Election '08: Florida Primary

[ICantSpellDawg]

You know the drill. Vote away.

DAMN IT - private poll again.


(Also for the Democratic SC Primary on Jan 26th)

[CountArach]

Dennis showing a strong 20% in this poll! Only 5 precincts reporting though...

I need to get a life...

[Husar]

I don't know anymore, aren't they all bad one way or another? :inquisitive:

[FactionHeir]

Dunno, but if I were to vote, I'd vote for someone who'd bring all the troops back to the US within the next year or two rather than have them colonize Iraq and Afghanistan and/or wait for "victory" whatever that will be.

Btw, I really like McCain's speeches. Much more inspiring than Obama.

[woad&fangs]

Does anyone know when the next debate is?

[Lemur]

TuffStuff, you missed the Dem primary in SC on Jan 26. Since you're including Dems in the poll, you may want to edit the title of the thread ... just a thought ...

[Ice]

Oh good

So far it's socialist lite vs "Everything is fine here, just move along" with some tax cuts.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Rudy's campaign will go down as one of the dumbest campaigns in history.

DUMB (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2141677120080121?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

[caravel]

Ah at first I thought this was a mafia game and was unsure of which gangster to vote for...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Is Thompson going to drop out before or after Florida?

If he drops out before Florida, would he help Romney or McCain?

Is he trying to position himself to become the VP by brokering a deal with McCain?

What are the chances that he stays in to see how the chips fall on super Tuesday?


My questions are directed to his supporters in this forum.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ah at first I thought this was a mafia game and was unsure of which gangster to vote for...

I've felt more confident about many of my mafia votes. :cheesy:


Oh, and sign up for some mafia (see sig).

[Xiahou]

Is Thompson going to drop out before or after Florida?
My guess is he'll drop out before. I've heard he already withdrew from the upcoming debate. I don't really know who his dropping out would help. I don't really support any candidate is a good alternative. :shrug:

[drone]

My guess is he'll drop out before. I've heard he already withdrew from the upcoming debate. I don't really know who his dropping out would help. I don't really support any candidate is a good alternative. :shrug:
Done (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/thompson_continues_to_mull_fut.html?hpid=topnews)

Former senator Fred Thompson (Tenn.) bowed to the obvious moments ago, dropping out of the 2008 presidential race in a tersely-worded statement.

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States," read the statement. "I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

Those close to Thompson say that his mind has been elsewhere since his disappointing third place finish in South Carolina's Republican presidential primary because he has been in Tennessee caring for his mother who is seriously ill. Those same sources suggested that Thompson is not likely to immediately endorse any of the remaining candidates in the field.

[ICantSpellDawg]

crap. I was hoping that he'd do it after. I think it will help the guy who has fallen behind in Florida. Ie: McCain. Any double digit movement in the tight race will be unsettling for Romney as the recent poll leader.

At this point, I don't feel as though Giuliani is viable enough to mention.

[Xiahou]

It's too bad that Huckabee took so long to dry up and blow away. He's now cutting staff and abandoning Florida since he's non-competitive there. I think he drained a lot of Thompson supporters from the Christian conservative side of things.

Anyone see the Democrat debate in SC? What a slobberknocker. :laugh4:
It's hilarious to me to see what passes for insults in Democrat circles- 'You worked for WalMart!' 'Oh yeah? Well, you thought Reagan had some good ideas!'

Seriously, what is their world like? :dizzy2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's too bad that Huckabee took so long to dry up and blow away. He's now cutting staff and abandoning Florida since he's non-competitive there. I think he drained a lot of Thompson supporters from the Christian conservative side of things.

Anyone see the Democrat debate in SC? What a slobberknocker. :laugh4:
It's hilarious to me to see what passes for insults in Democrat circles- 'You worked for WalMart!' 'Oh yeah? Well, you thought Reagan had some good ideas!'

Seriously, what is their world like? :dizzy2:

It was pretty bazaar. I prefer the G.O.P. debates. It's less of a circle jerk.

At the end, i preferred Obama. Clinton reminded me of a rabid, lying attack dog.

[Marshal Murat]

I think it's hypocritical Hillary calling Obama on the slumlord, after some Chinese buisnessman funneled thousands into Hillary's campaign, and was actually prosecuted for it. And, besides, Clinton's pardons were all for good men right? None of whom committed any foul, ever. Right? Right?

[Lemur]

For what it's worth, somebody bothered to fact-check the debate (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html). Now if only we could have these little reports in realtime ...

[Xiahou]

For what it's worth, somebody bothered to fact-check the debate (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html). Now if only we could have these little reports in realtime ...
I'm not surprised that they were full of crap as often as not. What was really amazing to me was the absurdity of the whole thing. So what if Hillary worked for WalMart decades ago? And if Obama really did say (he apparently didn't) Reagan had a good idea or two, so what? They act like it'd be blasphemy to ever admit any Republican ever had a good idea. It's crazy.

Both Hillary and Obama showed they weren't above partisan hackery and personal attacks at the debate. And in so far as that, I would say Hillary won. Previously Obama had managed to give the impression of being "above it all", but Hillary finally managed to drag him down to her level and I think that's a big win for her. He's fighting on her terms now.

[KukriKhan]

... Previously Obama had managed to give the impression of being "above it all", but Hillary finally managed to drag him down to her level and I think that's a big win for her. He's fighting on her terms now.


That's how it looks to me, too. I only saw the final 20 minutes of that so-called 'debate'. By then, it was turning into some kinda cheesy love-fest - a contest to see who loved MLK more, and for how long.

Edwards had a good point (which was ignored). I paraphrase: "How many poor children have we fed, how many hospitals have we built [...] by all this bickering among ourselves?". Indeed.

[Ronin]

... showed they weren't above partisan hackery ...

don´t knock partisan hackery....it´s what elections are all about.

[Lemur]

Color me amused (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8062.html).

[ICantSpellDawg]

haha. Oh man.

I understand Giuliani's idea about saving everything until Florida. If he had gone in early, he would have been sunken on policy - the G.O.P. regulars would have torn into his divisive nature and flocked to other pro-life and pro-2nd amendment candidates. He must have thought that if he didnt put up to much of a fight he wouldn't be targeted as much. His tremendous lead would have held until Florida where he would have overwhelmed the other candidates and gone into super tuesday with the leading momentum. (people are less likely to ask the hard questions then and already liked him even without campaigning.)

Once he won the majority of the votes, republicans would back him almost entirely - as each party does once they find their nominee.

Unfortunately for Rudy, his charisma isn't as universal as some believed and the other candidates went after him anyway - the rest is history. Or next tuesday.

[Lemur]

The NY Times ran a piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22giuliani.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) about Rudy's methods and means, emphasis on the mean. I would be beyond unhappy if this man became president. And yeah, sure, NY Times -- bias! -- evil liberal instrument -- blah blah blah, but it's still the guy's hometown paper. And it's chock full of named sources and verifiable dates, events, etc. If this is all fabrication then I am the Queen of Norway.

January 22, 2008

In Matters Big and Small, Crossing Giuliani Had Price

By MICHAEL POWELL and RUSS BUETTNER

Rudolph W. Giuliani likens himself to a boxer who never takes a punch without swinging back. As mayor, he made the vengeful roundhouse an instrument of government, clipping anyone who crossed him.

In August 1997, James Schillaci, a rough-hewn chauffeur from the Bronx, dialed Mayor Giuliani’s radio program on WABC-AM to complain about a red-light sting run by the police near the Bronx Zoo. When the call yielded no results, Mr. Schillaci turned to The Daily News, which then ran a photo of the red light and this front page headline: “GOTCHA!”

That morning, police officers appeared on Mr. Schillaci’s doorstep. What are you going to do, Mr. Schillaci asked, arrest me? He was joking, but the officers were not.

They slapped on handcuffs and took him to court on a 13-year-old traffic warrant. A judge threw out the charge. A police spokeswoman later read Mr. Schillaci’s decades-old criminal rap sheet to a reporter for The Daily News, a move of questionable legality because the state restricts how such information is released. She said, falsely, that he had been convicted of sodomy.

Then Mr. Giuliani took up the cudgel.

“Mr. Schillaci was posing as an altruistic whistle-blower,” the mayor told reporters at the time. “Maybe he’s dishonest enough to lie about police officers.”

Mr. Schillaci suffered an emotional breakdown, was briefly hospitalized and later received a $290,000 legal settlement from the city. “It really damaged me,” said Mr. Schillaci, now 60, massaging his face with thick hands. “I thought I was doing something good for once, my civic duty and all. Then he steps on me.”

Mr. Giuliani was a pugilist in a city of political brawlers. But far more than his predecessors, historians and politicians say, his toughness edged toward ruthlessnessand became a defining aspect of his mayoralty. One result: New York City spent at least $7 million in settling civil rights lawsuits and paying retaliatory damages during the Giuliani years.

After AIDS activists with Housing Works loudly challenged the mayor, city officials sabotaged the group’s application for a federal housing grant. A caseworker who spoke of missteps in the death of a child was fired. After unidentified city workers complained of pressure to hand contracts to Giuliani-favored organizations, investigators examined not the charges but the identity of the leakers.

“There were constant loyalty tests: ‘Will you shoot your brother?’ ” said Marilyn Gelber, who served as environmental commissioner under Mr. Giuliani. “People were marked for destruction for disloyal jokes.”

Mr. Giuliani paid careful attention to the art of political payback. When former Mayors Edward I. Koch and David N. Dinkins spoke publicly of Mr. Giuliani’s foibles, mayoral aides removed their official portraits from the ceremonial Blue Room at City Hall. Mr. Koch, who wrote a book titled “Giuliani: Nasty Man,” shrugs.

“David Dinkins and I are lucky that Rudy didn’t cast our portraits onto a bonfire along with the First Amendment, which he enjoyed violating daily,” Mr. Koch said in a recent interview.

Mr. Giuliani retails his stories of childhood toughness, in standing up to bullies who mocked his love of opera and bridled at his Yankee loyalties. Years after leaving Manhattan College, he held a grudge against a man who beat him in a class election. He urged his commissioners to walk out of City Council hearings when questions turned hostile. But in his 2002 book “Leadership,” he said his instructions owed nothing to his temper.

“It wasn’t my sensitivities I was worried about, but the tone of civility I strived to establish throughout the city,” he wrote. Mr. Giuliani declined requests to be interviewed for this article.

His admirers, not least former Deputy Mayor Randy M. Mastro, said it was unfair to characterize the mayor as vengeful, particularly given the “Herculean task” he faced when he entered office in 1994. Mr. Giuliani’s admirers claimed that the depredations of crack, AIDS, homicide and recession had brought the city to its knees, and that he faced a sclerotic liberal establishment. He wielded intimidation as his mace and wrested cost-savings and savings from powerful unions and politicians.

“The notion that the city needed broad-based change frightened a lot of entrenched groups,” said Fred Siegel, a historian and author of “The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life.” “He didn’t want to be politic with them.”

He cowed many into silence. Silence ensured the flow of city money.

Andy Humm, a gay activist, worked for the Hetrick-Martin Institute, which pushed condom giveaways in public schools. When Mr. Giuliani supported a parental opt-out, the institute’s director counseled silence to avoid losing city funds. “He said, ‘We’re going to say it’s not good, but we’re not going to mention him,’ ” Mr. Humm said.

“We were muzzled, and it was a disgrace.”

Picking His Fights

Mr. Giuliani says he prefers to brawl with imposing opponents. His father, he wrote in “Leadership,” would “always emphasize: never pick on someone smaller than you. Never be a bully.”

As mayor, he picked fights with a notable lack of discrimination, challenging the city and state comptrollers, a few corporations and the odd council member. But the mayor’s fist also fell on the less powerful. In mid-May 1994, newspapers revealed that Mr. Giuliani’s youth commissioner, the Rev. John E. Brandon, suffered tax problems; more troubling revelations seemed in the offing.

At 7 p.m. on May 17, Mr. Giuliani’s press secretary dialed reporters and served up a hotter story: A former youth commissioner under Mr. Dinkins, Richard L. Murphy, had ladled millions of dollars to supporters of the former mayor. And someone had destroyed Department of Youth Services records and hard drives and stolen computers in an apparent effort to obscure what had happened to that money.

“My immediate goal is to get rid of the stealing, to get rid of the corruption,” Mr. Giuliani told The Daily News.

None of it was true. In 1995, the Department of Investigation found no politically motivated contracts and no theft by senior officials. But Mr. Murphy’s professional life was wrecked.

“I was soiled merchandise — the taint just lingers,” Mr. Murphy said in a recent interview.

Not long after, a major foundation recruited Mr. Murphy to work on the West Coast. The group wanted him to replicate his much-honored concept of opening schools at night as community centers. A senior Giuliani official called the foundation — a move a former mayoral official confirmed on the condition of anonymity for fear of embarrassing the organization — and the prospective job disappeared.

“He goes to people and makes them complicit in his revenge,” Mr. Murphy said.

This theme repeats. Two private employers in New York City, neither of which wanted to be identified because they feared retaliation should Mr. Giuliani be elected president, said the mayor’s office exerted pressure not to hire former Dinkins officials. When Mr. Giuliani battled schools Chancellor Ramon C. Cortines, he demanded that Mr. Cortines prove his loyalty by firing the press spokesman, John Beckman.

Mr. Beckman’s offense? He had worked in the Dinkins administration. “I found it,” Mr. Beckman said in an interview, “a really unfortunate example of how to govern.”

Joel Berger worked as a senior litigator in the city corporation counsel’s office until 1996. Afterward, he represented victims of police brutality and taught a class at the New York University School of Law, and his students served apprenticeships with the corporation counsel.

In late August 1997, Mr. Berger wrote a column in The New York Times criticizing Mr. Giuliani’s record on police brutality. A week later, a city official called the director of the N.Y.U. law school’s clinical programs and demanded that Mr. Berger be removed from the course. Otherwise, the official said, we will suspend the corporation counsel apprenticeship, according to Mr. Berger and an N.Y.U. official.

“It was ridiculously petty,” Mr. Berger said.

N.Y.U. declined to replace Mr. Berger and instead suspended the class after that semester.

‘Culture of Retaliation’

The Citizens Budget Commission has driven mayors of various ideological stripes to distraction since it was founded in 1932. The business-backed group bird-dogs the city’s fiscal management with an unsparing eye. But its analysts are fonts of creative thinking, and Mr. Giuliani asked Raymond Horton, the group’s president, to serve on his transition committee in 1993.

That comity was long gone by the autumn of 1997, when Mr. Giuliani faced re-election. Ruth Messinger, the mayor’s Democratic opponent, cited the commission’s work, and the mayor denounced the group, which had issued critical reports on welfare reform, police inefficiency and the city budget.

So far, so typical for mayors and their relationship with the commission. Mr. Koch once banned his officials from attending the group’s annual retreat. Another time, he attended and gave a speech excoriating the commission.

But one of Mr. Giuliani’s deputy mayors, Joseph Lhota, took an unprecedented step. He called major securities firms that underwrite city bonds and discouraged them from buying seats at the commission’s annual fund-raising dinner. Because Mr. Lhota played a key role in selecting the investment firms that underwrote the bonds, his calls raised an ethical tempest.

Apologizing struck Mr. Giuliani as silly.

“We are sending exactly the right message,” he said. “Their reports are pretty useless; they are a dilettante organization.”

Still, that dinner was a rousing success. “All mayors have thin skins, but Rudy has the thinnest skin of all,” Mr. Horton said.

Mr. Giuliani’s war with the nonprofit group Housing Works was more operatic. Housing Works runs nationally respected programs for the homeless, the mentally ill and people who are infected with H.I.V. But it weds that service to a 1960s straight-from-the-rice-paddies guerrilla ethos.

The group’s members marched on City Hall, staged sit-ins, and delighted in singling out city officials for opprobrium. Mr. Giuliani, who considered doing away with the Division of AIDS Services, became their favorite mayor in effigy.

Mr. Giuliani responded in kind. His police commanders stationed snipers atop City Hall and sent helicopters whirling overhead when 100 or so unarmed Housing Works protesters marched nearby in 1998. A year earlier, his officials systematically killed $6 million worth of contracts with the group, saying it had mismanaged funds.

Housing Works sued the city and discovered that officials had rescored a federal evaluation form to ensure that the group lost a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Martin Oesterreich, the city’s homeless commissioner, denied wrongdoing but acknowledged that his job might have been forfeited if Housing Works had obtained that contract.

“That possibility could have happened,” Mr. Oesterreich told a federal judge.

The mayor’s fingerprints could not be found on every decision. But his enemies were widely known.

“The culture of retaliation was really quite remarkable,” said Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, the lawyer who represented Housing Works. “Up and down the food chain, everyone knew what this guy demanded.”

The Charter Fight

The mayor’s wartime style of governance reached an exhaustion point in the late 1990s. His poll numbers dipped, and the courts routinely ruled against the city, upholding the New York Civil Liberties Union in 23 of its 27 free-speech challenges during Mr. Giuliani’s mayoralty. After he left office, the city agreed to pay $327,000 to a black police officer who was fired because he had testified before the City Council about police brutality toward blacks. The city also agreed to rescind the firing of the caseworker who talked about a child’s death.

In 1999, Mr. Giuliani explored a run for the United States Senate. If he won that seat, he would leave the mayor’s office a year early. The City Charter dictated that Mark Green, the public advocate, would succeed him.

That prospect was intolerable to Mr. Giuliani. Few politicians crawled under the mayor’s skin as skillfully as Mr. Green. “Idiotic” and “inane” were some of the kinder words that Mr. Giuliani sent winging toward the public advocate, who delighted in verbally tweaking the mayor.

So Mr. Giuliani announced in June 1999 that a Charter Revision Commission, stocked with his loyalists, would explore changing the line of mayoral succession. Mr. Giuliani told The New York Times Magazine that he might not have initiated the charter review campaign if Mr. Green were not the public advocate. Three former mayors declared themselves appalled; Mr. Koch fired the loudest cannonade. “You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Mayor,” he said during a news conference.

Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr., chairman of a Charter Revision Commission a decade earlier, wrote a letter to Mr. Giuliani warning that “targeting a particular person” would “smack of personal politics and predilections.

“All this is not worthy of you, or our city,” Mr. Schwarz wrote.

Mr. Mastro, who had left the administration, agreed to serve as the commission chairman. He eventually announced that a proposal requiring a special election within 60 days of a mayor’s early departure would not take effect until 2002, after both Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Green had left office. A civic group estimated that the commission spent more than a million dollars of taxpayer money on commercials before a citywide referendum on the proposal that was held in November 1999.

Voters defeated the measure, 76 percent to 24 percent. (In 2002, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg advocated a similar charter revision that passed with little controversy.)

Mr. Green had warned the mayor that rejection loomed.

“It was simple,” Mr. Green said. “It was the mayor vindictively going after an institutional critic for doing his job.”

None of this left the mayor chastened. In March 2000, an undercover officer killed Patrick Dorismond, a security guard, during a fight when the police mistook him for a drug dealer. The outcry infuriated the mayor, who released Mr. Dorismond’s juvenile record, a document that legally was supposed to remain sealed.

The victim, Mr. Giuliani opined, was no “altar boy.” Actually, he was. (Mr. Giuliani later expressed regret without precisely apologizing.)

James Schillaci, the Bronx whistle-blower, recalled reading those comments and shuddering at the memory. “The mayor tarred me up; you know what that feels like?” he said. “I still have nightmares.”

[ICantSpellDawg]

The NY Times ran a piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22giuliani.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) about Rudy's methods and means, emphasis on the mean. I would be beyond unhappy if this man became president. And yeah, sure, NY Times -- bias! -- evil liberal instrument -- blah blah blah, but it's still the guy's hometown paper. And it's chock full of named sources and verifiable dates, events, etc. If this is all fabrication then I am the Queen of Norway.

January 22, 2008

In Matters Big and Small, Crossing Giuliani Had Price

By MICHAEL POWELL and RUSS BUETTNER

Rudolph W. Giuliani likens himself to a boxer who never takes a punch without swinging back. As mayor, he made the vengeful roundhouse an instrument of government, clipping anyone who crossed him.

In August 1997, James Schillaci, a rough-hewn chauffeur from the Bronx, dialed Mayor Giuliani’s radio program on WABC-AM to complain about a red-light sting run by the police near the Bronx Zoo. When the call yielded no results, Mr. Schillaci turned to The Daily News, which then ran a photo of the red light and this front page headline: “GOTCHA!”

That morning, police officers appeared on Mr. Schillaci’s doorstep. What are you going to do, Mr. Schillaci asked, arrest me? He was joking, but the officers were not.

They slapped on handcuffs and took him to court on a 13-year-old traffic warrant. A judge threw out the charge. A police spokeswoman later read Mr. Schillaci’s decades-old criminal rap sheet to a reporter for The Daily News, a move of questionable legality because the state restricts how such information is released. She said, falsely, that he had been convicted of sodomy.

Then Mr. Giuliani took up the cudgel.

“Mr. Schillaci was posing as an altruistic whistle-blower,” the mayor told reporters at the time. “Maybe he’s dishonest enough to lie about police officers.”

Mr. Schillaci suffered an emotional breakdown, was briefly hospitalized and later received a $290,000 legal settlement from the city. “It really damaged me,” said Mr. Schillaci, now 60, massaging his face with thick hands. “I thought I was doing something good for once, my civic duty and all. Then he steps on me.”

Mr. Giuliani was a pugilist in a city of political brawlers. But far more than his predecessors, historians and politicians say, his toughness edged toward ruthlessnessand became a defining aspect of his mayoralty. One result: New York City spent at least $7 million in settling civil rights lawsuits and paying retaliatory damages during the Giuliani years.

After AIDS activists with Housing Works loudly challenged the mayor, city officials sabotaged the group’s application for a federal housing grant. A caseworker who spoke of missteps in the death of a child was fired. After unidentified city workers complained of pressure to hand contracts to Giuliani-favored organizations, investigators examined not the charges but the identity of the leakers.

“There were constant loyalty tests: ‘Will you shoot your brother?’ ” said Marilyn Gelber, who served as environmental commissioner under Mr. Giuliani. “People were marked for destruction for disloyal jokes.”

Mr. Giuliani paid careful attention to the art of political payback. When former Mayors Edward I. Koch and David N. Dinkins spoke publicly of Mr. Giuliani’s foibles, mayoral aides removed their official portraits from the ceremonial Blue Room at City Hall. Mr. Koch, who wrote a book titled “Giuliani: Nasty Man,” shrugs.

“David Dinkins and I are lucky that Rudy didn’t cast our portraits onto a bonfire along with the First Amendment, which he enjoyed violating daily,” Mr. Koch said in a recent interview.

Mr. Giuliani retails his stories of childhood toughness, in standing up to bullies who mocked his love of opera and bridled at his Yankee loyalties. Years after leaving Manhattan College, he held a grudge against a man who beat him in a class election. He urged his commissioners to walk out of City Council hearings when questions turned hostile. But in his 2002 book “Leadership,” he said his instructions owed nothing to his temper.

“It wasn’t my sensitivities I was worried about, but the tone of civility I strived to establish throughout the city,” he wrote. Mr. Giuliani declined requests to be interviewed for this article.

His admirers, not least former Deputy Mayor Randy M. Mastro, said it was unfair to characterize the mayor as vengeful, particularly given the “Herculean task” he faced when he entered office in 1994. Mr. Giuliani’s admirers claimed that the depredations of crack, AIDS, homicide and recession had brought the city to its knees, and that he faced a sclerotic liberal establishment. He wielded intimidation as his mace and wrested cost-savings and savings from powerful unions and politicians.

“The notion that the city needed broad-based change frightened a lot of entrenched groups,” said Fred Siegel, a historian and author of “The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life.” “He didn’t want to be politic with them.”

He cowed many into silence. Silence ensured the flow of city money.

Andy Humm, a gay activist, worked for the Hetrick-Martin Institute, which pushed condom giveaways in public schools. When Mr. Giuliani supported a parental opt-out, the institute’s director counseled silence to avoid losing city funds. “He said, ‘We’re going to say it’s not good, but we’re not going to mention him,’ ” Mr. Humm said.

“We were muzzled, and it was a disgrace.”

Picking His Fights

Mr. Giuliani says he prefers to brawl with imposing opponents. His father, he wrote in “Leadership,” would “always emphasize: never pick on someone smaller than you. Never be a bully.”

As mayor, he picked fights with a notable lack of discrimination, challenging the city and state comptrollers, a few corporations and the odd council member. But the mayor’s fist also fell on the less powerful. In mid-May 1994, newspapers revealed that Mr. Giuliani’s youth commissioner, the Rev. John E. Brandon, suffered tax problems; more troubling revelations seemed in the offing.

At 7 p.m. on May 17, Mr. Giuliani’s press secretary dialed reporters and served up a hotter story: A former youth commissioner under Mr. Dinkins, Richard L. Murphy, had ladled millions of dollars to supporters of the former mayor. And someone had destroyed Department of Youth Services records and hard drives and stolen computers in an apparent effort to obscure what had happened to that money.

“My immediate goal is to get rid of the stealing, to get rid of the corruption,” Mr. Giuliani told The Daily News.

None of it was true. In 1995, the Department of Investigation found no politically motivated contracts and no theft by senior officials. But Mr. Murphy’s professional life was wrecked.

“I was soiled merchandise — the taint just lingers,” Mr. Murphy said in a recent interview.

Not long after, a major foundation recruited Mr. Murphy to work on the West Coast. The group wanted him to replicate his much-honored concept of opening schools at night as community centers. A senior Giuliani official called the foundation — a move a former mayoral official confirmed on the condition of anonymity for fear of embarrassing the organization — and the prospective job disappeared.

“He goes to people and makes them complicit in his revenge,” Mr. Murphy said.

This theme repeats. Two private employers in New York City, neither of which wanted to be identified because they feared retaliation should Mr. Giuliani be elected president, said the mayor’s office exerted pressure not to hire former Dinkins officials. When Mr. Giuliani battled schools Chancellor Ramon C. Cortines, he demanded that Mr. Cortines prove his loyalty by firing the press spokesman, John Beckman.

Mr. Beckman’s offense? He had worked in the Dinkins administration. “I found it,” Mr. Beckman said in an interview, “a really unfortunate example of how to govern.”

Joel Berger worked as a senior litigator in the city corporation counsel’s office until 1996. Afterward, he represented victims of police brutality and taught a class at the New York University School of Law, and his students served apprenticeships with the corporation counsel.

In late August 1997, Mr. Berger wrote a column in The New York Times criticizing Mr. Giuliani’s record on police brutality. A week later, a city official called the director of the N.Y.U. law school’s clinical programs and demanded that Mr. Berger be removed from the course. Otherwise, the official said, we will suspend the corporation counsel apprenticeship, according to Mr. Berger and an N.Y.U. official.

“It was ridiculously petty,” Mr. Berger said.

N.Y.U. declined to replace Mr. Berger and instead suspended the class after that semester.

‘Culture of Retaliation’

The Citizens Budget Commission has driven mayors of various ideological stripes to distraction since it was founded in 1932. The business-backed group bird-dogs the city’s fiscal management with an unsparing eye. But its analysts are fonts of creative thinking, and Mr. Giuliani asked Raymond Horton, the group’s president, to serve on his transition committee in 1993.

That comity was long gone by the autumn of 1997, when Mr. Giuliani faced re-election. Ruth Messinger, the mayor’s Democratic opponent, cited the commission’s work, and the mayor denounced the group, which had issued critical reports on welfare reform, police inefficiency and the city budget.

So far, so typical for mayors and their relationship with the commission. Mr. Koch once banned his officials from attending the group’s annual retreat. Another time, he attended and gave a speech excoriating the commission.

But one of Mr. Giuliani’s deputy mayors, Joseph Lhota, took an unprecedented step. He called major securities firms that underwrite city bonds and discouraged them from buying seats at the commission’s annual fund-raising dinner. Because Mr. Lhota played a key role in selecting the investment firms that underwrote the bonds, his calls raised an ethical tempest.

Apologizing struck Mr. Giuliani as silly.

“We are sending exactly the right message,” he said. “Their reports are pretty useless; they are a dilettante organization.”

Still, that dinner was a rousing success. “All mayors have thin skins, but Rudy has the thinnest skin of all,” Mr. Horton said.

Mr. Giuliani’s war with the nonprofit group Housing Works was more operatic. Housing Works runs nationally respected programs for the homeless, the mentally ill and people who are infected with H.I.V. But it weds that service to a 1960s straight-from-the-rice-paddies guerrilla ethos.

The group’s members marched on City Hall, staged sit-ins, and delighted in singling out city officials for opprobrium. Mr. Giuliani, who considered doing away with the Division of AIDS Services, became their favorite mayor in effigy.

Mr. Giuliani responded in kind. His police commanders stationed snipers atop City Hall and sent helicopters whirling overhead when 100 or so unarmed Housing Works protesters marched nearby in 1998. A year earlier, his officials systematically killed $6 million worth of contracts with the group, saying it had mismanaged funds.

Housing Works sued the city and discovered that officials had rescored a federal evaluation form to ensure that the group lost a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Martin Oesterreich, the city’s homeless commissioner, denied wrongdoing but acknowledged that his job might have been forfeited if Housing Works had obtained that contract.

“That possibility could have happened,” Mr. Oesterreich told a federal judge.

The mayor’s fingerprints could not be found on every decision. But his enemies were widely known.

“The culture of retaliation was really quite remarkable,” said Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, the lawyer who represented Housing Works. “Up and down the food chain, everyone knew what this guy demanded.”

The Charter Fight

The mayor’s wartime style of governance reached an exhaustion point in the late 1990s. His poll numbers dipped, and the courts routinely ruled against the city, upholding the New York Civil Liberties Union in 23 of its 27 free-speech challenges during Mr. Giuliani’s mayoralty. After he left office, the city agreed to pay $327,000 to a black police officer who was fired because he had testified before the City Council about police brutality toward blacks. The city also agreed to rescind the firing of the caseworker who talked about a child’s death.

In 1999, Mr. Giuliani explored a run for the United States Senate. If he won that seat, he would leave the mayor’s office a year early. The City Charter dictated that Mark Green, the public advocate, would succeed him.

That prospect was intolerable to Mr. Giuliani. Few politicians crawled under the mayor’s skin as skillfully as Mr. Green. “Idiotic” and “inane” were some of the kinder words that Mr. Giuliani sent winging toward the public advocate, who delighted in verbally tweaking the mayor.

So Mr. Giuliani announced in June 1999 that a Charter Revision Commission, stocked with his loyalists, would explore changing the line of mayoral succession. Mr. Giuliani told The New York Times Magazine that he might not have initiated the charter review campaign if Mr. Green were not the public advocate. Three former mayors declared themselves appalled; Mr. Koch fired the loudest cannonade. “You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Mayor,” he said during a news conference.

Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr., chairman of a Charter Revision Commission a decade earlier, wrote a letter to Mr. Giuliani warning that “targeting a particular person” would “smack of personal politics and predilections.

“All this is not worthy of you, or our city,” Mr. Schwarz wrote.

Mr. Mastro, who had left the administration, agreed to serve as the commission chairman. He eventually announced that a proposal requiring a special election within 60 days of a mayor’s early departure would not take effect until 2002, after both Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Green had left office. A civic group estimated that the commission spent more than a million dollars of taxpayer money on commercials before a citywide referendum on the proposal that was held in November 1999.

Voters defeated the measure, 76 percent to 24 percent. (In 2002, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg advocated a similar charter revision that passed with little controversy.)

Mr. Green had warned the mayor that rejection loomed.

“It was simple,” Mr. Green said. “It was the mayor vindictively going after an institutional critic for doing his job.”

None of this left the mayor chastened. In March 2000, an undercover officer killed Patrick Dorismond, a security guard, during a fight when the police mistook him for a drug dealer. The outcry infuriated the mayor, who released Mr. Dorismond’s juvenile record, a document that legally was supposed to remain sealed.

The victim, Mr. Giuliani opined, was no “altar boy.” Actually, he was. (Mr. Giuliani later expressed regret without precisely apologizing.)

James Schillaci, the Bronx whistle-blower, recalled reading those comments and shuddering at the memory. “The mayor tarred me up; you know what that feels like?” he said. “I still have nightmares.”

I won't be defending Rudy. I liked him only as far as he helped businesses in the city and because he called himself a Republican in NYC while keeping a straight face.

The cheating and the misuse of funds and the nanny state and the abortion thing and the gun thing and the lisp - all unforgivable. Plus Koch hates him, and everybody loves koch here - even republicans.

[FactionHeir]

Kucinich dropped out.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Rassmussen and Mason-Dixon have Romney winning the Florida polls. I will flip out if that happens and buy everyone in this forum a brand new car.

Mason-Dixon was the polling org that was closest to the Michigan verdict. They had him winning by 8 points. The average was 2.7. The outcome was 9 points.

Zogby said that McCain would win by 1 point.

[CountArach]

Kucinich dropped out.
Nooo! My candidate is gone!

Oh well, time to jump on the Obama bandwagon...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Rassmussen and Mason-Dixon have Romney winning the Florida polls. I will flip out if that happens and buy everyone in this forum a brand new car.


Quoted in case Romney wins.

:beam:

I guess I'm a Romney supporter now, too, since Fred's gone.

CR

[CountArach]

Rassmussen and Mason-Dixon have Romney winning the Florida polls. I will flip out if that happens and buy everyone in this forum a brand new car.
I thought Oprah was campaigning for Obama, not Romney? :wink:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Quoted in case Romney wins.

:beam:

I guess I'm a Romney supporter now, too, since Fred's gone.

CR


YEAAAA!!! You won't regret it!

He's doing very well in the debates tonight, but they tried to slam him with a slimy question about his campaign funds, followed by his one about his faith.

[CountArach]

The New York Times will endorse Clinton (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?ref=opinion) and McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin) in their respective Primaries.

[Xiahou]

I guess I'm a Romney supporter now, too, since Fred's gone.
Frankly, I don't care who wins at this point. :shrug:
The only thing I ponder is if it would be better to risk 4yrs of Hillary so that we can have a chance at some real candidates in the next primaries. If McCain or Romney get elected we'll be stuck with them on the GOP side for 8yrs until we can choose a new nominee- that's a depressing prospect to me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Frankly, I don't care who wins at this point. :shrug:
The only thing I ponder is if it would be better to risk 4yrs of Hillary so that we can have a chance at some real candidates in the next primaries. If McCain or Romney get elected we'll be stuck with them on the GOP side for 8yrs until we can choose a new nominee- that's a depressing prospect to me.

As improbable as it would seem, I've wanted to see a Romney McCain ticket this entire time. When was the last time that the 1st place and runner up formed a tag team? When McCain ran against Bush I preferred McCain. I was also 8 years younger.

I know that they seem to hate each other, but they would shore it up with independents and I'm sure that come convention time if Mccain is down in the numbers that he'd listen to the proposal. Talk about re-uniting the coalition!

In fact, that would have always been my ideal team.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, if a Romney-McCain ticket does come about, and actually win, at least we wouldn't have to worry about McCain's vote in the Senate too often.

[Lemur]

Bob Novak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire) has a couple of (unconfirmed) tidbits concerning the primaries (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_robert_d_novak/attorney_general_edwards):

First off, his data suggests that Thompson's departure is giving a bump to McCain. "Thompson did not endorse McCain, even though the former Senate colleagues are on close terms with each other. Nevertheless, McCain appears to have picked up much of Thompson's Florida voter support and now leads Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani in the last primary before Mega Tuesday Feb. 5."

Second item is kinda odd, but here it is:


Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration.

Installation at the Justice Department of multimillionaire trial lawyer Edwards would please not only the union leaders supporting him for president but organized labor in general. The unions relish the prospect of an unequivocal labor partisan as the nation's top legal officer.

In public debates, Obama and Edwards often seem to bond together in alliance against front-running Sen. Hillary Clinton. While running a poor third, Edwards could collect a substantial bag of delegates under the Democratic Party's proportional representation. Edwards then could try to turn his delegates over to Obama in the still unlikely event of a deadlocked Democratic National Convention.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://www.mittromney.com/img/downloads/banners_buttons/FredHeads-275x75.jpg

[Marshal Murat]

A look back (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-08-29-fundraiser_N.htm)

Now (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm)

Well, isn't America's attention span a little short? You hear little about Hsu, but Rezko, he's your puppet-master.

Also, alot of Floridians are voting today (early voting and all) and one of the local columnist lamented mailing his vote in, since Richardson dropped out.

[CountArach]

Has anyone got any live video streaming from any news outlet for SC?

[Marshal Murat]

ABC Report (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-blogging-s.html)

Closest you'll get is a South Carolina news website, or Drudge.

Obama win, Hillary 2nd, Edwards 3rd

Hopefully this victory will drive Obama onward and upward Super-Tuesday.

[CountArach]

Wow... I am just stunned.

Obama's speech was one of the best speeches I have ever heard. Even as an Australian, he made me want to vote for him... I might come into a few legal problems, but screw it - I'll find a way...

[Marshal Murat]

Linky?

[Lemur]

Yeah, various people are saying it's the best speech they've ever heard. Somebody, please link. This I gotta see.

[Marshal Murat]

Fox News Transcript (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/26/transcript-barack-obamas-victory-speech-in-south-carolina/)

Yes. We. Can.

"The following is a transcript of Barack Obama’s prepared remarks for his victory speech in Columbia, S.C.:

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire for something new - who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.



Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina.



After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.



They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again.



But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa, it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field - fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.



But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington - a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.



So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re up against.



We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to dominate our government - that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in our way anymore.



We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose - a higher purpose.



We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea - even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.



We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.



And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate; whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t come together.



But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.



That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.



So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.



Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South Carolina.



The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child - she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American.



The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet - she needs us to reform our education system so that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources they need to achieve their dreams.



The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors - he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with dignity and respect.



The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty - they need us to come together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.



The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.



It’s about the past versus the future.



It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation - a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.



There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.



But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day - an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us change isn’t possible.



When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change can’t happen.



When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don’t tell me we can’t change.



Yes we can change.



Yes we can heal this nation.



Yes we can seize our future.



And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:



Yes. We. Can."

I'll be frank,
I cried. I wept and wept, after reading this. I'm still crying. My body is still shaking, quivering, moving. My emotions are twisted, turning, churning. I've felt this emotion only once before, standing at the WW2 memorial on that spring day. I cried then, and I'm crying now. I've read or heard many of the great speeches. George Washington, Patrick Henry, MLK, Kennedy, FDR. Then I read this, and, it was fantastic. It was, inspiring, hopeful. For one of the few times in my life, I've connected, and it was fantastic.

[Caius]

I wonder, is there going to be a thread for every state?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Obama's speech was excellent. I hope that he is the next President - I sense reasonable intent. I know that Republicans really have little shot and I've never been all that fond of McCain; He has no business running for President, he's out of his league. If Romney is beaten out by McCain, I honestly don't think I'll vote (unless Hillary is the nominee)

Obama said he'd like to give big tax breaks to companies that keep jobs stateside. As conservative I can understand that, even though it is essentially a tariff. I have been pushing the issue myself.

I think that almost all of us, both at home and abroad can unite in the fight against Hillary. Hopefully that sentiment comes out in the final election.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bubba-obama-is.html

What a piece of garbage. The Clintons use people as fuel for their ambition; once their usefulness wears out, expect a betrayal. What happens when America loses their interest?

Great quality for a Presidential candidate. Or Two.

[Marshal Murat]

1st - Anyone have Barack Obama's email? I've got some words for him...

2nd - Now I'm tired. Tired of Hillary, tired of Bill, tired of 'them'. I'm tired, disgusted, and disappointed. I'm voting for Obama.

[CountArach]

Here you go MM:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/

Thanks for that transcript as well - I can't wait to watch that speech again once it comes up on YouTube.

[Lemur]

Dang, even the NRO (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDkwZTg3YjUxZGJmZTUzMjE4MGZhMjQ1MDYyNjhhZWM=) is being gracious about Obama:


Barack Obama's speech tonight was simply exceptional — and a reminder of why he is one of the most remarkable political talents in our lifetime. He was able to speak in ways that seem to rise above conventional politics, even as he was able to masterfully push back against the Clinton attacks of the last several weeks. His capacity to touch and stir authentic emotions is remarkable. And unlike Clinton and especially Edwards, the Obama message is about unity, not divisions; and hopes rather than grievances. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans have a great deal to fear. He has tremendous break-out potential.

[Marshal Murat]

Do we need to create another sub-forum for this subject?

Youtube Victory Speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hillary Clinton is like an unholy alliance; the worst of the Democratic party coupled with the worst of the G.O.P.

She would represent the downward decline of the United States personified.

Please for all of our sakes vote Obama.

[Csargo]

Where's Nader?:grin:

I read Obama's speech and it was quite moving I have to say. I'd like to actually hear it though.

Edit:Oh, MM put one up.

[Marshal Murat]

I preferred reading it opposed to video.
When reading it, you don't get the chants and applause, which breaks the flow of thought, but whatever helps...

[JAG]

Go to the BBC website - er here have this link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7210389.stm

Click on the right the 'Democrats cast their votes' and in that you can also view, seperately, the speech Obama made.

Quite a speech, I have to agree. If the Dems don't vote for this guy and then the US don't vote for this guy, I think the world will finally loose what little respect and hope we had in the US electorate after the previous 2 votes. ;)

He is quite some candidate and will be a good President, at least in my opinion, he has been above and beyond all the other candidates from both parties the entire race so far - he can speak to the heart of people not even blimming American! I hope he wins, for the Dems sake as well as all of ours!

[CountArach]

I preferred reading it opposed to video.
When reading it, you don't get the chants and applause, which breaks the flow of thought, but whatever helps...
But the problem I have with reading it is that you don't get the atmosphere and energy that he has the power to create in a room.

And lol Ichigo - I agree, why isn't Nader in these polls? I heard that he had endorsed Edwards though.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Dangit, Hillary's shooting herself in the foot. How is the GOP supposed to win with Obama running for the dems?

Good thing only Americans can vote in America*

CR
*Unless you come to Washington, where the dead and criminals vote early and often.

[Lemur]

Never worry, CR, there's a long way from here to there, and I expect to see every legal, political and criminal trick on display as Billary fight for their birthright. I don't understand why the Dems can't figure out that the Clintons are toxic at this date, but whatever.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think some might just be realizing that the Clintons will pull every trick in the book to win. But its only a few faint whispers of realization - like, hey, Obama didn't really say that.

Anyways, I'm giving up on Romney and am throwing my support behind the true juggernaut candidate;
http://video.ap.org/v/Default.aspx?g=d95dbd6b-e6ea-4ca4-a511-1955dcd81aea&mk=en-ap&f=flmih&fg=email for President (yes, of the United States!). For Experiencing the Hopefulness of Change! And a clock.

And the great thing is he's a libertarian kind of guy (For them, the question is always, "What kind of government intervention should we impose on the world?" They never think that maybe we shouldn't.):

For them, the question is always, "What kind of government intervention should we impose on the world?" They never think that maybe we shouldn't.
and:

I don't think the press has done a very good job dealing with government spending. The Defense Department with the $9,500 toilet seat, that' s not the problem anymore. Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are the problem. That's us. That's our generation. There the press never says a word.

We certainly never require politicians to ever address those issues except really briefly sometimes during the New Hampshire primary, and then everybody falls asleep.

And that was back in 1994.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Wow. What a great speech by Obama. Who wrote it - Mel Gibson?

Can't wait to get the DVD. Does he do Mel's 'freedoooom!' yell at the end?

Nicely tucked away sneers at the other Dem candidates too. Apparently Obama wants to end old political demonisation of opponents by, let me get this right, demonising his political opponents. Quite a refreshing change.

:zzz:

Wake me up when Obama starts to actually talk about policies, instead of simply channelling America's anger with Washington towards a pretty poster boy with deep coffers and great speech writers.*

*BTW, I thought Hollywood writers were still on strike? Our fairy tale prince charming isn't breaking any strikes, I hope?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Wake me up when Obama starts to actually talk about policies, instead of simply channelling America's anger with Washington towards a pretty poster boy with deep coffers and great speech writers.*

*BTW, I thought Hollywood writers were still on strike? Our fairy tale prince charming isn't breaking any strikes, I hope?

Have you watched any of the debates?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Have you watched any of the debates?Yes, I saw one last week. The one in which Hillary and Obama kept lashing out at each other.

Next thing I see, is Obama speeching that 'that kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all'. All this, in a speech in which Obama does the very opposite of what he says he is doing. The first half is one big smear against Hillary. The second half is one big promise that he will rid politics from smear.

So I might have been impressed with the speech if Obama would've had the courtesy to put his money where his mouth is.

Obama has as much campaign money as Hillary, and he is as prepared to use dirty tricks. The difference is that Hillary is less hypocritical about it. She always fights with the gloves off, and, unlike Obama, doesn't have to pretend that she isn't just to keep her image up. That's why she'd be an excellent president, and Obama a major disappointment once the novelty has worn off.

[woad&fangs]

1. Holy frijoles, I did not expect Obama to win by that much.

2. Louis, Most of Obama's policies are actually pretty similar to Hillary's. That's why you don't here him talk about them. Him and Hillary are trying to illustrate the differences between each other during the primaries.

3. Nice speech.

4. Hillary's campaign has been incredibly dirty. She can't use the "Republicans are going to tear him apart" excuse anymore. She didn't leave them any dirt to dig up on Obama.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hillary will fall in the general election, Louis. She's used the excuse of how Bill isn't running to dodge any and all questions about him. But now he's back in the game, and the GOP will be giddy with what they can unleash. Especially if McCain is on the ticket.

CR

[KukriKhan]

I wonder, is there going to be a thread for every state?

I don't think so, Caius. These state-by-state discussions are a product of how these nominating events are scheduled. Next week, we have Florida, and the following week "Super Tuesday", where 24 states all vote on the same day.

So, I think you'll see fewer US election-related threads after that, until late August, when the 2 major parties hold their actual nominating conventions.

And then again in November, when the REAL voting actually occurs.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hillary will fall in the general election, Louis. She's used the excuse of how Bill isn't running to dodge any and all questions about him. But now he's back in the game, and the GOP will be giddy with what they can unleash. Especially if McCain is on the ticket.

CR

So are you favoring McCain now?

Rassmussen said Romney has a 6% lead in Florida today. He is out if he doesn't win this. America deserves a race between Romney and Obama.

I would be so dissapointed with a Hillary McCain race. Republicans would vote for McCain just to stop her, rather than because he should be pres (which he shouldn't). We all know how anti-campaigns go - especially with a candidate who has no business being president (Kerry '04). We have seen how fogies fare against young charisma and momentum (Dole '96 - in the case of McCain vs Obama).

McCain is obviously approaching senility a year away from the election at 71 years of age, Do you honestly believe that the oldest President in in history is what we need right now (not just directed to you CR)?

Also, McCain has a Bi-polar relationship with the G.O.P. - he is favored now, but just months ago he was hauling his own bags flying economy and delivering his speeches to 50 people. I will bet you that he fizzles more than any candidate closer to crunch time - and that he picks Huckabee as his running mate. We all know that McCain is adept at tearing into Republicans and their policies, but he hasn't shown me a reason to suggest that he can lead the party.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm thinking McCain as VP.

CR

[CountArach]

I'm thinking McCain as VP.

CR
He would make a great VP electability wise.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm thinking McCain as VP.

CR

Absolutely, but I think that McCain is blowing any chance of a partnership between the two, come what may.

[Xiahou]

Yes, I saw one last week. The one in which Hillary and Obama kept lashing out at each other.

Next thing I see, is Obama speeching that 'that kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all'. All this, in a speech in which Obama does the very opposite of what he says he is doing. The first half is one big smear against Hillary. The second half is one big promise that he will rid politics from smear.

So I might have been impressed with the speech if Obama would've had the courtesy to put his money where his mouth is.

Obama has as much campaign money as Hillary, and he is as prepared to use dirty tricks. The difference is that Hillary is less hypocritical about it. She always fights with the gloves off, and, unlike Obama, doesn't have to pretend that she isn't just to keep her image up. That's why she'd be an excellent president, and Obama a major disappointment once the novelty has worn off.I completely agree. :yes:

I'm truly mystified by the rockstar awe people have of Obama. What has he done other than pull of a few good speeches? Big Deal. ~:handball: Has anyone taken the time to actually to go to his website and read up on the positions that he tries so hard not to talk about?

I don't like any of the candidates currently running. The only thing left to determine is which one I dislike the least.... I definitely have a lot of reservations about McCain but, at the moment, he's probably the least unpalatable of the bunch for me. If it were up to me, I'd disqualify all of them and ask for a new batch on both sides.

I swear, at this point, Ron Paul is starting to sound good... :sweatdrop:

[Marshal Murat]

So, Xiahou, are you waiting for the real candidates, or for the U.S. citizenry to say 'MULLIGAN! Start this over!' :laugh4:


What I want to know is if you think that everyone who supports a candidate doesn't know what they're supporting? I think that while there may be some who are still blank on the issue, they have a fair to good grasp on where the candidates stand. While they probably can't quote it like scripture, everyone has a general sense of the candidates. Besides, the Democrat candidates have some similar opinions, it's only how you choose to say it. It's your opinion, just like that was mine.

[Lemur]

I don't like any of the candidates currently running. The only thing left to determine is which one I dislike the least....
Xiahou seems to be channeling Homer Simpsons's epiphany: "When will people learn? Democracy doesn't work!"

Glad to hear you're ready to kiss and make up with Mac, BTW.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Glad to hear you're ready to kiss and make up with Mac, BTW.

Ew. Not until there are no other options.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For the Dems:

Obama is getting all the buzz because SC was a notch higher than expected in his win column. He did better with older/more traditional dems than anyone expected and he picked up the "Camelot" crowd for whatever that is worth.

Obama has made great strides in funding and organization, and has a real chance to unseat Clinton during the first mega-Tuesday vote. His appeal among Democrat African-descent voters is strong and his appeal among the under 35 Dem voters is huge.

However, Clinton has had lots more funding for lot longer, has had more state party organizations behind her for longer, and is willing to be more politically ruthless than Obama has so far demonstrated.

This one is NOT over yet and will not be decided on the 5th. Perhaps a 60-40 win on 2/5 will create the snowball for one or the other, but I think it will be early March before the Dems wrap up their choice.

Either way, the Dems are far from unbeatable in November. Hillary, for all her wit and pelf, carries lots of negatives with voters. She is the most polarizing of Dems. Obama, while far more "likeable" and charming, carries his greatest level of support among those who show up at the polls in the fewest numbers. Remember, the activists who vote in primaries and caucuses (cauci?) are a small slice of the pie compared to the general voters. SC, which Obama seems to have won somewhere between "clear" and "heroic," has only voted for the Dem candidate in the General Election 4 times since the 2nd World War -- and three of those were during the last of the "machine" era "Dixiecrat" elections of 1952, 1956, adn 1960. The ONLY Dem to win in SC was the Georgian Jimmy Carter who had the advantage of Watergate going in.

[Vladimir]

Wow. What a great speech by Obama. Who wrote it - Mel Gibson?

Can't wait to get the DVD. Does he do Mel's 'freedoooom!' yell at the end?

Nicely tucked away sneers at the other Dem candidates too. Apparently Obama wants to end old political demonisation of opponents by, let me get this right, demonising his political opponents. Quite a refreshing change.

:zzz:

Wake me up when Obama starts to actually talk about policies, instead of simply channelling America's anger with Washington towards a pretty poster boy with deep coffers and great speech writers.*

*BTW, I thought Hollywood writers were still on strike? Our fairy tale prince charming isn't breaking any strikes, I hope?

Thank you. :bow:

Full of sound and fury that one is. "Vice President" written all over him. Let's see how his "policies" change as he swings back toward the middle for the general election.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is absurd.

Dr. Juan Hernandez, McCain's Hispanic outreach director: “We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.”

Juan Hernandez (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/25/john-mccains-open-borders-outreach-director-the-next-dhs-secretary/)


TANCREDO: I had a great argument one time with a gentleman by the name of Juan Hernandez who was at that time the minister of that ministry that I just mentioned, the Ministry for Mexicans Living in the United States.

And I asked him that very question. What he told me the purpose of his ministry was to push people into the United States, it was to—by the way, it was also AFC work with them so that they did—he was with the community, he said. He was three days a week in the United States, four in Mexico.

By the way, he himself is a dual citizen born in Texas, university—teaching at the University of Texas and on the Vicente Fox cabinet. And he said, “I work with the community in the United States, the Mexican community because I don‘t want them essentially going native on us. We want them continually tied emotionally, linguistically, politically to Mexico, because then they‘ll continue to send money home.”

And I said to him, that does not sound like—you know, you‘re doing something that‘s actually the act of an unfriendly government.

CARLSON: Well, of course, it doesn‘t in any way serve American interests. It undermines our country in a pretty direct and direct and obvious way.

TANCREDO: Tucker, his response. Let me tell you his response.

CARLSON: Yes.

TANCREDO: At the end he goes, “Congressman,” in an incredibly condescending way. He goes, “Congressman, it‘s not two countries; it‘s just a region.”

CARLSON: That is not my view, to put it mildly.

TANCREDO: Not mine either.




****Now, incredibly, Juan Hernandez is GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s Hispanic Outreach Director. He is, as my Nevada reader wrote, a sovereignty-undermining extremist who “whose views and interests are so clearly anti-security and not in the interest of the American people or for that matter us legal Hispanic immigrants.”

I repeat: Geraldo Rivera Republican John McCain has learned nothing from the shamnesty debacle.

Next stop for his friend Juan Hernandez: DHS Secretary?

[Vladimir]

:shrug: Are you surprised?

As for me, I'll get the galleons seaworthy again. :titanic: :whip:

[ICantSpellDawg]

In other news: B

1)Billary decided to break its pledge not to campaign in Florida here (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080128/D8UET5E00.html)

2) Sharpton tells Bill to shut his race baiting face here (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/sharpton-to-bil.html)

3) Nader rips Hillary a new hole (funny word play comes to mind regarding Bill, but it is not PG-13 so it has been censored) here (http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2008/01/nader_rails_on_clinton_family.html)


Also, instead of running as the former President's wife, now she's trying to run as... Women in General! NOW NY supporters are claiming that Hillary has a right to be President because she is a woman. anyone who would stand in her way based on logic or ability is a traitor to women!


“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

“This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”

[Lemur]

You'll have to pardon me for kicking a man while he's down, but I just found out that Rudy thinks it would be great if you needed a Real ID card to get online (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhli-ZI_8es).

Anyone who supported this muppet is how encouraged to insult themselves.

I'm 50% happy. Rudy is going down like the Lusitania, now all we need is for Billary to go down like the Batavia. Then I'll be a 100% happy lemur.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You'll have to pardon me for kicking a man while he's down, but I just found out that Rudy thinks it would be great if you needed a Real ID card to get online (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhli-ZI_8es).

Anyone who supported this muppet is how encouraged to insult themselves.

I'm 50% happy. Rudy is going down like the Lusitania, now all we need is for Billary to go down like the Batavia. Then I'll be a 100% happy lemur.

Yea, that would be nice.

[KukriKhan]

OK, everybody who had to look up Batavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavia_(ship)) raise your hand.

:Kukri raises hand feebly:

Nice simile, Lemur. :bow: I wondered what an Illinois town had to do with that. :)

[Lemur]

I'm reposting this clip for the express purpose of making Xiahou and Louis have aneurysms. A small-c conservative writes (http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2008/01/barack_obamas_d.html):


As a libertarian-minded conservative, I agree with almost nothing of Barack Obama's actual policy positions. Whether it is with education, health care, or fiscal matters, Obama is a liberal in the truest sense of the word. He fails to respect federalism and his policies can often border on socialism. Indeed, I have trouble identifying any policy positions of Obama's that appeal to me. In short, I think Barack Obama would make a terrible Head of Government.

Yet, as David Kopel has deftly noted, the Head of State is an entirely different role altogether, and regardless of your ideological perspective, there is something tremendously appealing about Obama. Indeed, several of his recent speeches - his Iowa victory, a speech on MLK Jr. Day, and the South Carolina victory - have given me goosebumps and caused me to swell with pride at being an American.

-edit-

Is the Batavia that obscure? I referenced it since it involves mutiny and cannibalism. I note with dismay that the Wiki article doesn't even touch on some of the more lurid aspects of the Batavia wreck. It's really, really nasty. Check it out sometime ... (http://www.amazon.com/Batavias-Graveyard-Heretic-Historys-Bloodiest/dp/0609607669)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm reposting this clip for the express purpose of making Xiahou and Louis have aneurysms. A small-c conservative writes (http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2008/01/barack_obamas_d.html):


As a libertarian-minded conservative, I agree with almost nothing of Barack Obama's actual policy positions. Whether it is with education, health care, or fiscal matters, Obama is a liberal in the truest sense of the word. He fails to respect federalism and his policies can often border on socialism. Indeed, I have trouble identifying any policy positions of Obama's that appeal to me. In short, I think Barack Obama would make a terrible Head of Government.

Yet, as David Kopel has deftly noted, the Head of State is an entirely different role altogether, and regardless of your ideological perspective, there is something tremendously appealing about Obama. Indeed, several of his recent speeches - his Iowa victory, a speech on MLK Jr. Day, and the South Carolina victory - have given me goosebumps and caused me to swell with pride at being an American.

I 100% agree. I just wish he could have been a pro-life Republican. He could just as easily be from the speeches he makes.

[Marshal Murat]

1. Actually she held a couple "fundraisers" in Florida, and that definitely doesn't could as campaigning, including the photo-op on the tarmac

2. He's said something I can agree with.

3. Nader, well, good job.

4. Oh okay, so we can elect a female president, just because it hasn't occurred before. We just can't elect an African-American one, because he's a guy.

He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one).
This got my goat, and swung it around, and then smashed it into a bolder. I can handle a woman president, just not this one. Yea, duh! It's not like I'm trying to hold back women's rights or degrading them, it's just that I don't think she should lead the country! For Pete's sake, is that a crime?

[drone]

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.The only woman Ted Kennedy supports is a St. Pauli Girl, as it goes from glass to mouth. But women are welcome in his Oldsmobile any time. ~D

This is what I love about the Democratic Party. All the minorities and "oppressed" at each others throats for their slice of the pie. Should get really juicy as Clinton courts the Hispanic vote for California's primary on Super Tuesday.

[Lemur]

Another blogger (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/dick-morris-ins.html) on Obama, saying things Louis won't like:


He is not a traditional top-down big government liberal. He's a pragmatist who believes in finding ways to empower people to run their own lives. No, he's no libertarian. But his view of government's role has absorbed some of the right-wing critiques of the 1970s and 1980s. Hence the lack of mandates in his healthcare proposal and his refusal to engage in racial victimology. This nuance is worth exploring. Unlike Hillary, he doesn't believe he is going to save anyone. He thinks he has a chance to help some people save themselves.

[CountArach]

OK, everybody who had to look up Batavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavia_(ship)) raise your hand.

:Kukri raises hand feebly:

Nice simile, Lemur. :bow: I wondered what an Illinois town had to do with that. :)
Haha, I thought he meant Bavaria... "Yeah, they don't exist any more, so I suppose they did go down..." was pretty much my thought process.

(PS - new laptop! Happy Birthday CountArach!)

[KukriKhan]

Should get really juicy as Clinton courts the Hispanic vote for California's primary on Super Tuesday.

:groan: Don't remind me. Hers are the first adverts to appear on local TV stations here. I've seen 3 versions so far, all aimed at Hispanics.

p.s. Congrats on the new lappy, CA! :balloon2:

[Vladimir]

The only woman Ted Kennedy supports is a St. Pauli Girl, as it goes from glass to mouth. But women are welcome in his Oldsmobile any time. ~D

This is what I love about the Democratic Party. All the minorities and "oppressed" at each others throats for their slice of the pie. Should get really juicy as Clinton courts the Hispanic vote for California's primary on Super Tuesday.

I had an epifanie about the sudden show of support for Obama. This could be an internal power struggle in the Democratic party. Bill Clinton, as head of the party and former president, would have a lot of power if he was co-president. Since the man absorbs far more light than he reflects I think the other dems are afraid their piece of the pie will get smaller if Billary is elected. I doubt Ted's support and that of others is genuine, or even a reaction against the dirty tricks pulled by the Clintons (He and far too many democrats love playing dirty).

Are they willing to take this gamble? Are they hedging their bets? I bet you'll see (and not see :sneaky: ) active support from other members of the democrat establishment. Bill's wrath is harsh and everyone knows it. Once they're in, they're in.

Sorry guys but Obama is weak. With him as president and the Clintons marginalized the old sharks will be taking bites of dark meat. Now, how will this manifest itself? I don't think we'll really know until Obama gets into the general election. Watch how much his views change and on what to see how the bottom feeders will react.

It's sad really, we have lost all military expertise with a rare exception. That exception isn't acceptable in my opinion. Oh, and did anyone hear about the rumor of Edward's role in an Obama presidency? Was that here? Attorney General or something*. I can't wait to see his other cabinet choices.

Does anyone want to expand on this or throw rotten fruit at me?

Oh, and are you Europeans sick of hearing about this election crap? French politics are much more fun.


*Damn the .org! I keep wanting to type a "u" after an "o".

[Lemur]

Vladimir, I'd rather see Obama lose the general election than Billary.

[Vladimir]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't care which one of them looses the general election as long as one of them do. I was attempting to come at it from the eyes of Obama supporters. Whatever side you're on never give up until it's over. I'm sure they aren't hoping for a loss.

Or maybe I was envisioning my own worst-case scenario.

Blast! New page.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not Florida relevant - but I just saw my first political ad on TV - and it was for Ron Paul! Focused on his military service, delivering babies as a doctor, gun rights, and opposition to taxes. I think the good Dr. has a chance for unique appeal in this state that retains traces of libertarianism.

CR

[Vladimir]

Not Florida relevant - but I just saw my first political ad on TV - and it was for Ron Paul! Focused on his military service, delivering babies as a doctor, gun rights, and opposition to taxes. I think the good Dr. has a chance for unique appeal in this state that retains traces of libertarianism.

CR

And racism (http://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+racism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).

[Lemur]

Also, instead of running as the former President's wife, now she's trying to run as... Women in General! NOW NY supporters are claiming that Hillary has a right to be President because she is a woman. anyone who would stand in her way based on logic or ability is a traitor to women!
I looked this loonie up. Her name is Marcia Pappas, and she is a definite nutball. After Obama and Edwards teamed up on Clinton during a debate, Pappas issued a press release with the title (no, I'm not making this up): Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President (http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html).

Just so we're clear on the mind-set of the woman who penned Senator Kennedy Betrays Women by Not Standing for Hillary Clinton for President (http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_012808.html).

-edit-

Vladimir, I don't believe for a minute that Ron Paul is a racist. This goes back to a newsletter that was released under his name that included some nasty stuff, none of it authored by Paul. But thanks for dredging it up.

His statement (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters):

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

[Xiahou]

Dr. Juan Hernandez, McCain's Hispanic outreach director: “We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.”
McCain answered (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KSzu_lgaX8&) that well enough.


Glad to hear you're ready to kiss and make up with Mac, BTW.I certainly don't mean to give that impression. Simply put, McCain comes off as a generally honest politician who often says the wrong things, whereas Romney comes off as the insincere politician who is trying to say all the right things. Both are crappy choices.

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, I don't believe for a minute that Ron Paul is a racist. This goes back to a newsletter that was released under his name that included some nasty stuff, none of it authored by Paul. But thanks for dredging it up.



But Lemur, everything in The New Republic is true (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=860c9bec-a77a-4786-a869-cc893a43c8b2).

I'm going to have to go to link rehab this weekend. :clown:

[ICantSpellDawg]

McCain answered (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KSzu_lgaX8&) that well enough.

I certainly don't mean to give that impression. Simply put, McCain comes off as a generally honest politician who often says the wrong things, whereas Romney comes off as the insincere politician who is trying to say all the right things. Both are crappy choices.

I don't think it was a good answer.

That's sad that you don't support a candidate, but merely attempt to bring the other down. I'd think that if both are bad, you would wait and see how things turn out instead of actively pushing a candidate that you yourself believe is a "crappy" choice.

Romney is the #1 choice and has great breakout potential. Look at how far he has come in 1 year. Who heard of him 1 year ago? You say that he is insencere - I don't believe what McCain says about his ability to go all the way to the white house or direct American policies wisely. I see being a war hero as a great thing, but it doesn't qualify someone for the Presidency. I don't trust his judgement in legislation, why would I trust him in an even more important office?

He uses the old adage "tell people the truth 70 percent of the time, they will believe you the other 30%" - He uses straight talk when it serves him and spins the truth in turn.

[Husar]

I find this (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mysterious_traveler_entrances) very appropriate!

[ICantSpellDawg]

I find this (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mysterious_traveler_entrances) very appropriate!

Haha. Edwards is such a [person i don't like].

[ICantSpellDawg]

dang it.

[Lemur]

Looks like folks are calling Florida for McCain (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UFU5980&show_article=1). If the Dems nominate Billary and the Repubs nominate Mac, McCain will win.

[GeneralHankerchief]

That was a closed primary too, meaning that Mac didn't have any independents out to save him. Interesting.

In other news, looks like Giuliani's done.

-edit- CNN Ticker (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) says he might endorse McCain.

[rvg]

Three Cheers for McCain!

High command stars, max chivalry, morale bonii, he will be a perfect faction leader!

[CountArach]

Three Cheers for McCain!

High command stars, max chivalry, morale bonii, he will be a perfect faction leader!
Except that he is really old...

[ICantSpellDawg]

America loses in Florida. Seems like a common theme in Floridian elections, no?

Hillary/McCain - the only thing that would get me to vote for McCain. Guaranteeing that we have someone in the White House who has no business being in the White House.

America deserves an Obama/Romney race


On the plus/spin/optimist side, WHEN the Republicans lose this election and Hillary continues to ruin the United States, Romney won't be as much of an outsider in the 2012 election. By then, the G.O.P. should look like angels and we can give it another shot.

[rvg]

America loses in Florida...
That is a matter of opinion.

[Marshal Murat]

As a Floridian, I think that the Democrats brought this on themselves, by putting the moratorium on campaigning for the major candidates. Then, Hillary, after she finds the hole in her sinking ship (or running aground), decides to 'make the DNC change' and 'make your votes count'. Talk about scraping the barrel, especially after she was supposed to have shot all the fish that resided in the barrel. It makes me sick that she's so easily turned on her word, and played the 'I'm not campaigning, but I'm going to be here, so take a couple pictures of me!'

Ugh.

[Lemur]

America loses in Florida. Seems like a common theme in Floridian elections, no?
Well, as anyone who watches the Weather Channel knows, God hates Florida. That's why he keeps lobbing hurricanes at you.

One thing we can count on, if McCain is the nominee: The era of authorized, institutional, semi-legal American torture is over. It's only fitting that a man who was tortured and degraded by our enemies should be the man to put and end to this madness.

Go Mac!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, as anyone who watches the Weather Channel knows, God hates Florida. That's why he keeps lobbing hurricanes at you.

One thing we can count on, if McCain is the nominee: The era of authorized, institutional, semi-legal American torture is over. It's only fitting that a man who was tortured and degraded by our enemies should be the man to put and end to this madness.

Go Mac!

Bah.

[Ice]

America loses in Florida. Seems like a common theme in Floridian elections, no?

Hillary/McCain - the only thing that would get me to vote for McCain. Guaranteeing that we have someone in the White House who has no business being in the White House.

America deserves an Obama/Romney race


On the plus/spin/optimist side, WHEN the Republicans lose this election and Hillary continues to ruin the United States, Romney won't be as much of an outsider in the 2012 election. By then, the G.O.P. should look like angels and we can give it another shot.

That would be an interesting, painful race.

I'm with Lemur, go Mac. Since Dr.Paul looks like he isn't going to make it, I'm forced to support the next best thing the Republicans have.

[Xiahou]

That was a closed primary too, meaning that Mac didn't have any independents out to save him. Interesting.Interestingly, there are reports of independents showing up at the polls and voting for McCain- which, of course, would be illegal in Florida.

This (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-129electionday,0,6968764,print.story)
story makes one such reference. I'd be surprised if this was widespread enough to make the difference for McCain, but it shouldn't be happening regardless. Apparently, Florida just can't manage a scandal free election. :shrug:

[CountArach]

Ding dong, the witch is dead! (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/29/giuliani_a_disappointing_3rd_in_florida/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news)

ORLANDO, Fla.—Rudy Giuliani, who bet his presidential hopes on Florida only to come in third, prepared to quit the race Tuesday and endorse his friendliest rival, John McCain.

The former New York mayor stopped short of announcing he was stepping down, but delivered a valedictory speech that was more farewell than fight-on.

Giuliani finished a distant third to winner John McCain and close second-place finisher Mitt Romney. Republican officials said Giuliani would endorse McCain on Wednesday in California. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the public announcement.

Who would have thought, the Republicans wouldn't in fact elect someone who is pro-Choice, pro-Gun Control and pro-Gay Marriage and had no idea about how to run a national primaries campaign.

And the latest numbers according to CNN:
95% percent of precincts reporting

McCain 677,865 (36%)
Romney 582,806 (31%)
Giuliani 275,676 (15%)
Huckabee 253,886 (14%)
Paul 60,583 (3%)
Thompson 21,868 (1%)

--

Clinton 835,848 (50%)
Obama 555,292 (33%)
Edwards 243,332 (14%)

[Ice]

Ding dong, the witch is dead! (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/29/giuliani_a_disappointing_3rd_in_florida/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news)


Who would have thought, the Republicans wouldn't in fact elect someone who is pro-Choice, pro-Gun Control and pro-Gay Marriage and had no idea baout how to run a national primaries campaign.

He's not pro choice or pro gay marriage. Qute the opposite if you read his website.

He believes both are state issues, and SCOTUS should not legislate from the bench when states make laws prohibiting both.

[CountArach]

Comments that he made while on campaign on Wikipedia:

In a February 2007 interview with Sean Hannity, Giuliani said, "I hate [abortion] ... However, I believe in a woman's right to choose."
and

In a 2007 interview he said, "I have also stated that I disagree with President [George H.W.] Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortions."
Lots of other comments he has made over the years here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani#Abortion)

As for gay marriage, some quotes from here:
http://www.observer.com/node/26855

On Gay Domestic-Partner Rights:

National Republicans can lump it if they don't like his new domestic-partners bill, Mayor Giuliani said yesterday.

"I really haven't thought about what the impact is on Republican politics or national politics or Democratic politics," Giuliani said.

The bill he submitted to the City Council would extend the benefits city agencies must grant to gay and lesbian couples.

"I'm proud of it," Giuliani said of the bill. "I think it puts New York City ahead of other places in the country."

--New York Daily News, May 13, 1998

On Gay-Rights\Gay Rights Bill:

Giuliani favors extended civil-rights protection for gays and lesbians. Giuliani urged, by letter, to the New York Senate Majority Leader to pass the state's first ever gay rights bill, but did it privately.

"I am writing to convey my support for the current legislation to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians, and to urge you to allow the bill onto the floor of the Senate for prompt action."

"...It is my belief that we can penalize discrimination [against gays] without creating any potentially objectionable special privileges or preferential treatment."

--New York Post, June 5, 1993

Now Rudy Giuliani has jumped on the bandwagon, pressing the state Republican Party to release a gay-rights bill to the Senate floor for a vote. Marching in Sunday's [Gay Pride] parade, he has enlisted in the struggle to destroy the family. What a perfectly abominable springboard to seek high political office.

--Ray Kerrison New York Post, June 30, 1993

Giuliani said homosexuality is "good and normal."

--Ray Kerrison New York Post, July 7, 1989

On Gay Domestic Partnership:

"I have no objection to the concept of domestic partnership."

--Rudy Giuliani Informed Sources New York T.V. Show (PBS), May, 1992

[Ice]

I was talking about John McCain. Whoops.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was about to say that you have a pretty broad definition of those things...

[drone]

America loses in Florida. Seems like a common theme in Floridian elections, no?

Hillary/McCain - the only thing that would get me to vote for McCain. Guaranteeing that we have someone in the White House who has no business being in the White House.

America deserves an Obama/Romney race
I think you are jumping the gun here. McCain and Romney have won 3 states each, this isn't over yet. Super Tuesday may decide it, we will see. I'm hoping it goes all the way to the convention.

It's good to see the wheels coming off on the Hillary campaign though. She is not a very gracious loser. ~D

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think you are jumping the gun here. McCain and Romney have won 3 states each, this isn't over yet. Super Tuesday may decide it, we will see. I'm hoping it goes all the way to the convention.

It's good to see the wheels coming off on the Hillary campaign though. She is not a very gracious loser. ~D

Don't mislead yourself. McCain and Hillary will be the nominees. Look at the polls a week before super Tuesday. Hillary was never in real trouble for some reason.

www.realclearpolitics.com

Romney is done. Technically it is a 2 man race, but look at the winner take all races that he is up agaisnt and tell me 2 states where he is leading in the polls on super Tuesday. Romney absolutely needed Florida to have a shot next Tuesday - which still would have been tough.

Obama still has 2 hands on the ledge, so he could theoretically pull himself back up, but it won't happen.

[drone]

Yes, McCain can now be considered the frontrunner. But if Romney can get the more conservative base out, he still has a chance. And don't trust the polls, they haven't really been accurate.

Rumors are that Edwards is going to join Guiliani in bailing out today. If he throws his support behind Obama (as expected), and Billary continue to show how power-hungry they are, the tide may turn there.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, it looks like McCain would beat Hillary or Obama in the election:
RASMUSSEN:

McCain 48% Clinton 40%
McCain 47% Obama 41%....

From the drudge report.

And at least he's more pro-gun than Romney.

Stupid Huckabee, though, and his sucking of votes away from Thompson. At least I can throw this in the face of people who said 'He's the one!' - who can win the election, yeah right.

CR

[Lemur]

Edwards is out. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UG96600&show_article=1) That Onion video probably finished it for him ...

[Xiahou]

Stupid Huckabee, though, and his sucking of votes away from Thompson. At least I can throw this in the face of people who said 'He's the one!' - who can win the election, yeah right.Personally, I blame Iowans. It's because of them that Huckabee was able to give a false impression of electability. :soapbox:


Anyone ever see the "Douche and Turd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd)" South Park episode? That's this election. :yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Assessment that will make Lemur happy:

McCain will be the GOP nominee.

His win in FL gives him a small lead, but the real story is in the breakdown of the polling numbers.

Romney wins, hands down, in two categories (income 100-150k, self-described "very conservative"s) McCain wins modestly or big-time in all other sub-groups. Hispanics voted for McCain over Romney by nearly 4 to 1 and Romney polled behind Giuliani in that group -- and Giuliani will endorse McCain. Please note, in one week, the 2/5 primaries feature Cali and NY as the biggest plums and McCain is crushing among Hispanics and will win the popular NYC mayor's endorsement.

Romney's case is not hopeless, but it's 4-1 McCain at this point.


A second assessment that will make Lemur happy:

While still the likely nominee, Clinton is no longer "safe." One or two screw-ups between now and 2/12 and Obama will pass her -- recent trends show a nearly perfect 50-50 split between them and only her entrenched organization is giving her the edge. If Obama takes a real lead against her, she'll start shedding superdelegates like leaves in the Fall and Obama will take enough of a lead to ensure his win.


If it gets down to McCain v Obama, Obama takes it by a modest though consistent margin.

[KukriKhan]

If it gets down to McCain v Obama, Obama takes it by a modest though consistent margin.

And a McCain v Billary contest = ? in your estimation.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I swear that Hillary will be the next president. McCain has a Bi-polar relationship with the G.O.P.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And a McCain v Billary contest = ? in your estimation.

Very, very, painfully, y2k-type close.

Hillary goes in with the advantage of being a Democrat de jure as well as de facto. But she's the person the right loves to hate.

McCain -- who may as well be a pre-Kennedy Democrat --would have some conservatives sitting home or voting fringe. If all of them held their noses and voted McCain (admittedly a good man on nat sec and probably on fopo), Hillary would lose. If lots stay home, hill wins.

[econ21]

Hillary goes in with the advantage of being a Democrat de jure as well as de facto. But she's the person the right loves to hate.

McCain -- who may as well be a pre-Kennedy Democrat --would have some conservatives sitting home or voting fringe. ...

In the context of a conventional left-right two party contest, I've never really bought the argument that the hardcore (conservative Republicans in this case, but you could say left wing Labour in the UK or whatever) will stay at home if a moderate is selected. It just seems that however much the hardcore dislike the moderate their party has selected, they will detest the opposition candidate even more. For some reason (hard to fathom for this left-wing Euro), this detestation will apparently go double if the Democrats select Hilary.

The opposite argument always seems more convincing - that a moderate candidate will pick up more popular support than a hardcore one, by appealing to the uncommitted ("independents") and even some natural opposition supporters. At least that's how Clinton won and how Blair won - by being significantly more conservative than their own hardcore. Perhaps a charismatic conservative - a Reagan or a Thatcher - could appeal to natural opposition supporters too, but that seems rather rare. Plus to an outsider, it is McCain who has the charisma, not Romney.

Fighting for the middle ground just seems a no-brainer if you want to win a close fought two party election.

[KukriKhan]

Fighting for the middle ground just seems a no-brainer if you want to win a close fought two party election.

It does, I agree. But the past 3-4 campaigns have been marked more as flanking actions squeezing in toward the middle ground. Anyone initially staking himself out in the middle has been eliminated early on.

@Seamus: were you ever in the military? "Nat sec", and "fopo" are the kind of shorthand we had to use in 70's & 80's -era electronic messaging. We used them so much when I worked at Readiness Command, that guys started using them in everyday speech, too. Funny to see it here.

p.s. Thanks for your estimate. Gives me more confidence in placing that $20 bet I wanna make. :)

[econ21]

It does, I agree. But the past 3-4 campaigns have been marked more as flanking actions squeezing in toward the middle ground. Anyone initially staking himself out in the middle has been eliminated early on.

Point taken - appealing to the core to get selected by the Party and then changing tack to win the popular vote makes sense. I guess what sometimes negates that is if the party is so desperate to win - usually due to a string of defeats - that it chooses someone with a wider appeal from the start rather than going for ideological purity. At least that's what seems to have happened in the UK, when the Labour Party chose Blair and more recently when the Conservatives chose Cameron.

[seireikhaan]

@Seamus: were you ever in the military? "Nat sec", and "fopo" are the kind of shorthand we had to use in 70's & 80's -era electronic messaging. We used them so much when I worked at Readiness Command, that guys started using them in everyday speech, too. Funny to see it here.
~:confused: We use those terms all the times in Speech and Debate, though not formally...

[rvg]

Very, very, painfully, y2k-type close.

Hillary goes in with the advantage of being a Democrat de jure as well as de facto. But she's the person the right loves to hate.

McCain -- who may as well be a pre-Kennedy Democrat --would have some conservatives sitting home or voting fringe. If all of them held their noses and voted McCain (admittedly a good man on nat sec and probably on fopo), Hillary would lose. If lots stay home, hill wins.

I think McCain is very capable of beating both Billary and the Obamination. He is in a far better position to carry the independents than either one of the Dem candidates. As much as I respect Bill Clinton, I will not be voting for his wife, and Obama is just wrong on too many levels. So, myself, a (Bill) Clinton-style liberal will be voting for McCain in November, provided that Romney doesn't pull a miracle.

I'd prefer Romney over Obama, but not Over Hillary.

[Xiahou]

I swear that Hillary will be the next president. McCain has a Bi-polar relationship with the G.O.P.Better Hillary than Obama.... :sweatdrop:

[Lemur]

Better Hillary than Obama.... :sweatdrop:
Big fan of dynasties?

[Xiahou]

Big fan of dynasties?No. But I'm even less of a fan of candidates who run exclusively on BS platitudes and ignore the issues. :shrug:
Hillary has a longer, and much better senate record than Obama. Obama's been nothing buy an empty suit on the campaign trail- no substance. All that leaves to judge him on is his record and it's one that's far more liberal than Hillary's.

On a different tangent, let's contrast the AP's coverage (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/01/30/aps-vastly-different-obits-edwards-giuliani-failed-candidacies) of Edwards' dropping out of the race to Guiliani's:
DENVER (AP) - Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two aides. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning—Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Clinton said Wednesday that Edwards called her to inform her about his decision.

Obama told reporters Edwards had exited the race in a "classy" way. "I think he's run a great campaign," said Obama, who aides said also spoke with Edwards Tuesday night and asked for his endorsement.

[...]

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better- funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.

_________________________________________________________________

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - Rudy Giuliani told supporters Wednesday he's abandoning his bid for president and backing Republican rival and longtime friend John McCain.

"I spoke with Rudy Giuliani this morning and he confirmed that he is dropping out of the race and will endorse Senator John McCain for president," New York Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno said in a statement.

Once the Republican presidential front-runner, Giuliani suffered a debilitating defeat in Tuesday's Florida primary.

[...]

Tuesday's result was a remarkable collapse for Giuliani. Last year, he occupied the top of national polls and seemed destined to turn conventional wisdom on end by running as a moderate Republican who supported abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.

The results seriously decimated Giuliani's unconventional strategy, which relied heavily on Florida to launch him into the coast-to-coast Feb. 5 nominating contests.

But Florida proved to be less than hospitable. His poll numbers dropped and key endorsements went to McCain.

[...]

A bout with prostate cancer and the very public breakup of his marriage with second wife Donna Hanover - she first learned he was filing for divorce when he made the announcement at a televised news conference - forced Giuliani to withdraw from a race for the U.S. Senate against Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2000. The messy divorce was revisited in awkward detail once he re-entered politics.

With no working strategy in his presidential campaign, no primary victories and dwindling resources, the mayor's third-place finish in Florida spelled the end of his run, even if his crestfallen supporters couldn't believe it.

"They'll be sorry!" a woman with a New York accent called out to the mayor as he spoke. "You sound like my mother," Giuliani joked.

[Lemur]

'Fess up, Xiahou. I expect you prefer Hillary for two reasons:

She will unite and inspire Republicans in the November election.
She will damage the Democratic party.

In other words, she is the ideal candidate for a Republican to face in the general election. If anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it's Billary. Not to mention that her election will put the seal on sixteen (perhaps twenty) years of dynasty. What a joke.

If you believe the issue papers and statements, Billary and Obama are nearly identical. But for anyone who relishes hard partisan warfare, there's one clear choice.

[KukriKhan]

No. But I'm even less of a fan of candidates who run exclusively on BS platitudes and ignore the issues. :shrug:
... nothing buy an empty suit on the campaign trail- no substance.

You guys are too young to remember, but the same exact things were said about both JFK and Reagan by pundits of the time. "Empty suit" brought it back.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

'Fess up, Xiahou. I expect you prefer Hillary for two reasons:

She will unite and inspire Republicans in the November election.
She will damage the Democratic party.

In other words, she is the ideal candidate for a Republican to face in the general election. If anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it's Billary. Not to mention that her election will put the seal on sixteen (perhaps twenty) years of dynasty. What a joke.

Some truth ther Lemur.

However, the "dueling dynasty's" needn't stop there! After 8 years of Hillary, either of the Bush twins would be old enough to take a try at the Oval as would Chelsea Clinton. Plus Bush sibs Jeb, Neil and Doro would all be in their early 60s. We can keep this thing going for a while!!!!! :devilish:

[Marshal Murat]

Maybe this is why we should sterilize politicians....

[Xiahou]

'Fess up, Xiahou. I expect you prefer Hillary for two reasons:

She will unite and inspire Republicans in the November election.
She will damage the Democratic party.

In other words, she is the ideal candidate for a Republican to face in the general election. Oh please. I prefer her because I think she would make a much better president than Obama. The only upside I can think of to an Obama presidency is that the "new" would almost certainly wear off in the first term and would allow a decent GOP candidate to hopefully knock him off in 4yrs. Hillary, otoh, would probably get re-elected which would mean it would be a full 8yrs before we get another chance at a real conservative. Of course, if McCain or Romney win it would mean the same thing- at least 8yrs til we can try for a real conservative (it wouldn't matter if they get a second term or not as they'd be unopposed for the nomination).

Your accusations are based on the premise that I actually care if McCain or Romney win- I don't really. I am completely uninspired by all the candidates- they're all very flawed. I can't believe a word Romney says- he has a record of taking whatever the politically expedient position is. McCain is good on pork and on Iraq- and that's it. Obama is a liberal who's dodging the issues. Hillary is a comparatively moderate Democrat who's been tougher on defense and foreign policy than Obama.


You guys are too young to remember, but the same exact things were said about both JFK and Reagan by pundits of the time. "Empty suit" brought it back.Kind of off topic, but what did JFK accomplish? Sure, the Cuban missile crisis- but I don't think he did anything different than any other prez would've who isn't completely incompetent. He also cut taxes, which is good. What other accomplishments did he have? I wasn't alive then, but in retrospect he seems fairly unremarkable.

[seireikhaan]

Kind of off topic, but what did JFK accomplish? Sure, the Cuban missile crisis- but I don't think he did anything different than any other prez would've who isn't completely incompetent. He also cut taxes, which is good. What other accomplishments did he have? I wasn't alive then, but in retrospect he seems fairly unremarkable.

A) He didn't exactly get two full terms, now did he?

B) Hmm, Cuban Missile crisis was kinda important...you know, avoiding a nuclear holocaust with the USSR, I dunno, it wouldn't have been that bad if the entire planet had been vaporized. :rolleyes:

[KukriKhan]

Sorry to have mentioned Kennedy and Reagan in the same sentence. :beam:

I meant to draw a parallel between them and Mr. Obama, vis-a-vis the pundits' critique of their soaring, inspirational rhetoric, held in high esteem by americans of all camps, despite their lack of concrete details on governance itself.

JFK and Reagan both 'hired well', in my opinion. If Obama gets america's nod, I hope he follows suit.

I hope he doesn't imitate the other thing they had in common: getting shot.

[CountArach]

Maybe this is why we should sterilize politicians....
Didn't Lewinski claim that this is what she was trying to do? :wink: :laugh4:

[Bijo]

I've been watching some live CNN for a little while now. Obama and the woman are discussing, answering questions and such. Well, what should I say about it...? Hilary (with one or two Ls?) is talking rubbish. She also seems to get lots of applause. Obama seems to get cut off as is the applause he receives.

Well, whatever.... I think Obama is to be the one.

[CountArach]

I've been watching some live CNN for a little while now. Obama and the woman are discussing, answering questions and such. Well, what should I say about it...? Hilary (with one or two Ls?) is talking rubbish. She also seems to get lots of applause. Obama seems to get cut off as is the applause he receives.

Well, whatever.... I think Obama is to be the one.
Hillary (With 2 l's) continues talking even when her time is up. She has gone overtime by about half a minute a few times. I think that Hillary has scored a few points so far, but so has Obama.

[Bijo]

Wolf: "Senator Clinton, why can't you just say you were wrong now about what you did before, blah blah blah...?"
Clinton: "Well, Wolf (<-- oh please.....) [big whole story of many different stuff]
Wolf: "So,..." [gets cut off]
Clinton: "blah blah blah"
Wolf: "So what I'm hearing is that you were naive and trusting....?" [gets cut off]
Clinton: "Nice try, Wolf."
[the whole original question is almost forgotten]
[Wolf repeats]
Clinton: "blah blah blah, nice try, blah blah blah"

My thoughts? Sensationalist talk from the woman and a nasty attitude. Instead of directly and properly answering a question she talks too much and is able to easily distract. She is also too personal when she responds to a question giver, calling them by their first names in such a way that almost makes me cringe. What the hell does that matter? She wants to show that she's nice and... "human?" Get the hell outta here and just answer the damn question directly. She also has the tendency to let the audience applaud pretty long with which she is wasting valuable time. I bet she enjoys the applause.

Obama at least answers more directly and gets to the issue fast. He also appears more trustworthy. He also doesn't let the audience nicely finish their applause as he doesn't waste time. Obama jokes around a bit, but he does it in such a good way.

There is also too much noisy applause from the audience and too much joking around generally.

Well, whatever.... Hillary must not be president. Obama must be. His fresh unspoiled character that reeks of proper leadership qualities will bring good.

[Marshal Murat]

Well, if Bijo supports it, he must have looked at it objectively and considered all possible viewpoints.

A vote by Bijo is worth ten of mine.