U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

[ICantSpellDawg]

Apparently I am too whatever that means.

You aren't angry and white?

[Strike For The South]

This forum is literally chock full of that voting block. I think proletariat and Strike for the south (along with 2 other asian guys) are the only ones who it doesn't apply to.

?:smash:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

?:smash:

Well, I haven't seen you angry.

[Ice]

You aren't angry and white?

About as angry as most.

[Lemur]

Dude, you are so harshing my mellow ...


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/22576820.jpg

[Zim]

Can I be just sort of irate? :clown:

[Xiahou]

Well, I guess Dallas really is where we send Presidents to die (http://www.star-telegram.com/251/story/486413.html).Obama isn't president. :wink:

[Lemur]

Sure, ruin a fine rhetorical flourish to accomplish ... nothing. Meanwhile, your favorite candidate's staffers are turning to drink (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/politics/24mood.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=login).


Morale is low. After 13 months of dawn-to-dark seven-day weeks, the staff is exhausted. Some have taken to going home early — 9 p.m. — turning off their BlackBerrys, and polishing off bottles of wine, several senior staff members said.

Some advisers have been heard yelling at close friends and colleagues. In a much-reported incident, Mr. Penn and the campaign advertising chief, Mandy Grunwald, had a screaming match over strategy recently that prompted another senior aide, Guy Cecil, to leave the room. “I have work to do — you’re acting like kids,” Mr. Cecil said, according to three people in the room.

Others have taken several days off, despite it being crunch time. Some have grown depressed, be it over Mr. Obama’s momentum, the attacks on the campaign’s management from outside critics or their view that the news media has been much rougher on Mrs. Clinton than on Mr. Obama.

First your boy Thompson goes down leaving not even a ripple in the water, and now your BFF Hillary is on the rocks. I want to bet against you someday when there's money to be made.

[Lemur]

Another comparison (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?ref=opinion) of Clinton and Obama in terms of how they run a campaign:

Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.
Or as another columnist wrote:


Among her other cascading woes, it turns out that Hillary is not able to manage her political family’s money. Like a prudent housekeeper, Obama spent the cash he raised — including from his continuing relationships with small donors — far more shrewdly, on ads rather than on himself.

Hillaryland spent like a hedge fund manager in a flat-screen TV store. Her campaign attempted to show omnipotence by lavishing a fortune on the take-no-prisoners strategists Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, and on having the best of everything from the set decoration at events to Four Seasons rooms. In January alone, they spent $11,000 on pizza, $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts and $95,384 at a Des Moines Hy-Vee grocery store for get-out-the-vote sandwich platters.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, Hillary does have a lot of experience. Problem is most of it is from that healthcare debacle.

And does this mean I shouldn't hold out hope for a Hillary win March 4 that will prolong the democratic deadlock till the convention and result in a fractured party?

About the SS in Dallas with Obama - I visit a gun forum (big surprise!) - and a few of the members thought the end of checks on people at the rally was Obama trying to woo gun owners or show his trust in the American people. :dizzy2:

I really don't want a big government socialist like Obama to sweep to power with a democratic congress and start passing big increases in federal spending and permanent programs.

CR

[Redleg]

The recent news seems to demonstrate a crack in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Both are seemly now going for the throat of the other attacking character not policy or performance.

Should be interesting if they both self-destruct politically before March 4.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Public Editor of the NYT comes out against the McCain story:


“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he [Bill Keller, Exec Editor] replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

...

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.

EDIT: Link. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html?_r=1&ex=1361509200&en=a6a8e2f9834e219d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin)

So they say the point was not that he behaved in a improper or inappropriate way, but that unnamed sources felt he might be? Wow.

CR

[KukriKhan]

So they say the point was not that he behaved in a improper or inappropriate way, but that unnamed sources felt he might be? Wow.

CR

We give stronger evidence than that in CapoII.

On the Dem side: on Russert's Face the Nation this morning, he ran side-by-side film clips of Hillary "borrowing" speech themes from Bill's stuff of 15 years ago (or whenever he still had dark hair). Funny stuff.

[Geoffrey S]

Just some statements poorly concealed as questions for the American crowd more knowledgeable than me on such matters:

1. Both Obama and Clinton are extremely divisive. Whoever wins the primaries is going to have a hard time keeping fringes of the Dems in line?
2. McCain, if nothing else, has the potential to reach the middle ground and has largescale backing by the party base?
3. Nader will take an important chunk out of Clinton, at least?
4. The Dems appeal, as always, to mostly (sub)urban types. They're going to have plenty of trouble taking the rest?

The above makes me wonder, in total, if the Dems stand any realistic chance at all of facing McCain in the elections and winning?

[seireikhaan]

Just some statements poorly concealed as questions for the American crowd more knowledgeable than me on such matters:

1. Both Obama and Clinton are extremely divisive. Whoever wins the primaries is going to have a hard time keeping fringes of the Dems in line?
2. McCain, if nothing else, has the potential to reach the middle ground and has largescale backing by the party base?
3. Nader will take an important chunk out of Clinton, at least?
4. The Dems appeal, as always, to mostly (sub)urban types. They're going to have plenty of trouble taking the rest?

The above makes me wonder, in total, if the Dems stand any realistic chance at all of facing McCain in the elections and winning?
1. Obama is not divisive. Where do you get that? There are more "no party" voters going for Obama as opposed to McCain. Plus, the Dems are so far turning out record numbers for their primaries so far(with the exception of Alaska:sweatdrop: ), a good sign for them in the general election. Republicans are on status quo for the most part.
2. Possible, but it still seems that a lot of the hardcore, especially socially, conservatives still aren't buying into him. Although the NYT may have reversed that, possibly.
3. Nadar was a big influence. In 2000. Now, he's mostly a joke, and far fewer are buying his message. Plus, I haven't heard that he's running yet. Anyone have confirmation on that?
4. First of all, suburban types make up a pretty large chunk of population in America, though it'll vary depending on where you are. Thank the '50's for that. Additionally, they tend to appeal to inner city folks as well, and Obama particularly will appeal to this block. Rural areas probably will still go more Republican, though.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Plus, I haven't heard that he's running yet. Anyone have confirmation on that?


Right here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7261879.stm)

[Geoffrey S]

1. Obama is not divisive. Where do you get that? There are more "no party" voters going for Obama as opposed to McCain. Plus, the Dems are so far turning out record numbers for their primaries so far(with the exception of Alaska:sweatdrop: ), a good sign for them in the general election. Republicans are on status quo for the most part.
Well, put it this way. Those not taken in with his crowd-pleasing speeches haven't failed to notice he is offering no clear policy, and nobody can fail to notice his almost complete lack of experience. I could at least imagine a lot of people voting to prevent someone like him from taking office.

2. Possible, but it still seems that a lot of the hardcore, especially socially, conservatives still aren't buying into him. Although the NYT may have reversed that, possibly.
True. Also as you say, possibly media attacks would bolster his position.

3. Nadar was a big influence. In 2000. Now, he's mostly a joke, and far fewer are buying his message. Plus, I haven't heard that he's running yet. Anyone have confirmation on that?
He's running. And he was a joke back in 2000; that didn't stop the left fringe from voting, and won't stop them this time.

4. First of all, suburban types make up a pretty large chunk of population in America, though it'll vary depending on where you are. Thank the '50's for that. Additionally, they tend to appeal to inner city folks as well, and Obama particularly will appeal to this block. Rural areas probably will still go more Republican, though.
I should have been a bit more specific here. Urban areas tend to be far more evenly split between Republican/Democrats than rural areas, where the vote seemingly tends towards the Republicans. In that sense the Democrats are automatically fighting a slightly uphill battle, which I can't see being levelled by such characters as Clinton and Obama.

[seireikhaan]

Well, put it this way. Those not taken in with his crowd-pleasing speeches haven't failed to notice he is offering no clear policy, and nobody can fail to notice his almost complete lack of experience. I could at least imagine a lot of people voting to prevent someone like him from taking office.
Clear policy? Mayhaps you did not see his speech following the Wisconsin Primaries? He's put his positions and policy out there, and the only ones at this point who say he hasn't put it out haven't been paying attention.


He's running. And he was a joke back in 2000; that didn't stop the left fringe from voting, and won't stop them this time.
I wouldn't quite say it was a joke back in 2000. You have to have some appeal to get about 3% of the voting populace in American to vote for you, especially considering how Dems and Reps have rigged elections in their favors. In comparison, look at how he did in '04 in comparison to 2000, and you'll see that he really didn't play a factor in it. Nadar had his year and his moment; now he's pretty much a relic of the past, and Dems are going to be especially wary of turning their vote to him after he helped Bush win the election in 2000.


I should have been a bit more specific here. Urban areas tend to be far more evenly split between Republican/Democrats than rural areas, where the vote seemingly tends towards the Republicans. In that sense the Democrats are automatically fighting a slightly uphill battle, which I can't see being levelled by such characters as Clinton and Obama.
Not really. The uphill for Dems is more at a state level than anything else. They really need to win Ohio and Florida, though there are a few more swing states which can play a role as well. The thing to watch, imo, if Obama ends up with the nomination is possibly a few southern states switching sides, in the event that the black population finally actually turns out for the election, and in combination with social conservatives staying home because of dissatisfaction with McCain.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The problem for the dems, primary turnouts aside, is that the diehard supporters of Clinton and Obama don't like the other candidate. They're offering the same policies, for the most part, but very different charaters. I've heard of Hilary supporters saying they'd support McCain over Obama (exaggerated like GOP disdain for McCain? I think it might be deeper than that, considering McCain's broad appeal to independents).

And if Clinton pulls out a win, you can bet that all those enthusiastic Obama supporters are going to be apathetic.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've heard of Hilary supporters saying they'd support McCain over Obama (exaggerated like GOP disdain for McCain? I think it might be deeper than that, considering McCain's broad appeal to independents).

With Nader in the game, now, they wouldn't necessarily "protest" by going with the GOP. Nader's very green, anti-corporate message would play well among the younger set of Obamites if Hil gets the nom and he'd be a non-GOP protest vote choice for hil lovers if Obama gets it. Nader may well siphon off 2-3 McCain votes (nationally) too.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hillary Clinton's plan to help small business owners make ends meet:
by stiffing them thousands of dollars for months. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23owe.html?_r=3&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

In the NYT, no less.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that Hillary is going to win this thing. Look at the polls in Texas, Ohio and Penn - Hillary is up big time - in Ohio and Penn by wide margins.

Then look at smaller states like Rhode Island - still up. I don't know what people are talking about when they say that she is close to a loss. She will win Texas and Ohio and they will play it as a comeback.

Such BS - we all know that this is going to the convention. She will be the president and Obama will be her VP. They are playing the dramatic angle that will become obvious after march 5th.

I've been watching the polls - she is consistently leading in the various state polls and Barack's momentum there seems to be cut off.

[seireikhaan]

On the other hand, we've seen just how worthless polls can be, already in New Hampshire. All we truly can do at the moment is wait and see.

EDIT: Any links to the polls, Tuff?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, the Clinton campaign is desperate enough to circulate a photo of Obama dressed in local costume while visiting a foreign country as though it was some terrible thing:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, the Clinton campaign is desperate enough to circulate a photo of Obama dressed in local costume while visiting a foreign country as though it was some terrible thing:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm

CR
Bush in China (http://www.chinatoday.com.cn/English/20022/images/2k102/p34n07.jpg)

hildabeast (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/806892.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1936808AB6AB7C5FBAB61867946A054ABF9284831B75F48EF45)

So big deal, Obama is dressed like one of his biological kinsmen
Here's one with Hillary dressed in the same fashion as her ancestors (http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/hillarywitch.jpg)



BTW - here are some links (which I've been closely monitoring)
Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html)
141 delegates
Texas (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html)
193 delegates
Rhode Island (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ri/rhode_island_democratic_primary-544.html)
21 delegates
Pennsylvania (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html)
158 delegates

None of those are winner take all mind you, but all I'm saying is that with a variation of only around 4 points on the national level in favor of Obama, slowing of his momentum, and a string of likely Clinton victories - this thing isn't over. I don't even know why the media is pretending that it is.

Don't put you guard down. A woman who has held only 1 elected office in her life and shown coat-tail riding tendencies, a cantankerous and authoritarian demeanor with an anti-midas touch is still poised to have some say over your life, money and future. Tread carefully.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's simple; the media loves Obama. They've been caught hook, line and sinker by his appeal.


So big deal, Obama is dressed like one of his biological kinsmen
I know. It seems like playing up the Farrakhan endorsement would be much better. You know 'scary man endorses Obama!'. At least it wouldn't be so stupid as this.

CR

[Lemur]

ARG's latest polls. (http://americanresearchgroup.com/) FWIW.

[Xiahou]

Here's (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_appeal_depends_on_your.html) a fun read on Obama from Stuart Rothenberg entitled:

Obama's Appeal Depends on Your Definition of Change
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) continues to promise change and stress his ability to unite Americans. It's a feel-good campaign built on soaring rhetoric and good intentions.

Pardon me if all of the fawning from the national media, and the endorsements from Caroline Kennedy and Garrison Keillor, leave me less than convinced that he can bridge the deep divide that separates Americans.

Withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq won't bring Americans together. Nor will raising taxes on the affluent or enhancing the power of organized labor to recruit more members. Even a stem-cell research bill won't bring Americans together, though a clear majority surely supports it.

In politics, the devil is always in the details, and except in rare cases, Obama has either avoided them or, more importantly, failed to note the obvious contradictions in his message and his record.

Yes, Obama is a wonderful speaker, and his calls for change obviously resonate with many Americans. With seven out of 10 Americans agreeing that the country is headed off on the wrong track, it isn't surprising that every candidate has talked change. No one has promised a third Bush term.

The question, of course, is what kind of change? Does Obama want to find common ground between Democrats and Republicans? Will he push issues and alternatives only with a national consensus? Or is "change" simply a value-neutral word for liberalism?

In the spring of 2005, 14 Senators tried to make Washington run more smoothly by signing an agreement for the 109th Congress that had the effect of killing Democratic plans to filibuster President Bush's appointees to the appellate bench and eliminating a GOP strategy that would disallow filibusters of judicial appointments.

Barack Obama, who talks about changing the tone in Washington, didn't join that "Gang of 14."

Part of the problem with Obama's message -- and part of the reason it has so far been successful in his White House bid -- is that different people read different things into his message of hope and change.

During an interview on a Washington, D.C., radio station the morning of the Potomac primary, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) talked about why he is drawn to Obama's message of change. One didn't need to read very hard between the lines to see that Kennedy thinks "change" means a dramatically more liberal agenda.

There is, of course, nothing surprising or wrong with this. You would expect Kennedy to support a candidate with whom he agrees.

But other voters, including some Republicans and many independents, seem to be attracted to Obama because they see him as someone who will improve the tone in Washington, bring Americans together and "get things done."

Again, those are understandable goals. The only problem is that Kennedy's view of Obama and the other one are all but impossible to reconcile.

If Obama satisfies Kennedy and the Democratic Party's most liberal constituencies, it's unlikely that he is going to bring the country together. And if Obama does truly take steps to find a middle ground between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, he certainly will disappoint his party's base.

The reality is that half of the country leans Democratic and half leans Republican. Yes, there are some issues on which many Americans agree, but if Obama limits himself to those, he'll have a thin agenda.

Instead, Obama is likely to strike out in a different direction from Bush. And if he thinks his communication skills alone will bring along the whole country (as he seems to), he is deluding himself. America is divided because Americans have very different views.

Obama was rated the most liberal Member of the U.S. Senate in 2007, up from the 10th most liberal Member in 2006 and the 16th most liberal in 2005. That suggests that he will follow a rather predictably liberal agenda if he is elected president later this year.

Even more telling, possibly, was a recent interview Obama gave to television anchor Leon Harris and journalist John Harris. In it, Obama tried to have things both ways.

When he was asked by Leon Harris how he reconciles his support for the D.C. gun ban, which was declared unconstitutional by a federal court last year and which bars all handguns not registered before 1976, with his statement that he has "no intention of taking away folks' guns," Obama launched into a confusing explanation of "conflicting traditions in this country."

He ended his monologue by saying, "We can have a reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respects the Second Amendment and people's traditions." But the D.C. gun ban is based on the premise that the Second Amendment doesn't give individuals the right to own a gun.

Maybe if Obama wraps up the Democratic nomination in the next few weeks, he'll give all of us a better idea of what he'd really like to do as president. We can only hope so. Another eight months of soaring but empty rhetoric about bringing people together and bringing about change will leave most of America brain-dead.
Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper. To save Lemur the trouble of reading it, yes, the article has a mention of the National Journal's vote ratings- so you can safely dismiss Rothenberg as a GOP shill. :wink:

Edit:
ARG's latest polls. (http://americanresearchgroup.com/) FWIW.I think it doesn't speak well for McCain that Huckabee is still polling so strongly. Luckily for the GOP, their primaries are winner-take-all. :yes:

[CountArach]

ARG's latest polls. (http://americanresearchgroup.com/) FWIW.
ARG is notoriously inaccurate.

My tip for Texas and Ohio is that Hillary will win Ohio with about 57ish% and Texas with about 52%. What should be remembered about Texas is that delegates are divided up according to how high the Democratic turnout was in the last election and it was low in Hispanic areas, while being higher in African-American areas. So even if Obama gets to that point, he may still get a lot of those delegates.

Its scary that an Aussie knows these things, right?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Its scary that an Aussie knows these things, right?Are you kidding!? Forget about the Oscars and the Champions League. The American election is the biggest show on the planet right now!

I, for one, applaud America for keeping us all entertained with this long, open and very lively double party primary season! It's a blast, and to think the real election is still eight months away! :beam:

[GeneralHankerchief]

It's a blast, and to think the real election is still eight months away! :beam:

I think I speak for a good percentage of Americans when I say "shoot me now."

[Redleg]

I think I speak for a good percentage of Americans when I say "shoot me now."

Not me - I am waiting to see if the Democrat party self-implodes and how the actual election is going to go.

[drone]

I think I speak for a good percentage of Americans when I say "shoot me now."

Not me - I am waiting to see if the Democrat party self-implodes and how the actual election is going to go.
I said in a thread a while back that the wait for November was going to be painful at best. But the Democrats have made it interesting, and the Hillary train-wreck in the making has me all tingly with anticipation. Hope she doesn't drop out after Texas/Ohio, I want to see shenanigans with super-delegates, Florida/Michigan delegates, and a whole host of other political underhandedness before the conventions. Many, many shenanigans. :yes:

[Xiahou]

Ladies swoon for Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3J4b-NWKYA&feature=related)
This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndl57E7UJno&feature=related) shows a few more in chronological order. Some will certainly disagree, but I think they look more and more scripted/polished as time goes on.

And in what plays almost like a parody (but isn't) Hillary follows suit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78rfAAjriBo). Hey, she knows a good PR stunt when she sees it. :laugh:

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Not me - I am waiting to see if the Democrat party self-implodes and how the actual election is going to go.

I'm waiting for both of the "Big Two" to implode...and then the plethorea of third parties will win the day!!! :2thumbsup:

Until then, we, the little people, shall continue to be like this:

:wizard: :wizard: :wizard:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And in what plays almost like a parody (but isn't) Hillary follows suit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78rfAAjriBo). Hey, she knows a good PR stunt when she sees it. :laugh:

I believe her, it has to be real.

She sounds so frustrated (all the suppressed sighs), you can practically see her thinking "Yes, yes, just get them out of here."

[Proletariat]

Hillary's the first politician to actually make me laugh in awhile today with her stab at Obama. It really summed up why she's so much more qualified than her opponent, but eh, who am I to worry if the Democrats want to back the new and shiny empty suit.


"Now I can stand up here and say: Let's just get everybody together, let's get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect," Clinton told supporters here at Rhode Island College.

"Maybe I just lived a little long. But I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be," Clinton continued. "You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-campaign25feb25,1,3317338.story

It was funny, and she's right, and she'll lose anyway.

:2thumbsup:

[KukriKhan]

Hillary's the first politician to actually make me laugh in awhile today with her stab at Obama. It really summed up why she's so much more qualified than her opponent, but eh, who am I to worry if the Democrats want to back the new and shiny empty suit.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-campaign25feb25,1,3317338.story

It was funny, and she's right, and she'll lose anyway.

:2thumbsup:

My goodness... such talk just makes me swoon. :back of hand to forehead:

:laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hillary's the first politician to actually make me laugh in awhile today with her stab at Obama.

I'm sorry, did you say stab? (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html)

[seireikhaan]

I'm sorry, did you say stab? (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html)
Well, that certainly won't be an akward family reunion years from now...:sweatdrop:

[Lemur]

That's just beautiful, TuffStuff. Gave me a good laugh.

CBS polls for today are out, including a write-up (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/25/opinion/polls/main3874915.shtml) and the full poll results on the Dem race (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Feb08a-Dem_race.pdf) and the general election (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FEBA-GENERAL_ELECTION.pdf).

Even a cursory glance at the data shows that the election is changing, and fast.

[KukriKhan]

Are you kidding!? Forget about the Oscars and the Champions League. The American election is the biggest show on the planet right now!

I, for one, applaud America for keeping us all entertained with this long, open and very lively double party primary season! It's a blast, and to think the real election is still eight months away! :beam:

Looking at it from your point of view... yeah, it IS kinda like Jerry Lewis v Eartha Kitt. :)

p.s. Louis: your PM box is bursting at the seams, and needs archiving.

[Lemur]

Leave Mike Huckabee alone! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGSoqfHfcL0)

[KukriKhan]

Drooling at the end = priceless.

Shudda put a sheet behind him like the "Leave Britney Alone" guy.

Good find, your Lemur-ness. :thumbsup:

[Xiahou]

George Will levels some legitimate criticisms (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/02/28/mccains_good_times) of McCain. Something the NYT, apparently, couldn't competently pull off.

....
On the other side of the aisle, Obama shows how just plain naive (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9A51612E-7A86-4800-B117-5A7AE41EDC73.htm) he is on foreign policy...
Obama said on Wednesday that, as president, he would withdraw US troops and act if the al-Qaeda network was "forming a base in Iraq".

"I have some news. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq'," McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas during a rally. McCain, obviously, is right. Obama responds with:
Obama responded from a campaign stop in the state of Ohio that the network did not exist in Iraq George Bush, the US president, and McCain "decided to invade Iraq".Which is just a stupid partisan attack. Even if it's true- so what? That doesn't change the reality of fact that Al Qaeda is now there.

Obama goes on to say:

"I do know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets," he said.Ignoring the fact that it's a backtrack from his earlier statement, that strategy sounds a lot like the administration's strategy prior to the Petraeus and the surge- which most of us could agree was not working real well.

Like I said, all our candidates stink. :shame:

Edit: In some puzzling news, using Obama's middle name is now, apparently, an out-of-bounds smear (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/02/middle-name-cal.html).:dizzy2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT
MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT MITT happens.

[KukriKhan]

Please consider our readers. :bow:

[Lemur]

Maybe this will work better for him, but I don't think it's wise to borrow your slogan from Hillary:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/mccainready.jpg

-edit-

In some puzzling news, using Obama's middle name is now, apparently, an out-of-bounds smear (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/02/middle-name-cal.html).:dizzy2:
Apparently Karl Rove (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/rove_dont_hussein_obama_1.php) is discouraging Republicans from banging the Hussein drum:


No less an authority figure than Karl Rove has warned Republican operatives from demagoguing Barack Obama's middle name.

At a closed door meeting of GOP state executive directors in late January, Rove said the safest way to refer to Obama would be to use his honorific, "Sen. Obama."

"The context was, you're not going to stimatize this guy. You shouldn't underestimate him," one of the executive directors said. Rove said that the use of "Barack Hussein Obama" would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party.

[Xiahou]

Apparently Karl Rove (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/rove_dont_hussein_obama_1.php) is discouraging Republicans from banging the Hussein drum:Well, it's a cheap attack when there are so many more substantiative one's to use against Obama. The Obama campaign should own up to his name though, instead of treating it like a dirty word- it is his name.

In other news, Democrats are once again pwned on Iraq- this time by... Angelina Jolie (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022702217_pf.html)? :inquisitive:

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made.

[CountArach]

lol, is Jolie a Republican mouth-piece now?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Insert joke about mouth-pieces.

Also, using Obama's middle name would be a bit of a cheap shot, since I think it would throw a disturbing amount of Americans for a loop ("wait, he's one of them terrorists!?")

[ICantSpellDawg]

We took a Hussein out of power in Iraq and are putting one into power in the U.S.A.

hahahaha

[Lemur]

Tuff, I think you're the first person to ever think of that line. Congrats!

Meanwhile, the anti-Hillary media conspiracy is revealed (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=162951&title=anti-hillary-conspiracy).

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff, I think you're the first person to ever think of that line. Congrats!

Meanwhile, the anti-Hillary media conspiracy is revealed (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=162951&title=anti-hillary-conspiracy).

sarcasm. I never connected them for some reason. PLUS I didn't think he'd make it when he first came out and people were discussing his name.

[Lemur]

Quick test: who said the following, Obama or Reagan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803316.html)? (No cheating, read it and guess before you check.)


"Everywhere we have met thousands of Democrats, independents and Republicans from all economic conditions and walks of life bound together in that community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. They are concerned, yes, but they are not frightened. They are disturbed but not dismayed. They are the kind of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote — during the darkest days of the American Revolution — 'We have it in our power to begin the world over again.' "

[Proletariat]

Guessing Obama

Edit: I was wrong but I don't see the point anyway.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Guessing Obama

Edit: I was wrong but I don't see the point anyway.

Point is that Obama is going for the Everyman angle. He's the feel good politician that tries to represent getting the U.S. back to what made it great.

McCain stinks. That guy had a shot 8 years ago, now he's what Camille Paglia calls "a weird old coot"

I won't vote for him (right now) - he just shows himself to be more and more inept every day.

[Lemur]

I don't see the point anyway.
Not a point so much as an observation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803316.html).

[CountArach]

Point is that Obama is going for the Everyman angle. He's the feel good politician that tries to represent getting the U.S. back to what made it great.

McCain stinks. That guy had a shot 8 years ago, now he's what Camille Paglia calls "a weird old coot"

I won't vote for him (right now) - he just shows himself to be more and more inept every day.
Didn't you say you would vote for him because Romney endorsed him?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Didn't you say you would vote for him because Romney endorsed him?

I'm teetering on and off. I haven't pulled the lever yet - this week made him look like an idiot to me.

[Fragony]

Oh mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcR6enqJZJ8&eurl=http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/video/2008/03/hillary_clinton_speelt_in_op_a.html

God allmighty on a plane unbelievable :laugh4: :laugh4:


Edit: Mozes on speed downhill it gets even better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMmMZNSUWw&eurl=http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/video/2008/03/hillary_clinton_speelt_in_op_a.html

US elections, the biggest catfight on earth?

[KukriKhan]

Hehe. Wait'll the end of summer, when the Repubs and Demos go directly at each other.

"There will be blood". :beam:

[seireikhaan]

Hehe. Wait'll the end of summer, when the Repubs and Demos go directly at each other.

"There will be blood". :beam:
No kidding. Ironically, its because of Mr. McCain himself that it'll get even worse(McCain/Feingold). 527 groups anyone? Eeek.

[FactionHeir]

Searching for anti Obama or anti Hillary sites netted a few interesting ones. None of them is really objective, but its actually interesting to read what those who do not support the other think I guess. Nevertheless, they seem factual enough to have some credibility if you are wanting to find out about your own or the other candidate.

Anti-Obama:
Link 1 (http://www.againstobama.com)
Link 2 (http://www.stop-obama.org)

Anti-Clinton:
Link 1 (http://www.againsthillary.com)
Link 2 (http://www.stophillary.com)

Personally, I'm not really in favor of any of the candidates, though think Obama might be more glamor than ability.

[Fragony]

Takes only one look she's scary she is her job, would stay away from that brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :skull:

[Lemur]

Nice to see Johnny Mac thinking big (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/04/mccain_eyes_california_prize.html).


Sen. John McCain "and his aides are already thinking about which states to target in the fall and one tops the list: California." According to USA Today, McCain believes that "his outlook on such issues as the environment" and the support of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger "will be a help in the traditionally blue state."

If McCain can put Cali into play, and Obama can put traditionally red states into play, we could have an exceptionally interesting November.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Prepare to be scared. (http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=DMs-p5y6cvo)

[seireikhaan]

Prepare to be scared. (http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=DMs-p5y6cvo)
:sick:
That was cruel and unusual.

[woad&fangs]

:sick:
That was cruel and unusual.
seconded

[seireikhaan]

Congratulations to Mr. McCain for officially sewing up the Republican nomination.

[Xiahou]

Nice to see Johnny Mac thinking big (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/04/mccain_eyes_california_prize.html).


Sen. John McCain "and his aides are already thinking about which states to target in the fall and one tops the list: California." According to USA Today, McCain believes that "his outlook on such issues as the environment" and the support of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger "will be a help in the traditionally blue state."Yeah, another thing to love about McCain- he drinks the global warming kool-aid. That'll help our economy. :no:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Latest on the Drudge Report:
TEXAS
OBAMA 676,553 50%
CLINTON 661,234 49%

Hillary's edging up over the last few updates.

EDIT: Update:
TEXAS
OBAMA 686,166 49%
CLINTON 678,440 49%

The Abyss claws closer to Obama:
TEXAS
OBAMA 701,429 49%
CLINTON 696,635 49%

OHIO
CLINTON 600,801 57%
OBAMA 438,215 41%

The fearsome beast takes the upper hand!
TEXAS
CLINTON 731,235 49%
OBAMA 723,944 49%

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hillary will be the next President of the United States. I have been consistently calling it and I am utterly convinced. She has a pact with Satan and nothing can stop her.

PS - drudge doesn't keep good polls. Fox gets them in more accurately for some reason. Pretty much everything else he gets first.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Congratulations to Mr. McCain for officially sewing up the Republican nomination.

Take her easy - he didn't so much "win" as conservatives "lost"

It's kind of like saying saying James P Hoffa "Won" the presidency of the teamsters, when in reality Carey was just barred from the post because of his personal failures.

McCain blows. That guy will lose and the G.O.P. will be better for it.

[Marshal Murat]

Anyone who is a Huckabee supporter is looking between McCain and Clinton, and would prefer McCain.

Obama supporters dislike Hillary intensely to moderately, and would be willing to embrace McCain more than Hillary.

Besides, the numbers don't really matter in Texas, due to their 'unique' primary system. Obama could lose the popular vote but win the delegates.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So it looks like we'll drag on past tonight, despite the fact that hillary has ~0% chance of winning the pledged delegates. Let's hope the superdelegates aren't stupid.

I wonder if obama really has those 50 superdelegates ready to pledge to him?

[Marshal Murat]

The superdelegates will vote in their best interests. If they aren't able to be re-elected, they might vote for the highest bidder. They could vote however they wish, and while they may theoretically be 'accountable to the people', they'll vote in their best interests.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Clinton pulls ahead in Texas:

CLINTON 772,543 50%
OBAMA 753,832 49%

Looks like she'll stay in the race.

CR

[Lemur]

So who's the candidate of identity politics? According to the exit polls (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/04/race-and-gender-both-helped-clinton.aspx), people who said that race or gender mattered to them went overwhelmingly for Clinton. People who said that race and gender were not a big deal went for Obama.

Make of it what you will ...

-edit-

And of course, congratulations to McCain for sewing up the Republican nomination!

[ICantSpellDawg]

And of course, congratulations to McCain for sewing up the Republican nomination!


Booooooooo

[Strike For The South]

DAD GUMMIT:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

[CountArach]

Booooooooo
:laugh4:

It will be interesting to see who gets the most delegates in Texas, because from what I have read the larger districts are more pro-Obama.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ohio (141 delegates total):
Clinton 1,080,439 55% 59 Winner
Obama 842,994 43% 35

Texas(193 delegates total):
Clinton 1,302,460 51% 46 Winner
Obama 1,207,222 47% 35

More delegates to come of course.

Overall, Hillary's about 90 delegates behind Obama (out of 1400), with 16 states to go along with super delegates as yet uncommitted.

For updates go here:
http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/d_delegateScorecard.shtml

Odd that Texas counts so much in the democratic primary.

CR

[FactionHeir]

Looking at the precinct maps, it looks like in the Dem primaries of RI, TX and OH, Clinton won pretty much the entire map while Obama won the major cities.

McCain won everything everywhere in the Republican one.

[Ronin]

Did anyone else found it funny has hell....that the Jack Nicholson support video for Hilary used a clip from "A few good men" where Col. Jessep is saying that there is nothing sexier than a woman you have to salute...but they cut out right in a moment where Jessep is about to say that if a woman would be elected president he´d get a bj from her???

I just started laughing uncontrollably at that :laugh4: was it just me?

well...anyway congrats to McCain for his 2 victories yesterday.....getting the nomination and having Hilary make a come back....because let´s face it...if Hilary gets the nomination McCain has the presidency locked.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Obama must win at least 77% of the remaining pledged delegates and Clinton must win 94%

I like the idea that the two candidates must now rely on the super delegates to win this.

[drone]

Chaos. The Dems are definitely keeping this interesting. The convention is going to be must-see TV. :yes:

[CountArach]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Mar06.html

No nomination for you Billary!

For those who can't be bothered to read it, Hillary came out with only about 10 more delegates than Obama.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah. Her chances of picking up either a pledged delegate lead or a popular vote lead are basically zilch. Especially since if Michigan does revote it will be a caucus.

[Lemur]

I'll be curious to see if the MSM picks up on the deepening (perhaps I should way widening (http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/2/3501879.html)?) of the Rezko business.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, at least for the Dem's this time there will be no whining about "our state primary is in late May so it's already over by the time we can even vote."

If Clinton does not withdraw from the race prior to Pennsyvania, Obama will not achieve enough pledged delegates out of 3253 to win outright.

OTOH, unless Obama concedes TODAY, Clinton cannot either. Clinton cannot win outright among pledged delagates unless BOTH MI and FL are credentialled at the current numbers AND she wins 80% of the remaining delegates (won't happen without an immediate withdrawal by Obama).

THIS IS GOING TO THE CONVENTION.

We're headed into a partially brokered convention where the candidate is likely to be determined on the basis of old-fashioned retail politics among the 796 superdelegates. I think Clinton has a slight advantage in this category -- She and President Clinton have about 20 years worth of connections each with that group, so we may not even get a clear result here.

SO how's this for a thought....

With 26 delegates whom only HE can release --

John Edwards, Kingmaker.


THis year is nothing if not entertaining! :devilish:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

She think holding a caucus where both candidates can be voted for disenfranchises all the people who voted when she was the only person on the ballot :dizzy2:

She clearly doesn't give a :daisy: :daisy: about the voters she just wants as many delegates as she can get. Very scummy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A really wonderful piece by Peggy Noonan. She is a great writer.

DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN

Over the Top
March 7, 2008
link (http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html)


From the first voting in Iowa on Jan. 3 she had to prove that Clintons Are Magic. She wound up losing 11 in a row. Meaning Clintons aren't magic. He had to take her out in New Hampshire, on Super Tuesday or Junior Tuesday. He didn't. Meaning Obama isn't magic.

Two nonmagical beings are left.

What the Democrats lost this week was the chance to paint the '08 campaign as a brilliant Napoleonic twinning of strategy and tactics that left history awed. What they have instead is a ticket to Verdun. Trench warfare, and the daily, wearying life of the soldier under siege. The mud, the cold, the dank water rotting the boots, all of it punctuated by mad cries of "Over the top," bayonets fixed.
[Over the Top]
M.E. Cohen

Do I understate? Not according to the bitter officers debating doomed strategy back in HQ. More on that in a minute.

This is slightly good for John McCain. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hemorrhage money, exhaust themselves, bloody each other. He holds barbecues for the press and gets rid of a White House appearance in which the incumbent offers his dread embrace. Do it now, they'll forget by the summer. The president does not understand how unpopular he is and after a year on the trail with the faithful neither does Mr. McCain. Mr. Bush confided to a friend a few months ago, as he predicted a Giuliani win, that he'll eventually come out and campaign for the nominee big time. Talk about throwing the drowning man an anvil.

But it is not good for Mr. McCain that when he officially won this week it barely made page three. The lightning is on the Democratic side. Everything else seems old, like something that happened a year ago that you forgot to notice.

How did Hillary come back? Her own staff doesn't know. They fight over it because if they don't know how she carried Ohio and Texas they can't repeat the strategy.

So they figure backward. She won on Tuesday and did the following things in the weeks before, so . . . it was the kitchen-sink strategy. Or Hispanic outreach. Or the 3 a.m. ad. (The amazing thing was not that they lifted the concept from Walter Mondale's '84 run, but that the answer to the question "Who are you safer with?" was, The Woman. Not that people really view Hillary as a woman, but still: That would not have been the answer even 20 years ago.)

Did she come back because Mr. Obama's speech got a little boring? Was he coasting and playing it safe? Or was it that he didn't hit her hard enough? "He hasn't been able to find a way to be tough with a woman opponent," they say on TV. But that's not it, or is only half the truth. The other half is that it has long been agreed in the Democratic Party that one must not, one cannot, ever, refer to the long caravan of scandals that have followed the Clintons for 15 years. "We don't speak of the Clintons that way."

But why not? Everyone else does. Yes, the Obama sages will respond, that's the point: Everyone knows about cattle futures, etc. Everyone knows that if you Yahoo "Clintons" and "scandals" you get 4,430,000 hits.

But what if they do need to be reminded? What if they need to be told exactly what Mr. Obama means when he speaks of the tired old ways of Washington?

But voicing the facts would violate party politesse. So he loses the No. 1 case against her. But by losing the No. 1 case, he loses the No. 2 case: that she is the most divisive figure in the country, and that this is true because people have reason to view her as dark, dissembling, thuggish.

* * *

One Obama supporter on Root.com apparently didn't get the memo. That is the great threat to the Clintons, the number of young and independent Democrats who haven't received the memo about how Democrats speak of the Clintons. Writer Mark Q. Sawyer: "If Obama won't hit back, I will. Why aren't we talking about impeachment, Whitewater and Osama?"

What do I think is the biggest reason Mrs. Clinton came back? She kept her own spirits up to the point of denial and worked it, hard, every day. She is hardy, resilient, tough. She is a train on a track, an Iron Horse. But we must not become carried away with generosity. The very qualities that impress us are the qualities that will make her a painful president. She does not care what you think, she will have what she wants, she will not do the feints, pivots and backoffs that presidents must. She is neither nimble nor agile, and she knows best. She will wear a great nation down.

In any case the Clinton campaign, which has always been more vicious than clever, this week did a very clever thing. They pre-empted any criticism of past scandals by pushing a Democratic Party button called . . . the Monica story. Mr. Obama is "imitating Ken Starr" by speaking of Mrs. Clinton's record, said Howard Wolfson. But Ken Starr documented malfeasance. Mr. Obama can't even mention it.

* * *

Back to Verdun. There a bitter officer corps debated a strategy of pointless carnage—so many deaths, so little seized terrain, all of it barren. In a bark-stripping piece of reportage in the Washington Post, Peter Baker and Anne Kornblut captured "a combustible environment" in Hillary Headquarters. They cannot agree on what to do, or even what has been done in the past. And the dialogue. Blank you. Blank you! No blank you, you blank. Blank all of you. It's like David Mamet rewritten by Joe Pesci.

These are the things that make life worth living.

As for the Clinton surrogates, they are unappealing when winning. My favorite is named Kiki. When Hillary is losing, Kiki is valiant and persevering on the talk shows, and in a way that appeals to one's sympathies. "Go, Kiki!" I want to say as she parries with Tucker. But when Hillary is winning they're all awful, including Kiki. By memory, from Tucker, this week: Q: Why won't Hillary release her tax returns? A: It's February. Taxes are due April 15, are your taxes done? Q: No, no, we're talking past years, returns that have already been prepared. A: Are your taxes done? Mine aren't.

Wicked Kiki! This is my great fear, in a second Clinton era: four, eight years of wicked Kiki.

I end with a deadly, deadpan prediction from Christopher Hitchens. Hillary is the next president, he told radio's Hugh Hewitt, because, "there's something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power . . . people who don't want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end."

It was like Claude Rains summing up the meaning of everything in the film "Lawrence of Arabia": "One of them's mad and the other is wholly unscrupulous." It's the moment when you realize you just heard the truth, the meaning underlying all the drama. "They win in the end." Gave me a shudder.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's a good article, for sure.

I find it extraordinary that Democrats are still voting for Hilliary. The raw desire for power at any cost (more acute in her than almost any other politician I have seen - aside perhaps from Charlie Haughey) is utterly repellent. After the division caused under her husband's watch, and then furthered by the Bush years, I would fear for the United States should she be elected - but I am equally sure she will not be.

McCain will eviscerate her, with the very tools she has deployed against Obama and her own side - in the unlikely event of her getting the nomination. The 3 am advert? Just imagine the replay from McCain's side. (I don't know about anyone else, but when I saw the ad, when Hilliary went to pick up the phone my first thought was - it's Bill's minder phoning home to make some excuse about "work" while he's out chasing tail at all hours). I am amazed that any Democrat buys the Hilliary experience thing - just what experience are we talking about? She's held no executive position, and been in the Senate barely longer than Obama.

The Democratic Party may not want to mention the Clinton years, but the Republicans sure as hell will. To my mind, the only good thing about the protracted fight is that Obama's team will get toughened up and tested before the real fight.

But it says a lot about the Democrats that they are doing their very level best to throw away what should be the dead cert chance of the White House. I'd even say I'd prefer Bush to stay rather than see Hilliary win the presidency, so much has her campaign sickened and repelled me - at least George has some integrity - albeit a different code from mine, but you can see he believes in some things.

If Sen. Obama loses the nomination, he'd be a fool to run with Hilliary as her Veep. Wait for her to be trashed and stand again when the Clinton fanboys have finally passed away.

[Vladimir]

What do I think is the biggest reason Mrs. Clinton came back? She kept her own spirits up to the point of denial and worked it, hard, every day. She is hardy, resilient, tough. She is a train on a track, an Iron Horse. But we must not become carried away with generosity. The very qualities that impress us are the qualities that will make her a painful president. She does not care what you think, she will have what she wants, she will not do the feints, pivots and backoffs that presidents must. She is neither nimble nor agile, and she knows best. She will wear a great nation down.

~:eek: That's the most damning indictment of Hillary I've seen yet.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's a good article, for sure.

I find it extraordinary that Democrats are still voting for Hilliary. The raw desire for power at any cost (more acute in her than almost any other politician I have seen - aside perhaps from Charlie Haughey) is utterly repellent. After the division caused under her husband's watch, and then furthered by the Bush years, I would fear for the United States should she be elected - but I am equally sure she will not be.

McCain will eviscerate her, with the very tools she has deployed against Obama and her own side - in the unlikely event of her getting the nomination. The 3 am advert? Just imagine the replay from McCain's side. (I don't know about anyone else, but when I saw the ad, when Hilliary went to pick up the phone my first thought was - it's Bill's minder phoning home to make some excuse about "work" while he's out chasing tail at all hours). I am amazed that any Democrat buys the Hilliary experience thing - just what experience are we talking about? She's held no executive position, and been in the Senate barely longer than Obama.

The Democratic Party may not want to mention the Clinton years, but the Republicans sure as hell will. To my mind, the only good thing about the protracted fight is that Obama's team will get toughened up and tested before the real fight.

But it says a lot about the Democrats that they are doing their very level best to throw away what should be the dead cert chance of the White House. I'd even say I'd prefer Bush to stay rather than see Hilliary win the presidency, so much has her campaign sickened and repelled me - at least George has some integrity - albeit a different code from mine, but you can see he believes in some things.

If Sen. Obama loses the nomination, he'd be a fool to run with Hilliary as her Veep. Wait for her to be trashed and stand again when the Clinton fanboys have finally passed away.

I agree - Obama would need merely to have ANY woman on the ticket to disarm the feminist criticism that would ensue from his victory.

[Xiahou]

I would disagree that Clinton is a sure loss and would also disagree with any notion that Obama is a sure win. Clinton, if nothing else, has experience when it comes to arm-twisting and putting up tough political fights. On the other hand, Obama has only endured light criticism thus far and it remains to be seen how well he'll hold up under the stronger attacks that he would undoubtedly see from the GOP.

My prediction is that he'll crumble... but as I've said, it remains to be seen. :juggle2:

Also, as cool as conservatives are to McCain, that's likely to be nothing compared to the upset Democrats who will result from whoever eventually wins a drawn out primary fight that's likely to go all the way to the convention and be decided in stereotypical back room deals. :yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

She clearly doesn't give a :daisy: :daisy: about the voters she just wants as many delegates as she can get. Very scummy.

With that phrasing, Sasaki-san, I almost expected you to finish with VOTE: Hilary Clinton -- but I guess that would be the opposite of your point. :devilish:

[woad&fangs]

The idea that he'll crumble from attacks by the GOP is ridiculous. Hillary has dug up every single bad thing about him. In fact, her entire strategy since New Hamphire seems to be that of a playground bully. Throw sand in his face and punch him continuosly until he finally gets sick of it and hits back once, then run to a teacher(superdelegates) and tell on him. I don't know about y'all but I don't want that kind of person in charge of our country.

The 'Pubs have nothing left to throw at him.

Great article, Tuff. I think that summarizes the campaign very nicely.

[Lemur]

The idea that he'll crumble from attacks by the GOP is ridiculous.
Indeed, this line of reasoning is predicated on the idea that John McCain is a more dangerous political opponent than the Clintons. Just roll that thought around for a while and you'll see how absurd it is.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I would disagree that Clinton is a sure loss and would also disagree with any notion that Obama is a sure win. Clinton, if nothing else, has experience when it comes to arm-twisting and putting up tough political fights. On the other hand, Obama has only endured light criticism thus far and it remains to be seen how well he'll hold up under the stronger attacks that he would undoubtedly see from the GOP.

My prediction is that he'll crumble... but as I've said, it remains to be seen. :juggle2:

Also, as cool as conservatives are to McCain, that's likely to be nothing compared to the upset Democrats who will result from whoever eventually wins a drawn out primary fight that's likely to go all the way to the convention and be decided in stereotypical back room deals. :yes:

That's exactly why it won't be decided by back room deals. The superdelegates aren't stupid. Obama will have a lead in both pledged delegates and the popular vote. Michigan is going to have a caucus which clinton will lose badly.



With that phrasing, Sasaki-san, I almost expected you to finish with VOTE: Hilary Clinton -- but I guess that would be the opposite of your point.

Well I'm certainly not going to select her...

Especially given the fact that I've seen the error of my ways and become a republican

[Geoffrey S]

Both Obama and McCain have the advantage of presenting themselves as politically somewhat clean, and to be honest by and large they are. The problem for Obama is that where McCain is clean through consistent views and a long track-record as an experienced honest politician, Obama is clean because thus far, he has nothing to his name.

[Xiahou]

Indeed, this line of reasoning is predicated on the idea that John McCain is a more dangerous political opponent than the Clintons. Just roll that thought around for a while and you'll see how absurd it is.:dizzy2:
Obama and Hillary have little to criticize each other on. Neither is going to attack their policy positions when both of them are pushing similar platforms. This will not be the case in the general election. One of the reasons Clinton is taking a beating is because of her more moderate (past) positions on free trade, Iraq, and others. Obama's consistently liberal positions are an asset to him in the primaries, but that strength will become a weakness in the general election when his opponents set out to paint him as the far left liberal candidate.

Seeing how absurd your statement is yet? :wink:


That's exactly why it won't be decided by back room deals. The superdelegates aren't stupid. Obama will have a lead in both pledged delegates and the popular vote. Michigan is going to have a caucus which clinton will lose badly.This still isn't changing the fact that the super delegates will decide the outcome and it's going to leave roughly half the Democrat primary voters unhappy with the result.

Where are you hearing that Michigan is going to have a caucus? I don't see that happening.

[Lemur]

Seeing how absurd your statement is yet?
Not in the slightest. Of course the lines of differentiation will be different in the general; that does nothing to change the fact that the Clintons are skilled, dangerous, and never give up. They're like zombies, except that removing the head or destroying the brain will not necessarily stop them.

As far as attack lines for the general, there will be plenty for both sides to play with. Whatever extremist poses the Dems have struck in the primary will need to be weighed against where and how McCain will distance himself from a supremely unpopular President. You're a True Believer, so I expect you only see the debits on the Dem side, but if you can't take the blinders off, just try to widen them a little. The general will be competitive, with plenty of baggage on both sides.

All of which does nothing to negate the sheer ferocity with which a Clinton will seek, gain and hold power. I expect that Hillary is fully aware that her chance at the nomination is an outside shot now; she's looking at 2012. Damage Obama as much as possible in key states such as Pennsylvannia, hand McCain as many tested lines of attack as possible, then sweep into power in four years.

-edit-

I guess my thoughts above aren't exactly original. Others are drawing the same conclusions (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c):


Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried. [...]

She and her numerous supporters will view this as a repudiation of Obama, not Clinton. If he loses the general election as a result of this, it will prove her right all along—that the only way to further the Democratic agenda is to beat the Republicans at their game.

[Xiahou]

Ok, so now you're agreeing with me? Like I said, I think Obama's campaign will come apart in the general election. There's no doubt that he'll come under stronger attacks- all Hillary has managed are some pathetic gotchyas. If you really think that Hillary is undermining Obama on the left, then he'll fall all the harder once his policies are contrasted with the more conservative McCain.

And no, I still don't like any of them.

[Ice]

Where are you hearing that Michigan is going to have a caucus? I don't see that happening.

Yeah, I don't either, and I live in Michigan (well, my home is there, and I'm currently there right now).

Anyway, i keep hearing on the radio that the only way Michigan will redo its primary is if someone donates 10 mil to the state.

[CountArach]

Obama Wins Wyoming (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WY)

18 Delegates hey? They must be the only Democrats in all of Wyoming :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Good article about the Dem race: Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/07/opinion/main3916817.shtml?source=mostpop_story).

Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac

March 7, 2008

The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain - i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done" - but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.

The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.

That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.

Clinton's justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring - or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012 - that she would destroy Obama's chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.

Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.

Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.

What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.

Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim's popularity drops farther than the perpetrator's, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn't work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.

Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost - to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months - uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.

Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?

[KukriKhan]

Interesting side-story about the "3 a.m. Telephone" ad. Seems it was shot as stock footage 9 years ago, originally for use with a railroad company commercial.

And the "sleeping" 8-year old girl portrayed, is now, in real-life (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4416390&page=1), a 17-soon-to-be-18 year old Obama supporter.

8 more months of this. It's crazy.

[CountArach]

Interesting side-story about the "3 a.m. Telephone" ad. Seems it was shot as stock footage 9 years ago, originally for use with a railroad company commercial.

And the "sleeping" 8-year old girl portrayed, is now, in real-life (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4416390&page=1), a 17-soon-to-be-18 year old Obama supporter.

8 more months of this. It's crazy.
Haha, that's awesome!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you HOPE for CHANGE (regardless of apparent absence of substance):

Barack should be the choice of the pivotal superdelegate votes because he's won more states, won more pledged delegates, raised more money, and just comes over more charming.

If you don't want Barack, WHY DO YOU HATE HOPE?! :devilish:



If you're "hot for Hil" than you want Hilary to be the choice of the pivotal superdelegate votes because she's won the races in the states the DEMS must take from the GOP to win in November, demonstrated enough resolve for 3 presidencies, and clearly is not afraid of taking a punch politically. Woman doesn't understand "quit" unless its in reference to a dominant military strategy.


If you're not "hot for Hil," vote for her anyway, because Bill needs her away from Chapaqua....:wiseguy:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm really loving all of the articles coming out attacking the Clintons as monsters and "a Horror film that never ends"

notably Noonan, Hitchens, Sullivan, Dowd, etc.

FINALLY the people are talking about how absurd it is.


PS - MITT ROMNEY VP '08!!!!!!!!!!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

PS - MITT ROMNEY VP '08!!!!!!!!!!

Don't think so TSM. Florida's governor or that lass from Ohio. Those are the swing states Johnny MUST have to win and Romney doesn't poll particularly strongly in either.

Add in the degree of loathing many of the establishment have for him -- which perplexes me, personally -- and I think your lad is out of contention.

[Lemur]

This (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-camp-says-obama-must-pass-national-security-threshold-to-be-veep-2008-03-10.html) is pretty hilarious. So first Hillary bangs the drum that Obama is not ready for executive power. Then she screams that she wants him for her VP, even though I guess he's not ready for it. Then this:


Howard Wolfson, Clinton's chief spokesman, said during a conference call with reporters that Clinton would not pick a running mate who has not met the “national security threshold” — as Clinton’s military advisers and Wolfson put it on the call — but that it is possible Obama could meet that threshold by this summer's Democratic convention.

In other words, once Hillary has the nomination, in three months Obama will magically be able to pass the "national security threshold." I guess he'll have to go to night classes or something.

[Lemur]

These campaign ads are just getting trippier. Here's McCain's latest (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_A53PAxeR8) -- it's pretty good, but I'm unclear on what the images of galaxies and nebulae have to do with being POTUS. And the Churchill comparison isn't as apt as could be -- I'm sure if Al Qaeda wanted to fight us on the streets, we'd be overjoyed. And we'd win in about one hour. The whole problem of a terrorist opponent is that he does not want to fight you on the beaches, in the hills, on the streets, etc.

will.i.am has another Obama video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU), rather less interesting than the first one. Boring, in fact. The whole thing looks and feels like a testimonial to the power of the Gap. Or Axe Body Spray, but then, the Axe ads are much funnier.

No interesting videos from Hillary (https://www.youtube.com/user/hillaryclintondotcom) this week. I assume everybody's seen the unspeakably creepy Jack Nicholson video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gUPVrlAiqg) ...

[Tristrem]

so it looks like Obama won mississippi tonight, no surprise there.

What i thought was interesting is the the other results that cnn is projecting Obama won the most delegates in Texas with the caucus results added to the primary results. link - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/dems.campaign/index.html

They said he won 99 delegates to the 94 that Clinton won. Interesting, i wonder how this will get spun by the media? Did Clinton lose Texas, or did Obama reap the benefits of the wacky Texas system?


I think it's great, it's just karma kicking Billary's butt once again, this time for that use of the dirty 3 a.m. add.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Congratulations Barack.

PS - Romney's page is back up at www.mittromney.com

There has been a bit of jabber about him being picked for VP - I'm gonna put my money on him. I'M TOTALLY PSYCHED!

I'll campaign hard for him and McCain.

[LittleGrizzly]

Congratulations Barack.

PS - Romney's page is back up at www.mittromney.com (http://www.mittromney.com)

There has been a bit of jabber about him being picked for VP - I'm gonna put my money on him. I'M TOTALLY PSYCHED!

I'll campaign hard for him and McCain.

Just out of interest how do you think Romney as VP would improve McCain ? would there be a change of McCain's policys with Romney or is it just someone you trust share some values with being in influence ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just out of interest how do you think Romney as VP would improve McCain ? would there be a change of McCain's policys with Romney or is it just someone you trust share some values with being in influence ?

They are very different people.

Romney has had executive experience in both the private and public sectors - McCain is lacking there. (so are the 2 dem candidates)

Romney fundamentally understands Economics - McCain has literally said he isn't too great with it. (neither are the 2 dem candidates)

Romney has a more traditional political style and has made quite a few friends in a short period of time - McCain is a bit gruff.

Romney is observant of his religious obligations and has been married to the same woman for his entire married life - McCain may hurt from the past divorce with traditionalists. (Obama has only been married once)

Romney is young and healthy looking with a consummate speaking style - McCain looks like a codger and seems like he is reading off of cue cards. (Obama is charismatic and pleasant looking)

Both are moderate Republicans who want to conserve what works and discard what doesn't in favor of true progression. Romney is better at reaching out to grassroots conservatives and McCain is better at reaching out to Independents.

Independents tend to be the deciding factor in elections - but only if you have your house in order. Romney has shown himself to be pretty good at uniting conservatives after 8 years of an unpopular "conservative" in the white house.

I think that Romney has serious skills that would be a huge benefit to McCain. Supposedly Romney is very likable face to face, so I think that their past difficulties would be more political than personal. My ire over McCain has died down since he became the nominee.

Who knows - the G.O.P. seems to have a shot as of this moment - tables have turned a bit.

[Lemur]

Interesting tidbit (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/limbaugh-republ.html) from the most recent primary:


With McCain's nomination secure, Republicans are increasingly voting in the Democratic primaries ... for the Clintons (http://www.jedreport.com/2008/03/republicans-now.html). Without Republicans, Obama would have won last night by 68 - 28. Who would have thought that Dixiecrats would be revived by Clintons? It could have made a bigger difference in delegates, perhaps up to ten.

[Ronin]

I assume everybody's seen the unspeakably creepy Jack Nicholson video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gUPVrlAiqg) ...

I had noticed.....check out my post on the previous page...

post nº 335 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1851054&postcount=335)

[Lemur]

A more in-depth look at the Republicans-for-Hillary (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/10/wuspols310.xml) phenomenon ...


Now that their nomination race is over, Republicans will feel freed up to vote in Democrat contests, meaning that the summons to cross party lines by Mr Limbaugh, who has a weekly audience of at least 14 million, could play a significant part in deciding the next US president.

Exit polls in Texas and Ohio show that nine per cent of voters in both were self-declared Republicans.

Last week Mrs Clinton's share of that vote more than doubled. In nine previous open primaries, no more than six per cent of voters were Republicans, and Mr Obama won overwhelmingly each time, with one exception.

Laura Kreissl, an accounting professor who was volunteering at precinct 307 in Canyon, a town 20 miles south of Amarillo, said she was "stunned" when the first person she checked in said "Rush Limbaugh sent me".

"He said: 'I am voting for Hillary Clinton but I want to see the Democrats implode'. As I sat there for 12 hours you hear people rattling on, and a great many mentioned Rush Limbaugh," she said.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A more in-depth look at the Republicans-for-Hillary (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/10/wuspols310.xml) phenomenon ...


Now that their nomination race is over, Republicans will feel freed up to vote in Democrat contests, meaning that the summons to cross party lines by Mr Limbaugh, who has a weekly audience of at least 14 million, could play a significant part in deciding the next US president.

Exit polls in Texas and Ohio show that nine per cent of voters in both were self-declared Republicans.

Last week Mrs Clinton's share of that vote more than doubled. In nine previous open primaries, no more than six per cent of voters were Republicans, and Mr Obama won overwhelmingly each time, with one exception.

Laura Kreissl, an accounting professor who was volunteering at precinct 307 in Canyon, a town 20 miles south of Amarillo, said she was "stunned" when the first person she checked in said "Rush Limbaugh sent me".

"He said: 'I am voting for Hillary Clinton but I want to see the Democrats implode'. As I sat there for 12 hours you hear people rattling on, and a great many mentioned Rush Limbaugh," she said.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Any Republican who would consider Hillary is the worst kind of Republican. Good Riddance.

[KukriKhan]

But, cross-voting in the primaries could be to set up a more likely win in November; many Repubs think Johhny Mac can defeat Hil more easily than Barrie in the General, yes?

[Ronin]

But, cross-voting in the primaries could be to set up a more likely win in November; many Repubs think Johhny Mac can defeat Hil more easily than Barrie in the General, yes?

yeah...I think that the republicans have something on Hilary that they haven´t brought up yet....they have some broad Bill slept with or something, and if they go against Hilary they are gonna swift-boat her with it...

Barrack scares the republicans I think, especially with the whole youth-movement thing the guy has behind him.

[Lemur]

I think it's abundantly clear (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/richelieu_go_hillary_go.asp) why some Republicans are supporting Clinton. But are they going the final distance and giving her money, as they did with Nader in 2000?


[A friend] passed along a brand new poll of an important mid-sized swing state. It shows McCain and Obama essentially tied, with both in the low 40's. But McCain leads HRC in the same state by 7 points. Go Hillary, go!

[CountArach]

Going back to the whole Republicans for Hillary thing, I thought you guys might find this interesting:

Here are some additional results shared by CBS News that did not make it into the column, among the roughly 9% of the Mississippi Democratic primary electorate that voted for Clinton but identify as Republicans (n=147):

* 99% are white
* 56% are female
* 47% have a college degree
* 65% report incomes of more than $50,000 a year; 17% report incomes of more than $100,000 a year
* 68% describe themselves as conservative; only 8% describe themselves as liberal

Some addtional substantive items for the same subgroup of Clinton Republicans:

* 54% said Clinton would be more likely than Obama to beat McCain, 37% said Obama would be more likely to beat McCain
* 67% rate the economy as the most important issue facing the country, 22% name the war in Iraq and 8% name the health care as most important issues
* 38% said "has the right experience" was the candidate quality that mattered most when they voted, 20% said "has the best chance to win in November," 15% said "can bring about needed change" and 14% said "cares about people like me"
* 61% thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly; 55% thought Obama attacked Clinton unfairly.
* 43% decided how they would vote in the last three days or the last week; 55% decided in the last month or before that


Forgot the Link (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/clintons_mississippi_republica.php)

[Lemur]

From the same poll:

85% find Senator McCain favorable or very favorable
72% find Senator Clinton not "honest and trustworthy"

Somehow I don't think they're crossing over because they really, really want to see Hillary in the White House.

-edit-

Excellent analysis (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/13/making-obama-unelectable.aspx) of HRC's end-term strategy:


She needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be.

[Vladimir]

And one of them is running for president!

Hussein (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1)

Bloody hell! Can someone eliminate the apostrophe from the title?

[Xiahou]

And one of them is running for president!

Hussein (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1)

Bloody hell! Can someone eliminate the apostrophe from the title?
That guy, Obama's "spiritual mentor", is a huge liability for him.

Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America." Unbelievable really. That meshes very nicely with Obama's hope and change rhetoric. The video of it is plays even better. :dizzy2:

Another bit of dirt that I look forward to hearing more about is Obama's million dollar earmarks that he allegedly requested in 2006 for his wife's employer.

[Vladimir]

None of it matters though because that fool of an old man the Republicans offered up has vowed not run a negative campaign. This guy is so ripe for it, but I can see it backfiring.

[Xiahou]

None of it matters though because that fool of an old man the Republicans offered up has vowed not run a negative campaign. This guy is so ripe for it, but I can see it backfiring.
That's what 527s are for. McCain can publicly condemn them while they do his dirty work for him. I'm sure he knows all about it- he wrote our ridiculous campaign finance laws.

[Vladimir]

That's what 527s are for. McCain can publicly condemn them while they do his dirty work for him. I'm sure he knows all about it- he wrote our ridiculous campaign finance laws.

True. The plot thickens. :holmes:

[CountArach]

None of it matters though because that fool of an old man the Republicans offered up has vowed not run a negative campaign. This guy is so ripe for it, but I can see it backfiring.
How is a negative campaign EVER good for an election?

[Vladimir]

How is a negative campaign EVER good for an election?

Because it gets you the win.

Just listening to the news. Apparently this Obama's mentor also blamed America's moral state for the 9/11 attacks. When Falwell used the God's wrath line and blamed homosexuals, leftists gnashed their teeth and tore at their clothes until he apologized.

I don't care about some European socialist who trash talks the country (you're supposed to rag on the other team, right?) but when someone who isn't proud of their country, in less they're trying to control it, or attends these kinds of services, or does a handful of other things to show contempt for this country, then it's personal.

Truly the most liberal senator.

:gah2:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Obama said we should sing "god damn america"? That's pretty bad.

[Vladimir]

Obama said we should sing "god damn america"? That's pretty bad.

It was his spiritual mentor. The guy he took his time in distancing himself from some of the remarks he made.

[woad&fangs]

Not him, his pastor.

and yeah, the fact that he still attends that church creeps me out a bit.

[Xiahou]

Here's some more Rev Jeremiah gems from a 2006 speech, as pointed out in a recent WSJ editorial (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries):
"America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."

Concluding, Mr. Wright said: "We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."There you go. America started the AIDS virus. Is if fair to say Obama's "spiritual mentor" has an irrational hatred of his country?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Not him, his pastor.


Oh...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't care about what his pastor said. If you listen to what the special interest group leaders say, Wright's comments really don't mean much. MoveOn supports Obama fer craps sake.

When other people say things I don't tend to hold it against anyone but the one who said it. If Barack said that he agreed with him, then it would be another story.

I'm concerned about the Ferraro fiasco. She stated that Obama would not be where he is today were it not for the color of his skin just as she would have never been on the Mondale ticket were it not for her gender. On the one hand I agree with her. I'm sure that he agrees with her on some level as well.

On the other hand the statement is race baiting. It is equally true that Hillary Clinton would not be where she is were she not a woman who was married to a former President of the United States. Here accomplishments on her own steam are not really much to talk about.

It is also true that McCain being part of a family tree in the admiralty and being married to a wealthy woman with family connections would probably not be where he is today either. Not to mention the POW status.

(But McCain has more success stories in Federal government than Obama and Clinton combined.)

In other words, Ferraro's statements on behalf of Hillary Clinton (don't kid yourselves) were not fair. Obama is much more "deserving" of the top spot due to hard work under his own power and successful elected government service. He's a nominee for the presidency as a black man in a white man's country (don't kid yourselves). He should be proud of himself.

It isn't that hard to be married and use your gender to brow beat everyone. Good riddance to Ferraro - Clinton's lynch mob.

[Xiahou]

I don't care about what his pastor said. If you listen to what the special interest group leaders say, Wright's comments really don't mean much. I think if McCain's lifelong religious mentor and adviser was a racist, people would care about the comments. It's not like this guy is just some crackpot who's endorsing Obama- that would be one thing. Wright is repeatedly referenced as a source of inspiration for Obama. He's gone to his church and listened to his sermons for 20yrs. He claims that Wright was the one who helped him find his faith.

You don't think people should be concerned that the guy who, according Obama himself, had tremendous influence on the his life and views is a bigoted hate-monger? :shrug:

[Lemur]

For the sake of balance, I'll point out that McCain's "spiritual advisor" is not exactly light and sunshine (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html):

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."
Not that I really care. I don't hold McCain responsible for Rod Parsley's yearning for Wolrd War 3, 'cause I believe McCain is a sensible man.

Here's the relevant segment from Obama's book, where he discusses the influence of the church:

And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of the ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had been spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until the black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.

Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shamed about, memories more accessible than those of ancient Egypt, memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild. And if part of me continued to feel that this Sunday communion sometimes simplified our condition, that it could sometimes disguise or suppress the very real conflicts among us and would fulfill its promise only through action, I also felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams.
Doesn't exactly sound like Malcolm X.

-edit-

Well, I see the man himself is addressing this kerfluffle. Why attack him secondhand when you can snipe at his own words? Enjoy. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html)

On My Faith and My Church

by Barack Obama
Posted March 14, 2008 | 04:28 PM (EST)

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

[Xiahou]

For the sake of balance, I'll point out that McCain's "spiritual advisor" is not exactly light and sunshine (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html):It's quite a different relationship. Presumably McCain knew little of the man before accepting his endorsement and I believe McCain should have and did, condemn the comments.

It's good to see Obama finally address his pastor problem with something more than a dismissive crazy old uncle comment, but he's still being a tad disingenuous imo. He claims these statements first came to his attention during his presidential campaign- Wright's 9/11 comments were made almost 7yrs ago on the very Sunday after 9/11 and Obama never heard about it til now? He claims these deplorable comments(that were cheered by the congregation) were actually the rare exception- yet he apparently wasn't there that Sunday and never heard about such controversial remarks from fellow church-goers. Like I said, it's a tad disingenuous. We'll see if the voters buy it. :shrug:

Either way, you know someone is going to make hay with this should Obama get the nomination.

[Lemur]

I can see an obvious upside to this business for Obama: It's impossible to simultaneously believe that he's in the thrall of a hatemongering black Christian preacher and a muslim. So who knows? This may be net positive.

[FactionHeir]

From his response you could almost think that it was him who leaked that info to the press and had such a release prepared. That release seems well prepared in advance and puts his church and pastor in a positive light and indirectly himself too.

On the other hand he is very careful and vague regarding which of those statements he actually denounces. He doesn't even mention them directly, saying only "that are at issue"

[Lemur]

Video of Obama discussing Rev. Wright on Fox news. (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/62894.html) Unfortunately, his interviewer does not look like a porn star.

-edit-

Also of interest, a colleague from the University of Chicago Law School (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0314obamamar14,0,7185898.story) discusses the "empty suit" in some detail.

[Xiahou]

I can see an obvious upside to this business for Obama: It's impossible to simultaneously believe that he's in the thrall of a hatemongering black Christian preacher and a muslim. So who knows? This may be net positive.
Well, they still might tie him to the Nation of Islam (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html). Not really the same as a muslim though.:beam:


Unfortunately, his interviewer does not look like a porn star.Major Garrett doesn't look like a porn star?

[Lemur]

So it seems that without dopamine (http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2008/03/14/political-junkie-redefined) we wouldn't even be talking about all of this:


According to the research of Drew Western, political partisans -- and especially the smart, well-informed ones -- not only feel better when their brains downplay contradictory political information, they actually get a little emotional "high" when the brain (unconsciously) rejects evidence that contradicts their deeply held political beliefs. In a series of brain scans of political partisans asked to consider contradictory statements by the politicians they supported, Western found that the brain reverted to the comfort zone of its long-held biases -- and doing so actually made people feel good.

[Lemur]

Obama's speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU) about Rev. Wright.

-edit-

In the interest of balance, check out another crazy dude who was sought for support of a candidate. Have a little anti-Semitism (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_connection_1.php) with your lunch.

[Vladimir]

Obama's speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU) about Rev. Wright.

-edit-

In the interest of balance, check out another crazy dude who was sought for support of a candidate. Have a little anti-Semitism (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_connection_1.php) with your lunch.

:inquisitive: That's twice you've mentioned "balance" when advancing your own political leanings. Might you claim that Fox news is fair and balanced? ~;)

[Lemur]

:inquisitive: That's twice you've mentioned "balance" when advancing your own political leanings. Might you claim that Fox news is fair and balanced? ~;)
Vladimir, your posts are becoming more and more incoherent. I'm enjoying it.

[Xiahou]

Interesting that in the earlier video Obama says he was not present when any of the controversial statements were uttered by Wright. Then, in the second video, he claims that he was in fact sitting in the pews when Wright made controversial and divisive statements. They need to try harder to keep his story straight.

On the subject of his latest speech, I caught most of it live on the radio. Obama's definitely a good speaker, but it seemed to me that once you got passed his delivery you were left with standard Democrat "we're all victims and need the government to solve your problems" rhetoric. Wright was a victim of segregation(and therefore his bigotry is understandable), his grandmother was a victim of racial stereotypes, factory workers are victims of greedy, evil corporations and so on. We just need to make him president so the federal government under him can right all these wrongs.

[Lemur]

Obama's definitely a good speaker, but it seemed to me that once you got passed his delivery you were left with standard Democrat "we're all victims and need the government to solve your problems" rhetoric.
I don't believe the Senator used the word "government" even once in the speech. A search of the text confirms this. A different take (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjI3MWMyOGFkNmQ2MGFjNzRhYzYwMGVhZWJhMjcyOGM=), from NRO:


Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, what I heard of the speech was quite good -- and I thought he took on the challenge rather well and truly did try to bring it to a new level of understanding.

I disagree with many (70+%) of his policy options, but on this issue I thought he spoke well -- the theme was a brilliant take on the larger issue and not just a limited response to the prompting event.

BTW, in making that assessment, I am speaking both from my sense of things as an amateur political news junkie and as a formally trained rhetorical critic.

[Xiahou]

I don't believe the Senator used the word "government" even once in the speech. A search of the text confirms this. Hmm, what's he running for again? Miss America? Cuz if he was running for some kind of elected office, one might assume that he means he's going to use the government to solve these problems when he was talking about being able to bring change... naaah. :beam:

[KukriKhan]

Hmm, what's he running for again? Miss America?

Rofl.

We can all agree that he delivers a speech better than any other current candidate, or current office holder. Is that a valuable asset in a President? I think "yes". There will be times from 2009 through 2017 when our head guy will need to clearly articulate the American position to the rest of the world (and to Americans, as well).

I thought he did a pretty good job of "explaining", without lecturing, where we stand on race relations in 2008, and how we got here. And he showed a rarely-seen ability to actually step into the shoes of the 'other' side. That too, will be important in a Prez, when trying to get laws passed in a two-party legislature, or trying to move negotiations along internationally.

I have 1 "bugs me", and one concern left:

I understand his "I can't disown him" stance on the 'crazy uncle'. It bugs me though, that the crazy uncle was a preacher of prominence, and he (Obama) remained in the same church for 20 years, whilst disagreeing and abhoring the politics of the crazy uncle. That kind of loyalty is worthy of Mr. Bush & Co, and smells fishy to me, given the hundreds of thousands of other churches available to be a member of.

And my concern is: when the day comes during his Presidency, that it's necessary to drop the rhetoric and "pull the trigger", will he shut up and act? Or fall back on his tried-and-true speechifying, and not act, getting us hurt?

[KukriKhan]

One more thing: the staging and sub-text of that speech ("I am the President of the United States! See how presidential I look and sound?"), was masterful. The only thing missing was the presidential seal over his head. It could easily have been part of his first State of the Union address.

Bravo to his handlers!

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, your posts are becoming more and more incoherent. I'm enjoying it.

Yes, much like Obama's speeches. I wonder if he was in Cambodia during Christmas.

Oh, the word is nuanced.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You can better fight the system and nation that you loathe if you become the leader of it.

People who truly hate America would run for the presidency of it, I would assume. Why bother sitting on a pulpit throwing stones when you could subvert the highest levels of government with some charm?

I'm not saying that Obama hates America, but running for higher office wouldn't necessarily exclude that possibility.

Any who - I will defend him until he gets the nod - then he gets thrown under the straight talk express. My main objective in this election right now is to keep Hillary out of the White House and avoid the beginning of the end times.

[KukriKhan]

You can better fight the system and nation that you loathe if you become the leader of it.

People who truly hate America would run for the presidency of it, I would assume. Why bother sitting on a pulpit throwing stones when you could subvert the highest levels of government with some charm?

I'm not saying that Obama hates America, but running for higher office wouldn't necessarily exclude that possibility.

Any who - I will defend him until he gets the nod - then he gets thrown under the straight talk express. My main objective in this election right now is to keep Hillary out of the White House and avoid the beginning of the end times.

With uncanny precision, I think TSMcG has hit on the probable undercurrent swiftboating we'll see from September through November this year, if Barry O gets the Dem nod. Johnny Mac won't say such stuff himself, of course, but the commentariat (Rush, Coulter, et al) won't shy away from such suggestions.

Slightly different tack if the Hil gets annointed: corruption, shady deals, personal enrichment, secret communist agenda, etc will be the order of the day.

Harder to figure is how the Dems will try to cut Mac down.
------------------------
Meanwhile, did anyone see the clip of McCain (w/Lieberman & Graham) in Jordan, saying: "It's well-known the Iranians are training al-Quaida to fight in Iraq!" (Lieberman whispers in his ear). "I mean: Irananians are training extremists to fight in Iraq." Oughtta go on Dick Clark's "Bloopers" show.

[ICantSpellDawg]

With uncanny precision, I think TSMcG has hit on the probable undercurrent swiftboating we'll see from September through November this year, if Barry O gets the Dem nod. Johnny Mac won't say such stuff himself, of course, but the commentariat (Rush, Coulter, et al) won't shy away from such suggestions.

Slightly different tack if the Hil gets annointed: corruption, shady deals, personal enrichment, secret communist agenda, etc will be the order of the day.

Harder to figure is how the Dems will try to cut Mac down.
------------------------
Meanwhile, did anyone see the clip of McCain (w/Lieberman & Graham) in Jordan, saying: "It's well-known the Iranians are training al-Quaida to fight in Iraq!" (Lieberman whispers in his ear). "I mean: Irananians are training extremists to fight in Iraq." Oughtta go on Dick Clark's "Bloopers" show.

Heh.

[Vladimir]

Heh.

So Lieberman is going to be the VP candidate? If it wasn't for the two old white guys thing I would say set and match!

[Lemur]

With uncanny precision, I think TSMcG has hit on the probable undercurrent swiftboating we'll see from September through November this year, if Barry O gets the Dem nod.
They're going to need it, since by focusing on Wright the 527 groups have abandoned the "he's a Muslim" line of attack.

-edit-

Oops, now the loonbats are saying he's Jewish (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=559451). Not sure that's gonna work for them ...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't even dislike him. If he wins the election I could still go on calling myself a proud American citizen. If Hillary wins I will immediately live in a state of violent open rebellion and attempt to secede from the Union.

McCain or Obama - life goes on, maybe we can get a few new things done.

Hillary - The U.S. will crash and burn in a sea of racial, gender and ideological bloodshed.

[Vladimir]

They're going to need it, since by focusing on Wright the 527 groups have abandoned the "he's a Muslim" line of attack.

-edit-

Oops, now the loonbats are saying he's Jewish (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=559451). Not sure that's gonna work for them ...

Perhaps someone needs to explain to you what tongue in cheek means.

Or maybe someone needs to explain it to meee :clown:

[Big_John]

I don't even dislike him. If he wins the election I could still go on calling myself a proud American citizen. If Hillary wins I will immediately live in a state of violent open rebellion and attempt to secede from the Union.

McCain or Obama - life goes on, maybe we can get a few new things done.

Hillary - The U.S. will crash and burn in a sea of racial, gender and ideological bloodshed.have you ever considered a career as a comedian?

[ICantSpellDawg]

have you ever considered a career as a comedian?

No.

What is funny? That Hillary will herald Armageddon?

Find me proof that she won't.

Answer this with a yes or no

Will Hillary ever stop trying to destroy the planet Earth and drag us all into hell?

[Vladimir]

No.

What is funny? That Hillary will herald Armageddon?

Find me proof that she won't.

Answer this with a yes or no

Will Hillary ever stop trying to destroy the planet Earth and drag us all into hell?

:laugh4:

Let her win the election. Then we'll have definitive proof. :2thumbsup:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Find me proof that she won't.

The proof is in the pudding.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The proof is in the pudding.

eww. who wants to volunteer to get the proof? probably bill.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Lemur, I think attacks on Obama will have a much greater impact if they focus on his relationship with, and excuses for, Wright than anything to do with a Muslim background. Suddenly we've gone from the audacity of hope to saying his Pastor lived in rough times, so he's got an excuse to be so very hateful. Not to mention the other tenants of his Church.

We've gone from MLK's speeches to Wright's, while Obama just make excuses for it.

Is it not odd how he's not willing to hear any excuses for washington (DC) right now, and insists he's going there to change everything, but Wright's hate is understandable?

CR

[Lemur]

Suddenly we've gone from the audacity of hope to saying his Pastor lived in rough times, so he's got an excuse to be so very hateful.
Hmm, well he clearly stated that he rejects and denounces the anti-American rhetoric. He called his former pastor mistaken, wrong, misguided and all kinds of other words. The only thing he's not willing to do is completely sever the relationship from the guy.

I assume that had he denounced Wright and cried "Get thee behind me," some on this board would gleefully scream that he was throwing his pastor under a bus. No winning with this crowd.

We've gone from MLK's speeches to Wright's, while Obama just make excuses for it.
I didn't get the "making excuses" impression in the least. If anything, it sounded like he was sasssing his elders. But eye of the beholder and all that.

-edit-

Huckabee chimes in. (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1578) Addresses the Obama/Wright stuff around the 4 minute mark.

[Xiahou]

I didn't get the "making excuses" impression in the least. If anything, it sounded like he was sasssing his elders. But eye of the beholder and all that.Frankly, there really is no easy way out of this controversy for Obama now. He dodged and ignored the issue until he couldn't anymore. Then he basically lied about never hearing Wright make any of the remarks. He's had a fairly intimate relationship with this bigoted hate-monger for more than 20 yrs. The fact that he waits until it's a media firestorm before condemning Wright's hateful comments doesn't reflect well on him, imo.

Can anyone guess who Obama was commenting about here? It wasn't Wright:
I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group.

[Lemur]

So Xiahou, does this mean you'll get Hillary like you always wanted?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wow, you're almost as good at dodging as Obama, Lemur.

CR

[Lemur]

Wow, you're almost as good at dodging as Obama, Lemur.
Rabbit, every time I answer one of your posts directly, you scream that I'm dodging. Can we please move on to a new ad hominem accusation? And what would not constitute a "dodge" in your book, besides complete and utter agreement?

-edit-

Interesting, if it weren't for TuffStuff and me, Clinton would no longer exist in this thread. And nobody's even talking about McCain. It's the all-Obama-all-the-time thread now, thanks largely to Xiahou's Ahab-like fixed hatred.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I was talking about your response to Xiahou's post, Lemur. Perhaps I should have been more clear. And I dare say I'm not 'screaming', which is a bit funny coming from the guy who says another has 'Ahab-like fixed hatred'.

After all, how can Obama be a unifier if he calls Wright his mentor? The 'pastor' of a church that has a black values system, including 'disavowal of middleclassness' and "Pledging allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System".


I didn't get the "making excuses" impression in the least. If anything, it sounded like he was sasssing his elders. But eye of the beholder and all that.

He compared Wright's statements to Ferraro's, and with his own grandmother. talk about throwing her under the bus. And maybe it's just me, but those comparisons are for mitigating Wright's behavior.

Edit: a good article on the substance of Obama's speech : http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/03/19/three_big_problems_with_baracks_speech

As for McCain, he's pulling further ahead while doing all sorts of presidential candidate activities - traveling the world and whatnot.

And if you want to hear more of Hilary, why don't you post some more news? Obama's the one in the spotlight right now, after all.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Rabbit

Interesting, if it weren't for TuffStuff and me, Clinton would no longer exist in this thread.

You can't take you eyes off of the ball, and Clinton is the ball. A Giant, spiked, smelly, Ball of doom.

[Lemur]

Edit: a good article on the substance of Obama's speech : http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/03/19/three_big_problems_with_baracks_speech
Certainly a good article, if you're taking your advice from Michael Medved. I liked him better when he was reviewing movies in Chicago.

What ever happened to the Ron Paulites? The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/NATION/231391516/1001) reports on the issue:


Ron Paul says the legions of newcomers his presidential campaign brought to the Republican Party are getting the cold shoulder from John McCain and from the party.

The Texas congressman says neither he nor his supporters have heard from Mr. McCain or Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan since March 4, when the Arizona senator accumulated enough delegates to clinch the party's presidential nomination.

"I don't think they want them," Mr. Paul told The Washington Times.

The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/a_message_to_ron_paul_supporte.asp) chimes in:


Let me just say to Ron Paul supporters everywhere, and on behalf of the New Right (by which I assume Paul means the Jew Right), get lost.

There should be plenty of room for the Paulnuts in Obama's big tent. If Rev. Wright isn't exactly a 9/11 Truther, at least he's breathed new life into the Pearl Harbor Truther movement. Imagine a newsletter coauthored by the Reverend and Lew Rockwell--now that's racial harmony.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, crap. I hope the GOP doesn't shoot itself in the foot with regards to the youth Ron Paul attracted to libertarianism.


Certainly a good article, if you're taking your advice from Michael Medved

He's the best radio talk guy I've ever heard (unfortunately localized in Seattle) - he's smart, doesn't yell like O'Reilly or Hannity, listens and debates - doesn't just shout at - people from all over the spectrum - and is much better than Rush at actually espousing the principles of conservatism and not just preaching to the choir.

CR

[Vladimir]

Certainly a good article, if you're taking your advice from Michael Medved. I liked him better when he was reviewing movies in Chicago.

:laugh4: Is that a slight at the man's upbringing? Not all of us were gifted by divine providence with a furry coat and fancy tail, some of us have had to work up the evolutionary and career ladder.

[ICantSpellDawg]

He's the best radio talk guy I've ever heard (unfortunately localized in Seattle) - he's smart, doesn't yell like O'Reilly or Hannity, listens and debates - doesn't just shout at - people from all over the spectrum - and is much better than Rush at actually espousing the principles of conservatism and not just preaching to the choir.

CR

He should get rid of the stache and cut his hair.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is too incredibly beautiful. Here we have the unassailable black candidate, the next JFK, caught with ties more controversial than those of Jesse Jackson. I bet those black liberation traitors really thought they were getting away with something. They finally found someone who could trick the white devil. I wonder how many democrats who were fooled by the latest black power candidate would like their primary votes back. Best case scenario is that he limps in to the nomination, and the 527s hammer “God Damn America” into every household in the nation.

On a personal note, I am a little disappointed. He, of course, would have never gotten my vote due to his political leanings. I did feel that if we had to have a leftist in the White House, it would have been nice to have a guy that transcended race and showed that anyone can succeed in this country. Come to find out, it was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. This man sat through sermons such as “The gov’ment invented AIDS to kill the black man” for 20 years and he didn’t soak some of that racist, anti-american, traitorous crap up? I would be willing to bet he gave a lot of money to support it.

If he gets the nom, I hope all White, Hispanic, Asian and Arab Americans band together to keep this black supremist out of the White House.

Ironically, he’s done far more to hurt race relations and black politicians in the nation than help.

JohnnyMac looks positively amazing next to this traitor.

[Vladimir]

I like Dick Morris' take on it though. Half-white Obama had to prove his blackness to succeed in Chicago politics. Therefore he needed to latch on to race-baiters like this guy to prove it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The reality is that most Americans are racist. I forgive people for racism. It is understandable. Agglomerations of people can be abominable.

Personally, my at home bigotry is aimed at jews and blacks, which I try to temper because I know that most people bring talents and gifts to the table regardless of the color of their skin. It is tempting to target someone for perceived ridiculous qualities that they share with others who look like them and remind us of their failings..

I have said some brutal stuff about Jews and some terrible things about blacks. I even rip on eye-talians and mock the Chinese. When I hear a black man rip on whites, my blood begins to boil but I realize that we are united by our hatred of the absurd in each other. I always feel like we have more in common then and I feel less hostile.

True harmony comes through mutually understood bigotry. We just need to work on it to make it more ironic and less violent.

[Lemur]

JohnnyMac looks positively amazing next to this traitor.
McCain has always looked good, although it takes the demonization of the Dem frontrunner to make the Rightists wake up and smell the coffee. John McCain was always the strongest, most centrist candidate the Repubs had. Especially in 2000.

[Xiahou]

McCain has always looked good, although it takes the demonization of the Dem frontrunner to make the Rightists wake up and smell the coffee. John McCain was always the strongest, most centrist candidate the Repubs had. Especially in 2000.
He'll basically be a continuation of Bush policies as they currently stand. We could do worse, but I had hoped we would do a lot better. :shrug:

[Lemur]

If you believe McCain will be the functional equivalent of a third Bush term, you're going to be rudely surprised.

[Xiahou]

If you believe McCain will be the functional equivalent of a third Bush term, you're going to be rudely surprised.
What exactly do you think he'll do differently?

[Lemur]

I've outlined what I see McCain doing in earlier posts. But by all means, vote for him, and tell yourself you're gonna get more Bush.

[Xiahou]

I've outlined what I see McCain doing in earlier posts. But by all means, vote for him, and tell yourself you're gonna get more Bush.That's what it will be in practice- and it's nothing for me to get excited about. ~:handball:
Will I vote for him? Possibly- as long as he doesn't do something stupid like pick Huckabee for his VP....

[Lemur]

That's what it will be in practice
I see major differences. McCain is a budget hawk, Bush is a budget blowout. McCain is a torture abolitionist, Bush is a "string 'em up by their thumbs" (actual quote) kinda guy. McCain's base is Independents, Bush's is the Religious Right. I could go on, but come on, how can you declare that Johnny Mac will be Bush III with a straight face?

Will I vote for him?
Hell yes you'll vote for him, especially once you're convinced that the Dem is a traitor/quisling/Communist/most librul evar/spawn of satan who will steal your guns, destroy free trade, outlaw Christianity and force you to bow before feminist committees before you're allowed to work.

Frankly, from a Republican perspective, you're in the bag; you don't need any convincing, and they're not gonna campaign with you in mind. All that's required is that you believe that the Dem is a danger to all that's good and just, and you're taken care of. Simple enough.

Meanwhile, I wonder why Hillary hasn't jumped on the Wright issue harder? Here's one guess:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/clintonwright2.jpg

[Xiahou]

I see major differences. McCain is a budget hawk, Bush is a budget blowout. McCain is a torture abolitionist, Bush is a "string 'em up by their thumbs" (actual quote) kinda guy. McCain's base is Independents, Bush's is the Religious Right. I could go on, but come on, how can you declare that Johnny Mac will be Bush III with a straight face?Their base is irrelevant- it's the policies that matter. Iraq- same. Stance towards Iran- same. Illegal immigration- same. Abortion- same. With a Democrat congress, Bush has remembered where he left his veto pen. I fully expect McCain would continue that policy as well.

The biggest thing you can come up with is the handful of alQaeda types that were waterboarded- who reportedly gave up valuable intel as a result. Personally, I think McCain would authorize the same thing in the aftermath of a terrorist attack- maybe he wouldn't. Regardless, McCain and Bush have far more in common than not right now and share the same views on nearly all of the major issues of the day.

Meanwhile, I wonder why Hillary hasn't jumped on the Wright issue harder? Here's one guess:Weaksauce.

[CountArach]

I now have complete respect for Sean Hannity and the entire Fox News team:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/20/16576/3089

:laugh4:

[CountArach]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21cnd-endorse.html?ex=1363838400&en=af0bb04dacaca368&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Richardson endorses Obama. This is really going to be useful with the Latino voting bloc.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Their base is irrelevant- it's the policies that matter. Iraq- same. Stance towards Iran- same. Illegal immigration- same. Abortion- same. With a Democrat congress, Bush has remembered where he left his veto pen. I fully expect McCain would continue that policy as well.

The biggest thing you can come up with is the handful of alQaeda types that were waterboarded- who reportedly gave up valuable intel as a result. Personally, I think McCain would authorize the same thing in the aftermath of a terrorist attack- maybe he wouldn't. Regardless, McCain and Bush have far more in common than not right now and share the same views on nearly all of the major issues of the day.
Weaksauce.

I think McCain will be a step up from Bush. I thought so when I supported McCain over Bush the last time around.

They may be coming from a similar place, but Bush can't communicate with people. I hope McCain does a better job.

Most people can read the same book out loud. Delivery and comprehension are where the differences will be found.

[Lemur]

Xiahou, you're getting a bit weird, dude. You completely ignored the fiscal side of my comment, and the only way to follow your reasoning on the torture issue is if you take an absolute best-case, near-pollyanna interpretation of the administration's claims on "alternative interrogation methods." And the base doesn't matter? Fascinating, Captain.

Meanwhile, we're finally getting some polling on how the Wright business is playing in the public. Not surprisingly, based on the tenor of this thread, by far it's biggest impact is among Republicans who never would have voted for Senator Obama anyway. Read for yourself. (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032008_release_web.pdf) The Wright questions begin on page 9.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I now have complete respect for Sean Hannity and the entire Fox News team:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/20/16576/3089

:laugh4:

Funny the kos doesn't mention how the Obama site says each group is approved by administrators.

CR

[Lemur]

Peggy Noonan (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/article_print/SB120604775960652829-lMyQjAxMDI4MDI2MTAyNDE3Wj.html), a writer whom we've all quoted at some point or another, has her take on the Obama speech about race:


Still, it was a good speech, and a serious one. I don't know if it will help him. We're in uncharted territory. We've never had a major-party presidential front-runner who is black, or rather black and white, who has given such an address. We don't know if more voters will be alienated by Mr. Wright than will be impressed by the speech about Mr. Wright. We don't know if voters will welcome a meditation on race. My sense: The speech will be labeled by history as the speech that saved a candidacy or the speech that helped do it in. I hope the former.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Peggy Noonan (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/article_print/SB120604775960652829-lMyQjAxMDI4MDI2MTAyNDE3Wj.html), a writer whom we've all quoted at some point or another, has her take on the Obama speech about race:


Still, it was a good speech, and a serious one. I don't know if it will help him. We're in uncharted territory. We've never had a major-party presidential front-runner who is black, or rather black and white, who has given such an address. We don't know if more voters will be alienated by Mr. Wright than will be impressed by the speech about Mr. Wright. We don't know if voters will welcome a meditation on race. My sense: The speech will be labeled by history as the speech that saved a candidacy or the speech that helped do it in. I hope the former.

I read that this morning. I wholeheartedly agree. People are blowing Obama's words out of proportion. He has called his pastor's words abominable.

He never used them himself.

If you would never elect a black man to the white house based on the fact that someone close to them said ignorant and race-baiting garbage - I doubt we'd ever have a black president. That is the truth - there is alot of resentment by Blacks in toward whites general. They need to fix that, Obama can help them. Whether you like it or not Blacks have a huge chip on their general shoulder. Obama doesn't seem to so lets move past this.

These are cheap tricks to attack the guy for being black. I think he's being a trooper about it.

I want to see him lose because he is a democrat, not a black guy who's pastor is an ignorant, conspiratorial bigot.

[Vladimir]

The man doesn't have to say the words, he's incorporated their meaning into his every day existence. He and his wife.

[Lemur]

The man doesn't have to say the words, he's incorporated their meaning into his every day existence.
If you have anything to back that up, please share.

The author of The Bell Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve), a guy who has thought long and seriously about race, has this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTM4MjJkYmNhMjM5MjQ1YzVhNzhjMTE3NzQ1ZWI4MjU=) to say:


I understand how naïve it is to read a presidential candidate’s speech as if it were anything except political positioning, but that leads me to my final point: It’s about time that people who disagree with Obama’s politics recognize that he is genuinely different. When he talks, he sounds like a real human being, not a politician. I’m not referring to the speechifying, but to the way he comes across all the time. We’ve had lots of charming politicians. I cannot think of another politician in my lifetime who conveys so much sense of talking to individuals, and talking to them in ways that he sees as one side of a dialogue. Conservatives who insist that he’s nothing but an even slicker Bill Clinton are missing a reality about him, and at their peril.

-edit-

In happier news, looks like Team Clinton is broke (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_campaign_in_the_red.php):


It should be noted, however, that Hillary isn't obliged to repay the $5 million debt to herself. Nonetheless, even factoring in that, once you subtract the other debts her cash on hand number would be in the neighborhood of $3 million.

By contrast, Obama has over $30 million on hand for the primary.

[Tristrem]

Well who would want to get on a sinking ship. At this point with michigan and florida out of the picture it's almost impossible for her to win the nomination. So why throw your money away, even if it just a donation. This just shows that even the rich corporate insiders are starting to move away from her.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't count Clinton out yet. There is money enough for PA (barely) and the momentum is all hers following the Rev. Wright kerflaffle. A big win there and smaller wins in the last following primaries, plus MI/FL

-- do you really think the credentials committee is going to leave those states OUT of the convention when both are virtually must-wins for a Dem victory in the general? --

and Clinton may be as close ad 100 delegates when we reach the convention. She is also polling more of the super-delegates than B.O.

It's still uphill for her, but this is NOT over yet.

Count a Clinton "out" of the race when they've a) reached their term limit and can't run; b) died; or c) lost the vote, the recount and the follow-on court fight....not before.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Peggy Noonan article is moving.

As is this piece (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/22/do2203.xml) in today's Telegraph.


I am proud that a black man is at last a viable candidate for the presidency. I am proud that, in the primary in Virginia - one-time member of the Confederacy and the state where both Robert E. Lee and my father were born and raised - a majority of white men voted for that black candidate. I am proud that the fact that Obama had a white mother does not seem to have put off African-American voters on the grounds that he is not "black enough".

I am proud that race relations in America have come far enough that Clinton-ally Geraldine Ferraro could notoriously insinuate that being black in a nationwide American election was an unfair advantage. I am proud that this freak of political nature, a candidacy that in my childhood would have been so far-fetched as to be farcical, is not just any old racial token, but is smart, classy, poised, and extraordinary.

After two terms of an inarticulate, tongue-tied president who repeatedly pronounces nuclear "noocyoolar" on national television, I am proud to back a presidential candidate who is more eloquent than any American politician of my adulthood. I am proud of Barack Obama, but most of all - for finally elevating such a worthy man as well as a worthy black man - I am proud of my country.

I agree. Whatever happens in the elections, the citizens of the United States can be proud that they have an intelligent, eloquent politician able to address long-term taboos with thoughtful analysis - and that he is given the chance to stand for the highest office.

That's something we in the Old World have long given up on.

[Adrian II]

Whatever happens in the elections, the citizens of the United States can be proud that they have an intelligent, eloquent politician able to address long-term taboos with thoughtful analysis - and that he is given the chance to stand for the highest office.

That's something we in the Old World have long given up on.I don't know that we've given up on it. It is encouraging in itself to see that the U.S. hasn't given up on it.

In one sense, Obama's efforts are an exercise in black leadership. They show the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons what politics is about. It is about advocating and implementing solutions, not about being a spokesman of righteous indignation or even rage, however justified it may be in some cases, and organizing a demo and a press conference before running off to and taking the lead in the next presumed racial scandal.

Obama's republican detractors do have a point: how can you sit in that church for twenty odd years and not know about and react to the preacher's hate-speech? On the other hand, when Republican Presidents or presidential candidates were seen talking and even praying with the likes of Billy Graham, they were never identified with the lunatic views of the latter either.

[Kralizec]

Obama's republican detractors do have a point: how can you sit in that church for twenty odd years and not know about and react to the preacher's hate-speech? On the other hand, when Republican Presidents or presidential candidates were seen talking and even praying with the likes of Billy Graham, they were never identified with the lunatic views of the latter either.

Maybe not identified, but criticised for it often enough. Given that he has been visiting Wright for 2 decades I think he defended himself well enough; rather than just dropping him like a brick.

But, while I've never been a christian, it strikes me as odd that he would let his own children be baptised by this fruitbasket. Even if he's an old friend.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I always thought Billy Graham didn't really say lunatic things. Are you thinking of the likes of Jerry Falwell? (Who's Moral Majority Graham refused to join.)

Graham was seventh most admired of this century according to a gallup poll, so most people probably didn't think poorly of people who talked to him : http://www.pollingreport.com/20th.htm.
From wiki:
Politically, Graham has been a registered member of the Democratic Party and leaned Republican during the presidency of his friend Richard Nixon.[11] He has not completely allied himself with the religious right, saying that Jesus did not have a political party.[3] He does not openly endorse political candidates, but he has given his support to some over the years.[11]

He refused to join Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in 1979, saying: "I'm for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice. We as clergy know so very little to speak with authority on the Panama Canal or superiority of armaments. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle in order to preach to all people, right and left. I haven't been faithful to my own advice in the past. I will be in the future."[5]

According to a 2006 Newsweek interview, "For Graham, politics is a secondary to the Gospel... When Newsweek asked Graham whether ministers — whether they think of themselves as evangelists, pastors or a bit of both — should spend time engaged with politics, he replied: 'You know, I think in a way that has to be up to the individual as he feels led of the Lord. A lot of things that I commented on years ago would not have been of the Lord, I'm sure, but I think you have some—like communism, or segregation, on which I think you have a responsibility to speak out.'"[citation needed]

Also, check out the controversy section : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham

For a man who's been preaching since before the 1950s, there's very, very little to be offended by. My point is that Bill Graham really didn't have lunatic views.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Also, check out the controversy section : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham

For a man who's been preaching since before the 1950s, there's very, very little to be offended by. My point is that Bill Graham really didn't have lunatic views.

CR

He said that Jews control the media and that AIDS is a judgement from god ~:handball:

[Adrian II]

I always thought Billy Graham didn't really say lunatic things.Apart from being a warmonger, a creationist and an antisemite, enough to qualify him as a lunatic in my book. The other guy was worse, though, in that sense you are right.

[Crazed Rabbit]

He said that Jews control the media and that AIDS is a judgement from god ~:handball:

And backtracked quickly on both.

Adrian - a warmonger? And forgive me if being a creationist doesn't quite reach the same level as Wright's preaching, in that its mainly harmless.

CR

[Lemur]

And forgive me if being a creationist doesn't quite reach the same level as Wright's preaching, in that its mainly harmless.
How about blaming fellow Americans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I) for 9/11 just a couple of days after the event? That seemed to be a common idea at the time, both on the extreme left and extreme right. Of course, everybody who said that sort of thing wound up looking the fool.

And what about the rabidly anti-Catholic John Hagee (http://jedreport.vodpod.com/video/993830-mccain-condemns-hagees-anti-catholic-comments)? Does his hatermongering rise to the level of "notable"? Seems to me that religious leaders often say boneheaded things, and are routinely forgiven by their congregations, not to mention the politicians who solicit them.

Some quotes (http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/hagee-says-im-not-anticatholic.html) from Rev. Hagee:


The Roman Catholic Church ,which was supposed to carry the light of the gospel, plunged the world into the dark ages.

When Hitler signed a treaty with the Vatican in Rome, he said "I am only continuing the work of the Catholic Church." In this chapter I've included a comparison of the historical record of church policy and Nazi policy.

Consider Adolph Hitler. As a spiritual leader in the Roman Catholic Church...

Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolph Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.

He certainly violates Godwin's Law with cheerful abandon ...

-edit-

More polling (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/21/opinion/polls/main3958295.shtml) on the Wright/Obama issue confirms what this thread already shows -- the controversy plays well with base Republicans, and has little impact elsewhere.


Most voters following the events say they will make no difference in their vote. Seventy percent say the events will make no difference in their vote. Among those who said it would, 14 percent said it makes them more likely to vote for Obama while an equal number said it makes them less likely to support him.

Nearly a quarter of Democrats say the events have made them more likely to back Obama, while a similar number of Republicans say they are now less likely to do so. Three in four independents say the events make no difference, and the remainder are nearly evenly split between those more likely to support him and those less likely to do so.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What duh, Lemur? That video was of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

And what of that bigot Hagee?

I'm talking about Billy Graham. :dizzy2:

Let me repeat this:
I'm not talking about Falwell.
I'm not talking about Robertson.
I'm not talking about Hagee.
I never said I was talking about them not being lunatics, so I don't know where in the world you got the idea I was.

I. Am. Speaking. Only. About. Billy. Graham.

Not anyone else. Just Billy Graham.

I hope that is clear enough for you.


More polling on the Wright/Obama issue confirms what this thread already shows -- the controversy plays well with base Republicans, and has little impact elsewhere.

When its used against him int he general election, and lots of people get to hear Wright's actual remarks, not just bull**** from the media about 'controversial statements', it might have a wee bit more effect.

CR

[Lemur]

What duh, Lemur? That video was of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

And what of that bigot Hagee?[...]

I. Am. Speaking. Only. About. Billy. Graham.

Not anyone else. Just Billy Graham.

I hope that is clear enough for you.
Don't get all worked up, friend. My point was simple enough -- these are all evangelical leaders whose support has been sought by Presidential candidates (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728364), and they've all said offensive, nutty things. It's perfectly germane to the discussion. If we are to hang Obama because of his connection with Wright, we are applying something of a double standard.

In fact, Billy Graham got completely burned by politics (specifically his support of Richard Nixon) that in 1974 he said, "I'm out of politics." Details: (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-155475837.html)


In refusing to join the Moral Majority in 1979, he declared, "I'm for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice. We as clergy know so very little to speak with authority on the Panama Canal or superiority of armaments. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle in order to preach to all people, right and left. I haven't been faithful to my own advice in the past. I will be in the future."

Truthfully, I think Graham was an admirable man of faith. But he's not the beginning nor the end of this discussion.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The others like Falwell and Hagee are neither here nor there to my discussion, which was that Billy Graham is not on the lunatic fringe.

Yes, there are others who are crazy. None that I know of who have been pastor to a candidate for 20 years though. We can hold Obama's associations with Wright worse than McCain's with Hagee without applying a double standard, while still criticizing McCain.

And I already had that Bill Graham quote in an earlier post of mine.

CR

[Lemur]

The others like Falwell and Hagee are neither here nor there to my discussion
We're all in this thread together, friend.


Yes, there are others who are crazy. None that I know of who have been pastor to a candidate for 20 years though.
So it's the length of association that makes or breaks the crazy stick?


And I already had that Bill Graham quote in an earlier post of mine.
Sorry, missed it on first read.

Hey, keep hammering on Wright until November, by all means. Don't let anyone persuade you otherwise. According to the CBS and Fox polls, 70%+ of respondents said they were already quite familiar with the video clips. So flog it, baby. Fire up the base.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, tis not just length, but also level of craziness and level of America hating.

Also, where are these polls you speak of?

CR

[Lemur]

I see you and I are equally guilty of skimming.

Fox poll (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032008_release_web.pdf), and the summary article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339949,00.html).

CBS poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/MARB-ObamaCallback.pdf), summary article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/21/opinion/polls/main3958295.shtml).

-edit-

Just to save you time, the Wright questions begin on page 9 of the Fox poll PDF.

-edit of the edit-

My kind of article: 14 Reasons Why Hillary Should Quit (http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-painful-things-hillary-clinton-knows-%E2%80%94-or-should-know/)

Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows — Or Should Know

1. She can’t win the nomination without overturning the will of the elected delegates, which will alienate many Democrats.

2. She can’t win the nomination without a bloody convention battle — after which, even if she won, history and many Democrats would cast her as a villain.

3. Catching up in the popular vote is not out of the question — but without re-votes in Florida and Michigan it will be almost as impossible as catching up in elected delegates.

4. Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress don’t think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile.

5. Obama’s skilled, close-knit staff can do things like silently kill re-votes in Florida and Michigan and not pay a political price.

6. Many of her supporters — and even some of her staffers — would be relieved (and even delighted) if she quit the race; none of his supporters or staff feel that way. Some think she just might throw in the towel in June if it appears efforts to fight on would hurt Obama’s general election chances.

7. The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee — and that has an impact every day.

8. Obama might not be able to talk that well about the new global economy, but she (and McCain) can’t either.

9. Many of the remaining prominent superdelegates want to be for Obama and she (and Harold Ickes) are just barely keeping them from making public commitments to him.

10. She can’t publicly say more than 2% of all the things she would like to say about race, electability, beating McCain and experience.

11. If she somehow found a way to win the nomination, she would have to offer Obama the veep slot, and she doesn’t want to do that.

12. This is a change election, and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton can never truly be change.

13. Obama is having fun most days, and she isn’t.

14. Even though her campaign staff is having more fun than it has for a long time, there’s hardly anyone there who, given half a chance, wouldn’t slit Mark Penn’s throat — and such internal dissension won’t help her in the home stretch.

[Kralizec]

7. The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee — and that has an impact every day.

...and the guy who wrote that article probably doesn't have a problem with that.

Don't get me wrong, most of the reasons listed are valid. It's not in the party's best interest for Hillary to continue and doubtfully so for her own. I don't follow American newspapers obviously, but when Dutch newspapers talk about the American elections, half of it is about Obama alone.

The obvious cases like Fox news aside, is it common that newspapers or other news outlets explicitly endorse a candidate?

[Lemur]

And of course the goofy thing is that because of their Obama boy-crushes, the talking heads have been, if anything, super-gentle with Madam Clinton. It's as though they're trying to prove how very not-in-love-with-Obama they are.

Can you imagine, if their positions were reversed, how the coverage would have differed? If Obama lost 12 states in a row, was behind in popular votes and delegates, would they walk on eggshells around him, saying it was a "competitive" race? No they would not. They'd be howling for him to step down.

No, if anything, their guilty love of Obama makes the MSM much more Clinton-positive than otherwise.

[Kralizec]

Can you imagine, if their positions were reversed, how the coverage would have differed? If Obama lost 12 states in a row, was behind in popular votes and delegates, would they walk on eggshells around him, saying it was a "competitive" race? No they would not. They'd be howling for him to step down.

:inquisitive:

Maybe you can help my imagination a bit. Why would that be?

It is a competitive race. Clinton, by now, is consistently lagging behind but by a margin small enough for her to win if she gets enough superdelegates.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama got a lot of help from the media early on. I think you're mistaken in your analysis, Lemur. It's only recently that Obama's been asked any hard questions. And the media have been tight lipped about what Wright said.

They may have finally realized it and stopped the blatantness of the love for Obama, but I don't think that's the whole reason they're still calling Clinton competitive.

Clinton is still competitive in upcoming primary states and is close behind in delegates, and is polling even to Obama. If Obama had lost all those states in a row, would he be in the position Hilary has maintained? I don't think so.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And backtracked quickly on both.


Well yes, I guess it is a common slip of the tongue. I've often slipped up and saids things like "jews control the media" when I meant to say "I'll have three bud light's".

[Lemur]

It is a competitive race. Clinton, by now, is consistently lagging behind but by a margin small enough for her to win if she gets enough superdelegates.
In other words, if the superdelegates overturn the expressed will of the voters, Clinton can win. If the superdelegates nullify the candidate who will end the race with more delegates and more popular vote, Clinton can win.

Think about that (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html) and let's talk about it tomorrow.


Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

[Crazed Rabbit]

All the same, those are two instances from 50+ years of preaching. And both times he said he was wrong.

Is he perfect? No, but he's far from a lunatic.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rabbit & Lemur (sounds like a comedy act :devilish: ):

Actually, I think the media has almost precisely what they want right now. The media, as an institution, wants to sell advertising. They are now looking at with scare-concealed glee at a brokered convention. A convention that costs them almost Zip-Squat to produce and for which they will sell a snot-load of advertising because, for the first time since Kennedy in 1960, the convention actually matters.

Yes, the media built up Obama early on -- it is in their interest to make as much of a horse race of things as they can. Now Obama is up front, and its his turn to get bashed while Hillary gets a bit of soft glove.

Journalism is about reporting on a "conflict" of some sort. Nominations wrapped up in late February don't have nearly enough to suit them.


Given that most of the media is, personally, more inclined towards left-wing politics than toward right-wing politics, I suspect they'd be happy (on a personal level) with either one.


The only way it oculd have been more fun for the media ws to have the same sort of thing happening on the GOP side as well. Huckabee and Romney split things up too much though, so McCain sailed clear too quickly.

[Lemur]

Astute analysis as usual, Seamus.


Rabbit & Lemur (sounds like a comedy act :devilish: ):
We'll just have to work out who does the prop comedy and who gets stuck with the dancing dog.

-edit-

Two contrasting views on the Wright business, one from a founder of the Religious Right (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html):


Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. [...]

The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.

And a moment of shocking honesty from NRO (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmQzZTE0ZjRkZTI3OTVmOTkyMjg0YmEzZDczZDlkYzA=), which has become anti-Obama central:


Obama's the enemy — a far-left Democrat. We should be attacking him at every weak point. That's politics.

A pro-Obama emailer whines to me that the Pastor Wright business is "a Swift Boating of Obama." Well, duh!

[Adrian II]

Actually, I think the media has almost precisely what they want right now. The media, as an institution, wants to sell advertising. They are now looking at with scare-concealed glee at a brokered convention. I found this breakdown (through Truthout) rather enlightening. Story Behind the Story: The Clinton Myth
By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
The Politico

Friday 21 March 2008

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party's most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote - which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle - and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton's campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media - including Politico - have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.

Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that's not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.

The antidote to last winter's flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate.

There are other forces also working to preserve the notion of a contest that is still up for grabs.

One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race - it's more fun and it's good for business.

The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she's going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August.

That's certainly possible - and, to be clear, we'd love to see the race last that long - but it's folly to write about this as if it is likely.

It's also hard to overstate the role the talented Clinton camp plays in shaping the campaign narrative, first by subtly lowering the bar for the performance necessary to remain in the race, and then by keeping the focus on Obama's relationships with a political fixer and a controversial pastor in Illinois.

But even some of Clinton's own advisers now concede that she cannot win unless Obama is hit by a political meteor. Something that merely undermines him won't be enough. It would have to be some development that essentially disqualifies him.

Simple number-crunching has shown the long odds against Clinton for some time.

In the latest Associated Press delegate count, Obama leads with 1,406 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,249. Obama's lead is likely to grow, as it did with county conventions last weekend in Iowa, as later rounds of delegates are apportioned from caucuses he has already won.

The Democratic Party has 794 superdelegates, the party insiders who get to vote on the nomination in addition to the delegates chosen by voters. According to Politico's latest tally, Clinton has 250 and Obama has 212. That means 261 are uncommitted, and 71 have yet to be named.

An analysis by Politico's Avi Zenilman shows that Clinton's lead in superdelegates has shrunk by about 60 in the past month. And it found Clinton is roughly tied among House members, senators and governors - the party's most powerful elite.

Clinton had not announced a new superdelegate commitment since the March 4 primaries, until the drought was broken recently by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and West Virginia committeeman Pat Maroney.

Clintonistas continue to talk tough. Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign's deputy communications director, told reporters on a conference call Friday that the Obama campaign "is in hot water" and is "seeing the ground shift away from them."

Mark Penn, the campaign's chief strategist, maintained that it's still "a hard-fought race between two potential nominees" and that other factors could come into play at the convention besides the latest delegate tally - "the popular vote, who will have won more delegates from primaries [as opposed to caucuses], who will be the stronger candidate against McCain."

But let's assume a best-case scenario for Clinton, one where she wins every remaining contest with 60 percent of the vote (an unlikely outcome since she has hit that level in only three states so far - her home state of New York, Rhode Island and Arkansas).

Even then, she would still be behind Obama in delegates.

There are 566 pledged delegates up for grabs in upcoming contests. Those delegates come from Pennsylvania (158), Guam (4) North Carolina (115), Indiana (72), West Virginia (28), Kentucky (51), Oregon (52), Puerto Rico (55), Montana (16) and South Dakota (15).

If Clinton won 60 percent of those delegates, she would get 340 delegates to Obama's 226. Under that scenario - and without revotes in Michigan and Florida - Obama would still lead in delegates by 1,632 to 1,589.

The only remote possibility of a win in delegates would come if revotes were held in Florida and Michigan - which, again, would take a political miracle. If Clinton won 60 percent of the delegates in both states, she would win 188 delegates and Obama would win 125. Clinton would then lead among pledged delegates, 1,777 to 1,757.

The other elephant in the room for Clinton is that Obama is almost certain to win North Carolina, with its high percentage of African-American voters, and also is seen as extremely strong in Oregon.

Harold Ickes, an icon of the Democratic Party who is Clinton's chief delegate strategist, points out that every previous forecast about this race has been faulty.

Asked about the Obama campaign's contention that it's mathematically impossible for Clinton to win, Ickes replied: "They can't count. At the end of it, even by the Obama campaign's prediction, neither candidate will have enough delegates to be nominated."

This is true, as a matter of math. But even the Clinton campaign's own best-case scenario has her finishing behind Obama when all the nominating contests are over.

"She will be close to him but certainly not equal to him in pledged delegates," a Clinton adviser said. "When you add the superdelegates on top of it, I'll think she'll still be behind him somewhat in total delegates - but very, very close."

The total gap is likely to be 75 to 110, the adviser said.

That means Clinton would need either some of those pledged delegates to switch their support - which technically they can do, though it would be unlikely - or for the white-dominated group of superdelegates to join forces with her to topple Obama.

To foster doubt about Obama, Clinton supporters are using a whisper and pressure campaign to make an 11th-hour argument to party insiders that he would be a weak candidate in November despite his superior standing at the moment.

"All she has left is the electability argument," a Democratic official said. "It's all wrapped around: Is there something that makes him ultimately unelectable?"

But the audience for that argument, the superdelegates, will not easily overturn the will of the party's voters. And in fact, a number of heavyweight Democrats are looking at the landscape and laying the groundwork to dissuade Clinton from trying to overturn the will of the party rank and file.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has not endorsed either candidate, appears to be among them. She told Bloomberg Television that superdelegates should "respect for what has been said by the people." And she told ABC's "This Week" that it would be "harmful to the Democratic Party" if superdelegates overturn the outcome of elections.

A Democratic strategist said that given the unlikelihood of prevailing any other way, Clinton now must "scare" superdelegates "who basically just want to win."

The strategist said Clinton aides are now relying heavily on the controversy over Obama's retiring minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to sow new seeds of doubt.

"This issue is the first thing that's come along that I think is potentially fatal to his electability argument," the strategist said.

"They're looking ahead and saying: Is it possible this thing is just going to drip, drip, drip, drip - more video? Where does that leave us if he's our presumptive nominee and he's limping into the convention and the Republicans are just read to go on him, double-barreled?"

The strategist also said Clinton's agents are making more subtle pitches.

"I've heard people start to say: Have you looked at the vote in Ohio really carefully? See how that breaks down for him. What does that portend?" said the strategist. "Then they point to Pennsylvania: In electorally important battleground states, if he is essentially only carrying heavy African-American turnout in high-performing African-American districts and the Starbucks-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal elite, how does he carry a state like Pennsylvania?"

Her advisers say privately that the nominee will be clear by the end of June. At the same time, they recognize that the nominee probably is clear already.

What has to irk Clintons' aides is that they felt she might finally have him on the ropes, bruised badly by the Wright fight and wobbly in polls. But the bell rang long ago in the minds of too many voters.

Clickety (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208A.shtml)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I love how people never learn from the past mistake of standing over the shark carcass that is Hillary. Whatever the likelihood that she could win is, multiply that by at least 5. If there is "no possibility", giver her a10%.

Shark Carcass - never let your guard down even if it has been rotting on the deck for over an hour.

She will get up, go down, get up again. She is a "horror film that will never end" (Andrew Sullivan).

We won't be finished with her until her final breath. She will keep coming back until she is the President. I just hope that we have enough political ammo or passionate, intelligent minority candidates to keep her at bay until she finally crawls back into hell.

[KukriKhan]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Bill plays our Panzer Jaeger-identified "traitor" card (link (http://www.kcby.com/news/national/16925531.html)), while speaking to vets:


"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."


"...all this other stuff...". Right. That other stuff like truth, honor, self-respect. That stuff, instead of the distracting/intruding stuff, like "I NEVER had sex with that woman...", etc.

Is he trying to sabotage her candidacy?

[Kralizec]

In other words, if the superdelegates overturn the expressed will of the voters, Clinton can win. If the superdelegates nullify the candidate who will end the race with more delegates and more popular vote, Clinton can win.

Think about that (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html) and let's talk about it tomorrow.

I think that the current setup of the Democratic nomination is poorly constructed, and waiting for a scenario like this to happen. Why do the superdelegates get a say in it at all if they're not supposed to change the popular outcome?


Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory.

I thought that the Democratic nomination process was proportional, i.e. winning the popular vote = getting the most delegates?

[FactionHeir]

I thought that the Democratic nomination process was proportional, i.e. winning the popular vote = getting the most delegates?

Afaik no. You can get the popular vote in a state but still have fewer delegates if you didn't win the popular vote in each district that assigns delegates. Similarly, some counties count more than others within a state.

On the big map, you can win more delegates but lack behind in popular vote due to this reason and also if you win say the big states but lose all the small states.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's proportional, in a district with 4 delegates they will be split 2-2 unless one of the candidates gets over 66% (not sure on the number), then it will be slit 3-1.

[Kralizec]

....in a district with 4 delegates they will be split 2-2 unless one of the candidates gets over 66% (not sure on the number), then it will be slit 3-1.

Then you could say it's proportional for that district, but not for the statewide level (let alone national). Proportional statewide would mean that the state itself is one district in wich all delegates are chosen based on % of the vote.

[Lemur]

Senator Clinton on her experience in Bosnia (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/hillary_clinton_in_bosnia.php):


I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

Now watch this news video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c) from the time.

There's nothing left to say. Senator Clinton, it is with regret that I inform you that your pants are on fire.

[Kralizec]

There's nothing left to say. Senator Clinton, it is with regret that I inform you that your pants are on fire.

That sounds dangerous to everybody involved *thinks of Clinton's comment about wearing asbestos pants*

[Crazed Rabbit]

There must be something in the DNA of the Clintons that compels them to lie.

Makes you worry about Chelsea.

CR

[Xiahou]

Senator Clinton on her experience in Bosnia (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/hillary_clinton_in_bosnia.php):


I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

Now watch this news video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c) from the time.

There's nothing left to say. Senator Clinton, it is with regret that I inform you that your pants are on fire.
I call it, "pulling a Romney". :beam:

That's to say, it was a baffling stupid lie that was easily checked up on and was told needlessly.

[KukriKhan]

Heh. Maybe the "...but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." part actually happened on her return to D.C.

It'll be interesting to watch her wriggle/spin her way out of this one.

[FactionHeir]

Any bets she'll say that that was the only way to have people investigate it, bring up evidence that it didn't happen but at the same time prove that she was in Bosnia on official mission?

[Adrian II]

Any bets she'll say that that was the only way to have people investigate it, bring up evidence that it didn't happen but at the same time prove that she was in Bosnia on official mission?Hillary Clinton's bout of sensationalism pales in comparison to the foreign policy lies of the incumbent President. Hillary's lies never cost so many lives. Maybe they will if she becomes President, though. The same applies to John McCain. His unnecessary and ridiculous stunt visit to Iraq proves it. On a press conference he said his visit proved that 'you can walk freely in certain areas of Baghdad'. Sure you can - if you have a bulletproof vest, a 100-strong security detail surrounding you, three Blackhawks surveilling the area and two Apache gunships overhead, to the tune of one and a half million dollar a day. Most Iraqis don't have that kind of money. Luckily, the American taxpayer does.

[Vladimir]

If you have anything to back that up, please share.

I don't have time to go over his entire campaign with you. Please do keep up. :book:

[Beirut]

I just read a great article in this morning's paper about the Democrats bashing NAFTA and how they are lying through their teeth about the stats. The article said that not only is Canada the US' biggest trading partner, but that 7,000,000 jobs in the US are directly tied to Canadian purchases.

The article listed over a dozen US states, big ones (Pennsylvania, New York, etc.), that showed more of their exports going to Canada than to many if not all of their other export customers combined.

I was never a big fan of NAFTA, but we're pretty much tied at the hip now and it would create huge problems to undo it.

(Unless NAFTA forces us to export bulk water to the US, which some US lawmakers says it does, in which case we'll tear it up ourselves and use it for toilet paper.)

[Xiahou]

I just read a great article in this morning's paper about the Democrats bashing NAFTA and how they are lying through their teeth about the stats. The article said that not only is Canada the US' biggest trading partner, but that 7,000,000 jobs in the US are directly tied to Canadian purchases.

The article listed over a dozen US states, big ones (Pennsylvania, New York, etc.), that showed more of their exports going to Canada than to many if not all of their other export customers combined.

I was never a big fan of NAFTA, but we're pretty much tied at the hip now and it would create huge problems to undo it.
NAFTA has been a net benefit to all the countries involved. It's shameful union pandering on the part of the Democrats to claim otherwise. Allegedly, the Obama campaign already assure the Canadian government that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric is a pack of lies and although nothing has leaked about it yet, I doubt Clinton is serious about repealing it either. While that's good, I don't think it speaks well of either candidate's character. :no:

[Ronin]

I don't think it speaks well of either candidate's character. :no:


politicians have character? :inquisitive:

you hear the weirdest things everyday :smash:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Heh, you should read some democrat blog posts about Obama - they almost worship the guy, they beleive he 'transcends' being just a politician. It's like they believe he's a savior of America.

See: this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xtNr5-up0U&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/).

CR

[Beirut]

Up here in Canadaland, most people do see Obama as a saviour. Compared to how we see Bush, which ain't none too kindly (a mix between Joseph and Charlie McCarthy), Obama is seen as intelligent, well spoken, and far less likely to invade other countries for fun and profit or sell his soul to Exxon.

Whether Obama is good or bad, I'm not sure yet, what I can tell you is if Obama wins and pays a visit north, he'll get a reception here unseen since JFK or the Beatles came a' calling.

[Geoffrey S]

So if all fails in the US, he can always give Canada a try?

[Xiahou]

Heh, you should read some democrat blog posts about Obama - they almost worship the guy, they beleive he 'transcends' being just a politician. It's like they believe he's a savior of America.

See: this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xtNr5-up0U&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/).

CR
Nice. :laugh4:
Know what band that is? Sounds like Cake.