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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

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)

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 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 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.

https://img267.imageshack.us/img267/...illtlerwh8.jpg

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

TuffStuff, man, switch over to Photobucket. ImageShack is teh slow.

Meanwhile, another black radical steps forward to defend Rev. Wright and Senator Obama. Where do these crazy people come from?

It just isn't possible for the Clintons to stop fibbing, 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.’ ”

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, 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obama

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/bensmi...enophobia.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-remar...er-statements/

CR

Does it matter if he is right?

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article as a direct quote from Obama.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blogger in link

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

"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.

Quote:

---

"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 .

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Siberians under Stalin.

---

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

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.

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, 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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Strangely, NRO's The Corner, 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 something from NRO for you to read on the issue. :beam:

The most recent PA poll I can find is from ARG. Clinton has gone from a tie with Obama to a 20% lead according to their data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristrem

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

---

What was true about it?

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

Quote:

---

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?

---

Really awesome and fair article about bittergate/clingingate

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What’s the Matter with Democrats?
LINK

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.

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!

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:

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.

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

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

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

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 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...

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's something you should enjoy: Springsteen and Obama, Wrong for America.

---

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Springsteen

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. .

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

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.

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/v...ia/mccain4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Has he said why he refuses to wear one yet? ~:handball:

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

Quote:

---

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

In more important news, all three remaining Presidential contenders will be speaking 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.

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

In more important news, all three remaining Presidential contenders will be speaking 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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:

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/bensmi...esnt_need.html

But whats even funnier is this article

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/...on_bashes.html

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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/bensmi...esnt_need.html

But whats even funnier is this article

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/...on_bashes.html

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

---

Nah, here's the beef.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Nah, here's the beef.

---

Obamatons. :laugh4:
Can't believe I haven't heard that one before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Barack has some real stinkers in his closet waiting to pop out come February.

---

Say, what's so special about February 2009?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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?

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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*

At least, there was an interesting link 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:

So how do the candidates stack up on space policy?

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

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

---

I got 13

16, woohoo!

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

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

... 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):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

Hey TuffStuff, go ahead and watch this, and let's see if your head explodes. If nothing else, this primary season has been great for weird and horrible videos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuffy

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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?