2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[KevinTBrown]

With Gail's permission, I'm beginning this thread to just focus entirely on the '08 Presidential election. The "Ultra Mega Bad Ass Mother 3000 Political Thread o Rama, Mk III" will still be there for other political discussions that are not related to the US election. Once the election is done, or once it's past a suitable date of their choosing, Gail, Shel or Corrina can either lock this thread or merge it into whatever new political thread is currently running.

Same rules apply here as in the "Ultra Mega" thread. So expect things to get a little hot and heavy and nasty in here.... Again, this is just for the US Presidential Election. So keep things as on topic as possible. And have fun. :wink:



First up: Super Delegates appear to have put Obama too far ahead for Clinton to catch up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_el_pr/delegate_math;_ylt=AqHXnfZsU8h_5qh5nDqOtT9snwcF


As for McCain: So, is he deceitful or just delusional? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E

[section 8]

*politely stands up, walks out*

[Buzz Dixon]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/08/humor2.jpg

[the4thpip]

American voters now trust the Democrats more on all ten key electoral issues tracked regularly by Rasmussen Reports. Last month, the GOP’s had an advantage on two issues.

Details here:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

[K-DoG7p7]

What politician wants to fire the top staff at NASA and put someone with BALLS! (Physical or metaphorical) in charge..



NASA is a joke.. when they where asked to come up with a plat to get to mars.. they came up with the most expecive plan in history of history!



2 weeks later.. a kindergarden teacher came up with a plan that could be done in 10 years with only one single launch, but because that plan didnt involve every singel egghead at NAsa.. they rejected the idea.. even thou the experts agreed that it could be done ..
and its could be done without giving nasa a larger budget!



Long story short..

Screw the president.. lets burn down NASA and give the money to ESA :p

[KevinTBrown]

97 Sentors answer Hillary's question as to whether they'd be her Veep:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senators-say-whether-theyd-agree-to-be-vice-president-2008-05-12.html

Read them all, some are quite funny!

[Corrina]

Hey, all...

Did anyone read the Sunday NY Times article on Obama and Chicago politics?

Nicely written and well-sourced, it was a good primer on Chicago politics and how Obama learned to negotiate them. Not negative, as far as I could tell. Unless you consider pointing out that Obama has behaved as a politician at times, negative. Really interesting recap of his 2002 speech against the War in Iraq and how he came to give it.

[KevinTBrown]

Hey, all...

Did anyone read the Sunday NY Times article on Obama and Chicago politics?

Nicely written and well-sourced, it was a good primer on Chicago politics and how Obama learned to negotiate them. Not negative, as far as I could tell. Unless you consider pointing out that Obama has behaved as a politician at times, negative. Really interesting recap of his 2002 speech against the War in Iraq and how he came to give it.
This article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=chicago%20politics&st=cse&oref=slogin

[Jared_Humpherys]

I propose we add a subtitle to the thread.

I think "Welcome to the Monkey House" would fit rather well.

[Corrina]

Yes, that's the one, Kevin.

[KevinTBrown]

Gotta love it......

Clinton gets 65% of the vote in WV tonight. So of course she's saying it's not over yet.


Hey, Hillary, you only got 18 delegates to Obama's 10!!!! You didn't even make a dent in his lead...... http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/37.gif

I'll be so glad to see something like 50 Super Delegates all back Obama this week.

[kingdom2000]

Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall just coined (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/13/the-truth-will-out-rep-nick-rahall-says-the-dems-committed-to-beating-john-mcbush/) the perfect phrase for McCain that should be used constantly by Dems in any and all references to him - John McBush.

Its a little stupid, but its so simple yet so accurate. It conveys the entire picture of McBush's campaign in one word. He has made it very clear that he believes 100% in Bush's pro-business, pro-war by any means policy. And much like Bush, McBush is pretty vague that beyond those two areas he has no plans to speak of but I am sure his many many lobbyiests on his staff will quietly fill in that gap for whoever offers them the best post-admin bailout plans. I am betting, much like Bush, he will make all the soothing noises that conservatives (and religious nuttery) love to hear while actually taking no action (because they might run counter to the two mantras above).

So I declare, at least until it bores me, to refer to McCain as McBush from this point onward.

[KevinTBrown]

I've been referring him as "McSame"....

He made the huge mistake of saying early on that he was going to continue Bush's policies. Of course, as per his M.O., he's flip flopped on that.

[the4thpip]

I've been referring him as "McSame"....

He made the huge mistake of saying early on that he was going to continue Bush's policies. Of course, as per his M.O., he's flip flopped on that.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080513/lpo080513.gif

[FalconX2000]

Wasn't the "It's Never Too Early to Wreck a Train - General 2008 Presidential Election Thread" thread already devoted to the topic?

Hey, all...

Did anyone read the Sunday NY Times article on Obama and Chicago politics?

Nicely written and well-sourced, it was a good primer on Chicago politics and how Obama learned to negotiate them. Not negative, as far as I could tell. Unless you consider pointing out that Obama has behaved as a politician at times, negative. Really interesting recap of his 2002 speech against the War in Iraq and how he came to give it.

Yeah, I read a few articles along those lines. Its really something more Obama supporters should read, so as to remember that he does handle the uglier side of politics as well, he doesn't just magically make it go away.

I do support Obama, and I do believe he is an idealist at heart, but his supporters would be alot more balanced in how they talk if they acknowledged he has some acumen for working the power structure. It would convince more independents of his credibility.

[KevinTBrown]

Hmm, this might make things interesting come November:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Childers_wins_Miss_special_election.html

[Lester C.]

Hey, all...

Did anyone read the Sunday NY Times article on Obama and Chicago politics?

Nicely written and well-sourced, it was a good primer on Chicago politics and how Obama learned to negotiate them. Not negative, as far as I could tell. Unless you consider pointing out that Obama has behaved as a politician at times, negative. Really interesting recap of his 2002 speech against the War in Iraq and how he came to give it.

Corrina if you really want a primer for Chicago politics than you should have paid Gail to become a mod and promised jobs to all those that helped you get the gig.:wink:

[Corrina]

Well, that's how most party politics work, right?

I thought maybe Massachusetts/New England was odd for the whole Kennedy power but in Mississippi there's the Landreaus (sp?) and Chicago has Daley and Jerry Brown is also the son of another politician, and in New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman is from a big, powerful Republican clan, along with the Frelinghausens.

What's surprising about the younger Daley is that it took him as long as it did to follow in his father's footsteps. But, then, Harold Washington was in the way for a long time.

And, of course, the Bush clan, which started in CT with Prescott, so W. is really third generation, not second.

[Lester C.]

Well, that's how most party politics work, right?

I thought maybe Massachusetts/New England was odd for the whole Kennedy power but in Mississippi there's the Landreaus (sp?) and Chicago has Daley and Jerry Brown is also the son of another politician, and in New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman is from a big, powerful Republican clan, along with the Frelinghausens.

What's surprising about the younger Daley is that it took him as long as it did to follow in his father's footsteps. But, then, Harold Washington was in the way for a long time.

And, of course, the Bush clan, which started in CT with Prescott, so W. is really third generation, not second.

Here is how powerful the Daily Machine is. We got a dude with no experience whatsoever being elected to be the commissioner of the most influential county in Illinois simply because his dad was the commissioner for many years. When I provided security to union accounts it was understood that you didn't show up on election day and vote for the Democrats you job was in serious Jeopardy,

Now while I think Daley has done right by Chicago, and continues to do a good job, his machine can kiss my ass and fuck off as it's ruined democracy in the city and has made the city emblematic of political corruption on all levels of government.

[ShaunN]

Here is further evidence (I hope!) that Obama can be a politician when he needs to be: Glenn Greenwald's Salon column from yesterday where, as he puts it, Obama has been swearing undying loyalty to Israel - and yet is still being found guilty of "insufficient devotion to Israel" by the neocons who, apparently, set the standards for what is acceptable discourse and opinion about Israel in the US.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/13/obama/index.html

(If the link does not work, let me know and I can post the whole article).

It's utterly bizarre - an American presidential candidate has to show his unswerving devotion to a foreign country. I'm not even clear why this matters, but it's apparent that it does. I certainly hope that Obama is more nuanced and intelligent on this issue than the current round of interviews would make it seem. The incredibly biased policies that the US follows in the Middle East have helped create the Iraq War and are currently helping to totally destabilize the region - one of the reasons that Americans refuse to talk to Iran and, apparently, are willing to try to "contain" Iranian influence in the region is because of the supposed threat that the Iranians pose to Israel. If Obama really wants to end the US war in Iraq and bring about real change in the ME, he needs to fundamentally alter the US approach to Israel. So, here's hoping he is just saying what he needs to say to get elected.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[KevinTBrown]

Here is further evidence (I hope!) that Obama can be a politician when he needs to be: Glenn Greenwald's Salon column from yesterday where, as he puts it, Obama has been swearing undying loyalty to Israel - and yet is still being found guilty of "insufficient devotion to Israel" by the neocons who, apparently, set the standards for what is acceptable discourse and opinion about Israel in the US.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/13/obama/index.html

(If the link does not work, let me know and I can post the whole article).

It's utterly bizarre - an American presidential candidate has to show his unswerving devotion to a foreign country. I'm not even clear why this matters, but it's apparent that it does. I certainly hope that Obama is more nuanced and intelligent on this issue than the current round of interviews would make it seem. The incredibly biased policies that the US follows in the Middle East have helped create the Iraq War and are currently helping to totally destabilize the region - one of the reasons that Americans refuse to talk to Iran and, apparently, are willing to try to "contain" Iranian influence in the region is because of the supposed threat that the Iranians pose to Israel. If Obama really wants to end the US war in Iraq and bring about real change in the ME, he needs to fundamentally alter the US approach to Israel. So, here's hoping he is just saying what he needs to say to get elected.

Sincerely,

Shaun

It's more like someone else saying what he thinks Obama said....

Afterwards, Goldberg prounced himself satisfied: "Obama expressed -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel to me."

Here's part of that "interview":

JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?

BO: What I will say is what I’ve said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.

I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.

The notion that a vibrant, successful society with incredible economic growth and incredible cultural vitality is still plagued by this notion that this could all end at any moment -- you know, I don’t know what that feels like, but I can use my imagination to understand it. I would not want to raise my children in those circumstances. I want to make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight. So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That’s the question that has to be asked.

[Samurai]

As Kevin pointed out, Obama called Israel a "constant sore" on US relations. And he hangs around with a lot of rabidly anti-Israeli people. So despite other words to the contrary, I don't think he'd keep America a strong ally of Israel if he's elected. His whole solution to the mid-east is supplication, submission, and appeasement, and one of the main requirements for that is throwing Israel under the bus.

[FalconX2000]

As Kevin pointed out, Obama called Israel a "constant sore" on US relations. And he hangs around with a lot of rabidly anti-Israeli people. So despite other words to the contrary, I don't think he'd keep America a strong ally of Israel if he's elected. His whole solution to the mid-east is supplication, submission, and appeasement, and one of the main requirements for that is throwing Israel under the bus.

Lies and slander. Obama favours talking directly with enemy countries instead of the other candidates' approach of diplomatically acting as if they didn't exist till one side is forced to kowtow or become even more hostile.

He supported attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan directly if their government could not react with or without permission, something for which he was laughed at until proven right.

His policy on Hamas is identical to McCain's. His attempt to have some reason in his support of Isreal, rather than blindly doing it for political survival like so many politicians, is worthy of praise, not villification.

[KevinTBrown]

Lies and slander. Obama favours talking directly with enemy countries instead of the other candidates' approach of diplomatically acting as if they didn't exist till one side is forced to kowtow or become even more hostile.

He supported attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan directly if their government could not react with or without permission, something for which he was laughed at until proven right.

His policy on Hamas is identical to McCain's. His attempt to have some reason in his support of Isreal, rather than blindly doing it for political survival like so many politicians, is worthy of praise, not villification.

Bingo.....

[PatrickG]

As Kevin pointed out, Obama called Israel a "constant sore" on US relations. And he hangs around with a lot of rabidly anti-Israeli people. So despite other words to the contrary, I don't think he'd keep America a strong ally of Israel if he's elected. His whole solution to the mid-east is supplication, submission, and appeasement, and one of the main requirements for that is throwing Israel under the bus.

What the hell? He's calling the conflict in Israel a "constant sore". Not the Israeli state.

Sam, I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension.

[K-DoG7p7]

So.. i challange you all.. what do Obama, Clinton and Old Spice say about NASA?

[Agent Helix]

So.. i challange you all.. what do Obama, Clinton and Old Spice say about NASA?

Right now, nobody really gives a dick, because space exploration is a pretty minor issue compared to all the other shit we're dealing with.

[K-DoG7p7]

Right now, nobody really gives a dick, because space exploration is a pretty minor issue compared to all the other shit we're dealing with.

yeah.. because the last thing we all need is for 90% of the world to look at a dude walk on mars and feel all the love and harmony!

[Agent Helix]

Yes, because that would make everything better.

[Corrina]

What the hell? He's calling the conflict in Israel a "constant sore". Not the Israeli state.

Sam, I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension.

Uh, Sam, the NY Times article that Kevin linked to has interviews related to the Middle East situation. My impression is that Obama is a realist about the mess in the Middle East and certainly not ready to throw Israel under the bus.

He might be over-emphasizing his commitment to Israel at the moment to counter the whole "Obama is a scary Muslim and with the terrorists" thing, which has already come from the Republican nominee. (It was McCain who said the 'terrorists ' would have a celebration' if Obama was elected, right?) I can't blame Obama for bending over backwards to counter slurs which are awfully close to being racist.

Any pragmatic reading of the Middle East would show any reasonably intelligent person that Israel can't be thrown under a bus, it's our counterweight and ally in the region and not just because it's a democracy, it's because it helps keep that area somewhat in order. Even if Obama had no love for Israel (and I see no evidence at all that he's anti-Israeli in the least), he's smart enough to know that you don't throw an ally you need under a bus.

[FalconX2000]

So.. i challange you all.. what do Obama, Clinton and Old Spice say about NASA?

I remember reading an obscure news article back in January when I was first starting to pay attention to the campaign. Obama said he would cut some of NASA's funding, saying it was "no longer associated with inspiration".

Well what do you know! You can actually find substantive news articles:eek: if you type in a specific issue into google with the candidate's name.

Before this, I kept having to sift through so much trash till now by just typing the candidate's name.:frown:

Ok, from what I gather, Obama would boost overall funding for NASA, which is in keeping with his promise to double basic research funding, but would take away funding from the NASA Constellation program. That's the one that goes to moon landings, Mars landings and all that.

Given all the crap that's going down on Earth and the exorbidant costs of such programs, I'm all for it. It is a research area that is too far ahead of its time. Until we make the next big leap in energy technology, the costs of it will continue to heavily outweigh the benefits.

[FalconX2000]

Uh, Sam, the NY Times article that Kevin linked to has interviews related to the Middle East situation. My impression is that Obama is a realist about the mess in the Middle East and certainly not ready to throw Israel under the bus.

He might be over-emphasizing his commitment to Israel at the moment to counter the whole "Obama is a scary Muslim and with the terrorists" thing, which has already come from the Republican nominee. (It was McCain who said the 'terrorists ' would have a celebration' if Obama was elected, right?) I can't blame Obama for bending over backwards to counter slurs which are awfully close to being racist.

Any pragmatic reading of the Middle East would show any reasonably intelligent person that Israel can't be thrown under a bus, it's our counterweight and ally in the region and not just because it's a democracy, it's because it helps keep that area somewhat in order. Even if Obama had no love for Israel (and I see no evidence at all that he's anti-Israeli in the least), he's smart enough to know that you don't throw an ally you need under a bus.


Steve King actually.

[Usernamessd]

As Kevin pointed out, Obama called Israel a "constant sore" on US relations. And he hangs around with a lot of rabidly anti-Israeli people. So despite other words to the contrary, I don't think he'd keep America a strong ally of Israel if he's elected. His whole solution to the mid-east is supplication, submission, and appeasement, and one of the main requirements for that is throwing Israel under the bus.

Whats wrong with not blindly backing ethical cleansing? or does it not matter because they're Palestinian aka lower lifeforms to Israelis?

[Paul McEnery]

Uh, Sam, the NY Times article that Kevin linked to has interviews related to the Middle East situation. My impression is that Obama is a realist about the mess in the Middle East and certainly not ready to throw Israel under the bus.

He might be over-emphasizing his commitment to Israel at the moment to counter the whole "Obama is a scary Muslim and with the terrorists" thing, which has already come from the Republican nominee. (It was McCain who said the 'terrorists ' would have a celebration' if Obama was elected, right?) I can't blame Obama for bending over backwards to counter slurs which are awfully close to being racist.

Any pragmatic reading of the Middle East would show any reasonably intelligent person that Israel can't be thrown under a bus, it's our counterweight and ally in the region and not just because it's a democracy, it's because it helps keep that area somewhat in order. Even if Obama had no love for Israel (and I see no evidence at all that he's anti-Israeli in the least), he's smart enough to know that you don't throw an ally you need under a bus.

Er, what?

That's completely counterfactual. Now that the Europeans are out of the region, and the Soviets are mostly out of the game pretending that there aren't any Soviets any more, the two destabilizing colonial elements left are the US and Israel.

The only genuine reason we can't throw Israel under the bus (aside from the hue and cry that would render any American politician uneletable) is humanitarian.

[Paul McEnery]

Right now, nobody really gives a dick, because space exploration is a pretty minor issue compared to all the other shit we're dealing with.

The way this planet's going, I'm thinking Plan B might not be such a bad idea.

Also, LET'S GO TO MARS!!!!!!

[Tobias March]

Right so I get to circulate several magazines throughout my building at work.

This month's covers:

http://coverawards.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/rollingstone.jpg

http://img.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/20080519_107.jpg

http://www.economist.com/images/20080510/20080510covimageUS183.jpg

.......does someone know something I don't? :wink:

edit: last one is from the Economist

[Samurai]

Whats wrong with not blindly backing ethical cleansing? or does it not matter because they're Palestinian aka lower lifeforms to Israelis?

"Ethical cleansing"? I can see you don't even know what the words mean, or the proper terms. The term you're looking for is "ethnic cleansing", and Israel is not the one guilty of that, it's the Islamists that are calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jews.

Please do some basic research on the situation before throwing your 2 cents in...

[Adam C]

Any pragmatic reading of the Middle East would show any reasonably intelligent person that Israel can't be thrown under a bus, it's our counterweight and ally in the region and not just because it's a democracy, it's because it helps keep that area somewhat in order.

This is probably getting off topic, though the point has been nagging me. I tried thinking this over and I don't see how Israel acts as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. There's no examples that come to mind (though someone feel free to correct me on it), it seems an unlikely role considering that it is a focal point for controversy and conflict, and the recent Lebanese war it acted as a destabilizing force with its ill-considered retaliation.

[kingdom2000]

As Kevin pointed out, Obama called Israel a "constant sore" on US relations. And he hangs around with a lot of rabidly anti-Israeli people. So despite other words to the contrary, I don't think he'd keep America a strong ally of Israel if he's elected. His whole solution to the mid-east is supplication, submission, and appeasement, and one of the main requirements for that is throwing Israel under the bus.

While I doubt he said it in those terms....I do agree with your interpretation. Israel is a constant sore. The nation is 60 years old. Time to remove them from out financial teat, wish them luck, and start treating them the same as any other country in the world (currently that would be poorly).

[PatrickG]

edit: last one is from the Economist

It's mathematically impossible for Hillary to come out ahead. (She would need to win better than 85% of the vote in the remaining primaries.)

Right now, her hope of winning rests on Obama being just shy of the votes needed to "win". (This is unlikely; it would require Clinton to get over 2/3rds of all remaining delegates.) This will prompt a second, third, fourth, etc. vote until someone has 2025 supporters.

[Corrina]

This is probably getting off topic, though the point has been nagging me. I tried thinking this over and I don't see how Israel acts as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. There's no examples that come to mind (though someone feel free to correct me on it), it seems an unlikely role considering that it is a focal point for controversy and conflict, and the recent Lebanese war it acted as a destabilizing force with its ill-considered retaliation.

Stabilizing on behalf of the U.S. I should have been clearer.

Israel is our biggest ally there and there are no real expectations that they'll decide not to be. At the moment, they're acting as a counterweight to the factions in the rest of the Middle East who don't hate us.

So there's not so much a stabilizing influence in the region--they're more of a stabilizing pillar to our current foreign policy. Sorry, should have been clearer on that. Israel's existence is not a stabilizing force for the region--but they're the tentpole of what *we* as a nation are currently doing in the region.

Now, you can argue that we should change that foreign policy but...that's going to take time, and I think throwing Israel figuratively under the bus isn't going to accomplish anything but making them vulnerable to attack.

[KevinTBrown]

And John Edwards endorses Barack Obama:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_el_pr/obama_edwards

[Mr.EZ]

I'm voting for whomever says that once they're President, they'll declare an Executive Order to have the FBI arrest all members of the the current administration and launch a full-scale investigation into their dealings over the course of the last two terms.

But it would never happen. One hand washes the other, and my vote doesn't count anyway.

[Sabrinaset]

Sean Penn isn't terribly thrilled with Obama ... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/1955538/Sean-Penn-endorses-Barack-Obama-at-Cannes-Film-Festival-opening.html)

Obama is getting more superdelegates ... (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90LEC081&show_article=1)

Over a third of Dems want Hill to drop out... (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/38_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out)

Obama makes a few mistakes. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-gaffes-on.html)

Oh, and then there's this ...

I thought maybe Massachusetts/New England was odd for the whole Kennedy power but in Mississippi there's the Landreaus (sp?) and Chicago has Daley and Jerry Brown is also the son of another politician, and in New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman is from a big, powerful Republican clan, along with the Frelinghausens.

What's surprising about the younger Daley is that it took him as long as it did to follow in his father's footsteps. But, then, Harold Washington was in the way for a long time.

And, of course, the Bush clan, which started in CT with Prescott, so W. is really third generation, not second.

Corrina, why is it only Republicans are part of clans, but Democrats are not? Just curious about how that worked. I assume Bill and Hillary are not part of a clan, right?

[KevinTBrown]

I'm voting for whomever says that once they're President, they'll declare an Executive Order to have the FBI arrest all members of the the current administration and launch a full-scale investigation into their dealings over the course of the last two terms.

But it would never happen. One hand washes the other, and my vote doesn't count anyway.

If Obama gets in.... I won't say that it would happen, but odds are FAR better than if McCain or Clinton get in.

[Corrina]

Well, no, the Kennedys are a clan. Hell, the Kennedys are a freakin' army. You couldn't keep them straight if you tried. It's all Bobby & Ethel's fault. But some of their kids are dead now, so I suppose that might make it easier to track. But generation #4 is here now and almost grown out of being teens so....more now! And let's now get into the Shrivers, the Lawfords..and I think I'm missing one of the sisters.

I didn't consider the Daleys a clan yet--so far, just father & son, unless I'm missing brothers or cousins. I went with clan for Bush & the Whitmans because they were a large and varied families and have been in politics for more than two generations.

Compared to the Bushes, Whitman, & Kennedys, the Daleys are newbies. And that's just the ones I know about. Wasn't Jerry Brown a second generation politician?

[Sabrinaset]

Jerry's father was governor of California before Reagan.

[Mr.EZ]

If Obama gets in.... I won't say that it would happen, but odds are FAR better than if McCain or Clinton get in.

I'll cross my fingers as soon as I close the curtains so the snipers can't see me. :rolleyes:

[kingdom2000]

Edwards officially endores Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html)

Is it me or does this seem too little to late? The endorsement may have made a huge difference even a month ago but now it seems pretty much pointless. At most it make a 10 or 15 count difference in the delegates and maybe five or so in the superdelegates.

I am assuming this is some move to get the VP nod but I think Edwards was already on the short list anyway.

[Mr.EZ]

Obama apologizes for "Sweetie" remark

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Seems a lot better than the time Bush called a reporter an "asshole" not realizing his mic was still on. Moron.

[KevinTBrown]

Edwards officially endores Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html)

Is it me or does this seem too little to late? The endorsement may have made a huge difference even a month ago but now it seems pretty much pointless. At most it make a 10 or 15 count difference in the delegates and maybe five or so in the superdelegates.

I am assuming this is some move to get the VP nod but I think Edwards was already on the short list anyway.

Edwards was the part of a losing ticket the last time around as VP, so I don't think so. More than likely he'll get a Cabinet post.

And while this endorsement may be a bit late in coming, this may finally "break the flood gates" for the rest of the Super Delegates. Right now, if Obama can get another 65 SDs, he'll grab the nomination by the last primary.

[Adam C]

Stabilizing on behalf of the U.S. I should have been clearer.

Oh you mean "stabilizing." Sorry, I thought you meant stabilizing.

Now, you can argue that we should change that foreign policy but...that's going to take time, and I think throwing Israel figuratively under the bus isn't going to accomplish anything but making them vulnerable to attack.

Well no one's actually proposing (outside of groups like Al-Qaeda or the bogeymen in NR commentators' fever dreams) throwing Israel under the bus, though any substantive change in U.S. foreign policy is probably going to have to involve revising Washington's uncritical support for Israel, which frankly only seems to provide it a degree of insulation against having to make sensible long-term choices like halting the construction of settlements in the West Bank.

[Paul McEnery]

Stabilizing on behalf of the U.S. I should have been clearer.

Do what?


Israel is our biggest ally there and there are no real expectations that they'll decide not to be. At the moment, they're acting as a counterweight to the factions in the rest of the Middle East who don't hate us.

Remind me. What is it Israel has ever in its entire history done for the United States?

Rather than acting as a counterweight, it's giving one more reason for the world to have issues with the US.

We are their ally. Our ally? Not so much.

So there's not so much a stabilizing influence in the region--they're more of a stabilizing pillar to our current foreign policy. Sorry, should have been clearer on that. Israel's existence is not a stabilizing force for the region--but they're the tentpole of what *we* as a nation are currently doing in the region.

This is true.

Although most people would use the word "distorting" rather than "stabilizing".

Now, you can argue that we should change that foreign policy but...that's going to take time, and I think throwing Israel figuratively under the bus isn't going to accomplish anything but making them vulnerable to attack.
How much time?

I reckon that if I were in a position of power, it would take five minutes. Call up Olmert and tell him that there's no more aid, nor support in the UN, until Israel treats the Palestinians like human beings.

[Nick Soapdish]

Well, that's how most party politics work, right?

I thought maybe Massachusetts/New England was odd for the whole Kennedy power but in Mississippi there's the Landreaus (sp?) and Chicago has Daley and Jerry Brown is also the son of another politician, and in New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman is from a big, powerful Republican clan, along with the Frelinghausens.

What's surprising about the younger Daley is that it took him as long as it did to follow in his father's footsteps. But, then, Harold Washington was in the way for a long time.

And, of course, the Bush clan, which started in CT with Prescott, so W. is really third generation, not second.

The Landrieus are in Louisiana, but I wasn't aware that they were a clan. I only knew about Mary Landrieu, the Senator and whomever it was that ran for mayor of New Orleans against Nagin.

It's mathematically impossible for Hillary to come out ahead. (She would need to win better than 85% of the vote in the remaining primaries.)

Right now, her hope of winning rests on Obama being just shy of the votes needed to "win". (This is unlikely; it would require Clinton to get over 2/3rds of all remaining delegates.) This will prompt a second, third, fourth, etc. vote until someone has 2025 supporters.

No, it's effectively impossible or practically impossible. Not mathematically since you just showed how she could do it mathematically.

Since Edwards just endorsed Obama, doesn't that give Obama his delegates (few as they are)? He's the only other candidate with any so the supers would have to abstain in the first vote in order to get second and third votes. Unless Anybody Else gets a groundswell of support.

[FalconX2000]

"Ethical cleansing"? I can see you don't even know what the words mean, or the proper terms. The term you're looking for is "ethnic cleansing", and Israel is not the one guilty of that, it's the Islamists that are calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jews.

Please do some basic research on the situation before throwing your 2 cents in...

Though we should remember that Isreal performed ethnic boot to the ass on the Palestinians.:wink:

[Buzz Dixon]

The only genuine reason we can't throw Israel under the bus (aside from the hue and cry that would render any American politician uneletable) is humanitarian.Well, that and the fact they would nuke every Arab city or village with a population of 50 or more...

[Buzz Dixon]

As Kevin pointed out, Obama called Israel a "constant sore" on US relations.No, he didn't. He was referring to the entire Middle East situation. You know, the one where fat cat Arab power brokers stir up trouble with a tiny little country in order to divert attention from their own atrocious policies and human rights records.

Here, read 'em and weep: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/house-republica.html

[rick]

Remind me. What is it Israel has ever in its entire history done for the United States?




They have mostly, though not always avoided shooting at us, blowing us up in our sleep, or giving aid and support to loosely defined organizations that fly airplanes into our buildings.

Oh yeah, they also make really good machine pistols.

[Samurai]

Though we should remember that Isreal performed ethnic boot to the ass on the Palestinians.:wink:

No, they didn't. They invited the Arabs to continue living there, as full citizens of Israel, and many of them did and still do today. Most of the ones that left did so because the invading Arab armies told them to get out of the way while they crushed the Jews underfoot, and then they could return home. Didn't work out like they'd hoped...

[Buzz Dixon]

Back to presidential politics, I imagine Hillary was none too happy that Edwards' endorsement cut off her post West Virginia victory parade at the ankles during this news cycle.

[rick]

I'm not sure how much help Edwards support will be, but it definitly took the shine off of Sen. Clintons gain of 4 delegates.

[Joe Rice]

I'm not sure how much help Edwards support will be, but it definitly took the shine off of Sen. Clintons gain of 4 delegates.

Me, I'm just hoping this is a step towards my long-wanted Obama/Edwards ticket (honestly, would prefer reverse order but that's life).

[rick]

Me, I'm just hoping this is a step towards my long-wanted Obama/Edwards ticket (honestly, would prefer reverse order but that's life).

Interestingly enough, that was exactly my view, right down to wanting the ticket reversed, but willing to live with it as is.

[Joe Rice]

Interestingly enough, that was exactly my view, right down to wanting the ticket reversed, but willing to live with it as is.

Ha! Nice. 75% of my Obama support has come from the idea that he MIGHT involve Edwards, and Hillary NEVER EVER EVER WILL.

[Sabrinaset]

Interestingly enough, that was exactly my view, right down to wanting the ticket reversed, but willing to live with it as is.

I dunno, Edwards seems a lil too slick to me and he was already part of an ill-fated ticket before. There's got to be someone better out there for Obama.

[Joe Rice]

I dunno, Edwards seems a lil too slick and he was already part of an ill-fated ticket before. There's got to be someone better out there for Obama.

Edwards is pretty impeccably platform-wise. And, according to a law-student friend of mine, has the most spotless moral record of a lawyer he's ever seen. They play up this "ambulance chaser" thing but every case he did was morally in the right, helping very poor, very hurt people get a lot of money. More money than he got.

[rick]

Edwards is a little slick, I admit it.

But at the same time if you look past it, he really does come across, at least to me, as a guy who wants to do some good in this world, without any real axes to grind and a decent sense of humor.

[Joe Rice]

Edwards is a little slick, I admit it.

But at the same time if you look past it, he really does come across, at least to me, as a guy who wants to do some good in this world, without any real axes to grind and a decent sense of humor.

Bingo. He hasn't lost the lawyer-aesthetic enough to win the general vote, but he can be a powerful, great VP, I think.

[Infra-Man]

I wonder what would have happened had Edwards endorsed earlier.

[Joe Rice]

I wonder what would have happened had Edwards endorsed earlier.

Little, I'd say. Much as I admire him, he brings little delegate-wise, little pull-wise, and little experience-wise. He had the best platform/policy of the big delegates though, and for some of us, seeing him involved again is pretty exciting.

[rick]

I wonder what would have happened had Edwards endorsed earlier.


Another question is does this mean that Edwards is going to pledge his 19 delegates to Obama or hold them out to see if he needs to be a tie breaker at the convention.

[Corrina]

They have mostly, though not always avoided shooting at us, blowing us up in our sleep, or giving aid and support to loosely defined organizations that fly airplanes into our buildings.

Oh yeah, they also make really good machine pistols.

They also blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor project. And I do feel better without Saddam having nukes.

[KevinTBrown]

Another question is does this mean that Edwards is going to pledge his 19 delegates to Obama or hold them out to see if he needs to be a tie breaker at the convention.

They're free to vote for whomever they want at the convention, though most times they'll follow suit and go to who he endorses.

[kingdom2000]

I dunno, Edwards seems a lil too slick to me and he was already part of an ill-fated ticket before. There's got to be someone better out there for Obama.

You have very odd standards. What politician isn't slick? Its a requirement to get elected. Never understood why people demand this "aww shucks I am just an average joe" in there leaders.

[LtMarvel]

Tuesday, the GOP spent money on TV ads to link the Mississippi Democratic candidate to Obama and Rev. Wright. This is a very conservative district, too. The Democratic Candidate won by good margin.

The President may be the GOP's best chance to win a race this November.

[the4thpip]

Obama apologizes for "Sweetie" remark

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Seems a lot better than the time Bush called a reporter an "asshole" not realizing his mic was still on. Moron.

He clearly needs to start calling people "possum."

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/mmnr/bravo/dame_edna_lg.jpg

[the4thpip]

Me, I'm just hoping this is a step towards my long-wanted Obama/Edwards ticket (honestly, would prefer reverse order but that's life).

I want Wesley Clark for veep. They can chip away at McCain's military advantage (Clark being much more succesful than McSame in that field). Plus, the man is sooo handsome!!!

[PatrickG]

No, it's effectively impossible or practically impossible. Not mathematically since you just showed how she could do it mathematically.

Since Edwards just endorsed Obama, doesn't that give Obama his delegates (few as they are)? He's the only other candidate with any so the supers would have to abstain in the first vote in order to get second and third votes. Unless Anybody Else gets a groundswell of support.

Well, if the Pelosi Club keeps their pledge to vote for the person in the lead then that means Clinton needs 93% of other delegates.

And the one primary where she ran truly unopposed, she only managed to get 56% of the vote.

She didn't crack 50% despite being the only one to campaign in Florida.

[KevinTBrown]

Well, if the Pelosi Club keeps their pledge to vote for the person in the lead then that means Clinton needs 93% of other delegates.

And the one primary where she ran truly unopposed, she only managed to get 56% of the vote.

She didn't crack 50% despite being the only one to campaign in Florida.
49.8% in FL and 55.2% in MI to be exact. Obama got 32.9% in FL. "Uncommitted" got 43.8% in MI.

[KevinTBrown]

I read the following and all I can think is, "Yeahhhhh, riiiight..." :rolleyes:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_governing_style

[section 8]

ever since Edwards' dropped out i've been trying (with great difficulty) to distace myself from this race, that said...every time i turn around, i hear some Obamite go on about how "Impossible" it is for Clinton to win..then imediatly start on how she "needs to drop out"

if the win were realy that certain, why call for Clinton to drop? wh not sit bak andwait for the news that Obama won? (i mean it IS impossible for Obama to lose right?)

[Agent Helix]

People want her to drop out so that Obama's campaign can shift towards a full presidential campaign, rather than continuing a fairly one-sided battle for the nomination and giving McCain a several-months head start.

[the4thpip]

ever since Edwards' dropped out i've been trying (with great difficulty) to distace myself from this race, that said...every time i turn around, i hear some Obamite go on about how "Impossible" it is for Clinton to win..then imediatly start on how she "needs to drop out"

if the win were realy that certain, why call for Clinton to drop? wh not sit bak andwait for the news that Obama won? (i mean it IS impossible for Obama to lose right?)
Because McCain is already focusing on the presidential election, because the Republican party already had months to mend the wounds of the primary season. Heck, Rick Santorum once said the only Republican candidate he would never endorse is McCain, and guess what?

Hillary is keeping the focus off the differences between McCain and Obama, where it already should be. She is giving McCain months without scrutiny.

[KevinTBrown]

ever since Edwards' dropped out i've been trying (with great difficulty) to distace myself from this race, that said...every time i turn around, i hear some Obamite go on about how "Impossible" it is for Clinton to win..then imediatly start on how she "needs to drop out"

if the win were realy that certain, why call for Clinton to drop? wh not sit bak andwait for the news that Obama won? (i mean it IS impossible for Obama to lose right?)

He can only lose IF 80% of the remaining "unpledged" Super Delegates all decide to back Clinton.


By the way, this is a great cover:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2008/1101080519_400.jpg

[Agent Helix]

Because McCain is already focusing on the presidential election, because the Republican party already had months to mend the wounds of the primary season. Heck, Rick Santorum once said the only Republican candidate he would never endorse is McCain, and guess what?

Hillary is keeping the focus off the differences between McCain and Obama, where it already should be. She is giving McCain months without scrutiny.

Granted, I don't really think it's as damaging as some make it out to be, but that's the reason. I still firmly believe that this race is the Democrats' to lose, not the other way around. Of course, I've been proven terribly, terribly wrong before.

[section 8]

He can only lose IF 80% of the remaining "unpledged" Super Delegates all decide to back Clinton.


By the way, this is a great cover:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2008/1101080519_400.jpg

lol motherf***er got horse teeth....*offers Obama a carrot*

oh boo-hoo (what did i expect from his camp) your actually bitching about not winning quickly enough? say it with me children....THIS IS POLITICS... you want an easy surrender try war, politics is far...far more brutal (as it should be)

[Agent Helix]

durr derp murr durr durr derp derrr duh durr murr guh frgh durr

Sure thing.

[KevinTBrown]

Sure thing.

That actually made a lot more sense......







Anyway, HUGE union endorsement here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_el_pr/obama_steelworkers;_ylt=AqTZpkUh7FF.oY2kjNfM1CmyFz 4D

[PatrickG]

lol motherf***er got horse teeth....*offers Obama a carrot*

oh boo-hoo (what did i expect from his camp) your actually bitching about not winning quickly enough? say it with me children....THIS IS POLITICS... you want an easy surrender try war, politics is far...far more brutal (as it should be)

If I may, the concern is not that it's literally impossible for Clinton to win.

The concern is that she would win in a scenario that would involve multiple votes and lead to riots similar to those in 1968, followed by campus riots and black disenfranchisement so profound that it would sever 50 years of ties between the Democratic party and the black community, effectively making Democrats unelectable except through state level party coalitions and tipping the country further right wing than in Dick Cheney's wildest dreams.

[Buzz Dixon]

Hillary hangs in because all the evidence points to this being a transitional year in American politics. It's not merely displeasure with a particular administration, it's displeasure with the Republican party as a whole. They are in real danger of being 70 seats down by the end of the fall election.

Whoever is the Democratic nominee is almost certain to win. Hillary hopes enough people dislike the Republicans to make up for the loss of young/new/African-American voters who would refuse to vote for her because she hijacked the party's nominee.

If Obama wins, she is effectively out of the running for the presidency in the future. Obama would have to screw up worse than the Republicans in order to lose in 2012, in 2016 the candidate will be either his vice president or a protege of his.

If Obama loses, she will try again in 2012, only this time be facing a lot of pay back in the primaries since she's already been branded as a spoil sport who is willing to destroy Obama's chances if she can't be the nominee (doesn't matter if it's true or not, that's how she's being perceived).

So she either wins the long shot in 2008 or is consigned to the scrapheap of history.

[PatrickG]

Y'Know, if she waits until 2024 (assuming both Obama and a hypothetical protege won out as two termers), she'd still only be a few years older than John McCain is now.

She could also claim "50 years of experience" then.

[KevinTBrown]

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm actually liking Joe Biden right now.....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Biden_Bushs_comments_were_bullshit.html

[kingdom2000]

Granted, I don't really think it's as damaging as some make it out to be, but that's the reason. I still firmly believe that this race is the Democrats' to lose, not the other way around. Of course, I've been proven terribly, terribly wrong before.


Considering that many idiots out there still think Obama is muslim with connections to Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein (cause of last name), yes the lost momentum that McCain is enjoying is very damaging. Usually once a little doubt is laid (such as the 3 idiotic ideas above) it is incredibly hard to change because fundamentally everything comes down to ego and people just hate to admit they are wrong. Swiftboating and other campaigns are built on this concept of laying this seed of doubt on lies that turn the vote and the Republican machine is the best in the world at this.

As for impossible for Clinton to win, technically no. Just like its technically not impossible that I will win a billion dollars in the next hour. Its just that the odds are pretty damn long on it occuring. In Clinton's case she would need to win something like 80% or more of the votes in the remaining states to win enough delegates to give her a smigen of a chance of getting the numbers. I think for Obama the number is something like 52%.

[Paul McEnery]

Hillary hangs in because all the evidence points to this being a transitional year in American politics. It's not merely displeasure with a particular administration, it's displeasure with the Republican party as a whole. They are in real danger of being 70 seats down by the end of the fall election.

Whoever is the Democratic nominee is almost certain to win. Hillary hopes enough people dislike the Republicans to make up for the loss of young/new/African-American voters who would refuse to vote for her because she hijacked the party's nominee.

If Obama wins, she is effectively out of the running for the presidency in the future. Obama would have to screw up worse than the Republicans in order to lose in 2012, in 2016 the candidate will be either his vice president or a protege of his.

If Obama loses, she will try again in 2012, only this time be facing a lot of pay back in the primaries since she's already been branded as a spoil sport who is willing to destroy Obama's chances if she can't be the nominee (doesn't matter if it's true or not, that's how she's being perceived).

So she either wins the long shot in 2008 or is consigned to the scrapheap of history.

Ooh, that's a little harsh. I'd have thought being a senior senator under a Democratic President is still fairly powerful.

But here's my two cents of psychoanalysis:

She's compromised a helluva lot because she thought that was the only way to get power and do the things that are important. If she doesn't get power, then those compromises were only votes against her core beliefs, and she did a lot of skeevy things for nothing.

[Crowley]

ever since Edwards' dropped out i've been trying (with great difficulty) to distace myself from this race, that said...every time i turn around, i hear some Obamite go on about how "Impossible" it is for Clinton to win..then imediatly start on how she "needs to drop out"

if the win were realy that certain, why call for Clinton to drop? wh not sit bak andwait for the news that Obama won? (i mean it IS impossible for Obama to lose right?)

The win has been certain since Ohio and Texas... the simple math isn't on her side and her campaign is 20 million in debt, and this primary has gone ridiculously long when it should have been wrapped up a while back.

And you were an Edwards supporter huh?
Well, guess who he endorsed?
http://www.ktka.com/news/2008/may/15/john_edwards_obama_endorsement_stings_clinton_camp/

[Crowley]

lol motherf***er got horse teeth....*offers Obama a carrot*

oh boo-hoo (what did i expect from his camp) your actually bitching about not winning quickly enough? say it with me children....THIS IS POLITICS... you want an easy surrender try war, politics is far...far more brutal (as it should be)

I'm really disappointed by this post dude. We try and talk to each other like adults here... you should try and join us.

[KevinTBrown]

I'm really disappointed by this post dude. We try and talk to each other like adults here... you should try and join us.

Better chance of Clinton having Obama as her VP......

[section 8]

oh lighten up, the day i cant make fun of a bad pic is the day we've hit bottom, if John Stewart wouldn't say the same thing.

[Crowley]

oh lighten up, the day i cant make fun of a bad pic is the day we've hit bottom, if John Stewart wouldn't say the same thing.

It more about your general disrespectful and condescending tone towards other posters... without any content to your analysis... plus the fact that, y'know... your gag was third grade level, not Daily Show level.

I really think you should try and raise up your discourse a bit and drop the whole "Internet badass" routine... trust me, it gets old quick.

[section 8]

more like towards the canidate tho put up a pic of clinton or mcain or send me a pic of YOUR teeth, and see what i say then

third grade level, interesting did you know that most newspapers and newscasts are written on a third grade level so everyone can understand? that said the Daily Show would need vas improvement to reach a third grade level

(and i bet you own every "American Pie Movie" on DVD)
now your just hatin'

[Crowley]

more like towards the canidate tho put up a pic of clinton or mcain or send me a pic of YOUR teeth, and see what i say then

third grade level, interesting did you know that most newspapers and newscasts are written on a third grade level so everyone can understand? that said the Daily Show would need vas improvement to reach a third grade level

(and i bet you own every "American Pie Movie" on DVD)
now your just hatin'

Okay and now you go on ignore,,, I'm sorry 8, I predict your stay here at CBR will be short lived.

[KevinTBrown]

Okay and now you go on ignore,,, I'm sorry 8, I predict your stay here at CBR will be short lived.
One can hope....

I can also hope others stop quoting him. I, too, have him on ignore.


NOW back to talking about the General Election. Please.

[section 8]

but if i can't make a single joke then why should it be long lived? i cant think of a reason to participate in a discussion if i can't speak freely, i'm not calling anyone third grade here (well maybe stewart) the only thing i did was point out in ONE particular pic, that obamas teeth were too emphasized, causing them to look dis praportunate to the rest of his features, i'm not argueing with you over this

whatev. you wanna talk about a comment about a pic for the next decade, be my guest.

[Kevinroc]

One can hope....

I can also hope others stop quoting him. I, too, have him on ignore.


NOW back to talking about the General Election. Please.

This has become a major part of discussion on the community board's thread about the election.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Tar_baby.html

In a 20-page memo on GOP electoral woes, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) repeatedly misspells Barack Obama’s name – it’s one R, congressman, not two -- and then manages to use the racially charged term “tar baby” in a paragraph about Obama and immigration.

“Remember,” Davis writes, “Hispanic voters are a swing group in this election and future elections. John McCain, being from a border state, may be out of sync with many Republicans but he has standing among Hispanics. Barrack Obama has not made the sale to Hispanic voters. Thus, this issue is a tar baby for anyone who touches it, with land mines everywhere.”

[Kevinroc]

Even more Election talk.

Clinton supporter backlash.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_backer_backlash.html

An Ohio-based group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters say they’ll work actively against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media.

Led by Boomer-aged women, the group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, is holding a press conference in Columbus at noon to release this statement.

Organizers Cynthia Ruccia, 55, and Jamie Dixey, 57, both from the Columbus area, say they’re coordinating women, men, minorities, union members and others in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan – all important swing states next November – to impress upon Democratic party leaders what they think has been outright discrimination – and not of the racial kind.

“We have been vigilant against expressions of racism, and we are thrilled that the society has advanced that way” in accepting Obama as a serious candidate,” Ruccia said. “But it’s been open season on women, and we feel we need to stand up and make a statement about that, because it’s wrong.”

With growing calls for Clinton to leave the race, she said, women feel like “we’re being told to sit down, shut up, and get with the program.”

[kingdom2000]

Even more Election talk.

Clinton supporter backlash.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_backer_backlash.html

So if the black man lost its a clear sign of racism and since the woman lost its a clear sign of sexism? So really their argument comes down to if the democratic party wants to avoid future conflict, the real solution is to allow only white men to run. I meet someone like that i will happily call them a fool to their face.

[Corrina]

Well, I think there's been a lot of sexism working against Clinton. That whole "iron my shirts" protest at one of her appearances was totally laughed off by the media.

I can't see anyone laughing it off if someone had shown up at an Obama campaign appearance with signs that said "pick my cotton."

Still, my problem is far more with the media coverage and the realization that we still have some ways to go on this issue rather than anything the Obama campaign has done. He's been pretty good at attacking her record.

Though I would like to see Obama pick a woman as VP. I know conventional wisdom is against it but Bill Clinton went against conventional wisdom to pick Gore, another young guy with limited experience and sold them as the 'ticket of the future.' I can see something similar happening with Obama and a qualified female candidate.

[Buzz Dixon]

Well, I think there's been a lot of sexism working against Clinton. That whole "iron my shirts" protest at one of her appearances was totally laughed off by the media.The "iron my shirts" guy was a shock jock, not a genuine political statement.

[Corrina]

And Don Imus was a shock jock and, as I recall, got into a ton of problem for racially biased comments.

[Buzz Dixon]

And Don Imus was a shock jock and, as I recall, got into a ton of problem for racially biased comments.Yes, for calling a group of college athletes who had done him no harm a bunch of "prostitutes with problem hair".* Different kettle of fish from a politician stumping for office.



















* Sure cleaned that one up, didn't I?

[KevinTBrown]

Even more Election talk.

Clinton supporter backlash.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_backer_backlash.html

So if the black man lost its a clear sign of racism and since the woman lost its a clear sign of sexism? So really their argument comes down to if the democratic party wants to avoid future conflict, the real solution is to allow only white men to run. I meet someone like that i will happily call them a fool to their face.

Well, I think there's been a lot of sexism working against Clinton. That whole "iron my shirts" protest at one of her appearances was totally laughed off by the media.

I can't see anyone laughing it off if someone had shown up at an Obama campaign appearance with signs that said "pick my cotton."

Still, my problem is far more with the media coverage and the realization that we still have some ways to go on this issue rather than anything the Obama campaign has done. He's been pretty good at attacking her record.

Though I would like to see Obama pick a woman as VP. I know conventional wisdom is against it but Bill Clinton went against conventional wisdom to pick Gore, another young guy with limited experience and sold them as the 'ticket of the future.' I can see something similar happening with Obama and a qualified female candidate.

Sorry, but IMO the only ones who should be accused of sexism are the 2 women organizing this....

As for his VP choice, I STILL think it's going to be Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. People keep saying it might be Edwards, but I doubt it. More than likely Edwards will get a Cabinet post.

[Paul McEnery]

Sorry, but IMO the only ones who should be accused of sexism are the 2 women organizing this....

As for his VP choice, I STILL think it's going to be Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. People keep saying it might be Edwards, but I doubt it. More than likely Edwards will get a Cabinet post.

I like Sebelius as an idea (even knowing absolutely bugger all about her). Carrying the South? Not really worth the bother. The Mid-West though, definitely. And hey look, we're still the party that likes women!

Now, what are her politics like?

[Kevinroc]

I like Sebelius as an idea (even knowing absolutely bugger all about her). Carrying the South? Not really worth the bother. The Mid-West though, definitely. And hey look, we're still the party that likes women!

Now, what are her politics like?

I can't find out a lot about her but what I did find out I have liked.

Here's what I found out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

Kansas has term limits so she could not run for governor again, making her a great spot for vice-president. She is pretty popular in Kansas (having won re-election by 57% to her opponent's 40%). Some of her attempts to pass laws were overturned by the state senate but we can't hold that against her.

The only issue (and please forgive me for bringing this up) is that some crazy people would think Obama picked her just because she is a woman and to appease angry Clinton supporters. Not saying I have this viewpoint, but we know there are crazy people out there.

[Paul McEnery]

I can't find out a lot about her but what I did find out I have liked.

Here's what I found out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

Kansas has term limits so she could not run for governor again, making her a great spot for vice-president. She is pretty popular in Kansas (having won re-election by 57% to her opponent's 40%). Some of her attempts to pass laws were overturned by the state senate but we can't hold that against her.

The only issue (and please forgive me for bringing this up) is that some crazy people would think Obama picked her just because she is a woman and to appease angry Clinton supporters. Not saying I have this viewpoint, but we know there are crazy people out there.

There is no helping them, except with my customized claw hammer.

My only question with this woman is: if Obama pegs it, will you do the job the way we want you to?

Mind, the crazy people will also notice she's a Bildenburger.

[Kevinroc]

There is no helping them, except with my customized claw hammer.

My only question with this woman is: if Obama pegs it, will you do the job the way we want you to?

You want me to do what, exactly? Help you convince some crazy women it is in their best interest to vote for Obama?

[Paul McEnery]

You want me to do what, exactly? Help you convince some crazy women it is in their best interest to vote for Obama?

Here. Here is my helping people tool. It is a claw hammer.

This is a test.

I retain my own claw hammer. It is better, and I have more practice.

[Kevinroc]

Here. Here is my helping people tool. It is a claw hammer.

This is a test.

I retain my own claw hammer. It is better, and I have more practice.

Woot!

Now getting back to the campagin, McCain is proving how bad he really is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/john-mccain-obama-unfit-t_n_101994.html


All I can say is: If Senator Obama wants to sit down across the table from the leader of a country that calls Israel a stinking corpse, and comes to New York and says they're gonna, quote, "wipe Israel off the map," what is it that he wants to talk about? What is it that he wants to talk about with him?


And the belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security.

Someone that voted for the Iraq War, that still supports the Iraq War and didn't know what the difference was between a Sunni and a Shia should not be making those kinds of comments.

[kingdom2000]

It is interesting idea of Obama going outside the box on a VP candidate. I think Clinton would be a boom but she carries so much baggage that Republicans would just attack her as a means of painting Obama in the same brush. Plus I don't think her ego would allow the second place position.

The thing though is Obama is very weak in the breadbaskets of American sheep. IE the deep south and midwest where ideas such as "Muslim = evil = Obama" easily flourish and Fox News runs the land. Whoever he picks would need to overcome that so a governor from the midwest region would probably gain more ground then another "big city" person that just doesn't understand as we sit in our homes and shiver in fear of the terrorists that will come blow up our farm and small town no one has heard of.

Yeah, I am bitter but still very annoyed that those that have the least reason to be in fear are the ones that have been deciding the elections for the last few cycles.

[Nick Soapdish]

Well, if the Pelosi Club keeps their pledge to vote for the person in the lead then that means Clinton needs 93% of other delegates.

And the one primary where she ran truly unopposed, she only managed to get 56% of the vote.

She didn't crack 50% despite being the only one to campaign in Florida.

She hadn't been campaigning in Florida since about September of the previous year, about when Obama's campaign also went into neutral in Florida. With just one exception - some sort of fund-raiser in south Florida.

And she has managed better than 56% in other primaries where she was actively opposed by Obama.

It's still ridiculously difficult for her to manage a win, but you've underplayed her successes a bit.

[Crowley]

Edwards seems like solid Veep bet.

[Paul McEnery]

Someone that voted for the Iraq War, that still supports the Iraq War and didn't know what the difference was between a Sunni and a Shia should not be making those kinds of comments.

Oh I don't know.

That's exactly who I think should be making those kinds of comments.

[KevinTBrown]

Edwards seems like solid Veep bet.
I'd agree...... BUT he was already a part of a losing tandem 4 years ago with Kerry.

[Corrina]

The only issue (and please forgive me for bringing this up) is that some crazy people would think Obama picked her just because she is a woman and to appease angry Clinton supporters. Not saying I have this viewpoint, but we know there are crazy people out there.

Well, there are worst reasons to pick a vice-president. Mostly, they're picked to carry a geographic area or to appeal to a certain constituency. Clinton's running mate was to highlight the whole "new politics & youthful image." Cheney was to appease the neo-cons of the Republicans who had a lot of power. Edwards was picked by Kerry to balance out the ticket and get someone from the south.

I have no idea why Bush Sr. picked Quayle. I suspect Danny Boy reminded Bush Sr. of his eldest son.

I've got no problem with picking a women to make women voters happy, no more than I'd have a problem with picking Richardson to make Hispanic voters happy. So long as they are qualified. I.E. like Sandra Day O'Conner and not like Harriet Miers.

And, yes, it would make me feel warmer and fuzzier about the Democratic ticket if there was a qualified women on it with Obama. Not Hilary, that's no good, Obama should have his own VP not one foisted on him, but if we're going to effect change, why not go for the whole thing?

[FalconX2000]

Oh I don't know.

That's exactly who I think should be making those kinds of comments.

And thus comes the humorous confusion of "should" as a moral term and "should" to describe something as part of a logical chain.

[LtMarvel]

Gephardt of Missouri (swing state in play) would be another choice I've seen mentioned.

[the4thpip]

Gephardt of Missouri (swing state in play) would be another choice I've seen mentioned.

He'd be great to get those blue-collar Clinton voters, too.

[Mr.EZ]

I'd agree...... BUT he was already a part of a losing tandem 4 years ago with Kerry.

Yeah, but Kerry & Edwards didn't have Diebold, Chuck Hagel and Walden O'Dell working for them, so to say they lost is like saying Bigfoot is real.

It might, it might not, no one really knows.

[Lester C.]

Since Hillary doesn't have the popular vote or the delegate, whenever she says she's the most elecatable that's code for I got the white and senior vote so even though lost I should still be picked as the nominee.

[KevinTBrown]

Hillary no longer has an argument for her garnering the nomination. And as of today, it's official that the Michigan & Florida delegates cannot help her in any way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

From the article: The plans before the committee will be more generous to Obama. The Michigan Democratic Party has proposed giving 69 of its 128 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama, an advantage of 10 delegates for Clinton.

A proposal from Florida would halve its 185 delegates. From that, Clinton would get 52.5 and Obama 33.5, a 19-delegate advantage for Clinton.

It also does not change the goal of 2,025 needed to win the nomination.

[AllisterH]

This has become a major part of discussion on the community board's thread about the election.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Tar_baby.html

I'm not sure how this is "racist" per se. As weird as it sounds, he is right...If you were him, how would you reword it?

[KevinTBrown]

I already posted this in the Gay Marriage thread, but it's also pertinent for this thread.

McCain's opinion on Gay Marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clfqfl9Bs-0

[PatrickG]

Hillary no longer has an argument for her garnering the nomination. And as of today, it's official that the Michigan & Florida delegates cannot help her in any way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

From the article:

It also does not change the goal of 2,025 needed to win the nomination.

Just tinkering around...

This proposal could secure Obama the nomination even if Clinton wins Kentucky and Oregon is split.

At this point, it's in Clinton's interests for the Michigan and Florida delegates not to be seated.

[KevinTBrown]

Ah yes.... Flip-flop thy name is McCain: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_hamas

[Paul McEnery]

And thus comes the humorous confusion of "should" as a moral term and "should" to describe something as part of a logical chain.

It's a thigh-slapper, ain't it?

How do I get to Carnegie Hall?

[KevinTBrown]

It's a thigh-slapper, ain't it?

How do I get to Carnegie Hall?
Practice... practice.

[Buzz Dixon]

I put this link on the "Viscous War of Words" thread but it deserves a place here, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHleE7dfp28

[Crowley]

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/16/huck-jokes-about-gunman-aiming-at-obama/

Wow... what a shithead.

[kingdom2000]

You know, you would think that McBush would know not to attack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/index.html) at the same time as Bush is doing it. It simply reminds voters that McBush and Bush are practically blood brothers. The goal is to create a seperation and distinction between the two (even if it doesn't really exist).

[KevinTBrown]

This is a great article! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/ap_on_el_pr/obama_mccain

:smile:


You know, you would think that McBush would know not to attack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/index.html) at the same time as Bush is doing it. It simply reminds voters that McBush and Bush are practically blood brothers. The goal is to create a seperation and distinction between the two (even if it doesn't really exist).

And if McCain wants to distance himself from Bush, this is NOT the way to do it: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/McCain_Bush_to_appear_together_in_Phoenix_for_fund raiser.html

[FalconX2000]

It's a thigh-slapper, ain't it?

How do I get to Carnegie Hall?

No, it's intellectual humour, the kind only academics will laugh at.

Thigh-slappers will tend to slapstick and particularly good one liners.

[FalconX2000]

Wow... what a shithead.

I don't think he quite meant to offend, even if that was a horrible insensitive joke.

Huckabee is also the man who called for cooler heads and understanding over the Reverend Wright issue.

"[Y]ou can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do," Huckabee says. "It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what ... Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable, years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Rev. Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say 'Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that.'"

Later, he defended Wright's anger, too:

"As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement!' ... I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names..."

[Crowley]

I don't think he quite meant to offend, even if that was a horrible insensitive joke.

Huckabee is also the man who called for cooler heads and understanding over the Reverend Wright issue.

"[Y]ou can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do," Huckabee says. "It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what ... Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable, years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Rev. Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say 'Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that.'"

Later, he defended Wright's anger, too:

"As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement!' ... I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names..."
I'm actually aware of that... but his comment was still that of a shithead.

[KevinTBrown]

I'm actually aware of that... but his comment was still that of a shithead.

A.K.A. how not to secure the V.P. nomination.

[KevinTBrown]

Obama is now less than 120 delegates from securing the nomination: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_delegates;_ylt=ArdVbWXZU8NoICFaRoqy645sn wcF


And the more I read things like the following link, the more I'm admiring Obama: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080517/pl_bloomberg/anehvghrn8o

Especially this:
"If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the United States then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy because that's what he did with Khrushchev,'' said Obama, referring to the former Soviet leader.

[section 8]

Well, there are worst reasons to pick a vice-president. Mostly, they're picked to carry a geographic area or to appeal to a certain constituency.


it's damn near the only reason anyone does

and not without good reason, picking Edwards as a vp might've tipped the scale's enough to get my vote, if it weren't for these three things.

1) I've worked for the Edwards Camp, and i can tell you without a shred of doubt, it was Edward's own people who screwed him over.

this leads me to question his judgement of character.

2) i attended a speech given by President Clinton in N.C. Not to support Hillary, but to take advantage of the fact that a Former Prez would be appearing only ten minutes away from my own home. while there Obama supporters decided to piss in the proverbial punch. yelling and waving signs and heckling,

i found that to be in bad tastes, and decided i would have no part in assisting these jackasses to their goal.

3) Oprah

[KevinTBrown]

I'm actually aware of that... but his comment was still that of a shithead.

A.K.A. how not to secure the V.P. nomination.
Then again, he apparently wants the VP nomination:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080518/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee

[Corrina]

Huckabee isn't known to have made racist statements or been perceived as a racist in the past. I remember one article I read about him also interviewed an African-American leader who spoke highly of Huckabee on the issue of race relations.

But, damn, that 'quip' is worrisome.

[LtMarvel]

It started off ok, with the joke about stumbling over a chair. Then he just took it way too far.

[rick]

Huckabee isn't known to have made racist statements or been perceived as a racist in the past. I remember one article I read about him also interviewed an African-American leader who spoke highly of Huckabee on the issue of race relations.

But, damn, that 'quip' is worrisome.

It wasn't worrisome to me, just stupid.

I saw him on Meet the Press this morning and I completly accept that he recognizes that it was a totally dumbass off the cuff attempt at a joke that failed spectacularly.

[Nick Soapdish]

Huckabee isn't known to have made racist statements or been perceived as a racist in the past. I remember one article I read about him also interviewed an African-American leader who spoke highly of Huckabee on the issue of race relations.

But, damn, that 'quip' is worrisome.

I'm with rick this time.

I'm not seeing a racist tone to it.

"Black guys head for cover when somebody points a gun at them; white guys take it in the chest?"

It's just a really stupid joke. Even more so when he's trying to make a point that gun-owners are less inclined to commit crimes.

[Infra-Man]

Attendance for Obama rally in Oregon: 75,000 (http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/18/obama-gets-largest-crowd-to-date/)

That's more than twice the size of the student body at San Diego State University when I was an undergrad.

[KevinTBrown]

Obama hits McCain on McCain's "lobbyist purge": http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_hits_McCain_lobbyist_purge_also_spoke_to_Ken nedy.html

McCain's response to Obama:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Annoyed_at_lobbyist_issue_McCain_camp_plays_Ayers_ card.html

I guess so much for McCain's promise to keep things civil.

It's now on. :biggrin:

[kingdom2000]

Ayers card? McCain has something like 50 lobbiest working for him. How does Ayers equal to that? I know I know, the American people are stupid enough to buy it but how can the press be that stu...wait nevermind, I keep thinking journalists are better then ambulance chasers and they are not.

[Crowley]

Obama draws a record crowd:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/obama-draws-record-crowd-in-oregon/?hp

An estimated 75,000 gathered on the banks of the Willamette River in Portland on Sunday to see Barack Obama.

“Wow! Wow! Wow!” were his first words, as he surveyed the multitude, which included people in kayaks and small pleasure craft on the river.

[section 8]

I know I know, the American people are stupid

ok you have an example here, if i showed this to all the nation, you'd get one nasty reaction, even though its out of context.

now (lucky you) the YABSters can simply scroll up to see what you actually said, but the American people aren't so lucky.

so i prepose this: get the whole story, look for the big picture, ignore the hype, but DO NOT make up your mind BEFORE you get the facts (you might be shocked by what you find) We live in the information age, where finding the truth is as simple as out stretching your fingers. DO NOT LET ANY CAMP TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK!! If you get a statistic, look it up, if you hear about someone's voting record, look it up. if you hear a quote that doesn't sound quite right....you get the idea.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm with rick this time.

I'm not seeing a racist tone to it.

"Black guys head for cover when somebody points a gun at them; white guys take it in the chest?"

It's just a really stupid joke. Even more so when he's trying to make a point that gun-owners are less inclined to commit crimes.

Let me help you with that, then.

The joke entirely depends on the idea that someone is likely to shoot Obama. Which in turn entirely depends on the idea that they would shoot him because he is black.

Many people worry that, in Michelle Obama's words, "he might get hurt".

Making a joke about it tells you a buttloard about where Huckabee was coming from there. And where his audience was coming from.

[Nick Soapdish]

Let me help you with that, then.

The joke entirely depends on the idea that someone is likely to shoot Obama. Which in turn entirely depends on the idea that they would shoot him because he is black.

Many people worry that, in Michelle Obama's words, "he might get hurt".

Making a joke about it tells you a buttloard about where Huckabee was coming from there. And where his audience was coming from.

That still seems to be going the wrong way then. He's more likely to get shot because other people are racist. It doesn't say anything bad about Obama or black people, but instead is a dig at those who dislike black people.

Which makes the joke even stupider in my opinion.

[kingdom2000]

ok you have an example here, if i showed this to all the nation, you'd get one nasty reaction, even though its out of context.

now (lucky you) the YABSters can simply scroll up to see what you actually said, but the American people aren't so lucky.

so i prepose this: get the whole story, look for the big picture, ignore the hype, but DO NOT make up your mind BEFORE you get the facts (you might be shocked by what you find) We live in the information age, where finding the truth is as simple as out stretching your fingers. DO NOT LET ANY CAMP TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK!! If you get a statistic, look it up, if you hear about someone's voting record, look it up. if you hear a quote that doesn't sound quite right....you get the idea.

LOL good valid point. What you describe though requires effort and even the people paid to put forth that effort (journalists) don't often bother. You expect more from the American people? You are more optimistic then I.

[KevinTBrown]

McCainPedia starts today: http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Main_Page

Oh this is going to be fun to watch grow.

[PatrickG]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/19/dems.wrap/index.html

This is just a gripe but I find it pretty grossly disingenious that when Hillary Clinton claims the popular vote lead, she not only includes Michigan and Florida (I'll give her Florida; I feel iffy about Michigan but whatever) but she has to exclude the caucus states in order for her to come out ahead in the popular vote (this is where I regard the claim that she's ahead in popular vote as a flat out fuckin' lie).

If she could say she had the popular lead counting Michigan and Florida? That's one thing. But now she's excluding states to trump up a claim.

[KevinTBrown]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/19/dems.wrap/index.html

This is just a gripe but I find it pretty grossly disingenious that when Hillary Clinton claims the popular vote lead, she not only includes Michigan and Florida (I'll give her Florida; I feel iffy about Michigan but whatever) but she has to exclude the caucus states in order for her to come out ahead in the popular vote (this is where I regard the claim that she's ahead in popular vote as a flat out fuckin' lie).

If she could say she had the popular lead counting Michigan and Florida? That's one thing. But now she's excluding states to trump up a claim.

It's getting to the point that I'm really starting to hate her....

And then I read this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

No doubt about it, definitely starting to hate her.

[PatrickG]

"So I'm going to make my case and I'm going to make it until we have a nominee, but we're not going to have one today and we're not going to have one tomorrow and we're not going to have one the next day," Clinton said. "And if Kentucky turns out tomorrow, I will be closer to that nomination because of you."

"We're not going to have a nominee today and we're not going to have one tomorrow and we're not going to have one the next day... 50 years? That's fine by me. Make it a hundred! We may never have a nominee. The important thing is that we stand by the sacrifices made already with the most precious currency of all, the blood of Americans. We can't give aid and comfort to our enemies in this conflict. This campaign cannot end until the right side has won. I promise the hardworking, white Americans, the most important voters in any election, that I will find and deliver the terrorist Hussein Obama, dead or alive. Hang 'em high, boys!"

*Clinton fires a shot gun into the air, puts on a cowboy hat and rides off in the back of the pickup she was speaking from*

[section 8]

LOL good valid point. What you describe though requires effort and even the people paid to put forth that effort (journalists) don't often bother. You expect more from the American people? You are more optimistic then I.

it doesn't take effort, it's as easy as feeding an addiction.

Politics is like Herpes, once it's in your blood, it stays there for life.

I had been in a state of remission for a while, until these damnable political threads kept popping up.

[KevinTBrown]

No one's forcing you to "come in here".....

[kingdom2000]

It's getting to the point that I'm really starting to hate her....

And then I read this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

No doubt about it, definitely starting to hate her.

I don't hate her but if I could vote again in the primary, I would have voted for Obama. Yep I am flip flopping!!!! Actually, to be more accurate, I am McBushing.

[section 8]

No one's forcing you to "come in here".....

and your point is.....?

[Corrina]

His point is that there are many other threads to read, instead of spending time in this one.

[Paul McEnery]

That still seems to be going the wrong way then. He's more likely to get shot because other people are racist. It doesn't say anything bad about Obama or black people, but instead is a dig at those who dislike black people.
.

No it isn't. It's an in-joke within that community, to a bunch of pro-gun Republicans.

Who've been making a lot of noise about "god, guns, and xenophobia".

They're hostile to Obama, and think joking about him getting assassinated is funny.

[Paul McEnery]

ok you have an example here, if i showed this to all the nation, you'd get one nasty reaction, even though its out of context.

now (lucky you) the YABSters can simply scroll up to see what you actually said, but the American people aren't so lucky.

so i prepose this: get the whole story, look for the big picture, ignore the hype, but DO NOT make up your mind BEFORE you get the facts (you might be shocked by what you find) We live in the information age, where finding the truth is as simple as out stretching your fingers. DO NOT LET ANY CAMP TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK!! If you get a statistic, look it up, if you hear about someone's voting record, look it up. if you hear a quote that doesn't sound quite right....you get the idea.

The only real problem with this, Section8, is that you're teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.

This community already factchecks and nitpicks and thinks non-stop.

So ease off on the caps lock and participate.

[section 8]

ok

1) didn't blame anyone, like an alcoholic off the wagon i made my choice.

2) my grandmother is allergic to eggs,

3) you sure about that? i'm seeing a few half truths here, most have been corrected already, but i'm not going to argue over them, so instead i'd rather encourage people to look things up for themselves rather than wait for someone to tell them what to think about a particular top