Forum: pol
Page 3020
Subject: The 2008 Presidential Election


  Posted by: Pancho Villa - [47161721] Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 09:17

For all intensive purposes, the election begins today in Iowa. I realize we have a 2008 candidates thread, so let's try to keep this one focused on actual election results, predictions, trends, etc.

To me, the exciting thing about this election is the possibility that either or both parties might go to their conventions without a candidate. That could allow for some interesting alliances, compromises and hard delegate counts. We've already seen Huckabee and McCain line up against Romney, so where would those delegates go if neither pans out? Thompson? Giuliani?

What about Edwards' delegates? Hillary or Obama?

Hopefully it will still be a race in March and beyond.
 
1Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 09:47
To me, the exciting thing about this election is the possibility that either or both parties might go to their conventions without a candidate. That could allow for some interesting alliances, compromises and hard delegate counts.

I completely disagree. One thing I want is for a very clear winner. I don't want to hear about dimpled chads in Florida or voting machines in Ohio and I don't want to hear about delegates crying foul.

I think the next President has a unique opportunity to have people not hate the office of the President anymore and a decisive victory would be a good start to that.
 
2Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 09:51
Unsettled nominations at the time of the conventions does not in any way preclude a decisive general election.
 
3walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 10:22
Right, Box, I think PV's point is that both races are wide open, and that makes this presidential election more interesting, exciting, etc. I am hoping (ass-u-ming) that a wide open race does not translate into erection fraud.

With that in mind, I was thinking of starting a thread on today's predicted outcomes. So, if we had to play "fantasy president," who's going to win the Iowa caucuses tonight?

Dems:
Obama
Clinton
Edwards

Republicans:
Romney
Huckabee

This is not who I want to win, just my predicted outcomes. However, to be up-front, I do want to Obama to win on the Dem side, and if I had a to pick a republican that I could most easily be okay with, it'd likely be McCain or Rudy, neither of whom are going to do well in Iowa (starting to get over my brief affinity of Ron Paul).
 
4Perm Dude
      ID: 4705538
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 10:30
The thing that will tip it, IMO, is the second choices. I've heard that Kucinich is encouraging his supporters (both of them!) to put Obama as their second choice.

Clinton has been trying to play Obama and Edwards off each other, but I would not be surprised to see her finish third, since she stalled some weeks ago. Edwards/Obama/Clinton is my early prediction.

On the Republican side, Thompson appears to be ready to quit and throw support to McCain. I would think McCain would win fairly well, and it is only really a matter of timing for him, as Republicans are cycling through their candidates like bad holiday sweaters and McCain is the sweater of the week.
 
5Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 10:31
This will be the first election since 1952 when neither an incumbent, nor an incumbent's VP has been a candidate(unless Cheney decides to run, of course :)

Hillary and Romney have the most to lose tonight, especially Romney, who has spent more time and money in Iowa than any other candidate, regardless of party.
 
6walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 10:40
Agreed on all points, PD & PV. I also read about Kucinich and Thompson, PD...could have bearings tonight and next week and then for the rest of the primaries. Interesting how McCain is making a run, too. I would surely prefer him over the phoney Romney.
 
7Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 10:41
Thompson appears to be ready to quit

Maybe 'ol Fred will get some renewed energy from this Newsmax poll, which puts him second behind...Ron Paul??

Newsmax’s Internet primary poll of the Republican race for president is released today – with more than 400,000 respondents to our non-scientific survey.


With 23% of the vote, Congressman Ron Paul wins our online survey. Paul has the most aggressive internet presence of any Republican candidate and has already won several online polls, not to mention raising $20 million last quarter, mostly online.


Pulling solid numbers behind Paul were Fred Thompson with 19% of the vote, and Mike Huckabee, a late rising star, with 16%.


 
8sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 10:54
Hoping....

Obama wins the Dem side

and

McCain wins the Rep side.


 
9Perm Dude
      ID: 4705538
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 10:55
Latest Zogby poll in Iowa has Clinton dropping back to third.
 
10Perm Dude
      ID: 4705538
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 11:52
Thompson not quitting
 
11Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 13:09
Unsettled nominations at the time of the conventions does not in any way preclude a decisive general election.

My whole point is that I don't want a fuzzy nomination process to replace dimpled chads or voting machines as the hip excuse of the time; for either side.
 
12Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 13:12
Walk: I am hoping (ass-u-ming) that a wide open race does not translate into erection fraud.

Careful there. ;)

With that in mind, I was thinking of starting a thread on today's predicted outcomes. So, if we had to play "fantasy president," who's going to win the Iowa caucuses tonight?

I'm going with Obama and Huckabee.
 
13Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 14:52
I'm with PD's Dem. prediction: Edwards/Obama/Clinton

I think Huckabee will win a close one over Romney.

With over $67 million dollars spent by all the candidates in Iowa alone, it equals $275 per caucus attendee. That, frankly, is preposterous. The candidates think that they can affect the nomination process, but they are fooling themselves. It's been pointed out time and again that the Iowa caucus predicts nothing. The candidates cannot spend the time and effort in all 50 states that they waste in Iowa, they have to reach the voters via television. Therefore, I believe the results in California will give us a much better idea of who the candidates will be because the Golden State is basically a scaled down version of the whole country.
 
14biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 14:59
1)Obama 2)Clinton 3)Edwards
1)Romney 2)Huck
 
15Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 15:20
1. Romney
2. Huckabee
3. McCain with Paul a close 4th

1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton
 
16Perm Dude
      ID: 4705538
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 20:00
Via Andrew Sullivan, Iowa caucus updates:

Democratic results

Republican results
 
17Perm Dude
      ID: 4705538
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 21:10
About halfway through, and Obama is up 2% over Edwards with Clinton a schmeer behind.
 
18Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 21:40
Reuters is reporting Obama and Huckabee as winners.

 
19Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 22:05
Wow! The turn out was simply unreal. I've heard numbers as high as 230,000 for the Dems, which is nearly twice the numbers in 2004. That is the biggest story of the night and is the first note in a very dim funeral dirge for the Republicans.

The turn out caused the polls to be inaccurate. Polls generally ask the hardest of hardcore people who they expect to vote for, then look at what has happened in the past, then calculate what they think will happen. No one can predict who will win when 45% of the people who show up are brand new.

Congrats to Barack and his supporters, I always admire a dedicated turn-out-the-vote campaign.
 
20Perm Dude
      ID: 4705538
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 23:24
The Iowa Republican map is kinda cool. Huckabee kicked some butt. Even counties where Romney won, Huckabee was pretty close to him in many of them.

As a Dem I would be happy to take on Huckabee or Romney. McCain is tougher, since the media really like him. But Romney or Huckabee would help ensure a Democratic sweep.
 
21Perm Dude
      ID: 4705538
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 23:51
Biden out.

Less than 1% in Iowa. He'd make a very good VP.
 
22Perm Dude
      ID: 4705538
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 23:53
Dodd out as well--just got an email from his campaign.
 
23Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Thu, Jan 03, 2008, 23:53
Dodd out as well. What's Duncan Hunter waiting for?
 
24walk
      ID: 1603745
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 06:40
Whoo-hoo for Obama! I sure hope the tide that Iowa predicts little is reversed this year, at least for the Dems. I am pleased with this outcome, that is my first reaction.

Huckabee over Romney. Unreal. Neither rate for me, but that a grass roots, no-nuthin' evangelical with no money beats a rich, businessman flip-flopping phony wanna-be Reagan is just something.

Dodd/Biden endorsements could be key.
 
25Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 08:52
The big story in Iowa is the turnout by Democrats, 220,000, almost double the Republicans and almost double the 2004 Dem turnout.

If Obama can motivate that kind of participation from new voters, independents and disillusioned Republicans, we may be seeing a juggernaut in its infancy, capable of overcoming the machine politics of both parties.
 
26walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 09:05
That's the mantra of his campaign, too, PV -- "change." I think his victory in Iowa was key in creating more impetus for him to now say: "people want change, I am for change, and you see, it's starting." Iowa's interesting for Obama cos on the one hand, Iowa winners often do not become general election winners, but Iowa is also 92% white and Obama winning there could indicate that parts of our nation are not necessarily stuck on the old, white haired, white guy exec type as our leader. I sure hope so.

I loved Obama's reply to Bill Clinton's ill-advised swipe at Obama on the Charlie Rose show recently. When asked by Rose about Obama's experience, Bill said a vote for Obama was a "roll of the dice." When Obama was asked to comment, he said that he has about as much experience as Bill did when he first ran for president, and a vote for Bill back then was also a roll of the dice, and "he was [the] right [choice] then, and I am [the] right [choice] now." I think the Clinton machine is strong and very persistent, but I hope Obama perseveres. I truly believe Hillary is competent, smart, knowledgeable and strong, but she's just the right candidate at the wrong time. We have to break the Bush-Clinton-Bush divisive pattern, even if Hillary is not trying to be divisive. Half the country is anti-Clinton, for whatever reason, and she just would not be able to lead effectively with that republican sentiment.

Sorry to get off-track of this thread a bit.
 
27Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 09:50
The big story in Iowa is the turnout by Democrats, 220,000, almost double the Republicans and almost double the 2004 Dem turnout

In my opinion, the bigger story is that an African American man won the Democratic primary in Iowa (a midwestern state that, as Walk points out, is 92% white) decisively defeating both the Clinton machine and an Edwards campaign that has been dedicated to preparing itself for the 2008 primary season for 3 solid years.

Rick Brookhiser at The National Review
Yes, it's early, yes, a lot could happen. But a man who could not have used certain restrooms forty years ago is in the center ring, not as a freak in the manner of Alberto Fujimori or Sonia Gandhi, nor even as a faction fighter in the style of Jesse Jackson, but as a real player. One of our great national sins is being obliterated, as the years pass, by the virtues of our national system. I don't agree with Obama and I don't particularly like him, but I am proud of this moment.

Interestingly, Obama himself is a marginal black man—half white, half Kenyan—but that is often the way ethnic gains are made in American politics. The first Irish and Italian mayors of New York, Richard Croker and Fiorello LaGuardia, were Protestants. And Harry Golden said of Barry Goldwater, that he always knew the first Jew to be president would be Episcopalian.
America turned a corner yesterday. Even though it took us far too long to reach this moment, I'm elated to share in Brookhiser's pride.
 
28walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 09:55
David Brooks, NY Times
 
29sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 10:05
Have to agree with SZ, MITH and walks overall sentiments here. To me, the story is the combined fact that a *ahem* "black man" was able to generate such incredible participation amongst an almost "lily white" population. And that participation was NOT in opposition to him, but in support of him.

Right now, I'm quite proud of my home state and elated with the results of the Dem Caucus in Iowa.

I'm also glad to see, that R Paul out ran Rudy in 98 of Iowas 99 counties. Only in Cass County, did Rudy outgun Mr Paul.
 
30walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 10:17
"...outgun Mr. Paul." Good one, Sarge.

Yes, the Obama victory is quite inspiring. Nice to read these sentiments from conservative pundits, too.
 
31Perm Dude
      ID: 5803649
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 10:37
In my opinion, the bigger story is that an African American man won the Democratic primary in Iowa

I beg to slightly differ, gentlemen. IMO, the bigger story is that Obama's race didn't matter.

One of the nicer aspects of Obama's win is that it will cut into the influence of the netroots, those "revenge is sweet" lefties who want to use the election, and subsequent governing, only to punish Republicans. I think it is a bit ironic that the netroots are behind Hillary (who, after all, still can't explain her pro-Bush votes in the Senate), but Obama's refusal to play the revenge card has cast him out, in their eyes, along with his health care plan which doesn't cover people who don't want it.

pd
 
32walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 10:55
PD, I think we sorta are saying the same thing (i.e. race doesn't matter = african american winning in white iowa...theretohenceforthe, race doesn't matter). It's a good thing.

I also agree with the victory for positive campaigning over the portion of the netroots sentiments that are negative. Obama's message (and I think Huckabee is trying something similar) is mainly positive and not just some blatant "we can do better than bush" thing.
 
33Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 11:04
I agree with PD. The turnout transcended the race issue rendering it moot, which says a lot for the state of Iowa. New Hampshire is a state that has even more independents and moderate Republicans who can cross the aisle to vote in the primary.
The potential for another convincing Obama win is not only possible, but likely.

Very interesting.

 
34sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 11:09
I cant really disagree with any of that. If the "netroots" succeeded, it would simply mean a pendulum swing from one extreme to another. Nothing to be gained by such a movement. The thing I have always liked about Obama, is that he seems to be much more capable of at least attempting to forge genuine cooperation between elected personalities. Even though compromise is a word which has seemingly taken on a negative connotation of late, its esseential to a Republic form of government. Its always been my attitude that in any such compromise where both sides feel as if the other side got the better half of the bargain, its probably a pretty good compromise for all. I think Obama is head and shoulders above the rest, in his ability to work to that end.
 
35Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 11:19
Walk has it right - I think we're saying the same thing, PD. I didn't mean to suggest that Obama won because he is black, but that I'm elated and proud to see that a his race didn't matter.
 
36walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 11:21
I've read in a number of places today that the Clinton's are now going to start "drawing sharper distinctions" between Hillary and Obama, and also providing more info to voters in NH about Obama's "inconsistent voting record." I think this (obviously) translates to a more negative campaign (particularly now that Edwards is in a tough spot, and many see the Dem race as a 2-person contest going forward).

What do you guys think will be the net effect of a more neg campaign by Hillary against Obama...for NH? My thinking is that it will work against her, because of her unfortunate (and IMO bogus) perception of being overly ambitious, cold, maniupulative, etc. However, I think this potential backfiring of a more neg campaign will be exacerbated by Obama's consistently positive message of hope and change and movement away from old school politics and divisiveness and he can use negative campaigning against him as examples of the same 'ol that he's fighting against. It's tough spot for Clinton, and I'd love to see her stick with a more positive message about her merits, not his faults (I hate mudslinging, and realize that neg ads don't have to be personal, but they often devolve to such). All in all, it'll be interesting to see how she, Bill and their machine try to win New Hampshire.
 
37walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 11:23
sorry, "and he can use negative campgaining against her..."
 
38Perm Dude
      ID: 5803649
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 11:38
I literally LOL at this one:

Rudy: Sixth-place finish was nothing compared to 9/11

I get the feeling Rudy comes out of the bathroom, saying "That was tough. But it was no 9/11!"
 
39Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 11:48
"That was tough. But it was no 9/11!"

Ought to be on his headstone one day.
 
40Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 11:59
I get the feeling Rudy comes out of the bathroom, saying "That was tough. But it was no 9/11!"

That is very, very funny. I, on the other hand, get the feeling that Rudy comes out of the courtroom after a tough divorce and says, "that was tough, but it was no 9/11", and I believe he exits a courtroom just as often as the does the bathroom :)!!!!!

Walk - Hillary has to come out swinging in NH. As PD pointed out, she attracts angry Democrats, so she is appealing to her base when she attacks. You have to attack when you are perceived as falling and your opponent is gaining. I don't think it will be effective, but it is inevitable.
 
41Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 14:27
Updated odds from my betting site:

To win Repub nomination:

McCain 9-5
Huckabee 5-2
Giuli911ani 11-4
Romney 4-1
Paul 10-1
Thompson 20-1

To win Dem. nomination:

Clinton 4-7
Obama 5-4
Edwards 8-1

To win President:

Dem 1-3
Repub 11-5
Other 50-1

I was hoping Hillary's odds improved more. May toss a ten spot on Paul. Not looking good for Republican's to win President.
 
42Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 16:48
May toss a ten spot on Paul.

At 20-1, I'd throw that 10 on Thompson.
 
43The Beezer
      Dude
      ID: 191202817
      Fri, Jan 04, 2008, 18:56
Any thoughts on what Edwards' finish does for his campaign? It didn't seem to really clear things up for him one way or the other. Most of the other results on both side seem fairly clear-cut as far as how they are perceived, IMO.
 
44Doug
      ID: 53937413
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 02:16
I think Edwards needed to win Iowa. Coming in 2nd is nice for Obama in that it bumped Hillary to 3rd, but I think Edwards has to win at least one early state (most likely South Carolina one would think), in order to compete on Feb 5... but I don't see him winning SC unless he won either Iowa or NH as well, or at least a neck-and-neck second place... and I think he had a better shot of acheiving that in Iowa than he will in NH. It's premature to say "he's done" perhaps, but pretty close to it IMHO.
 
45Wilmer McLean
      ID: 5902752
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 03:39
ALERT: Might be Politically controversial, but not scientifially so.

Definition of African American (from MedicineNet.com)

African American: An American of black African descent. The term may also be written with a hyphen as African-American.

The term entered into usage largely starting in 1988, when the Rev. Jesse Jackson held a news conference to urge Americans to use it to refer to blacks. African American has largely supplanted black in health matters. For example, "Breast cancer tumors in African-American women are more aggressive than tumors in white women."

The term has been a subject of debate, in part because it is ambiguous. It might be limited to Africans who have immigrated to America or to people born to one African and one American parent. Some have argued that the term African American should refer only to the descendents of slaves brought from Africa to America.

From a scientific viewpoint, the term African-American makes absolutely no sense. Most genetic evidence now supports an African origin for all humans on earth. Thus, everyone living in the Americas today is, properly speaking, African American.

 
46Perm Dude
      ID: 3302057
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 08:20
And yet, "African Americans" are at higher risk for diseases like sickle cell. Wonder how those doctors who found this out and treat blacks do so, knowing that, eventually, we all came from Africa?

Sounds like some hooey, IMO. There are physical and genetic differences, and trying to play them off as merely geographical differences misses the point.

It also makes a rhetorical error in taking a term which is commonly used in one way (referring to blacks living in America) and trying to refine it into irrelevance (much like the Administration throwing up its hands and saying "who can really say what "torture" is anymore?").
 
47Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 08:46
What the hell was the point of that? You know, Sometimes I call African American people 'black', too. Although from a scientific viewpoint, the term black makes even less sense than African American.
 
48walk
      ID: 1603745
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 10:24
Agreed, MITH. That post comes from left field. The accepted terms are guided by norms, the minority group's preferences, and legal guidelines (EEO codes). Seems odd to bring it up here.
 
49sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 10:52
Thoughts?

Could/would a Pres Clinton appoint former Pres Clinton to SCOTUS?
 
50Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 11:05
I think there would be better choices than Bill Clinton. Whom I do not know, but I think they could find younger healthier leftist judges that would sit on SCOTUS for a longer time.
 
51Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 12:46
You would think that Clinton having been disbarred would automatically disqualify him from consideration. You would think.
 
52Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 15:11
NH GOP Pulls out of Fox Debate

The New Hampshire Republican Party has pulled out as a co-sponsor of tomorrow night's Fox News debate, due to the controversies surrounding the exclusion of Ron Paul. Fox News is barring Paul from the debate, with many people believing it is because of his opposition to the Iraq War.

Bear in mind that Fox News is excluding Paul from the debate, despite the absence of any objective criteria that would shut out Paul and still include some of the other people they're inviting. For example, Paul got 10% of the vote in Iowa, while invited candidate Rudy Giuliani took only 4% and is at about the same place as Paul in New Hampshire polls.


 
53Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 15:46
Any thoughts on what Edwards' finish does for his campaign?

He will argue that the Democratic nomination is now "up in the air" since previous front runner Clinton lost and lost big. Actually, the spot he is standing in should look eerily familiar. He was the "third choice" back in '04 when it wasn't clear who was going to win the "Dean v. Kerry" fight. This time around, I doubt he is going to be asked to be someone's Vice President.

He fought hard in 2004 for a long time and I imagine he will do it again. Super Tuesday could be a rough one for him.
 
54Perm Dude
      ID: 3302057
      Sat, Jan 05, 2008, 15:46
#51: One doesn't have to be a lawyer to be on SCOTUS. Earl Warren was the last, I believe. But the advice & consent clause would probably make a Justice Clinton unrealistic.

#52: Good news.
 
55PJ
      ID: 1703960
      Sun, Jan 06, 2008, 02:07
Here's the results from Saturday's Wyoming Republican caucuses (12 delegates at stake):

Romney: 8
Thompson: 3
Hunter: 1

So the current Republican delegates totals are as follows:

Romney: 26
Huckabee: 20
Thompson: 6
McCain: 3
Paul: 2
Giuliani: 1
Hunter: 1

(1,191 delegates needed for nomination.)

On the Democratic Party side, no change:

Clinton: 169
Obama: 66
Edwards: 47
Richardson: 19
Kucinich: 1
Gravel: 0

(2,025 delegates needed for nomination)

Note: These results are from CNN and included the survey results of Democrats superdelegates and RNC delegates.
 
56Perm Dude
      ID: 1803267
      Sun, Jan 06, 2008, 08:36
Interesting. I didn't realize that the WY caucus was binding. Wonder why they don't just call it a primary, then?
 
57Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Sun, Jan 06, 2008, 19:55
It's scary but true, this election really comes down to... do you trust Diebold and their electronic voting machines?

Can You Count on Voting Machines?
As the primaries start in New Hampshire this week and roll on through the next few months, the erratic behavior of voting technology will once again find itself under a microscope. In the last three election cycles, touch-screen machines have become one of the most mysterious and divisive elements in modern electoral politics. Introduced after the 2000 hanging-chad debacle, the machines were originally intended to add clarity to election results. But in hundreds of instances, the result has been precisely the opposite: they fail unpredictably, and in extremely strange ways; voters report that their choices “flip” from one candidate to another before their eyes; machines crash or begin to count backward; votes simply vanish. (In the 80-person town of Waldenburg, Ark., touch-screen machines tallied zero votes for one mayoral candidate in 2006 — even though he’s pretty sure he voted for himself.) Most famously, in the November 2006 Congressional election in Sarasota, Fla., touch-screen machines recorded an 18,000-person “undervote” for a race decided by fewer than 400 votes.

The earliest critiques of digital voting booths came from the fringe — disgruntled citizens and scared-senseless computer geeks — but the fears have now risen to the highest levels of government. One by one, states are renouncing the use of touch-screen voting machines. California and Florida decided to get rid of their electronic voting machines last spring, and last month, Colorado decertified about half of its touch-screen devices. Also last month, Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio secretary of state, released a report in the wake of the Cuyahoga crashes arguing that touch-screens “may jeopardize the integrity of the voting process.” She was so worried she is now forcing Cuyahoga to scrap its touch-screen machines and go back to paper-based voting — before the Ohio primary, scheduled for March 4. Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat of Florida, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, have even sponsored a bill that would ban the use of touch-screen machines across the country by 2012.

When I was reading about the security breach at Absolute Poker, where some insider was looking at the hole cars of others while playing, I couldn't help think about Diebold and that very problem happening here. I grateful that WA does not use Diebold's touchscreen voting machines, but I am appalled that the decision over who will be our next president can (and may have in the past) be altered by anyone of hundreds of Diebold employees. I simply don't trust that company, they have never shown any reason to trust them and they shouldn't have the keys to any election.
 
58walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 10:22
Kristol: NY Times: President Huckabee?

The NY Times has added conservative columnist Bill Kristol to their rotating editors. Here is today's column, from the right-hand side.
 
59Perm Dude
      ID: 1803267
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 10:24
Kristol is shilling for his own relevancy.
 
60walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 11:35
I hearthat, PD. I find it more newsworthy that the Times included him as a columnist.
 
61walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 11:41
NY Times: Fact-Checking as Pressure in Campaigns Mounts

I like that an article about facts and truths is mainstream. These candidates do play loosely with the always, never, etc., and also accuse each other of falsehoods regularly. Someone has to be wrong, some of the time. Maybe they should each get 10 votes deducted for every time they are caught telling untruths...?
 
62Perm Dude
      ID: 1803267
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 11:56
HT: Andrew Sullivan.

Maybe it is time for a new candidate:

 
63walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 12:11
Aaaaah, I cannot view that pic or video, PD, due to my not-fully flash enabled PC here at work. I went to Sullivan's site, but the same. What's the gist? thx,.
 
64Perm Dude
      ID: 1803267
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 12:39
Hmmm. Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSiGnb5AfL8&eurl=http://rotoguru1.com/cgi-bin/

 
65walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 12:43
Thanks, no biggie, but youtube is blocked for me. I'll check it out at home lateron.
 
66Perm Dude
      ID: 1803267
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 16:57
#58: Oops. One column. One error
 
67Perm Dude
      ID: 1803267
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 17:21
Clinton's national lead? Gone.

With Obama's win in Iowa, blacks are now running away from Clinton and moving almost exclusively to Obama. Blacks love Bill Clinton ("The first black president"). But an electable black candidate will have extremely strong black support, even if Obama's policies will challenge many of what some blacks take for granted.
 
68Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 17:35
Here's one of the comments in the Malkin link in #66:

I like Malkin. But it’s typical of the NY Slimes to be “fake but accurate.” In this case, accurate quote of the wrong MM. Paper of record, indeed.

The mistake is Kristol's, not the Times.

 
69Perm Dude
      ID: 1803267
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 17:49
Yeah, I was reading through the comments, and the knee-jerk reactions by the people making comments is telling. Some don't even seem to realize who the author of the piece was, even though Malkin makes it clear.
 
70Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 23:19
Colin Powell praises Obama

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell praised Barack Obama on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, crediting the Illinois Senator for breaking barriers while running as "an American man" who can represent the entire nation. In an interview with PBS host Tavis Smiley, Powell said he was "taking joy" in Obama's rise and he said citizens across the country can "enjoy this moment where a person like Barack Obama can knock down all of these old barriers that people thought existed with respect to the opportunities that are available to African Americans."

Obama is now leading Hillary in every New Hampshire poll, some by double digits.
 
71walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 10:06
And Hillary's leading national numbers are shrinking as well.
 
72Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 11:59
I see Romney becoming more and More likely to win the Republican nomination. McCain's weak stance on illegals immigration will be his downfall.
 
73walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 15:33
I dunno. Pundits are saying that if Romney loses New Hampshire, he could lose Michigan, and then he's out. It's not going to be easy for him. He has the mormom thing, the flip-flopping thing (which will be as huge or bigger than McCain's alleged amnesty thing), the previous socially moderate policy stances, the perceived lack of sincerity thing, and the potential "another rich businessman who does not know Washington" thing. McCain, if he has the money, could create a strong anti-Mitt campaign on these things.

Further, McCain's alleged "amnesty" included stiff penalties, and I think his strong voice can convince Rpublican voters that he's relatively tough on immigration. If one takes the immigration argument too far, it can also backfire and make the candidate out to be a bigot and against our age-old "melting pot" American values.
 
74walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:05
Hillary's Comments may Hurt Campaign

This is an interesting one. Read the blog from the NY Times and note the 500 comments. As someone noted, if a good Op-Ed piece comes out of this, combined with an Obama win in NH tonight, Hillary could be in even more trouble. She had multiple opportunities today to get this right, and from it reads like, she got it wrong in many ways.
 
75Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:33
What I'm looking for tonight is Giuliani's numbers tonight.

He only got 4% in Iowa. Now, back in 1992 Bill Clinton only garnered 3% of the vote, but that was because home town hero Tom Harkin cleaned up. The worst results of any eventual winner was George HW Bush in 1988 when he got 18%. That year Jack Kemp and Pierre DuPont both did better than Giuliani's 4%.

New Hampshire primary is very important to Republican candidates.

Only three of the last fourteen eventual Republican nominees won in New Hampshire, though 1996 & 2000 were two of those three.

I have seen no evidence that Rudy will get double digits tonight. Never has someone done so poorly in both Iowa and NH and come back and I can see why. How much of him has been in the media? I watched the shows on Sunday morning and when going round the table talking about the Iowa and predicting NH, I didn't hear his name ONCE! He will suck in South Carolina as well. He is hoping for a good showing in Florida will give him some needed momentum, but I predict he will be so marginalized by February that Floridians will want to cast their vote for someone who has a chance to win. Giuliani won't be in that category and I couldn't be happier because of it.
 
76walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:42
Pretty much agree, SZ. I see it as McCain vs. Huckabee vs. Romney. Could be McCain vs. Huckabee if Romney does not do well in Michigan. Giuliani's campaign must have some kinda notion though that we have not though about for them to lay back so much. It seems almost like ropa-dope!
 
77Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:43
Agreed. If Mitt were a strong anti-illegal immigration candidate, I'd say Jag has a fair point. But (as with just about every other issue) Mitt's record and rhetoric have not been consistant on immigration.

Right now it's looking like McCain is the GOP's best chance against Obama, should Obama become the Dem nominee. The political divide has been terribly deep since early in the Clinton Administration and only McCain might stand a chance at pulling back independants who are drawn to his bipartisanship message.
 
78Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:46
77 responds to 73
 
79walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:49
McCain vs. Obama?

Right MITH. McCain vs. Obama would present a very interesting dynamic. One conservative commenter, that Andrew Sullivan linked to, writes in his pro-Romney article, his fears of McCain vs. Obama. These seem somewhat plausible (old indie vs. young indie...looks good for young indie).
 
80Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:52
I hope you are right, I am a McCain supporter. I was basing my thoughts off the reactions from the debate, but, hopefully, the numbers of those watching were marginal.
 
81sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:52
I dont McCain carrying sufficient Republicans. My Dad is a die-hard rep and he HATES McCain. WHen I asked him why; he says he talks against the party too much. I pointed out that he may at times TALK against the party, but he votes along party lines; and Dad (along with some of his Rep buddies) all vehemently disagreed and got loud etc etc etc. Not sure how representative it is across the country, but with rural folks, McCain just doesnt carry the day. Of course, if they are faced with a choice between Satan and a Dem, they'd vote for Satan just to NOT vote for a Dem.
 
82sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:53
I dont McCain...


should read;


I dont see McCain...
 
83walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 16:59
Funny sarge. I think McCain would get votes from more moderate repubs as well as some tough-on-foreign policy repubs, Romney from fiscal conservatives, and Huckabee from evangelicals. Until one or more drops out, and those bases move on to a different candidate, I see it sorting out like that.
 
84Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 17:34
You nailed it Walk. You seem to be getting more intelligent. next thing you know, you will be shifting your opinions to right.
 
85Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 17:53
Post 80

Republicans who hate McCain do so because they see him as a panderer to liberals and Democrats. Whether he deserves that reputation or not, I believe they would still very much prefer a RINO over a Democrat (what would they be getting with Romney and a Dem Congress, anyway?).

The groups the GOP stand to lose are independants (who most agree went in their favor in 2000, 2002 and 2004) and liberal to moderate Republican voters (Reagan Democrats).

Republicans who hate McCain for his 'liberal pandering reputation' voted for Bush (who ran as a moderate -- compassionate conservatism?) in 2000. We are talking about conservatives who are given a choice between a moderate and a liberal. They'll swallow hard and pick the lesser of two evils. How hard did you have to swallow in 2004?
 
86sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 18:20
I didnt. I voted for Kerry.

:)
 
87Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 18:36
John McCain will go down in history as one of the greatest Americans of all time. They'll probably name schools and government buildings after him. Hell, there might even be a monument somewhere someday. I still wouldn't want him to be President because he has more mileage than a '57 Chevy without the restoration job.

Now for VP?...
 
88sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 18:39
You must be voting for Obama then, since he's the youngest and has the least mileage.
 
89Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 19:07
John McCain will go down in history as one of the greatest Americans of all time.

What? Hell, I think he will have a hard time cracking the Top 2 Greatest John S. McCain's of
All Time.

What many of you are forgetting is that many, many evangelicals and other "issues voters" who hadn't bothered to vote prior to 2000 will go back into their shell if Huckabee doesn't appear on the ballot in November 2008. With a choice between a RINO and a Democrat, many won't bother to vote at all.

I view McCain's candidacy much like Bob Dole's. There wasn't much hope in winning in '96, there were no great candidates out there, Bob had run well before, was well liked on both sides of the aisle. Why not honor him with the nomination, he won't embarrass the party.
 
90Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 19:32
I don't know, Zen. I feel like the values voters have made their presence a fixture. I tend to think they'd get behind get behind any GOP candidate except Giuliani (despite the Robertson endorsement) and possibly Romney. McCain rates pretty well on values issues and should be able to rally social conservatives on his abortion record.
 
91Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 20:02
Sarge: You must be voting for Obama then, since he's the youngest and has the least mileage.

Only you or Tree (Zen and Mith too probably) are capable of deducting that.

Zen: What? Hell, I think he will have a hard time cracking the Top 2 Greatest John S. McCain's of
All Time.


So you disagree? I can see why you would think so. After all, he's everything you draft dodging pot smoking leftists despise. He's a true war hero who spent years in a Hanoi Hilton while the Seattle Zens of the 60s smoked dope and burned their draft cards. Sorry Zen, McCain is a great American, he just has too many miles to be President.
 
92Perm Dude
      ID: 2001288
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 20:17
TPM has a running scoreboard for the primary.
 
93Perm Dude
      ID: 2001288
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 20:29
BTW, the early numbers are looking disappointing for Obama. The huge expectations are going to look silly when tonight is over, even if he manages to eke out a victory.
 
94Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 22:53
AP call NH for Hillary. So much for polls.
 
95CJ
      Leader
      ID: 499271021
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 22:54
Well this is a bit disappointing as all networks are now calling the race for the Machine. Hope Obama can gain his momentum back somewhere.
 
96WiddleAvi
      ID: 251113917
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 23:18
Boxman - Why are the people who burned their draft cards and stood up for what they believed in any less heroes then people who served in the Military ? How does fighting in a war make someone a hero ?
 
97Perm Dude
      ID: 2001288
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 23:24
I find it a little ironic that he's calling a guy named "sarge" a draft dodger.

:)
 
98Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 23:44
I can tell you why Widdle, it is the same reason people who don't pay income tax, smoke crack or blow up Federal building are not considered heroes, eventhough they may be standing up for what they believe is right.
 
99Perm Dude
      ID: 2001288
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 23:46
So they are lawbreakers and domestic terrorists?
 
100Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 23:54
Lawbreakers for sure.
 
101PJ
      ID: 1703960
      Tue, Jan 08, 2008, 23:59
WiddleAvi (Post 96)

For what should be an obvious reason: someone who serves in our military and is sent into combat is quite literally risking his life in a very real and immediate way to serve our country.

Someone who is a draft dodger faces far less risk to his personal wellbeing.

So people who served our country in combat are so honored for placing their lives in mortal danger for the benefit of us all.
 
102Perm Dude
      ID: 2001288
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 00:13
#101: I completely agree. Plus the sacrifice of giving up, for a period of time, the freedoms we all take for granted.

I don't believe, however, that in order to elevate those people to hero status that we need to somehow also try to put down those people who protested an unjust war, as Jag seems to be doing.
 
103Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 00:24
So people who served our country in combat are so honored for placing their lives in mortal danger for the benefit of us all.

There were many of us who never understood how dropping napalm bombs and Agent Orange on the people of Vietnam was of any benefit to us, us being United States citizens.

Additionally, only a minute number of war protesters ever blew up federal buildings. But almost all of us had friends and relatives who went and never came back.
 
104Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 00:45
I agree we never should have entered Vietnam, but once we were there, our government should have been committed to win and I believe war protesters deterred it.

It is like Mr. Miyagi says...
"Man walk on road. Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk down middle, sooner or later, get squished just like grape. Same here. You war do yes, or war do no. You war do "guess so", just like grape. Understand?"

I am not trying to make light of all those who died, but I believe war protesters were able to distract the government from a total effort and this explains it so well.

What really gripes me is the war protesters think they saved lives, when we know of 2 million, for sure, they helped kill and millions more, who will be in greater poverty and forced to live under an oppressive government for decades to come.


 
105Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 01:04
I agree we never should have entered Vietnam, but once we were there, our government should have been committed to win and I believe war protesters deterred it.

So, even though we shouldn't have been there, we should have slaughtered even more of the indigenous population. As for being forced to live under an oppressive government, exactly what do you think the Diem government we installed was all about?

Don't bother to answer, since I doubt you were even born when the war started, much less had to deal with a decision as to what plan of action to take had your draft number come up.

I lucked out. My lottery number was 235, so I didn't have to face that decision.

 
106PJ
      ID: 1703960
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 02:11
While the wisdom of entering the Vietnam conflict on the side of a very corrupt government was very questionable at best, the reason was clearcut: to stop the spread of Communism throughout Southeast Asia (otherwise known as the Domino Theory).

It's easy to forget now, but back in the 1950's and 1960's, stopping the spread of Communism was a top foreign policy priority of the United States government in both Democrat and Republican administrations.
 
107Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 02:55
Boxman 91

You are such a moron. If you had bothered to read the links to John S. McCain Sr.'s and Jr.'s biographies, you would have seen that both of them became admirals. John the III became a senator and a part of the Savings & Loan Keating Five.

I'm just saying that some people would vote for both of the admirals over John the third, and you call me a "pot smoking leftist"?

Sometimes I'm amazed you can type.
 
108sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 09:58
re 91...No Box. It was a "shot" at your insistance that I should be a single issue voter. Since you felt I should be, it only seemed logical that you would feel you should be as well.
 
109sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 10:08
To think that the war protestors were responsible for prolonging Vietnam, and causing our political leadership to drag its feet so to speak, is to ignore historic fact.

We didnt go into Vietnam decisively, out of fear of the Chinese intervening on the side of the North. Also, Vietnam was the first time the war was brought right into American living rooms via TV, and nobody really knew how to handle that PR aspect of it. I mean honestly, think about WWII and Normandy for ex. Had THAT been broadcast into American living rooms, this nation would probably have been up in arms to put an immediate end to that war. We had afterall, been isolationists not long before that date.

Now, did the protestors have an affect? Most definitely. But to single them out as any sort of primary cause of American deaths, is utterly asinine. They did not bring about a military change. They did, bring about a socio-political change.
 
110walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 10:21
Wow, since I last posted, this thread has surely gone off topic, although it's an interesting topic.

I would not blame the failure of us to win in Vietnam on the protestors. That is a cop out. I am not sure if are blaming them, Jag, or just saying they helped exacerbate the failure, but either way, with war comes awful violence and destruction, and sometimes protests. I think protests are okay.

Back to the election. The poll seemingly did not consider or somehow timely sample the potentially larger female turnout in NH. 57% of all voters in NH were female, compared to 43% male (not sure if this is Dem voters vs. all voters). Hillary carried a larger proportion of female voters than Obama, and a much larger proportion of female voters than she did in Iowa, where had the female majority. Pundits are saying her performance in the debate Saturday night (coupled with the perception of the two men ganging up on the lone woman) and the emotional release she had on Monday were key. I am dismayed at the tear thing had an impact cos I disliked what she said in conjunction with the tears ("some are right and some are wrong, some are ready and some are not"). I very much dislike absolutes, and if she's going to say she's right and Obama's wrong, that's the kinda divisive politics I am tired of. Conversely, I liked what Obama said during his speech last night, "let's give a big round of applause to Hillary." The guy is classier, wiser and more honest, IMO. I don't buy her experience argument (I'd buy it from Dodd, Biden, McCain or Richardson though) and I don't want to continue the dynasties of partisan politics.
 
111walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 10:22
While the Dem race now really seems to be a 2-person show, on the republican side, the situation appears to be wide open. I'd love to get some others' thoughts about the republican strategies of Mitt, McCain, Rudy, and Huckabee. I really don't know what's going to happen there, but if I had to lay down $ right now, it'd be McCain.
 
112sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 11:16
Right now walk, I'd be inclined to agree (despite what I said just yesterday). McCain showed VERY well in NH, and if the race ended right now I think McCain would carry the day for the Rep side. BUT, the race doesnt end today. Of all the candidates running for the "right", McCain is I think the most electable. And certainly true if Hillary carries the Dem nomination. (This Dem would certainly vote McCain vs Hillary.) I absolutely agree, that HC represents a continuation of the divisiveness. As does Rudy. Those two are IMO, the most representative of maintaining the status quo.
 
113Seward Norse
      ID: 297412913
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 11:31
Not much talk about Hillary's tears on here. Was this planned? Is this what we want? Is this why Hillary got the female vote so much in NH?
 
114walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 11:32
Yeah, it's more a "gun to my head" type of prediction on McCain. What do I know?

I also think Hillary, as president, would have the deck stacked against her due to much anti-Clintonism (which, IMO, is not really fair or valid) and her gender (very unfair), and will just make it very difficult for her to lead effectively. I will vote for her if she is the Dem candidate. I actually think she's smart, knowledgeable, hard-working and capable, but I think Obama is all of those and less divisive and more open and honest and more able build bridges to the repubs and to other world leaders.

I don't get the feeling, regarding divisiveness, however, that Romney and Huckabee would be any less divisive than Rudy. I think Huckabee has some very socially conservative views that are very counter to liberal thinking (although he does not mind raising taxes and has questioned some of our foreign policies (as if he knows anything about foreign policy)). Romney continues to make strong anti-Dem comments and has reversed positions to seemingly be very much a partisan leader. Maybe that would change a bit once he's in charge? I'd rather have flip-flopping not so sincere Mitt than Huckabee, the latter who scares me silly with his religious views and general lack of knowledge.

Reading pundits articles this a.m., there are many different views on who will emerge on the republican side. Most are saying Mitt will be done if he loses Michigan, his home state, which he could (McCain won their previously and since no Dems are running against Hillary, the independents there could/should vote for McCain). Then they are saying it's largely McCain vs. Huckabee with a potential for Giuliani to re-emerge if he takes Florida and that propels him to do well on super Tuesday.

On the Dem side, if I were betting, I'd bet on Hillary due to the political organization and experience of the Clinton campaign.
 
115walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 11:42
I'll chime in on the tears, Seward Norse. From what I have read, she literally did not cry. However, she "emoted" and showed a warmer side that many had discounted. Of course, your question is whether this was manipulative or outright insincere. I think it was sincere, and what is funny is that the original questioner was like: "What's the fuss, all I asked was how she gets through her morning and how she does her hair?"

I think the media attention to her apparent real side, that she's strong yet also sensitive, and also trying hard, and also facing obstacles, particuarly as woman, combined with clever campaigning that showed how the two MEN ganged up on this one woman during the debate, despite her alleged stronger qualifications (i.e. glass ceiling analogy) helped propel her.

In addition to these last minute things (which some say mattered a lot while others say mattered just someowhat), most pundits, however, seem to be in agreement about the extent to which many independent voters in NH, upon seeing that the Dem race was sorta pre-determined (polls consistently saying Obama by 9 points or more), decided to make their vote count more by voting for McCain instead of Obama. That the indie voters felt the republican race was less predictable, and they wanted to see McCain win over Romney -- and they knew Obama was already going to win.

No one knows of course the extent to which any of this post-primary quarterbacking is true, but it's interesting analysis. I think all of these things likely combined to a moderate degree to help propel Hillary to an unexpected victory. A victory that was slim, mind you, but had a points-spread (the polls) that had predicted her to be beaten badly. The gaps between the polls and the actual results make her victory seem quite "bigger" than it actually was. Wild.
 
116walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 11:55
Can Hillary Save the GOP?

This also concerns me, as a Dem/Liberal wanting a Dem in office. I agree with Sullivan that if Hillary wins the nomination, it's gonna be tough for her to win. I still think I'd bet on her as I think she'd get 52% of the vote or something like that, like the way Bush did over Kerry, but I think Obama would be much more difficult to beat in the general election. Ironically, Hillary has been campaigning saying she is more electable against the repubs than Obama.
 
117Perm Dude
      ID: 3201398
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 12:03
She's extremely divisive. The fact that Obama is raking in the independent vote should be something he should be talking about. A lot.

Obviously moderate/conservative Dems, independents, and Republicans who can vote in open caucuses/primaries are going for Obama in droves. This speaks not only to his "electibility" in general but that people are sick of the partisanship. His "false hope" is better than the bitter fighting Clinton would have while in office.

I always pose a thought exercise with my liberal buds: Picture a proposal that has broadbased support in Congress. Then picture either Obama or Clinton in office making that proposal. Which one will find it easier to get the measure passed without compromises?

Many of my liberal buds aren't so interested in governing, policymaking, or even moving forwarded constructively. They want to fight the last 10 years of partisanship all over again.

pd
 
118walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 12:18
Well fcuk that shti, PD. I am very liberal, and I don't want to to fight any of that crap over again. I want a left-leaning leader who will reverse a lot of the very right policies of Cheney/Bush who will then do what any good leader will do and try to work with both sides of the aisle, and most leaders in the world, to make things better for all Americans. Something like that.

I found it interesting just now reading the comments made at CaptainsQuarters where the original blog to which Sullivan linked derived. Those posters, all of whom are pretty conservative, do not agree with the Captain's view, and Sullivan's, that Hillary will be a good thing for the GOP, in terms of uniting that electorate. Some say she'll draw most female voters (all non-die hard repub women); some say without a strong candidate on the republican side, Hillary will still win cos there's a ton of moderate/indie voters who will go her way; others say many repub voters will not vote cos they won't vote for their lame candidate. I dunno which is more insightful, but it was certainly not a consensual agreement with the bloggers that "a Hillary nomination is a good thing for the GOP." I think she is less electable than Obama though.

Agreed PD that Obama can now market his indie voters. All along national polls had him tied with Hillary when these polls included indie voters...we are now seeing the effects.
 
119CJ
      Leader
      ID: 499271021
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 14:39
I like McCain but because he does not vote for Tax cuts and is not for Border security...I can not wait til Tuesday to vote against him. I suspect Mitt or Rudy will get my vote.
Those are my two top topics...because I feel the war will work it's way out whether Rudy, McCain, or Obama is in power. We are the USA and I am not afraid of consequences no matter who is in power.
 
120Perm Dude
      ID: 3201398
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 22:04
Bill Richardson dropping out?
 
121Baldwin
      ID: 4610171922
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 22:11
I think there is a more common meme out there among conservatives...

"If we can't get a genuine conservtive on the ballot then let the dems win, inevitibly screw up the country/world so bad that we can finally get another Reagan in office."
 
122Perm Dude
      ID: 3201398
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 22:14
Sorry--

Bush can't run again, even as a Dem.

:)
 
123Baldwin
      ID: 4610171922
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 22:18
Think you can find anyone who thinks he is a genuine conservative?
 
124Perm Dude
      ID: 3201398
      Wed, Jan 09, 2008, 22:24
No. But plenty of people who think he's Godlike. And many, many others others who thought he was a conservative. Perhaps even you. And he was helped by hundreds of non-conservative Republicans in Congress who desired power over philosophy.

Don't pin your hopes on another Reagan coming from the ranks of Republicans for some time. Rove's cynical marriage with the evangelicals on his 2000-2004 Hate Tour killed off that chance for some time.

In the race between Clinton & Obama, I would hope you would be a (reluctant) Obama fan. A Clinton presidency would almost be as bad as a Guiliani one.
 
125Perm Dude
      ID: 3201398
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 00:10
Maybe the polls weren't wrong...
 
126boikin
      ID: 59831214
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:15
i think this less conspiracy version of data, though still interesting.
 
127sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 12:17
Sen Kerry to endorse Obama's candidacy

HUGE slap in the face to Edwards campaign, but no real surprise IMHO.
 
128PJ
      ID: 21842202
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 21:02

Is Ron Paul a racist?

The New Republic and CNN have uncovered some articles from Ron Paul's newsletter from the late '80's and early 90's that have racist overtones. Ron Paul denies that he is racist and also states he doesn't know who wrote the articles in question.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

 
129Perm Dude
      ID: 80311016
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 21:21
I've been following this a bit, PJ. There is no evidence that the articles were written by him or that he even know about them at the time. Andrew Sullivan has some links to his YouTube responses. I agree with Andrew that the fact that there is no evidence anywhere of Paul himself stating these views makes this more of a "bad administrator" situation than "bad person."

And the fact that he is backed by wackos at times means that you have to be much more careful that your message isn't co-opted by them.
 
130Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 22:49
I really like what McCain said about immigration tonight and that was the first step is securing the borders.

He is almost as smart as I am.
 
131PJ
      ID: 21842202
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 04:44
My questions about those Ron Paul newsletters are as follows:

Who exactly published (printed and mailed) the newsletters?

Who paid the postage for the newsletters?

Was Ron Paul in any *direct* way connected to those newsletters (i.e. did he authorize someone to send out the newsletters on his behalf)?

And of course the main one that everyone is asking: who wrote those articles if it wasn't Ron Paul?

 
132CanadianHack
      ID: 31645103
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 05:19
Jag: He (John McCain) is almost as smart as I am.

I have never seen a more damning vile attack on a politician on these boards.
 
133Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 06:19
My questions about those Ron Paul newsletters are as follows:

Doesn't it seem like a waste of time and resources to have an attack like that on Ron Paul?
 
134Perm Dude
      ID: 39014118
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 09:19
That's a very good point, Box. I don't think this is so much an attack on Ron Paul as an attack on those articles and the wackos that sometimes try to attach himself to him and his campaign.

By comparison, here's an attack!
 
135sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 10:42
re 132: ^5
 
136Baldwin
      ID: 4610171922
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 13:11
Camille Paglia's take on Hillary/Obama.
 
137Perm Dude
      ID: 39014118
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 13:33
I was just reading that, Baldwin. A reader to Andrew Sullivan makes the distinction really sharply, IMO.

For Clinton it's all going to come out now. Perhaps it is a result of her asserting some kind of priviledge. Perhaps it is because she's never been a candidate in a tough election. But certainly the actions of President Clinton on her behalf has been dreadful. And her playing the race card is laughable--she is only where she is because of her husband, not because she's overcome some kind of gender glass ceiling.
 
138Perm Dude
      ID: 39014118
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 13:37
Oh, and I wanted to add that I agree with Paglia on this one. Steinem's take (that goverment should enforce "equality" in order to level the field) assumes that individual effort should be, essentially, co-opted by the government in return for some mythical equality standard. I can see Steinem's point about opportunity, but individual effort should be rewarded, not retarded.
 
139walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 13:37
I read that, too, over at Sullivan, PD. Some good points.

I also consider the number and percentage of senior leaders in my company (a Fortune 10 company). We have far more executive white women than african american (men or women). Far more. I bet that demographic pattern would trancend other Fortune 500 companies in various industries.
 
140sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 13:42
...But I plan to vote for Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary because he is a rational, centered personality who speaks the language of idealism and national unity. Obama has served longer as an elected official than Hillary. He has had experience as a grass-roots activist, and he is also a highly educated lawyer who will be a quick learner in office. His international parentage and childhood, as well as his knowledge of both Christianity and Islam, would make him the right leader at the right time. And his wife Michelle is a powerhouse.

The Obamas represent the future, not the past.


VERY nice summation right there.
 
141Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 13:54
Knowledge of Islam is a big asset, I believe it is important the President knows where to place his prayer towel towards Mecca.
 
142biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 14:01
You should really add an "off" the the end of your name.
 
143walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 15:24
#142. ROTFLOL, bili...another winner! Man, that was funny.
 
144Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Fri, Jan 11, 2008, 17:17
Wasn't that funny, but I am glad to see some Liberals have a sense a humor. At times I think it would be easier to explain a joke to a room full of blonds, than one with Leftwingers.
 
145Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Sat, Jan 12, 2008, 13:45
Giuliani down to a measly $7 million. Top aides forgo salaries for (last) month.



"No matter how much I gesticulate with my hands, I cannot seem to get the attention of the national press or of anyone willing to give me more than their pocket change"
Mr. Giuliani’s strategy has been to limit participation in contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early voting states and focus heavily on Florida. The campaign had estimated that it had its best chance of success there, banking on the state’s large population of former New Yorkers and its hopes that Mr. Giuliani’s message of a strong national military, support for Israel and a tough stance on Cuba would play well.

When asked whether he would have enough money left after Florida to compete on Feb. 5, Mr. Giuliani said: “We will have some. But frankly, you know, Florida is real important to us. So we are going to put, if not everything into Florida, almost everything.” Many media experts have estimated that a heavy dose of television advertising for the Feb. 5 primaries could cost $25 million to $35 million.

Stick a fork in him. I love the way he spins his campaign strategy of avoiding Iowa and NH because "I feel it's more important to campaign in the big states". The truth is that he spent a lot of time in both Iowa and NH and people not only didn't warm up to him, the rejected him convincingly. Again, no Republican nominee has ever done so poorly in Iowa and NH and since he is nearly out of money, his "plan" to focus on Florida and Super Tuesday is nothing but a dream.

Couldn't be happier with this turn of events.
 
146sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, Jan 12, 2008, 15:24
But Zen....while running out of funds is tough, its no 9/11.

;)
 
147Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 09:37
Romney wins decisively in Michigan yesterday, taking the wind out of McCain's sails, who decisively beat Bush there in 2000.

Of interest is the 4th place finish of Ron Paul, ahead of both Thompson and Giuliani. Rudy has all of 1 delegate after 4 states. He's currently running 5th, about tied with Paul in the South Carolina polls. In Florida, where Rudy must win to be relevant. Rasmussen has him behind both McCain and Romney, though those three plus Huckabee are in a virtual tie. The poll was taken prior to Michigan, which could give Romney a push.
 
148Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 12:05
McCain is getting "Swift Boated"
"John McCain has created this myth that he is a hero, and he is not," Kiley said from his home in Garnerville, N.Y.

Kiley's group cites as evidence a May 1973 U.S. News & World Report article by McCain in which he said he realized, on his third or fourth day of captivity after his plane was shot down in 1967, that his knee was so swollen the blood might pool in it and kill him. So he offered to give military information to his captors in exchange for medical treatment.

In the article, McCain said he told the story to make the point that the North Vietnamese only gave medical treatment to prisoners of war if they thought they were going to get something in return.

McCain did not say that he went through with his end of the deal.

Kiley claims information McCain gave to the North Vietnamese led to an increase in U.S. planes being shot down.

Pathetic, pathetic Rovian tactics like this accomplish two things, they hurt the intended target and disgust the electorate. Rove knew that if you could disgust the average voter, you could convince him to turn off the news and not bother to vote. Then just focus your efforts on your base, get out your vote, and you will emerge from the muck as the victor.
 
149Perm Dude
      ID: 3045168
      Wed, Jan 16, 2008, 12:06
Holy crap. They are eating their own.
 
150Boldwin
      ID: 120301616
      Thu, Jan 17, 2008, 02:33
Your party's enemies know who you should nominate. Just figure out who they would least like to see win it.

By that yardstick it would come down to an Obama/Romney race in the end.

 
151Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Jan 18, 2008, 16:49
Times Online (hat tip: Daily Dish)
Polls suggest that Mr McCain is by some way the most popular Republican with ordinary voters. For a party as battered as the Republicans, this is remarkable. Mr McCain is fervently for the Iraq war, against big government and anti-abortion. Yet a McCain victory would send much of the Republican party into a mood of suicidal depression. The solid conservative base of the party despise him with a vengeance that is so pervasive it may even be a psychosis - McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Across the country, the right wing of the party is in a panic about the former Vietnam War hero. Columnists and conservative pundits are in a lather about his candidacy. Rush Limbaugh, the talk-show host who most neatly captures the views of millions of conservatives, begged his listeners not to vote for Mr McCain this week.

Policy differences don't really explain the phenomenon. Conservatives certainly don't like some of the things Mr McCain believes in - campaign finance reform or last year's failed attempt at immigration reform that would have granted a kind of amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. But these hardly amount to a charge sheet that would justify their loathing.

I sense that the syndrome says something about what has gone so badly wrong with the conservative movement in the past ten years. It has become so intolerant and exclusive that once orthodox views are now regarded as heresy; while views once merely narrow and eccentric are now prerequisites for membership.

One of Mr McCain's biggest sins is to have opposed tax cuts in the early years of the Bush presidency because there was no effort to cut spending to match them. This runs counter to the new orthodoxy on the Right that believes tax cutting is a kind of alchemy - cut taxes anywhere at any time and you will always and everywhere produce increases in government revenues. There is not the slightest evidence for this, but no matter. You must believe.

Mr McCain is unacceptable also because he has insufficiently orthodox views on human rights. Last week a writer in the National Review said that Mr McCain was not a conservative because he opposes torture of terrorist suspects. Quite how the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower came to erect a “Torturers Only” sign at its gate will be a matter for historians.

The proof of the power of McCain Derangement Syndrome is that its sufferers have flocked in their madness to Mitt Romney as the only decent conservative alternative. Mr Romney, an immaculately coiffed and coutured 60-year old with a beguiling smile and a dreamy look, is a kind of Dorian Gray figure. But somewhere in an attic there must be a portrait of him that reflects the intellectual contortions, moral compromise and shameless dishonesty that has characterised his bid for the presidency.

Until a year or two ago Mr Romney held a range of beliefs - on abortion and gay marriage, for example, that were well to the left of anything Mr McCain has ever said.

Having campaigned elsewhere extolling the virtues of free markets, this week he won the Michigan primary with a nakedly cynical call for government to spend billions of dollars rescuing the jobs of car industry workers that are threatened by foreign competition. The McCain haters didn't mind, as long as he beat the Republican antichrist.

We have seen where this narrow intolerance can lead Republicans and America. Eight years ago the voters of South Carolina, in their wisdom, rescued the ailing candidacy of George W. Bush. They were animated by an earlier version of McCain Derangement Syndrome, stoked by one of the most unpleasant exercises in personal vilification to be mounted in a presidential contest. With the benefit of hindsight, they - and we - may wonder whether they did the world a service that day.

Tomorrow they get a rare second chance, with the world watching, to get it right.
 
152Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 16:34
Terrific column from Peggy Noonan
 
153walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 16:42
Interesting Global View on US Campaign
 
154J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 19:33
didn't find it interesting at all
 
155sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 19:36
thats cause you had to read it, not color in the pics.
 
156sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 19:36
thats cause you had to read it, not color in the pics.
 
157J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 20:46
and that comes from where? lmaoay
 
158walk
      ID: 2530286
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 20:59
lmaoay at myself.
 
159Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 21:30
The solid conservative base of the party despise him with a vengeance that is so pervasive it may even be a psychosis - McCain Derangement Syndrome.

What the piece fails to point out is that the feeling is mutual. McCain fervently hates the base of the Rep Party.

How is that 'narrow intolerance' to reject someone who hates you and who has a love affair with your worst enemy, the NYT?
 
160J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 21:31
i guess you know what you mean
 
161Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 22:27
You're fooling yourselves if you think the base of the party are solid conservatives. Where are they among the party power elite?
 
162Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 22:33
Where are they among the power el;te? Not invited to the country club.
 
163Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 22:37
Agreed. Their plaid pants and argyle vests are way out of style.

They are the former base.
 
164Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 22:59
I suppose you and the NYT have another base waiting in the wings? Dems who plan on voting for Hillary but are willing to cross over for McCain in a primary perhaps?
 
165Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 23:10
I have less attatchment to the Democratic Party than you do to the Republican Party, whether you vote or not. If it's McCain vs Hillary with no 3rd paty candidate that I prefer, I'm voting Republican for President.
 
166Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 23:12
With the added benefit to you of sticking it to the consrvatives. Interesting.
 
167Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 23:25
the added benefit to you of sticking it to the consrvatives

What's funny is that my intentions have nothing to do with "sticking it" to conservatives. I'm sticking it to strict partisans. So naturally, as a conservative partisan you'd see it that way.

Really anyone on either side who supports their party's refusal to cooperate through compromise in the legislative branch and between the legislative and executive branches will feel that I've stuck it to them with that vote.
 
168Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Fri, Jan 25, 2008, 23:34
But, but gridlock is the only answer to runaway spending.
 
169Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 00:03
Yes there is a need for a fiscally conservative influence on Congress or the veto pen. There is also a need to challenge the lobby system.
 
170Perm Dude
      ID: 14013259
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 00:44
Yeah, I don't think big-government Republicans can, in any shape or form, be considered "conservatives." The GOP hasn't been acting very conservative for years.
 
171Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 00:54
Bush was waaaaay too cooperative. Cost trillions.
 
172Perm Dude
      ID: 14013259
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 01:14
He did, indeed, cost trillions. But if you think it was just Bush rather than the Republicans who controlled the pursestrings you should take a harder look. Earmarks, in particular, were loaded into each budget like the fat in marbled beef.

I, for one, would welcome the return of true small government, fiscally conservative Republicans. As would many moderate and conservative Democrats. In fact, McCain would be getting many of their votes (if running against Billary) simply based upon his clear creds in fiscal policy.
 
173Wilmer McLean
      ID: 5700280
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 01:41
RE: 46 and 47

Should Science trump Politics?

One difference between the two is the time frame.

Science uses the whole human time frame. The Political term uses an abrupt time slice -- and there is some disagreement with that, too - Definition of 'African-American' becoming a debate of heritage

...Many argued that the term "African-American" should refer to the descendants of slaves brought to the United States centuries ago, not to newcomers who have not inherited the legacy of bondage, segregation and legal discrimination.

...

-------------------------------------------------

One point of my post is Orwellian:

All Americans are African-American,
but some Americans are more African-American than others.


-------------------------------------------------

And in the case of complex American history:

All Americans are African-American,
but some African-Americans are more equal than others. (The Constitution and three-fifths a person, Jim crow laws and such)

-------------------------------------------------

The below statements are true:

The first African-American head coach to win a Super Bowl was Vince Lombardi.

The first African-American in space was Alan B. Shepard, Jr.

-------------------------------------------------

I am suggesting that there should be a better term, while saying that "African-American" is Orwellian and absurd.
 
174walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 09:29
#173. I don't know who makes these arguments, but in my view, the sub-group being discussed should have the greatest say in the terminology being used to describe them in terms of EEOC categorization.
 
175walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 09:32
NY Times, Krugman: Lessons of 1992

I disagree, again, with Krugman's Clinton vs. Obama view here, but here is his latest.

NYT, Kristol: Bill's Role in Hilary Campaign

I find myself agreeing to some extent with Kristol on this editorial regarding Bill's role and motives in the Hilary campaign.
 
176Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 09:41
The terminology is confusing at a minimum.

What do you call a white guy with dual citizenship of South Africa and USA..... Actually, he is an African-American.

What do you call a black guy that is born and lives his entire life in France. I guess, he is an African-American; though he has never been to either place.

What do you call an Egyptian guy.......

 
177Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 09:48
What do you call a black guy that is born and lives his entire life in France. I guess, he is an African-American

No. He's African French. Or more likely the French don't have a history with that particular hangup and he is just French. As contrived as the term 'African American' might be, it doesn't apply to someone who isn't American. A man of Italian ancestry who is born and lives his life in France is not an Italian American.
 
178Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 09:52
What do you call a white guy with dual citizenship of South Africa and USA..... Actually, he is an African-American.

ask Dave Matthews what is he. it's not confusing at all. he's Caucasian. he's South African. and, he's American.

it's not the least bit confusing, and i'll go on record and say that if it's something that is confusing to you, or something you spend even the smallest amount of time dwelling on, then you're an idiot. a bona-fide, no questions-asked, idiot.

if tony parker walks past you, you don't say "hey, look, an african-american!"

you say "hey, look, tony parker. sucks for him he plays for the second best team in Texas, because the Mavs rule!"

i mean hell, Tony Parker is the perfect example. he's referred to as a french basketball player, and he's even played for their national team. yet, he was born in Belgium.

his FATHER is an african-american, having been born in the good ol' US of A. his mom was a dutch model.

when you get down to it, i think if you look up the term "african american", you'll find that it applies to citizens/residents of the US who are from any of the black racial groups of africa.


 
179Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:01
I read that piece before, and my take is simple: We should respect what people want to call themselves. Anything else is non-respectful.
 
180sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:02
In that case PD...you can call me "sir". ;)
 
181Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:10
You may call me "Mr. Big."
 
182Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 11:31
So you have a black guy, a white guy, and an Egyptian guy.....and they are all African-Americans. That's clear as mud.

So African-American does not refer to any race, but to some geographic location. Sorry, I was under the impression that it refers to a certain race.

if tony parker walks past you, you don't say "hey, look, an african-american!"

If you didn't know who he was....you would. What should you say? There goes a negro? There goes a colored person? If you saw a black guy you didn't know.......you would call him an African -American. You don't know where he's from.


 
183walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 11:34
Kennedy endorsing Obama is getting a lot of attention. I've read that endorsements don't usually carry weight, but they say this one could be helpful in Obama's need for more of the mainstream Dem base, and also the Hispanic vote.
 
184Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 11:37
Yes gentlemen, we get it. The term is something of a misnomer. BFD. As I pointed out back in post 41, so are terms like 'black' and 'white' when applied to "racial identities" - which of course is another misnomer.

What does the vetting of these words have to do with the 2008 election?
 
185Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 11:39
Be careful, if you think it's confusing then you are a bona-fide no questions asked idiot. Not my words.
 
186Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 11:46
What should you say? There goes a negro?

You'd say "There goes a man."

It isn't up to you to slice and dice someone into a category. That's the whole point. They might (or might not) identify with a certain group of people. It isn't up to you to put them into one yourself.
 
187Myboyjack
      ID: 56039812
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 11:58
You'd say "There goes a man."

It isn't up to you to slice and dice someone into a category.


I'm down with that. Now if you can convince University admissions commitees the same we'll be getting somewhere.
 
188Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 12:25
I know with our local news, if a white man commits a crime, the news goes something like this... a white, white, pastey white, cracker robbed a liquor store today, if the perpetrator is of color, it will go like this...a 5'11" gentleman with a brown shirt and grey pants is suspected of ...
 
189Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 12:39
Where's 'local' for you?
 
190Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 12:45
Florida
 
191Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 13:06
What city?
 
192Myboyjack
      ID: 56039812
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 13:08
oohhhh....I smell a google search for headlines and a gotcha a'commin'.
 
193Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 13:09
MBJ knows me well enough.
 
194Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 13:09
Although there's no need to google it.
 
195J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 20:20
and if this election period has proven anything it is what mbj suggests. it is time for the whole race, demographics, affirmative action, and quotas to be eliminated as they have out lived there need. people are people and the eeoc can take each case on its own merit to insure that wrongs are righted.
 
196walk
      ID: 6016295
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 06:20
I hear you, J-Bar, but when we examine the demographics of our company (fortune 500), and it's similar for many larger American companies, persons of protected subgroups consistenly are disproportionately hired and promoted. There are forces, some subtle, some not, that still maintain a glass ceiling over minorities and also socio eco factors that make it more difficult for some minority groups to be considered as qualified applicants. While I am also for a merit-based system for selection and decisions, we don't yet have an entirely unbiased approach to these decisions. This is why companies often have their own affirmative action programs, even if not mandated by the government.
 
197Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 08:11
That's not exactly what MBJ is saying. I'll leave it to him to explain what he means (if he chooses). I believe that he and I are closely in agreement to get rid of any quotas but keep positive affirmative action programs (most are these days anyway).

That is, programs which encourage recruitment of qualified people from traditionally underrepresented segments of society should continue. The key is: Don't lower the standards. And don't have set-asides.

So long as racism (for example) still exists, we need to be aware of it and fight it. Pretending it isn't there is allowing and encouraging it to take root.
 
198Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 08:31
If a black man gets elected president, will it then be obvious that racism has been overstated and exploited?
 
199Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 08:34
It is always "overstated and exploited" to those who aren't being discriminated against.
 
200Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 08:36
How about Teddy boy backing Obama on the same day Hilary is campaigning in Mass. It seems a large part of the Dem base is turning on the Clintons.
 
201Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 08:48
I think Dems are coming around that they don't have to back the Clinton Machine. I think many are also tired of all of the damn fighting that they remember from the Clinton Administration. Right or wrong, it was divisive and a big drain.

Also, Clinton's attempts to get Michigan and Florida to "count" despite her earlier agreement to agree that they wouldn't is hurting her, and Bill Clinton's comments pushed many over to Obama, I think. If Al Gore endorses Obama the rush will be on.

But still, Clinton has a big delegate lead, and is leading in most of the Super Tuesday states (including the biggies of California and New York). So there is a huge uphill climb for Obama. I believe there are 258 delgates up on Super Tuesday (not including super delegates), and Obama needs to win half of those to stay competitive. None of these are winner-take-all states, so even if he loses New York (for instance) he's likely to still come out with 10-15 delegates there.

Edwards is a key. He'll drop out after Super Tuesday, and where he directs his delegates will make the difference in the end.
 
202Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 09:07
Bill has lost all his charm and has become just a big ball of hate, while Hilary never had any charm to begin with. Michigan and Florida just exemplifies, that the Clintons have no shame and will do anything to win.

It is funny listening to my Euro buddies, they are going, "You guys aren't really going to have a black president are you? Really? Come on, you serious? No way, you are joking, right? They get their news from the liberal media and think we are a bunch of redneck cowboys.
 
203Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 09:09
Breaking those stereotypes would be a good thing, IMO.
 
204Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 09:42
One thing we'll learn on Tsunami Tuesday(get it right) is how well Obama will fare among Latino voters in the west. He'll need significant support in California and Arizona, and Texas down the line.

Nevada's Latino vote helped put Hillary over the top.
 
205walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 10:33
Yeah, agreed, PV. Some pundits say that Kennedy's endorsement could help Obama with the Latino vote as Kennedy has a lot of Latino support, but endorsements usually don't carry a lot of weight.
 
206Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 10:46
They get their news from the liberal media and think we are a bunch of redneck cowboys.

no, they see the actions of GW Bush and his cronies, and think since we elected him, we're all a bunch of redneck cowboys.

everybody i've spoken to outside of the US cannot wait for Bush to be removed from office. and they've felt this way for years.
 
207Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 10:47
endorsements usually don't carry a lot of weight.

A Bill Richardson endorsement for Obama would carry a lot of weight.

That likely won't happen, since it would probably eliminate him from a top cabinet position if Hillary prevails.

An Obama/Richardson ticket would be very strong. I doubt he'd be as pleased as Hillary's VP, since that position will in reality belong to Bill Clinton. But there's a good possibility he could end up as Hillary's Sec of State.
 
208Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 10:57
That's a great point, Pancho. If Richardson endorses, this will really bring over a lot of Latin voters, as well as a number of moderates who were holding back.

But it is all about perceived best interest. Neither Gore nor Richardson is likely to commit before February 5th, even though it would virtually ensure that they will have the ear (and gratitude) of the next President.
 
209walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 11:44
Good points on Richardson, PV and PD. Agreed.

Also agreed on the Euro view. I have friends and colleagues in Europe, too, and they for the life of them cannot understand how we erected Bush and re-erected him. And they don't think that most Americans think like him, but then again, they cannot figure out why/how 50% of the country voted for him two times either. They do certainly not like his policies and speeches (at least the small # of folks I talk to).
 
210walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 12:46
Alternate State of the Union (satire)
 
211Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 14:26
Courting voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.
 
212J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 20:01
i have a question. why is there no outrage from the 'every vote counts' hanging chad crowd over the DNC saying florida and michigan doesn't count.
 
213Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 20:04
Uh, because we know the facts.
 
214walk
      ID: 6016295
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 20:04
Cos it's a wash for those primaries. No delegates (for now) are being considered, and this was agreed upon by all of the Dem candidates (cos those states pushed up their primaries to get attention, despite the DNC saying they could not). There's no unfairness J-Bar, hence no outrage. Are you familiar with what happened here vs. what allegedly happened with the hanging chads in FLA (two entirely different things).
 
215J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 20:19
so because everyone agrees then there is no unfairness and no disenfranchisement of those voters. just wanted to make sure i understood why no outrage. so for the some 2 million or so voters that cast their ballot and gets no say in the candidate of their party it's just to bad. cool
 
216Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 20:39
#215
It's an equal opportunity treatment of primary voters

The Republican National Committee plans to penalize at least five states holding early primaries, including New Hampshire and Florida, by refusing to seat at least half of their delegates at the national convention in 2008, a party official said yesterday.

Much of the focus in the primary scheduling fight up to now has been on the Democratic National Committee’s moves to penalize Florida by not seating its convention delegates because of the state’s decision to move up its primary. But the Republican rules are just as stringent, and the national party said yesterday that it would not hesitate to enforce them.

The action by Republicans and Democrats to move against states holding early contests is a rare instance of the two parties moving in concert, in this case to regain control over a rapidly evolving primary calendar that has thrust the nominating system into deep uncertainty just months before it is to begin.


 
217PJ
      ID: 21842202
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 20:59
"But the Republican rules are just as stringent..."

Huh? Sorry, it's quite clear that the Republican rules are 1/2 as stringent since the early bird states (Wyoming, Michigan, Florida) still get half of their Republican delegates.

That's a big difference compared to the Democratic Party where those states supposedly will get NO delegates for the nominating convention.

 
218J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 20:59
true but by allowing the candidates to campaign, the ability for them change and count the delegates will be alot easier and more readily accepted.
 
219Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:01
Those states knew the rules, and the state parties changed their dates anyway, fully knowing the penalty.

pd
 
220J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:07
ok, just like the voters knew the rules and then allowances had to be made to keep from disenfranchising voters.
 
221Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:12
Uh, no. Keep trying--I'm sure one of your attempts at distorting the truth will come closer.

There's plenty not to like about the DNC. And plenty of valid criticism. Trying to pin the "disenfranchising" label on their attempt to enforce their own rules isn't one of them.

I never knew you agrred with Hillary Clinton. Maybe because it is a self-interested, bold lie on her part? I'll have to bookmark this thread.
 
222J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:20
what truth would that be that voters are not being counted go hillary thats my girl
 
223Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:27
Whether you agree with the DNC or not, you have to admit the Florida voters are being disenfranchised.

My boy McCain takes a early lead.
 
224walk
      ID: 6016295
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:46
Right, Jag, cos their own state fcuked up and was stubborn and selfish. So, I guess you are correct, my mom's vote does not count...but it aint her fault, and it aint Hillary or Obama's fault, but it is the Floridian Democratic organization's fault.

BTW, the Clinton campaign, natch, now wants these delegates counted. Oh boy.

link
 
225Perm Dude
      ID: 46046287
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:53
No, Jag, I don't agree.

true but by allowing the candidates to campaign, the ability for them change and count the delegates will be alot easier and more readily accepted.

The Dem candidates agreed not to campaign. This is all pretty simple, J-Bar.
 
226Tree
      ID: 40492918
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:53
you have to admit the Florida voters are being disenfranchised.

thank you GW Bush.
 
227J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 22:01
thank you whiny dems
 
228Tree
      ID: 40492918
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 22:05
in all seriousness, i thought this thread had hit rock bottom with Jag posting. then Baldwin became his biggest cheerleader. then Boxman started posting some of the most absurd things on this board.

and now, J-Bar continues to chime in with even more absurd things.

i basically come here several times a day now just to see what silliness is conjured up next.
 
229Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 22:05
Interestingly liberal take from J-Bar on the matter. He supports the right of the local authority to risk disenfranchisment for it's members by disregarding the national party's rules, and then blames the national party for it for trying to enforce those rules. It's like a union boss staging a strike over demands that he knows are more than the workers will get.

Sure the voters are disenfranchised. If I were a member in one of those states I'd be furious with the state-level leadership.
 
230Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 22:09
Tree, you have truly become irrelevant, not only have you not posted anything of relevence in months, even your barbs are lacking in wit, to a point they are not even worth responding to.

Main Entry: dis·en·fran·chise
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-in-ˈfran-ˌchîz\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1664
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote

I am pretty sure the Florida voters lost the right for their vote to count.
 
231Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 22:12
Atleast Mith didn't deny they were being disenfranchise, not sure where PD was going.
 
232Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 22:25
Why did they continue to do it if the national committe told them not to? Did they think they were bluffing? Did they think they could win something in court?
 
233Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 22:34
#232

Not in court, but they intend to challenge the rules at the convention I believe.

As for Florida, CNN is reporting Rudy will drop out tomorrow and endorse McCain. McCain wins in a winner take all state. Huckabee has another bad showing in the South, and may or may not limp into next week's primaries.

So it's a two horse race with McCain and Romney, with McCain the frontrunner.

 
234Heather
      ID: 331051522
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 22:39
Technically, the fact that the Florida legislature is controlled by Republicans disenfranchised Florida Democrats, because when the Party threatened to take away the delegates unless the primary date was moved back, there wasn't much Democrats here could do to fix it.

However, even though my vote for Obama today doesn't technically count, it would be even more unfair to change the rules now. Since the candidates didn't campaign here, Hilary has the advantage of being a national figure much longer than Obama has been. I personally know women who voted for Hilary just because she is a woman. If the candidates had been able to campaign, some of these women might have voted for one of the men. Finally, I think Obama would have generated a lot more excitement in and higher voter turnout from the Black community if they thought the vote would count (similar to what happened in SC).
 
235Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 22:40
I was about to post the same, PV. Glad to see Giuliani throw his support to McCain.
 
236Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 22:54
Wow, a female poster. How you doin'?
 
237Tree
      ID: 40492918
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 23:14
someone new makes a post, and Jag turns it into a singles bar.

Heather - welcome aboard, and thanks for your insight and opinions on what's been going on in Florida...

hopefully, you'll continue to add your thoughts, as Florida has (obviously) been a pretty important state in our last few elections...
 
238J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 23:43
heather, you stated that you voted obama so therefore you seen or heard something that influenced you. do you not think that other floridians had that same opportunity to the information and just chose differently? based on the demographics in florida and if you extrapolate the percentages that obama won in south carolina, the totals were reflective. this is a very rough way of looking at it but may be plausible.
 
239J-Bar
      ID: 40082021
      Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 23:46
33% turnout is awesome, especially with the dnc and rnc issues.
 
240Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 06:06
I personally know women who voted for Hilary just because she is a woman.

Do any of you think a vote for Hillary b/c she's a woman or Obama b/c he's black is sexist or racist?
 
241Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 06:21
Not sure, but I think a lot of the votes for Edwards were sexist and racist. Boxman, haven't you learned by now, that sexism and racism only go one way.
 
242Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 09:42
I wonder if when "the Breck Girl" gets elected, he might become the unofficial first female president in the same way Bill "was the first black president"?
 
243Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 10:42
Not sure, but I think a lot of the votes for Edwards were sexist and racist.

good thing you have nothing to worry about going forward...

Edwards to drop out of race...

hmm, so an Obama/Edwards ticket? or maybe Obama/Richardson?
 
244Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 10:43
Sweet Jeezis I hope Obama wouldn't pick Edwards as a running mate.
 
245walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 13:38
Wow, Edwards out...?!? I wonder where his votes will go? I think there's theories saying that his votes could go either way.
 
246Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 14:37
I wonder where his votes will go? I think there's theories saying that his votes could go either way.

Here's the theory I like. As we all know, Hillary is a black and white candidate. She's been in the spotlight a long time, there's not many fence sitters where she's concerned. You're either fer her or agin her. It's not much of a stretch to think that most Edward's supporters would be in the latter category.
I'm also thinking that there's just a lot of people who want to move beyond the Clintons. I know I do.
 
247biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 14:49
I like that theory, PV.




 
248Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 14:58
Edwards votes will go to McCain!
 
249biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 15:06
Well their politics are polar-opposites, so you must be so simple as to think that they being same gender and race is significant.

Not everyone is as shallow and superficial as you. Particularly those who would have voted for Edwards, is my guess. He was the candidate of the poor, working the moderate-left. I don't think McCain is even aware that there are poor people. And superficial people certainly don't care about the poor.
 
250walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 15:08
Fcuk it, how can you not feel the wave? PV for President! You do have the leg up on wisdom this quarter, PV...

I have also read this theory on-line today in my quest for prescient knowledge. That with Hillary's polarized electorate (love/hate), it'd be a stretch for a former Edwards supporter to climb onto a Hillary train. Ya would already been on that train.

I'm still thinking and hoping (as if) that Hillary is gonna wake up one day and say to herself: "I am going to hell if I stand in the way of Barack. I just got unlucky timing-wise, or maybe it's karma (my name is earl). I had my time sharing power with Bill, and we had it good. Karma says it's time now to let someone else try it, someone eager, someone others look up to, someone with a great message, someone who is sincere about that message. The best thing I can do for this country is not get in this person's way."

Any chance? Maybe my NY Giants have a (much) better chance this Sunday than that...I know, I know...

Yesterday, I got out of the subway at the stop where I live, and right at the top of the steps, in the 40F rain, were four folks with Obama signs encouraging folks to support him, register and vote. In a fit of urban spontaneity, I raised my hand and said "Obama!" I was enthused, but when they asked me to volunteer, too, I did not grab a sign and stand next to them though, so I am lame. I said that I had donated (lamer?).
 
251Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 15:59
Well their politics are polar-opposites, so you must be so simple as to think that they being same gender and race is significant

Make up your mind, one minute you go on about how bad racism and sexism is in America and in the next breath, you are denying it exists.
 
252Tree
      ID: 560233015
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 16:36
Make up your mind, one minute you go on about how bad racism and sexism is in America and in the next breath, you are denying it exists.

you really didn't do well on the reading comprehension part of those standardized tests, did you?

unrelated, i am someone who loves the Clintons. i thought Bill was a phenomenal president, and i think Hilary would be great too.

however, i also believe that in the interest of healing this nation, we need Obama as our president. GW Bush did such a great job of dividing this country and creating animosity, i think it's important we elect someone who gives us the hope and belief that change is coming.
 
253Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 17:25
McCain/Romneys' wet dream may come true: Nader '08
 
254Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 17:28
Nader is either delusional or a gloryhound.
 
255Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 17:30
He's quite obviously a Republican mole.
 
256sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 17:36
Indeed.
 
257nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 17:37


He's quite obviously a Republican mole.

I see this conspiracy theory business is rubbing off on you MBJ. Nice.

 
258Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 18:56


I'm not a fan of picking a running mate out of a pool of men who were the choice of 4% of the voting public. I like Bill, but he just didn't get many votes. Does Bill even do well with the Latino vote? I haven't seen any polling data.
 
259Perm Dude
      ID: 33029308
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 18:59
I don't get that, Zen. Just because he was a losing choice for President (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he won't be a good candidate for another position.
 
260Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 19:07
PD -

If Candidate Y has gone to hundreds of events explaining his views on the issues, answered questions at town meetings, detailed his plans to newspaper reports and the public overwhelming rejects you, why should the public then be asked to vote for Candidate X running with... Candidate Y, you know, that guy you listened to and didn't like?
 
261Perm Dude
      ID: 33029308
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 19:32
Sure. He's not running for President.

And there are lots of good second-choice candidates out there. Just because he gets 4% of the votes at the top (against Obama, Clinton & Edwards, no less), doesn't mean he's not a very good second choice guy. And that's what a VP is, after all.

pd
 
262Tree
      ID: 560233015
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 19:53
any thoughts about Jim Webb as a running mate, particularly for Obama?

i think his history as a decorated combat vet, as well as being secretary of the navy under Republican icon Ronald Reagan, can't be understated as important political tools as a VP.
 
263Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 20:07
He's kin. ;)
 
264Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 20:59
Why are all these Republican debates moderated by liberals?
 
265Perm Dude
      ID: 33029308
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 21:27
Because you can't find conservatives who can pretend to be impartial anymore.
 
266Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 21:59
Whatever you thinks fair. The pansy democrats refused to debate on Fox News.
 
267Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 22:26
Why are all these Republican debates moderated by liberals?

I've been watching off and on, but Anderson Cooper put McCain on the hot seat in his cheap shots at Romney about Iraq. That doesn't exactly fit the liberal mold.

What's depressing is the questions and answers concerning Iraq, and the lack of candor, or even knowledge about the "success of the surge."

I'm still waiting for a candidate, any candidate, to admit that Moqtada Al-Sadr's directive in August for a ceasefire by the Mahdi Army is one of the key components to the reduction of violence. I'm still waiting for a candidate, any candidate, to ask why we haven't aggresively brought Al-Sadr into the mix of discussions about Iraq's future. The ceasefire by Al-Sadr ends in February. Has anyone heard any candidate of either party mention that?

Has anyone heard any candidate offer a position on Resolution 140, which determines the future of oil-rich Kirkuk?

The "surge" is a generic term that is meaningless. McCain and Romney arguing about who supports the surge more, at what point they supported it, whether or not we will be there for 100 years is f#$%ing ludicrous.

No one has a plan for Iraq, at least at this point. I suggest Obama contact Peter Galbraith and urge him to accept a position as Iraq advisor. At least then we may have a candidate who can move beyond the surge is wildly successful or the surge is not wildly successful syndrome.
 
268Perm Dude
      ID: 33029308
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 22:49
The pansy democrats refused to debate on Fox News

ROFL! Either you want an unbiased debate or you don't, B7. Take a side an run with it. Don't complain that "liberals" seem to moderate the Republican debates at the same time you take the Democrats to task for not debating on a network which is proudly biased, which has been smearing Obama for some time and which continues to to do so to this day.
 
269Wilmer McLean
      ID: 1006312
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 03:29
Christopher Hitchens on Peter Galbraith.

Monday, March 26, 2007, at 11:18 AM ET

...

The most senior Democrat to have called, the earliest and the longest, for the removal of Saddam Hussein is Peter Galbraith.

...
 
270Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 09:46
ROFL! Either you want an unbiased debate or you don't, B7. Take a side an run with it. Don't complain that "liberals" seem to moderate the Republican debates at the same time you take the Democrats to task for not debating on a network which is proudly biased

I don't know why the Republicans let them get away with it. It seemed like CNN's Cooper tried to pick fights or get fights started. Also, you should get up off the floor, there's a bunch of dirt down there.
 
271nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 10:17

Also agreed on the Euro view. I have friends and colleagues in Europe, too, and they for the life of them cannot understand how we erected Bush and re-erected him.

Funny I can't tell you how many uneducated Paki Taxi drivers have said to me "we don't blame the American people for what Bush does, we know he is just a good liar and they just believe him".

Ok I am paraphrasing but that is the gist of it.

More like...

"We know this Bush man he lie too much, too big, he too big lies this Georgy Bush man and the American people, they good people, true, good people, have good heart, but they hear this Georgy Bush man with this sweet mouth and they belief these lies, yes true"...this is how these politics man are, even in my own country

That's a little closer... 8-}



 
272nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 10:25

Wow, Edwards out...?!? I wonder where his votes will go? I think there's theories saying that his votes could go either way.

So you are saying he has a lot of bi-sexual supporters???



 
273walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 10:28
ba-dum, pssssh!
 
274walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 11:19
McCain vs. Obama

I'd generally agree with this view (but then again, I am for Obama and not for Hillary)...McCain could beat Hillary, but would have a tougher time vs. Obama. Thoughts?
 
275sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 11:25
I'm inclined to agree walk;

McCain vs Anyone not named Obama...I vote McCain,
Anyone not named McCain vs Obama...I vote Obama,
McCain vs Obama.....then I have some tough thinking to do and a difficult decision to make.
 
276Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 11:48
As a McCain fan, I really need to start pulling for Hilary, but I have so much disdain for her I can't do it.

The newest Clinton episode making me want to hurl a brick thru the TV is the Obama snub. When asked if she felt Obama snubbed her or if he simply didn't see her offer her hand, she responds, "I reached out my hand in friendship and unity and my hand is still reaching out. And I look forward to shaking his hand when I see him at the debate in California." she could of ended this mini-fiasco, but instead plays the victim again and smirks for the camera, aaaaaaaaaargh.
 
277walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 11:54
#276, agreed Jag. You are soooo cool! Hillary made that crap up seemingly, and I am still eating my nearly expelled vomit. I liked Barack's cool answer: "We chatted earlier in the lobby; I was responding to Claire McKaskill at that time; I did not want to interfere with her greeting Ted, that would have been a little awkward." Her comment is so goldang transparently bogus and "me, me, me" she should like be arrested and made to write 1000 on a black board: "I will be cool more often."
 
278Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 13:15
Right or wrong the current admin (liberals have done their share too) has divided this country. Above almost all else we need someone that isn't immediately hated by a substantial portion of the population. A Hillary presidency would be disastrous in that regard.
 
279walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 13:21
Dems too stupid

This one's for you, Jag, cos I believe what this dude, lifted from Sullvan is saying: "If the Dem voters don't nominate Obama, we are fcuking stupid" (like the Black Grape album: Stupid, Stupid, Stupid). No way he loses the general election and no way is Hillary more capable than he is when it comes to addressing what our country needs the most: cohesion. When my reasonably politically informed Dem mom in Florida told me she voted for Hillary, and my really smart Dem wife, also informed, tells me she's on the fence, I wanna practically waterboard them into voting for Obama...it is so obvious he is the better candidate, but alas, it's really, really interesting how people sum up the factors, the issues, the character, the potential, and make their choices. Some folks want a president they can have a beer with, some want the most conservative, some want the most liberal, some want the most religiously aligned, some want the toughest. It's really quite interesting...

...and sometimes infuriating. Yes, I am an Obama-snob.
 
280Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 13:26
Huh, so there are cases where waterboarding is acceptable then? :)

Any state by state data on where the Dems stand for super Tuesday?
 
281walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 13:36
LOL Box. Some guy from the Atlantic, Marc Ambinder, made some predictions, but I don't think there's data in his column, but I think his column is based on data (he did not make it shown). I dunno.

Ambinder's State by State Predictions
 
282Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 13:38
Yes. The states with electronic voting machines are projected to go for Hillary and the states with paper ballots are projected to go to Obama.
 
283Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 14:11
Jag

Above almost all else we need someone that isn't immediately hated by a substantial portion of the population.

Funny because this has been my #1 priority issue as well, for a few years now. I even think I recall you chiding me over that position. I know Baldwin has.

But I can't believe you really mean "above all else". If you did, your top choices should be McCain and Obama. But you've authored many posts indicating you're highly unlikely to support either. I imagine you'd go with McCain by default if he's the nominee, but only because he's the GOP nominee and not over anything to do with his record of bipartisanship, which I've never seen you write favoribly of.

Further, you're the guy who supported Rudy Giuliani for the past year. He's probably the second-most nationally divisive candidate who entered the race, after Hillary. Is this a recent change in position for you or did you not really mean "above all else"?
 
284Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 14:18
Sorry, accidentially addressed #283 to Jag. Obviously I meant to address Boxman.
 
285sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 14:24
RE 280;

This prejection (though it includes Edwrads), shows Clinton winning on Tues 2/5:

link

This one shows Clinton winning BIG, though some of the polls are dated a bit;

link


All I can say, is that I hope they are incorrect in their projections.
 
286Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 15:03
Mith: But I can't believe you really mean "above all else".

Boxman: Above almost all else

You don't have to believe it because I didn't say it.

I have supported Rudy, obviously not anymore since he's out of the race. He endorsed McCain and coincidentally I voted McCain in the Illinois primary when I voted early. While I readily admit my vote will go to the Republican nominee I do think that of the remaining contending field of Romney and McCain, McCain is the least divisive.

The problem is that they both embarassed themselves like Hillary and Obama did with their on air squabbling. If they can't get along with each other how do they get along with people of seriously different viewpoints?
 
287sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 15:11
SO....Is this the part where I maintain that you are a liar? ;)
 
288Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 15:17
Only if it's the part where I challenge you to "face me". :)
 
289sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 15:19
yeah...but the difference is I WOULD. :)
 
290Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 15:27
Fair enough. That's what I get for reading too fast. I'm curious now about your early primary vote for McCain because I believe I recall you saying that you couldn't vote for him either, but I could be remembering that wrong, too.

If they can't get along with each other how do they get along with people of seriously different viewpoints?

Primarily, they don't have to get along, they just need to compromise and get work done. I won't claim to personally remember the legislative tone during the 1980s but today's accounts of that time are that at the end of the day, despite sometimes tough stance rhetoric, the parties did indeed end up finding enough common ground to come up with cooperative solutions.

There will always be squabbling, the problem comes when the squabbles define the process rather than the compromises they lead to.

I'd also note that election campaign politics are of a different breed. It's a lot easier to let an unfair jab or a cheap shot slide or to dismiss it and move on when you aren't in the middle of an election race.

Perhaps Obama didn't alway react to Clinton attacks as well as he should have but only because very few people possess the ability to casually shake off such assaults. On Meet The Press this week Peggy Noonan noted Reagan's reliance on his sharp wit for his ability to deflect attacks without resorting to a pointed counter-assault.
 
291angryCHAIR
      ID: 29955918
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 21:34
POST 202 Jag writes: It is funny listening to my Euro buddies, they are going, "You guys aren't really going to have a black president are you? Really? Come on, you serious? No way, you are joking, right?



___________________________________________________

Uh, they think we are a bunch of redneck cowboys, because the "shrub" acts like a REDNECK COWBOY!

Your Euro-friends sound like they are strongly partial to their own race, or politics and are intolerant of those who are different from them.

What can of comments are those on Obama's race!

Amazing!
 
292Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 11:19
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/jan/31/latino.mass
 
293Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 12:10
Michelle Malkin on Glen Beck
GLENN: Michelle Malkin, I've got 30 seconds. If it's John McCain, Hillary Clinton, do you pull the lever for John McCain?

MALKIN: Not at this moment I don't. I'm running a poll right now on my site and you can see that there are a majority of my own readers who are going to sit home. And I think it's a big warning to the conservative movement out there. We still have time to fix this.
 
294walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:21
I don't think the conservative base to which Michelle speaks outnumbers the moderates repubs and other republicans who would pretty much gladly vote for McCain over Hillary. I also think this is sorta a bluff, rallying cry, to get the hard core conservatives voting for the phony conservative, Mitt. If it's McCain and Hillary, I think most of these conservatives vote, and vote against Hillary.
 
295walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 13:24
I should have thought of this as my finish to #294...look at Malkin's first and last sentences: "Not at the moment I don't...We still have time (emphasis added) to fix this." This is her MO...get out and vote for Mitt now in the primaries so we don't have to deal with McCain (but we'll vote for McCain if we have to...)
 
296walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 14:06
MoveOn Endorses Obama

MOVEON ENDORSES OBAMA...Today Barack Obama earned the endorsement of MoveOn, one of the largest grassroots membership organizations in the United States, after clobbering Hillary Clinton by 40 percent in Internet balloting. Obama led the final tally 70.4% to 29.6%, clearing the supermajority required for the endorsement.

 
297Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 14:20
That really is a shocker considering Move0n is her baby. I guess the internet beast, Move0n could not ignore the internet strength of Obama. He's more of a grassroots/internet phenom as opposed to the establishment girl.
 
298nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 14:41

Jag why can't you write more posts like this...

Bill has lost all his charm and has become just a big ball of hate, while Hilary never had any charm to begin with. Michigan and Florida just exemplifies, that the Clintons have no shame and will do anything to win.

This is all we are asking for...not only do I agree with much of the sentiment in this post, it was well thought out and not just written with the intention of baiting.

Can't you just write more posts like that, even those here who disagree with the premise will at least respect the manner in which it was written.



 
299walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 14:52
nerve with the positive reinforcement approach (reward good behavior), nice!

Yeah, Jag, you goddang fcukin a-hole! (tee hee) ;-)
 
300biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 19:07
Obama set to music. Awesome.



Try that with a McCain or Hillary speech.
 
301Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 20:11
Obama/McCain win endorsement of largest Spanish language daily

A good endorsement for Obama. Probably hurts McCain.
 
302Perm Dude
      ID: 5312218
      Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 20:24
#300: Freaking awesome.
 
303Tree
      ID: 3126222
      Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 23:42
i really think that video sums up Obama. he absolutely inspires, like no politician in recent memory. he gives us hope that positive change can be made, and that we can all make a difference.

if you're curious, here's the least of folks who appeared in the video:

* Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
* Tatyana Ali
* Eric Balfour
* Natasha Bedingfield
* Fonzworth Bentley
* Nick Cannon*Common
* Esthero
* Bryan Greenberg
* Herbie Hancock
* Kelly Hu
* Scarlett Johansson
* Ed Kowalczyk
* John Legend
* Taryn Manning
* Yael Naim
* Amaury Nolasco
* Harold Perrineau, Jr.
* Adam Rodríguez
* Nicole Scherzinger
* Gabrielle Union
* Amber Valletta
* Kate Walsh
* will.i.am

it was directed by Jesse Dylan, son of Bob.
 
304Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 07:54
And Bill was 'the man from Hope'.

But it's all vapor, no substance.
 
305Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 07:59
I bet you could cludge a Hitler mashup for Hill and McCain tho. They've got a lotta anger and visciousness to work with for a budding editor.
 
306sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 08:24
simply cannot bring yourself to give credit where credit is due, when a Dem is any part of it; can you boldy?
 
307nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 08:27

Since I haven't been in the USA since the campaign started I haven't watched the Obama phenom, speeches, debate etc.

I watched about half the video above and stopped. It was a bit cute and over the top.

Now everyone around here knows I'm a cynical bastard.

My impression is that he is creating a "movie character" that's a combination of Kennedy and Kings style. He seems to be running on style. Every time I hear him speak, it's not about issues it's all this glowing rhetoric about "change".

Lord knows we need change.

Maybe if I were there I would see more of the substance but his positions on issues don't make it into the press over here much, nor in many of the USA based internet articles I read.

In fairness I haven't "dug deep".

Seems like there's a lot of fluff and rhetoric there, he's great at using emotion to poke at primordial human emotions for change and hope.

I was watching the video thinking oh great, what's he going to do next, walk on water?

I know, cynical bastard.

In any case, can you imagine what it would do to the world's view of the USA if he wins. Our approval rating would shoot up overnight and the last few dark years would quickly be brushed aside.

Seriously though, I couldn't make it through the video.

 
308Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:01
It just simply amazes me how quickly liberals will soak up Obama because of his speaking ability. A YouTube Obama montage gets the liberals here all orgasmic. If this guy gets elected and chokes, just remember you voted for him because he could talk.

Every time I hear him speak, it's not about issues it's all this glowing rhetoric about "change".

Exactly.
 
309Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:09
Sarge

Name something you have a firm reason to believe Obama will actually do, that I would approve of?

I'll give him credit, he can talk, but then so can Bill. So could Hitler. It's a two edged sword. People better find out exactly what the substance is behind those words.

I'll even go further and point out that presidents have surprisingly less power and tools to work with and the power to inspire is therefore even more important.
 
310Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:11
It just simply amazes me how quickly liberals will soak up Obama because of his speaking ability.

It amazes me that for 7 years we've had a president who could barely speak at all, even from a prepared text.
 
311Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:12
*edit

...surprisingly less than people assume. Bill Clinton was shocked when he asked his advisors what levers he had to manipulate the economy with and they told him basically all he to work with was optimistic speech.
 
312Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:19
It amazes me that for 7 years we've had a president who could barely speak at all, even from a prepared text.

And so because of that you want to overcorrect and get a guy with no substance than CAN talk?
 
313Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:34
Can't you just see the steam when all that togther talk from President Obama meets Nancy Pelosi?

Can you say flash evaporation?
 
314Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:42
Yeah, the Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy consortium sure is gonna love all that Republican togetherness that Obama is promising. Or could that be a lie?

There is a reason why George Soros left Clinton and went to Obama; and it's not because he expect Obama to work with Republicans.
 
315Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 10:36
Hillary is putting on a wonderful display of bulls#it on ABC right now. I swear that Anti-Christ looks like Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars. She talks about her "record". I'm not sure if she means her criminal investigation record or voting record. We need that level of clarification from her. She's also saying that she's used to attacks from the right. I wonder if that includes the "vast right wing conspiracy" from so long ago.
 
316nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 10:46


Is anyone besides me confused by Sarge's support for McCain?

Sarge has been one of the most vocal opponents of the war here (Rightfully so I will add) yet now he is ready to support the candidate with the bloodiest hands in this race.

McCain has been one of Bush's biggest supporters concerning the war...puzzling.

 
317Tree
      ID: 912339
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 10:52
Obama is what this nation needs. after 7 years of a president who wanted to only divide and not bring together, a president who created brown shirt believers like Jag and Box who will recite lyric and verse from his PR people in the media, we need a president who will bring people together and heal.

yes, overall, i believe Hilary Clinton will be a better president than Obama. i think she is more knowledgable on the issues, i think she is stronger willed and willing to fight harder for what she believes is right, and i think she is overall more qualified.

but i think after what Bush has done to this nation - both internally and externally in regards to fostered bitterness and anger, we need someone who will do just the opposite, and that is unite.

and i believe Obama is the better person for that job.
 
318Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 10:57
that Republican togetherness that Obama is promising. Or could that be a lie?

He isn't promising anything. He's hopeful that there can be a better working atmosphere in Washington. If you want to position that as a lie, then that's a product of your own cynicism.

Obama, like all candidates, has an

official website which has a list of issues and his positions.


There is a reason why George Soros left Clinton and went to Obama

Obama is on record
publicly disagreeing with Soros on important issues

And Soros hasn't exactly left Clinton and went to Obama:

At a lunch he gave Wednesday for reporters in a hotel here, George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire and former hedge fund manager who is a regular participant at Davos, vouchsafed a regard for Barack Obama as a Democratic candidate in the United States’ presidential race — but, diplomatically, he kept the door open to Hillary Clinton, too.

‘’I personally support Obama, but I don’t have any particular relationship,'’ said Mr. Soros, who has sometimes been a contentious figure in criticizing American economic and political actions. ‘’If he talks the way I talk, he would have no chance of getting elected: So I wish him well, but I don’t talk to him.'’ (Mr. Soros did help play host at a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama at the home of Paul Tudor Jones II, another prominent hedge fund manager, in May.)

Mr. Soros added that he had ‘’very high regard'’ for what he depicted as Mrs. Clinton’s statesmanlike qualities. ‘’I prefer Obama because I think he would bring more radical change,” he said. “But if she is the candidate, I will be very supportive of her.'’


link

I have reservations about Obama's desire for a more socialist state, but I have equal trepidation for McCain and Hillary's aggressive militaristic tendencies. I'd rather pay more taxes for universal health care and housing the poor than pay more taxes to bomb Iran and service permanent massive military bases in Iraq for the next decade.
 
319sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 12:00
re 309.....Obama was able to unite diverse organizations with deep seated views, and get them to work together while in the State Legislature. He has been somewhat (though less) successful doing the same in Congress. I see no reason at all, none, to doubt that he would have greater success doing so as President than as Senator. Of ALL the candidates, he is the only one I can see actually moving this country toward a united front. (With the few exceptions of those hard-core rightists who absolutely and under no circumstances will give a Dem credit for ANYTHING. Yes Boldy...that means you, Box and Jag.)

re 316...Nothing I can really put my finger on NC. He has vocally opposed the Rep party at times, but then voted right alongside them. For some reason, I admire the man and respect him. Yes, his and my position re Iraq and diametric opposites. Still, there is a certain something about John McCain that has always garnered my respect. Something, I think we as a nation are in sore need of; unity and respect.

 
320biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 13:31
From reading, Obama's stated policy and politics aren't hugely different than the other dems. Anyone who claims he is vacuous isn't paying attention. I am not concerned that he wouldn't be able to run government as well as, or better than, any other donkey or elephant.

What I find compelling is his potential as a true Statesmen. We haven't had that in a long while, and in my opinion we need someone who can unite and inspire us domestically by articulating a clear vision of ourselves and our country, while repairing the severe damage Bush has caused internationally. I think Obama is not only up to the task, I think he is eager for the challenge.
 
321nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 13:34


Don't forget Sarge he's the one who sang "Bomb, Bomb Iran".

He's been a huge supporter of the war in Iraq, and staying there and sending lots of troops. I'm just shocked with your opposition, very vocal and very right minded in my opinion, that you could vote for President a man who has continued to be such a vocal supporter of it.

He's probably the biggest supporter of the war in the race.

Look the guy has a certain charm...let's just say I suspect you've been charmed.. 8-}

 
322sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:01
lol NC...I like the fact that he ahs been vocal about opposing elements of the Rep platform in the past. Unfortunately, like the "good soldier", when it came time to vote, he voted along with the Rep powers that be. I guess I'm hoping that as Pres (if it comes to that), he'd be a little more inclined to stand by his stated principles. (of course, its entirely possible the way he votes ARE his real principles and the statements are simple rhetoric and politic playing. OTH, AC opposes him....do I need any MORE reason to support him?)
 
323Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:20
i really think that video sums up Obama. he absolutely inspires, like no politician in recent memory. he gives us hope that positive change can be made, and that we can all make a difference.

if you're curious, here's the least of folks who appeared in the video:


If The Great Leader's slogan is going to be "Yes We Can" he could at least have gotten Bob The Builder to get on board.

I can hear it now.

Ba-rack O-bama, can he fix it?

Ba-rack O-bama, YES! HE! CAN!

Oh the liberals would achieve nirvana then.
 
324Tree
      ID: 912339
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:26
yea, you're making a solid contribution again Boxman. thanks for your scintillating input.

try to have one post that isn't "liberals would (insert insult here)"...

your act is as stale and tired as the president and ideals you blindly support...
 
325Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:31
Can't I do my cheer for The Great Leader? He's such a GREAT speaker. No ideas, other than catch phrases and slogans. You know Tree, now I know why you like him. The Great Leader's campaign is a lot like a professional wrestling promo.
 
326Perm Dude
      ID: 5312218
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:35
Amazing how much the Right has turned into hardcore communists they used to hate.

I realize Boxman's post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there are many apologists who would make such a post without a hint of irony.
 
327biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:40
Boxman -

Have you read his books? Watched him debate? Read his website?

The dude has more ideas in his little pinky that you will have in 10 lifetimes.

Unless it's how to denigrate and dismiss someone you obviously know nothing about.
 
328Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:47
Have you read his books?

Have you read everything on McCain, Romney, Huckabee and all the other Republicans running for office? I don't care what the guy says in a book. Was The Audacity of Hope part of Oprah's book club by the way?

Watched him debate?

I've watched several debates on both sides of the contest (Probably a lot more than you.) and Obama talks about "change" quite a bit and ideas in passing. He's framing Hillary as the "establishment" and him as the candidate for change. Even though he's backed by the hedge fund folks liberals love to swipe at.

Read his website?

I've perused it. I do suppose that'll give me unbiased coverage though. I'll just take it as absolute truth and believe everything he says word for word like you guys do.

But hey, the guy can talk and he's got a slogan. There's always the WWE if this campaign fails.
 
329Perm Dude
      ID: 5312218
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:49
I think bili's point was less about reading all his books, than any of them. It boils down, I think, to criticizing someone you clearly don't know much about.
 
330Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:57
What do you know about Obama that Boldwin, Jag, and I don't? I'm specifically asking you PD because you give inteligent responses.

What I do know about Obama is that he's a good speaker and has a good catch phrase. Neither of those qualities will make him a good President. He is riding a wave of popular support that I believe is based on hype. What % of Obama voters could define the word "audacity" on the fly without looking it up? I bet you'd have a Jay Leno Tonight Show moment on your hands if you asked 100 random Obama voters on the street.

A candidate needs substance and credibility. Being a good speaker with a slogan provides neither in my eyes.
 
331Perm Dude
      ID: 5312218
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 15:05
I don't think you are looking (or even willing to look) past the delivery. Perhaps it is cynicism which is holding you back, I dunno. Edwards, for example, was smooth but his ideas were not all that good (IMO). Ssometimes "smoothness" gets conflated with "vacuous" -- but that is not the case here with Obama. But you will need to take the step of looking further.

There are a number of writers and intellectuals on the Right who have done so. While the reviews on policy are mixed, none have maintained that Obama is without ideas, despite disagreeing with some of them.

If nothing else, the ability of Obama to draw upon the goodwill of foreign countries is a good thing. Many countries are, frankly, excited to work with an Obama administration, and with our armed forces stretched so thin we will have to depend upon other countries to do things that we might have otherwise tried to do ourselves.

Also, our national debt, which is financed almost exclusively by foreign banks, isn't going away. I know it isn't "Republican PC" to talk about the interdependency that exists between the US and other countries, but that interdependency can no longer be ignored, abused, or taken for granted.

But the most important thing is attacking the extreme partisanship that exists in Washington, which is corrosive and very damaging to the way we govern ourselves. It need not be this way, and until we get past it many people (perhaps even yourself) won't even realize what a psychic, spiritual, and political drag it is.
 
332Tree
      ID: 912339
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 16:08
I don't care what the guy says in a book.

why not? if it's his words, shouldn't it be important?

Was The Audacity of Hope part of Oprah's book club by the way?

no, it wasn't. nice try though.

but even if it was, that would be a bad thing? yea, you're right. reading is terrible!

it's awful that Oprah has recommended reading such hacks as Gabriel García Márquez (twice), Cormac McCarthy (twice), Elie Wiesel, William Faulkner, Pearl S. Buck, Leo Tolstoy, John Steinbeck, Toni Morrison (FOUR times), Joyce Carol Oates, Isabel Allende, Maya Angelou, and many others.

simply awful and disgusting those recommendations she's made.

read a book boxman - you may learn something!!!

I do suppose that'll give me unbiased coverage though.

or, his stance on the issues - which, i'm realizing, isn't terribly important to you...




 
333Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 16:25
I know it isn't "Republican PC" to talk about the interdependency that exists between the US and other countries - PD

Uhm, consrvatives have been talking about smaller less expensive government forever. They've been trying to get the USA out of the UN and fighting foreign entanglements like the WTO, NAFTA, etc forever.

You just go on supporting great society style big spending all the while you brag about paygo and pretending there was any hope of fiscal responsibility from Dems. You will manage to live your whole life never meeting the truth.
 
334Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 17:33


Yeah, I believe Obama will be the type of president that disarms most partisan critics, but as we can see from the clowns above, not all.
 
335Perm Dude
      ID: 5312218
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 17:35
When have I supported big spending, B? Ever?

I realize that it is terribly inconvenient that Republicans are not only the ones who pushed for NAFTA and GATT, but have been on a spending spree for many years. But yet you keep peddling this all as something that Democrats are responsible for.

Until you come to grips with the Republicans in Washington betraying your own ideals you will never take another step toward them. Not one step.
 
336Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 17:56
You keep confusing conservatives with Republicans.
 
337Perm Dude
      ID: 5312218
      Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 18:22
As do you, it appears, with the added bonus of conflating "Democrats" with "liberals."
 
338nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 06:54


You keep confusing conservatives with Republicans.

Come on Baldwin. You would agree the Repubs are "more conservative" then the Dems right? Now they had full control of both houses and the Presidency for 6 years and ran up the highest deficits by far in the history of our country.

When Clinton, the "liberal" Democrat was in power we were starting to run surpluses.

Now I know Repubs doesn't mean conservative, but they sure as heck will tell you they are more conservative then the Dems...so what prevented them with anointing us with the "smaller government they promised.

And if they couldn't do it then why are you lecturing PD a Democrat on small government, when the party you always side MOST OFTEN WITH, created the biggest budgets in our history. Please don't dance around with semantics when it's convenient.

Also let's distinguish between a Fiscal Conservative and a Social (Read theocratic) conservative. As libertarians have shown you can be a Fiscal conservative, to the right of the Republicans and a Social liberal to the left of the Democrats.

Don't dance around with "You keep confusing conservatives with Republicans."...

I mean what else is there in the realm of possibilities in this country in 2008 besides dems and Repubs?

Oh wait libertarians...but of course you can't vote for them, because even though they would reduce the size of government, even though they would reduce the debt, well they would get rid of "the government" sticking their nose in our business and that just wouldn't work for you.

You would have to accept FREEDOM instead of THEOCRACY...no that won't work.
 
339Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 12:02


I'm sure Baldwin will appreciate this.
 
340Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:13
You keep confusing conservatives with Republicans.

That's not hard to do, especially given Bush's new 3 trillion dollar budget.

President Bush unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget proposal on Monday that supports a sizable increase in military spending to fight the war on terrorism and protects his signature tax cuts.

Bush called the document "a good, solid budget," but Democrats, and even a top Republican, attacked the plan for using budgetary gimmicks to project a budget surplus in four years.

The budget proposal, which shows the government spending $3 trillion in a 12-month period for the first time in history, squeezes most of government outside of national security, and also seeks $196 billion in savings over the next five years in the government's giant health care programs — Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor.


Hmmm, a sizable increase in military spending What a shock! And that sizeable increase doesn't cover the supplemental billions for Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the
request for a bigger government by bloating the State Department.

President Bush wants to hire nearly 1,100 new diplomats to address severe staffing shortages and put the State Department on track to meet an ambitious call to double its size over the next decade, The Associated Press has learned.

The additional positions are part of an $8.2 billion request for State Department operations for the 2009 budget year that Bush will submit to Congress on Monday, according to documents described by officials.

That request would be $690 million, or 9.1 percent, above the current level for department operations, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the public release of the spending plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.

Other significant proposed increases include a 41 percent rise in spending for new embassy construction, from $670 million to $948 million, and a nearly 20 percent boost for worldwide security spending, from $968 million to $1.16 billion.


Logically, any real conservative would oppose budget increases in all sectors, but the term conservative has become so warped that any opposition to increased military spending, warranted or not, immediately excludes one from that title.
We know that almost every Republican, except Ron Paul, will support this increased spending unconditionally, so yes, it is hard to confuse Republicans with conservatives.

 
341Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:28
The WSJ weighs in on the importance of the next election from a Supreme Court POV.

McCain and the Supreme Court
By STEVEN G. CALABRESI and JOHN O. MCGINNIS
February 4, 2008; Page A14

The conservative movement has made enormous gains over the past three decades in restoring constitutional government. The Roberts Supreme Court shows every sign of building on these gains.

Yet the gulf between Democratic and Republican approaches to constitutional law and the role of the federal courts is greater than at any time since the New Deal. With a Democratic Senate, Democratic presidents would be able to confirm adherents of the theory of the "Living Constitution" -- in essence empowering judges to update the Constitution to advance their own conception of a better world. This would threaten the jurisprudential gains of the past three decades, and provide new impetus to judicial activism of a kind not seen since the 1960s.

We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.

We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.

The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, for judicial conservatives electability must be a paramount consideration. By all accounts, Mr. McCain is more electable than Mr. Romney. He runs ahead or even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the national polls, and actually leads the Democratic candidates in key swing states like Wisconsin. Mr. Romney trails well behind both Democratic candidates by double digits. The fundamental dynamic of this race points in Mr. McCain's way as well. He appeals to independents, while Mr. Romney's support is largely confined to Republicans.

With many more Republican senators up for re-election than Democrats, the nomination of Mr. Romney could easily lead to a Goldwater-like debacle, in which the GOP loses not only the White House but also its ability in practice to filibuster in the Senate. Thus, even if we believed that Mr. Romney's judicial appointments were likely to be better than Mr. McCain's -- and we are not persuaded of that -- we would find ourselves hard-pressed to support his candidacy, given that he is so much less likely to make any appointments at all.

In fact, there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006. His pro-life record also provides a surety that he will not appoint judicial activists.

We recognize that there are two plausible sources of disquiet. Mr. McCain is perhaps the foremost champion of campaign-finance regulation, regulation that is hard to square with the First Amendment. Still, a President McCain would inevitably have a broader focus. Securing the party's base of judicial conservatives is a necessary formula for governance, as President Bush himself showed when he swiftly dropped the ill-conceived nomination of Harriet Miers.

Perhaps more important, because of the success of constitutionalist jurisprudence, a McCain administration would be enveloped by conservative thinking in this area. The strand of jurisprudential thought that produced Sen. Warren Rudman and Justice David Souter is no longer vibrant in the Republican Party.

Others are concerned that Mr. McCain was a member of the "Gang of 14," opposing the attempt to end filibusters of judicial nominations. We believe that Mr. McCain's views about the institutional dynamics of the Senate are a poor guide to his performance as president. In any event, the agreement of the Gang of 14 had its costs, but it played an important role in ensuring that Samuel Alito faced no Senate filibuster. It also led to the confirmation of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor, three of President George W. Bush's best judicial appointees to the lower federal courts.

Conservative complaints about Mr. McCain's role as a member of the Gang of 14 seem to encapsulate all that is wrong in general with conservative carping over his candidacy. It makes the perfect the enemy of the very good results that have been achieved, thanks in no small part to Mr. McCain, and to the very likely prospect of further good results that might come from his election as president.

Messrs. Calabresi and McGinnis teach at Northwestern University Law School.
 
342Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:57
I'm curious how denying citizens the right to habeas corpus, ala Juan Padilla, isn't promoting a "Living Constitution."

Equally curious how Scalia not recusing himself in the Cheney energy meetings case, after accompanying him on hunting trips, isn't an example of a "Living Constitution."

Is that what these guys teach at Northwestern University Law School?
 
343Boldwin
      ID: 2310322
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 14:58
I mean what else is there in the realm of possibilities in this country in 2008 besides dems and Repubs? - Nerve

Neocons...closet socialist globalists. The people who buy the post-Regan era Republican politicians as opposed to the rank and file who have to hold their nose and vote for them.

The media buries Reagan conservative candidates and the power elite tries to either starve them for campaign funds or corrupt them.
 
344sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 15:00
The rank-and-filedoesnt HAVE to vote for them. That they do so, knowing full well what they are getting vs voting for a 3rd party candidate or *shudder* selective Dems, illustrates how polarized our politics have become.
 
345nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 15:13

The media buries Reagan conservative candidates and the power elite tries to either starve them for campaign funds or corrupt them.

Please Baldwin...you supported the neo cons war.

You also must be aware that virtually everyone "Ronald" put in his administration was CFR?

Is he really "Saint Ronald" to you?

This is the guy that gave missiles to the Ayatollah in Iran a year after they held 400 of our citizens hostage and marched them blind folded through the street, here, no hard feelings, have some missiles...please.

What a joke.

How quickly we forgive.




 
346bibA
      ID: 53143415
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 16:50
Just which of the current candidates DO fit the bill as Reagan conservatives?

If none of the current crop, who are some of these persons who have been buried by the media and/or the power elite?
 
347walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 16:53
I think Ron Paul had some things in common, but Reagan also increased spending, no? I forget. They make such a big deal about how great Reagan was when he was never considered so great until just now, but the republican base. He did reach across the aisle and act cordially though. Good thing there. Maybe Duncan Hunter.
 
348sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 17:55
IIRC, wasnt Reagan known as "The Teflon President", since with all the indictments etc in his administration nothing "stuck" to him? Anyone else find it at least a little bit odd, how he is now hailed as the Republican poster child or model, for what a Republican is *ahem* supposed to be?
 
349Perm Dude
      ID: 2513847
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 17:56
The greatest thing about Reagan was that he wasn't very strict in his orthodoxy, he was willing to work with Democrats and treated everyone with respect, no matter what their differences were in policy.

Ironically (on many levels), many in the Republican Party use Reagan as a stick to beat down those who don't agree with them 100%--a kind of Republican litmus test.
 
350Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 18:50
many in the Republican Party use Reagan as a stick to beat down those who don't agree with them 100%--a kind of Republican litmus test.

Democrats did the same thing with FDR for decades, always willing to overlook his failures and foibles in favor of deification.
 
351Perm Dude
      ID: 2513847
      Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 18:54
Absolutely. Though I don't know that the deification of FDR has been the same thing as the beating stick Reagan's memory has become.
 
352biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 00:09
I have to say that, as a spectator, I'm much more fascinated by the Republicans. Watching those shifty, devious, unscrupulous creatures clawing at each other in spasms of demagoguery and pander is like beholding the whole vile, fear-driven history of humanity.
Sweet quote by Poet C.K. Williams.
 
353biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 19:15
Obama takes Georgia.
 
354sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 19:27
convincingly too. 69% to 25% for HC.
 
355Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 19:48
Huckabee wins W.Va. Well, not really.

Republican Mike Huckabee claimed the first win on Tuesday with a victory in West Virginia, one of 24 states holding nominating contests on "Super Tuesday" that will yield a huge haul of delegates to this summer's conventions to nominate the two candidates for the November presidential election.

Huckabee, a Baptist preacher and former Arkansas governor, won in the second round of balloting at the West Virginia Republican convention as most McCain voters switched to him to deny Romney a victory.


link
 
356Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 23:32
I don't know what to make of tonight right now and as I sit here not knowing who will be the Democratic candidate, my inner wonk is really getting excited about reading not just every result, but every exit poll as well. Usually, you read all that stuff after an election like an autopsy - the race is dead, let's see what really happened. Tonight's results will give us some real incite into what we will see in the future, for a change.

What I'm seeing so far is that Obama is not appealing to Latino voters effectively and was remarkably weak in New Jersey. With all of the attention placed upon Obama's appeal to young voters, I sorta forgot what that was happening at the other end of the spectrum - Hillary is really cleaning up among voters over 65. Since they have more voters and higher turn out than the kids, shouldn't that have been more of the story recently?

So far I've found CNN's exit polling data the most informative.

Can't wait for the California results!
 
357Perm Dude
      ID: 3714358
      Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 23:37
I don't think we'll get any conclusive result tonight. But if Obama is within 100 delegates, his 3-1 fundraising advantage will start to pay off as we move along.

At this point, there is no doubt in my mind that the superdelegates will be making the difference. And that means a lot of backoffice deals.
 
358Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 00:07
Geez, Huckabee is kicking a$$ in the South. If it weren't for these ridiculous winner take all states, there would be a 3 candidate GOP run to the convention.
 
359Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 00:10
Oh yeah, Obama wins Utah, which has like 20 blacks, half of whom play for the Jazz ;)
 
360Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 01:09
Huckabee is the only candidate tonight, maybe ever, to win a few states and finish fourth in two - North Dakota and Utah. Ron Paul looking strong in North Dakota, his strategy of visiting North Dakota in January, though insane, worked. He finished third and nearly passed McCain.
 
361walk
      ID: 141365
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 06:07
Funny, PV, #359. Looks like a split decision on the Dem side, but as an Obama supporter, I am concerned about Hillary's big win in California and dominance with both Latino and Asian subgroups. PD makes a good point about Obama's $ advantage, which allows him to be more of a marathoner in this race, and that is what this race is turning into. Hillary's clear support with reliable voting older votes is going to be tough to beat. The youngin's have to continue to swell in numbers.

On the republican side, I feel it's just a matter of time for McCain, altho they clearly were hoping for a Tuesday knockout punch. Romney lives on with his big $ chest, and Huckabee plays an interesting part, too. Still think this one is just a matter of time, given the big wins for McCain in California and the entire North East.
 
362walk
      ID: 141365
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 06:10
I am also curious what it means in the states like Kansas, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota and Utah. Obama won all of these states, including a tight win in bellweather Missouri. Most of these states are primarily white and red...how does this translate down the line, if at all, for the remaining states, and the big one's like Texas and Pennsylvania and Ohio?
 
363walk
      ID: 141365
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 06:11
Scratch that on Montana...
 
364walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 09:14
NY Times Editorial: Divided they Run

I thought this editorial in today's NY Times was worth sharing.
 
365walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 09:19
NY Times, Dowd: Darkness and Light

Part of the reason I am for Obama over Clinton. I don't want continued divisive politics. I want someone who thinks bigger. She'd be a good VP if that's the role she wants to play (as if).
 
366Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 09:26
I don't want continued divisive politics

that's what i've said both on this forum, and in private conversations.

my parents (in jersey) are big Hilary supporters, i suspect, because my step-mom is very much pro-woman, and i think they're willing to overlook everything else.

i love hilary. but, i think Obama can heal, where Hilary will keep this nation divided, whether her intention or not.
 
367walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 09:38
Tree, me and you are aligned. My mother and mother-in-law both voted for Hillary. They think she's more experienced and they also think she's more competent and brings Bill back. I see a strong candidate with bad timing. She cannot stop the anti-Clinton sentiment, and actually helps fuel it, too. Not what we need, but I dunno if a majority of Dems are going to see it our way by convention time. It's tight!
 
368Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 09:41
I'm sensing an agreement with Tree so perhaps you all might want to make arrangements with the Allmighty because The Rapture must be coming.

I'm tired of the severe division in politics too. The folks in China and the loons in the Middle East sure as hell ain't divided about their desire to see us come to an end. All the squabbling puts us at a continued disadvantage that we no longer have the luxury to have.

I will never vote for Obama, but I don't hate him. The left doesn't hate McCain. I'm not sure what they think about Romney. Now Hillary The Anti Christ on the other hand, it could be the death kneel of cooperative politics in this country if she was in charge because of all the negativity towards her.

Perhaps for the good of the country, both sides ought to collude against Hillary and make sure she doesn't get elected, even if she is the nominee.
 
369walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 10:13
Funny, Box. Here's my thoughts to your #368:

Being a left-guy, I'll chime in on my thoughts regarding McCain and Romney, and my thinking of what other lefties think of them, but I could be off on the second part. I would rather have McCain than Romney cos I think McCain is more principled, willing to work across the aisle, and a much more seasoned (experienced) politician. I think Romney would be a continuation of Bush (MBA type who puts ideology over data) and who has made it clear he will push a very conservative agenda. I fear McCain on things like "bomba, bomba, bomba Iran" as I don't think we have the resources to continue in the middle east for long, and that'll set our country back even further (see China). However, however, at least McCain knows and has said he would not increase spending (Iraq) while cutting taxes; that makes no sense.

Regarding Hillary. I don't think she is the anti-christ and don't understand why there is really so much intense negative sentiment towards the Clintons, but recognize that there is, and that she and Bill fuel the fire through their own unique poli tactics. She is now starting to campaign with a partial platform that "I can take on the republicans." As you are saying, I don't want the Dem pres to "take on the republicans." I want him or her to work with the republicans to get things done. It means compromise and negotiation and influence, and I see Hillary as relatively weak in these competencies compared to Obama (and McCain stronger compared to Romney).

All in all, if Romney were to get the nom, and be up against Hillary, I'd easily vote for Hillary over Romney as:

- They'd both be divisive
- Romney has little poli experience and very little credibility. No one in eithe r campaign seemingly likes or more importantly, respects, him. That is really, really problematic. His support comes from the conservative base who are more interested in the party than the country, and potential effectiveness of our leader. Very poor priorities.
- Businessmen don't do well as presidents
- Romney is too flip-floppy and therefore unreliable and has potential integrity issues
- Hillary is really freakin smart and knowledgeable about all kinds of policies
- And Hillary's policy beliefs are more aligned to mine (Dem)

I can see you voting for Romney for the opposite reasons (although I would argue hard about his lack of experience and lack of reliability on policy stances).
 
370walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 10:19
Oh, and to hammer it home, and also argue hard on the fact that Romney is not really respected in the poli circles, and the Dems, let alone a lot of moderate Republicans, might not work with him. We'd be at a standstill.

I am very disillusioned (in addition to my usual negative sentiments) by the Rush, Coulter, and similar "conservative base" that really would rather have a less qualified candidate like Romney than McCain cos McCain is not a 100% die-hard republican-conservative type. It's not like McCain is freakin campaigning like a Dem! I think you see how most folks can see this, as indicated by the results in the big states like California, NY and the rest of the northeast.

We have to stop thinking party-first. It's one thing for vote for your candidate cos their policy views are mostly aligned with yours, but it's another to put all of the weight behind a decision into policy without any regard for individual competence. Personal effectiveness is very key, too!
 
372Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 10:25
I'm curious when Tree and Boxman switched over to the anti-divisive politics side.

I recall as recently as a year ago, Tree was adamant for Hillary, declaring it 'her turn' or something to that effect. And Boxman much more recently was still all googley over Mr. 9/11.

These are easily the two most divisive figures to have entered the mix. When did your newfound priority emerge in such stark contrast to your previous positions?
 
373walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 10:39
Obama has that effect on folks, MITH.

;-)
 
374Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 10:41
Interesting results from the primary here in Utah. As previously mentioned, Obama wins the Dem primary convincingly. Since there's really no Dem political machine in Utah, that probably worked against Hillary. Interestingly, Obama won in super-conservative rural counties and retirement heavy Washington County in Southern Utah, not just liberal Salt Lake. Amazing that Obama swept the Rocky Mountain states of Utah, Colorado, Idaho and Montana, especially since Colorado has a large Latino Dem bloc.

Romney won the Utah GOP primary with 90% of the vote. The big shock is that Ron Paul finished third ahead of Huckabee. In my county(Utah), considered one of the most conservative in the entire country(home of BYU), Ron Paul finished second, ahead of Huckabee and McCain.
 
375Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 10:56
I recall as recently as a year ago, Tree was adamant for Hillary, declaring it 'her turn' or something to that effect.

i don't remember that "her turn" bit, but i'll take your word on it.

no question, i felt at one point that Hilary would be the best leadership for this country. i think Walk said it best above when he stated Regarding Hillary. I don't think she is the anti-christ and don't understand why there is really so much intense negative sentiment towards the Clintons, but recognize that there is, and that she and Bill fuel the fire through their own unique poli tactics.

i think that if that hatred didn't exist toward Hilary, she would be the best candidate, no question.

but i believe after 8 years of Bush, his cronies, his believers, and his supporters belittling their opponents, destroying what this country has stood for for 225 years, and in general using a "my way or the highway" approach, we need change.

and i believe Obama brings that, while Hilary, because of the hatred toward her - whether she deserves it or not - does not.
 
376Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 11:23
When did your newfound priority emerge in such stark contrast to your previous positions?

Giuliani dropped out of the race. So the guy I thought that would do the best job of thumping the crazies over in the Middle East is now gone. Now onto Preference #2...that being somebody who might be able to address some serious problems and get something done.

I have a hard time disagreeing with Boldwin's assertions with McCain. Yet I believe in this specific horse race, he would be the one to get things done. Romney appears more and more limp each time I see him speak and go over his history. Ron Paul is a loon. Huckabee's Fair Tax is a great idea, damn great, but will the country follow a former Baptist Minister? I don't have a problem with it, but I don't think he's electable on a national level and that risks putting either The Anti Christ or The Great Leader as President; neither of whom I want to see in the White House for various reasons.

So, by being the last man standing out of that list, I pick McCain. I do wish Huckabee would be picked as his VP so that the nation gets used to seeing Huckabee and would warm up to his ideas (namely the Fair Tax) more.
 
377sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 11:27
I will never vote for Obama...

That statement right there Box, is indicative of your (and many others) entire problem. You cannot (will not?), look past partisan politics. If Obama ran vs Ann Coulter...you'd vote for AC? That absolutely no scenario exists, where you could see yourself (or allow yourself) to vote for a Dem, means IMHO that all you want to accomplish, is to continue fanning the flames of the past 7 years.

Of those candidates running, my top priority is "Who can unite more than divide?" The clear answer to that, is Obama. A rather distant 2nd, I would place McCain. There is no 3rd, as none of the other candidates IMHO, would accomplish any union what-so-ever.


I find it interesting, that among Obamas demographics; he is clearly winning the young vote (those with the most "future" to them, AND amongst Dems with higher levels of formal education Obama is a HUGE winner. To my eyes, that says that those voters with the most knowledge and those voters with the most future; are united in Obama. I'm hopeful, it will be enough.
 
378Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 11:45
What do you think Obama's flaws are Sarge?
 
379walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 11:48
Interesting take on the demographic analysis, sarge33rd. Makes me wanna call me my mom and say: "you know, you don't have a vision for the future...Hillary will not heal our nation, and you know it. She may know her stuff, but it's not like Obama does not know nuthin'. Who can LEAD, really LEAD?" She voted already, and her Floridian vote does not even count...

Box may not be able to vote for Obama cos of policy differences, which would be fair. So, let's see what he says in response to your question. Ultimately, while I agree with you and Tree, and have been saying so for a looong time, now that Obama is my choice cos he is the most apt to unite our country, political process and re-establish our good standing abroad, he is also a liberal thinker, and that is aligned to my beliefs. It would be very interesting if Obama were a conservative, yet also had this unifying MO (which I also think is key -- it was Obama, always Obama, who spoke of real change, of really unifying the country, of "we" can do it, not "she" can do it -- it's genuine), would I be voting for him? I cannot answer, as it's hypothetical and just not in that literal situation.

So, to be sure, Box, why would you never be able to vote for Obama? thx
 
380sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 11:49
I think maybe some of his social ideas, go a little farther than I wouldlike. However, I dont see his most extreme ideas as being all that probable of being implemented, so I dont overly worry about them. OTH, HC has enough "contacts" within the Dem power-machine, that I fear her more radical ideas WOULD find implementation and in so doing, the division would grow. McCain frankly, brings the same burden, but I thik (hope?) he is a little more open to negotiation/compromise than is HC.

I note Box, that when challenged on your steadfast refusals to consider Dem candidates under any circustance, you respond by questioning the questioner. Why not just standup and admit, that your just one more political hack with an agenda and the country can just go to hell for all you care, provided it takes the route most pleasing to you?
 
381boikin
      ID: 59831214
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 11:54
ok there must be something wrong here i allmost completly agree in tone with a sarge statement:

I think maybe some of his social ideas, go a little farther than I wouldlike. However, I dont see his most extreme ideas as being all that probable of being implemented, so I dont overly worry about them. OTH, HC has enough "contacts" within the Dem power-machine, that I fear her more radical ideas WOULD find implementation and in so doing, the division would grow. McCain frankly, brings the same burden, but I thik (hope?) he is a little more open to negotiation/compromise than is HC.

then again i think there is something wrong with me in the fact that i find both mccain and obama ecceptable canidates though i do favor mccain.
 
382walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 11:55
Obama's flaws, I'll take a shot at it, Box:

- Could be more detailed when he communicates his policy stances.
- Needs to refrain from any potential "quips" that show a potential "edge" ("you're likeable enough, Hillary")
- Would be even better if had more years of elected national poli service.

However, his strengths, based on my little one-person assessment are: charismatic, reasoned, relationship-builder, consistent stance on policies, modesty, judgment, class, willingness to listen (lack of my way or the highway approach), inspiring, , openness to admitting mistakes, and a seemingly genuine interest in putting the country ahead of the party, IMO, make him easily the best candidate out there.
 
383walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 11:57
Back to you, Box. Why would you never vote for Obama? Whatever reason...policies, style, etc. Just tell us your thinking.
 
384Perm Dude
      ID: 3615610
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:11
Looks like Obama might have come out very slightly ahead in races last night

Still very close, and the contest merely tightens up at this point. But Obama with some clear talking points (more states, momentum, huge fundraising advantage, etc) going forward.
 
385Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:15
Why would you never vote for Obama?

Because I don't believe in government healthcare. I also don't think we need a tax increase right now which is exactly what the liberals who vote for Obama want. When you repeal a tax you are raising taxes, sorry but you guys can't wordsmith your way out of that one.

I think a campaign should be more than Hollywood-left / Oprah endorsements, hype, and catch phrases.

As I covered before, Obama is also backed by hedge fund people who are a part of a broader group of folks that he's critical of.
 
386Perm Dude
      ID: 3615610
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:18
When you repeal a tax you are raising taxes, sorry but you guys can't wordsmith your way out of that one.

I, for one, don't mind calling it a tax increase. Call it whatever you want to--asking the country to sacrifice during a war while giving the wealthy tax cuts at the same time is wrong.

Bush, of course, was backed by the oil business. Yet that didn't seem to bother you, twice. Hmmmm.
 
387Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:20
My coworker fiend, who wasn't sure who she'd vote for in yesterday's primary:

As a woman, it was hard to not vote for a woman. I know that's emotional and that emotions shouldn't come into play but I'm a woman and they do.
 
388Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:25
Bush, of course, was backed by the oil business. Yet that didn't seem to bother you, twice.

I'd bet that even the average joe knew Bush had oil ties before going into the primaries or the election. Does the average Obama voter really know who his backers are? I think not.
 
389sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:27
Because I don't believe in government healthcare...

And I dont believe it's "right" for people to work 40 hrs/wk, 52 wks/yr and not be able to afford the apparent luxury of PAYING for healthcare.

I for ex, havent been an inpatient for over 20 years. The last time I was in such a state, it was an in-line-of-duty injury which put me there. I havent spent over $200 in a year on my prescriptions in the past 20 years. Other than paying for my glasses (and some limited dental processes which insurance wont pay for anyway), I havent required over $1,000 TOTAL in medical care in the past 20 years. Yet, for insurance, I would have to pay some $750/m JUST for two people????????????? As I've said before, at 9k annually, I dont call it "insurance". I call it "pre paid medical" which may very well (in my history very probably) not be used. What would that premium be, for an employee with a spouse and 3 kids? What would THAT premium, do to their ability to buy insurance?

So Box, what would your solution be? Just let them get sick(er) and then roll die to see whether they live or die?
 
390walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:37
Thanks Box, now we know. Whatever your points are, I just wanted to know them.

I think all of the political candidates have some corp backers. I think Obama is far less beholden to them than many other candidates.

I am also with PD on the tax increase thing. I don't mind calling it raising taxes, and as I've said before, I would pay more taxes (i.e. have the tax cut repealed, which would affect me). I think we are in great financial debt as a country, and with our huge spending in Iraq, need to raise taxes to balance the budget. It's common sense. I would hope that a republican president would have such fiscal responsibility, too. So, this liberal wants a tax increase.

Government healthcare. Again a policy thing. Fair. I think it would help a lot of folks who cannot get or afford private insurance. This is a philosophical difference.

Oprah, hollywood, endorsement and catch phrase thing. That I think is a pretty invalid point. Hollywood are people, too, they have to support someone. Just because Oprah supports Obama does not mean that his entire campaign is based on her support and publicity. I mean, Huckabee has Chuck Norris (It's not like I'm saying that therefore means: "you'll like the flat tax, or I'll karate chop you"). However, what saddens me the most about that allegation is that you imply that Obama really has no substance, but is just good at "catch phrases." I wish you could be convinced to at least respect that he does have far more substance than that, and easily has more detailed positions than any of the republican candidates. Edwards had the most, and Hillary has a more detail-orientation on most any topic, but I don't think Obama is fluff. He knows his stuff. However, that's how you perceive it.

Okay, I now understand. I disagree of course, but thanks for answering...hence some of the differences between the parties.
 
391sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:44
Re Huckabee and his "Flat Tax" propsal.

I dont see it working..at all. It appears to be rpedicated, upon business reducing prices to allow for the 27% sales tax. I am quite confident, that with consumer "used" to paying $3.97 gal for milk, it isnt suddenly going to drop by 20%. Same for TVs, stereos, cars, books, restaurant meals, etc etc etc. The entire notion of that taxes affordability, is predicated on the idea that American Business ill reduce the retail pricing. I do NOT see that happening. What I DO see happening, is those same businesses, suddenly garnering an extra 20% in their gross margins. And with no income tax, they'd suffer no "penalty" for the sudden windfall. IOW, just one more way where "the rich get richer and the poor get to stay that way".
 
392Perm Dude
      ID: 3615610
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:50
The numbers don't actually work with the Flat Tax. It never really has, no matter whether it is Forbes, Kemp, Paul, or anyone else. The numbers don't add up.
 
393sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:57
I said FLAT, I need correct myself. Huckabee refers to it as the "Fair Tax", not Flat Tax.
 
394Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 12:59
So Box, what would your solution be? Just let them get sick(er) and then roll die to see whether they live or die?

I'll make you a deal. Be civil like others are here and drop the sarcasm. Then, start a thread or find an existing one and I'll answer that. I don't want to hijack a thread about something else.
 
395walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:03
Sullivan Tribute to Obama: The Natural

It's a bit fawning, but he writes as quickly as we post. I agree with much. The guy has class, and has built an organization from the ground up competing against a very established machine. Does that give him the leadership experience? Some, but I think Obama would also add other leadership roles he's had. The current campaign is his most recent, and potentially largest, example.
 
396sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:08
What "experience" did GWB have? Gov of a state wih a legislature that only convenes every other year? What expereince did Clinton have? Gov of a smallish southern state and recipient of a 30k/yr salary?

Experience, is a GROSSLY over-rated thing in politics IMHO. The experience thing, also lends itself to a candidates being "beholden" to this or that group. What experience Obama does bring, is his experience at negotiating compromises between different factions. THAT, is precisely, what this nation needs atm.
 
397Perm Dude
      ID: 3615610
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:21
#393: Call it whatever you want. The numbers don't work.
 
398sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:27
agreed PD. In 393, I was just correcting myself before someone else did. lol
 
399TacoJohn
      ID: 590291817
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:37
PD, why don't the numbers work? And couldn't you increase the percentage until they do?

Also, this is kind of a drop in the bucket overall, but did you factor in the $200-$300B currently being spent yearly to administer the income tax?
 
400Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:42
but did you factor in the $200-$300B currently being spent yearly to administer the income tax?

Wha? Got something to back that up? Does the "Flat/Fair" tax collect itself?
 
401Perm Dude
      ID: 3615610
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:44
I'll dig that out in a bit, TJ. Essentially, the tax would have to be very high to work. And higher still if things like food are exempt.

The cost of administering the tax would not substantially increase (the IRS budget for FY 2006 was a little over $10 billion, including the enforcement sections, not $200-300B).

Meanwhile: a Clinton-Clinton ticket?
 
402Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:46
Huckabee's numbers certainly don't work. He's lying to you when he tells you his proposal is a 23% tax on goods and services. In actuality, it's 30% and from what I've read few economists believe that 30% even approaches what the treasury currently brings in on the current tax system. Doesn't add up.
 
403sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 13:52
Right. And you want to see consumer spending grind to an absolute halt? Institute a 30% sales tax.
 
404Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:11
Wha? Got something to back that up? Does the "Flat/Fair" tax collect itself?

I do.

Fair Tax Dot Org

According to a detailed study by the Tax Foundation, in 2005 individuals, businesses, and non-profits spent an estimated 6.0 billion hours complying with the federal income tax code at an estimated cost of over $265.1 billion. This amounts to imposing a 22-cent tax compliance surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. The Tax Foundation projects compliance costs to reach $482.7 billion by 2015. Under the FairTax, the number of tax filers decreases by at least 75 percent and, according to Tax Foundation estimates, compliance costs are reduced by 90 percent.
 
405Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:15
While that didn't directly address governmental administration, it does show the savings to people who prepare the tax forms. This would also shift the tax preparation burden from people to businesses.
 
406Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:20
Well it shows the claims of supporters of the fair tax.


If you challenged a particular claim of the Clinton Campaign, you you accept an explanation from hillaryforpresident.org?
 
407biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:21
New Thread
 
408Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:21
Mith: Huckabee's numbers certainly don't work. He's lying to you when he tells you his proposal is a 23% tax on goods and services. In actuality, it's 30% and from what I've read few economists believe that 30% even approaches what the treasury currently brings in on the current tax system. Doesn't add up.

This should help.

23 or 30 Percent?
 
409sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:22
Right, and that poor bstrd making 30k/yr with a wife and two kids at home. With a 30% "Fair Tax" and no income tax:

His $2500/m gross disappears in a REAL hurry;

$600 rent becomes $780
$250 utilities is $325
$800 groceries is $1040
$100/m in gas is $130
$50/m car ins is $65

There went $2340 out of $2500, and there is no "income tax refund". Where as under our current system, he can claim withholding allowances which virtually eliminate Fed WH, so his available cash really doesnt change. Under our current system, he pays no income tax, via standard deductions and being in the mass working poor.

Under the so called "Fair Tax", the burden is inevitably shifted primarily to those who HAVE to spend their income in order to stay alive. The beneficiaries, are those who make millions, and dont HAVE to buy this-that and the other thing, but rather choose to.


What happens to home sales, when that 150k house, escalates to 195k PURELY due to the tax?

Oh, gonna exempt things like rent/mortgage/utilities? OK, so whats that do the per centage required to generate the needed revenue? 40%? 45?

Nope...it would destroy, consumer spending on non-essentials. (Best-Buys, Circuit City, etc etc would close their doors.) At an avg price of approx 25k, what happens to car sales when that price suddenly LEAPS upto 32,5 or more, for the same car that was last week, 25k?
 
410Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:23
If you challenged a particular claim of the Clinton Campaign, you you accept an explanation from hillaryforpresident.org?

You people want me to take the NYT as truth.
 
411Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:25
Sarge: Right, and that poor bstrd making 30k/yr with a wife and two kids at home.

Read up on Huckabee's plan to distribute checks so that people at the poverty line are covered.

Or you could go here.

Fair Tax
 
412Perm Dude
      ID: 3615610
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:27
Jeez, imagine that: It saves money to those who fill out the forms to fill out simpler ones. Of course, nearly all individuals don't itemize, so this phantom "savings" doesn't help them.

In fact, the only way the flat tax proponents can even show the beginnings of the tax paying for itself is by including inflated costs of tax compliance. The real question is: Does the tax collect enough revenue to cover the cost of government? And on this question the flat tax falls on its face.

To say nothing that scrapping a progressive income tax for a consuptive tax will result in a huge tax increase for working people. If you believe (as you do above) that eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy is a tax increase, then the flat tax (by whatever name) is a big-ass tax increase for the middle class and working poor.

There is a huge assumption that "complicated" (or "large") equals "unfair." As though collecting more tax money from the wealthy is a bad thing.
 
413sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:27
I have read it, and it doesnt work Box. It helps the rich(est) and destroys the poor(est).
 
414Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:30
I don't think you have read it Jim. I think you're lying again. You're trying to tell me in 2 minutes, based on the time I posted it to the time stamp on your post, that you clicked on the link, read the whole thing, formed an opinion, then typed out a response.

Bulls#it.
 
415sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:32
nooooooooooooo, I have read Hucabees plan IN THE PAST. (ie, the world didnt just start today)
 
416biliruben
      ID: 5610442715
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:32
This Thread's too heavy and is loading very slowly for me.

I created a NEW THREAD.
 
417Perm Dude
      ID: 3615610
      Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:35
Their web site has been around for some time, Box. This argument has come up before, giving plenty of time to go over their points. I, for one, still don't find any response to the arguments about their very high tax rate (approaching 35% in some studies), plus their crazy "Family Consumption Allowance" plan, which is just a huge fraud waiting to increase all our taxes.
 
418Wilmer McLean
      ID: 13218314
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 17:23
RE: 173

NY Times Op-Ed Contributor: Go Back to Black

By K. A. DILDAY
Published: February 27, 2008

London

I’M black again. I was black in Mississippi in the 1970s but sometime in the 1980s I became African-American, with a brief pause at Afro-American. Someone, I think it was Jesse Jackson, in the days when he had that kind of clout, managed to convince America that I preferred being African-American. I don’t.

Now I live in Britain where I’m black again. Blacks in Britain come from all over, although many are from the former colonies. According to the last census, about half of the British people who identify as black say they are black Caribbean, about 40 percent consider themselves black African, and the rest just feel plain old black. Black Brits are further divided by ancestral country of origin, yet they are united under the term black British — often expanded to include British Asians from the Indian subcontinent.

The term African-American was contrived to give black Americans a sense of having a historical link to Africa, since one of slavery’s many unhappy legacies is that most black Americans don’t know particulars about their origins. Black Americans whose ancestors arrived after slavery and who can pinpoint their country of origin are excluded from the definition — which is why, early in his campaign, people said Barack Obama wasn’t really African-American. Yet, since he has one parent from the African continent and one from the American continent, he is explicitly African-American.

Distinguishing between American black people based on their ancestors’ arrival date ignores the continuum of experience that transcends borders and individual genealogies and unites black people all over the world. Yes, scientists have shown that black means nothing as a biological description, but it remains an important signal in social interaction. Everywhere I travel, from North Africa to Europe to Asia, dark-skinned people approach me and, usually gently but sometimes aggressively, establish a bond.

When, early on in the race for the Democratic nomination, people wondered if black Americans would vote for Mr. Obama, I never doubted. During the last two years I’ve learned to decipher his name in almost any pronunciation, because on finding out that I’m an American, all other black people I meet, whether they are Arabic-speaking Moroccans in Casablanca, French-speaking African mobile-phone-store clerks in the outer boroughs of Paris, or thickly accented Jamaican black Brits, ask me eagerly about him. Black people all over the world feel a sense of pride in his accomplishment.

It’s hard to understand why black Americans ever tried to use the term African-American to exclude people. The black American community’s social and political power derives from its inclusiveness. Everyone who identifies as black has traditionally been welcomed, no matter their skin color or date of arrival. In Britain, in contrast, dark-skinned people who trace their relatives to particular former colonies can be cliquish. Beyond the fact that blacks make up a smaller share of the population here, this regional identity may be a reason that the British black community isn’t as powerful a social and political force.

I’ve never minded not knowing who my ancestors are beyond a few generations. My partner is an Englishman whose family tree is the sort that professional genealogists post on the Internet because it can be traced back to the first king of England in the 11th century. To me, it’s more comforting to know that, through me, our children will be black, with all of the privileges and pains.

On Mr. Obama’s behalf, American blacks have set aside their exclusive label. Polls show that about 80 percent of blacks who have voted in the Democratic primaries have chosen him. And all of the black people in the mountains of Morocco, the poor suburbs of Paris, the little villages in Kenya and the streets of London are cheering Mr. Obama’s victories because they see him as one of their own.

Black Americans should honor that. It’s time to retire the term African-American and go back to black.

K. A. Dilday is a columnist for the online magazine Open Democracy.

 
419Wilmer McLean
      ID: 13218314
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 17:25
Letters to the NY Times in response to K. A. Dilday's piece.
 
420walk
      ID: 381351512
      Tue, Mar 04, 2008, 06:06
Brooks, NYT: Defining Moment in Campaign
 
421walk
      ID: 381351512
      Wed, Mar 05, 2008, 06:19
NY Times: Dowd - Dems Identity Politics

This editorial, a view I've seen shared by other news analyses today, is somewhat depressing in the fact that it seems like the Dems are potentially gonna blow this thing as they splinter their party while the republicans coalesce around McCain. I think both Hillary and Obama, although I prefer Obama, are better candidates than McCain, but now have concerns that McCain will get momentum while the Dems hurt themselves in getting the nomination.

After last night's results, I don't see Hillary conceding anything until the convention. Yet, Obama will likely have the mathematical advantage in delegates up the convention, even if he loses Pennsylvania, so he aint bowing out either. The campaign of Clinton is getting more aggressive, and therefore I expect Obama to do the same or similar. I think Hillary's recent attacks have succeeded to some degree, and thus these tactics were reinforced.

My old high school buddies and I went out to dinner last week. They are not as politically active as most of us here in terms of following this stuff, and most of them are voting for McCain, and quite comfy doing so (feelings about security, lower taxes, experience). Oy veh.
 
422Tree
      ID: 3923655
      Wed, Mar 05, 2008, 06:40
yea, this is not a good situation now. i have concerns that Clinton will get dirtier and harsher with her tactics now.

James Carville recently joked to a group he was speaking to - a mixed group of Democrats and Republicans - and said (to paraphrase) "I've got good news for everyone in the room. To the Dems, it looks like we've got this one in the bag and will have to talk our way out of it. To the Republicans, we Democrats have a long history of doing just that..."

oy, is right.
 
423Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Wed, Mar 05, 2008, 15:58
Rasmussen Polls ... still early, but McCain leads Obama by 5%, and Clinton by a measly 1%. Long way to go.

My theory is that Obama tends to lead in polls that emphasize registered voters, not likely voters, like Rasmussen. This either suggests his support is less likely to vote/care, or that the models predicting voter turnout are bad. I guess we'll see.

I would also suggest there is a non-trivial probability that world-wide events will conspire to make McCain entirely unelectable, even if Kucinich wins the Democratic nomination in a brokered convention.
 
424sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Mar 05, 2008, 16:27
If HC winds up with the Dem nod, I'll be switching back to McCain. I'd rather see more logjams, than what I see as HCs revenge in the WH.
 
425Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Wed, Mar 05, 2008, 17:14
I'm with Sarge.
 
426Perm Dude
      ID: 4621449
      Wed, Mar 05, 2008, 17:18
You all wouldn't be alone.

Luckily the numbers are against the Clintons, but I wouldn't put anything past them.
 
427PJ
      ID: 1321152
      Thu, Mar 06, 2008, 05:05
What's all this hostility directed to Clinton about? Are you guys dead-set in having a woman occupying the White House instead of a man?

Honestly, if one prefers Obama, how can that person not prefer Clinton over McCain. Even though their styles of leadership appear to be different, in regards to positions on the issues of the day, while they might not be two peas in the same pod, Clinton and Obama are definitely two peas from the same bush.

I would never have thought that Obama supporters would prefer McCain over Clinton.

 
428Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, Mar 06, 2008, 06:16
Ann Coulter gives some well thought out advice.

HILLARY: STAND BY SOME OTHER MAN
March 5, 2008


The mainstream media said she was finished, but our brave Hillary soldiered on to wallop B. Hussein Obama in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island Tuesday night. I don't know what the MSM is so upset about-- we let them pick the Republican nominee. Did they want to pick the Democratic nominee, too?

Not only that, but after some toothsome appearances on various madcap comedy shows this past week -- "Saturday Night Live," "Late Night With David Letterman," "Hardball With Chris Matthews" -- Hillary's "likability" quotient is soaring! According to the latest CNN/CBS News poll, she's just been upgraded from "Utterly Loathsome" to "Execrable."

The percentage of registered voters who would rather disembowel themselves with a wooden spoon than vote for Hillary has just slipped below the magical 50 percent mark. We're surging, Hillary! If you want to be even more likable, you should go on "The View." Next to those four harpies, you seem almost agreeable.

Now that Hillary has won three primaries in a row, it's time for Obama to do the classy thing and withdraw from the race. (Obama won Vermont, but that was earlier in the day. Exit polls indicate he took the black vote. Literally. There was just the one.)

Imagine how proud Michelle Obama would be of her country if that happened! But Obama probably won't do the classy thing, despite claiming to be a "new" kind of politician and rejecting the politics of division.

If Hillary is serious about becoming president, she's got to make some changes. I say this as a Hillary supporter and strong opponent of divorce. Hillary: You've got to divorce Bill. You've already fired one campaign manager. Now it's time to get rid of your No. 1 buzz-killer.

Not only is the media's group-lie about Bill Clinton being a "rock star" over, but -- one can hope -- the use of the excruciatingly stupid phrase "rock star" to refer to wonky politicians is over. It's become such a cliche that music critics have begun referring to actual rock stars as "leading Democratic contenders."

Liberals believe, often accurately, that if they say the same thing over and over again 1 billion times, people will believe it: "Bush lied, kids died," "We've lost in Iraq," "Reagan is stupid," "Bush is stupid," "Republicans are stupid," "Global warming is destroying the planet," "Gloria Steinem is good-looking" and -- their most provably false assertion -- "Bill Clinton is the most talented politician of his generation."

In a period of just a few short months last year, "news" articles in The New York Times cooed -- I mean "said" -- the following about Bill Clinton:

-- "Elvis is here, Clinton version. Having Bill Clinton campaign for you, as Mr. Ford learns, is a mixed blessing. You are bolstered standing next to this outsized Democrat, but still seem puny by comparison."

-- "Mr. Clinton is one Oscar-worthy supporting actor who can sometimes upstage his leading lady simply by breathing."

-- "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been trying to capture Bill Clinton's old political magic and lay claim to his legacy and popularity."

-- Tony Blair's charisma "ranks second only to Bill Clinton's."

Not to be a stickler, but Bill Clinton is the guy who could never get as much as 50 percent of the country to vote for him. And that was in two presidential elections that the Republicans basically sat out (as they are doing this year).

It was also in elections held before the country realized "Elvis" Clinton was molesting the help. If Bill Clinton is the Democrats' idea of Elvis, somebody should tell them he's playing to half-empty houses.

Besides the joy liberals take in lying generally, they have massive Reagan envy. Despite having informed us the requisite 1 billion times that Reagan was a dunce, Americans adored him, and still do.

Democrats wanted one of their presidents to be adored, too -- and not just for being assassinated. But they only seemed able to produce laughable incompetents like Jimmy Carter.

So no matter how preposterous it was, liberals just kept telling us that the chubby kid with the big red nose whose greatest moment on the football field involved a wind instrument was "Elvis." According to Nexis, that appellation has been applied to Clinton approximately 1,000 times. In print, that is. There's no telling how many drunken cocktail waitresses have whispered it in Clinton's ear during late-night elevator assignations.

You can stop lying for the voters now, Hillary. This is me, Ann Coulter, your supporter.

This charade of a marriage has gone on long enough. Even if you were stupid enough to marry him back in the '70s, Bill is just so over, girlfriend. He can't even get Holiday Inn cocktail waitresses anymore. Last I heard, he was hitting on the Motel 6 housekeeping staff.

You're too good for him, Hillary. Obama has now denounced and rejected Louis Farrakhan. It's time for you to denounce and reject Bill Clinton.

Obama excites voters by offering to be the first black president. You've got a chance to make history by becoming the first divorcee to win the White House.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
 
429Tree
      ID: 2324465
      Thu, Mar 06, 2008, 06:47
still early, but McCain leads Obama by 5%, and Clinton by a measly 1%. Long way to go

and here, different poll results...

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain trails Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in hypothetical matchups, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Wednesday.

Illinois Sen. Obama leads McCain by 12 percentage points -- 52 percent to 40 percent; New York Sen. Clinton leads McCain by 6 points -- 50 percent to 44 percent, the poll found.
 
430Razor
      ID: 420241513
      Thu, Mar 06, 2008, 08:53
Seeing Coulter deny Bill Clinton's star power and say that the Republicans "sat out" the 1992 and 1996 elections, one of whom's candidate was the sitting President, makes me think that she's just too biased to ever be right about anything. And whether or not Clinton ever got 50% of the vote, he always won by large pluralities.
 
431Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Thu, Mar 06, 2008, 10:57
I don't know what the MSM is so upset about-- we let them pick the Republican nominee.

Who is "we", Ann? Right wing talk radio and the right wing blogosphere? So, if you and Rush and Hannity and a host of other bloviators had publicly opposed McCain's candidacy, then the Republicans would have a different candidate? Oh wait, you all did oppose his candidacy, virulently smearing him at every opportunity.

It's not the MSM that's upset. It's you and your increasingly irrelevant pack of attack dogs who are upset, because Republicans nominated McCain despite your concerted efforts. You didn't "let" anyone do anything except reject you and your arrogant misjudgement of your own influence.
 
432Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Mar 06, 2008, 11:08
The mainstream media said she was finished, but our brave Hillary soldiered on to wallop B. Hussein Obama in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island Tuesday night. I don't know what the MSM is so upset about...

Wasn't Ann and the right wing whining just a few short months ago about Hillary being MSM's foregone conclusion? Is there any unfavorable political outcome that they won't blame on the media? Even when doing so completely contradicts what they were complaining about just a few months back?
 
433Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Fri, Mar 07, 2008, 01:13
I disagree with the thought that the Obama/Clinton primary battle will hurt the eventual winner (hint: Obama). Having to campaign throughout March and into April generates tons of earned media - nightly national newscast coverage. All of his campaign stops pay off not only for the primary elections but the general as well. Money will continue to pour in, and donors who are willing to kick down for the primary will probably be convinced to donate in the fall. Furthermore, the lazy national media is bedazzled by large sums of money, which Obama has been able to generate without even trying, leading to numerous stories about how much Obama is raising compared to McCain.

Clinton will continue to attack Obama and this isn't bad, either. Slug Obama with your best shot, I'd rather he weather these attacks in March than October. Come fall, all this mud will not get any play as every juicy attack will have played out in March.

Obama will win a hard fought primary and emerge as the inevitable winner. John McCain will simply be a foil, the 2004 St. Louis Cardinals to Obama's triumphant Boston Red Sox, who just took down the team everyone loves to hate.
 
434Perm Dude
      ID: 025577
      Fri, Mar 07, 2008, 08:55
Karl Rove (of all people) made a similar point Tuesday night. McCain clinched the Republican nomination, and was relegated to about 5 minutes. Obama/Clinton took up all the rest of the time.
 
435Perm Dude
      ID: 025577
      Fri, Mar 07, 2008, 20:03
Obama might pick up some of Edwards' Iowa caucus delegates. 14 delegates could commit to either Obama or Clinton, and Clinton (as usual) hasn't got a clue).

Also while you were sleeping, Obama with a swing of 8 delegates in California. That is, 4 delegates switched from Clinton to Obama, making the final CA numbers 203 to 167. Still a Clinton win, but since individual delegates are much more important to her at this point this really has to hurt.
 
436walk
      ID: 23253720
      Fri, Mar 07, 2008, 21:56
NYT, David Brooks: (Obama should not) play by Clinton's Rules

As an Obama supporter, I agree. The core essence of his campaign, and success, is his politics of hope and unification. If he personally goes after Hillary like the way she has neg gone after him, it will help her more. He needs to show that he is above it, and that he really really believes that his message is superior.
 
437Perm Dude
      ID: 3925889
      Sat, Mar 08, 2008, 20:14
Obama's strategy to take states Clinton bypasses gets him Wyoming.

With the switch in 4 CA delegates, plus a 3-4 delegate pickup in Wyoming, Obama has now wiped out Clinton's advantage in winning Ohio.

On the 11th is Mississippi wher Obama is expected to win as well. Then a long wait (until April 22) for the candidates to put millions of dollars into the local economies of Pennsylvania. Better get my guest bedroom fixed up...
 
438walk
      ID: 825589
      Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 16:30
NYT, Kristoff: Obam and the Bigots

Interesting and unfortunately, an issue.
 
439walk
      ID: 825589
      Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 16:33
NYT, Dowd: The Monster Mash
 
440Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 17:47
Now The Great Leader is complete. Not only can he hypnotize you with his words, but now he gains your sympathy because he's a victim. Now all The Great Leader has to do is to display his mighty liberal outrage and the masses will all climax together in one momemt of bliss.
 
441Tree
      ID: 17242915
      Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 18:46
don't you EVER get tired of being annoying?
 
442Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 20:45
Now all The Great Leader has to do is to display his mighty liberal outrage and the masses will all climax together in one mome[n]t of victory.

I think you enjoy being in the minority. I enjoy you being there, too.
 
443Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 21:12
I think you enjoy being in the minority.

Now I can be the victim, the second guesser, and the deliverer of outrage. Oh yippie ki-yo ki-yeah!

Now I can be the one to say, "Well The Great Leader did this, but we need to be doing MORE." and other vague generalities that the liberals have so often times thrust into our face.

Oh when The Great Leader arrives things will be great in 2008 and fine in 2009.

The Great Leader is the Viagra for the penis of liberalism and we will all get poked and prodded in our special places with it; some willingly, some not.
 
444Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 19254914
      Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 21:23
You preach it brother.
 
445Tree
      ID: 45233918
      Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 21:33
can i get an aaaaa-men??

 
446Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 21:37
If that's a preview of The Great Leader's cabinet then you have an Amen from me.
 
447Perm Dude
      ID: 56220916
      Sun, Mar 09, 2008, 22:04
The title "Great Leader" is already in use by our current President. As in "Give The Great Leader everything he asks for and He'll keep us safe."

Boxman: You do realize that Obama preaches personal responsibility? Are you saying that liberals have so often thrust responsiblity as the cost of civic opportunity? Or perhaps you are against personal responsiblity?
 
448Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Mon, Mar 10, 2008, 00:21


Bonney Lake, WA girl in Clinton "3 AM" ad actually supports Obama
"What I don't like about the ad is its fear-mongering," Knowles told "Good Morning America Weekend Edition" on Sunday. "I think it's a cheap hit to take. I really prefer Obama's message of looking forward to a bright future."

Yeah, me too.
 
449Perm Dude
      ID: 30234146
      Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 10:34
Obama leading in superdelgates, too.

At some point, it should become clear to Clinton that she is hurting herself as well as the party, to continue (and to continue the way she has).
 
450Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 11:35


Hill Rodham looks a lot like Willy Loman. Wonder if Chelsea/Biff will follow in "his" footsteps?
 
451Perm Dude
      ID: 22253156
      Sat, Mar 15, 2008, 20:59
Obama increases his lead in delegates, as Iowa (remember them?) moves to the next level in their process.

Looks like some Edwards delegates are switching.
 
452Perm Dude
      ID: 33239189
      Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 13:29
Looking ahead for the Dems:

PA: 188 delegates
IN: 84
NC: 134
NE: 31
WV: 39
KY: 60
OR: 65
MT: 24
SD: 23
PR: 55
GU: 9

Total of 712 delegates still to be chosen. If Obama and Clinton split these, this'll give Obama 1411 + 356 = 1767 pledged delegates. With 207 superdelegates already stating they will support Obama, that gives him 1974 total--only 51 short of the nomination. A switch of 26 delegates from even from Clinton's side and he's got the nomination. Or, even fewer, and the settling of some caucus states (like Iowa) result in more delegates pledging to Obama as they go through their process.

Obviously this is all subject to change. Clinton seems very strong here in PA, but we have some weeks to go. However, what gains Clinton makes in PA is likely to be overturned in Indiana and North Carolina where Obama has healthy leads himself.

On the Clinton side, there really is no way she can win it with Florida out of the picture and Michigan less and less likely. She's trying to take super delegates but the numbers just aren't there for her. Splitting delegates in the next 11 contests (not easy to do) will give her 1598 pledged delegates. With 237 super delegates this leaves her short 190 delegates.

There are 356 super delegates (796 - 211 - 237) who have not endorsed a candidate. Clinton *might* be able to pull it off by somehow convincing a majority of the uncommitted super delegates to support her (despite Obama's leads in the popular vote, pledged delegates, and states won). I have no doubt they will do what they have to do. But the numbers are against her.
 
453walk
      ID: 21250214
      Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 12:28
NY Times: Frank Rich, G.O.P. Resurrection
 
454walk
      ID: 21250214
      Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 12:28
NY Times: Haunting Obama's Dreams
 
455walk
      ID: 21250214
      Sun, Mar 23, 2008, 12:29
I really liked and agree with Frank Rich's opinion today.
 
456Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 12:07
Maybe Hillary Clinton wasn't lying about Bosnia after all. She looks so calm. Ready on Day One, indeed!

 
457Boldwin
      ID: 53211263
      Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 13:08
ROFL
 
458walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 13:31
NY Times, Dowd: Hillary or Nobody?

I concur with the Clinton MO described by Dowd at this point.
 
459walk
      ID: 181472714
      Wed, Mar 26, 2008, 13:32
NY Times, Gabler: McCain & the Media
 
460walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 09:53
WSJ/NBC Poll regarding Dem Candidates
 
461walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 13:39
NYT, Collins: Neverending Dem Primary
 
462walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 13:40
NYT, Kristoff: Clinton as Nader (Spoiler)
 
463walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 13:41
NYT, Roger Cohen: Hillary

I really agreed and liked this opinion piece. We need a new way of dealing with shiit.
 
464Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 14:03
Walk 463 -- if you correct yourself within minutes, how can you describe that as being "smacked of muscle-flexing" ??? Wouldn't any muscle that was flexed be countered by your retraction?

In terms of a new discourse, I'd recommend that we start by giving people, say, at least 5 minutes to correct their own statements.

My second point would be to refrain from taking sentence fragments out of context just to fire up the base. (as in McCain's 100 year war).
 
465Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 14:17
McCain has made the same mistake several times before, Madman.
 
466Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 14:45
"I don't think Americans care if we are there for 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years."

That's not taking a fragment of a sentence out of context, that's pointing out supreme idiocy! McCain has spent far too much time campaigning in front of American Legion or Veterans of Foreign War groups. I can't envision more than one in one hundred Americans saying "if it takes 1000 years of occupation in Iraq, let's do it!"
 
467walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 15:32
Right Madman...he made that mistake all week long (and who knows how many times before in private or in his mind) before Lieberman corrected him (in public). Ugh.
 
468Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 15:35
The McCain quote ... E.H.: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years –-
Mr. McCain: Maybe a hundred.
We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.
That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.


This is the same sentiment that Obama's miltary advisor, General McPeak has expressed. The point was that the main thing we should be concerned about is the loss of US life, treasure, and regional acceptance, not an argument over how long we have a prescence there.

PD -- touche. I still would argue that if you've retracted the statement once -- even if you made it twice -- that it loses any machismo force.
 
469Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 15:38
I agree. I meant to add that I didn't think the original mistake was that big of a deal. Might not even have been noticed if Lieberman hadn't publically corrected him!
 
470Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 15:54
PD 469 -- I also wonder if he's not stuck on some of the 9/11 Commission stuff ... Not saying he should be, just saying that he might be.

Either way, the broader point is the same.

Back onto HRC, any thoughts on how serious her Bosnia memory thing is? I'm waffling. On the one hand, she created a memory that was demonstrably false. On the other hand, memory is a tricky thing, and there may have been the threat of sniper fire.

I'm beginning to think that it isn't important, except insofar as it is an example of exaggerating her foreign policy creds ... and again, even on that I'm waffling. Because yes, she's exaggerating. But all candidates will.

And, no, being first lady isn't the same as being President. But taking all partisanship aside, what training / exposure would you like a President to have? HRC's had a first-row seat to 8 years of foreign affairs ... in some ways, that is an ideal learning arena ... Not saying I'm going to vote for her. Just saying that no candidate is really "experienced" at being President ... maybe even if they've been President, since the world changes so quickly.
 
471Boldwin
      ID: 332562616
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 17:27
When you are hanging by a thread every breeze is significant.
 
472walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 17:28
Interesting #470, Madman. I guess I feel that with Hillary, there is a consistent pattern of her exaggerating her experience. She is currently playing the "I'm the best fit on the Dem side to be the commander in chief" card, and in order to do so, needs to demonstrate based on what experience...and she's trying to do that, but it's really not very powerfully persuasive, and insteads, seems bogus.
 
473walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 09:18
NYT, Brooks: McCain does not Equal Bush

This opinion piece is very supportive of McCain.
 
474Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 11:43
From Brook's article:

In stabilizing Asia and the Middle East, he would rely more on democracies like Turkey, India, Israel and Iraq, and less on Mubarak and Musharraf.

Unlike the realists, McCain believes other nations have to be judged according to how they treat their own citizens.


McCain might want to re-evaluate how Turkey treats its Kurdish citizens.

Overall, though, his speech Wednesday was a step above the usual generic distortion of what constitutes defense. Then yesterday, he appeared to retreat to such rhetoric while here in Salt Lake with Mitt Romney at his side.

"More and more Americans are supportive of what is going on because the surge is working," said McCain
link

It's time this country had an honest debate about the surge is working claims. Much like the surge into Anbar didn't work in 2004, the current strategy of marginalizing the Sadrists by military means has exaberated into a full-blown armed conflict in Basra and much of Southern Iraq, an area that was supposedly among the most tranquil outside of Kurdistan. We appear to have missed a golden opportunity to reach out to the Sadrists after the August cease fire that Al-Sadr recently extended. Instead we were complicit with enflaming the situation by a continuance of targeting Sadrist leaders, both political and military, as "the enemy," when we should have recognized the Sadrists as a legitimate political movement with widespread support, and worked hard to bring them into the process, which was the successful template with the Sunni insurgency in Anbar.
The media is also complicit in the charade. Has anyone ever read an article where Al-Sadr wasn't chracterized as "anti-American, radical cleric" or at the very least, "fiery cleric?" When these characterizations are followed by facts: the cease-fire and the extension, the condemnations of acts by break away Sadrists, the current call for a political solution, they tend to fall on deaf ears, and the overwhelming conclusion is that Al-Sadr and the Sadrists as a group are "the enemy." It might said that every group of any size in Iraq is "radical."

The reality is that the Sadrists are just another element in the many groups that make up the complicated scenario that is Iraq. Stability, if possible, can only be accomplished through proven methods of success, with the Anbar experience a good model to follow.
 
475Perm Dude
      ID: 4222288
      Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 14:50
Hillary Clinton Fondly Recalls Leading Arkansas to 1994 NCAA Title

Under sniper fire.
 
476Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 22:27
PD -- we need her back on the Hogs ...

walk -- I really like the idea of the League of Democracies, on multiple levels. Not sure it was McCain's, but I hadn't heard of it before. He has some good ideas on most counts ... but he still hasn't addressed the three elephants (Iraq, Afghanistan, OBL). Not sure anyone can address those, aside from bromides.
 
477Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 22:32
PV -- I'm sure we will. I'm waiting to hear Petraus on 4/8, and it's still too early for me to tell what in the heck is going on in the recent explosions. Also not sure you can use the same or similar approaches in all provinces ... "The surge" as I understand it was equal parts US change in strategy to protection of civilians coupled with overtures from Iraqis that made such a US change possible. That fortuitous set of events isn't replicable everywhere.

I'm also concerned that the current Basra situation was facilitated by the British troop pullout a few months ago ... you know, back when Basra looked peaceful.
 
478walk
      ID: 2530286
      Sun, Mar 30, 2008, 20:28
NY Trimes, Frank Rich: Hillary's St. Patrick's Day Massacre
 
479Seattle Zen
      ID: 29241823
      Sun, Mar 30, 2008, 20:31
This one is for Madman
 
480walk
      ID: 181472714
      Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 13:25
Obama Moving to Down Earth Oratory
 
481Perm Dude
      ID: 3232828
      Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 11:22
PPP has Obama by two.

Probably an outlier. But there is a trend toward Obama in Pennsylvania.
 
482Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 08:52
You know things are getting desperate when the Clinton's are resuscitating the story that HRC attempted to enlist in the Marines (and/or Army) right before she married Bill back in 1975.

link
 
483Perm Dude
      ID: 49321410
      Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 12:30
Yikes. Good find, Madman. How are they taking HRC's long slow death there in Arkansas?

And why don't we hear about FOH's, only FOB's?

Word on the street here is that if Obama wins PA Clinton will pack it in. FWIW, IA has a statistical tie while Strategic Vision is showing a narrowing.

In NEPA, HRC volunteers are not as widespread as one might think, with Kanjorski (our House rep) and Rendell very pro-Clinton (Wilkes-Barre's HRC office is across the street from the Obama office, and they have 2-3 people in there on average during the day while Obama's office has 10-15 during the day. I haven't even seen a Clinton office in Stroudsburg). Casey's endorsement seems to have really made an impact in the blue collar regions up here, which was what helped Clinton to victory in Ohio.
 
484Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 13:04


81% in Poll Say Nation Is Headed on Wrong Track

That's the absolute worst number they have recorded since they started asking that question back in the early 90's. Sounds like people want, hmm, change. Does not bode well for McCain.
 
485Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 18:33
How are they taking HRC's long slow death there in Arkansas?

I'm not the best barometer of that ... but I can give you these impressions ... before the primary, there were tons of HRC signs in most of the upscale Dem areas here in LR ... since that time, some have remained up, but every week you see fewer and fewer. I don't see much popping up in their place, so I don't know if Obama will benefit or not.

My hunch is that the polling for AR is stable ... if HRC wins the Dem nomination, she wins AR ... if Obama wins it, McCain wins AR. The first part of that is a 100% lock; the second part is about 75-25, with the wildcard being that McCain isn't popular among Republicans down here and he's going to have to rely on the old-time white Democrats who frequently vote Republican in the general. That's a solid bet, but what is unknown is the Obama-pull-in factor ... I'm not entirely sure how the economic factors will play down here since we didn't go too nuts in the housing market (LR supposedly appreciated 4% last year despite all this).

I'd also be interested to know how he's organizing down in the Delta. As far as I know, Mike Ross hasn't switched away from HRC; he'd be the person to watch. Only if Obama can massively pull the Delta will he have a chance in the state. Clinton stomped him in Jefferson Co., and most counties SE of there ... not sure if the black vote split or what ... I suspect the sentiment might be different now ... 2/5 seems a year ago.
 
486Perm Dude
      ID: 4032378
      Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 11:06
HRC's travels as First Lady.

That's a lot of sniper fire!

HT: TPM
 
487Perm Dude
      ID: 4032378
      Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 17:00
ARG shows it tied in PA. Telephone poll of 600 likely voters in PA.
 
488Perm Dude
      ID: 5031696
      Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 10:11
Dems looking good to increase their Senate lead

Even just one more Senator and Lieberman will be booted, I suspect.
 
489Perm Dude
      ID: 14352118
      Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 12:01
Obama campaign refuses to pay bribes, er, "street money" in Philly.

Good for them. Break the machine! Any political organization which depends upon people wanting to "get theirs" to get out the vote doesn't deserve support.
 
490Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 18:52
CQ Politics with an exhaustive analysis of Pennsylvania and the likely delgate allocation

Their prediction: Clinton 53 Obama 50.

Because of the way PA allocates delagates, it is difficult for a candidate to run away with the numbers, and the wide range of voters here make it unlikely that either candidate will win on macro grounds either.

Meanwhile, Bitter-gate (that is, the Elitists calling Obama an elitist and getting offended by it) appears to have had little effect in Pennsylvania.
 
491walk
      ID: 83171517
      Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 19:18
"bittergate"..."elitists calling Obama elitist.." LOL, very good, Sullivan.
 
492Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 19:29


For PD

:)
 
493Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 19:44
Doesn't match my skirt, MBJ.

:)
 
494Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Tue, Apr 15, 2008, 19:45
Walk, did you see this one?
 
495Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 12:02
Bruce Springsteen endorses Obama for president

"He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years."

In a letter addressed to friends and fans posted his Web site, Springsteen said he believes Obama is the best candidate to undo "the terrible damage done over the past eight years."

"He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next president," the letter said. "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.' "
 
496walk
      ID: 181472714
      Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 10:13
LOL, PD. Thanks. Sorry for the very late, reply.

Eeeeesh, what about that debate last night? The only thing that is consensus is how it was an American low in main stream media political news broadcasting. They freakin boo'd Gibson and Stephanopolous, and rightfully so. The questions were so awful, so non-substantive, and so reinforcing of all of the wrong "issues" (pins, Wright, Bosnia claims, gotcha, gotcha, and more set-up's for future gotcha's..."pledge this, you fcukin dick" -- that woulda been an appropriate response from the candidates).

Obama, according to big time advocate Sullivan, was poor, but Sullivan says the real winner was McCain cos both Dem candidates looked trivial, were forced to respond to trivial questions, and Clinton was aggressive while Obama was exhausted. Not cool. To what end was this debate format? Ugh.
 
497Perm Dude
      ID: 13336177
      Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 10:21
Love the boos! That was pretty cool.

I thought Obama looked tired and at times a bit lost. Clinton looked focused but both were answering stupid questions. Affirmative action? Is that a big issue in this campaign? I didn't see the whole thing, but the first part was just slow and had a meandering feel to it.
 
498Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:36
Affirmative action? Is that a big issue in this campaign? It ought to be. Right now, unable to stay on substance, the campaign seems primarily about socializing why Pennsylvanians are religious (did I hear Obama repeat that people "end up" being religious because of economic issues?)

Haven't gotten through the online video yet. Was my big issue talked about? (world food prices?)
 
499Perm Dude
      ID: 13336177
      Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:47
There was very, very little of substance in the debate that I watched. Talking about affirmative action in lieu of a question about torture, the environment, spending (though a capital gains tax question apparently stood in for one), the environment, or asking Obama if Rev Wright loves America as much as Obama does (WTF??).

It reminded me of a FOX news person who, when talking about the Rev Wright flap, insisted that in "any debate on race" that reverse discrimination get as much or more discussion as discimination suffered by blacks.

I'm afraid, Madman, that the food prices issue was far too big for this small-minded, process-oriented "debate." Never came up when I watched, and I don't see it in the transcript for the parts I missed.
 
500Madman
      ID: 230542010
      Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 14:50
No questions on spending ... I haven't read all of the transcript, either, since I want to hear it online completely first ... Maybe I shouldn't bother and just read the parts I didn't see.

There is a fine line between sensationalism and substance.

Of course, after 21 debates, what's left to be said? It would be great if someone archived all 21 transcripts in a single place. I know I remember candidate X saying something, but gosh darn I don't remember when or where anymore.
 
501Perm Dude
      ID: 13336177
      Thu, Apr 17, 2008, 15:13
As a PA resident, I can only say that I'd hoped, going in, we'd hear about the issues that are of particular interest here: jobs, NAFTA (not mentioned once), and spending.

I don't think this debate will change anything here, since the debate was essentially silent on the issues that are important here.
 
502walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Apr 18, 2008, 08:32
One Penn view on Penn Debate
 
503walk
      ID: 181472714
      Tue, May 06, 2008, 13:01
NYT, Brooks: Clinton Combat vs. Obama Composure

Nice one.
 
504Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Thu, May 08, 2008, 14:39
No matter what else happens, you just gotta come away from this election with a big smile for Mike Gravel
 
505Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 11:51
McCain defends the relevance of Hamas' opinions
“It's very obvious to everyone that Senator Obama shares nothing of the values or goals of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization,” McCain said. “But it's also fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy. I think that's of interest to the American people.”
McCain is right here, sadly. He refers to a tendency of the American right that I have never understood - to award notable significance to the opinions of America's enemies' regarding our politics. For the life of me, I couldn't possibly care any less about what Hamas thinks of our politics or politicians. As far as I'm concerned, their opinions are irrelevant to our political process and have no place in our political discourse.

But the right disagrees. They feel we that we should empower bin Laden and Hamas by respecting their perspectives regarding American politics as pertinent and deserving of being trumpeted by our political candidates and consideration by Americans in the voting booth.

I really don't blame McCain for pandering to his party's base, even if I find the issue highly unpatriotic.
 
506Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 12:36
There are a lot of things of interest to the American people. I'm sure people might be interested in porno pictures, for instance. But I can't use that as the basis for leaving dirty magazines around the house.

Appealing to the lowest common denominator as an excuse for your actions is the same as having no ethical standards for what you do or say. That's not independence, that's pandering.
 
507J-Bar
      ID: 53452117
      Sun, May 11, 2008, 09:33
i know i have seen more than once trumpeting by the dems that obama will make us likable again to the world and when the right gives you examples you complain (shaking head)
 
508Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, May 11, 2008, 11:16
when the right gives you examples you complain (shaking head)

I didn't realize I was being ungrateful!
 
509J-Bar
      ID: 53452117
      Sun, May 11, 2008, 21:59
maybe i posted this in the wrong thread but i thought i read how someone was appalled by mccain reporting that hamas wants obama
 
510Tree
      ID: 44101115
      Sun, May 11, 2008, 22:18
J-Bar - go back and read the thread. it's not the fact that's a problem, it's the context and the way it's being portrayed.

it's not being portrayed as "Hamas has said Obama would be a good president", it's being portrayed as "terrorists want obama to win, and that should scare you into voting for mccain"...
 
511Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 06:09
J-Bar: Any and all dissent against Obama is not permitted here. Haven't you learned that by now?

The only context Tree, Mith, and Perm Dude would apparently accept is if somehow a Hamas endorsement could be viewed as a positive and a rallying cry for the liberal case to put Obama on his "rightful" perch high atop the White House.

What no one bothers to ask or care about is why would Hamas endorse Obama? And why SHOULDN'T that give the American people a moment of pause?
 
512Tree
      ID: 38415125
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 06:24
What no one bothers to ask or care about is why would Hamas endorse Obama? And why SHOULDN'T that give the American people a moment of pause?

that is EXACTLY the point that i think is being made here by myself and others.

you just went ahead and proved my 510, and showed what MITH was talking about in 505 - that people like you are empowering those groups we consider terrorists by giving merit to their opinions on our political process.
 
513Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 08:56
What no one bothers to ask or care about is why would Hamas endorse Obama?

ask
The answer to this question looks rather obvious to me. Practically the whole world would has come to despise the current President and wants him replaced with someone who they believe won't continue his disasterous foreign policy.

care
Particularly since the answer to the above question is obvious, has little to do with Obama and everything to do with the legacy of the Bush Presidency, no, I don't care about Hamas' endorsement of Obama. Further, it's infinitely more effective to judge how Obama will deal with terrorists based on what Obama has said and done rather than what terrorists might think about him - unless you think these terrorists know things about Obama that we don't. Hopefully we aren't resorting to the notion that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer while the media still sated from it's most recent Jeremiah Wright feeding frenzy. After all, who's the real terrorist coddler and sympathizer, the candidate who is falsely portrayed as a radical muslim (when they aren't falsely portraying him as a radical Christian) or the voter who insists on hearing what Hamas has to say before casting his ballot?

Anyway, I'm sure this lapse in patriotism from the right isn't going away anytime soon so here's what Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef actually said:
“We don’t mind — actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.”
For the record (and for the ignorant and unaware) JFK was actually quite the war hawk. Anyway, I don't think that tells us any more than the obvious fact that most of the world hate the Bush Presidency and that McCain is largely seen as likely to continue Bush's foreign policy and the Hamas spokesman is simply echoing the sentiments of the rest of the world in his statement.
 
514Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 09:05
What makes Yousef's "endorsement" all the more confusing is that I'm pretty sure that Sirhan Sirhan was hailed as a hero in Palestine for offing JFK's brother.
 
515Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 15:25
Bob Barr to run for President as a Libertarian

Former Congressman Barr is the best candidate the Libertarians have ever nominated. If he gets onto enough states' ballots, he certainly could make a difference in a few close states much like Ralph Nader.

Barr, 59, quit the Republican Party two years ago, saying he had grown disillusioned with its failure to shrink government and its willingness to scale back civil liberties in fighting terrorism. He has been particularly critical of President Bush over the war in Iraq and says the administration is ignoring constitutional protections on due process and privacy.
 
516nerveclinic
      ID: 5047110
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 17:06


Former Congressman Barr is the best candidate the Libertarians have ever nominated.

Hmmm

I was just thinking I can't vote libertarian this year if Barr is nominated.

I find it hard to believe Barr is for legalization.

 
517Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 17:46
I usually vote Liberterian, too for Prez. Jessie Ventura was also considering liberterian, because he would have immediate ballot access in all 50 states. I would prefer him over Barr.
 
518Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 19:13
Bob Barr, huh? Two important questions:

1. Does he wear a flag pin?
2. What does Hamas think of him?
 
519J-Bar
      ID: 53452117
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 19:58
i want to make sure that i keep track of the rules

1. Hamas leader states he wants Obama- can't say it because the thought police assume a negative context.

2. Hussein is Obama's middle name - can't say it because the thought police assume a negative connotation is implied.

3. Rev. Wright is Obama's spiritual advisor and has been for 20 yrs - can't say that because the thought police say that it is negative and doesn't matter.

4. Obama's experience is limited - can't say that because that's not his fault.

5. Obama's stances are very liberal - can't say that because that may cost him moderate votes and is not fair.

Well I guess it is time for me to drink the koolaid. ommmm ommmm obama is great ommmm
 
520Tree
      ID: 414311218
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 20:08
J-Bar - you would do yourself a world of good by reading "Audacity of Hope"...
 
521J-Bar
      ID: 53452117
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 20:46
so why did he wear a flag pin today, i thought he was above pandering
 
522Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 20:59
6. Effectlive counterpoints will be disingenuously twisted into PC attacks on speech and thought
 
523Perm Dude
      ID: 394501120
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 21:21
If only J-Bar knew Obama's actual positions on these things. What would he write about?
 
524J-Bar
      ID: 53452117
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 21:30
So pd tell me of these things that you speak of
 
525Perm Dude
      ID: 394501120
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 22:17
No way. I'm obviously biased. You want to know Obama's position on the flag pin there are plenty of places to find it.

Obama doesn't believe that pins should substitute for actual patriotism. Nor does he believe they should be required, like some kind of uniform.
 
526J-Bar
      ID: 53452117
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 22:26
ok so why then did he wear it today when talking to w virginians. p-a-n-d-e-r-i-n-g
 
527Perm Dude
      ID: 394501120
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 22:31
Whatever. Nuance is lost on you.
 
528J-Bar
      ID: 53452117
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 22:40
oh that's right obama is too nuanced for all of us. i may have to add that to the rules
 
529J-Bar
      ID: 53452117
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 22:47
oh by the way i didn't see in obama's position on the flag pin that said he would only wear it when it was politically expedient to do so and their might be a number of veterans in the crowd.
 
530bibA
      ID: 74331215
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 23:19
J-Bar - Can you admit that with certain persons you hate, that there is obviously nothing they can do that is anything other than devious?

If Obama does not wear the pin, he is definitely unpatriotic. If he does wear it, of course the only reason is that he is pandering or being politically expedient.
 
531Boldwin
      ID: 24421220
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 23:38
Ayers will stomp on it and hurt himself on the pin. Obama is just being considerate, not wearing it.
 
532Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Mon, May 12, 2008, 23:58
It's a classic strawman, biba. They set up Strawman Obama, then slam the real Obama for not acting like Strawman Obama.

Obama stays with the same position? He's being stubborn or naive. He changes his position? Flip flopper.

All of it is just cynicism. Just like trying to tie Obama with Ayers.
 
533nerveclinic
      ID: 5047110
      Tue, May 13, 2008, 01:13


I actually would lean toward not voting for a candidate if they do wear a flag pin.

I prefer a candidate who doesn't feel he has to prove his patriotism with a wardrobe decoration.

As a rule I don't trust anyone who wears a flag pin and I immediately question their intelligence and sincerity.

...but that's me.

 
534nerveclinic
      ID: 5047110
      Tue, May 13, 2008, 01:15


Another thing about that flag pin, if you meet a politician wearing one, don't stare at it, while you do, he probably has a hand in your pocket taking your wallet.

 
535nerveclinic
      ID: 5047110
      Tue, May 13, 2008, 01:40


i want to make sure that i keep track of the rules

1. Hamas leader states he wants Obama- can't say it because the thought police assume a negative context.


It has nothing to do with thought police, you shouldn't talk about it because if you do you will look simple minded for thinking it actually matters.

Putin likely preferred Bush as President because he was so simple minded, but no one brings that up.

2. Hussein is Obama's middle name - can't say it because the thought police assume a negative connotation is implied.

Every time I've heard it used, a negative connotation has been implied. The person who brought it up did so for "effect"

You have to remember J Bar, there are large segments of the US population that are so redneck and simple minded that if you mention his middle name they will assume he is related to Saddam.

Do you fall into that group? Do you get a little back slapping chuckle out of his middle name. Are you happy that there is a group of Americans that are still so backward they won't vote for him because of his middle name...or because he's black?

You shouldn't bring it up because people will think you are one of them.

3. Rev. Wright is Obama's spiritual advisor and has been for 20 yrs - can't say that because the thought police say that it is negative and doesn't matter.

"White" conservative politicians have been friends with right wing televangilists for decades.

The media doesn't obsess over white conservative politicians associating with these religious leaders and their neanderthal views. Why should they treat the black candidate differently?

In any case he has disavowed the ministers statements so doesn't that pretty much close the issue? are you obsessing on this because you haven't got anything else?

Well I guess it is time for me to drink the koolaid. ommmm ommmm obama is great ommmm

I think what is interesting about your post is it illustrative of a lot of the attacks on Obama and their lack of substance.

The reason you "aren't suppose to talk about these things" is it makes you look simple minded J Bar. This is all you got? Kool Aid?

Are we electing a President or someone who looks like your version of Andy Griffith so you can still be in Mayberry?

Have you considered focusing on issues? Or is your world so turned upside down by Obama you have to discuss his middle name and who Hamas likes? Is that all you got J Bar?

Pretty simple minded my friend. I'll get criticized for this but...a little red neck IMHO.

By the way I am not voting for Obama.



 
536Tree
      ID: 24420135
      Tue, May 13, 2008, 06:33
good post there NC. i was trying to find a succinct way of phrasing things, but was having a difficult time without being overly insulting to the poster, something i've been trying to get away from.
 
537Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 13, 2008, 09:35
MBJ 514
With all due respect you trap yourself here with the notion that all members of a particular group should think alike, or in this case, that they should be counted on to maintain such consensus through more than four decades. I don't think it's particularly surprising or confusing at all.
 
538Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Tue, May 13, 2008, 10:37
1. Hamas leader states he wants Obama-

Ahmed Yousef is not the Hamas leader. He is an advisor to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.
I don't recall anyone saying Karl Rove was a United States leader when quoting him.

Also not mentioned is this quote from McCain that went unchallenged:

"I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare"

Besides obviously pandering to the Jewish vote, how does this position advance any possibility of peaceful co-existence between Palestine and Israel?

Now, if you're Hamas, and one candidate pledges to be your worst nightmare, while the other's position is to attempt diplomatic solutions, which would you prefer?

Additionally, I'm one of the people, and I don't understand what McCain means when he says he'll be Hamas's worst nightmare. I do understand that if I'm a Muslim terrorist recruiter, McCain has just given me more ammunition to find those bent on becoming America's worst nightmare.

I find it absurd that Obama is being called out for something he didn't say or do, something he has absolutely no control over( a statement by a Hamas flunkie), but McCain gets a free pass over basically making a statement that ensures further violence and further friction in a region that screams for a more objective and consructive dialogue.
 
539Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Tue, May 13, 2008, 11:45
Besides obviously pandering to the Jewish vote, how does this position advance any possibility of peaceful co-existence between Palestine and Israel?

this is good strategy, imho, on his part.

there is some sort of irrational fear running through a lot of jewish voters about Obama, and these are otherwise rational, intelligent, voters.

my parents are Hillary supporters. no doubt, because my step-mom is a strong feminist, and really, if Hillary wasn't a woman, i don't think she'd be supporting her.

but every few days, my dad will send some sort of email with a linked story regarding "jewish concerns about obama!111!11!!", and they'll range from "OMG! his middle name is Hussein!" to articles like this one, which are falling into that Rovian trap of branding Obama guilty of something based on what others have said, not what he has said.

it's sad, and it worries me, because normally my parents are very informed voters.
 
540Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 13, 2008, 13:36
OT:

Tree (or anyone who knows the answer)
jewish concerns about obama!111!11!!

Is there some connotation to a series of ones and exclamation points like that? Is it just a trendy way to express an exclamation? I see this too frequently for it to be a finger slipping off the shift key.
 
541Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Tue, May 13, 2008, 13:45
MITH - it's one of those internet things like "OMGZ!!!1111!!!!11!" or whatever...

i guess it shows a mock panic or concern over something. sort of like someone reacting like the sky is falling, when it's just an acorn landing on their head....

it probably derived from people doing that accidently 111!!!!1111 thing accidently....

here's a reasonably decent definition...
 
542Perm Dude
      ID: 35455139
      Tue, May 13, 2008, 14:05
More crap.

I would like to think that this is limited to the Right, but it surely isn't. I heard enough Democrats on the phone here in PA telling me that they would never vote for Obama because "he's a Muslim." Or "refuses to salute the flag."