh?
Bill Richardson?
Jim Webb
Ben Nelson

Clinton:

Obama
Bayh
Richardson
Mar Pryor AR Sen
Bob Menendez

What do you think?

Sean wouldn't it be more logical to look at the attributes needed for a VP for each candidate, then it's pretty easy to pigeon-hole a wishlist. I'll give it a first look based on what each candidate lacks:

McCain needs:
Youth
Religion
Region (south)
Someone anti-Washington

Obama needs:
Region (south or west)
Experience (notably foreign affairs)
Race

I'm sure everyone can think of more attributes than I can this early on a Saturday morning! :wacko:

[JerseySean]

Sean wouldn't it be more logical to look at the attributes needed for a VP for each candidate, then it's pretty easy to pigeon-hole a wishlist. I'll give it a first look based on what each candidate lacks:

McCain needs:
Youth
Religion
Region (south)
Someone anti-Washington

Obama needs:
Region (south or west)
Experience (notably foreign affairs)
Race

I'm sure everyone can think of more attributes than I can this early on a Saturday morning! :wacko:

Thats why if I were McCain, I would push for Pawlenty because he swings electoral votes, he is anti-Washinton and young. Conservatives dont have a problem with McCain on his social views as he gets great ratings from Christian and gun groups everywhere. I say for him it is Jindal or Pawlenty. Jindal also ads an ethic twiist that could help McCain win a state like New Jersey or anywhere else that there is a significant Indian-American population. As much as I dislike Jindal personally, he would be a great choice.

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

[HBox]

As bad as his approval rating is, the Democratic congress WISHES they had his approval rating.

Congress always has an anemic approval rating.

[epo]

As bad as his approval rating is, the Democratic congress WISHES they had his approval rating.

That is a red herring & always has been.

Everyone disapproves of "Congress" because the body gets scapegoated for everything that seemingly doesn't get done. The real question is about the approval ratings of the individual members of Congress.

Any test other than that is just silly.

[DiabloSammich]

Sean wouldn't it be more logical to look at the attributes needed for a VP for each candidate, then it's pretty easy to pigeon-hole a wishlist. I'll give it a first look based on what each candidate lacks:

McCain needs:
Youth
Religion
Region (south)
Someone anti-Washington

Obama needs:
Region (south or west)
Experience (notably foreign affairs)
Race

I'm sure everyone can think of more attributes than I can this early on a Saturday morning! :wacko:


Obama + Biden?

His Iraq plan seemed to be favorable on both sides of the aisle.

I know, I'm a homer.

[JerseySean]

That is a red herring & always has been.

Everyone disapproves of "Congress" because the body gets scapegoated for everything that seemingly doesn't get done. The real question is about the approval ratings of the individual members of Congress.

Any test other than that is just silly.

If you look back at congressional approvals, as they are poor it doesnt directly translate into victories for the other party. HOWEVER, in a BAD year for the party in control(1994, 2006), whether that be due to the negatives of whoever is in the White House or whatever other entity, a lagging overall approval DIRECTLY TRANSLATES to to losses when the momentum the other way. IE 1994- William Martini NJ-8, 2006-Mellissa HArt PA-4.

[epo]

Obama + Biden?

His Iraq plan seemed to be favorable on both sides of the aisle.

I know, I'm a homer.

Can't you already hear the criticism? "Northeast Liberal". Biden will be avoided like the plague.

However I do like Biden and think he would make a great Secretary of State. At least he'd demand a camera crew with him at all times.

[A.J.]

Obama + Biden?

His Iraq plan seemed to be favorable on both sides of the aisle.

I know, I'm a homer.

Can't you already hear the criticism? "Northeast Liberal". Biden will be avoided like the plague.

However I do like Biden and think he would make a great Secretary of State. At least he'd demand a camera crew with him at all times.

I think Biden would be criticized more for being a fellow plagarist.

But yes, he WOULD make an excellent Secretary of State.

[Dude!]

to balance the ticket Hillary could pick a woman

[ShowerBench]

That is a red herring & always has been.

Everyone disapproves of "Congress" because the body gets scapegoated for everything that seemingly doesn't get done. The real question is about the approval ratings of the individual members of Congress.

Any test other than that is just silly.

Exactly. Democrats disapprove because there isn't a veto proof majority so they think their Democratic congress isn't trying to act - Republicans disapprove because it is a Democratic congress.

[Bulldogcakes]

Superdelegates Are Flocking to Obama (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080223/D8V007M80.html)

Its at times like these that you love the fact that politicians in general are spineless vermin. If they had any convictions, they might be loyal to longtime friends or cast votes based on who they think is best for the job.

[scottinnj]

to balance the ticket Hillary could pick a woman

:bye: :smile: :lol: :laugh: :thumbup: :clap: :smile: :bye: :lol: :bye: :clap: :thumbup: :laugh: :tongue:
:smile: :clap: :thumbup: :lol: :laugh:

C'mon, that was funny!

[TheMojoPin]

Superdelegates Are Flocking to Obama (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080223/D8V007M80.html)

Its at times like these that you love the fact that politicians in general are spineless vermin. If they had any convictions, they might be loyal to longtime friends or cast votes based on who they think is best for the job.

It's a complete non-story. The superdelegates always go with the voted majority with very few exceptions. Hillary needs to win next Tuesday with something like 65% to take the elected delegate lead back, and that's incredibly unlikely.

[JerseySean]

It's a complete non-story. The superdelegates always go with the voted majority with very few exceptions. Hillary needs to win next Tuesday with something like 65% to take the elected delegate lead back, and that's incredibly unlikely.

It is a real story. Remember noone will get to 2025 by convention time. If Hillary wins these states and makes up a little bit of ground on the delegate count, she'll be able to flip superdelegates. The superdelegates haven't had to deal with a REAL convention since 1968. At the end of the day Edward can be kingmaker.

[TheMojoPin]

It is a real story. Remember noone will get to 2025 by convention time. If Hillary wins these states and makes up a little bit of ground on the delegate count, she'll be able to flip superdelegates. The superdelegates haven't had to deal with a REAL convention since 1968. At the end of the day Edward can be kingmaker.

Yeah, and this isn't 1968. The superdelegates go with the herd. Whoever has the general delegate lead when the primaries are done wins. Betting anything else is basically like lighting money on fire. Hillary would need to win those states with something like at least 65% of the votes going her way to take back the lead.

[JerseySean]

Yeah, and this isn't 1968. The superdelegates go with the herd. Whoever has the general delegate lead when the primaries are done wins. Betting anything else is basically like lighting money on fire.

Not if it is close and Edwards' delegates are still out there. There are a lot of superdelegates down south who really dont want to go on record as supporting Obama.

[JerseySean]

Nader Running. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080224/D8V0OR0O0.html

How bad does this hurt Obama/Hillary

[scottinnj]

Nader Running. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080224/D8V0OR0O0.html

How bad does this hurt Obama/Hillary

It doesn't this year. Democrats aren't divided as in years past, and they have learned the Ross Perot lesson taught to Republicans in 1992.

Nader is a non-factor, although still a pompous ass as always.

[Bulldogcakes]

Nader Running. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080224/D8V0OR0O0.html

This guy has really reached a new nadir.

[DolaMight]

John McCain continues to hold a very modest lead against both potential Democratic challengers. In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Barack Obama 46% to 44% and Hillary Clinton 48% to 44%. McCain has led both Democrats on each night of individual tracking since the controversial New York Times article on McCain was released earlier this week (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

That's a pretty significant turnaround considering Obama was leading mccain in double digits prior to the article. Power of the new media.

[JerseySean]

It doesn't this year. Democrats aren't divided as in years past, and they have learned the Ross Perot lesson taught to Republicans in 1992.

Nader is a non-factor, although still a pompous ass as always.

In a close state, like NM or MN, it may matter

[CountryBob]

Nader Running. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080224/D8V0OR0O0.html

How bad does this hurt Obama/Hillary

Why does he waste everybody's time? Go write a review on car safety or something.

[sailor]

The superdelegates haven't had to deal with a REAL convention since 1968. At the end of the day Edward can be kingmaker.

weren't the super-delegates created in like 1980?

[scottinnj]

weren't the super-delegates created in like 1980?

Yes. But the delegates back in the day were just weirdos, so go with it.

[JerseySean]

weren't the super-delegates created in like 1980?

Yes. But Suprdelegates were created in response to the McGovern-Somebody? Commission which after 68, changed the rules to force delegations to vote for winners of their respective states. Or to vote on a proportional basis. This pissed off the old-time Dem bosses as well as Congressman and Senators. The middle ground was reached that superdelegates would be free to vote as they choose while some delegates would be committed. Before the Commission, delegate WERE NOT BOUND by their respective primaries. Therefore, they were all the equivalent of today's superdelegates.

[epo]

Nader Running. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080224/D8V0OR0O0.html

How bad does this hurt Obama/Hillary

Ralph Nader is a narcissist that needs to seriously go away.

[NewYorkDragons80]

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

That's a pretty significant turnaround considering Obama was leading mccain in double digits prior to the article. Power of the new media.
That's good to hear, but Obama never led McCain by double digits. The highest I saw was 7 points

Nader is a decent guy and I don't think he's motivated by ego. He wants the government to shit on corporations and neither Clinton nor Obama want that.

[epo]

"First they ignore you, then ridicule and fight, yet you win."

I believe Hillary is finally fighting....and jumping the shark:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4BGP-EJQPd8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4BGP-EJQPd8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[JerseySean]

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

That's a pretty significant turnaround considering Obama was leading mccain in double digits prior to the article. Power of the new media.

I would love to see a state by state breakdown of this race.

Florida
New Jersey
Virginia
New Mexico
Minnesota
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Louisiana
Colorado
Nevada

Without known VPs, these will be interesting swing states. I wonder if Barack has enough to put Alabama and Mississippi as well as North Carolina in play.

[Gvac]

My favorite part of the election process is when two opponents who have been bitter rivals and battled ruthlessly debate after debate turn around and support the other one when he or she wins the nomination, no matter how much they disagree.

It's "for the good of the party" I'm told.

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/szyk/wartime/media/05316z.jpg

[HBox]

My favorite part of the election process is when two opponents who have been bitter rivals and battled ruthlessly debate after debate turn around and support the other one when he or she wins the nomination, no matter how much they disagree.

It's "for the good of the party" I'm told.

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/szyk/wartime/media/05316z.jpg

Way to fly way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way over the edge there.

[pennington]

I believe Hillary is finally fighting....and jumping the shark

It hasn't worked against him yet, it's not going to work now. She needs to go out there and create her own excitement, not talk about a health care mailer.

I heard a clip of her 2 days ago where she's still complaining about Bush. And saying how she fought the Republicans for 35 years. He's holding revival meetings. She doesn't know what to do.

[Gvac]

Is it really HBox?

When people no longer stand on principle but care only about their party being in power it doesn't seem like too far of a leap for me.

[sailor]

Is it really HBox?

When people no longer stand on principle but care only about their party being in power it doesn't seem like too far of a leap for me.

but isn't the reason they belong to one party or the other because they believe in the general principles of that party?

[epo]

It hasn't worked against him yet, it's not going to work now. She needs to go out there and create her own excitement, not talk about a health care mailer.

I heard a clip of her 2 days ago where she's still complaining about Bush. And saying how she fought the Republicans for 35 years. He's holding revival meetings. She doesn't know what to do.

And she just officially ruined her chances today for any shot at a VP or a majority leader job in the Senate.

They certainly aren't going down easy....but "mocking" hope is a bad idea (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html). Clinton has officially jumped the shark.

This video is the figurative end of her campaign. I'll post the YouTube once its up.

[NewYorkDragons80]

It hasn't worked against him yet, it's not going to work now. She needs to go out there and create her own excitement, not talk about a health care mailer.

I heard a clip of her 2 days ago where she's still complaining about Bush. And saying how she fought the Republicans for 35 years. He's holding revival meetings. She doesn't know what to do.
No matter how much she's on the ropes, I never count her out. She's a Clinton, after all. In the back of my mind, I keep thinking she's gonna pull this one through. And polls aside, I'd much rather McCain face Obama than Clinton. She's a much, much stronger threat, even if her presence would bring out McCain's base even more.

[Gvac]

but isn't the reason they belong to one party or the other because they believe in the general principles of that party?

Not always. I think many politicians choose the party that their particular district tends to vote for, and not vice versa.

Many staunch Republicans despise John McCain and feel he's a "liberal" masquerading as a Republican. Yet they'll all fall in line and stand behind him once he's crowned the party's official candidate. What purpose does that serve other than keeping your party in power?

Ditto for Hillary and Obama. Once one wins the nomination, the other will back them vehemently. They've been screaming at one another about how different they are for months now, though.

It's incredibly hypocritical.

[sailor]

Not always. I think many politicians choose the party that their particular district tends to vote for, and not vice versa.

Many staunch Republicans despise John McCain and feel he's a "liberal" masquerading as a Republican. Yet they'll all fall in line and stand behind him once he's crowned the party's official candidate. What purpose does that serve other than keeping your party in power?

Ditto for Hillary and Obama. Once one wins the nomination, the other will back them vehemently. They've been screaming at one another about how different they are for months now, though.

It's incredibly hypocritical.

i actually meant to put "usually" there. for the mccain thing, as much as they might think he's a liberal, they know the other option, come general election, will be more so. that's why they stand by their man. and putting "staunch republican" you're starting from the assumption that they believe in their principles. given that, there really isn't any gain for them with their party winning every election if it wasn't people who shared their basic views. basically, i just don't see it being the hypocrisy that you do, even if i'm having trouble expressing myself well.

[Gvac]

i actually meant to put "usually" there. for the mccain thing, as much as they might think he's a liberal, they know the other option, come general election, will be more so. that's why they stand by their man. and putting "staunch republican" you're starting from the assumption that they believe in their principles. given that, there really isn't any gain for them with their party winning every election if it wasn't people who shared their basic views. basically, i just don't see it being the hypocrisy that you do, even if i'm having trouble expressing myself well.

Let me give you a hypothetical, sailor. Let's say that Ron and Fez were having an election to determine which message board will be crowned the Official Fan Site of the show. JustJon and mikeyboy set forth as ronfez.net's platform that it's 1) Anti-dissension. You can only post positively about everything, from topics brought up on the board to the show itself. Their word is law, and no one can have an opposing point of view. 2) the board is now pro-child pornography, and it will fight for the rights of pornographers to have their work be accepted as art and ronfez.net will have a forum for kiddie porn. 3) they will encourage rape and murder among the fans of the show and the members of the site.

Do you fully support ronfez.net in this scenario (as outlandish, exaggerated, and off-base as it may be) merely so you can be on the winning team? Or do you go elsewhere?

Sorry, but I can't agree with doing "what's best for the party."

If I felt my party had abandoned its basic beliefs and values by electing a candidate who believed in very few of them, I wouldn't be a part of that party any more.

It's like people who tell me "I'm Catholic, but I believe in pre-marital sex, divorce, abortion, and I don't go to confession." Guess what? You're NOT CATHOLIC.

Have some balls and say what you believe is basically what I'm saying.

[sailor]

of course you don't support the team in that case. my main point was they'd have more in common with someone in their party than someone outside it, the majority of the time. as i also said, there's no gain if your party wins but the beliefs are totally contrary to your own. yes, it would make sense to leave in that instance.

[scottinnj]

My favorite part of the election process is when two opponents who have been bitter rivals and battled ruthlessly debate after debate turn around and support the other one when he or she wins the nomination, no matter how much they disagree.

It's "for the good of the party" I'm told.



Nazi Party reference aside, I think I agree with you partly on your point. At least with the Republicans. You have a large majority of the conservative pundits tear him apart in the primaries until his nomination becomes inevitable. Then when the NY Times article gets published, they all rush to condemn the paper as the "liberal rag" (despite the endorsement of McCain) it really is, and hide behind that to "rally 'round their nominee"

But with the Democrats I don't see it as you do. At least this year. I think Hillary will do whatever it takes to gain power, but when push comes to shove, she will campaign for Barack, for the good of the party. Not from any hypocritical, conspiratorial angle, but they are very close on issues, and it would be a shame to take your toys and go home to leave the party's candidate out alone when you and your husband have a lot of pull to get undecided voters to go Democratic.

The whole point of a primary season is to let the candidates and the party hash it out, and sometimes it gets loud and angry. I've seen some things from both parties that have been over the line and that is a shame, but that is the way it is when humans deal with each other on topics each person holds very close to their heart.

[keithy_19]

of course you don't support the team in that case. my main point was they'd have more in common with someone in their party than someone outside it, the majority of the time. as i also said, there's no gain if your party wins but the beliefs are totally contrary to your own. yes, it would make sense to leave in that instance.

The NEW NEW Ronfez.net sounds incredibly riveting. We may make the news if we had that stuff! :banning:

[JerseySean]

But with the Democrats I don't see it as you do. At least this year. I think Hillary will do whatever it takes to gain power, but when push comes to shove, she will campaign for Barack, for the good of the party. Not from any hypocritical, conspiratorial angle, but they are very close on issues, and it would be a shame to take your toys and go home to leave the party's candidate out alone when you and your husband have a lot of pull to get undecided voters to go Democratic.


Hillary doesnt have any pull that Barack wouldnt have to bring on undecided voters. She is a very devisive figure in American politics. The last poll I saw she had a 48-49 approval-disapproval. SHe has very little margin for error. For the Democrat party to pick Hillary would be like the Miami Dolphins to go get Jeff Garcia instead of drafting a big college QB. You know what you are getting and he can be successful, but there isnt a big upside. With Barack, he could be a JFK/Peyton Manning type, or could be a Adlai Stevenson/Ryan Leaf, we dont know yet.

[Bulldogcakes]

"First they ignore you, then ridicule and fight, yet you win."

I believe Hillary is finally fighting....and jumping the shark:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4BGP-EJQPd8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4BGP-EJQPd8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

The last few lines could not have possibly sounded more condescending if she tried. Of course she wasn't trying, it just comes naturally.

"That is what I expect from you"
Did I miss something? Is she his boss?

"Let's talk about your behavior"
What, is she his mother too?

[TheMojoPin]

Let me give you a hypothetical, sailor. Let's say that Ron and Fez were having an election to determine which message board will be crowned the Official Fan Site of the show. JustJon and mikeyboy set forth as ronfez.net's platform that it's 1) Anti-dissension. You can only post positively about everything, from topics brought up on the board to the show itself. Their word is law, and no one can have an opposing point of view. 2) the board is now pro-child pornography, and it will fight for the rights of pornographers to have their work be accepted as art and ronfez.net will have a forum for kiddie porn. 3) they will encourage rape and murder among the fans of the show and the members of the site.

Do you fully support ronfez.net in this scenario (as outlandish, exaggerated, and off-base as it may be) merely so you can be on the winning team? Or do you go elsewhere?

Sorry, but I can't agree with doing "what's best for the party."

If I felt my party had abandoned its basic beliefs and values by electing a candidate who believed in very few of them, I wouldn't be a part of that party any more.

It's like people who tell me "I'm Catholic, but I believe in pre-marital sex, divorce, abortion, and I don't go to confession." Guess what? You're NOT CATHOLIC.

Have some balls and say what you believe is basically what I'm saying.

What precendent are you basing this rant on? Politicians in this country have ended up backing their party at the end of the day over personal conflicts that vast majority of the time pretty much since the beginning. Politicians bucking thast trend is incredibly rare and very dramatic when it happens. I don't understand why you're criticizing this as if it's something new. It's been an ingrained part of the American politial system since day one.

[Yerdaddy]

My favorite part of the election process is when two opponents who have been bitter rivals and battled ruthlessly debate after debate turn around and support the other one when he or she wins the nomination, no matter how much they disagree.

It's "for the good of the party" I'm told.

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/szyk/wartime/media/05316z.jpg

Often overshadowed by his ruthless global conquests and genocides, Hitler's humorous political commentaries delivered as Señor Wences and his hand puppet "Johnny" were the toast of the Reichstaag Comedy Jam.

Hitler: So Johnny, what do you think of your former opponent, Mitt Romney?

Johnny: S'awright.

Hitler: And what about Huckabee, do you like him?

Johnny: S'awright.

Hitler: And, Johnny, have you seen Fred Thompson's new wife?

Johnny: Very niiiiiice!

[A.J.]

My favorite part of the election process is when two opponents who have been bitter rivals and battled ruthlessly debate after debate turn around and support the other one when he or she wins the nomination, no matter how much they disagree.

It's "for the good of the party" I'm told.

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/szyk/wartime/media/05316z.jpg

This probably better than a Democratic Party "Night of the Long Knives" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives#Purge).

[A.J.]

I heard a clip of her 2 days ago where she's still complaining about Bush. And saying how she fought the Republicans for 35 years.

Fighting is not uniting, Hillary.

[Dude!]

well it had to happen
the nice clinton people are playing up the muslim thing

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


they should have photo-shopped in a surface to air missle in the background
to really convey the message

[epo]

From today's LA Times:

Mitt Romney to rejoin GOP race? (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/romneyback.html)

Josh Romney, one of former Gov. Mitt Romney's five sons, says it's "possible" his father may rejoin the race for the White House, as a vice presidential candidate or as the Republican Party's standard-bearer if the campaign of Sen. John McCain falters.

[epo]

And she just officially ruined her chances today for any shot at a VP or a majority leader job in the Senate.

They certainly aren't going down easy....but "mocking" hope is a bad idea (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html). Clinton has officially jumped the shark.

This video is the figurative end of her campaign. I'll post the YouTube once its up.

Here is the You Tube of her mocking:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UBuuR62hVAs&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UBuuR62hVAs&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[JerseySean]

From today's LA Times:

Mitt Romney to rejoin GOP race? (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/romneyback.html)

I can tell you as a fact, VP MAYBE (50/50) if its offered. Rejoin, NO

[cougarjake13]

if its a race then why arent they wearing numbers on their shirts ???


and i never see the winner run through the tape


i tells ya im getting jipped

[DolaMight]

well it had to happen
the nice clinton people are playing up the muslim thing

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


they should have photo-shopped in a surface to air missle in the background
to really convey the message

I wondered whether the clinton camp actually did this. It was so obvious that it would be poisonous to the campaign if they tried to rehash the muslim thing. What high level staff member would be so stupid?

Makes me wonder whether drudge just put it up and said it originated from the hillary camp. He owes his existence to taking down the Clinton's afterall.

[Bulldogcakes]

Here is the You Tube of her mocking:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UBuuR62hVAs&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UBuuR62hVAs&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

She happens to be 100% right about what she said, but she's just such a hideous public speaker.

[NewYorkDragons80]

McCain's anti-lobby record (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
Pretty much flies in the face of last week's nonsense... includes his rallying against telecommunications industry

[A.J.]

She happens to be 100% right about what she said, but she's just such a hideous public speaker.

Yeah but she can sure fill out a pantsuit though. Mmmmmm.....

[Zorro]

Yeah but she can sure fill out a pantsuit though. Mmmmmm.....

Same outfit my realtor wore

[ShowerBench]

"I'm just not one of those people."


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4gexyfVpFMU&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4gexyfVpFMU&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[JerseySean]

"I'm just not one of those people."


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4gexyfVpFMU&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4gexyfVpFMU&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Barack has nothing and he is a paper tiger.

[Zorro]

Barack has nothing and he is a paper tiger.

Paper or not he's gonna be President...

[ShowerBench]

Paper or not he's gonna be President...

He's failing to close the deal with half of DEMOCRATS, despite his superior speech reading ability and propping up by the entire mainstream media.

About a fourth of that probably translates into "pro-Hillary" support. The rest is anti-Obama and they aren't coming home in November. I'm a typical example. An Obama-McCain race boils down to a choice between keeping abortion a federal and not a state issue with Obama, or keeping nukes out of the hands of insane Iranians with McCain.

I would be tempted to vote for McCain because one of those issues is more important at this historical juncture, but I won't vote for a Republican. Clinton's position is the same as McCain's but it's all but over for her.

On traditional Democratic issues (poor/working class) Obama stands for exactly nothing. He's winning his primaries with independents and Republicans, and in almost all of them he loses with Democrats.

He will lose big states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and possibly California and he won't win any other 04 red states to cover those losses. The talking point that he "wins red states" banks on ignorance because it sounds good until you realize there are 10 Democrats in those states.

Nader 08

[Zorro]

He's failing to close the deal with half of DEMOCRATS, despite his superior speech reading ability and propping up by the entire mainstream media.

About a fourth of that probably translates into "pro-Hillary" support. The rest is anti-Obama and they aren't coming home in November. I'm a typical example. An Obama-McCain race boils down to a choice between keeping abortion a federal and not a state issue with Obama, or keeping nukes out of the hands of insane Iranians with McCain.

I would be tempted to vote for McCain because one of those issues is more important at this historical juncture, but I won't vote for a Republican. Clinton's position is the same as McCain's but it's all but over for her.

On traditional Democratic issues (poor/working class) Obama stands for exactly nothing. He's winning his primaries with independents and Republicans, and in almost all of them he loses with Democrats.

He will lose big states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and possibly California and he won't win any other 04 red states to cover those losses. The talking point that he "wins red states" banks on ignorance because it sounds good until you realize there are 10 Democrats in those states.

Nader 08

You remind me of all the Clinton haters of yore. Bitter that you're losing and incapable of admitting that your guy/gal got bested by someone you think is inferior.

[foodcourtdruide]

He's failing to close the deal with half of DEMOCRATS, despite his superior speech reading ability and propping up by the entire mainstream media.

About a fourth of that probably translates into "pro-Hillary" support. The rest is anti-Obama and they aren't coming home in November. I'm a typical example. An Obama-McCain race boils down to a choice between keeping abortion a federal and not a state issue with Obama, or keeping nukes out of the hands of insane Iranians with McCain.

I would be tempted to vote for McCain because one of those issues is more important at this historical juncture, but I won't vote for a Republican. Clinton's position is the same as McCain's but it's all but over for her.

On traditional Democratic issues (poor/working class) Obama stands for exactly nothing. He's winning his primaries with independents and Republicans, and in almost all of them he loses with Democrats.

He will lose big states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and possibly California and he won't win any other 04 red states to cover those losses. The talking point that he "wins red states" banks on ignorance because it sounds good until you realize there are 10 Democrats in those states.

Nader 08

Are you insinuating that Obama is pro-nuclear Iran?

[ShowerBench]

You remind me of all the Clinton haters of yore. Bitter that you're losing and incapable of admitting that your guy/gal got bested by someone you think is inferior.

OK I admit, my candidate is losing to someone who is inferior.

It's not the first time - Kerry lost to Bush too, and Bush got close enough to Gore to steal it.

But did Bush "best" Kerry and Gore?

Bush tapped into ignorance and emotion and convinced people to vote against their own self-interests and the interests of their country. He convinced enough voters that he was a fierce warrior and his war hero opponent was a windsurfing "fag."

Is whipping up reflexes based on ignorance/emotion or tapping into hero worship - combined with enjoying a mainstream news media propping you up and tearing down your opponent - "besting"? Probably a semantical argument.

Ironically, in '00 Bush campaigned on "changing the tone in Warshinton."

[ShowerBench]

Are you insinuating that Obama is pro-nuclear Iran?

I don't think Obama has a position yet. Currently his position is that he would negotiate with Iranian, North Korean, and Cuban leaders/dictators with no preconditions.

He can't talk about 9/11 without a "but," and without admitting Islamic dirtbags want to attack us and will be able to do it on a large scale in a matter of years if we have a weak president (which I believe Barry Obama to be).

Terrorism is a real issue. It dominated Clinton's transition talks with Bush (Clinton said Bush didn't want to hear it and kept bringing the conversation back to "Iraq").

Obama is soft.

[epo]

OK I admit, my candidate is losing to someone who is inferior.


That's funny. I would think that a known-quantity politician running under the most famous political "brand" (Clinton) in the world, who has the great political machine and the gigantic lead in the fall would be the favorite.

Any politician that would lose that advantage would seem to be "inferior" to me.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I would be tempted to vote for McCain because one of those issues is more important at this historical juncture, but I won't vote for a Republican.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/46/200px-Capture58.jpg

[ShowerBench]

That's funny. I would think that a known-quantity politician running under the most famous political "brand" (Clinton) in the world, who has the great political machine and the gigantic lead in the fall would be the favorite.

Any politician that would lose that advantage would seem to be "inferior" to me.

Again, this country's voters elected Bush. After 9/11, Bush had a 90% approval rating. Why? No reason, other than that the mainstream corporate media machine is more powerful than any individual's "political machine" - we saw that demonstrated unequivocally in 00, 04, and 08.

Bush had a 90% approval rating. That includes most Democrats - the same ones voting now.

The herd syndrome is powerful in America. It operates in a year of economic and foreign policy crisis when a rational electorate would be looking for the candidate with proven effectiveness in solving both of those types of crises, not a blank slate who stands for nothing but reads speeches more gooder.

Even Obama agrees. He said this right after being elected to the Senate in 04:

I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you're applying for a job ...uh… and I think that, if I were to serioiusly consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there's some people who might be comfortable doing that, uh, but I'm not one of those people."

[epo]

Again, this country's voters elected Bush. After 9/11, Bush had a 90% approval rating. Why? No reason, other than that the mainstream corporate media machine is more powerful than any individual's "political machine" - we saw that demonstrated unequivocally in 00, 04, and 08.

Bush had a 90% approval rating. That includes most Democrats - the same ones voting now.

The herd syndrome is powerful in America. It operates in a year of economic and foreign policy crisis when a rational electorate would be looking for the candidate with proven effectiveness in solving both of those types of crises, not a blank slate who stands for nothing but reads speeches more gooder.

Even Obama agrees. He said this right after being elected to the Senate in 04:

I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you're applying for a job ...uh… and I think that, if I were to serioiusly consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there's some people who might be comfortable doing that, uh, but I'm not one of those people."

So you aren't admitting that Clinton has run a horrifically bad campaign?

[HBox]

Again, this country's voters elected Bush. After 9/11, Bush had a 90% approval rating. Why? No reason, other than that the mainstream corporate media machine is more powerful than any individual's "political machine" - we saw that demonstrated unequivocally in 00, 04, and 08.

Bush had a 90% approval rating. That includes most Democrats - the same ones voting now.

The herd syndrome is powerful in America. It operates in a year of economic and foreign policy crisis when a rational electorate would be looking for the candidate with proven effectiveness in solving both of those types of crises, not a blank slate who stands for nothing but reads speeches more gooder.

Even Obama agrees. He said this right after being elected to the Senate in 04:
I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you're applying for a job ...uh… and I think that, if I were to serioiusly consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there's some people who might be comfortable doing that, uh, but I'm not one of those people."

I hope one day we can all attain the level of your intellect. I'd like to but I spend most of my day with my thumb up my ass. When it isn't I'm just taking constant trips to McDonalds to stuff my face. And when I'm not doing that I'm waiting for the people on TV to tell me who to vote for because not only am I incapable of forming my own opinions, I am incapable of even researching candidates to get the information I would need to form those opinions.

[ShowerBench]

So you aren't admitting that Clinton has run a horrifically bad campaign?

There's room for criticism - too much attention to early polling so taking a Super Tuesday blowout for granted - and not recognizing that the mainstream media wouldn't report that she won Super Tuesday, which she did, but would focus on the story that helped Obama (expectations, which ironically enough he FAILED to beat with a Mass victory).

The second criticism is that they ran scared when the mainstream media started trashing Bill for doing something none of us would have noticed if we hadn't been "helped" by the MSM. They should have given the MSM the finger, and kept Bill out there front and center, letting the media hysterics over it run their course.

But as you see, both of those criticisms are about not sufficiently anticipating the degree to which they would be attacked and he would be propped up - or the effectiveness of that coverage on the mush-minds.

Does it equal a "horrifically bad campaign"? Not by a long shot. They've run a pretty good campaign - she hasn't put a foot wrong that I can think of. But once again - a good campaign is no match for a corrupt news media. That's why we've had two terms of Bush and that's why a blank slate with no proven ability beyond reading speeches is beating a proven candidate to replace him.

[ShowerBench]

I hope one day we can all attain the level of your intellect. I'd like to but I spend most of my day with my thumb up my ass. When it isn't I'm just taking constant trips to McDonalds to stuff my face. And when I'm not doing that I'm waiting for the people on TV to tell me who to vote for because not only am I incapable of forming my own opinions, I am incapable of even researching candidates to get the information I would need to form those opinions.

OK but what do you make of Obama's comments when asked if he would run?

Not only did he say he wouldn't because he "believes in knowing what you're doing" but that he's "not that kind of person." See, that's Obama's problem...he always has to go on and on about his awesomeness instead of addressing the issue.

He admitted he wouldn't know what he was doing as president, also has admitted he was one "kind of person" in 04 but is now a different "kind of person."

That would bother anyone who isn't buying a candidate solely on the cult of personality they've been spoonfed by their news media.

But I'm open minded to anyone who can justify the comments with the Obama myth.

[badmonkey]

C'mon guys. let's keep this friendly...we don't want it to get ugly. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html)

[HBox]

OK but what do you make of Obama's comments when asked if he would run?

Not only did he say he wouldn't because he "believes in knowing what you're doing" but that he's "not that kind of person." See, that's Obama's problem...he always has to go on and on about his awesomeness instead of addressing the issue.

He admitted he wouldn't know what he was doing as president, also has admitted he was one "kind of person" in 04 but is now a different "kind of person."

That would bother anyone who isn't buying a candidate solely on the cult of personality they've been spoonfed by their news media.

But I'm open minded to anyone who can justify the comments with the Obama myth.

So are you saying he's a flip flopper? Have you yet realized how much you and the Clinton campaign sound EXACTLY like the Bush presidential campaigns?

But to answer your question, yes, I do think people can change and what they think can change over the course of a few years.

[HBox]

There's room for criticism - too much attention to early polling so taking a Super Tuesday blowout for granted - and not recognizing that the mainstream media wouldn't report that she won Super Tuesday, which she did, but would focus on the story that helped Obama (expectations, which ironically enough he FAILED to beat with a Mass victory).

The second criticism is that they ran scared when the mainstream media started trashing Bill for doing something none of us would have noticed if we hadn't been "helped" by the MSM. They should have given the MSM the finger, and kept Bill out there front and center, letting the media hysterics over it run their course.

But as you see, both of those criticisms are about not sufficiently anticipating the degree to which they would be attacked and he would be propped up - or the effectiveness of that coverage on the mush-minds.

Does it equal a "horrifically bad campaign"? Not by a long shot. They've run a pretty good campaign - she hasn't put a foot wrong that I can think of. But once again - a good campaign is no match for a corrupt news media. That's why we've had two terms of Bush and that's why a blank slate with no proven ability beyond reading speeches is beating a proven candidate to replace him.

This proves my point. This sounds exactly like the "reality based" of the Bush campaign! Hillary won Super Tuesday? By winning less states, less voters and less delegates she wins? This is something Bush would say.

Bashing the media coverage, blaming them? Right out of the RNC playbook.

Not admitting she's run a bad campaign? Complete self-delusion. Where have we seen this for the last 7 years? And some more complaining about the media thrown in just for the hell of it.

[epo]

Bad time for a Freudian slip.....Bill Clinton: "if you elect me (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=53014)".

[ShowerBench]

This proves my point. This sounds exactly like the "reality based" of the Bush campaign! Hillary won Super Tuesday? By winning less states, less voters and less delegates she wins? This is something Bush would say.


She won the big states (with PRIMARIES as opposed to tiny selective caucuses). And she also won more votes:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/super_tuesday_the_most_interes.html

Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)

Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)

[DolaMight]

This proves my point. This sounds exactly like the "reality based" of the Bush campaign! Hillary won Super Tuesday? By winning less states, less voters and less delegates she wins? This is something Bush would say.

Bashing the media coverage, blaming them? Right out of the RNC playbook.

Not admitting she's run a bad campaign? Complete self-delusion. Where have we seen this for the last 7 years? And some more complaining about the media thrown in just for the hell of it.

Hillary's defiantly in trouble, desperate and seeds a new gimmick. Crying doesn't work anymore, she'll have pull a hollywood size move, the accidental commando crotch shot while exiting a limo. That'll get those polls to rise.

[HBox]

She won the big states (with PRIMARIES as opposed to tiny selective caucuses). And she also won more votes:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/super_tuesday_the_most_interes.html

Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)

Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)

Point taken. I remember something different.

However, in regards to what I bolded, why was there no concern about the supposedly undemocratic process of caucuses until it hurt Hillary? Just as there was no concern about the delegates in Michigan and Florida until Hillary needed them.

[epo]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMlrSG1xb5k&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMlrSG1xb5k&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[NewYorkDragons80]

NEVER count the Clinton brothers out. (Has anybody else noticed themselves using the term Clinton Brothers in everyday language?) Here's a pretty good article on the Clinton campaign and its underestimated viability (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/02/is_it_over_1.html).
The jist is that if Hilary wins Ohio and Texas, she can make a legit case for Florida and Michigan, especially if adding those votes leaves her with the popular vote in the Democratic primaries.
In that case, she could try to paint Obama as a Democratic version of George W. Bush - somebody who lost the popular vote but nevertheless "won" by virtue of the quirks of an outdated, unfair system that is still around because nobody cared enough to get rid of it before it created trouble.
(a) She would have to win more than 54.7% of the remaining vote to take a lead in the count that excludes Florida and Michigan.

(b) She would have to win more than 53.2% of the remaining vote to take a lead in the count that excludes Michigan.

(c) She would have to win more than 51.5% of the remaining vote to take a lead in the count that excludes nothing.
NEVER count the Clintons out

[epo]

She won the big states (with PRIMARIES as opposed to tiny selective caucuses). And she also won more votes:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/super_tuesday_the_most_interes.html

Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)

Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)

But she won less states and less delegates. Hence she lost a major test that was setup in the favor of the front-runner.

[NewYorkDragons80]

However, in regards to what I bolded, why was there no concern about the supposedly undemocratic process of caucuses until it hurt Hillary? Just as there was no concern about the delegates in Michigan and Florida until Hillary needed them.
There was always concerns, they just weren't the hallmark of her campaign they were now. Priorities have changed, but Clinton always was pretty adamant that those were her delegates and she was gonna get em, regardless of her lead

[ShowerBench]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMlrSG1xb5k&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMlrSG1xb5k&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I think Bill had what, THREE terms as chief executive experience? That's a little better than one year in a legislative body.

[ShowerBench]

Point taken. I remember something different.

However, in regards to what I bolded, why was there no concern about the supposedly undemocratic process of caucuses until it hurt Hillary? Just as there was no concern about the delegates in Michigan and Florida until Hillary needed them.

Well she had enough concern to get her name on the ballot in Michigan where the other candidates could have done the same thing. And I think she won more votes in Florida than combined votes for Obama in Super Tues caucuses.

Also, Obama played the game too. He refused to concede Nevada even though she won more votes because of a "delegate" tie

[Bulldogcakes]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMlrSG1xb5k&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMlrSG1xb5k&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

In his case he actually ran something, namely a state. He could make that case far more credibly than Obama can. Obama will have to find ways of overcoming his greatest weakness, the "experience" charge sticks to him far too easily. And its not even just his resume (which is very light), his rhetoric and speeches have been knocked as full of fluff and without much substance. Full of platitudes and lacking details. Thats a sign of inexperience as well.

[epo]

Well she had enough concern to get her name on the ballot in Michigan where the other candidates could have done the same thing. And I think she won more votes in Florida than combined votes for Obama in Super Tues caucuses.

Also, Obama played the game too. He refused to concede Nevada even though she won more votes because of a "delegate" tie

Just face it. Her stances in Michigan and Florida are those of political convenience.

[HBox]

In his case he actually ran something, namely a state. He could make that case far more credibly than Obama can. Obama will have to find ways of overcoming his greatest weakness, the "experience" charge sticks to him far too easily. And its not even just his resume (which is very light), his rhetoric and speeches have been knocked as full of fluff and without much substance. Full of platitudes and lacking details. Thats a sign of inexperience as well.

Again, if you don't know what he stands for when listening to him speak, THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH, you simply AREN'T LISTENING. And if you are hoping for policy specifics, 1. It's not the time yet and 2. That's not the way to get people excited for your campaign, fucking putting everyone to sleep explaining the benefits of non-mandated health coverage as opposed to mandated health coverage.

[Zorro]

Hillary's defiantly in trouble, desperate and seeds a new gimmick. Crying doesn't work anymore, she'll have pull a hollywood size move, the accidental commando crotch shot while exiting a limo. That'll get those polls to rise.

So I guess your whole Hillary thing boils down to... if we were all as smart as you...

[badmonkey]

Hillary's defiantly in trouble, desperate and seeds a new gimmick. Crying doesn't work anymore, she'll have pull a hollywood size move, the accidental commando crotch shot while exiting a limo. That'll get those polls to rise.

The next tears we see from Hillary....






















will be real.

[Bulldogcakes]

In his case he actually ran something, namely a state. He could make that case far more credibly than Obama can. Obama will have to find ways of overcoming his greatest weakness, the "experience" charge sticks to him far too easily. And its not even just his resume (which is very light), his rhetoric and speeches have been knocked as full of fluff and without much substance. Full of platitudes and lacking details. Thats a sign of inexperience as well.

Again, if you don't know what he stands for when listening to him speak, THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH, you simply AREN'T LISTENING. And if you are hoping for policy specifics, 1. It's not the time yet and 2. That's not the way to get people excited for your campaign, fucking putting everyone to sleep explaining the benefits of non-mandated health coverage as opposed to mandated health coverage.

H, you can get mad at me for saying it, but its still his greatest weakness.

Also, reread what you just posted. You answered something I never said, and then followed with saying something to the effect of "telling people what you actually will do doesn't matter, and its "too soon" to tell us. He has your vote, and yet you don't know what his actual agenda will be. This is approaching Jim Jones territory.

[HBox]

H, you can get mad at me for saying it, but its still his greatest weakness.

Also, reread what you just posted. You answered something I never said, and then followed with saying something to the effect of "telling people what you actually will do doesn't matter, and its "too soon" to tell us. He has your vote, and yet you don't know what his actual agenda will be. This is approaching Jim Jones territory.

No. Read more carefully. I said I know what he wants to do. I don't know specifically how he plans to do everything he says he wants to do, nor do I know how anyone running will implement most of what they stand for. THAT'S what I am talking about. The SPECIFICS.

[HBox]

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/1523/66707638wm0.jpg

[TooLowBrow]

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/1523/66707638wm0.jpg

hillary has never looked more sexy

[Bulldogcakes]

No. Read more carefully. I said I know what he wants to do. I don't know specifically how he plans to do everything he says he wants to do, nor do I know how anyone running will implement most of what they stand for. THAT'S what I am talking about. The SPECIFICS.

Exactly, you support him and yet you have no idea what he will actually plans on doing once he's in office. In general you feel like you know him, trust him, but specifically you have nothing.

So pretty much he can do whatever he wants once in office, and all he has to do is just say "Thats not what I meant by that" when someone calls him out on contradicting some speech he gave. I don't think its too much to ask for someone who's wants to hold the world's most powerful office to tell you what they're actually planning on doing. Hillary certainly gave specifics. Ad nauseum, but at least you know what she planned on doing.

And yes, he will get clobbered once (or if) he does get specific. Welcome to the real world of politics. You have to be able to defend yourself and your plans for the country.

[HBox]

Exactly, you support him and yet you have no idea what he will actually plans on doing once he's in office. In general you feel like you know him, trust him, but specifically you have nothing.

So pretty much he can do whatever he wants once in office, and all he has to do is just say "Thats not what I meant by that" when someone calls him out on contradicting some speech he gave. I don't think its too much to ask for someone who's wants to hold the world's most powerful office to tell you what they're actually planning on doing. Hillary certainly gave specifics. Ad nauseum, but at least you know what she planned on doing.

And yes, he will get clobbered once (or if) he does get specific. Welcome to the real world of politics. You have to be able to defend yourself and your plans for the country.

Are you illiterate?

[ralphbxny]

Are you illiterate?

He is just angry and making a point. Bulldogs are very tough when they get going!

[keithy_19]

He is just angry and making a point. Bulldogs are very tough when they get going!

Not as tough as cockapoo's.

http://vipfibers.com/store/images/Cockapoo.jpg

[Bulldogcakes]

Not as tough as cockapoo's.

http://vipfibers.com/store/images/Cockapoo.jpg

You don't actually have to walk that thing around the neighborhood, do you?

Poor guy.

[keithy_19]

You don't actually have to walk that thing around the neighborhood, do you?

Poor guy.

It's not my cockapoo. My cockapoo is more manly. He enjoys wearing hats and such and is quite the girl getter. Walking Max the cockapoo is a treat.

[epo]

Complaining and referencing SNL? Come on Hillary....

Is your heart even in this?

[AKA]

She may have a point about the media being too soft on Obama, but she looked small making it.

[TooLowBrow]

so, i have verizon fios?
and,:down: no debate coverage on any of its channels?

[Bulldogcakes]

Clinton Lead Slipping in Ohio (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ohio/ohio_democratic_presidential_primary)
The latest Rasmussen Reports poll shows Clinton earning 48% of the Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary vote. That’s unchanged from a week ago. Barack Obama’s support has grown to 43%. That’s up from 40% last week and 38% the week before.

Overall, Clinton’s lead is now just five percentage points in Ohio, down from an eight-point advantage last week and fourteen points two weeks ago.

[HBox]

so, i have verizon fios?
and,:down: no debate coverage on any of its channels?

Did you try MSNBC?

[Bulldogcakes]

Obama starts to pull away in Texas. (http://www.slate.com/id/2175496)


In Texas, Barack Obama is either tied or leading in almost all of the recent polls and has finally passed Hillary Clinton in Pollster.com's poll average. Public Policy Polling (PDF) has the two candidates tied but reports that Obama leads by seven points among white voters and that a large chunk of Clinton's support comes from Latino voters. SurveyUSA has Obama in the lead by four points and dominating among 18- to 49-year-olds. CNN also has him up by four but doesn't show much movement from Obama's numbers a week ago.

Before Super Tuesday, some polls showed Obama down by as much as 18 points. He now leads Clinton by more than three points in the poll average. SurveyUSA's numbers may have one silver lining for Clinton: Twenty-three percent of voters say they could still change their mind, and the plurality of them are Obama supporters.


I think Bill was quoted this week as saying Hillary needs both.

If she gets a split, does she quit?

[TooLowBrow]

Did you try MSNBC?

we dont get that channel

instead, the channel that it should be is showing 'deal or no deal' ughhh

[HBox]

Obama starts to pull away in Texas. (http://www.slate.com/id/2175496)




I think Bill was quoted this week as saying Hillary needs both.

If she gets a split, does she quit?

He was. Then the campaign backtracked and said Texas didn't matter.

[HBox]

we dont get that channel

instead, the channel that it should be is showing 'deal or no deal' ughhh

THEN NO DEBATE FOR YOU!

Why doesn't FIOS get MSNBC?

[TooLowBrow]

THEN NO DEBATE FOR YOU!

Why doesn't FIOS get MSNBC?

i dont know
who'se the PD for verizon?

[sailor]

we dont get that channel

instead, the channel that it should be is showing 'deal or no deal' ughhh

84 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Verizon_FiOS_channels)

[Bulldogcakes]

we dont get that channel

instead, the channel that it should be is showing 'deal or no deal' ughhh

Possibly the dumbest game show ever invented. No strategy involved, no knowledge of trivia or anything else required.
It's just about greed and pure dumb luck.

Sort of like working on Wall Street.

[epo]

Possibly the dumbest game show ever invented. No strategy involved, no knowledge of trivia or anything else required.
It's just about greed and pure dumb luck.

Sort of like working on Wall Street.

That's our entertainment. Ladies and gentlemen.....Keno with Howie Mandell!

[badmonkey]

Possibly the dumbest game show ever invented. No strategy involved, no knowledge of trivia or anything else required.
It's just about greed and pure dumb luck.

Sort of like working on Wall Street.

http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/95/79/0000039579_20070508125104.jpg

[HBox]

OK. Maybe MSNBC is in Obama's pocket. At the debate they ask Obama about political hyperbole, and went to show a clip of him saying something. I don't know what it was they were going to play because instead they played the clip of Hillary mocking Obama and then let him respond to it.

[epo]

OK. Maybe MSNBC is in Obama's pocket. At the debate they ask Obama about political hyperbole, and went to show a clip of him saying something. I don't know what it was they were going to play because instead they played the clip of Hillary mocking Obama and then let him respond to it.

Somebody in the truck fucked up really bad.

[HBox]

Somebody in the truck fucked up really bad.

Where they really fucked up is just letting Obama respond to it. If that was meant for Hillary to respond to why not do that and wait until the Obama clip is ready and then go at him?

[Zorro]

Somebody in the truck fucked up really bad.

Story of my life...

[epo]

Where they really fucked up is just letting Obama respond to it. If that was meant for Hillary to respond to why not do that and wait until the Obama clip is ready and then go at him?

At that point the cat is out of the bag and Obama is on the point. If they turned it to Hillary afterward she isn't really on the point, which I would guess is the point of the video.

It's a split second decision by Williams caused by the fuck-up.

[HBox]

Well they made up for it by focusing so much time on Farrakhan. Of course Hillary fucked it up big time by going too far, almost getting booed, and then gave an opening to Obama which he slammed in her face.

[epo]

Well they made up for it by focusing so much time on Farrakhan. Of course Hillary fucked it up big time by going too far, almost getting booed, and then gave an opening to Obama which he slammed in her face.

She kind of pulled a Joe Biden, where she just had to keep talking even though the point didn't matter to her. Interesting.................

[HBox]

I KNEW she didn't know his name!

[DiabloSammich]

She kind of pulled a Joe Biden, where she just had to keep talking even though the point didn't matter to her. Interesting.................



Somebody say Biden?

http://www.voteorpeopledie.com/images/can/biden.jpg


The smile that could change the world.

[HBox]

I am honestly surprised how bad Hillary came out looking on the Russia question. She obviously didn't know the new President's name. This isn't fucking Namibia, it's RUSSIA! Beyond that, she didn't say much of substance. She sounded just like I would if asked about Russia in history class, just spouting random facts that you remember but not saying anything of substance.

[epo]

I am honestly surprised how bad Hillary came out looking on the Russia question. She obviously didn't know the new President's name. This isn't fucking Namibia, it's RUSSIA! Beyond that, she didn't say much of substance. She sounded just like I would if asked about Russia in history class, just spouting random facts that you remember but not saying anything of substance.

Between Russia, getting the first question & SNL it wasn't her greatest showing.

[ShowerBench]

Well they made up for it by focusing so much time on Farrakhan.

The Farrakhan question is going to damage Obama in a general election. Jewish voters don't like or trust him and with good reasons, starting with Pastor Wright. It's under the radar but it's being discussed where it matters and will make a difference.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/obamas_nation_o.html

[keithy_19]

The Farrakhan question is going to damage Obama in a general election. Jewish voters don't like or trust him and with good reasons, starting with Pastor Wright. It's under the radar but it's being discussed where it matters and will make a difference.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/obamas_nation_o.html

Wasn't Obama shying away from that endorsement?

[TheMojoPin]

Wasn't Obama shying away from that endorsement?

There's no excuse for him not too. Farrakhan has a fraction of the pull he had in the black community, if that.

[Doomstone]

The Farrakhan question is going to damage Obama in a general election. Jewish voters don't like or trust him and with good reasons, starting with Pastor Wright. It's under the radar but it's being discussed where it matters and will make a difference.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/obamas_nation_o.html

Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html)

So this is the type of source that "matters" to you?

[Recyclerz]

The thing that I find most interesting about Obama is that there doesn't appear to be the slightest gap in his campaign messages and memes and the way he presents himself in all of his public appearances (at least the ones I've observed.) I think this is at least as important as the soaring rhetoric of his speeches. Although I admit I've drunk the Obama-ade and may be biased, I think that he comes across as somebody who has thought through the issues and has tied them into a coherent whole and can not only defend but also effectively advocate his positions. (Dare I say he in Bennington-like in this regard.)

I assert that he is the most authentic and "presidential" candidate for President that I may have ever seen.

[keithy_19]

Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html)

So this is the type of source that "matters" to you?

She sure doesn't like muslims.

[epo]

The thing that I find most interesting about Obama is that there doesn't appear to be the slightest gap in his campaign messages and memes and the way he presents himself in all of his public appearances (at least the ones I've observed.) I think this is at least as important as the soaring rhetoric of his speeches. Although I admit I've drunk the Obama-ade and may be biased, I think that he comes across as somebody who has thought through the issues and has tied them into a coherent whole and can not only defend but also effectively advocate his positions. (Dare I say he in Bennington-like in this regard.)

I assert that he is the most authentic and "presidential" candidate for President that I may have ever seen.

You are right about that. In the communications business, we call this "platforming" or putting issues into "buckets". This explains why his messages are very consistent and he has the ability to speak broadly...which interestingly enough is what he gets criticized for.

Of course that's funny....as I thought being prepared and organized was a good thing. This has allowed his great consistency throughout the campaign no matter the format.

[Tenbatsuzen]

You are right about that. In the communications business, we call this "platforming" or putting issues into "buckets".

I'ma gonna fucking kill you.

I HATE THOSE GODDAMN BUZZWORDS.

[epo]

I'ma gonna fucking kill you.

I HATE THOSE GODDAMN BUZZWORDS.

The irony is that I do this all day and it makes perfect sense. It's probably the first trend that has ever made sense to me in my entire career.

[Tenbatsuzen]

The irony is that I do this all day and it makes perfect sense. It's probably the first trend that has ever made sense to me in my entire career.

Do you use the word "robust"? Because if you do, your entrails are gonna be hung from the bleachers at Lambeau.

[HBox]

Do you use the word "robust"? Because if you do, your entrails are gonna be hung from the bleachers at Lambeau.

You blue sky that proposal. You are creating a whole new paradigm of vengeance. I can see that you are a self starter.

[scottinnj]

Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html)

So this is the type of source that "matters" to you?

NOOOOOO!
NOT AGAIN!!!

I'm Tired of this Lie. BOOOOOOO!

Showerbench, you don't believe this shit do you? I'm thinking you don't, from past posts, but how can this website possibly override the truth?

[Tenbatsuzen]

You blue sky that proposal. You are creating a whole new paradigm of vengeance. I can see that you are a self starter.

Don't even get me started on YOUR entrails, boy.

[epo]

Do you use the word "robust"? Because if you do, your entrails are gonna be hung from the bleachers at Lambeau.

Robust is gay. Buckets are a very useful means to organize executive-level communications.

The bleachers at Lambeau are already a mess......

[sailor]

I am honestly surprised how bad Hillary came out looking on the Russia question. She obviously didn't know the new President's name. This isn't fucking Namibia, it's RUSSIA! Beyond that, she didn't say much of substance. She sounded just like I would if asked about Russia in history class, just spouting random facts that you remember but not saying anything of substance.

but what did obama say? "what she said." that's really quibbling to go after that answer of hers.

[HBox]

but what did obama say? "what she said." that's really quibbling to go after that answer of hers.

I'm not saying either of them were impressive. But for the candidate touting experience to whiff so badly and not even know the name of the new President is bad. Real bad. When she didn't know the name he should have asked Obama if he knew. In that way he got off the hook.

[ShowerBench]

Showerbench, you don't believe this shit do you? I'm thinking you don't, from past posts, but how can this website possibly override the truth?

I don't believe the "Once a Muslim..." characterization because I don't think Obama is a Muslim. But there is ground between being a "Muslim" and being soft on terrorism and anti-Semites. I do think Obama has problems with the latter issues and I think he tried to straddle the line tonight.

He tried to finesse it and avoid offending Farrakhan followers, and that's how it came off - as someone trying to finesse it and avoid offending Farrakhan followers.

The link to Schlussel was provided to address electoral problems he'll have by trying to walk those lines.

At some point you have to offend someone when you stand for something, and Farrakhan and Iranian/Cuban/Korean dictators are a good place to start.

Some would say these are small differences between the two candidates, but the negotiating with Iran difference is a general election dealbreaker for me and I suspect "enough" swing voters.

[scottinnj]

I don't believe the "Once a Muslim..." characterization because I don't think Obama is a Muslim. But there is ground between being a "Muslim" and being soft on terrorism and anti-Semites. I do think Obama has problems with the latter issues and I think he tried to straddle the line tonight.

He tried to finesse it and avoid offending Farrakhan followers, and that's how it came off - as someone trying to finesse it and avoid offending Farrakhan followers.

The link to Schlussel was provided to address electoral problems he'll have by trying to walk those lines.

At some point you have to offend someone when you stand for something, and Farrakhan and Iranian/Cuban/Korean dictators are a good place to start.

Some would say these are small differences between the two candidates, but the negotiating with Iran difference is a general election dealbreaker for me and I suspect "enough" swing voters.



Got it. Thank you sweetie.

[Tenbatsuzen]

I'm not saying either of them were impressive. But for the candidate touting experience to whiff so badly and not even know the name of the new President is bad. Real bad. When she didn't know the name he should have asked Obama if he knew. In that way he got off the hook.

If there was any justice in the world, Obama would have channeled Sam Jackson and said, "Bitch, the man asked YOU the question!"

[scottinnj]

Robust is gay. Buckets are a very useful means to organize executive-level communications.

The bleachers at Lambeau are already a mess......

Hee Hee Hee.....you said "buckets" :lol:

[sailor]

I'm not saying either of them were impressive. But for the candidate touting experience to whiff so badly and not even know the name of the new President is bad. Real bad. When she didn't know the name he should have asked Obama if he knew. In that way he got off the hook.

i was thinking they should have gone to obama with that as well. i do think she knew the name, but had a bit of trouble with it. to me, not a big deal, and i've never liked hillary at all.

[epo]

Hee Hee Hee.....you said "buckets" :lol:

I also got a mod quote. Damn you Fallon!

[scottinnj]

Fallon is a Mod Quoting God.....look at mine! Look at mine!

[ShowerBench]

What is astounding is that she's getting above 30 right now considering the media bias - much less 46%.

National polls don't mean much at this point, but everyone paying attention has been encouraged to jump on the love train. There is obvious resistance by a lot of voters. Why?

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/022608DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

[sailor]

Fallon is a Mod Quoting God.....look at mine! Look at mine!

you're welcome.

[epo]

i was thinking they should have gone to obama with that as well. i do think she knew the name, but had a bit of trouble with it. to me, not a big deal, and i've never liked hillary at all.

I thought it was classic Russert....test your "strength" just as well as your weaknesses.

[epo]

What is astounding is that she's getting above 30 right now considering the media bias - much less 46%.

National polls don't mean much at this point, but everyone paying attention has been encouraged to jump on the love train. There is obvious resistance by a lot of voters. Why?



This whining about the media is really embarassing. Luckily I won't have to listen to it after March 5th.

[scottinnj]

This whining about the media is really embarassing. Luckily I won't have to listen to it after March 5th.

No you won't..........
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/nucleus/media/21/20070530-lohanlimbaugh.jpg
.........oh Lindsay, say it ain't so!

[ShowerBench]

This whining about the media is really embarassing. Luckily I won't have to listen to it after March 5th.

Come on...It's so obvious it's been mainstreamed and featured on SNL. You know it and I know it.

It's even more obvious than Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry. You knew just how obscene it was back then when Karl Rove said he thought "we've been treated pretty fairly overall" by the media. Well it's worse now.

And you will have to listen to it after March 5th until election day - from Obama.

[scottinnj]

you're welcome.

It was you? God Bless the sailor!

[sailor]

It was you? God Bless the sailor!

i pointed it out (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1610908) to the appropriate people. it was the most blatantly obvious mod-quote i've ever seen.

[scottinnj]

Come on...It's so obvious it's been mainstreamed and featured on SNL. You know it and I know it.

It's even more obvious than Bush-Gore and Bush-Kerry. You knew just how obscene it was back then when Karl Rove said he thought "we've been treated pretty fairly overall" by the media. Well it's worse now.

And you will have to listen to it after March 5th until election day - from Obama.

I disagree..I've been paying a lot of attention to the liberal talk hosts, and they haven't complained about it at all, nor have they been biased up until the past week when Hillary unleashed the hounds. I have seen legitimate complaints and questions from the media regarding the way Hillary has run her campaign. I have also seen a vetting of her accusations against Obama being "inexperienced" and wrong on the issues. I just don't see bias.

[scottinnj]

i pointed it out (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1610908) to the appropriate people. it was the most blatantly obvious mod-quote i've ever seen.

Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot about that. I get a mod quote while bashing the Phelps. Yay me!

(Thanks again sailor)

[A.J.]

So you aren't admitting that Clinton has run a horrifically bad campaign?

And to think that Bob Shrum had nothing to do with this one.

[A.J.]

There's no excuse for him not too. Farrakhan has a fraction of the pull he had in the black community, if that.

He's got some pull in the UVA community.

http://www.nmnathletics.com.edgesuite.net/pics14/200/HJ/HJMBEHVYVSBGSWE.20070910163050.JPG

[A.J.]

Fallon is a Mod Quoting God.....look at mine! Look at mine!

you're welcome.

It was you? God Bless the sailor!

i pointed it out (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1610908) to the appropriate people. it was the most blatantly obvious mod-quote i've ever seen.

You're welcome.

[epo]

And to think that Bob Shrum had nothing to do with this one.

Sadly enough you are right. However this will mark the end of Mark Penn's career.

[JerseySean]

Sadly enough you are right. However this will mark the end of Mark Penn's career.

Penn is one of the best pollsters in the country. His polling firm will still get the majority of house and senate candidates as well as the DCCC and DSC and DNC contracts. What are you talking about?

[epo]

Penn is one of the best pollsters in the country. His polling firm will still get the majority of house and senate candidates as well as the DCCC and DSC and DNC contracts. What are you talking about?

Exactly what great stuff has Hillary paid him $5 million for so far? David Axelrod has whipped his ass at every turn.

[JerseySean]

Exactly what great stuff has Hillary paid him $5 million for so far? David Axelrod has whipped his ass at every turn.

I dont blame Penn for the Clinton campaign. I blame the Obama wave and the media getting behind. Penn did 58 House races and 9 Senate races in 2006. He isnt campaign manager material, but he can run and interprit polls and advise based on that like noone else on the Dem side. He is the Dems version of the GOP's Arthur Finkelstien

[ShowerBench]

I dont blame Penn for the Clinton campaign. I blame the Obama wave and the media getting behind.

Agree, you can't evaluate these campaigns relative to each other because the media influence is inextricable.

My sense is Clinton ran a well above-average campaign. This is based in part on my own subjective experience - I was ridiculing her two years ago and saying she would be "Deaned" out of the race before it started.

Somewhere along the line she hired a voice/drama coach that improved her superficial performance enormously. Once that issue was resolved I analyzed her positions and they passed with flying colors. Finally one day I not only didn't hate her but kind of liked her alright.

This is probably the story for MOST of her support and who else do you credit but the campaign?

[TheMojoPin]

I am impressed at how the catch-all boogeyman of "media bias" has caught on.

It couldn't possibly have anything to do wih the noticeable contrast of Obama running a relatively "attack-free" campaign and Hillary alternating between running an attack machine or complaining as loudly as possible at how things are "unfair."

[epo]

The latest Pennsylvania poll from Quinnipac is in: (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1148)

Clinton 49 (52)
Obama - 43 (36)

So she has a 6 point lead today in Pennsylvania after holding a 16-point lead there two weeks ago. Hmm...where have I seen this trend?.....

Everywhere!

[scottinnj]

My sense is Clinton ran a well above-average campaign.

Agreed. I was figuring on her going negative the second someone got within 30 points of her lead. She proved me wrong. She didn't go negative until she was behind by a million popular votes.

Fool me once, shame on me............

[scottinnj]

You're welcome.

Thank you too, A.J. This is the coolest place ever. :clap:

[thejives]

Ha! Showerbench is fun to read.
The media ... the media...

That's part of the campaign. You have press people, you allow access, you hold impressive events to get your message across. And if you had a good voice coach who improved your elocution so drastically (as has been asserted), then maybe you keep them on a little longer to see if you can come off human.

Or you lose... and blame the media and states that don't matter.

I have nothing but respect for Hillary Clinton and her public service, but her army of rationalizers are just too pathetic for words.

[epo]

It looks like the general election sparring started today:

McCain attacks Obama on Iraq:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hudBow6xX3Q&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hudBow6xX3Q&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Obama strikes back:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q2pXElHV6FA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q2pXElHV6FA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

It was cool to see it about the issues, and not some nonsense about "not being brave enough while a POW" or "his middle name is Hussein and Michelle wears a burkha at their summer home in Libya" bullshit.

And McCain's rebuke of that Chicago talk show host was well on point. I felt good about Obama's rebuke of Farrakhan too.

I'm really looking forward to this summer.

[HBox]

No Bloomberg run. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23379960/)

[JerseySean]

Exactly what great stuff has Hillary paid him $5 million for so far? David Axelrod has whipped his ass at every turn.

From a polling perspective, he is the best. His numbers are ALWAYS DEAD ON! I dont know that he should be running a campaign, his career certainly isnt over like you said

[JerseySean]

It looks like the general election sparring started today:

Obama strikes back:



Is it me or does he sound too much like the Rock. He's ready to layeth the smacketh down

[AKA]

The latest Pennsylvania poll from Quinnipac is in: (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1148)

Clinton 49 (52)
Obama - 43 (36)

So she has a 6 point lead today in Pennsylvania after holding a 16-point lead there two weeks ago. Hmm...where have I seen this trend?.....

Everywhere!

Sen. Clinton has as close to a 100% recognition factor across the country as any politician can ever have, yet she remains with near 50% negatives - while Sen. Obama has proven that once he goes into a place and makes a case for himself - let the voters get to know him - they generally like him.

[JerseySean]

Sen. Clinton has as close to a 100% recognition factor across the country as any politician can ever have, yet she remains with near 50% negatives - while Sen. Obama has proven that once he goes into a place and makes a case for himself - let the voters get to know him - they generally like him.

City Councilman Barack Obama is beating her because noone knows him well enough. People will get to know him well enough soon

[epo]

From a polling perspective, he is the best. His numbers are ALWAYS DEAD ON! I dont know that he should be running a campaign, his career certainly isnt over like you said

According to this article in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120295209438666989.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Pol icy), Mark Penn is responsible for the message of the Clinton campaign.

He may be a brilliant poller, but that is the only role he'll ever play in the future. As a professional communicator, I can personally tell you that is messaging is mocked by people who work in the communications field.

[JerseySean]

According to this article in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120295209438666989.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Pol icy), Mark Penn is responsible for the message of the Clinton campaign.

He may be a brilliant poller, but that is the only role he'll ever play in the future. As a professional communicator, I can personally tell you that is messaging is mocked by people who work in the communications field.

Well, he crafts the message. Wolfson is responsible for getting it out. Look, her record and her experience are second to none (for Democrats), Obama is just a juggernaut with the media at his back

[epo]

City Councilman Barack Obama is beating her because noone knows him well enough. People will get to know him well enough soon

That is a nutshell is one of many reasons Clinton on the way to quitting a week from today. She and her team completely underestimated the Senator from Illinois until it was too late.

[epo]

Well, he crafts the message. Wolfson is responsible for getting it out. Look, her record and her experience are second to none (for Democrats), Obama is just a juggernaut with the media at his back

Stop blaming the media and start blaming the candidate & her team who had all of the advantages 4 months ago.

[JerseySean]

Stop blaming the media and start blaming the candidate & her team who had all of the advantages 4 months ago.

I blame the obama juggernaut. I hate Hillary as much as the next but its not her fault. The media LOVES Obama and they havent questioned him on anything thusfar. One would believe by watching the press fawn over this guy, that he is perfect. Look how he skated on the Rezko situation.

[ShowerBench]

She and her team completely underestimated the Senator from Illinois until it was too late.

They overestimated the media. And they thought the voters, after Bush, would laugh off the stage a candidate who started running with less than one year in the Senate and who said in a debate last night that he hasn't held any hearings as foreign relations subcommittee chair because he was too busy running for president.

They thought after Bush people would, y'know, vote for someone who knew what they were doing.

Even Obama said in 04 he wouldn't run because "I believe in someone knowing what they're doing when they apply for a job."

[thejives]

They overestimated the media. And they thought the voters, after Bush, would laugh off the stage a candidate who started running with less than one year in the Senate and who said in a debate last night that he hasn't held any hearings as foreign relations subcommittee chair because he was too busy running for president.

They thought after Bush people would, y'know, vote for someone who knew what they were doing.

Even Obama said in 04 he wouldn't run because "I believe in someone knowing what they're doing when they apply for a job."

They thought they would win by default without crafting a decent message or paying any attention to democrats in smaller states. They thought they could spend all their money early and not try to appeal to independent voters. They thought so many many things showerbench.

And they were wrong.

[ShowerBench]

They thought they would win by default without crafting a decent message or paying any attention to democrats in smaller states. They thought they could spend all their money early and not try to appeal to independent voters. They thought so many many things showerbench.

And they were wrong.

I grant you all the above but it was predicated on what I said they thought (and were wrong) about the chances that an upstart who hadn't served a year in the Senate would get anywhere. I don't know if you could call that an "underestimation" of the candidate or an "overestimation" of voters.

I'll respectfully add my usual disclaimer, which is that it's possible I'm missing something about the Obama candidacy and appeal because I have only these tests for a candidate: issues (traditional Democratic), competence/experience, and electability. Personality and speechgiving ability are only considered all else being equal, and "inspiration" and "politician" don't compute.

[HBox]

I grant you all the above but it was predicated on what I said they thought (and were wrong) about the chances that an upstart who hadn't served a year in the Senate would get anywhere. I don't know if you could call that an "underestimation" of the candidate or an "overestimation" of voters.

I'll respectfully add my usual disclaimer, which is that it's possible I'm missing something about the Obama candidacy and appeal because I have only these tests for a candidate: issues (traditional Democratic), competence/experience, and electability. Personality and speechgiving ability are only considered all else being equal, and "inspiration" and "politician" don't compute.

If you are such a traditional democrat why the hell are you posting crap from shit places like Debbieschlussel.com? HOW DO YOU EVEN FIND THIS SHIT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

[scottinnj]

City Councilman Barack Obama.......

Can we all agree to stay above the BS on this board? Childish remarks like that against elected officials (by fellow Americans) not only galvanize the other side to ignore the remainder of your post, it invites the same nonsense from the other side.

[thejives]

I grant you all the above but it was predicated on what I said they thought (and were wrong) about the chances that an upstart who hadn't served a year in the Senate would get anywhere.

I was at the 2004 convention, and so was everyone on the Clinton campaign staff. They had ears and eyes and were in a room full of Democrats. How did the democrats in this hall react to this?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/370IOtsIJkQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/370IOtsIJkQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aekautDZlRU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aekautDZlRU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Did the convention hall erupt into calls for policy statements and proof of executive competence?

And for years after this speech he was surrounded by a media buzz that you seem to think came out of nowhere. Still, Clinton's crack team never thought for a second, "hey, we should work on a strong positive message like this guy who has a best selling book outessentially outlining his entire political philosophy.

Only headless people could be caught by surprise by this campaign, and there's no excuse for a democratic operative not planning for a race against him.

I'll respectfully add my usual disclaimer, which is that it's possible I'm missing something about the Obama candidacy and appeal because I have only these tests for a candidate: issues (traditional Democratic), competence/experience, and electability. Personality and speechgiving ability are only considered all else being equal, and "inspiration" and "politician" don't compute.

I hope you come around, and stop creating fake reasons why Clinton lost a race that was hers to lose. This was a may-the-best-candidate-win race and that's what has happened. And true democrats who care about this country will work on influencing the nominee to hone their agenda to help America instead of tearing them down out of bitterness.

[JerseySean]

Can we all agree to stay above the BS on this board? Childish remarks like that against elected officials (by fellow Americans) not only galvanize the other side to ignore the remainder of your post, it invites the same nonsense from the other side.

Stop being so sensitive and taking youself and your opinions so seriously man

[scottinnj]

Stop being so sensitive and taking youself and your opinions so seriously man

Wow, way to reach out and discuss this. You're not the only one. I've been corrected and others have to. But you seem quite satisfied by throwing out links to lies, racism and some of the most nonsensical political analysis I've ever seen in this forum-but noooo, a simple request to refer to candidates by their elected titles gets your panties all in a bunch and you seem to want to take your toys and go home.

[thejives]

Wow, way to reach out and discuss this. You're not the only one. I've been corrected and others have to. But you seem quite satisfied by throwing out links to lies, racism and some of the most nonsensical political analysis I've ever seen in this forum-but noooo, a simple request to refer to candidates by their elected titles gets your panties all in a bunch and you seem to want to take your toys and go home.

Dude.
Add this guy to your ignore list.
And stop quoting him. Waste of time.

[scottinnj]

I'm still willing to give him a chance, but he'll do well for about 5 posts, then just hit the wall with BS like "Councilman Obama" and that shows no respect for the candidate. I never liked Hillary, but for this board there are people who do, and for reasonable debate on the issues I'm willing to respect their opinion and the fact that a majority of New Yorkers voted for her.

Oh and Hannity & Colmes (Linger Longer!) is on, and can Bill Cunningham tone it down a bit? That dude has the loudest voice in radio.

[thejives]

I'm still willing to give him a chance, but he'll do well for about 5 posts, then just hit the wall with BS like "Councilman Obama" and that shows no respect for the candidate.

Meh.
He's crossed too many lines without any semblance of apology.
Just an instigator.

[JerseySean]

Wow, way to reach out and discuss this. You're not the only one. I've been corrected and others have to. But you seem quite satisfied by throwing out links to lies, racism and some of the most nonsensical political analysis I've ever seen in this forum-but noooo, a simple request to refer to candidates by their elected titles gets your panties all in a bunch and you seem to want to take your toys and go home.

I have never linked or insinuated racism. I call him councilman because that is the level of experience he has. It seems like you Obama folks just cant stand the fact that this guy is a paper tiger. I still havent heard one good reason why anyone is voting for Obama except that he says nice things. Im gonna play Obama:

Scott, I will make you millionaire tomorrow. And I will give you hope that all of your dreams come true. How? I dont know, but I said it would and it sounded nice didnt it? Barack Obama is the fast food candidate of this election. Sure, it tastes great. But then it hurts your stomach and it is unhealthy.

[midwestjeff]

This is probably nothing, but I got nothing better to do, so here ya go.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/america/28mccain.php

[scottinnj]

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of McCain's closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.

"He was posted there on orders from the United States government," Graham said of McCain's father. "If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can't be president if they take an overseas assignment."



I think it is a non-issue. Generally nowadays, kids born in military clinics and hospitals overseas are issued a birth certificate from the state department. My wife has one, her dad is a Vietnam vet and her mom is a Phillipina, and my father-in-law got a birth certificate from the state department for my wife. She's a citizen, "natural born" on US soil, albeit the soil is located over in the Phillipines.

[A.J.]

I call him councilman because that is the level of experience he has.

Following that logic perhaps we should call her "First Lady Hillary".

[Zorro]

I have never linked or insinuated racism. I call him councilman because that is the level of experience he has. It seems like you Obama folks just cant stand the fact that this guy is a paper tiger. I still havent heard one good reason why anyone is voting for Obama except that he says nice things. Im gonna play Obama:

Scott, I will make you millionaire tomorrow. And I will give you hope that all of your dreams come true. How? I dont know, but I said it would and it sounded nice didnt it? Barack Obama is the fast food candidate of this election. Sure, it tastes great. But then it hurts your stomach and it is unhealthy.

No you call him Counciman to be derisive and insulting. More to the point you call him Councilman in an attempt to be some sort of right wing shock jock knockoff.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Anybody who thinks McCain's birthplace makes him constitutionally ineligible to be president is a shitdick cunt. You're fucking wrong, end of story. If you want to debate whether naturalized citizens should be made viable for president, let's do that. But McCain has NOTHING to do with that. Die

[Zorro]

Anybody who thinks McCain's birthplace makes him constitutionally ineligible to be president is a shitdick cunt. You're fucking wrong, end of story. If you want to debate whether naturalized citizens should be made viable for president, let's do that. But McCain has NOTHING to do with that. Die

So...you have no opinion on the matter?

[Jujubees2]

Anybody who thinks McCain's birthplace makes him constitutionally ineligible to be president is a shitdick cunt. You're fucking wrong, end of story. If you want to debate whether naturalized citizens should be made viable for president, let's do that. But McCain has NOTHING to do with that. Die

NYD80, one word of advice. Decaf.

I think the article was focusing more on what "natural-born American" means. Isn't the child of two foreigners who is born in the U.S. a U.S. citizen? So even though they may go back to their parent's country, are they still eligible to run for President of the U.S.?

[NewYorkDragons80]

If I do, I'm certainly not going to mention it in a public forum like this

[NewYorkDragons80]

McCains status as a natural-born US citizen is indisputable. To be honest, I'm reading this on a blackberry due to USAF filters, so I didn't see all the posts about his status as a citizen. I was pretty pissed after I read the NY Times article that questioned his citizenship. Its a fucking hatchet job with no basis in legality or fact. IMO, Goldwater's status as a citizen had less of a standing than McCain. Mr. Hulse closed with Jill Pryor saying this isn't a frivolous case. I'm saying it is and no thinking person should disagree with that. Furthermore, I argue that Panama is perhaps the most American of all overseas territories at the time McCain was born... More than the Phillipines, more than Cuba, but probably on par with Puerto Rico. It was basically US soil until 1939. All the above is irrelevant since Coco Solo was American soil whether it was in Germany, Japan, Korea, or Green Bay, WI. The article further plants the seeds of doubt that have been making the rounds on the net for some time now, and its irresponsible journalism. And I am not one of those anti-NY Times republicans. There is no greater source for intl news than the times. I do think Cluse gave legitimacy to an illegitimate argument in this case, however.

[Zorro]

NYD80, one word of advice. Decaf.

I think the article was focusing more on what "natural-born American" means. Isn't the child of two foreigners who is born in the U.S. a U.S. citizen? So even though they may go back to their parent's country, are they still eligible to run for President of the U.S.?

Yeah...you're right... as long as you are US born it doesn't matter where your parents are from or where you grew up.

My asshole guess is that travel was so hard back in the day no one ever thought you'd come here have a kid go home and then send the kid back to run for President.

[ShowerBench]

Brilliant and eye-opening

Race Man

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

[Rockvillejoe]

they tried the same thing with barry goldwater in '64. arizona was not a state in 1908, the year goldwater was born. it didn't fly then, it won't fly now.another non -issue. they got nothing on this guy. by they i don't mean the democrats, i mean the far right wing of the republican party. and if you want to get really technical, i heard on a radio show this morning that warren harding was actually born in canada, but somehow finagled his way in to the presidency anyhow. thank you. god bless.

[Zorro]

they tried the same thing with barry goldwater in '64. arizona was not a state in 1908, the year goldwater was born. it didn't fly then, it won't fly now.another non -issue. they got nothing on this guy. by they i don't mean the democrats, i mean the far right wing of the republican party. and if you want to get really technical, i heard on a radio show this morning that <b>warren harding was actually born in canada</b>, but somehow finagled his way in to the presidency anyhow. thank you. god bless.

<b>Isn't Canada a state?</b>

Seriously, it's not like McCain has a chance of winning so moot point anyway.

[Rockvillejoe]

<b>Isn't Canada a state?</b>

Seriously, it's not like McCain has a chance of winning so moot point anyway.

yes. a state of confusion. you should know, don diego. as i am sure you hail from that neck of the woods. but i digress. may i say, in all candor, i truly believe you are way off on your bold statement that mccain will lose. especially if that obama character is the dem's nominee, (here we again). and i will make you this wager: if i am wrong, i will allow lilly to give me a full body massage, naked, full body massage. and if i am right i will allow lilly to give me a full body massage, naked, full body masage. now go look out for sgt garcia.

[epo]

This is probably nothing, but I got nothing better to do, so here ya go.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/28/america/28mccain.php

Blah. McCain is an American and more than eligible. End of story.

[TheMojoPin]

Brilliant and eye-opening

Race Man

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

Desperate finger-pointing from a longtime Clinton supporter and good buddy of Bill. Yeah, Bill just "happened" to have brought up Jesse Jackson and SC. He couldn't have used any other historical example, like, oh, I don't know, Edwards in 2004? Come on. He knew exactly what he was doing by zeroing in on Jackson. He took a chance with a stinging ad charged comment and it ended up blowing up when Hillary wasn't able to walk away with the nod as quickly as they assumed. And pointing to things like the SNL appearance just reeks of desperation. The Clintons have made it very obvious that they've gone out of their away to avoid "pop tv" talk shows and guest appearances, so now they're going to complain and cry when someone else is able and willing to use them to their advantage? It's a tactic that's been used by smart politicians for almost 40 years now, and they've foolishly and deliberately attempted to stay away from it. That's their choice, but now crying about it as if they were denied being able to do the same just reeks of bitter crying and desperation. And whose campaign has deliberately leaked "scoops" an photos of Obama acting "Muslim" and "fur-in?" This piece is a load of crap. Race is going to be an "issue" in this election due to the simple fact that a black man is in it until this point. It doesn't require some nefarious and perfectly orchestrated play on the part of his side...it's there simply by him being there, just like her simply being there brings the issue of gender right out in front of everyone.

[ShowerBench]

From the debate (Clinton asked Obama why he hadn't held a single hearing as chair of the foreign relations subcommittee for NATO oversight):

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.

In contrast:

Noting Senator Clinton's leadership, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today noted that Senator Clinton has introduced more legislation to address the problems facing wounded servicemembers than any other Senator.

Among legislation introduced while Clinton was running for president, The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GsIV5keA3yk&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GsIV5keA3yk&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[TheMojoPin]

From the debate (Clinton asked Obama why he hadn't held a single hearing as chair of the foreign relations subcommittee for NATO oversight):

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.

In contrast:

Noting Senator Clinton's leadership, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today noted that Senator Clinton has introduced more legislation to address the problems facing wounded servicemembers than any other Senator.

Among legislation introduced while Clinton was running for president, The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GsIV5keA3yk&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GsIV5keA3yk&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

How is that any kind of comparison between the two on a similar or specific situation? It's like comparing apples with the numbers 5.

So because Clinton has introduced more wounded soldiers legislation, nobody is fit to run for president as the Democratic cadidate besides her?

I guess I just don't understand why between these two, one has to be "good" and the other has to be "bad." Obviously, I'm an Obama backer. I've been very vocal here for years how I am not a fan of Bill Clinton's time in office, and ultimately, much of tha opinion has bled over to Hillary. At the end of the day, yes, I would want Obama running over Hillary. That said, I don't "hate" Hillary or think there's anything wrong with her. And it's not only people who don't like Obama...I see plenty people backing him savaging Hillary, like either of them is somehow a terribe senator or an awful human being. At the end of the day, I'm glad the party has two people like them at this point and serving in the senate. Yes, I prefer one over the other, but I don't talk about Hillary like I want her out of public service.

[ShowerBench]

This is a speech Obama gave during his Senate campaign. Once elected, he went on to vote 14 times to fund Bush’s war:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PmltCV4Ys7U"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PmltCV4Ys7U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Ritalin]

How is that any kind of comparison between the two on a similar or specific situation? It's like comparing apples with the numbers 5.

So because Clinton has introduced more wounded soldiers legislation, nobody is fit to run for president as the Democratic cadidate besides her?

I guess I just don't understand why between these two, one has to be "good" and the other has to be "bad." Obviously, I'm an Obama backer. I've been very vocal here for years how I am not a fan of Bill Clinton's time in office, and ultimately, much of tha opinion has bled over to Hillary. At the end of the day, yes, I would want Obama running over Hillary. That said, I don't "hate" Hillary or think there's anything wrong with her. And it's not only people who don't like Obama...I see plenty people backing him savaging Hillary, like either of them is somehow a terribe senator or an awful human being. At the end of the day, I'm glad the party has two people like them at this point and serving in the senate. Yes, I prefer one over the other, but I don't talk about Hillary like I want her out of public service.

Harumph!

http://mmimagessmall.moviemail-online.co.uk/blazingsaddles1.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

This is a speech Obama gave during his Senate campaign. Once elected, he went on to vote 14 times to fund Bush’s war:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PmltCV4Ys7U"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PmltCV4Ys7U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Break down what he actually voted for. Come on...you should have no problem doing so, since it will certainly support and prove your assertion that he "voted to fund the war."

[ShowerBench]

Break down what he actually voted for. Come on...you should have no problem doing so, since it will certainly support and prove your assertion that he "voted to fund the war."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011608J.shtml

Obama and Clinton have shared the same stance on all major Iraq votes since Obama entered the Senate. These include the approval of over $300 billion in no-strings-attached war funds. The only war spending bill that Clinton and Obama voted against was the 2007 version, which all four Senate presidential hopefuls balked at because a withdrawal timetable was removed from the legislation. A year before, both Obama and Clinton voted against attaching a timetable for withdrawal to war funding.

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

“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]”

“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].”


“6/15/06: 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].”




“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…”

[epo]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011608J.shtml

Obama and Clinton have shared the same stance on all major Iraq votes since Obama entered the Senate. These include the approval of over $300 billion in no-strings-attached war funds. The only war spending bill that Clinton and Obama voted against was the 2007 version, which all four Senate presidential hopefuls balked at because a withdrawal timetable was removed from the legislation. A year before, both Obama and Clinton voted against attaching a timetable for withdrawal to war funding.

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

“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]”

“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].”


“6/15/06: 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].”




“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…”

Same ol' Paul Street article, eh?