this is the greatest statement in a presidental debate... ever

[Dudeman]

step aside "I knew jack kennedy, jack kennedy was a friend of mine. senator you are no jack kennedy."

From tonight's debate:

"Obama was asked if he agreed with the famed black novelist Toni Morrison who dubbed Bill Clinton "the first black president."

"I would have to investigate more, Bill's dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was, in fact, a brother," Obama said. " :clap::lol::smoke:

[epo]

Seriously though, that debate tonight was fucking awesome. As I was getting sick of all of it, I got totally energized by all three candidates on that stage.

I may have nuanced differences with each of them, but they are all in the same ballpark. But here is the kicker for me...they all aren't afraid to kick some ass. You seriously saw 2 hours of verbal sparing by 3 candidates who knew their shit.

I don't think a single Republican could have survived that stage tonight.

And that free-wheeling format was awesome. I urge at least one of the general election debates to be done in that format. It truly forced the candidates to get out of the new-school 30 second soundbite answers and actually answer some damned questions.

[earthbrown]

It is a win win for republicans....hillary or obama will easily be defeated.

But If I had to pick a democrat, I would rather have obama over hillary.


K

[epo]

It is a win win for republicans....hillary or obama will easily be defeated.

But If I had to pick a democrat, I would rather have obama over hillary.


K

Why is that a win/win for Republicans?

I'd like your in-depth analysis.

[led37zep]

From tonight's debate:

"Obama was asked if he agreed with the famed black novelist Toni Morrison who dubbed Bill Clinton "the first black president."

"I would have to investigate more, Bill's dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was, in fact, a brother," Obama said. " :clap::lol::smoke:


Ah, I'm going to let my black friends that this is what you need to be black.

[earthbrown]

Why is that a win/win for Republicans?

I'd like your in-depth analysis.

to put it bluntly, america will not elect a black or woman.


K

[led37zep]

to put it bluntly, america will not elect a black or woman.


K

That may be true but what if they were voting for Queen Latifah who by a HILARIOUS set of chance was running with Jimmy Fallon?

http://orvillelloyddouglas.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/255038queen-latifah-posters.jpg

[epo]

to put it bluntly, america will not elect a black or woman.

K

It's funny as it's obvious that was your answer. But everytime I hear that answer it's from an uptight, white guy who votes hardcore Republican. I never hear that from a moderate, a real independent or a democrat.

I think that's because America actually doesn't give a shit if we elect a purple hermaphrodite as long as the sombitch can govern. After that fucking trainwreck that your white man from Texas has given us, it's forced America to look at itself in the mirror and get over itself.

The other "claim" that these hardcores tell me is that if Hillary or especially Obama were elected, that they would be assasinated. I'm sure you think the same while you masturbate to Michael Savage's broadcast at night.

Seriously dude, it isn't America that's not ready for a black president or a female president. It's you.

[high fly]

It is a win win for republicans....hillary or obama will easily be defeated.

But If I had to pick a democrat, I would rather have obama over hillary.


K

Things change, but I believe if the election was held to day the Democratic Party candidate would beat the Republican and the Dems would achieve large gains in the House and Senate.



The neocons have:

* vastly expanded the bureaucracy,

* turned record-sized surpluses into record-sized deficits,

* have taken away our rights

* have assaulted the very checks and balances that are at the heart of our system by giving themselves permission to act illegally if they merely claim the reason is "natioal security."

*They have given us an ocen of over $4 trillion in red ink while amazingly retaining a straight face and claiming to be "fiscally responsible."

* They have gotten us into a quagmire in Iraq and their claims of "winning militarily" bring back a line from the Vietnam War:
Circa July 1966, Lt. Gen. Krulak, Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force Pacific
“... had said in a letter of thanks to [Lt. General "Silent Lew"] Walt: “Everywhere I turned in III MAF I saw progress.” He called Walt’s attention to a remark by an Army general that the United States was “winning militarily” in Vietnam, noting how “meaningless” the statement was. “You cannot win militarily,” Krulak said. “You have to win totally, or you are not winning at all.””
--- A BRIGHT SHINING LIE John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam, by Neil Sheehan, p. 635

* By "going in light and on the cheap," as the late great david hackworth said, they have allowed al Qaeda to escape, reform, replace fallen leaders, heal their wounded, carefully examine their errors and learn from them, decentralize and come roaring back stronger than ever.

* Their policies of giving the most to those who need the least, and giving the least to those who need the most, have resulted in a greater number of people below the poverty line, wage stagnation in the middle and lower classes as prices rise, and another Republican recession looms.

* Another 8 million Americans are no longer able to afford health care insurance, including 1.8 million veterans

* AND OSAMA BIN FUCKING LADEN IS STILL FREE!!!!


AMERICANS ARE SICK OF THE REPUBLICANS!!!

[TheMojoPin]

to put it bluntly, america will not elect a black or woman.


K

The results thus far indicate the exact opposite.

"You" are not "America."

[SinA]

Why is that a win/win for Republicans?

I'd like your in-depth analysis.

i agree with that, but for a different reason

i think having the two top democrats get so vicious is playing right into the republicans strategy. by contrast, the republican campaigns are very benign (except for mccain, but that's because he's a maverick which is another way of saying he's old and out of touch)

the GOP can just watch as the dems destruct each other to the point that they won't be able to reconcile after the convention, and steal their third election by blitzing the big dumb states like ohio and florida.

[TheMojoPin]

i agree with that, but for a different reason

i think having the two top democrats get so vicious is playing right into the republicans strategy. by contrast, the republican campaigns are very benign (except for mccain, but that's because he's a maverick which is another way of saying he's old and out of touch)

the GOP can just watch as the dems destruct each other to the point that they won't be able to reconcile after the convention, and steal their third election by blitzing the big dumb states like ohio and florida.

Is it really that vicious? Obama hasn't gone on the attack, and the Clintons haven't even touched their previous levels of dirty Clinton-ness. We've seen a LOT worse in recent history.

[SinA]

Is it really that vicious? Obama hasn't gone on the attack, and the Clintons haven't even touched their previous levels of dirty Clinton-ness. We've seen a LOT worse in recent history.



did you even see the debate tonight? hillary called obama a "no good N" and he punched her in the fupa.

[spoon]

I have no problem with these guys debating the way they did, as it's only going to get worse in the general election when the GOP money starts churning for one candidate. What will replace the swift boaters this time? I guess it depends on the Dem that gets the nod.

[AKA]

I don't think a single Republican could have survived that stage tonight.

I basically agree with you, however i wouldn't underestimate Huckabee in a debate.

[DarkHippie]

to put it bluntly, america will not elect a black or woman.


K

Most of the people who wouldn't vote for a black or woman wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway.

[EliSnow]

Most of the people who wouldn't vote for a black or woman wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!

We have a winner!

[foodcourtdruide]

It's funny as it's obvious that was your answer. But everytime I hear that answer it's from an uptight, white guy who votes hardcore Republican. I never hear that from a moderate, a real independent or a democrat.

I think that's because America actually doesn't give a shit if we elect a purple hermaphrodite as long as the sombitch can govern. After that fucking trainwreck that your white man from Texas has given us, it's forced America to look at itself in the mirror and get over itself.

The other "claim" that these hardcores tell me is that if Hillary or especially Obama were elected, that they would be assasinated. I'm sure you think the same while you masturbate to Michael Savage's broadcast at night.

Seriously dude, it isn't America that's not ready for a black president or a female president. It's you.

Agree 100% with epo.

[IamFogHat]

I'd like your in-depth analysis.

to put it bluntly, america will not elect a black or woman.




Well done.

[Furtherman]

to put it bluntly, america will not elect a black or woman.


K

I don't like Hillary or Obama.

But who is the GOP front runner now... Romney?

I'm sure he's a good family man, from what I can tell, and he's no dummy for getting where he is today.

But he considers himself a Mormon. It's very easy to investigate the origins of that religion. And I question anyone's intelligence who would still consider themselves part of that orginization.

[FUNKMAN]

don't believe I saw one mention of Edwards in this thread. it looks like he doesn't have much of a shot and his " i'm the only one that can compete with McCain in every state " is really weak

i was thinking an Obama/Edwards ticket could be strong but now I'm not so sure because of Edwards, he blinks too much -lol

[DarkHippie]

I don't like Hillary or Obama.

But who is the GOP front runner now... Romney?

I'm sure he's a good family man, from what I can tell, and he's no dummy for getting where he is today.

But he considers himself a Mormon. It's very easy to investigate the origins of that religion. And I question anyone's intelligence who would still consider themselves part of that orginization.

Eh, Mormonism is no crazier than any other religion. And they tend to be very nice people.

I have a soft spot for Mormons and Unitarians cause they are the only two religions created in America.

[Furtherman]

I have a soft spot for Mormons and Unitarians cause they are the only two religions created in America.

Exactly.

[thejives]

Yeah. that debate was pretty intense.
Hillary was on the board of Wal-Mart?

Nice!

I think the best line was when Obama snuck in that he couldn't tell if he was running against Bill or Hillary. The whole Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton thing is a major problem for me. Time for some change people!

[Recyclerz]

I have a soft spot for Mormons and Unitarians cause they are the only two religions created in America.

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/FacultyPages/PamMack/lec124/ironeyescody_450.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

I think it's very telling how diplomatic and hands-off the Republicans hae been towards Obama. Clinton getting the nomination is the best thing they can hope for between her and Obama, since it's like that she's the only one they could possibly beat between them. She's got momentum, and the Republicans are in shambles and the last 8 years are hurting them, but they know how to attack her, and they know the Clinton tactics from their first 8 years...hell, they flipped a lot of them and augmented them with some of their own for Bush's 8 years.

Hillary's got a push, and would likely beat anyone they have...except for McCain. I'd put good money on McCain if it was between him and Hillary. Obama has been too diplomatic and hasn't screwed up and nobody has anything real on him, so he'd likely beat all of their frontrunners. All there is "against" him is his being black, and the majority of people harping on that would likely nver vote Democratic in the first place (sorry to generalize, but based on everyone I've heard saying such things, it seems very true. That's not saying that everyone or most people on the Right think that way...just that those that do tend to fall on the side of the spectrum). The dumbest thing the Democrats can do is push Hillary i it looks like McCain is going to get the nod.

[badmonkey]

Obama's lack of experience is the main thing he has against him right now. It's really too bad that there isn't a better choice on the Democratic side right now to give him 4-8 as a VP to build the experience and resume. It's also too bad that if he wins the nomination, the fact that I disagree with his positions all over the place will make zero difference to the people that want to make it about the color of his skin.

I like him a LOT better than I like Hillary, but that alone doesn't qualify him for the job. Wish I could get excited about one of the Republican candidates.

Shit.

[TheMojoPin]

Obama's lack of experience is the main thing he has against him right now. It's really too bad that there isn't a better choice on the Democratic side right now to give him 4-8 as a VP to build the experience and resume. It's also too bad that if he wins the nomination, the fact that I disagree with his positions all over the place will make zero difference to the people that want to make it about the color of his skin.

I like him a LOT better than I like Hillary, but that alone doesn't qualify him for the job. Wish I could get excited about one of the Republican candidates.

Shit.

But even that hasn't really hurt him. He's got a a decade of experience going behind him, so it's not as if he can just be dismissed as being totally raw. If it could really hurt him, it would have been used much more already.

And like I said, it's likely the people that wouldn't vote for him because of his race probably wouldn't ever vote for a Democrat. Again, not saying that all or most people on the Right think like that...just that those that do tend to.

[epo]

Yes indeed, that was Dave Chappelle in the audience of the debate last night.

Link here. (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//080122/482/ca4466dfeeb249f69dfba7ca9d9c6f56/)

[furie]

to put it bluntly, america will not elect a black or woman.


K

if that were true then Edwards would be doing better.

[Fezticle98]

step aside "I knew jack kennedy, jack kennedy was a friend of mine. senator you are no jack kennedy."

From tonight's debate:

"Obama was asked if he agreed with the famed black novelist Toni Morrison who dubbed Bill Clinton "the first black president."

"I would have to investigate more, Bill's dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was, in fact, a brother," Obama said. " :clap::lol::smoke:

It would have been better if John Edwards said it.

I thought the debate sucked. Too much of a focus on petty personal jabs and very little focus on actual issues and specific policy points. But what else is new?

[Freakshow]

I think that's because America actually doesn't give a shit if we elect a purple hermaphrodite as long as the sombitch can govern. After that fucking trainwreck that your white man from Texas has given us, it's forced America to look at itself in the mirror and get over itself.


I would buy your theory a whole lot more, except Bush was elected twice. There is absolutely nothing that we know now, that we didn't know in '04.

[K.C.]

I think it's very telling how diplomatic and hands-off the Republicans hae been towards Obama. Clinton getting the nomination is the best thing they can hope for between her and Obama, since it's like that she's the only one they could possibly beat between them. She's got momentum, and the Republicans are in shambles and the last 8 years are hurting them, but they know how to attack her, and they know the Clinton tactics from their first 8 years...hell, they flipped a lot of them and augmented them with some of their own for Bush's 8 years.

Hillary's got a push, and would likely beat anyone they have...except for McCain. I'd put good money on McCain if it was between him and Hillary.

I have to disagree.

I think their approach to Obama is explained by several factors. For one thing, the Republicans and all their factions are too busy fighting each other for power over that party that they barely have time to throw a jab in passing at Hillary, let alone Obama.

Although, I tend to believe they're the ones behind the Obama is a muslim stuff, and you can hear Rush Limbaugh repeat 'Barack Hussein Obama' over and over and over again every day to drill it in people's head.

But secondly, I don't think they know how to handle Obama yet. For one thing, the Republicans have never run a national campaign against a black candidate (Jesse Jackson's primary runs don't really count), so there's just no playbook at the moment on how to take cheap shots at him without potentially getting themselves entangled in racial issues (i.e. Trent Lott).


Honestly, the way this campaign has played out on both sides, I think the Republicans would have an easier time running against Obama. He doesn't fight back. They would 527 him to death.

And as much as people like to vilify the Clintons, there's two things to remember.
-The Republicans threw the kitchen sink at them in the 90s (and then at Hillary in her senate run) and are 0-for-3.
-Nobody is as ruthless as they are when it comes to campaigning.


And the last point I'd like to make is that people are overrating McCain. 2008 John McCain is not 2000 John McCain. He will be tied at the hip to Bush from day one if he wins the nomination and he'll never escape it.

[TheMojoPin]

I think the Republicans showed with Both Bush wins and retaking the the House and Senate during the Clinton years showed they rebounded nicely...since the, the Democras have only won anything when the Republican have fucked up so badly the public can't take it anymore, and even that wasn't enough to sink Bush in '04. I don't think Hillary's taking of NY is any real trumping of the neo-con national machine that has blown up in the last 10 years.

The main difference is that at the end of the day, some people will opt to not vote for her because she's Hillary. Yes, Bill's coming along and that helps (let's be honest, it's the only reason she's here), but they beat out the Republicans 15 years ago because Bill was running, not her. Yes, this is the ideal time to run because the Republicans are in such shambles, but I don't think she's unbeatabe. The right Republican combo can take her down, and if McCain gets momentum that makes people remember him, he could easily be that guy. I think Obama has the upper hand against them for exactly the reasons you talked about...he has nothing to trash and villify anywhere near to the degree that the Clintons have in their past and he's got the whole race thing giving him huge protection. Pair him up with the right VP and I don't see a Republican candidate taking him down, ironically especially if it's McCain.

[Yerdaddy]

Is it really that vicious? Obama hasn't gone on the attack, and the Clintons haven't even touched their previous levels of dirty Clinton-ness. We've seen a LOT worse in recent history.

I'm just curious: what were the dirty things the Clintons did in the past?

[Yerdaddy]

Eh, Mormonism is no crazier than any other religion. And they tend to be very nice people.

I have a soft spot for Mormons and Unitarians cause they are the only two religions created in America.

And everyone knows Jesus was an Ammurikin!!!!!

[TheMojoPin]

I'm just curious: what were the dirty things the Clintons did in the past?

Well, that's some hyperbole on my part. I'm no fan of them, but really, they're just VERY good at handling spin and redirecting elsewhere as well as digging up dirt on their opponents. It's nothing exclusive to them.

[Yerdaddy]

I have to disagree.

I think their approach to Obama is explained by several factors. For one thing, the Republicans and all their factions are too busy fighting each other for power over that party that they barely have time to throw a jab in passing at Hillary, let alone Obama.

Although, I tend to believe they're the ones behind the Obama is a muslim stuff, and you can hear Rush Limbaugh repeat 'Barack Hussein Obama' over and over and over again every day to drill it in people's head.

But secondly, I don't think they know how to handle Obama yet. For one thing, the Republicans have never run a national campaign against a black candidate (Jesse Jackson's primary runs don't really count), so there's just no playbook at the moment on how to take cheap shots at him without potentially getting themselves entangled in racial issues (i.e. Trent Lott).


Honestly, the way this campaign has played out on both sides, I think the Republicans would have an easier time running against Obama. He doesn't fight back. They would 527 him to death.

And as much as people like to vilify the Clintons, there's two things to remember.
-The Republicans threw the kitchen sink at them in the 90s (and then at Hillary in her senate run) and are 0-for-3.
-Nobody is as ruthless as they are when it comes to campaigning.


And the last point I'd like to make is that people are overrating McCain. 2008 John McCain is not 2000 John McCain. He will be tied at the hip to Bush from day one if he wins the nomination and he'll never escape it.

Very much QFT.

Except for that last sentence. It's an interesting element; his biggest weakness in the primaries is the fact that the R base resents him for not being a party loyalist; normally the general election would favor his independence and would give him an advantage, but the two Bush wins showed that general elections don't have to be a race to the middle anymore. The question for a McCain general election campaign would be: how much do you distance or tie yourself to the fuck-up in the White House - or: do you go for the middle or the base?

I'm also curious how dirty he would get in a GE fight. He was the only Republican to speak out against the Swift Boaters in 04. Now the same pieces of shit went after him in South Carolina - accusing him with no evidence of selling out his fellow POWS, (even though every one of them says the opposite). Now, he won't be going up against a Democratic veteran, so it will be interesting to see how much he would tolerate from 527s who lie their asses off to get him elected but aren't slandering war veterans in the process. I'm sure he'd be more tolerant of attacks on Clinton than Obama, but I wonder how much he'll tolerate either way. I'm hoping he's the guy who brings the Republican back to a level of decency consistent with it's former values, but I'm not sure he can or will be that guy when the opportunity presents itself. Hopefully we'll see though.

[Yerdaddy]

Well, that's some hyperbole on my part. I'm no fan of them, but really, they're just VERY good at handling spin and redirecting elsewhere as well as digging up dirt on their opponents. It's nothing exclusive to them.

Which is totally fair game and exactly what I want the Democrats to do to stop the downward trajectory of winning elections through smear campaigns based on outright lies and denigrading military service. If they can beat the smears with mainly good defense then they can prove the Rove Doctrine wrong. Go Billary!

[sailor]

And like I said, it's likely the people that wouldn't vote for him because of his race probably wouldn't ever vote for a Democrat. Again, not saying that all or most people on the Right think like that...just that those that do tend to.

no democrats are racist? those are the ones he'd have to worry about not voting for him based on skin colour, not any republicans (who probably wouldn't be voting on him anyways, as you pointed out)..

btw, that bolded statement is a bit insulting.

[A.J.]

I'm just curious: what were the dirty things the Clintons did in the past?

A perfectly good blue dress....RUINED.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/175000/images/_176928_lewinsky_dress300.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

A perfectly good blue dress....RUINED.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/175000/images/_176928_lewinsky_dress300.jpg

Ruined my ass! That thing's worth a fortune! And you know she'll be wearing it some day on a has-been celebrity boxing show in about 15 years. Come out selling cigars in the audience and blowjobs back stage with a price tag stuck on her big fat ass.

[Yerdaddy]

no democrats are racist? those are the ones he'd have to worry about not voting for him based on skin colour, not any republicans (who probably wouldn't be voting on him anyways, as you pointed out)..

btw, that bolded statement is a bit insulting.

I'm confused. Democrats won't vote for Obama because he's black, and Republicans won't vote for him because he's a Democrat - but no Republicans base that decision on his race?

[A.J.]

Ruined my ass! That thing's worth a fortune! And you know she'll be wearing it some day on a has-been celebrity boxing show in about 15 years. Come out selling cigars in the audience and blowjobs back stage with a price tag stuck on her big fat ass.

Into which one can pee.

[sailor]

no democrats are racist? those are the ones he'd have to worry about not voting for him based on skin colour, not any republicans (who probably wouldn't be voting on him anyways, as you pointed out).

I'm confused. Democrats won't vote for Obama because he's black, and Republicans won't vote for him because he's a Democrat - but no Republicans base that decision on his race?

as mojo pointed out, most republican probably wouldn't vote for obama. makes sense, pretty straightforward. it would make more sense to me for his backers to be concerned about losing possible democratic voters who might otherwise have voted for him, all else being equal. i'm not saying there aren't republicans who would not vote for him based solely on basis of race, but i think any democrats who didn't vote for him based on race should be more of a concern for his aspirations. why be concerned about the racist republicans whose vote you were never getting, when any racist democrats would be votes you otherwise might have gotten?

[Zorro]

I have no problem with these guys debating the way they did, as it's only going to get worse in the general election when the GOP money starts churning for one candidate. What will replace the swift boaters this time? I guess it depends on the Dem that gets the nod.

I was under the impression that the Swiftboaters had been replaced by the Clinton's Backing of the Obama is a Muslim message. At least that's what's the John Kerry email said yesterday.

[A.J.]

I was under the impression that the Swiftboaters had been replaced by the Clinton's Backing of the Obama is a Muslim message. At least that's what's the John Kerry email said yesterday.

And how Hillary's campaign mentioned that the Republicans would bring up his past drug use.

[TheMojoPin]

as mojo pointed out, most republican probably wouldn't vote for obama. makes sense, pretty straightforward. it would make more sense to me for his backers to be concerned about losing possible democratic voters who might otherwise have voted for him, all else being equal. i'm not saying there aren't republicans who would not vote for him based solely on basis of race, but i think any democrats who didn't vote for him based on race should be more of a concern for his aspirations. why be concerned about the racist republicans whose vote you were never getting, when any racist democrats would be votes you otherwise might have gotten?

Yes, I firmly believe finding a large segment of citizen voters who always votes on the Left side of the spectrum who is also completely racist to the degree that "they'd never vote for a black man" is a relatively rare thing compared to people you'd find of that ilk who always vote to the Right (Libertarian et al included). Again, for the third time, that is NOT saying that all or most people on the Right are racist. That is saying people who would allow race to be the main swaying point in their vote tend to swerve to the Right. I'm not trying to take a a cheap shot..."racists" along those lines tend to swerve waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off to the extreme Right. No, that doesn't mean it defines the party. No, that doesn't mean I'm saying, "Republicans are all racist." It means I believe that most of the people who "would never vote for a black man" would likely never vote for a Democrat to begin with. I'm not saying that no Democrats are racist...fuck, they have dipshits like Byrd talking things up for them, and I know that fucker is one. But I believe that most of them would vote Democrat uber alles, just like I think the Riht "racists" would always vote Republican no matter what...long story short, the race thing is all but moot. It's all overwhelmd by supporting your political team.

[Bulldogcakes]

I don't think a single Republican could have survived that stage tonight.


Most of the campaign analysis that I've read recently seem to think McCain gives both Hillary and Obama their toughest challenge and has an excellent shot at winning. Head to head polls have them only narrowly ahead of him at this point. McCain competes with Hillary directly on her main strength of "experience". He also scores much better with independant voters than Hillary does. Independants usually decide elections. But if the country is in a recession, domestic issues would dominate the minds of voters and Hillary's other strengths of health care and domestic issues in general would make her the clear choice. McCain is weak on domestic isssues in general.

With Obama he would contrast so greatly with McCain you would have a race of polar opposites between "change" and "experience". Where the independants go in that race and who they are will be interesting and I think is still unknown. Obama is the kind of candidate who could bring in voters nobody's counting yet. He could also be someone who voters tell pollsters they like, but when they get in the voting booth they pull a different lever. How his support translates into actual votes will also be something to watch.

In both instances, McCain could appear to be the "safer" choice. Or he could seem old and out of touch. What's on the front pages of the newspapers will decide this race. If its terrorism or foreign policy, its McCain. If we're in a recession, its Hillary or Obama.

BTW-If you've ever voted in the same places I do, his age won't hurt him either. The older you are, the higher voting rates typically are.

[Yerdaddy]

And how Hillary's campaign mentioned that the Republicans would bring up his past drug use.

Can someone please explain to me why this statement is even the least bit controversial? Does anyone believe the Republicans WON'T bring up Obama's drug use?

[FUNKMAN]

Can someone please explain to me why this statement is even the least bit controversial? Does anyone believe the Republicans WON'T bring up Obama's drug use?

because he was getting blown by a tranny while hitting the pipe?

i got nuthin as usual

[A.J.]

Can someone please explain to me why this statement is even the least bit controversial? Does anyone believe the Republicans WON'T bring up Obama's drug use?

It was the way the issue was brought up. The Clinton campaign made it an issue by saying that it wouldn't make it an issue....only the evil Republicans would.

Ron said it best yesterday: the Clintons will do anything to win.

[Yerdaddy]

It was the way the issue was brought up. The Clinton campaign made it an issue by saying that it wouldn't make it an issue....only the evil Republicans would.

Sonsabitches!

I still don't get it. They didn't call him a crackhead or nothin?

[TheMojoPin]

Most of the campaign analysis that I've read recently seem to think McCain gives both Hillary and Obama their toughest challenge and has an excellent shot at winning. Head to head polls have them only narrowly ahead of him at this point. McCain competes with Hillary directly on her main strength of "experience". He also scores much better with independant voters than Hillary does. Independants usually decide elections. But if the country is in a recession, domestic issues would dominate the minds of voters and Hillary's other strengths of health care and domestic issues in general would make her the clear choice. McCain is weak on domestic isssues in general.

With Obama he would contrast so greatly with McCain you would have a race of polar opposites between "change" and "experience". Where the independants go in that race and who they are will be interesting and I think is still unknown. Obama is the kind of candidate who could bring in voters nobody's counting yet. He could also be someone who voters tell pollsters they like, but when they get in the voting booth they pull a different lever. How his support translates into actual votes will also be something to watch.

In both instances, McCain could appear to be the "safer" choice. Or he could seem old and out of touch. What's on the front pages of the newspapers will decide this race. If its terrorism or foreign policy, its McCain. If we're in a recession, its Hillary or Obama.

BTW-If you've ever voted in the same places I do, his age won't hurt him either. The older you are, the higher voting rates typically are.

Ironically, McCain's experience didn't seem to matter one bit when he was savaged and tossed on the side of the road by the Bush machine in 2000 and the throngs that flocked to him.

Funny.

[Jujubees2]

Ironically, McCain's experience didn't seem to matter one bit when he was savaged and tossed on the side of the road by the Bush machine in 2000 and the throngs that flocked to him.

Funny.

You mean when they accused McCain of helping the enemy in Vietnam and of fathering a "black" child? And when it was all said and done Bush's response was "That's politics".

[TheMojoPin]

You mean when they accused McCain of helping the enemy in Vietnam and of fathering a "black" child? And when it was all said and done Bush's response was "That's politics".

And McCain's experience just couldn't stand up to Bush being a "Washington outsider."

Delicious.

[A.J.]

Sonsabitches!

I still don't get it. They didn't call him a crackhead or nothin?

Not specifcally no.

On another point, I wonder if this will earn him the endorsement of ex-DC-Mayor-for-Life Marion Barry? That would be swell.

[Snacks]

It was the way the issue was brought up. The Clinton campaign made it an issue by saying that it wouldn't make it an issue....only the evil Republicans would.

Ron said it best yesterday: the Clintons will do anything to win.

I wonder what the republican smear groups will run with this campaign? If Clinton wins the nod then they will say shes a Clinton and Bill got a blow job and she forgave him! Oh no!

If Obama wins they have so much. He's black, has a Muslim name and he went to a Muslim school when he was 5. He is the taliban right here in America.

All the republicans do is create fear, and most red states are god fearing people and they believe anything a white man will say about anything.

[Yerdaddy]

Not specifcally no.

On another point, I wonder if this will earn him the endorsement of ex-DC-Mayor-for-Life Marion Barry? That would be swell.

Say what you will but that man knows his base! Freebase!

[SinA]

I loved when Bill said that the way Obama was portraying his record against the war was "the biggest fairy tale [he'd] ever seen."

Get it? It's funny 'cause he perjured to Congress and a Grand Jury.

[A.J.]

If Clinton wins the nod then they will say shes a Clinton and Bill got a blow job and she forgave him! Oh no!

I think that might actually win over some swing votes: a woman who is cool with blow jobs.