The 2008 Presidential Race

[K.C.]

You know...I knock Obama from time to time for not showing any substance...but her speech is horrible.

She says NOTHING!

And I like her to a degree (at least in comparison to some of the people here), but this is pointless.

[keithy_19]

You know...I knock Obama from time to time for not showing any substance...but her speech is horrible.

She says NOTHING!

And I like her to a degree (at least in comparison to some of the people here), but this is pointless.

Are you kidding me!? She won! Can't you tell she loves herself! She won! She won, she won she won she won she won she won she won.

She cares about that worker with two kids who doesnt have insurance. That's all. And she won.

[keithy_19]

hesitation, even.

:bye:

This is exactly why I'm shying away from my English major dreams. History here I come!

[HBox]

You and 60% of the independents in this nation.

You are being generous to Hillary.

[K.C.]

Are you kidding me!? She won! Can't you tell she loves herself! She won! She won, she won she won she won she won she won she won.

She cares about that worker with two kids who doesnt have insurance. That's all. And she won.

The funny thing is Tom Brokaw just talked it up as an impact speech...maybe that's really all you need to do.

[scottinnj]

I wish it was over, but this is going to be interesting. Or horrific, I'm an undecided on that poll question.

[keithy_19]

The funny thing is Tom Brokaw just talked it up as an impact speech...maybe that's really all you need to do.

But I don't know many people who really enjoy when he speaks...

[K.C.]

You are being generous to Hillary.

It's kind of BS that Hillary won't draw independents.

Don't believe the national race polls now...as I've said before, when you go back and look at past Presidential elections and compare the polls in June or earlier with the polls in late September, early October, it's usually a drastically different story.

She's great at overcoming the first impression she gives off by lowering expectations and then exceeding those much lowered expectations.

Plus, when it comes down to policy, she's way nearer to the middle (pretty much to a fault) than Obama or McCain, in actuality.

[scottinnj]

Here comes Obama. He's going to school Hillary on how to give a speech.

[K.C.]

Here comes Obama. He's going to school Hillary on how to give a speech.

Well he already beat Hillary's speech when he said 'Good evening...'

But, he's giving the same speech I've heard him give 863 times already.


I'm just getting cynical now...when's Ralph Nader's speech?

[epo]

Here comes Obama. He's going to school Hillary on how to give a speech.

I like the fact that he's gone back to "yes we can"....I thought he got knocked a little off message by the Clinton attacks.

[HBox]

It's kind of BS that Hillary won't draw independents.

Don't believe the national race polls now...as I've said before, when you go back and look at past Presidential elections and compare the polls in June or earlier with the polls in late September, early October, it's usually a drastically different story.

She's great at overcoming the first impression she gives off by lowering expectations and then exceeding those much lowered expectations.

Plus, when it comes down to policy, she's way nearer to the middle (pretty much to a fault) than Obama or McCain, in actuality.

So you really think she has a chance of drawing independents against John McCain? REALLY? I'd agree with you with any other candidate.

And are you serious with this policy wise stuff? People's opinions on Hillary Clinton are already hardened, accurate or not. It doesn't matter.

[PapaBear]

If I was Obama, I'd tell Earl to shut the fuck up.

[sailor]

If I was Obama, I'd tell Earl to shut the fuck up.

pretend you are.

[K.C.]

So you really think she has a chance of drawing independents against John McCain? REALLY? I'd agree with you with any other candidate.

And are you serious with this policy wise stuff? People's opinions on Hillary Clinton are already hardened, accurate or not. It doesn't matter.


Yes...because McCain has a pretty difficult dilemma of appealing to the Hannity-minded base of his party, while not appearing a sellout to the middle.

And I don't think it's a juggling act he can maintain long-term without tilting to one side, especially when people start really paying attention late in the year.


People have somewhat hardened opinions on Hillary...but a lot of it is based on her personality. She (and her machine) have shown the ability to wear people down over a great length of time.

I'm not saying she's going to win independents through inspirations or great articulation...she'd win them through a long, consistant attack and debunking of everything about McCain (with some slander mixed in).

It's Clinton politics...and it does work.

And in the same way Bush drew independents, she would too.

[scottinnj]

I'm just getting cynical now...when's Ralph Nader's speech?

K.C. and Cynacil = Funny.

[epo]

Seriously, Hillary might have just put him back on message.

Yes we can.

[HBox]

Yes...because McCain has a pretty difficult dilemma of appealing to the Hannity-minded base of his party, while not appearing a sellout to the middle.

And I don't think it's a juggling act he can maintain long-term without tilting to one side, especially when people start really paying attention late in the year.


People have somewhat hardened opinions on Hillary...but a lot of it is based on her personality. She (and her machine) have shown the ability to wear people down over a great length of time.

I'm not saying she's going to win independents through inspirations or great articulation...she'd win them through a long, consistant attack and debunking of everything about McCain (with some slander mixed in).

It's Clinton politics...and it does work.

And in the same way Bush drew independents, she would too.

Bill Clinton works. Hillary hasn't ever been in a campaign until now that she has a chance to lose, and she's a running horrible campaign.

And your point about the Hannity base doesn't work. They'll show up en masse if it keeps Hillary Clinton out of office. Forget policy, there is just some irrational deep hatred there.

If Hillary becomes the nominee the second she does McCain KNOWS he doesn't have to worry about pandering to the base. More Republicans will want to keep Hillary out, and he will win independents, the largest voting block.

[K.C.]

Seriously, Hillary might have just put him back on message.

Yes we can.

It was good, but I'm not sure it was the right message.

He spent more time on McCain then Clinton...I know he's trying to run as the front-runner, but he needs to go for the knockout punch on Hillary.

It doesn't benefit him for this to go to the convention. Because it will get very ugly...and as I stated, once it gets behind closed doors, there's always the possibility of that Lando/Darth Vader scenario I laid out.

[K.C.]

Bill Clinton works. Hillary hasn't ever been in a campaign until now that she has a chance to lose, and she's a running horrible campaign.

And your point about the Hannity base doesn't work. They'll show up en masse if it keeps Hillary Clinton out of office. Forget policy, there is just some irrational deep hatred there.

If Hillary becomes the nominee the second she does McCain KNOWS he doesn't have to worry about pandering to the base. More Republicans will want to keep Hillary out, and he will win independents, the largest voting block.

I agree she's run a horrible primary campaign. If she were to survive it (which I don't believe she will), though, it'd make her all the stronger.

As far as the Hannity base...all I'll say is I think you underestimate the near equivalent hatred those people have for John McCain.

I thought it was bullshit posturing at first, but they really do hate him quite a bit. McCain needs that base to turn out for him to win. And I'm not sure they'll unite solely behind defeating the Clintons, especially with a guy like Limbaugh jumping ship pretty early on McCain.

The bottom line is that I think she looks a lot better when you start putting her up against McCain then she does versus Obama.

And a lot of that is McCain's own fault...he's not the guy he was in 2000, when independents loved him. And the Clintons would exploit that.

He'd be tied at the hip to Bush, and never escape that shadow.

[scottinnj]

This may have been asked and answered, but does anyone know when
"Texas-Part II: The Caucus" is set to begin?

[ShowerBench]

People have somewhat hardened opinions on Hillary...but a lot of it is based on her personality. She (and her machine) have shown the ability to wear people down over a great length of time.

I'm not saying she's going to win independents through inspirations or great articulation...she'd win them through a long, consistant attack and debunking of everything about McCain (with some slander mixed in).

It's Clinton politics...and it does work.

And in the same way Bush drew independents, she would too.

lol she does win by wearing down, I can attest. Basically it's a pitch for people to apply one test: consider only what they want in terms of issues and whether her presidency can deliver it better than her opponent's.

After 8 Bush years the electorate will probably be more likely to go along with throwing away "have a beer with" and the "inspirational backstory" in favor of issues - which all heavily favor Clinton on both the domestic and foreign policy.

Republican candidates are usually favored in the national security realm, especially with ongoing conflicts like Iran, but she is nicely positioned there too against 100 years McCain.

[HBox]

This may have been asked and answered, but does anyone know when
"Texas-Part II: The Caucus" is set to begin?

The caucus started as soon as the polls closed.

[K.C.]

This may have been asked and answered, but does anyone know when
"Texas-Part II: The Caucus" is set to begin?

They were apparently a huge clusterfuck. Doubtful we'll get real hard numbers for a while.

[Kevin]

They were apparently a huge clusterfuck. Doubtful we'll get real hard numbers for a while.

What else is new...

[K.C.]

First Texas Caucus numbers...Obama up 56-44 with 5%.

[epo]

Interesting to say the least:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qxZP24dX_nY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qxZP24dX_nY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[keithy_19]

Fox News calls Texas for Hillary

[scottinnj]

So is MSNBC, calling Texas for Hillary

[K.C.]

Interesting to say the least:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qxZP24dX_nY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qxZP24dX_nY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Oh, that silly America Jr!


In all honesty, it's the biggest reason Hillary ran up the margin she did in Ohio.

[Friday]

i blame Gvac.

[epo]

i blame Gvac.

He's splitting the vote with this presidential run of his.

I blame him. You'll see.

[Kevin]

CNN Just called it for Hilary too.

[scottinnj]

Interesting to say the least:

I wonder how much damage that did to Barack over the last 4 days or so. It broke on Thursday or Friday, and not really challenged until today (Tuesday) I'll bet it did a lot to help bring the Hillary votes up higher then was expected in Ohio.

[epo]

I wonder how much damage that did to Barack over the last 4 days or so. It broke on Thursday or Friday, and not really challenged until today (Tuesday) I'll bet it did a lot to help bring the Hillary votes up higher then was expected in Ohio.

Sure it did. It damaged his credibility even though it was bullshit. What is the old phrase..."a lie will travel the earth 100 times before the truth comes out"?

Exhibit A

[K.C.]

Sure it did. It damaged his credibility even though it was bullshit. What is the old phrase..."a lie will travel the earth 100 times before the truth comes out"?

Exhibit A

http://www.grokdotcom.com/wp-content/uploads/Robert/blame_canada_1.jpg

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3EonjqFPKVU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3EonjqFPKVU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[K.C.]

I was just looking at the county by county break down of Texas on CNN.

Barack Obama got walloped in the Latino corridor all up and down the Southwest of the state.

That's what tipped the state in Hillary's favor. Latinos seem to present a real problem for him.
And with McCain being from a border state, and kind of liberal on immigration, if Obama has a weakness in a general election candidacy, it could be McCain making in roads in places like Nevada, Colorado, and even California with the Latino vote.

Now, the good news for him is that there isn't really a state that's heavily influenced by the Latino vote left on the primary schedule other than Puerto Rico.

So his campaign can take time to figure it out.

[DiabloSammich]

Are there enough super delegates left for Obama to win both delegates and super delegates?

[epo]

Are there enough super delegates left for Obama to win both delegates and super delegates?

Simple math, no.


There are 601 popular delegates remaining.
There are approximately 340 super delegates uncommitted.


But the issue for her is that Obama entered last night with a 159 pledged delegate lead. Even if the late tallies broke her way, she'll pick up a net total of 5 delegates yesterday.

All that work for a net 5. The math for her is so impossible at this point its ridiculous.

[Recyclerz]

I agree she's run a horrible primary campaign. If she were to survive it (which I don't believe she will), though, it'd make her all the stronger.

As far as the Hannity base...all I'll say is I think you underestimate the near equivalent hatred those people have for John McCain.

I thought it was bullshit posturing at first, but they really do hate him quite a bit. McCain needs that base to turn out for him to win. And I'm not sure they'll unite solely behind defeating the Clintons, especially with a guy like Limbaugh jumping ship pretty early on McCain.

The bottom line is that I think she looks a lot better when you start putting her up against McCain then she does versus Obama.

And a lot of that is McCain's own fault...he's not the guy he was in 2000, when independents loved him. And the Clintons would exploit that.

He'd be tied at the hip to Bush, and never escape that shadow.

Although I always like and usually agree with KC's analysis in this thread I think HBox's take on this is closer to reality on this issue. Two of the few things that link the Republican coalition are winning and hatred for the Clintons. I'm sure that the opportunity to beat Hilary will make the vast majority of "Limbaugh Dittohead" Nation swallow hard and pull the lever McCain. And I think that the McCain brand (Straight Talk Express, indeed) for lightly affiliated independents (ie. people who don't follow politics closely) remains largely intact. Mainstream opinion leaders (network news anchors & most lemming-like TV pundits, newspaper editorial boards, hell even Jon Stewart) retain some affection for McCain, which will provide enough cover to make a vote for him still count as an anti-Bush vote in the minds of many.

I wish Obama had closed out the Clinton Bros. last night but he didn't. He had every advantage (money and media momentum) that he could expect to have and still couldn't get it done. He may be, as some pundit (whose name I can't remember) labeled him, the black Paul Tsongas/Bill Bradley (ie. the darling of the edumacated set but not connecting with the proles). Now we face an election result that I'll call now: McCain 53% - Clinton 46%. :sad:

[Recyclerz]

Simple math, no.


There are 601 popular delegates remaining.
There are approximately 340 super delegates uncommitted.


But the issue for her is that Obama entered last night with a 159 pledged delegate lead. Even if the late tallies broke her way, she'll pick up a net total of 5 delegates yesterday.

All that work for a net 5. The math for her is so impossible at this point its ridiculous.

Unless she gets a re-vote in FL and MI. Which Obama's inability to close her out has made much more likely.

[Upstruckman]

Sorry Earl, Dave and Fez. Looks like the bros' put a hurtin' on your boy.:furious:

[ahhdurr]

Sorry Earl, Dave and Fez. Looks like the bros' put a hurtin' on your <bold>boy</bold>.:furious:
"white people are so scared... of black people."

[Friday]

the more and more i watch, the more anxious i get.

it's not even about the hair and awful shoes anymore.

i'm skeered....

[Franklyn]

I don't know what happened? I woke up and wanted to cry. The republicans fear Obama so that's who I want. What happened? Fucking Clintons are good.

[cupcakelove]

I don't know what happened? I woke up and wanted to cry. The republicans fear Obama so that's who I want. What happened? Fucking Clintons are good.

Don't worry, she's still loosing.

[johnniewalker]

Interesting to say the least:


Not to drag this on, but it doesn't make any sense. If he does make the nomination he would have had to answer to a Canadian official for what he said eventually. Everyone knows its not really feasible to do what he said to a large extent, small reform may be possible but a complete overhaul? From what I take of it Goolsbee said something to the consul general for the Canadian government but it becomes more muddled with each report, and I venture to guess it wasn't with the same vigor as the protectionist statements in Obama's rallies and debates. I think that is safe to say. I think it just depends on how seriously you want to take campaign banter.

Here is the memo itself.

Obama Memo (http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/entry/0/)

[Franklyn]

I'm more worried about angry Hilary fans not voting Obama later. I am surprised she still has this serge of support

[AKA]

One month ago (Feb 6) a memo from the Obama camp was "leaked" to the press which detailed their projections for each and every primary and caucaus until the very end - with the exception of Maine (which they thought would go to Clinton) the memo has been accurate - including all four of results last night (as well as being pretty close to percentages).

If the rest of the memo is as correct (which calls for, among other things, Obama to lose Pennsylvania) - it shows Obama ahead when all is said and done when the last primary is held June 7 - Obama's advisers predicted he will have 1,806 delegates to 1,789 for Sen. Clinton. This will force the Dems to do something about Florida and Michigan.

Oddly enough, it was also about a month or so ago that Clinton head weasle, Mark Penn, made the point that delegates are more important than momentum - something i'm sure he's flipped on now.

[johnniewalker]

One month ago (Feb 6) a memo from the Obama camp was "leaked" to the press which detailed their projections for each and every primary and caucaus until the very end - with the exception of Maine (which they thought would go to Clinton) the memo has been accurate - including all four of results last night (as well as being pretty close to percentages).

If the rest of the memo is as correct (which calls for, among other things, Obama to lose Pennsylvania) - it shows Obama ahead when all is said and done when the last primary is held June 7 - Obama's advisers predicted he will have 1,806 delegates to 1,789 for Sen. Clinton. This will force the Dems to do something about Florida and Michigan.

Oddly enough, it was also about a month or so ago that Clinton head weasle, Mark Penn, made the point that delegates are more important than momentum - something i'm sure he's flipped on now.

Is there a link to this memo?

[hexy68]

like an annoying foot fungus the clinton bros just won't go away! ugggg!! :thumbdown:

[MikeB]

http://www.catsandbeer.com/uploads/2007/11/nwo1en.jpg

[Zorro]

I'm more worried about angry Hilary fans not voting Obama later. I am surprised she still has this serge of support

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n67/Chas4604/ra010-serge-santiago-cover.jpg

[AKA]

Is there a link to this memo?

Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9T3ToQrPGqc&refer=home)

http://images.politico.com/global/bloombergspreadsheet.jpg

[SyndicateParish]

http://media.herald-dispatch.com/blog/games/uploaded_images/WhosNext-778537.jpg

[SinA]

i hope this thread is long gone and forgotten about by november

[K.C.]

I'm more worried about angry Hilary fans not voting Obama later. I am surprised she still has this serge of support

There's a stronger Democratic defection rate with Obama than Hillary, at least from what we're seeing so far, but he hopes to make up the difference and then some with a stronger pull from Independents and Republicans.

[riverofpiss]

Are you guys having an election or something?

[K.C.]

One month ago (Feb 6) a memo from the Obama camp was "leaked" to the press which detailed their projections for each and every primary and caucaus until the very end - with the exception of Maine (which they thought would go to Clinton) the memo has been accurate - including all four of results last night (as well as being pretty close to percentages).

If the rest of the memo is as correct (which calls for, among other things, Obama to lose Pennsylvania) - it shows Obama ahead when all is said and done when the last primary is held June 7 - Obama's advisers predicted he will have 1,806 delegates to 1,789 for Sen. Clinton. This will force the Dems to do something about Florida and Michigan.

Oddly enough, it was also about a month or so ago that Clinton head weasle, Mark Penn, made the point that delegates are more important than momentum - something i'm sure he's flipped on now.

If Florida and Michigan get a new election, I'm not sure it would bode well for an Obama candidacy.

Clinton already has a built in advantage of being the one that didn't snub those states.


I wouldn't get worried yet if I were Obama...Pennsylvania is an important gauage of where his campaign is, but the bigger gauge will be Indiana and North Carolina.

Indiana and NC are states Obama should win handily, and if he does, he's in good shape. If she builds enough momentum to win those, or win in a rout, then he's got serious issues.

As of now, though, I wouldn't be worried...at least yet.

[TheMojoPin]

If Florida and Michigan get a new election, I'm not sure it would bode well for an Obama candidacy.

Clinton already has a built in advantage of being the one that didn't snub those states.

I think only Florida would be a lock for her, especially giving how it's filled with so many old people and Cubans. Michigan would still be very tough to call given the potentially large black voting base there, and the numbers in their "fake primary" had at least 40% of the voters picking "other" besides the only candidate on the ballot...Hillary. Granted, this was back when Edwards was still an option, but Obama would hae a really good shot at pushing Michigan in his favor.

[K.C.]

I think only Florida would be a lock for her, especially giving how it's filled with so many old people and Cubans. Michigan would still be very tough to call given the potentially large black voting base there, and the numbers in their "fake primary" had at least 40% of the voters picking "other" besides the only candidate on the ballot...Hillary. Granted, this was back when Edwards was still an option, but Obama would hae a really good shot at pushing Michigan in his favor.

The one problem with Michigan for Obama is the same problem he had in Ohio.

Hillary, inexplicably, has been able to deem her self the anti-NAFTA, pro-working family candidate.

The whole irony of a Clinton running against NAFTA isn't lost on me...but apparently it is on the voting populace.

I think he'd struggle in an economic debate. Plus, you have to consider that if we got to a point where we needed new Michigan and Florida elections, it would probably be because Hillary has run off an impressive streak of victories...she'd probably have the momentum at that point.

[ShowerBench]

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/030508DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

[HBox]

Why the hell does Puerto Rico not only get delegates, but more than a lot of states?

[ShowerBench]

I'm more worried about angry Hilary fans not voting Obama later. I am surprised she still has this serge of support

I don't think would be anger driving most of those voters. Clinton's candidacy is not the kind that's based on personal allegiance. She picks off voters one by one by convincing them on issues and competence.

There are moderates who don't trust Obama with the red phone. There are Democrats who never saw him fight for anything. They trust Clinton on their issues and they don't trust Obama.

The ones who aren't hardcore Democrats will cross over to McCain and the Democrats will just stay home.

[TheMojoPin]

Why the hell does Puerto Rico not only get delegates, but more than a lot of states?

Because it should be a state.

[AKA]

I was reminded this last week why I've always thought Hillary would be the best democrat against McCain (or any Republican) - because she is a fighter, and will fight dirty - not only againt her own party, but against her "friends."

A Clinton/Obama ticket would be the strongest out there, imo; just compare the numbers of Democrats still coming out and voting.

[TheMojoPin]

If Hillary gets the nod, she'd be stupid to not try and get Obama as her VP and he'd be stupid to not take such an offer.

[ShowerBench]

David Axelrod was a consultant to the West Wing. Obama was a TV show before he was a candidate?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LLrrY1fIhuc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LLrrY1fIhuc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[HBox]

Because it should be a state.

But they aren't! SO fuck them until they decide to join us an dpay some fucking taxes.

[HBox]

I was reminded this last week why I've always thought Hillary would be the best democrat against McCain (or any Republican) - because she is a fighter, and will fight dirty - not only againt her own party, but against her "friends."

A Clinton/Obama ticket would be the strongest out there, imo; just compare the numbers of Democrats still coming out and voting.
The only problem with that is that while McCain won't fight dirty, there's no shortage of people on the right who will fight dirty on his behalf, without his knowledge, and he won't have any problem denouncing them harshly, so he will in effect get the benefits of both negative campaigning and waging a clean campaign.

[ShowerBench]

There is a threat of mutually assured destruction between the two candidates now. Obama's star, at least for now, seems to be fading and he has no idea how low he can go but he got a taste of it in the last week. Time for Let's Make a Deal:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/03/only-a-dream-ticket-ends-democ.html

[johnniewalker]

But they aren't! SO fuck them until they decide to join us an dpay some fucking taxes.

They pay social security, welfare, they don't pay federal income tax. They are a state in pretty much every other way and they don't get to vote. I think it's fair to give them some delegates in the primary.

[ShowerBench]

Well looks like we can start filling in that blank screen. This story confirms everything I suspected about Obama: opportunistic, somewhat cowardly, Axelrod's lab project, entitled, and really lame:

Obama and Me
It was the year 2000, and I was a young, hungry reporter in Chicago with a young, hungry state legislator on my speed dial
By Todd SpivaK

http://dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me

The morning after the story was posted online, I arrived early at my new offices. I hadn't taken off my coat when the phone rang. It was Obama.

The article began, "It can be painful to hear Ivy League-bred Barack Obama talk jive."

Obama told me he doesn't speak jive, that he doesn't say the words "homeboy" or "peeps."

It seemed so silly; I thought for sure he was joking. He wasn't.

He said the black legislators I cited in the story were off-base and that they couldn't have gotten the bills passed without him.

I started to speak, and he shouted me down.

He said he liked the other story I wrote.

I asked if there was anything factually inaccurate about the latest story.

He repeated that his former colleagues couldn't have passed the bills without him.

He asked why I wrote this story, then cut me off when I started to answer.

He said he should have been given a chance to respond.

I told him I had requested an interview through his communications director.

He said I should have called his cell phone.

I reminded him that he had asked me months ago to stop calling his cell phone because of his busier schedule.

He said again that I should have called his cell phone.

[K.C.]

If Hillary gets the nod, she'd be stupid to not try and get Obama as her VP and he'd be stupid to not take such an offer.

You don't think she'd pick Bill?

They are the Demolition of politics.

[K.C.]

There is a threat of mutually assured destruction between the two candidates now. Obama's star, at least for now, seems to be fading and he has no idea how low he can go but he got a taste of it in the last week. Time for Let's Make a Deal:



That seems to be where this is going. Hillary hinted ever so slightly today that she may consider taking the VP spot.

I've heard it floated on the blogs that if Obama offered in secret to make HRC his first Supreme Court Justice nominee, that may work as well.

This becomes a disaster if it goes to the convention. No matter who comes out, you risk losing a significant amount of the other candidate's support over bitter feelings.

On some level, an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket almost seems like it has to be a reality.

I know there's been some skepticism as to whether Obama would ever pick Hillary, but she would help him do what he can't do for himself...and that's burn the McCain campaign to the ground.

[AKA]

I know there's been some skepticism as to whether Obama would ever pick Hillary, but she would help him do what he can't do for himself...and that's burn the McCain campaign to the ground.

About 2 or 3 weeks ago i had a change of heart about that, and could absolutely see her in the VP position. It would still be historic - the first woman vice president; the former First Lady - that is a big, fucking deal.

I think the spectre of Bill running things would be lessened for many, but there still might be a perception (like with Cheney) of the secret government really running things.

McCain would have no idea what hit him, imo; Hillary knows how to handle the GOP surrogates - I've always thought they were foolish for clammoring for the chance to run against her. That line she delivered this week against Obama, comparing her lifetime of expeirence to his one good speech, was devestating. While McCain is busy trying to be the hawkish/straight-talking/arch-conservative/maverick/heir to Reagan, flapping his gums about "LIBERALS," Hillary will destroy him on the economy.

[keithy_19]

Because it should be a state.

:ohmy::glurps:

[ShowerBench]

About 2 or 3 weeks ago i had a change of heart about that, and could absolutely see her in the VP position. It would still be historic - the first woman vice president; the former First Lady - that is a big, fucking deal.

I think the spectre of Bill running things would be lessened for many, but there still might be a perception (like with Cheney) of the secret government really running things.

Yup if she ends up in a very weak spot she might take it.

They wouldn't get my vote because Obama in the office of the presidency scares me but electorally it would probably be a winner for the reason you said - they would probably get the benefit of all the "first female/first black" voters. (Don't get me wrong I think those are legitimate grounds to vote)

[KnoxHarrington]

The more I think about an Obama/Clinton ticket (either way), the more I like it.

I think a lasting legacy of the Bush administration is going to be an elevation of the office of Vice President. This in and of itself is not a bad thing -- it was only bad because the guy in the office of Vice President is totally fucking evil. So I think people look at the VP less as the dude who stands around and waits for the President to die as they do as the assistant President now. And I think Obama and Clinton are a good team. I'd take Obama as President to be the sort of big idea guy, and Hillary as Vice President to be the one who makes calls telling wayward Democrats exactly what's going up their ass if they don't fall in line.

[NewYorkDragons80]

The more I think about an Obama/Clinton ticket (either way), the more I like it.

I think a lasting legacy of the Bush administration is going to be an elevation of the office of Vice President. This in and of itself is not a bad thing -- it was only bad because the guy in the office of Vice President is totally fucking evil. So I think people look at the VP less as the dude who stands around and waits for the President to die as they do as the assistant President now. And I think Obama and Clinton are a good team. I'd take Obama as President to be the sort of big idea guy, and Hillary as Vice President to be the one who makes calls telling wayward Democrats exactly what's going up their ass if they don't fall in line.

The most fair assessment of the Bush Presidency I've heard was from Thomas Burnett, who basically said Bush is the Harry Truman of the post-9/11 age.

[AKA]

The more I think about an Obama/Clinton ticket (either way), the more I like it.

I think a lasting legacy of the Bush administration is going to be an elevation of the office of Vice President.

I disagree - that began with Clinton when he picked Gore (who, at the time, was considered a real moderate and - imo - a better candidate than Clinton). While he was in office, during the first term, Gore did a lot to really redefine the role of the VP, which had just had 4 years of Quayle.

[AKA]

The most fair assessment of the Bush Presidency I've heard was from Thomas Burnett, who basically said Bush is the Harry Truman of the post-9/11 age.

He's more of the Franklin Pierce of the post-9/11 age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Franklin_Pierce.jpg

[HBox]

He's more of the Franklin Pierce of the post-9/11 age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Franklin_Pierce.jpg

Putting him on the same level of any former president is a grave insult. And I will not stand here and allow the reputations of the dead to be trampled on.

[AKA]

Putting him on the same level of any former president is a grave insult. And I will not stand here and allow the reputations of the dead to be trampled on.

Not even a President who helped expand slavery out west? Not even one so reviled after one term his own party would not renominate him a second time (the only one with that distinction)? Not even one who threw his support behind the confederacy, even though he was from New Hampshire? Not even one who spent his post-presidency years getting drunk and running over old women in his carriage? Not even one who helped create Kansas?

[HBox]

Not even a President who helped expand slavery out west? Not even one so reviled after one term his own party would not renominate him a second time (the only one with that distinction)? Not even one who threw his support behind the confederacy, even though he was from New Hampshire? Not even one who spent his post-presidency years getting drunk and running over old women in his carriage? Not even one who helped create Kansas?

Yes.

[HBox]

Joking of course.

[scottinnj]

Not even one who helped create Kansas?

Hey Wooah! Kansas is just fine.


The Topeka State Record carried the news on the same date in a column headlined "Kansas Admitted."

A second and more general round of rejoicing was had within the territory after the Kansas bill passed the house on January 28. The first to announce the news this time was the Leavenworth Conservative, established only two days before. A telegram announcing house passage was sent by Kansas Congressional Delegate Marcus J. Parrott to Abel Carter Wilder, chairman of the Republican central committee for Kansas whose brother, Daniel Webster Wilder, was editor of the Conservative. So it was that within an hour, by four o'clock in the morning of January 29, 1861, this newcomer to the Kansas journalistic scene had scooped all its established contemporaries. Unfortunately no copies of that famous Conservative extra are known to exist. The next regular edition of the paper, however, perpetuated its feat:

KANSAS IN THE UNION!!


WE WILL FIGHT FOR THE UNION.

The news of the admission of Kansas, announced by THE CONSERVATIVE yesterday -- and only by THE CONSERVATIVE, no other paper in Kansas having the news -- was the most important that ever reached our borders . . .

KANSAS ADMITTED!

Probably the greatest day in American History.

[JerseySean]

The most fair assessment of the Bush Presidency I've heard was from Thomas Burnett, who basically said Bush is the Harry Truman of the post-9/11 age.

I have made this argument as well. The Bush Presidency will not be able to be judged until 30 years from now.

[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."

It's already begun.

CNN is reporting Howard Dean has told the Governors of Michigan and Florida to come up with a plan for new elections in Michigan and Florida.

[AKA]

I have made this argument as well. The Bush Presidency will not be able to be judged until 30 years from now.

I'll be around - and I will judge.

http://www.evolvedgames.com/images/cover-dreddA.jpg

[NewYorkDragons80]

So in 30 years when R&F has won a Peabody Award and Dave is hosting the Tonight Show while Earl is the bandleader, you'll admit you were wrong

[sailor]

It's already begun.

CNN is reporting Howard Dean has told the Governors of Michigan and Florida to come up with a plan for new elections in Michigan and Florida.

whatever side people are on, you can't just toss out two states over bickering over the date of their primaries.

[K.C.]

whatever side people are on, you can't just toss out two states over bickering over the date of their primaries.

Agreed.

The one problem, though, is that Hillary already has a somewhat built in advantage byshe breaking the rules the DNC put forth on those states...so Obama is somewhat handicapped just by following the rules by not putting his name on Michigan's ballot, and not campaigning in Florida.

[sailor]

Agreed.

The one problem, though, is that Hillary already has a somewhat built in advantage byshe breaking the rules the DNC put forth on those states...so Obama is somewhat handicapped just by following the rules by not putting his name on Michigan's ballot, and not campaigning in Florida.

yep, no one ever accused a clinton of fightin' fair.

[AKA]

So in 30 years when R&F has won a Peabody Award and Dave is hosting the Tonight Show while Earl is the bandleader, you'll admit you were wrong

The craziest thing is the Earl talk - he has no musical talent, other than co-opting other opnions. R&F will have won much more than a Peabody in 30 years (I see a Pulitzer, the Nobel and maybe even a Tony) - and if Vegas artist Bobogolem can get on The Tonight Show (http://www.veoh.com/videos/v4030850J33wnJtw), I'm sure we could get Dave hosting it (if only we chose to - which we do not).

Anyway, as someone who worked 6 years with political historians, I can honestly say that I've met no one other than the most extreme right thinking Americans with no true perception of history who think (or more likely, hope) that Bush is Truman 2.

http://static.twoday.net/bmworacleracing/images/crystal_ball2_bmwPreview.jpg

The reimagining a future where Bush will be anything other than one of the 5 worst Presidents ever is (imo) further snarky proof that those who voted for the nacked-up boy-cheerleader enthusiastically think less about country than they do about party and "winning" at any cost. He is so awful he makes us forget what an awful President his father was - but that didn't matter, as long as the GOP "got" the Democrats for the 8 years of Clinton.

[Zorro]

http://thepage.time.com/obama-memo-on-clinton-tax-returns/

[scottinnj]

http://thepage.time.com/obama-memo-on-clinton-tax-returns/

Normally I wouldn't really be too concerned about a candidate's tax returns, but when Hillary wrote that big ass check for her campaign, then I figured the brother's earnings should be put up to a bit of scrutiny. At least for the sake of disclosure, I have no inside scoop that the Senator is cheating on her taxes.

[HBox]

Normally I wouldn't really be too concerned about a candidate's tax returns, but when Hillary wrote that big ass check for her campaign, then I figured the brother's earnings should be put up to a bit of scrutiny. At least for the sake of disclosure, I have no inside scoop that the Senator is cheating on her taxes.

That's not why Obama wants them out there. He wants everyone to see exactly who has been paying Bill since he left the White House and how much.

[scottinnj]

The reimagining a future where Bush will be anything other than one of the 5 worst Presidents ever is (imo) further snarky proof that those who voted for the nacked-up boy-cheerleader enthusiastically think less about country than they do about party and "winning" at any cost. He is so awful he makes us forget what an awful President his father was - but that didn't matter, as long as the GOP "got" the Democrats for the 8 years of Clinton.


I'm with you on that. It's his second term that did him in with me. He's definetely in my top 5 dummy list of Presidents.

[epo]

Rumors abound about Michigan re-voting, but going to a caucus format.

Link to one story here. (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/06/breaking-michigan-caucus-likely-says-dnc-rules-committee-member.aspx)

Warning: it's all speculation at this point.

[K.C.]

Rumors abound about Michigan re-voting, but going to a caucus format.

Link to one story here. (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/06/breaking-michigan-caucus-likely-says-dnc-rules-committee-member.aspx)

Warning: it's all speculation at this point.

Obama's won every caucus but Nevada, but Michigan seems to me on the surface to be very favorable Hillary territory.

A caucus there would be a VERY interesting clash.

[Upstruckman]

Obama's mom is a white woman from Kansas. Why do people act like he would be the first black president?
He would be the first mongrellllllllll president. Sorry Earl.:wallbash:

[TheMojoPin]

Obama's mom is a white woman from Kansas. Why do people act like he would be the first black president?
He would be the first mongrellllllllll president. Sorry Earl.:wallbash:

We're sorry. That we had to read this garbage.

[epo]

Oh wait....looky looky looky:

Harper Aide Says Clinton Downplayed Nafta Criticism, CP Reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aIUVrK0hWJ9Y&refer=canada)

By Theophilos Argitis and Jonathan D. Salant

March 6 (Bloomberg) -- The chief of staff to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that an official from Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign told the Canadian embassy in Washington to take her criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement with a ``grain of salt,'' the Canadian Press reported.

Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Harper, told reporters on Feb. 26 that a Clinton campaign official told the embassy staff ``not to worry'' about her calls to renegotiate the trade agreement, the Canadian Press said, citing a person who heard the remarks and wasn't identified by name.

So she is the one who played the NAFTA game? Interesting.....

Hello Pot! Ever meet kettle?

[ShowerBench]

Harper is just trying to cover his Bush loving ass and save his Chief of Staff from being fired.

Show me a memo citing a real person making the comments like the one that surfaced after Obama denied his people met with the Canadians

[NewYorkDragons80]

Harper is just trying to cover his Bush loving ass and save his Chief of Staff from being fired.

Show me a memo citing a real person making the comments like the one that surfaced after Obama denied his people met with the Canadians
He's the Prime Minister of Canada. I'm not 100% on the Canadian constitution, but I think that in order to be the Canadian PM, you have to be a real person. How the fuck does this benefit Bush, you obtuse ass? Are you so fucking blind to empirical fact? Explain your dumb ass immediately

The moral of the story: 3 people remain in the race. One campaigns on supporting NAFTA, the other 2 don't. It appears both of those who decry it on the surface have gone through the back channels to convey that their cover story is bullshit. Finally, no matter who's elected, it's gonna be around for a LONG time.

[HBox]

I'd say put Showerbench on ignore like I did, but you all keep on quoting the fucktard and I still have to read his bullshit.

[johnniewalker]

Oh wait....looky looky looky:

Harper Aide Says Clinton Downplayed Nafta Criticism, CP Reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aIUVrK0hWJ9Y&refer=canada)





So she is the one who played the NAFTA game? Interesting.....

Hello Pot! Ever meet kettle?

Well at least this should have gotten equal play. Obama was caught at it and should have admitted it, but Clinton doing it and getting the benefits is crap. She certainly had the least credibility seeing as her husband passed it. The thing is they both knew it was ridiculous and it goes back to the same thing, how much do weight to you attribute to campaign speeches.

[scottinnj]

Obama's mom is a white woman from Kansas. Why do people act like he would be the first black president?
He would be the first mongrellllllllll president. Sorry Earl.:wallbash:

That post matched your avatar. Congratulations on "keeping it real"

[scottinnj]

I'd say put Showerbench on ignore like I did, but you all keep on quoting the fucktard and I still have to read his bullshit.

Now you know how I feel with Jersey Sean

[HBox]

Now you know how I feel with Jersey Sean

I put him on ignore too.

:wallbash:

[Kevin]

Now you know how I feel with Jersey Sean

I put him on ignore too.

:wallbash:

I thought you liked Snoogans?

[Jujubees2]

Forget Hilary and Obama, here's the real primary news:

Ron Paul hints he may be quitting race (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23512959/)

Jesus, I didn't know he was even still in the race.

[pennington]

Paul said that although victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race, many victories have been achieved due to the hard work and enthusiasm of his supporters.

What?

If he's trying to spin it that more people heard his message, OK I guess. But did he have any lasting effect? Is he even having any effect in the House, which he's running for again?

[epo]

Forget Hilary and Obama, here's the real primary news:

Ron Paul hints he may be quitting race (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23512959/)

Jesus, I didn't know he was even still in the race.

What?

If he's trying to spin it that more people heard his message, OK I guess. But did he have any lasting effect? Is he even having any effect in the House, which he's running for again?

The interesting thing is the amount of money that Ron Paul was able to raise. Seriously, there must be a void that the Republican party is not reaching for that to happen.

My thought is looking at Dennis Kucinch. He raised no money, got no votes. He & Paul are both strict ideologues but got totally different results.

[ShowerBench]

First NAFTA, now Iraq. Proof that BO will say anything.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html

For all the chatter about Obama adviser Samantha Power's calling Clinton a "monster," another set of remarks made on her book tour in the United Kingdom may be equally threatening to the Obama campaign: Comments in a BBC interview that express a lack of confidence that Obama will be able to carry through his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months.

"He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator," she said at one point in the interview

[NewYorkDragons80]

Forget Hilary and Obama, here's the real primary news:

Ron Paul hints he may be quitting race (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23512959/)

Jesus, I didn't know he was even still in the race.
Who is this Ron Paul you speak of?

[TheMojoPin]

Hillary is setting up Obama for VP perfectly. She's tossing out enough comments to both get the idea firmly in people's heads or make her look good if she ends up not getting the nod. If the idea takes hold and she does offer it to him, it puts Obama in a tight spot where turning it down would potentially make him look pretty bad on top of losing the nod. Personally, I think if she pulls ahead and wins it and makes the offer and he says no, he's making a huge mistake. With his appeal and age, it sets him up to step in and run and keep the Democrats in the White House if she makes it for 8 years and doesn't screw the pooch.

I see some people naysaying the idea in terms of it's just Hillary being diplomatic, but she's no dummy. She desperately wants to win it all now, and Obama is, by far, the most dynamic VP choice in terms of drawing in a ton of votes and possibly making her in the White House as a prez a sure thing. It'll be an uphill battle for her to beat McCain, and Obama as a VP would be HUGE in terms of likely doing away with any advantages McCain has.

[Kevin]

Hillary is setting up Obama for VP perfectly. She's tossing out enough comments to both get the idea firmly in people's heads or make her look good if she ends up not getting the nod. If the idea takes hold and she does offer it to him, it puts Obama in a tight spot where turning it down would potentially make him look pretty bad on top of losing the nod. Personally, I think if she pulls ahead and wins it and makes the offer and he says no, he's making a huge mistake. With his appeal and age, it sets him up to step in and run and keep the Democrats in the White House if she makes it for 8 years and doesn't screw the pooch.

I see some people naysaying the idea in terms of it's just Hillary being diplomatic, but she's no dummy. She wats to win, and Obama is, by far, the most dynamic VP choice in terms of drawing in a ton of votes and possiby making her in the White House as a prez a sure thing. It'll be an uphill battle for her to beat McCain, and Obama as a VP would be HUGE in terms of likely doing away with any advantages McCain has.

Agreed 100% Mojo, I think a combo of Hillary and Obama would be pretty much unstoppable. And like you said, He is young and if they both do a good enough job in the administration, He could easily run in 2016 and win. It would be a huge mistake for him to reject it.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Would Obama subject himself to whispers of being an Uncle Tom?

[Kevin]

Would Obama subject himself to whispers of being an Uncle Tom?

Why would he be an uncle Tom? For ascending to the highest position a black man in the US has ever? For setting up his chances and potentially going even further? I hope Obama is smarter than to let that bullshit stop him.

[NewYorkDragons80]

For ascending to the highest position a black man in the US has ever?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Colin_Powell_official_Secretary_of_State_photo.jpg

[PhilDeez]

I'm not so sold on the superticket idea. That is a lot for the uber conservatives who gave Bush two terms to swallow. I think any ticket with Hillary will bring them out, throw Obama on the there and that is just fuel to the fire.
I do agree at this point it almost has to happen, unless Obama can hold on somehow - I don't think he is as married to the conclusion as Hillary.

[Kevin]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Colin_Powell_official_Secretary_of_State_photo.jpg

A: VP is higher than sec of state.
B: He was huge until blindly went with Bush on the Iraq thing. Many said that if that did not happen, he would be in the spot that Obama is now.

[Recyclerz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMojoPin
Hillary is setting up Obama for VP perfectly. She's tossing out enough comments to both get the idea firmly in people's heads or make her look good if she ends up not getting the nod. If the idea takes hold and she does offer it to him, it puts Obama in a tight spot where turning it down would potentially make him look pretty bad on top of losing the nod. Personally, I think if she pulls ahead and wins it and makes the offer and he says no, he's making a huge mistake. With his appeal and age, it sets him up to step in and run and keep the Democrats in the White House if she makes it for 8 years and doesn't screw the pooch.

I see some people naysaying the idea in terms of it's just Hillary being diplomatic, but she's no dummy. She wats to win, and Obama is, by far, the most dynamic VP choice in terms of drawing in a ton of votes and possiby making her in the White House as a prez a sure thing. It'll be an uphill battle for her to beat McCain, and Obama as a VP would be HUGE in terms of likely doing away with any advantages McCain has.

Posted by Kevin:
Agreed 100% Mojo, I think a combo of Hillary and Obama would be pretty much unstoppable. And like you said, He is young and if they both do a good enough job in the administration, He could easily run in 2016 and win. It would be a huge mistake for him to reject it.


Couldn't disagree more, except about Hilary being crafty. Obama's appeal is all about rejecting the pointless partisan bickering that we've had at least since 1994 and moving beyond that to do the things that are necessary to move the country forward. If she beats him by playing dirty politics as usual, which is the only way she could pull this out, and then he takes a subordinate position to somebody who knifed him he not only becomes her "bitch" but an ordinary, full of shit politician who doesn't live up to his rhetoric. Beyond that, there is no way Hilary beats McCain and he becomes the African-American Geraldine Ferraro.

If Hilary squeezes out the nomination, Obama is much better off to congratulate her, then stand back as the Democratic Party once again self-immolates by having an unelectable candidate for President. Four years from now, after hopefully some wise opposition to McCain's Bush-lite policies, he has a better chance to come in as the conquering hero.

[TheMojoPin]

Many said that if that did not happen, he would be in the spot that Obama is now.

Powell stated several times that he never wanted to pursue elected office well before the Iraq War.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Powell stated several times that he never wanted to pursue elected office well before the Iraq War.
Be that as it may, I bet he's still on McCain's list for VP

Edit: Enough with the Bush-lite comments, you damn Johnny-come-latelys. McCain is his own man with very distinct policies from Bush and the other zilches who ran the show for 8 years. You weren't saying it before this election, and he hasn't changed his policies, *you guys* are changing to explain your support for Obama. Nothing wrong with Obama, but you know damn well McCain isn't Bush-lite so just say you like Obama better and be honest about it.

[Kevin]

Powell stated several times that he never wanted to pursue elected office well before the Iraq War.

Eh, if Powell had his rep, and no clear strong guy in th Rep party, i think he might have been talked into running.. The fact that McCain won with such a land slide, proves to me that there were no real strong candidates in the GOP.

[TheMojoPin]

Be that as it may, I bet he's still on McCain's list for VP

Edit: Enough with the Bush-lite comments, you damn Johnny-come-latelys. McCain is his own man with very distinct policies from Bush and the other zilches who ran the show for 8 years. You weren't saying it before this election, and he hasn't changed his policies, *you guys* are changing to explain your support for Obama. Nothing wrong with Obama, but you know damn well McCain isn't Bush-lite so just say you like Obama better and be honest about it.

Uh, who are you talking to?

[TheMojoPin]

Eh, if Powell had his rep, and no clear strong guy in th Rep party, i think he might have been talked into running.. The fact that McCain won with such a land slide, proves to me that there were no real strong candidates in the GOP.

Seeing as his desire to avoid such offices stems from family issues, I doubt it.

[FUNKMAN]

saw a small video-bite of Bush sticking his head out of the White House to let people know he's now certain the economy has slowed BUT he was ahead of it with the Stimulus package. He hopes that instead of people using their 600 or 1200 dollars to pay off debt he'd rather they buy goods to help corporate profits...

at the same time 990,000 people are losing their homes and more continue to do so

so I repeat

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

[NewYorkDragons80]

Uh, who are you talking to?
Four years from now, after hopefully some wise opposition to McCain's Bush-lite policies, he has a better chance to come in as the conquering hero.
And I've seen it from other people too. I'm not gonna go back and find the others, but they're out there.

[Bulldogcakes]

Interesting analysis of the Dem race from Marie Cocco of the Washington Post. It's a 15 minute radio interview ('Mini Tuesday Results') (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2008/03/05) She made 3 points I thought were eye openers.

1-Obama's winning all the wrong states- He's winning mostly red states he has no chance of carrying in the general election. He only won 5 counties in Ohio, a key battleground state. Hillary has been carrying the big democrat states that any Dem will need, she is in a much better position to win the general than Obama is. In terms of the general election, Obama is fool's gold. He looks great in the low turnout primaries with strong black and young voter support, but once November rolls around he's going to need Hillary's white/older voters. If McCain can pare off some of that support (esp the older voters) Obama's cooked.

2-The Dem party leadership really shot themselves in the foot by excluding Michigan and Florida-You will have two big key states with dispirited, disenfranchised foot soldiers who didn't even get to have a say in who was nominated. Gives a HUGE edge to McCain as an unintended consequence. This is what Republicans mean when they refer to the Democrat primaries as "A firing squad in a circle"

3-Hillary is doing best among the demographics a Dem will need in order to win in the general-Namely white middle/working class voters. Obama's main support is coming from huge black and young voter support. That's not enough to carry you in November, not even close. The white middle class voters Hillary is carrying might very well bolt the party for McCain like the Reagan democrats did in 80/84. Again, Obama is fools gold when November rolls around.

These are among the main things super delegates will be considering. Who they think can win. It's becoming clear that they will end up deciding this race, unless a deal is brokered at the convention or a unity ticket is formed. But Obama runs a major risk if he joins with Hillary as her #2. He's run as the candidate of change, the one who's going to change the way business is done in Washington. He loses alot of his credibility as a reformer if he hooks up with the ultimate insider and risks losing his support.

Sorry, but I couldn't track down the article she wrote.

[HBox]

Interesting analysis of the Dem race from Marie Cocco of the Washington Post. It's a 15 minute radio interview ('Mini Tuesday Results') (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2008/03/05) She made 3 points I thought were eye openers.

1-Obama's winning all the wrong states- He's winning mostly red states he has no chance of carrying in the general election. He only won 5 counties in Ohio, a key battleground state. Hillary has been carrying the big democrat states that any Dem will need, she is in a much better position to win the general than Obama is. In terms of the general election, Obama is fool's gold. He looks great in the low turnout primaries with strong black and young voter support, but once November rolls around he's going to need Hillary's white/older voters. If McCain can pare off some of that support (esp the older voters) Obama's cooked.

2-The Dem party leadership really shot themselves in the foot by excluding Michigan and Florida-You will have two big key states with dispirited, disenfranchised foot soldiers who didn't even get to have a say in who was nominated. Gives a HUGE edge to McCain as an unintended consequence. This is what Republicans mean when they refer to the Democrat primaries as "A firing squad in a circle"

3-Hillary is doing best among the demographics a Dem will need in order to win in the general-Namely white middle/working class voters. Obama's main support is coming from huge black and young voter support. That's not enough to carry you in November, not even close. The white middle class voters Hillary is carrying might very well bolt the party for McCain like the Reagan democrats did in 80/84. Again, Obama is fools gold when November rolls around.

These are among the main things super delegates will be considering. Who they think can win. It's becoming clear that they will end up deciding this race, unless a deal is brokered at the convention or a unity ticket is formed. But Obama runs a major risk if he joins with Hillary as her #2. He's run as the candidate of change, the one who's going to change the way business is done in Washington. He loses alot of his credibility as a reformer if he hooks up with the ultimate insider and risks losing his support.

Sorry, but I couldn't track down the article she wrote.

1. So wrong and yet so repeated. Just because Obama can't beat Hillary in New York, California and New Jersey doesn't mean he can't beat McCain there. Plus there have been no "low turn out" primaries on the Democratic side. Those have been exclusive to the Republican side.

Here's the current electoral map for Barack "fool's gold" Obama:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/mccain-v-obama-final.jpg

and here's one for Hillary:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/mccain-v-clinton-final.jpg

Nobody seems to mention how Obama brings Virginia and almost all of the Midwest into play while Hillary completely loses the Northwest.

2. They fucked up. What can I say. All I can say is that it is forever between now and the election. At this point 4 years ago it seemed Bush was headed to an easy re-election. Didn't happen that way.

3. Where does this come from? Obama consistently beats Hillary and McCain solidly in getting independents. I mean, you can try to make the argument that after 8 years of Buhs that Democratic voters will put McCain in the White House. You can do that. I'd call you fucking nuts.

[epo]

1. So wrong and yet so repeated. Just because Obama can't beat Hillary in New York, California and New Jersey doesn't mean he can't beat McCain there. Plus there have been no "low turn out" primaries on the Democratic side. Those have been exclusive to the Republican side.

Here's the current electoral map for Barack "fool's gold" Obama:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/mccain-v-obama-final.jpg

and here's one for Hillary:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/mccain-v-clinton-final.jpg

Nobody seems to mention how Obama brings Virginia and almost all of the Midwest into play while Hillary completely loses the Northwest.

2. They fucked up. What can I say. All I can say is that it is forever between now and the election. At this point 4 years ago it seemed Bush was headed to an easy re-election. Didn't happen that way.

3. Where does this come from? Obama consistently beats Hillary and McCain solidly in getting independents. I mean, you can try to make the argument that after 8 years of Buhs that Democratic voters will put McCain in the White House. You can do that. I'd call you fucking nuts.

I was about to go to the same data HBox. Good call.

The thing about that particular set of data is that its based on polling data by Survey USA, who has easily done the best job in survey work this year. Not even close.

The other thing about that point spread is that Clinton's leads in many of those states are in much more peril than Obama's. The data analysis here (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4374):

Obama vs. McCain:

Solid Obama--163 (eleven or more points): CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, NY, RI, VT, WA, WI
Lean Obama--66 (six to ten points): CO, DE, MA, MN, NM, OH, OR
Toss-up--186: (five points or less): AK, FL, MI, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NC, ND, PA, TX, VA
Lean McCain--25 (six to ten points): IN, MO, MT
Solid McCain--98 (eleven or more points): AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, UT, WV, WY

Clinton vs. McCain

Solid Clinton--77 (eleven or more points): AR, DC, IL, MA, NY, RI
Lean Clinton--126 (six to ten points): CA, CT, FL, ME, MD, OH, VT
Toss Up--135 (five points or less): DE, HI, IA, MI, MN, MO, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, WA, WV, WI
Lean McCain--136 (six to ten points): AL, CO, KS, KY, LA, MS, NV, NH, NC, OK, SC, TX, VA
Solid McCain--65 (eleven or more points): AK, AZ, GA, ID, IN, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY

While I believe that either will beat McCain in the fall, this whole Clinton has better numbers versus McCain argument is absolute garbage.

[PhilDeez]

Regardless if Hillary or Obama faces McCain, don't you think the race is much closer than expected after the last 8 years? I mean this was to be a slam dunk for the dems. If you look at those breakdowns and one "toss up" state breaks for McCain (for instance, FL in his scenario) there you go, the coronation for the left is gone. I know you could do the same scenario with TX going to Obama, or several other scenarios, but my point being this is much closer than any thought it would/should be. Throw in the fact both dems are raising money at a 3-1 (or more in Obama's case) rate, and McCain is this close, I think he has a great shot to win in November.

[scottinnj]

Obama is sooooo beating McCain in NJ and NY. Did you see the turnout during the primaries?

Democrats came out 2 to 1 over Republicans, and Independants declared "D" in NJ to vote for either Clinton or Obama in much higher numbers then to participate in the Republican primary.

[Bulldogcakes]

Oh yeah? Well I'll see your silly election map (from the Nation I might add) and raise you

This
http://theelectoralmap.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/11-01-anaconda-plan.jpg


This
http://www.rumorsdaily.com/brd/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/676511.jpeg


AND THIS!
http://theelectoralmap.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/10-23-red-sox-connecticut.jpg



And all of these maps mean about the same right now. On that we can agree. The candidates aren't even running against each other yet. I could show you a good one of how Dukakis was going to beat the living shit out of Bush 41 as late as August of 1988.

[PhilDeez]

Obama is sooooo beating McCain in NJ and NY. Did you see the turnout during the primaries?

Democrats came out 2 to 1 over Republicans, and Independants declared "D" in NJ to vote for either Clinton or Obama in much higher numbers then to participate in the Republican primary.

The turnout has been amazing for the democrats. There has not been the same excitment from the Republicans - that will change in November given the chance to defeat Hillary and/or challenge the force that is Obama. As much as I respect the excitement and turnout from the democrats, you can't just discount republican turnout in the fall, or expect all of those who voted for Hillary or Obama in the primary to do the same in the fall.

[HBox]

Oh yeah? Well I'll see your silly election map (from the Nation I might add) and raise you

It's actually from Survey USA. I can see how you'd be confused seeing as the SurveyUSA logo is on the map though.

[epo]

Regardless if Hillary or Obama faces McCain, don't you think the race is much closer than expected after the last 8 years? I mean this was to be a slam dunk for the dems. If you look at those breakdowns and one "toss up" state breaks for McCain (for instance, FL in his scenario) there you go, the coronation for the left is gone. I know you could do the same scenario with TX going to Obama, or several other scenarios, but my point being this is much closer than any thought it would/should be. Throw in the fact both dems are raising money at a 3-1 (or more in Obama's case) rate, and McCain is this close, I think he has a great shot to win in November.

Mind you that McCain has run a basically clean primary without many real attacks against him. In a general, he may be much weaker than those Survey USA numbers indictate due to his merely being a republican links him to Bush.

Here is the equation in the fall: McCain = Bush.

The Backing is simple. McCain's awful 100 years statement about Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk)+ yesterday's Bush's "stay the course with McCain (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/06/bush_says_mccain_will_stay_the_course_in_iraq/)" chatter. That alone validates the equation that links him with Mr. 30%.

This is the image you'll have embedded in your brain by November:

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

Seriously, he is toast.

[sailor]

http://theelectoralmap.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/11-01-anaconda-plan.jpg


doug drew that one?

[HBox]

Regardless if Hillary or Obama faces McCain, don't you think the race is much closer than expected after the last 8 years? I mean this was to be a slam dunk for the dems. If you look at those breakdowns and one "toss up" state breaks for McCain (for instance, FL in his scenario) there you go, the coronation for the left is gone. I know you could do the same scenario with TX going to Obama, or several other scenarios, but my point being this is much closer than any thought it would/should be. Throw in the fact both dems are raising money at a 3-1 (or more in Obama's case) rate, and McCain is this close, I think he has a great shot to win in November.

According to percentages though Obama has a solid base of 228 electoral votes to McCain's 123. A lot would have to break his way.

Really though, it IS too early for these polls to mean anything. HOWEVER, any claims that Obama is a weaker candidate than Hillary or weak in general run completely contrary to just about all polls and election data so far, no matter how you look at it.

[scottinnj]

The turnout has been amazing for the democrats. There has not been the same excitment from the Republicans - that will change in November given the chance to defeat Hillary and/or challenge the force that is Obama. As much as I respect the excitement and turnout from the democrats, you can't just discount republican turnout in the fall, or expect all of those who voted for Hillary or Obama in the primary to do the same in the fall.

It's not even the numbers for the registered Democrats, it's the number of Independants showing up to vote Democrat! And combine those numbers with the spanking congressional Republicans got in 2006, IMO Americans are just pissed off at the Republican Party to the point they'd vote against Jesus Christ Himself if he had won the "R" nomination.

[PhilDeez]

It's not even the numbers for the registered Democrats, it's the number of Independants showing up to vote Democrat! And combine those numbers with the spanking congressional Republicans got in 2006, IMO Americans are just pissed off at the Republican Party to the point they'd vote against Jesus Christ Himself if he had won the "R" nomination.

I guess we will see, if your logic was correct these national polls and electoral breakdowns would be lopsided and they are not.
Yes the dems clearly won in 06, they now have a lower approval rating than Bush ( I know we have been down this road, I understand historically this is the case, but lower than Bush? ) so I think that wave may have seen its peak.

[PhilDeez]

Mind you that McCain has run a basically clean primary without many real attacks against him. In a general, he may be much weaker than those Survey USA numbers indictate due to his merely being a republican links him to Bush.

Here is the equation in the fall: McCain = Bush.

The Backing is simple. McCain's awful 100 years statement about Iraq (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk)+ yesterday's Bush's "stay the course with McCain (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/06/bush_says_mccain_will_stay_the_course_in_iraq/)" chatter. That alone validates the equation that links him with Mr. 30%.

This is the image you'll have embedded in your brain by November:

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

Seriously, he is toast.

I agree, but look what happened to Obama after one week of attacks, heat, what ever you want to call it. There will be more of that. Michelle is piling up attack fodder for the right, not to mention his own staff.
I am just trying to point out is is too early to call anything, but at this point in the game it is closer than I would have expected.

[epo]

I guess we will see, if your logic was correct these national polls and electoral breakdowns would be lopsided and they are not.
Yes the dems clearly won in 06, they now have a lower approval rating than Bush ( I know we have been down this road, I understand historically this is the case, but lower than Bush? ) so I think that wave may have seen its peak.

I assume this is the old red herring argument of Congress' Approval Rating. Seriously, is there a dumber poll in America?

[PhilDeez]

I assume this is the old red herring argument of Congress' Approval Rating. Seriously, is there a dumber poll in America?

If you look at my next statement, I pretty much agree with you. But a lower rating than one of the least popular presendents in recent history? Also, I was just pointing out they, the dems of 06, really haven't shaken things up too much, so I wouldn't rely on riding that momentum into the 08 gerneral election.

[scottinnj]

Uh, I just wanted to point something out:


http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o217/themarshal/11-01-anaconda-plan2.jpg


Scott's Hog....BDC approved!

[HBox]

If you look at my next statement, I pretty much agree with you. But a lower rating than one of the least popular presendents in recent history? Also, I was just pointing out they, the dems of 06, really haven't shaken things up too much, so I wouldn't rely on riding that momentum into the 08 gerneral election.

It's actually not that much lower than it usually is.

[Recyclerz]

Be that as it may, I bet he's still on McCain's list for VP

Edit: Enough with the Bush-lite comments, you damn Johnny-come-latelys. McCain is his own man with very distinct policies from Bush and the other zilches who ran the show for 8 years. You weren't saying it before this election, and he hasn't changed his policies, *you guys* are changing to explain your support for Obama. Nothing wrong with Obama, but you know damn well McCain isn't Bush-lite so just say you like Obama better and be honest about it.

I assume this is to me so allow me to elaborate. I respect and generally like John McCain and might actually vote for him if Ms. Hilary continues with her shenanigans but he has definitely changed many of his positions (many long-held) since he started running for President this time and most of the changes put him in lockstep with W's positions.

Tax cuts for the rich are now OK and should be made permanent
http://powerplay.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/02/21/mccain-atones-for-conservative-apostasy/

Waterboarding now is OK (This might be the most disappointing change)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14577.html

Roe v. Wade should now be overturned
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200702/POL20070220a.html

More position changes

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14763.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802090001

I had originally hoped that McCain would be the anti-W and start to reverse many of the grevious mistakes of the past 7 years; he still may be but now I'm not so sure.

[SinA]

Don't blame me, I'm voting for the other person.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJVShOznFZM&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJVShOznFZM&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Bulldogcakes]

I assume this is to me so allow me to elaborate. I respect and generally like John McCain and might actually vote for him if Ms. Hilary continues with her shenanigans but he has definitely changed many of his positions (many long-held) since he started running for President this time and most of the changes put him in lockstep with W's positions.

Tax cuts for the rich are now OK and should be made permanent
http://powerplay.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/02/21/mccain-atones-for-conservative-apostasy/

Waterboarding now is OK (This might be the most disappointing change)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14577.html

Roe v. Wade should now be overturned
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200702/POL20070220a.html

More position changes

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14763.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802090001

I had originally hoped that McCain would be the anti-W and start to reverse many of the grevious mistakes of the past 7 years; he still may be but now I'm not so sure.

Does that really bother you and do you think he's actually changed his long held positions or is just doing this for election purposes? To me, these election year conversions go in one ear and out the other.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I assume this is to me so allow me to elaborate. I respect and generally like John McCain and might actually vote for him if Ms. Hilary continues with her shenanigans but he has definitely changed many of his positions (many long-held) since he started running for President this time and most of the changes put him in lockstep with W's positions.

Tax cuts for the rich are now OK and should be made permanent
http://powerplay.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/02/21/mccain-atones-for-conservative-apostasy/

Waterboarding now is OK (This might be the most disappointing change)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14577.html

Roe v. Wade should now be overturned
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200702/POL20070220a.html

More position changes

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14763.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802090001

I had originally hoped that McCain would be the anti-W and start to reverse many of the grevious mistakes of the past 7 years; he still may be but now I'm not so sure.

1) He feels that removing the tax cuts would adversely affect the economy. I'll admit that's a little slippery, but not really a flip flop

2) McCain voted against that bill because it wrongly applied military standards to intelligence agencies. Waterboarding is already illegal, and we all know President McCain will not stand for waterboarding.

3) McCain has a consistent pro-life record, despite thinking out loud in 2000 that reversing Roe v Wade was probably not going to happen. Doesn't mean he was against reversing Roe v Wade, it means he wasn't sure if it was possible.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Angry Boeing Supporters Target McCain (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_air_force_tankers)

"I saved the taxpayers $6 billion in a bogus tanker deal," he said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoing the thoughts of many congressional Democrats, sees McCain's role in a less positive light. She said the earlier tanker deal was "on course for Boeing" before McCain started railing against it.
For those who don't know, Boeing had a fucking mole in Air Force acquisitions, who set up a sweetheart deal where the Air Force would [B]lease[B] 100+ tankers. She went to work for Boeing a few months after retiring from the Air Force. McCain torpedoed the deal and exposed it to the public. 3 people went to jail, and Boeing's CEO was forced to resign. Boeing still put in for the contract even after this scandal and lost. And they lost because the KC-45 is a better plane for a better price that provides a better balance of cargo and fuel capacity that this project called for. Not to mention that Airbus didn't try to fucking steal money from the taxpayers. The one redeeming quality Boeing still had was the issue of jobs, which is negated because this deal still provides American jobs for much of the assembly anyway. If the Dems think McCain won't fight back on this one, they're dead wrong. I encourage Obama, Clinton, Pelosi and Washington and Chicago-based congressmen to harp on this issue and align their party with corruption heading into November, because this issue was John McCain's life for a few years and he's forgotten more about this tanker deal than any of these hacks ever knew.

In closing, here's what Richard Michalski the VP of the machinist union had to say about my boss, the commander of Air Mobility Command.
“To see this Air Force and that Air Force general say that the economics of this country and jobs in this country was not a factor that they even figured into this bidding process just is outrageous,” Michalski said. “To be able to have a general talk like that…That general should look at where his paycheck comes from. The last time I looked it was the U.S.A....That general in particular, with the rude comments he made, should quit his job, move to France and join the French Foreign Legion.”
These are the fuckin maniacs the Dems are lining themselves up with

[Friday]

Don't blame me, I'm voting for the other person.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJVShOznFZM&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJVShOznFZM&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

omg :lol::lol::lol:

[epo]

The Wyoming caucuses are today for the Democratic Party. The structure of their caucuses are really fucked up....as many caucuses are done, and many others won't be done until 8pm tonight. Don't ask.

Anyway here are the early results according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WY):

Obama - 66%
Clinton - 33%

43% reporting

There are 12 pledged delegates on the line, so at this pace Obama could pick up a net 4 delegates today. The irony of that....it basically wipes out all of Hillary's gains from Tuesday. Seriously, the math at some point is going to get impossible for the Clinton campaign.

[TheMojoPin]

The Wyoming caucuses are today for the Democratic Party. The structure of their caucuses are really fucked up....as many caucuses are done, and many others won't be done until 8pm tonight. Don't ask.

Anyway here are the early results according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WY):



There are 12 pledged delegates on the line, so at this pace Obama could pick up a net 4 delegates today. The irony of that....it basically wipes out all of Hillary's gains from Tuesday. Seriously, the math at some point is going to get impossible for the Clinton campaign.

Right, but that's why Florida and Michigan are going to somehow come back into play. Obama's unlikely to ever have a large enough margin of victory to keep the Clinton factions at bay when it comes to those two states.

[Dude!]

i keep saying but no one listens
the dems are on track for the nightmare situation

after a big win in PA and counting MI and FL popular votes
at the end of the primary season clinton may actually lead in popular votes
and obama will lead in delegates

what then

[Friday]

i keep saying but no one listens
the dems are on track for the nightmare situation

after a big win in PA and counting MI and FL popular votes
at the end of the primary season clinton may actually lead in popular votes
and obama will lead in delegates

what then

http://www.lookandlearn.com/blog/images/A001151.jpg

[NewYorkDragons80]

There are 12 pledged delegates on the line, so at this pace Obama could pick up a net 4 delegates today. The irony of that....it basically wipes out all of Hillary's gains from Tuesday. Seriously, the math at some point is going to get impossible for the Clinton campaign.
Clinton absolutely will not win the delegate majority, but I'd say it's about 50/50 on her getting the popular vote heading into Denver. If she does get the popular vote, she has a legit cause for staying in the race. And if the Democratic party leadership throws a hissy fit, the Republicans have em by the balls in Gore 2000 hypocrisy. So, the math could work in her favor given the general skepticism towards state's rights among the Democrats.

[ShowerBench]

First Obama was too scared to put his name on the ballot in Michigan for fear Iowa and New Hampshire would get upset over not being "first." Clinton and Kucinich were the only candidates willing to take that hit.

Now Obama doesn't even want the people of Michigan to vote in a new primary for that state.

Why is Obama afraid to let the people of Michigan have their say in this election? Don't give me the "rules" garbage because Obama has been whining about the superdelegate RULES for months.

This makes Obama look like an entitled sissy AFRAID of democracy who doesn't want to have to earn real votes, he wants this race awarded to him.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/NEWS06/803080308/&imw=Y

The obstacles to a do-over election to pick Michigan's delegates to the Democratic National Convention seemed to grow Friday, after Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign officials told the state's top party official that they wouldn't accept Gov. Jennifer Granholm's idea of a party-sponsored primary.

Granholm had suggested a "firehouse primary," which would allow Democrats to cast their ballots again sometime before June. It would cost about $10 million.

It would be the same procedure Democrats have used in past Michigan presidential caucuses. Polls would be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., and any eligible voter who hadn't voted in the state's Jan. 15 Republican primary could participate. The voter must be a citizen who turns 18 by the November election and declares himself or herself a Democrat for the day.

Obama's campaign doesn't like the idea, said Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer.

[ShowerBench]

after a big win in PA and counting MI and FL popular votes
at the end of the primary season clinton may actually lead in popular votes
and obama will lead in delegates

what then

Then the superdelegates have the cover they need to vote for Clinton, the candidate they want to vote for because she's the only candidate who won't be destroyed on national security and who can win states like PA, OH, and FL.

[epo]

First Obama was too scared to put his name on the ballot in Michigan for fear Iowa and New Hampshire would get upset over not being "first." Clinton and Kucinich were the only candidates willing to take that hit.

Now Obama doesn't even want the people of Michigan to vote in a new primary for that state.

Why is Obama afraid to let the people of Michigan have their say in this election? Don't give me the "rules" garbage because Obama has been whining about the superdelegate RULES for months.

This makes Obama look like an entitled sissy AFRAID of democracy who doesn't want to have to earn real votes, he wants this race awarded to him.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/NEWS06/803080308/&imw=Y

The obstacles to a do-over election to pick Michigan's delegates to the Democratic National Convention seemed to grow Friday, after Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign officials told the state's top party official that they wouldn't accept Gov. Jennifer Granholm's idea of a party-sponsored primary.

Granholm had suggested a "firehouse primary," which would allow Democrats to cast their ballots again sometime before June. It would cost about $10 million.

It would be the same procedure Democrats have used in past Michigan presidential caucuses. Polls would be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., and any eligible voter who hadn't voted in the state's Jan. 15 Republican primary could participate. The voter must be a citizen who turns 18 by the November election and declares himself or herself a Democrat for the day.

Obama's campaign doesn't like the idea, said Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer.

Mind you 5 days ago, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm didn't want a re-vote but rather the current vote to stand and be seated. By the way, she's a Clinton supporter and now would like a firehouse primary, which is a fucking ridiculous way to hold an election.

Don't pretend that Obama is in the wrong on this one.

[ShowerBench]

Mind you 5 days ago, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm didn't want a re-vote but rather the current vote to stand and be seated. By the way, she's a Clinton supporter and now would like a firehouse primary, which is a fucking ridiculous way to hold an election.

Don't pretend that Obama is in the wrong on this one.

Obama is wrong. What's wrong with a vote from 10-4?

Who cares what Granholm wanted five days ago. No relevance to the question of whether this plan should go forward. As for ridiculous, a caucus is the most ridiculous way to hold an election. Open voting, discriminatory against elderly, handicapped, and workers.

What is Obama afraid of?

[foodcourtdruide]

Clinton absolutely will not win the delegate majority, but I'd say it's about 50/50 on her getting the popular vote heading into Denver. If she does get the popular vote, she has a legit cause for staying in the race. And if the Democratic party leadership throws a hissy fit, the Republicans have em by the balls in Gore 2000 hypocrisy. So, the math could work in her favor given the general skepticism towards state's rights among the Democrats.

Again, the issue the democrats have with the 2000 election was with the way Florida was decided, NOT that Gore won the popular vote and still lost.

[epo]

Obama is wrong. What's wrong with a vote from 10-4?

Who cares what Granholm wanted five days ago. No relevance to the question of whether this plan should go forward. As for ridiculous, a caucus is the most ridiculous way to hold an election. Open voting, discriminatory against elderly, handicapped, and workers.

What is Obama afraid of?

Try parroting some more stupid talking points.

Seriously, a Firehouse Primary? It's like the red-headed stepchild of the voting world. Either a real primary or a real caucus.

Mind you, Clinton was the one who pissed on the party rules and put her name on the ballot in Michigan to begin with!

[ShowerBench]

Again, the issue the democrats have with the 2000 election was with the way Florida was decided, NOT that Gore won the popular vote and still lost.

It's also about the popular vote IN FLORIDA.

Bush stole the White House by having the Supreme Court stop counting votes in Florida.

Obama is fighting against counting votes in Michigan and Florida. He's Little Lord Pissypants redux...wants the nomination handed to him by disenfranchising voters.

[ShowerBench]

Try parroting some more stupid talking points.

Seriously, a Firehouse Primary? It's like the red-headed stepchild of the voting world. Either a real primary or a real caucus.

Mind you, Clinton was the one who pissed on the party rules and put her name on the ballot in Michigan to begin with!

There were NO RULES saying the candidates could not put their name on the Michigan ballot. The others chose not to because they were COWED by Iowa and NH...they didn't want to offend them. Clinton and Kucinich took the hit. Now Obama wants to be rewarded for being a coward.

What's wrong with the Michigan solution, specifically? Those who haven't voted can vote in a new election, with polls open from 10-4. Basically the same as any primary.

[epo]

It's also about the popular vote IN FLORIDA.

Bush stole the White House by having the Supreme Court stop counting votes in Florida.

Obama is fighting against counting votes in Michigan and Florida. He's Little Lord Pissypants redux...wants the nomination handed to him by disenfranchising voters.

Keep twisting the details.

Remember that Florida & Michigan both ignored the rules of the Democratic Party and moved their elections earlier than rules allowed. Hence, Dean pulled their delegates. Quite frankly they deserved it.

If they want back in, they must re-vote. Neither Florida or Michigan wanted to do that for quite some time because of the expense. And of course Clinton wanted the original votes counted....she was the only one to piss on the party rules and openly campaign in those states.

Is this anymore obvious?

[ShowerBench]

Mind you, Clinton was the one who pissed on the party rules and put her name on the ballot in Michigan to begin with!

Incidentally the only one who broke the RULES was Obama, who ran ads in Florida before the primary. All candidates signed a pledge not to do so. Edwards and Clinton managed not to make national buys that violated the pledge.

Then Obama lied and said the DNC said it was OK. One SC Democratic official said it was OK but the DNC came out and said sorry, he lied.

[ShowerBench]

Keep twisting the details.

Remember that Florida & Michigan both ignored the rules of the Democratic Party and moved their elections earlier than rules allowed. Hence, Dean pulled their delegates. Quite frankly they deserved it.

If they want back in, they must re-vote. Neither Florida or Michigan wanted to do that for quite some time because of the expense. And of course Clinton wanted the original votes counted....she was the only one to piss on the party rules and openly campaign in those states.

Is this anymore obvious?

Clinton didn't break ANY rules in either state. Obama was too frightened to put his name on the MI ballot.

Looks like Florida will have a mail-in primary that Obama will lose again. Michigan will probably have something similar.

Either way, Obama is in a position to accept democracy or argue against it. So far he's arguing against it and Clinton will have a field day with that.

[epo]

There were NO RULES saying the candidates could not put their name on the Michigan ballot. The others chose not to because they were COWED by Iowa and NH...they didn't want to offend them. Clinton and Kucinich took the hit. Now Obama wants to be rewarded for being a coward.

What's wrong with the Michigan solution, specifically? Those who haven't voted can vote in a new election, with polls open from 10-4. Basically the same as any primary.

A firehouse primary limits polling locations and hours. The standard for a primary is 13 hours. If you are running a primary, follow the goddamn rules.

[epo]

Incidentally the only one who broke the RULES was Obama, who ran ads in Florida before the primary. All candidates signed a pledge not to do so. Edwards and Clinton managed not to make national buys that violated the pledge.

Then Obama lied and said the DNC said it was OK. One SC Democratic official said it was OK but the DNC came out and said sorry, he lied.

Yes. Obama's people made the mistake of buying a national media buy that touched Florida. Clinton and her people campaigned in the state.

Who is the shithead in this case?

[epo]

Either way, Obama is in a position to accept democracy or argue against it. So far he's arguing against it and Clinton will have a field day with that.

I hear talking points.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Movie_i_see_dead_people.jpg

[ShowerBench]

Yes. Obama's people made the mistake of buying a national media buy that touched Florida. Clinton and her people campaigned in the state.

Who is the shithead in this case?

No Clinton and her people didn't campaign in the state.

Obama ran ads he pledged not to run and Edwards and Clinton avoided running. He's incompetent or a liar, one or the other.

[ShowerBench]

Why Obama likes caucuses:

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/518514.html

Hundreds of people were crammed into the tiny cafeteria at Atherton Elementary School in Arlington on Tuesday night.

They waited there, shoulder to shoulder, at precinct caucuses for more than two hours to declare their support for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for president. People who attended said the mood grew heated as participants lost confidence in whether their votes would be counted.

They had every reason to worry. The Tarrant County Democratic Party confirmed Friday that it had received envelopes with blank forms for all three precinct caucuses at the school.

"At this point, we don't have any record that anything happened there," said Keith Annis, the county party's executive director.

-----

None of them knew what to do. Andrews didn't have a number for the local party. He did have one for the local Clinton campaign office. A lawyer there told him someone would be there with sign-in sheets within an hour.

Andrews jumped onto a cafeteria table and told the crowd the situation. Many were unhappy to learn that the Clinton campaign had gotten involved, he said.

"The crowd was highly agitated and it was being focused on me because I was the only one speaking," Andrews said.

Soon, Andrews said, someone thrust a cellphone in his face. A man who said he was a lawyer with the Obama campaign told Andrews that any piece of paper filled out properly could be accepted as a legally binding sign-in sheet.

Andrews got back up on the table to tell everyone the good news. To his surprise, the crowd didn't like the sound of that either. Apparently anyone associated with either campaign was viewed as untrustworthy.

"I decided at that point I was poison to these people so I stepped down," Andrews said.

Just before 9 p.m., with the crowd still fumbling toward a solution, Andrews left before his precinct caucus began. He said he was worried for his safety.

"I just didn't need someone taking out their frustration out on me," he said.

-------------

Clarence Christopher had waited more than two hours in the Atherton Elementary cafeteria. He and his wife, both lifelong Democrats, didn't understand what was causing the delay. All they knew was that the people in charge didn't seem to know what they were doing.

"It was just the most disorganized thing I've ever seen," Christopher said.

Around 9 p.m., after Andrews and dozens of others had left, someone told everyone in the room to line up by precinct.

"They got a piece of notebook paper and you walked by there and you told them who you voted for and what precinct," Christopher said. He noticed that the people running his precinct caucus weren't taking down names, just presidential preferences

[PhilDeez]

Obama is wrong. What's wrong with a vote from 10-4?

Who cares what Granholm wanted five days ago. No relevance to the question of whether this plan should go forward. As for ridiculous, a caucus is the most ridiculous way to hold an election. Open voting, discriminatory against elderly, handicapped, and workers.

What is Obama afraid of?

I guess this guy missed the memo...
http://images.politico.com/global/wyoming.jpg

[K.C.]

The caucus thing with Obama and how he does so much better there than in primaries does concern me a little, considering that the general election is straight booth voting.

Caucuses DO favor his demographics in terms of the voters that he draw, whereas I'd venture a guess that the seniors and the ham n' eggers vote that favors Hillary are less likely to commit a couple hours to caucuses.

That said, I would never vote for a candidate based on electability...so I don't care too much about it...but I find it interesting.


If I had to venture a guess as to what it may mean, I'd say that Obama does well in caucuses because his grass roots are better at locating and churning out people who will go sit there and wait the thing out.

Whereas, in primary states, it's a much wider electorate and that nullifies a lot of the grass root effect...having the party machine churning out voters, endorsements, unions, etc. is a bigger deal.

That said, if Obama wins the nomination, he should pick up most of that infrastructure from the Clintons for his general election run, provided Hillary doesn't go all Zell Miller on him.

[epo]

Why Obama likes caucuses:

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/518514.html



So you posted a random story about caucusing issues in Texas and make a leap of logic as to "why Obama likes caucuses".

Seriously, that is one of the worst claims I've ever read on this board.

[epo]

CNN has officially called the Wyoming caucus for Obama.

Obama - 59%
Clinton - 40%

Link here. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WY)

Of course at some point tonight the Clinton camp will say that this election "didn't matter". That will make 30 elections that her camp thinks "don't matter".

[ShowerBench]

CNN has officially called the Wyoming caucus for Obama.



Link here. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WY)

Of course at some point tonight the Clinton camp will say that this election "didn't matter". That will make 30 elections that her camp thinks "don't matter".

It doesn't matter. Wyoming has about 60,000 Democrats and about 20% of them caucused today. Last year they had a primary and about 50,000 voted.

Either way, neither Democrat will win there

[ShowerBench]

The caucus thing with Obama and how he does so much better there than in primaries does concern me a little, considering that the general election is straight booth voting. .
.

Along that line

Downside of Obama Strategy
Losses in Big States Spur General-Election Fears

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703318_pf.html

But Obama's losses Tuesday in Texas and Ohio -- coupled with his Feb. 5 defeats in California, New York and New Jersey -- have not only shown the strategy's downside. They have also given supporters of Clinton an opening for an argument that winning over affluent, educated white voters in small Democratic enclaves, such as Boise, Idaho, and Salt Lake City, and running up the score with African Americans in the Republican South exaggerate his strengths in states that will not vote Democratic in the fall.

If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee but cannot win support from working-class whites and Hispanics, they argue, then Democrats will not retake the White House in November.

[HBox]

Before the Wyoming caucus even started Obama made up his deficit from Tuesday......... in California. (http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5248)

[DiabloSammich]

Before the Wyoming caucus even started Obama made up his deficit from Tuesday......... in California. (http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5248)


You expect me to believe that you posted a link there for me to click on?

Not me, sir. I've been fooled one too many times by your stupid blue font. Go sell your shenanigans to the rubes.

[scottinnj]

No Clinton and her people didn't campaign in the state.

Obama ran ads he pledged not to run and Edwards and Clinton avoided running. He's incompetent or a liar, one or the other.

Obama ran ads on television stations from other states that broadcasted into Florida on various cable and satellite companies.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Again, the issue the democrats have with the 2000 election was with the way Florida was decided, NOT that Gore won the popular vote and still lost.
Without getting into the whole Florida debacle, are you telling me that the majority of Democrats would've been accepting of the 2000 election assuming Bush won fair in Florida by 50-something votes?

[scottinnj]

Without getting into the whole Florida debacle, are you telling me that the majority of Democrats would've been accepting of the 2000 election assuming Bush won fair in Florida by 50-something votes?

Nope. That's why a bunch of 'em always complain about the electoral college, which in reality, is probably the best way to show what a genious document it really is.

[epo]

CNN has officially called the Wyoming caucus for Obama.



Link here. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WY)

Of course at some point tonight the Clinton camp will say that this election "didn't matter". That will make 30 elections that her camp thinks "don't matter".

It doesn't matter. Wyoming has about 60,000 Democrats and about 20% of them caucused today. Last year they had a primary and about 50,000 voted.

Either way, neither Democrat will win there

Thanks for making my point and doing so immediately.

[keithy_19]

Thanks for making my point and doing so immediately.

The truth is, Clinton will win states that typically go democrat. But McCain will beat her in the general election. That's just my opinion though.

[foodcourtdruide]

Without getting into the whole Florida debacle, are you telling me that the majority of Democrats would've been accepting of the 2000 election assuming Bush won fair in Florida by 50-something votes?

Absolutely. The electoral college was in place before the election. Complaining about it COSTING YOU A VICTORY (not complaining that it is stupid) is just sour grapes. It's like when a sports team complains about a bad call, when in reality bad calls tend to even themselves out throughout the course of a year.

[foodcourtdruide]

Nope. That's why a bunch of 'em always complain about the electoral college, which in reality, is probably the best way to show what a genious document it really is.


1. Democrats complain about the way Bush won Florida, not about the electoral college. This is just a matter of logic. I'm sure you can find some quotes of democrats complaining about the electoral college as it pertains to the 2000 election, then I'll show you some quotes from right-wingers that want to nuke Iran. Neither will be conclusive.

2. The electoral college stinks. Especially with increasing technology and a world that's getting smaller and smaller, the need for Wyoming to be over-represented makes less sense.

[Bulldogcakes]

The truth is, Clinton will win states that typically go democrat. But McCain will beat her in the general election. That's just my opinion though.

One thing that worries me about McCain is this bullshit about "running a clean and fair campaign" he said after Barack's middle name was brought up last week. If he has a problem going negative, he'll lose. Running a "clean" campaign only means that as your opponent smashes you over the head every chance they get, you make a comittment not to hit back. Which a recipe for failure. Ask Kerry how that worked after Swift Boat. Ask Dukakis how that worked in 88, on and on.

Plus, Republican voters generally don't give a shit about the tone of a campaign, thats something the Left usually wrings its hands over. He's appealing to people who won't vote for him anyway.

[JimBeam]

I posted these over in the Cobra Commander thread but they seem to fit here as well.

Here's my attempt at posting a link to another thread :

http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25135&page=2

[ShowerBench]

Without getting into the whole Florida debacle, are you telling me that the majority of Democrats would've been accepting of the 2000 election assuming Bush won fair in Florida by 50-something votes?

Definitely. The issue wasn't Gore's half-million popular vote victory nationwide, it was that he won the popular vote in Florida which should have translated into winning Florida's electoral votes.

[scottinnj]

Definitely. The issue wasn't Gore's half-million popular vote victory nationwide, it was that he won the popular vote in Florida which should have translated into winning Florida's electoral votes.


but he didn't win the popular vote in florida. bush did.

[epo]

but he didn't win the popular vote in florida. bush did.

Gore made a grave strategic error in not asking for the entire state of Florida to be recounted. Let's just leave it at that.

[PhilDeez]

Gore made a grave strategic error in not asking for the entire state of Florida to be recounted. Let's just leave it at that.

He lost the state of Florida, fairly or not. If he were so sure, as you, the entire state recount would have sent him to the White House, I'm sure he would have asked.

[ShowerBench]

Gore made a grave strategic error in not asking for the entire state of Florida to be recounted. Let's just leave it at that.

Shortly after asking for the hand count of four counties, Gore proposed an entire state recount which Bush nixed. The FL court allowed it and it was underway but then Bush's cronies on the Supreme Court put a stop to it because Gore would have won (and yes, that was their legal reasoning).

[epo]

A poll from Newsweek on Democratic-leaning voters (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aknXO2W6FGao&refer=home)indicates that Democrats are split:

Obama 45
Clinton 44

This of course throws that ol' "Democrats love Hillary" line right in the toilet.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Without getting into the whole Florida debacle, are you telling me that the majority of Democrats would've been accepting of the 2000 election assuming Bush won fair in Florida by 50-something votes?
A lot of people seemed to have missed the "without" above. :wallbash:

Anyway, foodcourtdude aside, the elimination of the electoral college is a pretty mainstream issue for Democrats. So to say that Hillary would make a lot of people look stupid by losing the primary with the popular vote is on target.

[epo]

A lot of people seemed to have missed the "without" above. :wallbash:

Anyway, foodcourtdude aside, the elimination of the electoral college is a pretty mainstream issue for Democrats. So to say that Hillary would make a lot of people look stupid by losing the primary with the popular vote is on target.

I might be old school, but I support the Electoral College. It gives small areas of the nation a larger voice, a voice which they often need.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I might be old school, but I support the Electoral College. It gives small areas of the nation a larger voice, a voice which they often need.

But would you agree that a sizable minority of people on your side of the aisle want to see the electoral college abolished?

[foodcourtdruide]

A lot of people seemed to have missed the "without" above. :wallbash:

Anyway, foodcourtdude aside, the elimination of the electoral college is a pretty mainstream issue for Democrats. So to say that Hillary would make a lot of people look stupid by losing the primary with the popular vote is on target.

I'm pro-elimination of the electoral college, but I don't think that's because I'm a democrat or liberal. Sorry, I just don't see the connection.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I'm pro-elimination of the electoral college, but I don't think that's because I'm a democrat or liberal. Sorry, I just don't see the connection.
Because Republicans tend towards local and state's rights and Democrats favor national government... in theory. That's been thrown off its axis lately with shit like No Child Left Behind, but it tends to be true. I also think Democrats and liberals have been negatively impacted by the electoral college recently and are therefore more inclined to be against it.

[foodcourtdruide]

Because Republicans tend towards local and state's rights and Democrats favor national government... in theory. That's been thrown off its axis lately with shit like No Child Left Behind, but it tends to be true. I also think Democrats and liberals have been negatively impacted by the electoral college recently and are therefore more inclined to be against it.

I suppose you're correct, I just haven't heard an outcry against it. You bring up a really good point.

It's really amazing how untraditional of a Republican Bush is.

[ShowerBench]

A poll from Newsweek on Democratic-leaning voters (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aknXO2W6FGao&refer=home)indicates that Democrats are split:

Obama 45
Clinton 44

This of course throws that ol' "Democrats love Hillary" line right in the toilet.

Actually that poll is of "Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters" meaning Indies and R's who are leaning toward voting Democratic:

Obama and Clinton are statistically tied nationwide for support among Democrats, according to a poll by Newsweek magazine released today. The poll shows 45 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters said they would most like to see Obama nominated for the presidency, compared with 44 percent who favored Clinton. The difference is well within the 5 percentage- point margin of error for Democrats in the survey.

[epo]

Clinton is having a lucky day. How? Spitzer is filling up the news.

Today, former Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee Geraldine Ferraro dropped this nugget of wisdom upon us: (http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_8489268)

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Geraldine Ferraro happens to be a Clinton supporter. I seriously wanna puke all over this person right now.

[epo]

Somebody bitch slapped Hillary today.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rtal0bsnJTQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rtal0bsnJTQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[ShowerBench]

Actually it's true. If any WHITE MALE first term senator tried to run for president he'd be laughed out of the race no matter how well he read a speech.

That's more than obvious.

[epo]

Actually it's true. If any WHITE MALE first term senator tried to run for president he'd be laughed out of the race no matter how well he read a speech.

That's more than obvious.

If Barack Obama were white, this would have been over last Tuesday.

[badmonkey]

Actually it's true. If any WHITE MALE first term senator tried to run for president he'd be laughed out of the race no matter how well he read a speech.

That's more than obvious.

What about John Edwards?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

Johnny Reid "John" Edwards[1] (born June 10, 1953) is an American politician who served one term as U.S. Senator from North Carolina. He was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2004, and was a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination through the January primaries.

[Kevin]

Actually it's true. If any WHITE MALE first term senator tried to run for president he'd be laughed out of the race no matter how well he read a speech.

That's more than obvious.

Wait.. are you saying that Obama is still here.. Running for president of the United States Of America... BECAUSE HE IS BLACK??:wacko: I'm sorry, have i woke up in the twilight zone? where the fuck is Rod Serling dammit!!

[cougarjake13]

If Barack Obama were white, this would have been over last Tuesday.

actually it would have been over a long time ago

[Rod Serling]

ShowerBench is right.

[Bulldogcakes]

ShowerBench is right.

Thank God you finally showed up.

When I talk politics with these people, I feel like I'm in the "Twilight Zone"

[Friday]

Somebody bitch slapped Hillary today.

w00t!

http://home.arcor.de/chriz2/bitchslap.jpg

[badmonkey]

Spitzer Spoils Clinton’s Delegate Count (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/11/spitzer-spoils-clintons-delegate-count/?mod=googlenews_wsj)
If New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigns, as is widely anticipated, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton will be down one superdelegate. The scandal-tainted governor and his Lt. Gov. David Paterson currently are two of the roughly 800 superdelegates who will also cast ballots at the August nominating convention. Both are public backers of Clinton.

Dunno how much this really does hurt her, but she is currently losing a relatively tight race.

[epo]

Spitzer Spoils Clinton’s Delegate Count (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/11/spitzer-spoils-clintons-delegate-count/?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Dunno how much this really does hurt her, but she is currently losing a relatively tight race.

If anything the (albeit loose) association between Clinton & Spitzer is a much bigger problem than the delegate.

[Zorro]

If anything the (albeit loose) association between Clinton & Spitzer is a much bigger problem than the delegate.

Probably hurts only as much as it reminds people of Bill Clinton...

[epo]

Probably hurts only as much as it reminds people of Bill Clinton...

That would definitely be a negative part of the association for the Clinton campaign.

[badmonkey]

That would definitely be a negative part of the association for the Clinton campaign.

Speaking of negative, Hillary, and sex association....

Sinbad Unloads on Hillary Clinton (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/11/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin_1.html)

[ShowerBench]

Obama the Uniter. For anyone who didn't read the paranoid and ridiculous NYT piece about the racist undertones of the red phone ad, Obama shows a disturbing pattern of playing the race card before every primary for a state with a large black population. He also flip flopped on his claim in the last debate and now has decided Clinton's unequivocal response on 60 Minutes was racist.

This is revolting. Obama's about as much of a "uniter" as Bush. If he wins the nomination it's Nader 08 for me.

Check it out:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=fd72d239-fb33-4493-be6a-2a869fa597d2&k=13306

Now, in anticipation of the Mississippi primary, it's happening again. In Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island on March 4, as earlier in New Hampshire, the Obama campaign did not achieve the knock-out blow it expected and predicted. Indeed, just before those primaries and since, Obama's camp started to receive serious criticism and scrutiny for the first time, over the candidate's connections to indicted Chicago fixer Tony Rezko, and over the amateurish and revealing actions of senior advisers Austan Goolsbee, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power. The campaign has turned to double-talk and to stonewalling the press. And once again, it has lashed out by playing racial politics while accusing the Clinton campaign of playing the very same game.

[Friday]

This is revolting. Obama's about as much of a "uniter" as Bush. If he wins the nomination it's Nader 08 for me.



Votes for Nader only further ensure a republican win if the race is anywhere within the vicinity of close.
So why not just vote for McCain?

[epo]

Obama the Uniter. For anyone who didn't read the paranoid and ridiculous NYT piece about the racist undertones of the red phone ad, Obama shows a disturbing pattern of playing the race card before every primary for a state with a large black population. He also flip flopped on his claim in the last debate and now has decided Clinton's unequivocal response on 60 Minutes was racist.

This is revolting. Obama's about as much of a "uniter" as Bush. If he wins the nomination it's Nader 08 for me.

Check it out:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=fd72d239-fb33-4493-be6a-2a869fa597d2&k=13306

Now, in anticipation of the Mississippi primary, it's happening again. In Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island on March 4, as earlier in New Hampshire, the Obama campaign did not achieve the knock-out blow it expected and predicted. Indeed, just before those primaries and since, Obama's camp started to receive serious criticism and scrutiny for the first time, over the candidate's connections to indicted Chicago fixer Tony Rezko, and over the amateurish and revealing actions of senior advisers Austan Goolsbee, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power. The campaign has turned to double-talk and to stonewalling the press. And once again, it has lashed out by playing racial politics while accusing the Clinton campaign of playing the very same game.

Listen, whether you want to open your eyes or not, the Clinton campaign has used old school southern tactics when in ol' Dixie. South Carolina, what the fuck was that? The LBJ comments, that my friend was code for "whitey gets the job done". Obama gives a great speech....sounds like "he sure does talk well". Geraldine Ferraro? Trust me, she didn't walk that line without permission. New Hampshire? Remember Billy Sheehan...implying that Obama didn't just use drugs...he dealt them.

Seriously, I can do this all goddamned night. The Clinton campaign has appealed to the worst in all of us. In many ways I simply can't understand how she & I are in the same party. Of course I shouldn't expect anything more from a person whose mentor was Joesph Fucking Isadore Lieberman.

[epo]

Oh, and Geraldine Ferraro has a nice history of racism. Where have I heard this statement before...maybe 1988:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Link here. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html)

Seriously, this is blowing up all over the media & gonna fuck the Clinton campaign hard. And in this case they deserve it.

[sailor]

Oh, and Geraldine Ferraro has a nice history of racism. Where have I heard this statement before...maybe 1988:



Link here. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html)

Seriously, this is blowing up all over the media & gonna fuck the Clinton campaign hard. And in this case they deserve it.

just because something was said in the past makes it untrue? not saying i agree/disagree, but you've got to have a better reason for dismissing a comment.

[epo]

just because something was said in the past makes it untrue? not saying i agree/disagree, but you've got to have a better reason for dismissing a comment.

Because something was said in the past which is then echoed 20 years later makes it look awfully embedded.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position"
"if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race"

This is old school politics of division and there is no place for it in modern politics.

[Dude!]

This is old school politics of division and there is no place for it in modern politics.


wishing that to be true does not make it true

there is a huge place for the politics of division in modern politics

the clinton brothers are proving that every day

[ShowerBench]

Because something was said in the past which is then echoed 20 years later makes it look awfully embedded.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position"
"if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race"

This is old school politics of division and there is no place for it in modern politics.

Why not? Ferraro said if she weren't a woman she probably wouldn't have been selected for VP spot. That was true then, what she said about Obama is true now. If he was white he would have been laughed out of the race and deservedly derided for starting a run for leader of the free world with less than one year in the Senate.

Edwards had a platform that was MUCH better than Obama's (or Clinton's) but he ran in last place because Obama is black. The logical first and second place candidates were Clinton and Edwards. Clinton as the moderate hawkish candidate and Edwards as the populist. Obama's got nothing.

[TheMojoPin]

Edwards had a platform that was MUCH better than Obama's (or Clinton's) but he ran in last place because Obama is black. The logical first and second place candidates were Clinton and Edwards. Clinton as the moderate hawkish candidate and Edwards as the populist. Obama's got nothing.

If you're going to sit there and type with a straight face like you honestly would have voted for Edwards when your main charge against Obama has been HIS lack of "experience," you're a hypocrite of the highest degree.

[ShowerBench]

If you're going to sit there and type with a straight face like you honestly would have voted for Edwards when your main charge against Obama has been HIS lack of "experience," you're a hypocrite of the highest degree.

Nope. I said Edwards had a MUCH better platform than Clinton or Obama. I've also said he was my first choice for that reason but I switched because he was coming off as weak on national security which is both a real issue and an electability issue. His weakness on national security was partially attributable to his relative lack of experience to Billary's.

But between the two inexperienced candidates, the white male at least had a platform that distinguished him. Obama's got nothing.

[ShowerBench]

Mississippi results:

Obama won 26% of the white vote. Clinton won 70%

Clinton won Independents 55-45

Clinton won Republicans 75-25



Obama claims he can attract Independents and Republicans in traditionally red states. Nope. He can't win big Dem swing states like FL and PA and OH, and he can't win traditionally red states.

He outspent Clinton 3-1 in Ohio, had the media in the tank for him for months, and had momentum from winning 11 straight (insignificant in reality but hyped by the media) but still lost Ohio.

When Obama's done playing the race card (his biggest mistake) and Republicans are done calling him on it, he's not going to be able to win a single state in November, blue or red. He's a disaster for the Democrats.

[TheMojoPin]

Nope. I said Edwards had a MUCH better platform than Clinton or Obama. I've also said he was my first choice for that reason but I switched because he was coming off as weak on national security which is both a real issue and an electability issue. His weakness on national security was partially attributable to his relative lack of experience to Billary's.

But between the two inexperienced candidates, the white male at least had a platform that distinguished him. Obama's got nothing.

No, YOU think he has "nothing." There's no way you can legitimately compare the two and say one had a detailed campaign platform and the other has nothing. You tripped up in your hurry to bash Obama yet again like he's the political antichrist.

[scottinnj]

The problem Edwards had with a majority of independants was that he kept being divisive. The "two Americas" routine was just not sitting well with most people, who are going to Obama because they are tired of the divisive politics in Washington. Edwards' message was just more of the same, "the rich are bad, the poor can't make it without government, blah blah blah"

[TheMojoPin]

Mississippi results:

Obama won 26% of the white vote. Clinton won 70%

Clinton won Independents 55-45

Clinton won Republicans 75-25



Obama claims he can attract Independents and Republicans in traditionally red states. Nope. He can't win big Dem swing states like FL and PA and OH, and he can't win traditionally red states.

He outspent Clinton 3-1 in Ohio, had the media in the tank for him for months, and had momentum from winning 11 straight (insignificant in reality but hyped by the media) but still lost Ohio.

When Obama's done playing the race card (his biggest mistake) and Republicans are done calling him on it, he's not going to be able to win a single state in November, blue or red. He's a disaster for the Democrats.

You're completely absurd. Yet again, a complete double standard. You demonstrate flimsy examples as to how Obama can be "destroyed," yet oddly, he keeps not being destroyed. You then completely leave out Clinton in a national scenario as if she's a better option and won't provide the Republicans with infinitely more ammunition and won't be a infinitely bigger and better target for them to unleash the attack dogs on. The Clintons beat cocky post-Reaganite Republicans 16 years ago. Since then, the GOP has shaped itself into a finely honed attack machine that has even manged to get arguably the worst president of all time re-elected and BARELY lose the legislative majoriy in the middle of one of the most unpopular administrations and wars in the history of this country to the point that their being the "minority" has almost zero impact. Do you really think Hillary is some infinitely better candidate to face them given ALL of the baggage and easy targets she carries tha they're just slavering to pounce on? With Obama, you keep harping on the handful of issues they'd have the stretch to take him down while completely ignoring the shopping list of vulnerabilities Hillary has, especially going against acandidate like McCain.

[scottinnj]

Mississippi results:

Obama won 26% of the white vote. Clinton won 70%

Clinton won Independents 55-45

Clinton won Republicans 75-25



Obama claims he can attract Independents and Republicans in traditionally red states. Nope. He can't win big Dem swing states like FL and PA and OH, and he can't win traditionally red states.

He outspent Clinton 3-1 in Ohio, had the media in the tank for him for months, and had momentum from winning 11 straight (insignificant in reality but hyped by the media) but still lost Ohio.

When Obama's done playing the race card (his biggest mistake) and Republicans are done calling him on it, he's not going to be able to win a single state in November, blue or red. He's a disaster for the Democrats.

Obama has been attracting Independants and Republicans. The reason Republicans are voting for Hillary now is because they are the ones following the talk show hosts telling them to keep Hillary in the hunt to have the nomination go to the convention and have a disatrous ending.

The Ohio outcome was because of NAFTA, and the BS story about the secret Canadian meeting. Turned out to be a lie, but it wasn't vetted properly before the media, supposedly in Obama's pocket, ran with it in enough time to damage him.

I don't see where Obama is playing the race card. I did see a picture planted in the media of him wearing some weird pajamas while on a trip to Indonesia, with the tone that he "really is muslim, and is hiding it for the campaign"

[TheMojoPin]

The problem Edwards had with a majority of independants was that he kept being divisive. The "two Americas" routine was just not sitting well with most people, who are going to Obama because they are tired of the divisive politics in Washington. Edwards' message was just more of the same, "the rich are bad, the poor can't make it without government, blah blah blah"

Except that latter is not what he said at all, and he's completely right about what "two Americas" actually means, and not what pundits spun it as.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Oh, and Geraldine Ferraro has a nice history of racism. Where have I heard this statement before...maybe 1988:



Link here. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html)

Seriously, this is blowing up all over the media & gonna fuck the Clinton campaign hard. And in this case they deserve it.
Would Jesse Jackson be where he was if he wasn't black?

[epo]

Would Jesse Jackson be where he was if he wasn't black?

I'm gonna be nice to you here and just state that because of your age, you have no idea who Jesse Jackson was in 1988 versus who he is now.

Seriously, two completely different animals.

[A.J.]

Speaking of negative, Hillary, and sex association....

Sinbad Unloads on Hillary Clinton (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/11/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin_1.html)

Oh, and Geraldine Ferraro has a nice history of racism. Where have I heard this statement before...maybe 1988:



Link here. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html)

Seriously, this is blowing up all over the media & gonna fuck the Clinton campaign hard. And in this case they deserve it.


Sinbad? Geraldine Ferraro? Who are we going to hear from next -- Molly Ringwald?

[epo]

Mississippi results:

Obama won 26% of the white vote. Clinton won 70%

Clinton won Independents 55-45

Clinton won Republicans 75-25

Obama claims he can attract Independents and Republicans in traditionally red states. Nope. He can't win big Dem swing states like FL and PA and OH, and he can't win traditionally red states.

He outspent Clinton 3-1 in Ohio, had the media in the tank for him for months, and had momentum from winning 11 straight (insignificant in reality but hyped by the media) but still lost Ohio.

When Obama's done playing the race card (his biggest mistake) and Republicans are done calling him on it, he's not going to be able to win a single state in November, blue or red. He's a disaster for the Democrats.

I love how you dice polling data in a very selective manner. Here's a nugget for you from the CNN 7 page exit poll data (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MSDEM) info in Mississippi:

Would you be not satisfied if your candidate won in November:

Clinton: 13%
Obama: 4%

Wait...are you saying that Republicans might be voting for Hillary Clinton to dirty the water?

[epo]

Sinbad? Geraldine Ferraro? Who are we going to hear from next -- Molly Ringwald?

Once that Andrew McCarthy vote comes in, this thing is over.

[TheMojoPin]

I love how you dice polling data in a very selective manner. Here's a nugget for you from the CNN 7 page exit poll data (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MSDEM) info in Mississippi:

Would you be not satisfied if your candidate won in November:

Clinton: 13%
Obama: 4%

Wait...are you saying that Republicans might be voting for Hillary Clinton to dirty the water?

Here's some more ways ShowerBench "forgot" to look at the numbers:

He won Men 6 to 4.
He won Women by 8 points.
He won the over 50 and the under 50.
He won the under $50k and the over $50k families.

[ShowerBench]

Here's some more ways ShowerBench "forgot" to look at the numbers:

He won Men 6 to 4.
He won Women by 8 points.
He won the over 50 and the under 50.
He won the under $50k and the over $50k families.

50% of the voters in the Mississippi primary were black. Same story as the other southern states Obama has won that he has no chance of winning in November.

[Zorro]

Here's some more ways ShowerBench "forgot" to look at the numbers:

He won Men 6 to 4.
He won Women by 8 points.
He won the over 50 and the under 50.
He won the under $50k and the over $50k families.

But mostly he's won my heart

[TheMojoPin]

50% of the voters in the Mississippi primary were black. Same story as the other southern states Obama has won that he has no chance of winning in November.

Yes, that's half. To win all of the demographics listed, you can't just take in the African American vote. You're trying to relegate his vote to that, and then basically imply that those votes are somehow "less important." They're ultimately just numbers, same as any other vote...it represents a solid base that he has that has only expanded to other areas and demographics as time has gone on, and that he has won or won over in state after state. Even in the states he lost, he's expanded his numbers beyond initial projections, usually by very significan margins. Hillary, meanwhile, has seen almost all of her voting support groups shrink on the total scale, and is now relying on Republican votes where she can get them to prop her up when she went into this thing as the supposed slamdunk candidate. It's mindboggling how you see such a broadsided, on life support campaign of a favorite Republican attack target as somehow more viable nationally at this point.

[ShowerBench]

Ferraro defends Obama's patriotism over "flag pin" flap.

Says "Get real...ridiculous" over the question of whether Obama hates America for not wearing a flag pin. Tells the other guest to STFU if she's going to trash Obama's patriotism.

Barack Obama is a dick.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BkKh7YAnZYg&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BkKh7YAnZYg&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[DolaMight]

this should have been a presidential poll.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I'm gonna be nice to you here and just state that because of your age, you have no idea who Jesse Jackson was in 1988 versus who he is now.

Seriously, two completely different animals.
Sure, Jesse had some experience as a civil rights leader, but was he fit to be president? I don't care if it was 84 or 88, Jesse wouldn't have been where he was if he wasn't black. Nor would Obama. I think Obama would make a better president than Hillary, but you're lying or hopelessly naive if you think he got where he is based on his views.