U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

Assuming that Kukri will close the primaries thread and begin anew with a unified thread on the General elections in the Fall, I will jump in and start such a unified thread with the following analysis.


The goal of the post is to establish the analytical basis for the following prognosticative statement:

Barack Hussein Obama will be elected President of the United States


As most Backroomers are aware, the USA apportions the 538 votes in the electoral college – the votes that actually elect a President – among the 50 states and District of Columbia based upon representation in Congress with each state receiving a number of electors equal to its total representation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thus each state has a minimum of three electors. In 49 of these locales, ALL of a state’s electors are required to vote for the candidate receiving a plurality of votes in that state. The other two – Maine and Nebraska – assign electors by Congressional district with the electors representing the states senators going to the candidate receiving the plurality of votes in that state. These are the only states wherein – barring a “faithless elector” – a split in electoral vote may occur. A candidate receiving a majority of these electoral votes (270) is elected to the Presidency.

Based on Presidential results since the end of the Reagan era, informed by the issues/themes discovered in the nomination process, we can make a fair estimate of the likely electoral vote totals that will result from this fall’s general election.

By Region:

New England [65] (CT-7, ME-4, MA-12, NH-4, NY-31, RI-4, VT-3): McCain = 4; Obama = 61.

A Dem stronghold for decades, only New Hampshire might vote for John McCain – they like his maverick style there and he’s received lots of crossover votes in both primaries he’s campaigned in there. The rest will vote for Obama, though his margin in Maine may be closer than Kerry’s in 2004.

Mid Atlantic [65] (DE –3, DC-3, MD-10, NJ-15, PA-21, VA-13): McCain = 21; Obama = 44.

This area, except for Virginia, has usually been a Dem stronghold. VA has changed a lot in recent years with the northern part of the state growing and growing more liberal politically. Moreover, some of the religious right voters – Pat Roberts has his HQ here – may not be dedicated enough to McCain to actually go to the polls. On the other hand, Obama’s weaker showing among “Reagan Democrats” might lose him Erie and Pittsburgh and prevent him from repeating Kerry’s win in PA – and could even give McCain an outside hope in NJ. My assessment is that Obama takes VA narrowly relying on his VEEP nominee Mark Warner, holds NJ, but loses a close one to McCain in PA.

South [142] (NC-15, SC-8, GA-15, FL-27, KY-8, TN-11, AL-9, MS-6, AR-6, LA-9, TX-34): McCain = 133; Obama = 15.

The South has been THE stronghold for the GOP for most of the last 4 decades. McCain will not command the numbers Bush did in the South – he’s too liberal for this region’s social-Republicanism and Borders first crowd – but enough will back him to avoid a Dem president to secure most of these states for McCain. Obama will bring more Black voters to the polls than anyone has ever seen and 97% of them will vote Obama, but it won’t be enough except in Louisiana and Mississippi. McCain will tap either Florida’s governor or a southern conservative as the VEEP nominee for the GOP and that will keep him in play. McCain will not win resoundingly in many of these states, but he’ll be first past the post. Obama, who is weaker among Hispanics than McCain and will lose some Jewish votes over the Wright scandal and Cuban votes by not being anti-Castro enough, will lose the crucial swing state of Florida.

West and SouthWest [105] (AK-3, AZ-10, CA-55, HI-4, OR-7, NM-5, NV-5, UT-5, WA-11):
McCain = 18; Obama = 32; ? = 55, with a very slight edge to Obama for them.

While much of the West Coast is a Dem lock with Obama at the top of the ticket (WA, OR, NV, HI), McCain can rest easy about Alaska and Utah and will probably not be threatened too much in his home state of Arizona – even though AZ has been a swing state in recent years. New Mexico is very much in play this year and – despite what many pundits may think – I think that California may be in play as well. McCain, as a liberal Republican with better support among Hispanics than Obama, may be able to repeat Ford’s narrow win over Carter in California. New Mexico will probably go Dem again this year – Bush wasn’t their preference in 2004 so much as they thought even less of Kerry. Obama takes that one in a squeaker.

The Plains [43] (CO-9, ID-4, KS-6, MT-3, NE-4+1, ND-3, OK-7, SD-3, WY-3): McCain = 42; Obama = 1.

Obama is strong in Iowa, and I think this will give him the edge in Omaha so that he picks up one vote in NE. I think he misses narrowly in Colorado and McCain runs the table for the rest – not as decisively as a true conservative would have, but Obama country it is not. Looks good on a map for John McCain, but Illinois and Michigan counter it neatly enough in the Electoral College.

Middle America [112] (IA-7, IL-21, IN-11, MI-17, MN-10, MO-11, OH-20, WV-5, WI-10): McCain = 47; Obama = 65

Lots of swing states out here and this will be THE electoral battleground. Indiana will remain a GOP stronghold, holding their noses and pulling the lever for McCain. Illinois, of course, can’t produce enough down state votes to counter the Chicago acclamation of Obama, so he wins this readily and takes Iowa, where McCain has never spent much of his effort. I predict that McCain holds WV, OH, and MO by siphoning off blue collar democrats. McCain will waste money in Michigan, where he’s always had fun in the primaries, but the GOP is fooling itself to think of it as a swing state. MN and WI are borderline, but Obama’s charm will win out in both. Obama will not do as well in this region as he – or Oprah – hope.

Thus far, I make it: McCain = 265 & Obama 218 and Obama in a narrow lead for the other 55, so.

If McCain can upset in Cali or New Mexico, this would change.


What say you?

Fair assessment overall;
but the Vice-Presidential Candidates will be key.
It's an open secret that both Presidential Candidates might, well, kick the bucket. McCain's too old, and Obama's too Kennedy. So the Vice-Presidential candidates will definitely receive some serious scrutiny.

With that in mind, Obama has to choose between Clinton and Warner. Clinton has alot of the 'blue-collar' voters, working class, the "core" of the Dem party. That choice would seem logical, heal the 'wounds' in the party as it were. She might even draw the Hispanic vote from McCain. However, that ticket would definitely drive some serious wedges into families of the South, and maybe West. It would be one of the most liberal tickets, and the idea of it sends shivers up my spine.
Warner, on the other hand, has military experience, and a Dem, he would be able to deliver the state of Virginia more successfully than Clinton. His stances, while liberal, are more Southern friendly. He backs up Obama with actual combat experience, countering McCain's 'Nam. He can appeal to the 'working class' Irish-Scots of the South more effectively than Obama or Clinton could. He could make deeper inroads in the South than Carter, the better candidate probably.

McCain could choose Crist, but that would be cementing a state he probably already has. His best choice would probably be Romney. The Republicans are less split about McCain and Romney. Obama will be the greater evil than McCain's lesser liberalism. They will unite, and Romney can give McCain a fighters chance in the New England North, and maybe Michigan. McCain's VP should be more conservative, but I don't think a Southerner would cut it.

Statewise:
California - I think they're going for Obama on this one. McCain has the liberal 'cred' and attract Hispanic vote. But his continued war advocacy will probably drive the bleeding hearts of San Francisco into Obamas camp.

Virginia - McCain probably. With sooo much federal works and military bases, McCain has a strong chance, and unless Warner goes for Obama, then McCain can probably clinch this state.

Miss. and LA - I think McCain will probably overpower the Obama camp here. Despite the high probability of African-American turnout, Mississippi and Louisiana are still conservative. The Dems they elect, are conservative, and McCain's policies are liberal and conservative mix to appeal to Southerners.

New Mexico - McCain, he's got the Hispanic voters (or some of them), and the rest will probably sway his way more than Obama.

Excellent analysis, Seamus. My thoughts:

PA is not going for McCain. It was called a battleground state in 2004 and Kerry won easily. The voters there were more likely to vote GOP then than they are now, and Obama is a stronger candidate for Kerry. IMHO, the pundits should move PA out of the swing state category until the Republicans there do something worthy. And Specter winning another election doesn't count.

So if we put PA (21) into the Obama category, then he doesn't really have to worry about New Mexico. Cali. will also be safer than what you think, I believe.

Veep is also another factor. If McCain picks Crist he'll take Florida but do worse in the Bible Belt states. If he picks Romney then he might steal Michigan and solidify NH, but Florida will then be up for grabs. On the Democratic side, Hillary would help Obama immensely, but will she take it? Obama could pick Warner solely on Virginia but I doubt he needs it - it's been trending Democratic recently.

About a week ago, Bob Novak did a mock election and had McCain winning 270-268. I figure if a guy (and a website) that conservative has it that close, Obama's got to like his chances.

I don't think Florida is so much a swing state. The most interested in Obama are college students and upper-class Dems.

McCain has northern Florida, the Cubans (against Castro), old people (he just has to keep them alive), and most of the white vote.

My prediction: They tie 268-268, and nancy pelosi becomes president.

On the issues:

Gun Control. Oh yes, that happy issue.
While Religious voters will be apathetic about McCain, gun owners will see a clear choice.

Obama is, I think, the most anti-gun candidate I know of in the history of the USA.

McCain is more pro-gun than George Bush, who said he'd sign the new assault weapons ban into law if it was renewed back in '04.

Obama put in writing that he wanted to ban handguns and have severe restrictions on gun rights - the NRA is going to pound him for that and so many other things. Growing up being a liberal in Chicago politics won't endear you to gun owners.

A single issue, but one that gun-rights groups can trumpet very loudly - especially considering the dem majority in Congress. There are four million members of the NRA, and tens of millions of gun owners.

So we have a candidate more pro-gun than any president save Reagan, and one more anti-gun than any since ... I couldn't say. If this issue is played right it could help McCain in close states with high gun ownership. It might push NH solidly to McCain.

On the state by state, I might give LA to McCain - conservatism is having a resurgence there (though conservatism and McCain are not one and the same). It'd be fun to have CA in play - with Arnold helping out McCain it certainly could be a battleground state.

CR

Virginia is not going to Obama. We may be shifting towards the Democrats, but only moderates need apply. McCain's military service will go far here, and Obama's liberal voting history will ultimately kill his chances in this state.

Unfortunately, I also think that the Bradley effect is a very real thing, and is going to rear it's head in November. A lot of states that would probably go Democrat are going to go McCain. Add to this the fact that the DNC will be involved, I'm sure they will screw up big-time between now and election day. I'm predicting a medium level landslide for McCain. The Dems will gain more seats in Congress though, so it won't be too bad. Deadlock for the win, and with leaders that will actually work with each other.

While I like the idea of this thread, it might be premature, the old one was up to the conventions. I'm sure Hillary is going thrash around for a little bit longer. ~D

Clinton reminds me of my first time fishing...

She's still got spirit, but after swinging her around and then thrashing her against the ground, she'll slowly stop jerking in five hours.

I pretty much agree with all of the states you put down, but I would change Louisiana and North Carolina around. That's about it though. Also I don't think there is any way that California is going to be a swing state. McCain simply won't be able to afford to advertise there, especially not against the fund-raising machine that is Barack. So my prediction for Electoral Votes (Very early, I know...) is:

Obama with 279 EVs and a large win in the popular vote (Considering that even in the south he is going to lose by a lot less than Democrats traditionally have).

My view on the alleged 'battleground states', as the pundits like to call them.

Pennsylvania- I don't think this'll be as close as people think, I believe Obama will, with 5 months of campaigning with what I'm assuming will be a unified party, will beat McCain fairly comfortably.

Virginia- Probably will depend on veeps. If Obama picks either the senator or governor, he's got a good shot. Otherwise, I think it'll narrowly go to McCain.

North Carolina- I think Obama will win this state by a small margin, thanks to mobilizing the large collegiate populations in the state, as well as the relatively high African American population.

Florida- I think this'll probably go to McCain, unless some sort of miracle happens. He's going to have very strong support from the Cuban population for his fopo experience and stances towards the Castros, as well as the other Florida natives who sympathize with them. I don't think he even needs Frist to win it.

New Mexico- I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to say this goes Obama. He's stronger than Kerry was in '04, when the state narrowly went red. Additionally, I'm willing to bet the state might very well have some buyer's remorse after putting Bush in, even if McCain is very much NOT Bush.

Colorado- I'm gonna put this in the Obama category, by a very slim margin. Frankly, I think it could go either way, but I think Obama will barely pull it out. Can't put it to anything more than a gut instinct, though.

California(mostly in response to Seamus)- I think this'll stay blue. There are simply too many bleeding hearts out there, as well as the considerable appeal Obama' s "rock star-esque" appeal will have to the southern California crowd. It might be closer than last time, but still relatively large margin. McCain's appeal will certainly be more effective than Bush ever could be, but I just don't see it being enough to overcome what has become an almost built in advantage for the dems.

Oregon- I've heart this one mentioned before, but I'm going to call this for Obama. West coast liberalism, combined with the general feeling of being fed up with Republicans, I think will land it in the democratic camp.

Iowa- My home state went for Bush last time, but I'm going to call it for Obama. People in Iowa quite like him for the most part.

Wisconsin- I'm going to say this will go for Obama. Its got similar makeup to Iowa, but with larger urban and collegiate centers, so I think they'll break for him.

Michigan- I'm going to say that Michigan will go for McCain, narrowly. I think the gaffe with the vote count will cost Obama just enough to cost him this state. Of course, if McCain picks Romney for his running mate, this should make delevering Michigan a bit easier.

New Hampshire- Rather curiously, this state really seems to like McCain, and he likely owes his entire nomination to the New Hampshire-ites. I think he'll campaign long and hard here, pressing his bi-partisanship, and win a moderate victory over Obama.

Ohio- This will be really close, but I think Obama will win in Ohio. The state as a whole, I think has been hit hard enough economically during the last 8 years that they're not going to be quite ready to hand the reigns over to another Republican, even, as I stated earlier, if McCain isn't Bush by any stretch of the imagination. Obama will need to get some help, however, from Hillary and John Edwards on the stump to convince some of the lower income folks to turn out for him, though. I think it'll happen, however.

Missouri- This will be really, really close, I believe. The state's a bit of a crossroads, with some large urban centers that will likely turn out for Obama, and some of the smaller areas as well, for the same reason that Iowan's, Wisconsinites, and Minnisotans have. However, it also has some of the more traditional 'southern conservatism' which is far more likely to turn out for McCain. I'm going to call this a really, really close McCain victory right now.


The way my map turns out, I've got an Obama victory over McCain, 287-251.

However, there are a few wild cards that might end up playing a big role, hypothetically:

1) Reverend Jeremiah Wright has multiple tirades over the course of the next couple months, and the conservative 527 groups hammer and hammer away at the issue, dissolving people's trust in Obama.

2) Social conservatives decide to thumb their nose at McCain's more liberal agenda, and stay home away from the polls on a massive, state by state basis, particularly in the South, paving the way for potential Obama victories in states like Mississipi and Loiusiana.

3) Obama's grassroots campaign and fundraising efforts continue their meteroric pace, far outshooting McCain, who's having a relatively hard time raising funds and support for his campaign. If McCain doesn't do something to energize his party, he might just get spent do death by Obama.

4) The Democratic party fails to reconcile differences raised during the extraoardinarily long primary season. Obama fails to bring in Reagan democrats, who break for the moderate leaning McCain. Obama ends up getting trounced, unable mobilize what is a traditional base in many states for the Democratic party.


And here's a fun little sight to play around with the states a bit to see what different scenarios might end up as.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

While I like the idea of this thread, it might be premature, the old one was up to the conventions. I'm sure Hillary is going thrash around for a little bit longer.

---

We'll run them concurrently for now. "The older one" we'll keep alive until one or the other Dem concedes. Although the TV pundit-class has declared the contest "over" as of yesterday, as of 0600 PDT today, I haven't heard a concession speech. This contest could still go until the August convention, and courts might get involved, since there's money as well as future jobs, at stake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

We'll run them concurrently for now. "The older one" we'll keep alive until one or the other Dem concedes. Although the TV pundit-class has declared the contest "over" as of yesterday, as of 0600 PDT today, I haven't heard a concession speech. This contest could still go until the August convention, and courts might get involved, since there's money as well as future jobs, at stake.

---

Or not!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us...ss&oref=slogin

Quote:

---

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will endorse Senator Barack Obama on Saturday, bringing a close to her 17-month campaign for the White House, aides said. Her decision came after Democrats urged her Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to coalesce around Mr. Obama.

---

Yay!!!! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

My prediction: They tie 268-268, and nancy pelosi becomes president.

---

NO! NO! THAT CAN'T BE!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Or not!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us...ss&oref=slogin



Yay!!!! :2thumbsup:

---

If that happens (some other sources predict a Friday concession; still others predict a 'fight to the finish'), we'll figure out whether and how to consolidate our backroom US election coverage, so that we don't have 5 new topics popping up daily, essentially about the same thing (the Nov 08 US election).

Also note that Ron Paul has also never issued a concession statement afaik, so technically, the Repub nomination is also up for grabs, despite the media annointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

NO! NO! THAT CAN'T BE!!!!

---

Our election system is strange :book:

I don't know why but I found this video to be hilarious.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/...74371#24974371

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

NO! NO! THAT CAN'T BE!!!!

---

It cannot -- as Sasaki-san is aware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (as ammended 6/15/1804)

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

---

Emphasis added.

Right, but there can also be a tie in the house since there are 50 states, at which point the voting would go to the senate to select the vice-president (who would become president). The senate can also tie (current vp can't vote), at which point the speaker of the house becomes president.

So is this why Hillary wants to be the VP candidate? :laugh4:

Fox News and Michelle Malkin attack Obama and make a complete and utter mess of it. Very amusing. It's going to be interesting watching various partisan organs attempting old-style smears against both McCain and Obama. I don't think any of them are going to get the kind of traction they would have gotten four years ago.

Eh, the guy raggin' on Fox was annoying. I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP attack squad managed to screw up the simple task of showing people Obama's just a reheated version of old liberals (unemployment caused by those dastardly foreigners, etc.). Have you seen the old Jimmy Carter commercial about hope and change?

I want to know where Obama gets off blaming anyone but Congress for the vast increase in gas prices since they took over Congress, though. Sounds like that could backfire.

I wonder how effective the dem's "McCain is Bush part 3" will be.

CR

I think the "McCain = Bush" meme will be as unsuccessful as the "Obama = Most Librul Evar" meme will be. Both Obama and McCain are self-evidently decent men, and the usual Rove/Atwater tactics are in trouble.

Meanwhile, file this one under dude, please calm down:

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), son of the one-time presidential contender, said Obama’s victory overwhelmed him.

“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think the "McCain = Bush" meme will be as unsuccessful as the "Obama = Most Librul Evar" meme will be. Both Obama and McCain are self-evidently decent men, and the usual Rove/Atwater tactics are in trouble.

---

Not according to this

Well, we'll see, FactionHeir. I'm inclined to believe that a combination of factors will minimize the B.S. in this election cycle. As I said, both Obama and McCain are self-evidently reasonable, non-extremist men. Neither is an ideologue. Painting either man as an extremist is going to be a labor of hate.

Not that people won't try. The attacks against Obama have been much more hysterical and unhinged than the attacks on McCain so far, but hey, the election is young. Here are some great examples:

"I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist," - Tom DeLay

"U2's 'Beautiful Day' is playing at the Barack Obama rally. No Americans write music Obama likes?" - Greg Pollowitz

"Did the Obama rally begin with the Soviet National Anthem?" - Hugh Hewitt

"Your best friends stink. You are surrounded by scum. We don't know anybody good in your life." - Dennis Prager

I think Chuck Baldwin will go all the way!!! :yes::beam::yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC} King Jan III Sobieski

I think Chuck Baldwin will go all the way!!! :yes::beam::yes:

---

No way! Cynthia McKinney has it in the bag!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think the "McCain = Bush" meme will be as unsuccessful as the "Obama = Most Librul Evar" meme will be. Both Obama and McCain are self-evidently decent men, and the usual Rove/Atwater tactics are in trouble.

Meanwhile, file this one under dude, please calm down:

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), son of the one-time presidential contender, said Obama’s victory overwhelmed him.

“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”

---

Makes you wonder how his dad raised him.

I think smears trying to make Obama seem sleazy or even... *gasp*... Clintonesque won't go far, but the GOP might have some luck convincing people he's just another politician, not the Messiah.

I was reading about a possible choice of the gov of Alaska, a staunch, effective, conservative woman, as McCain's VP. Wouldn't go far in the way of helping win close states, though.

CR

Why is anybody listening to what Tom DeLay has to say? Isn't he a crook?

But mind you, over here we have Lord Levy sticking his oar in at every opportunity. Some people have no shame.

Obama "winning" his Illinois seat was pretty underhanded and old style politics you could say.

The republicans in a California primary choose principled conservatism over the pork lovers that have overtaken the Congressional GOP:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212...n_commentaries

Quote:

---

House Republicans clearly suffer from a form of split personality. Last month, Minority Leader John Boehner unveiled a series of reform proposals he dubbed "Change You Deserve." But a few days later, over half of his GOP caucus voted for a farm bill full of pork-barrel projects.

Pragmatic Republicans who voted for the farm bill defend themselves privately by claiming GOP voters send mixed signals, saying they want smaller government while also pressing for federal largesse. But is that still the case following the egregious spending excesses of the Bush years, and the victory of John McCain, an antipork candidate, in presidential primaries?

This week, a GOP primary for an open House seat in California featured a major clash between pragmatic and principled conservatism. The clear winner in the Sacramento-area district was state Sen. Tom McClintock, a politician popular with grassroots voters for his principled campaign for governor in the 2003 recall election won by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

---

Maybe the GOP will get the ******* clue that people want conservatism, dangit, not pork.

Also, the RCP electoral college map:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ama_vs_mccain/

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Obama "winning" his Illinois seat was pretty underhanded and old style politics you could say.

---

You mean him getting all his competition thrown off the ballot via technicalities and legal maneuvering(including, iirc, the incumbent)? You might say it was downright dirty- but the "new" reinvented Obama is above all that. :juggle2:

It's astonishing to me how little most people know of the man, yet they project all of these qualities that they want to see onto him....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

You mean him getting all his competition thrown off the ballot via technicalities and legal maneuvering(including, iirc, the incumbent)? You might say it was downright dirty- but the "new" reinvented Obama is above all that. :juggle2:

It's astonishing to me how little most people know of the man, yet they project all of these qualities that they want to see onto him....

---

Yup, exactly that. And then him calling Clinton unethical and what not when she said he shouldn't get any Michigan delegates because according to Party Rules, uncommitted delegates cannot/must not be assgined to a candidate (besides he getting some Clinton delegates stacked upon him in addition.)

IMO he could have been more graceful and asked his supporters (those uncommitted RBC mainly were behind him, just didn't want to declare openly) to just give Clinton those delegates as he would still have been way ahead.

A bit of a double standard there.

Just for clarity's sake, you are talking about his run for the Illinois Senate, not the U.S. Senate, correct?

In far more damaging news, the video of Michelle Obama talking about "whitey" has finally surfaced. Behold.

Background here.

-edit-

Yet another version of the Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape.

Very insightful Lemur, my thanks.

Gah.

Anyways, a more light-hearted video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BtJG0BonMQ

CR

Okay, I'll admit it, I just read the first hit piece on John McCain that struck a nerve. It's all about him dumping his first wife.

I think divorce is about the worst thing you can put kids through, and in anything less than extreme circumstances (wife has gone insane and can't be medicated, chronic infidelity, etc.) it's just selfish and evil. So reading the details about Johnny Mac dumping his crippled wife makes my skin crawl.

Anyway, here's the article.

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

More than any of the shots that have been taken at McCain, this has made me question my support for the guy. Am I over-reacting to an election-year hit piece?

While it certainly is not nice, you could understand in this particular circumstance that having just survived so many horrors or war and being caged and tortured for years, living and having to care for her for the rest of your life is a rather bleak prospect.
I mean he would be reminded of what he went through over there forever this way and he probably needed to divorce for the sake of keeping sanity, and him fantasizing about her and then when seeing her again but as the complete opposite of what was in his memory must be heartbreaking.

He agreed to and is still paying her medical bills for the rest of her life though, so that does say something about his character and morals.

That certainly is only one outlook and you can definitely make a sound counterargument to what I wrote that is equally valid.

If this is the first time you've ever heard of it, I wouldn't take the Daily Mail's word on it.

If it's true (and doesn't omit any, ahh..., details) then it's disgusting.

DevDave posted that a while ago Lemur, although I guess posting repeats is your thing.

I will probably ignore that bit of info about him though. Helps that Obama wants to cut the funding that would eventually feed me.

He pays for her medical bills? Kind gesture.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble to dip into coherence for a moment, Disco, what exactly are you referring to by "the funding that would eventually feed me"?

Military spending, perhaps.

Anyways, I don't think the daily mail is a good source. It's slightly better than the link DevDave posted, which was to some inane blog.

I know the dems have their greedy eyes set on the industry that's paid for my childhood and education.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If it wouldn't be too much trouble to dip into coherence for a moment, Disco, what exactly are you referring to by "the funding that would eventually feed me"?

---

CR is close. Obama has said he will cut the funding of NASA's Constellation program, which basically means gut NASA. Was awhile ago though.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/oba...s_little_p.php

Edit: Ha, and the Lockheed Martin lobbyist worked the Clinton campaign so hard.

Of course. The one place where a Democrat actually wants to cut spending is the one place where I want it to stay. :laugh4:

I'm a little confused, Disco. The article you link to does not seem to have any info about either Obama or McCain wanting to cut the space program. There's a bit about Obama wanting to delay the Moon-to-Mars program, but nothing about getting rid of it. And as a commenter notes below the article:

It's worth noting that the $100 billion is supposed to come from NASA's existing budget levels plus inflation increases. I.e., the bulk of it will be "freed up" as the ISS is completed (or declared complete) and Shuttle operations end.

I don't get the impression that space exploration is a big issue for either candidate right now. Please feel free to post a more authoritative article, or to explain to me why I'm mis-reading this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

---

This Orgah thinks that divorce in america is ugly. Always. Been there, done that, got the bloddy t-shirt, as have more than half the US population.

Ugly because it ignores the good things about the dissolved relationship in favor of the not-so-hot things, by definition.

In this Orgah's opinion, it's irrelevant (and more impotantly: unknowable) personal data. We can not (and should not, IMO) know what factors played a role in this couple's alienation. Her loyalty, his suffering, her accident, his subsequent loyalty...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

---

It does, if he 'walked away' and she 'loved him deeply'.

We can't know either, because it's personal. Can Ron Paul, or Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama stand the same scrutiny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm a little confused, Disco. The article you link to does not seem to have any info about either Obama or McCain wanting to cut the space program. There's a bit about Obama wanting to delay the Moon-to-Mars program, but nothing about getting rid of it. And as a commenter notes below the article:

It's worth noting that the $100 billion is supposed to come from NASA's existing budget levels plus inflation increases. I.e., the bulk of it will be "freed up" as the ISS is completed (or declared complete) and Shuttle operations end.

I don't get the impression that space exploration is a big issue for either candidate right now. Please feel free to post a more authoritative article, or to explain to me why I'm mis-reading this one.

---

Oh, I'm pretty sure that that delaying it five years means that no one will care enough to reinstate funding when the time comes, hence killing the program. And I know about funds coming from the canceled space shuttle, that's why flights for it are being ended. As far as I know Obama's cuts include that.

You are right of course, no one cares about space.

And low, Obama's space policy:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

Comments coming, maybe. I'll read it anyway.

Edit:

So he wants to built half of it, Ares I and Orion. They are supposed to be the replacements for carrying people into space. I find this rather disappointing since I view providing proper heavy lift vehicle as more important.

Talks about earth monitoring for civil and military reasons. Funding Ares I and Orion is probably not the best idea if you want to do this since a heavily lifter would support it better.

Increased R&D which is good.

Keep weapons out of space. Probably already failed on that one, if the rumors of hunter killer satellites are true.

And improve education, although I view that as not directly space policy.

In any case I can look forward to the outrage in the not unlikely event that China gets to the moon before we return.

Edit two: And he wants to keep sending unmanned missions. Again supporting the Ares V would be the better choice.

Good piece in The Economist that echoes many of the Lemur's thoughts.

America at its best

Jun 5th 2008

The primaries have left the United States with a decent choice; now it needs a proper debate about policies

IT IS hard to believe after all the thrills and spills, but the real presidential race is only now beginning. In any other country, the incredible circus that has marked the past year could not have occurred. The business of choosing the main contenders for the top job would have been done behind closed doors, or with a limited franchise and a few weeks of campaigning. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, by contrast, have spent well over a year in the most testing and public circumstances imaginable—and that was just to get to the final five months.

The Republicans settled on their candidate more quickly, but theirs was still a marathon by anyone else's standards. And the end of it was surely the right result. In John McCain, the Republicans chose a man whose political courage has led him constantly to attempt to forge bipartisan deals and to speak out against the Bush administration when it went wrong. Conservatives may hate him, but even they can see that he offers the party its only realistic hope in November.

he Democratic race has been longer and nastier; but on June 3rd it too produced probably the right result (see article). Over the past 16 months, the organisational skills and the characters of the two contenders have been revealed. Mrs Clinton, surprisingly in the light of all her claimed experience, was shown up for running a less professional and nimble campaign than her untested rival. She has also displayed what some voters have perceived as a mean streak and others (not enough, though) saw as gritty determination. And she could never allay confusion about the future role of her husband.

Mr Obama has demonstrated charisma, coolness under fire and an impressive understanding of the transforming power of technology in modern politics. Beating the mighty Clinton machine is an astonishing achievement. Even greater though, is his achievement in becoming the first black presidential nominee of either political party. For a country whose past is disfigured by slavery, segregation and unequal voting rights, this is a moment to celebrate. America's history of reinventing and perfecting itself has acquired another page.

But will he play in Pennsylvania?

But that does not make Mr Obama the new messiah. The former law teacher has had obvious problems convincing America's middle-class voters that he understands their concerns. He has also displayed a worrying, somewhat Clintonian slipperiness on difficult issues, both trivial (whether he would wear a flag-pin) and significant (whether he would talk to rogue states). His victory, it must be noted, has been wafer-thin: in terms of delegates, a couple of hundred out of 4,500; in votes, only a few tens of thousands out of 35m. In the end, the Democrats have, very narrowly, opted for the candidate who has put together a novel coalition of blacks, young people and liberal professional sorts, rather than the candidate of their more traditional blue-collar base. How this coalition fares against the Bushless Republicans remains to be seen.

For what America's voters, and the world's fascinated spectators, have not had so far is much of a policy debate. Yes, there were bone-aching arguments between Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton as to whose plan for health care would work best. And yes, Mr Obama refused to endorse Mrs Clinton's bad plan for a gas-tax holiday. But on the whole, it has been a policy-light contest for the simple reason that there was very little to choose between the two Democrats either on domestic or on foreign policy. Small wonder, then, that the Democratic race focused on character more than content.

All that has now changed. With his victory speech in Minneapolis on June 3rd, Mr Obama took the fight to Mr McCain. Though there are a fair number of things on which Mr Obama and Mr McCain, admirably, agree (a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, the immediate closure of Guantánamo and a more multilateral approach to diplomacy, to name just three), there is a lot more that they disagree over.

Blood, treasure and votes

The choice will be starkest over Iraq. Mr McCain backed the war in the first place, and he proposes to stay the course there no matter how long it takes. Mr Obama opposed the “dumb” war from the start and has pledged to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months, though he has lately wriggled a little on this commitment. Although most Americans now think the war was a mistake, polls suggest that Mr McCain's determination to see it through may stand him in better stead with voters than Mr Obama's determination to pull out whatever the consequences, especially since the tide of war seems at last to have shifted firmly in America's favour. In general, Mr McCain will offer a much more robust approach to security issues than Mr Obama—and that may help him.

That said, the war is clearly receding as a political issue, just as concerns about recession are growing. America no longer has a Hummer economy (General Motors is considering selling off the gas guzzler). And there are clear choices about how to fix it. Mr McCain offers orthodox supply-side solutions, stressing deregulation, free trade, competitiveness and the use of market mechanisms to cure the problems in everything from health care to education to pensions. The trouble for him is that America is already a pretty deregulated place, and many voters feel that globalisation has brought them much less than was promised (and bankers a lot more). Mr Obama offers a very different vision: more spending on education and training, an expensive expansion of health care to (almost) all Americans and better benefits for the unemployed. His problem will be convincing sceptics that his sums add up, though it may well be that voters, battered by falling house prices and rising oil prices prefer not to worry too much about that.

Both candidates have their flaws and their admirable points; the doughty but sometimes cranky old warrior makes a fine contrast with the inspirational but sometimes vaporous young visionary. Voters now have those five months to study them before making up their minds (and The Economist will be doing the same). But, on the face of it, this is the most impressive choice America has had for a very long time.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol....veto.beer.cnn
Ok, that settles it, Obama gets my vote! Freudian slip or not, we can't take that chance! ~D

When a man threatens to veto every beer, you gotta watch your step. However, don't go jumping into Obama's arms too quickly. Are you aware that he's ravishing virgins? It's true, I read it at Townhall.com:

An Obama presidency would signal the final salvo by the Left in the culture wars. Obama’s advance troops have already taken over our college campuses, have bound and gagged our conservative professors, have ravished our virgins, have pillaged our stores of wisdom, and have ensconced themselves in the thrones of power in deans’, presidents’ and department heads’ offices.

I'll say this for the state of the campaign in June: the far-right's attacks on Obama have a much more hysterical sound to them than the far-left's attacks on McCain. Really, how can you compare "McSame" with "ravishing virgins"? Just for comedy value, the latter is far, far superior.

Oooh, another one, this is a goody: You know the little fist-bump Obama does with his wife? The gesture anyone under 40 understands to be slightly more enthusiastic than a handshake? Fox News wants to know if it's "a terrorist fist-jab." No, really.

That's a load of bull. There are no virgins on college campuses. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oooh, another one, this is a goody: You know the little fist-bump Obama does with his wife? The gesture anyone under 40 understands to be slightly more enthusiastic than a handshake? Fox News wants to know if it's "a terrorist fist-jab." No, really.

---

That's really hilarious. How can they honestly have no clue what a dap is? Although Lemur, I wouldn't say it's a "slightly more enthusiastic gesture than a handshake".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Okay, I'll admit it, I just read the first hit piece on John McCain that struck a nerve. It's all about him dumping his first wife.

I think divorce is about the worst thing you can put kids through, and in anything less than extreme circumstances (wife has gone insane and can't be medicated, chronic infidelity, etc.) it's just selfish and evil. So reading the details about Johnny Mac dumping his crippled wife makes my skin crawl.

Anyway, here's the article.

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

What do the Orgahs think? Should I ignore this as irrelevant personal data? Doesn't it say something about a man that he will walk away from a disabled woman who loves him deeply?

More than any of the shots that have been taken at McCain, this has made me question my support for the guy. Am I over-reacting to an election-year hit piece?

---

i brought this up in an earlier thread as to why I will NOT be voting for McCain. Again , how far has our country slipped when our nominees consist of a Marxist Black racist, and an oppertunistic ego maniac who is more of a victim of war (thanks Adrian for the perfect description) than a war "hero". He left his wife who waited for him. My wife waited for me when I was gone and I honor her for that and grown in deeper love and appreciation of her. McCain got him a hot rich girl and dumped the old cripple. He's a "maverick" of course, meaning he's about as conservative as Obama at an ACLU convention performing partial birth abortions before cocktails. The DevDave is sitting this election out. The Republicrats can go :daisy:themselves.

DD:

I suspect that Obama is less of a Marxist/Black Power type than he is a "give me the power" type -- hardly rare among our public "servants."

Obama was (is?) an unknown on the national scene that he took the opportunity to turn that very enigmatic character into his selling point. He stood for "hope" and "change" and against the "stupidities" of the Bush administration. Effective content = nil. Profile in political courage factor = nil. Rhetorical Genius move = full marks.

Who doesn't like to be hopeful, or wouldn't like change to happen wherever we viewed something as substandard? And among the Dem primary voters/caucoids just how hard is it to sell the viewpoint that Bush43 is a flaming rectal sphincter? Obama let everyone picture him exactly as they wanted him and -- for the longest time -- didn't have to let content interfere with that exercise in projection. Over the last 6 weeks he's had to get into more nuts and bolts (following Wright and during the final duels with Clinton) and he's come off, more and more, sounding like a standard Dem politico. He's caused some Dems to become disaffected.

His biggest advantage is that US voters are traditionally reluctant to give three terms consecutively to the same party. It's happened, but only rarely and a 4th in a row is even rarer. Some degree of fatigue sets in and the voters look for a way to shake things up.


Don't stay away from the polls, Dev, even if you leave the top slot blank as you work on the rest of the balloting.

I'll just add to Seamus' words of wisdom, Devastated Dave, to not forget the third-party candidates who could use the love. Also, a lot of the ballot is gonna be local and state stuff, where you might not feel so dirty and used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

... against the "stupidities" of the Bush administration.

---

Why the quotes? Does anyone defend Bush 43 as anything but a disaster these days? As longtime GOP strategist Ed Rollins wrote in my local paper:

"Every Republican I know looks at the Bush administration as a total failure," said Matt Towery, chairman of Newt Gingrich's political organization.

“To do what he did politically to us is unforgivable," Rep. Tom Tancredo told Alexander. "It will take generations to recover. I don't know how long; maybe never."

"I think the legacy is that Karl Rove will be a name that'll be used for a long, long time as an example of how not to do it," said long-time GOP strategist Ed Rollins.

The question I have is how will Obama stand up to the political attack machine of the 527's and other's?

He doesn't strike me as an individual that will handle that concept very well given his statement concerning the political attacks on his wife, after some of her speechs were made public. Her statements will be used by the Republicians somewhat and the 527's will definitely use them in attempts to discredit Obama or incite moderates and others to vote against the radicialism that will be spun from her statements.

Unfortunately for the United States this will be another negative campaign process for president with little discussion on actual policies of the Presential candidates being carried by the media and the pundits who analysis the campains - all will focus on the negatives.

So it will take careful listening by concerned voters to sort out what the candidates actual say - and ignoring the pundits spin that information.

One of the things I will personally be listening for is plans for Iraq, economic recovery, and the upcoming issues of health care and social security/medicare. (the third rail of politics in the United States.)

Still haven't heard much concrete plans on any of the subjects except for Iraq, and some of that even changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The primaries have left the United States with a decent choice; now it needs a proper debate about policies

---

Since such sentiments echo your own, could you explain how Barack Obama is a decent choice?

I see nothing but a one term senator who draws on charisma and populism instead of experience and policy, who has radical racist and terrorist ties that go back 20 years. I guess if you're black... :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Since such sentiments echo your own, could you explain how Barack Obama is a decent choice?

I see nothing but a one term senator who draws on charisma and populism instead of experience and policy, who has radical racist and terrorist ties that go back 20 years. I guess if you're black... :shame:

---

You forgot to mention that his middle name is HUSSEIN. And what about the terrorist fist jab? Has that been forgotten already?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You forgot to mention that his middle name is HUSSEIN. And what about the terrorist fist jab? Has that been forgotten already?

---

I'm trying to be fair to him.. ~;)

I dont like Obama he is to good at mobilizing the ignorant masses like Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini. He holds the same poloitical belifies as Clinton yet he is exalted and she is hated. The man is a liar of the highest degree and people just seem to give him a free pass. The man is the emboidment of what I hate about polotics. A slimey used car salesman who flashes a two dollar smile amd dumb people fall in love with the man. UGH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The man is a liar of the highest degree

---

How many lies has he been caught out on recently?

Oh and breaking Godwin's law on the second page - I think that's pretty bad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

How many lies has he been caught out on recently?

Oh and breaking Godwin's law on the second page - I think that's pretty bad...

---

NAFTA anyone? Or we could chronicle the many positions he took over his racist, anti-american spiritual mentor of 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Since such sentiments echo your own, could you explain how Barack Obama is a decent choice?

---

Dear Panzer, if I thought you were seriously considering Obama as a candidate, I would happily discuss him. However, I get the decided impression you're more of the "terrorist fist-bump" crowd, so no, there's no basis for discussing the dude with you. I think we could more productively talk about whether or not you can tolerate McCain.

Obama responds to a question on how his Veep search guy has shady connections to a firm Obama has lambasted:

Quote:

---

ABC News' Sunlen Miller today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, how he could "rail against Countrywide Financial Corp as an example of insiders and today's economy while your VP search is headed by someone who got questionable loans from Countrywide?" (This is an issue we wrote about earlier today.)

"And in addition," Miller continued, "another person on that same VP search team – Eric Holder -- has also been involved in the Marc Rich scandal."

"Well, look," Obama said, "the, the, I mean - first of all I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages, so you’re gong to have to direct -- "

"But shouldn’t you?" asked Miller.

"Well, no," Obama said. "It becomes sort of a, um, I mean, this is a game that can be played - everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships -- I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters. I mean, at some point, you know, we just asked people to do their assignments.

"Jim Johnson has a very discrete task," Obama continued, "as does Eric Holder, and that is simply to gather up information about potential vice presidential candidates. They are performing that job well, it’s a volunteer, unpaid position. And they are giving me information and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate.

"So this – you know, these aren’t folks who are working for me," Obama said. "They're not people you know who I have assigned to a job in a future administration and, you know, ultimately my assumption is that, you know, this is a discreet task that they're going to performing for me over the next two months."

---

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-answer-o.html

Eloquent, that. I still think Bill Clinton was better at deflecting questions.

CR

Explain it to everyone else then, Leemy. Hearing how stupid the fringe right sounds is getting a little old. I'm curious too about what people really see in Obama, because I'm with SFTS so far.

What, suddenly I'm Obama's spokesperson and defender? Not a job I want nor a job I will take, thanks very much. I will speak up and defend both McCain and Obama when I think they're being attacked unfairly, but even that is a matter of my mood and the phase of the moon.

No, I've been asked "Whut's so good about the dusky Muslim Marxist quisling traitor?" several times on this board, and I've gone in-depth twice, with absolutely nothing to reward me for my effort. No, Prole, if you're seriously curious about Obama there are ample resources online. And if you're in the mood to hear how evil he is, there are equally ample resources online.

I'm sorry you find my direct quotes of the right-wing echo chamber disturbing, but frankly, if they weren't so darn funny I wouldn't be quoting them. Comedy gold coming out of the right at the moment. I expect that will change as the attacks become more focused and less hysterical, but for the moment we have what we have.

-edit-

Here's a rigorous ranking of conservative/liberal votes in the 109th and 110th Congress, giving a more realistic picture of just how Obama and McCain score. Just a little reality check after the broad trumpeting of National Review's highly suspect numbers.

Voteview uses an extremely rigorous methodology for ordering Senators from most liberal to most conservative which to my mind produces some fairly intuitive results. (Five most liberal senators thus far this year? Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehose, and Ted Kennedy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Explain it to everyone else then, Leemy. Hearing how stupid the fringe right sounds is getting a little old. I'm curious too about what people really see in Obama, because I'm with SFTS so far.

---

What? That Obama has a progressive platform and promises change? You right wing guys keep jumping out and exclaiming "Hah! See! Obama is actually a liberal" when the point is that we want a liberal. Are you more impressed with McCain's "Maverick" persona?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Obama responds to a question on how his Veep search guy has shady connections to a firm Obama has lambasted:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-answer-o.html

Eloquent, that. I still think Bill Clinton was better at deflecting questions.

CR

---

I know all politicians are hypocrites, but even with that knowledge, Obama still makes me cringe. It's like his principled stand against wearing flag lapel pins that lasted just until his handlers told him wearing one would play better with the masses. When he went to speak to an Israeli American group he even went further, wearing a dual Israeli/American flag.
https://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4025/new09bqa2.th.jpg

Onto McCain- Does the fact that he carried on affairs and divorced his wife after returning to the US make a difference? As a character issue, it's worth keeping in mind- but it was also long enough ago that it doesn't figure in too prominently in my book. However, it's also worth mentioning that without his new young wife, McCain would've never even made it into politics as it was her family riches that allowed him to get started. Really though, there are many better reasons for me not to support him.

At this point, I know I won't be voting for Obama and I have serious doubts about voting for McCain. But, DD even if you won't be voting for McCain, vote for a third party- maybe with enough votes, one of them will gain some legitimacy. Or just maybe the GOP will get the hint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

"Every Republican I know looks at the Bush administrationNewt Gingrich as a total failure," said Matt Towery, chairman of Newt Gingrich's political organization.

---

That also applies. :beam:

Quote:

---

“To do what he did politically to us is unforgivable," Rep. Tom Tancredo told Alexander. "It will take generations to recover. I don't know how long; maybe never."

---

The GOP congress had itself to blame more than Bush. He could've/should've vetoed more of their pork laden bills, but they're to blame for coming up with them in the first place. :no:

Alright, forget I asked. Let's just tee off on irrelevant but entertaining blips about fistpumps and middle names. You're making a fantastic contribution to the 'commentary' half of the thread.

I hardly post back here anymore, but that doesn't mean my views are the same as they were three years ago. Right now I couldn't care less if the Republicans don't step foot in the White House for fifty years. My views are probably alot more in line with your's and Sasaki's, so you don't need to go ultra defensive over me asking why you like Obama. 'Go look up Obama' and 'what, you like McCain more?' isn't exactly what I was expecting, but thanks anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Dear Panzer, if I thought you were seriously considering Obama as a candidate, I would happily discuss him. However, I get the decided impression you're more of the "terrorist fist-bump" crowd, so no, there's no basis for discussing the dude with you. I think we could more productively talk about whether or not you can tolerate McCain.

---

Does anyone see anything wrong with this?

Obama is constantly lauded, but no one will step forward with specifics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki

What? That Obama has a progressive platform and promises change? You right wing guys keep jumping out and exclaiming "Hah! See! Obama is actually a liberal" when the point is that we want a liberal. Are you more impressed with McCain's "Maverick" persona?

---

If you wanted a liberal, you had the most qualified one availble. My guess is that hope and change sound good to you, regardless of what that truly entails.

Can anyone step up and give some reasons as to why Obama is a good choice for president? What are his qualifications? Apart from his rhetorical skills and the "historical" nature of his candidacy, what makes you believe he would administrate our government effectively? Does he have any management experience whatsoever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Can anyone step up and give some reasons as to why Obama is a good choice for president? What are his qualifications? Apart from his rhetorical skills and the "historical" nature of his candidacy, what makes you believe he would administrate our government effectively? Does he have any management experience whatsoever?

---

Oh good lord, you ain't gonna let it go, are you? Okay, deep breath, let's do this again:

What's the largest operation these men (and woman) wanting to be Prez have run? That's right, their campaigns. Last check Obama's consisted of 700+ people.

So take a look at how effective they've been at managing this operation. Take a cold, hard, calculating look. If you don't see something interesting in that picture, let me know.

On the same theme, note that Obama has done something no Republican ever managed: he defeated the Clintons in a contested election. A notable feat, surely.

Look, if you're absolutely convinced that Obama is a socialist/leftist/euro-liberal who will turn the U.S.A. into a police state that takes away guns and God, then there's just no talking to you. Your'e a wacky right-wing nutjob who needs to buy more tinfoil.

If, on the other hand, you're willing to have your head infused with ideas, there's ample evidence that Obama is much more centrist than Fox News would have you believe. Example:

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era. I think this perspective misreads the American people.

From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

Also, please note the link above to a more detailed and serious vote-ranking system which suggests that (shock!) Obama's voting record is not the most liberal in the known universe, a conclusion which will startle and alarm only the most entrenched partisan hacks.

I'll happily concede that his record of legislative accomplishments is not well-known, but I defy you to prove that they are nonexistent, or even trivial. Here's a breakdown of his votes in Illinois. Here are some firsthand accounts of his operations as a State Senator.

Note that Obama has typically tackled serious and un-sexy issues. You know, the kinds that nobody cares about until they blow up. This suggests a serious mind. Nuclear non-proliferation has been his specialty in the U.S. Senate, and it ain't bagged him any headlines, although we're all grateful for the work.

One of the biggest bills he pushed through in IL had to do with mandatory videotaping of police interrogations. Chicago Police were dead opposed to it initially, so Obama went to them, hat in hand, asked for their concerns, worked with them until they were happy, and in the end CP supported the bill. It was a big deal in Illinois, and it's meant a huge improvement for the Police. Massive drop in defendants claiming their confessions were beaten out of them. More bad guys in jail, less police time wasted. A typically non-sexy, serious issue that gets the man no press.

Anyway, blah blah blah. Let me know if any of this turns your head even slightly, or if I'm just making noise while you reload.

-edit-

Just to be absolutely clear, the reason I quoted that piece from Kos is that Obama is defending votes for a conservative Chief Justice to the most leftist crowd on the web. He is going directly against their inclinations, and to no obvious benefit for himself. In much the same way that he has spoken out against the interests of the Teachers' Union, once again to no obvious self-benefit. This is a guy who is willing to push back against the traditional leftist base. This is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Can anyone step up and give some reasons as to why Obama is a good choice for president? What are his qualifications? Apart from his rhetorical skills and the "historical" nature of his candidacy, what makes you believe he would administrate our government effectively? Does he have any management experience whatsoever?

---

Well, one could argue that the very fact that he was able to create a political machine capable, in the span of a year, of defeating the infamous Clinton machine as a sign that he is a capable manager and directer.:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

At this point, I know I won't be voting for Obama and I have serious doubts about voting for McCain. But, DD even if you won't be voting for McCain, vote for a third party- maybe with enough votes, one of them will gain some legitimacy. Or just maybe the GOP will get the hint.

:

---

Horse squeeze. Voting is a waste of valuable time, especially with these choices or a third party. There is no third party candidate to vote for. Bob Bahr? This guy is a loon like Ron Paul. I'm gonna go hang at the DMV a couple times a month to get use to this whole universal healthcare BS.

I will give Osama Bin Obama this: I hope he does win because were going to need someone who understands socialism and Marxism in order to run this country with all the great nanny state legislation that Old Bag San Fran Nan is creating. I always had a secret desire to suck on her fun bags, now I'll actually get to!!! Gradle to grave off the governments teet, yipeee!!! Thanks to the Democrat party (yes it is the Democat party, not the democratic party, these :daisy: are about as close to democratic ideals as Kim Jung Ill playing in the NBA as a forward.):wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If, on the other hand, you're willing to have your head infused with ideas, there's ample evidence that Obama is much more centrist than Fox News would have you believe. Example:

---

And if you don't want a link to DailyKos (Which I understand), then look at this non-partisan site:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...ings-2007.html

It has taken the ratings given by various liberal groups to each senator based on their voting record and has averaged it out. Clinton is the 38th most liberal and Obama is the 42nd most liberal. McCain on the other hand is the 5th most conservative.

Now looking at the Conservative interest group ratings...
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...ings-2007.html
McCain is the 39th most Conservative. Obama is 70th and Clinton is 78th.

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?

---

I'd much rather a lack of voting record, than the voting record that McCain has. He spoke in favour of banning waterboarding... and then voted against the resolution banning it. Just one of many examples of where he has backtracked. All politicians do it.

FactionHeir, you can debate the particulars of Obama's record as you like. I was specifically responding to Panzer's petulant rhetorical flourish of, "Somebody respond to me right now or I'm going to run around declaring that nobody can articulate any reason why Obama should be President."

Not that our resident fascist would ever vote for a Democrat, much less one who has attended a black church, which makes the whole exercise reek of pointlessness. Seriously, I'm done giving our local Obama-haters the "why." This is the third time I've done it, and there is never any substantive response, and there is never any indication that they've even read what I posted. It's just this reflexive barking of "there's no substance to the guy" and then silence when someone throws some substance up. I'm sick of it, and it's both intellectually lazy and dishonest.

I also note with amusement that I am never called upon to justify why I like McCain, nor any demand to prove why he is a decent choice for CIC. No, it's just Obama, and it's the same damn line of rhetoric every time, a song without variation.

*yawn*

Didnt Hillary get the nomination? Ah well, I was so looking forward to the swift boat crowd making a comeback. Short of Ms Obama getting caught on tape in a "whitey" rant let me go out on the limb here and predict that Obama wins!

Not only that but dems sweep to majority in both houses!

Republicans had a good 6 years of a majority and after it there's one quote from history that seems to be spot on.

"If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again."

Ronald Reagan

Belly ache all you want about liberals, but their rise to power is a result of a mamoth conservative failure, the sink in my bathroom has a mirror, does yours? Take a long look then flush.

:toilet:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Well Lemur, he certainly did have a stance some 800 times, but another 130 times he actually was just present even on bills he sponsored and which were really along the same idea he supported. Maybe he had some conflicting interests somewhere that we don't know about?

---

Maybe you should have looked this up first.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...i_n_81460.html

and:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Present Votes Are an Accepted Legislative Strategy in the Illinois Senate
January 21, 2008

Obama Was Praised for Standing Up on Tough Issues-- Because His Senate Seat Was Not Vulnerable, He Used His Position To Help More Vulnerable Senators Do The Right Thing. Zorn wrote, "Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights. He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes. [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

Anyone Who Thinks A Present Vote Is A "Duck" Doesn't Understand How the Process Works. "There is a presumption, if one is not familiar with the mechanics of the General Assembly, that a present vote is a "duck." Pam Sutherland, the CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood said of [this] Hull argument: "I think it's not well-based…I think it's somebody who doesn't understand how the legislative process works." [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Criticizing Present Votes Indicates "You Don't Have A Great Understanding Of The Process." "'Criticizing Obama on the basis of 'present' votes indicates you don't have a great understanding of the process,' said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence." [Chicago Tribune, Zorn, 3/9/04]

Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal – to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Obama Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes That Make Good Politics. The AP reported, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [AP, 9/9/04]

Senators Would Vote Present If They Had 'Unresolved Worries.' The State Journal-Register reported, "Sen. George Shadid, the Edwards Democrat who is pushing the legislation, promised Senate Education Committee members that he wouldn't move ahead with Senate Bill 368 'unless I can get a good consensus.'…Four committee members cited unresolved worries when they voted 'present' on the measure, which passed 7-0." [State Journal-Register, 2/27/03]

Quote:

---

Alright, forget I asked. Let's just tee off on irrelevant but entertaining blips about fistpumps and middle names. You're making a fantastic contribution to the 'commentary' half of the thread.

I hardly post back here anymore, but that doesn't mean my views are the same as they were three years ago. Right now I couldn't care less if the Republicans don't step foot in the White House for fifty years. My views are probably alot more in line with your's and Sasaki's, so you don't need to go ultra defensive over me asking why you like Obama. 'Go look up Obama' and 'what, you like McCain more?' isn't exactly what I was expecting, but thanks anyway.

---

When you start with "obama is an empty suit and a liar" don't complain when you get back irrelevancies. It's really the only appropriate response, besides a link to www.google.com

A li'l something to make TuffStuff happy:

The buzz is growing around the possibility of Mitt Romney landing on the ticket with GOP presidential contender John McCain, and one of the voices backing such a move is Romney’s predecessor as Bay State governor, Paul Cellucci.

“Certainly Mitt Romney is on the short list, and he should be,” said Cellucci, who originally supported New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the presidential sweepstakes.

McCain gave his most ringing endorsement yet of Romney’s chances of being tapped as his vice presidential candidate during a fund-raiser Monday, saying, “There’s nobody who represents me better today than Mitt Romney.”

Cellucci says Romney, whose own White House hopes were dashed by McCain during the GOP primaries, is “a proven vote getter.”

“He won a lot of primaries and, let’s face it, anyone who can win in Massachusetts has got to be considered pretty good,” the former Republican governor said.

Sasaki:
As the pieces you quoted say, he may not have been in a contested seat in his own legislature, but it is also questionable what kind of strategy his present votes really were if he was the only one or one of very few lawmakers to vote present on 36 bills.
I mean if a bill is passed unanimously and you sponsor it but end up being the lone present vote, is he trying to stand out or did he change his mind about his own legislation? Or was he influenced by some group?

One then can take this argument further and say: Well, his Illinois state senate seat was not contested, but this "present" voting "strategy" can be considered being not supportive of any one issue and therefore more difficult to attack (he can say he voted present rather than against or for a critical issue) when he then went on to vie for the US Senate seat of Illinois.

Then again, as per your citation 'Obama Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes That Make Good Politics. The AP reported, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [AP, 9/9/04]'
Why did he not vote it down if he found it unconstitutional? Was he afraid of taking a stand then? Being the lone present voter when the rest are willing to take a stand strikes me as rather odd.