The 2008 Presidential Race

[Zorro]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

[NewYorkDragons80]

She's known she'll lose the delegate count for months now. Is it illegitimate or undemocratic for her to maneuver her way into the nomination if she heads into Denver with the popular vote in the primaries? (That's not rhetorical, I'd really like to hear everyone's thoughts.) I think winning the popular vote (Albeit with the help of party politics) says more about the will of the people than delegate counts from places like Iowa.

I also think Dean is showing his total lack of leadership by allowing this clusterfuck in Florida and Michigan to drag on. He's in a tough bind, because he stands to lose either the black vote or the 2 most important swing states in the union. Still, the guy hasn't demonstrated any courage or innovation and instead repeats nonsensical McCain-Bush rhetoric while the party that was entrusted to him tears itself apart.

[sailor]

whatever their anger at the party leadership in those two states, how do you just tell all those people their votes don't count? poor planning to hope and pray it would have become a moot point by now.

[Zorro]

Never knew there was tension between Pelosi and Clinton...

One key piece of evidence for that theory can be found in Hillary Clinton's book, Living History. It turns out that back in 1995, as Clinton was preparing for a landmark trip to Beijing to deliver a speech to the United Nations Conference on Women, Pelosi called and implored her to stay home to protest China's human rights abuses.

"The presence of the first lady," Pelosi argued publicly at the time, "would give the Chinese regime an unprecedented propaganda victory."

Clinton made the trip anyway.


From Politico article http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9159_Page2.html

[A.J.]

Never knew there was tension between Pelosi and Clinton...

You think Pelosi wants to give up being the most powerful woman in America?

[Zorro]

You think Pelosi wants to give up being the most powerful woman in America?

You are a sexist little devil

[epo]

So the Clinton playbook on losing things is so obvious: "They don't matter". First when they lost states....they didn't matter. Washington state? Doesn't matter. Kansas? Doesn't matter...etc.

Now people don't matter either. According to Mark Penn, Clinton's key strategist, Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama doesn't matter (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/21/clinton-aide-says-richardsons-endorsement-is-insignificant/?mod=WSJBlog?mod=googlenews_wsj):

“The time that he could have been effective has long since passed,” he continued. “I don’t think it is a significant endorsement in this environment.”

But that is not the end of it. Not only doesn't Richardson's endorsement matter, he's a traitor for that insignificant endorsement (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22richardson.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Carville+said&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin):

“An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

If the Clinton camp wants to understand why the party is leaving them, they need to look no further than shit like this.

[A.J.]

So the Clinton playbook on losing things is so obvious: "They don't matter". First when they lost states....they didn't matter. Washington state? Doesn't matter. Kansas? Doesn't matter...etc.

Now people don't matter either. According to Mark Penn, Clinton's key strategist, Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama doesn't matter (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/21/clinton-aide-says-richardsons-endorsement-is-insignificant/?mod=WSJBlog?mod=googlenews_wsj):



But that is not the end of it. Not only doesn't Richardson's endorsement matter, he's a traitor for that insignificant endorsement (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22richardson.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Carville+said&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin):



If the Clinton camp wants to understand why the party is leaving them, they need to look no further than shit like this.

At least Richardson isn't backing down. And note the bolded text:

Richardson calls out Clinton adviser
Posted: 05:15 PM ET

Richardson’s backing was sought by both the Clinton and Obama campaigns.
(CNN) – Bill Richardson criticized a Clinton campaign adviser Friday for suggesting his endorsement of Barack Obama is insignificant.

"I resent the fact that the Clinton people are now saying that my endorsement is too late because I only can help with Texans — with Texas and Hispanics, implying that that's my only value," the New Mexico governor told CNN's John King.

"That's typical of some of his advisers that kind of turned me off."Earlier Friday, Clinton campaign senior strategist Mark Penn said he thought Richardson's endorsement came too late to make an impact.

“The time that he could have been effective has long since passed," Penn told reporters on a conference call. "I don’t think it is a significant endorsement in this environment.”

In the interview Friday, Richardson also said he called Hillary Clinton Thursday to inform her of his decision to back Obama, a conversation he described as "painful."

"It was painful and it wasn't easy," he said. "I've spoken to others who have had that same conversation and they say at the end, it’s not all that pleasant.

"The former Democratic presidential candidate declined to elaborate further on his conversation with Clinton.Last month, Chris Dodd — another former presidential candidate who decided to endorse Obama last month — said he had a "not comfortable" conversation with Clinton informing her of the news.

Also in the interview Friday, Richardson said he ultimately decided to back Obama because the Illinois senator has "something special."

"I think that Sen. Obama has something special,” explained Richardson. “Something that can bring internationally America’s prestige back, that can deal with the race issue as he did so eloquently last week, that can deal with the domestic issues in a bipartisan way."

Richardson, who held posts as the Secretary of Energy and the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. in President Clinton’s administration, also said he "owes a lot to the Clinton family but I served well. I paid it back in service to the country." (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)


Hmmmm...they rail against Bush for demanding loyalty and obedience yet the Clintons offer "change".

[Zorro]

So the Clinton playbook on losing things is so obvious: "They don't matter". First when they lost states....they didn't matter. Washington state? Doesn't matter. Kansas? Doesn't matter...etc.

Now people don't matter either. According to Mark Penn, Clinton's key strategist, Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama doesn't matter (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/21/clinton-aide-says-richardsons-endorsement-is-insignificant/?mod=WSJBlog?mod=googlenews_wsj):



But that is not the end of it. Not only doesn't Richardson's endorsement matter, he's a traitor for that insignificant endorsement (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22richardson.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Carville+said&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin):



If the Clinton camp wants to understand why the party is leaving them, they need to look no further than shit like this.


I guess Richardson got fed up with the win at all costs Clinton camaign...

[epo]

Hmmmm...they rail against Bush for demanding loyalty and obedience yet the Clintons offer "change".

At this point the Clintons are no different than the Bushs outside of policy. That is why the public has left them and now the superdelegates are leaving them too.

[epo]

At least Richardson isn't backing down. And note the bolded text:



Note something else completely interesting in that CNN piece (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/). Richardson uses an interesting word that really stuck out to me:

"I resent the fact that the Clinton people are now saying that my endorsement is too late because I only can help with Texans — with Texas and Hispanics, implying that that's my only value," the New Mexico governor told CNN's John King.

"That's typical of some of his advisers that kind of turned me off."Earlier Friday, Clinton campaign senior strategist Mark Penn said he thought Richardson's endorsement came too late to make an impact.

Shouldn't it be her?

[ShowerBench]

New Wright video. Praises Malcom X, damns American terrorists (you know, WWll vets, etc.)

527 ad:

Clip of Obama praising Wright
fade to Wright praisng Malcom X, preaching litany of US "terrorism"
fade to Malcom X preaching "hoodwinked and bamboozled"
fade to Obama's southern state stump speech where he yells "hoodwinked and bamboozled"

Obama can't win in November.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxzWhaqFy7s&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxzWhaqFy7s&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[epo]

New Wright video. Praises Malcom X, damns American terrorists (you know, WWll vets, etc.)

527 ad:

Clip of Obama praising Wright
fade to Wright praisng Malcom X, preaching litany of US "terrorism"
fade to Malcom X preaching "hoodwinked and bamboozled"
fade to Obama's southern state stump speech where he yells "hoodwinked and bamboozled"

Obama can't win in November.



So you have nothing? Essentially your posts have no value at this point.

[TheMojoPin]

New Wright video. Praises Malcom X, damns American terrorists (you know, WWll vets, etc.)

527 ad:

Clip of Obama praising Wright
fade to Wright praisng Malcom X, preaching litany of US "terrorism"
fade to Malcom X preaching "hoodwinked and bamboozled"
fade to Obama's southern state stump speech where he yells "hoodwinked and bamboozled"

Obama can't win in November.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxzWhaqFy7s&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxzWhaqFy7s&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

Mentioning Malcolm X is a bad thing? OK, good luck with that. He condemns America for using its power to kill countless innocent civilians...OH MY GOD, HOW CHRISTIAN OF HIM! He condemns the history of Native American genocide and slavery and the subsequent racim, opression and segregation that has gone on from that...is he wrong?

The Republicans aren't going to make ads attacking Malcolm X. Wake the fuck up.

[Zorro]

New Wright video. Praises Malcom X, damns American terrorists (you know, WWll vets, etc.)

527 ad:

Clip of Obama praising Wright
fade to Wright praisng Malcom X, preaching litany of US "terrorism"
fade to Malcom X preaching "hoodwinked and bamboozled"
fade to Obama's southern state stump speech where he yells "hoodwinked and bamboozled"

Obama can't win in November.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxzWhaqFy7s&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pxzWhaqFy7s&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

millions of dollars...and the best strategy Hillary can come up with is "vote for me 'cause the other guy can't win"...

[ShowerBench]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=AgU6jMecqefDktk8MwJ_SkVh24cA

Clinton doubles lead in Pennsylvania

Hillary Rodham Clinton has doubled her lead in Pennsylvania and now has a majority of Democrats’ support, according to a new poll out today.

Clinton now leads Barack Obama 51 percent to 35 percent among likely Democratic primary voters, according to the Franklin and Marshall College Poll. In February, the same poll found that Clinton was ahead by half that margin, 44 percent to 37 percent.

The Franklin and Marshall survey comes on the heels of a poll released by Quinnipiac University Tuesday. It also showed Clinton doubling her lead, with 53 percent to 41 percent over Obama this week, up from 49 percent to 43 percent in late February.

Another survey of likely Democratic primary voters on March 15 and 16, by Public Policy Polling, showed Clinton with a 56 percent to 30 percent lead over Obama. In that, as in the Franklin and Marshall survey, Clinton was making small inroads among blacks, winning 27 percent of their support. She led 63 percent to 23 percent among whites.

[epo]

Using ShowerBench's favorite polling information shows us that Obama has indeed weathered the storm.

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii49/j2christ/2352691930_fbbc225f7e_o.gif

[TheMojoPin]

Using ShowerBench's favorite polling information shows us that Obama has indeed weathered the storm.

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii49/j2christ/2352691930_fbbc225f7e_o.gif

Delicious.

[epo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080320/pl_politico/9135;_ylt=AgU6jMecqefDktk8MwJ_SkVh24cA

Clinton doubles lead in Pennsylvania

Hillary Rodham Clinton has doubled her lead in Pennsylvania and now has a majority of Democrats’ support, according to a new poll out today.

Clinton now leads Barack Obama 51 percent to 35 percent among likely Democratic primary voters, according to the Franklin and Marshall College Poll. In February, the same poll found that Clinton was ahead by half that margin, 44 percent to 37 percent.

The Franklin and Marshall survey comes on the heels of a poll released by Quinnipiac University Tuesday. It also showed Clinton doubling her lead, with 53 percent to 41 percent over Obama this week, up from 49 percent to 43 percent in late February.

Another survey of likely Democratic primary voters on March 15 and 16, by Public Policy Polling, showed Clinton with a 56 percent to 30 percent lead over Obama. In that, as in the Franklin and Marshall survey, Clinton was making small inroads among blacks, winning 27 percent of their support. She led 63 percent to 23 percent among whites.

Thanks for giving us the Franklin & Marshall poll...with data obtained from 3/11-3/16, which was the pinnacle of the Rev. Wright mess. But here on Earth on 3/22 the Gallup data suggests that the momentum has clearly turned.

[TheMojoPin]

Thanks for giving us the Franklin & Marshall poll...with data obtained from 3/11-3/16, which was the pinnacle of the Rev. Wright mess. But here on Earth on 3/22 the Gallup data suggests that the momentum has clearly turned.

Nationally, but Pennsylvania is unlikely to be a state he can take at this point. That stae government there is firmly entrenched for Hillary and has been basting Obama hadcore for a while now. He's unlikely to do much except close the gap a little there.

[epo]

Nationally, but Pennsylvania is unlikely to be a state he can take at this point. That stae government there is firmly entrenched for Hillary and has been basting Obama hadcore for a while now. He's unlikely to do much except close the gap a little there.

Totally agree, but I hate the perception that somehow Senator Clinton has any momentum.

[TheMojoPin]

Totally agree, but I hate the perception that somehow Senator Clinton has any momentum.

But according to SB, all "big state" Democrats who don't vote for Obama in the primaries magically won't vote for him in the national election. Somehow, Hillary will automatically take on all votes for Obama, but Obama, he'd be doomed.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Do you think Dean is doing his job well? Do you think the Dems can win while alienating Michigan and Florida? (I don't know if I'm the forum's persona non grata or if people would just prefer talking to Showerbench)

But according to SB, all "big state" Democrats who don't vote for Obama in the primaries magically won't vote for him in the national election. Somehow, Hillary will automatically take on all votes for Obama, but Obama, he'd be doomed.
Yeah, that's an argument I keep hearing from the Clinton camp. Do these people really think Obama is gonna have trouble winning California or NY? Hillary winning the swing states is a big deal, but Obama losing the base states is a big giant who gives a fuck.

[TheMojoPin]

Do you think Dean is doing his job well? Do you think the Dems can win while alienating Michigan and Florida? (I don't know if I'm the forum's persona non grata or if people would just prefer talking to Showerbench)

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to give them no option because it will, like you say, alienate huge segments of those votes come November, especially in Florida. I think not scheduling some kind of do-over primary is a mistake. Yeah, it's letting the state officials get away with some bullshit, but this election is gonna be close between McCain and either Obamaor Hillary, whether people want to admit it or not. The Democrats can't afford to just crap all over two states.

[PhilDeez]

On a side note, do any of you check out Real Clear Politics polling data - I am sure you do. Can someone explain to me what the hell the Intrade Market Prices are? There is always a small section at the bottom of the summary chart that has this "data".

[NewYorkDragons80]

On a side note, do any of you check out Real Clear Politics polling data - I am sure you do. Can someone explain to me what the hell the Intrade Market Prices are? There is always a small section at the bottom of the summary chart that has this "data".
Link please
Personally, I think it's a bad idea to give them no option because it will, like you say, alienate huge segments of those votes come November, especially in Florida. I think not scheduling some kind of do-over primary is a mistake. Yeah, it's letting the state officials get away with some bullshit, but this election is gonna be close between McCain and either Obamaor Hillary, whether people want to admit it or not. The Democrats can't afford to just crap all over two states.
I don't think there's an easy way out of this for the Dems. The Rainbow Coalition/Action Network types will cry fowl at any revote, while Michigan and Florida are most likely the path to the White House. If they don't seat delegates, McCain will be president. I don't think there's any way around it.

[PhilDeez]

Link please



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

It is in the bottom of the first big block of polling data.

[Zorro]

Link please

I don't think there's an easy way out of this for the Dems. The Rainbow Coalition/Action Network types will cry fowl at any revote, while Michigan and Florida are most likely the path to the White House. If they don't seat delegates, McCain will be president. I don't think there's any way around it.

I cannot envision a scenario where McCain wins. By the time November rolls around he will be portrayed as a doddering old fool...or as some pundit put it the "aged warrior, no longer ready for battle"

As for Dean... he's a figure head and his presence is irrevelant...

[sailor]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

It is in the bottom of the first big block of polling data.

from slate (http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/)

[HBox]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

It is in the bottom of the first big block of polling data.

It's a virtual market. People "buy" shares of a politician when they believe that that candidate will win. Kind of like the stock market. Applying market theory to politics.

[epo]

I have no doubt that next week's big story will be Senator Clinton's overinflation of her trip to Bosnia...which will lead to the talking point that she is full of shit when it comes to her "experience".

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

This is only the start.

[spadanko]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oXmYVRIpu2w&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oXmYVRIpu2w&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Bulldogcakes]

So the Clinton playbook on losing things is so obvious: "They don't matter". First when they lost states....they didn't matter. Washington state? Doesn't matter. Kansas? Doesn't matter...etc.

Now people don't matter either. According to Mark Penn, Clinton's key strategist, Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama doesn't matter (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/21/clinton-aide-says-richardsons-endorsement-is-insignificant/?mod=WSJBlog?mod=googlenews_wsj):



But that is not the end of it. Not only doesn't Richardson's endorsement matter, he's a traitor for that insignificant endorsement (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22richardson.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Carville+said&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin):



If the Clinton camp wants to understand why the party is leaving them, they need to look no further than shit like this.

That's really faulty logic on your part. There's nothing inconsistent there whatsoever. Just because something is ineffective doesn't mean it isn't also a stab in the back.

Lets say you try to sleep with your wife's best friend and failed, her friend backs out at the last minute. And then your wife finds out about what happened. Do you think if she found out your efforts were ineffective would make it any less of a betrayal? Effective or not, its still a stab in the back.

[Bulldogcakes]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oXmYVRIpu2w&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oXmYVRIpu2w&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

She's "embraced hope"?

Pass the Kool-Aid.

[Bulldogcakes]

<script src="http://flash.revver.com/player/1.0/player.js?mediaId:298339;width:480;height:392;" type="text/javascript"></script>

[NewYorkDragons80]

She's "embraced hope"?

Pass the Kool-Aid.
That was a pretty lame-ass, toe the company line thing to say. Is Obama sure he still wants to run on uniting this country? Cause if he gets the nomination he'll be running against the guy who wrote the book on building coalitions, crossing party lines, and putting the good of the country ahead of the party. Not saying Obama wouldn't do that, but he's running against a guy who barely got his nomination cause he crosses over so much.

[Bulldogcakes]

That was a pretty lame-ass, toe the company line thing to say.

To be fair, there's plenty of this to go around on both sides of the aisle. But stuff like that reminds me of this song.

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=4203252352335910283&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

Is Obama sure he still wants to run on uniting this country? Cause if he gets the nomination he'll be running against the guy who wrote the book on building coalitions, crossing party lines, and putting the good of the country ahead of the party. Not saying Obama wouldn't do that, but he's running against a guy who barely got his nomination cause he crosses over so much

You're a little ahead of everyone else, that's the general election. Both candidates have credibility for being independant of their party. McCain will try to frame the debate as being independence-experience vs change-inexperience. That's a very persuasive case (for me) in his favor. Obama will try to hang his Washington experience as an albatross like he did with Hillary. McCain's strategy will play big with older voters, Obama's with younger voters, and the election will likely be decided by the 30-40 somethings. McCain's problem will also be overcoming his utter lack of charisma, although in the right situation that could also play in his favor. Were not hiring a talk show host, were electing a president.

[AKA]

Is Obama sure he still wants to run on uniting this country? Cause if he gets the nomination he'll be running against the guy who wrote the book on building coalitions, crossing party lines, and putting the good of the country ahead of the party. Not saying Obama wouldn't do that, but he's running against a guy who barely got his nomination cause he crosses over so much.

I loved McCain - and still like him - but, the flip side of that, Obama is running against the guy who makes no promises to end a very unpopular war, a person whose weakness is the economy at a time when it ranks the highest in people's concerns, someone who has hitched himself to the hip with a President who has a 65% disapproval rating and (finally) someone who (like Karl Rove did in '04) is going to run a campaign rooted in fear.

And that's taking the aesthetics out of what messages the ages of these two men send to many Americans when you see them speak (and I'm not even comparing their speaking styles) - while some will see McCain as "the adult," others look to him like they did Bob Dole in '96 - Grandpa Wants the White House Again.

[FUNKMAN]

McCain " the surge is working "

As it turns out we are paying people/groups off in Iraq. So in reality we're "negotiationg with terrorists " These people will gladly take our money, take a little time off, and then get back to business.

The Bush predictions were

" War to cost 60 Billion " we're now at 600 Billion
" Several months after the Saddam statue comes down we'll be down to 30,000 troops" we're now at approx 130,000 so many years later

I'll repeat John McCain's words: " two of our greatest presidents both have the last name of Bush "

okay I can't hold it any longer

JOHN MCCAIN IS A FUCKING ASSHOLE

happy voting!

[Zorro]

JOHN MCCAIN IS A FUCKING ASSHOLE



and all this time I thought he was a Congregationalist...

[PhilDeez]

Thought this was a great description of the delusional Clinton camp trying to continually modify their goals now that they have little chance of overtaking Obama's lead in delegates or popular vote.

"In college basketball terms, they're basically deploying a four corners strategy even though they’re behind in the score."

This from a Politico article http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/)(The New Goalposts) where Clinton backers such as Bayh are crying that she should get the nod because she would have won more electoral votes if counted that way.

[NewYorkDragons80]

McCain " the surge is working "

As it turns out we are paying people/groups off in Iraq. So in reality we're "negotiationg with terrorists " These people will gladly take our money, take a little time off, and then get back to business.
Dude, the surge is working because we're taking steps that any thinking person would've taken from the start. We should've been embedding troops in these villages from day one. We're winning the fuckin war because our troops have invested themselves on a grass roots local level and proven that we can perform basic services that the terrorists can't on their best day. Just admit you were wrong on the surge instead of inventing reasons why it's working. I've got news for you, not all of the Iraqis are terrorists, so stop pretending that by "paying off" (providing basic services and infrastructure) local leaders, is a corrupt band-aid on the problem. The insurgency was always a minority of people, and the surge and subsequent peace has further marginalized them from society. Do you think these villages are going to allow themselves to be intimidated when they've now seen the benefits of rejecting violence? I'm one of those who does the fighting (albeit not on the ground), so I think that gives me the right to call you an irrelevant cock-sucker zilch who isn't man enough to give even the slightest inch of ground when the facts coming out of Iraq prove that you were wrong on the surge.

okay I can't hold it any longer

JOHN MCCAIN IS A FUCKING ASSHOLE
You are the one who is a ball-licker!!!
http://www.channel4.com/4laughs/media/images/caption/2007/February/C0072_wk7_clerksII_L.jpg

[thejives]

It's fun to see Hillz making her case as the most experienced candidate.
It's gonna go great.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8BfNqhV5hg4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8BfNqhV5hg4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[FUNKMAN]

Dude, the surge is working because we're taking steps that any thinking person would've taken from the start. We should've been embedding troops in these villages from day one. We're winning the fuckin war because our troops have invested themselves on a grass roots local level and proven that we can perform basic services that the terrorists can't on their best day. Just admit you were wrong on the surge instead of inventing reasons why it's working. I've got news for you, not all of the Iraqis are terrorists, so stop pretending that by "paying off" (providing basic services and infrastructure) local leaders, is a corrupt band-aid on the problem. The insurgency was always a minority of people, and the surge and subsequent peace has further marginalized them from society. Do you think these villages are going to allow themselves to be intimidated when they've now seen the benefits of rejecting violence? I'm one of those who does the fighting (albeit not on the ground), so I think that gives me the right to call you an irrelevant cock-sucker zilch who isn't man enough to give even the slightest inch of ground when the facts coming out of Iraq prove that you were wrong on the surge.

You are the one who is a ball-licker!!!
http://www.channel4.com/4laughs/media/images/caption/2007/February/C0072_wk7_clerksII_L.jpg


again i insult the person running for president and you decide to personally insult me. where we may differ in opinion is i feel the costs have been and continue to be too high...

i see you mention nothing about the comment that " he feels Bush is one of our greatest presidents" or how dismal Bush's predictions about the war were

I felt ashamed or bad the first time i wrote this but not really this time

" Go F%$# Yourself Douchebag "

ahh I still feel a little ashamed

sorry mods!

[NewYorkDragons80]

again i insult the person running for president and you decide to personally insult me. where we may differ in opinion is i feel the costs have been and continue to be too high...
Dude, that's not what you said. You vaguely implied the surge was unsuccessful because insurgents might be hiding and waiting to attack after everything is rebuilt and working and the population is completely in our favor. That's not saying the costs are too high. That's saying we're losing, which objective evidence doesn't support. Why is one insult more acceptable than the other?

i see you mention nothing about the comment that " he feels Bush is one of our greatest presidents" or how dismal Bush's predictions about the war were
Umm... cause I disagree with it and Bush was wrong. If you want me to argue on Bush's behalf, you'll be sorely disappointed.

I felt ashamed or bad the first time i wrote this but not really this time

" Go F%$# Yourself Douchebag "

ahh I still feel a little ashamed

sorry mods!
We're all adults here. If you call me a douchebag, it doesn't hang over my head. If I call you a cock-sucker zilch, I hope you realize it's a stupid message board insult made by someone as equally unimportant as you.

[keithy_19]

We're all adults here. If you call me a douchebag, it doesn't hang over my head. If I call you a cock-sucker zilch, I hope you realize it's a stupid message board insult made by someone as equally unimportant as you.

I think you guys are both very important and relevant. :bye:

[HBox]

I'd argue the surge isn't successful because the point wasn't to reduce violence, it was to allow Iraqi politicians to make reforms and political progress. They didn't. The military did its job giving them the opportunity to reform but they didn't do it. We didn't do the surge to indefinitely maintain the status quo. Petraeus said as much. I don't think he's too interested in maintaining this if nothing is going to happen. At some point pressure has to be put on Iraqi politicians. Petraeus is trying that. McCain unfortunately isn't.

[TheMojoPin]

We're all adults here. If you call me a douchebag, it doesn't hang over my head. If I call you a cock-sucker zilch, I hope you realize it's a stupid message board insult made by someone as equally unimportant as you.

Actualy, that's the complete opposite of being an adult. What does the name-calling accomplish? Let's just all drop it now.

[high fly]

That was a pretty lame-ass, toe the company line thing to say. Is Obama sure he still wants to run on uniting this country? Cause if he gets the nomination he'll be running against the guy who wrote the book on building coalitions, crossing party lines, and putting the good of the country ahead of the party. Not saying Obama wouldn't do that, but he's running against a guy who barely got his nomination cause he crosses over so much.


Prominent conservative attorney who worked for Reagan and Bush endoses Obama:
http://www.slate.com//blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx

Bacevich in the American Conservative comes out for Obama.
Great article.
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html

[PapaBear]

I sure am glad Hillary survived all those snipers! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25clinton.html?ref=us)

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2VfjJi2qjR8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2VfjJi2qjR8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[NewYorkDragons80]

What does the name-calling accomplish?
I'll drop the name calling, but what does anything in this thread accomplish :lol:

-Sorry FUNKMAN

[NewYorkDragons80]

And to reply to HBox's comment, I agree with about 80% of your post. Its foolish to deny the military success of the surge and its political goals have fallen short. However, I think that despite the political setbacks, we are still making political progress nonetheless. The Sunnis aren't boycotting parliament, the central government is shaping the role of provinces. In a country where a three state solution was seriously on the table 2 years ago, that's significant progress. So we will have to agree to disagree on what acceptable political progress is. I'm not saying the current level of progress is acceptable, but I will say its strong enough that its worth staying with. The council on foreign relations gave the political results a C. I'd say that's fair

[AKA]

I sure am glad Hillary survived all those snipers! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25clinton.html?ref=us)

By "snipers" she really meant the rapid-fire comedy of Sinbad.

[A.J.]

I sure am glad Hillary survived all those snipers! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25clinton.html?ref=us)

"She misremembered."

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2008/02/27/1204134287_8639/539w.jpg

[AKA]

A good point this morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" - do recent statments and actions suggest that the Clintons want McCain to win over Obama? More importantly, is this something Obama can exploit during the primaries?

Clinton praises McCain again, says he’s crossed ‘Commander in Chief threshold’ (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14809.html) - March 7


The Phony War (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_phony_war.php) - "McCain beating Obama in the general means the Clintons still control the party" March 21

McCain goes in for only one term (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/03/addressing_age_issue_mccain_says_he_may_seek_only_ one_term/) - Hillary would be able to run and win in 2012

Bill Clinton: McCain, Hillary Love America (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Bill_Clinton_McCain/2008/03/22/82309.html)

Clinton wants Obama to lose the nomination, not the election (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14998.html) - "The Clinton campaign is probably working under faulty assumptions, not disloyal ones." Yesterday

[FUNKMAN]

I'll drop the name calling, but what does anything in this thread accomplish :lol:

-Sorry FUNKMAN

:glurps: i sorry too

[epo]

And to reply to HBox's comment, I agree with about 80% of your post. Its foolish to deny the military success of the surge and its political goals have fallen short. However, I think that despite the political setbacks, we are still making political progress nonetheless. The Sunnis aren't boycotting parliament, the central government is shaping the role of provinces. In a country where a three state solution was seriously on the table 2 years ago, that's significant progress. So we will have to agree to disagree on what acceptable political progress is. I'm not saying the current level of progress is acceptable, but I will say its strong enough that its worth staying with. The council on foreign relations gave the political results a C. I'd say that's fair

Couldn't you say the major problem is that the Bush Administration has never publicly defined success...and even the few vague measures they give us seem to change over time?

If that's the case...then yes, the public will always disagree over the varying levels of success without a realistic and well communicated goal.

[NewYorkDragons80]

By "snipers" she really meant the rapid-fire comedy of Sinbad.
That was a nice blast from the past. I'm willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and take that to mean she was briefed on the threat of snipers before she landed. Then again. While I was in Jordan, the state dept sent me a warning that an American was sexually assaulted, and I didn't come back telling people I got groped by a cab driver.

[ShowerBench]

McCain/Democrat matchups from electoral-vote.com:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Obama:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/Mar25.png

Clinton:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/Mar25.png

[badmonkey]

That was a nice blast from the past. I'm willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and take that to mean she was briefed on the threat of snipers before she landed. Then again. While I was in Jordan, the state dept sent me a warning that an American was sexually assaulted, and I didn't come back telling people I got groped by a cab driver.

I wasn't willing to give her the benefit of the doubt at first... but once I saw this reenactment of her trip to Bosnia, I was completely convinced. The part of Hillary is played by Sylvester Stallone. You've got my vote Hillary, you fucking badass you.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gkv9MsA8XYc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gkv9MsA8XYc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[scottinnj]

That was a nice blast from the past. I'm willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and take that to mean she was briefed on the threat of snipers before she landed. Then again. While I was in Jordan, the state dept sent me a warning that an American was sexually assaulted, and I didn't come back telling people I got groped by a cab driver.

Thanks for keeping that our little secret.

[Zorro]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/dnc-official-cl.html

[NewYorkDragons80]

A good point this morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" - do recent statments and actions suggest that the Clintons want McCain to win over Obama? More importantly, is this something Obama can exploit during the primaries?
That was bizarre to hear Clinton praising McCain. I don't know quite how to take it, but I don't think it's good.
Couldn't you say the major problem is that the Bush Administration has never publicly defined success...and even the few vague measures they give us seem to change over time?
Yes, yes I could... and would. But McCain isn't Bush and that's what I like about the guy.
Thanks for keeping that our little secret.
You took me out for ice cream afterwards, it's the least I could do.

[ShowerBench]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics

"The division in the Democratic Party is highlighted by the fact that just 71% of Democratic Primary voters now say they will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election campaign. If Barack Obama is nominated, 64% of Democratic Primary voters are ready to vote for him."

[NewYorkDragons80]

I'd love to believe the polls, especially when they favor my guy. But come on. We know what really counts

[TheMojoPin]

I'd love to believe the polls, especially when they favor my guy. But come on. We know what really counts

In the end, whoever is the Democrtaic nod will basically get almost all of the Democratic votes of anyone planning to vote Democratic now. It's all well and good at this point to claim to take the high road with both Hillary and Obama battling...I don't know how many times I've said I won't vote Hillary if she gets it...but when you get down to it, neither are polarizing enough within the party to inspire the unprecedented voting exodus that SB's poll points towards with either candidate.

[NewYorkDragons80]

In the end, whoever is the Democrtaic nod will basically get almost all of the Democratic votes of anyone planning to vote Democratic now. It's all well and good at this point to claim to take the high road with both Hillary and Obama battling...I don't know how many times I've said I won't vote Hillary if she gets it...but when you get down to it, neither are polarizing enough within the party to inspire the unprecedented voting exodus that SB's poll points towards with either candidate.
I do think enough Democrats could switch to make a really painful November for whoever the nominee is. However, do I think 30%+ will defect? Absolutely not. McCain is arguably the most respected guy in the country, don't think he isn't gonna attract crossovers, even if the Democratic nominating process was civil (and over!).

[ShowerBench]

I do think enough Democrats could switch to make a really painful November for whoever the nominee is. However, do I think 30%+ will defect? Absolutely not. McCain is arguably the most respected guy in the country, don't think he isn't gonna attract crossovers, even if the Democratic nominating process was civil (and over!).

Correct. Obama supporters (mostly blacks would be my guess) will threaten to take their ball and go home if Hillary is nominated, but they would be more likely to return to the fold before November since the disagreement isn't on ideological grounds but on sour grapes grounds, which can be ironed out by the party (by putting Obama on the ticket for example).

Clinton supporters like myself, on the other hand, will vote McCain or sit out the election for a completely different reason. We believe Obama is not prepared to be president. The idea of Obama in the White House is troubling to us because we believe he is too weak on foreign policy/national security and is a potential disaster on the economy.

In other words, Democrats who will defect if Obama is nominated simply don't trust him to be able to do the job. They won't come back if he puts Hillary on the ticket as VP. I might vote for him if he was married to Bill Clinton but otherwise, ain't happening.

And I'm a die-hard Democrat.

[keithy_19]

And I'm a die-hard Democrat.

But you won't die for a black man. Tsk tsk.

But in all seriousness, if we're talking experience, McCain is the most experienced out of all of the candidates.

[epo]

Correct. Obama supporters (mostly blacks would be my guess) will threaten to take their ball and go home if Hillary is nominated, but they would be more likely to return to the fold before November since the disagreement isn't on ideological grounds but on sour grapes grounds, which can be ironed out by the party (by putting Obama on the ticket for example).

Clinton supporters like myself, on the other hand, will vote McCain or sit out the election for a completely different reason. We believe Obama is not prepared to be president. The idea of Obama in the White House is troubling to us because we believe he is too weak on foreign policy/national security and is a potential disaster on the economy.

In other words, Democrats who will defect if Obama is nominated simply don't trust him to be able to do the job. They won't come back if he puts Hillary on the ticket as VP. I might vote for him if he was married to Bill Clinton but otherwise, ain't happening.

And I'm a die-hard Democrat.

So tell me now that we know that Hillary had nothing to do with Bosnia, Kosovo or the Irish peace process...what the hell is her experience other that sleeping with Bill?

[keithy_19]

So tell me now that we know that Hillary had nothing to do with Bosnia, Kosovo or the Irish peace process...what the hell is her experience other that sleeping with Bill?

Maybe. Well, once. But, ya know....

[ShowerBench]

So tell me now that we know that Hillary had nothing to do with Bosnia, Kosovo or the Irish peace process...what the hell is her experience other that sleeping with Bill?

I don't think it matters, since we all know if we get Hillary we get Bill. Both will be president. But she did have a "decisive" role according to John Hume.

http://www.derryjournal.com/politics/Hume-defends-Hillary39s-role.3865801.jp

Nobel Laureate John Hume has dismissed suggestions by former Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble that American presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton did not play an active role in the peace process.

Mr Hume said he was "quite surprised" by Lord Trimble's claims that Senator Clinton's involvement in the peace process was limited to "accompanying Bill."

Lord Trimble said; "I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

The former SDLP leader said Hillary Clinton played a "positive role" in the peace process during her time as First Lady.

"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as First Lady," Mr. Hume said.

"I can state from first hand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process.

"There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton's support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward," he added.

[epo]

Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml)

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

Cheerleading? Isn't that what Bush did in college?

Like I said earlier, what is her experience?

[keithy_19]

I don't think it matters, since we all know if we get Hillary we get Bill. Both will be president.



I don't like that. I may be one of the few, but I don't.

[TheMojoPin]

Correct. Obama supporters (mostly blacks would be my guess) will threaten to take their ball and go home if Hillary is nominated, but they would be more likely to return to the fold before November since the disagreement isn't on ideological grounds but on sour grapes grounds, which can be ironed out by the party (by putting Obama on the ticket for example).

Clinton supporters like myself, on the other hand, will vote McCain or sit out the election for a completely different reason. We believe Obama is not prepared to be president. The idea of Obama in the White House is troubling to us because we believe he is too weak on foreign policy/national security and is a potential disaster on the economy.

In other words, Democrats who will defect if Obama is nominated simply don't trust him to be able to do the job. They won't come back if he puts Hillary on the ticket as VP. I might vote for him if he was married to Bill Clinton but otherwise, ain't happening.

And I'm a die-hard Democrat.

Ridiculous. Like I said, neither candidate is polarizing enough and the Republican nominee at this point is losing his crossover appeal too dramatically for there to be such an unheard of "sitting out" by blocks of voters from voting for their respective candidate. On the contrary, the last 8 years are projected to push for the exact opposite, whether Obama or Hillary is running.

[ShowerBench]

But you won't die for a black man. Tsk tsk.

But in all seriousness, if we're talking experience, McCain is the most experienced out of all of the candidates.

I'd vote for Colin Powell.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I don't think it matters, since we all know if we get Hillary we get Bill. Both will be president.
Wait, I thought you were a Hillary supporter.

[epo]

I'd vote for Colin Powell.

You are sooooo not a democrat.

[NewYorkDragons80]

On the contrary, the last 8 years are projected to push for the exact opposite, whether Obama or Hillary is running.
I thought you were above one dimensional backing/detracting from a candidate just because of their party. I swear, if Jim Jeffords was running, we'd still see comparisons to Bush.

EDIT: That's 2 "I Thoughts" in a row. Apologies to all who had to read my drivel tonight.

[ShowerBench]

Wait, I thought you were a Hillary supporter.

A Hillary, Bill, and Billary supporter. They're all the same.

[ShowerBench]

Obama is having his lawyers fight against re-votes in Florida and Michigan.

Don't try to argue that Obama cares about Democratic Party "rules" because the Democratic Party RULES say superdelegates exist to make sure Democrats don't nominate a loser, even if it means voting against pledged delegate outcomes, and Obama preaches against that.

The question is, why is Obama fighting against voters in Florida and Michigan having their votes counted?

The answer, as everyone here knows, is that he hopes to be nominated through an "affirmative action" means by disenfranchising voters in those two states.

Does that bother Obama supporters here?

(Again, don't argue about "rules" because that's bullshit. Nobody cares about that including everyone here. And don't argue "caucuses only" because we all know caucuses are much less representative and democratic than primaries)

[NewYorkDragons80]

A Hillary, Bill, and Billary supporter. They're all the same.
OK seriously. Is this Dick Morris pulling our leg?

[TheMojoPin]

Obama is having his lawyers fight against re-votes in Florida and Michigan.

Don't try to argue that Obama cares about Democratic Party "rules" because the Democratic Party RULES say superdelegates exist to make sure Democrats don't nominate a loser, even if it means voting against pledged delegate outcomes, and Obama preaches against that.

The question is, why is Obama fighting against voters in Florida and Michigan having their votes counted?

The answer, as everyone here knows, is that he hopes to be nominated through an "affirmative action" means by disenfranchising voters in those two states.

Does that bother Obama supporters here?

(Again, don't argue about "rules" because that's bullshit. Nobody cares about that including everyone here. And don't argue "caucuses only" because we all know caucuses are much less representative and democratic than primaries)

Get off your high horse. Hillary doesn't want those states counted for any kind of noble reasoning of what's "fair for everyone," so quit trying to dress up a turd. And quit being so ridiculous...of course Obama doesn't want those states back in it. They've been skewed away from him thanks to Hillary defying the perameters set up by the party months ago and then propping them up now that she's slowly fading away. There's nothing "noble" on either side...it's survival for both, plan and simple.

Your approach on all of this is inherrently flawed...you want Obamato be this blameless, perfect candidate who can't do anything that isn't 110% vitruous, yet Hillary can pull every dirty trick in the book, and that's just fine with you.

[ShowerBench]

Get off your high horse. Hillary doesn't want those states counted for any kind of noble reasoning of what's "fair for everyone," so quit trying to dress up a turd. And quit being so ridiculous...of course Obama doesn't want those states back in it. They've been skewed away from him thanks to Hillary defying the perameters set up by the party months ago and then propping them up now that she's slowly fading away. There's nothing "noble" on either side...it's survival for both, plan and simple.

Your approach on all of this is inherrently flawed...you want Obamato be this blameless, perfect candidate who can't do anything that isn't 110% vitruous, yet Hillary can pull every dirty trick in the book, and that's just fine with you.

I didn't say Clinton's reasoning is noble, I'm saying it doesn't matter what her motives are because there is only one "right" position and it's to count the votes of voters in those states.

Just pointing out that a candidate basing his survival as you put it on fighting to make sure voters' votes don't count is clearly the "wrong" position in a world where right and wrong exist.

To fight against those voters' votes counting so that you can win the Democratic nomination via an "affirmative action" path is the most egregious display of the so-called "entitlement" mindset I've ever seen.

There's no arguing that it's what Obama wants to do and it won't go over once it comes into sharper focus at the end of this thing, assuming it goes to the end. It's just not defensible.

[TheMojoPin]

I didn't say Clinton's reasoning is noble, I'm saying it doesn't matter what her motives are because there is only one "right" position and it's to count the votes of voters in those states.

Just pointing out that a candidate basing his survival as you put it on fighting to make sure voters' votes don't count is clearly the "wrong" position in a world where right and wrong exist.

To fight against those voters' votes counting so that you can win the Democratic nomination via an "affirmative action" path is the most egregious display of the so-called "entitlement" mindset I've ever seen.

There's no arguing that it's what Obama wants to do and it won't go over once it comes into sharper focus at the end of this thing, assuming it goes to the end. It's just not defensible.

Sure it is. They're both playing the same game. The only reason she wants revotes or the votes to count is because the results are skewed in her favor due to timing and dirty tricks. You readily dismiss the perameters set out by the DNC, bt that's the crux of the matter here. The states asked to vote early. The DNC said no. The states did anyway...the candidates supposedly agreed not to campaign in those states because of this, yet Hillary did anyway and defied the will of the party after agreeing not to do so. Both states are completely tainted by this series of events...nothing resembling a fair vote could be had at this point thanks to her hypocritically messing around.
You're curiously selective as to what is wrong or egregious. Hillary screwed this up herself by not even pretending to play fair after agreeing to do so. She's supposed to be rewarded for this?

[ShowerBench]

The states did anyway...the candidates supposedly agreed not to campaign in those states because of this, yet Hillary did anyway and defied the will of the party after agreeing not to do so.

No she didn't. She never agreed not to put her name on the ballot in Michigan, the only reason the other ones didn't is because they feared Iowa and NH would be offended. Hillary took the hit (so did Kucinich). It was a choice, NOT a pledge or a rule.

She didn't campaign in Florida either, so that is another "mistake" on your part.

Obama, on the other hand, ran TV ads constantly in Florida despite a PLEDGE by all candidates not to advertise/campaign there. He later claimed it "was a national buy" and not his fault.

Funny thing though, Edwards and Clinton both managed to be competent enough to abide by the PLEDGE they all made not to advertise or campaign in Florida.

(Obama later lied and said "the DNC" said it was OK for him to run the ads but the DNC called him out on it. One party official in SC arbitrarily said it was OK and Obama tried to pull a fast one and claim it was "the DNC.")

Clinton broke ZERO rules/pledges in either state, Obama broke rules/pledges in Florida and made a decision to be too cowardly to put his name up in Michigan.

[HBox]

Remember how Showerbench tried to bash Obama for going after Imus?

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_558930.html)

The Clinton campaign has refrained from getting involved in the controversy, but Clinton herself, responding to a question, denounced what she said was "hate speech." "You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."

I'm sure he won't respond, but if he does someone quote it so I can read it. I'd love to see the latest logical travesty this troll shits out.

[ShowerBench]

Remember how Showerbench tried to bash Obama for going after Imus?

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_558930.html)



I'm sure he won't respond, but if he does someone quote it so I can read it. I'd love to see the latest logical travesty this troll shits out.

That one is easy. I bashed Obama for going after Imus in the context of his hypocrisy.

Obama speechified that he would be charitable toward Wright because Wright made a few controversial racist comments in the context of a long career. The problem with that is Obama had already said if "anyone on his staff made a comment like [Imus's] about any ethnic group" he would FIRE them.

Obama urged NBC to be as "ethical" as he would be by going further than a suspension and firing Imus.

Here's my post:

Originally Posted by ShowerBench View Post

So why did he say he would fire Imus for a few ill-conceived racial comments?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/s...3031317&page=1

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Obama said he appeared once on Imus' show two years ago, and "I have no intention of returning."

"He didn't just cross the line," Obama said. "He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America.

"White America infected black America with AIDS" is OK though. Obama = Racism for me but not for thee.

[TheMojoPin]

No she didn't. She never agreed not to put her name on the ballot in Michigan, the only reason the other ones didn't is because they feared Iowa and NH would be offended. Hillary took the hit (so did Kucinich). It was a choice, NOT a pledge or a rule.

She didn't campaign in Florida either, so that is another "mistake" on your part.

Obama, on the other hand, ran TV ads constantly in Florida despite a PLEDGE by all candidates not to advertise/campaign there. He later claimed it "was a national buy" and not his fault.

Funny thing though, Edwards and Clinton both managed to be competent enough to abide by the PLEDGE they all made not to advertise or campaign in Florida.

(Obama later lied and said "the DNC" said it was OK for him to run the ads but the DNC called him out on it. One party official in SC arbitrarily said it was OK and Obama tried to pull a fast one and claim it was "the DNC.")

Clinton broke ZERO rules/pledges in either state, Obama broke rules/pledges in Florida and made a decision to be too cowardly to put his name up in Michigan.

Obama told his voters to stay home in Florida. Hillary encouraged hers to do otherwise. Hillary's camp also pushed fundraisers there prior to the election.

The Obama TV adds were on CNN and MSNBC. Explain to me exactly how those aren't national broadcasts? The DNC didn't "call him out on it," nor did any of the early states think it violated the pledge. Obama's campain specifically asked the networks to not air the spots in Florida, but were told it was impossible. Though I'm sure if Hillary had done the same thing, you'd have no probem with it, right? It would be "skillful political manuvering by an experienced fighter" or some other such BS. It's curious how you have zero criticism of Hillary. None. She can aparently do no wrong, even at times when her actions or words mirror those that you condemn Obama for.

[TheMojoPin]

"White America infected black America with AIDS"

That's not what was said.

"We started the AIDS virus. … We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty."

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."

Ridiculous comments indeed, but the "white America" part you keep parroting is a complete fabrication your part to make it fit your Imus threory.

[HBox]

Can we rename this thread the Showerbench Memorial Retarded Troll Fest and create a new thread about the election that he isn't allowed in so that the rest of us can talk like adults?

[ShowerBench]

Obama told his voters to stay home in Florida.

I never heard that and if he did it's pretty sick because they had a big Republican property tax referendum on the ballot that threatened the poor and working class.

[ShowerBench]

Looks like Barack Obama's beloved uncle and spiritual mentor hates Italians too.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080326a.html

Obama's Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine

March 26, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.

"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ...

[TheMojoPin]

I never heard that and if he did it's pretty sick because they had a big Republican property tax referendum on the ballot that threatened the poor and working class.

Those were my words. I don't know if he told them to stay home or just not to vote for a candidate. I just used "stay home" on my own.

Hillary and Co. might be in for a rude awakening in PA. I still think it's a long shot for Obama to win it outright, but he could easily close that huge gap she has by doing what his campaign has been so good at all along...grassroots campaigning and registering and securing new voters.

Although the final numbers are not yet in, so far registration has swelled 84,801 since the 2006 elections — that's 11% of the 790,000 people who voted in the 2004 Democratic primary. Last week alone 50,347 people became Democratic voters, according to Pennsylvania's State Department, bringing the state party's total to over four million for the first time ever. Since the beginning of the year, 86,711 Republicans and Independents have switched affiliations, and in just the last three weeks 34,104 new voters registered as Democrats. Significantly, 64% of those who changed parties were in the 12 largest counties — urban areas that have large African American and educated white populations, demographics that are Obama's strength. "I think he has a chance to pull off an upset here," said Ray Owen, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pittsburgh. "The rates of changes in registration and new registrations indicate that some independents are joining the new voters in registering Democratic."

I did some reading of some PA college blogs, ad any of them talking about the primary tend to mention all of the Obama people working the campuses hard, and rarely a Hillary worker, if any, in sight.

[Zorro]

I did some reading of some PA college blogs, ad any of them talking about the primary tend to mention all of the Obama people working the campuses hard, and rarely a Hillary worker, if any, in sight.

To be fair colleges are not Hillary's base

[TheMojoPin]

To be fair colleges are not Hillary's base

Agreed, but they are the primo spots to get new voters registered and voting for you.

[TheMojoPin]

Looks like Barack Obama's beloved uncle and spiritual mentor hates Italians too.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080326a.html

Obama's Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine

March 26, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.

"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ...

Everyone hates Italians. Wright should be given the Medal of Freedom for saying this.

[A.J.]

Looks like Barack Obama's beloved uncle and spiritual mentor hates Italians too.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080326a.html

Obama's Pastor Slurs Italians in Latest Magazine

March 26, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.

"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ...

"Friends, Italians, Countrymen, lend me your ears."

[IMSlacker]

Everyone hates Italians. Wright should be given the Medal of Freedom for saying this.

QFIHT

[scottinnj]

Looks like Barack Obama's beloved uncle and spiritual mentor hates Italians too.

i hate them too. all that delicious cheese and wine. it's a wonder i haven't had my first heart attack yet. my cholesteral count has to be 7000 by now.

bastards with their yummy totellini.

[Zorro]

Agreed, but they are the primo spots to get new voters registered and voting for you.

I got ya, but limited resources...yada...yada...yada

[NewYorkDragons80]

Looks like Barack Obama's beloved uncle and spiritual mentor hates Italians too.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4JMOh-cul6M&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4JMOh-cul6M&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Zorro]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx


sinky, sinky, sinky

[TheMojoPin]

It's how amusing that Hillary wants to press the Wright issue, insisting that "you can choose your pastor" is a definition of someone's entire character.

Huh.

I wonder what it is then when it comes to who and what she's chosen to remain married to over the years.

Weird thing, choices.

[ShowerBench]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx


sinky, sinky, sinky

Except the general election isn't a national poll and blacks aren't oversampled in it.

The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday this week by Hart-McInturff and surveyed 700 registered voters, which gives the poll a margin of error of +/- 3.7%. In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup.

[epo]

Except the general election isn't a national poll and blacks aren't oversampled in it.

The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday this week by Hart-McInturff and surveyed 700 registered voters, which gives the poll a margin of error of +/- 3.7%. In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup.

Learning to finally check the validity of polls? Maybe you should do that with every shitty Zogby or Rasmussen poll that you link to.

[ShowerBench]

"That's America"

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

[TheMojoPin]

"That's America"

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

Hahahahahahaaaaah!!!

That's supposed to be something negative?

Really?

Did you even actually watch it?

[Bulldogcakes]

Hahahahahahaaaaah!!!

That's supposed to be something negative?

Really?

Did you even actually watch it?

". . . . so you feel justified in your ignorance. That's America."

I'm sure you agree with every word of that, but you're much further to the left than the people who typically decide elections (independants). Stuff like this will be a big problem for him in the general election with middle America.

[ShowerBench]

Hahahahahahaaaaah!!!

That's supposed to be something negative?

Really?

Did you even actually watch it?

It's what they will call "part of a troubling pattern," which 50+1% of voters will agree with come November.

That's America. Never forget George W. Bush was elected to the presidency in 2004 against John Kerry, and got close enough to steal it in 2000.

[Bulldogcakes]

It's what they will call "part of a troubling pattern," which 50+1% of voters will agree with come November.

60%. There's just way too much of this stuff for most independants to vote for him. They won't trust him no matter what he says.

He's also way too popular with people under 30. Right there you know something's gotta be wrong. :wink:

[TheMojoPin]

It's what they will call "part of a troubling pattern," which 50+1% of voters will agree with come November.

That's America. Never forget George W. Bush was elected to the presidency in 2004 against John Kerry, and got close enough to steal it in 2000.

Yeah, and this is now 2008. The damage has been done. Stop pretending like Hillary isn't some tremendously flawed and vulnerable candidate at this point while people are scrambling to desperately find anything they can against Obama. This clip is such a huge stretch to try and paint him negatively...there's nothing in it that can easily be spun to do any real damage. The only people who are going to buy into it are those that had already made up their minds.

[ShowerBench]

Yeah, and this is now 2008. The damage has been done. Stop pretending like Hillary isn't some tremendously flawed and vulnerable candidate at this point while people are scrambling to desperately find anything they can against Obama. This clip is such a huge stretch to try and paint him negatively...there's nothing in it that can easily be spun to do any real damage. The only people who are going to buy into it are those that had already made up their minds.

The difference is Clinton runs even with McCain and she's been under attack for 16 years. People know the Clintons and know they can handle domestic economy and foreign policy effectively.

Obama was under mild, tangential scrutiny for less than a week and crumbled. He'll be mired in doubts about his national security cred (which hasn't even been touched on yet) as well as his "weirdness" of his religious and family background. It's formulaic with the GOP. Kerry is textbook. Obama is vulnerable to the same destruction, and he's not anywhere close to Kerry's caliber in qualifications (war hero/experience).

Nobody thinks the Clintons are "weird" as in "not really American." Certainly they were attacked on those grounds in 1992 but in that regard they have been vetted.

A McCain-Clinton race will be about issues. An Obama-McCain race will be about personalities (or as Bill Clinton called it, "all that other stuff") and Obama will lose.

[ShowerBench]

60%. There's just way too much of this stuff for most independants to vote for him. They won't trust him no matter what he says.

He's also way too popular with people under 30. Right there you know something's gotta be wrong. :wink:

60 is probably more like it yeah.
And never trust anyone under 30, ain't that what they say?

[PhilDeez]

Anyone check this out?
http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/clinton-fellowship.php
Not nearly as bad as the good Rev. Wright, but maybe she shouldn't be so quick to throw stones at Obama's odd church.

[ShowerBench]

Anyone check this out?
http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/clinton-fellowship.php
Not nearly as bad as the good Rev. Wright, but maybe she shouldn't be so quick to throw stones at Obama's odd church.

I remember reading about that group in Harpers a couple of year's ago. Yeah, creepy and all but rich white proddie prayer groups don't bother voters as much as Reverend Wright types.

That's why Republicans never go out of their way to distance themselves from the insane Falwells and Robertsons. They get bigger returns by associating with them.

[Bulldogcakes]

60 is probably more like it yeah.

And never trust anyone under 30, ain't that what they say?

Something like that.

If the economy and inflation levels off by summertime as some economists think it will, I don't think this race will be close. Usually Republicans have to dig up crap from their college days (re Clinton/Kerry) to label Democrats as "Liberal America Haters". Most of this stuff is from sometime last week. In order to elect a first Black/Female Pres it has to seem like a safe choice to overcome many people's doubts and fears, legitimate or not. He doesn't pass that test, and the list of evidence gets longer every day.

BTW-This should probably be a PM, but what the hell. Kudos to you for sticking to your guns, sticking to the facts, arguing your case and side stepping the personal attacks constantly aimed at you in this thread. I'm no Hillary supporter but I admire your tenacity.

[ShowerBench]

Thanks BDC!

For anybody who doesn't already read it, here's a (Democratic) site worth checking out on a regular basis.

Somerby doesn't have much patience with the "shirts and skins" approach to politics by the Dem candidates and their backers, but it's some of the most detailed/entertaining media criticism out there. The exhaustive and eye-opening 2000 election coverage is well worth a read.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

From today's entry:

Indeed, much modern journalism is a novel (a “typecast” “drama,” in E. R. Shipp’s language). Statements are ratcheted—motives are imagined—to make events fit pre-conceived formulas. Lazy ingenues loll about, turning your lives into tired old movies. And their dramas—their narratives—frequently change:

DOWD (3/26/08): [T]he Clintons think of themselves as The Democratic Party. When Bill and Dick Morris triangulated during the first term, it was what was best for Bill, not the party. In 1996, when Bill turned the White House into Motel 1600 for fund-raisers, it was more about his re-election than the re-elections of his fellow Democrats in Congress; in 2000, the White House focused its energies more on Hillary's Senate win than Al Gore's presidential run.

Just like that, the novel has changed! For years, the Dowds were busily trashing Gore; to that end, they wrote a novel in which the vain, stupid hopeful refused to ask brilliant Bill Clinton for help on the trail. Now, Bill Clinton has fumbled a bit in such settings—and the Dowds are busily trashing the Clintons. Presto! The story-line shifts! Before, Gore wouldn’t ask Bill Clinton for help. Today, though, Selfish Bill wouldn’t help



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

Bob Somerby is also a professional stand up comic. He has appeared on Larry King Live, with Bill Maher, Bill O'Reilly and with Brian Lamb on C-Span. In college at Harvard, he was roommates with the actor Tommy Lee Jones and former Vice President Al Gore.

[TheMojoPin]

Obama was under mild, tangential scrutiny for less than a week and crumbled.

How can you say that? He's still running up there with Hillary in the numbers and replied with a televised speech that was glowingly received across the board.

[TheMojoPin]

Kudos to you for sticking to the facts.

Wrong thread.

[TheMojoPin]

I remember reading about that group in Harpers a couple of year's ago. Yeah, creepy and all but rich white proddie prayer groups don't bother voters as much as Reverend Wright types.

That's why Republicans never go out of their way to distance themselves from the insane Falwells and Robertsons. They get bigger returns by associating with them.

It's curious how absolutely jaded you are. You have no problem with her being part of a group that if it had its way the line between church and state would be blurred as much as possible. It seems you would have no problem with the Democrats running the scummiest candidate possible so long as you thought they could win. And hey, kudos for having Republican giving you props on your efforts. Like Hillary, your lifeline is now coming from the Right. What could Hillary possibly do that would make you look at her even a little negatively?

[ShowerBench]

It's curious how absolutely jaded you are. You have no problem with her being part of a group that if it had its way the line between church and state would be blurred as much as possible. It seems you would have no problem with the Democrats running the scummiest candidate possible so long as you thought they could win. And hey, kudos for having Republican giving you props on your efforts. Like Hillary, your lifeline is now coming from the Right. What could Hillary possibly do that would make you look at her even a little negatively?

I look at the Clintons more than a little negatively in some respects, but the perfect is the enemy of the good and the only way anyone gets the perfect candidate is if they run themselves and get elected.

I don't consider any of the three candidates "honest" people but they're all honest enough. ALL of the candidates are typical politicians: compromisers, ditherers, ambitious, on the dishonest side. Obama tries to sell himself as a "different kind" but he isn't.

So I go with the Democrats I know can handle the job and evidence shows their core consists of two things: personal ambition (they're politicians) and an intent to advance the liberal-Democratic agenda.

At Obama's core is personal ambition (he's a politician) and an intent to advance Obama the Awesome because "I'm just so damn awesome." Too much self-adoration there, not much work or dedication on behalf of liberal-Democratic agenda, and nothing to show that he can handle the job.

And the idea of "changing the tone" is exactly what Bush ran on. The "tone" of politics hasn 't been changed since the inception of this country and it never will be changed. What's more it shouldn't be changed. Politics is a contentious argument that ends in compromise. Obama can't change that and there is zero evidence in his history that he could.

Obama's idea of unity is trashing the only Democrat to make it to the White House in 28 years so he could praise Reagan. The guy's got absolutely nothing that would compel me to vote for him - no core beliefs, no record of experience. "Electability" isn't an issue for me because I wouldn't vote for him even if I thought he could win. The Clintons have all those going for them.

Like I posted before, even Obama admits he isn't qualified. Here he is in 2004 saying he wouldn't "know what he was doing" as president, and then patting himself on the back for not being "the kind of person" who would run with such thin experience.

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

[ShowerBench]

David Axelrod's first "hope/change/new kind of politics" lab project:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27patrick.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Mr. Patrick, who easily won office in 2006 after dazzling voters with a message of hope and change, suffered a nasty defeat last week at the hands of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, which quashed his proposal to increase revenues by allowing three resort casinos in the state. None of the governor’s major policy proposals have cleared the Legislature, in fact, and he and Salvatore DiMasi, the speaker of the House, have taken to trading barbs publicly.

[TheMojoPin]

I look at the Clintons more than a little negatively in some respects, but the perfect is the enemy of the good and the only way anyone gets the perfect candidate is if they run themselves and get elected.

I don't consider any of the three candidates "honest" people but they're all honest enough. ALL of the candidates are typical politicians: compromisers, ditherers, ambitious, on the dishonest side. Obama tries to sell himself as a "different kind" but he isn't.

He's not radically different, as many seem to think, but I do think he represents a dramatic difference from what we've seen over the last 28 years. Now, on the grand scale, that might be a massive change, but it's enough for me.

So I go with the Democrats I know can handle the job and evidence shows their core consists of two things: personal ambition (they're politicians) and an intent to advance the liberal-Democratic agenda.

So why settle for the Clintons, who showed they were the most centrist the candidates the party has gotten into office in the 20th Century? Granted, Hillary has veered much more to the Left with her senate voting, but her husband's politics once he was in the White House fills me with little hope that she wouldn't just be a similar political animal. That's not say Obama won't...none of this is made up of sure things, but personaly, I'd prefer to take a chance on him being more of a "true" Democrat than the Clintons would be based on their first 8 years.

At Obama's core is personal ambition (he's a politician) and an intent to advance Obama the Awesome because "I'm just so damn awesome." Too much self-adoration there, not much work or dedication on behalf of liberal-Democratic agenda, and nothing to show that he can handle the job.

There's plenty there...you just don't want to see it our you personally don't like it. There's little that shows that having tons of "experience" is any kind of guarentee as to having a quality president, or that a lack of "experience" guarentees a bad president, or even a general consensus as to what the hell "experience" really is. And it seems tremendously hypocritical to try and paint Obama as a raving egomaniac given not only who he is running against for the nomination, their history in their first 8 years of making too many decisions based on saving face more than anything else, and that running for an office as massive as the POTUSA is inherrently egocentric. We're voting people into office...therefore, they need to sell themselves. That's the game.

And the idea of "changing the tone" is exactly what Bush ran on. The "tone" of politics hasn 't been changed since the inception of this country and it never will be changed. What's more it shouldn't be changed. Politics is a contentious argument that ends in compromise. Obama can't change that and there is zero evidence in his history that he could.

But Bush isn't Obama. Obama doesn't have anything even remotely resembling the history, personality or career of Obama. It's a false comparison on every possible level. And yes, Obama does offer some degree of change by simply not being a Clinton or Bush/Reagan-ite. You get the Clintons in there for another 4 or even 8 years, we've essentially established an oligarchy for more 3 decades. Personally, that holds zero appeal to me, especially when the Democratic side of that just plays to the middle as much as possible.

Obama's idea of unity is trashing the only Democrat to make it to the White House in 28 years so he could praise Reagan. The guy's got absolutely nothing that would compel me to vote for him - no core beliefs, no record of experience. "Electability" isn't an issue for me because I wouldn't vote for him even if I thought he could win. The Clintons have all those going for them.

Fine, that's you. I think what rubs so many people the wrong way is you come in here and drop everything anti-Obma as if it's a concrete fact...sometimes, it is, but usualy it's just your opinion. You rarely reply when anyone counters. It gets frustrating. Like above, you toss out the "praise Reagan" thing as if it means he's subscribing to neo-con politics and agrees with the man. He doesn't. The interview you're talking about clearly shows that any "praise" he offered was in recognizing stirred a mobilization of voting in this country on both sides of the political spectrum when he ran in 1980, particuarly amongts younger voters. That's not "praise" for Reagan as a president...that's recognizing what he did in who he got to vote for him.

Like I posted before, even Obama admits he isn't qualified. Here he is in 2004 saying he wouldn't "know what he was doing" as president, and then patting himself on the back for not being "the kind of person" who would run with such thin experience.

That's 4 years ago. Once he would take office, it would have been 5 years. Do you really think a career politician, especially one looking for a presidenial run in a few years, wouldn't possibly develop for the challenge?

Obama is no sure thing. No candidate is, ever. But I'd rather take my chances with him than get what is likely more of the same, minus the relative peace and economic boom Clinton had dropped in his lap in the 90's. If anything, that highlights Hillary and Bill's lack of experience in dealing with the type of world we're in now as opposed to the one they saw back in 1992. Is it the same as Obama's situation? Of course not...but let's stop pretending they have all the answers.

[ShowerBench]

Case in point, Obama voted yea, Clinton voted no:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32674-2005Feb17.html

Congress today handed President Bush a major second-term victory, passing legislation he had advocated during his reelection campaign to restrict class-action lawsuits.

The bill, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, passed the House today by a vote of 279-149, after having sailed through the Senate last week in a 72-26 vote. Bush is expected to sign it into law Friday.

Critics charged that the legislation would deprive Americans of legal recourse when they were wronged by powerful corporations.

"This bill is the Vioxx protection bill, it is the Wal-Mart protection bill, it is the Tyco protection bill, and it is the Enron protection bill," said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), the Associated Press reported.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the bill "the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised."

[Hosp]

There's only one black politician I could ever get behind:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v39/Garyo/brewster.jpg

Obama speaks of change and has lots of things he claims that he wants to do, but hasn't given any substance or information on how he would do it.

Hillary just isn't honest about anything and makes me think she's trying to get over on everyone.

McCain says that he'd stay in Iraq for 100 years, and most people don't think that's the best idea.

I like none of them, I'm a registered republican but I've never voted along party lines, and it frustrates me that I have no clue who I want to vote for this late into an election year.

[ShowerBench]

He's not radically different, as many seem to think, but I do think he represents a dramatic difference from what we've seen over the last 28 years. Now, on the grand scale, that might be a massive change, but it's enough for me.



So why settle for the Clintons, who showed they were the most centrist the candidates the party has gotten into office in the 20th Century? Granted, Hillary has veered much more to the Left with her senate voting, but her husband's politics once he was in the White House fills me with little hope that she wouldn't just be a similar political animal. That's not say Obama won't...none of this is made up of sure things, but personaly, I'd prefer to take a chance on him being more of a "true" Democrat than the Clintons would be based on their first 8 years.



There's plenty there...you just don't want to see it our you personally don't like it. There's little that shows that having tons of "experience" is any kind of guarentee as to having a quality president, or that a lack of "experience" guarentees a bad president, or even a general consensus as to what the hell "experience" really is. And it seems tremendously hypocritical to try and paint Obama as a raving egomaniac given not only who he is running against for the nomination, their history in their first 8 years of making too many decisions based on saving face more than anything else, and that running for an office as massive as the POTUSA is inherrently egocentric. We're voting people into office...therefore, they need to sell themselves. That's the game.



But Bush isn't Obama. Obama doesn't have anything even remotely resembling the history, personality or career of Obama. It's a false comparison on every possible level. And yes, Obama does offer some degree of change by simply not being a Clinton or Bush/Reagan-ite. You get the Clintons in there for another 4 or even 8 years, we've essentially established an oligarchy for more 3 decades. Personally, that holds zero appeal to me, especially when the Democratic side of that just plays to the middle as much as possible.



Fine, that's you. I think what rubs so many people the wrong way is you come in here and drop everything anti-Obma as if it's a concrete fact...sometimes, it is, but usualy it's just your opinion. You rarely reply when anyone counters. It gets frustrating. Like above, you toss out the "praise Reagan" thing as if it means he's subscribing to neo-con politics and agrees with the man. He doesn't. The interview you're talking about clearly shows that any "praise" he offered was in recognizing stirred a mobilization of voting in this country on both sides of the political spectrum when he ran in 1980, particuarly amongts younger voters. That's not "praise" for Reagan as a president...that's recognizing what he did in who he got to vote for him.



That's 4 years ago. Once he would take office, it would have been 5 years. Do you really think a career politician, especially one looking for a presidenial run in a few years, wouldn't possibly develop for the challenge?

Obama is no sure thing. No candidate is, ever. But I'd rather take my chances with him than get what is likely more of the same, minus the relative peace and economic boom Clinton had dropped in his lap in the 90's. If anything, that highlights Hillary and Bill's lack of experience in dealing with the type of world we're in now as opposed to the one they saw back in 1992. Is it the same as Obama's situation? Of course not...but let's stop pretending they have all the answers.

The way I see it, if you've got two typical politicians that have both been known to compromise the liberal-Democratic agenda for the sake of political expediency (a necessary evil), why roll the dice especially if one of them has no history or record of dedication to liberal Democratic constituencies (working class) and causes that you can rely on to glean some of their core ideological motivation?

I get the appeal of "something new" etc. but don't think this is the year for that since there are huge crises on every front that Bush is leaving the next president.

What I would like to see is a Clinton/Obama ticket. The Clintons get the country back on track by repairing the economy at home and repairing international relations. Obama learns for eight years, and then we opt for the inspirational figure who also has experience with the realities of how things get done in DC, and who by then is entrenched enough in the party to look out for its core interests. (For me the inspirational aspect of a President Obama would be that he was the first black president, I can take or leave the speeches.)

One of the things that put me off Obama from the gate was that he trashed the Clintons for being "divisive." The Clintons weren't born divisive, they became divisive when the had the audacity to be Democrats that got elected and then their first agenda items were health care reform and gays in the military. Divisive? Hell yeah, and it sucked to see a Democratic candidate jumping on the bandwagon to define that kind of "divisiveness" as a negative just to try to score "unity" points among college kids who didn't even witness what went on in the 90's (if they did they wouldn't be so eager to believe the other side has any interest whatever in joining hands).

Nobody can sanely argue that Bill Clinton was a "divisive" figure because of his own tendency to divide people and instigate fights with Republicans.

The alternative to the Clinton years "divisiveness" is what I fear Obama represents because he has a record of it: acquiescence to Republicans.

[TheMojoPin]

The alternative to the Clinton years "divisiveness" is what I fear Obama represents because he has a record of it: acquiescence to Republicans.

Which is exactly how I look at much of the Clinton presidency.

To each their own.

[ShowerBench]

Didn't Tiger Beat used to run "Win a date with Justin Timberlake" contests?
Obama sure seems enamoured of himself.....


http://www.rnntv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8075871

Obama's campaign is offering an "intimate dinner with Barack" to four supporters who donate money to his campaign by Monday. A date and location for the dinner, along with the three other guests, are still to be determined.

[TheMojoPin]

Obama speaks of change and has lots of things he claims that he wants to do, but hasn't given any substance or information on how he would do it.

That's simply not true. If you don't like his ideas, fine, but the whole "he doesn't explain himself" argument holds no water given that he has done exactly that with his speeches, debates, website and books. All of the information is there for people who want to read/hear it.

[TheMojoPin]

Didn't Tiger Beat used to run "Win a date with Justin Timberlake" contests?
Obama sure seems enamoured of himself.....


http://www.rnntv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8075871

Obama's campaign is offering an "intimate dinner with Barack" to four supporters who donate money to his campaign by Monday. A date and location for the dinner, along with the three other guests, are still to be determined.

This isn't news. He's done this before. Do you really have a problem with this?

We also have a thread devoted to news about Obama. Why do you not use that, since he's the one you're determined to make every one of your posts about? You insist on using this thread, yet refuse to discuss or post anything about the other candidates.

[ShowerBench]

Which is exactly how I look at much of the Clinton presidency.

To each their own.

So do I, but that's why I got into distinguishing what I see as the candidates' core. Over the years my judgment of the Clintons are that they are ambitious and arrogant but behind the arrogance is the idea "WE are really the only ones equipped to advance this liberal-Democrat agenda." With Obama, I see the agenda as Obama.

I think this represents the Clinton core. Back then they got into the game as dyed in the wool liberal ideologues (holier than thou as they were and are).

http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/bill-hillary-clinton-hippie.jpg

[ShowerBench]

This isn't news. He's done this before. Do you really have a problem with this?

We also have a thread devoted to news about Obama. Why do you not use that, since he's the one you're determined to make every one of your posts about? You insist on using this thread, yet refuse to discuss or post anything about the other candidates.

I have a problem in that I see both Clintons all the time speaking to small groups in diners and I don't think they're charging.

[TheMojoPin]

I have a problem in that I see both Clintons all the time speaking to small groups in diners and I don't think they're charging.

Which is completely different. This is specifically dinner with Obama, not one of his visits to a diner or restaurant, of which he does plenty of, just like everyone else. Don't act like candidates don't sell dinners all the time. This actually contrasts with those, since it's Obama and a small group for only a little money, as opposed to the hundreds or thousands of dollars a plate mass dinners you see all the time. It's not like he's only "meeting the people" this way.

Really, why would you honestly have a problem with this? This kind of stuff only weakens your arguments. Half the time, your posts involve some kind of leap of logic, tremendous spin or just flat out hatred for everything about Obama for it to possibly be negative. What's the point? There's plenty of things you hae brought up which are legit issues...why waste your times with something this depserate?

[TheMojoPin]

So do I, but that's why I got into distinguishing what I see as the candidates' core. Over the years my judgment of the Clintons are that they are ambitious and arrogant but behind the arrogance is the idea "WE are really the only ones equipped to advance this liberal-Democrat agenda." With Obama, I see the agenda as Obama.

I guess you're just seeing what you want to see. Have you read his autobiography? Or any of the books or articles that detail his days getting into politics that aren't simply trying to tear him down?

[Recyclerz]

The way I see it, if you've got two typical politicians that have both been known to compromise the liberal-Democratic agenda for the sake of political expediency (a necessary evil), why roll the dice especially if one of them has no history or record of dedication to liberal Democratic constituencies (working class) and causes that you can rely on to glean some of their core ideological motivation?

I get the appeal of "something new" etc. but don't think this is the year for that since there are huge crises on every front that Bush is leaving the next president.

What I would like to see is a Clinton/Obama ticket. The Clintons get the country back on track by repairing the economy at home and repairing international relations. Obama learns for eight years, and then we opt for the inspirational figure who also has experience with the realities of how things get done in DC, and who by then is entrenched enough in the party to look out for its core interests. (For me the inspirational aspect of a President Obama would be that he was the first black president, I can take or leave the speeches.)

One of the things that put me off Obama from the gate was that he trashed the Clintons for being "divisive." The Clintons weren't born divisive, they became divisive when the had the audacity to be Democrats that got elected and then their first agenda items were health care reform and gays in the military. Divisive? Hell yeah, and it sucked to see a Democratic candidate jumping on the bandwagon to define that kind of "divisiveness" as a negative just to try to score "unity" points among college kids who didn't even witness what went on in the 90's (if they did they wouldn't be so eager to believe the other side has any interest whatever in joining hands).

Nobody can sanely argue that Bill Clinton was a "divisive" figure because of his own tendency to divide people and instigate fights with Republicans.

The alternative to the Clinton years "divisiveness" is what I fear Obama represents because he has a record of it: acquiescence to Republicans.

I'll admit up front that I haven't read the whole thread with the to and fro between Mojo and Showerbench but the post above gives me the opportunity to jump in explain why a former Richardson backer jumped on the Obama-wagon rather than the Hilary bus.

Admittedly, they are both ego driven politicians and generally want to drive the country somewhat more to the Left (ie slightly more taxes, one big new gov't program - health care). But I believe there are crucial differences that make Obama preferrable. First I think Hilary is unelectable. I've had jobs that have required me to travel around to a lot of places in the country, especially down South and I've had contact with a lot of right-leaning (by my standards anyway) but fair-minded people. Almost unanimously, they HATE the Clintons. I don't understand why (much in the same way that some people can't understand why I HATE W so passionately) but it is real. I don't think she can pick up the casual followers of politics or the true independants or the fair-minded Republicans that any Dem needs to attract to get elected. Also her management style, as gleaned through her "leadership" of the health care reform during her husband's first term, was far too W-like for my tastes - the in-crowd decides what's best for everybody and then it gets rammed down everybody's throat and any disagreement, no matter how small, is seen as traitous disloyalty (see former Rep. Jim Cooper).

As for Obama, although his portfolio is kinda thin, he's talking about a model of politics that busts up the current baby-boomer era left-right dichotomy forged in the 1960's that no longer fits the world we live in (whereas Hilary just perpetuautes it). Forget the black white stuff - in him I see the intellegence and vision that has the Potential to reform the Democratic Party and consequently the country in the same way that Tony Blair (with Gordon Brown) transformed the Labor party in Britian. That is, create a party that has the interests of the middle and lower classes at heart but operates in a way that seeks new solutions for the new types of problems we face and just doesn't keep pushing the same buttons that Democrats have used from WW2 until 1980. Eg. a party that doesn't mindlessly try to fight globalization (i.e. NAFTA sucks!) but accepts it as a reality and tries to find economically smart ways to help those adversely affected by it by asking those who benefit from it to kick in a little bit of their newly found swag to help keep the boat from rocking too wildly.

[ShowerBench]

I'll admit up front that I haven't read the whole thread with the to and fro between Mojo and Showerbench but the post above gives me the opportunity to jump in explain why a former Richardson backer jumped on the Obama-wagon rather than the Hilary bus.

Admittedly, they are both ego driven politicians and generally want to drive the country somewhat more to the Left (ie slightly more taxes, one big new gov't program - health care). But I believe there are crucial differences that make Obama preferrable. First I think Hilary is unelectable. I've had jobs that have required me to travel around to a lot of places in the country, especially down South and I've had contact with a lot of right-leaning (by my standards anyway) but fair-minded people. Almost unanimously, they HATE the Clintons. I don't understand why (much in the same way that some people can't understand why I HATE W so passionately) but it is real. I don't think she can pick up the casual followers of politics or the true independants or the fair-minded Republicans that any Dem needs to attract to get elected. Also her management style, as gleaned through her "leadership" of the health care reform during her husband's first term, was far too W-like for my tastes - the in-crowd decides what's best for everybody and then it gets rammed down everybody's throat and any disagreement, no matter how small, is seen as traitous disloyalty (see former Rep. Jim Cooper).

As for Obama, although his portfolio is kinda thin, he's talking about a model of politics that busts up the current baby-boomer era left-right dichotomy forged in the 1960's that no longer fits the world we live in (whereas Hilary just perpetuautes it). Forget the black white stuff - in him I see the intellegence and vision that has the Potential to reform the Democratic Party and consequently the country in the same way that Tony Blair (with Gordon Brown) transformed the Labor party in Britian. That is, create a party that has the interests of the middle and lower classes at heart but operates in a way that seeks new solutions for the new types of problems we face and just doesn't keep pushing the same buttons that Democrats have used from WW2 until 1980. Eg. a party that doesn't mindlessly try to fight globalization (i.e. NAFTA sucks!) but accepts it as a reality and tries to find economically smart ways to help those adversely affected by it by asking those who benefit from it to kick in a little bit of their newly found swag to help keep the boat from rocking too wildly.

I can't disagree with any of the above. I've said I wouldn't vote for Obama so "electability" isn't an issue for me, but if it was, while Clinton has her haters, she's even with McCain now, after 16 years of scrutiny. That tells me that it would likely come down to issues between those two, and this year if the Democratic candidate convinces the voters they're reliable on national security, they will blow McCain away on the economy.

Therein is where I see Obama's electability vulnerability. The formula is to cast the Democrat as weird/countercultural, unpatriotic, effeminate/weak and ineffectual. They succeeded with Kerry - a bona fide war hero. They would have a field day with Obama. I don't see Clinton as having the same vulnerabilities and that segment that despises her would come to despise any Dem candidate enough to get out and vote.

On your second point about not fighting the partisan wars of the 60's - in my view those are the fights we've been having for the entire history of the country. Economic and social progressives against moneyed interests. Underdogs against overdogs. I agree there are new issues now such as international trade - but that's my point. It was Clinton who passed NAFTA. It was Clinton who engaged China on trade as a means to political and social reform. He gets slammed (sometimes rightly) for being a "third way" Democrat, but it sounds like that's what you say we need despite the pitfalls. In other words, I think the Clintons brought the party into the 21st century back in '92. As an example, their welfare reform met with resistance from the left but they combined it with targeted tax cuts, training etc. - a middle ground between throwing them on the street or handouts that encourage dependence.

Other issues like health care reform will only be resolved with a FIGHT not "meeting of the minds," there's no way around it with so much $$$$ at stake, and Krugman has already written about the evidence Obama would fold under pressure. As you mentioned the Clintons get hit on the non-transparency aspect of the health care reform fight- they offered the standard "you don't want to see sausage or legislation made" response, implying that some of the players would not negotiate except behind closed doors. I don't think that will be politically viable position anymore so I suspect they would adapt to that reality.

So I'm not convinced there is much Obama has to offer that's new.

[TheMojoPin]

ITherein is where I see Obama's electability vulnerability. The formula is to cast the Democrat as weird/countercultural, unpatriotic, effeminate/weak and ineffectual. They succeeded with Kerry - a bona fide war hero. They would have a field day with Obama. I don't see Clinton as having the same vulnerabilities and that segment that despises her would come to despise any Dem candidate enough to get out and vote.

I think Hillary is a walking vulnerability. She's the most polarizing figure the party could possibly offer right now. She's massively vulnerable, especially if McCain continues to successfully make himself look "clean" when it comes to dirty politics. Kerry was vulnerable bcause he had zero personality...which allowed the Republicans to basically write one for him. By contrast, Obama has gotten to where he is largely on his personality. His "lack of experience" actually works in his favor because it gives his opponents less to dig up on him. I think Hillary, however, is a massive target the Republicans are salivating to have a shot at.

[ShowerBench]

Hey Obama supporters, can you weigh in on this?

Evidently Obama is whining about Clinton donors contacting Pelosi and informing her of the conditions under which they are likely to continue their donations - or not.

Since when is it "blackmail" for political donors to contact their beneficiaries and inform them of the conditions under which they will or will not continue their financial support?

Is this kind of ridiculous idea an example of Obama's "new kind of politics"? Americans must unconditionally send their money to politicians and if they don't agree with the politicians, keep their mouths shut?

Obama Camp Hammers Letter To Pelosi As "Inappropriate" -- Demands Hillary Reject It

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_camp_hammers_clinton_don.php

[epo]

Hey Obama supporters, can you weigh in on this?

Evidently Obama is whining about Clinton donors contacting Pelosi and informing her of the conditions under which they are likely to continue their donations - or not.

Since when is it "blackmail" for political donors to contact their beneficiaries and inform them of the conditions under which they will or will not continue their financial support?

Is this kind of ridiculous idea an example of Obama's "new kind of politics"? Americans must unconditionally send their money to politicians and if they don't agree with the politicians, keep their mouths shut?

Obama Camp Hammers Letter To Pelosi As "Inappropriate" -- Demands Hillary Reject It

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_camp_hammers_clinton_don.php

I'll just say that its an insane approach by Clinton supporters to attempt to drive support her way. I would guess it will completely backfire on them and actually injure her greatly in the court of public opinion.

The problem isn't the passion of the supporters, but rather the tone suggests "insiders" and "big money" which are the last things a potential democratic nominee needs this fall as they run against the "straight talk express".

According to this column from Chuck Todd (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/829080.aspx)(who has done a fabulous job this year), one donor has appeared to donate the max in support of Obama & moveon.org fired up their operations to raise money for the party.

For her, this couldn't be a worse time for this play, especially on the heels of the Bosnia fuckup.

[ShowerBench]

I'll just say that its an insane approach by Clinton supporters to attempt to drive support her way. I would guess it will completely backfire on them and actually injure her greatly in the court of public opinion.

Sure the timing of the letter can be argued in political terms.

My question was why Obama is calling on Clinton to denounce the letter? Why did he call it "inappropriate"?

What does Obama have against American citizens/activists who send complaint letters to politicians letting them know under what conditions they will continue or not continue their financial support?

This is a democracy.

Of course it's possible that Obama believes the letter presents a fine political opportunity and complaining about the letter will score him some political points.

It's possible he thinks that those political points trump the tradition of American political activism, and it's possible he hopes that the average person won't pick up the anti-American aspect of his complaint. It's possible he figures he can get away with suggesting there's something inappropriate where there surely isn't.

Remind me of was "different" about Obama again, because he's definitely not honest.

[epo]

Of course it's possible that Obama believes the letter presents a fine political opportunity and complaining about the letter will score him some political points.



Of course its political opportunity...and why wouldn't he take it. To ask him to not take advantage of it would be simple double-talk bullshit on the part of the Clinton campaign.

And look at the spin on it already "More on those Clinton Fat Cats (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/more-on-those-c.html)". Just that spin alone tells you that Obama won this round and won it quite decisively.

[ShowerBench]

Of course its political opportunity...and why wouldn't he take it. To ask him to not take advantage of it would be simple double-talk bullshit on the part of the Clinton campaign.

And look at the spin on it already "More on those Clinton Fat Cats (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/more-on-those-c.html)". Just that spin alone tells you that Obama won this round and won it quite decisively.

You won't hear me argue that the media aren't in the tank for Obama.

As for "why wouldn't he take" the political opportunity, well any typical (dishonest) politician would, but he tries to sell himself as something different (honest).

[epo]

You won't hear me argue that the media aren't in the tank for Obama.

As for "why wouldn't he take" the political opportunity, well any typical (dishonest) politician would, but he tries to sell himself as something different (honest).

You can't define honest & dishonest as taking advantage of political opportunity. That's just not a valid argument.

[FUNKMAN]

Obama is the only one talking about addressing issues that may slow down the 'rich getting richer' and the 'poor getting poorer'. Taking away tax breaks for the top 1 and 2% of the wealthy and addressing practices on Wall Street which (if anynone has read my post since i basically joined this board) is where the root of the problem is. He's the only one with the balls to speak up.

Heard on the News today that AT&T is looking for thousands of overseas workers for their Customer Service dept because they cannot find "qualified" workers in the US. Now who the F do they feel is going to believe that line of shit. The bottom line is their "bottom line". What they don't tell you as a multi-billion dollar company is the shit pay and most likely shit benefits they are looking to pay out... And what does it all boil down to? keeping the shareholders and the wall street analysts happy even if it means fucking the american worker

[ShowerBench]

You can't define honest & dishonest as taking advantage of political opportunity. That's just not a valid argument.

The argument is that it's dishonest to say that there is something "inappropriate" (Obama campaign's word) in citizens sending complaint letters to politicians notifying them that they will withhold future donations.

Obama is counting on people being swayed by the "fat cat" characterization of the donors (a completely irrelevant factor) and hoping the rubes won't recognize the fact that there's not a thing "inappropriate" in what the donors did.

Not only is it appropriate but it is typical of political activism as old as America.

[ShowerBench]

Wasn't Obama praised here for not folding under pressure and kicking Wright to the curb?

Don't look now but he's flip flopped and now says he would have quit the church if Wright didn't retire.

Wow, that's some backbone there. And it only took him 20 years.

Obama would have left if Wright stayed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wright

WASHINGTON - White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.

[TheMojoPin]

Wasn't Obama praised here for not folding under pressure and kicking Wright to the curb?

Don't look now but he's flip flopped and now says he would have quit the church if Wright didn't retire.

Wow, that's some backbone there. And it only took him 20 years.

Obama would have left if Wright stayed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wright

WASHINGTON - White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.

I'm genuinely curious about this. Wright is a burden enough as it is, and this doesn't help. That said, can anyone find any comments by Wright like the ones people are flipping out over that are older than 2001? That's when the 9/11 comments were, obviously, and then everything else is after that, from 2003 onwards. Not that this excuses Obama from making such a sudden revelation (which I honestly think is bunk), but it is telling that it's only relatively recently, in the latter years of the timeline of Obama and Wright's relationship, that this stuff seems to be coming from.

[TheMojoPin]

The argument is that it's dishonest to say that there is something "inappropriate" (Obama campaign's word) in citizens sending complaint letters to politicians notifying them that they will withhold future donations.

Obama is counting on people being swayed by the "fat cat" characterization of the donors (a completely irrelevant factor) and hoping the rubes won't recognize the fact that there's not a thing "inappropriate" in what the donors did.

Not only is it appropriate but it is typical of political activism as old as America.

You're all over the place reaching for something here. It's impossible to get as far as this and not be able to play the political "games" to some degree. It is possible, however, to do that and still offer a legitimate option of change, at least relatively speaking, to the norm we've seen for almost 30 years now.

[Zorro]

Gallup Daily: Obama Back Into Lead in Democratic Race

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-Race.aspx

[epo]

Gallup Daily: Obama Back Into Lead in Democratic Race

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-Race.aspx

And this does seem to be Shower Bench's favorite poll:

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii49/j2christ/2369123904_53f4b54574_o.gif

Oh well, I guess the slash & burn strategy isn't good for the long-term?

[K.C.]

Mike Gravel jumps ship (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/26/gravel-joins-libertarian-party-presidential-prospects-unknown/)

Damn...everyone knows that as Gravel goes, goes the election in November.

[ShowerBench]

Discuss

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dl32Y7wDVDs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dl32Y7wDVDs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[TheMojoPin]

Discuss

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dl32Y7wDVDs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dl32Y7wDVDs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Good.

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

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wE58Y2LETAs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wE58Y2LETAs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[ShowerBench]

I almost pointed out the fact that the reality is certain arguments are helpful to certain types of candidates while identical arguments are harmful to certain other types of candidates, therefore rebuttals like Ike's speeches would be irrelevant.

But I figured we all recognized that already (I'm pretty sure you do, Mojo) and didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence.

[TheMojoPin]

I almost pointed out the fact that the reality is certain arguments are helpful to certain types of candidates while identical arguments are harmful to certain other types of candidates, therefore rebuttals like Ike's speeches would be irrelevant.

But I figured we all recognized that already (I'm pretty sure you do, Mojo) and didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence.

Personally, I think it's an extension of Ike's thinking. I see nothing wrong with scaling back excessive military spending once we cut down on pointless conflicts like the one in Iraq. I think we're too beholden to military spending and have been since WW2.

[ShowerBench]

Personally, I think it's an extension of Ike's thinking. I see nothing wrong with scaling back excessive military spending once we cut down on pointless conflicts like the one in Iraq. I think we're too beholden to military spending and have been since WW2.

Neither do I but it's suicidal for a Democratic candidate like Obama to say it, much less say it in the way he said it. For the same perplexing reason he didn't distance himself from Wright until the other day on the View, his will be a political death by a thousand self inflicted cuts.

[pennington]

Discuss

Sounds good on paper. To recap (from memory):

1) End the Iraq War. (Maybe, but I don't see us not having a permanent military presence there. In the future if there's a problem in that part of the world we won't have to spend months moving equipment to there).

2) Cut Defense Spending. (Good luck)

-Won't weaponize space. (I don't think it's a good idea to unilaterally take that off the table, even if we don't do it).

-Slow development of future weapon systems. (Bad idea to stop R&D).

-Create a defense priorities board. (More bureaucrats. Isn't that what the House and Senate are supposed to do? Will they listen to recommendations?).

3) World Without Nuclear Weapons. (Sounds nice but unless you can take away the knowledge of how to build them, it's not going to happen).

-No new nuclear weapons. (OK, unless technology advances).

-Global ban. (Good goal but not possible at this point).

-Negotiate with Russia. (It doesn't hurt to talk but they're going to want billions and billions of dollars).

-Cuts. (Fine, as long as it doesn't leave us vulnerable).

[Bulldogcakes]

Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html)

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

[epo]

New Backing for Obama As Party Seeks Unity (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news)

WASHINGTON -- Slowly but steadily, a string of Democratic Party figures is taking Barack Obama's side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday, according to a Democrat familiar with her plans. Meanwhile, North Carolina's seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group -- just one has so far -- before that state's May 6 primary, several Democrats say.

Count that 7 more delegates going Obama's way. Sorry Hillary...but this is what happens when you shit on the party.

[Bulldogcakes]

Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html)

The Clinton campaign would do even better to use population rather than electoral votes, since smaller states are overrepresented in the Electoral College. By my count, based on the 2007 Census estimates, Clinton's states have 132,214,460 people (160,537,525 if you include Florida and Michigan), and Obama's states have 101,689,480 people. States with 39,394,152 people have yet to vote. In percentage terms this means Clinton's states have 44 percent of the nation's population (53 percent if you include Florida and Michigan) and Obama's states have 34 percent of the nation's population. The yet-to-vote states have 13 percent of the nation's population.

Thus the Clinton campaign could argue that Obama cannot win states with most of the nation's people even if he wins all the remaining eight primaries. Could argue—but I don't think that's going to persuade any superdelegates that Clinton is the real winner.


That would just be too delicious for us Republicans and those of you still bitching about 2000.

[keithy_19]

Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html)



That would just be too delicious for us Republicans and those of you still bitching about 2000.

The Democrats really need to be unified. I don't think this bodes well for them come Novemeber.

[Zorro]

The Democrats really need to be unified. I don't think this bodes well for them come Novemeber.

I really think this "unity" stuff is overrated.

[angrymissy]

Looks like we need a UNITY PARTY!

[high fly]

Personally, I think it's an extension of Ike's thinking. I see nothing wrong with scaling back excessive military spending once we cut down on pointless conflicts like the one in Iraq. I think we're too beholden to military spending and have been since WW2.


I agree.
We have a large enough military to fight this war on terror.
For the most part it should be fought by small units of special forces and if we weren't bogged down in Iraq we would have plenty of military to accomplish larger missions.

I understand there has been expansion of our Navy SEALs and Delta Force and this is not a good idea.
Those type units need to be kept small, otherwise they get too cumbersome, plus they drain talent from regular Army special forces.
Fattening up Delta and the SEALs is a mistake.

Since Bush got in office, they have added over a trillion dollars in additional defense spending and that money was spent on things we will not need to fight international terrorism.

[high fly]

The Democrats really need to be unified. I don't think this bodes well for them come Novemeber.


Keithy, this is how the Democratic Party has always been.
70 or 80 years ago, Will Rogers said,

"I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

[A.J.]

Personally, I think it's an extension of Ike's thinking. I see nothing wrong with scaling back excessive military spending once we cut down on pointless conflicts like the one in Iraq. I think we're too beholden to military spending and have been since WW2.

I agree.
We have a large enough military to fight this war on terror.
For the most part it should be fought by small units of special forces and if we weren't bogged down in Iraq we would have plenty of military to accomplish larger missions.

I understand there has been expansion of our Navy SEALs and Delta Force and this is not a good idea.
Those type units need to be kept small, otherwise they get too cumbersome, plus they drain talent from regular Army special forces.
Fattening up Delta and the SEALs is a mistake.

Since Bush got in office, they have added over a trillion dollars in additional defense spending and that money was spent on things we will not need to fight international terrorism.

As someone who is reliant on the increases in military spending, I disagree (to a point) that we spend too much on the military. Basically, it comes down to how the money is being spent. If, for example, increased spending can be for soldier pay raises, or housing/base improvements, or VA benefits I think people won't protest too much.

Now from a shipbuilding example, I have to consider putting the most cutting edge technology on my ships. However, it takes 3 years to build a ship and put it in the water. By that time, the technology is outdated. So we're constantly having to deal with the challenge of outfitting future ships AND upgrading our current ships because technology evolves so quickly these days. So not only am I relying on R&D money to get me the technology, I need another budget line to buy the stuff.

On the bad side, the LCS program is an example of spending gone amuk. This was supposed to a small, agile ship designed to protect the fleet from small boat attacks (like the USS COLE): much like the PT boats of World War II or our PCs that are being phased out today. Due to political and bureaucratic involvement, this thing is damn near the size of the ships it was designed to protect.

[Zorro]

Looks like we need a UNITY PARTY!

Yeah, but somebody would wear a logo on their tee shirt and mess the whole thing up...

[ShowerBench]

Discuss. (I'll go ahead and say where I'm coming from on this - it doesn't matter substantively to me because I won't be voting for Obama in the general election but for anyone who is deciding between the two on "electability" factors, this is the kind of unscripted answer Obama typically gives. It's incredibly clumsy and probably worth 10 points from the Independents to McCain. I can't see Clinton saying something this boneheaded.)

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

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

[angrymissy]

Discuss. (I'll go ahead and say where I'm coming from on this - it doesn't matter substantively to me because I won't be voting for Obama in the general election but for anyone who is deciding between the two on "electability" factors, this is the kind of unscripted answer Obama typically gives. It's incredibly clumsy and probably worth 10 points from the Independents to McCain. I can't see Clinton saying something this boneheaded.)

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

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

I don't consider that bone headed at all. I consider it honest and realistic.

[keithy_19]

I don't consider that bone headed at all. I consider it honest and realistic.

Everyone who has sex should obviously have a baby automatically. Oral sex should get everyone herpes of the mouth and genitals. Anal sex? Chronic hemroids.

I thought stuff like that was common knowledge.

[keithy_19]

Though at the same time, "punished with a baby", isn't a very smart thing to say, IMO. It's not punishment. When you have sex you assume the responsiblity of potentially getting pregnant.

Getting pregnant isn't punishment.

[high fly]

As someone who is reliant on the increases in military spending, I disagree (to a point) that we spend too much on the military. Basically, it comes down to how the money is being spent. If, for example, increased spending can be for soldier pay raises, or housing/base improvements, or VA benefits I think people won't protest too much.


I agree. The problem is the things most needed in many cases are those that have no sizzle and have no PR campaign behind them.



Now from a shipbuilding example, I have to consider putting the most cutting edge technology on my ships. However, it takes 3 years to build a ship and put it in the water. By that time, the technology is outdated.




Is it outdated or supercedeed by new technology?
I mean, the Rooskies and the Chinee aren't building more advanced vessels, are they?


So we're constantly having to deal with the challenge of outfitting future ships AND upgrading our current ships because technology evolves so quickly these days. So not only am I relying on R&D money to get me the technology, I need another budget line to buy the stuff.

On the bad side, the LCS program is an example of spending gone amuk. This was supposed to a small, agile ship designed to protect the fleet from small boat attacks (like the USS COLE): much like the PT boats of World War II or our PCs that are being phased out today. Due to political and bureaucratic involvement, this thing is damn near the size of the ships it was designed to protect.


B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but they had that slick-sounding new lingo to go with it, talking about "litoral waters!"

They shoulda called it "The Freedom Keeper" or something.

It seems to me for a fraction of the cost, helicopters would do a better job.
I think we need to cancel one of these fighter planes and sack the V-22 Osprey as well as this new amphibious craft for the Marine Corps.
Also this whole new Army dillio, what is it, "Future Combat Systems" or something, where everything is integrated on a K-car chassis?
That has boondoggle written all over it....







.

[Ritalin]

Discuss. (I'll go ahead and say where I'm coming from on this - it doesn't matter substantively to me because I won't be voting for Obama in the general election but for anyone who is deciding between the two on "electability" factors, this is the kind of unscripted answer Obama typically gives. It's incredibly clumsy and probably worth 10 points from the Independents to McCain. I can't see Clinton saying something this boneheaded.)

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

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

Are you suggesting that Obama should get Joe Lieberman to whisper the right answer in his ear?

Because, if you're talking about boneheaded things to say, getting the Shia and Sunnis mixed up is a pretty stupid thing to do, especially if you're running as the candidate who can solve our Middle East problems.

He did it more than once, too.

As for what Obama said, 3 words: legal, safe, rare.

[Bulldogcakes]

Clinton didn't pay health insurance bills (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html)

Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.

Clinton, who is being pressured to end her campaign against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, has made her plan for universal health care a centerpiece of her agenda.

The campaign provides health insurance to all its employees, their spouses, partners and children — and that wasn’t interrupted by any lag in payments to insurance providers, said Jay Carson, a Clinton campaign spokesman.


Can't make it up. Even The Onion doesn't dream this big.

[ShowerBench]

Clinton didn't pay health insurance bills (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html)



Can't make it up. Even The Onion doesn't dream this big.

This was just covered on Larry King Live. It's bullshit, and what's more I'm guessing we all knew that.

[ShowerBench]

As for what Obama said, 3 words: legal, safe, rare.

Agree, that's what he should have said.

[scottinnj]

Discuss. (I'll go ahead and say where I'm coming from on this - it doesn't matter substantively to me because I won't be voting for Obama in the general election but for anyone who is deciding between the two on "electability" factors, this is the kind of unscripted answer Obama typically gives. It's incredibly clumsy and probably worth 10 points from the Independents to McCain. I can't see Clinton saying something this boneheaded.)

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

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

Sorry I'm late to the table with this, but I'm trying to catch up. I think he is using the term "punished" as a way of saying that having sex without being informed properly about birth control is baaaad. I'm old fashioned about sex, and would want my kids to wait until marriage, but I don't want my boys going out with girls without protection, and my daughter is going to get the HPV vaccine and she will be introduced to the pill when she is old enough. That is partly due to her mom and her mom's two sisters, they used the pill not only for birth control, but also for some female medical thing that the pill helps with that I don't understand, but it works, so probably it will be a good thing for my daughter too.
Like I said, I'm old fashioned, but a realist. I was a horny dude when I was a teenager, and I was lucky. I wish I had waited until I got married to my wife, but I didn't, and I'm damn lucky I didn't catch a disease or get some dumb broad pregnant when I was young. I don't want my boys stuck with a kid too young, and I don't want my daughter stuck with a kid either.

[AKA]

But McCain isn't Bush and that's what I like about the guy.

This really doesn't have anything to do with that except it's about McCain...I heard an interesting point today about how in recent elections, being a veteran did nothing to help elect a President.

In 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton beat two veterans of WWII...in 2004 Dubya beat one Vietnam vet and in 2000 lost the election to someone who had volunteered and served in a non combat role in Vietnam. Also in 1992, Stockdale, a man John McCain considers to be one of his biggest influences, might have actually hurt Perot because of the way he "came across."

Just some more things to add to the soup...

[Bulldogcakes]

McCain and Letterman Trade Insults on ‘Late Show’ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/mccain-and-letterman-trade-insults-on-late-show/)

It began with Mr. Letterman, in his monologue, making some of his trademark McCain-looks-like-a-cranky-old-man jokes.
“He looks like the guy at the hardware store who makes the keys,’’ he said, according to a transcript provided by CBS. “He looks like the guy who can’t stop talking about how well his tomatoes are doing. He looks like the guy who goes into town for turpentine. He looks like the guy who always has wiry hair growing out of new places. He looks like the guy who points out the spots they missed at the car wash.’’
Then Mr. McCain walked out on stage.
“Hi, Letterman,’’ he said. “You think that stuff’s pretty funny, don’t you?”
Then Mr. McCain unleashed a slew of his own you-look-like-a-guy jokes at Mr. Letterman.

“Well, you look like a guy whose laptop would be seized by the authorities,’’ Mr. McCain said. “You look like a guy caught smuggling reptiles in his pants.’’
Mr. Letterman interjected: “Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it.’’


Funny stuff.

[badmonkey]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/skIlZflDs9Y&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/skIlZflDs9Y&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Another twist in the election...

[Zorro]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/03/854162.aspx

[pennington]

Corzine has had his head up Hillary's ass since before she even announced. He was even going to raise money for a Michigan and Florida recount.

His making noises that he may go over to Obama is bad news for Hillary. Or he's a political hack. Or both.

[scottinnj]

Corzine has had his head up Hillary's ass since before she even announced. He was even going to raise money for a Michigan and Florida recount.

His making noises that he may go over to Obama is bad news for Hillary. Or he's a political hack. Or both.

He is going to kiss ass to whichever of the two he figures will give him a set of keys to the West Wing.

I hope Obama makes him Secretary of Douchebaggery.

[NewYorkDragons80]

This really doesn't have anything to do with that except it's about McCain...I heard an interesting point today about how in recent elections, being a veteran did nothing to help elect a President.

In 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton beat two veterans of WWII...in 2004 Dubya beat one Vietnam vet and in 2000 lost the election to someone who had volunteered and served in a non combat role in Vietnam. Also in 1992, Stockdale, a man John McCain considers to be one of his biggest influences, might have actually hurt Perot because of the way he "came across."

Just some more things to add to the soup...
An interesting point, but I don't see McCain in any of their positions. This is gonna be a unique election like one we've never seen before. And when it comes down to it, it's gonna be one of ideas. McCain is making his war hero status a major issue, just like the Obamas play up their sacrificing private sector jobs for public service. But aside from those character type selling points, this is gonna be the first time in a long time where we have a clear and distinct choice. More often than not, that choice will be made based on the marketplace of ideas and it's a beautiful thing.

[scottinnj]

Story Here (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/air-america-host-suspended-for-clinton-remarks/)

I was wondering where she was.
Listen I can't stand her politics, half the time I think she's lying to her audience, she's the Left's answer to Limbaugh, but to suspend her for saying "negative" things about a candidate.
She called Clinton and Ferraro "whores"

Well, it's not new. Anyone who has listened to her show knows that's one of her favorite ways to go after someone. At least she keeps it to political figures who, let's face it, most of the time deserve to be called worse.

[foodcourtdruide]

Story Here (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/air-america-host-suspended-for-clinton-remarks/)

I was wondering where she was.
Listen I can't stand her politics, half the time I think she's lying to her audience, she's the Left's answer to Limbaugh, but to suspend her for saying "negative" things about a candidate.
She called Clinton and Ferraro "whores"

Well, it's not new. Anyone who has listened to her show knows that's one of her favorite ways to go after someone. At least she keeps it to political figures who, let's face it, most of the time deserve to be called worse.

I find her unlistenable.

[scottinnj]

I find her unlistenable.

Belieeve me, she's not an everyday listen for me either. Usually I put her on when I got tired on the road and wanted to build up my blood pressure by screaming at the radio. And I don't understand why she doesn't like Ed Schultz.

But whatever the reason, she shouldn't have been fired for what she said-she's been like that for years!

[ShowerBench]

Saint McCain, why we're in Iraq, and why Saint McCain will probably become the next president because the mainstream media is shoving a sure loser down our throats in the Democratic primary

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040308.shtml

Is Collins human? It’s hard to be certain. Today, she refuses to tell the simple truth about what Saint McCain actually said. Two cycles ago, she was making it up about somebody different, of course; she was making it up about Gore. As we’ve said before, this punishing account of the first Gore-Bradley debate is exceptionally hard to reconcile with the actual tape of what actually happened. Beyond that, we think the highlighted statement may be the most inhuman thing we’ve seen in ten years at this post:

COLLINS (10/29/99): Al Gore has a personality without a thermostat, and when he tries to look animated he practically crashes into the wallboard. On Wednesday he hijacked the auditorium early on, begging for a chance to do a pre-debate Q.-and-A. ("This person has a question! Do we have time for his question?") He tossed in a little Spanish and a long joke, and made endless attempts to create Clintonesque mind-melds with the audience. ("How old is your child, Corey?” “Are you unionized, Earl?") At the end, he refused to be dragged offstage. ("Can I say one more word? I would like to stay!") He bore an uncomfortable resemblance to the kid who asks the teacher for more homework. Mr. Bradley, lounging on his stool, arms folded across his chest, looked like the high school athlete watching the class nerd volunteer to stay and clap erasers.

“Corey” was New Hampshire resident Corey Martin—a young mother who had a sick child. Gore asked her how old her child was (five) and if the family had insurance (they did). To Collins—and to others in her sick cohort—this could, by the rules of game, mean only one unflattering thing. And it had to involve the vile Clinton.

(In fairness to Collins, a long string of her colleagues also mocked Gore as “Clintonesque” for daring to ask Corey Martin that question—for daring to ask a young woman about her sick child. You really see who the sick ones are when you fight through their palace-bred columns.)

If you watched the tape of that debate, you’d see how bogus that paragraph was. But every pundit was typing it up, and Collins—plagiarizing Jacob Weisberg rather openly with that crap about “Clintonesque mind-melds”—typed it up with the other dukes and the duchesses. This was the novel they were writing—and it’s how we got to Iraq.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I find her unlistenable.
Her voice sounds like a female Master Shake, but I did listen to her when I still listened to editorial-political radio. She does a decent show, but she really is the female Mark Levin. Just a nasty, vicious ass. Still, she didn't deserve to get suspended. There's a picture of her hugging Bill Clinton somewhere. I'm not sure if it's surfaced since this whole debacle, but she had it on her site back when she was first on Air America.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1204/543091167_c379df517b.jpg
EDIT: The above isn't the one I'm talking about. The one I mentioned is from an event in FL that took place before she was even on AAR

[Zorro]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120752124724993417.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

[Bulldogcakes]

Condi Rice courting VP nod? (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html)

Interesting idea, not sure what to make of it. I can't say she's distinguished herself as Sec of State, but let's face it she worked for GW Bush. So that . . . uhhh . . . complicates things shall we say. Put it this way, its tough to look good when you play for the KC Royals. Comprende?

[scottinnj]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120752124724993417.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

He was a thorn in her side anyway. He was the one who started the "maybe Obama dealt cocaine too" and was excoriated in the press.
Good by, good riddance. The campaign trail is going to be much nicer without him on it.

[epo]

He was a thorn in her side anyway. He was the one who started the "maybe Obama dealt cocaine too" and was excoriated in the press.
Good by, good riddance. The campaign trail is going to be much nicer without him on it.

I cannot state how much I loathe Mark Penn. Of course, he runs a tangled web, which included being the CEO of Burson-Marstellar, the big PR firm...which includes a subsidiary BKSH, which employed Charlie Black, John McCain's main strategist. Link to story here (http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mark-penns-tangled-corporate-web.html).

This is one of the many reasons the left has been screaming about Mark Penn for some time as many have felt that Penn turned the campaign negative for the benefit of McCain and not Clinton. Later, Charlie Black did resign BKSH, but the path was set at that point.

He is one of the few people on this planet that I can truly state: Fuck him.

[FUNKMAN]

Condi Rice courting VP nod? (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html)

Interesting idea, not sure what to make of it. I can't say she's distinguished herself as Sec of State, but let's face it she worked for GW Bush. So that . . . uhhh . . . complicates things shall we say. Put it this way, its tough to look good when you play for the KC Royals. Comprende?

at a quick glance I think Obama/Rice could be a nice ticket... for some reason I feel deep down she feels the Iraq War should never have happened... just thinking aloud

[high fly]

Condi Rice courting VP nod? (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html)

Interesting idea, not sure what to make of it. I can't say she's distinguished herself as Sec of State, but let's face it she worked for GW Bush. So that . . . uhhh . . . complicates things shall we say. Put it this way, its tough to look good when you play for the KC Royals. Comprende?


Rice would provide the all important measure of continuity.
The new administration will need an accomplished liar to maintain the Bush tradition.

She was a mistake from the start.
Rice's major credential when she was hired was she was an expert on an empire that no longer exists.

She then proceeded in her job as national security advisor to fail to be concerned with our national security by turning a blind eye to over 100 reports I can document of an impending terrorist attack that turned out to be 9/11.
Rice remained unfazed by reports that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was sending operatives to America to link up with an existing network to carry out attacks.
She brushed off other reports that said the upcoming atttack would cause massive numbers of civilian casualties and would "shake the world."
She ignored reports that attack preparations were completed.

Then after 9/11 Rice lied when she testified no one had foreseen terrorists using planes as weapons.

She lied again when she said the August 6 briefing given to Bush "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." was about an attack in the U.S. that bin Laden was determined to carry out.

Rice was at the center of the lying to get us into Iraq, at one point saying maybe someone deep in the bureacracy was aware the documents the "N-country" uranium purchase allegation was based on were bogus, claiming nobody in her circle was aware of that, even though she had been sent emails telling her so from George Tenet himself.

Every time Rice is confronted with her own words she gets huffy about how seriously she takes her integrity, but never explains why she has told one bald-faced lie after the other....

[epo]

ShowerBench's favorite poll as of today:

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii49/j2christ/040908DailyUpdateGraph1_mnbvert.gif

[thejives]

ShowerBench's favorite poll as of today:

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii49/j2christ/040908DailyUpdateGraph1_mnbvert.gif

Breaking 50% three times in a row.

[keithy_19]

Rice would provide the all important measure of continuity.
The new administration will need an accomplished liar to maintain the Bush tradition.

She was a mistake from the start.
Rice's major credential when she was hired was she was an expert on an empire that no longer exists.

She then proceeded in her job as national security advisor to fail to be concerned with our national security by turning a blind eye to over 100 reports I can document of an impending terrorist attack that turned out to be 9/11.
Rice remained unfazed by reports that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was sending operatives to America to link up with an existing network to carry out attacks.
She brushed off other reports that said the upcoming atttack would cause massive numbers of civilian casualties and would "shake the world."
She ignored reports that attack preparations were completed.

Then after 9/11 Rice lied when she testified no one had foreseen terrorists using planes as weapons.

She lied again when she said the August 6 briefing given to Bush "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." was about an attack in the U.S. that bin Laden was determined to carry out.

Rice was at the center of the lying to get us into Iraq, at one point saying maybe someone deep in the bureacracy was aware the documents the "N-country" uranium purchase allegation was based on were bogus, claiming nobody in her circle was aware of that, even though she had been sent emails telling her so from George Tenet himself.

Every time Rice is confronted with her own words she gets huffy about how seriously she takes her integrity, but never explains why she has told one bald-faced lie after the other....

The governement droppe dthe ball big time with 9/11. But, this started long before the Bush administration took office. The turning the other way mentality exsisted before Condaleeza Rice was around, though I do understand that's not an excuse.

[NewYorkDragons80]

ShowerBench's favorite poll as of today:

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii49/j2christ/040908DailyUpdateGraph1_mnbvert.gif

Wow do I hate polls. What happened between the 3rd and the 6th of April that caused the polls to go from dead even to a 10 point lead? Zilch. Pollsters, begone!

[Dude!]

Wow do I hate polls. What happened between the 3rd and the 6th of April that caused the polls to go from dead even to a 10 point lead? Zilch. Pollsters, begone!

that was the fallout of the 'i was under attack in bosnia' fiasco
reinforced that people feel she is a liar

[epo]

that was the fallout of the 'i was under attack in bosnia' fiasco
reinforced that people feel she is a liar

She really isn't having a good run of it now.

Combine the Bosnia mess which is destroying her credibility with the Mark Penn/Columbian government mess...and you've got a dip.

I think 41% is the lowest number that she has posted in a long time. Not a good sign when her best argument would be based on a "surge" going into the summer.

[NewYorkDragons80]

that was the fallout of the 'i was under attack in bosnia' fiasco
reinforced that people feel she is a liar
Nah bro. That Bosnia business got exposed a few days prior. The poll nonsense works both ways. If you go by the polls, McCain is trailing Hillary, but beating Obama. They're bullshit.

[TheMojoPin]

Nah bro. That Bosnia business got exposed a few days prior. The poll nonsense works both ways. If you go by the polls, McCain is trailing Hillary, but beating Obama. They're bullshit.

It's been pretty steady negative/critical national press of Hillary over those days.

[NewYorkDragons80]

It's been pretty steady negative/critical national press of Hillary over those days.
I agree, but I think it was steady before that, too.

[TheMojoPin]

I agree, but I think it was steady before that, too.

True, but who knows when things peak for people? I agree, polls aren't set in stone, but there seems to be a trackable trend here.

[cougarjake13]

quick weird hypothetical question


what would happen if no one showed up to vote in november, all the people in america literally dont vote at all

does bush remain as president ???

does congress pick a winner ???

[ShowerBench]

:ohmy:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w294/oneifbyland/karlobama.jpg

[TooLowBrow]

quick weird hypothetical question


what would happen if no one showed up to vote in november, all the people in america literally dont vote at all

does bush remain as president ???

does congress pick a winner ???

it would be a tie

bush would win

[TheMojoPin]

:ohmy:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w294/oneifbyland/karlobama.jpg

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/wantedfortreason.jpg

[Recyclerz]

:ohmy:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w294/oneifbyland/karlobama.jpg

Mr. Bench - I'm guessing that you are either Harold Ickes, Jr. or you bet your life savings on Hilary in one of those political futures markets on the internet.

The Mom in The Incredibles didn't stretch as far as you do on some of these minutia. :blink:

[TheMojoPin]

Well, to be fair, true or not, that was a severe miscalculation by Obam and Co.. The comparison he posted, yes, is completely absurd, but the comment itself isn't just some minor thing.

[Recyclerz]

Well, to be fair, true or not, that was a severe miscalculation by Obam and Co.. The comparison he posted, yes, is completely absurd, but the comment itself isn't just some minor thing.

You may be right about that but I'm just not seeing what the fuss is about with this statement. When you look at it in the context of what he was saying, the point was that the people in these small towns have been fucked over and ignored for so long that they've stopped expecting any politician to actually do anything real for them so they fall back on secondary, mostly cultural issues to make their electoral choices. Is he wrong about that? I think the mainstream media is so invested in making the rest of the primary season into Ali-Frazier 3 that they're hyping everything into a major issue to keep viewership up. And, of course Hilary & the good folks at Fox News will get the manufactured outrage machines going full tilt for their own purposes.

Maybe I'm crazy but I prefer it when a politician talks to me like I'm an adult. If my radio hosts can do it (well, at least one) why shouldn't my President be able to? Or does that make me an "elitist"? :glurps:

[TheMojoPin]

You may be right about that but I'm just not seeing what the fuss is about with this statement. When you look at it in the context of what he was saying, the point was that the people in these small towns have been fucked over and ignored for so long that they've stopped expecting any politician to actually do anything real for them so they fall back on secondary, mostly cultural issues to make their electoral choices. Is he wrong about that? I think the mainstream media is so invested in making the rest of the primary season into Ali-Frazier 3 that they're hyping everything into a major issue to keep viewership up. And, of course Hilary & the good folks at Fox News will get the manufactured outrage machines going full tilt for their own purposes.

Maybe I'm crazy but I prefer it when a politician talks to me like I'm an adult. If my radio hosts can do it (well, at least one) why shouldn't my President be able to? Or does that make me an "elitist"? :glurps:

Hey, I agree with you...but for better or for worse it's gotta play for a much wider audience.

[Recyclerz]

Hey, I agree with you...

OK then. You get your water pistol, I'll get my pointy stick and we'll put the world to right.

[keithy_19]

Hey, I agree with you...but for better or for worse it's gotta play for a much wider audience.

It was a bad political move for him to make. Despite how he meant it, it came across as him talking down to the people of small town PA.

[scottinnj]

Bingo! Keithy_19 hit it on the head. His meaning is understood by us here on the board, we can take a few moments to reflect on the whole statement and see what he is meaning. What is going to happen is the Clinton campaign is going to jump on it, and play it out of context, and make the Pa. residents fear him. Then after she loses the primary, Rush and Sean will play it over and over and over......and over.......

[keithy_19]

Then after she loses the primary, Rush and Sean will play it over and over and over......and over.......

Wait...Rush wants McCain now!? HA!

[A.J.]

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/wantedfortreason.jpg

I pride myself on geographic knowledge but I had to Google "Katanga".

[NewYorkDragons80]

I pride myself on geographic knowledge but I had to Google "Katanga".
Katanga was the John Birch Society's wet dream. Then Mobutu gave em an even better deal to salivate over.

[K.C.]

As far as the 'if no one voted in November' hypothetical goes...

Since neither candidate would have the electoral votes to claim the nomination, it would go to the Congress and I believe they would select a President.

[K.C.]

I'll admit I haven't been as on the ball about the election since we've had this big lull in the primary schedule, but the general feeling I get, especially living near and interacting with people in PA on the east side of the state is quite interesting.


First, I think Obama has been taking a pounding. I've heard a LOT more about the stuff that's gone down with him the last few days than I have about Hillary's Bosnia thing.

The negative Obama stuff seems to be resonating a lot more.

Second, I think there is an increasingly growing concern that what Hillary's been doing to him will be done to Obama 10-fold in the general election and McCain will just walk all over him.


The polls in PA have been closing in the past couple weeks...I'd be shocked if they don't widen again in Hillary's favor. And my guess is she'll probably outperform the polls in terms of margin anyway, because Rendell is pretty good at delivering.


I'd say she takes it 60-40...she might take Indiana by that margin too.


The real test of whether the anti-Obama stuff is resonating will be North Carolina. There's been some indications his lead has shrunk a bit there. If he only eeks that out or even loses, he has real problems.

And if he were to lose out the rest of the primary schedule (unlikely with NC and Oregon, but possible), he won't be the nominee. The superdelegates will flee the ship.


This is a prizefight and the Clintons are the champs...and the age-old adage is to beat the champ, you have to knock the champ out...I wouldn't want this to go to a decision if I'm Obama. Because he's at a complete disadvantage in terms of backroom manuverability.

[ShowerBench]

Second, I think there is an increasingly growing concern that what Hillary's been doing to him will be done to Obama 10-fold in the general election and McCain will just walk all over him.

His "strength" was supposed to be moderate and right-leaning voters. He blew it with them.

The formula for beating a Democrat is to paint him as culturally weird/unpatriotic (check. See Rev Wright); effete (check); intellectual (check. Angry white men cling to guns and God); weak, therefore weak on defense (check. Let's be friends with Iran).

Without rural voters Obama is left with a coalition of black voters, college professors, college students, and newspaper editors. The kind of candidate superdelegates were invented to eliminate.

As for the threatened defections for both candidates, Clinton can win back Obama backers with Obama on the ticket or in strong support of her candidacy, which would happen if he wanted a future. Black voters and academics would be voting against their entire ideology if they defected to the GOP.

By contrast, Clinton's defectors would be the Reagan Democrats who want to vote Democratic for economic reasons but don't think they are losing everything by going with a Republican over a Democrat. They are comfortable with McCain or Clinton and they can't be won back with Obama at the top of the D ticket.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm beginning to think the Democrats have simply blown it either way by this primary dragging on. It's driving away voters, and bth candidates are too vulnerable to draw back enough to beat someone as media-friendly and "clean" as McCain. Hillary sure as hell isn't going to do it. To think that a figure as polarizing and easily demonized as her is going to beat out McCain short of him being crippled by a maor scandal is delusional. The primaries have only magnified the negative perceptions of her.

[ShowerBench]

The same thing happened in Mass, with McCain tying Obama and Clinton leading McCain by 13.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_presidential_election

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows McCain attracting 53% of the vote while Obama earns 38%.

If McCain is matched against Hillary Clinton, the race is a toss-up—Clinton 45% McCain 44%.

[ShowerBench]

I'm beginning to think the Democrats have simply blown it either way by this primary dragging on. It's driving away voters, and bth candidates are too vulnerable to draw back enough to beat someone as media-friendly and "clean" as McCain. Hillary sure as hell isn't going to do it. To think that a figure as polarizing and easily demonized as her is going to beat out McCain short of him being crippled by a maor scandal is delusional. The primaries have only magnified the negative perceptions of her.

She has a better than even chance of beating him. If it's a Clinton/Obama ticket he's finished.

[Dudeman]

:ohmy:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w294/oneifbyland/karlobama.jpg

Just because it is Marx doen't mean it is wrong. Really, which is more likely: god impregnanting a virgin who gives rise to his son; or a set of beliefs about things bigger than humans used to "soothe" people. I think Marx makes more sense than the Pope.

[TheMojoPin]

She has a better than even chance of beating him. If it's a Clinton/Obama ticket he's finished.

It's highly unlikely that that ends up being the ticket the way this race has gone. They're both well past the point of no return of them working together.

[K.C.]

I'm beginning to think the Democrats have simply blown it either way by this primary dragging on. It's driving away voters, and bth candidates are too vulnerable to draw back enough to beat someone as media-friendly and "clean" as McCain. Hillary sure as hell isn't going to do it. To think that a figure as polarizing and easily demonized as her is going to beat out McCain short of him being crippled by a maor scandal is delusional. The primaries have only magnified the negative perceptions of her.

The way the primaries are turning has definitely reflected badly on the Democrats and they are on the verge of blowing this.


While I think you're wrong about it being delusional to think Clinton can beat McCain (because she'll do to him what Bush did to him in 2000), it's pretty unlikely she's going to win the nomination unless Obama self-destructs in the next few weeks from the pressure of all this scrutiny on him.

And the ferocity with which she's torpedoing him has taken a lot of the luster of his star and damaged him.


A month and a half ago...McCain was the Bob Dole of this election year...now, he's got to be considered the favorite, just because the Dems are eating each other alive.

[TheMojoPin]

While I think you're wrong about it being delusional to think Clinton can beat McCain (because she'll do to him what Bush did to him in 2000)

Personally, I think she's a much bigger and more vulnerable target in terms of attacks.

[ShowerBench]

Just because it is Marx doen't mean it is wrong. Really, which is more likely: god impregnanting a virgin who gives rise to his son; or a set of beliefs about things bigger than humans used to "soothe" people. I think Marx makes more sense than the Pope.

Agree but in political terms, it's not that Obama is "commie" but his comments were close to Marx's (Bill Kristol points this out in today's NYT) and he comes off as an out of touch hyperintellectual who is calling on old standards learned in college as an undergrad because he has no reference points in the real world that enable him to comprehend religion or guns as something other than an irrational reaction to something else.

[ShowerBench]

Personally, I think she's a much bigger and more vulnerable target in terms of attacks.

I disagree with that. I think Clinton's entire campaign has been geared toward making her invulnerable to the usual line of attack that has worked against Kerry, Gore and everyone else in the last three decades except Bill Clinton: Paint the Democrat as weak on defense, hyperintellectual, out of touch with "real" America/unpatriotic, effete, and more than a little "weird."

Obama is extremely vulnerable to "the formula," because of conditioning of voters over the last decades to perceive a Democrat in that way, but also because of his own recent comments, his demeanor, and his personal history (Wright, family background).

If those lines of attack are removed then issues become the focus. That's Clinton's strategy vs. McCain and she's been extremely effective there so far. Basically she says to voters: I'm not going to claim I'm not a typical politician but I have a history of dedication to these issues and McCain and I are normal and like you, so judge us on the issues.

[Dudeman]

Agree but in political terms, it's not that Obama is "commie" but his comments were close to Marx's (Bill Kristol points this out in today's NYT) and he comes off as an out of touch hyperintellectual who is calling on old standards learned in college as an undergrad because he has no reference points in the real world that enable him to comprehend religion or guns as something other than an irrational reaction to something else.

Well here is a hyperintellectual statment: Bill Kistol is a dushebag. And personally, after dipshit presidents like George W and Regan, some hyperinteleectuals would be nice. I'd hope the president is hyperintellectual rather than hyperregular or hyperstupid.

[TheMojoPin]

I disagree with that. I think Clinton's entire campaign has been geared toward making her invulnerable to the usual line of attack that has worked against Kerry, Gore and everyone else in the last three decades except Bill Clinton: Paint the Democrat as weak on defense, hyperintellectual, out of touch with "real" America/unpatriotic, effete, and more than a little "weird."

Obama is extremely vulnerable to "the formula," because of conditioning of voters over the last decades to perceive a Democrat in that way, but also because of his own recent comments, his demeanor, and his personal history (Wright, family background).

If those lines of attack are removed then issues become the focus. That's Clinton's strategy vs. McCain and she's been extremely effective there so far. Basically she says to voters: I'm not going to claim I'm not a typical politician but I have a history of dedication to these issues and McCain and I are normal and like you, so judge us on the issues.

The bottom line is that Clinton's image is a "dirty" one and by contrast McCain is lillywhite "clean." The general perception is that what Bush did to him 8 years ago was dirty politics at its worst, and if Clinton or anyone else attempts the same, it's going to backfire on them. The press treat McCain with kid gloves, and he's gonna skate now that he's the Republican top dog. Clinton is all of those things you keep claiming the Republicans target, except for "effete," which is a nonsensical observation you keep tromping out yet can't back up in any way...besides, even if that is legit, Clinton can be brought down in that regard by simply being a woman and, in too many people's minds, inherrently "weak" or vulnerable because of it. Clinton being beyond charges of being "too intellectual" or "out of touch" or unpatriotic or "weird" are just absurd...she's the model of those things to a generation of conservatives and Republicans. It maes zero sense to me how you can honestly sit there and claim she's immune or above those perceptions.

[Recyclerz]

I disagree with that. I think Clinton's entire campaign has been geared toward making her invulnerable to the usual line of attack that has worked against Kerry, Gore and everyone else in the last three decades except Bill Clinton: Paint the Democrat as weak on defense, hyperintellectual, out of touch with "real" America/unpatriotic, effete, and more than a little "weird."

Obama is extremely vulnerable to "the formula," because of conditioning of voters over the last decades to perceive a Democrat in that way, but also because of his own recent comments, his demeanor, and his personal history (Wright, family background).

If those lines of attack are removed then issues become the focus. That's Clinton's strategy vs. McCain and she's been extremely effective there so far. Basically she says to voters: I'm not going to claim I'm not a typical politician but I have a history of dedication to these issues and McCain and I are normal and like you, so judge us on the issues.

I see your point about Obama and it's possible thats the way it will turn out but I would argue that Obama has skills and resources to blow up that model and construct a different "either/or" scenario between the two parties that isn't accepting the Republican terms of debate and comes up with something that is fairer and closer to reality for voters to use. Whether he pulls it off or not we'll have to wait and see but I think Obama is more the "gamechanger" or "big play" guy to use the football lingo.

I'm not trying to start a flame war but I can't disagree more than where I think you are coming out on Hilary's chances. Your analysis of her plan seems about right and I'll have to admit that her plan seems well thought out and carefully crafted. However, the same attributes could have described the Maginot Line in 1939 and I suspect Hilary's plans will be just about as effective. I believe the Democrats need somebody who will appeal to the Independents who either are casual followers of politics or who are so fed up that they'll vote for anybody who has a chance to "make things work" and they don't give a shit about political ideology, short of real extremes (eg. Kucinich on the Left, Tancredo on the Right). Right now these people are hating on the current regime almost at the same level as self-described Democrats so the Democratic Party has a chance to win them over into a new center-left coalition that will push out the center-right coalition that Reagan ushered in. Every fiber in my being screams that Hilary can't get those votes and that Obama has a chance to.

You might say that Bill Clinton was the vanguard of the Democrat-Independent model that I'm describing and that Hilary can (or should) pick up that mantle. I can't say that Bill Clinton didn't put into place some excellent policies but he did not change the political model that Republicans have used to bitch slap the Democrats since 1980 and pretty severely fuck up my country in the process over the last 7 years. Bill only got elected in 1992 because Perot picked up enough of the independents from Bush 1 to allow him to win with just Democratic support (43%) and got re-elected in 1996 (with a weak opponent)
by "triangulating" himself away from his party. It was either savvy or selfish, depending on your POV, but it was no way to build a lasting coalition.

If you want to know what I think Hilary's biggest weakness is, read the attached link to a David Brooks column from a few months ago. Her having her ass handed to her in '94 with the healthcare reform initiative will be the most talked about issue of this campaign, partly on policy grounds (although I think the Republican talking points are weaker now than they were then) but on managerial style most of all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html

That is all (for now). :wink:

edit: Oh and what Mojo said too.

[epo]

:ohmy:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w294/oneifbyland/karlobama.jpg

That is insane. Seriously...Obama speaks the cold, hard truth about rural America and this is all you can come up with?

Listen to this:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sc9PepjyDow&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sc9PepjyDow&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Do you know what's scary for the Clinton & McCain campaigns? Obama is SO much more in touch than them, that they've gotta slime the shit out of him at every turn.

[epo]

His "strength" was supposed to be moderate and right-leaning voters. He blew it with them.

The formula for beating a Democrat is to paint him as culturally weird/unpatriotic (check. See Rev Wright); effete (check); intellectual (check. Angry white men cling to guns and God); weak, therefore weak on defense (check. Let's be friends with Iran).

Without rural voters Obama is left with a coalition of black voters, college professors, college students, and newspaper editors. The kind of candidate superdelegates were invented to eliminate.

As for the threatened defections for both candidates, Clinton can win back Obama backers with Obama on the ticket or in strong support of her candidacy, which would happen if he wanted a future. Black voters and academics would be voting against their entire ideology if they defected to the GOP.

By contrast, Clinton's defectors would be the Reagan Democrats who want to vote Democratic for economic reasons but don't think they are losing everything by going with a Republican over a Democrat. They are comfortable with McCain or Clinton and they can't be won back with Obama at the top of the D ticket.

You have no evidence for this entire statement. In fact I'll give you evidence that Obama not only works with disgruntled Republicans and Independent, but that Clinton doesn't:

Montana General Election: (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/montana/election_2008_montana_presidential_election)

McCain: 48%
Obama: 43%

McCain: 54%
Clinton: 36%

You can't get anymore conservative & independent that area and Obama is in play, while Clinton is not. Fact.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Barack is a badass - I say give him a chance.

HRC comes across as a phony, shrill, opportunistic (insert: rhymes with how you kick a football).

I feel sorry for the New Yorkers who have to put up with that pissed-off sour puss for four more years after she loses the nomination.

[TheMojoPin]

HRC comes across as a phony, shrill, opportunistic (insert: rhymes with how you kick a football).

What rhymes with "laces out?"

[cougarjake13]

Wha rhymes with "laces out?"

i say punt the cunt

[Jujubees2]

McCain calls for a summer 'gas-tax holiday' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24120727/)

Jesus, this guy just doesn't get it. I know he said he doesn't know much about the economy but get real. We're spending trillions in Iraq and he wants to have a tax-holiday?

I also love how he says that Clinton and Obama would impose the single largest tax increase since World War II by allowing tax cuts pushed to passage by President Bush to expire. And here's the kicker. McCain twice voted against the very tax cuts he now supports; he says failing to extend them would amount to tax increases for millions of people.
Yeah, all those millionaires would have to start paying more tax again. That so saddens me.

[epo]

McCain calls for a summer 'gas-tax holiday' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24120727/)

Jesus, this guy just doesn't get it. I know he said he doesn't know much about the economy but get real. We're spending trillions in Iraq and he wants to have a tax-holiday?

I also love how he says that Clinton and Obama would impose the single largest tax increase since World War II by allowing tax cuts pushed to passage by President Bush to expire. And here's the kicker. McCain twice voted against the very tax cuts he now supports; he says failing to extend them would amount to tax increases for millions of people.
Yeah, all those millionaires would have to start paying more tax again. That so saddens me.

Let's face it..."Straight-Talkin' John McCain" has been dead for quite awhile. As soon as he met with the religious crazees it was clearly over.

[keithy_19]

McCain calls for a summer 'gas-tax holiday' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24120727/)

Jesus, this guy just doesn't get it. I know he said he doesn't know much about the economy but get real. We're spending trillions in Iraq and he wants to have a tax-holiday?

I also love how he says that Clinton and Obama would impose the single largest tax increase since World War II by allowing tax cuts pushed to passage by President Bush to expire. And here's the kicker. McCain twice voted against the very tax cuts he now supports; he says failing to extend them would amount to tax increases for millions of people.
Yeah, all those millionaires would have to start paying more tax again. That so saddens me.

He was against the tax cuts because there was a war going on. He won't get rid of them now because the economy is doing very poorly.

That seems entirely clear and level-headed to me.

[epo]

He was against the tax cuts because there was a war going on. He won't get rid of them now because the economy is doing very poorly.

That seems entirely clear and level-headed to me.

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. -- John McCain, January 21, 2008.

McCain is simply clueless on economics. The mere fact that in this post-Nafta economy that he doesn't promote education as a cornerstone of this economic policy only proves what an ideologue he has become. Honestly, in an innovation based economy, education has to be your #1 investment...not corporate tax cuts.

In fact corporate tax cuts are in many ways meaningless, if not hurtful in such an economy.

As for a "gas tax vacation", it's as meaningless as this stupid ass "stimulus package" that Washington came up with.

[HBox]

He was against the tax cuts because there was a war going on. He won't get rid of them now because the economy is doing very poorly.

That seems entirely clear and level-headed to me.

There's.......... not a war going on anymore?

[HBox]

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. -- John McCain, January 21, 2008.

McCain is simply clueless on economics. The mere fact that in this post-Nafta economy that he doesn't promote education as a cornerstone of this economic policy only proves what an ideologue he has become. Honestly, in an innovation based economy, education has to be your #1 investment...not corporate tax cuts.

In fact corporate tax cuts are in many ways meaningless, if not hurtful in such an economy.

As for a "gas tax vacation", it's as meaningless as this stupid ass "stimulus package" that Washington came up with.

I'd argue that the gas tax holiday is self-destructive, driving up the demand for gas when producers can barely meet it in the meantime. It's as stupid and thoughtless and as shameless a political give away as the medicare drug debacle.

Not only does it demonstrate a basic economic ignorance, it demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the energy crisis if he think that doing this is a positive. It's very disappointing to me that this and his half-assed home mortgage plan are the kind of stuff we are getting out of him on the domestic front.

[keithy_19]

There's.......... not a war going on anymore?

No. But at that time the economy wasn't like it is today. I'm just saying that raising taxes now would really hurt the average American even more than they are already hurting.

[HBox]

No. But at that time the economy wasn't like it is today. I'm just saying that raising taxes now would really hurt the average American even more than they are already hurting.

But keeping the war on for an indefinite period, A-OK?

[TooLowBrow]

o&a brought up the whole tax being like boiling a frog idea

this war debt is different tho because, sure we're spending trillions,
but no one is trillions poorer
the economy sucks, but not 'war-torn nation' sucks

[HBox]

o&a brought up the whole tax being like boiling a frog idea

this war debt is different tho because, sure we're spending trillions,
but no one is trillions poorer
the economy sucks, but not 'war-torn nation' sucks

Because we never had the money in the first place. Somebody is going to have to pay all that off eventually.