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

[Don Corleone]

Is it just me, or do other Americans wake up in the morning, pop on CNN, listen to campaign news about the three stooges, and think to themselves "Awww, crap". Maybe Ron Paul isn't all that bad after all. Sure, the man is a kook, and his economic policies, beyond being foolish would be downright dangerous if enacted. But presidents don't have the power to enact 20% of the laundry list he's tossed on the table. And one thing about him.... While you may not believe in his ideas, you could be confident that HE at least does.

I have no idea who I'm voting for. But of the three, shockingly, Hillary is probably the safest bet for the future security of the country.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Know what band that is? Sounds like Cake.

I believe it is.

@ Don C - why? :inquisitive:

CR

[Don Corleone]

Why Ron Paul, or why Hillary?

I'm not endorsing her. I think she'd be disastrous for the moral fiber of the country. I just think unlike Obama, who would be viewed as weak internationally and will encourage groups like Al-Queda, or McCain, who seems to have a chip on his shoulder with everyone, she'd be smart enough to not rock the boat that much. Her domestic agenda... maybe not so good.

But surely you've noticed by now that we have 3 Democrats running for President.

[Lemur]

A bad omen for the Clinton campaign, courtesy of LaGuardia Airport (http://www.radosh.net/archive/002238.html):


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

-edit-

This is too good to not post: It's Raining McCain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s&eurl).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why Ron Paul, or why Hillary?

I'm not endorsing her. I think she'd be disastrous for the moral fiber of the country. I just think unlike Obama, who would be viewed as weak internationally and will encourage groups like Al-Queda, or McCain, who seems to have a chip on his shoulder with everyone, she'd be smart enough to not rock the boat that much. Her domestic agenda... maybe not so good.

But surely you've noticed by now that we have 3 Democrats running for President.

Oh, I totally understand the Ron Paul thing. I don't have the perception McCain would be viewed as weaker than Hilary.

At least he'd be better than Hilary. :dizzy2:

And Lemur, have the words 'good' and 'terrible' switched meaning where you live?

CR

[Don Corleone]

Oh, I totally understand the Ron Paul thing. I don't have the perception McCain would be viewed as weaker than Hilary.

At least he'd be better than Hilary. :dizzy2:

And Lemur, have the words 'good' and 'terrible' switched meaning where you live?

CR

Oh, I'm not worried about McCain being perceived globally as weaker than Hillary, that's my beef with Obama. I'm worried about McCain having a big 'Wheel of Misfortune' with all the countries of the world on it and spinning it every morning to figure out who he's going to go medieval on next. If you think Bush entering Iraq was shortsighted and ill-planned, don't get your hopes up for a McCain presidency. I really do fear the man's temper.

Not to mention, he's opposed to free speech and he's opposed to the rule of law when its' not convenient for him. Say what you want about Hillary, at least she's smart enough to lie. He yells at his own people and tells us how stupid we all are for focusing on something silly like the law and not listening to him and following him blindly.

Sorry, I'm not impressed. The more I see, the more I like Ron Paul.

[KukriKhan]

Is it just me, or do other Americans wake up in the morning, pop on CNN, listen to campaign news about the three stooges, and think to themselves "Awww, crap".

Believe me: you are not alone.

Except that I 'pop on' Google News v CNN. Unless GN show's a reported event going on, real-time; then Turner's boys (and Rueters' raw newsfeed) get my eyeballs.

Still, most days, same result: "Awww, crap."

---------------------------
On the other hand, I've looked at my presidential votes since I got the franchise, and realize that in nine elections, I've only ever voted for the winner twice:

72 McGovern Dem
76 McCarthy Ind
80 Anderson Ind
84 Reagan Rep
88 Lewin P&F
92 Perot Reform
96 Feinland P&F
00 Nader Green
04 Bush Rep

The '88, '96 & '00 votes, I admit, were born of frustration and anger over the mealy-mouth-ness of the major party candidates at the time. I literally "threw away" my votes there.

McGovern in '72 was a girlfriend vote. God forgive me, for I knew not what I was doing..

The other ones, I take responsibility for (McCarthy, Anderson, Reagan, Perot), and explain Bush as: an 'institutional memory' vote; at war (declared, or not) don't change leaders. I'll be relieved when he and Dick retire.

So, with a 2:9 win/no-win record (that's a .222 batting average), fully eight months out from the actual election: I pick... Hilary. Not cuz I like her, but cuz she can fight dirtier than the other two, and still survive.

I dread what happens to my america if I'm correct.

[Beirut]

Still, most days, same result: "Awww, crap."

So you're saying American politics are as stupid-based as Canadian politics?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not to mention, he's opposed to free speech and he's opposed to the rule of law when its' not convenient for him. Say what you want about Hillary, at least she's smart enough to lie. He yells at his own people and tells us how stupid we all are for focusing on something silly like the law and not listening to him and following him blindly.

I like it. How do I get citizenship/vote?



So you're saying American politics are as stupid-based as Canadian politics?

Canada isn't really that bad. Three viable political parties in federal elections (four for you, since you're in Quebec), a minority government (which I like), and the Prime Minister shows a good bit of capability and common sense. If he lacks anything, it might be charisma. Even then, he's not a boring speaker, just not a captivating one.

[KukriKhan]

So you're saying American politics are as stupid-based as Canadian politics?

Ahhh, yup. :)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

McGovern in '72 was a girlfriend vote. God forgive me, for I knew not what I was doing...

But was your campaign for acceptance more successful than George's?

:devilish:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So you're saying American politics are as stupid-based as Canadian politics?

How DARE you even question the collective ignorance of the US electorate?!!!

Perhaps if I could find Canada on a map I'd come and thrash you for that slur!






:devilish:

[Adrian II]

But was your campaign for acceptance more successful than George's?

:devilish:
How DARE you even question the collective ignorance of the US electorate?!!!

Perhaps if I could find Canada on a map I'd come and thrash you for that slur!

:devilish:You doubleposting Republican, you. :whip: :smash:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Mrs. Clinton "misspoke" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7313117.stm) about being under sniper fire.

:inquisitive:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Barack Obama and his wife made 1.2 million dollars from 2000 through 2004 (His wife speaks of noble public service and the like, but they she was certainly well paid for her time). And they gave only $10,770 to charity over those same four years, or less than 1% of the over a million dollars they earned during that time.

And the excuse?


Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman, said the Obamas gave as much as they could afford.

``As new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity was as generous as they could be at the time,'' Burton said.

Pathetic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHdvU_NJzIcI&refer=home

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's 3am. The phone is ringing in the White House. Who do you want mis-speaking into it?

:shocked2:

One would have thought that after her husband's notoriously casual relationship with the truth, La Clinton would have been scrupulous about such things. :wall:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Barack Obama and his wife made 1.2 million dollars from 2000 through 2004 (His wife speaks of noble public service and the like, but they she was certainly well paid for her time). And they gave only $10,770 to charity over those same four years, or less than 1% of the over a million dollars they earned during that time.

I do not believe that setting a threshold for charitable giving is a good benchmark for evaluating a politician. It is my personal belief that charity is a duty as well as a virtue. Mandating it, however, does not seem appropriate.


Yes, I understand your point that the Obamas should practice what they preach. However, his voting record suggests that he is doing so. After all, his voting record says he favors increasing my taxes to pay for "charity" managed by the government -- I have little doubt that, if elected, he will attempt to follow through on that agenda.

[drone]

It's 3am. The phone is ringing in the White House. Who do you want mis-speaking into it?

:shocked2:

One would have thought that after her husband's notoriously casual relationship with the truth, La Clinton would have been scrupulous about such things. :wall:
That depends on what your definition of "snipe" is. ~D

[Lemur]

Pathetic.
Hey, look on the bright side -- at least you're allowed to read their tax returns. Don't even try to get them out of Hillary or Johnny Mac.

[Banquo's Ghost]

That depends on what your definition of "snipe" is. ~D

:laugh4:

I'm just grateful that she solved the Northern Ireland problem over tea and cakes. I've always thought that the Middle East could do with a nice slice of Battenburg.

[Lemur]

My god, it turns out that Senator Clinton is some sort of android. Or an alien. Or part octosquid. Or something. Whatever the case, clearly she is not 100% human (http://wonkette.com/372001/hillarys-bosnia-story-her-first-lie-in-12-years):


Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else.

So what is she the rest of the time?

[Kralizec]

Somewhat related: has anybody of you ever watched Primary Colors?

[GeneralHankerchief]

Yeah, I watched it a year or two ago. Travolta playing a Bill Clinton-like figure going through the Primaries.

[Geoffrey S]

And it's excellent.

[Lemur]

Is that a crowbar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonya_Harding#The_Kerrigan_attack) in your hand, or are you just happy to see me (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/dnc-official-cl.html)?


The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.' " the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.

It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.

[FactionHeir]

Neither of the two Dems is really morally better than the other.
I mean Obama did tried to get an earmark for his wife's employer, which seems rather scummy morally if there are more deserving corps.

Both are going negative and their surrogates are razing the other down to the ground. Both either "misspeak" (Clinton and Obama) or are "misunderstood" (Obama) when they are asked tough questions.

Can't blame those who stay home rather than vote or vote for some 3rd party.

[KukriKhan]

But was your campaign for acceptance more successful than George's?

:devilish:

Yes. Bedded, engaged, married. (Game, set, match)

Then divorced, when we both "woke up" a few years later. (So I plead again: "Forgive me, for I knew not...").

Idle observations: Neither Hil nor Barry would last 2 "day" cycles in one of our mafia games. J-Mac might make it to night 3, cuz he knows how to lay low.

Are none of them gonna try to explain what's wrong with the US econ and provide anything like a bold vision for fixing it? Or are we gonna end up with 3 befuddled senators taking pot-shots at each other for the next 9 months? Gonna be a painful pregnancy. I'm opposed to abortion, but I'm all for destroying this 'clump of (political) cells' now, in favor of the mother's life. Get a new slate. This one's terrible.

I mean, all the Dem's or Repub's hafta do is find a: Spanish-fluent, war-widowed, Episcopalian, 35+ year old, born in the US, Black Woman who never took drugs or welfare. The only words she'd have to speak are: "I declare my candidacy", "I accept the nomination", and "I swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies...". A shoo-in. There have to be a million of them. Hell, I work with 2 of 'em myself.

Anybody heard any word on whether or when R.Paul might go Indy? I'd hate to throw my useless/frustrated vote to Nader again.

[Lemur]

I'd hate to throw my useless/frustrated vote to Nader again.
Pleas, please, please don't vote Nader. It just encourages that egomaniac. If you need to lodge a protest vote, there are all sorts of weird little third-party candidates who could use your love. Just ... not him, okay?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pleas, please, please don't vote Nader. It just encourages that egomaniac. If you need to lodge a protest vote, there are all sorts of weird little third-party candidates who could use your love. Just ... not him, okay?

Well, Nader managed to prevent a Gore presidency.

So instead of a liberal wonk we ended up with a....

:inquisitive:

well the tax cuts were good and....

:inquisitive:

well....

Oh bother.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

There, that helped.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Hey, that Paul fellow :rolleyes3: is seeming a bit better.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Much better.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

:dizzy:

[seireikhaan]

:laugh4:

Well summed, Seamus!

:laugh4:

[KukriKhan]

Pleas, please, please don't vote Nader. It just encourages that egomaniac. If you need to lodge a protest vote, there are all sorts of weird little third-party candidates who could use your love. Just ... not him, okay?

OK.

For you: I promise.

Wanna get married?




:clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:

No, really, I promise: No Nader. I'm sure my '08 Califexico ballot will have 3 or 4 other candidates.

For the record, I owned and drove 3 Corvairs after his "Unsafe at Any Speed" screed, being a native Detroiter (and invincible young man) at the time. T'was cool how a single bolt un-assed the engine; my friendship with local motor-heads made swapping them (engines) out a Saturday beer-drinking event, of notorious proportion. :)

[drone]

Anybody heard any word on whether or when R.Paul might go Indy? I'd hate to throw my useless/frustrated vote to Nader again.
Paul has stated that he will not run as an independent. Been there, done that, I guess. I think he wants to build a more constitutional/libertarian faction within the GOP. Supposedly, the Libertarian Party will ask him to be their candidate, but he said he would refuse.

I voted Bednarik in 2004, and assuming the Libertarians don't nominate a complete nutjob, will probably vote for them again. Unless Hillary gets the Dem nomination, in which case McCain will get my vote.

[PanzerJaeger]

:wall:

[CountArach]

Anybody heard any word on whether or when R.Paul might go Indy? I'd hate to throw my useless/frustrated vote to Nader again.
Here (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/03/02/ron-paul-asked-the-third-party-question-again/).
Interviewer: A lot of your supporters want you to continue on with this campaign. I’ve heard personally from some of your supporters, they want you to run as a third party candidate. if you can’t get the nomination for the Republican candidacy, they want you to break out as a third party. Is there a chance and if not, why not?

Paul: Not likely, I have no plans to do that—and it’s rather sad.

Interviewer: Will you back McCain when he gets the nomination?

Paul: Probably not, unless he changes his philosophy.

[later in the interview]

Interviewer: And finally, just to confirm, you said you’re not dropping out of this race and you’re not going to break out as a third party?

Paul: No plans to do that, whatsoever. We will be in this race. And as long as the supporters want me to do it and more join us every day, which they do—and they continue to send in the money…

[Lemur]

There's something both admirable and bone-chilling about watching Senator Clinton twist arms, break legs, defecate where she eats and kidnap children in her quest to keep her 5% chance of winning the nomination alive. Now she's gotten a bunch of high-profile donors to threaten Nancy Pelosi for suggesting that superdelegates should respect the will of the voters by going along with whichever candidate obtains the most pledged delegates. Linky (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_letter_a_dozen_top_clinton.php).

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the US House of Representatives

Office of the Speaker

H-232, US Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

"I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

Sincerely,

Marc Aronchick

Clarence Avant

Susie Tompkins Buell

Sim Farar

Robert L. Johnson

Chris Korge

Marc and Cathy Lasry

Hassan Nemazee

Alan and Susan Patricof

JB Pritzker

Amy Rao

Lynn de Rothschild

Haim Saban

Bernard Schwartz

Stanley S. Shuman

Jay Snyder

Maureen White and Steven Rattner

[GeneralHankerchief]

So what are they gonna do? Throw their support behind Cindy Sheehan? :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

Not exactly Obama girl (http://www.sandmonkey.org/2008/03/21/anti-israel-egyptian-singer-makes-obama-song/).

[Lemur]

A look at the money (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/03/7757_if_the_campaign.html):


In the month of February, [John McCain] raised just under $11 million, compared to $34 million for Clinton and $55 million for Obama.The numbers get worse when you look at the whole election cycle: in total, McCain has raised just $64 million, less than half of Clinton's $170 million, and a third of Obama's $193 million.

But what's most striking is the debt. The Clinton campaign has amassed a staggering $8.7 million worth, double McCain's $4.3 million. Obama, on the other hand, owes only $625,000. By campaign standards, he's debt free.

[Geoffrey S]

I think that says better things about McCain than the rest, to be honest. Despite a relative lack of funds (still large amounts by most standards!) he has won his primaries convincingly. Does that say more about him or his opponents, I wonder?

[Vladimir]

Wow. Obama owes more than he's ever given to charity. :laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

There isn't much of a doubt in my mind that McCain will lose this election, but the Democratic debacle allows us to entertain the thought of a win, no matter how unlikely.

McCain needs more money, but I won't send him a penny.

[Vladimir]

There isn't much of a doubt in my mind that McCain will lose this election, but the Democratic debacle allows us to entertain the thought of a win, no matter how unlikely.

McCain needs more money, but I won't send him a penny.

:laugh4: I don't like him much but you anti-McCain people would let Rome burn just to get rid of a few Demo...Christians!

[ICantSpellDawg]

:laugh4: I don't like him much but you anti-McCain people would let Rome burn just to get rid of a few Demo...Christians!

I want him to win, but not enough to spend a dime. Are you going to give money to his campaign?

I'm not a Republican.

[drone]

McCain is not raising much money, but he's not really spending it either. The Democratic candidates are in a bitter fight to the convention, they are going through that cash like congressmen.

Isn't McCain also hamstrung by campaign finance reform, at least until the conventions are over?

[Vladimir]

I want him to win, but not enough to spend a dime. Are you going to give money to his campaign?

I'm not a Republican.

Yea, I'll give him my :2cents:


Isn't McCain also hamstrung by campaign finance reform, at least until the conventions are over?

You better laugh when you say that.

[drone]

You better laugh when you say that.
The irony of his situation does make one chuckle. ~D

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Relations (http://celebedge.sympatico.msn.ca/Celebrity+link+Obama+related+to+Brad+Pitt+Hillary+Clinton+to+Angelina+Jolie/ContentPosting_CP-Entertainment_new.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=43124024&feedname=CP-ENTERTAINMENT&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=False)

I was shown this by a friend of mine today. Skipping past the Brangelina part (they only put that there for the teenagers to read), read how the canidates are related, and who to. It's interesting just for the entertainment value.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yet another great article by Peggy Noonan. Man, if I were only 30 years older... ahumanahumanahumana!

DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN


Getting Mrs. Clinton
March 28, 2008

I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought -- either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).
[Getting Mrs. Clinton]
AP

But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape.

Many in the press get it, to their dismay, and it makes them uncomfortable, for it sours life to have a person whose character you feel you cannot admire play such a large daily role in your work. But I think it's fair to say of the establishment media at this point that it is well populated by people who feel such a lack of faith in Mrs. Clinton's words and ways that it amounts to an aversion. They are offended by how she and her staff operate. They try hard to be fair. They constantly have to police themselves.

Not that her staff isn't policing them too. Mrs. Clinton's people are heavy-handed in that area, letting producers and correspondents know they're watching, weighing, may have to take this higher. There's too much of this in politics, but Hillary's campaign takes it to a new level.

It's not only the press. It's what I get as I walk around New York, which used to be thick with her people. I went to a Hillary fund-raiser at Hunter College about a month ago, paying for a seat in the balcony and being ushered up to fill the more expensive section on the floor, so frantic were they to fill seats.

I sat next to a woman, a New York Democrat who'd been for Hillary from the beginning and still was. She was here. But, she said, "It doesn't seem to be working." She shrugged, not like a brokenhearted person but a practical person who'd missed all the signs of something coming. She wasn't mad at the voters. But she was no longer so taken by the woman who soon took the stage and enacted joy.

The other day a bookseller told me he'd been reading the opinion pages of the papers and noting the anti-Hillary feeling. Two weeks ago he realized he wasn't for her anymore. It wasn't one incident, just an accumulation of things. His experience tracks this week's Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showing Mrs. Clinton's disapproval numbers have risen to the highest level ever in the campaign, her highest in fact in seven years.

* * *

You'd think she'd pivot back to showing a likable side, chatting with women, weeping, wearing the bright yellows and reds that are thought to appeal to her core following, older women. Well, she's doing that. Yet at the same time, her campaign reveals new levels of thuggishness, though that's the wrong word, for thugs are often effective. This is mere heavy-handedness.

On Wednesday a group of Mrs. Clinton's top donors sent a letter to the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, warning her in language that they no doubt thought subtle but that reflected a kind of incompetent menace, that her statements on the presidential campaign may result in less money for Democratic candidates for the House. Ms. Pelosi had said that in her view the superdelegates should support the presidential candidate who wins the most pledged delegates in state contests. The letter urged her to "clarify" her position, which is "clearly untenable" and "runs counter" to the superdelegates' right to make "an informed, individual decision" about "who would be the party's strongest nominee." The signers, noting their past and huge financial support, suggested that Ms. Pelosi "reflect" on her comments and amend them to reflect "a more open view."

Barack Obama's campaign called it inappropriate and said Mrs. Clinton should "reject the insinuation." But why would she? All she has now is bluster. Her supporters put their threat in a letter, not in a private meeting. By threatening Ms. Pelosi publicly, they robbed her of room to maneuver. She has to defy them or back down. She has always struck me as rather grittier than her chic suits, high heels and unhidden enthusiasm may suggest. We'll see.

What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. She can't trace the line from "this moment's difficulties" to "my triumphant end." But she cannot admit to herself that she can lose. Because Clintons don't lose. She can't figure out how to win, and she can't accept the idea of not winning. She cannot accept that this nobody from nowhere could have beaten her, quietly and silently, every day. (She cannot accept that she still doesn't know how he did it!)

She is concussed. But she is a scrapper, a fighter, and she's doing what she knows how to do: scrap and fight. Only harder. So that she ups the ante every day. She helped Ireland achieve peace. She tried to stop Nafta. She's been a leader for 35 years. She landed in Bosnia under siege and bravely dodged bullets. It was as if she'd watched the movie "Wag the Dog," with its fake footage of a terrified refugee woman running frantically from mortar fire, and found it not a cautionary tale about manipulation and politics, but an inspiration.

* * *

What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: "Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy." Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. "She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself." Then she turned to his wounds. "She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood."

Made me laugh. It was like the voice of the people answering back. This guy knows that what Mrs. Clinton said is sort of crazy. He seems to know her reputation for untruths. He seemed to be saying, "I get it."

[Banquo's Ghost]

Again, interesting and well written article.


This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't.

What astonishes me is that she still appears to be ahead in Pennsylvania. How? What kind of person would vote for that kind of person? The world has had eight years of dealing with a President that only hears what advice he wants to hear, but one that makes up reality on the hoof? I'm beginning to believe our right-wing friends when they maintain the Democratic party is comprised of drug-addled fantasists, because let's face it, only someone with a serious substance abuse problem could vote Hillary towards the nomination. McCain would crucify these claims of hers, and rightly.

Can anyone explain why Pennsylvanians would still vote for her? When I lived there, they were such down-to-earth people.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Again, interesting and well written article.



What astonishes me is that she still appears to be ahead in Pennsylvania. How? What kind of person would vote for that kind of person? The world has had eight years of dealing with a President that only hears what advice he wants to hear, but one that makes up reality on the hoof? I'm beginning to believe our right-wing friends when they maintain the Democratic party is comprised of drug-addled fantasists, because let's face it, only someone with a serious substance abuse problem could vote Hillary towards the nomination. McCain would crucify these claims of hers, and rightly.

Can anyone explain why Pennsylvanians would still vote for her? When I lived there, they were such down-to-earth people.

Probably because Pennsylvanians tend to be more conservative and want to sabotage the national Democratic party? Who knows.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, the other choice is a guy with no experience, some shady business connections, and who calls the church of the bigot Wright, who spouts hatred and lies, "traditional and conventional". He defends the antisemite Wright by comparing him to his own grandmother.

And, all his policies are very far left (on the American scale), nowhere near the moderate tone of his speeches, which lack substance.

CR

[Don Corleone]

Again, interesting and well written article.



What astonishes me is that she still appears to be ahead in Pennsylvania. How? What kind of person would vote for that kind of person? The world has had eight years of dealing with a President that only hears what advice he wants to hear, but one that makes up reality on the hoof? I'm beginning to believe our right-wing friends when they maintain the Democratic party is comprised of drug-addled fantasists, because let's face it, only someone with a serious substance abuse problem could vote Hillary towards the nomination. McCain would crucify these claims of hers, and rightly.

Can anyone explain why Pennsylvanians would still vote for her? When I lived there, they were such down-to-earth people.

Democrats in Pennsylvania are mostly card carrying Union members, Hillary's turf. Obama's support comes from the more well-to-do Democrats and the non-working poor. Hillary's got women, unions and a few pet causes that feel she represents them better than Barrack.

I don't know how unions in the UK or the rest of Europe work, but this may be one of those situations where we all think we're speaking Spanish, but in reality half of us are speaking Portugese. I know Europe tends to think of Americans as rabidly anti-Union, and you attibute it to ignorance (unions represent the people, why would the people resent unions).

More and more, as with abortion, I think we're talking about 2 very different things. In the U.S.A., when your IBEW local 173 boss (or whatever your local chapter is) tells you to vote, you vote. If he walked in and said "vote for Louis Farrakahn", you do it. There's no choice, there's no dissent. If you try to buck the flow, you're silenced pretty quickly. :smash:

And as CR rightly points out, it's not like there are more palatable alternatives. You've got 'head in the clouds' who wants to talk about Hope and how we'll spend your newly conscripted taxes, or Johnny "I'm so tough, I'll declare war on the UN itself" McCain who seems to think that the only problem with American Democracy is too many voters are allowed to have a say.

I surrender. Choice isn't worth a damn when you're options are all worthless.

[Vladimir]

Democrats in Pennsylvania are mostly card carrying Union members, Hillary's turf. Obama's support comes from the more well-to-do Democrats and the non-working poor.

What?! :inquisitive: Obama is the rich, white man's candidate? I don't think so.

Union leaders are also loosing control of their member's votes.

[Lemur]

What?! :inquisitive: Obama is the rich, white man's candidate? I don't think so.
Read the polls, friend. Obama does extremely well with affluent white people, both male and female. Oh, and Clinton's support among women is attenuated to the +50 crowd. Think of a blue-haired biddy smoking Virginia Slims, and you've got her base.

Looks like Senator Clinton's throw everything at him strategy is not working:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/032808dailyupdategraph1.gif

Here are some details (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/779/obama-weathers-the-wright-storm-clinton-faces-credibility-problem) on Clinton's base:


White Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.

Less educated and older white Democrats, who have not backed Obama in most primary elections, hold these values more commonly than do other Democrats.

-edit-

Amusingly, Slate has instituted a Hillary Deathwatch (http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/). They're pegging her odds at 12%, which is quite generous.

[Lemur]

Rorschach test:

Read the following paragraph. Imagine that Obama has said it. Gauge your reaction. Then imagine Condi Rice said it, and gauge your reaction again.


"Black Americans were a founding population. Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding." As a result, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."

Source. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/FOREIGN/746301768/1001)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...the only problem with American Democracy is too many voters are allowed to have a say.

I've heard that argument made, and actually have some sympathy.

How about this:

You can exercise the federal franchise whenever you can document that, in the preceding tax year, you paid more in federal taxes than you received from federal government checks in any form.

...just a thought.

[CountArach]

You can exercise the federal franchise whenever you can document that, in the preceding tax year, you paid more in federal taxes than you received from federal government checks in any form.
What about those below the poverty line? They suddenly have no say in their own future. That system would only have the voice of the middle and upper classes heard.

[KukriKhan]

I've heard that argument made, and actually have some sympathy.

How about this:

You can exercise the federal franchise whenever you can document that, in the preceding tax year, you paid more in federal taxes than you received from federal government checks in any form.

...just a thought.

And a fine thought, but one that eliminates the franchise for fed employees, including soldiers.

I liked your other Heinlein-esque idea better: 2+ years of honorable service to the country = citizenship. You do, you get; from whatever station in life you started.

@Lemur: nice find on the Condi thoughts. Talk about cutting to the core issue and making it stand up and salute... She may be a factor/player down the road, after all. He loyalty to her boss will prevent her playing any part this election cycle, I guess. (She already speaks Russian, German, French, and Spanish, and is Presbyterian. If she can prove that she never took drugs or welfare, and marries a GI who dies heroically, she meets the Kukri criteria for presidential shoo-in. In any year.) Sadly for us, all she says she wants is to be NFL commissioner.

IMO, J-Mac's smartest move (if he could pull it off) would be to court and name Condi as his VP. The wailing and gnashing of Dem-party teeth would be audible in Sydney.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What about those below the poverty line? They suddenly have no say in their own future. That system would only have the voice of the middle and upper classes heard.

To which the classic counter is: "why give the franchise to those with a vested interest in selecting leaders solely on the basis of their willingness to increase the voters' own largesse?" Should employers let the employees decide their own wages? Should we let prelates of a given faith decide whether or not there should be a state religion?

Don't mistake me, I'm not declaring myself an opponent of a broad suffrage, but I'm not sure that the current "18 and breathing" status is appropriate either. It wasn't the intent of the founders certainly.

[Banquo's Ghost]

To which the classic counter is: "why give the franchise to those with a vested interest in selecting leaders solely on the basis of their willingness to increase the voters' own largesse?"

But that's exactly what you have right now.

No candidate even gets before the wider franchise unless they are hand-picked and supported by the corporates and rich interests - for the precise purpose of maintaining and increasing their largesse.

It's not universal suffrage that is at fault, but the way western democracies provide the "choice" to that franchise - alongside the continuing campaign to dumb down the electorate through poor education, control of media and information, and providing shiny toys as distractions.

[CountArach]

To which the classic counter is: "why give the franchise to those with a vested interest in selecting leaders solely on the basis of their willingness to increase the voters' own largesse?" Should employers let the employees decide their own wages? Should we let prelates of a given faith decide whether or not there should be a state religion?

Don't mistake me, I'm not declaring myself an opponent of a broad suffrage, but I'm not sure that the current "18 and breathing" status is appropriate either. It wasn't the intent of the founders certainly.
So voting for someone who wants to cut taxes is not increasing ones own largesse?

May I ask what you think the intention of the founders was?

EDIT: Yay! 4000 posts! :2thumbsup: :balloon:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Back on topic (no, really, stay with me here) you know we Irish are renowned for the quality of our drinking? Well, here's fascinating article which appears to have generated itself at the bottom of a glass of Paddy Power, but is nonetheless intriguing:

Gore may be the Democrats' choice (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/divided-democrats-may-nominate-gore-1332282.html).


Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice president.

:stupido2: A Gore-Clinton candidacy. God Bless America. :candle:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So voting for someone who wants to cut taxes is not increasing ones own largesse?

No, because the money I am forced to pay as a tax is mine to begin with, not taken from someone else at the (implicit) oint of a gun and given to me.


May I ask what you think the intention of the founders was?

They wanted direct suffrage by the people only for the selection of representatives to the HOR. The President and Senators woud be selected indirectly by the college of electors and the state legislatures respectively.

In that era, suffrage was generally restricted to those people who were freeholders -- owned their own land, or who possessed property of greater than 50 pounds, or who payed taxes. Such people were presumed to have a valid stake in the stability and success of the community and were therefore accorded the vote. The founders included language that prevented the restriction of the vote based upon religion -- a restriction that existed in many of the colonies -- but otherwise upheld the commonly accepted standards of the day.

Most states also prevented women from voting (stupid, but factual).
Few of the founders argued about this.

Many states also prevented blacks from voting, even when not slaves (stupid, but factual). This was a source of much argument among the founders.

The "any adult male citizen can vote" standard was not adopted until the passage of the 14th ammendment.

[Lemur]

Apparently it's not a good idea to be a vendor (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html) for Senator Clinton's campaign.


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

[Banquo's Ghost]

Senator Clinton is proving her bipartisan credentials (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/mar08/hillaryclintonrightwingconspiracy.htm).


So who’s Scaife? He’s a bogeyman for the Left who poured in $2.3 million of his own money into the so-called “Arkansas Project” to dig up dirt on the Clintons. He once called the death of Vince Foster (murder, not suicide, he believed) to be the “Rosetta stone” of the Clinton administration and suggested that Bill Clinton might have had up to 60 people bumped off. But now Hillary is choosing his Pittsburgh newspaper to get a dig in at Barack Obama over the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And Scaife has penned an adoring oped entitled “Hillary, Reassessed” that pronounces many of Hillary’s policies as “dead-on” and hints his paper might endorse her. So what’s happening here?


:no:

[Ice]

I watched Obama speak yesterday at my university.

I have to say, even though I don't fully like him, he gives a good speech.

[Lemur]

Senator Clinton is proving her bipartisan credentials (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/mar08/hillaryclintonrightwingconspiracy.htm).


So who’s Scaife? [...]Best part of the article is right at the end:


There might be another motive in the mix. Scaife is apparently engaged in a very messy divorce – complete with intense acrimony over a Labrador named Beauregard - and his ex-wife is said to be a big fan of Barack Obama (indeed, she has contributed $2,300 to the Illinois senator’s campaign).

[Adrian II]

Scaife is apparently engaged in a very messy divorce – complete with intense acrimony over a Labrador named Beauregard - and his ex-wife is said to be a big fan of Barack Obama (indeed, she has contributed $2,300 to the Illinois senator’s campaign).:stunned: :beam: :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

Rorschach test:

Read the following paragraph. Imagine that Obama has said it. Gauge your reaction. Then imagine Condi Rice said it, and gauge your reaction again.


"Black Americans were a founding population. Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding." As a result, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."

Source. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/FOREIGN/746301768/1001)

Words mean little; compare the actions of the two. Think of Obama's words of healing the racial divide and reaching across the isle (not sure if the latter is his actual words) then look at his actions.

[Vladimir]

But that's exactly what you have right now.

No candidate even gets before the wider franchise unless they are hand-picked and supported by the corporates and rich interests - for the precise purpose of maintaining and increasing their largesse.

It's not universal suffrage that is at fault, but the way western democracies provide the "choice" to that franchise - alongside the continuing campaign to dumb down the electorate through poor education, control of media and information, and providing shiny toys as distractions.

Uh-huh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura), teh eval corporations again?

(oops, sry)

[Lemur]

Vladimir, if you ever want to move past preaching to the converted, you're gonna need to back your assertions up. With something.

Meanwhile, the Democrat our Orgish Republicans seem to love proves to me more of an ironic deadbeat: Hil hasn't paid healthcare insurance premiums for her own staff. Ready on day one! (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html)


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

But that's okay, 'cause:


“Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses,” Carson said in a statement e-mailed to Politico. “Sometimes invoices arrive at the very end of the month at the cutoff of the reporting period, which means that we are required to report them as a debt on the current FEC report, even where they are paid in regular course during the next month.”

But the unpaid bills to Aetna were at least two months old, according to FEC filings.

They show the campaign ended last year owing Aetna more than $213,000 for “employee benefits.”

During the first two months of the year, the campaign did not pay down any of that debt. In fact, it accrued another $16,000 in unpaid bills last month, and it finished the month owing Aetna $229,000.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Vladimir
Meanwhile, the Democrat our Orgish Republicans seem to love proves to me more of an ironic deadbeat: Hil hasn't paid healthcare insurance premiums for her own staff.

What do you mean? Hillary is exactly the kind of person that needs to be kept out of power. Republicans who favor her over Obama and McCain should seriously re-consider their position.

Why would you say that Orgish Republicans love her? Just because Xiahou and CR hate McCain?

[Banquo's Ghost]

What do you mean? Hillary is exactly the kind of person that needs to be kept out of power. Republicans who favor her over Obama and McCain should seriously re-consider their position.

Why would you say that Orgish Republicans love her? Just because Xiahou and CR hate McCain?

They love her because she has the ability to deliver the White House
- to the Republican party (should she be the Democrat nominee).

[Lemur]

Why would you say that Orgish Republicans love her? Just because Xiahou and CR hate McCain?
No, by my count somewhere between three and four of our in-house Republicans have talked about how Hillary might be best in the general election. How they arrive at this conclusion is beyond my power to reconstruct.

[GeneralHankerchief]

No, by my count somewhere between three and four of our in-house Republicans have talked about how Hillary might be best in the general election. How they arrive at this conclusion is beyond my power to reconstruct.

They could be thinking long-term; four years of a Hillary presidency has an extremely good chance of being disastrous for the country and thus the Democratic Party, allowing the GOP to swoop in and once again regain majority status.

With Hillary in office, the elections of 2006 and (presumably) 2008 could only be a minor blip in an extended period of Republican control. The trouble is, they have to stomach four years of her first, and pray that the country goes down the tank.

Healthy politics, no?

[Lemur]

With Hillary in office, the elections of 2006 and (presumably) 2008 could only be a minor blip in an extended period of Republican control. The trouble is, they have to stomach four years of her first, and pray that the country goes down the tank.
If anybody wants to see an example of putting party before nation, there it is, in glaring definition.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If anybody wants to see an example of putting party before nation, there it is, in glaring definition.

I must admit that I've played around with the idea. The reality is that you shouldn't vote for disaster, regardless of who may crawl out of the rubble. Cautious pragmatism is the conservative bag, we don't take 50-50 chances lightly.

Lets keep it a bit more simple and vote for the best option in this election. I have faith that democrats will screw up government without Hillary's help, so I'll vote for McCain. Sabotaging the G.O.P.'s candidate can't be realistically considered to be the smart option to put conservative principles into play eventually.

This is precisely what the Dems have been doing to their own (Gore, Kerry) since Clinton left office. We need to stay as far away from their bad politics and practices as we can.

I've made this election about keeping Hillary out of office from day 1.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If anybody wants to see an example of putting party before nation, there it is, in glaring definition.

Or you think that GOP majorities are necessary to save the country from the impending entitlement crisis (or other things), so such a thing would benefit the nation as well as your party in the long run.

CR

[Lemur]

Any train of thought that involves wanting destruction to rain down on America ... in order to save it ... ugh. All I can say is that you've moved way, way out of the mainstream at that point. And yes, I think you ought to look to your patriotism and see how it's doing.

You've placed the interests of your party above the interests of your nation. So you will a disaster on your nation for four years, but it's all for the greater good, that greater good being another all-Republican government? Doesn't that strike you as a little weird? Misguided? Anti-American?

Hell, I just hope whoever takes the brass ring this time can do some serious repair work. You ideologues are operating in an entirely different reality.

P.S.: What makes you think that a Republican is the ideal candidate for fixing entitlements, anyway? Didn't the most recent Republican majority add a massive, unfunded, retail-price handout for the elderly? Remember who had the cred to restore diplomatic ties with Communist China? Oh, right, a Republican. And who had the liberal cred to dismantle Welfare? Oh, right, a Democrat. So who's most likely going to be able to grab the third rail of contemporary politics, i.e., Social Security?

[Proletariat]

So Lemur, Republicans backing a Democrat because they don't approve of the Republican candidate is blindly following the Republican party at all costs? I haven't seen any posts by Xiahou or CR where they say they'd like a Democrat to destroy the country in order to put an elephant back in the White House.

Not sure if you're including me with Republican Orgahs for Hillary, but I'm not. I do think we'll be fine with any of the three. Won't be anything great, but none will be that bad. I won't be voting for McCain though, his temper worries me and I don't feel like having another trigger happy President just yet.

I'll be writing in Mickey Mouse in once again this election cycle

[Lemur]

So Lemur, Republicans backing a Democrat because they don't approve of the Republican candidate is blindly following the Republican party at all costs?
And if I were that straw man, boy would I be knocked down.

Voting for a candidate because you want them to be a disaster is weird. Spin it as you like, it's still weird. And if the rationale is that a disastrous President will put your party back in power sooner, how can you take that line of reasoning anywhere good?

It all sounds like Charlie Manson killing white people in order to start the race war. It's all a bit apocalyptic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, by my count somewhere between three and four of our in-house Republicans have talked about how Hillary might be best in the general election. Of course she is the best choice. She has her peculiarities, but those notwithstanding, Hillary is by far the most moderate, reasonable and best politician of the remaining three candidates.

Plus a brief four-year Clinton interlude would give the Republicans a fantastic budget surplus to squander again after 2012.

If anybody thinks Clinton's personality is a problem, wait 'till McCain is voted into office. He has slipped under the radar for now, but for real personality disorders, try McCain. He is a liability, a disaster waiting to happen.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What is the worst Clinton has done during this campaign? It's not having coffers as deep as Obama's, it's sexying up her trip to Bosnia, and it's not being quite as deflective as Obama when it comes to punches below the belt.

The worst Obama has done? How about sitting for twenty years trough weekly 'God damn America! America is to blame for 9-11!' rants. Only to then pick this Wright as pastor to baptise his children. Our dear Hussein Obama is completely unelectable. Well he will be once the Republicans start airing millions of 'God damn America!' commercials...

Gah! The superdelegates should bear in mind the as of yet uncounted states of Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania. All three of which favour Clinton.
Also, let's not forget Democratic party demographics. A third of democratic voters are Afro-Americans, but only one in six Americans. It is easy to win lots of primaries with a guaranteed 33% of the vote to start out with.
Lastly, they should realise that Clinton has a much better chance than Obama of winning those crucial states that really matter in November - New York, California, Florida, Ohio.

So I say Obama ought to withdraw from the race, so this prolonged democratic in-fighting can stop. :yes:

[Proletariat]

Voting for a candidate because you want them to be a disaster is weird. Spin it as you like, it's still weird. And if the rationale is that a disastrous President will put your party back in power sooner, how can you take that line of reasoning anywhere good?


Okay, what Republicans on this board are saying they want a disaster in America and that's why they'll back Clinton? Other than known die hard Republicans Orgahs GeneralHankerchief and Banquo.



If anybody thinks Clinton's personality is a problem, wait 'till McCain is voted into office. He has slipped under the radar for now, but for real personality disorders, try McCain. He is a liability, a disaster waiting to happen.

Exactly.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Any train of thought that involves wanting destruction to rain down on America ... in order to save it ... ugh. All I can say is that you've moved way, way out of the mainstream at that point. And yes, I think you ought to look to your patriotism and see how it's doing.

You've placed the interests of your party above the interests of your nation. So you will a disaster on your nation for four years, but it's all for the greater good, that greater good being another all-Republican government? Doesn't that strike you as a little weird? Misguided? Anti-American?

Hell, I just hope whoever takes the brass ring this time can do some serious repair work. You ideologues are operating in an entirely different reality.

P.S.: What makes you think that a Republican is the ideal candidate for fixing entitlements, anyway? Didn't the most recent Republican majority add a massive, unfunded, retail-price handout for the elderly? Remember who had the cred to restore diplomatic ties with Communist China? Oh, right, a Republican. And who had the liberal cred to dismantle Welfare? Oh, right, a Democrat. So who's most likely going to be able to grab the third rail of contemporary politics, i.e., Social Security?

:rolleyes: So you think Hilary's going to 'rain destruction' down on the US?

I think you've gone a bit off the deep end, Lemur. So either I A) support Republican candidates no matter how I feel about them, or B) Hope a democrat win causes a reevaluation inside the GOP and a win by them in four years, but either way I'm placing the interests of my party above my country?

Or maybe the GOP is the only party close to being against vast government expansion, and a defeat would teach them to shape up more and give them a chance to halt government growth.

And I'd never thought you'd be one to pull out the ' you're unpatriotic ' line. I guess your the official decreer of what is Good for America?

Really, just screw this. I didn't even say I agreed with that view, and I don't feel a need to deal with that kind of bull.

Crazed Rabbit

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that Hillary will rain destruction down on us. What? Is that crazy? She is evil. Why is it so crazy?

[Lemur]

So either I A) support Republican candidates no matter how I feel about them, or B) Hope a democrat win causes a reevaluation inside the GOP and a win by them in four years, but either way I'm placing the interests of my party above my country?
How about voting for the person who strikes you as best suited to the job? That's the honest way, and it's less likely to leave you feeling dirty and used.

What is the worst Clinton has done during this campaign?
Her campaign is the worst thing she's done in this campaign. In-fighting, unpaid debts, squandering of resources, shameless playing of both the gender and race cards, etc. If she runs the nation the way she runs her campaign, which is by far the biggest organization she has ever presided over, we're all in for trouble.


The worst Obama has done? How about sitting for twenty years trough weekly 'God damn America! America is to blame for 9-11!' rants.
If Wright was really saying that America is to blame for 9/11 for twenty years, he must be some sort of prophet, since that means he was predicting the event for at least thirteen years before it happened. Amazing!


Clinton has a much better chance than Obama of winning those crucial states that really matter in November - New York, California, Florida, Ohio.
Clinton barely edged out "Undecided" in Michigan, Yeah, they got big love for her there.

[CountArach]

Its all over now, give Clinton the nomination. She has received the endorsement of none other than:

The Prime Minister of Australia! (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/01/2204181.htm)

Mr Rudd offered to help if he could with her campaign and told her he understands how tough it is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Its all over now, give Clinton the nomination. She has received the endorsement of none other than:

The Prime Minister of Australia! (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/01/2204181.htm)

They both know how hard it is to campaign as a woman.

somebody call the WAHmbulance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvz5ftBWIGc&feature=related)

way to go (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_tbawIwKj0&feature=related)

[seireikhaan]

:rolleyes: So you think Hilary's going to 'rain destruction' down on the US?

I think you've gone a bit off the deep end, Lemur. So either I A) support Republican candidates no matter how I feel about them, or B) Hope a democrat win causes a reevaluation inside the GOP and a win by them in four years, but either way I'm placing the interests of my party above my country?

Or maybe the GOP is the only party close to being against vast government expansion, and a defeat would teach them to shape up more and give them a chance to halt government growth.

And I'd never thought you'd be one to pull out the ' you're unpatriotic ' line. I guess your the official decreer of what is Good for America?

Really, just screw this. I didn't even say I agreed with that view, and I don't feel a need to deal with that kind of bull.

Crazed Rabbit
CR, here's my big problem with the GOP right now. For as long as I've known politics(admittingly, a very short time), I have known but a single republican majority. The GOP love to go on about how they'll limit the size of government and how they'll keep spending in check, how they'll get Roe vs Wade overturned, how they'll promise to 'defend' the US sooo much better than the Democrats. And you know what? Roe vs Wade stands, despite 6 years of GOP majority. Spending has increased even more in those 6 years, and despite this, they still cut taxes. And they dragged us into a hell pot which has bogged down our military, drained our funds, killed our young men, took our attention off of Pakistan and Afghanistan where the Taliban and Al Qaeda were much stronger, alienated many of our allies by either bullying them into following us or dragging them there with us, and fanned the flames of anti-American hatred across the globe. So forgive me if I have a hard time buying what the GOP is selling.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Its all over now, give Clinton the nomination. She has received the endorsement of none other than:

The Prime Minister of Australia! (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/01/2204181.htm)

Wow! He's only met with Bush the one time and he's already "hot for Hil!"


I guess Bush isn't going down in history as the "Crawford Counselor."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

CR, here's my big problem with the GOP right now. For as long as I've known politics(admittingly, a very short time), I have known but a single republican majority. The GOP love to go on about how they'll limit the size of government and how they'll keep spending in check, how they'll get Roe vs Wade overturned, how they'll promise to 'defend' the US sooo much better than the Democrats. And you know what? Roe vs Wade stands, despite 6 years of GOP majority. Spending has increased even more in those 6 years, and despite this, they still cut taxes. And they dragged us into a hell pot which has bogged down our military, drained our funds, killed our young men, took our attention off of Pakistan and Afghanistan where the Taliban and Al Qaeda were much stronger, alienated many of our allies by either bullying them into following us or dragging them there with us, and fanned the flames of anti-American hatred across the globe. So forgive me if I have a hard time buying what the GOP is selling.

Harsh, but apt, criticism. The GOP can counter a few points, but far fewer than they should.

For my part, I actually bought into George W. being a "conservative" in 2000 -- oops. By 2004, I knew he wasn't and that the "new tone" was code for old-fashioned country club moderate republicanism. So what did the Dems do? The nominated Kerry :shocked2: and handed it to George on a platter. Any one of a dozen centrist Dems could have knocked him out.

[ICantSpellDawg]

CR, here's my big problem with the GOP right now. For as long as I've known politics(admittingly, a very short time), I have known but a single republican majority. The GOP love to go on about how they'll limit the size of government and how they'll keep spending in check, how they'll get Roe vs Wade overturned, how they'll promise to 'defend' the US sooo much better than the Democrats. And you know what? Roe vs Wade stands, despite 6 years of GOP majority. Spending has increased even more in those 6 years, and despite this, they still cut taxes. And they dragged us into a hell pot which has bogged down our military, drained our funds, killed our young men, took our attention off of Pakistan and Afghanistan where the Taliban and Al Qaeda were much stronger, alienated many of our allies by either bullying them into following us or dragging them there with us, and fanned the flames of anti-American hatred across the globe. So forgive me if I have a hard time buying what the GOP is selling.

Legitimate issues, I share many personally. They have lowered taxes, hopefully a McCain presidency will do the other half of the job which is to cut spending.

Roe was a despicable and illegitimate decision that either needs to be overturned (something to be done by the supreme court - into which Bush appointed Alito and Roberts) or by creating an amendment (which would inevitably enshrine some minimum abortion rights as surely as it would be opposed by the majority of pro-abortion zealots).

The reality to me is that McCain will be better on defense. This is where i have little doubts about his ability. He was raised in the line of Admirals and made the right call about the number of ground troops necessary to secure peace after the initial Blitz.

Think of McCain's nomination as a realistic repudiation of the politics of the Bush Administration by the G.O.P. I struggle with it, but even though I have been disappointed by Bush and appalled at the house and senate majorities of the last decade and a half, I will change my conservative political registry to a Republican one. If you find yourself closer to one party, but see numerous changes to be made, the surest way is to change it by being a part of it.

[seireikhaan]

Seamus- You may be quite right, frankly, about Kerry. I was 14 during the previous election and was even more ignorant than I am now. Not to mention, politics didn't really enthrall me by that point in my life, so I still don't have a real clear record of what was really going on. And nowhere was I singing the praises of the Dems either; they've malfed up pretty bad over the last 8 years too.


Tuff- Frankly, I have a bit of trouble buying the 'better on defense' line by McCain. Frankly, I think a President needs a calm, even keeled demeanor, lest they be taunted or goaded into making the sort of mistake that an enemy might be wanting us to fall into. Honestly, when I envision what would happen if McCain was Prez during the Cuban missile crisis, my vision always seems to end up with the earth ending up as a bunch of loose particles floating in outer space after the "End of ze world scenario", so to speak. And pardon my ignorance, all, but can someone please point to where he has the 'experience' factor, other than the fact that he fought in a war as a soldier?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Kamikhaan - your list is one reason why I think a GOP loss could be healthy for the party. If they could return to the contract with America of 1994, that'd be a big improvement over what they are now.

But I guess some feel not voting for the lesser of two evils in order to encourage the political parties to take another look at themselves and their candidates is 'unpatriotic'.

CR

[seireikhaan]

But by the same token, CR, I will NOT support Hillary. Her health care plan is a disaster in waiting, she's a compulsive liar(granted, most politicians are, but she's really bad at it) and she'll only further drag down our political process by trying to get everyone ripping each other's heads off. Supporting Hillary just to try and teach the GOP a lesson is, in my opinion, not wise. If you really wished for the GOP to learn a lesson, then Obama should be the person you want the Dems to nominate, because, in my opinion, he's a more formidable political opponent than she. Obama might very well trounce McCain in the general election, depending on just how well McCain can woo the social conservatives, while Hillary would likely have to squeek out a win, if at all. Losing to Hillary wouldn't teach the GOP anything, because they could just keep doing the same crap they've been doing and likely beat her in the next election, and the country will just keep chugging on down the path ol' George set us on. Meanwhile, I think Obama would do much better as Pres compared to her, particularly in maintaining a fair degree his approval rating, and would force the GOP to actually really re-evaluate their party to try and beat him.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You've got a good point. But an Obama nomination would likely help the WA stae governor, a dem, get 're'elected because more people in Washington would turn out to support Obama than Hilary, then vote for that accursed Gregoire.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Long story short - just don't vote for Hillary, for all our sakes.

remember that old campaign slogan: "Barry Goldwater will kill us all"?

[Ice]

Long story short - just don't vote for Hillary, for all our sakes.

remember that old campaign slogan: "Barry Goldwater will kill us all"?

Hey, I liked Goldwater.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yea, a Goldwater would be nice.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yea, a Goldwater would be nice.

CR

I wasn't an enormous fan, but I'd take him over an Obama or a Hillary any day.

I'm sure that you know this, but the same constituency that held Goldwater in his Senate seat for so long now holds McCain (Goldwater's first Senate seat). Goldwater liked McCain. In a way, McCain is a (pro-life) Goldwater Republican.

[Tristrem]

Personally, I am sick and tired of hearing about Wright. He never actually said "God Damn America" so using that line is a crock of :daisy:. He is actually insightful to see what we do abroad comes back to haunt us. I'm sorry some people are too stupid or ignorant and believe the good Ol' U S of A never does anything wrong. But we do and we try to live this dream world where we don't connect the pieces, and understand the consequences of our actions.

Wright lived in a time where our country was segregated and was not equal for all people, and still completly isn't today. He was mistreated along with thousands of others. Our government mistreated people in the middle east for decades without any backlash. Therefore he knows how it feels, and isn't surprised to see that the attack happened. Wright was saying that the chickens come home to roost, and it sucks, but it happens. Our government should be blamed because they blundered and couldn't even stop the attack before it happened. Is it a crime to connect the two together? So much for paying them to keep us safe?

Also, what happened to the seperation of church and state? What does religion have to do with electing politicians. It is a personal matter and should be left out of politics all together. It's borderline violating our constitution. Yet another thing we can thank the right wing nutjobs for, "let's use religion to drum up votes... Great idea!.... NOT".

and thats all i have to say about that.

[naut]

This (http://www.espn4.com/) is how I like to keep up-to-date .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tristrem - um, yes Wright did (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw) say that.

CR

[Xiahou]

Personally, I am sick and tired of hearing about Wright. He never actually said "God Damn America" so using that line is a crock of :daisy:. Somebody gave you some bad info. He said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5ixmT83JE) exactly that.

----

In other Obama news, it appears his campaign has been once again caught not being entirely honest. First (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html) was a campaign questionnaire Obama filled out when he was seeking state office. There were some jarringly liberal views in it that didn't square with some of his current campaign rhetoric. His campaign has responded that he never actually saw the questionnaire and a campaign staffer filled it out for him. Now (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html) it appears that Obama not only saw the questionnaire, but actually hand wrote notes to accompany some of his answers.
Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.

They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.”

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.As of now, his aides are still maintaining that while that may be his handwriting, he still never read the questionnaire.... sound plausible. :dizzy2:

[Don Corleone]

I'm wondering if Hillary's campaign would get a boost by adopting Robert Mugabe's campaign slogan (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=101295&page=1), and give it a slightly different 'spin'. :clown:

[Don Corleone]

Hey, I liked Goldwater.



I wasn't an enormous fan, but I'd take him over an Obama or a Hillary any day.

The two of you are talking about the man as though you have personal recall of his tenure in office. I may be old, but even I was wearing diapers when he retired.:laugh4: I think it would take somebody like Gawain or Kukri to actually wax poetically about the 'good old days' with any sort of personal recollections (assuming at their advanced age, they still have them... :oops: Did I actually just say that? Just kidding!)

[Don Corleone]

You know, Lemur's thread about Mugabe's "Get Behind the Fist" mantra got me thinking... I know what went wrong with the GOP nomination. We needed a "Draft Fred" or "Draft Rudy" movement, yes, but not Fred or Rudy. The right man for the job never threw his hat in the ring. And ladies and gentlemen, I submit that the right candidate for the GOP, indeed, the right man for the presidency is waiting to serve... he simply waits to be called for....

Ladies and Gentlemen, I call for the nomination and election of Colonel Angus to be the GOP candidate for and the NEXT president of the United States.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/02mangus2.jpg

I understand the Colonel is a rather informal gent, and if you prefer, you can refer to him by his given name, Ennol.

[Tribesman]

We needed a "Draft Fred" or "Draft Rudy" movement,

Would a Pastor Fred movement do for ya ?
Time for the truth about Obama :yes:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/2008/february/obama.html

[ICantSpellDawg]

The two of you are talking about the man as though you have personal recall of his tenure in office. I may be old, but even I was wearing diapers when he retired.:laugh4: I think it would take somebody like Gawain or Kukri to actually wax poetically about the 'good old days' with any sort of personal recollections (assuming at their advanced age, they still have them... :oops: Did I actually just say that? Just kidding!)

I have a working knowledge of the guy. I refer to people as though they and I eat pizza on Friday nights. My dad didn't really like him. He doesn't like Arizona's record of workers rights and Goldwater was adamantly pro-abortion. I did some more reading about him and found out that his personality was rather irritating to me.

Big deal. I judge the crap out of the dead.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The two of you are talking about the man as though you have personal recall of his tenure in office. I may be old, but even I was wearing diapers when he retired.:laugh4: I think it would take somebody like Gawain or Kukri to actually wax poetically about the 'good old days' with any sort of personal recollections (assuming at their advanced age, they still have them... :oops: Did I actually just say that? Just kidding!)

Whippersnapper!

I had the privilege of meeting then Senator Goldwater when I worked as an intern on the Hill one summer. Nice gentleman.

[KukriKhan]

The two of you are talking about the man as though you have personal recall of his tenure in office. I may be old, but even I was wearing diapers when he retired.:laugh4: I think it would take somebody like Gawain or Kukri to actually wax poetically about the 'good old days' with any sort of personal recollections (assuming at their advanced age, they still have them... :oops: Did I actually just say that? Just kidding!)

:laugh4: :laugh4:

I was 14 y.o for the Goldwater v Johnson test, in a 'Saint John F. Kennedy' house, in the Detroit ghetto, which had reaped some benefit from LBJ's Great Society programs.

Goldwater was portrayed as a whack-o, nuclear trigger-happy, too-long in the Arizona sun, racist, who would prompt the USSR to bomb Detroit second, after NYC, because of our tank-building facilities.

A lot of that came, I read later, from Rockerfeller, his Repub opponent in the primaries; then fanned into flames by LBJ's crowd in the general election.

Just reporting what I remember the adults around me saying, at the time. Now, who moved my dentures? And get off my lawn!!

[Guildenstern]

Just a question from an European "observer" to the US politics experts:

is the struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama going to give McCain an advantage in the end?
In other words, is their duel only going to weaken both candidates?

Thanks in advance.

[Don Corleone]

Just a question from an European "observer" to the US politics experts:

is the struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama going to give McCain an advantage in the end?
In other words, is their duel only going to weaken both candidates?

Thanks in advance.

Most likely not. Bush closed a 12 point gap in 2 1/2 months in 2000 and an 18 point gap in roughly the same amount of time 2008. Once the conventions are held, the real race begins.

[Xiahou]

Just a question from an European "observer" to the US politics experts:

is the struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama going to give McCain an advantage in the end?
In other words, is their duel only going to weaken both candidates?

Thanks in advance.
It has to give McCain at least some advantage. Each attack Hillary/Obama make on each other is one less that McCain will have to make. Further, this drawn out battle is created some hard feelings within the Democrat ranks.... Recent polls suggest that 28% of Hillary supporters would rather vote for McCain than Obama and 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Hillary.link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/poll-democrats-might-vote-mccain-if-their-candidate-isnt-the-nominee/)

It doesn't guarantee him a win, but the long drawn out primary certainly isn't helping the Democrats at all.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

watching the late show last night with David Letterman, McCain made a pretty good impression, i wonder if he might have the ability to take a lot of the undecided votes and maybe the race? he seems to be hunting in the middle ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_I3Gr-O2Ak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtg0N6wSHcM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdMqZY-LUQ4

[CountArach]

It has to give McCain at least some advantage. Each attack Hillary/Obama make on each other is one less that McCain will have to make. Further, this drawn out battle is created some hard feelings within the Democrat ranks.... Recent polls suggest that 28% of Hillary supporters would rather vote for McCain than Obama and 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Hillary.link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/poll-democrats-might-vote-mccain-if-their-candidate-isnt-the-nominee/)

It doesn't guarantee him a win, but the long drawn out primary certainly isn't helping the Democrats at all.
Similar numbers were found for Bush in 2000. I'll dig around and try to find them.

You forget that it is a lot of free media for the Democratic party though. While I agree it can't help them, it won't hurt them too badly IMO.

EDIT: Found the numbers - http://www.pollster.com/blogs/naes_2000_data_on_primary_defe.php




How common were defections? Fairly common, actually. Even in October, only 49% of former McCain voters intended to vote for Bush and 29% were planning on casting their ballot for Gore (in March of 2000, a Pew Survey reported that 51% of McCain supporters planned to vote for Gore). McCain supporters were also far more likely to be undecided late in the race as 11% of this group reported that they still did not know who they intended to vote for.

Former Bradley supporters were also divided. While 52% of this group planned on voting for Gore, another 28% intended to vote for Bush.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, both former Bradley and former McCain supporters appeared more likely to prefer 3rd party candidate Ralph Nader. About 10% of Bradley supporters and 7% of McCain supporters expressed their intent to vote for Nader.

[Lemur]

Mike Gravel (http://www.gravel2008.us/), the libertarian candidate for the Presidency, does a rollicking, Shatner-esque version of Helter Skelter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA2LgJviH9w). Totally radical, dude!

[Xiahou]

Mike Gravel (http://www.gravel2008.us/), the libertarian candidate for the Presidency, does a rollicking, Shatner-esque version of Helter Skelter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA2LgJviH9w). Totally radical, dude!
I thought Bob Barr (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/NATION/214024441/1002) was going to be the Libertarian candidate. :beam:
Although, I don't believe they've settled on any one candidate yet- their convention is in May.

[drone]

That video is full of pure win! :2thumbsup:

[CountArach]

I thought Bob Barr (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/NATION/214024441/1002) was going to be the Libertarian candidate. :beam:
Although, I don't believe they've settled on any one candidate yet- their convention is in May.
No, no, no, it is definitely Wayne Root (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root).

[Xiahou]

No, no, no, it is definitely Wayne Root (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root).
Could be- he definitely seems to be popular (http://www.lp.org/libertydecides/) in the party.

As to the video- who ever said Gravel was crazy? :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Senator McCain declines (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/03/mccain_has_not_requested_secre.html#more?hpid=topnews) Secret Service protection. This seems like a profoundly bad idea ...


"Statutorily, he is not required to take protection," Sullivan said in response to a question during a hearing on the agency's budget. "As far as an actual request, we have not gotten one. We have no involvement at this point."

McCain has repeatedly said he does not want Secret Service protection, expressing the belief that it will restrict his ability to connect with voters at his trademark town hall meetings. Last November, he told reporters that he planned to resist it as long as he could.

I dunno, I just dunno. You don't need to be black, a woman or a Democrat to have some nutball decide that you've infected his dog with martian mind waves and must die. Seems very foolhardy ...

[Banquo's Ghost]

I dunno, I just dunno. You don't need to be black, a woman or a Democrat to have some nutball decide that you've infected his dog with martian mind waves and must die. Seems very foolhardy ...

Indeed. Would it be bravado?

I would be further concerned (so the Martians in my head instruct me) that even in a Senate hearing, the fact would be publicised. Surely that would qualify as a matter of national security - one doesn't have to advertise to the nutballs, surely? Especially since your country has terrorists lurking in every shadow.

[drone]

McCain does have a private bodyguard though. Brings up an interesting question though. Having locked up the nomination, who would the GOP put up as the candidate if he were to die (naturally or not)? Has this ever happened before?

[ICantSpellDawg]

McCain does have a private bodyguard though. Brings up an interesting question though. Having locked up the nomination, who would the GOP put up as the candidate if he were to die (naturally or not)? Has this ever happened before?

MITT!!!!!!

[Ronin]

McCain does have a private bodyguard though. Brings up an interesting question though. Having locked up the nomination, who would the GOP put up as the candidate if he were to die (naturally or not)? Has this ever happened before?

Ronald Reagan's corpse....

come on....you know they want to.:laugh4:

[Lemur]

Of all the shameless pandering the candidates do, perhaps the anti-NAFTA stuff from the Dems is most irritating. They don't mean it any more than a Republican means to make all abortion illegal; it's just stupid, red meat for the base.

Well, when an unpaid policy adviser from the Obama camp reassured the Canucks that he wasn't going to bail on the most important trade treaty in existence, Senator Clinton jumped (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_obama_gave_canada_wink.html) on it:


I would ask you to look at this story and substitute my name for Sen. Obama’s name and see what you would do with this story… Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments.

And wouldn't you know it, her top adviser was doing just that (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726769569388303.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news):


Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. on Monday to discuss a bilateral free-trade agreement, a pact the presidential candidate opposes.

Attendance by the adviser, Mark Penn, was confirmed by two Colombian officials.

The Clinton campaign's response is, well, convoluted (http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=998):


He wasn’t there in his campaign role, but in his separate job as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, an international communications and lobbying firm. The firm has a contract with the South American nation to promote congressional approval of the trade deal, among other things, according to filings with the Justice Department.

So Senator Clinton's top strategist wasn't wearing his campaign hat, he was waring his lobbying hat. I hope that's clear to everyone. As one blogger (http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=998) puts it:


Mark Penn is not—as in the case that Senator Clinton cited on March 3—an unpaid issues advisor, but, rather, the commander-in-chief of the Clinton campaign: the chief strategist, pollster, message czar, and the highest paid member of her campaign staff.

I can’t remember a presidential campaign in my lifetime in which the top strategist moonlighted for corporate accounts during the heat of the primaries (if that’s really what he was doing with the Colombian ambassador, as claimed: note that the Embassy told the Journal that it didn’t know which hat Penn was wearing). The conflict of interest is staggering.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Actually, Lemur, I think your post shows just how right Hillary is in her statement. A double standard is applied.

The main conclusion, from this NAFTA nonsense and indeed throughout the entire campaign, must be that Obama lies just as often as Clinton. He says one thing and does another. Constantly. Obama differs from Clinton only in that Clinton is smart enough to know when she's been caught lying, and Obama is not. :book:

The important thing is that Hillary doesn't say that she, unlike Obama, would never say one thing and do another. In other words, 'tell lies', as the less spohisticated call it. No, what she says, is that the media reacts very differently when she is found out lying as compared to Obama. That is what she jumped on, that is the double standard she's talking about. And in that she is obviously right.

~~~

I'm not impressed by all this lying. For God's sake, both Dem's should get in the habit of telling the truth once in a while quickly, or 'Mad Dog' McCain will make character a core issue and win the election on it too. :wall:

However, to some extent, I can live with lying, cheating scumbags running for president. It's the natural state of the universe. What I can't stand though, is hypocrisy. And in this respect, Clinton wins hands down over Obama. Hillary doesn't make a secret of her character imperfections. She's clinically unable to tell the truth, but, being a Clinton, has managed to turn this weakness into a veritable art form. Indeed, her lies always have an air of sophistication about them. For which the usual euphemism is 'an experienced politician'. Ready from day one, so to speak.

Obama, on the other hand, is just yet another lying scumbag, but in his case one who's running around professing that he is not. One who claims to be the 'clean' candidate, the champion of chang', the one not infected by Washingtonian habits. When in fact, the truth for him too is just a flexible political instrument to be used only if and when politically opportune. So, bah to him. And bah to the media. A lie by Obama should backfire on him much harder than on Clinton, for it not only shows him as a liar, but also as a hypocrite.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hillary doesn't make a secret of her character imperfections. She's clinically unable to tell the truth, but, being a Clinton, has managed to turn this weakness into a veritable art form. Indeed, her lies always have an air of sophistication about them. For which the usual euphemism is 'an experienced politician'. Ready from day one, so to speak.


You are an excellent mouthpiece for her campaign. No wonder you support her over any other candidate.

What the heck?

I for one don't want a clinical liar and opportunist in the White house, but call me crazy. If even her supporters realize this, what the heck is the hold-up? Get out of the race already you old bag. Jeez.

Once she is gone this election can be about Republicans vs Democrats instead of Everyone vs Hillary Clinton. I can let down my guard again.

[Ronin]

Obama differs from Clinton only in that Clinton is smart enough to know when she's been caught lying, and Obama is not.

come again? what? :inquisitive:


the woman was caught lying about having been under sniper fire and when confronted about it she said she had been "confused".....:help: that´s knowing when you´re caught lying?

[Moros]

Not sure if someone already noticed it. But it's a bit double this time race to the conventions, no?

[Ronin]

I for one don't want a clinical liar and opportunist in the White house, but call me crazy.

you just described politicians as a group....

frankly someone that told nothing but the truth 100% of the time wouldn´t have a snow balls chance in hell of being elected.....people like having sunshine blown up their collective backside......

politicians are liars...that´s the way it goes....you just gotta pick the liar that will lie the least necessary and f things up the least.....but if you want to be elected to a position like that you basically have to be the Barishnikov of bullshit

[ICantSpellDawg]

All of this "Mis" quoting and "Mis" Speaking and "Mis" hearing makes you wonder when Hillary Clinton will start to be refered to as "Miss" Clinton, No?

[ICantSpellDawg]

you just described politicians as a group....

frankly someone that told nothing but the truth 100% of the time wouldn´t have a snow balls chance in hell of being elected.....people like having sunshine blown up their collective backside......

politicians are liars...that´s the way it goes....you just gotta pick the liar that will lie the least necessary and f things up the least.....but if you want to be elected to a position like that you basically have to be the Barishnikov of bullshit

We'd better not catch you lying. Are you that cynical that an outright liar is still considered qualified to be in the White House? Politicians need to be very careful. They can be vague, they can be quiet about things - but the second that they knowingly tell an untruth, they have lied and should be held accountable for it.

You don't see a difference between discretion/pandering and outright lies?

The difference is that the rest of these politicians seem to spend most of their time on the side of the former and Clinton spends more of her time on the later. This is one of the many character flaws that make her a dangerous to have in power.

[Ronin]

We'd better not catch you lying. Are you that cynical that an outright liar is still considered qualified to be in the White House? Politicians need to be very careful. They can be vague, they can be quiet about things - but the second that they knowingly tell an untruth, they have lied and should be held accountable for it.

You don't see a difference between discretion/pandering and outright lies?

The difference is that the rest of these politicians seem to spend most of their time on the side of the former and Clinton spends more of her time on the later. This is one of the many character flaws that make her a dangerous to have in power.

I never said I don´t lie myself.....

as for politicians...they all lie...the successful ones at least....call that a cynical view if you must..but you won´t build the necessary consensus and popular support to be elected if you are honest with everyone......if you do that you´re bound to piss some people off.

and as for Clinton in the white house....I never thought that was a good idea...more for the fact that I think her position has been obtained basically by riding her husbands coattails more than for anything she ever done.......a blatant lie like the sniper bullshit obviously is never good either like I said in an earlier post.

I just stated that they all lie...you can see a politician say that he´s gonna improve medical services in a city he will never care about again, or say he´s gonna ban gays or whatever red meat he´ll throw to his base with no intention of ever living up to it...you can call it pandering if you want...I call it outright lyring.....Clinton´s error was that her lie was easily verifiable.....promises about the future aren´t.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I never said I don´t lie myself.....

as for politicians...they all lie...the successful ones at least....call that a cynical view if you must..but you won´t build the necessary consensus and popular support to be elected if you are honest with everyone......if you do that you´re bound to piss some people off.

and as for Clinton in the white house....I never thought that was a good idea...more for the fact that I think her position has been obtained basically by riding her husbands coattails more than for anything she ever done.......a blatant lie like the sniper bullshit obviously is never good either like I said in an earlier post.

I just stated that they all lie...you can see a politician say that he´s gonna improve medical services in a city he will never care about again, or say he´s gonna ban gays or whatever red meat he´ll throw to his base with no intention of ever living up to it...you can call it pandering if you want...I call it outright lyring.....Clinton´s error was that her lie was easily verifiable.....promises about the future aren´t.

Yes, we all lie - but Clinton goes beyond normal lying. She always has.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A apologize for the terrible and rather insulting title, but the first minute and thirty seconds or so are good.


Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AncA4sXz_y4&feature=related)

[CountArach]

I for one don't want a clinical liar and opportunist in the White house
So are you going to be voting at all?

[Banquo's Ghost]

However, to some extent, I can live with lying, cheating scumbags running for president. It's the natural state of the universe. What I can't stand though, is hypocrisy. And in this respect, Clinton wins hands down over Obama. Hillary doesn't make a secret of her character imperfections. She's clinically unable to tell the truth, but, being a Clinton, has managed to turn this weakness into a veritable art form. Indeed, her lies always have an air of sophistication about them. For which the usual euphemism is 'an experienced politician'. Ready from day one, so to speak.

You have me, Louis.

There is some sort of Parisian post-modern irony going on in these Clinton posts that I just can't fathom. It's beautiful, it's tragic, it's deeply disconcerting. It has flair and that essence of the unknowable France.

I'm humbled and outraged at the same time.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You have me, Louis.

There is some sort of Parisian post-modern irony going on in these Clinton posts that I just can't fathom. It's beautiful, it's tragic, it's deeply disconcerting. It has flair and that essence of the unknowable France.

I'm humbled and outraged at the same time.

Off the immediate topic - Condoleeza Rice

Even though she would largely annihilate the race card during the campaign do we (Republicans) really want a pro-abortion VP who is so closely tied to the Iraq conflict and would most likely be the first homosexual in the White House (since Buchanan)?

I think that it would take balls on McCains part to nominate her.

[seireikhaan]

Tuff- You're forgetting a big problem: She's tied to Bush. Repeat after me. She's tied to Bush.

Condi isn't getting the nomination, even if she was Wonder Woman.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff- You're forgetting a big problem: She's tied to Bush. Repeat after me. She's tied to Bush.

Condi isn't getting the nomination, even if she was Wonder Woman.

I don't think that she is either, but some sites are pushing the idea today (www.drudgereport.com)

[Lemur]

For those who hope (or fear) that McCain would amount to a third Bush term, I thought this Brit columnist did a good job of summing (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3688465.ece) why they're wrong:


McCain understands that he cannot and should not win this election as the third term of Bush. He is a fiercely combative person, a military man to his core, and a Teddy Roosevelt Republican of the impetuous, romantic variety. But he is also a realist and understands perhaps better than any other leading Republican the damage that the past seven years have done to the reputation and power of the United States.

He saw quickly that the Donald Rumsfeld-led occupation of Iraq was a slowly unfolding catastrophe of mismanagement and negligence; almost alone in the Senate, he grasped that something had gone horribly wrong with the White House’s moral compass in its authorisation of torture and interrogation methods that had once been inflicted on him by enemies. More, he cannot ever countenance what he thinks of as military defeat or surrender, but he was also able to oppose, as far back as 1983, the intervention by Ronald Reagan’s administration in the Middle East: “I do not foresee obtainable objectives in Lebanon. I believe the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be to leave, and I am prepared to accept the consequences of our withdrawal.”

Americans also feel they know him, flaws and all, and trust him as a decent, honest man by political standards. Are his age and health insuperable burdens? He would be 76 at the end of his first term (and is not Hollywood enough to dye his hair like Reagan). He was once literally broken by torturers and is in recovery from a melanoma that has scarred his face. The late-night comedians have been making the Grandpa Simpson jokes for a while now. But the actual truth is: you have to be around him for only a few minutes to be in awe of his prodigious energy, his seeming inability to be tired, his zest for life and fun and friendship. Having watched both of them in action, I would say that Obama is more easily tired than McCain.

-edit-

It's also worth noting that Senator McCain is much more gracious (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/04/mccain_obama_absolutely_qualif.html) than Senator Clinton.


Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said Sunday that the leader for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, would be "absolutely" qualified to be president, should the voters elect him.

[ICantSpellDawg]

https://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3200/hilltlerwh8.jpg

[CountArach]

That's a bit harsh, Hitler wasn't anywhere near that bad.

[Lemur]

TuffStuff, man, switch over to Photobucket (https://photobucket.com/). ImageShack is teh slow.

Meanwhile, another black radical steps forward (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auco5TU8Y9g) to defend Rev. Wright and Senator Obama. Where do these crazy people come from?

[Banquo's Ghost]

It just isn't possible for the Clintons to stop fibbing (http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/04/idfhijhotmgkhmg.html), is it?


Mrs Clinton’s campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, was forced to respond to the former President’s comments. “Senator Clinton appreciates her husband standing up for her, but this was her mistake and she takes responsibility for it,” he said.

Mr Clinton admitted later that his wife had ordered him to stop discussing the issue on the stump. “Hillary called me and said, ‘You don’t remember this. You weren’t there. Let me handle it.’ I said, ‘Yes ma’am.’ ”

[Lemur]

This is kinda interesting -- apparently it's Standard Operating Procedure for Dem candidates to pay "walking around money" in Philly. Somehow it's legal, although it smells and looks like vote-buying. Anyway, the Obama campaign is refusing (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/buying_philly_votes.html), as they did in Des Moines. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign is making it clear that they'll be happy to pay.

Wonder if this will cause Obama to lose Philly?


Obama's posture confounds neighborhood political leaders sympathetic to his cause. They caution that if the senator from Illinois withholds money that gubernatorial, mayoral and presidential candidates have willingly paid out for decades, there could be defections to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. And the Clinton campaign, in contrast, will oblige in forking over the money, these ward leaders predict.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ha! I dare say if Obama loses Pennsylvania it won't be because of some noble action, but because he's an elitist jackass:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_smalltown_PA_Clinging_religion_guns_xenophobia.html

I'm sure Pennsylvanians will appreciate Obama being condescending to them over in Cali at a fundraiser.

EDIT: And even better, that quote was from last weekend, and just a day or two ago he repeated basically the same thing and defended it!
http://thepage.time.com/obamas-remarks-in-response-to-reaction-of-bitter-statements/

CR

[CountArach]

Does it matter if he is right?

[Tribesman]

Does it matter if he is right?
It doesn't matter if he is right , if you don't want to upset smalltown people of the smallminded type you cannot publicly acknowledge the existance of small town small minded people .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Ha! I dare say if Obama loses Pennsylvania it won't be because of some noble action, but because he's an elitist jackass:


I really don't see how that's elitist. Having lived in a small town for a good portion of my life, I certainly wouldn't have been offended by that. Maybe I'm elitist (heck, probably am), but I would be in agreement with the gist of his statement - jobs are gone for twenty-five years, they need to be replaced, and there are certain things we attach to for comfort.

Well, I suppose I'm just different from Americans. That, or I look at what he means rather than what comes out.

Still, McCain looks better and better to me as an American president. Still, anyone but Clinton is fine by me. I really wish America had a decent, fairly centrist or conservative party that actually had some influence.

[Redleg]

One has to be careful in where they get their information on this particlur statement. For instance from CR's second source.




And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we’re going to make your community better. We’re going to make it right and nothing ever happens. And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.

Now this would be a quote that rings true and would actually probably get him votes if it was said first, not as an explantion of his orginal statement.

While the statement that is drawing attention is not necessarily incorrect from certain prespectives - it does strike as one blogger wrote.


This is a pretty accurate description of the mood I've seen out in the country this year. But there is one unfortunate word, and it's not bitter, it's cling which implies a certain weakness and closed-mindedness in our fellow countrymen. Is it condescending? Slightly. But Hillary Clinton expressed the very same sentiments to me, minus the words "bitter" or "cling" when I asked her about the anti-immigrant feelings in Iowa last November. She said you didn't see people reacting that way back in the 1990s, when the economy was good.

http://time-blog.com/swampland/

Now I am not all that upset about his initial statement, I think it demonstrates his character very well and is a tell on how he might deal with some issues if he is elected. What one has to look at is does this tell mean something different from his stated campaign promises on

Trade
Immigration
Guns
Religion.

Now we alreadly know that he is playing into the trade fears by his criticism of NAFTA. Some of it well founded but a bit of it is just pure fear politics.

Hillary of course is going to use it as an examble of Elitistism because she needs all the ammunition she can get, her problem is what happens when an Elitist calls another an Elitist?

[Xiahou]

Ha! I dare say if Obama loses Pennsylvania it won't be because of some noble action, but because he's an elitist jackass
Definitely an ignorant statement on many levels. "Clinging" to your rights and your values? Clearly Obama doesn't think much of such things. :rolleyes:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Definitely an ignorant statement on many levels. "Clinging" to your rights and your values? Clearly Obama doesn't think much of such things. :rolleyes:


I agree - it was pretty arrogant.

[Lemur]

"Clinging" to your rights and your values?
You nailed the most unfortunate word of them all. While the blogosphere and the MSM go nuclear over the word "bitter," it struck me that "clinging" was the real gem of Obama's unforced error.

[Tribesman]

"Clinging" to your rights and your values?
well they ain't got much else to cling to with their jobs being outsourced , their property declining in value , their debts spiraling out of control and their country bogged down in a stupid war .
Obamas spot on with his comment , the governments have screwed middle America .
Is hilarious to see people getting offended by a politician telling it like it is .

[Marshal Murat]

The comment does describe really the situation that small-town Americans find themselves in. While I don't speak for rural or small-town Pennsylvania, you get the sense that everyone is out-of-touch. Hillary and Obama speak about socialized healthcare without talking about how to pay for it. McCain talks about illegal immigration amnesty without how to stop it. It's the disconnect between those within the 'establishment' and those outside. The same complaints that we have today are those that the Athenians had about Pericles, Northumbrians under Henry V, and Siberians under Stalin.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Siberians under Stalin.

When they still had lungs/tongues to complain with, that is.

[Tristrem]

I'm starting to see a pattern here,

Clinton gets criticized for lying but Obama gets criticized fro telling the truth.

Granted it was very blunt and not a very kind way to say it but come on, i'd rather have the truth (Obama) than the pathological liar (clinton) or the guy who sold himself out to anyone who would buy in (McSame) just to get elected. I swear if we elect another idiot we deserve to have our country go down the tubes.

[Lemur]

There's another pattern at work -- Obama stumbles, Clinton overreaches. As demonstrated by this:


Hillary Clinton said Sunday a query about the last time she fired a gun or attended church services "is not a relevant question in this debate” over Barack Obama’s recent comments on small town Americans.

“We can answer that some other time,” Clinton said at a press conference held in a working class neighborhood here.

Strangely, NRO's The Corner (http://corner.nationalreview.com/), which exploded into a two week screaming froth over Reverend Wright, has been subdued to the point of mellowness over Bittergate. I can't venture why, but there it is.

-edit-

Finally, some polling, and a good analysis of both Wrightgate and Bittergate (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/04/daily-tracking-polls-show-apparently.html):


Both Democrats saw a hit to their numbers in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, and both Democrats appear to be taking a hit now. We should caution that, depending on Rasmussen's methodology, we should probably expect to see some serial correlation in the Democrats' numbers: [...] there may be a sense of "there they go again" whenever the Democrats start bickering with one another and the press coverage turns negative. [...]

My general prediction is that the comments are fairly close to a non-story in terms of their effect on the Democratic primaries: I would expect to see a very short term impact of not more than 1-3 points on Obama's numbers against Clinton -- and virtually no medium-term impact, or perhaps even a slight backlash against Hillary Clinton. The general election numbers I would tend to follow more carefully: perhaps we'll see a modest (1-3 points) medium-term impact there, but probably not any substantial long-term impact. And I think the medium-term impact might be as great on Hillary Clinton's numbers as they are on Barack Obama's.

[Xiahou]

Strangely, NRO's The Corner (http://corner.nationalreview.com/), which exploded into a two week screaming froth over Reverend Wright, has been subdued to the point of mellowness over Bittergate. I can't venture why, but there it is.
Here's (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTliNjljYTU2NDZiNWE3ZWE2NTdjNTRmZGI0ZWI3YzU=) something from NRO for you to read on the issue. :beam:

The most recent PA poll I can find is from ARG (http://americanresearchgroup.com/). Clinton has gone from a tie with Obama to a 20% lead according to their data.


Clinton gets criticized for lying but Obama gets criticized fro telling the truth.What was true about it?

[CountArach]

Xiahou, you can't base anything on one poll, here are the collated polls:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/comparing_pollsters_in_pennsyl.php

The graph there shows that Clinton's lead is slipping.

EDIT: Also take a look at this, which shows the trend for both of the candidates:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pennsylvania_dem_trend_sensiti.php

Time for a look at the sensitivity of our trend estimators. ARG has a new Pennsylvania poll out showing a 20 point Clinton lead. But Susquehanna Polling has one completed three days earlier with a 3 point Clinton lead and Zogby has one on the same day with a 4 point Clinton lead. Did things shift that swiftly or do we have an outlier?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Really awesome and fair article about bittergate/clingingate

What’s the Matter with Democrats?
LINK (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/04/in-november-200.html)

In November, 2004, Senator-elect Barack Obama told Charlie Rose that hunting and church provide solace to men like the laid-off factory workers he met in a small Illinois town. Unfortunately, in spite of his best efforts and those of his supporters, this is not what Obama said last Friday in his now notorious remarks in San Francisco. He equated guns and religion with racism, xenophobia, and crude economic populism as the refuge of the hard-pressed—the false consciousness of the white working class who need to channel their financial frustrations somewhere.

If Obama had left out “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment” (which is what sympathetic pundits and bloggers have done in attempting to explain his comments away), he might not now be sinking in the latest polls from Pennsylvania and Indiana. But he didn’t, and his remark doesn’t require strenuous feats of interpretation. Obama was letting his audience of donors know that he, like them, sees through the cultural irrationalities and obsessions of American victims of globalization and Republican rule. As Democratic political analysis, what he said is hardly new. Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” is a book-length exposition of Obama’s one sentence. In fact, it’s such a familiar line of thinking in liberal circles that the most common defense of Obama is that he was simply saying what everyone knows is so.

Is it? Part of it, undeniably. Cultural fears and resentments have been exploited by Republican candidates for at least forty years to peel away core working-class Democratic voters. It’s called right-wing populism, and it’s been at least as successful as the left-wing, New Deal version it replaced. It depends on finding targets who can be made into cultural élites, and Democrats from McGovern to Kerry have usually been happy to coöperate—although rarely as obligingly as Obama, whose words couldn’t have been better scripted by William Safire circa 1968, Lee Atwater circa 1988, or Karl Rove circa 2004. But Republicans couldn’t have dominated Presidential elections for nearly half a century if there were nothing to their charges.

To say that you can see through someone—that what someone believes is actually something else entirely—is an act of condescension, and the person being seen through is naturally going to take exception. One doesn’t have to be Bill Kristol to know this. It’s as if a politician were to say to Andrew Sullivan (who won’t tolerate a bad word about Obama), “You’re just clinging to gay rights because you’re frustrated by the size of government. Once we cut entitlements, you won’t care about same-sex marriage.”

The real problem with what Obama said is that it’s basically untrue. In southwestern Pennsylvania, religion, hunting, and insularity predate the post-industrial era. They’ve have become politically manipulable points in part because of economic decline, but to confuse wedge issues with traditional values is the mark of the high-minded reformer or the political junkie, or both. It’s the kind of mistake one could make only from a great distance, once those voters had become almost entirely abstract—and, again, no one wants to be an abstraction.

This is far from the only thing Obama believes about religion and small-town America, as his 2004 interview with Charlie Rose and much else in his career show. Conservative propagandists like Kristol are predictably and unfairly wrapping Obama’s disastrous sentence around his neck and garroting him with it. So is Hillary Clinton, and the spectacle of her swallowing a boilermaker in a Pennsylvania bar is crass opportunism that will antagonize more voters than it charms. These days the winner is always McCain.

But Obama’s devotees, who have an unattractively worshipful tendency to blame his mistakes on everyone but him, would do their candidate and the Democratic Party a favor by acknowledging the damage he’s done to both. It wasn’t accidental. Obama betrayed his own and his Party’s essential weakness, and in the process handed the opposition a great gift. He won’t be able to turn this weakness into the kind of strength that ends eras and wins elections until he understands what happened over the past few days.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Here in Britain they show us the American news channels for twenty minutes or so each night on BBC2.

And I couldn't help laughing when I saw the two candidates campaigns to look 'working-class'. Hilary was the worst, had a big mug of beer and seemed to take about one sip. Talk about sticking out like a sore thumb, the guy next to her just looked like he wanted the camera's out his face. And then there was Obama with his hot dog and chips. He can get away with it a bit more, but somehow I doubt thats what he eats when he gets home each night.

American elections make me sick. All the hype and its all over what - two candidates who's policies make Brown and Cameron's policies look like they are at opposite ends of the left-right divide.

Bah!

[Lemur]

Bittergate, much like Wrightgate, is proving to have little to no effect at the polls. Yet another giant froth storm about not-much-at-all.

This is far more interesting: a statistics enthusiast heard the followng phrase:


“I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter.”
-Tom Buffenbarger, Youngstown, Ohio

And decided that this claim must be investigated. Hilarious use of statistical math follows: (http://www.urbanspoon.com/blog/23/Do-latte-drinkers-really-vote-for-Obama.html)

States with more latte-purveying Starbucks stores are more likely to have gone for Obama.

So there's a definite Obama/Latte correlation. But what about Prius drivers?

There isn't the faintest whiff of a correlation here. I suppose it's possible that all Prius drivers are, in fact, Obama supporters, but that's sure not reflected in the way hybrid-friendly states are voting. Let's move on.

And Birkenstocks?

Nothing. Nada. No correlation. Birkenstock asked me not to publish the specific numbers, but if you're wondering about the outliers -- the big winner, with the most Birkenstocks per capita was a shock to me: Wyoming. Not exactly the typical "elitist" state.

Trust fund babies?

Again, what's really striking here is how little correlation we see.

So it all comes down to lattes. Take that ball and run with it.

[Vladimir]

Sorry. Just had to take this off 666 replies. :devil:

[Lemur]

Did anybody watch the ABC Dem debate this week? I tried to, but it was just too painful. The ABC hosts were pathetic, yanking up every story that had already gone stale and presenting it like they just thought it up. Sixty-five minutes before there was a single question on policy. Couldn't get through it, even on heavy fast-forward. However, it's been grist for some pretty funny bits of mockery, my favorite being this (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/04/the-lincoln-dou.html):

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (Slight Return)

by publius

Presidential candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held this debate on April 16, 1858 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

MODERATORS:
CHARLIE GIBSON, ABC NEWS
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS

MR. GIBSON: So we're going to begin with opening statements, and we had a flip of the coin, and the brief opening statement first from Mr. Lincoln.

LINCOLN: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there. I appear before you today for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind.

We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sorry to interrupt, but do you think Mr. Douglas loves America as much you do?

LINCOLN: Sure I do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But who loves America more?

LINCOLN: I’d prefer to get on with my opening statement George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If your love for America were eight apples, how many apples would Senator Douglas’s love be?

LINCOLN: Eight.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Proceed.

LINCOLN: In my opinion, slavery will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me, did an Elijah H. Johnson attend your church?

LINCOLN: When I was a boy in Illinois forty years ago, yes. I think he was a deacon.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you aware that he regularly called Kentucky “a land of swine and whores”?

LINCOLN: Sounds right -- his ex-wife was from Kentucky.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why did you remain in the church after hearing those statements?

LINCOLN: I was eight.

DOUGLAS: This is an important question George -- it's an issue that certainly will be raised in the fall.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce him?

LINCOLN: I’d like to get back to the divided house if I may.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce and reject him?

LINCOLN: If it will make you shut up, yes, I denounce and reject him.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce and reject him with sugar on top?

LINCOLN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No takesies-backsies?

LINCOLN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whoa, so you would consider a takesie-backsie?

LINCOLN: That’s not what I meant…

DOUGLAS: When I was 11, my grandpappy and I chopped wood and shot bears.

LINCOLN: Ahem, I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect slavery will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you love America this much (extending fingers), this much (extending hands slightly), or thiiiiiis much (extending hands broadly)?

LINCOLN: I think we covered this…

GIBSON: If I may interrupt…

LINCOLN: Please.

GIBSON: I noticed, Mr. Lincoln, that your American flag pin was upside down…

LINCOLN: Yes, the wind caught it. Now, as I was saying...

GIBSON: We get questions about this all the time over at Powerline and on Hannity’s talk show. Mr. Douglas has said this is a major vulnerability for you in the fall. So I’ll ask again – do you love America?

LINCOLN: (scowling with a forced smile). Yes.

GIBSON: If your love for America were ice cream, what flavor would it be?

LINCOLN: (pausing with disgust and turning back to camera) Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

DOUGLAS: He didn’t answer the question Charlie. This fall, that question is going to be on the minds of the American public. I’ve proudly stated that my love for America is Very Berry Strawberry.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask it another way. If Elijah Johnson were chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream, would you eat it? Or would you decline to eat it?

DOUGLAS: Personally, as for me, I would decline to eat it.

LINCOLN (shaking his head): Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery, so to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We’ll get to Dred Scott in the second hour, time willing, but I want to get back to the ice cream question. And that's what we'll do, after the break.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Did anybody watch the ABC Dem debate this week? I tried to, but it was just too painful. The ABC hosts were pathetic, yanking up every story that had already gone stale and presenting it like they just thought it up. Sixty-five minutes before there was a single question on policy. Couldn't get through it, even on heavy fast-forward. However, it's been grist for some pretty funny bits of mockery, my favorite being this (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/04/the-lincoln-dou.html):

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (Slight Return)

by publius

Presidential candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held this debate on April 16, 1858 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

MODERATORS:
CHARLIE GIBSON, ABC NEWS
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS

MR. GIBSON: So we're going to begin with opening statements, and we had a flip of the coin, and the brief opening statement first from Mr. Lincoln.

LINCOLN: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there. I appear before you today for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind.

We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sorry to interrupt, but do you think Mr. Douglas loves America as much you do?

LINCOLN: Sure I do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But who loves America more?

LINCOLN: I’d prefer to get on with my opening statement George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If your love for America were eight apples, how many apples would Senator Douglas’s love be?

LINCOLN: Eight.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Proceed.

LINCOLN: In my opinion, slavery will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me, did an Elijah H. Johnson attend your church?

LINCOLN: When I was a boy in Illinois forty years ago, yes. I think he was a deacon.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you aware that he regularly called Kentucky “a land of swine and whores”?

LINCOLN: Sounds right -- his ex-wife was from Kentucky.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why did you remain in the church after hearing those statements?

LINCOLN: I was eight.

DOUGLAS: This is an important question George -- it's an issue that certainly will be raised in the fall.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce him?

LINCOLN: I’d like to get back to the divided house if I may.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce and reject him?

LINCOLN: If it will make you shut up, yes, I denounce and reject him.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce and reject him with sugar on top?

LINCOLN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No takesies-backsies?

LINCOLN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whoa, so you would consider a takesie-backsie?

LINCOLN: That’s not what I meant…

DOUGLAS: When I was 11, my grandpappy and I chopped wood and shot bears.

LINCOLN: Ahem, I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect slavery will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you love America this much (extending fingers), this much (extending hands slightly), or thiiiiiis much (extending hands broadly)?

LINCOLN: I think we covered this…

GIBSON: If I may interrupt…

LINCOLN: Please.

GIBSON: I noticed, Mr. Lincoln, that your American flag pin was upside down…

LINCOLN: Yes, the wind caught it. Now, as I was saying...

GIBSON: We get questions about this all the time over at Powerline and on Hannity’s talk show. Mr. Douglas has said this is a major vulnerability for you in the fall. So I’ll ask again – do you love America?

LINCOLN: (scowling with a forced smile). Yes.

GIBSON: If your love for America were ice cream, what flavor would it be?

LINCOLN: (pausing with disgust and turning back to camera) Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

DOUGLAS: He didn’t answer the question Charlie. This fall, that question is going to be on the minds of the American public. I’ve proudly stated that my love for America is Very Berry Strawberry.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask it another way. If Elijah Johnson were chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream, would you eat it? Or would you decline to eat it?

DOUGLAS: Personally, as for me, I would decline to eat it.

LINCOLN (shaking his head): Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery, so to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We’ll get to Dred Scott in the second hour, time willing, but I want to get back to the ice cream question. And that's what we'll do, after the break.

I love America. This is entertainment at it's finest. :2thumbsup:

[Xiahou]

Did anybody watch the ABC Dem debate this week? I tried to, but it was just too painful. The ABC hosts were pathetic, yanking up every story that had already gone stale and presenting it like they just thought it up. Sixty-five minutes before there was a single question on policy. Couldn't get through it, even on heavy fast-forward.
What else could the debate be about other than character issues? Trying to find differences in their all-to-similar platforms wouldn't have made for much of an interesting debate either. :shrug:

The liberal blogosphere's reaction to the debate has been pretty amusing at least. :yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Indeed - "oh my, they were mean to the front runner of the Democrat nomination and asked hard questions about him! Waaaaaaaahhhhh, they're a bunch of pathetic meanies...."

Or, put more articulately;
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html


The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.

Last fall, when NBC’s Tim Russert hazed Clinton with a bunch of similar questions — a mix of fair and impertinent — he got lots of gripes from Clinton supporters.

But there was nothing like the piling on from journalists rushing to validate the Obama criticisms and denouncing ABC’s performance as journalistically unsound.

The response was itself a warning about a huge challenge for reporters in the 2008 cycle: preserving professional detachment in a race that will likely feature two nominees, Obama and John McCain, who so far have been beneficiaries of media cheerleading.

This is not to say that ABC’s performance was flawless. There were some weird questions (“Do you think Rev. Wright loves America as much as you do?”). There were some questionable production decisions (the camera cutaways to Chelsea Clinton, the stacking of so many process questions in the first 45 minutes).

But there was nothing to justify Tom Shales’s hyperbolic review (“shoddy, despicable performances” by Gibson and Stephanopoulos) in The Washington Post or Greg Mitchell’s in Editor & Publisher (“perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years”). Others, like Time’s Michael Grunwald, likewise weighed in against ABC.

In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.

Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything, they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.

If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient and uncertain.

The old - when they parrot my opinions they're balanced, but when they disagree with me they're pathetic and biased - of the left.

CR

[Lemur]

I didn't want to believe the rumors, but I can't deny the truth any longer. Xiahou is a sock puppet for Stephen Colbert. (http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=166026)

[seireikhaan]

Indeed - "oh my, they were mean to the front runner of the Democrat nomination and asked hard questions about him! Waaaaaaaahhhhh, they're a bunch of pathetic meanies...."

Or, put more articulately;
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html



The old - when they parrot my opinions they're balanced, but when they disagree with me they're pathetic and biased - of the left.

CR
:inquisitive: Perhaps you haven't noticed, CR, but the Rev. Wright issue's been out for a while now, and we've already gone over it and discussed it many a time. At this point, only an idiot or someone who's been completely under a rock hasn't already made up their mind on the issue. About the only "personal" question that wasn't absurd by this point was asking about the "bitter" comment, since that's still relatively recent. You can't pretend that some of those questions weren't insane. Then again, its not like most 'debates' aren't rather shoddy nowadays anyways, but I digress...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Perhaps you haven't noticed, CR, but the Rev. Wright issue's been out for a while now, and we've already gone over it and discussed it many a time.

We have, but has Obama faced any questions on it before in a debate?


You can't pretend that some of those questions weren't insane. Then again, its not like most 'debates' aren't rather shoddy nowadays anyways, but I digress...

Exactly - the Obama cultists are acting like this was some huge transgression against righteousness, when it wasn't bad at all, especially considering the other debates. And note how the media chimed in on how terrible the ABC debate was. The main difference was that Obama got some hard questions.

CR

[Lemur]

We have, but has Obama faced any questions on it before in a debate?
No, he's never answered questions about flag pins in a formal debate. And clearly, we've all been poorer for the omission.


And note how the media chimed in on how terrible the ABC debate was. The main difference was that Obama got some hard questions.
Well, actually, I think the media chimed in because the debate was terrible, not because of some unspoken conspiracy. Occam's Razor and all that. And yeah, several of the debates have been junk, but this one stood out, for several reasons:

No debates had been held since February, giving this debate prominence
The Republican Primary is now over, as it was not in previous debates
We're coming down to the finish with Clinton/Obama, giving this debate perceived importance

Etcetera. This debate was in a level of focus that other debates were not. So when Gibsonopoulos busted out questions that were already stale about flag pins and Wright, you can understand the groaning, which came from across the board. In fact, the only people who were not grumbling were the far right. Funny, that. But then, we all know that anyone who does not toe the rightwing line must, by definition, be a mindless Obama zombie or a far-left lunatic. Convenient how that works out.

Look, if the moderators wanted to hit Obama and Clinton with tough questions, they could easily have done so. Why not whack them on the nose for their anti-free-trade insanity? Their half-baked plans to deal with the subprime crisis? Why not get them to spout of about gas prices, and see how foolish they can sound?

Crikes, it's not as though there aren't plenty of places where they're holding illogical/silly positions. It's not as though Gibsonopoulos was forced to ask about "do you believe in the American flag?" 'cause that's the only way he could address character.

Let's turn it around, since that's often the only way to break through a partisan shield. Imagine if the Republican frontrunner were hit with the following in a debate:


Your continuing association with radicals from the 1970’s. A man who tried to destroy the two-party electoral system and subvert Democracy, and to this day remains utterly unapologetic, saying only that he wishes he’d done more of it, and better? As recently as November 8th of 2007, you had a public conversation with G. Gordon Liddy, not merely a criminal, but an unrepentant enemy of the U-S constitution who is now in radio.

Why do you hate the Constitution, sir?

Regardless of whether you like the guy or not, and regardless of how you intend to vote, you'd be irritated. There are plenty of issues of substance you can address without getting into the silly zone.

I realize that a failure to address the flag pin issue might cost Senator Obama the Xiahou/Crazed Rabbit/Vladimir vote, but we'll all just have to live with that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, he's never answered questions about flag pins in a formal debate. And clearly, we've all been poorer for the omission.

Sheesh. I guess bothering to actually address what I was talking about was a bit much, eh? This was the first time Obama had to face questions about Wright in a debate. Oh, wait, he had a pretty speech about it so we should all forget it happened.


Well, actually, I think the media chimed in because the debate was terrible, not because of some unspoken conspiracy. Occam's Razor and all that.

Considering how reporters have said 'its hard not to get caught up in Obama's campaign', it's logical they'd do exactly what they did out of fondness for Obama.

And Obama did recently put the flag pin back on, with some convenient excuse now that he's looking to the general election.

I love how it's 'ho-hum, another shoddy debate' until Obama gets the sharp end of the stick, and then all the Obama fans act like this is an affront to goodness itself.

I mean, have you seen some of the stuff at kos? It's a hoot!

CR

[Lemur]

I mean, have you seen some of the stuff at kos? It's a hoot!
I'm sure it's quite good, but I steer clear of Kos. Let's not forget that both Kos and MoveOn.org were big bastions of pro-Hillary goodness at the beginning of the primaries. They only got behind Obama ... well, I'm not sure when or why they switched.

Here's something you should enjoy: Springsteen and Obama, Wrong for America. (http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1509297894)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Here's something you should enjoy: Springsteen and Obama, Wrong for America. (http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1509297894)Springsteen is God.

Bugger. Now I have a problem. If Bruce, my definitive source on all things America, supports Obama, then my universe just got a lot more complicated. :shame:


Edit: it's true. (http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html)
Dear Friends and Fans:

LIke most of you, I've been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest.

He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where "...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone."

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams From My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

After the terrible damage done over the past eight years, a great American reclamation project needs to be undertaken. I believe that Senator Obama is the best candidate to lead that project and to lead us into the 21st Century with a renewed sense of moral purpose and of ourselves as Americans.

Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President.



The Guardian has a fine story about it too. (http://music.guardian.co.uk/pop/story/0,,2275044,00.html).

Thirty five years after he staked out his distinctive corner of the American imagination with Greetings From Asbury Park, Springsteen continues to be a byword for authenticity in an industry not overburdened with the stuff. Few stars have managed to achieve global acclaim and extraordinary wealth (he's sold more than 65 million albums in the US alone) while retaining an image of down-to-earth integrity.

But Springsteen has done just that and he's done it, to a large extent, by creating his own mythology. His music and lyrics have produced a coherent fictional world of broken dreamers chasing a promised land that is tragically out of reach. Utilising his keen eye for cinematic imagery - two-lane highways in the middle of the night, screen doors slamming, rusting industrial landscapes - he has transformed cliches into vivid snapshots and almost singlehandedly reassembled modern Americana.

In his live performances, epic communions with worshipful fans, he brings a wholeheartedness to the proceedings that is unmistakably genuine - and as professional as it is passionate.

I shall have to look into Obama a bit more. I'll go and buy his book.

[Lemur]

Oh noes, Johnny Mac is appearing in public without a flag pin, too! The evil of Obama is spreading! Why do both of these men hate freedom?


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/mccain4.jpg

[Xiahou]

Oh noes, Johnny Mac is appearing in public without a flag pin, too! The evil of Obama is spreading! Why do both of these men hate freedom?
Has he said why he refuses to wear one yet? ~:handball:

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Clinton campaign seems to think they're going to win big in Pennsylvania:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpa.htm


Controlled excitement is building inside of Clinton's inner circle as closely guarded internal polling shows the former first lady with an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania!

CR

[Lemur]

In more important news, all three remaining Presidential contenders will be speaking (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/04/21/presidential_rivals_to_speak_on_wwe_raw/7047/) on WWE's "Monday Night Raw."

Presidential rivals to speak on WWE 'RAW'

Published: April 21, 2008 at 2:54 PM

STAMFORD, Conn., April 21 -- U.S. presidential hopefuls Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain were preparing to battle during the WWE's "Monday Night RAW."

The three candidates are hoping to reach at least 5 million people who watch "RAW" on a weekly basis by appearing in taped segments recorded specifically for the event, a WWE release said.

Democrats Clinton and Obama are targeting Pennsylvania voters in the Tuesday primary. McCain is the presumptive GOP nominee.

The three candidates' appearances come after an offer from WWE to bring an end to the Democratic contest in the ring.

[Xiahou]

Speaking?? It's the WWE, they should be wrestling...

Here's a nice article by Nora Ephron that would be funny if she wasn't serious: White Men (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/white-men_b_97669.html)
This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men.

[Ronin]

Speaking?? It's the WWE, they should be wrestling...

Here's a nice article by Nora Ephron that would be funny if she wasn't serious: White Men (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nora-ephron/white-men_b_97669.html)

I say that Triple H should have hit each one of them with the Pedigree and whichever got back up first would be declared the president.....

no election would be necessary....THE PEDIGREE IS THE TRUTH! :laugh4:


as for the article...that woman is a wacko.

[ICantSpellDawg]

In more important news, all three remaining Presidential contenders will be speaking (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2008/04/21/presidential_rivals_to_speak_on_wwe_raw/7047/) on WWE's "Monday Night Raw."

Presidential rivals to speak on WWE 'RAW'

Published: April 21, 2008 at 2:54 PM

STAMFORD, Conn., April 21 -- U.S. presidential hopefuls Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain were preparing to battle during the WWE's "Monday Night RAW."

The three candidates are hoping to reach at least 5 million people who watch "RAW" on a weekly basis by appearing in taped segments recorded specifically for the event, a WWE release said.

Democrats Clinton and Obama are targeting Pennsylvania voters in the Tuesday primary. McCain is the presumptive GOP nominee.

The three candidates' appearances come after an offer from WWE to bring an end to the Democratic contest in the ring.

I've been saying "can you smell what barack is cooking" around my house for a year.

[Xiahou]

I've been saying "can you smell what barack is cooking" around my house for a year.:2thumbsup:

Just got back from voting in the PA primary. IIRC, the only presidential choices were McCain, Huckabee and Paul- so I wrote in Fred Thompson.
Most of the local GOP contests were unopposed. Whenever I don't know the candidates, I just vote write-in for myself- I refuse to vote for someone I don't know just because there are no other choices. Obviously, most the excitement was on the Dem side this year, so there isn't much to talk about for me. :shrug:

[Redleg]

On my drive today across North and South Datoka - the political pundits on talk radio where having a field day about Obama. They focused on his contection with Rev. Wright, his clinge and bitter statement, and one I didnt know his connection with one of the Weathermen bombers.

I found it rather amusing, given the nature of thier discussion.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/A_weatherman_Obama_doesnt_need.html

But whats even funnier is this article

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/7998_clinton_bashes.html

My goodness should make for interesting discussion later on on talk radio

[Crazed Rabbit]

Clinton wins PA 55-45%.

Seems like more evidence of her greater ability to win swing states than Obama, who's got a lot of delegates from places like Idaho.

CR

[Adrian II]

On my drive today across North and South Datoka - the political pundits on talk radio where having a field day about Obama. They focused on his contection with Rev. Wright, his clinge and bitter statement, and one I didnt know his connection with one of the Weathermen bombers.

I found it rather amusing, given the nature of thier discussion.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/A_weatherman_Obama_doesnt_need.html

But whats even funnier is this article

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/7998_clinton_bashes.html

My goodness should make for interesting discussion later on on talk radioNah, here's the beef (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html).

[Xiahou]

Nah, here's the beef (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html).
Obamatons. :laugh4:
Can't believe I haven't heard that one before.

[Adrian II]

Obamatons. :laugh4:
Can't believe I haven't heard that one before.Nice one eh? But if this guy is right, Barack has some real stinkers in his closet waiting to pop out come February.

[Lemur]

Barack has some real stinkers in his closet waiting to pop out come February.
Say, what's so special about February 2009?

[Adrian II]

Say, what's so special about February 2009?I meant the Rezko case going to court. Or isn't that the big deal that article makes it out to be?

[Lemur]

Adrian, the Rezko trial began in March of 2008. It's been ongoing for months now. The latest politician to be tied to Rezko is none other than Karl Rove (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4710826&page=1).

I see the article you originally posted is quite old. That explains a bit.

[Adrian II]

Adrian, the Rezko trial began in March of 2008. It's been ongoing for months now. The latest politician to be tied to Rezko is none other than Karl Rove (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4710826&page=1).

I see the article you originally posted is quite old. That explains a bit.:laugh4: Oh sheesh, I am such a lower posterior aperture...

I should have stayed out of this thread, I knew it! :whip:


*washes mouth*

[Xiahou]

At least, there was an interesting link (http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/) in the story that outlines a lot of detail that I hadn't heard on the Obama-Rezko connection.

Also, I agree with the overall point that Obama hasn't seen a fraction of the scrutiny and all-round mud slinging that he'll encounter once the general election heats up. McCain, naturally, will condemn and deplore it all, but that won't stop it. Personally, I've long felt that Hillary would be the tougher candidate to beat in the general- she's got so much dirty laundry aired that people really aren't surprised by it anymore. The worst damage done to her has been self-inflicted with her exaggerations/lying. She certainly has plenty of scandals out there- but it seems like it's so many over such a long time that they don't elicit much more than a yawn anymore. :beam:

[Lemur]

So how do the candidates stack up on space policy (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4260504.html)?

[Adrian II]

To make up for my mistake (:shame:) here's one for the Lemur and everyone else who prides himself in knowing who did what to whom, and where.

Slansky Scandalquiz (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/polls/slanskyquiz/scandal)

I had 9 out of 23. I feel like an immigrant who failed his citizenship test. :laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

To make up for my mistake (:shame:) here's one for the Lemur and everyone else who prides himself in knowing who did what to whom, and where.

Slansky Scandalquiz (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/polls/slanskyquiz/scandal)

I had 9 out of 23. I feel like an immigrant who failed his citizenship test. :laugh4:

I got 13

[Crazed Rabbit]

16, woohoo!

Also, apparently some exit polls said the economy was a much bigger issue for dem voters than Iraq.

CR

[seireikhaan]

Also, apparently some exit polls said the economy was a much bigger issue for dem voters than Iraq.

CR
:inquisitive: Hasn't it pretty much been that across the country?

[KukriKhan]

... she's got so much dirty laundry aired that people really aren't surprised by it anymore. The worst damage done to her has been self-inflicted with her exaggerations/lying. She certainly has plenty of scandals out there- but it seems like it's so many over such a long time that they don't elicit much more than a yawn anymore. :beam:

Got this in email yesterday (from a Republican friend):

https://jimcee.homestead.com/illry.jpg.jpg

[Seamus Fermanagh]

18/23 -- though I'll admit 4-5 of those were due to my test taking skills rather than subject knowledge. The tawdriness of politicos never ceases to amaze, eh what?

Kukri:

ROTFLMFAO. Nice one.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If Obama is "unelectable" because he can't close the deal, what does that make Hillary? She seems to think that it makes her the default nominee... Where is the logic in that?

If she is trying to say that neither one of them is electable, that's probably because their policies are ass backwards.

[CountArach]

I didn't realise this thread had become such a conservative love-in...

[Lemur]

Finally got around to taking that scandal quiz, and I only scored 15. Dang it all! I thought I had a better handle on misbehaving politicians than that.


If Obama is "unelectable" because he can't close the deal, what does that make Hillary?
That makes Hillary the person working overtime to make the "unelectable" prediction come true. After all, the only way Senator Obama can become unelectable is if she makes him so. Gotta credit her for morbid ambition.

[Adrian II]

That makes Hillary the person working overtime to make the "unelectable" prediction come true. After all, the only way Senator Obama can become unelectable is if she makes him so. Gotta credit her for morbid ambition.Sobering thought (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/hayden).

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh - I've read that. In fact, I challenge you to find an anti-hillary article that I haven't read. I'm feeding my hatred of her, hoping that eventually the consolidated loathing will take on a life of its own and chase her out of the race.

Let two decent human beings run for president.

[Lemur]

Hey TuffStuff, go ahead and watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDU9xKNo-zo&), and let's see if your head explodes. If nothing else, this primary season has been great for weird and horrible videos.

[KukriKhan]

I didn't realise this thread had become such a conservative love-in...

I dunno CountA, I think what we're seeing (trying to look at it as an outsider) is Yank backroomers reflecting what's happening nation-wide: we're confounded; this election cycle should have been a Dem slam-dunk.

An unpopular Prez, waging an unpopular war, the economy teetering on the edge of the tank, more enemies and fewer friends worldwide than we started with 8 years ago, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

Yet what we see is the Loyal Opposition tearing itself apart trying to decide which of its historically-first (black man or white woman) candidates gets the nod to run against the Repub's compromise candidate. And there's still months more to go, and dirt to uncover, mud to sling. There gets to be less and less bad stuff for the Repubs (and their agents) to sling from September to November - allowing McCain to take "the high road", and not have to overly worry about being painted as George W Lite.

It's puzzling.

Hence, the apparent anti-Dem look, as we try to figure out what's really going on, and voice disapproval of the apparent direction. In this environment, even a lefty might look like a righty.

[Xiahou]

more enemies and fewer friends worldwide than we started with 8 years ago, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...I don't really think that's the case... France, Germany, and Canada all have elected more pro-US governments under Bush's tenure- to name a few. :shrug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The GOP have been the usual occupants of the White House since the Civil War.

A long stretch after the civil war it was because they'd one the war and the democrat party had been riven in two and stomped upon.

Cleveland -- Two separate terms (only person to do this) on narrow victories in 1884 and 1892.

Wilson --elected in 1912 when TR split the GOP vote and hamstrung Taft's re-election; re-elected in 1916 in a fairly tight race versus a SC justice.

FDR -- Won 4 times, but the first win was against a GOP saddled with all of the blame for the Great Depression. Win #4 was a referendum on the War -- which everyone could see we were winning. My personal view is that he almost single-handedly turned the USA into a social democracy instead of a republic. To many, this makes him more of a hero...but not to me.

Truman -- Won in 1948 in a very narrow race. The Sun really had called the election for Dewey and printed the paper. Did not seek another term in 1952 (Knowing he'd face Ike? Fed up with Washington?)

Kennedy -- Won in 1960 in a very narrow race. This race was so close, and more than typically fraud-ridden, that Nixon may well have been able to take the results to court and win the presidency in a court fight. To his credit, Nixon chose NOT to drag the election process through this. Neither Gore nor Bush was as classy in 2000.

Johnson -- Won in 1964 in a massive landslide. How much of this landlside was Goldwater's lack of appeal to middle America and how much Johnson benefited from an election cycle that began less than 90 days after Kennedy's funeral is anyone's guess.

Carter -- Won in 1976 against un-elected President Ford. That Carter won with less than a 1M margin in popular votes (50.1% of the total) in the first election after Nixon's Watergate Debacle, and facing the man who'd pardoned Nixon, says something.

Clinton -- Won in 1992 and 1996. Both elections featured significant numbers of normally GOP votes siphoned off by Perot (To be fair, Nixon had the same advantage in 1968).

That's 56 years of democrat presidencies stacked against 84 GOP. Since 1900, the figure is narrower 48 Dem v 60 GOP, but all-in-all the Democrat Party has not done very well in winning the White House.

[KukriKhan]

I don't really think that's the case... France, Germany, and Canada all have elected more pro-US governments under Bush's tenure- to name a few. :shrug:

You might be right there.

I guess we could list out the 200+ national entities and assign them "pro-", "neutral", or "anti-" US inclinations, comparing 2001 to 2008, factoring in expressed popular opinion vs official governmental positions.

But I wasn't trying to prove that point as true; just my estimation, admittedly anecdotal, of the current american zeitgeist. So as to show our Ozzie friend, who is obviously highly interested in electoral processes in general, why what looks like a right-wing 'love-fest' in this thread, is not that, but rather a microcosm of general american befuddlement at the state of affairs of our current presidential selection process.

The Dems look set to destroy, or at least splinter, their own party in favor of a "win at any cost; figure out how to govern later" strategy, in my opinion. If that strategy prevails, what does it portend for US politics in the future? And voter choices?

I point out that you and I, Xiahou, as far back as summer 2007, were the only two to agree that NONE of the 20+ potential candidates of the time seemed worthy of the office.

[CountArach]

Thank you Kukri :bow: , that was an informative post. I think I understand what is going on in here now.

[Geoffrey S]

I don't really think that's the case... France, Germany, and Canada all have elected more pro-US governments under Bush's tenure- to name a few. :shrug:
I'd agree that that's the case with the various governments - if only to maintain a workable relationship. But on that account I don't think they represent their electorate, views on the US very rarely made their way into elections and internal matters dominated. Outside of Europe the difference between governments and the people they represent is probably even greater, certainly in the Middle East.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You might be right there.

I guess we could list out the 200+ national entities and assign them "pro-", "neutral", or "anti-" US inclinations, comparing 2001 to 2008, factoring in expressed popular opinion vs official governmental positions.

But I wasn't trying to prove that point as true; just my estimation, admittedly anecdotal, of the current american zeitgeist. So as to show our Ozzie friend, who is obviously highly interested in electoral processes in general, why what looks like a right-wing 'love-fest' in this thread, is not that, but rather a microcosm of general american befuddlement at the state of affairs of our current presidential selection process.

The Dems look set to destroy, or at least splinter, their own party in favor of a "win at any cost; figure out how to govern later" strategy, in my opinion. If that strategy prevails, what does it portend for US politics in the future? And voter choices?

I point out that you and I, Xiahou, as far back as summer 2007, were the only two to agree that NONE of the 20+ potential candidates of the time seemed worthy of the office.

People are always saying that. Who is better suited?

Look at who our Presidents have been historically: The B-team.

The A-team is out there moving the world without the backing of the U.S. Government.

I thought Mitt was eminently qualified. Biden seemed well qualified. McCain is qualified.

Think back - who have you liked? Former CIA guys wouldn't fly in this climate anymore.

[KukriKhan]

Look at who our Presidents have been historically: The B-team.

The A-team is out there moving the world without the backing of the U.S. Government.


Hmmm. I wish I could argue with you there, but... I can't. I think you're right. We HAVE usually picked the B-team (and occasionally reached down into the 3rd and 4th string junior varsity, IMO).

Why do you think that is? A sub-conscious built-in check against royalty/dictatorship? A product of the inevitable compromises we make in a democracy? Something else?

[LittleGrizzly]

Why do you think that is? A sub-conscious built-in check against royalty/dictatorship? A product of the inevitable compromises we make in a democracy? Something else?

Need some clarification here... are you saying candidates from the a-list don't get nominated or that they get nominated but then don't win ?

I think personal greed takes a part in it, Bill Gates would have been much worse off even as the most succsessful politician ever

Personal achievement, as a brilliant scientist you use your intelligence to discover, create or make something. But even if you had all the answers for the states problems that would not be a gaurentee off succsess. So the cleverest may go to other areas where they now they will be a succsess.

Also politics itself would detract some good candidates, it seems to involve disgracing the other guy these days, or showing what a great likeable guy you are, a friendly shy genuis would be put off by this.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hmmm. I wish I could argue with you there, but... I can't. I think you're right. We HAVE usually picked the B-team (and occasionally reached down into the 3rd and 4th string junior varsity, IMO).

Why do you think that is? A sub-conscious built-in check against royalty/dictatorship? A product of the inevitable compromises we make in a democracy? Something else?


Number one fear of a majority of Americans = making public speeches.

Screens out a number of good ones right there.


Established families -- with loads of connections from several generations in the same schools etc. -- have a leg up in getting started and often have personal funds to assist their political careers.

This screens out good few more, though in the USA it is NOT an absolute preventer.

Politics involves asking people for money on an ongoing basis.

Screens out quite a few more.


Politics in practice favors those who are willing to make deals to accomplish goals -- the rhetorical sensitives -- and those who are willing to say whatever the audience wants to hear in order to get their approval -- the rhetorical reflectors. The rhetorical nobles -- who say what they think is right regardless of consequences -- usually start with high negatives and offend more as they go along and rarely do well in politics.

This takes out even more.


Now, add in the modern factors for major offices of a total media proctoscope experience for the candidate, the candidate's family, the candidate's friends, the candidate's business associates, etc.

Still more fall out (and ask yourself, is political office worth seeing your friends scrutinized, ostracized and jailed as you have to "throw them under the bus" and cut off all ties so as not to be tarred by their foible that you many not even have been aware of and that they certainly would never have had "outed" if you hadn't brought the media crawling into their lives?).


Who's left?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I don't really think that's the case... France, Germany, and Canada all have elected more pro-US governments under Bush's tenure- to name a few. :shrug:

Only because the socialists are scum. ~;)

There! I said it! HAH!

I didn't fully mean it.

[Redleg]

Only because the socialists are scum. ~;)

There! I said it! HAH!

I fully mean it, really I do. I want to become an United States Citizen because its the greatest free capitialistic democratic republic in existance

There I fixed your spoil for you :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There I fixed your spoil for you :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

No thanks, I'm content where I am. Even Martin Schulz isn't as bad as Miss Clinton.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No thanks, I'm content where I am. Even Martin Schulz isn't as bad as Miss Clinton.

Why are you busting on Chelsea? :inquisitive:

I mean, she's a Clinton and all, but still not a harmful person or anything. Whereas this Martin fellow seems a bit dodgy....





:devilish:


emphasis in quotation added by SF.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Post

Hillary's married? Really? Since when? :inquisitive:

~;)

[Marshal Murat]

Well, I have to say for the Hillary camp, this Bell 50 shots thing is getting some traction, and really a chance for her to step up. How? I don't know. I think she could either mediate the crisis (calming it down), or appealing back for the African-American vote.

[Tribesman]

I don't really think that's the case... France, Germany, and Canada all have elected more pro-US governments under Bush's tenure
And France and Germany had their new governments enjoy a very very short time in office before their approval ratings took a nosedive and have ended up being ridiculed by even their own supporters .
Then again since the apparent anti-US stance of the previous governments amounted to nothing really such things cannot be used as a measure .
In short Chirac wasn't pro or anti-American he was pro France and when Frances interests were the same as Americas interests they were in agreement , just as Sarko isn't pro or anti-American he isjust pro-France .
And considering that much of the apparent anti-Americanism was based around the opposition to the Iraq fiasco it could be said that by opposing the action they were acting in a pro-American fashion as it doesn't take a genius to work out that the mess in Iraq is not in the interests of America .

[OverKnight]

Now the conventional wisdom seems to be that the Democrats are hurting themselves by having a protracted Primary.

I won't argue this point, but I would like to point out that there could be benefits to the eventual candidate. The drawn out process has brought a viable contest to more states than ever. This has driven up voter registration. If, and it might be a big if, this surge in voters translates into support in the general election, it could end up benefiting the Dems.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Now the conventional wisdom seems to be that the Democrats are hurting themselves by having a protracted Primary.

I won't argue this point, but I would like to point out that there could be benefits to the eventual candidate. The drawn out process has brought a viable contest to more states than ever. This has driven up voter registration. If, and it might be a big if, this surge in voters translates into support in the general election, it could end up benefiting the Dems.

Of course that is a possibility. It may be their way of cradling and inexperienced candidate only to claim that he has been vetted by experience later. I hope that it is a legitimate quagmire, though.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'll throw you guys a bone. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7371367.stm)

[Xiahou]

Clearly, the Clinton campaign has bought off Rev. Wright. He went to the National Press Club (and received a standing ovation) to reiterate his previous controversial statements, criticize Obama, praise Farakahn, and spout other craziness.

transcript (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/28/transcript-rev-wright-at-the-national-press-club/)

Honestly, the Obama campaign had finally managed to get the Wright issue off the front pages and the guy deliberately claws his way back onto them. What a kook. :dizzy2:

[Lemur]

Good summary from someone who was there (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1735662,00.html):


Maybe Barack Obama skimped on his contribution when the offering plate came past at Trinity United Church of Christ. Or perhaps he nodded off during one of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons. It's hard to think of another reason why the Illinois Senator's former pastor would put on the kind of performance this morning at the National Press Club that can only be described as a political disaster.

[Adrian II]

Honestly, the Obama campaign had finally managed to get the Wright issue off the front pages and the guy deliberately claws his way back onto them. What a kook. :dizzy2:Obama is the kook. And I am starting to like this Wright fellow. I wouldn't agree with him on things, but he seems straightforward and I respect that in people. He was damn right too when he said a preacher shouldn't think and act like a politician:


Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. They have a different person to whom they’re accountable.He also said:


I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?None, cause Cheney was a draft-dodger. Put that in your pipe and inhale it, gentlemen.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Obama is the kook. And I am starting to like this Wright fellow. I wouldn't agree with him on things, but he seems straightforward and I respect that in people. He was damn right too when he said a preacher shouldn't think and act like a politician:


Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. They have a different person to whom they’re accountable.He also said:


I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?None, cause Cheney was a draft-dodger. Put that in your pipe and inhale it, gentlemen.

I don't really mind Wright. I get where he is coming from. When he started talking about inherent differences between blacks and whites I thought that he's right. Differences don't mean that one is superior to the other, it just means that different ethnicities may be more different than political correctness might allow us to talk about.

Also, I don't think that I could comfortably call someone who served patriotically in our armed forces an anti-american.

Black frustration is a reality in the U.S. We should hold Wright accountable for his words, but if we lined up every black person who hadn't listened to a radical anti-establishment preacher in the U.S., how long do you think that line would be? Of that line, how many people do you think would be able to run for President.

Using this as a litmus test against someone would be akin to literacy tests in the old south. It is a terrible black reality that needs to be addressed, but it shouldn't barr Obama from the oval office; Policy issues should.

Obama didn't even say this stuff and he has never even given anyone a glimpse that he supports those ideas. McCain was right not to want these kinds of Ad's to run in connection with him.

[Lemur]

Clearly, the Clinton campaign has bought off Rev. Wright.
Closer to the truth than you may have thought when you posted this. Turns out the woman who organized the Press Club event is -- surprise! -- an ardent Clinton supporter (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html).

As for Wright's military service, it goes without saying that a man who serves two voluntary terms during a shooting war is miles ahead of chickenhawks such as Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.

[Xiahou]

As for Wright's military service, it goes without saying that a man who serves two voluntary terms during a shooting war is miles ahead of chickenhawks such as Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.

Also, I don't think that I could comfortably call someone who served patriotically in our armed forces an anti-american.You can and should respect someone's honorable military service, but that doesn't preclude one from being anti-American. Just look at Wright's statements- he thinks the USA created AIDS as a method to wipe out blacks. He thinks God should damn America for its actions and thinks it's a terrorist state- these statements are anti-American by definition. Wright is anti-American, irrational and hateful regardless of his former military service.


Obama is the kook. And I am starting to like this Wright fellow.Neither of those statements mean Wright isn't a kook. :wink:

[LittleGrizzly]

You can and should respect someone's honorable military service, but that doesn't preclude one from being anti-American. Just look at Wright's statements- he thinks the USA created AIDS as a method to wipe out blacks. He thinks God should damn America for its actions and thinks it's a terrorist state- these statements are anti-American by definition. Wright is anti-American, irrational and hateful regardless of his former military service.


I remember reading an argument (i believe it was here) that the extremist (someone like rev wright) loves his country even more and is willing to take all the crap to get his message out there and improve his country (in his view)

I always find the anti-american tag to easy to pin to people who just don't agree with you, its also a strange tag to put on an american, everyone would look at brown stupid if he called cameron anti-british.

[Adrian II]

Neither of those statements mean Wright isn't a kook. :wink:OK, OK, I thought 'kook' meant 'liar' or 'manipulator'. I looked it up in Webster's and it means 'idiot'.

So yeah, Wright is an idiot, but at least he is honest about it.

My 2 euros.

[Redleg]

OK, OK, I thought 'kook' meant 'liar' or 'manipulator'. I looked it up in Webster's and it means 'idiot'.

So yeah, Wright is an idiot, but at least he is honest about it.

My 2 euros.

Yep at least Wright seems honest with his rethoric - however he has not made himself politically astute with his statements. If he wanted Obama to get the nomination I would of thought he would at least see the political minefield he was treading. I wouldn't necessary call Wright an idiot - just not political astute in the since of getting his candidate elected.

However being the cynic that I am, I am not necessarily convinced that the Rev. Wright didn't know what was going on. If his actions cost Obama the election it actually provides him with more ammunition for his "cause." He can use the failure of Obama getting elected because of him as proof that the United States is not ready for a black man in the whitehouse because America is scared of facing all the implications that go with winning the white house.

I now its a reach, but given Rev. Wrights comments he is at a minimum a racist bigot, and just such a stance is easy for such a man to take.

[Adrian II]

I now its a reach, but given Rev. Wrights comments he is at a minimum a racist bigot, and just such a stance is easy for such a man to take.I think I must have missed something again. Why exactly is Wright a racist bigot?

[Redleg]

I think I must have missed something again. Why exactly is Wright a racist bigot?

Have you heard his statements - right brian/left brain based upon racial makeup? and there are other such statements. Sorry Adrian if I said some of his statements I would be labeled a racist in a heartbeat and rightly so. Just because he happens to have black skin doesn't mean he is not a racist.

[Tribesman]

He thinks God should damn America for its actions and thinks it's a terrorist state
Since it is a terrorist state and has done its fair share of god damnable actions what is your point ?
Is it a truth that you feel uncomfortable with ?
A truth that leads to that old nonsense "my country right or wrong" line that false patriots parrot .

[Lemur]

Well, however wonderful and straight-shooting you may believe Rev. Wright to be, Senator Obama has finally had his I know thee not, old man (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24371827/) moment.

[Adrian II]

Sorry Adrian if I said some of his statements I would be labeled a racist in a heartbeat and rightly so. Just because he happens to have black skin doesn't mean he is not a racist.OK, but that's other peoples' labels. Do you consider Wright a racist bigot?

[Redleg]

OK, but that's other peoples' labels. Do you consider Wright a racist bigot?
You might want to read this statement again. "Sorry Adrian if I said some of his statements I would be labeled a racist in a heartbeat and rightly so."

What do you think that means?

[Xiahou]

OK, OK, I thought 'kook' meant 'liar' or 'manipulator'. I looked it up in Webster's and it means 'idiot'.

So yeah, Wright is an idiot, but at least he is honest about it.

My 2 euros.
I can agree with that. :bow:

Interestingly, I think Obama validated Wright's political expediency charges with his recent denunciation of Wright- the man he could no more disown than the black community, or his own grandmother... Obama's racist Granny had better watch her back. :wink:

[drone]

Somewhere, Hillary is cackling like a hyena. :yes:

[Adrian II]

Like Tuff said, it isn't racist to state, as Wright did, that different ethnicities may be more different than political correctness might allow us to talk about.

I also miss the racial hate speech and the intolerance that are usually associated with racist bigots. I thought I'd overlooked that in the transcript so I read it again. Still not there.

You'd have to call Wright thoroughly misguided on some points, particularly the Aids epidemic which he thinks may be the result of a racist government ploy. But if you consider the Tuskagee syphilis experiment or the involuntary sterilisations of black American women in the not too distant past, you can see where he is coming from. And accusing the government of racism does not equal anti-white racism.

Besides, Wright hammers constantly on reconciliation:

God does not desire for us, as children of God, to be at war with each other, to see each other as superior or inferior, to hate each other, abuse each other, misuse each other, define each other, or put each other down.So unless I've missed some major aspect, he doesn't appear to be a racist bigot.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wright for President anyone?

[Adrian II]

Wright for President anyone?:help: