The 2008 Presidential Race

[TheMojoPin]

Wow, seriously? That's your backup? Post the specific details of what he was voting for, not the ridiculous and vague hyperbole of one of the most fringe and extreme political magazines out there. It's pretty obvious that a source like that would view voting for more funds for troop supplies and essenials would be "feeding the warmongers."

[epo]

The blame game has already started in the Clinton camp...

Ickes: Blame Penn (http://www.observer.com/2008/ickes-blame-penn)

Harold Ickes definitely doesn’t buy the argument that Mark Penn isn’t responsible for everything that has happened to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

“Mark Penn has run this campaign,” said Ickes in a brief phone interview this morning. “Besides Hillary Clinton, he is the single most responsible person for this campaign.

This is the first time in 13 years I've agreed with anything that Harold Ickes has said.

[Bulldogcakes]

Texas Democratic Presidential Primary
Texas: Obama 48% Clinton 44% (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/texas/texas_democratic_presidential_primary)


Looks like its over, Johnny.

[epo]

Texas Democratic Presidential Primary
Texas: Obama 48% Clinton 44% (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/texas/texas_democratic_presidential_primary)


Looks like its over, Johnny.

It looks like everyone is polling Obama by 4-6 in Texas. The interesting numbers will be when the new Ohio numbers come out.

But yes, I agree with Johnny.

[JerseySean]

Wow, seriously? That's your backup? Post the specific details of what he was voting for, not the ridiculous and vague hyperbole of one of the most fringe and extreme political magazines out there. It's pretty obvious that a source like that would view voting for more funds for troop supplies and essenials would be "feeding the warmongers."

I saw House and Senate bill numbers there. Whats the problem with Roll Call?

[TheMojoPin]

I saw House and Senate bill numbers there. Whats the problem with Roll Call?

Nothing. The preoblem with that list is it offers little explanation or detail as to what was being voted on, instead talking about "more money for warmongers and profiteers."

[JerseySean]

Nothing. The preoblem with that list is it offers little explanation or detail as to what was being voted on, instead talking about "more money for warmongers and profiteers."

Yea, but just go and read the bill summaries. The rheroric is a little harsh but the facts are dead on.

[JerseySean]

FYI

Obama Books Air Time Across Ohio, Texas
Chuck Todd: "According to a source who tracks TV ad buying, Obama campaign has bought two-minute blocks in every market in both Ohio and Texas on Monday. It's unclear what the content will be, but sounds like it will be some sort of closing message. As we find out more, we'll report more."

[TheMojoPin]

Yea, but just go and read the bill summaries. The rheroric is a little harsh but the facts are dead on.

And what are the facts? That he voted for them? Odds are they were fund increases to help supply and arm and back up the forces already there. Because he didn't vote for the war, he's supposed to leave the people actually in the shit out to dry?

[JerseySean]

And what are the facts? That he voted for them? Odds are they were fund increases to help supply and arm and back up the forces already there. Because he didn't vote for the war, he's supposed to leave the people actually in the shit out to dry?

I agree with you 100%, I am just saying that the Ds have been talking about removing funding for the war. He camaigned with Menendez here in NJ and said that he would defund the war.

[TheMojoPin]

I agree with you 100%, I am just saying that the Ds have been talking about removing funding for the war. He camaigned with Menendez here in NJ and said that he would defund the war.

You can strategically defund the war, but Bush has offered little to no avenues to doing that.

[JerseySean]

You can strategically defund the war, but Bush has offered little to no avenues to doing that.

Congress holds the pursestrings, period. The Dems dont have the political courage to do it. Obama made a promise he couldnt keep.

[TheMojoPin]

Congress holds the pursestrings, period. The Dems dont have the political courage to do it.

The Democrats don't have the numbers to do it. They barely hold their leads, and the bills presented are purposely presented as ones that anyone, Republican or Democrat, voting aganst them would be made into a villain. You're contradicting what you just sai if you want or expect them to blindly cut money across the board. It doesn't work like that.

[JerseySean]

The Democrats don't have the numbers to do it. They barely hold their leads, and the bills presented are purposely presented as ones that anyone, Republican or Democrat, voting aganst them would be made into a villain. You're contradicting what you just sai if you want or expect them to blindly cut money across the board. It doesn't work like that.

They DO have the numbers to do it. I dont want them to do it. They just failed on their promises to end the war and to defund the war. Obama made that promise. He know the Dems wouldnt have 60 in the Senate. 51 is enough to vote against any appropriations bill.

[TheMojoPin]

They DO have the numbers to do it. I dont want them to do it. They just failed on their promises to end the war and to defund the war. Obama made that promise. He know the Dems wouldnt have 60 in the Senate. 51 is enough to vote against any appropriations bill.

And they don't have the numbers to do it because most of the funding bills and resolutions aren't the kinds you can vote against without being easily demonized. You're talking like they're coming up for vote only as "MONEY FOR THE WAR." The election victories they had before were the big step to taking back the White House and then ideally even more seats to be able to start cutting funding without it being dressed up in blatant "OMG, THEY HATE THE TROOPS" bills.

[JerseySean]

And they don't have the numbers to do it because most of the funding bills and resolutions aren't the kinds you can vote against without being easily demonized. You're talking like they're coming up for vote only as "MONEY FOR THE WAR." The election victories they had before were the big step to taking back the White House and then ideally even more seats to be able to start cutting funding without it being dressed up in blatant "OMG, THEY HATE THE TROOPS" bills.

So the campaign promises they made to end the war in 06 was bullshit and they, including Barack knew it?

[NewYorkDragons80]

I don't care what the polls say, I won't believe she's done until the numbers are in after the convention. Again, if she gets 51% of the vote, she can make a case for Florida and Michigan and she wins this thing.

[Zorro]

I don't care what the polls say, I won't believe she's done until the numbers are in after the convention. Again, if she gets 51% of the vote, she can make a case for Florida and Michigan and she wins this thing.

As much as I'd like to see her go away...I find it hard to believe that Hillary goes down without a fight. So the question is does she go nuclear or quietly pass from the stage. I have an inkling little feeliing if she wins ohio she stays till Pennsylvania. Mostly its my hope the race continues until baseball season takes off

[scottinnj]

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



Yeah I know, but so did Biden and a few others. Biden actually said on "MTP" that he'd rather lose the election then to deny funding the soldiers who needed equipment and weapons to defend themselves.

The scenario some people give about "defunding" combat operations to bring home soldiers without the Commander in Chiefs' authority isn't feasible because the money wouldn't be there to bring them home, while at the same time keeping infantry in position to defend base camps from attack.

[TheMojoPin]

So the campaign promises they made to end the war in 06 was bullshit and they, including Barack knew it?

I don't think it was BS...I think they certainly didn't mind is people assumed they could end it a lot quicker than they actually can, but it's not like they still can't end it. Get a Democrat in the White House and watch. In the meantime, unless you want them cutting major funding to supply the troops, it's a slooooooow process due to how close the numbers are and with Bush still in charge.

[epo]

I don't think it was BS...I think they certainly didn't mind is people assumed they could end it a lot quicker than they actually can, but it's not like they still can't end it. Get a Democrat in the White House and watch. In the meantime, unless you want them cutting major funding to supply the troops, it's a slooooooow process due to how close the numbers are and with Bush still in charge.

And don't be foolish enough to think the Dems really have "control" of the Senate. It's a bargained control with Joe Lieberman, who decided to caucus with them and doesn't necessarily vote with them. Without Lieberman's passive agreement, the Senate would be 50-50 and Cheney would be the 101st vote, hence control going to the Republicans.

If they had control of the Senate in the manner they do the House, things would be a lot different.

[keithy_19]

As much as I'd like to see her go away...I find it hard to believe that Hillary goes down without a fight. So the question is does she go nuclear or quietly pass from the stage. I have an inkling little feeliing if she wins ohio she stays till Pennsylvania. Mostly its my hope the race continues until baseball season takes off

I want the candidates to be decided asap. McCain is a lock, but still has to do the bullshit cause of Huckabee. I want to see Obama get the nom for the Dem's, and I think he's their best shot if they want to win the presidency in november.

Once everything is decided, we can hear the candidates go after each other, though we have already started to slightly.

[FUNKMAN]

heard McCain say the other day that two of our greatest president's both have the last name of Bush

without getting too vulgar i will say it is just sad

[keithy_19]

heard McCain say the other day that two of our greatest president's both have the last name of Bush

without getting too vulgar i will say it is just sad

That was very vulgar though and I am offended by your statement. I will offer you my hand all the same though, and shake it because you are an American.:sleep:

[epo]

And in the latest Rasmussen poll of Ohio: (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ohio/ohio_democratic_presidential_primary)

Clinton - 47 (48)
Obama - 45 (38)

The numbers in parenthesis are last week's numbers. Is that momentum?

[Bulldogcakes]

Clinton: Playing Field for Her as Candidate Not Even Because of Her Gender (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/clinton-playing.html)

In an interview with ABC News' Cynthia McFadden to air on this evening's "Nightline," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., says it's tougher for her to run as a woman than it is for her male opponent.

Asked why she thinks so many women may be feeling sorry for her, Clinton said, "I think a lot of women project their own feelings and their lives onto me, and they see how hard this is. It's hard. It's hard being a woman out there. It is obviously challenging with some of the things that are said that are not even personal to me so much as they are about women.

"And I think women just sort of shake their head," Clinton continued. "My friends do. They say, 'Oh, my gosh, this is so hard.' Well, it's supposed to be hard. I'm running for the hardest job in the world. No one has ever done this. No woman has ever won a presidential primary before I won New Hampshire. This is hard. And I don't expect any sympathy, I don't expect any kind of, you know, allowances or special privileges, because I knew what I was getting myself into.

"Every so often I just wish that it were a little more of an even playing field," she said, "but, you know, I play on whatever field is out there."

Of course, it might be observed that it likely hasn't exactly been a complete walk in the park for an African-American to run for president, either.

But apparently Clinton thinks -- based on this comment -- that the "playing field" is easier for a black man than a white woman.

I also wonder if former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. -- and all the other men vanquished by Clinton (and Obama) so handily -- think that they had an easy go of it.



When all else fails, call America a sexist nation. Hope she doesn't break down and cry again over how unfair it all is.

[thejives]

McCain in January:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GPadP7eAO9Y&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GPadP7eAO9Y&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Clinton February 29:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M70emIFxETs&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M70emIFxETs&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Obama immediately after Clinton's aired February 29:
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/879o1_pxO0c&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/879o1_pxO0c&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[TheMojoPin]

Jeez...I'll bet Hillary and McCain are getting all hot and bothered over LBJ's awful "NUKE THE LITTLE GIRL!!!!!!!" TV ad.

[thejives]

Jeez...I'll bet Hillary and McCain are getting all hot and bothered over LBJ's awful "NUKE THE LITTLE GIRL!!!!!!!" TV ad.

Oh you know this girl got it at 3 am too

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

[HBox]

It's 3am. Do you know where your nukes are?

[epo]

Of course in 2004 Bill Clinton thought fear vs. hope was like this:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RGW38Zy4bJo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RGW38Zy4bJo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

Clinton: Playing Field for Her as Candidate Not Even Because of Her Gender (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/clinton-playing.html)


Hillary being quoted in article:

It's hard being a woman out there.

Translation: I'm losing but its not my fault, and here's my excuse.


I hate the hypocrisy of the "glass ceiling" syndrome. We're told to tell our little girls that they can do anything and achieve anything, but whenever a woman fails, it's because the country failed her.

[Bulldogcakes]

Hillary being quoted in article:



Translation: I'm losing but its not my fault, and here's my excuse.


I hate the hypocrisy of the "glass ceiling" syndrome. We're told to tell our little girls that they can do anything and achieve anything, but whenever a woman fails, it's because the country failed her.

Its such a lame excuse, especially when we all know its the Jews that have undermined her campaign from the get go.

[AKA]

There's a classic SNL from 1988 with Dana Carvey as George Bush Sr. doing the "answering the phone at 3am" gimmick - one of the Sunday talk shows played it last week - wish I could find it now.

[Zorro]

Clinton: Playing Field for Her as Candidate Not Even Because of Her Gender (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/clinton-playing.html)




When all else fails, call America a sexist nation. Hope she doesn't break down and cry again over how unfair it all is.

My chick has her Masters from Columbia and her girlfirends are likewise Ivy League educated. All these highly educated women believed early on that America would be much less accepting of a woman than of a black man. ... I thought they were full of it, but maybe they were right.

[NewYorkDragons80]

So how long before Drudge gives away Jim McCain's position in Iraq?

[Zorro]

So how long before Drudge gives away Jim McCain's position in Iraq?

Does anybody really believe Drudge "disclosed" confidential information? C'mon Harry was ready to come home anyway and this release makes him look like a hero.

[PhilDeez]

Does anybody really believe Drudge "disclosed" confidential information? C'mon Harry was ready to come home anyway and this release makes him look like a hero.

Yes. Supposedly the British Press kept their lips sealed in an agreement to respect the saftey of soldiers. Apparently when he was to head to Iraq it was leaked, so this go round the British press acted more appropriately.

On another note, things are deadlocked in Ohio and Texas. Looks like Hillary's fear mongering is working in Texas.

[thejives]

On another note, things are deadlocked in Ohio and Texas. Looks like Hillary's fear mongering is working in Texas.

Yeah... I don't know why the Texas momentum flattened out, but it looks like it has (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html).

Tuesday's gonna be another nail biter!

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah... I don't know why the Texas momentum flattened out, but it looks like it has (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html).

Tuesday's gonna be another nail biter!

Nah, I disagree. Hillary needs to win big for her to win the whole thing. Her barely winning won't do the trick.

[A.J.]

heard McCain say the other day that two of our greatest president's both have the last name of Bush

He's right:

Adolphus Busch

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Adolphus_Busch.jpg

August Busch IV

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/August_A._Busch_IV.jpg

They've both given America a greater quality of life.

[DiabloSammich]

Nah, I disagree. Hillary needs to win big for her to win the whole thing. Her barely winning won't do the trick.



Yeah, but even barely winning will give her something to crow about and something for the Hillary-philes to hang on to, when I would just like to see Barack cleanly seperate from her so he can concentrate on McCain.

I still feel that the more this drags out, the harder it will be on either candidate when it comes time to focus on McCain.

[A.J.]

Clinton: Playing Field for Her as Candidate Not Even Because of Her Gender (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/clinton-playing.html)

Yeah. Her gender is the reason.

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, but even barely winning will give her something to crow about and something for the Hillary-philes to hang on to, when I would just like to see Barack cleanly seperate from her so he can concentrate on McCain.

I still feel that the more this drags out, the harder it will be on either candidate when it comes time to focus on McCain.

They could crow all they wanted to. If she statistically can't win, she can't win. In fact, I'd prefer for her to pull a Huckabee and drag it out...I have complete confidence in Obama being able to stay ahead and look good against Hillary. I am not sold on him (or her) on being a sure thing to beat McCain. The Republican machine is savvy as hell, and I think the Dems are better off competing against each other as long as possible tha 1-on-1 with McCain and the GOP.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Nah, I disagree. Hillary needs to win big for her to win the whole thing. Her barely winning won't do the trick.
If she can pull off 51% overall between Ohio, Texas, and PA, she can make a case for MI and FL. NEVER count a Clinton out!!!

[TheMojoPin]

If she can pull off 51% overall between Ohio, Texas, and PA, she can make a case for MI and FL. NEVER count a Clinton out!!!

It's gonna take a lot to make those states count, ad if they do, the primaries would likely be held again.

[Jujubees2]

Hillary being quoted in article:



Translation: I'm losing but its not my fault, and here's my excuse.


I hate the hypocrisy of the "glass ceiling" syndrome. We're told to tell our little girls that they can do anything and achieve anything, but whenever a woman fails, it's because the country failed her.

Hilary may be using it as an excuse but let's not kid ourselves. Sexism and racism are still very much alive in this country. Yes, we can tell our daughters that they can do anything but we can't tell them it would be as easy for them to do anything as it is a white male.

[east end John]

I like Obama. He has alot of ideas but how are we going to pay for all of them?

[Jujubees2]

I like Obama. He has alot of ideas but how are we going to pay for all of them?

As opposed to McCain who wants to make all the tax cuts permanent AND keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

[epo]

As opposed to McCain who wants to make all the tax cuts permanent AND keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Shhhhhh. We're supposed to be having an irrational conversation here!

[Jujubees2]

As opposed to McCain who wants to make all the tax cuts permanent AND keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Shhhhhh. We're supposed to be having an irrational conversation here!

Oops, my bad

[epo]

Oops, my bad

You clearly haven't mastered the talking point cliche yet!

http://www.chrisdellavedova.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/oreilly.jpg

[Zorro]

Nah, I disagree. Hillary needs to win big for her to win the whole thing. Her barely winning won't do the trick.

At 60 I think this is her one and only shot.. I doubt it, but it would be very cool if she stuck it out. Not 'cause I want her to win... I just enjoy watching the race...and the McCain/Obama contest is gonna be a borefest.

[scottinnj]

Story Here (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080229/D8V43M1O0.html)

Aides to Clinton said earlier this week they were alarmed at the lack of clarity about many of the caucus rules and expressed their concerns on a conference call with Obama's staff and state party officials. Texas has a two-step voting process, with a primary and then caucuses shortly after the polls close.

[scottinnj]

Story Here (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/01/once-out-of-ohio-candidates-change-nafta-tune-in-texas/)

LAREDO, Texas — If the shuttered factories that dot the Ohio landscape tell the story of NAFTA, so too do the miles of trucks carrying auto parts, fruit and tequila across the Mexican border through this booming port city in South Texas.

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton roundly condemn NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, as they campaign across Ohio, which holds its primary Tuesday. But the candidates are relatively silent about the matter in Texas, another delegate-rich state holding a primary the same day — one that has seen an economic renaissance along its southern border since the agreement came into effect in 1994.

[A.J.]

Story Here (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080229/D8V43M1O0.html)

Texas has a two-step voting process, with a primary and then caucuses shortly after the polls close.

The ol' Texas Two-Step.

[epo]

The ol' Texas Two-Step.

Or the UTEP Two-Step:

http://www.nflnut.com/store/media/8x10timhardawayphoto1.JPG

[FUNKMAN]

or the JerseyRich " Step Up "

[NewYorkDragons80]

As opposed to McCain who wants to make all the tax cuts permanent AND keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.
Yeah, not my favorite of his positions, but he won't pursue further tax cuts. And every thinking person knows what he meant by 100 years, so calm yourself.

[NewYorkDragons80]

At 60 I think this is her one and only shot.. I doubt it, but it would be very cool if she stuck it out. Not 'cause I want her to win... I just enjoy watching the race...and the McCain/Obama contest is gonna be a borefest.
I'll agree with you about that... About a month and a half ago it looked like we would have real conventions for both parties. However, as boring as Obama-McCain might be, it'll be refreshingly civil and a battle of ideas, not dredging up old shit... hopefully.

[Bulldogcakes]

As opposed to McCain who wants to make all the tax cuts permanent AND keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

If we could talk strategery here for a minute, I don't think he'll campaign in the general election on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. If the economy is tanking (as it appears to be) he's going to need to distance himself from Bush and his policies. That won't be a problem, since the Bush loyalists hate his guts as it is. I think he campaigns on stregnthening the US dollar.

The dollar has been weak, that means that commodities purchased overseas (which is most of them) cost more. A big part of the reason why Oil is over $100 a barrell is the weak US dollar. The CPI (inflation index) also just had a HUGE jump in the last quarter of over 7%, so the Fed would likely welcome a stronger dollar to help them stave off inflation without killing economic growth. Fed interest rate hikes in a weak economy is a recipe for stagflation, which nobody wants. This is something the Treasury Dept can do by itself without having to go through Congress.

It also sounds patriotic, it will give an economic rationale for voting for him. 'Obama has the hype, McCain has the economic plan to lead us forward' stuff like that. McCain already has credibility on spending, this will give him a plan for the overall economy. Something his campaign currently lacks.

I know that the Tories in England did something similar a few years back, but that was an idiotic "Save the British Pound" campaign. Nativistic, xenophobic garbage. This is actually based on sound economic principle.

[epo]

If we could talk strategery here for a minute, I don't think he'll campaign in the general election on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. If the economy is tanking (as it appears to be) he's going to need to distance himself from Bush and his policies. That won't be a problem, since the Bush loyalists hate his guts as it is. I think he campaigns on stregnthening the US dollar.

The dollar has been weak, that means that commodities purchased overseas (which is most of them) cost more. A big part of the reason why Oil is over $100 a barrell is the weak US dollar. The CPI (inflation index) also just had a HUGE jump in the last quarter of over 7%, so the Fed would likely welcome a stronger dollar to help them stave off inflation without killing economic growth. Fed interest rate hikes in a weak economy is a recipe for stagflation, which nobody wants. This is something the Treasury Dept can do by itself without having to go through Congress.

It also sounds patriotic, it will give an economic rationale for voting for him. 'Obama has the hype, McCain has the economic plan to lead us forward' stuff like that. McCain already has credibility on spending, this will give him a plan for the overall economy. Something his campaign currently lacks.

I know that the Tories in England did something similar a few years back, but that was an idiotic "Save the British Pound" campaign. Nativistic, xenophobic garbage. This is actually based on sound economic principle.

McCain is going to avoid domestic issues like the plague. His stances are muddled at best and at worst he says shit like this:

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/mccain_its_abou.html)

He'll stick to foreign affairs and try to scare the shit out of the rubes.

[Bulldogcakes]

McCain is going to avoid domestic issues like the plague. His stances are muddled at best and at worst he says shit like this:



He'll stick to foreign affairs and try to scare the shit out of the rubes.

You may be right about that. He doesn't even have a set of principles on economics to debate over. It's one reason I'm so wishy washy about supporting him.

But you can't avoid the economy. It's bigger than Iraq or anything else in the minds of most voters. I just hope he doesn't make an ass of himself when he gets quizzed in some interview or the debates.

[scottinnj]

It's one reason I'm so wishy washy about supporting him.
QFT

[scottinnj]

The other thing I'm not comfortable with is McCain's 100 year rule in Iraq. I know he didn't mean as is, and has a plan to be sort of like a South Korea type deployment, which is fine, but he won't say what will happen to troops stationed in Europe and in the Pacific.


I hope that there is a real discussion of the deployment of our sailors, marines, soldiers and airmen around the world. We can't keep up the front on the war on terror, while at the same time maintain old "cold war" strategies of containment regarding a now non-existent Soviet Union.

[Zorro]

The other thing I'm not comfortable with is McCain's 100 year rule in Iraq. I know he didn't mean as is, and has a plan to be sort of like a South Korea type deployment, which is fine, but he won't say what will happen to troops stationed in Europe and in the Pacific.


I hope that there is a real discussion of the deployment of our sailors, marines, soldiers and airmen around the world. We can't keep up the front on the war on terror, while at the same time maintain old "cold war" strategies of containment regarding a now non-existent Soviet Union.

Couldn't agree more. It's really time to close our European bases... why we are subsidizing the defense of the world's richest democracies is beyond me

[NewYorkDragons80]

The other thing I'm not comfortable with is McCain's 100 year rule in Iraq. I know he didn't mean as is, and has a plan to be sort of like a South Korea type deployment, which is fine, but he won't say what will happen to troops stationed in Europe and in the Pacific.


I hope that there is a real discussion of the deployment of our sailors, marines, soldiers and airmen around the world. We can't keep up the front on the war on terror, while at the same time maintain old "cold war" strategies of containment regarding a now non-existent Soviet Union.
Yeah, cause the Soviet Union's old leaders definitely arent trying to resurrect the old Russian Empire

[ShowerBench]

Vapor:

Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902784_pf.html

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Obama's argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that "yes, we can" break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.

What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.

[scottinnj]

Yeah, cause the Soviet Union's old leaders definitely arent trying to resurrect the old Russian Empire

It's a shadow of itself. If Communism does return vis a vie the Soviet doctrine of conquering the world, it would be too busy in the Balkans and Checnya to be of major concern to Western Europe. If it does make a move, NATO has more then enough resources to combat an invasion while the United States mobilizes.

[ShowerBench]

uhhhmmm.......

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ghSJsEVf0pU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ghSJsEVf0pU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[epo]

uhhhmmm.......

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ghSJsEVf0pU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ghSJsEVf0pU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

It's called reaching young voters in creative ways. Clinton would have been well-served to try that 6 months ago.

[TheMojoPin]

It's a shadow of itself. If Communism does return vis a vie the Soviet doctrine of conquering the world

The what?

[scottinnj]

The what?


The shoe. He banged his shoe. Remember? "We will destroy you"

[TheMojoPin]

The shoe. He banged his shoe. Remember? "We will destroy you"

That's quite significantly different from a "doctorine of conquering the world."

Just pointing out that from a historical standpoint, to think of the Soviets as wannabe "world conquerers," even under Stalin, is pretty far off the mark.

Kruschev also actually said, "we will bury you," meaning, "we (the Soviets/communism) will outlive/outlast you (America/the West/capitalism)." The full quote was, "whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you."

There was no actual shoe pounding involved.

[scottinnj]

You know what I meant, Larry Literal. I'm telling Gvac on you when he shows up.

[TheMojoPin]

You know what I meant, Larry Literal.

Actually, I don't. This...

If Communism does return vis a vie the Soviet doctrine of conquering the world

...makes absolutely no sense because of the "conquering" bit.

Sorry, it's the history nerd in me.

[scottinnj]

Now you're just being unfunny.


Forget it. Forget it. Forget it.

[TheMojoPin]

Now you're just being unfunny.

Only just NOW I am?

[Yerdaddy]

<embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/videoplayer/flvplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/74800/video&autostart=false&image=http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/DIEBOLD_article.jpg&bufferlength=3&embedded=true&title=Diebold%20Accidentally%20Leaks%20Results%20O f%202008%20Election%20Early"></embed><br/><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks?utm_source=embedded_vid eo">Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early</a>

It's a pain in the ass to watch video here so tell me if this is funny and whether it's worth trying to open. Please. Bitches.

[HBox]

<embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/videoplayer/flvplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/74800/video&autostart=false&image=http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/DIEBOLD_article.jpg&bufferlength=3&embedded=true&title=Diebold%20Accidentally%20Leaks%20Results%20O f%202008%20Election%20Early" height="355" width="400">
Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks?utm_source=embedded_vid eo)

It's a pain in the ass to watch video here so tell me if this is funny and whether it's worth trying to open. Please. Bitches.

ehhhhhhhhhhhh

Only if you have nothing else to do.

[sailor]

Kruschev also actually said, "we will bury you," meaning, "we (the Soviets/communism) will outlive/outlast you (America/the West/capitalism)." The full quote was, "whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you."

There was no actual shoe pounding involved.

really? (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDF143BF936A35751C1A96E9482 60)

[Bulldogcakes]

<embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/videoplayer/flvplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="355" flashvars="file=http://www.theonion.com/content/xml/72476/video&autostart=false&image=http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/tn_wish.jpg&bufferlength=3&embedded=true&title=Child%20Bankrupts%20Make-A-Wish%20Foundation%20With%20Wish%20For%20Unlimited% 20Wishes"></embed><br/><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/child_bankrupts_make_a_wish_0?utm_source=embedded_ video">Child Bankrupts Make-A-Wish Foundation With Wish For Unlimited Wishes</a>


Love the Onion.

[NewYorkDragons80]

It's a shadow of itself. If Communism does return vis a vie the Soviet doctrine of conquering the world, it would be too busy in the Balkans and Checnya to be of major concern to Western Europe. If it does make a move, NATO has more then enough resources to combat an invasion while the United States mobilizes.
It has nothing to do with Communism or world domination. It does mean they want to thwart us as we protect democracy in Eastern Europe, foster stability in former Soviet Republics of South Asia, and keep them out of Africa and South America.
The what?
I wouldn't say it was Soviet doctrine to conquer the world, but like any empire they wanted to see friendly governments all over the globe. I don't think that meant murals of Stalin in Antarctica, but you can bet your ass the majority of the world would be communist of the outcome of the Cold War was reversed.

[ShowerBench]

It's called reaching young voters in creative ways.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ghSJsEVf0pU&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ghSJsEVf0pU&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

If the last eight years isn't enough to motivate them to vote and they need a video to do it, they probably shouldn't be voting.

If this video compels them, they probably should never vote.

[TheMojoPin]

really? (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDF143BF936A35751C1A96E9482 60)

Really.

[TheMojoPin]

I wouldn't say it was Soviet doctrine to conquer the world, but like any empire they wanted to see friendly governments all over the globe. I don't think that meant murals of Stalin in Antarctica, but you can bet your ass the majority of the world would be communist of the outcome of the Cold War was reversed.

Which is just the flipside of the American interest to "spread democracy" all over the globe, whether everyone wanted it or not (Thanks, Teddy), which kickstarted just prior to the 20t Century, so yes, that's pretty much correct. Both superpowers had scenarios where most of the world's governments, especially the easily "convinced" ones, were friendly or even mimicked them.

[Zorro]

Which is just the flipside of the American interest to "spread democracy" all over the globe, whether everyone wanted it or not (Thanks, Teddy), which kickstarted just prior to the 20t Century, so yes, that's pretty much correct. Both superpowers had scenarios where most of the world's governments, especially the easily "convinced" ones, were friendly or even mimicked them.

Wow..you really think that Soviet Ideology was just the other side of the coin? I imagine the people of Poland, East Germany, Hungary etc etc... would strongly disagree.

[sailor]

Really.

care to expound on your criticism of the article? it seems fairly accepted from other sources as well.

[TheMojoPin]

Wow..you really think that Soviet Ideology was just the other side of the coin? I imagine the people of Poland, East Germany, Hungary etc etc... would strongly disagree.

Yes, I would. The history of the Soviets taking those territories is one that stems from much further back than any kind of global ideaology or competition as a superpower. The Russians have always believed (and could argue in some cases) that most of the nations either in part or almost total were once part of "Russia," and they were reclaiming territories stripped of them. Compounded to that, the Soviets wanted a buffer zone between them and Germany, which turned into a buffer zone between them and Western Europe/NATO. The Soviets weren't stupid...they had no desire to push out on a wide expanse militarily to "conquer" beyond what they mostly saw as already being theirs from back in the day or needed as a necessary buffer against the pretty regular attempted invasions they had seen over the centuries. A large part of that mentaliy was that communism had to be spread or developed "naturally," and couldn't forced on most nations without it immediately being rejected or failing rather quickly. Now obviously, "naturally" became very subjective at times as the Soviets engaged in all kinds of behind the scenes intelligene encouragment a la the Americans over the years. And you could argue that the Soviets bent the rules by militarily intervening in places like Yugoslavia and Afghanistan...though on the flipside, you have the Americans doing similar things in Korea and Vietnam. And the US geopolitical situation is one that can't really be compared to the Sovets desire for a buffer, since we're surrounded by two oceans ad only two other incredibly friendly nations.

[TheMojoPin]

care to expound on your criticism of the article? it seems fairly accepted from other sources as well.

What article? scott brought up Kruschev banging his shoe on the podium, yelling, "WE WILL DESTROY YOU," and I pointed out that both what he said and the "shoe-banging" (HAWT) are really either completely misunderstood or urban legends at this point. There was no article involved.

[sailor]

What article? scott brought up Kruschev banging his shoe on the podium, yelling, "WE WILL DESTROY YOU," and I pointed out that both what he said and the "shoe-banging" (HAWT) are really either completely misunderstood or urban legends at this point. There was no article involved.

really? (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDF143BF936A35751C1A96E9482 60)

link in my post

[Zorro]

Yes, I would. The history of the Soviets taking those territories is one that stems from much further back than any kind of global ideaology or competition as a superpower. The Russians have always believed (and could argue in some cases) that most of the nations either in part or almost total were once part of "Russia," and they were reclaiming territories stripped of them. Compounded to that, the Soviets wanted a buffer zone between them and Germany, which turned into a buffer zone between them and Western Europe/NATO. The Soviets weren't stupid...they had no desire to push out on a wide expanse militarily to "conquer" beyond what they mostly saw as already being theirs from back in the day or needed as a necessary buffer against the pretty regular attempted invasions they had seen over the centuries. A large part of that mentaliy was that communism had to be spread or developed "naturally," and couldn't forced on most nations without it immediately being rejected or failing rather quickly. Now obviously, "naturally" became very subjective at times as the Soviets engaged in all kinds of behind the scenes intelligene encouragment a la the Americans over the years. And you could argue that the Soviets bent the rules by militarily intervening in places like Yugoslavia and Afghanistan...though on the flipside, you have the Americans doing similar things in Korea and Vietnam. And the US geopolitical situation is one that can't really be compared to the Sovets desire for a buffer, since we're surrounded by two oceans ad only two other incredibly friendly nations.


This is just nuts... none of the coutries that were under Soviet Rule asked for it and when they tried to reject it the tanks rolled and leaders were tossed out of windows...

[epo]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ghSJsEVf0pU&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ghSJsEVf0pU&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

If the last eight years isn't enough to motivate them to vote and they need a video to do it, they probably shouldn't be voting.

If this video compels them, they probably should never vote.

The ironic thing is that is was young voters that turned out for Clinton in 1992 that made the difference. Now 16 years later, the Clintons have no idea how to identify with them other than to send Chelsea out (w/out media mind you) and ask people to "vote for my mom".

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Clintons are running a brilliant campaign for the 1992 election. Fortunately it's 2008.

[TheMojoPin]

link in my post

Ah, missed that. It seems to be an editorial piece, and the writer seems to have slouched on his research. He touches on how the story is largely unverified, though he leaves out how most major studies and research into Kruschev show little that proves he pounded or waved a shoe. He most certainly probably pounded the podium and stamped his feet, as he was known to do, but the famous shoe incident amounts to little more than colorful heresay. On top of that, it's no often mereged with the "WE WILL BURY YOU" statement, which was made much earlier at the Polish embassy in Moscow.

[TheMojoPin]

This is just nuts... none of the coutries that were under Soviet Rule asked for it and when they tried to reject it the tanks rolled and leaders were tossed out of windows...

But that's not what I was pointing out. I'm not trying to justify what they did. I'm simply explaining how little to none of it indicates that they wanted to "conquer the world" or a world-conquering desire.

And besides, do you think most of the countires that US has intervened in, on large or behind the scenes-scale, have aksed for it? That's where I see the comparisons between the superpowers during the Cold War. They were both playing the same games.

[scottinnj]

Mojo's A.D.D. is acting up again and I'm responsible for it. Yessssss!

[A.J.]

Yes, I would. The history of the Soviets taking those territories is one that stems from much further back than any kind of global ideaology or competition as a superpower. The Russians have always believed (and could argue in some cases) that most of the nations either in part or almost total were once part of "Russia," and they were reclaiming territories stripped of them. Compounded to that, the Soviets wanted a buffer zone between them and Germany, which turned into a buffer zone between them and Western Europe/NATO. The Soviets weren't stupid...they had no desire to push out on a wide expanse militarily to "conquer" beyond what they mostly saw as already being theirs from back in the day or needed as a necessary buffer against the pretty regular attempted invasions they had seen over the centuries. A large part of that mentaliy was that communism had to be spread or developed "naturally," and couldn't forced on most nations without it immediately being rejected or failing rather quickly. Now obviously, "naturally" became very subjective at times as the Soviets engaged in all kinds of behind the scenes intelligene encouragment a la the Americans over the years. And you could argue that the Soviets bent the rules by militarily intervening in places like Yugoslavia and Afghanistan...though on the flipside, you have the Americans doing similar things in Korea and Vietnam. And the US geopolitical situation is one that can't really be compared to the Sovets desire for a buffer, since we're surrounded by two oceans ad only two other incredibly friendly nations.

Ah, missed that. It seems to be an editorial piece, and the writer seems to have slouched on his research. He touches on how the story is largely unverified, though he leaves out how most major studies and research into Kruschev show little that proves he pounded or waved a shoe. He most certainly probably pounded the podium and stamped his feet, as he was known to do, but the famous shoe incident amounts to little more than colorful heresay. On top of that, it's no often mereged with the "WE WILL BURY YOU" statement, which was made much earlier at the Polish embassy in Moscow.

But that's not what I was pointing out. I'm not trying to justify what they did. I'm simply explaining how little to none of it indicates that they wanted to "conquer the world" or a world-conquering desire.

And besides, do you think most of the countires that US has intervened in, on large or behind the scenes-scale, have aksed for it? That's where I see the comparisons between the superpowers during the Cold War. They were both playing the same games.

"NERD! NERD! NERD! NERD! NERD! NERD!"

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/06/ogre_nerds_250.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

"NERD! NERD! NERD! NERD! NERD! NERD!"

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/06/ogre_nerds_250.jpg

http://adultjokedatabase.com/images/images2/Commies_.gif

[scottinnj]

http://images.contactmusic.com/images/reviews2/reddawn.jpg


Red Dawn, man. We were this close....THIS CLOSE!!!

[NewYorkDragons80]

Which is just the flipside of the American interest to "spread democracy" all over the globe, whether everyone wanted it or not (Thanks, Teddy), which kickstarted just prior to the 20t Century, so yes, that's pretty much correct. Both superpowers had scenarios where most of the world's governments, especially the easily "convinced" ones, were friendly or even mimicked them.
Now you're learning, kid :)

[ShowerBench]

Joe Wilson, former GHW Bush Iraq ambassador who exposed Bush's lies on Iraq, on Obama. Devastating piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

[TheMojoPin]

Devastating piece

Only to people who are already deadset against Obama. Pardon me if we don't all collapse under the op-ed piece "devastation." All it is is Wilson's interpretation of Obama.

[JimBeam]

Well I just saw that Obama video and I'm glad he's got some heavy hitters supporting him.

Who'd I see there :

1) Malcolm Jamal-Warner
2) John Leguzamo ( he's so unimportant that I don't even care if I spelled his name correctly )
3) George Lopez
4) Martin's g/f's friend from that show that went off the air years ago
5) Cuba Gooding Junior's wife from Jerry Maguire
6) The guy who turned into Nemesis in Resident Evil
7) Macy Gray
8) The Guzman guy that seems to have been in 80% of the movies made in the last 20 years

Oh and Jessica Alba.

What Dustin Diamond wasn't available or is he voiting for Hillary Clinton ?

How could that video not motivate you to vote for him ?

They next acting gig any of them can look forward to, with the excpetion of Guzman and Alba, will be either his re-election support video or his 2nd attempt for the White House video.

[badmonkey]

Joe Wilson, former GHW Bush Iraq ambassador who exposed Bush's lies on Iraq, on Obama. Devastating piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

gyrations on iraq....political opportunist...Joe Wilson...takes one to know one? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle)

[scottinnj]

No kidding. Huffington Post will use Wilson for whatever means necessary.

[PhilDeez]

This may have been addressed before, if so my apologies.
I know Obama touts he did not vote for the Iraq war, did he actually vote against it or just not vote? My father in law was trying to tell me the latter this morning, but I would doubt he would so vehemently attack those who actually took a stand one way or the other if he didn't.

Never mind, I guess he wasn't actually able to vote or not since he wasn't in the senate yet. With that said, it is much easier to come from his position than that of Hillary, who actually had to make a choice one way or the other - one that at the time many of your party, the party of opposition, voted for.

[Bulldogcakes]

Obama Slams Clinton on Homestrech (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080302/D8V5I2A81.html)

"What precise foreign-policy experience is she claiming that makes her qualified to answer that telephone call at 3 a.m. in the morning?" Obama asked of the former first lady at a town-hall meeting. It was a reference to dueling television ads over who would exercise superior judgment in responding to a national emergency in the middle of the night.

I would have brought up the fact that she was crying over her defeat in NH a few weeks ago. But hey, thats just me.

[epo]

This may have been addressed before, if so my apologies.
I know Obama touts he did not vote for the Iraq war, did he actually vote against it or just not vote? My father in law was trying to tell me the latter this morning, but I would doubt he would so vehemently attack those who actually took a stand one way or the other if he didn't.

He was in the Illinois Senate at the time so he obviously did not vote. However he has been consistent since this very public declaration in 2002.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sXzmXy226po"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sXzmXy226po" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[PhilDeez]

He was in the Illinois Senate at the time so he obviously did not vote. However he has been consistent since this very public declaration in 2002.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sXzmXy226po"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sXzmXy226po" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Thanks.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I don't agree with Obama on Iraq, but based on what I've seen he opposed the war from the beginning, which you have to respect regardless of your own views. It is never politically beneficial to vote against a war. So as much as the Democrats who voted for the war want to point fingers at the intelligence community and the administration (as much as they may or may not deserve it), the Democrats who were voting for the war were hedging their bets.

[foodcourtdruide]

He was in the Illinois Senate at the time so he obviously did not vote. However he has been consistent since this very public declaration in 2002.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sXzmXy226po"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sXzmXy226po" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

He was asking the questions this administration completely overlooked or were dead wrong about.

[badmonkey]

Hillary Clinton - March 6 2003 meets with Code Pink and explains her support of the Iraq War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8)
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pYATbsu2cP8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pYATbsu2cP8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Skip ahead to 1:39 if you don't wanna listen to the dreadful singing.

[HBox]

Hillary Clinton - March 6 2003 meets with Code Pink and explains her support of the Iraq War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8)
<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pYATbsu2cP8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

Skip ahead to 1:39 if you don't wanna listen to the dreadful singing.

There's not enough cock in that room to have a meaningful discussion on war.

[Bulldogcakes]

There's not enough cock in that room to have a meaningful discussion on war.

The dildos in their asses don't count?

[ShowerBench]

This may have been addressed before, if so my apologies.
I know Obama touts he did not vote for the Iraq war, did he actually vote against it or just not vote? My father in law was trying to tell me the latter this morning, but I would doubt he would so vehemently attack those who actually took a stand one way or the other if he didn't..

Here is Obama "taking a stand" on war funding during his 2004 campaign. He went on to vote for war funding 14 times, with an identical record to Clinton's:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PmltCV4Ys7U&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PmltCV4Ys7U&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

What was he going to do, say (vote) no to armored Hummers and no to more body armor?

[TheMojoPin]

What was he going to do, say (vote) no to armored Hummers and no to more body armor?

Don't bother. ShowerBench refuses to break down what was actually being voted for.

[scottinnj]

The dildos in their asses don't count?

Dammit!

[thejives]

pompous
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/saBU6ux0hsQ&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/saBU6ux0hsQ&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Yerdaddy]

gyrations on iraq....political opportunist...Joe Wilson...takes one to know one? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle)

You're pathetic.

[keithy_19]

What was he going to do, say (vote) no to armored Hummers and no to more body armor?

If he were a decent American he would have said no. But he's a commie thinking Allah loving terrorist. :thumbup:

[NewYorkDragons80]

Rush is urging his listeners to vote for Hilary in TX. Republicans seem to be operating under this delusion that Hilary is easier to beat. Sure, Hilary winning the nom would alienate the black vote that Obama energized, but how many of them were there to begin with? And how many will vote for McCain or stay home? Clintons are fucking dangerous. I feel like I'm watching Die Hard with a Vengeance and they keep making Hilary solve riddles. The best case scenario is to let these 2 slug it out into a divisive campaign season and have an active convention in the summer. Democrats never win after tough primary seasons, but it's a risky strategy to keep Hilary alive or to think she's weaker than Obama (she isn't)

[Zorro]

62 years ago today Curchill gave his famous "Iron Curtain" speech

[badmonkey]

You're pathetic.

Does it always have to be a personal attack with you? What's your fucking problem anyway?

[HBox]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

[TheMojoPin]

No fights. Yerdaddy did start it. No need to call BM out like that. Attack his statement all you want, but there was zero need to attack him.

[ShowerBench]

So Obama's chief economic advisor cynically tells the Canucks, "Eh, don't worry about what he says about NAFTA...It's just political positioning." The campaign has been nailed for it and now they're saying it was a "misinterpretation."

So either the campaign is lying or Obama is incompetent for selecting and relying on bumbling advisors. Sound like any other failed administration you've lived through for the last eight years?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080303/democrats_nafta.html?.v=1

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (AP) -- Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

[HBox]

No fights. Yerdaddy did start it. No need to call BM out like that. Attack his statement all you want, but there was zero need to attack him.

Booooooooooo. This forum suffers from a distinct lack of fights to the death.

[Zorro]

So Obama's chief economic advisor cynically tells the Canucks, "Eh, don't worry about what he says about NAFTA...It's just political positioning." The campaign has been nailed for it and now they're saying it was a "misinterpretation."

So either the campaign is lying or Obama is incompetent for selecting and relying on bumbling advisors. Sound like any other failed administration you've lived through for the last eight years?



Dude...you really need to let it go. Your obsession is getting creepy.

[ShowerBench]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4l4_jMyV3mY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4l4_jMyV3mY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Jujubees2]

Booooooooooo. This forum suffers from a distinct lack of fights to the death.

Two men enter, one man leaves....

[keithy_19]

Two men enter, one man leaves....

And one man wears makeup to the others funeral.

:wub:

[K.C.]

Seems to be breaking Hillary's way a little bit. She's either pulled even, or slightly ahead in Texas, and has stopped Obama's gains, and picked back up some of her margin of victory in Ohio.

The math still favors Obama...especially with the Texas delegation rules, but two wins, and decent margin of victories by her would go a long way in terms of breathing life back into her campaign.

She's behind by 155 pledged delegates. So she's going to have to run some high margins in states to start making up the difference. It becomes an even bigger problem when you figure there's only 566 pledged delegates left after tomorrow, and she's not expected to make significant gains, and it's proportional voting.

This thing is in the hands of the Super Delegates either way...i'd have a hard time believing the majority wouldn't fall behind whoever wins the most pledged delegates.

It would seem counterproductive to winning in November.

[epo]

So Obama's chief economic advisor cynically tells the Canucks, "Eh, don't worry about what he says about NAFTA...It's just political positioning." The campaign has been nailed for it and now they're saying it was a "misinterpretation."

So either the campaign is lying or Obama is incompetent for selecting and relying on bumbling advisors. Sound like any other failed administration you've lived through for the last eight years?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080303/democrats_nafta.html?.v=1

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (AP) -- Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

So you are telling me that an article from the AP written by the notorious Nedra Pickler, on an account from neo-con Joseph DeMora is negative towards Senator Obama?

Shocker. Next thing that will happen is that Keith Olbermann will say something mean about Bill O'Reilly!

[ShowerBench]

This thing is in the hands of the Super Delegates either way...i'd have a hard time believing the majority wouldn't fall behind whoever wins the most pledged delegates.

It would seem counterproductive to winning in November.

There are rumblings about the fact that Obama has won "Democrats" in very few states, and that the Supers should give extra weight to Democratic vote as opposed to Indies and R's, simply because Democrats are more reliable Democratic voters, but also because they are, after all, deciding a Democratic primary.

Also there is a new poll showing Clinton beating McCain by 11 in New Jersey, Obama losing by 2. Supers will be (or ought to be) looking hard at factors like that as opposed to which candidate won caucuses in deep red states.

[epo]

There are rumblings about the fact that Obama has won "Democrats" in very few states, and that the Supers should give extra weight to Democratic vote as opposed to Indies and R's, simply because Democrats are more reliable voters, but also because they are, after all, deciding a Democratic primary.

Also there is a new poll showing Clinton beating McCain by 11 in New Jersey, Obama losing by 2. Supers will be (or ought to be) looking hard at factors like that as opposed to which candidate won caucuses in deep red states.

This "Democratic vote" argument is tiring and stupid. The Clintons simply have no methodology to prove this claim. None.

As the winning in California or NY versus a swing state argument, again the Clintons are dead wrong. The swing states are the most important part of any election. The party could run Mike Gravel and win California, NY and NJ. Simply put...weak argument.

Which ever way the popular delegate vote goes should be the way that the superdelegates go. If not you can kiss our party goodbye as that would be the realistic end of the democratic party.

[keithy_19]

[QUOTE=ShowerBench;1644959]
Also there is a new poll showing Clinton beating McCain by 1,000,000 in New Jersey, Obama losing by 9,000,558,789,235 .

You seem to have shady numbers sir.

[johnniewalker]

So you are telling me that an article from the AP written by the notorious Nedra Pickler, on an account from neo-con Joseph DeMora is negative towards Senator Obama?

Shocker. Next thing that will happen is that Keith Olbermann will say something mean about Bill O'Reilly!

It may be true that it was a shady writer, but either way I think it was a very silly thing for him to say in the first place. I don't think this is anywhere near a hitjob.

"Key Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee discussed his candidate's policies with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, which wrote a report suggesting Obama's words on NAFTA were designed for a political audience and shouldn't be taken too seriously."

Not to mention that it is very impractical.

"Canada sends 75 percent of its exports to the United States and would be badly hurt if Washington pulled out of NAFTA. Government and opposition officials in Canada say they don't believe the talk of withdrawal is serious."

[K.C.]

There are rumblings about the fact that Obama has won "Democrats" in very few states, and that the Supers should give extra weight to Democratic vote as opposed to Indies and R's, simply because Democrats are more reliable Democratic voters, but also because they are, after all, deciding a Democratic primary.

Also there is a new poll showing Clinton beating McCain by 11 in New Jersey, Obama losing by 2. Supers will be (or ought to be) looking hard at factors like that as opposed to which candidate won caucuses in deep red states.

Perception is all that will matter. Hillary Clinton is already viewed as a carpet bagger who went to a state to win a seat she wouldn't have won in her home state.

Her winning on Super Delegates if Obama wins the elected delegates will (unless Obama is the VP, which I can't imagine him accepting under those circumstances) cost the Democrats the black vote.

Furthermore, McCain is a moderate enough candidate (at least in perception), that a lot of Obama backers will swallow voting for McCain just to thwart Clinton.


The Super Delegates deciding will rip the Democratic Party apart if they produce a result that overturns the elected delegate result.

It's absolutely their right to do so...those are the rules. But it would be a stupid thing to do that will cost the Dems in November.

[ShowerBench]

Perception is all that will matter. Hillary Clinton is already viewed as a carpet bagger who went to a state to win a seat she wouldn't have won in her home state.

Her winning on Super Delegates if Obama wins the elected delegates will (unless Obama is the VP, which I can't imagine him accepting under those circumstances) cost the Democrats the black vote.

Furthermore, McCain is a moderate enough candidate (at least in perception), that a lot of Obama backers will swallow voting for McCain just to thwart Clinton.


The Super Delegates deciding will rip the Democratic Party apart if they produce a result that overturns the elected delegate result.

It's absolutely their right to do so...those are the rules. But it would be a stupid thing to do that will cost the Dems in November.

That's the conventional wisdom thus far. But consider this: Obama would strongly back Clinton as the Democratic nominee or he's done in the party. If Obama has stood for anything in his career, it's doing what's best for Obama. He won't burn his bridges and probably would succeed in stopping the bleeding to some extent.

Further, Clinton is still pulling 45% nationally and Obama has had EVERY advantage in money, momentum, and media. This represents at least as much resistance to Obama as strong dedication to Hillary's campaign. I suspect a VERY large proportion of her voters would sit it out or vote for McCain and polls like the one in NJ tend to bear this out. Larger numbers than the African American votes lost in the event of a Clinton nomination.

(I am one example of someone who would vote for Clinton but not Obama in a general election: a traditional Democrat who can't make sense of Obama, someone who has built his campaign on Independents and Republicans, who trashes the first Clinton presidency to boost his own candidacy, who doesn't stand for, well, anything I can discern, and who indicates he would fold like a tent at the first sign of Republican resistance to a Democratic agenda. Not to mention his weakness on national security.)

If the Supers voted against both the delegate count AND popular count (including Florida and Michigan) it would be tough for Clinton. If she wins the popular vote, including the majority of Democratic votes, that is more than a leg to stand on. The popular vote is more compelling than "delegates," especially to Democrats.

Another factor is the swing states Epo mentioned. Obama would almost certainly lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida in a general election for starters. Despite touting his caucus victories in Utah, he's not going to win red states. And if the NJ polling is accurate, he would probably lose other blue states besides PA.

If Supers do not consider those factors of party, popular vote (including FL and MI), and electability in Dem states and swing states, they aren't doing what they are in place to do which is avoid selecting a loser, unless the pledge delegate count is overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate.

I would agree that the potential loss of the black vote is a factor for SDs to consider, but I doubt it is more significant than what Obama's vulnerabilities represent, including a higher number of lost Clinton votes and lost states Democrats can't afford to lose.

[K.C.]

That's the conventional wisdom thus far. But consider this: Obama would strongly back Clinton as the Democratic nominee or he's done in the party. If Obama has stood for anything in his career, it's doing what's best for Obama. He won't burn his bridges and probably would succeed in stopping the bleeding to some extent.

Further, Clinton is still pulling 45% nationally and Obama has had EVERY advantage in money, momentum, and media. This represents at least as much resistance to Obama as strong dedication to Hillary's campaign. I suspect a VERY large proportion of her voters would sit it out or vote for McCain and polls like the one in NJ tend to bear this out. Larger numbers than the African American votes lost in the event of a Clinton nomination.

(I am one example of someone who would vote for Clinton but not Obama in a general election: a traditional Democrat who can't make sense of Obama, someone who has built his campaign on Independents and Republicans, who trashes the first Clinton presidency to boost his own candidacy, who doesn't stand for, well, anything I can discern, and who indicates he would fold like a tent at the first sign of Republican resistance to a Democratic agenda. Not to mention his weakness on national security.)

If the Supers voted against both the delegate count AND popular count (including Florida and Michigan) it would be tough for Clinton. If she wins the popular vote, including the majority of Democratic votes, that is more than a leg to stand on. The popular vote is more compelling than "delegates," especially to Democrats.

Another factor is the swing states Epo mentioned. Obama would almost certainly lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida in a general election for starters. Despite touting his caucus victories in Utah, he's not going to win red states. And if the NJ polling is accurate, he would probably lose other blue states besides PA.

If Supers do not consider those factors of party, popular vote (including FL and MI), and electability in Dem states and swing states, they aren't doing what they are in place to do which is avoid selecting a loser, unless the pledge delegate count is overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate.

I would agree that the potential loss of the black vote is a factor for SDs to consider, but I doubt it is more significant than what Obama's vulnerabilities represent, including a higher number of lost Clinton votes and lost states Democrats can't afford to lose.

I would disagree with a couple things.

Obama had a money advantage in Iowa, because he chose to spend more there. To be fair, he earned his momentum to some degree. He went into a state that Hillary, with a more recognizable name, spent just as much time in, and John Edwards basically spent two full election cycles in and won that race on the ground.

And that's where the whole thing started...so he deserves credit for that.


The second is that I really don't know if Obama would fall in line if he was ousted by Super Delegates from the nomination. To have the party regulars decide against the voters in their state is a bitter pill to swallow.

I do agree that if the party does get ripped apart and he protests the result, he's probably done. But so is Hillary...they both are, probably in '08 and beyond.

[TheMojoPin]

How has Obama had "every advantage?" Such a declaration is almost delusional. One candidate is a virtual nobody when this starts versus the wife of the most famous Democrats alive and one of the most beloved Democratic presidents of all time. Obama's placement right now is indicative of having had to fight an amazing fight against the Mount Everest of Democraic opponenents. To try and spin him running only slightly ahead or neck and neck with her at this point as demonstrative of " national resistance" is the height of denial.

I also find it fascinating that SB tosses out states he "knows" Obama would lose as if Hillary Clinton has a better shot at taking states that could easily shift just Right. Please explain to me how the Democratic boogeywoman for over 15 years now is going to pull that off.

[scottinnj]

What was he going to do, say (vote) no to armored Hummers and no to more body armor?

If he were a decent American he would have said no. But he's a commie thinking Allah loving terrorist. :thumbup:

At least that's what the 50-year old cake baking fat housewives are saying at the parlor!


BOOYAH!

[PhilDeez]

How has Obama had "every advantage?" Such a declaration is almost delusional. One candidate is a virtual nobody when this starts versus the wife of the most famous Democrats alive and one of the most beloved Democratic presidents of all time. Obama's placement right now is indicative of having had to fight an amazing fight against the Mount Everest of Democraic opponenents. To try and spin him running only slightly ahead or neck and neck with her at this point as demonstrative of " national resistance" is the height of denial.

I also find it fascinating that SB tosses out states he "knows" Obama would lose as if Hillary Clinton has a better shot at taking states that could easily shift just Right. Please explain to me how the Democratic boogeywoman for over 15 years now is going to pull that off.

I would argue that after his speech at the convention in 04, he was the darling of the party.

[scottinnj]

You're pathetic.

Does it always have to be a personal attack with you? What's your fucking problem anyway?

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

No fights. Yerdaddy did start it. No need to call BM out like that. Attack his statement all you want, but there was zero need to attack him.

Booooooooooo. This forum suffers from a distinct lack of fights to the death.



FIGHT TO THE DEATH!!
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/kirk-spock-fight.jpg

[ShowerBench]

I also find it fascinating that SB tosses out states he "knows" Obama would lose as if Hillary Clinton has a better shot at taking states that could easily shift just Right. Please explain to me how the Democratic boogeywoman for over 15 years now is going to pull that off.

She would carry Arkansas and probably, finally, Ohio. Ohio is dying to elect a Democrat after 8 years of Bush but doubtful Obama would pull it off. He'd probably lose PA where she would probably win it. She probably has at least an even chance to win Florida against McCain, Obama has NO chance.

The economy will loom large and favor Democratic candidates, especially a Clinton. She should have kept Bill front and center, endured the pain for a week or two, and let the anti-Bill story die or backfire. She needs to bring him back into the fore of the electoral consciousness somehow, because a Billary ticket would be a general election no brainer in the above named states.

[JerseySean]

How has Obama had "every advantage?" Such a declaration is almost delusional. One candidate is a virtual nobody when this starts versus the wife of the most famous Democrats alive and one of the most beloved Democratic presidents of all time. Obama's placement right now is indicative of having had to fight an amazing fight against the Mount Everest of Democraic opponenents. To try and spin him running only slightly ahead or neck and neck with her at this point as demonstrative of " national resistance" is the height of denial.

I also find it fascinating that SB tosses out states he "knows" Obama would lose as if Hillary Clinton has a better shot at taking states that could easily shift just Right. Please explain to me how the Democratic boogeywoman for over 15 years now is going to pull that off.

For once Mojo, right on point.

[JerseySean]

So Obama's chief economic advisor cynically tells the Canucks, "Eh, don't worry about what he says about NAFTA...It's just political positioning." The campaign has been nailed for it and now they're saying it was a "misinterpretation."

So either the campaign is lying or Obama is incompetent for selecting and relying on bumbling advisors. Sound like any other failed administration you've lived through for the last eight years?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080303/democrats_nafta.html?.v=1

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (AP) -- Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

This is just another example of how we will wonder who the real Barack is. He seems like a wolf in sheeps clothing.

[epo]

She would carry Arkansas and probably, finally, Ohio. Ohio is dying to elect a Democrat after 8 years of Bush but doubtful Obama would pull it off. He'd probably lose PA where she would probably win it. She probably has at least an even chance to win Florida against McCain, Obama has NO chance.

The economy will loom large and favor Democratic candidates, especially a Clinton. She should have kept Bill front and center, endured the pain for a week or two, and let the anti-Bill story die or backfire. She needs to bring him back into the fore of the electoral consciousness somehow, because a Billary ticket would be a general election no brainer in the above named states.

You have no quantitative evidence to back up this claim. Only "doubtfuls" and "probablys". Your argument is weak and pathetic and has no backing.

I'll go you one further. The only reason that Clinton is still alive is something that was tested right here in southeastern Wisconsin: The power of right-wing radio. See the week prior to the Wisconsin Primary, our talking head jackasses on conversative radio told the locals that a vote for Clinton was a good strategic vote (http://www.gmtoday.com/milwaukeetoday/editorials/belling/2008/belling_02132008.asp).....because "Clinton is more beatable than Obama".

So my quantitative data: Waukesha County. It's the county in which I live and a county that breaks heavily Republican. Now remember the Wisconsin primary was decided by only a +17 point margin for Obama. Only an ass-kicking on a major level. But here's the funny thing, Waukesha County was only a 5% win for Senator Obama.

Huh, then you look into the numbers and there are pockets of the county that, traditionally very Republican (3-to-1 or better) that broke heavily towards Clinton or skewed against the statistical model.

2008 Results by Ward (http://www.waukeshacounty.gov/departments/clerk/Official%20Election%20Results/08febpri.canvass.LST)

2004 Results by Ward (http://www.waukeshacounty.gov/departments/clerk/Official%20Election%20Results/04novgen.Canvass.LST)

Simply put, the hardcore republicans got marching orders and delivered. And guess what....now Fox News, Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh all think that the republicans of Ohio and Texas should vote for who? That's right, Hillary Clinton (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/03/rush-limbaugh-urges-texas_n_89674.html).

Sir, your theory that Republicans are voting for Obama is most likely dogshit, and actually couldn't be further from the truth.

[Zorro]

You have no quantitative evidence to back up this claim. Only "doubtfuls" and "probablys". Your argument is weak and pathetic and has no backing.

I'll go you one further. The only reason that Clinton is still alive is something that was tested right here in southeastern Wisconsin: The power of right-wing radio. See the week prior to the Wisconsin Primary, our talking head jackasses on conversative radio told the locals that a vote for Clinton was a good strategic vote (http://www.gmtoday.com/milwaukeetoday/editorials/belling/2008/belling_02132008.asp).....because "Clinton is more beatable than Obama".

So my quantitative data: Waukesha County. It's the county in which I live and a county that breaks heavily Republican. Now remember the Wisconsin primary was decided by only a +17 point margin for Obama. Only an ass-kicking on a major level. But here's the funny thing, Waukesha County was only a 5% win for Senator Obama.

Huh, then you look into the numbers and there are pockets of the county that, traditionally very Republican (3-to-1 or better) that broke heavily towards Clinton or skewed against the statistical model.

2008 Results by Ward (http://www.waukeshacounty.gov/departments/clerk/Official%20Election%20Results/08febpri.canvass.LST)

2004 Results by Ward (http://www.waukeshacounty.gov/departments/clerk/Official%20Election%20Results/04novgen.Canvass.LST)

Simply put, the hardcore republicans got marching orders and delivered. And guess what....now Fox News, Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh all think that the republicans of Ohio and Texas should vote for who? That's right, Hillary Clinton (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/03/rush-limbaugh-urges-texas_n_89674.html).

Sir, your theory that Republicans are voting for Obama is most likely dogshit, and actually couldn't be further from the truth.


I happen to agree with you, but linking to the Huffington Post as an authoritative source... like linking to Drudge for info on Hillary...

[epo]

I happen to agree with you, but linking to the Huffington Post as an authoritative source... like linking to Drudge for info on Hillary...

I thought it was the part of my argument that I didn't need to prove....but here you go:

Limbaugh Urges Republicans in Texas & Ohio: Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334669,00.html)

Limbaugh urges voters: CNN Political Ticker (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/03/limbaugh-urges-listeners-to-vote-for-clinton/)

News Max (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/limbaugh_hillary_push/2008/03/03/77428.html)

CBS (http://www.keyetv.com/news/world/story.aspx?content_id=06a29c1e-72c6-446c-8ddc-df9b054daa27)

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WjZzK7qUr6I"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WjZzK7qUr6I" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[johnniewalker]

Canada defends Obama over NAFTA flap... (http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/03/03/2008-03-04T000047Z_01_N03391783_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-OBAMA-UPDATE-1.html)
Wait so were you right that the previous article was bs EPO? I am so confused. So Obama's advisers met with Canadian consulate officials and said we are tired with Nafta. Huh?

[scottinnj]

I thought it was the part of my argument that I didn't need to prove....but here you go:

Limbaugh Urges Republicans in Texas & Ohio: Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334669,00.html)

Limbaugh urges voters: CNN Political Ticker (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/03/limbaugh-urges-listeners-to-vote-for-clinton/)

News Max (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/limbaugh_hillary_push/2008/03/03/77428.html)

CBS (http://www.keyetv.com/news/world/story.aspx?content_id=06a29c1e-72c6-446c-8ddc-df9b054daa27)

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WjZzK7qUr6I"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WjZzK7qUr6I" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


I was way ahead of you on this one epo. Need to keep up on all the threads:

Rush Limbaugh is also telling Republicans in Texas to vote Tuesday night in favor of Hillary Clinton. His reasoning is that it would be "entertaining" to see the Democratic Primaries continue as close as it is until the convention.

I have a different take on what he is thinking. As a lot of you know, I listened to him a lot until I got my XM radio. Friday I had to use a different company car, so I was without my reciever. Anyway, I decided to hear his take on things. He spent a lot of time talking about the Obama revolution as a "movement" and he sounded perplexed on how to go after Obama, if he is the DNC nominee. He even said that McCain would have a tough time campaigning against Obama, and the MSM would view any criticism of Obama as a personal attack, or at least a cheap shot.
So my thinking on this is that the conservative leadership of the RNC are quite worried about an Obama nomination. They have always had a "bring it on" mentality about Hillary being the standard bearer of the DNC going into November. I bet a lot of Republican strategists are just realizing that Obama may just get this, and are scrambling to come up with a new plan to campaign against him, without looking racist or nasty.

Or am I not getting your point in this discussion?

[epo]

I was way ahead of you on this one epo. Need to keep up on all the threads:



Or am I not getting your point in this discussion?

It's merely an extension of post #1399 & 1400 in this thread.

And I'm getting grumpy with this whole process.

[scottinnj]

Canada defends Obama over NAFTA flap... (http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/03/03/2008-03-04T000047Z_01_N03391783_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-OBAMA-UPDATE-1.html)
Wait so were you right that the previous article was bs EPO? I am so confused. So Obama's advisers met with Canadian consulate officials and said we are tired with Nafta. Huh?

Too late. Damage is done. Forbes.com is not the place most Democrats go to for political analysis.

[scottinnj]

It's merely an extension of post #1399 & 1400 in this thread.

And I'm getting grumpy with this whole process.

Sounds like somebody has a case of the Mondays!

[ShowerBench]

The reason Rush wants Clinton to win the primary is he thinks she will win the General Election.

The reason he wants her to win the GE is twofold:

1. Clinton's 1992 election was the best thing that ever happened to Rush. Clinton presidencies are good for Rush Limbaugh's bank account. The only thing better for Rush than a Bill Clinton victory is a Hillary Clinton victory

2. If McCain loses the General Election, Rush is vindicated in his months-long predictions about how poor a candidate McCain is and how he will lose

[johnniewalker]

Too late. Damage is done. Forbes.com is not the place most Democrats go to for political analysis.

I have to check my sources next time. Where do democrats go for politically neutral news. I thought that was in favor of Obama in a confusing way.

[scottinnj]

I have to check my sources next time. Where do democrats go for politically neutral news. I thought that was in favor of Obama in a confusing way.

That wasn't what I was getting at. Maybe I should have said that the mainstream media hasn't picked up on this angle of the story, leaving a lot of voters uninformed. Hence the damage.

[Yerdaddy]

Does it always have to be a personal attack with you? What's your fucking problem anyway?

You know exactly what my problem is. You think you're a conservative, but you're not. Scott and BDC are conservatives because they're honorable men with honorable conservative principles and always have the best interests of the country in mind. You, however, are a part of the right-wing borg that seeks only to serve itself by speaking through its life-like vessels like yourself. Every political statement you make is a defense of that borg regardless of who it insults or whether it hurts America or not. It's the same monster that thinks nothing of slanderng the military service of combat veterans - even conservative one's like John McCain - when those veterans are deemed disloyal to the borg. Every political post you've ever made is straight out of the mouth of another borg vessel and you'll put it forward again and again no matter how many times it's been discredited, or proven to have brought grevious harm to America.

This post was a perfect example. It's been proven time and again that 1) Wilson's wife did not send him to Africa, 2) he was, in fact, uniquely qualified to undertake that mission, 3) that he was right that Saddam Hussein was not seeking to purchase uranium from Niger despite the false claim Bush made in the State of the Union Address, and 4) the man should have earned a lifetime of at least common respect when he saved the lives of kidnapped American workers by daring Saddam to carry out his threat to hang him by wearing a noose as a necktie around Baghdad after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

But you don't respect anyone or anything outside of the borg. Therefore I don't see any point in re-hashing the same arguments with you after I and others have de-bunked them at least a half a dozen times already, and especially when it is a verifiable fact that you and your arguments are pathetic.

I'm sorry if this is a problem for the board admins but I think it's obvious that this politics of destruction and hate had done grevious harm to the country and that dignifying it with respectful responses only encourages more of the same. I'm not just being a dick. I'm practicing enlightened dickdom.

[johnniewalker]

I'm not just being a dick. I'm practicing enlightened dickdom.

That is a lovely quote!

[ShowerBench]

More grist

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254

The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

[badmonkey]

You know exactly what my problem is. You think you're a conservative, but you're not. Scott and BDC are conservatives because they're honorable men with honorable conservative principles and always have the best interests of the country in mind. You, however, are a part of the right-wing borg that seeks only to serve itself by speaking through its life-like vessels like yourself. Every political statement you make is a defense of that borg regardless of who it insults or whether it hurts America or not. It's the same monster that thinks nothing of slanderng the military service of combat veterans - even conservative one's like John McCain - when those veterans are deemed disloyal to the borg. Every political post you've ever made is straight out of the mouth of another borg vessel and you'll put it forward again and again no matter how many times it's been discredited, or proven to have brought grevious harm to America.

This post was a perfect example. It's been proven time and again that 1) Wilson's wife did not send him to Africa, 2) he was, in fact, uniquely qualified to undertake that mission, 3) that he was right that Saddam Hussein was not seeking to purchase uranium from Niger despite the false claim Bush made in the State of the Union Address, and 4) the man should have earned a lifetime of at least common respect when he saved the lives of kidnapped American workers by daring Saddam to carry out his threat to hang him by wearing a noose as a necktie around Baghdad after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

But you don't respect anyone or anything outside of the borg. Therefore I don't see any point in re-hashing the same arguments with you after I and others have de-bunked them at least a half a dozen times already, and especially when it is a verifiable fact that you and your arguments are pathetic.

I'm sorry if this is a problem for the board admins but I think it's obvious that this politics of destruction and hate had done grevious harm to the country and that dignifying it with respectful responses only encourages more of the same. I'm not just being a dick. I'm practicing enlightened dickdom.


The source I cited on Wilson was NOT fox news, NOT rush limbaugh, NOT even the editorial/opinion sectionof the Washington Post. The article was a NEWS article from the Washington Post National Security and Intelligence section and it was an article about the report that Wilson handed to the CIA. Did Wilson lie in his report to the CIA or to the American people in his editorial? The two stories contradict each other. And as far as him not being a political opportunist? Give me a fucking break. Him and his wife have jumped right into the media spotlight and rode this into celebrity status in the Democratic party and they take every opportunity to remind people that they exist. She put herself on the cover of magazines. This little bullshit attack on Obama is a prime example of a guy that holds zero political weight trying to remind people that he exists. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he's trying to remind everybody where he stood on the Iraq war so that maybe Hillary will pick him as a VP to counterbalance her vote for the war.

Like you know anything about me. I have zero disrespect for the military service of any member or former member of the United States Military and that includes John Kerry. I have NEVER disrespected any member of the United States military by attacking their military service, unlike others who attacked either Kerry and Bush's military service simply because they didn't like their politics. I have even recently defended both on this forum when McCain's service was called into question. Again, I was born on and grew up on United States military bases. My father was career Air Force. My brother is Army now, was Navy. Several of my best friends from high school are military and my wife's brother died in Iraq. I was in the Air Force ROTC program in college and part of the drill team. I was ultimately denied military service due to an injury to my wrist my senior year of high school that didn't heal enough to be useful for 3 more years and still isn't 100% today. I have nothing but respect for the people that serve, have served, and will serve in our military. They are ALL heroes in my mind and it is extremely offensive to me that you would attempt to lump me in with people that have such disrespect for our military that they would attack their service for political or personal gain.

You spend an awful lot of time telling me who I am for somebody that has never met me. I know who I am and I don't need your help figuring it out. You wanna comment on the issues, fine I'm happy to discuss and debate with you or anybody else. You wanna continue your agenda of making personal attacks at me, then by all means go fuck yourself.

[K.C.]

Slate.com has a delegate calculator on the site to determine whether or not Hillary can win the pledged delegate lead from Obama.

This what it would take (and it seems pretty impossible) according to my calculations:

Ohio - Clinton 59%, Obama 41%
Rhode Island - Clinton 59%, Obama 41%
Texas - Clinton 56%, Obama 44%
Vermont - Obama 51%, Clinton 49%
Wyoming - Clinton 62%, Obama 38%
Mississippi - Clinton 52%, Obama 48%
Pennsylvania - Clinton 60%, Obama 40%
Guam - Clinton 70%, Obama 30%
Indiana - Clinton 57%, Obama 43%
North Carolina - Clinton 55%, Obama 45%
West Virginia - Clinton 65%, Obama 35%
Kentucky - Clinton 58%, Obama 42%
Oregon - Clinton 52%, Obama 48%
Montana - Clinton 65%, Obama 35%
South Dakota - Clinton 65%, Obama 35%
Puerto Rico - Clinton 69%, Obama 31%


ALL of that would give Hillary a one delegate lead in pledged delegates.

Now, as I've said, I think it's pretty unlikely the Super Delegates would vote to overturn the will of the primary voters, so for her to win, she would have to take back the pledged delegate lead.

If this was back a month or so ago, this scenario MAY have had a shot...but unless there's something in the polling that isn't going to be reflected in the results, Hillary may squeak out victories in Ohio and Texas tonight.

Getting 52 or 53% isn't going to be enough...it's all about margin of victory. And if Obama breaks through and grabs a state, forget it. She's done.

So she not only has to run the table, she's got to run it with sizable margins in a lot of places.

[johnniewalker]

I really find the whole nafta issue really interesting because the democratic candidates have made strong statements mocking Bush's foreign policy as senseless. It's rare that we can actually examine foreign policy during a campaign but I think we've gotten a look with Obama.

Bush came out strongly for free trade. Even pressing for an agreement with Columbia.

BUSH: MORE FREE TRADE, NOT LESS (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2008/02/bush-more-free-trade-not-less.html)

But i thought hilary made a good point. "I find that highly ironic since President Bush has turned a blind eye to all of the actions by China and others who dump steel into Ohio, hurting Ohio workers and the Ohio economy and has also failed to act in the face of other imports like lead based toys and contaminated pet food and so much else that really requires a President to step in and protect the interests of American workers and consumers.”

I also wondered about John Mccain. He took Bush's side and ripped Obama and Clinton for their positions.
McCain Tags Dems on Trade Treaty (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fwires%2F2008Mar 02%2F0%2C4670%2CMcCainNAFTA%2C00.html&ei=QJbNR4WTJIGuigGe2aiWDg&usg=AFQjCNGnQDkI-3BURz3LySMWVyRCEOYCng&sig2=blUFDhTcCiTrDSBd8Qo8ZQ)

[K.C.]

I really find the whole nafta issue really interesting because the democratic candidates have made strong statements mocking Bush's foreign policy as senseless. It's rare that we can actually examine foreign policy during a campaign but I think we've gotten a look with Obama.

Bush came out strongly for free trade. Even pressing for an agreement with Columbia.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2008/02/bush-more-free-trade-not-less.html]BUSH: MORE FREE TRADE, NOT LESS (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2008/02/bush-more-free-trade-not-less.html)

But i thought hilary made a good point. "I find that highly ironic since President Bush has turned a blind eye to all of the actions by China and others who dump steel into Ohio, hurting Ohio workers and the Ohio economy and has also failed to act in the face of other imports like lead based toys and contaminated pet food and so much else that really requires a President to step in and protect the interests of American workers and consumers.”

I also wondered about John Mccain. He took Bush's side and ripped Obama and Clinton for their positions.
McCain Tags Dems on Trade Treaty (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fwires%2F2008Mar 02%2F0%2C4670%2CMcCainNAFTA%2C00.html&ei=QJbNR4WTJIGuigGe2aiWDg&usg=AFQjCNGnQDkI-3BURz3LySMWVyRCEOYCng&sig2=blUFDhTcCiTrDSBd8Qo8ZQ)

I'm pretty anti-NAFTA and WTO, in its current state (it could totally work with a few provisions thrown in)...Clinton and Obama pay lip service to saying changes need to be made, but the bottom line is unless they withdraw, they're not capable of making the changes that need to be made, and neither will cancel the agreements.

[K.C.]

Getting back to the campaign for a second, though...if Rudy Giuliani had not redefined horrible campaigns this year, Hillary Clinton's (assuming she goes on to lose) will go down as one of the worst run campaigns in modern history.

She tried to rope-a-dope Obama...you save that strategy for a John Edwards or Joe Biden or Bill Richardson...guys who don't have a lot of resources who commit them all in to one state.

It was clear from the beginning that Obama was in for the long haul because he had money. So by not making an effort and running (competitively) in every state, she allowed him to just build momentum.

Obama outgunned her in:

-Fundraising strategy: Clinton maxed out her donors early in the hopes of delivering a Super Tuesday knock out blow, which is was she's scrambling to find cash now. Obama built a small donor base that he has been slowly maxing out, and used his early wins to pickoff some of Hillary's donors.

-Campaign organization: Clinton figured that Obama wouldn't run hard in states she ignored...he committed time, effort, and campaign organization to places like Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, and so forth to run up huge margins on Super Tuesday. Those margins offset Hillary's wins in California, New York, and Massachusettes, and then some.


And the momentum he got in the small states, he parlayed the media attention in to lessening her margins in big states. Then she made what will be the fatal error of not running hard in the Potomac states, or Washington state, and retreating immediately retreating to Texas and Ohio.

Again he committed time and effort...again he ran up huge margins, and again he's parlayed that momentum to cut her margins significantly in Texas and Ohio.

Just horrible strategy by her...the Clintons are running like it's the 1992 primary. It's an outdated strategy which will probably sink her.

[johnniewalker]

Getting back to the campaign for a second, though...if Rudy Giuliani had not redefined horrible campaigns this year, Hillary Clinton's (assuming she goes on to lose) will go down as one of the worst run campaigns in modern history.

...he committed time, effort, and campaign organization to places like Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, and so forth to run up huge margins on Super Tuesday. Those margins offset Hillary's wins in California, New York, and Massachusettes, and then some.



I'm not saying what you said didn't affect the campaign. It just doesn't explain so large of discrepancies in states like MN or Nebraska or Idaho. I don't think merely out-campaigning can explain these. There was something deeper that made her lose in states like Minn. and Wisconsin.

[epo]

More grist

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254

The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee.

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

Nice use of reporting "selected data". Other items from the polling data that you have provided include:

In overall voters the general would break as follows:

Obama 50 - McCain 43
Clinton 50 - McCain 45

Amongst independents:

Obama 49 - McCain 43
McCain 52 - Clinton 44

Simply put, even with your data, you provide evidence that Obama is a stronger candidate for a general election.

[Zorro]

Nice use of reporting "selected data". Other items from the polling data that you have provided include:

In overall voters the general would break as follows:

Obama 50 - McCain 43
Clinton 50 - McCain 45

Amongst independents:

Obama 49 - McCain 43
McCain 52 - Clinton 44

Simply put, even with your data, you provide evidence that Obama is a stronger candidate for a general election.

Which explains why the Republicans are pushing so hard for Hillary to continue.

[K.C.]

I'm not saying what you said didn't affect the campaign. It just doesn't explain so large of discrepancies in states like MN or Nebraska or Idaho. I don't think merely out-campaigning can explain these. There was something deeper that made her lose in states like Minn. and Wisconsin.

Her not campaigning there was the reason his margin of victory was so large in a lot of those states...and that's what will ultimately cost her the margin of those losses.


But the reason he had traction there is that the red state and swing state Democratic elected officials feel they have a better shot with their state elections with an Obama candidacy since he draws so much Independent support as opposed to a Clinton candidacy which they think would polarize the electorate and drive Republican turnout in November, thus putting a lot of Democratic campaigns in those states in trouble.

A lot of people in these states have basically said at much.

[ShowerBench]

Simply put, even with your data, you provide evidence that Obama is a stronger candidate for a general election.

There's nothing in those numbers that suggests that's true.

First, the races are in states, not nationally. If Obama can't win PA, FL, OH and Clinton could, he's not a stronger candidate.
(The Democratic candidate isn 't going to win states like Texas, strength is more important in big swing states like FL, PA and OH)

Furthermore, Obama has had two days of fair press and is collapsing. They are now even again in the Gallup daily tracking. Clinton has had months of attacks by the press and is still even nationally.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/030408DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

[FUNKMAN]

heard McCain say the other day that two of our greatest president's both have the last name of Bush

[ShowerBench]

3/4 exit polling on "Who is more qualified to be Commander in Chief":

Clinton 55

Obama 39


And this is among mostly Democratic voters, most of whom oppose the Iraq war. It's one of a few reasons Obama will be a weaker nominee in the general election. He would have an advantage on the economy but with McCain in the race and Iran at the fore national security would be of equal importance and he would be destroyed.

Anecdotal, but it's the reason I wouldn't vote for Obama.

[foodcourtdruide]

3/4 exit polling on "Who is more qualified to be Commander in Chief":

Clinton 55

Obama 39


And this is among mostly Democratic voters, most of whom oppose the Iraq war. It's one of a few reasons Obama will be a weaker nominee in the general election. He would have an advantage on the economy but with McCain in the race and Iran at the fore national security would be of equal importance and he would be destroyed.

Anecdotal, but it's the reason I wouldn't vote for Obama.

Using "qualified" as a measuring stick is pointless.

Gore and Kerry were more qualified than Bush, Dole was more qualified than Clinton, HW Bush was more qualified than Clinton.

[badmonkey]

Using "qualified" as a measuring stick is pointless.

Gore and Kerry were more qualified than Bush, Dole was more qualified than Clinton, HW Bush was more qualified than Clinton.

According to your post, it means we have chosen the least qualified person for the job for the last 16 years. Gvac may actually have a real shot at this one.

[IMSlacker]

I'm waiting to vote right now. Holy shit line is long.

[FUNKMAN]

Corporations are eliminating retirement plans, reducing medical coverage, laying off and out-sourcing tens of hundred of thousands of jobs, all while executives continue to make record salaries and bonuses.

So what does John McCain want to do, give the corporations additional tax breaks.

Will these tax breaks lead to "additional medical coverage", putting back retirement plans or adding back to reduced retirement accounts, stop the out-sourcing or layoffs? If I was a betting man I would bet " No "

It will just continue the record salaries and bonuses for the very few. It's just one of the means that contributes to the " rich getting richer " and the " poor getting poorer "

Is there any surprise, does it take a rocket scientist to figure out why people are unable to pay for their homes, credit cards, car payments, or medical coverage. In a way we are shooting ourselves in the foot because 2 thirds of the economy is the consumer.

If you do not put money in the pockets of the majority of the consumers who is going to buy the products, the houses, the cars? They are working with homeowners to help keep them in the home because the US is going to start looking like a third world country.

There are going to be whole neighborhoods with abandon homes. people who cannot afford rents and mortgages will become homeless or squatters. There was a news story recently where some "possible radical group" set a group of expensive homes on fire.

Good citizens who are willing to work hard need decent jobs with benefits, sustained income, not 600 or 1200 dollars thrown at them.

Corporations should get a tax break if it guarantees good jobs for hard working decent american citizens, not another year for record Executive salary and bonuses.

[HBox]

I take back everything I said about John Kerry's endorsement. He's making a hell of a case for Obama on MSNBC, tearing every single one of Clinton's criticisms. If he had talked about himself this way 3 and a half years ago he might have fared well.

[NewYorkDragons80]

heard McCain say the other day that two of our greatest president's both have the last name of Bush
How many times ya wanna post that, chief?

[FUNKMAN]

heard McCain say the other day that two of our greatest president's both have the last name of Bush

[NickyL0885]

Obama gets Vermont as per MSNBC projection. Woo Woo!

[epo]

Obama gets Vermont as per MSNBC projection. Woo Woo!

The very left wing blog MyDD is reporting these exit polls: (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/4/18735/88678)

Vermont: Obama 67 - Clinton 33
Ohio : Obama 51 - Clinton 49
Texas: Obama 51 - Clinton 49
Rhode Island: Tied at 49

Of course, I have no idea about the reliability of these exit polls and they are only posted for entertainment value. However I would bet the next three will be very, very tight.

[SonOfSmeagol]

I've determined, after careful deliberation and analysis. After a completely scientific and objective evaluation:

"I'd never vote for that phony c*nt and her pu&&y hound husband."

[keithy_19]

Just a question I would like to pose to all you diehard Obama supporters.

Let's say Clinton wins the nomination, would you vote for her?

[keithy_19]

Fox News calls Ohio for McCain.

[NickyL0885]

Just a question I would like to pose to all you diehard Obama supporters.

Let's say Clinton wins the nomination, would you vote for her?

NEBA!!! i just wouldnt vote.

[TooLowBrow]

Just a question I would like to pose to all you diehard Clinton supporters.

Let's say Obama wins the nomination, would you vote for one of 'them'?

[K.C.]

The very left wing blog MyDD is reporting these exit polls: (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/4/18735/88678)

Vermont: Obama 67 - Clinton 33
Ohio : Obama 51 - Clinton 49
Texas: Obama 51 - Clinton 49
Rhode Island: Tied at 49

Of course, I have no idea about the reliability of these exit polls and they are only posted for entertainment value. However I would bet the next three will be very, very tight.

If that's true, it won't matter...it's all about margin. Hillary needs about 10% wins in each state to have a shot.

[Recyclerz]

Corporations are eliminating retirement plans, reducing medical coverage, laying off and out-sourcing tens of hundred of thousands of jobs, all while executives continue to make record salaries and bonuses.

So what does John McCain want to do, give the corporations additional tax breaks.

Will these tax breaks lead to "additional medical coverage", putting back retirement plans or adding back to reduced retirement accounts, stop the out-sourcing or layoffs? If I was a betting man I would bet " No "

It will just continue the record salaries and bonuses for the very few. It's just one of the means that contributes to the " rich getting richer " and the " poor getting poorer "

Is there any surprise, does it take a rocket scientist to figure out why people are unable to pay for their homes, credit cards, car payments, or medical coverage. In a way we are shooting ourselves in the foot because 2 thirds of the economy is the consumer.

If you do not put money in the pockets of the majority of the consumers who is going to buy the products, the houses, the cars? They are working with homeowners to help keep them in the home because the US is going to start looking like a third world country.

There are going to be whole neighborhoods with abandon homes. people who cannot afford rents and mortgages will become homeless or squatters. There was a news story recently where some "possible radical group" set a group of expensive homes on fire.

Good citizens who are willing to work hard need decent jobs with benefits, sustained income, not 600 or 1200 dollars thrown at them.

Corporations should get a tax break if it guarantees good jobs for hard working decent american citizens, not another year for record Executive salary and bonuses.

When Funkman puts down the pun machine and gets serious it's time to pay attention kiddos.

While I'm feeling where the Funkmeister is coming from I'm going to disagree, in part, with why it is happening and how to fix it. I've said before (and I'm sure I'll say it again) that globalization is the primary historical economic movement of our lifetimes. We can't change it but we have to learn how to adapt to it. If some guy in China can be 80% as productive as a US worker for 10% of the cost for doing a job there is no way to keep the job in the US. Workers in the US (i.e. all of us) have to learn to adapt to the new realities of the worldwide labor markets. Now that being said some small groups in the US are benefitting ginormously from globalization (Senior management of industrial corporations, international financeers and lawyers, hedge fund managers, etc.). While many of this crowd are hard-working, etc. etc. and are entitled to a very nice market-based salary, the rewards of globalization are accruing to them at such an unnatural rate that, at a minimum, they could pay more in taxes to finance some of the retraining programs, etc. for those fellow citizens that have been smashed by the economic headwinds.

That is all.

[scottinnj]

Fox News calls Ohio for McCain.

He beat Obama?



















Yes, yes that's right. It was a horrible joke. Car crash me all you want, I'm not punching out.

[FUNKMAN]

When Funkman puts down the pun machine and gets serious it's time to pay attention kiddos.

While I'm feeling where the Funkmeister is coming from I'm going to disagree, in part, with why it is happening and how to fix it. I've said before (and I'm sure I'll say it again) that globalization is the primary historical economic movement of our lifetimes. We can't change it but we have to learn how to adapt to it. If some guy in China can be 80% as productive as a US worker for 10% of the cost for doing a job there is no way to keep the job in the US. Workers in the US (i.e. all of us) have to learn to adapt to the new realities of the worldwide labor markets. Now that being said some small groups in the US are benefitting ginormously from globalization (Senior management of industrial corporations, international financeers and lawyers, hedge fund managers, etc.). While many of this crowd are hard-working, etc. etc. and are entitled to a very nice market-based salary, the rewards of globalization are accruing to them at such an unnatural rate that, at a minimum, they could pay more in taxes to finance some of the retraining programs, etc. for those fellow citizens that have been smashed by the economic headwinds.

That is all.

Nicely Put!

[scottinnj]

Front page of Drudge just refreshed and it is saying Obama is beating Clinton 58 to 41, and by 1.5 million votes

[K.C.]

Front page of Drudge just refreshed and it is saying Obama is beating Clinton 58 to 41, and by 1.5 million votes

That's 1% of the vote.

And only 130,000 votes.

[scottinnj]

That's 1% of the vote.

And only 130,000 votes.

My bad.

I didn't carry the hypotenuse.

And added a zero.

[Zorro]

Clinton "emergency conference call" complaint...Caucus Shenanigans... man this woman has way too many enemies...

[K.C.]

Clinton "emergency conference call" complaint...Caucus Shenanigans... man this woman has way too many enemies...

They say they have proof of the Obama campaign illegally obtaining the caucus packets in 8 precincts.

It'll only make a difference if:
a) it's close
b) they actually have proof

[scottinnj]

They don't need proof. They're the Clintons. They speak, and the very soundwaves coming out of their mouths becomes truth.

[K.C.]

They don't need proof. They're the Clintons. They speak, and the very soundwaves coming out of their mouths becomes truth.

I mean a legal difference.

...actually, a spin difference too...unless they can prove it, alleging it doesn't benefit them. Just makes them look petty.

[Zorro]

I mean a legal difference.

...actually, a spin difference too...unless they can prove it, alleging it doesn't benefit them. Just makes them look petty.

Petty...You mean like intimating your opponent is a muslim?

[scottinnj]

Fox News calls McCain the Republican Nominee, estimating he has enough delegates to secure the nomination.


HUZZAH! HUZZAH! Congratulations Senator!

[scottinnj]

Okay, in Texas, just under a million votes in and Obama is up 9 points.

[Zorro]

Rhode Island was supposed to be a slam dunk for Hillary, but MSNBC still saying too close to call...and it was proven tonight there is a god...Mike Huckabee dropping out

edit:9:30 see msnbc calling RI for Clinton

[Bulldogcakes]

TEXAS
OBAMA 522,145 54%
CLINTON 435,531 45% (http://www.drudgereport.com/)

When all the polls looked like we'd have a nail biter, I wondered if Hillary would use a close race in TX as an excuse to stay in. Still mathematically in it, Obama hasn't landed a knockout punch, blah blah blah.

Instead we have a pillow biter, and once again its Hillary.

Time to give up the ghost, Hillary. You're no Bill on the campaign trail.

[K.C.]

TEXAS
OBAMA 522,145 54%
CLINTON 435,531 45% (http://www.drudgereport.com/)

When all the polls looked like we'd have a nail biter, I wondered if Hillary would use a close race in TX as an excuse to stay in. Still mathematically in it, Obama hasn't landed a knockout punch, blah blah blah.

Instead we have a pillow biter, and once again its Hillary.

Time to give up the ghost, Hillary. You're no Bill on the campaign trail.

Not a lot of the vote in there yet...let's not get ahead of ourselves...and unless she gets blown out, she'll stay in...the Texas two-step system almost pre-determined a delegate split there. So unless Obama or Hillary won by +10%, it was going to be pretty even.

And Terry McAulife said that they would push for new Michigan and Florida elections...so they'll still try and play that card.

[K.C.]

CNN project Rhode Island for Clinton...but if the 53-47 number that's in right now for her there holds up, it'll only be a one delegate difference.

The 60% number in Ohio is promising for her, though, if it holds up.

[Zorro]

And Terry McAulife said that they would push for new Michigan and Florida elections...so they'll still try and play that card.

Terry McAuliffe reminds me of Alec Baldwin in Glengary Glen Ross.

[K.C.]

Terry McAuliffe reminds me of Alec Baldwin in Glengary Glen Ross.

I hate all of the Clinton campaign staffers...they're all fucking ghouls.

She should have picked Joe Trippi to run her campaign, since he originally interviewed for the job. She'd be in a better spot had she done it, because he actually anticipated a lot of this.

[K.C.]

If the current numbers in each state hold up, Clinton will come out with a 16 delegate lead for tonight.

She would still trail Obama by 140, minus the superdelegates.

So the math doesn't bode well if these numbers holds up...she needs to make up some ground in Texas before tonight is over.

[Bulldogcakes]

Ooops. My bad. I didn't see that TX only has 4% in, and OH only has 16% in. Its still real early.

[K.C.]

McCain speaking...

...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Zorro]

Ooops. My bad. I didn't see that TX only has 4% in, and OH only has 16% in. Its still real early.

Your guess is probably as good as any of the networks

[PhilDeez]

Not a lot of the vote in there yet...let's not get ahead of ourselves...and unless she gets blown out, she'll stay in...the Texas two-step system almost pre-determined a delegate split there. So unless Obama or Hillary won by +10%, it was going to be pretty even.

And Terry McAulife said that they would push for new Michigan and Florida elections...so they'll still try and play that card.

Can you please explain something to me - why when 3% of the vote was in roughly 1million total votes were counted in Texas, now with 6% in, the total has only increased by about 100thousand. Maybe I am missing something. Are the percentages based on districts to report, hence not an overall percentage, or am I just a flaming dumbass who is missing something?

[badmonkey]

I mean a legal difference.

...actually, a spin difference too...unless they can prove it, alleging it doesn't benefit them. Just makes them look petty.

That and a quick back shaving wouldn't hurt.

[Edit] oh.... p-e-t-t-y. nm

[thejives]

These election nights aren't good for my blood pressure.
McCain's speeches are nice and calming though.

[K.C.]

Can you please explain something to me - why when 3% of the vote was in roughly 1million total votes were counted in Texas, now with 6% in, the total has only increased by about 100thousand. Maybe I am missing something. Are the percentages based on districts to report, hence not an overall percentage, or am I just a flaming dumbass who is missing something?

Absentee vote...the percentage only reflects the number of precincts reporting.

Somewhere between 3.5 and 4 million I believe are expected to vote in Texas.

The reason the absentee vote is not the precursor to an Obama victory (at least yet) is because they actually handed out ballots at most of their rallies and campaign events, so it's conceivable that a decent portion of his vote early voted.

[DiabloSammich]

McCain's dead-eyed stare into a teleprompter is already bugging me.

I better not have to sit through 4 years of this.

[thejives]

Dammit sammich, now you're awake. I was just in chat and you said nothing.

So I left.

Alone.

[DiabloSammich]

Dammit sammich, now you're awake. I was just in chat and you said nothing.

So I left.

Alone.


Sorry, I forgot I was in there.

I was lulled into a comatose state starting about 10 minutes ago.

[K.C.]

McCain's dead-eyed stare into a teleprompter is already bugging me.

I better not have to sit through 4 years of this.


It's all part of a plot to lull us into a stupor while McCain in enacts his real agenda...finishing Vietnam.

"You hear that, Charlie!!..Johnny Mac is back!"


Wow, he has a campaign song older then him...'Johnny B Goode'?????

[DiabloSammich]

It's all part of a plot to lull us into a stupor while McCain in enacts his real agenda...finishing Vietnam.

"You hear that, Charlie!!..Johnny Mac is back!"


Wow, he has a campaign song older then him...'Johnny B Goode'?????


I was just thinking what a brilliant move it was using Johnny B Goode for his campaign song.

You know, reaching out to the kids and all.

[thejives]

I was just thinking what a brilliant move it was using Johnny B Goode for his campaign song.

You know, reaching out to the kids and all.

http://seeing-stars.com/Locations/BTTF/Dance-JohnnyBGoode(smaller).JPG

[badmonkey]

Actually Johnny B Goode was 1958. McCain graduated from the Naval Academy when that was released. He was born in 1938.

That's if you trust the fine professional editing staff at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mccain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_B._Goode

[Zorro]

Anyone giving or taking odds on the Dems ending tonight?

[scottinnj]

Terry McAuliffe reminds me of Alec Baldwin in Glengary Glen Ross.

Yeah, but he's a money making machine. Hillary owes her campaign to him for keeping her afloat after her 5 million dollar check she had to write to herself. He went out and got enough money to keep her competitive, probably through to Pennsylvania.

[badmonkey]

He's just hoping that if she wins the election, he will get to run the DNC again.

[scottinnj]

Fox News is streaming live online as well as on TV. Kirsten Powers is on the internet stream.

Democrat Strategist, Hottie Extrordanaire, she's a great person to watch if you're a political junkie:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c157/rbarthjr/Kirsten_Powers.jpg

[ShowerBench]

The exit polls are showing a slight lead for Clinton in today's TX voting but the x factor is how the early voting went and what proportion it is to the total. I think Obama won early voters by enough that he eaks out TX by a small margin.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM

Victories in OH and RI with a close race in TX gives her enough to stay in through PA and hope he crashes and burns in the meantime and causes panic among superdelegates.

Not pretty but that's what the process is for and that's what superdelegates are for - making sure Democrats don't nominate a sure loser.

The reason Obama's campaign is desperate for this to end now is because they are aware of his vulnerabilities. They saw him tested for the first time in the last day or two and it was a disaster. If he crumbles like that under the slight scrutiny of the last three days then Clinton's not hurting the party by sticking around she might be saving it.

[Neckbeard]

The exit polls are showing a slight lead for Clinton in today's TX voting but the x factor is how the early voting went and what proportion it is to the total. I think Obama won early voters by enough that he eaks out TX by a small margin.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM

Victories in OH and RI with a close race in TX gives her enough to stay in through PA and hope he crashes and burns in the meantime and causes panic among superdelegates.

Not pretty but that's what the process is for and that's what superdelegates are for - making sure Democrats don't nominate a sure loser.

The reason Obama's campaign is desperate for this to end now is because they are aware of his vulnerabilities. They saw him tested for the first time in the last day or two and it was a disaster. If he crumbles like that under the slight scrutiny of the last three days then Clinton's not hurting the party by sticking around she might be saving it.

What's up, Harold Hyperbole? Welcome back to this dimension.

[scottinnj]

Fox News reporting that both Obama and Clinton have called McCain to congratulate him on securing the R nomination.

Good for them! My Christmas wish of a good issues oriented campaign is coming true.

[K.C.]

Hillary pulls ahead slightly in Texas.

[scottinnj]

Fox News is calling Ohio for Hillary.

[K.C.]

This thing will go to the Super Delegates.


And I've had this feeling for the last few weeks that it's going to play out like the scene in The Empire Strikes Back where Lando tells Han he just made a deal to secure the future of Cloud City and then leads Han into a room with Vader sitting at the table.

Only it'll be Hillary sitting at the table at the DNC, and Howard Dean will be saying "I'm sorry Barack, she arrived just before you did."

[epo]

This thing will go to the Super Delegates.


And I've had this feeling for the last few weeks that it's going to play out like the scene in The Empire Strikes Back where Lando tells Han he just made a deal to secure the future of Cloud City and then leads Han into a room with Vader sitting at the table.

Only it'll be Hillary sitting at the table at the DNC, and Howard Dean will be saying "I'm sorry Barack, she arrived just before you did."

The problem with that is that the Clintons and Howard Dean hate each other. Seriously....hate each other.

[scottinnj]

Yeah, but Han lowers the shield so the new Death Star can be destroyed. Plus he bags the Princess.

[K.C.]

The problem with that is that the Clintons and Howard Dean hate each other. Seriously....hate each other.

If only you knew the power of the dark side...

[NewYorkDragons80]

You think you're a conservative, but you're not. Scott and BDC are conservatives because they're honorable men with honorable conservative principles and always have the best interests of the country in mind.
What about me, sweetie? (I'm a hawkish moderate, but still)

[epo]

If only you knew the power of the dark side...

Here's a great read from the latest issue of the Nation about the factions in the party and how they completely differ in organizational strategy and how to run the party.

Link to article here. (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/berman)

I have no doubts that Howard not only has a plan for the dark side, but his light saber is the one that is in control.

[K.C.]

Yeah, but Han lowers the shield so the new Death Star can be destroyed. Plus he bags the Princess.

And then Howard Dean will toast him with a smooth Colt 45.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0pK5HmuCMBM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0pK5HmuCMBM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

What about me, sweetie? (I'm a hawkish moderate, but still)

We're using you as the model for the June photo in the "RNC Beefcake Calendar"

I'm September, since I'm a Libra. Guess what's holding the scales?

[scottinnj]

Here's a great read from the latest issue of the Nation about the factions in the party and how they completely differ in organizational strategy and how to run the party.

Link to article here. (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/berman)

I have no doubts that Howard not only has a plan for the dark side, but his light saber is the one that is in control.

That is interesting, even as an outsider looking in:

And then the effort to marginalize Dean collapsed. Partly it's because the party's Congressional takeover--and a subsequent study by Harvard's Elaine Kamarck documenting Dean's contributions toward that end--eventually silenced the Carville-ites.

[epo]

That is interesting, even as an outsider looking in:

Just the basic premise of the 50 state strategy vs. the 50-50 world and its representation amongst the two candidates is fascinating.

[scottinnj]

What struck me was Dean's move to totally revamp the voter database, his switch from big money donors to a grassroots style of raising revenue, and the results of higher Democrat turnout in 2006 and now it seems to be holding steady for the 2008 campaign.

Like or Loathe him, he is bringing the Democrat party into the 21rst century as the better of the two campaigns at reaching voters and getting them to vote.

[K.C.]

Hillary's been speaking for about 10 minutes, and I don't think she's said anything other than 'Yay, us!"

[Friday]

i won't go to www.hilaryclinton.com because her suits annoy me.

her hair too.

i demand fashion reform as well as tax reform.

viva la Obama.

or Jersey Rich.

[ShowerBench]

She's giving her electoral rationale for staying in, saying she's winning all the big states Dems cannot lose if they hope to win in November.

But one thing she's saying is she's in it to win it. (At least for another seven weeks heh)

[epo]

i won't go to www.hilaryclinton.com because her suits annoy me.

her hair too.

i demand fashion reform as well as tax reform.

viva la Obama.

or Jersey Rich.

That's why Friday is my favorite.

[keithy_19]

If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for McCain without any hesitance,

[epo]

If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for McCain without any hesitance,

You and 60% of the independents in this nation.

[Friday]

If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for McCain without any hesitance,

hesitation, even.

:bye: