2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[4thHorseman]

The differences between the McCain and Obama crowds were palatable--I watched both on C-Span. McCain supporters came off as a lynch mob, while Obama supporters were respectful during the live feed of McCain's speech, and even cheered him a few times at appropriate moments.

The hate spewing from the Right was also palatable during live phone calls afterward that they were taking on C-Span 2...:frown:

My girlfriend noticed this too. And I was actually impressed with McCain and kinda grew to like him during this one. He actually came off better with this speech than the entire campaign.

[4thHorseman]

One thing I think I'll ask here (as to avoid another thread), comes after hearing on Fox News last night about someone complaining of early voting.

Don't know the guys name, but he said anyone who early votes is lazy and I think he even used the word stupid. His argument was that people can not only wait to election day, but you never know what could happen between the time early voting starts and the actual election day. So he thinks that early voting is pointless and should not happen again. Absentee voting is not the same thing to him btw.

So I was curious as to how everyone else felt about advanced voting?

[Nick Soapdish]

I've just watched both Obama's acceptance speech & McCain's concession one. Both are fine speech's & McCain comes over as a decent man totally out of his depth. However what the fuck were the crowd at the McCain speech doing? Booing Obama's name & did I really hear them using the N-word is seriously out of order. Fair play to McCain for trying to control them & inject some dignity into his defeat.

I think that McCain gave a great speech and was very gracious. If he'd done more of that during the campaign, I would've kept a lot more of my respect for him and it would've given him a lot more independent votes. But it might've cost him the base entirely.

[Tommy]

One thing I think I'll ask here (as to avoid another thread), comes after hearing on Fox News last night about someone complaining of early voting.

Don't know the guys name, but he said anyone who early votes is lazy and I think he even used the word stupid. His argument was that people can not only wait to election day, but you never know what could happen between the time early voting starts and the actual election day. So he thinks that early voting is pointless and should not happen again. Absentee voting is not the same thing to him btw.

So I was curious as to how everyone else felt about advanced voting?

He is a moron. Unlike some nations, nothing stops election day. Which can mean things preclude voting.

The people who vote early have already made up their minds. I highly doubt that something in the intervening (at most) two weeks will cause a change.

(Plus we've been seeing such dramatic voter increases in the last elections, that the lines are both heartening, and make voting difficult for our elderly and disabled.)

[Nick Soapdish]

One thing I think I'll ask here (as to avoid another thread), comes after hearing on Fox News last night about someone complaining of early voting.

Don't know the guys name, but he said anyone who early votes is lazy and I think he even used the word stupid. His argument was that people can not only wait to election day, but you never know what could happen between the time early voting starts and the actual election day. So he thinks that early voting is pointless and should not happen again. Absentee voting is not the same thing to him btw.

So I was curious as to how everyone else felt about advanced voting?

I voted early.

I could have waited until the day and either waited a long time (while I'm supposed to be at work) or driven home in the middle of the day (which is a long commute) to vote (possibly waiting a long time again). It was easier to vote early.

If he's concerned about lazy people voting, I'm sure that we could make voting even less convenient besides having it all on one day. How about just one precinct, one machine? If you aren't willing to wait in line for it, you're lazy.

[Kid Kamikaze10]

One thing I think I'll ask here (as to avoid another thread), comes after hearing on Fox News last night about someone complaining of early voting.

Don't know the guys name, but he said anyone who early votes is lazy and I think he even used the word stupid. His argument was that people can not only wait to election day, but you never know what could happen between the time early voting starts and the actual election day. So he thinks that early voting is pointless and should not happen again. Absentee voting is not the same thing to him btw.

So I was curious as to how everyone else felt about advanced voting?

Does he mean absentee voting, or just advanced voting?

Either way, I disagree with him, but if he also means absentee voting, he can go f**k himself too, to be blatantly honest.

[Dry Observer]

One thing I think I'll ask here (as to avoid another thread), comes after hearing on Fox News last night about someone complaining of early voting.

Don't know the guys name, but he said anyone who early votes is lazy and I think he even used the word stupid. His argument was that people can not only wait to election day, but you never know what could happen between the time early voting starts and the actual election day. So he thinks that early voting is pointless and should not happen again. Absentee voting is not the same thing to him btw.

So I was curious as to how everyone else felt about advanced voting?

Early voting is a sensitive topic because it makes voter-suppression tactics (like denying the vote to African-Americans based on the color of their skin) much harder, and also allows the less-advantaged (who often have less flexibility in their schedules) more opportunity to vote.

So, essentially early voting makes disenfranchising large segments of the electorate that much harder... which is a problem if your strategy depends on such tactics.

[kingdom2000]

Ug this election is further proof how annoying third plus party candidates are. When they have a real chance to win its one thing but otherwise its just a waste.

Now I know they claim they have to see it to the end so their agenda is heard...but the problem is when you lose by a huge margin (as 3rd party candidates always do), its instead read as meaning that the people reject your platform and your agenda. Its a license for the winning candidates to ignore them.

It seems to me, more and more, the goal isn't the agenda but the attention, the ego stroke. They get to go to parties, have people fawning over them, get money, probably get laid more then a few times and then fade into obscurity, their ideas never heard or implemented. It just seems to me that if the real goal is their agenda then they would negotiate something with one of the viable candidates so at least their ideas are truly heard. If they where truly trying to fight for an ideal, the goal would be to try and extend the life of the ideal, instead they try to extend the life of their 15 minutes to the detriment of all.

This election is proof of that. How many crappy house and senate incumbents (from both parties) where reelected because of the third party ego trip? A dozen or so?

Now this isn't to say I don't want a third party to rise. I have no problem if they do, but this current method of random ego maniacs, flash in the pan candidates that accomplish exactly nothing but reward incumbents that need to get removed from office isn't the way for that to occur.

[Infra-Man]

Can we get a facepalm for Ralph Nader?

NADER: To put it very simply, he is our first African American president; or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he's going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibsP6XN2dIo

[the4thpip]

Awww.

http://backstreets.com/Assets/Images/news110208c.jpg

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Ok, when it comes to the "Uncle Tom" topic, I am VERY sensitive about it, having been called that numerous times...

Nader has no idea how much weight that term carries, and how it feels to be called something like that, since for one, he isn't African American. He's part Arab and part Lebanese. And two, for him to be using it so loosely shows how ignorant he is on that topic...


So for that, he can eat s**t. I'm not gonna call him racist, but he needs to get some f**kin' perspective.

[the4thpip]

I stayed up until 4 AM, drawing FLASH and watching the coverage, and was really moved and happy to see African Americans weeping for joy. It really is neat. The white college students outside the White House, well, I could have done without those.



Just for clarification - are you saying you would have preferred to only see black people celebrate?

[AaronJ]

I think that McCain gave a great speech and was very gracious. If he'd done more of that during the campaign, I would've kept a lot more of my respect for him and it would've given him a lot more independent votes. But it might've cost him the base entirely.

It was definitely a gracious, eloquent, hopeful speech. And it was more like the "Old McCain" than the impostor whom we saw during the campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I never would have voted for him. But like you, I would have retained a much larger portion of my respect for hte man. Let's hope that the campaign impostor is now totally a thing of the past.

As to the base, and the campaign, and such, maybe he could have been himself, and let Palin be the vicious attack dog. I don't know.

Anyhow, it was so nice to see such graciousness in defeat.

[Spike-X]

Well, I can deal with an Obama presidency and a larger Democratic majority, I suppose. It'll be like Sesame Street with a lot less human characters. The puppets are cute and likable, but the people teaching them how to read and count are gone, and there are scary Communists with hands up their asses.

Communists.


Riiiiiight.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Awww.

http://backstreets.com/Assets/Images/news110208c.jpg

Weeks ago I suggested Bruce Springsteen should have been on the TV Special. Heres Springsteen at a rally for Obama...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs0ZC0CWVz8

[Stressfactor]

The Republican Party basically fucked up big time for one very big reason... They Ignored Their Moderates.

For years now the party has been pandering to the base, playing to the right wing and just assuming that the moderates would follow along like good little puppy dogs.

Well THIS year the Moderates had enough. They were offered a decent alternative and with the Palin pick McCain basically thumbed his nose at everything the moderates stood for and they jumped ship.

The Republican Party has long believed they couldn't win an election without their base, well this year the Moderates taught them that they also couldn't win an election without the moderates. Maybe that'll teach them to stop taking the moderate wing for granted.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

The Republican Party basically fucked up big time for one very big reason... They Ignored Their Moderates.

For years now the party has been pandering to the base, playing to the right wing and just assuming that the moderates would follow along like good little puppy dogs.

Well THIS year the Moderates had enough. They were offered a decent alternative and with the Palin pick McCain basically thumbed his nose at everything the moderates stood for and they jumped ship.

The Republican Party has long believed they couldn't win an election without their base, well this year the Moderates taught them that they also couldn't win an election without the moderates. Maybe that'll teach them to stop taking the moderate wing for granted.


Ohh yeah weeks ago , a Republican was on the Daily Show and laid it down ...the base Palin lures is 25% of the party. The other 75% is the Moderate base. And the moderate base wants no part of Sarah Palin.

[Crowley]

Elizabeth Hassleback shows genuine class:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K41g2ttyK4

good on her!

[LtMarvel]

If Bill Clinton had stepped down after admitting he lied under oath and suborned perjury, Gore would have been a sitting president and would have probably won election on his own in 2000 and 2004. That, in turn, would have probably eliminated several of the situations Obama needed to make a meteoric rise to the top of the Democrat list.
Every president would have been fighting 22 lawsuits at once if Clinton gave in to those pests.

[Infra-Man]

Did Obama pull a Pennsylvania rope-a-dope on McCain?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/05/pennsylvania_head_fake.html

May all just be speculation, but wicked smart/funny if it's true.

[the4thpip]

I really don't trust any of these motherfuckers down here--tens of thousands of misprinted mail-in ballots (unreadable by computer) that have to be transferred by hand,, randomly disqualified voters on the mail-ins in the thousands. Karen Handel is our Katherine Harris--most of even the Conservatives I know were voting against Chambliss.

A runoff will be BAAAAD for Chambliss.

Well, it looks like it will be AT LEAST a run-off election.

But I just heard from one of my Georgia sources that the numbers published in the Senate race may not have included the early voting ballots yet - and those had more democrats voting than on election day, percentage wise. So Martin may be the winner after all. :eek:

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Did Obama pull a Pennsylvania rope-a-dope on McCain?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/05/pennsylvania_head_fake.html

May all just be speculation, but wicked smart/funny if it's true.

It could be true to be honest. The people behind the Obama campaign really did an awesome job across the country. It never swayed from its message in day 1 and for 22 months did everything it was supposed to. I'm pretty sure you'll see the Republican party in 2012 copy a lot of what Obama did to win.

[Paul McEnery]

Well, it looks like it will be AT LEAST a run-off election.

But I just heard from one of my Georgia sources that the numbers published in the Senate race may not have included the early voting ballots yet - and those had more democrats voting than on election day, percentage wise. So Martin may be the winner after all. :eek:

The hell is wrong with these people? They're early votes! Could they not have counted them first or something?

[darkhanamaru]

Well, it looks like it will be AT LEAST a run-off election.

But I just heard from one of my Georgia sources that the numbers published in the Senate race may not have included the early voting ballots yet - and those had more democrats voting than on election day, percentage wise. So Martin may be the winner after all. :eek:

yes, see my earlier post about how high those early Georgia numbers were too!

[Nate Grey]

Wanna watch the child of slaves cast her vote (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-baines5-2008nov05,0,1853339.story)? I know you do...

That was so awesome.

[kingdom2000]

yes, see my earlier post about how high those early Georgia numbers were too!

It was estimated that around 2 million people voted early (I was one of em). So I am hoping this is true but I have a feeling it will be a run-off. On the bright side that means an energized dem campaign, more money and Obama to help the man campaign. I actually dislike both of them, I think neither are any good but Saxby is absolute scum. As they say "Remember Max Cleland"

[AllisterH]

The Republican Party basically fucked up big time for one very big reason... They Ignored Their Moderates.

.

Personally, I will keep calling BS on this....because it implies one very erroneous point.

McCain was liked by the base.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Look at the man's numbers pre-Palin and if he had picked Lieberman, I think McCain would've done even WORSE than what he did. Seriously, even with his butt kissing of Falwell, do you really think the Republican base actually liked McCain? Limbaugh et al were seriously threatening convention chaos if Lieberman had been selected (apparently, McCain's 1st choice).

The base, as the name implies, makes uo the majority of the vote. 85-90% of either candidate's vote total comes FROM the base and they need to be able to count on them then to appeal to the centre.

Here's where it gets weird. McCain STARTED at the centre but had to move to the right to get his base support.

This election didn't change that. It showed that if anything, you can't have a primary candidate that the base doesn't like and then try to appeal to both it and the moderates that both parties need to put them over the top.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Personally, I will keep calling BS on this....because it implies one very erroneous point.

McCain was liked by the base.

BWAHAHAHAHA

Look at the man's numbers pre-Palin and if he had picked Lieberman, I think McCain would've done even WORSE than what he did. Seriously, even with his butt kissing of Falwell, do you really think the Republican base actually liked McCain? Limbaugh et al were seriously threatening convention chaos if Lieberman had been selected (apparently, McCain's 1st choice).

The base, as the name implies, makes uo the majority of the vote. 85-90% of either candidate's vote total comes FROM the base and they need to be able to count on them then to appeal to the centre.

Here's where it gets weird. McCain STARTED at the centre but had to move to the right to get his base support.

This election didn't change that. It showed that if anything, you can't have a primary candidate that the base doesn't like and then try to appeal to both it and the moderates that both parties need to put them over the top.

Of course the basic thing was the moderates in the party mostly went Obama. Because he seemingly had better appeal than McCain. And heres an interesting thing...if ya read the Rolling Stone piece...not many Republicans like John McCain. And some were scared shitless he'd be that close to the BUTTON to wage war on another nation.

McCain had problems keeping his moderate base from skipping to Obama (who actually laid out better tax & healthcare plans) and needed the real religious of the party to go his way. Some whispered ....ok get Huckabee and in retrospect it may have worked better had he gotten Huckabee. Since he could play the "Outsider" card , claim he believed in religious values and had his youth/star quality to not make himself look like a moron on tv interviews.

In all McCain should have taken him. But Huckabee can rest easy for 4 years , build himself a big base on Fox News and be that charming southern man we'd share dinner with but not agree at all . And its likely as he gathers enough TV time...he'll be the 1# guy for the party in 2012.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Well, it looks like it will be AT LEAST a run-off election.

But I just heard from one of my Georgia sources that the numbers published in the Senate race may not have included the early voting ballots yet - and those had more democrats voting than on election day, percentage wise. So Martin may be the winner after all. :eek:

We could, at the least, end up 'purple', so to speak. The early votes besides mail-ins haven't been counted, ended up being close to 20% of the vote, last I heard--and 2/3rds were Dems and Indies, like me.:biggrin:

Registered Independents went overwhelmingly in favor of Obama!

[Calybos]

The Republican Party basically fucked up big time for one very big reason... They Ignored Their Moderates.

For years now the party has been pandering to the base, playing to the right wing and just assuming that the moderates would follow along like good little puppy dogs.

Well THIS year the Moderates had enough. They were offered a decent alternative and with the Palin pick McCain basically thumbed his nose at everything the moderates stood for and they jumped ship.

The Republican Party has long believed they couldn't win an election without their base, well this year the Moderates taught them that they also couldn't win an election without the moderates. Maybe that'll teach them to stop taking the moderate wing for granted.

And just watch the postmortem analysis. I guarantee you the Repundits will busily (and angrily) assure the party that McCain was "an example of too much compromise, straying too far from our core principles." They'll quote Reagan a lot and insist that the Republican Party needs to "return to our roots" and make their tent even SMALLER.

And the hardcore ideologues and their dupes, listening to the radio from their below-poverty jobs and trucks, will nod eagerly and swear to get even more hardcore next time around. None of this pansy-ass "We're all Americans" garbage...!

Which, come to think of it, will result in more Republican losses in the future. So... good work, guys! Stick to your principles (whatever they may be), and make sure you exclude as many Americans as possible! Purge the party!

[FalconX2000]

I've just watched both Obama's acceptance speech & McCain's concession one. Both are fine speech's & McCain comes over as a decent man totally out of his depth. However what the fuck were the crowd at the McCain speech doing? Booing Obama's name & did I really hear them using the N-word is seriously out of order. Fair play to McCain for trying to control them & inject some dignity into his defeat.

If the N word was used that was out of order, but I don't see what could be unacceptable about booing your political opponent on the day of defeat.

[KevinTBrown]

If the N word was used that was out of order, but I don't see what could be unacceptable about booing your political opponent on the day of defeat.

Sad to say, we may be hearing that word a lot more in the near future.... :frown:

[FalconX2000]

http://www.dothaneagle.com/dea/news/local/article/many_never_expected_black_president/45166/

The commissioner said he received a text message on his cell phone Wednesday morning that acknowledged the ground-breaking accomplishments of both
Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., who helped usher in this unique time in America’s history.

The text read, “Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Obama could run. Obama ran so our children could fly.”

[Venom Melendez]

If the N word was used that was out of order, but I don't see what could be unacceptable about booing your political opponent on the day of defeat.

Except Obama's crowd had no problem applauding and respecting McCain.

[glue]

Except Obama's crowd had no problem applauding and respecting McCain.

That doesn't mean McCain's supporters were in the wrong.

[Evan Waters]

http://www.dothaneagle.com/dea/news/local/article/many_never_expected_black_president/45166/

The commissioner said he received a text message on his cell phone Wednesday morning that acknowledged the ground-breaking accomplishments of both
Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., who helped usher in this unique time in America’s history.

The text read, “Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Obama could run. Obama ran so our children could fly.”

So, in 40 years' time, JETPACKS!

At long last.

[rick]

I spent a good part of the day listening to talk radio.

Rush sputtered and played cheerleader for the GOP, Medvid said that this was the victory of the welfare state, Hannity said that Americans had turned into sheep, and some maniac named Mark Levin said that it was time for all good conservatives to stomp on the liberal cockroaches.

All that hate, all that bile toward Obama, McCain and all of us, and not one of them, not one, had the slightest clue of why the Republicans lost yesterday.

It was sad, it was aggravating, but it was also deeply satisfying to know that these beasts and every nasty, monstrous thing that they stand for, lost.

[TomStillwell]

It was even worse than I imagined...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html


Cameron relates how McCain aides were terrified of Palin's lack of knowledge of international and national issues, and even basic civics. Cameron reports that Palin was unfamiliar with the concept of "American exceptionalism," and that not only did she not understand that Africa was a continent rather than a single country but also that during debate prep Palin was unable to name all the nations in North America.

[Venom Melendez]

That doesn't mean McCain's supporters were in the wrong.

Doesn't mean they were in the right either. Personally, they seemed like the crowd at a lynching. I'm joking with the last part btw but they could have been as graceful about it as McCain was being. Just saying is all.

[Berserk]

Did anybody watch tonight's South Park episode? They did an episode on the election results and it was pretty good. I can't believe they managed to make the episode in less than a day; maybe they anticipated that Obama would win, but there are also some parts that were from last night's speech which they couldn't have made before last night. They did however go over the line with the part about Obama's grandmother faking her death; then again, it's South Park so I should've expected it.

[FalconX2000]

Doesn't mean they were in the right either. Personally, they seemed like the crowd at a lynching. I'm joking with the last part btw but they could have been as graceful about it as McCain was being. Just saying is all.

Obama's crowds routinely boo McCain's name. And I'm quite sure they'd have been even more upset had the situation been reversed.

[Dry Observer]

Did Obama pull a Pennsylvania rope-a-dope on McCain?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/11/05/pennsylvania_head_fake.html

May all just be speculation, but wicked smart/funny if it's true.

Oh, I suspect it is true. One of the things that Republican strategists seemingly kept missing during this campaign is that Barack Obama is very smart, and so, apparently, is his team.

Think about just one example -- Republicans convinced a huge chunk of the electorate to tune into the Democratic Convention on the promise of fireworks... a disastrous civil war between the Clinton and Obama camps. What did they base this on? The idea, given a few (possibly scripted) murmurs from the campaigns, that successively...

* Hillary Clinton would deliberately wreck her political future in a fruitless slap at Barack Obama,

* Bill Clinton would wreck his reputation, and his wife's reputation and career, in order to give a terrible speech that would undermine Obama, and...

* Barack Obama would give a terrible speech himself, for... whatever reason.

Now think about that. The whole "strategy" of talking up Democratic divisions rested on two ideas -- that the Clintons wanted to ruin their entire political future to no particular purpose, and that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in particular, the two most gifted orators in the Democratic party, would offer up terrible speeches with the whole world watching.

That's just one instance, but Barack Obama is so laid back and non-combative about these things that his opponents seem to barely recognize the devastating Aikido that's been played out against them. Somehow all their negative energy seems to hurt them more than Senator... excuse me, President-Elect Obama. And he just keeps plugging away, humbly making his points and explaining his policies.

The real irony? He's so low-key in these "confrontations" that nobody seems to grasp how well he's doing. Instead they talk about how much more powerful his speeches are, etc, etc... And yet if you take apart his responses in debates, they're frequently devastating.

Or to sum up... I don't think most people realize just how outclassed they are when they confront him. Even people who might be his intellectual equals overall, probably don't have his level of verbal judo. Or Aikido. Or Tai Chi.

A lot of these guys are still playing checkers, while he's playing out his own game of fourth-dimensional chess.

I find this amusing. A lot of people get that Barack Obama is intelligent. But we may be well into his Administration before we realize how much smarter he really is.

Wouldn't that be interesting? :cool:

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Sad to say, we may be hearing that word a lot more in the near future.... :frown:

Unless we don't listen to rap music.:rolleyes:

[Tetsuo_man]

Doesn't mean they were in the right either. Personally, they seemed like the crowd at a lynching. I'm joking with the last part btw but they could have been as graceful about it as McCain was being. Just saying is all.

They pretty much have always been able to crank out there stuff this fast.

[Tobias March]

Unless we don't listen to rap music.:rolleyes:

I threw out all my country albums, with the exception of Gram Parsons. So many pick-up trucks. Sigh. :rolleyes:

[Buzz Dixon]

Every president would have been fighting 22 lawsuits at once if Clinton gave in to those pests.A lot of people, especially many conservatives such as myself, were opposed to suing a seated president as an individual (as opposed to suing an administration as a whole). Bill's smartest defense would have been to have refused to answer the lawsuit at all; the maximum she could have collected would have been $88,000 under Arkansas law. That would have been far cheaper than Bill's final legal fees and would have let him take the position of defending the office of president from future lawsuits by refusing to agree to take part in such proceedings.

Instead he chose to answer it.

He could have truthfully said he had met the woman in question but then claim he couldn't remember the details of that meeting as anything like what was reported in the press but, hey, if she says they didn't have sex then he agrees they didn't have sex.

Or he could have negotiated an out of court settlement.

Instead he lied and asked somebody else to lie to protect him.

It doesn't look good for the president to lie in order to protect himself in a court case. It might give the president that follows him the idea it's okay to lie if he thinks there a good reason to do so.

Bill Clinton should have stepped down. By not doing so he damaged the credibility of the Democrat party. The country may not have wanted him impeached, but they sure didn't think he acted the way a president should act re lying under oath and suborning perjury.

[Spike-X]

It doesn't look good for the president to lie in order to protect himself in a court case. It might give the president that follows him the idea it's okay to lie if he thinks there a good reason to do so.

Oh, so it's Clinton's fault that G.W. Bush was such a fucking liar?

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

[Major Comma]

Well I listened to conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt today.
He just did a post mortem of what happened to the Republicans .
and Dennis Miller Talked about how even though he was a "McCain Man"
he was humbled by Obamas acceptance speech and he recognized the history of the moment.
its just good to know not everyone is talking hate.
I Will take hope wherever I can find it.

[AllisterH]

Oh, so it's Clinton's fault that G.W. Bush was such a fucking liar?

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

I kinda have to agree with Buzz in a way.

Clinton should have done a Reagan (Iran-Contra affaiir) and feigned "amnesia".

Of course, the fact that the ORIGINAL investigation had nothing to do with Lewinsky (let's not forget that of course...this was about Whitewater) and that the special prosecuor was able to throw darts and finally hit something quietly gets ignored by conservatives.

I believe personally any judge in a normal court case would've thrown out the case based on "fishing"

[JamesRitcheyIII]

That doesn't mean McCain's supporters were in the wrong.

If you're a connoisseur of racist lynch mobs, I guess you're right, in some surreal way. No one implied anything more than that the booing and screaming <the N-Word> was anything but a symptom, for what a bunch of emotionally retarded, greed-motivated, sociopathic, scared little pussies these human sheep are. They'd rather side with the party that fucked up our economy, standing in the world, and civil rights--than take a chance on someone who I tan darker than (and I'm white--despite Cherokee ancestry), because he has a foreign-sounding name, and he's firmly entrenched in the system that has thwarted any meaningful, solid movement towards equality and fair play in the first place. If Obama means to accomplish a fraction of what he says he's trying to do, you'll live to see a freaking national holiday named after him.

Republicans--the age of unchecked douchebaggery is over. Live it, love it, deal with it--but the best course of action as to not embarrass yourselves by playing the hateful stereotype role to the hilt, and try not to be petulant, sore losers about it..

[Paul McEnery]

Oh, so it's Clinton's fault that G.W. Bush was such a fucking liar?

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Of course. Clinton getting a blowjob completely cancels out all the lying thieving bullshit of the Nixon and Reagan administrations. A cumstain on a dress is way worse than Watergate or Iran-Contra.

Fuck me sideways these right wing bastards have no fucking clue.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Of course. Clinton getting a blowjob completely cancels out all the lying thieving bullshit of the Nixon and Reagan administrations. A cumstain on a dress is way worse than Watergate or Iran-Contra.

Fuck me sideways these right wing bastards have no fucking clue.

It´s not that they don´t have a clue.
It´s just that they´re so despicably low that they will accept ANY excuse for their disgusting behaviour.

[Paul McEnery]

It´s not that they don´t have a clue.
It´s just that they´re so despicably low that they will accept ANY excuse for their disgusting behaviour.

I think it's worse than that. I think they're so up their arses that they genuinely don't recognize that ruining the lives of millions of people is a REAL thing.

Look at the giggly way they laugh their way through their bigotry. They're like people who've cut their own balls off so they can be more like porn fantasy schoolgirls.

[glue]

If you're a connoisseur of racist lynch mobs, I guess you're right, in some surreal way. No one implied anything more than that the booing and screaming <the N-Word> was anything but a symptom, for what a bunch of emotionally retarded, greed-motivated, sociopathic, scared little pussies these human sheep are. They'd rather side with the party that fucked up our economy, standing in the world, and civil rights--than take a chance on someone who I tan darker than (and I'm white--despite Cherokee ancestry), because he has a foreign-sounding name, and he's not part of the system that fucked us up in the first place. If Obama means to accomplish a fraction of what he says he's trying to do, you'll live to see a freaking national holiday named after him.

Republicans--the age of unchecked douchebaggery is over. Live it, love it, deal with it--but the best course of action as to not embarrass yourselves by playing the hateful stereotype role to the hilt, and try not to be petulant, sore losers about it..

I agree with everything except your first sentence and thinking anybody voting McCain did so because they're a bigot.

[Michael P]

I agree with everything except your first sentence and thinking anybody voting McCain did so because they're a bigot.

Eh, 42 million people voted for McCain. The law of averages says there's probably at least one bigot in there. But it's about as significant as navel lint.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

I agree with everything except your first sentence and thinking anybody voting McCain did so because they're a bigot.

I saw the speech. I saw a basically decent man express humility, after being led by the nose by the far right wing of the party for months. I saw the douchebags react like douchebags. While i've met racists of every race, I've never known more of a concentration of them than are Republicans I've known, having been raised by and surrounded by them. They seem to hate poor people--even if they're poor themselves, and those poor people they seem to hate tend to have darker skin than they do, and they use code words like 'welfare state'--or bitch about 'how bad Atlanta has gotten'. As I looked on that sea of white faces in Phoenix, booing and shouting 'N****R, I might have prejudged, based on personal experience. I don't think anyone could honestly say that everyone who voted for McCain was racist (half the Republicans I've known are pretty 'live and let live'), but I'm fucking positive there was a sizable head count of bigots at that speech.

[Tobias March]

Of course. Clinton getting a blowjob completely cancels out all the lying thieving bullshit of the Nixon and Reagan administrations. A cumstain on a dress is way worse than Watergate or Iran-Contra.

Fuck me sideways these right wing bastards have no fucking clue.

Look at it this way. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents the US has ever had.

Clinton will be remembered as the guy who frigged a member of his staff in his office.

Not for bombing Baghdad or anything - no one has any problem with that. It was the semen stained dress, oh yes.

[Infra-Man]

It was even worse than I imagined...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html

Wow.

http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/PalBidcaption2.jpg

http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/2946822051_99c6914f66.jpg

[FalconX2000]

http://www.examiner.com/x-817-Chicago-Relationships-Examiner~y2008m11d5-How-to-Bring-Change-and-Hope-to-Your-Life

Just a little something to rev you up outside politics.:biggrin:

[Buzz Dixon]

Clinton was never in legal trouble re Lewinsky or sex in the Oval Office.

He was in legal trouble for lying under oath in a deposition in the Gennifer Flowers lawsuit and for suborning perjury for getting other people to lie as well.

This is a big, big deal even if Clinton's defenders tried to downplay it. The country essentially gave a pass to the chief executive for lying under oath to protect his own posterior. That makes it a lot easier for subsequent presidents to lie under oath since they can defend themselves by saying they're doing it for altruistic reasons instead of selfish ones, ergo they are more desrving of forgiveness than Clinton.

The Democrats should have forced him to step down. That would have robbed the GOP of a whipping boy and would have put Gore in the White House.

[Infra-Man]

Tuesday night in four pictures

http://www.aprilwinchell.com/2008/11/05/tuesday/

[AllisterH]

Clinton was never in legal trouble re Lewinsky or sex in the Oval Office.

He was in legal trouble for lying under oath in a deposition in the Gennifer Flowers lawsuit and for suborning perjury for getting other people to lie as well.

This is a big, big deal even if Clinton's defenders tried to downplay it. The country essentially gave a pass to the chief executive for lying under oath to protect his own posterior. That makes it a lot easier for subsequent presidents to lie under oath since they can defend themselves by saying they're doing it for altruistic reasons instead of selfish ones, ergo they are more desrving of forgiveness than Clinton.

The Democrats should have forced him to step down. That would have robbed the GOP of a whipping boy and would have put Gore in the White House.


You know what Buzz.

I am going to love readingt he history books in 20 years when kids learn about the 42nd president and then read the 43rd president.

42nd president - Left office with highest approval rating EVER since modern polling (I'm hoping for Obama to break this) and 1st president in 50 years to leave office with a SURPLUS. - Addendum - got in trouble for lying under oath (he got a blowjob)

43rd president - WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

*LOL* I think Clinton gets vindicated by the history books. I *KNOW* and the historians will agree, BETTER president than the 43rd by a longshot.

[Infra-Man]

Time for some 2008 electoral maps

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/?map

http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/statemapredbluer512.png

By county
http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/countymapredbluer512.png

By county with vote percentage represented
http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/countymappurpler512.png

EDIT:
States with size adjusted for number of electoral votes
http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/stateelecredblue512.png

[Buzz Dixon]

You know what Buzz.

I am going to love readingt he history books in 20 years when kids learn about the 42nd president and then read the 43rd president.

42nd president - Left office with highest approval rating EVER since modern polling (I'm hoping for Obama to break this) and 1st president in 50 years to leave office with a SURPLUS. - Addendum - got in trouble for lying under oath (he got a blowjob)

43rd president - WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

*LOL* I think Clinton gets vindicated by the history books. I *KNOW* and the historians will agree, BETTER president than the 43rd by a longshot.Clinton will be remembered for "That depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is."

He will be viewed as a trivial person.

W. will be regarded as a colossal screw up.

To use historical analogies, Clinton = Carter, W. = LBJ

[Evan Waters]

Clinton will be remembered for "That depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is."

He will be viewed as a trivial person.

W. will be regarded as a colossal screw up.

To use historical analogies, Clinton = Carter, W. = LBJ

Except Carter did not preside over a budget surplus and a period of sustained economic growth.

[darkhanamaru]

Except Carter did not preside over a budget surplus and a period of sustained economic growth.

and LBJ actually got some historic and badly needed legislation in place

[AllisterH]

Clinton will be remembered for "That depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is."

He will be viewed as a trivial person.

W. will be regarded as a colossal screw up.

To use historical analogies, Clinton = Carter, W. = LBJ

Heh. You honestl equate Carter with CLINTON? *LOL*

It REALLY, REALLY chaps your bones that Clinton ended office with highest approval ratings ever AND a budget surplus.

HEH HEH:biggrin: :biggrin:

Personally, I think a better analogy would be Carter = Bush Sr.

Not sure what president Clinton would be best matched with....No wars (which are what make presidents great), relative peace and prosperity both home and abroad, but no lasting or major legacy like Eisenhower (highway system).

Reagan was a movement (as it appears Obama might be), Bush Sr, Ford and Carter were lame ducks.

Better than average steward I would say given that Clinton's the only president in the last century other than Eisenhower to have a budget surplus...

[AllisterH]

You know, why do democrats not be more proud of their presidents.

Since the beginning of this century, the democratic presidents have been either socially or economically great for the nation (other than Carter).

Republicans have Nixon, Ford and BUSH Jr.

The worse democrats have is Carter.

[Buzz Dixon]

AllisterH, I'm not arguing that W. is a better president and/or should be remembered more fondly than Clinton.

Quite the contrary: I think they are both reprehensible and should be used as examples for why Baby Boomers should never be elected to the Presidency again.

Obama has opened the door for the Millennials (who I think will do a much better job that we Boomers did), but there's still a chance for a Boomer or two to creep in between 2016 and 2028 (past that we'll be way too old).

[AllisterH]

AllisterH, I'm not arguing that W. is a better president and/or should be remembered more fondly than Clinton.

Quite the contrary: I think they are both reprehensible and should be used as examples for why Baby Boomers should never be elected to the Presidency again.

Obama has opened the door for the Millennials (who I think will do a much better job that we Boomers did), but there's still a chance for a Boomer or two to creep in between 2016 and 2028 (past that we'll be way too old).

Honestly, I don't think Boomers did TOO badly. W was horrible, but Clinton was decent to good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents).

The fact is, if you look at any list of "great presidents", almost all of them are presidents who faced monstrous challenges so that definitely seems to be part of the "mystique" in becoming a great president.

In a way, I don't WANT Obama to crack the top list (Truman, eisenhower, FDR, Lincoln, Washington, Teddy) because those presidents were facing challenges when the country was SCREWED big time. Anyone of them would happily exchange for the credit crisis instead of what they had to deal with....

So yeah, I think Clinton did a decent job and many other people think so. Of course, conservatives such as yourself tend to rank him much lower

Now Bush Jr. There's a problem....

Only question is, "Will he rank lower than Harding?"

[Nick Soapdish]

Honestly, I don't think Boomers did TOO badly. W was horrible, but Clinton was decent to good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents).

The fact is, if you look at any list of "great presidents", almost all of them are presidents who faced monstrous challenges so that definitely seems to be part of the "mystique" in becoming a great president.

In a way, I don't WANT Obama to crack the top list (Truman, eisenhower, FDR, Lincoln, Washington, Teddy) because those presidents were facing challenges when the country was SCREWED big time. Anyone of them would happily exchange for the credit crisis instead of what they had to deal with....

So yeah, I think Clinton did a decent job and many other people think so. Of course, conservatives such as yourself tend to rank him much lower

Now Bush Jr. There's a problem....

Only question is, "Will he rank lower than Harding?"

What were the massive challenges that Teddy faced?

It's tough to figure where Dubya will rank because it's sort of tough to measure across the years when the office has such different responsibilities. But I think that he will.

All Civil War-era presidents except for Lincoln (Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Ullyses S. Grant) were absolutely horrible presidents. But it was a weaker office so them being weak and ineffectual simply meant that Congress led. Same for Harding.

Dubya (and Cheney) weren't weak and ineffectual so they get points for that. But it means that they were driving the car into the ditch rather than mumbling suggestions from the back seat.

[Kevinroc]

You know, why do democrats not be more proud of their presidents.

Since the beginning of this century, the democratic presidents have been either socially or economically great for the nation (other than Carter).

Republicans have Nixon, Ford and BUSH Jr.

The worse democrats have is Carter.

Democrats are proud of their presidents. They love FDR and JFK. They even respect Carter (mostly for Carter's work after his presidency) and Clinton (Clinton is still a rather popular figure and seemingly becoming more popular as Bush's presidency comes to an end).

[Eliseu Gouveia]

You know, I never understood all the Lewinski hoopla.

If the price I have to pay for my country´s prosperity is my president getting a blowjob, I´d be the first to order hookers delivered to his house.
i´d even pay the taxi fare.

[Kevinroc]

You know, I never understood all the Lewinski hoopla.

If the price I have to pay for my country´s prosperity is my president getting a blowjob, I´d be the first to order hookers delivered to his house.
i´d even pay the taxi fare.

If all it took to get the country back on track was for a man to get a blowjob in the Oval Office, I think many would volunteer and make that sacrifice for their country.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Economically, Clinton did a great job. Dion't give a damn about his lecherous proclivities. As far as civil liberties/search and seizure laws go, his record was abysmal, second only to Bush 43--not to mention a mysterious body count. Waco was a propagandized fabrication to kill two former Arkansas Troopers-turned-ATF, NAFTA was a bend-over to the American People. Had Hillary been nominated and won, I'd have sought Canadian citizenship. The Glaspiel Act was overturned in '99--after serving our economic system well since FDR--repealing it (by a huge bipartisan margin--and with the upport of the Clinton Administration) allowed the banks to diversify, and we are currently reaping the inevitable outcome--with Bushies compounding it tenfold. I'm with Hunter Thompson, who loathed Clinton with the same passion he loathed Nixon. They are part of the 'good cop/bad cop' continuum which dictates the status quo.

There's a reason I'm not a 'Yellow Dog' Democrat, but rather a left-leaning Independent--I know too much.

[Buzz Dixon]

You know, I never understood all the Lewinski hoopla.

If the price I have to pay for my country´s prosperity is my president getting a blowjob, I´d be the first to order hookers delivered to his house.
i´d even pay the taxi fare.Lewinsky was a sideshow to the Flowers suit, but it led to Clinton's perjury.

The order of events was as follows:

While governor, Clinton allegedly has Gennifer Flowers brought to a hotel room where he drops his drawers and propositions her. She flees the room; there is no sexual contact.

Clinton becomes president. While president, a news article is printed claiming he had state troopers bring Flowers to a hotel room where they had sex.

Flowers denies she had sex with Clinton and gives the version mentioned above.

Clinton denies ever meeting Flowers.

Flowers sues Clinton as an individual, not as the president of the United States, on the grounds he is damaging her reputation by not vouching for her story. (NOTE: Clinton could have confirmed meeting Flowers and admit he did not have sex with her without admitting to the veracity of any other part of her story; for reasons known only to him, he chose not to do so.)

Clinton resists the lawsuit. It's taken to the Supreme Court where it is ruled Bill Clinton individual must answer Flowers civil suit. (NOTE: Clinton could have refused to defend himself and under Arkansas law would have only had to pay $88,000 to Flowers while still being able to credibly maintain his innocence by saying he was doing it to protect the office of POTUS; for reasons known only to him, he chose not to do so.)

Flowers lawyers learn of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. They subpoena her and Clinton's secretary in order to prove a pattern of behavior in Bill Clinton (i.e., that he will have casual sex with women he barely knows and will use his office and position as an elected official to facilitate doing so).

Clinton publicly denies having sex with Lewinsky. This is a lie but it is not a crime.

Clinton asks Lewinsky and his secretary to lie about the affair to Flowers' lawyers. This IS a crime: Suborning perjury in others.

Clinton lies under oath re having an affair with Lewinsky. This IS a crime: Perjury.

Special prosecutor Ken Starr gets wind of this and investigates Lewinsky and her testimony before Flowers' lawyers. She sings like a canary and offers physical proof of her heretofore denied affair: A dress with Bill Clinton's semen on it.

Clinton fesses up to perjury and suborning perjury. Instead of stepping down, he vows to fight it out. The GOP rises to the bait and begins impeachment proceedings against him without first making sure they can win a vote.

Partisans on both sides argue the issue back and forth, the Clinton partisans successfully convincing enough Congressmen and U.S. citizens that perjury and suborning perjury to cover up a sex scandal doesn't meet the needed impeachment threshold of a high crime or misdemeanor.

The impeachment trial is held and Clinton escapes being removed from office. He calls this a vindication but still ends up losing the Flowers lawsuit by default (and paying much, much more than $88,000 IIRC) and his bar license.

BOTTOM LINE: Clinton was never charged with a crime re his affair with Lewinsky, he was charged with perjury and suborning perjury re the Flowers lawsuit brought against him as an individual. These are indeed serious crimes but Congress failed to vote to impeach him.

[Kevinroc]

BOTTOM LINE: Clinton was never charged with a crime re his affair with Lewinsky, he was charged with perjury and suborning perjury re the Flowers lawsuit brought against him as an individual. These are indeed serious crimes but Congress failed to vote to impeach him.

Actually Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't removed from office.

No US president has ever been impeached and removed from office (Nixon resigned when it became clear he would be impeached and removed from office).

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Except Carter did not preside over a budget surplus and a period of sustained economic growth.

and LBJ actually got some historic and badly needed legislation in place

Lewinsky was a sideshow to the Flowers suit, but it led to Clinton's perjury.

The order of events was as follows:

While governor, Clinton allegedly has Gennifer Flowers brought to a hotel room where he drops his drawers and propositions her. She flees the room; there is no sexual contact.

Clinton becomes president. While president, a news article is printed claiming he had state troopers bring Flowers to a hotel room where they had sex.

Flowers denies she had sex with Clinton and gives the version mentioned above.

Clinton denies ever meeting Flowers.

Flowers sues Clinton as an individual, not as the president of the United States, on the grounds he is damaging her reputation by not vouching for her story. (NOTE: Clinton could have confirmed meeting Flowers and admit he did not have sex with her without admitting to the veracity of any other part of her story; for reasons known only to him, he chose not to do so.)

Clinton resists the lawsuit. It's taken to the Supreme Court where it is ruled Bill Clinton individual must answer Flowers civil suit. (NOTE: Clinton could have refused to defend himself and under Arkansas law would have only had to pay $88,000 to Flowers while still being able to credibly maintain his innocence by saying he was doing it to protect the office of POTUS; for reasons known only to him, he chose not to do so.)

Flowers lawyers learn of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. They subpoena her and Clinton's secretary in order to prove a pattern of behavior in Bill Clinton (i.e., that he will have casual sex with women he barely knows and will use his office and position as an elected official to facilitate doing so).

Clinton publicly denies having sex with Lewinsky. This is a lie but it is not a crime.

Clinton asks Lewinsky and his secretary to lie about the affair to Flowers' lawyers. This IS a crime: Suborning perjury in others.

Clinton lies under oath re having an affair with Lewinsky. This IS a crime: Perjury.

Special prosecutor Ken Starr gets wind of this and investigates Lewinsky and her testimony before Flowers' lawyers. She sings like a canary and offers physical proof of her heretofore denied affair: A dress with Bill Clinton's semen on it.

Clinton fesses up to perjury and suborning perjury. Instead of stepping down, he vows to fight it out. The GOP rises to the bait and begins impeachment proceedings against him without first making sure they can win a vote.

Partisans on both sides argue the issue back and forth, the Clinton partisans successfully convincing enough Congressmen and U.S. citizens that perjury and suborning perjury to cover up a sex scandal doesn't meet the needed impeachment threshold of a high crime or misdemeanor.

The impeachment trial is held and Clinton escapes being removed from office. He calls this a vindication but still ends up losing the Flowers lawsuit by default (and paying much, much more than $88,000 IIRC) and his bar license.

BOTTOM LINE: Clinton was never charged with a crime re his affair with Lewinsky, he was charged with perjury and suborning perjury re the Flowers lawsuit brought against him as an individual. These are indeed serious crimes but Congress failed to vote to impeach him.


Ken Starr was never about Flowers and the perjury there. Starr's entire investigation of Monica was that she may know information on the whole "Whitewater" deal. Linda Tripp claims Monica is having an affair with Clinton as news gets to Ken Starr who has a stick up his ass and wants to bust Bill & Hillary over Whitewater BAD.

You can read about it online...but without Ken Starr being a dickhead over Whitewater ....he'd never make that connection to Monica . And his "Starr Report" barely mentioned anything on Whitewater at all...which he was supposed to be going after.

edit : Also the perjury from whats been said online dealed with the Paula Jones case.

[EdContradictory]

Wasn't that Paula Jones and not Gennifer Flowers? I thought Flowers came up during the campaign in 1992.

[kingdom2000]

Why is this coming up again? Until the repubs wage a war on the presidency again via the courts it seems like a non issue to me.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Wasn't that Paula Jones and not Gennifer Flowers? I thought Flowers came up during the campaign in 1992.

It was Jones....and even then the main investigation was supposedly the bad land deal the Clinton's had been a part of with the McDougals . Thats what started this whole ball rolling....except Ken Starr sidetracked over Monica and Bill's affairs and all....the final "Starr Report" had barely any mention of Whitewater.

Its no shock that the common American laughed at the Republicans who wanted to have Clinton impeached. Many basically "Who gives a damn if he sleeps around....thats Hillary's problem....long as the country is ran good who cares ?"

The funniest thing was Larry Flynt got mad at how Bill Clinton was being done and offered a reward to anyone who had proof of any Republican Congressmen who were cheating on their wives. There was 2 I believe who were busted by Flynt having affairs. It was pretty funny.

[TCJohnson]

Its no shock that the common American laughed at the Republicans who wanted to have Clinton impeached. Many basically "Who gives a damn if he sleeps around....thats Hillary's problem....long as the country is ran good who cares ?"


But the problem never was Clinton sleeping around. It was Clinton lying under oath. He should have gotten busted for that!

[SUPERECWFAN1]

But the problem never was Clinton sleeping around. It was Clinton lying under oath. He should have gotten busted for that!

With Jones it was what years earlier ..or are we discussing Monica ?

[Tobias March]

I'm sure we've all read this in various forms before, but the Republican knives are out for Palin. Or at least within the McCain camp. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/insiders-spill-the-beans-on-sarah-palin/2008/11/07/1225561084675.html)

I'm just sad the Fey is hanging up the wig personally.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Lewinsky was a sideshow to the Flowers suit, but it led to Clinton's perjury.

The order of events was as follows:

While governor, Clinton allegedly has Gennifer Flowers brought to a hotel room where he drops his drawers and propositions her. She flees the room; there is no sexual contact.

Clinton becomes president. While president, a news article is printed claiming he had state troopers bring Flowers to a hotel room where they had sex.

Flowers denies she had sex with Clinton and gives the version mentioned above.

Clinton denies ever meeting Flowers.

Flowers sues Clinton as an individual, not as the president of the United States, on the grounds he is damaging her reputation by not vouching for her story. (NOTE: Clinton could have confirmed meeting Flowers and admit he did not have sex with her without admitting to the veracity of any other part of her story; for reasons known only to him, he chose not to do so.)

Clinton resists the lawsuit. It's taken to the Supreme Court where it is ruled Bill Clinton individual must answer Flowers civil suit. (NOTE: Clinton could have refused to defend himself and under Arkansas law would have only had to pay $88,000 to Flowers while still being able to credibly maintain his innocence by saying he was doing it to protect the office of POTUS; for reasons known only to him, he chose not to do so.)

Flowers lawyers learn of Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. They subpoena her and Clinton's secretary in order to prove a pattern of behavior in Bill Clinton (i.e., that he will have casual sex with women he barely knows and will use his office and position as an elected official to facilitate doing so).

Clinton publicly denies having sex with Lewinsky. This is a lie but it is not a crime.

Clinton asks Lewinsky and his secretary to lie about the affair to Flowers' lawyers. This IS a crime: Suborning perjury in others.

Clinton lies under oath re having an affair with Lewinsky. This IS a crime: Perjury.

Special prosecutor Ken Starr gets wind of this and investigates Lewinsky and her testimony before Flowers' lawyers. She sings like a canary and offers physical proof of her heretofore denied affair: A dress with Bill Clinton's semen on it.

Clinton fesses up to perjury and suborning perjury. Instead of stepping down, he vows to fight it out. The GOP rises to the bait and begins impeachment proceedings against him without first making sure they can win a vote.

Partisans on both sides argue the issue back and forth, the Clinton partisans successfully convincing enough Congressmen and U.S. citizens that perjury and suborning perjury to cover up a sex scandal doesn't meet the needed impeachment threshold of a high crime or misdemeanor.

The impeachment trial is held and Clinton escapes being removed from office. He calls this a vindication but still ends up losing the Flowers lawsuit by default (and paying much, much more than $88,000 IIRC) and his bar license.

BOTTOM LINE: Clinton was never charged with a crime re his affair with Lewinsky, he was charged with perjury and suborning perjury re the Flowers lawsuit brought against him as an individual. These are indeed serious crimes but Congress failed to vote to impeach him.

I.

Don´t.

Care.

It´s none of my business what other people do in their room.

[Corrina]

Re: Teddy Roosevelt.

Massive challenges, mostly in the economic front.

First, there was no business regulation. You could have monopolies. Employ children. Demand 80 hour weeks. Keep wages artificially low by conspiring with your fellow robber barons.

It was a time of massive upheaval. Socialism was a force in politics. The monetary inequality between the richest rich and the poorest poor makes today look like a picnic.

Teddy came in and busted a few of the trusts and gave a voice to those who didn't have a voice. You can make the argument that by these actions, he preserved democracy. He certainly saved the country from a lot of social unrest. Taft actually broke more trusts than T.R.--T.R. just was the first and the most vocal about it, so he gets all the credit.

Teddy also started the environmental movement--and helped create the national park system--which is why he's on Mt. Rushmore.

But T.R. is an unsung economic hero, too.

[Lester C.]

After every election Newsweek publishes a behind the scenes book about the election from both sides. The story I love is that on election night McCain's people refused to let Sarah Palin speak.

[kingdom2000]

After every election Newsweek publishes a behind the scenes book about the election from both sides. The story I love is that on election night McCain's people refused to let Sarah Palin speak.

Of course they did. It was inappropriate for Palin's people to even ask. When was the last time a VP candidate participated in a concession speech beyond standing there? Hell, Biden didn't even speak and he was on the winning ticket. Its stuff like this that makes me believe the diva stories coming out about her.

[Paul McEnery]

Of course they did. It was inappropriate for Palin's people to even ask. When was the last time a VP candidate participated in a concession speech beyond standing there? Hell, Biden didn't even speak and he was on the winning ticket. Its stuff like this that makes me believe the diva stories coming out about her.

Ah, but does she sparkle?

Or is there nothing left but the tarnished glint of paste?

[Infra-Man]

Ah, but does she sparkle?

Or is there nothing left but the tarnished glint of paste?

Are you saying that she's Crest Sparkle Toothpaste (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sphizUroU7M)?

EDIT:
More sparkling Crest action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pihv4OXicFw

[AllisterH]

I said it before, and I'll say it again.

This doesn't make Palin look bad, but actually McCain IMO. How the hell does his reflect good on MCCain when he can't even control a "hillbilly".

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I said it before, and I'll say it again.

This doesn't make Palin look bad, but actually McCain IMO. How the hell does his reflect good on MCCain when he can't even control a "hillbilly".

Hillbillies can't be controlled. I mean the region of the area I live in , if McCain had picked someone like that as VP...he has no shot in hell of keeping someone like that under control. You can't....if thats what they compare Palin too....its no wonder McCain couldn't control her. Hillbillies hate to be told what to do....how to do it...and make their own fucking rules.

[Briareos]

hehehehehehehehehe:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive?utm_source=embedded_vid eo

[glue]

Palin is not a hillbilly.

[KevinTBrown]

Here's a photo gallery of the rally in Grant Park on Tuesday night:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-081104-obama-rally-grant-park-photogallery,0,647742.photogallery

And, IMO, the best picture of the bunch:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2008-11/43200024.jpg

[mailedbypostman1]

hehehehehehehehehe:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive?utm_source=embedded_vid eo

Hah. This is great.

[Kevinroc]

Hah. This is great.

My favorite Onion piece with this one:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations

But as far as humor pieces go, I have to give some props to this one:

http://www.borowitzreport.com/article.aspx?ID=6957

[the4thpip]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/11/06/palin_sticker/story.gif

[section 8]

I thought we were done with all this.

[the4thpip]

Bacon > Fries

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/11/06/bacon_fries/story.jpg

Not a hoax: That race was between Bob Bacon and Matt Fries. It is not true, however, that the Green Party candidate was one Michelle Milk-Shake.

[Berserk]

What does everyone think about who Obama should pick for his cabinet members? I've heard that John Kerry is pushing hard to get selected as Secretary of State, but I don't think he should be. For one thing, he lost 4 years ago and nobody likes losers. Secondly, he's very boring, and I don't think that is a personality trait that is good in a secretary of state. He'd bore foreign leaders to death and never get anything done. He needs to select someone like Colin Powell; an experienced leader who is also well respected and a good speaker. But, Obama will probably end up picking Kerry since he was the one who got him started on this path to the presidency by giving him a shot at making the keynote speech at the 2004 democratic convention. I guess Obama feels like he owes Kerry for that. And also for coming out to support him early in the primaries when everyone else in the Democratic party was backing Hillary.

[FalconX2000]

What does everyone think about who Obama should pick for his cabinet members? I've heard that John Kerry is pushing hard to get selected as Secretary of State, but I don't think he should be. For one thing, he lost 4 years ago and nobody likes losers. Secondly, he's very boring, and I don't think that is a personality trait that is good in a secretary of state. He'd bore foreign leaders to death and never get anything done. He needs to select someone like Colin Powell; an experienced leader who is also well respected and a good speaker. But, Obama will probably end up picking Kerry since he was the one who got him started on this path to the presidency by giving him a shot at making the keynote speech at the 2004 democratic convention. I guess Obama feels like he owes Kerry for that. And also for coming out to support him early in the primaries when everyone else in the Democratic party was backing Hillary.

I don't believe Kerry should be secretary of state. The position, as I understand it, needs personality and persuasiveness, neither of which is his strong suit. If he wants a position, he could probably do pretty well as secretary of veteren's affairs.

[Typo Lad]

You know what I love?

All the people I know who were freaking out over Obama because of Israel are now going to have to find a way to freak out over the fact that his Chief of Staff is the son of a member of the Irgun, and served a tour in the IDF in the first Gulf War.

So far, I've seen one try to spin it that he's "bad" because he was part of the Oslo proccess and palnned the Rose Garden ceremony in '93. Which is bad... why?

[Infra-Man]

Bacon > Fries

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/11/06/bacon_fries/story.jpg

Not a hoax: That race was between Bob Bacon and Matt Fries. It is not true, however, that the Green Party candidate was one Michelle Milk-Shake.

Well, Bacon was part of a winning ticket.
http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo172/hvigilla/a699b4ee46c23eec7e88ad2136071279.jpg

[Lester C.]

A couple of years ago Obama said he had spooky good luck, his word not mine. This was definitely the case when Jack Ryan dropped out of the Senate race at the last minute and was replaced by the worst candidate possible. It’s kind of cool and scary how his luck held up with the McCain and Palin campaign as a child could have run it better. Even the current economic woes played into Obama’s favor.

[Infra-Man]

A couple of years ago Obama said he had spooky good luck, his word not mine. This was definitely the case when Jack Ryan dropped out of the Senate race at the last minute and was replaced by the worst candidate possible. It’s kind of cool and scary how his luck held up with the McCain and Palin campaign as a child could have run it better. Even the current economic woes played into Obama’s favor.

I was talking to a friend about this yesterday, actually, and Obama's hardest political fight was The Democratic Primary. Luck had practically nothing to do with that one (though the Clinton campaign was a bumbling and chaotic mess thanks to Mark Penn's traditional, big-state strategy). The primary victory was due to smart, hardcore campaigning and discipline.

[Paul McEnery]

I was talking to a friend about this yesterday, actually, and Obama's hardest political fight was The Democratic Primary. Luck had practically nothing to do with that one (though the Clinton campaign was a bumbling and chaotic mess thanks to Mark Penn's traditional, big-state strategy). The primary victory was due to smart, hardcore campaigning and discipline.

Fortune favours the well-prepared!

[AllisterH]

A couple of years ago Obama said he had spooky good luck, his word not mine. This was definitely the case when Jack Ryan dropped out of the Senate race at the last minute and was replaced by the worst candidate possible. It’s kind of cool and scary how his luck held up with the McCain and Palin campaign as a child could have run it better. Even the current economic woes played into Obama’s favor.

I've always said that Obama's biggest strength is that he doesn't make mistakes while his opponents do.

From his Illinois senate race where his opponents "mysteriously filled out the ballots wrong" to his Senate race ("you were taking Seven of Nine to sex clubs? You pervert) to the democratic nomination ("I thought they were all primaries"- Mark Penn) to the presidential race ("Sorry John McCain, even though if I (Bush) had stepped in much earlier when AIG fell this wouldn't be so bad"), each of his opponents suffers a catastrophic mistake which they can never recover from....

[KevinTBrown]

A couple of years ago Obama said he had spooky good luck, his word not mine. This was definitely the case when Jack Ryan dropped out of the Senate race at the last minute and was replaced by the worst candidate possible. It’s kind of cool and scary how his luck held up with the McCain and Palin campaign as a child could have run it better. Even the current economic woes played into Obama’s favor.

It didn't make a difference if Ryan dropped out or not, Obama had a very healthy 15+ point lead over Ryan before any of the sex club stuff came out.

[Charles RB]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/11/06/bacon_fries/story.jpg

Not a hoax: That race was between Bob Bacon and Matt Fries

Sometimes it's like international politics is designed solely to interest and amuse me...

[Rik Levins]

Not a hoax: That race was between Bob Bacon and Matt Fries. It is not true, however, that the Green Party candidate was one Michelle Milk-Shake.

A longtime friend of mine was named Mary Malt. If she'd gone into politics (and kept her maiden name...)

[FalconX2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27582081#27580889

Pretty interesting perspectives, especially from Howard Fineman, regarding why Rahm has the qualities for a chief of staff.

[Descartes_Lives]

I'm quite intrigued at the new Cabinet. I specifically want to know who'll fill the Education Dept. The current leader is a bit of a loser, in my opinion, because of the "Buster" controversy and her support of NCLB.

Des.

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't believe Kerry should be secretary of state. The position, as I understand it, needs personality and persuasiveness, neither of which is his strong suit. If he wants a position, he could probably do pretty well as secretary of veteren's affairs.

I'm not sure how veterans would feel about that. He's still pretty unpopular among a number of them.

[Nick Soapdish]

There's been some discussion about how Obama has done among various groups, but I haven't seen this contingent discussed yet - the Maverick vote.

As it turns out, he did surprisingly well.

Maverick County, Texas
Obama - 8,554 (78.2%)
McCain - 2,316 (21.2%)

[Corrina]

I'm quite intrigued at the new Cabinet. I specifically want to know who'll fill the Education Dept. The current leader is a bit of a loser, in my opinion, because of the "Buster" controversy and her support of NCLB.

Des.

Caroline Kennedy?

She currently has a non-paying job as a fundraiser for the NYC school systems--she's familiar with inner city school systems and their needs, and has been involved in organizing events & fundraisers.

She doesn't have government experience, though she has knowledge and a lot of connections on Capital Hill, not only through Teddy but her cousin, Patrick. Though let's face it, when Caroline Kennedy calls you about something, you pay attention. The name has clout still.

It might be a dark horse pick but she was on Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.

[KevinTBrown]

Caroline Kennedy?

She currently has a non-paying job as a fundraiser for the NYC school systems--she's familiar with inner city school systems and their needs, and has been involved in organizing events & fundraisers.

She doesn't have government experience, though she has knowledge and a lot of connections on Capital Hill, not only through Teddy but her cousin, Patrick. Though let's face it, when Caroline Kennedy calls you about something, you pay attention. The name has clout still.

It might be a dark horse pick but she was on Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.

I can see her as Secretary of Education easily.

[Paul McEnery]

Caroline Kennedy?

She currently has a non-paying job as a fundraiser for the NYC school systems--she's familiar with inner city school systems and their needs, and has been involved in organizing events & fundraisers.

She doesn't have government experience, though she has knowledge and a lot of connections on Capital Hill, not only through Teddy but her cousin, Patrick. Though let's face it, when Caroline Kennedy calls you about something, you pay attention. The name has clout still.

It might be a dark horse pick but she was on Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.

Probably an undersecretary or something this time out. Learn the ropes.

I think the mix of old lags and fresh blood is going to be interesting to watch. Also the carefully calibrated multiculturalism, and the reach around the aisle.

Across. I meant across.

[darkhanamaru]

I can see her as Secretary of Education easily.

Too soon. She will be considered for a run one day and I can see her on staff but not for that type of cabinet position. An ambassadorship seems very likely given her background or as Paul pointed out, an undersecretary position in something like Justice. She is a lawyer not a teacher remember.

[the4thpip]

This is funny:

http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_new_world_orde_10121.php

[Magneto_X]

What does everyone think about who Obama should pick for his cabinet members? I've heard that John Kerry is pushing hard to get selected as Secretary of State, but I don't think he should be. For one thing, he lost 4 years ago and nobody likes losers.

Kerry losing a presidential run doesn't mean he can't do something useful in the Obama administration.

Secondly, he's very boring, and I don't think that is a personality trait that is good in a secretary of state.

Boring is good for politics.

He'd bore foreign leaders to death and never get anything done.

Foreign leaders would take someone like Kerry much more seriously then a drama queen.

He needs to select someone like Colin Powell; an experienced leader who is also well respected and a good speaker.

Powell worked for Dubya and was vital in convincing the American public and politicians into getting into a useless, and possibly illegal, war on faulty intel.

But, Obama will probably end up picking Kerry since he was the one who got him started on this path to the presidency by giving him a shot at making the keynote speech at the 2004 democratic convention. I guess Obama feels like he owes Kerry for that. And also for coming out to support him early in the primaries when everyone else in the Democratic party was backing Hillary.

That certainly is a plus for Kerry.

[Corrina]

Too soon. She will be considered for a run one day and I can see her on staff but not for that type of cabinet position. An ambassadorship seems very likely given her background or as Paul pointed out, an undersecretary position in something like Justice. She is a lawyer not a teacher remember.

Is she a lawyer? I didn't think she was.

I forgot she does have executive experience. She is the head of the JFK Library Foundation, too.

But, yeah, probably undersecretary. Or not. She does probably have more intimate knowledge of a troubled school system than anyone else close to him.

Though I expect the education stuff is going to be pushed aside for a while because of the economy and that he'll attack the whole 'national service' for college age students before the public school issue & No Child Left Behind.

[Infra-Man]

Well, I wonder what this will be like if and when the time comes.

http://www.hillaryis45.org/


And for some domain redirect humor:

http://www.palinis45.com/

[EMeadow]

I'm quite intrigued at the new Cabinet. I specifically want to know who'll fill the Education Dept. The current leader is a bit of a loser, in my opinion, because of the "Buster" controversy and her support of NCLB.

Des.

I'd love for Obama to hire Joe Clark for this, just cause I'd love to see if he's still got the fire to do something nationwide.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Man I must be hitting some weird Home Runs.....Keith Olbermann just showed that the Iranian PM sent Obama a congratulations note on being the new President of the United States. Obama has said he will review the letter with the proper moves later. This is the 1st time in years that Iran has ever done this before.

[Venom Melendez]

Man I must be hitting some weird Home Runs.....Keith Olbermann just showed that the Iranian PM sent Obama a congratulations note on being the new President of the United States. Obama has said he will review the letter with the proper moves later. This is the 1st time in years that Iran has ever done this before.

That's good to know. Diplomacy for the win.

[Kyuubi]

http://superobamaworld.com/

[FalconX2000]

I'm not sure how veterans would feel about that. He's still pretty unpopular among a number of them.

I don't see how that sentiment would go anywhere but up if he took the job.

Though I'm not sure if he'd feel the position was a step down from his senate position.

Probably an undersecretary or something this time out. Learn the ropes.

I think the mix of old lags and fresh blood is going to be interesting to watch. Also the carefully calibrated multiculturalism, and the reach around the aisle.

Across. I meant across.

lol.:biggrin:

Man I must be hitting some weird Home Runs.....Keith Olbermann just showed that the Iranian PM sent Obama a congratulations note on being the new President of the United States. Obama has said he will review the letter with the proper moves later. This is the 1st time in years that Iran has ever done this before.

Nice.:eek:

[SUPERECWFAN1]

That's good to know. Diplomacy for the win.

Ohhh and in a funny thing there was this "Bill" or something Iraq's Government was supposed to vote on regarding troop movements. Well they basically weeks ago said Fuck Ya to Bush about ever passing it and its believed the Iran government was telling Iraq's government the US would use this as an excuse to stay there . 2 days after the Election the Iraq Government annouced they would be working on it before the end of the year !

[mailedbypostman1]

Ohhh and in a funny thing there was this "Bill" or something Iraq's Government was supposed to vote on regarding troop movements. Well they basically weeks ago said Fuck Ya to Bush about ever passing it and its believed the Iran government was telling Iraq's government the US would use this as an excuse to stay there . 2 days after the Election the Iraq Government annouced they would be working on it before the end of the year !
Barrack Obama: FORCE PERSUADE [Iran Government sign Bill] (Success)

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't see how that sentiment would go anywhere but up if he took the job.

Though I'm not sure if he'd feel the position was a step down from his senate position.


It would, assuming that their situations improved and it was perceived as being due to the Veterans' Affairs. But before that, it would seem like a slap in the face.

I think that he would do a good job and would be able to improve the bureau, but I'm not sure how many of them would give them a chance.

[FalconX2000]

Ohhh and in a funny thing there was this "Bill" or something Iraq's Government was supposed to vote on regarding troop movements. Well they basically weeks ago said Fuck Ya to Bush about ever passing it and its believed the Iran government was telling Iraq's government the US would use this as an excuse to stay there . 2 days after the Election the Iraq Government annouced they would be working on it before the end of the year !

May I know how I can find news on that bill? "Iran Iraq troop movements bill" doesn't seem to produce the desired results on google.

[Nick Soapdish]

How about the Secretary of the Treasury? It's going to be a pretty important position.

I've been hearing the name Sheila Bair (who's in charge of the FDIC) as a possibility and she sounds very promising to me.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

May I know how I can find news on that bill? "Iran Iraq troop movements bill" doesn't seem to produce the desired results on google.

Watch Rachel Maddox tonight after Countdown. She knows what it was concerning Iraq.

[Kyuubi]

Watch Rachel Maddox tonight after Countdown. She knows what it was concerning Iraq.



Greg Maddox's wife has a show on MSNBC?



I thought it was only Rachel Maddow.

[the4thpip]

Greg Maddox's wife has a show on MSNBC?



I thought it was only Rachel Maddow.

It's a spin-off of Bob Costas vs Mannix:

http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/11/06/boll/story.jpg

[FalconX2000]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110602999.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Pretty good read on Barack's job in regaining America's moral authority.

[Francis]

Lewinsky was a sideshow to the Flowers suit, but it led to Clinton's perjury.

Let me stop you there. Clinton never actually committed perjury even if he did lie under oath. If you are under oath and a lawyer asks you if you've had a good day and you say yes, when in fact your dog has been run over and now a lawyer is cross-examining you you may be lying but you are not committing perjury. In order to be perjury the lie needs to be materially relevant to the case in question. This is part of the legal definition of perjury.

The questions Clinton lied in response to were not in relation to the case in question. They were in relation to the Republican obsession with the President's Pecker. About the only thing their multi-million dollar fishing expedition could dig up on him.

Bottom line: Clinton never committed perjury. The Gop was spending many millions of dollars to throw the kitchen sink at him and the only thing they could get him on was completely irrelevant to their actual charges. However this didn't stop the GOP claiming that their obsession with the President's Pecker was vindicated in hindsight by confusing lying under oath with perjury. And the judge in the trial said this in conclusion.

Bottom Line Redux: Clinton lied, he did not commit perjury - the two are legally different. The GOP talking point saying otherwise is a lie.

[KevinTBrown]

Let me stop you there. Clinton never actually committed perjury even if he did lie under oath. If you are under oath and a lawyer asks you if you've had a good day and you say yes, when in fact your dog has been run over and now a lawyer is cross-examining you you may be lying but you are not committing perjury. In order to be perjury the lie needs to be materially relevant to the case in question. This is part of the legal definition of perjury.

The questions Clinton lied in response to were not in relation to the case in question. They were in relation to the Republican obsession with the President's Pecker. About the only thing their multi-million dollar fishing expedition could dig up on him.

Bottom line: Clinton never committed perjury. The Gop was spending many millions of dollars to throw the kitchen sink at him and the only thing they could get him on was completely irrelevant to their actual charges. However this didn't stop the GOP claiming that their obsession with the President's Pecker was vindicated in hindsight by confusing lying under oath with perjury. And the judge in the trial said this in conclusion.

Bottom Line Redux: Clinton lied, he did not commit perjury - the two are legally different. The GOP talking point saying otherwise is a lie.

Not sure about that.....

Perjury:

NOUN:
pl. per·ju·ries

1. Law The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

2. The breach of an oath or promise.

His testimony was indeed "misleading and incomplete". And this is a Bill Clinton backer saying that.

[Charles RB]

Just found this:

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/5/128704131435752771.jpg

[Infra-Man]

In short re the Clinton perjury discussion:

It's not what he lied about under oath that matters. What matters is that he lied under oath. The end.

[rick]

In short re the Clinton perjury discussion:

It's not what he lied about under oath that matters. What matters is that he lied under oath. The end.

Hah!

Obviously you've never cheated on your wife before.

Let me tell you what, I'd lie under oath in that situation too.

[Infra-Man]

Hah!

Obviously you've never cheated on your wife before.

Let me tell you what, I'd lie under oath in that situation too.

Haha. There are worse things than impeachment and perjury, and being hand-castrated by your wife is one of them.

[FalconX2000]

Just found this:

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/5/128704131435752771.jpg

We need to have one of those running clips where we get every single time a pundit pushed that argument, then show Barack Obama at the end of it.

Go Rachel Maddow/Keith Olbermann/Jon Stewart!

[rick]

Haha. There are worse things than impeachment and perjury, and being hand-castrated by your wife is one of them.

Damm straight.

[Francis]

Not sure about that.....

Perjury:

NOUN:
pl. per·ju·ries

1. Law The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

2. The breach of an oath or promise.

His testimony was indeed "misleading and incomplete". And this is a Bill Clinton backer saying that.

You need a better dictionary if you're claiming the legal meaning - the one you presented is a massive simplification. Try the definition here (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm).
PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

As I said, perjury must be materially relevant to the case as I said at the start of my post. And the Lewinsky affair was not. In order to forestall that accusation, Judge Wright herself pointed out that the Lewinsky testimony was not materially relevant. And then despite a clear legal finding the Republicans in the senate tried to impeach him for perjury anyway. And he was once again found to be not guilty of perjury (but guilty of lying and of trying to obstruct the course of justice).

If you claim the legal definition of perjury then Clinton has repeatedly been found not guilty. If you want to claim the simple breach of an oath or promise, find me a politition who isn't guilty of perjury.

In short re the Clinton perjury discussion:

It's not what he lied about under oath that matters. What matters is that he lied under oath. The end.

Completely false if you wish to talk about legal perjury, as I have just demonstrated for the second time. If you are saying that he should have resigned because he lied under oath, I fail to see why that is different from any other sort of lie. Why should Reagan's lies about Iran-Contra be treated less harshly than Clinton's claims about who he has an affair with regardless of the oaths?

[KevinTBrown]

Look, it's simple: Clinton was asked if he had sex with Monica, he lied when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". A blowjob is "having sexual relations". Period.

It's perjury. You can use all the definitions you want, but in the end it's perjury.

As I said, I'm a Bill Clinton backer, but even I won't drink that kool-aid......

[AllisterH]

*LOL*

Even after a decade, we're still debating this on Clinton. In a way, I think the Republicans kind of permanently screwed this.

If a president can be impeached and removed from office for lying about getting a blowjob, Bush should've been removed from office long ago.

This is why I never understood why Republicans were so gung-ho about getting rid of Clinton. They OBVIOUSLY are going to have another Republican president and if the bar was set so low, 85% of past and FUTRE presidents should've been removed from office.

Then again, who knew Pelosi and Reid were such chickenshits and never thoguht about bringing impeachment charges against Bush....

[AllisterH]

Just found this:

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/5/128704131435752771.jpg

You know what's somewhat ironic about this?

McCain is arguably the ONLY prominent Republican that can say with a straight face "Then I can criticize Barak to my heart's content".

Sure, Obama et al focused on the 90% that McCain matched Bush with in the last 2 years, but compared to all those Republican backers that jumped ship to Obama?

Not one of them used to be as big a pain in the ass to Bush as McCain was. Powell, Noonan et al were Bush's biggest supporters when they should've been on his ass.

Not even Hagel (he only disagreed with Bush on Iraq) was as large a critic of the Bush administration from the beginning as was McCain.

So, here's a question. If McCain starts complaining about Obama, how many of us here will support McCain given his history over the last 8 years (and not the last 1-1.5).

[Francis]

Look, it's simple: Clinton was asked if he had sex with Monica, he lied when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". A blowjob is "having sexual relations". Period.

It's perjury. You can use all the definitions you want, but in the end it's perjury.

As I said, I'm a Bill Clinton backer, but even I won't drink that kool-aid......

Look, it's simple. Bill Clinton only committed perjury if you chose to ignore the law. At that point what meaning does perjury have?

He lied with intent to deceive. He had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and lied under oath about them. Had these been relevant to the case then he would have committed perjury. But he didn't because the questions were not relevant to the case.

Now morally I don't see any difference between this and perjury on Bill Clinton's part. But the reason the difference matters is that it makes it clear that the reason Clinton was lying under oath was the Republican obsession with the President's Pecker rather than legitimate legal procedings.

[Infra-Man]

Completely false if you wish to talk about legal perjury, as I have just demonstrated for the second time. If you are saying that he should have resigned because he lied under oath, I fail to see why that is different from any other sort of lie. Why should Reagan's lies about Iran-Contra be treated less harshly than Clinton's claims about who he has an affair with regardless of the oaths?

The perjury charge came when Clinton lied about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky during a sexual harassment case involving Jennifer Flowers. As the question about his relationship with Lewinsky in the Flowers case ostensibly pertained to the idea of Clinton's proclivities for sexual misconduct, it may be seen as a material matter in that case, hence the lie in that case can be viewed as an act of perjury even under your definition.

If your definition held up and limited the scope of perjury to something ultra-specific, why didn't the legal teams back in the 90s argue this bit of language in the definition of perjury? (Perhaps they did, though I'm not aware they did.)

Now, given, this is just armchair legal stuff I'm spouting off here, but given how the lie came about and the case in which it occurred, the lie does seem to be a about a material matter. Trivial in the real world, maybe, but potentially material in the Flowers case.

Now, as for punishing someone for getting a beejer, I agree it's pretty silly, but he should have either a) not screwed Lewinsky and kept it in his pants or b) not lied under oath and just taken his lashing like a mature philanderer.

Then again, who knew Pelosi and Reid were such chickenshits and never thoguht about bringing impeachment charges against Bush....

I never understood how two ineffective milquetoasts like Pelosi and Reid ascended to the Congressional leadership of the Democrats. They seem like political caricatures of wimpy, impotent Democrats rather than the face the party really needs.

[Major Comma]

Infra Man ,
Who would you replace Pelosi and Reed with if you could ?

[Infra-Man]

Infra Man ,
Who would you replace Pelosi and Reed with if you could ?

Have no idea, actually. Henry Waxman is hardcore and would be a cool speaker, but I don't know how that would fly (and, superficially, he's not the best looking guy in the world). There have got to be more House Dems I'd prefer over Pelosi, bbut only Waxman springs to mind. (Kucinich will never be Speaker, but in a way, I like that since he'll always be able to be Kucinich and, as he did some time ago, go balls deep and introduce articles of impeachment against Bush.)

Reid ought to be replaced by someone like Carl Levin, maybe. Someone with Senate experience, cred from the Midwest. Russ Feingold would be awesome too, but he'd be painted as a fringe lefty as soon as his name would be considered.

EDIT:
Give it a few more election cycles and Jim Webb might make an interesting choice for Senate leader. Regan Democrat (and literally so), hails from Virginia, keeps talking about building political bridges to the Scots-Irish population in Appalachia. Could be a person to watch out for if the Democrats want to make some sort of inroads (even if limited) into the South.

[Nick Soapdish]

Look, it's simple: Clinton was asked if he had sex with Monica, he lied when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". A blowjob is "having sexual relations". Period.

It's perjury. You can use all the definitions you want, but in the end it's perjury.

As I said, I'm a Bill Clinton backer, but even I won't drink that kool-aid......

Didn't the lawyers explicitly define what "sexual relations" were - omitting blowjobs - for that question?

It's nitpicking anyway. The important charge is obstruction of justice IMO.

[rick]

Didn't the lawyers explicitly define what "sexual relations" were - omitting blowjobs - for that question?

It's nitpicking anyway. The important charge is obstruction of justice IMO.

In fact, yes, they did.

[rick]

Odd thought.

I was thinking back a couple of years to 2003 when the Republicans were threatening legislation to remove the right to filibuster judicial nominations and was wondering what Mitch McConnell would say if you asked him about that now?

[Venom Melendez]

A blow job isn't sex it's oral.

[rick]

A blow job isn't sex it's oral.


If that's not sex, then you must not be doing it right.

[K-DoG7p7]

Bill clinton made it clear that it was not sex.... and he was president at the time..
thats like.. so its kinda official

[Tetsuo_man]

Didn't the lawyers explicitly define what "sexual relations" were - omitting blowjobs - for that question?

It's nitpicking anyway. The important charge is obstruction of justice IMO.

Yes and I know this because this was covered in my highschool civics class. Basically Clinton wanted them to define what they meant by sexual relations before he could answer and they basically omitted blowjobs and anything that wasn't just penis in a vagina. Pretty much the prosecution threw too small a net.

[KevinTBrown]

A blow job isn't sex it's oral.

Uh, yeah, try telling your wife that if she ever catches another person's mouth on you in that way.....

:rolleyes:

[Venom Melendez]

Uh, yeah, try telling your wife that if she ever catches another person's mouth on you in that way.....

:rolleyes:

Well, it seems Bill managed to convince Hilary of that. Since they're still married.

[Tetsuo_man]

Well, it seems Bill managed to convince Hilary of that. Since they're still married.

Honestly am I the only one who doesn't think they have a "Deal" about things such as this. I mean ok her staying with him after Flowers but then Lewinsky and etc. They have to have a deal.

[4PointOh]

And the award for Most Prescient Opinion goes to:

She's a racist. If she chooses McCain over her own self interest, she's a racist. just like all the "Reagan democrats" and Dixiecrats. The pundits keep dancing around it and the pollsters give it clinical names to make it palatable on chat shows but all you're seeing is the last gasp of the old racist enclaves in this nation attempting to hold on to the little ground they have left.

It won't work.

"Naivete" is BS. There is no job, no job in any other venue, even government, that prepares one to be President and you'll find that a good many presidents had minimal governmental "experience" before getting the big chair and did fine with it. And some of our WORST have had lots of "prior experience." The current one could hardly do a worse job if he was attempting to screw up worse every day.

And, seriously, if you want to open the can of worms relating to "shady associations" I think Mr. Obama would love to take the Republicans down that road. I mean, give me a break.

Stick with the fiscal and Defense debate. Whatever traction you've got is there. Morally, you guys got destroyed a long time ago. And your "experts" are currently responsible for destabilizing a massive and volitile region on this planet as well as several thousand deaths and tens of thousands of horribly mained humans.

For nothing.

Because of lies.

If Obama was lobotomized on his first day in office he couldn't do worse than Bush the Lesser and his pack of toadies. And he'd still be a damn sight better than anything McCain has to offer as well.

Get used to Obama's face. He'll be your next president.

Suck it, haters.

[Francis]

1: There are couples that stay together despite adultery - love for one reason. I see no reason the Clintons couldn't have been one of those. And I have no doubt that when Hillary married Bill she knew he was a ladies man. He is also an incredibly intelligent, charming, and able man who has gone far. I see no reason a deal was necessary (at least no more of one than the one which said "To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, til death us do part." - the worse being that he is a Ladies Man or whatever version of thewedding vows they shared). I also know several people involved in polyamorous relationships (several of whom intentionally left the forsaking all others part out of their wedding vows). And I've been told on several occasions that the way the Clintons described their marriage is very simmilar to that used within the polyamorous community (my knowledge of polyamoury is all post-2000).

Shorter 1: There are many reasons Hillary Clinton might have chosen to stay with Bill irrespective of any deal.

2: The argument about perjury was made at the time. Too subtle for the media to pick up on in general. But not for the judge who explicitely made it in her verdict.

3: Some people think oral sex is not sex. Others (like me) think of course it is sex. (I'm told that thinking oral sex is not sex correlates with (but is not limited to) recipients of abstenance only sex-education). This sort of misunderstanding is why courts of law have definitions. And Clinton asked for a definition in part to be sure he was answering the question they were asking (which is why he asked about the definition of is - it was a sloppy question to which he could simply have replied 'no').

4: Whether or not sex happened, and what sort, is irrelevant to the subject of harassment unless it was in some way coerced. I don't think anyone has remotely made the claim that Monica Lewinsky did not willingly have sex with Bill Clinton. And if she encouraged it then only the initial advances were at all relevant.

[Paul McEnery]

Uh, yeah, try telling your wife that if she ever catches another person's mouth on you in that way.....

:rolleyes:

"I had something trapped under my foreskin and my eyesight isn't what it used to be so this nice lady who has certificates in first aid offered to help me with it and it turned out it went down my urethra which felt just terrible so she had to suck it out or I would have had to go to the emergency and wait for hours and no I have no idea how her boobs fell out of her dress I was averting my gaze out of courtesy and besides my eyesight isn't what it used to be please don't hit me please don't hit me ow."

[Tobias March]

"I had something trapped under my foreskin and my eyesight isn't what it used to be so this nice lady who has certificates in first aid offered to help me with it and it turned out it went down my urethra which felt just terrible so she had to suck it out or I would have had to go to the emergency and wait for hours and no I have no idea how her boobs fell out of her dress I was averting my gaze out of courtesy and besides my eyesight isn't what it used to be please don't hit me please don't hit me ow."

I seem to recall some British notable caught in a layby claimed the lady was looking to ease pancreatic pains.

[Paul McEnery]

I seem to recall some British notable caught in a layby claimed the lady was looking to ease pancreatic pains.

"I recently suffered an injury upon the football field such that the underwear I thoughtlessly put on this morning had became an unbearable constraint. My lady friend was concerned that my circulation had become impaired and was merely inspecting the inflamed area for signs of a possibly lethal constriction. I can only offer this good samaritan my thanks for her quick-witted and selfless response to a dangerous situation, your honour."

[KevinTBrown]

"I recently suffered an injury upon the football field such that the underwear I thoughtlessly put on this morning had became an unbearable constraint. My lady friend was concerned that my circulation had become impaired and was merely inspecting the inflamed area for signs of a possibly lethal constriction. I can only offer this good samaritan my thanks for her quick-witted and selfless response to a dangerous situation, your honour."

For some reason, I can see that actually flying in a court of law......

[Tobias March]

Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/10/stemcells-obama-white-house) from the Guardian newspaper on Obama's science policy - and the overturning of Bush's stem cell funding ban.

[Sabrinaset]

"I had something trapped under my foreskin and my eyesight isn't what it used to be so this nice lady who has certificates in first aid offered to help me with it and it turned out it went down my urethra which felt just terrible so she had to suck it out or I would have had to go to the emergency and wait for hours and no I have no idea how her boobs fell out of her dress I was averting my gaze out of courtesy and besides my eyesight isn't what it used to be please don't hit me please don't hit me ow."

Why DO I have this odd feeling Mr. McEnery actually HAS used this excuse before? :biggrin:

[Paul McEnery]

Why DO I have this odd feeling Mr. McEnery actually HAS used this excuse before? :biggrin:

I cut straight to the "ow".

[FalconX2000]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24631045-23375,00.html



SO Barack Obama comes down from the bedroom to breakfast. Sorry, he's already been up since 4.30am doing push-ups and annoying the neighbours by keeping his jump shot well-oiled.

One of the little known facts about the US president-elect, leaked no doubt by his minders, is that he gets by on just four or five hours sleep a night. Sustaining such long working hours is apparently not the exclusive preserve of Margaret Thatcher.

So Obama comes in from the basketball hoop in the driveway for breakfast. Michelle asks him whether he wants Weeties or Cheerios.

He starts off low-key. "You know, when I was taking the bins out this morning I ran into a neighbour, Mary-Jo Fitzgerald," he says, towelling off and sitting at the kitchen table. "She's a tiny, frail woman of 102. When she was a little girl, Mary-Jo didn't have choices like the one you've just given me."

"Ahem," Michelle says, trying to hurry him along so she can get the girls to school and herself off to work.

"Amen, indeed," Obama says, his tempo building. "Mary-Jo's breakfast choices were simpler back in the day. Oats or leftovers. Maybe milk on a good day. Her other choices too, like education, like health care, it was the bare minimum."

Michelle glances at her watch. Obama is reaching his first crescendo of the day. "And what has changed? Not enough. Not nearly enough. Four score and more years later Mary-Jo is still being short-changed. Short-changed by a political system that won't change. And her kids? Short-changed. And her grandkids? Short-changed.

"Can we do better for Mary-Jo and her family? Yes, we can. Can we change things for all the Mary-Jos out there? Yes, we can. Can we change the short-changing? Yes. We. Can."

Michelle: "So ... would that be Weeties or Cheerios?"

Obama: "Weeties."

Michelle (rolling her eyes at the next little ritual in their day): "And how would you like your coffee?"

Obama: "(a la Martin Luther King's famous speech) I'll have some cream."

It's hard not to be impressed with the new King of the World's oratorical skills. Sitting in a newsroom last Wednesday afternoon watching Obama's election-night speech was instructive. Normally a gaggle of hard-bitten journalists will compete to outdo each other with the most acerbic one-liner at historical moments. But there was stone silence as Obama talked of his new puppy and his hope for change in America. I think I even saw a couple of them lip-syncing "Yes we can".

As his honeymoon begins, it will be interesting to see how his team manages expectations around this clarion call for change.

One thing he is finding hard to change is his own smoking habit. Another of those little known facts about Obama is that he is "struggling to give up cigarettes" after promising his wife he would when he began his run for the presidency.

To a cynical observer, struggling to give up cigarettes is code for still smoking despite having promised not to. It's great to think of the world's most powerful man sneaking out into the back yard of the White House for a quick fag, breath freshener in his pocket, so Michelle doesn't catch him.

Smoker or not, Obama's popularity is stratospheric. Even Daniel Craig, the latest James Bond strutting his stuff in the new film Quantum of Solace, couldn't help getting in on the hype last week.

Headlines around the world screamed "Obama: The next Bond?" after Craig answered a question about who would make a better 007, Obama or his Republican rival John McCain.

Now it's pretty hard to argue McCain, despite his heroic war service and proven resilience to torture from years in a Vietnamese PoW camp, would ever stack up better than Obama as a secret agent with a licence to kill.

You just have to imagine Bond on the way into M's office having his traditional banter with Miss Moneypenny.

Moneypenny: "M's not quite ready, James. But what about you? Are you ready for it?"

McCain/Bond: "Sorry, missed that. You'll have to talk into my good ear."

Mind you, the Obama version might fail to tickle Moneypenny's fancy either.

Moneypenny: "James. I don't think tonight's dinner is black tie. You may need to slip out of that tuxedo and into something ... a little more comfortable.

Obama/Bond: "Why Moneypenny, it's hard to think of being comfortable as we look towards a new dawn. The dawning of hope. Hope we can turn a fresh page in the nation's history. A page rich with change. Change that ..."

[the4thpip]

Alaska Update: Thousands of Ballots 'Found', One-Third Remain Uncounted in the State's Still-Fishy '08 Election

This just in from Alaska, where thousands of new ballots continue to be found each day, since it was first reported that turnout in 2008 was 11% lower than in 2004. Thousands of ballots, nearly a third of them, remain uncounted nearly a week after the election. Their numbers could explain the strange results so far in races --- such as those of the felonious Sen. Ted Stevens (R) and the under-investigation Rep. Don Young (R) --- for which pollsters had predicted decisive losses for the Republicans.

Even with the newly acknowledged ballots and even with Alaska's once-popular Gov. Sarah Palin and popular Sen. Barack Obama both on the Presidential ballot this year, turnout numbers still remain slightly below those from 2004. The Anchorage Daily News, with numbers somewhat out of date from those now posted below, called it all "puzzling" over the weekend, and pointed out much of what we've detailed here in previous posts.



http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6654

[FalconX2000]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6654

Since people are catching onto the voter suppresion tactics, they've turned their attention towards sabotaging the ballots themselves.

[Charles RB]

I'm getting the impression from Americans that Louisiana and Alaska are corrupt like a film noir come to life. A bad one.

[KevinTBrown]

Hay, wassup....? (8 years later.....)

http://www.therundown.tv/videos/wtf-files/whazzzzup-its-time-for-change/

:biggrin:

[Briareos]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7426/ericallie110608nq3.jpg

[Infra-Man]

Hay, wassup....? (8 years later.....)

http://www.therundown.tv/videos/wtf-files/whazzzzup-its-time-for-change/

:biggrin:

I totally posted that two and a half weeks ago.

[Infra-Man]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7426/ericallie110608nq3.jpg

What was Bush's electoral college total again?

[Briareos]

What was Bush's electoral college total again?

That shouldn't matter when discussing if our country is united or not.

[Briareos]

And Obama can't wait to make our health care system like Canada's.

http://nationalcitizens.ca/cgi-bin/news.cgi?rm=display&articleID=1225721400

[Infra-Man]

That shouldn't matter when discussing if our country is united or not.

Why shouldn't it? Obama won a much more decisive victory (an 8 million vote victory) than either of Bush's two election victories, neither of which left the country feeling particularly united.

And given that McCain has extended an olive branch, I think that's a good sign for feeling united.

[Briareos]

Why shouldn't it? Obama won a much more decisive victory (an 8 million vote victory) than either of Bush's two election victories, neither of which left the country feeling particularly united.

And given that McCain has extended an olive branch, I think that's a good sign for feeling united.

He won by 1% more. this is still a very divided country. This idea that Obama won we never need disagree with liberalism (which is what people who claim that he solved the divide are saying) is ludacris on it's face. He won mainly cause the MSM was partly able to cover for his obvious faults and lie about what is causing the economic downturn. And how come since the economy only started it's downturn after a Democratic congress was elected it's all Bush's fault?

[Tommy]

And Obama can't wait to make our health care system like Canada's.

http://nationalcitizens.ca/cgi-bin/news.cgi?rm=display&articleID=1225721400

I'm not sure why you posted that article. The reasons the article gives for the problem is because of overcrowding. Why are they overcrowded? Because so many more people are being treated than in the United States.

[Paul McEnery]

That shouldn't matter when discussing if our country is united or not.

No. What matters is that 49% of the country hated him. And that four years later, that figure went up to 79%.

Whereas a fair chunk of the people who voted for McCain don't have any real problem with Obama winning.

See? One is divided, the other is united.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Why shouldn't it? Obama won a much more decisive victory (an 8 million vote victory) than either of Bush's two election victories, neither of which left the country feeling particularly united.

And given that McCain has extended an olive branch, I think that's a good sign for feeling united.

He won by 8 million people....thats a hell of a spot....plus heres the scary thing....he won the deep south vote. And he's a black man to boot ! So if thats not unification...what is ?

He won by 1% more. this is still a very divided country. This idea that Obama won we never need disagree with liberalism (which is what people who claim that he solved the divide are saying) is ludacris on it's face. He won mainly cause the MSM was partly able to cover for his obvious faults and lie about what is causing the economic downturn. And how come since the economy only started it's downturn after a Democratic congress was elected it's all Bush's fault?

Because it was basically the Bush policies and Republican Congress that started this mess from 2000-2006 . And with Bush's policies being blamed who do you honestly think as a party will get the blame ?

Plus the Republicans didn't do themselves any favors after the bailout 1st didn't pass by saying on TV Pelosi hurt their feelings on why it didn't pass. Not only are you making your party look pathetic...now your making the party look so horrible bad it defied expectations.

[Infra-Man]

He won by 1% more. this is still a very divided country. This idea that Obama won we never need disagree with liberalism (which is what people who claim that he solved the divide are saying) is ludacris on it's face. He won mainly cause the MSM was partly able to cover for his obvious faults and lie about what is causing the economic downturn. And how come since the economy only started it's downturn after a Democratic congress was elected it's all Bush's fault?

Well, disagreement doesn't necessarily mean division. You can disagree with someone but not necessarily be divided. That's not to say divisions do not exist in this country, of course, but certainly there seemed a great spirit of unity and joy on election night and after rather than the much more distinctly divided mood of the 2000 election (that's division defined right there) and even the 2004 election.

He won in large part because the party in power controlled The Presidency and Congress for six years and got blamed for the economic crisis. Add to this Bush's low approval ratings (which never recovered after Hurricane Katrina), the fact we're fighting two wars with no end in sight, that more than three-quarters of this country thinks the country is on the wrong track or in bad shape, that McCain picked a running mate who excited the base but turned off many moderates and rallied liberals against that ticket, and that Obama ran a disciplined, on-message, calm, optimistic, and steady campaign, and you have a very general picture of how Obama won.

To say that he won by 1% more is a bit disingenuous since you're just looking at a flat win percentage represented in that political cartoon (which is inaccurate). Comparing numbers in 2004, Bush received 62,040,610 (50.7%) to Kerry's 59,028,444 (48.3%). Current totals for the 2008 election have Obama at 66,056,046 (52.6%) to McCain's 57,838,800 (46.1%).

Just flat percentages based on the vote share, Obama actually won by 1.9% more than Bush in 2004. Now, we also see from those totals that he received some 4 million more votes than Bush, which means he received about 6% more votes than George Bush when you compare their individual vote totals.

[Tommy]

And how come since the economy only started it's downturn after a Democratic congress was elected it's all Bush's fault?

Well for starters I would question the idea that the economy started its downturn in the last two years. But I digress, Because the housing bubble was created and identified during the Republican control of congress, and in fact began to burst in 2005, which was prior to the Democrats taking over.

[Calybos]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7426/ericallie110608nq3.jpg

Sounds like somebody's bitter. Tell me, what are you clinging to--guns, or religion?

Ahh, victory is sweet.

[KevinTBrown]

Let's see then....

2004 election: Bush had 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3%, a spread of 2.4%. Popular vote was 62,040,610 to 59,028,444, a spread of 3,012,166.

2008 election: Obama had 52.6% to McCain's 46.1%, a spread of 6.5%. Popular vote (to date) is 66,115,541 to 57,859,168, a spread of 8,256,373.

Also, Obama got 4,000,000+ more votes than Bush in '04.

Just using the winners' percentage total, it does make it look like Obama is "only 1% better", but the actual numbers show a far different tale.

So, yes, someone is definitely bitter.

:tongue:

[Black Atom]

He won by 1% more. this is still a very divided country. This idea that Obama won we never need disagree with liberalism (which is what people who claim that he solved the divide are saying) is ludacris on it's face.

You mean ludicrous. "Ludacris" is a rapper.

[Infra-Man]

http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2006/11/30/ludacris.jpg

[Charles RB]

And Obama can't wait to make our health care system like Canada's.

Good for him. Canada's is better than yours.

[Paul McEnery]

You mean ludicrous. "Ludacris" is a rapper.

But to be fair, he is very in your face.

[Paul McEnery]

So, yes, someone is definitely bitter.
:

You mean he comes in pints? :eek:

[mailedbypostman1]

You mean ludicrous. "Ludacris" is a rapper.

RACISM! :eek:

[Grazzt]

Good for him. Canada's is better than yours.

To be fair, the American system is superior in the areas that you'd imagine a free market system to be superior, ie specialists and expensive equipment. And most of the differences in Canadian and American health can possibly be chalked up to lifestyle.

Of course, we only pay about half of what Americans do per capita.

[BnL]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7426/ericallie110608nq3.jpg

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111838/Obama-Bush-Contrast-Popularity.aspx

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6pnw_gvme0m8pokhjojj0q.gif

*pats Bri on the head* There, there...

[Paul McEnery]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111838/Obama-Bush-Contrast-Popularity.aspx

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6pnw_gvme0m8pokhjojj0q.gif

*pats Bri on the head* There, there...

Oh I don't know now.

It looks as if Bush and Obama have equally united the nation. :evilsmile:

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Let's see then....

2004 election: Bush had 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3%, a spread of 2.4%. Popular vote was 62,040,610 to 59,028,444, a spread of 3,012,166.

2008 election: Obama had 52.6% to McCain's 46.1%, a spread of 6.5%. Popular vote (to date) is 66,115,541 to 57,859,168, a spread of 8,256,373.

Also, Obama got 4,000,000+ more votes than Bush in '04.

Just using the winners' percentage total, it does make it look like Obama is "only 1% better", but the actual numbers show a far different tale.

So, yes, someone is definitely bitter.

:tongue:

Bah....he just won because all those white & black rappers voted for him.

Good for him. Canada's is better than yours.

Of course we Americans have the NFL....and we'll make a fair trade perhaps...we give you the Detriot Lions ...and get some free healthcare !

[Nick Soapdish]

Let's see then....

2004 election: Bush had 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3%, a spread of 2.4%. Popular vote was 62,040,610 to 59,028,444, a spread of 3,012,166.

2008 election: Obama had 52.6% to McCain's 46.1%, a spread of 6.5%. Popular vote (to date) is 66,115,541 to 57,859,168, a spread of 8,256,373.

Also, Obama got 4,000,000+ more votes than Bush in '04.

Just using the winners' percentage total, it does make it look like Obama is "only 1% better", but the actual numbers show a far different tale.

So, yes, someone is definitely bitter.

:tongue:

Hey, c'mon. It's only in the reality based community that 6.5% - 2.4% doesn't equal about 1%.

I can the see the point of the cartoon if you want to present a skewed and misleading editorial. And let's face it, that describes a heckuva lot of editorials on both sides. They only present the facts that work for them. But I don't follow the justification of rounding 50.7 up to 51 and rounding 52.6 down to 52. Where'd they learn their math?

[Briareos]

Hey, c'mon. It's only in the reality based community that 6.5% - 2.4% doesn't equal about 1%.

I can the see the point of the cartoon if you want to present a skewed and misleading editorial. And let's face it, that describes a heckuva lot of editorials on both sides. They only present the facts that work for them. But I don't follow the justification of rounding 50.7 up to 51 and rounding 52.6 down to 52. Where'd they learn their math?

For what I'm talking about it's the percentage of votes he got. 48% of people who voted do not want Obama as president.

[Briareos]

Hey, c'mon. It's only in the reality based community that 6.5% - 2.4% doesn't equal about 1%.

I can the see the point of the cartoon if you want to present a skewed and misleading editorial. And let's face it, that describes a heckuva lot of editorials on both sides. They only present the facts that work for them. But I don't follow the justification of rounding 50.7 up to 51 and rounding 52.6 down to 52. Where'd they learn their math?

I'm not sure when that was done. It could have been rounded to 52% at the time. We're not talking a huge difference.

[Briareos]

Let's see then....

2004 election: Bush had 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3%, a spread of 2.4%. Popular vote was 62,040,610 to 59,028,444, a spread of 3,012,166.

2008 election: Obama had 52.6% to McCain's 46.1%, a spread of 6.5%. Popular vote (to date) is 66,115,541 to 57,859,168, a spread of 8,256,373.

Also, Obama got 4,000,000+ more votes than Bush in '04.

Just using the winners' percentage total, it does make it look like Obama is "only 1% better", but the actual numbers show a far different tale.

So, yes, someone is definitely bitter.

:tongue:

Way to miss the point. We're talking about united country. It doesn't matter who got the rest of the votes or even how many in number. The point is that of the people who voted nearly half did not want Obama as president.

[BnL]

For what I'm talking about it's the percentage of votes he got. 48% of people who voted do not want Obama as president.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6pnw_gvme0m8pokhjojj0q.gif

[BnL]

Way to miss the point. We're talking about united country. It doesn't matter who got the rest of the votes or even how many in number. The point is that of the people who voted nearly half did not want Obama as president.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6pnw_gvme0m8pokhjojj0q.gif

[Infra-Man]

Way to miss the point. We're talking about united country. It doesn't matter who got the rest of the votes or even how many in number. The point is that of the people who voted nearly half did not want Obama as president.

But what about the people trying to reach out?

Bobby Jindal said while he may disagree with Obama and will differ with him on policy decisions, he will support him as president, stressinng that people do not want partisanship anymore.

Mike Huckabee wrote this piece: Barack Obama, My President (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449425,00.html)

John McCain's concession speech called for people to support and work with Obama. Obama's election night speech acknowledged that he needs the help of everyone, including those who did not vote for him.

Obama is all for keeping Lieberman in the Dem's caucus, trying to mend the divide between them after a long campaign.

I see none of the divisiveness of the 2000 or 2004 elections here in 2008, which isn't to say it's not there, but certainly to just look at percentages and claim that's an obvious indicator of divisiveness is myopic at best and is intellectually dishonest.

[OzBat!]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6pnw_gvme0m8pokhjojj0q.gifI'm sorry, but I'm not clear on those graphs. Are they trying to compare Job Approval (things GW had already done) to Favourability (things Obama has yet to do)? The first is for a known quantity after however many years, while the second there's no data yet for for actions in office. That's a really crappy manipulation of statistics. It'd be far fairer to take a snapshot of GW's favourability from when he was first president-elect.

I personally doubt he'd reach 70% approval like Obama, but back in 2000 he certaintly wouldn't have been 27%.

[Royal]

But what about the people trying to reach out?

Bobby Jindal said while he may disagree with Obama and will differ with him on policy decisions, he will support him as president, stressinng that people do not want partisanship anymore.

Mike Huckabee wrote this piece: Barack Obama, My President (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449425,00.html)

John McCain's concession speech called for people to support and work with Obama. Obama's election night speech acknowledged that he needs the help of everyone, including those who did not vote for him.


First against the wall!

well....they're going to take Mike in for "reeducation".

[BnL]

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on those graphs. Are they trying to compare Job Approval (things GW had already done) to Favourability (things Obama has yet to do)? The first is for a known quantity after however many years, while the second there's no data yet for for actions in office. That's a really crappy manipulation of statistics. It'd be far fairer to take a snapshot of GW's favourability from when he was first president-elect.

I personally doubt he'd reach 70% approval like Obama, but back in 2000 he certaintly wouldn't have been 27%.

From the full article: (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111838/Obama-Bush-Contrast-Popularity.aspx)

Although this contrast between Obama and Bush is based on different measures -- presidential job approval and general favorability -- the ratings produced by the two typically track very closely for U.S. presidents, and thus provide a good indication of the vast popularity gap that exists between Bush and Obama.

Anyway, the main point is that Obama has a 70% approval rating, which contradicts Briareos's assertion that the nation is bitterly divided over his win. I can't help but notice that, by some incredible coincidence, he didn't bother to address this poll when I first posted it.

Anyway, here is a link (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1729/Presidential-Ratings-Favorability.aspx) to Bush's favorability ratings over the last 8 years. At this point in both 2000 and 2004, Bush's favorability is at least 10 points lower than Obama's is now.

[the4thpip]

For what I'm talking about it's the percentage of votes he got. 48% of people who voted do not want Obama as president.

48% was Kerry's LOSER number. McCain's LOSER number was closer to 46.

[the4thpip]

http://www.salon.com/comics/knig/2008/11/12/knig/story.gif

[KevinTBrown]

Way to miss the point. We're talking about united country. It doesn't matter who got the rest of the votes or even how many in number. The point is that of the people who voted nearly half did not want Obama as president.

I didn't miss the point. And the fact is, in EVERY election approximately half of those who vote don't want the other guy in.

In '00, Gore got more of the popular vote than Bush. THAT'S what divides a nation.... when one guy gets .5% more of the vote, but still loses.

This year, Obama had the widest win margin since Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole.


I'd suggest that you should just go play your little "magic card game", but you're obviously not playing with a full deck here.

[Alexx1]

Because we don't often hear about his sister or from her I found her thoughts of her brother's accomplishments and grandmothers passing very moving.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1858374,00.html

Maya Soetoro-Ng said "I wept tears of joy for all of us on Tuesday. He may not be a perfect man. Certainly, he has often said that he'll likely be an imperfect president, but he is a good man, a smart man, a disciplined soul who balances temperance with determination and courage. We've made a great choice, I assure you."


Soetoro-Ng could have accepted her brother's invitation to be by his side on Election Night in Chicago. But, as she had for much of the past eight years, she chose to stay in the apartment on Beretania Street where Dunham raised Obama as a boy and where Soetoro-Ng had later cared for her. In the post-election email, Soetoro-Ng writes of the sometimes-conflicting emotions surrounding both her grandmother's death and her brother's success — and of the need to then unplug for a while with her husband, Konrad, and their 4-year-old daughter, Suhaila, on Oahu's rural North Shore. She writes that she had been flooded with email messages "of both congratulation and condolence.... There's a wide swatch of emotion cutting through me, sometimes swirling, never simple... a briny mixture of elation, sadness, determination, regret, pride, hope, fatigue. You can imagine..."

[FalconX2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27676017#27657391

An excerpt from The Audacity of Hope, audio book, talking about Obama's first meeting with President Bush. I've read the book myself, but Obama is an awesome storyteller.

[Alexx1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27676017#27657391

An excerpt from The Audacity of Hope, audio book, talking about Obama's first meeting with President Bush. I've read the book myself, but Obama is an awesome storyteller.

Seems he and his sister have a way with words!

[the4thpip]

Scary! Again a Fox News Anchor makes sense!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHKzS5Zl6mY

[Shade]

Seems he and his sister have a way with words!

"Not wanting to seem unhygenic, I took a squirt"


That is my favorite line.

[Paul McEnery]

For what I'm talking about it's the percentage of votes he got. 48% of people who voted do not want Obama as president.

See, that's not true, as the graph demonstrates. Preferring McCain isn't the same thing as not wanting Obama as president. Apparently no more than 27% don't want him.

And by now, we expect 25% of Americans to be rightwing nutjobs.

[LtMarvel]

Scary! Again a Fox News Anchor makes sense!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHKzS5Zl6mY
That's what, 4, 5 times now?

[KevinTBrown]

Scary! Again a Fox News Anchor makes sense!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHKzS5Zl6mY

That's what, 4, 5 times now?

The past decade?

Then yes.

[macul]

But what about the people trying to reach out?

Bobby Jindal said while he may disagree with Obama and will differ with him on policy decisions, he will support him as president, stressinng that people do not want partisanship anymore.

Mike Huckabee wrote this piece: Barack Obama, My President (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449425,00.html)

John McCain's concession speech called for people to support and work with Obama. Obama's election night speech acknowledged that he needs the help of everyone, including those who did not vote for him.

Obama is all for keeping Lieberman in the Dem's caucus, trying to mend the divide between them after a long campaign.

I see none of the divisiveness of the 2000 or 2004 elections here in 2008, which isn't to say it's not there, but certainly to just look at percentages and claim that's an obvious indicator of divisiveness is myopic at best and is intellectually dishonest.

Good stuff. I didn't vote for Obama (or McCain), though I will support him. We should all want his presidency to be successful, as that will mean our country will have prospered and looked upon with respect from the rest of the world.

[Francis]

For what I'm talking about it's the percentage of votes he got. 48% of people who voted do not want Obama as president.

Are you at least prepared to accept that the US is more united behind Barak Obama than it was behind George W Bush at an equivalent time in his presidency? (IIRC, the only time Bush has had approval ratings comparable to Obama's was in the upsurge after two planes hit the WTC and before he squandered the good will and invaded Iraq).

To those who voted for John McCain and who are prepared to accept Barak Obama as the rightful president, welcome aboard. To those who aren't, suck it up. Bush was elected with a minority of the popular vote agaisnt Al Gore. Barak Obama has far more of a mandate to do whatever the hell he likes than Bush ever did, even against John Kerry. And if you aren't prepared to accept that in a democracy sometimes you lose, tough.

[FalconX2000]

Scary! Again a Fox News Anchor makes sense!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHKzS5Zl6mY

Wow.
_______________________________



This article had me lmao
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/sarah-palin-gov.html

Excerpt:
So, then came the follow-up question: Would you have been comfortable with Palin serving as president?

After an enormously pregnant but pro-life pause, Whitman responded that Palin was a “very fast study, incredibly enthusiastic.”

Huntsman: “I don’t think it’s a simple yes or no.”

Pawlenty, who'd been mentioned as a prime VP pick himself, said it was McCain’s decision. “So in his judgment, she met that criteria and he felt strongly about that and we’re going to have to defer to his judgment and that process.”

See if you can follow this. Pawlenty ended with this:

“I think everybody will be looking back and second-guessing, triple-guessing this stuff for months and years… A lot of this is just like post-modern art. You can look at the painting and different people look at it and see different things…

"What you have to look to in the end is the data, an objective measurement of it. And so, politics as post-modern art analysis is fun and interesting but it doesn’t get you very far. So I would just steer you to the data.”

The data? You mean, like the Electoral College?

[Nick Soapdish]

For what I'm talking about it's the percentage of votes he got. 48% of people who voted do not want Obama as president.

You're still confused about rounding.

100 - 52.6 = 47.4

When it's .5 or above, you round up. When it's < .5, you round down. You don't round arbitrarily based on what helps your argument more (like rounding down for .6 and up for .4).

Here's a guide that might help you out. (http://www.factmonster.com/math/numbers/rounding.html)

I'm not sure when that was done. It could have been rounded to 52% at the time. We're not talking a huge difference.

The actual difference between the figures is nearly twice (190%) the difference stated. The cartoon has considerably less impact if the cartoonist uses the real numbers (either going to three significant figures or rounding properly).

But if he drew the cartoon on the day after the election, he's probably covered because he was only at 52.4% then.

Now, he's up to 52.7% because they're still counting provisional and absentee ballots. It also took a while to finish counting California (which is why he'd be ok if he drew it the day after).

[FalconX2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27686558#27686558

Obama has already helped to boost the economy just by winning the election! :biggrin: lol

[Bergman]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/48677/thumbs/r-OBAMAFDR-large.jpg

[the4thpip]

OMAHA, Neb. – President-elect Barack Obama has won one of Nebraska's electoral votes, making history in a state that has never split its electoral votes.

After all remaining ballots were counted Friday, Obama emerged with a 3,325-vote lead over Republican John McCain in unofficial results in the 2nd Congressional District. The district covers Douglas County, which includes Omaha, and portions of adjacent Sarpy County.

Nebraska, with five votes, and Maine are the only states that divide their electoral votes by congressional district.

Obama now has 365 electoral votes to McCain's 162.

Missouri, with 11 electoral votes, is still too close to call. Election officials there have until Tuesday to finish counting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_el_pr/nebraska_electoral_vote;_ylt=Ak8WHWd4y5Ka8IBubEN5G tsEtbAF

[KevinTBrown]

Well, supposedly Hillary is accepting the post of Secretary of State: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state

[Eliseu Gouveia]

CNN says Obama plans to go bipartisan by inviting a republican to his administration.

Who do you think he´s gonna invite and for which role?

[EdContradictory]

Colin Powell, Sec. of Defense.

[darkhanamaru]

Colin Powell, Sec. of Defense.

I wouldn't be surprised if this actually turns out to be Chuck Hagel. I don't know if Powell carries any weight with the repubs anymore.

[Alexx1]

Well, supposedly Hillary is accepting the post of Secretary of State: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state

I haven't seen or read anywhere where Obama has offered the job to her. Supposedly, they are still in the vetting process.

[EdContradictory]

I wouldn't be surprised if this actually turns out to be Chuck Hagel. I don't know if Powell carries any weight with the repubs anymore.

It's either Hagel, Powell, or Luger.

[Nick Soapdish]

CNN says Obama plans to go bipartisan by inviting a republican to his administration.

Who do you think he´s gonna invite and for which role?

I hope that he taps Sheila Bair as Secretary of the Treasury.

[Typo Lad]

This has to be the only place on the web talking about tapping Sheila Bair.

shudder

[Grazzt]

This has to be the only place on the web talking about tapping Sheila Bair.

shudder

How much are you really willing to bet on that?

[Nick Soapdish]

This has to be the only place on the web talking about tapping Sheila Bair.

shudder

I mean selecting her. And I think that I'm the only one to have mentioned her.

I picked the idea up from NPR. I've done a bit of research on her and she sounds like a pretty solid candidate, but if you've heard otherwise, I'm all ears.

[AllisterH]

I wouldn't be surprised if this actually turns out to be Chuck Hagel. I don't know if Powell carries any weight with the repubs anymore.

Um, then Hagel and Luger are non-entities as well. Both of them are considred person non-grata in Republican circles (see freerepublic, drudgereport etc...)

Seriously, among big name Republicans that Obama was considering for his cabinet, the only one I think the Republicans actually still like would be Schwarznegger and he already said NO.

The knives are still out among the republicans for "traitors" as many of them are peeved that so-called moderate Republicans jumped ship when they got a moderate Republican at the top of the ticket.

Honestly, I'm wondering if the Republicans even realize that the mantra "no/low taxes" doesn't resonate with (sub)urban dwellers who depend much more heavily on giovernment to function.

Anyone want to take bets that the Republicans will screw themselves over with the Immigration debate once again for example?

[Typo Lad]

I mean selecting her. And I think that I'm the only one to have mentioned her.

I picked the idea up from NPR. I've done a bit of research on her and she sounds like a pretty solid candidate, but if you've heard otherwise, I'm all ears.

Naw, I was just making it about sex.

[Nick Soapdish]

Naw, I was just making it about sex.

I wasn't sure so I was hedging my bets in the reply.